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.
On October 31 2024 06:34 Fleetfeet wrote: First and foremost - Thanks, Vindicare, for your commentary a few pages back. I appreciate where your head is at on the subject even though there isn't anything particular I want to comment on.
On October 31 2024 04:40 BlackJack wrote:
On October 31 2024 02:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On October 31 2024 01:50 BlackJack wrote: In my analogy you’re not drafting “some white kid that can’t play ball."
On October 30 2024 17:51 BlackJack wrote: Do you think if that white player doesn’t play very well
Do you think this is some kind of contradiction? There’s lots of nba players that are trash compared to the superstars. That doesn’t make them unqualified for the NBA.
It’s consistently you making the strawman that Kamala Harris is unqualified. Turbolover even searched my posts to look for evidence of your claims that I’ve repeatedly called Kamala an unqualified DEI hire and he found nothing of the sort.
One, Turbolover just looked for you using specific phrases, which was the subject at the time. This is a stretch of truth or misunderstanding on your part that isn't wholly uncommon.
On October 30 2024 14:28 BlackJack wrote: I actually don't disagree with Fleetfeet that "DEI Hire" is used as a pejorative dog whistle towards black people. That's why I've tried to avoid using it. But evidently it doesn't matter if I avoid using it because they will start using it, insist I'm the one using it, and then imply I'm racist for using it.
Worth noting - I never claimed it was a perjorative dogwhistle towards black people, never used the phrase "DEI Hire" afaik (though for clarity not because I avoided doing so but because it's uncommon vocab for me and I don't know the nuance between DEI Hire / diversity hire / DEI etc) and also never insisted that you're using specifically those phrases nor are racist for using them.
Also, thank you for informing me that it's a perjorative dogwhistle towards black people. In my circles 'diversity hire' leans more towards 'underqualified ethnic female' than specifically black people. I will stop using that phrase!
Regardless, I'm not that interested in that. What confuses me is that as part of your opposition to hiring with consideration to race and sex seems to deny that there are racist and sexist tendencies built within our structures. Sure 'forced diversity' is fucked if you remove the context that the opposite has historically been true. Your NBA analogy would be interesting if the general populace voted in drafts, so we could see that racism and sexism be systematically enacted in vote. The NBA isn't a democracy, it's a meritocracy, and so you see that reflected in its statistics. Do you believe that the position of president in the US is also a meritocracy and you've had 44 white dudes (?) because they're the GOAT?
It's funny that you would mention the NBA, which seems to me to be a strikingly homogenous group of people in terms of race and social background. Contrary to what you are saying, I'd say that in meritocratic environments you tend to get homogeneous types of people on the top. In the NBA, most players are African Americans. In the math olympiad, the US team is mostly male asian Americans.
This probably has to do with deeply rooted cultural preferences and differences between groups more than anything else. Groups are very different. Maybe there aren't many black women who are top legal scholars? Just like there aren't many black women in the math olympiad or among the chess grand masters. None of these things are necessarily because of racism.
There are various hypothesis as to why there are much fewer white players in the NBA. Cultural differences are not among the probable reasons. More likely it's access. White people have access to a broad range of sports, which disperses them across various sports. Black people, due to economic disadvantages, are less exposed to a wide range of sports. Basketball is a simple, widely accessible game that can be financed easily in neighborhoods of all backgrounds. So for black people who are behind on the economic curve, basketball is the obvious game of choice.
So, in fact, one of the more likely reasons is racism. Whether present racism is still the reason or it's just the consequence of past racism, that'd be a different question.
Comparing the NBA or professional sports in general to political office is an imperfect comparison because the requirements are different.
The NBA is a meritocracy in that the people that are the best basketball players get rewarded with the highest contracts, but the game itself isn't fair to everyone. If you're taller you have a built in advantage in that game. Even the best athletes in the world can train their entire lives to play in the NBA and not even get looked at in the draft because they are too small. Larry Bird was an incredible white player, but not to be forgotten the guy was also 6'9 with long arms. He had a body built to play basketball that he augmented with his brilliant mind and skillset.
How do you define merit in politics? What's the skillset required to make someone a good government representative? I'd argue there isn't one. Anyone can be a good politician, anyone can also be a bad politician. It doesn't even take skill to get elected to any of these posts it just takes popularity and popularity can be gained for the most bizarre of reasons, just look at the Hawk Tuah girl for evidence of that.
A highly educated, highly accomplished woman can just as easily become a corrupt politician that ignores her constituents as a poorly educated man with no accomplishments can become an exemplary politician who gets reelected 20 times.
IMO. There is no meritocracy in politics. It's all subjective.
On October 31 2024 06:34 Fleetfeet wrote: First and foremost - Thanks, Vindicare, for your commentary a few pages back. I appreciate where your head is at on the subject even though there isn't anything particular I want to comment on.
On October 31 2024 04:40 BlackJack wrote:
On October 31 2024 02:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On October 31 2024 01:50 BlackJack wrote: In my analogy you’re not drafting “some white kid that can’t play ball."
On October 30 2024 17:51 BlackJack wrote: Do you think if that white player doesn’t play very well
Do you think this is some kind of contradiction? There’s lots of nba players that are trash compared to the superstars. That doesn’t make them unqualified for the NBA.
It’s consistently you making the strawman that Kamala Harris is unqualified. Turbolover even searched my posts to look for evidence of your claims that I’ve repeatedly called Kamala an unqualified DEI hire and he found nothing of the sort.
One, Turbolover just looked for you using specific phrases, which was the subject at the time. This is a stretch of truth or misunderstanding on your part that isn't wholly uncommon.
On October 30 2024 14:28 BlackJack wrote: I actually don't disagree with Fleetfeet that "DEI Hire" is used as a pejorative dog whistle towards black people. That's why I've tried to avoid using it. But evidently it doesn't matter if I avoid using it because they will start using it, insist I'm the one using it, and then imply I'm racist for using it.
Worth noting - I never claimed it was a perjorative dogwhistle towards black people, never used the phrase "DEI Hire" afaik (though for clarity not because I avoided doing so but because it's uncommon vocab for me and I don't know the nuance between DEI Hire / diversity hire / DEI etc) and also never insisted that you're using specifically those phrases nor are racist for using them.
Also, thank you for informing me that it's a perjorative dogwhistle towards black people. In my circles 'diversity hire' leans more towards 'underqualified ethnic female' than specifically black people. I will stop using that phrase!
Regardless, I'm not that interested in that. What confuses me is that as part of your opposition to hiring with consideration to race and sex seems to deny that there are racist and sexist tendencies built within our structures. Sure 'forced diversity' is fucked if you remove the context that the opposite has historically been true. Your NBA analogy would be interesting if the general populace voted in drafts, so we could see that racism and sexism be systematically enacted in vote. The NBA isn't a democracy, it's a meritocracy, and so you see that reflected in its statistics. Do you believe that the position of president in the US is also a meritocracy and you've had 44 white dudes (?) because they're the GOAT?
It's funny that you would mention the NBA, which seems to me to be a strikingly homogenous group of people in terms of race and social background. Contrary to what you are saying, I'd say that in meritocratic environments you tend to get homogeneous types of people on the top. In the NBA, most players are African Americans. In the math olympiad, the US team is mostly male asian Americans.
This probably has to do with deeply rooted cultural preferences and differences between groups more than anything else. Groups are very different. Maybe there aren't many black women who are top legal scholars? Just like there aren't many black women in the math olympiad or among the chess grand masters. None of these things are necessarily because of racism.
I don't see how this is contrary, and I agree that none of these things are necessarily because of racism.
I don't see it as contrary because I'm saying they're not the same structures and aren't comparable. You can currently say "Black men dominate the NBA playerbase because they are generally better at the sport" and can look at the organic development of the league and prioritization of the best players. I don't believe you can currently say "White men dominate the position of presidency of the US because they are generally better leaders" because there hasn't been equal opportunity historically and this trend is likely a reflection of both sexist and racist undertones in the general consciousness of the nation.
And before anyone goes "Waaah Fleetfeet called me a racist", please remember that I'm approaching from the position that effectively everyone is sexist and xenophobic because we're all humans and that's how humans function, and I'm not calling anyone 'a racist'. I still do have and historically have had sexist tendencies, as well as racist tendencies. People have biases. Be aware of them and work on them the same way you would anger issues or other undesirable emotions.
I would agree (if this is what you're implying) that it's vaguely possible that a homogenous group such as "asian women" would dominate the presidency if it were strictly a meritocracy without cultural bias and not a democracy. Homogeneity itself is not the issue.
Certain demographics represent certain aspects of society broadly because of overrepresentation. And that js perfectly fine, if power structures don't disadvantage other demographics because of that overrepresentation. Like I said, there are so many people nowadays, it's almost impossible not to find someone qualified even inter demographic cluster.
The actual worst thing of all is that we have to divide "people" into demographic clusters because of all these different aspects of society that exert power over one another. But it's also baked into our genetics sadly, which I'm actually quite okay with. I don't particularly care of I'm stupider than the next guy. I don't particularly care that I'm physically weaker than someone else, or have a tendency towards early dementia or cancer or substance abuse. It's part of the hand you're dealt.
I do care, however, that we have systems in place that try to enforce situations to be a "certain way", when all the lessons we've learned lately as humans is that being human is an ever shifting dynamic thing and absolutely not based on absolutisms. It's time we grew up, really.
On October 31 2024 06:34 Fleetfeet wrote: First and foremost - Thanks, Vindicare, for your commentary a few pages back. I appreciate where your head is at on the subject even though there isn't anything particular I want to comment on.
On October 31 2024 04:40 BlackJack wrote:
On October 31 2024 02:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On October 31 2024 01:50 BlackJack wrote: In my analogy you’re not drafting “some white kid that can’t play ball."
On October 30 2024 17:51 BlackJack wrote: Do you think if that white player doesn’t play very well
Do you think this is some kind of contradiction? There’s lots of nba players that are trash compared to the superstars. That doesn’t make them unqualified for the NBA.
It’s consistently you making the strawman that Kamala Harris is unqualified. Turbolover even searched my posts to look for evidence of your claims that I’ve repeatedly called Kamala an unqualified DEI hire and he found nothing of the sort.
One, Turbolover just looked for you using specific phrases, which was the subject at the time. This is a stretch of truth or misunderstanding on your part that isn't wholly uncommon.
On October 30 2024 14:28 BlackJack wrote: I actually don't disagree with Fleetfeet that "DEI Hire" is used as a pejorative dog whistle towards black people. That's why I've tried to avoid using it. But evidently it doesn't matter if I avoid using it because they will start using it, insist I'm the one using it, and then imply I'm racist for using it.
Worth noting - I never claimed it was a perjorative dogwhistle towards black people, never used the phrase "DEI Hire" afaik (though for clarity not because I avoided doing so but because it's uncommon vocab for me and I don't know the nuance between DEI Hire / diversity hire / DEI etc) and also never insisted that you're using specifically those phrases nor are racist for using them.
Also, thank you for informing me that it's a perjorative dogwhistle towards black people. In my circles 'diversity hire' leans more towards 'underqualified ethnic female' than specifically black people. I will stop using that phrase!
Regardless, I'm not that interested in that. What confuses me is that as part of your opposition to hiring with consideration to race and sex seems to deny that there are racist and sexist tendencies built within our structures. Sure 'forced diversity' is fucked if you remove the context that the opposite has historically been true. Your NBA analogy would be interesting if the general populace voted in drafts, so we could see that racism and sexism be systematically enacted in vote. The NBA isn't a democracy, it's a meritocracy, and so you see that reflected in its statistics. Do you believe that the position of president in the US is also a meritocracy and you've had 44 white dudes (?) because they're the GOAT?
It's funny that you would mention the NBA, which seems to me to be a strikingly homogenous group of people in terms of race and social background. Contrary to what you are saying, I'd say that in meritocratic environments you tend to get homogeneous types of people on the top. In the NBA, most players are African Americans. In the math olympiad, the US team is mostly male asian Americans.
This probably has to do with deeply rooted cultural preferences and differences between groups more than anything else. Groups are very different. Maybe there aren't many black women who are top legal scholars? Just like there aren't many black women in the math olympiad or among the chess grand masters. None of these things are necessarily because of racism.
I don't see how this is contrary, and I agree that none of these things are necessarily because of racism.
I don't see it as contrary because I'm saying they're not the same structures and aren't comparable. You can currently say "Black men dominate the NBA playerbase because they are generally better at the sport" and can look at the organic development of the league and prioritization of the best players. I don't believe you can currently say "White men dominate the position of presidency of the US because they are generally better leaders" because there hasn't been equal opportunity historically and this trend is likely a reflection of both sexist and racist undertones in the general consciousness of the nation.
And before anyone goes "Waaah Fleetfeet called me a racist", please remember that I'm approaching from the position that effectively everyone is sexist and xenophobic because we're all humans and that's how humans function, and I'm not calling anyone 'a racist'. I still do have and historically have had sexist tendencies, as well as racist tendencies. People have biases. Be aware of them and work on them the same way you would anger issues or other undesirable emotions.
I would agree (if this is what you're implying) that it's vaguely possible that a homogenous group such as "asian women" would dominate the presidency if it were strictly a meritocracy without cultural bias and not a democracy. Homogeneity itself is not the issue.
I don't see how that it is though. What's so special about Asian Women that would make them more suitable to the office of President of the United States than any other group?
We can't even come to a consensus about what makes a good president since the role is so multi-faceted. A man that might be excellent in one area of the job might be horrible at another. People gotta remember that the President is both Commander in Chief AND the Head of State. That's a widly broad range of roles to fill for just one person.
The truth is I think we judge Presidencies primarily based on how they handle crisis and i don't think there's any particular homogenous group of people that handle crisis better than any other, especially since even the word "crisis" can mean anything from War, to a global Pandemic to a series of hurricanes, to a financial disaster.
So i don't see a single group of people that are more suited to the job than another. What we need or want from the office of President changes as often as who holds it.
On October 31 2024 06:34 Fleetfeet wrote: First and foremost - Thanks, Vindicare, for your commentary a few pages back. I appreciate where your head is at on the subject even though there isn't anything particular I want to comment on.
On October 31 2024 04:40 BlackJack wrote:
On October 31 2024 02:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On October 31 2024 01:50 BlackJack wrote: In my analogy you’re not drafting “some white kid that can’t play ball."
On October 30 2024 17:51 BlackJack wrote: Do you think if that white player doesn’t play very well
Do you think this is some kind of contradiction? There’s lots of nba players that are trash compared to the superstars. That doesn’t make them unqualified for the NBA.
It’s consistently you making the strawman that Kamala Harris is unqualified. Turbolover even searched my posts to look for evidence of your claims that I’ve repeatedly called Kamala an unqualified DEI hire and he found nothing of the sort.
One, Turbolover just looked for you using specific phrases, which was the subject at the time. This is a stretch of truth or misunderstanding on your part that isn't wholly uncommon.
On October 30 2024 14:28 BlackJack wrote: I actually don't disagree with Fleetfeet that "DEI Hire" is used as a pejorative dog whistle towards black people. That's why I've tried to avoid using it. But evidently it doesn't matter if I avoid using it because they will start using it, insist I'm the one using it, and then imply I'm racist for using it.
Worth noting - I never claimed it was a perjorative dogwhistle towards black people, never used the phrase "DEI Hire" afaik (though for clarity not because I avoided doing so but because it's uncommon vocab for me and I don't know the nuance between DEI Hire / diversity hire / DEI etc) and also never insisted that you're using specifically those phrases nor are racist for using them.
Also, thank you for informing me that it's a perjorative dogwhistle towards black people. In my circles 'diversity hire' leans more towards 'underqualified ethnic female' than specifically black people. I will stop using that phrase!
Regardless, I'm not that interested in that. What confuses me is that as part of your opposition to hiring with consideration to race and sex seems to deny that there are racist and sexist tendencies built within our structures. Sure 'forced diversity' is fucked if you remove the context that the opposite has historically been true. Your NBA analogy would be interesting if the general populace voted in drafts, so we could see that racism and sexism be systematically enacted in vote. The NBA isn't a democracy, it's a meritocracy, and so you see that reflected in its statistics. Do you believe that the position of president in the US is also a meritocracy and you've had 44 white dudes (?) because they're the GOAT?
It's funny that you would mention the NBA, which seems to me to be a strikingly homogenous group of people in terms of race and social background. Contrary to what you are saying, I'd say that in meritocratic environments you tend to get homogeneous types of people on the top. In the NBA, most players are African Americans. In the math olympiad, the US team is mostly male asian Americans.
This probably has to do with deeply rooted cultural preferences and differences between groups more than anything else. Groups are very different. Maybe there aren't many black women who are top legal scholars? Just like there aren't many black women in the math olympiad or among the chess grand masters. None of these things are necessarily because of racism.
I don't see how this is contrary, and I agree that none of these things are necessarily because of racism.
I don't see it as contrary because I'm saying they're not the same structures and aren't comparable. You can currently say "Black men dominate the NBA playerbase because they are generally better at the sport" and can look at the organic development of the league and prioritization of the best players. I don't believe you can currently say "White men dominate the position of presidency of the US because they are generally better leaders" because there hasn't been equal opportunity historically and this trend is likely a reflection of both sexist and racist undertones in the general consciousness of the nation.
And before anyone goes "Waaah Fleetfeet called me a racist", please remember that I'm approaching from the position that effectively everyone is sexist and xenophobic because we're all humans and that's how humans function, and I'm not calling anyone 'a racist'. I still do have and historically have had sexist tendencies, as well as racist tendencies. People have biases. Be aware of them and work on them the same way you would anger issues or other undesirable emotions.
I would agree (if this is what you're implying) that it's vaguely possible that a homogenous group such as "asian women" would dominate the presidency if it were strictly a meritocracy without cultural bias and not a democracy. Homogeneity itself is not the issue.
I don't see how that it is though. What's so special about Asian Women that would make them more suitable to the office of President of the United States than any other group?
We can't even come to a consensus about what makes a good president since the role is so multi-faceted. A man that might be excellent in one area of the job might be horrible at another. People gotta remember that the President is both Commander in Chief AND the Head of State. That's a widly broad range of roles to fill for just one person.
The truth is I think we judge Presidencies primarily based on how they handle crisis and i don't think there's any particular homogenous group of people that handle crisis better than any other, especially since even the word "crisis" can mean anything from War, to a global Pandemic to a series of hurricanes, to a financial disaster.
So i don't see a single group of people that are more suited to the job than another. What we need or want from the office of President changes as often as who holds it.
I was merely appealing to the idea that homogeneity itself isn't at issue and POTUS could be a homogenous group if assignment of the POTUS was a meritocracy. It isn't a meritocracy so the current homogeny is produced by other means.
I don't think asian women should be president for the rest of time, I'm saying "If POTUS was a meritocracy and there was a largely homogenous result then sure I suppose that's that :shrug emoji:"
On October 31 2024 06:34 Fleetfeet wrote: First and foremost - Thanks, Vindicare, for your commentary a few pages back. I appreciate where your head is at on the subject even though there isn't anything particular I want to comment on.
On October 31 2024 04:40 BlackJack wrote:
On October 31 2024 02:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On October 31 2024 01:50 BlackJack wrote: In my analogy you’re not drafting “some white kid that can’t play ball."
On October 30 2024 17:51 BlackJack wrote: Do you think if that white player doesn’t play very well
Do you think this is some kind of contradiction? There’s lots of nba players that are trash compared to the superstars. That doesn’t make them unqualified for the NBA.
It’s consistently you making the strawman that Kamala Harris is unqualified. Turbolover even searched my posts to look for evidence of your claims that I’ve repeatedly called Kamala an unqualified DEI hire and he found nothing of the sort.
One, Turbolover just looked for you using specific phrases, which was the subject at the time. This is a stretch of truth or misunderstanding on your part that isn't wholly uncommon.
On October 30 2024 14:28 BlackJack wrote: I actually don't disagree with Fleetfeet that "DEI Hire" is used as a pejorative dog whistle towards black people. That's why I've tried to avoid using it. But evidently it doesn't matter if I avoid using it because they will start using it, insist I'm the one using it, and then imply I'm racist for using it.
Worth noting - I never claimed it was a perjorative dogwhistle towards black people, never used the phrase "DEI Hire" afaik (though for clarity not because I avoided doing so but because it's uncommon vocab for me and I don't know the nuance between DEI Hire / diversity hire / DEI etc) and also never insisted that you're using specifically those phrases nor are racist for using them.
Also, thank you for informing me that it's a perjorative dogwhistle towards black people. In my circles 'diversity hire' leans more towards 'underqualified ethnic female' than specifically black people. I will stop using that phrase!
Regardless, I'm not that interested in that. What confuses me is that as part of your opposition to hiring with consideration to race and sex seems to deny that there are racist and sexist tendencies built within our structures. Sure 'forced diversity' is fucked if you remove the context that the opposite has historically been true. Your NBA analogy would be interesting if the general populace voted in drafts, so we could see that racism and sexism be systematically enacted in vote. The NBA isn't a democracy, it's a meritocracy, and so you see that reflected in its statistics. Do you believe that the position of president in the US is also a meritocracy and you've had 44 white dudes (?) because they're the GOAT?
It's funny that you would mention the NBA, which seems to me to be a strikingly homogenous group of people in terms of race and social background. Contrary to what you are saying, I'd say that in meritocratic environments you tend to get homogeneous types of people on the top. In the NBA, most players are African Americans. In the math olympiad, the US team is mostly male asian Americans.
This probably has to do with deeply rooted cultural preferences and differences between groups more than anything else. Groups are very different. Maybe there aren't many black women who are top legal scholars? Just like there aren't many black women in the math olympiad or among the chess grand masters. None of these things are necessarily because of racism.
I don't see how this is contrary, and I agree that none of these things are necessarily because of racism.
I don't see it as contrary because I'm saying they're not the same structures and aren't comparable. You can currently say "Black men dominate the NBA playerbase because they are generally better at the sport" and can look at the organic development of the league and prioritization of the best players. I don't believe you can currently say "White men dominate the position of presidency of the US because they are generally better leaders" because there hasn't been equal opportunity historically and this trend is likely a reflection of both sexist and racist undertones in the general consciousness of the nation.
And before anyone goes "Waaah Fleetfeet called me a racist", please remember that I'm approaching from the position that effectively everyone is sexist and xenophobic because we're all humans and that's how humans function, and I'm not calling anyone 'a racist'. I still do have and historically have had sexist tendencies, as well as racist tendencies. People have biases. Be aware of them and work on them the same way you would anger issues or other undesirable emotions.
I would agree (if this is what you're implying) that it's vaguely possible that a homogenous group such as "asian women" would dominate the presidency if it were strictly a meritocracy without cultural bias and not a democracy. Homogeneity itself is not the issue.
I don't see how that it is though. What's so special about Asian Women that would make them more suitable to the office of President of the United States than any other group?
We can't even come to a consensus about what makes a good president since the role is so multi-faceted. A man that might be excellent in one area of the job might be horrible at another. People gotta remember that the President is both Commander in Chief AND the Head of State. That's a widly broad range of roles to fill for just one person.
The truth is I think we judge Presidencies primarily based on how they handle crisis and i don't think there's any particular homogenous group of people that handle crisis better than any other, especially since even the word "crisis" can mean anything from War, to a global Pandemic to a series of hurricanes, to a financial disaster.
So i don't see a single group of people that are more suited to the job than another. What we need or want from the office of President changes as often as who holds it.
I was merely appealing to the idea that homogeneity itself isn't at issue and POTUS could be a homogenous group if assignment of the POTUS was a meritocracy. It isn't a meritocracy so the current homogeny is produced by other means.
I don't think asian women should be president for the rest of time, I'm saying "If POTUS was a meritocracy and there was a largely homogenous result then sure I suppose that's that :shrug emoji:"
Yea I figured that you were just using Asian Women as an example.
I think we're saying the same thing then. The President of the United States isn't a meritocratic office, since we don't have anywhere close to a consensus of what qualifies someone as a good president or not.
I think it's impossible to come to such a consensus too since the job is so multi-faceted.
Holy crap. This is such a great post from Former Republican Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's long so I'll leave it in spoiler quotes.
I don’t really do endorsements. I’m not shy about sharing my views, but I hate politics and don’t trust most politicians.
I also understand that people want to hear from me because I am not just a celebrity, I am a former Republican Governor.
My time as Governor taught me to love policy and ignore politics. I’m proud of the work I did to help clean up our air, create jobs, balance the budget, make the biggest infrastructure investment in state history, and take power from the politicians and give it back to the people when it comes to our redistricting process and our primaries in California.
That’s policy. It requires working with the other side, not insulting them to win your next election, and I know it isn’t sexy to most people, but I love it when I can help make people’s lives better with policies, like I still do through my institute at USC, where we fight for clean air and stripping the power from the politicians who rig the system against the people.
Let me be honest with you: I don’t like either party right now. My Republicans have forgotten the beauty of the free market, driven up deficits, and rejected election results. Democrats aren’t any better at dealing with deficits, and I worry about their local policies hurting our cities with increased crime.
It is probably not a surprise that I hate politics more than ever, which, if you are a normal person who isn’t addicted to this crap, you probably understand.
I want to tune out.
But I can’t. Because rejecting the results of an election is as un-American as it gets. To someone like me who talks to people all over the world and still knows America is the shining city on a hill, calling America is a trash can for the world is so unpatriotic, it makes me furious.
And I will always be an American before I am a Republican.
That’s why, this week, I am voting for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.
I’m sharing it with all of you because I think there are a lot of you who feel like I do. You don’t recognize our country. And you are right to be furious.
For decades, we’ve talked about the national debt. For decades, we’ve talked about comprehensive immigration reform that secures the border while fixing our broken immigration system. And Washington does nothing.
The problems just keep rolling, and we all keep getting angrier, because the only people that benefit from problems aren’t you, the people. The only people that benefit from this crap are the politicians who prefer having talking points to win elections to the public service that will make Americans’ lives better.
It is a just game to them. But it is life for my fellow Americans. We should be pissed!
But a candidate who won’t respect your vote unless it is for him, a candidate who will send his followers to storm the Capitol while he watches with a Diet Coke, a candidate who has shown no ability to work to pass any policy besides a tax cut that helped his donors and other rich people like me but helped no one else else, a candidate who thinks Americans who disagree with him are the bigger enemies than China, Russia, or North Korea - that won’t solve our problems.
It will just be four more years of bullshit with no results that makes us angrier and angrier, more divided, and more hateful.
We need to close the door on this chapter of American history, and I know that former President Trump won’t do that. He will divide, he will insult, he will find new ways to be more un-American than he already has been, and we, the people, will get nothing but more anger.
That’s enough reason for me to share my vote with all of you. I want to move forward as a country, and even though I have plenty of disagreements with their platform, I think the only way to do that is with Harris and Walz.
Vote this week. Turn the page and put this junk behind us.
And even if you disagree with me, vote, because that’s what we do as Americans. http://vote.org
Also pointing out that there is a difference in policy and politics is great.
Trump will play golf, hold rallies and do what he is asked, if it only takes him to sign stuff. Like appointing judges that will do the legwork for his donors.
On October 31 2024 18:12 Gorsameth wrote: A great post from Arnold indeed. People are right to be angry but Trump will only make things much worse, not better.
I have to say that GW Bush far worse for far more people. He basicly killed 800.000 people in iraq over made up reasons.
Trump is a disgusting person, but as a policy maker he is basicly inert. He doesn't know how, so he doesn't achieve lasting change.
He is a vehicle to get nutjob judges into lifetime appointments and take away the last bits of influence that voters have on policy, because now lawyers can manufacture cases that have wide ranging implications, while policy is held up in the two parties move at glacier speeds.
There are many topics that aren't touched, despite voters of both parties would pretty much agree instantly.
For example: Even more transparency laws regarding stock trading for elected officials..or even BAN on elected officials and their contacts trading stock
On October 31 2024 18:16 KT_Elwood wrote: Arnold, again doing the right thing.
Also pointing out that there is a difference in policy and politics is great.
Trump will play golf, hold rallies and do what he is asked, if it only takes him to sign stuff. Like appointing judges that will do the legwork for his donors.
On October 31 2024 18:12 Gorsameth wrote: A great post from Arnold indeed. People are right to be angry but Trump will only make things much worse, not better.
I have to say that GW Bush far worse for far more people. He basicly killed 800.000 people in iraq over made up reasons.
Trump is a disgusting person, but as a policy maker he is basicly inert. He doesn't know how, so he doesn't achieve lasting change.
He is a vehicle to get nutjob judges into lifetime appointments and take away the last bits of influence that voters have on policy, because now lawyers can manufacture cases that have wide ranging implications, while policy is held up in the two parties move at glacier speeds.
There are many topics that aren't touched, despite voters of both parties would pretty much agree instantly.
For example: Even more transparency laws regarding stock trading for elected officials..or even BAN on elected officials and their contacts trading stock
Bush isn't running. My point (and Arnolds) is that Trump is not going to make things better for the people who are angry.
On October 31 2024 13:31 Vindicare605 wrote: Holy crap. This is such a great post from Former Republican Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's long so I'll leave it in spoiler quotes.
I don’t really do endorsements. I’m not shy about sharing my views, but I hate politics and don’t trust most politicians.
I also understand that people want to hear from me because I am not just a celebrity, I am a former Republican Governor.
My time as Governor taught me to love policy and ignore politics. I’m proud of the work I did to help clean up our air, create jobs, balance the budget, make the biggest infrastructure investment in state history, and take power from the politicians and give it back to the people when it comes to our redistricting process and our primaries in California.
That’s policy. It requires working with the other side, not insulting them to win your next election, and I know it isn’t sexy to most people, but I love it when I can help make people’s lives better with policies, like I still do through my institute at USC, where we fight for clean air and stripping the power from the politicians who rig the system against the people.
Let me be honest with you: I don’t like either party right now. My Republicans have forgotten the beauty of the free market, driven up deficits, and rejected election results. Democrats aren’t any better at dealing with deficits, and I worry about their local policies hurting our cities with increased crime.
It is probably not a surprise that I hate politics more than ever, which, if you are a normal person who isn’t addicted to this crap, you probably understand.
I want to tune out.
But I can’t. Because rejecting the results of an election is as un-American as it gets. To someone like me who talks to people all over the world and still knows America is the shining city on a hill, calling America is a trash can for the world is so unpatriotic, it makes me furious.
And I will always be an American before I am a Republican.
That’s why, this week, I am voting for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.
I’m sharing it with all of you because I think there are a lot of you who feel like I do. You don’t recognize our country. And you are right to be furious.
For decades, we’ve talked about the national debt. For decades, we’ve talked about comprehensive immigration reform that secures the border while fixing our broken immigration system. And Washington does nothing.
The problems just keep rolling, and we all keep getting angrier, because the only people that benefit from problems aren’t you, the people. The only people that benefit from this crap are the politicians who prefer having talking points to win elections to the public service that will make Americans’ lives better.
It is a just game to them. But it is life for my fellow Americans. We should be pissed!
But a candidate who won’t respect your vote unless it is for him, a candidate who will send his followers to storm the Capitol while he watches with a Diet Coke, a candidate who has shown no ability to work to pass any policy besides a tax cut that helped his donors and other rich people like me but helped no one else else, a candidate who thinks Americans who disagree with him are the bigger enemies than China, Russia, or North Korea - that won’t solve our problems.
It will just be four more years of bullshit with no results that makes us angrier and angrier, more divided, and more hateful.
We need to close the door on this chapter of American history, and I know that former President Trump won’t do that. He will divide, he will insult, he will find new ways to be more un-American than he already has been, and we, the people, will get nothing but more anger.
That’s enough reason for me to share my vote with all of you. I want to move forward as a country, and even though I have plenty of disagreements with their platform, I think the only way to do that is with Harris and Walz.
Vote this week. Turn the page and put this junk behind us.
And even if you disagree with me, vote, because that’s what we do as Americans. http://vote.org
On October 31 2024 18:16 KT_Elwood wrote: Arnold, again doing the right thing.
Also pointing out that there is a difference in policy and politics is great.
Trump will play golf, hold rallies and do what he is asked, if it only takes him to sign stuff. Like appointing judges that will do the legwork for his donors.
On October 31 2024 18:12 Gorsameth wrote: A great post from Arnold indeed. People are right to be angry but Trump will only make things much worse, not better.
I have to say that GW Bush far worse for far more people. He basicly killed 800.000 people in iraq over made up reasons.
Trump is a disgusting person, but as a policy maker he is basicly inert. He doesn't know how, so he doesn't achieve lasting change.
He is a vehicle to get nutjob judges into lifetime appointments and take away the last bits of influence that voters have on policy, because now lawyers can manufacture cases that have wide ranging implications, while policy is held up in the two parties move at glacier speeds.
There are many topics that aren't touched, despite voters of both parties would pretty much agree instantly.
For example: Even more transparency laws regarding stock trading for elected officials..or even BAN on elected officials and their contacts trading stock
Bush isn't running. My point (and Arnolds) is that Trump is not going to make things better for the people who are angry.
Agreed. But I wanted to point out that you can have bad policy as a president.. or sink even lower and be the orange faced high-vis jacketed diversion that allows the deconstruction of democracy if only his ego is stroked enough.
On October 31 2024 19:47 Simberto wrote: Schwarzenegger sounds like the kind of person that i would often disagree with politically, but that I could still talk to in a reasonable fashion.
Oh how I pine for those days…
I do wonder what happens in more of the medium thru long-term if Trump gets in again.
It’s one thing for a cycle or two and holding one’s nose. If that happens and somewhat rubber stamps that this pivot is at least semi-permanent, do more moderate conservatives, or your socially liberal fiscal conservative types end up politically homeless?
On October 31 2024 19:47 Simberto wrote: Schwarzenegger sounds like the kind of person that i would often disagree with politically, but that I could still talk to in a reasonable fashion.
Oh how I pine for those days…
I do wonder what happens in more of the medium thru long-term if Trump gets in again.
It’s one thing for a cycle or two and holding one’s nose. If that happens and somewhat rubber stamps that this pivot is at least semi-permanent, do more moderate conservatives, or your socially liberal fiscal conservative types end up politically homeless?
Remember when McCain defended Obama from McCains own supports during their election... god the American right really lost their damn minds when a black man became President.
On October 31 2024 21:42 oBlade wrote: McCain 2008: "He's not a Muslim, he's a good man." Biden 2024: "Garbage" Yeah thanks to the left for keeping the country on an even keel as always.
Please tell me you're joking, considering Trump has made literally hundreds of inappropriate comments much worse than the "Biden garbage" remark. Also, Biden isn't even running for president. Trump and Harris are.
EPT
