O/T:- Trump Presidency 2.0 [hic sunt dracones]

[Jampie]

Personally, as much as I sympathize, I wish our side of the political divide would let someone else hold the microphone for a while. But it?s all part of the corporate (ie., right agenda): get people arguing over what toilet they can and can?t use while you gut their health care, slash their wages and benefits, and provide diplomatic cover for genocide and the usual regime change operations on behalf of oil companies and the MIC. But lets all celebrate that the CEO who used to be called Harry looks great in a skirt.

As such, to me at least, the real left barely exists any more. And it certainly doesn?t exist in the MSM or Keri Starmers hollow Labour Party.

Nailed it Andy, IMO.

The real "right" barely exists to me either. I personally know four trans people and I swear to god the typical "Right wing" person spends more time and effort on trans issues than my actual trans friends do.

AFAIK if you tell me you're a woman, you're a woman. Tell me you're a man? You're a man. My masculinity is not the slightest bit threatened by someone else's gender changing; what the hell is wrong with everyone? It doesn't affect you, focus on something that does.

And DEI... like holy crap this is almost exclusively a right wing talking point to my perception. Of my lefty friends I know exactly one (who I regard as either hard left or borderline hard left) who would advocate for any kind of affirmative action, the rest of them are very much against ever hiring anyone based on race or gender etc. Diversity is seen as a good thing, but never, EVER at the expense of hiring the right person for the job.

We spend so much time and energy yelling at each other about stuff that has zero impact on 99% of people, while almost everyone is suffering under a cost of living crisis that we should be hammering our supposed leaders about every damned day. But are we? No. We're debating who should pee in which toilet like idiots.

And why is that happening? Well, we seem to hold a cartoon-cutout idea of what each side is. I know plenty of left and right wing people, but I know very few lefties who think or act like the cartoon version, and very few right wing people who think Trump is going to be a great president. I live in Australia so your mileage will vary. Obviously in the US Trump is seen on average in a more positive light. Somehow. For some reason. Most people hold moderate views. This should not be a shock but apparently it is, because each "Side"'s social and corporate media (same thing now) only ever shows the opposite "side"'s most extreme examples.

Yeah, I think social media is a big part of the problem. It's all owned by corporations now who benefit from us ignoring their activities and debating this nonsense back and forth. And I also blame the press. I don't watch the BBC but I skim the news site every day and I do think it still carries a slight left lean (personal opinion) but in general when they choose to report on a fact they get it right. I stopped checking the Guardian about two years ago because they had lost sight of factual reporting in some key areas and had a pretty blatant left lean on everything.

I can't say the same about the murdoch press or its ilk, who operate as blatant propaganda masquerading as news. At times they should an alternate reality to the facts on the ground, so long as it suits the agenda.

[Jampie]

And this is I think why mainstream parties are losing support and minor parties are gaining it, I think. The major parties don't represent us anymore. They represent their corporate sponsors and pay lip service to the bare minimum of the ideals they used to. That and a generational shift where people don't identify as as "labor" or "liberal/tory" voter for life anymore.

Combine that with the recent inflation episode (now recovering) and you would expect incumbent governments to take a beating at the polls at the moment.

I don't fully understand why the media have gone so bonkers. I think part of it is that Trump stories get clicks like nobody's business. Part of it is that they can't get traditional advertising revenue like they used to, and it's ALL about getting clicks now. Extreme views get clicks. Stuff that makes people angry gets clicks. Rational news does not. Putting things in context does not. Sensible, meaningful headlines are out, clickbait, rage-inducing nonsense is in. And so their primary responsibility - to make sure we're informed of actually relevant facts and context - goes unfulfilled.

I don't see a big conspiracy. Like a cabal of wealthy/powerful people at the top who planned all this. Nobody planned this BS. The status quo evolved chaotically like everything else. But those in power (real power) now benefit from it, so they're happy to maintain it as is. Or even accentuate the parts that protect them. But I don't think this is wise. This is far from a stable model. Trump is far from the last "burn it all down" populist candidate. There will be more. People will vote for destruction and chaos over a status quo that's slowly strangling the life out of them.

Sorry for the barely-coherent rant.

[slack_pie]

Nailed it Andy, IMO.

The real "right" barely exists to me either. I personally know four trans people and I swear to god the typical "Right wing" person spends more time and effort on trans issues than my actual trans friends do.

AFAIK if you tell me you're a woman, you're a woman. Tell me you're a man? You're a man. My masculinity is not the slightest bit threatened by someone else's gender changing; what the hell is wrong with everyone? It doesn't affect you, focus on something that does.

And DEI... like holy crap this is almost exclusively a right wing talking point to my perception. Of my lefty friends I know exactly one (who I regard as either hard left or borderline hard left) who would advocate for any kind of affirmative action, the rest of them are very much against ever hiring anyone based on race or gender etc. Diversity is seen as a good thing, but never, EVER at the expense of hiring the right person for the job.

We spend so much time and energy yelling at each other about stuff that has zero impact on 99% of people, while almost everyone is suffering under a cost of living crisis that we should be hammering our supposed leaders about every damned day. But are we? No. We're debating who should pee in which toilet like idiots.

And why is that happening? Well, we seem to hold a cartoon-cutout idea of what each side is. I know plenty of left and right wing people, but I know very few lefties who think or act like the cartoon version, and very few right wing people who think Trump is going to be a great president. I live in Australia so your mileage will vary. Obviously in the US Trump is seen on average in a more positive light. Somehow. For some reason. Most people hold moderate views. This should not be a shock but apparently it is, because each "Side"'s social and corporate media (same thing now) only ever shows the opposite "side"'s most extreme examples.

Yeah, I think social media is a big part of the problem. It's all owned by corporations now who benefit from us ignoring their activities and debating this nonsense back and forth. And I also blame the press. I don't watch the BBC but I skim the news site every day and I do think it still carries a slight left lean (personal opinion) but in general when they choose to report on a fact they get it right. I stopped checking the Guardian about two years ago because they had lost sight of factual reporting in some key areas and had a pretty blatant left lean on everything.

I can't say the same about the murdoch press or its ilk, who operate as blatant propaganda masquerading as news. At times they should an alternate reality to the facts on the ground, so long as it suits the agenda.

Good points! Political conversations have become so tense in recent years because vocal people on both "sides" have moved beyond discussing economic policy and other practical matters relating to the running of a country and embraced an entire worldview that covers virtually every social issue.

So if you consider yourself traditionally left-wing, you get lumped in with the blue-haired student activists and the woke-obsessed middle-class intelligentsia - and people on the other side attack you for being that way. If you are traditionally right, you get lumped in with racist, nationalistic yobs - and people on the other side attack you for being that way. This makes it difficult to have grown-up conversations without getting called "woke" or "hippy" or "racist" or "far right".

[slack_pie]

I'd also add that all nuance has been lost from political conversations. People seem to jump to the worst conclusions and brand others as this or that, partly because it makes their opposition to certain ideas easier to maintain, but also because of this obsession with everything being about sides.

So if someone is concerned about the impact of high immigration on public services and societal cohesion, they are "racist" or "far right". Likewise, if someone thinks Trump is a pathological liar and deeply flawed human being but a better option overall than Kamala Harris, they are "far right" and "love Trump". No doubt the same happens to those left of centre too.

[Bohinen]

I'd also add that all nuance has been lost from political conversations. People seem to jump to the worst conclusions and brandish others as this or that, partly because it makes their opposition to certain ideas easier to maintain, but also because of this obsession with everything being about sides.

So if someone is concerned about the impact of high immigration on public services and societal cohesion, they are "racist" or "far right". Likewise, if someone thinks Trump is a pathological liar and deeply flawed human being but a better option overall than Kamala Harris, they are "far right" and "love Trump". No doubt the same happens to those left of centre too.

Left and right are economic policy positions and no more than that. Do you want resources to be shared amongst everybody and pay a fair wage to those who work, or do you want wealth concentrated in the hands of a small elite, who owe their position to luck rather than ability, and allow them to exploit everyone else? Yes, to the first one, so I'm left.

Does that mean I want positive discrimination, no laws to prevent abortions right up to the point of birth, people excused long prison sentences for murder and rape, and unlimited immigration into a country that already fails to look after its own people? No, I don't.

And I don't want to start wars with everything that moves either, unlike some people who imagine they are on the left. There is nothing left-wing about starting wars or continuing them when we could stop them whilst people already in relative poverty are expected to fund it, so no, we don't have to support Zelensky and fund his endless conflict with Russia.

And on that basis, I don't get how Trump is any more right-wing than Biden, who did nothing, absolutely nothing, for ordinary working people, and represented the USA's ultra-rich elite.

[the_anticlough]

But it?s all part of the corporate (ie., right agenda): get people arguing over what toilet they can and can?t use while you gut their health care, slash their wages and benefits, and provide diplomatic cover for genocide and the usual regime change operations on behalf of oil companies and the MIC.

Yes, the above can't be repeated often enough - divide and rule ascended to whole new levels with this trick.

Superb couple of pages of posts here, great reading, just when it seemed like NCM had lost it

[Med Pie]

I'd also add that all nuance has been lost from political conversations. People seem to jump to the worst conclusions and brand others as this or that, partly because it makes their opposition to certain ideas easier to maintain, but also because of this obsession with everything being about sides.

So if someone is concerned about the impact of high immigration on public services and societal cohesion, they are "racist" or "far right". Likewise, if someone thinks Trump is a pathological liar and deeply flawed human being but a better option overall than Kamala Harris, they are "far right" and "love Trump". No doubt the same happens to those left of centre too.

What about people like me who think both of those things?

[SmiffyPie]

Is this man a complete muppet?

"But US President Donald Trump said he was "disappointed" by Ukraine's reaction.

Speaking to reporters at Mar-A-Lago, he was asked by the BBC what his message was to Ukrainians who might feel betrayed.

"I hear that they're upset about not having a seat, well, they've had a seat for three years and a long time before that. This could have been settled very easily," he said.

After the meeting between US and Russian officials in Saudi Arabia, Trump said he was "much more confident".

"They were very good. Russia wants to do something. They want to stop the savage barbarianism."

"I think I have the power to end this war," he said."

[BigFatPie]

Is this man a complete muppet?

"But US President Donald Trump said he was "disappointed" by Ukraine's reaction.

Speaking to reporters at Mar-A-Lago, he was asked by the BBC what his message was to Ukrainians who might feel betrayed.

"I hear that they're upset about not having a seat, well, they've had a seat for three years and a long time before that. This could have been settled very easily," he said.

After the meeting between US and Russian officials in Saudi Arabia, Trump said he was "much more confident".

"They were very good. Russia wants to do something. They want to stop the savage barbarianism."

"I think I have the power to end this war," he said."

People think Putins got dirt on him but probably the reality is Russias a gangster state and he admires gangsters and bullies.

[andy6025]

I don't recognise the categories you've described, personally. If we take Corbyn as the epitome of a true socialist, he was very active in both of the areas you mentioned.

I would agree with you that there are two camps on the left - one obsessed with identity politics and one much less interested in it, perhaps even against it - but I don't think we can somehow exempt socialists from the recent lunacy. Identifying and combating perceived or real discrimination and oppression is an integral part of being a socialist, so I think it's natural for many socialists to be front and centre on these kinds of issues.

I don't know exactly what I would call the two groups instead. Maybe intellectual left (using the word intellectual extremely lightly) and traditional left?

Falling back on clich?s, intellectual left would be the blue haired self-defined activist who is terminally online calling everyone a racist and proposing Maoism, abolishing borders, or defunding the police, all from a comfortable suburban bedroom.

Traditional left would be old school industrial heartland Labour /Democrat voters (red wall in UK / rust belt in US) who want their government to reopen their factory / mine.

Actually, maybe utopian left is a better description than intellectual left?

I think you might have missed this part:

These categories are often confused because in the context of modern politics the socialists and liberals are often allied with one another on most issues, but by no means are they necessarily so.