I did say “mere propaganda”. I think there is a difference between complete dismissal (which your thread OP implied, no nuances whatsoever) and recognition that while it is government funded, it still offers things that are not available in nominally independent private US news sources.
It feels like we are arguing about things. 😜
What made you think I don’t know this?
I was commenting on a completely different topic; the fact that nominally independent American private news sources often have lower quality content with less nuance than VOA which is government funded.
And I wouldn’t discount public funding as legitimate option. Read up on the BBC.
And the incumbent doesn’t need VOA. There are more than enough mass scale private networks for propaganda distribution.
I wouldn’t discount VOA as mere “American propaganda”. I read articles by them in multiple languages (while recognizing the source) and they offer far more nuanced takes than most nominally independent private US-based news sources (I am not talking about just Fox News); at least from my experience of living in the US for several years.
Compare the tone and style of this article with a similar article from a private US entity.
That’s true everywhere though. No one is expecting anyone to be some a superhuman. But there is a time and place for everything. Or otherwise you’re going to keep losing and there could potentially be disastrous outcomes (de facto loss of democracy is not off the table IMO, it is common for authoritarians who come to power by democratic means to solidify their rule in their second term - you don’t even need Trump to go for a 3rd term as long as the system remains).
From my perspective (and I could be wrong), the democratic party has not had the initiative in almost quarter of a century. Last time was Obama, but he turned out to be a shallow oligarch shill. I lived in the US during Bush/Obama. If they wanted to they could have passed normal comprehensive government healthcare coverage. The US healthcare sector is deeply corrupt [*], they could have used that to their advantage by publicly pressuring individuals who were undermining this goal in a explicit. Or what about the fact that not a single finance executive went to jail during the Great Recession?
Don’t get me wrong, it’s easy to lecture people (our country has it’s own deep rooted issues), but inflection points don’t just happen without any action.
And I will speculate that Trump’s second term will be a good opportunity to hit this inflection point.
I would argue faith in the government is based on delivery of results and the ability to show a measure of courage. And I get the impression the “undermine faith in government” piece has already been implemented as a very effective polemic by the US far right for decades. If the government is corrupt, you need to openly say it and show how you’re going to change this and make it better (and why people should vote for you).
The situation with the supreme court judge succession is a joke. A sign of complete ineptitude and laziness. It would be better if the judge was bribed to time the succession for the benefit of the far right; you would at least have a cause, effect, solution cadence.
One other issue that I personally noticed is the lack of willingness to speak openly about issues among the US centre right/moderates. To my knowledge, only Bernie Sanders and some other junior politicians are willing to openly use the term oligarch. Why is it like that? Elon Musk is an American oligarch. Tim Cook is an American oligarch. Why all the hush-hush and meekness?
With respect to the article, why wasn’t there a public condemnation of the judge? Something along the lines of:
“Ginsburg will go down in a history as a self-absorbed, ivory tower snob that supported and enabled oligarchic plutocracy and the rise of authoritarianism.”
It is considered poor tone to speak ill of the dead, but then again, Ginsburg is not among us and she won’t care. Her relatives won’t be happy, but they will manage.
I am not saying I have all the answers or that my approach is compatible with broad American sensibilities (I lived there, so I recognize how controversial the above-mentioned quote would be), but it’s not like the centre-right’s strategy has had any real success since maybe Obama’s first term more than a decade ago.
Without understanding the particulars of US legal matters, it seems to me that it is pretty obvious that the US judiciary is deeply corrupt. Maybe not in a day to day manner, but in a broader “subservient to oligarchs” sense.
In my country, we also have supreme court members getting bribed by oligarchs and judiciary groupings that act to protect their interests while working as a for hire team for the highest bidding oligarchs (similar to the American “Federalist Society”). Sure, in the US the whole process is done with a bigger focus on PR; lot’s of pomp and word salad about “interpretation of the constitution”, but I personally did not find that in any way convincing when I lived in the US. Seemed like a ruse for plausible deniability and keeping the plebs from asking too many uncomfortable questions.
The bigger question, that I was discussing with my American friend, is why the main US opposition party (that claims to oppose of excesses of the far right) does not take a serious approach to corruption in the judiciary. Specifically we were discussing the supreme court succession late in Trump’s 1st term. There is almost a surrealist, comedic quality to the whole thing. It is unlikely a political force can get anywhere with such a myopic approach.
I believe I was pretty clear when I said I am Ukrainian (living in Ukraine).
Why in god’s name do you think I would buy into your white-washing of russian genocidal chauvinism?
What’s the logic here?
I am Ukrainian. So let’s just say you won’t convince me of the uncle Stalin coming to liberate eastern Europe BS narrative. I would like to invite you and your family to try and speak Ukrainian in the occupied territories.
A strong majority of russian are genocidal imperialists. Not because of any inherent qualities, it’s the choices they make.
I will just add that the russians should take ownership of the outcomes in their history (not just 1996 election, but more generally). They are not children and they need to take responsibility without looking for scapegoats as they always do.
I guess counting of the votes was.
The 2000 and 2004 elections in russia are generally considered free and fair (2004 perhaps less so, but I digress). That didn’t really have an impact later on.
But the system is sufficiently rigged already, Russians just don’t bother with such complex mechanisms. Why, when you can just steal. After all, a different kind of people.
While I agree in general, having lived in North America for a decade (including US) and russia for over a decade, you’d be surprised about the similarities in certain (emphasis on certain, not even close to all or even many) elements of “national thinking” in the US and russia. That being said, historically US has had a positive impact in the world. I can’t think of a single thing that russia has done that has had a positive effect (even their much fetishized celebration of WW2 victory is a ruse as the USSR initially sided with the Nazis to split up Europe).
Exactly u would be way morw subtle like pressuring all the social media sites where a majority of conversation takes place to remove certain information.
I am not really sure how this relates to what we were discussing. Let’s add say leftists, Biden, Harris, anyone you want, to the list of authoritarians and oppose free speech. Let’s just close this piece for a second.
Why would you assume that limitations on free speech would be done via a formal, well publicized revocation of a constitution article (from my experience living in the US, polemics around constitution are extremely common when compared to other countries)? Surely if that was your goal, you would use methods that provide a veneer of deniability and you would use roundabout methods (de facto instead of de jure). So how would you even come to the conclusion that free speech is being limited if it is clear that this would be done with the explicit goal of trying to convince people that free speech is not being trampled on?
What do u think trumps felonies are? Attempts to jail a political opponent? Righfully earned for hiding the fact he paid of a hooker? Didnt Arnold Schwarzenegger do the same thing?
OK, same thing. Let’s just say Trump is innocent of any and all issues, it’s all his political opponents.
Why do you think the prosecution of opponents by a regime would be done in the open and in a manner that would make it clear that this is happening? What benefit would the side implementing such initiatives have from doing this in the open, in a way that can be easily noted by the general public? Do you not agree that in the early stages of transition to an autocratic, non-democratic regime it makes more sense to use alternative methods that can convince your own supporters that you are doing the right thing? If it makes it easier, let’s even forget Trump. Just base discussion that can apply to a country’s political sphere (be it in the US or otherwise).
Not at all u just need to make the final connection
What connection am I supposed to make. Even if I agree with your arguments regarding prosecution of Trump and leftists limiting free speech, I don’t see what this to with points I am bringing (which I tried to present in a more generic manner).
You can think Americans are inherently immune to the points I raised. Fine, I obviously disagree (I lived in the US and many other countries, so it would not be possible for me to agree to such a claim), but then you should be explicit about this. State it clearly, if that’s what you believe.
Why do you think there would a formal revocation of free speech if US did slide into authoritarian, non-democratic rule? This seems counter inuitive. Why bring attention to such a topic if your goal is limiting free speech, surely you would use other more subtle methods to achieve such a goal (again this topic is well researched and you can easily find out how it works if you are actually acting in good faith). Russia (and I believe even China) formally has free speech.
And what makes you think people in the US would oppose trump jailing political opponents (or let alone have the capability do anything about it)? No one is going to openly say that person X is going to jail because he opposes Trump/his backers. You would find some other reason that is easy to market to local plebs? No?
Am I being unreasonable in my line of thinking?
Why do you think they are being fooled? If anything I think one of the appeal of Trump is the fact that he owns his corruption and shadiness.
I think your confidence in this is exactly why it can happen.
This is not some sort of secret knowledge, the topic of democracies sliding into de facto authoritarianism is a well researched topic.
And the mode by which this happens is often slow and steady, largely driven by complacency and corruption.
That’s not necessarily true. Russia holds elections as well, doesn’t mean they are free and fair.
It’s pretty naive to think that the US cannot become a de facto non-democratic state.
Good stuff! Canada is a great place to live. Montreal is my favourite city in North America (unfortunately have only been to one city in Mexico).
Do it. I’ve been traveling around my whole. It’s a strange, but rewarding experience.
Good luck to you man!
Exactly. It’s like the (apocryphal?) quote.
There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.
Historically that’s not necessarily the case. Authoritarians who come to power via somewhat democratic means in their first terms to be much more mild relative to subsequent terms where they solidify their hold on institutions.
One notable example would be Putin’s first term (which is largely seen to be a fair win) or even when Medvedev was ordered to warm the seat. It always only gets worse, at least from historical examples.
The bigger question is whether the US opposition has any willingness to fight, which I don’t believe to be the case.
Trump winning the popular vote would be hilarious.
Btw, I am not being petty. I am Ukrainian so we got a lot at stake. But that being said most Ukrainians (and the government) thought Trump would win.
If you’re serious about this. You don’t need a degree. You would need some sort of financial buffer for the transition.
You can teach english or maybe even find a mid-level job (by local standards) leveraging your english skills in globalized areas like outsourcing (experience with sales or some sort of client facing would help).
I would not go through with this unless you’re actually committed (perhaps even beyond Trump; looking for something novel in life). You’ll need to learn the local language if you are serious about this.
Ukraine is the only country in the world that has the full moral authority to develop nuclear weapons. We are the only country to give up nukes and look where that got us.
That being said “moral authority” isn’t worth shit in this world.
South Korea, Poland and the Baltic nations should honestly try and develop their own nukes too.