Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Triskele

US Politics Cont'd: Our Mask of Sanity is Beginning to Slip

Recommended Posts

 

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

https://relevantmagazine.com/current/nation/its-not-just-your-imagination-americans-are-getting-less-tolerant/

The article says there's a partisan divide, but from my perspective double digits on this sort of intolerance in any populations is bad. So Democrats don't get a pass for being less intolerant.

I am afraid of what the stats in my country would be though. I have a feeling that growing intolerance isn't just limited to the USA.

 Democrats and liberals have taken latched on to this idea that more people would become progressive overtime but it could easily go in the opposite direction.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

....

Don't get me wrong, I'm not some raving Bernie or bust maniac, but what about his policies are divorced from reality?

Cut out the bit on memory, because nobody wins that debate. Answering the bottom part below. 

1 hour ago, Mr. Fancy Pants said:

Bernie's good, but you're not going to convince some of the haters around here. In fact, it'd be great to see the numbers of those die hard Berners who refused to vote Clinton vs the still-angry Clinton supporters who refuse to ever support Bernie. Seems pretty ridiculous. Hillary lost the election for many reasons, and Bernie wasn't one of them. 

And this idea he hasn't any plans to make his ideas work? I don't get that either. People just don't listen to him. Medicare for all? Taxes go up for all--and his point being, that you might pay more monthly in taxes, but nowhere near the premiums you pay for your shitty work provided healthcare (for me and my son, mine is 20 percent of my income now--and I have high copays!). 

When you think about the stats that three or four families in this country control more wealth than the bottom half of earners in this country, and that they don't pay taxes, well, I think I know where the money will come from. Bernie wants to redistribute wealth. 

I remember a smart economics professor explaining this to me once. It seems like the wealth inequality, the scarcity of resources, the humanitarian crises are all unavoidable, but they aren't. This is just how society has been shaped. It doesn't have to be shaped this way, but people are so resistant to restructuring things. 

Biden or Trump are no different. We have too many catastrophic issues for some middling dickhead to sit in the White House trying to work with Mitch McConnell. We need some radical change, and every election we let go by with some centrist, reach across the aisle type, the closer we come to the brink. 

So...my prediction is Biden will win the nom.

Firstly, I’m not a hater, but I am a disliker. Wasn’t thrilled with Hillary either (Loved Gore and Obama. And to be fair B Clinton In the 90s).

Secondly, as much as I want Biden to lose, saying there is no difference between him and Trump is borderline moronic. 

Thirdly, on Bernie’s policies.  Single payer is the best system. But any proposal which strips workers of their current plans won’t even get through a Dem house/senate. It shows he learned nothing from what happened with the ACA. 

His funding requirements for all his policies are so high that he wouldn’t get the tax/debt through the Dems. 

And unless he’s changed his tune he’s sounded delusional about the chances of working with the Republicans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

 Democrats and liberals have taken latched on to this idea that more people would become progressive overtime but it could easily go in the opposite direction.

The idea is not that people will get more progressive.  The idea is that younger generations are more progessive, and that will continue to be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Triskele said:

By the way, owe you a response on the other thing, and will get it to you.

On this comment this is why I'm something of a Beto apologist.  Not that he's my favorite, but I remember in Obama's rise both that people called him an empty suit or a cypher and I feel like Beto is getting some of that now.  But all politicians have to play this same game to some extent.  

O'Rourke, like Obama, sort of straddles that territory between the most progressive wing and the blue dog moderate wing.  Was Obama authentic or was he slightly calculating?  If it's the latter, do we really care?  And if that's the case, what's wrong with O'Rourke?

All of that said, Beto needs to up his game to compete with Castro, Pete, Booker, and Kamala.  All of them looked stronger this opening weekend.  

Here's why Jace won't hear a good word about that jizz covered sick puppet. He's a loser. A pathetic fucking loser who couldn't beat Ted Cruz and has the nerve to expect his halfassed 'aw shucks' Blue Republican bullshit to carry the day in a Democratic primary. The arrogance is shocking. I get that sometimes you're a going for a cabinet slot by throwing your hat in the ring but by using that loss as a springboard to the national stage he has shown nothing but naked ambition.

And don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with being ambitious. It takes a certain amount of crazy to even try for President. But he has put his ambitions in front of not only the party (hey, sometimes it's wrong and needs challenging) but also the people he tricked into supporting him in Texas. To leave the job unfinished like that, with potential for a presidential boost to put Texas over the edge, is not a trait I want in a leader. 

You don't leave a cause unfulfilled. It shows lack of conviction.

9 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

 Democrats and liberals have taken latched on to this idea that more people would become progressive overtime but it could easily go in the opposite direction.

This is an important topic to me. The willfully exploited have existed in every society I've ever read about. That is not going to change and Democrats need to stop thinking that Latinos are going to save them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"How is forgiveness of student loan debt going to lead to a fiscal crisis? Please explain your reasoning. Do you understand the difference between default on debt and forgiveness of debt, and why the first is a problem in ways the second isn't?"

 
Actually what I said was-  "I don't think it's an unfairness or injustice to pay back loans whether they be for home's, vehicles, education or any other reason. Its important to the economy that people do pay back their loans or we wind up in the kind of fiscal crisis we saw in 2008."
 
I didn't single it out and say student loan forgiveness would cause another credit crisis like the one from ten years ago, I was responding to a post that said it was an injustice and unfairness for me to have had to pay back my student loans. In particular, I was disagreeing with labeling the repayment as an injustice and unfairness and tried to point out the importance of repayments, apparently I did a poor job because your about the 4th poster who seems agitated that Im not in favor of wholesale loan forgiveness.
As I stated in my first post on the topic I think interest rate limits, deferments for unemployed are great tools that I support. But debt forgiveness should be means tested and not an across the board clean slate for all student debt.
I just don't think my position is that unreasonable, but it seems to garner some opposition?
Edited by DireWolfSpirit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

snip

OK, lots to chew on there.  

You're 100% wrong (please do not gnaw on my soul, with all due respect) on the first point about losing to Ted Cruz.  If it's the most impressive "loss" ever then it's far more impressive than many "wins." 

That said, you're 100% right about the Texas Senate thing and...unless something crazy happens I'm ditching the guy just for that.  

And I'm sorry to say that along similar lines I'm crushed that Stacey Abrams is not running for Senate in Georgia.

If you really believed in Beto for Senate how much can you believe in him right now?  And if you really believed in Stacey Abrams for governor of Georgia (and yes, she probably got robbed), where is she right now?

We need these two to run for Senate in Texas and Georgia respectively so badly right now.  They should do a kickstarter together and say something like "it's been a wild 18 months, and we had to sort some shit out" or something to restart the whole thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ants said:

Cut out the bit on memory, because nobody wins that debate. Answering the bottom part below. 

Firstly, I’m not a hater, but I am a disliker. Wasn’t thrilled with Hillary either (Loved Gore and Obama. And to be fair B Clinton In the 90s).

Secondly, as much as I want Biden to lose, saying there is no difference between him and Trump is borderline moronic. 

Thirdly, on Bernie’s policies.  Single payer is the best system. But any proposal which strips workers of their current plans won’t even get through a Dem house/senate. It shows he learned nothing from what happened with the ACA. 

His funding requirements for all his policies are so high that he wouldn’t get the tax/debt through the Dems. 

And unless he’s changed his tune he’s sounded delusional about the chances of working with the Republicans. 

Obviously, I'm gonna disagree with you, but I do think that the concerns are well founded. I can certainly see the objection to killing the private insurance industry and kicking everyone off their current plans, but honestly, as someone who has literally only known one insurance system my entire life, and don't relish the idea of having to learn a new one, I'd rather never have to think about what plan I have, I don't want to worry about losing my job and not having insurance, or having my employer pull the rug out from under me when they decide that they're going to downgrade or stop offering the plan I have to save them money. Insurance is stressful, taking the choice out of it, with single payer having better outcomes both healthwise and access across socioeconomic lines is gonna change a lot of minds once they understand what the benefits are.

As for his funding models, I've done some research on them, and they aren't that ludicrous. Most of the funding comes from raising taxes on the highest earners, and businesses, though obviously we're all going to shoulder some of the burden. I think that if it is framed correctly, along class lines and national solidarity, we have a fighting chance provided the Dem's ever win back the senate, because I think that everyone knows that there is no chance that McConnel lets anything that would ever do anything except immiserate the American people on the floor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DMC said:

The idea is not that people will get more progressive.  The idea is that younger generations are more progessive, and that will continue to be the case.

Apologies that is what I meant. But I don’t think you could look at the raw data, and reasonably say that is must be the case. In addition to the the poll Anti-Targ cited which showed a significant decrease in tolerance among young people in recent years. 

:https://www.bing.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1021031

Younger Americans seem to be regressing not just progressing.

If we acknowledge the problem maybe we could address it adequately. Instead of just acting like there is one and allowing it to fester unscathed.

49 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

This is an important topic to me. The willfully exploited have existed in every society I've ever read about. That is not going to change and Democrats need to stop thinking that Latinos are going to save them.

They’re really not. But it’s nice to think so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just listening to the debates, especially the one from last night, you wouldn't think these guys had someone from their party - popular across most their spectrum - running the country for 8 years right until 2 and a half years ago!

This is not to downplay the problems that are there today, and of course there was the mess from George H. including a global financial crisis to sort out first, no doubt, but why were the most glib rhetoricians on display not pushing their own President more actively in the last few years of his term to go further? Maybe Bernie was, not sure, but I really doubt Kamala was. Listening to her, you'd think Trump has been around for 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:
 
Actually what I said was-  "I don't think it's an unfairness or injustice to pay back loans whether they be for home's, vehicles, education or any other reason. Its important to the economy that people do pay back their loans or we wind up in the kind of fiscal crisis we saw in 2008."
 
I didn't single it out and say student loan forgiveness would cause another credit crisis like the one from ten years ago, I was responding to a post that said it was an injustice and unfairness for me to have had to pay back my student loans. In particular, I was disagreeing with labeling the repayment as an injustice and unfairness and tried to point out the importance of repayments, apparently I did a poor job because your about the 4th poster who seems agitated that Im not in favor of wholesale loan forgiveness.
As I stated in my first post on the topic I think interest rate limits, deferments for unemployed are great tools that I support. But debt forgiveness should be means tested and not an across the board clean slate for all student debt.
I just don't think my position is that unreasonable, but it seems to garner some opposition?

Apologies. Yeah, that is not an unreasonable position. I think some of the disagreement with you was miscommunication. There have been posters that have come in here before to basically say, "I payed my loans off, I think everyone else should have to suffer like I did." And some of what your wrote looked like a similar argument. Thus the pile on.

There are probably people that disagree with you about means testing though, I have seen those arguments before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with judging who "won" a presidential debate is that inevitably you think that the people you already like/support did well.  But with that caveat in mind, I thought that Harris was clearly the best candidate on the stage.  She was energetic, forceful, and solid.  Towards then end she lost a little bit of her edge, but overall she was excellent.  The next best was Buttigeig, who was generally articulate and thoughtful.  I'd rank it thusly:

Winners:  Harris, Buttigeig

Mixed-bag:  Sanders, Biden, Gillibrand

Not impressive:  Everyone else

Oh that poor man, why won't the teacher ever call on him:  Yang

 

Having seen most of both debates, my ideal third debate would be Harris, Buttigeig, Sanders, Biden, Castro, Booker, Warren, Inslee and Bullock.  But obviously I'm not going to get that wish, for several reasons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:
 
Actually what I said was-  "I don't think it's an unfairness or injustice to pay back loans whether they be for home's, vehicles, education or any other reason. Its important to the economy that people do pay back their loans or we wind up in the kind of fiscal crisis we saw in 2008."
 
I didn't single it out and say student loan forgiveness would cause another credit crisis like the one from ten years ago, I was responding to a post that said it was an injustice and unfairness for me to have had to pay back my student loans. In particular, I was disagreeing with labeling the repayment as an injustice and unfairness and tried to point out the importance of repayments, apparently I did a poor job because your about the 4th poster who seems agitated that Im not in favor of wholesale loan forgiveness.
As I stated in my first post on the topic I think interest rate limits, deferments for unemployed are great tools that I support. But debt forgiveness should be means tested and not an across the board clean slate for all student debt.
I just don't think my position is that unreasonable, but it seems to garner some opposition?

I've stated my position on this before. There is a powerful tool already in existence that could be applied to student loans that would solve a lot of these problems and kick any moral hazard qualms to the curb: make them dischargable through bankruptcy. There's no need to invent the wheel (and this is coming from a leftie).

Instead of spending political capital on loan forgiveness, I'd want loans to be dischargable, and have that capital spent on fixing the broken college system. I'd probably also forbid subsidized loans from being made to students attending private schools, and put in some legislation that infrastructure spending at public schools must mainly be focused on education-related endeavors, that the number and salaries of school administrators should be capped, and that provides for more tenure-track professors with higher salaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

Just listening to the debates, especially the one from last night, you wouldn't think these guys had someone from their party - popular across most their spectrum - running the country for 8 years right until 2 and a half years ago!

This is not to downplay the problems that are there today, and of course there was the mess from George H. including a global financial crisis to sort out first, no doubt, but why were the most glib rhetoricians on display not pushing their own President more actively in the last few years of his term to go further? Maybe Bernie was, not sure, but I really doubt Kamala was. Listening to her, you'd think Trump has been around for 20 years.

Because Republicans had control of the House and Senate and categorically refused to work with the Dems or the WH on anything that was remotely close to their agenda.

ETA: This is why all of this shit is a pipe dream. No one compromises anymore and we're all destined to be disappointed.

Edited by Mexal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Apologies that is what I meant. But I don’t think you could look at the raw data, and reasonably say that is must be the case. In addition to the the poll Anti-Targ cited which showed a significant decrease in tolerance among young people in recent years. 

:https://www.bing.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1021031

Younger Americans seem to be regressing not just progressing.

If we acknowledge the problem maybe we could address it adequately. Instead of just acting like there is one and allowing it to fester unscathed.

They’re really not. But it’s nice to think so. 

I am a bit skeptical that the results of that survey are as bad as you think.

In the first place, it's just one survey and we need more such findings to be sure about the results.

More importantly, the questions on which young people supposedly became less "tolerant" were all questions where they were asked how "comfortable" they would be around LBGTQ persons in certain scenarios. The questions on support for "rights" of GLBTQ persons did NOT show a decrease in support.

Could it be that younger generations are simply more willing to admit that their immediate emotional reactions do not always jive with their reasoned conclusions than older generations were? 

I would be much more concerned with a survey which showed a drop in willingness to interact with GLBTQ people than just reporting feelings of "discomfort."  I myself am not personally "comfortable" with the idea of "nonbinary" identification. That does not mean that I in any way think that people who do identify as "nonbinary" should have lesser rights, or even that I would avoid interacting with them. In fact, I would like to have some personal conversations with some "nonbinary" people so that I could overcome my feelings of discomfort. 

I think this survey needs further looking into and shouldn't be ignored. But it's far from really showing there is a "significant decrease in tolerance." People tolerate things they are uncomfortable with all the time. 

Edited by Ormond
minor spelling correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now with that important comment said, ya’ll need to quit fighting it. I’ve been telling you since before 2019 that Harris is the ticket. She checks off every box and she is cutting in debates and committee hearings. She will make Trump look even more foolish than she made Biden look last night. And make no mistake, she nuked him, and it was all pre-planned. She was baiting him into that the entire night, and she twisted the knife and the exact right moment. As someone whose done a lot of debate prep, I must concede, that was a masterstroke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Now with that important comment said, ya’ll need to quit fighting it. I’ve been telling you since before 2019 that Harris is the ticket. She checks off every box and she is cutting in debates and committee hearings. She will make Trump look even more foolish than she made Biden look last night. And make no mistake, she nuked him, and it was all pre-planned. She was baiting him into that the entire night, and she twisted the knife and the exact right moment. As someone whose done a lot of debate prep, I must concede, that was a masterstroke.

I can only hope that the debate kicks up the media chatter and gets Trump tweeting about her. The only way she has a chance of securing the ticket is if she starts getting some coverage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mexal said:

I can only hope that the debate kicks up the media chatter and gets Trump tweeting about her. The only way she has a chance of securing the ticket is if she starts getting some coverage. 

At some point yes, but I don't think things are nearly as dire for her as you're implying.  There are really six candidates that (pre-debate) were polling at more than 4%.  She is one of them.  After this debate, I'm fairly sure she'll improve her standing at least somewhat.  So she's right in the thick of things.  It doesn't matter if Biden is the frontrunner all the way to Iowa, what matters is who survives the winnowing and builds support.  In terms of the things that actually matter in campaigning, she's done them well - her rollout was solid, her first debate was strong and her interviews and hearings have been making the most of her opportunities. 

All signs are pointing in the right direction for Harris.  She is broadly acceptable to almost the entire democratic party, and I think she is going to start/continue to increase her support from voters who are currently undecided and who are half-hearted Biden supporters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Mexal said:

I can only hope that the debate kicks up the media chatter and gets Trump tweeting about her. The only way she has a chance of securing the ticket is if she starts getting some coverage. 

Trump will go after Biden for his poor performance, and frankly, senior moments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Mexal said:

I can only hope that the debate kicks up the media chatter and gets Trump tweeting about her. The only way she has a chance of securing the ticket is if she starts getting some coverage. 

Fox and Friends was very complimentary of her, so I'm sure President Shithole has taken notice.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/fox-news-kamala-harris-exchange-biden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×