United States Politics Thread 47

[naz]

o

[keenir]

I think that, for my part, I'm presuming that, when Trump makes an announcement, he's either already signed the relevant Decree, or is about to.

Why?

Almost everything that leaves his mouth is lacking any substance or basis in fact.

definately true.

Why on earth would you ever do that?

its easier than trying to work out when the tarriffs are actually put in place and people have to pay them...easier to watch the bluster/announcement, and the withdrawl.

[Raphael]

Unfortunately, even actually getting their faces eaten by leopards won't necessarily lead people to stop supporting the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3vd1vn9n06o

[Dune]

This might, at first sight, not sound like a political case of silliness, but I'd say it has deeply, deeply political implications:

A Bluesky post featuring a screenshot of an excerpt from an article by an outlet called "Fast Company":

[snipped: stuff about micro-retirements]

... huh. Well, I didn't expect this to pop up here.

I work for an outlet (not Fast Company) that wrote about this "trend" a ways back. I'm ... 99.99% sure this is not a real "Gen Z trend" that's being reported on. I mean, people ARE overworked and need more vacations, but the term micro-retirements did not have significant traction BEFORE the spate of articles on this went live.

I am damn sure this cute little coinage was cooked up quite deliberately in a writer's room somewhere in an attempt to go viral, probably in exactly this way. It's intentional rage-bait.

I can expand on this if anyone's curious, but the conversation's moved on and I don't want to derail things. Briefly, to me, this IS political-ish and kind of depressing, but has more to do with the degradation of journalism and online media in general (the profit motive forcing outlets to churn out low-quality pieces and manufacture outrage, etc.) than 2025's working conditions.

(Again, not saying work-life balance doesn't mostly suck, especially for early-career folks. It's just this one blowup that I'm virtually certain is manufactured.)

[Raphael]

I work for an outlet (not Fast Company) that wrote about this "trend" a ways back. I'm ... 99.99% sure this is not a real "Gen Z trend" that's being reported on. I mean, people ARE overworked and need more vacations, but the term micro-retirements did not have significant traction BEFORE the spate of articles on this went live.

I am damn sure this cute little coinage was cooked up quite deliberately in a writer's room somewhere in an attempt to go viral, probably in exactly this way. It's intentional rage-bait.

Hm. Possible. Thank you for that background info.

[bradrn]

I am damn sure this cute little coinage was cooked up quite deliberately in a writer's room somewhere in an attempt to go viral, probably in exactly this way. It's intentional rage-bait.

Interesting. And depressing in an entirely different way.

[jcb]

This might, at first sight, not sound like a political case of silliness, but I'd say it has deeply, deeply political implications:

A Bluesky post featuring a screenshot of an excerpt from an article by an outlet called "Fast Company":

[snipped: stuff about micro-retirements]

... huh. Well, I didn't expect this to pop up here.

I work for an outlet (not Fast Company) that wrote about this "trend" a ways back. I'm ... 99.99% sure this is not a real "Gen Z trend" that's being reported on. I mean, people ARE overworked and need more vacations, but the term micro-retirements did not have significant traction BEFORE the spate of articles on this went live.

I am damn sure this cute little coinage was cooked up quite deliberately in a writer's room somewhere in an attempt to go viral, probably in exactly this way. It's intentional rage-bait.

I can expand on this if anyone's curious, but the conversation's moved on and I don't want to derail things. Briefly, to me, this IS political-ish and kind of depressing, but has more to do with the degradation of journalism and online media in general (the profit motive forcing outlets to churn out low-quality pieces and manufacture outrage, etc.) than 2025's working conditions.

(Again, not saying work-life balance doesn't mostly suck, especially for early-career folks. It's just this one blowup that I'm virtually certain is manufactured.)

It sounds like a term Fox News would come up with to get rich boomers upset at "lazy, entitled, etc" young people, and therefore spur them to vote R.

[jcb]

So that's the thing to understand about conservatives: they are desperate. The stuff they want now-- white supremacy, no abortion, suppression of women, homophobia, throttled immigration, US manufacturing booming, non-challenging education-- is what the country had in the 1950s. They want everything since then reversed, and to hell with democracy because if things keep going as they have, they lose-- forever. Fox News is popular because it amplifies the sense of disquiet they already have and promises to implement that reversal.

I'm not convinced that Repubs will lose forever. Trump, with his pseudo-populism, has shown them a way to win enough working class and non-White votes to still win elections.
- https://jacobin.com/2024/11/working-cla ... rats-trump

And tariffs won't bring them back.

But people *think* that they will!, and Democrats don't have a counter to that!

[zompist]

I'm not convinced that Repubs will lose forever. Trump, with his pseudo-populism, has shown them a way to win enough working class and non-White votes to still win elections.

A party with electoral supremacy does not have to work so hard to suppress the vote. They're terrified of voters.

But people *think* that they will!,

Voters usually don't like raising taxes, which is what tariffs are. Or rising prices, which is what tariffs do.

It's too early to see what voters think, because the Republicans keep raising tariffs then pausing them. No one's going to build factories under those conditions. And if the Republicans tank our exports, a lot of American are going to lose their jobs. Oh wait, maybe their supporters can go get the toilet cleaning and crop picking jobs that ICE is opening up for them.

[keenir]

But people *think* that they will!,

Voters usually don't like raising taxes, which is what tariffs are. Or rising prices, which is what tariffs do.

It's too early to see what voters think, because the Republicans keep raising tariffs then pausing them. No one's going to build factories under those conditions. And if the Republicans tank our exports, a lot of American are going to lose their jobs. Oh wait, maybe their supporters can go get the toilet cleaning and crop picking jobs that ICE is opening up for them.

was it ICE's Noem who said that we can put to work all the people who were on Medicaid?

[Raphael]

Why is Trump suddenly so obsessed with rambling about Jeffrey Epstein?

[zompist]

Why is Trump suddenly so obsessed with rambling about Jeffrey Epstein?

Apparently, because the MAGAheads are full of conspiracy theories about Epstein. And that in turn is because Trump encouraged such conspiracy theories when he was a candidate... but wants them gone now.

[Raphael]

Content warning: sexualized violence.

Why is Trump suddenly so obsessed with rambling about Jeffrey Epstein?

Apparently, because the MAGAheads are full of conspiracy theories about Epstein. And that in turn is because Trump encouraged such conspiracy theories when he was a candidate... but wants them gone now.

I remember Musk bringing up Epstein when the Trump/Musk rift started. But I expected at the time that it would be a dud, because, frankly, I didn't think Trump fans would care how many people of whichever age Trump had raped.

[rotting bones]

Unfortunately, even actually getting their faces eaten by leopards won't necessarily lead people to stop supporting the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3vd1vn9n06o

"They don't deserve to be here," says the criminal migrant. Typical.

My working hypothesis is that every Trump voter is a criminal who's projecting.

[MacAnDàil]

you could move to vietnam? it's unlikely they'll elect a far right reactionary over there, and you'd save up on heating.

disclaimer: i know, i know, moving countries is a big deal, almost no one does it on account of politics unless they're facing a direct threat of violence from the government, blabla.

I don't understand contemporary Marxists who support China and Vietnam. These are market economies with political repression. If we're going to have market economies anyway, why not have free speech too with Social Democracy?

Of course, should any of these states fall, the result would be a genocide.

How would the fall of the Uighur genocidal PRC dictatorship result in genocide instead of the stopping thereof?

[MacAnDàil]

What people do you have in mind like that?

Poor people are often put off by the soaring, West Wing style rhetoric liberals really love. When you have trouble affording groceries, you don't want to listen to prose poetry about how society is becoming more just for other groups. What you want to do is break something.

Dividing the working class like this is dangerous for minorities. It has repeatedly led to fascism.

Not only is prose poetry an oxymoron, people react differently. I think most people with limited funds just want more food, not vandalism.

[Travis B.]

you could move to vietnam? it's unlikely they'll elect a far right reactionary over there, and you'd save up on heating.

disclaimer: i know, i know, moving countries is a big deal, almost no one does it on account of politics unless they're facing a direct threat of violence from the government, blabla.

I don't understand contemporary Marxists who support China and Vietnam. These are market economies with political repression. If we're going to have market economies anyway, why not have free speech too with Social Democracy?

Of course, should any of these states fall, the result would be a genocide.

How would the fall of the Uighur genocidal PRC dictatorship result in genocide instead of the stopping thereof?

Good question -- after all, in most cases the fall of dictatorships the world over has not resulted in genocide (when genocide has happened it has been when the dictatorship in question didn't simply fall and repression, whether from a resurgent dictatorship or a new dictatorship replacing the old, or civil war came out of it).

[Travis B.]

What people do you have in mind like that?

Poor people are often put off by the soaring, West Wing style rhetoric liberals really love. When you have trouble affording groceries, you don't want to listen to prose poetry about how society is becoming more just for other groups. What you want to do is break something.

Dividing the working class like this is dangerous for minorities. It has repeatedly led to fascism.

Not only is prose poetry an oxymoron, people react differently. I think most people with limited funds just want more food, not vandalism.

I personally have no sympathy for those who sold out the people over the price of eggs. And if your face is now being eaten by leopards, well, you're getting what you deserve. You should have thought first before you voted.

[rotting bones]

My statement about voter reactions to liberal rhetoric is not based on introspection. It's based on street interviews.

BTW I feel like, from prose poetry to the number of deaths after the fall of the Soviet Union (this is an objective report; search for socialist analyses of how capitalism played into this), you people don't actually know anything. Blame the miseducation your society has subjected you to since childhood. I'm in the same boat as you. It's not physically possible for a mere mortal such as I to teach you literally everything. My advice is to assume that you are psychotic, lose faith in your perception of reality, and study every subject, from literary theory to each decade of history, from scratch. With luck, we will be capable of having one true and original thought before we pass away.

[Travis B.]

My statement about voter reactions to liberal rhetoric is not based on introspection. It's based on street interviews.

So you are against seeking freedom and equality for all because of reactionaries who will react to the idea of freedom and equality for all by deliberately throwing minorities under the bus out of spite? Do you think those same reactionaries wouldn't throw minorities under the bus if you did not seek freedom and equality for all? You obviously don't realize that for these people 'liberal rhetoric' is just yet another excuse to be a bunch of assholes, as if they needed any excuses.

BTW I feel like, from prose poetry to the number of deaths after the fall of the Soviet Union (this is an objective report; search for socialist analyses of how capitalism played into this), you people don't actually know anything. Blame the miseducation your society has subjected you to since childhood. I'm in the same boat as you. It's not physically possible for a mere mortal such as I to teach you literally everything. My advice is to assume that you are psychotic, lose faith in your perception of reality, and study every subject, from literary theory to each decade of history, from scratch. With luck, we will be capable of having one true and original thought before we pass away.

You said genocide, which involves the deliberate act of killing, and you failed to explain how the fall of the PRC dictatorship would result in that, especially considering what the PRC dictatorship is doing right now to the Uighurs. And sure, the fall of the Soviet Union did involve increases in mortality, but in most cases that was not genocidal per se, and while there was genocide involved, it was to be completely honest on a rather limited scale (e.g. the genocide in Abkhazia).

If you wanted an example that would have supported your point somewhat better, it would have been the breakup of Yugoslavia -- except that inconveniently in that case what happened was the fault of nationalists and not democracy.