|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 19 2025 04:41 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2025 04:16 Excludos wrote:On March 19 2025 03:31 Vindicare605 wrote:On March 19 2025 03:26 WombaT wrote:On March 19 2025 03:10 Excludos wrote:On March 18 2025 11:40 baal wrote:On March 18 2025 10:50 KwarK wrote:On March 18 2025 10:38 baal wrote:On March 18 2025 07:24 KwarK wrote:
Anyone who is only now realizing that DEI means literally anyone not a cis, male, white, christian, able bodied man is the slowest horse in the race. They were not even slightly sublte about it. And anyone who still thinks it's a fringe element using it that way, and not the White House, is slower still. It doesnt mean east asians either since they were not benefited by DEI practices. It's the natual result of any affirmative action program, people will assume that anybody of that benefited group did not earn their position, how about we stop treating races unequally for a change? Hi there slow horse. “DEI” as used by the right has nothing to do with affirmative action or DEI practices. Hopefully that clears it up for you. Could you point out a few instances where east asian men were refered to as DEI hires? About the "slow horse" thing, is ad-hominem cool in this thread? if so things are going to get fun :3 Would like to point out that this isn't ad-hominem. Ad-hominem is a fallacy where your entire argument is a personal attack; "I disagree with you because your face is dumb". Trump, for instance, is pretty good at this. Kwark is explaining his opinions very well, using evidence when available to back up his position. He's going "Your face is dumb and this is why". You can argue that he's being rude, and..yes, he's a total ass most of the time. But at the end of the day, as long as he can articulate his position and explain why he believes something, it's not a fallacy nor ad-hominem. Kwark’s a fan of a good old-fashioned insult, hey maybe too much sometimes but it’s nae an ad-hominem. Along with ‘cognitive dissonance’, argh this is so frequently misapplied! Anyone else got any pet peeves in this domain? Slippery slope has also gotta be up there. Hey off-topic but man this thread is unrelentingly depressing of late, albeit just so it can accurately mirror the state of US politics. There aren't much actual politics to talk about. The Democrats are making sure of that, since they aren't doing anything to stand in the way of Trump advancing whatever agenda he wants. So all of the political news are either about just what the Trump administration is doing, and they don't give a fuck what anyone thinks about what they are doing, or what judge blocked the Trump administration today and how they are retaliating. Congress has essentially allowed themselves to become a complete non entity in the last few months. So the only thing to talk about is how much everyone hates what Trump is doing except it doesn't matter because there isn't anything anyone with any power is willing to do to stop it. Is this another one of those "blaming Democrats for Trump's faults?". What exactly ate you proposing they do? They have, literally, no power in any of the 3 governing branches or the supreme court. You can perhaps blame them for being naive in their campaign, and that's how we ended up here, but blaming Democrats for what Trump is doing has to stop. They can not stop him. The checks and balances are run by Republicans, and they do not give a shit If they could all stop voting for Republican stuff that’d be a nice start
LibHorizons: You telling me you didn't want Democrats to unanimously support the Republican Mr "Oopsie" that co-told Zelensky to get lost after he got a scolding in the oval?!?
I need you to lower your expectations. Democrats don't have control over anything, including their own votes, obviously.
It's not like anyone's provided an alternative approach Democrats and their supporters should be pursuing.
+ Show Spoiler +On March 04 2025 15:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2025 15:08 Turbovolver wrote:On March 04 2025 13:29 Zambrah wrote:
Ive watched a few Hasan videos recently and I dont really think your assertion that he characterizes Russia as anything but the villain in their invasion of Ukraine is correct, in like, any capacity. I will say I always roll my eyes at leftists who instinctually feel the need to defend the Chinese government, but frankly Im not actually educated enough about whats happening their to say anything for certain about it, the Chinese government is certainly capable of doing terrible shit though so I hardly find myself wanting to defend them. + Show Spoiler +Well partially the problem is he says a lot of stupid stuff, and just a lot of stuff in general, so it won't always sit together coherently. I'm sure he's made plenty of comments casting Russia as the villain, but has he not also made plenty of comments essentially blaming the whole thing on NATO aka the US, which culminated in calling it US disinformation that Kyiv would be attacked? Apparently he also said Crimea was a justified invasion, although that one seems greyer to me and I don't wanna take my own turn talking too far out of pocket so I'll leave it at that. To Hasan's credit, I found out looking into this that he raised $200k for Ukraine, which sort of talks louder than any "take" on the issue.
As for the American federal government not killing the slavers and stuff, I'm just gonna have to hard agree with him there assuming he did say that like you're saying he did. I agree. We didnt press our boots down nearly hard enough after the Civil War, we let too many scum fuck monsters not only live, but assume power. I don't really think that killing monstrous oppressors who engaged in one of, if not the most, brutal forms of slavery in human history is a tankie authoritarian type thing to do or believe.
I wasn't objecting to his language there for the US, I don't consider myself informed enough to comment on "how hard" the South was stomped down upon, or should have been. Slavery is fucked though, I can comfortably say that. My objection was to comparing Tibet (and especially Taiwan?!?!) to this. That's the tankie part, as you say, instinctually defending the Chinese government. It's especially weird to me because China's got similar (slightly higher) wealth inequality than a bunch of countries nobody is calling communist (say Australia or the UK), so you don't even get the supposed benefits of communism from the "communist" government. Anyways, that's all academic. The reason for bringing up Hasan was that maybe the people who have acquired a lot of both financial and social influence off of... let's call it praxis... should be the ones escalating when shit is apparently hitting the fan. If the left is to mobilise, and mobilise those not currently committed to their message, this seems to be the angle, not telling people working for the government that they're complicit in whatever Trump or Musk decided to do after the latest three seconds of thought if they don't quit. Maybe Hasan should run, haha. Or be calling for that general strike. I want to be transparent, I'm not going to pretend to be a leftist warrior, but this isn't all some concern troll either. Like, I've already declared myself one of the cowards, and one has to think about their young children when it comes to things like striking, but I'd happily vote for a Sanders or a Corbyn. When it comes to the US, where income inequality is particularly prevalent, a hard kick to the left seems especially needed. This doesn't even need to be achieved from explicitly leftist theory either, like I heard something very interesting about how the unavailability of public transport in a lot of the US hits the poorest people the hardest, who are stuck relying on used cars that are more likely to break down. Better public transport would then be a lever that would remove one of the mechanisms through which poorer people are kept poor. And fuck yes tax the very rich harder to pay for that. On March 04 2025 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:
But yeah, generally speaking, random middle class workers (along with people from every walk of life) will have to risk more than just their jobs to stop the rising tide of fascism in the US and globally. We should all be thankful we're only talking about participating in blogs, electoral planning, and refusing to forward a chain email instead of storming a beach in Normandy or digging a foxhole in Pokrovsk. That's kinda what I'm getting at. Haven't a whole ton of your posts been about how that isn't enough? When you imply people should quit their job because Musk sent a dumb e-mail, you're (again) suggesting the time for talk in corners of the internet is long gone. Blogs and chain e-mails won't cut it, you yourself said this was all needed "yesterday". All GreenHorizons wants to say is "go try socialism locally" and when asked what that looks like says "using a socialist lens to realise that for example health care sucks", but okay, that was the past. LibHorizons is here now. What's LibHorizon's dot points of what a leftist Project 2025 might look like? Seems like it'd do a lot more good than antagonising until political numpties like me are trolled into shitting up the thread. LibHorizons: Beyond what I've already provided + Show Spoiler + primary Democrats that aren't showing sufficient will to fight/oppose the Trump admin's agenda a bit: Not every Democrat needs to be primaried. Those of us in safe blue states with Democrats unlikely to not clear the bar for not being primaried can direct resources toward places where the Democrats do need to be primaried. But we need a reasonably objective way to determine which is which.
Thus far Democrats and their supporters have failed to provide that. I'm open to hearing their ideas, but lacking that, I feel obligated as a progressive to present something that is better than nothing. Sooo...
Having a deliberate and executable plan (with a simple name like "project 2025" or "The New Deal" or whatever) and making support for it be the litmus test. You support it, no primary. You don't support it, you get primaried, and the party doesn't bail you out. The party should let Bernie, AOC, and The Squad lead the way in setting the terms, but they've all shown they can be very reasonable and show deference to the party generally. So it's not as if they would ignore the needs/preferences of the more centrist parts of the party entirely, or even to the degree they've been pushed to the periphery by said centrists. (which is more than anyone else) I'd elaborate by saying: Beyond the basic outline of a plan of how to even get the opportunity to vote for people like Bernie I have provided, I presume you're asking what are Bernie/AOC/The Squad's positions I currently think should take center stage? 1. Medicare for all 2. Green New Deal 3. You can pick There's a process to the electoral system in the US, and part of it is the primary. In order to have someone like Bernie to vote for in a general election against the Republican, they have to win the primary against the Democrats that "aren't willing to fight" sufficiently against the Trump administration's agenda. But to know who those Democrats are we need some sort of fair/honest/objective metric. Since 0 libs/Dems/ilk provided anything resembling such a metric I provided the idea of making it essentially whether or not they supported the aforementioned 3 policies. Winning such a primary also requires spending every possible second developing the opposition campaigns to any of these entrenched Democrats that are collaborating with or appeasing Trump/Musk. Based on how aggressively the libs/Dems/ilk here are refusing to even try to work on how to improve the candidates Democrat voters have to choose from and/or ensure they have legitimate elections to engage in, I can't believe their rhetoric about wanting Democrats to be any better/more than they are being right now. Their inattentiveness is enabling the worst aspects of Democrats (and also the most fascist Republicans).
Or maybe you were talking about Democrats helping Trump take away people's rights?
|
On March 19 2025 04:41 Zambrah wrote:
If they could all stop voting for Republican stuff that’d be a nice start
Impeachment was on the table once.
Anyone know why it isn‘t now ?
Granted, I don‘t think it‘d change much.
The damage became irreparable on his first term.
This is just icing on the cake.
|
Northern Ireland24871 Posts
On March 19 2025 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2025 04:41 Zambrah wrote:On March 19 2025 04:16 Excludos wrote:On March 19 2025 03:31 Vindicare605 wrote:On March 19 2025 03:26 WombaT wrote:On March 19 2025 03:10 Excludos wrote:On March 18 2025 11:40 baal wrote:On March 18 2025 10:50 KwarK wrote:On March 18 2025 10:38 baal wrote:On March 18 2025 07:24 KwarK wrote:
Anyone who is only now realizing that DEI means literally anyone not a cis, male, white, christian, able bodied man is the slowest horse in the race. They were not even slightly sublte about it. And anyone who still thinks it's a fringe element using it that way, and not the White House, is slower still. It doesnt mean east asians either since they were not benefited by DEI practices. It's the natual result of any affirmative action program, people will assume that anybody of that benefited group did not earn their position, how about we stop treating races unequally for a change? Hi there slow horse. “DEI” as used by the right has nothing to do with affirmative action or DEI practices. Hopefully that clears it up for you. Could you point out a few instances where east asian men were refered to as DEI hires? About the "slow horse" thing, is ad-hominem cool in this thread? if so things are going to get fun :3 Would like to point out that this isn't ad-hominem. Ad-hominem is a fallacy where your entire argument is a personal attack; "I disagree with you because your face is dumb". Trump, for instance, is pretty good at this. Kwark is explaining his opinions very well, using evidence when available to back up his position. He's going "Your face is dumb and this is why". You can argue that he's being rude, and..yes, he's a total ass most of the time. But at the end of the day, as long as he can articulate his position and explain why he believes something, it's not a fallacy nor ad-hominem. Kwark’s a fan of a good old-fashioned insult, hey maybe too much sometimes but it’s nae an ad-hominem. Along with ‘cognitive dissonance’, argh this is so frequently misapplied! Anyone else got any pet peeves in this domain? Slippery slope has also gotta be up there. Hey off-topic but man this thread is unrelentingly depressing of late, albeit just so it can accurately mirror the state of US politics. There aren't much actual politics to talk about. The Democrats are making sure of that, since they aren't doing anything to stand in the way of Trump advancing whatever agenda he wants. So all of the political news are either about just what the Trump administration is doing, and they don't give a fuck what anyone thinks about what they are doing, or what judge blocked the Trump administration today and how they are retaliating. Congress has essentially allowed themselves to become a complete non entity in the last few months. So the only thing to talk about is how much everyone hates what Trump is doing except it doesn't matter because there isn't anything anyone with any power is willing to do to stop it. Is this another one of those "blaming Democrats for Trump's faults?". What exactly ate you proposing they do? They have, literally, no power in any of the 3 governing branches or the supreme court. You can perhaps blame them for being naive in their campaign, and that's how we ended up here, but blaming Democrats for what Trump is doing has to stop. They can not stop him. The checks and balances are run by Republicans, and they do not give a shit If they could all stop voting for Republican stuff that’d be a nice start LibHorizons: You telling me you didn't want Democrats to unanimously support the Republican Mr "Oopsie" that co-told Zelensky to get lost after he got a scolding in the oval?!? I need you to lower your expectations. Democrats don't have control over anything, including their own votes, obviously. It's not like anyone's provided an alternative approach Democrats and their supporters should be pursuing. + Show Spoiler +On March 04 2025 15:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2025 15:08 Turbovolver wrote:On March 04 2025 13:29 Zambrah wrote:
Ive watched a few Hasan videos recently and I dont really think your assertion that he characterizes Russia as anything but the villain in their invasion of Ukraine is correct, in like, any capacity. I will say I always roll my eyes at leftists who instinctually feel the need to defend the Chinese government, but frankly Im not actually educated enough about whats happening their to say anything for certain about it, the Chinese government is certainly capable of doing terrible shit though so I hardly find myself wanting to defend them. + Show Spoiler +Well partially the problem is he says a lot of stupid stuff, and just a lot of stuff in general, so it won't always sit together coherently. I'm sure he's made plenty of comments casting Russia as the villain, but has he not also made plenty of comments essentially blaming the whole thing on NATO aka the US, which culminated in calling it US disinformation that Kyiv would be attacked? Apparently he also said Crimea was a justified invasion, although that one seems greyer to me and I don't wanna take my own turn talking too far out of pocket so I'll leave it at that. To Hasan's credit, I found out looking into this that he raised $200k for Ukraine, which sort of talks louder than any "take" on the issue.
As for the American federal government not killing the slavers and stuff, I'm just gonna have to hard agree with him there assuming he did say that like you're saying he did. I agree. We didnt press our boots down nearly hard enough after the Civil War, we let too many scum fuck monsters not only live, but assume power. I don't really think that killing monstrous oppressors who engaged in one of, if not the most, brutal forms of slavery in human history is a tankie authoritarian type thing to do or believe.
I wasn't objecting to his language there for the US, I don't consider myself informed enough to comment on "how hard" the South was stomped down upon, or should have been. Slavery is fucked though, I can comfortably say that. My objection was to comparing Tibet (and especially Taiwan?!?!) to this. That's the tankie part, as you say, instinctually defending the Chinese government. It's especially weird to me because China's got similar (slightly higher) wealth inequality than a bunch of countries nobody is calling communist (say Australia or the UK), so you don't even get the supposed benefits of communism from the "communist" government. Anyways, that's all academic. The reason for bringing up Hasan was that maybe the people who have acquired a lot of both financial and social influence off of... let's call it praxis... should be the ones escalating when shit is apparently hitting the fan. If the left is to mobilise, and mobilise those not currently committed to their message, this seems to be the angle, not telling people working for the government that they're complicit in whatever Trump or Musk decided to do after the latest three seconds of thought if they don't quit. Maybe Hasan should run, haha. Or be calling for that general strike. I want to be transparent, I'm not going to pretend to be a leftist warrior, but this isn't all some concern troll either. Like, I've already declared myself one of the cowards, and one has to think about their young children when it comes to things like striking, but I'd happily vote for a Sanders or a Corbyn. When it comes to the US, where income inequality is particularly prevalent, a hard kick to the left seems especially needed. This doesn't even need to be achieved from explicitly leftist theory either, like I heard something very interesting about how the unavailability of public transport in a lot of the US hits the poorest people the hardest, who are stuck relying on used cars that are more likely to break down. Better public transport would then be a lever that would remove one of the mechanisms through which poorer people are kept poor. And fuck yes tax the very rich harder to pay for that. On March 04 2025 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:
But yeah, generally speaking, random middle class workers (along with people from every walk of life) will have to risk more than just their jobs to stop the rising tide of fascism in the US and globally. We should all be thankful we're only talking about participating in blogs, electoral planning, and refusing to forward a chain email instead of storming a beach in Normandy or digging a foxhole in Pokrovsk. That's kinda what I'm getting at. Haven't a whole ton of your posts been about how that isn't enough? When you imply people should quit their job because Musk sent a dumb e-mail, you're (again) suggesting the time for talk in corners of the internet is long gone. Blogs and chain e-mails won't cut it, you yourself said this was all needed "yesterday". All GreenHorizons wants to say is "go try socialism locally" and when asked what that looks like says "using a socialist lens to realise that for example health care sucks", but okay, that was the past. LibHorizons is here now. What's LibHorizon's dot points of what a leftist Project 2025 might look like? Seems like it'd do a lot more good than antagonising until political numpties like me are trolled into shitting up the thread. LibHorizons: Beyond what I've already provided + Show Spoiler + primary Democrats that aren't showing sufficient will to fight/oppose the Trump admin's agenda a bit: Not every Democrat needs to be primaried. Those of us in safe blue states with Democrats unlikely to not clear the bar for not being primaried can direct resources toward places where the Democrats do need to be primaried. But we need a reasonably objective way to determine which is which.
Thus far Democrats and their supporters have failed to provide that. I'm open to hearing their ideas, but lacking that, I feel obligated as a progressive to present something that is better than nothing. Sooo...
Having a deliberate and executable plan (with a simple name like "project 2025" or "The New Deal" or whatever) and making support for it be the litmus test. You support it, no primary. You don't support it, you get primaried, and the party doesn't bail you out. The party should let Bernie, AOC, and The Squad lead the way in setting the terms, but they've all shown they can be very reasonable and show deference to the party generally. So it's not as if they would ignore the needs/preferences of the more centrist parts of the party entirely, or even to the degree they've been pushed to the periphery by said centrists. (which is more than anyone else) I'd elaborate by saying: Beyond the basic outline of a plan of how to even get the opportunity to vote for people like Bernie I have provided, I presume you're asking what are Bernie/AOC/The Squad's positions I currently think should take center stage? 1. Medicare for all 2. Green New Deal 3. You can pick There's a process to the electoral system in the US, and part of it is the primary. In order to have someone like Bernie to vote for in a general election against the Republican, they have to win the primary against the Democrats that "aren't willing to fight" sufficiently against the Trump administration's agenda. But to know who those Democrats are we need some sort of fair/honest/objective metric. Since 0 libs/Dems/ilk provided anything resembling such a metric I provided the idea of making it essentially whether or not they supported the aforementioned 3 policies. Winning such a primary also requires spending every possible second developing the opposition campaigns to any of these entrenched Democrats that are collaborating with or appeasing Trump/Musk. Based on how aggressively the libs/Dems/ilk here are refusing to even try to work on how to improve the candidates Democrat voters have to choose from and/or ensure they have legitimate elections to engage in, I can't believe their rhetoric about wanting Democrats to be any better/more than they are being right now. Their inattentiveness is enabling the worst aspects of Democrats (and also the most fascist Republicans). Or maybe you were talking about Democrats helping Trump take away people's rights?
Hey don’t forget this one
Preposterous shower of cunts this lot.
We all know what this is a response to, and we also know why an Irish government that was one of the most most vocal in condemning Israeli conduct in recent times isn’t in the firing lines. Or us Northerners who had several parties boycott the Saint Paddy’s day shindig over in Washington. Feels like we’re actively begging ‘hurt me daddy, please and the rude bastards just won’t oblige!
Tangential rant aside, for fuck’s sake. At least Hitler vaguely tried his hand at deception, and at least Neville Chamberlain had the somewhat understandable desire to make ‘The War to End All Wars’ be an accurate moniker.
Just what are Schumer et al even playing at? One of Biden’s ostensible strengths was being that guy who was congenial and could cross the aisle and we saw how that went.
|
On March 19 2025 05:18 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2025 04:41 Zambrah wrote:
If they could all stop voting for Republican stuff that’d be a nice start Impeachment was on the table once. Anyone know why it isn‘t now ? Granted, I don‘t think it‘d change much. The damage became irreparable on his first term. This is just icing on the cake. Impeachment requires a Democratic House and Senate because we all know Republicans would never even entertain the thought.
We know that because they did it twice already...
|
On March 18 2025 20:36 EnDeR_ wrote:
I would agree that admissions policy is controversial and arguments can be made in both directions. I wouldn't mind hearing your suggestions on how you can bridge the attainment gap between wealthier students and non-wealthy students.
Slight tangent, but one way that we can positively impact outcomes on minorities in the modern US education system is by making tuition more risk-free. In other words, I think it is more important to mitigate damage being done and already having been done to minority (and ideally all) college students, than it is to fix the admissions standards as they are now. We are throwing a party, and we need to put out the fire burning inside the building before we worry about the guest list.
When I was in college, I took a fantastic course called Psychosocial Foundations of Health and Medicine. While the majority of the content focused on stuff like the socioeconomic determinants of health outcomes, we did also explore the unique pressures faced by rural, indigenous, and low-income individuals who attend college. Affirmative action has given those individuals a greater opportunity to attend college, but this has proven to be a double-edged sword. In their quest to accept a greater amount of certain minorities by overlooking poorer academic performance, many individuals have been doomed to insurmountable debt without receiving the benefits of their education. For instance, and this is my recalling statistics from 7 years ago so there is absolutely room for error, upwards of 50% of Native American women (may have been specifically Alaskan Natives) do not complete their college education. The number was something like 25-33% for Hispanic women. These numbers have been rising, both in terms of % and absolute numbers, and affirmative action is undoubtedly a contributing factor for this increase.
The major contributing reasons to those individuals' failure included childbirth, poor academic performance, and financial pressures (often from family). They are still on the hook for the loans they took out to attend college. So, they get almost none of the benefit, and all of the detriment. With such high drop out rates, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that this has negatively impacted many minority individuals and entire communities in a negative way.
So, what to do? You can't really say "we're no longer willing to believe in the academic performance of Alaskan Native women because 50% of them end up dozens of thousands of dollars in debt with nothing to show for it." Making underprivileged women sign a eugenic "I promise not to have babies while in college" contract is obviously out of the question.
I think that outside of the aforementioned "bottom-up" approach, the only solution is to mitigate the inherent risk of going to college. Looser requirements for degrees and credits. Partial refunds for premature cancelation of tuition and academic loans. Free re-attempts at courses dropped half-way through due to significant life events like childbirth, the death of a familial breadwinner, etc. Discarding college performance metrics like % of students graduating in 4 years, drop out rates, etc. when determining the performance of the college (and only using them for increased funding considerations). Loans scaling with inflation, with lower interest rates, and loans which only start gathering interest upon employment post-college, and garnished as a scaled percentage of income minus living expenses. Expanding loan forgiveness to include professions which are in demand and in areas where they are demanded, such as the disproportionate need for rural doctors over urban practitioners. After a certain percentage of the principal is repaid and a certain duration of time has passed, loan forgiveness (say, inflation-adjusted 120% over 20 years). Furthermore, we could incentivize trade schools and apprenticeships as viable alternatives, because lord knows we have too many undergraduate degree holders struggling to find jobs in low demand high supply fields. There are dozens of smaller changes like these which would be more palatable to Americans at large than universal loan forgiveness or tuition-free college, though those two would probably be ideal world scenarios (depending on implementation, of course).
In summary, I believe that we must address the disproportionately negative impact that college tuition and loans can have on underprivileged people before we can determine what metrics to use to determine their eligibility for college. If we manage to fix the system in such a way that we are able to see who can actually succeed within this fairer system, we will have a better idea of which metrics lead to success without external factors at play.
|
On March 19 2025 01:00 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2025 23:15 Billyboy wrote:On March 18 2025 15:34 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 18 2025 11:46 baal wrote:On March 18 2025 11:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Academic researchers and Democrats tend to use "DEI" in the original, intended manner: promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, to ensure that unqualified white people (especially straight/cis men) aren't given preferential treatment over qualified minorities. In other words, it's used to combat discrimination. (This is generally a good thing. Have there been fringe examples of overcorrection, such as the occasional ones that BlackJack has pointed out? Sure.)
On the other hand, Republicans have been coopting the term to perpetuate discrimination, not reduce it. They've turned DEI into a boogeyman that can be blamed for anything and everything, and then they try to scapegoat minorities so that they can more easily push their white nationalist agenda. KwarK and others have given several examples of this recently, and it's vile and disgusting. Since many conservatives start with the premise that people of color and women and LGBTQ+ members are innately inferior, it resonates with them when Trump and other Republican leaders dismiss all minorities (even qualified ones doing jobs that they're experts in) as illegitimate DEI hires. They use DEI as a racist, sexist dogwhistle - a call to action, to despise and invalidate someone who doesn't look like them. That was not how DEI was applied though, it wasn't through "blind tests/interviews" it was in fact the opposite where race, gender and sexuality was important for hiring practices, for example in Ivy league admission the requirements were vastly different asians being negatively impacted the most. Yes republicans use DEI as a racist dog whistle, and they will keep doing that as long as democrats keep pushing affirmative action programs. If you want people to stop assuming minorities are under-qualified stop creating asymmetric hiring practices by race and conduct blind ones instead. It's odd that you say this. I work at a prestigious higher education institution, let's call it a fortress of wokesitude, and this has not been my experience in the slightest. The DEI initiative pushed by the department was always centred on removing bias from hiring practices. We had to go do a bunch of training and lots of sessions about unconscious bias. We had stuff like 'dont judge people based on how they look' with hamfisted examples like showing the picture of some normal looking white man and asking us what profession we thought they had (spoilers it was a serial killer), and then one of a scruffy looking black man (spoilers doctor). We also had multiple choice questions like 'Latifa, a black mother of three and Jack, a married white man, are applying for the same post. Who should get it?' A. We must increase representation, so Latifa should get it. B. The most qualified candidate should get it. (In case it wasn't clear, this was the correct answer). I think part of the problem with DEI is well there are stats to indicate that it actually helps production, outside of sales where you draw really direct lines, the why it is working is quite nebulous. I often here some sort of wordy explanation about how different people solve things differently blah blah. I think it might be simple enough that when DEI is done properly you are simply hiring the best candidates instead of mediocre ones that fit the traditional look. That is not to say that BJ's examples and frustrations do not happen ever. It is just that they are the niche cases no symptomatic of some massive problem. Every change has new issues, it is just overall was it better before or now. For the business and under represented groups it is better, for the over represented groups it is worse. The point of the vast majority of DEI initiatives is to eliminate bias from the selection process. In fact, people driving these programmes in my experience make the very specific point that you shouldn't be hiring someone because of their background but rather because they're the most qualified candidate. That means thinking critically about why you selected a particular candidate during the hiring process. I've been in a hiring round where we had a really nice white bloke, but rather inexperienced vs a significantly more qualified candidate, but she was perceived as 'bitchy' and 'harder to work with' by a senior panel member (actual words used during the actual meeting). The HR person over-ruled the senior panel member and we ended up with the better candidate, but this kind of illustrated to me how we got to the situation we currently are. I believe strongly than when trying to solve technical problems, access to a wider variety of perspectives and approaches is likely to reach a more optimal solution. I also think that working in a multicultural environment makes for a much more dynamic workplace where you learn a lot more than just the job you're doing, which makes you happier and more productive (personal experience).
I do not disagree with your third paragraph. I just feel like the 2nd paragraph is WAY under represented when it is the most likely outcome of hiring without bias. There is this very powerful myth that DEI hires are worse than the biased people that were hired before them. Nothing is absolute so there are for sure worse people hired but on the whole better people get hired as far as making the business more productive, the numbers back it up.
|
Rand Paul's no vote in the Senate, for similar reasons, has more meaning because you need more bipartisanship to get to 60 and any vote you lose makes it just that much harder. The issue for Democrats was that unfortunately the Senate have to be adults even if no one else is. And if they all voted "no," they would have clear political blame for 1) blocking a continuation of Biden spending to allegedly oppose Drumpf, which only serves to implicate Biden/Democrat senses of fiscal responsibility if their "fascist slush fund" was so acceptable last year, and for 2) causing a government shutdown, which is what certain Republicans actually want but don't necessarily want to take the political blame for, which would be handing a huge present to that faction. So it doesn't make sense to mindlessly block something that's actually quite reasonable (or at any rate "normal" even if the unreasonable has been normalized). And the other issue of if a shutdown were to actually happen and people culturally realize, like last time, oh the government got shut down and my life didn't change at all, maybe this is all bullshit, that definitely takes points from Democrats and gives them to Republicans.
Thank you for explaining long form what the Democrats are not doing and why they deserve blame.
Somehow the "Senate needs to be the adults" bit only applies when the Democrats are in the minority, because over the last 10 years the Republicans have abused the ever living fuck out of Senatory Procedure to block everything, You had a single Senator all throughout Biden's term block Military promotions because it requires a unanimous Senate confirmation.
The Republicans only have control of the Senate by 3 votes, but are able to pass through absolutely whatever they want because Senate Democrats are not challenging them there, the way the Republicans do when they are the minority.
They are playing with old rules and haven't caught up to the meta because as you said "they want the government to actually function."
Oh how convenient. So they get to sit on their hands and not be the opposition party because they want the government to be seen functioning, meanwhile every day Trump takes bigger and bigger power grabs away from them and they just sit back and watch him do it.
It's fucking March, Trump hasn't even been President for 3 months. If they aren't going to start breaking handshake agreements and getting in his way now then when are they?
|
Northern Ireland24871 Posts
On March 19 2025 10:12 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +Rand Paul's no vote in the Senate, for similar reasons, has more meaning because you need more bipartisanship to get to 60 and any vote you lose makes it just that much harder. The issue for Democrats was that unfortunately the Senate have to be adults even if no one else is. And if they all voted "no," they would have clear political blame for 1) blocking a continuation of Biden spending to allegedly oppose Drumpf, which only serves to implicate Biden/Democrat senses of fiscal responsibility if their "fascist slush fund" was so acceptable last year, and for 2) causing a government shutdown, which is what certain Republicans actually want but don't necessarily want to take the political blame for, which would be handing a huge present to that faction. So it doesn't make sense to mindlessly block something that's actually quite reasonable (or at any rate "normal" even if the unreasonable has been normalized). And the other issue of if a shutdown were to actually happen and people culturally realize, like last time, oh the government got shut down and my life didn't change at all, maybe this is all bullshit, that definitely takes points from Democrats and gives them to Republicans. Thank you for explaining long form what the Democrats are not doing and why they deserve blame. Somehow the "Senate needs to be the adults" bit only applies when the Democrats are in the minority, because over the last 10 years the Republicans have abused the ever living fuck out of Senatory Procedure to block everything, You had a single Senator all throughout Biden's term block Military promotions because it requires a unanimous Senate confirmation. The Republicans only have control of the Senate by 3 votes, but are able to pass through absolutely whatever they want because Senate Democrats are not challenging them there, the way the Republicans do when they are the minority. They are playing with old rules and haven't caught up to the meta because as you said "they want the government to actually function." Oh how convenient. So they get to sit on their hands and not be the opposition party because they want the government to be seen functioning, meanwhile every day Trump takes bigger and bigger power grabs away from them and they just sit back and watch him do it. It's fucking March, Trump hasn't even been President for 3 months. If they aren't going to start breaking handshake agreements and getting in his way now then when are they?
Dude you’re being deeply unfair, some people actually care about the principles the United States was founded upon.
Amongst’s Benjamin Franklin’s lesser-known innovations was a device that would activate in the event of people daring to question rampant obstructionism, and would start rotating him in his grave.
It’s very intentionally hidden amongst well, basically everything the Founding Fathers wrote down, but their intent was pretty obvious to those more attuned.
I feel a certain kinship with that spirit, given our own devolved government is structured in such a way that rampant obstructionism frequently collapses the whole thing. It’s clearly the way it should be
|
We still have the filibuster right, when was the last time someone even fuckin' used it
|
On March 19 2025 10:29 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2025 10:12 Vindicare605 wrote:Rand Paul's no vote in the Senate, for similar reasons, has more meaning because you need more bipartisanship to get to 60 and any vote you lose makes it just that much harder. The issue for Democrats was that unfortunately the Senate have to be adults even if no one else is. And if they all voted "no," they would have clear political blame for 1) blocking a continuation of Biden spending to allegedly oppose Drumpf, which only serves to implicate Biden/Democrat senses of fiscal responsibility if their "fascist slush fund" was so acceptable last year, and for 2) causing a government shutdown, which is what certain Republicans actually want but don't necessarily want to take the political blame for, which would be handing a huge present to that faction. So it doesn't make sense to mindlessly block something that's actually quite reasonable (or at any rate "normal" even if the unreasonable has been normalized). And the other issue of if a shutdown were to actually happen and people culturally realize, like last time, oh the government got shut down and my life didn't change at all, maybe this is all bullshit, that definitely takes points from Democrats and gives them to Republicans. Thank you for explaining long form what the Democrats are not doing and why they deserve blame. Somehow the "Senate needs to be the adults" bit only applies when the Democrats are in the minority, because over the last 10 years the Republicans have abused the ever living fuck out of Senatory Procedure to block everything, You had a single Senator all throughout Biden's term block Military promotions because it requires a unanimous Senate confirmation. The Republicans only have control of the Senate by 3 votes, but are able to pass through absolutely whatever they want because Senate Democrats are not challenging them there, the way the Republicans do when they are the minority. They are playing with old rules and haven't caught up to the meta because as you said "they want the government to actually function." Oh how convenient. So they get to sit on their hands and not be the opposition party because they want the government to be seen functioning, meanwhile every day Trump takes bigger and bigger power grabs away from them and they just sit back and watch him do it. It's fucking March, Trump hasn't even been President for 3 months. If they aren't going to start breaking handshake agreements and getting in his way now then when are they? Dude you’re being deeply unfair, some people actually care about the principles the United States was founded upon. Amongst’s Benjamin Franklin’s lesser-known innovations was a device that would activate in the event of people daring to question rampant obstructionism, and would start rotating him in his grave. It’s very intentionally hidden amongst well, basically everything the Founding Fathers wrote down, but their intent was pretty obvious to those more attuned. I feel a certain kinship with that spirit, given our own devolved government is structured in such a way that rampant obstructionism frequently collapses the whole thing. It’s clearly the way it should be
I'm not the one that changed the rules Wombat. I'm not the one that made the game unfair.
It's BEEN unfair. I'm just sick and tired of it only being unfair in one direction. It's already bad enough that the Republicans get to have such an outsized share of the Senate despite having a smaller population to draw from because we decided that Wyoming should have as many Senators as California.
So the game is already rigged just from how it's designed, but then even despite that, we have as I have said, seen Senate Republicans break Senate procedure time and time again, abusing the fillibuster and parliamentary rules to block TONS of legislation from Democratic Presidents only to then watch the Democrats try and play nice with bipartisanship to appease them.
It's not the same game anymore. It hasn't been since Obama's first term ended. Republicans get to break all of the rules, get rewarded for it with election wins and then get to pass whatever agenda they want because Democrats are still coping that they got their asses kicked so bad that they don't know how to respond. I'm fucking tired of it.
I'm looking down the road, to the next election cycle (if we even have one) and I'm thinking how much damage this Administration is going to cause and then how long it's going to take Democrats playing by the rules to fix. When is actual progress ever going to be made when we are taking 10 steps back for every step forward that we take?
Something needs to give here. We can't have it just be accepted as normal that the rules are different for both sides. You want to really keep Liberals from voting, admit that that's just the reality now.
|
On March 19 2025 10:31 Zambrah wrote:
We still have the filibuster right, when was the last time someone even fuckin' used it
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00100.htm
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00011.htm
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00022.htm
On March 19 2025 10:12 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +Rand Paul's no vote in the Senate, for similar reasons, has more meaning because you need more bipartisanship to get to 60 and any vote you lose makes it just that much harder. The issue for Democrats was that unfortunately the Senate have to be adults even if no one else is. And if they all voted "no," they would have clear political blame for 1) blocking a continuation of Biden spending to allegedly oppose Drumpf, which only serves to implicate Biden/Democrat senses of fiscal responsibility if their "fascist slush fund" was so acceptable last year, and for 2) causing a government shutdown, which is what certain Republicans actually want but don't necessarily want to take the political blame for, which would be handing a huge present to that faction. So it doesn't make sense to mindlessly block something that's actually quite reasonable (or at any rate "normal" even if the unreasonable has been normalized). And the other issue of if a shutdown were to actually happen and people culturally realize, like last time, oh the government got shut down and my life didn't change at all, maybe this is all bullshit, that definitely takes points from Democrats and gives them to Republicans. Thank you for explaining long form what the Democrats are not doing and why they deserve blame. Somehow the "Senate needs to be the adults" bit only applies when the Democrats are in the minority, because over the last 10 years the Republicans have abused the ever living fuck out of Senatory Procedure to block everything, You had a single Senator all throughout Biden's term block Military promotions because it requires a unanimous Senate confirmation.
Not new to obstructionism, Schumer and Senate Democrats played the exact same games in Trump's first term. Your issue is if you flatly characterize anything Republicans do as abusive blocking and Democrats doing the same thing as brave antifascist opposition when they do it (or a failure and dropping of the ball if they don't do it), then, well, okay I get it red bad blue good.
On March 19 2025 10:12 Vindicare605 wrote:
The Republicans only have control of the Senate by 3 votes, but are able to pass through absolutely whatever they want because Senate Democrats are not challenging them there, the way the Republicans do when they are the minority.
They are playing with old rules and haven't caught up to the meta because as you said "they want the government to actually function."
Are you talking about the CR? What is your substantial objection to the CR funding the government at the same levels as Biden, or put another way why do you think shutting down the government was a good idea? If not the CR, what is the "absolutely whatever they want" exactly? What have they passed besides the CR that the Democrats failed in their duty to stop from passing? In short - what are you talking about?
On March 19 2025 10:12 Vindicare605 wrote:
It's fucking March, Trump hasn't even been President for 3 months. If they aren't going to start breaking handshake agreements and getting in his way now then when are they?
The "handshake agreement" of the filibuster is the majority party's to break. They are the ones that can at any time go "fuck this, it's 51 votes for __ now (or even for everything)." That is what the Democrats did in 2013 and the Republicans in 2017. You probably do not want the Republicans to do it now. Correct me if I'm wrong. Then they could pass the Voter Suppression Act and gerrymander the entire US to stay in power forever while proscribing Democrats and making the DNC illegal right? Because the only reason the filibuster stands as an institution in the Senate is these people are smart enough to realize they can be either the majority or minority party at any moment, which is a much bigger picture truth than the fact that Senator X or Y was a procedural jackass about some issue 5 or 10 or 20 years ago.
|
On March 19 2025 13:43 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2025 10:31 Zambrah wrote:
We still have the filibuster right, when was the last time someone even fuckin' used it https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00100.htmhttps://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00011.htmhttps://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00022.htmShow nested quote +On March 19 2025 10:12 Vindicare605 wrote:Rand Paul's no vote in the Senate, for similar reasons, has more meaning because you need more bipartisanship to get to 60 and any vote you lose makes it just that much harder. The issue for Democrats was that unfortunately the Senate have to be adults even if no one else is. And if they all voted "no," they would have clear political blame for 1) blocking a continuation of Biden spending to allegedly oppose Drumpf, which only serves to implicate Biden/Democrat senses of fiscal responsibility if their "fascist slush fund" was so acceptable last year, and for 2) causing a government shutdown, which is what certain Republicans actually want but don't necessarily want to take the political blame for, which would be handing a huge present to that faction. So it doesn't make sense to mindlessly block something that's actually quite reasonable (or at any rate "normal" even if the unreasonable has been normalized). And the other issue of if a shutdown were to actually happen and people culturally realize, like last time, oh the government got shut down and my life didn't change at all, maybe this is all bullshit, that definitely takes points from Democrats and gives them to Republicans. Thank you for explaining long form what the Democrats are not doing and why they deserve blame. Somehow the "Senate needs to be the adults" bit only applies when the Democrats are in the minority, because over the last 10 years the Republicans have abused the ever living fuck out of Senatory Procedure to block everything, You had a single Senator all throughout Biden's term block Military promotions because it requires a unanimous Senate confirmation. Not new to obstructionism, Schumer and Senate Democrats played the exact same games in Trump's first term. Your issue is if you flatly characterize anything Republicans do as abusive blocking and Democrats doing the same thing as brave antifascist opposition when they do it (or a failure and dropping of the ball if they don't do it), then, well, okay I get it red bad blue good. Show nested quote +On March 19 2025 10:12 Vindicare605 wrote:
The Republicans only have control of the Senate by 3 votes, but are able to pass through absolutely whatever they want because Senate Democrats are not challenging them there, the way the Republicans do when they are the minority.
They are playing with old rules and haven't caught up to the meta because as you said "they want the government to actually function." Are you talking about the CR? What is your substantial objection to the CR funding the government at the same levels as Biden, or put another way why do you think shutting down the government was a good idea? If not the CR, what is the "absolutely whatever they want" exactly? What have they passed besides the CR that the Democrats failed in their duty to stop from passing? In short - what are you talking about?Show nested quote +On March 19 2025 10:12 Vindicare605 wrote:
It's fucking March, Trump hasn't even been President for 3 months. If they aren't going to start breaking handshake agreements and getting in his way now then when are they? The "handshake agreement" of the filibuster is the majority party's to break. They are the ones that can at any time go "fuck this, it's 51 votes for __ now (or even for everything)." That is what the Democrats did in 2013 and the Republicans in 2017. You probably do not want the Republicans to do it now. Correct me if I'm wrong. Then they could pass the Voter Suppression Act and gerrymander the entire US to stay in power forever while proscribing Democrats and making the DNC illegal right? Because the only reason the filibuster stands as an institution in the Senate is these people are smart enough to realize they can be either the majority or minority party at any moment, which is a much bigger picture truth than the fact that Senator X or Y was a procedural jackass about some issue 5 or 10 or 20 years ago.
I don't think the contention is that Democrats are being obstructionist.
Since the Bush era (and I would include Bush because he was mocked relentlessly in the media), the American political system has more or less broken down. You no longer do bipartisanship. You no longer do compromise. The minority party now takes the role of 'obstruct the opponent's agenda as much as possible'.
The contention raised is that Democrats haven't understood their new role in government, i.e. bipartisanship is dead, working with the GoP is not the job expected of them by voters any more.
|
Northern Ireland24871 Posts
On March 19 2025 18:11 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2025 13:43 oBlade wrote:On March 19 2025 10:31 Zambrah wrote:
We still have the filibuster right, when was the last time someone even fuckin' used it https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00100.htmhttps://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00011.htmhttps://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00022.htmOn March 19 2025 10:12 Vindicare605 wrote:Rand Paul's no vote in the Senate, for similar reasons, has more meaning because you need more bipartisanship to get to 60 and any vote you lose makes it just that much harder. The issue for Democrats was that unfortunately the Senate have to be adults even if no one else is. And if they all voted "no," they would have clear political blame for 1) blocking a continuation of Biden spending to allegedly oppose Drumpf, which only serves to implicate Biden/Democrat senses of fiscal responsibility if their "fascist slush fund" was so acceptable last year, and for 2) causing a government shutdown, which is what certain Republicans actually want but don't necessarily want to take the political blame for, which would be handing a huge present to that faction. So it doesn't make sense to mindlessly block something that's actually quite reasonable (or at any rate "normal" even if the unreasonable has been normalized). And the other issue of if a shutdown were to actually happen and people culturally realize, like last time, oh the government got shut down and my life didn't change at all, maybe this is all bullshit, that definitely takes points from Democrats and gives them to Republicans. Thank you for explaining long form what the Democrats are not doing and why they deserve blame. Somehow the "Senate needs to be the adults" bit only applies when the Democrats are in the minority, because over the last 10 years the Republicans have abused the ever living fuck out of Senatory Procedure to block everything, You had a single Senator all throughout Biden's term block Military promotions because it requires a unanimous Senate confirmation. Not new to obstructionism, Schumer and Senate Democrats played the exact same games in Trump's first term. Your issue is if you flatly characterize anything Republicans do as abusive blocking and Democrats doing the same thing as brave antifascist opposition when they do it (or a failure and dropping of the ball if they don't do it), then, well, okay I get it red bad blue good. On March 19 2025 10:12 Vindicare605 wrote:
The Republicans only have control of the Senate by 3 votes, but are able to pass through absolutely whatever they want because Senate Democrats are not challenging them there, the way the Republicans do when they are the minority.
They are playing with old rules and haven't caught up to the meta because as you said "they want the government to actually function." Are you talking about the CR? What is your substantial objection to the CR funding the government at the same levels as Biden, or put another way why do you think shutting down the government was a good idea? If not the CR, what is the "absolutely whatever they want" exactly? What have they passed besides the CR that the Democrats failed in their duty to stop from passing? In short - what are you talking about?On March 19 2025 10:12 Vindicare605 wrote:
It's fucking March, Trump hasn't even been President for 3 months. If they aren't going to start breaking handshake agreements and getting in his way now then when are they? The "handshake agreement" of the filibuster is the majority party's to break. They are the ones that can at any time go "fuck this, it's 51 votes for __ now (or even for everything)." That is what the Democrats did in 2013 and the Republicans in 2017. You probably do not want the Republicans to do it now. Correct me if I'm wrong. Then they could pass the Voter Suppression Act and gerrymander the entire US to stay in power forever while proscribing Democrats and making the DNC illegal right? Because the only reason the filibuster stands as an institution in the Senate is these people are smart enough to realize they can be either the majority or minority party at any moment, which is a much bigger picture truth than the fact that Senator X or Y was a procedural jackass about some issue 5 or 10 or 20 years ago. I don't think the contention is that Democrats are being obstructionist. Since the Bush era (and I would include Bush because he was mocked unrelentlessly in the media), the American political system has more or less broken down. You no longer do bipartisanship. You no longer do compromise. The minority party now takes the role of 'obstruct the opponent's agenda as much as possible'. The contention raised is that Democrats haven't understood their new role in government, i.e. bipartisanship is dead, working with the GoP is not the job expected of them by voters any more.
This is a fair point, and it is true of the wider culture at large too. I mean, I was pretty young at the time, obviously fuck Iraq etc, but even at that age I picked that other criticism of Bush kinda went beyond critique and into pantomime villain territory.
It’s difficult to know what an actual bipartisan political environment even looks and feels like anymore. At least in the states I’m familiar with, the UK and US I don’t think it’s ever really been the case so long as I can remember.
I don’t even know how one gets back into some reasonable kinda equilibrium. Absolutely have certain red lines, but it feels we’re in an epoch where you could have a policy that both team x and team y support. However, if team x proposes it, team y will block it, and vice-versa. Or supporters of team x and team y will support or hate a policy purely based on who’s proposing it.
That ain’t good, it really isn’t conducive to a functional democracy.
Having bemoaned that, I still think the Dems should play hardball currently. Fixing that problem I mean, look if we’re in a simulation, some cosmic videogame, the player could try the ‘restore American bipartisanship’ challenge run, try a million different tactics, save and reload over and over and ultimately fail.
I favour the olive branch where possible, but there’s basically no olive branch the Dems could fashion that’s going to work here. So that leaves getting walked all over, or fighting back, even if some of the latter isn’t ultimately effective.
|
My recollection is the same. Bush was constantly ridiculed in all the news I consumed at the time (which wasn't that much to be honest).
How we got here is also fairly clear. Playing hardball and never compromising got the GoP from total wipeout (First Obama term) to the popularity they currently enjoy. It's a successful strategy within the FPTP system and American political makeup. At this point you can't even argue that they hold minority views -- they obtained broad support from a majority of Americans.
At this point, I'd argue that it is up to the GoP to rein in Trump's excesses and restore bipartisanship. At some point you do have to take responsibility for what you have created. Good luck with that though.
|
Looks like Trump's role as Putin's useful idiot is continuing to benefit Russia and hurt Ukraine:
"Record-long Putin-Trump call," declares Komsomolskaya Pravda. The paper's website adds: "As things stand Russia has scored a diplomatic victory here." Why are some in Russia claiming "victory" after this two-hour phone call? Probably because, by the end of it, Vladimir Putin hadn't been pressured into making any major concessions to Ukraine or to the United States. On the contrary, he had - in effect - rejected President Trump's idea of an immediate unconditional 30-day ceasefire.
Instead of pressuring Moscow with the threat of even tougher sanctions and penalties, to get Russia to sign up to its plan, the US administration reacted by praising the Kremlin leader. "We had a great call," Donald Trump told Fox News. "I would commend President Putin for all he did today on that call to move his country close to a final peace deal," said Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff.
Not only did Moscow not agree to an unconditional ceasefire, President Putin set his own pre-conditions for peace. They include an end to Western military aid to Kyiv and intelligence sharing with the Ukrainians, as well as a halt to mobilisation in Ukraine. Such conditions are widely viewed as a way of securing Ukraine's capitulation. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjevg23enggo
And as soon as Putin got off the phone with Trump, Putin felt comfortable enough to resume drone strikes on Ukraine:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ukraine-war-trump-putin-discuss-ceasefire-sumy-hospital-strike/
|
|
|
On March 19 2025 21:33 EnDeR_ wrote:
My recollection is the same. Bush was constantly ridiculed in all the news I consumed at the time (which wasn't that much to be honest).
How we got here is also fairly clear. Playing hardball and never compromising got the GoP from total wipeout (First Obama term) to the popularity they currently enjoy. It's a successful strategy within the FPTP system and American political makeup. At this point you can't even argue that they hold minority views -- they obtained broad support from a majority of Americans.
At this point, I'd argue that it is up to the GoP to rein in Trump's excesses and restore bipartisanship. At some point you do have to take responsibility for what you have created. Good luck with that though.
Democrats escalated severely, leaving them in their current predicament. They assumed the Obama administration's vision of the transformation of America was so perfect that their perpetual uniparty future was all but assured. Then they miscalculated thinking Trump's marginal electoral miracle/popular vote loss was just lightning striking, and they could go all in on escalation and it would pay off. Absolute hubris. They are historically behind both in presidents and in terms. But thought they had suddenly ushered in the kind of total government capture that proceeded FDR again. Maybe they really were on the verge and would have looked like geniuses, but results are results. They lost every branch to the same guy for the 2nd time around.
Just look back. Their opposition literally elected a New York Democrat who signaled on national TV his interest in socialized medicine at the expense of getting shit on by the party he was trying to take over, and still they were too clueless to grow up, respect that they lost one round, bite the bullet and work with an obvious centrist. So they kept escalating instead. Two impeachments. Went after his family. His allies. Journalists. Churches. Because the right side of history! And guess what, the right side of the present blew up in their faces. Now instead of Trump having been just a minor player in a cycle of red/blue ping pong, they managed to elevate him to the level of a historic figure and one of the 5 most significant Republican presidents. All while fighting for what? A dwindling coalition backing a system bloated by corruption, incompetence, and waste. Asking the Obama coalition to hold that up is a taller request than the one given Atlas. He was the first since George HW Bush to lose votes the 2nd time around. The magic word "Obamacare" isn't doing it anymore. It's more of what have you done for me lately - and look at the past decade of Democrat politics and basically, the answer is, unfortunately for everybody involved, nothing. If their position is unenviable at the moment, it would have behooved them not to have wasted national years. They wasted years belonging to the US and to us all.
|
Don't forget the part where the republicans, specifically mitch McConnell, have egregiously stacked the courts (mostly by presidents who lost the popular vote), which is our last dying guardrail from complete autocracy atm.
|
United States42437 Posts
I enjoyed the "went after his family" part as if Don Jr didn't literally steal money from a cancer charity.
|
Northern Ireland24871 Posts
On March 20 2025 06:33 KwarK wrote:
I enjoyed the "went after his family" part as if Don Jr didn't literally steal money from a cancer charity.
For me ‘obvious centrist’ was the personal highlight.
In hindsight perhaps a bad move to go after the lad, but only in a ‘if you come at the King, you better not miss’ sense
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
