Chattooga
8d ago
What previous attempts you referring to?
Also, what am I supposed to be peddling? I never said you shouldn’t look into it.
Chattooga
8d ago
Well if I’m not given specific examples I can’t exactly respond in specifics. But it does seem like the first time in my lifetime that government ‘efficiency’ is actually top of the president goals, so I do think it has real focus and drive unlike, say, a house report or something.
Chattooga
8d ago
Aren’t USAID programs and their funding all a part of the public record? The websites not working, but I believe you could previously just search stuff up.
Chattooga
8d ago
If previous attempts failed, I assume it’s because they lacked a real focus and drive. What you highlight, I’m guessing b/c the link is broken, is more about a process change. Embarrassing to fail at fixing it for so long, but that’s at least a difficult problem. You’re making repairs to a moving vehicle.
In comparison, choosing which USAID programs are worthwhile and which aren’t should be fairly simple, at least at a surface level, and there currently an enormous push to make cuts and authority to do it. If it’s easy for them to shut down the whole thing, why wouldn’t it be similarly simple to cut off only parts of it?
Start by cutting and popularizing the obvious cases, I’m sure there’s easy instances where even the average Kamala voter would agree that it’s wasteful. Then get into the more ideological stuff. Continue extending as ideology and politics permit, until you’re left with useful programs. You could do this in a month or two, and I think it would actually change minds about the situation.
Thats what efficiency means to me, and the fact that the administration isn’t doing that leads me to that that either they aren’t very component or they really don’t care and just want to burn it all down.
Chattooga
9d ago
‘Removing the room for argument’
That’s already been done. I don’t know all the details, but Trump seems to have direct authority over USAID. In theory, he/DOGE could take even a cursory look at what programs they fund and make some decisions from a rational basis. But it doesn’t seem like they have a real methodology, it’s just ‘XYZ is corrupted by the woke left, burn it all down’.
I’m fine with making things more efficient, when it comes to aid programs, grants, and regulations, I want people to be arguing over the merits. What I don’t want is for it to be all-or-nothing situation. It doesn’t have to be that way, it would be better if it wasn’t, and I simply don’t agree with your framing.
Chattooga
9d ago
Are there any previous examples? Trump has a pretty wide open range of options, and I don’t see why there is a rush on it.
Unless the point someone is making is that absolutely zero dollars should be spent in foreign aid, I feel like it would be useful to come up with an objective approach and do at least a basic combing through.
Chattooga
9d ago
My point was that you should have a sense of perspective, and not frame things like you're leading the frontline into battle. I don't see how I'm guilty of that.
Chattooga
9d ago
I see this somewhat regularly and I really dislike this style of comment, written like a Roman general giving a speech to the senate.
On a surface level, get a grip! You aren’t fighting a war. Most anybody here engages with politics to is to squabble on the internet and maybe vote.
On a deeper level, I think it really reflects a polarized view. The battle-lines are drawn, and you’re rallying for a cause. But in reality these issues are often not as polarized in the public as you might think. There is room between ‘change nothing’ and ‘blow it all up’.
Chattooga
23d ago
I think one part of the split between us is that I don’t view ‘the left’ and ‘the right’ as united and mono-focused as you seem to. I know this isn’t a deep observation, but both are vague conceptions that consist of a spectrum from mostly normal people sliding into fringe radicals. The vast majority of Biden supporters did not riot in 2020, nor did the majority of Trump supporters break into the capital. But both will hem-and-haw about how bad their respective actions were.
I’ve happily conceded that there is left wing bias against calling out themselves, and I think that there’s an equivalent bias on the right. It’s a general human instinct to protect the in-group. I don’t see this systematic pattern ‘for decades’ of the left doing things equivalent to J6, nor this grand narrative of it being a propaganda tactic. If you disagree then please show me. I realize you think it’s obvious and want to sneer at me, but understand I’m trying hard not to do the same.
I think we were past the point where we agree it's way beyond "screaming" or "voicing" - and yet we're back there. How comes?
That’s a direct reference to an instance in the article you shared where protestors occupied a state capital and were chanting/screaming.
Michael Byrd murdering Ashley Babbitt […] Just imagine the protests if a white cop shot an unarmed black woman, during a BLM protest
If she was shot on the lawn outside the capital for yelling at a cop or something, this would be a fair comparison. But Babbitt was climbing through a broken window into a secure area with armed guards on the other side. I’m honestly curious what you think the correct course of action was there. Let her climb through and start scuffling with her and others who also come through? Fall back further?
This also highlights something I’ve been trying to say- I feel like you are making some comparison and saying “See? They’re the same” without showing that there share some unique commonalities. I think you have generally pointed at left wing violence at protests, but I’ve tried to differentiate that from J6 by pointing to the specifics of the goal, scale, and significance.
Chattooga
23d ago
The left routinely blocks and disrupts events where the speakers they do not approve appear, they disrupted democratic processes numerous times, they performed "direct actions" as "retaliation" for political actions many times, etc.
And people argue about it endlessly. It doesn’t go unexamined, and I think we’re well past the ‘de-platforming’ era. It’s not that these things don’t happen or are justified, it’s that you can’t say “The left does xyz and nobody says anything about it!” Because they do! And they should!
And you can certainly argue that violence at protests is under prosecuted or underreported. But that doesn’t mean that J6 is irrelevant. Either we have consistent standards for this kind of thing or it’s just partisan.
The leftist politicians routinely gain from the policies that result from the pressure they apply on the political processes.
Do you consider J6 to be ‘applying pressure to the political process’? In an earlier comment you compared it to leftist protests “done for explicit purposes of influencing the policies“ Now in a technical sense sure, overturning an election in favor of the loser is influencing policy, but surely you would agree that it’s different than a crowd screaming in a state capital about a bill being passed.
you see any disruption from the right with a microscope and the mass violence from the left leaves you legally blind.
I have repeatedly centered on one event, J6, as being a very significant and damaging moment that should not be dismissed. Trump’s pardoning of the people who perpetrated it in his name only adds to the distrust it sows. I maintain that there is no comparable event from the left.
I have acknowledged that left wing riots, particularly 2020, have gone under-condemned, although I do think they fall short of ‘mass violence’.
The federalist article provides a list of some government buildings being occupied, including people yelling the senate gallery while Pence bangs his gavel(?) and asked for them to be removed. (I’ll remind you that on J6 we had staffers piling up furniture to barricade senate doors.)
Yes, these are bad, yes, left wing protests get violent. But that doesn’t mean that J6 is just retribution and can be ignored. The difference in scale is immense! Breaking into the Interior Department over the need to declare a ‘climate emergency’ is not the same as trying to overturn an election.
———
The story of Joe Biden sneaking into the senate in 1963 is a particularly infuriating inclusion in the article since it’s is plainly not leftist assault on democracy and is only included as a braindead ‘gotcha’. This doesn’t really detract from your point but it made me mad.
Chattooga
23d ago
How much contempt must you have for your opponents to throw them a lie right in the face in full knowledge that both sides know it's a lie?
I dislike language like this because you’re needlessly raising the stakes. This is an Internet forum, we’re just talking. My point isn’t that all other protests are peaceful and the leftist are angels. Please step out of the bad faith arguing loop where you assume I’m trying to lie to you.
I’m trying to say that J6 was unlike other protests because of the nature of its goal and the scale. They didn’t want to affect the democratic process, they wanted to control it. Again I want to stress: Say what you will about left leaders handwringing or outright supporting riots (as you should), but none of those people stood to benefit directly from the rioting. Trump directly stood to gain from J6. And again, we’re talking about a mob breaking into the capitol building while Congress was in session. It’s never happened before!
I just don’t see your view that ‘the left’ is regularly using political violence and getting no pushback on it. The BLM protests were mostly half-heartedly condemned and under-punished, but they did hurt public opinions of democrats and especially far left figures. It was not forgotten.
Chattooga
27d ago
My point is obviously not that “it’s okay for my side to do anything but your side can’t do anything”. I get that you’re frustrated by a double standard but don’t project that onto me.
My point is that widespread generic protests cannot be equivocated to this specific event. It’s unlike anything in recent election history.
J6 was clearly not peaceful, and its goals were not, like almost all major protests in the last century, to influence politics through voicing discontent. It was to upend an election, and for some, to kill specific members of Congress.
Now, of course it was an uncoordinated mess, but it’s incredibly embarrassing, and yes, is bad for cohesion. Especially after Trump pardons all the people involved. Say what you will about left leaders handwringing or outright supporting riots (as you should), but none of those people stood to benefit from the rioting.
Honestly I think it’s fair to still be angry about the lack of response in 2020. What I can’t stand is the complete denial of J6 as a significant and unique event.
Chattooga
29d ago
I understand that you think 2020 had a vast under response. Broadly I agree that there should have been less hand-wringing and more condemnation. But I don’t think that describing politics as Blue Tribe and Red Tribe actually justifies tribal argument. Many ‘blue tribe’ people I know were also outraged at the rioting and destruction.
You describe J6 like it was an overeager group of tourists ducking under a velvet rope. I can’t really figure out what to say to that. Generally I try to respond as genuinely good faith as I can, but this seems like a major break to me.
Members of J6, broadly:
Fought with police instructing them to disperse
Tore down crowd barriers
Broke and climbed in windows
Opened doors to let in others
Went through desks and offices of capital building members
Pressed further into the building, including secured areas.
Babbitt climbed through a broke window directly adjacent to a guard with a drawn weapon.
All of this in one of the most importantly political buildings in the country, second only to the White House. While Congress was in session. With the express intent of stopping the proceedings and in some cases calls for the execution of its members.
What about the situation am I missing that leads you to dismiss it? I don’t think this is comparable to previous protests since to my knowledge no previous protest has led to the occupation of the capital building.
Chattooga
29d ago
Calling it ‘criminal trespassing’ feels bad faith. Sure, it’s technically true, but it downplays the obvious severity of the situation.
I want to treat people like adults and say that if you are climbing through a broken window into the Capitol of the United States with the express intent of halting proceedings, you are taking on the consequences of that action.
Was all of the sentencing fair relative to 2020? Maybe not, but this was an enormous national and international embarrassment, and I’m not too worried about the government being too harsh on the category of “people who break into the capitol to stop an election”.
Chattooga
30d ago
What is the worst crime that a J6th rioter committed?
Broke into the capitol building in order to overturn an election? I feel like people really undersell how crazy it is that we had an angry mob break into Congress. For national respect and social cohesion that’s so much worse than burning down a police station.
Chattooga
1mo ago
Speaking directly from personal experience, my life has been notably improved by running and reading ‘serious’ books more often, and playing video games less often.
I don’t think it’s an absolute, there’s nothing wrong with a video game, but it should be more like dessert.
Chattooga
3mo ago
I’m sure if Trump actually had a legally compelling case he would have already filed, but he hasn’t. That implies to me that he wants to reduce libel protections. (I don’t think he wants that for idealogical reasons, or even has strong convictions about it. I think he’s just personally upset.)
Plus, ‘undermining the public’ goes both ways. Should news organizations reporting on ‘Haitians are eating the cats’ be shut down?
Chattooga
3mo ago
I don’t see how this makes him a republican. There’s plenty of issues that differentiate the two parties, and his point in this case is a set of changes/tweaks that the current party should make. It’s not an exhaustive list of what the democrats should be.
Chattooga
3mo ago
He can say whatever he wants, but then he did a bad job last presidency, because they were fighting against him constantly. I’m imaging many more yes men this time around.
Chattooga
3mo ago
But it’s exactly because Tulsi, RFK, and in a way Elon rebelled against the establishment that they need Trump. They have nowhere else to go!
I think Trump picks people for a lot of reasons, not just pure loyalty, I just think loyalty is much higher on his list of requirements than it used to be.
Chattooga
3mo ago
I don’t think you can draw a conclusion that Trump is intentionally doing this. Last presidency he was burned by a lot of his establishment picks when they weren’t loyal enough to him. Now he’s selecting for more loyalists, and that tends to include those who want power but have been kicked out or left behind by the establishment.
Maybe you like the end result of this, but I think it’s largely coincidental. It also means he’s less likely to pick competent people, since competent people are smart enough to stay close to existing power.
Chattooga
3mo ago
Oh yeah, I think he’s quite different than Trump, specifically that he’s actually smart and (seems like) competent. I think he presents a clear vision for America, it’s just one I don’t like.
I think democrats could come up with something that competes with that, but not if they let basic pro-family, pro-health, and pro-community messages become further right-coded.
Chattooga
3mo ago
I think a lot of these are pretty reasonable guesses. What I want to see is a renewed focus on presenting some kind of narrative alternative in opposition to MAGA, particularly Vance who seem like the future of the Republicans.
Right now the Democrats’ vision for America feels like continued management of the existing system, and not only is that boring, it’s incredibly weak against an opponent that has a clear message for what the country should look like. Pointing to specific causes of specific problems beats hand-wavy answers and technocratic tax-credit solutions. (Even if sometimes the hand-wavy answers are correct!)
Bernie style populist policies are definitely a component of that, but I don’t want to flip to the naive “just tax the rich until things are fixed”. I really want to see them push policies that are useful for building secular shared norms and openly present them as such.
Chattooga
4mo ago
What specifically is making you think that FEMA is bungling the response? I see it repeatedly taken as fact in this thread, and that we should trust to random tiktok videos, but very little actual documentation of the situation.
I’m not claiming everything is perfect. I just think that rumors always swirl in the aftermath, and the insane political polarization in this case is making it worse. I expect clearer information to come out in the next few weeks.
I take this point, and it’s certainly true that this kind of decisive action can be gummed up, but I’m not sure it applies here. It seems like the administration has free rein on program approval, they don’t have to negotiate with anybody.
To extend your metaphor, it’s like if the doctor, instead of establishing a strict calorie limit and diet plan, simply said ‘Stop eating!’. You don’t have to be that harsh, you can take a second to come up with a plan that makes sense to you, and enforce it with an iron hand.
More options
Context Copy link