|
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 September 04 2021 12:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2021 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On September 04 2021 06:27 Sermokala wrote:
I'm a guy who calls dems gutless cowards as much as anyone but man if they've ever gotten a signal to fight about something its now and its the texan abortion bill. The politics make sense the demographics make sense Biden is up against the ropes over afganistan and the activities of his party are screaming out for it.
And believe me as bad as the stories you tell about Christians they are nothing compared to the stories Christians can tell about other Christians. I don't want to talk about that I've been disappointed too much in my path. Abortion and immigration will always be losing topics for democrats. I don't think they can do much. What do you mean? More Americans identify as pro-choice than pro-life (or in some rare cases, it's basically a split, but never a significantly lower percentage for pro-choice): 1. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/447398-more-than-half-of-americans-identify-as-pro-choice-poll 2. https://www.statista.com/statistics/225975/share-of-americans-who-are-pro-life-or-pro-choice/3. https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx As far as Christianity goes, all of it is cherry-picked. Some Christians will say that their religious faith is why they're pro-life, but others will say that their religious faith is why they're pro-choice. Same goes with being for vs. against certain immigration policies.
A large majority of the country are democrats but that doesn’t mean anything when it comes to securing control of the government.
|
On September 04 2021 13:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2021 12:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 04 2021 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On September 04 2021 06:27 Sermokala wrote:
I'm a guy who calls dems gutless cowards as much as anyone but man if they've ever gotten a signal to fight about something its now and its the texan abortion bill. The politics make sense the demographics make sense Biden is up against the ropes over afganistan and the activities of his party are screaming out for it.
And believe me as bad as the stories you tell about Christians they are nothing compared to the stories Christians can tell about other Christians. I don't want to talk about that I've been disappointed too much in my path. Abortion and immigration will always be losing topics for democrats. I don't think they can do much. What do you mean? More Americans identify as pro-choice than pro-life (or in some rare cases, it's basically a split, but never a significantly lower percentage for pro-choice): 1. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/447398-more-than-half-of-americans-identify-as-pro-choice-poll 2. https://www.statista.com/statistics/225975/share-of-americans-who-are-pro-life-or-pro-choice/3. https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx As far as Christianity goes, all of it is cherry-picked. Some Christians will say that their religious faith is why they're pro-life, but others will say that their religious faith is why they're pro-choice. Same goes with being for vs. against certain immigration policies. A large majority of the country are democrats but that doesn’t mean anything when it comes to securing control of the government.
I'm not sure how your response follows from my question, but of course having the numbers is one piece of the puzzle. The other piece is getting them to actually vote.
|
On September 04 2021 12:40 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2021 09:06 micronesia wrote:On September 04 2021 09:02 Mohdoo wrote:On September 04 2021 08:55 Sermokala wrote:
The bounty part is whats really extra and could be used really effectively I think. "Texas has put a bounty on your rights" There is a reason Democrats don't touch abortion with a 10 meter pole during a presidential election. It is not a winning topic nationally. Midterms coming up. Better to just let Texas be a shit hole have activists get pissed instead of the party. I really just don't think the party as a whole benefits nationally from vilifying Texas. I would hope the Democrats don't decide whether or not to take action against freedom destroying terror solely based on how it will affect the upcoming election... that's more of a republican thing in my experience. I have to agree with this, part of why I dont like Democrats is that I perceive them as more interested in doing whats popular than doing whats right and there is such a clear right here I dont think they have a good excuse to turn away from it. Not to mention the general Democrat "wisdom" of being inoffensive as possible without standing for much has hardly been a strong electoral strategy anyways.
If you don't do what's popular, then you really won't get to do anything, right? That's the unfortunate nature of the election game: you run on things that can get you into office, based on what your constituents want. Sometimes you can push progress, but overreaching means losing the next primary/general to someone who's more popular.
|
That is a slippery slope though. If you always just do what you need to win elections and never what is good for the country, in the end you could simply not rule at all. In the end a good politician is one that does the right thing despite serious push back and despite it probably costing the next election. The special American problem is though, that the next administration can turn a lot of your decisions easily around because so many decisions have 50/50 support and are basically up for grabs all the time. Incentives never being brave and always just prioritizing doing nothing over angering any single voter.
|
On September 04 2021 20:34 Broetchenholer wrote:
That is a slippery slope though. If you always just do what you need to win elections and never what is good for the country, in the end you could simply not rule at all. I think that neatly sums up what Republicans have been doing for the last decade (and more). During Trump all they managed was a tax cut for corporations and nothing else and all did they while in control during Obama's terms was fail to repeal the ACA every other week.
The Republican party has no interest in actually governing the country. They just want to collect their checks and legal bribes, stop the left from doing anything and get re-elected to do it all again for another couple of years.
The mistake is starting off on the assumption that most politicians are actually into politics for the good of the country.
|
Northern Ireland27230 Posts
On September 04 2021 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2021 12:40 Zambrah wrote:On September 04 2021 09:06 micronesia wrote:On September 04 2021 09:02 Mohdoo wrote:On September 04 2021 08:55 Sermokala wrote:
The bounty part is whats really extra and could be used really effectively I think. "Texas has put a bounty on your rights" There is a reason Democrats don't touch abortion with a 10 meter pole during a presidential election. It is not a winning topic nationally. Midterms coming up. Better to just let Texas be a shit hole have activists get pissed instead of the party. I really just don't think the party as a whole benefits nationally from vilifying Texas. I would hope the Democrats don't decide whether or not to take action against freedom destroying terror solely based on how it will affect the upcoming election... that's more of a republican thing in my experience. I have to agree with this, part of why I dont like Democrats is that I perceive them as more interested in doing whats popular than doing whats right and there is such a clear right here I dont think they have a good excuse to turn away from it. Not to mention the general Democrat "wisdom" of being inoffensive as possible without standing for much has hardly been a strong electoral strategy anyways. If you don't do what's popular, then you really won't get to do anything, right? That's the unfortunate nature of the election game: you run on things that can get you into office, based on what your constituents want. Sometimes you can push progress, but overreaching means losing the next primary/general to someone who's more popular.
To a point yes, but the political game is so tied in to identity and values and constructing relatively coherent through lines to bind wider coalitions together.
Otherwise the ‘We’ll Do What’s Currently Popular Technocratic Party’ would clean house.
There’s certain brand power in making a tough decision that perhaps wasn’t contemporarily politically expedient that with time is shown to be the right call, although it depends how the cycles line up as to how the hit is taken.
On the abortion issue that specifically elicited this conversational thread anyway, it and women’s rights in general are something the Dems tend to be aligned, and push that image themselves.
I guess it’s not so much about what is ‘right’ as what you claim is right. If the Dem coalition didn’t lean on woman’s lib then yeah maybe they can avoid the issue. Abortion specifically isn’t some 80/20 political grenade that’s massively, massively unpopular either.
I know you weren’t intimating that it should be dropped as any kind of focus, just splurging.
A popular President, or the inverse is also not entirely predictive of how things will go in the midterms, too many other factors at play. But from where I’m sitting, mediated through various biased lessons it seems Biden has reaped benefits when he’s been a bit bolder, decisive or ‘morally ambitious’. When it goes thru to business as usual moves, less so. Afghanistan is a pretty giant exception here, but I guess it’s impact in domestic politics may take a while to fully process.
|
On September 04 2021 19:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2021 13:03 Mohdoo wrote:On September 04 2021 12:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 04 2021 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On September 04 2021 06:27 Sermokala wrote:
I'm a guy who calls dems gutless cowards as much as anyone but man if they've ever gotten a signal to fight about something its now and its the texan abortion bill. The politics make sense the demographics make sense Biden is up against the ropes over afganistan and the activities of his party are screaming out for it.
And believe me as bad as the stories you tell about Christians they are nothing compared to the stories Christians can tell about other Christians. I don't want to talk about that I've been disappointed too much in my path. Abortion and immigration will always be losing topics for democrats. I don't think they can do much. What do you mean? More Americans identify as pro-choice than pro-life (or in some rare cases, it's basically a split, but never a significantly lower percentage for pro-choice): 1. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/447398-more-than-half-of-americans-identify-as-pro-choice-poll 2. https://www.statista.com/statistics/225975/share-of-americans-who-are-pro-life-or-pro-choice/3. https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx As far as Christianity goes, all of it is cherry-picked. Some Christians will say that their religious faith is why they're pro-life, but others will say that their religious faith is why they're pro-choice. Same goes with being for vs. against certain immigration policies. A large majority of the country are democrats but that doesn’t mean anything when it comes to securing control of the government. I'm not sure how your response follows from my question, but of course having the numbers is one piece of the puzzle. The other piece is getting them to actually vote.
Sorry what I mean is that California and New York supporting abortion doesn’t mean it’s a safe topic in the Midwest or south, where democrats still need to win some seats. If abortion is popular in New York and California but not Wisconsin, it’s a bad idea to beat the drum of abortion. Democrats could ban abortion and still win California and New York.
|
On September 05 2021 01:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2021 19:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 04 2021 13:03 Mohdoo wrote:On September 04 2021 12:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 04 2021 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On September 04 2021 06:27 Sermokala wrote:
I'm a guy who calls dems gutless cowards as much as anyone but man if they've ever gotten a signal to fight about something its now and its the texan abortion bill. The politics make sense the demographics make sense Biden is up against the ropes over afganistan and the activities of his party are screaming out for it.
And believe me as bad as the stories you tell about Christians they are nothing compared to the stories Christians can tell about other Christians. I don't want to talk about that I've been disappointed too much in my path. Abortion and immigration will always be losing topics for democrats. I don't think they can do much. What do you mean? More Americans identify as pro-choice than pro-life (or in some rare cases, it's basically a split, but never a significantly lower percentage for pro-choice): 1. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/447398-more-than-half-of-americans-identify-as-pro-choice-poll 2. https://www.statista.com/statistics/225975/share-of-americans-who-are-pro-life-or-pro-choice/3. https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx As far as Christianity goes, all of it is cherry-picked. Some Christians will say that their religious faith is why they're pro-life, but others will say that their religious faith is why they're pro-choice. Same goes with being for vs. against certain immigration policies. A large majority of the country are democrats but that doesn’t mean anything when it comes to securing control of the government. I'm not sure how your response follows from my question, but of course having the numbers is one piece of the puzzle. The other piece is getting them to actually vote. Sorry what I mean is that California and New York supporting abortion doesn’t mean it’s a safe topic in the Midwest or south, where democrats still need to win some seats. If abortion is popular in New York and California but not Wisconsin, it’s a bad idea to beat the drum of abortion. Democrats could ban abortion and still win California and New York.
Sure, but then half the Democratic voters would just stop voting for them (they would just stay home during election days), so they wouldn't win anything else ever again lol. The objective would be to bring in new voters without betraying the current voter base.
|
On September 05 2021 02:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2021 01:50 Mohdoo wrote:On September 04 2021 19:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 04 2021 13:03 Mohdoo wrote:On September 04 2021 12:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 04 2021 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On September 04 2021 06:27 Sermokala wrote:
I'm a guy who calls dems gutless cowards as much as anyone but man if they've ever gotten a signal to fight about something its now and its the texan abortion bill. The politics make sense the demographics make sense Biden is up against the ropes over afganistan and the activities of his party are screaming out for it.
And believe me as bad as the stories you tell about Christians they are nothing compared to the stories Christians can tell about other Christians. I don't want to talk about that I've been disappointed too much in my path. Abortion and immigration will always be losing topics for democrats. I don't think they can do much. What do you mean? More Americans identify as pro-choice than pro-life (or in some rare cases, it's basically a split, but never a significantly lower percentage for pro-choice): 1. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/447398-more-than-half-of-americans-identify-as-pro-choice-poll 2. https://www.statista.com/statistics/225975/share-of-americans-who-are-pro-life-or-pro-choice/3. https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx As far as Christianity goes, all of it is cherry-picked. Some Christians will say that their religious faith is why they're pro-life, but others will say that their religious faith is why they're pro-choice. Same goes with being for vs. against certain immigration policies. A large majority of the country are democrats but that doesn’t mean anything when it comes to securing control of the government. I'm not sure how your response follows from my question, but of course having the numbers is one piece of the puzzle. The other piece is getting them to actually vote. Sorry what I mean is that California and New York supporting abortion doesn’t mean it’s a safe topic in the Midwest or south, where democrats still need to win some seats. If abortion is popular in New York and California but not Wisconsin, it’s a bad idea to beat the drum of abortion. Democrats could ban abortion and still win California and New York. Sure, but then half the Democratic voters would just stop voting for them (they would just stay home during election days), so they wouldn't win anything else ever again lol. The objective would be to bring in new voters without betraying the current voter base.
Yes indeed, this is related to why building political consensus tends to be harder on the left than on the right. The latter can focus more on consolidation and fervor among true believers in the idea that things shouldn't change and the past was better whereas the latter must deal with marshaling an inherently bigger tent, one full of people who believe in some kind of forward-minded change, but do not agree on what that change looks like, sometimes dramatically so.
|
On September 04 2021 20:34 Broetchenholer wrote:
That is a slippery slope though. If you always just do what you need to win elections and never what is good for the country, in the end you could simply not rule at all. In the end a good politician is one that does the right thing despite serious push back and despite it probably costing the next election. The special American problem is though, that the next administration can turn a lot of your decisions easily around because so many decisions have 50/50 support and are basically up for grabs all the time. Incentives never being brave and always just prioritizing doing nothing over angering any single voter.
I think the bigger issue would be that your leadership wouldn't make meaningful progress, if all you care about is doing what's popular even if what's popular isn't in the best interest of people. I just don't think that it's as simple as completely ignoring what your constituents want, if what they want isn't what you think is best, since losing your leadership position is always a concern.
On September 04 2021 22:32 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2021 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 04 2021 12:40 Zambrah wrote:On September 04 2021 09:06 micronesia wrote:On September 04 2021 09:02 Mohdoo wrote:On September 04 2021 08:55 Sermokala wrote:
The bounty part is whats really extra and could be used really effectively I think. "Texas has put a bounty on your rights" There is a reason Democrats don't touch abortion with a 10 meter pole during a presidential election. It is not a winning topic nationally. Midterms coming up. Better to just let Texas be a shit hole have activists get pissed instead of the party. I really just don't think the party as a whole benefits nationally from vilifying Texas. I would hope the Democrats don't decide whether or not to take action against freedom destroying terror solely based on how it will affect the upcoming election... that's more of a republican thing in my experience. I have to agree with this, part of why I dont like Democrats is that I perceive them as more interested in doing whats popular than doing whats right and there is such a clear right here I dont think they have a good excuse to turn away from it. Not to mention the general Democrat "wisdom" of being inoffensive as possible without standing for much has hardly been a strong electoral strategy anyways. If you don't do what's popular, then you really won't get to do anything, right? That's the unfortunate nature of the election game: you run on things that can get you into office, based on what your constituents want. Sometimes you can push progress, but overreaching means losing the next primary/general to someone who's more popular. To a point yes, but the political game is so tied in to identity and values and constructing relatively coherent through lines to bind wider coalitions together. Otherwise the ‘We’ll Do What’s Currently Popular Technocratic Party’ would clean house. There’s certain brand power in making a tough decision that perhaps wasn’t contemporarily politically expedient that with time is shown to be the right call, although it depends how the cycles line up as to how the hit is taken. On the abortion issue that specifically elicited this conversational thread anyway, it and women’s rights in general are something the Dems tend to be aligned, and push that image themselves. I guess it’s not so much about what is ‘right’ as what you claim is right. If the Dem coalition didn’t lean on woman’s lib then yeah maybe they can avoid the issue. Abortion specifically isn’t some 80/20 political grenade that’s massively, massively unpopular either. I know you weren’t intimating that it should be dropped as any kind of focus, just splurging. A popular President, or the inverse is also not entirely predictive of how things will go in the midterms, too many other factors at play. But from where I’m sitting, mediated through various biased lessons it seems Biden has reaped benefits when he’s been a bit bolder, decisive or ‘morally ambitious’. When it goes thru to business as usual moves, less so. Afghanistan is a pretty giant exception here, but I guess it’s impact in domestic politics may take a while to fully process.
In the United States, there are rarely things that are more than 60% popular, given how many huge contrasts there are between the general conservative and general liberal factions, so I don't think it would be pragmatically feasible to sit down and just pick the most popular positions (on both/all sides) and run on that hypothetical platform. Too many things would be contradictory.
I agree that there's eventual brand power in making a tough, unpopular decision, but sometimes it takes decades to be recognized, all the while you're being skewered for betraying your party/constituents, which can decimate your tenure.
|
On September 05 2021 02:39 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2021 02:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 05 2021 01:50 Mohdoo wrote:On September 04 2021 19:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 04 2021 13:03 Mohdoo wrote:On September 04 2021 12:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 04 2021 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On September 04 2021 06:27 Sermokala wrote:
I'm a guy who calls dems gutless cowards as much as anyone but man if they've ever gotten a signal to fight about something its now and its the texan abortion bill. The politics make sense the demographics make sense Biden is up against the ropes over afganistan and the activities of his party are screaming out for it.
And believe me as bad as the stories you tell about Christians they are nothing compared to the stories Christians can tell about other Christians. I don't want to talk about that I've been disappointed too much in my path. Abortion and immigration will always be losing topics for democrats. I don't think they can do much. What do you mean? More Americans identify as pro-choice than pro-life (or in some rare cases, it's basically a split, but never a significantly lower percentage for pro-choice): 1. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/447398-more-than-half-of-americans-identify-as-pro-choice-poll 2. https://www.statista.com/statistics/225975/share-of-americans-who-are-pro-life-or-pro-choice/3. https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx As far as Christianity goes, all of it is cherry-picked. Some Christians will say that their religious faith is why they're pro-life, but others will say that their religious faith is why they're pro-choice. Same goes with being for vs. against certain immigration policies. A large majority of the country are democrats but that doesn’t mean anything when it comes to securing control of the government. I'm not sure how your response follows from my question, but of course having the numbers is one piece of the puzzle. The other piece is getting them to actually vote. Sorry what I mean is that California and New York supporting abortion doesn’t mean it’s a safe topic in the Midwest or south, where democrats still need to win some seats. If abortion is popular in New York and California but not Wisconsin, it’s a bad idea to beat the drum of abortion. Democrats could ban abortion and still win California and New York. Sure, but then half the Democratic voters would just stop voting for them (they would just stay home during election days), so they wouldn't win anything else ever again lol. The objective would be to bring in new voters without betraying the current voter base. Yes indeed, this is related to why building political consensus tends to be harder on the left than on the right. The latter can focus more on consolidation and fervor among true believers in the idea that things shouldn't change and the past was better whereas the latter must deal with marshaling an inherently bigger tent, one full of people who believe in some kind of forward-minded change, but do not agree on what that change looks like, sometimes dramatically so.
That's a good point; it really does seem like there's a variety of suggestions offered by various Democratic primary candidates, when discussing how to improve X. On the other hand, the Republican response is always just "No" or "Let's undo what the Dems did".
|
On September 05 2021 02:39 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2021 02:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 05 2021 01:50 Mohdoo wrote:On September 04 2021 19:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 04 2021 13:03 Mohdoo wrote:On September 04 2021 12:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 04 2021 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On September 04 2021 06:27 Sermokala wrote:
I'm a guy who calls dems gutless cowards as much as anyone but man if they've ever gotten a signal to fight about something its now and its the texan abortion bill. The politics make sense the demographics make sense Biden is up against the ropes over afganistan and the activities of his party are screaming out for it.
And believe me as bad as the stories you tell about Christians they are nothing compared to the stories Christians can tell about other Christians. I don't want to talk about that I've been disappointed too much in my path. Abortion and immigration will always be losing topics for democrats. I don't think they can do much. What do you mean? More Americans identify as pro-choice than pro-life (or in some rare cases, it's basically a split, but never a significantly lower percentage for pro-choice): 1. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/447398-more-than-half-of-americans-identify-as-pro-choice-poll 2. https://www.statista.com/statistics/225975/share-of-americans-who-are-pro-life-or-pro-choice/3. https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx As far as Christianity goes, all of it is cherry-picked. Some Christians will say that their religious faith is why they're pro-life, but others will say that their religious faith is why they're pro-choice. Same goes with being for vs. against certain immigration policies. A large majority of the country are democrats but that doesn’t mean anything when it comes to securing control of the government. I'm not sure how your response follows from my question, but of course having the numbers is one piece of the puzzle. The other piece is getting them to actually vote. Sorry what I mean is that California and New York supporting abortion doesn’t mean it’s a safe topic in the Midwest or south, where democrats still need to win some seats. If abortion is popular in New York and California but not Wisconsin, it’s a bad idea to beat the drum of abortion. Democrats could ban abortion and still win California and New York. Sure, but then half the Democratic voters would just stop voting for them (they would just stay home during election days), so they wouldn't win anything else ever again lol. The objective would be to bring in new voters without betraying the current voter base. Yes indeed, this is related to why building political consensus tends to be harder on the left than on the right. The latter can focus more on consolidation and fervor among true believers in the idea that things shouldn't change and the past was better whereas the latter must deal with marshaling an inherently bigger tent, one full of people who believe in some kind of forward-minded change, but do not agree on what that change looks like, sometimes dramatically so.
Republicans also have a built-in advantage because Democrats are generally trying to make changes and improvements. There are a variety of psychological processes that make people resistant to change. From a purely psychological perspective, conservatism has positional advantage over progressive ideas.
|
|
|
I don't understand why you don't see the transferable skills. They get hired all the time for private security and can slide into mercenary groups for massive pay bumps and even less accountability.
|
On September 05 2021 08:11 Sermokala wrote:
I don't understand why you don't see the transferable skills. They get hired all the time for private security and can slide into mercenary groups for massive pay bumps and even less accountability.
My understanding is that an enormous amount of cops are simply not cut out to be highly paid mercenaries. Private security maybe. But the cost:benefit of being a cop, given their pay, compared to other similar professions, is a slam dunk for the mostly mediocre bunch of people who are cops.
|
I think the transferability would come via connections. It’s not what you know it’s who you know, after all.
Also starting non viable businesses to then bitch that their business can’t survive without government handouts and gravely underpaying employees and they can’t believe no one wants to work for them. That ones always a classic.
|
It's more the pension (and power) than the pay. They can become a cop straight out of high school, force people to obey them, and have a $30k-$50k+ a year pension before they're 50.
|
On September 05 2021 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's more the pension (and power) than the pay. They can become a cop straight out of high school, force people to obey them, and have a $30k-$50k+ a year pension before they're 50.
Yeah I think a lot of people are missing the ego/power stuff. These are men who are essentially empty husks of self-image and ego. They don't really have anything other than their exaggerated masculinity and position. Without being a cop, they would see themselves as nobodies. They don't have anything to fall back on psychologically.
|
On September 05 2021 08:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2021 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's more the pension (and power) than the pay. They can become a cop straight out of high school, force people to obey them, and have a $30k-$50k+ a year pension before they're 50. Yeah I think a lot of people are missing the ego/power stuff. These are men who are essentially empty husks of self-image and ego. They don't really have anything other than their exaggerated masculinity and position. Without being a cop, they would see themselves as nobodies. They don't have anything to fall back on psychologically.
That is a whole lotta love right there. Not saying it doesn't fit the bill for some, but a persons position or trade doesn't define who they are. Even soldiers don't line up in some monolithic way.
|
On September 05 2021 11:37 Husyelt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2021 08:38 Mohdoo wrote:On September 05 2021 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's more the pension (and power) than the pay. They can become a cop straight out of high school, force people to obey them, and have a $30k-$50k+ a year pension before they're 50. Yeah I think a lot of people are missing the ego/power stuff. These are men who are essentially empty husks of self-image and ego. They don't really have anything other than their exaggerated masculinity and position. Without being a cop, they would see themselves as nobodies. They don't have anything to fall back on psychologically. That is a whole lotta love right there. Not saying it doesn't fit the bill for some, but a persons position or trade doesn't define who they are. Even soldiers don't line up in some monolithic way.
I feel like it is implied that when someone says something about a group, they are not saying "And I think literally every single person fitting this description applies to what I am saying", but maybe I am wrong.
People of Team Liquid: If I ever say something about a group, I am talking about some non-100 percentage of that group.
I will say the vast majority of cops I have interacted with *need* the label of cop to sustain themselves. They were broken people before and after they were cops. The only thing that gives them a legitimate sense of confidence is their title as "cop". They are often broken people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
