4 ms·

The US? No, Trump.

by asdff 10mo ago

The US? No, Trump.

mynegation 10mo ago
That’s the point. Unless the system of checks and balances starts working again, there is no practical difference.
- teemur 10mo ago
  Yep. I don't know if anyone is interested in anecdotes, but looking from Europe, I will do my best to avoid any kind of US dependency until US has a) overhauled the legal system starting from the Supreme Court and b) gotten rid of the de facto two-party system. (No, one-party system does not count.)
  - mindslight 10mo ago
    Is that the extent of your requirements (for now, at least) ? As an American I keep trying to surmise what we're going to need to do to start repairing the damage from this massive self-own. It's kind of hard because we don't know where the bottom will be, but we at least need to start having these discussions on what constructive approaches might even look like - we can't have our milquetoast opposition party phoning it in yet again with entitlement as the less-bad option. External context is key - one of the main goals of this hybrid warfare attack on the western world has been to disrupt our relationships with our allies, and also because other countries have developed Democracies that function way better than ours. So please know that at least some of us are listening.
    - rjrjrjrj 10mo ago
      Electoral college, rampant gerrymandering, and 2 senators/state all big structural problems. Term and/or age maximums might also help.
    - teemur 10mo ago
      > Is that the extent of your requirements (for now, at least) ? Well, if you ask my other wishes, once Europe has gotten its act straight and decides to tax/tariff/regulate/whatever (american) big tech to hell and back, I kind of would expect that any decent person on that side of the pond would just humbly nod their head and note that, yes, we/they deserved it.
      - mindslight 10mo ago
        I think domestically we need some analog of the EU's GDPR, as table stakes for preventing the surveillance industry ("big tech") from amassing so much power over the People that they're inclined to try for another coup. We also need some kind of antitrust enforcement against the forced bundling of products from the distinct categories of hardware devices, network services, and client software. Those should leave us with a similar environment to the EU. Beyond that, sure tax away, whatever. If we've done our job right domestically, these services should be a lot easier to value in terms of subscription fees rather than nebulous values siphoned away from surveillance subjects.
  - mywittyname 10mo ago
    The two-party system is fine. We have to be honest about the fact that parliamentary systems can give massive power to a tiny fraction of the population when that small party becomes the deciding vote. The problems with the USA political system are: electoral college, senate being 2 votes per state, and the supreme court being 7 people for life. But nothing can be done about the last two now. Especially now that the Supreme Court made a decision limiting how amendments can be ratified.
    - mindslight 10mo ago
      > We have to be honest about the fact that parliamentary systems can give massive power to a tiny fraction of the population when that small party becomes the deciding vote. The American two-party system gave massive power to a tiny fraction of the population, which the large Republican party then retconned into most of their members as their party platform. Now they're a large fraction of the population. I'd choose the approach where the small faction remains its own small faction, even if they occasionally get to pull the levers of power.
    - zeropoint46 10mo ago
      I think it's 9 justices
      - mywittyname 10mo ago
        Yes, my bad.
    - Sabinus 10mo ago
      Ranked choice and compulsory voting would transform America for the better. But there never seems to be much enthusiasm for the idea.
    - teemur 10mo ago
      > The two-party system is fine. Is it? Many western countries are having more or less prominent populist right wing movements, and the two countries I can think of where that movement has gotten its hand in power on really significant issues during the last decade or so are UK and US. Both strongly two party systems at the time of the "interesting" developments. And I do not think a two party system is typical, I am sure there are some countries happily trodding along with their two political parties, but they are not the rule.
quentindanjou 10mo ago
Other country only sees that US elected Trump. So, yes, the US.
- JohnnyMarcone 10mo ago
  This is a point in time for the US and there are institutional paths to change. The comparisons to China forget that China does not have the same mechanisms for change. China is an immutable state outside of revolution or the administration just deciding to transfer power. If they are successful in destroying democracy, I will reevaluate my view. We don't know what's going to happen in the midterms or 2028.
  - quentindanjou 10mo ago
    > If they are successful in destroying democracy, I will reevaluate my view. We don't know what's going to happen in the midterms or 2028. But again, and I say that as a European, we don't really care: what we see is the position of the US no matter if it is coming from your congress, president, secretary or whatever.
- asdff 10mo ago
  14% of the US elected trump.
  - datsci_est_2015 10mo ago
    I know it’s lower than 50% but I wanted to get a better idea myself. Numbers rounded to the nearest 5 million - Trump voters 2024: 75m - US population 2024: 340m - US population >18 2024: 265m - % pop Trump voters: 22% - % pop >18 Trump voters: 28% What numbers did you use?
    - asdff 10mo ago
      Guesstimate from the last time I was curious about these numbers. Looks like I was pretty close.
  - 10mo ago
dragonwriter 10mo ago
> The US? No, Trump. No, the US, through its government (which is not just the executive branch) as chosen (in theory, via election) and, in practice, tolerated by its population at large. It's not just Trump. If the US decided not to follow him he would have no power.
SideburnsOfDoom 10mo ago
In the second Trump term, the rest of the world is justified in viewing the US as the kind of country which will, for the foreseeable future, periodically elect this kind of kakistocratic leadership. The lesson is finally sinking in, in ways that it did not during the first Trump term. People wanted to believe that is was a one-off. During the first Trump term the argument could be made that it wasn't, but it was debatable. But during the second Trump term it's simply an observable fact that it's not a one-off. Economic decoupling is a rational response.
- asdff 10mo ago
  Europe is just as susceptible to right wing populist takeover. Already happened in the eu for example Hungary.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 10mo ago
    Not wrong, but "right wing populist" are your words. I did not use them. What I described above is not specifically "right wing populist", just kakistocratic. And the rational response from EU and others is the same regardless of who is and who isn't "right wing populist", EU members included. Being "right wing populist" won't change that response. The caveat is that populists are not very rational.

The US? No, Trump.

by asdff 10mo ago

The US? No, Trump.

mynegation 10mo ago

That’s the point. Unless the system of checks and balances starts working again, there is no practical difference.

teemur 10mo ago
Yep. I don't know if anyone is interested in anecdotes, but looking from Europe, I will do my best to avoid any kind of US dependency until US has a) overhauled the legal system starting from the Supreme Court and b) gotten rid of the de facto two-party system. (No, one-party system does not count.)
- mindslight 10mo ago
  Is that the extent of your requirements (for now, at least) ? As an American I keep trying to surmise what we're going to need to do to start repairing the damage from this massive self-own. It's kind of hard because we don't know where the bottom will be, but we at least need to start having these discussions on what constructive approaches might even look like - we can't have our milquetoast opposition party phoning it in yet again with entitlement as the less-bad option. External context is key - one of the main goals of this hybrid warfare attack on the western world has been to disrupt our relationships with our allies, and also because other countries have developed Democracies that function way better than ours. So please know that at least some of us are listening.
  - rjrjrjrj 10mo ago
    Electoral college, rampant gerrymandering, and 2 senators/state all big structural problems. Term and/or age maximums might also help.
  - teemur 10mo ago
    > Is that the extent of your requirements (for now, at least) ? Well, if you ask my other wishes, once Europe has gotten its act straight and decides to tax/tariff/regulate/whatever (american) big tech to hell and back, I kind of would expect that any decent person on that side of the pond would just humbly nod their head and note that, yes, we/they deserved it.
    - mindslight 10mo ago
      I think domestically we need some analog of the EU's GDPR, as table stakes for preventing the surveillance industry ("big tech") from amassing so much power over the People that they're inclined to try for another coup. We also need some kind of antitrust enforcement against the forced bundling of products from the distinct categories of hardware devices, network services, and client software. Those should leave us with a similar environment to the EU. Beyond that, sure tax away, whatever. If we've done our job right domestically, these services should be a lot easier to value in terms of subscription fees rather than nebulous values siphoned away from surveillance subjects.
- mywittyname 10mo ago
  The two-party system is fine. We have to be honest about the fact that parliamentary systems can give massive power to a tiny fraction of the population when that small party becomes the deciding vote. The problems with the USA political system are: electoral college, senate being 2 votes per state, and the supreme court being 7 people for life. But nothing can be done about the last two now. Especially now that the Supreme Court made a decision limiting how amendments can be ratified.
  - mindslight 10mo ago
    > We have to be honest about the fact that parliamentary systems can give massive power to a tiny fraction of the population when that small party becomes the deciding vote. The American two-party system gave massive power to a tiny fraction of the population, which the large Republican party then retconned into most of their members as their party platform. Now they're a large fraction of the population. I'd choose the approach where the small faction remains its own small faction, even if they occasionally get to pull the levers of power.
  - zeropoint46 10mo ago
    I think it's 9 justices
    - mywittyname 10mo ago
      Yes, my bad.
  - Sabinus 10mo ago
    Ranked choice and compulsory voting would transform America for the better. But there never seems to be much enthusiasm for the idea.
  - teemur 10mo ago
    > The two-party system is fine. Is it? Many western countries are having more or less prominent populist right wing movements, and the two countries I can think of where that movement has gotten its hand in power on really significant issues during the last decade or so are UK and US. Both strongly two party systems at the time of the "interesting" developments. And I do not think a two party system is typical, I am sure there are some countries happily trodding along with their two political parties, but they are not the rule.

quentindanjou 10mo ago

Other country only sees that US elected Trump. So, yes, the US.

JohnnyMarcone 10mo ago
This is a point in time for the US and there are institutional paths to change. The comparisons to China forget that China does not have the same mechanisms for change. China is an immutable state outside of revolution or the administration just deciding to transfer power. If they are successful in destroying democracy, I will reevaluate my view. We don't know what's going to happen in the midterms or 2028.
- quentindanjou 10mo ago
  > If they are successful in destroying democracy, I will reevaluate my view. We don't know what's going to happen in the midterms or 2028. But again, and I say that as a European, we don't really care: what we see is the position of the US no matter if it is coming from your congress, president, secretary or whatever.
asdff 10mo ago
14% of the US elected trump.
- datsci_est_2015 10mo ago
  I know it’s lower than 50% but I wanted to get a better idea myself. Numbers rounded to the nearest 5 million - Trump voters 2024: 75m - US population 2024: 340m - US population >18 2024: 265m - % pop Trump voters: 22% - % pop >18 Trump voters: 28% What numbers did you use?
  - asdff 10mo ago
    Guesstimate from the last time I was curious about these numbers. Looks like I was pretty close.
- 10mo ago

dragonwriter 10mo ago

> The US? No, Trump. No, the US, through its government (which is not just the executive branch) as chosen (in theory, via election) and, in practice, tolerated by its population at large. It's not just Trump. If the US decided not to follow him he would have no power.

SideburnsOfDoom 10mo ago

In the second Trump term, the rest of the world is justified in viewing the US as the kind of country which will, for the foreseeable future, periodically elect this kind of kakistocratic leadership. The lesson is finally sinking in, in ways that it did not during the first Trump term. People wanted to believe that is was a one-off. During the first Trump term the argument could be made that it wasn't, but it was debatable. But during the second Trump term it's simply an observable fact that it's not a one-off. Economic decoupling is a rational response.

asdff 10mo ago
Europe is just as susceptible to right wing populist takeover. Already happened in the eu for example Hungary.
- SideburnsOfDoom 10mo ago
  Not wrong, but "right wing populist" are your words. I did not use them. What I described above is not specifically "right wing populist", just kakistocratic. And the rational response from EU and others is the same regardless of who is and who isn't "right wing populist", EU members included. Being "right wing populist" won't change that response. The caveat is that populists are not very rational.