3 ms·

I cannot help but wonder how many decades it will take the U.S. to recover from the damage that the current administration is causing, both economically and in

I cannot help but wonder how many decades it will take the U.S. to recover from the damage that the current administration is causing, both economically and in trust on a global scale. While in no way comparable, as a German, that topic feels familiar non the less - and to this day, it's a long and rocky road.

bestouff 6mo ago
I'm not even sure the Nazi regime was that much anti-science.
- karmakurtisaani 6mo ago
  A lot of great scientists left Europe because of them tho.
  - burnt-resistor 6mo ago
    True. And they forced some scientists to work for them to build terror and WMDs. This regime doesn't even want technological supremacy in many other domains like drones and counter-drones except maybe hypersonic missiles and unworkable pocket battleships.
- rexpop 6mo ago
  The fascist "suicidal state" fundamentally rejects reason, rationality, and civil progress.
- jfengel 6mo ago
  They kinda were. Both relativity and quantum mechanics were dubbed "Jewish science", which made it a lot harder for them to progress in those fields.
PigeonHolePncpl 6mo ago
Economically? No idea. Global trust? I'd give it 20-40 years.
- tim333 6mo ago
  Maybe they could elect someone normal next time around?
  - rolph 6mo ago
    the big problem we have is we really dont nominate candidates publicly, there is a process the party goes through vetting nominees. when the public voting occurs there is a line up of some familiar and some a case of who is that from where? recently it has been, "really? is that the best candidate that party has to proffer? they both did it, now what?"
    - M95D 6mo ago
      No, that's not a/the problem. You had the chance to vote independent - Bernie. You didn't.
      - jfengel 6mo ago
        He did have to leave his independent status and join the Democratic party in order to participate in the primaries. But that was just a formality; he filled out a form. Some people did vote for him. Just nowhere near a majority. A lot of people resented that, and stayed home rather than vote for the primary winner. So she lost, and the rest is very literally history.
    - jfengel 6mo ago
      Outsiders can and do win in the primaries. Trump is the most prominent example. He was not a familiar regular, and nobody in the party leadership wanted him. He won the primary, and went on to win the Presidency. The party leadership came around to support him, and the new leadership is vetted by him rather than the other way around.
- surgical_fire 6mo ago
  That presumes a sharp correction in the direction the US is heading, whatever it is. Is that a given?
burnt-resistor 6mo ago
Much of the damage is irreparable. Organizations that no longer exist have lost workers, other stakeholders, resources, and trust permanently.. and in cases like USAID and healthcare, people have suffered permanent injuries or died. These clueless assholes don't care about or understand the implications of the damage they've caused... they're gangs of criminals rapists and pillagers scorching the earth and leaving chaos and destruction in their wake.
- jalapenoj 6mo ago
  [flagged]
bryanlarsen 6mo ago
The US got to its preeminent position because the rest of the world screwed things up badly, and the US played a key role in rescuing it. Hopefully we never again see a global conflict on the scale of WW2, so hopefully the US never again is in a position to gain the rewards from rescuing the world.
- red-iron-pine 6mo ago
  the US got it it's preeminent position because it was a resource and manufacturing powerhouse that was unrivaled in the world at the time. it was already overtaking the aging British and French empires when the WW's happened, and both of those wars gutted everything. it'd be like if WW3 happened now and every other major country got nuked except China.
  - bryanlarsen 6mo ago
    Yes, that's a good analogy. China's position as the world's manufacturing powerhouse isn't unassailable at the moment, but it certainly would be if wars devastated its competitors.

bestouff 6mo ago

I'm not even sure the Nazi regime was that much anti-science.

karmakurtisaani 6mo ago
A lot of great scientists left Europe because of them tho.
- burnt-resistor 6mo ago
  True. And they forced some scientists to work for them to build terror and WMDs. This regime doesn't even want technological supremacy in many other domains like drones and counter-drones except maybe hypersonic missiles and unworkable pocket battleships.
rexpop 6mo ago
The fascist "suicidal state" fundamentally rejects reason, rationality, and civil progress.
jfengel 6mo ago
They kinda were. Both relativity and quantum mechanics were dubbed "Jewish science", which made it a lot harder for them to progress in those fields.

PigeonHolePncpl 6mo ago

Economically? No idea. Global trust? I'd give it 20-40 years.

tim333 6mo ago
Maybe they could elect someone normal next time around?
- rolph 6mo ago
  the big problem we have is we really dont nominate candidates publicly, there is a process the party goes through vetting nominees. when the public voting occurs there is a line up of some familiar and some a case of who is that from where? recently it has been, "really? is that the best candidate that party has to proffer? they both did it, now what?"
  - M95D 6mo ago
    No, that's not a/the problem. You had the chance to vote independent - Bernie. You didn't.
    - jfengel 6mo ago
      He did have to leave his independent status and join the Democratic party in order to participate in the primaries. But that was just a formality; he filled out a form. Some people did vote for him. Just nowhere near a majority. A lot of people resented that, and stayed home rather than vote for the primary winner. So she lost, and the rest is very literally history.
  - jfengel 6mo ago
    Outsiders can and do win in the primaries. Trump is the most prominent example. He was not a familiar regular, and nobody in the party leadership wanted him. He won the primary, and went on to win the Presidency. The party leadership came around to support him, and the new leadership is vetted by him rather than the other way around.
surgical_fire 6mo ago
That presumes a sharp correction in the direction the US is heading, whatever it is. Is that a given?

burnt-resistor 6mo ago

Much of the damage is irreparable. Organizations that no longer exist have lost workers, other stakeholders, resources, and trust permanently.. and in cases like USAID and healthcare, people have suffered permanent injuries or died. These clueless assholes don't care about or understand the implications of the damage they've caused... they're gangs of criminals rapists and pillagers scorching the earth and leaving chaos and destruction in their wake.

jalapenoj 6mo ago
[flagged]

bryanlarsen 6mo ago

The US got to its preeminent position because the rest of the world screwed things up badly, and the US played a key role in rescuing it. Hopefully we never again see a global conflict on the scale of WW2, so hopefully the US never again is in a position to gain the rewards from rescuing the world.

red-iron-pine 6mo ago
the US got it it's preeminent position because it was a resource and manufacturing powerhouse that was unrivaled in the world at the time. it was already overtaking the aging British and French empires when the WW's happened, and both of those wars gutted everything. it'd be like if WW3 happened now and every other major country got nuked except China.
- bryanlarsen 6mo ago
  Yes, that's a good analogy. China's position as the world's manufacturing powerhouse isn't unassailable at the moment, but it certainly would be if wars devastated its competitors.