Why we care about your politics

Post Reply New Topic

The Trump presidency has definitely dampened foreign enthusiasm about the American political system.

And the European Union is - in response to the Trump tariffs - taking steps to reduce its economic reliance on the US and seek stronger trading relationships with other partners (=China) in order to reduce the impact of possible future protectionist measures by the US.

My concern, though, is that people would not only look to other Western countries (of which several had democratic institutions better than the US even before Trump, BTW), but that the support for democracy itself will suffer.

These day, it is very easy for authoritarian leaders and regimes to point to the Trump administration in the US and say: "This is what you get if you ask for democracy".

And the current attempts by Trump to delegitimize the US election is a godsend for China, as they can basically now finalize the complete takeover of Hong Kong politics - 27 years before schedule - with impunity (and the self-inflicted FUBAR in the UK due to Brexit also means that China doesn't need to worry too much about British protests).

Similary, when the US government is so uncommitted to democratic ideals as it currently is, it will be easy for strongmen like Erdogan in Turkey and Duterte in the Phillipines to resist international pressure and to keep up with their crackdown on political opponents.

Another worrying trend is how everyone throws around the term socialism. Goverments everywhere seem to be cutting back spending and forcing a more extreme version of capitilism while any claims of goverment led investments in the country are shot down as socialist. It seems like these things can be bad, but only for the minority rich. It seems like the biggest problem in the world at the moment, economic criseses and health pandemics aside is wealth inequality.

Americans are taught in school that everyone envies our freedoms.

For example, A UK man taught his dog to make a *sieg heil*.

UK thought police convicted him of a hate crime for teaching his dog to raise its paw.

That kind of oppression would not happen in the US.

It seems like "having bad thoughts" are crimes throughout Europe.

America has been one of the most aggressively anti-socialist, anti-labor nations in the west. Corporations and politicians spent our whole history using race to divide the working class and keep a united workers' front from forming. America appointing itself as the leader of the anti-Soviet, anti-socialist cause; as well as multiple Red Scares
did not help matters. So many European countries spent most of the 20th century with universal healthcare. Here in America, in 2008 Obama was painted as a radical socialist by the GOP and men like Trump for trying to create any kind of government-led healthcare reform.
Europe has America to thank for the ubiquity of austerity economic policy. Cut spending on social programs + lower taxes on the rich = less equality and more poverty. When the economy suffers as a result of these things, capitalist politicians just point to it as evidence that we need even less spending on social programs and lower taxes on the wealthy. No amount of austerity is ever enough for the wealthy and their cronies.

Last edited by roronoa79 on 22 Nov 2020, 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

^this.

We need more socialism and less capitalism not the other way around.

Your ideas about "freedom of thought" are appalling. Sieg Heil to you, dude!

See my reply here.

Depends what you mean by "socialism."

To most American Republicans, "socialism" means anything other than 100% pure free market capitalism. American "conservatives" typically advocate private ownership of pretty much everything except the police and military. Some advocate that even the police and military should be privatized, at least to some extent (e.g. Bush Jr's use of private security forces such as Blackwater in Iraq).

So, to American ears, it's funny that you put down "socialism" yet advocate that we should emulate Canada's and Australia's health care systems. To the American political establishment, including even most Democrats, the latter idea is so beyond-the-pale unacceptably radical "socialist" that even our so-called "socialists" (e.g. Bernie Sanders and AOC) don't dare advocate it. Instead they advocate the much more modest reform of "Medicare for all."

I think your ideas are disgusting.

You want take away someone's freedoms to please your personal satisfaction. Disgusting.

I don't even see what is so bad about 'socialism' you can have democratic socialism. Seems you cannot really have democratic capitalism...the money always finds its ways into politics.

In response to various replies disputing your claims above, you wrote:


If I understand you correctly, y\You seem to equate "putting pressure on China*" with being a reliable military ally in the event that Australia is attacked militarily by China.

But there is no necessary correlation between the two. Trump's erratic behavior has endangered all of the U.S.A.'s military alliances.

Which of the following would you prefer?

1) A U.S. President who avoids unnecessarily antagonizing other countries (including China) but, when push comes to shove, will do what ever is necessary to defend the U.S.A.'s military allies when they are attacked?

OR

2) A U.S. President who "puts pressure on China*" but is inclined to flake out on U.S. military allies?

In short, would you prefer a military ally who "speaks softly but carries a big stick" or one who speaks loudly and obnoxiously but carries a wet noodle?

Actually there are some limited circumstances under which you could conceivably get in trouble in the US for a sieg heil'ing dog. For example, suppose you're a business manager, and suppose you decide to bring your sieg heil'ing dog with you to work. The dog could potentially be used as one piece of evidence (though probably not the sole piece of evidence) in a claim to the EEOC that you are creating a "hostile work environment" for your Jewish and/or black employees. Likewise, if the dog gets used in the commission of a crime, such as harassment, a sieg heil'ing dog could potentially be used as evidence justifying the elevation of the crime to a hate crime.

However, here in the U.S., you're right that a person could not be convicted of a hate crime merely for teaching one's dog to raise its paw. There would need to be other circumstances that involve actual harm, not just offensiveness.

Your thread is no longer. R.I.P.

I'm tired. I'll reply to your other posts some other time.
I might have a glass of lemonade and then lie down.

Well, 90+ years ago Nazism began to take over Europe. I will assume, not being an historian, that laws in the UK that permit this individual to be tried for a hate crime originated with people either old enough to remember how that affected British people or at least old enough to have been around when that memory was still fresh. Had it been possible to control that sort of "self-expression" in the 1930s perhaps many millions of lives would have been spared.

The Cold War was a distraction. For a good part of my life, defeating Communism was the top item on the agenda and Nazism was presumably consigned to the dustbin of history. I can recall speaking with a group of young men in Croatia in the early 70s and being told (correctly) there was a civil war coming. As an American, I was somewhat surprised that people in a Communist-run country would be concerned about political matters not related to Communism. Even then, Cold War propaganda was distorting our view of the world. In point of fact, in those days you could get into serious trouble in the US by openly espousing Communism, which I submit as evidence that "freedom of expression" has never been perfectly respected in the US.

Yes, the more I think about it, the more I agree that what that dog owner did was indeed a hate crime. If not, I doubt he could have been convicted, in the UK or any other Western nation.

I don't think it should surprise anyone that nowadays, whenever anybody goes hysterical over their "freedom of speech" it has to do with "freedom" to propagate such Nazi-like ideas. To be honest, I can sort of understand. Unfortunately, many on WP have struggled to find acceptance and groups espousing these ideas seem to offer acceptance to people in that situation. So I can see why this upsets you. Although I am not religious, I might suggest a Church as an alternative (although be aware that not all "churches" are humanitarian organizations).

And no, everyone does not envy our freedom. To the extent the US is a Western Democracy, people living under authoritarian regimes may envy residents of Western Democracies in general (among which I would include the UK). But I am certain very few look to the US specifically as a model for personal freedom as compared to other democratic countries. In fact, those who do may be limited to those holding most extreme sort of right-wing convictions.

It's about Socialist being able to spout their hateful, offensive speech.

It's about Religious people able to spout their hateful, offensive speech.

It's about News people able to spout their hateful, offensive speech.

Most people have offensive, hateful ideas towards a group.

If you want free speech, you have to tolerate, offensive, hateful speech.

"whenever anybody". You know better