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

[ThePieWhoCameIn]

It would be a great ploy for Musk to do the Nazi salute, just a week after visiting Auschwitz with that other well known anti-Jewish Nazi, Ben Shapiro.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd theorise that Musk was at Auschwitz doing research. He's been tasked by Uncle Donald with coming up with a final solution for all those undocumented migrants.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist though, so that's a relief.

[Lullapie]

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd theorise that Musk was at Auschwitz doing research. He's been tasked by Uncle Donald with coming up with a final solution for all those undocumented migrants.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist though, so that's a relief.

Great post. I'm sure the world of evil would find more efficient ways to do that today than what the Nazis left.

[drillerpie]

It would be a great ploy for Musk to do the Nazi salute, just a week after visiting Auschwitz with that other well known anti-Jewish Nazi, Ben Shapiro.

I would hazard a guess that being Jewish is far more important to Shapiro than his following of capitalism.

Shapiro, who as I far as I understand has no connection to any far-right, antisemitic, pro-Nazi groups, spoke up for Musk and called out the hysteria of the left-wing media.

The same as the Anti-Defamation League, who also backed Musk. Again, Musk has been in a long running feud with the ADL prior to his 'gesture', but they backed him, saying that it was just over-enthusiasm.



There's a saying that the best thing for left-wing media is a right-wing government. I'm not sure if that is still true in the US. MSNBC are in huge financial trouble, with dramatic drops in ratings and next week, CNN are going to lay off 6% of its workforce as ratings for them drop too.

Americans are getting bored with their unbalance and made up journalism and fantasy stories.

So your position is that you're asking me to ignore what I can clearly see with my own eyes because Musk went to Auschwitz once (looks like it was Jan 2024, not last week, and was in response to Musk allowing anti-semitic content on Twitter).

In addition you're asking me and others to be swayed by a deliberately misleading photo collage of politicians photographed with their arms in the air as if every politician is walking round sieg-heiling all over the shop, and nothing unusual whatsoever has happened.

I'm all for listening to other points of view but to me it's pretty clear by now there is no value in listening to you or communicating with you. The only thing I am curious to figure out is whether you are deliberately posting in bad faith or just have some difficulties around reality.

[Jampie]

I mean we've moved socially to the left incrementally, but is any of that far left? Like what would far left social policy even be? Mandatory gay marriage? Compulsory *** change?

And we've drifted to the right economically. The only economics parameter that's changed that the left don't absolutely hate is recognition that renewable energy is cheaper and less problematic for economies. Hardly far left either is it? Basic economics 101: resources that aren't going to run out until the sun consumes the earth in 5 billion years are better for the economy than resources we're running low on already.

Meanwhile, Lullapie brings up Dutton's plan to nuclearise Australia's power grid. But neglects to mention the proposal is for the taxpayers to foot the bill because uclear power is such a bad investment no corporation will touch it unless the government fronts up the cash, at least for the public liability.

So who's a communist? Peter Dutton, leader of Australia's "right". The world hasn't gone mad, but the usual mad people are still mad, and people who consume Murdoch media are still deluded by it into thinking everyone else is crazy.

[drillerpie]

I mean we've moved socially to the left incrementally, but is any of that far left? Like what would far left social policy even be? Mandatory gay marriage? Compulsory *** change?

And we've drifted to the right economically. The only economics parameter that's changed that the left don't absolutely hate is recognition that renewable energy is cheaper and less problematic for economies. Hardly far left either is it? Basic economics 101: resources that aren't going to run out until the sun consumes the earth in 5 billion years are better for the economy than resources we're running low on already.

Meanwhile, Lullapie brings up Dutton's plan to nuclearise Australia's power grid. But neglects to mention the proposal is for the taxpayers to foot the bill because uclear power is such a bad investment no corporation will touch it unless the government fronts up the cash, at least for the public liability.

So who's a communist? Peter Dutton, leader of Australia's "right". The world hasn't gone mad, but the usual mad people are still mad, and people who consume Murdoch media are still deluded by it into thinking everyone else is crazy.

I agree witht thenidea that socially we've moved to the left and economically to the right.

I think the move to the left reached a peak during the Covid / George Floyd era. Defund the police, effectively decriminalise theft under a certain amount (is it 1000 usd?), allowing city centres to become homeless encampments, same day release after arrest, judicial reparations, obsession with DEI. All of these things are bat **** mental and helped re-elect Trump.

A good example of a longer term shift is the stigma around opposing immigration. Opposing or at least having reservations over large scale immigration is (or can be, depends how it's done) a perfectly reasonable position but was stigmatised, and it became the default position to accuse the person of being a closet racist for airing their concerns.

That has shifted people to the right as they are the only people articulating people's concerns. The parties they have found new homes in are parties that used to be ignored by pretty much everyone and get low single digits at the polls. I think we need to reflect on this.

[Med Pie]

I agree witht thenidea that socially we've moved to the left and economically to the right.

I think the move to the left reached a peak during the Covid / George Floyd era. Defund the police, effectively decriminalise theft under a certain amount (is it 1000 usd?), allowing city centres to become homeless encampments, same day release after arrest, judicial reparations, obsession with DEI. All of these things are bat **** mental and helped re-elect Trump.

A good example of a longer term shift is the stigma around opposing immigration. Opposing or at least having reservations over large scale immigration is (or can be, depends how it's done) a perfectly reasonable position but was stigmatised, and it became the default position to accuse the person of being a closet racist for airing their concerns.

That has shifted people to the right as they are the only people articulating people's concerns. The parties they have found new homes in are parties that used to be ignored by pretty much everyone and get low single digits at the polls. I think we need to reflect on this.

Haliluja, someone gets it!!!!!!!!!!

[Jampie]

I agree witht thenidea that socially we've moved to the left and economically to the right.

I think the move to the left reached a peak during the Covid / George Floyd era. Defund the police, effectively decriminalise theft under a certain amount (is it 1000 usd?), allowing city centres to become homeless encampments, same day release after arrest, judicial reparations, obsession with DEI. All of these things are bat **** mental and helped re-elect Trump.

A good example of a longer term shift is the stigma around opposing immigration. Opposing or at least having reservations over large scale immigration is (or can be, depends how it's done) a perfectly reasonable position but was stigmatised, and it became the default position to accuse the person of being a closet racist for airing their concerns.

That has shifted people to the right as they are the only people articulating people's concerns. The parties they have found new homes in are parties that used to be ignored by pretty much everyone and get low single digits at the polls. I think we need to reflect on this.

Yeah I agree with this, by and large.

"Defund the police" was a fringe view that got magnified by social media and the press because, you know, outrage clicks. I don't think it ever had popular support amongst the "left" if you include the massive moderate majority. I don't know anyone personally who supported it. But it was very loud in online spaces.

I too am irritated by the "you're racist" response to any criticism of immigration. I mean, the person could be racist. Can you address the concerns they actually raised, or is it about sticking a label on them and ignoring them from then on? My guess is B in most cases.

I also think the "left" of politics, especially in the US, has failed to actually make people's lives better in a tangible way, and folks are sick of it. Sick enough to try voting for a "burn it all down" candidate like Trump. I would never vote for him. But I understand how incredibly frustrated a lot of people are with the total lack of progress and indeed loss of progress economically for ordinary people.

Australia is indeed in a similar boat (albeit a bit less severely) and I won't be surprised if Albo loses outright or has to form a minority government after the election. Whenever he ends up calling it... presumably the last possible date since inflation is trending down now. But he just hasn't done enough for ordinary people to make a convincing case IMO.

Again, there's no way I will vote for Dutton - the last leader that party had who was actually competent was Turnbull IMO, and they knifed him for being "too left" and wanting to actually solve the energy/climate change problem. Twice. But, I do agree with the view that the left in Oz (and many places) has at least somewhat lost their way and have failed to a) improve things and b) be seen to improve things.

[BigFatPie]

The terms left and right arent really useful anymore. It may sound slightly pompous but in a world flooded with misinformation the terms evidence-based policy and non-evidence based policy seem more suitable.

Its evidential that high levels of wealth inequality lead to poorer outcomes, that children should be kept out of poverty wherever possible and by the state if necessary, that utilities, transport networks and healthcare work better when there?s no one making a profit from them, that crime is reduced through rehabilitation and lifting people out of poverty, that high levels of immigration are necessary when birth rates are low, that trade works better with fewer barriers, and the climate emergency is currently the biggest threat to humanity.

That?s not an exhaustive list, but what many people describe as the right left the scene long ago when it comes to evidence based policy, so much so that previously accepted facts like the effectiveness of vaccines or a woman?s right to reproductive autonomy are now things to be argued about. People and policies that would previously have been considered the lunatic fringe now find themselves mainstreamed and in power. Theres a reason billionaires own newspapers, tv stations and social media platforms and that?s to promote their own interests and persuade others to vote against theirs.

[Jampie]

Its evidential that high levels of wealth inequality lead to poorer outcomes

Pretty much total agreement with you except for this.

It isn't the inequality that's doing this. If you have a trillion pounds but I have everything I need, I am unharmed by this. Indeed, if you're investing wisely, I'll benefit, in the long run.

It's inequality + erosion of basic welfare + erosion of worker's bargaining power (and therefore real wages) that's causing harm, IMO.

[slack_pie]

Pretty much total agreement with you except for this.

It isn't the inequality that's doing this. If you have a trillion pounds but I have everything I need, I am unharmed by this. Indeed, if you're investing wisely, I'll benefit, in the long run.

It's inequality + erosion of basic welfare + erosion of worker's bargaining power (and therefore real wages) that's causing harm, IMO.

Actually I think it's true. Wealth inequality is a major factor in driving violent crime and a lack of social cohesion, especially if social mobility is low. This is the case even if the poorest people in such a society aren't actually that poor on a global scale.

Anecdotally, I see this first hand when I lived in the Czech Republic. Being a post-communist country, society isn't as stratified there. Most people are somewhere in the middle, with a few very rich and very poor outliers. The middle section is poorer overall than the British middle class by some way, but overall, there's much less violent crime and much higher social cohesion - at least it seemed that way. As that society becomes more stratified and the middle class shrinks, violent crime will probably go up - even if GDP per capita also goes up. I see that unfolding over the years.

I also agree that everyone having more overall helps. But "having everything I need" is subjective.