[Discussion] So... How's that democracy working out for you?

Is democracy a system capable of dealing with the challenges of the future, and if not, what alternatives exist?

Sorry Drazzil--you sound like are dealing with a lifetime of (justified) frustration and rage at a system that is designed to create a dwindling number of increasingly wealthy haves at the expense of an ever expanding poor and destitute have nots.

I wish I had an answer for you. I think one way to start would be to get people thinking about different ways to measure the health of a nation other than GDP. Alternatives exist. But changing that mindset isn't easy, and when things are hard they're really only hard on the ones who need the change the most. I get why you voted the way you did, and I'm glad you won't do that again, but I totally sympathize.

Hugs man.

Or gipsy, polish, (I can't for the life of me recall what the PC term for mentally {ableist slur} is, sorry), didn't support eugenics, etc.

We do need to get rid of the electoral college. We already have 2 imbalanced checks against large state power monopolies. We don't need a third. In theory it sounds nice that you get some consensus by winning a few small states. In practice even small states are held back by people that want to embitter themselves, tune out and distance themselves from reality.

Drazzil wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I'd love to live in a country that was a political union of Canada and the Union. I also know that happens in a timeline where the global north gets to walk away from the global south completely. I can't help but think that's a better timeline for me, but a much worse timeline for most of the rest of the world. Certainly for the people of the States that would have been left out of The Laurentian States of America.

I know it sucks for me. (edit) So much of you wrote I could write myself, so I know exactly how it sucks. I also still have a hope for a better future for the many, even if it won't be for me.

(edits just because in my case it was sicknesses that took everything, so our stories aren't *exactly* the same as I first read them)

See. Theres the diff between you and I. I won't root for/work towards/campaign for a nation that'll leave me behind for the sake of staying together. IMO that's not just foolish, its borderline stockholm syndrome.

I have to admit, these days I sometimes have trouble disagreeing with the conclusion that I am a fool.

imbiginjapan wrote:
Drazzil wrote:

I pulled the lever for T in a safe state, but I know there were more marginalized wage slaves and locked out desperate working class ppl in swing states who made the same calculations in their head as I did. Prolly enough to throw it to Trump so we could witness the end of this farce writ large.

So in your calculus... what comes next? Did we see the end of the farce as you had hoped? Do we need another four years of Trump? We only have two choices, really.

I'd say we're seeing the end of the farce as we speak. You think the protests are bad now? Wait till the eviction morotorium end and a quarter of the population becomes homeless without a job, then things are gonna make now look like a happy fairy tale.

Speaking as a working class POC who just days ago lost his mother to COVID related illness, I am confronted with the idea that drumphs actions directly resulted in the death of her. I've damned near lost everything.

[Reactionary bullsh*t removed]

I'm sorry. I let my recent loss cloud my better posting judgement. Apologies.

I am so sorry to hear that, Drazzil.

Oh, f*ck, Drazzil, that's awful. And you're right to be angry at Trump.

I'm very sorry to hear about your loss. It must be difficult to grapple with that kind of grief on top of everything else.

Drazzil, I'm so sorry, sincerest condolences for your loss. My heart goes out to you. I'm sorry that you felt the need to self-sensor, but understand and respect the need for your privacy as well. "Reactionary bullsh*t" has power and a place, may it bring you whatever comfort it can during these times.

Drazz,

I am terribly sorry for your loss and wish you the best in these tough times. I also thank you for sharing your story. You are literally the only person I have run into that has admitted to voting for Trump with the intention of voting against him this time around. Most of the folks I know have been ride or die.

Paleocon wrote:

Drazz,

I am terribly sorry for your loss and wish you the best in these tough times. I also thank you for sharing your story. You are literally the only person I have run into that has admitted to voting for Trump with the intention of voting against him this time around. Most of the folks I know have been ride or die.

I didn't vote for T lightly. I voted for Bernie, but when the media and the DNC screwed him in 16, and Hillary offered the working poor *literally* nothing, when she said "If you didnt like what Obama did at home and overseas, don't vote for me because nothing will change" and then Hillary got in front of the financiers and the 1% and said "don't worry nothing will change" as someone who did everything right, and still found himself locked out I took her at her word.

Back then I made a simple calculation. Hillary was smart enough to keep the whole corrupt oglarchy limping along for another eight years. I didn't have another eight years to flush. I knew Trump was enough of an outlier to either be the best president we ever had, or the absolute WORST president we ever had. I wagered in the former, great. In the latter great too.

I figured that if he brought the whole thing down, then that was a net benefit too, because as least he f-cks everyone, not just those who work for a living.

Drazzil wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Drazz,

I am terribly sorry for your loss and wish you the best in these tough times. I also thank you for sharing your story. You are literally the only person I have run into that has admitted to voting for Trump with the intention of voting against him this time around. Most of the folks I know have been ride or die.

I didn't vote for T lightly. I voted for Bernie, but when the media and the DNC screwed him in 16, and Hillary offered the working poor *literally* nothing, when she said "If you didnt like what Obama did at home and overseas, don't vote for me because nothing will change" and then Hillary got in front of the financiers and the 1% and said "don't worry nothing will change" as someone who did everything right, and still found himself locked out I took her at her word.

Back then I made a simple calculation. Hillary was smart enough to keep the whole corrupt oglarchy limping along for another eight years. I didn't have another eight years to flush. I knew Trump was enough of an outlier to either be the best president we ever had, or the absolute WORST president we ever had. I wagered in the former, great. In the latter great too.

I figured that if he brought the whole thing down, then that was a net benefit too, because as least he f-cks everyone, not just those who work for a living.

I have been watching a whole lot of Trae Crowder lately and his message of how Democrats keep giving up on the rural working poor is one I have been hearing a lot. Interestingly, he calls Biden out as one of the few that actually does listen to and appeal to rural voters in a way that Clinton never could and how his doing so resulted in the surprising showing he had in the South Carolina primary. He might be worth looking into beyond the Bernie-centric hate that seems to be coming from the hard left.

Drazzil wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Drazz,

I am terribly sorry for your loss and wish you the best in these tough times. I also thank you for sharing your story. You are literally the only person I have run into that has admitted to voting for Trump with the intention of voting against him this time around. Most of the folks I know have been ride or die.

I didn't vote for T lightly. I voted for Bernie, but when the media and the DNC screwed him in 16, and Hillary offered the working poor *literally* nothing, when she said "If you didnt like what Obama did at home and overseas, don't vote for me because nothing will change" and then Hillary got in front of the financiers and the 1% and said "don't worry nothing will change" as someone who did everything right, and still found himself locked out I took her at her word.

Back then I made a simple calculation. Hillary was smart enough to keep the whole corrupt oglarchy limping along for another eight years. I didn't have another eight years to flush. I knew Trump was enough of an outlier to either be the best president we ever had, or the absolute WORST president we ever had. I wagered in the former, great. In the latter great too.

I figured that if he brought the whole thing down, then that was a net benefit too, because as least he f-cks everyone, not just those who work for a living.

For what it’s worth Drazzil I discounted the danger Trump posed to the republic. I voted against him but had hoped that either his worst comments were just an act or that he would turn out to be a relatively harmless media buffoon. I could not have imagined how bad things would be 4 years later.

Otherwise, I would say hang in there. I can’t say don’t prep for worse because I’m doing the same. As soon as quarantine is over I’m stepping up my martial arts training and probably hitting the range. I’m under no illusion that come November there’s a possible chance Trump either wins and escalates things or refuses to step down. At that point we are in Civil War mode and I’m trying to get ready knowing that as a middle aged dude with a dad bod who fires a gun maybe once every couple years I’m probably already out of time. But please don’t throw your life away, at least not yet.

I think this Civil War talk is silly. That isn't going to happen.

SallyNasty wrote:

I think this Civil War talk is silly. That isn't going to happen.

We have two competing realities in this country. A Civil War is goddamn inevitable if we don't fix that.

Malor wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I think this Civil War talk is silly. That isn't going to happen.

We have two competing realities in this country. A Civil War is goddamn inevitable if we don't fix that.

We didn't have a civil war because of competing realities, we had a civil war because rich plantation owners thought it was a good financial bet to go solo.

I don't know what the analog here is in terms of capitalism, but as long as the nominee from the left is the Senator from Citibank, we're in a way different place than in 1864.

I found this an interesting listen. I think it’s been mentioned before.
It Could Happen Here Podcast

Boy, politics really has gotten hideous, hasn’t
it? And protests seem a lot more violent than
they were a couple of years ago. Are things
getting worse? Could the U.S.A be on the
road to a second civil war? Robert Evans says
‘Yes!’ and by the time you’ve finished listening
to ‘It Could Happen Here’, you will too.
Mr GT Chris wrote:

I found this an interesting listen. I think it’s been mentioned before.
It Could Happen Here Podcast

I almost mentioned this series here earlier, but I feel like I recommend Robert’s stuff in D&D threads too often and don’t want to seem like I have a parasocial crush on him even though I do.

I should clarify - I don’t see a full on mass battle civil war happening again. Northern Ireland Troubles? Absolutely.

jdzappa wrote:

I should clarify - I don’t see a full on mass battle civil war happening again. Northern Ireland Troubles? Absolutely.

The “Civil War II” painted in the podcast, one that I think has become frighteningly plausible, is about small groups of extremists and activists fighting a decentralized nationwide guerilla war on each other and state/federal forces, eventually escalating to the point where the government overextends itself and has to cede more heavily affected areas to local militia groups in order to maintain power over other locations.

And there are real examples of when that’s already happened if I recall.

Quick question about this podcast based on a just poking around looking for a transcript. From what I can tell, this is based on Iraq and Ukraine, and I'm assuming the insurgency is right wing.

So, who plays the part of Iran and Russia, respectively?

Like, who funds this? Where's the border with a nation that considers the territory within their sphere of influence that the guerillas slip back and forth over? A border with a nation the insurgents have, in some ways, closer ties to than the nation they are living in?

SallyNasty wrote:

I think this Civil War talk is silly. That isn't going to happen.

Think less 19th century US Civil War and more 20th century Yugoslav wars.

I don't think that's the most likely outcome, but the longer the current administration and the police forces around the nation are allowed to flex their fascist muscles, the more possible it becomes.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Quick question about this podcast based on a just poking around looking for a transcript. From what I can tell, this is based on Iraq and Ukraine, and I'm assuming the insurgency is right wing.

So, who plays the part of Iran and Russia, respectively?

Like, who funds this? Where's the border with a nation that considers the territory within their sphere of influence that the guerillas slip back and forth over? A border with a nation the insurgents have, in some ways, closer ties to than the nation they are living in?

Actually not like that at all. Each episode tackles a different possibility. I think if you skim the individual episode summaries you'll get a good feel for it.

Farscry wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I think this Civil War talk is silly. That isn't going to happen.

Think less 19th century US Civil War and more 20th century Yugoslav wars.

What's the difference, other than 'more than two factions'? Like, my question for civil war scenarios is how we get from here to a state where the sides have armies evenly matched enough for there to actually be a war. If we're going to draw analogies to other conflicts, I feel like they need to actually be, well, drawn.

I don't think that's the most likely outcome, but the longer the current administration and the police forces around the nation are allowed to flex their fascist muscles, the more possible it becomes.

maybe I'm too much of an optimist, but I'm seriously surprised at their lack of ability to put this down. Like, don't get me wrong, they're doing terrible things, but if you'd ever told me that the burning of a police station would result in civil authorities responding with speeding up and intensifying the prosecution of police, followed by days of unrest that's actually turning more peaceful, I would have said "in 2020? Maybe 2050, but no way 2020."

Mr GT Chris wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Quick question about this podcast based on a just poking around looking for a transcript. From what I can tell, this is based on Iraq and Ukraine, and I'm assuming the insurgency is right wing.

So, who plays the part of Iran and Russia, respectively?

Like, who funds this? Where's the border with a nation that considers the territory within their sphere of influence that the guerillas slip back and forth over? A border with a nation the insurgents have, in some ways, closer ties to than the nation they are living in?

Actually not like that at all. Each episode tackles a different possibility. I think if you skim the individual episode summaries you'll get a good feel for it.

I did, but they're pretty sparse and don't say much. I was mostly working off of the TV Tropes page which goes into some detail. Like one description:

The entire point of the podcast is to explore the current (as of 2019) political divide and ask "what if it became bloody?" The work goes out of its way to point out that more likely than not, a new civil war would be more like the Syrian Civil War, with multiple factions all fighting each other, with an increasingly oppressive and desperate federal government attempting to keep control.

Can you give a quick rundown of these factions, how they became strong enough that the federal government has become desperate, and why they're fighting each other?

Like I said, it differs by episodes. Off the top of my head, I'll say there are episodes covering racial divisions, class divisions, religious divisions, among others, and how these might escalate into serious conflict. The Syrian Civil War bit is really just referencing how the author spent time as a correspondent there and that he draws on his experience there in parts. You seem to refer to large scale factions and international politics but it's more like how communities respond, what individuals do in these kinds of situations, how someone would be affected, day to day.

Then it doesn't sound like how it might escalate into serious conflict, it sounds like 'if somehow there was serious conflict that resulted in a state of serious conflict' without explaining the 'somehow'.

Like, if you say we're on the road to a second civil war, you have to explain the road before you go explaining the civil war.

In the time you've been typing these posts and musing over the content, you could have listened to an episode. They're not that long. Really! Then come back and critique the sh*t out of it, seems better than critiquing my poorly summarised memories of listening to them a year back. If you really don't want to, that's fine too.

Mr GT Chris wrote:

In the time you've been typing these posts and musing over the content, you could have listened to an episode. They're not that long. Really! Then come back and critique the sh*t out of it, seems better than critiquing my poorly summarised memories of listening to them a year back. If you really don't want to, that's fine too.

Giving the first episode a listen now!

Yeah, I'm about a half an hour in now, he dropped a reference to the Syrian Civil War, and...all I'm hearing in the way of the road to civil war is increased partisanship. Not to discount the significance of that, but that doesn't get you to a situation like Syria.

I'm thinking you can't remember what I'm asking about because it was never there in the first place.

Like he says, if it's a conventional war, one A-10 Warthog and it's over. I get the point that he's trying to make--a second civil war won't look like the first one. There's just not the material there to back up this idea that insurgent groups could become capable of frustrating the forces of a central government, and certainly not this idea of, well, Balkanization--historical reference intended. There's a lot of distance between violent problems and a central authority so overwhelmed that you'd call it a civil war.

(edit) I can see why this stuff is attractive. Anytime someone concedes 'hey--the future won't look exactly like the far past, it'll look like the recent present' and draws comparisons to recent events, that's convincing. But you've also got to draw the contrasts with the comparisons, and that's just not happening here.

Maybe it happens a couple of hours in, but hey--if there was something that significant in this series, I'm thinking it would be better remembered.

Sorry--one episode in, reading that article he refers to on Cracked, and while I'm sure there's valuable stuff the episodes, I just don't think you're going to find the case made that we're on the road to a civil war.

Heck, the relationship between conflict and ethnogenesis and the end of empires used to be my jam, so I'm not unsympathetic--but also probably why I'm extra critical. You can always read someone for the value in their research and their thesis without accepting their conclusions.

It just ended and there's some line about how the civil war has started for some people, and they're just waiting for the rest of us. Sorry, but I don't see enough here to say they're just farther ahead of us on that road.