We are 1 Year and 3 months into this current administration, 2 years and 9 months remain. Despite the short period in office, so much damage and chaos has being caused by one individual and the sycophants who surround him.
It is a fact that the reputation of the USA has being damaged, perhaps not repairable for decades or more. This will have consequences.
Perhaps, I hope, Americans will take action to save the democratic norms and institutions that so many of them have claimed to cherish. Before he has dismantled and replaced too many to salvage. Or perhaps they have work tomorrow.
Approximately the same things were said about Dubya Jr's war with invisible WMDs. If you've forgotten - listen to some songs that came out at the time. It's not about a particular president, it's that the US seems to have a systemic dependency on starting these wars.
Information, both good and bad, is a lot more accessible this time around. It has been a dramatic accelerator to worldly views of America in the wake of their recent actions.
There are political similarities between the two aforementioned wars, but the social and technological backdrops are quite different, and they're working against US public perception. Furthermore, decorum is entirely gone this time around, which isn't helping.
Whole world would weep with joy if somebody like Bush jr would come into power now. Even when talking about that cocaine nepo kid of his cia chief father. I recall those times and emotions well from european perspective, not everybody here is 20-something.
These 2 are incomparable on any level. If you want to say it can always get worse that I can agree with.
and we're still experiencing damage from that war, and it's getting worse because of some things that it changed (patriot act, creation of homeland security, etc)
we've faced two major recessions since then and may very well be entering our third
at this point it seems we're just trying to find out where the breaking point is
How many people voted for that "one individual causing chaos" again? 70 million? He's also backed by billionaires and an administration that seems to be just as unhinged. It's not one person causing chaos, it's a whole country with its violent culture. The scale changed slightly, but it's also nothing new.
This. There are really two explanations here. Either the US hasn't been a democracy in the first place. Or the majority of the US voters prefer autocratic amoral psychopaths running their country.
> Either the US hasn't been a democracy in the first place.
Well, it really wasn't, and still isn't. It's a republic: the people decide who make the laws and who executes them. In between these choices there's never really been anything for the people to do but ask their representatives to do things.
Brits also voted to leave the EU where they had the absurdly privileged position of picking (almost freely) which rules applies to them, while benefiting from others applying them fully.
...
Democracy is only as good as the people doing the voting, who are about as good (as the rules they don't protest againsts) and the content they consume, which is about as good as certain groups make it to be.
What's particularly amazing about Brexit is that many of its chief architects have not been shamed or exiled from society for spinning a yarn that fell apart when confronted with the smallest slither of reality. No, instead, the primary advocate may very well be our next prime minister.
which in turn is brought to us by the good old days of our shared delusions, like divine right of kings (thx magic sky daddy and all his faithful unbiased selfless worldly interpreters!)
A slither of reality sounds snaky... and I ended up googling it and Google AI convincingly says both that it exists and also that it is confused with "sliver of reality", and its examples of "slither of reality" point to pages that use "sliver" instead.
I believe the influence is hidden in countries where smaller amounts have a bigger impact.
A few million can have an outsized influence in New Zealand. Which can mean other countries interfere (not just wealthy broligarches). There was a significant controversy in the 2005 New Zealand elections regarding budgets. It is alleged US fundamentalists funded the Exclusive Brethren Church to produce pamphlets in support of the National Party, by smearing both the Labour Party and the Green Party. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_New_Zealand_election_funding...
Peter Thiel was given a New Zealand passport by our National Party (maybe by being chummy, although obviously his wealth helped him). The only reason he might not influence NZ politics would be if he doesn't give a shit about our politics.
The wealthiest person born in New Zealand is Graeme Hart worth ~USD10G ranked by Forbes at about #340.
For the New Zealand 2023 General Election, political parties officially spent a total of about USD8M.
exactly. and i think a lot of things have always been this way in the mighty usa. the only difference is, that the donald behaves like a brazen clown, not trying to hide anything, so it is easier for everyone to see what's going on.
Thing is, that is not just the individual, the world lost the trust in the american vote. Trump was elected twice, it is easy to imagine that another megalomaniac might be elected next.
In a democratic system, the ruler is a reflection of the majority of the population. Of course it can change during the course of the administration (as seen in the approval ratings), but the trust is lost and most countries now believe that, one way or another, the majority of the US population agree with some of the ideas behind Trump. The damage will not stop by the end of Trump's administration, it is truly the end of multilateralism as we knew it
My hope is that this will show weaknesses in our supposed "checks and balances" that can be patched later. If that means it takes an act of congress to even fire a single military weapon, so be it. That's just one example, but basically "they" need to backtrack and find every "hack" trump used and plug it so this never happens again.
I disagree. Plenty of republicans are vociferously disagreeing with Trump over Iran and Epstein. But even if your premise is true, what if the two-party system were constructed or manipulated by a foreign government with the express intent on dividing us? Maybe that should be addressed as well?
And the military. Who the majority of soldiers supports matters a lot since they have the final say when leaders cannot agree. Trump does a lot to gain favor with the military, democrats doesn't do much for them.
“First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement, so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the Pirate's Code to apply, and you're not. And thirdly, the Code is more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules.”
Turns out that last bit is how the US was setup. Oops.
Agreed, but the problem is that whichever party is in power wants to expand presidential authority, and only the minority party wants to reign it in. When the president flips, usually so do the parties in power. Plus you have to be enough majority to override a presidential veto. I don't see this ever workign out :-(
Worst case there will be another Republican president from the same tribe. We could be in for the same exact chaos and damage for another four years. This could go on for a long time.
Remember, Republicans get out and vote. They would rather suffer and destroy America just so the democrats don’t win.
I think a large part of why they do this and vote the way they do is because of comments like yours. Hacker news, Reddit, award shows, movies, universities, etc all have a constant drum beat of disdain and hate towards them. I think this motivates them into voting even if the vote is against their own interest.
Everything republican party do and everything republicans vote for ... are fault of the opposition. Always. Republicans are little helpless souls having no choice but cause maxinum harm as long as opposition in any for exists.
Look at what that party collectively stands for now, who they kick out and who they keep. They all stand behind trump.
I learned recently that there's actually a name for this concept. Murc's law states that in American politics, only Democrats are assumed to have agency.
Presumably democratic reforms could help change the dynamic if they changed the incentives. Right now, it's a politically viable strategy to just obstruct the other party when out of power, and politically unviable strategy for Congress to oppose a president from the same party. Both of which lead to a lot of dysfunction.
As an example, if Congress had multimember districts with an appropriate voting system (e.g. ranked choice voting for all members at the same time), then you can effectively nullify the power of gerrymandered voting districts (the current system, where effectively politicians choose voters rather than the other way around). Doing so would elevate the influence of general elections over party primaries. Then representatives would be less afraid of challenges in those primaries, which is currently one of the major disincentives in opposing the president of the same political party (fear of being "primaried").
That is just progressive vs conservative, ie changing things vs conserving things, humans are biased to conserve things unless the set of changes are overwhelmingly better.
So conservatives win when progressives push for too many changes, not changing things is the default. So saying that the democrats lost the election by pushing too fast is not weird, that is just how humans works.
There's definitely an asymmetry in how the systemic dysfunction benefits the Republican party over the Democratic party. (Overall the system benefits both parties though since it entrenches partisanship.)
I'd argue that the asymmetry has less to do with change vs. no change and more to do with the Republican party currently being an "anti government" party (pivoting to that post New Deal). So less is expected of them in terms of functional governance.
With respect to change: I've heard a lot of commentary that the Republican party today is more of an instigator of change than the Democratic party (being seen as a defender of the status quo), despite the traditional alignment of Republican/conservative/no change. Democrats are seen as pro-institution and Republicans anti-institution.
In case it matters, I personally don't identify with a political party. I just want functional government and politics and I see a lot of dysfunction. I'm an engineer so naturally I gravitate towards systemic solutions to systemic problems.
> That is just progressive vs conservative, ie changing things vs conserving things.
Conserving distraction == wars, progressive distraction == LG, then B, then T, there are still letters in the alphabet to progress to - mandatory for school children to study in detail.
Conserving inflation same as progressive inflation, the small group benefiting form it - the same too.
Changing presidential candidates a few months before election and doing everything to let the other side win? Very progressive.
Promising no-more-wars and delivering more-wars? Very conservative.
Moral of the story - while 'progressive' and 'conservative' are used haphazardly, lacking precise and concrete definitions in terms of specific, measurable goals and commitments, using them for political analysis is just mud in the eyes.
Unironically yes. I lived in the Seattle area and witnessed firsthand the effects of state/county/city Democrat rule. Gifted programs cancelled, streets full of homeless and drug addicts. Hateful people yelling at and flipping me off as I take my kids to daycare for the heinous crime of driving a Tesla. I’m a well educated highly paid minority, the kind of voter that Democrats take for granted. I voted Republican down the ballot last election.
Assuming that people vote a certain way out of spite is narrow-minded. Talk to people outside of your bubble and try to understand them instead of reducing them down to caricatures. I don’t judge people on the left the way that I get judged by them. I genuinely think that my choice of political party is better for my family’s quality of life.
Well let me be the first to thank you for the extra dollar a litre on my fuel, the extra hundred or so dollars a month on my mortgage and the impending recession that your choice has imposed upon me here in Australia.
Thanks so much for voting in Trump and his enablers.
Rather than blame this voter, why don't we put some blame onto the democrats. In San Francisco, progressive democrats have wasted billions on homeless and crime but with little to show for.
Sometimes democrats do push too far left. Far left is not that much different than far right.
Horseshoe theory is real, but much like Seattle, SF's biggest problem is politically active NIMBYs (and SF has more than most places). Democrats and Republicans both have NIMBYs, it transcends political boundaries.
I don’t really give a rats ass who runs the internals of your country, and what goes on in San Francisco seems like a you problem. Due to voters like this, Trump is now my problem many thousands of miles away.
Don’t underestimate just how much ill will he is generating around the world, especially in allied nations, by insulting leaders and pushing up all of our energy prices.
Strange that when Democrats mess things up “they didn’t do that” or “that’s a you problem” but when the other side does something you’re very quick to assign specific blame. One-sided thinking like this is why no one can find common ground anymore and politics has veered off into extremes.
There’s nothing strange or one-sided there at all.
One party or other mismanaging San Francisco or Seattle has zero effect on me here in Australia. A madman waving his dick around overseas and insulting everyone does though, and is costing me hundreds of dollars a month.
I think we're beyond the point of "you can't criticize them. That's mean and motivates them." At what point is the line drawn? Should it be in bad taste to criticize Orban supporters because it makes them support him more? What about Erdogan? Putin? Kim Jong Un? And why is it one sided that they can't be criticized, but it's all fair and good for their own leaders to demonize everyone? It's a silly double standard and people see through it now. Concern trolling stopped being effective years ago.
If you want to win elections, yes. You never convince voters by telling them that they are evil people. Its fine to say Trump is evil, its not fine to say Trump voters are evil because those voters will now be much less likely to vote for you. They can't take back their votes, they already voted for Trump before, so they will just not vote for you when you attack them like that.
Republicans have been calling democratic voters baby-killers for the entire time I have been aware of what a republican is. This sort of behavior has only gotten worse over time. They still manage to win elections.
I get that there are real asymmetries here, but I really don't think there are substantial blocs of swing voters who use "who has insulted them less" as a real factor. If that were the case, Trump would not have made the gains he did in 2024.
The important thing is to make people feel welcome in your coalition. It is clearly possible to do that either with or without being nice. It's just a different skillset.
If you have to lie to make a point, maybe the point is invalid. And the same goes for your other comments on this page ... they have no truth to them. Low quality trash comments like "[Newsom] does seem wildly corrupt though with extreme exceptions in bills for his friends and backers, more than other politicians I've seen" and "Betting sites are trusted third parties".
I will ignore further bad arguments and baseless claims from this source.
What you say is insightful and true. The west, America in particular, has a genuine problem today with its politics of polarising people to extremes. It partly has to do with how politics is done online in the internet, through the creation of "echo chambers" where no "dissent" is tolerated.
Dems have tried the strategy of pandering to republicans for decades. That strategy in 2024 backfired and made Dems not care about the election. The whole time republicans ran a campaign saying that blue haired democrats are harming kids and they're burning down cities and someone needs to lock them up all up. Republicans had a great election year.
Again, one sided. People are tired of it. More importantly, people are growing tired of the tolerance for the people who support the current happenings. Look around about what people who stayed out of the 2024 election said and it's that Dems were milquetoast and tried to be friendly and play both sides. Look around and see why republicans were fired up to vote. It's because they loved the demonization of Dems.
The funny thing is you can criticize the supporters. It's no problem. You can criticize Bush voters and everyone will agree with you. Why? Because nobody voted for Bush. Yet he won two elections. Meaning those people regretted their vote and now completely hide that they voted for him. They also retroactively hate the Iraq War, despite supporting it in 2003 and saying anyone who opposes it is unamerican. But those people will now say Dems started the war.
Trying to pull those people over is like trying to wrestle with a greased pig. No kind words will ever be enough to grab them. They're incredibly loyal to their side no matter what, and will deny ever supporting it the moment social pressure builds up too much. But interestingly, they also respect anger and vitriol against those they feel betrayed them. Republicans loved voting for Trump because he said he was against neocons and the Iraq War and all those people who voted for them. If Trump ever falls out of favor, those people who once supported him won't be begging for leniency. They'll put on a new hat and demand revenge against him and his supporters. They don't want a both aisles softy. They'll just pretend they were always against him.
> That strategy in 2024 backfired and made Dems not care about the election
Are you saying democrats didn't vote for Kamala since Kamala didn't call Trump voters evil? What are you on about? I see no reason why you should call Trump voters evil.
As I said its fine to call Trump evil, but why call the voters evil? What purpose does that serve?
> Are you saying democrats didn't vote for Kamala since Kamala didn't call Trump voters evil?
Dems were disillusioned by the Biden administration's lack of meaningful effort to nail the previous administration's criminals to the wall. Merrick Garland was an absolute failure.
Add in things like cozying up to the Cheneys, and the incorrect assumption Trump II would be similar to Trump I.
Everything Trump has done since he was re-elected made Democrats hate him more, and more publicly, and you know what, despite that Trump's ratings have steadily fallen.
If your thesis is true, you'd expect Trump's ratings to go up.
As far as I can see, partisan hatred doesn't matter, because pretty much everybody speaking and listening to such rhetorics have already made up their minds. The battle is fought in the middle, and these people don't care about latest Truth Social posts. They care about the price of gas.
Trump fucked with the one thing people will not forget about, because their livelihood depends on it. It's going to be... interesting.
That's a completely intellectually bankrupt argument that blames good people for the actions of bad people. It doesn't have a shred of fact or logic to support it.
Not me, trump should have at most received 1 to 2 percent in either primaries or the general election, even in 2016 we knew what sort of fellow he was, at least the folks who could read more than a paragraph in a sitting.
The primaries were the worst, at least the generals you get conservatives voting party lines, the primaries are where "conservatives" decided that trump was their guy. just go back and read up on republicans descriptions of trump before they had to get in line in the wake of the trump victories. I exclusively hold the trump voters in the primaries responsible. We're the sort of country of laws that traditionally says any loser can run for office, its our job as a society to keep at least a plausible set of standards for who we want in office. "Conservatives" who went trump either failed to do their due dilligence, or they are aligned with trumps value system which common decency prevents me from describing in any detail.
Why are all the Democrats Fox News (and the actual President of the United States himself) does a "constant drum beat of disdain and hate towards" not doing the same thing? Why is this only a concern on one side?
It may even be Trump again! Wouldn't be surprised if we see some movement towards removing presidential term limits. They weren't always in place and they can be removed again.
If you could design a perfect plan to destroy the United States, Donald Trump, probably through sheer buffoonish incompetence seems to be implementing it.
I don’t think he’s incompetent. He’s actually quite good at extracting wealth for himself/family/donors/friends out of whatever the administration is doing.
Iran is a distraction from the Epstein files, and the fact that many from the Trump circle appear in it - Trump himself, some of his children, Elon Musk, Steve Bannon, Peter Thiel, etc.
The war with Iran is also a way to make a few more suspicious trades on the market swings, especially the ones following each speech or decision. It would be easy to time trades if you know what will happen because you’re deciding it.
The US may be destroyed but it’s because it’s just collateral damage to the billionaires and Epstein class. Not because they’re incompetent. We need to contain their wealth and power with totally new laws.
You mistake for competence his greed and that of those who surround him. I don't think there was a plan to profit from the disaster; rather, they're so incompetent that they even lack the basic self-control to avoid publicly taking advantage of the mess they unwillingly caused, however bad and dangerous that might be.
I imagine Trump wanted to do some fun new things when he is old and will soon die. Its not many who get to experience what it feels like to start a war and kill world leaders, and when you are gonna die soon anyway why not?
I think this is the correct lense. He's a malignant narcissist on his way out, with absolutely nobody to stop him.
I'm genuinely worried that he secretly wants to go down in history as the crazy guy who set the oil fields on fire and dropped a nuke on Tehran or something.
Not sure what moves Trump- could be any of that or more. What we all know is that Netanyahu and Kushner found this and used it to get what they wanted. This is not Trump's war, he's not the initiator and he doesn't have goals of his own (though at times he might believe he does). It actually contradicts what he campaigned on for years.
The people who bay loudest about that second amendment have long signaled that they will kill to keep Trump in power. They've been salivating for an excuse to shoot democrats for decades. They have been openly advocating for the murder of democrats for ages. Democrat politicians were literally murdered in the past few years and they don't give a fuck, because they support it.
Trump is already well beyond the confines of the Constitution. If the 2A crowd gave a fuck about rights other than larping soldiers, they would have already marched on him. He has openly declared that guns should be taken away from people and that having a gun on you at a protest should justify shooting you. The 2A crowd continues to support him fully.
"He shouldn't have been carrying a gun" says Trump about someone fully in compliance with US law, who never even drew his weapon. "You can't walk in with guns". It's up to you to look up discussions about Kyle Rittenhouse and what republicans and Trump supporters believed about bringing a gun to a protest not very long ago.
Elected twice by the "(2A rights) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" crowd. You can bet they will continue to support him.
The standard dictatorial takeover of a democracy is to keep the elections and the presidency, but to add a supreme leader above the president, similar to what Iran or Russia or China is doing. So Trump would no longer be president, he would be supreme leader joining what the other world powers are doing.
If the doesn't turn up as the first US president to actually be impeached. You've got other two who got assasinated. The right to bear arms mskes that sort of thing a bit easier than impeachment.
1. A non-trivial proportion of us voted for Trump.
2. Blatantly kidnapping and assassinating heads of state is the culmination of US foreign policy and not an anomaly. The machine is working as designed.
The only foreign policy blunders I would attribute to Trump are the completely unnecessary spats with Canada and Denmark/the EU, although neither blunder seems to have made a dent in the ass kissing.
Honest? Trump is the most dishonest president in history. He literally says two diametrically opposite things:
- we don’t need any oil
- open up the strait or else severe consequences
Which is it?
Only fools think his opacity is a feature not a terrible bug.
Honest in the moral corruption and the endgame of the current political system, which is the power from the many to the few to the one ultimate authoritarian messiah.
But yeah, lots of lies that emphasize the honesty of the endgame.
> Perhaps, I hope, Americans will take action to save the democratic norms and institutions that so many of them have claimed to cherish. Before he has dismantled and replaced too many to salvage. Or perhaps they have work tomorrow.
I'm going to take action by voting in November. Or are you suggesting revolution is more prudent, that I should put my life on the line right now because the global economy is a little fucky?
Yes? I've been a poll worker for every election since 2018, I have no reason to believe they won't be this time around. Do you have reason to believe that Trump isn't just full of hot air, bluster and bullshit like usual (TACO)?
> US President Donald Trump, on Friday, February 13, threatened to try to bypass Congress and force new voting laws ahead of the November midterm elections, where his Republican Party fears losing control of the legislature. Trump said he would soon issue an executive order attempting to impose the rules if Congress does not pass a law requiring photo identification to vote and other nationwide reforms.
> "There will be Voter ID for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not!" Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. "If we can't get it through Congress, there are Legal reasons why this SCAM is not permitted. I will be presenting them shortly, in the form of an Executive Order," he wrote.
that makes absolute sense. on one hand legally voting process is delegated to the states, and we can argue about to what degree congress might be able to impose federal standards. but an executive order has absolutely no bearing on the situation legally.
but if you believe, as many people claim to, than an executive order is actually a federal law, then if some blue state decides to ignore such an executive order, then you can claim that the election process was tainted, illegal, and illegitimate. maybe you can even round up all the ballots in order to perform an 'investigation'. maybe send federal officers to check IDs. all kinds of things.
> which never accounts for the very bulk of what US really exports: IT and financial services
Given the growing demand to move away from US services and towards European alternatives, I wonder what the US will look like in 10 years if this move gains significant momentum.
For those who decried Hillary's E-Mail server but fail to apply the same standards to the current administration, it was never a real issue to begin with. Just performative nonsense.
> human using AI to 'improve' the quality of their comment
I want to hear people in their own voice, their own ideas, with their own words. I have no interest in reading AI generated comments with the same prose, vocabulary, and grammar.
I don't care if your writing is bad.
Additionally, I am sceptical that using AI to write comments on your behalf creates opportunities for self-improvement. I suspect this is all leading to a death of diversity in writing where comments increasingly have an aura of sameness.
No system is flawless. Every democratic system has its own issues. What is increasingly clear is that the current crop of tech billionaires do not belong anywhere near a position of power. God help us. The quality of individual is disappointing.
People aught to be questioning more the future vision of those in positions to shape it. Someone who struggles with such simple questions around humanity while simultaneously building the tools of a surveillance state probably should not be one of the individuals driving our future.
It's quite clear that my vision of the future is nothing like theirs.
It's a lot more comforting to believe that the people who have influence over us are there by some right of some kind.
Wether it be because they're "smarter than us and have completed capitalism" (that's how Gates, Ellison and ironically Trump/Musk are thought of)
or by "divine right" as it used to be with Kings.
It's horribly sobering to realise that, actually, they're just people. Like, pretty ordinary unremarkable people who have access to different information than we do and have been exposed to different things. Rarely are they more than a single standard deviation from the norm in intelligence.
They're people, flawed, egotistical, easily manipulated, easily dragged into thinking weird things, persuadable and unless they're really self-aware: will be surrounded by sycophants that just repeat what they want to hear (because, that feels pretty good) until they have a warped "echo of an echo" understanding of the world.
I wouldn't wish this on anyone, it's terrifying to believe that you would be insulated from all direct criticism while being told that everything you do is the right thing no matter what it is. You can't trust your own fucking reflection in that situation.
But we do that to people, people who have enormous influence over us, and they get confused when we don't like them, and we get confused about how they can be so out of touch and unlikable.
One outcome of the Epstein files release is getting direct evidence, very clearly, how goddamned stupid and crass and uninteresting these assholes are.
They talk like the dumbest 1850s british aristocrats. They talk as if they are discussing how lazy the Irish are and how that is definitely why they are starving. They have objectively stupid opinions. They believe themselves especially smart as they fire off one or two sentences about high school level philosophy topics, and they somehow find a way to generate wrong answers to questions that really shouldn't even have wrong answers. All the while, they misspell everything because apparently they are outright illiterate too.
Like, they say such utterly stupid things as "Women are too emotional to make good decisions". As if they don't do the things they do for extremely petty reasons.
And yet, still some morons all over the US think they must be geniuses because they fell ass backwards into a literal bubble and came out rich. You can publicly be an absolute moron and the Wealth propaganda in the US is so bad people will still insist you must be magically genius and only pretending to be stupid.
Did they even encrypt their "I'd like to purchase a rape of a little girl please" emails?
https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Flock_license_plate_readers
And more about the company behind the cameras:
https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Flock_Safety
reply