US Politics Megathread

[Dolan]

@RefluxSemantic
I didn't want to get into details, but I think these comparisons are missing the point. The USA as a country was established with exploration and entrepreneurship in mind. It's in the country's DNA that it's geared towards wealth-making and wealth accumulation. That's the reason why millions of people migrated there anyway, do you think they went there for the nice scenery or the landscape? No, they went there for the opportunity to accumulate more wealth than they could back home, where things were too restrictive.

So what we're seeing today with this "wealth inequality" is really just the optimal outcome of the reason why the USA was established. That's what people wanted from going to the USA and that's what they got: the optimal country for accumulating wealth. Low regulation, low taxes, highly influential corporate lobbies, this was all by design, it's not due to some flaw or malfunction. No, it's the optimal outcome of what the country always stood for. It's the manifestation of its best nature.

That's why many Americans love to brag about how every other country in the world is a bunch of socialists and poor backwaters, while they're the most advanced, most modern, wealthiest country in the world. Because that's the core value that defines the country: wealth accumulation. Everything else is secondary and just a nice flourish.

[Goodspeed]

It's going to take way more than 1 president for that to change @Dsy

[princeofcarthage]

@Goodspeed Based on what? Julius caesar effectively ended the republic single handedly. Napoleon, Hitler. Putin, Erdogan, jury still pending on Netanyahu. Xi and so many more.

[RefluxSemantic]

@RefluxSemantic
I didn't want to get into details, but I think these comparisons are missing the point. The USA as a country was established with exploration and entrepreneurship in mind. It's in the country's DNA that it's geared towards wealth-making and wealth accumulation. That's the reason why millions of people migrated there anyway, do you think they went there for the nice scenery or the landscape? No, they went there for the opportunity to accumulate more wealth than they could back home, where things were too restrictive.

So what we're seeing today with this "wealth inequality" is really just the optimal outcome of the reason why the USA was established. That's what people wanted from going to the USA and that's what they got: the optimal country for accumulating wealth. Low regulation, low taxes, highly influential corporate lobbies, this was all by design, it's not due to some flaw or malfunction. No, it's the optimal outcome of what the country always stood for. It's the manifestation of its best nature.

That's why many Americans love to brag about how every other country in the world is a bunch of socialists and poor backwaters, while they're the most advanced, most modern, wealthiest country in the world. Because that's the core value that defines the country: wealth accumulation. Everything else is secondary and just a nice flourish.

It's not like NL's history is almost purely based on entrepeneurship, corporations and greed. No that's just an USA thing.

[Cometk]

dolan what are u arguing. you say that america is a country with inextricable capitalist spirit (true) momuu essentially say that western europe also vastly benefit from capitalist spirit (also true) so where's the conflict

[Dolan]

@RefluxSemantic & @Cometk

It's not like NL's history is almost purely based on entrepeneurship, corporations and greed. No that's just an USA thing.

You have a point about the Netherlands having a strong mercantilist history and spirit, we can see this even today, for example NL is a major European gateway to tax havens. However, there is a difference between NL and the USA (beside the obvious ones, like size and location). The Low Lands, despite having such a history of facilitating money-making (through banks and maritime commerce), it wasn't seen as a land of opportunity where you could migrate and start from scratch, like America was seen. And that's not just because the language would have been a major barrier, or that the place was already crowded. I think the biggest turn-off would have been the fact that it was just another typical European place, that was already somebody's dominion, a place where things were already bound by rules and laws that went back decades or centuries, a very settled society with not much potential for land grabs or exploitation of vast untapped resources.

When somebody back in the 19th century was thinking of a "land of opportunity", he would surely not have thought of the Low Lands, but rather of America. Just think of how many legends about "the cities of gold" circulated when Spanish expeditions were launched to reach South America during the 16th century (basically AOE3, but for real). There wasn't a similar myth about North America, but there was this major attraction for some kinds of people to make that impossible journey and reach that continent, of which stories told about a vast and mostly free expanse of land, rich with raw resources, timber, gold, soil that was great for farming. If you had that type of personality that was attracted to risk and the possibility of great rewards, you would have looked for a way to make the journey. So, it's very likely that those Europeans that did migrate to America were some of the most adventurous types of people, who would have risked it all for the chance of "making it big".

That spirit didn't just disappear, it changed shape, it transformed over the centuries into what we see today, this mentality that you need to draw money from a stone or else you didn't make it. And that involves a certain indifference to anything else that doesn't impede your ability to make money. That's where this total indifference to your culture and background comes from in the USA, I think, from the fact that the central focus is on the enterprise, the thing you got going, your game. Everything else is just some particular detail that doesn't matter much. Do you have something going for yourself, is it thriving? That's what it's about. Your thing, that talent that you turned into a money-making scheme. Or that story of abuse that you turned into a national best-selling book. You need to whore that pain out and make it bleed money.

We don't have that spirit in Europe. We're too settled, too focused on securing a good and comfortable spot, we don't see much potential or attraction for seeking wild exploitation for the sake of money-making. For example, when somebody here wants to start a small business, most of the time they think of tried and tested formulas: a cornershop, a car wash or repair shop, a civil law notary office. Sure, they do this in the USA too, but there's a much bigger focus there on monetising the latest fad, coming up with a way of moulding plastics and rubber to create a new shape of sports shoes with trimmings that glow in the dark, experimenting with sound effects to come up with something impressive to wow an audience and launch a new niche musical meme. I'll give you a concrete example. You know how Apple launched a new line of laptops and iphones a few years ago in this new hue called "rose gold"? This wasn't much of a commercial meme until they brought it on the market. Now this became incorporated in people's tastes, they want to buy things that have this finish, and not just phones. And that's where a business that does custom plating for any metal object you send them can appear: car rims, hand guns, laptops, lighters, you name it, they'll plate it in any precious metal hue you want: 24K gold, white gold (Rhodium), rose gold, platinum. This is the kind of business that is very typical of the US entrepreneurial spirit: focused on the new and shiny, speculating consumer interest in a new fad, making it seem like you need to have this, you need to gain that edge in social status by buying this new thing. This kind of highly speculative commercial spirit is not so prevalent in Europe, or it's much more tepid and isolated. Partly because people would think this kind of product is bad taste or tacky, but also because that aggressive social scene in which you need to pimp your stuff to project an image of success, positivity and confidence is missing here.

I used to think that this taste for novelty in US culture came from the absence of a deep, common culture that goes back far into the mists of history, like European countries have. (When you have a population consisting of global diasporas that flock to this most-cherished place to be, how can you also make them share a common cultural background? What actually binds them together, if not the most superficial, common denominator culture, like consumerism.) But I realised that's the wrong explanation when I randomly found a passage from a Roman historian who described Rome as the place where the latest fads from the whole world came and swept the public. Note: I don't actually like this typical comparison between the USA and the Roman empire, I think the two are very different in many ways, but there are some patterns which are common to all past civilisations that at some point took center stage in the world and became the place to be. A volatile lifestyle, focused on mercantilism and chasing fleeting fads was one such pattern which you can find in ancient Rome too. And probably in other empires that became the hub of the earth at some point. It would be interesting to see if that was the case in Babylon, Alexandria or Constantinople too.

This is not a case of history repeating itself, though, because there is an element of novelty that didn't exist before: capital. Securitisation, using an asset as collateral to get a loan, then using the loan to fund another project and get tax deductions from your investment, a whole house of cards of leveraging, built to chase the ecstasy of growing numbers in your portfolio and your account, that abstract digital wealth. Such a meta-economic scheme of creating value did not exist until modern times. And the USA is at the heart of it.

The Netherlands couldn't have been such a promised land as America was, as it was fenced in under the dominion of stadtholders, living inside that old and venerable framework of laws and rules which became the modern state. You did export your share of Americans, though, Cornelius Vanderbilt has become a household name in the history of American money-making schemes. If a Dutch guy fled his own country to seek a fortune in America, how could he have seen the Dutch Republic as a land of opportunity? You were more like a springboard for overseas capitalism. And the USA became just that: the place where the most exploitative money-making schemes were exported from Europe, because the Old World was too enmeshed in its own rules and history to allow such a free-wheeling enterprise. The New World created this magnetic attraction for those who wanted to seek their fortunes in a Wild West of lawlessness and finders keepers economics. And that mentality hasn't really disappeared, it can still be found in the way US weapon manufacturers influence politicians to create conflicts and test new weapons in new warzones or to get new contracts for US oil companies to provide services to a country that is in dire need of being freed by the USA from an oppressive regime.

[fightinfrenchman]

Based Senator

[princeofcarthage]

bai bai middle east.

[Horsemen]

[iNcog]

How close are we to a much needed reform of the USA's electoral process?

What happened last year was one thing, but there is actually a precedence of elections being "stolen" in 2000 with the whole Bush / Al Gore thing that happened in the state of Florida.

[wardyb1]

How close are we to a much needed reform of the USA's electoral process?

What happened last year was one thing, but there is actually a precedence of elections being "stolen" in 2000 with the whole Bush / Al Gore thing that happened in the state of Florida.

Depends on what you mean by electoral process. If you mean like Dems passing HR1 before they lose the triple majority, then like 2% because I don't see the filibuster disappearing anytime soon. Manchin and Sinema are happy to keep taking the heat for the 10 other Dems that don't want to abolish it either.

If you mean like proper change aka abolishing of electoral college, or getting rid of FPTP or the senate disappearing, you know whatever major change to the actual nuts and bolts in how people get elected or bills are passed then not close at all.

[knusch]

there rly needs to be an agelimit to the presidency, this isn't even fun to watch anymore.

[duckzilla]

There is an age limit. You have to be at least 35 years old. Which means that Wastl Kurz would not be eligible yet.

[scarm]

Tbh making Austria your own little cozy private mountain resort > being president of 'murica either way

[knusch]

There is an age limit. You have to be at least 35 years old. Which means that Wastl Kurz would not be eligible yet.

im aware and obvsly talking about the other end.
i'd take ppl in their early 30s over ppl in their 70s

[scarm]

https://thehill.com/policy/internationa ... -trump-won
Send help

[duckzilla]

You know that you lost a great leader when he gets support by the Bin Laden family.

[scarm]

Next Pol Pot's great uncle is going to announce his love for trump.

(Though tbf that niece apparently distances herself from and denounces islamic terrorism and her uncle. But yeah i mean calling switzerland an unfree country says everything lul)

[Snuden]

Trump 2021!

[princeofcarthage]

You know that you lost a great leader when he gets support by the Bin Laden family.

Didn't expect this from you tbh. Bias based on association is bad. She was 12 when the attacks happened. She has publicly condemned her uncle and the attacks. She has lived in switzerland for most her life (iirc). She has nothing to do with terrorism. Regardless of what she has said and how dumb or brilliant that is, targeting her based on her unfortunate family name over which she had zero control is unfair, don't you think so? Its similar to calling all Muslims terrorists.

[scarm]

It was a joke.

[fightinfrenchman]

You know that you lost a great leader when he gets support by the Bin Laden family.

Didn't expect this from you tbh. Bias based on association is bad. She was 12 when the attacks happened. She has publicly condemned her uncle and the attacks. She has lived in switzerland for most her life (iirc). She has nothing to do with terrorism. Regardless of what she has said and how dumb or brilliant that is, targeting her based on her unfortunate family name over which she had zero control is unfair, don't you think so? Its similar to calling all Muslims terrorists.

Sometimes when I read one of your posts I develop a bad headache as I feel my brain cells literally dying from exposure to such high levels of stupidity

[fightinfrenchman]

Good stuff

[occamslightsaber]

You know that you lost a great leader when he gets support by the Bin Laden family.

Didn't expect this from you tbh. Bias based on association is bad. She was 12 when the attacks happened. She has publicly condemned her uncle and the attacks. She has lived in switzerland for most her life (iirc). She has nothing to do with terrorism. Regardless of what she has said and how dumb or brilliant that is, targeting her based on her unfortunate family name over which she had zero control is unfair, don't you think so? Its similar to calling all Muslims terrorists.

Sometimes when I read one of your posts I develop a bad headache as I feel my brain cells literally dying from exposure to such high levels of stupidity

Yeah, who needs beer to rot brain time and time again when you have carthage?

[princeofcarthage]

Show hidden quotes

You know that you lost a great leader when he gets support by the Bin Laden family.

Didn't expect this from you tbh. Bias based on association is bad. She was 12 when the attacks happened. She has publicly condemned her uncle and the attacks. She has lived in switzerland for most her life (iirc). She has nothing to do with terrorism. Regardless of what she has said and how dumb or brilliant that is, targeting her based on her unfortunate family name over which she had zero control is unfair, don't you think so? Its similar to calling all Muslims terrorists.

Sometimes when I read one of your posts I develop a bad headache as I feel my brain cells literally dying from exposure to such high levels of stupidity

Yeah, who needs beer to rot brain time and time again when you have carthage?

uh huh. There's this neat feature called friend and foe. Why don't you foe me so that you don't have to read my posts and rot the last few remaining brain cells you have?