EPTThat said, I would be less cynical about this if not for the recent examples of Reagan and McCain, two awful people who became canonized in bipartisan ceremony on their passing. But blood was still on their hands.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3020
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
That said, I would be less cynical about this if not for the recent examples of Reagan and McCain, two awful people who became canonized in bipartisan ceremony on their passing. But blood was still on their hands. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7327 Posts
On January 14 2021 09:33 Grumbels wrote: Your sympathies should lie with the living, not with the dead. Adelson was a monster and now he’ll rule over us from the grave per his will and testament. Please bring back the estate tax. That said, I would be less cynical about this if not for the recent examples of Reagan and McCain, two awful people who became canonized in bipartisan ceremony on their passing. But blood was still on their hands. Its happening to the living too though, George Bush has been pretty thoroughly rehabilitated despite all of his fuckery. The US is very, very, very fond of forgiving and forgetting the sins of some of it's worst human beings so long as they're rich and powerful. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On January 14 2021 06:56 Grumbels wrote: (referring to the twitter post) This is such idiotic security theater. The attack on the capitol happened because they announced a huge demonstration and then the police let them in. There wasn't any need for an army to occupy Washington as deterrence. What do they think it does? Show strength? In retrospect, all these security crises and events like this or 9/11 and such would all have benefited from being completely ignored. The only thing that happens is some notion among the powers-that-be that Something Must Be Done and then to arrest a bunch of random people or remove some random App from the internet. There have been plenty more threats and some signs of an attempt to organize attacks on the 17th (for state houses which start on that day) or 20th (for the national inauguration). Is this overkill? Yes. The danger now is more from IEDs than from mobs, but something like this really should have been in place for the 6th - there were many people talking about violence before hand. Hard to know they were actually serious, but there are many signs that at least some elements had planned it - the floor plans and the simultaneous bomb attempts on both the RNC and DNC point to coordination and planning. The ripped out panic buttons, I'm pretty sure we'd already know if that was a hoax - we only learned about it a week later and anything that can hurt a member of the squad would be jumped all over by both democrats and republicans. The national guard is an interesting concept - I'm not sure other countries have them. They're essentially the militia of the different states. Many of them only serve part time (weekend training and can be activated at need basically). The odd part is that they can be called up by either the president or the governor of the state in question to reinforce areas, and they explicitly have more of an internal peacekeeping/humanitarian purpose than the army. It's considered a massively bad idea politically to deploy active duty army troops in the US (I'm not actually sure why this is), so the national guard is usually used instead as the level between "treat area as ruled by a hostile power" and "cops aren't enough alone". They also generally live near the areas where they get deployed so they have a good idea of the locale. They aren't as disciplined as normal military forces, and that's generally part of the idea behind using them - they're less frightening to people, and much of the time are used for humanitarian missions. There's no room for a staging ground in DC, so I'm not sure what the actual alternative is to them just sleeping on the floor with their current numbers. And these are some pretty ridiculous numbers, it was reported that today the Guard members in DC now outnumber active duty troops in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. By saying the cops guarding the capitol should be the best of the best, I'm not actually saying that talent wise (it's not the most prestigious or interesting position). I'm saying that training/equipment wise- I can't imagine that congress would really have skimped on funding their security forces. edit - I'm also guessing at least part of the idea behind this is that if they're already there, Trump can't prevent them from coming as he did before. And that in such numbers it would take them a while to clear out even if Trump ordered it (which he can try? it's not clear : the guard is supposed to obey both the governors of their state and the president, in a way that puts them at equal levels on the chain of command) | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25534 Posts
On January 14 2021 09:01 Jockmcplop wrote: I dunno, I guess referring to the period just after someone dies as pivotal for news coverage just seems to be missing the point. I'm trying to explain how I see this but I keep having to delete and start again because I sound like a prick. Its personal. Respect for the recently deceased is a universal principle (because we all die, and we all have to deal with the deaths of those close to us) and I'm sad that it no longer seems to really apply, but i choose to still observe it and would encourage others to do the same. I think it’s fine as a personal principle, makes no sense for me to be a universal principle extended beyond your circles of social contact. I have a personal ‘don’t badmouth exes’ policy that most of my friends think makes no sense whatsoever, but they’ll not pry me for vents after a breakup no matter how miserable I am, and likewise if they want to vent to me when a relationship ends I’ll be happy to be a receptacle. If we lived in some alternate reality where a person died and basically disappeared from any public discourse and their nearest and dearest were left to mourn and reflect privately, I’d be cool with ‘don’t speak ill of the dead’ would fit my sensibilities as they wouldn’t be being venerated. My best guess as to why it became a phrase in the first place is more to do with disputes of events that could be raised without response in eras that lacked more neutral records that we have now. Or in differing cultures where honour was king, or any figures of public note who wrote publicly tended to personally know one another or w/e. Don’t throw shade you didn’t have the balls to do when they were breathing, or can’t be proven or disproven doesn’t have much of a ring to it though. In ye olde modern era where there’s shitload of stuff that’s a matter of irrefutable public record and it’s merely a matter of what you think of actions versus whether they occurred or not it seems a redundant convention for public figures | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On January 14 2021 08:38 Jockmcplop wrote: This is incredibly cynical in my opinion. If all you get from someone's death is that its an opportunity to grab the political narrative, I'm just sad for you. To be clear, not wanting to badmouth someone upon their death is not necessarily a political thing at all. On January 14 2021 09:01 Jockmcplop wrote: I dunno, I guess referring to the period just after someone dies as pivotal for news coverage just seems to be missing the point. I'm trying to explain how I see this but I keep having to delete and start again because I sound like a prick. Its personal. Respect for the recently deceased is a universal principle (because we all die, and we all have to deal with the deaths of those close to us) and I'm sad that it no longer seems to really apply, but i choose to still observe it and would encourage others to do the same. I agree. I observe it and would encourage others to do the same. It's not a trend I enjoy in politics. I don't think it's a huge concession to ask for a brief wait after the death of someone with a mixed legacy, or disputed legacy. Nor do I think any fair review of their life work is biased by just giving their family and friends a day to grieve. That's the conservative in me speaking. | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25534 Posts
On January 14 2021 10:32 Danglars wrote: I agree. I observe it and would encourage others to do the same. It's not a trend I enjoy in politics. I don't think it's a huge concession to ask for a brief wait after the death of someone with a mixed legacy, or disputed legacy. Nor do I think any fair review of their life work is biased by just giving their family and friends a day to grieve. That's the conservative in me speaking. Does this encompass positive media coverage or public sentiments as well? If it does then sure a convention of a moratorium on discussion to give family and loved ones a grieving period is something I can absolutely agree with. If not then I don’t really see the point, just lets people have their legacies whitewashed | ||
Falling
Canada11363 Posts
On January 14 2021 10:58 Starlightsun wrote: I find it much more interesting that Danglars fawns over this man than the pious outrage over speaking ill of him too soon after his death. Nice theatrics though as usual. There's clearly a philosophical difference on this issue. But I don't think this sort of thing is useful when expressing disagreement. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7327 Posts
Her staff also reports a lot of mental decline, forgetting things she was just told and the like. This old generation of politician really needs to be pushed to retire, we need some people that aren't geriatric to be given a shot. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44441 Posts
On January 14 2021 15:08 Zambrah wrote: Dianne Feinstein filed FEC papers indicating she intends to run for the Senate again. She'll be like 97 years old when she finishes her Senate career at that point, presuming she doesn't try to run again. Her staff also reports a lot of mental decline, forgetting things she was just told and the like. This old generation of politician really needs to be pushed to retire, we need some people that aren't geriatric to be given a shot. Agreed. It doesn't do the country (or even the party) any favors for people to cling to their seats when they should retire. I'll see your Feinstein and raise you one SCJ: Breyer. I don't have anything against the guy, but there's a small window when Breyer could safely retire and actually be replaced by a confirmable left-leaning SCJ. I think it's much better for that to happen, so that we don't have a repeat of how RBG got replaced by a conservative. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
For comparison: German Bundestag: average age 49.4 US House: 57.8 US Senate: 61.8 Merkel is now stepping back after 16 years of being the German chancellor. She is now 66. US candidates for presidency during her time: 2020: Trump 74, Biden 78 2016: Trump 70, Clinton 69 2012: Romney 65, Obama 51 2008: McCain 71, Obama 47 | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
On January 14 2021 20:28 mahrgell wrote: Just apply the normal retirement age for any political positions too... Politicians being overaged a global problem, but the US really has a special fascination with electing their grandparents for leadership. For comparison: German Bundestag: average age 49.4 US House: 57.8 US Senate: 61.8 Merkel is now stepping back after 16 years of being the German chancellor. She is now 66. US candidates for presidency during her time: 2020: Trump 74, Biden 78 2016: Trump 70, Clinton 69 2012: Romney 65, Obama 51 2008: McCain 71, Obama 47 I think we all know why Germany got used to not electing their grandparents for leadership. Jokes aside, I checked and in Portugal the average age for MPs is 50, and it's almost exactly the same in the UK too (not in the house of lords). It seems the US is indeed the outlier. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4731 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On January 14 2021 21:15 warding wrote: I think we all know why Germany got used to not electing their grandparents for leadership. Jokes aside, I checked and in Portugal the average age for MPs is 50, and it's almost exactly the same in the UK too (not in the house of lords). It seems the US is indeed the outlier. In the USA you have a strong incumbent advantage and a district-based electoral system. It’s a lot different from e.g. the Netherlands where members of congress are appointed by the party. Maybe that’s what explains it. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5629 Posts
It's not that the US elects grandparents, rather we elect parents that become grandparents later. Experience is also venerated, not without merit, widely in political opinions. And as far as incompetence goes, both age extremes have great examples, the oldest and youngest seem to have the stupidest or most reviled politicians. Mandatory retirement and strategic retirement for your team both seem opposite to the democratic spirit. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11542 Posts
I think you are on to something there, though. A lot of stuff in the US (and probably elsewhere, too) seems to work via building connections and favors until you can get into the position where you can run for your party, and for some reason the politicians in the US simply don't seem to ever retire. So the older people obviously have more favors and connections build up, because they have had more time to build them. But in other countries, politicians seem to eventually retire of their own volition. I don't know why that doesn't happen in the US. | ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
In my opinion gerontocracy and tribalism stands as the main reason behind many wars, "grandparents" have been sending their children to fight each other for death for centuries. Just for the sake of power, money and influence over the other tribe. | ||
|
Slydie
1923 Posts
On January 14 2021 22:44 Simberto wrote: Yeah, but a Gerontocracy is also not ideal. A society should not be ruled basically exclusively by people who are older than 70 years. I think you are on to something there, though. A lot of stuff in the US (and probably elsewhere, too) seems to work via building connections and favors until you can get into the position where you can run for your party, and for some reason the politicians in the US simply don't seem to ever retire. So the older people obviously have more favors and connections build up, because they have had more time to build them. But in other countries, politicians seem to eventually retire of their own volition. I don't know why that doesn't happen in the US. It is a good question! Not only do politicians abroad retire, but younger politicians with decades left in them (by US standards) often switch careers as well. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
. Luckily we don't have that in Hawaii but there's a surprising amount of trumpers coming out of the woodwork. On the local news they said our capitol building is one of the most open and least secure in the country.
