US Politics Thread

[Murat B.]

@Moxie , long time no chat ! I hope all is well.
This question is for you as you are more on the left side of things...or anyone on the left can pitch in.
On the right it is pretty much universally accepted that if you are a true racist, white nationalist , etc, you have gone too far. Every sane person accepts this. I am excluding the fringe crazies .
In your personal opinion, when does the left go too far? Ideologically? Where do you draw the line and go "Woah, this person has lost the plot, this is insane"?

 

[brokenshoelace]

I guess when you say above that "most people are morons," you don`t include yourself, as you clearly deem yourself qualified to judge everyone else.

I mean it's either that or calling someone who committed a genocide a "decent man" is moronic. You tell me.

 

[brokenshoelace]

It was a serious question, no straw man. Jaysus. When we woke up to the then local news that he'd killed himself at Riker's or wherever, everyone rolled their eyes here.

But do tell me, what IS the Mossad connection? Did he need that AND the underage girls to gain influence and blackmail rich men?

I mean, nobody buys the suicide thing, I hope. So when one of the most well connected men in the world, who happens to have literally the most robust and ubiquitous list of blackmail material in history, the call to kill him probably came from above. In these cases, surely you have to agree, the CIA and Mossad have been historical prime candidates. I don't know if it's the Mossad. There's plenty of motive for Trump to have at least played a part. CIA hands are almost always dirty. I personally can't claim to have the answer for you.

 

[Federberg]

^as I've said before, I think it's more likely to be Russian than Israeli intelligence that dealt with Epstein. It's becoming increasingly clear from the files that Epstein was a fan of the Bannon way of thinking. And he himself bragged about his relationships in the Kremlin. Those folks deal with loose ends harshly. The whole Mossad thing fits into a trope we all know, but it always had a bit too much tin-foil hattery to it

 

[brokenshoelace]

^as I've said before, I think it's more likely to be Russian than Israeli intelligence that dealt with Epstein. It's becoming increasingly clear from the files that Epstein was a fan of the Bannon way of thinking. And he himself bragged about his relationships in the Kremlin. Those folks deal with loose ends harshly. The whole Mossad thing fits into a trope we all know, but it always had a bit too much tin-foil hattery to it

Again, I never even implied that the Mossad did him. I just highlighted his very real ties to them.

 

[Federberg]

Again, I never even implied that the Mossad did him. I just highlighted his very real ties to them.

lol! I'm not sure I specifically singled you out in that regard. I'm just simply making the point, in response to several people still bringing up Mossad, that there are more plausible alternatives

 

[Moxie]

@Moxie , long time no chat ! I hope all is well.
This question is for you as you are more on the left side of things...or anyone on the left can pitch in.
On the right it is pretty much universally accepted that if you are a true racist, white nationalist , etc, you have gone too far. Every sane person accepts this. I am excluding the fringe crazies .
In your personal opinion, when does the left go too far? Ideologically? Where do you draw the line and go "Woah, this person has lost the plot, this is insane"?

Hey, Murat! It's great to see you back!

Before I answer your question, I'm going to challenge you a bit on your notion that racism and white nationalism goes too far for conservatives. Do I remember that you are in Canada? In any case, while I will give you that blatant racism and white nationalism, even Christian nationalism has been a bridge to far for old school Republicans, and conservatives generally, I'm afraid that is less true than it was, here in the US. They have been sliding into a lot of tolerance for it. It is a bit of a rift in the party. The door is increasingly open to those with extreme-right views, to the chagrin of some. And, let's face it, Trump has been dog-whistling racist things for years. But, feel free to disagree with me.

That said, I think the left goes too far with any cry to defund the police, for example. I do think it would be best to take the job of handling mental heath crises away from them and onto better-trained agencies. But I don't see how we're getting rid of them.

Also, I think there is too much extremism amongst some when it comes to judging others on how PC they are, or what words they use. Young people in this country are terrified of saying the wrong thing. They also go after each other on social media for every misstep. I'll be honest and say that the radical left can be a humorless, intractable bunch in some ways. Moderation to them can get treated as completely capitulation and selling out. Even in my experience, that has been true for decades. I know plenty of really progressive, activist people, with various agendas, in terms of their main focus, and most of us roll our eyes at the most extreme ones. And I don't even know any anarchists!

I know some people in the US, and on these forums, have gotten nervous about, say, my new Mayor, Zoran Mamdani, who is a Democratic Socialist. Personally, I don't think anyone on the spectrum of Democrat in this country with any real power or influence is in any way, ideologically, too far left. Democratic Socialists work within the system we have. They're not going to tear it down.

I hope that's an answer.

 

[britbox]

We already discussed this rather in depth when Trump was forming a cabinet, and had Elon Musk dismantling the bureaucracies, but I'll give you a flavor of my own positions. Sure, I agree that governmental agencies can do with some streamlining and paring, but judiciously, not the slash-and-burn approach that Musk was taking. He did it without any respect for the work that each agency does, nor care that there is value in career professionals running things. And, including with an eye to getting out women and men of color, which is just racist, in the name of "curing us" from the "wokeism" of DEI. They specifically sought to dismantle much of the Federal government. Because they basically have no understanding of nor respect for what it does.

This is a huge country. We need a certain amount of centralized government to keep it together in a coherent way.

Generally, the President picks people to head them who serve his agenda, but doesn't decimate the rank and file. Also, I'm sorry, but Trump chose a lot of rather unqualified people, and he had the Senate to confirm them. Some Republican senators have spoken of regrets, in hindsight. Certainly, past presidents have chosen like-minded people, but Trump chose yes-men and -women, with no regard to qualifications.

If a President wants to have some say over the Education agenda, he's going to need a Federal Dept. of Education. The complaint has been mainly about higher education, which is not controlled by the Dept. of Ed. Neither, frankly is the K-12 curriculum, which is more by the states. But the Fed helps with fair access, and funding. Dismantling the DOE has nothing to do with controlling agenda.

I knew this could be a bone of contention between us, so let's save it for later, if you like. But RFK, Jr. is not qualified for the job, and is sowing some chaos. He's fired a lot of qualified people. He discourages vaccines, and measles cases are high in the US.

I did say he's hiring bad people. Incompetent. Replacing very good people. Trump, and some like him, think that DEI means hiring less-competent people just because they are of color. The actual intent is to get people in the mix who have historically been passed over. A more diverse field offers better people. The policy need not last forever, but it does take some initiative to get people to step up in hiring with an open mind. The military is a good example. Run forever by men, their inclination was to believe that the best person for the job was a man. Yet, women have proven to make very good leaders, including in the higher ranks of the military. You say, "Just hire the best people." But that depends on who is doing the hiring, and what there preconceptions are, right? Some people need a little help with the opening of their minds.

I'm glad we're on the same page about authoritarianism. Trump has signed 225 executive orders in just over a year into this term. Compared to 220 in his first 4 years, and 162 in Biden's 4 years. It's too many. I honestly don't see where Project 2025 is in favor of anything other than an imperial presidency. I think it means to dismantle them. Or in any case Trump is. Frankly, the playbook doesn't matter anymore. Trump is doing what he wants. He has a compliant House and Senate, and while some lesser judges are trying to rein him in, the Supreme Court had already given him a lot of power before he even started. What checks and balances? He's trying to cancel the midterms, or control the outcome, which he expects will go against him. That Constitution and we, The People, better be made of some stern stuff.

Well, we can file authoritarianism away as a joint no. Good.

As for qualification, we'll fundamentally disagree on that. I base competence on outcomes and never how long somebody has been in position.

I'll agree it doesn't matter what gender they are in respect - as long as they are judged using the same standards. Your point on women in the military (i.e. Good leaders) might be valid (I don't know specifically who you're referring to) but will take your word for it.

However, I know in some military units in the west, they have lowered the entrance standard for women so it's easier to qualify - and in some military units (i.e. the RAF in the UK they actually had a policy where applications from white males were paused based purely on their sex and colour of their skin) - which I find pretty reprehensible.

As for Project 2025 I think it's strongly in favour of checks and balances from elected bodies like the House of Reps and the Senate but not from entrenched bureaucracy. Would this give the President more power - Yes, and amplified at the moment with the Reps having control of all 3. But I'm definitely with you on misuse of Executive orders - I think it breaches the spirit of the Constitution if not the letter.

 

[Moxie]

Well, we can file authoritarianism away as a joint no. Good.

Excellent. Can we agree that Trump is trending that way?

As for qualification, we'll fundamentally disagree on that. I base competence on outcomes and never how long somebody has been in position.

I don't think we need disagree on that. There has to be something said for experience and time at your job, right? If they've been doing a good job, then that's an outcome. I'm saying that Musk was firing people who were very good at there jobs, often replacing them with no one. This is a problem. And you know what else it is? It's expensive. It cost money to retire people early, and it costs money when there is no one there to perform their jobs. The government isn't functioning well in many ways since they gutted it.

I'll agree it doesn't matter what gender they are in respect - as long as they are judged using the same standards. Your point on women in the military (i.e. Good leaders) might be valid (I don't know specifically who you're referring to) but will take your word for it.

You don't have to take my word for it. You can look it up.

However, I know in some military units in the west, they have lowered the entrance standard for women so it's easier to qualify - and in some military units (i.e. the RAF in the UK they actually had a policy where applications from white males were paused based purely on their sex and colour of their skin) - which I find pretty reprehensible.

This is not the UK.

As for Project 2025 I think it's strongly in favour of checks and balances from elected bodies like the House of Reps and the Senate but not from entrenched bureaucracy. Would this give the President more power - Yes, and amplified at the moment with the Reps having control of all 3. But I'm definitely with you on misuse of Executive orders - I think it breaches the spirit of the Constitution if not the letter.

I find no evidence that Project 2025 was in favor of anything other than side-stepping the checks and balances that are provided for in the Constitution. But, as I said, Project 2025 is just the playbook, and it doesn't really matter anymore. Forget about it. What matters is what Trump is doing, and he's side stepping the Checks and Balances. What that means, constitutionally, has nothing to do with bureaucracies. It means that the Executive (the President) has to answer to the House and the Senate, and they are also guarded by the courts, especially the Supreme Court. The 3 are meant to check each other. However, I'm sure you can see that the balance of power is way off, right now. The spineless Republicans in both houses of Congress are terrified to deny Trump anything. He's also running roughshod over everything with his executive orders, which some courts have been challenging him on, but he has also just blatantly ignored court orders. When it gets to the Supreme Court, then tend to roll over to him, because he stacked them with people who think like him, added to the conservatives who were already there. And forget what Conservatives ever used to say about "originalism" and the Constitution. This is a new Conservative Court, who is all about presidential power. Constitution be damned.

The abuse of executive orders and executive power didn't start with Trump, by any means, but he's taking it to a new level. In a really bad way.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Hey, Murat! It's great to see you back!

Before I answer your question, I'm going to challenge you a bit on your notion that racism and white nationalism goes too far for conservatives. Do I remember that you are in Canada? In any case, while I will give you that blatant racism and white nationalism, even Christian nationalism has been a bridge to far for old school Republicans, and conservatives generally, I'm afraid that is less true than it was, here in the US. They have been sliding into a lot of tolerance for it. It is a bit of a rift in the party. The door is increasingly open to those with extreme-right views, to the chagrin of some. And, let's face it, Trump has been dog-whistling racist things for years. But, feel free to disagree with me.

That said, I think the left goes too far with any cry to defund the police, for example. I do think it would be best to take the job of handling mental heath crises away from them and onto better-trained agencies. But I don't see how we're getting rid of them.

Also, I think there is too much extremism amongst some when it comes to judging others on how PC they are, or what words they use. Young people in this country are terrified of saying the wrong thing. They also go after each other on social media for every misstep. I'll be honest and say that the radical left can be a humorless, intractable bunch in some ways. Moderation to them can get treated as completely capitulation and selling out. Even in my experience, that has been true for decades. I know plenty of really progressive, activist people, with various agendas, in terms of their main focus, and most of us roll our eyes at the most extreme ones. And I don't even know any anarchists!

I know some people in the US, and on these forums, have gotten nervous about, say, my new Mayor, Zoran Mamdani, who is a Democratic Socialist. Personally, I don't think anyone on the spectrum of Democrat in this country with any real power or influence is in any way, ideologically, too far left. Democratic Socialists work within the system we have. They're not going to tear it down.

I hope that's an answer.

Defund the police doesn't mean "get rid of them." It means perhaps 6 billion dollars per year for NYPD is a bit much. Also, every system with more emphasis on corrective reforms rather than violent punishment has shown what happens when you don't give middle aged wife beaters a gun and a green light.

 

[Federberg]

This…

 

[Moxie]

This…

Now, this makes more sense to me. Epstein had a pre-organized honey pot, and the KGB came in to exploit it, and an arrogant dummy. However, as little of those hearings with Pam Bondi as I could stand to listen to, with the shouting and insulting and generally uncivilized behavior, I still don't feel that the politicians are approaching this as anything other than a sex scandal. Or, is it that there's so much talk about procedure, i.e., predators illegally redacted, victims not redacted, that they can't even get to the point?

Another question, if anyone knows: back when it was just the right-wing web that cared about this, what was the focus? Just prominent men (ideally Democrats, like Bill Clinton, right?) to be caught in a pedophilia scandal, or did they think there was more to it?

 

[Federberg]

Now, this makes more sense to me. Epstein had a pre-organized honey pot, and the KGB came in to exploit it, and an arrogant dummy. However, as little of those hearings with Pam Bondi as I could stand to listen to, with the shouting and insulting and generally uncivilized behavior, I still don't feel that the politicians are approaching this as anything other than a sex scandal. Or, is it that there's so much talk about procedure, i.e., predators illegally redacted, victims not redacted, that they can't even get to the point?

Another question, if anyone knows: back when it was just the right-wing web that cared about this, what was the focus? Just prominent men (ideally Democrats, like Bill Clinton, right?) to be caught in a pedophilia scandal, or did they think there was more to it?

I think it was a cudgel used by MAGA to construct a narrative of predatory elites, with the implication that those elites were Democrats. Now we know it's not just US politicians, these are global elites. You're right folks aren't getting past the sex stuff yet. This does seem like some monstrous counter-intelligence operation. Hopefully we get there in the end

 

[Murat B.]

Hey, Murat! It's great to see you back!

Before I answer your question, I'm going to challenge you a bit on your notion that racism and white nationalism goes too far for conservatives. Do I remember that you are in Canada? In any case, while I will give you that blatant racism and white nationalism, even Christian nationalism has been a bridge to far for old school Republicans, and conservatives generally, I'm afraid that is less true than it was, here in the US. They have been sliding into a lot of tolerance for it. It is a bit of a rift in the party. The door is increasingly open to those with extreme-right views, to the chagrin of some. And, let's face it, Trump has been dog-whistling racist things for years. But, feel free to disagree with me.

That said, I think the left goes too far with any cry to defund the police, for example. I do think it would be best to take the job of handling mental heath crises away from them and onto better-trained agencies. But I don't see how we're getting rid of them.

Also, I think there is too much extremism amongst some when it comes to judging others on how PC they are, or what words they use. Young people in this country are terrified of saying the wrong thing. They also go after each other on social media for every misstep. I'll be honest and say that the radical left can be a humorless, intractable bunch in some ways. Moderation to them can get treated as completely capitulation and selling out. Even in my experience, that has been true for decades. I know plenty of really progressive, activist people, with various agendas, in terms of their main focus, and most of us roll our eyes at the most extreme ones. And I don't even know any anarchists!

I know some people in the US, and on these forums, have gotten nervous about, say, my new Mayor, Zoran Mamdani, who is a Democratic Socialist. Personally, I don't think anyone on the spectrum of Democrat in this country with any real power or influence is in any way, ideologically, too far left. Democratic Socialists work within the system we have. They're not going to tear it down.

I hope that's an answer.

Cheers !
One thing about the racism thing ...It is a word now no one on the right really worries about anymore. Because the left uses it freely for every thing they do not like. Racism used to be simple. If you thought you were better than someone else ( or they were inferior to you) because of their skin color, you were racist. Or ascribing characteristics to someone based on their skin color was racism. Simple. Not anymore though. The left now thinks any disparate outcome is racism. Because left does not believe in equality of opportunity anymore. They believe in equality of outcome and that is when they have gone too far and lost me personally.
I would recommend Thomas Sowell's Discrimination and Disparities to anyone on the subject. The left sacrificed the individual for the group identity. That's another way they have gone too far. When you are not responsible for anything you have done and others that do not even know you are responsible for everything they have NOT done, it is going too far.

 

[Moxie]

Cheers !
One thing about the racism thing ...It is a word now no one on the right really worries about anymore. Because the left uses it freely for every thing they do not like. Racism used to be simple. If you thought you were better than someone else ( or they were inferior to you) because of their skin color, you were racist. Or ascribing characteristics to someone based on their skin color was racism. Simple. Not anymore though. The left now thinks any disparate outcome is racism. Because left does not believe in equality of opportunity anymore. They believe in equality of outcome and that is when they have gone too far and lost me personally.
I would recommend Thomas Sowell's Discrimination and Disparities to anyone on the subject. The left sacrificed the individual for the group identity. That's another way they have gone too far. When you are not responsible for anything you have done and others that do not even know you are responsible for everything they have NOT done, it is going too far.

I think you're being overly simplistic, on both sides. Yes, the left can lean into group identity, for solidarity, and in search of a fair shake for all, but the right has been embracing old racist tropes, and also is encouraging and fomenting white grievance. I think it's a false notion to say that the left encourages a lack of responsibility. That misunderstands what it is to embrace identity, and find ownership in it. Which is not to say that there is no fault in the approach. But, at the same time, you can't absolve the right for embracing racism. You may say that the right doesn't worry about the term any more. That is a basic flaw, if you ask me. Because, here in the US, they are falling into it, and it is turning people off. By which I mean voters.

 

[Moxie]

I think it was a cudgel used by MAGA to construct a narrative of predatory elites, with the implication that those elites were Democrats. Now we know it's not just US politicians, these are global elites. You're right folks aren't getting past the sex stuff yet. This does seem like some monstrous counter-intelligence operation. Hopefully we get there in the end

Thanks for confirming what I thought I was understanding about this. As it is being treated, while completely grotesque, I haven't been able to see how it rises above the level of sex-scandal. As I have been asking, where did Epstein get so much money and influence? I still don't see Congress asking those questions. Even in the wild 90s, when any git seemed to be making money in the markets, this level is a mystery.

One of the odd things is how Trump was pushing for all of this to come out, playing to his base, and then pulled back immediately when he became President. I'm far from thinking this all about Trump, or even wanting it to be. The question is why is he trying to bury it all, now? The Russians make sense. Maybe he didn't understand it, either. Personally, I do think he's too indebted to the Russians, so now he realizes how exactly it might make him look bad. Pam Bondi is certainly making a confusing hash out of releasing the Epstein files. Which seems intentional, and is also flouting Congress.

 

[Murat B.]

I think you're being overly simplistic, on both sides. Yes, the left can lean into group identity, for solidarity, and in search of a fair shake for all, but the right has been embracing old racist tropes, and also is encouraging and fomenting white grievance. I think it's a false notion to say that the left encourages a lack of responsibility. That misunderstands what it is to embrace identity, and find ownership in it. Which is not to say that there is no fault in the approach. But, at the same time, you can't absolve the right for embracing racism. You may say that the right doesn't worry about the term any more. That is a basic flaw, if you ask me. Because, here in the US, they are falling into it, and it is turning people off. By which I mean voters.

Moxie, I have some time in my hands these days so I was reading your posts on this thread. I have this feeling that you still have not figured out why your side lost to Trump twice and particularly why 77 million of your fellow citizens voted for him in the last election. Can you tell me why , in your opinion, all those people voted for Trump and made him the president? Now, I know the answer . It is a one sentence answer that of course may need some unpacking (not in my opinion) but if you get it wrong, I am not going to correct you as I don't want you to figure it out and learn from your mistakes and win the next election

 

[Moxie]

Moxie, I have some time in my hands these days so I was reading your posts on this thread. I have this feeling that you still have not figured out why your side lost to Trump twice and particularly why 77 million of your fellow citizens voted for him in the last election. Can you tell me why , in your opinion, all those people voted for Trump and made him the president? Now, I know the answer . It is a one sentence answer that of course may need some unpacking (not in my opinion) but if you get it wrong, I am not going to correct you as I don't want you to figure it out and learn from your mistakes and win the next election

Wow, not only have you decided you're not going to respond to my last, because I guess it's uncomfortable, you're going to make me responsible for my entire party? AND set me up with a no-win question?

Try to remember that Trump didn't actually win the popular vote in 2016. Hillary Clinton did, by more than 2 million votes.

Otherwise, what was your question? Oh, and remind me again why Conservatives have no need for the term "racism?"

Just tell me this, if you're willing to: Are you a Trump supporter?

 

[Murat B.]

Haha, sorry, I did not know an answer was needed to your post as I stand by what I said in the previous post. You cannot make everything racist because then nothing is racist.
Hey ,Trump wants to make my country the 51st. state ! His tariffs are killing us. I am not a big fan for your info. I think he is a bully. I think in many instances, he is the wrong guy with the right message.
And there is the hint. Maybe now you can answer why you think the guy won the last election . Come on, at least have a crack at it .

 

[Moxie]

Haha, sorry, I did not know an answer was needed to your post as I stand by what I said in the previous post. You cannot make everything racist because then nothing is racist.

I'm not making everything racist. I'm saying that some things really are, though, and ignoring them is blind. Do you really not see Trump calling immigrants "rapists and criminals", and saying that black people come from shithole countries as racist? I could go on, but you know what he has said, and many of his ilk and his surrogates. Please don't believe that old trope that it's liberals that make everything about race.

Hey ,Trump wants to make my country the 51st. state ! His tariffs are killing us. I am not a big fan for your info. I think he is a bully. I think in many instances, he is the wrong guy with the right message.
And there is the hint. Maybe now you can answer why you think the guy won the last election . Come on, at least have a crack at it .

We've had many conversations about how the elections went. Why don't just tell me what it is you want to say, and stop being coy.