America After MAGA

[soundjata]

I would ban lethal weapons because their only function is violence, which is not desirable.

 

[EvaDK]

Depends how or if MAGA ends.

MAGA will just transform into something else post-Trump and latch on to the next far right GOP Presidential candidate that says what they want to hear. A candidate that will likely imitate Trump's playbook and whatever means necessary, to win the party nomination.

 

[Hygro]

While one might reasonably argue that Trump is the greater evil, when even the "lesser" evil promotes an active genocide, it's pretty hard to avoid that yes, "both sides" are unquestionably and irredeemably evil.

The irony is that if the Democratic party wanted to, they would find a groundswell of popular support if they decided to actually reflect the values of the majority of registered Democrats--overwhelming disgust and repudiation of Zionism, massive distrust in Megacorporations and billionaires, and good old New Deal economic policy. But since the turn to the right under Bill Clinton, the Democrats are racing to the bottom, but they cry out "We're not as evil as the Republicans--but please, give us some time!"

20 years of Joe Bidenism would have given us every progressive platform checklist item I’ve seen on this forum.

My favorites were some real barrel scrapers.

“But they’ll never fix flints water” and then a few months later they put resources into that.

 

[Hygro]

Political movements in the US, aside from the Civil War, haven't died because they were broken by external forces. They died slowly because they ceased to be relevant to what the national public was interested in.

Preach.

New Dealism became dominant because it solved the economic crisis and won the war. New Dealism died in the 70s because the economy it built up was grinding to a halt.

Wait no stop preaching. The 1970s economy was actually so great it survived two major supply shocks and a financial crisis in between and still it was a time of great growth.

Reaganism/neoliberalism became dominant because it fueled the economic boom our parents' generation experienced from 1983-2007 and because it won the Cold War. Reaganism died in the 2010s for reasons similar to the death of New Dealism.

No preach no preach!

the biggest 3 Reagan style, print money for the rich because they are rich, happened between 2017 and today. It’s alive and well and the only legislation the republicans actually do.

 

[Ordnael]

I would ban lethal weapons because their only function is violence, which is not desirable.

Pretty sure you're inviting violence with your amendments.
Anyway, how would you take the people's arms without violence?
I mean removing borders and right to rule sounds like behaviour pretty much ostensibly incompatible with the common interest of the people! So the people will need their arms to exact their justice. Or do you create an autocracy to enforce violently these amendments even if the people don't agree with them?
Looks like another failed utopia to me!

 

[soundjata]

Hm do you know what utopia means?
By definition an utopia cannot fail my friend

What do you mean by "right to rule"? Who should have the right to rule in your opinion?

 

[ls612]

No preach no preach!

the biggest 3 Reagan style, print money for the rich because they are rich, happened between 2017 and today. It’s alive and well and the only legislation the republicans actually do.

Reaganism in my mind means a deregulatory, pro-trade, and pro-market economic agenda (in contrast to the dirigiste economic system that existed in the 40s-late 70s) combined with a forceful foreign policy both during and after the Cold War (in contrast to detente). Reagan's tax cuts were too big and even he recognized this eventually. But the economic reforms of the late Carter and Reagan years powered a tripling of the size of the economy from 1980 to 2007 and forced the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reaganism died and was replaced by a MAGA populist, isolationist, and protectionist movement because the economic policy failed to produce a strong recovery from the financial crisis (and arguably caused it, but that is a much more complex topic than most people realize) and because the forceful Reaganist foreign policy got the US stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan for no reason at tremendous cost in blood and treasure.

 

[Zardnaar]

Reaganism in my mind means a deregulatory, pro-trade, and pro-market economic agenda (in contrast to the dirigiste economic system that existed in the 40s-late 70s) combined with a forceful foreign policy both during and after the Cold War (in contrast to detente). Reagan's tax cuts were too big and even he recognized this eventually. But the economic reforms of the late Carter and Reagan years powered a tripling of the size of the economy from 1980 to 2007 and forced the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reaganism died and was replaced by a MAGA populist, isolationist, and protectionist movement because the economic policy failed to produce a strong recovery from the financial crisis (and arguably caused it, but that is a much more complex topic than most people realize) and because the forceful Reaganist foreign policy got the US stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan for no reason at tremendous cost in blood and treasure.

Reagan mics makes sense from a short term jolt due to the stagnation of the 70s. Became new normal though.

It's just reheated 1920s and gilded age garbage ultimately.

 

[ls612]

Reagan mics makes sense from a short term jolt due to the stagnation of the 70s. Became new normal though.

It's just reheated 1920s and gilded age garbage ultimately.

It was a 25 year boom on par with the postwar boom from 45-70.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The first steps to “fix” US politics would be to overturn citizens united, ban pacs and only allow public funding for all federal elections. Until that happens, the richest will win.

 

[Ordnael]

Hm do you know what utopia means?
By definition an utopia cannot fail my friend

What do you mean by "right to rule"? Who should have the right to rule in your opinion?

You wrote right of states to rule. I was addressing that. You meant no one should rule the states, right? I think you need to have someone in charge for things to run with as less friction as possible.

 

[soundjata]

You wrote right of states to rule. I was addressing that. You meant no one should rule the states, right? I think you need to have someone in charge for things to run with as less friction as possible.

Well yes.
The object of my criticism is the idea of states or countries as permanent institutions.
In my mind those are permanent scams operating on the premise common people will agree being administered by some obscure conclave with fancy attributes like a flag for example. (and a national anthem too)
I understand you are ok with this system. I am not

Coming to your latest argument. I also don't think "you need to have someone in charge for things to run with as less friction as possible."
I think the opposite.
Most life experience I've had confirm spontaneous organization of a society is better than hierarchical order, which induces polarity and viciousness.

 

[Ordnael]

The object of my criticism is the idea of states or countries as permanent institutions.
In my mind those are permanent scams

Can't disagree with you in this, corruption is always a problem

Most life experience I've had confirm spontaneous organization of a society is better than hierarchical order

On this I can't agree. Look at the savagery of groups of sports fans at a stadium event, these are as spontaneous as it gets. Always demanding police squads to keep them somewhat in check.

I like this citation from CIV VI very much:
"At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst."
– Aristotle

 

[Perfection]

On this I can't agree. Look at the savagery of groups of sports fans at a stadium event, these are as spontaneous as it gets. Always demanding police squads to keep them somewhat in check.

Sports fans are rooting for one corporation to beat another corporation in ritual combat in a government funded ring.

The violence is a product of hierarchy

 

[Perfection]

It was a 25 year boom on par with the postwar boom from 45-70.

that's because of computers not Reaganomics

 

[aelf]

1. Put MAGA folks in gulags.
2. Put Trump voters in reeducation camps.

 

[H4run]

Mr Scaramucci, who worked briefly for Mr Trump during his first term, said the US president's behaviour towards other world leaders was markedly different from the apparent deference he shows towards Putin. Speaking to investment platform Saxo, Mr Scaramucci, who held the post for 11 days in 2017 and who has since evolved into a fierce critic, claimed: "I think there is a compromise. I don't know exactly what it is. I don't know exactly, but Trump acts like it's not 'I'm having a love affair with this strong man,' it's not that. And it's not 'I too want to be a strong man' and 'I love the strong man.' Vladimir Putin's got something on him."

He continued: "Trump acts fearfully in relation to Putin. He's not cautious when it comes to other leaders. He's not when it comes to Trudeau.

"He's not cautious about Starmer. He's very cautious around Putin. I think there's a compromise there. There is a grip that the Russians have on Donald Trump. I don't know what it is, so I'm not going to speculate."

Reacting to a wave of Russian missile strikes on Kyiv, which killed at least 34 people and injured dozens more, Mr Trump wrote: "I am not happy with the Russian strikes on KYIV.

"Not necessary, and very bad timing. Vladimir, STOP! 5,000 soldiers a week are dying. Le'ts get the peace deal DONE!"

The wording raised eyebrows, with foreign policy experts highlighting Mr Trump's decision to address the Russian leader by his first name - a level of familiarity rarely seen between heads of state.

Critics also questioned why the President, who has regularly talked up his tough approach to global rivals, appeared to issue a pleading, almost personal appeal rather than a strong condemnation.

Mr Trump's choice of language - urging Mr Putin to "STOP" and describing the attacks as "not necessary" - stood in sharp contrast to statements from other Western leaders, who openly condemned the strikes as a brutal escalation.

The US President has not elaborated further on his message or commented publicly about the scale of the casualties.

Despite repeated denials from Mr Trump and his allies that there is any undue influence, Mr Scaramucci suggested the US President's conduct continues to indicate otherwise.

He said: "When you look at his interactions with other leaders, he's often aggressive, dismissive, even insulting. You don't see that with Putin. You see hesitation, you see caution. That's not accidental."

Since returning to office following his 2024 election victory over Joe Biden, Mr Trump has promised to bring the war in Ukraine to a "swift end," although he has provided few details on how he intends to achieve this.

He has also hinted that US military support for Kyiv could be reduced or withdrawn under his leadership, stoking fears among NATO allies.

Mr Trump's latest comments have fuelled speculation that he may be positioning the United States to broker a peace deal that favours Russia, or at least reduces pressure on Moscow.

Mr Scaramucci said: "There's a reason he's so careful with Putin. It's not loyalty, it's not ideology. It's fear."

 

[Snowygerry]

Well it has long been suggested that Trump was recruited possibly by the Soviets already, we know he is easy to corrupt using women and money.

We also know that the Russians interfered in the first election, so it does not take a lot of imagination to fill in the blanks.

 

[Lexicus]

It was a 25 year boom on par with the postwar boom from 45-70.

 

[ls612]

View attachment 730382

Where do I even start with this graph which gets shared everywhere?

1. It compares an average (productivity) to a median (wage).
2. It uses CPI to get real hourly compensation which structurally overestimates inflation by due to not accounting for substitution elasticities. PCE does this and is preferred by economists.
3. The 70s-90s saw a major compositional change in the workforce (women entering) which drove down the median hourly compensation. Simpson's paradox in action.
4. It cuts off before the major real wage rise we have seen between 2015 and today. (Source)