EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4225
| 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 | ||
KwarK
United States41983 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10180 Posts
On June 26 2024 05:24 KwarK wrote: Obama didn’t make the rule, it’s from 1992. Obama’s EPA clarified that making an array of parallel systems didn’t allow you to bypass the 1992 rule which to me is obvious to the point of absurdity. If there was a 10 ton weight limit of a bridge and a 20 ton vehicle claimed that it was two 10 ton vehicles in a vertically stacked alignment you’d surely agree. But this is all nonsense anyway. This is an old man complaining that showers used to be wetter back in his day. He’s not promising to bring back wet showers. He’s not promising to rein in the 2.5gpm gestapo that normal moist Americans live in fear of. He’s just saying that showers used to be wetter and now they’re dryer to an adoring crowd (and audience on TL) who suddenly instantly buy in to this idea that they’ve been dry (or a shower criminal like you) since 1992. It’s really weird. They didn’t know that they’ve been dry for years but now they believe it. There’s this immediate mass delusion that showers are dry now among people who have not previously noticed this. It's not a "mass delusion" that showers are dryer now. They are literally dryer now. While the 2.5gpm was established in 1992, they've since expanded on that by adding a coveted EPA label that you can put on shower heads with a maximum output of 2.0 gpm. That's 20% less than the already too dry showers. This addition came in 2010. While it doesn't ban shower heads at 2.5gpm it does provide an incentive for manufacturers to make your showerhead shittier, which is Trump's gripe in the first place. What's next? 1.5gpm shower heads to obtain the special seal of approval? 1.0gpm? If people are making changes you don't want then all Trump needs to do is not allow them to make changes. He doesn't need to reverse anything. You're applying the standard of that PBU that says Biden has to stack the SCOTUS or send seal team six after the justices. In reality all Biden has to do is not allow Trump to appoint more SCOTUS justices. That by itself is appealing to many. But I think the thing that pisses people off the most is that Democrats want to make these eco-friendly changes to score points on climate but then try to gaslight the masses by saying they aren't changing anything. It's like when Berkeley became the first city to ban gas stoves in new homes and simultaneously labeling it a conspiracy that Democrats want to ban gas stoves. They want to credit for showers using less water or new homes not having gas stoves but they also want to tell people you're delusional if you think showers use less water or we're coming after your gas stoves. It's two-faced bullshit. Pick a lane. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2478 Posts
See y'all in a few days, have fun with this one. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41983 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10180 Posts
On June 26 2024 06:38 KwarK wrote: I believe that you believe the Democrats want to dry out your showers. I just also believe that if I’d asked you yesterday you’d give a different answer. I think that the exposure to Grandpa Simpson complaining about dry showers has triggered this belief. Nah, I don't believe that. All the flow restrictors I've removed from shower heads over the years I just assumed were placed there by shower fairies. I'd never think bureaucrats were behind it! That's madness! Strike that, I've actually never removed any flow restrictors because water pressure is not something I cared about before today when daddy Trump brought it to my attention! You got me! | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22701 Posts
| ||
|
Razyda
524 Posts
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-69145409 This part however got me thinking: "Last week, he signed a deal with the US that would see him plead guilty to one charge, instead of the 18 he was originally facing" Given that US law is based a lot on precedents, doesnt this one guilty plea set up precedent somewhat dangerous to freedom of press? (I honestly dont know, this is a question not satement). | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43793 Posts
| ||
|
Sadist
United States7177 Posts
On June 26 2024 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Trump's recent speech included a pledge to reduce funding public schools by 50%, and the promise to not federally assist any school that has a vaccine mandate... which is literally every public school (e.g., MMR and polio). I just..... What do these people think this solves? This hate for the teachers union and wanting to privatize schools to get in on the money is just sad. The US is just going to fall behind in technology over time on this. Immigration would help offset this, but guess what? They are against that too.. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23824 Posts
On June 26 2024 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Trump's recent speech included a pledge to reduce funding public schools by 50%, and the promise to not federally assist any school that has a vaccine mandate... which is literally every public school (e.g., MMR and polio). Why is he proposing the former? I mean I imagine it’s just the usual rhetorical nonsense anyway but I can’t imagine that’s much of a vote winner. At least the latter does fit certain wider sentiments, as asinine as it is | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43793 Posts
On June 26 2024 21:28 Sadist wrote: I just..... What do these people think this solves? This hate for the teachers union and wanting to privatize schools to get in on the money is just sad. The US is just going to fall behind in technology over time on this. Immigration would help offset this, but guess what? They are against that too.. On June 26 2024 21:35 WombaT wrote: Why is he proposing the former? I mean I imagine it’s just the usual rhetorical nonsense anyway but I can’t imagine that’s much of a vote winner. At least the latter does fit certain wider sentiments, as asinine as it is My guess is that promising to defund public schools aligns with a variety of other points he and his base have advocated for in the past, such as demonizing academic and medical protocols, asserting that teachers are brainwashing children with their liberal agendas, and promoting "school choice" (which is just a dog whistle for promoting the collapse of our education system). | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21362 Posts
On June 26 2024 21:35 WombaT wrote: Because public schools have to teach the public school curriculum which is full of 'woke shit'.Why is he proposing the former? I mean I imagine it’s just the usual rhetorical nonsense anyway but I can’t imagine that’s much of a vote winner. At least the latter does fit certain wider sentiments, as asinine as it is or something like that. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5294 Posts
On June 26 2024 21:28 Sadist wrote: I just..... What do these people think this solves? This hate for the teachers union and wanting to privatize schools to get in on the money is just sad. You seem to be tacitly acknowledging that the government is a racket where there's money to be gotten in on, whereas hopefully the purpose is to take limited taxpayer money when necessary to make all our lives better. Baltimore gets $22,000 a year per student and 40% of their high schools don't have a single student proficient in math. Why would you let any more money get siphoned off by people delivering results like that? There is a functional dichotomy of basically whether you think any issue can be solved or made better by throwing more public money at it and only made worse by throwing less public money at it. At the moment we have a president going around SCOTUS to legislate by executive order billions of dollars in relief to adults who hold debt for education they received at private institutions, and nobody bats an eye. So private/public doesn't seem to be exactly where the divide is. On June 26 2024 22:20 Gorsameth wrote: Because public schools have to teach the public school curriculum which is full of 'woke shit'. or something like that. You're directionally correct apparently: On day one, I will sign a new executive order to cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, transgender, insanity, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content onto the lives of our children. And I will not give one penny to any school that has a vaccine mandate or a mask mandate. Despite having a federal DOE, most schools are funded mostly at the local level as far as I know, so the most he could do is cut federal funding. The rest has to be solved at other levels of government. I haven't heard a speech with the 50% figure specifically, usually 50% is when Vivek talks about cutting the federal workforce (now upgraded to 75% maybe). The vaccine stuff in context sounds like it's talking about corona, not polio (which I think was the key one of the autism claims?), although he has courted the antivaxx people for a while, it wouldn't be necessary to go that far to satiate them at this point. As WombaT said it's even popular among the general population. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15398 Posts
| ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2590 Posts
Huh. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11331 Posts
On June 27 2024 00:59 Mohdoo wrote: The entire concept of defiance is becoming a major issue for conservatism. It feels like the entire conservative movement is just resentment. I don't understand how they can dig themselves out of this bitter hole. Its like they are just so bitter about so many things and nothing can calm them down. Media. It would require conservative media with positive takes, ideally successful in the algorithms of social media. Currently, angry conservative media is king. And as a result, conservatives are angry and bitter about everything. That is good for the people who pay for conservative media, but bad for everyone else, including conservatives. As long as everyone talks about culture war shit all the time, no one talks about how perverse and problematic for democracy the existence of billionaires is. And, as it turns out, getting people constantly angry and afraid makes them very reliably vote for your party. And it also leads to "engagement", which leads to dollars. I am increasingly reaching the conclusion that the way social media is currently set up is incredibly dangerous for society. I also feel like an old man saying that, because my parents said the same about video games, and their parents said the same about TV. And i don't really know a good solution, except for maybe regulating social media heavily. But social media has enough power over opinion to prevent that from ever being a thing people talk about. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5294 Posts
On June 27 2024 01:19 Salazarz wrote: So when it comes to public schools, cutting funding is just to get rid of waste and corruption. But when it's about cutting funding to police departments, suddenly there's no waste or corruption to be had and it's just woke libtards empowering criminals? Huh. I don't think anyone had mentioned police, but since you brought it up. Public school teachers can get crayon on their shirt, and have the same vacations as children. Police officers can be shot. Ergo you have to at least provide funding equivalent to the number of police officers you need to fight crime multiplied by a police officer's salary. The main reason is that, despite how clever you probably thought that sounded, there is no private option for police. There is no "police choice." Private security are not officers of the law, and indeed they usually barely even qualify as private security when all they (can) do is watch people walk out of a store with its entire inventory. Additionally, law enforcement except for the FBI, DEA, ATF, Homeland Security, and probably someone else (CIA and NSA are considered "intelligence" as they don't arrest/take custody of people, inside the US at least), is not federal. That means again, like schools, they are outside of the federal government (hereafter "Drumpf")'s purview. Most police spending is local, followed by state, followed by federal. Very little federal funding goes to other branches. However, to address your point, we are more than familiar with Drumpf's view of the FBI and are pretty sure he's up for reforming it. If you need more than the annualized minimum wage of a worker to teach a single kid for a year, something has gone wrong, objectively, doubly so if they aren't even learning anything. If you cut so much funding for police that your embattled jurisdiction has no choice but to lay off officers, your "crime rate" will go down in the sense of you don't have enough people to make arrests. If you stop incentivizing shit schools, the idea is not that you raise averages by removing students from the system, but by letting them be better educated somewhere else. The idea of school choice is very much wound up together with funding. If you cut funding for a school (actual funding, not just the federal help money part), you have to let the parents (family) choose what school they go to also. That includes vouchers. Otherwise, instead of a better school, you just have no school. Which, while amounting to a total lack of public education, is probably still a utilitarian improvement over spending $20k a year to teach 40% of your students NOTHING. You could even just subsidize a nuclear family's homeschooling with that, and with one stone improve about a dozen social problems that get no attention by dumping the same money in schools that don't work. You should not ONLY reduce school funding to improve schools, but the federal government does not and should not control local school boards. But you can see revolts even among deep blue jurisdictions like in California as they replace school board members, realizing that unlike what they previously thought, they can't just leave the Democratic party on autopilot and expect everything to work out by itself. If a police department is corrupt, or not functioning, the solution is not to cut funding. Then the corrupt people will fire the non corrupt ones, protect each other more, and worsen both policing and corruption because they have tighter control. The correction is immediate state or If any law enforcement department is bloated compared to an apparent lack of work for it to do, the solution would be first redirection if possible, otherwise yes, cutting - just like the rest of government waste - done at the appropriate level of government. In short, schools and police are different, the government should do both, | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15398 Posts
On June 27 2024 02:31 Simberto wrote: I am increasingly reaching the conclusion that the way social media is currently set up is incredibly dangerous for society. I also feel like an old man saying that, because my parents said the same about video games, and their parents said the same about TV. This is the same general logic I have used to describe why "incumbent advantage" is a thing of the past. I think that dynamic has flipped because "the world is bad and you should be scared/angry" will always dominate all national conversations. Social media has the data to show that these dynamics will always maximize engagement. Engagement makes more money. And so "everything sucks right now" will always be reinforced. And thus incumbent advantage is gone. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41983 Posts
On June 27 2024 02:38 oBlade wrote: I don't think anyone had mentioned police, but since you brought it up. Public school teachers can get crayon on their shirt, and have the same vacations as children. Police officers can be shot. Ergo you have to at least provide funding equivalent to the number of police officers you need to fight crime multiplied by a police officer's salary. The main reason is that, despite how clever you probably thought that sounded, there is no private option for police. There is no "police choice." Private security are not officers of the law, and indeed they usually barely even qualify as private security when all they (can) do is watch people walk out of a store with its entire inventory. Additionally, law enforcement except for the FBI, DEA, ATF, Homeland Security, and probably someone else (CIA and NSA are considered "intelligence" as they don't arrest/take custody of people, inside the US at least), is not federal. That means again, like schools, they are outside of the federal government (hereafter "Drumpf")'s purview. Most police spending is local, followed by state, followed by federal. Very little federal funding goes to other branches. However, to address your point, we are more than familiar with Drumpf's view of the FBI and are pretty sure he's up for reforming it. If you need more than the annualized minimum wage of a worker to teach a single kid for a year, something has gone wrong, objectively, doubly so if they aren't even learning anything. If you cut so much funding for police that your embattled jurisdiction has no choice but to lay off officers, your "crime rate" will go down in the sense of you don't have enough people to make arrests. If you stop incentivizing shit schools, the idea is not that you raise averages by removing students from the system, but by letting them be better educated somewhere else. The idea of school choice is very much wound up together with funding. If you cut funding for a school (actual funding, not just the federal help money part), you have to let the parents (family) choose what school they go to also. That includes vouchers. Otherwise, instead of a better school, you just have no school. Which, while amounting to a total lack of public education, is probably still a utilitarian improvement over spending $20k a year to teach 40% of your students NOTHING. You could even just subsidize a nuclear family's homeschooling with that, and with one stone improve about a dozen social problems that get no attention by dumping the same money in schools that don't work. You should not ONLY reduce school funding to improve schools, but the federal government does not and should not control local school boards. But you can see revolts even among deep blue jurisdictions like in California as they replace school board members, realizing that unlike what they previously thought, they can't just leave the Democratic party on autopilot and expect everything to work out by itself. If a police department is corrupt, or not functioning, the solution is not to cut funding. Then the corrupt people will fire the non corrupt ones, protect each other more, and worsen both policing and corruption because they have tighter control. The correction is immediate state or If any law enforcement department is bloated compared to an apparent lack of work for it to do, the solution would be first redirection if possible, otherwise yes, cutting - just like the rest of government waste - done at the appropriate level of government. In short, schools and police are different, the government should do both, Eh, if you’re going to bring up the risk of getting shot for police vs other professions then I don’t think schools is the perfect contrast of a place where nobody gets shot. Certainly the rules of engagement re:shooting children are considerably broader for police than they are for teachers. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23824 Posts
The latter I don’t think either party are particularly good at in the US context, but the former conservative parties in general are particularly bad at. It always comes back to ideological intuition almost invariably, at least in the polities I’m familiar with. I mean this is additionally complicated by general socio-economic inequality in general, as with a whole slew of other metrics that the US isn’t exactly a world leader in mitigating. I mean Finland does alright Perhaps there are exceptions that I’m unaware of but in general ive only really seen private education being something of an inequality accelerator, and not something that brings big efficiencies and improves things across the board | ||
| ||
