[techteach00]

Deeply pessimistic. I'm of the view that the powerful are extracting less and less capital from the average person. It doesn't seem worth it to them.

So housing and now cars are marketed to the rich and wealthy, we're losing things we took for granted.

Anonymity is basically dead on the internet. Worse being they don't just want my ID to participate but scans of my face, God knows who they are selling this data too.

We have less and less agency over anything. In the U.S both political parties are essentially the same. If you are an outsider like Massie, Planter or Omar they will successfully destroy your ability to represent the public. The game is rigged.

The bad times will continue and worsen until a cataclysmic global event resets the system. We'll see.

[conception]

Generally agree but I can’t take both parties as being the same seriously. You honestly believe the world stage would be the same with a different administration today?

[dudul]

You're being fooled by the public platforms and the communication stunts. Yes the world stage would be pretty much the same with a different administration.

The parties are basically lighting rods at this point. They claim that they're for this or against that, they would do this, we should do that, and if only we... blablabla. But in the end, nothing concrete ever changes. Sure there are adjustments here or there that quickly get canceled by the next administration, but nothing systemic is ever really changing.

[softwaredoug]

I don't see how you can back that up with actual data.

- SCOTUS would be radically different in composition without a GOP President being elected in 2016. That would have preserved post-Watergate reforms that prevented broad, sweeping executive actions that go against Congress's wishes. So at best Trump II could only look like a Trump I

- We wouldn't have attacked Iran. Continued closing of Hormuz has pretty far-reaching consequences

- EU might not be trying as hard to be as independent on defense matters, and the US would be active in Ukraine

- US would not be as ambivalent about Taiwan under a non-Trump administration

There are many places where things wouldn't have changed much. But electing Trump has had far reaching consequences to the constitutional system.

[dudul]

"We wouldn't have attacked Iran" How do you back that up with data? The US have been swamped in that part of the world for decades and decades, it didn't start with Trump.

As of today, the EU has not done anything concrete and real to be more military independent. Yes they have created "institutions" and "programs" and enacted "regulatory changes" (things they love to do in Europe), but concretely their military capabilities have not moved at all. These are just the thing the EU has been doing for a long time with never any result.

Again, do you have actual data to predict what the US position vis a vis Taiwan/China would be with a different administration?

What I will give you is that yes, Trump is way more disruptive than the previous tag team game the blues and the reds were playing before. I still don't think it will change much. Trump has not done anything truly radical.

[softwaredoug]

To win your argument, you need to enumerate every major outcome in the last few decades, and argue how it would still happen under the other party's president. Here's a few:

1. Iraq War (how does President Al Gore convince us to go to war in Iraq?!?)

2. ACA (President McCain passes the Affordable Care Act or something like it)

3. SCOTUS and downstream consequences (How does a President Hillary Clinton appoint a SCOTUS that overturns Roe v. Wade, to name a few)

Those are fairly preposterous, so I don't know how you can hold "it doesn't matter"

On Iran War itself, we didn't attack Iran for decades :) Past Presidents knew about the risks to the Strait of Hormuz, and this president clearly ignored numerous warnings.

(a) Past Presidents did not ignore these warnings, it's well known this would be a move from Iran from military planners (b) Current president clearly did (c) "It never matters" doesn't hold, because clearly

Hormuz being a known / ignored risk is well known

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/02/us/politics/trump-iran-st... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/13/goal-plan-ir...

[dudul]

Oh I think I understand the source of the confusion: you think that whoever is in the White House makes the decisions, I don't. I know: "ooh conspiracy theory blaba!" yeah. The thing is I think people who've been in place for 20/30 years in core power positions actually have more power than people who are elected and replaced every 4 to 5 years.

ACA didn't happen because of Obama for example.

[AndrewKemendo]

If you view them side to side with no other context then yeah there’s massive differences but if you zoom out and look at the entire total possible configurations of politics they’re both extremely right wing compared to what is possible. The US has no competitive left wing.

For example I voted for Claudia de la Cruz in the 2024 election because she was on the ballot in Virginia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudia_De_la_Cruz_2024_presid...

There’s no party, neither the Democratic and especially not the Republican Party would come anywhere near these policy positions and I’m in support of 100% of the positions they seem obvious to me as correct.

[mindcrime]

Speaking as Libertarian, I generally agree that the two major parties have been more alike than different over most of my 50+ years on Earth. But right this minute, I think the Dark Enlightenment dorks and their neo-fascist bullshit have completely captured the Republican Party to the extent that the Democrats are clearly much more favorable. For my part, I'm at a place I never thought I'd be: actively donating money to Democratic candidates and overtly supporting their campaigns, and planning to vote for some of them in the upcoming election. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth for sure, but to me it feels like what has to be done in the moment.

[linguae]

I feel the exact same way. I was a Ron Paul Republican from 2007 (when I became old enough to vote) until 2016, when I changed my registration to “no party preference” in the aftermath of the GOP primary results. It hasn’t gotten to the point that I started donating to Democrats, but I’ve found myself voting for Democrats in recent elections. My stance these days is that as nice as it would be to have libertarian governance, rule of law and maintaining our liberal institutions is much more important, and if it means voting for Democrats, then I’d rather deal with a bigger government than I’d like than the chaos we’re seeing now.

[softwaredoug]

Much of that can be true.

But global property has never been lower. We’ve never lived in a time with such access to medicine and vaccines. We have cheap solar and wind some argued would be impossible.

But in reality much of what you say is only part of the picture.

On politics. We’ve never had a time since 1900 of higher political engagement. Turnout in elections has rarely been so high as the last two decades.

I also disagree that the parties are that uniform. We have Democrats like Bernie Sanders and Abigail Spanberger. The GOP has JD Vance types who are little like classic hawkish Lindsey Graham republicans.

Tech billionaires have never been as consistently unpopular[1]. And data center activism has been pretty universal across partisan lines

Finally housing prices in the US finally flattened after a big spike in COVID. And housing completions have increased [2]. Car prices have actually fallen in recent years [3]

1 - https://yougov.com/en-us/ratings/business-figures?sortBy=fam...

2 - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tables?rid=27&eid=20985

3 - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUSR0000SETA02

[softwaredoug]

*global poverty