United States Politics Thread 47

[Ahzoh]

the Nazis started WWII,

The first formal declaration of war was made by Great Britain, if that counts as "starting".

The Nazis caused Great Britain to start the war because Germany kept taking land with little to no push back until they invaded Poland.

Part of fascist ideology is the constant need to conquer.

[rotting bones]

I'm sick, but I wanted to give a heads up: I hear there is going to be an additional 10% tariff on Canadian crude tomorrow. Canada is threatening to cut off electricity in retaliation. Soon EU tariffs are incoming. Trump says he's not looking for counteroffers, just massive tariffs all around. "Tariff is one of the most beautiful words in the English language," or something. Meanwhile, Elon Musk is strategizing to intercept the government's payment streams.

No matter how this goes down, having loose cash out of the bank and possibly saving up groceries for the next week might not be the most terrible idea in the world.

[zompist]

From The Mary Sue:

In an interview on CNN, [ICE czar] Homan whined that undocumented migrants living in sanctuary cities are too “educated” about their rights, and that makes them “very difficult” to arrest. Homans statements are another example of the Republican habit of saying the quiet part out loud, implying that the Trump administration blatantly and criminally intends to violate the rights of migrants, and would rather keep those migrants uninformed of their rights in order to facilitate unlawful deportations.

Making the moral more explicit: resistance works. If the guy wanting to do illegal things feel stymied and can't make his quotas... then informing immigrants of their rights, resisting warrantless searches, etc. is keeping them from doing all they want to.

Or as AOC put it: "Yes, this administration is dangerous and cruel, but they are also shockingly dim and incompetent. [...] Resist every demand. Refuse entry without a warrant. Don’t take the buyout. Their problem solving skills are "

[rotting bones]

Many of these people know they're evil and relish it. To them, the cruelty is the point.

Some people are just ontologically evil.

Many of them have a powerful intuition that it's moral to be cruel. They have been literally using the term the "sin of empathy".

A para-Lacanian observation: In order to motivate oneself to rigidly follow moral principles regardless of the consequences like a Kantian, one surely has to enjoy the evil consequences in some capacity. When looked at in that light, deontological ethics looks like a shallow mask on a mental topology that's identical to de Sade's philosophy of obscene enjoyment. Some people enjoy causing suffering by telling truths. Others enjoy causing suffering through sexual brutality. The difference between the Kantian and the Sadist is one of aesthetics.

I'm starting to empathize with the Soviet Union institutionalizing these people. Committing them to a mental asylum might be the humane response to their actions.

[Ahzoh]

I'm sick, but I wanted to give a heads up: I hear there is going to be an additional 10% tariff on Canadian crude tomorrow. Canada is threatening to cut off electricity in retaliation. Soon EU tariffs are incoming. Trump says he's not looking for counteroffers, just massive tariffs all around. "Tariff is one of the most beautiful words in the English language," or something. Meanwhile, Elon Musk is strategizing to intercept the government's payment streams.

No matter how this goes down, having loose cash out of the bank and possibly saving up groceries for the next week might not be the most terrible idea in the world.

Too bad all of my money is in my bank account, not that I have much of anything anyways. I'm more concerned for my mom who is working in the States.

[Ahzoh]

From The Mary Sue:

In an interview on CNN, [ICE czar] Homan whined that undocumented migrants living in sanctuary cities are too “educated” about their rights, and that makes them “very difficult” to arrest. Homans statements are another example of the Republican habit of saying the quiet part out loud, implying that the Trump administration blatantly and criminally intends to violate the rights of migrants, and would rather keep those migrants uninformed of their rights in order to facilitate unlawful deportations.

Making the moral more explicit: resistance works. If the guy wanting to do illegal things feel stymied and can't make his quotas... then informing immigrants of their rights, resisting warrantless searches, etc. is keeping them from doing all they want to.

Or as AOC put it: "Yes, this administration is dangerous and cruel, but they are also shockingly dim and incompetent. [...] Resist every demand. Refuse entry without a warrant. Don’t take the buyout. Their problem solving skills are "

There are many things I want to say to this but I have to be careful of what I say online lest the border people see this and bar me from visiting my mum in the states.

[jcb]

when I heard he blamed DEI hiring, I thought the next line was going to be "in Blackhawk helicopter pilots."

That would make sense, but I doubt that Trump thought that far ahead. He probably just thought up what to say in that very moment and rolled with it.

Journalists are increasingly terrified of getting in his crosshairs and getting sued for defamation or worse.

Speaking of which:
- https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79d74nppvpo

As an aside, notice this line:

Around $22m of the settlement will go to a fund for Trump's presidential library.

This is highly ironic, considering Trump is literally functionally illiterate.
- https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1 ... Illiterate
- https://donewiththebullshit.quora.com/I ... illiterate
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LFkN7QGp2c

I remember 20 years ago that people were always making fun of Bush for being dumb and illiterate ("He said 'nucular'!"), but that was part of his folksy persona to seem more down-to-earth instead of the rich oligarch that he really was. But Trump actually is illiterate (and an oligarch).

[keenir]

I'm sick, but I wanted to give a heads up

I hope you make a full recovery soon; keep safe.

[MacAnDàil]

So, if I understand it, the Republicans are now defunding the police. https://www.axios.com/2025/01/31/trump- ... mocrats-ad

And, even before that, there was a Republican to Democratic shift of 23 points for Democratic victory: https://www.radioiowa.com/2025/01/28/de ... 21-points/.

[keenir]

Not sure if its just youtubers making a joke, or it actually happened, but supposedly Canada stopped sending oil and crude to the US today.

If thats true, we may be about to see how fast Republicans can impeach Trump. With as many jobs as cutoff is going to cost, not even MAGA can save him,

[alice]

the Nazis started WWII,

The first formal declaration of war was made by Great Britain, if that counts as "starting".

I think invading a neighbour multiple neighbours is generally counted as "starting", no matter who wrote the fact they were at war down first

It's a small point, I'll happily concede. But I do remember reading a very serious book about WWII some years ago which went to some lengths to point it out.

[Ahzoh]

Not sure if its just youtubers making a joke, or it actually happened, but supposedly Canada stopped sending oil and crude to the US today.

If thats true, we may be about to see how fast Republicans can impeach Trump. With as many jobs as cutoff is going to cost, not even MAGA can save him,

Assuming America doesn't just look for new people to get oil from.

[keenir]

Not sure if its just youtubers making a joke, or it actually happened, but supposedly Canada stopped sending oil and crude to the US today.

If thats true, we may be about to see how fast Republicans can impeach Trump. With as many jobs as cutoff is going to cost, not even MAGA can save him,

Assuming America doesn't just look for new people to get oil from.

given we get 60% of our crude and oil from Canada, that'd be more than hard.

[Linguoboy]

Even if Republicans lose, then what?

This is a question that no one has provided a good answer to.

We're where we are now because the Democratic solution to the challenge posed by the GOP's pivot to fascism was "don't let them get elected". That failed, and now we have a coup in progress. I'm not exaggerating. Trump is currently purging the security establishment of anyone who might show him any resistance while Elon Musk has taken over the Office of Personnel Management.and is trying to stop the Treasury Department from disbursing payments. We have no idea what his people are doing with the systems they now have access to or the information contained within. And yet folks feel confident saying, "Oh, well, we'll get them in the midterms"?

The Democrats are sponsored by the same billionaires and corporations that sponsor Republicans and their economic policies overlap to a very large degree. Notice that no major media outlet in the US espouses economically left wing views.

To expand on this: Capitalism as currently practiced in the USA is immiserating millions and destroying the planet. AFAICT, the Democratic party are not actually interested in putting a stop to this. At best, they show a grudging willingness to immiserate the masses a bit less and destroy the world a little more slowly, as long as it benefits them electorally.

[keenir]

I was more than a little surprised that one of Trump's Federal appointments, is talking about running for State office in 2026.

...I'm not sure if he's that confident that he'll be as short-lived in Federal office as any of the people of Trump's first term, or he has something up his sleeve.

[jcb]

This is a question that no one has provided a good answer to.

May I suggest that the Democrats try real populism (again)? (And if their billionaire donors won't let them, then the donors need to be ejected from the party. Dems need to realize that being captured by rich donors that will be fine no matter who's president (or whether there's even a democracy) ultimately blocks progress.)

And yet folks feel confident saying, "Oh, well, we'll get them in the midterms"?

The big question is when Trump inevitably tries to remain in power 4 years from now, what side are the police, and more importantly, the military, going to be on?

[Linguoboy]

This is a question that no one has provided a good answer to.

May I suggest that the Democrats try real populism (again)?

I'm all for it, as long as it's not code for "ditching anyone in our coalition who's perceived as inconvenient for courting the white working-class vote". In the wake of the Democrat's humiliating electoral loss, there was lots of casting about for scapegoats. We were told that the Dems' support for trans rights (which was much more perceived that real, but that's an entirely different rant) alienated "real Americans", as did their "weakness" in confronting protests on college campuses. If that's your idea of what "populism" means, then count me out.

Let me tell ya, folks: When it comes time to take to the streets in protest against the more hideous planks in the Project 2025 agenda, we're all going to wish we'd asserted the right to allow free exercise of First Amendment rights a little more vigorously. And any party that ditches support for trans folk is not one I want to be a part of. Not just because I have many trans friends or because they're among the most vulnerable and vilified minorities in the country right now, but because it shows a complete ignorance of the history of the rise of fascism. Before the Nazis came for the Jews, they came for the queers. (Hirchfeld's nstitut für Sexualwissenschaft was looted and destroyed in 1933; the first Nuremberg Laws came into effect in 1935.) The MAGAs have been persecuting trans folks for years to see if we'd push back; we didn't, and now guess who's gonna be next.

[jcb]

I'm all for it, as long as it's not code for "ditching anyone in our coalition who's perceived as inconvenient for courting the white working-class vote".

It's not. It's the billionaires that need to be ditched.

[Ahzoh]

I'm all for it, as long as it's not code for "ditching anyone in our coalition who's perceived as inconvenient for courting the white working-class vote".

It's not. It's the billionaires that need to be ditched.

The Democrats right now are instead concluding that it's caring about LGBT rights that makes them unelectible, so they're slowly going more towards right wing populism.

Also Fettermam is a traitor and I wish he didn't survive that stroke, it clearly fried his brain.

[Ares Land]

This is a question that no one has provided a good answer to.

May I suggest that the Democrats try real populism (again)?

I'm all for it, as long as it's not code for "ditching anyone in our coalition who's perceived as inconvenient for courting the white working-class vote". In the wake of the Democrat's humiliating electoral loss, there was lots of casting about for scapegoats. We were told that the Dems' support for trans rights (which was much more perceived that real, but that's an entirely different rant) alienated "real Americans", as did their "weakness" in confronting protests on college campuses. If that's your idea of what "populism" means, then count me out.

I'd be wary of left-wing populism. We have that in Europe, and it's definitely part of the problem, not of the solution.

The Democrats taking a real turn left, yes, definitely, that would both be a good thing and possibly (with the caveat that I don't know the average American voter that well ) a winning strategy.