Liberalism And Conservatism

[Loren Pechtel]

In Australia we have the thinking that once a social program is implemented it is impossible to kill. It can be modified but not eliminated. So there is always money spent on program X regardless of whether it is necessary or even doing its job. So the money being spent on programs always increases.
Doubtless the US has a similar problem as the UK, NZ etc.

Yup. I have repeatedly said a lot of our problem is we do too many things. That means an awful lot more management for the same end product. Extra hoops to jump through, money being siphoned off at every hoop. Because politicians have to be seen doing something.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I’m social liberal; fiscally conservative.

But money is needed to fund social programs. How do you square that?

That's not what he's saying.

A social liberal/fiscal conservative favors things that don't impose. For example, gay marriage. But things that impose are another matter--stuff like subsidized child care. Your kid, your cost.

Well it's what you're saying. And what I read is more akin to individualism. That is, I'm liberal as long as it doesn't cost me anything. How do we have a healthy society with such a you're on your own mentality? I mean, there's live and let live and then there's whatever this is, one step beyond live and let live. Selfishness.

And you're absolutely wrong. Your kid, society's cost. Because when that child does not thrive, have ample opportunity presented and an even playing field with all other children, we all pay the cost. We can all chip in on the first 18 years of that child's life or we can all chip in on a burdensome adult's uninsured medical cost, drug addiction, crime, prison, etc.
Nearly half of all pregnancies are unplanned. It's not someone else's problem. It's a child, one that did not ask to be here but they are here none the less. That child should not have to pay for someone else's poor judgement.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The fundamental difference in strategy is that liberals want to fix everything now now now, and if anything goes wrong, we'll deal with that later, with more reform. On balance they think it's worth it.

This is the more extreme end. (And very prone to breaking things!)

While conservatives want to change one thing at a time, slowly slowly slowly. It might not be fair. But at least it's working.

But a lot of conservatives pine for the old days.

By your definition I lean conservative--I'm for cautious change. I am NOT for returning to the old days.

And note that by your definition, Musk is a liberal.

You need to fix your definitions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I’m social liberal; fiscally conservative.

But money is needed to fund social programs. How do you square that?

That's not what he's saying.

A social liberal/fiscal conservative favors things that don't impose. For example, gay marriage. But things that impose are another matter--stuff like subsidized child care. Your kid, your cost.

Well it's what you're saying. And what I read is more akin to individualism. That is, I'm liberal as long as it doesn't cost me anything. How do we have a healthy society with such a you're on your own mentality? I mean, there's live and let live and then there's whatever this is, one step beyond live and let live. Selfishness.

And you're absolutely wrong. Your kid, society's cost. Because when that child does not thrive, have ample opportunity presented and an even playing field with all other children, we all pay the cost. We can all chip in on the first 18 years of that child's life or we can all chip in on a burdensome adult's uninsured medical cost, drug addiction, crime, prison, etc.
Nearly half of all pregnancies are unplanned. It's not someone else's problem. It's a child, one that did not ask to be here but they are here none the less. That child should not have to pay for someone else's poor judgement.

I am not opposed to welfare. I am opposed to subsidizing having children you don't have the means to care for. The state should be a safety net, not a primary means of support.

 

[Tigers!]

I’m social liberal; fiscally conservative.

But money is needed to fund social programs. How do you square that?

That's not what he's saying.

A social liberal/fiscal conservative favors things that don't impose. For example, gay marriage. But things that impose are another matter--stuff like subsidized child care. Your kid, your cost.

Well it's what you're saying. And what I read is more akin to individualism. That is, I'm liberal as long as it doesn't cost me anything. How do we have a healthy society with such a you're on your own mentality? I mean, there's live and let live and then there's whatever this is, one step beyond live and let live. Selfishness.

And you're absolutely wrong. Your kid, society's cost. Because when that child does not thrive, have ample opportunity presented and an even playing field with all other children, we all pay the cost. We can all chip in on the first 18 years of that child's life or we can all chip in on a burdensome adult's uninsured medical cost, drug addiction, crime, prison, etc.
Nearly half of all pregnancies are unplanned. It's not someone else's problem. It's a child, one that did not ask to be here but they are here none the less. That child should not have to pay for someone else's poor judgement.

Too often the child does pay for other's poor judgement.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The fundamental difference in strategy is that liberals want to fix everything now now now, and if anything goes wrong, we'll deal with that later, with more reform. On balance they think it's worth it.

This is the more extreme end. (And very prone to breaking things!)

While conservatives want to change one thing at a time, slowly slowly slowly. It might not be fair. But at least it's working.

But a lot of conservatives pine for the old days.

By your definition I lean conservative--I'm for cautious change. I am NOT for returning to the old days.

And note that by your definition, Musk is a liberal.

You need to fix your definitions.

I think Musk is a liberal. He's a libertarian. Its on the extreme end.

Both liberals and conservatives want to maximise personal freedoms. Not always true. But largely true. What they quibble about is how to get there, (and, to a degree, which freedoms are the most desireable).

If the main difference between liberals and conservatives is the speed of reform, then that's the criterea.

Musk wants it done fast. Libertarians don't mind causing utter chaos because they believe the market will sort it out, and they also that's always the best method to fix any problem.

In USA liberalism and socialism have become conflated. We haven't done that in Europe. Makes it way easier to talk about over here

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

I'd like to know a single time in U.S. history when we were "somewhat stable". I can't think of one.

Its been the worlds most powerful country for over a hundred years.

Its more stable than any other country. By a mile

Power doesn't equal stability. Many other nations are more stable, for example Australia. Right now USA is very unstable, reflecting its unstable leadership (Trump and the Republicans).

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'd like to know a single time in U.S. history when we were "somewhat stable". I can't think of one.

Its been the worlds most powerful country for over a hundred years.

Its more stable than any other country. By a mile

Power doesn't equal stability. Many other nations are more stable, for example Australia. Right now USA is very unstable, reflecting its unstable leadership (Trump and the Republicans).

Australia is facing an escalating environmental catastrophe. It's an economic one trick pony with all the eggs in the mining basket. In what way is Australia stable?

Yes, power does equal stability. Power means you have more tries to get back on the horse after falling off. USA can repeatedly faceplant into a hedge of cactuces and they'll still probably be fine.

USA has all kinds of ways they make money. It's an extremely diverse economy. The most diverse... I think? Pretty much... no matter what happens in the market USA will be fine. Most countries in Europe are in the same situation. But that's rare in the world.

I think you are confusing the theatre of politics for the stuff that matters. USA has a lot of intertia and ways to prevent presidential abuses of power. What USA has is an extremely loud and active self empowered electorate, who loves having opinions in the media and on-line. That might give the illusion of a country shaking itself apart. But USA has been like this since the American revoution. It's the political culture. Not actual instability.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I’m social liberal; fiscally conservative.

But money is needed to fund social programs. How do you square that?

That's not what he's saying.

A social liberal/fiscal conservative favors things that don't impose. For example, gay marriage. But things that impose are another matter--stuff like subsidized child care. Your kid, your cost.

Well it's what you're saying. And what I read is more akin to individualism. That is, I'm liberal as long as it doesn't cost me anything. How do we have a healthy society with such a you're on your own mentality? I mean, there's live and let live and then there's whatever this is, one step beyond live and let live. Selfishness.

And you're absolutely wrong. Your kid, society's cost. Because when that child does not thrive, have ample opportunity presented and an even playing field with all other children, we all pay the cost. We can all chip in on the first 18 years of that child's life or we can all chip in on a burdensome adult's uninsured medical cost, drug addiction, crime, prison, etc.
Nearly half of all pregnancies are unplanned. It's not someone else's problem. It's a child, one that did not ask to be here but they are here none the less. That child should not have to pay for someone else's poor judgement.

I am not opposed to welfare. I am opposed to subsidizing having children you don't have the means to care for. The state should be a safety net, not a primary means of support.

Scrape the word "having" out of that sentence and it starts sounding worse, doesn't it? This is my point. You want to punish the idiots who's greatest accomplishment in life is learning how to fuck, that's one thing. Caring for the child is a completely separate issue. The two should be divorced. Both interpretations intended. And this is why I disagree with the Supreme Court's stance on parental rights.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I’m social liberal; fiscally conservative.

But money is needed to fund social programs. How do you square that?

That's not what he's saying.

A social liberal/fiscal conservative favors things that don't impose. For example, gay marriage. But things that impose are another matter--stuff like subsidized child care. Your kid, your cost.

Well it's what you're saying. And what I read is more akin to individualism. That is, I'm liberal as long as it doesn't cost me anything. How do we have a healthy society with such a you're on your own mentality? I mean, there's live and let live and then there's whatever this is, one step beyond live and let live. Selfishness.

And you're absolutely wrong. Your kid, society's cost. Because when that child does not thrive, have ample opportunity presented and an even playing field with all other children, we all pay the cost. We can all chip in on the first 18 years of that child's life or we can all chip in on a burdensome adult's uninsured medical cost, drug addiction, crime, prison, etc.
Nearly half of all pregnancies are unplanned. It's not someone else's problem. It's a child, one that did not ask to be here but they are here none the less. That child should not have to pay for someone else's poor judgement.

I am not opposed to welfare. I am opposed to subsidizing having children you don't have the means to care for. The state should be a safety net, not a primary means of support.

Scrape the word "having" out of that sentence and it starts sounding worse, doesn't it? This is my point. You want to punish the idiots who's greatest accomplishment in life is learning how to fuck, that's one thing. Caring for the child is a completely separate issue. The two should be divorced. Both interpretations intended. And this is why I disagree with the Supreme Court's stance on parental rights.

Now you're discussing who is morally wrong. That's a discussion about values, as in which values are more important.

I don't think this discussion is about that. It's about what is the definion of liberalism and conservatism, and how are they different.

Ie, you are talking politics. Not the philosophy of politics.

 

[steve_bank]

The general principles of Liberalism are ideals, like having political tolerance. We used to have it at least to some degree. As is sometimes said in the media Reagan and Tip O'Neil would have drinks in the WH after ho0u8rs swapping stories. Socializing.

That is all gone.

Can our system based on Liberalism survive? Individualism is emphasized, individual liberties. No community rights. At the same time we need a national concensus. Seems mutually excursive.

The original question in the 19th century, can democracy come together without an over arching authority. Like a king.



A Frenchman De Tocqueville toured the USA in hte 19th century. Some of his commentary is online.
He said our democratic republic is inefficient, but in the long run it is self correcting.

AI Overview
Alexis de Tocqueville | French Historian, Political Writer ...
Alexis de Tocqueville is most famous for his classic two-volume work Democracy in America (published in 1835 and 1840), which offers a deep and sharp analysis of the political, social, and cultural systems of the United States.

AI Overview
Tocqueville: A Thinker for Uncertain Times - Villa Albertine
Alexis de Tocqueville’s political theory explores the inevitable rise of social equality in modern society, warning that while democracy destroys old class hierarchies, it introduces new perils like the tyranny of the majority, radical individualism, and a passive, all-controlling soft despotism.

Radical individualism. Tht us us, today.

We may not recover from Trump.

On what basis do you believe things will be as they are in 10, 20, or 50 years?

 

[DrZoidberg]

The general principles of Liberalism are ideals, like having political tolerance. We used to have it at least to some degree. As is sometimes said in the media Reagan and Tip O'Neil would have drinks in the WH after ho0u8rs swapping stories. Socializing.

So conservatives are not for political tolerance? I don't think the evidence supports this.

Saying that you disagree about something isn't the same thing as being intolerant. Not starting a war over it is how toleration looks.

That is all gone.

Can our system based on Liberalism survive? Individualism is emphasized, individual liberties. No community rights. At the same time we need a national concensus. Seems mutually excursive.

The original question in the 19th century, can democracy come together without an over arching authority. Like a king.



A Frenchman De Tocqueville toured the USA in hte 19th century. Some of his commentary is online.
He said our democratic republic is inefficient, but in the long run it is self correcting.

AI Overview
Alexis de Tocqueville | French Historian, Political Writer ...
Alexis de Tocqueville is most famous for his classic two-volume work Democracy in America (published in 1835 and 1840), which offers a deep and sharp analysis of the political, social, and cultural systems of the United States.

AI Overview
Tocqueville: A Thinker for Uncertain Times - Villa Albertine
Alexis de Tocqueville’s political theory explores the inevitable rise of social equality in modern society, warning that while democracy destroys old class hierarchies, it introduces new perils like the tyranny of the majority, radical individualism, and a passive, all-controlling soft despotism.

Radical individualism. Tht us us, today.

We may not recover from Trump.

On what basis do you believe things will be as they are in 10, 20, or 50 years?

Tocqueville also viewed USA as a tiny enclave on the edge of the world. He saw it as a radical experiment. Benjamin Franklin, correctly understood that USA would, in time, overshadow England. But nobody else seems to have thought that at the time. Certainly not Tocqueville. Tocqueville wasn't so much writing a book about USA, as writing a pamphlet to help him liberalise France. It was propaganda. We only think it's prophetic because, over time, he was proven correct. But that's survivor bias. Nobody remembers all the pamphlets which went nowhere. The 18th century was a time of radical and cooky political philosophies written, shared and talked about. Most utterly and completely bonkers.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

I'd like to know a single time in U.S. history when we were "somewhat stable". I can't think of one.

Its been the worlds most powerful country for over a hundred years.

Its more stable than any other country. By a mile

Power doesn't equal stability. Many other nations are more stable, for example Australia. Right now USA is very unstable, reflecting its unstable leadership (Trump and the Republicans).

Australia is facing an escalating environmental catastrophe. It's an economic one trick pony with all the eggs in the mining basket. In what way is Australia stable?

Yes, power does equal stability. Power means you have more tries to get back on the horse after falling off. USA can repeatedly faceplant into a hedge of cactuces and they'll still probably be fine.

USA has all kinds of ways they make money. It's an extremely diverse economy. The most diverse... I think? Pretty much... no matter what happens in the market USA will be fine. Most countries in Europe are in the same situation. But that's rare in the world.

I think you are confusing the theatre of politics for the stuff that matters. USA has a lot of intertia and ways to prevent presidential abuses of power. What USA has is an extremely loud and active self empowered electorate, who loves having opinions in the media and on-line. That might give the illusion of a country shaking itself apart. But USA has been like this since the American revoution. It's the political culture. Not actual instability.

The whole world is facing an environmental crisis, or didn't you notice the recent heat waves and fires in Europe?
It is a myth that Australia only has the mining industry. A figure that I heard several years ago is that it constitutes 8% of the economy.
Australia is politically, socially, and economically stable.
USA is facing a severe crisis, and is cactus as far as the world is concerned in terms of soft power.

If USA has ways to prevent presidential abuse of power, then why hasn't it engaged such? The answer is that it doesn't, as the weaknesses of its system have been exposed. It has much less protections for democracy than all the other major Western nations. As for its electorate, it is not self-empowered, it is powerless, and may make lots of noise, but is hardly heard. Maybe the mid-term elections can change this in some ways, providing some temporary relief, but that will not fix the innate problems in their system.

Incidentally, having opinions in the media and on-line is meaningless. Everyone in the world has that, but if it has no effect on those in power (as is the case mainly in the USA) it is of little real-world benefit.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I'd like to know a single time in U.S. history when we were "somewhat stable". I can't think of one.

Its been the worlds most powerful country for over a hundred years.

Its more stable than any other country. By a mile

Most powerful doesn't equal most stable. What are you smoking?

 

[steve_bank]

Z

19th century America was a tiny enclave on the edge of the world.

We were largely isolationist up to WWII.

This sentiment goes back to the foundng. Jefferson was accused of being too friendly with the French.

The exact phrasing "if we get involved we would become like Europe" closely echoes arguments made by 1930s American isolationists—such as members of the America First Committee (including figures like aviator Charles Lindbergh) and various anti-interventionist members of Congress. They argued that entering foreign conflicts abroad would destroy American democracy, saddle the nation with permanent militarism, and mire the U.S. in perpetual "Old World" power struggles and wars.

What made miodern Anerica a power was the development by necessity o WWII mass manufacturing. It set the stage for the post war American economy. Post WWII we had about 50% of the global economy, and a large standing army.

But contrary to Trump's claims, we did not win the war or establish stability alone post WII. Euroe payed a mahjr roe.

Something Trump is finding out. Our military strength is not the soruce of our power. Our power was based in alliances.

As too syabi;ty we had a civil war. Post civil war we had severa; 19th century near disasters. Western migration baited us out of an economic disaster.

Civil rights unrest. Riots. VN War.

Trump and MAGA are not really new and it has been been brewing for a very long time. John Birch society.

AI Overview
Criticisms of John Birch and the John Birch Society focus on extreme anti-communist conspiracy theories, attacks on mainstream U.S. leaders, and the promotion of political paranoia that alienated moderate conservatives.

We have a long history of political anti government violence.

So, the question is will liberalism as western liberal democracy survive in the long term? Or the short term.

Right now we are not stable. We have an irrational crazy president in the WH who is tinkering with our economy and global stability to bad ends. Political extreme popularization with no compromise.

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't think anyone voted FOR Trump. What Trump has going for him is that he's rich enough to survive the rest of the political and media elite turning on him. What got Trump elected was the fact that he's anything other than the old elites. People are so sick at being talked down to by a slick and slimey politician. They'd rather have an idiot whose at least honest about being a lying scumbag. They didn't for for Trump. They voted AGAINST all the others.

In Australia our version of Trump, Farage is called Pauline Hanson.
She is riding quite high in the polls (but may have peaked). She is popular, not because of her policy offerings, such as they are, but because she is saying publicly that the duopoly of Labour/Coalition is not working (sound familiar?) and is only concerned with themselves and the coteries.
There is no other way currently in Australia to publicly denounce the duopoly.
The commentators (who benefit from the current duopoly) cannot understand why she is popular. She is popular because she is not 'them'.
It is as simple as that. The mug voter has had enough.
It a protest against the incumbents, the 'system' not necessarily a vote for her. And ditto for Farage, AfD, Le Pen etc.

I think this is a good reason to have RON (Re-Open Nominations) on every ballot. If RON wins, the election is done over, with none of the candidates on the original ballot (or any preceeding ballots, if RON wins more than one round) permitted to stand.

Of course this risks a seat or elected position remaining vacant for a long time, but it's far from clear to me that that's a worse outcome than the grudging election of a candidate just because the voters hate all the others even more.

It also means that candidates who run unopposed are still required to get the support of the voters, and are not certain to get the job even if everyone hates them.

That seems like it would be a good idea.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'd like to know a single time in U.S. history when we were "somewhat stable". I can't think of one.

Its been the worlds most powerful country for over a hundred years.

Its more stable than any other country. By a mile

Power doesn't equal stability. Many other nations are more stable, for example Australia. Right now USA is very unstable, reflecting its unstable leadership (Trump and the Republicans).

Australia is facing an escalating environmental catastrophe. It's an economic one trick pony with all the eggs in the mining basket. In what way is Australia stable?

Yes, power does equal stability. Power means you have more tries to get back on the horse after falling off. USA can repeatedly faceplant into a hedge of cactuces and they'll still probably be fine.

USA has all kinds of ways they make money. It's an extremely diverse economy. The most diverse... I think? Pretty much... no matter what happens in the market USA will be fine. Most countries in Europe are in the same situation. But that's rare in the world.

I think you are confusing the theatre of politics for the stuff that matters. USA has a lot of intertia and ways to prevent presidential abuses of power. What USA has is an extremely loud and active self empowered electorate, who loves having opinions in the media and on-line. That might give the illusion of a country shaking itself apart. But USA has been like this since the American revoution. It's the political culture. Not actual instability.

The whole world is facing an environmental crisis, or didn't you notice the recent heat waves and fires in Europe?

Global warming is great for Sweden and Russia. In countries heavily impacted by global warming, it's a major thing. The countries not so impacted, it's not. Australia is really getting hammered now.

Add to that that environmentalism has become a cult of sorts. Global warming is real and will impact us. But environmentalism is less like a nerdy science club, and more like an apocalyptic religion. Environmentalists generally don't care about the things that really matter. They tend to myopically focus on personal rituals to show they care, (which is pointless as regard for global warming) instead of the things that might actually help. Using paper straws instead of plastic straws is not helping!

If USA has ways to prevent presidential abuse of power, then why hasn't it engaged such? The answer is that it doesn't, as the weaknesses of its system have been exposed. It has much less protections for democracy than all the other major Western nations. As for its electorate, it is not self-empowered, it is powerless, and may make lots of noise, but is hardly heard. Maybe the mid-term elections can change this in some ways, providing some temporary relief, but that will not fix the innate problems in their system.

It's just not true. This is just straight up bullshit. The American president is more important than any other political leader on Earth, because USA is the world's most powerful country. When USA does stuff everyone else has to pay attention. Or to put it another way, when Trump stretches what he can get away with inside the US system, we all notice. Trump has loads of leashes he needs to care about.

In Sweden you can be a prime minister for life. It's not even a thing we discuss. We had one guy for 30 years. Nobody cared. Most of the 20th century Sweden was effectively a one party state. Nobody cared. Why didn't anyone care? Because Sweden was geopolitically irrelevant. Fun fact, that party is out of power now, but still controls the state media of Sweden. Nobody cares. Swedish police can beat people up without repercussions and jail people for extended periods of time without needing to explain themselves. Sweden is on Amnesty's naughty list. Nobody cares.

Incidentally, having opinions in the media and on-line is meaningless. Everyone in the world has that, but if it has no effect on those in power (as is the case mainly in the USA) it is of little real-world benefit.

All available evidence disagrees with you. The reason Trump is in power is because of the power of media. Or more precisely, social media vs traditional media. How's that for a reality check?

Everyone in the world can have whatever opinions they want about Trump. If you're not American you don't matter. And that's entirely apropriate IMHO.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

I'd like to know a single time in U.S. history when we were "somewhat stable". I can't think of one.

Its been the worlds most powerful country for over a hundred years.

Its more stable than any other country. By a mile

Power doesn't equal stability. Many other nations are more stable, for example Australia. Right now USA is very unstable, reflecting its unstable leadership (Trump and the Republicans).

Australia is facing an escalating environmental catastrophe. It's an economic one trick pony with all the eggs in the mining basket. In what way is Australia stable?

Yes, power does equal stability. Power means you have more tries to get back on the horse after falling off. USA can repeatedly faceplant into a hedge of cactuces and they'll still probably be fine.

USA has all kinds of ways they make money. It's an extremely diverse economy. The most diverse... I think? Pretty much... no matter what happens in the market USA will be fine. Most countries in Europe are in the same situation. But that's rare in the world.

I think you are confusing the theatre of politics for the stuff that matters. USA has a lot of intertia and ways to prevent presidential abuses of power. What USA has is an extremely loud and active self empowered electorate, who loves having opinions in the media and on-line. That might give the illusion of a country shaking itself apart. But USA has been like this since the American revoution. It's the political culture. Not actual instability.

The whole world is facing an environmental crisis, or didn't you notice the recent heat waves and fires in Europe?

Global warming is great for Sweden and Russia. In countries heavily impacted by global warming, it's a major thing. The countries not so impacted, it's not. Australia is really getting hammered now.

Add to that that environmentalism has become a cult of sorts. Global warming is real and will impact us. But environmentalism is less like a nerdy science club, and more like an apocalyptic religion. Environmentalists generally don't care about the things that really matter. They tend to myopically focus on personal rituals to show they care, (which is pointless as regard for global warming) instead of the things that might actually help. Using paper straws instead of plastic straws is not helping!

If USA has ways to prevent presidential abuse of power, then why hasn't it engaged such? The answer is that it doesn't, as the weaknesses of its system have been exposed. It has much less protections for democracy than all the other major Western nations. As for its electorate, it is not self-empowered, it is powerless, and may make lots of noise, but is hardly heard. Maybe the mid-term elections can change this in some ways, providing some temporary relief, but that will not fix the innate problems in their system.

It's just not true. This is just straight up bullshit. The American president is more important than any other political leader on Earth, because USA is the world's most powerful country. When USA does stuff everyone else has to pay attention. Or to put it another way, when Trump stretches what he can get away with inside the US system, we all notice. Trump has loads of leashes he needs to care about.

In Sweden you can be a prime minister for life. It's not even a thing we discuss. We had one guy for 30 years. Nobody cared. Most of the 20th century Sweden was effectively a one party state. Nobody cared. Why didn't anyone care? Because Sweden was geopolitically irrelevant. Fun fact, that party is out of power now, but still controls the state media of Sweden. Nobody cares. Swedish police can beat people up without repercussions and jail people for extended periods of time without needing to explain themselves. Sweden is on Amnesty's naughty list. Nobody cares.

Incidentally, having opinions in the media and on-line is meaningless. Everyone in the world has that, but if it has no effect on those in power (as is the case mainly in the USA) it is of little real-world benefit.

All available evidence disagrees with you. The reason Trump is in power is because of the power of media. Or more precisely, social media vs traditional media. How's that for a reality check?

Everyone in the world can have whatever opinions they want about Trump. If you're not American you don't matter. And that's entirely apropriate IMHO.

Your spiel about how powerful the American president is didn't answer the question of why Trump is still POTUS. It is because USA has NO safeguards against an aberrant individual who manages to become POTUS. Furthermore, only in USA could such an individual as Trump become the supreme leader.

In other Western nations (and most others) one has to be intelligent, reasonably educated, and have knowledge of how to govern to become that nation's leader. This is true even if it is the leader of a party that one doesn't like. This is because in most nations one has to go through a process where work way up a party ladder to become leader of that party, and only then can one become leader of the government.
Additionally, every other nation was smart enough to realize that the head of government and head of state should be two different individuals, each appointed in a different way. This provides an additional safeguard for the government system.

Trump did not gain power because of social media but because the mainstream media in USA was incompetent and biased.

If you love the USA and Trump so much why don't you go live in the USA, instead of the apparent (to you) dump you live in now?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'd like to know a single time in U.S. history when we were "somewhat stable". I can't think of one.

Its been the worlds most powerful country for over a hundred years.

Its more stable than any other country. By a mile

Power doesn't equal stability. Many other nations are more stable, for example Australia. Right now USA is very unstable, reflecting its unstable leadership (Trump and the Republicans).

Australia is facing an escalating environmental catastrophe. It's an economic one trick pony with all the eggs in the mining basket. In what way is Australia stable?

Yes, power does equal stability. Power means you have more tries to get back on the horse after falling off. USA can repeatedly faceplant into a hedge of cactuces and they'll still probably be fine.

USA has all kinds of ways they make money. It's an extremely diverse economy. The most diverse... I think? Pretty much... no matter what happens in the market USA will be fine. Most countries in Europe are in the same situation. But that's rare in the world.

I think you are confusing the theatre of politics for the stuff that matters. USA has a lot of intertia and ways to prevent presidential abuses of power. What USA has is an extremely loud and active self empowered electorate, who loves having opinions in the media and on-line. That might give the illusion of a country shaking itself apart. But USA has been like this since the American revoution. It's the political culture. Not actual instability.

The whole world is facing an environmental crisis, or didn't you notice the recent heat waves and fires in Europe?

Global warming is great for Sweden and Russia. In countries heavily impacted by global warming, it's a major thing. The countries not so impacted, it's not. Australia is really getting hammered now.

Add to that that environmentalism has become a cult of sorts. Global warming is real and will impact us. But environmentalism is less like a nerdy science club, and more like an apocalyptic religion. Environmentalists generally don't care about the things that really matter. They tend to myopically focus on personal rituals to show they care, (which is pointless as regard for global warming) instead of the things that might actually help. Using paper straws instead of plastic straws is not helping!

If USA has ways to prevent presidential abuse of power, then why hasn't it engaged such? The answer is that it doesn't, as the weaknesses of its system have been exposed. It has much less protections for democracy than all the other major Western nations. As for its electorate, it is not self-empowered, it is powerless, and may make lots of noise, but is hardly heard. Maybe the mid-term elections can change this in some ways, providing some temporary relief, but that will not fix the innate problems in their system.

It's just not true. This is just straight up bullshit. The American president is more important than any other political leader on Earth, because USA is the world's most powerful country. When USA does stuff everyone else has to pay attention. Or to put it another way, when Trump stretches what he can get away with inside the US system, we all notice. Trump has loads of leashes he needs to care about.

In Sweden you can be a prime minister for life. It's not even a thing we discuss. We had one guy for 30 years. Nobody cared. Most of the 20th century Sweden was effectively a one party state. Nobody cared. Why didn't anyone care? Because Sweden was geopolitically irrelevant. Fun fact, that party is out of power now, but still controls the state media of Sweden. Nobody cares. Swedish police can beat people up without repercussions and jail people for extended periods of time without needing to explain themselves. Sweden is on Amnesty's naughty list. Nobody cares.

Incidentally, having opinions in the media and on-line is meaningless. Everyone in the world has that, but if it has no effect on those in power (as is the case mainly in the USA) it is of little real-world benefit.

All available evidence disagrees with you. The reason Trump is in power is because of the power of media. Or more precisely, social media vs traditional media. How's that for a reality check?

Everyone in the world can have whatever opinions they want about Trump. If you're not American you don't matter. And that's entirely apropriate IMHO.

Your spiel about how powerful the American president is didn't answer the question of why Trump is still POTUS. It is because USA has NO safeguards against an aberrant individual who manages to become POTUS. Furthermore, only in USA could such an individual as Trump become the supreme leader.

I think Americans voted for Trump because he says stuff enough of them like.

I think its as simple as that.

His wealth protects him from the media being able to silence him. They certainly tried. If money was less important to the US elections, would he have won? Who knows?

In other Western nations (and most others) one has to be intelligent, reasonably educated, and have knowledge of how to govern to become that nation's leader. This is true even if it is the leader of a party that one doesn't like. This is because in most nations one has to go through a process where work way up a party ladder to become leader of that party, and only then can one become leader of the government.

In Sweden we call them "political broilers". Is it really better? Its a political aristocracy. I don't like aristocracies. I believe in meritocracy.

I prefer our leaders to have diverse backgrounds. I think that's good

Additionally, every other nation was smart enough to realize that the head of government and head of state should be two different individuals, each appointed in a different way. This provides an additional safeguard for the government system.

You're going to have to talk with the founding fathers about that. I don't think having royalty as a head of state is an improvement.

Trump did not gain power because of social media but because the mainstream media in USA was incompetent and biased.

Ha ha. That's a weird theory. What makes them incompetent? Don't you think they are trying to stay in business

If you love the USA and Trump so much why don't you go live in the USA, instead of the apparent (to you) dump you live in now?

I hate Trump. Explaining why he won isn't being on his side. I'm super super not

 

[Tigers!]

Trump did not gain power because of social media but because the mainstream media in USA was incompetent and biased.

That does not absolve the US voters from their poor choice (twice!)
Nor does it absolve the Democratic party from fielding poor candidates and policies.