USA Politics

[____no5]

He has minimized the “visible” resistance and stuffed his cabinet with loyalists except that most of them are neocons so again, he can’t push too hard his America first agenda.
As someone who is not American I mostly care about world peace and economy, so I prefer him over Biden and Obama, but still not too optimistic with what I see. For example for Gaza he is way worse than Democrats.
For Iran, he seems to have good intentions but his administration may undermine him. Not intentionally as the previous one, it just is that they are who they are (neocons), it’s stronger than them.
For Ukraine the way it goes we may see him continuing what Biden was doing in the end.

*Tariffs wise, it’s been a mess and worse, this should hurt him in midterms. How to spin this as a victory of any kind?

So we may say that worId peace is a tie and though I certainly like Trump more, clearly the world economy as of now, was better with Biden.

I am not following too much his internal policies but economy is a big one, if people have less money /purchasing power /jobs in 2 years from now it’s going to be bad for him.

 

[Spaldy]

As someone who is not American I mostly care about world peace and economy, so I prefer him over Biden and Obama,

 

[Vaenyr]

To the various other posters saying the Democrats never alienated voters by going too far left, there is enough evidence that the Democratic party saw that as a factor in losing the middle.

Yes, Harris went rightward in her campaign but that couldn’t overcome the fact that she was a last minute candidate who’d been out the public eye as VP and the fact that Democrat voters was tepid on her when she made her own presidential bid in the 2020 primaries. She also flip flopped on some issues. Someone moderate from the beginning with more time to campaign may have fared better.

People can believe what they choose. This line of conversation started because I posted that the Democrats are debating their path forward, with a growing moderate direction.

How about you post that evidence then? I'd be really curious, since if you look at polling over the last 20 years left-wing politics are overwhelmingly popular across the board, even with conservatives... As long as they are not told that they are left wing. As soon as they find out they flip-flop and pretend they always hated the proposed policies.

I posted 5 links that I found in less than 2 minutes citing from neutral or left leaning sources about Democrats discussing how they lost voters through identity politics and need to reconsider their message and strategy.

My point, in addition to sharing news, is that it would be great if the country went moderate and US politics became boring again.

Opinion articles aren't evidence and one can just as easily find plenty of links that say the exact opposite. That's why I want actual data, not thinkpieces.

Unlike Germany or many other European countries, and despite its constitutional framework, the US is more of an “all or nothing” political system regarding partisan control of either house of Congress, the Executive branch, and indirectly the Supreme Court.

In other parliamentary systems, like Germany’s for example, multiple parties can cater to their base, then ally with each other selectively on issue votes.

In the US, unless or until something changes, each party must appeal to the voting majority (with electoral college elements that matter in presidential, but not congressional, elections) to gain power.

Not sure why you're telling me any of this, since I already know that stuff, but thanks I guess? lol

The US has historically been a relatively moderate country at least since 1965 or so.

The Democrats sadly can’t just veer left, win a plurality and then rely on a separate moderate party or coalition of parties to help them out on policy votes.

Just as we see the Republicans able to act with impunity for now because they effectively control all 3 branches of government.

That's not remotely true, given the progressive shifts over the years. Unless you're going to argue that things like the Civil Rights movement or the pursuit of LGBTQ rights is a moderate position, which would be a wild take. Progressive polices are generally popular with the populace.

Veanyr, your “without evidence” comments seem odd when there is plenty of public evidence that Democrats acknowledge and debate that their messaging since 2015 or so lost the working class and many moderates. I cited some if you care to go read them.

There's plenty of evidence that the establishment Dems are completely out of touch and are trying to find scapegoats. Yes, their messaging has been disastrous, but not for going "too far left". That's what I want to see evidence for and I guarantee you, you won't find any actual evidence for that (and I mean numbers, data; not opinion articles). Looking at historical precedences shows quite clearly that going for the moderates will not win you an election. Conservatives will not vote for the "republican-lite" choice. They'll stay on team red, no matter what. As others pointed out, you don't convince people to vote Dems by parading the support of the Cheneys around.

I said this sometime after the U.S. presidential elections — maybe not in the most polished way, but still. And mind you, I live on the other side of the world! Yet one particular user went absolutely berserk and wanted to ban me.

Uh no, that's not what happened lmao. You repeatedly made the objectively false claim that trans issues played an important role in the elections. I provided you data that consistently showed that trans issues were on the bottom of the list of important issues, across the population.

I’m a little baffled, however, at how other commenters, regardless of where they live, can claim the US Democratic party never fell into identity politics and alienated a significant voting segment.

Instead of being baffled provide your sources. Again, the GOP went full on identity politics. The Dems objectively didn't in 2024. That's not a matter of opinion, that's easily verifiable. Also, you're moving the goalposts, no one said "never". That's what you are saying now, not what me and other posters wrote. Engage with the points that are raised, not strawmen

My opinion is that, in oder to prevent the shitshow happening now from happening yet again, either the Democrats or some third way moderate group needs to appeal to the middle and working class voter base.

As you stated earlier, the US has two options: Blue or Red. And in comparison to political parties world wide both options are pretty conservative and right wing, with the GOP openly flirting with fascism. You don't beat the far right by moving to the middle or moving further right. The Dems need to embrace the incredibly popular left-wing policies and give people a reason to vote for them. No one is excited to vote for the lesser evil. You don't defeat voter apathy by trying to emulate your only competition in the race.

 

[Perun]

View attachment 42009

Didn't you notice the sudden upturn in peace and economic stability in the last 100 days?

 

[Vaenyr]

I'm sure Denmark, Greenland and Canada are thrilled with Trump's valiant efforts for world piece.

 

[Flaming Blimp Crash]

There is electoral evidence that voters want more 'leftist' policies, but, however, will not vote for the more 'leftist' party. I live in Illinois, but a good chunk of my friends live down in Missouri, so I try keeping tabs on what's going on there politically. There were several state-wide ballot initiatives up for vote in 2024 in Missouri, where voters approved the right to a legal abortion until fetal viability by 51-48% and approved a minimum wage hike as well as paid sick leave by 57-42%.

Same voters then promptly voted for the Republican party 58-38% for US House races, the Republican candidate for governor 59-38%, and for Trump 58-40%. Should be noted the MO state house they immediately tried to block the minimum wage/sick leave initiative, but I believe their attempts were just shot down by the MO supreme court this past week.

 

[Vaenyr]

Vaenyr,

I don’t have time to line by line reply to you but you but your European take on politics makes sense for a European to have.

That is NOT meant as an insult to you. You are 100% right that, on a global scale, both US political parties are more conservative than some of those encountered in other parts of the world.

Also, how am I supposed to inherently know your level of understanding between US and German political systems?

No, polarized extremes do not cancel each other out. They tend to make each other worse.

I posted links to where the Democrats are themselves reassessing their messaging.

Stop saying “without evidence” or “post evidence.” I’m not going to write you an APA formatted political science thesis.

Again: Opinion articles are not evidence. I'm specifically asking you for numbers and actual data, but we both know you can't back your argument. That's why you deflect to those articles that don't refute anything I've said.

Go read what I linked and provide your own evidence to refute it.

The burden of proof is on you. You made the assertion that the Dema have gone too far left and that this lost them support; that they need to go after moderates to win. Give me actual numbers that support these claims.

2024 didn’t hapoen in a vacuum.

Yes, support of civil rights in the 21st Century is pretty moderate.

No, per definition it isn't. Civil and LGBTQ rights are a main pillar of progressive politics.

What’s radical is not only supporting civil rights but deciding that a segment of the population is “bad,” needs to feel guilty about what their ancestors did, and atone for it retroactively.

That is not what progressives claim; this is the strawman pushed by right wing networks, but at least now we are getting down to your biases and where you are getting your news from.

Most Americans are not about to embrace a collective guilt culture. To my understanding, many Germans are tired of that, too.

Cute, but once again a strawman

Again, engage with what is actually said, not what is easier for you to argue.

The 2020 protests are a hilarious talking point, considering how insanely stupid and naive it is:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/16/this-summers-black-lives-matter-protesters-were-overwhelming-peaceful-our-research-finds/

These protests were the largest in US history. They were overwhelmingly peaceful, with around 93% not seeing any violence whatsoever. Out of the remaining 7%, the majority of violent incidents were started by the police, not the protestors. Not only that, we also know for a fact that far right agitators and activist groups sabotaged the protests and incited riots. So, in other words: Anyone who still tries to complain about these protests in 20-fucking-25 has drank too much right wing cool aid and is entirely divorced from reality.

As for the movies: Of course there is more LGBTQ representation in popular culture, as it should. A huge number of people are part of the LGBTQ community and they deserve to be represented in media just as much as the straight, white, cis folks. Or in capitalist terms: LGBTQ folks have money too and they are more likely to spend it if they are pandered to.

What is controversial about that? 99% of Disney movies feature the "prince" kissing the "princess". Are we supposed to throw a fit about pronouns and some more representation? I've said it before and I'll say it again: Anyone who unironically whines about "wokeness" is a deeply unserious person. It's beyond pathetic and entirely manufactured outraged by grifters who benefit from an angry mob.

The US is quite literally descending into fascism, something progressives have been saying for ages and turned out they were 100% correct. You cannot defeat fascism with capitulating to the right wing framing of social issues. Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing you of these things, but considering your choice of words and the talking points you are bringing up it is quite obvious that the media you consume have certain biases. Biases that don't necessarily hold up to scrutiny when confronted with real life data and numbers. And again: Opinion articles aren't data, I'll repeat that as long as necessary.

 

[Perun]

Most Americans are not about to embrace a collective guilt culture. To my understanding, many Germans are tired of that, too.

I keep hearing from non-German friends that Germans should "get over it" and get rid of their collective guilt mindset. I don't even know what to tell them, because this sort of thing doesn't exist here. What does exist is an ever decreasing effort to maintain awareness of what happened in this country, why it happened and how we can prevent it from ever happening again. Given the rise of Trump fans here, this battle is lost, too.

From my experience, the "collective guilt culture" is something that only exists in the minds of the far right and those who had a bad discussion with their peers after a concentration camp tour in school.

There was a bit of a surge in attempts to bring the diminishing amount of people who denied their participation in Nazi-era crimes to justice from the 1980s to the 2000s, but you know, those were people who actually were guilty.

 

[Vaenyr]

Dude,

You seem to have a really strong invested stake in arguing what you want to argue from this.

I’ll continue posting my opinions and observations.

You continue posting yours, of course.

But, given your tone with me and insistence that I bear a “burden of proof” that you do not, then I’m done talking with you.

Not because you’re making any relevant or compelling points but because you’re acting like a tw*t.

Eh, my only interest is that people who try to throw minorities under the bus to try and back up their claims with facts. It's fine if you don't wanna continue talking, I can't force you. If me calling out and scrutinizing arguments that don't really make sense or conform with the data makes me twat, then so be it.

Up the Irons! At least we can agree on good music.

Oh, you haven't seen my Maiden takes yet. Virtual XI is unironically my favorite album lol

 

[Perun]

My expat German friends here seem fixated to a degree on it.

They’re liberal.

Maybe it’s expat self-consciousness not evident at home.

All of that is anecdotal.

I will say this: from a peaceful protest perspective, I think East Germany got it right when the wall came down. Such self-restraint and effectiveness in a mass movement is admirable and hopefully a tactic that won’t be lost to history.

That said, there are some parallels to collective guilt culture between Germany and the U.S. The U.S. objectively has a pretty nasty history but modern generations (except a few very old) weren’t directly complicit.

I'd need to talk to your German expat friends to be able to tell you how representative of the German mindset they are. I also assume you mean "liberal" in the American sense (as in, they would vote Democrat), because in Germany, the attitude of liberals is more leaning towards the right, as in constructing a straw man collective guilt culture.

If me calling out and scrutinizing arguments that don't really make sense or conform with the data makes me twat, then so be it.

Hey, you got off easy. Last time I had this talk here, I was called a "pompous antisemitic ass".

 

[Perun]

I mean Liberal in the American sense (progressive on social issues). Beyond understanding some of the basics, I won’t claim to be informed on the nuances of German political nomenclature.

No worries, I just wanted to make sure there's no misunderstanding here. In Germany, liberalism is arguably the most right-wing ideology in the moderate democratic spectrum. And to make things more confusing, it is most adjacent to conservatism.

 

[Vaenyr]

No worries, I just wanted to make sure there's no misunderstanding here. In Germany, liberalism is arguably the most right-wing ideology in the moderate democratic spectrum. And to make things more confusing, it is most adjacent to conservatism.

I'd actually argue that's the case with most democratic countries. Liberalism is a center-right ideology, which makes sense considering how intertwined it is with capitalism and the "market". In most countries (that I'm aware of), when you talk about a liberal political party, it is a center right to right party, not a left wing one.

 

[Vaenyr]

I mean, it is undeniable that the Dems are spiraling and don't really know in which direction they want to steer the party. To make my own stance very clear:

I'm a leftist. The Dems are already far too right wing for my tastes, but they are the best choice the US has at the moment (in my opinion of course).

Some prominent Dems like Newsome did try to throw the trans community in particular under the bus. Something that polling consistently showed to now have had any meaningful impact on the election, and he (as well as other Dems) were racing to capitulate to the framing of the conservatives on this matter.

There are certainly Dems who'd like to move to the center. There are others who's like the party to move further left instead. Why is only the former a valid position and not the latter?

To put it in other words: The same arguments that are being used nowadays against campaign for trans rights (for example) are the same type of arguments used a decade ago against gay marriage or half a century ago against the Civil Rights movement. Progress takes hard work and a ton of time. And as I mentioned previously (and other posters have mentioned this as well), left wing policies are popular across the board with voters from all sides. It's the team colors that dictate if they'll end up approving of them or not.

Sorry if this is seen as another wall of text, but I wanted to make my views on this clear, give you some context on my views since we don't know each other yet, and to make sure my point comes across as best as I can present it.

 

[Perun]

I'd actually argue that's the case with most democratic countries. Liberalism is a center-right ideology, which makes sense considering how intertwined it is with capitalism and the "market". In most countries (that I'm aware of), when you talk about a liberal political party, it is a center right to right party, not a left wing one.

By and large, yes. I think what all of us (including myself) need to be more aware of the fact that "left" and "right" take different meanings almost everywhere. In former socialist countries, for example, anything that is moderate democratic is considered "right", whereas the term "left" is reserved for the remnants and successors of the authoritarian socialist dictatorship; however, this also leads to a general suspicion of anything that is labelled "left" in the west. This is why you and @Magnus have had such major run-ins. Given that he is a close personal friend of mine I can tell that you aren't as far apart politically as both of you think (and I don't even know who of you two will be more offended by me saying this!), it's just that you view things from irreconcilable pretexts. How can you find common ground if to the one side, "right" means Dachau and to the other, "left" means Gulag?

In the U.S., we tend to have our own political vocabulary different from much of the rest of the world.

Not unlike our need to call football “soccer” or our insistence on using imperial weights and measures (officially, we have both the metric and imperial measurement systems but few exclusively use metric).

And that's normal. There have always been cultural and dialectal differences. Quite frankly, I get annoyed by people criticising the US for these things. What's the big deal with using your own unit of measurement within the world's biggest market? The only problem is when it leads to problems or misunderstandings when dealing with externals. Which is really the reason I brought it up in the first place - avoid misunderstandings. I'm aware of what "liberal" and "conservative" mean in the US, I just need to know we're on the same page.

 

[Vaenyr]

By and large, yes. I think what all of us (including myself) need to be more aware of the fact that "left" and "right" take different meanings almost everywhere. In former socialist countries, for example, anything that is moderate democratic is considered "right", whereas the term "left" is reserved for the remnants and successors of the authoritarian socialist dictatorship; however, this also leads to a general suspicion of anything that is labelled "left" in the west. This is why you and @Magnus have had such major run-ins. Given that he is a close personal friend of mine I can tell that you aren't as far apart politically as both of you think (and I don't even know who of you two will be more offended by me saying this!), it's just that you view things from irreconcilable pretexts. How can you find common ground if to the one side, "right" means Dachau and to the other, "left" means Gulag?

Thanks for the thorough and thoughtful reply. You are correct, of course. And I'm certainly not offended by the statement; I've misunderstood Magnus's comments and misread his tone on more than one occasion. That's on me, I had difficulty parsing the intended message from words on a screen. I'd love to some day get the chance to have a (friendly and civil ) real life discussion. I'm sure it would be quite interesting.

 

[Flaming Blimp Crash]

Right — so they’re moderates, then?

Good case study of Missouri, by the way. Thanks for the thoughtful post.

I don't know if you can really throw a political affiliation label on it, in a sense. But, to me it's more psychological than necessarily political and a sign on how US politics (and perhaps for the world as well) has become more about tribalism. I've read multiple surveys (unfortunately I don't have any links handy) where - when presenting issues and solutions to voters - more (US) left-wing ideas were supported by the populace. Now, when the same solutions were proposed but labelled as "the Democratic solution", support dropped.

When put on the ballot in Missouri, voters wanted Democratic ideas, they just didn't want Democratic leaders.

 

[Vaenyr]

Finally found a post from last year that I was looking for. Back then we also talked about the left "going too far" and I'd genuinely like to hear your input on this @Sheriff_of_Huddersfield. No gotchas, I'm not looking to fight or an argument. I'd like to hear your opinions on what I wrote back then, if you're interested.

Also, can we be honest for one minute please? How exactly did the left "go too far"? What exactly does that mean?

Is asking for people to be treated the same way regardless of the colour of their skin too much? Is giving lesbian and gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples too far? Is it too much to treat the trans community with the same respect and dignity as everyone else and to respect their gender identity? Is it such a dealbreaker to take down statues of confederate generals, per definition traitors who rebelled against the United States, and to rather see them in museums than celebrated openly? Is it such a radical idea to want billionaires to pay their fair share in taxes, just like all other citizens already have to do? Is the desire for the police to not have unfettered power and the ability to essentially execute civilians without due process or any kind of meaningful consequences so unreasonable? Or is women having full bodily autonomy and keeping the government out of your bedroom a sign of the left going too far - despite this being popular across the political spectrum and many conservative women supporting that too.

How exactly has the left gone too far? Because it often feels like the people who are saying stuff like that bemoan than they can't be openly bigoted or racist without repercussions, as they could in the "good old days". Note, I'm not accusing anyone here of bigotry, but I'm genuinely asking how the left went too far, especially within the context that the US barely has a leftist movement to begin with and that not a single currently influential politician is a leftist.

 

[Azas]

By and large, yes. I think what all of us (including myself) need to be more aware of the fact that "left" and "right" take different meanings almost everywhere. In former socialist countries, for example, anything that is moderate democratic is considered "right", whereas the term "left" is reserved for the remnants and successors of the authoritarian socialist dictatorship; however, this also leads to a general suspicion of anything that is labelled "left" in the west. This is why you and @Magnus have had such major run-ins. Given that he is a close personal friend of mine I can tell that you aren't as far apart politically as both of you think (and I don't even know who of you two will be more offended by me saying this!), it's just that you view things from irreconcilable pretexts. How can you find common ground if to the one side, "right" means Dachau and to the other, "left" means Gulag?

You definitely have a point there.
So, anyone preaching any form of socialism to us is a lunatic. To put it mildly..

 

[JudasMyGuide]

For what it's worth, coming from a post-Socialist/Eastern Bloc country, we do have quite normal "left" and "right", which quite well complement each other near the centre.

We have a lot of pro-social policies and a quite well done safety net, including various protections from discrimination and such (which is actually my daily bread and butter, as I am a labour law lawyer most of the time) and yet, thirty years later we still like to embrace the newly-found capitalism, embracing enterpreneurship, freedom to do whatever you can afford and such. I am an anti-capitalist, necessarily so through my worldview, but in moderate amounts, I can see the appeal, especially after 40 years of forced "socialism".

But we are sensitive towards the extremes - We do hate both communism and nazism, for obvious reasons (as we suffered from both, once under Germany, once under Russia) and we are very sensitive regarding leaving the center. Same goes for various mutations; most of us hate wokeness as well as US-style right-wing.

In general, US is a bit right-wing or most of us, economically, and a bit too woke, socially. But most people here (at least those I speak with) tend to differentiate between "liberal" in the philosophical / theological sense and "liberal" in the US political sense, "libertarian" and "conservative" and other such terms. I know that when I label myself as a "conservative", I have to stress it is not US-style "Conservative", for example.

 

[JudasMyGuide]

I can imagine anyone from a former Soviet Bloc or Warsaw Pact nation recoiling at the thought of anything associated with the former USSR’s ideology.

Having the experience, yes, we tend to be rather irked by Western cafeteria armchair communists/tankies, who have no idea what they're talking about.

On the flip side, pure capitalism is brutal. The idea of something like anarcho-capitalism brings to mind post-apocalyptic warlord societies.

Yeah, unless you are an anti-capitalist and anti-socialist, you can't be a friend of mine.

Like I said earlier

To paraphrase [Chesterton] for the final time (I put it together from memory, some of this he says only implicitly, but you get my drift):
Capitalism and Socialism are, in many regards, the same. They are both materialistic (meaning they know only tangible matter and deny the spiritual and the metaphysical) and both desire power, the difference is merely that under Socialism the state owns all corporations whereas under Capitalism corporations own all states. Both are inherently toxic and both should be avoided - or at least, whichever is winning at the moment, should be mitigated by the other.
If pressed and forced to choose, with a gun at my head, I would still probably pick Socialism, because there the care for the human being is at least proclaimed if never put into action. But we should love neither, because both are of this world and therefore both are fallen and deeply flawed.