One hopes, but I think the Democratic party has shown enough times that it will gladly shoot itself in the foot if it somehow means owning the progressives.
It would be very unusual for an ex-president to be nominated after a failed bit at a second term, but we live in very unusual times. Support for Biden was never better than tepid; people voted for "not Trump" and that's what we got. If Democrats can't find somebody more interesting by 2024, they stand to lose both chambers and the white house. If party wonks don't know that, they're beyond incompetent.
I think where a lot of people stand is that fear that party wonks do know that and they simply don't care if they lose again, because they can just keep playing the same games.
Newsom is a Boris Johnson. The guy is a joke and he has not excuse for his hypocritical parties during mandatory lockdown. COVID lockdowns are not in public favor and any Democrat that was for mandatory lockdowns will not be successful.
Just because you keep repeating it it’s not going to come true. Lockdowns are a non factor anymore and America did it’s lockdowns prudently and reasonably. Democrats that act on evidence will be exactly those that will be successful.
You could be in favor of, opposed to, or neutral on lockdowns, and still be very much against people ordering lockdowns for everybody else and then going to unmasked parties. That - and not the mere fact of the lockdowns - deserves to be Newsome's political death knell.
I don't see how it will work in anyones' favor except Republicans to run a candidate known for their abuses just because Trump got away with it so far.
There is nothing rational about jailing people going to the beach, and then holding your own private mask-free parties. You might as well be calling Boris Johnson parties rational.
Except they were jailing people for going on hikes and to the beach, which as science showed was actually counterintuitive. Not all Democrats acted on the science, but instead hypocritically and authoritarianly tried jumping ahead of science rather than taking a rational thought-out approach.
The Biden administration has been appointing judges, using the fact that it has a bare majority of the senate (50 + the VP). All Federal judges need Senate approval. Biden in fact had the largest number of Article III judicial nominees confirmed during a president's first year in office since Reagan.
Democrats aren't trying to work completely legislatively, in fact this decision is an injunction against an administrative rulemaking applying a Supreme court decision preventing sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in the workplace to other parts of the same law.
Because at least one of the 50 Democratic senators don't support the elimination of the senate filibuster for normal legislation, the only laws passed by congress under Biden have been reconciliation bills, which have to be primarily financial in nature, and a few bipartisan bills, (the post uvalde bill on responsible gun ownership and red flag laws).
You are right that Republicans are attempting to entrench minority rule using gerrymandering though.
I find it really hard to look at electoral district maps in the USA without feeling like “this is where the all the problems started”… I’ve NEVER seen a valid justification for the sorts of egregious gerrymandering you see all across the USA. It’s like poison,once it’s gerrymandered and the incumbent is safe, they can push their most radical agendas and slide the Overton window slowly towards their own views.
And because it benefits them all, I expect reforming who is responsible for district boundaries to never change. The more frustrating thing is under the present political status quo, the only enduring fix would require a constitutional amendment to enshrine a “federal district boundary committee” with something like 33 people serving lifetime appointments like the Supreme Court (even if the pay isn’t that good, a lifetime appointment means they can give the politicians the middle finger as appropriate, once they are in the job), since there’s a lot of district boundaries to look after and the larger the group the harder it is for one party to “pack the court”. But without it being constitutional level law, it would get battered about by congress, and the states and Supreme Court until it died in some disused basement in a bathroom behind a sign that said beware of leopard.
I think state constitutional amendments or state ballot initiatives are the current best possible way to reform this. Of course not all states let citizens pass stuff without going through a gerrymandered state legislature.
And of course it's not just gerrymandering, but the electoral college and a host of other things that are just done badly.
These are all fixable problems, even if they are difficult. In fact both the electoral college and gerrymandering at the federal level would be improved if we just doubled or tripled the number of representatives in the House. The smaller the districts the harder it is to gerrymander effectively. Course to do that we probably need to get rid of the filibuster.
I find the lies to be different. Right wing and left wing media are both prone to hyperbole, but the right seems to fabricate more "truths" from rumors and conspiracy theories, asking what if questions. The left filters and distorts facts to present things how they want.
>In those directives, the agencies said that companies and schools could not deny a transgender person access to a bathroom that corresponded to that individual’s gender identity. They also said that students should be allowed to participate on a sports team consistent with their gender identity, and that federally funded schools have a responsibility to investigate sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, against students because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
The NYT is hiding information behind a paywall not "depending on their preferred party". Googling the quote you included brings up nothing so I am guessing you are paraphrasing. So who exactly are you talking about when you say "newspapers outright hide crucial information depending on their preferred party"?
>No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
That is the original text. Wild that being against that is a popular enough sentiment that it can appear at the top of the comments on a HN thread.
My most recent comment was not about the merits of the argument for repeal. It was about the way you used the term "wokeness". You didn't say something like "wokeness has gone too far." That would grant some ethical ambiguity to the word. You used it as something that is inherently bad and needs to be avoided. People who do that generally have an awful definition for the word and are usually already so set in their ways that there is no point to debate the issue.
>So I'm not allowed to use words with negative connotations (or have values different than yours) lest I be deemed "set in my ways"?
It is not just a word with negative connotations. It is that you revealed your definition of the word as purely negative. Ask a person how they define "woke" and they will reveal a lot about their politics.
LGB is literally not about sex or even sex presentation. Trying to use Title IX to protect sexual orientation is invalid legal creep. There are other reasons not to discriminate based on sexual orientation. (And, legally, it's prohibited by state laws; some states have them, while others don't.)
Title IX protects against discrimination based on sex, which to me reads as innate characteristics or needs. That doesn't read to me like you can sex-swap, either via pretending, hormones, and/or through surgeries that only superficially change primary sex characteristics... and then create all sorts of drama, and claim discrimination if people around you want to get on with whatever academics or sports or business without catering to your special T/Q physiological or linguistic needs or preferences.
Sam is attracted to men. Is Sam gay or straight? Or can you not answer that question without knowing Sam's gender?
The sexual orientation categories we generally use only exist as a pair of the person's own gender and the gender to which they are attracted. Therefore discrimination based on sexual orientation is inherently discrimination based on sex (really gender, but the law typically uses sex) because a change in sex would change their orientation.
53 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 113 ms ] threadExcept they were jailing people for going on hikes and to the beach, which as science showed was actually counterintuitive. Not all Democrats acted on the science, but instead hypocritically and authoritarianly tried jumping ahead of science rather than taking a rational thought-out approach.
The Biden administration has been appointing judges, using the fact that it has a bare majority of the senate (50 + the VP). All Federal judges need Senate approval. Biden in fact had the largest number of Article III judicial nominees confirmed during a president's first year in office since Reagan.
Democrats aren't trying to work completely legislatively, in fact this decision is an injunction against an administrative rulemaking applying a Supreme court decision preventing sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in the workplace to other parts of the same law.
Because at least one of the 50 Democratic senators don't support the elimination of the senate filibuster for normal legislation, the only laws passed by congress under Biden have been reconciliation bills, which have to be primarily financial in nature, and a few bipartisan bills, (the post uvalde bill on responsible gun ownership and red flag laws).
You are right that Republicans are attempting to entrench minority rule using gerrymandering though.
And because it benefits them all, I expect reforming who is responsible for district boundaries to never change. The more frustrating thing is under the present political status quo, the only enduring fix would require a constitutional amendment to enshrine a “federal district boundary committee” with something like 33 people serving lifetime appointments like the Supreme Court (even if the pay isn’t that good, a lifetime appointment means they can give the politicians the middle finger as appropriate, once they are in the job), since there’s a lot of district boundaries to look after and the larger the group the harder it is for one party to “pack the court”. But without it being constitutional level law, it would get battered about by congress, and the states and Supreme Court until it died in some disused basement in a bathroom behind a sign that said beware of leopard.
And of course it's not just gerrymandering, but the electoral college and a host of other things that are just done badly.
These are all fixable problems, even if they are difficult. In fact both the electoral college and gerrymandering at the federal level would be improved if we just doubled or tripled the number of representatives in the House. The smaller the districts the harder it is to gerrymander effectively. Course to do that we probably need to get rid of the filibuster.
>In those directives, the agencies said that companies and schools could not deny a transgender person access to a bathroom that corresponded to that individual’s gender identity. They also said that students should be allowed to participate on a sports team consistent with their gender identity, and that federally funded schools have a responsibility to investigate sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, against students because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
The NYT is hiding information behind a paywall not "depending on their preferred party". Googling the quote you included brings up nothing so I am guessing you are paraphrasing. So who exactly are you talking about when you say "newspapers outright hide crucial information depending on their preferred party"?
That is the original text. Wild that being against that is a popular enough sentiment that it can appear at the top of the comments on a HN thread.
But that's probably not what happens in practice. More affirmative action and diversity quotas is the likely outcome.
> Wild that being against that is a popular enough sentiment that it can appear at the top of the comments on a HN thread.
It don't think that's too popular on HN. It probably appears at the top only due to recency.
It's probably more popular among the general population of the US, which is kinda what matters.
Yes.
> any environment controlled by a HR policy.
Well, HN isn't really "controlled by an HR policy". Yet, contrary to your expectation, my original comment is already being downvoted.
So you are not even sure what Title IX does and are instead basing your desire for repeal on "probably" and "likely"?
I'm talking about the current executive order. What's there to evaluate except "likely"s and "probably"s?
My support for repealing parts of the civil rights laws is mostly based on Richard Hanania's argument about how it lead to wokeness.
Ok, so there was no point in responding to you.
Maybe, as your comment had little content (except showing contempt). But there might be a point in reading Hanania's argument: https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/woke-institutions-is-j...
Yes, that's indeed what I think.
> already so set in their ways that there is no point to debate the issue.
So I'm not allowed to use words with negative connotations (or have values different than yours) lest I be deemed "set in my ways"?
It is not just a word with negative connotations. It is that you revealed your definition of the word as purely negative. Ask a person how they define "woke" and they will reveal a lot about their politics.
It is. I'm not sure in what sense that would be a revelation though.
> Ask a person how they define "woke" and they will reveal a lot about their politics.
Well, yes, we probably have different politics.
Title IX protects against discrimination based on sex, which to me reads as innate characteristics or needs. That doesn't read to me like you can sex-swap, either via pretending, hormones, and/or through surgeries that only superficially change primary sex characteristics... and then create all sorts of drama, and claim discrimination if people around you want to get on with whatever academics or sports or business without catering to your special T/Q physiological or linguistic needs or preferences.
The sexual orientation categories we generally use only exist as a pair of the person's own gender and the gender to which they are attracted. Therefore discrimination based on sexual orientation is inherently discrimination based on sex (really gender, but the law typically uses sex) because a change in sex would change their orientation.