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
1d ago
It’s a relevant fact. Not to ICE, you’re right that they like police often toss prejudicial technically-facts in press releases all the time. But to the district, because it’s against policy to carry guns onto school properties there, so if those are regularly in his car they are regularly showing up at schools. (Now do I care actually, and is that a good policy? Not actually sure.)
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
1d ago
In theory yes, in practice nearly every superintendent wants to make their “impact” and so tosses any program affiliated with a predecessor and replaces it with their own shiny new toy that they obligate teachers to drop everything and follow. And yes, it’s horribly inefficient.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
1d ago
In a just world we would have passed legislation allowing prosocial and well behaved people the chance to make their decades-long participation in the country’s social and economic fabric official. Maybe tax them higher for a while as a sort of restitution or something.
We do not have such laws as far as I can tell. So in the absence of such, I see no fundamental issue with deporting him, even if it’s morally mean and probably counterproductive. I also don’t begrudge people mad about it, you know, unjust laws exist and objecting to those is normal political discourse, though this concept is on a sliding scale. Does the lack of a just law “fixing” an unjust situation have equal impact as a literal on the books unjust law? Can we allow characterization of an otherwise just law as unjust by virtue of ‘external’ flaws alone? Those questions aside, in that light some conservatives rub me the wrong way when they insist that it’s a clinical issue with correct and incorrect answers, and ‘why could liberals possibly be so mad’ is a dumb thing to wonder.
I do often wonder about what it must be like to live for decades presumably looking over your shoulder. I once drove with expired plates for nearly a year (insurance was current though) and I was constantly a little bit on edge every time I saw a cop car, and then some. Not fun, a little tiring. To do the same for decades? I guess if enforcement is spotty maybe you just forget - perhaps it was only a year or so of this (since the deportation order).
Possibly unrelated: I have no issue working for even big defense contractors, generally speaking, although a few friends and two siblings might disapprove some. But ICE? Personally I find the idea of working for them right now morally repugnant. That’s not to say ICE shouldn’t exist or anything, but my conscience simply would not allow it.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
2d ago
Stop saying “I don’t know that they committed in advance to a Black woman”. This is factually wrong. Biden did not. Pointing to being aware of her being Black after the fact is backwards logic.
“They” did not pick her either. This is also wrong. Picking a VP (for the 2020 campaign) is one of the few decisions that voters and party insiders have remarkably little influence in. Yes, they sometimes run little low key pressure campaigns, but ultimately it’s an individual and personal decision. There’s no election. The nominee picks someone, and the party sucks it up. At least this started to be the case especially after 1944 when FDR rejected the party choice, and this solidified in the two decades or so after. In one single case way back in 1972, McGovern’s pick was partially forced out because he had undergone electroshock therapy so there was concern about fitness. That’s it. That’s the whole modern history. Otherwise it’s a rubber stamp.
Regarding the Biden dropout, an event you seem to unnecessarily conflate, Biden could endorse someone, or he could call for a mini primary. Most people seem to agree those were his only two options, and endorsing anyone other than Kamala was basically unthinkable (as I’ve argued on more than a merely idpol basis), so it’s at most three options: endorse Harris, call for primary while pushing Harris, and call for primary while sitting it out. Remember that as sitting president, guy with his name on the PACs and war chests, and effectively party leader, Biden did have the leverage to enforce his decision on a practical basis.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
2d ago
I meant it more in the sense that treating them older (or giving the appearance of it) works, so her failure to even try painfully indicates how little she’s been around children.
More largely, you’re correct. It drives me crazy for example when talking about the book wars in public schools how few people seem to truly grasp that there are some concepts that children at particular ages are almost physically incapable or grasping. Age appropriateness is not purely about, like, not showing them naked people or swearing, it’s about what types of ideas are presented and at what pace.
So I guess it’s possible I was too harsh, but it feels like a politician usually takes pains to figure out what “works” in communication, so it’s still strange to see a politician failing so badly and in such a sustained fashion.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
2d ago
Much as that might fit with your worldview, she’s a lawyer. She’s 100% going to be picky about the precise language in a few places. I think it’s true for some political books but nearly zero chance it’s the case here. And despite this particular excerpt, the book is allegedly supremely careful. Doesn’t say nearly anything of true substance about Biden, Gaza, her vision, etc.
Different vibe, but Madeline Albright introducing Clinton at a campaign event with "There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!" was also pretty disastrous, the less talked-about cousin to "basket of deplorables" in my eyes. It wasn't limited to single demographics, so hit broader.
I actually think the worst part of that ad (other than the bits that sound like an SNL skit) was casting a fat guy in a "I'm a man" ad, so it doesn't even work. Literally no man ever considers being that overweight to be particularly manly. If you're gonna pick a big dude, you have to pick at least a dude who has some muscles underneath. No offense intended to anyone, of course, I'm just talking about what people want to see in ads - obviously we have different standards for those, it's quite literally marketing 101. The poses are all wrong too, the gaunt old guy is very out of left field, and there's no suburban dad anywhere here, poor usage of beard stubble, and just guys giving off super-single vibes. It's just incompetent, holy yikes, even on top of the content.
Personally I think putting out cringey content is not as bad as actively alienating people. The I'm a Man ad is desperate, not aggressively shaming.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
4d ago
I actually did get a really good laugh out of his most recent Trump parody, which makes me hate myself just a little bit for liking anything out of Newsom's stupid mouth, but yeah, it works.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
4d ago
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.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
4d 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
4d 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
4d 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
4d 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
5d ago
The more I think about it, the more I think you're right, no notes.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
5d 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
5d 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
5d 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
5d 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
5d 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
5d 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
5d 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
5d 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)
I’d say civil indoctrination isn’t wildly effective but it does provide a decent “anchoring” effect, where kids assume it as a baseline truth and adjust from there, rather than a first exposure be TikTok.
Also the point about mandatory service seems strange since many countries do it, and it doesn’t seem to have the same claimed impact. If anything, it often permanently disillusions young men who are experience a lot of the “sitting around bored” aspect, and witness corruption firsthand, at least in cases like Taiwan and South Korea. I assume you could figure out a better donated labor system - the Inca would have people build roads or otherwise build stuff in addition to military service and it worked well - but that would be a pretty broad change and difficult to implement well.
Outside of a major economic collapse, that is.
More options
Context Copy link