Jump to content

General US Politics


Ansem

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Does today's right even have a logical cause?

...Depends...

Do you consider there is inherent value in doing things the way they have always been done before; if something has been a certain way for 200+ years and you are trying to change it, you are destroying something of value to be logical?
 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 14.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

13 hours ago, Edgelord said:

Can't wait to see Trume praise or congratulate Bolsonaro when he is most likely to win in the Brazilian election second round since he praised Trump.

https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jair_Bolsonaro

This guy is a lunatic in a way that makes Trump look exceedingly mild.

Wow. Almost on the level, nay, ACTUALLY ON THE LEVEL, with Duterte.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

...Depends...

Do you consider there is inherent value in doing things the way they have always been done before; if something has been a certain way for 200+ years and you are trying to change it, you are destroying something of value to be logical?
 

Sometimes the old way of doing things is better than the new way and vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Edgelord said:

Can't wait to see Trume praise or congratulate Bolsonaro when he is most likely to win in the Brazilian election second round since he praised Trump.

https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jair_Bolsonaro

This guy is a lunatic in a way that makes Trump look exceedingly mild.

That's really surprising. I understand the voters of this guy even less then I do the typical populist voters. He's not pseudo charming like Farage, not a cartoon character like Trump and has no proven track record of base competence like Erdogan. Of all the populist Bolsonaro with his love for dictatorship and torture shares most with Duterte the mass murderer. So why would anyone vote for him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

That's really surprising. I understand the voters of this guy even less then I do the typical populist voters. He's not pseudo charming like Farage, not a cartoon character like Trump and has no proven track record of base competence like Erdogan. Of all the populist Bolsonaro with his love for dictatorship and torture shares most with Duterte the mass murderer. So why would anyone vote for him?

The reason is that the party in power for the last 13 of 15 years in Brazil has cocked everything up pretty badly. They are a left-leaning party, so I suppose there's a comfort of whiplash going to the far-right in times of distress.

The problem will be that he will bring more pain, and just because one of your legs is severed, doesn't mean you should chop the other one to even the number of limbs. That, and his supporters tend to downplay a lot of what he does, instead focusing on PT's (incumbents) problems.

Bolsonaro apparently outright stated he didn't think economics was "that important" (in a time of a horrible economy), so really all he has is railing on the social issues, which isn't going to actually solve the former. Though, like Trump, he's been scant on the details for any policies he has in general. That, and I believe evangelical churches have backed him, which have major influence in Brazil.

That and he said that he would stage a coup on Day 1 if he was president in 1999 so I tend to believe him when he's going the way of Duterte. I've spoken to several of his supporters and apparently they don't think that there is any danger of him taking away civil liberties. It baffles the mind. But then again Duterte is still popular, so you know.

(and apparently he's not racist, homophobic or sexist either according to them)

Edited by Edgelord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Edgelord said:

Can't wait to see Trume praise or congratulate Bolsonaro when he is most likely to win in the Brazilian election second round since he praised Trump.

Bolsonaro wishes

 

Edited by Nobody
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

...Depends...

Do you consider there is inherent value in doing things the way they have always been done before; if something has been a certain way for 200+ years and you are trying to change it, you are destroying something of value to be logical?
 

Generally speaking there doesn't seem to be unless it's something that Trump wants to change such as privatizing the post office.

23 hours ago, Johann said:

Among their leadership, it's simply about money and control. Among their voter base, not really, it's based on fear and hatred.

I recently read an article that goes into the pettiness and cruelty of Trump and his supporters that you might find interesting.

Deplorables indeed.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Karimlan said:

Wow. Almost on the level, nay, ACTUALLY ON THE LEVEL, with Duterte.

He's a slight step up.

Bolsonaro just wants to torture drug dealers, not murder them. Though I wouldn't be surprised if he crossed that line very shortly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duterte's pretty much killing off those dealers he is not doing business with under the table. He is coddling a few of them, though.

[/offtopic]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Deplorables indeed.

Remember when just a few days ago the NYT reported that the president and his family committed something like half a billion dollars in tax fraud, and a week later it isn't even news??? 

Same guys giving him a pass on that about to have a full blown meltdown in 2 months if their coffee cups don't say "MERRY CHRISTMAS!" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Remember when just a few days ago the NYT reported that the president and his family committed something like half a billion dollars in tax fraud, and a week later it isn't even news??? 

Same guys giving him a pass on that about to have a full blown meltdown in 2 months if their coffee cups don't say "MERRY CHRISTMAS!" 

Yeah and the same people calling for Kavanaugh to be treated as "innocent until proven guilty" are the same folks chanting/encouraging the chanting of "LOCK HER UP" on someone who was thoroughly investigated and found innocent.
 

Fuck 'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/10/donald-trump-democrats-open-borders-medicare-all-single-payer-column/1560533002/

so apparently donald trump wrote an op-ed for USA Today

Yeah, I know, I'm just as surprised as you that Trump actually wrote something.

Otherwise it's full of factual errors and brain-decaying matter as you'd expect with Trump talking about medicare for all (since the campaign of course, because before and sometimes during it he praised the idea)

edit: also republicans getting mad at eric holder saying 'when they go low, we kick them'

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/11/eric-holder-speaks-out-kick-them-comment-stop-fake/

I think this is another example that that those who shout the loudest about snowflakism aren't necessarily immune to it, if that's fair

(once again, cases like sarah palin places crosshairs on political opponents leading to an actual attempted assassination, or trump asking the crowd to get violent at disagreement in the audience, or musing that the 'second ammendment people might do something about hillary', but no it's only the democrats that ever do that. jesus.)

Edited by Edgelord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Edgelord said:

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/10/donald-trump-democrats-open-borders-medicare-all-single-payer-column/1560533002/

so apparently donald trump wrote an op-ed for USA Today

Yeah, I know, I'm just as surprised as you that Trump actually wrote something.

Otherwise it's full of factual errors and brain-decaying matter as you'd expect with Trump talking about medicare for all (since the campaign of course, because before and sometimes during it he praised the idea)

edit: also republicans getting mad at eric holder saying 'when they go low, we kick them'

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/11/eric-holder-speaks-out-kick-them-comment-stop-fake/

I think this is another example that that those who shout the loudest about snowflakism aren't necessarily immune to it, if that's fair

(once again, cases like sarah palin places crosshairs on political opponents leading to an actual attempted assassination, or trump asking the crowd to get violent at disagreement in the audience, or musing that the 'second ammendment people might do something about hillary', but no it's only the democrats that ever do that. jesus.)

i got stupider after reading that.

6 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

I didn't pay much attention to the article and was more curious as to why the fuck USA Today would even publish that piece of garbage. The criticism they're getting for it is deserved

Also, Bernie responded.

i honestly don't see the problem, in fact i applaud them. donald trump, in addition to his moronic ramblings, has given us yet another piece of undeniable proof of his stupidity, arrogance, and delusion. plus, it's the president of the united states for god's sake--that's a big story just by itself. there's a factcheck.org piece accompanying it as well.

Edited by Phoenix Wright
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's kinda because USA Today isn't particularly known as a Conservative outlet to begin with.

I dunno, it's kind of weird to let anyone write opinion pieces on your publication when your job as a news organisation should be partly to question authority. That said, many people have pretty rightly mauled Trump for what he wrote so I think it's fair. That factcheck article is a good summary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Edgelord said:

Yeah, I know, I'm just as surprised as you that Trump actually wrote something.

He can write? I did not not know he knows how to write anything other than his name.

15 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

why the fuck USA Today would even publish that piece of garbage.

 

8 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

i honestly don't see the problem, in fact i applaud them.

 

3 hours ago, Edgelord said:

it's kind of weird to let anyone write opinion pieces on your publication when your job as a news organisation should be partly to question authority.

Jokes aside, I do not see a problem either and I think it is fine for them to publish it. Whether or not they publish it will do nothing to change people's minds and it will have little impact in politics at this point. Conservatives are not going to fact check him, let alone read the paper, nor even care if he lies. Publishing it in a paper targeted at liberals and moderates is just good business to attract attention and promote your paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

i honestly don't see the problem, in fact i applaud them. donald trump, in addition to his moronic ramblings, has given us yet another piece of undeniable proof of his stupidity, arrogance, and delusion. plus, it's the president of the united states for god's sake--that's a big story just by itself. there's a factcheck.org piece accompanying it as well.

The factcheck.org piece came after the complaints to cover their asses. It is good that they've added that to supplement the article but it doesn't negate the opinion piece in the first place and many readers won't go back to the article again after the fact check came out or they may just overlook the link being there anyway. The problem I see here is that USA Today just gave Trump another platform to spread his propaganda. His rallies already contained proof of his stupidity on the subjects in this piece, allowing it on other outlets is just giving another echo chamber for his propaganda. Propaganda was dangerous in Nazi Germany and it can be dangerous today, what guarantee do we have that if Trump is impeach prior to 2020, we won't see riots and mass murders committed by Trump supporters? We already see Trump supporters looking to kill because of the Kavanaugh confirmation. You think this guy really care about Kavanaugh or what went on here or did he just want to go after Trump's enemies? The misinformation from Trump needs to be contained, not given more platforms because as you're already aware and alongside Fox News, he's encouraging his base to vote against their own interests, keeping them in support of someone they should despise, turning them against civil rights efforts for women and undermining and misconstruing the #MeToo movement.

9 hours ago, XRay said:

Jokes aside, I do not see a problem either and I think it is fine for them to publish it. Whether or not they publish it will do nothing to change people's minds and it will have little impact in politics at this point. Conservatives are not going to fact check him, let alone read the paper, nor even care if he lies. Publishing it in a paper targeted at liberals and moderates is just good business to attract attention and promote your paper.

It probably won't affect many votes, yeah but that doesn't mean you allow lies and propaganda published that easily. I read the piece after seeing these posts and it confirmed some of my suspicions. This article explains it fairly well, specially the Venezuela bit.

13 hours ago, Edgelord said:

I think it's kinda because USA Today isn't particularly known as a Conservative outlet to begin with.

Regardless what outlet it's published on, an opinion piece by Donald Trump is most like a piece of shit article meant to misinform. If it were published on Fox News with the same content, the piece would still be a piece of shit but I wouldn't wonder why the hell they'd publish it because it's fucking Fox News.

13 hours ago, Edgelord said:

I dunno, it's kind of weird to let anyone write opinion pieces on your publication when your job as a news organisation should be partly to question authority. That said, many people have pretty rightly mauled Trump for what he wrote so I think it's fair. That factcheck article is a good summary.

Yeah the bolded reaches into what's problematic about this. When people look to have an opinion piece published on a news outlet, you don't just let any crackpot post an opinion unless it's sound and verifiable with facts. This is not such a thing, this is a piece full of his talking points that if anyone who isn't famous or a affiliated with Trump would have written, they would see a lot of pushback from the editors but in this case they just let it slide because he's the fucking President which to that I say no, don't fucking do that, maintain your standards and hold people accountable for what they're spewing SPECIALLY when it comes to those in power. Does USA Today now just allow right wing idiots to write about pizza gate? Does Alex Jones now get to spread his bullshit onto outlets that aren't bullshit?

Why the fuck are we allowing that lying crackpot on the bus influence the people of this country because he's the president? Why are we letting him freely use his tactics? There's a reason he's not happy with Fox News right now, he knows his propaganda works and that he needs an outlet to echo his bullshit.

EDIT: The party of Lincoln brings you...

"The party of Free Speech"

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Robert E. Lee was a good GENERAL in the confederate army. He was talking about political tactics.

What pisses me off is how the media will take a part of something and take it way out of context to make him look like a monster

18 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

? so guilty if accused? I'm being 100% genuine, no matter what just being accused will leave a person with the stigma for the rest of their lives

__________

so has anyone heard about The Facebook purge of 800 accounts  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

so has anyone heard about The Facebook purge of 800 accounts  

This is the endgame of placing too much faith in corporations, which is something that both liberals and conservatives tend to do. It often also ends up leading to takedowns of left wing leaning people as well, because those are seen as the parallel to saying that they are doing something "fairly".

For example, a while back there was this:

https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/21/facebook-and-twitter-remove-hundreds-of-accounts-linked-to-iranian-and-russian-political-meddling/

"and were promoting narratives including “anti-Saudi, anti-Israeli, and pro-Palestinian themes, as well as support for specific U.S. policies favorable to Iran,” as FireEye describes them."

(which I would say is generally more linked to left-wing ideology compared to right)

The problem for Conservatives if that they really want companies, like Facebook, Twitter, etc. to be able to be held accountable for the principles of free speech, then they must advocate for them being treated as public utilities - not something that Conservatives will often advocate for.

Edited by Edgelord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Captain Karnage said:

Robert E. Lee was a good GENERAL in the confederate army. He was talking about political tactics.

What pisses me off is how the media will take a part of something and take it way out of context to make him look like a monster

 

? I don't understand what you're trying to say here. What exactly was taken out of context? The text in the tweet and the video itself point towards Trump calling Robert E. Lee a "great general" so what was the point capitalizing the word GENERAL (capitalizing an entire word is usually done to suggest shouting or emphasizing something). The reason I brought this particular praise of Robert E. Lee is because one of the talking points that the Republicans try to use against the Democrats is to say that they're "the party of Lincoln" as a way to defend themselves when called out for their racism and bigotry. It's the talking point they try to use to absolve themselves of wrongdoing to minorities and now you have their president praising the general of the army in the civil war that fought to KEEP SLAVERY LEGAL.

Hitler was a monster for order the internment of Jews. Trump is a monster for approving the internment of kids after taking them away from parents who came seeking asylum. There's little need for the media to try and portray Trump as a monster because he is one. But there's plenty of need for Fox News to portray him as a good president to keep their viewer base misinformed and maintain a base that will vote for the Republican Party that's has been becoming increasingly unpopular over the years and Trump's presidency just revealed how bad they truly are: Control of all branches of the government and the government still shut down. They're failures that need to be removed.

1 hour ago, Captain Karnage said:

? so guilty if accused? I'm being 100% genuine, no matter what just being accused will leave a person with the stigma for the rest of their lives

Why is this the conclusion you arrive to from that link? It's not a statement I've made and I certainly don't disagree with "Innocent until proven guilty". The Kavanaugh Debacle was already discussed extensively in this thread so I'll try to sum it up...

1. The Ford hearings/investigation were not part of a CRIMINAL investigation. It was a detail that was brought to the attention of Senators for them to consider when deciding to vote on whether or not they should confirm Kavanaugh. Republican Senators hit over 90% of the documentation related to Kavanaugh which was the reason Mitch McConnel urged Trump not to go with Kavanaugh. The allegations were an addition to all the scrutiny that Kavanaugh in order to prove he's worthy. He failed.

2. The allegations did indeed leave him with stigma and if accusations are false, it is indeed unjust that it follows him for the rest of his life but his counter to these accusations was that he's innocent and wanted to clear his name. When offered to clear his name by running a thorough investigation, he dodged the question several times. An FBI investigation was supposedly set to occur but as confirmed by the director of the FBI, it was limited in scope, the White House under Trump intentionally set limits on the investigation in order to cover up any possibility that they may be real. You can argue whatever you want here, but at the end of the day, if you want to clear your name, you don't ok an investigation that was handled like that in turn leaves people to think there MUST be something there if the accused and his party are so adamant about hiding information and rejecting over 40 witnesses wanting to testify in regard to Kavanaugh's testimony and claims. You wanna take pity on Kavanaugh and blame people for besmirching Kavanaugh's name? Blame Trump for nominating a guy he was told not to, the GOP for how they handled the entire affair and Kavanaugh for committing perjury and trying so hard to pass off as a "good choir boy" when there's people in his past that could come forward and say "No, this dude would easily black out and is more like your typical frat boy". Instead now his name is stained for life, this website was created and the people may never know the truth of this candidate and learn how to better address the problems of sexual assault and help those coming forward. The GOP has effectively implied that those who have faced this and didn't have the ability to record it with their phones (and KEEP their phones/recording devices) should remain silent and let corrupt men be.

3. Kavanaugh is a piece of shit calling himself a "constitutionalist" who will uphold the constitution yet he's suggested that the sitting president should not face investigation or be indicted which effectively contradicts the constitution in granting congress the power to impeach a president "for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors". Has Trump committed Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors? How do you establish that the president has committed a crime? INVESTIGATION OF THE PRESIDENT is how you fucking answer all these questions and this partisan hack says it must not be done.

1 hour ago, Captain Karnage said:

so has anyone heard about The Facebook purge of 800 accounts  

Edgelord covered it sufficiently and it's been talked about before: Alex Jones definitely deserved, it is ultimately up to the company to decide what they keep on their platform, everyone suffers from this. Have you considered that may be conservative outlets tend to see higher numbers of it because they're more willing to peddle conspiracy theories and fake news? Here's hits I found on zero hedge

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-men-behind-zero-hedge-have-been-unmasked-2016-4

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/

and a post I made a while ago regarding fake news:

 

On 10/8/2018 at 3:43 PM, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Step 1: Stage a fake video that can draw negative reaction against activism

Step 2: Post it on a facebook channel that targets an international audience but is owned by a TV network funded by the Russian government

Step 3: Sit back and watch as useful idiots spread the video and make it go viral to serve the propaganda. Useful idiots include: The Blaze (Glenn Beck)The Daily Wire (Ben Shapiro)some conservative group called "Chicks on the right".

 

I dunno, I try to listen to both sides and most of the time I see videos and commentary from the right, they appear to be either useful idiots ("The Amazing Lucas") or white nationalists (The Red Elephants) for example and just have no logical reason for their opposition to civil rights and some of the socialist policies advocated by the likes of Bernie Sanders. Does today's right even have a logical cause?

 

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Edgelord said:

The problem for Conservatives if that they really want companies, like Facebook, Twitter, etc. to be able to be held accountable for the principles of free speech, then they must advocate for them being treated as public utilities - not something that Conservatives will often advocate for.

I think the problem is that social media has reworked how were able to express ourselves, from what I've seen in the aftermath of the banning of Alex Jones people have called into question the power of these companies to censor someones speech. IIRC back when Zukerberg was at that hearing he was being heavily questioned by conservatives.

I do think the tone is changing in favor of government regulation of social media seeing it's impact on modern society

11 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

? I don't understand what you're trying to say here. What exactly was taken out of context? The text in the tweet and the video itself point towards Trump calling Robert E. Lee a "great general" so what was the point capitalizing the word GENERAL (capitalizing an entire word is usually done to suggest shouting or emphasizing something). The reason I brought this particular praise of Robert E. Lee is because one of the talking points that the Republicans try to use against the Democrats is to say that they're "the party of Lincoln" as a way to defend themselves when called out for their racism and bigotry. It's the talking point they try to use to absolve themselves of wrongdoing to minorities and now you have their president praising the general of the army in the civil war that fought to KEEP SLAVERY LEGAL.

Hitler was a monster for order the internment of Jews. Trump is a monster for approving the internment of kids after taking them away from parents who came seeking asylum. There's little need for the media to try and portray Trump as a monster because he is one. But there's plenty of need for Fox News to portray him as a good president to keep their viewer base misinformed and maintain a base that will vote for the Republican Party that's has been becoming increasingly unpopular over the years and Trump's presidency just revealed how bad they truly are: Control of all branches of the government and the government still shut down. They're failures that need to be removed.

I was bringing up how the media will cut out a segment of a much larger segment to add fuel to their own fire and I was trying to emphasize that he was referring to a military leader, and that he was hard to beat. Trump was saying he's hard to beat.

But you know what they say, cheaters never win

FFS, we need to make sure that they are with their parents, not human traffickers. I believe that we need more people working these cases to speed up the process.

and stop acting like this didn't happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not directly related to American politics, but I read a few articles on the upcoming Brazilian election and it is kind of scary their far right rhetoric is similar to ours back in 2016, but Brazil seems to have it like 10 worse since their left wing party is infested with corruption and I am not sure if they are strong enough to keep the right in check.

While I know that we are not the direct cause of other nations electing populist leaders, it feels like the fact that our country is being lead by Trump gives their far right parties more legitimacy and power.

Hopefully, we can take back the House in Congress soon and give hope and power back to moderate and center-left parties in other countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

But you know what they say, cheaters never win

Jeez dude, linking Breitbart? Yeesh. There's some irony in your statement too, considering this particular race: The GOP nominee is also the secretary of state, and thus is in charge of the election he's participating in, as well as voter registration.

Quote

His Democratic opponent, former state Rep. Stacey Abrams, and voting rights advocacy groups charge that Kemp is systematically using his office to suppress votes and tilt the election, and that his policies disproportionately affect black and minority voters. Kemp denies it vehemently. But through a process that Kemp calls voter roll maintenance and his opponents call voter roll purges, Kemp’s office has cancelled over 1.4 million voter registrations since 2012. Nearly 670,000 registrations were cancelled in 2017 alone.

[...]

An analysis of the records obtained by The Associated Press reveals racial disparity in the process. Georgia’s population is approximately 32 percent black, according to the U.S. Census, but the list of voter registrations on hold with Kemp’s office is nearly 70 percent black.

This kind of voter disenfranchisement is a major reason why the GOP still has such a strong grip in the south.

44 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

Ya know, something tells me that they're not as sorry about how that went down as you might think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Captain Karnage said:

I think the problem is that social media has reworked how were able to express ourselves, from what I've seen in the aftermath of the banning of Alex Jones people have called into question the power of these companies to censor someones speech. IIRC back when Zukerberg was at that hearing he was being heavily questioned by conservatives.

I do think the tone is changing in favor of government regulation of social media seeing it's impact on modern society

Could be, it's just US Conservatives are generally not in favor of such as we saw with the whole net neutrality arguments. They see the phrase 'government regulation' and get antsy regardless of what it is.

There's two distinct ways, and the former is to just let the social media companies regulate in the way they see fit. They have loose terms and conditions but could more or less ban you from their platform if they don't like your hair, and you have no recourse - it's their platform. The main problem presented is that companies like Facebook and Twitter control a great deal of the proportion of social media i.e essentially a monopoly. The second is to bring it under public utility ownership to try and treat trangressions as first ammendment cases against the government.

Neither I find perfect, but I'm not sure I agree with the latter. But if Conservatives want to complain about being censored, they have no room to complain (other than say, stop using that service) unless they also want the latter.

1 hour ago, XRay said:

This is not directly related to American politics, but I read a few articles on the upcoming Brazilian election and it is kind of scary their far right rhetoric is similar to ours back in 2016, but Brazil seems to have it like 10 worse since their left wing party is infested with corruption and I am not sure if they are strong enough to keep the right in check.

While I know that we are not the direct cause of other nations electing populist leaders, it feels like the fact that our country is being lead by Trump gives their far right parties more legitimacy and power.

Hopefully, we can take back the House in Congress soon and give hope and power back to moderate and center-left parties in other countries.

I don't think it's necessarily Trump, but in times of strife or distress such as the leading party screwing up things badly in Brazil, the far-right does best in these atmospheres. Left-wing parties are generally in favour of welfare, or more lenient immigration policies compared to the far-right (to say the least) - and people not doing well leads to the belief that they should take care of themselves first before others. This is a feeling that far-right demagogues can very effectively tap in to compared to other political leanings.

Edited by Edgelord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...