5 ms·

> It's mostly Trump though. Trump is responsible for his actions. Eh, kinda sorta. Trump is responsible for his actions, but the people who created the conditi

> It's mostly Trump though. Trump is responsible for his actions. Eh, kinda sorta. Trump is responsible for his actions, but the people who created the conditions for him are responsible too. There are a lot of leaders are very interested in having the buck to stop with him because it lets them off the hook. IMHO, Trump's tariff policies were poorly thought through, and that's something that's all on him. But reshoring manufacturing is going to be costly, and those costs will land on people who aren't yet used to bearing them, and that's also on his predecessors who allowed the offshoring in the first place. If they'd never done that, there'd be no Trump and no pain of reshoring.

twixfel 2y ago
> the people who created the conditions for him are responsible It's just a truism though isn't it? Everything in the past is responsible for what is the current state of things. You can say it but it has next to no meaning and is not interesting. But using plain English and the plain meanings of words: Trump is responsible. You can blame Biden for not dropping out soon enough or whatever, but ultimately: what is happening now is on Trump. What would perhaps be interesting is to discuss this objective failure of the American system. Far from the "greatest democracy in the world", the constitution is clearly quite, quite a shit one if it allows this to happen.
- 9rx 2y ago
  It is not just about the past. A king is only as powerful as his subjects are loyal. Trump continues to hold sway because people have remained trusting of him and are willing to go along with him. They don't have to, but they choose to.
  - twixfel 2y ago
    Right, and a constitution that allows that to even happen has also failed. The American system was supposed to be somewhat elitist and prevent wild populism. So it didn't do that. It failed. Perhaps related to the overly permissive definition of speech in the US and subsequent extreme partisanship. Or perhaps presidential systems actually are quite shit in comparison to parliamentary ones. Anyway, obviously the country is very, very sick at the moment.
    - actionfromafar 2y ago
      First past the post voting is one critical root cause. It prevents coalition building and compromise. I think that's a much bigger smoking gun than presidential vs parliamentary.
      - anonymars 2y ago
        I think this is too simple. The right wing was on the rise in most of the rest of the developed world too, until Trump scared everyone straight. What factors led people to think this brand of politics is a good way forward? Simple media? Social media? Propaganda? Foreign propaganda? Personally I think it's a mix, but inequality is a big factor. Quoting Roosevelt: "But I venture the challenging statement that if American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, then Fascism and Communism, aided, unconsciously perhaps, by old-line Tory Republicanism, will grow in strength in our land."
        9rx 2y ago
        > Simple media? Social media? Propaganda? Foreign propaganda? Fashion.
- palmotea 2y ago
  > But using plain English and the plain meanings of words: Trump is responsible. Not exactly. Being so blunt and simplistic is politics, pure and simple. The D's don't like the R's, so their analysis always stops once they can blame an R (and vice-versa). I think it's a much more interesting and fruitful question to ask "Who is responsible for Trump," rather than "What is Trump responsible for." IMHO, the Trump phenomenon is in large part the expression of rejection of neoliberalism, which the pre-Trump political structure made unexpressable. The result is a seriously flawed man gaining power, and causing way more damage than was necessary. > What would perhaps be interesting is to discuss this objective failure of the American system. Far from the "greatest democracy in the world", the constitution is clearly quite, quite a shit one if it allows this to happen. That's closer to what I'm getting at. However, what exactly is "this," though? Does it include deviation from a Wall Street-friendly stasis? Neoliberalism 'till death do us part?
  - twixfel 2y ago
    I don’t know I think blaming trump for the things trump is doing is pretty straight forwards and the opposite of playing politics. >That's closer to what I'm getting at. However, what exactly is "this," though? Does it include deviation from a Wall Street-friendly stasis? Neoliberalism 'till death do us part? Neoliberalism is much newer than the constitution and the country. Have a sense of scope when talking about the history of your country, it's new, but it's not that new. The country is completely fucked—that we can all agree on. It's imploding and its position in the world is frankly becoming increasingly pathetic. America's friends pity it at best and detest it for its betrayal of Western civilisation at worst. America's enemies are laughing. If there are people to blame, then I'm afraid it's the American people. Americans are not worthy of the country that they have inherited. Americans are an undignified people, that's a bit part of the problem.
    - palmotea 2y ago
      > I don’t know I think blaming trump for the things trump is doing is pretty straight forwards and the opposite of playing politics. The playing politics part is (among other things) selectively focusing only "on the things Trump is doing." Trump isn't responsible for creating the conditions that allowed him to get elected. A lot of the people who are really interested in focusing only "on the things Trump is doing" are the ones responsible for those conditions in the first place. I mean, how bad do you have to be that people would rather vote for a sociopathic clown than you, when given the choice? But you know, thinking about that will make you uncomfortable, lets avoid it and focus on the clown! Here's a thought: if you don't want to be ruled by a Trump, figure out how to avoid creating the conditions where someone like him could win. Strongly advocating for reasonable policies to create those conditions would also be better politics against Trump, right now than the incessant outrage about how terrible Trump is.
maest 2y ago
This argument reminds me of: > Michael Scott: We are here because there is something wrong with society. > Jim: See, you're always saying there's something wrong with society, but maybe there's something's wrong with you. > Michael Scott: If it's me, then society made me that way.
- palmotea 2y ago
  > Jim: See, you're always saying there's something wrong with society, but maybe there's something's wrong with you. That probably works as limited context joke, playing off of the saying "if you think everyone else is always the problem, then maybe you’re actually the problem," but it's not really something that generalizes. The relationship between individuals is a lot different than the relationship of society to the individual. I don't think anyone can seriously claim that society doesn't have major problems, so any issues are actually individual ones. The people who claim that (and they exist), often are just gaslighting to deny a problem they don't want solved.
phillipcarter 2y ago
> But reshoring manufacturing is going to be costly So like what the Biden admin was doing? I'm sorry, but "a moron steps in and runs a wrecking ball through the global economy" is not something you look at and say, "wow, his predecessors really messed this one up". No, they did not create the conditions for this needless harm. The answer is, plainly, that Trump is a disastrous moron.
- foobarian 2y ago
  > No, they did not create the conditions for this needless harm. I took the OP to mean the predecessors like McConnell who were evil self-serving sociopaths and normalized a kind of politics to win at all costs, even if the cost is a detriment to the country.
actionfromafar 2y ago
It's not as simple as that. You can't build prosperity by hanging on to the bottom of the value chain. (Yes, you may deem some things are of strategic value - then you put predictable and long term tariffs on a _limited_ number of items, ramped up slowly, matched with incentives to build up capacity in that sector.)
- anonymars 2y ago
  That's all well and good, but people are not replaceable machines. If there aren't enough jobs for the not-well-educated, and the minimum required education is an expensive endeavour, where does that leave people? In the past, the tradeoff appeared to be that public school was offered to everyone, and that was enough to make a living. And now?
  - actionfromafar 2y ago
    Yes, what? There can be many answers, including the government getting involved in re-educating people for more productive work. A bad answer is definitely "blanket tariff the world".
anonymars 2y ago
I think people are missing your point: Trump's rhetoric wouldn't have taken hold if people weren't getting screwed. "The system" failed, and Trump was the result. Harris's message: "Biden is doing fine and things are going great"* Trump's message: "You're hurting right now, and I'm going to fix it for you" Very similar to 2016 (in which Bernie's message was also closer to that of Trump) Exercise for the reader: how might this framework explain Andrew Tate and the like? * "The US economy is the envy of the world" (accurate though it may be) probably doesn't resonate when you can see your purchasing power slipping through your fingers (as highlighted by certain media outlets) and you can't buy a house
- twixfel 2y ago
  People understand it’s just nonsense.

twixfel 2y ago

> the people who created the conditions for him are responsible It's just a truism though isn't it? Everything in the past is responsible for what is the current state of things. You can say it but it has next to no meaning and is not interesting. But using plain English and the plain meanings of words: Trump is responsible. You can blame Biden for not dropping out soon enough or whatever, but ultimately: what is happening now is on Trump. What would perhaps be interesting is to discuss this objective failure of the American system. Far from the "greatest democracy in the world", the constitution is clearly quite, quite a shit one if it allows this to happen.

9rx 2y ago
It is not just about the past. A king is only as powerful as his subjects are loyal. Trump continues to hold sway because people have remained trusting of him and are willing to go along with him. They don't have to, but they choose to.
- twixfel 2y ago
  Right, and a constitution that allows that to even happen has also failed. The American system was supposed to be somewhat elitist and prevent wild populism. So it didn't do that. It failed. Perhaps related to the overly permissive definition of speech in the US and subsequent extreme partisanship. Or perhaps presidential systems actually are quite shit in comparison to parliamentary ones. Anyway, obviously the country is very, very sick at the moment.
  - actionfromafar 2y ago
    First past the post voting is one critical root cause. It prevents coalition building and compromise. I think that's a much bigger smoking gun than presidential vs parliamentary.
    - anonymars 2y ago
      I think this is too simple. The right wing was on the rise in most of the rest of the developed world too, until Trump scared everyone straight. What factors led people to think this brand of politics is a good way forward? Simple media? Social media? Propaganda? Foreign propaganda? Personally I think it's a mix, but inequality is a big factor. Quoting Roosevelt: "But I venture the challenging statement that if American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, then Fascism and Communism, aided, unconsciously perhaps, by old-line Tory Republicanism, will grow in strength in our land."
      - 9rx 2y ago
        > Simple media? Social media? Propaganda? Foreign propaganda? Fashion.
palmotea 2y ago
> But using plain English and the plain meanings of words: Trump is responsible. Not exactly. Being so blunt and simplistic is politics, pure and simple. The D's don't like the R's, so their analysis always stops once they can blame an R (and vice-versa). I think it's a much more interesting and fruitful question to ask "Who is responsible for Trump," rather than "What is Trump responsible for." IMHO, the Trump phenomenon is in large part the expression of rejection of neoliberalism, which the pre-Trump political structure made unexpressable. The result is a seriously flawed man gaining power, and causing way more damage than was necessary. > What would perhaps be interesting is to discuss this objective failure of the American system. Far from the "greatest democracy in the world", the constitution is clearly quite, quite a shit one if it allows this to happen. That's closer to what I'm getting at. However, what exactly is "this," though? Does it include deviation from a Wall Street-friendly stasis? Neoliberalism 'till death do us part?
- twixfel 2y ago
  I don’t know I think blaming trump for the things trump is doing is pretty straight forwards and the opposite of playing politics. >That's closer to what I'm getting at. However, what exactly is "this," though? Does it include deviation from a Wall Street-friendly stasis? Neoliberalism 'till death do us part? Neoliberalism is much newer than the constitution and the country. Have a sense of scope when talking about the history of your country, it's new, but it's not that new. The country is completely fucked—that we can all agree on. It's imploding and its position in the world is frankly becoming increasingly pathetic. America's friends pity it at best and detest it for its betrayal of Western civilisation at worst. America's enemies are laughing. If there are people to blame, then I'm afraid it's the American people. Americans are not worthy of the country that they have inherited. Americans are an undignified people, that's a bit part of the problem.
  - palmotea 2y ago
    > I don’t know I think blaming trump for the things trump is doing is pretty straight forwards and the opposite of playing politics. The playing politics part is (among other things) selectively focusing only "on the things Trump is doing." Trump isn't responsible for creating the conditions that allowed him to get elected. A lot of the people who are really interested in focusing only "on the things Trump is doing" are the ones responsible for those conditions in the first place. I mean, how bad do you have to be that people would rather vote for a sociopathic clown than you, when given the choice? But you know, thinking about that will make you uncomfortable, lets avoid it and focus on the clown! Here's a thought: if you don't want to be ruled by a Trump, figure out how to avoid creating the conditions where someone like him could win. Strongly advocating for reasonable policies to create those conditions would also be better politics against Trump, right now than the incessant outrage about how terrible Trump is.

maest 2y ago

This argument reminds me of: > Michael Scott: We are here because there is something wrong with society. > Jim: See, you're always saying there's something wrong with society, but maybe there's something's wrong with you. > Michael Scott: If it's me, then society made me that way.

palmotea 2y ago
> Jim: See, you're always saying there's something wrong with society, but maybe there's something's wrong with you. That probably works as limited context joke, playing off of the saying "if you think everyone else is always the problem, then maybe you’re actually the problem," but it's not really something that generalizes. The relationship between individuals is a lot different than the relationship of society to the individual. I don't think anyone can seriously claim that society doesn't have major problems, so any issues are actually individual ones. The people who claim that (and they exist), often are just gaslighting to deny a problem they don't want solved.

phillipcarter 2y ago

> But reshoring manufacturing is going to be costly So like what the Biden admin was doing? I'm sorry, but "a moron steps in and runs a wrecking ball through the global economy" is not something you look at and say, "wow, his predecessors really messed this one up". No, they did not create the conditions for this needless harm. The answer is, plainly, that Trump is a disastrous moron.

foobarian 2y ago
> No, they did not create the conditions for this needless harm. I took the OP to mean the predecessors like McConnell who were evil self-serving sociopaths and normalized a kind of politics to win at all costs, even if the cost is a detriment to the country.

actionfromafar 2y ago

It's not as simple as that. You can't build prosperity by hanging on to the bottom of the value chain. (Yes, you may deem some things are of strategic value - then you put predictable and long term tariffs on a _limited_ number of items, ramped up slowly, matched with incentives to build up capacity in that sector.)

anonymars 2y ago
That's all well and good, but people are not replaceable machines. If there aren't enough jobs for the not-well-educated, and the minimum required education is an expensive endeavour, where does that leave people? In the past, the tradeoff appeared to be that public school was offered to everyone, and that was enough to make a living. And now?
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  Yes, what? There can be many answers, including the government getting involved in re-educating people for more productive work. A bad answer is definitely "blanket tariff the world".

anonymars 2y ago

I think people are missing your point: Trump's rhetoric wouldn't have taken hold if people weren't getting screwed. "The system" failed, and Trump was the result. Harris's message: "Biden is doing fine and things are going great"* Trump's message: "You're hurting right now, and I'm going to fix it for you" Very similar to 2016 (in which Bernie's message was also closer to that of Trump) Exercise for the reader: how might this framework explain Andrew Tate and the like? * "The US economy is the envy of the world" (accurate though it may be) probably doesn't resonate when you can see your purchasing power slipping through your fingers (as highlighted by certain media outlets) and you can't buy a house

twixfel 2y ago
People understand it’s just nonsense.