EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
I know what you're here for. What's his bias? Politically I at least like to think of myself as a true moderate, maybe (in US context) slightly naturally right-leaning but currently politically left-leaning if I had to be more specific.
User ID: 1043
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
19d ago
Just to correct the record (reference not intended), Biden only committed to picking a woman, not necessarily a Black woman. Two of the four on the shortlist were white. I know it's a punchier line to say, but it's not true.
Beyond that, it's true that passing over Kamala as the replacement would be a bad look, but that would be (not equally, but mostly) also true even if she were not. Vice Presidents are quite literally successors. And Biden in particular had bad personal feelings about not getting Obama's full support in the primary for 2016, so it seems extra unlikely that Biden would actually backstab Kamala in the same way, even on just a purely personal level (even if he was tempted).
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
19d ago
I always felt, and said so loudly at the time, that just like you say if you're in a losing position you might as well try a trick play or a Hail Mary pass. It felt like an obvious mistake to bet on anti-Trump sentiment alone. Biden didn't beat Trump's re-election because he was someone other than Trump (or Clinton) - he won because people thought he seemed at least a halfway decent bet, even if nothing too special. The wrong lessons were learned... again. Crazy.
Pete did pretty decent at Surrounded even though that's not perfectly representative. The funny thing is, though, that his worst answers were always about something specific to Harris: 14:14, an undecided voter said that her debate performance was shit, and asked Pete about if her character is so good, why didn't it come through? 31:22ish, another one asked why Harris said something about censoring social media if it contained misinformation as an attack on free speech (although very, very interesting: Pete called the Trump TV license campaign trail threat out as not just a free speech threat but a real threat, not just a Trumpian bluff. This was 10 months ago; he was 100% correct). Still, Harris feels like a millstone around the campaign's neck in most of these questions, and that's not good considering she was the campaign.
And most painful, 37:17, a voter outright says it.
Why can't Kamala answer some of these questions that you're able to answer? ...Why? [most of the people in the circle start clapping] And it's an oversimplification of a concept, but I feel like when I listen to her, I don't get, it's almost jumping back to character. When you talk, back when you were running, I hear genuine interest and feelings in your voice, I know what you want and know that when you say something you really mean what you're saying. I don't ever really get that sense, there were some times in the debate with Kamala where I got a sense of that, but uh, since then, especially with some of the not so great - you know the town hall and the CNN stuff... I don't know. I dunno.
Damning. Pete responds with some (true) stuff about how, ok she's a sitting VP, she's paranoid about the media jumping on a gotcha line. Then he says, well, people have their strengths and weaknesses, and she'd be a good president - which is straight up conceding the point about her bad communication, if you look past the tact. But people can tell. That voter sure did. People just say these things, it's not like they hide it, the Harris campaign really should have known this was an issue. Anyways, I think Pete would do just fine on campaign if he's the one driving the bus, I think you're a little too down on the communication, even if it's not, admittedly, an effusive personal charm kind of thing. If there's one thing holding Pete back, it's probably that he feels the need to try and appease the Democrat sacred cow talking points at times, which would be less the case if you're behind the wheel.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
19d ago
I really want Pete to run, because he's clearly a smart guy - so I'm curious if we can finally prove that voters actually don't want someone too smart in the role (or plain don't like smart people). Cases like Al Gore and, hell, you know, even: Dukakis, Kerry, maybe Hillary, Gingrich, Romney, etc. Although Pete seems like he is slightly better at being relatable, he also has a kind of too-clean vibe that might make people unsettled. Voters actually do want a human-feeling flaw or two. The anti-intellectualism is a strong thesis but if Pete ran and lost I think I might finally be able to conclude that it's a rule, not just a trend.
In that sense, Vance vs Buttigieg would be extra fantastic TV. Would love to see that debate, actually.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
19d ago
Reading between the lines of the info and reporting we have, Biden did choose Kamala and felt pretty OK about it. He chose her because she convincingly assured him that she would stay loyal. And she basically did, to her and his 'credit'. That's on a personal level between Joe and Kamala. So in that respect I don't think that's right, he trusted her just fine. Was it enthusiasm? No. She wasn't a social friend, and I don't think ever became one, although I'm pretty sure at least some of the bigger decisions he let her in the room for.
However, and this is the huge caveat - Biden's staffers did not get converted to Kamala. I think it's even been explicitly reported that several of Biden's inner circle literally never forgave her for the bussing accusation during the primaries, implying that Biden was a segregationist sympathizer. So yes, on a lower level, her staff was often iced out, I think that's pretty clear. (It's also clear that her camp has always been chaotic, and although Biden's staff didn't ever push back on those allegations, unlike Kamala I don't think that was the Biden staffers' fault, just her own).
Vance? Well, for one, even though staffers are rarely super visible, Vance's keep pretty quiet as far as I know. I'm pretty clued in politically, and I can't even name one. While by contrast I can name drop Susie Wiles, Chris LaCivita, Stephen Miller, and a few other close-orbit Trump team people easily (to be fair not all of them are attention-seekers, but there plenty of others who are). Looking at the list, most of them don't seem to be super frontline warriors, other than maybe his Senate buddies Mike Lee (ugh), Josh Hawley (ugh), and Tom Cotton. Plus, he adopted some Don Jr. people and so there's some bridges in place. And you know Trump is still absolutely glowing after Vance attacked Zelensky for disrespect a few months back on Trump's behalf.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
20d ago
The more I think about it, the more I think you're right, no notes.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
20d ago
I wouldn't go quite so far as to call the actual Democratic position that a president is a figurehead only, Obama was quite muscular at times, but a generalized respect for process and credentials and expertise is certainly baked in to the pie in a way Republicans have never 100% believed, being slightly more individualistic where Democrats can be a little collectivist (within their subgroups at least - the party at large less so). The Republican version of expertise looks more like "good instincts" than it does "studied it for years", but they still do believe in expertise broadly speaking, just in a different form, and with fewer criteria. Think 'successful maverick CEO' as opposed to 'tenured PhD technocrat'. A CEO still needs to have a good business, but how they got there is less critical.
Trump thinks, and arguably always has if you look at his past, that it actually doesn't matter if you have a good business. People just need to think that you have a good business, and then they assume you have expertise to back it up. 80% of the result with 20% of the effort. Now that's business!
He projects this attitude on his subordinates. Some of them even believe it. You don't need to actually kick all illegals out of the country. You just need to be loud about it, and make liberals sufficiently apoplectic, and everyone will assume it's working. You don't need to actually find a cure for autism, you just need to say you did. You don't need to actually save the government money, you just need to drum up some exaggerated numbers and declare victory. Mission Accomplished. It's 1984-lite. And then the ultimate trick? If later it becomes evident the action wasn't real, fire someone, blame them, replace them, quickly distract the public with something else new and outrageous and ambitious-sounding and then you can even repeat the cycle later. In that sense, anyone other than him is replaceable, and Trump never has any motivation to actually grill a subordinate about their actual plan, because it doesn't matter. The goal is reputation, respect.
What's new about this? Internally, most presidents do actually grill their subordinates about their plans. I listened and read a number of the Nixon tapes, we can literally see the day to day stuff going on inside the White House. He's very regularly giving specific instructions to diplomats, maneuvering legislation, getting Vietnam updates. Trump? He watches TV. I'm really not joking, it's a common thread in virtually every account. If he sees TV complain about a policy, then he calls up a cabinet member and grills them - about the TV coverage. I happen to think that it's not only backwards, but historically unusual.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
20d ago
I attribute it to not drinking alcohol or smoking. Though it's still a bit abnormal. Still, capable elderly politicians aren't actually super uncommon, with some heavy selection effects. Example: does this guy look 78 to you?
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
20d ago
I think it wasn't nearly as bad as the Clinton campaign, that was the strongest of the vote-shaming, but it was there in part. I do disagree about the overall framing though. I don't think Harris tried that hard to put at the forefront any other argument beyond "Trump bad" and "Trump endangers democracy". Maybe "trust the status quo"? With a dash of "billionaires ruined your life"?
He's got zero percent of the first winner-take-all preference, yep. But his favorables are at +22 net, that's +39 and -17, with a whopping 45% "don't know" as I recently pointed out. So with actual polling data, it especially as VP it seems very tenuous based on the data to assume he'd be some kind of Black vote poison-pill, especially with a Black woman at the top of the ticket.
Edit: punctuation and clarifying:
That's favorables among Black voters specifically. The eventual nominee, Tim Walz? Among the same group of Black voters, +30 net, that's +49 and -19 with 36% DK. A little bit of daylight, but not an incredible amount - definitely not the kind of poison pill you describe. In fact, if my napkin math is right, assuming the same proportionality, if Pete had Walz's 36% "don't know", then his numbers would be +25 net, +45 and -20. That's only 1% worse (absolute) in negative viewpoints.
The numbers seem to clearly reject this idea, unless you make three very questionable assumptions: that massive numbers of Black voters didn't then know he was gay, and would also change their views unfavorably, and that this unfavorable swing would affect the entire Harris-Buttigieg ticket (in turnout or voting instead for Trump). Again, those seem very questionable assumptions.
Did Kamala have polling we didn't? Plausible. Seems unlikely.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
20d ago
-
Yes, although turnover among administrators, fetishization of the novel, and lack of patience dooms a lot. It's more a matter of over-ambition and good intentions burying fundamental principles of teaching and learning than apathetic leaders, in my opinion.
-
I don't understand this question, did you forget a word or I'm missing too much context?
-
Yes, but crime rate statistics in particular have notorious noob-trap concepts as well as in how the numbers interact with policy, so officials are all over the board. Nationally, I think yes. However, it's a little difficult as a federal politician because you're so far removed from the ground level reality.
-
Normally yes, since businessmen in both parties are major donors and always complain when things are bad. Those constituencies and influences don't magically go away after election season, you can only temporarily ignore them.
I mean, it's a sliding scale obviously, no denying that. Trump just seems like an anomaly. Like 1 month goes by as president and oh, the economy is the best ever. 1 month goes by with Biden as president, oh no, total disaster, he ruined everything. 1 month goes by as president again and oh, the economy is magically the best ever again. Usually politicians are a little more measured. Like, here is Biden around this time in his term. Skim it. He's talking specific jobs numbers, he's saying things aren't all great yet and some people are still hurting, he says there are a few areas that he wants to do better on. There's spin, but it's not beyond the pale. I'm trying to find something similar for Trump. His official white house website has a "Remarks" section too, but all it has is Youtube videos without transcripts. He's saying stuff like:
So let me tell you a little story about a place called D.C., District of Columbia, right here where we are, it's now a safe zone. We have no crime. It's in such great shape you can go and actually walk with your children, your wife, your husband, you can walk right down the middle of the street, you're not going to be shot, Peter. You're safe. Everyone likes you anyway, they probably wouldn't do it.
Oh! DC is fixed. Magic.
Usually politicians at least wait a few weeks or months to declare a symbolic victory, but no, Trump doesn't just say it, he "declares" it, and right away, bugger the truth. I guess I had a similar discussion last week and maybe it boils down to this:
I typically expect, and think most people expect, presidents to tone down the campaign-trail type tactics while actually in charge. Less hyperbole, more adherence to facts, actual work. A candidate uses big and exaggerated and ambitious language because that's all they have, while an incumbent can, you know, do things and then talk about it. Natural, right? One compelling Trump thesis is he thinks he's found a cheat code where he doesn't even have to finish doing things. He can just start things, talk about what it's intended to do as if it's already done, and expects to reap the same benefits even if nothing actually happens at all like he describes as the policy takes place - or more likely, collapses under its own weight quickly. Say it loud and proud, and you temporarily gaslight people.
He might be right that you can skip the "doing things" part and no one will notice, but I don't think so, and if he is, and everyone starts doing it, then I despair what the next 10 years will look like.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
20d ago
I think I'd be a little more suspicious of the causality there if I were you. I can name a number of ancient societies that were quite harsh and proactive about punishment of crime, and prosperity doesn't always automatically follow. Unless you think the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, and Iranian theocracy are the up-and-comers on the world stage.
From a data optimization perspective I actually think some kind of three-strikes system is actually not half bad, but complex systems are complex so easy solutions don't always work as expected.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
20d ago
Do you present as a lower-class white, assuming you're white?
There are far more indicators beyond race involved here. You even mentioned their attire, which is a big clue. I'm originally from Portland, and when visiting again I often run into deranged people on local transit. You can usually tell they are deranged or criminals by the following clues: talking abnormally loudly, excessive swearing, talking about unpleasant subjects, staring at people aggressively, poor personal hygiene, terrible teeth, ragged clothes, large backpacks or similar stuff. Race is virtually never the front-line, first alert kind of thing.
The true test is all other things being equal, how are people treated? I think there's a difference, but the big question is the magnitude, and that's hard to answer.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
20d ago
Also it bears mentioning that for all the talk about US police brutality or discrimination, I'm pretty sure American police beat people up less on average than say an Eastern European cop. In other words, some other countries have police that directly participate in said honor culture directly, within the norms of such. Possibly, the normal expectation that American cops are more rule-abiding and lawful backfires in this kind of culture, where following rules is (mis)interpreted as weakness. Assuming your thesis is true, of course.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
20d ago
Most deadly police encounters are men and boys, young adults and teenagers. You know, the demographic group least likely to use their prefrontal cortex, most concerned about appearances, and least concerned with potential benefits of police help. It's totally skewed. It's not like their mothers and (non-criminal) fathers are telling them to confront police, and hell they probably tell them the opposite regularly. I hesitate to call it a broader problem because the people most likely to constitute the problem are also the least likely to heed said beliefs.
For example you can notice a bump in preference for decreased police spending in the 18-49 demographic. Now, they don't break out a figure of "among Blacks, what percentage of the 15-25 demographic prefer lowered police spending" but I bet it's an even bigger bump.
The people talking the biggest game on police oppression game are largely white knights, and are certainly not the people directly producing violence directly, much less those who are most affected (middle aged to older adults and women)
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
20d ago
What? A decent number of self-described feminists I know disliked the military primarily because they viewed most of them as potential or likely rapist douchebags. That's such a strange accusation to make. I'm sure feminist activists devoted less energy to enlisted women, but that's partly because there aren't many of them, it's not relatable, and a decent number were probably conservative anyways, so that's not really all that strange.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
20d ago
One thing that caused me to have more sympathy for women in particular is getting punched in the face.
No, really. Some crazy and/or homeless person, in the middle of an otherwise decent suburb, punched me in the face as he walked past me in a crosswalk in the middle of a street between the bus stop and my student housing half a block away. No, they didn't find him. Yes, it hurt like hell, but didn't break my nose thankfully. No, I didn't do anything to provoke him, I was looking down at my phone reading, surprised me completely.
I knew that this happening again was realistically highly improbable and irrational. But I couldn't help but feel vaguely nervous and vulnerable at the bus stop for a month or two afterward. And so I thought, "do women feel this way all the time?" Maybe? I still don't know. I'm sure some do, though, and it sucks, so my sympathy-meter got a minor tune-up that day.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
20d ago
I think the simple but effective filter for "is this the bad kind of victim blaming?" boils down to:
-
Is victim blaming the only significant, or always first reaction? If so, it's at best tactless and at worst racist/sexist/callous/lowers freedom/etc.
-
Is victim blaming accompanied by other sympathy, solutions, or blame? If so, it's at worst tactless and at best good advice.
That's probably oversimplifying a bit, but I don't think the idea that "victim blaming can be bad" is wrong per se, just misapplied.
"I'd like to go. Is that alright?" is probably better, maybe followed by "is there anything specific you need from me?" However, you must wait to deploy this until some "reasonable" (ill-defined but it is what it is) period of time has passed and the "basics" are fulfilled. For example, you must show ID in most states IIRC when asked, and usually are expected to reasonably comply with stuff. But if it's been, say, 10 minutes and questions are going in circles, or you're waiting on some abstract officer task, I think it's actually a great moment to either save a little time and be on your way because it was just trivial, or discern if there's a decent chance you're going to be in actual trouble, in which case you can and should adjust your behavior and compliance accordingly.
The reason I emphasize the waiting and basics is because there do exist some reasonable tasks that are mostly harmless but may take a little bit of time - in those cases asking too early risks a false positive alert on your part. And again it helps to be a little more conversational, while still figuring out what's going through the cop's head, which is the half of the point. (The other half is the cop is just fishing for stuff, realizes it's only fishing and won't become something more, and cuts their losses and ends the interaction)
Edit: My comment mostly assumes that you are in fact following the law, or at least not notably breaking it. If you're potentially in deep shit, and the cop has a decent chance of discovering such, there's less harm to immediately clamming up, because any marginal benefit in the off-chance the cop leaves ignorant is outweighed by the chance of you fucking up with a continued interaction or cooperation. Also, you generally should be polite, but you're not required to be super helpful.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
20d ago
The reliability thing is actually pretty great/important. I'm hesitant to read too far into the readership of places like Ao3 or Royal Road or what have you, but I actually think web serials are something that will only grow more popular in the future. A nice drip drip of book which suits the avid readers (who just assemble large numbers to follow at once, or dig up finished ones) just as well as the causal ones (for whom more than a chapter or two at a time might be a heavy lift, and are used to things releasing on a cadence). So for Sanderson, producing eminently readable books at a steady pace is a genuine superpower, and readers like it. Waits between books are always rough, but for Sanderson fans you can just go to his website and see nice circles that slowly but surely tick upwards with progress towards the next two books.
Or you can be a GRRM fan and be waiting a decade for a book that he basically has written three times over but then threw in the trash can only to start over again. It's a bit insulting. (At least Rothfuss just out and said he got depressed and hasn't even really bothered to even give fans false hope)
Put another way, beyond a minimum level of talent, if you can churn out books reliably you can make a good living and grow popular as quantity as a quality of its own.
All of this discussion, though, misses one big part of the appeal of Sanderson. Well, maybe two. The maybe is the worldbuilding. For some people an interesting world can forgive a large number of writing errors (and not all of his books suffer as terribly from length issues! The Mistborn sequel quartet of books are actually about half the length of the average original trilogy book on an individual basis). The bigger one is twistiness. Let's give Sanderson some credit, here: the Mistborn trilogy, for example, has some excellent little twists at the end of each book that are quite fun, especially if you don't know they are coming.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
20d ago
I would say it's partially accurate - maybe even mostly accurate - to say Trump doesn't care about the details. He's always been a bit that way, praise some underling for their incredible talent enough that they work hard to live up to it, let them carry the weight, and throw 'em under if they fail too badly (in reputation/image, not necessarily talent). The major caveat, though, is that Trump has a few hobby-horse policies and opinions where he has long resisted any and all attempts to convince him otherwise. Sometimes they are silly small things - Trump on multiple occasions has suggested nuking hurricanes to stop them from forming, or exploring buying Greenland - and sometimes they are bigger things, like tariffs or withdrawing troops from foreign postings (I remember reporting about numerous internal arguments about troop numbers in Afghanistan, Syria, etc. over the years). So I think that's important to keep in mind. It's usually not too hard to tell the difference about what he does and doesn't care about, but there are a few edge cases where it's pretty murky.
So here, Trump has a genuine aversion to foreign disrespect. I don't think he cares too much about particular countries, not inherently. He likes Putin because Putin gives him respect. He (partially) turned on Putin because Putin torpedoed some of his peace efforts a little too directly, which makes him look bad. I think that aversion to disrespect and bad impressions needs to be considered as its own thing on top of the desire for flashy stuff and compliments. It reflects Trump's own personal priorities, he's consistent that way: he likes things clean and golden-encrusted, he likes strong TV images and shows of power, he hates weaklings, dirty and run-down places, and has an especial hatred for things that look bad on TV. Anyone displaying traits of power, gold, cleanliness, and TV aptitude he automatically likes.
More to your point though, you're right. Trump as a rule doesn't mind minions fighting over the particulars of any given policy so long as it doesn't blow back onto him personally. He's a bit of a competition-breeds-strength type when it comes to leadership. He can get away with this because on a simple factual level, Trump doesn't care if his policies work. He only cares if he can take credit for them working, or portray them as working. If they actually do work? Neat. Someone is happy. And often his minions are at least mildly competent, which can get results. But they don't need to work. This is not the case for most leaders, but Trump is not most presidents.
So, Kamala Harris has her book tour with the election retrospective. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it blames other people for a few things. But what drew some attention is that apparently some of the digs at fellow Democrats were notable, actually giving some the impression that she must be retiring from politics, though she's since tried to unburn some bridges.
What's drawing possibly the most attention is her description of the VP selection process. She said Josh Shapiro was too ambitious and had started for asking details about the VP's residence. She said that Tim Walz was actually her second choice, which is a bit hurtful if you're Tim. Eyebrows have been raised at this, but even more so at her reason for not choosing her first choice, who was Pete Buttigieg - literally described as the "ideal partner", if not for this one flaw, she says.
He's gay.
"We were already asking a lot of America: to accept a woman, a Black woman, a Black woman married to a Jewish man. Part of me wanted to say, Screw it, let's just do it. But knowing what was at stake, it was too big of a risk. And I think Pete also knew that -- to our mutual sadness." (book excerpt per the Atlantic)
It did not really go over well. Buttigieg himself said he wished she had more faith in Americans. She was confronted about it by Maddow recently, here's a clip, asking her to elaborate, as it's "hard to hear."
"No, no, no, that's not what I said. That - that's that he couldn't be on the ticket because he is gay. My point is, as I write in the book, is that I was clear that in 107 days, in one of the most hotly contested elections for president of the United States against someone like Donald Trump, who knows no floor, to be a black woman running for president of the United States, and as a vice presidential running mate, a gay man. With the stakes being so high, it made me very sad, but I also realized it would be a real risk. No matter how - you know, I've been an advocate and an ally of of the LGBT community my entire life, so it wasn't about, it wasn't about - so it wasn't about any any prejudice on my part, but that we had such a short, we had such a short period of time. And the stakes were so high. I think Pete is a phenomenal, phenomenal public servant. And I think America is and would be ready for that. But when I had to make that decision with two weeks to go. You know, and maybe I was being too cautious, you know, I'll let our friends, we should all talk about that, maybe I was, but that's the decision I made - and I'm and I - as with everything else in the book and being very candid about that. Yeah. With a great deal of sadness about also the fact that it might have been a risk. (ed: Maddow's interjections removed. Maddow then just goes on and asks about running in 2028, response "that's not a focus right now")
I saw one twitter user summarize her answer as: "I didn’t not choose Pete because he was gay… I didn’t choose him because he is gay and I had 107 days."
This raises a number of questions. Was it right to be tactical like that? Was she correct about the tactics? Was it particularly absurd to say it out loud? Was this just an excuse, and there was some other reason? Is it hypocrisy by Harris? Is her point about having less time to run a campaign cope, or on some level a legitimate objection that such a short campaign must by nature adhere to different rules and strategies?
On the one hand I can see it. It was a short campaign, and the overarching philosophy was to play it safe. In retrospect, probably wrong. (And also an I told you so moment for me). In that light Harris is being perfectly consistent. On the other hand Kamala herself acknowledges that her own identity was potentially a barrier, is the concept of 'too much diversity to handle' a real thing, much less from those on the left? It is true that even Obama had his doubters about whether his campaign was doomed because of racism. Personally I don't buy that, I don't think it made much of a difference, but some people do think about it and still do think along the same lines. The flipside of that is also true, however: say she names Pete, would any alleged homophobia backfire onto Trump and his team, would it supercharge identity politics within the base, or is it a non-issue altogether?
My honest opinion? Again, like Obama: I don't think him being gay would matter. He's a great communicator, and would have been an asset. Although, he would need something of substance to explain, so it's not a full slam dunk, and I don't think it swings the election unless Pete gets to tack on his own new policies.
(There's other stuff to say about the memoir but I'll leave that for a different top-level post if people want to get into it.)
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
20d ago
Actually the response by the company behind Tylenol handled the murder spree so well it's taught in public relations textbooks to this day as a great example of what to do in cases like that. The aftermath was what resulted in the no-tamper foil covers becoming common, for example, and fewer powder-filled capsules. They pulled it from the market for a while, cooperated with a detailed investigation, and then returned it with the new packaging and lots of marketing and they were back up top in market share pretty quickly. I'm sure some people kept grudges, though, because they always do.
Anecdotally some people I know respond more to Tylenol than others. For several members of my family it's kinda so-so in effectiveness compared to ibuprofen.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
20d ago
Yeah, that's fair, those are also common avenues of influence. There's also indirect real estate stuff. I just wanted to point out that personal outright bribes strongly imply that personal enrichment is a major and primary goal of lawmakers. I want to challenge that assumption. Many lawmakers are already independently wealthy and being e.g. a congressman often actually slows opportunities to gain more money. Furthermore, evidence suggests that although eye-popping sums do get thrown around in elections, those sums are usually the exception rather than the rule, and many of those sums are in fact intended to win the election and not cover for personal enrichment, at least not on the scale many people imagine. Thus, I take the opinion that personal enrichment is usually a secondary and more minor life goal, given that one is a lawmaker or government official.
With that background understanding, when I see the occasional congressperson get caught with smaller sums in bribery allegations, that makes perfect sense to me. After all, bribery was essentially a side-gig stemming from poor personal judgement, not their primary occupation. So of course the sums will be small, and the methods amateurish.
To understand a small population, you need to understand the pipelines to it. Most early-stage political jobs, that lead to later more powerful ones, don't have the same immediate potential pay-off and definitely don't have a guarantee of advancement. The major exception, of course, is when you enter the field due to notable nepotism, backstabbing, or personal connections leapfrog you up the ladder faster. Those are more suspicious and susceptible to bribery, at least it seems to me.
One of the comments: "Dear Lord she makes Hillary look sincere". Ouch. Gave me a laugh though. It's actually crazy that you get to be that age and you still genuinely think that deploying the voice normally used for 5-year-old kids on 11-ish-year-old kids (or somewhere in there, I dunno) is a good idea. No. It's a terrible idea. That's exactly the age where you use the adult voice, they freaking love it, it's not even hard.
More options
Context Copy link