|
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 15 2026 00:57 Sermokala wrote:
If the secret service needs a lot more money to secure the white house, maybe that should have been a concern before a third of it was destroyed over the weekend.
...It being smaller is not why they need more money. That's neither in their own rationale for the funding boost, nor does it physically make sense.
They need facilities to screen people because the White House has more traffic now than it used to. And it will have more traffic, and higher peak traffic and more VIPs, once hosting summits securely on the grounds becomes an option.
On May 15 2026 00:57 Sermokala wrote:
The obvious problem is that this money is being used to build the ballroom more than anything, and trump is useing the excuse that he destroyed the existing security infrastructure to get public funding for it after pocketing the private donations.
That would certainly be a problem if you had a shred of evidence for it.
On May 15 2026 00:59 LightSpectra wrote:
"Oh, so you're cool with spending hundreds of billions to prevent innocent people from dying/living miserably of preventable causes but not ones of billions for a child molester's palace?" lol yeah, that's a great point. I'll buy a $4000 katana and when my wife asks what the fuck is wrong with me, I'll point out she spends $200 at the grocery store every week.
You know you can't take the White House with you after your term?
If it's done in 2028 it's available for events for like a year of his term at most (people live in palaces, they don't live in ballrooms).
|
If the ballroom does get finished, I hope the next president turns it into the American Museum of Republican Corruption, Lies, and Abuse. Free admission.
|
On May 15 2026 01:07 Geiko wrote:
It's really not that hard to understand that if you're making the white house 2x bigger, you're going to need to spend twice as much on protection. It's not the protection I'm arguing against, it's the need to make the white house bigger.
Imagine if Trump bought himself a Lamborghini with donor money and then billed the US taxpayers 10M$ for bullet proof windows and gold plated armoring. You'd have oblade probably saying "well obviously we don't want people shooting at the presidential Lamborghini, are you guys stupid ?" I mean...
That is literally what is happening with the Qatar plane.
Qatar gave it to Trump, the deal says he gets to keep it after his presidency ends. And the tax payer is going to pay for it to get all the air force one kit.
|
On May 15 2026 01:15 LightSpectra wrote:
If the ballroom does get finished, I hope the next president turns it into the American Museum of Republican Corruption, Lies, and Abuse. Free admission. The real answer is to knock it back down and rebuild the East wing to its original pre-Trump state.
|
On May 14 2026 22:40 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2026 21:59 Jankisa wrote:On May 13 2026 21:18 oBlade wrote:On May 13 2026 05:03 Jankisa wrote:On May 13 2026 02:15 oBlade wrote:On May 12 2026 23:08 Jankisa wrote:We can just all remind ourselves of what the newly minted member of resistance and previous Trump campaign surrogate, as well as our very own oBlade's favorite interviewer had to say about Trump during the 2024 campaign: Tom Snyder wasn't alive in 2024. Are you seriously going to pretend like you aren't a huge Tucker Carlson fan now? And your dodge is going to be to pretend like your favorite interviewer is someone who receded their last interview in 1999? The comment where you professed your admiration for Tucker also has no references to Tom Snyder. In fact, when you search your profile for Tucker there's like 10 posts, not a beep about Tom here, curious. Also, I wasn't familiar with that moron at the time, but this is what you had to say about Nick "Ukrainians are using our money on cars" Shirley: Another is Nick Shirley, he's rising. Leans right but doesn't preach. Kind of gonzo? He's young, not as experienced so a bit choppy at times, very respectful and personable and somehow gets people to be honest and open and candid. That whole comment is gold, haven't seen it since then and it's nice to have a reminder how utterly broken your brain is and what your media, or rather, propaganda diet is. Of the 6 posts containing the word Tucker, 2 are me responding to you going "Durr oBlade loves Tucker Carlson bootlicking fascist" and 1 of them is me using his name as a placeholder for a rich guy hypothetical. If you want to have your finger on the pulse of the conservative Zeitgeist, Tucker Carlson's interviews at the time I wrote that were key both in terms of the breadth and caliber of guests, and the candidness and detail of information he's able to exchange with his guests. Which is what the post was about. That was the point of that post. I would not mention Tom Snyder there because it wasn't what the post was about. Shirley was also a great call by me who noticed his promise before you knew him - which you do now. You have politics brain so you don't understand that interviewers are just interviewers and there is a world outside of politics. The forensic post analysis is a waste of time. If I search your profile for Trump there will be a billion posts about Trump, it doesn't mean he's your favorite person in the world. Does it? Now any other stuff you want to dig up from a year ago and continue to misunderstand as part of your "please notice me oBlade senpai" scheme? Haha, you are really something bud. You go from "I found Nick Shirley before you did" to "You have politics brain" all in one post, amazing! Above all, I really dislike when people lie for no reason about things that are very easy to check, so any time you try to pretend like you weren't gloriously wrong on things ("Iran doesn't exist") you can bet your sweet bootlicking ass I'll dig up the receipts. Same thing with you being a superfan of a white replacement theory Christo fascism peddler, you can deny it as much as you'd like while hurling alt-right internet slang from 2010-s, as you tend to do, won't change the fact that your media diet is racist slop. You think I am wrong about who my own favorite interviewer is?
Yup, I personally think you are a bit (as you should be) ashamed of the shit you consume so you try to pretend like you don't like it.
I get it, if I was a Ballroom Republican furiously defending Trump and his obviously narcissistic and megalomaniacal projects that have nothing to do with security, I'd be trying to try to pretend like I wasn't completely subsumed to him, it's pretty shameful.
When I was rummaging through your previous screeds I found a rare instance where you uttered some criticism for Trump, you were providing the standard "I don't support everything they do just because I spend all my time defending them" and noted how BBB was bad and could bring financial ruin to the USA.
Yet, here you are, like a year later, no more mentions of your fiscal worries despite US Debt to GDP ratio going over 100 % for the first time since immediately post WW2, with the interest payments being larger then the Military budget (well, until that goes up to $ 1.5 T since president of peace needs it), not only that, instead of providing any criticism of the incredibly irresponsible and stupid spending, you are defending the Ballroom.
How sad.
|
On May 15 2026 01:14 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2026 00:57 Sermokala wrote:
If the secret service needs a lot more money to secure the white house, maybe that should have been a concern before a third of it was destroyed over the weekend. ...It being smaller is not why they need more money. That's neither in their own rationale for the funding boost, nor does it physically make sense. They need facilities to screen people because the White House has more traffic now than it used to. And it will have more traffic, and higher peak traffic and more VIPs, once hosting summits securely on the grounds becomes an option. Show nested quote +On May 15 2026 00:57 Sermokala wrote:
The obvious problem is that this money is being used to build the ballroom more than anything, and trump is useing the excuse that he destroyed the existing security infrastructure to get public funding for it after pocketing the private donations. That would certainly be a problem if you had a shred of evidence for it. Show nested quote +On May 15 2026 00:59 LightSpectra wrote:
"Oh, so you're cool with spending hundreds of billions to prevent innocent people from dying/living miserably of preventable causes but not ones of billions for a child molester's palace?" lol yeah, that's a great point. I'll buy a $4000 katana and when my wife asks what the fuck is wrong with me, I'll point out she spends $200 at the grocery store every week. You know you can't take the White House with you after your term? If it's done in 2028 it's available for events for like a year of his term at most (people live in palaces, they don't live in ballrooms).
What do you mean its going to be smaller? You don't go a line before explaining why the money is being spent because of the ballroom. It would be reasonable to budget for the added security spending when they were planning to build the thing. Instead trump decided to have it knocked down as fast as possible before dumping it as fast as possible on nearby golf courses.
Trump just pocketed all the money that he got from the rubes who wanted a trump phone. I don't know how much more evidence you need to expect the fraudfather to do more fraud.
If you think the ballroom will be done before trump is either dead or before the end of this term you've never seen construction projects at this level.
|
On May 15 2026 01:21 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2026 22:40 oBlade wrote:On May 14 2026 21:59 Jankisa wrote:On May 13 2026 21:18 oBlade wrote:On May 13 2026 05:03 Jankisa wrote:On May 13 2026 02:15 oBlade wrote:On May 12 2026 23:08 Jankisa wrote:We can just all remind ourselves of what the newly minted member of resistance and previous Trump campaign surrogate, as well as our very own oBlade's favorite interviewer had to say about Trump during the 2024 campaign: Tom Snyder wasn't alive in 2024. Are you seriously going to pretend like you aren't a huge Tucker Carlson fan now? And your dodge is going to be to pretend like your favorite interviewer is someone who receded their last interview in 1999? The comment where you professed your admiration for Tucker also has no references to Tom Snyder. In fact, when you search your profile for Tucker there's like 10 posts, not a beep about Tom here, curious. Also, I wasn't familiar with that moron at the time, but this is what you had to say about Nick "Ukrainians are using our money on cars" Shirley: Another is Nick Shirley, he's rising. Leans right but doesn't preach. Kind of gonzo? He's young, not as experienced so a bit choppy at times, very respectful and personable and somehow gets people to be honest and open and candid. That whole comment is gold, haven't seen it since then and it's nice to have a reminder how utterly broken your brain is and what your media, or rather, propaganda diet is. Of the 6 posts containing the word Tucker, 2 are me responding to you going "Durr oBlade loves Tucker Carlson bootlicking fascist" and 1 of them is me using his name as a placeholder for a rich guy hypothetical. If you want to have your finger on the pulse of the conservative Zeitgeist, Tucker Carlson's interviews at the time I wrote that were key both in terms of the breadth and caliber of guests, and the candidness and detail of information he's able to exchange with his guests. Which is what the post was about. That was the point of that post. I would not mention Tom Snyder there because it wasn't what the post was about. Shirley was also a great call by me who noticed his promise before you knew him - which you do now. You have politics brain so you don't understand that interviewers are just interviewers and there is a world outside of politics. The forensic post analysis is a waste of time. If I search your profile for Trump there will be a billion posts about Trump, it doesn't mean he's your favorite person in the world. Does it? Now any other stuff you want to dig up from a year ago and continue to misunderstand as part of your "please notice me oBlade senpai" scheme? Haha, you are really something bud. You go from "I found Nick Shirley before you did" to "You have politics brain" all in one post, amazing! Above all, I really dislike when people lie for no reason about things that are very easy to check, so any time you try to pretend like you weren't gloriously wrong on things ("Iran doesn't exist") you can bet your sweet bootlicking ass I'll dig up the receipts. Same thing with you being a superfan of a white replacement theory Christo fascism peddler, you can deny it as much as you'd like while hurling alt-right internet slang from 2010-s, as you tend to do, won't change the fact that your media diet is racist slop. You think I am wrong about who my own favorite interviewer is? Yup, I personally think you are a bit (as you should be) ashamed of the shit you consume so you try to pretend like you don't like it.
The only thing I'm ashamed of consuming is your posts.
I just opened Tucker's youtube and the only video with a red line under it from this entire year is the interview with Cenk.
On May 15 2026 01:21 Jankisa wrote:
I get it, if I was a Ballroom Republican furiously defending Trump and his obviously narcissistic and megalomaniacal projects I'd be trying to try to pretend like I wasn't completely subsumed to him, it's pretty shameful.
That doesn't add up. If that's the case I would be sitting here saying Tucker, who called Trump the Anti-Christ, is an even bigger genius than you think I think he is. He isn't. I don't particularly like him and I think the laugh is artificial. He gets good guests and produces good interviews with them.
You know who is a great interviewer? Howard Stern? Do I like him? No. You know who I like? Conan. He's a bad interviewer. Same as Larry King. Know who I both like and think was a good interviewer? William F. Buckley. Know who I both dislike and think is a bad interviewer? Lex Fridman. Want to latch onto any of these and do your polygraph soul read schtick and tell me all about what kind of person I am, or do you only have the firmware installed to do that if I utter the magic spell "Tucker Carlson?" Which by the way, you brought me up, you restarted this, because you couldn't just talk about him for its own sake. Or did you even want to? What are you really interested in? Politics, or shitposting about your hallucinated caricature of me?
On May 15 2026 01:21 Jankisa wrote:
When I was rummaging through your previous screeds I found a rare instance where you uttered some criticism for Trump, you were providing the standard "I don't support everything they do just because I spend all my time defending them" and noted how BBB was bad and could bring financial ruin to the USA.
Yet, here you are, like a year later, no more mentions of your fiscal worries despite US Debt to GDP ratio going over 100 % for the first time since immediately post WW2, with the interest payments being larger then the Military budget (well, until that goes up to $ 1.5 T since president of peace needs it), not only that, instead of providing any criticism of the incredibly irresponsible and stupid spending, you are defending the Ballroom.
How sad.
I last posted about the debt on the 1st of this month. Get better at rummaging or abandon the detective work.
+ Show Spoiler +Let me walk through how this post reads to a normal person:
1) You have never posted about civil asset forfeiture
2) Since you haven't, someone who has no respect for other users or the thread could conclude this means you must support it
3) Since you support civil asset forfeiture (which is clearly abuse of power with a shaky legal justification), that makes you a bad person
4) Since you're a bad person, I'm allowed to make up whatever I want about you, call you whatever I want, put whatever words in your mouth and thoughts in your head that I want, and since the well is now poisoned against you, any response you make is exactly what someone who supports civil asset forfeiture but is ashamed to admit it would say, and this is evidence I can use the next time I'm bored and interrupt the thread to mention you out of nowhere
This is what you do. This is what I would do if I were to act like you. I don't do that, because it's wrong, it's unfair, and it's toxic pollution. You have got to grow up with this.
On May 15 2026 02:03 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2026 01:14 oBlade wrote:On May 15 2026 00:57 Sermokala wrote:
If the secret service needs a lot more money to secure the white house, maybe that should have been a concern before a third of it was destroyed over the weekend. ...It being smaller is not why they need more money. That's neither in their own rationale for the funding boost, nor does it physically make sense. They need facilities to screen people because the White House has more traffic now than it used to. And it will have more traffic, and higher peak traffic and more VIPs, once hosting summits securely on the grounds becomes an option. On May 15 2026 00:57 Sermokala wrote:
The obvious problem is that this money is being used to build the ballroom more than anything, and trump is useing the excuse that he destroyed the existing security infrastructure to get public funding for it after pocketing the private donations. That would certainly be a problem if you had a shred of evidence for it. On May 15 2026 00:59 LightSpectra wrote:
"Oh, so you're cool with spending hundreds of billions to prevent innocent people from dying/living miserably of preventable causes but not ones of billions for a child molester's palace?" lol yeah, that's a great point. I'll buy a $4000 katana and when my wife asks what the fuck is wrong with me, I'll point out she spends $200 at the grocery store every week. You know you can't take the White House with you after your term? If it's done in 2028 it's available for events for like a year of his term at most (people live in palaces, they don't live in ballrooms). What do you mean its going to be smaller? You don't go a line before explaining why the money is being spent because of the ballroom. It would be reasonable to budget for the added security spending when they were planning to build the thing. Instead trump decided to have it knocked down as fast as possible before dumping it as fast as possible on nearby golf courses. Trump just pocketed all the money that he got from the rubes who wanted a trump phone. I don't know how much more evidence you need to expect the fraudfather to do more fraud. If you think the ballroom will be done before trump is either dead or before the end of this term you've never seen construction projects at this level.
You made it sound like it was made less secure by being a third smaller.
If you just think budgeting now is too late, is what you're saying, that's not credible. You would not have been more receptive to this budgeting if it was proposed last year while the 1942 FDR East Wing was still there. They are not out of order discussing/passing it now.
Many of the points, like the training and screening center, are irrespective of any ballroom and have been concerns for years. Also the hardening. You harden the entire grounds, not just the ballroom. I appreciate you read a headline somewhere that said $1 BILLION BALLROOM but please. You can't just "pocket" that there isn't even a mechanism for it.
|
On May 15 2026 01:07 Geiko wrote:
It's really not that hard to understand that if you're making the white house 2x bigger, you're going to need to spend twice as much on protection. It's not the protection I'm arguing against, it's the need to make the white house bigger.
Imagine if Trump bought himself a Lamborghini with donor money and then billed the US taxpayers 10M$ for bullet proof windows and gold plated armoring. You'd have oblade probably saying "well obviously we don't want people shooting at the presidential Lamborghini, are you guys stupid ?"
I like this analogy, especially as it preemptively refuted the response of "Well it (ballroom or lamborghini) would still exist after Trump is gone", as if that doesn't mean it's still a waste of money.
|
@oBlade (don't wanna quote since it bloats the thread) I just wanted to note that the person behaving like a caricature blaming others for treating them like one is hilarious.
I like that, but what I LOVE is the fact that you went back to refer to a post of yours that is talking about the debt like it's a mystical thing that no one can really figure out all the while failing to level any criticism at any of the Republican presidents who blew it up.
And here you are, referring to your post where you are trying to talk down to someone to explain how things work and pretending like that is what I was referring to, yet again, rounding out the caricature that you are.
To be clear, my issue and criticism is that in a year where the US finances are looking more ruinous then ever you don't mention it and don't offer criticisms to the person who is the cause of it, even in your last post about the debt you are talking about Congress as if they are anything other then completely subsumed by Trump, just like you are.
|
Canada11594 Posts
@Jankisa
As far as I can tell in reading back, oBlade has made a separation between 'interesting' and 'information source'. And then there was separation between the 'hacks' like Shapiro and the 'conservative zeitgeist'. He gave an equivalent to TYT as Valutainment and then he lists what is key to the conservative zeitgeist at the time: Bannon's War Room, Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, etc. However, I think all of them still fit in his 'interesting' category.
The confusing thing is I think Wombat was seeing oBlade shooting down many of the typical examples of conservative talking heads as being 'hacks' and not representative of the conservative zeitgeist (fast forward, turns out Shapiro was in process of being sidelined. Well, and he was only ever reluctantly defended Trump in the first place, thought he could break free after January 6 and then quickly toed the line again as under Trump, Jan 6/ stolen election is the Shibboleth loyalty test for anyone who dares call themselves conservative in the public sphere.). So Wombat asked, who do you actually recommend? And I don't think oBlade ever answered that, despite saying they were 'key'. He also separates voices from thinkers but only lists voices. But is he cosigning the voices or at least the unlisted thinkers behind the voices? Or are they just 'interesting' as in a piece of trivia?
Because he ends with:
If I want just information as such, like you say there's other avenues.
So that whole list were 'interesting interviewers'... interesting for what reason? Presumably, not as a source of information. But yet they are keys to understanding the conservative zeitgeist... as a conservative source of entertainment? Or they use it as a source of information, but he does not?
Shirley was also a great call by me who noticed his promise before you knew him - which you do now.
@oBlade
You saw his promise early and liked that he goes right to where the current events are- what do you think about his characterization of the US funding the war in Ukraine?
|
@Falling I think there was more to that thread going a few pages back from that big comment, to me, when I read oBlade's posts I recognize the talking points, and the ones he harps on the most (dangers of immigration, them being criminals etc.) are the ones very prominently pushed by Tucker Carlson, so the rest of the post, including calling him "key" cemented in my head that he is the main information source for oBlade, just like he is for many other "I'm not racist but" guys.
TYT has basically, at the time that oBlade was giving them time of day, a "centrist" publication which completely abandoned it's roots, the only thing they are still relatively consistent with their pre 2024 views is Israel/Palestine, the rest, they are very Fettermany, so DINO's if I may say.
Guys like oBlade like to throw a lot of things out in order to obfuscate how ideological they are, basically to "hide their power level" so people don't outright dismiss them as fascists, at least that's my read.
Above all, the guy lies, all the time, and him being into Nick Shirley and Tucker Carlson who like doing the "gonzo" "journalism" of going to places and lying about them and then feigning innocence completely tracks with that.
My main thing is, I really, really hate liars, especially in a public forum like this where things are easily verified, so I call it out when I see it.
And yes, if you spread information and insist on one way of telling a story, when that story turns out to be different, the honest thing is to come and say, yes, I fucked up and I was fooled.
Unfortunately, oBlade is so deep into the right-wing ecosystem that he and all of his compatriots who have been thoroughly fooled by the most obvious con man in history simply can't cope with that, so they keep lying and lying and hiding who they are.
|
United States44243 Posts
I’m still confused by exactly how we’re drawing the line between an example of the Secret Service successfully protecting the president with the resources available to them and the conclusion that they’re hopelessly underequipped to deal with threats with the current resources.
This seems like an area that would be perfect for DOGE and Silicon Valley move fast break things cuts. It’s been a very long time since the last time there was an actual loss due to security failures and yet the security budget grows yearly. And we even have off site backup presidents for redundancy which haven’t been used in forever. Cut the bloat.
|
On May 15 2026 04:01 Falling wrote:@Jankisa As far as I can tell in reading back, oBlade has made a separation between 'interesting' and 'information source'. And then there was separation between the 'hacks' like Shapiro and the 'conservative zeitgeist'. He gave an equivalent to TYT as Valutainment and then he lists what is key to the conservative zeitgeist at the time: Bannon's War Room, Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, etc. However, I think all of them still fit in his 'interesting' category. The confusing thing is I think Wombat was seeing oBlade shooting down many of the typical examples of conservative talking heads as being 'hacks' and not representative of the conservative zeitgeist (fast forward, turns out Shapiro was in process of being sidelined. Well, and he was only ever reluctantly defended Trump in the first place, thought he could break free after January 6 and then quickly toed the line again as under Trump, Jan 6/ stolen election is the Shibboleth loyalty test for anyone who dares call themselves conservative in the public sphere.). So Wombat asked, who do you actually recommend? And I don't think oBlade ever answered that, despite saying they were 'key'. He also separates voices from thinkers but only lists voices. But is he cosigning the voices or at least the unlisted thinkers behind the voices? Or are they just 'interesting' as in a piece of trivia? Because he ends with: I think we all have guys that aren't worth listening to unless you're interested in the guest that's on the show. I've seen I think 5-10 episodes of Joe Rogan and every single one was the guest or because it made news. If Jankisa whacks out on that to call me a "superfan of a white replacement theory Christo fascism peddler," translating the specific insult to the new context of course, that's an issue with nuance and an overeager trigger finger.
The listed people are mostly hacks, which does overlap with people influential with movements and zeitgeists to be honest. Tucker appears to be at least twice as crazy now as when he had the Fox show, from the reporting I've seen on it. I'm not familiar with Bannon's show. Megyn Kelly seems to be the normal news with a conservative slant, but my question to oBlade would be what distinguishes her from the Ben Shapiro-style news and opinion. She also had that controversy recently with indulging in Candace Owens Charlie Kirk conspiracy theories, but that's a bit off topic.
One final point to the topic. I know it strokes our ego to think that the disagreeable or caustic posters are enslaved to some youtube show or internet website. I think it undervalues people that have their own views developed from dozens or hundreds or sources that shape how they consume news now. That's more or less shared among all humanity. The life experience and worldview guides how news is consumed, and not entirely the converse (true for some I'm sure, but not true generally).
|
Generational decline in math scores throughout the USA.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/13/upshot/test-scores-school-districts-us.html
Students’ test scores had been increasing since 1990 — then abruptly stopped in the mid-2010s. That coincided with two events: an easing of federal school accountability under No Child Left Behind, which was replaced in 2015, and the rise of smartphones, social media and personalized school laptops.
the chickens are coming home to rooster the harvest they reaped. 
alls i gotta say is cleaning up the messes created by junior actuarial analysts under age 24 is big business. They are fucking up .. .and they are fucking up huge. Because no one was passing the exams they decided to create a university credit equivalency system. Now we've got Beavis and Butthead running around doing reserve analysis. Cha-Ching!
Also, we live in a super-paranoid, risk-averse nation with crumbling infrastructure and broke governments unable to repair anything. This creates even more demand for new insurance products. This is a perfect opening for all these whiney tech sector employees out of a job.
|
On May 15 2026 07:00 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Generational decline in math scores throughout the USA. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/13/upshot/test-scores-school-districts-us.htmlShow nested quote +Students’ test scores had been increasing since 1990 — then abruptly stopped in the mid-2010s. That coincided with two events: an easing of federal school accountability under No Child Left Behind, which was replaced in 2015, and the rise of smartphones, social media and personalized school laptops. the chickens are coming home to rooster the harvest they reaped.
As a teacher, i highly doubt that this is a US-only problem, or is even really based in any US-specific decisions. I know that the maths skills i observe in my students are often atrocious. In every class, there are 1-4 children or youths who are really competent and interested. But the rest just aren't, and often lack basic skills even far into their education. I'd say that about half of my 11th-grade students can not reliably solve anything beyond even the most basic of equations, or even reliably know what to do with fractions.
Same goes for reading comprehension. I teach maths and science, and even in those subjects it is scary how many children are simply not capable of reliably understanding a written four-sentence instruction or fully digest the information in a one-paragraph text.
And i teach in a school type which only gets the top half of German student.
I don't know the exact reasons, but i of course have some pet theories. One is simply necessity. When i was a child or teenager, you had to read stuff for lots of basic or fun activities. Video games? Lots of text. Want to learn a skill? You probably should read a book about it. Want to talk to your friends after school? You are probably chatting online in some way.
Of course, i haven't been a teacher for that long, so i don't know if it hasn't always been like that. A few very smart children, and a lot of average to incompetent ones.
But it does make me fear for the future. We as a society are definitively not doing our best to educate the next generation, and i fear that we will feel the results of that in the next decade or two. And this doesn't even see to be anywhere close to the top priority of most people, or politics.
|
United States24793 Posts
I think a big piece of it is COVID, and also AI is developing as a big issue, Simberto.
|
On May 15 2026 07:41 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2026 07:00 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Generational decline in math scores throughout the USA. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/13/upshot/test-scores-school-districts-us.htmlStudents’ test scores had been increasing since 1990 — then abruptly stopped in the mid-2010s. That coincided with two events: an easing of federal school accountability under No Child Left Behind, which was replaced in 2015, and the rise of smartphones, social media and personalized school laptops. the chickens are coming home to rooster the harvest they reaped. As a teacher, i highly doubt that this is a US-only problem, or is even really based in any US-specific decisions. I know that the maths skills i observe in my students are often atrocious. In every class, there are 1-4 children or youths who are really competent and interested. But the rest just aren't, and often lack basic skills even far into their education. I'd say that about half of my 11th-grade students can not reliably solve anything beyond even the most basic of equations, or even reliably know what to do with fractions. Same goes for reading comprehension. I teach maths and science, and even in those subjects it is scary how many children are simply not capable of reliably understanding a written four-sentence instruction or fully digest the information in a one-paragraph text. And i teach in a school type which only gets the top half of German student. I don't know the exact reasons, but i of course have some pet theories. One is simply necessity. When i was a child or teenager, you had to read stuff for lots of basic or fun activities. Video games? Lots of text. Want to learn a skill? You probably should read a book about it. Want to talk to your friends after school? You are probably chatting online in some way. Of course, i haven't been a teacher for that long, so i don't know if it hasn't always been like that. A few very smart children, and a lot of average to incompetent ones. But it does make me fear for the future. We as a society are definitively not doing our best to educate the next generation, and i fear that we will feel the results of that in the next decade or two. And this doesn't even see to be anywhere close to the top priority of most people, or politics.
The world changes and needs change with it. I assume there's some thematic overlap with handwriting / penmanship as a learned skill for some of us growing up, and that largely being pretty useless these days. Could it be argued that the same is happening regarding 'traditional mathematics' in a sense, where you will still need to understand the logical foundations of the thing you want to perform, but less need to understand the math that gets you there (Because computers, better than ever, will fill those gaps).
@Drone has spoken recently on his role as an educator and how he and his peers have come around on AI as a tool for education. I'm curious on drone's thoughts, and if he's noticed the same things as you (Simberto)
|
On May 15 2026 07:41 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2026 07:00 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Generational decline in math scores throughout the USA. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/13/upshot/test-scores-school-districts-us.htmlStudents’ test scores had been increasing since 1990 — then abruptly stopped in the mid-2010s. That coincided with two events: an easing of federal school accountability under No Child Left Behind, which was replaced in 2015, and the rise of smartphones, social media and personalized school laptops. the chickens are coming home to rooster the harvest they reaped. + Show Spoiler +
As a teacher, i highly doubt that this is a US-only problem, or is even really based in any US-specific decisions. I know that the maths skills i observe in my students are often atrocious. In every class, there are 1-4 children or youths who are really competent and interested. But the rest just aren't, and often lack basic skills even far into their education. I'd say that about half of my 11th-grade students can not reliably solve anything beyond even the most basic of equations, or even reliably know what to do with fractions.
Same goes for reading comprehension. I teach maths and science, and even in those subjects it is scary how many children are simply not capable of reliably understanding a written four-sentence instruction or fully digest the information in a one-paragraph text.
And i teach in a school type which only gets the top half of German student.
I don't know the exact reasons, but i of course have some pet theories. One is simply necessity. When i was a child or teenager, you had to read stuff for lots of basic or fun activities. Video games? Lots of text. Want to learn a skill? You probably should read a book about it. Want to talk to your friends after school? You are probably chatting online in some way.
Of course, i haven't been a teacher for that long, so i don't know if it hasn't always been like that. A few very smart children, and a lot of average to incompetent ones.
But it does make me fear for the future.
We as a society are definitively not doing our best to educate the next generation, and i fear that we will feel the results of that in the next decade or two. And this doesn't even see to be anywhere close to the top priority of most people, or politics. Trump definitely feels like the consequences are already hitting pretty hard.
There's a huge tension between the level of education required to truly move through the 21st century into the 22nd and the threat such a population poses to incompetent/nepotistic/dynastic/etc people with status, wealth, and power.
Basically, the kind of people that will finish out a 21st century (that isn't a total hellscape, so probably not the betting favorite) will look at our current "democracies" and see something sorta like when we imagine the divine right of kings.
|
On May 15 2026 09:33 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2026 07:41 Simberto wrote:On May 15 2026 07:00 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Generational decline in math scores throughout the USA. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/13/upshot/test-scores-school-districts-us.htmlStudents’ test scores had been increasing since 1990 — then abruptly stopped in the mid-2010s. That coincided with two events: an easing of federal school accountability under No Child Left Behind, which was replaced in 2015, and the rise of smartphones, social media and personalized school laptops. the chickens are coming home to rooster the harvest they reaped. As a teacher, i highly doubt that this is a US-only problem, or is even really based in any US-specific decisions. I know that the maths skills i observe in my students are often atrocious. In every class, there are 1-4 children or youths who are really competent and interested. But the rest just aren't, and often lack basic skills even far into their education. I'd say that about half of my 11th-grade students can not reliably solve anything beyond even the most basic of equations, or even reliably know what to do with fractions. Same goes for reading comprehension. I teach maths and science, and even in those subjects it is scary how many children are simply not capable of reliably understanding a written four-sentence instruction or fully digest the information in a one-paragraph text. And i teach in a school type which only gets the top half of German student. I don't know the exact reasons, but i of course have some pet theories. One is simply necessity. When i was a child or teenager, you had to read stuff for lots of basic or fun activities. Video games? Lots of text. Want to learn a skill? You probably should read a book about it. Want to talk to your friends after school? You are probably chatting online in some way. Of course, i haven't been a teacher for that long, so i don't know if it hasn't always been like that. A few very smart children, and a lot of average to incompetent ones. But it does make me fear for the future. We as a society are definitively not doing our best to educate the next generation, and i fear that we will feel the results of that in the next decade or two. And this doesn't even see to be anywhere close to the top priority of most people, or politics. The world changes and needs change with it. I assume there's some thematic overlap with handwriting / penmanship as a learned skill for some of us growing up, and that largely being pretty useless these days. Could it be argued that the same is happening regarding 'traditional mathematics' in a sense, where you will still need to understand the logical foundations of the thing you want to perform, but less need to understand the math that gets you there (Because computers, better than ever, will fill those gaps). @Drone has spoken recently on his role as an educator and how he and his peers have come around on AI as a tool for education. I'm curious on drone's thoughts, and if he's noticed the same things as you (Simberto)
I don't think that this is about AI. The effects of that will take a bit longer to notice. What i am talking about is mostly about pre-AI-tech. I agree that society changes, and what a person should know changes with it.
I think a lot of the math students learn in school isn't actually about the math. It is about learning to think rationally. Math is just a safe playground to learn that in. It is an area where you can learn what is actually necessary to build a complete argument, without having to deal with real-world complexity and vagueness. You can learn reasoning techniques, you learn about handling special cases in your argument, and you learn to problem-solve. You also learn different ways of thinking about stuff, and abstraction.
The problem i see is that tech often allows you to skip learning the first steps. Which make learning any of the following steps basically impossible.
|
On May 15 2026 13:41 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2026 09:33 Fleetfeet wrote:On May 15 2026 07:41 Simberto wrote:On May 15 2026 07:00 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Generational decline in math scores throughout the USA. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/13/upshot/test-scores-school-districts-us.htmlStudents’ test scores had been increasing since 1990 — then abruptly stopped in the mid-2010s. That coincided with two events: an easing of federal school accountability under No Child Left Behind, which was replaced in 2015, and the rise of smartphones, social media and personalized school laptops. the chickens are coming home to rooster the harvest they reaped. As a teacher, i highly doubt that this is a US-only problem, or is even really based in any US-specific decisions. I know that the maths skills i observe in my students are often atrocious. In every class, there are 1-4 children or youths who are really competent and interested. But the rest just aren't, and often lack basic skills even far into their education. I'd say that about half of my 11th-grade students can not reliably solve anything beyond even the most basic of equations, or even reliably know what to do with fractions. Same goes for reading comprehension. I teach maths and science, and even in those subjects it is scary how many children are simply not capable of reliably understanding a written four-sentence instruction or fully digest the information in a one-paragraph text. And i teach in a school type which only gets the top half of German student. I don't know the exact reasons, but i of course have some pet theories. One is simply necessity. When i was a child or teenager, you had to read stuff for lots of basic or fun activities. Video games? Lots of text. Want to learn a skill? You probably should read a book about it. Want to talk to your friends after school? You are probably chatting online in some way. Of course, i haven't been a teacher for that long, so i don't know if it hasn't always been like that. A few very smart children, and a lot of average to incompetent ones. But it does make me fear for the future. We as a society are definitively not doing our best to educate the next generation, and i fear that we will feel the results of that in the next decade or two. And this doesn't even see to be anywhere close to the top priority of most people, or politics. The world changes and needs change with it. I assume there's some thematic overlap with handwriting / penmanship as a learned skill for some of us growing up, and that largely being pretty useless these days. Could it be argued that the same is happening regarding 'traditional mathematics' in a sense, where you will still need to understand the logical foundations of the thing you want to perform, but less need to understand the math that gets you there (Because computers, better than ever, will fill those gaps). @Drone has spoken recently on his role as an educator and how he and his peers have come around on AI as a tool for education. I'm curious on drone's thoughts, and if he's noticed the same things as you (Simberto) I don't think that this is about AI. The effects of that will take a bit longer to notice. What i am talking about is mostly about pre-AI-tech. I agree that society changes, and what a person should know changes with it. I think a lot of the math students learn in school isn't actually about the math. It is about learning to think rationally. Math is just a safe playground to learn that in. It is an area where you can learn what is actually necessary to build a complete argument, without having to deal with real-world complexity and vagueness. You can learn reasoning techniques, you learn about handling special cases in your argument, and you learn to problem-solve. You also learn different ways of thinking about stuff, and abstraction. The problem i see is that tech often allows you to skip learning the first steps. Which make learning any of the following steps basically impossible.
Yeah I realized after that the timeline is a huge flaw in my argument - AI hasn't been around long enough for us to have that be the cause.
I agree that 'logic' is the core of what math does/should teach in rational steps that better enable us to approach the world. The classic 'intro to math' scenario of "I have 3 apples and give one away to Thomas, how many apples do I have now?" theoretically teaches you subtraction, but more importantly it gives you practical application to why math is important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
