|
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 January 13 2019 05:27 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Is charisma what is needed? Trump's ogre-ish ways set him off from the standard ever smiling eternally positive politician.
I really think the Dems need something different. Maybe I'm too much of a Bernie-bro and he really is too old now but Dems need someone more out there than O'Rourke. More left-wing to get some of those disgruntled working class who are not yet mindcontrolled by the propaganda machine.
Then again maybe I'm underestimating the hatred against anything too leftish in the US.
charisma/personality is how Democrats have won presidential elections since at least 1976.
there are other factors of course but it's a big one.
edit and let's not forget Kennedy
|
On January 13 2019 05:27 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Is charisma what is needed? Trump's ogre-ish ways set him off from the standard ever smiling eternally positive politician.
I really think the Dems need something different. Maybe I'm too much of a Bernie-bro and he really is too old now but Dems need someone more out there than O'Rourke. More left-wing to get some of those disgruntled working class who are not yet mindcontrolled by the propaganda machine.
Then again maybe I'm underestimating the hatred against anything too leftish in the US. Charisma is more then smiling. Its an ability to captivate an audience and draw followers. And while I don't find Trump charismatic in any way, shape or form, its hard to argue Trump has none when you see the following he has built.
|
Charisma in politics is also more then just what comes out of their mouth, especially in the modern age. Say what you will about r/the_donald and r/Sandersforpresident but they had very real effects on the Democratic primary and then the general itself. MAGA hats turn people into walking billboards, generated real cash, and created a positive message for the candidate that couldn't be confused with the other candidate.
JFK had a GOAT first lady and had a catholic rub on him. Julian castros last name is the same as the cuban dictator. These things matter.
|
On January 13 2019 10:31 Sermokala wrote: Charisma in politics is also more then just what comes out of their mouth, especially in the modern age. Say what you will about r/the_donald and r/Sandersforpresident but they had very real effects on the Democratic primary and then the general itself. MAGA hats turn people into walking billboards, generated real cash, and created a positive message for the candidate that couldn't be confused with the other candidate.
JFK had a GOAT first lady and had a catholic rub on him. Julian castros last name is the same as the cuban dictator. These things matter. And Obama was only one letter away from Osama, and had Hussein as his middle name. I don't think names sounding smooth are as important as you imply.
That said, Castro would probably have to overcome all the same crap Obama did, and smear campaigns will say he's a Cuban spy, call his birth certificate fake, etc. He will have to overcome that xenophobia to win.
|
On January 13 2019 17:16 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2019 10:31 Sermokala wrote: Charisma in politics is also more then just what comes out of their mouth, especially in the modern age. Say what you will about r/the_donald and r/Sandersforpresident but they had very real effects on the Democratic primary and then the general itself. MAGA hats turn people into walking billboards, generated real cash, and created a positive message for the candidate that couldn't be confused with the other candidate.
JFK had a GOAT first lady and had a catholic rub on him. Julian castros last name is the same as the cuban dictator. These things matter. And Obama was only one letter away from Osama, and had Hussein as his middle name. I don't think names sounding smooth are as important as you imply. That said, Castro would probably have to overcome all the same crap Obama did, and smear campaigns will say he's a Cuban spy, call his birth certificate fake, etc. He will have to overcome that xenophobia to win. Its not about a name sounding smooth its about having a name exactly like someone else. Obama is not osama and hussein is a middle name no one really takes seriously. But castro is his last name. Its the name that they'll put on signs and project as the "castro-blank" ticket. You go to south florida and say "vote for castro" and the old cuban exiles who don't know whats going on are going to get negatively confused really fast.
|
On January 13 2019 07:12 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2019 05:27 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Is charisma what is needed? Trump's ogre-ish ways set him off from the standard ever smiling eternally positive politician.
I really think the Dems need something different. Maybe I'm too much of a Bernie-bro and he really is too old now but Dems need someone more out there than O'Rourke. More left-wing to get some of those disgruntled working class who are not yet mindcontrolled by the propaganda machine.
Then again maybe I'm underestimating the hatred against anything too leftish in the US. charisma/personality is how Democrats have won presidential elections since at least 1976. there are other factors of course but it's a big one. edit and let's not forget Kennedy
Not at all unique to Democrats.
|
On January 14 2019 06:09 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2019 07:12 Introvert wrote:On January 13 2019 05:27 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Is charisma what is needed? Trump's ogre-ish ways set him off from the standard ever smiling eternally positive politician.
I really think the Dems need something different. Maybe I'm too much of a Bernie-bro and he really is too old now but Dems need someone more out there than O'Rourke. More left-wing to get some of those disgruntled working class who are not yet mindcontrolled by the propaganda machine.
Then again maybe I'm underestimating the hatred against anything too leftish in the US. charisma/personality is how Democrats have won presidential elections since at least 1976. there are other factors of course but it's a big one. edit and let's not forget Kennedy Not at all unique to Democrats.
Yeah if you look back at the last like 8 elections, the charasmatic one won every single time
|
On January 14 2019 03:07 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2019 17:16 Acrofales wrote:On January 13 2019 10:31 Sermokala wrote: Charisma in politics is also more then just what comes out of their mouth, especially in the modern age. Say what you will about r/the_donald and r/Sandersforpresident but they had very real effects on the Democratic primary and then the general itself. MAGA hats turn people into walking billboards, generated real cash, and created a positive message for the candidate that couldn't be confused with the other candidate.
JFK had a GOAT first lady and had a catholic rub on him. Julian castros last name is the same as the cuban dictator. These things matter. And Obama was only one letter away from Osama, and had Hussein as his middle name. I don't think names sounding smooth are as important as you imply. That said, Castro would probably have to overcome all the same crap Obama did, and smear campaigns will say he's a Cuban spy, call his birth certificate fake, etc. He will have to overcome that xenophobia to win. Its not about a name sounding smooth its about having a name exactly like someone else. Obama is not osama and hussein is a middle name no one really takes seriously. But castro is his last name. Its the name that they'll put on signs and project as the "castro-blank" ticket. You go to south florida and say "vote for castro" and the old cuban exiles who don't know whats going on are going to get negatively confused really fast. Not really. It's a really common last name. It's maybe not Johnson (that would be Garcia), but pretty close. Probably Cubans are the last people you'll confuse, because they all know someone called Castro who has nothing to do with Fidel.
|
Bot edit.
User was banned for this post.
|
|
I think the Deep State is the collection of civil servants in the government
|
The Deep State is the mythical group of unelected government officials that all work to control the government for the rich and powerful. Or lizard people if you’re into that kinda non-sense. It is a term used by conspiracy theorist that was wormed its way into the political discourse because Trump’s election and the rise of meme based politics has made us all really stupid.
|
|
On January 15 2019 07:29 JimmiC wrote: I understand that they are supposed to be powerful bureaucrats that help the rich and powerful. But then wouldn't they be interested in helping Trump, the Republicans and the Democrats. Like wouldn't it be Sanders and people left of him that would be against the Deep state?
My confusion is why is Trump against the deep state?
I get that Trump just uses this term for anyone against him and for some reason people just believe whatever he tweets. But I mean what do the college educated Trump supporters think the deep state is? And why do they think Trump would want to fight them? The problem here is that you're expecting solid logic from a conspiracy theory.
|
And are assuming people with a college education cannot be a total rube and buy into the some really dumb shit. There is no degree or accreditation that makes people immune.
|
On January 15 2019 07:29 JimmiC wrote: I understand that they are supposed to be powerful bureaucrats that help the rich and powerful. But then wouldn't they be interested in helping Trump, the Republicans and the Democrats. Like wouldn't it be Sanders and people left of him that would be against the Deep state?
My confusion is why is Trump against the deep state?
I get that Trump just uses this term for anyone against him and for some reason people just believe whatever he tweets. But I mean what do the college educated Trump supporters think the deep state is? And why do they think Trump would want to fight them? Your entirely correct in what you think it is and in why that makes no sense.
Remember this, Trump was elected because people were tired of the Establishment working for the rich (# draintheswamp). So they figured they would vote to cut out the middle man and just directly elect the rich man that was buying politicians to solve the situation.
There is no sense to be found.
|
On January 15 2019 06:54 JimmiC wrote: Can someone give me a quick rundown on what is the "deep state" and why Trump would want to fight them?
I was under the impression this was like a group if people who were controlling the government for the benefit of the rich and powerful. But then wouldn't Trump be part of this group? And wouldn't tax cuts help that group? Or are they a group that is against "christian values" and something?
The first time i ever heard that phrase was when Trump tweeted it. 20 minutes later it was part of people arguments. But thats just me...
|
The issue with terms like the "deep state" is that it's a convenient semi-imaginary scapegoat used by people incapable of or unwilling to confront underlying systemic problems with the politico-economic system itself. The rationale by many right-wing populists and left-wing reformists is that if they simply "drained the swamp" of these "deep state" actors, then suddenly the American government and its military-industrial complex will be pure and good. It's only political theater, not an actual solution.
|
Pretty dark op-ed in the daily caller from a anonymous 'senior Trump official'. Who sees the shutdown not as a problem but as opportunity.He'd like to remove 85% of government workers because they are too focused on annoying things like 'process' and not enough on the presidents agenda. Remember when Tillerson said he had to often tell the president that the things he wanted are against the law and that the government needs to confine to the rules. Well this guy sounds like he's glad nobody is working now to check that stuff. Everything is 'operating more efficiently from top down' now and the shutdown is a great way to remove 'saboteurs'. It reads almost like fellatio to dictatorships.
I thought the shutdown was just a giant mess made by stupid people but what if it's more sinister?
+ Show Spoiler +The Daily Caller is taking the rare step of publishing this anonymous op-ed at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose career would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.
As one of the senior officials working without a paycheck, a few words of advice for the president’s next move at shuttered government agencies: lock the doors, sell the furniture, and cut them down.
Federal employees are starting to feel the strain of the shutdown. I am one of them. But for the sake of our nation, I hope it lasts a very long time, till the government is changed and can never return to its previous form.
The lapse in appropriations is more than a battle over a wall. It is an opportunity to strip wasteful government agencies for good.
On an average day, roughly 15 percent of the employees around me are exceptional patriots serving their country. I wish I could give competitive salaries to them and no one else. But 80 percent feel no pressure to produce results. If they don’t feel like doing what they are told, they don’t.
Why would they? We can’t fire them. They avoid attention, plan their weekend, schedule vacation, their second job, their next position — some do this in the same position for more than a decade.
They do nothing that warrants punishment and nothing of external value. That is their workday: errands for the sake of errands — administering, refining, following and collaborating on process. “Process is your friend” is what delusional civil servants tell themselves. Even senior officials must gain approval from every rank across their department, other agencies and work units for basic administrative chores.
Process is what we serve, process keeps us safe, process is our core value. It takes a lot of people to maintain the process. Process provides jobs. In fact, there are process experts and certified process managers who protect the process. Then there are the 5 percent with moxie (career managers). At any given time they can change, clarify or add to the process — even to distort or block policy counsel for the president.
Saboteurs peddling opinion as research, tasking their staff on pet projects or pitching wasteful grants to their friends. Most of my career colleagues actively work against the president’s agenda. This means I typically spend about 15 percent of my time on the president’s agenda and 85 percent of my time trying to stop sabotage, and we have no power to get rid of them. Until the shutdown.
Due to the lack of funding, many federal agencies are now operating more effectively from the top down on a fraction of their workforce, with only select essential personnel serving national security tasks. One might think this is how government should function, but bureaucracies operate from the bottom up — a collective of self-generated ideas. Ideas become initiatives, formalize into offices, they seek funds from Congress and become bureaus or sub-agencies, and maybe one day grow to be their own independent agency, like ours. The nature of a big administrative bureaucracy is to grow to serve itself. I watch it and fight it daily.
When the agency is full, employees held liable for poor performance respond with threats, lawsuits, complaints and process in at least a dozen offices, taking years of mounting paperwork with no fear of accountability, extending their careers, while no real work is done. Do we succumb to such extortion? Yes. We pay them settlements, we waive bad reviews, and we promote them.
Many government agencies have adopted the position that more complaints are good because it shows inclusion in, you guessed it, the process. When complaints come, it is cheaper to pay them off than to hold public servants accountable. The result: People accused of serious offenses are not charged, and self-proclaimed victims are paid by you, the American taxpayer.
The message to federal supervisors is clear. Maintain the status quo, or face allegations. Many federal employees truly believe that doing tasks more efficiently and cutting out waste, by closing troubled programs instead of expanding them, “is morally wrong,” as one cried to me.
I get it. These are their pets. It is tough to put them down and let go, and many resist. This phenomenon was best summed up by a colleague who said, “The goal in government is to do nothing. If you try to get things done, that’s when you will run into trouble.”
But President Trump can end this abuse. Senior officials can reprioritize during an extended shutdown, focus on valuable results and weed out the saboteurs. We do not want most employees to return, because we are working better without them. Sure, we empathize with families making tough financial decisions, like mine, and just like private citizens who have to find other work and bring competitive value every day, while paying more than a third of their salary in federal taxes.
President Trump has created more jobs in the private sector than the furloughed federal workforce. Now that we are shut down, not only are we identifying and eliminating much of the sabotage and waste, but we are finally working on the president’s agenda.
President Trump does not need Congress to address the border emergency, and yes, it is an emergency. Billions upon billions of hard-earned tax dollars are still being dumped into foreign aid programs every year that do nothing for America’s interest or national security. The president does not need congressional funding to deconstruct abusive agencies who work against his agenda. This is a chance to effect real change, and his leverage grows stronger every day the shutdown lasts.
The president should add to his demands, including a vote on all of his political nominees in the Senate. Send the career appointees back. Many are in the 5 percent of saboteurs and resistance leaders.
A word of caution: To be a victory, this shutdown must be different than those of the past and should achieve lasting disruption with two major changes, or it will hurt the president.
The first thing we need out of this is better security, particularly at the southern border. Our founders envisioned a free market night watchman state, not the bungled bloated bureaucracy our government has become. But we have to keep the uniformed officers paid, which is an emergency. Ideally, continue a resolution to pay the essential employees only, if they are truly working on national security. Furloughed employees should find other work, never return and not be paid.
Secondly, we need savings for taxpayers. If this fight is merely rhetorical bickering with Nancy Pelosi, we all lose, especially the president. But if it proves that government is better when smaller, focusing only on essential functions that serve Americans, then President Trump will achieve something great that Reagan was only bold enough to dream.
The president’s instincts are right. Most Americans will not miss non-essential government functions. A referendum to end government plunder must happen. Wasteful government agencies are fighting for relevance but they will lose. Now is the time to deliver historic change by cutting them down forever.
The author is a senior official in the Trump administration.
|
5930 Posts
On January 15 2019 09:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Pretty dark op-ed in the daily caller from a anonymous 'senior Trump official'. Who sees the shutdown not as a problem but as opportunity.He'd like to remove 85% of government workers because they are too focused on annoying things like 'process' and not enough on the presidents agenda. Remember when Tillerson said he had to often tell the president that the things he wanted are against the law and that the government needs to confine to the rules. Well this guy sounds like he's glad nobody is working now to check that stuff. Everything is 'operating more efficiently from top down' now and the shutdown is a great way to remove 'saboteurs'. It reads almost like fellatio to dictatorships. I thought the shutdown was just a giant mess made by stupid people but what if it's more sinister? + Show Spoiler +The Daily Caller is taking the rare step of publishing this anonymous op-ed at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose career would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.
As one of the senior officials working without a paycheck, a few words of advice for the president’s next move at shuttered government agencies: lock the doors, sell the furniture, and cut them down.
Federal employees are starting to feel the strain of the shutdown. I am one of them. But for the sake of our nation, I hope it lasts a very long time, till the government is changed and can never return to its previous form.
The lapse in appropriations is more than a battle over a wall. It is an opportunity to strip wasteful government agencies for good.
On an average day, roughly 15 percent of the employees around me are exceptional patriots serving their country. I wish I could give competitive salaries to them and no one else. But 80 percent feel no pressure to produce results. If they don’t feel like doing what they are told, they don’t.
Why would they? We can’t fire them. They avoid attention, plan their weekend, schedule vacation, their second job, their next position — some do this in the same position for more than a decade.
They do nothing that warrants punishment and nothing of external value. That is their workday: errands for the sake of errands — administering, refining, following and collaborating on process. “Process is your friend” is what delusional civil servants tell themselves. Even senior officials must gain approval from every rank across their department, other agencies and work units for basic administrative chores.
Process is what we serve, process keeps us safe, process is our core value. It takes a lot of people to maintain the process. Process provides jobs. In fact, there are process experts and certified process managers who protect the process. Then there are the 5 percent with moxie (career managers). At any given time they can change, clarify or add to the process — even to distort or block policy counsel for the president.
Saboteurs peddling opinion as research, tasking their staff on pet projects or pitching wasteful grants to their friends. Most of my career colleagues actively work against the president’s agenda. This means I typically spend about 15 percent of my time on the president’s agenda and 85 percent of my time trying to stop sabotage, and we have no power to get rid of them. Until the shutdown.
Due to the lack of funding, many federal agencies are now operating more effectively from the top down on a fraction of their workforce, with only select essential personnel serving national security tasks. One might think this is how government should function, but bureaucracies operate from the bottom up — a collective of self-generated ideas. Ideas become initiatives, formalize into offices, they seek funds from Congress and become bureaus or sub-agencies, and maybe one day grow to be their own independent agency, like ours. The nature of a big administrative bureaucracy is to grow to serve itself. I watch it and fight it daily.
When the agency is full, employees held liable for poor performance respond with threats, lawsuits, complaints and process in at least a dozen offices, taking years of mounting paperwork with no fear of accountability, extending their careers, while no real work is done. Do we succumb to such extortion? Yes. We pay them settlements, we waive bad reviews, and we promote them.
Many government agencies have adopted the position that more complaints are good because it shows inclusion in, you guessed it, the process. When complaints come, it is cheaper to pay them off than to hold public servants accountable. The result: People accused of serious offenses are not charged, and self-proclaimed victims are paid by you, the American taxpayer.
The message to federal supervisors is clear. Maintain the status quo, or face allegations. Many federal employees truly believe that doing tasks more efficiently and cutting out waste, by closing troubled programs instead of expanding them, “is morally wrong,” as one cried to me.
I get it. These are their pets. It is tough to put them down and let go, and many resist. This phenomenon was best summed up by a colleague who said, “The goal in government is to do nothing. If you try to get things done, that’s when you will run into trouble.”
But President Trump can end this abuse. Senior officials can reprioritize during an extended shutdown, focus on valuable results and weed out the saboteurs. We do not want most employees to return, because we are working better without them. Sure, we empathize with families making tough financial decisions, like mine, and just like private citizens who have to find other work and bring competitive value every day, while paying more than a third of their salary in federal taxes.
President Trump has created more jobs in the private sector than the furloughed federal workforce. Now that we are shut down, not only are we identifying and eliminating much of the sabotage and waste, but we are finally working on the president’s agenda.
President Trump does not need Congress to address the border emergency, and yes, it is an emergency. Billions upon billions of hard-earned tax dollars are still being dumped into foreign aid programs every year that do nothing for America’s interest or national security. The president does not need congressional funding to deconstruct abusive agencies who work against his agenda. This is a chance to effect real change, and his leverage grows stronger every day the shutdown lasts.
The president should add to his demands, including a vote on all of his political nominees in the Senate. Send the career appointees back. Many are in the 5 percent of saboteurs and resistance leaders.
A word of caution: To be a victory, this shutdown must be different than those of the past and should achieve lasting disruption with two major changes, or it will hurt the president.
The first thing we need out of this is better security, particularly at the southern border. Our founders envisioned a free market night watchman state, not the bungled bloated bureaucracy our government has become. But we have to keep the uniformed officers paid, which is an emergency. Ideally, continue a resolution to pay the essential employees only, if they are truly working on national security. Furloughed employees should find other work, never return and not be paid.
Secondly, we need savings for taxpayers. If this fight is merely rhetorical bickering with Nancy Pelosi, we all lose, especially the president. But if it proves that government is better when smaller, focusing only on essential functions that serve Americans, then President Trump will achieve something great that Reagan was only bold enough to dream.
The president’s instincts are right. Most Americans will not miss non-essential government functions. A referendum to end government plunder must happen. Wasteful government agencies are fighting for relevance but they will lose. Now is the time to deliver historic change by cutting them down forever.
The author is a senior official in the Trump administration.
That's been conservative policy for decades. Intentionally knee capping public services so they can some back and say that said public services are useless and need to be removed because of "waste". Just because Trump probably doesn't know what he's doing doesn't mean career politicians won't try to use this shutdown to try and fuck up the government as much as possible.
If the Trump Presidency goes haywire, they're going to let Trump smash the government and pretend he never existed in the same way they pretend George W Bush doesn't exist.
|
|
|
|