American Politics Discussion

[OrangeKhrush]

Nearly 4 years into what can only be described as a lame duck session where politics has gone to die.   It doesn't matter who you vote for, both aisles are owned by the same interests and corruption is entrenched at the core of US politics.   The Senate oversight committee hearings on the DHS was a political bloodbath pointing to a regime that is more interested in starting wars than the interests of their own people.   To much dirty laundery is coming up,  about censures, police state tactics and politically motivated arrests, underscored by bribery and corruption at the top.    America is in its most desperate hour. 

In other news a genuine womans right activist and tennis legend Martina Navratilova attacked by the regime zealots for suggesting it was about time for the adoption of a trans league for trans athletes to compete on equal playing field and get the own recognition for it,  she was then labelled a masogynist and TERF. 

I am pretty sure that instead of a solution where adults in the room decide to bury the hatchet as it were and act in  the interest of the people that elected them,  we will probably get another flurry of trumped up charges for better political amusements. 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

The only thing I’ve seen Martina Navratilova in the news for recently is her cancer lol

Just out of curiosity where are you getting your news about what’s going on in the US from?

[OrangeKhrush]

33 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The only thing I’ve seen Martina Navratilova in the news for recently is her cancer lol

Just out of curiosity where are you getting your news about what’s going on in the US from?

She spoke out about a trans athlete winning a womans off road bike challenge over the weekend by 5 minutes.

On my Youtube feed,  CNN, Forbes are the common and the senate judiciary hearings were on Forbes.   per allsides and others Forbes is left of center,  thus cannot be skewed and partisan bias.    I don't know why my Youtube keeps bring up MSNBC, CNN and all that shitake I don't subscribe and I really have no interest in what they have to say. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

45 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

She spoke out about a trans athlete winning a womans off road bike challenge over the weekend by 5 minutes.

On my Youtube feed,  CNN, Forbes are the common and the senate judiciary hearings were on Forbes.   per allsides and others Forbes is left of center,  thus cannot be skewed and partisan bias.    I don't know why my Youtube keeps bring up MSNBC, CNN and all that shitake I don't subscribe and I really have no interest in what they have to say. 

I've looked at a few of the recent articles (she's all over the news right now because of claiming to be rid of cancer, good for her) and I haven't seen a single mention of trans athlete issues. So I think as usual with the culture war, much ado about nothing and is generally ignored by most people.

Pretty sure CNN just got bought out by some big right wing guy, so they'll be making more right wing pivots. I actually disagree with the idea that they're left of centre - they're the flagbearers of corporate media worldwide, they're about as centrist as you can get in mass media. MSNBC is centre-left. Forbes is just a hollowed out shell of what it used to be (which tbh, it's "peak" was before I ever came to this country or cared about it's media sources... so for all of my time caring about American news, it's just been a joke publication).

In any case, I'd advocate reading your news from stuff like AP rather than getting it from these types of sources. YouTube and TV news aren't real news and just biased infotainment just designed to piss people off because outrage generates engagement. Engagement generates repeated clicks/views. Repeated clicks/views = more ad revenue.

The DHS judiciary hearing thing doesn't even appear to be recent - here's their schedule: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings - the last hearing re: the DHS in front of the Senate Judiciary committee was March 28th. It's all public, so if that's all just being reported on now... it's not really timely news.

I'm not going to watch it because it's 4 fucking hours long - there's no transcript online yet (the most recent DHS transcript though is from March 2... but it's about their budget). In the highlight reels I've looked at, I don't see anything re: "more interest in starting wars than helping the interests of people" - 1.) DHS has fuck all to do with wars other than protecting the US against cyberattacks (and they mentioned the increased number of cyber attacks coming from China, Iran, Russia)... and cyberattacks aren't really considered war or warfare; 2.) they talk about how the agency's been cracking down on human trafficking and fentanyl from Mexico with... record human trafficking arrests and fentanyl seizures (which is in the interest of Americans); 3.) talking about the rise in domestic threats - this is probably where they've been most lax in their duties tbh. 4.) they talk about their role in disaster relief with regard to tornados somewhere in the south of the US... and tbh, I don't know what the fuck disaster relief has to do with their fucking duties so I thought that was bizarre.

You've got to remember, these are all very long hearings and a lot of what gets reported on for TV is just when politicians start talking about irrelevant bullshit that's got nothing to do with the hearing - it's all just theatre for their constituencies, it's very seldom got anything to actually do with the real meat of the hearings.

In any case, I don't think it's a good thing to get caught up in the US's culture wars. Especially if you don't live in the US - but honestly... even if you do live in the US. It's just background noise meant to get people to focus on issues that aren't really important - there's a reason corporate media pushes these culture wars. They don't want people looking into actual problems in society that benefit those at the top of US society. And you've always got to remember, anything that can be monetized by media... is going to be monetized by media - and outrage sells better than reporting on the news accurately. YouTube is no different.

[Viva la FCB+]

You're fighting the good fight, I applaud you Gonzo. CNN actually just fired the CEO guy I forget his name that tried to take them down that rabbit hole because naturally all it did was tank their viewership that they used to have and gained next to nothing from the right wingers and fox abandoners. That town hall was a bloody disgrace and basically they abandoned that plan now after giving it 6 months or so. The problem at the end of the day is most news sources in the States are far too concerned with their bottom lines then they are about reporting actual news. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

39 minutes ago, Viva la FCB said:

You're fighting the good fight, I applaud you Gonzo. CNN actually just fired the CEO guy I forget his name that tried to take them down that rabbit hole because naturally all it did was tank their viewership that they used to have and gained next to nothing from the right wingers and fox abandoners. That town hall was a bloody disgrace and basically they abandoned that plan now after giving it 6 months or so. The problem at the end of the day is most news sources in the States are far too concerned with their bottom lines then they are about reporting actual news. 

And at the end of the day, the big 3 of the US news sources are just 3 flavours of the same kind of bullshit. There's right-leaning corporate bootlicking with Fox, left-leaning corporate bootlicking with MSNBC, and middle of the road corporate bootlicking with CNN. At the end the day, they all report on the same stories and dominate the political landscape of America by getting people to focus on smaller issues rather than big picture things that will actually improve lives for most people.

They push the partisan divide because focusing on common ground issues doesn't help them get more money. Chaos in US politics is also profitable for them - MSNBC and CNN probably loved Trump more than Fox ever did tbh. So they feed the culture wars, they push little issues, they try to make politics more dramatic than substance and love people that are just political jesters rather than anyone pushing substantive policy.

And by getting people to view politics the same as being the equivalent of a fan of say... a football team... they push that partisan divide more and more and fuel the political chaos of the US. And it's spread to the UK now tbh, the only thing that might save my homeland is the utter ineptitude of the last string of Tories... although it's not like I've got a great deal of faith in Labour to demonstrate competence over the last decade, nor do I have any faith in Lib Dems, the Tory-lite party. I'm sure @Spike will agree the same shit has taken off big time in Australia (cheers Mr. Murdoch) - and I'm pretty sure you've said politics in Canada is getting more and more like the US.

Idk what the real solution to this problem is. Because at the end of the day, it's class warfare being waged in silence with those with seemingly endless money getting to determine the political landscape. But if you want breaking news, you're better off going to AP rather than any of these sites. If you want investigative journalism, you've got to look hard into your sources because corporate media generally doesn't want journalists investigating things too hard. All media is going to have bias, so if you want to be well informed you need to be aware of that and look into sources that minimise bias... and try to keep an eye on what particular journalists/sources are going to have a bias towards.

But if you want political theatre... then the infotainment you get from TV news is the way to go. But everyone should know it's dogshit journalism and it should be viewed as entertainment more than news.

[Spike]

37 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

And at the end of the day, the big 3 of the US news sources are just 3 flavours of the same kind of bullshit. There's right-leaning corporate bootlicking with Fox, left-leaning corporate bootlicking with MSNBC, and middle of the road corporate bootlicking with CNN. At the end the day, they all report on the same stories and dominate the political landscape of America by getting people to focus on smaller issues rather than big picture things that will actually improve lives for most people.

They push the partisan divide because focusing on common ground issues doesn't help them get more money. Chaos in US politics is also profitable for them - MSNBC and CNN probably loved Trump more than Fox ever did tbh. So they feed the culture wars, they push little issues, they try to make politics more dramatic than substance and love people that are just political jesters rather than anyone pushing substantive policy.

And by getting people to view politics the same as being the equivalent of a fan of say... a football team... they push that partisan divide more and more and fuel the political chaos of the US. And it's spread to the UK now tbh, the only thing that might save my homeland is the utter ineptitude of the last string of Tories... although it's not like I've got a great deal of faith in Labour to demonstrate competence over the last decade, nor do I have any faith in Lib Dems, the Tory-lite party. I'm sure @Spike will agree the same shit has taken off big time in Australia (cheers Mr. Murdoch) - and I'm pretty sure you've said politics in Canada is getting more and more like the US.

Idk what the real solution to this problem is. Because at the end of the day, it's class warfare being waged in silence with those with seemingly endless money getting to determine the political landscape. But if you want breaking news, you're better off going to AP rather than any of these sites. If you want investigative journalism, you've got to look hard into your sources because corporate media generally doesn't want journalists investigating things too hard. All media is going to have bias, so if you want to be well informed you need to be aware of that and look into sources that minimise bias... and try to keep an eye on what particular journalists/sources are going to have a bias towards.

But if you want political theatre... then the infotainment you get from TV news is the way to go. But everyone should know it's dogshit journalism and it should be viewed as entertainment more than news.

CNN from day has existed  as a platform to sell the news, not report. Anyone that has sucked CNN’s dick at any point is deluded.

MSNBC is not left leaning. It is a liberal piece of shit just like Fox and CNN. The only difference  is that it sells it’s corporatism to socially open people. People need to accept there is no left major media in the west, it’s all corporate liberalism, with occasional lip service to minorities or lip service towards social conservatism. Liberalism is not a good thing, people in this thread aren’t liberals, accept the fact that liberalism is a conservative ideology based on exploitation and colonialism. Which are two things that still happen, but it just looks different. Liberalism and conservatism aren’t antithetical, any western conservative movement is either liberal or fascist.  The shite that Fox drones on about are literally key ideals of liberalism. 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Spike

[Dr. Gonzo]

46 minutes ago, Spike said:

CNN from day has existed  as a platform to sell the news, not report. Anyone that has sucked CNN’s dick at any point is deluded.

MSNBC is not left leaning. It is a liberal piece of shit just like Fox and CNN. The only difference  is that it sells it’s corporatism to socially open people. People need to accept there is no left major media in the west, it’s all corporate liberalism, with occasional lip service to minorities or lip service towards social conservatism. Liberalism is not a good thing, people in this thread aren’t liberals, accept the fact that liberalism is a conservative ideology based on exploitation and colonialism. Which are two things that still happen, but it just looks different. Liberalism and conservatism aren’t antithetical, any western conservative movement is either liberal or fascist.  The shite that Fox drones on about are literally key ideals of liberalism. 

I agree with you, I just call MSNBC left-leaning corporate news because that's the market they're targeting with their infotainment - and it's done with a pretty strategic goal of getting the closest thing there is to a left-wing in America to just be a light version of the US right wing.

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I agree with you, I just call MSNBC left-leaning corporate news because that's the market they're targeting with their infotainment - and it's done with a pretty strategic goal of getting the closest thing there is to a left-wing in America to just be a light version of the US right wing.

People get bogged down in the semantics of everything. Always a label for this, a label for that, instead of asking why something has this association they just argue their semantics. It’s sports team tribalist nonsense and obfuscates the what and the how of the reality with labelling and identity politics. It keeps the public stupid and misinformed, but makes them think the opposite, of course they have to feed both sides of the sport game to ensure their is conflict without resolution; as both sets of supporters barrack something that doesn’t exist. Think tanks, newspapers, and all sorts of organisations do this from the most expensive Turning Point USA Fox News Tucker Carlson, to Leninists bickering with Maoists on some neckbeard LARPing subReddit. Just keep pumping the  groupthink with rubbish information, content without context, memes with no value, keep the idiots consuming, drunk on content.

 

Or some shit like that.

[OrangeKhrush]

so it looks like America was planning to invade Iran, I can see why they want that kept quiet.

[OrangeKhrush]

On 21/06/2023 at 23:22, Spike said:

People get bogged down in the semantics of everything. Always a label for this, a label for that, instead of asking why something has this association they just argue their semantics. It’s sports team tribalist nonsense and obfuscates the what and the how of the reality with labelling and identity politics. It keeps the public stupid and misinformed, but makes them think the opposite, of course they have to feed both sides of the sport game to ensure their is conflict without resolution; as both sets of supporters barrack something that doesn’t exist. Think tanks, newspapers, and all sorts of organisations do this from the most expensive Turning Point USA Fox News Tucker Carlson, to Leninists bickering with Maoists on some neckbeard LARPing subReddit. Just keep pumping the  groupthink with rubbish information, content without context, memes with no value, keep the idiots consuming, drunk on content.

 

Or some shit like that.

you say let's not bicker about semantics but then big down on semantics.   I don't watch any mainstream media particularly American or BBC and Sky as they are all mouthpieces for the people that fund them who ironically are arms manufacturers, drug companies who own politicians and media on both sides.  

we get bogged down with cultural rifts to distract people from what is really happening.

I like watching Russell Brand and Tuckers new podcast because people who speak out about the situation and get the most attacked are more likely telling the truth.  nobody gets upset about MSNBC hosts rampant racism or "reporting" because its par for the course shilling.   

we need a decentralised government where politicians are barred from being shareholders and directors in bodies they are supposed to regulate.   we also need a return to discourse and acceptance that there are different ideologies and that compromise must be made for the betterment of everyone equally.

 

[Spike]

56 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

you say let's not bicker about semantics but then big down on semantics.   I don't watch any mainstream media particularly American or BBC and Sky as they are all mouthpieces for the people that fund them who ironically are arms manufacturers, drug companies who own politicians and media on both sides.  

we get bogged down with cultural rifts to distract people from what is really happening.

I like watching Russell Brand and Tuckers new podcast because people who speak out about the situation and get the most attacked are more likely telling the truth.  nobody gets upset about MSNBC hosts rampant racism or "reporting" because its par for the course shilling.   

we need a decentralised government where politicians are barred from being shareholders and directors in bodies they are supposed to regulate.   we also need a return to discourse and acceptance that there are different ideologies and that compromise must be made for the betterment of everyone equally.

 

No, I don’t. Fuck off and watch your replacement theory  podcast.

[OrangeKhrush]

44 minutes ago, Spike said:

No, I don’t. Fuck off and watch your replacement theory  podcast.

Proving the point

[Spike]

4 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

Proving the point

You don’t actually know what semantics are, do you? Go join the Dan White Society.

[OrangeKhrush]

From a political ideological stand point Robert F Kennedy is probably my favourite candidate assumumg talk us not cheap.

an ideal candidate for me would be.

1) decentralised government.  the government should not be arbiters of truth, when government controls mindthink it is an abuse of the doctrine of separation of powers and tends towards totalitarianism. 

 censorship should be the discretion of the courts to determine where speech falls outside protected speech.

2) banning corporate/politics overlapping, if a person is a director or shareholder they cannot be a politician and visa versa.

3) regulation of the private sector under corporate and labour laws.

4) No wars or conflicts

[OrangeKhrush]

The real pandemic in America, the one that gets swept under the rug.  Opiod drugs where Heroine actually looks good in comparison.

the source of the drug trade is obvious, and because of it, it doesn't get air time.  

[Dr. Gonzo]

45 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

The real pandemic in America, the one that gets swept under the rug.  Opiod drugs where Heroine actually looks good in comparison.

the source of the drug trade is obvious, and because of it, it doesn't get air time.  

America's war on drugs is an absolute failure that just creates a profitable black market. Opioid abuse skyrocketing in the US though is pretty easily traced to doctors and the pharmaceutical industry working to push addictive opioids and creating millions of addicts. When doctors prescription pads dried up for these addicts, they've still got a huge demand for getting whacked out on opioids and they then turn to drug dealers.

50 years of failed drug policy that's just been amplified by corporate greed of big pharma have created this situation where the US has made it profitable for drug dealing gangs that make the Italian-American mafia and Hells Angels look like fucking boy scouts in comparison should probably be looked at.

But I think it's hard to get people in society to give a fuck about drug addicts that have ruined their lives with the drugs they take. Especially in a country like America where the culture is very much centered around individuality and where it's likely that any changes to federal law will leave things open to states on how to deal with their drug problems. When states have been left to their own devices to do things like care for their homeless populations, a few have tried to put meaningful programs together - but others just bus their homeless to those states and think "job done" - I imagine something similar would happen if federal law didn't prevent that from happening. SF is a great example of that too - out of 100 homeless people arrested in SF, something like 80% of them were addicted to drugs. Only 4% of them were from SF or the SF Bay Area.

As someone who struggled with addiction and had to overcome being an addict to really turn my life around... I do think the biggest issue in trying to seriously address drug addiction is getting the addicts to want help. Because you're never going to break the pattern of abuse and addiction if you don't actually want to end the addiction - and many of the crackheads and junkies out on the streets in various cities and states all over the US... they simply don't want help overcoming their addiction, they just want to be allowed to do their drugs in peace and rot on the streets.

SF tried treating addicts with kid gloves, but now their mayor wants the police to crack down on public drug use and force addicts into treatment programs. I think the problem though goes well beyond any local government's ability to address this problem. Look at SF, homeless addicts are sent there to overburden California & SF's homeless relief programs (and now SF's local addiction relief programs). It's not really a local issue though, it's not even a state issue - this is a national issue affecting the whole US.

I think there's some people who think there's an ethical problem with the police taking addicts off the street and forcing them into treatment programs "they don't want" - but I don't think it's such a bad alternative. Non-violent drug offenders shouldn't be treated the same as other criminals where there's a victim other than the drug user. But they shouldn't be allowed to be whacked out on the streets rotting in public just because they're the victims of their own crimes. But I think there needs to be a uniform set standard that's imposed as a minimum level program provided nationally.

8 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

From a political ideological stand point Robert F Kennedy is probably my favourite candidate assumumg talk us not cheap.

an ideal candidate for me would be.

1) decentralised government.  the government should not be arbiters of truth, when government controls mindthink it is an abuse of the doctrine of separation of powers and tends towards totalitarianism. 

 censorship should be the discretion of the courts to determine where speech falls outside protected speech.

2) banning corporate/politics overlapping, if a person is a director or shareholder they cannot be a politician and visa versa.

3) regulation of the private sector under corporate and labour laws.

4) No wars or conflicts

Some of this is confusing, some of it makes sense.

1.) What you're describing - whether or not the government are arbiters of truth... that's not really got anything to do with a decentralized government. The US is a pretty good example of a decentralized government, tbh. The federal government is broken up into the 3 branches. One of those branches, the most important one that also does the least amount of work, is broken into 2 sub-branches for reasons that I'm not sure I will ever understand. Then the states are all given a huge amount of autonomy in the US and then there's the state governments that are broken up into those same 3 branches.

The judicial branch is effectively the "arbiters of truth" - they are the ones who currently determine whether speech falls outside protected speech or not. They're... a part of the government. If anything they've become increasingly partisan and less tied to interpreting laws following the written text of laws and previously established precedent that is considered precedent.

So are you saying you want a US presidential candidate that is going to retain that kind of system? Isn't every candidate, barring anyone saying they want to re-write the constitution, in support of point #1?

For me, an ideal candidate addressing the issues that exist in the decentralized government the US has would be one advocating for actual ethical reform over all 3 of these branches - particularly the judiciary and the legislative branch.

2.) I agree with this. I think if you're a politician, you've got to divest and put your assets in a blind trust. I think if you're on a board of directors and you want to hold any public position, you need to step down from a board of directors to demonstrate that your duty to your shareholders doesn't outweigh your duty to the public. I'd add to this: US politicians need to do something about the Citizens United supreme court case holding. Unfettered lobbying money is just legal bribery. That court case has ruined politics in the United States and placed political power even further in the hands of the ultra-wealthy.

Campaign donations should only come from actual individuals. Not from "corporate persons" - corporate political contributions should be banned. And there should be a hard limit on how much an individual can contribute to any candidate and in total. It should be a very low number, tbh. A candidates political future should be dependent on the policies and ideas they are offering to the public, it should not be dependent on having huge corporate backing. Elected officials should represent the individuals making up their constituency, not national and multinational corporations.

3.) This exists already? Are you talking about expanding labour rights? I think generally speaking, I might agree with you. But if you're talking about rolling back workers protections or rolling back regulations imposed on corporations, I probably don't agree with you. I guess I just don't get quite what you mean.

4.) I think this is a nice ideal - but is it possible with the US's global hegemony? I think both Trump and Biden can probably point to being the least warlike presidents since the first George Bush. Afterall, Trump negotiated peace with the Taliban and Biden oversaw that ridiculous withdrawal. They were both heavily criticised for the withdrawal - often for the same reasons: 1.) human rights (which tbh, the US doesn't really give a fuck about), 2.) abandoning US interests in central Asia.

Do you mean that you think the US shouldn't provide military support to countries like Ukraine? Because I think that's a pretty unpopular idea and it's not really in the US's national interests to let Russia expand westward into Europe (again) - or in the interests of US allies (including Ukraine). Russia invaded Ukraine many years ago when they took Crimea and many western governments have been training Ukrainian soldiers since then - not just since Russia's more recent push into the heart of Ukraine.

And from the US perspective, the involvement in Ukraine is pretty ideal: 1.) Russia is a geopolitical rival of the US, tying up their resources in this war and all the domestic issues this has caused for Putin means they've weakened a rival simply by that rival invading another country; 2.) US soldiers don't die, but the US military industry complex makes money like the US is at war; 3.) Ukraine might be a country that's struggled with corruption issues, but it's still a matter of standing up for western values when invaded by a geopolitical rival - there's been strong bipartisan support for Ukraine in this war because it's a democracy being invaded by an authoritarian.

No wars is a nice idea, but humans are cunts and the people in power are especially cunty. Russia and Ukraine proves you can have a global conflict without the US starting anything - and when that happens, countries are going to react to protect their interests in the aftermath of this war. Especially countries like the US that have their finger in every pie all around the world.

Imperialism isn't dead, it's just less "in your face" than it used to be because it became un-cool to have an empire. But you're not going to have much success in the US running for office trying to advocate for the US weakening it's control on its empire. I just don't think it's possible to have a militant country like the US and then run on the promise of "no more involvement in any war" - the US has it's economic empire to run, their military's outrageous threat of force makes that empire possible.

[Viva la FCB+]

I just love how everytime the cultist's try and defend themselves or their people its always mud slinging. Yeah well so and so is a racist. Even If (and thats a big if mind you) that was true, these things dont have anything to do with each other. Tucker fuckface wouldn't gain a millimeter of credibility if MSNBC had a racist host or segment  The whataboutism is definitely the cultists favourite distraction tactic and it works wonders with their brainless followers. 

As soon as he mentions listening to Tucker and saying hes most likely telling the truth in the same sentence I bow out on reading anything he says. I wish you luck in your quest though Gonzo  People that far gone aren't able to be helped man. 

[Viva la FCB+]

Saw this the other day, describes things perfectly.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

12 minutes ago, Viva la FCB said:

I wish you luck in your quest though Gonzo  People that far gone aren't able to be helped man. 

The thing is what he's talked about in his last 2 posts aren't really partisan at all! I don't think it's a sign he's too far gone when he's talking about things that are issues for everyone in America. It's a far cry from getting hung up on culture war bullshit!

He has that post about the drug issue in the US - and it's a serious issue. And maybe, despite me shitting on him earlier in this thread, maybe it's a good thing there's a person like Russell Brand has started targeting right wing people as his audience - even though I think some of the shit he promotes is just absolute bullshit. Because one political point Brand's sort of retained as he's made his pivot to friend-of-the-far right is his views on how to deal with homelessness and addiction. I think Brand still spews a lot of shit but if he's getting people on the right to think more like he does regarding the problems of the most vulnerable in western society... then Brand's doing something positive despite his weird political pivot.

It's hard to get a nation where individualism is so engrained in the culture to care about actual ways to deal with issues like drug addiction and homelessness (which are very related in the US, at least that's my view here in California) - but the first way America is going to meaningfully address this is by acknowledging the drug war policies have failed miserably. And that treating non-violent drug offenders the same as any other criminal is not really a solution to the problem. Currently the way the US is dealing with the situation is by letting it fester and letting people die in the streets, it's not humane. And it's not sanitary.

And the 4 points he listed as what he'd want in an ideal candidate are... very reasonable. Alright, I tore apart that decentralised government thing because... the US is very decentralised (sometimes to it's detriment, imo) - and one of the things he listed as an ideal is sort of just an example of how the US government acts as an "arbiter of truth." But wanting corporate money out of politics? That's pretty far from a far-right view. Regulating corporations & labour regulations? That's pretty far from a far-right view, as well, especially in the US. Granted, he didn't really explain what sort of regulation reforms he'd want - but I think just by saying that he's probably in favour of shit that protects people over corporations (particularly if he wants corporate money out of politics). And the no war or conflicts - I think that's an ideal that every person around the world wants. I don't think it's particularly realistic considering there's the 2 global powers that firmly believe in economic imperialism, and then you've got shitheads like Putin who just want to go back to the olden days of plain old imperialism.

I'm sure there's shitloads he and I disagree on politically because... well, we've seen each others posting histories on politics. But I don't think he's "that far gone" - I think his last 2 posts demonstrate a fair bit of common ground despite us having many wildly different political views.

If we have that much common ground on these actual important issues... I think that really just highlights what I've said about the culture wars the media props up as being huge distraction issues. He's seen it himself and said it himself, corporate interests do not align with the interests of ordinary people. It looks like we can both identify the same problems and have pretty similar thoughts on these problems - and these are actual issues that impact most people, rather than the culture war bullshit that is used to divide people politically.

I think it's a good thing to try to talk politics with people you don't agree with always. There's a reason I went through what he's looking for in a candidate, gave some of my own thoughts, and asked some questions (that I very much do hope you answer @OrangeKhrush) - especially when he's talking about things where I can see that even if I have political differences... I think he's found issues where we both have agreement, but maybe have different ideas (and maybe we don't have different ideas and are just in complete agreement). I might learn something from him, he might learn something from me. I don't think we want to live in a world where there's no room for political discussion.

It's certainly a hell of a lot better than reading someone's political views and thinking "what the fuck?"  At least here, even if we disagree, we're not just reading from two completely different pages. It's just policy differences on how to solve the same problems. If we were US politicians that would put us in the rare position of being able to make compromises that can actually get a law passed through both the senate and house that actually does something meaningful for most people in the country. And in that hypothetical scenario, that would make us better than 99% of the current politicians in the US senate and congress.

[Viva la FCB+]

42 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The thing is what he's talked about in his last 2 posts aren't really partisan at all! I don't think it's a sign he's too far gone when he's talking about things that are issues for everyone in America. It's a far cry from getting hung up on culture war bullshit!

He has that post about the drug issue in the US - and it's a serious issue. And maybe, despite me shitting on him earlier in this thread, maybe it's a good thing there's a person like Russell Brand has started targeting right wing people as his audience - even though I think some of the shit he promotes is just absolute bullshit. Because one political point Brand's sort of retained as he's made his pivot to friend-of-the-far right is his views on how to deal with homelessness and addiction. I think Brand still spews a lot of shit but if he's getting people on the right to think more like he does regarding the problems of the most vulnerable in western society... then Brand's doing something positive despite his weird political pivot.

It's hard to get a nation where individualism is so engrained in the culture to care about actual ways to deal with issues like drug addiction and homelessness (which are very related in the US, at least that's my view here in California) - but the first way America is going to meaningfully address this is by acknowledging the drug war policies have failed miserably. And that treating non-violent drug offenders the same as any other criminal is not really a solution to the problem. Currently the way the US is dealing with the situation is by letting it fester and letting people die in the streets, it's not humane. And it's not sanitary.

And the 4 points he listed as what he'd want in an ideal candidate are... very reasonable. Alright, I tore apart that decentralised government thing because... the US is very decentralised (sometimes to it's detriment, imo) - and one of the things he listed as an ideal is sort of just an example of how the US government acts as an "arbiter of truth." But wanting corporate money out of politics? That's pretty far from a far-right view. Regulating corporations & labour regulations? That's pretty far from a far-right view, as well, especially in the US. Granted, he didn't really explain what sort of regulation reforms he'd want - but I think just by saying that he's probably in favour of shit that protects people over corporations (particularly if he wants corporate money out of politics). And the no war or conflicts - I think that's an ideal that every person around the world wants. I don't think it's particularly realistic considering there's the 2 global powers that firmly believe in economic imperialism, and then you've got shitheads like Putin who just want to go back to the olden days of plain old imperialism.

I'm sure there's shitloads he and I disagree on politically because... well, we've seen each others posting histories on politics. But I don't think he's "that far gone" - I think his last 2 posts demonstrate a fair bit of common ground despite us having many wildly different political views.

If we have that much common ground on these actual important issues... I think that really just highlights what I've said about the culture wars the media props up as being huge distraction issues. He's seen it himself and said it himself, corporate interests do not align with the interests of ordinary people. It looks like we can both identify the same problems and have pretty similar thoughts on these problems - and these are actual issues that impact most people, rather than the culture war bullshit that is used to divide people politically.

I think it's a good thing to try to talk politics with people you don't agree with always. There's a reason I went through what he's looking for in a candidate, gave some of my own thoughts, and asked some questions (that I very much do hope you answer @OrangeKhrush) - especially when he's talking about things where I can see that even if I have political differences... I think he's found issues where we both have agreement, but maybe have different ideas (and maybe we don't have different ideas and are just in complete agreement). I might learn something from him, he might learn something from me. I don't think we want to live in a world where there's no room for political discussion.

It's certainly a hell of a lot better than reading someone's political views and thinking "what the fuck?"  At least here, even if we disagree, we're not just reading from two completely different pages. It's just policy differences on how to solve the same problems. If we were US politicians that would put us in the rare position of being able to make compromises that can actually get a law passed through both the senate and house that actually does something meaningful for most people in the country. And in that hypothetical scenario, that would make us better than 99% of the current politicians in the US senate and congress.

Ill be honest I have him blocked based on the previous shite he was posting. I read what spike had quoted so thats what i was talking about listening to Tucker etc. For my own sanity Ill carry on, but you keep fighting the good fight sir. 

[OrangeKhrush]

On 06/07/2023 at 21:20, Dr. Gonzo said:

Some of this is confusing, some of it makes sense.

1.) What you're describing - whether or not the government are arbiters of truth... that's not really got anything to do with a decentralized government. The US is a pretty good example of a decentralized government, tbh. The federal government is broken up into the 3 branches. One of those branches, the most important one that also does the least amount of work, is broken into 2 sub-branches for reasons that I'm not sure I will ever understand. Then the states are all given a huge amount of autonomy in the US and then there's the state governments that are broken up into those same 3 branches.

The judicial branch is effectively the "arbiters of truth" - they are the ones who currently determine whether speech falls outside protected speech or not. They're... a part of the government. If anything they've become increasingly partisan and less tied to interpreting laws following the written text of laws and previously established precedent that is considered precedent.

So are you saying you want a US presidential candidate that is going to retain that kind of system? Isn't every candidate, barring anyone saying they want to re-write the constitution, in support of point #1?

For me, an ideal candidate addressing the issues that exist in the decentralized government the US has would be one advocating for actual ethical reform over all 3 of these branches - particularly the judiciary and the legislative branch.

2.) I agree with this. I think if you're a politician, you've got to divest and put your assets in a blind trust. I think if you're on a board of directors and you want to hold any public position, you need to step down from a board of directors to demonstrate that your duty to your shareholders doesn't outweigh your duty to the public. I'd add to this: US politicians need to do something about the Citizens United supreme court case holding. Unfettered lobbying money is just legal bribery. That court case has ruined politics in the United States and placed political power even further in the hands of the ultra-wealthy.

Campaign donations should only come from actual individuals. Not from "corporate persons" - corporate political contributions should be banned. And there should be a hard limit on how much an individual can contribute to any candidate and in total. It should be a very low number, tbh. A candidates political future should be dependent on the policies and ideas they are offering to the public, it should not be dependent on having huge corporate backing. Elected officials should represent the individuals making up their constituency, not national and multinational corporations.

3.) This exists already? Are you talking about expanding labour rights? I think generally speaking, I might agree with you. But if you're talking about rolling back workers protections or rolling back regulations imposed on corporations, I probably don't agree with you. I guess I just don't get quite what you mean.

4.) I think this is a nice ideal - but is it possible with the US's global hegemony? I think both Trump and Biden can probably point to being the least warlike presidents since the first George Bush. Afterall, Trump negotiated peace with the Taliban and Biden oversaw that ridiculous withdrawal. They were both heavily criticised for the withdrawal - often for the same reasons: 1.) human rights (which tbh, the US doesn't really give a fuck about), 2.) abandoning US interests in central Asia.

Do you mean that you think the US shouldn't provide military support to countries like Ukraine? Because I think that's a pretty unpopular idea and it's not really in the US's national interests to let Russia expand westward into Europe (again) - or in the interests of US allies (including Ukraine). Russia invaded Ukraine many years ago when they took Crimea and many western governments have been training Ukrainian soldiers since then - not just since Russia's more recent push into the heart of Ukraine.

And from the US perspective, the involvement in Ukraine is pretty ideal: 1.) Russia is a geopolitical rival of the US, tying up their resources in this war and all the domestic issues this has caused for Putin means they've weakened a rival simply by that rival invading another country; 2.) US soldiers don't die, but the US military industry complex makes money like the US is at war; 3.) Ukraine might be a country that's struggled with corruption issues, but it's still a matter of standing up for western values when invaded by a geopolitical rival - there's been strong bipartisan support for Ukraine in this war because it's a democracy being invaded by an authoritarian.

No wars is a nice idea, but humans are cunts and the people in power are especially cunty. Russia and Ukraine proves you can have a global conflict without the US starting anything - and when that happens, countries are going to react to protect their interests in the aftermath of this war. Especially countries like the US that have their finger in every pie all around the world.

Imperialism isn't dead, it's just less "in your face" than it used to be because it became un-cool to have an empire. But you're not going to have much success in the US running for office trying to advocate for the US weakening it's control on its empire. I just don't think it's possible to have a militant country like the US and then run on the promise of "no more involvement in any war" - the US has it's economic empire to run, their military's outrageous threat of force makes that empire possible.

My first point was more to do with one element in current US politics where vested interests by politicians in their paid backers has grossly violated principals of democracy.   Both sides of the aisle are backed by the same people in big tech, big pharma, military arms manufacturing, banking and financial, energy companies.   The example I was referring to was predominantly down to the COVID 19 period when government and their paid media houses would have people with proven ties that were not disclosed go on air and view a biased view point in which to create mass hysteria to the benefits of these corporates.   There was also that body created to determine "truth" which ultimately failed but it was the very first attempt by a US government to determine what is "truth".   Never has a more brazen attempt been made in the US for government to control narrative and is  a fundamental breach in democratic values. 

More information keeps coming to light about the corroboration between government and their corporate backers and that the science was flawed at best and that the consequence is a rise of cardio and respiratory problems as well as offset conditions like diabetes through forced vaccine mandates.    The use of political force to compel people to take the vaccine was a throwback to draconian style governance. 

in regard to point 2.  From a decentralized government point,  there needs to be a clear safeguard from corporate and government becoming one and the same,  the government is there to regulate the private sector not act in the interest of the well paying benefactors.   One cannot act in both capacities without a clear bias.   A politician needs to act bonafides to the interests of the electorate,  the people elect them to represent their interests,  similarly a director has a fiduciary duty to act in the interests of the business.   Therefore there can never be co-existence between the two principals,  you cannot act in both interests without breaching one.   Banning corporate funding would be a positive step to restoring accountability in government. 

In regard to point 3.   As a practicing attorney in the labour field,  I will never advocate for retraction of employee interests only for the better relationship and equal bargaining power between employer and employee.  The point I was making was this,  in South Africa which is a very progressive and advanced in labour laws,  businesses are governed under various legislation such as;  The Companies Act, Competitions Act, Income Tax Act, Labour Relations Act, Employment Equity Act, Basic Conditions of Employment Act,  National Minimum Wage Act,  Insolvency Act as well as being informed by prevailing 'Common Law which derives from English Law of torts and Roman Dutch Law as well as The Constitution.     This leaves the private sector free from Government control,  but constrained by Legislation to avoid gross abuse of power. 

As for the final,  I don't think the US and NATO have clean hands in this conflict and I think it is by design because war is profit and politicians are tied into military arms companies.   This conflict could have been stopped but the interest is in propagating tax payer money for war.   The US budget goes mostly to making weapons of war instead of to say,  veterans and current servicemen and woman who are living in near poverty or I don't know increasing law enforcement,  improving education and stuff that is generally not profitable to a politician.  Instead you have MSNBC, FOX et al bringing on people without disclosing their ties to Lockheed Martin, Raythoen and other arms companies,  or failing to disclose their affiliations and allowing these people to advocate for war.    

This war could have been stopped but between money and a green jumpsuit apparatus wearing  warmonger acting like Oliver Twist and asking for more weapons,  a real leader which biden is not would have ended this conflict a long time ago and maybe copped a bullet by the establishment,  because the agenda is war and sadly it is entrenched into both sides of the aisles,  anyone that talks out about it is attacked, villainized and censored. 

In finality,  while I don't agree on everything RFK advocates for,  on balance he seems to tick more boxes than my other preferred candidates. 

 

[OrangeKhrush]

On 06/07/2023 at 23:09, Dr. Gonzo said:

The thing is what he's talked about in his last 2 posts aren't really partisan at all! I don't think it's a sign he's too far gone when he's talking about things that are issues for everyone in America. It's a far cry from getting hung up on culture war bullshit!

He has that post about the drug issue in the US - and it's a serious issue. And maybe, despite me shitting on him earlier in this thread, maybe it's a good thing there's a person like Russell Brand has started targeting right wing people as his audience - even though I think some of the shit he promotes is just absolute bullshit. Because one political point Brand's sort of retained as he's made his pivot to friend-of-the-far right is his views on how to deal with homelessness and addiction. I think Brand still spews a lot of shit but if he's getting people on the right to think more like he does regarding the problems of the most vulnerable in western society... then Brand's doing something positive despite his weird political pivot.

It's hard to get a nation where individualism is so engrained in the culture to care about actual ways to deal with issues like drug addiction and homelessness (which are very related in the US, at least that's my view here in California) - but the first way America is going to meaningfully address this is by acknowledging the drug war policies have failed miserably. And that treating non-violent drug offenders the same as any other criminal is not really a solution to the problem. Currently the way the US is dealing with the situation is by letting it fester and letting people die in the streets, it's not humane. And it's not sanitary.

And the 4 points he listed as what he'd want in an ideal candidate are... very reasonable. Alright, I tore apart that decentralised government thing because... the US is very decentralised (sometimes to it's detriment, imo) - and one of the things he listed as an ideal is sort of just an example of how the US government acts as an "arbiter of truth." But wanting corporate money out of politics? That's pretty far from a far-right view. Regulating corporations & labour regulations? That's pretty far from a far-right view, as well, especially in the US. Granted, he didn't really explain what sort of regulation reforms he'd want - but I think just by saying that he's probably in favour of shit that protects people over corporations (particularly if he wants corporate money out of politics). And the no war or conflicts - I think that's an ideal that every person around the world wants. I don't think it's particularly realistic considering there's the 2 global powers that firmly believe in economic imperialism, and then you've got shitheads like Putin who just want to go back to the olden days of plain old imperialism.

I'm sure there's shitloads he and I disagree on politically because... well, we've seen each others posting histories on politics. But I don't think he's "that far gone" - I think his last 2 posts demonstrate a fair bit of common ground despite us having many wildly different political views.

If we have that much common ground on these actual important issues... I think that really just highlights what I've said about the culture wars the media props up as being huge distraction issues. He's seen it himself and said it himself, corporate interests do not align with the interests of ordinary people. It looks like we can both identify the same problems and have pretty similar thoughts on these problems - and these are actual issues that impact most people, rather than the culture war bullshit that is used to divide people politically.

I think it's a good thing to try to talk politics with people you don't agree with always. There's a reason I went through what he's looking for in a candidate, gave some of my own thoughts, and asked some questions (that I very much do hope you answer @OrangeKhrush) - especially when he's talking about things where I can see that even if I have political differences... I think he's found issues where we both have agreement, but maybe have different ideas (and maybe we don't have different ideas and are just in complete agreement). I might learn something from him, he might learn something from me. I don't think we want to live in a world where there's no room for political discussion.

It's certainly a hell of a lot better than reading someone's political views and thinking "what the fuck?"  At least here, even if we disagree, we're not just reading from two completely different pages. It's just policy differences on how to solve the same problems. If we were US politicians that would put us in the rare position of being able to make compromises that can actually get a law passed through both the senate and house that actually does something meaningful for most people in the country. And in that hypothetical scenario, that would make us better than 99% of the current politicians in the US senate and congress.

Political discourse is hardly ever an agreement on any/everything but rather a compomise on view points.   Those that refuse to participate or block/censor it tend to be people under the "progressive banner" who hate being disagreed on or questioned then use threat to force their view points on others.   We have a certain person who talks about cultists yet the clear and obvious examples of when you don't fit in with the cult you get attacked is Ana Kasperian having an ephiphany moment and the TYT fanbase went absolutely full raging mental on her on twitter and the TYT.  

We live in a society where "freedom of thought" and the expression of that is constrained to a pigeon hole and depending on which drawer you opinion espouses determines whether or not you are acceptable for this authoritarian standard.   Discourse is important as is disagreement,  if people cant handle that then they are to far gone. 

[Cicero]

How is Trump still the leading Republican candidate? Is DeSantis really that shit?

[Spike]

18 minutes ago, Cicero said:

How is Trump still the leading Republican candidate? Is DeSantis really that shit?

If you imagine Trump without charisma  and even worse policies you have de Santis