US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Status
Not open for further replies.
BidenGIF.gif
 
Last edited:
Click to expand...
The Ugly One said:
You can't run for reelection on "I kept maintenance & repair well-funded." Government isn't much different than the private sector this way...nobody gets a promotion to the C-Suite because they did such an excellent job at making sure nothing broke.
Click to expand...
Stoneheart said:
im not sure about that. people do care alot about a well run clean city with good roads.
Click to expand...

You run on the platform of fearmongering. You make it clear that if the other guy wins, everyone loses because you make things work.

It is the reason why GOP politicians get accused of doing it all of the time.
 
LurkTrawl said:
Makes you wonder why nobody on the R side of the aisle just relaxes a bit wrt analyst opinion or why nobody on the D side is concerned about making, as you said, "self-reliant money machines". Like two halves of a retarded coin.
Click to expand...
The money machines on the Dem side are gibs reliant. They're funded by NGOs and money laundered through federal programs. So they're not self reliant so much as they are perpetuated by the fact that the trough can be filled from public coffers a decade at a time so long as Dems have control.
 
Michael Wade said:
View attachment 2937001

https://trendingpolitics.com/the-fbi-comes-down-on-the-pelosi-family/?utm_source=economics
Interesting.... Could be a nothing burger, but without proper funds to bribe the FBI things could get spicy.
Click to expand...
The feds indicting Pelosi in such a way that she can't run again would be hilarious. There's no way in hell she'd ever go to jail or lose her existing funds. But if she's getting tired of this shit, accepting a paper charge that guarantees they can't try to leverage her back into the game while going "oops sorry guys guess you'll have to make do without me" would work wonders. Escape down to Florida and retire in riches.
 
Tathagata said:
She went to USC for college and Duke for law school. Maybe if she went to Harvard or Yale for undergrad it would be okay, but USC doesn't nearly cut it. Duke isn't represented in the Supreme Court—doesn't have the same lineage as Harvard, Yale, or Columbia, plus it's in the South.

You can take a look for yourself and see how the people at the core of our institutions think re education.
Click to expand...
Duke's not entirely scrub tier; it's where Nixon got his law degree. But your pretty much right-it's not an Ivy.
 
Eggplant Wizard said:
Like that many crabs are going to be let out of the bucket.
Click to expand...
"What are friends?
Friends are people that you think are your friends
But they really your enemies with secret identities
And disguises to hide they true colors
So just when you think you close enough to be brothers
They wanna come back and cut your throat when you ain't lookin'

What is money?
Money is what makes a man act funny
Money is the root of all evil
Money'll make them same friends come back around
Swearin' that they was always down" - Eminem, 1998
 
Kuritan Deplorable said:
The feds indicting Pelosi in such a way that she can't run again would be hilarious. There's no way in hell she'd ever go to jail or lose her existing funds. But if she's getting tired of this shit, accepting a paper charge that guarantees they can't try to leverage her back into the game while going "oops sorry guys guess you'll have to make do without me" would work wonders. Escape down to Florida and retire in riches.
Click to expand...
Never thought of it that way, but that'd be a hilarious way to thumb the scales, as it were.

Even better if you have a "friendly" fed later drop the charges for her, and Pelosi doing the cartoon version of smiling painfully as she receives the news.
 
Apparently, the SCOTUS nominee that Graham supported is actually the most moderate of the bunch and roundly rejected the idea of a Living Constitution. Not checked myself, but if true then she is much more likely to break with the liberals and would also be the easiest to get through the senate.
 
@Trianon, I can't quote your post to respond to it, so briefly:

There are two fundamental problems:
  1. The CRA and the jurisprudence around it codify the claim that there are no meaningful, intrinsic differences in capability or aptitude among different ethnic groups or between the sexes. Examples abound. Differences in black & white IQ, difference in male and female aptitude, the influence of sex hormones on psychological traits and social behaviors, the likelihood of Chinese with family on the mainland to steal company secrets, etc---legally, you have to pretend these aren't real, and you have to achieve results in your business as though what is true is false and what is false is true. To the extent you can't force the correct result, you become legally liable.

  2. There is no clear standard of what does and doesn't constitute discrimination. There are no regulations to follow that make you bulletproof; you just have to make sure you are so aggressively anti-racist and anti-sexist that some black, female judge with a chip on her shoulder is going to be satisfied should an activist lawyer ever sue you. Contrast this with, say, OSHA. OSHA has pretty detailed regulations on what constitutes a safe work environment, and if you're following all of them carefully, and a worker manages to break his arm on the job anyway because he's being a dumbass, you're not going to be hit with OSHA fines, and the worker will probably lose if he sues you. g
Let me give you a somewhat recent example. Merrill Lynch lost a fairly large lawsuit filed against it by its black black brokers. You see, they were paying traders bonuses as a percentage of the profits the traders made, and the black brokers were, on average, less successful than the white traders. Now, there's a fair amount of literature showing that the success of of a trader correlates to IQ. Of course, you can't cite that. Doing so would just prove you're a racist. So, the court ruled that granting bonuses as a percentage of profits is racist, because clearly, the only reasonable explanation for whites doing better than blacks at recognizing market patterns is the white traders have advantageous social backgrounds due to the constant racism and discrimination blacks face in their daily lives, thus making it more difficult for black traders to get the news and information they would need to be competitive with white traders. By making bonuses a raw percentage of profits, and not providing any means for the black traders to overcome their supposed social disadvantage, the court found that Merrill Lynch did a heckin' racism. They paid a $160m settlement to 1200 brokers.

That's how it works. It won't change via a state EO. It won't change via being clever online. It can only change by changing the law, and conservatives won't touch the CRA.
 
Basically the Civil Rights Act gave the federal agencies it created near-unlimited power, same for the courts that hear civil rights cases.

They'd never say it outright, but it is held in higher esteem than the Constitution itself by the legal establishment, and this is reflected in legal education. It will never be overturned and a truly honest historian will point to it as the source of a tremendous amount of American woes. Most historians are not honest.

If only the South had just properly disposed of outdated farm equipment.
 
The Ugly One said:
@Trianon, I can't quote your post to respond to it, so briefly:

There are two fundamental problems:
  1. The CRA and the jurisprudence around it codify the claim that there are no meaningful, intrinsic differences in capability or aptitude among different ethnic groups or between the sexes. Examples abound. Differences in black & white IQ, difference in male and female aptitude, the influence of sex hormones on psychological traits and social behaviors, the likelihood of Chinese with family on the mainland to steal company secrets, etc---legally, you have to pretend these aren't real, and you have to achieve results in your business as though what is true is false and what is false is true. To the extent you can't force the correct result, you become legally liable.

  2. There is no clear standard of what does and doesn't constitute discrimination. There are no regulations to follow that make you bulletproof; you just have to make sure you are so aggressively anti-racist and anti-sexist that some black, female judge with a chip on her shoulder is going to be satisfied should an activist lawyer ever sue you. Contrast this with, say, OSHA. OSHA has pretty detailed regulations on what constitutes a safe work environment, and if you're following all of them carefully, and a worker manages to break his arm on the job anyway because he's being a dumbass, you're not going to be hit with OSHA fines, and the worker will probably lose if he sues you. g
Let me give you a somewhat recent example. Merrill Lynch lost a fairly large lawsuit filed against it by its black black brokers. You see, they were paying traders bonuses as a percentage of the profits the traders made, and the black brokers were, on average, less successful than the white traders. Now, there's a fair amount of literature showing that the success of of a trader correlates to IQ. Of course, you can't cite that. Doing so would just prove you're a racist. So, the court ruled that granting bonuses as a percentage of profits is racist, because clearly, the only reasonable explanation for whites doing better than blacks at recognizing market patterns is the white traders have advantageous social backgrounds due to the constant racism and discrimination blacks face in their daily lives, thus making it more difficult for black traders to get the news and information they would need to be competitive with white traders. By making bonuses a raw percentage of profits, and not providing any means for the black traders to overcome their supposed social disadvantage, the court found that Merrill Lynch did a heckin' racism. They paid a $160m settlement to 1200 brokers.

That's how it works. It won't change via a state EO. It won't change via being clever online. It can only change by changing the law, and conservatives won't touch the CRA.
Click to expand...
Awesome info, thanks. I don't think state EOs will do anything except try out a legal frame that could trickle into legislation in some distant future. Though I'm sure you're right that there's no good way to pitch "fixing the CRA" as a good thing to most people.

I'll be really curious to see how the legal reps argue against affirmative action at SCOTUS. That's only a small piece of the puzzle, but I'd say it set the standard for how far we allow diversity/discrimination concerns to infringe on, say, free association. If the justices even just tinker with it, that would be a signal of where the limits are.
 
Gehenna said:
Apparently, the SCOTUS nominee that Graham supported is actually the most moderate of the bunch and roundly rejected the idea of a Living Constitution. Not checked myself, but if true then she is much more likely to break with the liberals and would also be the easiest to get through the senate.
Click to expand...
Oh interesting. Didn't realize we had any liberal judges left that wouldn't for the "living constitution" bullshit.
 
Gehenna said:
Apparently, the SCOTUS nominee that Graham supported is actually the most moderate of the bunch and roundly rejected the idea of a Living Constitution. Not checked myself, but if true then she is much more likely to break with the liberals and would also be the easiest to get through the senate.
Click to expand...
She went to Duke for her law degree, while I don't care at all about that, she has no shot. If you didn't go to Harvard or Yale for lawschool you simply cannot be allowed on the court.

Trump is different and look where that got him.
 
elite_club said:
Because they have to make sure that it is Gerrymandered for the correct blue person. Even in one party districts, there will arise new divisions to fight over who gets to blame whites the most.
Click to expand...
the southern part of that district is also heavily Russian Jewish and Hasidic, so they're also diluting reliable Republican support.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom