2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
Without debating the meaning of "populist" the view that politicians are not corrupt and the US is not dominated by "elites" (again, you could use other words), is not much saner than Q anon.
Have there been many modern societies in which the "elites" did not exert disproportionate influence? I can't think of any. (On some level, this makes sense. There is always a group of people who wield power, and no matter what their starting point, those people inevitably end up being defined as "elites" over time.) And many societies that have been rooted in the notion of extinguishing elites have been some mixture of theocratic, deeply anti-intellectual, and repressive.
I am not arguing in favor of oligarchy, or anything close to it. I am simply noting that "OMG the elites wield disproportionate influence" isn't some sort of profound insight. It's more or less axiomatic. And always just a question of degree.
That's true. It's a beautiful thing for Dems too, as they can do whatever they want and run on "at least we aren't Trump."
I guess that's why Democrats have been supporting the far right.
Cite
Kamala's claim to fame is that she is the VP that has been locked in a room at the White House and has not done or said anything of note that entire time. When Obama was president, there was no doubt as to who Biden was and why he could take the reigns if necessary. Same thing for Cheney, Al Gore, and even Mike Pence. The only VP in recent history that does not seem to fit that bill is Dan Quayle, who has done nothing of note since leavi
Agree 100%
Have there been many modern societies in which the "elites" did not exert disproportionate influence? I can't think of any. (On some level, this makes sense. There is always a group of people who wield power, and no matter what their starting point, those people inevitably end up being defined as "elites" over time.) And many societies that have been rooted in the notion of extinguishing elites have been some mixture of theocratic, deep
This.
I think we've seen what happened in societies that took this to the extreme and tried to implement dictatorship of the proletariat. Spoiler: they did not eliminate elites, just changed their membership.
It's a bit like the "top x % of individuals by wealth hold y % of the wealth" argument. Well, yeah, pretty much by definition and the law of large numbers (or alternatively, the Pareto principle). It doesn't mean that the membership of that percentile remains constant with respect to time. In fact, I think I read somewhere that some nontrivial % of people have been both in the top 10% and bottom 10% of earners at some point in their lives.
This. I think we've seen what happened in societies that took this to the extreme and tried to implement dictatorship of the proletariat. Spoiler: they did not eliminate elites, just changed their membership.
It's a bit like the "top x percentile holds y % of the wealth" argument. Well, yeah, pretty much by definition and the law of large numbers. It doesn't mean that the membership of that percentile remains constant with respect to time. I
Social mobility statistics aren't super great for the US, but also the absurdly top-heavy distribution of wealth isn't some natural consequence of the way we define words.
Social mobility statistics aren't super great for the US, but also the absurdly top-heavy distribution of wealth isn't some natural consequence of the way we define words.
I don't think the calculation of how many standard deviations away from the mean the top 1% lies and what dollar amount that equates to is accurately described as "defining words". I also edited my post to add "Pareto Principle", which I think is relevant here.
I probably should have said "by construction" rather than "by definition" in the interests of accuracy. I guess I'm assuming that wealth is normally distributed - if not, then this undermines my argument.
Kamala's claim to fame is that she is the VP that has been locked in a room at the White House and has not done or said anything of note that entire time. When Obama was president, there was no doubt as to who Biden was and why he could take the reigns if necessary. Same thing for Cheney, Al Gore, and even Mike Pence. The only VP in recent history that does not seem to fit that bill is Dan Quayle, who has done nothing of note since leavi
If she is going to be the nominee, which I highly doubt the dems are that desperate, the dems have to allow her to throw them all of them under the bus to cover her on why she knew biden had dementia for years and she did nothing about it.
Kamala's claim to fame is that she is the VP that has been locked in a room at the White House and has not done or said anything of note that entire time. When Obama was president, there was no doubt as to who Biden was and why he could take the reigns if necessary. Same thing for Cheney, Al Gore, and even Mike Pence. The only VP in recent history that does not seem to fit that bill is Dan Quayle, who has done nothing of note since leavi
Joe Biden has had dementia for like 5 years. I am pretty sure Kamala can run the genocide machine just fine. its basically autopilot at this point
If she is going to be the nominee, which I highly doubt the dems are that desperate, the dems have to allow her to throw them all of them under the bus to cover her on why she knew biden had dementia for years and she did nothing about it.
I don’t think anyone cares if Biden’s been demented for years because it hasn’t affected anything. As Victor would put it, genocide is running fine.
Plus, how hard is it to say - “I didn’t see signs for years. I don’t see signs now. But he made this choice for the good of the country and I’m going to step up”
Of course that presume Uncle Joe actually voluntarily withdraws which is not looking so hot.
itt we pretend the veep has historically played a role in day-to-day administrationing.
the veep has never been more than a 'sit over there and shut up' position. even on the West Wing it was a 'sit over there and shut up' position.
the *only* reason veep has become a thing lately is because of the near deadlock in the senate and subsequent tie breaking votes that ensue due to it.
itt we pretend the veep has historically played a role in day-to-day administrationing.
the veep has never been more than a 'sit over there and shut up' position. even on the West Wing it was a 'sit over there and shut up' position.
the *only* reason veep has become a thing lately is because of the near deadlock in the senate and subsequent tie breaking votes that ensue due to it.
And the fact that the current president if elected again has a high probability of not finishing his term
itt we pretend the veep has historically played a role in day-to-day administrationing.
the veep has never been more than a 'sit over there and shut up' position. even on the West Wing it was a 'sit over there and shut up' position.
the *only* reason veep has become a thing lately is because of the near deadlock in the senate and subsequent tie breaking votes that ensue due to it.
Maybe if you are putting "historically" as the entire history of the republic, but I don't think that has been the case since at least Al Gore was VP. Cheney and Biden were certainly not just sitting in the corner with their thumbs in their mouths for eight years.
Have there been many modern societies in which the "elites" did not exert disproportionate influence? I can't think of any. (On some level, this makes sense. There is always a group of people who wield power, and no matter what their starting point, those people inevitably end up being defined as "elites" over time.) And many societies that have been rooted in the notion of extinguishing elites have been some mixture of theocratic, deep
UES in da hizzouse!
Not anymore. Did you read the article I posted? I could tell that his main theory was laughably bad the first time I heard of it, 35 years ago.
You should publish your findings in a journal then because Chomsky Hierarchies are still used today to think and teach about languages.
itt we pretend the veep has historically played a role in day-to-day administrationing.
the veep has never been more than a 'sit over there and shut up' position. even on the West Wing it was a 'sit over there and shut up' position.
the *only* reason veep has become a thing lately is because of the near deadlock in the senate and subsequent tie breaking votes that ensue due to it.
Nobody has seen the Eisenhower clip from 60? They asked him to name an important contribution VP Nixon made to the administration, he said give me a week and I'll think of something.
And that Biden sucked for not giving her ladies vegetable guild responsibilities (and much more, LDO). Or for choosing her if he had so little faith in her.
jimmy carter has been in hospice care for a year and I would still take his decision making over anything the republitards can toss out there and especially over their orange god.
joe ain't dyeing anytime soon.
itt we pretend the veep has historically played a role in day-to-day administrationing.
the veep has never been more than a 'sit over there and shut up' position. even on the West Wing it was a 'sit over there and shut up' position.
the *only* reason veep has become a thing lately is because of the near deadlock in the senate and subsequent tie breaking votes that ensue due to it.
The *only* reason veep has become a thing lately is to give racists and bigots an anti-dem talking point
