3 ms·

I don’t know what “nonpartisan” means under a government that has no tolerance for anything but the party line … To make matters more complicated, it’s a party

by duxup 2y ago

I don’t know what “nonpartisan” means under a government that has no tolerance for anything but the party line … To make matters more complicated, it’s a party line driven by just the executive branch that decrys big tech and then empowers them to run the state / threaten judges, a party that talks about free markets and then does car commercials / shills for stock / scams for cronies…. Can’t even keep straight who started a war. You could just be a woman and/or minority in the armed forces and you’re subject to their version of being cancelled. It’s a party line that at times changes it’s mind on a whim / seems senile. You could be the biggest sycophant and find yourself not toting the right line. Nothing is “nonpartisan” under such a system.

belter 2y ago
The nominations for Golden Groveler: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVJMqmKNfC4&t=641s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVJMqmKNfC4&t=641s
- netsharc 2y ago
  Holy hell, a whole administration of Baghdad Bobs(1), with TV channels and news media cooperating, or just duly quoting them. I wonder if the fascists even care that the Kimmel audience laugh at their ridiculous statements. Although we do know Trump does care, when the UN laughed at his face he later said they were laughing because he made a joke, I wonder how much of the bullshit he creates he enjoys eating... (1) For the kids: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC5UTUAxgpE&t=3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC5UTUAxgpE&t=3s
  - belter 2y ago
    You see the downvotes? Also for anything DOGE or Tesla? MAGA is all over HN now....
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
roenxi 2y ago
> a party that talks about free markets and then does car commercials / shills for stock / scams for cronies It isn't a good idea to do from high office, but all those activities are characteristic of a free market. Sellers in a free market need to convince people to buy their stuff in particular and that involves commercials and shilling. Plus, obviously occasionally frauds happen in a free market. A non-free market would be, eg, if Trump banned combustion engines by executive order. EDIT Or a non-free-market action he has taken would be the imposition of tariffs and sanctions; after a few moments of thought to find a clear example.
- duxup 2y ago
  I don’t consider the state trying to pick winners based on their cronies wishes a “free market”.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    Well that might have happened, but if it did you should bring it up. You're listing 3 things where there is literally no coercive aspect - they're persuasion techniques of varying legality. If the substance of complaint about government interference in markets was that they ran advertising campaigns that'd be so close to a free market utopia there'd be no point complaining.
    - duxup 2y ago
      I don’t understand your approach here. If it isn’t a “free market utopia” we what? Shouldn’t talk about it or something? This seems like an argument about being unable to reach perfection in the face of a far worse situation?
      - roenxi 2y ago
        > If it isn’t a “free market utopia” we [want]? Shouldn’t talk about it or something? The US is a long way from a free market. 40% of the GDP is directly controlled by government spending (probably over half the economy is controlled by the government if we count distortions caused by private sector spending in support public spending) and there are substantial limitations placed on what is left by a complex web of legislation. And of the parts of the economy that isn't officially government-controlled, the US healthcare system is some sort of bizarre Frankenstein's monster of a planned economic system where nobody knows who the planners are, the financial markets are partially centrally controlled too where the Fed keeps putting their finger on the scale of how investment flows move. Housing isn't too terrible but the details are a mess of non-free markets. Those are the issues that are important. Whether the Federal government runs some advertising on a political basis doesn't rate on the hypocrisy scale, it is far too minor. And advertising is already a pro-free-market approach. There isn't a discrepancy between their words and actions on the topics you bought up. That isn't to say it is good behaviour, because it isn't. But it is free-market behaviour.
_heimdall 2y ago
This exact argument can be made in the context of the Biden administration handling Covid. They demanded the party line be followed with regards to "the science" and vaccines, while ignoring what science actually is and attempting to silence anyone who tried to debate or question what was being purported as scientific fact or properly run scientific studies. Politics will always be partisan, its been escalating in the US for a while now. As long as the trend continues it will always seem like the current administration is the worst, by trend they are. That ignores how we got here though, and what comes next if nothing changes.
- duxup 2y ago
  What was the actual science? I also think Covid is nothing compared to the scale of my incompetence list. What I don’t understand is the nature of these types of comparisons, if someone feels the Covid restrictions were bad, they ok with this? Is that an argument even?
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    I'll use the vaccine tests as a good example, but there are plenty. The studies were of large cohorts, around 30k in each group if I remember correctly. They were only followed for roughly 1 month, as soon as enough subjects were symptomatic they lifted the veil and exposed which was the placebo group. Individuals weren't tested for a Covid infection unless they self-reported symptoms during the study. That structure of a study is fine for helping find the risk of immediate adverse effects of the vaccine. It doesn't day anything of how well spread is contained, how long the protection lasts, or the risk of long term adverse impact. All that to say those risks simply weren't known. There wasn't any reason to say they risks existed at any meaningful level, only that the scientific studies done didn't prove the claims often made with regards to the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.
- ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
  > attempting to silence anyone who tried to debate or question what was being purported as scientific fact or properly run scientific studies Was this more than just trying to get non-knowledgeable people to stop spreading rumours and lies? It makes complete sense to not be sucked into debate with people who base their ideas on YouTube videos, but dismissing actual research out of hand is foolish (unless that research is deliberately trying to push a single narrative such as the tobacco companies funding and directing research into the health effects of cigarettes).
mc32 2y ago
I think the argument was the Biden admin wanted the Boeing vessel to retrieve the astronauts even after the initial issue with their vessel and instead of having SpaceX get them they wanted Boeing to try again. It wasn’t till it was again confirmed the Boeing vessel wasn’t going to work that they decided to have SpaceX bring them back. So on the surface it looks like Biden didn’t want his preferred vendor to look bad gave them a second chance before facing reality and getting the other vendor in to do the work.

by duxup 2y ago

belter 2y ago

The nominations for Golden Groveler: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVJMqmKNfC4&t=641s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVJMqmKNfC4&t=641s

netsharc 2y ago
Holy hell, a whole administration of Baghdad Bobs(1), with TV channels and news media cooperating, or just duly quoting them. I wonder if the fascists even care that the Kimmel audience laugh at their ridiculous statements. Although we do know Trump does care, when the UN laughed at his face he later said they were laughing because he made a joke, I wonder how much of the bullshit he creates he enjoys eating... (1) For the kids: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC5UTUAxgpE&t=3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC5UTUAxgpE&t=3s
- belter 2y ago
  You see the downvotes? Also for anything DOGE or Tesla? MAGA is all over HN now....

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

roenxi 2y ago

> a party that talks about free markets and then does car commercials / shills for stock / scams for cronies It isn't a good idea to do from high office, but all those activities are characteristic of a free market. Sellers in a free market need to convince people to buy their stuff in particular and that involves commercials and shilling. Plus, obviously occasionally frauds happen in a free market. A non-free market would be, eg, if Trump banned combustion engines by executive order. EDIT Or a non-free-market action he has taken would be the imposition of tariffs and sanctions; after a few moments of thought to find a clear example.

duxup 2y ago
I don’t consider the state trying to pick winners based on their cronies wishes a “free market”.
- roenxi 2y ago
  Well that might have happened, but if it did you should bring it up. You're listing 3 things where there is literally no coercive aspect - they're persuasion techniques of varying legality. If the substance of complaint about government interference in markets was that they ran advertising campaigns that'd be so close to a free market utopia there'd be no point complaining.
  - duxup 2y ago
    I don’t understand your approach here. If it isn’t a “free market utopia” we what? Shouldn’t talk about it or something? This seems like an argument about being unable to reach perfection in the face of a far worse situation?
    - roenxi 2y ago
      > If it isn’t a “free market utopia” we [want]? Shouldn’t talk about it or something? The US is a long way from a free market. 40% of the GDP is directly controlled by government spending (probably over half the economy is controlled by the government if we count distortions caused by private sector spending in support public spending) and there are substantial limitations placed on what is left by a complex web of legislation. And of the parts of the economy that isn't officially government-controlled, the US healthcare system is some sort of bizarre Frankenstein's monster of a planned economic system where nobody knows who the planners are, the financial markets are partially centrally controlled too where the Fed keeps putting their finger on the scale of how investment flows move. Housing isn't too terrible but the details are a mess of non-free markets. Those are the issues that are important. Whether the Federal government runs some advertising on a political basis doesn't rate on the hypocrisy scale, it is far too minor. And advertising is already a pro-free-market approach. There isn't a discrepancy between their words and actions on the topics you bought up. That isn't to say it is good behaviour, because it isn't. But it is free-market behaviour.

_heimdall 2y ago

This exact argument can be made in the context of the Biden administration handling Covid. They demanded the party line be followed with regards to "the science" and vaccines, while ignoring what science actually is and attempting to silence anyone who tried to debate or question what was being purported as scientific fact or properly run scientific studies. Politics will always be partisan, its been escalating in the US for a while now. As long as the trend continues it will always seem like the current administration is the worst, by trend they are. That ignores how we got here though, and what comes next if nothing changes.

duxup 2y ago
What was the actual science? I also think Covid is nothing compared to the scale of my incompetence list. What I don’t understand is the nature of these types of comparisons, if someone feels the Covid restrictions were bad, they ok with this? Is that an argument even?
- _heimdall 2y ago
  I'll use the vaccine tests as a good example, but there are plenty. The studies were of large cohorts, around 30k in each group if I remember correctly. They were only followed for roughly 1 month, as soon as enough subjects were symptomatic they lifted the veil and exposed which was the placebo group. Individuals weren't tested for a Covid infection unless they self-reported symptoms during the study. That structure of a study is fine for helping find the risk of immediate adverse effects of the vaccine. It doesn't day anything of how well spread is contained, how long the protection lasts, or the risk of long term adverse impact. All that to say those risks simply weren't known. There wasn't any reason to say they risks existed at any meaningful level, only that the scientific studies done didn't prove the claims often made with regards to the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.
ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
> attempting to silence anyone who tried to debate or question what was being purported as scientific fact or properly run scientific studies Was this more than just trying to get non-knowledgeable people to stop spreading rumours and lies? It makes complete sense to not be sucked into debate with people who base their ideas on YouTube videos, but dismissing actual research out of hand is foolish (unless that research is deliberately trying to push a single narrative such as the tobacco companies funding and directing research into the health effects of cigarettes).

mc32 2y ago

I think the argument was the Biden admin wanted the Boeing vessel to retrieve the astronauts even after the initial issue with their vessel and instead of having SpaceX get them they wanted Boeing to try again. It wasn’t till it was again confirmed the Boeing vessel wasn’t going to work that they decided to have SpaceX bring them back. So on the surface it looks like Biden didn’t want his preferred vendor to look bad gave them a second chance before facing reality and getting the other vendor in to do the work.