U.S. Politics

[AXD]

1 hour ago, CVByrne said:

That was naive. Why would people think that? By losing he can always run again at every election until he dies. 

What Trump did and what Brexit did was tap into the real anger of the people who have felt the brunt of the real decline in wages since 2008. 

In America both Republicans and Democrats were for big business, for companies maximising profits by outsourcing work to cheaper countries and importing cheap labour too. 

Once that was tapped into the voter base is there for everyone to see and the approach to tap into and exploit it politically 

I agree.

What has changed in your opinion? In your previous post, you thought there would be less divisiveness in 2028. Why would it decrease in the next presidential cycle? Especially if trump loses again? Trump wil run again (unless he dies from too many diet cokes), but whoever will be the democrat candidate might not unify their party as much as Biden does right now.

[StefanAVFC]

34 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

You say he wanted, it's part of the Treaty countries signed to join NATO. The countries he was talking about were in breach of that treaty. 

Let's be clear, his point is 100% correct. His approach to addressing his point is 100% wrong and dangerous. 

It’s an obligation but not fulfilling that doesn’t make you a legit target for Russian aggression. That’s mad 

[CVByrne]

19 minutes ago, AXD said:

I agree.

What has changed in your opinion? In your previous post, you thought there would be less divisiveness in 2028. Why would it decrease in the next presidential cycle? Especially if trump loses again? Trump wil run again (unless he dies from too many diet cokes), but whoever will be the democrat candidate might not unify their party as much as Biden does right now.

The reason is that Trump wasn't successful because he was Trump. He was successful because Steve Bannon correctly identified the political opportunity of the "left behind" people who lost from Globalisation especially the post Financial Crisis. Like Elliott and Cummings with Vote leave here in UK.

There has been real wage decline for the majority of the population since 2008 both in US and UK. Even before then if you look at the purchasing power of say a truck driver in the US, the real wage decline started in the early 1980s. The idea of a social contract where you get a job and you pay your taxes and then you can retire began to crumble in Reganism & Thatcherism and crumbled post 2008. 

For economists, yes they are right that free movement of labour and goods, open trade agreements, immigration does boost GDP. Companies are more efficient if they can produce more with less, so less staff costs by paying staff less or by improvements via technology. The cost of this is now visible in a political group which Trump has claimed in the US but others identified. 

Covid and the events around it has shifted the power dynamic to the worker. Covid was the slap in the face to people stuck in dead end jobs, still in the mindset of "lucky to have a job" mentality. Also lots of older incredibly experienced people just retired early. At the same time Covid showed the fragility of a just in time network of trade that was shown to be brittle. So a move to shore up supply chains by having them close to home or to have multiple suppliers is another shift. 

All of this means the power has shifted to the worker, there are lots of jobs out there and there are lots of options. People know their worth and the illusion of the post 2008 you are lucky you have a job is over. So over time the disenfranchisement will decline and the politics will move with them. A Trump voter in 2016 to 2024 who has year over year of real wage growth from 2022 to 2028 is a different voter when Trump isn't there on the ballot. This voter will likely think about how much of his money is going on taxes

Edited February 11 by CVByrne

[CVByrne]

13 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

It’s an obligation but not fulfilling that doesn’t make you a legit target for Russian aggression. That’s mad 

Hence why I said his approach to addressing his point is 100% wrong and dangerous. 

[StefanAVFC]

39 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Hence why I said his approach to addressing his point is 100% wrong and dangerous. 

But by extension it doesn’t make his initial point correct at all. 

[CVByrne]

5 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

But by extension it doesn’t make his initial point correct at all. 

His underlying point is that the US does not need to honour the mutual defence clause of the NATO treaty for the countries who are not honouring their NATO treaty obligations to spend 2% of their budget on defence. As posted earlier this is in fact a fair coercive response to breaches of an international treaty. 

Now, the fact some NATO members are breaking the treaty obligations is not in dispute. What is worrying is how Trump wants to handle this by saying dangerous things like Russia should invade and do what they want. With an important treaty like NATO the US should exert the correct political pressure in the right way on countries to meeting their treaty obligations. 

[Genie]

Quotes from Trump complaining about people not paying their bills is going to haunt him in the coming months I suspect. 

[StefanAVFC]

It’s also factually incorrect to make out the US are the biggest losers in terms of NATO contribution. One country has ever enacted article 5. Guess who?

[OutByEaster?]

US taxpayers spend on average $230 per person, per year, on Lockheed Martin - one single defence company, it's $48bn a year. Lockheed Martin employs more than 100,000 people in the US, Lockheed Martin is owned by the same group of funds as pretty much every other major US corporation - your Vanguards and your Blackrocks and so on. Lockheed Martin officially spends around $15m a year lobbying in the US although it has a history of bribes and threats that go way above and beyond those values. The heads of Vanguard and Blackrock were on Trumps initial policy group when he became President - they set the policies of his presidency - they are the de-facto controllers of Trump policy.

Given all that, I'm always surprised when there is outrage over comments he makes about policies he would enact that sound wrong but would benefit Lockheed Martin or their owners - Trump wants NATO members to commit to spending more on defence, because that money goes to profit Lockheed Martin, Trump wants allied countries to spend more on defence because it benefits Vanguard and Blackrock - Trump wants this because his policies are set by people who work for those companies - that's how US politics works - it's decision making by lobbyists and representatives of US corporate power for the benefit of the profits made by those funds. It's not moral, it's barely political, it's a business making business decisions for the benefit of business.

 

[Captain_Townsend]

Not really sure whom I am replying to here so just making a general comment.

I half agree with analysis that suggests the populist wave since 2016 is the last, third act of the financial crisis.  That is still working itself through western politics in anger, genuine grievances about socio-economic conditions, shortages of housing (here in Ireland especially) and a sort of "burn it down" attitude.

It will subside but the question is how much damage do we have to endure before people cotton on to the fact that populist nationalism is NOT the answer to their problems. Let us hope we don't have to go through what the inter war generation went through in order to come out with an appreciation of centrist politics. 

Edited February 11 by Captain_Townsend

[OutByEaster?]

28 minutes ago, Captain_Townsend said:

Let us hope we don't have to go through what the inter war generation went through in order to come out with an appreciation of centrist politics. 

Let's hope not - and lets hope we don't have expire as a species before we realise that centrist (corporate) politics is the actual problem.

[Hobsons Choice]

52 minutes ago, Captain_Townsend said:

Not really sure whom I am replying to here so just making a general comment.

I half agree with analysis that suggests the populist wave since 2016 is the last, third act of the financial crisis.  That is still working itself through western politics in anger, genuine grievances about socio-economic conditions, shortages of housing (here in Ireland especially) and a sort of "burn it down" attitude.

It will subside but the question is how much damage do we have to endure before people cotton on to the fact that populist nationalism is NOT the answer to their problems. Let us hope we don't have to go through what the inter war generation went through in order to come out with an appreciation of centrist politics. 

I hope you are right, but don't people voting for folks like Trump as a response to the crisis in 2008 caused by banks and businesses realise that a vote for Trump is a vote for banks and business? It makes no sense at all, unless there is something else going on.

[bickster]

23 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Let's hope not - and lets hope we don't have expire as a species before we realise that centrist (corporate) politics is the actual problem.

Here we go again… centrism isn't a thing, ideologies exist at the extremes of any political spectrum not in the centre ground

its become this false bogeyman for those that identify with the extremes. (At both ends)

An American centrist will have a completely different policy set to a British one, centrism is a relative position not an ideology. 
Also saying something is corporate (as a negative) only leaves you with state ownership of everything.

No thanks.

[chrisp65]

I’m pretty sure centrism is a thing. It’s not one codified absolute thing, just like ‘right wing’ isn’t a single thing or communism isn’t a single thing. But surely we can all see that it is very much ‘a thing’.

It’s an attempt by the relatively comfortable to persuade others not to rock the boat too much for fear of things possibly getting worse not better. It’s an attempt to ignore what might be morally the right thing to do, with what might be seen as a compromise by people that aren’t massively impacted.

There will be differences in different countries because they will have different starting points. A centrist in the UK will want things delivered under an NHS sign, even if in reality it was a private company providing the service. A centrist in the U.S. will have different ambition. Similarly, a centrist in the UK might think it’s important we give foreign companies billions in grants to keep them here, they wouldn’t want to consider an industry closing down, or being nationalised. 

It’s a desire to maintain something as close as possible to the status quo, be that votes for women, immigration, climate, or anything else. It’s knowing you need to take radical action for the climate, but worrying it could damage your economic credentials in the lead up to an election.

[CVByrne]

2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

It’s also factually incorrect to make out the US are the biggest losers in terms of NATO contribution. One country has ever enacted article 5. Guess who?

9/11 was the biggest attack and loss of life a NATO country has faced since NATO was formed. If that had happened to UK we would have called on aid from our allies.

Saying things like "biggest loser" is completely subjective. Being in breach of an international treaty such as the NATO 2% pledge is simply a fact. I think you are allowing your dislike for Trump to cloud your objectivity. 

Start out with thinking what is your view is on if countries should adhere to their treaty obligations if they expect other signatories of that treaty to honour theirs? 

[CVByrne]

 

7 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I’m pretty sure centrism is a thing. It’s not one codified absolute thing, just like ‘right wing’ isn’t a single thing or communism isn’t a single thing. But surely we can all see that it is very much ‘a thing’.

It’s an attempt by the relatively comfortable to persuade others not to rock the boat too much for fear of things possibly getting worse not better. It’s an attempt to ignore what might be morally the right thing to do, with what might be seen as a compromise by people that aren’t massively impacted.

There will be differences in different countries because they will have different starting points. A centrist in the UK will want things delivered under an NHS sign, even if in reality it was a private company providing the service. A centrist in the U.S. will have different ambition. Similarly, a centrist in the UK might think it’s important we give foreign companies billions in grants to keep them here, they wouldn’t want to consider an industry closing down, or being nationalised. 

It’s a desire to maintain something as close as possible to the status quo, be that votes for women, immigration, climate, or anything else. It’s knowing you need to take radical action for the climate, but worrying it could damage your economic credentials in the lead up to an election.

I'd say being a moderate is the better word. Also pragmatism. Swinging wildly from left to right governments is for sure worse than things being centre left and centre right over the time period instead. People are enraged when opposition is in government, anything they do you are counting the days before your lot get in and tear it all down and vice versa. 

 

[Captain_Townsend]

In my thesis I used moderate rather than centrist and broke my own rule on this forum!

But yeah, us centrist dad's are not the problem- the problem are the fascists, populist and authoritarians.

To be honest, ideological purity of whatever hue tends to lead to disaster. So, yeah, happy to be a moderate/centrist. 

[chrisp65]

40 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

 

I'd say being a moderate is the better word. Also pragmatism. Swinging wildly from left to right governments is for sure worse than things being centre left and centre right over the time period instead. People are enraged when opposition is in government, anything they do you are counting the days before your lot get in and tear it all down and vice versa. 

 

So, where would you put the moderate pragmatism on drilling for oil in U.S. National Parks and the Arctic Wildlife Refuge??

I guess the centrist view would be ‘we wouldn’t have allowed it, but now it’s started, meh’. Whereas the radical would stop it?

 

 

[CVByrne]

36 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

So, where would you put the moderate pragmatism on drilling for oil in U.S. National Parks and the Arctic Wildlife Refuge??

I guess the centrist view would be ‘we wouldn’t have allowed it, but now it’s started, meh’. Whereas the radical would stop it?

No, it would be like all decisions a government have to make. It's about trade offs. I'd say not to National Parks as it's important to have such places protected. 92 million people visit the US National Parks annually 

When it comes to the Arctic Wildlife Refuge it's a huge remote area. It like to know what impact it would have on wildlife. I've absolutely no idea hence would want to see report on that. 

Then would have to weigh that up against the benefits of being self sufficent on energy. So do we need this oil or gas to remain energy independent for the next decade or are we at risk if needing to import energy. 

Once I have all the relevant information a decision can be made. Ultimately it would be impact to the wildlife Vs national security of energy independence. 

Everything is a trade off. 

Edited February 11 by CVByrne

[chrisp65]

23 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

No, it would be like all decisions a government have to make. It's about trade offs. I'd say not to National Parks as it's important to have such places protected. 92 million people visit the US National Parks annually 

When it comes to the Arctic Wildlife Refuge it's a huge remote area. It like to know what impact it would have on wildlife. I've absolutely no idea hence would want to see report on that. 

Then would have to weigh that up against the benefits of being self sufficent on energy. So do we need this oil or gas to remain energy independent for the next decade or are we at risk if needing to import energy. 

Once I have all the relevant information a decision can be made. Ultimately it would be impact to the wildlife Vs national security of energy independence. 

Everything is a trade off. 

All those mountains, reservoirs, rivers, those vast plains, all that sea, all that sun and wind and geothermal energy. All that capacity for energy saving and efficiencies and insulation.

I would agree, the centrist would likely await a report on whether we need to drill for oil in the arctic. Which could lead to drilling for oil in the arctic. At which point any idea of any leadership or example on climate control would be gone and everyone else can also drill for more oil anywhere and everywhere for as long as there is oil left in the ground. 

To work differently to that would not in my opinion be dangerous left / right extremism.