|
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 |
The biggest pitfalls for big organisations is risk aversion coupled with inaction (slow action rate? slow acceleration? - I don't know the correct terminology here) during times of non-crises.
Big institutions seem to take forever to get aligned on a thing, or to get their organisation in total to get going towards somewhere. It kind of makes sense, you have a lot of heads to turn and to align and to spring into action.
But they're also risk averse. And again, this makes sense, because why would you risk losing a significant chunk of the pie when you hold such a significant chunk of the pie? Every chunk is significant. Can't have that.
So you just keep chugging along, at your leisurely pace thinking, sure things seem kinda opaque up ahead, but who cares, I won't throw the baby out with the bathwater. But does every new thing not kinda start looking like throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Seems like they're becoming hypochondriacs!
But then when the crisis is apparent, all the action plans are set in motion and voila, crisis averted - with perhaps a significant chunk of the pie lost -, let's chug along once more and maybe the institution learns, but who can really tell?
Probably all big businesses have their analysts telling them which direction they should go into, but actually getting them to go there, that's such a tall order.
It all comes down to this - hindsight obviously: the DNC should've started the procedure of having a candidate ready for 2024 in 2019 or something. Even if Biden would've been 'sharp as a tack' at present, being 81 is still a massive health risk and being over 81 even more so for his second term. I'm sure many people advised for another presidential candidate, but having the actual motors of the institution set everything in motion is a whole other can of worms. Maybe I'm projecting, who knows.
|
On July 14 2024 05:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2024 18:03 Gorsameth wrote:On July 13 2024 11:21 Severedevil wrote:On July 13 2024 03:45 Vindicare605 wrote:On July 13 2024 01:11 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2024 00:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Imagine dems finally eject this idiot and he tries to run third party. But ultimately the process of acquiring the PDF and uploading the completed form prevents it He’d have people for that. Biden’s presidency has been pretty good by pretty much any metric. The best inflation reduction in the western world, massively reduced deficits from the Trump years, the strongest economic growth in the western world, strong jobs market etc. If we are to conclude that he can’t turn on his own computer then we must also conclude that he has a reasonably strong team. No one is arguing right now about Biden's performance as President from 2020-2024. The concern is that the guy is deteriorating before our very eyes and we are going to give him ANOTHER 4 years? What's he going to look like 2 years from now? Realistically he's going to look like the same team of administrators and advisors as before. The point of a big boss is to set a general direction and pick capable people to do the actual work. But that same capable team could work for any Democratic President. So why not have a big boss that is mentally all here? When people argue against replacing Biden, they aren’t saying he’s the best possible choice for a president. They are saying replacing him is a bigger risk than keeping him. It’s all about keeping Trump out of the white house. When people who are terrified of a Trump presidency disagree on this topi , the core of the issue is how we compare the risk of each choice. I think it’s important to keep that in mind.
Exactly.
Look, I understand the fucking assignment, and it's a bitter pill to swallow, but I will 100% vote for Biden if he's the first name on the ticket. If that's what it takes to keep MAGA out of the Executive Branch then I'll do it. But I will NOT enjoy doing it. Nothing about this feels good, but I see it as my duty as a citizen to do this unpleasant thing for the greater good.
It would be VERY easy for any other voter who isnt as committed to stay home on election day or cast a ballot for a third party candidate because of how bad this feels. If enough of them do that, then it's very possible that Trump wins that way, because the Democrats didn't get out in front of this issue.
Trump's base will not abandon him. That much should be apparent to everyone, no matter what he does, no matter what he says, they will not abandon him. The rest of us do not have that kind of blind loyalty to Biden, he will lose the electorate either outright or by pushing them to vote third party.
|
On July 14 2024 06:27 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2024 05:13 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2024 18:03 Gorsameth wrote:On July 13 2024 11:21 Severedevil wrote:On July 13 2024 03:45 Vindicare605 wrote:On July 13 2024 01:11 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2024 00:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Imagine dems finally eject this idiot and he tries to run third party. But ultimately the process of acquiring the PDF and uploading the completed form prevents it He’d have people for that. Biden’s presidency has been pretty good by pretty much any metric. The best inflation reduction in the western world, massively reduced deficits from the Trump years, the strongest economic growth in the western world, strong jobs market etc. If we are to conclude that he can’t turn on his own computer then we must also conclude that he has a reasonably strong team. No one is arguing right now about Biden's performance as President from 2020-2024. The concern is that the guy is deteriorating before our very eyes and we are going to give him ANOTHER 4 years? What's he going to look like 2 years from now? Realistically he's going to look like the same team of administrators and advisors as before. The point of a big boss is to set a general direction and pick capable people to do the actual work. But that same capable team could work for any Democratic President. So why not have a big boss that is mentally all here? When people argue against replacing Biden, they aren’t saying he’s the best possible choice for a president. They are saying replacing him is a bigger risk than keeping him. It’s all about keeping Trump out of the white house. When people who are terrified of a Trump presidency disagree on this topi , the core of the issue is how we compare the risk of each choice. I think it’s important to keep that in mind. Exactly. Look, I understand the fucking assignment, and it's a bitter pill to swallow, but I will 100% vote for Biden if he's the first name on the ticket. If that's what it takes to keep MAGA out of the Executive Branch then I'll do it. But I will NOT enjoy doing it. Nothing about this feels good, but I see it as my duty as a citizen to do this unpleasant thing for the greater good. It would be VERY easy for any other voter who isnt as committed to stay home on election day or cast a ballot for a third party candidate because of how bad this feels. If enough of them do that, then it's very possible that Trump wins that way, because the Democrats didn't get out in front of this issue. Trump's base will not abandon him. That much should be apparent to everyone, no matter what he does, no matter what he says, they will not abandon him. The rest of us do not have that kind of blind loyalty to Biden, he will lose the electorate either outright or by pushing them to vote third party. 99% of Democrats who are calling for Biden to step aside will still vote for him if he is on the ticket, imo.
|
Northern Ireland26014 Posts
On July 14 2024 06:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2024 06:27 Vindicare605 wrote:On July 14 2024 05:13 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2024 18:03 Gorsameth wrote:On July 13 2024 11:21 Severedevil wrote:On July 13 2024 03:45 Vindicare605 wrote:On July 13 2024 01:11 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2024 00:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Imagine dems finally eject this idiot and he tries to run third party. But ultimately the process of acquiring the PDF and uploading the completed form prevents it He’d have people for that. Biden’s presidency has been pretty good by pretty much any metric. The best inflation reduction in the western world, massively reduced deficits from the Trump years, the strongest economic growth in the western world, strong jobs market etc. If we are to conclude that he can’t turn on his own computer then we must also conclude that he has a reasonably strong team. No one is arguing right now about Biden's performance as President from 2020-2024. The concern is that the guy is deteriorating before our very eyes and we are going to give him ANOTHER 4 years? What's he going to look like 2 years from now? Realistically he's going to look like the same team of administrators and advisors as before. The point of a big boss is to set a general direction and pick capable people to do the actual work. But that same capable team could work for any Democratic President. So why not have a big boss that is mentally all here? When people argue against replacing Biden, they aren’t saying he’s the best possible choice for a president. They are saying replacing him is a bigger risk than keeping him. It’s all about keeping Trump out of the white house. When people who are terrified of a Trump presidency disagree on this topi , the core of the issue is how we compare the risk of each choice. I think it’s important to keep that in mind. Exactly. Look, I understand the fucking assignment, and it's a bitter pill to swallow, but I will 100% vote for Biden if he's the first name on the ticket. If that's what it takes to keep MAGA out of the Executive Branch then I'll do it. But I will NOT enjoy doing it. Nothing about this feels good, but I see it as my duty as a citizen to do this unpleasant thing for the greater good. It would be VERY easy for any other voter who isnt as committed to stay home on election day or cast a ballot for a third party candidate because of how bad this feels. If enough of them do that, then it's very possible that Trump wins that way, because the Democrats didn't get out in front of this issue. Trump's base will not abandon him. That much should be apparent to everyone, no matter what he does, no matter what he says, they will not abandon him. The rest of us do not have that kind of blind loyalty to Biden, he will lose the electorate either outright or by pushing them to vote third party. 99% of Democrats who are calling for Biden to step aside will still vote for him if he is on the ticket, imo.
They’ll tend to be more engaged folks, it’s those who aren’t, or who aren’t Dems outright one has to worry about.
I’m sure there are genuine concerns about Biden’s capacity to fulfil his duties too, but what’s motivating these calls is much more ‘can we win with this guy?’ pragmatism.
It only takes relatively small swings in a few states from people who were lukewarm Biden voters last time round, be that to Trump or merely to non-turnout.
It’s not as if Biden was starting from a position of huge personal popularity to begin with. He really doesn’t have much of a safety net to work with.
Of course, as with many such scenarios ‘anyone but x’ can often turn out to be a much more popular prospect than whoever actually replaces x. So it’s not as if replacing Biden on the ticket is some guaranteed winning shot.
|
It's important to win against Trump, but is any other Democrat representing something that is worst than Trump? What wild thing would this person need to advocate for, for you to lose interest in them and support Trump. I don't think there's such a person.
Strangely enough there's never been a time when the Candidate is inconsequential to the outcome perhaps.
|
On July 14 2024 05:43 Uldridge wrote:
The biggest pitfalls for big organisations is risk aversion coupled with inaction (slow action rate? slow acceleration? - I don't know the correct terminology here) during times of non-crises.
Big institutions seem to take forever to get aligned on a thing, or to get their organisation in total to get going towards somewhere. It kind of makes sense, you have a lot of heads to turn and to align and to spring into action.
But they're also risk averse. And again, this makes sense, because why would you risk losing a significant chunk of the pie when you hold such a significant chunk of the pie? Every chunk is significant. Can't have that.
So you just keep chugging along, at your leisurely pace thinking, sure things seem kinda opaque up ahead, but who cares, I won't throw the baby out with the bathwater. But does every new thing not kinda start looking like throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Seems like they're becoming hypochondriacs!
But then when the crisis is apparent, all the action plans are set in motion and voila, crisis averted - with perhaps a significant chunk of the pie lost -, let's chug along once more and maybe the institution learns, but who can really tell?
Probably all big businesses have their analysts telling them which direction they should go into, but actually getting them to go there, that's such a tall order.
It all comes down to this - hindsight obviously: the DNC should've started the procedure of having a candidate ready for 2024 in 2019 or something. Even if Biden would've been 'sharp as a tack' at present, being 81 is still a massive health risk and being over 81 even more so for his second term. I'm sure many people advised for another presidential candidate, but having the actual motors of the institution set everything in motion is a whole other can of worms. Maybe I'm projecting, who knows.
Agreed on all points. The current general form of democracy worsens it a lot too. But it’s worth mentioning the French system of government addresses deadlock a lot better.
Anyway, the other point I was going to make is that large corporations are the perfect example of why the usual conservative ideology of “privatization is inherently more efficient” isn’t true. It highlights how waste is inherent to all organizations and it’s more like how a big house generates more trash than a small house. Small households aren’t more efficient. They just contain less people.
The grander the mission, the more moving parts, and each part is inefficient. The US military has a very large absolutely value of waste per year. And yet it’s the most effective and strongest in the world. So “waste” isn’t always a valuable metric.
|
Blood on the ear of Trump after apparent gunshots during his rally. He either literally dodged a bullet, injured his ear when he was pushed to the ground, or its wrestling kayfabe, but shits about to be taken up several levels.
(I'll add a clip with the blood when I find it/if we're okay with that).
Here's the clip of his recovery
Staged or not (this argument alone will be a shitfest) we're in for a wild next 6 months.
|
Holy shit. Was it actually a gunshot?
Edit/Update: Unconfirmed, but sounded like gunshots. Lots of conspiracy theories floating around right now. We'll learn more over the next few hours.
|
My gut tells me it was staged, but we shall see. Something isn’t adding up
|
This season of America is lit
|
It was probably Biden. Or maybe someone from GHs revolution took the first step.
|
On July 14 2024 08:03 BlackJack wrote:
This season of America is lit
The series finale at the end of this season is going to have us all gagged.
On July 14 2024 08:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
It was probably Biden. Or maybe someone from GHs revolution took the first step.
Hope they give Kwark credit for convincing them to do it.
|
On July 14 2024 08:06 GreenHorizons wrote:The series finale at the end of this season is going to have us all gagged. Show nested quote +On July 14 2024 08:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
It was probably Biden. Or maybe someone from GHs revolution took the first step. Hope they give Kwark credit for convincing them to do it.
Ya know, that would be fucking hilarious.
SS - "Why did you do it?"
Shooter - "I wasn't going to. But I read a post from my hero KwarK and he inspired me. So I have to say he is the reason."
|
Clearly this was Biden acting with his new found dictatorial powers and immunity. Obviously not Seal Team 6 though.
|
On July 14 2024 08:14 Introvert wrote:
Clearly this was Biden acting with his new found dictatorial powers and immunity. Obviously not Seal Team 6 though.
FBI recruiting and magic bullets just aren't what they used to be.Thanks Obama!+ Show Spoiler +
|
United States43210 Posts
I mean I wouldn't be wrong. Real revolutionaries do assassinate members of the political establishment. Killing Trump would earn you some serious revolutionary street cred. Or Biden tbh.
|
1 attendee dead and 1 seriously injured. Shooter is dead.
A local prosecutor says the suspected gunman and at least one attendee are dead after a shooting at Donald Trump’s rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.
Butler County District Attorney Richard Goldinger said in a phone interview that the suspected gunman was dead and at least one rally attendee was killed.
www.chicagotribune.com
|
Looks like it got real close to a whole lot of turmoil
|
Man its like history is conspiring to give Trump the best possible chance to become president again lmao
|
United States43210 Posts
Still four more months for someone to finish the job in a video game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
