thecopy
3 days ago
It all seems so surprisingly unnecessary. Angry geriatric man f*cks the world up for generations to come, then in a short bit he will die, and not have to live through the consequences.
mrtksn
3 days ago
It's the same with Putin. EU-Russia had a good working relationship where Russia sends oil&gas and EU sends Mercedes and Adidas and live happily. However this is not enough for the megalomaniacs at the top, this is boring they need to be conquerors they need their place in the history books be longer than a chapter.
Maybe going forward there must be safeguards against power accumulation. The checks and balances obviously didn't work, so something more potent is needed.
In Europe it took Putin, Erdogan and the others 20 years to come the place where Trump reached in less than a years, so US needs it much more acutely obviously.
BTW this is not only about protecting the society from their existence but also protect the society from their sudden disappearance. With such concentration of power, the power of the nation often dies with those people. If they survive long enough to transition power peacefully, the best they can do is to leave it to their son and their sons often turns out to inherit the brutalities without the skills.
thrance
3 days ago
Putin and Trump wouldn't be where they are without their respective oligarchical classes' supports. You can't have democracy when some private individuals are able to hold unto so much wealth and power, buying media and politicians, etc. This is what needs to be addressed if we don't want more Trumps and Putins.
4gotunameagain
2 days ago
If you look at old interviews of Putin and Lavrov, it is clear that they had been warning about NATO expansion and Ukraine for a long time.
On 12 June 2020, Ukraine joined NATO's enhanced opportunity partner interoperability program.
On 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine.
I think Putin is a dictator, but comparing Trump to Putin is simply clueless.
mopsi
a day ago
> If you look at old interviews of Putin
2008: "Crimea is not disputed territory of Ukraine, and the issues of Russian speakers are internal issues of Ukraine."
2013: "Russia certainly doesn't plan to send troops into Ukraine."
2014: "After the annexation of Crimea, Russia doesn't plan to further divide Ukraine."
2019: "It's nonsense that Russia plans to attack anyone in future."
2022: "Russia's Special Military Operation does not involve the occupation of Ukrainian territories."
2023: "The conflict in Ukraine is not a territorial conflict — we have plenty of own territories."
2024: "Anyone who wants Russia to give up CONQUERED TERRITORIES in Ukraine must understand that this is impossible."4gotunameagain
a day ago
Your comment contradicts nothing from my argument. Of course the rhetoric changed as the situation changed.
It is silly to think that the largest country of the world needed a couple of ukrainian villages.
Unfortunately - and I know that you will disagree - even if Putin was the one that invaded, I place the blame on Ukraine and NATO.
mopsi
19 hours ago
> Of course the rhetoric changed as the situation changed.
Even among Russians who can be considered serious experts, no one takes the "blame NATO" narrative seriously. It's an excuse. A pretext. Look up Hitler's speeches from early September 1939 and you will see similar rhetoric about Germany being surrounded by the Franco-British alliance, with Poland as its spearhead. The similarity is uncanny, because it follows a standard pattern of excuses used by aggressors: portraying themselves as threatened, framing their actions as defensive, and blaming external forces for the conflicts they themselves initiate.
4gotunameagain
19 hours ago
Again, your comment is full of emotionally fuelled words, and no substance or refutation of my points.
I am honestly sorry your country has been invaded (you seem to be Ukrainian). But I would much rather have peace at the cost of Ukrainian territory, than continuous escalation and geopolitical rifts, at the cost of Ukrainian lives and risking an even larger conflict in Europe.
It was a mistake to let Ukraine be courted by the west.
ViewTrick1002
3 days ago
Trump is the symptom, not the cause. The cause the US people.
panda-giddiness
3 days ago
No, the cause is structural. Even if one could identify the sources of rot (money in politics, an outdated electoral college, the collapse of our information environment, whatever), Congress would deadlock, the Courts would block any meaningful reform, and the President would be left trimming the blight while the rot festered underneath.
ViewTrick1002
3 days ago
Which leads to the people.
The only ones that could cause change needed to reform their representation in the political system is the people. The incumbents have no incentive to do it.
fc417fc802
3 days ago
I agree the cause is at least partially structural but I'd argue that congress deadlocking is generally an intentional feature not a bug. Meanwhile the courts on the whole seem quite reasonable to me. Disliking what the rules say should never turn into lambasting the ref for making calls consistent with those rules.
That said, it doesn't seem to me that reform has been meaningfully attempted yet. It isn't reasonable to blame the establishment for blocking a reform that never got organized to begin with.
Presumably if there were concrete proposals with broad popular support intended to fix lobbying, gerrymandering, first past the post, and the information environment in general then we should see them implemented at the state level here and there. But we don't.
mindslight
2 days ago
The idea that Congress deadlocking is somehow a feature is a relic of the Republican party's destructionist agenda of the past four decades. In reality, this dynamic is what caused so much power to accrue to federal agencies, which they then proceeded to bemoan and go to work tearing down as well. Their goals were kind of understandable when they represented US business interests, but it seems as of late they're under new foreign ownership.
fc417fc802
2 days ago
> a relic of the Republican party's destructionist agenda of the past four decades.
I believe it goes all the way back to the founding of the country. Gridlock was viewed as preferable to tyranny. Failure to arrive at a compromise is supposed to mean that no one gets to proceed.
Of course times change and cracks show up in the system.
mindslight
2 days ago
Maybe. As a libertarian I'm sympathetic to the concept. I would say that one of the huge founding assumptions which clearly no longer holds is that the federal government was meant to be a less-powerful mediator between states, with the individual states being more powerful. For example I'd imagine that the founders' solution to our current predicament would be individual states calling up their own sizeable militias to put down the lawless gangs (regardless of whether they were purportedly "authorized" by the federal government), only calling for federal government help if they desired it. Restoring order within a state shouldn't hinge upon Congress agreeing to do so, right? Of course the obvious inapplicability of that solution to the events of the Civil War demonstrates how we got to the point we're at. It looks like slavery is still on track to being the great stain that ultimately dooms us.
user
3 days ago
atoav
3 days ago
Yes and no. Because you can always go one level higher and ask:
Why are the US people the cause?
And then we will talk about structural issues, to do with social mobility, education, a dysfunctional journalistic landscape, a tribalization of the political landscape and so on. But of course it doesn't stop there. You can go one up:
Why did these underlying causes came to be?
The simple answer is that a certain loose conglomerate of polticians, billionaires and CEOs thought it would profit them (it did). You can pick one of the issues mentioned above and go deep on why it is in the bad shape it is today and the answer will always boil down to lobbying and money in politics.
This are the much more insightful reasons and you get there just by asking "but why?" two times like a yound child. Totally recommended.
ViewTrick1002
3 days ago
> will always boil down to lobbying and money in politics.
And here you take the easy way out. Just blame third parties. You should keep asking why to find the real cause.
My personal take, as someone who is European but has lived in the US, Texas metro areas specifically, is that first past the post elections sow division.
Choices are limited, political activity is neutered, and extremism builds until it finds an outlet through either of the two possible political choices. Taking over that side entirely.
Political systems needs vents for frustration, and the US system does not have that.
Which finally leads to the people.
The only ones that could cause change needed to reform their representation in the political system is the people.
atoav
3 days ago
> And here you take the easy way out. Just blame third parties.
(1) I did not say one needs to stop where I stopped and (2) I did not talk about how blame is distributed between those layers. Any view that only the root cause layers can be blamed is too simplistic, since you can always go one layer higher. In reality blame is much more complex and the layers are not clearly separable either, as they can have cyclic dependencies feeding into each other.
So in your example there is a design issue of a political system leading to an outcome, that produces a certain culture which makes it hard to change above mentioned political system. People are a part of that and it is true that if all people just were to know this and stand up for it that would be easily fixable. But in the same moment the people broadly are the way they are because of the systems they grew up in and if that system was different you wouldn't have the problem either.
So who is to blame? Depends on what you're after personally and whst you think an effective strategy for getting there is. I think getting rid of incentives that lead to negative political outcomes is a good thing and effective way to change society. Much more effective than begging people to think a certain way.
joe_mamba
3 days ago
>Political systems needs vents for frustration, and the US system does not have that.
Out of curiosity since you made this claim and said you're european, where are the EU vents of frustration that the US lacks?
Because I see it differently. Trump IS the frustration vent itself but people refuse to acknowledge this and look for something else to blame as if people shouldn't be allowed to use their vote for a crazy candidate as a vent of frustration, and the frustration vent should be a virtually inexistent token piece.
disgruntledphd2
3 days ago
> Out of curiosity since you made this claim and said you're european, where are the EU vents of frustration that the US lacks?
Proportional representation definitely helps here. You could look at the UK as a good counter-example, where the UKIP (a Brexit supporting party) got like 15% of the votes in the 2015 election, and no seats. Where people see that voting doesn't change anything, they'll look for some other way to effect change.
That being said, PR doesn't really appear to be working that well. I (personally) think that a lot of the issues relate to free flows of capital across the world, which leads businesses to be set up in areas of cheap labour, which makes people in developed countries angry and more likely to vote for anyone who'll promise to fix it (regardless of how insane their ideas are).
But it's complicated, monocausal explanations are typically deceptive.
joe_mamba
3 days ago
>Proportional representation definitely helps here.
With this logic doesn't the US have proportional representation as well? Didn't Trump win the popular vote and republicans the senate? The majority of voters won, end of story, and the ones who lost have another chance in 3 years to flip the board. Where exactly is the missing vent valve you were talking about?
>think that a lot of the issues relate to free flows of capital across the world, which leads businesses to be set up in areas of cheap labour, which makes people in developed countries angry and more likely to vote for anyone who'll promise to fix it
Well yeah that's the big issue, but nobody will win the elections by saying they are slaves of the capital class and doesn't matter who you vote for as they are powerless to change the crooked financial system that actually runs the world even if they win the elections since the finance systems globally connected and easily moves to the areas with most stability and tax benefits even if they are undemocratic.
fc417fc802
3 days ago
No. The US has a first past the post system that naturally forms two parties which in turn fuels further polarization. A rep runs in a district and it's winner take all. In theory (totally unrealistic in practice) you could have a single party win all the seats by achieving 51% in each individual election. The other 49% of voters (ie approximately half of the country) wouldn't receive a single representative.
Proportional representation has advantages but comes with its own complexities. However there are also other voting systems (such as ranked) that offer different tradeoffs independent of proportional representation. There are a lot of options out there and pretty much all of them would be more functional than what we use in the US.
About the only thing our system has going for it is that someone with an IQ well below 100 can still fully understand and even help audit it. (Or at least that used to be the case before electronic voting machines started appearing.)
disgruntledphd2
3 days ago
> Well yeah that's the big issue, but nobody will win the elections by saying they are slaves of the capital class and doesn't matter who you vote for as they are powerless to change the crooked financial system that actually runs the world even if they win the elections since the finance systems globally connected and easily moves to the areas with most stability and tax benefits even if they are undemocratic.
This is a political choice that has been made by governments, and continues to be supported by governments. It's definitely helpful for capital to make people believe that it's a law of nature but capital controls existed in the US until Nixon removed them, and much later in other places.
> Where exactly is the missing vent valve you were talking about?
So FPTP typically forces people into 2 parties because it's the only way to win enough power. So all the extremists (in terms of being far away from the centre of public opinion) basically have to join one of the two major parties and attempt to take them over, which is basically what Trump did with the Republicans and also what happened to the UK Conservative party post Brexit.
In a PR system, you'd end up with some compromise where the democratic socialists and the greens or MAGA or Libertarians held the balance of power in the house, and the Republicans and Democratic parties would need to negotiate with them on what they wanted to accomplish.
The benefit here would be that the voters of the smaller parties would get some of what they want, and the bigger parties would be forced to compromise with others rather than ruling all for the two years between mid-terms.
ViewTrick1002
3 days ago
Look at the right wing parties in Europe. They have a decade or two headstart on the MAGA movement. They are getting real power, but it is also moderated by what their coalition can accept.
We are also seeing for example France and the UK dealing with the same problem as the US due to its lackluster electoral system. Not allowing any vents.
The UK venting became Brexit, and then never went away and is today Reform.
The venting becomes a spectrum. One extreme is the US with large constituencies and first past the post voting. Where any vote made by the heart is discouraged.
A little bit less extreme is Australia. Still single member constituencies but you are encouraged to vote first with your heart, and then with your brain. Leading to representation heavily weighted towards the incumbents but some representation for the issues people truly care about.
Then you have proportional parliamentary systems. Here you decide what level of venting you need based on the percentage requirements to enter the parliament.
In Sweden it is 4% of national vote or 12% of a constituency. Single question parties generally need to broaden their spectrum but will get in if enough people care.
In the Netherlands it is 0.67% and you have a flourishing of parties but problems forming coalitions.
Personally I would say - do local constituencies so geographical areas are represented and pick a percentage which works for you.
Pick 10% and you focus on executive action. Pick 1% and you focus on the town hall of messages. But don't pick something where no vent is possible, like first past the post systems.
soco
2 days ago
Also sows division because it's _by definition_ "us vs them". Can't give anything else than enmity.
kzrdude
3 days ago
That is a very simplified take. Congress has been locking up for the past decades and is now unable to do useful regulation for the people. Much of it is due to how the funding of candidates works and the feedback loop effect it had on the political culture.
Trump is a symptom of this failure of political culture too.
smashah
3 days ago
...A political culture the public has voted for by allowing it to continue despite being bound by a constitutional duty to prevent the same disenfranchisement you've described.
America will be judged by its own demonic standards. The standard by which they justified their participation in the Holocaust of Gaza ("they voted for it").
smashah
3 days ago
Foreign and Billionaire demonic interest have disenfranchised the people long ago. Luckily the people have a second-amendment constitutional duty to re-secure the free state. It's clear America is no longer a free state. One cannot be free in a panopticon.
ViewTrick1002
3 days ago
It is time to stop blaming third parties. The truth is that congress is able to rein in Trump any second they want.
The reason they don't is that they know that they will get primaried and lose their seat for someone more aligned with the people and Trump.
disgruntledphd2
3 days ago
> they will get primaried
Primaries are kinda insane though. It basically means that a small minority of voters control who actually is allowed to stand for election under a party banner. Like, I understand how it ended up this way, but it's having really bad consequences.
That being said, if you could fix gerrymandering, a lot of the issues with primaries go away, as there would be more competition in the actual election which would dis-incentivise proposing extremist candidates in the primary.
littlestymaar
3 days ago
Even if Trump died today, Vance would continue his nefarious job.
sschueller
3 days ago
Exactly, just see the gal of garbage spewed by for example Scott Bessent at the WEF yesterday. The arrogance is outright insulting.
ncruces
3 days ago
“The size of Denmark’s investment in US Treasury bonds, like Denmark itself, is irrelevant.”
So an ally is irrelevant.
People wonder why the EU is built the way it is, and behaves the way it does. It's precisely to avoid this. To bind Germany and France together and avoid the big powers treating smaller neighbors like this. I guess that's bad to some people.
This is not a trade dispute over something signed last summer. It's a lot bigger than that.
sschueller
3 days ago
Switzerland is the worlds 3rd. largest holder of foreign exchange reserves. Thinking that small countries are irrelevant is futile.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_foreign_e...
yread
3 days ago
Or Norway. 5 million people. 2 trillion $ fund.
ImHereToVote
3 days ago
The U.S. can't really afford the status quo regardless who is in office.
sschueller
3 days ago
The U.S. needs changes in its constitution if it ever wants to go back to where it was and get the rest of the world to play along again.
The fact that the DoJ is not an independent institution unlike in almost every other western country makes it impossible to uphold the law if the white house doesn't want to. The only thing preventing a sitting president from going after his political enemies is a "gentleman's agreement" between administrations in the United States.
Stability it key and there isn't any as we can see clearly.
graemep
3 days ago
Vance seems to be very different. For all we know his real views are still these https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/15/jd-vance-donald-tru...
ndsipa_pomu
3 days ago
And yet his allegiance is completely up for sale.
He will do whatever he is told to do by the likes of Peter Thiel & co.
graemep
3 days ago
It looks like it at the moment. I wonder whether it would remain the same if he was president. He would need Thiel less, and not need Trump at all.
thrance
3 days ago
Vance has none of whatever Trump used to entrance 50% of Americans. MAGA dies with Trump, although I'm sure something else will come end replace it, if the issues that led to it aren't fixed.
honzabe
3 days ago
That reminds me of an article Noah Smith wrote about this: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/after-trump-the-deluge
He believes they will switch from charisma to ideology to keep the movement going.
rsynnott
3 days ago
Do you really think the threat that “JD Vance might be unhappy with you, and would direct the literally tens of people who like him to vote against you in primaries” would keep the Republicans in congress under control? Trump’s whole thing is his weaponisation of a cult of personality. Vance doesn’t have a personality at all (and I’d assume he was chosen for that reason, Trump not wanting the competition.) He’d be dead in the water from day one.
thecopy
3 days ago
Vance doesn't have the cult of personality
Y-bar
3 days ago
Let's not underestimate the ability of Fox News, Peter Thiel, Turning Point USA, Newsmax, Truth Social, and Elon Musk's Twitter to manufacture a enough of a cult.
Recent example is how they are using Erika Kirk (she appears to play along quite well) https://www.foxnews.com/politics/vance-trump-jrs-plans-bolst...
pjc50
3 days ago
I guess we find out how much of this is cult of personality and how much is just the propaganda system.
user
3 days ago
nosianu
3 days ago
You will have to translate this German language article, but this is NOT Trump. It is about the tech billionaires supporting this quest, and why they want it.
https://orf.at/stories/3417584/
I doubt Trump would have ever even thought of Greenland on his own. I think was told about it, and the narrative planted in his head deliberately.
This focus on "Trump" in Internet comments and media irks me to no end. Trump is not a failure and not the wrong person in the job - he is ideal for those behind him. The money does not like public attention.
captn3m0
3 days ago
We even know which billionaire planted the Greenland idea: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/15/ronald-laude...
austin-cheney
3 days ago
This gets me thinking that the US would benefit so much from trading its income tax for an aggressive estate tax. The US would have far greater tax revenue, the standard of living would dramatically increase for the average citizen, and idiots like these two would be powerless. Let influence be reserved for those who have built it.
raverbashing
3 days ago
But if you repeat the idea as your own so it becomes
(Yes the president can't tell Greenland from Iceland, but neither half of those "tech bros" who failed geography at school