Ron DeSantis signs bill to limit tenure at public universities

[OSR stands with Israel]

https://www.tampabay.com/news/education/2022/04/19/desantis-signs-bill-limiting-tenure-at-florida-public-universities/?outputType=amp


https://mobile.twitter.com/GovRonDeSantis/status/1516431708396179470?ref_src=tws...


Mega Based move by DeSantis and it absolutely sucks Trump fans will vote for the guy who acts like a 4 year old whiner over the governor who has actually is winning so much for conservative causes .

[OSR stands with Israel]

"We're gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning. And you'll say, 'Please, please. It's too much winning. We can't take it anymore.'"

DeSantis is actually doing what Trump promised rather than whine like a toddler  and lash out in temper tantrums cause someone triggered him

[OSR stands with Israel]

"It’s all about trying to make these institutions more in line with what the state’s priorities are [...]"

If this quote doesn't raise red flags for you, you should really sit down and reflect on your views.

Attempting to control research and academic discourse to make it more "in line" with "the state's priorities" is not even the first step towards a fascist state and parallels other fascist governments in history quite well.

This is an assault on academic freedom and free practice of a discipline. The state has NO business attempting to regulate academic freedom, much less by threatening tenure over it. This is dangerous, and people like OSR enable it with their fanatic politics.

Well that’s why you have private universities then and yes research grants should be prioritized for Hard Science not the social sciences . Anyway yes we need more accountability at universities which means yes a limit of tenure which is good .

It’s a public university so yes there will be different rules than private universities as one is subsidized  by taxpayer money while the other isn’t .

[OSR stands with Israel]

"It’s all about trying to make these institutions more in line with what the state’s priorities are [...]"

If this quote doesn't raise red flags for you, you should really sit down and reflect on your views.

Attempting to control research and academic discourse to make it more "in line" with "the state's priorities" is not even the first step towards a fascist state and parallels other fascist governments in history quite well.

This is an assault on academic freedom and free practice of a discipline. The state has NO business attempting to regulate academic freedom, much less by threatening tenure over it. This is dangerous, and people like OSR enable it with their fanatic politics.

Well that’s why you have private universities then and yes research grants should be prioritized for Hard Science not the social sciences . Anyway yes we need more accountability at universities which means yes a limit of tenure which is good .

Do you believe that faculty at public universities should be beholden to the ideology of the state?

No but there should be less grants given out for non hard science research

[OSR stands with Israel]

Also this is fascism but these things aren’t :

- A prime minister freezing bank accounts of protesters

- democrats openly trying to limit parents rights when it comes to their kids education

- banning people on social media who disagree with so called “experts”

Much more as well

[OSR stands with Israel]

"It’s all about trying to make these institutions more in line with what the state’s priorities are [...]"

If this quote doesn't raise red flags for you, you should really sit down and reflect on your views.

Attempting to control research and academic discourse to make it more "in line" with "the state's priorities" is not even the first step towards a fascist state and parallels other fascist governments in history quite well.

This is an assault on academic freedom and free practice of a discipline. The state has NO business attempting to regulate academic freedom, much less by threatening tenure over it. This is dangerous, and people like OSR enable it with their fanatic politics.

Well that’s why you have private universities then and yes research grants should be prioritized for Hard Science not the social sciences . Anyway yes we need more accountability at universities which means yes a limit of tenure which is good .

Do you believe that faculty at public universities should be beholden to the ideology of the state?

No but there should be less grants given out for non hard science research

Why, then, are you calling this legislation "Mega Based"?

Shameful.

Cause tenure absolutely should be limited at public universities. Or any job that gets subsidized by tax payer money . I support also limiting how much time unelected  bureaucrats can spend in their postions as well

[OSR stands with Israel]

"It’s all about trying to make these institutions more in line with what the state’s priorities are [...]"

If this quote doesn't raise red flags for you, you should really sit down and reflect on your views.

Attempting to control research and academic discourse to make it more "in line" with "the state's priorities" is not even the first step towards a fascist state and parallels other fascist governments in history quite well.

This is an assault on academic freedom and free practice of a discipline. The state has NO business attempting to regulate academic freedom, much less by threatening tenure over it. This is dangerous, and people like OSR enable it with their fanatic politics.

Well that’s why you have private universities then and yes research grants should be prioritized for Hard Science not the social sciences . Anyway yes we need more accountability at universities which means yes a limit of tenure which is good .

Do you believe that faculty at public universities should be beholden to the ideology of the state?

No but there should be less grants given out for non hard science research

Why, then, are you calling this legislation "Mega Based"?

Shameful.

Cause tenure absolutely should be limited at public universities. Or any job that gets subsidized by tax payer money

Tenure can be a very bad idea in some professions, but it's imperative that professors can bite the hand that feeds them and get away with it. Academic freedom is very important in a free society.

Then we should privatize research grants more then if that’s the issue cause government subsidized things never can truly be “free” as the government has to actively choose which grants to approve and which not too .

That decision is usually made by people who do have political agendas as well so the this will mainly just provide more oversight over  unelected  bureaucrats which I generally support.

 
Also keep in mind all this does for tenure is make them go Infront of the university board of trustees who then will decide whether to keep them or not . At most you can compare this to a form of “union busting”

[OSR stands with Israel]

Also this is fascism but these things aren’t :

- A prime minister freezing bank accounts of protesters

- democrats openly trying to limit parents rights when it comes to their kids education

- banning people on social media who disagree with so called “experts”

Much more as well

#2 and #3 are very compatible with the values of a free society.

No it is not as number 2 is literally what fascist and communist government did to ensure they could indoctrinate their kids and remove all sense of individuality . Number 3 could if their wasn’t section 230 protections given to those platforms and also cheerleadered by politicians

[OSR stands with Israel]

"It’s all about trying to make these institutions more in line with what the state’s priorities are [...]"

If this quote doesn't raise red flags for you, you should really sit down and reflect on your views.

Attempting to control research and academic discourse to make it more "in line" with "the state's priorities" is not even the first step towards a fascist state and parallels other fascist governments in history quite well.

This is an assault on academic freedom and free practice of a discipline. The state has NO business attempting to regulate academic freedom, much less by threatening tenure over it. This is dangerous, and people like OSR enable it with their fanatic politics.

Well that’s why you have private universities then and yes research grants should be prioritized for Hard Science not the social sciences .

 This is obviously beep boop  Being prejudiced in favor of his Fellow computers, rather than these "hoo-mans" he has heard of.

Given how much all these “research” into how to make our educational system has resulted in nothing but failure (and bright ideas like not teaching algebra in middle schools ) then yes they should be less prioritized . Also most of the “studies” majors are completely useless and we should absolutely disincentive those majors as well at public universities.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Btw you guys think I’m super right wing on this issue , but whenever these types of issues get discussed with my parents and other family members I usually am the most liberal member in the group on these types of issues .

[OSR stands with Israel]

"It’s all about trying to make these institutions more in line with what the state’s priorities are [...]"

If this quote doesn't raise red flags for you, you should really sit down and reflect on your views.

Attempting to control research and academic discourse to make it more "in line" with "the state's priorities" is not even the first step towards a fascist state and parallels other fascist governments in history quite well.

This is an assault on academic freedom and free practice of a discipline. The state has NO business attempting to regulate academic freedom, much less by threatening tenure over it. This is dangerous, and people like OSR enable it with their fanatic politics.

Well that’s why you have private universities then and yes research grants should be prioritized for Hard Science not the social sciences .

 This is obviously beep boop  Being prejudiced in favor of his Fellow computers, rather than these "hoo-mans" he has heard of.

Given how much all these “research” into how to make our educational system has resulted in nothing but failure (and bright ideas like not teaching algebra in middle schools ) then yes they should be less prioritized . Also most of the “studies” majors are completely useless and we should absolutely disincentive those majors as well at public universities.

Dude. All this will do is just transport the rich folks who have the money and the means to private universities to study liberal arts, while having all the working class kids compete for classes in public universities to get " useful " degrees.

It's a form of classism. Elitism as well.

Oh and don't forget that if you have all these lower income working class kids get " useful " degrees, then the value of the degree will go down, wages will drop.

But that's the goal isn't it ?

How is it better for kids who go into these types of major to accumulate massive amount of debt and then end up working at a minimum wage job after college which they could have done after high school as well .


What would be better actually is we increase funding to trade schools , and try to incentivize companies to do job training more rather than require applicants to get degrees that aren’t relevant to their jobs .

[OSR stands with Israel]

Academic tenure is one of the most important foundations of a research university. Effectively getting rid of tenure would be a death sentence for the University of Florida. No serious academic would want to work there if they had options anywhere else. If anything, dragging them in front of a board every 5 years will only increase "ideological orthodoxy" or whatever he wants to call it.

Yeah but the loss of prestige of UF and FSU won't happen overnight, so it's a problem for (and that can be blamed on) DeSantis's successors.

Scott Walker did the same thing :


https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/scott-walker-college-professor-tenure-120009?_amp=true

[OSR stands with Israel]

Academic tenure is one of the most important foundations of a research university. Effectively getting rid of tenure would be a death sentence for the University of Florida. No serious academic would want to work there if they had options anywhere else. If anything, dragging them in front of a board every 5 years will only increase "ideological orthodoxy" or whatever he wants to call it.

Yeah but the loss of prestige of UF and FSU won't happen overnight, so it's a problem for (and that can be blamed on) DeSantis's successors.

Scott Walker did the same thing :


https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/scott-walker-college-professor-tenure-120009?_amp=true

Why you want to favorably compare DeSantis to a guy whose presidential campaign was a joke and who was defeated for reelection is beyond me, but we can all pray that DeSantis sees the same fate.

Walker was governor for 8 years and was able to fundamentally change a lot of things about Wisconsin and imo he changed it for the better

[OSR stands with Israel]

Also this is fascism but these things aren’t :

- A prime minister freezing bank accounts of protesters

- democrats openly trying to limit parents rights when it comes to their kids education

- banning people on social media who disagree with so called “experts”

Much more as well

#2 and #3 are very compatible with the values of a free society.

No it is not as number 2 is literally what fascist and communist government did to ensure they could indoctrinate their kids and remove all sense of individuality . Number 3 could if their wasn’t section 230 protections given to those platforms and also cheerleadered by politicians

Are you seriously trying to argue that Democrats are the side of this culture war issue that wants to indoctrinate kids? They aren't the ones intervening in curricula to ban ideas they don't agree with.

Yes , liberal ivory tower elites are the ones who are trying to implement crt stuff in the classroom and democrats just stand by and let it happen. So yes democrats are using institutions as proxy to implement their social agenda while republicans only have the poltical arena to use and im glad that they are using it

[OSR stands with Israel]

Then we should privatize research grants more then if that’s the issue cause government subsidized things never can truly be “free” as the government has to actively choose which grants to approve and which not too .

That decision is usually made by people who do have political agendas as well so the this will mainly just provide more oversight over  unelected  bureaucrats which I generally support.

Major grant decisions (at places like NIH and NSF) are made by scientific peers, not by "unelected bureaucrats". It depends on the agency, but a few faculty send our scores in to someone working at the agency. The scores are based on rubrics that are available to anyone and tend to prioritize (1) general academic merit and (2) something specific to the agency (for the NIH, health outcomes; for NSF, "broader impacts", which is generally some sort of community impact or public science education). Critically, the "someone" (usually called a program officer) is someone who has also had academic training and probably has received several grants themselves at some point; it's seen as prestigious, if tedious, to become a program officer. The highest scoring proposals are then discussed as a bunch of peers, and the grants are ranked. Depending on the agency, the program officer may have a bit of discretion for grants that fall right on the boundary of being funded, but again it's based on the same criteria I outlined above.

Only about 10-15% of major grants are funded. I'd say the main issues with funding these days is that (1) one-in-ten isn't a great level of success, so you're incentivized to chase the funding obsessively rather than following the science, and (2) it's often the case that the rich get richer (e.g., you generally need pilot data to get a grant funded these days, but how do you get pilot data if you don't have money in the first place?). The amount of interference from "unelected bureaucrats" is small unless you consider faculty members to be "unelected bureaucrats". (But I think we'd all agree it would be bonkers for elected officials to evaluate scientific grants, right?!) Even then, the folks working at the funding agency aren't just random people with political agendas, they're usually scooped up from tenure-track positions by the NSF or NIH.

 I don’t have any problems with grants for hard science research

[OSR stands with Israel]

Then we should privatize research grants more then if that’s the issue cause government subsidized things never can truly be “free” as the government has to actively choose which grants to approve and which not too .

That decision is usually made by people who do have political agendas as well so the this will mainly just provide more oversight over  unelected  bureaucrats which I generally support.

Major grant decisions (at places like NIH and NSF) are made by scientific peers, not by "unelected bureaucrats". It depends on the agency, but a few faculty send our scores in to someone working at the agency. The scores are based on rubrics that are available to anyone and tend to prioritize (1) general academic merit and (2) something specific to the agency (for the NIH, health outcomes; for NSF, "broader impacts", which is generally some sort of community impact or public science education). Critically, the "someone" (usually called a program officer) is someone who has also had academic training and probably has received several grants themselves at some point; it's seen as prestigious, if tedious, to become a program officer. The highest scoring proposals are then discussed as a bunch of peers, and the grants are ranked. Depending on the agency, the program officer may have a bit of discretion for grants that fall right on the boundary of being funded, but again it's based on the same criteria I outlined above.

Only about 10-15% of major grants are funded. I'd say the main issues with funding these days is that (1) one-in-ten isn't a great level of success, so you're incentivized to chase the funding obsessively rather than following the science, and (2) it's often the case that the rich get richer (e.g., you generally need pilot data to get a grant funded these days, but how do you get pilot data if you don't have money in the first place?). The amount of interference from "unelected bureaucrats" is small unless you consider faculty members to be "unelected bureaucrats". (But I think we'd all agree it would be bonkers for elected officials to evaluate scientific grants, right?!) Even then, the folks working at the funding agency aren't just random people with political agendas, they're usually scooped up from tenure-track positions by the NSF or NIH.

 I don’t have any problems with grants for hard science research

NIH and NSF don't just give money to "hard science research"; Republican senators have been targeting the social science directorate of the NSF for budget cuts for years. The grant that funded some of my training was singled out by Rand Paul one year as an example of "flagrant government waste" (except whoops I now do the things that he said the grant didn't accomplish). I also described how grant programs work for funders in education and other fields that you probably call "soft science". (I don't know how funding works in the humanities but it probably follows along similar lines. Grants are less important in those fields, though.)

I also find it funny that OSR with all due respect supports " hard sciences ", when his political party in my view, goes against even the most basic of science foundations.

Wrong you can believe for example climate change is real and believe the Covid vaccines are good without also believing you should try to :


- Get rid of the oil and gas industry through government regulations

- people should be forced to take the vaccines

[OSR stands with Israel]

Then we should privatize research grants more then if that’s the issue cause government subsidized things never can truly be “free” as the government has to actively choose which grants to approve and which not too .

That decision is usually made by people who do have political agendas as well so the this will mainly just provide more oversight over  unelected  bureaucrats which I generally support.

Major grant decisions (at places like NIH and NSF) are made by scientific peers, not by "unelected bureaucrats". It depends on the agency, but a few faculty send our scores in to someone working at the agency. The scores are based on rubrics that are available to anyone and tend to prioritize (1) general academic merit and (2) something specific to the agency (for the NIH, health outcomes; for NSF, "broader impacts", which is generally some sort of community impact or public science education). Critically, the "someone" (usually called a program officer) is someone who has also had academic training and probably has received several grants themselves at some point; it's seen as prestigious, if tedious, to become a program officer. The highest scoring proposals are then discussed as a bunch of peers, and the grants are ranked. Depending on the agency, the program officer may have a bit of discretion for grants that fall right on the boundary of being funded, but again it's based on the same criteria I outlined above.

Only about 10-15% of major grants are funded. I'd say the main issues with funding these days is that (1) one-in-ten isn't a great level of success, so you're incentivized to chase the funding obsessively rather than following the science, and (2) it's often the case that the rich get richer (e.g., you generally need pilot data to get a grant funded these days, but how do you get pilot data if you don't have money in the first place?). The amount of interference from "unelected bureaucrats" is small unless you consider faculty members to be "unelected bureaucrats". (But I think we'd all agree it would be bonkers for elected officials to evaluate scientific grants, right?!) Even then, the folks working at the funding agency aren't just random people with political agendas, they're usually scooped up from tenure-track positions by the NSF or NIH.

 I don’t have any problems with grants for hard science research

NIH and NSF don't just give money to "hard science research"; Republican senators have been targeting the social science directorate of the NSF for budget cuts for years. The grant that funded some of my training was singled out by Rand Paul one year as an example of "flagrant government waste" (except whoops I now do the things that he said the grant didn't accomplish). I also described how grant programs work for funders in education and other fields that you probably call "soft science". (I don't know how funding works in the humanities but it probably follows along similar lines. Grants are less important in those fields, though.)

I also find it funny that OSR with all due respect supports " hard sciences ", when his political party in my view, goes against even the most basic of science foundations.

Wrong you can believe for example climate change is real and believe the Covid vaccines are good without also believing you should try to :


- Get rid of the oil and gas industry through government regulations

- people should be forced to take the vaccines

So you can understand the science behind global warming and pandemics and still think that providing for Public Health and Ecological Welfare are not appropriate roles for the Government. That one's ability to avoid or recover from COVID or not be involved in a Global Warming related natural disaster is a private matter and a personal choice.

I do not believe destroying our economy and also destroying our ability to respond to threats like Russia and China are the way to go at all . The solution is actually encouraging more entrepreneurs  like Elon Musk And of course investing in nuclear energy , not using government regulation to destroy our current energy industry.

So  yes I believe generally in a free market solution to dealing with climate change not a government one .

[OSR stands with Israel]

Then we should privatize research grants more then if that’s the issue cause government subsidized things never can truly be “free” as the government has to actively choose which grants to approve and which not too .

That decision is usually made by people who do have political agendas as well so the this will mainly just provide more oversight over  unelected  bureaucrats which I generally support.

Major grant decisions (at places like NIH and NSF) are made by scientific peers, not by "unelected bureaucrats". It depends on the agency, but a few faculty send our scores in to someone working at the agency. The scores are based on rubrics that are available to anyone and tend to prioritize (1) general academic merit and (2) something specific to the agency (for the NIH, health outcomes; for NSF, "broader impacts", which is generally some sort of community impact or public science education). Critically, the "someone" (usually called a program officer) is someone who has also had academic training and probably has received several grants themselves at some point; it's seen as prestigious, if tedious, to become a program officer. The highest scoring proposals are then discussed as a bunch of peers, and the grants are ranked. Depending on the agency, the program officer may have a bit of discretion for grants that fall right on the boundary of being funded, but again it's based on the same criteria I outlined above.

Only about 10-15% of major grants are funded. I'd say the main issues with funding these days is that (1) one-in-ten isn't a great level of success, so you're incentivized to chase the funding obsessively rather than following the science, and (2) it's often the case that the rich get richer (e.g., you generally need pilot data to get a grant funded these days, but how do you get pilot data if you don't have money in the first place?). The amount of interference from "unelected bureaucrats" is small unless you consider faculty members to be "unelected bureaucrats". (But I think we'd all agree it would be bonkers for elected officials to evaluate scientific grants, right?!) Even then, the folks working at the funding agency aren't just random people with political agendas, they're usually scooped up from tenure-track positions by the NSF or NIH.

 I don’t have any problems with grants for hard science research

NIH and NSF don't just give money to "hard science research"; Republican senators have been targeting the social science directorate of the NSF for budget cuts for years. The grant that funded some of my training was singled out by Rand Paul one year as an example of "flagrant government waste" (except whoops I now do the things that he said the grant didn't accomplish). I also described how grant programs work for funders in education and other fields that you probably call "soft science". (I don't know how funding works in the humanities but it probably follows along similar lines. Grants are less important in those fields, though.)

I also find it funny that OSR with all due respect supports " hard sciences ", when his political party in my view, goes against even the most basic of science foundations.

Wrong you can believe for example climate change is real and believe the Covid vaccines are good without also believing you should try to :


- Get rid of the oil and gas industry through government regulations

- people should be forced to take the vaccines

So you can understand the science behind global warming and pandemics and still think that providing for Public Health and Ecological Welfare are not appropriate roles for the Government. That one's ability to avoid or recover from COVID or not be involved in a Global Warming related natural disaster is a private matter and a personal choice.

I do not believe destroying our economy and also destroying our ability to respond to threats like Russia and China are the way to go at all . The solution is actually encouraging more entrepreneurs  like Elon Musk And of course investing in nuclear energy , not using government regulation to destroy our current energy industry.

So  yes I believe generally in a free market solution to dealing with climate change not a government one .

What about subsidies that have already been given to oil and gas? Even if you agree that public welfare violates property rights, there are areas where the health, welfare, safety, and morals of the community align with property rights.

I support the tax credits that incentivize switching to alternate energy for example as I think that is a proper government role . I do not though support stopping drilling and etc cause that would cause disastrous effects for our economy.

I also support investing in nuclear energy , more hybrid work environments etc

[OSR stands with Israel]

The reason I specified hard science is cause they unlike social science are not as political

[OSR stands with Israel]

Btw you guys think I’m super right wing on this issue , but whenever these types of issues get discussed with my parents and other family members I usually am the most liberal member in the group on these types of issues .

 That is an absolutely idiotic comparison. No one here save yourself gives a rat's ass whether you are more  Or less liberal than your parents. If it's a far right and above all stupid policy, then The In fact some of your family may be even more right wing and/or stupid proves nothing.

OSR has implied in the past that he's the only person in his immediate family who doesn't have a full MUSLIM AND CHRISTIAN GENOCIDE BEST DAY OF MY LIFE perspective on Indian domestic politics, so I don't see any reason to believe his relatives are a worthwhile point of comparison on American domestic politics, either.

In any case, he's doing a valuable service for the forum by dramatizing the sheer idiocy of the "climate change is bad but the state doing anything about it would be even worse" mindset. Also, vanity spaceflights like the ones Elon Musk is known for dump more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere in one go than whole fleets of cars do in months.

First of all this is not happening at all so please stop with outrageous attacks such as this one .
Second of all Modi and the BJP are literally India’s version of Likud so again please stop with all this hyperbole you guys make about them .




 

[OSR stands with Israel]

Btw you guys think I’m super right wing on this issue , but whenever these types of issues get discussed with my parents and other family members I usually am the most liberal member in the group on these types of issues .

 That is an absolutely idiotic comparison. No one here save yourself gives a rat's ass whether you are more  Or less liberal than your parents. If it's a far right and above all stupid policy, then The In fact some of your family may be even more right wing and/or stupid proves nothing.

OSR has implied in the past that he's the only person in his immediate family who doesn't have a full MUSLIM AND CHRISTIAN GENOCIDE BEST DAY OF MY LIFE perspective on Indian domestic politics, so I don't see any reason to believe his relatives are a worthwhile point of comparison on American domestic politics, either.

In any case, he's doing a valuable service for the forum by dramatizing the sheer idiocy of the "climate change is bad but the state doing anything about it would be even worse" mindset. Also, vanity spaceflights like the ones Elon Musk is known for dump more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere in one go than whole fleets of cars do in months.

First of all this is not happening at all so please stop with outrageous attacks such as this one .
Second of all Modi and the BJP are literally India’s version of Likud so again please stop with all this hyperbole you guys make about them .

I don't think you know what "literally" means. More importantly, what makes you think people are uncritical of Likud?... Even ignoring policy, their leader is literally under indictment for corruption.

Being critical of a party is different then accusing them of genocide . Now the far left does that too but I don’t think posters like Nathan do . Yes I know that Netanyahu is under indictment for corruption,  but I wasn’t talking from a personal aspect here and there obviously are corrupt BJP politicians too .

[OSR stands with Israel]

Second of all Modi and the BJP are literally India’s version of Likud

Why would you think this comparison would make us like Modi more?

Cause nobody outside far left lunatics would call Likud a “genocidal party”.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The reference to genocide was a reference to an old-as-the-Stone-Age 4chan meme, but sure, the BJP is not literally genocidal. Just pogrom-happy when it suits.

What’s your opinion on Likud then

[OSR stands with Israel]

The reason I specified hard science is cause they unlike social science are not as political

Ummmm.... they are too? Evolution? Global Warming? Artificial Intelligence? Stem Cell Research/Trials? Gene Editing? GMOs?

Beyond opposing aggressive counter-terrorism and police tactics, 100% supporting science was the bedrock of my political ideology.

I've always supported Education, Civil Rights, and a world that is safe for Democracy.

Difference is hard science is objectively true while social science is not so the latter has much more chances of poltical bias too . Also we have seen for example when many of their research is used in fields such as education and international relations, it ends up being massive massive failures so there clearly has to be some reform first .

[OSR stands with Israel]

Second of all Modi and the BJP are literally India’s version of Likud

Why would you think this comparison would make us like Modi more?

Cause nobody outside far left lunatics would call Likud a “genocidal party”.

It's true that they don't at least implicitly if not more so support pogroms, notwithstanding there are decidedly heavy-handed policies in the West Bank and Gaza. Thus, only a complete Nimrod would claim that the BJP is simply India's version of Likud.

Literally false again , and the main example you guys use for this was one where liberal domianted courts cleared him off .


Things like the CAA are not at all what the liberal media claimed . It actually is a good example of how the media treats the right all across the world now and Modi like DeSantis is extremely adept at responding to BS narratives