American Politics III: New President, Same Old Country

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

Many nations deify their foundations, and America is no different. With that being said, we shouldn't implement something just because the founders did it.

I could be wrong here, but on a surface level, the way and also the amount Americans seem to invoke their Founding Fathers (not to mention the Constitution, o sacred document!) is different from many other liberal democracies. Other countries also celebrate their mythologized founders and other important historical figures, but the way Americans do it seems more active and involving, as the Founding Fathers and the Constitution are invoked in seemingly every conversation about matters of state.

I don't think I have ever in my life seen someone defer their answer on the desirability of policy to the founders of the Danish nation, who are temporally much further away than the likes of Washington, to be sure. But people also do not defer to other important historical figures that much here. You don't see people going "that's against the wishes of Stauning!" when someone proposes to cut down on the welfare state. It's therefore always struck me as odd how much Americans do it. I also find it notable in the amount of flags I've seen when I visited (my brain is also imagining the stereotypical home with a flag out front).

The American state is fundamentally the same one as it was when the constitution was ratified, over the years it has become ingrained as a part of the American civic religion. As for not revering founders, that can be attributed to 2 things, one is that most modern democracies in Europe don’t have a proper founder, like who would be the founder of the UK? Boudica? William the Conqueror? Queen Anne? However, the countries which do have a widely accepted founder absolutely do revere them, the Dutch anthem is entirely about William of Orange and Turkish politics basically revolves around how similar to Ataturk your views are.

[Major-Tom]

Biden will recognize Juan Guaido as Venezuela's leader

jfc

What else is he going to do? He recognizes Maduro, he's automatically a shill for dictators, he recognizes Guaido, he's automatically a shill for puppets. Two shitty options, but he had to pick one, and personally, I'd rather he err towards the movement in Venezuela that is more democratic, even if Guaido is a hack.

At least his failures didn't starve his people and plunge his country into chaos.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

[Sung to the tune of Johnny comes marching home]

Republicans are falling 2 by 2
Huzzah, huzzah
Republicans are falling 2 by 2
Huzzah, huzzah

The Republic's saved now Trump has gone
And Their party is lost without its head
We can now all breath with a sigh of relief.

I am sure having only democrats in charge means these states will be excellent places to live. After all, look at how democrats have helped US cities:

Almost All of America’s Failed Cities are Democrat Cities

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/0 ... n-perazzo/

There is some cause and effect, but not the way you think.

The private sector creates poverty. Poor people vote Democrat.

[Cultural Posadism]

Jon Ossoff will be sworn in as a senator at 430pm tomorrow, on "a book of Hebrew scripture once owned by Rabbi Jacob Rothschild" of Atlanta

Ooooh, conspiracy theorists are gonna love that.

[Kowani]

Biden will recognize Juan Guaido as Venezuela's leader

jfc

What else is he going to do? He recognizes Maduro, he's automatically a shill for dictators, he recognizes Guaido, he's automatically a shill for puppets. Two shitty options, but he had to pick one, and personally, I'd rather he err towards the movement in Venezuela that is more democratic, even if Guaido is a hack.

At least his failures didn't starve his people and plunge his country into chaos.

in the sense that guaido has no power whatsoever, nor any chance of grabbing it?
maduro is, well, a strongman dictator
guaido isn't even good at being a puppet

[Bombadil]

Of course the media going after trump had nothing to do with his shit decisions.

I'm not defending Trump, and if you know me, you'd know that. He obviously was a shit president.

Even the NYT goes along with calling the ACA 'Obamacare', a trick used to focus less on the Act itself and more identify it with a bogeyman for the right wing. It's quite ridiculous how easily the so called MSM fall for such tactics.

[Neutraligon]

Jon Ossoff will be sworn in as a senator at 430pm tomorrow, on "a book of Hebrew scripture once owned by Rabbi Jacob Rothschild" of Atlanta

Ooooh, conspiracy theorists are gonna love that.

I mean if the conspiracy theorists want someone swearing in on a book they do not care about and to a god they do not believe in that is their prerogative, though it does kinda diminish the import of the oath.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

I could be wrong here, but on a surface level, the way and also the amount Americans seem to invoke their Founding Fathers (not to mention the Constitution, o sacred document!) is different from many other liberal democracies. Other countries also celebrate their mythologized founders and other important historical figures, but the way Americans do it seems more active and involving, as the Founding Fathers and the Constitution are invoked in seemingly every conversation about matters of state.

I don't think I have ever in my life seen someone defer their answer on the desirability of policy to the founders of the Danish nation, who are temporally much further away than the likes of Washington, to be sure. But people also do not defer to other important historical figures that much here. You don't see people going "that's against the wishes of Stauning!" when someone proposes to cut down on the welfare state. It's therefore always struck me as odd how much Americans do it. I also find it notable in the amount of flags I've seen when I visited (my brain is also imagining the stereotypical home with a flag out front).

Most homes where I live don't have flags. With that being said, we can be a bit more patriotic that Europe, but that in itself isn't a bad thing.

We can and should be more patriotic than Europe, that’s one of the things I like the most about America is that everyone on all sides of politics (except for of course, the usual suspects) has a respect for the concept of American nationhood

[Duvniask]

[Sung to the tune of Johnny comes marching home]

Republicans are falling 2 by 2
Huzzah, huzzah
Republicans are falling 2 by 2
Huzzah, huzzah

The Republic's saved now Trump has gone
And Their party is lost without its head
We can now all breath with a sigh of relief.

I am sure having only democrats in charge means these states will be excellent places to live. After all, look at how democrats have helped US cities:

Almost All of America’s Failed Cities are Democrat Cities

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/0 ... n-perazzo/

You may have heard of the saying "correlation does not equal causation".

Could it be that, I don't know, Democrats tend to be poorer and poorer cities therefore tend to elect Democrats more? Just a thought, you know - maybe one you should have considered before making your post here. We have also not considered whether mayors and their city councils have the power and resources necessary to effectively combat crime and poverty (which are interrelated) in their jurisdiction.

[Neutraligon]

I am sure having only democrats in charge means these states will be excellent places to live. After all, look at how democrats have helped US cities:

Almost All of America’s Failed Cities are Democrat Cities

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/0 ... n-perazzo/

You may have heard of the saying "correlation does not equal causation".

Could it be that, I don't know, Democrats tend to be poorer and poorer cities therefore tend to elect Democrats more? Just a thought, you know - maybe one you should have considered before making your post here. We have also not considered whether mayors and their city councils have the power and resources necessary to effectiively combat crime and poverty (which are interrelated) in their jurisdiction.

Actually I do not believe that Democrats tend to be poorer or average. It is more that the Democrats tend to focus policy around things that are good for city folks but bad for the country while Republicans support policies that tend to be goo for the country while bad for the city.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

I am sure having only democrats in charge means these states will be excellent places to live. After all, look at how democrats have helped US cities:

Almost All of America’s Failed Cities are Democrat Cities

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/0 ... n-perazzo/

You may have heard of the saying "correlation does not equal causation".

Could it be that, I don't know, Democrats tend to be poorer and poorer cities therefore tend to elect Democrats more? Just a thought, you know - maybe one you should have considered before making your post here. We have also not considered whether mayors and their city councils have the power and resources necessary to effectiively combat crime and poverty (which are interrelated) in their jurisdiction.

That’s not entirely true

Urban poor often vote Democrat, this encompasses neighborhoods which are majority of color, while rural poor vote Republican more often. In US politics, poverty transcends party lines and is usually a measure of how much people will gravitate towards populist candidates on either sides such as Trump and Sanders.

This is a good analysis

In a way this trend exposes a bit of a sad reality

[The Reformed American Republic]

I'm not defending Trump, and if you know me, you'd know that. He obviously was a shit president.

Even the NYT goes along with calling the ACA 'Obamacare', a trick used to focus less on the Act itself and more identify it with a bogeyman for the right wing. It's quite ridiculous how easily the so called MSM fall for such tactics.

Indeed. We also have other Republicans who also promote shitty ideas and our media is softer on them. Trump does get flack for shitty ideas but mainly for lacking decorum and not being PC. He has no filter which is the main reason why the media went after him, as well as to improve ratings, which went up the more they covered him. Trump is terrible, but lets not pretend that CNN is a good news network.

[Cordel One]

Juan Guidao declares self intermittent U.S. president amid national instability

[Duvniask]

You may have heard of the saying "correlation does not equal causation".

Could it be that, I don't know, Democrats tend to be poorer and poorer cities therefore tend to elect Democrats more? Just a thought, you know - maybe one you should have considered before making your post here. We have also not considered whether mayors and their city councils have the power and resources necessary to effectiively combat crime and poverty (which are interrelated) in their jurisdiction.

Actually I do not believe that Democrats tend to be poorer or average. It is more that the Democrats tend to focus policy around things that are good for city folks but bad for the country while Republicans support policies that tend to be goo for the country while bad for the city.

I made the assumption based on how people vote in the presidential elections. You tend to see the lowest incomes lean Democratic there. I recognize it's not necessarily indicative of how things look in the states, but I thought it would be a similar trend (otherwise, how much coherence would the parties have?).

You may have heard of the saying "correlation does not equal causation".

Could it be that, I don't know, Democrats tend to be poorer and poorer cities therefore tend to elect Democrats more? Just a thought, you know - maybe one you should have considered before making your post here. We have also not considered whether mayors and their city councils have the power and resources necessary to effectiively combat crime and poverty (which are interrelated) in their jurisdiction.

That’s not entirely true

Urban poor often vote Democrat, this encompasses neighborhoods which are majority of color, while rural poor vote Republican more often. In US politics, poverty transcends party lines and is usually a measure of how much people will gravitate towards populist candidates on either sides such as Trump and Sanders.

This is a good analysis

In a way this trend exposes a bit of a sad reality

Also, I have to add that I did not assert it as a matter of totally established fact, merely hinting that there could be more than meets the eye with some admittedly snarkily presented speculation.

[Maineiacs]

It should not. Because the 1960’s Democratic Party and its basis hadn’t been rooted into by socialism and relatable philosophies like the modern Democratic Party is. Name one popular elected official in the 1960’s that was a very vocal communist or socialist.

And here we are today with Bernie Sanders and AOC for example.

You wouldn't get any that identified as such, thanks to McCarthyism and the Cold War, but a lot of the economic views of your run-of the mill dem back in the 1960s would be considered very socialist or communist if said now now. 90% tax rate on the wealthy, very strong unions, massive protectionist tariffs...

So by that standard, it would be many.

EDIT: Also, with a quick google, we find that in the 1950s Congressman Samuel Dickson was a paid agent of the NKVD. So that's ... something.

Samuel Dickstein

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Dickstein

[Bombadil]

Basically city dwellers tend to be more tolerant and cognisant of the need for public services than rural.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

I'm not defending Trump, and if you know me, you'd know that. He obviously was a shit president.

Even the NYT goes along with calling the ACA 'Obamacare', a trick used to focus less on the Act itself and more identify it with a bogeyman for the right wing. It's quite ridiculous how easily the so called MSM fall for such tactics.

I call it Obamacare. Because Obama himself said he was OK with it. "Own it" I think was his phrase.

But sure, ACA if you want some other nickname for part of an alpaca.

[Kexholm Karelia]

Basically city dwellers tend to be more tolerant and cognisant of the need for public services than rural.

Easy to imagine why, if you think about it. Statistics show that Republican voters, no matter income level, are much happier than their democrat counterparts. While part of that I think is attributed to faith in God and belief in a good family as the basis of society, living in a rural area is far more of an individualistic lifestyle than urban living is

[Neutraligon]

Actually I do not believe that Democrats tend to be poorer or average. It is more that the Democrats tend to focus policy around things that are good for city folks but bad for the country while Republicans support policies that tend to be goo for the country while bad for the city.

I made the assumption based on how people vote in the presidential elections. You tend to see the lowest incomes lean Democratic there. I recognize it's not necessarily indicative of how things look in the states, but I thought it would be a similar trend (otherwise, how much coherence would the parties have?).

Also, I have to add that I did not assert it as a matter of totally established fact, merely hinting that there could be more than meets the eye.

None, remember the parties in the US are essentially the coalitions that form in places like Great Britain. There is some similarity, namely a rural urban divide, but not always. An example of this is that a person can be a member of the Democratic party because they support their social stances while being fiscally more Conservative despite the Democrats also being slightly more fiscally progressive.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Basically city dwellers tend to be more tolerant and cognisant of the need for public services than rural.

Another way of looking at it is that the same spending per capita, on public services, does not go as far in rural areas. They have a pretty good case for more spending per capita, so let's not dismiss their complaints about paying more in taxes than they get back in effective public services.

Abolishing county governments might help. Trying to pay for social services out of local taxes is part of the problem!

[Neutraligon]

Basically city dwellers tend to be more tolerant and cognisant of the need for public services than rural.

Another way of looking at it is that the same spending per capita, on public services, does not go as far in rural areas. They have a pretty good case for more spending per capita, so let's not dismiss their complaints about paying more in taxes than they get back in effective public services.

Abolishing county governments might help. Trying to pay for social services out of local taxes is part of the problem!

Part of that is the very nature of a rural area. It isn't easy or cost effective getting public services to rural areas. Getting electricity and phone lines out to the rural area was a massive undertaking.

[Bombadil]

Basically city dwellers tend to be more tolerant and cognisant of the need for public services than rural.

Easy to imagine why, if you think about it. Statistics show that Republican voters, no matter income level, are much happier than their democrat counterparts. While part of that I think is attributed to faith in God and belief in a good family as the basis of society, living in a rural area is far more of an individualistic lifestyle than urban living is

Sure, though I wouldn't say rural is less community minded than city, I'd argue they're more so but that it part of self-reliance without the need for government interference. I know from leaving HK island and moving to an island that is far more community minded has come with less stress and less need for near anything really.

Hence why strong community programs in cities would really help solve a lot of the problems. There's benefits on both sides of urban vs. rural, good aspects and bad aspects from both - it's just the conversation is so either/or these days.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Basically city dwellers tend to be more tolerant and cognisant of the need for public services than rural.

Easy to imagine why, if you think about it. Statistics show that Republican voters, no matter income level, are much happier than their democrat counterparts. While part of that I think is attributed to faith in God and belief in a good family as the basis of society, living in a rural area is far more of an individualistic lifestyle than urban living is

You were making sense up to "living in rural areas". There aren't enough rural Republicans (considering they're not ALL Republicans) to account for Republicans generally being ... allegedly happier.

I have to ask you for a source, but I'm not looking forward to "statistics" made up by some guy whose qualifications are "Pastor". Please try to make it a credible source, OK?

[The Reformed American Republic]

Juan Guidao declares self intermittent U.S. president amid national instability

I would vote for him or support him.

[Kexholm Karelia]

Easy to imagine why, if you think about it. Statistics show that Republican voters, no matter income level, are much happier than their democrat counterparts. While part of that I think is attributed to faith in God and belief in a good family as the basis of society, living in a rural area is far more of an individualistic lifestyle than urban living is

You were making sense up to "living in rural areas". There aren't enough rural Republicans (considering they're not ALL Republicans) to account for Republicans generally being ... allegedly happier.

I have to ask you for a source, but I'm not looking forward to "statistics" made up by some guy whose qualifications are "Pastor". Please try to make it a credible source, OK?

Pew Research Center?