USA Politics

Today I entered the U.S for the first time in 8 years. My mom was stressing out, because my ex asked me to bring her some things, among them a bottle of tequila, and my mom was EXTREMELY concerned about declaring it and paying the taxes on it. The funny thing was that I got stopped and checked at the MEXICAN airport LOL. We flew nationally to the border and then my Godmother did us the favor of dropping us at the border, we crossed by foot and she picked us up on the other side. The reason we did that was, because she has an Express Pass with which you can't cross any luggage.

Anyway, at the Mexican airport I put my bags through the x-ray machine and I get taken aside, they give me the magic wand treatment and manually check my ankles, thighs and hips. Then they make me open my backpack to ask me what's in the bag. I say, "horchata." "Horchata?" "Horchata," "Ok, carry on." I told my Godmother that I'd have to be the dumbest drug trafficker on the planet if I simply put cocaine in my backpack. But oh well.

At the U.S border there were not one but two entrances. In the first they merely saw that we had U.S passports and waved us through. Then at the real crossing where they take your picture and play 20 questions with you, they asked, where did you go, where are you going and did you bring anything from Mexico. I said, "Yes, tequila." Dude goes, "Ok," and THAT'S. IT. Whem my mom went through She said the border agent said that normally we'd have to pay tax, but, get this, there wasn't anyone at the moment to take the payment so it was fine to just go on in. LOL. Then we put all our baggage through a giant X-Ray maching and the guy working it said NOTHING about my meds, horchata or tequila bottle. Fucking hilarious. Needless to say we were VERY lucky. My mom's college friend we're staying with told us a couple of friends of hers, U.S citizens both, were stopped and asked to surrender their cellphones so the agents could go through them to make sure they weren't saying anything negative about Trump.

Here is a picture I took of the border wall, because I had never seen it up close. Notice the space between the wall and the barbed wire fence, reminded me of the no man's land/deadzone of the Berlin Wall:
1744605884151.jpeg
 
Onhell said:
Needless to say we were VERY lucky. My mom's college friend we're staying with told us a couple of friends of hers, U.S citizens both, were stopped and asked to surrender their cellphones so the agents could go through them to make sure they weren't saying anything negative about Trump.
Click to expand...
Happy to live in the land of the free!
 
I think, in general, when people in the U.S. (my own country) purport to take a strong stand on global geopolitics, it tends to still follow domestic partisan or left/right trends without much stake, identification with, or understanding of a conflict where the U.S. is not a combatant.

This is why, while it doesn’t surprise me, I have to regard some protestors or online pundits with skepticism.

Historically, though, the US has had to eventually take action in conflicts that began as “not really its problem” but, at least in the case of the World Wars, the US eventually became involved due to either provocation (WWI) or direct attack (WWII). In the case of Cold War era conflicts, US military intervention was ideologically driven. Post-9/11, it was reacting very strongly (and not very precisely) to a domestic attack.

Not saying people in the US (or anywhere) shouldn’t have or aren’t entitled to opinions. Obviously, they are and it is (in the US and should be anywhere) a fundamental human right to hold and express opinions. I’m just perplexed at the sometimes emotional investment some people make in geopolitical conflicts that don’t directly (or even indirectly) impact them much if at all.
 
Right now, here in Lithuania—and I’d even say across Eastern Europe—we’re just a little bit disappointed in US foreign politics. Just by a mere inch.
 
Last edited:
Azas said:
Right now, here in Lithuania—and I’d even say across Eastern Europe—we’re just a little bit disappointed in US politics. Just by a mere inch.
Click to expand...
I think there’s a general unease (both internationally and domestically) with how US politics is playing out currently.

I’m not sure yet if we’re truly hitting a fundamental political shift or if reality television has simply become reality politics for the current term.

In many ways, I don’t think either established political party has gone in a “smarter” or more appealing direction. Absent viable 3rd party choices, we’ve been stuck with the two major parties and whatever direction they take.

I’m hoping a stronger moderate/centrist movement can take hold. There are already some politicians emerging with more temperate mentalities but it’s a tough intra-party pivot on message for the Dems and hesitancy to rock the boat for dissenting Republicans after so much polarization with each party letting its fringes lead.
 
Sheriff_of_Huddersfield said:
I think there’s a general unease (both internationally and domestically) with how US politics is playing out currently.

I’m not sure yet if we’re truly hitting a fundamental political shift or if reality television has simply become reality politics for the current term.

In many ways, I don’t think either established political party has gone in a “smarter” or more appealing direction. Absent viable 3rd party choices, we’ve been stuck with the two major parties and whatever direction they take.

I’m hoping a stronger moderate/centrist movement can take hold. There are already some politicians emerging with more temperate mentalities but it’s a tough intra-party pivot on message for the Dems and hesitancy to rock the boat for dissenting Republicans after so much polarization with each party letting its fringes lead.
Click to expand...

I'm obviously not in the U.S., so maybe I'm wrong — but I get the impression that Democrats are doubling down on the more controversial parts of their politics. Which, in my opinion, is the wrong move if they actually want to win the election.

On the other hand, Trump keeps digging a hole for himself and for the Republican Party — and that, honestly, is good news for the Democrats.
 
Azas said:
I'm obviously not in the U.S., so maybe I'm wrong — but I get the impression that Democrats are doubling down on the more controversial parts of their politics. Which, in my opinion, is the wrong move if they actually want to win the election.

On the other hand, Trump keeps digging a hole for himself and for the Republican Party — and that, honestly, is good news for the Democrats.
Click to expand...
We’re seeing some Democrat politicians like Gavin Newsom (California’s governor) try to rebrand as a moderate but his track record in office makes that a little difficult.

In addition to the executive branch, the Republicans currently hold majority in the Supreme Court (3 Trump appointees from last term + conservatives that were already there) and both chambers of Congress.

Domestically, the Dems are seen by many as weak and disorganized while the new Republicans seem to have much greater power compared to Trump’s first term.

Historically, the US electorate would often shift the partisan balance of power during the congressional mid terms. That didn’t happen, though in 2022 (the Democrats kept a narrow Senate majority w/Biden as president).

We’ll see if 2026 sees any shift in party control of congress. The Supreme court’s more or less locked in until a justice retires and the replacements will be nominated by whoever’s President. Of course, barring any unforeseen and unlikely circumstances, the current President will serve until Jan 19 2029.

Not sure what to tell you, to be honest. U.S. politics used to be somewhat predictable up until 2016. Now, the paradigms have shifted.
 
Last edited:
Azas said:
Right now, here in Lithuania—and I’d even say across Eastern Europe—we’re just a little bit disappointed in US foreign politics. Just by a mere inch.
Click to expand...
Eastern European inch, the largest inch in the world.
Soviet microchip, the largest microchip in the world, as I'm sure you remember
 
Magnus said:
Eastern European inch, the largest inch in the world.
Soviet microchip, the largest microchip in the world, as I'm sure you remember
Click to expand...
The inch to measure them all… because we live next to that rabid Bear, and we know—it can’t be tamed. It gets put down.
 
Azas said:
Trump’s in his we need Greenland manic episode again—green as in money, then land. Obviously.
Click to expand...
He has to deflect from him getting stared down by China and subsequently blinking. The optics isn't of him being the strongman, to put it mildly.
 
Many of the policy announcements follow a pattern:

1. Big, controversial change announced
2. Public reaction and/or other branches of govt get involved.
3. A “pause” or reversal on announced big, controversial change.

Exceptions are when it involves direct appointees (that don’t require congressional approval), govt departments directly under executive branch control, easy cosmetic changes (“Gulf of America” or renaming military bases) or issues that aren’t so unpopular as to cause much outcry.

It exposes the US constitutional checks and balances and is an unintentional stress test of its political framework.

The announce/pause cycle diminishes govt credibility among other things. Lack of partisan balance right now (and I blame the Democrats for their present unpopularity) also creates concern over how far Republican power consolidation might go.

I gather, from recent comments, this forum likely includes people who don’t care that much about US politics beyond its foreign policy, but glad to share opinions or answer questions about what things look like here domestically.
 
Sheriff_of_Huddersfield said:
I gather, from recent comments, this forum likely includes people who don’t care that much about US politics beyond its foreign policy, but glad to share opinions or answer questions about what things look like here domestically.
Click to expand...
No, I'm very interested and follow American media and independent media closely. It has partly to do with fascination stemming both from Trumpism itself, but equally so from the U.S. long having been the dominant cultural force in the west, but also due to the fact that the U.S. tends to export their domestic political divisions to Europe. What happens in the U.S. often have a ripple-effect that shape domestic policies, movements and the health of democracy in other countries.
 
Yax said:
No, I'm very interested and follow American media and independent media closely. It has partly to do with fascination stemming both from Trumpism itself, but equally so from the U.S. long having been the dominant cultural force in the west, but also due to the fact that the U.S. tends to export their domestic political divisions to Europe. What happens in the U.S. often have a ripple-effect that shape domestic policies, movements and the health of democracy in other countries.
Click to expand...
It’s interesting because most other countries’ political systems don’t directly mirror the U.S. federal/state, 3 branches, electoral college, etc system.

So, while we’re meant to have checks and balances, with only really 2 parties (and a few Independents here and there), those checks and balances between branches can be diminished. The 2-party thing was more by accident than design. The US. Constitution doesn’t limit political parties and we have plenty - they just seldom get elected to anything important.

Some parliamentary systems, with a higher number of political parties who have to form alliances with each other. in a way have better means to mitigate partisan control.

So, while the US has constitutional safeguards baked in, so to speak, the 2–party system and all or nothing executive branch elections tend to diminish those protections.

Also, a lot more happens at the State level than many people outside of the US might think. In particular, each state has its own criminal and civil legal code. While those can’t override Federal law, there are differences in what’s legal or illegal from state to state.

You can, for example, live in a left-leaning state and not be as directly affected by right-leaning policies enacted in other states and vice versa.

Of course, the urban vs rural political differences are often clear within each state, with rural areas being more conservative and urban areas more liberal.

On populism: it’s not about accurate or inaccurate data as much as it is what the general public thinks is accurate.

Tariffs, for example, are usually seen as a bad idea by people with advanced degrees in business or political science — primarily because protectionist trade policies usually hurt a country's exports due to reciprocity more than they serve to increase domestic production.

But, the average high school educated voter may think tariffs would magically and immediately bring back domestic jobs.

I’m sure Trump is well educated on tariffs but is speaking to a populist base that thinks he is going to improve their economic situations. This base often doesn’t pay much attention to the broader impact and thinks in terms of what might benefit them directly (ie, more jobs or higher wages).

IMG_0041.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Random addendum.

Populism also contains general truisms that too many people believe without evidence and don’t bother to investigate beyond whatever bias confirmation they need.

I think of the 1970s-80s era “Satanic Panic” in this category of glib populist thought.

1. Widespread belief that backward masking sent subliminal messages
2. Selective misrepresentations of song lyrics (Paranoid was notoriously misquoted) accepted by people who’d never heard the song.
3. Conspiracies that Metal music and D&D games were causing suicides.
4. It seemed the Satanic Panic was not only propagated by fundamentalists but by a “church thrice a year, maybe, and never read a Bible” segment of the population who professed to be devout when it suited them.

The fear being that evil forces were corrupting the nation’s morals. This scare also followed the high profile Night Stalker and Son of Sam cases, where Satanic imagery was in the press.

Not to say the metal and tabletop gaming communities didn’t troll on that perception

During the Obama years, the Tea Party (MAGA precursor) called Obama a socialist, and propagated myths that we wasn’t really American born.

And then the silly conspiracy theories people believe today.

I guess the point is that George Carlin was right when he talked about not underestimating the power of stupid people in large numbers.

And this isn’t a uniquely American thing although I’ll concede that some smaller, low population/high per capita GDP nations tend to manage their governments much more thoughtfully and efficiently and may have better per capita education levels.
 
Last edited:
And he fell asleep, lol

The bigger headline is he had a one on one with Zelenskyy. From the looks of it it was WAY less contentions than the one in front of the cameras AND from the little I've read it looks like Trump is finally putting two and two together that Putin isn't interested in peace.
 
Blue
Onhell said:
And he fell asleep, lol

The bigger headline is he had a one on one with Zelenskyy. From the looks of it it was WAY less contentions than the one in front of the cameras AND from the little I've read it looks like Trump is finally putting two and two together that Putin isn't interested in peace.
Click to expand...
That follows the pattern:

Makes big, bold statements on camera, gets a lot of attention, stirs things up (like confronting Zelenskyy on TV).

Takes a step back and reconsiders. Maybe tones down or shifts the message. (Example: saying “Vladimir Stop” on his social media platform).

The general public (both domestic and international) is left to guess at what will happen next.

Don’t get me wrong, he sometimes does exactly what he says he’ll do but our current govt is a guessing game now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yax
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top