US Politics: Terminal America

[Zorral]

14 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

As a former Texan, I'll say this isn't normal.  With the governor 'joking' about shooting journalists, I think this is the leading edge of more and worse to come.

Absolutely.  We haven't had brawls like this in legislative assemblies since before the War of Southern Aggression.  In those decades though, they were not infrequent in local and federal houses.  The Preston Brooks beating of Charles Sumner was unusual because he trapped him in such a way that Sumner could neither fight back nor protect himself -- a most unmanly way of doing things, for which Brooks was praised -- the excuse being that Sumner, of the anti-slavery party and a northerner was scum and thus did not merit honorable, honest and fair dealing.

 

[OldGimletEye]

32 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

To be fair MSNBC is hardly neutral so I'm pretty sure he ignores it. 

To be fair, Trump ignores reality, logic, and facts in general.

[Dr. Pepper]

There was a video of a Minneapolis transit officer attempting to ask about the citizenship of a rider, for no apparent reason.  He was being openly video taped and when asked if he had the authority, he said "not necessarily."  Thankfully the transit authority has acted swiftly against the officer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/05/22/are-you-here-illegally-minneapolis-probes-video-of-transit-officer-checking-riders-immigration-status/?utm_term=.5b071c94e387

I'm sure this has always happened to some extent.  I don't know that there are numbers that show whether or not there's been an increase.  It seems like it, and I think that officers feel emboldened by the political climate.  I know very few people who walk around with any sort of proof of citizenship.  I don't carry around my (currently expired ) passport, certainly not my birth certificate.  How many people actually do?  And if a person appears 'foreign' and can't provide proof, any arrest while it's cleared up could be devastating personally or financially. 

[Zorral]

Re this discussion about how well educated our population is: speaking as someone who spends a lot of time in university classrooms attempting to teach -- there are brilliant kids in these classes, who do brilliant work, who are inspired and inspiring.

However, over the years the numbers of students -- even in graduate courses -- who are, by the standards to which we had to aspire when I was both an undergrad and grad student -- and even a high school students -- are by-and-large incapable of doing what would be considered average high school work.  

They cannot read, write or think.  They cannot analyse. They don't know anything -- beyond pop culture of their generation.

They can't even go to a map and show where the capital of the country is located.

Worst of all, they have no attention span and they see no reason why they need to work at anything (remind you of anyone, hmmmm?)

Even ten years ago those students would be out of college by the end of the first year.  But now -- they are the majority.  All they want to do in the classroom is stare into their phones.  Even when it is pointed out to them, that at our university, they are paying hundreds of dollars for every hour they are sitting in our classroom.  As far as they are concerned they are paying for that credential and they are entitled to an A. Period. More of us are insisting that the phones be shut off in the classroom.  The howling about this rocks admin and is perpetually 'under discussion.'

This is so particularly as this institution is supposedly ranked at or near the top, is one of the most expensive institutions of higher learning in the world, and hosts many, many scions of klepto rulers of other nations, who pay full ride. So admin has no interest in having them rid from the campus.  This further pulls down the general overall atmosphere.  One of my colleagues has had the same student in the same required course for a business program for five semesters, and he has never turned in a single paper, taken an exam and is hardly ever in the classroom.  "My father owns ---" he says, naming a country.  He and his family don't care.  The pressure out of admin to pass this kid, who has done nothing at all for five semesters, got intolerable, and there it was.  He graduates this spring.

Having a degree and having an education are not equivalents.  From my personal and purely anecdotal experience, this is the most ignorant and incurious bunch of people this country has ever hosted.  

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

39 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

There was a video of a Minneapolis transit officer attempting to ask about the citizenship of a rider, for no apparent reason.  He was being openly video taped and when asked if he had the authority, he said "not necessarily."  Thankfully the transit authority has acted swiftly against the officer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/05/22/are-you-here-illegally-minneapolis-probes-video-of-transit-officer-checking-riders-immigration-status/?utm_term=.5b071c94e387

I'm sure this has always happened to some extent.  I don't know that there are numbers that show whether or not there's been an increase.  It seems like it, and I think that officers feel emboldened by the political climate.  I know very few people who walk around with any sort of proof of citizenship.  I don't carry around my (currently expired ) passport, certainly not my birth certificate.  How many people actually do?  And if a person appears 'foreign' and can't provide proof, any arrest while it's cleared up could be devastating personally or financially. 

Exactly.  This is a method of suppressing speech... pure and simple.  Hell, if you do carry your birth certificate/passport what is stopping the officer from claiming it is a forgery and arresting you anyway.  It's crap and it needs to stop.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

OK, then we agree that you are in fact normalising this.

I'm not the best person to argue whether this is actually normal or not, because I can't get my head around how 'normal' people carrying guns is in various situations in the US. It's never normal for me.

Actually, no we're not in agreement here. As you yourself said, words have meaning. I came across your post literally a minute before I had to leave for work, so I didn't have time to properly respond. The more I thought about it on the way to work, the more angry I got with the tone of your first post, so please excuse me if this gets a bit tense.

 Natural does not necessarily imply normal, as I'm sure you know. Events like hurricanes and earthquakes and tornadoes are undeniably natural. When say a meteorologist or a geologist attempts to explain why these events occur, they are not necessarily trying to normalize the event, they are simply breaking down why it occurred. "Hey, I realize this event might destroy your home and kill some of your loved ones, but don't stress, it's a naturally occurring event". 

 When you say "stop it" you are at best misinterpreting what I said, and at worst you're putting words in my mouth.

 Just to clarify, I don't believe it is reasonable for a politician to hire armed militia for security at a political rally. I said as much in my post. That said, if you can't see the sort of violence that has been more and more prevalent at political rallies over the past two years or so leading to this, I'm not sure what to tell you. That's not to say that this is normal.    

[Kalbear]

Thanks for that in-depth analysis, @dmc515 . That was really useful.

Note that most people don't use gerrymandering as a reason for partisanship, they use it as an example of its outcome. And while you might be right that the generic result of gerrymandering would be to make fewer safe seats, in practice this is not what the gerrymandering system did in 2010 across states, where the Republican-led state congresses used software specifically designed to give them as many R+10 seats as they possibly could. This isn't conjecture; this is specifically their stated goal and they even did a post-mortem to show how successful it was.

Something else not mentioned in your report was the decline of pork barrel politics (again, by design) and how it helps keep congress running. By removing earmarks, they removed a key ability for congress to give any kind of wins to the other side - and that means that there's almost no incentive to compromise or make any kind of deals, as there's simply nothing to offer. 

[James Arryn]

8 hours ago, Altherion said:

Because after the first few months, it was completely obvious that he wasn't going to do anything to rein in the elites and therefore opposition to him was politically profitable. In 2008, the Democrats were given not just unified control over the federal government, but Congressional majorities not seen for over a decade. They promptly used this to continue the direct and indirect bailout of Wall Street, redistribute resources within the 99% (most notably via ACA) and hide behind the filibuster to avoid offending their donors (even though everyone knows that they only needed a simply majority to remove the filibuster).

In these circumstances, it would have been politically insane for the Republicans to do anything but what they did and the voters rewarded them for their actions. In 2010, the Democrats lost 63 seats in the House and thus also control of it. The Senate elections are structured to avoid this kind of fluctuation, but of the 19 Democrat seats up for reelection, the Democrats lost 6 and they failed to win even a single Republican-held seat in return.

What if this mantra of yours is not the fundamental raison d'être for gravity, pollution, autocorrect any any/every other evil under the sun? What if the reasons are more connected with, like, what Republicans do bolstered by a majority belief that he was a Kenyan Muslim?

[aceluby]

4 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

What if this mantra of yours is not the fundamental raison d'être for gravity, pollution, autocorrect any any/every other evil under the sun? What if the reasons are more connected with, like, what Republicans do bolstered by a majority belief that he was a Kenyan Muslim?

I almost responded to the same post because of the lazy Monday morning quarterbacking analysis that you picked up on.  It's just more 'both parties are ultimately the same' garbage he's been spewing for basically ever.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I'm surprised it took him this long to call for the nuclear option.....

[Ormond]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

 

Worst of all, they have no attention span and they see no reason why they need to work at anything (remind you of anyone, hmmmm?)

Even ten years ago those students would be out of college by the end of the first year.  But now -- they are the majority.  All they want to do in the classroom is stare into their phones.  Even when it is pointed out to them, that at our university, they are paying hundreds of dollars for every hour they are sitting in our classroom.  As far as they are concerned they are paying for that credential and they are entitled to an A. Period. More of us are insisting that the phones be shut off in the classroom.  The howling about this rocks admin and is perpetually 'under discussion.'

This is so particularly as this institution is supposedly ranked at or near the top, is one of the most expensive institutions of higher learning in the world, and hosts many, many scions of klepto rulers of other nations, who pay full ride. So admin has no interest in having them rid from the campus.  This further pulls down the general overall atmosphere.  One of my colleagues has had the same student in the same required course for a business program for five semesters, and he has never turned in a single paper, taken an exam and is hardly ever in the classroom.  "My father owns ---" he says, naming a country.  He and his family don't care.  The pressure out of admin to pass this kid, who has done nothing at all for five semesters, got intolerable, and there it was.  He graduates this spring.

Having a degree and having an education are not equivalents.  From my personal and purely anecdotal experience, this is the most ignorant and incurious bunch of people this country has ever hosted.  

 

I teach at a university that is just the opposite of yours in terms of selectivity -- a very high percentage of first generation students, with an administration that is proud that we are "non-selective." But I have experienced the same thing in terms of student attention and motivation that last few years. I have more and more students who seem to think they can be using their smartphones or surfing the internet on their laptops at the same time they are in class. And my colleagues and I have noticed a much higher rate of absences from class and more students who just don't turn in their assigned work -- there have always been a few, but that percentage seems to be increasing.

I am going to ban phones and laptops from my classes next year -- our administration allows us to do that IF we clearly state that in the syllabus available the first day of class. There is now a great deal of research showing that not only are these electronic devices distracting from the learning of those who use them while in class, but they even have a negative effect on other students sitting near them. 

[Relic]

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

They cannot read, write or think.  They cannot analyse. They don't know anything -- beyond pop culture of their generation.

There is nothing surprising about what you are saying, sadly. From my point of view, as a product of the NYC public school system, it seemed to me like the powers that be (whoever they are) wanted to created a population of entertainment and comfort obsessed worker drones. And what makes a good worker drone? Lack of self awareness and critical thinking. Americans are basically bred to go with the flow and NOT ask "deeper" questions beyond "what's for dinner?" and "which program will i watch tonight?" 

[James Arryn]

54 minutes ago, aceluby said:

I almost responded to the same post because of the lazy Monday morning quarterbacking analysis that you picked up on.  It's just more 'both parties are ultimately the same' garbage he's been spewing for basically ever.

Maybe his thinking does explain why so many Democrats floated/believed the myth that Obama was secretly a white heterosexual Christian. We're all under attack!

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Thanks for that in-depth analysis, @dmc515 . That was really useful.

Glad to hear it was useful!

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Note that most people don't use gerrymandering as a reason for partisanship, they use it as an example of its outcome. And while you might be right that the generic result of gerrymandering would be to make fewer safe seats, in practice this is not what the gerrymandering system did in 2010 across states, where the Republican-led state congresses used software specifically designed to give them as many R+10 seats as they possibly could. This isn't conjecture; this is specifically their stated goal and they even did a post-mortem to show how successful it was.

It is most certainly the case that the Republicans have been the beneficiaries in recent decades - in fact the article I cited actually provides evidence for that.  And while they do find the GOP may have paid the price in 2006 for creating more competitive districts, their analysis obviously does not deal with the affects of the 2010 redistricting.  In my experience, polarization is often linked directly to polarization by pundits, my students, and even Obama.  This is a pet peeve of mine - especially with students - thus why I mentioned it.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Something else not mentioned in your report was the decline of pork barrel politics (again, by design) and how it helps keep congress running. By removing earmarks, they removed a key ability for congress to give any kind of wins to the other side - and that means that there's almost no incentive to compromise or make any kind of deals, as there's simply nothing to offer. 

Yes!  Pork is key to building winning coalitions and achieving compromise.  The best work on this is Diana Evans' Greasing the Wheels.  In the literature, pork - and its decline - is examined under its association to gridlock, not polarization.  Obviously there's a relationship between the two but that's still an important distinction.  I would describe the decline of pork barrel politics as an effect of polarization rather than a cause.  Specifically, the toxic politics introduced by the "Gingrich Senators," or what Frances Lee calls Beyond Ideology, has radically altered the culture in Washington to the point that pork's role in logrolling is rarely used anymore.  The right's demonization and use of pork as an electoral issue reflects this.

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

I'm surprised it took him this long to call for the nuclear option.....

I love how even in the damn tweet where he's calling to abolish the filibuster in order to circumvent the opposition party, he includes that "Dems would do this."  If they would "do this" why in the fuck do you need to go to 51 votes?  Classic Orwellian doublespeak.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

I love how even in the damn tweet where he's calling to abolish the filibuster in order to circumvent the opposition party, he includes that "Dems would do this."  If they would "do this" why in the fuck do you need to go to 51 votes?  Classic Orwellian doublespeak.

"Get Healthcare" also qualifies. Really? We're going to get some healthcare if this passes? What the hell are you guys waiting for? 

[Fez]

28 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm surprised it took him this long to call for the nuclear option.....

He's done it before, and McConnell has slapped him down before.

Also, shows how little he's paying attention since both health care and tax cuts are only subject to the 51 vote threshold anyway; assuming Republicans can actually work out their reconciliation plan.

[BloodRider]

10 hours ago, Altherion said:

Because after the first few months, it was completely obvious that he wasn't going to do anything to rein in the elites and therefore opposition to him was politically profitable.

"You Lie" 

[TheKitttenGuard]

4 minutes ago, Fez said:

He's done it before, and McConnell has slapped him down before.

Also, shows how little he's paying attention since both health care and tax cuts are only subject to the 51 vote threshold anyway; assuming Republicans can actually work out their reconciliation plan.

What they can with reconciliation is more limited than what they can do with 60 votes or getting rid of the filibuster. 

[Kalbear]

31 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I love how even in the damn tweet where he's calling to abolish the filibuster in order to circumvent the opposition party, he includes that "Dems would do this."  If they would "do this" why in the fuck do you need to go to 51 votes?  Classic Orwellian doublespeak.

He's saying that the dems would abolish the filibuster if put in the same situation.