Describe Our Current Political System

[BillTre]

Here is a video interview of Micheal Lewis. He has what I see as a fairly realistic view of US politics.

 

[dlu]

Enjoyed the opportunity to view the video. Thanks for posting.
He is having a conversation about the topics which is refreshing to witness.

 

[Patxitxi]

In posts in the New York Times (NYT) and Washington Post (WaPo) commentators including me have described our current situation as oligarchic fascism.

Oligarchic or corporate refers to certain privileged families, cliques and similar entities owning or controlling vital resources and seeking to rule the populace. Fascism derives from post-Republic Rome where armed enforcers carrying bundles of sticks (fasci), intimidated citizens and political rivals, often with personal threats and actual violence.

Fascism as defined in early 20th Century Italy consists of a powerful figurehead dictating not only policy, but almost all facets of daily life. Modern fascism embraces controlled communication technology, economic controls, sham or gerrymandered elections, physical intimidation including torture and imprisonment, big lie propaganda, and always racism and the fear of "Others" internal and international.

From https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fascism


Oligarchy defined from same source:

Hi. This is what my Google's AI answered when I asked: "Aristoteles warned democracy turns into demagoguery". He nailed it and lived ca. 400 BCE.
Almost 25 centuries and we still have not learned it.
I rest my case.
USA's political system is a demagoguery.
...................................
Yes, Aristotle did warn that democracy could degenerate into demagoguery. He believed that while democracy, with its emphasis on liberty and equality, could be a good form of government, it was also susceptible to corruption by demagogues.
Here's why:
Demagogues manipulate the people:
Aristotle recognized that demagogues are skilled orators who appeal to the emotions and prejudices of the masses, rather than using reason and logic.
Demagogues prioritize personal gain:
They exploit their popularity for their own benefit, often undermining established laws and institutions in the process.
Democracy's vulnerability:
In a democracy, where the people hold power, demagogues can gain influence by flattering the citizens and pandering to their desires, rather than acting in the best interests of the state.
Aristotle's concern with "excessive freedom":
He believed that democracy, if not properly guided, could lead to excessive freedom, where the pursuit of individual desires overrides the common good, creating an environment ripe for demagoguery.

 

[Klystron]

Hi. This is what my Google's AI answered when I asked: "Aristoteles warned democracy turns into demagoguery". He nailed it and lived ca. 400 BCE.
Almost 25 centuries and we still have not learned it.
I rest my case.
USA's political system is a demagoguery.
...................................
Yes, Aristotle did warn that democracy could degenerate into demagoguery. He believed that while democracy, with its emphasis on liberty and equality, could be a good form of government, it was also susceptible to corruption by demagogues.
Here's why:
Demagogues manipulate the people:
Aristotle recognized that demagogues are skilled orators who appeal to the emotions and prejudices of the masses, rather than using reason and logic.
Demagogues prioritize personal gain:
They exploit their popularity for their own benefit, often undermining established laws and institutions in the process.
Democracy's vulnerability:
In a democracy, where the people hold power, demagogues can gain influence by flattering the citizens and pandering to their desires, rather than acting in the best interests of the state.
Aristotle's concern with "excessive freedom":
He believed that democracy, if not properly guided, could lead to excessive freedom, where the pursuit of individual desires overrides the common good, creating an environment ripe for demagoguery.

No doubt America thrives on demagoguery and related celebrity worship. Interesting how the Roman Catholic church embraced Aristotle as long as rational thinking did not interfere with implementing Christian superstitions. The Society of Jesus (Jesuits) often employed Aristotelian arguments to suppress Enlightenment scholars.

 

[fresh_42]

I just read an interesting statement from Pekka Toveri, a retired commander of the Finnish army (Major General and Chief of Intelligence of the General Staff) and now a EU representative for the conservative party. You don't have to share his opinion, but it shows how Trump's weakness and stupidity endanger the world.

“Trump is so stupid” – Military expert warns: Putin’s Russia could attack NATO sooner​

Toveri is convinced that Russia will attack NATO. "Russia is the most imperialist country in the world, and it is a major power in decline. That's why the Kremlin is so aggressive," said the head of the delegation to the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Association Committee.
...
Unlike many Western experts, the Finn expects a Russian attack before 2029. The reason: Russia will attack NATO as long as Trump is US president. "Because Trump is stupid enough not to understand that nuclear blackmail is just a blank slate, where you just have to say, oh, nuclear weapons, well, we have those too. He (Trump) is so stupid that he could fall for it," Toveri said. For him, Trump's term in office is "the most dangerous period" for NATO.

Source: https://www.fnp.de/politik/trump-is...ennte-nato-frueher-angreifen-zr-93875176.html

 

[BillTre]

Irregardless of Trump's stupidity, if Russia attacked NATO at this time it would lose epically.
As it is their army is culminating in Ukraine. They are entering the phase of obviously losing the war and are just lashing out because they can't do anything else.
Their oil output is down >20% in the last tow or three weeks. Their navy is largely kicked out of the black Sea. They have >1,000,000 casualties. The tanks that are reduced to using are mostly from old soviet days. Crimea is being isolated from supplies.
If Russia attacked Finland they would likely lose what they took from Finland in WWII and would probably lose Kalingrad.

 

[fresh_42]

Yes, that's more or less true. Toveri's point, however, was another. The question to him was less about whether Putin could win such a war, rather than whether it would be necessary for the political survival of his system of loyal oligarchs to conduct such aggression. A Russian attack won't automatically mean WW III, as the current conflict shows us. It could be conducted like the Ukrainian war, just keep it going endlessly.

With the Ukraine war, the Russian president has found a way to delay the decline of the Russian system by conquering foreign territories in the old-fashioned imperialist way. "Putin wants to delay and prevent Russia's inevitable decline for as long as possible," said the former major general. He also finds it problematic that Putin mistakenly considers Russia a superpower.

The war has become a matter of survival for Putin. The Kremlin chief cannot end his attack on Ukraine. In the event of peace, "all the problems in Russian society will explode," the 64-year-old suspects. When the many veterans, some of whom suffer from severe post-traumatic stress disorder, return home, there will be no prospects. "The economy in Russia has virtually collapsed; it now relies solely on the war," Toveri said.

He also mentioned that the European part of NATO could respond to an attack even without the USA, except for the American Intelligence, but said that Europe is building this up, too.

 

[Grinkle]

it would be necessary for the political survival of his system

I expect an invasion of Finland would end Putin's power, at least - if not the Russian oligarchy, as it would be a disastrous military failure.

I don't have time at the moment to read your reference, I will read it later on. Apologies if my statement was considered in the reference itself and its redundant to your initial post.

 

[fresh_42]

General hint: If you use Google Chrome, then you can translate any article in a foreign language into English by right-clicking on the page and selecting "Translate to English".

 

[Patxitxi]

I just read an interesting statement from Pekka Toveri, a retired commander of the Finnish army (Major General and Chief of Intelligence of the General Staff) and now a EU representative for the conservative party. You don't have to share his opinion, but it shows how Trump's weakness and stupidity endanger the world.

“Trump is so stupid” – Military expert warns: Putin’s Russia could attack NATO sooner​

Source: https://www.fnp.de/politik/trump-is...ennte-nato-frueher-angreifen-zr-93875176.html

Well being a Finn it is understandable that he is extra paranoid. I would too. Finland is probably one of the european country more aware/worried of a possible Russian invasion, it can be perceived in their legislation about nuclear shelters for example.
Regarding the stupidity of Trump I would like to quote an ex boss of mine who used to tell me "it doesn't matter if the guy that shot you was an idiot cleaning his gun (like our former Spanish king) or a professional spy aiming it (like Putin). You will be dead all the same".

 

[Patxitxi]

Irregardless of Trump's stupidity, if Russia attacked NATO at this time it would lose epically.
As it is their army is culminating in Ukraine. They are entering the phase of obviously losing the war and are just lashing out because they can't do anything else.
Their oil output is down >20% in the last tow or three weeks. Their navy is largely kicked out of the black Sea. They have >1,000,000 casualties. The tanks that are reduced to using are mostly from old soviet days. Crimea is being isolated from supplies.
If Russia attacked Finland they would likely lose what they took from Finland in WWII and would probably lose Kalingrad.

In my opinion when the combatants have nuclear weapons we shouldn't be talking about winning or losing. Nobody will win.

 

[BillTre]

In my opinion when the combatants have nuclear weapons we shouldn't be talking about winning or losing. Nobody will win.

Seems about as appropriate as in the case of Ukraine where this has been raised continuously in efforts to dissuade effort support for them.

 

[Patxitxi]

Seems about as appropriate as in the case of Ukraine where this has been raised continuously in efforts to dissuade effort support for them.

Not clear what your trying to comunicate, your pronoums are not clear.
And just as a reminder (even without understanding what you're trying to say): note that after its independence in 1991, Ukraine inherited the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal, mostly consisting of Soviet strategic nuclear warheads.
In the early 1990s, the United States, Russia, and Ukraine negotiated the removal of these weapons from Ukrainian territory.
Now that was a massive mistake... We wouldn't be in this mess.

 

[BillTre]

In the early 1990s, the United States, Russia, and Ukraine negotiated the removal of these weapons from Ukrainian territory.
Now that was a massive mistake... We wouldn't be in this mess.

That agreement involved a lot of security agreements with the US, Russia, and probably others. The mistake was having faith in those kind of guarantees.

WRT this:

Not clear what your trying to comunicate, your pronoums are not clear.

You are using the same argument that has been used since Russia re-invaded Ukraine. "You can't do anything mean to Russia or they will start throwing nukes around." This is a lame argument (as recent history has shown). Ukraine has been attacking Russia in many ways that Russia has claimed would trigger a nuclear response from them. These were their empty threats that they have used scare the west for years.

In my opinion when the combatants have nuclear weapons we shouldn't be talking about winning or losing. Nobody will win.

That is quite defeatist. Ukraine is well on their way to winning the war Russia started with them which some people are too afraid think about winning.

Ukraine will end up winning as Russia's economy melts down, their military stockpiles are reduced to nothing, and their army falls apart. Russia will not use their nukes.

 

[Patxitxi]

That agreement involved a lot of security agreements with the US, Russia, and probably others. The mistake was having faith in those kind of guarantees.

WRT this:

You are using the same argument that has been used since Russia re-invaded Ukraine. "You can't do anything mean to Russia or they will start throwing nukes around." This is a lame argument (as recent history has shown). Ukraine has been attacking Russia in many ways that Russia has claimed would trigger a nuclear response from them. These were their empty threats that they have used scare the west for years.


That is quite defeatist. Ukraine is well on their way to winning the war Russia started with them which some people are too afraid think about winning.

Ukraine will end up winning as Russia's economy melts down, their military stockpiles are reduced to nothing, and their army falls apart. Russia will not use their nukes.

I dissent. You are describing the perfect storm for Russia to use nukes: "... as Russia's economy melts down, their military stockpiles are reduced to nothing, and their army falls apart ..."

In case I dont know were did you get the data to conclude this apocalyptic view of Russia's affairs.

My dissenting opinion coukd very well be driven from the fact that I dont live in the Midwest, I live barely 3 miles from the US base of Rota in Spain.

Which would be arguably one of the first objectives of a nuke strike by the Russians...

 

[BillTre]

You are describing the perfect storm for Russia to use nukes: "... as Russia's economy melts down, their military stockpiles are reduced to nothing, and their army falls apart ..."

And yet, it is not happening now and will not happen in the near future.

In case I dont know were did you get the data to conclude this apocalyptic view of Russia's affairs.

First you complain about what will happen and then you don't know what is happening.
Do you not listen to non-main-stream conflicted media? (Actually that might only apply in the US, news might be better in Europe. ) There are several worthwhile Ukrainian military video series on youtube.

Russia's economy is tanking, the FBS is purging generals and others, Putin is worried about a coup (and his health), their production oil is going away, their military supplies are drying up , and they have no real capacity to attack anyone else.

My dissenting opinion coukd very well be driven from the fact that I dont live in the Midwest, I live barely 3 miles from the US base of Rota in Spain.

Your location is irrelevant to anyone but you in this case. It doesn't give you special knowledge. I don't living the mid-west either, but I used to live a few miles from a SAC base. On the other hand, there are a lot of missile bases in certain areas of the mid-west.

Which would be arguably one of the first objectives of a nuke strike by the Russians...

Based on what they have been doing in Ukraine, they would attack civilians.

Your argument seems strictly emotion based.

 

[Patxitxi]

Alas I am at a disadvantage as I have not crystal ball!

Sorry but I have opinions based on a life of travel, my life in Russia with russian friends and language and my visits to The Ukraine.

On the other hand you wave opinions like certainties that look more like faith than reason.

But taking into account but you belong to the only country ever to Nuke civilian populations maybe your opinion should be taken in better regard than mine.

I just hope that your crystal ball is right and there is no nuclear war because somebody wants to cash some checks and somebody else wants to make Russia Great again.

 

[fresh_42]

I want to say some things regarding the current discussion.

Firstly, I do not see that Ukraine is about to win this war. They are actually losing ground, even if only village by village. Putin has almost unlimited troops and monetary resources to carry on.

Secondly, I agree with Tovari that the nuclear threat, or a nuclear protection, is an empty argument. It is a political statement, not a military one. And even if Ukraine still had nuclear arms, it lacks transportation utilities. If this were anywhere near a military option, we could still talk about dirty bombs, but we do not.

And last but not least, Crimea. It basically harbors Russia's only access to the Mediterranean area and large parts of its fleet. They definitely will not give it up. And it was Khrushchev who made it Ukrainian. So there is, to some extent historical justification to reincorporate it into Russia, not to mention the complex structure of the population divided in Russians and Ukrainians. And if we go even further into the past, then the entire Russian empire arose from Kiev. All these facts have to be known to understand the current conflict. I'm not saying these would be legitimizations, only that they contribute to the Russian perspective.

Saying Putin is an imperialistic aggressor might be correct, but it is also one-dimensional.

 

[BillTre]

Sorry but I have opinions based on a life of travel, my life in Russia with russian friends and language and my visits to The Ukraine.

And apparently not a lot of knowledge of what is actually going on.

On the other hand you wave opinions like certainties that look more like faith than reason.

Said the guy who has spouting their own opinions without any realistic awareness of what is going on.

Firstly, I do not see that Ukraine is about to win this war. They are actually losing ground, even if only village by village. Putin has almost unlimited troops and monetary resources to carry on.

They are losing ground (but have got a bunch back recently) but this is at unsustainable cost of losses for Russia. They are running out of Russians (and their vassals) to throw into the fight. They are not using North Koreans and well as workers they bring into their country for non-military work.
He does not have anything close to "almost unlimited troops".
Their economy is crashing. Banks are going broke. Loans can not be made.
Their railroads are being taken apart making resupply of the military more difficult. In some cases they are using donkeys.

And even if Ukraine still had nuclear arms, it lacks transportation utilities.

They are making their own delivery systems with large payloads and great range.

If this were anywhere near a military option, we could still talk about dirty bombs, but we do not.

There are several nuclear plants or former plants in the area. Russia has threatened them.

And last but not least, Crimea. It basically harbors Russia's only access to the Mediterranean area and large parts of its fleet.

This is not true. Novorossiysk is their non-Crimean port on the Black Sea. Most of their Black Sea fleet is there because if they were in Crimea they would be sunk.

They definitely will not give it up.

Boo-Hoo for them. They started it and deserve the result of their stupid actions.

So there is, to some extent historical justification to reincorporate it into Russia, not to mention the complex structure of the population divided in Russians and Ukrainians. And if we go even further into the past, then the entire Russian empire arose from Kiev. All these facts have to be known to understand the current conflict. I'm not saying these would be legitimizations, only that they contribute to the Russian perspective.

This is Russia's self-serving BS they use to justify anything that people will let them get away with. The same arguments could be made for many countries that want to grab someone else's land. Its BS.

If you guys want to capitulate to Russian aggressors and child kidnappers because you are afraid of their threats to yourselves (which they keep making but not fulfilling), you go ahead but to me it seems to be a foolish approach.

 

[Patxitxi]

And apparently not a lot of knowledge of what is actually going on.


Said the guy who has spouting their own opinions without any realistic awareness of what is going on.


They are losing ground (but have got a bunch back recently) but this is at unsustainable cost of losses for Russia. They are running out of Russians (and their vassals) to throw into the fight. They are not using North Koreans and well as workers they bring into their country for non-military work.
He does not have anything close to "almost unlimited troops".
Their economy is crashing. Banks are going broke. Loans can not be made.
Their railroads are being taken apart making resupply of the military more difficult. In some cases they are using donkeys.


They are making their own delivery systems with large payloads and great range.


There are several nuclear plants or former plants in the area. Russia has threatened them.


This is not true. Novorossiysk is their non-Crimean port on the Black Sea. Most of their Black Sea fleet is there because if they were in Crimea they would be sunk.


Boo-Hoo for them. They started it and deserve the result of their stupid actions.


This is Russia's self-serving BS they use to justify anything that people will let them get away with. The same arguments could be made for many countries that want to grab someone else's land. Its BS.

If you guys want to capitulate to Russian aggressors and child kidnappers because you are afraid of their threats to yourselves (which they keep making but not fulfilling), you go ahead but to me it seems to be a foolish approach.

You can blather as much as you want based on your delusional believe that you are "informed" but the array of nonsense that spills out of your mouth it's staggering.

Ukraine has roughly 25% of the population in Russia and 10% of its GDP and its main "allies" are only interested in the corresponding weapons sales but its winning the war? Sure sure. Probably in one week. Right?

And sorry but with that my allotment of conversations with half baked minds has been exhausted.

As far as I am concerned u can keep watching YouTube videos about the war to stay "freshly" informed

I'm out of this "dialog".

 

[fresh_42]

Off topic, but belonging to the context of the current subdebate initiated by Tovari's appeal to expect an attack on NATO territory during Trump's term.

We also must not forget that Putin wasn't attacking Ukraine because of Crimea. There would have been cheaper and better choices to ensure his Black Sea fleet could stay in Sevastopol. What he is really afraid of is Ukraine joining NATO - for obvious reasons, since he grew up as a KGB agent in the Cold War - and even more, to become part of the EU! A nation with free speech, access to a market with 450 million consumers, and no borders, directly next to Russia, is his biggest nightmare. Similar to Germany in 1961, when the GDR had to build a wall to stop the exodus, he would need one, too, as it is not very difficult for Russians to migrate to Ukraine. There is no way to isolate Russia from a thriving and democratic Ukraine. The war solved both of his problems.

Whether Tovari is right in his expectation of further territorial annexations before 2028 is a matter of opinion, and the fact that he is a conservative Finn certainly plays a role. However, IF Putin had plans to incorporate, e.g., the strategically important Suwałki Gap, THEN by now under Trump.