7 ms·

HN readers from USA, what the hell is happening. How do we "get back to normal"?

csa 1y ago
> HN readers from USA, what the hell is happening. How do we "get back to normal"? For the vast majority of Americans, life is “normal”, but perhaps in a slightly different key. Outside of educated liberal circles, there is no discussion of the gutting of our democracy.
- morkalork 1y ago
  If you look back on the USA's history of interference in the middle east and Central and South America: This is normal behaviour.
tastyface 1y ago
Unfortunately, America is an authoritarian country now, and you should not be surprised if things stay this way for literally decades. So it goes.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> what the hell is happening. How do we "get back to normal"? To a certain degree, that is what’s happening. Denmark should bolster its military presence on Greenland, potentially up to and including by putting it under a nuclear umbrella. (Ideally European. Pragmatically, homegrown.)
- docdeek 1y ago
  How would that work? The options for a European nuclear umbrella would be a choice between Russia (practically impossible), the UK (unlikely to be outside of US influence) or France (only EU nuclear power). A homegrown nuclear weapon would mean pulling out of the NPT and quite possibly giving a state like the US pretext to annex Greenland in the face of Denmark seeking nucear weapons.
  - rsynnott 1y ago
    France has previously indicated that it's willing to make its nuclear umbrella available to other EU countries, though precisely under what terms is unclear.
  - jmclnx 1y ago
    Canada ? Canada could allow France and maybe the UK to put sites on their soil. That would piss of Trump, always a good thing and will give Canada some security. Also, Denmark should now kick the US Military Sites off Greenland until the US climbs out if its psychotic break.
  - aurareturn 1y ago
    nuclear umbrella would be a choice between Russia (practically impossible) Would be one of the bigger plot twists in history. I wouldn't rule it out. I think it has a decent chance of happening. Maybe 10%? Let's say the Russia/Ukraine war is over. Russia mends its ties with Europe and says it will be good from now on. The US is ready to annex Greenland. Denmark is powerless and will lose Greenland. Russia calls Denmark and says it can help. If you're Denmark, what would you do?
    - rsynnott 1y ago
      I mean, France would still be a far more obvious partner under those circumstances.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > France would still be a far more obvious partner under those circumstances Unless the weapons are under Copenhagen’s control, they’re Potemkin protection. Paris won’t risk its economy being destroyed by sanctions, much less its military destroyed by the American war machine, to protect Danish interests in Greenland.
    - docdeek 1y ago
      I think that the chance of an EU and NATO member aligning themselves with Russia would be a lot lower than a 1 in 10.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  Seeing the USA as a potential enemy in a shooting war is not 'normal'. It may be what it comes down to but as descendant of people who would not have been alive if not for the liberation of Western Europe and who was steeped in WWII lore this is not normal by any stretch of the imagination.
  - shepherdjerred 1y ago
    it's pretty sad
  - bryanrasmussen 1y ago
    in a view of world history it is totally normal that benevolent countries turn antagonistic over several generations, although very seldom such an abrupt turn where allies are concerned as this one has been. Mad rulers are also quite normal for much of human history, the theory was that Democracy would relieve us of that particular problem.
    - wuschel 1y ago
      That - and there is the perspective of WW2 as change of guard of dominating world power. The Empire bit the dust, Europe ruined - and the US and CSSR divided the world upon themselves. It is not narrative for us to hear, as there have been many sacrifice that came to liberation of Europe. It is much easier to see them trough less less of the good guys, the liberators. But there are many sides to history: it also was a change of guard in the strategic geopolitical sense… and even after WW2, the US did a lot to accelerate the Empire’s demise …
    - jacquesm 1y ago
      > the theory was that Democracy would relieve us of that particular problem I don't think that was the theory. I think the theory was something in the middle of the wisdom of the crowds and the fact that non-violent hand overs of power are less bad than violent ones. The main flaw is that democracy can be undone by democracy whereas autocracy in principle can be made to last forever. Of course autocrats eventually kill the host organism so there too there is a built in fuse but it can take a long time (centuries?) to burn.
- westpfelia 1y ago
  legally Denmark can't have its own nukes. They can only borrow in a sense, nukes as a member of NATO. The US who is a main contributor towards that. I agree something needs to be done but as it stands its not a easy solution. And I would assume if Denmark through nato put nukes on Greenland the US (and I would assume Canada) would treat it as some level of Cuban Missle Crisis.
- Swenrekcah 1y ago
  This is rationalising of insane and dangerous behaviour. Who is it that Denmark should consider their enemy in this situation? Is it normal in your mind that the US should be considered the enemy?
  - SanjayMehta 1y ago
    I’m curious to know your views on The Ukraine.
- SanjayMehta 1y ago
  Does article 5 apply if a NATO member attacks another NATO member?
  - yencabulator 1y ago
    The EU defense pact will apply on attacks against Denmark.
aurareturn 1y ago
Maybe Trump found Hitler's fascism playbook. Part of it is to acquire new territory to stay popular. I'm guessing the US will make at least one serious attempt at annexing new land before Trump's term is over. Panama, Canada, or Greenland maybe? Edit: Getting downvoted now. No clue why. It's not me who is making these suggestions. This administration has literally said these things themselves. If you downvote me, at least have the balls to explain why.
- bertili 1y ago
  This has the be the answer. If the approval rating tanks, you gotta disrupt. But I'm trying to understand this... any American here who can elaborate how he would feel "great again" and re-vote for GOP if the US flag was planted in the center of Nuuk?
  - westpfelia 1y ago
    Same reason any leader throughout time has planted flags.
Kenji 1y ago
[dead]
dragonwriter 1y ago
[flagged]
- aurareturn 1y ago
  Luckily US constitution says a president cannot serve more than 2 terms. He's going to try but I don't think the public will allow him. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if he tried to start a world war in order to try to stay as president. It seems like he'll literally do anything to stay in power. Last time he tried to get a mob to kill the vice president and congress. What's he going to do in 3 years?
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > Luckily US constitution says a president cannot serve more than 2 terms The US Constitution says a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that they have a lot of effect. > He's going to try but I don't think the public will allow him. I don't think mortality is going to let him, but, absent also losing an internal or external war, the death of the leader is not a reliable end to an authoritarian regime. One of the reasons for rapidly and aggressively moving to institutionalize control and dismantle opposing power centers is to reduce the dependency of the regime on the cult of personality around the leader.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    > Luckily US constitution says a president cannot serve more than 2 terms. He's going to try but I don't think the public will allow him. The constitution is no longer the pillar it used to be, and if the public didn't act so far I don't think they ever will. You'd have expected nationwide strikes by now a-la Poland 1982, the movement was called Solidarity for a reason. But in a nation full of individualists it is much harder to get something like that rolling. > That said, it wouldn't surprise me if he tried to start a world war in order to try to stay as president. It seems like he'll literally do anything to stay in power. Last time he tried to get a mob to kill the vice president and congress. What's he going to do in 3 years? This is the million dollar question. Some points of hope: he may not be around in three years, some voices are being heard that push back. But there may be a successor with similarly deranged ideas and the people that are getting a taste of real power around them may want to consolidate their position knowing full well that if they don't succeed now they most likely never will. US-Europe and US-Canada relationships will take decades to heal though, if they ever will, no matter what the outcome.
lycopodiopsida 1y ago
We cut all ties with USA and consider them what they de facto are - a rogue state, resembling putinist russia more and more. I've never seen a country disasembling itself with such speed. It took Putin 20 years to get the country and society to where it is now, I am not sure USA will be in a better state after 4 years full with nepotism, oligarchy, anti-scientific freaks in administration, corruption and ignoring laws on a daily basis.
- casenmgreen 1y ago
  I've read it took Putin something like four years. He came into power 1st Jan 2000, and by 2004 people were no longer speaking openly, from fear.
  - lycopodiopsida 1y ago
    We can say there were autocratic tendencies from the beginning, as well as "tightening the screws", but he went full batshit insane only somewhere after the Maidan revolution.
    - 0dayz 1y ago
      No it started on the day of a particular nato meeting (Munich) where putin gave a bizarre speech. Which 1 year after he invaded Georgia.
      - ablation 1y ago
        I take it you mean the 2007 Munich speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Munich_speech_of_Vladimir_Putin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Munich_speech_of_Vladimir...
- Swenrekcah 1y ago
  That is what the despots want. The way for democracy to survive is by keeping in contact and business with the regular population where possible, but with enough independent strength to not have to bow to the despotic governments.
jimkleiber 1y ago
I wonder what percentage of this can be attributed to "covid killed a lot of Americans (and emotionally destroyed more), covid was brought to the US by foreigners, we can no longer trust foreigners." I think processing our feelings around covid could help a lot.
- krapp 1y ago
  I think very little. Americans have been deeply prejudiced against foreigners ever since the founding of the country, every wave of immigration since the first has been met with hostility and violence. Trump was initially elected on a wave of xenophobic fear and hatred of South American immigrants. No, not just illegal immigrants either - that's a smokescreen. I do think you're right that the effects of covid will have long lasting cultural and political consequences, but the zeitgeist behind the backlash was already well established, and one must remember intentionally orchestrated to benefit certain political interests.
  - Yeul 1y ago
    I think that's kinda unfair. There are civilized states like New York and California. Unfortunately the US has a strange system in which the most populous and economically vital parts of the country have the least influence in Washington...
    - krapp 1y ago
      >Unfortunately the US has a strange system in which the most populous and economically vital parts of the country have the least influence in Washington... We had to keep the slaveowning states happy or else they might secede - wait... It keeps populist demagogues from taking over - wait... I got nothing.
    - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
      >There are civilized states like New York and California What makes them more civilized than the other states? I think this elitist atitudine is exactly what got Trump supported from the other states. At least in my life I've never met anyone who would like me if I declared myself more civilized than them and they wouldn't spite me back for it. There's probably a good reason South Park crators depicted Californians as smelling their own farts in that episode.
sneak 1y ago
We wait. Trump is not in great health and he’s quite old, and constitutional term limits will have him out in a few years. In case he tries another coup, one thing you could do is organize and obtain arms (and train with them) and have you and your group, as well as any other groups you can muster, near DC around late January 2029. The rule of law cannot be taken for granted. There is only one language that tyrants speak.
- computerthings 1y ago
  [dead]
- fifticon 1y ago
  There is a problem with this. Trump is just a wrecking ball. The problem is not the ball, the problem is the holes it leaves behind. Whoever replaces Trump, will arrive in the driver's seat of a vehicle which has had plenty of its safety rails removed or disabled. The problem is what happens, when a more capable, less octagenarian replacement arrives.
  - sneak 1y ago
    Not all of us agreed with the previous (or current, for that matter) size of the US federal government. The ideas behind draining the swamp and DOGE were reasonable; the problem is that the POTUS has nowhere near the power to achieve it in any meaningful sense. You cannot dismantle the government using the government. (This is something nobody wants to acknowledge as it lays bare the utter farce that is “democracy” and “a government by the people, for the people”; the United States, just like China and Russia, is an oligarchic dictatorship.) Much of what Trump officially destroyed should never have been built in the first place. Most of the damage he has wrought is not from his actual platform, but from his sheer stupidity. Covid and Russia both come to mind immediately, but also the irreparable harm he has done to the ~century-old carefully crafted global illusion of American legitimacy. As far as we can tell, he doesn’t read, including without limitation the daily intelligence briefing. There is no way to act strategically if you don’t avail yourself of all of the relevant information or you purge the administration of the messengers of news you don’t like. As we know, stupidity is far more harmful to society than malice, as malice is at least zero-sum: someone gains when you lose. Stupid people through their actions simply harm everyone, themselves included. Think of what an improvement it would be (over Trump) to have someone hyperintelligent as POTUS, but with the exact same platform. It would be bad, but not the catastrophe that Trump has wrought by being a moron who can’t think more than 15 minutes in advance and fundamentally doesn’t seem to understand the concept of strategy.
0x_rs 1y ago
You don't "get back to normal". 77 million people voted for this, and 90 million more did not care enough to stop it. This is the "normal" now, what they voted for, and you don't just forget about it.
- pandemic_region 1y ago
  I doubt they voted for _this_. They voted for a vague promise of a better life through some cool sounding measures, at the time. Now that people are starting to realize the demon they have given full power to, I doubt he would win another (unrigged) election.
  - csa 1y ago
    I have some MAGA-leaning family and professional acquaintances. Here is what I hear from them: > I doubt they voted for _this_. They most certainly did. First, they love the retention of the tax cuts and the OBBB. Second, they were repulsed by most/all things that liberals embraced: DEI, language police, gender topics, loose immigration policy, an obviously over the hill Biden, perceived weakness abroad (Afghanistan, Ukraine, Israel/Gaza), etc. > They voted for a vague promise of a better life through some cool sounding measures, at the time. Ehhh… I don’t think so. They wanted tax cuts and anything that was the opposite of liberal social policy. They got it. As for the people who didn’t vote, I’m not sure anything has changed that would get them out to vote for an opponent to Trump (Biden, Kamala, or whoever other milquetoast candidate lined up). > Now that people are starting to realize the demon they have given full power to, I doubt he would win another (unrigged) election. I think he wins by more if the election is tomorrow. Large swathes of the monied classes in the US are largely ok with the direction things are going. Tariffs, harassment of immigrants, neutering the federal government, and chaotic diplomacy just seem like unfortunate collateral damage to them. Imho, the US is in the midst of a constitutional crisis. If the Dems or some other group don’t approach 2028 accordingly, they may be watching from the sidelines again for who knows how many more years.
    - pandemic_region 1y ago
      That's really sad to hear, in a way. I don't judge the choices people make, but it seems many have gone sour - for lack of a better word. This is something that was in the makings for many years then, people generally not happy with US politics and the way the country is doing things. But T is not the answer long term.
Hikikomori 1y ago
Military coup and throwing the fascists in jail. There's no going back or adjusting course otherwise, people like this will only keep going unless punished. Yet we keep going with appeasement.
MomsAVoxell 1y ago
[flagged]
- saubeidl 1y ago
  Does Denmark have any war criminals?
  - tokai 1y ago
    Anders Fogh Rasmussen
  - MomsAVoxell 1y ago
    Any nation participating in the criminal war on terror has plenty of war criminals.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
elktown 1y ago
You'd be surprised how many people here will just continue to downplay any kind of anti-democratic creep all the way to its abolishment. And Trump is even a vulgar example rather than a smooth one. Privileged people have a bad habit of assuming they'll be outside of any significantly adverse effects - or may even think "Well, this kinda sucks, but maybe this is actually pretty good for my wallet (read: social-economical status)".
mna_ 1y ago
Americans have been doing things like this for a while. It's just that they're doing it to their "allies" now.
VWWHFSfQ 1y ago
It's all so ironic considering Denmark took control of Greenland purely by conquest/claim and many Greenlanders view it historically as colonial/imperial. But now Denmark is apparently upset that an even bigger, greedier bully is trying to take it from them? I don't care about it one way or the other. I imagine an agreement will be made where USA gets something like 80% of the resource rights in exchange for Denmark getting to keep the title and then we'll all forget about this.
- aurareturn 1y ago
  It's all so ironic considering Denmark took control of Greenland purely by conquest/claim and many Greenlanders view it historically as colonial/imperial. Isn't that what the US is doing based on this article? Create a bit of story around the people of Greenland wanting to free themselves from Denmark (even if just minority of Greenland believes so) and then come in as the hero?
  - VWWHFSfQ 1y ago
    Yes and it's unfortunate that Greenlanders don't get a say in who their conqueror is. But Denmark isn't the one that should be complaining about their ill-gotten loot being taken from them.
AndyMcConachie 1y ago
There is no going back to "normal". The American Empire is failing, the imperial boomerang is in full effect, and it will continue to destroy American democracy from within. Revolution is required.
- mcosta 1y ago
  Who is going to fight the revolution?
nobodyandproud 1y ago
As much as I take a centrist position; I can’t see a solution that doesn’t involve a civil war that some of the American white supremacists have been begging for. The project 2025 mandate for leadership enabled a dictator in the making to establish himself. The Republican Congress removed the checks in the Supreme Court during Trump’s first term; and refuse to legislate in a way that works against Trump. And this second term, he’s been purging all of the civil servants who are more loyal to the mission than to him. What I’m dreading is 2028: Will he make good on his threat to go for a third term? Will most of the nation be too apathetic?

csa 1y ago

> HN readers from USA, what the hell is happening. How do we "get back to normal"? For the vast majority of Americans, life is “normal”, but perhaps in a slightly different key. Outside of educated liberal circles, there is no discussion of the gutting of our democracy.

morkalork 1y ago
If you look back on the USA's history of interference in the middle east and Central and South America: This is normal behaviour.

tastyface 1y ago

Unfortunately, America is an authoritarian country now, and you should not be surprised if things stay this way for literally decades. So it goes.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> what the hell is happening. How do we "get back to normal"? To a certain degree, that is what’s happening. Denmark should bolster its military presence on Greenland, potentially up to and including by putting it under a nuclear umbrella. (Ideally European. Pragmatically, homegrown.)

docdeek 1y ago
How would that work? The options for a European nuclear umbrella would be a choice between Russia (practically impossible), the UK (unlikely to be outside of US influence) or France (only EU nuclear power). A homegrown nuclear weapon would mean pulling out of the NPT and quite possibly giving a state like the US pretext to annex Greenland in the face of Denmark seeking nucear weapons.
- rsynnott 1y ago
  France has previously indicated that it's willing to make its nuclear umbrella available to other EU countries, though precisely under what terms is unclear.
- jmclnx 1y ago
  Canada ? Canada could allow France and maybe the UK to put sites on their soil. That would piss of Trump, always a good thing and will give Canada some security. Also, Denmark should now kick the US Military Sites off Greenland until the US climbs out if its psychotic break.
- aurareturn 1y ago
  nuclear umbrella would be a choice between Russia (practically impossible) Would be one of the bigger plot twists in history. I wouldn't rule it out. I think it has a decent chance of happening. Maybe 10%? Let's say the Russia/Ukraine war is over. Russia mends its ties with Europe and says it will be good from now on. The US is ready to annex Greenland. Denmark is powerless and will lose Greenland. Russia calls Denmark and says it can help. If you're Denmark, what would you do?
  - rsynnott 1y ago
    I mean, France would still be a far more obvious partner under those circumstances.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > France would still be a far more obvious partner under those circumstances Unless the weapons are under Copenhagen’s control, they’re Potemkin protection. Paris won’t risk its economy being destroyed by sanctions, much less its military destroyed by the American war machine, to protect Danish interests in Greenland.
  - docdeek 1y ago
    I think that the chance of an EU and NATO member aligning themselves with Russia would be a lot lower than a 1 in 10.
jacquesm 1y ago
Seeing the USA as a potential enemy in a shooting war is not 'normal'. It may be what it comes down to but as descendant of people who would not have been alive if not for the liberation of Western Europe and who was steeped in WWII lore this is not normal by any stretch of the imagination.
- shepherdjerred 1y ago
  it's pretty sad
- bryanrasmussen 1y ago
  in a view of world history it is totally normal that benevolent countries turn antagonistic over several generations, although very seldom such an abrupt turn where allies are concerned as this one has been. Mad rulers are also quite normal for much of human history, the theory was that Democracy would relieve us of that particular problem.
  - wuschel 1y ago
    That - and there is the perspective of WW2 as change of guard of dominating world power. The Empire bit the dust, Europe ruined - and the US and CSSR divided the world upon themselves. It is not narrative for us to hear, as there have been many sacrifice that came to liberation of Europe. It is much easier to see them trough less less of the good guys, the liberators. But there are many sides to history: it also was a change of guard in the strategic geopolitical sense… and even after WW2, the US did a lot to accelerate the Empire’s demise …
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    > the theory was that Democracy would relieve us of that particular problem I don't think that was the theory. I think the theory was something in the middle of the wisdom of the crowds and the fact that non-violent hand overs of power are less bad than violent ones. The main flaw is that democracy can be undone by democracy whereas autocracy in principle can be made to last forever. Of course autocrats eventually kill the host organism so there too there is a built in fuse but it can take a long time (centuries?) to burn.
westpfelia 1y ago
legally Denmark can't have its own nukes. They can only borrow in a sense, nukes as a member of NATO. The US who is a main contributor towards that. I agree something needs to be done but as it stands its not a easy solution. And I would assume if Denmark through nato put nukes on Greenland the US (and I would assume Canada) would treat it as some level of Cuban Missle Crisis.
Swenrekcah 1y ago
This is rationalising of insane and dangerous behaviour. Who is it that Denmark should consider their enemy in this situation? Is it normal in your mind that the US should be considered the enemy?
- SanjayMehta 1y ago
  I’m curious to know your views on The Ukraine.
SanjayMehta 1y ago
Does article 5 apply if a NATO member attacks another NATO member?
- yencabulator 1y ago
  The EU defense pact will apply on attacks against Denmark.

aurareturn 1y ago

Maybe Trump found Hitler's fascism playbook. Part of it is to acquire new territory to stay popular. I'm guessing the US will make at least one serious attempt at annexing new land before Trump's term is over. Panama, Canada, or Greenland maybe? Edit: Getting downvoted now. No clue why. It's not me who is making these suggestions. This administration has literally said these things themselves. If you downvote me, at least have the balls to explain why.

bertili 1y ago
This has the be the answer. If the approval rating tanks, you gotta disrupt. But I'm trying to understand this... any American here who can elaborate how he would feel "great again" and re-vote for GOP if the US flag was planted in the center of Nuuk?
- westpfelia 1y ago
  Same reason any leader throughout time has planted flags.

Kenji 1y ago

[dead]

dragonwriter 1y ago

[flagged]

aurareturn 1y ago
Luckily US constitution says a president cannot serve more than 2 terms. He's going to try but I don't think the public will allow him. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if he tried to start a world war in order to try to stay as president. It seems like he'll literally do anything to stay in power. Last time he tried to get a mob to kill the vice president and congress. What's he going to do in 3 years?
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > Luckily US constitution says a president cannot serve more than 2 terms The US Constitution says a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that they have a lot of effect. > He's going to try but I don't think the public will allow him. I don't think mortality is going to let him, but, absent also losing an internal or external war, the death of the leader is not a reliable end to an authoritarian regime. One of the reasons for rapidly and aggressively moving to institutionalize control and dismantle opposing power centers is to reduce the dependency of the regime on the cult of personality around the leader.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  > Luckily US constitution says a president cannot serve more than 2 terms. He's going to try but I don't think the public will allow him. The constitution is no longer the pillar it used to be, and if the public didn't act so far I don't think they ever will. You'd have expected nationwide strikes by now a-la Poland 1982, the movement was called Solidarity for a reason. But in a nation full of individualists it is much harder to get something like that rolling. > That said, it wouldn't surprise me if he tried to start a world war in order to try to stay as president. It seems like he'll literally do anything to stay in power. Last time he tried to get a mob to kill the vice president and congress. What's he going to do in 3 years? This is the million dollar question. Some points of hope: he may not be around in three years, some voices are being heard that push back. But there may be a successor with similarly deranged ideas and the people that are getting a taste of real power around them may want to consolidate their position knowing full well that if they don't succeed now they most likely never will. US-Europe and US-Canada relationships will take decades to heal though, if they ever will, no matter what the outcome.

lycopodiopsida 1y ago

We cut all ties with USA and consider them what they de facto are - a rogue state, resembling putinist russia more and more. I've never seen a country disasembling itself with such speed. It took Putin 20 years to get the country and society to where it is now, I am not sure USA will be in a better state after 4 years full with nepotism, oligarchy, anti-scientific freaks in administration, corruption and ignoring laws on a daily basis.

casenmgreen 1y ago
I've read it took Putin something like four years. He came into power 1st Jan 2000, and by 2004 people were no longer speaking openly, from fear.
- lycopodiopsida 1y ago
  We can say there were autocratic tendencies from the beginning, as well as "tightening the screws", but he went full batshit insane only somewhere after the Maidan revolution.
  - 0dayz 1y ago
    No it started on the day of a particular nato meeting (Munich) where putin gave a bizarre speech. Which 1 year after he invaded Georgia.
    - ablation 1y ago
      I take it you mean the 2007 Munich speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Munich_speech_of_Vladimir_Putin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Munich_speech_of_Vladimir...
Swenrekcah 1y ago
That is what the despots want. The way for democracy to survive is by keeping in contact and business with the regular population where possible, but with enough independent strength to not have to bow to the despotic governments.

jimkleiber 1y ago

I wonder what percentage of this can be attributed to "covid killed a lot of Americans (and emotionally destroyed more), covid was brought to the US by foreigners, we can no longer trust foreigners." I think processing our feelings around covid could help a lot.

krapp 1y ago
I think very little. Americans have been deeply prejudiced against foreigners ever since the founding of the country, every wave of immigration since the first has been met with hostility and violence. Trump was initially elected on a wave of xenophobic fear and hatred of South American immigrants. No, not just illegal immigrants either - that's a smokescreen. I do think you're right that the effects of covid will have long lasting cultural and political consequences, but the zeitgeist behind the backlash was already well established, and one must remember intentionally orchestrated to benefit certain political interests.
- Yeul 1y ago
  I think that's kinda unfair. There are civilized states like New York and California. Unfortunately the US has a strange system in which the most populous and economically vital parts of the country have the least influence in Washington...
  - krapp 1y ago
    >Unfortunately the US has a strange system in which the most populous and economically vital parts of the country have the least influence in Washington... We had to keep the slaveowning states happy or else they might secede - wait... It keeps populist demagogues from taking over - wait... I got nothing.
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    >There are civilized states like New York and California What makes them more civilized than the other states? I think this elitist atitudine is exactly what got Trump supported from the other states. At least in my life I've never met anyone who would like me if I declared myself more civilized than them and they wouldn't spite me back for it. There's probably a good reason South Park crators depicted Californians as smelling their own farts in that episode.

sneak 1y ago

We wait. Trump is not in great health and he’s quite old, and constitutional term limits will have him out in a few years. In case he tries another coup, one thing you could do is organize and obtain arms (and train with them) and have you and your group, as well as any other groups you can muster, near DC around late January 2029. The rule of law cannot be taken for granted. There is only one language that tyrants speak.

computerthings 1y ago
[dead]
fifticon 1y ago
There is a problem with this. Trump is just a wrecking ball. The problem is not the ball, the problem is the holes it leaves behind. Whoever replaces Trump, will arrive in the driver's seat of a vehicle which has had plenty of its safety rails removed or disabled. The problem is what happens, when a more capable, less octagenarian replacement arrives.
- sneak 1y ago
  Not all of us agreed with the previous (or current, for that matter) size of the US federal government. The ideas behind draining the swamp and DOGE were reasonable; the problem is that the POTUS has nowhere near the power to achieve it in any meaningful sense. You cannot dismantle the government using the government. (This is something nobody wants to acknowledge as it lays bare the utter farce that is “democracy” and “a government by the people, for the people”; the United States, just like China and Russia, is an oligarchic dictatorship.) Much of what Trump officially destroyed should never have been built in the first place. Most of the damage he has wrought is not from his actual platform, but from his sheer stupidity. Covid and Russia both come to mind immediately, but also the irreparable harm he has done to the ~century-old carefully crafted global illusion of American legitimacy. As far as we can tell, he doesn’t read, including without limitation the daily intelligence briefing. There is no way to act strategically if you don’t avail yourself of all of the relevant information or you purge the administration of the messengers of news you don’t like. As we know, stupidity is far more harmful to society than malice, as malice is at least zero-sum: someone gains when you lose. Stupid people through their actions simply harm everyone, themselves included. Think of what an improvement it would be (over Trump) to have someone hyperintelligent as POTUS, but with the exact same platform. It would be bad, but not the catastrophe that Trump has wrought by being a moron who can’t think more than 15 minutes in advance and fundamentally doesn’t seem to understand the concept of strategy.

0x_rs 1y ago

You don't "get back to normal". 77 million people voted for this, and 90 million more did not care enough to stop it. This is the "normal" now, what they voted for, and you don't just forget about it.

pandemic_region 1y ago
I doubt they voted for _this_. They voted for a vague promise of a better life through some cool sounding measures, at the time. Now that people are starting to realize the demon they have given full power to, I doubt he would win another (unrigged) election.
- csa 1y ago
  I have some MAGA-leaning family and professional acquaintances. Here is what I hear from them: > I doubt they voted for _this_. They most certainly did. First, they love the retention of the tax cuts and the OBBB. Second, they were repulsed by most/all things that liberals embraced: DEI, language police, gender topics, loose immigration policy, an obviously over the hill Biden, perceived weakness abroad (Afghanistan, Ukraine, Israel/Gaza), etc. > They voted for a vague promise of a better life through some cool sounding measures, at the time. Ehhh… I don’t think so. They wanted tax cuts and anything that was the opposite of liberal social policy. They got it. As for the people who didn’t vote, I’m not sure anything has changed that would get them out to vote for an opponent to Trump (Biden, Kamala, or whoever other milquetoast candidate lined up). > Now that people are starting to realize the demon they have given full power to, I doubt he would win another (unrigged) election. I think he wins by more if the election is tomorrow. Large swathes of the monied classes in the US are largely ok with the direction things are going. Tariffs, harassment of immigrants, neutering the federal government, and chaotic diplomacy just seem like unfortunate collateral damage to them. Imho, the US is in the midst of a constitutional crisis. If the Dems or some other group don’t approach 2028 accordingly, they may be watching from the sidelines again for who knows how many more years.
  - pandemic_region 1y ago
    That's really sad to hear, in a way. I don't judge the choices people make, but it seems many have gone sour - for lack of a better word. This is something that was in the makings for many years then, people generally not happy with US politics and the way the country is doing things. But T is not the answer long term.

Hikikomori 1y ago

Military coup and throwing the fascists in jail. There's no going back or adjusting course otherwise, people like this will only keep going unless punished. Yet we keep going with appeasement.

MomsAVoxell 1y ago

[flagged]

saubeidl 1y ago
Does Denmark have any war criminals?
- tokai 1y ago
  Anders Fogh Rasmussen
- MomsAVoxell 1y ago
  Any nation participating in the criminal war on terror has plenty of war criminals.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

elktown 1y ago

You'd be surprised how many people here will just continue to downplay any kind of anti-democratic creep all the way to its abolishment. And Trump is even a vulgar example rather than a smooth one. Privileged people have a bad habit of assuming they'll be outside of any significantly adverse effects - or may even think "Well, this kinda sucks, but maybe this is actually pretty good for my wallet (read: social-economical status)".

mna_ 1y ago

Americans have been doing things like this for a while. It's just that they're doing it to their "allies" now.

VWWHFSfQ 1y ago

It's all so ironic considering Denmark took control of Greenland purely by conquest/claim and many Greenlanders view it historically as colonial/imperial. But now Denmark is apparently upset that an even bigger, greedier bully is trying to take it from them? I don't care about it one way or the other. I imagine an agreement will be made where USA gets something like 80% of the resource rights in exchange for Denmark getting to keep the title and then we'll all forget about this.

aurareturn 1y ago
It's all so ironic considering Denmark took control of Greenland purely by conquest/claim and many Greenlanders view it historically as colonial/imperial. Isn't that what the US is doing based on this article? Create a bit of story around the people of Greenland wanting to free themselves from Denmark (even if just minority of Greenland believes so) and then come in as the hero?
- VWWHFSfQ 1y ago
  Yes and it's unfortunate that Greenlanders don't get a say in who their conqueror is. But Denmark isn't the one that should be complaining about their ill-gotten loot being taken from them.

AndyMcConachie 1y ago

There is no going back to "normal". The American Empire is failing, the imperial boomerang is in full effect, and it will continue to destroy American democracy from within. Revolution is required.

mcosta 1y ago
Who is going to fight the revolution?

nobodyandproud 1y ago

As much as I take a centrist position; I can’t see a solution that doesn’t involve a civil war that some of the American white supremacists have been begging for. The project 2025 mandate for leadership enabled a dictator in the making to establish himself. The Republican Congress removed the checks in the Supreme Court during Trump’s first term; and refuse to legislate in a way that works against Trump. And this second term, he’s been purging all of the civil servants who are more loyal to the mission than to him. What I’m dreading is 2028: Will he make good on his threat to go for a third term? Will most of the nation be too apathetic?