I ain't paying for a propaganda competition with foreign mega-corporations. Just ban them outright, the kids will be alright. Nothing of value is lost by not exposing them to these FOMO-maximizing, brain-rotting, billionaire-owned propaganda machines.
That's what I thought as well at first, but I've come to think that is just the cover story. While some of his base likely did buy in, I expect that _most_ of the inflows were from individuals or groups looking to influence the administration (aka bribes).
Yet he didn't feel the need to hide the plane he received from the Saudis, or the gold bars he got from tech companies. Hell, he even bragged about those. Because there's no one able and willing to stop his naked corruption, he has zero reason to hide it. Shamelessness is his signature, after all. No, his coins were organically fed by people who believe his lies.
He doesn't have any shame, but some of the people bribing him may not want to be so public about that. His bribecoins gave them the ability to funnel money without having to worry about any fallout (legal or reputational).
I agree with your sentiment but I no longer think empathy is a good long term plan.
One of my favorite books is Excellent Cadavers. It's about two judges in Sicily who systematically rooted out the Mafia. And were both assassinated for their work.
The moral is: action is necessary. Trump is hoping we all stop at trying to find empathy for his team.
> Trump is hoping we all stop at trying to find empathy for his team.
I'm not talking about his team, I'm talking about the people who voted for him.
For instance, he wouldn't have even got off the ground if free trade hadn't decimated the US manufacturing sector. I won't fault anyone with a blue-collar job for voting for him, because the choice was him vs. some neoliberal. When the choices are bad, I understand making a desperate move.
And now we have even worse polarization, which fuels his type even more. More and deeper polarized "action" (like the snide remark I responded to upthread) is not the way to make things better.
> For instance, he wouldn't have even got off the ground if free trade hadn't decimated the US manufacturing sector. I won't fault anyone with a blue-collar job for voting for him, because the choice was him vs. some neoliberal.
And I would agree with you for the 2016 election. However, when Trump lost more manufacturing jobs under his first term than were lost under Obama despite all his bluster about saving and restoring said jobs, and his administration's only legislative win was a big tax cut for the wealthy, it's no longer a valid reason to vote for the guy in 2020 or 2024.
And, the joke's on any who did vote for him a second and third time: he's lost even more manufacturing jobs.
The tragedy is if you look at the actual data, manufacturing jobs generally recover under Democrat administrations, and they tend to be lost in significant numbers under Republican administrations. People are more easily swayed by memes and sound bites than actual data, though.
Empathy is deserved. I have none for the lunatics that defended the recent ICE murders or still try to deny Trump's pedophila. If these people finally realize how garbage their views are, maybe we could think about forgiveness and empathy. Until then, disenfranchisement is the most efficient strategy.
> Empathy is deserved. I have none for the lunatics that defended the recent ICE murders or still try to deny Trump's pedophila. If these people finally realize how garbage their views are, maybe we could think about forgiveness and empathy. Until then, disenfranchisement is the most efficient strategy.
That's some pretty messed up shit you wrote there. I'm sure you imagine yourself as somehow better than Trump, but you're just like him. You're part of the problem, and for the sake of all that is good: stop being such a terrible person.
Also, what you wrote is also embarrassingly dumb and short-sighted. Like, do you have any understanding how your ideas sound outside your own head? Saying such things, especially in public, harms your cause.
Far from "harming my cause", vindictiveness wins elections. Weakness toward the fascist idiots currently tearing this world appart only made them stronger, and worsened the situation.
I have empathy for those wronged by our messed up economic systems, and I believe the policies and candidates I advocate for will help everyone in the end, but I reserve the right to not extend my empathy to those who consistently chose mindless hate over actual solutions. At some point, there must be consequences for siding with these evil fucks over and over and over again. Let these consequences be a very negative public perception of the views they hold, which is very much deserved at this point.
Also, I am absolutely better than Trump and his supporters: I'm not a child rapist and I don't support those who are. And even suggesting that calling out pedophilia is equivalent to practicing it is very messed up.
> Far from "harming my cause", vindictiveness wins elections.
If it does, it's a pyrrhic victory. You'll complete the destruction of everything the Democrats claim to defend.
> Weakness toward the fascist idiots currently tearing this world appart only made them stronger, and worsened the situation.
Has Donald Trump corrupted you, turning you into your own kind of fascist? That kind of strong(=being vindictive)/weak binary thinking is very Trumpian.
> but I reserve the right to not extend my empathy to those who consistently chose mindless hate over actual solutions.
FYI, that's what one kind of mindless hate looks like to the hater. Especially since you're being very broad with it (e.g. including "his idotic voter base").
> Also, I am absolutely better than Trump and his supporters: I'm not a child rapist and I don't support those who are.
I don't think so: the vast majority of Trump's supporters are also not child rapists and don't support those who are.
I'd suggest you give politics a rest, unless you want to turn into what you seem to despise.
> If it does, it's a pyrrhic victory. You'll complete the destruction of everything the Democrats claim to defend.
You mean feckless neoliberalism? That would be great. In all seriousness, aggressively calling out actual fascist tendencies in the opposition is healthy behavior. Letting it flourish on the other hand...
> Has Donald Trump corrupted you, turning you into your own kind of fascist?
You do not know what fascism is. Educate yourself.
> FYI, that's what one kind of mindless hate looks like to the hater.
Good try. "You hating racism makes you the real racist". FFS.
> I don't think so: the vast majority of Trump's supporters are also not child rapists and don't support those who are.
Really? I have yet to meet a single
republican that re-examined their support of Trump in light of the overwhelming evidence to his pedophilia. I can only conclude that they're all fine with it.
Overall, good attempt at the classic "anti-fascism is the same as fascism". We're done talking.
>> If it does, it's a pyrrhic victory. You'll complete the destruction of everything the Democrats claim to defend.
> You mean feckless neoliberalism?
No, empathy. And a country were people more-or-less get along, even if they disagree, instead of one of hateful factions engaged in bitter battle for power and dominance.
>> Has Donald Trump corrupted you, turning you into your own kind of fascist?
> You do not know what fascism is. Educate yourself.
Read more carefully. I said your own kind of fascist, as in drawing parallels to bad behavior that you understand, in an attempt to get to see it in a different light.
>> FYI, that's what one kind of mindless hate looks like to the hater.
> Good try. "You hating racism makes you the real racist". FFS.
"FFS," read more carefully. Do you think racism is the only kind of hate?
> Trump in light of the overwhelming evidence to his pedophilia.
Please share the New York Times article with that bombshell, so succinctly stated. I must've missed that one.
> Overall, good attempt at the classic "anti-fascism is the same as fascism". We're done talking.
Actually it wasn't an attempt at that at all.
But you're right, we're done talking. You seem to seem to be retreating into an angry defensiveness of your Trump-like tendencies, and resorting to pretty blatant distortions to [checks notes] resist the idea of having empathy for others.
The first generation of programmers counted more women than men. Chess would have more women than men if it was taught to more girls than boys. Simple as.
> The first generation of programmers counted more women than men.
I have heard this before, but you need to back that up with more qualifiers.
There were a lot more female plug technicians because women were trained as phone operators. There were a lot more female keypunch operators because women were trained in typing to be secretaries. However, most people would not refer to those as "programmers" like we would definitely say for someone like Margaret Hamilton.
What else should you call something that is only socially acceptable for a certain group of people to do? I understand word fatigue, but it feels very adequately used here.
Sure, apartments in Paris are overpriced because of immigrants buying them all. Fuck, that is so stupid. The same people parroting this anti-foreigners hate are also completely indifferent to slumlords profiteering on housing, and will support politicians who consistently side with landlords and homeowners over tenants and first buyers. Housing has never become more affordable under a right wing government.
Explain how. All the anti-immigration guys I've ever met were right-wingers. And we know the right's position on housing: never do anything that would devalue housing, never anger homeowners, always side with landlords, etc.
I don't know whether I'd call myself anti-immigration, but I'm as left as they come and I don't think that being pro-immigration is a left/right value. You can be on the left and have objections to immigration, you can be on the right and welcome immigration.
Most people think that being anti-immigration equals being racist and wanting refugees to be turned away. And given your comment, that is also what you seem to believe. However, the large majority of immigration is state-sanctioned (so work visas, etc.), is not the immigration you hear about in the news or that racists talk about, and it's neither a left nor a right issue.
Immigration does have economic benefits, but I'm certain you'll agree nothing in the world is only good or only bad. Immigration does lead to larger competition on housing (more people = more demand), and generally this happens in the cities where the housing crisis is the worst. So more immigration undoubtedly benefits landlords.
Immigration also means more competition for jobs, which leads in practice to lower wages. So it also benefits capital-owners.
So you can be leftist, campaign to increase intake of refugees, campaign against the housing crisis and wealth inequality, and be against immigration.
As an example that might change your opinion (beyond talking to a leftist who does not think immigration is nothing but good): when the Tories came to power after Brexit, they implemented policies that greatly facilitated immigration (2-4 times yearly intake to what it was before Brexit) [0]. Corporations and the right are very much pro-immigration. Would you have expected that?
I would consider myself well on the left too, and I mostly agree with what you're saying. But I simply reject the premise that anti-immigration policies and the people who support them do anything to help curb the housing crisis or improve working conditions. Immigration can be a net positive for the general population, if it goes hand-in-hand with worker and tenant protections, etc.
> Corporations and the right are very much pro-immigration. Would you have expected that?
Corporations and the old right, maybe, but the new populist right is very much anti-immigration. It is their main talking point and platform in today's political landscape.
> I simply reject the premise that anti-immigration policies and the people who support them do anything to help curb the housing crisis or improve working conditions.
I think you're again fighting a right-wing anti-immigration stance. I'm talking about the opposite of that.
> Immigration can be a net positive [...] if it goes hand-in-hand with worker and tenant protections
I'm certain you can see that this is a huge if. In practice, limiting immigration can indeed avoid worsening the housing crisis or decreasing wages, which can indeed help the relevant unions/charities campaign more effectively.
Reasoning by extreme: would you agree that importing 2M people per year to the UK would make the housing market and wages worse, independent of any ifs? Then you agree that there is a threshold where there is too much immigration, even with perfect conditions.
> right is very much anti-immigration
The Tories were very much anti-immigration, if you looked at their talking points. They were very much pro-working class, and Labour is very-much pro-human rights and pro-democracy. What they do is different.
Being anti-immigration is actually left-wing and pro-labor in most functional countries in the EU. It’s only in the US and the UK where being left-wing also being means pro-open borders, however odd that may be.
Immigration is a broad topic. Immigration can be a valuable tool that benefits everybody, and it can destroy communities. Development has the same dichotomy (any kind - residential or otherwise). I'm certainly "anti-immigration" by some standards (i.e. "we're doing immigration bad", not "immigration as an idea is bad"). At the same time, I'm highly liberal (American).
(In case you're suspicious of other stereotypes: I'm not wealthy and have no interest in my home as an investment, and I don't live in California)
Stance on immigration and development is not nearly as strongly correlated with left/right as other wedge issues like reproductive rights, government secularism, etc.
You're freeing this administration from any blame. No system of governance can resist a sufficiently powerful authoritarian push. If the Democratic Party is to share part of the blame, it's in the fact that it is completely bought by special interests and thus unwilling to push pack against the Republicans. But don't be mistaken, this is entirely on Republicans, both their corrupt politicians and stupid voter base who cheer on their rights being trodden upon, as long as the other side suffers more.
You are putting words in my mouth and taking away from my point. I equally blame the previous administration for leaving a privacy invasive apparatus, as stated by others here this goes back to the Patriot Act.
> I equally blame the previous administration for leaving a privacy invasive apparatus, as stated by others here this goes back to the Patriot Act.
I was talking about Bush administration. I don't know a lot about that time period since I was just a teenager during that administration and didn't care about politics back then, but I vividly remember Obama because I've always been passionate about not having the government spying on citizens, and a free and open web. Everything wrong with social media we set ourselves up for.
One step forward, two steps backwards. Anything good the Democrats may do (yes, it happens sometimes, rarely) will immediately get repelled by the death cult that are the Republicans. If for no other reasons that to "own the libs", they would destroy the whole world.
If this country is to have any future, it must get rid of the Republican party, try all its officials for treason to the American people and ideals of the US Republic and constitution, then disenfranchise their alienated voter base until they get back to living in material reality.
reply