• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

US Politics the 2025 trump presidency thread

Foreigner said:
Correct. But these days, 9 times out of 10 when I read a left-wing article about naziism, it has nothing to do with actual naziism. When the left gets a grip and comes back to reality (closer to centre), I'll be more willing to listen to them on the topic of naziism.

It's offensive how badly the words naziism and fascism are abused these days.

When I see actual right-wing fascism in government, I'll gladly speak up about it.



98% of the time it has no merit, which is why PEOPLE (not just right wingers) are blowing it off.

The left has gone so far left that anyone to the right of them is being called a fascist. Trump is conservative, he's not far-right. None of this policies thus far are far-right.
Click to expand...
Trump isn’t really conservative. He’s basically just a 90s Democrat. It’s just the Overton window has shifted so far left.
 
Foreigner said:
You actually believe this crap??

This is an example of how someone can use disparate sources of information to build a case that looks convincing, but isn't actually real. Conspiracy theorists do this all the time.

This is all circumstantial evidence. The one thing you're missing is Musk actually saying or showing incontrovertible evidence that he's a neo-Nazi.
Click to expand...
This is insulting to conspiracy theorists.
 
@fairnymph - suffice to say that you and i have very opposite views on many issues. I take it as an opportunity to understand the broader tapestry of human experience, one which is very likely to include people with different (but no less valid) views than the ones I have.

It's why I asked @-=SS=- to co-mod this forum since I'm definitely biased in ways that he is much less likely to be biased in, and vice versa.

I subscribe to model agnosticism rather than zealotry as a foundational value.
 
4DQSAR said:
Here in the UK we are, I suggest, around five years ahead of the curve. We got rid of the people who cynically undermined social support. But what I have noted is that when support is lost, it quickly becomes the new norm. Like it's normal for kids to be hungry...
Click to expand...
Charity is more effective and moral than government welfare.
 
fairnymph said:
Trump isn’t really conservative. He’s basically just a 90s Democrat. It’s just the Overton window has shifted so far left.
Click to expand...

I don't think one can apply a ,momolithic left<--->right metric to Donald Trump's politics. I see many more parallels to ancient Rome where there was the elite (Patrician) class who held all political power and the people who actually did the work. Emperors merely had to negotiate with the elite but in the end, emperors held imperium (supreme executive power).

Juvenal famously described how the politics of ancient Rome were negiatiateed - 'panem et circenses' i.e. if you fulfil people's basic needs and provide sufficient diversion, most people will accept that.
 
4DQSAR said:
That Donald Trump refused to debate if real-time fact-checking was used, that should have been a massive red flag to everyone. But I am reminded that people are often irrational. They are happier with fiction that lines up with their prejudices than to ever apply critical thinking. Because if there is one great thing Donald Trump sells, it's certainties. Yes, they are utterly false BUT there are many people who prefer to believe the lie than to be put in a position where they might have to think for themselves.
Click to expand...
I don’t watch the news, so maybe you - or others - can inform me. When was the last real time (w/fact checking) presidential debate?
 
fairnymph said:
Charity is more effective and moral than government welfare.
Click to expand...
That's what Carnegie believed. The government that governs least governs best AND that it is of utmost important that the wealthy invest generously in the aspects of their society that are good. It's what our current libertarian philosophies have perverted. They don't invest in people they don't like - Carnegie would have suggested that we invest in people we didn't like or didn't understand as a form of benevolence. Government requires everyone to be invested in, so it cheapens the impact (which is why Carnegie didn't like it).
 
tryptakid said:
That's what Carnegie believed. The government that governs least governs best AND that it is of utmost important that the wealthy invest generously in the aspects of their society that are good. It's what our current libertarian philosophies have perverted. They don't invest in people they don't like - Carnegie would have suggested that we invest in people we didn't like or didn't understand as a form of benevolence. Government requires everyone to be invested in, so it cheapens the impact (which is why Carnegie didn't like it).
Click to expand...

It's certainly true that the wealthy elite used to build hospitals, schools, libraries and provide endowment grants to ensure that even further education was available to more people.

It's not a new concept. In ancient Rome the elite would build temples, libraries, bathc amd other ameanties to the benefit of all Romans.

Now the elite are all investing in pet projects that benefit only the elite. It seems like going into space is valued far more than mundane things like ensuring people don't starve or die from treatable diseases.
 
Last edited:
4DQSAR said:
It's certainly true that the wealthy elite used to build hospitals, schools, libraries and provide endowment grants to ensure that even further education was available to more people.

It's not a new concept. In ancient Rome the elite would build temples, libraries, bathc amd other ameanties to the benefit of all ROmans.

Now the elite are all investing in pet projects that benefit only the elite. It seems like going into space is valued far more than mundane things like ensuring people don't starve or die from treatable diseases.
Click to expand...
Carnegie Mellon was a University made for these reasons, as was The Carnegie Foundation: A foundation for a stronger democracy, working to reduce political polarization through philanthropic support for education, democracy, and peace.
 
I'm sure that charity is much more efficient and cost effective than govt aid. I'm pretty sure it's not particularly to be depended on, though.
 
SvnLyrBrto said:
The problem is that whether or not it was a Hitler salute is not something that can be proven scientifically. It's a matter of judgement. Who to believe? Who is most qualified or knowledgeable? Is their word trustworthy?

One interesting thing about being a superpower is that since our actions, for good or for ill, affect so much of the rest of the world; it behooves them to keep tabs on us. So, with the internet and translation tools, it's not hard to find the foreign perspective on US current events if you care to seek it out. Just like the US has reporters that report our news, other countries have reporters that report our news. Our allies have reporters that report our news. Germany... has reporters that report our news. So I went out and found a few German articles about the incident. Here is one: Ein Hitlergruß ist ein Hitlergruß ist ein Hitlergruß.

That article is from Die Zeit. So it is solid. No Daily Kos or News Corp partisan hackery or hysterics. Most of it is behind a paywall. But if you open it in Reader View in Safari, you can cut & paste the text before the paywall into Google Translate. But of course I've already done it:



Even through the translation, it's pretty clear. And you know what? Sorry not sorry, but when the Germans are telling me it was a Hitler salute... it was a goddamned Hiter salute.
Click to expand...
Die Zeit is govt funded propaganda (like all mainstream media and you’re not even allowed to opt out of supporting it - it’s an extra tax of over €200/yr that you’re forced to pay), and the German govt is VERY leftist. Plus Germans have been indoctrinated to hate themselves, and will use any chance at all to beat themselves up about anything related to World War II.
 
tryptakid said:
@fairnymph - suffice to say that you and i have very opposite views on many issues. I take it as an opportunity to understand the broader tapestry of human experience, one which is very likely to include people with different (but no less valid) views than the ones I have.

It's why I asked @-=SS=- to co-mod this forum since I'm definitely biased in ways that he is much less likely to be biased in, and vice versa.

I subscribe to model agnosticism rather than zealotry as a foundational value.
Click to expand...
What exactly is model agnosticism? If you don’t mind providing a brief summary in your own words? I’m also not a fan of zealotry. Although I’ve never heard of it being a foundational value. It’s not part of moral foundations theory
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top