|
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 May 22 2025 07:17 RenSC2 wrote:
Easy solution is term limits on all positions. President already has a 2 term limit. Put a 2 term limit on Senators and maybe 3 on Representatives.
Sure, you technically can still get frail old people, but they’d have to do it without incumbency advantages. A full term Rep -> full term Senator -> full term President would spend 26 years in office which is far less than many Reps/Senators currently do and that person would have to pass more and more rigorous competition as they are forced up the ladder or out.
The core problem with term limits is that it means that the only people who are there in the long term are the lobbyists. Thus, lobbyists will always have more experience than the politicians, and the politicians need a plan for when their term limits are up (which lobbyists can helpfully provide). If you think lobbyists have too much influence now, this is how they get even more.
|
On May 22 2025 14:14 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2025 07:17 RenSC2 wrote:
Easy solution is term limits on all positions. President already has a 2 term limit. Put a 2 term limit on Senators and maybe 3 on Representatives.
Sure, you technically can still get frail old people, but they’d have to do it without incumbency advantages. A full term Rep -> full term Senator -> full term President would spend 26 years in office which is far less than many Reps/Senators currently do and that person would have to pass more and more rigorous competition as they are forced up the ladder or out. The core problem with term limits is that it means that the only people who are there in the long term are the lobbyists. Thus, lobbyists will always have more experience than the politicians, and the politicians need a plan for when their term limits are up (which lobbyists can helpfully provide). If you think lobbyists have too much influence now, this is how they get even more.
Yes, lobbyists will be the ones who stick around while the politicians cycle out, but I don't think the rest is true.
Lobbying is a relationship building exercise. A lobbyist builds a relationship with a Senator and he's got that Senator for 20+ years doing his bidding. There's a huge return for that lobbyist. If the Senator cycles out every 12 years or a Rep every 6 years (as in my previous post), lobbyists would have to spend quite a lot of money quite quickly to get control over the Senators with just a short window of time to get returns.
It's like when a business has a high turnover rate for employees. They end up spending more resources to onboard the new employees and get less returns from those employees since they don't stick around as long. It's bad for business and I think more turnover from politicians would be bad for lobbyists.
Then add on that most people who get into politics don't actually go with the purpose of being corrupt. Most of them want to make a positive difference following their own values (some just have really shitty values). Over time in politics, those values get ground down as the politician is surrounded by DC muck and it gets normalized.
TLDR:
I'd suggest that
1) new politicians are more resistant to lobbying.
2) Building a new relationship with a politician will be more expensive than maintaining an existing relationship.
3) Lobbyists will get less bang for their buck because the politician won't be around as long.
|
On May 22 2025 14:43 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2025 14:14 Simberto wrote:On May 22 2025 07:17 RenSC2 wrote:
Easy solution is term limits on all positions. President already has a 2 term limit. Put a 2 term limit on Senators and maybe 3 on Representatives.
Sure, you technically can still get frail old people, but they’d have to do it without incumbency advantages. A full term Rep -> full term Senator -> full term President would spend 26 years in office which is far less than many Reps/Senators currently do and that person would have to pass more and more rigorous competition as they are forced up the ladder or out. The core problem with term limits is that it means that the only people who are there in the long term are the lobbyists. Thus, lobbyists will always have more experience than the politicians, and the politicians need a plan for when their term limits are up (which lobbyists can helpfully provide). If you think lobbyists have too much influence now, this is how they get even more. Yes, lobbyists will be the ones who stick around while the politicians cycle out, but I don't think the rest is true. Lobbying is a relationship building exercise. A lobbyist builds a relationship with a Senator and he's got that Senator for 20+ years doing his bidding. There's a huge return for that lobbyist. If the Senator cycles out every 12 years or a Rep every 6 years (as in my previous post), lobbyists would have to spend quite a lot of money quite quickly to get control over the Senators with just a short window of time to get returns. It's like when a business has a high turnover rate for employees. They end up spending more resources to onboard the new employees and get less returns from those employees since they don't stick around as long. It's bad for business and I think more turnover from politicians would be bad for lobbyists. Then add on that most people who get into politics don't actually go with the purpose of being corrupt. Most of them want to make a positive difference following their own values (some just have really shitty values). Over time in politics, those values get ground down as the politician is surrounded by DC muck and it gets normalized. TLDR: I'd suggest that 1) new politicians are more resistant to lobbying. 2) Building a new relationship with a politician will be more expensive than maintaining an existing relationship. 3) Lobbyists will get less bang for their buck because the politician won't be around as long.
You do know the lobbyists are the ones writing the legislation, not the politicians right? The politicians' job is to sell it to their voters.
New politicians don't write anything and they pass even less. They are instruments of the party, which in turn is an instrument of its donors, which ostensibly represent the voters by way of accumulating their money.
Should be noted that "liberal" groups don't do well under this process.
USA TODAY found more than 4,000 bills benefiting industry were introduced nationwide during the eight years it reviewed. More than 80 of those bills limit the public’s ability to sue corporations, including limiting class-action lawsuits, a plaintiff’s ability to offer expert testimony, and cap punitive damages for corporate wrongdoing.
“No citizens are saying, ‘Hey, can you make it harder to sue if … low-paid (nursing home) orderlies happened to kill or injure my parents,’ ” Graves said. “That’s not a thing citizens are clamoring for. But you know who is? The nursing home industry, and big business in general.”
Many of the bills USA TODAY found were copied from models written by special interests were couched in similarly unremarkable or technical language that obscured their impact. Bans on raising the local minimum wage were dubbed “uniform minimum wage” laws. Changes to civil court rules to shield companies from lawsuits were described as ”congruity” or reforms to make laws consistent. Repealing business regulations was disguised under the term “rescission.”
+ Show Spoiler +Which copies became law? Industry and conservative groups are even more dominant at getting copycat bills passed and signed into law.
This bit in particular is a little damning to your perspective.
Special interests give lawmakers fully conceived bills they can put their names on and take credit for. And those special interests can become dependable donors to their campaigns.
Conservative groups like ALEC nurture those relationships at annual conferences where lawmakers and corporate lobbyists discuss policy and mingle over meals and drinks paid for by corporate sponsors.
This arrangement is particularly appealing to new lawmakers, said Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, an assistant professor at Columbia University who has studied the influence of ALEC and other conservative groups.
His research showed less-experienced lawmakers are more likely to use copycat legislation.
https://publicintegrity.org/politics/state-politics/copy-paste-legislate/you-elected-them-to-write-new-laws-theyre-letting-corporations-do-it-instead/
|
On May 22 2025 14:43 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2025 14:14 Simberto wrote:On May 22 2025 07:17 RenSC2 wrote:
Easy solution is term limits on all positions. President already has a 2 term limit. Put a 2 term limit on Senators and maybe 3 on Representatives.
Sure, you technically can still get frail old people, but they’d have to do it without incumbency advantages. A full term Rep -> full term Senator -> full term President would spend 26 years in office which is far less than many Reps/Senators currently do and that person would have to pass more and more rigorous competition as they are forced up the ladder or out. The core problem with term limits is that it means that the only people who are there in the long term are the lobbyists. Thus, lobbyists will always have more experience than the politicians, and the politicians need a plan for when their term limits are up (which lobbyists can helpfully provide). If you think lobbyists have too much influence now, this is how they get even more. Yes, lobbyists will be the ones who stick around while the politicians cycle out, but I don't think the rest is true. Lobbying is a relationship building exercise. A lobbyist builds a relationship with a Senator and he's got that Senator for 20+ years doing his bidding. There's a huge return for that lobbyist. If the Senator cycles out every 12 years or a Rep every 6 years (as in my previous post), lobbyists would have to spend quite a lot of money quite quickly to get control over the Senators with just a short window of time to get returns. It's like when a business has a high turnover rate for employees. They end up spending more resources to onboard the new employees and get less returns from those employees since they don't stick around as long. It's bad for business and I think more turnover from politicians would be bad for lobbyists. Then add on that most people who get into politics don't actually go with the purpose of being corrupt. Most of them want to make a positive difference following their own values (some just have really shitty values). Over time in politics, those values get ground down as the politician is surrounded by DC muck and it gets normalized. TLDR: I'd suggest that 1) new politicians are more resistant to lobbying. 2) Building a new relationship with a politician will be more expensive than maintaining an existing relationship. 3) Lobbyists will get less bang for their buck because the politician won't be around as long.
I dont think you are correct. While lobbying is definitely about networking it is also (wiki quotes):
"Since the 1980s, congresspersons and staffers have been "going downtown"—becoming lobbyists—and the big draw is money."
"according to Jack Abramoff, one of the best ways to "get what he wanted" was to offer a high-ranking congressional aide a high-paying job after they decided to leave public office."
Those working great now, imagine how much more effective they would be, if terms were limited.
Also I think that limiting terms would have another negative effect of shifting power from elected officials, to people who dont really care about voting, namely civil servants and party.
As for your point 2 - I think it would just made politicians cheaper (so to speak), as they bargaining position would be somewhat limited by time. Another thing I think you are mistaken (well maybe not mistaken, but not scaling correctly) is the word expensive. For an individual (except few) few millions is a ton of money, for something like NRA its peanuts.
|
The Trump admin just blocked Harvard from enrolling foreign students, that's not surprising or particularly interesting, it's exactly the kind of move we've come to expect from the vengeful fascists. What I do find worth talking about is the coverage, such as this sentence from the BBC which is a perfect example of sanewashing:
The White House has demanded Harvard make changes to hiring, admissions and teaching practices to help fight antisemitism on campus.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c05768jmm11o
Now all of you here know why the fascists hate academia, you've seen them cry for years about knowledge making people too liberal, you've seen them fantasize and make plans about bulldozing it numerous times. We've talked about the letter the Trump admin sent to Harvard in which they demand DEI for fascist viewpoints. The antisemitism pretext for punishment only showed up after their refusal to become a brainwashing tool.
But what does a person that lacks any of that context understand from that article? That:
- the White House is concerned about antisemitism at Harvard
- Harvard disagrees that it has a problem with antisemitism
- one or the other could be right, idk
|
What I am so tired off:
Trump isn't even really an academic hating fascist/marxist/stalinist who strategicly knows that a system of interlectuals actually could breed some opposition and thereby he needs to control them.
He just hates people who mocked him. Harvard is so deeply known in pop-culture that he can remember the school's name. And his asskissers know how to please this hatred.
That's it.
He has "I shoot my dog because I couldn't train him properly" Lady now to tell a University how to "train" students ..to not.. aid.. antisemitsm?
And that's obviously by kicking out all foreign students. Because all the kids from Israel are anti-semites.
This won't hold in court. It's senseless shitty action.
And overstepping boundries. If there was a cabal of anti-semites in Harvard.. they could be investigated by local authorities. If there were hate crimes commited or illegal actions during protesting (which would be.. trespassing or damage to property) .. this isn't a thing needed to be looked at by the federal government.
It's the swollen anusmouth of Saudrumpf focusing his diarreah towards "liberals".
|
On May 23 2025 16:59 KT_Elwood wrote:
What I am so tired off:
Trump isn't even really an academic hating fascist/marxist/stalinist who strategicly knows that a system of interlectuals actually could breed some opposition and thereby he needs to control them.
He just hates people who mocked him. Harvard is so deeply known in pop-culture that he can remember the school's name. And his asskissers know how to please this hatred.
That's it.
He has "I shoot my dog because I couldn't train him properly" Lady now to tell a University how to "train" students ..to not.. aid.. antisemitsm?
And that's obviously by kicking out all foreign students. Because all the kids from Israel are anti-semites.
This won't hold in court. It's senseless shitty action.
And overstepping boundries. If there was a cabal of anti-semites in Harvard.. they could be investigated by local authorities. If there were hate crimes commited or illegal actions during protesting (which would be.. trespassing or damage to property) .. this isn't a thing needed to be looked at by the federal government.
It's the swollen anusmouth of Saudrumpf focusing his diarreah towards "liberals".
I can't imagine Trump winning anything against a bunch of smart people like Harvard except a popularity contest. His entire government would need at least couple of brain cells between them. Its a bad fight to take on for him.
|
Can you, in your head, list all the bullshit he tried to make stick, that got at least some reaction and clutched pearls for his second term?
He is flooding the zone with shit.. and all the people reacting all the time gives him an aura of being effective.
He just might have bankrupted the US so even if him hacking away the government that was build for centuries isn't sustained in court.. whatever is left will have no money to run on.
Yet the hot topics:
- Biden Prostate Gate!
- Harvard Terrorist!
- Golden Toilet Lid SDI
- Abu-Aba-Dabi Deals
- BribeForce1
- Illegal Celebreties!
- Putin diddndonothing
|
On May 23 2025 16:59 KT_Elwood wrote:
What I am so tired off:
Trump isn't even really an academic hating fascist/marxist/stalinist who strategicly knows that a system of interlectuals actually could breed some opposition and thereby he needs to control them.
He just hates people who mocked him. Harvard is so deeply known in pop-culture that he can remember the school's name. And his asskissers know how to please this hatred.
That's it.
Speaking as an American it's more of we're not super persuaded by Europeans thinking tax exempt publicly funded US universities' role is to act in revolutionary opposition to their own country and government, or that they should be exempt from civil rights law.
On May 23 2025 16:59 KT_Elwood wrote:
He has "I shoot my dog because I couldn't train him properly" Lady now to tell a University how to "train" students ..to not.. aid.. antisemitsm?
And that's obviously by kicking out all foreign students. Because all the kids from Israel are anti-semites.
You are assuming the students are the problem and the institution is not the problem.
The institution is the problem, which is why you allow the students to transfer, but not allow Harvard to enroll them. That puts economic pressure on the institution. Which should cause the institution to unfuck itself.
You only cut off foreign students, because those are the only ones you can. You'd need a lot more to shutter classes entirely at Harvard, which would hopefully also get them to do what they're supposed to, if it hypothetically were to occur, but anyway it's not as easy to make that particular move.
On May 23 2025 16:59 KT_Elwood wrote:
This won't hold in court. It's senseless shitty action.
And overstepping boundries. If there was a cabal of anti-semites in Harvard.. they could be investigated by local authorities. If there were hate crimes commited or illegal actions during protesting (which would be.. trespassing or damage to property) .. this isn't a thing needed to be looked at by the federal government.
It's the swollen anusmouth of Saudrumpf focusing his diarreah towards "liberals".
Probably the first time in your life you've said the federal government should get out of education and it's an impossible for an institution to have an issue.
They are accredited through the federal government, they get federal money, they have a responsibility to follow federal law.
|
Northern Ireland27267 Posts
|
Shut it down then.
Get it's "University Licence" .. kick out all the Students, get a bulldozer, burn the books.
Harvard didn't praise dear leader, dear leader has now the power of purse because congress doesn't want it, so SHUT IT DOWN.
Grow a pair, be the fascist you cosplay in your bad faith bullshit posts.
|
On May 23 2025 19:00 KT_Elwood wrote:
Shut it down then.
Get it's "University Licence" .. kick out all the Students, get a bulldozer, burn the books.
Harvard didn't praise dear leader, dear leader has now the power of purse because congress doesn't want it, so SHUT IT DOWN.
Grow a pair, be the fascist you cosplay in your bad faith bullshit posts.
Yeah that's exactly what's going on. Spot-on assessment. Harvard's problem is they didn't go the bootlicking route that Yale, Princeton, Brown, Columbia, and Cornell did. It was their one mistake.
Oops, no. Here is the actual complaint.
A joint-government task force found that Harvard has failed to confront pervasive race discrimination and anti-Semitic harassment plaguing its campus.
Jewish students on campus were subject to pervasive insults, physical assault, and intimidation, with no meaningful response from Harvard’s leadership.
A protester charged for his role in the assault of a Jewish student on campus was chosen by the Harvard Divinity School to be the Class Marshal for commencement.
Harvard’s own 2025 internal study on anti-Semitism revealed that almost 60% of Jewish students reported experiencing “discrimination, stereotyping, or negative bias on campus due to [their] views on current events.”
In one instance, a Jewish student speaker at a conference had planned to tell the story of his Holocaust survivor grandfather finding refuge in Israel. Organizers told the student the story was not “tasteful” and laughed at him when he expressed his confusion. They said the story would have justified oppression.
Meanwhile, Pro-Hamas student groups that promoted antisemitism after the October 7 attacks remained recognized and funded.
Instead of protecting its students, Harvard has let crime rates skyrocket, enacted racist DEI practices, and accepted boatloads of cash from foreign governments and donors.
Crime rates at Harvard increased by 55% from 2022 to 2023.
From 2022 to 2023 aggravated assaults increased 295% and robberies increased 560%
Harvard has adopted race-conscious hiring policies, potentially in violation of civil rights law.
Harvard Received $151 Million From Foreign Governments Since January 2020 — making up more than 13 percent of the total $1.1 billion received from foreign donors over the same period.
Harvard hosted and trained members of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC), a CCP paramilitary group complicit in the Uyghur genocide, even after its 2020 designation on the U.S. Treasury’s Specially Designated Nationals List, with engagements continuing as recently as 2024.
Harvard researchers collaborated with China-based academics on projects funded by an Iranian government agent and partnered with Chinese universities tied to military advancements, including aerospace and optics research, using U.S. Department of Defense funds.
Harvard partnered with individuals linked to China’s defense-industrial base, including conducting robotics research with military applications.
Some of these are crimes. Like the one called "crimes." Many of them are not. Nevertheless, there are administrative issues. If the DHS probes you because you're running a racist campus under the guise of glorious antifascism, and blow them off when they ask for information, you can expect them to tighten the vice of administrative penalties and pressure.
|
So you are telling me Harvard is a university.
*GASP*.
|
I had a look at the one that could potentially have something to do with racism/antisemitism.
Harvard has adopted race-conscious hiring policies, potentially in violation of civil rights law.
Which pointed to an article that used statements like:
"At the beginning of the hiring process, Harvard instructs search committees to “ensure that the early lists include women and minorities” and to “consider reading the applications of women and minorities first.”
as damning pieces of evidence.
I mean, would you not agree that if one aims to have the best and most qualified candidate in place, some of the candidates in that list should be from a different group than white males? In other worlds, if your list only includes white males, you're missing out on the 69% non-'white male' population of the US. If it's an international search, that means you would be excluding 90% of the world's population.
|
Hey, man don't give shit to oBlade.
They found out that at Harvard, where one in six students comes from top1% wealth in the US, it's the chinese billionaire son who stole the ketchup bottle at the cafeteria for - skyrocketing the crime rate by 553%.
They had to find some red tape to strangle the non-ringkissers!
It's the ... SCREW-Harvard act of 1896. Where you can forbid to enroll a foreign students.. because.. national security!
But you allow all the other universities who teach science.. to adults.. to continue teaching foreigners because Trump can't be made to remember the losers that aren't the best University in the world, the beautifil Harvard, that is now ruined and in shambles because of the ketchup stealing.
|
It's not the SCREW-Harvard Act, it's the Immigration and Nationality Act, which mainly DHS is in charge of.
If other universities had issues of anti-semitism, and refused to cooperate with DHS because "muh Drumpf is targeting us," when they and their activities fall under statutory jurisdiction of DHS, that would be a problem too. For Harvard they have the same issues with antisemitism they had 100 years ago except intermixed it with destroying their reputation in other ways like appointing a plagiarist as president.
Like you just keep repeating "Harvard" as though Trump is targeting it because of its alleged #1 status, or that its near 400 year age or alleged #1 status is a guarantee that it's immune from fucking up royally. Nice to see the walls closing in on Harvard finally.
|
The speedrun to authoritarian shithole is almost as impressive as oBlade and others gobbling it up.
|
Antisemitism has been defeated!
Praise DJT!
Harvard (Who is that guy anyway? Sad!) shall be henceforth known as "Donald Trump, Friend of Jews, University"
And since you are all catholic now with Pope Leo the XIV (like a superbowl, very nice, thats what you get when you vote AMERICAN!) reject that big anti-semite from hundreds of years ago, Martin LOSer - I know it's luther, but it should have been loser, you know, like Joe Biden who lost the 2024 election!
Ban all evangelical and protestant anti-semitic churches that he sprang into life, that are just FAKE CHRISTIANS anyway.
TAX EXEMPT STATUS REVOKED.
Also the Antisemites ruined the cars, the big FORD company was so big and beautifil, until that one guy who owned it was a glowing Antisemite!
All Ford Cars will now be called FREEDOM CARS. And the Ford family will get deported to Sudan.
Thank you for your attention in this matter!
|
Northern Ireland27267 Posts
On May 23 2025 20:53 KT_Elwood wrote:
Antisemitism has been defeated!
Praise DJT!
Harvard (Who is that guy anyway? Sad!) shall be henceforth known as "Donald Trump, Friend of Jews, University"
And since you are all catholic now with Pope Leo the XIV (like a superbowl, very nice, thats what you get when you vote AMERICAN!) reject that big anti-semite from hundreds of years ago, Martin LOSer - I know it's luther, but it should have been loser, you know, like Joe Biden who lost the 2024 election!
Ban all evangelical and protestant anti-semitic churches that he sprang into life, that are just FAKE CHRISTIANS anyway.
TAX EXEMPT STATUS REVOKED.
Also the Antisemites ruined the cars, the big FORD company was so big and beautifil, until that one guy who owned it was a glowing Antisemite!
All Ford Cars will now be called FREEDOM CARS. And the Ford family will get deported to Sudan.
Thank you for your attention in this matter!
A decade ago I would have been worried you had had a stroke reading this, now it’s a pretty passable parody of the US President. What a world.
I did actually laugh out loud at Martin LOSER, despite me background haha
|
Hey!
I just want you to attack me for saying this, and then hear oBlade trying his best to defend it.
Like it's amazing.
I didn't know while Zuckerborg spents Months in China to make sure that his companies give the authoritarian government all the Spying they need.. probably on US DATA...
That it's a chinese national student, whose uncles cousin was once roomate to the father of a guy who has a business stake in a minority forced labout camp for chinese muslims that is RIGHT NOW!
Learning about the trans gay sex practices in mesopotania from DEI-History-101 at the BLM CRT "UNIVERSITY" Harvard that is the actual risk to the National security of the USA.
I mean it has to stop! What if the Powerpoint slides of that are leaked to China? Like the Signalchats of DUI-Hires?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i0.wp.com/www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2019/04/02/USAT/2755c227-cec1-409a-b72c-791212988ee4-bars-introduced-passed_passed.png?w=780&ssl=1)
