American Politics

[shionoro]

Okay, now I know why it's unclear to you: you're focused on the rejection of the progressive stuff, when the entirety of the brainstorming session was meant to find ways to appeal to the working class (I mean it mentions it at the top of each list but whatever...) You're asking a series of questions that literally have nothing to do with convincing the working class that we can appeal to them based on economics.

Its the opposite. This whole paper is meant to make moderates feel good about themselves while inventing a working class that doesnt exist and misunderstanding what made this campaign strategy work in other countries (and this isn't similar to hour homelessness discussion. Back then, you said the housing first strategy might not work in the US because the US is a different country. But here, I am telling you that a strategy cannot work if you just take it without understanding it. Country does not matter, it wouldnt work in Germany like that either).

This strategy is similar to the one that Linke committed to in Germany (and had good successes with the working class and many other voter groups) but dumbed down and without several conditions that made it work.

The two mainproblems are that this strategy does not work towards solving inner party divisions (in fact it just asks to shun leftists) and it also does not offer any compelling reason why voters should trust democrats. But without earned trust, nobody cares whether democrats do dances at a gunshow or leave you alone with these damn lgbtq rights. And without finding a broader consensus with the more leftist young people, who are the young staffers that do the talking and listening?

 

[M3J]

I think Jasmine Crockett would be the perfect representative for Dems. She's relatable, great at talking, badass, intelligent, courageous, and knowledgeable.

 

[shionoro]

Right now, I do wonder how civil societies in the US and Europe can find a shared voice about not being enemies. Clearly, the US leadership decided Europe is not an ally anymore and should be fought. Canada, Mexico and Europe are starting to fight back.

But that does not reflect the reality of all these regions being connected via friendships, via culture and even via family. I would wish for more voices that make it clear that both Americans and Europeans are not enemies and any such words from leadership is detestable.

Personally, I am not sure what the US military would do if Trump actually gives an order to annex Greenland or to grab regions at the Canadian border. I would think most personell would be very unhappy with fighting Nato allies, but with a year's time and a made up precedent, enough of them might be ready to follow orders.

 

[kkck]

I'd argue the voices are there but sanity is simply too far removed from politics nowadays. Not only has trump basically decided that canada and EU are enemies but has seemingly decided russia is wonderful and a potential better ally and business partner than either. And this considering how deeply anti US putin has been historically... to the point where russian media like russia today has specifically made a point of giving a platform to anyone with anti US views over the past decade (probably longer).

 

[shionoro]

What I am afraid of is that the US civil society increasingly reminds me of societies in dictatorships. They seem tired. There is no real pushback against Trump. With all the insane thing Trump and Musk did, you'd expect something like Occupy to go down by now. But it does not seem that way. People regress into their personal struggles, similar to the russian society, because they have no hope that they can change anything and are also increasingly afraid.

European countries have their own struggles, but there is still strong pushback against outrageous things, with some red lines still being upheld. But in America, I cannot see a serious red line anymore, even if the Republican Junta would decide to just ignore the law tomorrow and jail some people they don't like.

 

[ninjabot]

CNN (@cnn.com)

US employers cut more jobs last month than any February since 2009, new data shows, fueled by the Trump administration's federal layoffs. https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/06/economy/us-jobs-report-february-preview/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=blueskyCNN&utm_content=2025-03-06T12%3A57%3A42

bsky.app

 

[M3J]

Wild to think what could have been had Dems not fucked up the election

 

[ninjabot]

Gavin Newsom agrees with a conservative about Trans people in sports, the same as practically every American, and is pilloried by the Left for it.

Leftists ain't learned shit.

 

[kkck]

Now I'm wondering how far trump can go sanction wise. If this is even true at all.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 7, 2025, Original Post Date: Mar 7, 2025 ---

• A senior White House official said "Trump's rage has been intensifying" in recent days due to Russia's behavior and its escalation of strikes on Ukraine at the same time that he's been pushing for a ceasefire.

The heck did trump think was going to happen?

 

[shionoro]

Gavin Newsom agrees with a conservative about Trans people in sports, the same as practically every American, and is pilloried by the Left for it.

Leftists ain't learned shit.

Yeah, it would also be a great idea if Kamala goes on stage with Elon Musk to agree with him that the government needs to be more effective. That's gonna show em and wouldnt be deserving of criticism at all, right?

Maybe next, Newsom can also find some landlord activist and talk to them about how tennants can sometimes be a little too uppity.

After all, the moderate campaign Kamala led really profitted from cuddling with conservatives and selling out minorities. We should really listen more to moderates about strategy, after losing time after time and blaming leftists for it they must have learned their lesson at some point.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 7, 2025, Original Post Date: Mar 7, 2025 ---

Now I'm wondering how far trump can go sanction wise. If this is even true at all.

I think it makes sense to stop trying to interpret Trump's words. Usually, they mean nothing at all and can be taken back a second later. It is clear to me that Trump would love for Ukraine to surrender. I do not know why exactly he wants that, but the way the US withdrew support was absolutely fit to make Ukraine give up. Any threats against Russia after what he did are hollow and mean nothing unless he threatens to arm Ukraine again.

 

[kkck]

I think it makes sense to stop trying to interpret Trump's words. Usually, they mean nothing at all and can be taken back a second later. It is clear to me that Trump would love for Ukraine to surrender. I do not know why exactly he wants that, but the way the US withdrew support was absolutely fit to make Ukraine give up. Any threats against Russia after what he did are hollow and mean nothing unless he threatens to arm Ukraine again.

Hmm, well, when it comes to trump I don't think there's ever much of a plan but I do get the impression he generally means what he says. I do agree with you in that any end to the war would be fine with him of course with the caveat that he probably wouldn't accept one where he, trump, is perceived ti have been defeated. My read of events up to now is that he thought throwing russia a bone would cause them to reciprocate but instead they merely took advantage.

 

[shionoro]

It is just as hard to tell what this administration wants as it is with Russia. Because there are just so many interest groups and hidden interests that you cannot just judge actions by their apparent consequences.

It is not even clear to me whether Trump wanted to be president again or just ran to escape jail. Is he reliant on Elon Musk because Elon helped him become president/get out of jail but now has leverage to control Trump? What is Thiel's perspective on it all, pushing through JD Vance? What are the perspective of the Republican establishment?

Every single action like threats, tariffs or destruction of the american state can have thousands of hidden meanings. For example as a powermove among players we do not know, or to influence the stock market in ways that some billionaires like.

What is clear to me is that these actions do have intent, even if they are shitposts. Trump says things on impulse, but that does not mean he does not follow longterm goals that he pursues with these impulses. The same goes for Elon. The way he destroyed twitter was clearly intentional. He wanted X to be shit, that is why he basically fired everyone and used it to foster rightextremist trollbots. Any jokes about him losing money on it miss the point, it was never about money (neither is it when it comes to Tesla), but about power. And he gained considerable power by showing everyone he can do whatever the fuck he wants and now controls one of the biggest media platforms. I think it is the same with his destruction of the government. The point is to show everyone that Elon completely controls it and thus has to be the goto guy if you want something done.

I believe Trump follows a similar logic with many of his actions. He wants to make it clear that he is the government and his whims can make or break things. So issuing tariffs and then flip flopping about them nonstop makes sense as to show that it is just his personal decision whether these things are done.

 

[ninjabot]

Yeah, it would also be a great idea if Kamala goes on stage with Elon Musk to agree with him that the government needs to be more effective. That's gonna show em and wouldnt be deserving of criticism at all, right?

Maybe next, Newsom can also find some landlord activist and talk to them about how tennants can sometimes be a little too uppity.

The glaring mistake in this attempt at a gotcha is that this isn't something the vast majority of Americans agree with, whereas America does majorly agree that trans women shouldn't compete with afab women in sport. So I repeat: Y'all ain't learn shit. You'll all die on the dumbest hills.

After all, the moderate campaign Kamala led really profitted from cuddling with conservatives and selling out minorities. We should really listen more to moderates about strategy, after losing time after time and blaming leftists for it they must have learned their lesson at some point.

For the trillionth time, Kamala lost because America wanted change from the previous administration. It hasn't been long enough since the election for this level of revisionist history.

 

[shionoro]

The glaring mistake in this attempt at a gotcha is that this isn't something the vast majority of Americans agree with, whereas America does majorly agree that trans women shouldn't compete with afab women in sport. So I repeat: Y'all ain't learn shit. You'll all die on the dumbest hills.

Most americans also agree that a weapon's embargo is good and you do not see Newsom run to leftist activists, sit down with them and bicker about how stupid the party establishment is. Why is that?

You are accusing leftists of having values. And that is a huge mistake, both morally and strategically. There is good and bad communication and there are strategic thoughts about which topics to put to the forefront. But there is nothing wrong with fighting for what you believe in.

What Newsom did here was running to an anti trans activist, who spouts conspiracy theories nonstop and thinks white privilege is a myth and basically just having a friendly talk with him about how leftists are crazy and making it seem like charlie kirk is a fine dude and his views on trans peoploe are super based.

You talk about trans people in sports, but why did Newsom not talk to him about how he wants to ban all gender affirming care and is opposed to gay marriage? Or is that a mistake too, to pushback against these bans because it might make some people who won't vote you anyway be mad?

What Newsom accomplished here is to get brownie points from people who help to plunge the country into fascism. And by doing that, Newsom aids these people, rather lashing out against some fringe issue (and in turn supporting the rightwing propaganda about it) than to understand the right framing and priorities, namely that Charlie Kirk is hardly a good faith dialogue partner.

For the trillionth time, Kamala lost because America wanted change from the previous administration. It hasn't been long enough since the election for this level of revisionist history.

Moderates lost with Clinton, moderates won with Biden because Trump was insanely unpopular and came out of covid, moderates lost with Kamala. And if you think that was due to people being unhappy with biden, guess what, they thought the way they run this party and presidency (moderately) would give them good chances to win. Moderates fucking suck at strategy and they mostly win in primaries because they can outspend grassroots candidates.

 

[ninjabot]

Most americans also agree that a weapon's embargo is good and you do not see Newsom run to leftist activists, sit down with them and bicker about how stupid the party establishment is. Why is that?

Because that's not what Charlie Kirk asked him, duh. And even if it was, that's still not something that would've lost Democrats the election... because it didn't. Failed comparison in every conceivable way.

You are accusing leftists of having values. And that is a huge mistake, both morally and strategically. There is good and bad communication and there are strategic thoughts about which topics to put to the forefront. But there is nothing wrong with fighting for what you believe in.

It is when you're more capable of getting what you want by hiding your power level until you have the power to do the things you want to do with little pushback. Look at Trump right now. If you keep rushing head first into combat when you lack the power to defend yourself, you're just asking to lose in perpetuity. Fighting for what you believe in could be the worst possible decision a person could make, depending on what's to be lost or gained in that particular situation.

You talk about trans people in sports, but why did Newsom not talk to him about how he wants to ban all gender affirming care and is opposed to gay marriage? Or is that a mistake too, to pushback against these bans because it might make some people who won't vote you anyway be mad?

Specifically, the question was about what Democrats could do to appeal to people more, and Kirk brought up trans women in sports (but worded it in the most transphobic way he could). It wasn't a debate about whether or not Democrats or Republicans have the better standard of morality, and it wasn't an attack on each other's personal beliefs. Whataboutism won't serve Newsom in this conversation unless he wanted to turn it into a more contentious conversation. This was literally his first episode of his new podcast. He's not gonna attack his first guest.

 

[shionoro]

Because that's not what Charlie Kirk asked him, duh. And even if it was, that's still not something that would've lost Democrats the election... because it didn't. Failed comparison in every conceivable way.

It doesnt seem like a great strategy to talk about the talking points of the people who want to destroy you and agreeing with them. While badmouthing your own party and betraying people that supported you, no less.

It is when you're more capable of getting what you want by hiding your power level until you have the power to do the things you want to do with little pushback. Look at Trump right now. If you keep rushing head first into combat when you lack the power to defend yourself, you're just asking to lose in perpetuity. Fighting for what you believe in could be the worst possible decision a person could make, depending on what's to be lost or gained in that particular situation.

But that is not reality and it never was. What Newsom accomplished here is that every LGBTQ Person now knows he is a traitor and will value a nice talk with a rightwing conspiracy theorist over their wellbeing and rights. And he gets nothing for, nothing at all. If you do not fight for what you believe in openly, you are simply not trustworthy and even the people who agree with your latest chosen set of fake-opinions are not enthusiastic to vote for you.

And even if some Republican now thought that Newsom is one of the "good democrats", he is still going to claim that California democrats are marxist drag queens.

 

[M3J]

Dems doing what Newsom did would be a disaster for Dems overall, and it'd serve to prove that they're no better than republicans.

Dems should focus on standing out and actually giving a shit about people, no matter how much they have to lie, if they want a chance.

 

[kkck]

 

[ninjabot]

That was the perfect retelling of the Zelensky Screw Job.

Real question though: when can we justifiably say Trump's actions are officially "tyrannical"?

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 10, 2025, Original Post Date: Mar 10, 2025 ---

 

[kkck]

Hmmm, trump is without a doubt simply shredding the government into tiny unrecognizable pieces but even then I wouldn't go as far as saying this is tyrannical (yet). Back in trump's first presidency the guy captured immigrants and threw them into holes because... reasons. I would argue that was tyrannical. cruelty was simply the policy. I suppose you could make a case the firings are cruel though I think the cruelty here is less of an issue than the potential overall impact this could have on the economy and how many years it'd take to rebuild the government if sanity ever comes back.

On the ukraine front it's more like policy is being written by russia today (so far) but more than tyrannical this is plain nonsense.

To me the more revealing part of the episode was when he talked about why maga liked putin. It's obvious the maga segment likes putin and there's some affinity in some points but a part of my brain has always struggled with fully grasping the actual why of the fanaticism because putin's only agenda is his delusion of what he perceives should be the russian world... And Stewart's point is super simple, putin simply isn't woke. There's a lot I dislike about woke politics (most importantly that's it's absurd to build the entirety of your political platform over increasingly marginal minorities) but even then my brain couldn't quite grasp that the the sheer hatred these folk feel for anything even tangential to woke is so out of control that they'd applaud the honest to god end of democracy and governance just for a chance to own the libs.


fuuuuuuuuuck.