If you believe these mass protests are purely organic I've got a bridge to sell you.

"Majority of Americans support mass deportations" (CBS). — Leontiskos

Out of all the proposals, as with tariffs, it's popular, but the least popular out of the other options. Polls often also show a bigger support for a pathway to citizenship according to this Pew poll for instance. Trump has no interest in that.

Trump's love of tariffs is idiosyncratic from all political angles, true. But because of that it is not polarizing in any partisan manner. — Leontiskos

Not really. There's still a partisan split on it but apart from that yes it's a pretty controversial proposal, and I've even found his own supporters expressing concerns about it. Their answer is usually that it's one of those non-promises that he says he's gonna do but not really (despite doing it in his first term), somehow to be distinguished from those promises that they like that he will 100% do without question.

RFK and Gabbard are former Democrats, to name two within his administration. — Leontiskos

I mean RFK is his own case on things like healthcare and vaccines, which is apparently the one thing he's gonna have influence on in a Trump administration. Calling that "moderating" is a bit of a stretch to say the least...

This seems backwards to me. Trump's public persona was a liability in this election, not a boon. The Democrat platform was bad enough to strongly neutralize that liability. I am amazed at how completely it was neutralized. — Leontiskos

I can only speak to my own personal experience, but when I hear people say they "liked Trump's policies" they usually refer to how they felt about the state of the economy 4 years ago and they think Trump being in office will bring that back. They never really go into specifics about his actual policies even when I persistently press them. They think he will bring down prices but I bet they won't be able to tell you how he would do it because Trump himself is unable to tell you how he would it when he's asked. His actual stated policies include the tariffs and mass deportations I mentioned, tax cuts, and harassing the Fed to cut interest rates again, all inflationary BTW.

It's not policy proposals but rather nostalgia and in this election the latter took precedence over the former. Very little in this election was really about both candidate's actual plans, making meaningless stunts like Trump working at McDonalds the only other thing on voter's minds when they go to the voting booths. Say what you want about his personality, but he is a funny and charismatic guy, and people like Harris are not and when the latter refuses to go into details about what she believes in, and says she'll just continue Biden's legacy, then voters decided accordingly.

So what needs to change if "the platform isn't the problem"? A more impressive candidate and a focus on the policy proposals? I am not sure what golden policy proposals the Democrats are supposed to have in their back pocket. — Leontiskos

Messaging means alot which goes back to what I said about Trump being a great salesman and the Democrats being lousy at it. Trump is able to latch on to people's discontent in 2016 and this year about how bad everything is, even if he offered little in the way of solutions in the latter. Harris offered nothing.

Of course we shouldn't discount the self-imposed disadvantages the Dems had too going into this election. Fact is, we're analyzing an election loss where the Democrat ran a 3 month presidential campaign after taking over their 80 year old incumbent who was already incredibly unpopular during a time where people felt like the current economy wasn't so great.

Perhaps the reason for the election results are as simple as running a half-baked candidate in a year where the incumbent party was unpopular, especially given how widespread the shifts to the right are. As much as people like to make personal abandonment stories about certain demographics feeling left out it may be more a case of "inflation bad and Trump fix inflation" that affected and moved people this time around. Both could be easily fixed come 2028 if Trump ends up messing something up and the Democrats actually run a proper primary next time.

I risk a reply out of annoyance. But it's best not to waste time with people who believe this

Not economically no. Now, or as of the removal of Roe, not even socially. If they manage to get Roe back in, then we can speak about the Democrats being left on world standards. — Manuel

Who cares about your "world standards" (which conveniently and arrogantly exclude most of the world)? The point you were responding to had to do with the U.S. electorate's view of a DNC which moves left. You responded with a non-sequitur about European standards.

- Fair points on the whole. :up:

I explicitly referred to developed nations. I don't think it makes much sense to compare Germany to Ecuador. You can do so if you want to, but it would be better to compare Germany to France or to Japan.

If you want to compare the US to other countries, then it is most sensible to do so with a Western European countries or Canada. On economic and social issues, the democratic part is to the right of every developed country, so the Democratic party could not run with the platform they have and call themselves "the left".

That's just a fact.

If Roe got re-introduced as law, then you can argue, with some reason that the US is to the left of other countries on social issues.

That's up to people's consideration as to what counts as left or not.

That's my arrogant view.

The point you were responding to had to do with the U.S. electorate's view of a DNC which moves left. You responded with a non-sequitur about European standards. — Leontiskos

If Roe got re-introduced as law, then you can argue, with some reason that the US is to the left of other countries on social issues. — Manuel

There are only 13 states that have banned abortion. There are 8 states that have no restrictions at all. The rest are about par with European countries, so I guess you could say the US is mostly socially progressive, with a touch of hyper-progressive, and a bit of retrograde.

If you believe these mass protests are purely organic I've got a bridge to sell you. — BitconnectCarlos

Like I said— probably Chinese communists.

This is hilarious.

True, but before no states had abortion bans. It's fine for individual states to get that right, for sure. Sucks bad for those women who can't do much in those 13 states.

If not for the federal ban, then as you say, it is quite progressive in many social aspects, most notably and most importantly, freedom of speech.

That is one area in which the US clearly has the upper hand compared with most other countries. It's an impressive win vs. the state.

Let's hope Trump doesn't squash those freedoms.

I don’t see anything significantly changing— things will remain the same crappy situation for most people. There’s a lot of hysterics, but the most damaging and the most consistent will be continued tax cuts, deregulation, and climate denial. In other words, right back to a stupider and more vulgar neoliberalism.

Any chance of success went out the window in 2021, when the 3.5 trillion dollar Bernie-backed reconciliation bill was killed by Manchin and Sinema. That would have been very good for the country. Instead we got crumbs and some baby steps in climate policy. Not good enough, not impactful enough.

Any chance of success went out the window in 2021, when the 3.5 trillion dollar Bernie-backed reconciliation bill was killed by Manchin and Sinema. That would have been very good for the country. Instead we got crumbs and some baby steps in climate policy. Not good enough, not impactful enough. — Mikie

:up: :up:

Well, I mean if Trump just completely cuts most (if not all) climate regulation and accelerates oil extraction then it is most certain we will not reach 1.5 nor even 2c by 2030, essentially guaranteeing the end of civilization. Granted, this is somewhat medium-ish term, but that's big.

As for the rest, well, I hope you are right in this case. I shudder to think things will change to the significant worse. But your prediction is bad enough if it comes to fruition.

Interesting times indeed...

Well, I mean if Trump just completely cuts most (if not all) climate regulation and accelerates oil extraction then it is most certain we will not reach 1.5 nor even 2c by 2030, essentially guaranteeing the end of civilization. Granted, this is somewhat medium-ish term, but that's big. — Manuel

Well it will accelerate emissions, yes. It’ll send a poor message to the world, and will generally be taking us backwards in myriad ways when we’re already out of time and not doing enough domestically or globally. That’s gravely stupid. But that’s what an ignorant electorate just thrust into power for 4 years. I fully agree.

But your prediction is bad enough if it comes to fruition. — Manuel

Not much to figure out, it’s right there in what they say and what they’ve already done. So I think my prediction, if you call it that, is fairly certain yeah.

Well, I mean if Trump just completely cuts most (if not all) climate regulation and accelerates oil extraction then it is most certain we will not reach 1.5 nor even 2c by 2030, essentially guaranteeing the end of civilization. — Manuel

Nobody who's serious thought we'd reach 1.5C anyways even if we collectively got our act together. The 2030 goals are unrealistic too given how we like to flirt with electing climate denying idiots half the time. On the bright side, civilization won't end but we're gonna be way worse off than we would otherwise. The age of endless growth is gonna probably come to a halt at some point, one way or another.

Iran, Qatar, and others. Don't take my word it's what leaders in US intel say. Follow the money. Of course Iran has a hand in it.

Yeah because it can’t be that college kids don’t like genocide. The 60s protests were USSR too, etc. typical rationale for delusional apologists of genocide. But yeah, go with that. I go with the China boogyman myself.

True, the 1.5 goal was already surpassed this year, but the important issue is to avoid going much further beyond that.

Now it will be almost impossible to stop maybe even 2 degrees, and that's a disaster.

I mean, we don't know until we get to it (with 100% certainty anyways) but growing food will become much harder, a huge percentage of marine life will vanish, living in many parts of the world will become unfeasible.

That's pretty bad.

5.4 million killed in Congo. - Silence
500k killed by Assad in Syria. - Silence
500k killed in Sudan. - Silence
400k killed in Yemen. - Silence
~40k killed in Gaza - extreme outrage

Why is that, Mikie?

Silence — BitconnectCarlos

Nope.

But that aside, if you’re so dense that after 100s of pages on the Israeli thread you still don’t understand why there would be more outrage and protesting about Gaza than Congo or Sudan, I won’t even bother answering in any serious way. Instead, here’s the answer: antisemitism. It’s always been your answer, so I’ll play along.

Instead, here’s the answer: antisemitism. — Mikie

Yes, silence. Where are the protests against Assad? Or Yemen? Or Sudan? Americans don't care. No Jews, no news. Now if it was Jews killing those Arabs the college campuses would take notice.

No one cares when Muslims kill thousands of muslims, but a Jew kills a few Muslims? We lose our heads.

n? Americans don't care. No Jews, no news. — BitconnectCarlos

Yep, that’s it. Nailed it. Run along now.

Could be a nuclear war. — frank

I will never understand that level of destruction. What is the point of dropping nuclear attacks in a territory? Japan suffered the consequences, but they came back fast. After the end of WWII, every conflict should have been resolved diplomatically. We failed regarding this point. Europe is also guilty, absolutely. We just looked the other way, and our passivity is also reportable. I hope I am just overreacting, and the world will not look that bad for the next lustrum, but my expectations are low right now.

Hopefully any use will be limited. It would be nice if Iran would stop instigating conflict though.

No one cares when Muslims kill thousands of muslims, but a Jew kills a few Muslims? We lose our heads. — BitconnectCarlos

Nope. You lose your heads if the US is really involved in the fight. Conflicts were the US is absent simply don't exist to you. Those conflicts are like the trees in the forest that fall that nobody hears.

Was the US involved in the First and Second Congo War?

Not much, even if many African countries were.

Was the US involved in Yemen?

With a few drones, notably killing during the Obama years an under aged US citizen, because his father (another US citizen) had supported muslim extremists after a stint in an Egyptian prison. But otherwise, this was a Saudi debacle before the attacks on shipping.

Was the US involved in Syria?

With a puny force that withdrew. Anyway this wasn't a real commitment as Americans were too afraid to back anybody in Syria, because they're Muslims and hence possibly Muslim extremists. (As the minorities like Christians basically support the regime as they fear reprisals on them)

But good that we heard from you that 40 000 is a few according to you.

You know, I suppose the only silver lining here, quite literally (for me), is that I think Trump is right on Ukraine IF he is honest about it.

That view triggers the hell out of libs. But he's right about it, gotta say it.

Everything else (Israel included) will be much worse.

I mean if Trump just completely cuts most (if not all) climate regulation and accelerates oil extraction then it is most certain we will not reach 1.5 nor even 2c by 2030, essentially guaranteeing the end of civilization. Granted, this is somewhat medium-ish term, but that's big. — Manuel

But that's not all! His tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy are going to spell disaster for government debt, while expenditure czar Musk does to public services what he's already done to Twitter, albeit on an astronomically larger scale. So, co-inciding with climate catastrophe, economic apocalypse. A perfect storm. Once the euphoria of change is over, the awful reality will begin to dawn.

It should be evident very soon. The people saying I regret voting for Trump" will come put so quickly. It is so predictable and maddening.

Along with all else mentioned, yeah, we're fucked.

My eldest son lives and works in Wisconsin, where he moved ten years ago after marrying a girl from there. So I have two American grandchildren (dual citizens both). Her family is died-in-the-wool Democrat, albeit often highly disgruntled with their party. But he and I can barely speak about the politics. He's just accepted a new executive role in biotechnology. I hope to Christ the political situation doesn't turn out as badly as I know it probably will, for him and for everyone.

Another of those 'wisdom of hindsight' articles - a WaPo OP from March this year, saying the Dems really had better find a candidate other than Harris, and pronto. I think they needed a bigger personality - male (sorry to say), loud, opinionated, brash, telegenic, and anti-Trump. Although damned if I can think of one in Democrat ranks. But it's too late now, the horse has well and truly bolted.