United States Politics Thread 47

[keenir]

You have to consider the current trajectory of the situation, though.

the trajectory is moot; not even Babe Ruth could hit a baseball through a building. something always stops trajectories - and we've already seen more than a few somethings where Trump is concerned.

Reactionaries are gaining ground all across the world

aw man, not again! wait, yes again.

and especially with younger people. They clearly have the momentum and will only get stronger if present trends continue.

again.

You need to show me some good reasons to believe that these trends will not continue.

its the same reason the bemoaners (no not you in this case) were wrong that languages are constantly crumbling around everyones' ears, always growing getting worse and worse, til one day all that will be left are grunts and hoots.

also, the reactionaries are getting face-eating leopards.

If you refuse to resist the fash, then do some conlangs or something. It's up to you to make something of your life, not us.

What does resistance even mean here, though?

among other things, nonobedience.

The problem is that the reactionaries have an overwhelming advantage in everything from funding to propaganda to firepower

...which explains why its easy to spread the news of them constantly shooting themselves in their own feet.

and I can't see any plausible way of closing any of those gaps.

...which proves you haven't been paying attention to anything except your attempts to spread misery.

We would need to raise billions of dollars,

um, why?? no offense, but I don't think I'd trust you with 1 billion.

deplatform hundreds of influential pundits, and more.

you're forgetting youtube. everyone can be a pundit.

[malloc]

the trajectory is moot; not even Babe Ruth could hit a baseball through a building. something always stops trajectories - and we've already seen more than a few somethings where Trump is concerned.

Eventually sure, but that does not necessarily mean things getting better. The evolution of larger and stronger theropods didn't end with them evolving in the other direction but rather their catastrophic extinction (apart from birds). The reactionary wave may well end with global warming or nuclear armageddon destroying humanity rather than liberal or leftist politics reviving.

Reactionaries are gaining ground all across the world

aw man, not again! wait, yes again.

Remember that last time, the reactionaries only disappeared because they lost WWII and would have continued indefinitely absent that. Do you believe the few remaining liberal democracies could defeat the US and whatever authoritarian allies it finds in another world war?

[Ketsuban]

Remember that last time, the reactionaries only disappeared because they lost WWII and would have continued indefinitely absent that. Do you believe the few remaining liberal democracies could defeat the US and whatever authoritarian allies it finds in another world war?

Fascists can be fairly characterised as bad at war, and the pre-fascist United States of America is doing a good job of showing that: by loudly making a mess in public at this early stage they're giving the rest of the "free world" time to adjust—Europe has increased its military expenditure and showed willingness to throw its weight around a little more when it comes to Russia's bullshit imperialism, south-east Asia is preparing for a world where American force projection is less of an impediment to Chinese dreams of expansion, etc. It would not be beyond the ken of man to imagine that just as one fascist state made the unwise decision in 1939 to invade a politically well-connected neighbour and lived to regret it, a near-future fascist United States might also make the unwise decision to invade a politically well-connected neighbour and live to regret it.

Do not take my extrapolation from historical parallel as prediction or forgone conclusion, though—as people in this thread have repeatedly, exhaustively, exhaustingly explained to you, good things continue to happen in the world, and the correct response is not catastrophism but energy. The United States is not fascist yet—do things now that stop it getting there, rather than needing to stop it later when the costs are much higher.

[keenir]

the trajectory is moot; not even Babe Ruth could hit a baseball through a building. something always stops trajectories - and we've already seen more than a few somethings where Trump is concerned.

Eventually sure, but that does not necessarily mean things getting better.

in a hurry, are you? first you're moaning that things are getting worse, and now you're pissed that recovery isn't instantaneous?

The evolution of larger and stronger theropods didn't end with them evolving in the other direction but rather their catastrophic extinction (apart from birds).

and yet the polar cousin of T.rex was not only living around the same time, but also was smaller than its Montana cousin. the alvarezosaurs were all mid- to late-Cretaceous theropods who were very small. the troodons and velociraptors, ditto.

The reactionary wave may well end with global warming or nuclear armageddon destroying humanity rather than liberal or leftist politics reviving.

if it will end with global warming, then you agree the reactionary wave has died before its become dangerous.

Reactionaries are gaining ground all across the world

aw man, not again! wait, yes again.

Remember that last time, the reactionaries only disappeared because they lost WWII and would have continued indefinitely absent that.

given their constantly being at each others' throats the whole time, that would be the shortest "indefinitely" in the history of ever.

Do you believe the few remaining liberal democracies could defeat the US and whatever authoritarian allies it finds in another world war?

1. so you don't count the pre-WW1 centuries as having contained reactionaries?

1b. nor did the post-WW2 world contain reactionaries until Trump ran for US President?

2. why do you think only liberal democracies could fight the US?

2b. or do you consider Soviet and post-Soviet Russia to be liberal democracies?

[Raphael]

in a hurry, are you? first you're moaning that things are getting worse, and now you're pissed that recovery isn't instantaneous?

Well, yes, that's the central problem here, right? In malloc's psychology it always has to be either puppies and rainbows and unicorns, or sulphuric acid raining from the sky. There can't possibly be anything in between, so the fact that it's not the former clearly "proves" that it has to be the latter, and that we're all delusional for denying that.

[Torco]

i think we here may be overestimating the degree to which countries with similar political systems tend to ally each other: this tendency is somewhat stronger for liberal democracies, less strong for other systems and so even if trump succeeds in turning the us into a russia-style authoritarian regime, that doesn't mean other authoritarian political systems will necessarily become his allies. the goal of authoritarians is not to spread authoritarianism throughout the planet, I think it's more self-serving than that.

[malloc]

Except that World War II involved precisely that kind of alliance between authoritarian regimes. One can easily imagine the US working with Russia and whatever major powers fall to fascism in the coming years in the next world war. Even without that, though, the US has such an enormous and well-funded military that any coalition of existing democracies would really struggle to defeat it.

[Ketsuban]

Except that World War II involved precisely that kind of alliance between authoritarian regimes.

The Axis were united in their far-right positions and general opposition to the Allies, but otherwise lacked comparable coordination and ideological cohesion. […] In contrast to the Allies, there were no three-way summit meetings, and cooperation and coordination were minimal; on occasion, the interests of the major Axis powers were even at variance with each other.

Don't mistake Mussolini's rhetoric (especially the part where he thought Italy could drag Germany round on a leash) for reality.

[zompist]

i think we here may be overestimating the degree to which countries with similar political systems tend to ally each other: this tendency is somewhat stronger for liberal democracies, less strong for other systems and so even if trump succeeds in turning the us into a russia-style authoritarian regime, that doesn't mean other authoritarian political systems will necessarily become his allies. the goal of authoritarians is not to spread authoritarianism throughout the planet, I think it's more self-serving than that.

Kind of.

Putting aside the US for a moment, the right-wing authoritarian regimes are working together. Orban loves Putin; North Korea sent troops to help Russia; India and China have evaded sanctions on Russia and refused to condemn its war of aggression.

Except for Russia/N. Korea, this falls short of an alliance. But when they're not after the same areas, don't stand in each other's way, and have democracies as their target, this isn't much consolation. Ketsuban points out that the Axis didn't coordinate, but were still a worldwide threat.

Trump 2.0 has been, let us say, a mass of contradictions. He admires dictators— immediately after taking office he turned on Ukraine and cozied up to Putin. But a few days ago he declared "I run the country and the world." He doesn't like anyone standing in his way; on the other hand he backs down easily, and also melts when flattered. He seems to feel now that Putin is resisting his ceasefire plan (and his new business deal with Ukraine), so he's putting mild pressure on Russia. He seems to hate Europe, but I don't think even his big thick head can keep from realizing that US trade with Europe dwarfs trade with China.

What the fuck he thinks he's doing with tariffs, no one can figure out. I've seen the theory that they are a gangster's negotiating ploy— "offer me things to appease me"— but he jacked up the tariffs on China, then agreed to go down to 30%, in return for nothing at all.

What I don't see is any large probability of a world war. Trump is not gearing up for war. Xi may well want Taiwan, but he's also quite happy to increase trade with an independent Taiwan. The EU may become more of a military power, but only to defend itself.

[keenir]

Even without that, though, the US has such an enormous and well-funded military that any coalition of existing democracies would really struggle to defeat it.

why do you refuse to answer the question? why do you think that only democracies - and suddenly now only the (pre)existing democracies - could bother to fight and defeat a more-evil-than-satan America?

[malloc]

why do you refuse to answer the question? why do you think that only democracies - and suddenly now only the (pre)existing democracies - could bother to fight and defeat a more-evil-than-satan America?

Other dictatorships might fight the US but they won't replace its dictatorship with a liberal democracy if they win. We need something like the end of WWII where the democratic Allies replaced fascist dictatorships in occupied countries with democracies.

What I don't see is any large probability of a world war. Trump is not gearing up for war. Xi may well want Taiwan, but he's also quite happy to increase trade with an independent Taiwan. The EU may become more of a military power, but only to defend itself.

Which is unfortunate given that world war is pretty much the only way out of this situation. It is simply impossible for the general public to overthrow the US government given its overwhelming advantage in military technology. Any civil war would end almost immediately with federal victory.

[keenir]

why do you refuse to answer the question? why do you think that only democracies - and suddenly now only the (pre)existing democracies - could bother to fight and defeat a more-evil-than-satan America?

Other dictatorships might fight the US but they won't replace its dictatorship with a liberal democracy if they win.

you keep claiming we'll have an entrenched dictatorship by the time we go to war with the rest of the world - why wait? go out there and start the war yourself. I'm sure Trump would praise you and maybe name a seat cushion after you in his new jet.

We need something like the end of WWII where the democratic Allies

\as opposed to Allied nations such as Italy and Russia?

replaced fascist dictatorships

remind me again, when is Japan's next Imperial election?

What I don't see is any large probability of a world war. Trump is not gearing up for war. Xi may well want Taiwan, but he's also quite happy to increase trade with an independent Taiwan. The EU may become more of a military power, but only to defend itself.

Which is unfortunate given that world war is pretty much the only way out of this situation.

so not only are you ignoring the vast majority of the news on pretty much every tv channel and youtube channel, you're also starting to make some of us think you have a hardon for America turning fash and trying to fight everyone else.

as Michael Jordan once said, "Stop it, get some help!"

It is simply impossible for the general public to overthrow the US government given its overwhelming advantage in military technology.

asymetrical warfare - look it up.

another option would be my country's usual strategy: vote them out in the next election.

Any civil war would end almost immediately with federal victory.

I'm not sure you understand how a civil war works.

[malloc]

so not only are you ignoring the vast majority of the news on pretty much every tv channel and youtube channel, you're also starting to make some of us think you have a hardon for America turning fash and trying to fight everyone else.

This interpretation is based on looking at historical analogies. Germany only returned to democracy after losing WWII while dictatorships like China have persisted for generations with no signs of collapse. Obviously another world war would be disastrous from a humanitarian standpoint and could easily wipe out the human race given modern weapons technology. We really ought not view it with longing. Nonetheless it seems difficult to see any alternative given our current trajectory.

asymetrical warfare - look it up. ... I'm not sure you understand how a civil war works.

Quite honestly, American liberals lack the stomach or skills for waging civil war. They simply don't have the physical courage or experience with violence and weaponry necessary. Not one of the liberals or leftists I know (including myself) has ever fired a gun, let alone killed anyone in combat. Even if the entire American left and center radically changed their attitudes toward violence and personal hardship, fighting the US military and Trump loyalists sounds impossible. We have to face millions of soldiers, thousands of tanks, and numerous aircraft. We would also have to contend with military drones, which have already proven devastatingly effective against insurgents.

[keenir]

so not only are you ignoring the vast majority of the news on pretty much every tv channel and youtube channel, you're also starting to make some of us think you have a hardon for America turning fash and trying to fight everyone else.

This interpretation is based on looking at historical analogies. Germany only returned to democracy after losing WWII while dictatorships like China have persisted for generations with no signs of collapse.

grrrrrreat, now we have to ask you to define words again, if thats what you think a dictatorship is.

Obviously another world war would be disastrous from a humanitarian standpoint and could easily wipe out the human race given modern weapons technology.

no we can't.

We really ought not view it with longing.

are you going to follow your own advice?

Nonetheless it seems difficult to see any alternative given our current trajectory.

yet the Doomsday Clock keeps pulling away from Midnight every time we inch closer. its almost as though many alternatives keep coming up and getting used.

asymetrical warfare - look it up. ... I'm not sure you understand how a civil war works.

Quite honestly, American liberals lack the stomach or skills for waging civil war.

...which tells me either you're not using the term correctly, or you refuse to see all the people using resistance of various sorts in the USA these past few months.

They simply don't have the physical courage or experience with violence and weaponry necessary. Not one of the liberals or leftists I know (including myself)

can you be a leftist, when you have hardons for being stepped on by a jackbooted Trump?

has ever fired a gun, let alone killed anyone in combat. Even if the entire American left and center radically changed their attitudes toward violence and personal hardship, fighting the US military and Trump loyalists sounds impossible.

for you, certainly. hard to fight anyone, when you scream your surrender at the first whiff of Trump being rude.

We have to face millions of soldiers, thousands of tanks, and numerous aircraft.

thousands of tanks and aircraft...flown by whom? Trump's having trouble keeping planes from diving into the ocean.

and it likely escapes you that soldiers have the right to refuse to fight what they consider unlawful orders.

We would also have to contend with military drones, which have already proven devastatingly effective against insurgents.

and these drones would be operated by...Lord Dictator Trump himself? because you seem to keep forgetting how fast he shucks people away from him, in both his terms.

remember that Trump wants to fire a quarter of the 4-star generals and all the women of the armed forces...now remember what happened in Iraq when all the Iraqis were fired from their jobs: the resistance to the US got lots stronger.

[malloc]

grrrrrreat, now we have to ask you to define words again, if thats what you think a dictatorship is.

You don't consider China a dictatorship?

thousands of tanks and aircraft...flown by whom? Trump's having trouble keeping planes from diving into the ocean.

and it likely escapes you that soldiers have the right to refuse to fight what they consider unlawful orders.

Currently nearly half the country still supports Trump and his agenda. That leaves plenty of people willing to run the military. Soldiers may well have the right to refuse unlawful orders but plenty will agree with those orders, particularly if Trump purges the military of anyone who doesn't demonstrate enough loyalty.

[keenir]

grrrrrreat, now we have to ask you to define words again, if thats what you think a dictatorship is.

You don't consider China a dictatorship?

*sigh* yet again you move the goalposts, and then wonder why nobody is as panicked as you are. read your own post. Generations ago, China was a kingdom, and generations ago, my ancestors were mining the Welsh hills, likely with your ancestors shooting at them.

thousands of tanks and aircraft...flown by whom? Trump's having trouble keeping planes from diving into the ocean.
and it likely escapes you that soldiers have the right to refuse to fight what they consider unlawful orders.

Currently nearly half the country still supports Trump and his agenda.

so you claim, despite every political and quasi-political group in the US doing anything but supporting him or his agenda.

That leaves plenty of people willing to run the military. Soldiers may well have the right to refuse unlawful orders but plenty will agree with those orders, particularly if Trump purges the military of anyone who doesn't demonstrate enough loyalty.

clearly its escaped your notice, then, that firing the people who know what their jobs are and how to do them, does not make you better at getting that work done -- it doesn't matter how many yes-men you bring in to replace them...all you'd end up with, is a comedy skit.

[zompist]

it doesn't matter how many yes-men you bring in to replace them...all you'd end up with, is a comedy skit.

malloc might do well to reflect on the words of Karl Marx: "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."

Now, clowns on the world stage can do a lot of damage. But there's a scent of failure about Trump right now.

[bradrn]

malloc might do well to reflect on the words of Karl Marx: "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."

Huh… never knew that quote came from Marx. It’s always been a favourite of mine.

[zompist]

malloc might do well to reflect on the words of Karl Marx: "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."

Huh… never knew that quote came from Marx. It’s always been a favourite of mine.

It's one of those things that gets attributed to many people, but I looked it up. It's from The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 1852.

[Raphael]

Huh… never knew that quote came from Marx. It’s always been a favourite of mine.

It's one of those things that gets attributed to many people, but I looked it up. It's from The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 1852.

Fittingly asserting that the original Napoleon was the tragedy, and Napoleon III (known as Louis Napoleon Bonaparte before he became emperor) the farce.