Politics & Stuff

[Vesper 28,796]

We must recognize MAGA Republicans for what they are, a fascist movement determined to destroy American democracy. This ad from @MissnDemocracy is becoming our reality, we must do everything in our power to vote them all out.

 

 

[Thor 2,392]

America really is a drag on the rest of the world. Their politics bleed into the rest of the western world, and people who don't really have any issues take on theirs and bring it to their own country. 

Right vs left is never more apparent everywhere than it is now. 

Bonus tip - they're both the same shit, with different flavour. No one is here to help you. Pick your shittery - death by a dependance system or death by lack of funding to key areas. 

[Vesper 28,796]

13 minutes ago, Thor said:

death by a dependance system

RW talking point

[robsblubot 3,504]

22 minutes ago, Thor said:

America really is a drag on the rest of the world. Their politics bleed into the rest of the western world, and people who don't really have any issues take on theirs and bring it to their own country. 

Right vs left is never more apparent everywhere than it is now. 

Bonus tip - they're both the same shit, with different flavour. No one is here to help you. Pick your shittery - death by a dependance system or death by lack of funding to key areas. 

I'd agree if we were talking democrats vs republicans of old.

"death by a dependance system" is a silly talking point because it presumes a binary choice, where very little in life is. It's same trick they do with health care: they propose a binary choice when it does not have to be.

MAGA and Trump is not a normal republican thing; I think this is the part that folks outside of the US don't get: Trump wants to change so much that *that* will definitely bleed into the rest of the western world.

I feel Trump has a transactional relationship with the Republican Party likely the same way he has with his wife. 😅

Edited September 19, 2023 by robsblubot

[Thor 2,392]

25 minutes ago, robsblubot said:

I'd agree if we were talking democrats vs republicans of old.

"death by a dependance system" is a silly talking point because it presumes a binary choice, where very little in life is. It's same trick they do with health care: they propose a binary choice when it does not have to be.

MAGA and Trump is not a normal republican thing; I think this is the part that folks outside of the US don't get: Trump wants to change so much that *that* will definitely bleed into the rest of the western world.

I feel Trump has a transactional relationship with the Republican Party likely the same way he has with his wife. 😅

They're both one in the same and obviously its a lot more highly complex than a binary choice - but in a very generic way of oversimplifying - they both don't support the way they're supposed to, in order to keep differentiation and keep the ponzi going that is left vs right? 

[Thor 2,392]

35 minutes ago, Vesper said:

RW talking point

Not sure I understand? 

[robsblubot 3,504]

Just now, Thor said:

They're both one in the same and obviously its a lot more highly complex than a binary choice - but in a very generic way of oversimplifying - they both don't support the way they're supposed to, in order to keep differentiation and keep the ponzi going that is left vs right? 

sure the lack of representation is an issue in politics and worst in the US esp because of the amount of money in politics.

Though, my warning again is that MAGA/Trump is a different beast that goes way beyond 👆

[Thor 2,392]

Just now, robsblubot said:

sure the lack of representation is an issue in politics and worst in the US esp because of the amount of money in politics.

Though, my warning again is that MAGA/Trump is a different beast that goes way beyond 👆

Maybe, maybe not. 

I think COVID has more of a part to play in things than anything. People were stuck at home, bored, many lost jobs, and thus purpose and meaning. Attached themselves to shit/ideologies they found on the internet to give themselves purpose again, and its held strong and fast - either one way or the other. 

I'm from Australia - our lives are good here. But even now, we get the worst part of these radical movements from both sides of the left and right of America. We're slowly starting to get more issues - when most people here are centrist in reality - don't care, and just want to live life. 

[Vesper 28,796]

27 minutes ago, Thor said:

Not sure I understand? 

the construct that an expansive social safety net and social welfare system (such as our Nordic Model) is somehow 'death'

is a right wing talking point

[Thor 2,392]

2 minutes ago, Vesper said:

the construct that an expansive social safety net and social welfare system (such as our Nordic Model) is somehow 'death'

is a right wing talking point

Oh okay. Well I don't vote for either right or left - so I don't care about what is seen as what. 

There are pros and cons with both types of systems. 

Something will always fall to the wayside no matter which one is employed. I think it also depends on the cultural aspect of the country. I think a Nordic system works well over where it is. In Australia though, people take the piss too much, and too many lazy bastards who don't want to work and find any excuse to blame. 

The reality is - there is no one size fits all. Leaders should be far more analytical and look historically what has worked best for their countries. But often times its all about perception and getting whatever it is that is the narrative passed through as a bill, etc. 

[Vesper 28,796]

Joining a four-tier Europe would protect Britain from the coming storm

It's not just the survival of the union that is at stake, but the survival of democracy

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/joining-a-four-tier-europe-would-protect-britain-from-the-coming-storm/

A Franco-German report last week proposed a “four-tier Europe” as the solution to the diverging priorities of EU states. There would be an inner circle, modelled on Schengen and the eurozone, consisting of countries prepared to pool their sovereignty around issues like energy, taxation and climate change.

The second tier would be the EU itself, governed by more expansive qualified majority voting (QMV). The third tier would streamline relationships with the EEA countries, Switzerland and perhaps the UK. The fourth tier would be the European Political Community, including Ukraine, Turkey, Moldova and parts of the Caucasus.

The move was seen by the right wing press here as a gambit to lure Britain back into an organised relationship with Brussels. It coincided with Keir Starmer’s assertion that he had no desire to diverge from EU standards, further enraging the Brexiteers.

In fact, the proposal was designed as a response to the challenge of integrating Ukraine, and attacks on the rule of law by populist governments in existing member states like Poland and Hungary.

So the real question – even for Brits like myself who favour a project of reconvergence with the EU – is whether the proposal meets the severity of the situation. The answer is: it might, if its organisational boldness were matched by a revolution in political attitudes among European centrist politicians.

Let’s state the strategic challenge clearly. Deglobalisation is under way. It is speeding up, it is irreversible and it coincides with an explicit challenge to the rules-based order, not just by Russia but by China and the BRICS+ alliance (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). Those within Europe who saw “strategic autonomy” as a nice-to-have option, loosening the EU’s ties to the US while avoiding any defence or geo-strategic assertiveness, have been disabused.

As Christine Lagarde, head of the European Central Bank, put it in April, the forces of disintegration are so strong that we may even see the world divided into just two blocs, two currency areas and two broad value systems. If Europe is to be “strategically autonomous” in this situation, it must be so as part of a western alliance committed to the charter system, the rule of international law and – via Nato – deterrence of aggression.

The EU’s most pressing challenge is not, in this context, formal enlargement, but how to avoid being ripped apart by a Russian hybrid warfare offensive that uses domestic right wing populism and social media manipulation to send more of its member states down the path of Viktor Orbán’s Hungary (with Slovakia most imminently at risk).

---

Here the answer is not, immediately, a change of structure or an increase in QMV. It lies in the determination of the liberal centre in Europe to fight and win political battles against right wing populism. And this, as Donald Tusk’s Civic Platform is finding out in Poland, is hard to do when your opponent is prepared to use a mixture of chauvinism and welfarism, and you yourself cannot offer a credible programme of economic justice.

So much as I would like to see the EU reformed in the way suggested – as a hybrid system, with the commission and the parliament strengthened, and national governments given opt-outs from moves to further integration – this will only be possible after the political defeat of the populist right.

Alongside the extension and deepening of democracy in the EU, I want to see all politicians of the left and centre embrace the idea of Militant Democracy, as first outlined by the German-American jurist Karl Lowenstein in the 1930s. 

Sure, we must tolerate the right of racists, xenophobes and anti-vaccine wingnuts to free speech and the right of assembly. But the political centre needs to stop regarding such movements as quaint aberrations: they are the avowed enemy of the European project and its values, and must be fought. That means isolating, stigmatising and thwarting their attempts to normalise semi-fascism and Russian influence through all means necessary.

As for Britain’s potential role in a four-tier Europe, the recognition by the EU of a formalised third tier would clear the atmosphere. With Starmer committed to a “no divergence” philosophy, even if he cannot be persuaded to re-enter the customs union in the first five years of a Labour government, the more formal relationships there are between London and Brussels the better.

The unanswered question remains: will American democracy survive? I’m finding, even among educated business types on six-figure salaries, a distinct unwillingness to confront the possibility that it won’t. It is so far above the pay grade of even senior people in the civil service, military and political class of Europe that it seems unthinkable. 

The question that really haunts the Group of 12 report is this: what if Trump wins the 2024 US election, either from jail or from bail, pardons himself and the January 6 insurrectionaries, and unleashes constitutional disorder on America?

That would be a slam dunk for the combined forces of Vladimir Putin and Rupert Murdoch (now retired but still a backseat driver). Even something close to that – a right wing Republican presidency that walks away both from Nato and the Ramstein Group supporting Ukraine, would demand an immediate “regime change of the mind” in European capitals.

So yes, a four-tier Europe sounds like part of the survival strategy for the project of ever-closer union. But the survival of democracy is what’s really at stake, and we should be open with each other that it’s not assured. 

 

Edited September 26, 2023 by Vesper

[cosmicway 1,323]

All the big empires die for one reason:
Taxation without representation.
In all the Roman films James Mason argues in favour of incorporating the Gauls, the Brittons and the Allemans into the empire.
The Powellite opposition becomes enraged and argue in favour of all these men being born to be slaves of Rome and eaten by the lions.
The Powellites win and the empire crumbles

[robsblubot 3,504]

5 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

All the big empires die for one reason:
Taxation without representation.
In all the Roman films James Mason argues in favour of incorporating the Gauls, the Brittons and the Allemans into the empire.
The Powellite opposition becomes enraged and argue in favour of all these men being born to be slaves of Rome and eaten by the lions.
The Powellites win and the empire crumbles

True

I just disagree w/ the right especially on the why. US most prosperous moment came during a period of high taxation and a large middle class; Scandinavian nations are prosperous with high taxation.

US's representation right now is at all time low because corporations--who are people too lol--and wealthy donors' actions outweigh everything else by a very large margin. Who cares which clown we pick, if the moneys decide which clown is available for us to pick?

Quote

“We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

Written by then-Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, this bold condemnation from 1941 considers the impact of wealth inequality on American democracy—an inequality that has since widened to levels not seen since the Gilded Age.

It's quite obvious how extreme wealth concentration can work against democracy, as we have unelected world leaders prancing around and doing whatever the fuck they want (some are very visible while others not so much). There are great videos on YouTube which help visualize the wealth difference we are talking about; it's not easy to grasp without some tool. We are not talking about "the rich" here... need to throw the word "obscenely" in there.

[cosmicway 1,323]

6 minutes ago, robsblubot said:

True

I just disagree w/ the right especially on the why. US most prosperous moment came during a period of high taxation and a large middle class; Scandinavian nations are prosperous with high taxation.

US's representation right now is at all time low because corporations--who are people too lol--and wealthy donors' actions outweigh everything else by a very large margin. Who cares which clown we pick, if the moneys decide which clown is available for us to pick?

It's quite obvious how extreme wealth concentration can work against democracy, as we have unelected world leaders prancing around and doing whatever the fuck they want (some are very visible while others not so much). There are great videos on YouTube which help visualize the wealth difference we are talking about; it's not easy to grasp without some tool. We are not talking about "the rich" here... need to throw the word "obscenely" in there.

Yes, but taxation is not only to collect money for the state but also to shape the economic ecosystem.
Imagine this:
You are the owner of a famous night club, les belles de nuit.
Somebody alse opens a new night club, the smart cat.
You send the heavies to take the smart cat out.
Where smart cat stood a crater now appears, the size of a small asteroid impact.
If you do that the police will start making investigations and they may even arrest you for the bomb.

But what if you play smart ?
You go to the government ministers, or the EU, or the king - whoever is in charge - with a treasure chest and you ask them to close down the smart cat.
Legislation is enacted. problem solved.

[Fulham Broadway 16,838]

Breaking News;

Donald Trump "repeatedly" misrepresented his wealth - by up to $3.6bn (£3bn) - to banks and insurers, in order to get cheap loans, a New York judge has ruled.

 

[robsblubot 3,504]

13 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

Yes, but taxation is not only to collect money for the state but also to shape the economic ecosystem.
Imagine this:
You are the owner of a famous night club, les belles de nuit.
Somebody alse opens a new night club, the smart cat.
You send the heavies to take the smart cat out.
Where smart cat stood a crater now appears, the size of a small asteroid impact.
If you do that the police will start making investigations and they may even arrest you for the bomb.

But what if you play smart ?
You go to the government ministers, or the EU, or the king - whoever is in charge - with a treasure chest and you ask them to close down the smart cat.
Legislation is enacted. problem solved.

yup, that's exactly what was suggesting the obscenely wealthy and/or corporations do above; it's definitely not only by selecting candidates out of a pool. The oil industry is notorious for that (high operational cost and high liability).
Evidently it's more subtly done, and at the same time not really; they also don't have to stay within the borders if going overseas can be beneficial (too may examples to give).
Easier even if you go do your investing, hmm laundering, in countries which already have friendly legislation around that. 😉 

Edited September 26, 2023 by robsblubot

[cosmicway 1,323]

8 minutes ago, robsblubot said:

yup, that's exactly what was suggesting the obscenely wealthy and/or corporations do above; it's definitely not only by selecting candidates out of a pool. The oil industry is notorious for that (high operational cost and high liability).
Evidently it's more subtly done, and at the same time not really; they also don't have to stay within the borders if going overseas can be beneficial (too may examples to give).
Easier even if you go do your investing, hmm laundering, in countries which already have friendly legislation around that. 😉 

I would n't be worried if there were political parties opposing this trend.
Because if so then the establishment lives on borrowed time, has a time limit.
But there are n't.
 

[robsblubot 3,504]

4 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

I would n't be worried if there were political parties opposing this trend.
Because if so then the establishment lives on borrowed time, has a time limit.
But there are n't.
 

it's the opposite--they welcome it. That's why money in politics has be growing steadily for a long time now.

Citizens United ("corporations are people too") ruling just opened the floodgates even more; no need to even disclose the source of the moneys.

Edited September 26, 2023 by robsblubot