Politics Thread


That’s almost every country that’s been around long enough. America is hardly unique there.


I guess the question whether America was ever great, is more of an opinion question. What do you define as great? Slavery, Indian Removal Act, child labor, sexism, Japanese internment camps, segregation, Vietnam War, Watergate, etc…And then on top of that the United States has the highest prison rates, and suffers from de facto segregation. However some people will choose to focus on the good America has done in the past, or that no country is without fault. So what is it you define as a country being great?


Just thought I’d pop in(for the first time! :smiley: ) as Saudi Arabia was mentioned and it’s relations with America, so the disappearance of that Saudi journalist might change the current status quo no? Me being a cynic I doubt it though, Saudi hasn’t exactly been portrayed positively before, I read about it doing worse things certainly.


That part really makes me sad. It’s disgusting, and some people even back him up by saying ish like “So? he’s acting like a man.”…


We’re our closest to achieving a more perfect union right now. And personally I do think America is great.


To most Trump voters, the phrase “Make America Great Again” is motivated by nostalgia for the American economy of the 1950’s and 1960’s when it was easy to earn a living wage that could support an entire family with just a high school diploma. Those sorts of jobs have moved overseas, and it is the desire to bring those jobs back that motivates the Trumpian support for tariffs and a renegotiation of NAFTA and other international trade deals that largely benefited the investor class at the expense of American industry and large numbers of middle class Americans without college educations. What you’re thinking of when you see those hats is not the same as what most Trump voters are thinking of.


On a separate note, i had just read that in Germany Bavaria State election , The Green Party managed to gain 19% of the vote , overtaking SPD and becoming 2nd largest party in Bavaria … interesting though is… whether the Greens can continue their momentum to the Germany National Election , and whether it will help Green Party of other countries … for example, Green Party of the USA…
Wondering whether Bernie Sanders should compete the next US presidential election under the Green Party ? It will save him time and money of competing against the Democrats … :slight_smile:


That doesn’t sound like the worst idea in the world. I mean Burney, like Donald Trump is his own ideology, he’s more left than democrats have been traditionally. Plus the democrats is picking up a lot of baggage, what with calling for uncivility, and sporting some people like Cortez who are too far left in my opinion. For example, if I was a US citizen I’d vote for Burnye in a heartbeat, but not the democrats.

And on that note I doubt the greens will pick up steam if they’re anything like the UK greens. The right and left across the west are moving further and further apart, where as my left wing ideology stays firmly put mostly agreeing with everything the greens(at least the UK ones) have to say.


I think Bernie should partner with his protege Tulsi Gabbart for the US presidential run , both of them are the progressive loyalist…

Well, thus far Germany’s Green party is the strongest and has a chance to replace SPD because SPD had been tarnish with the Grand Coalition with Mekkel’s Party, and their supporters seem to turn towards the Greens, in Austria, their president is a Greens…

In the US , Green Party had been urging Bernie to compete under their ticket since last election , it is time for the US to progress from the 2 parties dominant :slight_smile:


I was told the problem with the so-called third parties in the US is that they lack the “party” part of that name insofar that they do not have a functional permanent party organization and only exist every two to four years.
The key for the capturing the left wing chasm in the US, apart from hoping the Democrats will finally split would seem to be decades of working from the bottom up and having US Greens focus on the non-profile and headline grabbing elections first. To do that they would need to elect an awful lot of dog-catchers, school-boards, city/town/village Councillors and at least a couple dozen sheriffs and judges before moving on to capturing the state assemblies and senates and then some governorships and then finally moving on to the federal congress and only once their status as the third party is somewhat secure running a presidential ticket.

Were I a member of the US Green Party I’d put special focus on capturing the country’s school boards as the state of US education is deplorable…and of course if you’re somewhat successful with that strategy you get to capture the hearts and minds of a lot of current and more importantly future voters.

That will take either a second US Republic transitioning to proportional representation or a long and difficult slog and decades of hard work of the sort I’ve described above.

Only by a squeaker and only because the alternative was Norbert Hofer…:unamused:


If you have some valid criticism or constructive suggestions, please visit:



As I’m not a US Citizen I somehow doubt they want to hear from me. :sweat_smile: A lot of people in America, especially the younger people already seem to know what’s wrong, but a sudden seismic political shift aside the solution is not going to be all that easy and, again, would involve a decades long and difficult process requiring significant commitment from key drivers and actors. Like I’ve said before it’s not actually some arcane form of higher science so much as it would be incredibly daunting and difficult in the current US socio-political constellation.


Poppycock. :slight_smile: A good idea can change the world. Don’t be afraid to speak your mind!


I’d really say it’s been going on for a while, but it does look about to get much worse :cold_sweat:

Many undocumented immigrants do pay taxes.

“Everybody else is doing it” isn’t really a defense.

How many school board elections have parties listed? :thinking: My school board elections just list candidates, without any party affiliations given. You can generally suss out a bit of their leanings from what they focus on talking about it interviews, but that’s it, really. I don’t know if this is typical or unusual, though.


If you only focus on the bad you will never be able to see the good. If you judge a civilizations past through the lens of the present, of course they will look bad. But that doesn’t mean America wasn’t and isn’t great. Take ancient Rome for example. They had slavery, most land they ruled over could be argued “wasn’t theirs”, and women’s rights weren’t exactly stellar. And yet they built buildings that stood the test of time, ruled the majority of the known world, made incredible leaps in science, were enormously wealthy and survived for thousands of years. They were seen as great despite their flaws. Acknowledging the negative parts of a nations past is fine (and even good), but also look at the good that they do and have done before coming to a final conclusion. If for nothing more than being open minded.

I can’t really speak for @Malvastor here but it seems like less of a defense and more of a “if you only judge nations for their flaws you will soon find they all look terrible.”


Agreed. If we look at it like that, pretty much every part of the world is not great. I actually can’t think of a single big-ish civilization that didn’t have slaves at some point.

You see this a lot with Vikings. A lot of people praises them because of all the rights they gave to women (first considering this was only for free women, and then ignoring women couldn’t go to political gatherings or carry a weapon around, even if this was done for their protection), while ignoring they had slaves.


No, but it makes the point that it’s pointless to hand out special condemnation for these things. At a certain point in history ruthless expansion was taken as a given, and anybody in your way was fair game, one-time ally or not. That makes every nation an ***hole, and makes no impact on whether one of them can claim to be greater in other ways.


I agree, this argument is quite weak. It’s an argument many people use. Espesially in politics.
As for the “America was never great” discussion…
Lets look at America alone as a country. I don’t believe America was terrible, nor was it great. It was some where in the middle. However, when trump says make America great again, he talks about the economy, and industrial value of America. But he needs to be more specific becuase he has a lot of others confused as to what makes a country great which not much of the world has down, including America. America may have been good, but it wasn’t really great if we’re comparing the good and the bad.


It may not be a defense but we simply cannot judge the actions of those in the past with the lens of the present. If we do that then every single nation ever is terrible, and in the future every nation today is terrible. We can’t hold every nation in the past on the pedestal we have for our own nations today and call them terrible.

We have to look at things as they were historically, with the context and information necessary to help us make a reasonable opinion. For example: One thing terrible is that we had a Civil War fought over slavery when many other ‘modern’ nations of the time had ended slavery without much issue.


Well, that rejoinder blew up a bit.

Yeah, they’re a mix of good and bad, and yes, by these standards there haven’t really been much in the way of societies that come off looking all that, well, great. This is why I don’t believe in just judging nations or cultures as “great” or “terrible” (with exceptions for extremes like Nazis, of course, but that’s a specific regime). Countries are diverse assemblages of people, so of course great achievements will coexist with wrongdoing. But looking at one doesn’t mean we should overlook the other.

(I mean, look at, say, the Aztecs [or Tenocha or Mexica, to use their own names for themselves]. They were extremely aggressive and warlike, plus human sacrifice, but they had public education, highly effective agriculture, architecture, urban planning, a capital which absolutely stunned the Spaniards, and better hygiene… Song China, which featured an economic flourishing and increased meritocracy in government positions with the exam system, but also a drastic reduction in the status of women. Just like, well, America, or Rome, you could call these both great or terrible… and I’d say, yeah, there’s a lot of both. Everything’s a mix.)

And yes, the past was different and it’s always important to take context into account when looking at history. Idealizing this past as “great” is another matter entirely. When looking at how one could “make America great” (though I would much rather prioritize the world than America :roll_eyes:), we should by all means use our own standards, and if someone says “again,” we can certainly look at what that “again” would resemble.