Biden Out of Race

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
They should add it to high school. Get kids exposed to these fields and maybe build some interest.
Absolutely agree. Back in the day, mostly analog / mechanical, I did the printing vocational education program at my high school as a backup to the academic thing. Was great experience because it was a way better use of my time that filling my schedule with choir or “marketing”.

Came away from it with a certification for being a printing press operator. But it also involved photography, book binding, drafting & graphic arts, screen printing, materials (ink chemistries, paper properties, developers).

I personally think everyone high school education should involve mandatory voc-ed. And the voc-ed training should enable people to immediately join a trade following graduation.
 
They should add it to high school. Get kids exposed to these fields and maybe build some interest.
High schools used to have pretty extensive wood shop, metal shop, auto shop kind of classes. My older brother did a lot of that ... in the 80s. His first car was a VW bug he rebuilt as a 16 year old.

By the time I started high school all that stuff was gone. Really unfortunate. I had other ambitions but would've enjoyed being more well rounded. I think it was a great way to get people started in the trades. Or even get them aware that some of those career paths even exist.

In theory guidance counselors should be able to help with that. But they really pushed college hard, especially for kids with good grades.

My own son never had the chance to do any vocational things like that through his high school years. Top academic achiever. Went to college for a few years, tried a couple different majors. He left without a degree, and became a mechanic. Loves it. I wish he'd found that calling earlier. Wish we'd exposed him to something like that sooner too, but we didn't know what he wanted any more than he did.

Part of me thinks that both the public and private school systems failed him, and that I did too, despite him graduating with all As plus AP credits and an acceptance to a good university.
 
High schools used to have pretty extensive wood shop, metal shop, auto shop kind of classes. My older brother did a lot of that ... in the 80s. His first car was a VW bug he rebuilt as a 16 year old.

By the time I started high school all that stuff was gone. Really unfortunate. I had other ambitions but would've enjoyed being more well rounded. I think it was a great way to get people started in the trades. Or even get them aware that some of those career paths even exist.

In theory guidance counselors should be able to help with that. But they really pushed college hard, especially for kids with good grades.

My own son never had the chance to do any vocational things like that through his high school years. Top academic achiever. Went to college for a few years, tried a couple different majors. He left without a degree, and became a mechanic. Loves it. I wish he'd found that calling earlier. Wish we'd exposed him to something like that sooner too, but we didn't know what he wanted any more than he did.

Part of me thinks that both the public and private school systems failed him, and that I did too, despite him graduating with all As plus AP credits and an acceptance to a good university.
High school vocational programs that should come back, if for no other reason than to ensure people can have a true skill to keep a roof over their head:

1) construction - carpentry, electrical, plumbing, masonry
2) mechanics - engines, tooling, welding, etc
3) culinary - cooking, baking, food preservation, nutrition, sourcing, kitchen staffing, etc.
4) medical assistance - pretty sure we all know this
5) agriculture - crops, hydro-/aquaponics, food supply chain, land management, pest & nutrient management

Too bad everyone drank the Kool-Aid about 4yr college and eliminated these sorts of programs to enable offering yet another AP class that will be meaningless after freshman year of college.
 
I don’t know how popular they are, but my high school had a joint vocational program. This was 25-30 years ago, it was intended for lower academic performing students. They pushed us that way or had us sit down with a military recruiter. My brother chose JVS, he has a pretty good career in HVAC. I chose the military. If not for a streak of luck and a series of fortunate events, he’d probably be outperforming me now.

My sister wanted to be a teacher. Got a BA and a masters, she had more debt and gets less pay than both of us (leaves a whole lot to be said for how we value teachers, which is interestingly a major filled with predominantly US students).
Outperform you? He must be doing well then. The people I know in HVAC make 60-70k/yr, which is good IMO.
 
High school vocational programs that should come back, if for no other reason than to ensure people can have a true skill to keep a roof over their head:
1) construction - carpentry, electrical, plumbing, masonry
2) mechanics - engines, tooling, welding, etc
3) culinary - cooking, baking, food preservation, nutrition, sourcing, kitchen staffing, etc.
4) medical assistance - pretty sure we all know this
5) agriculture - crops, hydro-/aquaponics, food supply chain, land management, pest & nutrient management
Too bad everyone drank the Kool-Aid about 4yr college and eliminated these sorts of programs to enable offering yet another AP class that will be meaningless after freshman year of college.
So people can have a sticker in the back window of their car saying "My kid is an honor student at Christopher Columbus middle school."
 
High school vocational programs that should come back, if for no other reason than to ensure people can have a true skill to keep a roof over their head:

1) construction - carpentry, electrical, plumbing, masonry
2) mechanics - engines, tooling, welding, etc
3) culinary - cooking, baking, food preservation, nutrition, sourcing, kitchen staffing, etc.
4) medical assistance - pretty sure we all know this
5) agriculture - crops, hydro-/aquaponics, food supply chain, land management, pest & nutrient management

Too bad everyone drank the Kool-Aid about 4yr college and eliminated these sorts of programs to enable offering yet another AP class that will be meaningless after freshman year of college.
Read about this supreme court decision and you'll understand why I rail so hard against higher education. You used to be able to take an IQ test to apply for a job without any sort of degree but the OGs of the DEI sphere decided that it's illegal to hire people based on intelligence alone.


"The facts of this case demonstrate the inadequacy of broad and general testing devices, as well as the infirmity of using diplomas or degrees as fixed measures of capability. History is filled with examples of men and women who rendered highly effective performance without the conventional badges of accomplishment in terms of certificates, diplomas, or degrees. Diplomas and tests are useful servants, but Congress has mandated the common sense proposition that they are not to become masters of reality."

Guess which sort of degree discrimination that is completely unrelated to success at most jobs is never made into a lawsuit?

 
Last edited:
The appeals court in New York just threw out trumps civil judgment 454 million dollar case for his over inflating his values of his business for better loan terms

All these charges and judgments against trump will he thrown out one by one. Just bs cases.
 
Read about this supreme court decision and you'll understand why I rail so hard against higher education. You used to be able to take an IQ test to apply for a job without any sort of degree but the OGs of the DEI sphere decided that it's illegal to hire people based on intelligence alone.


"In the 1950s, Duke Power's Dan River Steam Station in North Carolina had a policy restricting black employees to its "Labor" department, where the highest-paying position paid less than the lowest-paying position in the four other departments. In 1955, the company added the requirement of a high school diploma for employment in any department other than Labor, and offered to pay two-thirds of the high-school training tuition for employees without a diploma.

On July 2, 1965, the day the Civil Rights Act of 1964 took effect, Duke Power added two employment tests, which would allow employees without high-school diplomas to transfer to higher-paying departments. These two tests were the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test, a test of mechanical aptitude, and the Wonderlic Cognitive Ability Test, an IQ test created in 1939.

Whites were almost ten times more likely than blacks to meet these new employment and transfer requirements. According to the 1960 United States census, while 34% of white males in North Carolina had high-school diplomas, only 18% of blacks did. The disparities of aptitude tests were far greater; with the cutoffs set at the median for high-school graduates, 58% of whites passed, compared to 6% of blacks."

"The Supreme Court ruled that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, if such tests disparately impact ethnic minority groups, businesses must demonstrate that such tests are "reasonably related" to the job for which the test is required. Because Title VII was passed pursuant to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, the disparate impact test later articulated by the Supreme Court in Washington v. Davis, 426 US 229 (1976) is inapplicable. (The Washington v. Davis test for disparate impact is used in constitutional equal protection clause cases, while Title VII's prohibition on disparate impact is a statutory mandate.)

As such, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment tests (when used as a decisive factor in employment decisions) that are not a "reasonable measure of job performance," regardless of the absence of actual intent to discriminate. Since the aptitude tests involved, and the high school diploma requirement, were broad-based and not directly related to the jobs performed, Duke Power's employee transfer procedure was found by the Court to be in violation of the Act."

Ruling seems reasonable to me. The company issued this requirement the same day the Civil Rights Act was to begin enforcement, red flags should be going off that some discrimination is about to be occurring/continuing. Nothing in this ruling speaks to DEI to me. I don't even know if this ruling hasn't been overturned in the mean time.
 
"In the 1950s, Duke Power's Dan River Steam Station in North Carolina had a policy restricting black employees to its "Labor" department, where the highest-paying position paid less than the lowest-paying position in the four other departments. In 1955, the company added the requirement of a high school diploma for employment in any department other than Labor, and offered to pay two-thirds of the high-school training tuition for employees without a diploma.

On July 2, 1965, the day the Civil Rights Act of 1964 took effect, Duke Power added two employment tests, which would allow employees without high-school diplomas to transfer to higher-paying departments. These two tests were the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test, a test of mechanical aptitude, and the Wonderlic Cognitive Ability Test, an IQ test created in 1939.

Whites were almost ten times more likely than blacks to meet these new employment and transfer requirements. According to the 1960 United States census, while 34% of white males in North Carolina had high-school diplomas, only 18% of blacks did. The disparities of aptitude tests were far greater; with the cutoffs set at the median for high-school graduates, 58% of whites passed, compared to 6% of blacks."

"The Supreme Court ruled that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, if such tests disparately impact ethnic minority groups, businesses must demonstrate that such tests are "reasonably related" to the job for which the test is required. Because Title VII was passed pursuant to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, the disparate impact test later articulated by the Supreme Court in Washington v. Davis, 426 US 229 (1976) is inapplicable. (The Washington v. Davis test for disparate impact is used in constitutional equal protection clause cases, while Title VII's prohibition on disparate impact is a statutory mandate.)

As such, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment tests (when used as a decisive factor in employment decisions) that are not a "reasonable measure of job performance," regardless of the absence of actual intent to discriminate. Since the aptitude tests involved, and the high school diploma requirement, were broad-based and not directly related to the jobs performed, Duke Power's employee transfer procedure was found by the Court to be in violation of the Act."

Ruling seems reasonable to me. The company issued this requirement the same day the Civil Rights Act was to begin enforcement, red flags should be going off that some discrimination is about to be occurring/continuing. Nothing in this ruling speaks to DEI to me. I don't even know if this ruling hasn't been overturned in the mean time.
Oh the ruling is reasonable, but the enforcement of it creates all sorts of problems in the labor market, and actually hurts minorities in the end by discriminating on the basis of college degrees for employment.

Why would someone with a philosophy degree from Stanford be a better candidate for Goldman Sachs than someone who completed 90% of a philosophy degree from University of North Dakota? The de facto degree requirement is completely unrelated to working in finance at Goldman Sachs, and seems to me to violate this decision.

I don't think any company since this decision been sued for hiring based on college degrees completely unrelated to the job itself. Enforcement of the law is everything, but this one isn't enforced in the case of college degrees.
 
Oh the ruling is reasonable, but the enforcement of it creates all sorts of problems in the labor market, and actually hurts minorities in the end by discriminating on the basis of college degrees for employment.

Insofar as this case contributed to credential inflation, I think it was less of a factor than the companies themselves who wanted to pursue discriminatory practices (especially in the 1960s-1970s).

Why would someone with a philosophy degree from Stanford be a better candidate for Goldman Sachs than someone who completed 90% of a philosophy degree from University of North Dakota? The de facto degree requirement is completely unrelated to working in finance at Goldman Sachs, and seems to me to violate this decision.

I think there are too many factors to name for the degree requirement that matter more than this case. Credential inflation began before this case and continued after. Don't tech companies have individualized tests for applicants to take that don't run afoul of this ruling? Goldman Sachs, in theory, could do the same right?

I don't think any company since this decision been sued for hiring based on college degrees completely unrelated to the job itself. Enforcement of the law is everything, but this one isn't enforced in the case of college degrees.

I guess I think this case is mostly irrelevant today. From your article:

"Suppose that someone who’d been turned away from a sales job for lack of college degree took the company to court, claiming that its educational requirement had a disparate impact, screening out people who could succeed in the job. That would appear to be a strong case.

I have never heard of such a case, attacking an employer’s college degree requirement on disparate impact grounds. But nothing would more rapidly deflate the college bubble than if the Court were to hear such a case and rule consistently with Griggs."

There's got to be more reasons why someone hasn't thought of this argument and brought a case since 2014 when this was written. I don't think Griggs is enforced really.
 
There's got to be more reasons why someone hasn't thought of this argument and brought a case since 2014 when this was written. I don't think Griggs is enforced really.
Could it be that there isn’t a monetary gain for the plaintiffs (read lawyers) sufficient for the amount of hassle and potential money pit of a case?

This currently isn’t a virtue signal case where those affected know people with really deep pockets (or identifiable secondary gain).
 
Could it be that there isn’t a monetary gain for the plaintiffs (read lawyers) sufficient for the amount of hassle and potential money pit of a case?

This currently isn’t a virtue signal case where those affected know people with really deep pockets (or identifiable secondary gain).

Lol, it could even be a class action against big companies.

"Were you turned away from a menial job that said it required a college degree? CALL US NOW!"

Being the first mover on that case would be a big feather in a lawyer's cap too.

Naw man, there's definitely a financial incentive someone could find if it was legit. My guess is its just that Griggs is kind of dead law at this point and companies can kind of assume as such.
 
Lol, it could even be a class action against big companies.

"Were you turned away from a menial job that said it required a college degree? CALL US NOW!"

Being the first mover on that case would be a big feather in a lawyer's cap too.

Naw man, there's definitely a financial incentive someone could find if it was legit. My guess is its just that Griggs is kind of dead law at this point and companies can kind of assume as such.
Class action against who exactly? You’d have to go after each individual employer. Which means their collective $$$ war chests >>>>> any individual Law firms.
 
Class action against who exactly? You’d have to go after each individual employer. Which means their collective $$$ war chests >>>>> any individual Law firms.

Well in this hypothetical, there would be a test case first. The test case would demonstrate that someone could either recover damages or gainful employment for a worker with a specific employer. Subsequent cases or class actions could then be filed.
 
Well in this hypothetical, there would be a test case first. The test case would demonstrate that someone could either recover damages or gainful employment for a worker with a specific employer. Subsequent cases or class actions could then be filed.
And therein lies the rub… going back to my original posit:
Could it be that there isn’t a monetary gain for the plaintiffs (read lawyers) sufficient for the amount of hassle and potential money pit of a case?
 
And therein lies the rub… going back to my original posit:

Meh, I guess I'm skeptical that there hasn't been SOMEONE who wanted to try this since at least 2014 if there was actual merit there. Which makes me think there isn't really merit there.

Like the idea college growth and credentialing hinge on this SCOTUS precedent seems silly to me.
 
Insofar as this case contributed to credential inflation, I think it was less of a factor than the companies themselves who wanted to pursue discriminatory practices (especially in the 1960s-1970s).



I think there are too many factors to name for the degree requirement that matter more than this case. Credential inflation began before this case and continued after. Don't tech companies have individualized tests for applicants to take that don't run afoul of this ruling? Goldman Sachs, in theory, could do the same right?



I guess I think this case is mostly irrelevant today. From your article:

"Suppose that someone who’d been turned away from a sales job for lack of college degree took the company to court, claiming that its educational requirement had a disparate impact, screening out people who could succeed in the job. That would appear to be a strong case.

I have never heard of such a case, attacking an employer’s college degree requirement on disparate impact grounds. But nothing would more rapidly deflate the college bubble than if the Court were to hear such a case and rule consistently with Griggs."

There's got to be more reasons why someone hasn't thought of this argument and brought a case since 2014 when this was written. I don't think Griggs is enforced really.
Tech companies use their pre interview tests as aptitude tests, but they hide behind a figleaf of being generally related in some way to "coding" from what I understand. Probably a decent case to be made against those tests based on the law there. I'm surprised it hasn't happened except for the fact that any judge is likely technically illiterate and would just say "it's a computer test to work with a computer, right?"

It's harder to find specific tests for most jobs, because job requirements vary widely even at the same company.

This seems to me a case of unintended consequences. The same way people lose their minds over interpretations of "threat to the life of the mother" that completely flummox supposedly well trained physicians, people probably would lose their minds over ANY test that seemed discriminatory, even if it was substantially related to the job for which it was meant.
 
Meh, I guess I'm skeptical that there hasn't been SOMEONE who wanted to try this since at least 2014 if there was actual merit there. Which makes me think there isn't really merit there.

Like the idea college growth and credentialing hinge on this SCOTUS precedent seems silly to me.
The rise of private, "parochial" (essentially whites only) schools hinges on desegregation laws. I think it's pretty logical to see credentialism coming from a similarly lawsuit avoidance driven culture.
 
The rise of private, "parochial" (essentially whites only) schools hinges on desegregation laws. I think it's pretty logical to see credentialism coming from a similarly lawsuit avoidance driven culture.

Yeah. This is what I meant when I said:

Insofar as this case contributed to credential inflation, I think it was less of a factor than the companies themselves who wanted to pursue discriminatory practices (especially in the 1960s-1970s).

The legal rulings against racism/discrimination can only go so far when a country wants it. This ruling (and other desegregation laws) doesn't promote whites only schools, it tried to stop some racist s**t. The country will always try to find ways around it or ultimately ignore it as that seems to be the case now.
 
Trump currently demanding that one of his supporters who committed election fraud be released from prison or he will attack Colorado. Always funny how the "hard on crime" president never has a problem with criminals who support him.
 
So then, you’re familiar with the concept that a thing could occur that wasn’t the main intention of that thing. Got it.
I remain completely unconcerned that we will lose any appreciable, world-changing, company building talent to other countries like India and China.

Again, let me know when their GDP, high market cap corporations, advanced medical care, or general standard of living starts to get near ours and I'll grant some credence to the idea that we're losing so, so much in the way of national advancement from lack of talent immigrating to the USA.

Until then, don't you have some visa applications to fill out? It's pretty awful here in fascist, police state, xenophobic America, after all.
 
In the first quarter of this year, applications from US scientists for positions abroad increased 32%. Applications from US scientists to Canada positions increased by 41%, while the number of Canadian applications to the US dropped 13%. China and every major European country have created new funds and programs to lure US scientists away in this time of vulnerability.
There's a long, long history of governments turning on science and education before their decline. A major part of the U.S.'s rise into a superpower came from us welcoming all the scientists fleeing authoritarianism in Europe in the early 1900s and using their inventions to become the center of the world. Why would we want to kill the golden goose?
 
In the first quarter of this year, applications from US scientists for positions abroad increased 32%. Applications from US scientists to Canada positions increased by 41%, while the number of Canadian applications to the US dropped 13%. China and every major European country have created new funds and programs to lure US scientists away in this time of vulnerability.
There's a long, long history of governments turning on science and education before their decline. A major part of the U.S.'s rise into a superpower came from us welcoming all the scientists fleeing authoritarianism in Europe in the early 1900s and using their inventions to become the center of the world. Why would we want to kill the golden goose?

You just let me know in what timeframe I should get concerned that China or the EU will become the heart of medical, military, computer science, entertainment, and financial innovation. This year? Next? 10 years from now? Just let me know.

I presume you are all vehemently against Chinese or Russian immigration to the USA, given the high levels of intellectual property theft and election interference these countries and their foreign nationals engage in?
 
I remain completely unconcerned that we will lose any appreciable, world-changing, company building talent to other countries like India and China.

Again, let me know when their GDP, high market cap corporations, advanced medical care, or general standard of living starts to get near ours and I'll grant some credence to the idea that we're losing so, so much in the way of national advancement from lack of talent immigrating to the USA.


Until then, don't you have some visa applications to fill out? It's pretty awful here in fascist, police state, xenophobic America, after all.
These are absurd metrics.
 
"In the 1950s, Duke Power's Dan River Steam Station in North Carolina had a policy restricting black employees to its "Labor" department, where the highest-paying position paid less than the lowest-paying position in the four other departments. In 1955, the company added the requirement of a high school diploma for employment in any department other than Labor, and offered to pay two-thirds of the high-school training tuition for employees without a diploma.

On July 2, 1965, the day the Civil Rights Act of 1964 took effect, Duke Power added two employment tests, which would allow employees without high-school diplomas to transfer to higher-paying departments. These two tests were the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test, a test of mechanical aptitude, and the Wonderlic Cognitive Ability Test, an IQ test created in 1939.

Whites were almost ten times more likely than blacks to meet these new employment and transfer requirements. According to the 1960 United States census, while 34% of white males in North Carolina had high-school diplomas, only 18% of blacks did. The disparities of aptitude tests were far greater; with the cutoffs set at the median for high-school graduates, 58% of whites passed, compared to 6% of blacks."

"The Supreme Court ruled that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, if such tests disparately impact ethnic minority groups, businesses must demonstrate that such tests are "reasonably related" to the job for which the test is required. Because Title VII was passed pursuant to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, the disparate impact test later articulated by the Supreme Court in Washington v. Davis, 426 US 229 (1976) is inapplicable. (The Washington v. Davis test for disparate impact is used in constitutional equal protection clause cases, while Title VII's prohibition on disparate impact is a statutory mandate.)

As such, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment tests (when used as a decisive factor in employment decisions) that are not a "reasonable measure of job performance," regardless of the absence of actual intent to discriminate. Since the aptitude tests involved, and the high school diploma requirement, were broad-based and not directly related to the jobs performed, Duke Power's employee transfer procedure was found by the Court to be in violation of the Act."

Ruling seems reasonable to me. The company issued this requirement the same day the Civil Rights Act was to begin enforcement, red flags should be going off that some discrimination is about to be occurring/continuing. Nothing in this ruling speaks to DEI to me. I don't even know if this ruling hasn't been overturned in the mean time.
I don’t have much to add to this debate but I think it’s worth reflecting on the fact that in 1960 - when America was ‘great’ - only 35% of white males and 18% of black males in North Carolina had a high school diploma. What a different world.
 
Keep claiming that American exceptionalism will save us without realizing that the things that have made America exceptional in the first place (our institutions) are being systematically dismantled one by one.
 
Sean Carroll is my favorite podcaster, and his Mindscape is probably the best science podcast out there. He did an episode on this issue a while back which is worth hearing.





David Kipping is another well-respected scientist. He also did an episode on these funding cuts (this one is much shorter).

 
Sean Carroll is my favorite podcaster, and his Mindscape is probably the best science podcast out there. He did an episode on this issue a while back which is worth hearing.





David Kipping is another well-respected scientist. He also did an episode on these funding cuts (this one is much shorter).



I became a fan of Carrol's after his conversation with Eric Weinstein.

 
I became a fan of Carrol's after his conversation with Eric Weinstein.



Sean is a rare combination of superior intellect, compassion and humility. Just a champion dude!

Give his podcast Mindscape a shot. It’s the best of its kind. I am a paid subscriber.
 


IMG_5137.jpeg
 

Least surprising thing I have ever read. I’m guessing even odds that Ghislaine get pardoned by the end of Trump’s term. It all depends how the scripted interview plays for him politically. We all know he’s a pedophile rapist, but this could provide cover for people to do the mental gymnastics required to tell themselves that he’s not.

One framing: "Trump Kind And Cordial, NOT Inappropriate"

Alternative framing: "Convicted Sex Trafficker Given Sweetheart Deal By President's Lawyer, Says Flattering Things About President"

We'll see which spin wins
 
Last edited:
No one is dumb enough to believe her right?
47%

And believing her or not is beside the point. They will just quote her words to further deceive themselves and others that if she didn't know he was a rapist of underage girls, then how could they have been expected to know that when they voted for him?

Of course, we all knew. Some people just didn't care.
 
Sean is a rare combination of superior intellect, compassion and humility. Just a champion dude!

Give his podcast Mindscape a shot. It’s the best of its kind. I am a paid subscriber.

One of the few podcasts I listen to when I’m doing long sessions on my rower or bike trainer. I grasp about 40% of the theoretical physics stuff, but I still enjoy it. For those curious, it’s 99.5% non-political, but you know where he stands in our current political moment.
 
Trump just fired the Defense Intelligence Agency chief because he drafted a preliminary report that didn't completely back up Trump's fake boasts about Iran. Once again, firing anyone who tells the truth instead of creating propaganda for the Dear Leader is a hallmark of authoritarianism.
 
Trump just fired the Defense Intelligence Agency chief because he drafted a preliminary report that didn't completely back up Trump's fake boasts about Iran. Once again, firing anyone who tells the truth instead of creating propaganda for the Dear Leader is a hallmark of authoritarianism.


He’s emulating his heroes…Orban, Maduro, Chavez, Bukele
 
If a president wanted to become effectively a dictator, he’d likely:

  1. Purge govt of non loyalists
  2. Weaponize law against opponents
  3. Use military to police opposition strongholds
  4. Threaten media, schools, businesses w penalties to get them to heel
  5. Change election rules in his favor.
 
If a president wanted to become effectively a dictator, he’d likely:

  1. Purge govt of non loyalists
  2. Weaponize law against opponents
  3. Use military to police opposition strongholds
  4. Threaten media, schools, businesses w penalties to get them to heel
  5. Change election rules in his favor.
Usually MAGA will just say that he hasnt done all of those things to a big enough extent to formally become a dictator.

They will ignore the fact that he has done all of those things significantly more than any other president in history.

Prior to the election, MAGA argued that it was worth it because Trump would improve the economy. So far he has ****ed that up too.. inflation is up..Fed is showing a weakened labor market and the tariffs havent even kicked in yet
 
View attachment 408334

Democrats moving towards Abundance in CA


We’ve had this in our city for the past 5 years. The projects in “transit corridors” don’t require that the developer build parking. But the transit system sucks so everybody still has cars. The units are also VERY expensive. Every single new build is “luxury housing”. So there will be an abundance, not of affordable housing, but of parking problems.
 
Usually MAGA will just say that he hasnt done all of those things to a big enough extent to formally become a dictator.

They will ignore the fact that he has done all of those things significantly more than any other president in history.

Prior to the election, MAGA argued that it was worth it because Trump would improve the economy. So far he has ****ed that up too.. inflation is up..Fed is showing a weakened labor market and the tariffs havent even kicked in yet

I think most MAGA already know that Trump is trying to be a monarch. They believe that he won’t succeed, and in a rare chance if he does, they are essentially okay with that outcome.

They will have an endless supply of lib tears to drink.
 
Top