Serious The Politics Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just wanted to post a fellow reminder for us as posters for us not to be spewing propaganda, especially after being told before not to so. Remember posting here’s purpose is to improve / add on to conversation in a positive manner, there’s no need to be abrasive regardless of how passionate you feel about a subject.
 
I am not aware of large scale "alliance" that a majority of historians would agree existed, but there certainly were elements of Palestinian leadership at the time who attempted to align with Nazi Germany. Most charitably for Palestinians it would have been because Nazi Germany was the most available counterweight to Britain at the time and it would likewise be beneficial for Nazi Germany to fuel instability in Britain's territories. A less charitable reading of motivations is just a fascist/militaristic and/or anti-semitic alliance. Either way, whether relations were out of convenience or an actual alignment of ideology etc. is not super relevant to the question of whether or not there was an "alliance." IMO it doesn't really rise to the level where that word is appropriate. We're not talking any sort of binding mutual defense pact or whatever, and there's relatively little evidence of monetary aid (I think there's considerably more evidence of monetary aid from fascist Italy, for what it's worth). I'd prefer looser terms like association or connection either way.

See for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husseini
 
No, I asked you whether you would post similarly if you replaced Palestine and the Palestinians with the Jews in Germany during WW2.

And you know that is what I said, but you're a bad faith actor here, clearly. Go read my post again and answer properly, if you can.
Ok, you're not the only user guilty of this so I don't mean to throw you specifically under the bus, but there comes a point where it's less about people misinterpreting your posts and more about how your information is being presented. While I don't want this thread to just turn into "RaikouLover posts the latest headlines, more at 11", we also really need to stop spending half of every page "misinterpreting" each other's posts.

Everyone needs to be more cognizant of how they present information in this thread, to be less assuming of extrapolations as accusatory or antagonistic, and throwing around minimodding terms like "bad faith actors" and the like.

To bounce off of awyp's post, there are some problematic posts being made from a few users consistently throughout this thread. Some actions will be taken this weekend to try and resolve this ongoing issue.
 
Ok, you're not the only user guilty of this so I don't mean to throw you specifically under the bus, but there comes a point where it's less about people misinterpreting your posts and more about how your information is being presented. While I don't want this thread to just turn into "RaikouLover posts the latest headlines, more at 11", we also really need to stop spending half of every page "misinterpreting" each other's posts.

Everyone needs to be more cognizant of how they present information in this thread, to be less assuming of extrapolations as accusatory or antagonistic, and throwing around minimodding terms like "bad faith actors" and the like.

To bounce off of awyp's post, there are some problematic posts being made from a few users consistently throughout this thread. Some actions will be taken this weekend to try and resolve this ongoing issue.

I just don’t see a way forward if we can’t have good faith debating without being misrepresented. I also don’t see a way forward if some users are going to post not cited, unsourced material either.

Please feel free to drop me a PM if you want to discuss my posting, by the way, I’m not above being told to wind the neck in if you think I’m over doing it.

For my own part, my apologies if I’ve added to the stresses of moderating of late.
 
Anyone want to talk about interest rate cuts?
Cuts absolutely need to happen, I think. Then again I am no economist so what do I know. But I just bought a house with 5%-ish interest rate and while its frustrating that this is finally happening immediately after I'm closing on it, it does seem like it definitely needs to happen- it is such a barrier to homeownership. That said, it seems like the major problem still is simply in the lack of housing being created. We are still well below the average of houses built per year. I would say the average age of houses my fiance and I went in the past year was like.... 60 years. They just aren't building new shit, and the new shit they do build is 55+ or townhomes waaay above our budget.

/Rant

Also,
Was reading about this here and came across this quote:
"At the same time, the unemployment rate has slowly but consistently climbed higher, most recently at 4.3% and in an area that otherwise would trigger a time-tested indicator of a recession. However, Powell attributed the rise in unemployment to more individuals entering the workforce and a slower pace of hiring, rather than a rise in layoffs or a general deterioration in the labor market."

What happened to this "no one wants to work" rhetoric? I still can't believe so many people were blaming COVID relief stimulus checks for unemployment- yes, like $5k AT BEST is totally going to make people never work again.
 
Anyone want to talk about interest rate cuts?

Not sure if it is a great idea. Inflation just got under control and the economy is doing fine. Typically, we lower interest rates to juice the economy as a stimulus. Rate cuts essentially lower the cost of new money.

Don’t worry though, if convicted felon Trump wins he will cut taxes for the rich and cut interest rates to all hell, economy be damned.
 
So regarding all of the discourse around the need to destroy both parties right away... it just comes across as unserious to me.

Hope we're not rehashing too much, but while I agree with the charges against the administration (if you think Biden's admin is guilty of aiding/abetting a Genocide, I think that's just factually accurate), I think you have to be a real about the actual mechanics of the systems in place - political, social, legal, mechanical. I'm just asking leftists to think about systems, material conditions, and the dialectic between the forces at play. Should be up everyone's alley.

I don't think the two parties can be "destroyed"--
These are not physical entities-- they are political niches shaped by the material conditions created by the people and legal framework that exists in the US. You can reconstitute/change the individuals/thinking (strategy/philosophy/values/loyalties etc.) to a certain degree, but no matter what, there will be 2 entities that fill 90% of the niche and do 90% of the work that the Democrats & Republicans are doing. They can't "be destroyed" in a real sense without massively reshaping the existing available niches from economy and culture (and even then, there will be 2 governing parties regardless).

Imagine, magically though, that Jill Stein or Cornel West could win with all other candidates' campaigns disappearing. They either would be completely unable to govern if the armed forces and executive branch organizations beneath them don't obey them, or they would end up in almost the exact same place doing the same things as the Democratic Party if they pick the same type of people and are constrained by the same Legislative branch, or they could/would be just completely incompetent without the right people with the right expertise in place.

Not to say that outsiders can't be effective-- FDR famously did a mass overhaul of the executive branch, he filled his staff with people from working class backgrounds/chose folks with academic/professional backgrounds radically aligned to labor, and was tremendously successful with this team of outsider new-to-governing bureaucrats. BUT... he was extremely prepared to do so, even from the campaign stage that strategy was robust and deliberate-- it was a team assembled with a mission.

There are no 3rd Parties in the US with that capability, that can pull together that robust human resource, or that ability to win and use political legitimacy to drive an agenda. Definitely helps that FDR was a Democrat... I personally could listen to Cornel West for hours as a rich orator on history, culture, spirituality-- but zero confidence the man could assemble such a winning bureaucratic team (Bernie 2020 on the other hand, absolutely has my confidence that he would have/could have if he had won).


Now, let's take stock of what is on the table. I WANT the Democrats to EXPERIENCE SUCCESS--
To feel rewarded for leaning HARD into Labor, for embracing populist rhetoric and culturally centering leftist fingers-- Bernie, AoC, Shawn Fain plastered in big prime time spots, the party owning the position of THIS IS WHO WE ARE-- to get the carrot. If they win BIGLY-- this cements the strategy's political validity in the minds of a generation of party staff and leaders.

Harris is acting this out, Pelosi and Obama have orchestrated this-- because they are desperate to win, AND because this formula of leaning in hard is the strategy to win. This is in and of itself critical-- so many on the left for many years believed that you couldn't incentivize the Dems with success, because the party didn't even seem motivated by success. They didn't care about winning, they would need to be "dragged kicking and screaming to victory."--Thomas Frank

Just getting them to genuinely swallow the "We REALLY can't let Republicans win", genuinely getting elite liberals to accept that letting Trump win is really existential IS a success, it IS progress for the left. That calling Trump existential isn't just a cynical talking point to squash progressives, but that at their core they believe that the Republicans are evil, destroying everything good, and that every weapon at hand must be employed to win. This belief is finally manifested and showing in a genuine way. The Biden pull didn't need to happen, but it happening is proof that the Democratic Party is FINALLY serious. Going from the loser energy of a couple months ago, or the barely existing Biden 2020 campaign, to the POWER of this week's DNC-- all of it is a showcase of a Party that's finally doing politics of committing to getting the win.

And not JUST committing to winning-- but believing even at the highest leadership that Left Populism is needed to win. That is ALSO a huge win for the left, it is a massive victory for Labor and for the Bernie Left.

This is exactly where FDR was-- Rich Elite Liberal, but convinced that he needed to demand the rest of US royalty that they needed to open their wallets, fork out the cash, and that "we must go fairly radical for a generation." It is where we WANT the Democrats to be (for now).

So we should let them enjoy the moment, we should do what Bernie/AoC are doing-- show them unity, applaud lead them to experience that our ideas can/will drive their electoral success. Make ourselves partners in preserving liberal democracy-- and of course, fight to get them elected.

Shawn Fain is on the stage driving the Harris/Walz win and contorting elite Democrats to yell "Trump's a Scab!" (sure there are many there feeling maaaanny internal contradictions as the words leave their lips, lol), even while in the background he's orchestrating for Union contracts across industries and across orgs to all come up for renewal togeher in a way that would threaten a MASSIVE General Strike that WOULD happen DURING Kamala's 8 years-- she's NOT going to like that when it happens; that don't matter. Fain is playing the game, and doing it brilliantly-- and the Biden->Harris labor department is creating conditions where that will be much, much, more explosive in Labor's future power.


Also, Republican Party collapse IS on the table.
Power, like anything, requires maintenance-- it can only happen if there are people to turn the wheels of its enterprise. The MAGA Republican movement is fundamentally weak in a way that Neocon Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and Leftists are not-- they have no ideological core.

There is no ideology, there is not commitment to enduring ideas besides hatred of minorities-- it's ALL a cult of personality. So the Fascist swell is vulnerable to losing its leader in a way that Conservatives, Liberals, Leftists are not. These others can continue without their figurehead-- without Trump, MAGA has nothing. There is no real heir apparent, there is no succession once he's gone-- and he's more weak, and tired, and old than he's ever been. If Kamala wins, we can put him to bed, and that puts the whole Republican apparatus on its bed.

Surely, this fascist surge is extremely dangerous, and we should prepare for revolt, for more Jan 6th-ish treason after Trump loses, but once that's put down MAGA gets put down, and that means the entire Republican apparatus will be forced to deal with redefining itself.

Remember folks Parties can die-- the Wigs did for instance. The Republicans without Trump are in that type of situation. Now, most likely they would simply be in an exercise of re-defining themselves and regrouping, the odds of squashing it completely when it still has so many seats and people and infrastructure is slim to none-- but it will be on its back for a while and lead to huge, continuing Democratic electoral victories.

The best long term outcome would be if the GOP does collapse in a huge way, the Democrats grow to fill the entire right-left paradigm, and eventually is so successful that progressive Dems would split off and then there would be a new 2 party system of Democratic Socialist vs. Liberal (instead of the current Liberal vs Fascist one)-- but even if that doesn't happen, massive egalitarian transformation of economy and culture can happen in that window that permanently changes the material conditions of the world's most powerful Empire country.


All of that is significant opportunity on the table-- and it does include chances to find ways of bettering justice for Palestine. Not Guarantees-- nothing is ever guaranteed. The left needs to play its cards smart though to bring about the wins we want to see. This is NOT the time to turn over the table, it's the time to sit and continue playing the cards.
 
Last edited:
Celticpride RaikouLover chimp

I'm in favor of cutting interest rates under a Democratic Regime that has genuine interest in regulation, antitrust, and now potentially even Price Controls. Under an Obama it was something of a bandaid but still disastrous corporate giveaway, but under Biden and a future Harris/Walz administration it could be incredibly successful.

We need to get to an economy of robust bottom-up optimism; where our consumer base has money to spend, and where working/middle-class spending power is the force driving/attracting economic investment to meet that demand-- ultimately winning job growth and increasing wages in a virtuous cycle. That'll happen better in a hot economy with low interest rates, but also a government aggressively limiting the ability of corporations to raise prices through greed, rent seek, expand corrupt practices (like exploitation abroad), or anti-competitive practices. In other words, a government interested in making markets WORK for real productivity, real value creation, and creating real supply capacity that keeps up with demand-- not smoke and mirrors.

We want to make Markets & American Enterprise WORK, not SKIRT.
And we know that takes government oversight and strong partnership with labor.

I think the heating up vs. cooling down analogy is good for interest rates-- we can think of applying heat to a system and speeding up chemical reactions in it. But you only want to apply heat and accelerate those reactions when you're sure you have the right ingredients in place to begin with.
 
Last edited:
There is no real heir apparent,
I wanna reply to this specifically: Ron DeSantis will be the Republican Nominee in 2028, I'd bet money on this

He is Trump but less charismatic, and I think he'll probably lose if he is the candidate, but I think he's probably the heir to MAGA if Trump actually quits
 
I wanna reply to this specifically: Ron DeSantis will be the Republican Nominee in 2028, I'd bet money on this

He is Trump but less charismatic, and I think he'll probably lose if he is the candidate, but I think he's probably the heir to MAGA if Trump actually quits
It will be Trump until he dies or wins again. He is too much of a narcisist to not run again and the republicans are all in on the cult of personality.
 
I wanna reply to this specifically: Ron DeSantis will be the Republican Nominee in 2028, I'd bet money on this

He is Trump but less charismatic, and I think he'll probably lose if he is the candidate, but I think he's probably the heir to MAGA if Trump actually quits

What’s more uniquely dangerous about Trump is not the backing of Republican donors which any Republican would have, or some elitist politician will inevitably get— what’s dangerous is the anti-Democratic, bigoted, fascist personality cult he’s able to inspire in the base. With him there the base can be whipped into abandoning the republic for a kingdom.

If Ron Desantis is the one to be coronated— I’m guessing not so much. He won’t be ordained by the cult Trump’s built. That’s what I mean by no heir apparent.
 
Last edited:
No, we in the United States do not live in hell.
1724431849184.png
 
We're probably gonna see them in the next month or so. RIP me ever being able to afford a house

Ever be able to or ever be able to afford the type of house in the area you want?

It’s a good topic to bring back. I’m under contract for my second property (first detached house) and while the market is challenging what hasn’t caught up is people’s expectations of homeownership.
 
It will be Trump until he dies or wins again. He is too much of a narcisist to not run again and the republicans are all in on the cult of personality.
Trump won't be allowed to be the nominee in 2028 if he loses again, and I think Ronny Boy is the closest alignment to his base in terms of MAGA. I mean his team made sigma Tiktoks where he is American Psycho for killing trans people

It depends on if they think more Fascist (Ron DeSantis) or more center right is the play
 
Ever be able to or ever be able to afford the type of house in the area you want?

Yes the major metros of Texas, the state I have lived in all my life, housing has lost is bargain. Especially Dallas and Austin + their surrounding burbs. Might not be much relatively if you're coming in on like a coastal tech or finance salary but I don't think I'm going to be able to afford home ownership in the city I grew up in unless I go into an exurb with an hr+ commute. Things aren't good
 
Assuming a loss to begin with, then if the republican party even still contains a significant enough contingent among its leadership of un-purged old guard republicans, the next nominee will be someone very un-Trumpy in demeanor. They're not dumb and they know they have to win elections to exercise power at the federal level. This sort of nominee would certainly still be anti-choice and have many other beliefs typical of republicans. But on the most aggressively radical culture war issues that aren't universal among republicans, they could be more indifferent/"above the fray" on these issues or they could even be at least moderately resistant to some of them. At the very least they themselves would not drive any of that conversation and would focus their administration on the old bread and butter republican anti-regulation, anti-social safety net, etc. policies, making it unlikely too much of these newer, even worse culture war policies would be implemented top-down from the federal government. Still bad for plenty of reasons but at least a return to normalcy for the republican party and imo very plausible to win in 2028 (sadly). This would be someone like a Gov. Brian Kemp or Gov. Joe Lombardo.

But I think that's a pretty big if. The purge in leadership among the national party and even most state parties has been pretty complete. Assuming the republican party is unable to shake off Trumpism in the first place, then the heir will not be someone like Gov. DeSantis. He dared to challenge Trump in a primary. It will either be the literal heir Don Jr or more likely someone already in power but who "waited their turn" and never challenged Trump at all. Someone like Sen. Tom Cotton or Sen. Josh Hawley.
 
Assuming a loss to begin with, then if the republican party even still contains a significant enough contingent among its leadership of un-purged old guard republicans, the next nominee will be someone very un-Trumpy in demeanor. They're not dumb and they know they have to win elections to exercise power at the federal level. This sort of nominee would certainly still be anti-choice and have many other beliefs typical of republicans. But on the most aggressively radical culture war issues that aren't universal among republicans, they could be more indifferent/"above the fray" on these issues or they could even be at least moderately resistant to some of them. At the very least they themselves would not drive any of that conversation and would focus their administration on the old bread and butter republican anti-regulation, anti-social safety net, etc. policies, making it unlikely too much of these newer, even worse culture war policies would be implemented top-down from the federal government. Still bad for plenty of reasons but at least a return to normalcy for the republican party and imo very plausible to win in 2028 (sadly). This would be someone like a Gov. Brian Kemp or Gov. Joe Lombardo.

But I think that's a pretty big if. The purge in leadership among the national party and even most state parties has been pretty complete. Assuming the republican party is unable to shake off Trumpism in the first place, then the heir will not be someone like Gov. DeSantis. He dared to challenge Trump in a primary. It will either be the literal heir Don Jr or more likely someone already in power but who "waited their turn" and never challenged Trump at all. Someone like Sen. Tom Cotton or Sen. Josh Hawley.

I think you're on the money but--

Do you think Cotton, Hawley, or Trump Jr. have the sauce to claim the mantle of heir? I can't take any of these clowns seriously-- but I'm sure I'm massively biased. Same as JD Vance-- in mind all these people are a joke.
 
Last edited:
I feel like if Republicans lose through 2032 they have to change course, but I don't think that a 2024 loss would throw them off the MAGA platform. DeSantis is still going all in on the culture war, as is JD. Hawley is also in a populist position (weirdly also on board with ending stocks in congress? I'll take a broken clock), and they have been purging the Romney, Murkowski, and even McCarthys of the party. I expect 2028 to be a very similar platform except maaaaaybe backing off abortion a little bit.
 
I think you're on the money but--

Do you think Cotton, Hawley, or Trump Jr. have the sauce to claim the mantle of heir? I can't take any of these clowns seriously-- but I'm sure I'm massively biased. Same as JD Vance-- in mind all these people are a joke.
Cotton, probably no, Hawley more likely to be a yes. But I won't pretend to know who Republicans actually like and view as charismatic. And we've never seen any of these people try to really be national party figures yet. By their very nature the person I think would become the heir is someone who's been "waiting" to have their chance.

But in the scenario where Trumpism continues under a new heir, it would be someone "like" them in terms of being Trump loyalists who never entered a primary against him and endorsed him early in 2020 and 2024 and maybe even 2016 too. They may very likely have only entered politics post-Trump so that they have no pre-Trump record and have only ever been a Trumpist. Among people like this I think Cotton and Hawley currently have the best name recognition. Mike Johnson as speaker of the house at least temporarily would become the face of the party but I don't think that would last or that he could make a successful primary/general election run.
 
Yes the major metros of Texas, the state I have lived in all my life, housing has lost is bargain. Especially Dallas and Austin + their surrounding burbs. Might not be much relatively if you're coming in on like a coastal tech or finance salary but I don't think I'm going to be able to afford home ownership in the city I grew up in unless I go into an exurb with an hr+ commute. Things aren't good

I understand. What I meant is that homeownership will look different for our generation. The 4+Bed/3+Bath homes in the best suburban school districts run $1 million+ these days in the prosperous metros. That doesn’t mean homeownership is out of reach; it means that particular template is out of reach.

Perhaps people start considering much smaller options- townhomes and condominiums, that are closer to urban centers. Perhaps there is a renaissance of multi-family (duplex/triplex), multi-generational living. Some people may try rural/exurban living and mini-homes. Or as the cycle goes, those 4 bedroom houses are affordable in the less desirable parts of town that are future targets for development (aka gentrifying areas that are currently not desirable).

I expect 2028 to be a very similar platform except maaaaaybe backing off abortion a little bit.

Bigger question is do the post-Trump Republicans continue their war on democracy and crusade towards authoritarianism?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top