Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Speak, Shriek, or Squeak! Whatever Technique You Seek in Critique of the Isogeneic Freak.


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

U.S. geography is not conducive to such division. East, West, and South would fight over the middle parts of old America around Kansas.

Loser has to keep those parts? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Oh, I'm sure.  But the level of excuse-making for Trump is just astonishing.  He ran in 2016 on being the man solely able to solve America's problems, and now 3.5 years later the economy is crippled, debt and unemployment are skyrocketing, race relations are at a 50 year low, and still huge numbers of people want more of the same. 

Well, when Trump promised to return America to what it was, he was clearly thinking of the late sixties! 

Mission accomplished. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

 Politics at its core is human interaction . . .

And if it wasn't ... deathcultchief wouldn't be POTUS.  I.e. I am agreeing with you, inc.luding that wonks seldom have any and the wonkier a campaign is the less likely it will be successful.  People seemingly got confused because Clinton and Obama had a lot of wonkery in their campaigns -- but the reason they won is because of who they are and how they interacted with others, and how those others reacted to this interaction.  They appealed to people because of their charm, their charisma, and yes, even their intelligence and education, but particularly because they understood people.  Deathcultichief won because he appealed to the people who WANT TO HATE unfettered and commit violence of whatever kind without fetters of even politeness to cover it up.  They want to get up in people's face and howl ugly words at them -- and receive no shaming, repercussion or even legal censure. Two different kinds of people skills.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The optimum would be: 

1) an East Coast state including New England, NY/NJ plus Chicago 

2) a West Coast state: CAL/Oregon/Washington

3) the Rest

would such a Split truly be so awful? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Arakan said:

The optimum would be: 

1) an East Coast state including New England, NY/NJ plus Chicago 

2) a West Coast state: CAL/Oregon/Washington

3) the Rest

would such a Split truly be so awful? 

Uh if you're including Chicago with the East Coast that means you're also sweeping in Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan. Also if you truly mean the entire East Coast, including the South, that's...not a good split.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fury Resurrected said:

Minnesota would beg to join Canada

And why not :)  

borders should not be sacrosanct. Let the people decide about their future. As I see it from afar and as someone who has visited the States quite often: the division between the people is getting bigger and bigger. A simple „let’s continue“ solves nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, DMC said:

It's because such experience does not warrant any credit when it comes to expertise in politics.  Campaign operatives are tools - and I'm happy to be one - unless at the higher levels.  You're no Dave Axelrod.

I can't find the clip but this reminds me a lot of a West Wing quote:

I agree with Toby.  Anyway, charming people has nothing to do with studying political science.  You seem to be under the impression the discipline should entail etiquette school for young ladies.  The discipline is designed to train researchers, not politicians or even political operatives.

I really don't think you would.  And I'm not saying that in any arrogant or superior way.  It's just really fucking boring.  My dad asked me one time to read one of my papers, I said ok and he was like "ya know maybe I can give you feedback."  That was seven years ago, still waiting.

I've canvassed for campaigns since 2004.  Hell, I worked for Clean Water Action for a bit in which knocking on doors was literally my job.

Human interaction is at the core for politicians.  The study of politics?  Not so much.

JFC, do any undergrads really want to participate in any class?  This is...you know much we try to get kids to actively contribute?  And you know how much that fails?  This is across literally all disciplines.

Like I said, I hate cutting posts up.

First, that's really dismissive, and needlessly so. I'm no chief strategist, but I've held the title of assistant campaign manger on a campaign that won by close to 30 fucking points. You could try and listen, now and then. Like I've said many times, you know a lot more about the scientific side. Just don't hate on the political side. 

Second, I really do need to get around to watching The West Wing, but there are some things I associate with women I cared about and that sadly is one of them. I made it through the first season and that's it. 

Third, I happily read a buddy's dissertation not that long ago. That's why I was shocked that yours was so long, and frustrated that his was really not much long than my honors thesis, especially considering my rough draft was a lot longer than that.

I asked two more friends that got their PhDs, and theirs were the same length, within reason. That's why I was really shocked at yours.

Fourth, no, you need to be able to interact with others when studying politics. And the failure to really teach students that is the biggest hole in the field. That's my main complaint. Say you know everything about The Federalist Papers. What good is that if you can't teach your students about it? 

Lastly, As I've told you before, I was the student always happy to raise their hand when the teacher got no responses. Because I always tried to be weeks ahead. I was also the one to always go to my professors' office hours, even if was just to shoot the shit. I did not graduate with top honors because I was the best. Far from it. But my professors always liked me and I always did exactly what they asked of me. 

Sorry for the overuse of always, but it belabors the point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, DMC said:

But especially when you consider most academics don't give a shit about teaching

But is that not a huge problem? 

And yeah, sounds like the right episode. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Starkess said:

Uh if you're including Chicago with the East Coast that means you're also sweeping in Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan. Also if you truly mean the entire East Coast, including the South, that's...not a good split.

No only the North East :))). But see it as brainstorming;). People should study the collapse of the Soviet Union which actually was the Russian Empire with a different political doctrine. Quite a few similarities there. Just be flexible. 
 

Ethnic tensions vs racial tensions 

class struggle: an elite with zero grounding in reality vs the struggling masses 

Overpowered military complex 

ruthless interior forces / police / paramilitary 
 

imperial overstretch: conflict involvements all over the world with inadequate Exit strategies 

rising paranoia of the military / state agencies 

 

just food for thoughts

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Arakan said:

As a European I can tell you: nothing is ever written in stone. The Russian Empire / Soviet Union collapsed and so can the US. Not very likely but possible nonetheless. 

I'm not really interested in the viability of the US as a discussion, I'm stating that there can be at most two states that emerge to replace it. One that wins getting all the farmland to transform into an ecological redoubt, and the one that gets banished to the parts of the nation continent disappearing under the sea.

That has nothing to do with wants or personal feelings, and everything to do with the strategic considerations when forming the new states. The American Midwest is the future of this continent. Possibly this hemisphere. No properly motivated commander would allow it to fall outside their state's boundaries.

Edited for clarity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jace, Basilissa said:

I'm not really interested in the viability of the US as a discussion, I'm stating that there can be at most two states that emerge to replace it. One that wins getting all the farmland to transform into an ecological redoubt, and the one that gets banished to the parts of the nation disappearing under the sea.

That has nothing to do with wants or personal feelings, and everything to do with the strategic considerations when forming the new states. The American Midwest is the future of this continent. Possibly this hemisphere. No properly motivated commander would allow it to fall outside their state's boundaries.

Ukraine was the bread basket of the Russian Empire and in many ways the cultural heartland. As I said just a scenario. There are always ways. All empires one day collapse. Just in the last century: the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, German Empire, French Empire, British Empire, Austrian Empire. Things happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Zorral said:

And if it wasn't ... deathcultchief wouldn't be POTUS.  I.e. I am agreeing with you, inc.luding that wonks seldom have any and the wonkier a campaign is the less likely it will be successful.  People seemingly got confused because Clinton and Obama had a lot of wonkery in their campaigns -- but the reason they won is because of who they are and how they interacted with others, and how those others reacted to this interaction.  They appealed to people because of their charm, their charisma, and yes, even their intelligence and education, but particularly because they understood people.  Deathcultichief won because he appealed to the people who WANT TO HATE unfettered and commit violence of whatever kind without fetters of even politeness to cover it up.  They want to get up in people's face and howl ugly words at them -- and receive no shaming, repercussion or even legal censure. Two different kinds of people skills.

 

I firmly believe Romney could have beaten Obama in 2012 if he was just able to be himself. The boxing promo he cut here after the fact shows how much better he could have been at connecting with people:
 

 

HRC's team should have learned from things like this. Being wooden and stiff is not the way to win, and like Mitt, everyone around Hillary swears she's cool as hell in private. But she too was wooden and stiff, and people saw that. 

It's why I was telling people not to root for her vs. Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Minnesota would beg to join Canada

No Kay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You just made our main stereotype real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Arakan said:

Ukraine was the bread basket of the Russian Empire and in many ways the cultural heartland. As I said just a scenario. There are always ways. All empires one day collapse. Just in the last century: the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, German Empire, French Empire, British Empire, Austrian Empire. Things happen. 

Again, I'm not saying that America is immune to such a collapse. However, in what would be a more-or-less isolated series of government collapses spinning into civil war while the sea continues to rise there is no way I can accept that the relevant powers would not water the Midwest in blood before ceding claims.

I'm not saying the U.S. can't collapse. I'm saying it can't do so in a manner of parity, and certainly not peacefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You could try and listen, now and then. Like I've said many times, you know a lot more about the scientific side. Just don't hate on the political side. 

It's not an either or prospect.  You don't know more about the political side due to your campaign experience.  The "science" side is still, obviously, political.  I feel ridiculous even having to point that out.  That doesn't mean every political operative needs to have doctorates, few do.  What it means is if all you have is undergrad experience studying political science, then you probably have a poor understanding of what political science entails.  As you've demonstrated for the past four years since I started posting down here.

I don't know what do say about the length of my dissertation.  As I emphasized when we did discuss this, length = quality.  But at least in my discipline, it's going to have to be much longer than an undergrad thesis, yes.  Either your friends are in different disciplines or they're at schools with poor standards.

On your fourth point, what you're talking about is quality of teaching.  And you're right about that.  Again, most people at a certain level prefer to consider and be referred to as researchers, they don't really care about teaching.  One can have an encyclopedic knowledge of The Federalist and still have no idea how to teach them.

Yeah you were one of those students I'd be annoyed about because I actually had to stay in the office instead of going across the street to the bar.

It is definitely not a huge problem that tenured professors don't give a shit about teaching.  That's how it works.  Teaching is for TAs and adjuncts or non-tenure track instructors.  Otherwise known as where I'm at.  The faculty is paid to publish, not teach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought 1 Arakan has not studied The American Civil War.

Thought 2 From a couple of pages back. Not wise to try to prosecute Trump after 2020 (assuming a Biden win) from a stable democracy standpoint. Hopefully he gets Herbert Hoovered. No invites to the whitehouse. No invites to Jimmy Carter's funeral. Change law so that he doesn't get classified briefings. ( probably a good idea from a national security standpoint). To spike the football a little more,  no money for a Presidential library. Doubt Biden has it in him. He follows lousy Obama's example after GWB. W deserved the Herbert Hoover treatment more then Trump.

Thought 3. Really proud of the Episcopal church after yesterday's St John's fiasco.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

It's not an either or prospect.  You don't know more about the political side due to your campaign experience.  The "science" side is still, obviously, political.  I feel ridiculous even having to point that out.  That doesn't mean every political operative needs to have doctorates, few do.  What it means is if all you have is undergrad experience studying political science, then you probably have a poor understanding of what political science entails.  As you've demonstrated for the past four years since I started posting down here.

I don't know what do say about the length of my dissertation.  As I emphasized when we did discuss this, length = quality.  But at least in my discipline, it's going to have to be much longer than an undergrad thesis, yes.  Either your friends are in different disciplines or they're at schools with poor standards.

On your fourth point, what you're talking about is quality of teaching.  And you're right about that.  Again, most people at a certain level prefer to consider and be referred to as researchers, they don't really care about teaching.  One can have an encyclopedic knowledge of The Federalist and still have no idea how to teach them.

Yeah you were one of those students I'd be annoyed about because I actually had to stay in the office instead of going across the street to the bar.

It is definitely not a huge problem that tenured professors don't give a shit about teaching.  That's how it works.  Teaching is for TAs and adjuncts or non-tenure track instructors.  Otherwise known as where I'm at.  The faculty is paid to publish, not teach.

Negative. I'd go to the bar with you.

Just saying, my psychology training taught me a lot more about politics than my poli sci training, and that's a bit damning. The field needs a lot of reforms, and yes, teaching kids how to actually talk to other people would probably help a lot. 

I cannot agree with your last point at all though. Given the cost of tuition, I need someone that wants to actually teach me something. Not some disinterested asshole who views me as a pain in the ass, even if I'm trying to overachieve. Most professors don't give a damn about their students. And that's just wrong.

ETA: Most professors at major institutions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...