nlogax
Established Member
If you've not already watched the 2006 b movie 'Idiocracy' then I suggest doing so.
That was good wasn't it? As prescient documentaries go, anyway.
If you've not already watched the 2006 b movie 'Idiocracy' then I suggest doing so.
Yes - it was a classic in that sense.That was good wasn't it? As prescient documentaries go, anyway.
If you've not already listened to The Coming Storm on BBC Sounds then I suggest doing so. Good approximation of how US politics reached its current state of extreme polarisation. You may finish the series feeling slightly unsettled.. that's a good thing imo, the entire planet should be concerned.
The Coming Storm - BBC Sounds
The USA was born on excessive consumption and prosperity, it overproduces food and Petrol and keeps both very cheap. No one wants to believe climate change because many Americans don’t want to give up everything their country stands for. Consciously using less of anything is un American. That’s why I think climate denial is bigger than Trump, Biden won’t be able to do anything drastic because Obama wasn’t allowed to.Climate change denial is rife in the Republican Party. This lot will step up the race to the precipice - no matter which of them is leader.
Agreed - human beans are messing it all up. I suppose the natural world will carry on once we've passed the point of when we can do anything about it for our species.T
The USA was born on excessive consumption and prosperity, it overproduces food and Petrol and keeps both very cheap. No one wants to believe climate change because many Americans don’t want to give up everything their country stands for. Consciously using less of anything is un American. That’s why I think climate denial is bigger than Trump, Biden won’t be able to do anything drastic because Obama wasn’t allowed to.
In Feb 2016 his climate change policy was blocked. Big oil and gas lobbies are too large in the USA and Republicans preach the need for affordable energy and prosperity.
Specifically, to quote the Constitution:and Trump challenged them about 5000 times and lost every time.States run elections. The states certified their results. End of story.
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: (Role of the State in Federal Elections)
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
It is clearly up to each State to conduct their election in whatever manner they choose, and any challenge to either the election of senators/representatives or choosing of electors must be done at the State level. Once the State certifies their result the Federal government is bound to accept that result.Article II, Clause 2: (The choosing of electors)
- Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is someone I'm keeping an eye on; whether he stands or not I don't know, but I expect him at a minimum to challenge the primaries and/or be selected as the Republican candidate's running mate.Trump won't stand in 2024. He'll be purposely vague to his base to make them think he will, and continue to fund raise keeping the grift alive for as long as he can. I am sure he'll seek to support someone else in his family, but depending on possible legal cases, he may well just back someone else as long as he can get in on a grift there too.
All signs are that Trump is gradually losing his grip, not helped by defending the vaccine, and the cultists will latch on to someone else between the mid terms and 2024. The question is who is crazy enough; but there seem to be a fair few candidates.
Definitely option B. He has been, is, and always will be a grifter. Nothing about him is genuine and he cares about nobody except himself - with the possible exclusion of Ivanka.I'm still unsure - whether Trump is so deluded that he actually believes his line about the election being stolen, despite his inability to find any evidence anywhere to back that up - or whether he knows full well that he lost, but just wants to keep the money-making machine that MAGA became running for as long as possible, for his personal enrichment. Neither option is any credit to him, of course, nor bodes well for the future.
I'm still unsure - whether Trump is so deluded that he actually believes his line about the election being stolen, despite his inability to find any evidence anywhere to back that up - or whether he knows full well that he lost, but just wants to keep the money-making machine that MAGA became running for as long as possible, for his personal enrichment. Neither option is any credit to him, of course, nor bodes well for the future.
Definitely option B. He has been, is, and always will be a grifter. Nothing about him is genuine and he cares about nobody except himself - with the possible exclusion of Ivanka.
Just in case anyone doesn't know what's being referred toWell yes. And his care for Ivanka sometimes seems a little unhealthy
We can hope that Trump meets his maker (if anyone will own up to it ) before then. Every morning I turn my radio on for the 6 o'clock news hoping that will be the lead item.Could it happen? Yes. Is it likely to happen? I'm less sure about it now than I was a month or two ago. The fact that Trump has been booed several times by his "faithful" and the infighting that's starting to happen in the MAGA crowd gives me a little bit of confidence.
There are other rising stars like Governor DeSantis who generally have what are in my opinion equally repugnant politics, but are less ego-maniacal demagogues and have less of a cult of personality around them. And honestly at this stage I'd happily take 4 more years of awful politics if they didn't then try and instill martial law at the end of their term!Could it happen? Yes. Is it likely to happen? I'm less sure about it now than I was a month or two ago. The fact that Trump has been booed several times by his "faithful" and the infighting that's starting to happen in the MAGA crowd gives me a little bit of confidence.
I fear it is not as simple as that. Trump has awakened a section of society that do not see democracy as relevant. That is even if they do not know it themselves. The lid is off Pandora's box and someone else will fill the space he leaves. It really takes the republican party to wise up to the path they are sleep walking down in an attempt to gain more popularity.We can hope that Trump meets his maker (if anyone will own up to it ) before then. Every morning I turn my radio on for the 6 o'clock news hoping that will be the lead item.
I think that's right. A considerable slice of people want somebody at the head of their country that (they think) shares their values and who promises them easy, comfortable answers to problems (like "Climate Change isn't real"). That's how populism works - and by the time the truth is inescapable it's too late, the rules have been changed to keep the autocrat in place permanently.I fear it is not as simple as that. Trump has awakened a section of society that do not see democracy as relevant. That is even if they do not know it themselves. The lid is off Pandora's box and someone else will fill the space he leaves. It really takes the republican party to wise up to the path they are sleep walking down in an attempt to gain more popularity.
This also sounds horribly familiar here in the UK as well!I think that's right. A considerable slice of people want somebody at the head of their country that (they think) shares their values and who promises them easy, comfortable answers to problems (like "Climate Change isn't real"). That's how populism works - and by the time the truth is inescapable it's too late, the rules have been changed to keep the autocrat in place permanently.
The nasty fact is you are describing the early stages of the rise to power of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party.I think that's right. A considerable slice of people want somebody at the head of their country that (they think) shares their values and who promises them easy, comfortable answers to problems (like "Climate Change isn't real"). That's how populism works - and by the time the truth is inescapable it's too late, the rules have been changed to keep the autocrat in place permanently.
I fear that too, very much in fact, but I also feared when Osama Bin Laden was assassinated that the jihadists would seek vengeance in rage, but it never happened. Now, if he'd been taken captive I think all hell would have broken loose. Certainly if Trump were assassinated bloodbaths would follow in many locations, but to die in his sleep might see significant number of Republican politicians beginning to turn their backs on his tyranny. Of course, his death might well produce outrageous lies about the nature of it, some of them emanating from Moscow. Anyway, regardless, I would be so delighted, however momentarily, if and when it happens.I fear it is not as simple as that. Trump has awakened a section of society that do not see democracy as relevant. That is even if they do not know it themselves. The lid is off Pandora's box and someone else will fill the space he leaves. It really takes the republican party to wise up to the path they are sleep walking down in an attempt to gain more popularity.
I saw a programme that showed a Republican saying she didn't believe in democracy but did believe in a republic. I am not sure I fully understand the difference, but I have noticed others seemingly trying to associate democracy as being a 'Democrat' thing and presumably that means a socialist, communist thing in their eyes.
So that's a good first step towards convincing the public the democracy is bad, and that the only solution is the republican party that can deliver a different type of governance.
When you see how divisive Brexit was here, I am sure there are many people who would give up our form of Government in favour of someone like Nigel Farage taking over and imposing strict rules on immigration etc - without realising that once he's finished with them, he'll come after you.
Should. Because their system is supposed to work on the principle of checks and balances between the three branches of government. However, if the GOP win control of the House and/or Senate then two of the three will be pretty Trumpian.But in the US their setup actually makes it very hard for someone like Trump to do any lasting damage.
What the Tories would really like to do is go back to the pre-1928 situation where there were property qualifications on the right to vote, and probably the likes of Rees-Mogg would go back even further to pre-1832 where many constituencies (boroughs in those days) were under the control of the local landed gentry. And no doubt the Republicans would have something similar in mind. Here's a couple of useful definitions from Britannica.com which might help the discussion:The Conservatives are trying to do the same here, challenging polling lists and setting out a new legal requirement for photo ID to vote despite no evidence of it ever being an issue in the UK.
Republic - form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body. ... Because citizens do not govern the state themselves but through representatives, republics may be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics
In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. ... In a "pure democracy," the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority.
The Conservatives are trying to do the same here, challenging polling lists and setting out a new legal requirement for photo ID to vote despite no evidence of it ever being an issue in the UK.
What the Tories would really like to do is go back to the pre-1928 situation where there were property qualifications on the right to vote,
Meet my friend the wedge. Nice and thin, isn't it?To be fair, what the Conservatives are doing here - although erring in slightly the same direction, is on a massively smaller scale.
Meet my friend the wedge. Nice and thin, isn't it?
George Monbiot made a Twitter thread yesterday talking about the Cold War legacy, in which two blocs existed with very extreme ideologies that were both doomed to fail: extreme collectivism (USSR) vs extreme individualism (US and allies).
In his words he means "everyone can have everything, regardless of the interests of anyone else" to describe extreme individualism. If infinite resources existed this wouldn't be such a bad thing, but we live in a finite world so this ideology is physically unsustainable. He also warns of the US heading towards fascism, civil war or both; warning of these things is not something you'd hear from someone opposed to "democracy, human rights and free speech".Presumably by 'extreme individualism', what you mean is simply, 'support for democracy, human rights, and free speech'? Yes?
Which is why we (the people) need to keep a close eye on not just what they say they're doing but more importantly on what they are actually doing.It is, but on the other hand, pretty much everything any Government ever does could be seen as a slippery slope to something horrible, if you mentally extrapolate it in ways that the Government actually are not suggesting.