US politics

[Retro Red]

32 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

Elon Musk isn't American-born, so unless they change that law, it's unlikely he'd be a candidate. If they did change the law, I'd imagine he'd have to deal with Schwarzenegger, and I don't think he wins that popularity contest. 

Arnie would be 81 come the next election, at this point even if the law was changed by then I doubt he’d enter the race.

[Carbomb]

12 minutes ago, Retro Red said:

Arnie would be 81 come the next election, at this point even if the law was changed by then I doubt he’d enter the race.

Bloody hell - just checked his Wiki. Honestly didn't realise he was that old already. I mean, it should make sense, but I thought he'd be in his mid-60s.

Mandela Syndrome-B.

[BomberPat]

33 minutes ago, Sphinx said:

social media echo chambers on both sides

I think "social media echo chambers" really downplays the scale of the polarisation in America; social media is only a tiny part of it, their legacy media is way worse. Their TV news barely pretends to be impartial, and conservative talk radio is a huge part of the story of how the far-right rose to prominence there. Every political ad I saw when I was in Florida was absolutely deranged.

And then the way their society is structured means so many people are just completely siloed off from anyone outside of their own demographic, and so many of their weird right wing panics are born of the few places where upper middle class white people encounter poor minorities in real life - insane TikTok videos about human traffickers operating in Walmart car parks by placing objects on or near your car is pretty much all born of it being one of the few places rich white women encounter the people that their preferred media is constantly demonising. 

I always laugh at suggestions that left-wing people in the UK are in an "echo chamber" because of who they choose to follow on social media, as if we're not exposed to opposing viewpoints every time we turn on a TV, read a newspaper, turn on the radio, or go to work or the pub. It's so much easier in America for someone who is already inclined to believe the things Trump is telling them to never hear a dissenting view, or to only hear it distorted into a strawman scare story - they can watch FOX News, listen to right-wing radio stations, go to a church run by a Trump-supporting evangelist; there's no meeting them in the middle for a civil conversation to win them around, because they may as well inhabit an entirely different reality - you can't meet in the middle when you can't even agree the terms of the debate.

Aside from that, you can't have a rational debate with fascists. When JD Vance's position is that women are irrational, how do you rationally debate that? If Trump's position is that immigrants or Muslims are criminal, rapists, or subhuman, how do you debate that? There's no accepting the terms of the debate, and you can't meet them where they are without validating their position.

[Sphinx]

10 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

I think "social media echo chambers" really downplays the scale of the polarisation in America; social media is only a tiny part of it, their legacy media is way worse.

100%. I used a stock phrase without thinking, but it's much bigger. Well articulated.

[FLips]

I don't necessarily think a JD Vance presidency would be that bad an option, regardless of how it comes around.

He has next to no charisma and he's one of many Republicans who saw Trump as a cash cow and changed their political standings to milk him for a bit. Without Trump in play and without the strong rhetoric that comes with him, JD Vance really wouldn't have much to say. He's certainly not someone strong enough to survive an election, as even Trump at times during this election let the mask slip on how little he thinks of him.

Like that Stewart Lee bit about Top Gear, a lot of the republicans are Richard Hammonds to Trump's Clarkson. When Trump is gone and they're now the ones responsible for the decisions being made, I don't think that many of them will feel so brave.

What's already annoying to see is Kemi Badenoch seeing the writing on the wall and sticking her nose up Trump's arse as soon as she had the chance. The likes of her and Nigel Farage will be licking their lips at today's result and I don't think based on his performance so far that Starmer has the balls to stand up to either of them.

 

[Carbomb]

There was an article from Portland on their LinkedIn account (yes, I know, I know) that was mostly lots of detail that might or might not interest people in the post-mortem, but it had a final comment from one of the contributors:

Quote

But she [Katherine Connolly, Account Director in Portland’s International team] also has some words of warning for the elated Republican party. “This is as clear of a mandate as you can get – but that also means that there is nowhere to hide. Trump knows that anything he wants and doesn’t get, it’s his own party blocking him: and if anything goes wrong nationally, there’s no Democratic House or Senate left to blame. Democrats can and will plaster everything this Republican administration does – or fail to achieve – onto ads across the country in 2026 and 2028, and it will be hard to hold on to this kind of success.”

Thing is, I get it, but there's a little naivety there, given the current political climate: the US is a right-wing country. Like the UK, their population will forgive ten times worse in their right-wing that they won't forgive at all in their centre or left. 

Taking into account what people have forgiven or swallowed about Trump and the current Republicans, it's unlikely that a few extra factual details about potential incompetence and/or corruption will sway people who've voted for a convicted felon and admitted nonce again. 

[organizedkaos]

48 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

 as if we're not exposed to opposing viewpoints every time we turn on a TV, read a newspaper, turn on the radio, or go to work or the pub.

You're absolutely right about the geography and set up in America encouraging this sort of seperate reality / echochamber thinking but without getting too scare mongery (it's kinda the day for it right?) it's interesting how modern society is leading us all towards this.  There's both the conveniences of it, stuff like working from home, being able to shop everything down to groceries online and also the way certain governments encourage it challenging institutions such as BBC, ofcom. It becomes self fulfilling too, the pub doesn't seem so attractive if you're used to comfort being found in isolation (coupled with rising costs etc).

I'm certainly not saying we're fucked nor that stuff like the internet is inherantly evil. I just think it's worth having some care around how so much modern stuff encourages isolation, staying inside and being afraid of society.  Silos of our own making or something...

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

Trump and the current Republicans, it's unlikely that a few extra factual details about potential incompetence and/or corruption will sway people who've voted for a convicted felon and admitted nonce again. 

It will if it impacts them. If cost of living doesn't get better, if they don't feel like immigration is getting better, if the circumstances don't change, the Republicans can expect to lose badly in the next 4 years, even the next 2. There's a harsh wind blowing out there for incumbents, and if you don't deliver success that people can feel, you're out on your arse and fast. I blame Abramovich for the precedent, personally. I actually think there's an argument that that's what happened in 2020. We all hoped it was a larger chunk of the US recovering their sanity, but if they're not paying attention to "plenty of good people on both sides" and curing COVID through injecting sunlight, all they felt was the need to change. 

 

 

[neil]

I wrote up a long post and then deleted it...that basically sums up how I'm feeling about this.

[AndyUK]

A convicted felon is now President of a country where convicted felons are unable to vote. Only in America. What an absolute basket case of a country. 
 

 

[garynysmon]

I know that the economy is an important issue everywhere, but its always struck me as an issue that’s considered to the point of obsession in America.

The ‘price of gas’ seems to be a barometer for anything, and you have to wonder if this is because its a society with so few safety nets i.e health care, poor benefits, holidays etc.

So when things start going south and you fear for your job, its total panic stations.

(The irony here being that the right, which fights tooth and nail against any measures to bring the US in line with other western democracies, are the beneficiaries here).

Edited November 6, 2024 by garynysmon

[Harry Wiseau]

27 minutes ago, AndyUK said:

A convicted felon is now President of a country where convicted felons are unable to vote. Only in America. What an absolute basket case of a country. 
 

 

that's not quite true, as he was able to vote for himself because some states (for instance New York) felons can vote upon release so as he was convicted in Manhattan he was able to vote  - in Florida where people who were convicted in Florida can't vote but if they were convicted elsewhere and that state allows them to they are able to. Simple. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, garynysmon said:

I know that the economy is an important issue everywhere, but its always struck me as an issue that’s considered to the point of obsession in America.

The ‘price of gas’ seems to be a barometer for anything, and you have to wonder if this is because its a society with so few safety nets i.e health care, poor benefits, holidays etc.

So when things start going south and you fear for your job, its total panic stations.

I mean that's just good political communications is what that is. Taking the abstract things, the concepts that no one understands like "inflation" and translate it to the everyday things, like bacon or milk or, in a country that's more dependent on road travel than most, gasoline. It's an easy, quantifiable "is your life better than it was four years ago?" comms point. It also helps that it paints your opponents as being out of touch. 

We do the same thing here, just a bit differently. It's why budgets lower the cost of a pint (and, come to think of it, fuel duty). 

[LaGoosh]

6 minutes ago, Duke said:

It's why budgets lower the cost of a pint

In theory they do. In reality pints seem to be getting more expensive by the week.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, LaGoosh said:

In theory they do. In reality pints seem to be getting more expensive by the week.

Ah well, that's the bloody corpos at work, Gooshie. If Sanders had won Bud would be a dollar a bottle.

Whether that makes it worth drinking is not for this tee-total to say.