Honestly that's something I never learned about until I was like, 23, 24. Still know bugger all about it and that's fucked. Do you know any good resources where I can learn about this stuff?
You could start by reading about the School of the Americas, Operation Condor and Operation Gladio. See how the USA treats its "friends".
Read about cointelpro and see how it treats its citizens. Some tactics are still in use today.
Wilson, and to a lesser extent Monroe are the presidents that caused those, with Wilsonian Military Doctrine, and The Monroe Doctrine, specifically so perhaps start there.
For a fun and light read I'd start with Wikipedia entry on the attempts on the life of Fidel Castro.
For chronological read I'd start with Iran then Latin America, Wikipedia as well. Don't skip the chapter where they associated themselves with drug lords that sent drugs to US as a way to finance anti communist operations in Central America. I think that was Nicaragua.
Well if you care so much how come you're not doing anything about it?? We all know what happens when America cares about someone else's elections...
I mean, I follow the presidental race somewhat because it has global impact, but watching the debates is not worth my time, and I'm fairly certain it's not worth anyone's time, especially non-americans.
Plus it's unlikely to change anyone's mind. At this point you're either pro or anti Trump and you've had at least eight years to pick your side.
A side as opposed to either side is how it should be. But don’t take my word for it, George Washington allegedly warned us of the potential perils of a two-party system on his deathbed but I’m unsure if that is common myth or actually true
George Washington eschewed political parties because he didn't want to establish a precedent where his choice as first president set the standard everyone else had to conform to, and there's a little irony in people holding him up as an example in that light more than 200 years later.
He, and the other founders largely, disliked political parties in their entirety, not just having some specific number of them.
They also built the system that enshrined the two party dichotomy as the only option, actively sought to ensure that the "right" people could override the will of the people if needed, and founded the parties they had previously argued against.
They are far from infallible bastions of correctness in this matter.
It's what modern elections are, and maybe even all historical elections, though I'm not old enough to determine that. What elections should be is throwing your support behind someone that you think is going to be beneficial for everyone. I know that is idealistic, and unfortunately the current system makes that basically impossible, but Washington said that partisan politics would be the downfall of this country, and his words are playing out in front of us. I really wish we would throw the parties, and lobbyists, out and force candidates to run on policy and merit.
See, you're talking partisan politics, I'm talking "you literally have to pick someone". We've had these candidates before. You already know which one you're going to vote for. You picked your side four years ago when you were asked the same question.
Beyond that though, there's "parties" and then theirs "sides". One side is xenophobic, homophobic and actively wishes harm on a lot of people. The other side doesn't, for all their flaws.
There are more parties than there are sides in the past few elections.
By saying you think you should vote for someone who will be good for everyone, you've picked a side. The side that doesn't want to do good for only the "right" people, or make sure only the "right" people get hurt.
The only question is if you'll vote for that side to win, or if you'll let idealism or anger drive you to vote otherwise.
I shall, once again, for the 6th time in my life, hold my nose and vote for the milquetoast candidate the DNC has foisted on us. I wish we had RCV so I could vote for someone good, like Bernie, or heck I'd almost take Vermin Supreme at this point.
They're both right wing, but moderate right wing bought by corporate interests isn't the same as fascist. It's trending towards fascism, sure, but it's less likely to go on a killing spree.
It's obviously a common vernacular simplification from authoritarian with a broad definition. This is a commonplace and accepted vernacular in most modern western media based social media outlets.
Fascist can be liberal, they can also be conservative. Or communist. Or almost anything. More often fascists will lie and say they are more socialist than many of their policies would lead you to reasonably expect.
Grown ups are talking. Go play outside. You obviously need to touch grass, child.
I came here to skip the debate and catch up with the jokes. But seems like the joke is the debate itself
I will keep repeating this, Biden will be the reason Trump gets reelected. If he loves his country he needs to leave right fucking now. Democrats like him and Clinton are addicted to power. Bernie Sanders could have beaten Trump in both election but the democrats circles of power made sure to get the candidate they wanted. Old fool.
Sanders wouldn't stand a chance. Too many moderate Democrats would be terrified of the scary socialist madman.
"The scary socialist madman" accompanied by the Democratic Party apparatus? A presidential candidate Sanders along with a moderate liberal VP would have gotten both the traditional Democratic vote (as long as the party collaborated with him, rather than giving him the Corbyn treatment, which I don't trust liberals not to do) and a considerable chunk of the electorate who doesn't feel represented by either party. The day you guys understand that you don't have to fight the Republicans in traditional terms, but rather, to change the coordinates of the fight, you'll force Republicans to choose between evolving or getting buried. But the real problem by this point is whether it is too late.
•
Maybe you’re right but too many of us think the opposite. I would much rather a younger more progressive candidate but Joe Biden has a track record of beating Trump. Biden has done a lot of good things in his first term that I’d want to continue. Even where he hasn’t gone nearly far enough or balanced bad with good, it may be necessary to appeal to the undecideds in the middle. Biden is the only one who can overcome the Trump personality cult
If a big complaint is age, how is that a plus for Sanders? I’m sorry but he missed his chance and now is solidly in “too old for this shit” territory
A track record of beating trump?
Something about the statistical validity of a sample size of one.
It's the usual catch - the leader of the losing side doesn't get the post, but keeps power of his faction.
While if that leader is no longer a leader, their personal power would be less even if the faction wins.
Western Roman Empire had a similar story with Stilicho's conviction and execution. The empire loses, but those who ate him get some power.
How about we pick someone who vaguely approaches the average age of an American adult. There's a ton - Buttigieg, AOC, I dunno even Kamala would be a million times better. Literally anybody under the age of 70. Why is that so hard to do?
You keep repeating it because a false dichotomy, that you must choose between a D or R, prevents you from accepting that the lesser evil is, in fact, evil. So, you're stuck on stupid and not asking questions. This should help:
The Democrats already, quite predictably, ignored the outcome of their primary to nominate Clinton. They're not going to do a fucking thing that doesn't make a corporate donor money. All of Sanders proposals took from corporations to provide for humans. He never stood a chance of being nominated as a Democrat and he damned well knew it. If we give him the benefit of the doubt then his goal was education. If not, he rallied for Democrats to avoid the rise of a Labor Party during a critical time in history.
Like what? Did she get votes for him thrown out?
People have been saying for years that she had an advantage and so it wasn't fair, but those advantages seem to ignore that more people voted for her.
He was an independent running as a Democrat, and then claiming it's unfair when the Democratic party was more aligned with the person who had always been a Democrat.
those advantages seem to ignore that more people voted for her.
How can that be ignored it is the conclusion of the argument. Those advantages meant more people voted for her.
He was an independent running as a Democrat,
Listen dear, all politicians who want to be president are independents running as Democrats/Republicans.
claiming it's unfair when the Democratic party was more aligned with the person who had always been a Democrat.
The whole point of a primary is to determine who the democratic party is more aligned with. It is unfair to determine that in advance.
So what were the advantages? The usual one I hear listed is superdelegates, which doesn't matter if more people voted for the winner, or that they didn't proactively inform his campaign about funding tricks that the Clinton campaign already knew about.
Are you saying that Clinton was an independent who just happened to align with the party for her entire political career?
I'm not sure you know how political affiliation or "people" work. Being a member of the party for decades vs being a member for months matters. Those are called "connections", and it's how most politicians get stuff done: by knowing people and how to talk to them.
The point of a primary is to determine who the candidate is, not who the party is more aligned with. Party leadership will almost always be more aligned with the person who has been a member longer, particularly when that person has been a member of part leadership themselves. It's how people work. You prefer a person you've known and worked with for a long time over a person who just showed up to use your organization, and by extension you, for their own goals.
We have rules to make sure that those unavoidable human preferences don't make it unfair.
The Obama campaign is a good example. He didn't have the connections that Clinton did, so party leadership favored her. Once they actually voted, he got more so leadership alignment didn't matter and he was the candidate. He then worked to develop those connections so that he and the party were better aligned and work together better, and he won. Yay!
So what rules did they break for Clinton? What advantages did she have over Sanders that she didn't have over Obama?
Which of those advantages weren't just "new people to the party didn't know tools the party made available?”
So what were the advantages?
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic Party, was found to have sent an email during the primary election saying Mr Sanders "would not be president"
There were six primaries where ties were decided by the flip of a coin — and Clinton won every single one. The odds of that happening are 1 in 64, or less than 2 percent
The usual one I hear listed is superdelegates, which doesn't matter if more people voted for the winner,
superdelegates system favoured Clinton by pre-announcing their support, giving Clinton a massive early lead.
or that they didn't proactively inform his campaign about funding tricks that the Clinton campaign already knew about.
Clinton bought the DNC by paying off the debt created after Obama.
Are you saying that Clinton was an independent who just happened to align with the party for her entire political career?
I'm saying she doesn't align and would happily run as an independent if she thought she would be elected.
The point of a primary is to determine who the candidate is, not who the party is more aligned with.
"The party" is the people who vote in the primary.
Party leadership will almost always be more aligned with the person who has been a member longer, particularly when that person has been a member of part leadership themselves.
Party leadership is not the party.
It's how people work. You prefer a person you've known and worked with for a long time over a person who just showed up to use your organization, and by extension you, for their own goals.
Exactly. This is why the primaries were rigged in Clinton's favor and Sanders and his supporters were right to claim unfairness.
We have rules to make sure that those unavoidable human preferences don't make it unfair.
Those rules were broken. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to resign.
The Obama campaign is a good example.
Of fairness (or a super strong candidate beating stacked odds).
So what rules did they break for Clinton?
- Campaign finance
- Debate questions
- Impartiality
What advantages did she have over Sanders that she didn't have over Obama?
I haven't researched how unfair Obama had it so I can't compare.
Which of those advantages weren't just "new people to the party didn't know tools the party made available?”
Hilarious you refer to a 76 year old career politician like Sanders as a new person.
Quoting a phrase from an internal email out of context makes you seem disingenuous. The emails that were stolen show people being mean, but it also shows that they were consistently not rigging anything. Or does someone making a shitty suggestion and then a higher ranking member of the party saying "no" not fit the narrative your drawing? Or that the only time they talked about financial schemes was after the Sanders campaign alleged misconduct?
In context, Sanders told CNN that if he was elected, she would no longer be the chair person. The internal comment was "this is a silly story. Sanders isn't going to be president" at a time where he was already loosing.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to resign.
She did. Eight years ago.
Tldr, party leadership preferred Clinton over Obama. Turns out that preference without misconduct doesn't have much impact.
you refer to a 76 year old career politician like Sanders as a new person.
Oh please. It's even in the bit that you quoted: new to the party. I act like he was new to the party because he was, and his campaign was run by people who didn't know the party structures. When their inexperience with the party tools led to them not taking advantage of them, they cried misconduct for the other campaigns knowing about them.
Most Americans I know think they're centrists, even if they support either major party... I'm an American so I know a few Americans lol
No, there's an amendment in our consimtituion that says a president can only be in office for two terms total. The only president who evaded this was FDR and he's still villainized to this day.
Actually. I'm pretty sure hes the reason that amendment got passed.
Before FDR it was just a tradition, started by George Washington. Personally I think FDR deserves a pass, he got us out of the great depression and through WW2, it would have been hard to have a leadership change in the midst of that turmoil.
Totally agree. But imagine a 4-term Obamna presidency, with the orange avatar of conservative rage building in strength and gathering malice for 16 years instead of 8.
I am pro term limits, but you're kinda making a good counter point. Eight more years of Obama instead of Trump and Biden... Doesn't seem that bad. The conservatives went ballistic anyway, at least we'd have reproductive rights and better healthcare. I'm certain Obama would have been a lot better at managing COVID and the BLM protests. He was pro ceasefire in Gaza way before Biden too. Idk, for all his flaws, Obama seems better than what we got in his place.
Its ... horrible how you treat your elderly in closed wards.
I shall avert my gaze.
Didn't mean to pry, it was just too loud to not notice it.
I'd rather look at our ... increasingly hard-right EU politics ... wait, that can't be right, wtf.
We used to say that conservative politics in the EU would still be considered left in the USA. Well, I‘m not so sure about that anymore.
I mean, in previous years we did pass some environmental laws (like banning internal combustion cars), not as much or as strict as I hoped, but change was there. Sure hope that doesn't all get undone 'to boost the economy' (in the USA sense - so help the existing big corps to boost their profits & do nothing for the majority).
Hell, I rally like the vast majority of EU regulations (various directives and delegated acts) that were passed & are being constantly updated (to keep up with the times/trends & tech) over the last 20 years, I think its a rally good balance between protecting the people whilst at the same time working with the market to actually achieve a meaningful & painless change over several years. That's why we have representatives. The added "bureaucracy" as companies call it is just extra reporting & testing (to confirm compliance with standards). This benefits us all & is of unbelievably marginal cost when you look at the economy, regardless of what lobbyists say.
Well I suppose the answer I'd give is that because of how right-wing the US is compared to much of the Western world, it becomes a patient zero for whatever the far-right is cooking up - which inevitably influences far-right groups in other Western countries
Word.
Putin planted his seed with Trump in his greatest enemy (democracy/America). It quickly caught on & has spread globally.
Hundreds of Billions of dollars in US defense hasn't done a thing to halt the attacks on democracy Putin has wraught with a few million spent on his troll army.
The man can't carry out a physical attack for shit, but his cyber attacks have no equal, only willing collaborators (Murdoch et al, the maga army).
It's no fanfic. It's assessing the enemy. Kind of important to do if you want to beat em.
Don't be a snowflake. The right is claiming that territory madly.
You'd rather believe Trump is result of foreign interference, that our own institutions would never result in this without being sullied from outside. It's fan fic, it's Cold War nonsense.
Trump is the consequence of our political systems, of our spiteful culture, of our economics that promises success and leaves people sick, broken, and in debt. So what if the Russians had a few hundred Facebook posts? That "seed" would not have taken if the soil weren't already fertile. Frankly, I don't think it made a difference. We were barrelling toward Trump with or without the oh so spooky slavs typing on a keyboard.
I recommend you read up. And quit sounding like you're on Putin's propaganda team: 'oh that's cold war nonsense'
Putin funded Trump, fed him the whole Obama's a Kenyan schtick, Hilary's a criminal ploy.
Trump can't think up or accomplish a damn thing without a cheer squad to goad & lead him where to go.
Tom Snyder's the Road to Unfreedom has the path well researched. I highly recommend you read that.
Yes, Rupert Murdoch had been warring against real news since Reagan (Bush's puppet) withdrew laws that required stations labeled 'News' carry truth & news
Yes, Reagan was an early predecessor to the incompetent celebrity politician role that Trump walks. Yes, Danny Quayle was a shining example of idiocy in politics.
Putin saw these things the Murdoch & Bush families put forth & jumped on the band wagon, gave it a nitro boost. Not much difference? Follow the money.
You are looking for a Great Man of history to pin this on. You'd rather believe someone nefarious is in charge and pulling the strings from an ocean away, than to see this for what it is; an empire with no real conscious oversight. A pile of self-interested businessmen, politicians, and militarists doing whatever they can to line their pockets, profits above all else.
The US has, per capita, the largest prison population and, outright, the biggest military on the planet. If there's a road to 'unfreedom', we traveled down it a long time ago.
You are looking for a Great Man of history to pin this on. You'd rather believe someone nefarious is in charge and pulling the strings from an ocean away, than to see this for what it is; an empire with no real conscious oversight.
No, I just prefer to have realization of all of the components.
A pile of self-interested businessmen, politicians, and militarists doing whatever they can to line their pockets, profits above all else.
Agreed.
The US has, per capita, the largest prison population and, outright, the biggest military on the planet. If there's a road to 'unfreedom', we traveled down it a long time ago.
Also agreed. As I said before, we were on this path, many made it worse. Putin put it on steroids.
I follow closely what is happening in the US from France because even though we have a very different culture I still think US politics is a preview of what's to come here.
Right now I consider we are at the step where our media are crumbling and becoming unable to properly inform us. A step that has been reached a couple of years ago in the US in my opinion.
The next step will probably be our own coup attempt in a few years and a steady increase in the division of the country and far right movements.
As a French tho, do watch the debate between Gabriel Attal, Merdella and Manuel Bombard. See how Bompard (the left wing candidate) politely wipes the floor with both shitbags.
It's only an Oxford comma if it's from the region of Oxford. Otherwise it's just sparkling interpunction.
Correct, no comma before the last element if it is preceded by a conjunction (e.g. "et", that is "and" in English) in French
I mean, reading that sentence, it certainly wouldn't surprise me if they omitted it just to spite the British.
WE 👏STAN👏BOM-👏PARD👏
The thing that's pissing me off though is that the centrist party decided it would rather demonize the left than the alt right, I suppose they know they already lost and are trying to get as many votes off of those they know might vote for them (some socialists).
Centerists will always attack the left rather than the right. They are actually right wingers that don't want the social stigma that goes with admitting that you're right wing. Once the progressives have been killed off by the right wing, the liberals will take the mask off.
The lot of them are cowards and the left is a whole lot less scary than the right, since we don't go on random killing sprees frequently.
Yeah, I think going toe to toe with the far right once again was always Macron's plan. This is the foe he's familiar with, against whom he won before. The short deadline for the anticipated election was probably to keep the left from organizing, as to not disturb their duel. But it backfired when the left immediately formed the Front Populaire. Now he's nervous. The polls give his party third place, so he's playing for second. He thinks if it's the centrist against the far right, the "barrage vote" will save him once more.
What's shocking is the extent to which they go to demean the left, and the amount of media that help spread his baseless accusation. Everyone knows at this point that the center will lose, so they're choosing who they'll lose too. They maybe think it'll erase the left and let Macron's clan be seen as the alternative to fascism during the next presidential elections...
The vibes I get from the French left in social media remind me of the days when Podemos (in Spain) was soaring. It gives me a bit of hope. Good luck.
Unfortunately, when America farts we're all forced to smell it. America wants Europeans to stay out of American business, buts that's rather difficult to do when that country demands to be the center of attention.
we're our own kind of fucked up over here :( Except the Finns, the Finns are cool.
Really? Because every time the weather in Finland goes about 10°C I hear my Finnish friends complain like it's the apocalypse. XD I'm just glad Denmark is having a decent summer this year.
I'm a big fan of any country voting against the populist trend, so I may ask for asylum in Finland eventually. Although, despite my motivation to learn new languages, that might be a challenge :)
Scandinavia has always been very left side, so it comes to low surprise to me that the left won the European election in Denmark, despite the right trend in the rest of Europe.
However, I will add that right wing Europe is still pretty left from America. Take Geert Wilders, the new guy from the Netherlands. The policies he wants to enact are stricter laws, more difficulty for immigrants, a stronger police force, street curfews for teenagers (real old man yells at cloud energy), and withdrawal from the climate agreement. All very right wing.
But... He also wants better funding for hospitals and schools, higher wages for nurses and teachers, more robust free healthcare system, hard caps and regulations on the increasing housing prices, more affordable housing, a more efficient and cost effective energy grid. If an American politician starts talking about these things they'll be called a communist!
Scandinavia has always been very left side
Maybe from a hard neo nazi perspective. Denmark and Sweden especially have right-wing extremist parties (Denmark Democrats + New Right + Danish People's Party together ~= 14.3%, Sweden Democrats 17.5%) with a voter base that has been established over a longer time. The German right wing populists have risen to that level only in recent elections, which is frightening. Geert Wilders is not "the new guy" from the Netherlands, he's been a populist rightwing piece of shit for decades. Unfortunately, the average Dutch person over 40 / outside university towns is also quite racist under the surface - I lived there for 4 years, speak fluent Dutch with a German accent and since they felt "safe" with their bigotry around me, I have heard enough racist and sexist bullshit from "average middle class" Dutch people that I didn't feel comfortable in that country anymore. The young people in urban centres are okay, but unfortunately those are not a large enough demographic.
As for comparing with the US - maybe not a good idea: Even young US americans see the democrats for the corporate shills they are, and know that they have to vote for them just to prevent a Handmaid's Tale Season 6 becoming a documentary.
The US are the scary example for Western Europe as "this will happen here if you don't pay attention". No one in Europe will be able to say "I didn't know" when we slip into a totalitarian regime filled with hate and controlled by corporations, because it might be happening in front of our eyes with a ~10 year headstart in the US. I just hope that's not what is going to happen in the end, but things have progressed far too much into the worst dystopian future thinkable for this century.
I've been begging for europeans to export unions and labor rights to America for years, we meed help
As a french person we have bigger fishes to fry lmao 😂 (I might live in a fascist state soon™)
Oof so you think Macron pulled a David Cameron and shot himself in the foot with the snap election and the RN party gonna sweep? Man so sorry our shitty alt right politics are infecting you guys too.
My hope is that the NFP will get to the second round and then everyone votes for them against the RN, something similar will happen but victory depends on if macron asks people to vote against the alt right
yeah but your family seems to make your problems our problems so we wanna know just how fucked we are.
Yeah it's like listening to your mobster neighbours fighting. It's their business but anyone can catch a stray.
In german media there is so much content about america even I sometimes get confused whoch country I actually live in.
At least you can tell where something happens by place names, I get headlines '12 shot in Manchester gun fight' or 'Birmingham man kills 8 in roadrage incident' and there's just no way of telling it's America... OK, well those examples are obvious but the point stands.
Only 8 killed? That's only a short note on the business page "businesses on main street forced to remain closed all morning due to public kerfuffle"
It's not that us outsiders like to watch your elections closely. But we need to since they're gonna have a big impact on the world we live in, whether we like to admit it or not.
If you can figure out a way to cut America down to size, please fucking do, it's not healthy letting us be Too Big To Fail
There's no need for that, unless parts of the US want independence, like some Scots regarding the UK. But break it all up because it's too messy, not healthy? That's what critics of the EU or the UN also say. Myself I've always been an advocate of unity and collaboration since it's the only way we're gonna be able to solve climate change and every other major world crisis.
You might be surprised how often Americans fantasize about parts of the country getting independence, not to mention the autonomous indigenous regions (which would always welcome more autonomy).
We're so fucked it's absolutely insane.
I thought Trump had a chance before, but now... My god Biden embarrassed the shit out of himself... Fuck the goddamn DNC for condemning us by REFUSING to have primaries... Yeah it's the tradition because usually the incumbent has a chance, but 90472828 year old Biden? Ffs...
Yes Trump is old too but it was plain as day how much more lucid trump is than biden...
This might be a hot take but any leadership selection where candidates are ranked in terms of how lucid they are is a bad time for all involved.
I need to shake the hands of potential presidents before I can make any judgements on who to vote for.
Yessir, I sell propane and propane accessories. Ronald Reagan was the best president we ever had.
Yeah, I mean we're like lobsters being slow boiled.
This whole situation is mad, but it feels plausible because it's been ratcheted up so gradually.
Can you imagine the country's reaction if they say this 2 decades ago?
Does it really count as "lucid" if you enunciate your lies, fabrications, misrecollections about... everything?
For his voters, his lies and fabrications are the truth. They don't listen to fact checking because they are conditioned to see it as fake and a goverment ploy to fool them.
True. But they were going to have the same criticism of Biden regardless.
It's part of the reason I didn't even watch. Looking over the polling, the debate didn't really change anyone's opinions on anything to any significant degree.
I don't think it has been long enough to have gathered enough data on that. Just watching it myself I could clearly see a low information voter seeing Trump as a more fit choice as Biden struggled to even form sentences :(
They did a lot of the pre-selection of people beforehand. The headline most places are running with is "flash poll says trump won", but if you actually read the conclusions, it's that "flash poll says trump won, more Republicans watched the debate by about a ten percent margin, and no one changed their opinions about fitness for office or who they're voting for".
What the polling likely isn't capturing is how many people will ultimately choose not to vote out of despair, and that was the real threat the whole time.
Oh, definitely. Not just possible, they weren't even looking for that. They were entirely looking for what the debate did to preferences and opinions directly about the candidates.
I mostly brought it out as an example of the headline not capturing the whole message of how it impacted voters. Or didn't impact, rather.
It was a goddamn travesty that there was no fact checking by the button pushers moderators.
Everything was allowed to stand as fact. It was disgusting :(
Yes Trump is old too but it was plain as day how much more lucid trump is than biden...
And also an unrepentant crook and liar. Who also dreams of being a dictator and getting revenge on his "enemies".
Preaching to the choir, but I'm worried about the ignorant people that simply don't know that about him. All they see is an old bumbling feeble man vs a "strong man." :(
And unfortunately, the media is not informing people. I can't believe there was no question last night about Project 2025. Just unbelievable.
Plus no fact checkers. Again, unbelievable.
I see so many people screaming that primaries should have been held, especially today.
Biden would have easily won the primaries.
He did win the primary in states that had them. There's no if about it. Unfortunately.
The problem with Biden is they gave it to him because "he deserved it". Life long politician. Vice president. That's the only real reason the DNC handed the keys to him. It's a fucking job promotion.
The next election cycle is going to be interesting.
The only reason I agree with this is that I was still living in the Midwest during the 2016 primary. I moved to California during August of that year. Time after time, I got told by Midwestern democrats that Bernie just wasn't electable / was too progressive. The coasts would have primaried Biden, but flyover country would have messed it up.
Iowa, North Dakota, New York, and Massachusetts are the only ones that really surprise me in that grouping.
NY isn't that keen on progressive politics outside NYC. Long Island is an extremely populated part of NY and it's basically Trumpland and "moderates" out here, more Trump the more east you go. "Greater" NY is also pretty red aside from the larger cities. It doesn't really surprise me that much unfortunately :(
I would love not knowing about any debate but lemmy is like: Nope you'll read American "news" if you want to or not.
So next time keep your national humiliation fetish private please
Indeed. I created a Lemmy account the moment I saw an opportunity to block US-specific communities. But alas, US content makes it onto other, more general communities as well (like politics on the memes community)
Some cunt could post a meme about a samurai in Cote/ d'Ivoire eating a durian fruit and some yank would still say "Ya that's such a democrat thing to do brah"
Don't look at American centric communities then. You're the curator of your experience, not everyone else.
I mean I wasn't really serious as we are in a shit post community right now.
But do you realize how fucking hard it is to keep US politics out of your experience here? So many seemingly unrelated communities post election bullshit it's not even funny :/
I do think that the next presidential US election is important not only for Americans but the world. Although it really is tiring to watch from over here and I can only imagine how tired most Americans must be...
Yeah and you're getting renovicted so they can split all the bedrooms up and double the occupancy (and rent)
I dont know, I dont think Canada has much room to throw bricks in glass houses at the moment.
Canada is north of America. North is typically depicted as being up, or on top.
We wish... the good/bad neighbour analogy is very apt here; whatever happens in the USA spills over here all the time.
We are about to enter our own Trump shit show when PP is elected next year.
The worst part about the politics here in Canada is that the Liberals always spend years setting up the layup that the Conservatives use to dunk on Canadians. This round is going to feature a whole host of anti-competitive business, bad trade deals, media favouritism, privatization, waves of attacks on worker's rights... all this and more thanks to the moves set up by the Liberals doing things like refusing to stop the Rogers/Shaw purchase, the failure to make deals with other countries, setting up media and "CanCon" subsidies that favour big media companies, and the intentional attacks on the efficiency and effectiveness of public services.
We are so fucked.
Are the mooses swimming in the pool a good thing or a bad thing? Or maybe just a weird thing?
I don't know how to pluralize moose
A majestic flock of meese sounds better that just moose. How many moose? 1, 5, 20? You just don't know. I'm currently in contact with my MP to resolve this issue, this is very important to me.
She was Karving her initials on the møøse with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst Nordfink".
How is this fascist right wing shit show not a global debacle? Putin, Netenyahu, Bolsanaro, Trump, Modi... Italy & Germany both rolling right. North Korea (of course) jumping on the Russian bandwagon and Xinny the Pooh.
Does Britain's finally dumping the Tories (after a decade & a half+) make them one of the few to break left at this time on the global stage? {Something about broken clocks being right from time to time.}
No I wouldn't think that about the UK. Tories shifted massively rightwards over the past decade and they are really losing most voters to Reform - a hard right party, so they are simply not hard-right enough for most voters, meanwhile Labour has shifted massively right to occupy the space Cameron-style neocons were in before.
The right win in the long run because if labour wins, the dynamic will be of that between Cameron-esque conservatives under Starmer Labour and hard-right conservatives under Reform/UKIP/whatever Farage party as the two major parties. This is the final form of the overton window shift, on which the UK and US led the world on in 2016.
If anything the lib Dems - if you take their manifesto at face value - are far more progressive than Labour at this point and don't adopt the "managed decline" style of governance.
This is where the UK FPTP system might actually work well, Reform could get as many as 17% of votes, ahead of Tory 15% and become the 2nd largest party, and yet end up with like one parliament seat because they dont end up with a majority in any one county this time around.
The only hope then is that Starmer is just secretly a really good guy who won't say so because the tory media would eviscerate him on culture war shit, that he survives the power struggle of a labour seat supermajority and kicks out the likes of Duffield and Streeting.
As part of the CUSMA trade agreement, I think us Canadians and Mexicans are allotted one sigh of disappointment...
Como parte del acuerdo comercial T-MEC, creo que a los canadienses y los mexicanos se nos permite un solo suspiro de decepción...
Mexicans should absolutely be keeping an eye on American politics. Especially since half the debate was: Sir please explain how much you hate Mexicans and what you’ll do to prevent any Mexicans from entering our fair country and how you’ll remove the Mexicans problem when you’re in power.
Trump: internment camps, American Auschwitz if he can
Biden: further tighten border control and further restrict ability to obtain legal entry
This is comparable to a loud family feud carried out on the streets with yelling and throwing stuff at one another and then yelling at the shocked onlookers to move away.
We're the family that gets kicked out of the Applebee's for having a very loud and emotional fight while some other family is trying to celebrate their kid's 8th birthday
Nope, you can't stand there for generations going "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!" Then get shitty when we do, we want to watch you drive that burning bus into the the ocean.
We're literally the family with the drunk uncle who's really fun at parties but now the alcoholism has caught up and he just gets sad and angry when he gets drunk.
We're Amy Winehouse/Lindsay Lohan/Britney Spears. We love(d) the limelight, but it's not so great when we're spiraling downward.
Elvis Presley. We're currently in the fat Vegas years. We should probably stay away from submarine sandwiches, and bathtubs.
It's just a face, and doesn't usually represent the people.
Prez has little power when compared to most world leaders. Their lead is more of a cultural one.
So to say, it's really not so violently serious
Absolutely fair play and you are statistically likely to be in a country we've wronged so I won't begrudge you the schadenfreude