United States Politics Thread 47

[Ahzoh]

Everyone was warned about Trump, but apparently we are dumbass children that need to touch the stove one or two times before we learn it's hot.

[Travis B.]

Also the Democrats are just as culpable for this turmoil as the voters. For decades they've been out of touch and riddled with deluded geriatric elites, the same as the republicans. They have no teeth and no spines, too afraid to go actually left (though they posture like they are). They continually fail to read the atmosphere.

They really fucked us with their bullshit in 2016 that lead to Bernies not getting nominated as candidate.

Their ONLY redeeming quality is that they openly care (or at least pretend to) about democracy and anti-corruption.

Your logic there shifts the blame by implying that what we have right now is really the Democrats' fault, that only if Bernie had been the candidate we wouldn't have Trump. The matter is that Harris could have been the second coming of Jesus yet we would still have idiots who justified their votes for Trump based on their idiotic views of egg pricing.

[Ahzoh]

Also the Democrats are just as culpable for this turmoil as the voters. For decades they've been out of touch and riddled with deluded geriatric elites, the same as the republicans. They have no teeth and no spines, too afraid to go actually left (though they posture like they are). They continually fail to read the atmosphere.

They really fucked us with their bullshit in 2016 that lead to Bernies not getting nominated as candidate.

Their ONLY redeeming quality is that they openly care (or at least pretend to) about democracy and anti-corruption.

Your logic there shifts the blame by implying that what we have right now is really the Democrats' fault, that only if Bernie had been the candidate we wouldn't have Trump. The matter is that Harris could have been the second coming of Jesus yet we would still have idiots who justified their votes for Trump based on their idiotic views of egg pricing.

If Bernie was candidate the first time Trump ran, then yeah, we wouldn't. Trump wasn't taking it seriously the first time. Now people had a taste of Trump and they liked what they got. And Trump took it more seriously the second time, mostly because of his mind for vengeance and greed.

The message of 2016 and 2024 was both "we don't want more of the same, we want change and we want an outsider, we want a political shakeup". Bernie could have granted that as equally as Trump did.

[Linguoboy]

Also the Democrats are just as culpable for this turmoil as the voters. For decades they've been out of touch and riddled with deluded geriatric elites, the same as the republicans. They have no teeth and no spines, too afraid to go actually left (though they posture like they are). They continually fail to read the atmosphere.

Your logic there shifts the blame by implying that what we have right now is really the Democrats' fault, that only if Bernie had been the candidate we wouldn't have Trump. The matter is that Harris could have been the second coming of Jesus yet we would still have idiots who justified their votes for Trump based on their idiotic views of egg pricing.

Lord knows I'm not one who ever saw Sanders as the saviour of the nation (or even just the Democratic Party), but the point here is that we ended up with Harris as a candidate because the Democrats keep strangling any truly progressive elements within their caucus before they can amass the kind of influence that would pull the party to the left. Sure, not enough voters voting Harris is the proximate cause of the situation we're in, but--and I'll keep repeating this till I die--a plan to stave off fascism that relies on Republicans not winning elections is not an actual plan. (And yet that really seems to be all the plan the Dems had given by the absence of any organised resistance coming from them since the election.)

Anyway, off to try to reach my senator's office again in a desperate attempt to keep her from voting in favour of the continuing resolution that includes no enforceable guarantees that the executive will actually spend the money which Congress has allocated for the things they allocated it for.

[jcb]

Also the Democrats are just as culpable for this turmoil as the voters. For decades they've been out of touch and riddled with deluded geriatric elites, the same as the republicans. They have no teeth and no spines, too afraid to go actually left (though they posture like they are). They continually fail to read the atmosphere.

They really fucked us with their bullshit in 2016 that lead to Bernies not getting nominated as candidate.

Their ONLY redeeming quality is that they openly care (or at least pretend to) about democracy and anti-corruption.

Your logic there shifts the blame by implying that what we have right now is really the Democrats' fault, that only if Bernie had been the candidate we wouldn't have Trump. The matter is that Harris could have been the second coming of Jesus yet we would still have idiots who justified their votes for Trump based on their idiotic views of egg pricing.

So, you don't think it's the Democrats' fault when they don't get enough votes to win? Do you think they're obligated to get those votes? Do you think the other side is supposed to just give up and let them have the votes without a fight?

It's worth asking why the Democrats didn't win with the people that have idiotic views of egg pricing. What didn't Harris talk about people's economic problems more? Why didn't she offer some kind of radical solution like a price freeze or a government run egg company? The answer, of course, is that she was talking about economics for a while, but then stopped when the Democrats' billionaire sponsors told her to stop.

As Linguoboy has said (and as I tried to explain in the last thread), Democrats' short term tactical failures are caused by their long term strategic failure (appealing to mainly college-educated professional suburbanites).

but--and I'll keep repeating this till I die--a plan to stave off fascism that relies on Republicans not winning elections is not an actual plan. (And yet that really seems to be all the plan the Dems had given by the absence of any organised resistance coming from them since the election.)

Indeed, simply being not-the-Republicans isn't good enough, despite how much Democrats want it to be true.

[Travis B.]

Harris gave plenty of reason to vote for her -- it is not as if the Democrats had a mannikin running for president -- and many pointed out that Trump's openly-proposed tariffs -- they were no secret -- would greatly hurt the American consumer and would likely tank the economy, yet the low information voters went and voted for Trump anyway because they somehow "trusted him more on the economy".

And your response here seems to be that this is all the Democrats' own fault because they didn't promise a goddamn socialist revolution, even though if they had we would all know how it would go over the next election cycle when said revolution hadn't happened -- after all, promises of socialism being brought about from above within capitalist systems rarely pan out.

Of course what actually happened was that the Republicans took advantage of disaffected and often racist and/or sexist low information voters who out of their ignorance could not see that the president only has limited control over things like the price of eggs and who, due to their ignorance, were oblivious to the fact that all of Trump's promises (except for things like tariffs, deportations, and cracking down on LGBT+ people) were lies or who simply did not care and simply wanted to punish the party in power, consequences be damned. I don't think promising a socialist revolution would have won over these people one way or another.

What can be done in what is now little under two years is not to make promises that can't be kept but rather to make as visible as possible to the people how Trump has only hurt them and how his promises w.r.t. the economy and like have been pure lies and nothing more. Hopefully the fickleness of the electorate can be turned against the Republicans. In the meantime what can be done is to contest every single thing Trump does in court and seek to get as many injunctions against him as possible.

[Travis B.]

Note that I am all for building a left-wing movement within the Democrat party (doing it outside the Democrat party is infeasible due to the nature of the American electoral system); I just think that Harris didn't fail because she did not make enough left-wing promises, and even if she promised a full-on socialist revolution that still would not have guaranteed her winning, and would likely result in significant disappointment next time around if she did win, and likely souring of views of left-wing positions in the long run.

[Ahzoh]

And your response here seems to be that this is all the Democrats' own fault because they didn't promise a goddamn socialist revolution

Where the fuck is your reading comprehension? Nobody said OR implied this. It's like you didn't read anything anybody said.

We never said it was all the democrats fault, I explicitly said "they are just as culpable", that means the voters being stupid, lazy, spoiled, and/or bigoted makes them equally to blame. We already listed the numerous faults of democrats and it's not "they wouldn't give me everything on my Christmas Wish List to Santa"

I just think that Harris didn't fail because she did not make enough left-wing promises

Nobody wanted her to make more left-wing promises, people just weren't interested in "let's stay the same, let's keep the status quo", which is effectively mostly what she and Biden were only offering. As jcb said, the billionaires funding her were stifling her chances for success by telling her to stop talking economics.

[Travis B.]

And your response here seems to be that this is all the Democrats' own fault because they didn't promise a goddamn socialist revolution

Where the fuck is your reading comprehension? Nobody said OR implied this. It's like you didn't read anything anybody said.

We never said it was all the democrats fault, I explicitly said "they are just as culpable", that means the voters being stupid, lazy, spoiled, and/or bigoted makes them equally to blame. We already listed the numerous faults of democrats and it's not "they wouldn't give me everything on my Christmas Wish List to Santa"

I just think that Harris didn't fail because she did not make enough left-wing promises

Nobody wanted her to make more left-wing promises, people just weren't interested in "let's stay the same, let's keep the status quo", which is effectively mostly what she and Biden were only offering. As jcb said, the billionaires funding her were stifling her chances for success by telling her to stop talking economics.

You contradict yourself here -- you say that Harris didn't need to make more left-wing promises, yet you simultaneously say that she failed because she didn't represent enough change from the status quo. So which is it?

And the thing is that she did provide alternatives to the status quo, but the "low information voters" simply didn't care. E.g. I specifically remember her talking about introducing price controls to control inflation with regard to the grocery store -- but the "low information voters" opted to simply trust Trump's lies on the basis that Republicans were somehow "better w.r.t. the economy".

[Ahzoh]

I'm sure it's so they can spread Russian propaganda unopposed:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvge4l109r3o.amp

[jcb]

The power grab continues, as Trump declares that all of Biden's pardons are "void", because he used an autopen:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-Wf3JQNjEU
- https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... rcna196670
- https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... d-autopen/

An autopen, for reference, from the Washington Times:

[Raphael]

The power grab continues, as Trump declares that all of Biden's pardons are "void", because he used an autopen:

How many executive orders did Trump issue on the first day of his second term, again? Did he never use an autopen for those?

[alice]

Is it just me, or do other people get the impression that there is a very large number of people in the USA wha are shocked! SHOCKED! by what the Trump administration is doing, especially when it's clearly illegal or nonsensical, but seem utterly incapable of doing anything at all about it?

[Travis B.]

Is it just me, or do other people get the impression that there is a very large number of people in the USA wha are shocked! SHOCKED! by what the Trump administration is doing, especially when it's clearly illegal or nonsensical, but seem utterly incapable of doing anything at all about it?

What is being done is that lawsuits are being filed as fast as possible to cover every last bit of crap from Trump, but the courts can only act so fast to do anything being issuing preliminary injunctions.

[keenir]

Is it just me, or do other people get the impression that there is a very large number of people in the USA wha are shocked! SHOCKED! by what the Trump administration is doing, especially when it's clearly illegal or nonsensical, but seem utterly incapable of doing anything at all about it?

some years ago, a science magazine compared the % of people who did the FWD / Repost / Like if you agree that X needs to be done ...and the % of people who signed petitions / joined discussion forums / enrolled to help get X done.

same spirit of the thing, i suspect.

(that or they think "i'm incapable of doing anything about it, because I am such a tiny speck in the many many millions of people in my country, so why bother trying?")

[Linguoboy]

Is it just me, or do other people get the impression that there is a very large number of people in the USA wha are shocked! SHOCKED! by what the Trump administration is doing, especially when it's clearly illegal or nonsensical, but seem utterly incapable of doing anything at all about it?

It's not just you.

We USAmericans love to think of ourselves as freedom fighters. What we don't love to do is actually fight for our freedom. When Trump announced his gutting of higher education, I remember thinking, "If this happened in France, the same day or the next, central Paris would be occupied by tens of thousands of university students setting tires alight." What happened here was that, over a week later, peaceful rallies of a few hundred people each were held in various cities. That's it.

I've been seeing so much damn defeatism from friends of mine who should know better. I know some of these people were at the same civil rights rallies and marches as me. Yet now they're all wringing their hands and saying, "Well, if the courts don't fix this we're fucked."

[bradrn]

We USAmericans love to think of ourselves as freedom fighters. What we don't love to do is actually fight for our freedom. When Trump announced his gutting of higher education, I remember thinking, "If this happened in France, the same day or the next, central Paris would be occupied by tens of thousands of university students setting tires alight." What happened here was that, over a week later, peaceful rallies of a few hundred people each were held in various cities. That's it.

Agreed. Or look at South Korea, where the self-coup attempt ended up in mass protests and eventually impeachment. Or even Israel, where repeated attempts at compromising judicial independence have been met with enormous protests for over two years now.

But I guess the situation in Israel also exhibits the limits of protesting: if the people in charge genuinely don’t care about anyone other than themselves, then why should protesting change anything? Similarly, France regularly has huge protests, but I don’t get the impression it’s changed much. At the root of it, I think that unless you have law enforcement on your side (as happened in South Korea), it’s very difficult to force lawbreakers to stop. Hence people hoping for the court rulings.

[jcb]

We USAmericans love to think of ourselves as freedom fighters. What we don't love to do is actually fight for our freedom. When Trump announced his gutting of higher education, I remember thinking, "If this happened in France, the same day or the next, central Paris would be occupied by tens of thousands of university students setting tires alight." What happened here was that, over a week later, peaceful rallies of a few hundred people each were held in various cities. That's it.

Agreed. Or look at South Korea, where the self-coup attempt ended up in mass protests and eventually impeachment. Or even Israel, where repeated attempts at compromising judicial independence have been met with enormous protests for over two years now.

But I guess the situation in Israel also exhibits the limits of protesting: if the people in charge genuinely don’t care about anyone other than themselves, then why should protesting change anything? Similarly, France regularly has huge protests, but I don’t get the impression it’s changed much. At the root of it, I think that unless you have law enforcement on your side (as happened in South Korea), it’s very difficult to force lawbreakers to stop. Hence people hoping for the court rulings.

Zompist criticized me in the last thread for catastrophizing, but I still believe that the continuance of American democracy 4 years from now is going to come down to whether the military decides to side with Trump or with the constitution.

Trump has never taken "no" for an answer in his entire life, and he's not about to start now. Also, this time around, he's surrounded by only lackeys and stooges.

[bradrn]

Zompist criticized me in the last thread for catastrophizing, but I still believe that the continuance of American democracy 4 years from now is going to come down to whether the military decides to side with Trump or with the constitution.

I completely agree. It’s clear at this point that Trump will disregard the law — he’s already begun doing it and I see no reason to believe he will stop — so it comes down to whether people will stop him and the people who execute his orders. That means the police and military. But from what I’ve heard, the US police force is rather Trumpist in general, so that leaves the military.

The reason I’m not a catastrophist is because I do think there’s a significant chance of the military siding with the constitution (at least when it becomes blatantly clear that Trump violates it). Some of the fiercest critics of Trump have come from the top echelons of the US armed forces, and it reasonable to believe that this attitude continues through the lower levels too. And then there’s the fact that most soldiers genuineseemsly believe in that they have a mission to defend democracy. (We can argue about whether their actions actually do so, but the belief is clearly there.) If Trump seriously tries to dismantle democracy, I struggle to believe that the entirety of the armed forces will just let that slide.

[zompist]

Zompist criticized me in the last thread for catastrophizing, but I still believe that the continuance of American democracy 4 years from now is going to come down to whether the military decides to side with Trump or with the constitution.

FWIW, my view is that there is enough actual harmful and evil things going on that there is no lack of things to resist, and no need to scare ourselves by inventing more.

It seems pretty clear what the Republicans are aiming for, from their favorite dictators, Putin and Orban: an electoral autocracy. Of course, the idea is also to lean on the press strong enough that it buckles under.

So long as they can do what they like, what more do they need? They're busy destroying the government and the universities, and they don't need the military to do that.

This is Fascism 2.0, streamlined for an era where no one feels like marching in the streets.

Trump has never taken "no" for an answer in his entire life, and he's not about to start now. Also, this time around, he's surrounded by only lackeys and stooges.

As AOC says, one of our best hopes is precisely their incompetence and stupidity. It doesn't prevent them from being completely evil, but lackeys and stooges are also not the people who can create a popular, stable system. I dread what happens if Musk succeeds in breaking Social Security-- but it won't be pretty for the Republicans.

Also, no matter how many Swastikars Trump himself buys, he can't prop up the stock market. Or the economy, if he destroys it with tariffs. Oh, and it looks like the Republicans have also destroyed the market for US military planes. No one wants planes that the Clown-in-Chief can disable remotely.