American Politics Discussion Thread

[Cyneheard]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standoff_at_Eagle_Pass

They gave the current US happening a really freaking cool name. Gunfight at the OK Corral tier. This is getting funny.

It's getting terrifying. Less about the direct impact, more the completely lawless behavior that Texas is doing (yes, feds are in charge of the border, not you, and no, you do not get to just defy a Supreme Court order) and that is being abetted by, among others, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and 4 Supreme Court justices.

[Boro]

Again, people seem to think that I'm arguing Democracies are perfect. That is always the counter "YOUR NOT PERFECT SO DEMOCRACY BAD!!!". That has never been my argument. Change and action are possible. We just celebrated Martin Luther King  day in the states and some of his lesser known quotes deal with how do you make people care about change? How do you get the apathetic to care. Most people in the United States just take our Democracy for granted. They don't realize all we owe to it. How do you make them care? Its not that most are fascists, its just that they don't realize or care.

Its not that Democracy is perfect, but that change CAN be made. Its not guaranteed. Part of the appeal of authoritarinism is its easier. Everything is one persons responsibility, good or bad. In a Democracy you have to get movement of a lot of people to get a change.

What change? How many more wars do you need to send your naval infantry, sorry, glorified hired thugs to die and get crippled in just so your elites can rape another defenseless country and your corporations can get exclusive resource extraction rights, sorry, stealing rights, where they have no environmental responsibilities (so that the conquered have to bear the costs of the whole process)?

How many "revolutions of dignity", where your high level politicians all but appoint by imperial decree (behind closed doors) bunches of neonazi paramilitaries, or the worst kinds of traitorous bootlickers, bankroll entire protests where just by staying out for a day a protester can earn more than in an entire week or month?

You guys had exactly one president since what, 1990? Earlier? ...who didn't start a new war and it was of all people fucking Trump. I guess Biden also counts if you think that technically he only provoked the two new conflicts you guys are in.

You'd think that if change was possible you guys would've taken it, but no! Abu Ghraib? Guantanamo? Supporting the bacha bazi (child molesting as a tradition) warlords and opium industry in afghanistan? Snowden? Assange? Collateral Murder? Bombing weddings? Bombing your own aid workers in kabul?

Getting a nobel prize and then immediately setting everything from west africa to asia minor on fire, including media support for the rebranded offshoot of al-kaida as moderate rebels? The enabling of weapons from Libya's armories to turn fringe groups like Boko Haram, and Islamic State into major regional problems? At the same time triggering a refugee crisis of many millions?

"Targeted sanctions" that mean policies aimed at engineering starvation in a country in order to force them to capitulate politically? 500k dead Iraqi children worth it?

No, there hasnt been any change on the things that matter in the past 34 years. It's not even a talking point, except when Tucker wants to score some brownie points on tv/twitter. No what matters to everyone is a bunch of frivolous details like formalities about technical definitions or who-said-what 150 years ago.

Now you mentioned that Martin Luther King having quotes about how you make people care, but your foreign policies and that last paragraph should make it obvious. First you beat them with a stick, you "make their economies scream", and then you see who is willing to give in in exchange for a carrot.

After all, (in authoritarianism) "Everything is one person's responsibility, good or bad."

(and yes, you all have been treating it every election as "if we just elect a new guy then everything will change", as if it was indeed one person's responsibility, but thats beside the point)

It naturally follows that in a democracy, it's every single voting age person's responsibility, good or bad. Not "nobody's responsibility, we just did an oopsie but we promise it goes away next election WHICH IS THE MOST IMPORTANT IN HISTORY BY THE WAY".

[Mjmd]

Again, your saying Democracy bad because we've done bad things. There isn't anything stopping an authoritarian from doing those things. It would be bad logical argument to point out al the bad things others have done, but logically speaking does the first part make sense. There is nothing holding autocracies back. Democracies have to care some what about how it looks. Is that perfect? No. Is it better than nothing? Yes. Again, I can understand why there are those around the world that might hate us, and I'm not saying you are wrong to do so. But I am still saying its better than autocracy. Something is better than nothing.

And I do think it is harder to get people to care about foreign policy. Its hard to get people to care about another fellow citizen let alone one half a world away. But none the less how things look does impact. And I don't disagree we should do better.

[Charr Babies]

Again, people seem to think that I'm arguing Democracies are perfect. That is always the counter "YOUR NOT PERFECT SO DEMOCRACY BAD!!!". That has never been my argument. Change and action are possible. We just celebrated Martin Luther King  day in the states and some of his lesser known quotes deal with how do you make people care about change? How do you get the apathetic to care. Most people in the United States just take our Democracy for granted. They don't realize all we owe to it. How do you make them care? Its not that most are fascists, its just that they don't realize or care.

Its not that Democracy is perfect, but that change CAN be made. Its not guaranteed. Part of the appeal of authoritarinism is its easier. Everything is one persons responsibility, good or bad. In a Democracy you have to get movement of a lot of people to get a change.

What change? How many more wars do you need to send your naval infantry, sorry, glorified hired thugs to die and get crippled in just so your elites can rape another defenseless country and your corporations can get exclusive resource extraction rights, sorry, stealing rights, where they have no environmental responsibilities (so that the conquered have to bear the costs of the whole process)?

How many "revolutions of dignity", where your high level politicians all but appoint by imperial decree (behind closed doors) bunches of neonazi paramilitaries, or the worst kinds of traitorous bootlickers, bankroll entire protests where just by staying out for a day a protester can earn more than in an entire week or month?

You guys had exactly one president since what, 1990? Earlier? ...who didn't start a new war and it was of all people fucking Trump. I guess Biden also counts if you think that technically he only provoked the two new conflicts you guys are in.

You'd think that if change was possible you guys would've taken it, but no! Abu Ghraib? Guantanamo? Supporting the bacha bazi (child molesting as a tradition) warlords and opium industry in afghanistan? Snowden? Assange? Collateral Murder? Bombing weddings? Bombing your own aid workers in kabul?

Getting a nobel prize and then immediately setting everything from west africa to asia minor on fire, including media support for the rebranded offshoot of al-kaida as moderate rebels? The enabling of weapons from Libya's armories to turn fringe groups like Boko Haram, and Islamic State into major regional problems? At the same time triggering a refugee crisis of many millions?

"Targeted sanctions" that mean policies aimed at engineering starvation in a country in order to force them to capitulate politically? 500k dead Iraqi children worth it?

No, there hasnt been any change on the things that matter in the past 34 years. It's not even a talking point, except when Tucker wants to score some brownie points on tv/twitter. No what matters to everyone is a bunch of frivolous details like formalities about technical definitions or who-said-what 150 years ago.

Now you mentioned that Martin Luther King having quotes about how you make people care, but your foreign policies and that last paragraph should make it obvious. First you beat them with a stick, you "make their economies scream", and then you see who is willing to give in in exchange for a carrot.

After all, (in authoritarianism) "Everything is one person's responsibility, good or bad."

(and yes, you all have been treating it every election as "if we just elect a new guy then everything will change", as if it was indeed one person's responsibility, but thats beside the point)

It naturally follows that in a democracy, it's every single voting age person's responsibility, good or bad. Not "nobody's responsibility, we just did an oopsie but we promise it goes away next election WHICH IS THE MOST IMPORTANT IN HISTORY BY THE WAY".

WHAT CHANGE!? - Well said. That's a lot more words than I would bother for deaf ears. What a shit load of crap in that 3 dirty words "we can change". That is as bad as "In the name of god."

Change for the worse maybe

[Boro]

Okay, quick time out because as you can see I was not exactly speaking about americans with friendly or kind terms.

but you see, it's not for nothing. Back in the early 2000s and late 1990-s hungary was as deep in anglo-worship as any post-socialist eastern bloc country, you know, the developed west, shining beacon of rights and democracy, and all that propagandized fluff we ate wholesale.

Then we heard, and saw, the collateral murder. It was shocking, but there I was expecting the west's developed justice system to swiftly punish the war criminals. Except it didn't happen, and all the discourse was about drone striking snowden and how his work risks the lives of us servicement (you know, servicemen like the war criminals!). That didn't help your reputation as people.

Then your foreign minister visited hungary for the opening of our Tom Lantos institute, and she had the gall to talk about her concerns about our constitution, media freedom, checks and balances in our very parliament. Now, I know you all can get very enthusiastic, but it is not normal diplomatic behavior, but that of a viceroy, or colonial governor.

Our recent history is full of this. Mark Palmer being open which party he prefered during our first election, Colleen Bell complaining that we don't buy enough frivolously expensive american energy carriers (amongst the usuals), Eleni Tsakopoulos Kounalakis's whole schtick, Andre Goodfriend partaking in opposition protests and at least one meeting, and after a four year pause, it turns out that you had an entire "hungarian" media empire in your payroll to amplify the voices of your hungarian collaborators.

Then this little ethnic issue in Kijev. After sharing some cookies, and having high ranking politicians make speeches on central squares, your democratic leaders created chaos with false flag snipers, dashing away our hopes that the situation could finally be defused, and then, for years, Obama didn't bother to tell his pet nazis that maybe taking away the language rights of their allies isn't a good decision. And it didn't matter how much we tried to convince them with goodwill, none of it mattered. But when we started using our veto, we suddenly became the bad guys!

[Mjmd]

Again, I get it. We aren't perfect. I'm not saying you can't be mad at us. All I'm trying to point out the ability to change is better than not being able to. Lord knows I would never claim change is guaranteed or perfect.

If you disagree with Orban can you freely speak and publish it? How well can you try to change it? Now you may agree with him. I'm not going to argue if he is good or bad. But if you wanted to change something in Hungary how easy is that? How well could you do that while the Soviets controlled you? Again, maybe you agree with everything they did, but just hypothetically how well could you do that?

Would you rather have a government where change is possible or where you just have to hope the top guy is benevolent.

[Boro]

"Bad things"? I'm not talking about your average boy scout booboo MJMD. I'm talking about war crimes and war criminals with bipartisan support. There is literally no political force within the US that wants it to stop being the heart of global fascism.

How do you change it with voting when you can only vote for those supporting it?

[Mjmd]

Again, your saying Democracy bad because we've done bad things. There isn't anything stopping an authoritarian from doing those things. It would be bad logical argument to point out al the bad things others have done, but logically speaking does the first part make sense. There is nothing holding autocracies back. Democracies have to care some what about how it looks. Is that perfect? No. Is it better than nothing? Yes. Again, I can understand why there are those around the world that might hate us, and I'm not saying you are wrong to do so. But I am still saying its better than autocracy. Something is better than nothing.

And I do think it is harder to get people to care about foreign policy. Its hard to get people to care about another fellow citizen let alone one half a world away. But none the less how things look does impact. And I don't disagree we should do better.

Ever heard of taking the lesser of two evils? My argument isn't that it can't happen under a democracy, but that there is SOME amount of counterweight that CAN occur. THIS DOESN'T EXIST UNDER AUTOCRACIES.

You can Democracy bad all you want because of events x, y, and z and I've never disagree with you. But you haven't proven that its worse than an autocracy. I have the easy argument here; more is better than less (I was going to say something is better than nothing, but there is always a chance for an autocrat to be disposed via revolution or coup, but I think we can agree getting voted out is easier and less painful for a country to go through)

[Mjmd]

I think what we are basically dealing with is an Ad Hominem logical fallacy on a national scale. Just because the US has done bad things, it doesn't mean Democracy isn't better than an autocracy. Has flaws, certainly, but my argument has never been its perfect.

It could be a red herring where you are trying to distract from the argument with the bad things as well. You aren't actually addressing my base argument.

[greenline]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standoff_at_Eagle_Pass

They gave the current US happening a really freaking cool name. Gunfight at the OK Corral tier. This is getting funny.

It's getting terrifying. Less about the direct impact, more the completely lawless behavior that Texas is doing (yes, feds are in charge of the border, not you, and no, you do not get to just defy a Supreme Court order) and that is being abetted by, among others, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and 4 Supreme Court justices.

It has precedent in American governance that decisions set by the Supreme Court ultimately rely on the willingness of the other branches of government to enforce them. Just recently, after their ruling on affirmative action, we had the response by many universities being to do everything within their power to skirt the ruling to continue having the same outcomes as when affirmative action was legal. Little will change there unless some force came sniffing around with actual force behind such words.

The situation in Texas is that the federal government has absolute jurisdiction over the border. Perfectly legal, yet perfectly tyrannical, as it is using that jurisdiction to send millions of migrants to be shuttled throughout the country, primarily to states filled with voters who do not want them there, because states like New York filled with people who say nice words about migrants do not want to deal with the very real burden of handling them. The founders who wrote the Constitution would be disgusted with the situation, but that is hardly new.