2026 American Political (ob-?)Scene

statquo said:
What’s the difference between illiberalism vs fascism?
Click to expand...
I would say they are focused on different things. Fascism is an idea of what the state should represent and everything in society should serve the state while illiberalism is more concerned with the mechanics of how the state works (or does not work). They can both be side-by-side with one another.

"Fascism" is similar to the word "socialism" or "communism" used so often in common argument in this country detached from the concept of what the word is that the word's real meaning has been lost on most. It's pretty much in the vein of Godwin's Law. I don't find such things positive. I said years ago one drawback of Republicans saying every Democrat was socialist is one day Democrats would start running actual socialists. "It's what they call us anyway, might as well run one." Should we go back to the words Democrats used to describe George W. Bush and Mitt Romney running for President, now that we're here with Trump?

Another problem also is people use 1945 as its base point for the philosophy instead of looking at everything that has occurred in the 80 years since. You want to have a discussion on fascism? Okay, during it we should probably discuss the political philosophy of Peron, Chiang Kai-Shek, and why they do or don't qualify in your opinion.
 
Last edited:
If we started a Go Fund Me campaign? I'm sure we could raise more than 45 mil in order to pay Melina not to produce a movie about herself.
 
Monash said:
If we started a Go Fund Me campaign? I'm sure we could raise more than 45 mil in order to pay Melina not to produce a movie about herself.
Click to expand...
Most of the theaters showing it have zero ticket sales so far. If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?
 
Ironduke said:
Most of the theaters showing it have zero ticket sales so far. If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Click to expand...
Even MAGAt's are staying away in droves
 
Thank god the Oscar nominations announced on Jan. 22 otherwise we would have to listen to his moaning and groaning. Although there is still January 2027.

Oh, and Bezos is a toad.
 
tbm3fan said:
Thank god the Oscar nominations announced on Jan. 22 otherwise we would have to listen to his moaning and groaning. Although there is still January 2027.

Oh, and Bezos is a toad.
Click to expand...
He paid for it, he should be made to watch it. Everyday for a month.
 
tbm3fan said:
Ah, come on now Mr. Commissar, tell me that is not a play on maggots? Although it sounds like the movie was dead on arrival so...
Click to expand...
Most definitely is...and hardly the first time I've used it. 😏

And that's Comrade Commisar to you 🤨
 
Congressional Budget Office response to a question:

This letter responds to a request that the Congressional Budget Office estimate the costs associated with federal deployments of National Guard personnel to U.S. cities. CBO was asked to focus on three categories of costs: the costs to activate, deploy, and compensate National Guard personnel; the operational, logistical, and sustainment costs of maintaining those deployments; and any additional direct or indirect costs associated with the use of National Guard or other military forces.

Since June 2025, the Administration has deployed National Guard personnel or active-duty Marine Corps personnel to six U.S. cities: Los Angeles, California; Washington, D.C.; Memphis, Tennessee; Portland, Oregon; Chicago, Illinois; and New Orleans, Louisiana. The Administration has also kept 200 National Guard personnel mobilized in Texas after they left Chicago. CBO estimates that those deployments (excluding the one to New Orleans, which occurred at the end of the year) cost a total of approximately $496 million through the end of December 2025.

The costs of those or other deployments in the future are highly uncertain, mainly because the scale, length, and location of such deployments are difficult to predict accurately. That uncertainty is compounded by legal challenges, which have stopped deployments to some cities, and by changes in the Administration's policies. The factors CBO used to estimate the costs of deployments in 2025 suggest that continuing the ongoing deployments at their size as of the end of 2025 would cost $93 million per month. More generally, deploying 1,000 National Guard personnel to a U.S. city in 2026 would cost $18 million to $21 million per month, depending mainly on the city's cost of living.

 
DOR said:
Congressional Budget Office response to a question:

This letter responds to a request that the Congressional Budget Office estimate the costs associated with federal deployments of National Guard personnel to U.S. cities. CBO was asked to focus on three categories of costs: the costs to activate, deploy, and compensate National Guard personnel; the operational, logistical, and sustainment costs of maintaining those deployments; and any additional direct or indirect costs associated with the use of National Guard or other military forces.

Since June 2025, the Administration has deployed National Guard personnel or active-duty Marine Corps personnel to six U.S. cities: Los Angeles, California; Washington, D.C.; Memphis, Tennessee; Portland, Oregon; Chicago, Illinois; and New Orleans, Louisiana. The Administration has also kept 200 National Guard personnel mobilized in Texas after they left Chicago. CBO estimates that those deployments (excluding the one to New Orleans, which occurred at the end of the year) cost a total of approximately $496 million through the end of December 2025.

The costs of those or other deployments in the future are highly uncertain, mainly because the scale, length, and location of such deployments are difficult to predict accurately. That uncertainty is compounded by legal challenges, which have stopped deployments to some cities, and by changes in the Administration's policies. The factors CBO used to estimate the costs of deployments in 2025 suggest that continuing the ongoing deployments at their size as of the end of 2025 would cost $93 million per month. More generally, deploying 1,000 National Guard personnel to a U.S. city in 2026 would cost $18 million to $21 million per month, depending mainly on the city's cost of living.

Click to expand...
I suppose these costs weren't in the budget were they? So just add to the deficit? Well someone does know Chapter 11 fairly well so no worries.
 
tbm3fan said:
Speaking of which, what is your take on the Fed Chair appointment as that is your wheelhouse?
Click to expand...

Well, the Orange Anti-Christ says Kevin Warsh looks like he came from central casting, so that must count for something when it comes to understanding the subtle nuances of guiding the economy.

But, his flip from inflation hawk to sycophant worries me: to get this nomination, it smells like he has had to convince the Conman-in-Chief that he’ll advocate for rate cuts regardless of the need. This is the guy who, even during the worst deflation since the 1930s, still wanted high real interest rates. Now, he believes fairy tales (deregulation and AI productivity boosts) will blow away inflation like an evil step-mother.

Bear in mind that the Fed Chair has one of 12 votes, not a mandate. (S)He has to convince enough of the Federal Open Market Committee to vote his way. What we should be most concerned about, however, isn’t interest rate levels but the means by which – and speed with which – the balance sheet is unwound. Get that wrong, and the bad old days are back.
 
DOR said:
Well, the Orange Anti-Christ says Kevin Warsh looks like he came from central casting, so that must count for something when it comes to understanding the subtle nuances of guiding the economy.

But, his flip from inflation hawk to sycophant worries me: to get this nomination, it smells like he has had to convince the Conman-in-Chief that he’ll advocate for rate cuts regardless of the need. This is the guy who, even during the worst deflation since the 1930s, still wanted high real interest rates. Now, he believes fairy tales (deregulation and AI productivity boosts) will blow away inflation like an evil step-mother.

Bear in mind that the Fed Chair has one of 12 votes, not a mandate. (S)He has to convince enough of the Federal Open Market Committee to vote his way. What we should be most concerned about, however, isn’t interest rate levels but the means by which – and speed with which – the balance sheet is unwound. Get that wrong, and the bad old days are back.
Click to expand...
So what you are saying is that we have someone who was a professional and looked at the data with open critical eyes in the past, but now seems to have given that up in order to appeal to an egomaniac, for a cherry appointment that, you could say, appeals to his desires/ego over the best interests of the country?
 
tbm3fan said:
So what you are saying is that we have someone who was a professional and looked at the data with open critical eyes in the past, but now seems to have given that up in order to appeal to an egomaniac, for a cherry appointment that, you could say, appeals to his desires/ego over the best interests of the country?
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure about the "professional and looked at the data with open critical eyes," because he advocated raising interest rates when the economy -- and the global financial system -- was on the brink, and prices were falling for the first time in 75 years. But, yes, it does appear that he has sold his soul to the devil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top