Politics & Stuff

[Thor 2,361]

22 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Lets face it whoever wins the US election , to most Americans it wont make the slightest difference to their lives - bit of tax tinkering here, slight change in which brown people get bombed.

The whole charade is like a TV reality show - which is why one ex TV Reality star is up there doing well

People are getting divided and polarised via social media, totally played by the billionaires.

Nah mate - its all over. You don't get it. 

 

 

 

🤣

[Vesper 28,288]

11 hours ago, Thor said:

You’re a perfect example of someone getting worked up about things. To be honest - that don’t even impact you that much. You don’t live near America and are thus invested…

You are a perfect example of someone who fails to see the global interconnectedness of the American led (the US is by far the single most powerful actor on the planet) geo-military, geo-political, geo-economic superstructures.

The old saying goes 'When America sneezes, the world catches a cold'.

A Trumpian takeover of the American tripartite syem of governance (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) would open of the door to global chaos, far from limited to just what will happen in the US itself. You run the extreme risk of a series of totalitarian states making power moves on a regional basis, as those despotic leaders (who Trumps so desperately wants to emulate, and who he has expressed admiration and praise for for ages) will likely feel they can do what they want with Trump in power.

China/Taiwan

Russia ramping up actions against Ukraine, then on to the Baltics and/or Poland (Trump publically has said quote, *Putin can do whatver the hell he wants') as Trump has a real hatred of NATO. Putin has made hundreds of theats to us here in Sweden and Finland since we joined NATO.

North Korea pushing all sorts of chaos buttons.

Israel, with an even further emboldened (by Trump's election) Bibi going even futher down the ethnic cleansing line with Gaza and The West Bank.

Hungary (a NATO member) moving futher into the Russian sphere under another of Trump's objects of envy (Orban).

India, under the RW Modi ramping up regional power plays, especially with Pakistan.

Turkey (another NATO member) flexing its muscles even more, and likely making large moves against the Kurds.

In Africa, dog knows what spiralling of conflicts will occur, with bad actors banking on an isolationist US staying out no matter what carnage ensues.

RW erstwhile dicators in South and Central America once again trying to instigate coups d'état, banking on non-interference (if not outright support) from the Trump adminstration.

 

Economically, Trump will very likely start up serious trade wars (his insane tariff regimes, for instance) which will lead to vast-reaching global systemic instabilty, plus consumer price explosion in the US and so many other nations. Trade wars can become shooting wars in certain situations, especailly if they rise to blockade levels.

 

That is just a brief list of some (certainly not all) of the systemic dangers that Trump (especially if the Republicans have control of both chambers of Congress) poses if he gets back into power as POTUS.

[Thor 2,361]

Its just we saw him in power previously... and none of that happened. Not even close.

In fact - there was less global tension if anything. A lot broke out after he was no longer president. 

Its just insane to sit here and pretend it all peters to a boil and blasts off once he gets into power. Just ridiculous. Scare tactics and fear mongering. 

He more than likely comes in, does an bang ass average job like most presidents, and leaves. He isn't changing the democratic foundations of which the country was built on. 

[Vesper 28,288]

1 hour ago, Thor said:

He isn't changing the democratic foundations of which the country was built on. 

Denial is not just a river in  Egypt.

Trump is nothing if not a destroyer of democratic foundations, both in the past, the present, and the future.

He leads an authortiarian cult of personality that wants (and already has at a multiplicity of levels) to dramatically refashion US governance into an (to steal a line from one of his idols, Orban) illiberal quasi democracy..

I have posted extensively on this, with FULL documentation.

You (and some others) just flippantly toss out undocumented rhetoric that uses outright denialism (of both historic actions and stated future intent) to try and normalise the holistic threat. 

He has already said he will be a quote 'dictator on day one' (that seems fully in accord with democratic foundations,.............. NOT)

The Trumpian threat (just a few of the initiatives from a domestic level, but of course a lot of his threat is global in impact):

https://globalextremism.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/GAPHE-P25-Fact-Sheet.pdf

much more here

https://globalextremism.org/project-2025-the-far-right-playbook-for-american-authoritarianism/

snip

 

more:

 

On deportations, Trump expects a ‘bloody story’ in second term

In case Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant vision wasn’t already ugly enough, he now expects his deportation plan to become “a bloody story” in a second term.

 

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/deportations-trump-expects-bloody-story-second-term-rcna170250

As brutal as Donald Trump’s family-separation policy was during his presidency, the Republican hasn’t ruled out a sequel in a possible second term. In fact, as recently as Friday, the GOP nominee’s running mate, JD Vance, also hedged on whether to expect another round of family separations if voters return Trump to power.

But in case that weren’t quite enough, it was something the Republican presidential hopeful said a day later that was every bit as jarring. As USA Today’s Rex Huppke noted in his latest column:

At his weekend rally in Wisconsin, Trump brought up his sadistic plan to deport millions of immigrants, and he spun a dizzyingly dishonest tale about immigrants: “In Colorado they’re so brazen they’re taking over sections of the state. And you know, getting them out will be a bloody story.”

He did not appear to be kidding.

It’s worth emphasizing for context that the GOP candidate was referring to a bizarre claim about an apartment complex in Colorado — a story that, as my MSNBC colleague Ja’han Jones recently explained, has already been debunked.

But it was the use of the word “bloody” that stood out. As a Washington Post analysis explained, “It’s a pledge not just of the cruelty of ostracism or subjugation. It’s a promise that the purported dangers of immigrants will be met with force, with cracked skulls or — as Trump reportedly suggested while serving as president — gunfire.”

What’s more, let’s not lose sight of the larger pattern. Trump has targeted migrants with dehumanizing rhetoric that echoes Hitler — complaining about migrants “poisoning the blood of our country,” and insisting that migrants are “not humans” — all while promising to create militarized mass deportations and detention camps if voters reward him with a second term. He has even talked about putting migrants into a ring to fight for Americans’ entertainment.

In case that weren’t quite enough, at the recent Republican National Convention, attendees waved professionally made “MASS DEPORTATIONS NOW!” signs, while chanting “Send them back!” on the convention floor.

It was against that backdrop that Trump, who has long talked up the idea of targeting people he doesn’t like with state violence, promised “a bloody story” in his possible second term.

Those looking for evidence of the GOP candidate’s authoritarian vision have plenty of examples to choose from.

end

 

Who Trump wants to punish

During a speech and on social media over the weekend, the former president pledged retribution for his allies in new detail.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/09/09/who-trump-wants-punish/

No one has summarized the engine of Donald Trump’s politics more aptly than the Atlantic’s Adam Serwer, writing in 2018: The cruelty of his presentation and plans and promises is the point.

“It is that cruelty, and the delight it brings them,” Serwer wrote, “that binds his most ardent supporters to him, in shared scorn for those they hate and fear.”

All that has changed over the past six years is the extent to which that cruelty manifests and the urgency that Trump and his supporters feel in demanding it.

Speaking at a rally in Wisconsin on Saturday, Trump inveighed against immigrants, as he does, with his now-familiar hyperbole about the purported danger posed by those seeking new lives in the United States. When he announced his initial candidacy in June 2015, his comments about how Mexico was intentionally sending criminals and rapists into the country were met with backlash from Republican politicians still operating under the assumption that such dishonest hostility was anathema to Americans. It wasn’t, and Trump’s reiterations of similar false claims barely make it into news stories.

The comments in Wisconsin did, though, because he added an important adjective to the mix.

“In Colorado,” Trump said, immigrants are “taking over. I mean, in Colorado they’re so brazen they’re taking over sections of the state.” (This is obviously not true.) “And, you know, getting them out will be a bloody” — he seemed to search for a word — “story.”

He continued on for a bit, claiming (falsely) that the United States is now home to “the worst criminals in all of these countries,” people told that “if you come back, you will be executed.”

That “bloody” descriptor, though, is potent. It’s a pledge not just of the cruelty of ostracism or subjugation. It’s a promise that the purported dangers of immigrants will be met with force, with cracked skulls or — as Trump reportedly suggested while serving as president — gunfire.

One of the lingering images from July’s Republican convention was a sea of giddy delegates, then expecting a Trump romp in November, waving signs reading, “Mass Deportation Now.” For nine years, Trump supporters have been reminded that dark-skinned people coming to the United States from other countries are a critical problem. Trump’s 2024 campaign has been more explicit than his prior two about how he’ll rip those immigrants out of the national fabric, and his party seemingly couldn’t have been more thrilled. Sure, there are legal protections for people seeking asylum in the United States, but there used to be legal protections for access to abortion, too.

But he has to win first — or at least, be inaugurated. To that end, Trump offered another pledge of action in a post on the social media site he owns.

“[T]he 2024 Election, where Votes have just started being cast, will be under the closest professional scrutiny,” he wrote, “and, WHEN I WIN, those people that CHEATED will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law, which will include long term prison sentences so that this Depravity of Justice does not happen again.” He added that the threatened “legal exposure extends to Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials.”

There are multiple layers here, obviously. Trump wants to suggest that the election is already under threat, mirroring his months-long effort before 2020 to suggest that any negative results were suspect. He also wants to instill a sense of trepidation among those who finalize election results, a fear that accurately reporting a Trump loss will bear costs that falsely reporting a victory wouldn’t.

But he’s also making another promise of punishment. Trump’s definition of election “cheaters” is as vaguely defined and expansive as his definition of “illegal immigrants.” In the wake of 2020, he accused myriad officials and observers of having skewed the results — all accusations that were meritless. As with a national effort to remove immigrants, an effort to settle scores with those who weren’t willing to rubber-stamp his victory would necessarily be scattershot and personal and chaotic. But there would be an earnest effort, as there was after 2020.

Instead of picking out isolated bad actors, Trump identifies bad actions. He then folds people into those categories as needed.

Trump’s allies on the broader right understand how useful this approach is. A campaign predicated (as Trump has said) on retribution is one in which the person facing the retribution is less important. An entire galaxy of people and institutions can be presented as enemies of Trumpworld, including former members of Trumpworld. And his base is primed for them to be punished. Elites, Democrats, people who live in cities, gay people, immigrants, elections officials.

And government rulemakers: One of Trump’s central goals, should he return to office, is to upend the federal bureaucracy, ostensibly because it’s a Deep State or because it’s Wasting Your Tax Dollars. Also because making money is easier when you don’t have to worry about the law, and a lot of Trump’s allies are centrally interested in making more money.

And those in popular culture: Conservative activist Leonard Leo has pledged to spend $1 billion in an effort to “crush liberal dominance where it’s most insidious” — meaning “news and entertainment, where left-wing extremism is most evident.” His effort is an institutional one, aimed at creating an explicitly right-wing entertainment and informational space, like Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter brought to scale. He’s doing so, in part, by leveraging the right’s — that is, Trump’s base’s — hostility to those perceived or identifiable as left wing and/or as anti-Trump.

The Washington Post’s Tim Craig visited Butler, Pa., the site of the attempt on Trump’s life last month, finding a community deeply divided along partisan lines. He spoke to a local businessman who supports Trump.

“Everyone knows you got to ‘fight, fight, fight,’ ” Bob Oesterling told Craig, “or we are done as the United States of America.”

Oesterling was mimicking Trump’s exhortation to the crowd after the attack, a call to do battle with unidentified enemies. But everyone in the audience knew who the enemies were. Everyone reading this knows who the enemies are.

Edited Tuesday at 14:35 by Vesper

[Vesper 28,288]

Residents express fear after sheriff says ‘write down all the addresses’ of Harris supporters

https://theportager.com/residents-express-fear-after-sheriff-says-write-down-all-the-addresses-of-harris-supporters/

Portage County Sheriff Bruce Zuchowski seemed to encourage his friends and supporters to write down the addresses of people with Democratic yard signs, sparking accusations of voter intimidation.

In identical posts to his personal and public Facebook accounts on Sept. 13, Zuchowski wrote what he claims to tell people who ask him what will happen if Vice President Kamala Harris wins the presidential election. Using dehumanizing language, he says he tells them to record the addresses of people with Harris yard signs in order to house immigrants with them.

“When people ask me…What’s gonna happen if the Flip – Flopping, Laughing Hyena Wins?? I say…write down all the addresses of the people who had her signs in their yards! Sooo…when the Illegal human “Locust” (which she supports!) Need places to live…We’ll already have the addresses of the their New families…who supported their arrival!” the posts stated, along with accompanying pictures of a television tuned to Fox News. 

In the comments under the post on his personal Facebook page, one supporter replied with the name and street of someone with a Harris sign. “I’ll add that name to the list,” another replied. Someone else commented, “Making a list and checking it twice.”

As of Sept. 15, that post had hundreds of reactions and over 100 shares.

Zuchowski faces a Democratic challenger to his re-election bid in November. He did not reply to questions emailed to him on Sept. 14.

The reaction from residents and Portage County officials was intense over the weekend, with people saying they have filed complaints to state and federal agencies, members of Congress and the ACLU. Others are reconsidering putting political signs in their yards, they said. 

The most high-profile denunciation came on Sept. 15, when Portage County Commissioner Tony Badalamenti criticized the sheriff’s post and announced his resignation from the county’s Republican Central Committee. 

“This is not the leadership I want to be part of,” he said in a video posted to Facebook.

Badalamenti had previously clashed with Zuchowski over the sheriff’s requests for larger and larger budget allocations. Badalamenti had previously supported additional funding but later said the county could no longer afford to meet Zuchowski’s requests. 

This refusal helped precipitate a rift in the Portage County Republican Party that led Zuchowski to endorse primary challengers for Badalamenti’s and Commissioner Sabrina Christian-Bennett’s commission seats. Badalamenti lost his primary race to the Zuchowski-backed candidate.

Badalamenti could not be reached for comment, but in the video he seemed to suggest the sheriff’s Facebook post was the last straw.

“[Zuchowski] posted that we should all copy down the addresses of the people that display political signs which are different from our beliefs,” Badalamenti said. “It scares people. It’s called bullying, from the highest law enforcement official in Portage County.”

Portage County residents who contacted The Portager said they were surprised and fearful. 

“I have a sign in my yard. Our sheriff is asking MAGA to write down our addresses. This is not normal and it is scary,” one person said.

Another expressed concern for her parents: “My parents are elderly and have been very politically active Democrats. I am afraid for them now. I don’t want to scare them or suggest they take down their signs, but I am sick to my stomach with worry.”

Others drew parallels between Zuchowski’s reference to people as “locusts” and racist rhetoric that took place during genocides in Germany and Rwanda.

“The Portage County NAACP was very disappointed to see the divisive post from our elected sheriff,” the organization said in a statement. “We believe that law enforcement and elected officials both have a duty to ensure public safety for all citizens. Encouraging people to keep addresses, presumably so they can later be targeted, is counter to bringing all of us together to better our community. We encourage all citizens to vote their values in November.”

Portage County Democratic Party Chair Denise Smith also encouraged voters to respond to the sheriff’s comments at the polls.

“Any elected official is free to put whatever they want on their personal Facebook page,” she said. “Anything that someone believes is intimidation, the way to counter that is to vote against that in November, and the 109,000 registered voters should fire any elected official that tries to intimidate them.”

Smith said the Portage County Democrats have distributed around 750 Harris yard signs and that residents had been calling her on Saturday. Several told her they were reporting the sheriff’s comments to the attorney general, she said.

It’s unclear whether the post crosses any legal lines. Portage County Prosecutor Vic Vigluicci could not be reached for comment. Smith, a lawyer, declined to offer a legal analysis but said, “I would be intimidated if he said it to me.”

Jon Barber, the Democratic candidate for sheriff, said the episode illustrates the difference between the two men. He said he found the racist language “appalling” and that, in any case, undocumented migration is not a major issue in Portage County.

“I think we can agree that people who are fleeing their home countries and are willing to come across a treacherous plain and unbearable conditions are doing it to seek a better life for their children,” he said. “The sheriff and the former president think they’re all criminals. And I have a hard time seeing that.”

He said he has talked to residents over the weekend who were concerned about putting out signs.

“He ordered his supporters to write down addresses and make a list so that they can pass those on to potential criminals,” Barber said. “I certainly feel that this is voter intimidation.”

“I encourage everybody to ensure you’re registered to vote and that your registration is good,” Barber said.

The Portage County ACLU of Ohio Action Team provided information about how to report voter intimidation.

“Sheriffs are elected officials who have a duty to serve ALL members of the community. They are sworn to protect the public from intimidation and oppression. For the sitting sheriff of Portage County to be engaging in this type of behavior he’s meant to combat is despicable. Putting out a political sign is most decidedly protected core First Amendment speech,” they said in a statement. “Voter intimidation is illegal. If you are experiencing voter intimidation please contact the Voter Hotline 1-866-OUR-Vote.”

[Vesper 28,288]

Europe’s great tax divide

Hard-pressed Europeans bear most of the tax-raising brunt, while the wealthy get away very lightly.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/europes-great-tax-divide

 

Taxation of the financial assets of the wealthy is light or even avoidable (M Isolation photo / shutterstock.com)

 

In the European Union in 2022, the wealthiest 1 per cent held a quarter of net personal wealth, while half of Europe’s population held a mere 3 per cent. This is a direct result of Europe’s great tax divide. Everyday Europeans shoulder the tax burden, while the wealthiest pay far from their fair share.

Taxes on wealth account for less than 60 cent of every ten euro brought into the coffers of EU member states. Governments collect 13 times as much from taxes mainly paid by ordinary Europeans, such as value-added tax or taxes on their salaries, which bring in eight out of every ten euro.

Richer billionaires

This stark disparity did not appear overnight; it has been unfolding over the past few decades. It came from the belief that tax cuts on the wealthiest and corporations would drive growth and prosperity for all—so-called ‘trickle-down’ economics. History has proven this idea wrong. Extreme inequality—the gap between the very rich and ordinary people—increased, and tax has played a key role in it.

From 2020 to 2023, billionaires all over the world became 34 per cent richer, with the five richest men seeing their fortunes more than double. At the same time, almost five billion people worldwide—over 11 times the population of the EU—have seen their wealth shrink.

Europe is no different. The wealth of EU billionaires increased by 33 per cent from 2020 to 2023, and the five richest men increased their wealth at a rate of €6 million per hour. Meanwhile, 99 per cent of the EU’s population have become poorer in aggregate terms.

This is not the result of fate but of bad political choices. Tax systems have become less and less progressive everywhere, including in the EU.

Paying less and less

Between 2000 and 2023, the top average personal income-tax rate in the EU—the highest rate paid by the rich—fell from 44.8 to 37.9 per cent, while the top tax rate for the EU’s largest corporations collapsed nearly 10 percentage points, from 32.1 to 21.2 per cent. On top of that, taxes on the type of income and wealth rich individuals rely on, such as financial assets, remain very low or non-existent or even avoided.

In contrast, taxes on ordinary people have risen. Between 2010 and 2022, the tax rate on labour in the EU increased from 33.3 to 34.8 per cent and the tax rate on consumption went up from 17.7 to 18.7 per cent.

While the wealthy also pay labour and consumption taxes, these hit ordinary citizens much more. Everyday Europeans rely mostly on income from work, unlike the rich, who have other income sources, including financial assets. In addition, ordinary people spend a larger portion of their income on everyday expenses—such as putting food on the table—so they pay more proportionately in consumption taxes.

Today, consumption and labour taxes account for over 27 and 50 per cent respectively of tax revenues in the EU. In contrast, revenues from capital stock (wealth) contribute less than 6 per cent. Revenues from corporate taxation represent slightly more than 8 per cent.

The average European is increasingly shouldering the tax load, while ultra-wealthy companies and individuals have been paying less and less. Rather than tackling the growing inequality crisis, Europe’s tax systems are enlarging the wealth gap by asking more from ordinary people than from the richest.

The money is there

While everyday Europeans bear the burden, decision-makers shoulder the responsibility. EU governments chose to cut taxes on big corporations and rich individuals over the last few decades. Yet we are told again and again that there is not enough money for building schools, hospitals and infrastructure or to fight poverty and the climate crisis.

The facts tell a different story. The money is there: it has just been piling up, non-stop, in the accounts of a few.

It is time to shift the tax burden. A wealth tax is fair and, given the magnitude of the crises we face, urgent. Every hour EU policy-makers fail to act they lose €33 million, adding up to €286.5 billion of lost revenue annually—this is the amount they could collect with a wealth tax of up to 5 per cent. With this money, they could for instance pay the EU’s seven-year aid budget more than three times over.

The good news is that the tide is turning. There is a growing consensus among policy-makers on the need to tax the super-rich. In its annual tax report in July, the European Commission advocated shifting the burden of taxation from labour to, among other things, capital gains, inheritance and wealth. That month, for the first time in history, the G20 finance ministers agreed to co-operate to tax the ultra-rich.

Even the super-rich themselves are calling on governments to tax them: nearly three-quarters of millionaires polled in G20 countries support higher taxes on wealth. European citizens concur: seven in ten agree that governments should tax the rich to support the poor.

In July, Oxfam and other organisations collected 1.5 million signatures from people across the world demanding governments tax the ultra-wealthy. In the EU, economists, activists, politicians and multi-millionaires initiated a petition for a European wealth tax; so far more than 300,000 Europeans have signed it.

The way forward is clear. Decision-makers must catch up and take action.

[Vesper 28,288]

Trust in crisis: Europe’s social contract under threat

The corrosion of trust underlies many of the social pathologies of today—but there are solutions.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/trust-in-crisis-europes-social-contract-under-threat

 

Trust is weaker among those most affected by the cost-of-living crisis (Daisy Daisy / shutterstock.com)

The European Parliament elections in June represented a pivotal moment, with a surge of far-right parties in some European Union member states. While this was not universal, with centrist and green parties holding firm and even gaining ground in some countries, there were nevertheless significant advances for Eurocritical parties which stoked public concerns, tapping into years of eroding trust in institutions.

European cohesion, and the fabric of democracy itself, could be threatened in the years ahead. But by working together Europe can restore citizens’ faith in institutions and in the future.

Insidious undertow

Jean Monnet, one of the founding fathers of the union, famously predicted: ‘Europe will be forged in crisis, and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises.’ In recent years, the EU has faced a ‘polycrisis’: the profound shock of the pandemic was followed by the war in Ukraine, the consequent surge in energy and food prices igniting a cost-of-living crisis.

On the surface, the union looks to have weathered the storm well. Yet the strain of the last five years has engendered an insidious undertow of declining trust within its member states.

Trust is the glue that binds us: it is the force of the social contract and the bedrock of democracy. Trust fosters co-operation, strengthens social cohesion, facilitates policy implementation and encourages public engagement and participation. Without trust, societies fall victim to fragmentation, which favours populism and undermines social stability amid geopolitical confrontation.

Trust in the EU has actually increased since the onset of the pandemic, yet it remains low. More alarmingly, trust in its member-state governments has decreased (Figure 1).

Figure 1: trust in the EU and member-state governments over time

 

Moreover, trust is unevenly distributed and has decreased unevenly among socio-demographic groups—social fragmentation is a real risk. Trust in both the EU and national governments tends to be higher for students, the employed and retired people but much lower among those unemployed or outside the labour market (Figure 2).

Figure 2: trust disaggregated by social sector

 

Growing disconnect

The drivers of this erosion of confidence include the cost-of-living crisis, a feeling of being unheard and the divisive power of ‘social media’—all leading to a growing disconnect between citizens and their governments.

Those more affected by the cost-of-living crisis exhibit much lower trust than others, particularly if struggling to make ends meet or behind with energy bills (Figure 3). Inflation, trailing wages and increased financial strain unravel the fabric of trust in institutions. The cost-of-living crisis chips away at the broader belief that governing bodies have the ability—even the intention—to act in the best interests of their citizens.

Figure 3: trust and social hardship

 

Institutional trust hinges on the belief that citizens’ voices are heard and their concerns acknowledged. Yet many in Europe feel a lack of political recognition (Figure 4), particularly those in rural communities with lower incomes and limited employment opportunities. These people often feel ignored by policy-makers, highlighting rural-urban disparities. This feeling is also common among those outside the labour market and with lower educational attainment.

Figure 4: trust and lack of recognition

 

This sense of invisibility fosters resentment and fuels discontent, manifesting itself in various forms of protest and demonstration.Growing reliance on ‘social media’ and other non-professional news sources amplifies feelings of exclusion and marginalisation, affecting public discourse and political attitudes.

These virtual spaces can provide fertile ground for the dissemination and validation of polarising, ‘us versus them’ narratives which reinforce a felt lack of recognition, widening the gap between citizens and institutions. Such echo chambers hinder exposure to diverse perspectives and can lead to the demonisation of opposing viewpoints.

The ease of content creation and dissemination on such platforms facilitates the spread of misinformation—often emotionally charged and sensationalised—which portrays established institutions as corrupt, incompetent or out of touch. Those who rely on ‘social media’ and non-traditional media sources as their main source of information exhibit much lower trust in institutions (Figure 5).

Figure 5: trust and information sources

 

This fast-paced and often hostile online discourse can hinder constructive dialogue about complex issues and lead to social fragmentation. It makes it difficult for institutions to communicate effectively and address public concerns in a way that fosters trust.

Alarming implications

When citizens lose trust in the institutions that underpin democratic processes, democracy itself loses its legitimacy. The value of participation is undermined and the rule of law thrown into question. The implications are alarming.

Those with low trust in institutions also exhibit very low rates of satisfaction with democracy (Figure 6). This can lead to a rejection of democratic structures and a yearning for ‘strong leadership’ that bypasses traditional institutions. Weak trust thus favours populist movements and anti-establishment sentiments.

Figure 6: satisfaction with democracy and trust

 

When citizens see institutions as unresponsive or unrepresentative, they may become disengaged from the political process. Decreased voter turnout (Figure 7), a decline in participation in civic activities and general political apathy weaken democratic systems by reducing the pool of active citizens who hold institutions accountable and contribute to a healthy political discourse.

Figure 7: intention to vote and trust

 

A decline in institutional trust can exacerbate social divisions and fuel  polarisation. When citizens lose faith in shared institutions, they may turn inward, reinforcing ingroup identities and vilifying those who hold different views. This hinders dialogue across ideological divides and undermines the ability of democracy to represent the diverse interests in society.

Those with lower trust in institutions are also much less in favour of supporting Ukraine, providing humanitarian aid or assisting refugees (Figure 8). This is of great concern in times of geopolitical tensions, when unity is at a premium.

Figure 8: support for Ukraine and trust in national governments

 

People with low trust may view additional aid to Ukraine, however necessary, as a distraction from domestic issues such as the cost-of-living crisis. This can fuel a perception that their leaders prioritise ‘foreign’ concerns over their own wellbeing, emboldening populist movements which play on such sentiments.

The share of people with low trust in institutions who believe that there has been too much support for Ukraine—military or humanitarian—is up to five times as great as for those exhibiting higher trust. Almost half of those with low institutional trust believe military support has been excessive, and around a third believe the same of support for refugees. These are disturbing numbers for the future of EU involvement in the crisis and leave the door open for third countries to attempt further to destabilise the union.

Rebuilding trust 

Rebuilding trust is crucial for the EU to navigate the challenges it faces and ensure a prosperous and united future for its citizens. Key areas demand attention.

Effective and transparent dialogue: EU institutions and national governments must improve their dialogue and communication with citizens. They should foster open and transparent dialogue, for instance through broader participation in policy-making, actively listening to citizens’ concerns, developing place-based policies, and ensuring clear and consistent messaging on key policies and decisions.

Delivering on promises: the EU needs to demonstrate its effectiveness by delivering on its promises and implementing policies that demonstrably improve the lives of citizens. Ensuring equitable access to essential services, addressing regional inequalities and finding solutions to shared challenges such as people movement and climate change will be crucial in regaining public confidence.

Combating disinformation and manipulation: the fight against the manipulation of information online is crucial. This requires collaboration among governments, ‘social media’ platforms and civil-society organisations to tackle the spread of misinformation and promote responsible online behaviour.

Investing in social cohesion: the EU should prioritise initiatives that enhance social cohesion and bridge the gaps between communities. This includes supporting cultural-exchange programmes, promoting civic engagement and fostering a sense of shared European identity.

The decline in trust in the EU is a complex challenge with no easy solutions. However, by addressing the root causes, encouraging dialogue, delivering on promises and investing in cohesion, the EU can ensure a more united and prosperous future. This requires a collective effort from national governments, the EU institutions and civil society, working together to bridge divides and rebuild faith in the European project.

[cosmicway 1,296]

[cosmicway 1,296]

5 hours ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

I mean from what I saw Greece has the perfect mix of what could lower birthrate. Sexism, and just a bunch of broke dudes. If you are going to be broke, you have to at least play to a woman's emotions. I didnt get that in Greece. The men, many of whom seemed to sit around all day if they werent working in tourism,  tried to project a machismo attitude. Women, when giving a choice, wont go for that.

 

Japan ran into the same issue when their economy fell apart in the 90's, although their low birth rate can be pinpointed to a piece of media 20 years before that offended the women so deeply that it was a catalyst for it's shrinking population:

The fact Japanese men loved Shameless School eternally turned off most Japanese women. This set it in motion.

Children are expensive.
You have to send them to Eton, Sandhurst.

[Fulham Broadway 16,666]

2 hours ago, Thor said:

Nah mate - its all over. You don't get it. 

 

 

 

🤣

No i dont get it - what is all over ?

[Vesper 28,288]

2 hours ago, Thor said:

Lets face it whoever wins the US election , to most Americans it wont make the slightest difference to their lives

Tell that to 100 million plus American women if there is a nationwide ban on abortion enacted, or a ban on birth control, or a ban on no fault divorce, etc etc.

Tell that to potentially hundreds of thousands (millions?) of legit US residents who get swept up in Trump's all out deportation war (which he just said would be bloody).

Tell that to tens upon tens of millions of people of colour and queer folk who may well have the clock rolled back decades (the process has already been going on for years, starting with the RW SCOTUS's attacks on much of the post WWII civil rights/voting rights superstructures) to the days where they can legally be denied access to a myriad number of basic rights, up to and including education, housing, banking/credit, employment, and even risk incarceration simply for being and acting on who they are.

[cosmicway 1,296]

Does n't the dog speech of Donald Trump constitute libel ?
If you say racist things to me personally, like that I eat my neighbours pets it is libel.
If you say it to lots of people together is n't it libel again, collective libel if you like ?

[robsblubot 3,457]

5 hours ago, Thor said:

Lot of inference there and ad hominem. I assume you're emotionally impacted by someone questioning your political affiliation. 

Not once have I defended him - or the ownership - weird transition there, but cool. 

Guess you fall into the category I was talking about. You aren't your political affiliation. Its not that deep. 

If you actually care for my opinions on Trump - I think he is an asshat and its hilarious someone so polarising could even become president. Some of you just talk in here like an echo chamber and act like its good vs evil and won't be questioned on anything. 

You assume wrong. And I don’t really have a political affiliation neither am I registered with any group or party.

Either someone agrees with your view or they are “emotionally impacted”. It’s apparently impossible to think rationally and see danger with someone who did incite the attack on a the Capitol as the freaking president.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on me being emotionally impacted or not. 😃

Once again, for someone so detached from politics you do come here quite a bit.

Edited Tuesday at 16:32 by robsblubot

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,882]

31 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

Children are expensive.
You have to send them to Eton, Sandhurst.

I wouldnt send a kid to regular school in America, but we do have cheaper private school options.The best one in my state is ~ 40k a year which I think I'd be able to swing if/when the time came.

 

The most expensive parts for people is the fact that in many cases you lose an income for months/years if your partner was working. A lot of wives stop working when the kids are small because daycare is just so expensive that it makes their jobs a net negative on finances if the mother wasnt making a lot.

[Vesper 28,288]

Israel war on Gaza live: Nine killed, 2,750 hurt in Hezbollah pager blasts

• At least nine people, including a girl, have been killed and 2,750 wounded in simultaneous explosions of pagers used by Hezbollah members across Lebanon.
• The Lebanese group says it holds Israel “fully responsible” for the explosions.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/9/17/israels-war-on-gaza-live-38-killed-as-israel-risks-becoming-pariah

[Fulham Broadway 16,666]

They are determined to start WW3

[Vesper 28,288]

The staggering reach of Trump’s misinformation — not just on Haitian migrants

A new poll shows lots of Trump backers say they believe his pet-eating claim about Haitians, as well as plenty of other claims.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/09/16/staggering-reach-trumps-misinformation-not-just-haitian-migrants/

From Day One of his presidency to this day, Donald Trump has promoted an alternate reality that has caught on with a shocking proportion of his base. But we don’t often get good polling that shows just how much Trump’s misinformation has penetrated the country.

Today, we have such polling. And it’s sobering, if unsurprising.

As Trump has launched a series of claims and suggestions that are bizarre even by his standards, new data shows large swaths of his supporters believe them.

But the most drastic among them — most notably the claim about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, stealing and eating pets — have not caught on with more middle-of-the-road voters. That suggests there is real potential downside for Trump in pushing these fantasies.

The new data comes from YouGov, which has occasionally tested Trump’s false claims. After last week’s debate, YouGov asked voters about a battery of them.

The major findings on what Trump supporters believe:

• A majority (52 percent) of Trump supporters say they believe the claim about Haitian migrants “abducting and eating pet dogs and cats.” Excluding those who are “not sure,” twice as many say it’s at least “probably true” as say it’s at least “probably false.” (There remains no real evidence for this claim. Officials have debunked it and linked it to threats, and Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine on Sunday called it “a piece of garbage that was simply not true.”)
• 43 percent of Trump supporters say they believe that “in some states it is legal to kill a baby after birth” — another claim Trump referenced at last week’s debate. In fact, slightly more said they believed this was true than disbelieved it. (It is false.)
• 28 percent of Trump supporters say they believe that “public schools are providing students with sex-change operations,” something Trump has recently suggested is happening but for which there is no evidence.
• 81 percent of Trump supporters say they believe Venezuela is “deliberately sending people from prisons and mental institutions” to the United States. (There is no evidence that Venezuela or any other country is doing this, and Trump has used bad data to support his claim.)

The claims about Haitian migrants, post-birth executions and sex changes at school are actually some of the least pervasive. But the other claims that Trump supporters believe are more about statistics than ridiculous assertions.

For example, 77 percent say they believe the United States has given more aid to Ukraine than all of Europe combined (false), 70 percent say they believe millions of undocumented immigrants are arriving every month (false), and 70 percent say they believe inflation is at its highest rate ever (not true today or at any point in recent years).

Americans of all political stripes have a long history of getting such data points wrong and exaggerating perceived problems, especially on the economy. So what’s really striking about the new numbers is how much Trump’s conspiracy theories have caught on.

The numbers on those counts aren’t terribly surprising in context, given the many false things Trump supporters have convinced themselves of in recent years. For example, most Republicans have told pollsters that Trump didn’t try to overturn the 2020 election, that Trump didn’t have classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and that Trump’s offices were wiretapped during the 2016 election. And of course there is the 2020 stolen-election claim that as many as two-thirds of Republicans have believed.

But these things have also generally only caught on to an extent, and that’s a key point with the new data.

For instance, independents disbelieve the Haitian migrants claim more than 2-to-1, and five times as many say it’s “definitely false” (35 percent) as say it’s “definitely true” (7 percent).

The gaps are even wider on executing babies and sex changes in schools. More than 6 in 10 independents dispute both, and relatively few independents — less than one-quarter — embrace them. Many independents are actually reliable voters for one side or another, and the data suggest these are probably Republican-leaning ones.

All of which indicates that Trump is largely preaching to a credulous choir here, while the potentially decisive voters generally see his conspiracy theories for what they are.

Whether they will punish him for that is an open question. Voters have long viewed Trump as an unreliable narrator, with a survey last week showing that 57 percent of Americans say his campaign messages are “rarely” or “never” based on facts.

But in the meantime, we have apparently tens of millions of Americans embracing a truly bizarre version of reality based on little more than one man’s say-so.

Edited Tuesday at 18:37 by Vesper

[cosmicway 1,296]

18 hours ago, Vesper said:

The staggering reach of Trump’s misinformation — not just on Haitian migrants

A new poll shows lots of Trump backers say they believe his pet-eating claim about Haitians, as well as plenty of other claims.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/09/16/staggering-reach-trumps-misinformation-not-just-haitian-migrants/

From Day One of his presidency to this day, Donald Trump has promoted an alternate reality that has caught on with a shocking proportion of his base. But we don’t often get good polling that shows just how much Trump’s misinformation has penetrated the country.

Today, we have such polling. And it’s sobering, if unsurprising.

As Trump has launched a series of claims and suggestions that are bizarre even by his standards, new data shows large swaths of his supporters believe them.

But the most drastic among them — most notably the claim about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, stealing and eating pets — have not caught on with more middle-of-the-road voters. That suggests there is real potential downside for Trump in pushing these fantasies.

The new data comes from YouGov, which has occasionally tested Trump’s false claims. After last week’s debate, YouGov asked voters about a battery of them.

The major findings on what Trump supporters believe:

• A majority (52 percent) of Trump supporters say they believe the claim about Haitian migrants “abducting and eating pet dogs and cats.” Excluding those who are “not sure,” twice as many say it’s at least “probably true” as say it’s at least “probably false.” (There remains no real evidence for this claim. Officials have debunked it and linked it to threats, and Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine on Sunday called it “a piece of garbage that was simply not true.”)
• 43 percent of Trump supporters say they believe that “in some states it is legal to kill a baby after birth” — another claim Trump referenced at last week’s debate. In fact, slightly more said they believed this was true than disbelieved it. (It is false.)
• 28 percent of Trump supporters say they believe that “public schools are providing students with sex-change operations,” something Trump has recently suggested is happening but for which there is no evidence.
• 81 percent of Trump supporters say they believe Venezuela is “deliberately sending people from prisons and mental institutions” to the United States. (There is no evidence that Venezuela or any other country is doing this, and Trump has used bad data to support his claim.)

The claims about Haitian migrants, post-birth executions and sex changes at school are actually some of the least pervasive. But the other claims that Trump supporters believe are more about statistics than ridiculous assertions.

For example, 77 percent say they believe the United States has given more aid to Ukraine than all of Europe combined (false), 70 percent say they believe millions of undocumented immigrants are arriving every month (false), and 70 percent say they believe inflation is at its highest rate ever (not true today or at any point in recent years).

Americans of all political stripes have a long history of getting such data points wrong and exaggerating perceived problems, especially on the economy. So what’s really striking about the new numbers is how much Trump’s conspiracy theories have caught on.

The numbers on those counts aren’t terribly surprising in context, given the many false things Trump supporters have convinced themselves of in recent years. For example, most Republicans have told pollsters that Trump didn’t try to overturn the 2020 election, that Trump didn’t have classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and that Trump’s offices were wiretapped during the 2016 election. And of course there is the 2020 stolen-election claim that as many as two-thirds of Republicans have believed.

But these things have also generally only caught on to an extent, and that’s a key point with the new data.

For instance, independents disbelieve the Haitian migrants claim more than 2-to-1, and five times as many say it’s “definitely false” (35 percent) as say it’s “definitely true” (7 percent).

The gaps are even wider on executing babies and sex changes in schools. More than 6 in 10 independents dispute both, and relatively few independents — less than one-quarter — embrace them. Many independents are actually reliable voters for one side or another, and the data suggest these are probably Republican-leaning ones.

All of which indicates that Trump is largely preaching to a credulous choir here, while the potentially decisive voters generally see his conspiracy theories for what they are.

Whether they will punish him for that is an open question. Voters have long viewed Trump as an unreliable narrator, with a survey last week showing that 57 percent of Americans say his campaign messages are “rarely” or “never” based on facts.

But in the meantime, we have apparently tens of millions of Americans embracing a truly bizarre version of reality based on little more than one man’s say-so.

From 1948, legend Greek actor Vassilis Logothetidis in the film "the Germans return".
The entire plot is a dream of Logothetidis in which the Germans are returning.
Below is the dog (flox) eating scene:

Tzitzifrigos mentioned at the end of the clip is a bird they 're going to eat next.

Edited 18 hours ago by cosmicway