US Current Events November: D&D's Afghanistan

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Current Events November: D&D's Afghanistan

Lib and let die: Aug 26, 2004

How are u posted:

Democratic Socialists / socialists / left progressives have been getting elected to various offices as Democrats for years now. I don't expect to see that trend reversing. India Walton in Buffalo losing to a write-in campaign doesn't suddenly reverse the whole trend of younger voters being more progressive and wanting more progressive candidates.

These are trends that can take decades to bear fruit. I understand it is frustrating, I feel it too. This is generational work, which is pretty unsatisfying for some folks but that's just the way things are. I don't see a glorious socialist revolution happening anytime soon, though that would be pretty neat.

Sure, they keep getting elected, and then they get bullied into voting for pro-fascist bills that send billions of dollars to the apartheid Israeli government by their establishment betters, so they ultimately end up being part of the machine, using the power we gave them to support, rather than challenge, the status quo.

Bernie Sanders, for example, has just as much power as Joe Manchin does, but instead of wielding it to get and get more, he's using it to try and push for the laughably insufficient package that's being offered now. If you're fighting for table scraps when you have the power and agency to demand more, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. YOU ARE WHAT MUST BE OPPOSED.

Sure, someone might walk into the tent as a socialist, but I've yet to see someone come out the exit door with the same principles.

# ? Nov 4, 2021 17:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 00:59

BougieBitch: Oct 2, 2013; Basic as hell

Here's a question I don't think anyone has meaningfully addressed - how would the benefits of federal student loan forgiveness be distributed? You might be surprised to learn that the spread is every bit as weighted as the SALT removal - but probably not! The group with the most student loan debt is D.C., and those people have 0 value for both the state and federal party, so from a "we should only support policies that get votes" that's a pretty bad start! Out of actual states, the three highest are Ohio (15%), Georgia (15%), and Mississippi (14.6%). The Mississippi votes are functionally useless - there's no state party to speak of and the EC vote isn't going to flip. Georgia is a swing state, so those numbers look good, Ohio USED to be a swing state, but lately has been pretty far out of reach (8% in 2020).

What about raw numbers? Well California and Texas obviously have the most borrowers due to their size, then NY, FL, PA, OH, GA, and IL. Of those, only PA, OH, and GA are of any electoral value. There's no real benefit to forgiving CA and NY loans electorally, but Pelosi and Schumer obviously aren't going to let a bill pass that excludes their states, so you have to get through the first $142.7B and 3.86M borrowers in CA and $91.9B among 2.41M in NY before you get started with the others.

Similarly, full forgiveness is much more beneficial to a small and elite population of graduate students than it is to undergrads - those drat lucky duckies! Since eliminating the SALT cap is problematic, we wouldn't want to do the same thing with forgiveness and create inter-class resentment that leads to the poor voting for the other guy.

So okay, $10K or $50K flat forgiveness. What do we do to give an equivalent amount to non-college people so they don't crab bucket? Well, we have the Pell grants for community college in the current bill, but most people who haven't gone to college yet probably aren't going to go back, so that's likely a non-starter. It fixes things in the future, but the average 45 year-old is probably not going to go to community college.

What about the other swing states? The closest races that went blue were AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA, WI, while the only relevant ones that went red were FL and NC. Here's the debt numbers for them (using this source https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-by-state#west-virginia):

AZ: $30.7B across 866K borrowers (12.1%)
FL: $98.2B across 2.55M borrowers (11.8%)
GA: $67.2B across 1.61M borrowers (15%)
MI: $50.7B across 1.4M borrowers (13.9%)
NV: $11.5B across 340K borrowers (10.9%)
NC: $48B across 1.27M borrowers (12.1%)
PA: $63.9B across 1.78M borrowers (13.7%)
WI: $23.1B across 716M borrowers (12.1%)

So overall, it looks like the swings states are fairly representative of the country in terms of percentage that would directly benefit. Unfortunately, that means they have to deal with the average amount of opposition among the other 85%+ of the state! How does this issue poll among people that don't have student loan debt?

Let's look at some cross-tabs. Here's the first poll I found that seems relevant: https://www.grinnell.edu/sites/default/files/docs/2021-03/GCNP%20Methodology%2003-31-21_1.pdf (Grinnell College March 2021)

Who wants full forgiveness more than average? Biden voters, Dem voters, under 35s, non-white voters, income below $50K, urban voters. Who doesn't want forgiveness? Trump voters, Rep voters, men, age 35-54, age 55+ (although seniors are softer evidently), whites, those with college degrees, income $50K+ (esp $100K+), suburban voters. There's a middle option in this poll that might confound, "forgive loans only for those in need" - this is the most popular option, and since "in need" is pretty vague, it might be hard to draw conclusions. You could maybe suppose that this option is the "don't feel strongly one way or the other" category, but let's see if there is another poll to go off of.

Here's a Harris poll from Feb: https://theharrispoll.com/student-loan-debt-forgiveness/

This one is actually more helpful - it has cross-tabs based on whether the respondent has debt (either their own or as a cosigner). Unsurprising, the number that do not support forgiveness is much higher among those with no loans! 62.8% without loans also don't support forgiveness. Why? Well, most people who have paid off all their loans still support forgiveness (pretty close to 50-50, no explicit crosstab), but those who have never had loans (approx 45%) strongly oppose forgiving them (around 73.6%)! Those with a high school education or less make up about half of this group, and their overall support for forgiveness is 35.5% for/64.5% against. The "some college" group is also a fairly large portion, and their overall support is almost 50/50 overall. In terms of income level, the policy is most opposed by those making the least, with less than 50K being about 45% for vs 55% against.

That seems at odds with the first set of results, but actually it just proves the overall point of "people want things that benefit them". When the pitch is "a flat amount or full amount of forgiveness", most of the squishy folks in the $50K and below group go against the policy - the first poll is split 34/44/17, but the second poll shows that the 44 mostly goes hard against it when it isn't means-tested. On the flip side, the folks with $100K plus incomes are the reverse - the first poll has the split at 17/36/44, but when you mention universal forgiveness the majority of the "for those who need it" pick to do it. Could it be that these splitters think the cost is too high? Some of them, but it isn't nearly as predictive as you'd think! 41% of the people who oppose forgiveness think it would be more likely to help than hurt the economy if $50K was forgiven per borrower, so their reason for opposing the policy can't be solely due to some predicted global harm. They either believe that the economy could get better while making things worse for them, or that there are other problems with the policy that outweigh it being economically positive.

Maybe you don't need to consider these other folks in the equation though - surely giving people things will get them to turn out! It's possible - there are more people who support forgiveness than oppose it in the somewhat/very important row of the "How important is it that a politician you vote for align with your views" question. This mostly tracks with expected propensity for the no college and low income groups who make up a fair portion of the population.

All of those factors look pretty good, but the factor that looks AWFUL is the proportion of white voters for or against. The policy is 42.4% for and 57.6% against among white voters. This is partially because non-white students are more likely to have to take out loans or be unable to pay them off of course, so it may not really be its own variable overall, but it's hard to say that with any real certainty. Hispanic respondents are around 53.4/46.6, and AA respondents are about 57.9/42.1 What does that mean for the states we were hoping to swing?

AZ: 60.4% white, 4.7% black, 30.7% Hispanic
FL: 57.7% white, 15.1% black, 26.5% Hispanic
GA: 51.9% white, 31% black, 10.5% Hispanic
MI: 73.9% white, 13.7% black, 5.6% Hispanic
NV: 51.2% white, 9.8% black, 28.7% Hispanic
NC: 62.2% white, 20.5% black, 10.7% Hispanic
PA: 75% white, 10.9% black, 8.1% Hispanic
WI: 80.4% white, 6.4% black, 7.6% Hispanic

So MI, PA, WI are much whiter than the national average (61.6%) and NV and GA are much less white. Additionally, AZ is much less black than the average (12.4%) and GA and NC are much more. The Hispanic population of AZ, FL, and NV might be a tiebreaker, but the margins don't necessarily make up for the lack of a black population in AZ.

What's the takeaway for federal elections then? Student loan forgiveness probably boosts GA, NV, and NC at the expense of MI, PA, WI, and AZ if we look just at race/ethnicity. The clearest winner for the policy is GA, which has both a high amount of debt and a strong non-white voting base (these two things are obviously linked by the racial disparity in wealth as well).

So why not done? Biden is ignoring it because it is a risky play for PA, AZ, and WI in exchange for locking GA in. NC might flip one way from this, but MI could flip the other if so. He's hoping for a working-class coalition that can win the rust belt reliably, and this policy doesn't serve them as well as focusing on kid-havers.

The Senate will probably not pass it because it's the easiest wedge issue ever - it's the distillation of the education grievance that is a mainstay of Republican tactics (whether it be CRT, race-based admissions, trans bathrooms, or some other nonsense), and it would take removing the filibuster or finding more taxes to raise, which has already been a hassle for the current reconciliation bill

# ? Nov 4, 2021 17:50

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Darkrenown posted:

You seem to have real trouble with the idea someone could disagree with one of the tweets you posted. I'm not "debate clubbing" you, I think pulling up a 2009 donation from a man who was a dem at the time and was not yet known to be a "Cheeto benito" as you put it is completely pointless and doesn't invalidate an anti-Trump stance.

You keep bringing up this 2017 toast thing - I don't give a gently caress. I have not mentioned it because I don't disagree. Toasting Trump in 2017 is a bad look, although he was toasting the president at a governors thing so maybe it's tradition or something? But saying one reasonable thing and one unreasonable thing doesn't give the latter a pass.

Taking bribes from an openly criminal corrupt racist real estate mogul was bad and cynical in 2009 regardless of whether he had run for political office yet or not, and even if I agreed with you that it was only running for political office that made Trump bad it obviously didn't factor into McAuliffe's opportunistic calculus to cozy up to Trump when it benefited him because he was still doing it went Trump was president.

Your argument makes zero sense and I'm still going to charitably give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's just a fun contrarian intellectual exercise for you to think up technical absurdities you can use to defend the indefensible. Just take the smart boy award for thinking up a clever smokescreen argument that almost works, but since it only holds together if you aggressively ignore the evidence that your assertions about McAuliffe's motive can't possibly be correct, just save yourself the embarrassment and stop doubling down.

Mcauliffe was still cozying up to Trump the politician in 2017. His horror at what a Nazi Trump is as a politician is patently insincere and opportunistic. Trying to draw a conjurer's circle around the year 2009 and claim that it wasn't insincere to take bribes from corrupt white supremacist oligarchs then as long as they haven't entered politics personally as a candidate instead of as a lobbyist makes no sense, especially in light of evidence from 2017 proving that McAuliffe obviously doesn't give a poo poo about the dumb distinction you're hanging your defense on since he loved Trump the politician too.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Nov 4, 2021

# ? Nov 4, 2021 17:57

selec: Sep 6, 2003

BougieBitch posted:

Here's a question I don't think anyone has meaningfully addressed - how would the benefits of federal student loan forgiveness be distributed? You might be surprised to learn that the spread is every bit as weighted as the SALT removal - but probably not! The group with the most student loan debt is D.C., and those people have 0 value for both the state and federal party, so from a "we should only support policies that get votes" that's a pretty bad start! Out of actual states, the three highest are Ohio (15%), Georgia (15%), and Mississippi (14.6%). The Mississippi votes are functionally useless - there's no state party to speak of and the EC vote isn't going to flip. Georgia is a swing state, so those numbers look good, Ohio USED to be a swing state, but lately has been pretty far out of reach (8% in 2020).

What about raw numbers? Well California and Texas obviously have the most borrowers due to their size, then NY, FL, PA, OH, GA, and IL. Of those, only PA, OH, and GA are of any electoral value. There's no real benefit to forgiving CA and NY loans electorally, but Pelosi and Schumer obviously aren't going to let a bill pass that excludes their states, so you have to get through the first $142.7B and 3.86M borrowers in CA and $91.9B among 2.41M in NY before you get started with the others.

Similarly, full forgiveness is much more beneficial to a small and elite population of graduate students than it is to undergrads - those drat lucky duckies! Since eliminating the SALT cap is problematic, we wouldn't want to do the same thing with forgiveness and create inter-class resentment that leads to the poor voting for the other guy.

So okay, $10K or $50K flat forgiveness. What do we do to give an equivalent amount to non-college people so they don't crab bucket? Well, we have the Pell grants for community college in the current bill, but most people who haven't gone to college yet probably aren't going to go back, so that's likely a non-starter. It fixes things in the future, but the average 45 year-old is probably not going to go to community college.

What about the other swing states? The closest races that went blue were AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA, WI, while the only relevant ones that went red were FL and NC. Here's the debt numbers for them (using this source https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-by-state#west-virginia):

AZ: $30.7B across 866K borrowers (12.1%)
FL: $98.2B across 2.55M borrowers (11.8%)
GA: $67.2B across 1.61M borrowers (15%)
MI: $50.7B across 1.4M borrowers (13.9%)
NV: $11.5B across 340K borrowers (10.9%)
NC: $48B across 1.27M borrowers (12.1%)
PA: $63.9B across 1.78M borrowers (13.7%)
WI: $23.1B across 716M borrowers (12.1%)

So overall, it looks like the swings states are fairly representative of the country in terms of percentage that would directly benefit. Unfortunately, that means they have to deal with the average amount of opposition among the other 85%+ of the state! How does this issue poll among people that don't have student loan debt?

Let's look at some cross-tabs. Here's the first poll I found that seems relevant: https://www.grinnell.edu/sites/default/files/docs/2021-03/GCNP%20Methodology%2003-31-21_1.pdf (Grinnell College March 2021)

Who wants full forgiveness more than average? Biden voters, Dem voters, under 35s, non-white voters, income below $50K, urban voters. Who doesn't want forgiveness? Trump voters, Rep voters, men, age 35-54, age 55+ (although seniors are softer evidently), whites, those with college degrees, income $50K+ (esp $100K+), suburban voters. There's a middle option in this poll that might confound, "forgive loans only for those in need" - this is the most popular option, and since "in need" is pretty vague, it might be hard to draw conclusions. You could maybe suppose that this option is the "don't feel strongly one way or the other" category, but let's see if there is another poll to go off of.

Here's a Harris poll from Feb: https://theharrispoll.com/student-loan-debt-forgiveness/

This one is actually more helpful - it has cross-tabs based on whether the respondent has debt (either their own or as a cosigner). Unsurprising, the number that do not support forgiveness is much higher among those with no loans! 62.8% without loans also don't support forgiveness. Why? Well, most people who have paid off all their loans still support forgiveness (pretty close to 50-50, no explicit crosstab), but those who have never had loans (approx 45%) strongly oppose forgiving them (around 73.6%)! Those with a high school education or less make up about half of this group, and their overall support for forgiveness is 35.5% for/64.5% against. The "some college" group is also a fairly large portion, and their overall support is almost 50/50 overall. In terms of income level, the policy is most opposed by those making the least, with less than 50K being about 45% for vs 55% against.

That seems at odds with the first set of results, but actually it just proves the overall point of "people want things that benefit them". When the pitch is "a flat amount or full amount of forgiveness", most of the squishy folks in the $50K and below group go against the policy - the first poll is split 34/44/17, but the second poll shows that the 44 mostly goes hard against it when it isn't means-tested. On the flip side, the folks with $100K plus incomes are the reverse - the first poll has the split at 17/36/44, but when you mention universal forgiveness the majority of the "for those who need it" pick to do it. Could it be that these splitters think the cost is too high? Some of them, but it isn't nearly as predictive as you'd think! 41% of the people who oppose forgiveness think it would be more likely to help than hurt the economy if $50K was forgiven per borrower, so their reason for opposing the policy can't be solely due to some predicted global harm. They either believe that the economy could get better while making things worse for them, or that there are other problems with the policy that outweigh it being economically positive.

Maybe you don't need to consider these other folks in the equation though - surely giving people things will get them to turn out! It's possible - there are more people who support forgiveness than oppose it in the somewhat/very important row of the "How important is it that a politician you vote for align with your views" question. This mostly tracks with expected propensity for the no college and low income groups who make up a fair portion of the population.

All of those factors look pretty good, but the factor that looks AWFUL is the proportion of white voters for or against. The policy is 42.4% for and 57.6% against among white voters. This is partially because non-white students are more likely to have to take out loans or be unable to pay them off of course, so it may not really be its own variable overall, but it's hard to say that with any real certainty. Hispanic respondents are around 53.4/46.6, and AA respondents are about 57.9/42.1 What does that mean for the states we were hoping to swing?

AZ: 60.4% white, 4.7% black, 30.7% Hispanic
FL: 57.7% white, 15.1% black, 26.5% Hispanic
GA: 51.9% white, 31% black, 10.5% Hispanic
MI: 73.9% white, 13.7% black, 5.6% Hispanic
NV: 51.2% white, 9.8% black, 28.7% Hispanic
NC: 62.2% white, 20.5% black, 10.7% Hispanic
PA: 75% white, 10.9% black, 8.1% Hispanic
WI: 80.4% white, 6.4% black, 7.6% Hispanic

So MI, PA, WI are much whiter than the national average (61.6%) and NV and GA are much less white. Additionally, AZ is much less black than the average (12.4%) and GA and NC are much more. The Hispanic population of AZ, FL, and NV might be a tiebreaker, but the margins don't necessarily make up for the lack of a black population in AZ.

What's the takeaway for federal elections then? Student loan forgiveness probably boosts GA, NV, and NC at the expense of MI, PA, WI, and AZ if we look just at race/ethnicity. The clearest winner for the policy is GA, which has both a high amount of debt and a strong non-white voting base (these two things are obviously linked by the racial disparity in wealth as well).

So why not done? Biden is ignoring it because it is a risky play for PA, AZ, and WI in exchange for locking GA in. NC might flip one way from this, but MI could flip the other if so. He's hoping for a working-class coalition that can win the rust belt reliably, and this policy doesn't serve them as well as focusing on kid-havers.

The Senate will probably not pass it because it's the easiest wedge issue ever - it's the distillation of the education grievance that is a mainstay of Republican tactics (whether it be CRT, race-based admissions, trans bathrooms, or some other nonsense), and it would take removing the filibuster or finding more taxes to raise, which has already been a hassle for the current reconciliation bill

All that triangulation to just be able to accomplish nothing anyway. Seems silly to do that much math when he�s not going to do it one way or the other because 1. He�s ideologically opposed to decreasing the suffering of young people and 2. He can�t control his own party.

There�s nothing he can do, and as important, not much he wants to do. We picked the worst possible person for the moment, and now we get to live with it.

# ? Nov 4, 2021 18:01

Aztec Galactus: Sep 12, 2002

If working within the democratic party is going to take generations due to the democratic party's resistance then why remain beholden to them

# ? Nov 4, 2021 18:02

Police_monitoring: Oct 11, 2021; by sebmojo

Dubar posted:

If working within the democratic party is going to take generations due to the democratic party's resistance then why remain beholden to them

Seemingly to reduce anxiety and feel the comforting waves of hope

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

# ? Nov 4, 2021 18:04

Sarcastr0: May 29, 2013; WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE BILLIONAIRES ?!?!?

Lib and let die posted:

Sure, they keep getting elected, and then they get bullied into voting for pro-fascist bills that send billions of dollars to the apartheid Israeli government by their establishment betters, so they ultimately end up being part of the machine, using the power we gave them to support, rather than challenge, the status quo.

Bernie Sanders, for example, has just as much power as Joe Manchin does, but instead of wielding it to get and get more, he's using it to try and push for the laughably insufficient package that's being offered now. If you're fighting for table scraps when you have the power and agency to demand more, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. YOU ARE WHAT MUST BE OPPOSED.

Sure, someone might walk into the tent as a socialist, but I've yet to see someone come out the exit door with the same principles.

Never being satisfied is how progressivism has proven effective for the past 100 years - keep moving the goalpost. But don't mix that up with the goalposts never moving.

The policies on the table today may be scraps in comparison to what we could have, but they are also well outside of the thinking of America in 1920, and would have gotten you arrested in 1950. I mean, we're still talking about a lot of money over the next decade.

I fail to see how purity testing out anyone who is working within the system is a recipe for progress. If you think national politics are not useful, then concentrate on local assistance. Trying to move the needle by instead getting angry at the toxic optimism of anyone with hope for the system left doesn't seem like the right place to spend your energy.

# ? Nov 4, 2021 18:04

BRJurgis: Aug 15, 2007; Well I hear the thunder roll, I feel the cold winds blowing...
But you won't find me there, 'cause I won't go back again...
While you're on smoky roads, I'll be out in the sun...
Where the trees still grow, where they count by one...

Police_monitoring posted:

Seemingly to reduce anxiety and feel the comforting waves of hope

I am ready to take the "I will still try but yes we're hosed" pledge if it means everybody will agree that we have to have SOME legitimate means of collaboration and possible way forward.

# ? Nov 4, 2021 18:10

Lib and let die: Aug 26, 2004

Sarcastr0 posted:

Never being satisfied is how progressivism has proven effective for the past 100 years - keep moving the goalpost. But don't mix that up with the goalposts never moving.

The policies on the table today may be scraps in comparison to what we could have, but they are also well outside of the thinking of America in 1920, and would have gotten you arrested in 1950. I mean, we're still talking about a lot of money over the next decade.

I fail to see how purity testing out anyone who is working within the system is a recipe for progress. If you think national politics are not useful, then concentrate on local assistance. Trying to move the needle by instead getting angry at the toxic optimism of anyone with hope for the system left doesn't seem like the right place to spend your energy.

I mean, the goalposts have certainly moved, but it doesn't feel like it's in the direction you're implying. It feels like we don't have a defensive line at all, and our guy is just getting sacked for a loss of yards every play. We've gone from a proposed $10T infrastructure bill to something that's only 10% of what was initially promised, excludes a number of campaign items that were promised by Biden on the campaign trail, and it hasn't even left negotiations within the democrats' party.

Yes, the goalposts are moving, and all of a sudden it's 3rd and 39 and you're angry at anyone that's considering free agency after the team's piss-poor performance as a whole.

# ? Nov 4, 2021 18:10

How are u: May 19, 2005; by Azathoth

BRJohnson posted:

I am ready to take the "I will still try but yes we're hosed" pledge if it means everybody will agree that we have to have SOME legitimate means of collaboration and possible way forward.

For me its more like "Things are very hosed, but I cannot *not* try. Giving up is worse than trying and failing."

# ? Nov 4, 2021 18:14

Sarcastr0: May 29, 2013; WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE BILLIONAIRES ?!?!?

Lib and let die posted:

I mean, the goalposts have certainly moved, but it doesn't feel like it's in the direction you're implying. It feels like we don't have a defensive line at all, and our guy is just getting sacked for a loss of yards every play. We've gone from a proposed $10T infrastructure bill to something that's only 10% of what was initially promised, excludes a number of campaign items that were promised by Biden on the campaign trail, and it hasn't even left negotiations within the democrats' party.

Yes, the goalposts are moving, and all of a sudden it's 3rd and 39 and you're angry at anyone that's considering free agency after the team's piss-poor performance as a whole.

My timeline was quite clearly decades, yours is like months.

That's a pretty different paradigm you've switched to.

# ? Nov 4, 2021 18:15

Sir John Falstaff: Apr 13, 2010

BougieBitch posted:

Here's a question I don't think anyone has meaningfully addressed - how would the benefits of federal student loan forgiveness be distributed?

--snip for length--

Thanks, that's definitely an interesting analysis. I suspect the distribution is even starker at the Congressional district level--I suspect the numbers of people who would benefit are heavily concentrated in urban areas that already heavily vote Democratic, and not so much in rural areas, for example--and presumably so would support. But I'll admit I have no data to support that.

# ? Nov 4, 2021 18:18

selec: Sep 6, 2003

How are u posted:

For me its more like "Things are very hosed, but I cannot *not* try. Giving up is worse than trying and failing."

What trying and caring looks like can be a choice though. Wife and I have gotten pretty much entirely disenchanted with the Dems, but we do a lot locally which helps. So we don�t pin our hopes on anything good happening nationally or statewide, but we do DSA stuff, volunteer as escorts at the womens clinic, and keep our friends and loved ones close.

It feels like this is a realistic strategy that preserves mental health, provides healthy outlets, and does not make us dependent, materially or emotionally, on help that won�t be coming.

# ? Nov 4, 2021 18:19

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

How are u posted:

For me its more like "Things are very hosed, but I cannot *not* try. Giving up is worse than trying and failing."

Giving up isn't the only other option, this is a false binary. Cast off the shackles of Kang and Kodos

# ? Nov 4, 2021 18:19

plogo: Jan 20, 2009

When was a $10T infrastructure plan on the table? Did Bernie even ask for that much?

# ? Nov 4, 2021 18:19

Darkrenown: Jul 18, 2012; please give me anything to talk about besides the fact that democrats are allowing millions of americans to be evicted from their homes

E: AOC said they should do 10T, but it was not taken up.

VitalSigns posted:

Taking bribes from an openly criminal corrupt racist real estate mogul was bad and cynical in 2009 regardless of whether he had run for political office yet or not, and even if I agreed with you that it was only running for political office that made Trump bad it obviously didn't factor into McAuliffe's opportunistic calculus to cozy up to Trump when it benefited him because he was still doing it went Trump was president.

Your argument makes zero sense and I'm still going to charitably give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's just a fun contrarian intellectual exercise for you to think up technical absurdities you can use to defend the indefensible. Just take the smart boy award for thinking up a clever smokescreen argument that almost works, but since it only holds together if you aggressively ignore the evidence that your assertions about McAuliffe's motive can't possibly be correct, just save yourself the embarrassment and stop doubling down.

Mcauliffe was still cozying up to Trump the politician in 2017. His horror at what a Nazi Trump is as a politician is patently insincere and opportunistic. Trying to draw a conjurer's circle around the year 2009 and claim that it wasn't insincere to take bribes from corrupt white supremacist oligarchs then as long as they haven't entered politics personally as a candidate instead of as a lobbyist makes no sense, especially in light of evidence from 2017 proving that McAuliffe obviously doesn't give a poo poo about the dumb distinction you're hanging your defense on since he loved Trump the politician too.

Oh, the donation is now a bribe? What services did the bribe buy Trump and what proof would you like to provide of this?

What part of my argument makes zero sense to you? I'll lay it out:
When people say they are, or campaign on being anti-Trump they are referring to Trump-the-fascist-president.
In 2009 Trump was lovely I guess, but not yet Trump-the-fascist-president.
Taking a donation from Trump in 2009 should not invalidate being against Trump-the-fascist-president.
Taking one $25k donation 12 years ago doesn't mean he's "on the payroll" either.

If you want to change your argument to "taking donations from corrupt white supremacist oligarchs is bad", then sure, I agree with that - but it's going to apply to somewhere in the region of 95% of US politicians (estimated).

Out of interest, are all the dems Trump donated to on his payroll? I had a look, and:
https://ballotpedia.org/History_of_Donald_Trump%27s_political_donations

quote:

While Donald Trump donated $175,860 more to Democrats than Republicans from 1989 to 2010, his giving to Democrats significantly decreased beginning 2011.

quote:

From 1989 to 2015, Donald Trump made $1,845,290 worth of political donations. Republicans received $1,150,540, and Democrats received $694,750.
Before 2011, Trump donated more money to Democrats than Republicans.

This includes a $6000 donation to Harris in 2014 and a $1000 (no date mentioned) donation to Biden. Perhaps Trump really is still secretly running everything! :tinfoil:

Darkrenown fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Nov 4, 2021

# ? Nov 4, 2021 18:20

Lib and let die: Aug 26, 2004

Sarcastr0 posted:

My timeline was quite clearly decades, yours is like months.

That's a pretty different paradigm you've switched to.

Um...economic inequality has been on the rise since the post world-war 2 economy. World War 2 concluded in the 40's, that was more than just a few months ago, bud.

# ? Nov 4, 2021 18:20

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

BougieBitch posted:

Here's a question I don't think anyone has meaningfully addressed - how would the benefits of federal student loan forgiveness be distributed? You might be surprised to learn that the spread is every bit as weighted as the SALT removal - but probably not! The group with the most student loan debt is D.C., and those people have 0 value for both the state and federal party, so from a "we should only support policies that get votes" that's a pretty bad start! Out of actual states, the three highest are Ohio (15%), Georgia (15%), and Mississippi (14.6%). The Mississippi votes are functionally useless - there's no state party to speak of and the EC vote isn't going to flip. Georgia is a swing state, so those numbers look good, Ohio USED to be a swing state, but lately has been pretty far out of reach (8% in 2020).

I'm just going to stop you right here: did you really just find data showing that two of the states that would benefit most from student loan reduction were critical swing states in 2020, 2016, and/or 2012 and write that off as worthless.

And are you actually arguing Democrats should just openly announce they have no intentions of helping anyone in a state that didn't vote for them for president because that sounds like a bad strategy. Although I guess it's hardly a novel one, they seem to have a hard-on for leaving implementation of federal programs up to states so Dems can run on providing them to their states while counting on GOP governors to deny them to anyone living somewhere Dems don't have to give a poo poo about. If you are really jonesing so bad to make sure any student loan forgiveness doesn't help the chuds (and all the minorities) in Mississippi just require the governor to countersign any federal forgiveness bing bong simple. Maximum efficiency of doing as little to help as few people as possible achieved

# ? Nov 4, 2021 18:24

Sarcastr0: May 29, 2013; WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE BILLIONAIRES ?!?!?

Lib and let die posted:

Um...economic inequality has been on the rise since the post world-war 2 economy. World War 2 concluded in the 40's, that was more than just a few months ago, bud.

Economic inequality is hardly the only metric of social improvement.

I'd rather be a minority or woman now than in the 1950s. I'd rather be under the poverty line now than back then as well. I'd rather be poor and sick now than any previous time in American history.

We can and should do better, but getting angry at people for insufficient despair doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

# ? Nov 4, 2021 18:33

Lib and let die: Aug 26, 2004

Sarcastr0 posted:

Economic inequality is hardly the only metric of social improvement.

I'd rather be a minority or woman now than in the 1950s. I'd rather be under the poverty line now than back then as well. I'd rather be poor and sick now than any previous time in American history.

We can and should do better, but getting angry at people for insufficient despair doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Sorry, I just don't buy the idea that an oppressor class that is as racially/ethnically/religiously/gender...ly/sexual identity...ly homogenous to the oppressed class makes the oppression any better.

there is value in raising oppressed peoples up to the level of oppression of the "most privileged" of the oppressed class, but this discussion frequently overtakes any discussion of class justice, exactly in the manner in which you've just demonstrated.

"how can you say things are bad for everyone, when things got better for Group X?"

# ? Nov 4, 2021 18:37

A big flaming stink: Apr 26, 2010

https://twitter.com/LavenderNRed/status/1455990165642649600

uh, does anyone know why the gently caress we're doing this???? :psyduck:

# ? Nov 4, 2021 18:43

HonorableTB: Dec 22, 2006

A big flaming stink posted:

https://twitter.com/LavenderNRed/status/1455990165642649600

uh, does anyone know why the gently caress we're doing this????

The Sandinistas are actual leftists, therefore this cannot be allowed to happen. Business as usual, standard Lat-Am imperialism from Uncle Sam. Honestly I'm slightly shocked that we're only economically blockading them instead of actually blockading them, and then invading them (again)

# ? Nov 4, 2021 18:47

selec: Sep 6, 2003

A big flaming stink posted:

https://twitter.com/LavenderNRed/status/1455990165642649600

uh, does anyone know why the gently caress we're doing this????

Because there�s probably some worries about land reform or some other pro-working class policy. It�s so transparent.

# ? Nov 4, 2021 18:47

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Darkrenown posted:

Oh, the donation is now a bribe? What services did the bribe buy Trump and what proof would you like to provide of this?

lmao

Yeah Donald Trump is just a nice selfless guy who gives generously to politicians for nothing in return, and by coincidence gets generous subsidies for his businesses and effective legal immunity for his frauds and crimes.

Good effort up til now but you flew too close to the sun

Darkrenown posted:

Out of interest, are all the dems Trump donated to on his payroll? I had a look, and:
https://ballotpedia.org/History_of_Donald_Trump%27s_political_donations

This include a $6000 donation to Harris in 2014 and a $1000 (no date mentioned) donation to Biden. Perhaps Trump really is still secretly running everything!

Yes they are, he paid them, that's what being on a payroll is it's when someone pays you.

Hmm it's almost like all this outrage from Biden, Harris, et al is performative and red or blue behind the scenes the only color that matters to them is green.

# ? Nov 4, 2021 18:47

Police_monitoring: Oct 11, 2021; by sebmojo

A big flaming stink posted:

https://twitter.com/LavenderNRed/status/1455990165642649600

uh, does anyone know why the gently caress we're doing this????

who knows

It's always evolving.

# ? Nov 4, 2021 18:48

theCalamity: Oct 23, 2010; Cry Havoc and let slip the Hogs of War

A big flaming stink posted:

https://twitter.com/LavenderNRed/status/1455990165642649600

uh, does anyone know why the gently caress we're doing this????

To reduce harm, of course

# ? Nov 4, 2021 18:50

Kraftwerk: Aug 13, 2011; i do not have 10,000 bircoins, please stop asking

Sarcastr0 posted:

Economic inequality is hardly the only metric of social improvement.

I'd rather be a minority or woman now than in the 1950s. I'd rather be under the poverty line now than back then as well. I'd rather be poor and sick now than any previous time in American history.

We can and should do better, but getting angry at people for insufficient despair doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I'd also like to point out that living standards weren't exactly high for most Warsaw Pact/Soviet countries which did a lot to discredit anything vaguely sounding like "Socialist" in America, especially since those places were conditioned into the boomer generation as ideological enemies. Like if you lived in a hard socialist country you had many of the bare essentials taken care of but that was it. You had a lovely tiny rear end apartment, the electrics didn't work right, your consumer goods were mostly of poor quality and a lot of stuff was rationed out. These are inherent weaknesses in the central planning system where people begin to gently caress with the numbers for political gain. So you were alive, you could probably get ok/decent healthcare and you could probably get an education that was means tested based on your political connections and personal ability.

Now I'm not saying the US was any better. You could just as easily say that today's supply shortages have a lot to do with corporate politics and shareholder related goals rather than operational goals and have an identical argument here. But still there's generally a lot more higher quality goods with better supply to the needs of the market in a capitalist system. So I think it's safe to say all but the most ardent takies and marxists just want a European style social democracy/mixed economy where we rein in the worst excesses of capitalism and still allow it to excel at its core function of being able to respond to the needs of the market better than a centrally planned government. Where government can help is where the private sector doesn't have a profit motive to deal with situations essential to human life/prosperity/safety. Like keeping strategic stockpiles of medical supplies that would be treated as "working capital" in a private business and thus a bad thing.

Europe did a great job building a proper mixed economy system but even that had its flaws.

A lot of European countries will throw up roadblocks to keep you from getting an education that you can solve with money in America. You had to be an EXTREMELY good student to go to University in many European states because you get a free ride if you get in. Basically while there's many exceptions if you can't qualify for a Pell Grant in the US, you're not going to University in Europe. You're going to be sent to a vocational school where you might end up learning a trade for which there's no jobs for anymore.

Say you were a lovely student but you turned your life around, you have way more recourse in the states than you do in Europe. In Europe they'll see you were a lovely student, write you off into a more vocational stream and then you will be forced to accept work in a tire factory or risk getting your benefits cut. If you have even modest means in the US you can go to University as a so-so student and get what you need to be qualified for jobs. I hate this system and I think vocational training should be taken more seriously for the non-academically inclined but to my knowledge only places like Switzerland will let you apprentice as a decently compensated bank employee without a University degree and make a career out of it.

This is by no means an attempt to try and discredit social democratic societies. Just that there's often a shortage of opportunity that for a time America remedied before all the essentials like healthcare, education, healthy food and housing became prohibitively expensive.

I'm pretty sure nobody would care if private health insurance was like 250 per month in exchange for a simple health card you could use anywhere you wanted without any questions or restrictions... Likewise I'm pretty sure if tuitions were like 2000 per year for a 4 year program nobody would be complaining either. It's just all the costs skyrocketed out of control because people realized demand for these things was inelastic so we gotta go for broke and try to get these things funded so they're free or near free.

EDIT: I want to add that America has a severe problem with survivorship bias because we often parade successful people like Jeff Bezos or the recent spat of Millennial/Gen Z crypto millionaires as an example of how if you're clever and smart you'll find a way to get rich. The reality is that for every 1 of those people there's countless more who failed and couldn't get back up and try again due to an absence of generational wealth.

In higher tax, higher regulation jurisdictions you can't do these things. There's more regulatory barriers that keep you from coming up with ways to become affluent so you're stuck milling about in the middle or lower income brackets and are just as unhappy as any lower class American with the exception that the social safety net will keep you barely breathing. But dealing with welfare services in Europe can be a very stressful and awful process. It's not exactly smiles and sunshine to say the least.

Kraftwerk fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Nov 4, 2021

# ? Nov 4, 2021 19:00

How are u: May 19, 2005; by Azathoth

A big flaming stink posted:

https://twitter.com/LavenderNRed/status/1455990165642649600

uh, does anyone know why the gently caress we're doing this????

Was just starting to read this article, seems like it has something to do with it.

Nicaraguan exiles see vote as step on Ortega�s road to dictatorship
Many Nicaraguans, including the ruling couple�s estranged daughter, see unhappy parallels with the fight against Somoza half a century ago

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/nicaraguan-exiles-election-daniel-ortega-dictatorship-rosario-murillo

quote:

As her childhood home was used to plot one of the 20th century�s most storied revolutions, Zoilam�rica Ortega Murillo told playmates she was Guatemalan � lest the neighbours detect the very Nicaraguan conspiracy unfolding next door.

�The little friends I used to play ball with came in to drink water once and wandered into the room where the guns were kept,� said the 54-year-old sociologist as she stood outside the peach-coloured villa where she lived as a nine-year-old girl.

Ortega Murillo�s time at the Sandinista safe house in Costa Rica�s capital, San Jos�, came to an abrupt end in July 1979 when the revolutionaries who were raising her � her mother, Rosario Murillo, and her guerrilla boyfriend Daniel Ortega � returned triumphantly to Nicaragua after helping overthrow the Somoza dictatorship.

Two days after rebels seized Nicaragua�s capital, Ortega Murillo flew back to her grandmother�s house in Managua on a military plane. �We were certain that once Somoza was gone everything would be different,� she said.

But four decades later, things are disturbingly similar and Ortega Murillo is back in exile � one of thousands of Nicaraguans who have sought shelter in Costa Rica from another authoritarian regime, this time led by none other than her mother and adoptive father.

�This is a criminal dictatorship,� she said of Nicaragua�s president and vice-president who will seek another five years in power this Sunday in an election the opposition and much of the world has called a sham.

The result of Sunday�s vote is beyond doubt given the stunning political crackdown that has played out in recent months under Ortega, a one-time revolutionary hero who has governed continuously since being elected in 2006 and quelled a 2018 student-led uprising with deadly force.

Security forces have jailed virtually every opposition figure who might have challenged the couple and driven dozens of activists, journalists, business people � and even elderly former Sandinista allies � from the Central American country.

�Every person who is in prison is paying for having challenged them in some way,� said Ortega Murillo, who split with her mother and stepfather in 1998 after accusing Ortega of sexually abusing her as a child.

The couple�s estranged daughter suspected her powerful and, many say, vindictive mother was the driving force behind the repression. �She doesn�t forgive,� she said. �She doesn�t forget.�

Carlos Fernando Chamorro, a prominent journalist who has four relatives currently languishing in prison or house arrest, said the pre-election clampdown was unprecedented, even in Nicaragua�s turbulent history. �The [opposition] leadership has been completely decapitated,� said Chamorro, whose sister, Cristiana, was a leading presidential contender and is now confined to her home.

Chamorro fled to San Jos� in June to avoid a similar fate, joining a historic exodus across Nicaragua�s southern and northern borders. The number of Nicaraguans caught trying to cross the US-Mexico border soared to more than 50,000 this year, compared with just a couple of thousand in 2020, while more than 35,000 have applied for asylum in Costa Rica.

San Jos�s fast-growing diaspora, which has unsettling echoes of the exile community that formed there during the Somoza family�s violent and corrupt four-decade reign, includes Nicaraguans from all walks of life.

Jes�s Tefel, a political activist and former adventure travel entrepreneur who supported the failed 2018 rebellion, stole over the border with his pregnant partner in early July after five weeks hiding in a Managua safe house. �It�s at times like this � that you really feel first-hand what repression is for: it�s about sowing terror,� said the 35-year-old, recalling their march to safety under the cover of darkness.

Yadira C�rdoba, a 48-year-old cleaner, said she had taken flight so she could continue to demand justice for her 15-year-old son, Orlando, one of more than 300 protesters killed during 2018�s revolt � apparently by regime gunmen and paramilitaries.

�I didn�t come to Costa Rica to make money. I came so I had the freedom to � ensure my son�s memory is not forgotten,� C�rdoba said during an interview in the dank shack she rents in downtown San Jos�. �They wanted to silence him but they didn�t realize he had a mother who would take up his cry.�

C�rdoba, who sleeps beside a shrine to her dead child, called Sunday�s election a mockery and a circus in which she would refuse to take part even were she in Nicaragua.

�Ortega�s no president � he�s a crook and a murderer. How could I step into a polling station when the first thing I�d see on the ballot would be a photo of my son�s killer?� she asked.

Former Sandinistas, including the guerrilla commanders Luis Carri�n and M�nica Baltodano, have also bolted, fearful of joining old comrades such as Dora Mar�a T�llez and Hugo Torres behind bars.

Another exiled former rebel, who asked not to be named, said they feared Nicaragua could be witnessing the start of a hereditary dictatorship that would see Ortega, now 75, try to hand control of the country to his wife and their children. �It�s so very sad,� the disillusioned former revolutionary said over coffee in an upmarket San Jos� hotel. �We gave everything to defeat Somoza � and 42 years later a similar dictatorship appears to be forming.�

Zoilam�rica Ortega Murillo, whose allegations Ortega and Murillo reject, said she doubted that would happen, despite all her criticism of their �criminal, authoritarian and repressive� acts.

�The dynasty still starts and ends with Daniel Ortega,� she predicted, pointing to a lack of support for her mother and siblings. �This dictatorship won�t last as long as the Somoza dictatorship did.�

Tefel was also bullish, despite the desolate mood that has engulfed Nicaraguan exiles.

�The wave of repression was designed to bury the opposition � but the good thing is they failed,� he insisted. �Lots of people managed to escape and are now here or in the US, reorganizing and regrouping.�

On Sunday, members of Nicaragua�s pulverized opposition will hold what they hope will be a huge march through Costa Rica�s mountain-ringed capital in an effort to project unity.

�We have lived through so much that there is great mistrust between us,� admitted one of the organizers, Ana Quir�s, a veteran feminist activist and former Sandinista who was stripped of her Nicaraguan nationality and deported for backing the 2018 protests.

�But I�ve always thought that if there�s one thing that we agree on, let�s focus on that. Everything else we can deal with along the way.�

Ortega Murillo urged Nicaraguans to avoid fatalism over their country�s future. �Three years ago [during the uprising] we said it was the beginning of the end � and I think that�s right. Only I think we�re no longer at the beginning, but in the middle,� she claimed.

As a rainstorm hammered San Jos�s eastern suburbs, she stared through the brown metal gates of her childhood home, which she was visiting for the first time since being uprooted by the 1979 revolution. �For me it�s a crime scene,� she said of the house where she claims a 12-year campaign of abuse began. �I can feel my stomach churn.�

Ortega Murillo hoped her personal quest for justice could inspire Nicaraguans hoping to free themselves of her alleged abuser. In 1998 many doubted her abuse claims just as many Nicaraguans still idolized Ortega when he returned to power in 2006.

Now, Ortega Murillo sensed people were waking up to the fact that �Daniel Ortega was a lie� just as many skeptics had come to believe her accusations against him.

Whatever happened on Sunday, Ortega Murillo believed the repression suggested the couple�s time in power was running out. �This dictatorship�s foundations are eroding themselves.�

# ? Nov 4, 2021 19:04

selec: Sep 6, 2003

How are u posted:

Was just starting to read this article, seems like it has something to do with it.

Nicaraguan exiles see vote as step on Ortega�s road to dictatorship
Many Nicaraguans, including the ruling couple�s estranged daughter, see unhappy parallels with the fight against Somoza half a century ago

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/nicaraguan-exiles-election-daniel-ortega-dictatorship-rosario-murillo

Never trust expats to tell you what�s going on inside a country you can just send a reporter to.

OMG these czarists told us Stalin eats babies!!!

# ? Nov 4, 2021 19:06

BRAKE FOR MOOSE: Jun 6, 2001

A big flaming stink posted:

https://twitter.com/LavenderNRed/status/1455990165642649600

uh, does anyone know why the gently caress we're doing this????

They're not really free elections, but the US only cares about that when it's a leftist in charge, right-wing corruption is a-ok.

# ? Nov 4, 2021 19:06

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

A big flaming stink posted:

https://twitter.com/LavenderNRed/status/1455990165642649600

uh, does anyone know why the gently caress we're doing this????

It basically just "calls for," and doesn't actually do anything, sanctions on the military leaders who arrested Ortega's opponents. It impacts 26 people and it doesn't create "an economic blockade."

quote:

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill 387-35 with strong bipartisan support following a similar vote by the Senate this week, sending it to President Joe Biden to sign into law.

Congressional action ahead of Sunday�s Nicaraguan election comes amid Ortega�s crackdown on opponents and critical media.

The arrests of dozens of opposition politicians, including presidential hopefuls, all but guarantees Ortega, a former Marxist guerrilla, will win a fourth consecutive term and tighten his grip on the Central American nation while facing increasing international isolation.

The bill calls for sanctions on Nicaraguans deemed responsible for unfair elections, increased coordination of such measures with the European Union and Canada and expanded U.S. oversight of international lending to Managua.

This would add to sanctions and U.S. travel bans already imposed on dozens of officials.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/us-house-passes-bill-put-pressure-nicaragua-sending-bill-white-house-2021-11-03/

Should probably get a better source than Sputnik before just taking a tweet at face value.

# ? Nov 4, 2021 19:07

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

A big flaming stink posted:

https://twitter.com/LavenderNRed/status/1455990165642649600

uh, does anyone know why the gently caress we're doing this????

Well, I typed it into Google search instead of Twitter search, and Reuters says that the Nicaraguan government has arrested "dozens of opposition politicians", including several "presidential hopefuls". Sure, I only did a whopping ten seconds of research into the subject, but that's ten more seconds than you or any of these posters bothered to put into it:

HonorableTB posted:

The Sandinistas are actual leftists, therefore this cannot be allowed to happen. Business as usual, standard Lat-Am imperialism from Uncle Sam. Honestly I'm slightly shocked that we're only economically blockading them instead of actually blockading them, and then invading them (again)

selec posted:

Because there�s probably some worries about land reform or some other pro-working class policy. It�s so transparent.

Police_monitoring posted:

who knows

It's always evolving.

theCalamity posted:

To reduce harm, of course

# ? Nov 4, 2021 19:12

Peter Daou Zen: Apr 6, 2021; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Mmm Good ol 1980's style interference in South American affairs, we gonna start a war down there to gin up some approval points for Biden now?

# ? Nov 4, 2021 19:16

selec: Sep 6, 2003

Main Paineframe posted:

Well, I typed it into Google search instead of Twitter search, and Reuters says that the Nicaraguan government has arrested "dozens of opposition politicians", including several "presidential hopefuls". Sure, I only did a whopping ten seconds of research into the subject, but that's ten more seconds than you or any of these posters bothered to put into it:

Our allies do poo poo like this all the time. As long as KSA is a vital strategic partner, absolutely none of this is sincere or anything I can be convinced to care about in the least. If you defend these actions on a basis that is naive of the reasons they�ve been undertaken, that�s just being a rube for power. You�re smarter than that, right? At least defend the empire on its own terms, or accept that you refuse to see it as it truly is.

They aren�t sanctioning them because of what they�ve done, they�re sanctioning them for doing it as leftists. It�s the money!

# ? Nov 4, 2021 19:16

Lib and let die: Aug 26, 2004

Main Paineframe posted:

Well, I typed it into Google search instead of Twitter search, and Reuters says that the Nicaraguan government has arrested "dozens of opposition politicians", including several "presidential hopefuls". Sure, I only did a whopping ten seconds of research into the subject, but that's ten more seconds than you or any of these posters bothered to put into it:

You don't even need to leave the google search result page to know why we're sending interlopers to Nicaragua.

Why is the US loving around in Nicaraguan elections? Well,

# ? Nov 4, 2021 19:16

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

Peter Daou Zen posted:

Mmm Good ol 1980's style interference in South American affairs, we gonna start a war down there to gin up some approval points for Biden now?

We're going through a Jimmy Carter speedrun right now, so we'll probably just get another Eagle Claw. This one will be with Spanish speaking baddies instead.

# ? Nov 4, 2021 19:17

Feldegast42: Oct 29, 2011; COMMENCE THE RITE OF SHITPOSTING

VitalSigns posted:

Trying to draw a conjurer's circle around the year 2009 and claim that it wasn't insincere to take bribes from corrupt white supremacist oligarchs then as long as they haven't entered politics personally as a candidate instead of as a lobbyist makes no sense, especially in light of evidence from 2017 proving that McAuliffe obviously doesn't give a poo poo about the dumb distinction you're hanging your defense on since he loved Trump the politician too.

This is a great post and I want to add that I'm pretty sure Trump was already running birther poo poo and had previously ran for president on a third party ticket, so him not being a political figure in 2009 is another laughable lie

In addition, being a multi-millionaire or billionaire de-facto makes you a political figure because we live in a capitalist society

Darkrenown posted:

No, the meaning of being on the payroll is when you are being paid on an ongoing basis. If you have a non-standard definition of that phrase it'll confuse people who don't share it. Generally if someone was paid once 12 years ago by someone they are not considered to be on their payroll, even if I was to accept the idea that the 2009 donation was a bribe.

Speaking of moving goalposts

Feldegast42 fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Nov 4, 2021

# ? Nov 4, 2021 19:17

How are u: May 19, 2005; by Azathoth

selec posted:

They aren�t sanctioning them because of what they�ve done, they�re sanctioning them for doing it as leftists. It�s the money!

I agree that we treat KSA with kid gloves because of the money, absolutely, and our ongoing relationship with KSA and MBS is disgusting and shameful.

I don't agree that Ortega is a leftist. Nothing about a dictatorship, rounding up all your opponents and putting them in prison, and trying to start a hereditary executive is leftist or should be defended by people who call themselves leftist.

# ? Nov 4, 2021 19:18

HonorableTB: Dec 22, 2006

Main Paineframe posted:

Well, I typed it into Google search instead of Twitter search, and Reuters says that the Nicaraguan government has arrested "dozens of opposition politicians", including several "presidential hopefuls". Sure, I only did a whopping ten seconds of research into the subject, but that's ten more seconds than you or any of these posters bothered to put into it:

We literally invaded and occupied Nicaragua, Paine

# ? Nov 4, 2021 19:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 00:59

Darkrenown: Jul 18, 2012; please give me anything to talk about besides the fact that democrats are allowing millions of americans to be evicted from their homes

VitalSigns posted:

lmao Yeah Donald Trump is just a nice selfless guy who gives generously to politicians for nothing in return, and by coincidence gets generous subsidies for his businesses and effective legal immunity for his frauds and crimes.

Good effort up til now but you flew too close to the sun

Yes they are, he paid them, that's what being on a payroll is it's when someone pays you.

Hmm it's almost like all this outrage from Biden, Harris, et al is performative and red or blue behind the scenes the only color that matters to them is green.

You're doing a weird performative thing here instead of actually providing any evidence, so I have to assume you have none. Which business did McAuliffe give subsidies too? What state level crime was Trump doing in VA around that time? Are all political donations bribes in your eyes or is there a specific $ amount where it becomes a bribe as opposed to a donation? Are you using the general definition of a bribe as being for a specific act or do you include just wanting to be in someone's good graces or to have access as well?

No, the meaning of being on the payroll is when you are being paid on an ongoing basis. If you have a non-standard definition of that phrase it'll confuse people who don't share it. Generally if someone was paid once 12 years ago by someone they are not considered to be on their payroll, even if I was to accept the idea that the 2009 donation was a bribe.

Feldegast42 posted:

This is a great post and I want to add that I'm pretty sure Trump was already running birther poo poo and had previously ran for president on a third party ticket, so him not being a political figure in 2009 is another laughable lie

In addition, being a multi-millionaire or billionaire de-facto makes you a political figure because we live in a capitalist society

Speaking of moving goalposts

I guess it's a good thing I never said Trump wasn't a political figure in 2009, but you have disproved the argument that you imagined in your head. Good job.

Which goalposts do you feel are being moved?

Darkrenown fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Nov 4, 2021

# ? Nov 4, 2021 19:22

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Current Events November: D&D's Afghanistan

«‹›188 »