The likely outcome is that the administration will have meager results in advancing it's policies simply because of Trump himself. The last year of the previous administration is in my view telling about what Trump II administration will be. First of all, Trump will likely appoint yes-men and then get unsatisfied with their inability to get things done. Hence the Trump administration can continue to be a place where people go in and out. I assume Trump has lost his love affair with appointing military personnel into positions. — ssu
And perhaps the media simply won't give him the attention that he desires. — ssu
Fighting fire with fire needs to stop. There has to be a movement that rejects post-truth ideologies. — Christoffer
Populism is fine, just so long as it's good policies. — Michael
The majority respond to populist, easy answers. They're not going to understand or want to hear complicated proposals that aren't going to give them everything they want. So the side that gives them what they want is the side that is going to win.
A bit of pragmatism over principle shouldn't be ignored. — Michael
The majority respond to populist, easy answers. They're not going to understand or want to hear complicated proposals that aren't going to give them everything they want. So the side that gives them what they want is the side that is going to win.
A bit of pragmatism over principle shouldn't be ignored. — Michael
Do not forget that in 2016 Trump already had Republicans in power in both houses,This time around he's surrounded not by yes-men, but by people of similar or worse ideologies. And the reason things didn't get done last time around was that the rest of the government could block his worst policies. This time, the house and senate are aligned with Trump and he's already been blessed by the supreme court that a president can do whatever he wants without legal repercussions. — Christoffer
A premature lame duck period starting sometime in 2025. Or you think that Trump is interested in something else than himself, like his successor and GOP winning in 2028? Hah!What do you think will happen now that he does not have a new term after these four years? — Christoffer
Trump isn't a man with a mission. Trump can be vengeful, but he hasn't got a mission. Just look at it: in the first administration, the four years, he was incapable of building that big beautiful wall. He even stumbled in the financing of that contraption. How do you assume he'll transform the US into a fascist state? It's really nonsense.I'd wish that he's just gonna clown around and be embarrassing, but I fear he's become far more of a proper fascist these recent years as the world overall has adopted similar tendencies. — Christoffer
People aren't underestimating this election result. In fact, there's no question about the elections results.Just as people underestimated this election result — Christoffer
Isn't Trump moving in some direction?There's nothing in the center but mediocrity. You don't have to be a political extremist to move society in a direction, you just need to have some direction. — Christoffer
Have they? And what is christo-fascism? I haven't heard that term. Is everything right-wing fascism now? I think it would be good to give some concrete examples here and not loose terms. Just like Harris in my view wasn't favoring socialism.If Trump and the republicans have fallen so far to the right they're basically becoming right wing fascists or christo-fascists, — Christoffer
For an European, Bernie Sanders sounds like a typical mainstream centrist social-democrat. The kind of politician that once in power is then accused of selling the ideology to and not left leaning enough. Well, modern social-democrats don't try to erase capitalism, but just "correct it's excesses", just like Bernie tries to do.When listening to someone like Bernie-Sanders, it's exactly the kind of left politics that the democrats need. — Christoffer
The old people ruling the two parties are basically bad at marketing. Trump as a great orator and a populist just seized one party, which basically saved the whole system as now people genuinely think that they can have change through the two-party system and simply don't understand that they can easily simply form a new party and win both parties. Because remember, Trump wasn't the candidate that the old GOP wanted. Please don't give a lecture on the legislative hurdles and the stranglehold that the two parties have over the system. When there really a will, there's a way.On top of that, the democrats are so fucking bad at marketing. They're basically rich people trying to appeal to workers. — Christoffer
But most of all the behavior of his opposition pushed me to support him. — NOS4A2
He took on both parties, destroyed them both, and ended many despicable political dynasties. But most of all the behavior of his opposition pushed me to support him. One has to oppose an evil movement like that. Some of the policies were an added bonus. — NOS4A2
The majority respond to populist, easy answers. They're not going to understand or want to hear complicated proposals that aren't going to give them everything they want. So the side that gives them what they want is the side that is going to win. — Michael
That just erodes truth more into the post-truth environment that makes people unable to know what is true and facts. We've already seen what catering to populist rhetoric to counter populists is doing to society... giving birth to more populists.
Fighting fire with fire needs to stop. There has to be a movement that rejects post-truth ideologies. — Christoffer
Philosophers should know better than to try to reach people through arguments.
Most people respond to (perceived) status, not to arguments. Respect for power is paramount.
(This is true even in academia. Just imagine a student majoring in philosophy daring to disagree on a claim made by her professor in a lecture. This amounts to risking failing the exam.) — baker
This isn't about reaching people, it's about dismantling an ideology or behavior /.../ — Christoffer
How do you propose to "/dismantle/ an ideology or behavior" without reaching people?
You can write a book where you "/dismantle/ an ideology or behavior" all you want, but if people don't read your book or don't heed it, how have you accomplished anything? — baker
I agree with most of what you said, except (what I perceive to be) the undercurrent of hopefulness.When Trump blames the bad economy on Biden, that's a false statement that ignores the global reasons for inflation and the work Biden's government has put in to mitigate it. But the bulk of his voters (not the evangelical christo-fascists, but the seemingly normal voters) voted because of the economy, because they wanted Trump to fix "the economy that Biden destroyed". It doesn't matter if experts point out that this is a faulty narrative, it doesn't matter if they try to inform; the people do not value expert's input anymore because they have, through the constant erosion of definitions, lost their ability to spot when something is true, something is an actual fact, or how to check if something is.
It's basically a lynching of the concept of truth, facts, rational reasoning and scientific methods, all in favor of the masses sense of individualism forming an arrogance by making their ego feel like the protagonist who knows better than everyone else, rejecting any ideas that do not fit their world view by bad faith grinding down the defining elements of knowledge into absolute noise.
This has to stop. — Christoffer
Politicians have tended to elected by their electioneering practices. They don't get elected by proposing well thought out policies. They get elected by dumbing it down - distilling it to sound-bites that are directionally congruent with policy choices, while spun to be appealing. So (for most), the voting choice is based on the superficial. The problem: this has created the opportunity for a man to run entirely on the superficial - honing the message to make it more appealing.
The proper solution would be for the population to delve more deeply, to try to understand the impact of what is said - to demand more detailed policy positions, and also to understand that even the best policies will also have some negative consequences. The problem is, this isn't going to happen. People don't take the time, or they lack the skills, to understand. We will perpetually be at risk of being victimized by demagogues. — Relativist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.