• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

Czech_pivo said:
And that is the state of Democracy in America.
‘For the People, By the People’ - no fricking way that is accurate anymore.

‘For the extremely Few, By the extremely Fewer’

The Soviet Union existed for years because of the myth that everyone was ‘equal’. I’d argue that under Trump’s America, they are trying to mirror that same myth when in stark reality it’s so far from the truth.
Click to expand...
Closest America ever got to ‘for the people, by the people’ was in the 70s. They have never been a great example of equal rights for all. Much like the USSR lots of words which the deeds don’t match.
 
Eaglelord17 said:
Closest America ever got to ‘for the people, by the people’ was in the 70s. They have never been a great example of equal rights for all. Much like the USSR lots of words which the deeds don’t match.
Click to expand...

Because Vietnam, record inflation and job loss, and all the domestic chaos around civil rights etc, was so awesome...

Black Lives Matter Protest GIF by TIFF
 
FSTO said:
I continually shake my head at the amount of money that is spent in the US on election advertising. It’s frankly ridiculous. I’m so glad we’ve limited the amount you can donate to a political cause.
Click to expand...
Congress did impose various limits but the Republican US SCC decided this interfered with billionaires' constitutional rights to buy politicians.

:giggle:
 
daftandbarmy said:
Because Vietnam, record inflation and job loss, and all the domestic chaos around civil rights etc, was so awesome...
Click to expand...
I never said it was awesome, just it was the closest the States got to ‘we the people, for the people’.

Before that a large percentage of the population was not equal citizens and after that much of the checks and balances they started to impose on government in the 20s-70s were slowly eroded in favour of oligarch favouring policies and corruption.

They got upset at Carter because he had a family peanut farm and made him put it in a blind trust for ethics reasons. Today we literally have the president selling cars for a oligarch who donated tons to the Republicans on the white house lawn and not much is said about it.
 
FJAG said:
Congress did impose various limits but the Republican US SCC decided this interfered with billionaires' constitutional rights to buy politicians.
Click to expand...
What the USSC decided was that people don't lose their right to use their money for political expression just because it's tied up in a business entity.
 
Eaglelord17 said:
Closest America ever got to ‘for the people, by the people’ was in the 70s. They have never been a great example of equal rights for all. Much like the USSR lots of words which the deeds don’t match.
Click to expand...

daftandbarmy said:
Because Vietnam, record inflation and job loss, and all the domestic chaos around civil rights etc, was so awesome...

Black Lives Matter Protest GIF by TIFF
Click to expand...

I’m guessing the post-Watergate reforms helped level the playing field for a little while.
 
Perhaps it's just nostalgia for my youth, but I remember 1976 as having a more upbeat and unified public mood than 2026.

I don't remember the deep partisan divisions of 2026.
 
Brad Sallows said:
What the USSC decided was that people don't lose their right to use their money for political expression just because it's tied up in a business entity.
Click to expand...
That’s the USA for you. No limits on anything because the people can police themselves right?😬
 
mariomike said:
Perhaps it's just nostalgia for my youth, but I remember 1976 as having a more upbeat and unified public mood than 2026.

I don't remember the deep partisan divisions of 2026.
Click to expand...
Eye of a continuing storm. Americans were putting Vietnam, the civil rights turmoil of the '60s-'70s, and Watergate behind them for a while. They had a bicentennial to celebrate. And, yes, the median Democrat and median Republican were closer together in political and social views.

It is not possible for one political faction to keep pushing the progressive envelope at a much faster rate than other political factions without losing some general political and social cohesion.
 
FSTO said:
That’s the USA for you. No limits on anything because the people can police themselves right?😬
Click to expand...
Not no limits; but in seriousness, the USA is a country which evolved from the bottom up with respect to governance. They've always imposed limits on themselves, just like everyone else, but in ways that depend much more on local elected government and positions. A foundational principle is that people institute government to enable themselves to order their own lives. European countries have only weakly, if at all, tried to get away from top-down rule, and mostly failed. Canada is failing. Arguments can be made that people in those countries want that, or something in between, because they do have similar democratic institutions. No question that American dominance in so many spheres has to be more than advantageous circumstances (sparsely occupied continent, cities not rubbled by wars), though. Lots of countries in this hemisphere had the same advantages and failed to prosper as much. Institutional choices matter.

Drilling down, there are a lot of communities where people own a lot of firearms but there is not much firearm violence (or any violence). At least some can "police themselves". Social expectations and enforcement matter.
 
While it is not our country, it just baffles me that the two parties will spend horrendous amounts of money to produce batshit crazy commercials to paint their opponents the worst light. That is at the national level, and there is more money spent at the state, municipal and county level to do the same thing. Think of the good that even a 1/4 of that money spent on health care or infrastructure. The USA is/was a great nation but it is wasting that wealth on dumbass internal fighting.
 
FSTO said:
While it is not our country, it just baffles me that the two parties will spend horrendous amounts of money to produce batshit crazy commercials to paint their opponents the worst light. That is at the national level, and there is more money spent at the state, municipal and county level to do the same thing. Think of the good that even a 1/4 of that money spent on health care or infrastructure. The USA is/was a great nation but it is wasting that wealth on dumbass internal fighting.
Click to expand...

Except that money is not public purse funds. It is generally the private wealth of individuals (or collected from a multitude with the same political bent) that, were it not spent on electioneering, would not likely be used for more altruistic pursuits. I would speculate that a significant number of the major donors do so with the goal of making it easier to shield their wealth from being used for those altruistic pursuits.
 
Blackadder1916 said:
Except that money is not public purse funds. It is generally the private wealth of individuals (or collected from a multitude with the same political bent) that, were it not spent on electioneering, would not likely be used for more altruistic pursuits. I would speculate that a significant number of the major donors do so with the goal of making it easier to shield their wealth from being used for those altruistic pursuits.
Click to expand...
Oh I understand its their money and they can spend it the way they want. But good lord, the amounts rich people are willing to waste to ensure that their guy will win and ensure their money is safe from the tax man.

The USA was founded on tax evasion so it doesn't surprise me they have made it a key pillar on the foundation of the state.
 
FSTO said:
While it is not our country, it just baffles me that the two parties will spend horrendous amounts of money to produce batshit crazy commercials to paint their opponents the worst light. That is at the national level, and there is more money spent at the state, municipal and county level to do the same thing. Think of the good that even a 1/4 of that money spent on health care or infrastructure. The USA is/was a great nation but it is wasting that wealth on dumbass internal fighting.
Click to expand...
It is usually corporate money. When a corporation or its leaders dispense funds, fiduciary responsibility dictates that every dollar allocated must serve the best interests of the corporation and its stakeholders, rather than personal or competing interests

So the quid pro quo is explicit. Political donations are only made by corporations when it is in the best interests of the corporation. That slope is teflon, with silicone spray on it.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Not no limits; but in seriousness, the USA is a country which evolved from the bottom up with respect to governance. They've always imposed limits on themselves, just like everyone else, but in ways that depend much more on local elected government and positions. A foundational principle is that people institute government to enable themselves to order their own lives. European countries have only weakly, if at all, tried to get away from top-down rule, and mostly failed. Canada is failing. Arguments can be made that people in those countries want that, or something in between, because they do have similar democratic institutions. No question that American dominance in so many spheres has to be more than advantageous circumstances (sparsely occupied continent, cities not rubbled by wars), though. Lots of countries in this hemisphere had the same advantages and failed to prosper as much. Institutional choices matter.

Drilling down, there are a lot of communities where people own a lot of firearms but there is not much firearm violence (or any violence). At least some can "police themselves". Social expectations and enforcement matter.
Click to expand...
Except that US governance has slowly moved towards a more 'top down' model. Over the years, Congress has devolved some of its powers to the Executive, both legislatively and de facto. Some of it has been in place for several years but the current Executive has weaponized it.
 
PPCLI Guy said:
It is usually corporate money. When a corporation or its leaders dispense funds, fiduciary responsibility dictates that every dollar allocated must serve the best interests of the corporation and its stakeholders, rather than personal or competing interests

So the quid pro quo is explicit. Political donations are only made by corporations when it is in the best interests of the corporation. That slope is teflon, with silicone spray on it.
Click to expand...
I think you’re referring to Clark’s non-caloric silicon based kitchen lubricant.
 
lenaitch said:
Except that US governance has slowly moved towards a more 'top down' model. Over the years, Congress has devolved some of its powers to the Executive, both legislatively and de facto. Some of it has been in place for several years but the current Executive has weaponized it.
Click to expand...
Few political systems fail to evolve to accrete power and authority at and near the top.

The observation is interesting, but what does it mean to each person? Is the legislative devolution of powers to executive agencies good or bad? For those who think it's bad, I assure them that almost every progressive thinks it's a feature, while at least some conservatives think it's a bug.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top