Last week the US stated they didn't need any of the oil, and that if other countries wanted it they could go figure it out themselves. Looks like they have. And yet the US is now back to threatening Iran if they don't open up the oil.
It is a fact that the reputation of the USA has being damaged, perhaps not repairable for decades or more. This will have consequences.
Perhaps, I hope, Americans will take action to save the democratic norms and institutions that so many of them have claimed to cherish. Before he has dismantled and replaced too many to salvage. Or perhaps they have work tomorrow.
Remember, Republicans get out and vote. They would rather suffer and destroy America just so the democrats don’t win.
Look at what that party collectively stands for now, who they kick out and who they keep. They all stand behind trump.
Presumably democratic reforms could help change the dynamic if they changed the incentives. Right now, it's a politically viable strategy to just obstruct the other party when out of power, and politically unviable strategy for Congress to oppose a president from the same party. Both of which lead to a lot of dysfunction.
As an example, if Congress had multimember districts with an appropriate voting system (e.g. ranked choice voting for all members at the same time), then you can effectively nullify the power of gerrymandered voting districts (the current system, where effectively politicians choose voters rather than the other way around). Doing so would elevate the influence of general elections over party primaries. Then representatives would be less afraid of challenges in those primaries, which is currently one of the major disincentives in opposing the president of the same political party (fear of being "primaried").
So conservatives win when progressives push for too many changes, not changing things is the default. So saying that the democrats lost the election by pushing too fast is not weird, that is just how humans works.
I'd argue that the asymmetry has less to do with change vs. no change and more to do with the Republican party currently being an "anti government" party (pivoting to that post New Deal). So less is expected of them in terms of functional governance.
With respect to change: I've heard a lot of commentary that the Republican party today is more of an instigator of change than the Democratic party (being seen as a defender of the status quo), despite the traditional alignment of Republican/conservative/no change. Democrats are seen as pro-institution and Republicans anti-institution.
In case it matters, I personally don't identify with a political party. I just want functional government and politics and I see a lot of dysfunction. I'm an engineer so naturally I gravitate towards systemic solutions to systemic problems.
Conserving distraction == wars, progressive distraction == LG, then B, then T, there are still letters in the alphabet to progress to - mandatory for school children to study in detail.
Conserving inflation same as progressive inflation, the small group benefiting form it - the same too.
Changing presidential candidates a few months before election and doing everything to let the other side win? Very progressive.
Promising no-more-wars and delivering more-wars? Very conservative.
Moral of the story - while 'progressive' and 'conservative' are used haphazardly, lacking precise and concrete definitions in terms of specific, measurable goals and commitments, using them for political analysis is just mud in the eyes.
Thanks so much for voting in Trump and his enablers.
Sometimes democrats do push too far left. Far left is not that much different than far right.
Who staffs your stores when everyone moves away? Who mows the lawn? Who builds the houses?
I don’t really give a rats ass who runs the internals of your country, and what goes on in San Francisco seems like a you problem. Due to voters like this, Trump is now my problem many thousands of miles away.
Don’t underestimate just how much ill will he is generating around the world, especially in allied nations, by insulting leaders and pushing up all of our energy prices.
One party or other mismanaging San Francisco or Seattle has zero effect on me here in Australia. A madman waving his dick around overseas and insulting everyone does though, and is costing me hundreds of dollars a month.
And you voted for it. Thanks.
The only way to win against Trump voters like you is to ignore them, because people like you will choose nazi until nazi are the only game in town.
Again, one sided. People are tired of it. More importantly, people are growing tired of the tolerance for the people who support the current happenings. Look around about what people who stayed out of the 2024 election said and it's that Dems were milquetoast and tried to be friendly and play both sides. Look around and see why republicans were fired up to vote. It's because they loved the demonization of Dems.
The funny thing is you can criticize the supporters. It's no problem. You can criticize Bush voters and everyone will agree with you. Why? Because nobody voted for Bush. Yet he won two elections. Meaning those people regretted their vote and now completely hide that they voted for him. They also retroactively hate the Iraq War, despite supporting it in 2003 and saying anyone who opposes it is unamerican. But those people will now say Dems started the war.
Trying to pull those people over is like trying to wrestle with a greased pig. No kind words will ever be enough to grab them. They're incredibly loyal to their side no matter what, and will deny ever supporting it the moment social pressure builds up too much. But interestingly, they also respect anger and vitriol against those they feel betrayed them. Republicans loved voting for Trump because he said he was against neocons and the Iraq War and all those people who voted for them. If Trump ever falls out of favor, those people who once supported him won't be begging for leniency. They'll put on a new hat and demand revenge against him and his supporters. They don't want a both aisles softy. They'll just pretend they were always against him.
Are you saying democrats didn't vote for Kamala since Kamala didn't call Trump voters evil? What are you on about? I see no reason why you should call Trump voters evil.
As I said its fine to call Trump evil, but why call the voters evil? What purpose does that serve?
Dems were disillusioned by the Biden administration's lack of meaningful effort to nail the previous administration's criminals to the wall. Merrick Garland was an absolute failure.
Add in things like cozying up to the Cheneys, and the incorrect assumption Trump II would be similar to Trump I.
I get that there are real asymmetries here, but I really don't think there are substantial blocs of swing voters who use "who has insulted them less" as a real factor. If that were the case, Trump would not have made the gains he did in 2024.
The important thing is to make people feel welcome in your coalition. It is clearly possible to do that either with or without being nice. It's just a different skillset.
One third voted Republican.
One third did not vote.
I hold the last group most responsible.
Third one didn't want to vote for zillionaires.
Perhaps next time there'll be someone to vote not representing the zillionaire-class?
The primaries were the worst, at least the generals you get conservatives voting party lines, the primaries are where "conservatives" decided that trump was their guy. just go back and read up on republicans descriptions of trump before they had to get in line in the wake of the trump victories. I exclusively hold the trump voters in the primaries responsible. We're the sort of country of laws that traditionally says any loser can run for office, its our job as a society to keep at least a plausible set of standards for who we want in office. "Conservatives" who went trump either failed to do their due dilligence, or they are aligned with trumps value system which common decency prevents me from describing in any detail.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/8/1786532/-Cartoon-Y...
Why are all the Democrats Fox News (and the actual President of the United States himself) does a "constant drum beat of disdain and hate towards" not doing the same thing? Why is this only a concern on one side?
If your thesis is true, you'd expect Trump's ratings to go up.
As far as I can see, partisan hatred doesn't matter, because pretty much everybody speaking and listening to such rhetorics have already made up their minds. The battle is fought in the middle, and these people don't care about latest Truth Social posts. They care about the price of gas.
Trump fucked with the one thing people will not forget about, because their livelihood depends on it. It's going to be... interesting.
This is true.
Which raises the question: could Democrats use this reality (whatever they touch is poisoned, in eyes of the other side) to steer the result a bit?
The SCOTUS ruled that presidents cannot be held accountable.
The constitution is pretty clear. Trump does not have the authority to invade Iran. Yet he did. What are you planning to patch?
Despite everything, Trump has 35-40 percent approval right now. You cannot patch that out.
Turns out that last bit is how the US was setup. Oops.
Until they have to take a meaningful vote. Because it’s bullshit.
Also, none of the Bush’s ran on an “America First” isolationist political campaign. Even own base is fracturing because of this.
The “coalition of the willing” is not behind the US this time.
Do with that, in terms of foreign policy, what you will.
we've faced two major recessions since then and may very well be entering our third
at this point it seems we're just trying to find out where the breaking point is
There are political similarities between the two aforementioned wars, but the social and technological backdrops are quite different, and they're working against US public perception. Furthermore, decorum is entirely gone this time around, which isn't helping.
These 2 are incomparable on any level. If you want to say it can always get worse that I can agree with.
I'm going to take action by voting in November. Or are you suggesting revolution is more prudent, that I should put my life on the line right now because the global economy is a little fucky?
> US President Donald Trump, on Friday, February 13, threatened to try to bypass Congress and force new voting laws ahead of the November midterm elections, where his Republican Party fears losing control of the legislature. Trump said he would soon issue an executive order attempting to impose the rules if Congress does not pass a law requiring photo identification to vote and other nationwide reforms.
> "There will be Voter ID for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not!" Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. "If we can't get it through Congress, there are Legal reasons why this SCAM is not permitted. I will be presenting them shortly, in the form of an Executive Order," he wrote.
but if you believe, as many people claim to, than an executive order is actually a federal law, then if some blue state decides to ignore such an executive order, then you can claim that the election process was tainted, illegal, and illegitimate. maybe you can even round up all the ballots in order to perform an 'investigation'. maybe send federal officers to check IDs. all kinds of things.
Yes, the mechanical process is hard to fuck up.
That is not the unfair part.
As long as I have been alive there has not been a fair election on US grounds.
You think.
Peaceful transfers of power are always tricky in younger democracies.
Trump is already well beyond the confines of the Constitution. If the 2A crowd gave a fuck about rights other than larping soldiers, they would have already marched on him. He has openly declared that guns should be taken away from people and that having a gun on you at a protest should justify shooting you. The 2A crowd continues to support him fully.
OK, I'm calling you on this one. Source please.
https://www.c-span.org/clip/white-house-event/user-clip-dona...
Here's about the second claim
https://time.com/7358403/nra-trump-clash-gun-carrying-rights...
"He shouldn't have been carrying a gun" says Trump about someone fully in compliance with US law, who never even drew his weapon. "You can't walk in with guns". It's up to you to look up discussions about Kyle Rittenhouse and what republicans and Trump supporters believed about bringing a gun to a protest not very long ago.
Elected twice by the "(2A rights) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" crowd. You can bet they will continue to support him.
This is trivially debunked.
The word younger is implying to me that US would be considered the youngest in a list of current democracies, which I wasn't aware of.
Iran is a distraction from the Epstein files, and the fact that many from the Trump circle appear in it - Trump himself, some of his children, Elon Musk, Steve Bannon, Peter Thiel, etc.
The war with Iran is also a way to make a few more suspicious trades on the market swings, especially the ones following each speech or decision. It would be easy to time trades if you know what will happen because you’re deciding it.
The US may be destroyed but it’s because it’s just collateral damage to the billionaires and Epstein class. Not because they’re incompetent. We need to contain their wealth and power with totally new laws.
I'm genuinely worried that he secretly wants to go down in history as the crazy guy who set the oil fields on fire and dropped a nuke on Tehran or something.
Im beting 1000 USD that Trump comes up with whatever story/issue/incident to "manipulate" all upcoming elections to his favour
Clinton too, then Trump twice.
Correct. But that's not because they weren't impeached.
Impeachment is part of the process; three presidents have been impeached, Trump twice. Then comes the trial, and conviction/acquittal.
In a democratic system, the ruler is a reflection of the majority of the population. Of course it can change during the course of the administration (as seen in the approval ratings), but the trust is lost and most countries now believe that, one way or another, the majority of the US population agree with some of the ideas behind Trump. The damage will not stop by the end of Trump's administration, it is truly the end of multilateralism as we knew it
And will happily vote for it again and again, provided the better next to the name is an R, no matter how they answer approval polls.
This is what happens when your entire media (social and traditional) and tech ecosystem is complicit and encouraging.
...
Democracy is only as good as the people doing the voting, who are about as good (as the rules they don't protest againsts) and the content they consume, which is about as good as certain groups make it to be.
What's particularly amazing about Brexit is that many of its chief architects have not been shamed or exiled from society for spinning a yarn that fell apart when confronted with the smallest slither of reality. No, instead, the primary advocate may very well be our next prime minister.
What a time to be alive.
which in turn is brought to us by the good old days of our shared delusions, like divine right of kings (thx magic sky daddy and all his faithful unbiased selfless worldly interpreters!)
Only democracy in the western world where there is so much money involved in the elections, is the USA.
A few million can have an outsized influence in New Zealand. Which can mean other countries interfere (not just wealthy broligarches). There was a significant controversy in the 2005 New Zealand elections regarding budgets. It is alleged US fundamentalists funded the Exclusive Brethren Church to produce pamphlets in support of the National Party, by smearing both the Labour Party and the Green Party. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_New_Zealand_election_funding...
Peter Thiel was given a New Zealand passport by our National Party (maybe by being chummy, although obviously his wealth helped him). The only reason he might not influence NZ politics would be if he doesn't give a shit about our politics.
The wealthiest person born in New Zealand is Graeme Hart worth ~USD10G ranked by Forbes at about #340.
For the New Zealand 2023 General Election, political parties officially spent a total of about USD8M.
There's a lot of scope for malign influence here.
Well, it really wasn't, and still isn't. It's a republic: the people decide who make the laws and who executes them. In between these choices there's never really been anything for the people to do but ask their representatives to do things.
2. Blatantly kidnapping and assassinating heads of state is the culmination of US foreign policy and not an anomaly. The machine is working as designed.
The only foreign policy blunders I would attribute to Trump are the completely unnecessary spats with Canada and Denmark/the EU, although neither blunder seems to have made a dent in the ass kissing.
The MAGA base does not care about the international reputation of the US. They lean heavily towards isolationism (irrationally, imho).
Then Tuesday we’ll announce that “good talks have happened” and bridge day is delayed. Maybe they’ll roll out the Shah’s nephew or whatever and pave the way for an announcement of a transitional government.
They’ll push the strikes until late in the week or early next week to maximize volatility - next Friday is the April options expiry. It likely the Treasury is intervening in the oil markets, so there’s likely a counter-trade there as well.
I’ve 3x’d my salary on this trade as an observer, the insiders are printing cash. Eventually the credibility of the office of the POTUS will erode to a point where it is going to blow up, we probably have another 3-5 rounds of this.
Basically Iran put sanction on US. I guess Trump expected fight or something.
Trump's most recent statement ( https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1163519987825... ):
"Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP"
Are we at a point where we can conclusively say that the United States is a country that wants to wipe Iran off the face of the Earth?
Bombing them into the stone age where they belong, complete destruction of them, no quarter, decapitation strikes, bridge day, etc?
Because no matter how much they pretend it doesn't affect the US, oil is a global market.
Then there's an element of extremist Christian ideology from Pete H. etc.
Hormuz has little to do with it, it's just an excuse to destroy Iran.
Trump has been convinced that the Iranians are after him, plus there's the Epstein kompromat that the Israelis have on him. He's the only US president compromised enough to destroy Iran for them, war crimes and all.
It's not you specifically, but there's a broader sociological problem where we anthropomorphize countries and then claim they are doing things.
The average person in the US is not threatening Iran, and rationally the US cannot be said to be threatening Iran. What's happening is that an elite clique of Epstein-adjacent legacy-power-trolls (aka The US Government) are threatening Iran.
The US does not have legs, arms, or hands, it cannot do anything. This turn of phrase in which the US (or any country) does something is a semantic-contraption of legacy-power designed to make citizens (whether left, right, or undecided) feel psychologically-responsible for the actions of a entrenched-class of elite-warmongers who do not represent them; and have not represented them for, likely, thousands of years.