[thepossum]

What is the real estate angle for ending the war in Ukraine - resorts in Crimea perhaps

[shyams]

I have some questions on which I seek opinions from any Americans who wish to reply.

1. Some say (perhaps wrongly) that much of what President Trump is implementing is in line with Project 2025. If true, that means the Dem leadership had adequate time to prepare a counter to these initiatives. It's been over 3 months since Trump was elected. Where are the plans/strategies (if any) of the Dems to counter Project 2025 in the Political Battlefield?

2. Which part of the messaging by Dem Leaders so far is actually addressed at how the Average American will be impacted by Trump initiatives? e.g. (to me) it looks quite likely that Trump and his cronies in Congress are about to give a huge tax break for the Billionaire Class.
*** Worth mentioning that a similar Tax Break from the first Trump term created a huge hole in the Federal budget.
Where are the Dems with their counter narrative to demonstrate to Voters that any proposed Tax break will largely go (say 95%) into the pockets of the Billionaire class?

3. Who are the Leaders of the Dem Party right now? If the people you identify are really your leaders, what have they done to curb the excesses of the DOGE initiative? There most certainly will be some/many but your party seems to be more concerned with portraying Elon as a jerk rather than substantive discussion of any excesses.

The narrative I am seeing in the media is "Musk is stealing your Social Security Numbers" and "your privacy is being attacked". Nothing about how the Billionaires are still winning thanks to Trump's actions...




Addendum: (Quote) I think the best strategy for an activist community is to specifically diagnose the corruption or harm they wish to address, then deconstruct (as simplistically as you can) specific ways to address those things. It sounds basic, but the inability to articulate goals quickly and simply is the death of many well-intended movements. Also, and this speaks again to fighting within movements, don’t negotiate against yourselves. They are counting on it (End quote)
--- Jon Stewart personally wrote this on Reddit as part of an "Ask Me Anything" Q&A session.

[Cyberyeti]

thepossum, on 2025-February-14, 21:38, said:

What is the real estate angle for ending the war in Ukraine - resorts in Crimea perhaps

More getting access to their minerals

[hrothgar]

shyams, on 2025-February-12, 21:13, said:

At this moment, how certain are you that you will vote for the Democratic Presidential Candidate in Year 2040 (whoever that candidate may be)?

What a remarkably stupid question

The Republican Party of 2024 bears absolutely no resemblance to the Republican Party of 2008.

Its completely reversed its positions on free trade, Russia, balanced budgets, you name it.
Why would I believe that the Democratic Party for 2040 would look anything like the Democratic Party of 2024?
And, if I can't predict what the parties will stand for, how can I guess how I'd vote?

From my perspective, political dynamics are much better understood by looking at frameworks like https://en.wikipedia...merican_Nations or https://en.wikipedia..._North_America. As these region sets shift between the different parties, you then see pretty remarkable swings in governing philosophies.

With this said and done, I was listening to a podcast this morning which was making the argument that we're entering into a period in which a lot of politics is being nationalized and associated, with this, regional identities are being subsumed by culture.

[shyams]

hrothgar, on 2025-February-18, 14:39, said:

What a remarkably stupid question

Yes, this is the correct answer.

Yet, at the risk of guessing how other posters felt (not wrote), I would say that a non-trivial share of them thought "Sure, voting for Dems sounds all right".

[mycroft]

I am 100% sure about my vote in the 2040 US Presidential election. I don't want to go to jail.

Having said that, provided the anti-NAS-car (can only turn right) hasn't imploded, or Francoed, or even Robespierred by then, I can't imagine anyone with my sensibilities who can and will, not voting for the least of evils.

Which, unfortunately for anybody actually left of centre (note spelling) has been the Democratic Party's main selling point this entire century. I have referred to the Democratic ratchet before - the Rs come in and swing the country to the right, the Ds come in and maybe rescind some of the most egregious things, but primarily just stop the swing; rinse and repeat. This is what the Democratic Party, at least the establishment, *is* - corporate conservatives who actually are willing to care about things that deliberately screw over people (and some more than others), but not actually progressive or leftist in any way (except comparatively to the other side, or to U.S. history in general).

Which, as they have found (but probably don't yet believe), eventually leads to exhaustion and avoidance. It can't always be "the most important election in your lives, you can't let the other side win" without also putting in anything positive; if "we're less evil than the other guy" is your main selling point, eventually it won't sell.

They are also a party that has subscribed to the "wait your turn and learn, Padawan; eventually you will get your turn up front" philosophy. Which has hit the "but we don't wanna retire" and the "but we don't have to retire/die, because progress in healthcare and travel" that has hit all structures built on this model this century. One thing the Tea Party did; if you just were a "elder republican statesman" but didn't listen, they primaried your ***, and sometimes won. Whereas any suggestion that this is the way to shake up the Democratic establishment is met with "but we don't want to shake things up while things are so fragile", and "but your representative has Lots Of Power right now, and if you replaced them, the new person would be at the bottom of the chain, and you'd lose all your clout". And, yeah, maybe; but look at the Tea Party survivors (because some of *them* got Robespierred for not being Republican Enough, too) 10 years later. A) Do it to enough "safe" Ds that "being a Reagan Republican is no longer acceptable and might lose you your position", and B) do it to enough "safe" Ds that when people like AOC say their things and get "don't worry your pretty little head about it, dear, let the Ones With Experience do what they know how to do", they have enough backing from the caucus that they might be able to effect something - and we may get change.

I said on this thread June-ish last year that the time to complain and divide about the current Democratic Party is not now; now it is time to buckle down and do your united best with what you have. It didn't work, but even if it did, the time to do something about the current Democratic Party was 2022 and 2023; and 2025. If they continue with their "concern" and their "talking heads" strategies, find someone who won't, and *replace* some of those concerned talking heads.

I am on the hrothgar bit a bit - asking a bunch of "elder statesmen" (you know, the average age of bridge players) what they're likely to do in 16 years, is the wrong question. Asking some of the people who expect to have a better than 50% chance of *being there* in 16 years, is probably also the wrong question; many of them are also saying "wow, if I'm still alive and able to vote in 16 years, that itself will be a win." And if you consider that overblown hyperbole, maybe you (and I) are "elder statesmen" who should retire and let the people who did not grow up through the Golden Age of "Peace" and Democracy start asking the questions needed at (what could easily be) the end of that Age.

And I say this as someone who had probably a 70-30 chance to make it to 30, and who didn't care about "see yourself in 5 years" because if it was anything like "the last 5", it didn't matter. There are a lot like me out there today; probably for better reasons than mine, and the decisions made this year (frankly in the last week) aren't making it any fewer.

[mycroft]

"The sky was the colour of a television, tuned to a dead channel."

If you know, you know. But if you get it, you're (like me) too old. You'll note there's no stories in that style of non-incredibly rich old people. Possibly for the same reason there's no sagas about old people.

The problen with cyberpunk is that they also posited cool toys for the ones who bucked the system. Optimists, the lot of them.