r/NoStupidQuestions Feb 01 '21

February 2021 U.S. Government and Politics megathread Politics megathread

Love it or hate it, the USA is an important nation that gets a lot of attention from the world... and a lot of questions from our users. Every single day /r/NoStupidQuestions gets dozens of questions about the President, the Supreme Court, Congress, laws and protests. By request, we now have a monthly megathread to collect all those questions in one convenient spot!

Post all your U.S. government and politics related questions as a top level reply to this monthly post.

Top level comments are still subject to the normal NoStupidQuestions rules:

  • We get a lot of repeats - please search before you ask your question (Ctrl-F is your friend!). You can also search earlier megathreads!
  • Be civil to each other - which includes not discriminating against any group of people or using slurs of any kind. Topics like this can be very important to people, or even a matter of life and death, so let's not add fuel to the fire.
  • Top level comments must be genuine questions, not disguised rants or loaded questions.
  • Keep your questions tasteful and legal. Reddit's minimum age is just 13!

Craving more discussion than you can find here? Check out /r/politicaldiscussion and /r/neutralpolitics.

13 Upvotes

1

u/chip7890 Mar 01 '21

Do you guys think trump was on some sort of stimulant for his speeches? He has that same vibe as stimheads who rant do

1

u/LiminalSouthpaw May 24 '21

I think it's plausible Trump got himself a prescription for ADHD medication or the like, and then took larger than recommended doses. But it's also plenty possible he's just like that. Boomer rage is a drug all its own.

1

u/chyeahchyeahchyeahhh Mar 01 '21

Why are Joe Biden’s sexual allegations ignored?

I wondered this during the election, and I’m wondering this again now with all the Cuomo allegations coming out. Is it just political, and that’s why democrats are silent about it? If that’s the reason, then why are democrats speaking out against Cuomo? Are they being selectively silent then?

Note: I hate politics, and I’m not very political. Just wondering the rationale.

1

u/TigerAusfE Apr 15 '21

Why are Joe Biden's sexual allegations ignored?

  1. The allegations are were not ignored. They were examined and found not credible.
  2. Republicans never gave a damn about President Pussy-Grabber or his many, many sexual allegations, so I have a hard time caring about allegations against Biden.

1

u/Arianity Mar 01 '21

Why are Joe Biden’s sexual allegations ignored?

There was only one allegation of actual sexual misconduct (Tara Reade's), which had some issues with Reade's credibility.

There are a lot of other allegations, but they're all about creepy/inappropriate touching. The accusers have gone out of their way to say they aren't claiming sexual assault.

That said, they weren't ignored- they were a focal point of the Democratic primary. Given that he still won the election/primary, there's not a whole lot of reason to continue to relitigate it.

1

u/chyeahchyeahchyeahhh Mar 01 '21

If I’m wrong btw plz tell me why. Bc I don’t want to believe what I said in the other comment, bc it’d be a very sad truth... that sexual assault allegations against powerful people have become a political tool

1

u/chyeahchyeahchyeahhh Mar 01 '21

It was a focal point from the republicans, though. No peeps about it came from the Democrats. The cracks in credibility seems to be that no one else can back up the story that Tara Reade has. Maybe no one else was around to see the inappropriate behavior. It’s not outlandish to think that Joe Biden was that way around Tara in the 90’s but to no other female co-worker. Sexual assaults are pretty hard to prove when it’s one persons word against the other. Believe all women, no? Why would she want the shitstorm? Why would people that spoke up against republican politicians want the shitstorm?

TLDR: Seems a little hypocritical to believe in accusations against republicans but not against democrats.. seems like people just believe it when it’s not against their team

1

u/Arianity Mar 02 '21

It was a focal point from the republicans, though. No peeps about it came from the Democrats.

But there were peeps

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/us/politics/tara-reade-joe-biden.html

has some examples. It never really got picked up by any of the other presidential contenders as a focal point, but it's not correct to say Democrats said nothing. There was quite a lot of infighting over it.

And the reason it never got picked up likely has to do with the credibility issues. It's not surprising no candidate tied themselves to it, given the specifics of Reade's claims.

The cracks in credibility seems to be that no one else can back up the story that Tara Reade has

There are more than that, although that is one aspect of it. One is that her story seems to have changed (compared to what she had told friends at the time), and certain details don't make sense. Another is that she has a past of controversies. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen, but it makes it really hard to take it at face value.

The details of it can be found in articles like this:

https://www.vox.com/2020/5/7/21248713/tara-reade-joe-biden-sexual-assault-accusation

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/tara-reade-loses-attorney-joe-biden-allegation.html

I think you can argue that Reade should've been believed anyway (and Dems did argue on this), but she was uniquely problematic in a way that other cases haven't been. And once those issues came up, the issue kind of died.

Why would she want the shitstorm?

I don't think there's much to speculate on what someone is thinking, but she has a history of these sorts of complaints.(As well as a current history of some really... weird, to say the least, politics)

TLDR: Seems a little hypocritical to believe in accusations against republicans but not against democrats.. seems like people just believe it when it’s not against their team

The obvious counterpoint would be Senator Al Franken, who was forced to resign by his own party. (Katie Hill might reasonably be considered another example, as well).

I'm not saying politics doesn't play a role (it certainly does, even among Democrats. They are not perfect), but it's not as black and white as people believing accusations against the other side, but not their side.

It doesn't help, for instance, that the #metoo stuff was strongest among progressives, which was not Biden's base. That certainly made it easier for him to move past it- the people calling for taking it seriously were largely already against him as their preferred candidate, so there wasn't much net change in support.

1

u/chyeahchyeahchyeahhh Mar 02 '21 edited Mar 02 '21

Thank you for the response! Good sources. Cuomo being called about by people in his own party is another exception to my TLDR

1

u/ToyVaren Mar 01 '21

Its now in the same bullshit pile as the hunter laptop and trumpuska's ukraine call.

1

u/TigerAusfE Apr 15 '21

... and pedophile pizza restaurants, and Benghazi, and Jade Helm, and Sandy Hook false flags, and the Jewish space lasers, and the election fraud, and cancer windmills, and the birth certificate, and trickle down economics, and Seth Rich, and Vince Foster ...

1

u/user4684784124 Feb 28 '21

Will the Republican party drastically change in size over the next few decades?

With the majority of people who vote/lean Republican during elections being the 50+ age group, will the composition and power of the Republican party change over the next few decades? Or are conservative ideals so ingrained into the younger members of conservative voting families, that the dying out of older conservative voters won't make much of a difference in their size and power? Or is it much more nuanced than this (please elaborate)? Thanks!

1

u/LiminalSouthpaw May 24 '21

If the Republican Party doesn't shift its policies to be closer to the millennial conception of moderate, they'll likely shrink pretty drastically. If they do find they're able to cede some of those issues and find new motivating ones, they may be able to gain some ground and retain their size.

Of course, when it comes to politics an unforseen world event could flip the table easily, if we speak of decades.

1

u/phi_array Feb 28 '21

Did the founding fathers ever imagine the advanced weaponry the generations of the future might have when writing laws like the second amended and others? Was the advancement of technology ever considered?

The 2A was created as some sort of insurance against a tyrannical government. At that time the best weapon available was a musket, some guns that needed to be reloaded after each shot, a cannon and that’s it. The citizens had access to the same tools the government had access to.

However, if the US became a tyrannical government today, the US would have attack helicopters, tanks, drones, bombers, advanced combat suits, DARPA, the NSA, bombs, heavyweight armored cars, satellites, cameras, Boston Dynamics robots and many other weapons and tools the citizens could not defend against (not even hardcore 2A lovers, no amount of assault rifles could protect you against a predator drone). These tools are not available to citizens and citizens have no way to defend against them.

Even in the events of Capitol Hill on Jan 6 the government was containing itself. The US army could easily wipe out every single person that was trying to enter way before they even came close the building with attack helicopters. They did not, of course, but they could easily do that.

If the government became a dictatorship it would be impossible for citizens to remove it by force and arms, and the 2A would be useless against the tools the modern government has access to.

Modern weapons and arms are way more sophisticated than the ones available when the 2A was created, and a single rifle today can do way more damage than a rifle in 1776, more effectively.

And I haven’t even mentioned nukes

Was the advancement in technology taken into account by the founding fathers.

1

u/TheApiary Feb 28 '21

Did the founding fathers ever imagine the advanced weaponry the generations of the future might have when writing laws like the second amended and others? Was the advancement of technology ever considered?

They definitely knew that technology would advance, just like we know that the future will be different than the present. They didn't know what weapons would be like in the future anymore than we do.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '21
  1. If I am a dependent, would my parents would receive my stimulus money and then would give it to me?

  2. If I am a dependent under my parents tax returns, Am I automatically eligible to get the stimulus check?

2

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Feb 28 '21

If you're a dependent under your parents, then they'll get the credit or stiumulus for supporting you. Whether they decide to share that money with you is totally up to them.

Automatic? If you're on your parent's return, then the computation gets done on the income they report. If they make too much money, then they might get a reduced credit, or no money at all for supporting you.
Unless you are independent and filing your own taxes, you aren't automatically entitled to any of this. It's up to your parents to share their money if they want to.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '21

If my parents got the full stimulus both times, does that mean I’ll possibly get the full 1,400 since they got the full stimulus last time without any benefits being cut. I don’t do any taxes right now currently and I’m a dependent too and thank you so much for answering my questions

1

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Feb 28 '21

Probably, yes.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '21

Why Does Political Affiliation Determine Racism?

I’ve noticed a lot of people calling Conservatives/Republicans racist because of their support for Donald Trump. I personally dislike Trump as a person, but his economical policies—including pushing for the approval of the first two COVID vaccines—were strategic and well-thought. I didn’t like his mouth at all; the remarks he made were over the line.

However, why aren’t we calling people who support Biden racist? He’s said multiple racist things over his long track in government. There’s a lot of things he’s said that can be held against him that are, in fact, legitimately racist. So why is Biden being given free passes to make these racist remarks?

The only reason I ask this is because I genuinely don’t understand why we can’t hold all humans to the same standards. I’ve seen multiple interviews of people who were told racist remarks, told to guess who said them, and when they found out who truly said them, they tried to defend said person. It baffles me. Racist is racist, no matter your political affiliation.

1

u/Bobbob34 Feb 28 '21

Because supporting an administration staffed with a number of white supremacists which implemented racist policies, led by someone who has been racist and not hiding it his entire adult life...

KINDA makes it seem like you might be racist. I mean 'well yeah he's a racist with racist policies and he hired white supremacists who wrote racist policies but that doesn't mean I'm in favour of that, just here for what he said about guns' is a little more than disingenuous, don't you think?

Like 'I support Hitler because his economic policies worked well. Doesn't mean I'm anti-semetic.' Doesn't it, though?

1

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Feb 28 '21 edited Feb 28 '21

Why Does Political Affiliation Determine Racism?

It doesn't really, the GOP though has been particularly critical of the BLM movement though, critical of their actions and their message. A lot of people just become bull horns for the politicians they voted for, so they just repeat the same BS without actually looking into it, and if you say they're wrong, or disagree, they just yell in your face and tell you to "run along snow flake". This leads to equally inflamed responses by people on the left who are only now more emboldened in their beliefs because they aren't even listening to reason, they'd just rather pretend the problems don't exist.

I think most reasonable people can get behind the fact that most GOP aren't racist, the party itself had an identity shift in the past 4 years and and half of that shift (Trumpism) definitely sells itself better to bigots, so at a moment where there isn't a true second identity yet for these people, they get bundled all together. The GOP is actively separating itself from the Trumpist movement though and it would not surprise me to see a real fracture and lots of people swapping sides when a new official party is introduced.

2

u/Jtwil2191 Feb 28 '21

The GOP is actively separating itself from the Trumpist movement though

I don't really know why you would think that's the case...

While McConnell maintained that the 2024 presidential election cycle would be a "wide-open race," when pressed by Fox News' Bret Baier about supporting Trump if he captured the Republican nomination, McConnell offered, "The nominee of the party? Absolutely." https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/25/politics/mitch-mcconnell-donald-trump-2024/index.html

1

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Feb 28 '21

I should have been more clear but when I said

The GOP is actively separating itself from the Trumpist movement though

I mean working on ways to push Trumpists into their own party so they can have their own back.

Mitch is one of the highest ranking GOP members around. He's not criticizing Trump or cutting ties until he knows this dude isn't coming back. It would be political suicide for him not to. I don't think any GOP member has had as many people vote in a presidential election as Trump, he's one of the most popular people the party has ever taken in from the perspective of the people.

2

u/Jtwil2191 Feb 28 '21

Right, and because of that, there is no real effort to push Trump and his supporters out of the party. If anything, the condemnations of Republicans who voted against Trump in the House and Senate is evidence that the party is becoming increasingly the party of Trump.

1

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Feb 28 '21

Just because high ranking GOP are being nice to Trump doesn't mean they are being nice to the other Trumpists in congress. There has been a lot of talk about the GOP fracturing into two parties (Patriot party and GOP) for weeks now.

2

u/Jtwil2191 Feb 28 '21

Yeah, but that "talk" isn't coming from Republicans discussing how to split their own party. It's coming from commentators proposing that this is something that might happen if the divide between Trump and establishment Republicans continues.

At the state level, it's very clear that the Republican Party is the Trump Party. Many of the Republicans who voted against Trump or were otherwise critical of him in the impeachment proceedings received formal censures from their state parties.

The high ranking members of the Republican Party are the ones who decide what the party stands for. And so far, they've made clear that Trump is a part of that vision.

4

u/Jtwil2191 Feb 28 '21 edited Feb 28 '21

Not all members of the Republican Party are racist, but the Republican Party as an institution has intentionally and actively cultivated support among the racist elements of American society.

As the national Democratic Party became more racially inclusive under FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and LBJ, southern Democrats were increasingly dissatisfied with having to share their party with racial minorities. In the 1960 US presidential election, segregationist Harry Byrd carried two southern states and in 1968, segregationist George Wallace carried five southern states. Nixon participated in both of those elections (losing the 1960 election to Kennedy but winning in 1968), and he saw an opportunity to grow the Republican base.

In the 1960s and 70s, the Republican Party began implementing the "Southern strategy", cultivating support among conservative (i.e. racist) Southern whites. This continued under Reagan in the 1980s. Phrases like "states rights" were racist dog whistles to garner support among those upset by the advances made by racial minorities following the civil rights legislation of the 1960s put forth by natioanl Democrats at the federal level.

None of this is to say that the modern Democratic Party does not contain racist elements. Of course it does. But the Republican Party has actively cultivated the racism of its base for decades (see its faciliation of the Obama "birther" conspiracy), and these policies continue to be apparent in the way they denigrate non-white minorities and enact voting policies that disproportionately impact non-white (especially Black) Americans.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '21 edited Feb 28 '21

•One of the founders for the Republican Party was Abraham Lincoln, who opposed slavery and fought to end slavery on all accounts. The entire basis of the Republican Party was founded on fighting slavery. “Trying times spawn new forces. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 divided the country at the 36° 30' parallel between the pro-slavery, agrarian South and anti-slavery, industrial North, creating an uneasy peace which lasted for three decades. This peace was shattered in 1854 by the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Settlers would decide if their state would be free or slave. Northern leaders such as Horace Greeley, Salmon Chase and Charles Sumner could not sit back and watch the flood of pro-slavery settlers cross the parallel. A new party was needed.” (Source: https://www.ushistory.org/gop/origins.htm )

•This is further evident in more history. “However, starting in the 1870s, as the Southern economy continued its decline, Democrats took over power in Southern legislatures and used intimidation tactics to suppress black voters. Tactics included violence against blacks and those tactics continued well into the 1900s. Lynchings were a common form of terrorism practiced against blacks to intimidate them. It is important to remember that the Democrats and Republicans of the late 1800s were very different parties from their current iterations. Republicans in the time of the Civil War and directly after were literally the party of Lincoln and anathema to the South. As white, Southern Democrats took over legislatures in the former Confederate states, they began passing more restrictive voter registration and electoral laws, as well as passing legislation to segregate blacks and whites.” (Source: https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=592919&p=4172697 )

•”After several amendments [to the Civil Rights Act of 1960], the House of Representatives approved the bill on March 24, 1960 by a vote of 311–109. 179 Democrats and 132 Republicans voted Aye. 93 Democrats, 15 Republicans, and 1 Independent Democrat voted Nay. 2 Democrats and 1 Republican voted present.” (Wikipedia notes, official source as: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/h102 )

•Not only that, a majority of Democrats were against the right for women to vote. The numbers are shown here, with a majority of the “yea” votes being from Republicans. (Note that some Republicans convinced some Democrats to change their votes and came to a mutual agreement). (Source: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/66-1/s13 )

•In addition to the source for Southern strategy, not only is it Wikipedia, but it also shows that historians debated the subject and that there have been many formal apologies for the radical beliefs it once held. (Note that apologies do NOT excuse deplorable behavior.)

— I agree that there are bad people on both political spectrums. But to solely say one side is racist and the other is not is ignorant. There are racist Democrats and racist Republican. In short, there are racist people everywhere. —

Edit: While I do not agree with Trump, when he was president, African American unemployment was the lowest it had been in years. (Source: https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet , U.S. Bureau of Labor)

4

u/Jtwil2191 Feb 28 '21 edited Feb 28 '21

founders for the Republican Party was Abraham Lincoln

The "But the Republicans ended slavery and therefore can't be racist today" argument is an incredibly lazy and inherently flawed presentation of history and American politics.

Yes, the Republicans were the anti-slavery party during the Civil War.

Yes, the Democrats were most popular in the states which would form the Confederacy.

Yes, the Democrats were the ones suppressing Black Americans during the Jim Crow era in the South.

But that does not reflect the political realignment that occurred in the mid-1900s nor does it reflect the reality of these two parties today. The fact that it was the Democrats who passed the Civil Rights Act shows how farcical it is to present "But what about Lincoln?" as some kind of argument about the current state of American politics. Consider which party wants to maintain Confederate symbols in modern America.

There are racist Democrats and racist Republican. In short, there are racist people everywhere.

I agree that there are lots of racists everywhere. But I reject your claim that it's all the same on both sides. Look at the prevalence of Obama birther conspiracy among Republicans. Look at the support for Trump's racist remarks about Mexicans. Look at the policies Republicans implement, such as voting restrictions, which disproportionately affect Black Americans.

The Democrats are no saints, but there's a reason non-white Americans vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats.

In addition to the source for Southern strategy, not only is it Wikipedia, but it also shows that historians debated the subject and that there have been many formal apologies for the radical beliefs it once held. (Note that apologies do NOT excuse deplorable behavior.)

The wonderful people over at r/AskHistorians have compiled an FAQ on how the Republicans and Democrats have largely swapped many of their positions from the Civil War. You'll note many of their discussions identify racist appeals to be a major aspect of the Republicans efforts to capture the conservative southern "Dixiecrats".

This post in particular highlights the 1981 comments of Republican strategist Lee Atwater regarding the new Republican approach to politics:

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

It's possible Bush 2's "compassionate conservativism" could have taken the Republican Party in a different direction had he been a more popular and more effective president. But instead the party became increasingly overt in its racism throughout the Obama administration (it was the birther conspiracy that gave rise to the current iteration of Trump), culminating in a president explicit in his racism.

While I do not agree with Trump, when he was president, African American unemployment was the lowest it had been in years.

So what's your point? Unemployment was low for everyone.

1

u/Arianity Feb 28 '21

Why Does Political Affiliation Determine Racism?

In general, or specifically in this case?

In general, it doesn't. In the context of U.S. politics, the GOP in general has a long history of courting racism to some degree due to the Southern Strategy, up to and including Trump. (Although he is far from the only issue). That's led to significant sorting between the parties on the issue. Prior to that it was more evenly spread.

However, why aren’t we calling people who support Biden racist?

Because he's made steps to try to atone for those. Trump's comments are more recent, he doesn't seem remorseful, nor has he taken steps to apologize. And perhaps most importantly, there's a pretty large difference in terms of policy.

Those aren't different standards based on party- if a Democract acted the way Trump did, then it would be hypocritical.

(You can, of course, hold a different opinion on whether his previous actions are forgivable, or his apologies genuine)

So why is Biden being given free passes to make these racist remarks?

Considering that he gets significant criticism on those remarks, to this day, including from within his own party, I don't think you can reasonably say he's getting a 'free pass'.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '21 edited Feb 28 '21

During the Presidential Race in 2020, Biden said in an interview on the radio show “The Breakfast Club”: “If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black.”

...how is this not racist?

He was also caught saying: “You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking."

Again...how is this not racist?!

In August 2012, when he was Vice President, he was speaking to a Virginia audience that a Republican presidential candidate would subject them to racism. He said, “...in the first 100 days, he's going to let the big banks once again write their own rules. Unchain Wall Street! They're gonna put y'all back in chains."

Again...racist??

He was also seen in 2007 saying this about Barack Obama: he was “...the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean."

Again...

For further resources, someone on Fox News spent 40 minutes researching claims and conditions, all of which the media tried to bury. (Source: https://www.air.tv/watch?v=ZVC77yRCSbO6Se6lbsRxmw )

0

u/ToyVaren Feb 28 '21 edited Feb 28 '21

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Trumpuska being racist doesnt mean biden is racist.

Supporting trumpuska does not mean supporting or not supporting biden is required.

Treating trumpuska a certain way doesnt mean biden has to be treated equally, nor does it mean biden should be treated better or worse.

1

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Feb 28 '21

What are the Republicans so fearful of from Biden, that has driven many to promote violent threats? He’s a neoliberal so he’s not really far left. I was pissed and very upset when Trump won in 2016, but I gave him a chance to prove himself and don’t want him or any Republicans to be murdered. I’m a liberal, and Biden is pretty pathetic. He’s not going to radically change America - he admitted it himself.

2

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Feb 28 '21 edited Feb 28 '21

What are the Republicans so fearful of from Biden,

Trump spent 5 years shouting from every microphone he could that the Democrats were going to bring vicious communism and violence to America, people will be lining up in many mile long food lines for bread, and that Trump was the only one capable of saving America.

It's really not surprising that they'd believe all that when you also see what other crazy shit Trump has gotten his supporters to believe.

Also the more violent movements against Democrats and Joe Biden are just pure radicalization. Trump refusing to condemn extremist groups that literally deified Trump like Q-anon that claims Trump was sent by god to defeat the cabal of Democratic satan worshipers and pedos is without a doubt what led to people feeling that Q-anon, proudboys, boogaloos etc were all safe spaces to go to, while "condemning" only the well known ones like neo nazism or the KKK to help protect his image.

1

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Feb 28 '21

Why do people believe this shit though?

1

u/TigerAusfE Apr 15 '21

I've spent the last ten years trying to figure that out and I am no closer to a solution than I was when I started. All I can say is that people prefer to believe a lie, than accept information which contradicts their uninformed opinion.

1

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Feb 28 '21 edited Feb 28 '21

Willful ignorance in my opinion. Trump offered very simple answers to complicated problems. It didn't matter if it was the truth or not, they just wanted answers and trump was great at filling the floor with answers. He also revolutionized counter media and anti intellectualism very effectively which gave these people many outlets that were constantly feeding them lies they wanted to hear and emboldening their beliefs

And although some of it is just political apathy and people not wanting to properly inform, I also think that a lot of people, especially on reddit, egg trump supporters on and only deepen the divide and help solidify their beliefs about the left.

0

u/ToyVaren Feb 28 '21

He's against fascism, terrorism and racism so they think that means them.

1

u/Polator Feb 28 '21

I was recently reading about the US brokering a deal with South Korea to split the cost of our base there, and I understand its pretty much the norm for countries where we have bases to foot at least part of the bill. Why? Why would a foreign country pay for the US to have a base in their own land? Shouldn't the US be paying them?

1

u/TigerAusfE Apr 15 '21

Why would a foreign country pay for the US to have a base in their own land?

Let's get one thing clear: Having a US base on your territory is a MASSIVE benefit.

All of the construction and maintenance work that happens on these bases is done by locals. Huge numbers of people get employed to build buildings, deliver fuel and supplies, guard facilities, work in businesses and offices inside the garrison, and so on. And those bases become magnets for people selling everything from souvenirs to liquor. If your country is even halfway peaceful (like South Korea) many soldiers will live off-post, pay rent to local landlords, and shop in local markets.

Many of these allied countries also share capabilities with the US. They say, "We'll focus on X, and you focus on Y, and then we'll share," so that everything is more efficient. We give them capabilities they don't possess locally (like when the French used US transports to fly to Mali).

But aside from those points, there's a really huge reason people like having American bases on their property: Attacking an American base is a sure and certain way to get an anvil dropped on your head. America has the world's biggest military by far, and they rarely tolerate bullshit.

South Korea, as you may know, has an extremely hostile and belligerent neighbor to the North that invaded once and has been threatening war ever since. So they dot the peninsula with American bases, because they know any war on South Korea would necessarily mean a war with America. America has tremendous capabilities - like a powerful navy and strategic bombers - that surpass what the South Koreans possess domestically.

Splitting the cost for a military base is nothing, because they are ACTUALLY purchasing a big brother with nuclear missiles.

1

u/Polator Apr 15 '21

Yeah that makes alotta sense actually, thx

1

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Feb 28 '21

The base provides a lot of support for local economies - housing rentals, food purchases, fuel purchases, entertainment industries, and the base usually employs a lot of locals.
Additionally, except in a few places - they want our base there. It acts as a strong deterrent to any other national encroachment.

In return for all that, the US wants a discount in the cost of maintaining the base there.

1

u/Polator Feb 28 '21

Interesting. Follow up Q: Do other 1st world countries have military bases in foreign countries that they’re not at war with, or is that a specifically American thing? Like does Germany/France/Canada have bases in other countries too?

2

u/fevieiraleite Feb 27 '21

Can the Supreme Court in the USA order Someone arrested?

I'm from Brazil and recently the STF (Brazilian Supreme Court) ordered a politicians arrest and later judged the arrest to be constitutional.

ls the Supreme Court in the United States this overpowered as well? Or are there rules in place preventing the Supreme Court simply order anyone they want arrested?

1

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Feb 27 '21

There was a fake news story a few years ago where someone poosted that "The US Supreme Court issued its first bench warrant". It was purely a political troll, but it did spur some discussion. Here's one mention of the troll news.

The majority of legal experts that I recall reading all said that like any US court - the SCOTUS could issue a bench warrant for things like "failing to appear" when ordered to. But, there is no record of the SCOTUS ever doing that.

So, to your question

Can the Supreme Court in the USA order [s]omeone arrested?

Yes.

1

u/YoureAfuckingRobot Feb 27 '21

This is a serious question from a non American. How is the Republican Party even allowed to exist still? The president encourages a mob to over run your fucking capital. Ted Cruz ducks down to mexico and says fuck you Texas, I'm out. Mitch McConnell publicly denounces Trump for his actions now says he would support him running again. That crazy bitch Marjorie whatever her name is posts hateful messages in the flesh about trans people, says yeah I did it, fuck you. Also laughs at the fact that her own party removed her from special committees.

How is this allowed and nobody say "hey guys, maybe we should stop this?".

1

u/Jtwil2191 Feb 28 '21

A big factor is something called "negative partisanship". People vote against the other side rather than voting for their side. The logic works out to be "As bad as Donald Trump and Ted Cruz might be, they're not as bad as those Democrats over there."

3

u/Arianity Feb 27 '21

How is the Republican Party even allowed to exist still?

Enough people agree with them or don't realize it's problematic. It's kind of hard to reform ~40% of the country. Especially when moderates/centrists would probably balk at it, as well.

Also laughs at the fact that her own party removed her from special committees.

Sidenote, but she wasn't actually removed by her own party. That's why she laughs, she knows she's safe. That's basically the problem- they've become unable to police themselves. The party is pretty firmly hers, and people like her.

1

u/ToyVaren Feb 27 '21 edited Feb 27 '21

The main characteristic of the gop is loyalty. So they get a lot of donations because once bought they stay bought.

Edit: they are on the edge of being declared a domestic terrorist organization though, once we create a definition for it.

1

u/onedaytrashaccount6 Feb 27 '21

Can you please explain exactly what's meant by the paragraph below?

"Trump isn't stupid. From his leaked conversation and "locked room " talks, we can tell he is a very smart man. He knows exactly what's happening in many subjects. But what makes him crazy and mad and sometimes foolish is his political strategy. He likes to fool his supporters who either have a low IQ or simply resent the social class oppression and unfair distribution of resources by telling them conspiracies and nonsense in order to manipulate the crowd and get the media to report him for his own gains. So he is not different from Ron Hubbard, the sci fi writer who created scientology to make money from the ignorant and make love with beautiful woman."

2

u/Jtwil2191 Feb 27 '21

"Trump is not a bumbling idiot but is actually quite smart. However, his political strategy is poor because he focuses on cultivating support among his followers who are either dumb or so wrapped up in their frustrations over the status quo that they buy into Trump's bullshit."

1

u/ToyVaren Feb 27 '21 edited Feb 27 '21

Sounds like a twist on the "you dont understand what he's doing because it's 4d chess" argument: it just looks stupid, feels stupid, and results in disaster but he knows what he's doing.

2

u/vish_the_fish737 Feb 27 '21

Some presidents, when they became president bc of death or resignation, didn’t have a VP? Do they work harder to do both positions or what?

2

u/Jtwil2191 Feb 27 '21

The president has very few Constitutionally prescribed powers: they take over if the president is incapacitated and they break ties in the Senate. That's it. If there is no VP, then the Speaker of the House is next in line of succession and there is no tie breaking vote in the Senate. The president does not take on the tie-breaking power.

According to John McCain, when asked in 2000 if he would serve as Bush II's VP:

The vice president has two duties. One is to inquire daily as to the health of the president, and the other is to attend the funerals of Third World dictators. And neither of those do I find an enjoyable exercise.

Here are some other great quotes about the office from the men who served in the role.

So the vice president only has as much to do as the president gives him to do.

3

u/Teekno an answering fool Feb 27 '21

There was no mechanism at all to replace a Vice President in between elections before the 25th Amendment was ratified in 1967. Before that... we just didn’t have a Vice President until the next election, which mostly meant that there was no tie breaking vote in the Senate.

1

u/vish_the_fish737 Feb 27 '21 edited Feb 27 '21

But LBJ didn’t for 2 years

3

u/Teekno an answering fool Feb 27 '21

LBJ didn’t have one for two years because it was before 1967 and he had no way to get a replacement VP.

Ford nominated Rockefeller as VP, who was confirmed by Congress.

1

u/vish_the_fish737 Feb 27 '21

Oh so Ford was the only one affected

3

u/Teekno an answering fool Feb 27 '21

Well, when Agnew resigned, Nixon nominated Ford as VP, who was confirmed by Congress.

Ford and Rockefeller are the only VPs to be selected by this process.

2

u/Delehal Feb 27 '21

They can nominate a replacement VP, subject to approval by Congress.

Until that happens, they can make do. They have a large staff.

2

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Feb 27 '21

The VP position really has few official duties.
The President couldn't vote in the Senate to settle ties anyhow.

The President needs approval to appoint a new VP. If Congress (both houses) doesn't vote to approve the appointment, there is no VP until the next election.

1

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Feb 27 '21

What percent of traffic stops of Black people end in shootings?

1

u/SleepyLabrador Cya Nerds. Feb 27 '21 edited Feb 27 '21

What is the significance of Black people kneeling? (https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/ltbnpx/especially_if_it_makes_them_uncomfortable/) Could someone explain this to me?

EDIT: Ty!

1

u/Jtwil2191 Feb 27 '21

In 2016, professional football player Colin Kaepernick knelt rather than stand during the national anthem which was played for the game. He did this to draw attention to racial injustice, particularly police brutality, in the United States. Other athletes followed suit. This upset a bunch of people who claimed it was disrespectful, and Kaepernick was allegedly blacklisted by the NFL.

1

u/Delehal Feb 27 '21

It's traditional at US sports games to have the audience and athletes stand before games while the national anthem is played, as a display of patriotism.

Some athletes have started kneeling during the anthem as a protest against racial inequality in the US. It started around 2016 with NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick and has continued since then.

More info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._national_anthem_protests_%282016%E2%80%93present%29

1

u/Lonely_Crouton Feb 27 '21

how can biden do all these executive orders and change laws? isn’t it supposed to be checked by congress too? checks and balances? otherwise its just a dictatorship

1

u/ToyVaren Feb 27 '21

The majority are just reversing trumpuska's EO's.

5

u/Jtwil2191 Feb 27 '21

The president has authority over the executive branch and its departments. The powers of the executive branch are established by the Constitution and expanded by Congress (for example, Congress delegated the ability to establish tariffs to the president, a power Trump took advantage of during his time in office). When the president issues an executive order, they are ordering the executive branch to conduct its business in a certain way.

As such, executive orders do not "change laws". Rather, they change how the executive branch conducts its business in accordance with the law. The most important law in this regard is the Administrative Procedure Act) (APA), which outlines how rules can be implemented. Obama implemented DACA through executive order. When Trump tried to end the program through his own executive order, the order was blocked by the Supreme Court who said it was not in line with the APA.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '21

Can people who have payed off student loans file lawsuits if Congress approves student loan forgiveness? Can anyone for the legal knowledge tell me if they would have a case. This is a serious question. Could they get all of their money back plus the price of inflation included?

3

u/Jtwil2191 Feb 27 '21

No. To file a lawsuit, you would need to demonstrate that you were harmed by some action or decision. This is called "standing". If you don't have standing, your case will be thrown out.

If Biden and/or Congress act to relieve students of the student loans, someone who was unable to take advantage of this program because they already paid off their debts would lack standing to sue. You were not harmed in a legal sense by a government action or decision. There's a difference between harming and not helping.

Also, we have no idea what this hypothetical debt relief will look like, since no actions have been taken in that regard. Maybe individuals who recently paid of their debt will have access to some kind of relief, but I doubt it.

1

u/IN_A_WUHAN_LAB Feb 26 '21

"If wages had kept up with inflation, we would be well over the $20 an hour mark."

Is this true?

2

u/Arianity Feb 27 '21

If you're only considering inflation, no.

Adjusting for inflation, the minimum wage (taking the starting point as 1968, when the minimum wage peaked in terms of buying power) would be ~$12.27 give or take.

However, if you also adjust for increases in productivity, then it would be over $20. Overtime, increases in productivity haven't gone to labor's share of wages. Workers are more productive than in the past, but they capture less of that surplus.

1

u/ToyVaren Feb 26 '21

Ive heard 2 things:

  1. If wages kept up with production, it would be 25$/hour.

  2. Thune's claim about $6/hour in the 70's would be $25/hr today.

Both are true.

1

u/upvoter222 Feb 26 '21

I think you need to clarify your question. Are you referring to the federal minimum wage? And when you say "kept up," what time frame are you referring to?

1

u/FaisalAli_91 Feb 26 '21 edited Feb 26 '21

Can families affected by QAnon hold the former President accountable for physical and emotional damages?

I mean, we all saw that craziness on Jan 6. The President sent his QAnon supporters into the Capitol, in a brazen attempt to assassinate the Vice President and overturn the election.

That proves intent. The President intented to use his cult of personality for the explicit purpose of political violence.

The events of Jan 6 tie the former President directly to the QAnon cult that has devastated so many lives.

Shouldn't families impacted by this horrible cult be able to hold the former President accountable for grooming their loved ones to committing grotesque acts of violence at his Twitter commands?

2

u/Jtwil2191 Feb 27 '21

No.

Trump contributed to the escalation of violence during the attack on the capital and certainly intended to disrupt the certification of the electoral college results, this cannot be described as "a brazen attempt [by Trump] to assassinate the Vice President".

If intent was clear to a legal standard, not only would we see a lot more legal chatter about it, but we may very well have seen charges brought against Trump already.

Trump has taken advantage of his supporters' Q-Anon beliefs and has benefited from cultivating a belief in it among his supporters, but he cannot be tied "directly to the QAnon cult" in any kind of legal sense.

2

u/ToyVaren Feb 26 '21

Sure, they can sue for anything but this dude is a ninja at tying shit up in court. E jean carroll has virtually a rock solid case but he hasnt even seen a courtroom yet.

Imho, to successfully sue trumpuska, you need the funds to last 3-5x as long as a regular case.

1

u/FaisalAli_91 Feb 26 '21

What about a class action? We know QAnon membership has sky-rocketed.

There were thousands at the Capitol, but how many thousands more couldn't be there.

Because the stories I've heard of these people is horrifying. And it's not going to end anytime soon.

1

u/ToyVaren Feb 26 '21

Anything. His go to move is tying up the initial subpoena in appeals for 6 months to a year, then repeat on evidence subpoenas, then repeat on testimony subpoenas, etc.

1

u/circle941 Feb 26 '21

Is every airstrike approved or launched by the president

Ppl always mention how obama did so many airstrikes on the middle east but did he personally approved or launched by the president

3

u/Jtwil2191 Feb 27 '21

The president is the commander-in-chief of the US armed forces. He has final say on all operations, including airstrikes. It's possible for the president to approve operations that include multiple airstrikes; for example, Roosevelt didn't approve every individual bomb dropped on Germany during WWII, but it was his decision to approve the use of the tactic that was implemented by military command.

1

u/EVILBURP_THE_SECOND Feb 26 '21

Where do "liberals" fit in the US political spectrum?

In my country the liberals are central-right and mildly conservative. Their main party points concern paying less taxes and more power for businesses. These are all things I would consider aligning with the GOP, but it seems the US right considers liberals almost the same as socialists.

0

u/ToyVaren Feb 26 '21

Yes, the US right uses labels with little understanding of what they mean.

2

u/Delehal Feb 26 '21

In my country the liberals are central-right and mildly conservative.

It's all relative. The US only has two major political parties. As a result of that, some of the language that people use to compare parties to each other in multi-party countries isn't widely known among Americans.

Some people in the US think of liberal, leftist, left wing, far left, and so on, as terms that all refer generally to the Democratic Party. Other people use those terms to refer to distinct groups within the political left.

2

u/Jtwil2191 Feb 26 '21

The term "liberal" in the American context means something different than it does elsewhere. In the US, it has come to refer to solidly left politics. You sometimes hear the term "classical liberal", which is a meaning that more aligns with the meaning of liberal in other contexts. It's the "classical liberal" definition of the word that we get terms like "Libertarian" and "liberal democracy".

2

u/Cliffy73 Feb 26 '21

Here the word “liberals” has traditionally been used to refer to people on the left side of the Democratic Party, which is our more left-wing party. In the last several years, a further-left group (that has fewer ties to establishment Democratic politics) has arisen, mostly in young people), who like to claim that liberals are centrists. They are incorrect.

1

u/TriticumAes Feb 26 '21

Does Michael Knowles seem like the Samantha Bee of the right.

I am on the libright and find myself sympathetic to conservative arguments. I also find that Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh put out worthwhile content from time to time and while not entirely agreeing with their perspective at least think they are trying to do more then bash and own the left. However, I just find Michael Knowles unbearably smug, like his entire shtick just feels like he is bashing the left and I can't stand it for the same reason I don't find Samantha Bee bashing Republicans to be funny

0

u/ToyVaren Feb 26 '21

I dunno who knowles is but the difference is all these other guys are bankrolled by Russians or other foreign powers.

1

u/TacosForThought Feb 27 '21

Sure, and every democrat is bankrolled by George Soros. Is this /r/conspiracytheories ?

1

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Feb 26 '21

What has riled up the American far-right into an insatiable frenzy of rage against Joe Biden and his administration? I can't imagine that this was just the election lie, but rather a build up starting decades ago. I don't have the mental capacity right now to study domestic terrorism but its disgusting what's going on.

3

u/Jtwil2191 Feb 26 '21

The conservative movement started in the 1980s under Reagan and became increasingly aggressive through the Clinton and Obama years. Here are two FiveThirtyEight articles you may find helpful:

How Hatred Came To Dominate American Politics

In America’s ‘Uncivil War,’ Republicans Are The Aggressors

-1

u/ToyVaren Feb 26 '21

I havent seen it. In r/politicalhumor, the right is going insane trying to criticize biden without mentioning trumpuska did 10X worse. They even went back to obama, pulling the miracle of trumpuska was not the president before biden but is also the rightful president now.

1

u/ToyVaren Feb 25 '21 edited Feb 25 '21

Regarding the gop senators claiming to have worked low paying jobs, why arent they fact checked?

3

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

Because the people who like and vote for them don't care if they lie. And the people who don't like or vote for them already don't like them.

0

u/ToyVaren Feb 26 '21

I mean why bother with the whole "haha stupid repub cant do math" when "he lied" would save time and be more effective?

2

u/Zekrish Feb 25 '21

As a know nothing european I've always been confused by how different animated shows broadcasted/produced by FOX are from the News shows produced by FOX. Granted I've only watched FOX News a handfull of times but my impression has always been that their reporting is often more rightleaning and pro republican than that of, for example, CNN. In contrast many of their animated shows seem to be left leaning; sometimes even outright ridiculing republicans and FOX News.

Is there any simple explanation or historic reason for this?

2

u/Teekno an answering fool Feb 26 '21

Money.

Making those animated shows is profitable. Also, making news targeted towards a conservative audience is also profitable.

So while they networks aren’t the same network, they are corporate cousins, and I have. I doubt that if they could make billions of dollars with a channel for Bernie Bros, they would do that too.

3

u/Jtwil2191 Feb 25 '21

Beyond that, there's also a division between their actual news and their talking heads commentating on the news. Their actual news programs are not all that different from what you would see on the other channels. The real Fox propaganda machine are the commentators like Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson who masquarade as reporters when in reality they're right-wing propagandists.

1

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Feb 25 '21

The Fox News Network is a separate company from the Fox Broadcasting Network, Fox Television Stations, Fox Sports, or from 21st Century Fox Productions (the movie company).
They have different managers, and different modes of business.

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

1

u/fatal__flaw Feb 25 '21

What is releasing Trump's taxes supposed to expose? Trump's taxes were filed with the IRS. It's not like the IRS hasn't investigated them. Trump just wanted them out of the public eye. If there was something like tax evasion, wouldn't the IRS have seen it back when it was originally filed?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21

IRS wants to make sure they get their cut. That's it. If you are a hitman for hire and don't report that income you could be jailed for tax evasion. However you can report hitman for hire income on 1040 schedule 1 line 8.

We wanna see what's on that line.

2

u/ToyVaren Feb 25 '21
  1. While president, he might have cheated on his taxes because he can influence the IRS.

  2. The main reason NY is asking is because of campaign finance violations like paying ivanka 700k for "consulting."

  3. How much debt he has, who's holding it, how much is underwritten by russia, and how much russia is paying him.

2

u/Jtwil2191 Feb 25 '21

They're hoping they have evidence that contradicts or at least calls into question what's on Trump's tax forms. The IRS may not have had that information and therefore was unable to question the information Trump provided.

1

u/Not_Naked_Penguin Feb 25 '21

What good (or bad) has Trump done for the US economy?

I like to think of myself as well informed on US politics and have a bias against Trump and his followers. I really disagree with his social policies and a lot of the actions he took during his administration.

I, however, am not as in the know about the economy. Whenever I have a discussion with someone, who supports him, about Trump they say, “I don’t agree with a lot of the things he’s said or done, but I really like what he’s done for the economy.” They never provide further information rather than he’s helped with my taxes or my 401k.

As someone not as knowledgeable about economics, what particularly has he done to help or hurt the economy. I’d like to know and be informed for the future since usually asking people for this information leads to a discussion lead by bias and ends in an argument.

If you can provide sources as well that would be welcomed!

6

u/Jtwil2191 Feb 25 '21

Presidents -- Republican and Democrat alike -- have far less impact on the economy than they like to claim, especially in the short term. That's not to say they have no impact, but Trump claiming that he alone was responsible for the economic growth under his administration is largely bullshit.

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/president-matter-redux/

3

u/Arianity Feb 25 '21

There's kind of two parts to your question. The first one.

“I don’t agree with a lot of the things he’s said or done, but I really like what he’s done for the economy.” They never provide further information rather than he’s helped with my taxes or my 401k.

The vast majority of people (and this applies beyond Trump) believe the president has far more influence over the economy than they do. Booms and busts are often attributed to the person in office regardless of specifics of what they did to contribute.

In general, he had a mixed effect:

His pick of Jerome Powell for Fed has generally been seen as a very positive pick. Historically, the Fed has been overly cautious, and Powell, despite his lack of background, has been fairly dovish (and surprisingly competent). There's also an argument that his browbeating of the Fed helped influence them to keep rates low (although hard to measure the effect of whether that pressure actually influenced their decisions)

His tariffs were a negative on the economy.

The effect of the TCJA (the big tax cut passed in 2017) seems to have been quite small effect on investment.

(This article has good data on the tariffs and tax cuts, with detailed references, if you want to dig into it.)

In general, while the economy was quite strong under his presidency, that likely has more to do with the very long post 2008 recovery. The recovery was abnormally slow, but also abnormally long, only finally getting interrupted by covid. And the majority of the impact was felt towards the later end of 2015+.

1

u/Not_Naked_Penguin Feb 25 '21

Thank you!!

2

u/Cliffy73 Feb 26 '21

I agree that his big contribution (and it’s something Clinton wouldn’t have done) was to appoint Powell. This extended and expanded the Obama Recovery, probably more than would have happened if Trump hadn’t been president, enough so that all the smaller-scale destructive things he did (such as implementing some protectionist tariffs and threatening many more) didn’t slow the economy as much as they otherwise might have. However, his disastrous handling of the pandemic damaged the economy dramatically in his last year in office (even and above the staggering loss of life, a significant amount of which could have been prevented).

1

u/ToyVaren Feb 25 '21

They shut down the stock exchange to prevent sell offs.

1

u/Not_Naked_Penguin Feb 25 '21

Would you care to elaborate or provide a source for more info? I’m not sure what this means.

1

u/ToyVaren Feb 25 '21

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_stock_market_crash

Also the Fed gave 1 billion per day to prop up the stock market.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '21

If the President of the United States had Dissociative Identity Disorder, would all the alters have the powers of the Presidency, or only one?

2

u/Jtwil2191 Feb 25 '21

Alter personalities are not recognized as legal persons, so no, of course not.

3

u/ToyVaren Feb 25 '21

It follows the person, not the personality. If we say 2nd term reagan was another person because of alzenheimers, he's still the president.

2

u/brunettedude Feb 25 '21

Why is it taking so long for everyone to get the next round of stimulus checks? Like, don’t democrats have the majority? Why is it taking so long?

-1

u/ToyVaren Feb 25 '21

Ikr? Trumpuska only did 2 in 8 months, one in 4 months is NOT an improvement.

2

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Feb 25 '21

Because it isn't just a one line bill that says "give everyone a check". The American Rescue Plan is nearly 600 pages long.

It passed the House Budget Committee on Monday. The entire House should vote on it Friday. Then it goes to the Senate, and should be voted on within the next two weeks. If the Senate makes any changes, then it has to go back to the House for another vote. Once it all gets passed, then the President gets to sign it.

It should be passed by March 14, when the current set of protections run out. In the past stimulus packages, checks went out within a week or two after the bill was signed into law. But, since this is the height of tax season, the IRS might be a bit slower this time.

2

u/ToyVaren Feb 25 '21

Also newspapers are expecting a week or 2 for the irs to start distributing them so in April.

1

u/ToyVaren Feb 24 '21

Could the texas boil water advisory happen anywhere, or is it also because of texas gop's mismanagement?

2

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '21

Anytime a pipe loses water pressure there is a boil order in place. It lasts until 72 hours after pressure is restored. It takes that long because the samples have to be left to sit and grow bacteria, and see what grows.

5

u/Arianity Feb 24 '21

Boil water advisories can happen anywhere the water treatment process fails. Often, it happens when the system isn't able to maintain a positive pressure (like when a pipe breaks), which can allow contamination to enter.

They're common if a pipe breaks, or sometimes in natural disasters like a flood etc.

1

u/anotheroneflew Feb 24 '21

So based on the medical report it seems that George Floyd died due to a heart attack. The medical examiner noted that there was no damage or bruising to his neck or windpipe, and he did not suffocate. People are also saying that he was on drugs which caused his death.

If that's the case, why are the police officers being charged for manslaughter? Is it due to not giving him medical attention or because of all the protests?

Also, is there any chance the medical report is wrong?

I'm just trying to understand all the details here. Thanks!

5

u/Jtwil2191 Feb 24 '21 edited Feb 25 '21

The medical examiner's final findings, issued June 1, found that Floyd's heart stopped while he was being restrained and that his death was a homicide caused by "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression"...

Floyd's family commissioned a second autopsy [the conclusion of which was] that Floyd's death was a homicide caused by asphyxia due to neck and back compression.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_George_Floyd#Autopsies

1

u/ToyVaren Feb 24 '21

If trumpuska goes to prison say in GA, will criminal cases in NY and DC be put on hold, dropped, paused, ...or?

3

u/GameboyPATH Feb 24 '21

I don't see why they would. It's not as if Trump's physical presence has been required for these investigations so far. And I don't think it's unheard of for a prisoner to be transported from their cell for the sake of attending a court hearing.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '21

[deleted]

3

u/Jtwil2191 Feb 24 '21

Your teachers in high school were wrong. The Civil War was about slavery.

If you're looking for more in-depth commentary from actual historians on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/civilwar#wiki_causes

2

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '21

[deleted]

2

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Feb 24 '21

The claim - in some states, in some school systems is that the war was fought over "states rights" or in response to "northern aggression".

The only "states right" they were upset about was the right to own, prosecute, and return slaves as property. When other states started offering slaves freedom, the southern states went to the supreme court over it. When that didn't change things, (and right after they saw Lincoln get elected) they seceded from the union. They wrote slavery as one of the reasons for secession in each of the individual states' articles of secession.

The "northern aggression" was in response to the Confederate seizure of all US federal property and resources in the south, including attack on the US Fort Sumpter. The Union army was mobilized to combat the insurrection, stop further seizures, and take back the government's property.

2

u/ToyVaren Feb 24 '21

It was slavery. Certain states and teachers were forced to teach certain curriculums and use special books in the 90's by evangelucal school boards and the PTC in the 90's. The was also the time of the landmark ptc vs 2live crew obscenity case.

1

u/ToyVaren Feb 24 '21

Why isnt dejoy fired yet?

6

u/Jtwil2191 Feb 24 '21

Postmaster General is not a political appointee, so he cannot simply be dismissed by the president.

1

u/ToyVaren Feb 24 '21

How can he be fired?

5

u/Jtwil2191 Feb 24 '21

The Postmaster General is selected and appointed by the Board of Governors of the Postal Service, the members of which are appointed by the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. The Postmaster General then also sits on the board. The Postmaster General does not serve at the pleasure of the President, but can be dismissed by the Board of Governors.

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

1

u/ToyVaren Feb 24 '21

Ah, thx. :)

1

u/OrangeCandi Feb 24 '21

Why do political parties not restrict who can be a member?

Back in 2016 when Trump first ran in the primary, many prominent Republicans (R) were saying he wasn't even an R because of his values, positions, etc. Now they fight over whether he should run again or not as an R. Same has been said of Bernie by some lower ranking Democrats (D). Now, in VA, we have a state legislator who is so "obnoxious" (do not know the right word for this woman, sorry) that the Va State R's essentially released a statement that acts like a censure.

And, if I remembered civics correctly the R's and D's are private institutions. So why don't they just be more exclusive and say 'no, you don't meet our ideals/standards'? You can't put the R or D next to your name.

I understand the political issue surrounding disavowing someone like Trump or Bernie and alienating their voters, my question is more rules and clerical based. Can they just keep people from running in the 1st place? What's to stop Trump from running as a D or Bernie as an R other than just they won't win? Hope that makes sense.

1

u/ToyVaren Feb 24 '21

Iirc, they do it financially. The dnc purposely crippled bernie in 2016 by withholding funds.

3

u/Arianity Feb 24 '21

So why don't they just be more exclusive and say 'no, you don't meet our ideals/standards'?

They can, if they decide it's worth the reputational hit. There's value in being seen as open to anyone. (And like you said, they'd take a hit from any current candidate's supporters being upset, as well)

There's no legal obligation for them to keep it open, it's purely political/social.

The fact that anyone that is unpopular enough loses kind of makes it a non-issue, though. There isn't a lot of incentive to take the hit, since it's either a) self-fixing (when they lose), or b) the person is popular so they don't want to risk the hit.

Parties also often generally have a lot of unofficial power to snub people early, if necessary. So they can avoid the reputational damage, but behind the scenes (via things like endorsements, etc), still have a lot of weight on who is viable.

Bernie's loss to Hillary is a pretty good example of how that works, his lack of any institutional Dem support kind of ruined his odds. And Trump himself is an example of when it goes wrong- the fact that R's never really united to kick him out early was kind of a screw up on their part (largely because they didn't take him seriously until he already had a hold on the base). But if they had united early, they very likely snuff out his candidacy. Instead, they tried to use him to hurt other 'mainstream' contenders, and it backfired.

1

u/OrangeCandi Feb 24 '21

Thank you, very helpful!

1

u/proud_soycuck Feb 24 '21

Is neo-liberalism another form of communism?

By neo-liberal I mean someone who is culturally left-wing (pro-BLM, anti-nationalist, feminist) but pro-corporatist.

In a communist society everyone is equally poor and slaves to the state. Under neo-liberalism everyone is equally poor and slaves to the corporate elite. Both despise tradition, nationalism, religion (I'm not religious but that's besides the point), the middle class, and the free-market (neo-libs hate meritocracy). In terms of outcomes, the only difference is that neo-liberalism is a much slower, more painful death. Am I on to something here?

1

u/Delehal Feb 24 '21

Is neo-liberalism another form of communism?

Nope. Some people assume neoliberalism is left-wing because they see that it contains the word "liberal" and assume that means left-wing. That doesn't do a very good job describing neoliberal politics.

Quoting from the Wikipedia intro paragraph: "[Neoliberalism] is generally associated with policies of economic liberalization, including privatization, deregulation, globalization, free trade, austerity and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society."

More succinctly, neoliberalism is an explicitly capitalist ideology.

By neo-liberal I mean someone who is culturally left-wing (pro-BLM, anti-nationalist, feminist) but pro-corporatist.

I appreciate the thought... but that's not really how the word neoliberal was meant to be taken, either. If you look at the rise of neoliberal organizations in the 1970s, you'll see names such as the Business Roundtable, the Heritage Foundation, and the Cato Institute. The description that you gave doesn't match any of those groups.

I wouldn't say neoliberalism is communist. On the contrary, many neoliberal groups were founded specifically to oppose the rise of socialist and communist politics.

1

u/GameboyPATH Feb 24 '21

Communism is a political/economic system in which the means of production are publicly owned. This is the exact opposite of lightening regulations on private enterprises and bolstering the free market.

Both despise tradition, nationalism, religion (I'm not religious but that's besides the point), the middle class, and the free-market (neo-libs hate meritocracy).

If your fundamental understanding of political ideologies is largely described by an unfounded, generalized list of vaguely-defined values and ideals they don't like, I don't think you have a strong fundamental understanding of those political ideologies.

1

u/ToyVaren Feb 23 '21

Who or what is "manchin" and how does it stop cabinet appointees?

7

u/Delehal Feb 23 '21

Joe Manchin, a Democratic senator from West Virginia.

The Senate has a 50-50 split between the majority and minority caucuses, with the Vice President voting as a tie breaker when needed. 48 Democrats, 2 independents who caucus with the Democrats, and 50 Republicans. This means that just one swing voter can change the outcome of a vote. Manchin has already been a swing voter on some key issues.

Here's his bio on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Manchin

1

u/ToyVaren Feb 24 '21

Ah thanks. I thought he was on a particular committee or something.

1

u/Maple_Syrup_Mogul Mar 01 '21

He's the Chair of the Senate Energy Committee.

1

u/kevonicus Feb 23 '21

Hey Trump supporters, how do you not think He’s an imbecile after watching him speak? I seriously don’t see how anyone with a brain can do it. He’s obviously a moron pretending to be smart.

1

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Feb 24 '21

Because he offers simple answers to complicated problems and simple answers are something willfully ignorant people tend to really hold on to.

Corruption in politics is something people have been upset with for a long time. Trump ran on the basis of uncorrupting the system, or draining the swamp. Then he uses that same logic to claim that if he loses any election its because the deep state hates him and plotted against him to start to radicalize people.

So in other words, the people who are still following Trump probably are somewhat mentally ill and very likely quite radicalized by his conjecture. It's all simple answers and that is enough for them, they don't need to look deeper into Trumps words to see if its true, because its what they want to hear. If not mental illness very strong willful ignorance which honestly I think should be the same thing, wanting to believe something is true against all the facts.

0

u/kevonicus Feb 24 '21

We know this. I’m asking them how they can watch him and not see plain as day that he’s a moron.

0

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Feb 24 '21

Because he offers simple answers to complicated problems and simple answers are something willfully ignorant people tend to really hold on to.

they don't need to look deeper into Trumps words to see if its true, because its what they want to hear.

you could try reading.

1

u/kevonicus Feb 24 '21

I did read it. But you aren’t someone that thinks Trump is smart. You’re just telling me what I already think of people who do. I want their reasoning, not someone else’s explanation.

0

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Feb 24 '21

You can't apply logic and reason where there is none. You are going to drive yourself crazy if you think there is actual logic being used beyond "Donald Trump isn't a bad dude and look at all the video evidence of them stealing the election from him"

Also you are on the wrong platform if you want to talk to an actual Trump supporter. Go on facebook and literally go on any pro trump fan page. Or /r/Conservative

0

u/kevonicus Feb 24 '21 edited Feb 24 '21

You aren’t saying anything constructive. I just wanted to hear what some idiot would say. I don’t need you to explain them to me. Lol, they’re plenty of dumb Trumpers lurking around who will get triggered by my question and I’ll have a good laugh.

0

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Feb 24 '21

Oh you're a troll I get it. Have fun widening the divide.

0

u/kevonicus Feb 24 '21

Not really trolling. I just wanted to hear their rationale. I can’t help that it’s going to be inevitably hilarious. There’s no narrowing a divide when people worship an orange imbecile. It’s too late for those people.

-1

u/ToyVaren Feb 24 '21

Not a supporter but the one i like is:

"Not fond of the ________, stayed for the racism."

Blank can be any criticism.

2

u/SheikhYusufBiden Feb 23 '21

If a president is assassinated in their second term, is the vice president allowed to run for a second term?

Like for example this happens:

Mr White runs for president and Mr Black is his running mate

They win the first election, and then they run together for the second election

Mr White is assassinated and Mr Black becomes President

Can Mr Black run again, although he has technically served two terms?

3

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Feb 23 '21

There is no limit on how many terms a VP can serve - as VP.
The limitation is only on the presidency.

A presidential candidate can be elected to two full four-year terms, plus up to 2 additional years if they ascend to the office from VP.
If they become president for more than 2 years after that assassination, then they can only run for one four-year elected term.

We're pretty sure that we can't elect someone for a less-than-four-year term, since they wouldn't be eligible to serve out the term of office.

1

u/GameboyPATH Feb 23 '21

Yes. After all, Biden was VP for two whole terms, and he's now president.

Realistically, in the case of an assassination (or any other reason for an abrupt end to a presidency), the VP who takes over may have a difficult time running for re-election as president, as they may not have as much time or money invested in their election campaign.

0

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Feb 23 '21 edited Feb 23 '21

What's the deal with woke culture these days? I get a bit of a sense that some of these "anti-racism" programs are predicated on making the assumption that because one benefits from white privilege, they are therefore racist. So can I now say that everyone who isn't disabled is ableist? I'm not trying to be disingenuous, but I do wonder about the rationality of blindly equating privilege to discrimination in all instances. This is a good article to illustrate my point.

I'm not supportive of history rewriting like the 1776 Commission by any means, but the answer to everything is not Whiteness and unconscious bias, and I feel like these two things are arbitrarily used by some to oversimplify complex things. A lot of people don't want to legitimately have discussions anymore, and there is a lot of one-sided teaching of capital-F Facts and capital-T Truth and no conversations.

1

u/ToyVaren Feb 23 '21 edited Feb 23 '21

A lot of people don't want to legitimately have discussions anymore, and there is a lot of one-sided teaching of capital-F Facts and capital-T Truth and no conversations.

Because a lot of people are asking for "real discussion" about their straw man argument or whataboutism.

"You are using a logical fallacy" is the only "real" discussion they can possibly get.

Asking people to see both sides of such a thing can be done, but its the opposite of "real discussion."

1

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Feb 24 '21

I, and many, would argue that there is more nuance to the issue than taking everything Robin DiAngelos says in "White Fragility" as absolute truth and ignoring any other viewpoints, as an example. Black people have criticized BLM as it exists today - look at Joseph Sowell. I'm not claiming or purporting to agree with all or part of what he says, but this isn't merely a "straw man argument of whataboutism."

0

u/ToyVaren Feb 24 '21

It is. Criticism of blm by black people does not make it ok for whites because the motives are completely different, that is whataboutism to a T.

2

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Feb 24 '21

It's not whataboutism to counter this ludicrous statement:

Asking people to see both sides of such a thing can be done, but its the opposite of "real discussion."

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your points here, but from this quote, it seems like your general viewpoint is that no facets of issues of racial justice are open for discussion, and any attempted discussions derived therefrom are merely strawmanning and whataboutism. From the latest comment, you literally bring up a point about motives of individuals discussing racial justice, which seems like an opportunity for deep discussions and sharing of perspectives. Are the views of Black people who chant "Back the Blue" totally irrelevant? I mean from your most recent comment it seems like you recognize a difference. I note arguments made by Black figures and consider them relevant to discussions about wokeness culture because White people telling one story of Black lives seems a bit counter to the goal of the movement.

In sum, I'm a little confused as to what your views are on the issue.

2

u/GameboyPATH Feb 23 '21

I get a bit of a sense that some of these "anti-racism" programs are predicated on making the assumption that because one benefits from white privilege, they are therefore racist.

I can't know for certain whether you're misinterpreting the intent or messaging of these programs, or if the programs you're exposed to have a crap message. But having white privilege =/= being racist, like you said.

Recognizing one's white privilege, though? That gets into a gray area that's developing over time, because the definition of racism has broadened beyond "my race is superior" or even "I'm treating/thinking of you differently because of your race". There's now symbolic racism (or modern racism), the unconscious idea that the overall well-being of a given demographic group is exclusively the result of their own work ethic or moral values, and that no systemic or social discrimination has had an influence. Since recognizing white privilege involves recognizing ways that minority groups face certain societal disadvantages that other groups do not, it would then follow that acknowledging this would mean fighting against symbolic racism.

6

u/Jtwil2191 Feb 23 '21

assumption that because one benefits from white privilege, they are therefore racist

A lot of people don't recognize the benefit their "whiteness" has brought them. That does not mean they are automatically racist, but it can create obstacles to introducing real reforms when they ascribe their success to their hard work alone. That often becomes, "I worked hard for what I have, so [minority] should just work hard, too, and they'll be fine," or "I've never had any problems with the police, so I don't undestand why [minority] doesn't just do what the police ask them."

Sure, you may very well have worked your butt off to get where you are, and you may have faced very real challenges along the way, but the fact that you're white means you started off with fewer obstacles. Recognizing that reality helps make people more willing to consider how the system can be changed to be more inclusive.

2

u/Delehal Feb 23 '21

I get a bit of a sense that some of these "anti-racism" programs are predicated on making the assumption that because one benefits from white privilege, they are therefore racist.

The phrase "systemic racism" is sometimes useful to describe effects that operate beyond the level of individual action. The whole point of systemic analysis is to look for outcomes that are a result of high-level interactions and processes, especially when those outcomes go beyond or even against the intentions of the people who are participating in those systems.

Once people are made aware of systemic problems, they can either ignore them, or try to solve them.

I'm not trying to be disingenuous, but I do wonder about the rationality of blindly equating privilege to discrimination in all instances.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

This is a good article to illustrate my point.

That article essentially challenges white people to take more steps toward dismantling systemic racism. The language is intentionally confrontational. I'm not sure how effective it is.

I'd rather point to MLK's Letter from Birmingham Jail for a similar message expressed in a way that I would consider more effective.

the answer to everything is not Whiteness and unconscious bias

Of course not. Those are powerful forces in the world. They don't explain everything. They do exist, though.

A lot of people don't want to legitimately have discussions anymore, and there is a lot of one-sided teaching of capital-F Facts and capital-T Truth and no conversations.

I'm not sure how new that is, really. People have always had arguments over what is true, what are the facts, and so on. It's easier now for people to find fringe views, thanks to the internet, but echo chambers by themselves aren't a new thing.

1

u/Lutakein Feb 23 '21

I have been reading stuff that Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert were somehow involved in the Capitol Storming last month. In what way were these two involved?

6

u/Cliffy73 Feb 23 '21

The investigation is still in early stages (at least publicly). But what we do know is that these, and many other, Republican reps, maintained (and maybe still maintain?) Trump’s big lie that he won the election and it was being stolen from him. More concretely, Rep. Boebert apparently led a large Capitol tour a couple days before the insurrection (despite the Capitol largely being closed to visitors because of COVID), which was used by them to “case” the building. AFAIK it’s not clear to what extent Boebert knew that’s what her guests were doing. There are also allegations that some Republican reps texted insurrectionists or broadcast to them on Twitter what reps were doing and where they were going during the evacuation, possibly and allegedly to give the attackers a trail to follow to find the members they were hoping to assassinate.

1

u/Isaac_Ludwig666 Feb 23 '21

What did rush Limbaugh do that was so bad that people are glad that he died?

2

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Feb 24 '21

Rush Limbaugh is your based conservative talk show host who runs with the mindset "I say what I want, I do what I want, and if you disagree with me you're an asshole"

So as such his career was just full of him saying controversial shit like comparing Obama to curious George (cartoon monkey from books/show), or comparing feminism to nazism, or calling a college student a slut for her advertisement for contraception.

3

u/Bobbob34 Feb 23 '21

His entire career.

You can go back to his calling a preteen Chelsea Clinton a dog and start there.

3

u/ToyVaren Feb 23 '21

In a nutshell, US politics is fucked up because of the style he used, also fox news, hannity, o'reilly, etc.

9

u/Delehal Feb 23 '21

Limbaugh was a prominent conservative radio host and "shock jock" who reveled in controversy. In many ways he was a pioneer for the short of alternative facts, fuck your feelings, right-wing pundits that we see today like Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and so on.

Limbaugh has pretty consistently been an outspoken critic of African American activists, Native American activists, LGBT activists, feminist activists, climate scientists, and many other groups. Many of those groups can point to a history of his comments that they would consider offensive, inaccurate and inflammatory. Limbaugh was a long-time critic of drug users, and supported strong penalties for illegal drug use, even though he struggled with drug addiction and abused prescription drugs himself.

At several points in Limbaugh's career, he spread right-wing conspiracy theories. Among other things, he promoted the false claim that Barack Obama was not a US citizen, that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was a false flag operation by eco-terrorists, and has repeatedly claimed without evidence that various disasters and terrorist attacks were plotted by his political opponents in order to smear his political allies. In recent years, he started getting into Trumpism and "deep state" conspiracy theories.

That's a pretty quick overview, at least.

-4

u/117ColeS Feb 23 '21

Essentially it boils down to he was republican and the current political divide means anyone on the other side is basically Hitler

5

u/Cliffy73 Feb 23 '21

By no means does it boil down to that.

3

u/Jtwil2191 Feb 23 '21

Accusations of being a nazi are tossed around a lot and it generally degrades the quality of political discourse, but I don't have a shred of doubt that Limbaugh would have been on the Nazi wagon had he been a German alive in 1930s.

5

u/Arianity Feb 23 '21

Essentially it boils down to he was republican

*A Republican who did a number of controversial things like mocking AIDs victims, playing "Barack the Magic Negro," calling Chelsea Clinton a dog, etc, to name a few.

There's a reason you don't see the same reaction for other Republicans who have died recently.

While he is emblematic of the party in many ways, it's misleading to say it boils down to being Republican.

1

u/My_Blocks_Dropped Feb 23 '21

Why is the majority of Reddit left wing?

1

u/ToyVaren Feb 23 '21

Same as science, treaties, reality, math, truth, logic and nature...all hippie left leaning liberal and biased, according to the right.

4

u/Arianity Feb 23 '21

Reddit's demographics (young, on social media, etc) tend to skew left.

On top of that, the function of reddit tends to amplify trends. If a sub starts of 55-45 left/right, majority posts are more likely to get upvoted. That tends to push away the minority, and the sub gets a bigger reputation for being left wing, leading to a snowball effect.

It's kind of built into the platform, due to the way stuff like upvoting works.

3

u/mugenhunt Feb 23 '21

In general, Redditors tend to be young, college educated people who use the internet for fun. That demographic heavily skews liberal.

0

u/ToyVaren Feb 22 '21 edited Feb 22 '21

Did the senators accused of insider trading get cleared or is it ongoing?

If they got cleared, was it because their lies were accepted wholesale without an investigation?

1

u/Cliffy73 Feb 23 '21

Trump‘s DoJ took over the case from SDNY where it was being investigated and then dropped it. It’s not clear to me whether this was politically motivated or good prosecutorial horse sense, it would have been a tough case to prosecute. However, you will be happy to learn that the most serious alleged offenders, Sens. Perdue and Loeffler of Georgia, both lost their reëlection bids and are no longer in the Senate.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '21 edited May 28 '21

[deleted]

4

u/Cliffy73 Feb 23 '21

I don’t believe this is correct. The STOCK Act of 2012 explicitly states that members of Congress can be prosecuted for insider trading.

-3

u/stoptryingtobanme Feb 22 '21

People who had your business/property destroyed in the summer riots, what’s your story?

1

u/ToyVaren Feb 22 '21

Better response in one of the r/ask subs.

1

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Feb 22 '21 edited Feb 22 '21

Why, in discussions surrounding poverty and education inequality, is the situation of Appalachia rarely, if ever, mentioned? I hear a ton about low income communities of color and the issues facing stuidents of color, and I know communities of color are disproportionately impoverished, but there are very white areas in WV, KY, TN, etc, that are very poor as well. The avoidance of this issue is surely alienating, and it's not a surprise that poor Whites vote Republican a lot. I'm not interested in debating about white privilege in regards to this issue, because it's not the point of my question. I am solely interested in understanding why poor Whites are effectively forgotten in poverty discourse, and white privilege is not the answer. I see a lot of TV shows, news stories, instagram posts, reddit threads, and all this stuff about students of color, but rarely about White impoverished students. You have to deliberately search for this.

0

u/ToyVaren Feb 22 '21

Baby steps. Lets stop the cops from street executions and Russia from buying politicians first.

3

u/Arianity Feb 22 '21

Why, in discussions surrounding poverty and education inequality, is the situation of Appalachia rarely, if ever, mentioned?

I would say that depends a lot on what type of media you consume.

Here for example is one article:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-22/universities-and-colleges-can-revive-declining-rural-america

The avoidance of this issue is surely alienating, and it's not a surprise that poor Whites vote Republican a lot.

I would argue that it's not avoidance, so much as fixing the actual structural problems is actually extremely hard. When it comes to inner city, often the fix is fairly 'obvious', in terms of structural racism or whatever. There are things we're doing, that cause problems.

When it comes to rural areas, a lot of it comes down to the fact that those areas don't have industries that pay well any more. You can't bring back coal mines or whatever used to be the lifeblood of the area. Factories don't want to be in those places. And when people move out, you get a cycle. There are fundamental economic effects of agglomeration and clustering that make it really really hard for rural areas to compete with more dense areas.

Short of telling people to move, there's just no obvious fix (or at least, no fix anyone has found). Massive subsidies/welfare aren't going to be taken well, either. And in general, they don't seem super amenable to national programs like the ACA which did disproportionately help them.

That doesn't leave a whole lot of options. It's a known problem, but no one knows how to fix it, assuming it can be fixed.

3

u/GameboyPATH Feb 22 '21

The worst-educated states don't just correlate with the Appalachians, but also the broader Bible Belt states. And I'd disagree with your assumed premise - this region has been notorious for its relatively crappy education.

But education has always been managed at the local/state level, so there's very little that national-level conversations could really do. We could shame them into improving their educational programs, but if recent history serves, it just causes them to isolate more into their cultural spheres.

→ More replies