|
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 |
On March 03 2021 17:13 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2021 17:05 Slydie wrote:
Harassment can be very complicated, and the responsabilty is not only on the harasser.
Say you think you have a good tone with 2 colleagues, male and female, and you have gotten a habbit of calling them "fatty" and "darling." You call others the same, and you know they take it as a sign of confidence and a close relation. Then they both sue you for repeated harassment during years. But if nobody told you, how could you possibly know?
We all have a responsabilty to correct unvanted behavior. A big thing here are power differences. If you have power over someone, be very careful on how you act around them, and don't expect them to tell you if something you do makes them uncomfortable. Actively minimize stuff that could be viewed as inappropriate. That doesn't mean not having a friendly relationship with your employees, but maybe don't call them "fatty". Communication between boss subordinate is different from communication between people at the same level of a hierarchy, and anyone who claims differently is lying. Telling someone above you in the hierarchy that you are uncomfortable with something they do is not easy, and can be very risky. Structures in place to discuss or report this kind of behavior early on are also important.
I think the problem is that some people are in a position towards virtually everyone they meet. If you are the governor of New York, or, say, an acting superstar, chances are that there are very few people you meet you are not somewhat in a position of power upon in a way or another.
I don't get the "higher standard" thing. Either you do something reprehensible or you don't. I think one should be able to be a womanizer and hold office. As long as he doesn't harass / assault anyone, it's his or her private life. I don't think that marrying at 20 and never touching another woman or another man is "higher" in any way than having 130 girlfriends or boyfriends in your life.
But then again, I realize that the US is a hugely puritan country and that its people have very rigid sexual morals.
|
Norway28906 Posts
There's a big difference between being the literal boss of someone and being an important famous person, and there's nothing prudish about thinking that bosses should not sleep with their employees.
I could be fine with a boss being in a relationship with an employee, I guess, although I think they will have to be extremely cautious to avoid any nepotism charge. But that bosses cannot have sex with their employees is definitely a guiding principle in Norway, too.
|
|
|
On March 03 2021 22:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:
There's a big difference between being the literal boss of someone and being an important famous person, and there's nothing prudish about thinking that bosses should not sleep with their employees.
I could be fine with a boss being in a relationship with an employee, I guess, although I think they will have to be extremely cautious to avoid any nepotism charge. But that bosses cannot have sex with their employees is definitely a guiding principle in Norway, too.
That makes sense, I really was just answering the "a position of power" comment. If it means being the direct boss of someone, I have no problem with it. I think however that it is wayyyyy broader and much more vague than that.
|
|
|
Head of the National Guard is testifying. They had to wait 3hours and 19mins between a emotional call for help from capitol police, to actually deploying, because they needed approval from Pentagon. And that this approval was required was a new thing, usually it would be his decision but it was changed before the 6th, he had never seen this approval requirement in 19 years.
Not a good look for the actors involved...
|
On March 04 2021 01:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Head of the National Guard is testifying. They had to wait 3hours and 19mins between a emotional call for help from capitol police, to actually deploying, because they needed approval from Pentagon. And that this approval was required was a new thing, usually it would be his decision but it was changed before the 6th, he had never seen this approval requirement in 19 years. https://twitter.com/ShimonPro/status/1367147591058796544Not a good look for the actors involved...
Was this really a serious (but bad) attempt at a coup with a serious of deliberate actions to help the rioters succeed? A lot of these things do not seem like coincidences....
|
So apparently the rules were changed the day before the attack? So this was by no means a sudden and unexpected action by a bunch of crazies but a planned and coordinated action by the Trump administration? Since apparently they knew enough the day before to actively impose limits that normally do not exist?
The Army major general testified that the day before the insurrection, he received a letter with the "unusual" restriction from deploying any Quick Reaction Force service members, unless granted explicit approval by then-Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy. www.npr.org
I hope the investigation looks into stuff like this unusual order in the deepest way possible, any and all emails or other communication related to it in the time prior ect. Because if there is a smoking gun for what was an insurrection attempt exists it needs to be found so the people responsible can get send to jail.
|
There's no doubt in my mind that there were inside actors, it's only a matter of time before their identities are revealed.
|
I mean it's 1 of 3 possibilities. inside job, sheer incompetence. or both.
given the grievances aired on numerous cpac panels and the election loser/ failed insurrection leader still running with stolen election and "irregularities" - bugger them sideways.
I hope Dems hire the most ruthless and unscrupulous campaigning people they can find on the planet and let them just edit together their own fucking words and drill it into people's heads how mad things have gotten over there. that and getting covid under control, pass covid relief and get the economy going would be a huge accomplishment for the first half of the term and might give them a decent position for '22.
|
On March 04 2021 06:17 Doublemint wrote:
I hope Dems hire the most ruthless and unscrupulous campaigning people they can find on the planet and let them just edit together their own fucking words and drill it into people's heads how mad things have gotten over there. that and getting covid under control, pass covid relief and get the economy going would be a huge accomplishment for the first half of the term and might give them a decent position for '22.
You'd be surprised to see to what extent the original Trump support base still supports the handling of the corvid disease and the coup attempt. You'll certainly find those that are unhappy on the margins, but that outrage isn't really going to get people to support Dem candidates for Congress.
|
The only consequence that seems to have happened as a result of the riots for any of the perpretrators is that someone leaked a hugely discrediting video of Alex Jones. (They were originally going to make a pro-right wing documentary but backed out after the riots). Basically he rants about how much he hates Trump and doesn't like kissing his ass (and the video is from 2019).
Losing their own allies is perhaps the biggest and possibly the only effect.
I'm pretty doubtful we see more than we have due to the length of time that's already passed. Even if they get ironclad evidence of cooperators from inside the WH, I'm not sure they won't hide it out of national security fear or something like the US usually does in this situation.
|
On March 04 2021 06:44 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2021 06:17 Doublemint wrote:
I hope Dems hire the most ruthless and unscrupulous campaigning people they can find on the planet and let them just edit together their own fucking words and drill it into people's heads how mad things have gotten over there. that and getting covid under control, pass covid relief and get the economy going would be a huge accomplishment for the first half of the term and might give them a decent position for '22. You'd be surprised to see to what extent the original Trump support base still supports the handling of the corvid disease and the coup attempt. You'll certainly find those that are unhappy on the margins, but that outrage isn't really going to get people to support Dem candidates for Congress.
agreed. that's why I added the positive policies in the rest of my post. and dangling 15 dollar minimum wage "after we won '22" would also be strategically sound.
they indeed need to get shit done, orange man bad alone won't cut it. as holding politicians accountable to the truth is apparently only applied very loosely and unequal.
|
On March 04 2021 06:44 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2021 06:17 Doublemint wrote:
I hope Dems hire the most ruthless and unscrupulous campaigning people they can find on the planet and let them just edit together their own fucking words and drill it into people's heads how mad things have gotten over there. that and getting covid under control, pass covid relief and get the economy going would be a huge accomplishment for the first half of the term and might give them a decent position for '22. You'd be surprised to see to what extent the original Trump support base still supports the handling of the corvid disease and the coup attempt. You'll certainly find those that are unhappy on the margins, but that outrage isn't really going to get people to support Dem candidates for Congress. The point isn't to convince Trump supporters. Your not going to win there, much better to highlight the GOP's continues connection to Trump and turn off the 'undecided' from voting Republican.
|
On March 04 2021 07:16 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2021 06:44 LegalLord wrote:On March 04 2021 06:17 Doublemint wrote:
I hope Dems hire the most ruthless and unscrupulous campaigning people they can find on the planet and let them just edit together their own fucking words and drill it into people's heads how mad things have gotten over there. that and getting covid under control, pass covid relief and get the economy going would be a huge accomplishment for the first half of the term and might give them a decent position for '22. You'd be surprised to see to what extent the original Trump support base still supports the handling of the corvid disease and the coup attempt. You'll certainly find those that are unhappy on the margins, but that outrage isn't really going to get people to support Dem candidates for Congress. The point isn't to convince Trump supporters. Your not going to win there, much better to highlight the GOP's continues connection to Trump and turn off the 'undecided' from voting Republican.
yeah most of them are goners. and you can handily win without them as 2018 and 2020 showed. they should have put jan.06 into a benghazi like "club" you whack Republicans over the head everytime they act out. but that ship sailed ... running on unity and then going full ham once in office would be meh... though the insurrection certainly gaven them an opening. plus it's just not in Dems dna. they would need more "squad" members for something like that lol.
|
Depending on how this year goes, I would perhaps support trying to primary manchin. If the Democratic Party isn’t able to achieve what it needs to keep power, take Manchin down with the ship. If Democrats lose either house or senate in 2022 I say take Manchin down with us. In all likelihood a snake like Manchin would vote however he needs to in order to not be primaried. If he’s not giving what the party needs, we aren’t worse off without him
|
|
|
A Democratic political operative (David Shor) discussed his 2020 election autopsy now that there's more ground-level and precise data, and it's got some revealing conclusions. Some of this was discussed to death in the days after the election, but considering it's coming from the mouth of someone tied to the Democratic political machine, I think there's glimpses of the kind of strategy and mindset they'll be considering for the midterms and 2024.
- "Democrats gained somewhere between half a percent to one percent among non-college whites and roughly 7 percent among white college graduates (which is kind of crazy). Our support among African Americans declined by something like one to 2 percent. And then Hispanic support dropped by 8 to 9 percent... But there’s evidence that there was something like a 5 percent decline in Asian American support for Democrats, likely with a lot of variance among subgroups." Education was the most predictive factor in voting, not race.
- Significant shifts to the Republicans among certain nationalities among Hispanic voters, like Colombians and Venezuelans. Shor's research finds, "What we found is that Clinton voters with conservative views on crime, policing, and public safety were far more likely to switch to Trump than voters with less conservative views on those issues. And having conservative views on those issues was more predictive of switching from Clinton to Trump than having conservative views on any other issue-set was." Basically, Defund the Police rhetoric harmed Democratic support among the broad Hispanic voter bloc.
- College-educated white liberals are starting to define the tone and agenda of the Democratic Party, which risks alienating the more conservative-leaning Democratic black and hispanic vote. "And Black conservatives and Hispanic conservatives don’t actually buy into a lot of these intellectual theories of racism. They often have a very different conception of how to help the Black or Hispanic community than liberals do."
- Midterms should be a victory for the Republicans, with midterms as of late almost always favouring the opposition party to the president and redistricting being such a steep burden to climb for Democrats. It's not impossible for a decent showing from the incumbent party in the midterms – it happened in 2002 – and Biden could preside over a post-COVID economy boom and currently has a good approval rate. Maybe D.C. and Puerto Rican statehood combined with redistricting reform bills like H.R. 1 can stem the bleeding, but even with those, it's an arduous task.
- Predicts a rosy future for the Republicans with their electoral advantage, redistricting in most states in their hands, and a potentially potent coalition that breaks ground into traditional Democratic blocs. Up to the Democrats to follow what he prescribes, on top of messaging and focus on issues that appeal to university-educated white voters and working-class soft "conservatives".
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/03/david-shor-2020-democrats-autopsy-hispanic-vote-midterms-trump-gop.html
|
Surprise surprise, democratic campaign operative advises doubling down on the current democratic campaigning strategy.
The advice to double down on converting soft conservatives is frankly batshit insane. The main reason for this is that there aren't really any soft conservatives left.
This midterm shift is a new phenomenon and I'm baffled that all us politicians treat it like it is for granted that the GOP takes the house in 2022. It isn't even a very long lived phenomenon. There's also that many of the last few presidents had awful performances (or perceived poorly in Obama's case) in their first couple, along with large margins in congress. The only real reason for 2022 to turn GOP is if their control of state houses let's them gerrymander harder.
|
On March 04 2021 10:45 PhoenixVoid wrote:A Democratic political operative (David Shor) discussed his 2020 election autopsy now that there's more ground-level and exact data, and it's got some revealing conclusions. Some of this was discussed to death in the days after the election, but considering it's coming from the mouth of someone close to the Democrats, I think it establishes the kind of strategy they'll be considering for the midterms and 2024. - "Democrats gained somewhere between half a percent to one percent among non-college whites and roughly 7 percent among white college graduates (which is kind of crazy). Our support among African Americans declined by something like one to 2 percent. And then Hispanic support dropped by 8 to 9 percent... But there’s evidence that there was something like a 5 percent decline in Asian American support for Democrats, likely with a lot of variance among subgroups." Education was the most predictive factor in voting, not race.
- Significant shifts to the Republicans among certain nationalities among Hispanic voters, like Colombians and Venezuelans. Shor's research finds, "What we found is that Clinton voters with conservative views on crime, policing, and public safety were far more likely to switch to Trump than voters with less conservative views on those issues. And having conservative views on those issues was more predictive of switching from Clinton to Trump than having conservative views on any other issue-set was." Basically, Defund the Police rhetoric harmed Democratic support among the broad Hispanic voter bloc.
- College-educated white liberals are starting to define the tone and agenda of the Democratic Party, which risks alienating the more conservative-leaning Democratic black and hispanic vote. "And Black conservatives and Hispanic conservatives don’t actually buy into a lot of these intellectual theories of racism. They often have a very different conception of how to help the Black or Hispanic community than liberals do."
- Midterms should be a victory for the Republicans, with midterms lately almost always favouring the opposition party to the president and redistricting being such a steep burden to climb for Democrats. It's not impossible for a decent showing from the incumbent party in the midterms – it's happened in 2002 – and Biden could preside over a post-COVID economy and currently has a good approval rate. Maybe D.C. and Puerto Rican statehood combined with redistricting reform bills can stem the bleeding, but even with those, it's an arduous task.
- Predicts a rosy future for the Republicans with their electoral advantage, redistricting, and a potentially potent coalition. Up to the Democrats to follow what he prescribes, on top of messaging and focus on issues that appeal to university-educated white voters and working-class soft "conservatives".e
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/03/david-shor-2020-democrats-autopsy-hispanic-vote-midterms-trump-gop.html
Winning covers over a lot of internal party issues, but it is fascinating to see how the Democratic party, which almost from its very start has been a party of coalitions with very different interests, adjusts to changes in its voting base.
Some think the swing among minority groups are some sort of Trump effect, and I guess that remains to be seen. Certainly that someone denounced so strenuously as a racist bigot gained with non-white groups ought to give pause to those who still want to go so heavy on race. It will also be interesting to see how intermarriage plays into it.
Recent history favors the GOP to win back both chambers... despite everything in 2020, the GOP picked up double digit House seats when most "experts" thought they were going to lose a bunch. People are clearly not enamored with the Democrats or Biden. Senate may be harder, but Biden can only govern with executive action from the left while talking from the middle for so long. He'll have a record.
On March 04 2021 12:32 Nevuk wrote:
Surprise surprise, democratic campaign operative advises doubling down on the current democratic campaigning strategy.
The advice to double down on converting soft conservatives is frankly batshit insane. The main reason for this is that there aren't really any soft conservatives left.
This midterm shift is a new phenomenon and I'm baffled that all us politicians treat it like it is for granted that the GOP takes the house in 2022. It isn't even a very long lived phenomenon. There's also that many of the last few presidents had awful performances (or perceived poorly in Obama's case) in their first couple, along with large margins in congress. The only real reason for 2022 to turn GOP is if their control of state houses let's them gerrymander harder.
Democrats have no cushion and one of the smallest majorities in recently memory. It's really not that hard to understand.
edit: I see no reason to think Biden is different, except, perhaps, the hopefulyl recovering economy. Your explanations like "awful performances" or just ones "perceived" as awful (lol), nonetheless count against them holding the House, unless you think Biden is different. In which case, I'd be curious to know why.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
