Those of my generation and previous ones following WW II, just wasted all the efforts for a better society.
The trend in Europe started many decades ago. It is too convenient to blame Russia to avoid acknowledging reality. Russia does not create problems, it is an opportunistic actor that tries to use the existing problems and discontent to its advantage.
Immediately labelling discontent as "xenophobia" is exactly what I mentioned in my previous comments, a denial of reality and of people's concerns. It shuts down debate and only fuels discontent. People are effectively told that they have no choice and if they don't like it they are wrong and racist.
In the intelligence community there is very little doubt that russia has been doing this for decades. Yes, there is a home grown component as well but it would not be nearly as large if not for all this meddling.
> Immediately labelling discontent as "xenophobia" is exactly what I mentioned in my previous comments, a denial of a reality and of people's concerns. It shuts down debate and only fuels discontent. People are effectively told that they have no choice and if they don't like it they are wrong and racist.
Yes.
This will end badly because of this denial of reality and denial of people's voices, not because of Russia.
This is incredibly short-sighted and is in fact exactly such a denial of reality that you accuse others of. The world is divided into poorer regions and wealthier regions, and regions that are peaceful and ones that are less peaceful. Then there is oppression based on race, creed, sexual preference and a whole raft of other things.
As long as that is the case there will be people that want to move away from where they were born.
You are claiming to speak for a group, but in fact you are just speaking for yourself, and poorly reasoned and supported at that.
The world is what it is. That has nothing to do with the immigration policies in Europe, which are chosen by the governments not imposed on them, and nothing to do with the growing range of issues in Europe.
I am not claiming to speak for anyone, by the way. I only acknowledge the election results and trends across Europe and how those signs of public opinion are met.
Have a nice one, guys.
It does however, have everything to do with centuries of European imperialism. We shaped the world to be the way it is. It didn't happen by accident.
Long term sustainable policies that do not result in such an imbalance require a longer term view and possibly lower short term profits. In fact, the United States was on that path until Trump took over. Mexico was slowly getting wealthier and people were already moving back because it was a more viable alternative. Now of course all that progress has been destroyed but it was really working, and I'm pretty sure that it could have been accelerated.
Our goverments could do better fixing the ways of the past, instead it is much easier to complain about immigration, from countries politians themselves would not freely chose to live on, other than on big monthly check from one of those corporations.
Interestingly, at the time when this happened there was due to the fact that Surinam people were considered to be citizens a massive influx of Surinam people to NL, the ones that saw the writing on the wall and realized that there would be a less-than-optimal situation post dutch pull-out. This then - predictably - led to exactly the same levels of xenophobia about the Surinam people coming to NL. The kind of stuff dutch people at the time were saying about them does not bear repeating here, suffice to say it was pretty horrible. Now, a good 40 years later they've integrated into Dutch society, and you don't hear anybody anymore about how they were going to cause the end of our 'way of life' That honor simply shifts from one group to the next. The only ones so far that seem to escape such scorn are the Ukrainians, but I suspect if their numbers would rise further that that would happen just the same, already Wilders has been trying out that fiddle to see how well it plays. But he's playing with fire on that subject and he knows it, we have not forgotten his response to the Russian downing of MH-17.
I, too, am part of the "people". My concerns are that we are seeing xenophobia rise as a distraction from the issues caused by capitalist contradictions and that Russia is fueling that fire for its own motives.
I, too, am unhappy with the current political parties, but for reasons opposite to yours. As long as the means of production are owned by the capitalist class, we will continue to suffer.
My "people's concern" is not the same as yours. Please do not try to commandeer it.
It is as true as the belief that social dynamics can be explained without the notion of class and modes of production.
Strawman detected. That's not what the GP wrote.
> The moment socialism arrives there won't be racism or xenophobia.
And that makes two.
> It is as true as the belief that social dynamics can be explained without the notion of class and modes of production.
Ok, I give up.
Much can be said, but not that they are so naive as your typical HN commenter.
And invasion or occupation is hardly the only example of adversarial policy, even if most obvious.
It was better for Russia than the present.
> You are taking last few decades, which were anomaly due to unprecedented situation of total global hegemony of US, and you extrapolate for the rest of future human history, whereas it dissolves right before your eyes.
The US has nothing to do with this.
> And invasion or occupation is hardly the only example of adversarial policy, even if most obvious.
Yes, you can make enemies out of thin air. But the facts are simple: Europe has tried to appease Russia by trading with them, in the end that trade balance was and is used to wage war. That's a dead end strategy. Russia can not survive by itself and needs trading partners more than it needs more territory. Putin and his band of mafiosi are robbing Russia blind and are the root cause of a lot of this, they will at some point be replaced and hopefully the new guard will be smarter than the old guard. And if not we'll deal with that when we get there.
You live in Poland, but your position does not strike me as typically Polish. Poland has seen first hand what it was like to live as a Russian occupied country. The same goes for the Baltics, Romania and lots of other countries in the East. Between all of them there is a solid agreement that this will not happen again. They're more than happy to let Russia be Russia, but within its own borders. Just like it would be if your country bordered Somalia or Iran.
On the contrary. Epitome of close transnational cooperation, the EU, would not exist if not for the US. So called "international law" and "free trade" are creations of US hegemony as well.
> You live in Poland, but your position does not strike me as typically Polish. Poland has seen first hand what it was like to live as a Russian occupied country.
I suspect it is because you for some reason believe it is impossible to hold multiple, noncontradictory thougths simultaneously in mind:
1. Russia is Poland's adversary, always have been, always will be. Not because of some good vs evil bs, or because Putin is madman, but because success of one is a loss of the other. Yes, some games are zero-sum, and this is why wars will happen. Alliances always are more or less situational.
2. Russia is a country of misery, and always was.
3. Unrest and far-right success we face internally, as other countries do as well, though definitely exploited and fueled by Russia, are fault of people that were in charge so far, and systemic problems they created or failed to address.
4. Russian policy against neighbouring countries is independent from who is currently ruling there.
No, it is because I too lived in Poland, have a ton of friends and family there and know from first had experience what Poland looked like under Russian occupation.
The EU was preceded by several other institutions which had absolutely nothing to do with the United States.
However, I have a hard time imagining that happening. As long as elections are still a thing over there, even if Trump gets a third term, that's still probably not enough hope lost to push Europe over the edge to actually take action rather than continuing to wait it out and slowly distancing themselves from the US rather than quickly.
I think you misunderstand. The Presidency is term-limited by the Constitution. Trump cannot run for a third term. The only way he remains in power after his second term is if the Constitution is abolished, in which case "continuing to wait it out" is futile. It would be equivalent to this:
> Trump declares himself king (or whatever other fancy word)
I have no faith Trump gives a shit about the constitution. He and his goons can amend and screw around till they find something that gives them what they want. So long as there's a somewhat legitimate election that says Trump's president, the fire burning under Europe's bottom isn't burning hot enough for them to move. Unless there's literally no election, not even the pretence of democracy, I can't imagine anyone doing anything much different from what they're doing now. If they were going to, they'd have already done it.
I didn't say he does. But again, abolishing the Constitution is the only path to staying in power.
> He and his goons can amend
No, they can't. Have you studied the amendment process?
> So long as there's a somewhat legitimate election that says Trump's president
That's the point. There can't be another somewhat legitimate election that says Trump's President.
If people go out to vote for Donald Trump, and he wins the election for a third term, or someone just says the right combination of words that wills him into being president for a third time, regardless of the constitution, that'll be legitimate enough. I have very little faith in both the US and Europe.
Yes, that was my point! Again, the only path to remaining in power is to completely bypass or ignore the Consitution. There is no legal means, not even nominally.
> If people go out to vote for Donald Trump, and he wins the election for a third term
This is explicitly, clearly unconstitutional.
> or someone just says the right combination of words that wills him into being president for a third time
This is just hand-waving.
> regardless of the constitution, that'll be legitimate enough.
How will it be legitimate at all?
> I have very little faith in both the US and Europe.
You also appear to have very little knowledge of the US.
My point isn't really about the US. My point is that Europe will do naught more than what they're doing now unless the US democracy compleatly collapses. Even if the elections are made and choose a candidate that can't legally be elected, him being elected still has a shred of democracy that means it isn't totally gone, and thus probably not gone enough for Europe to actually wake up. It won't be a free and fair election if that's the way things go, but it will be an election, and I believe that will be enough.
This is not entirely accurate. If 5 Supreme Court justices declared that Trump is king, or that Christianity is the official religion of the United States, that doesn't make it Constutional. There are certain actions that are just obviously, blatantly unconstitutional, and everyone would recognize it, regardless of what the justices say. At a certain point, the justices themselves would be deemed to be ignoring the Constitution. The declaration may spawn another civil war, but we're not stupid enough to think, "Oh, hey, a king is actually Constitutional", and I doubt that Europeans are stupid enough to believe that either.
Note that the case is about criminal prosecution. Congress retains the power specified in the Constitution to impeach and remove the President.
At this point, having already misunderstood our electoral system, you don't seem to be in a strong position to lecture US citizens about US law.
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: *but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.*" [emphasis mine]
Not to mention, the decision for ANY evidence that could discern an act from being official, unofficial or personal as being inadmissible in court, and that we simply have to take the Executive's word for whether an act was "official" or not, is such sovereign immunity that we might as well backtrack our historical roots.
Trump v. United States is a blank check for power overreach that we have yet to see the full amount of.
I am not your brother in Christ.
> the point is that Trump v. United States itself was unconstitutional
I wasn't defending the decision. There are plenty of Supreme Court decisions that I consider to be badly wrong.
> Trump v. United States is a blank check for power overreach that we have yet to see the full amount of.
It doesn't magically give him a new election or a third term in office, which is what this discussion was about.
It's an expression lol
>"It doesn't magically give him a new election or a third term in office, which is what this discussion was about."
He gave an astute example of how constitutionality (which is your crutch for "elections" and "third terms" being protected procedure) doesn't matter when there are currently unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings being honored - which is currently the easiest avenue for Trump to make any more unconstitutional advances (election suspension, third term, etc etc), and you acted - slightly arrogantly in fact - as if it wasn't a valid retort.
That's where we are now - and I don't even have a dog in this fight; I joined merely because you falsely motioned that his link to Trump v. US wasn't complimentary to his position, and I've only elucidated on his behalf how it is.
I don't like it and don't find it endearing or persuasuve.
> which is your crutch for "elections" and "third terms" being protected procedure
I'm not sure what you mean by "protected procedure". My point is just that it's blatantly obvious to everyone that Trump cannot run for a third term, and if the Supreme Court says he can, that would be equivalent to the Supreme Court saying that black is white or night is day, a bald-faced lie. I doubt they would, though.
If Trump attempted to remain in power, it would no doubt be via some kind of contrived emergency, martial law, state of "war", and not via running for election again, which nobody is going to accept, not even Republicans.
> there are currently unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings being honored
Yes, but that's true of many rulings, even before Trump took office.
> you acted - slightly arrogantly in fact - as if it wasn't a valid retort
A link is not a retort, valid or invalid.
> you falsely motioned that his link to Trump v. US wasn't complimentary to his position
No, I said that a link by itself is not an argument. The relevance and applicability of the link needs to be explained.
>"which nobody is going to accept"
I respect your blind optimism.
The rest is moot for a reply.
https://billkatz.substack.com/p/discourse-on-voluntary-servi...
But if not one thing is yielded to him, if without any violence he is simply not obeyed, he becomes naked and undone and nothing, just as when the root receives no nourishment, the branch withers and dies.
The Constitution says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". It doesn't say no person shall serve as President more than twice.
Gerald Ford was never elected to the office of the President. He was never even elected to the office of Vice President. Yet he served as President.
One scenario: Trump runs as a Vice President on a ticket with someone else as President. 5 minutes after being inaugurated, the President resigns, making Trump President for a third term.
I'm sure clever people can think of other scenarios.
You can conceive of imaginary scenarios, but that's not going to happen. Nobody who wins the Presidency is going to resign. If that's the scenario you're afraid of, it's just silly.
I would note that Republican Senators are reluctant even to bypass the current Democratic filibuster shutting down the government. As much as Republican politicians are deferential to Trump, they still have their own political ambitions. Some of them are biding their time in the hope that they themselves can become the next President.
I dunno, man. People are already putting their name next to a "NAY" vote for the President, specifically when it comes to releasing files regarding the most prolific child sex trafficker of our time; who likely had such connections to the President.
Being masochistic enough for someone to do that, and to resign as president, are less steps away than you think.
yawpitch•4mo ago