The over-arching direction of the United States

[rousseau]

Is it Trump? Is Trump a cause or a symptom of problems in the U.S.? I'd argue that he's a symptom.

Decisions like Devos as EdSec are overwhelmingly supported by the Republican party, so it's not so much a Trump problem as it is a problem with the political spectrum.

Conservative population, conservative politicians lean too far right.

Free market thinking is driving wealth inequality, and leading to hot-beds of poverty, with the unintended consequence of driving the country further right.

Urban/Rural is becoming increasingly polarized as manufacturing jobs disappear, leading to a big chunk of your country going further right.

Capitalistic media filled with propaganda is driving conservatives further right.

And this all beginning in the under-belly of a conservative history.

Is that what's happening? Where is the country going? Is there a way to turn it around?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, the anti-Trump folks try to paint the guy as some sort of aberration and anomaly who doesn't represent what the US is about, as opposed to his being the natural conclusion to the direction that the US has taken over the past several decades. If half of your country is dedicated to undercutting the role of government while generally being ignorant dicks and the other half has its head shoved so far up its ass it hasn't seen the sun in years, this is the kind of shit you deserve.

There is a way to turn it around. That's to have the left pull its head out of its ass and stop being such idiots. The right wing in the US is a write off which nothing can be done about and you kind of just have to wait for enough of them to die off that they can't get a plurality.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is it Trump? Is Trump a cause or a symptom of problems in the U.S.? I'd argue that he's a symptom.

Symptom might not be the word. But it is like Shingles, first you get some flu like symptoms the week or two before (2012 primary debacle), then you get the breakout (2016 election).

Decisions like Devos as EdSec are overwhelmingly supported by the Republican party, so it's not so much a Trump problem as it is a problem with the political spectrum.

Conservative population, conservative politicians lean too far right.

They are pretty much leaning to Corporate Rule at this point. And the Democrats are conservatives.

 

[Ford]

Free market thinking is driving wealth inequality, and leading to hot-beds of poverty, with the unintended consequence of driving the country further right.

Urban/Rural is becoming increasingly polarized as manufacturing jobs disappear, leading to a big chunk of your country going further right.

Which is weird, because rushing to embrace the right won't bring back those jobs, or make those people's lot in life any better. I'd like to grab all these angry working class voters and say to them "you know that boss you hate who never gave you a raise and then closed the plant down and moved it overseas? That's what you voted for. If you think Trump is going to convince your old boss to bring back your shitty job and pay you more than some 3rd world worker, you've been suckered."

And if pigs suddenly became aerodynamic and Trump did manage to bring back coal mining jobs and drive all the illegals off the farm...then congratulations, working class chumps! You've got all the coal mining and crop-picking jobs you want! Oh, and they don't pay enough to get health insurance, but hey, Obamacare is socialism, right? And you can't afford to send your kids to a better school, but "school choice" is really important, right? But at least you can be safe in the knowledge that nobody from Iran is going to launch a terrorist attack against West Bumfuck Kentucky like they always do, right?

 

[RVonse]

I just got called back to work at US Steel after being layed off 1 year. When Trump got elected, US Steel stock doubled over night. The company is still not healthy but showing much better prospects today than it would under the democrats.

I just quit a nice job with a drug company so I could go back to US Steel. It was a difficult decision but that decision was a good problem to have. The pay was the same but the steel company has the pension and medical benefits. And my wife needs the medical benefits not provided by the drug company.

Anyway, I am hoping that I will be employed for the next 4 years while Trump is in charge. He has already made a huge impact on my life. And a huge impact for around 1000 other layed off steel workers in the St louis metro area.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The overal arc in the United States is towards oligarchy and corporatism. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class fades away. Social norms change, and oscilate a little, but this doesn't seem to. And both of your big political parties are in the pockets of big business and not working for the interests of your common citizens.

 

[untermensche]

Ultimately the government must follow the mood of some of the electorate.

Presently it is following the mood of about 20-25% of American's who blame foreigners for US problems. This is absolute ignorance but it is what is guiding this nation presently.

 

[iolo]

Capitalist crises always end by presenting a choice between fascism and socialism. A further problem in the 'States is that you are so far out of the habit of being allowed to discuss real politics.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Economics

Trump, economically, represents protectionism, not capitalism. The US economy isn't capitalist, it is a mix of Corporatist and Keynesian, with dashes of Welfarism, Monetarism, and Socialism thrown in. Republicans are as much in favor of the free market as Democrats are. Republicans are Corporatist, Right-Keynesian, and Supply-Side. Democrats are Welfarist, Left-Keynesian, and Demand-Side. Both are Monetarist to the point where they don't even think about it.

So the direction of the US. Trump is indeed a symptom, and the direction isn't good. The economy is in dire need of a correction. It tried to correct in 2001, but the correction was smothered by government intervention. That addressed they symptoms but not the causes, so the causes built up even more and came back in 2008. The correction was smothered by government intervention, and it took a lot more intervention than it took in 2001. That addressed the symptoms but not the causes, so the causes are building up even more and coming back soon. When it does break out again, I very much doubt that intervention will be able to fix it this time.

The causes can be traced back in various ways, some farther back then others. The most immediate cause can be traced back to the 1990s with Alan Greenspan. After he was laughed at for his "irrational exuberance" comment, he opened the monetary floodgates. Since then its been bubble after bubble, getting bigger and bigger. He retired just in time to give the problems he caused to his successors. Bernanke and Yellen aren't nearly as smart as he is, and they have rather blindly continued his policies.

Civil

There is increasing polarization. One side sees the other and says "they're a bunch of ignorant racists." One side sees the other and says "they're a bunch of crybabies." Here's a good article about half of this. Neither side is actually trying to talk to the other anymore. Both sides are even quicker than other to condemn the other for what they themselves do, and not even notice when doing it. The most recent election was a good example. I had no side in that fight, the candidates I like lost in the primaries. The violence in reaction to Trump is dangerous. It gives the possibility of crackdowns in response.

 

[Rhea]

The violence in reaction to Trump is dangerous.

Which episodes of violence in reaction to Trump do you think are the most dangerous?

 

[Sarpedon]

Right wingers continually threaten violence against the people.

They get frightened when we demonstrate we are also capable of it.

 

[braces_for_impact]

The US is too far right, and Europe is too far left, and they're struggling to stay united against wealth inequality at home, and Islam in the Middle East. Europe is starting to see a real specter coming from the influx of Islamic refugees, and is starting a backlash from the right. The US is already too far right, and continues in that direction, never having had the pendulum sufficiently swing left to compensate for this present swing even more towards the conservative side. The US is trying to figure it's role in the world of the 21st century, and it's bloated military isn't nearly the guarantee of success people thought it would be.

It's not just the US economy shifting, it's the world economy, and there's a lot of uncertainty about what's going to happen. What would continue to help the situation is an ethically strong leadership from the US, but I fear those days have gone. I suspect we will travel even further to the right in an attempt to "fix" things, and find that it only exacerbated the problem, causing a huge backlash back towards the left - but by that time it will be too late and the damage will done, and it will be substantial. Unfortunately, I think we're screwed at least for a generation unless something happens to the right in power here and quickly.

The right has nothing new to reveal; and they haven't for a long time. Their economic ideas are debunked zombie ideas from the 80's. Their mixing of religion and politics has and will continue to cause quite a lot of damage to our country, and the world. I see no reason for the Johnson amendment to be maintained under this administration, which will continue to fund extremism on the right despite their smaller numbers in our population. The dark money from corporations being viewed as people, along with dark money flooded into the right from the churches is going to be horrific, even as this very mixing of the two entities causes more and more people to become secular.

Racism is on the rise, it's proponents feeling validated and emboldened by this administration. As scapegoats are also required, these victims will fill the role nicely. Corporate money, which has almost no conscience, will continue to influence our politics in very negative ways. The stock market will flourish under these conditions for some time (until Trump's lunacy gets really out of hand) but this will not be a real measure of economic health (like now) as most of the money being made goes straight to less than 1 percent of the population. Automation will replace more and more jobs, contributing to these economic problems. Education will be worth less and harder to obtain even while it gets more expensive as the right guts it to help keep the population stupid and pliable. Technological progression and innovation will suffer as ideology replaces knowledge. Meanwhile, the entire world will be under stress from climate change.

I'm saddened and frightened by these events, especially for my children, as I'm really not hopeful they could have as good a life as they might have had the right not won this last election. I think this election will be the straw that broke the camel's back, as they came away with so much from this win - and almost entirely by accident. There really isn't much of a check on this administration and it's power.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The violence in reaction to Trump is dangerous.

Which episodes of violence in reaction to Trump do you think are the most dangerous?

As I wrote, and you snipped: It gives the possibility of crackdowns in response.

Antifa and Black Block can smash windows and burn cars, but they can't seriously threaten the government. They're just cosplaying as revolutionaries. But they can provide pretext, they can provide an excuse, for suppression of dissent.

 

[J842P]

Right wingers continually threaten violence against the people.

They get frightened when we demonstrate we are also capable of it.

Wow. This so perfectly encapsulates what Jason is saying. What Jason is saying is very important - and yet, partisans will only hear "My side under attack!"

Trump is already flirting with fascism. Hitler had to *fake* leftist/anarchist violence. Don't just hand it to the Donald.

 

[Sarpedon]

What Jason wants is a country where one faction can continually wring concessions out of the other by threatening violence. This is exactly what happened prior to the Civil War. The South kept threatening to secede, for decades. Every time wringing concessions out of the North, until finally the North had enough. The South attacked the North, expecting the latter to once again roll over and give them what they wanted, but the South soon learned they weren't the only ones who can use violence. And after they lost they lied and made up the 'War of Northern Aggression.'

The FBI has found that white supremacists have spent decades infiltrating law enforcement agencies. Enforcement of laws against violent offenders are so inconsistently enforced as to give a single faction of people an exclusive monopoly on it. Why should I accept this injustice, just because one side decries violence only when it happens to them? You accuse me of factionalism: I have news for you: when one group of people exploits the aversion of the majority to disunion by using threats to wring concessions, then the situation is already broken, and it is better to make a firm stand. The election showed there were more of us then them, even though they won on a technicality. We should be conscious of our strength. If there's anything I've learned from reading about revolutions in history is that the weaker side can win if the stronger side is afraid to use its strength. For example: the Bolsheviks, who were never a majority. Time after time, the majority failed to come to an agreement, or even, having an overwhelming advantage, feared to use it.

I am not calling for violence. I am calling for a firm stand, backed by the willingness to use violence if necessary. Exactly as it was in the Civil War, peaceful reconciliation goes only so far. Now, today, the fucking Nazis are attacking people in the streets. It is happening. The line is being crossed. I no longer care what their propaganda says. A poll came out today saying that 51% of Trump voters believe that the 'Bowling Green Massacre' was real. Fuck them. They aren't going to listen to the truth. Why bother trying to show a good face to people who are willing to listen to any lie or slander against you?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What Jason wants is a country where one faction can continually wring concessions out of the other by threatening violence.

Uh, wow.

This is exactly what happened prior to the Civil War. The South kept threatening to secede, for decades.

Threatening to part company is not the same as threatening violence.

I am not calling for violence. I am calling for a firm stand, backed by the willingness to use violence if necessary. Exactly as it was in the Civil War, peaceful reconciliation goes only so far. Now, today, the fucking Nazis are attacking people in the streets. It is happening. The line is being crossed. I no longer care what their propaganda says. A poll came out today saying that 51% of Trump voters believe that the 'Bowling Green Massacre' was real. Fuck them. They aren't going to listen to the truth. Why bother trying to show a good face to people who are willing to listen to any lie or slander against you?

"Now, today, the fucking Nazis are attacking people in the streets." I would like some support for that claim.

J842P actually took the time to read my post. He understood it. I cautioned that the use of violence by antifa and the black block was dangerous because of the potential for an official response disproportionate to the threat and detrimental to civil liberty. That is not the same as advocating wringing concessions by threatening violence. It is far closer to say it is the opposite. As a libertarian and a Libertarian I standby the NAP which expressly forbids the initiation of force.

I don't see secession as an initiation of force, anymore than I see divorce as an initiation of force.

 

[Sarpedon]

Secession was not the initiation of force. The seizing of federal property and the attack on Fort Sumter were. The north did not even mobilize or use force in any way until after the attack on Sumter. Most of the threats of secession also included threat of war.

here is a link to one article out of dozens: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/fbi-hate-crimes-muslims.html?_r=0

Here's one from last week: 4 men beat a gay man in the middle of Washington DC, yelling 'This is what Trump's America looks like, faggot." http://wjla.com/news/local/gay-man-...medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

You can do your own googling.

And yes, I am referring to White Supremacists and/or the Alt-Right as Nazis. And no, I don't care if it offends you. "Trump's America" seems to have become an Alt-Right (Nazi) slogan.

I cautioned that the use of violence by antifa and the black block was dangerous because of the potential for an official response disproportionate to the threat and detrimental to civil liberty. That is not the same as advocating wringing concessions by threatening violence. It is far closer to say it is the opposite. As a libertarian and a Libertarian I standby the NAP which expressly forbids the initiation of force.

You are correct, I missed that part. I sometimes find it hard to tell the difference between someone who advocates the use of violence to achieve political ends and one who advises other groups to surrender in the face of political violence. Your refusal to initiate violence is commendable, however, that seems easy to say when you are not the one under attack.

I also advocate against the initiation of violence. The trouble is that the Nazis are already initiating the violence. I am advocating a strong response.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Here's one from last week: 4 men beat a gay man in the middle of Washington DC, yelling 'This is what Trump's America looks like, faggot." http://wjla.com/news/local/gay-man-...medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

I have no idea why you think that has anything to do with me.

You can do your own googling.

Will doing so tell me what point you think you are making?

I cautioned that the use of violence by antifa and the black block was dangerous because of the potential for an official response disproportionate to the threat and detrimental to civil liberty. That is not the same as advocating wringing concessions by threatening violence. It is far closer to say it is the opposite. As a libertarian and a Libertarian I standby the NAP which expressly forbids the initiation of force.

You are correct, I missed that part. I sometimes find it hard to tell the difference between someone who advocates the use of violence to achieve political ends and one who advises other groups to surrender in the face of political violence. Your refusal to initiate violence is commendable, however, that seems easy to say when you are not the one under attack.

Again, what you write is confusing. Advises other groups to surrender?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Right wingers continually threaten violence against the people.

They get frightened when we demonstrate we are also capable of it.

Obama was elected in a landslide. Then ran a fairly moderate government... and people took to the streets, threatening revolution, because of the tyranny.

 

[Sarpedon]

You asked me to back up my claim that the nazis were attacking people in the streets, I gave you an example. Thats what it has to do with you. I never said it was libertarians attacking people in the streets. Is it my turn to bash you for reading comprehension?