USA - США - SAD

One Eyed Bob wrote:On je istovremeno proizvod društva i tvorac društvene svesti. I zbog svega toga mislim da psihologizovanje Vučića treba da se vrši veoma oprezno i da se ne pada u zamku da se njegovi ekscesi patologizuju, da se u njima traži dijagnoza ili egzotika. Njegovo ponašanje je banalno iživljavanje malo bahatijeg srpskog gazde. 

Ne uprkos tome, već baš zbog toga mislim da je donekle korisno baviti se njegovom psihologijom i matricom u kojoj je ponikao. Sistem u kome on deluje proizveo bi sličan početni rezultat i bez Vučića, s tim što bi i taj drugi verovatno pokazivao sličan set izvitoperenih karakteristika.

Летећи Полип wrote:@DC

Staznam, meni Vuciceva licnost tu ulazi u sklop strukture. Odnosno, razobrucenost is not a bug, it's a feature. Da Vucica nema, bio bi neki drugi kao on. Mozda bi Partizan bio privilegovaniji, mozda ne bi bilo toliko konferencija za stampu, ali bi i dalje mediji bili pod jednom sapom, Rusiji ne bi bile uvedene sankcije, rasla bi nejednakost, drustvo bi bilo nasilnije, kopao bi se litijum itd.

Летећи Полип wrote:@DC

Staznam, meni Vuciceva licnost tu ulazi u sklop strukture. Odnosno, razobrucenost is not a bug, it's a feature. Da Vucica nema, bio bi neki drugi kao on. Mozda bi Partizan bio privilegovaniji, mozda ne bi bilo toliko konferencija za stampu, ali bi i dalje mediji bili pod jednom sapom, Rusiji ne bi bile uvedene sankcije, rasla bi nejednakost, drustvo bi bilo nasilnije, kopao bi se litijum itd.

паће wrote:

MNE wrote:
apsolutno ne mora da znači, AV je paranoik koji je uzaptio sve moguće medije i poluge vlasti i koji trči da na sve moguće načine zadovolji i zapadne i istočne partnere kako mu se ne bi desilo ono što se desilo miloševiću i žutima

možda bi došao neko njemu sličan ali više je vjerovatno da ne bi, jer ovo što on radi zahtijeva poprilično veliku dozu psihopatije koju nema svako

Тј био би неко други али не би издржао толико на власти.

Nektivni Ugnelj wrote:Ali ne potpisujem da ako bi neka potpuno druga koalicija stranaka dosla na vlast, sa nekim predsednikom iz njihovih redova - da bi sve ostalo isto. Skoro sigurno ne bi.

Nektivni Ugnelj wrote:Ali ne potpisujem da ako bi neka potpuno druga koalicija stranaka dosla na vlast, sa nekim predsednikom iz njihovih redova - da bi sve ostalo isto. Skoro sigurno ne bi.

Летећи Полип wrote:

Nektivni Ugnelj wrote:Ali ne potpisujem da ako bi neka potpuno druga koalicija stranaka dosla na vlast, sa nekim predsednikom iz njihovih redova - da bi sve ostalo isto. Skoro sigurno ne bi.

Ne kazem da nije tako. Ali stvar je u tome sto druga koalicija stranaka nije dosla na vlast. Stavise, do skoro nije bila ni konkurentna.

Mislim, svakako da bi Nemacka onomad bila drugacija da su umesto nacista na vlasti bile socijaldemokrate, ali jebi ga - revansizam sa socdemima ne ide.

Летећи Полип wrote:Da se razumemo, ne zagovaram ja svusuistizam. Ne kazem da bi sutra Dobrica bio ko Seselj, ako bi dosao na vlast. Samo da neme sanse da (sam) dodje na vlast. Ili, ako bi ga postavili neki namesnici, da bi mogao efikasno da je vrsi.

Above is the latest polling breakdown from the New York Times. As you might notice, it does not currently project a Kamala Harris victory! She’s leading at the national level, but as everyone suddenly forgot in 2016, the United States does not have a national popular vote system. She’s leading in two of the three “blue wall” states, but the outcomes are within the margin of error, and most paths to victory require her to carry all three. She’s tied in Pennsylvania and Arizona. The only state here where a lead exceeds the margin of victory is Georgia, which favors Donald Trump. If Harris’s recent gains regress back to this state of affairs in the coming months, it’s a coinflip election where Trump could easily squeak out victory in Pennsylvania and Arizona and regain the White House. That’s not some wild hypothetical! It’s an entirely plausible state of affairs! Much more plausible than Trump winning in 2016, where it took Hillary’s wild unpopularity, Robby Mook’s incompetence, and decades-long indifference among Democrats towards the collapse of the Rust Belt. This election is very, very close.

And yet this current state of affairs has produced some of the most wildly unrestrained football-spiking and expressions of certainty that I’ve seen in 24 years of following presidential elections. Matt Yglesias’s piece today - which continues his genuinely sad collapse into just pure anti-left bitterness - is more or less a declaration of victory. The entire crew at New York magazine is rabidly invested in the notion that Harris’s victory is assured, to the point where I doubt anyone affiliated with the magazine would be able to get real sustained skepticism into its pages. (And if you did the company Slack would call you a fascist.) The stentorian New York Times has been having a month-long collective orgasm about what’s happening, seeming to drop even the tattered fig leaf of impartiality, which until recently they’ve still pretended to embrace. Social media is stuffed with gloating, gleeful overconfidence about Harris’s coming victory. Democrats are not playing defense with their emotions, here, which is absolutely bonkers to me considering what happened just eight years ago.

Type your email...
Subscribe
Look, I’m very willing to say that Harris has a real but fragile lead. Certainly I would bet money on a Kamala victory if you forced me to pick, and I’d feel OK about it. I also obviously very much prefer a Democratic victory, even as I am aware that a) the party is corrupt and in thrall to moneyed interests and b) an actual Harris presidential administration is going to be an endlessly tiring slog where Congressional Republicans stifle anything she tries to do. (Never forget that conservatives are better at being the opposition party, and clearly enjoy being the opposition party more, no matter how much they wail about presidential election results.) Yes, Harris should be assumed to have a narrow lead in a very tight election. But… that’s not what people are talking about. Everyone is losing their goddamn minds. So much of the ambient political conversation suggests that Democrats sincerely believe this election has become a coronation.

And it’s an absolutely classic demonstration of how American liberals simply cannot process politics as anything other than psychodrama. They’ve viewed the Trump years as uniquely traumatic, even though George W. Bush was a vastly more destructive president than Trump. (But he ruined lives with class, so he’s less bad than Trump.) Trump lost in 2020 - I assure you, Joe Biden is currently president - but the news cycle has been discouraging and they dream of that night everybody made out in the rain in that park in Chicago in 2008, right before Obama ruled for eight years as a center-right president who liked to kill children with drone strikes. When they’re listening to Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me! in the shower in the morning they think “Kamala has to win,” and because they’re children of privilege they’re incapable of separating that emotional need for her to win from the possibility that she very well might not. Democrats will do anything to win, except what’s most important and most necessary for the party - to become ruthlessly hard on themselves, to be serious, to stop treating politics as ruling class Pokemon. But they don’t want to get serious. They want to spend the rest of their lives pretending that meme politics can save the country. But what if winning requires you to stop acting like a middle-aged teenager?

Erős Pista wrote:Proseravanje, realno. Ne vidim da je iko siguran u Kamalinu pobedu, a mediji poput NYT je neretko i otvoreno podjebavaju. Da je krenula hevi kampanja, krenula je, ali to je nesto drugo i govori upravo suporotno od ov9ga sto on tvrdi - da demsi shvataju izbore maksimalno ozbiljno.