US Politics Megathread

[Cometk]

more text blah blah original post

I get that things rub people the wrong way. I'd suggest that when someone rubs you the wrong way, to not bring up where that person is from as a reason for their ignorance/wrongness/whatever, since that means you are no longer only talking to that person. It's pretty basic shit to be honest, and I'm surprised this is apparently a controversial thing to suggest.

. . .

Not everyone is like you or has to be like you. If people want to post their thoughts on things they aren't as informed about as others, that shouldn't be a problem. If their take is dumb, sure, let them know. But don't say it's dumb because they're european or red-haired or black or in whatever other group they didn't choose to be in. You are making other non-Americans including myself, who may have thoughts about US politics, feel unwelcome ITT. Frankly, the response I'm getting just for suggesting to please not be exclusionist is making me want to unsubscribe from the thread which, by the way, was made by a Norwegian who was probably a bigger Sanders fan than anyone else here.

what matters most is the come-correct. and that's what the tongue-in-cheek hyperbole of babyproofing european's posts in this thread is a reaction to: specifically, the obnoxious lack of come-correct from some folks for a political experience that has significantly less personal impact on them.

anyone can give their take on something... delve into it a bit further and sometimes a bit of ignorance will be revealed... then a lot of ignorance, tethered to obstinancy... and double-downing. that's what it's a reaction to. if most folks stay in that first or second range ain't nothin a problem.

[Sensei]

Yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. If you look at both sides -- I think there’s blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And if you reported it accurately, you would say.

[kaister]

Were gonna make America Great Again, folks

[Goodspeed]

more text blah blah original post

I get that things rub people the wrong way. I'd suggest that when someone rubs you the wrong way, to not bring up where that person is from as a reason for their ignorance/wrongness/whatever, since that means you are no longer only talking to that person. It's pretty basic shit to be honest, and I'm surprised this is apparently a controversial thing to suggest.

. . .

Not everyone is like you or has to be like you. If people want to post their thoughts on things they aren't as informed about as others, that shouldn't be a problem. If their take is dumb, sure, let them know. But don't say it's dumb because they're european or red-haired or black or in whatever other group they didn't choose to be in. You are making other non-Americans including myself, who may have thoughts about US politics, feel unwelcome ITT. Frankly, the response I'm getting just for suggesting to please not be exclusionist is making me want to unsubscribe from the thread which, by the way, was made by a Norwegian who was probably a bigger Sanders fan than anyone else here.

what matters most is the come-correct. and that's what the tongue-in-cheek hyperbole of babyproofing european's posts in this thread is a reaction to: specifically, the obnoxious lack of come-correct from some folks for a political experience that has significantly less personal impact on them.

anyone can give their take on something... delve into it a bit further and sometimes a bit of ignorance will be revealed... then a lot of ignorance, tethered to obstinancy... and double-downing. that's what it's a reaction to. if most folks stay in that first or second range ain't nothin a problem.

Yes it's all very understandable but so are a lot of other, let's say less than ideal, things people do. Just not good for a forum to exclude groups from discussions, and I'm pointing that out. Do you actually disagree or are you just trying to explain the behavior?

[gibson]

Based

[Sensei]

Sleepy Joe gonna be awake in 2024?

[gibson]

Sleepy Joe gonna be awake in 2024?

Maybe if his handlers let him out of his basement

[Dolan]

Advised by who lol. That would be some of the worst pr advice of all time.

Those who took him under their wing, funded his lawyers and are keeping him in a safe house. Probably moderate conservatives who see him as a 2nd Amnd hero. They don't want him to be used as a symbol of white supremacism, so they want to make sure they set the narrative right asap.

Another reason could be that after he won the trial, they want to calm the situation, avoid stirring up public opinion, because that would bring more scrutiny over how the trial was conducted and it could possibly get challenged. And Rittenhouse's handlers don't want him killed by antifa or some black panther activists, so it's better to profile him as just a 2nd Amend defender not some anti-BLM activist.

[fightinfrenchman]

I love Joe Biden and I think he's fighting for people like me and those in my community.

[princeofcarthage]

Advised by who lol. That would be some of the worst pr advice of all time.

Those who took him under their wing, funded his lawyers and are keeping him in a safe house. Probably moderate conservatives who see him as a 2nd Amnd hero. They don't want him to be used as a symbol of white supremacism, so they want to make sure they set the narrative right asap.

Another reason could be that after he won the trial, they want to calm the situation, avoid stirring up public opinion, because that would bring more scrutiny over how the trial was conducted and it could possibly get challenged. And Rittenhouse's handlers don't want him killed by antifa or some black panther activists, so it's better to profile him as just a 2nd Amend defender not some anti-BLM activist.

The verdict cannot be legally challenged or appealed.

[Dolan]

Advised by who lol. That would be some of the worst pr advice of all time.

Those who took him under their wing, funded his lawyers and are keeping him in a safe house. Probably moderate conservatives who see him as a 2nd Amnd hero. They don't want him to be used as a symbol of white supremacism, so they want to make sure they set the narrative right asap.

Another reason could be that after he won the trial, they want to calm the situation, avoid stirring up public opinion, because that would bring more scrutiny over how the trial was conducted and it could possibly get challenged. And Rittenhouse's handlers don't want him killed by antifa or some black panther activists, so it's better to profile him as just a 2nd Amend defender not some anti-BLM activist.

The verdict cannot be legally challenged or appealed.

Idk it seems like there are some cases in which it can:
https://www.forpeopleforjustice.com/can ... verturned/
But I cba to dig more about this tbh.

[princeofcarthage]

Show hidden quotes

Advised by who lol. That would be some of the worst pr advice of all time.

Those who took him under their wing, funded his lawyers and are keeping him in a safe house. Probably moderate conservatives who see him as a 2nd Amnd hero. They don't want him to be used as a symbol of white supremacism, so they want to make sure they set the narrative right asap.

Another reason could be that after he won the trial, they want to calm the situation, avoid stirring up public opinion, because that would bring more scrutiny over how the trial was conducted and it could possibly get challenged. And Rittenhouse's handlers don't want him killed by antifa or some black panther activists, so it's better to profile him as just a 2nd Amend defender not some anti-BLM activist.

The verdict cannot be legally challenged or appealed.

Idk it seems like there are some cases in which it can:
https://www.forpeopleforjustice.com/can ... verturned/
But I cba to dig more about this tbh.

According to the news the verdict itself cannot be challenged. They would have to prove biased jury, compromised trials and some few things else where a new trial can be granted. But it is rare. In this case the chances of this happening are negligent.

[harcha]

In this case the chances of this happening are negligent.

that's one way of putting it

[princeofcarthage]

In this case the chances of this happening are negligent.

that's one way of putting it

Intended.

[Goodspeed]

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/11 ... n=feed-par

I know, an unforgivable assault on our tiny 2021 attention spans

[pecelot]

you absolute hero

[Dolan]

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/11 ... n=feed-par

I know, an unforgivable assault on our tiny 2021 attention spans

What happened with the Democratic party in the US is an illustration of the spiral of silence theory.
Media and progressive NGOs backed by rich funders have been mounting this progressive campaign, pushing ideas like police defunding, but igoring the fact that this didn't have any significant grassroots support. And ordinary voters were too intimidated to voice their opposition to these ideas, due to a fear of being perceived as a bigot.

This social dynamic is probably at work in so many cases, a vocal minority of activists engage in this sort of "ethical bullying" (bullying others into accepting something because 'my position is ethically superior, so if you don't support it, you need to be publicly exposed and villified for being just like our enemies') to force everyone else to submit to their maximal demands, forgetting that this won't change how people vote, they can't control that. Then eventually they get shocked at the next elections that their side has lost votes.

[fightinfrenchman]

Democrats just won control of Congress less than a year ago, slow down with the obituary

[princeofcarthage]

Democrats just won control of Congress less than a year ago, slow down with the obituary

They are going to lose next year

[fightinfrenchman]

Democrats just won control of Congress less than a year ago, slow down with the obituary

They are going to lose next year

Probably. That doesn't mean they're doomed to failure forever because of some specific thing Dolan doesn't like, it's just that the president's party usually does worse in the midterms no matter what

[Goodspeed]

Democrats just won control of Congress less than a year ago, slow down with the obituary

I assume you didn't read the article?

[Dolan]

Probably. That doesn't mean they're doomed to failure forever because of some specific thing Dolan doesn't like, it's just that the president's party usually does worse in the midterms no matter what

I just reacted to that article posted by Goodspeed. The whole article could have been summed up in two sentences:
- vocal progressive minorities, funded by rich Gucci socialists, have worked to push the party in a direction that is disconnected from the grassroots
- the centrist wing of the Dem party has already been 'sensitised' by the moneyed lobby in Washington, to the point that they're blocking some of Biden's 2tn plan, making him look center-left, even tho he specifically tried to avoid that

My reaction was to say that the first point is an illustration of the spiral of silence theory, nothing else. I didn't even react to the second point, because I hadn't finished the piece when I wrote that.
I wasn't putting down the Dems, I just looked at the situation from a technical pov.
For me, the USA is just a very interesting subject to study in terms of how culture shapes political conflict. I don't rly care who's in power in the USA.

[Cometk]

Ah yeah the billionaires astroturfing the “defund the police” movement and not the exact opposite

[chris1089]

Democrats just won control of Congress less than a year ago, slow down with the obituary

They are going to lose next year

Is that what the model says?

[Goodspeed]

I guess Americans don't need to actually read the article because they already know everything

Ah yeah the billionaires astroturfing the “defund the police” movement and not the exact opposite

What's the opposite of that? Defunding the police was never popular

After Floyd’s murder, progressive activists quickly coalesced around defunding the police as a slogan and policy objective. (The slogan was itself a compromise between activists who favored reduction of police budgets and those who favored outright abolition.) Defunding the police never commanded strong support among the public, which has rejected it by margins of more than two to one, and is unpopular among Democrats. Black and Hispanic Democratic voters are more likely than their white counterparts to support higher spending on police, and no more than one-quarter of any Democratic constituency, Black or white, supports reduced funding. Black voters have consistently registered support both for reforming police to crack down on racism and abuse and increasing the level of protection for residents of high-crime areas.

As longtime Minneapolis police-reform activist Nekima Levy Armstrong lamented, most Black Minneapolis residents wanted serious police reform: “Instead, what we got was progressive posturing of a kind seen throughout the country and a missed opportunity to bring about real change and racial justice.” There are at least some models of police reform that combine greater accountability with more robust protection. Camden, New Jersey, for example, reconstituted its corrupt, abusive police force with one that was both more responsive and larger. Those kinds of reforms are not easy, but they at least have a chance of success since they can command significant public approval (which is not a sufficient condition to enact a high-profile reform, but it is a necessary one). There was never a world in which a concept supported by less than 20 percent of the public was going to emerge victorious.

Yet activist groups of all stripes rushed to join the defund movement, including Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and dozens of climate groups. Those endorsements have continued to blow back in the faces of Democrats. Virginia Republicans in this year’s election learned they could attack any Democrats receiving endorsements from these groups as gaining support from “pro-defund” organizations, and one Democrat declined an endorsement from NARAL, an abortion-rights group, in order to avoid being linked to police defunding.