I don't understand how decisions like these align with the supposed "America First" rhetoric coming from the same side. Specifically - this deal is being led by the son of the president of the USA who was elected on promises of "bringing jobs back to America" and prioritizing domestic investments.
Seems to me like they say one thing, do another, and all of us hold the bag at the end of it all.
As a former staunch Republican, if there's one thing I've learned, it's that both parties have sold us out. I disagree with a lot of the Left's policies and many on the Right as well, but both parties advocate, in theory, for several things that would benefit all Americans -- yet it never happens. Republicans advocate for fiscal responsibility -- never happens. Democrats advocate for things like healthcare and cancelling student loans -- never happens. The Democrats held the House, Senate, and Presidency in 2021 for two years. The Republicans currently hold the House, Senate, and Presidency right now.
They're in power for themselves and their disregard for us is by design.
What did Republican appointees on the Supreme Court have to say about student loan forgiveness?
Who not only fights tooth and nail against healthcare improvements but actively took money from existing programs to fund a national police and detainment apparatus?
Which party produced the most meaningful (albeit not far enough) healthcare reform of the 21st century in the US?
Those examples in particular are quite rough to try and both sides.
Where I live (California) there are basically no republicans in power. For a long time now. And we have more money and a better economic base than just about anywhere on the planet Earth.
So to all the partisans out there who are sure things would be better if "their side" had total control, I ask: what the hell is going on with California then?? We should be modeling the best governance in the country and even the world, but yet, our government is basically dysfunctional and our state is great despite it.
California has structural obstacles that don’t fit into partisan politics. Proposition 13 limits property tax collection, which warps housing development and many other factors. Also, California has high incomes, which means Californians pay more federal income tax, and the state receives less back in federal benefits, to the tune of almost $100 billion a year. Those are significant headwinds that the state would still have to deal with even if it was governed well.
Prop 13 is brought up a lot but it never made any sense to me that it also applies to commercial real estate used for businesses. I can see an argument for single family homes (primary dwellings) but property that large corporations own ? It makes no sense.
Bwuh yeah imagine living in a meteorological paradise that happens to be the world’s strongest economy with the nation’s best state school system with a diversity of culture bringing tangible everyday benefits like delicious food. Sounds horrible.
I don't think "What the hell is going on with California?" is a great example. I've lived in many states throughout my life, from deep red to navy blue, and now I live in California. It's definitely the best place I've ever lived, and neither me nor anyone in my family wants to leave any time soon. Is California a flaw-free utopia? No. Does it have its shit together in more ways than most other states? I'd say yes. Also, being a few hours drive from the ocean, a few hours from a city that's a major cultural center, a few hours from the beautiful Sierras and winter sports, and a few hours from many other pristine and interesting outdoor amenities is and added bonus. Extra bonus, year round decent weather, relatively clean air, clean water, a great university system. Extra extra bonus, nobody in my house has to worry about being hunted down because of the color of their skin or their national origin or their sexual preferences, or because they had a miscarriage.
Not exactly the hell hole red staters make it out to be.
Totally, like I said right there, it is a great state!
But the governance is not great. That was actually the whole point I was making. And getting back to that: The getting things done is abysmal. Taxes are high. Spending is loose. No progress is made on things the state takes on as priorities (housing costs, high speed rail, homelessness). It's just not well managed. But from the "one side good, other side bad" POV it should be great, no pesky republicans to get in the way. I don't know if there's a lesson there but it's an intersting question to ask.
Is there any example of good State governance to point to, though? Every State is on the spectrum of dysfunction. I'd argue (and I am aware that it is a blatantly partisan point of view) that every additional republican you add to the mix will increase dysfunction. The party's entire M.O. currently is to increase chaos wherever possible, grief the other side, and generally troll everyone not like them; and I say this as someone who voted (R) decades ago. The (R) of today have no governance principle besides sowing chaos and ending effective governance, and CA would be even worse if Sacramento had to deal with having a significant number of them around gumming everything up.
> And we have more money and a better economic base than just about anywhere on the planet Earth.
Because of the massive historical defense, tech and entertainment industries all under one roof for decades, bringing in crazy money. The blue politicians that built California as the defense, tech and movie powerhowse decades ago, have nothing in common with those running California today, so California staid successful despite it's current blue leadership not because of it.
When the private sector brings trillions in revenue and local taxes, then the current political competence decline, corruption and mismanagement, inflicts a much smaller splash damage than in places that have less money.
It would be amazing for things to be as simple as "vote blue and become rich like California", but that's not how it works. It's more like rich people tend to vote blue, rather than voting blue makes you rich.
That's easily answered. They think California is a hellhole that everyone with means is fleeing. "Vote for Democrats to turn your state into California" is a great way to get people on both sides to vote for their own preferred side.
I had Claude dig through the orders to pick out substantive examples where the courts ultimately allowed the order to go through USAID's dismantlement is the top instance which has an affirmative legal ruling. However unilateral grant freezes, tariffs, and other issues are still progressing in the courts.
While I'd certainly like to return to the world where congress handled the democratic duties of law making, budget, and war declarations. I must acknowledge that we no longer appear to have separation of powers.
If republicans took control of a household, they would just not buy groceries, cleaning supplies, ignore the utility bill, and not put gas in the car. They'd say "look how much we saved! We don't need any of that!" Then when the next person comes along and pays the bills they'd cry "tax and spend! Wasteful!" Pretending they've ever given a damn about fiscal responsibility is absurd. Fiscal responsibility is providing healthcare, education, and social safety nets because it's far far more expensive not to. But sure, buying more police and not addressing the root cause of crime is totally a net savings. They are like this with every single issue that matters.
Biden forgave student loans and conservative SCOTUS stopped him. Dems passed ACA and expanded Medicaid and CHIP. Republicans cut them both.
I could go on but I'm sure you know all this. Dems aren't perfect. Nobody ever is and it's unreasonable to expect that. They have pushed legitimate progress. Republicans almost exclusively cause harm to protect the upper class. Retreating into cynicism is just a way to absolve yourself of any civic responsibility.
> Republicans advocate for fiscal responsibility -- never happens. Democrats advocate for things like healthcare and cancelling student loans -- never happens.
From what I've seen, Republicans don't bother trying. Democrats try and get blocked by the GOP; not sure if they can 'try harder' or find ways around the blocking. Biden certainly tried on student loans and got shot down:
> Democrats advocate for things like healthcare and cancelling student loans -- never happens
Obama got Obamacare done in the single 6-month window in this century when Democrats could pass legislation without Republicans blocking them. Biden tried to cancel student loans and was blocked in court because surprise, surprise, Republicans wouldn't allow it to go through Congress.
> The Democrats held the House, Senate, and Presidency in 2021 for two years
Read up on the Senate filibuster to understand why Republicans could block student loan cancellation (and anything else Democrats wanted) despite this.
In theory both parties are part of the same system and complicit and corrupt. In actual practice one party is much worse than the other. By a lot.
Republicans win elections by blocking anything that's good for ordinary Americans, and blaming Democrats for their lives getting worse as a result. Voters are too dumb and distracted to see the con.
> Republicans win elections by blocking anything that's good for ordinary Americans
This. Mitch McConnell literally was on camera, and said, quote, that Republicans would block any bill Obama or the Democrats tried to pass, even if it was good for America and Americans, because the Republican's priority was to make Obama's term ineffectual.
Not to govern the country. But to actively prevent governance of the country. Even at a cost to its people. They didn't care. And they were open enough about it to say it on the record.
I'm not a big fan of Democrats, but at least they're somewhat trying. Obamacare should have at least had a public option, but they got a big thing done there. Student loan cancellation was done poorly but it was attempted. And each of the last three (at least) Democratic administrations have reduced the deficit, so they've got the fiscal responsibility thing going as well.
Keep in mind that the Senate de facto requires 60 votes to pass almost anything these days. In this millennium, Democrats held enough seats to overcome that for about two months, and there was no margin at all. Hence the lack of a public option: Joe Lieberman didn't want it, and without him the whole thing didn't pass.
They need to make themselves feel better by believing could not have made a better choice.
It doesn’t matter that federal Democrats enabled the largest wealth transfer in the last 3 decades with ACA, by the smallest of margins. Or that a Democrat president increased the overtime exempt wage from $30k per year to $50k per year. Or that Biden tried to get paid parental leave and paid sick leave, but was thwarted at every turn by a Republican Congress.
The important thing is for the voter to not take accountability for their actions, so “both sides”.
I write this not as a “Democrat” (I despise them on the state and local level), just as someone who has seen Republicans literally only pass tax cuts and reduce women’s access to healthcare in the last 3 decades. Oh, and try to overturn an election and then pardon traitors.
Biden got a bunch of big legislation passed during his presidency. Including but not limited to: Infrastructure and Jobs Act, Inflation Reduction Act, and the CHIPS Act.
This "both sides are bad" trope is such an obvious sign that you're either 1) a Republican but embarrassed to say so, or 2) a bad faith actor making a false equivalency.
As a libertarian I strongly agree with this in isolation. But your follow up comment (now flagged) is chock full of the standard Republican social media dementia, so this original comment is actually yet another instance of lofty ideals being dishonestly abused to run cover for something even worse.
For all of the actual criticisms that can be levied at them, Democrats aren't the ones throwing our institutions onto the scrap heap, alienating our allies, or cheering on autocracy.
That's because the people who sincerely voted for "America First" were sold a bill of goods. They wanted a nationalist dictatorship but instead they got a bunch of pillagers who are going to take everything of value and leave a steaming heap.
Why are you running cover for people that who literally don't care about 80% of the population? Are you a board member or something? Such weird righteous indignation about protecting people who have materially made society worse.
Yeah, election promises and post-election behavior aren't really correlated in general. I think this administration is worse than the average, but still.
Past talking points are not indicative of future behavior.
And yet there has been very little about their actual priorities that have been surprising. Anyone who fell for it should do some self-reflection on why they believed those lies when so many other people saw right through them.
The part about them being liars was already well established and common knowledge as well as a major talking point for the other party during the campaign - they still won the election
It turns out there is extensive research on this, and you are mistaken. Most politicians actually do try to deliver on their promises. They might get stopped, but they try.
Most of the research on this was done before Trump entered office. Trump is a wildly unusual political leader, who is significantly more corrupt than other politicians, promises random things and then fails to deliver them, and generally breaks all of the rules that politicians follow- this is what his supporters describe as his "authenticity", that he "tells it like it is". The more people believe, incorrectly, that "all politicians are corrupt" and "no politicians deliver on their promises" the more likely they are to accept Trump- who again is an extreme outlier among American politicians.
Your cynicism actually ends up ruining the country and makes it more likely that we have bad government.
I don't understand how, given bullshitting the public about Making America Great Again has been the norm since Reagan, Americans are still so surprised to find ...oops it was all lies for votes!
Academics like Zinn and Chomsky, popular music, movies, TV have been calling out the lies for decades.
People don't know anything about anything, generally. Any sort of political discussion is incredibly frustrating because there's no agreement on very basic facts. We can't even get to the point where we discuss our values or what we think are the best ways to achieve those values, because we can't even agree on basic things like whether vaccines save lives or which places are wealthier.
Just look at all the nonsense around tariffs. This was a huge thing with this admin, and people generally don't know what they are!
American politics are stuck in an endless debate where everyone think's they are rubber and everyone else is glue, we've not progressed beyond kindergarten in our collective debates
At least in part, they legitimately see Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, and now Syria, as part of the American empire. I would argue this is a bipartisan elite belief as well, you see Dem current and former elected's lobbying and giving talks where policy is dictated in those countries all the time, investing and being invested in by those countries all the time.
It's funny to me that the average American is Islamophobic, but the US government sharply divides middle eastern countries based on alliances (and how rich they are). Qatari Emir? You're a friend of the US government. Poor Pakistani? Enemy. Lebanese farmer? We'll think about it.
It makes sense given a few things, although it's not as bad as you're saying:
1. The median American lives in a city and has exposure to Muslims and is most likely not Islamophobic.
2. Due to the voting structure of the U.S., people who don't live in cities and don't get exposure to Muslims get outsized voting rights.
3. Most American electeds are much more well travelled than Americans who don't live in cities.
So basically, elites have to necessarily balance (and exploit) the biases of over-represented minorities with their own largely metropolitan beliefs.
All of this is made more ironic in that the moral structures of the Abrahamic religions, including Islam, are all influences on and in line with, traditional American values, which American elites don't follow (see Epstein) but Americans who don't live in cities largely do.
> The median American lives in a city and has exposure to Muslims and is most likely not Islamophobic
Most Islamophobic people I know live in cities. Is there really that much of a change related to urbanism for Islamophobia, one you adjust for political alignment and religiousness?
For reference, this is the America I see every day:
Over the past 17 years I've lived in three houses (in the suburbs of two different cities in two different states- one East Coast, one land-locked) and an apartment in NYC (obviously also East Coast). In all of the East Coast spots (urban and suburban) there was a mosque closer than the nearest McDonald's. For the land-locked state suburb the mosque was 2 miles away and the nearest McDonald's was 0.75 miles away.
I'm not selecting these houses to be convenient to the Mosque- I've never been in any of those Mosques. It's just an artifact of living in the sort of neighborhoods that I like. I tend to agree that it isn't urban/rural per se, as much as it's Openness of the Big Five personality traits. Which, at least in the US, tends to be correlated with a lot of other things (college education, density of living, etc.).
You're right to be confused when you assume good faith on their part, it's utterly predictable when you take every public statement to be the exact opposite of what will happen: "small government", "fiscal responsibility", "tough on crime", "no new wars", "America will be respected again", etc. etc.
I'm very familiar with political slogans always being largely bullshit, but the degree to which 'America First' or 'Make America Great Again' seem to be diametrically opposed to the real intentions is breathtaking.
I worked for a company that got bought by a foreign company. It got approval the day Trump gave a maga like speech after meeting the new owner. That day the pink slips went out across the American offices.
It's all talk, it's almost guaranteed to be the opposite of what he says. It seems to be more about deflection than anything else.
I believe that our politicians are just trying to make as much money for themselves as possible and they don't actually care about America or Americans at all, and this has been the case for maybe the past 50 years or so.
I further believe that future historians will look back on the past 300 or so years as being occupied by two very different Americas: a true America, founded in 1776, and some kind of oligarchic scam that still called itself America for the brand recognition but was in reality a completely different entity.
> I believe that our politicians are just trying to make as much money for themselves as possible and they don't actually care about America or Americans at all
This wild and outrageous statement needs a serious source to backup the gigantic claim.
UAE sends dollars back to Paramount shareholders in the US to "own" a piece Paramount.
Is it "foreign owned"? Do they really own anything? What are they really going to do with it? I don't know. I inhabit a world of nuance, I don't take rhetoric at face value, that's a waste of time.
The US buys almost no oil from the UAE. It's less than a half a percent of our oil imports.
> What are they really going to do with it?
The obvious thing would be to shift content away from "American" values and more towards whatever values the UAE leadership wants. Maybe the Baywatch reboot gets canned because they don't want to see bouncing boobies. Maybe stories critical of the UAE aren't aired on 60 minutes.
They align with the actual motives of the people involved, which is lining their pockets. "America first" is for the rubes.
The same is true of "fiscal responsibility." The GOP runs on this, but when they get into power they spend like drunks and run the deficit up. This has been true since Reagan, though Trump represents a huge escalation.
The same has been true with the whole "we're going to get rid of these DEI hires and be purely meritocratic." Okay, then why does the head of the FBI need to blow in a tube to start his car and why are a bunch of unqualified former pundits and podcasters in positions of high authority? Why is the head of the CDC a crackpot who can barely talk?
"A thing is what it does." Ignore rhetoric, look at results. BTW the same rule applies to rhetoric from the other side.
> I don't understand how decisions like these align with the supposed "America First" rhetoric coming from the same side.
Because that rhetoric has ended, replaced with H1B-love, Israel-first, "immigration needs to rise actually, because a lot of toilets need to be cleaned" and "we don't have enough money to worry about the population, we need to make war" and the administration spends a large amount of time attacking the people who still use it?
Annoying that people don't keep up with this. "Same side" is some really simple thinking for a complex political environment.
Trump is just another neocon accumulating cash. In the 90s-00s, he worshiped Hillary Clinton; now he governs almost indistinguishably from a Clinton, a Blair or a Bush. With the only difference being that there's been a complete end to any restraints on Executive power through a bipartisan effort that still continues (see FISA renewal.) He can sell everything. Democrats were used to selling everything the old way, and pretending to be powerless. Turns out there's no reason to pretend to be powerless anymore.
The ideological MAGA types haven't changed at all. The only part of the electorate still on the Trump train are the same people who would have been Trump University students. With the addition of a bunch of newly silent lib Iran/Israel-first hawks. They also don't care about the foreign ownership of the media, or the media concentration that made it dangerous. They in fact actively support media concentration because it makes it easier to censor political opinions that they object to. The sex pest who is still ideological father of the Democratic Party was literally the person who repealed the laws that made it possible.
I mean, Trump was telling people to take Hydroxocloroquine for Covid 19. The list goes on-and-on. You’re actually surprised? He’s literally the definition of a narcissist.
People voted for him anyway because the manosphere told them too.
They likely will but even for them it will be a long fight. State AGs are suing to stop this acquisition in droves. Even if States lose, which I expect they will, I don't anticipate they will get CNN before midterms like they want.
I don't think most people understand how the times have changed here. CNN's prime time shows get fewer views than a mid-tier YouTuber, literally. They hit < 1mil at prime time. And their demographic is, again literally, dying off as they have a median viewer age of 67 [1], which is steadily increasing presumably due to a lack of new viewers. On the bright side for them that puts them on the 'younger' side of most cable news networks.
Cable news is basically dead, but I think most of us missed the funeral. It used to be a relatively big deal decades ago, but those times are long since passed.
Don't forget Ellison/Skydance also control TikTok, where according to Pew 38% of adult Americans get their news.
The internet has killed institutions of journalism that have a reputation to protect. Billionaires did the rest of the job (RIP Washington Post). Pretty bad outcome. We are left random YouTubers, people with a Substack or podcast, etc. No fact-checking standards / departments. Will Propublica and PBS Newshour/Frontline be around in 10 years. Federal funding cuts already killed Weekend Newshour.
If you can change the narrative the whatever percentage of CNN's prime time viewers are getting, then that's even fewer receiving opposing programming. That's 100% of the goal whatever number of viewer percentages are affected. Or is it 1200% fewer opposition viewers??? ::face-palm::
> Saudi Arabia’s Private Investment Fund will have the largest share of the three Middle Eastern funds, a greater equity piece than Qatar or Abu Dhabi. Together, the three Persian Gulf states are putting $24 billion into the new company.
I don't understand how decisions like these align with the supposed "America First" rhetoric coming from the same side. Specifically - this deal is being led by the son of the president of the USA who was elected on promises of "bringing jobs back to America" and prioritizing domestic investments.
Seems to me like they say one thing, do another, and all of us hold the bag at the end of it all.
> Seems to me like they say one thing, do another, and all of us hold the bag at the end of it all.
Yup.
It's the same lie that the GOP cares about deficits and debt… except when they're in power and want to do tax cuts for the rich.
As a former staunch Republican, if there's one thing I've learned, it's that both parties have sold us out. I disagree with a lot of the Left's policies and many on the Right as well, but both parties advocate, in theory, for several things that would benefit all Americans -- yet it never happens. Republicans advocate for fiscal responsibility -- never happens. Democrats advocate for things like healthcare and cancelling student loans -- never happens. The Democrats held the House, Senate, and Presidency in 2021 for two years. The Republicans currently hold the House, Senate, and Presidency right now.
They're in power for themselves and their disregard for us is by design.
What did Republican appointees on the Supreme Court have to say about student loan forgiveness?
Who not only fights tooth and nail against healthcare improvements but actively took money from existing programs to fund a national police and detainment apparatus?
Which party produced the most meaningful (albeit not far enough) healthcare reform of the 21st century in the US?
Those examples in particular are quite rough to try and both sides.
Where I live (California) there are basically no republicans in power. For a long time now. And we have more money and a better economic base than just about anywhere on the planet Earth.
So to all the partisans out there who are sure things would be better if "their side" had total control, I ask: what the hell is going on with California then?? We should be modeling the best governance in the country and even the world, but yet, our government is basically dysfunctional and our state is great despite it.
California has structural obstacles that don’t fit into partisan politics. Proposition 13 limits property tax collection, which warps housing development and many other factors. Also, California has high incomes, which means Californians pay more federal income tax, and the state receives less back in federal benefits, to the tune of almost $100 billion a year. Those are significant headwinds that the state would still have to deal with even if it was governed well.
Prop 13 is brought up a lot but it never made any sense to me that it also applies to commercial real estate used for businesses. I can see an argument for single family homes (primary dwellings) but property that large corporations own ? It makes no sense.
Bwuh yeah imagine living in a meteorological paradise that happens to be the world’s strongest economy with the nation’s best state school system with a diversity of culture bringing tangible everyday benefits like delicious food. Sounds horrible.
I don't think "What the hell is going on with California?" is a great example. I've lived in many states throughout my life, from deep red to navy blue, and now I live in California. It's definitely the best place I've ever lived, and neither me nor anyone in my family wants to leave any time soon. Is California a flaw-free utopia? No. Does it have its shit together in more ways than most other states? I'd say yes. Also, being a few hours drive from the ocean, a few hours from a city that's a major cultural center, a few hours from the beautiful Sierras and winter sports, and a few hours from many other pristine and interesting outdoor amenities is and added bonus. Extra bonus, year round decent weather, relatively clean air, clean water, a great university system. Extra extra bonus, nobody in my house has to worry about being hunted down because of the color of their skin or their national origin or their sexual preferences, or because they had a miscarriage.
Not exactly the hell hole red staters make it out to be.
Totally, like I said right there, it is a great state!
But the governance is not great. That was actually the whole point I was making. And getting back to that: The getting things done is abysmal. Taxes are high. Spending is loose. No progress is made on things the state takes on as priorities (housing costs, high speed rail, homelessness). It's just not well managed. But from the "one side good, other side bad" POV it should be great, no pesky republicans to get in the way. I don't know if there's a lesson there but it's an intersting question to ask.
Is there any example of good State governance to point to, though? Every State is on the spectrum of dysfunction. I'd argue (and I am aware that it is a blatantly partisan point of view) that every additional republican you add to the mix will increase dysfunction. The party's entire M.O. currently is to increase chaos wherever possible, grief the other side, and generally troll everyone not like them; and I say this as someone who voted (R) decades ago. The (R) of today have no governance principle besides sowing chaos and ending effective governance, and CA would be even worse if Sacramento had to deal with having a significant number of them around gumming everything up.
> And we have more money and a better economic base than just about anywhere on the planet Earth.
Because of the massive historical defense, tech and entertainment industries all under one roof for decades, bringing in crazy money. The blue politicians that built California as the defense, tech and movie powerhowse decades ago, have nothing in common with those running California today, so California staid successful despite it's current blue leadership not because of it.
When the private sector brings trillions in revenue and local taxes, then the current political competence decline, corruption and mismanagement, inflicts a much smaller splash damage than in places that have less money.
It would be amazing for things to be as simple as "vote blue and become rich like California", but that's not how it works. It's more like rich people tend to vote blue, rather than voting blue makes you rich.
Also agriculture and tourism. We truly enjoy an abundance.
yeah keep voting red and look like Mississippi, Oklahoma and Louisiana...
Really not what my point was, but thanks for showing me how far your thinking skills go, so I know not to waste my time debating further with you.
That's easily answered. They think California is a hellhole that everyone with means is fleeing. "Vote for Democrats to turn your state into California" is a great way to get people on both sides to vote for their own preferred side.
That was executive orders that got shutdown and its because congress controls the purse and they did not pass a law.
I'm sorry, but what kind of CalvinBall allows this argument to be made in good faith?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or...
I had Claude dig through the orders to pick out substantive examples where the courts ultimately allowed the order to go through USAID's dismantlement is the top instance which has an affirmative legal ruling. However unilateral grant freezes, tariffs, and other issues are still progressing in the courts.
While I'd certainly like to return to the world where congress handled the democratic duties of law making, budget, and war declarations. I must acknowledge that we no longer appear to have separation of powers.
Well, the Dems tried but the GOP shut that plan down.
If republicans took control of a household, they would just not buy groceries, cleaning supplies, ignore the utility bill, and not put gas in the car. They'd say "look how much we saved! We don't need any of that!" Then when the next person comes along and pays the bills they'd cry "tax and spend! Wasteful!" Pretending they've ever given a damn about fiscal responsibility is absurd. Fiscal responsibility is providing healthcare, education, and social safety nets because it's far far more expensive not to. But sure, buying more police and not addressing the root cause of crime is totally a net savings. They are like this with every single issue that matters.
They’d put gas in the car. It would just be siphoned from the neighbor’s tank in the dead of night.
These days, they probably wouldn't even bother with "in the dead of night".
Biden forgave student loans and conservative SCOTUS stopped him. Dems passed ACA and expanded Medicaid and CHIP. Republicans cut them both.
I could go on but I'm sure you know all this. Dems aren't perfect. Nobody ever is and it's unreasonable to expect that. They have pushed legitimate progress. Republicans almost exclusively cause harm to protect the upper class. Retreating into cynicism is just a way to absolve yourself of any civic responsibility.
This. Same team, different jerseys.
> Republicans advocate for fiscal responsibility -- never happens. Democrats advocate for things like healthcare and cancelling student loans -- never happens.
From what I've seen, Republicans don't bother trying. Democrats try and get blocked by the GOP; not sure if they can 'try harder' or find ways around the blocking. Biden certainly tried on student loans and got shot down:
* https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/white-house-press-...
After trying to be bi-partisan with the ACA/Obamacare the Democrats just went forward with it
> Democrats advocate for things like healthcare and cancelling student loans -- never happens
Obama got Obamacare done in the single 6-month window in this century when Democrats could pass legislation without Republicans blocking them. Biden tried to cancel student loans and was blocked in court because surprise, surprise, Republicans wouldn't allow it to go through Congress.
> The Democrats held the House, Senate, and Presidency in 2021 for two years
Read up on the Senate filibuster to understand why Republicans could block student loan cancellation (and anything else Democrats wanted) despite this.
In theory both parties are part of the same system and complicit and corrupt. In actual practice one party is much worse than the other. By a lot.
Republicans win elections by blocking anything that's good for ordinary Americans, and blaming Democrats for their lives getting worse as a result. Voters are too dumb and distracted to see the con.
> Republicans win elections by blocking anything that's good for ordinary Americans
This. Mitch McConnell literally was on camera, and said, quote, that Republicans would block any bill Obama or the Democrats tried to pass, even if it was good for America and Americans, because the Republican's priority was to make Obama's term ineffectual.
Not to govern the country. But to actively prevent governance of the country. Even at a cost to its people. They didn't care. And they were open enough about it to say it on the record.
> Democrats advocate for things like healthcare and cancelling student loans -- never happens.
That's a lie.
> Republicans advocate for fiscal responsibility -- never happens.
Happened under a Democrat.
> As a former staunch Republican, if there's one thing I've learned, it's that both parties have sold us out.
Ahhh, it makes sense now.
I'm not a big fan of Democrats, but at least they're somewhat trying. Obamacare should have at least had a public option, but they got a big thing done there. Student loan cancellation was done poorly but it was attempted. And each of the last three (at least) Democratic administrations have reduced the deficit, so they've got the fiscal responsibility thing going as well.
Keep in mind that the Senate de facto requires 60 votes to pass almost anything these days. In this millennium, Democrats held enough seats to overcome that for about two months, and there was no margin at all. Hence the lack of a public option: Joe Lieberman didn't want it, and without him the whole thing didn't pass.
Two Santas
https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/featured/two-santas-str...
It's almost like we're treated as a resource to be exploited instead of the foundation of a democratic republic.
"Democrats advocate for things like healthcare and cancelling student loans -- never happens."
You're blaming Democrats for things they try to do and are blocked by Republicans...
You can not have a for-profit system and a government subsidized one. It needs to either be single payor, or a free-for-all.
Anytime you have two markets, one will dominate the other. In our case, the subsidized market was forced to pay to play.
They need to make themselves feel better by believing could not have made a better choice.
It doesn’t matter that federal Democrats enabled the largest wealth transfer in the last 3 decades with ACA, by the smallest of margins. Or that a Democrat president increased the overtime exempt wage from $30k per year to $50k per year. Or that Biden tried to get paid parental leave and paid sick leave, but was thwarted at every turn by a Republican Congress.
The important thing is for the voter to not take accountability for their actions, so “both sides”.
I write this not as a “Democrat” (I despise them on the state and local level), just as someone who has seen Republicans literally only pass tax cuts and reduce women’s access to healthcare in the last 3 decades. Oh, and try to overturn an election and then pardon traitors.
Biden got a bunch of big legislation passed during his presidency. Including but not limited to: Infrastructure and Jobs Act, Inflation Reduction Act, and the CHIPS Act.
This "both sides are bad" trope is such an obvious sign that you're either 1) a Republican but embarrassed to say so, or 2) a bad faith actor making a false equivalency.
As a libertarian I strongly agree with this in isolation. But your follow up comment (now flagged) is chock full of the standard Republican social media dementia, so this original comment is actually yet another instance of lofty ideals being dishonestly abused to run cover for something even worse.
For all of the actual criticisms that can be levied at them, Democrats aren't the ones throwing our institutions onto the scrap heap, alienating our allies, or cheering on autocracy.
No, both sides are not equal. Biden tried to cancel student loans.
May be good for you to know that the American left policy is the rest of the worlds' right policy.
For the overton window to produce actual left wing policy that you may agree with, fundamental long-term change is needed.
That's because the people who sincerely voted for "America First" were sold a bill of goods. They wanted a nationalist dictatorship but instead they got a bunch of pillagers who are going to take everything of value and leave a steaming heap.
This is such an ignorant comment. As if the board at WB studio is made up entirely of Trump supporters. Who are you shadow boxing?
Why are you running cover for people that who literally don't care about 80% of the population? Are you a board member or something? Such weird righteous indignation about protecting people who have materially made society worse.
Yeah, election promises and post-election behavior aren't really correlated in general. I think this administration is worse than the average, but still.
Past talking points are not indicative of future behavior.
Lots of politicians fail to deliver. This administration just flat out lied about their priorities.
And yet there has been very little about their actual priorities that have been surprising. Anyone who fell for it should do some self-reflection on why they believed those lies when so many other people saw right through them.
The part about them being liars was already well established and common knowledge as well as a major talking point for the other party during the campaign - they still won the election
They're generally fairly correlated?
It turns out there is extensive research on this, and you are mistaken. Most politicians actually do try to deliver on their promises. They might get stopped, but they try.
https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/59403/1/Thomson_etal_AJPS_... for one quick to find example of the literature on this.
Most of the research on this was done before Trump entered office. Trump is a wildly unusual political leader, who is significantly more corrupt than other politicians, promises random things and then fails to deliver them, and generally breaks all of the rules that politicians follow- this is what his supporters describe as his "authenticity", that he "tells it like it is". The more people believe, incorrectly, that "all politicians are corrupt" and "no politicians deliver on their promises" the more likely they are to accept Trump- who again is an extreme outlier among American politicians.
Your cynicism actually ends up ruining the country and makes it more likely that we have bad government.
I don't understand how, given bullshitting the public about Making America Great Again has been the norm since Reagan, Americans are still so surprised to find ...oops it was all lies for votes!
Academics like Zinn and Chomsky, popular music, movies, TV have been calling out the lies for decades.
Americans are that fucking dumb, I guess.
People don't know anything about anything, generally. Any sort of political discussion is incredibly frustrating because there's no agreement on very basic facts. We can't even get to the point where we discuss our values or what we think are the best ways to achieve those values, because we can't even agree on basic things like whether vaccines save lives or which places are wealthier.
Just look at all the nonsense around tariffs. This was a huge thing with this admin, and people generally don't know what they are!
American politics are stuck in an endless debate where everyone think's they are rubber and everyone else is glue, we've not progressed beyond kindergarten in our collective debates
At least in part, they legitimately see Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, and now Syria, as part of the American empire. I would argue this is a bipartisan elite belief as well, you see Dem current and former elected's lobbying and giving talks where policy is dictated in those countries all the time, investing and being invested in by those countries all the time.
It's funny to me that the average American is Islamophobic, but the US government sharply divides middle eastern countries based on alliances (and how rich they are). Qatari Emir? You're a friend of the US government. Poor Pakistani? Enemy. Lebanese farmer? We'll think about it.
It makes sense given a few things, although it's not as bad as you're saying: 1. The median American lives in a city and has exposure to Muslims and is most likely not Islamophobic. 2. Due to the voting structure of the U.S., people who don't live in cities and don't get exposure to Muslims get outsized voting rights. 3. Most American electeds are much more well travelled than Americans who don't live in cities.
So basically, elites have to necessarily balance (and exploit) the biases of over-represented minorities with their own largely metropolitan beliefs.
All of this is made more ironic in that the moral structures of the Abrahamic religions, including Islam, are all influences on and in line with, traditional American values, which American elites don't follow (see Epstein) but Americans who don't live in cities largely do.
> The median American lives in a city and has exposure to Muslims and is most likely not Islamophobic
Most Islamophobic people I know live in cities. Is there really that much of a change related to urbanism for Islamophobia, one you adjust for political alignment and religiousness?
For reference, this is the America I see every day:
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/epic-citys-vision-sp...
Collin County is >90% "urban", as much as what counts for urbanism in the US.
Over the past 17 years I've lived in three houses (in the suburbs of two different cities in two different states- one East Coast, one land-locked) and an apartment in NYC (obviously also East Coast). In all of the East Coast spots (urban and suburban) there was a mosque closer than the nearest McDonald's. For the land-locked state suburb the mosque was 2 miles away and the nearest McDonald's was 0.75 miles away.
I'm not selecting these houses to be convenient to the Mosque- I've never been in any of those Mosques. It's just an artifact of living in the sort of neighborhoods that I like. I tend to agree that it isn't urban/rural per se, as much as it's Openness of the Big Five personality traits. Which, at least in the US, tends to be correlated with a lot of other things (college education, density of living, etc.).
Only as long as they are outside the US. As soon as they are in the US a Qatari is just a muslim and considered dangerous.
What does majority US control of a US company have to do with US government "America First" policy?
And I don't think de-prioritizing foreign investments is part of that policy.
Foreign direct investment is generally considered a good thing for the American economy.
You're right to be confused when you assume good faith on their part, it's utterly predictable when you take every public statement to be the exact opposite of what will happen: "small government", "fiscal responsibility", "tough on crime", "no new wars", "America will be respected again", etc. etc.
The same way the peace president can start a war.
They simply lie.
I'm very familiar with political slogans always being largely bullshit, but the degree to which 'America First' or 'Make America Great Again' seem to be diametrically opposed to the real intentions is breathtaking.
>Seems to me like they say one thing, do another, and all of us hold the bag at the end of it all.
Do you think he means anything he says? Or that anything is about anything more than self-indulgence?
I worked for a company that got bought by a foreign company. It got approval the day Trump gave a maga like speech after meeting the new owner. That day the pink slips went out across the American offices.
It's all talk, it's almost guaranteed to be the opposite of what he says. It seems to be more about deflection than anything else.
I believe that our politicians are just trying to make as much money for themselves as possible and they don't actually care about America or Americans at all, and this has been the case for maybe the past 50 years or so.
I further believe that future historians will look back on the past 300 or so years as being occupied by two very different Americas: a true America, founded in 1776, and some kind of oligarchic scam that still called itself America for the brand recognition but was in reality a completely different entity.
> I believe that our politicians are just trying to make as much money for themselves as possible and they don't actually care about America or Americans at all
This wild and outrageous statement needs a serious source to backup the gigantic claim.
It's a comment on an internet forum, not an encyclopedia article. Or were you being sarcastic? I can't tell anymore :)
Haha yes, sarcasm (I thought it was obvious enough but then again, I am a Brit.)
How is this complicated?
US uses dollars to buy oil from UAE.
UAE sends dollars back to Paramount shareholders in the US to "own" a piece Paramount.
Is it "foreign owned"? Do they really own anything? What are they really going to do with it? I don't know. I inhabit a world of nuance, I don't take rhetoric at face value, that's a waste of time.
The US buys almost no oil from the UAE. It's less than a half a percent of our oil imports.
> What are they really going to do with it?
The obvious thing would be to shift content away from "American" values and more towards whatever values the UAE leadership wants. Maybe the Baywatch reboot gets canned because they don't want to see bouncing boobies. Maybe stories critical of the UAE aren't aired on 60 minutes.
Simply because the Trump administration is "America First" in name only, and Trump first in actual behavior.
> Seems to me like they say one thing, do another, and all of us hold the bag at the end of it all.
On the other hand they kept their promises of deporting and killing immigrants, and of getting rid of woke ideas like science and education.
They don't align with it. They've never aligned with it. It was always a lie.
They align with the actual motives of the people involved, which is lining their pockets. "America first" is for the rubes.
The same is true of "fiscal responsibility." The GOP runs on this, but when they get into power they spend like drunks and run the deficit up. This has been true since Reagan, though Trump represents a huge escalation.
The same has been true with the whole "we're going to get rid of these DEI hires and be purely meritocratic." Okay, then why does the head of the FBI need to blow in a tube to start his car and why are a bunch of unqualified former pundits and podcasters in positions of high authority? Why is the head of the CDC a crackpot who can barely talk?
"A thing is what it does." Ignore rhetoric, look at results. BTW the same rule applies to rhetoric from the other side.
> I don't understand how decisions like these align with the supposed "America First" rhetoric coming from the same side.
Because that rhetoric has ended, replaced with H1B-love, Israel-first, "immigration needs to rise actually, because a lot of toilets need to be cleaned" and "we don't have enough money to worry about the population, we need to make war" and the administration spends a large amount of time attacking the people who still use it?
Annoying that people don't keep up with this. "Same side" is some really simple thinking for a complex political environment.
Trump is just another neocon accumulating cash. In the 90s-00s, he worshiped Hillary Clinton; now he governs almost indistinguishably from a Clinton, a Blair or a Bush. With the only difference being that there's been a complete end to any restraints on Executive power through a bipartisan effort that still continues (see FISA renewal.) He can sell everything. Democrats were used to selling everything the old way, and pretending to be powerless. Turns out there's no reason to pretend to be powerless anymore.
The ideological MAGA types haven't changed at all. The only part of the electorate still on the Trump train are the same people who would have been Trump University students. With the addition of a bunch of newly silent lib Iran/Israel-first hawks. They also don't care about the foreign ownership of the media, or the media concentration that made it dangerous. They in fact actively support media concentration because it makes it easier to censor political opinions that they object to. The sex pest who is still ideological father of the Democratic Party was literally the person who repealed the laws that made it possible.
I mean, Trump was telling people to take Hydroxocloroquine for Covid 19. The list goes on-and-on. You’re actually surprised? He’s literally the definition of a narcissist.
People voted for him anyway because the manosphere told them too.
They will also own CNN.
They likely will but even for them it will be a long fight. State AGs are suing to stop this acquisition in droves. Even if States lose, which I expect they will, I don't anticipate they will get CNN before midterms like they want.
Also major news programs like 60 Minutes, CBS Evening News, and Face the Nation.
This is the scariest part.
I don't think most people understand how the times have changed here. CNN's prime time shows get fewer views than a mid-tier YouTuber, literally. They hit < 1mil at prime time. And their demographic is, again literally, dying off as they have a median viewer age of 67 [1], which is steadily increasing presumably due to a lack of new viewers. On the bright side for them that puts them on the 'younger' side of most cable news networks.
Cable news is basically dead, but I think most of us missed the funeral. It used to be a relatively big deal decades ago, but those times are long since passed.
[1] - https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/20...
About 28% of the people who voted in November 2024 are over 65.
https://www.kff.org/state-health-policy-data/state-indicator...
Don't forget Ellison/Skydance also control TikTok, where according to Pew 38% of adult Americans get their news.
The internet has killed institutions of journalism that have a reputation to protect. Billionaires did the rest of the job (RIP Washington Post). Pretty bad outcome. We are left random YouTubers, people with a Substack or podcast, etc. No fact-checking standards / departments. Will Propublica and PBS Newshour/Frontline be around in 10 years. Federal funding cuts already killed Weekend Newshour.
If you can change the narrative the whatever percentage of CNN's prime time viewers are getting, then that's even fewer receiving opposing programming. That's 100% of the goal whatever number of viewer percentages are affected. Or is it 1200% fewer opposition viewers??? ::face-palm::
> Saudi Arabia’s Private Investment Fund will have the largest share of the three Middle Eastern funds, a greater equity piece than Qatar or Abu Dhabi. Together, the three Persian Gulf states are putting $24 billion into the new company.
This is a plotline in the black comedy series Succession. What a time to be alive.
And the American part will be owned by a pro-Israel billionaire, the largest private donor to the IDF.