|
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 April 27 2026 16:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2026 11:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2026 08:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 07:33 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 05:11 WombaT wrote:On April 27 2026 03:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 02:31 WombaT wrote:On April 26 2026 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:I was just reading this article theconversation.comAnd found it to be well worth a read. It's well sourced and thought-provoking. The main theme is about loss of scientific leadership, China now outspends the US in absolute terms in scientific research, produces twice as many patents and is set to continue to increase. The US on the other hand is restricting the influx of researchers while simultaneously reducing its spending. Here are some nice quotes: U.S. scientific and technological leadership was nurtured by sustained public investment in research universities and federal laboratories, as well as a culture of open inquiry. These investments turned scientific discovery into economic strength – accounting for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II. The most recent reports showing that China is now outspending the U.S. on scientific and technological research is a turning point worth understanding clearly because, historically, global leadership in one sector – including technology and warfare – feeds into others. U.S. dominance is in question. the active restriction of scientific exchange: tightening access to U.S. institutions, scrutinizing international collaborations and raising barriers to foreign-born researchers. These policies, though intended as security measures, work against the openness that has historically made American science productive and attractive to global talent.
I describe this issue as an example of the stockyard paradox, in which securing research assets may weaken the very system these measures aim to protect. The deeper danger for the U.S. economy is that disinvestment and selective engagement in research erodes the capacity to use cutting-edge science regardless of where it is produced.
Absorbing and applying cutting-edge knowledge, whether developed in Boston or Beijing, requires maintaining research institutions and trained workforces, as well as active participation in global networks. This is not a passive process. You cannot free-ride on Chinese science if you have dismantled the institutional and human capital needed to evaluate, translate and apply it.
A nation that hollows out its research base not only falls behind but also progressively loses its ability to benefit from science, including in technologies it is already able to access. Does the U.S. still want to lead in science? The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, estimates that a 20% cut in federal research and development starting in fiscal year 2026 would shrink the U.S. economy by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce tax revenue by around $250 billion. Others point out that the scientific enterprise has contributed at least half of U.S. economic growth.
That is a lot to lose. Yay a new (and interesting) topic, much obliged! If I had a criticism of this article, there ain’t much delving into the why and I’d be quite interested to see a bit more analysis there. Obviously it’s rather good on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ aspects. I mean for example is the US starting to drop a bit because of intentional policy, or is it more a case of complacency of the form ‘we’re America we’re where the talent wants to go, so we don’t necessarily need to invest to maintain that status or what have you. More broadly speaking, it feels a huge area that general public sentiment tends to overlooked in terms of hot political topics. Now, the UK ain’t China or the US, it does a punch pretty damn hard. Argh, I haven’t mentioned Brexit for ages but here we go! It felt in that lead-in people were extremely blasé about the UK’s RnD being at least somewhat jeopardised by what Brexit (esp. a hard one) entailed. It’s a somewhat strange oversight to me, do people just think world class scientists and institution spring from the ether or something? I don’t think there’s much dispute that to produce world class sportspeople, the individual generally needs to put in years and years of graft, and (generally) needs to be ensconced in systems and leagues of high quality. Why would science be any different? I'd say, and I think most would agree, is that the lobbying arm of the political world wields too much power. They get laws passed that harm other sectors and bottom lines, leading to RnD being cut first. Toyota, Honda, etc all have several new EVs they were going to launch, especially with the EV pilot Obama had with getting charging centers expanded. Trump tanked all of that. Then cut the tax breaks and other stuff. No company is going to invest in a market like that. The thing is, people want EVs. Big Oil is just that good at propaganda and the gen pop has a serious lack of critical thinking. I'd have bought an EV but without reliable charging access where I live, I'd be hard pressed to justify it. China isn't the issue. It's the US and the people/laws being owned by the extremely wealthy and connected. Musk fucked over EVs/Tesla when he had the best position to advocate and expand. Greed and stupidity at its finest. Largely agreed on that specific area, from what I gathered from Enders linked article it’s something of a wider wholesale trend which I find more curious. I mean lobbying power isn’t anything particularly new What I mean, is that it starts from one sector and infects others as it follows. The dissolution (or damn near) of the national weather alert service means that information regarding potentially lethal storms are slower getting to the people who need them. The dismantling of the education system affects who has access to the learning/education they need to continue the research. Holding universities research depts hostage for money earmarked for them also hurts, so now you've got learned professors+ leaving academia and research grinds to a halt. This administration has systematically done all it can to hamstring/kneecap the country in regards to science/tech. All those big data manufacturing plants from TSMC, Samsung, AMD, NVidia? We don't have the workforce to populate them, nor the construction power (remember they deported the Samsung crew?). I used EVs as a way to segue into the conversation, but I agree. The most on-the-nose example of this that I can think of is when RFK Jr. - notorious anti-medicine / anti-health / anti-vaxxer / anti-science nutjob, who is literally the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services - is complaining that China is beating us on health-related fronts, such as in biotech, general clinical research, and medical patents. Gee, I wonder who might possibly be messing things up for the United States, Robert Fucking Kennedy Jr. This feels like a "rock bottom" moment for the US. What's the worse version of this that could exist and people would still consider it a legitimate government? Show nested quote +On April 27 2026 13:35 Simberto wrote:On April 27 2026 11:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2026 08:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 07:33 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 05:11 WombaT wrote:On April 27 2026 03:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 02:31 WombaT wrote:On April 26 2026 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:I was just reading this article theconversation.comAnd found it to be well worth a read. It's well sourced and thought-provoking. The main theme is about loss of scientific leadership, China now outspends the US in absolute terms in scientific research, produces twice as many patents and is set to continue to increase. The US on the other hand is restricting the influx of researchers while simultaneously reducing its spending. Here are some nice quotes: U.S. scientific and technological leadership was nurtured by sustained public investment in research universities and federal laboratories, as well as a culture of open inquiry. These investments turned scientific discovery into economic strength – accounting for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II. The most recent reports showing that China is now outspending the U.S. on scientific and technological research is a turning point worth understanding clearly because, historically, global leadership in one sector – including technology and warfare – feeds into others. U.S. dominance is in question. the active restriction of scientific exchange: tightening access to U.S. institutions, scrutinizing international collaborations and raising barriers to foreign-born researchers. These policies, though intended as security measures, work against the openness that has historically made American science productive and attractive to global talent.
I describe this issue as an example of the stockyard paradox, in which securing research assets may weaken the very system these measures aim to protect. The deeper danger for the U.S. economy is that disinvestment and selective engagement in research erodes the capacity to use cutting-edge science regardless of where it is produced.
Absorbing and applying cutting-edge knowledge, whether developed in Boston or Beijing, requires maintaining research institutions and trained workforces, as well as active participation in global networks. This is not a passive process. You cannot free-ride on Chinese science if you have dismantled the institutional and human capital needed to evaluate, translate and apply it.
A nation that hollows out its research base not only falls behind but also progressively loses its ability to benefit from science, including in technologies it is already able to access. Does the U.S. still want to lead in science? The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, estimates that a 20% cut in federal research and development starting in fiscal year 2026 would shrink the U.S. economy by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce tax revenue by around $250 billion. Others point out that the scientific enterprise has contributed at least half of U.S. economic growth.
That is a lot to lose. Yay a new (and interesting) topic, much obliged! If I had a criticism of this article, there ain’t much delving into the why and I’d be quite interested to see a bit more analysis there. Obviously it’s rather good on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ aspects. I mean for example is the US starting to drop a bit because of intentional policy, or is it more a case of complacency of the form ‘we’re America we’re where the talent wants to go, so we don’t necessarily need to invest to maintain that status or what have you. More broadly speaking, it feels a huge area that general public sentiment tends to overlooked in terms of hot political topics. Now, the UK ain’t China or the US, it does a punch pretty damn hard. Argh, I haven’t mentioned Brexit for ages but here we go! It felt in that lead-in people were extremely blasé about the UK’s RnD being at least somewhat jeopardised by what Brexit (esp. a hard one) entailed. It’s a somewhat strange oversight to me, do people just think world class scientists and institution spring from the ether or something? I don’t think there’s much dispute that to produce world class sportspeople, the individual generally needs to put in years and years of graft, and (generally) needs to be ensconced in systems and leagues of high quality. Why would science be any different? I'd say, and I think most would agree, is that the lobbying arm of the political world wields too much power. They get laws passed that harm other sectors and bottom lines, leading to RnD being cut first. Toyota, Honda, etc all have several new EVs they were going to launch, especially with the EV pilot Obama had with getting charging centers expanded. Trump tanked all of that. Then cut the tax breaks and other stuff. No company is going to invest in a market like that. The thing is, people want EVs. Big Oil is just that good at propaganda and the gen pop has a serious lack of critical thinking. I'd have bought an EV but without reliable charging access where I live, I'd be hard pressed to justify it. China isn't the issue. It's the US and the people/laws being owned by the extremely wealthy and connected. Musk fucked over EVs/Tesla when he had the best position to advocate and expand. Greed and stupidity at its finest. Largely agreed on that specific area, from what I gathered from Enders linked article it’s something of a wider wholesale trend which I find more curious. I mean lobbying power isn’t anything particularly new What I mean, is that it starts from one sector and infects others as it follows. The dissolution (or damn near) of the national weather alert service means that information regarding potentially lethal storms are slower getting to the people who need them. The dismantling of the education system affects who has access to the learning/education they need to continue the research. Holding universities research depts hostage for money earmarked for them also hurts, so now you've got learned professors+ leaving academia and research grinds to a halt. This administration has systematically done all it can to hamstring/kneecap the country in regards to science/tech. All those big data manufacturing plants from TSMC, Samsung, AMD, NVidia? We don't have the workforce to populate them, nor the construction power (remember they deported the Samsung crew?). I used EVs as a way to segue into the conversation, but I agree. The most on-the-nose example of this that I can think of is when RFK Jr. - notorious anti-medicine / anti-health / anti-vaxxer / anti-science nutjob, who is literally the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services - is complaining that China is beating us on health-related fronts, such as in biotech, general clinical research, and medical patents. Gee, I wonder who might possibly be messing things up for the United States, Robert Fucking Kennedy Jr. This feels like a "rock bottom" moment for the US. What's the worse version of this that could exist and people would still consider it a legitimate government? Dunno, but i thought the same with Bush Jr. and Trump 1. I am sure you guys will find a deeper hole in a few years. To be honest, I'm not sure how much worse it could get. I think a significant line that's been crossed by Trump is that he's explicitly appointed people with zero credentials or experience. I think even GWB generally cared about being surrounded by people who kind of had at least a little expertise in their respective fields. I guess maybe an even worse case might be if a new President doesn't even want a Cabinet and just says they'll do everything on their own? Not enough people pay attention to executive branch positions outside of the president and vice president, so maybe too few Americans would care?
In Germany, we have a saying: "Schlimmer geht immer". Worse is always possible.
I agree that it is kind of hard to imagine at this point, but i am sure they will find a way. Maybe instead of incompetent and evil they will go for competent and evil next.
|
On April 27 2026 17:05 Uldridge wrote:
I don't even understand how that's even possible, truly. No vetting, no kind of bar that needs to be cleared by an apolitical party. President appoints, they can shit the bed however they like. Bizarre.
The Senate confirms the Cabinet appointees, but that doesn't really mean much if enough Senators are going to automatically agree with the President no matter what (which means those Senators would allow for even the worst Cabinet appointees... and those Senators would probably be fine with letting the President appoint fewer or no Cabinet appointees at all). So much for "checks and balances" between branches of government.
|
On April 27 2026 17:18 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2026 16:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 11:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2026 08:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 07:33 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 05:11 WombaT wrote:On April 27 2026 03:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 02:31 WombaT wrote:On April 26 2026 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:I was just reading this article theconversation.comAnd found it to be well worth a read. It's well sourced and thought-provoking. The main theme is about loss of scientific leadership, China now outspends the US in absolute terms in scientific research, produces twice as many patents and is set to continue to increase. The US on the other hand is restricting the influx of researchers while simultaneously reducing its spending. Here are some nice quotes: U.S. scientific and technological leadership was nurtured by sustained public investment in research universities and federal laboratories, as well as a culture of open inquiry. These investments turned scientific discovery into economic strength – accounting for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II. The most recent reports showing that China is now outspending the U.S. on scientific and technological research is a turning point worth understanding clearly because, historically, global leadership in one sector – including technology and warfare – feeds into others. U.S. dominance is in question. the active restriction of scientific exchange: tightening access to U.S. institutions, scrutinizing international collaborations and raising barriers to foreign-born researchers. These policies, though intended as security measures, work against the openness that has historically made American science productive and attractive to global talent.
I describe this issue as an example of the stockyard paradox, in which securing research assets may weaken the very system these measures aim to protect. The deeper danger for the U.S. economy is that disinvestment and selective engagement in research erodes the capacity to use cutting-edge science regardless of where it is produced.
Absorbing and applying cutting-edge knowledge, whether developed in Boston or Beijing, requires maintaining research institutions and trained workforces, as well as active participation in global networks. This is not a passive process. You cannot free-ride on Chinese science if you have dismantled the institutional and human capital needed to evaluate, translate and apply it.
A nation that hollows out its research base not only falls behind but also progressively loses its ability to benefit from science, including in technologies it is already able to access. Does the U.S. still want to lead in science? The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, estimates that a 20% cut in federal research and development starting in fiscal year 2026 would shrink the U.S. economy by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce tax revenue by around $250 billion. Others point out that the scientific enterprise has contributed at least half of U.S. economic growth.
That is a lot to lose. Yay a new (and interesting) topic, much obliged! If I had a criticism of this article, there ain’t much delving into the why and I’d be quite interested to see a bit more analysis there. Obviously it’s rather good on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ aspects. I mean for example is the US starting to drop a bit because of intentional policy, or is it more a case of complacency of the form ‘we’re America we’re where the talent wants to go, so we don’t necessarily need to invest to maintain that status or what have you. More broadly speaking, it feels a huge area that general public sentiment tends to overlooked in terms of hot political topics. Now, the UK ain’t China or the US, it does a punch pretty damn hard. Argh, I haven’t mentioned Brexit for ages but here we go! It felt in that lead-in people were extremely blasé about the UK’s RnD being at least somewhat jeopardised by what Brexit (esp. a hard one) entailed. It’s a somewhat strange oversight to me, do people just think world class scientists and institution spring from the ether or something? I don’t think there’s much dispute that to produce world class sportspeople, the individual generally needs to put in years and years of graft, and (generally) needs to be ensconced in systems and leagues of high quality. Why would science be any different? I'd say, and I think most would agree, is that the lobbying arm of the political world wields too much power. They get laws passed that harm other sectors and bottom lines, leading to RnD being cut first. Toyota, Honda, etc all have several new EVs they were going to launch, especially with the EV pilot Obama had with getting charging centers expanded. Trump tanked all of that. Then cut the tax breaks and other stuff. No company is going to invest in a market like that. The thing is, people want EVs. Big Oil is just that good at propaganda and the gen pop has a serious lack of critical thinking. I'd have bought an EV but without reliable charging access where I live, I'd be hard pressed to justify it. China isn't the issue. It's the US and the people/laws being owned by the extremely wealthy and connected. Musk fucked over EVs/Tesla when he had the best position to advocate and expand. Greed and stupidity at its finest. Largely agreed on that specific area, from what I gathered from Enders linked article it’s something of a wider wholesale trend which I find more curious. I mean lobbying power isn’t anything particularly new What I mean, is that it starts from one sector and infects others as it follows. The dissolution (or damn near) of the national weather alert service means that information regarding potentially lethal storms are slower getting to the people who need them. The dismantling of the education system affects who has access to the learning/education they need to continue the research. Holding universities research depts hostage for money earmarked for them also hurts, so now you've got learned professors+ leaving academia and research grinds to a halt. This administration has systematically done all it can to hamstring/kneecap the country in regards to science/tech. All those big data manufacturing plants from TSMC, Samsung, AMD, NVidia? We don't have the workforce to populate them, nor the construction power (remember they deported the Samsung crew?). I used EVs as a way to segue into the conversation, but I agree. The most on-the-nose example of this that I can think of is when RFK Jr. - notorious anti-medicine / anti-health / anti-vaxxer / anti-science nutjob, who is literally the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services - is complaining that China is beating us on health-related fronts, such as in biotech, general clinical research, and medical patents. Gee, I wonder who might possibly be messing things up for the United States, Robert Fucking Kennedy Jr. This feels like a "rock bottom" moment for the US. What's the worse version of this that could exist and people would still consider it a legitimate government? On April 27 2026 13:35 Simberto wrote:On April 27 2026 11:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2026 08:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 07:33 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 05:11 WombaT wrote:On April 27 2026 03:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 02:31 WombaT wrote:On April 26 2026 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:I was just reading this article theconversation.comAnd found it to be well worth a read. It's well sourced and thought-provoking. The main theme is about loss of scientific leadership, China now outspends the US in absolute terms in scientific research, produces twice as many patents and is set to continue to increase. The US on the other hand is restricting the influx of researchers while simultaneously reducing its spending. Here are some nice quotes: [quote] [quote] [quote] [quote] [quote] Yay a new (and interesting) topic, much obliged! If I had a criticism of this article, there ain’t much delving into the why and I’d be quite interested to see a bit more analysis there. Obviously it’s rather good on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ aspects. I mean for example is the US starting to drop a bit because of intentional policy, or is it more a case of complacency of the form ‘we’re America we’re where the talent wants to go, so we don’t necessarily need to invest to maintain that status or what have you. More broadly speaking, it feels a huge area that general public sentiment tends to overlooked in terms of hot political topics. Now, the UK ain’t China or the US, it does a punch pretty damn hard. Argh, I haven’t mentioned Brexit for ages but here we go! It felt in that lead-in people were extremely blasé about the UK’s RnD being at least somewhat jeopardised by what Brexit (esp. a hard one) entailed. It’s a somewhat strange oversight to me, do people just think world class scientists and institution spring from the ether or something? I don’t think there’s much dispute that to produce world class sportspeople, the individual generally needs to put in years and years of graft, and (generally) needs to be ensconced in systems and leagues of high quality. Why would science be any different? I'd say, and I think most would agree, is that the lobbying arm of the political world wields too much power. They get laws passed that harm other sectors and bottom lines, leading to RnD being cut first. Toyota, Honda, etc all have several new EVs they were going to launch, especially with the EV pilot Obama had with getting charging centers expanded. Trump tanked all of that. Then cut the tax breaks and other stuff. No company is going to invest in a market like that. The thing is, people want EVs. Big Oil is just that good at propaganda and the gen pop has a serious lack of critical thinking. I'd have bought an EV but without reliable charging access where I live, I'd be hard pressed to justify it. China isn't the issue. It's the US and the people/laws being owned by the extremely wealthy and connected. Musk fucked over EVs/Tesla when he had the best position to advocate and expand. Greed and stupidity at its finest. Largely agreed on that specific area, from what I gathered from Enders linked article it’s something of a wider wholesale trend which I find more curious. I mean lobbying power isn’t anything particularly new What I mean, is that it starts from one sector and infects others as it follows. The dissolution (or damn near) of the national weather alert service means that information regarding potentially lethal storms are slower getting to the people who need them. The dismantling of the education system affects who has access to the learning/education they need to continue the research. Holding universities research depts hostage for money earmarked for them also hurts, so now you've got learned professors+ leaving academia and research grinds to a halt. This administration has systematically done all it can to hamstring/kneecap the country in regards to science/tech. All those big data manufacturing plants from TSMC, Samsung, AMD, NVidia? We don't have the workforce to populate them, nor the construction power (remember they deported the Samsung crew?). I used EVs as a way to segue into the conversation, but I agree. The most on-the-nose example of this that I can think of is when RFK Jr. - notorious anti-medicine / anti-health / anti-vaxxer / anti-science nutjob, who is literally the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services - is complaining that China is beating us on health-related fronts, such as in biotech, general clinical research, and medical patents. Gee, I wonder who might possibly be messing things up for the United States, Robert Fucking Kennedy Jr. This feels like a "rock bottom" moment for the US. What's the worse version of this that could exist and people would still consider it a legitimate government? Dunno, but i thought the same with Bush Jr. and Trump 1. I am sure you guys will find a deeper hole in a few years. To be honest, I'm not sure how much worse it could get. I think a significant line that's been crossed by Trump is that he's explicitly appointed people with zero credentials or experience. I think even GWB generally cared about being surrounded by people who kind of had at least a little expertise in their respective fields. I guess maybe an even worse case might be if a new President doesn't even want a Cabinet and just says they'll do everything on their own? Not enough people pay attention to executive branch positions outside of the president and vice president, so maybe too few Americans would care? In Germany, we have a saying: "Schlimmer geht immer". Worse is always possible. I agree that it is kind of hard to imagine at this point, but i am sure they will find a way. Maybe instead of incompetent and evil they will go for competent and evil next.
Yeah that's true. It's hard for me to imagine at this point in time, but maybe one or two or three presidential terms from now we'll all be like "yeahhhhhhh this situation is even worse than Trump's presidencies".
|
On April 27 2026 17:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2026 17:05 Uldridge wrote:
I don't even understand how that's even possible, truly. No vetting, no kind of bar that needs to be cleared by an apolitical party. President appoints, they can shit the bed however they like. Bizarre. The Senate confirms the Cabinet appointees, but that doesn't really mean much if enough Senators are going to automatically agree with the President no matter what (which means those Senators would allow for even the worst Cabinet appointees... and those Senators would probably be fine with letting the President appoint fewer or no Cabinet appointees at all). So much for "checks and balances" between branches of government.
Checks and balances assumed that organs want to keep the control they have. It didn't really anticipate the idea of an organisation spanning multiple organs which to the people in them is more important that the organ they are in.
Checks and balances in the US style depend on the people in congress viewing themselves as "people in congress" first, and party affiliates second at best. But they don't. They view themselves as party first, and congress as just a position in that party.
|
On April 27 2026 17:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2026 17:18 Simberto wrote:On April 27 2026 16:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 11:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2026 08:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 07:33 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 05:11 WombaT wrote:On April 27 2026 03:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 02:31 WombaT wrote:On April 26 2026 17:01 EnDeR_ wrote:I was just reading this article theconversation.comAnd found it to be well worth a read. It's well sourced and thought-provoking. The main theme is about loss of scientific leadership, China now outspends the US in absolute terms in scientific research, produces twice as many patents and is set to continue to increase. The US on the other hand is restricting the influx of researchers while simultaneously reducing its spending. Here are some nice quotes: [quote] [quote] [quote] [quote] [quote] Yay a new (and interesting) topic, much obliged! If I had a criticism of this article, there ain’t much delving into the why and I’d be quite interested to see a bit more analysis there. Obviously it’s rather good on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ aspects. I mean for example is the US starting to drop a bit because of intentional policy, or is it more a case of complacency of the form ‘we’re America we’re where the talent wants to go, so we don’t necessarily need to invest to maintain that status or what have you. More broadly speaking, it feels a huge area that general public sentiment tends to overlooked in terms of hot political topics. Now, the UK ain’t China or the US, it does a punch pretty damn hard. Argh, I haven’t mentioned Brexit for ages but here we go! It felt in that lead-in people were extremely blasé about the UK’s RnD being at least somewhat jeopardised by what Brexit (esp. a hard one) entailed. It’s a somewhat strange oversight to me, do people just think world class scientists and institution spring from the ether or something? I don’t think there’s much dispute that to produce world class sportspeople, the individual generally needs to put in years and years of graft, and (generally) needs to be ensconced in systems and leagues of high quality. Why would science be any different? I'd say, and I think most would agree, is that the lobbying arm of the political world wields too much power. They get laws passed that harm other sectors and bottom lines, leading to RnD being cut first. Toyota, Honda, etc all have several new EVs they were going to launch, especially with the EV pilot Obama had with getting charging centers expanded. Trump tanked all of that. Then cut the tax breaks and other stuff. No company is going to invest in a market like that. The thing is, people want EVs. Big Oil is just that good at propaganda and the gen pop has a serious lack of critical thinking. I'd have bought an EV but without reliable charging access where I live, I'd be hard pressed to justify it. China isn't the issue. It's the US and the people/laws being owned by the extremely wealthy and connected. Musk fucked over EVs/Tesla when he had the best position to advocate and expand. Greed and stupidity at its finest. Largely agreed on that specific area, from what I gathered from Enders linked article it’s something of a wider wholesale trend which I find more curious. I mean lobbying power isn’t anything particularly new What I mean, is that it starts from one sector and infects others as it follows. The dissolution (or damn near) of the national weather alert service means that information regarding potentially lethal storms are slower getting to the people who need them. The dismantling of the education system affects who has access to the learning/education they need to continue the research. Holding universities research depts hostage for money earmarked for them also hurts, so now you've got learned professors+ leaving academia and research grinds to a halt. This administration has systematically done all it can to hamstring/kneecap the country in regards to science/tech. All those big data manufacturing plants from TSMC, Samsung, AMD, NVidia? We don't have the workforce to populate them, nor the construction power (remember they deported the Samsung crew?). I used EVs as a way to segue into the conversation, but I agree. The most on-the-nose example of this that I can think of is when RFK Jr. - notorious anti-medicine / anti-health / anti-vaxxer / anti-science nutjob, who is literally the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services - is complaining that China is beating us on health-related fronts, such as in biotech, general clinical research, and medical patents. Gee, I wonder who might possibly be messing things up for the United States, Robert Fucking Kennedy Jr. This feels like a "rock bottom" moment for the US. What's the worse version of this that could exist and people would still consider it a legitimate government? On April 27 2026 13:35 Simberto wrote:On April 27 2026 11:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2026 08:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 07:33 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 05:11 WombaT wrote:On April 27 2026 03:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 27 2026 02:31 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
Yay a new (and interesting) topic, much obliged!
If I had a criticism of this article, there ain’t much delving into the why and I’d be quite interested to see a bit more analysis there. Obviously it’s rather good on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ aspects.
I mean for example is the US starting to drop a bit because of intentional policy, or is it more a case of complacency of the form ‘we’re America we’re where the talent wants to go, so we don’t necessarily need to invest to maintain that status or what have you.
More broadly speaking, it feels a huge area that general public sentiment tends to overlooked in terms of hot political topics.
Now, the UK ain’t China or the US, it does a punch pretty damn hard. Argh, I haven’t mentioned Brexit for ages but here we go! It felt in that lead-in people were extremely blasé about the UK’s RnD being at least somewhat jeopardised by what Brexit (esp. a hard one) entailed.
It’s a somewhat strange oversight to me, do people just think world class scientists and institution spring from the ether or something?
I don’t think there’s much dispute that to produce world class sportspeople, the individual generally needs to put in years and years of graft, and (generally) needs to be ensconced in systems and leagues of high quality. Why would science be any different?
I'd say, and I think most would agree, is that the lobbying arm of the political world wields too much power. They get laws passed that harm other sectors and bottom lines, leading to RnD being cut first. Toyota, Honda, etc all have several new EVs they were going to launch, especially with the EV pilot Obama had with getting charging centers expanded. Trump tanked all of that. Then cut the tax breaks and other stuff. No company is going to invest in a market like that. The thing is, people want EVs. Big Oil is just that good at propaganda and the gen pop has a serious lack of critical thinking. I'd have bought an EV but without reliable charging access where I live, I'd be hard pressed to justify it. China isn't the issue. It's the US and the people/laws being owned by the extremely wealthy and connected. Musk fucked over EVs/Tesla when he had the best position to advocate and expand. Greed and stupidity at its finest. Largely agreed on that specific area, from what I gathered from Enders linked article it’s something of a wider wholesale trend which I find more curious. I mean lobbying power isn’t anything particularly new What I mean, is that it starts from one sector and infects others as it follows. The dissolution (or damn near) of the national weather alert service means that information regarding potentially lethal storms are slower getting to the people who need them. The dismantling of the education system affects who has access to the learning/education they need to continue the research. Holding universities research depts hostage for money earmarked for them also hurts, so now you've got learned professors+ leaving academia and research grinds to a halt. This administration has systematically done all it can to hamstring/kneecap the country in regards to science/tech. All those big data manufacturing plants from TSMC, Samsung, AMD, NVidia? We don't have the workforce to populate them, nor the construction power (remember they deported the Samsung crew?). I used EVs as a way to segue into the conversation, but I agree. The most on-the-nose example of this that I can think of is when RFK Jr. - notorious anti-medicine / anti-health / anti-vaxxer / anti-science nutjob, who is literally the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services - is complaining that China is beating us on health-related fronts, such as in biotech, general clinical research, and medical patents. Gee, I wonder who might possibly be messing things up for the United States, Robert Fucking Kennedy Jr. This feels like a "rock bottom" moment for the US. What's the worse version of this that could exist and people would still consider it a legitimate government? Dunno, but i thought the same with Bush Jr. and Trump 1. I am sure you guys will find a deeper hole in a few years. To be honest, I'm not sure how much worse it could get. I think a significant line that's been crossed by Trump is that he's explicitly appointed people with zero credentials or experience. I think even GWB generally cared about being surrounded by people who kind of had at least a little expertise in their respective fields. I guess maybe an even worse case might be if a new President doesn't even want a Cabinet and just says they'll do everything on their own? Not enough people pay attention to executive branch positions outside of the president and vice president, so maybe too few Americans would care? In Germany, we have a saying: "Schlimmer geht immer". Worse is always possible. I agree that it is kind of hard to imagine at this point, but i am sure they will find a way. Maybe instead of incompetent and evil they will go for competent and evil next. Yeah that's true. It's hard for me to imagine at this point in time, but maybe one or two or three presidential terms from now we'll all be like "yeahhhhhhh this situation is even worse than Trump's presidencies".
It's not that it can't get worse, it's how much worse can it get and still be considered/treated as a legitimate government?
The president could be a naked person smoking crack and/or fent on the white house lawn trying to sell random stuff out of the white house while talking to the sky about the voices in their head telling them they shouldn't "even want a Cabinet and just says they'll do everything on their own" 1 or 3 terms from now.
|
Northern Ireland26736 Posts
On April 27 2026 11:42 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 10:36 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 10:13 Razyda wrote:On April 25 2026 08:35 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 08:09 Razyda wrote:On April 25 2026 02:29 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 02:10 Razyda wrote:On April 25 2026 00:34 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 23:18 KwarK wrote:[quote] https://users.cla.umn.edu/~uggen/Behrens_Uggen_Manza_ajs.pdfhttps://alabamareflector.com/2025/09/02/study-black-alabamians-more-likely-to-lose-vote-over-moral-turpitude-than-whites/Let's hear from John B. Knox, President of the 1901 Alabama Constitutional Convention. He can walk us through this in his own words. Every response is a literal quote from the transcript. [quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote] That Constitutional Convention established that local officials in Alabama communities were empowered to deny citizens voting if the citizen had been found guilty of a crime of moral turpitude. Moral turpitude was never defined, the crimes were never listed, it was left up to the local officials to decide who should not be allowed to vote on account of their moral character. The law is literally still there. 2.3% of black men in Alabama can't vote today under the "establish white supremacy" law of 1901. You might think that that's weird because this one is surely indefensible, they said the quiet part out loud, they literally told everyone why they were doing it, then they literally explained how the "we don't say 'blacks' in the law and if it happens to have a racial result then that's fine" loophole worked. The 1985 Supreme Court unanimously agreed and told Alabama to remove the language. But Alabamans are smart when it comes to loopholes. They removed the language but then put it back in unchanged, satisfying the Supreme Court. It wasn't until 2017 that Alabama finally passed a law that created a list which is a slight improvement because it isn't purely at the discretion of poll officials but, of course, it just moves the hurdle very slightly. Instead of charging a white man and a black man with the same crime and only disenfranchising the black man they now get equal treatment, assuming Alabama is equally willing to arrest, investigate, and convict a black man, and assuming they're charged with the same crime. As John explained, you don’t need to write racially specific restrictions into the laws, you just write restrictions, your existing control over the system will do the rest. To put it in a modern context, you decide how hard it is to get IDs, processing times, where the ID registration centres are, their opening hours, what documents are needed, if home ownership is required for proof of address, whatever. Or to put it in another modern context, literally what John said in 1901 because that is in a modern context because the restrictions he wrote in 1901 are the ones being used today. It’s absolute peak ignorance to declare that the Civil War was a long time ago and so it has no relevance today. Wasnt this dude a Democrat?? This is why you get the responses you do. They’re what you deserve. You got question you got, because you just tried to explain to oBlade that there is massive republican/conservative conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments, by quoting conservative Democrat from 1901. That just doesnt make sense, let alone argument. On April 25 2026 00:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 23:18 KwarK wrote:[quote] https://users.cla.umn.edu/~uggen/Behrens_Uggen_Manza_ajs.pdfhttps://alabamareflector.com/2025/09/02/study-black-alabamians-more-likely-to-lose-vote-over-moral-turpitude-than-whites/Let's hear from John B. Knox, President of the 1901 Alabama Constitutional Convention. He can walk us through this in his own words. Every response is a literal quote from the transcript. [quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote] That Constitutional Convention established that local officials in Alabama communities were empowered to deny citizens voting if the citizen had been found guilty of a crime of moral turpitude. Moral turpitude was never defined, the crimes were never listed, it was left up to the local officials to decide who should not be allowed to vote on account of their moral character. The law is literally still there. 2.3% of black men in Alabama can't vote today under the "establish white supremacy" law of 1901. You might think that that's weird because this one is surely indefensible, they said the quiet part out loud, they literally told everyone why they were doing it, then they literally explained how the "we don't say 'blacks' in the law and if it happens to have a racial result then that's fine" loophole worked. The 1985 Supreme Court unanimously agreed and told Alabama to remove the language. But Alabamans are smart when it comes to loopholes. They removed the language but then put it back in unchanged, satisfying the Supreme Court. It wasn't until 2017 that Alabama finally passed a law that created a list which is a slight improvement because it isn't purely at the discretion of poll officials but, of course, it just moves the hurdle very slightly. Instead of charging a white man and a black man with the same crime and only disenfranchising the black man they now get equal treatment, assuming Alabama is equally willing to arrest, investigate, and convict a black man, and assuming they're charged with the same crime. As John explained, you don’t need to write racially specific restrictions into the laws, you just write restrictions, your existing control over the system will do the rest. To put it in a modern context, you decide how hard it is to get IDs, processing times, where the ID registration centres are, their opening hours, what documents are needed, if home ownership is required for proof of address, whatever. Or to put it in another modern context, literally what John said in 1901 because that is in a modern context because the restrictions he wrote in 1901 are the ones being used today. It’s absolute peak ignorance to declare that the Civil War was a long time ago and so it has no relevance today. Wasnt this dude a Democrat?? A conservative, you mean? https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=5676#113502 So you believe that Democrats were capable to turn into progressives in couple of decades, but conservatives didnt change at all since 1901? On April 25 2026 00:59 WombaT wrote:
@Razyda there you go, I hope you’re grateful for the a single sentence in Chat GPT hours of research…
Voter disenfranchisement in the United States refers to ways in which eligible citizens are prevented—intentionally or indirectly—from registering to vote or casting a ballot. It’s not usually one single policy, but a mix of laws, administrative practices, and structural issues. Here are the main mechanisms:
⸻
1. Voter ID Laws
Some states require specific forms of identification to vote.
* Supporters say this prevents fraud.
* Critics argue it disproportionately affects low-income voters, elderly people, and minorities who are less likely to have qualifying IDs.
⸻
2. Voter Roll Purges
States regularly remove names from voter registration lists.
* This can happen due to inactivity, address changes, or errors.
* Problems arise when eligible voters are mistakenly removed and only discover it when they try to vote.
⸻
3. Felony Disenfranchisement
In many states, people with felony convictions lose voting rights—sometimes permanently.
* This disproportionately affects certain communities due to disparities in the criminal justice system.
* Policies vary widely by state (some restore rights after release, others don’t).
⸻
4. Limited Polling Access
This includes:
* Fewer polling stations in certain areas
* Long wait times (sometimes hours)
* Reduced early voting periods
These barriers tend to affect urban areas and minority communities more heavily.
⸻
5. Gerrymandering
This is the manipulation of electoral district boundaries.
* It doesn’t stop people from voting directly, but it can dilute the impact of their vote.
* Political parties in power often draw districts to favor themselves.
⸻
6. Registration Barriers
* Strict registration deadlines
* Limited online registration access (in some states)
* Complicated processes for first-time voters
These can discourage or prevent eligible people from registering.
⸻
7. Mail Voting Restrictions
Rules around absentee or mail-in voting vary by state.
* Some states require specific excuses or impose strict deadlines.
* Rejected ballots (due to signature mismatches, etc.) can also disenfranchise voters.
⸻
8. Misinformation and Intimidation
* False information about voting dates, eligibility, or requirements
* Aggressive “poll watching” or law enforcement presence
These can discourage turnout, especially among vulnerable groups.
⸻
9. Language and Accessibility Barriers
* Lack of multilingual ballots or assistance
* Inaccessible polling locations for people with disabilities
⸻
Big Picture
Disenfranchisement in the U.S. is often debated politically. Some measures are framed as protecting election integrity, while others are criticized for suppressing participation. The real impact tends to depend on how these policies are implemented and who is most affected. Not sure why you @ me here? You have previously said disenfranchisement can’t happen because it’s illegal (it isn’t ) Assuming you are not aware of some of these things, I got an LLM to make a short summary based on a prompt consisting of a single sentence. Take it or leave it, no skin off my dick like. It’s a thread full of people who broadly know what they’re talking about (and me), it’s like you’re actively trying not to learn anything on any of the topics you pontificate on Oh I see, that wasn't my point, apologies for not being clear. What I meant was that abusing Voter ID would be illegal, as in they wouldnt be able to go like: White men get it for free White women must have written permission of a husband and pay 1k dollars Black folks must have certificates from 3 white families signed by attorney and pay 100k. Thats what I meant. Sure, you can’t do those things but did you read the Chat GPT summary I posted? IIRC you’re a Pole living in the UK, so you’ve probably never lived in a place where these things are really a question. In the US, they can be. Which is the concern people have. Bear in mind how elections functionally are administered aren’t nationally standardised and are at the discretion of states. At a localised level, all it takes is a voter roll purge at short notice and a lack of convenient facilities to re-register and you’re fucking with the ability of people to exercise their democratic rights. I did read this summary, it is irrelevant to my argument, because very people your summary mentioned wouldnt be able to get voter ID. As in people unable to vote would still be unable to vote. As for second paragraph "Irish need not apply"? Regarding remaining two paragraphs: this are not the voter ID issues, like... at all. This are particular states voting laws. Like, people who wouldnt be able to vote wouldnt get voter ID, which seems like entire purpose of it. How is it irrelevant to your argument? What the fuck are you even talking about? What IS your argument? Fucking hell are you genuinely incapable of assimilating new information or what, Jesus H Christ My argument is that there is no legal mechanism allowing distribution of voting ID to be discriminatory. Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 21:21 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 13:47 baal wrote:On April 24 2026 20:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
There are plenty of issues with Democratic politicians and the Democratic party. Pushing for insecure elections is not one of them. Your retreat from "election integrity" to "oH nOw dEmOcRaT PoLiTiCiAnS aRe pErFeCt!?!?!?!?!?!?" is a clear goalpost-moving concession on your part, and it's probably the closest we'll all get to you apologizing for being the most recent poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect. They are pushing for insecure elections while refusing to put any form of ID to vote. I'm not moving the goalpost, I said republicans want ID for personal gain (votes) and Dems don't want it for the same reason, people who don't see that are in my opinion naive. It's the same argument. So... you don't have a source for the bolded? And instead of backing up your claim, you thought it'd be a good idea to provide a non sequitur, since the lack of a photo ID doesn't actually mean "the US has one of the least secure systems"? And we know this is true, because your assertion - "the US has one of the least secure systems" - is actually completely false. You're right that there have been "multiple studies"... but they disprove your statement. The United States's election system and general election integrity are nowhere near the bottom. In fact, they consistently rank in the top half of countries, with scores like 11/12 and 9.17/10 depending on which metrics are being used and who is doing the research. Not perfect, but still very secure... Elections outside of the 1st world are a shit show, of course they are going to rank higher than in places where people steal ballot boxes with machetes in a pickup and the votes are counted by the president's cousin, and that is pretty much what happens in all the rest of the world. However the system itself isn't secure because not even a photo ID is required, having a Photo ID would make elections even more secure, or even better a federal voting ID with a better security measures than a driving license. There is very little downside, the cost is minimal and you get better security in your elections. Is the cost minimal? I must say I don’t know, you seem awful confident to assert it is Federal voting ID I don’t think you’ll get too many objections from the thread, I may be wrong and consider me corrected in advance if so. The problem there is that Republicans aren’t going to go for it and will complain that it’s federalising elections and muh states rights I dunno how many times we need to do this dance until you realise that photo voter ID isn’t actually the thing people are concerned about Have you read the thread? It is mysterious republicans abuse which nobody is able specify. Feel free to make a poll. Show nested quote +On April 26 2026 14:16 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2026 13:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 26 2026 10:56 KwarK wrote:
Presumably the latest in a series of time travelers trying to kill Trump. Secret Service never reveal any details on the shooters because of the implication. Is this something that will be like the time his ear was shot off and magically healed without any deformation? Or the time some guy just happened to be walking near his golf course the exact time he was there with a weapon? Or that one time... It’s established that Hitler had a number of unlikely escapes from assassins and it is established that the one thing to do with a time machine is go back in time and kill Hitler. Though it is theorized that those attempts must fail due to causality, nobody is going back to prevent the actions of some guy who died as a baby. From our perspective the person to go back and kill is Hitler because he’s Hitler. But time travel hasn’t been invented yet. What if in the year it is invented the consensus is to go back and kill Trump? From our perspective it would look like there were a series of weird assassination attempts that he kept inexplicably surviving. And the Secret Service would cover it up because you don’t want it getting out that all these people trying to shoot your boss are all time travelers, that’s not a good look. Now I’m not saying it’s definitely true, but it’s definitely true. I agree. Not retarded people went and got Netflix shares. Rest went for Trump after he actually became president as this would "simplify" their task, I mean it is not like they could take out Epstein, because I guess raping kids is non issue.... Obviously they would never go for Hitler, I mean who would they compare Trump to?
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Both Kwark and my good buddy Chat GPT I thought already summarised quite well how disenfranchisement can look like or work in practice, and incidentally be perfectly legal
What exactly are you disputing?
It’s one of the downsides of leaving how elections are functionally administered down to the States, rather than standardising it federally I guess. Fuckery is harder to do nationally, as what may benefit you in some places may give your opponents a boost elsewhere.
As I and basically the entire thread have said re this topic, there’s no innate disenfranchisement with voter ID so long as it’s implemented properly
|
Northern Ireland26736 Posts
On April 27 2026 17:23 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2026 17:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 27 2026 17:05 Uldridge wrote:
I don't even understand how that's even possible, truly. No vetting, no kind of bar that needs to be cleared by an apolitical party. President appoints, they can shit the bed however they like. Bizarre. The Senate confirms the Cabinet appointees, but that doesn't really mean much if enough Senators are going to automatically agree with the President no matter what (which means those Senators would allow for even the worst Cabinet appointees... and those Senators would probably be fine with letting the President appoint fewer or no Cabinet appointees at all). So much for "checks and balances" between branches of government. Checks and balances assumed that organs want to keep the control they have. It didn't really anticipate the idea of an organisation spanning multiple organs which to the people in them is more important that the organ they are in. Checks and balances in the US style depend on the people in congress viewing themselves as "people in congress" first, and party affiliates second at best. But they don't. They view themselves as party first, and congress as just a position in that party.
Obligatory cheques and balances joke
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
