well, trump has shown the republican establishment the way in a certain sense, he has shown them the potential of catering to populist desires of the base. unless he gets blown the fuck out in 2020, there can be the rationale that a different candidate with a similar platform but less erratic and inconsistent behavior might still be viable a bit later, after the recession and the trump-blame-game are over.

so I think that there will eventually be attempts at recreating his formula with some other candidate, say 2+ years after he leaves office. but it will mostly be all talk no action.

if there's a recession at around 2020, they will distance themselves from Trump and blame him for it, but might return to some aspects of his platform later on. but imho, they will never return to his platform in earnest, they will only use a token version of it with token candidates to get some additional votes. the RNC and the donor class will not get behind a candidate who really wants to pursue protectionist policies instead of just talking about it.

and i dont think that anyone but Trump himself can successfully pull off "Trumpism" anyway. he's charismatic, feisty, stubborn, assertive, instinctual, a rich and successful businessman but with the habitus of a pleb. you wont find, or be able to create, many career politicians with such a profile.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 19 2019 12:59pm

fair enough, those are indeed rather low hanging fruit, but i wanted to make the point that i think a certain degree of change against the donors' (and their current representatives in both parties) will is already realistic given a clear mandate, and that it could and would lead to more representatives opposing such corruption being elected, enabling even more meaningful change. yes, it's highly problematic how people like turtle mitch have firmly established a system that makes it incredibly difficult not to have such initiatives watered down beyond recognition, or outright rejected in a way that lets both parties 'save face' by claiming they generally supported the voters' will, but just couldn't find agreement because of 'specifics' and 'random topic that one side feels strongly about, that has unnecessarily been put into the bill to have an excuse to oppose it' - but again, how else would you go about it if not putting people in place willing to fight it?


concerning your last question, i don't know how it's relevant for this discussion, but no, as a matter of fact i rarely ever voted for someone i genuinely believed in, let alone liked. despite the variety of parties we have in germany, there isn't even one i agree to more than maybe 70% with on major issues. that's a real problem if you have many strong opinions on many different topics, you have to prioritise and compromise like crazy, almost every election i participated in made me miserable.

just one example:

- i strongly favour green policies, and think it's one if not THE central issue in elections in general, something that directly influences many other (social, economic, foreign policy) fields (much like the campaign financing issue is not just an isolated topic, but directly influences many other policies that are currently insufficiently addressed because the voters' opinion has so little impact on policy) - but in germany that inevitably goes hand in hand with opposing nuclear energy, something i strongly disagree with at this point, especially considering the level of expertise we have in that field. i'm perfectly fine with focusing on (and yes, also subsidising) green energy to make it more efficient and competitive (after all we did that with fossil fuel for many decades as well), to help it becoming a real option to exclusively rely on as quickly as possible, but i realise that's simply not true at this point for germany, so completely abandoning the otherwise cleanest form of reliable and high capacity power generation we have, is nothing short of retarded in my opinion.

and this is just one of countless examples i could mention. that does, however, not mean that i don't vote or that i'd pick someone just for the party flag next to their name - and just to be clear, this is not me accusing you specifically of doing that, but a criticism of the ultra-partisan nature of politics (something you will admit is strongly enhanced in america, due to both the system itself, as well as your political tradition), where many issues are primarily judged by who brings them up, and not on their merits.




well, that shit has been going on for a while now. democrats inheriting unhealthy economies, putting (often unpopular) measures in place to fix them, harvesting the political blame and consequences, only to be replaced by republicans who ruin it again on behalf of their donors, while claiming THEIR fiscal spending is somehow justified because it will trickle down somehow and magically turn into additional revenue - 'this time for real though'...

i think this is the only question, although i did read the whole post.

my first point would be that in this age of social media people are taking back massive amounts of power ceded to corporations over the last century. look at Pepsi grovel over their shitty attempt at an SJW pandering commercial. Look at the massive corporations falling from the sky as retail dies. Look at how much effect Facebook "movements" can garner. etc.

also it's becoming increasingly hard for the legislature to do anything. which limits the effect lobbying can have on the populace, i'd like to see that continue. it makes it hard to deal with existing problems, but shuts down some stupid new ideas that both sides have. we're 3 years into "wall building" that was supposed to be done and funded in the first 100 days, but hey an embassy moved in Israel so Trump got 1 thing done.

during this time my answer is to vote for people pushing for campaign finance reform, but i recognize that almost none exist. and i recognize that they'd be instantly washed out if they entered the house with that agenda. and i recognize that they might go in with that agenda and get comfortable and change their minds.

but tbh i go back and forth between "no is the time for drastic action" and "don't bother because we're 50 years from the automation apocalypse so it doesn't matter all that much."

corporations adapting to social change in order to maximise their profits is not a new phenomenon though, and in no way indicative of them losing POLITICAL power. maybe i completely missed your point here, but to me those seem like largely unrelated issues.

if voters were equally vocal and triggered by politicians stonewalling and ignoring their grievances that'd make sense, but so far they look sufficiently numbed and distracted by the cynical bickering over artificially created and enhanced disagreements against the other 'team'...

it comes down to the function of govt and what forces actively effect the lives of the populace.

historically the Govt was the strongest actor on the lives of citizens, and the closest second was a mile away. you might fear judgement of the church or w/e. social media and technology changes all of that. it makes it so that our lives can be affected in drastically effective new ways. if you own a shop a bad review and you're out of business way faster than a health inspector could manage, or at the least as fast. one picture someone takes of you and your whole life could be put on hold due to a beer in your hand, etc. the govt has a hard time regulating this, its one of the cores of politics today. how much do they get involved.

but i dont hate corruption for it's own sake. ive played on WoW realms where the admins are incredibly corrupt. but i dont rush to clear MC as first guild so it doesn't effect me at all. they can sell gold to people and it does nothing to me. i hate govt corruption because it affects me, and all i'm saying in that part is that it's losing it's effect over time. ceding control back to population via technology.

and at the same time that they lose control via technology they also lose control of their own autonomy. the legislature is split into more factions now than ever, and we still have 2 parties. every issue has become so polarized they're afraid to do anything, this is a result of the control they lost to the population via technology. no more voting in the night and no one noticing. no more senate bill riders no one will notice. 3 minutes after it happens you start getting @ mentions. gridlock is going to tie their hands, and with their hands tied the lobbyists will find they wont want to invest as much money in politics. firstly because of the lost power and secondly politicians are dropping like flies compared to old eras and you could get mud on you in that process.

humans not in govt getting power is the most wondrous and scary things that's ever happened, and it's incredibly new. but it does cut down my worries about corruption a bit, enough to not zealously fight it.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Apr 19 2019 01:50pm

so basically your point was not that social media for example is a means to fight the political corruption, but you were illustrating how through its power, political corruption became a less impactful factor in people's lives, correct?

well, i think it'd be a valid point to make on its own, and you surely could list a whole number of examples how certain developments have a more direct and concrete impact on someone's life, but i would reject the premise that political corruption therefore becomes a problem even worth considering to dismiss as relatively unimportant. after all, every single factor of our lives is strongly influenced by legislation crafted by the politicians you elect. from basic things you might not even think of in your daily life, up to very personal and private choices that you might think the government shouldn't even be involved in. from taxes, criminalisation of substances you might enjoy, your ability to afford healthcare, your education opportunities, to things like your access to independent information, or even your diet - those are all issues a relatively small number of corporations and incredibly wealthy people have a massive influence on, which arguably they shouldn't.

so while i don't entirely disagree with your point about increased influence of other factors, i'd still argue this is central and overwhelmingly important, so if you're really unsure about whether to act or not, i'd implore you to consider that.

This post was edited by fender on Apr 19 2019 02:34pm

the bold isn't exactly what i am doing.

if we look at it 2 dimensionally using only importance/unimportance and action/inaction as metrics, sure.

but i am using a 3rd power, that is my ability to change something. so it's important, but growing less important over time, and i can't change it in any way i see as possible, so i don't act.

compared to something like 1st world nutritional poverty. are kids dying without veggies? no. it's not of dire importance. but i can directly affect it. so i act. i have a market garden LLC, i have systems worked out with several families to buy the excess in bulk where they otherwise can't afford many vegetables/fruits. and i donate all of the excess of that to the food pantry or church to be dispersed. i can, with relative ease, make a difference. and while i wont change the world i do get a lot more tangible.

lastly i'd say i am heavily in favor of fixing people's lives without the govt in any way we can. so the govt losing control and people crying out for help that the govt cant provide isn't necessarily an inherently bad thing to me depending on the harm they're experiencing and whether or not they can be helped elsewhere.

Bernie and Fox are no other that different.

Both thrive off of white identity politics.

how exactly is Bernie "thriving off of white identity politics"?

His base and concerns are primarily pro-union and manufacturing and focusing more on suburban workers than the urban underclass.

I do not mean identity politics as derogatory.