First

confused third.

Capitalism at its finest. Hide the real costs by exploiting others.

No it doesn't.

No it doesn't.

Profit is extracted. Not communist.

lol you think that shit's exclusive to communism? Come on.

Anyway abolish prison labor. I think we can all agree on that.

I'm more in favor of prison labor than I am against it. However, the fine print is that the prison labor should have the same workplace protections as non-incarcerated workers, including minimum wage. 

As a kid I watched, and got to know some of, the prison laborers building my town's skate park. Those guys were happy to be out doing something rather than sitting around a cell doing nothing. They were almost all at the end of their sentences and it was somewhat of a privilege or a reward for good behavior to be able to be out in the world working. I think it can also be helpful in transitioning to life outside prison. There is a lot more that needs to be reformed in our prison system ... this is just one part of it, and not even the full breadth of what I'd like to see changed with regard to prison labor.

Great points. 

Abolish the part of the 13th Amendment that allows prison slavery.

I forget sometimes that the abolishment of slavery actually codifies slavery to be allowed for criminal punishment. We really are a messed up country.

you sure about that?

Pretty sure. Every once in a while when we enter some crisis, we think, oh boy, this is the worst it has ever been. The World is coming to an end! Rather selfish on our part.

No, it is not. Called life - shit happens every so often.

Spring is coming up, and we're a little bit closer to the end of this BS virus. I don't see a horde of Mongols riding across the Bering Straight. Think positive.

i won't argue with the fact that the 60's shaped america- the self-indulgent, individualized "revolution" produced short-lived hippies, ripe for the coming reganism, who have inhibited any possible collective effort to combat our biggest existential threat, climate change. spring is certainly coming, though it will be warmer than the last spring, just like the spring before it.

i'm hopeful this "consensus" is being dismantled before our eyes.

If you're suggesting that there is a risk of this nascent movement might devolve into the sort of Boomer selfishness the 60s did, sure. But being a Pollyanna is helping nobody.

no, just talking about the 60s. the only thing this "movement" has done, along with the appeasement of trump in general, is to expose reganism and trickle-down economics for what it really is: complete bullshit.

"60's shaped America - and the rest of the World - for many years, and still do today."

The same pacifists that were protesting against the Vietnam war were/are ridiculing Trump for avoiding being sent to an illegal war to kill innocent civilians. I would argue it didn't shape the world as much as it did distort it!

"Change the system but in the meantime at least hold everyone within the system to a similar standard" is not a contradiction. That the rich were able to use their money and influence to cheat the system, while the poor were not, is just one of the gross injustices of the Vietnam War (and Iraq, and Afghanistan, and...)

"The same pacifists that were protesting against the Vietnam war were/are ridiculing Trump for avoiding being sent to an illegal war to kill innocent civilians. "

Yeah, that checks out. They are against war and they are angered by the actions of a man -who dodged the draft- running under and being elected by the party which is pro-war. This is hypocrisy, but not the hypocrisy you are trying to claim. 

If Democrats treated Republicans the way Republicans treat Democrats, there wouldn't be any Republicans left.

Just to clarify I wasn't saying they *should*, just pointing out the difference.

i hate being forced to be a part of the democratic party

I hate being forced into any false binary just to feel like my voice has any effect.

I imagine most of us on the left here would identify as 'DINOs'. I'm nominally a Democratic Party member but only so I can vote in primary elections. The first Tuesday in November is not where my politics begin or end, and voting is perhaps the least influential political act I make all year.

If Republicans treated other Republicans the way Democrats treat other Democrats, there wouldn't be any Republicans left. 

Trump is going to give Jim Jordan the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Schumer told Franken to resign or be censured.

Can you be a member of both Republican and the Democratic Party? Would be great to be able to vote for a candidate in a primary of the party you'd not even consider voting for in the real election. Just to get the other party more aligned with your own views...A bit like Russia's Alexei Navalny's Smart Voting tactic against Putin's dominant United Russia.

Some states have open primaries in which you do not have to be a member of the party in order to participate. There's usually some crossing of people into the Democratic primaries when it's a Republican incumbent, or vice versa ... but it's usually not sufficient to make that much of a difference. I could be wrong on that last part though. I haven't done much research into it.

Switching is annoying, means you get on a bunch of lists for mailers you don't want. and also means that if you ever choose to run for office you have a mixed history open to the public to see.

I'm a registered Independent, and get mailers for both D's and R's. I was briefly registered as a Green Independent, currently the most viable third party, which is not saying much.

EA - I believe that even in states with open primaries you can only vote in one of the primaries.

tduds, I'm fairly certain that is correct. I could have made that more clear in my earlier response.

As an example, I went to the first state listed in the Wikipedia article I posted earlier ... Alabama. They do not allow you to participate in both primaries. You have to choose one.

thanks all for clearing that up about primaries...

It's a very dumb system we have. We could easily change it but some people like to pretend its holy.

Think of the heads that would have rolled had Robert Muller been given the broad and unchecked investigative mandate given to Ken Starr. Or if, say, Rahm Emmanuel was appointed instead of Muller.

When it became necessary to appoint a special counsel to investigate President Trump, in order to avoid accusations of political favoritism, a Republican was appointed. And when it became necessary to appoint a special counsel to investigate President Clinton, in order to avoid accusations of political favoritism, a Republican was appointed.

There's a good quip that's been going around: It's like the Republicans & the Democrats were playing chess, and the Republicans flipped the table and set the house on fire. And the Democrats are still trying to figure out how to win the chess game. 

The implicit thru-line of the contemporary GOP since at least Gingrich is that the Democratic Party has no right to govern, and they will break whatever rules necessary - up to and including undermining the democratic process itself - in order to prevent the Democrats from doing anything. The Democrats, meanwhile, are trying to fix the system with "resolutions" and appeals to "civility." 

It ain't gonna work. I don't know how we get back to business without first playing a little hardball. Put out the damn fire.

Well ... I was hoping for more comedic catharsis rather than a historical walk down memory lane. Now I'm just depressed even more because if the Democrats even think about playing hardball they have to check the polls first, or whatever. Even then, with overwhelming public support, the Republicans still seem to make them look like partisan hacks.

Sorry, I'll be back with some jokes.

The special counsel investigation thing was pretty funny. I chuckled at that.

The chess game is too realistic to be funny. I do tend to agree that Dems will break their backs trying to follow the "rules" while the Reps are simply changing the rules to do whatever they want. I.e. the "rule" that was made to deny Merrick Garland a SCOTUS seat, and also used to give Amy Coney Barrett one.

I like to call her Amy Barrett, just to tweak conservative nipples.

I think you mean Amy HUSSEIN Barret.

Interesting. In a thread where we are talking about Dems treating Repubs like Repubs treat Dems ... I had the knee-jerk reaction to say I used her name as I did because I didn't want to stoop to their level and call her Amy Covid Barrett.

Democrats be like, "We solemnly and with regret must inform VP Pence that we are going to wait for him to do something before we have a Zoom meeting to discuss whether or not we should do anything." 

Republicans be like, "LOL, we would have had half a dozen investigations opened already like we did after Benghazi. Ahem, but yeah, we need unity right now and investigations only sow division."

Yes exactly.

Well, as an innocent bystander my gut says that Republicans do seem to act more often out of spite towards Democrats, where Democrats try to act according to their political believes and principles...

Republicans are dumb, so they fight. Democrats are intelligent, so they argue. Unfortunately fighting seems to be more effective, much of the time.

Careful Wood Guy, jla is going to come in here and tell you fighting is never the answer and that the revolution will be achieved through intellect and education ... which Republicans have defunded every chance they get so they can buy another fighter jet.

Yeah I know I shouldn't stir the pot. My comment was somewhat tongue in cheek, but not too far from the truth either. Have you read, "Guns, Germs and Steel"? I'm due for a re-read but the lesson I recall can be extended to say that the Republican strategy is likely to win in the end. You can't reason with someone who actively wants you dead, or wants what you have, and has the tools to get it.

See: "The Walking Dead"

X-jla, have you read the book I mentioned? I agree that the things you value are important. They are important to many who vote blue. They are not important to those who vote red. I disagree that music and literature have been more influential than violence. The US is formed by violence and it's one of our defining features.

Most of American culture is an amalgam, and much of it was gathered through violence. This doesn't invalidate it, but we need to acknowledge it.

I won't, but one could probably make the argument that violence led to the conditions that allowed not only American culture, but a lot of the world's culture to develop and flourish. If not that, at least allowed for it to spread throughout the world and be the soft power that might bring about any revolutionary change in someone else's culture. And yes, we need to acknowledge it, but not in the build statues to remember our heritage sort of way.

Are you suggesting "manifest destiny" was nonviolent?

Wait!? Did jla try to refute my statement that violence led to conditions allowing culture to flourish, develop, and/or spread with "manifest destiny" ... and tried to suggest it was nonviolent!?!!

Edit: I'll just leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

None of that made much sense at all.

Thanks tduds, guess I don't really need to read any of it anyway then.

... unmuted for a minute to see what crap jla was slinging trying to redecorate the place. 

"In other words, we the people have a much greater effect in our creative and cultural endeavors than in the political sphere. We can instigate Progress more by focusing on our crafts, our minds, our personal relationships, and our community, than trying to tinker with politics." 

I understand that's what you are saying, however, you're not doing it as you "tinker with politics" here. You should be focusing on your "creative and cultural endeavors [rather] than the political sphere." 

You are here to just call out the hypocrisy ... trying calling it out in yourself. Take a look at your commenting and posting history and decide whether you've been paying more attention to "instigat[ing] [p]rogress" by crafts, personal relationships, etc. ... or by "tinker[ing] with politics." 

Back on mute ...

Ok last time ... 

Do you think Marx and Marxism just popped up out of a vacuum of non-violence? Where was Marx born? What led to the socio-economic status he enjoyed that let him be a philosopher? You think the class struggles he was writing about didn't have some type of violence entwined in them? 

Now do the same for your "manifest destiny" comment, and any other example you want to think of. Let me know if you can come up with anything other than "God created the heavens and the earth" that wasn't predicated on some type of violence. Even the creation thing is debated though ... was the big bang violent?

I'll also reiterate for those who might forget or have selective memories. I'm not advocating for violence of any sort. I'm just pointing out that it has a place in our history and we should acknowledge it.

There's no thesis with jla, only contrarianism. I know I've said this before, but I think I'm finally done with it.

When that 'control' is in an effort to silence violent insurrection? I'll give it a pass. Nice try with the"whataboutism" though. Maybe next time.

You'll give that fascism by big tech a pass bb? Good to know ;-)

A lot of tech CEOs and big VC names seem to have authoritarian impulses, yes.

Fascism? How about "Anarcho-capitalism". Yeah, it sucks, and yeah I'd prefer a platform that offered real accountability, but then what does that look like? I've been banned from Twitter for calling out racists, for wishing The Orange Shitgibbon a Happy Coronary Day

One can dislike Schumacher and Google at the same time without falsely equating them to score imaginary points on an internet message board, sure.

randomized, you're comparing apples to blue jeans. TAKING a PUBLIC resource away, and ENFORCING rules against inciting violence by a PRIVATE company are not at all the same thing. But you righties just love to repeat "whatabout" until you're blue in the face. You may as well keep trying, but nobody's listening. (BTW I made the important words IN ALL CAPS so you could follow)

I'm not falsely equating them, I'm simply equating them as do others here, see:

"A lot of tech CEOs and big VC names seem to have authoritarian impulses, yes."

I'm simply comparing how online and offline public space is being (proposed to be) controlled and how people label such control mechanisms fascism in the one but dare not in the other. Use it to your advantage, or not...what do I care.

Public space is being bought by companies or being given to companies by the government and controlled by the companies for the future. The internet space was never public. This is not to say I agree with this, but it's a distinction that the original question doesn't account for.

The technology for a decentralized internet already exists. It's called "the internet". The money is the problem that needs solving.

The racists can have reddit, but they want to digitally assault people with impunity.

A very well-written (and, gasp, conservative!) perspective on this sort of thing is Matt Stoller. I subscribed to his newsletter "BIG" (https://mattstoller.substack.com/) a while back. It's not all mindblowing, but it provides a good insight into the history of lax oversight surrounding monopolies in general has led to the current state of tech & the internet.

Which article would you recommend to start?

This was the one that led me to subscribe: https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/wework-and-counterfeit-capitalism This is also a good starting point as its one of his first essays: https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/break-ups-and-stock-prices

Easier to slow walk an impeachment trial in the senate and disrupt confirmation votes for Biden’s cabinet?

Better for the party to claim it was done as a party rather than by just a few cabinet members and Pence?

The cabinet is too loyal to Trump?

After conviction in the senate McConnell can bar trump from holding future office, but they can’t do that with the 25th?

4 GOP reps now. I think the whole party coming together to condemn trump is probably closer to the real answer.

Personally, I think McConnell is really pissed about it and has had enough of Trumpism. It worked well enough up until now to get his judges, but seeing Georgia go blue and lose control of the senate was too much and he’s ready to purge. As long as the articles aren’t too off the mark he'll be happy to convict and probably take the credit for leading the party back to some semblance of dignity. Bar is set pretty low. I do think he’s taking a gamble with the base, but he’s not up for re-election in the next few years anyway so it’s kind of not his problem, but still his problem. I don’t know, maybe he’s thinking of retiring after this term and if he succeeds he goes out on a high, and if not he won’t care ... his legacy is set with his judges.

Perhaps Trump is just a troll sent in by the Democrats to destroy the Republican Party from the inside...

Yeah. That's totally it.

I knew it!

EA, you are ascribing feelings to Mitch that I honestly don't think he possesses. He cares about power and nothing else. His change of tune is not a moral one, it's a calculated one.

agree with wood guy on this one- moscow mitch is a shrewd politician, and trump is no longer useful to him. in fact, keeping him a relevant force would only fuck things up for the republicans in the future.

WG, totally agree. Aside from the rapid-fire brainstorming [joking] portion, I'm not sure I'm attributing any feelings (except frustration at Trump's idiocy) or morals to Mitch. I think his calculation is that he sucked all he needed from Trump the last 4 years and is ready to discard the withered husk and look for his next prey. I think he's also calculated that if he can be seen as the voice of reason in the party, that's more power he can use to be kingmaker in 2024. That his wife was one of the first to resign, to me says he saw the writing on the wall well before yesterday's NYT story. Mitch is an opportunist and he's done his calculus and sees an opportunity here. If not, he'd just be on media blackout until the Biden's inauguration.

imagine being so distorted by a view that both sides are the same, that you think mitch mcconnell and bernie sanders are equivalents.

Mitch cares about one thing - controlling the senate. He lost that, both electorally and physically, on Jan 6th. He decided Trump is responsible for that loss, so it's time to purge Trump.

They only care about fetal tissue. By the time the fetus is born they have lost interest.

M'erca!

insert flying bald eagles, flags, rockets, ted nugent, blind patriotism, etc.  

You’re right jla. I’ve seen some in the wild up here too.

Army Coney Island is gross.

Greenlighting executions is about all the newest pro-life justice has done since she was sworn in.

No civilised country should have capital punishment, maybe with the Democrats now in the driving seat it’s finally time to make it right...no excuses.

I think it will be interesting to see how this all works out and what investigations reveal. In my frustrated opinion right now, any politician calling for unity and healing right now is trying to cover up their aiding and abetting.

Rep clyburn said the mob bipassed the door with his name on it and found an unmarked room in an out of the way area where he does most of his work and stormed that office. The comptroller’s unmarked office was ransacked. The comptroller keeps the electoral college ballots (which were moved to a secure location) - how would some random mob know exactly where the comptroller’s unmarked office was and what his role was? I really seems like they had inside help.

Who doesn't think this was helped by some on the inside? It had to be at some level. We've all seen the videos of the cops opening gates and doors.

Sounds like both have a very similar level of “proof”. 

incorrect.

No, I'm just going to wait until we see what information comes from the investigations taking place and continue to live in reality.

Sure I did. And there were. And they found nothing.

So I should just let people believe in lies so they don't get butthurt and start a civil war? That's very dumb, even for you.

& also "Half" is a gross overstatement. 

But you're leaning on the media and snarky Tweets as evidence that a real "investigation" into voting irregularities didn't occur, even though - in literally dozens of jurisdictions and court cases - claims were investigated and nothing was found.

Pardon the twitter link but this is not snark, it's a thread of journalistic & legal sources: https://twitter.com/Ike_Saul/status/1324435797374808066

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday!

Hey, we're almost Birthday Buddies - mine was yesterday. Congratulations on another trip around the Sun!

Happy Birthday fellow Capricorn!

Capri-what? oh no... not horrorscopes.

signed, a OPHIUCHUS.

My entire knowledge of astrology is stereotypes about Capricorns that I made up, because I am a Capricorn married to another Capricorn who likes astrology.

qed. sorry... not sorry. sorry for not being sorry.

And just like that, jla derails the point to jab at the left again.

lack of self control, even when it hurts his (almost non-existent) credibility.

that's not consistency jla, it's absolutism

Seems relevant...

everything that republicans have stood for in the past few decades (free market, tickle down economics, deficit concerns, blue lives, "family" values, on and on) has been eviscerated by trump. all that is left is a conspiracy laden group of cowards and lunatics.

Just gonna go read page 2 or whatever instead of having this argument again.

Your move, Mitchell

the turtle won't move - he's going to hand this off to Schumer & will paint the Democrats with it & obstruct just like he did under Obama

Did I miss the vote! Curse trying to get work done!

"Plus forcing members of Congress to go through metal detectors seems like they suspect someone or multiple people."

And the Members who are being little bitches about it aren't exactly doing much to assuage those suspicions.

Note: US DC attorney is using public corruption prosecutors for the capitol riot. This means public officials are implicated. I am now beginning to wonder if the McConnell delay for the senate trial is that there is more info to come out.

Maybe trump will only pardon them for the charges they already have, and then in 7 days the feds can bring the hammer down.

You stand behind and with feckless cowards who stood with the traitor in the White House for four fucking years, with Pence all the while being privy to the thoughts and statements that DIDN'T leak. Why is that?

because it's time to put the past behind us, start a new year. turn around and fix all the shit we fucked up. I'm at the point I'm so exhausted that I welcome the opportunity to forgive and forget. Let's just stop with all the horrible stuff.

Talk to the republican party, get on board with justice, and THEN we can have a nice long "put the past behind us, start a new year." Republicans broke it, they need to be held to account. No justice: sends the message that you can lie your way to office, lie while in office, lie on the way out, and nobody will do anything except cry about the lack of unity and harmony. No thanks, Trump needs to be barred from office. Trump needs to have the hammer brought down. Period.

I stand behind pence sitting in the office of the president of the United States at Biden's inauguration on Jan 20.

@curtkram, call your reps & sens and tell them to sack up and publically cleave their tethers to Trump in the most clear & hasty manner. This is their job, not the judiciary's. Otherwise, it's just hand wringing and "thoughts/prayers"...or more frankly: just selfish, politically-expedient standing on the sidelines hoping someone else is going to do the dirty work of leadership.

Staggering lack of bravery from the Republican party, as expected.

I think they all share a single intenstine from which they draw their collective fortitude. That's why they're full of bile and not much else.

tduds, once again you're much more eloquent than I could ever be. My response to that nonsense would typically be something like "go fuck yourself, you ignorant hypocrite." But I'll refrain this time.

I haven't been drinking, yet ;)

@x-jla I'm not sure I can be called out as 'establishment' for simply rooting against evil. I'd like to believe there are more of us on the side of good--regardless of where that puts you on the courage spectrum. I mean really, who roots for Darth Vader or Lex Luthor? And yes, the reckoning taking place within the GOP is the silver lining to the anguish that has been the Trump presidency.

Thanks for reminding the zero people who said something was courageous that it isn't. Do you also interrupt people drinking water to explain that it's wet?

how is anit-trump even a thing still? he's done. his supporters are done. we're back to the old fashioned republican v democrat and reaching across the aisle will help everyone.

lol no we're not & no it won't.

If anyone wants to reach across the aisle let the Republicans start. I'm old enough to know how this dumb "unity & civility" trick works and I'm embarrassed how many people still buy into it.

If unity is the goal, it's on the offender to ask for forgiveness. If that fails, it's on the authority to hold the offender accountable. Demanding that the abused party "get over it" is about impunity, not unity. Frankly one way to begin to rebuild unity would have been an unequivocal, bipartisan, repudiation of the attempted fascism of Donald Trump. They had that chance yesterday & they blew it. 

Peace will come from purging the authoritarians within our ranks, not making nice with them.

In this case I see the people who sought to overturn a fair democratic election as the abusers, and everyone else in the democracy as the abused.

x-jla again with the "both sides" and "whatabout". Take it somewhere else, it's not working here.

nonsensical bullshit.

"You're right, honey, our marriage was a fraud and I don't deserve to live in this house or see our kids ever." if that's what you think is 'reconcilliation' then ok.

"Conservative belief in pervasive Democratic Party voter fraud goes back decades — and rests on racist and nativist tropes that date back to Reconstruction in the South and Tammany Hall in the North — but the modern obsession with fraud dates back to the 2000 election." https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/15/opinion/voter-fraud-capitol-attack.html 

But sure, the Democratic Party should just be the bigger person here and admit the Republicans are right that their elections are all because of voter fraud and they have no legitimate claim to power. And... then what? You think they're going to just back off?

Fuck your dumb both-sides-ism. It only makes you somehow more annoying than either side .

"The self-described non-partisan who uncritically parrots Fox and WSJ talking points" starring x-jla.

xlax, when you raise your "points" above high-school level abstractions, man, we'll talk.

You might. I won't.

MIND BLOWN

He's our very own Rudy Giuliani. ​ Where once I might have been interested in his opposing views, I now actively avoid him and wish he'd stop showing up because he adds nothing of value to the world and instead causes real harm to my opinion of the human species.

Individual people refuting his positions is a great example of them using their media literacy to rein in their exposure to and the power of misinformation. Eventually, people stop caring, stop listening, and start ignoring, and the misinformation is left with its perfectly intact right to shout its free speech into the ether.

79 as of this post, and I'm constantly chiding myself for getting sucked into your obnoxious tirades. If you were to post less, I would post less. If I were to stop, you would not (as evidenced by past threads where I've checked out for a few weeks).

This is where I become torn. It's exhausting to counter the emotionally held absurdities. It's hard to care that much especially when you know it's just absurd, it should be clear to others. But there is a huge value in combating the spread by fighting it when it pops up. Eventually, you can't contain it. Like a pandemic. A pandemic of stupid that has taken hold of this nation. Transmitted by going online. It's like an STD. I freaking love the free flow of information, I'm sure J-lax does too. We just need to get everyone some misinformation prophylactics.

Just ran through the whole thread - this might not be entirely accurate because I just tallied up "ctrl+f" for each username, so it also accounts for times where other users have mentioned one of our names (which is more for me than you, since "jla" is the go-to mention, while I searched "x-jla"). 

Anyway, of 5,020 posts in this thread, 1,561 are yours (That's 31%!). 933 are mine. And, like I said, I'm aware of and somewhat regretful of my posting frequency here. 

Takin' a break now, I think. Will you?

"no one trusts msm anymore because of their obvious bias"

I disagree--many of us rely on steadfast media for information and are smart enough to read through any perceived bias. That doesn't mean we're getting 100% unfiltered information, but just because the right can't stop squawking about media bias doesn't mean it's as bad as they say.

Just get your biased info from both ends of the horseshoe and you’ll end up in the middle?

That's the definition of fallacious.

Again with paying attention to when & why people speak up more than what they say: The very idea of "Biased MSM" was a seed planted by Fox News in the 90s (Fair & Balanced!). The goal was to sow distrust throughout - to "flood the zone with bullshit" as they say - so that their own bias would be seen not as a clear propagandist outlier, but as a counterweight to the (not nearly as) biased "liberal" media. It's been 25 years and the talking point is a given reality.

There is, of course, more to it that just that. But it certainly got the ball rolling.

It drives me crazy to see the media (biased or not) getting dragged into the "fair and balanced" BS where they need to present "both sides" of a story. Sometimes the "other side" doesn't carry enough weight to deserve the platform. To pretend that there is an equal and opposing viewpoint just promotes a false balance that doesn't really exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"Millions think that Black Lives Matter. To discuss the opposite we found one white supremacist who disagrees. For the *whole* story, tune in at 11"

You just said we didn't understand and then repeated exactly what we said in the prior comments.

Yeeeeah it is.

not good enough. i think a decent "compromise" would be canceling only debt from public schools, coupled with a plan/bill that assures free public university level education. i think a fair criticism/concern is canceling all debt (i'm a little more torn on this) would in a sense bail out private institutions that have been fairly predatory or negligent when it comes to tuition costs and administrative spending.

we're so far behind in this category compared to europe- people will bitch and moan with all of the stupid arguments that come with living in america, but before you know it, free public university will be no more controversial than free public secondary education.

I haven't read much into the specifics of Biden's plan yet, but in general I think some debt cancelling is a good start. It needs to be part of a broader education reform in order to have any real impact, though. Tuition is out of control largely (not entirely, but largely) because of ~infinite guaranteed government money / ~infinite under-scrutinized / non-dischargeable loans. A one-time "reset" would definitely help a lot of people in my generation, but will do nothing to correct the problem that will continue to screw over younger generations.

It also needs to come with some sort of guarantee that universities won't just jack rates or fees because now kids get free uncle sam bucks.

I've avoided looking into the subject of debt cancellation because I know it's one where I'll probably be unhappy regardless of the outcome. I like what tduds said above about it being a good start, but it will need to be coupled with broader reform in the educational system. 

Of course, my first reaction is to ask how this benefits me directly (selfish I know), and I'm curious if there has been any talk about not just loan forgiveness, but also a refund or tax break or something for those of us who have made sacrifices to pay back our loans? I've been paying my loans back since I graduated and have almost eliminated that debt. Is the cancellation talk only about currently held debt, or is there some aspect of this that can work retroactively to people who graduated in the past X number of years? Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy if my generation gets out from under this debt regardless, but it sucks to get nothing if you've "been doing everything right" to get out from under the debt anyway.

It's just Biden paying the absolute minimum lip service to the demands of what he sees as the fringe of his constituency. It's business as usual, toss em scraps, shut them up, then continue as he was. Anyone who expects Joe fucking Biden to be some sort of revolutionary leader for change doesn't know what fucking country they live in. Fucking same shit, same fucking day.

"Anyone who expects Joe fucking Biden to be some sort of revolutionary leader for change doesn't know what fucking country they live in." 

You're not wrong there but, in all fairness, the details I've seen so far are more progressive than anything we've seen to date from any past administration. It's a baby step, but at least a baby step in the right direction.

ea- the sentiment is fair, but an argument against what you’re saying is this meme: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EO_Fj-QX0AEz373.jpg:large

ive also paid tens of thousands of dollars in debt, and would benefit greatly from broad cancellation.. but i think simple forgiveness of current debt in some form, similar to instituting a policy like social security that doesn’t retroactively benefit anyone, is for better or worse how progress works.

square. I agree completely and I’ve fought the tendency to phrase this as a would it be *fair* argument. I know it won’t be fair. I don’t think that would, or should, be the goal. Let’s save the people on the tracks, but also maybe not ignore the destruction it left before we diverted it. I don’t think it has to be one or the other. We can figure out both, but if not ... I’m good with just figuring out the current debt issue.

right- wasn’t exactly what you’re saying to be fair, just a common argument against anti-debt cancellation. but i definitely agree that canceling debt without bigger reforms is a bad idea.

Crenshaw is a terrible human being.

edit: Is someone suggesting that?

tduds, yes.

Here's a fun little story about Crenshaw's ridiculousness: https://twitter.com/mikeduncan/status/1349711147025489921 

I could dig up a dozen dumber and more outlandish things about him, this one just happened across my screen today.

I'm still laughing about Crenshaw voting by proxy against impeachment on Wednesday after he declared last year that voting by proxy was "cowardly."

Crenshaw gives off a real "Jack Ripper in Dr. Strangelove" energy to me. Militaristic to a frightening level.

"and will do anything to avoid having to kick someones ass outside the ring." Dude read the twitter thread I posted. It's 100% him kicking ass (well, pretending to in a weird jingoistic action fantasy) to install Trump for a second term. Fuck him.

crenshaw’s back door comments making fun of aoc for being a service worker, while bragging about his military conquests was enough for me.

No thanks.

You just invented a fetish category — porn will never be the same

Rule 34

twitter dude + insane congresswoman from georgia?

You're really chasing the wrong villain, here.

who is the villain??? i'm late to this discussion, maybe i got it all screwed up.

Trump and his cohort in the GOP. His sycophantic followers.
culture, created by the right, that allowed him to thrive.

Do you go complain on the CBC forum if your comment on the archinect forum gets removed? Just wondering...

Aps, tbh, the cbc forums have been a disaster for years. I'm still surprised that they even open articles for comments at all. It was a fun place to throw inteligent snark out in the wild and see what kind of baffoon finds the time in their important lives to be offended but those days are long gone.

I don't know if this is common knowledge but the current president of CNN, Jeff Zucker, was largely responsible for green-lighting and building The Apprentice at his previous job as president of NBC Entertainment. In case you're looking for who to thank for all this.

Make no mistake CNN is 90% inane garbage, but the idea that a large swath of The Left lionizes CNN the way that a large swath of The Right lionizes Fox is hilarious, and says more about how The Right sees the world than anything else.

I know zero people who talk about CNN the way anyone talks about Fox. I know a lot of people who talk about Fox as the pinnacle of truth and trust. Fealty skews to one side, for lots of reasons, is all I'm saying.

instructions unclear, mustard did not make this shoe easier to digest.

Wrong again.

we talking about Bush sr. Jla?

broken clock, blind squirrel, etc

Don't hold your breath! Biden will be kissing China's ass all the way. And Iran's.

read the damn article. Or don't, it's in the headline: "..follows a Biden campaign statement with the same declaration."

The world needs more kissing and less bombing!

There's a massive difference between recognizing that China is a world economy who we have, like it or not, many critical relationships with and kissing its ass, but nuance, man; fuck nuance. Right?

Nuances when dealing with China and Iran?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Naivety of a grand order.

good to see your transition to boomer is going well.

And, if you read (not so) carefully, you'll see that I was mocking YOU for a lack of nuance, not the government. But fuck reading comprehension when you can get in a cheap shot, right?

China and Iran are not the same lol. One is a competitor that wants to and has the power to belittle the US, and the other can be a valuable ally in a volatile region, that really has no potent power to harm the US.

Hey would ya look at that, the president changed and the policy was immediately reaffirmed. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/01/19/biden-nominee-antony-blinken-china-committing-genocide-uyghurs/4215835001/

Obama had one of the best and most nuanced (separate) sets of policy towards China and (separately) Iran, but we weren't ready for it.

It's one of the few things I will give him huge credit for. Plenty to criticize about the Obama Admin, but he got these ones right (well, he tried to)

Seriously?

This is a long, but very good, analysis of Obama's foreign policy in almost-retrospect (from 2015). It stuck in my mind as one of the better attempts to explain his administration's strategy, and I found it rather brilliant: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/barack-obama-is-a-foreign-policy-grandmaster/ 

Happy as always to entertain good faith suggestions to the contrary, if you've got em.

From the linked article, "...Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Carter, who shattered the Soviet Empire...", HUH? How much credibility does the article or the author have if they say that?! I'll give you this, Obama gave the green light to kill OBL. Good!

I don't know a ton about Brzezinski. Please, enlighten us.

Reagan took a lot of credit for shit he had nothing to do with. Iran Hostages, Middle East, etc...the heavy lifting was likely done by Carter; he actually stood for something, and wasn't a fraud like Ronnie Raygun.

The work was done by Carter, but the credit? You might say it trickled down to Reagan.

Now if we can get US to recognize the Armenian genocide that would be +++

Currently, [the US] is the most dangerous nation to US, the region, and immediate World peace...until China grows a bit stronger.

Only if the Americans don't put US first!

"...The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them...", to paraphrase Marx. US should be careful, China is patiently waiting.

Iran's military capabilities, though strong have nothing on China. Most of Iran is still in a very "developing" stage. China is a whole another story, with tons of military, resolve and balls.

apscoradiales, before I smack you upside the head I'd like to give you a chance to explain why you think Iran is so dangerous to the US.

The US policy towards Iran from 1953 to about 2012 (then again from 2017-2020) created the animosity we're now dealing with. aps is suggesting we return to that policy.

tduds, I'm only down-thumbing your comment because I don't agree with the idea of returning to that policy. This country needs to stop meddling/policing.

Agreed, bb.

"But to claim he did away with communism in Soviet Union is more than naive." 

Good thing the article doesn't claim that, then.

The rest of what you said is similarly silly and reductive.

Your political views are from the time people smoked in the office ;-)

Ooooooh, good old JP the Deuce.

"Your political views are from the time people smoked in the office ;-)"

Was meant for aps obvs

Read the article. It goes into detail.

Also please learn to use the reply function, you're mucking up the flow.

"Reply" option doesn't always appear at my end. Dunno why.

Bummer, sorry about that.

apscoradiales, are you using the mobile app for Archinect? It’s out of date. That might be why reply isn’t working?

windows laptop, google chrome app

chrome app? you mean the browser? I use the browser and see the reply link just fine unless someone I have on ignore posts, then I need to go back to the first post in a thread for the reply link. If you use extensions, one of them might be removing the reply link.

yeah, browser. I don't have anyone on ignore list, I don't think. wouldn't know how to set one up, lol. sometimes I see the reply, sometimes I do not.

Why are you using a screenshot from the largest newspaper in the state to make a point about the media ignoring this protest?

Again all the things you're saying are true and also this is a very poor example of the things you're saying.

Perhaps you or anyone shouldn't be using MSM or any single news source as a way to understand reality.

Any more therapy advice and I'll have to charge.

For the record, this isn't "Antifa", nor is Antifa "embracing" any form of "anarchy". 

The group most likely behind yesterdays events in Portland was PDXYLF. They've been plastering the city with "J20" protest posters & graffiti since November. Of course there's plenty of overlap between the people who show up for protests, and frequently the most destructive elements are the same small group only superficially aligned (& at times not at all aligned) with the protest leaders. But the location, leadership (or lack thereof), tactics, and goals differ. And recognizing these differences is paramount in understanding the events from day to day, month to month. 

To conflate BLM, Antifa, Black Bloc, YLF, or Sunrise, or Extinction Rebellion, into one nebulous "leftist" movement is to reduce the truth to a useless binary. To do this while whining about the lack of "truth" in media is more than a little embarrassing. 

It's extremely frustrating to live near Portland and have to constantly put up with the falsehoods constantly thrown at me by people who have never been to Oregon and would have trouble locating the city on a map of the US, much less the location of the protests on a map of Portland. It's not just you, so excuse me if my disdain for that spills over into this response.

In short, you're out of your element. I'm disengaging from this one. I know you won't, so... cheers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCNUOZG9974

I give you so much more good faith than you've ever deserved and you act like a complete asshole in response, every time. Fuck off.

He's a tenacious piece of mold, I'll give him that.

My god you're back to this old pap again? You really do only have one point. Like a god damn broken record for the last... what's it been now... 4? 5 years? How many thousands of posts? Fuuuuuck offff.

You're going back on ignore for a few weeks.

Wait a minute! I posted that screenshot...just to point out that this local news item has global reach, it was posted on a middle of the road news/opinion site in the Netherlands about the inauguration. I reposted the remark of a handful angry idiot kids as those "antifa!" shouting "kids" in black look quite intimidating to me, no need to downplay im(h)o :-)

Whoops. Still... I see a relatively small and relatively young group there.

I can't really see numbers or age, they merge into one because of their standard Antifa all-black dresscode, hoodies and masks, much more intimidating than the Dukes of Hazzard freakshow that stormed the Capitol.

more intimidating? oh, then they're obviously worse, then. Since it's a game, we're keeping score, and the better shitty people get to win... what exactly?

Rereading the above I realize that my attempt to explain reality might have come off as a tacit condoning of what happened. Just want to chime back in once more to say I definitely don't. My anger above was directed not at the condemnation of violence, but at the misconstruing (deliberately or simply out of naivete) of who was involved, for lazy political "gotcha" points. 

There was a lot about the Portland protests I supported, but lately it seems like they've lost direction and the real changemakers & organizers have moved on. What's left is a largely aimless angry Lord of the Flies esque group of (mostly white middle class) Gen Z'ers who've decided to hijack the momentum to fuck some shit up. It's dumb & self-defeating & I hope they get over it soon, there's real progressive work to be done.

Don't you start.

"...extreme focus on a right wing inauguartion attack that never even materialized..."

I'm guessing it never materialized, despite their attempts only a week before, had something to do with 25k troops, with live ammo? 

aside from that, you're another waste.

"That's what you do to deter crime" ... Yeah, if you want to live in a police state. You know, like a fascist state? Otherwise you need to look at the root cause. But the real root cause, not the racist ones that get trotted out when people mention "root cause."

Oh, and a preemptory fuck off, because I know that won't change your dumb fucking mind. On ignore you go.

“ more intimidating? oh, then they're obviously worse, then.”

No not worse, just different. Some go out of their way to hide their identity when they commit their crimes, the Dukes of Hazzard-crowd goes out protesting in Halloween party dress and broadcasts their idiocy all over the internet...

Well, in those 24hrs, I've got more work done than in the last week or so. Coincidence?

yes, but have you tried harder? Don't give up, you can do this!

Depends on the belief. Matter of opinion? Fine. Relligion? Also fine. Whether or not certain people deserve to live? You're an asshole, but maybe not an idiot. That a secret cabal of child-eating satanists run the world? Yeah you're a fucking idiot then.

Nothing more fun then people making up shit I didn't say to make their lazy as fuck points against me seem valid. I'm gonna go make dinner and enjoy my life...

Non: is that hard enough?

getting better. Needs practice tho... and liquor. Can't let those baby eating wankers win.

Obviously I’m not the target audience because I’m still in my 30s, but I always appreciated your contributions. But I agree that needing to explain reality to refute bad faith arguments gets old pretty quick. I was always hopeful for even the faintest hint at remorse or embarrassment for being so easily taken to task, but some people are beyond self reflection it seems. I’ll say that the ignore button has made this last week a lot easier to bear. It does suck though when you see someone made a comment in a thread but you can’t see it because it’s a reply to a hidden comment, or so I assume when I can’t find anything new, but I can manage. Hope dinner is good.

Homer : Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.

.

" gets old pretty quick" I dunno, you guys lasted a full month longer than I did trying to get humanity from these freaks.

Just because I was participating didn't mean it wasn't boring.

^there's a sexual innuendo joke in there for anyone that wants it.

No X, the problem is that the conversation is not going anywhere. It's like a closed spiral with a height differential of about 1cm. Put another way, you keep puking like a cat that doesn't know to eat correctly, and tduds is just cleaning it up, day-after-day.

Opinions are conclusions based on facts. Conclusions drawn from incorrect information are incorrect opinions. My goal here has rarely been to challenge opinions, but to challenge the information on which they're based. I'm also rarely trying to change the minds of the ideologues I'm responding to. I'm trying to convince the audience of my viewpoint. It seems to have mostly worked, and no new topics have come up in a while, so I think my work is done for now.

Tell me something: Do you believe you have superior and nuanced comprehension of a reality that affects all of us? A reality, to paraphrase Philip K Dick, is everything that remains after you stop believing in things.

Oooh ok.

Common Sense

It doesn't make sense? Come on, but it's common sense.

.

Waf happened? They’re simply applying their foreign policy domestically...

I only meant that now they’re applying their foreign policing/policy at home...

Maybe stop thinking.

Like clockwork.

Please don't mistake my criticism of the Republican party for support of the Democratic party. Neither is particularly effective, but one is intentionally ineffective.

why would anyone downvote bernie? or crochet for that matter...

stop with the distractions and focus on stacking the supreme court

noted

Nope, get rid of it.

They've proven time and time again they can't use it responsibly, so they shouldn't have the option.

None of my business but yay! If it helps pushing the agenda that’s supported by the majority of the people, why not?

I think the court should be balanced. But apparently Republicans are always going to try to win at all costs, so if we can stack the court with Progressives, I'm fine with that.

There's nothing in the Constitution setting the number, it's been as high as 13. Stack it. There are 10 circuits, one for each justice, two for Roberts, the regions are not equitably distributed, adding more judges allows for greater representation, more equity in decisions, and better for the people. More, in this case, is better.

The only reason Republicans sometimes get the majority is because of gerrymandering...should the make up of your Supreme Court be decided by such antidemocratic practices, by the radical minority?

k

I've given up on good faith responses to your incessant repetitive reductive bullshit. So, yeah, I am just gonna be a dick about it now. Way more fun, imo.

The difference between you and I is when I'm an asshole, it's on purpose.

We did this one already. I worry about your memory sometimes.

tduds, early in the pandemic I was saying something to a group of people I haven't really spoken with since graduating HS. Realizing after the fact that I could have said something that might have offended them, I apologized for any inadvertent offense I might have caused. They all laughed it off and said it was weird that I'd go back to apologize for it. I replied that I didn't want anyone to be offended accidentally. If anyone is going to be offended, I want it to be because I purposefully meant to offend them.

Delayed response, but x-jla, if your comment about Democrats appointing Republicans to the court was directed at me, that's not what I said. It's clear that Rs will stop at nothing to stack the courts, including blocking Garland but ramming through Barrett. Not to mention all of the other courts. If we're going to be stuck with a 2-party system, I think it would be fair to ensure the court is balanced between the two. Since neither side is going to do that voluntarily (but one party is much more inclined to compromise) I think that while the Ds are in control they should do what they can to balance what Trump has done with the courts.

If jla needs a memory refresher of my previous attempt I made at having a discussion around the Supreme Court, he can go back and read page 3. If all he's going to do is repeat the same garbage he can go read his previous comments. In the meantime, since I figured the landscape had changed now that Dems control the senate and the presidency, we could discuss it again without having to rehash the same garbage.

Merrick Garland is fairly 'conservative'

Tduds, that's a classic example of D's "compromising" by holding the center, while in the next act the R's take a big step to the right. And the center shifts with it. It's been happening for decades.

Bingo.

There is simply no left wing voice in US government. There is a center-right party, with a vocal but small progressive caucus, and there is an authoritarian theocratic party, with an increasingly vestigial pro-business arm. Decrying both major parties as "too extreme" in effect gives cover to the actually extremist party.

I don't care if a Dem has it or a "Republican" has it, the later is laughable on so many levels, but I'll bite. If we had three justices per circuit, two Rs/1D, I'll still wager we'll get a better reflection of the population. I think justice, and justices, are better served, if they reflect the body politic. I think it's better to have judges elected, and not appointed, even for federal.

'Depending on what your parameters are for “extreme”' 

Attempting to overturn a democratic election seems like a line we can all agree on.

X-jla, I think the Dems will win for two years but will mostly bungle the opportunity, the economy is going to suck and idiots are going to vote red in 2024 because they think it will help the economy. I hope I'm wrong.  

Tduds, we need a stronger progressive party to balance what the Tea Party and Trump have done to the right. Unfortunately, progressives tend to be critical thinkers and don't get along as well as those on the far right. 

Compared to right wingers, yes, progressives are definitely better at parsing truth from fantasy. Possibly in part because we typically have had a lot more education and training in critical thinking, and we tend to be less religious--i.e., "trust but verify" vs. blind faith.

If the courts were applying absolute truths then we wouldn't have to worry about their political leanings. But everything is up for discussion, there are different ways of interpreting the constitution and despite right wing fantasies it has been updated as times have changed. So the political makeup of the courts does matter.

I believe I was clear. I expect the Republicans will do it whether I want them to or not. For once I would like to see the Democrats play hardball instead of their go-to of compromising.

Why are we referring to Republican court packing in the future tense? It's been happening for close to 40 years. All we're asking for is a re-balance.

What's interesting, and as per usual, I never mentioned "majority rule", in fact I firmly believe that the tyranny of the minority is more problematic. I wrote, that if we had more justices, they would better reflect the body politik.

Of course it is, a constitution is a living/breathing thing...it was supposed to be rewritten all the time, they didn't claim to have all the wisdom for all of eternity, did they?

Get back here with those goalposts.

Key word “In the United States”

Ok fine

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/countering-radical-right/western-europe-right-wing-terrorism-rise/

Feudalism killed a lot of people too. But we don't talk about it in the Politics Central thread because it isn't a thing currently happening in our political environment.

There is no "communism" today, and never has been. It's tyrannical dictatorships we've had, and keep having.

sigh

tduds, he's clearly not worth your time or effort. It's time to move on.

this thread was getting interesting when people started ignoring him. now it's back to the same old cesspool.

Yeah... going back to trolling. The least I can do is entertain myself.

it takes less and less time to refute your inane both-sides-ism obsession. you're completely delusional... i've seen a rock grow more than your nonexistent ability to say anything new.

https://twitter.com/BrendanKee...

profound. you've mentioned that several thousand times (not an exaggeration based on how many posts you have contributed).

what else?

"So you are only concerned with right wing violence because that’s been the predominant manifestation of political violence in a small particular place and time."
When I have a broken arm, I am primarily concerned with mending the broken arm. When a house is on fire, the primary concern is putting out the fire. You're, in a sense, sitting at a house fire talking about zoning. Doesn't mean zoning doesn't need fixing, but at the moment the fuckin' house is on fire. 

"You guys are so locked into this false idea that right=bad left=good"
No, you are locked into the idea that right = bad left = also bad, such that you can't (or worse, won't) see the disparity in severity between the two. 

"I’ve stated my positions sooo many times"
Yeah, and we're asking you to stop so other people can have conversations. I know *you* don't think you're right wing (I also don't think you are. I can't speak for others), but as I've said a hundred times before, your insistence on both-sidesing every conversation to death does less to illuminate the sins of one group (which, by the way, we all know about and acknowledge constantly) and more to provide cover for the greater sins of the other group. & that's before we even get into the various inaccuracies of labeling littered throughout this inane & incessant rant-fest. 

Every reply comes back to this & it really sucks. You're impeding more interesting conversations

X-jla, you're a right-of-center libertarian. Every right-of-center libertarian I know thinks they are dead center. But they aren't.

(I'm left-of-center with somewhat libertarian values.)

The fact that x-lax doesn't know the difference between being a shitty human being and providing excuses for shitty human beings is what caused me to start thinking he was a pretty shitty human being.

Still this.

There's no irony there. One thing is real, the other isn't.

Yet you still replied. If you truly felt above it you'd say nothing.

shit. broke my own rule.

I AM SELF AWARE THANK YOU

12th Amendment.

So you think it should be repealed?

Forgive my grammar and poor editing.

You don't. The question wasn't leading.

Which is to repeal the 12th Amendment?

Partisanship aside, the executive is simply too powerful.

A number of past Democratic presidents have included Republicans in their cabinet. I can't think of a time where the opposite has occurred.

No I'm assuming that you don't think Republicans are worse than Democrats, which is our fundamental disagreement.

Belief in democracy, for starters.

Retiring after one term would be a good challenge to Biden.

Gore / Lieberman was kind of a unity ticket (& I think the US would have been a lot better off had they won). From a strictly policy perspective, Biden / Harris is kind of a unity ticket. Biden being slightly right of center, Harris being slightly left.

how does it benefit biden or the democrats to reach across the aisle when republicans are so corrupt? they're going to have to get rid of mcconnell and clean up the mess he made before there can be any sort of inroads toward bipartis anship.

Awesome.

And if your country is not so forward leaning, there’s always Women on Waves, an abortion boat funded by the Dutch government to aid women worldwide in family planning! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_on_Waves

Very awesome.

You know what keeps unwanted people out of our country way more effectively than walls? Planned Parenthood.

Data indicates the best way to reduce the rate of abortion is to provide safe, legal, access to it (in addition to comprehensive sexual education & easy access to contraception). Banning abortions doesn't stop abortions, it kills women. That's all I'm going to say about this very uncontroversial topic.

Jla, there is zero debate to be had here. Don't play the same inane game as the religious zealots with term definitions and whatnot. If you don't like abortion, fine, don't have one. Any other opinion on this matter is pointless.

you are not. We've explained this to you numerous times. Not our fault it's too difficult for you.