US Politics

Also uh probably bot account given this is the only post?

Ultimately his skill is connecting with people and stirring emotions.

He doesn't have any such skill. The only reason why some people trust him is because he was on TV. He's also backed by a propaganda machine, on anti-social media and elsewhere, that exploits people's trust and the fact that his political 'opponents' (both Republican and Democrat) aren't much better, having presided over exploding injustice, wars, and hopelessness over the last five decades or so. It's very easy to tap into all of that.

He's got a skill. He can stand and spout bilious shite for hours, all the while totally incoherent and inconsistent, and people will listen, rapt. He can connect. He connects to the worst fears and prejudices, but he makes people he has utter and obvious contempt for believe he is dedicated to them and their kind. Yes, he's backed by a monstrous machine, but others can't do what he can do, which is why he's so dangerous.

At the risk of pseud-ing out by quoting Voltaire:

Those who make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities

Once more, this is entirely because he was on TV. It creates a pseudo-public sphere whose protagonists are believed by people to be genuine representatives of a collective good.

entirely because he was on TV

It's one of many necessary elements of his incredible rise to become the exemplar of contemporary fascism.

That craving for all those superficial trappings of success; the sociopathic vacuum of a psyche; the Rorschach blot patter laced with poisonous resentment. He's the whole package, come to show what happens when living memory of what happened the last time dies.

Wait, serious question, is this

(as a nuerodivergent I have to take others' word for it because I pay most heed to the actual words employed, and add the nonverbal stuff on top as modifier - crazy, I know).

Not what everyone does?

Dude - you think the world would look like this if everyone actually paid more attention to the meaning of words than all the semiotic garnish around them?

We wouldn't have a marketing industry!

Hard to tell exactly what you meant.

He will probably stop the Ukraine war

We can eliminate all crime in the UK tomorrow, we just need to do one thing: legitimise (current) crimes.

Trump might end the war but he’ll do it by forcing the victims to surrender and letting the criminals have their way. In doing so, he’ll be empowering and strengthening despots who will, predictably, eventually confront and target the US with force.

Perhaps not within his expected lifetime but increasingly probably within his kids’, those chickens will come home to roost.

Killing people is a tragedy. Sadly, it is sometimes necessary, but it’s always a failure to get to that point.

Beginning to suspect you may not be a kosher fixie skidder…

How does that work Oliver? When he’s speaking live at an event what aspect of the TV appearances is present?

I'm not sure in what way this is mutually exclusive or that anyone would argue it isnt a factor.

I doubt Kennedy would have made it if tv wasn't a factor and he weren't so good looking. His whole image of youth and vitally was a concoction - he was an incredibly sickly person who used meds and makeup to sure up the image

Have doubts as to whether they are a fixie skidder ..

I once saw something about a poll of those who listened to Nixon Kennedy debates on radio Vs those who watched on TV.

Radio overwhelmingly Nixon, TV Kennedy

joined only to troll his views upon us..

So there's this...

https://youtu.be/3N-B0_OKkeg

An actual, mildly refreshing breeze of sanity, interrupting the near-constant, rancid gale of neoliberalism we've been soaked in for decades - fancy that.

It's like a third of the way to where Bernie's standing, at least in tone, and it's coming from an actual VP contender, no less. Dare I take this as a glimmer of hope that we might finally start thinking about maybe starting to close that stable door?

Reading the comments demonstraits why this is such a good video.

One of them was something to the effect - nice to see an ad that isn't trying to stoke fear.

Well, he does get around to mentioning Project 2025 at the end, where it becomes clear that's what the title of the video refers to...

But the interesting part is how he's also talking about wealth distribution, which has been Bernie territory up till now - Reagan started smashing the middle class, and Clinton happily jumped on that bandwagon, with Obama doing bugger-all to turn it around beyond the watered-down ACA.

Biden had kind of embraced something of a return to FDR style government (without really ever saying Bernie was right all along), but after half a century of bipartisan neoliberalism all over the world, I think I can be forgiven for being extremely sceptical and suspicious of anyone from the gang of culprits responsible promising an end to it.

My suspicion isn't eased in the slightest by the Dems' embrace of influencers in place of actual journalists during their campaign, and the way that video is put together has me picturing some canny marketers who know their old schtick is on the nose these days, saying how Walz' big selling point is his lo-fi granola authenticity, let's lean hard into that.

He's certainly a Trojan horse for the same old business as usual on the geopolitical stage, unlike actual Bernie, but it would be interesting to see whether there's any substance to that 'restore the middle class' vibe... Maybe it's the Dems' actual stance these days? If so, it sure would be nice if our pretend left parties decided to follow suit one day...

I also liked the video.

But I still can't fix my goddam cruise control.

Also, does anyone else find the use of 'middle class' in the US slightly dissonant to how we use the term here?

I presume that in the states it has a more working class (blue collar? I don't really know what that means) connotation, in our way of delineating socio-economic groups?

It's certainly different, but I feel for all the poor sods who search YouTube for a 'how-to'on fixing the analogue cruise control on a 79' International Harvester Scout, and have to sit through all of that only to find nothing of tangible use.

Their wealth distribution is more extreme than ours. The more extreme it is, the less well off those in the middle are I suppose. Though I think the class terms have become a bit divorced from wealth and income in the UK.

Also in the usa you can earn a shit load of money and still struggle because of the small state mentality causing a hight cost of living.

Completely. Middle class appears to be anyone who has a regular, contracted job over there.

Also, does anyone else find the use of 'middle class' in the US slightly dissonant to how we use the term here?

There was a rather unpleasant exchange a while ago on here centring on this. A person’s financial situation doesn’t impact their class as much in the UK as it does in the US. On the flip side, one’s heritage and background don’t matter quite as much in the US (nuance below).

In common parlance, “Lower middle class” in the US is what is generally called “working class” in the UK, consisting of tradespeople and service workers (in the US). “Middle class” in the US bridges between the UK’s “working” and “middle” classes, and also includes tradespeople, emergency service workers, teachers, bureaucrats and office workers. The “Upper middle class” over there is part of the “middle class” here, and includes white collar professionals that are making high incomes but aren’t considered rich.

Upper class over there is a mix of celebrities, successful business owners, very successful professionals, top Ivy League educated technocrats, and the secretive, secluded plutocratic establishment (of the 100 richest families in the US now, 90+ of them were also among the 100 richest families back when the US became independent, but they’re great at keeping this quiet). Most people in the US ignore or are ignorant of that last, most powerful, nearly impermeable group of ‘old money’, which is also the closest in characteristics to the UK’s “upper class”.

Out of curiosity, how do you define it? As a Swede I think we have very different definitions of the term

My understanding is that the US way of delineating is more universal, i.e. working class = manual labour. The way it was explained to me, the UK delineation has been skewed historically due to the existence of a larger segment at the pinnacle of feudal wealth. These families were assigned the upper class label, leaving those who are merely very rich with the upper middle class label. The middle class label then bumps down to the next rung on the ladder, which can still include well to do people such as doctors etc.

In the UK?

It's tricky because the late c20th upended the traditional deliniations and increased the value of working class.

The shortest version of middle class is being in the professions and owning your home, but having to work for a living.