Board 8 > Politics Internment Topic 226

(+) Yeah! (+)

LordoftheMorons posted...

There was a similar case two years ago where Harvard rescinded 10 admissions for posts in a racist meme group (the main difference being that the conduct was post-admission)

This thread sums up my thoughts pretty well:
https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/1140823617871273984?s=21

The conduct being post-admission makes all the difference.
---

pyresword posted...

All that said the conservative outrage take is awful considering the stance is basically "Why won't you let kids be racist". (If there's another way to interpret this that I haven't thought of please tell me)

Ben Shapiro thinks asking teens not to spam racial slurs online or else their college of choice might hold it against them is an insane, cruel standard

https://twitter.com/imraansiddiqi/status/1140654309098414080?s=21
---

pyresword posted...

To be clear the reason why I don't really agree with this in general however is that I think the behavior of someone in private at the age of 16 does not strongly correlate with their behavior as an adult and especially their behavior in public settings as an adult.

This is college admissions, though, where you are 100% judged on your behavior and actions as a 16 year old. As someone said on twitter: "I don't get to go to my college of choice and say "I failed Trigonometry because I slept through the class, but i was 16 at the time! I'll do better now."
---

Yeah college admissions are literally based on what you did when you were 16
---

Dancedreamer posted...

pyresword posted...

To be clear the reason why I don't really agree with this in general however is that I think the behavior of someone in private at the age of 16 does not strongly correlate with their behavior as an adult and especially their behavior in public settings as an adult.

This is college admissions, though, where you are 100% judged on your behavior and actions as a 16 year old. As someone said on twitter: "I don't get to go to my college of choice and say "I failed Trigonometry because I slept through the class, but i was 16 at the time! I'll do better now."

colleges like when your grades get better as high school progresses
---

Also I have to laugh at Kashuvs claim that the Parkland shooting somehow changed his worldview on spamming racial slurs
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Also I have to laugh at Kashuvs claim that the Parkland shooting somehow changed his worldview on spamming racial slurs

Why? You don't think a close brush with death in which your classmates are killed would impact you?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

pyresword posted...

To be clear the reason why I don't really agree with this in general however is that I think the behavior of someone in private at the age of 16 does not strongly correlate with their behavior as an adult and especially their behavior in public settings as an adult.

Is there really that much of an accountability difference between 16 and 18

I don't think he should be held accountable for comments made in private no matter what age he is, and even if he were I don't think Harvard should be the one to do it.

The issue for the university here is that there is a higher chance that someone who makes such comments in private at 16 is going to develop into someone that acts on racist impulses in public in some capacity, which are not the type of people that Harvard wants having degrees from their university.

While this isn't exactly what you were asking (the above paragraphs are the response to that), I do think at least based on my personal experiences that people change a lot between the ages of 16 and 18. Also, aside from extreme cases I don't think society should be seriously faulting people for their actions before they become adults because the whole point of "pre-adult" years is that people don't know how what the realities of the world are or how their expected to behave, and they need time to figure that out.

Of course, there is a large difference between "society seriously faulting" someone and not accepting someone to one of the most prestigious universities in the country, which I tried to allude to in my original post.
---

Right. Im not saying he cant grow as a person, but I think actually having real but not deathly serious consequences for your actions is one part of HOW you grow
---

I agree that he shouldnt be exiled from society forever for it. But there are plenty of people that are totally qualified to go to Harvard but are rejected for arbitrary reasons, and this is a much better reason than weve already taken two superstar cellists so lets go with the pro-gun activist with the same SAT score
---

I agree that Harvard shouldn't have to keep him as a student but they do need to pay damages if they breach the deal they agreed to. To put hard numbers on it, let's go with $2,000,000 for lost earnings and $500,000 for the emotional value of having a Harvard degree. I'm open to higher damages if he can show that he has specific career goals (like holding high office) for which a Harvard degree provides greater benefit than it does for the average Harvard grad.

If punitive damages were allowed I'd go up to the full 10x, for a total of $25 million. But probably not going to be allowed on a breach of contract case.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Why is it a problem that Warren's ideas aren't all her own?

Its not at all, I was pointing out how even Mc was repeating a pattern which was brought up earlier, that Warren is being praised for her innovation.

I will say one innovative idea she has that Bernie doesnt agree with is getting rid of the filibuster. It needs to be gone, or at least reduced in some significant way.
---

red sox 777 posted...

I agree that Harvard shouldn't have to keep him as a student but they do need to pay damages if they breach the deal they agreed to.

Unless Harvard is stupider than most colleges, the "deal" would allow them to rescind his admission for just about any reason they want so there's no case for breach of contract.
---

https://twitter.com/teampelosi/status/1141073333762580486?s=21

It's actually sad: Donald Trump doesnt know right from wrong. It's time for Trump to go.

Oh sweet! You finally see the need for impeachment? Lets get the ball...



...rolling
---

Xeybozn posted...

red sox 777 posted...

I agree that Harvard shouldn't have to keep him as a student but they do need to pay damages if they breach the deal they agreed to.

Unless Harvard is stupider than most colleges, the "deal" would allow them to rescind his admission for just about any reason they want so there's no case for breach of contract.

I don't recall a lot of fine print on the acceptance letters I got. But in any case, I don't doubt they can get away with it. It would be difficult to have 12 jurors and a judge see things the way I do.
---

I don't really understand the argument that Warren talking about her plan (it's also completely untrue she is the only one talking policy or even specifically doing it more, that is just her campaign aesthetic making people see it that way) is a reason to support her if you think everyone else also supports the same policies unless you just think that is the best strategy to win in the general. Because Hillary ran on being a qualified wonk with a campaign themed around her being uniquely suited, and Warren running on being a wonk with all the plans is just more of the same mistake. While Obama didn't govern in a populist manner, he ran that way. The messaging and aesthetics of everyone being in it together, hope and change etc were all more similar to Bernie's campaign aesthetics. We don't need another "let me handle this" campaign against the same person, especially since Bernie polled then better than Hillary and polls now better than Warren. That is not the campaign style best suited for the moment we find ourselves.

In my eyes, a wonk style candidate without a populist message (and yes, I know its in to hate on populism now, but Hope and Change was all about it) might be able to beat Trump, but it will also reenforce the narrative on the Right that the elites are out to get them, and then we get someone as despicable as Trump in 2024 but without the inefficiencies.
---

Nrrr posted...

I don't really understand the argument that Warren talking about her plan (it's also completely untrue she is the only one talking policy or even specifically doing it more, that is just her campaign aesthetic making people see it that way) is a reason to support her if you think everyone else also supports the same policies unless you just think that is the best strategy to win in the general. Because Hillary ran on being a qualified wonk with a campaign themed around her being uniquely suited, and Warren running on being a wonk with all the plans is just more of the same mistake. While Obama didn't govern in a populist manner, he ran that way. The messaging and aesthetics of everyone being in it together, hope and change etc were all more similar to Bernie's campaign aesthetics. We don't need another "let me handle this" campaign against the same person, especially since Bernie polled then better than Hillary and polls now better than Warren. That is not the campaign style best suited for the moment we find ourselves.

Well, the difference between Warren and Hillary is that Warren actually has substantive plans involving change. Hillary's plans consisted of repeating the same policies we've been following for ages, with slight tweaks.
---

I agree with both of you.

Nrrr posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Poll finds that 60% of the public (and 73% of Dems) take Medicare for All to mean a public option, not universal single payer:

https://twitter.com/aedwardslevy/status/1140681343464067072?s=21

It also finds that the former is extremely popular (+46 net approval) and the latter slightly unpopular (-6 net)

Buy Medicare?

I have literally never heard of a single person who thinks the best solution for our healthcare woes is for people to be able to pay for government insurance, that does jackshit for poor people.

Edit: Also based on that graphic, the wording of this question specifically asked Would you prefer to have the option to buy Medicare, or would you rather be forced to take Medicare?

Theres a lot of baggage with Medicare in the US, with people assuming it means lower quality and access to care. Of course people are wary of being told hey what if we took away what you have and gave you something you think sucks.

Please stop trying to make this argument if youre not gonna be nuanced about it.

A real interesting question is - if people are confused about what "Medicare for all" means, why is that? If people are confused about the policy, the corporate backed candidates can co-opt the messaging to make progressives stand out less and seem less necessary. So sure, you have many people running on Medicare for all, and if you say you support Bernie because you want Medicare for all, they can say but everyone else is running on that! When actually they are running on that messaging, and going to try to do a public option.

to piggyback on this post -
this article: https://jacobinmag.com/2019/06/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-health-care-policy

AOC offers same amount of paid parental leave to Fathers as she does mothers: 3 months.

It's very refreshing to see someone in politics like her.
---

It would be interesting to know what kind of family leave other Congresspeople and Senators give their staffs
---

Jakyl25 posted...

It would be interesting to know what kind of family leave other Congresspeople and Senators give their staffs

A lot of them aren't even paying their staff at all. They have unpaid internships.

Also saw that National Review pointed out that AOC said that the Hyde Amendment is about wealth inequality, not abortion. Bravo to her! She sees the real issues, which most Democrats cannot.
---

Time to tier the 2020 candidates

Good Tier

Donald Trump
Bernie Sanders

Maybe Okay Tier

Pete Buttigieg
Andrew Yang
Joe Biden

Bad Tier

Elizabeth Warren
Beto O'Rourke

No Way Tier

Everyone else

Elizabeth Warren's student loan forgiveness plan would help me personally, but it's really bad policy that will just cover up the real problem (that college is too expensive). If this passes colleges will just raise their tuitions, and people will take out bigger loans to pay it, knowing the government will forgive it. The bubble will keep on inflating.

This is populist policy in that it's not well thought through, but it also fails to capture the advantage of populism - that it is of the people and by the people. No thanks.
---

http://www.courtneymilan.com/metoo/kozinski.html

This is a very moving account of abusive sexual harassment a law clerk* faced from a prominent federal judge (Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit for years and a conservative, despite being in that circuit). The way in which ridiculous conduct like banning a clerk from reading romance novels for fun in her own time was normalized as being part of the judge-clerk relationship is really interesting.

*Although the title doesn't sound impressive, being a law clerk to a high level judge is the most prestigious job a new law school grad can get. The clerkships typically last a year, after which the clerk can work for a top firm if they so choose. The going rate for signing bonuses for a former SCOTUS clerk in recent years has been north of 300k.
---

Donald Trump is running concentration camps where people are being treated like cattle, brutalised and dehumanized by fascist thugs. He is a reactionary, xenophobic, misogynistic, anti-lgbt, racist, greedy authoritarian who grew up wealthy, and uses that wealth and power to prop himself up at the expense of the powerless, and represents everything Bernie Sanders revolution is aimed at fighting against. It's absolutely insane to suggest they are the only good candidates when they are polar opposites. This could seriously be the most important election we face in our lives - we have got to learn from history. When right wing fascists co-opt populism and use anger at inequality and turn it against the marginalized, it won't be defeated by liberalism, it's socialism or barbarism.

They are the only candidates I trust not to make things worse. They are the only candidates who have listened to the working class. They are the only candidates actually trying to make people's lives better. Biden can talk the talk and of course has working class roots, but he by all appearances believes in neoliberalism. Trump and Sanders see neoliberalism for the fraud it is and have the courage to fight it.
---

And Warren......the problem is that academia and Washington are both horribly insular bubbles (though they interact with each other a lot) and they both have a seemingly unshakable belief in their own intelligence and virtue and value. However good her intentions, it's really hard for someone in academia to see that academia is the problem.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

As for Gabbard, her recent attacks on Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono over asking if a judge could be separate his personal beliefs from his duty as a judge -- a perfectly legitimate question to ask -- calling it "Anti-Religious Bigotry" has me very concerned about her in regards to LGBT Rights. Not to mention her personal position has NOT changed, just her position on whether it's the government's business or not. Which makes it hard for me to think of her as an ally.

Late reeplying to this, but...yeahhhh Gabbard just seems like a train wreck.

Like...in the early 2000s she was handing out anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion leaflets. And OK sure, people can change, she was young, that was years ago, her stances on these have seemingly flipped.

But more recently as a congresswoman she's called herself a hawk on terror and said some things that set off red flags as being anti-muslim. Took the Republican line of criticizing Obama for not using the words "radical islamic terror". That kind of stuff. Not to mention her weird maybe-ties to Hindu Nationalists and supporters of "India's Trump" (Narendra Modi). Such supporters have certainly donated heavily to her campaigns and seen her as an ally, although in her defence she's tried to distance herself from them recently.

Like, that's a lot of negatives.

Near as I can tell her claim to fame is that she stepped down from the DNC during the 2016 election to endorse Bernie, and that's cool and all. But...Bernie is also in the race. It's hard to imagine a Bernie supporter looking at Tulsi and thinking "Oh yeah, she endorsed Bernie, let me vote for her in 2020" when they could just...vote for Bernie instead of her.

(I suspect she's a third place pick of a number of Bernie supporters, specifically the ones who haven't dug into her history too much. But "third choice" I really don't expect to turn into a lot of votes).
---

Tulsi gets praised on non-interventionism in Syria but that and the defenses for her cheerleading Assad kinda evaporates when you hear her views on the muslim world and islamic terrorism... which in fact forms the basis for her to going overboard re:Assad. She's not a dove by any means, she just has a different priority assessment of threats.

Complaining about anti-religious bigotry absolutely throws the whole "she's changed over her LGBT problems" argument into question
---

I forgot about Tulsi when doing my tiers. Put her in the 2nd tier with Buttigieg and Biden.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Good Tier

Donald Trump

Stopped reading, list invalid.
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

Complaining about anti-religious bigotry absolutely throws the whole "she's changed over her LGBT problems" argument into question

The problem is she had made very clear previously that her personal views have NOT changed, but she just believed that it wasn't the government's job to step in on it.

The issue is that her "anti-religious bigotry" complaints proved that she's still willing to weigh in with those personal feelings on things, and thus it throws into question how much she'd stick to that government stance when she has more power and isn't just able to make easy votes and call it a day. It's easy to say "Look at the votes, only the votes matter!" but has she ever actually had to make any "controversial" votes? Like, has she ever had to make a vote that would change the outcome of something? Or has she just voted with the tide?
---

Ashethan posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Good Tier

Donald Trump

Stopped reading, list invalid.

You really don't need to start reading a Red Sox post if that level of bullshit is gonna make you stop.
---

It's good that someone on the D side is talking about anti-religious bigotry. Not an easy thing to take a stand on over there.
---

metroid composite posted...

Hindu Nationalists and supporters of "India's Trump" (Narendra Modi).

Wait do people actually feel this way? My sources of insight into Indian politics are mostly restricted to conversations with 2 Indian coworkers, but this is not the impression I have of Modi at all.
---

red sox 777 posted...

It's good that someone on the D side is talking about anti-religious bigotry. Not an easy thing to take a stand on over there.

Err...what? D's talk about anti-religious bigotry a lot.

Basically everyone in American politics loves to sling around accusations of anti-semitism. Plenty who are sounding the alarm bells on the rise in hate crimes against Jewish synagogues and cemeteries in the past few years. And there's certainly some D's who will stand up to anti-islamic bigotry too (although not all of them are willing to take a stand on that).

I'll grant you, Tulsi is the first person in American politics I've heard talk about anti-Hindu bigotry. (Probably because she's the first Hindu in congress, and maybe also because Hindus haven't been in the news that much; the nazis in Charlottesville were not chanting "the Hindus will not replace us.") Granted, it's not necessarily surprising that there would be anti-Hindu bigotry so I'm inclined to take her at her word here.
---

pyresword posted...

metroid composite posted...

Hindu Nationalists and supporters of "India's Trump" (Narendra Modi).

Wait do people actually feel this way? My sources of insight into Indian politics are mostly restricted to conversations with 2 Indian coworkers, but this is not the impression I have of Modi at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narendra_Modi

Modi is a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a Hindu nationalist volunteer organisation.

Links between the BJP and the RSS grew stronger under Modi. The RSS provided organizational support to the BJP's electoral campaigns, while the Modi administration appointed a number of individuals affiliated with the RSS to prominent government positions.[240] In 2014, Yellapragada Sudershan Rao, who had previously been associated with the RSS, chairperson of the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR).[13] Historians and former members of the ICHR, including those sympathetic to the BJP, questioned his credentials as a historian, and stated that the appointment was part of an agenda of cultural nationalism.

The activities of a number of Hindu nationalist organisations increased in scope after Modi's election as Prime Minister, sometimes with the support of the government.[127][239] These activities included a Hindu religious conversion programme, a campaign against the alleged Islamic practice of "Love Jihad", and attempts to celebrate Nathuram Godse, the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi, by members of the right wing Hindu Mahasabha.[127] Officials in the government, including the Home Minister, defended the conversion programmes.[239] Modi refused to remove a government minister from her position after a popular outcry resulted from her referring to religious minorities as "bastards."[127] Commentators have suggested, however, that the violence was perpetrated by radical Hindu nationalists to undercut the authority of Modi.[127] Between 2015 and 2018, Human Rights Watch estimated that 44 people, most of them Muslim, were killed by vigilantes; the killings were described by commentators as related to attempts by BJP state governments to ban the slaughter of cows.[240]
---

Yang, Warren, Bernie, or maybe Tulsi

The rest all some level of suck, trump probably being the worst.

Automation is coming, im in IT its not just truck drivers and fast food. Purposelessness and loneliness epidemics are reaching higher highs each year heavily due to the casual revolution of 2007. I see the occasional 1 step in the right direction which keeps me going, followed by 3 steps back. Oh well
---

metroid composite posted...

red sox 777 posted...

It's good that someone on the D side is talking about anti-religious bigotry. Not an easy thing to take a stand on over there.

Err...what? D's talk about anti-religious bigotry a lot.

Basically everyone in American politics loves to sling around accusations of anti-semitism. Plenty who are sounding the alarm bells on the rise in hate crimes against Jewish synagogues and cemeteries in the past few years. And there's certainly some D's who will stand up to anti-islamic bigotry too (although not all of them are willing to take a stand on that).

I'll grant you, Tulsi is the first person in American politics I've heard talk about anti-Hindu bigotry. (Probably because she's the first Hindu in congress, and maybe also because Hindus haven't been in the news that much; the nazis in Charlottesville were not chanting "the Hindus will not replace us.") Granted, it's not necessarily surprising that there would be anti-Hindu bigotry so I'm inclined to take her at her word here.

Anti-Christian bigotry and anti-religion bigotry where religion is detached from culture or ethnicity. I feel that most of the attention on the D side to this issue more or less equates religion to culture or ethnicity and sees anti-religious bigotry as an extension of racism. But lots of liberals are fine with openly trashing religious beliefs.
---

But I will say, I don't like using the word "bigotry" too often. Using strong words like that tends to portray the world in black and white, and also cuts off all possibility of discussion and mediation and understanding. You can't have a good faith discussion with someone after calling them a bigot.

Liberals overuse the word all the time though, so if Tulsi wants to use language they'll understand, that may be necessary at this point in time.

As for Syria, Tulsi and Trump are the only candidates who talk substantively about Syria who haven't completely lost their minds on this. Let's look at the possible outcomes:

1. Syria becomes a democracy.
2. Assad wins the war quickly.
3. Assad wins a war that drags on for years.
4. ISIS wins.

I think everyone agrees that 1 > 2 > 3 > 4. But no one has proposed any US policies that give any realistic chance to 1 happening. Donald and Tulsi's policies favor 2 over 3, while everyone else's policies favor 3 over 2. Sure, that isn't their purpose, but it's the foreseeable result, with probably >99% certainty.

So, essentially, everyone else is willing to allow a civil war to go on for years that will result in hundreds of thousands more deaths so they can make a political point about not supporting Assad. That's either evil or insane.
---

red sox 777 posted...

They are the only candidates actually trying to make people's lives better.

yeah, trump is trying his hardest to make the lives of the 1% better. not sure why that automatically puts him in the "good" tier, though.
---

red sox 777 posted...

But lots of liberals are fine with openly trashing religious beliefs.

and this is a problem because...?
---

red sox 777 posted...

Stopped reading, post invalid
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

They are the only candidates actually trying to make people's lives better.

yeah, trump is trying his hardest to make the lives of the 1% better. not sure why that automatically puts him in the "good" tier, though.

It doesn't by itself. But his first 2.5 years have actually helped a lot of people's lives in the bottom 90%. And I believe his trade and foreign policy will continue to help people going forward.
---

emergency petition to move de Blasio to Biden's debate day

https://twitter.com/BilldeBlasio/status/1141371930915803136

seriously going to be fascinating to watch biden in the debates. i assume he's going to try his best to hide.
---

red sox 777 posted...

But his first 2.5 years have actually helped a lot of people's lives in the bottom 90%.

i don't want to accuse you of lying, but at the same time, i simply refuse to believe muffin would adore a president who cares about helping the poor.

it's also worth looking at sephyg's trajectory. before trump became president, he hated him. but after he was in office for a few years, he did a complete 180 on him. that's partially because of the gorsuch nomination, sure, but he's also stated it's because "trump's policies turned out to be a lot more conservative (read: completely lacking in empathy) than he expected them to be."
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

But his first 2.5 years have actually helped a lot of people's lives in the bottom 90%.

i don't want to accuse you of lying, but at the same time, i simply refuse to believe muffin would adore a president who cares about helping the poor.

it's also worth looking at sephyg's trajectory. before trump became president, he hated him. but after he was in office for a few years, he did a complete 180 on him. that's partially because of the gorsuch nomination, sure, but he's also stated it's because "trump's policies turned out to be a lot more conservative (read: completely lacking in empathy) than he expected them to be."

You're judging Trump's policies based on how they're viewed by Muffin and SephG, which is going to give you a very incomplete picture. Also, I don't think either of them would object to helping the poor if they got other things they wanted (like helping the rich).
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i don't want to accuse you of lying

why in god's name not
---

xp1337 posted...

emergency petition to move de Blasio to Biden's debate day

https://twitter.com/BilldeBlasio/status/1141371930915803136

seriously going to be fascinating to watch biden in the debates. i assume he's going to try his best to hide.

oh man if BDB uses his campaign to go after Biden for everyone else I'll be happy
---