America - The Official Thread

[Pupik]

What I find a shame here on GTP is that even the slightest flirt with Trump or Musk ends up being labeled like stupid, racist, fascist, homophobe , uneducated and wrong. All arguments are drilled into the ground with we are right and you are wrong. No wonder most people keep their opinions to themselves.

Some of us just aren't fans of the Tru Tux Tan for a wide variety of reasons.

Every one of the finer talking points by Republicans over the last 20 years has been co-opted and reversed because now it suits their massive agenda. They don't want a smaller government, they want their government. They want to pick the winners and losers. They want the fairness and equality that also gave them a platform to be destroyed. The media is an enemy, for how dare it give them a chance to have open thought. Let's cut everything but still run up massive debt and inflation by over-producing money to overcome shortfalls. And holy hell, the separation of church and state and peaceful protest are also codified in all of those flimsy blackletter decals on these truck which happens to get crummy gas mileage (don't forget complaining about the free market). Let's make sure the right to squelch those voices with a hammer's click as the first available option when it disagrees.

We'd warned people for the best part of a decade about what happens when you vote in an unprepared actor which upends situations because he ran on a platform to engage the uninformed of government processes and unaware of history, all for the same reason of desiring absolute power. We've seen this before and it rarely ends well. It's empowered by media which takes unified sides and bombards your senses with coded language over and over, like a simpler version of the Ludovico Method but with more ads for worthless supplements, and petty distractions about renaming the Arabian Gulf Gulf of Mexico (forgot about changing history because now it releases American dopamine).

And despite creating a hissy fit literally of epic proportions due to the personal inconvenience of not being popular enough during the difficulties of a pandemic (which honestly, was probably going to unseat any past President), decided to incite a riot to take back which he'd lost. And...many of his red minions refused to unseat him over that banana republic show of complete sore-loser douchebaggery, which drove a further contemptible wedge down our political body.

So maybe we'd thought you folks would have come to your senses about what would happen next. We tried to be genteel about it, and too courteous to a massively spineless fault. But many of us that aren't as politically-correct as your fine choices have no such need for restraint, as we have a functioning cerebral cortex.

But nope, you gave him another chance. Jokes on us, I guess.

So some of us are out of play-nice words for all this ****-uppery that's occurring all around us. I've been generous to you personally, but see how we may very obviously disagree.

 

[Biggles]

The US has brushed fascism before. Woodrow Wilson is often cited as a fascist president. Depending on how you view him and his policies, FDR had some fascist tendencies as well (like locking up American citizens in concentration camps). Then there was the entire time during the Cold War when politicians branded anyone they didn't like a Communist to jail them or discredit them.

I don't think Trump is anything new for America, and we've been here before; the only difference now is that there's more money and influence to chart the course while also having easily accessible platforms to spread nonsense. Think about how the Red Scare would've gone if social media had existed and crackpots had the opportunity to say whatever they wanted at any time. So really, we've always been here, it just hasn't been as easily seen as it is now since we have infinite access to information, a platform for people to say whatever they want and reach millions, and 24-hour news cycles. The amount of money being thrown at politics is also insane and the people behind that money support fascist ideals.

Checks and balances haven't been effective in a long time. It used to work when each branch was concerned with its power, but now it's just all about falling in line with the party leadership so you can keep your job. Whatever the head of the party says goes, even if the underlings disagree. The benefits of being in Congress are excellent and people don't want to lose that so they just continue to toe the line. Just look at what happened with Congressmen like Mitt Romney and Adam Kinzinger or Congresswoman Liz Cheney; they went against Trump and lost their power even though they were right.

It's telling that you would choose to cite Woodrow Wilson and FDR as examples of "fascists". A much more obvious example would be the Ku Klux Klan and various other rabidly nativist, racist and anti-immigrant organizations that grew up in the 19th century and flourished well into the 20th century. In addition, there were a variety of actual American fascist parties that received a lot of popular support in the 1930's.

 

[wowbaggerBR]

Lived to see someone frame FDR as fascist. I guess this is enough internet for this week.

 

[TexRex]

Lived to see someone frame FDR as fascist. I guess this is enough internet for this week.

Incarceration of citizens without indictment, prosecution or conviction solely due to ancestry was a super friendly affair, obviously.

 

[wowbaggerBR]

Incarceration of citizens without indictment, prosecution or conviction solely due to ancestry was a super friendly affair, obviously.

If I am not mistaken, there was a pretty big war going on at the time and foreign agents were indeed found on American soil plotting all kinds of sabotages during that war. It was a Japanese spy who related the ins and outs of the Pearl Harbour base and a bunch of german spies were delivered to the west coast by U-boat (granted, those particular operatives were incompetent, but at the time, how could anyone be sure there weren’t more?). While no one deserves to be imprisoned solely because of their origin - and the internment camps remain a stain on FDR’s legacy - the conditions in American camps were not remotely comparable to those where people were subjected to starvation, systematic cruelty, and FAR worse, as we all know.

FDR upheld democratic institutions, didn't dismantle them as fascist leaders did. He also didn't had an armed militia inside his party terrorizing dissenters, he didn't abolish free press. He won competitive elections, whereas fascists banned opposition parties and censored the press and cultural expression. Courts remained open and were allowed to be a check and ballance against his adminstration. Fascist dismantle the judiciary as soon as they got power. He also was probably the only American president to give more strength to worker's unions, while fascists would just outlaw them all, as usual.

Also missing from FDR, the raging fascist, is the cult of personality, the creation of a secret police or the persecution of opposition leaders. Oh, and he went ahead and got himself allied with the not fascists. But yeah, other than those small things, a huge fascist.

 

[Imari]

Incarceration of citizens without indictment, prosecution or conviction solely due to ancestry was a super friendly affair, obviously.

Obviously not, it was a terrible thing to do. But I feel like context matters - there was a world war going on and Pearl Harbour had just happened.

It was not the right thing to do, and even then the way in which it was done was pretty awful. But I think it's an understandable response, even though not an acceptable one. It may have been fascism by some technical definition, but I'm not sure it rightly should be assigned the negative implication that usually comes with fascism. The internments were not about consolidating political control or exterminating an entire race of people, this was about maintaining military and physical security.

And to be super extra double clear, it was a wrong thing to do and FDR should be viewed negatively for it. But probably not because it's fascism, because intent matters and words have meanings. FDR was many things but a fascist is probably not one of them, at least to my limited non-US understanding of the history of the dude.

 

[Joey D]

It's telling that you would choose to cite Woodrow Wilson and FDR as examples of "fascists". A much more obvious example would be the Ku Klux Klan and various other rabidly nativist, racist and anti-immigrant organizations that grew up in the 19th century and flourished well into the 20th century. In addition, there were a variety of actual American fascist parties that received a lot of popular in the 1930's.

None of those groups were in power. Yes, plenty of groups supported fascism, but I'm looking at it as who had power.

Also, I'm not saying anyone was an outright fascist. I'm saying they had fascist ideas, and the country was flirting with fascism. Wilson wasn't a good person, though; he was incredibly racist. He showed KKK propaganda in the White House (Birth of a Nation), supported eugenics, support Jim Crow, and resegregated the government. During WWI he even prevented one of America's best fighting forces, the Buffalo Soldiers, from entering the war purely because they were black. He pushed the Sedition Act and wanted it to be illegal to criticize the government. He dragged the US into WWI under dubious pretenses. He also likely led to the rise of fascism in Italy after stonewalling the Italians and leading to Mussolini, and he helped completely bumble how post-war Germany was managed, leading to WWII.

Was Wilson a fascist? It's complicated, but he certainly has fascist ideas. Also, did Wilson do good things? Yes, but it's worth recognizing the awful things he did because they were pretty damn awful.

Lived to see someone frame FDR as fascist. I guess this is enough internet for this week.

FDR put 120,000 Asian Americans, many of who were American citizens (upwards of 2/3rds), into concentration camps for four years. At least 1,800 people died. In addition to the Japanese, he also put Germans and Italians in camps as well. What's weirder is that he hated Jews despite championing for them when the opportunity benefited him.

Never mind he didn't want to give up power and managed to serve four terms as president.

But if you go back and read what I wrote, I didn't call FDR a fascist. I said he had some fascist tendencies, which he absolutely did and it was undoubtedly a brush with fascism in the US. Wilson falls into the same camp.

====

Right-wing populism that Trump subscribes to is nothing new for the US either. Strom Thurmond, Joseph McCarthy, and Barry Goldwater all were right-wing populists. So while some think we are in uncharted waters with Trump, we really aren't. This stuff has been going on in the US for a long time. Even the corruption Trump does is nothing new. Nixon, Reagan, Harding, Buchanan, and Jackson were all incredibly corrupt and that's just what we know. Chances are corruption is rampant in the US government but it gets covered up. Trump's problem is that he doesn't know when to shut up so we see his corruption more than others.

 

[eran0004]

What I find a shame here on GTP is that even the slightest flirt with Trump or Musk ends up being labeled like stupid, racist, fascist, homophobe , uneducated and wrong.

That pretty much is a summary of their character though, so it's like complaining that even the slightest flirt with Hitler ends up being labeled like antisemitic.

All arguments are drilled into the ground with we are right and you are wrong. No wonder most people keep their opinions to themselves.

What do you want? A medal for participating in a political discussion?

"We respect your support of this racist, fascist, misogynistic, stupid, uneducated regime and their efforts to ruin America and the rule based world order which is the foundation of much of the progress we've seen around the globe in the past 80 years. What is right and wrong even? It's not like any human thinker has ever thought about that before - certainly not the founding fathers - so we don't have any standards to possibly judge Trump and his immature nazi pet by. All is fine and dandy, what could possibly go wrong. Gravity is just an illusion, I'm sure we would all be able to fly if we just collectively threw ourselves off the bridge all at the same time. This MAGA movement does not sound like a cult at all. Nope, no alarm bells ringing here, none whatsoever. That Musk guy seems unstable at best - oh he just accidentally did a nazi salute live on tv. Twice. Let's give him access to the entire government apparatus and let him fix it in much the same way that he ruined Twitter. I have my doubts about it, but I'm in no position to criticise it because up is down and down is up and all we are is dust in the wind. Serenity now."

Forget about it. If you want to enter a political discussion you should be prepared to have your opinions scrutinised and criticised. I mean, how do you even expect to develop as a person if nobody criticises your opinions and beliefs? How do you expect to see the flaws in your reasoning if nobody helps by pointing them out for you?

 

[Scaff]

I said he had some fascist tendencies, which he absolutely did and it was undoubtedly a brush with fascism in the US. Wilson falls into the same camp.

Given that fascism is a specific ideology I have to disagree, FDR had some authoritarian tendencies, but overall those didn't align with the fascist ideology.

What I find a shame here on GTP is that even the slightest flirt with Trump or Musk ends up being labeled like stupid, racist, fascist, homophobe , uneducated and wrong.

All arguments are drilled into the ground with we are right and you are wrong. No wonder most people keep their opinions to themselves.

Nope. Oddly, those who support Trump et al. are unable to support an argument that doesn't expose those labels.

I acknowledge that those who do support Trump etc. are burdened with the challenge that he is racist, fascist, and homophobic. Therefore if you are unaware of that you are ignorant of that (I wouldn't use the term stupid), you are supporting those traits via that ignorance; or you are aware of those traits and agree with them (which I would label as 'wrong' ).

I mean, how else would you describe the position of 'I want to ethnically cleanse Gaza'?

 

[Liquid]

If you're going to slap an authoritarian charge against FDR, you might call him a communist for his executive order prohibiting private ownership of gold. Communists interred people too.

The traditional left-right communist-fascist compass just isn't applicable anymore. If you're going to use one axis, the up-down authoritarian-liberal one is the one that people seem to refer to first in quick conversation more often these days, even if they're unaware of it and still clinging to the x axis.

 

[Scaff]

If you're going to slap an authoritarian charge against FDR, you might call him a communist for his executive order prohibiting private ownership of gold. Communists interred people too.

I wouldn't describe him as authoritarian overall.

The traditional left-right communist-fascist compass just isn't applicable anymore. If you're going to use one axis, the up-down authoritarian-liberal one is the one that people seem to refer to first in quick conversation more often these days, even if they're unaware of it and still clinging to the x axis.

I disagree in part, the Left/Right axis still very much exists, it would be hard to describe Trump and co as anything other than having a hard right set of leanings.

 

[Joey D]

Given that fascism is a specific ideology I have to disagree, FDR had some authoritarian tendencies, but overall those didn't align with the fascist ideology.

Fascism doesn't have one agreed upon set of ideologies though and it's difficult to define. I would argue that FDR putting 120k Asian Americans in concentration camps, most who were American citizens, was a fascist act.

FDR was also in support of the Mexican Repatriation started by Hoover during the 1930s where upwards of 2 million Mexican Americans were deported, many of them being American citizens, for being a contributing factor to the Great Depression. While FDR was less on deportations than Hoover, he still supporter the policy and continued it.

Deporting and interning your own citizens is, in my opinion, absolutely fascism tendencies.

FDR also had the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, in which he wanted to change the Supreme Court because he didn't like how they were ruling on New Deal policies. It failed to transpire, but that act also felt fascist in nature given how the government is structured.

I'm not say FDR didn't do good things, but like Wilson it's important to call out the bad things he was doing. Trump is trying to do those exact same things right now. He's putting people in concentration camps (Gitmo), deporting millions while blaming them for the economy, and packing the Supreme Court to push through policies that are likely unconstitutional. If we criticize and lable Trump a fascist for doing that we should also apply that to other presidents too. Trump also appeals to a frustrated middle and low class while putting out policies that supposedly will help them. FDR did the same thing with the New Deal. Of course the New Deal worked, while Trump's polices remain to he seen. They might ultimately help the low and middle class (although it seems unlikely).

Yes, Trump is undoubtedly more fascist but other presidents have done remarkably fascist things. I'm not an expert though. The only reason I selected FDR and Wilson as examples is that there is there's a ton of debate around them, which means there's more information out there to read. Since before this past election I've been trying to look into fascism in the US to see how we got here.

 

[dylansan]

Some news from the DOGE front

Federal judge temporarily blocks DOGE from accessing sensitive Treasury Department payment systems

The decision comes after 19 state attorneys general sued the federal government alleging DOGE staffers didn’t have authority to access the systems.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[TB]

It's about damn time.

 

[Imari]

If you're going to slap an authoritarian charge against FDR, you might call him a communist for his executive order prohibiting private ownership of gold. Communists interred people too.

I mean, I wouldn't call him a communist but as far as I'm aware he's the president who moved the US the furthest towards socialism. Now, bear in mind that where he moved it from was a place that was pretty strongly not socialist, so it's not like after FDR we ended up with the United Socialist States of America. But there are a lot of policies that he enacted that are very strongly socialist.

The traditional left-right communist-fascist compass just isn't applicable anymore.

It never was, because that's not the labels on that axis. The most generic descriptors are generally collectivism on the left, and individualism on the right.

Fascism started as an attempt to find a "third way". But just as communism degraded into authoritarian dictatorship and became something that was very much not communism, so too did fascism with respect to the original goals of fascism. This may be inherent to any ideology that attempts to force rapid, widespread change through violent force.

Just the history of Italian fascism is fascinating, in the same way that the history Russian/Soviet and Chinese communism is fascinating. In the context of the world that they developed in, it's easy to see how these were real attempts to solve real problems that existed. And how those attempts then fell off the rails due to the practical difficulty of making a societal structure that doesn't disintegrate under the pressure of a few bad actors, and that lack of recognition that over-centralising power is a massive weakness.

Fascism doesn't have one agreed upon set of ideologies though and it's difficult to define. I would argue that FDR putting 120k Asian Americans in concentration camps, most who were American citizens, was a fascist act.

Deporting and interning your own citizens is, in my opinion, absolutely fascism tendencies.

Why? What about that act do you feel aligns with a fascist ideology?

Please try and put aside the emotional baggage of "concentration camps" for a second, we're all horrified by that idea and we all think it's awful. But try and describe what you think FDR was trying to do there that you think signifies fascist tendencies.

Since you think fascism is difficult to define (and I agree, and I think the definition has changed from FDRs era to ours), it's probably also worth spelling out what you personally think fascism is.

I'm not say FDR didn't do good things, but like Wilson it's important to call out the bad things he was doing.

Right, but just because he was doing bad things doesn't mean he was a fascist. It just means he was doing bad things.

If we criticize and lable Trump a fascist for doing that we should also apply that to other presidents too. Trump also appeals to a frustrated middle and low class while putting out policies that supposedly will help them. FDR did the same thing with the New Deal. Of course the New Deal worked, while Trump's polices remain to he seen. They might ultimately help the low and middle class (although it seems unlikely).

I think you're missing the point. It's not about what specifically the president does, it's more about why they do it.

FDR put out socialist policies to help the middle and low class, because that's what he believed (correctly) would make a better America for everyone.

Trump is pretending to put out policies that help the middle and low class, because he knows that will get him support which he can turn into power, wealth and/or recognition for his massive ego. Helping others isn't part of it at all, and he's actually pretty clear about this in the way that the only thing he holds a consistent opinion on are the things that directly benefit him. Anything else, he will say whatever gets the response that he wants.

When you're talking about ideologies, you're talking about how people think. Actions are a result of what people think, and so sometimes that can be used as a guide. But you shouldn't get distracted by actions into ignoring what is actually going on inside their heads.

If you want to call someone a fascist, you sort of need proof that they actually agree with fascist ideology, whatever you might define that as.

Yes, Trump is undoubtedly more fascist but other presidents have done remarkably fascist things.

Probably because "fascist" in modern terms has come to mean "authoritarian", and the whole point of the President is that they're the leader of the country. That position exists in part to make decisions for the long term benefit of the country. That is authoritarian, although we realistically only use that term when the President is doing things we don't like.

Which is why I think you need to get away from the simplistic idea of fascism, write down what you actually think fascism is, and then think about which Presidents might actually agree with the principles of fascism you've identified. I think the answer is still probably a lot - America is highly nationalistic, individualistic, and militaristic. But those things aren't unique, and so I think they're insufficient to define fascism.

 

[Biggles]

I'm afraid Sunday's Superbowl is going to represent a crowning moment for Trump. It's going to resemble Gladiator ... but without the venal, corrupt emperor getting his comeuppance. 😒

 

[Pupik]

I'm afraid Sunday's Superbowl is going to represent a crowning moment for Trump. It's going to resemble Gladiator ... but without the venal, corrupt emperor getting his comeuppance. 😒

Pretty sure he'll never again set foot in New Orleans, this year's Super Bowl location.

 

[McLaren]

Pretty sure he'll never again set foot in New Orleans, this year's Super Bowl location.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure it's confirmed he's going to be there. Probably so he can go on his social media to either talk about himself like King or rant later on about how rude & nasty the radical leftist boos were.

 

[Biggles]

It's an NFL crowd - my guess is he will receive a rapturous MAGA greeting ... with a few dissenters. 😒

 

[GBO Possum]

“Trust” is built over generations and can be destroyed in days. (Gift link)

Abandoned in the Middle of Clinical Trials, Because of a Trump Order

The stop-work order on U.S.A.I.D.-funded research has left thousands of people with experimental drugs and devices in their bodies, with no access to monitoring or care.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Blitz24]

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure it's confirmed he's going to be there. Probably so he can go on his social media to either talk about himself like King or rant later on about how rude & nasty the radical leftist boos were.

100% he will be there. Doubtful he will be near Taylor Swift (whom his granddaughter is a huge fan of).

 

[Joey D]

Why? What about that act do you feel aligns with a fascist ideology?

Please try and put aside the emotional baggage of "concentration camps" for a second, we're all horrified by that idea and we all think it's awful. But try and describe what you think FDR was trying to do there that you think signifies fascist tendencies.

Since you think fascism is difficult to define (and I agree, and I think the definition has changed from FDRs era to ours), it's probably also worth spelling out what you personally think fascism is.

Blaming the "others" for something is fascist. Hitler blamed the Jews, throughout American history blacks often shouldered the blame. With FDR, he blamed Mexicans for contributing to the Great Depression (and excluded them from New Deal benefits) and he blamed Asian-Americans, who were a majority American citizens, for the attack on Pearl Harbor. Did Mexicans contribute to the Great Depression? No. Were Asian Americans to blame for Pearl Harbor? Also no. He scapegoated those groups and that's a fascist act.

As for defining fascism, I'm not some political savant or expert, so I mostly rely on people who know way more than me. Stanley Payne has interested me, but Umberto Eco's Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt seems to have broken down fascism in an easy-ish to understand way. Point number five in his essay that talks of "fear of difference" fits what FDR was doing by blaming groups for problems occurring in the US. Point seven talks about "fear of plot" which coincides with the fear that Asian Americans were all spies and were the reason Pearl Harbor was attacked.

I think you're missing the point. It's not about what specifically the president does, it's more about why they do it.

FDR put out socialist policies to help the middle and low class, because that's what he believed (correctly) would make a better America for everyone.

Trump is pretending to put out policies that help the middle and low class, because he knows that will get him support which he can turn into power, wealth and/or recognition for his massive ego. Helping others isn't part of it at all, and he's actually pretty clear about this in the way that the only thing he holds a consistent opinion on are the things that directly benefit him. Anything else, he will say whatever gets the response that he wants.

When you're talking about ideologies, you're talking about how people think. Actions are a result of what people think, and so sometimes that can be used as a guide. But you shouldn't get distracted by actions into ignoring what is actually going on inside their heads.

If you want to call someone a fascist, you sort of need proof that they actually agree with fascist ideology, whatever you might define that as.

We don't know if Trump's policies will help or not. I don't believe they will, but there hasn't been enough time yet to say otherwise. FDR's policies worked, but even when they were implemented, there were concerns of them being fascist in nature. The National Recovery Administration was compared to Italian corporatism. The head of the National Recovery Act, Hugh Johnson, was an admirer of Mussolini. Even the Communist Party of the United States declared FDR a fascist. So the idea was there and plenty of people at the time saw comparisons between Italy and the US. The Swope Plan and the National Industry Recovery Act were also labeled fascist in nature by several politicians of the time, including Herbert Hoover.

I'm not sure how much intent matters. If something is fascist in nature, then it's fascist in nature, it doesn't matter if the end goal is good or bad. Even the most fascist governments like Nazi Germany did good thing like: push for anti-smoking, had life insurance, mandated employers give paid vacations, offered a ton of financial assistance to low-income people, had universal healthcare for Germans, had a bunch of conservation laws that included things like recycling, made animal cruelty a crime, and banned human zoos. Did those outweigh mass murdering millions of people? No.

FDR and Hitler have similarities, whether people want to admit it or not. FDR was socialist as was Hitler, they both scapegoated groups for the problems in their country, they both interned those groups because of it, they both were racist, and they both hated Jews. Had Hitler died in 1938 before giving the Reichstag speech, we'd probably look at him very, very differently. Would he still have been considered a dictator and authoritarian? Of course, but there would probably be a caveat saying he had to do those things to get the German economy back on track. We give FDR a pretty big pass for pulling the US out of a terrible depression despite doing some truly awful things. I don't think FDR was even a dictator, but his terribleness is often glossed over because he did things that greatly benefited the country.

I'm also not calling FDR a fascist. I'm saying he did some fascist things and America saw a brush with fascism. I don't think FDR was a fascist leader by any means. I'm not even sure Trump is fully fascist yet, but I do think many of his policies and ideas are fascist in nature and he's certainly trending that way fairly quickly.

Probably because "fascist" in modern terms has come to mean "authoritarian", and the whole point of the President is that they're the leader of the country. That position exists in part to make decisions for the long term benefit of the country. That is authoritarian, although we realistically only use that term when the President is doing things we don't like.

Which is why I think you need to get away from the simplistic idea of fascism, write down what you actually think fascism is, and then think about which Presidents might actually agree with the principles of fascism you've identified. I think the answer is still probably a lot - America is highly nationalistic, individualistic, and militaristic. But those things aren't unique, and so I think they're insufficient to define fascism.

I think many presidents did fascist things. I don't think it's exclusively Wilson, FDR, and Trump. Technically, some of Lincoln's actions fit in with many definitions of fascism. Bush's Patriot Act could be seen as fascist in nature. Hell most policies during the Cold War related to McCarthyism could be seen as fascist. But I'm not saying America was ever a fascist country of that we had a fascist leader. I'm saying we've had leaders who've done fascist things and that Trump doing fascist things isn't exactly new. We've flirted with fascism before and we will likely continue to flirt with fascism going forward. It's also why I'm skeptical of the idea that Trump is going to destroy America completely. Is he going to screw it up royally? I believe so, but at the end of the day, I still don't believe America is over as a country and that we're only in a really dark period.

 

[Biggles]

A couple of (obvious) points about Trade.

Trade is the foundation for all wealth in the world. Without trade we would all still be hunter-gatherers, or living on small subsistence farms.

When I buy stuff from Costco and it doesn't buy stuff from me, I'm not getting ripped off by Costco - I am getting stuff for the money I give them. It's natural for the richest country in the world to buy more stuff from other countries than it sells to them. This does not mean the richest country is getting ripped off ... it means it's rich.

 

[Danoff]

It's really starting to seem like there are no effective "checks & balances" in the US at all.

Executive - Party of Trump
Senate - Party of Trump
House - Party of Trump
Supreme Court - Party of Trump

 

[GranTurNismo]

Executive - Party of Trump
Senate - Party of Trump
House - Party of Trump
Supreme Court - Party of Trump

Yet the media, tech, Hollywood, education, big business, banks, international organizations, military, FBI/CIA, and sports all went WOKE.

 

[Biggles]

Yet the media, tech, Hollywood, education, big business, banks, international organizations, military, FBI/CIA, and sports all went WOKE.

That really is the question at the core of this: how did it happen? Is it simply who America is? And to what extent is this going to play out in the other western democracies over the next few years?

I used to think (and say) that however bad the situation seemed at times in the past few decades, the progress overall was to a more just, equitable and prosperous world. Now this seems much less certain. Regressive forces are on the march in a way not seen since the 1930's. I worry about the future my daughters - now in their 20's - will face in the coming years.

 

[Danoff]

That really is the question at the core of this: how did it happen?

Largely through misinformation.

 

[GranTurNismo]

That really is the question at the core of this: how did it happen? Is it simply who America is? And to what extent is this going to play out in the other western democracies over the next few years?

I used to think (and say) that however bad the situation seemed at times in the past few decades, the progress overall was to a more just, equitable and prosperous world. Now this seems much less certain. Regressive forces are on the march in a way not seen since the 1930's. I worry about the future my daughters - now in their 20's - will face in the coming years.

One of the biggest misconceptions people have about democracy is that it is enduring and self-reinforcing. It most certainly isn’t. I mean, the status quo for human civilization has been some form of authoritarianism (feudalism, dynastic monarchy, empire, etc) for far much longer than democracy. Democracy is wonky and abstract and requires effort to upkeep, while this does not apply to authoritarian regimes.

 

[Danoff]

When I vote for a third party candidate because I, living in one of the most solidly blue states in the country, am powerless to stop Trump, I'm complicit in the destruction of democracy as we know it. But when senators literally vote for a person who wants to run the country into the ground, for no other reason than that they want to, they're excused because they're powerless.

You misunderstand both votes. You're voting for a representative in that case - they are not doing that in a confirmation hearing. Let me try to give you an example to help you understand.

Suppose you're on a jury and you're asked to determine whether the evidence for some question reaches a threshold (what the threshold is depends on the type of case). How you answer this question will ultimately be used to determine whether the person is sent to jail. You can vote, as a jury member, on whether you think the person should be sent to jail. But this is not the question being posed to you. You're being asked about how convincing the evidence in front of you is. You're not being asked about what you want, or who would represent you.

When congress is asked to confirm an executive appointment, they are not being asked to vote for a representative. To think otherwise is just confused about how the government works, what the confirmation process represents, and a little confused about general election voting as well.

You've invented a world where directly voting for a bad person is somehow less complicit than voting third party.

Again, they're not being asked to vote for a representative. Donald Trump is the democratically elected president of the US. He gets to place appointees. That's how our government is supposed to work. Confirmation is not an opportunity to try to vote for a representative.

Not to mention a world where messaging is important and democrats need support, but all hope is lost so their actions don't matter.

I'm not sure what you're talking about with this. You mean before the election? Yes, before the election democrats needed support and messaging was important. After the election it doesn't really matter. Don't mistake my critique of you, constantly coming in complaining about democrats when some republican does something, for what actually matters in government.

And apparently a world where blocking a president's agenda is bad regardless of what that agenda is? I legitimately have no idea what your point was with this.

Strawman nonsense.

Just, stop.

Stop responding to me. Stop engaging with me. I am not interested in what you have to say at all. It's a public forum, so I can't stop you from replying if I post about some event and you have to weigh in. But stop analyzing me and my politics. Nothing has made me more confident in my convictions than the inconsistency of yours.

I'm begging you to block me.

Not how I roll. Feel free to block me if you like.

 

[Tornado]

"Stop telling me that I have to face the consequences of the actions I provided full-throated defense for even after I was told exactly what was going to happen by several people when I committed to them."