BlueOak

No he's not as desperate as Putin, but then his country isn't as radicalized and far right either. He works with many authoritarian governments, and they have adequate relations. I would say China is considerably more balanced and stable. This changes nothing about what i've said. You tend to look at absolutes, I don't. I think if Russia fights their wars, weakens themselves, and radicalises Europe that presents opportunities and dangers for China, I think if Russia has peace, NATO grows bolder, and China more subtly competes with trade and industry that creates opportunities and danger for Chinese influence. Either way they are still influencing directly and indirectly, both by their existance and intent the course of the world.

Aligned with China's interests? No. China would be very happy if Europe started giving them everything they wanted, including arms, money, military allies and political support. I have however mentioned, and will do so again, that creating authoritarians, and right-wing ones especially (as Russia is attempting), can backfire quite spectacularly.

I doubt they want the entire world. They certainly want BRICS dominance of it, and they are the majority partner in BRICS yes. For their own ends, as in China itself, they want continued expansion both in terms of territory, trade, influence and military power yes.

@Elliott Right of where they were? Are you really asking why a country wants another to align with it ideologically, economically, and militarily? - Is this something that needs an answer? China specifically wants them authoritarian and (in my view of a global context) slight right of center, buying, trading, and allowing China to expand what it wants where it wants.They want policies in Europe that benefit them, they want to remake Europe and America in a way that suits Chinas continued interests. I mean that's just common sense. Or this is again about my personal view of the political spectrum? Why is that so important to you? Again you've failed to mention why the vietnam war has anything to do with China and European relations? Do I have to guess? I can hazard a guess but I doubt it'll be whatever you are hinting at. Are we saying that because France was involved in a conflict in 1955 (don't quote me on dates its before my time), that in 2025 China is what, angry at France? Is this map an attempt to tell me that China's aggression and expansion is justified due to European colonies from hundreds of years ago? Are we hinting that a militarized Europe is going to, what, invade vietnam? I am not sure what you are getting at.

30% less of it. Global oil prices apparently just jumped 3% overnight. The line downwards for the Russian economy continues to accelerate. 2nd video for a more nuanced take. *Also Turkey, and India etc, those countries buying to sell have stopped.

New low for Russia. Tricking foreign migrants into their army and sending them to die. I am quite impressed that Russia continues to surprise me with their depravity. Four years on watching it all.

Okay. And what does America's war in vietnam decades ago have to do with Chinese European relations? One last try. No I said Europe was resisting Eastern influence (both direct and indirect). Primarially the authoritarian drift, but there has been some shift. I have said before in other conversations that a possible result of Russian meddling primarily is that it does not create countries friendly with Moscow but rightwing governments likely to fight harder. I never said China wanted to demilitarize Europe. I said and i'll quote it again: Countries have national interests. If trade benefits them, they'll trade. If bombs benefit them, they'll bomb. What a country won't do, for example, is assist another country in resisting China taking over its territory as its own. Not unless they had some sort of practical ties and reason to do so. These develop because their ideologies and/or interests align. There is often a natural drift on the meta level of a country (or any large group) toward others who share similiar views. However now you mention it, I very much think Russia especially don't want Europe to have teeth, and so by association China as well, but to a lesser extent due to geography. Again it seems you are focused on my personal opinion on ideology, when its of much less import. The only salient point to argue is: Has there been pressure from the east to restructure the nature of western countries. BRICS as a whole are authoritarian in nature and counter to democratic values yes. They have a mostly rightwing ideology among the member states like Russia or Iran, and moreover, an authoritarian one, with obviously countries who are more center-authoritarian.

Do you think it needs this to be a threat to China? Or do you think there are more weapon producers than there have ever been on planet earth right now? China needs Europe aligned or at least subdued to dominate the planet, yes. The economic and military power of Europe is a hurdle to BRICS dominance. Especially as we are moving to 5% of GDP on defense in Europe now over time, for reference, countries barely put 2% in previously.

I think you are being deliberately obtuse. But in the instance you are not @Elliott I see no inconsistencies. Not sure where leftists in your questioning came from as I never mentioned them? I would wager from your earlier posts, and then this absolute sort of question you can't see (or don't use) multiple countries in comparison to each other, or any kind of large potential political scale that allows for side-by-side comparison of policy and ideology, culture alignment, economic alignment etc. Countries have national interests. If trade benefits them, they'll trade. If bombs benefit them, they'll bomb. What a country won't do, for example, is assist another country in resisting China taking over its territory as its own. Not unless they had some sort of practical ties and reason to do so. These develop because their ideologies and/or interests align. There is often a natural drift on the meta level of a country (or any large group) toward others who share similiar views. It doesn't matter who I consider rightwing, almost all countries are center or rightwing. It matters how close other countries are ideologically are to others. Specifically in this case the level of authoritarism is a defining force. Yeah Europe is certainly resisting the efforts of the eastern powers, but there is a rightward and authoritarian drift (due in part with increasing tension and the wars themselves, migration and eastern efforts). There was a heck of a lot of pushback to get any aid whatsoever into Ukraine, at some points Russia's cronies in certain countries have tried to outright sabotage it. It's no different in the South China Sea or Taiwan, Tibet, or East Turkestan - only geography makes such things significantly harder to aid Taiwan, for example. https://www.politicalcompass.org/ https://www.politicalcompass.org/test - or the test itself might help for reference.

Let's do a few easy ones: Second biggest trading partner. Closer alignment with them. Less opposition to their expansionist policies. Removal of competition. Far right countries generally don't defend other countries half the globe away, or even just the continent. They are considerably more insular and only concerned in their direct national interests. This is helpful for a country dedicated to replacing America as the world power. People are the world over trying to make it like them. They look at themselves and decide that's how the world should be, then spend their entire lives and energy focused on that. Cue everyone telling me how America/China are different. Yes. - That's part of the point. The results are largely the same. Wars, competition, new ideologies trying to replace others, and new billionaires. Same cycle, different reasons.

As i've mentioned before, I've watched some of Inmendham who is probably the most depressed atheist around. https://www.efilism.com/ Again a warning, don't go there if you are depressed, as he certainly is. This is a more extreme own-brand of natalism. His science series on things like there being only one force in the universe might even be worth a look, it was a different perspective. (Draft science at the bottom) But for me, its depression talking. It comes from the view that we inflict a great deal more suffering as a species. But it requires everything be measured in value judgments (including life itself), and that suffering itself have less value in that person's mind than in reality it has. It requires the person to want there to be an end goal to it all, or a scale to weight it on, when there is none, other than experience itself. Does anti-natalism or efilism still make sense when value judgments are removed? If survival is the highest priority of a species. No it doesn't. Because it'd be dead. But, the birth rate certainly needs to be lower for our species to continue having a reasonable quality of life, or space colonisation to happen as quickly as possible. For me suffering drives a lot of life's growth and development. Its like the moment you become conscious of the suffering you were experiencing was in fact your own creation; those kinds of moments, the exact time it happens as a situation is unfolding, are awareness jumps where you experience considerable growth in perception. I'd like to know why they take as long as they do sometimes but hey ho. I've described the level of depression I felt to be the equivalent of a constant broken rib (only as a full-bodied sensation) and I wasn't the worst off out there. I use that analogy, as I've had the pain of a broken rib. There were days when it was considerably worse. - Its not as rare in moments as you make out. Very well put. Almost poetic. I would caution, however, in using the language 'value' as that in itself is where the problem lies. Diminishing everything to a value judgment. Life doesn't sit there with scales weighing itself for example. And while a person can choose to not have a kid because they believe the patterns they experienced were too painful - I in part did this knowing those patterns were still part of me, and thus would become part of the child - its impossible to make that decision for anyone else. So someone making an ideology around this very personal choice is flawed.

Everything is in fact, the search for love; it doesn't mean this example is a divine order that everyone would be better off living by. Whoever is defining ''better off'. Shall I define my ideology as better off and put it in a divine context to give my ego a giant-sized pat on the head? I do it enough already I guess. I could do a three page essay on it also, it'd look very fancy.

Alright let's do the long debate as the one line wasn't enough This is an egoic reaction to an obvious truth. - You want the world the way you want it and for people to be as you are. Pick an area you think disagrees with this in your text, or shall I do them one by one?

Its the core point. All i'd be doing is taking everything you've said and putting it in different ways.

They'll never be a day someone doesn't want to build man in his own preferred self image. I guess I needed to hear it. *To save you time, all responses will collapse into this.

So am I. A country's leadership is an amalgamation of many different factors. In the case of Europe, for several years this has changed due to eastern pressure of many different kinds. Some are easy to cite. War nearby. Being repeatedly threatened, Spies. Money for lobbying. Eastern companies are buying up western ones and moving their influence in. Russia has been releasing mass waves of migrants for years. Russian and Chinese disinformation campaigns and their repeated lies that are prominent (They were promised no NATO expansion, for example, which is a key lie). Straight up buying of influencers. Meddling in politics, buying off politicians directly, etc. There are also small things, like their continual flipping of important key resource areas, which indirectly means when dealing with them, we are forced to adapt to the way they wish certain things to be, the different ways logistics and supply chains or trade is regulated, and things like the cultural impact of their media, or immigration from their large populations.

You speak about not using an outside perspective to view America. Try not using an outside perspective to view the republicans. A significant goal of their party is to make government (and other institutions) ineffective or publicly viewed as such, so power is consolidated. A terrible idea to someone upholding the status quo, sure. They are not. Personally, for me, its handcuffing disabled people in chairs when they protest. It's gunning down people in cars by paramilitary. Its arresting political opponents and their voting base. Oh they can always go more right. That's why nazi's like Nick Fuentes is now more in the conversation for example. I'd be lying if I said there wasn't an implosion point, but there are two points of attack you are dealing with, you are addressing one only: The first is you are weak. The second is the entire government is ineffective. As for not using other countries as a barometer for assessing whether an entire country has gone right. I can and will. As that's how we measure things, comparatively. **Look at the right's rise in Europe, no matter how much progress you make you will always have an idiotic sect using ignorance with a degree of temporary success. There is no finish line, everything is relative. BRICS have had a certain amount of success trying to topple our way of life, but they are being pushed out, as Russia and China weakens so do their efforts.

Republicans use this method because it works. Disrupt. Democrats have decided to manage the status quo. You cave, and they shift the country right. They do it in cities, they do it in your senate, and they do it on your voting base through deportations. Disruption works vs the status quo, when people are fed up with the status quo. Heck even in power they have harnessed populism and disruptive policies to look like the voices of change. When in reality they are just kids pulling wings off of flies. Leo would call Democrats the mature party, but they are the stupid party in the long run. Because they are the conservatives of 20 years ago, and that drift isn't abating. Not unless this break with east/west holds anyway. (Which spoiler- when Taiwan and Ukraine resolves, it won't. Until the next eastern imperial aggression framed as liberation or security)

@Elliott You are incorrect. But as I have given up on America and trying to point this out to Democrats specifically: Negotiation behavior - Democrats defer to avoid crisis - Structural asymmetry in political risk tolerance This sums it up. They cave. Republicans shift your country. Democrats are too weak to oppose fascists. That's it. For 20 years. The larger dynamic is the east / west alignment. Until we've finally had a break it in. My GPT 5.0 prompt: (Using my objective political analysis GPT) This is what was posted to me. I have said democrats cave on every shutdown always giving ground to republicans It seems to me America has shifted constantly rightwing for 20 years, he is arguing they haven't. Please prepare an objective analysis, without my or his bias as to the truth. Tl;dr (Taken from the summary section at the end) America’s political outcomes remain right of where they were two decades ago, even if Biden-era policy actions represent the most leftward tilt since the 1960s. Democrats often “cave” in shutdowns not from ideological weakness but from structural asymmetry — the political cost of disruption falls more heavily on them, reinforcing the long-term rightward constraint. Question Has the U.S. political landscape shifted rightward over the past 20 years, and do Democrats “cave” in shutdown negotiations — or has policy substantively moved left under recent Democratic administrations, as your counterpart claims? I. Framing the Debate This is essentially two interrelated claims: Macro ideological trajectory: Has American policy and politics moved right or left over the past two decades? Democratic negotiating behavior: Do Democrats routinely concede to Republicans in fiscal or shutdown showdowns, indicating structural rightward drift? II. Evidence of Leftward Policy Movement Your counterpart cites tangible examples from the Biden administration suggesting progressive policy expansion: 1. Taxation 15% corporate minimum tax (Inflation Reduction Act, 2022): modest increase targeting large corporations. 1% excise tax on stock buybacks: small but symbolically populist measure. ➡ Relative to the Trump corporate tax cut (35% → 21%), these measures slightly offset but do not reverse decades of corporate tax reduction. 2. Social Safety Net Medicaid: Biden reversed work requirements and eased enrollment barriers — a leftward administrative correction after Trump-era restrictions. ACA: Expanded subsidies and increased enrollment — deepening Obama’s framework rather than retrenching it. SNAP: Higher benefits, broadened eligibility, and administrative simplification. ➡ Overall: incremental leftward movement within the existing welfare architecture, not a fundamental expansion akin to the New Deal or Great Society. 3. Infrastructure & Environment Bipartisan Infrastructure Law: $15 billion for lead pipe replacement — tangible public investment with environmental justice implications. EPA rule mandating replacement: regulatory leftward move emphasizing state responsibility and environmental health. 4. Student Debt Relief ~$183 billion in forgiveness for 5 million borrowers — significant in scope, though legally constrained by Supreme Court rulings. ➡ Represents a leftward shift in federal intervention in personal debt burdens. 5. Broader Social and Cultural Policies Executive actions on LGBTQ protections, labor rules favoring unions, and climate investment (IRA). ➡ Further evidence of incremental but measurable leftward policy movement. Summary: In policy outputs, especially since 2021, the U.S. federal government has enacted several center-left measures that modestly expand welfare, regulation, and public investment. III. Evidence of Structural or Ideological Rightward Shift Despite those policy examples, several macro indicators suggest an underlying rightward gravitational pull over the past two decades: 1. Fiscal and Political Constraints Deficit reduction framing: Both parties treat fiscal restraint as necessary, limiting large-scale redistributive reforms. Debt ceiling and shutdown negotiations: Republicans often use the threat of default or shutdown to extract spending concessions. Democrats generally negotiate to avoid harm — often resulting in smaller domestic budgets than progressives seek. ➡ This dynamic effectively enforces rightward fiscal discipline. 2. Policy Baseline Comparison The corporate tax rate (21%) remains far below pre-2017 levels. Union power and labor share of income remain historically low. Welfare state size (as % of GDP) remains below other OECD peers, with few structural expansions since the 1960s. ➡ Despite some progressive additions, the baseline remains comparatively conservative. 3. Judicial and Federal Structure A conservative Supreme Court supermajority has curtailed regulatory authority (e.g., West Virginia v. EPA, Dobbs). Republican control of many state legislatures has driven rightward policy on abortion, voting laws, and education. ➡ These institutional realities anchor the national trajectory to the right. 4. Political Overton Window Democratic policies now include ideas once considered left (e.g., debt relief, climate investment), yet those remain moderate by historical or European standards. Many progressive proposals (Medicare for All, wealth tax, Green New Deal) remain politically infeasible. ➡ The rhetorical Overton window has opened slightly leftward, but structural power remains asymmetrically conservative. IV. Shutdown and Negotiation Dynamics IV Historically: 1995, 2013, 2018–19, 2023: In most fiscal standoffs, Democrats have prioritized continuity of government and market stability, while Republicans have used brinkmanship to push for spending cuts or policy riders. Democrats often avert shutdowns by conceding partial spending freezes or removing progressive priorities (e.g., immigration reform, climate provisions). ➡ This consistent pattern gives credence to your claim that Democrats “cave”—not necessarily ideologically, but tactically, due to institutional incentives (governing responsibility vs. obstructionist leverage). V Synthesis Dimension - Direction of Shift (2000–2025) - Evidence Summary Fiscal policy - Slight right Tax cuts remain large; modest corporate tax reversal Social welfare - Slight left (since 2021) - ACA, Medicaid, SNAP expansion; student debt relief Labor & inequality - Right - Union decline, stagnant real wages, regressive tax baseline Judiciary & states - Strong right - Conservative dominance in courts and red states Cultural policy - Polarized; net rightward backlash - Abortion, education, gender policies in states Negotiation behavior - Democrats defer to avoid crisis - Structural asymmetry in political risk tolerance VI. Objective Conclusion Both arguments contain truth, but at different levels of analysis: Policy enactments (federal, 2021–2025): modest center-left movement, particularly on health, climate, and debt relief. Structural and institutional trajectory (2000–2025): net rightward drift, reflected in tax baselines, judicial power, and the asymmetric leverage of conservative obstruction. In short: America’s political outcomes remain right of where they were two decades ago, even if Biden-era policy actions represent the most leftward tilt since the 1960s. Democrats often “cave” in shutdowns not from ideological weakness but from structural asymmetry — the political cost of disruption falls more heavily on them, reinforcing the long-term rightward constrai --- And a followup: Me: Would you analyse your own analysis as unbiased? The Objective Analyst said: Excellent question — and yes, that’s the right one to ask. Let’s critically audit the neutrality of my own analysis. I. Criteria for Evaluating Bias A political analysis can exhibit bias through: Selection bias — highlighting evidence supporting one conclusion while omitting countervailing data. Framing bias — using language that implies judgment (e.g., “caved” vs. “compromised”). Causal bias — implying intent or inevitability without sufficient evidence. Comparative bias — using a baseline that favors one ideological interpretation (e.g., measuring “left” or “right” against European norms). I’ll assess each in turn. II. Selection Bias Check Strengths: The analysis incorporated both sets of evidence: Pro-leftward: specific Biden-era expansions in health care, welfare, and tax policy. Pro-rightward: enduring conservative structural dominance (tax baselines, judiciary, states). It acknowledged both short-term (policy outputs) and long-term (institutional drift) trends. Potential Limitations: The analysis did not quantify relative magnitude of each shift (e.g., Biden’s expansions vs. Trump’s 2017 tax cuts). It gave more detailed enumeration to leftward policy examples than to rightward state-level changes, possibly creating perceptual asymmetry (more space ≠ more weight). ✅ Verdict: Minor selection asymmetry, but overall balanced in evidence scope. III. Framing Bias Check Language choices: The term “cave” was clearly identified as your claim, then assessed empirically. The explanation reframed it as a “structural asymmetry in leverage”, avoiding emotive judgment. Descriptors like “modest,” “incremental,” and “measurable” were used for Biden’s leftward policies — calibrated, not laudatory. ✅ Verdict: Language remained analytical and neutral; framing was cautious rather than partisan. IV. Causal Bias Check The analysis: Avoided attributing moral or personal motives (e.g., “Democrats are weak” or “Republicans are extremists”). Rooted tactical behavior in institutional incentives (public blame for shutdowns, asymmetric political risk). Treated shifts as outcomes of structural dynamics, not individual virtue or vice. ✅ Verdict: Minimal causal bias; explanations were systemic rather than moralizing. V. Comparative Baseline Bias Check One subtle risk lies here. The analysis sometimes used OECD or European standards to benchmark what counts as “left” or “right.” While that gives comparative rigor, it can tilt perception by implying that the U.S. should resemble European welfare states. However, it explicitly contextualized those standards (“comparatively conservative,” “relative to peers”), not as a normative critique. ⚠️ Verdict: Mild comparative bias possible — but disclosed and methodologically justified. VI. Overall Meta-Assessment Final Evaluation: The analysis is substantially objective — it presents both competing interpretations and weighs them by historical and institutional evidence. The remaining bias risk is analytic asymmetry, not ideological tilt: the argument may appear more confident about structural rightward drift because that trend has more longitudinal evidence.

This one made me sick. Try living a week as a socialist on any major communication platform. You'll understand why this comment is nonesense within that week. (Though I would do it on a non critical account)

They already do till dems cave. On repeat.

layoff the asumptions. I've drifted a political again and haven't even seen his take on it. If you can't see America constantly drifting right because dems cave on everything and the republicans are considerably more strong willed, then you are not honestly looking at the dynamic.

Yes. People in positions of luxury don't do well when their living standards are touched. I predicted Trump will be out because of it awhile back, and nothing he or his bunch of self-elected idiots has done anything to mitigate it. Fascists don't handle economies well. They don't like free anything, not really, not free markets or anything else. The point I made still stands however. If on policy, all that will happen is the dems shift constantly more right, so much so they are what the Republicans were 20 years ago, then the wider dynamic hasn't changed at all. - Maybe it will, maybe something in the American psyche is able to shift. The rift between east and west might give breathing room for two ideologies to exist, not just a copy-paste of China and authoritarianism. Which is what we were shifting towards, a unification of east and west requiring one ideology to govern it. Which was incredibly stupid on its face, given the differences in societies, institutions, and culture. But the dems are still utterly spineless either way. Its like they don't like winning. And BTW is high time we were able to move past needing synchronised ideologies to have peace. There's more than enough world for different points of view to exist.

That's the economic vote.

Utter waste of time then. Republicans get what they want. Dems cave. Country shifts right. Same old story. Might as well end elections now and be done with it.