Black Abyss Babe
Slava Ukraini!
Who didn't you like any less - your European friends/neighbours or Bush and Clinton?
USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
Who didn't you like any less - your European friends/neighbours or Bush and Clinton?
srfc
Ancient Mariner
i don't think anyone thinks that, possibly because guys like Conor McGregor, Nigel Farage, the AFD, Marine Le Pen and all sorts of others that we have over here, wouldn't let us get up on a high horse about Trump. It's mainly worry that he's empowering these types that are driving the comments I would think.
Vaenyr
Ancient Mariner
Also, most people aren't going "ha ha, look at these dumb Americans, look how they are suffering". Most folks are looking towards the US in horror and frustration. They see years of warnings ignored. They see the most powerful government in the world blatantly disregarding the rule of law and turning towards tyranny.
Black Abyss Babe
Slava Ukraini!
Fair enough
Thing is, I really think that most non-Americans don't equate the whole of America with the president. Especially not the current one - he's in a class of his own ...
Azas
Major Noyance
Some interesting political observations from @GLandsbergis, Former Foreign Minister of Lithuania.
"I had ringside seats for US Vice President @JDVance’s speech this morning in Washington. Like most people in the room I was prepared to be hit with another lecture, to see the fractures in the transatlantic relationship deepen before my eyes. But we were surprised, positively.
The tone has altered. JD Vance now considers Europe and the US to be important partners. So what exactly changed, and why?
My best bet is that what has happened during recent months could be described as US foreign policy disruption overreach. Fundamentally, the notion that America, in the spirit of Silicon valley disruptors, can offer a new and universally accepted worldview is based on the indispensability of the United States to other nations.
And what just happened was a reckoning that the US is still a tremendously important western ally, but… the worldview that it wants its allies to accept is simply not acceptable to most of them.
JD Vance offered a couple of points that to my mind show the main vulnerabilities of the US.
1—EU procurement of US weapons.
The US wants a piece of the trillions of euros that will be spent on defence. And the administration is upset that Europe seems to be choosing to replace American products by making its own kit instead of staying weak and vulnerable by shopping around for subtier alternatives.
All the messaging throughout recent months led Europe to doubt that the US is a reliable partner when it comes to dealing with the greatest security threat—Russia. And if Europe doubts that partnership—Europe is not going to spend money on US equipment, at least not in the amounts it planned to when there was less doubt. You cannot have cake and eat it. Either the US is ready to defend Europe against Russia together with Europe (and that includes Ukraine), or Europe slowly, ineffectively but inevitably will start building itself up, and with that will gain autonomy and leverage.
2—EU regulation.
JD Vance mentioned that the way Brussels treats US tech companies is unfair. My gut feeling is that this sentiment is at the heart of the attack on Brussels by the US administration. You can laugh, despise or criticise Brussels, but it wields enormous regulatory power in an extremely populous and rich market. And if you want to reach that market, your road leads through Brussels.
And what's even more horrifying from the US administration’s perspective—most Europeans actually appreciate this regulation. Many have a sense it makes their life safer and in that way better. So the attacks on Brussels because of its supposedly undemocratic nature are simply another attack on any limitation of Washington’s power. You can broligarch your way to the highest echelons of US power, but apparently that doesn’t help you change things in Europe.
I admit, this might be wishful thinking—but I get the sense that Trump burning all those burning bridges did not scare or paralyze Europe into submission. And the price that American people are paying for the disruption might also be larger than initially expected.
If all this is true—the lesson is clear. Hold your ground, stay firm, keep the door open, remind everybody of common values and common interests and continue doing the right thing. And who knows, people can come around, so maybe countries can as well.
So I left the room hoping that my gut feeling will turn out to be true. At least, for once, my gut feeling was not gloom.
But still, the first victim of Trump’s disruption was trust. It is a very expensive commodity that was built up through decades of hard work and it will be very tough to regain. Trust will have to be at the core of all the conversations between Brussels and DC—be it about trade, regulation or security.
If there had been a chance to address the Vice President, I would have told him frankly:
Russia is the aggressor.
Ukraine is the victim.
We support the victim.
There are red lines that Europe cannot cross, and will not cross."
"I had ringside seats for US Vice President @JDVance’s speech this morning in Washington. Like most people in the room I was prepared to be hit with another lecture, to see the fractures in the transatlantic relationship deepen before my eyes. But we were surprised, positively.
The tone has altered. JD Vance now considers Europe and the US to be important partners. So what exactly changed, and why?
My best bet is that what has happened during recent months could be described as US foreign policy disruption overreach. Fundamentally, the notion that America, in the spirit of Silicon valley disruptors, can offer a new and universally accepted worldview is based on the indispensability of the United States to other nations.
And what just happened was a reckoning that the US is still a tremendously important western ally, but… the worldview that it wants its allies to accept is simply not acceptable to most of them.
JD Vance offered a couple of points that to my mind show the main vulnerabilities of the US.
1—EU procurement of US weapons.
The US wants a piece of the trillions of euros that will be spent on defence. And the administration is upset that Europe seems to be choosing to replace American products by making its own kit instead of staying weak and vulnerable by shopping around for subtier alternatives.
All the messaging throughout recent months led Europe to doubt that the US is a reliable partner when it comes to dealing with the greatest security threat—Russia. And if Europe doubts that partnership—Europe is not going to spend money on US equipment, at least not in the amounts it planned to when there was less doubt. You cannot have cake and eat it. Either the US is ready to defend Europe against Russia together with Europe (and that includes Ukraine), or Europe slowly, ineffectively but inevitably will start building itself up, and with that will gain autonomy and leverage.
2—EU regulation.
JD Vance mentioned that the way Brussels treats US tech companies is unfair. My gut feeling is that this sentiment is at the heart of the attack on Brussels by the US administration. You can laugh, despise or criticise Brussels, but it wields enormous regulatory power in an extremely populous and rich market. And if you want to reach that market, your road leads through Brussels.
And what's even more horrifying from the US administration’s perspective—most Europeans actually appreciate this regulation. Many have a sense it makes their life safer and in that way better. So the attacks on Brussels because of its supposedly undemocratic nature are simply another attack on any limitation of Washington’s power. You can broligarch your way to the highest echelons of US power, but apparently that doesn’t help you change things in Europe.
I admit, this might be wishful thinking—but I get the sense that Trump burning all those burning bridges did not scare or paralyze Europe into submission. And the price that American people are paying for the disruption might also be larger than initially expected.
If all this is true—the lesson is clear. Hold your ground, stay firm, keep the door open, remind everybody of common values and common interests and continue doing the right thing. And who knows, people can come around, so maybe countries can as well.
So I left the room hoping that my gut feeling will turn out to be true. At least, for once, my gut feeling was not gloom.
But still, the first victim of Trump’s disruption was trust. It is a very expensive commodity that was built up through decades of hard work and it will be very tough to regain. Trust will have to be at the core of all the conversations between Brussels and DC—be it about trade, regulation or security.
If there had been a chance to address the Vice President, I would have told him frankly:
Russia is the aggressor.
Ukraine is the victim.
We support the victim.
There are red lines that Europe cannot cross, and will not cross."
Last edited:
JudasMyGuide
The incorrigible papist
An American Pope being elected this year in particular was on nobody's bingo card, I guess.
Yeah, he's more of a moderate, if anything. I think he's a great choice, regarding the US, actually. First US pope, yet a rather anti-Trump pick of sorts.
Just a guy named Bob from Chicago, innit?
Yeah, he's more of a moderate, if anything. I think he's a great choice, regarding the US, actually. First US pope, yet a rather anti-Trump pick of sorts.
Just a guy named Bob from Chicago, innit?
JudasMyGuide
The incorrigible papist
I mean - and I'm double posting intentionally, to dramatically keep the while it took me to realise it - this is absolutely brilliant. US Catholics having their own American Pope who spent most of his life taking care of the poor in Peru is just genius.
BTW, the previous Leo, Leo XIII (who must have been an inspiration) actually released Rerum novarum, one of the first social encyclicals (and a rather early pro-social documents in general). Yet he was orthodox, an intellectual and a Thomist. I see a potential for crossing the divides here.
BTW, the previous Leo, Leo XIII (who must have been an inspiration) actually released Rerum novarum, one of the first social encyclicals (and a rather early pro-social documents in general). Yet he was orthodox, an intellectual and a Thomist. I see a potential for crossing the divides here.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
I wonder if anti-catholic sentiment will rise, since they've always been criticized for following a foreign leader.
JudasMyGuide
The incorrigible papist
Well, an American pope is a big deal, methinks. It was for Poland, and nobody expected it from the US, especially currently.
Couldn't we rename the Pope is Dope thread to something like Catholicism (& Popes) thread or something? I mean, I could just generally spam there.
Flaming Blimp Crash
Ancient Mariner
Pope is Dope. Crack is Wack.
To be clear, I wasn't saying that this was an inappropriate place to discuss it, just more a comment on how significant an American pope is. No matter what happened, I think one of the first things many people would be interested in is how the pope deals with Trump (as well as the current rise of fascism around the globe), but this is going to put it under an even larger microscope imo.
I get that it's a very American viewpoint, and I will provide more general thoughts on the pope in the other thread, but I have a hard time not seeing this as an intentional statement from the church about the state of American politics. I'm not sure we get an American pope with a President Harris in office, for example. I actually think there's potential for huge backlash against the pope in America primarily from protestant right wingers, but this will probably also drive a wedge within the Catholic church if Pope Leo becomes a foil for Trump. Pope Leo is now the second most influential American world leader, so it'll be interesting to see how that plays out during the remainder of Trump's term.
I get that it's a very American viewpoint, and I will provide more general thoughts on the pope in the other thread, but I have a hard time not seeing this as an intentional statement from the church about the state of American politics. I'm not sure we get an American pope with a President Harris in office, for example. I actually think there's potential for huge backlash against the pope in America primarily from protestant right wingers, but this will probably also drive a wedge within the Catholic church if Pope Leo becomes a foil for Trump. Pope Leo is now the second most influential American world leader, so it'll be interesting to see how that plays out during the remainder of Trump's term.
JudasMyGuide
The incorrigible papist
I honestly don't know where to answer this, since it seems to cover the scope of both threads, but as you say
First of all, liking (or voting for, at any rate) Trump for Catholics is a complete anomaly. Most of the Church is anything but fascist (well, I suppose it depends on your definition of the term as well), but yeah, there are "conservatives" and "progressives" in the Church, but they don't always follow the same dichotomy in secular politics.
There are many Church conservatives (me among them) who are vehementy anti-racist, don't want too much of a state control over its citizens, care for the poor and the downtrodden (and generally are quite "left", economically) and are against death penalty, for example. Let alone being disgusted at Trump being downright vulgar.
The conservativism may instead be oriented towards a more spectacular liturgy, the ordination of female deacons and so on, but it doesn't always fit with the secular world and especially US conservatism.
Bear in mind that one of the beacons of "conservative thought" within the church, Chesterton, was against Socialism AND Capitalism and actually came with the idea of Distributism, which is supposed to take as much as possible from Catholic social teaching and to repair the faults of both Socialism and Capitalism (and the underlying materialism).
However, over time, US Catholics have made strange bedfellows with US Evangelicals, mainly because they seemed to follow certain similar goals and they felt similarly underrepresented in the US society (which is nothing new, William F. Buckley, Jr. wrote his God and Man at Yale about the aggressive secularisation of academia in 1951). Together they fought the devil of unbridled abortion desire, together they fought the devil of unrestricted immigration, no-go zones and the feeling of lack of safety within the city limits, together they fought wokism, kids painting flags of their orientation and their gender in primary school and so on. Before you accuse me of conservative dogwhistling - I am merely describing, I say what people feel and why they act accordingly.
I do have contact with US Catholics, many of them haven't voted for Trump (and went for American Solidarity Party, the US Catholic party in all but name, instead or haven't voted at all) or did so with a certain amount of distrust and revulsion - but got convinced he is the lesser evil. (I'm merely describing, I don't condone the opinion). But they shouldn't have to. Honestly, being only slightly less bloodthirsty in the abortion crusade, Dems would have scored quite a bit of Catholics regardless.
Which is why
However
I wonder - as there are over a billion Catholics worldwide, on every continent (some put the number as high as a billion and a half), I'd argue that Leo is going to be the single most influential American ever, currently. Definitely more influential than Trump who (deservedly) gets opposition even in his own party. Sure, the Pope has no nukes, but still..
and, well, it is, I find it fitting to answer here.
First of all, liking (or voting for, at any rate) Trump for Catholics is a complete anomaly. Most of the Church is anything but fascist (well, I suppose it depends on your definition of the term as well), but yeah, there are "conservatives" and "progressives" in the Church, but they don't always follow the same dichotomy in secular politics.
There are many Church conservatives (me among them) who are vehementy anti-racist, don't want too much of a state control over its citizens, care for the poor and the downtrodden (and generally are quite "left", economically) and are against death penalty, for example. Let alone being disgusted at Trump being downright vulgar.
The conservativism may instead be oriented towards a more spectacular liturgy, the ordination of female deacons and so on, but it doesn't always fit with the secular world and especially US conservatism.
Bear in mind that one of the beacons of "conservative thought" within the church, Chesterton, was against Socialism AND Capitalism and actually came with the idea of Distributism, which is supposed to take as much as possible from Catholic social teaching and to repair the faults of both Socialism and Capitalism (and the underlying materialism).
However, over time, US Catholics have made strange bedfellows with US Evangelicals, mainly because they seemed to follow certain similar goals and they felt similarly underrepresented in the US society (which is nothing new, William F. Buckley, Jr. wrote his God and Man at Yale about the aggressive secularisation of academia in 1951). Together they fought the devil of unbridled abortion desire, together they fought the devil of unrestricted immigration, no-go zones and the feeling of lack of safety within the city limits, together they fought wokism, kids painting flags of their orientation and their gender in primary school and so on. Before you accuse me of conservative dogwhistling - I am merely describing, I say what people feel and why they act accordingly.
I do have contact with US Catholics, many of them haven't voted for Trump (and went for American Solidarity Party, the US Catholic party in all but name, instead or haven't voted at all) or did so with a certain amount of distrust and revulsion - but got convinced he is the lesser evil. (I'm merely describing, I don't condone the opinion). But they shouldn't have to. Honestly, being only slightly less bloodthirsty in the abortion crusade, Dems would have scored quite a bit of Catholics regardless.
Which is why
I don't fear this. I think most will take the Pope over Trump.
However
this I believe is also true. It is a reaction to Trump, I think, and what's more - it isn't just a knee-jerk reaction, but an actual alternative, someone who is against Trump in many ways, but isn't just the political opposite - on the contrary, by picking the name Leo XIV and using traditional vestments, it is an extended hand to the "conservative" wing of the Church, to show they don't have to be (and should not be) American first, right-wing second and Catholic only third, but that there is always a third way.
I wonder - as there are over a billion Catholics worldwide, on every continent (some put the number as high as a billion and a half), I'd argue that Leo is going to be the single most influential American ever, currently. Definitely more influential than Trump who (deservedly) gets opposition even in his own party. Sure, the Pope has no nukes, but still..
Last edited:
MrKnickerbocker
clap hands
Bill Maher is trash.
Vaenyr
Ancient Mariner
Nah, Bill Maher sucks. He's a deeply unserious person high on his own farts.
Also, no, he most definitely does not have a point, because he's once again simply arguing against a strawman. The thing he's whining about is not something that is happening in reality. Fucking grifters lying so that morons keep being outraged.
Also, no, he most definitely does not have a point, because he's once again simply arguing against a strawman. The thing he's whining about is not something that is happening in reality. Fucking grifters lying so that morons keep being outraged.