US Politics: Mail and Managers for Mitch

[Centrist Simon Steele]

6 hours ago, Altherion said:

No, nobody likes the student loan companies. However, the debt in question belongs to the government so this would amount to a massive transfer of wealth from those who never went to college and those who paid off their loans in full to those who currently have student loan debt. The people who paid off their loans in full might be annoyed, but these tend to be wealthier and thus not likely to rock the boat. On the other hand, the people who never went to college include the poorest as well as those with the worst prospects. It's hard to predict how they would react.

The poorest aren't paying that debt. This is silly. The poorest typically don't pay taxes after they file. The wealthiest would foot the bill on this.

[DireWolfSpirit]

10 hours ago, Darryk said:

Pretty powerful stuff.

A belated happy MLK Day to you. And thank you for my favorite post in quite some time.

[The Anti-Targ]

9 hours ago, Triskele said:

Huh, a piece kind of similar to that one I linked about over-educated folks...The Atlantic (limited clicks) has this one arguing that a lot of white (mostly), college-educated folks are political hobbyists which is a person that loves reading about and talking about politics but is not really that actively engaged in doing anything about it.  This does appear to sort of be a book excerpt. 

I think I'd rather have a bunch of educated lazy liberals who don't walk the talk, but still have generally the right attitude to equality, fairness, economic justice and science than a bunch of uneducated rednecks who blame overseas sweat shop workers and Mexican immigrants for their economic predicament, and blame homosexuality and abortion for Hurricanes, who start actively working for the neo-fascist causes that validated their erroneous beliefs, while helping those who are truly responsible for their plight to stay in control.

If the lazy white liberals earn their money, raise their kids to not hate blacks, gays, trans and Jews, pay their taxes happily, give a bit to charity, recycle, drive a Prius and vote for progressive policies that's OK.

If we can educate people out of active bigotry and into political laziness that's a win. It's not the optimal outcome, but don't let perfect get in the way of good.

[Larry of the Lawn]

6 hours ago, Triskele said:

Wasn't that article kind of anti this very thing though?  Arguing that there's too much of this tone and condescension from Dem circles?

Yes.  

 

28 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I think I'd rather have a bunch of educated lazy liberals who don't walk the talk, but still have generally the right attitude to equality, fairness, economic justice and science than a bunch of uneducated rednecks who blame overseas sweat shop workers and Mexican immigrants for their economic predicament, and blame homosexuality and abortion for Hurricanes, who start actively working for the neo-fascist causes that validated their erroneous beliefs, while helping those who are truly responsible for their plight to stay in control.

If the lazy white liberals earn their money, raise their kids to not hate blacks, gays, trans and Jews, pay their taxes happily, give a bit to charity, recycle, drive a Prius and vote for progressive policies that's OK.

If we can educate people out of active bigotry and into political laziness that's a win. It's not the optimal outcome, but don't let perfect get in the way of good.

This is not remotely the distinction or alternative offered to political hobbyism that that's discussed.  It's more about how the people actually doing the work for these liberal causes are often the working class.  It's certainly true in our local sanctuary movement - I'd say about 2/3rds to 3/4s of our regular members are working class.  We do have a decent amount of people who sound like the liberal suburban hobbyists type but they're maybe 20% of the organization, at most.

The Atlantic article is great example of how to unite the 'two' groups from the other one - educated liberals can get involved working towards the goals their 'team' is fighting for.  Yeah, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but the politics as entertainment vs action is super relevant.  It's not like being a red neck trump voter is the alternative.

 

[Guest]

Fuck her and fuck the rest of the Clintons too. The sun does not rise and set with your fucking family.

Link

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Fuck her and fuck the rest of the Clintons too. The sun does not rise and set with your fucking family.

Link

Agreed. But you can't say that in public or you're a sexist Bernie Bro. 

[Ormond]

Not sure I want to see complete student loan forgiveness for everyone, and think Larrytheimp may be defining "working class" solely on income, which I have some problems with.

But I really think it should be emphasized how much of the student loan debt problem is what people who attended some college classes but never got a degree owe. I am much more in favor of loan forgiveness or financial help for that population --which is in the millions in the USA -- than for those who did get the degree and so usually have the advantages of a college education.

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/18/739451168/i-m-drowning-those-hit-hardest-by-student-loan-debt-never-finished-college

One of the worst things the above article says is the following paragraph:

Quote

The one thing that could help Chavonne earn more money, of course, is earning a degree. But because she's in default, she doesn't have access to federal student aid that could help her go back and finish. It's a vicious cycle for Chavonne and millions of other students who leave college with debt and without a degree.

This is really completely counterproductive -- there should definitely be a way to get people like this out of default and back into college (or a "trades" program at a community college). It is sad that so much of the extra earning potential of college is based on having the diploma or not, but until we can change the culture to emphasize actual knowledge instead of the degree itself, burdening those who for any reason have only partially finished a degree with all this debt and then not giving them any help to finish the degree is just ridiculous. 

[Jace, Extat]

HRC can be a self-loathing sore loser while Bernard is also a do-nothing ideologue who willfully abuses the faith people put in his nonexistent visions. 

One does not preclude the other, no?

[Rippounet]

12 hours ago, Triskele said:

Huh, a piece kind of similar to that one I linked about over-educated folks...The Atlantic (limited clicks) has this one arguing that a lot of white (mostly), college-educated folks are political hobbyists which is a person that loves reading about and talking about politics but is not really that actively engaged in doing anything about it.  This does appear to sort of be a book excerpt. 

Ouch, this one hits a bit too close to home... I feel I'm fresh out of "political hobbyism" myself.

Quote

Instead, they are scrolling through their news feeds, keeping up on all the dramatic turns in Washington that satiate their need for an emotional connection to politics but that help them not at all learn how to be good citizens. They can recite the ins and outs of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation or fondly recall old 24-hour scandals such as Sharpiegate, but they haven’t the faintest idea how to push for what they care about in their own communities.

Well, to be fair, it's not easy to figure out. For a long time, voting did achieve enough to be comfortable. The disconnect between government parties and the working (& middle) class has been incremental in most countries.

11 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

And this is where Altherion is wrong on the student debt angle.  It's not a redistribution of wealth to those who have degrees.  It's not taking from the working class to give to the professionals.  It will also give a lot of people saddled with student debt that never even got the fucking degrees a chance to get out from under pile of debt.  Those people, self included, are working class.  It would be great to see  public dollars actually go to people isntead of oil companies or tax cuts for the 1%.  The only us vs them that matters is the super rich vs everyone else.  This upper middle class vs lower middle class vs working class ...it's all bullshit.  If anyone who is reading this makes less than 250k year you shouldn't even give a fuck about debt getting wiped out.  And if you make more than that, well fuck you too.

People don't quite see it that way. There has been a growing distruct of intellectuals and educated folk and as a consequence many (if not most) no longer associate the benefits of education with people from the working class.
And to be fair, in the US at least it's quite understandable. The high cost of education makes it difficult to associate education and class consciousness. Which is precisely why Warren & Sanders are correct to push for it of course.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

And on the fifteenth day of the fifteenth war of the fifteen years' war, ten thousand thousand peoples of every class were slaughtered in the battle that would become known as the Massacre of the Innocents. Bourbon Street has never recovered.

To the last, Fincher defended his right to make a fictional story about a man blowing up debt. It should be noted that even his staunchest critic acknowledges the director's determination and dignity as the mob ripped his limbs asunder.

As for the United States... Well, it would be ground to powder.

Never change.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

HRC can be a self-loathing sore loser while Bernard is also a do-nothing ideologue who willfully abuses the faith people put in his nonexistent visions. 

One does not preclude the other, no?

No, it doesn't, but that wasn't what prompted my outburst. Clinton is <deliberately> kneecapping a frontrunner for the Democratic nomination during a must-win election year. And this isn't something that can be walked back as in "I was misquoted" or "it was an aide's fault". She straight up put the #2 primary candidate on blast for the world to see.

I expect the actual candidates to throw some elbows, but I've already seen this story in The Hill, The Hollywood Reporter and the NYT. Explain to me how this is in any way helpful during a must-win election year.

[Jace, Extat]

4 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

No, it doesn't, but that wasn't what prompted my outburst. Clinton is <deliberately> kneecapping a frontrunner for the Democratic nomination during a must-win election year. And this isn't something that can be walked back as in "I was misquoted" or "it was an aide's fault". She straight up put the #2 primary candidate on blast for the world to see.

I expect the actual candidates to throw some elbows, but 've already seen this story in The Hill, The Hollywood Reporter and the NYT. Explain to me how this is in any way helpful during a must-win election year.

That's fair, dawg.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

26 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

HRC can be a self-loathing sore loser while Bernard is also a do-nothing ideologue who willfully abuses the faith people put in his nonexistent visions. 

One does not preclude the other, no?

Worth noting HRC only successfully sponsored three bills that became laws: naming a highway, renaming a post office and establishing some historical site. She’s not exactly a titan of the Senate either.

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Worth noting HRC only successfully sponsored three bills that became laws: naming a highway, renaming a post office and establishing some historical site. She’s not exactly a titan of the Senate either.

How long did she spend in the senate comparatively? I didn't set out to defend Clinton, only to bring Sanders back to size.

[Fez]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Worth noting HRC only successfully sponsored three bills that became laws: naming a highway, renaming a post office and establishing some historical site. She’s not exactly a titan of the Senate either.

Sponsoring a bill isn't the best measure of how effective and involved a legislator actually is; since very few bills ever pass Congress. E.g. Dick Durbin, who has been in the Senate since 1997 and is generally a well-respected and mainstream Democrat, has only been a primary sponsor on 34 enacted bills; that's an average of only a bit more than one per year. Patty Murray is another example; been in the senate since 1993 and was a primary sponsor on 30 enacted bills.

Senators and their offices do a lot of work on bills that eventually end rolled up as policy riders to appropriations bills without ever getting a sponsorship credit. And work on pieces of the handful of other major bills that occasionally pass. They also, at least prior to this administration, did a lot of oversight and investigative work. Plus there's the various constituent work they do.

That isn't to say HRC was an effective senator either, I don't know that much about what her 8 years in the senate were like. But the bill thing isn't enough. I fault Sanders specifically because I have heard second-hand a lot about what his office does behind the scenes.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

How long did she spend in the senate comparatively? I didn't set out to defend Clinton, only to bring Sanders back to size.

Eight years, so around half as long as Sanders. This is more just a personal complaint though. One of my first political gigs was an internship in the MN State Senate, and one of the jobs I had to do for my senator was run around getting co-sponsors to his legislation. He was in leadership so most other DFL senators just said sure. It bothered me when they then later claimed some level of credit for the passage of said legislation like they actually did anything about it. And that’s really the entirety of HRC’s time in the Senate, claiming credit for other people’s work while distancing herself from the awful things she supported.

[Jace, Extat]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Eight years, so around half as long as Sanders. This is more just a personal complaint though. One of my first political gigs was an internship in the MN State Senate, and one of the jobs I had to do for my senator was run around getting co-sponsors to his legislation. He was in leadership so most other DFL senators just said sure. It bothered me when they then later claimed some level of credit for the passage of said legislation like they actually did anything about it. And that’s really the entirety of HRC’s time in the Senate, claiming credit for other people’s work while distancing herself from the awful things she supported.

I think you just gave me a poly sci degree.

ETA: It's a poor joke that needs explanation but here we are. I meant to slight you by implying that you just described every political actor ever.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Fez said:

Sponsoring a bill isn't the best measure of how effective and involved a legislator actually is; since very few bills ever pass Congress. E.g. Dick Durbin, who has been in the Senate since 1997 and is generally a well-respected and mainstream Democrat, has only been a primary sponsor on 34 enacted bills; that's an average of only a bit more than one per year. Patty Murray is another example; been in the senate since 1993 and was a primary sponsor on 30 enacted bills.

34 in 23 years is a much better clip than 3 in 8 years, no? Especially when those three were largely meaningless?

HRC is a classic glory hog.

Quote

That isn't to say HRC was an effective senator either, I don't know that much about what her 8 years in the senate were like. But the bill thing isn't enough. I fault Sanders specifically because I have heard second-hand a lot about what his office does behind the scenes.

HRC was effective at what matters most these days, raising money. It’s what keeps Pelosi in power too.

And for what it’s worth, I haven’t heard the best thing about Sanders’ camp either.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Do people really care about what HRC is to say during this election?

I know I wouldn't want to hear a single word from her after that trainwreck of a campaign shen ran against that intellectual trainwreck that is now presidng over this trainwreck of an US administration. If you figured that trainwreck was sort of the theme of this rant, congratulations your reading comprehension is presumably worthy of becoming POTUS, if you happened to have a bilion US $ in spare to fund your campaign.

Anyway, the point being. Asking HRC on her thoughts on this year's campaigns feels like grabbing a ouija board to get Edward John Smith's opinion on safe sea travels.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I think you just gave me a poly sci degree.

ETA: It's a poor joke that needs explanation but here we are. I meant to slight you by implying that you just described every political actor ever.

Why do you think I’ve become so cynical? The politicians are grosser than you can imagine and the voters are even dumber than I feared.