27
votes
Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of March 3
This thread is posted weekly - please try to post all relevant US political content in here, such as news, updates, opinion articles, etc. Extremely significant events may warrant a separate topic, but almost all should be posted in here.
This is an inherently political thread; please try to avoid antagonistic arguments and bickering matches. Comment threads that devolve into unproductive arguments may be removed so that the overall topic is able to continue.
I'm not sure if this is the forum for it, as I don't have a link for an article or anything, but over the weekend we found out that a shocking number of our friends from NOAA had been fired. Many had been there for 5+ years and were finally making the switch from contractor to civil servant and were caught up in the 2 year probationary period. It is freaking wild to me that this is how we're conducting cuts.
On top of that we have a few friends at NIST, kind of the Navy's version of NASA, who were incredibly concerned about their own departments. They are all military, so they are safe, but they said all of thir colleague who actually have a deep understand of the instrumentation are a civilian contractor who are currently on the chopping block. And that apparently the SF bay area no longer has 24/7 radar coverage because of how many operators have been fired.
Lastly, friends who work with the lobster fishery in Maine and in tandem with the SeaGrant program are having projects - regulatory, academic, and monitoring - completely slashed. They had their annual fisheries management conference over the weekend and their counter parts from federal agencies never showed up, which is unprecedented.
I feel like I have insight into a very specific field, and it is jarring to see how much things are grinding to a halt. I would love to hear from other folks who can share how their fields are being impacted. Maybe this is purely an ocean science experience, but it doesn't feel like it.
I have similar insight into a specific field, freshwater conservation around the Great Lakes. A lot of my friends currently work in or very closely with US and international NPOs that are focused on protecting the Great Lakes and it's ecosystem from invasive species and other threats.
One of the most prominent invasive species is the sea lamprey. They are normally ocean dwelling but can live in freshwater as well, and they like to feed on fish. Some fun facts on these creepy critters:
There is an entire team of people whose job is to prevent the lamprey from further spreading into all the tributaries that feed into the Great Lakes. They construct and maintain physical barriers, as well as deploying lampricide. Lampricide kills lamprey larvae but leaves other things alone, and it has to be done on a very regular basis to keep the lamprey numbers under control. T
They fired the entire team of people that are in charge of this. And needless to say they won't be hiring any of the usual seasonal help they bring in to help with deployment.
If they aren't re-hired or replaced soon, lamprey will start reproducing unchecked. Their numbers will grow rapidly and they will feed and kill a ton of fish in the Great Lakes and surrounding watershed. The entire ecosystem will likely be completely thrashed in the next 5 years, and people will start wondering where all the fish went.
Links :
This is something I've talked about with my wife and my friends a number of times recently. Good government is invisible. There are likely thousands of things exactly like this where federal employees were working to make life better for Americans in ways that are largely invisible until they don't get done, and Musk and his cronies are dismantling them all.
You guys are also effectively running on an 'infrastructure debt' due to the car based suburbans with mini-Mansions. This combination, along with what may well be the end of dollar-based world economy is going to be a unique challenge in your history.
Just... Man, stay safe. I don't think things will last this month.
Genuinely curious, what do you mean?
Before civil unrest really takes ahold. The 'move fast and break things' works well for R&D startups, but not for government. Pair that with massive tax cuts for the rich, cutting medicaid and self-destructing America's geopolitical based international structure. And, well, it doesn't look pretty. Also, I don't know enough about American politics, but is a government shutdown on March 14th likely? If so that'd really trigger a mess.
The shutdown thing is interesting because it'd be the first time the executive might not just end around the shutdown, and yeah that would be bad and would kickstart some major issues that would very quickly affect the average citizen.
Assuming that doesn't happen, I suspect it's going to take more than a month before any civil unrest is realistically possible. The vast majority of the population has been dealing with bullshit for most of their lives, so more bullshit doesn't much affect them so long as it's in the news. No one is happy about grocery prices but they weren't happy before and didn't take to the streets.
The tariffs WILL start having those effects, but slower, as people get fired and the economy gets ugly. That's why an executive backed government default is the main thing I'm curious about. I don't think it's best for Trump to allow it to happen, as it'd be on his ass and very quickly kick him in the teeth, but I'm not so sure Trump actually thinks that far ahead, or is as in control of it all as people say. I'm pretty sure the 2025 people would scream against it, but I could see him being uncontrollable to the point of self destruction on this.
Holy shit. I feel like these are the kinds of posts to get people mobilized. I honestly don't think folks understand just how much federal funding does and how much almost outright catastrophe it prevents. Good luck in the coming months and hopefully we'll see that the firing are illegal, the funding cuts are illegal, and get folks back in the field!
It's like we're experiencing a national level version of the new CEO firing half the IT department because they "dont do anything". Good IT people, like a lot of good government agencies, do a lot of work to stop bad things from happening in the first place. The ideal situation is that you never notice them at all.
That’s what’s really got me concerned. Some folks will come back, others will find other employment that likely pays better and others will retire. They know what they’re coming back to if they do return. Government jobs are supposed to be rock solid stable, it’s one of the reasons people accept the lower pay.
Higher education is holding its breath. We've passed the deadline of no longer allowing "DEI" but still have our "graduation recognition ceremonies" and run by various identity groups on our website.
No one knows what happens next. Biggest fears are use of Title IX to target trans women as "threats" to cis women and withholding federal financial aid from universities that don't comply.
Since I'm at a public institution in a blue state we're not seeing cuts yet. But it's a heavy "yet"
It is literally a coup. I really can't comprehend why certain people haven't been walked out in front of a firing squad.
If this were WWII they would've at least been arrested. Imagine if Churchill's advisor suddenly sided with Hitler, turned off all the radar, unmanned all the anti-air turrets, and then Churchill had brought manufacturing to a halt.
Trump orders a ‘pause’ of US military aid for Ukraine
Once again, violating the separation of powers by stopping funds that Congress has appropriated.
Not necessarily. The law appropriating the funds might give the executive branch the ability to pause funding. I don’t know either way, but it seems more likely for military aid?
I wouldn’t trust the Trump administration to check. Someone should, though.
My take was based on reporting I saw elsewhere but yeah fair enough, I'm not an expert, just frustrated.
But also they don't do anything by any rules so it's probably just as illegal as everything else.
Yeah. Pretty predictable.
Bernie Sanders - Democrats have been playing dead for too many years. Don't back down now
Puerto Rico is Dying | Cogito
Nebula
YouTube
Playbook: Democrats in Despair
...
Alright, I shared more than enough of my thoughts on the Harris campaign in 2024 so maybe someone can shed light on my blind spots. What were the far-left ideas that turned people off? Also, who are the far-left figures that define the Democrats? I know some of the popular figures in the party who might be considered far-left, but I don't recall them having any real power in influencing the party's messaging in 2024. It was my understanding that the far-left cost the Democrats the election because they didn't vote, but this makes it seem like they were in charge the whole time? What am I missing?
None in particular I'd argue. It's seen all throughout the Western world that people are angry about the rising cost of living, inflation, housing, job security, food security, and more. The parties that have set their focus on identity or culture over economics have seen their popularity trounced. Or saw their constituency dwindle for the simple crime of being the incumbent, left or right wing in these cases rarely mattered.
I can't stress this enough: people, all over, are angry and demand change.
The entire charade of signing those executive orders on day one is simply to show people they're changing things and it doesn't matter what. And it works.
It's not for no reason the GOP styled themselves as a working class party this round. Whether or not they are is of no concern. They got the bag.
At this point I’m starting to think the biggest problem the left has is that they don’t know how to deal with name calling. It’s second grade politics, but it’s also part of how our minds work. If you hear “Sleepy Joe” 500 times some of that is going to start to sink in and you’ll look at him differently. Call a woman shill enough times and soon everything she says will start to fit that description.
I don’t like name calling because it’s childish, manipulative, and don’t accomplish anything good. I also have no idea how to deal with it, but surely the resources of the Democratic Party can do better than to ignore it and allow it to color perceptions.
I’ve talked to some people who didn’t vote for Harris and the reasons they gave are not based in reality. For example, I’ve heard “she’s so dumb” and “she doesn’t answer questions “. Neither of these things has any basis in fact. In fact, they seem to be projections of the other candidate. I’m not sure what propaganda people are watching or if they just make random decisions and then make up a justification.
This is something that I see in progressive movements in Europe as well. It looks to me like bad faith actors really know how to weaponize social media in their favour. It reminds me of how in the build up to prohibition, pressure politics and propaganda successfully made it all the way to a constitutional amendement in the US. And like that period, I don't think many people understand what it actually will entail in practice...
If I understand correctly, the very effective they\them ad about government funded surgeries for trans prisoners, built on an answer Harris gave to a questionaire years before this election.
It's a real concern.
The GOP were able to push through the judges who overturned Roe v Wade partly because their federal judge candidates were very careful about putting policy positions on paper or answering questions definitively in confirmation hearings. There is in fact a real need for democratic politicians to proactively avoid being vulnerable to right wing propaganda campaigns. Democratic party operatives and campaign strategists also need to get better imho at countering attack ads in the moment, during election season.
So, if that's the case, does that mean Democrats are going to completely abandon trans and queer people? As you said, that they/them ad was based on a clip from a 2020 interview Harris gave during the primaries. It wasn't an important part of her 2024 campaign. Trans rights were basically a footnote at the DNC.
It reminds me of a Mayor Pete line in the 2020 primaries which I don't have a link to, but it essentially boiled down to, 'They're going to call us socialists no matter what we do.' I don't see how flag waving and abandoning marginalized people is going to change that. Harris ran a very moderate campaign and touted the endorsements of active and former Republicans. How much further can they go in that direction?
I need to walk away from my computer soon, so this is a preliminary response.
Thesis. A democrat winning would have been better by orders of magnitude for trans and queer people. If you don't win, you're locked out of power.
Effective politics has some things in common with poker. It's not always a good idea to show your cards.
Advocates outside of institutional and government positions have different opportunity for influence than people holding or seeking formal roles. Heifetz book Leadership without easy answers gets into this in detail, comparing Johnson with King as effective leaders in the civil rights era.
Democrats failing to deal effectively with right wing propaganda has cost us all and put our constitutional Republic at serious risk of becoming a right wing dictatorship.
No worries. I agree with everything you're saying, and I doubt there is a sane person out there who would disagree.
However, there is still the very important question of how Democrats are going to win back working class voters and deal with right-wing propaganda.
Going to gun shows, embracing patriotism, and "owning the failures of Democratic governance in large cities" makes me a tad bit nervous for the reasons I mentioned above. For most politicians, it's too hard to wash the stink off that D next to their name.
Moreover, “mov[ing] away from the dominance of small-dollar donors whose preferences may not align with the broader electorate” should have us ringing serious alarm bells, especially when it's mentioned within the context of separating from the "far-left." Money has always been a primary concern for the Democrats and it is only going to get bigger as we descend further into this oligarchic post-Citizens United nightmare we're stuck in. If it's not coming from individual donors, it has to come from the large donors whose interests directly contradict the economic interests of the working class voters that Democrats are supposed to court.
No, but they can't campaign on it. If someone is worried about finding a place to live, "who can use what bathroom" is very far from their radar, as it arguably should be.
They might absolutely agree with the democratic stance on it, but even time spent talking about it is wasted messaging that distracts from the issues affecting the majority of the population, trans included.
If you want to affect change, you have to win and winning requires focusing on the issues actually affecting the average american. I'm sure if after you win you put in more laws to protect and equalize trans people there will be headlines and yelling, but if you actually address and solve things like housing, enough people aren't going to give a shit.
They really didn't campaign on trans rights. Trans people were scapegoated by the right and topics of trans rights were rarely brought up by the left.
This isn't the first time you've advocated for not focusing on trans rights but I've yet to see where this actually happened.
Who precisely is the magical average American anyway who doesn't care about any of these other things? What topics are considered "neutral" and whose primary concerns are those topics addressing?
This time, and it's not just trans rights, it's just what was being referenced by the OP. Anything not related to jobs and housing is probably going to be treated as noise. Further they do not defend the labeling tactics well. When someone on twitter spouts off something extreme your party gets labeled if they'd be on your side. In 2016 the dems pushed much harder on supporting some of this stuff, and they're still paying for that, and acting like they don't need to distance themselves.
Every time people see another fight in the media about a trans athlete who wants to compete it kicks up a shitstorm and YES the dems absolutely get labeled as supporting it, even if they literally do not (and that's regardless of if they should or shouldn't).
See above. It's not just trans rights. And given the tone of this comment I want to be 100% clear before you or anyone else starts labeling me, I have advocated against campaigning on them or being see to, and am absolutely for providing them.
Well for starters some % of the ones who have stopped voting dem since and around 2016 when this became a bigger issue, and some % of those voting republican, or not voting republican but not voting democrat either. It's not like the dems are suddenly doing fantastically. The messaging however on the Hilary campaign and the Biden campaign was vastly different, and the messaging on the Harris campaign was garbage in multiple directions.
And the inverse is also important, who is the voter you're trying to attract? I suspect most people agree with Tim's "Live and let live", but that also means it's just not something they're going to change their vote, or decision to vote, over.p
"Its the economy stupid" has been the driving motto of campaign strategy since before it was said during Bill. Abortion, guns, dei, and just about everything else cultural takes a back seat to "will you get me a home, will you let me care for my family, and will you keep me employed". Hell it's arguably been true since we started creating societies. The more you opponent can label you about ANYTHING else, the easier it is to actually win because "oh they're focused on the wrong things".
So to all those points the dems basically chucked the rust belt out the window with the progression of NAFTA and haven't bothered to even pretend to care until Hilary found out it was a bad idea to ignore them, while at the same time giving the Republicans the perfect labeling that nearly impossible to distance themselves from, and we've been dealing with the consequences ever since.
Overall, I agree with your sentiments here. I regularly criticized the Harris campaign for their lack of a clear vision for the country and economy, and their failure to come up with bold plans to assist the millions of people who are financially drowning. Everything you pointed out about the economy speaks to my concerns about the other moderate strategies laid out in the aforementioned playbook. It's hard to really get a feel for who they're talking about when they say "far-left" but I have my suspicions that it includes the Sanders wing of the would-be Democratic voters, activists, and commentators who advocate most for the progressive economic policies that would benefit the working class voters. I could be (and hope I am) wrong, but it would be a dramatic shift from what we've seen. One that doesn't really vibe the rest of the points they laid out.
But I don't want to get away from the LGBTQ+ stuff. As I and Not Fae have pointed out, they didn't really campaign on those issues. Even if they were to completely remove queer or other marginalized peoples' issues from their campaigning, they're still going to have to vote on the many Republican bills that attack them. So, you can avoid it all you want, the Republicans are still going to attack Democrats on it after they force their hand through legislation. And when they do, there will be no counternarrative to rebut the attacks. We saw how that worked out during the last election when Republicans attacked them on immigration. And when this "let's be even more moderate" plan fails yet again in either '28 or '32 for the same reasons it failed in '16 and '24, I worry that these grandmaster checkers players are finally going to say "to hell with these people."
To be clear, one of the biggest problems with the Harris campaign is that it was sabotaged from the get go by letting Trump beat Biden around in the media for months while people ignored reality, and then suddenly "oops he sure does look old" during the debate occurred, and the campaign was massively on the back foot from there.
It's also worth noting that long before she was picked for VP Harris was somewhat notorious as coming off poorly, much like Hilary and Biden.
And as I've pointed out, they've been labeled by the republicans over and over, who are attacking those exact issues, because the dems are completely unwilling to be strategic about them because they've backed themselves into a corner. A campaign is NOT just what you say and is very much what your opposition says. Trump didn't campaign on being a Nazi and he sure as hell is being called one (deservedly so, but nevertheless the republicans had to have a strategy to address that). Biden didn't campaign on being ancient, but sure as hell had to deal with that exact issue (successfully once, and catastrophically the second time).
Woman's suffrage and the civil rights movements worked the way they did because they were a huge % of the population. LGBTQ+ is around 10%, so even if you are generous and estimate 20%, you're not going to leverage the same amount of pressure.
and again, I am not advocating for more moderate laws. I'm advocating for better messaging, and you're ascribing arguments to me that I'm not presenting.
The dems quite literally won with biden on a platform of "hooooly shit trump is bad" and tried to run that back, and it blew up in their face because, as many pointed out, biden was already old and not even up to his youthfulness from the previous campaign. Harris made a ton of mistakes, and I still think one of the biggest ones was the "ok we're going to do a wealth tax" because it got the discussion on a bunch of nonsense that wasn't relevant and didn't directly stick to the message of "i'm not trump and here's how we're going to make things better DIRECTLY for you". In general "we'll get them" messages are poorly received because it's hard to prove, if it even works, that it's going to benefit the rest.
Finally there's a bunch of ways to support issues, or move them off until you can actual make meaningful change about them, without getting stuck in the trenches on every single hot topic edge case, and the dems are awful at it. It's not a binary "yes or no", and it would hardly be the first issue that was handled strategically. Again the civil rights movement and woman's suffrage had to pick and choose their battles, even in local laws and legislation, and they had a MUCH higher majority to throw their weight around (even if woman couldn't vote yet).
Eeeeehhhh, yes and no. I don't really want to relitigate all of 2024 again. If you're really interested, I can copy some of my old comments and we can play Monday (Tuesday?) morning QB. But a lot of what I said then was a lot like:
I think we're mostly in agreement. So for now I think we should focus on what's in front of us. Specifically:
...
I don't really know what you're trying to say here. Do they need better counter messaging? Do they need to ignore the attacks? Or do they need to abandon it entirely, including at the legislative level? Keep in mind that even though not everyone is queer, there are a ton of people within the base who care about those people. And, ya know, it's also the right thing to do.
To be clear, I'm not ascribing that to you. I'm criticizing the plan put forth by Third Way, which expands beyond tweaking their messaging around identity politics. And I asked about what they should do in response to Republican laws and I'm not really clear on what you're trying to say.
It depends on the issue and severity. If the legislation is "take their rights" then yeah you have to show you'll fight that. If it's "they can't play women's basketball" then that's probably worth taking the L on for now.
And those people are basically locked in voters. Overappealing to them is not a winning strategy, and hasn't been for awhile now. They know they're not voting republican, and many of them could understand "look the moment we've got the congress and the SC back we can make real sweeping change, but in the meantime yes we're going to message on jobs and housing", especially since many of them have the same concerns (although a common criticism of the modern dems is their policy trends towards social issues because their more affluent average member isn't as worried about those things).
Yeah, that's why I think it should be done right. You win basically nothing by digging in at every single conflict. Being vegetarian might be the right thing to do, shall we also throw that on the mandate? If the republicans switch to targeting vegetarians shall we allow trump and the republicans another 4 years because MUST stop them at every little level, rather than stop them at the sincerely dangerous levels they've achieved?
I'm not sure I follow. Can you clarify or give an example? Are you saying that there are people outside of the democratic party that dominate the conversation and Dems pretend they don't exist? Like, outside activists/talking heads come up with messaging that is broadly unpopular and it sticks to Democrats even though the Democrats don't actually support them?
Basically yes. The Dems get quiet and hope the activists go away, rather than forcefully pushing back.
On your question to @boxer_dogs_dance about abandoning trans folks: No, Dems don’t have to abandon them, but they do need a pivot on messaging and politicians. For messaging, moving away from perceived finger waving, “you will do this”-style discussions (I call it aggressive acceptance) toward a more live-and-let live viewpoint. For politicians, define what is acceptable for defections. For example, if there’s a good Dem Senate candidate in North Dakota who opposes trans girls in sports and wants restrictions on minor’s access to blockers/hormones, but supports a nondiscrimination bill and would protect bathroom access? Support them, because y’all ain’t getting a Dem Senator from North Dakota otherwise!
I don't know if it's where I'm from or just how algorithms have me targeted, but I had multiple ads a day of Tim Walz telling me their party's philosophy was (word for word) 'live and let live'. It really resonated with me - guess that's why I kept getting the ads.
I never once felt like the ads targeting me were 'aggressive acceptance' style (great term), and I live in a purple district. Maybe that's why my messaging was more moderated?
But even in the big addresses at the DNC and the Presidential debates, I didn't get the sense anyone was being chided or having fingers waved at them. Are you talking about Congressional/Senatorial/other races or about last Presidential campaign?
I guess maybe that's part of the problem. I'm maybe one of the least politically aware people on Tildes, so when this stuff comes up, I go to the messaging I actually heard - Harris/Walz - and ignore the stuff I filtered out. That's why I'm struggling to make sense of this Playbook: the bits I remember from the Harris/Walz campaign were cost-of-living stuff like tax credits for low income earners, building new housing supply, medical debt relief.
So the playbook saying 'cut back on the far left stuff!' when the campaign I heard was almost aggressively moderate doesn't make sense, but I am just one person and I suppose other people were hearing different things that this Playbook will try and address.
Edit: Here's the Playbook, if anyone wants to read it. Point 3 in particular under the Economy section seems like BS to me. Harris called it the Opportunity Economy, said everyone would be better off, then listed specific initiatives ('a laundry list of initiatives', which, according to this retreat, is bad).
Edit Edit: Point 7, 'Takeaways on How Democrats Can Reconnect Culturally With the Working Class' - Embrace Moderation, Individualism, and Masculinity. This is like a report written by management consultants who've never hung out with a working class dude in their life. My read on it is it's a playbook to do what Republicans do, but worse, because it'll come off as inauthentic, and people know when they're being lied to.
This is the most unintentionally hilarious list of what the elites think us Poors do with our time in our real communities. The implication that anything other than these pretty exclusively white activities isn't a 'real community' sure is... something. Can't wait to tell the guys I work with we're elites now because we don't tailgate, go to gun shows, sit in diner booths or go to church every week. The promotion doesn't come with extra money, but we are now responsible for election losses, so a fairly big hike in responsibility.
I don't know that it matters what the individual candidates say if they are otherwise aligned with the party, then they will take the flak that is attributed to the party even if the individual candidates themselves never did or said any of the things that are bringing that negative attention. Harris and Walz are indisputably Democrats, so whatever a potential voter thinks or feels about Democrats, Harris and Walz have to contend with that. Compare that to someone like Bernie for example, who caucuses with Democrats but is otherwise an Independent, even when running in the Democratic Party primary for President, he was getting boxed out by establishment Democrats reasoning that he wasn't a Democrat. That was part of the 'outsider' perception of both him and Trump in that 2016 election.
Also I think using reason based messaging is weak and loses elections. Overwhelmingly the average voters have become emotionally motivated and don't vote based on reason, they vote on emotion. I'm not talking about emotion as in Sarah McLaughlin "In the arms of angel" ASPCA commercials emotion, more so how people feel their life is going or feel about certain things they perceive are happening in the world. If you also account for basic human nature where some things are easier to manipulate people to feel a certain way about things, whether that be anger or paranoia etc. then you realize these are the emotions that end up winning and losing elections more often than not. If you look back at Obama's 2008 election, that was certainly a case of optimism and more positive emotions winning out, still rooted in the idea of 'change' meaning that people weren't happy with where things were but were accepting of messaging that was optimistic and positive. You can only sell optimism and positivity in that form so many times if you don't bring about significant changes, and even when you do bring about significant changes you're still fighting the hedonic treadmill and the onslaught of money backed messaging to influence perception regardless of what significant changes did happen or were made. This ties back into my prior paragraph as well, these emotions become associated with parties based on all these factors and more, and those candidates have to overcome this association.
Edit: To add, it's also worth noting that the most recent non-reason based messaging that Democrats have used, the emotional motivation, has been fear. Of course Republicans use this too. Fear of the other side. Clearly it's effective on a large number of people, clearly not enough for Democrats to win, but I'm just adding this to say I realize Democrats aren't solely using reason-based messaging. The one issue I take with the fear-based messaging for Democrats is that in a way this has existed for a little while but has progressed and arguably I'd say Trump absolutely warrants being fearful for how he will misuse and abuse the power given to him, but the problem is that Democrats aren't selling a solution to this problem in the long-run. If Trump is to be feared and voters should elect any Democrat because they aren't Trump, how are Democrats going to stop the next Trump? I don't mean Trump himself, but what Trump represents, whoever fills that role beyond Trump. At a certain point I think some people see through this and it makes it look less genuine that Democrats fear Trump or anyone when they have no solution other than don't vote for the bad guy which just so happens to leave them and only them as the only alternative, and some people won't be receptive to reasoning so how do you sell them solution of reason?
I'm not the person you're responding to and I'm not from the US, therefore I mostly experience US politics through traditional and social media - this obviously only gives me a part of the whole picture, but I think that this might be the issue for many americans as well, so I thought it was relevant.
Through that lens I see the "agressive acceptance" or wokism or whatever you want to call it all the time. People arguing about politics on social media are the worst, but leftist journalists fighting against classical liberal ideals or things like meritocracy (specifically as an ideal, something to strive for even when acknowledging that the reality is often not meritocratic) are very common too. Academics in more ideologically weighted fields like sociology and psychology are not helping either. Overall "active democratic supporters", people who go out of their way to fight against the right or conservative ideals, whether in their private lives or through their jobs, often give strong "school teacher energy", seeking out ways to find wrong things about other people's characters and trying to reprimand and fix them.
It's not nearly everyone, but it's easily enough to be a very visible trend that many people see as a part of the democratic party, even if democratic candidates avoid those topics (like Harris tried to do), and I think it's going to take much more effort to change this image than what Walz said, it would have to be systemic.
As an American I’ve not seen much of this in person (though I’ve lived the past decade and change in heavily blue areas, which might bias this) but I’ve see a lot of it online and my perception is that this first really took off on Twitter in the mid-late 2010s, around the time when Tumblr refugees started spilling in en masse. Twitter strongly rewards snappy takedowns and reprimands and the like, something those hailing from Tumblr had already been doing for many years, and so my theory is that that behavior got turbocharged and then spread like wildfire when it proved consistently successful at garnering masses of likes and retweets.
The metaphor I was kicking around in my head was that they keep losing rock, paper, scissors and have decided to replace scissors with a smaller, shittier, rock.
An example I heard on NPR was Latinx. Most Hispanic people find it offensive, but far-left groups push it hard and mainstream Democrats, while they don't use it, also don't take a stand against it. The commentor I heard believed this was a key factor in declining shares of Hispanic votes going to Democrats.
Which far-left groups push the term latinx? This isn't something I've heard about.
Queer Latine people mostly. It's really only used in queer circles anymore* and Latine has become more popular. Well meaning allies adopted LatinX, but it didn't catch on and somehow that's the Democrats fault or something. Even though I still know queer youth that use it for themselves. So unless "far left groups" means "queer LatinX identifying people" idk
*It was used by queer people to describe themselves around the same time chicanx became popular, and while IMO the backlash around it is hypothetically directed at "non-spanish speaking people" using it, I think that ignores the homo/transphobia there too. Especially as places like NPR stopped using it by default years ago.
In my limited experience, university people in the US were pushing it pretty hard for a while.
If I understand correctly, some of the pushback was related to X as a sound not existing in most versions of Spanish. (Mexican Spanish might be the exception, I'm not certain). Some Spanish speakers reacted to it as English speakers telling them how to use their language although I believe u/Definitelynotafae is right that the original proponents were also native Spanish speakers. I have seen latine suggested as a better neutral form, but I don't think that's become widely accepted.
This does sorta miss part of the larger point from the rest of the native spanish speaking community. It's native spanish speakers who were influenced by western fads and behaviors that came up with this word. Who actually came up with it matters a lot less when it's so egregiously outside of the norm of the language. Much like no one in japan would have come up with lollipop because that's just not a sound they associate naturally with spoken language, and they instead inherited it through things like trade and the members of their culture who interacted with foreign merchants.
Lantix always struck me as the worst kind of self sabotage from the start because it's just so egregiously foreign that you're never going to get great adoption and there's already lots of "let me tell you how to do your culture" inherent to the term.
Using "western" here if you mean "anglo" or "white" or "English speaking" is not super useful. I'm not sure which "western" fads you're referring to though. The x was being used in Xicano/Xichanisma and Xicanx/chicanx was not a big step from there. Mexicano to Xicano is one of several origins for the term the other is a Mexica word. But the intentional use of X is a nod to Nahuatl in that case.
Unless the "western fads and behaviors" is "queerness". Because I see a lot of queerphobia in how the term is talked about as belonging to outsiders.
And it's not as if "Latino/a/@/e" and "Hispanic" don't have complicated identity based histories either, with Hispanic being more about which language group colonized your ancestors and colorism/racism being part of that too.
Identity is complicated. But as far as anyone can tell the terms came from within the Spanish speaking queer community in Puerto Rico and other parts of the US, online in particular (where queer language is constantly evolving.) Calling them outsiders or influenced by "Western fads and behaviors" is harmful, IMO.
ETA: A case that using an X at all is because it was used to transcribe Nahuatl by the colonizers without accusing people of being "outsiders" for an example. Though I tend to think it becomes a sort of "turtles all the way down" issue at that point. However I wanted a contrast. In those comments you'll see "Not Hispanic, Not Latino, but Indigenous" which is another movement in many of these communities.
Can you please stop backhanded accusing me of behaviors and views I have never espoused and don't support?
I am not backhanded accusing you of anything.
You and I have discussed whether trans rights are worth fighting over in different instances multiple times, and I'm genuinely frustrated at your perspective on that. I have only referenced that and was doing so directly in the previous post in the thread.
In this post I was specifically saying that I see a lot of queerphobia in how Latinx is discussed as belonging to or coming from outsiders. And I do. That was a general statement. As mentioned I find the use of "western" here incredibly vague and unhelpful, and you were quite vague about "fads and behaviors" as well.
If I think you're being trans/queerphobic I'll say so.
I think this was the interview I am remembering https://www.npr.org/2024/11/06/nx-s1-5179835/the-role-of-the-latino-vote-in-the-2024-election
A couple more I found in a quick internet search. From https://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciagonzalez/2024/08/01/latinx-legislation-controversy-in-latino-and-hispanic-communities/
From https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/why-is-latinx-still-used-if-hispanics-hate-the-term/
Oof. This sounds way too close to "if you can't beat em, join em" for comfort.
I'm far from an expert, but so is the average voter. And to me, it has basically nothing at all to do with policies. It's all vibes. To move even further right as a result of this catastrophic failure of "reading the room" is... Ugh, approximately within expectations.
American people are in for a rough couple decades.
Trump orders swathes of US forests to be cut down for timber (The Guardian)
Violating the law. He's not evading anything he's just violating it.
Democrats invite fired federal workers to Trump speech to Congress New York Times link, paywall
Donald Trump threatened on Tuesday to halt all federal funding for any college or school that allows “illegal protests” and vowed to imprison “agitators”, in a social media statement that prompted alarm from free expression advocates.
A missed opportunity to use the word ‘whence’.
Yeah so federal funding to cease unless you violate the first amendment.
😩
They've just given so much power to whichever local Students for Justice for Palestine group decides to become the test case.
US supreme court weakens rules on discharge of raw sewage into water supplies
How Trump’s ‘51st state’ Canada talk came to be seen as deadly serious
We utilize a quota system, production pools/strategic reserves, and various other measures to keep milk supplies and prices stable, which we also do for most agricultural products (including maple syrup). And unlike in the US, we don't allow artificial growth hormone use on dairy cows, and milk supplies also get regularly tested for antibiotic residue since all milk produced by dairy cows currently on antibiotics is required, by law, to be discarded by the producers. If the American dairy industry was more public health conscious and better regulated we wouldn't have to be quite so strict with our importation of their products.
We have strict laws/regulations/standards related to asset and risk management for banks. E.g. Requirements on what portion of their assets needs to be liquid, restrictions on what percentage of their investments can be high-risk and debt securities, etc, etc, etc. Which is why our banks were relatively unscathed by the US subprime mortgage crisis, other than tertiary effects from US banks being hit so hard. If American banks were better regulated we wouldn't have to make it so "difficult" for them to do business in Canada.
This is most likely referring to alcohol and tobacco, but also sugary sodas now as well (which NL and BC have taxes on, and other provinces are considering). We heavily tax those because we have universal healthcare, and those products are extremely unhealthy so consumption of them causes an increased burden on our healthcare system. If American alcohol, tobacco, and soda companies don't like dealing with the same taxes that similar Canadian companies do, too fucking bad. No Canadian is going to give up all that extra funding for our healthcare system just for the sake of making those industries more profitable.
p.s. I know there probably aren't many Trump voters here on Tildes, but if you have any family members that did vote for that moron, or didn't vote at all, please give them a slap on the head and stern talking to for me and my fellow Canadians. We're not very happy with you all right now and the way your President is treating us. ಠ_ಠ
Republicans push for pause to federal funding until CO Governor pardons Tina Peters for election fraud conviction
Blog links to a news vid on YouTube and Tweet as sources so I felt it was possibly one of the better options. I'll add an article as I find one.
Tina Peters was one of those "do election fraud to prove there's election fraud" clerks and was convicted on four felonies and three misdemeanors. The state GOP is both asking for the presiding judge to be investigated by the DOJ and that federal funding be withheld from the entire state unless she's pardoned.
Justice Dept takes interest in Peters conviction (MSNBC)
Election Denying group calls for pardon
Fact-checking President Donald Trump’s address to joint session of Congress
As a follow-up to my previous comment about Third Way's moderate playbook, here are two responses to last night's joint session speech:
The potentially "far-left" response from Bernie Sanders
And the Third Way-endorsed moderate approach from Elissa Slotkin
You be the judge.
Trump escalates efforts to bring independent regulatory agencies under his direct control
USDA reimbursements for Illinois food programs among others "on hold"
This includes purchasing produce from farmers for food pantries.
US cuts off intelligence sharing with Ukraine
The U.S. has officially banned its allies from sharing intel with Ukraine.
Hopefully it's okay to post this as it's not a news item - but I liquidated my entire stock portfolio today. It seems easy to say that we're going to get at least a recession from the Trump administration's behavior. So it's better to hold cash in a savings account than invest in anything.
That depends on inflation over the next year or so, doesn't it? Do you feel like inflation will rise slower than the stock market falls?
Recessions are deflationary events. And I’m weighing a 4% savings rate against the stock market.
Can you explain bonds like I'm an idiot? They're not the same thing as a guaranteed type like term deposit right? So when you say you've liquidated and moved to savings you mean term deposit and not bonds right?
Not that this is relevant anymore but I'll explain anyway: bonds aren't as liquid as stocks, but you can still sell them to another investor and a broker will handle it for you. (It might be at a loss of interest rates went up.)
The same is often true of certificates of deposit if you bought them through a broker - you can sell them, but depending on interest rates it might be at a lower price than you bought them.
Also, a lot of people don't own bonds directly - they buy a bond fund.
I didn't have bonds. I had stock shares.
I hope you found a high interest rate savings account or money market fund?
I guess it's safe to say you don't boglehead?
Also:
How are you keeping track of your (former) investments to know in a few years whether you made the right call or not?
Teaearlgraycold already answered, but for some, the thought of missing out on potential gains is fine, whereas the thought of losing out capital is unbearable. Eg, if I sell and it goes to the moon, oh well. If i don't sell and it goes to zero, there'd be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Yeah I expect the returns to be at best average this year. Losses could be great, though.
YOLO
Mood
Military to Remove 'Enola Gay' Photos for Violating DEI Rules (Newsweek)
One of my USAF vet buddies pointed out that this is likely a little helping of malicious compliance.
I unfortunately suspected it was a "Ctrl+f" issue, much like Ted Cruz's list of woke research. But I'd love it to be malicious compliance instead.
Trump administration cancels $400 million in federal dollars for Columbia University
I'm sure this is going to make for lively conversation at my work on Monday.
Social Security has never missed a payment. DOGE actions threaten ‘interruption of benefits,’ ex-agency head says
Trump to revoke legal status for 240,000 Ukrainians as US steps up deportations (Reuters)
Trump tries arm twisting Republicans in Congress to get a continuing spending measure passed. He has tiny margins to work with as Democrats withhold cooperation
US ‘to cease all future military exercises in Europe’
Also:
New Executive Order — Addressing Risks From Perkins Coie LLP — is the second to target firm Trump considers his political enemy. The first was signed last week — Fact Sheet: President DONALD J. TRUMP Directs Suspension Of Security Clearances And Evaluation Of Government Contracts For Involvement In Government Weaponization.
Tim Walz offers town hall appearances in Republican districts, has thoughts on recent presidential campaign