Crazy American Politics

[Nellie The Don]

51 minutes ago, OrlandoDon said:

I said the left was worse than the right and I believe that. I didn’t say the right was blameless or innocent. Both are at fault.

I gave concrete examples. Can you do the same?

[OrlandoDon]

And this is where you lose me when we discuss politics. I’m not mental, the name calling starts. Been attacked here before, be it in 2020 when trump lost, or during Covid, so i tread lightly because people get personal really quickly, and ultimately I’m here for football. I am speaking from my experience living here, and the current situation, not about 50 years. I also treat many of you like my parents, if you don’t live here you get a filtered  view of America in your media. I don’t know if anyone else lives here but many of you seem to believe you have a really tight and clear understanding of American culture and what it’s like living here.

From what I see and sense here, being around it daily, watching news here, CNN, MSNBC, FOX etc, (plus having watched Charlie Kirk at times in recent years), and maybe starting to pay more attention in the last 10 years or so, I form my views. The daily attacks on a government, the rhetoric of politicians on the left talking about hitler and fascism, that doesn’t help. Trying to assassinate a president, twice, doesn’t help. I think it’s a statement in itself that we’ve seen recent attacks on the right and there’s no violence. Had it been a left equivalent killed this week, I think there would have definitely been a left leaning violent response.

I’ve also said I believe the one person who could really do something to make a positive different right now is trump. And he won’t.

[OrlandoDon]

19 minutes ago, Nellie The Don said:

I gave concrete examples. Can you do the same?

It’s not about winning an argument, I think it’s bigger than that. Winning and losing arguments is why we are at this point, we’re all losers at present. If you do some objective reading you’ll easily find it. We see it daily. From three assassination attempts in the last year, 2 on trump and now Kirk, plus the violence around BLM or ICE, politicized to left leaning causes, it’s all there. Listen to the likes of Tim Walz, AOC, its toxic. But you get similar on the right, there’s a lot of reflection needed that will unlikely happen.

how much time have you spent in America?

[OrlandoDon]

2 hours ago, Nellie The Don said:

Nah. Fuck that.

This all came about a week after Trump's deputy chief of staff said that the entire democratic party is 'not a political party, but a domestic extremist organisation'. 

Less than 3 months ago the democratic speaker of the Minnesota state legislature was assassinated by a right wing extremist, and your entire party basically just shrugged and ignored it.

The guy that attacked Nancy Pelosi's husband with a hammer was lionised as a patriot by *checks notes* Charlie Kirk.

Trump pardoned everyone convicted of rioting and attacking the capitol building because they didn't like the result of the 2020 election. 

We've had him painting a target on Hilary Clinton's back by claiming that 'the 2nd ammendment people could stop her', and then Kamala Harris' by removing her secret service protection and then using the police union to prevent LAPD from protecting her.

Trump, and just about every other Maga talking head spent the last few days attempting to weaponise Charlie Kirk's death against the 'extremist left', to the point of invoking 'civil war', only for it to turn out that the shooter was nothing of the kind.

This upsurge in political violence is a problem from and of the right, and your Maga pals need to fucking own it or grace us all with a long overdue great big silence.

 

Harris’ protection was not removed. From what I understand, by law she got protection for 6 months, and she was given extra time, she got 9 months. Then the protection expired. So rather than it being removed, she was actually given an extension. 

you talk about trump pardoning but don’t talk about biden’s autopen granting pardons. Additionally, nobody actually knows who processed biden’s pardons. If I recall, his staffers were asked in congress under oath about it and they plead the fifth.

It’s both sides, but if you are abroad you don’t get the full story as left leaning media doesn’t report it.

[wee toon red]

Please take this as a genuine question Orlando Don as I think it was you that said it (apologies if it wasn’t):

What specifically is it that schools and colleges over there are teaching that’s “left” and lead folk like Charlie Kirk to think the opposite point of view needs to be put out on campuses across the country?

[Nellie The Don]

I've lived in the US for 2 years, and have family who have been here since the 70s. It has become a noticeably less safe and stable place over the last 9 months.

 

Just saying 'I believe they are worse' is all fine and well. Some people believe in the tooth fairy. When they start arming themselves and talking about going to war with the tooth fairy, it's time for the sake of everyone's safety to challenge them to justify what the fuck they are talking about.

[RicoS321]

2 hours ago, OrlandoDon said:

And this is where you lose me when we discuss politics. I’m not mental, the name calling starts. Been attacked here before, be it in 2020 when trump lost, or during Covid, so i tread lightly because people get personal really quickly, and ultimately I’m here for football. I am speaking from my experience living here, and the current situation, not about 50 years

You don't need to live there to know that the majority of political violence is, factually speaking, right wing. The majority of political violence occurs on behalf the state. The current state is run by Republican Trump, the previous, Democrat Biden. Both right wing, just as Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan before them were. Beyond that, there may be some individual left wing people causing violence, and a couple of marginalised groups, offset against the invariably right wing school shooters and other assorted weirdos. 

I'm not particularly against political violence as it happens, I think it's inevitable in a corrupt system such as the one we've designed, and sometimes essential. I wouldn't class myself as left wing either. I wouldn't really give much of a shite if right wing violence did outweigh left, I was attempting to be objective, and objectively speaking it isn't even close. Unless Fox news are burying a large cache of left wing organised violence that nobody in the world is hearing about, or seeing. 

[OrlandoDon]

Can you clarify/elaborate on your comments about not being against political violence?

[OrlandoDon]

39 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

You don't need to live there to know that the majority of political violence is, factually speaking, right wing. The majority of political violence occurs on behalf the state. The current state is run by Republican Trump, the previous, Democrat Biden. Both right wing, just as Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan before them were. Beyond that, there may be some individual left wing people causing violence, and a couple of marginalised groups, offset against the invariably right wing school shooters and other assorted weirdos. 

I'm not particularly against political violence as it happens, I think it's inevitable in a corrupt system such as the one we've designed, and sometimes essential. I wouldn't class myself as left wing either. I wouldn't really give much of a shite if right wing violence did outweigh left, I was attempting to be objective, and objectively speaking it isn't even close. Unless Fox news are burying a large cache of left wing organised violence that nobody in the world is hearing about, or seeing. 

Curious to know your take, do you think your opinion on Aberdeen as someone who goes to games regularly carries more weight than someone like me who only watches on my iPad and reads online?

[RicoS321]

5 minutes ago, OrlandoDon said:

Can you clarify/elaborate on your comments about not being against political violence?

Absolutely. As I say, most violence is of the state. I'd argue that everyone is not against political violence, including you! It's just that we've created this artificial barrier that says that because the violence is of/by the state or country, that it's in some way legitimate. I'm sure there's a police shooting out there that you've (perhaps correctly) thought was justified. You might agree with Israel's right to defend itself, or a corporation's right to refuse someone health care. All of these things are political violence (similarly homelessness), based on a made-up, right wing, economic system. Most people see this violence as acceptable as they are told that it is acceptable, because it conforms to some arbitrary man-made laws. The US has exported political violence worldwide, toppling whichever governments didn't conform to its right wing economic agenda, backed by the IMF. At home, they arbitrarily decide that you can't consume particular drugs, whilst allowing the biggest pharmaceutical companies to murder people via fentanyl or other addictive drug of choice (those pharmaceutical companies exist, and lobby, because the right wing economic system allows it - and the right wing state deregulates it). What really is the difference between an IDF soldier killing a Gazan child, and some right wing/left wing/incel/trans (delete as appropriate) person who decided that they didn't like his politics? 

Meanwhile, the same people that brought you forty years of right wing, inhumane, unnatural, ecologically disastrous, anti-physics economic growth ideology, happen to also own the news networks that spend 24/7 telling you that the left/right is your enemy, stoking hate and division in order that nobody stops to question why their violence is somehow worse than the biggest source of political violence. Those people are your enemy. Fox news is your enemy, CNN, MSNBC are your enemy. Not your foreign neighbour, or the BLM/Proud boys lad from down the road. 

[OrlandoDon]

31 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

Absolutely. As I say, most violence is of the state. I'd argue that everyone is not against political violence, including you! It's just that we've created this artificial barrier that says that because the violence is of/by the state or country, that it's in some way legitimate. I'm sure there's a police shooting out there that you've (perhaps correctly) thought was justified. You might agree with Israel's right to defend itself, or a corporation's right to refuse someone health care. All of these things are political violence (similarly homelessness), based on a made-up, right wing, economic system. Most people see this violence as acceptable as they are told that it is acceptable, because it conforms to some arbitrary man-made laws. The US has exported political violence worldwide, toppling whichever governments didn't conform to its right wing economic agenda, backed by the IMF. At home, they arbitrarily decide that you can't consume particular drugs, whilst allowing the biggest pharmaceutical companies to murder people via fentanyl or other addictive drug of choice (those pharmaceutical companies exist, and lobby, because the right wing economic system allows it - and the right wing state deregulates it). What really is the difference between an IDF soldier killing a Gazan child, and some right wing/left wing/incel/trans (delete as appropriate) person who decided that they didn't like his politics? 

Meanwhile, the same people that brought you forty years of right wing, inhumane, unnatural, ecologically disastrous, anti-physics economic growth ideology, happen to also own the news networks that spend 24/7 telling you that the left/right is your enemy, stoking hate and division in order that nobody stops to question why their violence is somehow worse than the biggest source of political violence. Those people are your enemy. Fox news is your enemy, CNN, MSNBC are your enemy. Not your foreign neighbour, or the BLM/Proud boys lad from down the road. 

It’s impossible to respond to that, so much there and I don’t have the time or interest to dive that deep. 

we’re talking current day politics, republicans and democrats, and the toxic and divisive environment. I do think it matters if you live here and are immersed in the culture.

i asked you about your opinion on going to Aberdeen games live versus me who watches from afar. Are my opinions, if all I see and read is YouTube clips and the daily record online, as valid as you who see us live weekly and lives and breathes in the Aberdeen environment?
I have worked in finance for almost 3 years. My portfolio is killing it right now. Had I listened to what the vast majority of news outlets here said at the start of the year about trump, tariffs, and the economy, i’d be in a very different situation. All the ‘experts’ there were wrong. I don’t believe most really believed what they were saying, it was simply anti trump. I’ve said it to my parents multiple times as well, I don’t think what you see and hear is totally accurate.

[RicoS321]

1 hour ago, OrlandoDon said:

It’s impossible to respond to that, so much there and I don’t have the time or interest to dive that deep. 

we’re talking current day politics, republicans and democrats, and the toxic and divisive environment. I do think it matters if you live here and are immersed in the culture.

i asked you about your opinion on going to Aberdeen games live versus me who watches from afar. Are my opinions, if all I see and read is YouTube clips and the daily record online, as valid as you who see us live weekly and lives and breathes in the Aberdeen environment?

It's a really good analogy. While we discuss the minutiae of the Dons' tactical issues, we simultaneously suspend the topic of the systemic makeup of our game. While the folk in charge deliberately allow the game to go to shite, the talking heads distract with chat about coefficient and just needing to believe. Your opinions about Aberdeen on the pitch are not as valid (in your example), but your wide boundary view of the Scottish game doesn't require you to be on the ground, and would be equally as valid. 

But, to be honest, if you're not willing to dive that deep, than that's probably why you think that the left is more violent than the right, when it demonstrably isn't. You don't even seem to accept that both the Republicans and Democrats are both right wing. It's like describing Bill Gates against mark Zuckerberg as left versus right. There hasn't been a left of any sort representing the US in fifty years. Democrats Vs Republicans is professional managerial class Vs ownership class, the sole aim being power, with the populace being tricked into picking a side. The people engaging in the arguments that you see (and I see in the UK, because it's largely the same) are exactly the same as one another. Why on earth would you (for example, not literally you) pick a fight (debate) with an unemployed person, an immigrant or someone who has been evicted from their home, at the behest of some cunt like Trump or Musk? Or why would a feminist start an argument with a working class man, at the behest of Hilary Clinton or Kamala Harris? Why are so many people doing the bidding of these powerful people? Who benefits?

Your portfolio story is telling. Did anyone seriously think the banking sector would lose out when Trump came to power? Only stupid people (the experts you mention, I'm assuming, were economics experts. In other words, fraudsters, educated in a sudo-religious game). Trump is the same. He might change the way the game is played, slightly, but he'll never ever question the game itself. 

[OrlandoDon]

 

3 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

It's a really good analogy. While we discuss the minutiae of the Dons' tactical issues, we simultaneously suspend the topic of the systemic makeup of our game. While the folk in charge deliberately allow the game to go to shite, the talking heads distract with chat about coefficient and just needing to believe. Your opinions about Aberdeen on the pitch are not as valid (in your example), but your wide boundary view of the Scottish game doesn't require you to be on the ground, and would be equally as valid. 

But, to be honest, if you're not willing to dive that deep, than that's probably why you think that the left is more violent than the right, when it demonstrably isn't. You don't even seem to accept that both the Republicans and Democrats are both right wing. It's like describing Bill Gates against mark Zuckerberg as left versus right. There hasn't been a left of any sort representing the US in fifty years. Democrats Vs Republicans is professional managerial class Vs ownership class, the sole aim being power, with the populace being tricked into picking a side. The people engaging in the arguments that you see (and I see in the UK, because it's largely the same) are exactly the same as one another. Why on earth would you (for example, not literally you) pick a fight (debate) with an unemployed person, an immigrant or someone who has been evicted from their home, at the behest of some cunt like Trump or Musk? Or why would a feminist start an argument with a working class man, at the behest of Hilary Clinton or Kamala Harris? Why are so many people doing the bidding of these powerful people? Who benefits?

Your portfolio story is telling. Did anyone seriously think the banking sector would lose out when Trump came to power? Only stupid people (the experts you mention, I'm assuming, were economics experts. In other words, fraudsters, educated in a sudo-religious game). Trump is the same. He might change the way the game is played, slightly, but he'll never ever question the game itself. 

You’d need to provide your definition of right wing for me to comment. My understanding has always been that right wing has some aspect of conservative beliefs or values and I don’t see that from the left. 

i won’t back down from my argument that living here makes a difference. I was stunned when the comment ‘who is Charlie Kirk’ was made. Based on world response he’s very well known. But that does depend on the coverage you get, I’d see him on shows and news daily, not just social media. But it depends on what you get in Britain from us. As I’ve overly stated, I’ve debated many times with my parents, I don’t believe you don’t get a fair reflection of what it’s like here in the us, and what coverage gets sent to the UK. I’ve made comments about certain things over the last few years and my parents were clueless to what I was talking about. There’s major incidents here that just don’t get covered in the left leaning news networks, which in believe is most of what you get. if you only watch msnbc or cnn you don’t get the whole story here either I suppose. Same with fox on the other side though, it’s not news but news opinion or propaganda.

I got slammed here in 2019/2020 when I said trump was the lesser of two evils when Biden won. I think the left/dems at present are more dangerous, and I think the 4 years under Biden made things much worse. Many point at trump, he’s just less discrete and the media covers him in an extreme fashion, others, like it was with Biden, don’t seem to get the same exposure.

one for you to watch, i predict insider trading drama here in the coming months, pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, AOC of late. I’m sure there are republicans too but it’s just not out there at present. Laws will be put in place to limit/disclose, even ban investment activity with politicians. 

Edited yesterday at 00:05 by OrlandoDon

[RicoS321]

8 hours ago, OrlandoDon said:

 

You’d need to provide your definition of right wing for me to comment. My understanding has always been that right wing has some aspect of conservative beliefs or values and I don’t see that from the left. 

i won’t back down from my argument that living here makes a difference. I was stunned when the comment ‘who is Charlie Kirk’ was made. Based on world response he’s very well known. But that does depend on the coverage you get, I’d see him on shows and news daily, not just social media. But it depends on what you get in Britain from us. As I’ve overly stated, I’ve debated many times with my parents, I don’t believe you don’t get a fair reflection of what it’s like here in the us, and what coverage gets sent to the UK. I’ve made comments about certain things over the last few years and my parents were clueless to what I was talking about. There’s major incidents here that just don’t get covered in the left leaning news networks, which in believe is most of what you get. if you only watch msnbc or cnn you don’t get the whole story here either I suppose. Same with fox on the other side though, it’s not news but news opinion or propaganda.

I got slammed here in 2019/2020 when I said trump was the lesser of two evils when Biden won. I think the left/dems at present are more dangerous, and I think the 4 years under Biden made things much worse. Many point at trump, he’s just less discrete and the media covers him in an extreme fashion, others, like it was with Biden, don’t seem to get the same exposure.

one for you to watch, i predict insider trading drama here in the coming months, pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, AOC of late. I’m sure there are republicans too but it’s just not out there at present. Laws will be put in place to limit/disclose, even ban investment activity with politicians. 

I don't have a definition of right wing, I use the one available on the internet, and dictionaries and such like. The correct one. But you can take my word for it, the democrats are a right wing party. Your economic system - since Reagan - is a right wing economic system. Thus anything that falls under that, whether democrat or republican is necessarily right wing. All your wars have been right wing economic wars. Your war on drugs is a right wing economic war, your prison system is a right wing economic approach to incarceration, your health system is a right wing economic ideological approach to care (or not care). Even the UK, which has remnants of a system built under left wing policy, is governed for and by the right wing economic system. A system that is collapsing and thus looking for scapegoats in the easy form of immigrants and trans people (or whatever the culture war flavour of the day is). Whether trans people get to change their identities, or women get the vote does not alter the reality of the economic system they live under. Christianity still takes comfortable second place to the religion of the economic system (hence why yer lad Kirk wasn't giving up his possessions or calling for an end to the practice of loan interest - like Jesus would have). You (we) live in a right wing system, a system that uses violence every day to keep it that way. 

Of course those democrats you mention will be involved in the various activities of the system (see Raynor in the UK). That is the world they live in. They aren't the good guys, just because they say the right things. When have you heard Pelosi discuss the physics of economic growth? She doesn't. She's where she is because she doesn't question the system. It's a prerequisite. Voting democrat will always return that. I wouldn't argue otherwise, nor am I. The only issue that I have with your argument is your partisan stance on the republican side. Things were not worse under Biden, nor better under Trump. Both made things increasingly worse for significant proportions of people. Do you think a Latin American low paid worker looking over their shoulder is better off under Trump's witch-hunt? Of course not. Just as you were worse off in California under Biden - because you and that Latino are the same. Inequality continued to increase significantly under both Biden and Trump, because they are the same. They are both your enemy. The illustration would be the lad that shot the pharma director. Why was his violence worse than the violence that saw his mum (I think it was his mum) unable to afford healthcare? Only one of those actions could actually be justified. The guy wasn't a right or left wing nutjob, just an ordinary guy screwed over by the real enemy. The enemy backed by both Trump and Biden, controlled by the right wing economic system. The source of almost all violence in the US. 

[Nellie The Don]

If you hadn't heard of Charlie Kirk until last week than you probably hadn't heard of Nick Fuentes either.

He is a white supremacist, and leader of an Internet based group known as 'groypers', who despised Charlie Kirk because they thought he was too liberal. There is mounting evidence that his (Charlie Kirk's) suspected murderer was one of them.

All of this bullshit about 'violent radical leftists' is being used as a pretext to go after anyone who stands in Trump's way. That in itself is utterly terrifying, but it's nothing compared to what's coming down the road.  Once he has finished  removing the last constitutional limitations to his power, gerrymandered the US into a one-party state and imposed martial law on the major cities, all that may be left to hope for is some return to some degree of relative sanity after he departs office. 

 

Keep your eyes open for a Fuentes/Steve Bannon candidate emerging ahead of 2028. Things could get very dark very quickly. 

[RicoS321]

27 minutes ago, Nellie The Don said:

If you hadn't heard of Charlie Kirk until last week than you probably hadn't heard of Nick Fuentes either.

He is a white supremacist, and leader of an Internet based group known as 'groypers', who despised Charlie Kirk because they thought he was too liberal. There is mounting evidence that his (Charlie Kirk's) suspected murderer was one of them.

All of this bullshit about 'violent radical leftists' is being used as a pretext to go after anyone who stands in Trump's way. That in itself is utterly terrifying, but it's nothing compared to what's coming down the road.  Once he has finished  removing the last constitutional limitations to his power, gerrymandered the US into a one-party state and imposed martial law on the major cities, all that may be left to hope for is some return to some degree of relative sanity after he departs office. 

 

Keep your eyes open for a Fuentes/Steve Bannon candidate emerging ahead of 2028. Things could get very dark very quickly. 

Why would the groypers have anything to do with Bannon or government? Aren't they about ushering in the collapse?

[OrlandoDon]

11 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

I don't have a definition of right wing, I use the one available on the internet, and dictionaries and such like. The correct one. But you can take my word for it, the democrats are a right wing party. Your economic system - since Reagan - is a right wing economic system. Thus anything that falls under that, whether democrat or republican is necessarily right wing. All your wars have been right wing economic wars. Your war on drugs is a right wing economic war, your prison system is a right wing economic approach to incarceration, your health system is a right wing economic ideological approach to care (or not care). Even the UK, which has remnants of a system built under left wing policy, is governed for and by the right wing economic system. A system that is collapsing and thus looking for scapegoats in the easy form of immigrants and trans people (or whatever the culture war flavour of the day is). Whether trans people get to change their identities, or women get the vote does not alter the reality of the economic system they live under. Christianity still takes comfortable second place to the religion of the economic system (hence why yer lad Kirk wasn't giving up his possessions or calling for an end to the practice of loan interest - like Jesus would have). You (we) live in a right wing system, a system that uses violence every day to keep it that way. 

Of course those democrats you mention will be involved in the various activities of the system (see Raynor in the UK). That is the world they live in. They aren't the good guys, just because they say the right things. When have you heard Pelosi discuss the physics of economic growth? She doesn't. She's where she is because she doesn't question the system. It's a prerequisite. Voting democrat will always return that. I wouldn't argue otherwise, nor am I. The only issue that I have with your argument is your partisan stance on the republican side. Things were not worse under Biden, nor better under Trump. Both made things increasingly worse for significant proportions of people. Do you think a Latin American low paid worker looking over their shoulder is better off under Trump's witch-hunt? Of course not. Just as you were worse off in California under Biden - because you and that Latino are the same. Inequality continued to increase significantly under both Biden and Trump, because they are the same. They are both your enemy. The illustration would be the lad that shot the pharma director. Why was his violence worse than the violence that saw his mum (I think it was his mum) unable to afford healthcare? Only one of those actions could actually be justified. The guy wasn't a right or left wing nutjob, just an ordinary guy screwed over by the real enemy. The enemy backed by both Trump and Biden, controlled by the right wing economic system. The source of almost all violence in the US. 

Appreciate the discussion and your take. You’ve scolded me before for using the term far right, I’m not looking to debate the definition of right wing now. More often than not you’ll now hear me saying right and left leaning. I appreciate your insights though and the friendly debate.

you’ve clearly got a knowledge/experience in politics I dont have, and dont really want to have. I can only speak to my experience living here and the change I have witnessed. I also think living in LA then Florida I can provide decent insight from two politically differing environments. I certainly hope experiences over the last week will change things, and judging by the world wide response, what happens here is certainly far reaching. Like we all are though, I’m pessimistic. More chance of us beating Motherwell 6-0 this weekend perhaps.

[OrlandoDon]

34 minutes ago, Nellie The Don said:

If you hadn't heard of Charlie Kirk until last week than you probably hadn't heard of Nick Fuentes either.

He is a white supremacist, and leader of an Internet based group known as 'groypers', who despised Charlie Kirk because they thought he was too liberal. There is mounting evidence that his (Charlie Kirk's) suspected murderer was one of them.

All of this bullshit about 'violent radical leftists' is being used as a pretext to go after anyone who stands in Trump's way. That in itself is utterly terrifying, but it's nothing compared to what's coming down the road.  Once he has finished  removing the last constitutional limitations to his power, gerrymandered the US into a one-party state and imposed martial law on the major cities, all that may be left to hope for is some return to some degree of relative sanity after he departs office. 

 

Keep your eyes open for a Fuentes/Steve Bannon candidate emerging ahead of 2028. Things could get very dark very quickly. 

I actually heard someone discussing the groypers yesterday, and the connection between him and the shooter was quickly dismissed. 

Your gerrymandering comment is interesting, both parties equally guilty. curious to know if you’ve paid attention to what has occurred in Texas New York and Illinois in recent years for example, the dems are very guilty there. Look at the congressional map of Illinois as an example, it’s comical where gerrymandering was used to the extreme. Illegal immigration is a significant factor too here, plus add in sanctuary cities and the placement of migrants, all to increase a certain population to vote democrat and who will count in the census which affects congressional seats. That’s fucked up.

you appear very one sided, almost extreme. Your perspective is not my experience here. I was a teacher here for 25 years, liberal environment, lived in Tennessee, California, and Florida, good balance between red and blue, city and country. I think I can give pretty accurate context. I referenced Harris yesterday, gerrymandering today, I don’t think you are aware of the whole picture but take sound bites and run with it. I’m also at least accept some of the blame, although I only hear one party screaming hitler, nazi, fascist, bigot, white supremacists, threat to democracy etc daily, none of that helps at all. I don’t really hear the equivalent from the right towards the left, not nearly as bad or as much anyway. I hear some, but nowhere near to the extreme or as damaging.

as I already said, the one person who can make a significant difference at attempting to unite is trump, but I don’t see it. He will also continue with his childish and annoying name calling too, hard to tell people to knock off the name calling, regardless of how extreme, when he does it so regularly. There has to be improved respect and civility from the top down.

as I said to Rico, appreciate the discussion but I’m done. It’s a busy work week and time is limited now! I neglect my kids! I had a quiet weekend and could read and post, not nearly as much during the week.

 

[Nellie The Don]

@OrlandoDon I wonder if perhaps the perspective that you feel you have from your longer time in this country has also made you a little blinded by its partisan politics.  The reason that I say this is that you appear to be hitting republican partisan talking points based on keywords of what I was saying that didn't make any sense.  For example, when I mentioned Trump pardoning the January 6th rioters, who were convicted for trying to violently overturn the result of an election, I was talking specifically about normalising political violence.  I don't see how Biden's weird pardoning autopen thing is relevant to that.  I am not a democrat, and wouldn't have voted for Biden if I was able to (I am not yet a US citizen).

I understand that gerrymandering has gone on from both major parties.  It is wrong and deeply undemocratic in both cases, however I mentioned it specifically because Trump is using it in a very specific and dangerous way at present.  I find it a bit weird that these boundaries and maps are under partisan control at all, rather than set by independent bodies, but here we are.

I am certainly not an extremist, and I think that you suggesting I am proves my point about the concept being used in a very dangerous way to smear anyone that disagrees with Trump and the way he does things.  You say that you only hear inflammatory language from one party, and yet I have already pointed out Stephen Miller's characterization of the entire democratic party as 'not a political party, but a domestic extremist organization'.  Try and tell me that using the words 'domestic extremist' isn't a dog whistle to a third unsaid word that is immediately invoked in your mind.  This matters. In the last week there have been bomb threats to several college campuses, as well as the Democratic headquarters in D.C. and the Democratic leadership in Maine. I can't see that as a coincidence.

I would define an extremist as someone who is so sure that what they think is right and important that they would be willing to abandon the principals of a democratic society to achieve it.  That certainly doesn't apply to me, nor to anyone I would support.  

I found Charlie Kirk's views abhorrent, but I certainly didn't wish him any harm. 

If I seem confrontational to you it is because I'm angry because I think that some of your rather glib comments about civil war and an 'Archduke Ferdinand' moment, along with your unsubstantiated comment that you believe that 'the left' is worse feed into all of this rhetoric that makes the place that I and my family live a less safe place to be, but that anger would never go beyond telling you so.  If you don't wish to discuss any further, I will respect that and leave you in peace.

[RicoS321]

5 hours ago, Nellie The Don said:

@OrlandoDon I wonder if perhaps the perspective that you feel you have from your longer time in this country has also made you a little blinded by its partisan politics.  The reason that I say this is that you appear to be hitting republican partisan talking points based on keywords of what I was saying that didn't make any sense.  For example, when I mentioned Trump pardoning the January 6th rioters, who were convicted for trying to violently overturn the result of an election, I was talking specifically about normalising political violence.  I don't see how Biden's weird pardoning autopen thing is relevant to that.  I am not a democrat, and wouldn't have voted for Biden if I was able to (I am not yet a US citizen).

I understand that gerrymandering has gone on from both major parties.  It is wrong and deeply undemocratic in both cases, however I mentioned it specifically because Trump is using it in a very specific and dangerous way at present.  I find it a bit weird that these boundaries and maps are under partisan control at all, rather than set by independent bodies, but here we are.

I am certainly not an extremist, and I think that you suggesting I am proves my point about the concept being used in a very dangerous way to smear anyone that disagrees with Trump and the way he does things.  You say that you only hear inflammatory language from one party, and yet I have already pointed out Stephen Miller's characterization of the entire democratic party as 'not a political party, but a domestic extremist organization'.  Try and tell me that using the words 'domestic extremist' isn't a dog whistle to a third unsaid word that is immediately invoked in your mind.  This matters. In the last week there have been bomb threats to several college campuses, as well as the Democratic headquarters in D.C. and the Democratic leadership in Maine. I can't see that as a coincidence.

I would define an extremist as someone who is so sure that what they think is right and important that they would be willing to abandon the principals of a democratic society to achieve it.  That certainly doesn't apply to me, nor to anyone I would support.  

I found Charlie Kirk's views abhorrent, but I certainly didn't wish him any harm. 

If I seem confrontational to you it is because I'm angry because I think that some of your rather glib comments about civil war and an 'Archduke Ferdinand' moment, along with your unsubstantiated comment that you believe that 'the left' is worse feed into all of this rhetoric that makes the place that I and my family live a less safe place to be, but that anger would never go beyond telling you so.  If you don't wish to discuss any further, I will respect that and leave you in peace.

Interesting. Why do you think civil war isn't an inevitability? How would you avoid it? Is there an option to avoid it within the US political system in your opinion? What are the "principles of a democratic society", and where does that democracy start and end? As far as I see it, the US, like the rest of the world, faces a period of declining energy availability. With that, a concomitant (J Traynor™) decline in material availability and an obvious - and required - reversal of growth. How do you suggest that the US handles its coming decline?

[Nellie The Don]

1 hour ago, RicoS321 said:

Interesting. Why do you think civil war isn't an inevitability? How would you avoid it? Is there an option to avoid it within the US political system in your opinion? What are the "principles of a democratic society", and where does that democracy start and end? As far as I see it, the US, like the rest of the world, faces a period of declining energy availability. With that, a concomitant (J Traynor™) decline in material availability and an obvious - and required - reversal of growth. How do you suggest that the US handles its coming decline?

Well, I'd say that pretty high up the list of principles would be that you don't shoot at, threaten to bomb, or set fire to the homes of people you disagree with.

Personally I think that the politics of the US is pretty broken, as evidenced by the fact that you can't mention the glaringly obvious fact that there is a problem with gun violence without it being a partisan political football.

It would be more likely, I feel, to be able to have a rational conversation about meeting the challenges you describe if the government weren't so far from the people that it should be serving.  I don't think that a country of 300 million (or whatever it is now) can be adequately served by a single centralised government dominated by two parties beating each other up over the points they differ on and allowing no room for discussion on those that they don't. 

Perhaps the US would work better as 50 closely cooperating countries in more of an EU model, allowing for a greater degree of variation in the manner in which the states are governed. If people in Florida feel that they want to carry guns, ban abortion and stop vaccinating their children, but the people in Massachusetts want to do the opposite, then surely we can do that without having to go to war with each other.

I would very much like it if I, my wife and our 3 year old son didn't find ourselves in a war zone, so if any of those changes need to happen I would very much appreciate it if everybody would just chill the fuck out a bit and stop screaming that a fictional bogeyman is trying to kill them because it suits their political ends.

[RicoS321]

30 minutes ago, Nellie The Don said:

Perhaps the US would work better as 50 closely cooperating countries in more of an EU model

How's that working out for the EU? 

It's an interesting point, but you seem to have just stopped at the most palatable point (dissolution). People in Florida don't want to ban abortion and carry guns, but a proportion of them do. It would seem that the population of Florida isn't a homogeneous blob, just like in every other state, so what makes you think that approximately 22 million people can be governed, in anything other than the abstract, at that level? In the UK, for example, a large proportion of Scots feel that the government in Westminster is too far removed. I might/do feel that a Holyrood government is too abstract. Moreover, the globalised, dominant, structure couldn't give a fuck what I, or the rest of Scotland, think! Do you genuinely believe that there's a mechanism of dissolution in the US that neatly falls around state borders, and can be reached without violence?

[Nellie The Don]

1 hour ago, RicoS321 said:

How's that working out for the EU? 

It's an interesting point, but you seem to have just stopped at the most palatable point (dissolution). People in Florida don't want to ban abortion and carry guns, but a proportion of them do. It would seem that the population of Florida isn't a homogeneous blob, just like in every other state, so what makes you think that approximately 22 million people can be governed, in anything other than the abstract, at that level? In the UK, for example, a large proportion of Scots feel that the government in Westminster is too far removed. I might/do feel that a Holyrood government is too abstract. Moreover, the globalised, dominant, structure couldn't give a fuck what I, or the rest of Scotland, think! Do you genuinely believe that there's a mechanism of dissolution in the US that neatly falls around state borders, and can be reached without violence?

Given that what the countries in Europe used to do for the 2000 years prior was go to war with each other pretty much constantly, I'd say that the EU is working out very well indeed.  It's far, far from perfect but given the alternative it's good enough and, given the enormity of the problem, good enough is a pretty overwhelming achievement.

 

I think that part of what makes the EU work is the ability and willingness to fudge things around the edges where no clear cut solution exists.  That's why Norway is kind of in the EU and kind of not and why several countries can be in the EU without being in the Euro, and how you can deal with the whole Ireland/N.I. etc.  It doesn't need to be perfect, just good enough to stop people from shooting at each other, and let us try to figure out the rest from there.

 

I'm not talking about overnight dissolution.  I don't think that such a sudden and dramatic change would happen peacefully.  Nor do I have the answers to your questions about whether a solution that fits around existing borders would work.  I'm not an expert in any of this, it just seems to me that smaller countries more readily governable in a rational manner without resorting to Authoritarianism than larger ones.

As to whether any changes could be achieved without violence, yes, I 100% believe that.  It might not seem evident to an outsider looking in at the politics of the place, but the overwhelming majority of people here are rational and just trying to go about their day.  Nobody wants to be at war with their neighbours, and anyone trying to push for that is going to find themselves standing alone very fucking quickly.