So what's emerging on the right is a rejection of "conservatism" for some kind of postliberal or neo-reactionary worldview, which is far from settled because the Trump administration really doesn't provide a coherent direction for it and, being populist, tends to instead be trying to get its direction from it. — BenMcLean

Populism is surely not conservatism. Never has been. Populism is a tool of the radicals, for whom the "us" the good and "they" the evil fits nicely to the revolutionary goals. What the problem is that the populist will say clearly what is wrong in the society, but the real issue is what the populist offers to be the solution. Usually it's just a nightmare, but sounds to the ignorant a great idea. Or then he just does like Trump did: declare simply that you will solve it and say nothing else.

But it's interesting how America became divided by COVID, whereas nothing of the sort happened in my country. The inability for the US to come together is actually very alarming. Here it's different: when Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, both the opposition and the administration joined ranks and the strange event of administrations in both Sweden and Finland lead by leftist Social Democrats opted to join NATO, which earlier had been the view of only right wing parties. When the shit hit the fan, the politicians become team players, which is very nice to see. Otherwise it's the normal quarreling about taxes and legislation that any democracy is about.

Is that back when you said the FBI was going to collapse under his leadership? I’ll give you my answer in two more years. — NOS4A2

I think the FBI has already collapsed to something similar as ICE... but let's look at the things later, when history of this era is written.

As it usually goes, take the most tone deaf, stupid and annoying comment and portray it to be what either the left or right actually is planning to do. Never take the smartest comment from the side you are against. Partisan people will be confused just on what side you are on.

Yes, fascist scaremongering happens especially when a new right-wing party wins, yet that usually subdues when the actual government does the usual day-to-day governing (the good example of this was earlier mentioned Meloni administration in Italy). But it's alarming when the criticism becomes many times stronger and louder. Or then when people literally start to be afraid.

Which radicals? (genuine question, just not sure what you're aiming at). — AmadeusD

If AfD would get into power, I think many of them would want to do very radical changes. I presume they would be seen in Germany as right-wing radicals (or extremists) and other parties would not join them in an coalition government. This makes it a quite large leap for AfD not only to a get an electoral victory, but then form a government.

I knew it. Like clockwork, the spin has begun. — NOS4A2

Yep, you are here to defend Trump!

So @NOS4A2, are you as excited about Kash Patel as you were when he was made FBI director?

Also worth noting that to anyone who knows anything about Chomsky, his relationship with Epstein is a nothingburger. — Mikie

Again you missed my point. For Epstein it was splendid to have connections with intellectuals and academicians. Chomsky obviously thought that the Mr Epstein was a decent man.

That the Epstein scandal nearly bought down Keir Starmer when Trump says that he's puzzled why people are talking about Epstein shows just how the US has turned into a banana republic.

So let's take as an example how Norway is looking at the Epstein connection of the resigned ambassador, just to give an example of how democracies act on these issues:

The ministry announced Mona Juul’s resignation on Sunday evening, days after she was suspended as Norway’s ambassador to Jordan. That followed reports that Epstein left the children of Juul and her husband, Terje Rød-Larsen, $10 million in a will drawn up shortly before his death by suicide in a New York prison in 2019.

Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide said Juul’s decision was “correct and necessary.” Her contact with the convicted sex offender showed a “serious lapse in judgment,” he said, adding that “the case makes it difficult to restore the trust that the role requires.”

A ministry investigation into Juul’s knowledge of and contact with Epstein will continue, and Juul will continue discussions with the ministry “so that the matter can be clarified,” Eide said.

The ministry said it also launched a review of its funding of and contact with the International Peace Institute, a New York-based think tank, during the period when it was headed by Rød-Larsen. Eide said Rød-Larsen also had shown poor judgment regarding Epstein.

Rød-Larsen and Juul were among those involved in facilitating the landmark Oslo Accords aimed at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the 1990s.

Norway’s National Authority for Investigation and Prosecution of Economic and Environmental Crime, or Økokrim, said Monday that it decided last week to open an investigation of Juul and Rød-Larsen.

It said in a statement that Juul is suspected of gross corruption based on her position at the Foreign Ministry, and Rød-Larsen of aiding and abetting gross corruption. Investigators will look among other things into whether Juul received benefits in connection with her position. On Monday, they searched an apartment in Oslo’s Frogner district and the home of a witness.

Juul acknowledged in a statement to Norwegian news agency NTB last week that it had been “imprecise” to describe her contact with Epstein as minimal, but said that the contact originated in her husband’s relationship with Epstein and she had no independent social or professional relationship with him. She wrote that her contact with Epstein had been sporadic and private, not part of her official duties, but acknowledged that she should have been much more careful.

So Epstein left the children of this diplomat couple 10 million dollars and them being in contact with Epstein resulted in a prompt resignation and a police investigation. Would this have happened if Juul and Rød-Larsen were Americans and Republicans?

But there are plenty of examples of politicians willingly accepting and even encouraging replacement of native populations (as far as those terms go) with migrants. — AmadeusD

Like the US with it's native American population? Sure.

But nobody will try or has tried what the absurd replacement theory suggests: that the majority people in a nation state would be replaced. First of all, people well understand that having large immigration has been economically very beneficial to many countries. Without immigration, the US never would have become the economic powerhouse and Superpower it is today. And this whole rhetoric today seems to be from the past. What the populists never say is that Europe isn't as open as it was earlier to immigration. Good luck finding any party that would have literally an "open doors" policy.

2. I don't really see the issue with large-scale remigration if the population is in favour. If they aren't, they wont be voted in — AmadeusD

OK, how many people that voted for Trump wanted Greenland and Canada to be part of the US? I don't think any. So be prepared to get something totally different out of the hat when radicals come into power.

Anyway remigration isn't the likely issue why people will vote for AfD. Likely the "remigration" thing will be off the debate when elections come, only the other parties will talk about it. Simply because Germans aren't actually nazis. (Austrians are more nazis than Germans) because they have shed their "German" roots and become Austrian.)

This is unfortunately an issue that we never can know until the assholes are in power and show that either a) they are even worse assholes that we though or b) actually they weren't such assholes as people feared. Still, I don't like radicals, be they from the right or from the left. Usually they just create a huge mess.

?

Well Clinton was a womanizer, and Trump, hmm, when did he meet Epstein for the first time?

Remember when Trump walked in with Paula Jones and other women claiming that they were sexually harassed by Clinton? I mean these two sexual predators... But I guess for Trump it seemed a "smart" move to get the MAGA-cult all enthusiastic about taking down pedophile rings and attack sexual predators like Clinton.

There is a pretty nuanced conversation to be had about AfD for instnace, which is not adequately covered: nothing they've done, promote or have been shown to support is "Nazi" in nature. Being anti-immigration is not Nazi. Being anti-Islam is not Nazi. As i say, there's far, far, far more to it - its nuanced. But the idea that any restrictive policies are somehow fascist or Nazi is bizarre and speaks to that advice you gave.. . — AmadeusD

For me citizenship is very important. AFD thinks many Germans should not have their citizenship, especially those that have come from Muslim states. Any political party that attempts to take away citizenship of dual-citizens or questions those that have gotten already citizenship is quite sinister to me. It's totally different to change the future laws on getting citizenship.

Germany's domestic intelligence agency (BfV) has stated that the AfD operates on an "ethnicity- and ancestry-based" understanding of Germanness and differentiates between "Bio-Germans" and "passport-Germans". The agency noted that the AfD does not view German citizens with a migration background from predominantly Muslim countries as equal members of the German people.

AfD tries to paint itself like a libertarian movement of fresh thinking, but when you have people who believe in the replacement theories, you should be careful what you get.

Yes, populist movements can clamp down on their nazi white supremacist members, that indeed can happen. But then it can be the other way too that the moderates/libertarians are squashed. AfD has leaders that openly talk about a "large-scaled remigration project". So I think that is something that in Germany will obviously be linked to nazism. It's not the final solution, but still...

A good example of someone that was said to be a fascist, but seems not to be is Georgia Meloni. Italy under Meloni hasn't in my view turned fascist at all. (But if someone can inform otherwise, please enlighten me.)

Obviously, being in the files doesn't, in and of itself, mean there was untoward or criminal behaviour but good god. It almost makes you a right-wing conspiracy theorist. — AmadeusD

Yes, well, Philosophy Forum itself wanted to interview one Epstein contact, namely Noam Chomsky. (If I remember correctly, Chomsky declined the PF interview because of his ill health.) Knowing somebody like Chomsky and Hawking gives respectability. Epstein seem's to have been a man that carries out many kinds of favours. A mr fix-it, who fixes also other things than being just a pimp for billionaires.



Chomsky actually was one of the few that defended Epstein after his first sentence. Reason seems to be that Epstein had helped Chomsky:

Valeria Chomsky also clarified the basis for two financial transactions between Chomsky and Epstein. On one occasion, Epstein sent Noam Chomsky a $20,000 check as part of a linguistic challenge Chomsky developed, she said. She also said Epstein helped Noam recover $270,000. Epstein helped after Noam Chomsky discovered “inconsistencies in his retirement resources that threatened his economic independence and caused him great distress”.

Of course it's called "networking". What are friends for?

But from the Epstein case comes to mind another criminal who made it Big Circles: Bernie Madoff. Who Madoff scammed were also some royal families and Madoff was also "discreet", a somewhat shadowy figure yet reputable, the one time chairman of NASDAQ. And Madoff of course, simply turned himself in. With a bit of luck, he could have wiggled away like a Bitcoin-conartist.

What is obvious is how small these circles are. I remember that in 2016 VICE News, which btw. made outstanding coverage of the start of the Russian intervention in Ukraine in 2014, simply said that the Epstein-scandal wouldn't go anywhere, because the Clinton and Trump, hence both ruling parties, were embroiled in this issue.

Now as both are deep in this stuff, one perhaps alot deeper than the other, it's hilarious to see how the partisan commentators simply aren't able to face how both parties have sex-offender presidents.

Back to the Epstein-scandal.

Have people noticed just how international this has become?

Keir Starmer is having his share of the scandal with the British ambassador having been a close member of the Epstein-circle. (The ex-Prince is already yesterday's news.)



And Norway is having it's own royal scandal with Epstein!





What a wonderful world elite we have. But it's interesting to notice just how different countries handle the Epstein-case.

Of course, starting with the hero of the Q-anon movement who ought to have got rid of the pedophile rings in power: Donald Trump and his trusty sidekick and favorite of @NOS4A2, Kash Patel. :lol:

(Remember how things were going to be, MAGA?)

Of course the NFL does a half-time show in some dialect of Spanish, with everyone waving foreign flags. There is no better way to celebrate America’s 250th birthday and unite the country than an expression of woke globalism. Flyover football fans must be loving this one. — NOS4A2

“If you are seriously threatened by a performance that celebrates diversity and tolerance and love and joy, maybe America is not the right place for you.” — Questioner

Hmm... Well, our MAGA-enthusiast @NOS4A2 lives in Canada, so perhaps your right.

It makes no sense. The obvious strategic move is to decapitate Ukraine and install a puppet. — RogueAI

Exactly.

What you say was the most obvious objective. But some have this need to prove this is a "myth", that the real cause of Russia's attack was only a defensive move because of NATO enlargement. And once you've taken that stance that everything was because of the American military-industrial complex and the foreign policy blob, then this "critical" stance leaves you determined that Ukraine shouldn't be assisted and Trump should push Ukraine to surr... make peace with Russia.

Well, let's see how long there is a NATO, thanks to Trump.

@Mikie has stated that:

I told you what I believe the goals were— to create chaos in Ukraine and make a mess of things. So attacking Kiev makes sense— even if it wasn’t a success. — Mikie

So you make sense of that. I think that Putin's actual warplan was something else. Because obviously this isn't the outcome that Putin had in mind.

I told you what I believe the goals were— to create chaos in Ukraine and make a mess of things. — Mikie

Ok, here you have to really prove your point, because "creating chaos in Ukraine" doesn't sound at all as something any intelligent entity would make. That simply is nonsensical.

There has to be an defined outcome beneficial to Russia. No sane military commander would accept an objective: "Oh, let's just go there and create chaos and mess things up." I mean WTF?

The simple question is "and then what?" could be ask. So the objective could be to A) install a Pro-Russian friendly regime in place of the Zelensky administration and, what has already happened, that B) annex the territories you want from Ukraine. As I've stated over and over, both end Ukrainian independence and both option A) or B) are worthy things to defend from happening for the Ukrainians.

That Pro-Russian leader could have been Victor Medvedchuk, who is a close friend of Vladimir Putin. How close can be seen from the fact that after the Ukrainian SBU arrested him, he was handed over to Russia in a prisoner-of-war exchange.

(In an alternative history, he might have been the replacement to Zelenskyi)


(But not so, and now this guy lives in Russia)

Because Ukraine isn’t a monolith. The areas Putin wants are culturally and politically different from the others — and conquering Ukraine world entail ALL of them being under Russian control. That isn’t the case now, and wasn’t the case then. — Mikie

Mikie, Ukraine was part of Russia. What on earth are you blabbering about?

What you meant was: I take what Putin says seriously if it corresponds to what I want to believe. That’s not interesting to me. — Mikie

Your just living in your own estranged echo-chamber. Putin has annexed parts of Ukraine. He wants more territory that isn't in his control. And he has broken peace agreements earlier, remember the Minsk agreements?

But for you those all events that have taken place are "myths".

As if to correct that mistake, Trump posted the Obamas as monkeys, just to make it plain where they now stand — Questioner

Well, Trump was amazed to find out that Lincoln was a Republican. Who knew?

The MAGA-cult has nothing to do with conservatism or the values of the Republican party. It is a revolutionary movement.

I'm sure many of you are aware that there have been testimonies about Epstein and the elite that frequented his company that are so grotesque they defy belief. These testimonies go well beyond the abuse of adolescents and young women. — Tzeentch

I think that's one way of dealing with a scandal: make it so absolutely bizarre and outlandish and give the room to the most eccentric conspiracies, you make it simply too crackpot for people to hold interest. Just remember what happened to the 9/11 truthers.

Look at the number of troops used in February of 2022— do you think that was enough to conquer Ukraine? — Mikie

If Putin attacked, it simply means that he was confident to achieve his goals. That should be obvious even to you. If Ukraine hadn't been able to recover the territory from the Kremlin-backed insurgents in the Donbas, so to Putin likely Ukraine looked like a push over. The US had retreated from Afghanistan in a humiliating way, so no worry of them responding angrily. And Putin had bragged on a phone to a German leader that he would have his tanks in hours in Kyiv. Evidently he had bad intel, which can be seen from the fact that he fired many of the FSB personnel responsible of Ukraine after the attack had gone awry.

Besides, look at the number of the "little green men" used in seizing Crimea? How many troops did Russia loose then? None. And you are simply likely bothering to read to the end what I say: if the objective was to put up a puppet regime that would control rump state, that is simply trivial.

Given that reality, Russia will not accept anything less than what they’ve demanded for years. Much like Crimea, those eastern territories are now gone. — Mikie

Yes. Putin wants far more than it's troops have capture. Ukrainians are still willing to defend their country. What is wrong with that?

And please just answer this simple question: If Putin wants territory of Ukraine, why are you repeatedly insisting about Putin not wanting Ukraine? It's like if someone is assaulting someone and beating the crap out the person, you claim that the assaulter isn't going to kill the person and never wants to kill the person, becuase why would the assaulter want that.

If the US didn’t continually attempt to turn Ukraine into a western “bulwark,” this wouldn’t have happened. That’s just the fact of the case. — Mikie

This shows your utter lack of the actual events in Ukraine and the Russian-Ukrainian relations. Period.

You really think that taking Crimea was about "the US attempting to turn Ukraine into a western bulwark"?

So you can’t answer that question, got it. — Mikie

@Mikie, you quote Putin's speech when he attacked Ukraine. So he didn't say directly there in that that Russia will conquer Ukraine, that's your argument for Russia not wanting to have Ukraine if Ukraine defenses would have collapsed.

Seriously? Is that your logic?

That's the poorest counterargument that I've heard of. I mean seriously, not all politicians are so perfectly transparent as Trump is who really utters totally, without any filter, just what is in his mind.

I think that this debate is totally not worth wile. But you go to believe the MAGA cult on this one...

Do these words count, or should they be ignored? — Mikie

And how much do you know of the history of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republic's?

How they were created by the Russian Intelligence Services in the way to instill instability after the Crimean invasion?

It's an old trick, that the Soviet Union used even on us Finns too in 1939. They created "the rightful government" of Finland called Finnish Democratic Republic and Stalin stated that would negotiate on with this government. And when the Red Army would have conquered Finland, likely this Democratic Republic would have woved to join the Soviet Union, just like Donetsk and Lugansk joined Russia. In modern times Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia) and Moldavia (Transnistria) have gotten the same treatment.

When one country wants to annex even parts of another that it has earlier recognize the independence of, it should be obvious who the attacker and the perpetrator is.

Annexing parts of Ukraine and conquering Ukraine are different things. The latter makes no sense and hasn’t been attempted. Which is why you can give no evidence for it, verbally or militarily. — Mikie

This is absolute nonsense. And Putin's idea that Ukraine should be part of Russia is in his famous text that you can find following this link: Article by Vladimir Putin ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“

Seems you have no understanding what you are saying or what it means actually when your country is invaded by another country that is willing to annex your land. The Russian stop if they cannot advance anymore. If the rule is either a puppet regime backed by Russian troops or part of Russia is totally trivial, because the end outcome is the same.

Only the demented Trump says totally what is on his mind when he says he wants Greenland. Putin follows the procedures that Russian Intelligence Services have used for over 100 years.

The Russians have been clear about what they’ve wanted. You disregard that— fine. — Mikie

No, you disregard it. They annexed Crimea, they have annexed regions that in their entirety they don't even control. You disregard that - not fine. Putin has made quite clear his intentions, it started to be obvious four years ago before the attack happened. I then in my first post well before the attack happened stated that Putin had made very sinister remarks by questioning the sovereignty of Ukraine.

Russia has likewise been telegraphing this move in Ukraine for years. — Mikie

What move? What Putin and the Kremlin said before the attack was that Ukraine was an artificial state and it should naturally be part of Russia. That's what they have stated, which you either are ignorant about or willingly put aside. Because what Putin himself says and writes obviously seems not to matter to you. Well, what the leader of a state publicly declares does matter for me.

It doesn’t make sense to conquer Ukraine. First, they don’t have the military power to do so. — Mikie

@Mikie, read actually what Putin has said to be the reasons that Ukraine should be part of Russia prior to the attack. And for crying out loud, they attempting to conquer Ukraine. They thought they would have the power, because they thought that Ukraine wouldn't fight back as hard as it has. You simply cannot deny this reality.

It's not a matter of making sense. For you and me it doesn't make sense, but for Putin it makes perfect sense. And this isn't something debatable anymore as Russia has already fought the war for several years and already has annexed parts of Ukraine. So this talking about "it doesn't make sense" is totally irrelevant.

NATO expansion is now off the table. — Mikie

First of all, NATO enlarged because and only because of the Russian conventional attack on Ukraine February 2022. Would this Russian attack not have happened, Finland and Sweden would have never joined NATO.

Secondly, Ukraine's NATO membership was de facto off the table far earlier, just like EU membership of Turkey is way off. But NATO obviously wouldn't say it aloud.

Just the show of force on the Ukrainian border - the actual troop building for the conventional invasion - was enough to make Germany to promise that Ukraine would not become a member of NATO. Already Hungary and some other countries oppose Ukrainian membership, so it was off the table still before. NATO is an organization with rules for membership. Hence it's irrelevant if some President Bush makes promises to Ukraine, because president Bush or any president cannot decide that. And that's why Trump hates so much NATO (and many other US presidents have been disappointed in the organization).

To assume that Russia did this attack because it wanted to prevent NATO expansion is simply incorrect as it didn't have to attack Ukraine to stop this. And the real threat of NATO? Now there over 1000 kilometers of new NATO border that Russia has, hence the actual threat from NATO hasn't been the driving issue for the attack on Ukraine.

The myth of an evil Putin bent on conquering Eastern Europe and reestablishing the USSR is justification to absolve the US of their hand in this, and to continue the enormous amount of cash being thrown at this proxy war. — Mikie

Again, you seem not to understand at all how Russia works and what is it's agenda.

Ukraine it might attempt to conquer, but for Eastern Europe, the Baltics and Northern Europe, it want's it's sphere of influence enlarged. That's why it's primary strategic objectives are 1) the dissolution of the Trans-Atlantic alliance and 2) the dissulotion of the European Union. Without a strong NATO and EU, every European country is in great disadvantage towards Russia. But being part of NATO and EU, tiny states like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, basically having populations equvailent of Maine to Nebraska, can stand up against Russia.

So hopefully you can understand that Russians really mean it, when they say that Trump's policies are aligning with theirs when Trump is hostile towards the EU.

That’s exactly what matters. Notice that they’ve never said they wanted to conquer Ukraine and, unsurprisingly, never tried to. — Mikie

Sorry, but your living in your own delusional bubble. Perhaps start by looking what annexation means.

Here is Putin formally taking parts of Ukraine to Russia. Cause and effect should be clear.

Ooh ooh, I must have hit a nerve. — Punshhh

Yep, you seem to hit the nerve. :up:

Of course it was first the war against Georgia, the Russian army hadn't been yet reformed, but it managed because the Georgians were even more unprepared to fight the Russian 58th army. That the US didn't respond, but let Georgia on it's own just like Europe did basically emboldened Putin (who actually then was prime minister and Medvedev the President). There had been these interventions earlier in the disguise of "Russian peacekeepers" (even South Ossetia had them to defend the Pro-Kremlin insurgents), but this was the first conventional war with a neighbor state. After the war the West tried several times to "reset" the ties. This was basically what every US President has done since Clinton.



So you can call it sleeping on the wheel, but in reality it's simply hoping that Putin and Russia would be something that the US hoped it to be.

Myth?

You should make the case just why "Russians didn't want to conquer Ukraine", because you don't give any evidence of this, just state that it's a myth. And this is the unfortunate state of the discourse even in a philosophy forum. It's basically ludicrous argument when Russia has already declared that it has annexed parts of Ukraine and demands parts that it doesn't even control. But the actual words and actions of the Russian seem not to matter here.

On the case that Putin wanted a 10 day special military operation to take control of Ukraine:

- The easy success of the military seizure of Crimea and that Ukraine didn't fight at all back then.
- Actual speeches of Putin and all the speech of Ukraine being an "artificial" country.
- That there were Pro-Kremlin Ukrainian politicians then ready to be set up as leaders of the "denazified" Ukraine.
- The attempt on taking Hostomel airport, the follow in troops that were diverted because the airport weren't secured. Along with the other troop movements, it was obvious the Capital was the objective.
- Actual plans and ordered that were taken from killed or surrendered Russian troops and how to treat the Ukrainian.
- The Russification of the people in the occupied Ukrainian lands.

And when it didn't go to plan, then:

- The large firing of those FSB officers responsible for the Ukraine operation prior to the conventional attack. They were the people that were telling Putin that Ukraine would fold easily.

Just like in 2014. Back then the commander of the Ukrainian navy happily took a position of being a Russian admiral, which tells a lot of the situation. If it was so easy then, why would it now be difficult? Above all, the US just had betrayed another of it's allies like in Vietnam, so why not?

Nobody has to know Putin's soul. What he has said and what he has done is far enough. And the above were just examples why this should be totally obvious. It should be you who would be a consistent argument of just why everything is a myth. The annexations, the Russification of the Ukrainians, everything should be an obvious proof of what the intent is, starting from the fact the Putin see's the collapse of the Soviet Union as the biggest catastrophe of the 20th Century, something obviously he tries to get back.

What I'm only aware is the lurid story especially told by Mersheimer and Sachs that doesn't focus at all in the relationship that Russia has with Ukraine, but see everything just as an outcome of US policy and NATO enlargement. This is basically where the extreme navel-gazing that Americans do ends up in, where everything, absolutely everything, evolves around them without any other actors having objectives and agendas of their own. It's worrisome, because it creates a very delusional, fictional understanding of the world.

. Almost all of the reasons for that (which are quite numerous and varied), actually have nothing to do with the actual healthcare itself, rather in systems that surround it. Insurance company financial motivations, drug and equipment company profiteering, high malpractice concerns, cultural style, high self abuse rates, heroic attempts to address problems that go untreated elsewhere, an unhealthier population to treat are just a small list of reasons for high costs in the US. — LuckyR

The problem is that the system is designed for the insurance companies and in general for companies with financial motivations around the health care sector, not for the citizens themselves. This is the real fault here. Basically those that benefit from the current system hold dearly on it. Here comes to play the power of lobbying in the US Congress. Why? Isn't the Congress elected by the people? Wouldn't lowering health care costs be something that all Americans would agree on?

One thing can be that the Americans simply don't trust any improvements happening and just assume anything new promised will be worse than now. But I think that is a minor cause. I think here the fault is the entrenched party system, all that gerimandering and a polarized political discourse. The brazen way how Americans who support either party will overlook any criticism of their own party and focus on the errors and faults in the other party creates this tribalism. In my view two parties simply cannot represent the vast different opinions found in any country. It's just little shy from a single-party system. All this creates a fertile breeding ground for corruption, which basically is made legal.

The real problem is that Americans think this system would be changed by electing a President. Thanks to that, the world has gotten now Trump again.

If one believes Russia wanted to conquer Ukraine— which it never did. That’s a stupid myth perpetuated by the West, of course. — Mikie

Wrong. It isn't.

Putin attempted to take Kyiv and failed. The claim that Ukraine was to be "denazified" shows totally and very clearly the sinister objectives of Putin. If the Western part of Ukraine would have been a satellite state or annexed is quite irrelevant: the Ukrainians would have lost their freedom. Besides, if there's nothing to stop them, why not take everything then? The talk of Novorossiya was already there very public when Crimea was annexed. Imperialism never died in Russia.

A map from 2014:


Nope Mikie, this is the lie fed by the Kremlin extremely well to especially Americans. It is swallowed so well because it puts the US at center stage (everything happened because of the US actions). For people who think wars are fought as forever wars just to keep up the military expenditure, it surely might be confusing that Ukrainians do defend their country and are willing to die for it.

The US system has been irreconcilably broken for decades. The idea that Trump meaningfully changed anything is laughable. — Tzeentch

Broken, but working. Usually the Presidents became multimillionaires through writing books and giving speeches. They didn't become billionaires...when acting as president. Your argument is obviously that "this isn't anything new under the sun". But it actually is. When the corruption is in the hundreds of millions, when it's open and when nothing happens, that's the worrying issue.

Or you think it's ordinary, that the President of the US sues the IRS for 10 billion dollars for leaked tax information? You really think that it is totally ordinary, the typical thing? It's laughable if you think it is.

Ironically, the American problem with obesity is caused by low quality, ultra-processed crap. — frank

Would be interesting to know just why and how it has come to that.

since COVID, American healthcare providers have been coalescing into mega-entities. The advantage to that is that huge operations (spanning across half the country in some cases) can take control of drug costs. — frank

Better to have a single buyer. And why is there advertising for prescription medication?

As Trump was financially saved by his Russian connections and how close Trump and Epstein had been, it's no wonder that these guys were mingling with the Russians.

Hungary nor the US is authoritarian. That's just a pure cope from people who are mad that the democratic process didn't produce the outcome they wanted. — Tzeentch

Nope, it's actually the actions that the leaders do. Do the leaders stay in their described role in the system or start taking power which they shouldn't have? Is the judiciary independent? Is political plurality accepted or not?

Well, Trump's DOJ and it's actions are a case point. Just to give one example.

Outcomes are worse. That doesn't equate to "mediocre.". Why exactly outcomes are worse is an unanswered question. One hypothesis is that the American population is sicker for some reason. — frank

Well, it isn't yet equivalent to a Third World country's health care system. One hypothesis is that there simply isn't so much preventive health care treatment. Or how about food safety?

I think it just starts compiling up in a spectacular fashion. One huge reason is simply that any system that is created to make a profit will make it expensive. Health care of the population shouldn't be viewed as an opportunity to get profits, but a service that the government should provide for it's people.

1) Ukraine is losing and losing badly. — Mikie

If it would be losing badly, I guess Kharkov ought to have fallen and the battles should be fought on the streets of Kyiv and Odessa.

3) Better to negotiate a settlement than continue. — Mikie

This is the crazy talk kept up by the Trumpsters. Putin isn't negotiating. He feels he can win it all.

When it's the Ukrainians who are doing the fighting, it's up to them to decide when to surrender. The US has already twice in it's history just left the side that it helped totally on it's own. We Europeans shouldn't do that to Ukraine.

US healthcare cost is a poor example to illustrate any simple concept since the reasons for it's outlier status are multiple and complicated. — LuckyR

Everything is complicated, yet the simple fact is that US health care costs are the highest in the World whereas the healthcare system is mediocre and the US doesn't have universal health care, the only developed and industrialized country without it.

That in itself tells a lot.

Western countries are not authoritarian, they are democratic. — Tzeentch

Democracies can turn also authoritarian. Case point is what is happening (or attempted) in the US, but Hungary is another example.

The 'hidden authoritarianism' the OP is talking about is the corruption of the democratic system and not actual authoritarianism. — Tzeentch

Rule of the rich is called Plutocracy.

Best example of plutocracy is when how many votes you have is dependent on how much taxes you pay (and hence how much income you get). Then basically it's an integral part of the system.

Calling it 'authoritarianism' is a misdirection, shifting the blame to people like Trump (who was democratically elected), and an attempt at perpetuating the myth that democracies would somehow be immune to corruption if it weren't for figures such as him. — Tzeentch

Corruption is a complex issue. And indeed it doesn't need authoritarianism, but my point is authoritarianism goes many times hand in hand with corruption. Corruption can been indeed very institutionalized and it's origins are interesting. Do people in general obey the laws and pay their taxes? What is the attitude towards paying bribes? How common is it? If the police stops you, do you give him a bribe?

The truth is of course that western democracies have arrived at the terminal end stage of corruption — Tzeentch

Terminal stage? Well, many times everything seems to feel like this is the end.

Why would Epstein be trafficking Russian escorts to royal palaces in the U.K. if it was a U.S. state operation? — Punshhh

In general because of lower standard of living modelling (prostitution) in the West seems a lucrative career for many. Some of Epstein's American victims have said that they were told that they were rare.

Do notice that Epstein wasn't government employee. Intelligence services usually have very dubious connections.

Now wait a minute. If nurses and hospital staff were as willing to work for low wages as they were not so long ago, medical care would be more affordable, if teachers also did so for less as they did when my grandmother was a teacher, we would have more affordable schools. — Athena

One thing is sure, I wouldn't start from the wages of the health care employees, but simply to take out the insurance companies from the racket. Have universal health care, have the government act as a single, bulk purchaser, leveraging high-volume demand in order for negotiating lower costs from manufacturers. Anyway, start with the profit taking and rent seeking. If you lower the wages of health care professionals, likely you won't get in the future as good people into the sector.

Do understand that the American health care system is a racket. It's a racket where some people don't have health care which leaves them to have their first appointment with health care system when they are carried from the ambulance to ER. That's insane and extremely costly. No other way could you spend so much money on health care with so mediocre results. Norway has lot's of oil revenue and it simply pours this into it's health care system (with the effect the Finnish nurses flock to Northern Norway thanks to the high salaries). Still it's spending isn't anywhere close to the US system.

I think authoritarianism is the wrong word. I think the right one is corruption - and yes, it is rampant. — Tzeentch

Authoritarianism creates an opening for rampant corruption.

Authoritarianism basically means that the extremely important institutions that keeps corruption in check is replaced by favoritism and cronyism.

These two go hand in hand.

If this is the case, then some state must have provided them with the funding, to operate, and in return that state would receive benefit from the extortion and blackmailing.

Have you seriously looked into which state was providing this funding, and benefitting from the operation? — Metaphysician Undercover

I think the Epstein pedo sex-ring was more subtle than blackmail. When you have the Mossad ties, the basic issue is that people are basically pro-Israel. And that's it. As that's the most natural thing for any politician or billionaire to be in the US, pro-Israel that is, this stance isn't at all dubious or threatening. It would be totally different if Epstein would have been working for let's say the Chinese. Hence sexual predators like Bill Clinton or Donald Trump (or "former" Prince Andrew) just would love to be in such "safe" pedophile ring.

Now Epstein seems to have wanted to have connections to Russia, but these were more like attempts to have business connections etc.

Of course the horribly sad state where Trump has put the Department of Justice and the FBI has made the US system a real banana republic court totally dependent on the whims of the local dictator. It is just laughable.

Now it seems that the Trump-lovers are eager trying to say that all Western countries are as corrupt as the US is now.

There seem to be a lot of Russian escort women moving around the place including one being trafficked into the U.K. for the use of Prince Andrew. Which the police are looking into. — Punshhh

There's actually tons of this kind of stuff as many countries and their hosts have taken care of the needs of one British prince.

It is beginning to look as though it became a Russian operation. — Punshhh

Lol. The whole Trump administration is looking like a Russian operation.

Very strange - from the Left? For me, the ruling elites are in full collaboration with the Left in Europe (before Trump, in USA too). — Linkey

Yes. Just look at history. Just look at what Marxist-Leninists actually wrote. Here's some Soviet propaganda:



(Capitalists of the World, unite!)


Then we can look back just how many millions of it's own citizens the Communist system killed in Soviet Union or in China.

To see the wrongs is easy, yet what radicals purpose to solve those wrongs is the crucial part that people don't notice. Or with Trump, he just says he'll do it, and the Maga-crowd believed him.

The real rulers of the USA and the Western world in general (financial elite) do not allow smart and honest people to start a serious political career, because a smart politician can become a threat/competitor for these rulers. So only bad candidates can participate in elections, and so the voters do not have a good choice. — Linkey

I'm not so sure about that. Many see how disgusting the politics is, think of what there family would be through if they would become politicians. They take other professions. Do perhaps some voluntary work etc.

No, the problem starts from the ground roots. Ask yourself, how many of your friends and those who you work with or share a hobby are politically active, are in for example in communal politics? When's the last time when you have talked with a political representative of your country (Parliament member / member of Congress)?

If ordinary people don't participate in politics, what is the chance really for democracy to work?

Well, basically the reference was "to the first shots". But you are correct.

In the US, we're about to explode because 2 people were murdered by ICE. That's actually a good sign about the health of rule of law. — frank

The positive sign here is that Minneapolis isn't literally exploding. The injustices aren't an excuse for burning up stuff and for looting. That is really positive. Also, earlier a think tank/study group made a study just how civil war would break up in the US and the scenario was just as what has happened in Minneapolis. The city was just wrong. In that scenario two government agencies, on controlled by the executive and one controlled by the state start shooting at each other. I think that this "Fort Sumter"-moment has passed for now. Even if ICE is still roaming the streets in the city, some kind of dialoge, even if weak, is done. Above all, the White House has backed down and now the Trump people are blaming each other. Stephen Miller, the father behind the immigration strategy, is now backpedaling and saying he got wrongful information and Noem is telling that she was only following orders.

That should immediately tell every ICE agent just on how thin ice the whole organization is on now, when looking at the future. It's quite likely that there's going to be quite a reform and organizational restructuring as now ICE has turned into Trump's own Sturm Abteilung.

Developments in the US and in the world in just the two weeks makes in my view the OP even more important.

Where are the libertarians, the neoconservatives and the old republicans? Seems to be that not many are with Trump MAGA crowd. It might be just the algorithm that US policy commentaries that I read from conservatives are highly critical of Trump.