United States Politics Thread 47

[rotting bones]

I'm not entirely joking. It honestly seems to me like the act of communication takes place in the movement of the goalpost.

For example, let's say we are trying to tell two species of fish apart. I say: "I see red eyes over here and blue eyes over there." If the response is, "Eyes aren't fish. Don't move the goalpost." how would we succeed in telling the species apart?

If I say, "There are fish here and fish there. Fish have eyes. The things here are fish, so they have eyes. Eyes are colored. Therefore, the fish eyes here are colored. Humans can see color. Therefore, I can see the color of the eyes of the fish that are close to me. I see redness in the vicinity of the location where I infer the fish eyes ought to be near me. Therefore, the fish near me are red-eyed fish. The things there are fish, so they have eyes. Eyes are colored. Therefore, the fish eyes over there are colored. Humans can see color. Therefore, I can see the color of the eyes of the fish that are far from me. I see blueness in the vicinity of the location where I infer the fish eyes ought to be far from me. Therefore, the fish far from me are blue-eyed fish. I infer that red-eyed fish are a different species from blue-eyed fish. Therefore, I infer that the fish close to me are a different species from the fish far from me." the response could be, "Sight is not species. Visibility of redness doesn't make the fish red-eyed fish. You're moving goalposts."

There has to be some point at which contractions are accepted. That is the point at which communication succeeds, and therefore, the "goalpost" is moved.

[rotting bones]

Aiming for a wider coverage:

https://www.npr.org/2026/01/04/g-s1-104 ... -in-charge
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/04/politics ... nistration
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/4 ... he-country

Ok, evil genies. How did I mess up my wish this time?

[rotting bones]

Just in case: It is possible to say things that don't move goalposts even in this sense. Such statements don't communicate anything substantive. Because no specificity-generality barrier is crossed, the changes in the boundaries of categories that result from such statements are purely nominal. (That is, they involve giving different names to things.) To communicate anything about the substantive details of categories, you have to mention specifics in the context of inferring generalities. Because the specific categories (like "eye color") are never identical to the general categories (like "fish species"), this necessarily involves a movement in the goalposts.

[zompist]

BTW the article you cite is not what you say it is. (Something is not an "administration" when two of the people mentioned are in hiding.) You are not making a case that you can read a page and understand what is in it.

In this case, the article obviously mentions details about the new administration.

Is there any context, in whatever span of life you have had to date, that you ever admitted you got something wrong?

Here is what you could say: "Oh yeah sorry, I misread that." It's not hard and it would make you look better, not worse.

You cited an article which talks about possible "players" in Venezuelan politics. One is the acting president; the other are opposition figures who are in hiding and not in power. This is not an administration; these people aren't in the same party or coalition, aren't even in the same damn country. It answers nothing about who is running the country. (Presumably Rodríguez, certainly not the other two. I haven't seen anything that clarifies whether any US troops remain. We can assume that a lot of discussions are happening privately— i.e. heavy US pressure for Rodríguez to "cooperate.")

As I said, you are doing yourself no favors with this sort of sloppy writing. This calls into question every citation of "sources" you make, because we can't trust that you are describing what is on those pages.

Spend five minutes making sure you've written clearly rather than five hours making increasingly ridiculous theories on why non-communication is communication.

[zompist]

Here's an analysis on what the Republicans actually seem to be trying in Venezuela:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/05/politics ... y-analysis

Sen. Tom Cotton said it most clearly: “When the president said that the United States is going to be running Venezuela, it means that the new leaders of Venezuela need to meet our demands.”

So basically— under the threat of more military intervention— the US wants to dictate terms to the Madurist-government-without-Maduro. They evidently see this as less hassle than occupying the country and either governing directly, handing power to González (the evident actual winner of the last election), or holding new elections.

It's hard to see this working. One way it could blow up is if Rubio et al. simply ask more of Rodríguez than she can accommodate politically. She might choose to resist— or simply resign and let someone else take the heat.

On the other hand, Trump is not big on follow-through, and is easy to butter up. It's certainly possible some sort of deal can be cooked up which gives some oil concessions but little else. (There's nothing else to give— countries can't eliminate the narcos by decree.)

Venezuela nationalized its oil industry fifty years ago, in 1976— needless to say, far earlier than Chávez. Some deals with foreign companies remained, which Chávez did nationalize in 2007. Whether anyone in the US government understands all this is unclear.

Apparently the administration's plan is to invite US oil companies to go in, invest billions of dollars in oil infrastructure, and be paid later somehow. The companies seem to be side-eyeing this plan. Oil is at its lowest price in years, the existing infrastructure is in bad shape, and companies want a stable long-term situation where their employees and investments are safe.

[rotting bones]

If you have no interest in what seems true to me, that's fine. I'm sick. I could be wrong.

Is the drug charge real? Isn't narco trafficking basically what the CIA does?

Also, is Mamdani going to allow protests in front of synagogues? I'm worried about that.

[zompist]

Is the drug charge real?

Is anything real with this administration? I think the Onion got it right-- it showed a picture of Maduro labeled "Maduro Charged with Felony Oil Possession".

As I said above, no Latin American country can turn off the drugs tap by decree... for the same reason the US is unable to turn off drugs consumption by executive order. These are not things decided by policymakers and not things a president can change. Conservatives may or may not actually understand this.

The unseriousness of the allegations is shown by Trump's pardon of Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez for drug trafficking.

Isn't narco trafficking basically what the CIA does?

Who knows? It's been a common allegation for decades, but proof seems to be hard to come by.

FWIW, if it were true, Trump could stop it and maybe even get praised for it. If it was such an easy win, why didn't he?

[Man in Space]

We have lost PBS.

[bradrn]

We have lost PBS.

What’s PBS?

[Lērisama]

We have lost PBS.

What’s PBS?

A quick google suggests he's referring to this event?, which would explain the thread we're in.

[zompist]

We have lost PBS.

What’s PBS?

A quick google suggests he's referring to this event?, which would explain the thread we're in.

To be clear, what's shutting down is CPB, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributed funding. PBS (Public Boradcasting Service) is a separate entity. It's not shutting down, but it's lost 21% of its revenue. NPR (National Public Radio) is also separate.

Many public radio/TV stations are run by private non-profits. E.g. our local outlet is WTTW, which will lose 10% of its funding. That's bad but not a killing blow. News articles are generally saying that rural stations will be the hardest hit.

[Raphael]

To be clear, what's shutting down is CPB, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributed funding. PBS (Public Boradcasting Service) is a separate entity. It's not shutting down, but it's lost 21% of its revenue. NPR (National Public Radio) is also separate.

Many public radio/TV stations are run by private non-profits. E.g. our local outlet is WTTW, which will lose 10% of its funding. That's bad but not a killing blow. News articles are generally saying that rural stations will be the hardest hit.

Ah, thank you, good to know.

[Man in Space]

To be clear, what's shutting down is CPB, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributed funding. PBS (Public Boradcasting Service) is a separate entity. It's not shutting down, but it's lost 21% of its revenue. NPR (National Public Radio) is also separate.

Many public radio/TV stations are run by private non-profits. E.g. our local outlet is WTTW, which will lose 10% of its funding. That's bad but not a killing blow. News articles are generally saying that rural stations will be the hardest hit.

Ah, thank you, good to know.

Seconded; I was unaware of the ownership/hierarchy structure.

[jcb]

We have lost PBS.

What’s PBS?

The "Public Broadcasting Service". It's probably best known for playing many universally beloved (by Americans) children's TV shows:

As a child in the 1990s, it was one of only five TV channels that my home got.

[Man in Space]

We have lost PBS.

What’s PBS?

The "Public Broadcasting Service". It's probably best known for playing many universally beloved (by Americans) children's TV shows:

As a child in the 1990s, it was one of only five TV channels that my home got.

I will always remember Sagwa as the show that they ran on PBS on 9/11. There was a chyron over it that was basically telling parents that they’d be running kids’ programming so there’d be something to keep them occupied.

[rotting bones]

FWIW, if it were true, Trump could stop it and maybe even get praised for it. If it was such an easy win, why didn't he?

The CIA is broken up into individual cells that have limited communication with each other. Maybe the drug trade helps fund their operations without attracting government scrutiny.

Also, who else will bring him cocaine in the White House?

[malloc]

So what does everyone think about Trump planning to invade Greenland and various places in Latin America? Trying to look at it optimistically, my hope is that Europe will organize against this plan and pressure Trump to think twice. That said, I know little about European military power and can hardly guess the feasibility of European resistance here.

[Travis B.]

So what does everyone think about Trump planning to invade Greenland and various places in Latin America? Trying to look at it optimistically, my hope is that Europe will organize against this plan and pressure Trump to think twice. That said, I know little about European military power and can hardly guess the feasibility of European resistance here.

Trump invading Greenland would mean the end of NATO and the loss of a lot of American power globally. Even many of Trump's friends in the Republican party don't support invading Greenland, even if they cheered on Trump's adventure in Venezuela.

[rotting bones]

I guess we'll find out just how much unchecked power Trump has. He can't even complain that all the drugs he ever took were sold to him by Jens-Frederik Nielsen like he did with Maduro.

[WeepingElf]

So what does everyone think about Trump planning to invade Greenland and various places in Latin America? Trying to look at it optimistically, my hope is that Europe will organize against this plan and pressure Trump to think twice. That said, I know little about European military power and can hardly guess the feasibility of European resistance here.

The European political leaders are beginning to realize that Trump is not their friend. The US have far more nuclear warheads than the EU+UK, but what regards conventional forces, both sides are closer to equal standing, I think. Of course, a war would be disastrous, especially if Putin takes the chance to attack us while we have enough trouble with our former ally beyond the Atlantic. Yet, I consider such a war not very likely, but one can't be sure about that.