Trump Fires All 24 Members of America's National Science Board (science.org) 294
America's National Science Board (NSB) "was established in 1950 to guide the governance of the National Science Foundation," writes the Washington Post, "in an unusual structure within the federal government that echoes the setup of a company board in the private sector. It helps guide an agency that operates Antarctic research stations, telescopes, a fleet of research vessels and supports basic science research in laboratories across the United States." (NSF research has helped evolve the technology used in MRIs, cellphones and LASIK eye surgery.)
But yesterday President Trump fired all 24 members of the National Science Board (NSB), the body that oversees the National Science Foundation (NSF), reports Science magazine: In addition to advising the administration and Congress on national science policy, it has statutory authority to oversee the actions of the $9-billion NSF, setting policy and approving large expenditures. Its presidentially appointed members, typically prominent academics and industry leaders, serve 6-year terms, with eight members chosen every 2 years....
Keivan Stassun, one of the dismissed board members, says the mass firing is the latest indication that the White House is ignoring the board's authority and dictating policies at NSF, which has been without a permanent director since Sethuraman Panchanathan resigned exactly one year ago. Stassun, an astrophysicist at Vanderbilt University who was appointed to the board in 2022, thinks the board's public criticism in May 2025 of Trump's proposed 55% cut to NSF's current budget — which Congress ultimately ignored — antagonized the administration. "Maybe one way to say it from the administration's perspective," Stassun says, "is that this group of presidential appointees was advising the Congress to not follow the president's wishes."
The Washington Post adds that "The White House did not immediately respond to inquiries about why the members were terminated."
But yesterday President Trump fired all 24 members of the National Science Board (NSB), the body that oversees the National Science Foundation (NSF), reports Science magazine: In addition to advising the administration and Congress on national science policy, it has statutory authority to oversee the actions of the $9-billion NSF, setting policy and approving large expenditures. Its presidentially appointed members, typically prominent academics and industry leaders, serve 6-year terms, with eight members chosen every 2 years....
Keivan Stassun, one of the dismissed board members, says the mass firing is the latest indication that the White House is ignoring the board's authority and dictating policies at NSF, which has been without a permanent director since Sethuraman Panchanathan resigned exactly one year ago. Stassun, an astrophysicist at Vanderbilt University who was appointed to the board in 2022, thinks the board's public criticism in May 2025 of Trump's proposed 55% cut to NSF's current budget — which Congress ultimately ignored — antagonized the administration. "Maybe one way to say it from the administration's perspective," Stassun says, "is that this group of presidential appointees was advising the Congress to not follow the president's wishes."
The Washington Post adds that "The White House did not immediately respond to inquiries about why the members were terminated."
Welcome to the dictatorship! (Score:4, Insightful)
Didn't you guys have a 'no kings' movement?
What is the point of a government if one man can rule 300 million people by executive decree?
Re:Welcome to the dictatorship! (Score:4, Insightful)
"What is the point of a government if one man can rule 300 million people by executive decree?"
To ensure that those people are ruled by executive decree. Is that a serious question? There is no executive to issue decrees without government. The nazis had government, otherwise how can you murder by the millions?
"Didn't you guys have a 'no kings' movement?"
We also had bowel movements. The president still wears diapers.
Re: Welcome to the dictatorship! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Welcome to the dictatorship! (Score:3, Interesting)
the members of the house and Senate aren't scared of trump, they're scared of "January 6 rioters". they were going to kill Mike Pence.
Re: Welcome to the dictatorship! (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think that's it. The Republicans in Congress are like crack dealers and the Maggots are the users. The dealers issue a constant supply of bigotry and cruelty and the Maggots lap it up even though there is some part of them that knows it is go not good for them or the country but they are addicted. Every time one of them gets an independent thought, the rest are there to cow them back into subservience. The Republicans in Congress know this, and know without their drug supply, they are toast. So they keep it up.
Re: (Score:2)
same diff.
Re: (Score:3)
George Washington thought political parties were the enemy of democracy. Your problem isn't that Republicans have a slim majority in both houses of congress, it's that Republicans, probably members of both parties, are more loyal to their party than they are to their country's democracy.
The other problem is that the US democracy was set up by principled people like Washington to rely on principled people to function correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
A huge problem for current US politics is that increasingly the smaller states have been controlled by the Republican party for a long time and the Senate is 2 people per state. (HORRIBLE design but made more sense with 13 Independent Colonies.)
A reckoning is going to happen at some point, but I don't think the world or the US is ready for that just yet.
(At least
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you guys have a 'no kings' movement?
The point of protesting is ostensibly to show everyone who voted for this clown show that they'd be in good company if they decide to have second thoughts, come the next election.
The reality, as evidenced by the other post mocking it as a "street party", is that the right-wing media has done a spectacular job of spinning it as "look at all those loony leftists protesting a nonexistent king!" So, the protests probably won't do much to move the needle.
Re:NSF does outstanding work, most of the time ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want "raging over politics", don't click on an article outlining the piecemeal dissolution of the US government.
Re: (Score:2)
I came in hopes someone had a Funny take on it, but there doesn't seem to be much Funny around here. Sadness.
At this point, I believe that anyone defending the YOB has to be a fool, coward, or profit-maximizing sociopath. Sometimes a combination. For example, I think most of the PMSs are also fools because crypto is fake (like the birds?) and they are foolish to rely on the YOB for anything. (Currently being strongly influenced by psychologically motivated arguments that the YOB will try to take everyone he
Re: NSF does outstanding work, most of the time .. (Score:5, Informative)
Nonsense. They weren't fired because of iffy grants, they don't decide grants. They're the interface between the NSF and Congress. They advise both groups on what the national priorities should be, like whether to fund a billion dollar telescope vs a collider.
They were fired because they unanimously wrote a letter pushing back on Trumps request to significantly cut NSF's budget last year. A request that Congress pretty much ignored in a bipartisan manner.
No they were fired for having the gall to question Trump.
Re: NSF does outstanding work, most of the time .. (Score:5, Insightful)
>> An appointed board in the executive branch does not get to overrule the President
I didn't see where they tried to 'overrule the President". They criticized a "proposed 55% cut to NSF's current budget — which Congress ultimately ignored". Apparently a little independent thought is enough to get you fired in this regime.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you answer these simple questions for me?
Is increasing something from 100 to 600 a 600% increase?
Is decreasing something from 600 to 100 then a 600% decrease?
If you are capable of recognizing why the answers to both of those questions are "no" (or possibly "hell, no! What kind of mathematically illiterate, third-grade dropout would think that!" or something to that effect), why would you support someone who is not capable of recognizing that over scientists who are to advise on the science budget?
Re: (Score:3)
You never answered the very simple math questions. Can you answer those questions and, if you can, tell me what you think of the ability of anyone who can't answer those questions to direct science policy.
Re: NSF does outstanding work, most of the time .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Advisors should be *advising*, not just being yes men to a megalomaniac.
The whole point is for the president to surround himself with experts and take their expertise into account, not to just have people to echo whatever he says.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize you're literally advocating for Lysenkoism here?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually its working against the agenda of the elected leader you work for...
Yes. If your explicit job is to provide sound scientific information and advice and the elected leader you work for says that magnets stop working if they get wet, you'd better damn well not work against the leader's agenda by telling people that, actually, normal permanent magnets don't stop working when they get wet. You'd damn well better not do your actual job.
Re: (Score:2)
And Congress has the right to fund what they believe is appropriate.
Then why were they not involved?
Re: NSF does outstanding work, most of the time . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They're either advisors or yes-men. Pick a lane.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Trump wants to cut the NSF budget because of "iffy" grants
Which normally involves appealing to congress to cut the budget, not firing the board. I can't imagine the thought process where members of congress are supposed to say to themselves: "Hmm, the President wants to cut the budget for science. Let's see what the board of scientists we have to advise us has to say on that. Oh. The person wanting us to change the budget fired them all so that they can't advise us. Oh well then, I guess I have to just do what the President is suggesting."
The sad thing of course i
Re: (Score:2)
The two are unrelated. The board are advisors to the President. They are there to help the President provide a proposal to Congress. That proposal reflects the President's direction. The board can try to persuade the President, but once the President make's the call on direction, the board, as advisors, are obligated to help with that direction.
I have pointed out in another post that this is not correct. The board are not just advisors to the President, but to Congress as well. Also, they are not merely an advisory board. They are actually the governing body of the NSF.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically anything that makes him or his followers feel stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
He fired 24 people that work in the branch of government that he is the chief executive of.
The chief executive is not a ruler, they are exactly what the term describes, an executive. They are supposed to uphold and follow the law. there's a reason the members of these boards get six year terms when the President's term is 4 years.
Re: (Score:2)
The chief executive in the US government is a ruler. The US constitution really does give them complete power over the executive branch.
Yes, this is a situation that most organizations that have an executive have recognized isn't a super duper great idea. Some of them painfully and repeatedly.
Re: (Score:2)
The executive branch of government is pretty much all of it. However, the constitution actually provides for three co-equal branches. Note also that the legislative is basically pre-eminent (despite that "co-equal" bit). There's a reason that there's an article I, II, and III and that the executive is number II. There is also a reason that the President swears an oath to uphold the laws and the constitution faithfully. You made a comparison to the CEO of a company who is beholden to the board. To some degre
Re: (Score:2)
The members are advisors to the President. The President has the authority to set a direction. His advisors may try to persuade the president to go a different direction, but the decision on direction is ultimately his or hers.
This is not correct. The members are advisors to both the President and Congress. The congress has the authority to set a direction. Both the President and congress have a role in setting a direction. Specifically, the President appoints the members. This used to require congressional approval, but that was dropped in 2012 along with many other appointments in a vote that many feared would lead to disaster. The terms are mandated at 6 years specifically so that appointments will be staggered across Presiden
Re:NSF does outstanding work, most of the time ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Your stated experience and guess has to be weighed against Trump's usual motives.
Occam's razor would suggest it's like everything else he has done his entire life: it's about self enrichment and ego.
Re: (Score:2)
You use Occam's Razor as the philosophical route taken to arrive at "it's about self enrichment and ego" being the motivation for the firings.
Your explanation has the impossibly absolute parameters of "entire" and "everything". Your theory on the motivation is built on implausible data.
Everything else he has done?
His entire life?
Re: (Score:2)
"His entire life?"
Yes, pretty much for decades now
Re:NSF does outstanding work, most of the time ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oversight? From this alleged administration? What ARE you smoking?
Aside from not being able to monetize grants given by NSF, they are not under Project 2025's thumb; it bothers them. Plus scientists say things they do not like and cannot counter, so their only recourse is to shut them down.
Does anyone believe that el Bunko got up one day and decided the independent body had to go? Does anyone believe he even knows what NSF does? This is merely yet another example of Project 2025 doing their damnest to fuck up America beyond all recognition. el Bunko is merely a useful idiot who sign anything they put in front of him.
Re: (Score:2)
And when we had a respectable Executive Branch, I would agree with you. However, we don't. la Presidenta will pack it with Maggots who will not be independent.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you guys have a 'no kings' movement? What is the point of a government if one man can rule 300 million people by executive decree?
He fired 24 people that work in the branch of government that he is the chief executive of.
While the National Science Foundation does some absolutely outstanding work, and helps fund some absolutely groundbreaking research, some of the stuff it funds is a bit sketchy. The firing probably has something to do with the latter, a lack of oversight. I've been involved in NSF funded projects for well over a decade, observed a bunch of stuff at my university, and sometimes professors get a block of money and parts of it fund iffy stuff. It's probably a crackdown on that sort of thing, better oversight on what is getting funded, where the money is going. I've seen some stuff that is a bit sketchy, funds used at the university level more as a slush fund to keep grad student employed that fulfill the goal of the funding.
All that is irrelevant. This is driven by Project 2025's general antipathy to science.
This specifc action wasn't called for, but it was a necessary step to eliminate "wokeness" in research such as climate change.
A lot of the administration's weird dismantling of agencies can be found in here. Everyone should have read it because it drives a lot of what has happened.
https://static.heritage.org/pr... [heritage.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Name me one -- just one -- position in the government that serves in an advisory capacity, and is elected by the voters to serve there.
You can't. Advisors are hired to contribute their expertise in specific areas. They're not elected by the voters because the voters are not in a position to judge their qualifications to serve in advisory capacity.
But in this case, the advisors didn't even get a chance to advise. Trump just fired them. All of them.
Re: (Score:2)
I think I pretty consistently referred to advisors as the unelected subordinate to the elected.
You're missing the point. You went to great lengths to stress that the advisory panel was "unelected" -- as though that de-legitimized them somehow. I claim the opposite: you need unelected advisors who are not swayed by political winds. That helps the advisors to retain an objective perspective. A perspective that appears to be unwelcome in the current administration.
The elected President wanted a change in direction, for example NSF to focus on hard science and engineering and not fund soft science like social science.
Then why did he fire ALL of them?
They objected, which is a reasonable thing for an advisor to do. However if they could not persuade the President, and if If they personally could not get on board with the new direction, then they should be replaced. The elected President is entitled to advisors that will work on a proposal that heads in the direction he or she desires.
The advisory board is a panel of experts that supplies objective, apolitical guidance. What is the point o
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, I would argue 'iffy funding' is part of the point of the NSF. It handles funding for all the experimental stuff that the private sector or DARPA is not interested in, It fill the gaps and takes on risk that other institutions and funding vehicles handle poorly.... and also spackles over other problems like, as you point out, keeps grad students employed since otherwise it would making such education little more than a hobby of the already wealthy like it used to be.
Re:NSF does outstanding work, most of the time ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The timing of this firing seems weird and random. Why now, and not a year ago?
My guess is some recent grant caught the attention of a Fox "news" personality or OAN. Or maybe an abstract title for a recent grant contained the letters "trans". Or "taco".
Re: (Score:2)
In theory that I wouldn't disagree with. But how would you propose the fed decides how much to allocate to those universities to distribute? Kicking the problem down to a lower level while on paper sounds like a good proposition, the problem still exists, but now more occluded from public scrutiny
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think that how the environment, things like plastic being similar to estrogen, affects vertebrates is important? Perhaps you need to learn some biology or at least recognize your lack of knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
The stupid. It burns. (Score:2)
If you have to feed the trolls or sock puppets, can't you at least seek a useful Subject? Even worse that you got me to look trying to figure out how George Washington got into it.
New Subject is the joke I was looking for, though I gleelessly acknowledge the story doesn't actually have that much wiggle room for Funny. These months and days it's just one (stupid) thing after another. Sometimes with circus things in between.
Seeking a karmic linkage? The latest wannabe assassin actually goes back to the first
There goes the neighbourhood... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: There goes the neighbourhood... (Score:2)
Brawndo.
Re:There goes the neighbourhood... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump wants to control the neighbourhood. It's a simple as that. Watch as the new board is filled with loyalists.
That's if there actually is a board in the future. There's evidence the administration finds the board inconvenient. Per the Science article linked in TFS:
The White House’s decision last month to ask Congress to give NSF $900 million next year for a new Antarctic research icebreaker is another example of how the Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has prevented the board from meeting its obligations, says [dismissed board-member Keivan] Stassun, who until yesterday chaired the group’s committee on large research facilities.
“OMB basically said very directly to NSF’s chief of research facilities that ‘you will build a new research vessel,’ and there was no involvement by the board, which is required to approve and authorize any major infrastructure investment by NSF,” Stassun notes. “And when the board asked, the response was, ‘Well, OMB was very clear in its directive.’”
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change is real, but lack of climate science isn't going to change much about US prominence.
Child Rapist Trump Does Putin's Work For Him (Score:3)
What a Maroon!
Republicans will avoid this thread (Score:5, Insightful)
And is depressing as it is the people here on this site tend to be in the more intelligent side, relatively speaking of course, so simply put they're not stupid enough to naturally remain Republican
Re:Republicans will avoid this thread (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure they're blowing their mod points here, though. That's usually what happens when there's some article about the current administration doing some indefensible action. Nobody wants to come out of the woodwork and defend the high oil prices or any of Trump's other truly boneheaded moves, but they'll still quietly express their opinions by downmodding as much as they can.
Blame Slashdot for not letting folks mod in a discussion they've participated in.
Re: (Score:2)
The people I know who identify as Republican all despise Trump though. From my perspective, the dissent and dissatisfaction is is only growing.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't fool yourself. They learned nothing and would vote for him again given the chance.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't fool yourself. They learned nothing and would vote for him again given the chance.
I have a family member who is a Republican and cannot stand Trump. He just didn't vote for anyone for President, but voted for Republican candidates in other races. Perhaps Misagon's friends did the same.
Re: Republicans will avoid this thread (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was responding to ArchieBunker, who claimed Republicans who don't like Trump "would vote for him again given the chance."
And I pointed out that there are Republicans who don't like Trump and didn't vote for him in the first place.
Your analogy about hiring a hit-man fails on every level.
Re:Republicans will avoid this thread (Score:5, Insightful)
The people I know who identify as Republican all despise Trump though. From my perspective, the dissent and dissatisfaction is is only growing.
They despise Trump. Most of them have always despised Trump. That's not the problem. The problem is they despise the left even more. Like most hate, that hatred is irrational, and this particular irrational hatred is founded on the baseless belief that everything wrong in their lives is the fault of immigrants, people of color, and everyone else who doesn't look like them...in other words, the left side of the political spectrum.
Hatred is a powerful motivator and that's what has put this country in the position it finds itself in.
Re: Republicans will avoid this thread (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is about EMOTION which is irrational and devoid of logic. Delusional people will use every tool they have to defend their delusion and shelter their ego.
Weak meta-cognition and yet high levels of cognition...always make me wonder about mental illness being the explanation. Or simply sounding overly confident because slow people NEED to hear that because they never realize that the best people are self humbling and get dismissed over the ignorant confident blowhards.
Board compensation? (Score:2)
Does anyone know if and how much board members get paid for serving on the board?
The second question is, if you serve on the board, and also are a professor at a university, do you get compensated for both the university as well as the board membership?
Are these people getting rich, top 5%, by servicing on the board?
Re: Board compensation? (Score:2)
Re:A larger trend ? (Score:4, Insightful)
These apparently look like a shake up to the high paying revolving door jobs between government, bureaucracy, government contractors, nonprofits, wall street, universities, lobbyists, corporations and NGOs.
Well, you might see it that way. I, on the other hand, think this is an attempt by the administration to shed itself of anyone who provides advice that could potentially conflict with the administration's view of reality.
This is normal (Score:2)
The 24 members of the board are not scientists!
They are witches!!! And witches are bad people that we must burn in public!!!
Let's make USA barbarian again!
Trump is a real sham for USA, even for Human Kind.
I guess... (Score:3)
...he will replace them with 2 dozen morons he saw on TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Or possibly with some of the executives who paid him homage at the inauguration.
I hear Tim Cook just became available.
Hey US (Score:4, Insightful)
the three most evil people on earth are (Score:2)
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Informative)
Hillary would have been better. Harris would have been better. Nikki Haley would have been better.
Biden was better.
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Anybody would have been better.
FTFY
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Squashed poop would have been better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hillary would have been better. Harris would have been better. Nikki Haley would have been better. Biden was better.
I agree. Those people aren't running next term.
First off, there's no guarantee Ivanka Trump won't win next term. Next term, we are going to have another reality TV star type as candidates, because democrats will try to field someone who can beat someone like Trump.
This is how Idiocracy happens. Not because people are genetically incapable, but because they don't know anything other than reality TV. It's the Ray Bradbury Farenheit 451 world.
Re: (Score:2)
newsom would be better, buttigieg would be better, pritzker would be better, beshear would be better, aoc would be better
your attitude is actually greatly a result of the conservative media machine itself. they want you despondent and cynical.
the idea that better things are possible is something republican want their opponents to have
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
newsom would be better, buttigieg would be better
Newsom is just another arrogant self-righteous prick with a Rolex and a three hundred dollar haircut who can frankly go fuck himself then go back to making twitter memes... but yes, Buttigieg would be better. Much better. Just think, were it not for prejudice, the USA might be currently enjoying the second term of a president who speaks six languages, is a veteran and family man, one who appreciates the importance of basic infrastructure and doesn't feel the need to insult the USA's closest allies, or start
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
your attitude is actually greatly a result of the conservative media machine itself. they want you despondent and cynical.
Welcome to the reality of the electoral college. Most paths to victory require winning over a lot of places that wouldn't vote for Jesus Christ himself, if he ran as a Democrat.
Re: (Score:3)
I for one wouldn't vote for Jesus Christ no matter which party he'd run for. We got more than enough religious loonies.
On the other hand, there's no record about what he preached, as there's plenty of evidence that the cult that spawned in the 0070s has no relations to Jesus other than using his name (if he did exist at all).
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Interesting)
> First off, there's no guarantee Ivanka Trump won't win next term
Ivanka's been keeping her head down, I seriously doubt she'll be running, and if she does she'll have the stink of the name on her.
> Next term, we are going to have another reality TV star type as candidates, because democrats will try to field someone who can beat someone like Trump
The Democrats didn't in 2020. The people most likely to run for the Democrats are not reality stars either - Newsom is fairly representative of the kind of person likely to get the nod. TBH I can't even think of a "reality TV star type" who is clearly associated with Democratic or liberal or left wing politics at the moment. At most you have a few celebrities who'll give their support to a candidate, but who don't generally discuss politics outside of that. And the Republiicans have a long history of running show biz candidates - Reagan, Eastwood, Trump, Thompson to name but the first four that come to mind - whereas it's not really a Democratic thing, I can only think of ex-SNL writer and occasional performer Al Franken, who never showed any Presidential ambitions.
Honestly, I would say Trump's successor is 99%+ likely to be a sober, intelligent, non-corrupt President *if* that person is elected and a Democrat. If it's a Republican, honestly, there could be a 50% chance they'll find someone worse. After Eisenhower, the Republicans just don't seem to have produced any decent Presidents, each one, regardless of popularity, worse than the previous with the possible exception of Ford and Bush I. The economy is still crappy for everyone not in the top 2% thanks to Nixon's unpegging of the dollar, and Reagan promoting the off-shoring of manufacturing; and the security state started with Bush together with the lowering of the bar for starting wars. The worst you can say about Clinton and Obama is they didn't try to roll any of that back (both Carter and Biden inherited massive messes and made efforts to fix things, ironically making them the least popular of the four.)
Re: (Score:2)
Newsom is fairly representative of the kind of person likely to get the nod.
Newsom isn't even well-liked in his own state. He's an incompetent pretty face. It's hard to take the rest of your post seriously here.
Re: (Score:2)
> Newsom isn't even well-liked in his own state. He's an incompetent pretty face. It's hard to take the rest of your post seriously here.
It's impossible to take your's seriously. You seriously don't think Newsom isn't typical of Democratic candidates before and currently?
Would you also like to slashsplain to me that Hillary Clinton didn't run for President in 2016 given she wasn't well liked either?
Re: Yeah (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TBH I can't even think of a "reality TV star type" who is clearly associated with Democratic or liberal or left wing politics at the moment. At most you have a few celebrities who'll give their support to a candidate, but who don't generally discuss politics outside of that.
I think the closest the Democrats have would be comedians like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert (generally similar to Al Franken, as you mentioned).
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and I just don't see either running. At least, not for President. They seem like good people, especially Stewart (his work on behalf of the 9/11 victims stands out), but even assuming either wants to change the world, I think both know their power comes from being on the outside.
Franken was an exception but Franken is known only for a couple of on-screen personas, neither of which were particularly political. So it felt like it was easier for him to transition into politics.
Re:Yeah (Score:4)
Hillary would have been better. Harris would have been better. Nikki Haley would have been better.
Biden was better.
It's not Niki Haley. It's Nimarata Nikki Randhawa. Just like it's Raphael Cruz.
As both of them would say, we don't use preferred names.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not Niki Haley. It's Nimarata Nikki Randhawa. Just like it's Raphael Cruz.
As both of them would say, we don't use preferred names.
No, it's Nikki Haley. And Ted Cruz. Because that's what they want to be called.
I call people by the names and pronouns they prefer. And I appreciate the same treatment back.
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Informative)
Biden is in better cognitive shape today than Trump is. Sorry but those are facts.
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh now it's "in good shape", that's a wholly different claim. Biden is quite old and had too much on his plate running a campaign while being President. He had one bad night and 60IQ numpties take that as "cognitive decline".
Meanwhile have they ever actually watched the debate and Trump's performance? It was also really bad, maybe even worse! But he always got a pass, because the press is actually kinda conservative and they like Trump.
All I'm saying is the "Biden is senile/demented" stuff is conservative fabrications and the so called "liberal media" was more than happy to run with the story. Once again *Jake Fucking Tapper* wrote a book about it.
Meanwhile Biden is out right now in the real world showing no signs of dementia. Yeah hes a man in his 80's but Trump is rambling in front of us every single goddamned day and the admin has lied about his health on at least a dozen occasions now.
But Biden! Biden! Biiiiiiiiiden!!!!!!!
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not in the US, so have never seen this "pass" for Trump. He is reviled. I'm talking about the failures of the Dems.
That "Our octogenarian is better than theirs" tribalism is how you got into this mess. Clearly seeing the failings of the opponent, but being blind to your own team's is a path to failure.
The party could have chosen a candidate based on merit. You think somebody like Gavin Newsom would have lost? Anybody with half the charisma of Obama could have won.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
The "new eyes" thing is why the membership rotates on a regular basis.
But now, if you were someone whose opinions might be valuable... why would you bother wasting any time contributing to the board, knowing the rug could get randomly pulled for no reason? So, no actually open "eyes" will end up on whatever might get recreated in its place. Wonder what might be the over/under on the number of Fox news talking heads on the new board?
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, maybe the whole government needs a good, solid shake-up to sort stuff out.
Remember that in November. Heave ho, and out they go!
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the same wishful thinking that got us into the current mess.
"Let's elect someone different and see what happens".
FAFO.
Re: Well... (Score:2)
To be fair, it'll only get better after it gets worse. And Trump makes it get worse faster, sooo... in a way, he was the better choice :-p
Re: Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
In an honest election, the Democratic Party will easily win and nothing will change because the billionaires will never pay for it. The "too big to jail" and "too big to fail" and loopholes in laws that allow corporations to abuse nearly everything, will remain and by default, the petty jealousies of have-nots will ensure the spotlight of good government never illuminates the abuses committed by the rich.
Learning from history is hard? (Score:2)
That's the same wishful thinking that got us into the current mess.
"Let's elect someone different and see what happens".
FAFO.
Many decades ago I learned about the violent Russian anarchists before Lenin took over and fixed everything. (Not really, but...) At the time I really couldn't wrap my head around their motivations, but now I'm feeling that it was a kind of hopelessness similar to what is happening to America. They were crazy but they believed that the system couldn't be fixed, so if they destroyed it then maybe what came next would be better. (And perhaps they weren't proven completely wrong until Stalin took over? Or am I
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
Member terms last 6 years, it's literally written in the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
From the movie Billy Madison. [youtube.com]
Re: He's fucking nuts (Score:2)
Do tell. What mental gymnastics will you do to justify trump being elected a third time? And howâ(TM)s this different to Putin gaming the Russian system with Medvedev a while back so he could remain president for life?
Re:Thumptards (Score:4, Interesting)
Talk to one in real life and you can watch the wheels turn using convoluted logic. Supposedly educated people talking themselves into standing behind RFK Jr's medical advice. Or even better the party who loves the police and being tough on crime having to justify standing behind a drug kingpin getting a pardon. https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Very strong cognitive dissonance!
The ones I know have been suckered by identity psychology their whole life! They were branded by their parents as Republicans, Christians, moral conservatives - it's part of their self-identity and never even question that they were conditioned into it without any actual decisions made on their own. They then had the rug pulled out from under them and they didn't even notice until Trump that those brands have been completely redefined or "rebooted" like a franchise for "mode
Re: (Score:3)
How about the party that loves the police getting behind the literal beating of a prone police officer by a January 6er wielding his "thin blue line" US flag sign as a weapon? That one always got me as a supreme example of irony.
Re: The pendulum has swung. (Score:4, Insightful)