Despite the awful prospect of four years with this man and his goons, I look at how totally chaotic the previous two months have been on all fronts and wonder if he's able to keep this level of nonsense for much longer.

My question is, what are your odds that he leaves office early and what are some of the ways it could happen?

I'm not great with odds, but I think there's a strong chance that Republicans throw him out after their constituencies begin to feel the pain and everybody's out for blood.

I'm going to put 20 dollars into the pile and say he's out in a year and a half if this keeps up at the pace it's been going.

Any wagers out there?

The current political climate in the US sucks, and I want to do something about it. I'm a software engineer and I've been feeling lately that I need to apply my skills towards something more important and impactful than building a product for a private company. Honestly, I like my current job for many reasons, and it's been mostly quite fulfilling up to this point, but every executive order by Trump feels like a step backwards and makes me less comfortable with not being involved in the opposition.

I'm looking for advice on what I can do to meaningfully contribute to progressive causes and resist the threat that this administration poses to our democracy and society. What kinds of organizations are doing the most in this area, and would be in need of a software engineer? How can building software help with this problem (if at all)?

For context, I live in Massachusetts, so while I feel proud of how my community and local government is pushing back against Trump, I'm also well-aware of how much worse things are, and will get, for people elsewhere.

Foreign money and tech billionaires have bought control of the US government, they're looting the system and weakening it, and then they're going to crash it so they can install a new system that they can better control.

Prove me wrong?

Not just a U.S. question... I think we're in the midst of seeing much of the world's political order being rearranged. So that's got me wondering, are we going to see some new nations emerge from this? I recognize that's a very sanitized framing, and such things don't just "happen" without a lot of turmoil first, but I'm trying to make some optimistic projections about what could come after that.

So as a thought exercise, imagine you're participating in a constitutional convention for a new democratic government forming where you live. What are some things you would want to see included? What should be omitted?

There have been frequent and repeated comments by Trump about "annexing" or "absorbing" or taking over other sovereign countries.

NY Times How 51st State talk became seen as deadly serious

White House Asked US Military for Panama Options

CNBC - Trump on US Annexation of Greenland

I think anyone paying attention to this should be extremely alarmed, especially when you connect this to the purges that he is doing to the US military and other organizations that would limit the power of the president, and of course recent supreme court rulings about presidential power.

It appears like he's trying to get people used to a new colonialism. Maybe if he attacks Panama and there isn't much internal resistance, then he'll attack Greenland, and so on. Sure we can guess whether he is doing this to help Putin, or to normalize Putin's invasion. In any case just the discussion of these things harms the other countries, the reputation of the US, and world stability.

Frankly I think this stuff, and the attack on federal workers and social programs and social security, is an attempt to not only do these things, but to generate mass protests which will be used as an excuse for martial law and the removal of other rights, including future elections.

Here's another article, This is by David Frum about how we allow people to minimize Trump's actions at our peril: The MAGA-Strategy Spin Machine

I don't think it's possible to overreact to this. A functioning US Congress would remove him from office right away.

Heretofore, I have held the idea that, 1)Russia is a despotic aggressor, 2)Ukraine is largely innocent holder of resources and land, and 3)Ukraine is largely winning due to a combination of pluck and western supplies.

But I heard a recent podcast, however, that caused me to question my line of thinking. The podcast was Chapo Trap House* and they had guest podcasts hosts War Nerd or something, who seem to have some expertise in the slavic world. And they presented a very different narrative. Namely, 1)Ukrainians really want the war to end, even if the country loses some land, 2)There’s tons of corruption in the military, as bad as leaders demanding payment from soldiers to avoid deployment to the front lines, 3)There are fascist units in the military, and they shake down the civilians, 4) Zelensky was of a mind to deal with Russia until Biden asked him not to, 5)Russias economy is very resilient and has adapted to sanctions, and 6)Russia has been very adept at neutralizing new western military tech, and 7) there is a conspiracy of silence about Ukrainian casualties. Side note, there may be problematic funding of all the open source intelligence arms, especially bellingcat, by US Governemtnt intelligence interests.

I managed to confirm at least partially one of the objections:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/05/politics/russia-jamming-himars-rockets-ukraine/index.html

But some of the claims seem less strong:

https://kyivindependent.com/a-very-bloody-war-what-is-the-death-toll-of-russias-war-in-ukraine/

Mixed on some of the others:

https://theintercept.com/2024/06/22/ukraine-azov-battalion-us-training-ban/

The podcast was a useful reminder, at least, to retain a humility about my beliefs, and that news media is especially suspect in our present moment.

It’s not like I have any power to influence the outcome, but I do still buy into the myth that a responsible citizen retains some degree of information about events around them. My query to tildes is, what’s your narrative about the war, and what sources of information are you drawing upon?

*I’m vaguely aware that there’s somce controversy around these guys. I find the podcast entertaining, however, and they seem to share some of my values about how a sane society would function, and, like this report, they sometimes really challenge my understanding of what I think is going on.

I recently was at a brunch with a friend and their friend. Their friend works at a startup who buys, very cheaply, pictures of mammograms from hospitals, something something AI anonymization, and resells the data to ‘researchers’. I asked several things, for example, what responsibility does her company have for breaches or failures to protect identity? Her response: we have reporting requirements.

In my mind, that something like this exists at all is a complete social failure and consequence of hypercapitalism. The goal of using hospital data for research is obviously a good one. But in my mind, that data should not exist in a non-anonymous way outside the control of the hospital, and, in its anonymous form, should be available to all researchers for free. It seems obvious to me the best way to innovate real solutions is to get as many smart people as possible researching the data, and not just those who can afford it. Less obvious, but still problematic: if we limit the availability of the data to those who can afford it, we are limiting the availability of the data to those whose primary incentive of research is profit, as opposed to public interests like health.

I’m very tired of pretending for the sake of equanimity that this work is somehow OK. But neither is it productive to be argumentative at brunch. I guess one approach is simply to say, gee that’s swell and move on to a different topic, or just not ask people about their work at all. But I’m a prophet, I feel compelled to tell the truth, and sometimes to an unhealthy degree make people feel uncomfortable.

I don’t know what the solution is, it’s one of the reasons I went to divinity school: to gain access to a potentially practical platform for advocating meaningful change. But the problem is so well integrated and so insidious. Am I doomed to always be in isolated despair?

Do you think that the future will look back on our last late stage capitalist system and see the brutalization of marginalized populations around the globe? As our society looks back on chattel slavery, feudalism, etc?

I would like to imagine a socialism or a different system. Rooted in humanism.

TL;DR: I'm trying to work through what the future looks like and my brain has been awash in negativity since last November, so I figure putting something on paper may serve as a form of therapy. The long and short of what I've typed below is I'm trying to piece together USA's current geopolitical situation and rationalize what the likely or possible outcomes are.

I'm posting this through doomscrolling-tinted glasses, so bear with me. But I'll also mention that I've always tried to be empathetic to both sides, understand differing arguments and motives, and generally believe that people act or vote the way they do because it's what they think is best for the country, their communities, and their families.

I'm afraid I have given too much faith to humanity.

Overnight, we've just switched our allegiance from Europe/NATO/Ukraine to Russia -- our arch-nemesis for the last century. This comes on the heels of threatening to make Palestine disappear and "punishing" our brothers and sisters to the north and south (and across the Atlantic for that matter) for no apparent reason. The mutual trust and respect we've worked on for so long with our neighboring countries and Europe are vanishing... just like that. Unless there's something huge that I'm missing, we're not playing smart geopolitics here. We're just giving up hegemony for the sake of what... making it easier for rich men to hoard more money and get away with corruption?

I'm not a single-issue voter, but geopolitical implications have always received the lion's share of my decision-making. We've been able to maintain a relatively* prosperous and safe world order. More importantly, we've been able to keep the M.A.D. lightning in a bottle. Selfishly as an American, I think it's safe to say that our geopolitical situation has afforded us, the citizens, our current luxuries and opportunities. Sure, we have some other MASSIVE issues, but why would you want to take this one away?

• I know, we've done a lot of bad shit in the past. I'm not going to argue or defend that here.

So as the threads of democracy unravel in America, what does our path forward look like?

I believe we are at a crossroads right now. As all of these executive orders are being created – some of which are valid but we don't like them because they're coming from the other side, and others of which are clearly unconstitutional – the judiciary is getting to work making rulings on them, one by one. It is a slow process, but at the end of the day we should have a bunch of directives -- these EO's get to stay, and these other ones are unconstitutional so they must go.

The left branch of the crossroads is the one where the executive branch chooses to play by the rules. As much as Democrats would hate to admit, I see this as democracy playing out (in the worst possible way, but hey, I'm looking for silver linings). "These EO's can stay, and these EO's have to go." Then, in two years' time, the mid-terms will provide another opportunity for voters to swing the pendulum back toward the middle a bit -- or not. And then we can start the long, slow rebuilding process of restoring relations with our allies.

The right branch of the crossroads (where the executive branch becomes more and more powerful) is the one that I think we simply call "fascism," and there's plenty of historical research and precedent as to where things go from there. I don't see a clean exit from this. I see the following possibilities, from least to most horrible.

1. Americans just give in and accept the new government. We turn into a single-party state, corruption grows rampant, basic welfare benefits are taken away, etc. But, because there was no fight or give-a-fuck, we just accept it. And hey, maybe life is still fine for many people. But maybe we watch the indicators slowly tick in the wrong direction -- life expectancy, upward mobility, homelessness, crumbling infrastructure, innovation, general happiness. Given our current state of apathy and lethargy, I believe this is the most likely scenario.

2. Military intervention from within. If things get screwy enough, there comes a point when the military has to decide whether it's time to step in or not. In general, military interventions are a BAD thing. Furthermore, I believe there is major support for the President within the armed forces. Could there be a clean exit here, one where the military removes the current executive and benevolently allows for a new election? Sure, maybe, but if you think MAGAs believe all blame belongs to "the others" right now, this will be a whole 'nother level. More likely, this would lead to an outcome like most other military interventions historically.

3. Some flavor of a fractured republic, civil war, etc. The exact opposite of a clean exit. It would also most likely lead to...

4. Military intervention from outside, a.k.a. war. This is my greatest fear -- that we have now become the "bad guys," and the rest of the world realizes they have to band together to stop the tyranny and restore order. This option almost certainly ends in M.A.D.

I can't believe I'm typing all of this with any semblance of sincerity. I always subscribed to the thinking that "things always work out in the end," and it has done good for me so far. At this point, I could use some reassurance. Please tell me that I'm completely wrong and am simply being dramatic.

I watch CBC pretty regularly and all I have seen for the past month is coverage about Trump's comments about annexing us and I can't tell if I am missing something obvious or am just naive but I can't take the threat seriously and I am starting to hate that CBC is talking about it so much and that we have Canadian politicians actively addressing it rather than just dismissing it (the fact that Doug Ford went on that idiot Jesse Waters show to push back on it made me facepalm).

Cause from my point of view, let's say Trump in his immense stupidity is serious about the threat. He wants to bring back American expansionism and apparently misunderstood his history classes from back in the day and thinks "manifest destiny" is a good thing.

and given that he has installed loyalists as his heads of departments, let's even say they all either agree or are too chicken-shit to oppose it and get cancelled by Trump.

Canada would never agree to being annexed so that means Trump would have to launch a war against us to annex us. You are telling me that if push comes to shove, that the men and women in the armed forces would actually be willing to invade a sovereign nation that they might even have ties to (given Canada and American culture+society are so connected)? and you are telling me that the generals and people in power in the American military industrial complex would be willing to follow an order to invade Canada?

I mean sure, America has been known to invade countries in the Middle East for their natural resources and pretend its for national security but imo there's a big difference in being able to sell the idea to the American people and the viewers of Faux News that invading a brown country far off in the distance and saying its cause of Islamic extremism vs invading a country whose stereotype is literally that we are too apologetic and nice.

Am I missing something obvious?

And just to clarify, I am not saying that Trump isn't serious about it. he probably is and it probably has to do with our natural resources as Trudeau was caught on a hot mic saying as much in a meeting and our politicians need to address it. but for our politicians to act like there is a legit chance of an invasion seems odd to me. and the CBC talking about it so much and giving so much airtime to it is really getting on my nerves.

What I will say is the one thing that bugs me about all this honestly is just Musk and Trump calling Trudeau a "governor". not that I like Trudeau. The day he decided to break his campaign promise of election reform, he was dead to me, but I just don't like it when people dish it out when they can't take it and Musk and Trump are the most thin-skinned c**nts on the planet. If Trudeau responded to either of them on Twitter with something as condescending, they would both cry like little babies and somehow find a way to blame the woke mind virus and trans people for Trudeau being "nasty" to them.

Yes I know the "deep state" is just a phrase that means different things to different people. But Trump is completely out of control and undermining the very fabric of American society and world politics. Siding with Russia, undermining long time relationships with close allies, threatening invading Canada and other countries, calling himself a King. His next step seems to be dismantling the military industrial complex (drastically cutting military spending, reducing American power worldwide).

Isn't there supposed to be some people who are sort of secretly in charge and prevent a single traitorous idiot from destroying the world order, whatever that is? "The Invisible Government"?. Don't most of us sort of believe that JFK was removed by internal actors for much less?

What is really going on here? Is a large amount of the US government completely captured by Russia? Or is it exactly what it seems to be - nobody expected a handful of rich corrupt idiots to just take over and the handful of people who could stop it are just letting it happen. I mean, I can see how it was a serious of unfortunate events, mostly caused by the corruption in the Republican party which allowed a seditionist to get away with trying to overthrow the government and Biden's DOJ just sleeping for about 3 years. But along the way you'd think there would be better checks against all of this.

In an age of increasing misinformation and division, I've found that it's increasingly easy to find yourself in an echo chamber of opinions (of people and/or bots). And when I go searching outside that echo chamber, I usually don't find well reasoned discussion, but a different echo chamber with the opposite opinion.

This is especially true on sites like Reddit and Twitter, but also applies to pretty much every website (including Tildes) to some extent. Even newspapers aren't helpful as they are all largely owned by a handful of billionaires with an agenda. And real life isn't much better. My friends and family all share similar values and ideals, which is great for getting along, but it doesn't help me figure out how many people actually support something in particular.

The closest thing I've found to objective polling are elections. Unfortunately, they largely group everything into one of two buckets and don't have room for nuance on individual topics. Also, a lot of people don't even vote, which doesn't necessarily muddy the data, but it does leave out the opinions of a lot of people.

Is it even possible to determine this without an individual referendum on each topic? Am I worrying too much about something unknowable?

This question was inspired by a question from a US immigrant citizen who came from a country that had been under Soviet political hegemony. They said that in their experience authoritarianism and corruption were kept camoflauged for fear of political backlash, but our new US government is shameless.

I'll put my tentative answer in the comments. I'm very interested to hear your thoughts if you care to share.

I would like to hear your opinions. 1MM eur is not a lot; how do you spend it most efficiently? Do you use it as a lever to raise more money? Do you tackle grassroots efforts?

This is a “how do we fight back” question.

My requirement is that the suggestions are practical and relevant for today’s world, not an idealised version of it. But nothing is off limits, be creative.

If you have suggestions for different amounts I’ll also hear them.

Succinctly as possible, what is the purpose of government? And with genuine effort to avoid condescension or disparagement, what do you think someone politically opposite to you would say if they were to thoughtfully articulate an answer to the same question?

I'm increasingly bothered in the last few years in the crisis of ethics in the United States government. It isn't very important to the leaders, and it isn't very important to the voters. I don't think it is a "conservative vs liberal" issue. It isn't about religion. It is about basic morality and doing what is best for a functioning society.

I think about ethics more about once a year when my job has everyone take a small course on ethics. There is a lot of basic and obvious stuff in the course, but a big part of it is that even the appearance of conflicts of interest should be avoided. And I'm sure if this is important for the general workforce, it should be even more important for public figures.

I'm well aware that the government has done unethical things in the past, and some of them were horrific. But I don't remember a time when unethical behavior has been flaunted so openly. The president is fundamentally unethical. He constantly lies and takes open bribes and enriches himself at the expense of the proper functioning of the government. The supreme court is fundamentally unethical and barely tries to conceal taking bribes. The president's political party openly ignores their duty to hold the president accountable for crimes, and participates in them, including sedition. The top leaders of businesses and the press have been obviously captured by money and corruption.

For years we were concerned about "dark money" and who was funding the propaganda and disinformation. Well now we have the richest person in the world openly buying an election and taking over fundamental functions of the government.

This crisis of political ethics is a direct result of a crisis of ethics in all parts of society. I think it flows back and forth like a disease. The voters do not hold the leaders accountable because the voters themselves are not ethical. I don't think supporters of Trump are completely the victims of propaganda. I think they made an unethical choice for selfish reasons. Part of ethics is taking responsibility for making sure you have the correct information when you make a choice. I'm not sure that most are capable of learning that the price of eggs is worth the collapse of being able to trust each other and make progress as a society.

By the way, I think a lot of us are hoping that this open feeding frenzy of greed and dishonesty is part of a pendulum that swings back and forth. But I'm reminded that in 1977 Jimmy Carter was elected to help restore ethics to the presidency. He only served one term as president and was replaced by a highly unethical person who was supported by highly unethical people who created a right-wing propaganda network of talk radio and Fox News.

Maybe that's the point of a blitzkreig, but I'm thinking back to 2016 where we saw huge numbers of people taking to the street - the Women's March, anti-Trump marches - to show displeasure for Trump even being elected. In 2020 we saw some of the largest protests ever for BLM, potentially because folks had time to tune in and turn up because of the pandemic. But right now we're seeing an absolute assault on our institutions and it's up against absolute silence. I'm not trying to throw stones, I'm not out demonstrating either. Mostly because there isn't one to join. Does anyone have a theory or understand why we aren't seeing any public mobilization?

With the way a certain billionaire has taken control of the US Treasury and begun to halt payments, I'm concerned that my T bills will not get paid out when they mature in April.

I'm not really sure there's anything to be done about it, but it's stressing me out. See if I ever invest in them again.

I recently heard something that I didn’t like. It was about the growth of fascism in the US, and it said something that I was uncomfortable hearing; ignoring it is the same as acceptance.

I am not subscribed to ~society. I was automatically added when it was created but I quickly noped out. I had already lowered my news consumption to a minimum before Trump won the election, but after I have actively avoided even those few programs that I thought were good. I didn’t have the will to hear about the terrible things on the horizon.

So now I am thinking about what I should do, and right now the thing that seems like the most concrete action is to buy a gun.

Honestly, though, I hate guns. I’ve done a shooting range a few times when I was a kid and I guess they were kind of fun but the idea of using it against people sickens me. On the other hand, we are living in an age where police forces are paramilitarized, the president can and will use CBP as a military force within the US border, and our civil rights are being pried apart.

But what would I actually do with a gun? What difference will it actually make? Bring part of deadly violence is the last thing that I want.

For the last 10-years or so, I've been much more interested in US history, it started because I wanted to be a more informed citizen, but continued because of how much recorded history differed from how I was taught. Then I started seeing how the lofty offerings of America, as an idea, had really never existed.

Like, when the rest of the world was watching the Soviet Union from the outside as it proudly proclaimed how amazing they were and everyone was kind of glancing at each other and whispering "They know we can see how it's going, right?" I wonder if the same is happening now, as countries watch US politics unfold. How close are we from a failure here or there to cascading failure?

I'm at a point of accumulated facts, doing my best to remove my personal bias, that I can't help but think we were arrogant to think we could keep a continent this large in one piece. The weight of national systems that can support a population this spread out is immense. The upkeep of infrastructure at this scale is a logistics nightmare. Passing any national laws has become the chore that just never gets done, we'll always get to it tomorrow. The people, Americans, can be amazing, but that's a truth of humanity, not nationality.

I'm sad to think I could be witnessing the end of something really impressive and inspiring, even if a lot of it was some makeup and nice lighting. Thoughts?

Shortly after the election I saw a cartoon on Facebook titled "Let's Get A Baseline". It listed various prices for common goods and other assorted statistics. I looked up a few, and those were incorrect.

A sort of "presidential report card" did seem like a neat idea to me. Something to be reviewed every January 20th. Perhaps in a chart that would make facts speak for themselves in social media.

Are there any magazines or news sources that already do this? Something like The Economist?

These are metrics I would like to see in such a chart, perhaps a bar graph.

Please suggest others that you think ordinary voters would care about

1. National debt
2. Inflation
3. Unemployment
4. The GDP
5. The literacy rate
6. National match scores ( compared globally )
7. The poverty rate
8. Administration members indicted
9. Average price of gas
10. Average yearly salary
11. Average retirement savings

First of all: this system brought undeniable historical advances in the West (formal equality, freedom of speech, universal suffrage). There's no way to deny this when compared to monarchies and the civil-military authoritarian regimes in Latin America. However, even so, current democracy inherently carries the objective of preserving the economic order. The political structure is designed so that economic elites (whether bourgeois or corporate) maintain control through campaign financing, legislative influence, and media dominance.

With this in mind, I decided to bring up for debate why democracy is considered the ultimate and best system we currently have, leaving no room for criticism of the system itself (representative democracy). This system derives from a stratified one (Greek) that has been refined over centuries to take power away from monarchs and transfer it to the bourgeoisie. Today, we live in a bourgeois-liberal democratic state that restricts any minority group’s access to the center of power. Everyone notices this, but since proposing or thinking of something distinct from representative democracy is dangerous, most people aim to patch a system that was designed to be this way: exclusionary and elitist. In the end, this term (democracy) has been elevated to an absolute moral ideal, leaving no room to question its central premise (the maintenance of centralized power in financial capitalism, which now finances the most radical right-wing movements).

By the way, it’s worth considering how the right gained power in the world (money). And how it maintains its hegemony over cultural thought worldwide (money). Who funds this? Who benefits from this? Why couldn’t a decentralized yet ~autocratic~ proposal (I understand the difference between autocracy and the lack of checks and balances, but I fail to see why the current system is inherently better) be superior to a centralized government defending the interests of a dominant class? (Hint: the right maintains its hegemony because it controls financial resources and the means of cultural production; it’s not just about governments but a machine operating at multiple levels where the dominant ideology reflects the ideology of the ruling class.)

Continuing, there are no decentralized and autocratic proposals (in the sense of concentrating power efficiently for certain decisions while decentralizing access to power overall) because these challenge the traditional logic of checks and balances, which ironically has been more effective at blocking structural changes than preventing abuses of power. For instance, the concept of distributive autocracy (a model in which power is temporarily centralized to carry out rapid structural reforms, followed by mechanisms of redistribution and decentralization of power) is rarely discussed because the tripartite and bicameral system locks this debate in place to maintain control through financial power (amendments) of the country.

We remain hostages to a system that has become humanity’s manifest destiny, where no questioning can be raised without the individual being labeled as morally inferior. It’s not that representative democracy is inherently superior, but that it was historically designed to be acceptable within the context of bourgeois power. The question, therefore, is not simply "autocracy vs. democracy," but how we can create inclusive, participatory, and redistributive systems where power structures are transparent, accessible, and fair for everyone.

basically, there seem to be 2 competing narratives of "people of color/poor people of all color tend to have it worse so let's create social programs specifically targeting them to left them up"

and I am see pros and cons to both sides and am wondering what people well-researched and versed on either have to say to each other.

1. I really prefer to see a long-form discussion but I am not opposed to a debate as long as its a debate with no audience. I've really grown to hate watching debate participants try to argue for claps or score cheap points with the audience.
2. Very minimal shouting or yelling over each other and each side lets the other finish.
3. I prefer if its not "dark web" folks like Sam Harris or Coleman Hughes who are involved in discussion but am not totally opposed.

An example of a debate I kinda liked (would have liked it more if Fridman hadn't invited a streamer and treated it like he had the same level of expertise as historians or analyst): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X_KdkoGxSs

Rather than rehash all the conversations about the identity or motive of the person who killed the United Healthcare CEO, I'd love to have a discussion about the policy window it seems to have opened. This is the first time we've seen widespread, bi-partisan support for an issue - seemingly medicare for all - but I can't find anyone actually talking about policy. None of the big legacy media organizations like BBC or CNN, or your typical cast of medicare for all characters like Bernie Sanders. I'm not sure if silence on the topic to insulate folks from being labelled "cold or heartless", but it seems like systematic issues with the insurance industry is at the core of what has everyone so riled up. Am I missing some large scale discussion happening that is actually focusing on regulatory change or is it just not happening?

Maybe to the heart of the question for those better informed than myself: What can we do from a grassroots perspective to push for regulatory reform while this is still fresh in the public eye? There seems to be momentum, can it be funneled into something meaningful?

I realize the threads I've seen on the topic have been locked, so if you participate in the discussion please keep this policy related. We all have strong feeling about what happened, but as much as we can let's stay on topic.

I was watching this clip of The Daily Show where Desi Lydic highlights the change in how Dr. Oz has been portrayed over the years, and it got me thinking about the perception of public figures over time.

I remember watching CBS Sunday Morning segment in 1998 where Elon Musk was painted in a fairly good light as a sort of rebel taking on Microsoft. This was around the time that Microsoft was seen in a pretty bad light for the Internet Explorer anti-trust case.

Musk as he appears in the media I consume today is almost unrecognizable from the 1998 segment.

I also recall a time when Rudy Giuliani was seen in a good light (disclosure: I'm mostly going off of my memory of how he was perceived by the nation as Mayor of New York. I never lived in or near New York, so I can't really speak to how he was perceived locally).

I'm sure I could come up with other examples if I thought about it some more.

All of this has me pondering the nature of my own perception. I don't know any of these people personally, so I rely on what I see online and in the news to guide my image of who these people are. But when I see this stark contrast it makes me wonder what is real.

Did these figures change over time, perhaps corrupted by power and/or fame?

Have they always been this way, and I'm just seeing the media paint them differently over time?

Are they just in a Harvey Dent / Batman "live long enough to become the villain" situation?

Maybe all of the above?

I also think about this in context of aging. My views on the world have definitely changed over time. I think I've mostly grown in a positive way as a person. But I've also seen my own parents change their views and become disturbingly conservative. It worries me that I may also have a regression as I age. They are still mostly the same loving parents I grew up with. The only real obvious cause of their shift in views is the media they consume.

So I'm curious to hear other points of view on this phenomenon.

I think I won't post the link here to one of the posts about this because I think it's an unproven conspiracy theory and it isn't true.
But there is a particular story going around online that one or more security experts is claiming that the latest presidential election was stolen. The "proof" is of this type:

• I'm a security expert
• There is some stuff in the election results that is statistically impossible, especially in swing states
• There is a specific type of ballot where the voter has only voted for one candidate or issue
• Here are the numbers compared to the normal numbers
• Voting machines were compromised, and here's how

For each of those bullet points (and a few others I didn't mention), I have to go and research that data in order to determine if it is accurate.

• I could google the expert and check their reputation
• I could research how common it is to have certain types of ballot completions
• I may be able to get detailed information about specific counties and their historic voting patterns
• I could do a lot of research on voting machine integrity

The research on each of those bullets could be compromised by other misinformation, astroturfing, bad AI summaries, etc.

Or I could just send the link to everyone I know and hope that someone else does this. Or just send it because I don't like the election result and I wish this story was true.

It's easy to see why CNN reported that 70% of Republicans thought the 2020 election was stolen, especially since conspiracy theories were repeated to them on all their main news sources and confirmed their biases.

Most of my family members (notably everyone in the older generation) are variously xenophobic (very), transphobic (plenty) and racist (enough). They're openly right wing populist party voters. In family gatherings, or even in online messaging, I normally ignore them or try to divert the conversation away from their stupid political takes - even the ones who know I am pansexual are likely to say some nasty shit, showing (I believe) that they don't have a drop of respect for me or my gay brother. There is nothing I can ever convince them of, political or not, because (I believe) they will always treat my arguments with disdain, regardless of any reason or evidence. I don't think much better of their politics myself, since I find most of their constant complaining about entire classes of people they've never even interacted with incredibly tiresome, not to mention wholly inconsistent with their supposed christian values (I know, this situation sounds very american, even though I am not.)

I personally believe there is some value in some, but not all, arguments that are for restricting or reorganizing immigration at this time, mainly due to problems stemming from years of lazy policymaking, and in some right wing fiscal policy (we have some extremely expensive and inefficient government programmes right now - NOT health or education - and misguided protectionism of certain huge and mismanaged private companies), so we can usually meet on that common ground.

Today at a gathering an aunt decided out of the blue to loudly proclaim how happy she was that Donald Trump was elected in the US. Other relatives quickly agreed, after which they started a conversation about how a Trump presidency will be good for the economy. At this point I will just politely say I didn't understand what they were talking about (my thoughts weren't as kind at the time); we are not americans, and I have the notion that Trump is an isolationist who admires dictators and despises the EU and doesn't value us as allies; I am led to believe he wants to do things with regard to defense, tariffs, etc. that are unambiguously bad for us and will directly translate into a harder life and more danger for Europeans over the next few years.

A younger relative then said he was happy that we finally had "an insane dictator" on "our side". According to him, none of the crazy authoritarians in the world respected a man like Biden, but they were wary of Trump, since Trump is unpredictable. I remember hearing this argument eight years ago, but I'm not so sure of this. Historically, as I said, Trump seems to me to fawn over strongmen and demagogues leading other nations, while he hasn't exactly conveyed that he is "on our side". As far as I know, he's been suspiciously an enabler of Vladimir Putin, for instance.

So at this point I explained to my family that we weren't there to discuss politics and the politics conversation was to end immediately or I was going to start insulting people.

I'd like you all to tell me if I'm in the wrong here. Am I out of touch? Can you explain my family's perspective to me in a way that makes them sound less insane? This isn't some kind of bait. Just because I don't like Donald Trump (and neither do the majority of people in this community, AFAIK), I pride myself in being a fairly rational person. I can be convinced of things, as long as there's rationally constructed argument underpinning them. Maybe there's some value to their position?

Like I did last time Trump was in office, I've been reading up on authoritarianism and fascism.

Ur-Fascism by Umberto Eco
On Tyranny by Timothy Snyder
They Thought They were Free by Milton Mayer

And if you want a hot take from someone who argues that Trump himself is not a fascist but rather something worse, here is a great video from Morbid Zoo. Note: the main argument in this video begins at about 11:30. The lead up is responding to criticisms of her first video on the topic and laying some groundwork for her argument. You'll be fine to start at 11:30.

I wonder still if there is enough fight left in this country to resist him. I wonder if Trumpism will fizzle out upon his death or when he leaves office in four years. I wonder if America's institutions are strong enough, its people just smart enough, to not go that route. I suppose I'm feeling anxiety because I would like to, here and now before I become accustomed to another "new normal," set my boundaries on when there is no going back. I don't want to look back and say that I missed the obvious moment and I should have known. I want to be ready and keep my wife and son safe.

My question is this:

Where is your uncrossable line? What would Trump and crew have to do before you decided to leave by any means with no concern for your debts, possessions, etc.? Or, if the frog is boiled more gradually, when would you start seriously making preparations?

So Trump won. Next few years are gonna be rough, I know. What happened, and where can the Dems go from here?

James Carville said it best: It’s the economy, stupid (even if he predicted the wrong candidate). Inflation was a big concern among voters, mostly driven by gas, groceries, and housing. Rightly or wrongly, many voters tied this to Biden, and through him to Harris. They viewed Trump as being likelier to fix things, with a big bold plan (tariffs, deportations, tax cuts). I suspect some (many?) voters wanted to punish Dems for inflation. Others probably thought Harris would worsen it. While she had a long proposal, she didn’t seem to talk about it much, nor boil it down to soundbites. Many of the demos that swung were hit hard by the price increases.

We saw swings among Latinos, young voters, and rural voters toward Trump. Some of this was due to depressed D turnout (Harris got 15 million fewer votes than Biden), but in other cases it was due to genuine swings. Starr County, TX went Republican for the first time in decades. New Jersey only went for Harris by single digit percentages. Black voters had a small 2% decline of the share of the electorate.

I think non-immigration identity politics played a smaller role. I do think Harris/Walz could’ve talked more about men’s issues specifically (suicide, the academic gap, poor job prospects), although they are hard to soundbiteify and not sound forced. They likely could've approached it from a universalist angle. Trans issues might’ve driven some voters to Trump, but I believe it was more localized (e.g., reduced margins in Loudoun County). Latinos likely weren’t particularly turned off of Trump because they aren’t a cohesive bloc, and in many cases not even the same race (you’ve got whites, indigenous, blacks, mixed, even Asian Latinos). Between the countries the cultures can be very different, to the point of each country hating the other. They can be more socially conservative as well, especially those in their 40s and older.

Immigration was definitely a bigger issue, dovetailing with economic issues (housing costs, “why are migrants getting help but not me”, homelessness). The migrant bussing by Gov. Abbott will be viewed as one of the greatest political maneuvers of the 21st century. It brought the issue to voters outside of border states. The number of people coming to the border was frustrating/scary for some voters.

Abortion didn’t play as big of a role, I suspect because many women don’t think they’ll need one, or because they don’t view care that legally may qualify as one.

The state of democracy didn’t motivate enough people for the Dems, in fact, some people who thought it was important voted for Trump.

Foreign policy didn’t play much of a role, although Israel/Palestine probably was significant in Michigan. But that needle would’ve been hard to thread for any candidate, and probably would’ve been less of a problem if other points were addressed.

I think the fact that Harris is a biracial woman did reduce votes, but I don’t think it was necessarily decisive in her losing. The right woman can definitely win (Thatcher won the U.K. in 1979, so it should be possible in the U.S. in 2024). I would probably hold off in 2028, but I don’t see an issue with running women long-term.

So, what are the takeaways for Dems?

1. Suburban white-collar voters are not the end-all be-all. They are a good bloc to have (reliable voters in many swing states, including in off-years), but they are not enough to outweigh the others.

2. You cannot take minority demographics for granted. They will not stay with you forever. They are not monolithic.

3. Social policy can only go so far. Its salience can be quite limited compared to the economy. Negatives can be very negative, white positives may be “meh”.

4. Running against someone, rather than for yourself only works so many times.

5. You can only have so many issues stacked against you and be able to win. If it was just the economy, it might’ve been closer, but you had the economy, and immigration, and social policy, and Israel/Palestine.

6. The average voter does not account for lag in terms of policy. Trump got credit for a good economy even though Obama did a lot of the work.

7. Places that are or have been “safe” are not guaranteed to stay like that forever, especially when paired with point 2, without work.

8. NatCon populism is here to stay. The combination of left-ish economics and social conservativism, propelled by apathetics and the hard right is a winning one, and needs to be countered accordingly.

9. Many folks view Democrats as being the “mom” or “Karen from HR” party. That is not the kind of reputation that wins elections.

10. It’s the economy, stupid.

Based on that, what would my strategy be for Dems in 2026/2028?

1. Clean house. The folks in charge lost 2024 and only barely won 2020. Care needs to be taken to ensure replacements have sufficient political/management experience.

2. Don’t be the party of why/if. Be the party of do. The former implies insecurity, the latter confidence.

3. Bring back the 50-state strategy. Open offices in rural areas. States viewed as safely blue came awfully close to flipping for Trump this year. But the reverse can also be true, especially with a good candidate (cf. Indiana in 2008 ). And even if the presidential candidate loses, downballot candidates can still win, especially in off-years. I think the Dems had a good ground game, and while it cannot make up for everything else, it’s usually better to have it than not. Local elections matter a lot because they have stronger day-to-day impact, and they are the breeding ground for future politicians. North Carolina had several good Dem victories.

4. Focus on economics. Moderate suburbanites aren’t enough to win on, and many people like Trumponomics. Go for smart tariffs, universal policies (e.g., Child Tax Credit, universal Medicare, etc), targeted tax cuts and increases along with tax code simplification, and one other oddball policy (withdrawal from the WTO? Annual gas tax holiday?) likely to be popular with voters.

5. Social moderation/tolerance. The party is a big tent one, and there’s going to be friction over social issues. This doesn’t mean abandoning core constituencies, but being smarter about rhetoric and candidates (you won’t win the Georgia governorship with an Everytown candidate). Candidates should be allowed to have differing views on social policy (especially if it is personal and doesn’t extend to the political realm), and there should be a mechanism to allow dissent on an issue an individual is out of touch on. Related: get the loudest social progressives away from the party. They frequently clash with it but manage to tie the party to an unpopular viewpoint with something they said on Xitter/Tik Tok. I did like the initial message of freedom the Harris campaign was putting out, but it didn’t seem to be used much.

6. Turnout still matters. You need to be able to turn out more people for you than the other guy.

7. (My weird, hot take-ish view) Go on an offensive cyber campaign. You’ve got Russian operatives shilling for Trump and the GOP. Hack them. Make it so they can’t just continuously pump out disinfo. Even a few million should be enough to establish a unit dedicated to fucking up Russian troll farms.

8. (Courtesy of @EgoEimi) Go for the reality TV angle. Lots of rallies, some political stunts, and bring loads of energy.

One final thought: Trump is a sui generis candidate. He energizes people who aren’t into politics normally. Thus far, the GOP hasn’t been able to translate that into off-year elections or non-Trump POTUS candidates. Nobody wants diet Trump, they want the real deal. When he passes away, it remains to be seen whether someone (Vance?) can take over with the same level of success.

Recently I was watching the World War 2 series "Masters of the Air". In one of the last scenes, there is an American prisoner of war who climbs up the flag pole and replaces the German flag with the American flag as American troops liberate the camp. I thought it was a powerful aesthetic image: A battered flag of freedom replacing a flag of oppression.

The American flag looks very nice to me, especially used in dramatic art. But I think that's mostly the connotations of my upbringing. If you look at the aesthetics of it without any history of it, it looks like a striped tablecloth sewn to a starry apron or something. And to a lot of other people in the world it looks like greed or violence or oppression or something else again.

I'm sure these aren't original thoughts, but the use of this flag as a symbol has been bothering me for the last 8 or 10 years. It's been co-opted to mean something different than before, inside the very places where it previously would have much more positive connotations. If I see that flag on a big pickup truck, I have a strongly negative connotation with it. Or if I see it defaced with a blue line on it. Or if I see it on the pin of a politician. Or on a pole in a used car lot. Or in any advertisement.

This is more about my own naivete about whatever the United States was actually about, separate from what we are taught as children and the stories we tell ourselves. But I'm guessing a lot more people have these thoughts than did a few years ago.

I remember some people a few years ago were telling progressives to "Take back the flag from the right wing". I guess I don't know if that's going to work, there seems to be a poisoned well now and anyway everyone always brings their own experiences to such symbols and your display of positivity may have the opposite effect on others.

Imagine that on the campaign posters, it will say your name and then this policy. For example:

Vote for <your username> ...

• Rain boots for everyone. (No American / Englishman / Indian / etc. should have soggy socks.)
• A Speedy DMV. (It should take 10 minutes to renew your license at the DMV.)
• Rice in every restaurant. (Rice is good with everything. At least some Asian KFCs will serve fried chicken with rice!)

It should resonate deeply with people, without the expectation that it should solve any of the deeper problems in life.

I hope it is kosher to post this under ~talk. I know people are sick of this topic, so I put plenty of tags in to help those not interested avoid seeing this thread. FWIW, you can go into your Settings and enter keywords to filter threads on ( via tags ).

To my question.

Netanyahu has been killing people with no means of defense.

What is President Biden's motivation to keep sending military aide to Israel while Netanyahu continues to do this?

I have a few guesses, but none of them on their own or together seems to justify the political or humanitarian costs:

1. Somehow it is in the geopolitical interest of the U.S. to do so
2. Israel would be destroyed without military aide ( but defensive weapons can still be sent )
3. The U.S. benefits from Israeli intelligence
4. Congressional republicans aligned with Christian Nationlists want to see Israel live out a Biblical prophesy and it would cost President Biden politically if he were to push a decrease in military aide - assuming he could.
5. President Biden might have lost Jewish American votes, BUT Jews are a minority in America and many American Jews are against what Netanyahu is doing.

Those are the possibilities I could come up with. Am I missing anything? All of these possibilities together do not seem to be worth the political cost President Biden incurred. Is there something I missed?

I'm pitching this question out to Tildes because I'm drawing a blank. It feels like we have seen an absolute stripping of our rights and unbridled support for large, private capital in the past week; and I'm unsure of how to respond. Considering the scale of impact these rulings will have on every US citizen's day to day life, things are surprisingly quiet. I'm wondering how other folks are thinking about mobilizing - be it through protest, outreach to representatives, or civil disobedience. It doesn't feel like there is a wave of ire. At least in my circles, there are no protests like the Women's March or BLM. There has been no response from my local representatives in congress or state senators. It's just eerie radio silence.

Is anyone else feeling this way? Has anyone joined or developed some sort of response to what is happening?

I write this topic knowing that it might get removed for being too controversial or incendiary or bring the anti-Semites out of the woodwork, in which case, I understand why this topic might get removed.

I am just hoping that tildes has a better capacity of engaging in such a charged topic, at least more than reddit.

onto my question:

Like anyone else who watches the news, I have been pretty aware of what is going on in the latest escalation of the Israel-Palestine war. I would not claim to be the most educated person ever, but I'd like to think I at least understand the broad-strokes.

And I consider myself generally a progressive person (not a liberal) so I personally am not a big fan of the Israeli govt. And yes I do condemn Hamas, I don't care what your struggle is, Oct 7th was a terror attack and only makes the situation worse for the people you claim to be freedom fighters for.

Having said all that, and seeing how much control Israel seems to have on the western powers, or specifically U.S., I will admit, my thoughts sometimes veer towards "they really do control things" and shit like that, but then 10 seconds later, I realize how ye-like that sounds and it's the exact same kind of thinking that led to the Holocaust. But then I also wonder if that is not entirely my fault and more because of the Jewish leaders who insist on making fervent support of Israel a strong part of their identity, thereby linking any criticism of the Israeli govt with criticism of Jewish people (or at least the Jewish leaders in the media who are supportive of Israel) rather than distancing themselves from a right-wing government.

So yea, I guess my question is: I don't think its entirely unreasonable to think that Israel has a surprising amount of control over western powers (specifically U.S.) but that sentiment in and of itself also veers dangerously close to antisemitism for my liking so I wondered how folks on here approach it?

the Israel-Palestine war has not been good to my mental health and the coverage and the treatment of the campus protests oddly is what did me in.

Now one approach could be to just not watch the coverage but I have come around to the point of view that not watching meaning not knowing what's happening and you need to know what is happening if only for the hope to be more informed about the politics of the government you live in.

So I guess I am trying to understand what is a responsible way to digest news about something that enrages you? Or is there no such thing? Cause I don't do social media (aside from occasional reddit and just the frontpage when I do that once in a while) and I refuse to watch any 24/7 news networks. I only do an hour of CBC and like 1-3 daily news podcasts which each do like 10-20 min daily updates.

Cause the Israel-Palestine war doubled with the terrible way the campus protests are being treated has really shaken my faith and trust in institutions and I won't go into how cause I don't want to invite infighting on tildes and potential Islamophobia and antisemitism after what happened in that macklemore thread.

I'm preoccupied with a couple of things.

The first being that the federal budget was just released and I'm feeling like a national school lunch program and an injection of money into housing with the expectation that cities build higher density dwellings is... Something they should have done mid mandate?

Is there even time to implement this stuff? Are we getting close to the point where we've spent too much?

Second is a quote from a compilation of personal accounts from travellers into this country's north in the 1800s. Farley Mowat assembled the stories and wrote the forward for "Tundra" in the 1960s and says the following

"Until 50 or 60 years ago, the Arctic was a living reality to North Americans of every walk of life. It had become real because men of their own kind were daring it's remote fastness in search of pure adventure", unprotected by the vast mechanical shields that we now demand whenever we step out of our air conditioned sanctuaries".

He goes on to talk about how -- most of all -- easily heated dwellings and running water had a softening effect on people, and that (basically) we fear and avoid Canada's climate far more than our forebearers did.

Wondering what people's thoughts on this are.

From what you learned from grandparents or earlier generations about spending time outside, would you agree that the comforts of home are just too damned seductive?

If it's never even a remote consideration that the NDP may break from the Liberals and side with the CPC in the House of Commons, aren't they essentially a vassal for the LPC, soaking up votes from disaffected Liberal voters and funneling them back into Liberal control? I mean from a simple game theoretic perspective, Liberals in the long run can demand everything and give nothing. I think Canadian politics has probably been damaged by overapplying the American left-right political spectrum, when it may be better thought as a three way spectrum between liberalism, conservatism, and democratic socialism (something like Red Toryism for example would be pretty inconceivable in American politics).

What the recent Reddit protest cemented in my mind is how ineffective protest tends to be the larger and more entrenched an established order is. There's no real incentive to change because ultimately everyone knows that the protestors have little recourse.

If you want to enact change, just trying to get people enraged and trying to get them to express that rage is not a great tactic. What you need as an alternative for people to go to instead, because that's the only real threat that matters to the establishment, the threat of being replaced.

So to that end, I'd like to start a conversation about what it is that people need, and how we can arrange structures to get those things without needing to rely on external actors who don't have your interests at heart.

For example, community mesh networks are a way of expanding internet into more of a public amenity so everyone can have access to it.

Virtual power plants can allow communities to produce their own power reliably and reduce their reliance on major power providers.

These are the kinds of things I am interested in. I feel that the most effective way to push back against profiteering corporations is to simply reduce our need for them in the first place.

What are some good community oriented solutions to societal needs that you feel deserve more attention and interest?

Have you ever received notice that you might be eligible for something from a class-action settlement? Ever notice that the effort required to recover is significant, and the recovery perhaps insultingly miniscule?

I don't know of any data, but I suspect that's true of nearly every class action lawsuit, even those that win in court battles. Maybe the original plaintiffs get a decent recovery, sometimes there's injunctive relief (which means the court forces the defendant to do or not do something). Every once in a while, individual members of the class get a meaningful outcome (vw's dieselgate comes to mind).

The public interest justification for the outcomes where the recover for class members is really small, if one is even ever really offered, is that the cost of the action to the defendant serves as an inducement to all defendants to keep their act together. But see, Tyler Durden's explanation of the actuarial function from Fight Club.

My thought is that instead of any recovery for the individual class members ("fuck 'em, right?"), their portion of the money should go to a public interest fund dedicated to consumer protection. My reason for this is that these small recoveries don't make any useful change for the individual class member consumers. But collectively, might add up to enough to make a meaningful difference to the future activities of producers.

Of course, all the usual caveats about corruption and accountability come into play. But there's a few reasons it might help, if those can be overcome. First, it might prompt faster, lest costly settlements. The payouts would be lower, and also the transaction costs. This shifts the litigation process from focussing on big recoveries to high volume of suits, bringing in more defendants. It would also enable smaller firms to bring suit, the hope being that smaller firms would take on more marginal cases and get more action.

Second, it might actually create a feedback loop. If the fund gets large enough, it could lobby and investigate, providing more information more new suits, and identifying the worst actors, and encouraging useful regulation. Imagine if Consumers Union could return to its glory of the 80's and have a big lobbying fund?

Or, we could just have decent government level consumer protections (hahhahahahahahahah!)

The US, EU and assorted allies have gradually gotten into the habit, in recent decades, of using targeted sanctions (a lot) against both individuals and govts when the targets do something the West does not approve of.

Do they work? Do they help?

I think Obama-era sanctions on Iran played a part in getting Iran to at least consider the nuclear accord that Trump promptly renigged on ... but I also think Rouhani also wanted to develop a better relationship w/the US (and I'm sure he had at least grudging support from the Ayatollah), and gladly used the sanctions as the justification for speaking to the Great Satan.

Details aside, I think sanctions helped in that case. I can't think of any other examples where they were effective in helping achieve their intended effects.

OTOH, I think aggressive sanctions against North Korea have, at best, done no good at all, and have probably made the situation worse.

Any other successes come to mind?

Posted this over on r/highereducation, thought it might be interesting here.

I've been thinking a lot about this lately, especially in the context of "free college" proposals. Subsidizing private colleges and universities would be a political non-starter. I'm assuming the government would have a "teach-out" style plan to transition schools off federal dollars. Regardless, the impact would be massive. I've briefly glanced at financial aid and revenue data for one R1 school, and it seems federal money makes up a significant (20-30%) portion of annual operating revenue. While that doesn't seem like much at first, I suspect enrollment would drop significantly at many schools if there was the alternative of going to a public university for free. Several thoughts come to mind:

• What percent of schools would close or merge?

• What would be some of the most surprising schools to close?

• How quickly would schools close? Would they immediately shutter, close at the end of the transition period, or struggle on for a few years?

• What is the breakdown of institution types (R1/2 vs SLAC vs engineering schools)?

• What would be the impact on religiously-affiliated colleges, especially Catholic schools (there's already many little-known ones in the middle of nowhere)?

• Of the schools that survive, what sort of strategies would they employ to remain solvent (lean heavier on foreign students, reduce admissions standards, have mandatory work-study programs to reduce administrative costs, create alumni contracts akin to tithing, invest more in the financial sector/Wall Street)?

Edit: Whoops, I thought I posted this in ~misc. Oh well.

Voting is determinative, especially where the constituency is precisely known, as with a legislature, executive council, panel of judges, gerrymandered electoral district, defined organisational membership. If you know, with high precision, who is voting, then you can determine or influence how they vote, or what the outcome will be. Which lends a certain amount of predictability (often considered as good), but also of a tyranny of the majority. This is especially true where long-standing majorities can be assured: legislatures, boards of directors, courts, ethnic or cultural majorities.

The result is a very high-stakes game in establishing majorities, influencing critical constituencies, packing courts, and gaming parliamentary and organisational procedures. But is this the best method --- both in terms of representational eqquity and of decision and goverrnance quality?

Hands down the most fascinating article I've read over the past decade is Michael Schulson's "How to choose? When your reasons are worse than useless, sometimes the most rational choice is a random stab in the dark", in Aeon. The essay, drawing heavily on Peter Stone, The Luck of the Draw: The Role of Lotteries in Decision Making (2011), which I've not read, mostly concerns decisions under uncertainty and of the risk of bad decisions. It seems to me that it also applies to periods of extreme political partisanship and division. An unlikely but possible circumstance, I'm sure....

Under many political systems, control is binary and discrete. A party with a majority in a legislature or judiciary, or control of the executive, has absolute control, barring procedural exceptions. Moreover, what results is a politics of veto power, where the bloc defining a controlling share of votes effectively controls the entire organisation. It may not be able to get its way, but it can determine which of two pluralities can reach a majority. Often in favour of its own considerations, overtly or covertly --- this is an obvious engine of corruption.

(This is why "political flexibility" often translates to more effective power than a hardline orthodoxy.)

One inspiration is a suggestion for US Supreme Court reform: greatly expand the court, hear more cases, but randomly assign a subset of judges to each case.[1] A litigant cannot know what specific magistrates will hear a case, and even a highly-packed court could produce minority-majority panels.

Where voting can be fuzzed, the majority's power is made less absolute, more uncertain, and considerations which presume that such a majority cannot be assured, one hopes, would lead to a more inclusive decisionmaking process. Some specific mechanisms;

• All members vote, but a subset of votes are considered at random. The larger the subset, the more reliably the true majority wins.
• A subset of members votes. As in the court example above.
• An executive role (presidency, leader, chairmanship) is rotated over time.
• For ranged decisions (quantitative, rather than yes/no), a value is selected randomly based on weighted support.

Concensus/majority decisionmaking tends to locked and unrepresentitive states. Fuzzing might better unlock these and increase representation.

Notes

1. A selection of articles on Supreme Court reforms and expansion, from an earlier G+ post: https://web.archive.org/web/20190117114110/https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/9btDjFcNhg1 Also, notably, court restructuring or resizing has been practiced: "Republicans Oppose Court Packing (Except When They Support It)".
   • Jonathan Turley at WashPo, suggesting 19 justices:
     https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fate-of-health-care-shouldnt-come-down-to-9-justices-try-19/2012/06/22/gJQAv0gpvV_story.html
   • Robert W. Merry at The National Interest, agreeing:
     https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/court-packing-revisited-7123
   • Michael Hiltzik at the LA Times:
     http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-scotus-20180629-story.html
   • Jacob Hale Russell, at Time, suggests 27 justices:
     http://time.com/5338689/supreme-court-packing/
   • And Glen Harlan Reynolds, at USA Today ups the ante to 59 justices:
     https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/07/02/make-supreme-court-lots-bigger-59-justices-more-like-america-column/749326002/
   • Dylan Matthews at Vox, pointing at several other suggestions:
     https://www.vox.com/2018/7/2/17513520/court-packing-explained-fdr-roosevelt-new-deal-democrats-supreme-court
   • From the left, Todd N. Tucker at Jacobin:
     https://jacobinmag.com/2018/06/supreme-court-packing-fdr-justices-appointments
   • Scott Lemieux at The New Republic:
     https://newrepublic.com/article/148358/democrats-prepare-pack-supreme-court
   • Ian Millhiser at Slate:
     http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/02/fdr_court_packing_plan_obama_and_roosevelt_s_supreme_court_standoffs.html
   • Zach Carter at Huffington Post:
     https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hey-democrats-pack-the-court_us_5b33f7a8e4b0b5e692f3f3d4
   • A pseudonymous piece by "@kept_simple" at The Outline:
     https://theoutline.com/post/5126/pack-the-court-judicial-appointment-scalia-is-in-hell
   • And a dissenting opinion from Justice Thomas Josh Blackman at National Review:
     https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/supreme-court-nominee-court-packing-not-feasible/
   • As well as some alarm klaxon sounding from The Daily Caller:
     https://dailycaller.com/2018/06/28/democrats-pack-supreme-court/

This will be a noisy thread. Please use the ignore feature if you do not want to see it in your feed.

This is a continuation of the original thread from election day, which was here.

These threads are intended as more conversational spaces to process the day and results. Consider this an open forum for your own thoughts and feelings.

There is also a thread here in ~news that's more focused on articles and events.

This will be a noisy thread. Please use the ignore feature if you do not want to see it in your feed.

Watch on YouTube
Other viewing options
Debate starts ~90 minutes from the time of this posting.

Info from The Washington Post:

Location: The University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

Moderator: Susan Page, Washington bureau chief, USA Today

Details: The debate will be 90 minutes long and have no commercial breaks. It will be divided into nine segments of 10 minutes each that the moderator gets to choose.

Reading HackerNews and saw that some mentorship software launched: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20656223 and someone mentioned another software as a service that does mentorship: https://mentorloop.com/

Now I'm wondering where the mentorship for leftists and leftist organizing is.

And I'm wondering if anyone else feels like most of the good ideas that leftists have slowly trickle into businesses but in ways that can be controlled by executives/managers. Their "features" include these slogans:

Tools to Turn Human Resources into Superheroes

Don't let employees slip through the cracks
Stay on top of hundreds to thousands of mentoring interactions in a way that still feels personal. Check in on employee relationships, give them the right nudges they need.

What's your take? Is there a need for more mentorship and peer to peer training/collaboration amongst anarchists and communists? Is that realistic? Or is this something that we just need to be on the defense against and form our own networks outside these systems of control?

good morning, tildes--this is not a test. we are 482 days and dropping away from possibly the biggest election day in recent american history. no opinion pieces or longform this week; this week was pretty quiet, as was true of last week. a few polls also dropped, and they are included here.

the usual note: common sense should be able to generally dictate what does and does not get posted in this thread. if it's big news or feels like big news, probably make it its own post instead of lobbing it in here. like the other weekly threads, this one is going to try to focus on things that are still discussion worthy, but wouldn't necessarily make good/unique/non-repetitive discussion starters as their own posts.

Week 15

News

Polling

• from Emerson (B+ on 538): National poll

Biden: 30%
Sanders: 15%
Warren: 15%
Harris: 15%
Buttigieg: 5%
All others below 5%.

• from Morning Consult (B- on 538): National poll

Biden: 31%
Sanders: 19%
Harris: 14%
Warren: 13%
Buttigieg: 6%
All others below 5%

General Stuff

• from CBS News: 2020 Democratic presidential candidates reveal second quarter fundraising efforts. we begin this week with the fundraising news, as the second quarter ended at the end of last month. candidates are not obligated to report their numbers until july 15, but many candidates (particularly those with good numbers) like to report early. the current leaderboard, as of this morning:

Buttigieg: 24.8 million
Sanders: 24 million (18 million fundraised, 6 million transferred)
Biden: 21.5 million
Warren: 19.1 million
Harris: 12 million
Bennet: 3.5 million (2.8 million fundraised, 700k transferred)
Bullock: 2 million
Hickenlooper: 1 million
Swalwell (dropped out): 850k

• from the Atlantic: The Most Critical Argument Democrats Will Have in 2020. healthcare is again going to loom pretty heavily over this race, consistently being one of the top issues for americans. the healthcare debate is part of what led to the democratic wave in the 2018 elections and, if republicans don't get better messaging in short order, is probably going to be one of the many things which leads to trump losing re-election in 2020. of course, what the democratic plan for healthcare looks like to the eventual nominee isn't set in stone either; most of the frontrunners define their plan as some form of medicare for all and would get rid of private insurance, most of the perennial 1%ers want something less "socialisty". given that the party is to the left of where it used to be and that biden is the only person really standing on the status quo who has a chance at winning at this point, i'd bet on M4A winning out ultimately.
• from the Atlantic: The Long-Shot Candidacy Conundrum. one of the candidates in this piece has already dropped out (swalwell), but the weird slate of swalwell, seth moulton, and tim ryan as candidates in the presidential race is still interesting because they really have few if any compelling reasons to be running and most people have no idea why they're running at all. ryan perhaps has the best case: ohio, likely to lose a congressional district in 2020, will possibly redistrict him out and leave him having to run in a less friendly district; there are no such excuses for swalwell (now dropped out and committed to his house seat) or moulton (in a safe seat but almost certainly limited in his ability to climb the political rungs by his anti-pelosi posturing). nonetheless, running is almost certain to land them all more political capital or better positions than the ones they currently have, which makes the presidency pretty alluring even if they come nowhere near it.

Elizabeth Warren

• from the Guardian: 105 town halls and 35,000 selfies: how Warren has shaken up the 2020 race. warren's strategy which early on in the race seemed to be leading her down a road to inevitable failure has turned around quite significantly in the past few months, as this article by the guardian explores. in practice, this piece on warren's strategy is also a candidate profile, talking mostly about warren's policy focus and her eventual aims to save capitalism from itself.
• from POLITICO: Elizabeth Warren shuns conventional wisdom for a new kind of campaign. warren's campaign is also crafting a new path by eschewing the standard model of campaigns where you just hire a shit ton of consultants who advise you on everything. warren's campaign has no consultants, no in-house pollster, plans to do its ad-making in-house, and has an extensive payroll of staffers, all of which is funded by the idea that her fundraising will continue as it has this quarter (19.1 million). this model has no guarantees of working, since it is entirely underpinned by warren continuing to raise absurd amounts of money, but if it manages to stay afloat, it could be quite formidable and serve as a future model for campaigns.
• from CBS News: Elizabeth Warren proposes executive orders to address race and gender pay gap. warren has some policy that she intends to push through with executive orders on the race pay gap and the gender pay gap. per CBS: "...companies and contractors with historically poor records on diversity and equality [would be] den[ied] contracts with the federal government." also a part of this plan:

To address the underrepresentation of women of color in leadership in the federal workforce, Warren says she would issue an order to recruit from historically black colleges and other minority-serving institutions; establish paid fellowships for federal jobs for minority and low-income applicants, including formerly incarcerated people; and require federal agencies to incorporate diversity into their strategic plans and mentorship efforts.

• from Jacobin: Elizabeth Warren’s Next Step on Medicare for All. warren embraced medicare for all at the debates, which was not especially surprising; however, it remains to be seen how much warren makes talking about it a focus of her campaign. warren has been pretty silent on healthcare issues despite having polices on significantly more esoteric issues and her website still lacks a healthcare page as of now. jacobin makes the case here that warren would be smart, if she cares about medicare for all genuinely, to defend it at every opportunity and sell it to the american public, lest it be rendered unpassable in the future.

Kamala Harris

• from CBS News: Harris proposes 100 billion plan to increase minority homeownership. kamala harris has some new policy aimed at promoting minority house ownership. CBS reports that the plan "...calls for 100 billion Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grant to provide homeowners or homebuyers who rent or live in historically red-lining communities, where minority home and business owners were largely blocked from accessing capital for investment, up to a $25,000 down payment in assistance and closing costs." there are some other fairly esoteric qualifications involved here, but i won't quote those because they're mildly confusing and don't necessarily contribute to an understanding of the policy.
• from VICE: Iowa Is Getting Serious About Kamala Harris. unsurprisingly, harris's meteoric rise following the first set of debates continues. harris and biden both swung through iowa over the fourth of july and harris was immediately greeted to significantly more reception than she presumably would have gotten prior to the the debates. biden remains the slight frontrunner, of course, but despite harris prioritizing the more diverse early states of south carolina and nevada in her electoral strategy, she increasingly looks competitive in iowa.

Everybody Else

• from Jacobin: Bernie Is the Best Candidate on Palestine. jacobin makes the case for sanders being the best candidate on palestinian issues. this is relatively straightforward; sanders is probably the only candidate in the race currently who has consistently pushed for palestinian issues and really his only contemporary with a comparable record is warren, who used to be staunchly pro-israel before gradually moderating on the issue. sanders still has many rough spots around the edges when it comes to palestinians, namely the fact that he's anti-BDS (but against banning of the movement), but there are no perfect candidates.
• from Jacobin: We Don’t Need Pete Buttigieg’s National Service Program. jacobin is also unsparing in its criticism of buttigieg's national service program which is, admittedly, pretty silly in its justification. in the article's words:

But more to the point, the basic diagnosis behind Buttigieg’s proposal (and others like it) is simply incorrect. True enough, few would probably challenge the suggestion that America is a deeply fragmented and polarized society. Revealingly, though, Buttigieg thinks the causes are spiritual and cultural rather than material and political: people have different identities, backgrounds, income levels, religious beliefs, and party affiliations, with these differences being hardened by epistemological bubbles online; ergo, a divided country that might become more unified if people were brought together in common cause.

It’s a tidy narrative, and one that conveniently sidesteps America’s maldistribution of wealth, its general dearth of quality public programs and services, and the numerous ways these injustices and others contribute to a coarsening of its social fabric.

• from CBS News: Tulsi Gabbard says Kamala Harris hatched "political ploy" to "smear" Joe Biden on race. y'all remember tulsi? she's still around, and she's making headlines for the wrong reasons yet again. for some reason, she's decided to die on the hill of kamala harris smearing biden on race issues, saying harris was "leveling this accusation that Joe Biden is a racist — when he's clearly not — as a way to try to smear him." this is interesting: harris not only never said that biden was a racist, but in fact immediately prefaced her comments with "I do not believe you are a racist"; i suppose tulsi is trying to argue that harris was lying or something similar here. either way, it's a bizarre line of attack that doesn't really make a lot of sense, not least because gabbard has literally nothing to do with the whole situation.
• from CNN: 2020 Democrats Klobuchar and Inslee unveil education plans ahead of summit. jay inslee and amy klobuchar meanwhile unveiled some education plans. here are the highlights:

klobuchar:

• would end the Trump administration's push for a school choice tax credit
• proposes a federal-state partnership program under which states would tackle education funding equity and recommend how school services can better meet the needs of working parents

inslee:

• will end the diversion of federal funds to private charter schools
• would provide universal preschool, double funding for magnet schools and fully fund the federal Title I program for schools that serve low-income areas
• promises to help states fund pay increases for educators, providing student loan forgiveness for educators and protecting teacher pensions
• supports giving federal funds to districts that switch to zero-emission buses and investing in climate change education and STEM programs at K-12 schools and historically black colleges and universities

both:

• promise to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and to provide protections for the LGBTQ community
• want to ban the use of federal funds to arm teachers or for firearms training

• from NBC News: Swalwell ends presidential campaign less than two weeks after first debate. eric swalwell, one percenter extraordinaire and man whose name is impossible to spell correctly on the first try, is hanging up his presidential campaign after lackluster polling and fundraising. swalwell's most recognizable moment for people will probably be his tagline "pass the torch"; unfortunately, it does seem that he's passed the torch himself to candidates who can actually gain traction with the american public. swalwell remains a house representative, and will be seeking reelection in 2020.
• from Vox: “I call her a modern-day prophet”: Marianne Williamson’s followers want you to give her a chance. marianne williamson remains the media's token "wacky candidate", for which she receives occasional media attention including this article focused on the people who support her. broadly, her main demographic is wine moms, but williamson also has a number of younger supporters to her campaign and message. williamson supporters are, unsurprisingly, not "williamson or bust" types: just as other candidates's supporters, they're more than happy to get behind other people and the eventual nominee, whether that's marianne or not. williamson's supporters will probably remain behind her for the duration of her campaign, though.

anyways, feel free to as always contribute other interesting articles you stumble across, or comment on some of the ones up there. see also: Why America is Ignoring Kirsten Gillibrand, Warren Rising: Massachusetts Progressive Announces $19 Million Fundraising Haul, Any Democrat Who Wants to Be President Should Reject War with Iran, Not Hide Behind Process Criticisms

Someone posted an article on a subreddit I frequent. It was an extremely long and rambling hit piece against antifacism, littered with long academic words, written for a completely fake Sociology college in London. While checking the source's reputability, I found out that it's part of what is known as the Neoreactionary movement.

Here's an article about it: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/behind-the-internets-dark-anti-democracy-movement/516243/

Here's a more "fun" write-up from RationalWiki: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neoreactionary_movement

It's the most bizarre thing. They are basically a pseudointellectual alt-right who quite literally advocate for a monarchy. They are very secretive of their identities and write contrived "theses" under pen names (which, strangely enough, seem to be stolen from actual published academics both living and dead). They think they are a secret society attempting to overthrow existing governments, but in reality they are little more than a collection of fanfic authors.

Has anyone else come into contact with any of them? I am particularly interested if any of our Reddit moderators have anything to say.

Government agencies around the world continue to run a dragnet on a large amount of communications, most of which is sent under the expectation of having a private conversation and yet the vast majority of the public seems apathetic to the issue. Why is this? Is it because of an underlying cynicism and belief that you can’t do anything to stop them? Is it because you don’t care and are using the “I have nothing to hide” argument? Do you think that it is too much work to protect yourself? I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I hope that we can at least talk about it and maybe I can even convince you to care if you’re willing to hear me out.

First, lets take a look at what these agencies actually do. There are many to pick from such as the CIA, FBI, MI6, MI5, the NSA, GCHQ, and FSB just to name a few. Their goals are pretty much the same as far as intrusive espionage goes. They all want to gather as much data as possible in hopes of finding political dissenters and protest groups, information on powerful leaders from other governments (usually with a strong potential for blackmail) and terrorists (although they rarely ever find them). Like many tyrannical practices before them, it is done under the guise of national security. This is because people are usually willing to sacrifice their freedoms for more (perceived) security. It is important to note that these agencies do not solely operate domestically. They are global threats and their reach extends far further than you may think. Just because you live in the EU does not mean you are safe from their reach.

Does it sound like I’m exaggerating here? It can’t be that bad can it?

Well, lets look at the facts. We don’t know that much about these agencies but what we do know is absolutely terrifying. Whistleblowers like Edward Snowden have shown us that their technology is being used for far more than just hunting terrorists. In fact, the NSA and GCHQ have essentially been running a dragnet on the entire world. Here is an article on the GCHQ showing how they hacked the cell phones of foreign politicians attending the G20 summit in 2009. They did not discriminate, they simply tapped everybody so they could read their texts and listen in on their calls to see whats going on. Here is a similar story where the NSA collected phone calls of Verizon subscribers, only this time they weren’t looking at politicans and suspects, they were either spying on you or people like you. The more recent Vault 7 and 8 leaks showed that the CIA was engaging in similar practices such as developing tools to send information from Smart TVs. Using a code that was written and gifted to the CIA by the UK’s MI5. Even the FBI, a domestic federal police agency has been given the go ahead to hack any computer in the world. Here is some evidence of when they hacked over 8,000 computers in 120 countries using only one warrant (given by a US judge which is NOT valid in any other part of the world) during a child pornography investigation.

But they’re targeting criminals right? I have nothing to be worried about.

First of all, that is the same rhetoric being used by the Chinese Government as they continue to develop facial recognition technology (currently being used to take pictures of jaywalkers and post them on billboards), their social credit system and mandatory surveillance apps on the phones of their citizens. All in effort of building a surveillance state.

This has also not been the case historically. The two biggest enemies of the FBI in the 1960s was the Civil Rights movement and the Anti-War movement. The former article touches on the wiretaps placed on Martin Luther King Jr by the FBI, but its also important to note that they also sent him a death threat as well. The latter link is about the program that targeted both groups. Some modern day examples include the FBI’s survellance of PETA and Greenpeace as well as the NSA and GCHQ’s probe into humanitarian groups such as UNICEF. I also encourage you to read this post written by a redditor about what it is like to live in a surveillance state.

Ever since 9/11, the motto of US intelligence agencies and many others around the world who feared the same threats was “never again”. Never again would they let an atrocity like 9/11 take place. They would do whatever it took to prevent another disaster from happening and so they introduced the PATRIOT act in congress. This 2,000 page act appeared less than a month after the attacks, and was passed with an overwhelming amount of support. As Michael Moore showed in his mockumentary film Fahrenheit 9/11, a member of congress has openly admitted to not having read the bill as well as many of his colleagues. Concerning parts of this act can be found in here.

Now lets take a quick look at what happened in 2002. DARPA created a division of US government called the Information Awareness Office, now if that sounds Orwellian than just take one look at their logo. One year later in 2003 this organization started the Total Information Awareness Program which was described as a "Manhattan Project for Counter-Terrorism". The scope of this program was massive for the time and Senator Ron Wyden called it "biggest surveillance program in the history of the United States”. Sounds pretty creepy right? Yea, the American public thought so too, so DARPA responded in a brilliant stroke of genius to rename the program to Terrorism Information Awareness and suddenly nobody cared about being watched.

Okay, but I’m fine with them spying on me as long it helps them to thwart terror attacks.

Have you seen the news lately? The terror attacks that these practices are supposed to prevent still occur. There has yet to be one documented attack that has been prevented by any of these programs and I will prove to you why. During Edward Snowden’s tenure at the NSA, the Boston Marathon bombings happened.

Here we are in 2013 and the second biggest terror attack since 9/11 has occurred. Snowden watched the events unfold on the news while sitting in the NSA’s break room. He made a remark to his colleagues saying that he would bet anything that we already knew about the bombers, and that they had slipped through the cracks with nothing that could be done to stop them. Turns out he was right Russia had warned both the FBI and the CIA about the older brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev but when the FBI investigated they found nothing. As Snowden so eloquently put it, “when you collect everything, you understand nothing”. Not only are these practices morally wrong, they are also ineffective.

One year later in 2014, Snowden decided to leak everything. He objected to the American and British government’s warrantless surveillance and decided that the public had a right to know what was happening. Among the numerous startling documents, he revealed a program called XKEYSCORE. This program works as a sort of search engine for intelligence agencies. Analysts with access to the system will search for keywords like BOMB and PRESIDENT or DONALD TRUMP. It will then give them a list of unsecured text messages, emails, social media posts and so on. In fact just by writing this, I will likely show up among one of these searches.

Okay, so if they are targeting everybody in the name of safety and they aren’t effective at keeping everybody safe, then why the hell are they still doing it?!

One word: power. Just imagine the things you could do if you had access to everyone’s texts, emails, Facebook posts, bank records, as well as the legal and technical means to gain root access to any of the billions of devices in the world. Sounds pretty impressive right? Unfortunately for us, it all comes at our expense and without taking the proper steps, our lives are not private in the eyes of the government. After all, you wouldn't let a stranger go through your phone, so why would you let a government?

I hope this information has been helpful to those of you who are either learning about this for the first time or getting a reminder on the extent of these invasive practices. I hope that you will reconsider the repercussions of these practices and maybe take steps to protect yourself. If there is any interest then I will post a part 2 later with things you can do to minimize this data collection. Its not as hard as you might think!

For those of you who are still not convinced that governments are a threat to your personal privacy, please drop a comment below so we can get a discussion going.

By the way, anyone who is interested in their privacy is likely under heightened surveillance due to interests in anonymity and security software.

Recent news has made it plain that President Trump intends on going through with his much discussed plan of implementing tariffs on many sources of steel and aluminum imports to the US. This seem as good a time as any to ask a question that begs for evidence: Are trade wars good, and who benefits?

There is good reporting out there that analyzes the likely impact of this particular steel tariff, so feel free to find it and use it in your own argument (there are figures the administration has produced and figures that other studies have produced using the same source material). There are also plenty of other tariffs out there throughout history that have been studied and discussed. Because these sources can sometimes conflict, please be aware that your choice of what sources to use may need to be justified.