|
Epic High Five posted:What's the generationally bit here? The boomers dying off. It'll definitely help, but I'm doubtful how much, and it'll take too long anyway.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
Byzantine posted:The boomers dying off. It'll definitely help, but I'm doubtful how much, and it'll take too long anyway. Oh that makes sense, tho I'm more certain that gen x will be even worse in every way than I am that millennials will have any say at all beyond what they have now All just a proxy for class of course, in the end
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 23:41
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:The boomers dying off. It'll definitely help, but I'm doubtful how much, and it'll take too long anyway. Trump stopped student loan payments and Biden is gonna start them back up. Not sure that demographics are destiny, here
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 23:42
|
|
|
camoseven posted:Trump stopped student loan payments and Biden is gonna start them back up. Not sure that demographics are destiny, here You think that student loan payments will the issue that transforms people <40 into Trump supporters?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 23:48
|
|
|
The thing is -- and I'm surprised no one's said it, unless I missed a post -- the Biden administration doesn't have to resort to full warlordism to earn some benefit of the doubt on this issue. First of all, there's this from the linked article suggesting that (presumably law-abiding) environmental groups feel that more could be done:quote:But critics are frustrated with the department’s acquiescence. Despite the ruling, they assert, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland and other officials still have broad discretion to decide where, when, and how much acreage to lease. Beyond that, surely the Biden administration could push a media narrative. Maybe try "Our aggressive and vital plan to address climate change cannot be carried out due to the actions of X/Y/Z people/corporations. Because of them, we are on a trajectory of death and suffering. These people/institutions are your enemy and therefore they are our enemy. We vow to fight this decision with all the resources of the DOJ. We will use all legal means available to make it more difficult and costly to sacrifice the American people for profit. We will harrass them at every turn until they come back begging to reenter moral society. This is our vow to you." For example. Even if they don't follow that up with any action, it would certainly draw some attention. And obviously, it doesn't have to be near that bold. But put some media attention to the issue, assign responsibility, find someone at DOI to fire, whatever. Has the White House even made any statement on it? I can't find anything. The fact that they won't even pretend to put up a fight is why they don't get any benefit of the doubt from the left, why the legal details don't really matter. If it wasn't this obstacle, it would be another. Making this about The Rule of Law seems to be missing the point, in my opinion. SurgicalOntologist fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Nov 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 23:49
|
|
|
A rejection of "The Rule of Law" isn't a rejection of laws. It's an acknowledgement that it is material conditions - our system of production and distribution and our social relations to the system - that governs our society and the law is an attempt to codify and manage those relations. When you don't acknowledge this you fall into the trap of thinking it was the laws that came first, and the material conditions second, and thus it is simply a matter of passing more good laws and fixing more bad laws. But you cannot remove or reform the bad laws of the capitalist system, because they are necessary to its social reproduction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 23:52
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:The thing is -- and I'm surprised no one's said it, unless I missed a post -- the Biden administration doesn't have to resort to full warlordism to earn some benefit of the doubt on this issue. First of all, there's this from the linked article suggesting that (presumably law-abiding) environmental groups feel that more could be done: What is the linked article in question here? I figured it was a previous post but didnt find anything likely
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 23:54
|
|
|
Esran posted:It seems like Republicans ignore both laws and procedural norms when they are in power, while Democrats are terribly tied down by those same procedural restrictions. The rule of law is only valuable as long as those laws produce good outcomes, and are enforced somewhat equally on everyone. If the Republicans ignores the rules when they want something done, and the Democrats refuse to punish them for rulebreaking, why does it have value that the Democrats choose to be bound by those rules, when it leads them to doing bad things? This is a feel-good fig leaf to cover the fact that Republicans are just better, in some ways, at politics. Democrats aren’t on the right side of “playing by established rules” - no one on the left was hyperventilating about a unitary Executive when Obama pushed (struck down as illegal) DACA because congress wouldn’t do what he wanted. No one bemoaned decorum when Reid went nuclear with Senate procedures. Whitewash and memory hole a sex pest President perjuring himself. Only after those precedents were effectively used against them that this revisionist history of rule-following sprang up. Republicans never got rid of the filibuster, even when they would have gained from it. You collectively got out-cheated and it’s easier to pretend than own up to that fact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 23:56
|
|
|
Discretionary enforcement is like, already a thing though. It is illegal to break the speed limit. The punishment for breaking the speed limit is a traffic ticket. Yet the cops don't pull over every person that they observe speeding. I lived in Massachusetts for years and there were many laws still on the books that were stupid and hurtful - not just state wide but in many small municipalities. They were rarely or ever enforced. This is because the people who's job it was to enforce them had the neither the inclination nor the imperative to enforce them. Yet in many cases the local townships were headed by dinosaurs who couldn't stand the idea of changing the laws, even absurd ones that nobody wanted to enforce. Obviously when you scale this up to major crimes "discretion" is less of a factor - but DAs still try to figure out which charges, exactly, they want to prove in court and can decide to throw the book at an offender or try to keep the case narrow. There is a lot of wiggle room in our justice system by design. That would be a good thing in a just world. No set of laws is smart enough to replace actual judgements. The problem is that our justice system is wildly corrupt and nobody in power fears an angry mob enough. is pepsi ok posted:A rejection of "The Rule of Law" isn't a rejection of laws. It's an acknowledgement that it is material conditions - our system of production and distribution and our social relations to the system - that governs our society and the law is an attempt to codify and manage those relations. Also this. You will never write laws just enough to fix the fact that both the people who write them and the people who enforce them view class as a disqualifier. We cannot write our way out of this situation. We'll, unless writing results in revolt I guess. Mendrian fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Nov 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 23:56
|
|
|
How are u posted:You think that student loan payments will the issue that transforms people <40 into Trump supporters? I dunno man, check out the millennials here and lmk what you think 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 23:58
|
|
|
Esran posted:Did you miss the last page of several people arguing that this is a strawman? Maybe Pamela can clarify for you whether they were advocating for a society with no laws? How is quoting what someone literally said a strawman? VitalSigns posted:that is not at all saying that they want to live in a society without any laws Except the post didn't say those things. Here it is in its entirety, and no, it hasn't been clarified since: Pamela Springstein posted:The rule of law is dogshit, and leads to things like judges forcing government to sell land for drilling, and Kyle Rittenhouse walking free, and trump getting off scott free for everything. It's not something to be respected. There's nothing about Trump or Rittenhouse breaking the law. It is straight up "the rule of law is bad because bad things happen under it". You're gaslighting me. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Nov 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 00:05
|
|
|
Just a friendly reminder to everyone that things are looking extremely bad for Biden in the midterms and 2024 due the false narrative that he’s responsible for inflation. All GOP operatives are aggressively pushing a narrative that “reckless socialist governance” is driving up prices and leading to empty shelves. Nobody is gonna listen to me but: 1. I work in a company where our aggressive drive for growth has had me directly raising my margins from 7% to up to 35 percent in less than one year. 2. Many of the most visible aspects of American life: Personal care products Beverages Snacks Food etc Are all controlled by gigantic conglomerates in duopoly or cartels who can raise and maintain prices for no other reason than because they say so. Ignore me at your own peril but the lack of enforcement of anti-trust laws isn’t just a Biden problem. It’s an America problem that they GOP are happily capitalizing on as a crisis caused by socialist policy. This is how they’re gonna crush the left for another generation and they’re sitting here and letting them do it. This happened to Jimmy Carter and it’s happening again and nothings being done to seize the narrative. Literally the entire American goods and services economy is all controlled by multinational corporations who no longer have to engage in any competition. They've been aggressively buying out their competitors to grow their market share and in the process have engaged in wholesale price fixing and market manipulation. Once they buy out competing companies they push down salaries and squeeze profit from both ends. They get it by raising consumer prices and by depressing wages. You have nowhere to go except one other competitor who is doing the exact same thing. You can’t vote with your wallet. This is an anti-trust violation. My company is notorious for paying up to 35k per year less than smaller players we compete with in my markets. We work way harder, deal with far more stress and get paid less for it. Meanwhile our competitors are more relaxed and pay way more. Almost everyone in my industry is quitting with my company and getting better paid roles in smaller competing companies. The thing is in about 3-4 years they will be bough out by us or a larger competitor and then the market goes back to being squeezed again. Along with their wages. This isn’t unique to me. P&G, Kimberly Clark, PepsiCo, Coca Cola, the tech industry in Silicon Valley. They’re all doing it. It’s been happening for over 20 years and nobody is stopping it. You want someone to blame? It’s right there. President Biden didn’t do this. But his administration should have started enforcing anti trust laws. If trump gets back into office, he might do it to go after his corporate enemies. Like Twitter or Facebook. Kraftwerk fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Nov 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 00:07
|
|
|
Every generation thinks their's can be better if they just get in power and we too will find when the millennials are in power there will be enough lovely ones to muddy everything up while generation AA screams about their right to kill nazis with no consequences to them after so long as they can prove in court the deceased was in fact a nazi. Like, right now the only genuinely good man in Washington is an 80 year old centrist-left "radical"
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 00:10
|
|
|
How are u posted:You think that student loan payments will the issue that transforms people <40 into Trump supporters? They may not need transforming.  But loan-payment restoration, on top of the current inflation, ain't gonna help Dems, including Biden. efb, dangit. But those crosstabs are notable enough to post twice, lol. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Nov 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 00:10
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Every generation thinks their's can be better if they just get in power and we too will find when the millennials are in power there will be enough lovely ones to muddy everything up while generation AA screams about their right to kill nazis with no consequences to them after so long as they can prove in court the deceased was in fact a nazi. Without a big reform of the American political system, it doesn't seem like much can get better. At the moment, it's not likely the US will even remain the flawed democracy it is at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 00:13
|
|
|
atriptothebeach posted:I believe the best way forwards would be an international socialist and religious revolution, for the ultimate negation of wealth, classes, languages and borders. I feel that the immediate step I can take towards it is to support as leftwards as I can while opposing republicans, not cheering such fascists on. Regardless of what difference you think exists between the US political parties, both are equally in opposition to anything that would even remotely lead to a fair, equitable society that addresses issues like climate change or inequality. The fact that the Republicans might want to do some things that are worse than what the Democrats want to do has zero bearing on the level of opposition both sides have to even the most modest social democratic reforms. Probably the clearest evidence that Democrats dominating the government wouldn't lead to a good world is to just look at the most solid blue states, like California or New York. There'd be some things that are better than under a Republican government, but it'd still be hellhole where countless people live in poverty, issues like climate change go unaddressed, and we continue to murder millions of people abroad. The most useful way to think of the US political system is that we effectively have a single right-wing political party with two major factions. There are disagreements between these factions, but both are united in their absolute opposition to the left. People usually respond to this with nonsense like "the Democrats aren't a monolith," but when is the last time the party actually took action that seriously conflicted with the interests that stand in opposition to the most basic important changes (like the health care/insurance industries, fossil fuel industries, military industrial complex, etc)? I'm not talking about the tweets of a handful of congress members, but actual actions with consequences. Without exception, they're only willing to take action that doesn't actually harm the industries in question. Maybe Republicans will sometimes take action that helps those industries more (though that's honestly debatable), but Democrats will not hurt them. Their choice of action usually takes the form of things like government subsidies, since that still benefits the industries in question. On the other hand it's very simple to think of countless examples of the party cracking down on anything remotely left-wing. So on what basis does anyone conclude that it's anything other than "a party with a firm opposition to the left?" The answer is that there is no basis. It's something that people choose to believe both because the media supports this interpretation (that there's any meaningful left faction within the party) and because it's the only way they can continue to believe in a positive future through supporting the Democratic Party (and in some cases there's also a sunk cost - they don't want to believe that their work campaigning for Democrats was in vain). The "not a monolith" stuff is basically just an attempt to deny this through literally saying "actually you can't characterize the Democratic Party at all." In the absence of any basis for a counter-claim, all that can be done is to assert that the nature of the party is just ephemeral and impossible to define. An individual instance of left-wing legislation being introduced and failing to pass can be excused as an individual incident, but when such legislation never passes you can't just blame things on the latest incarnation of Manchin/Sinema. At some point you have to acknowledge that the party is effectively opposed to those things (well, I guess you don't have to; there's nothing really stopping people from just reacting to the latest political news while ignoring all historical context and precedent). And even if you believe that the "progressive" minority is genuine, where does that leave us? Do you think that the left is going to elect 50+ Senators? The idea is every bit as absurd as anything else one might propose. Seriously, try to actually envision how such a thing would transpire. Even if you somehow elected 25 socialist Senators (already an impossible goal), do you think that the other 25+ would be willing to support left-wing legislation? The whole idea that you can gradually expand left-wing influence within the Democratic Party is completely delusional (at least as any sort of solution to issues that need to be addressed in the next 50+ years). The only way for a left minority in Congress (which is all that you can possibly achieve any time in the next several decades) to actually accomplish anything would be for them to act as a completely separate faction from the Democratic Party that is willing to directly conflict with it. You'd need people who are unwilling to cooperate unless their demands are met. It's still unlikely to work, since there's probably nothing you could do to convince most Democrats to support even a modest reform like Medicare For All or something, but it's the only electoral strategy with a non-zero chance of accomplishing anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 00:21
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:And when they keep doing it, especially in contradiction of their own sources, they are supposed to be at least probated. It's explicitly been against the rules for a long time now. To ignore it is to allow it to be normalized and propogated further. This is my point about knowledge and belief: As a generality, belief that the systems of government are functioning as they're intended to and believing that part of that function is to harm the environment or kowtow to business interests are not mutually exclusive positions. Recognizing the intent of the posters you were disagreeing with is part of understanding their overall point even if, in this case, their specific point was based on incorrect information. Posters might also believe that parts of the system are broken or massively flawed (like the Senate- either the whole institution or it's inner-workings, the DoE, party politics, or voting), or that the whole system taken as one is broken or massively flawed and that it leads to negative impacts on people and the environment. Knowing how the system works is fine, good even. But that does not mean that knowing how it works, or knowing in granular detail, should be a requirement to have a conversation or opinion about it. Though I agree posters should read and attempt to comprehend the articles they post. The correction Barrel Cactuar made is a good, educational post, which I appreciate. Which many other posters appreciate. The problem is not that there is discussion or disagreement, it's that you think you have divined the why of other posters' positions based on the what and that you have some control over what should or shouldn't be posted. This is what you said: Discendo Vox posted:Notice the amount of effort required to refute a meaningless, repeated and continually expanding conspiracist lie about how government operates, effort that has to be expended again and again because the people repeating the lie aren’t punished or stopped. The fact that this is due to a binding court order overturning meaningful executive action has been stated over and over and over again. Which is a complaint. What is it contributing other than your frustrations? Why can you express your frustration with the environment of this forum but other posters cannot express their frustration with the Biden administration or parts of government that are actively hurting them, people they know or the actual biosphere? Even if the parts of government involved are working as they purportedly "should" how does that change their overall point, their minds? You assign intent to other posters claiming they actively distort and lie, that they are retreating into conspiracy theories. Let's phrase that another way: posters are coming up with an explanation as to why the Biden admin, politicians, the federal bureaucracy, companies and courts are doing things that makes sense to them. This is like what many posters here do about the reasons Manchin and Sinema (her especially) were involved in stopping various pieces of legislation, changes in Senate rules, or cutting BBB severely. Their explanations might even be largely based on factual information or they could be based on hearsay printed for the purpose of getting political obsessives talking. The intent of me bringing up misinformation about ivermectin is not to call you out specifically but to give an example to you that misinformation is posted on this forum all the time and not always with the intent to purposefully distort, disrupt or derail discussion. Misinterpretations and misunderstandings happen. Again, you could educate people, as Barrel Cactuar did. You could debate or discuss but instead you complain and backseat mod. I understand having to repeat yourself over and over or dealing with bad faith can be frustrating. On the other hand, conversations splitting off is something that happens as people contribute what they know (or think they know). Being corrected happens, counterpoints happen, arguing happens. That doesn't mean you get to decide what goes or doesn't go in this thread or forum based on your personal fundamental attribution error. Cranappleberry fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Nov 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 00:23
|
|
|
camoseven posted:I dunno man, check out the millennials here and lmk what you think I think student loan payments are not going to be the single issue determining whether generations younger than the boomers vote for a party that wants to take climate action vs the party that cannot acknowledge that climate change is real. If Donald Trump offered student debt relief would you vote for him in 2024?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 00:28
|
|
|
How are u posted:I think student loan payments are not going to be the single issue determining whether generations younger than the boomers vote for a party that wants to take climate action Who, the Greens?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 00:40
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:They may not need transforming. How do you read polls like this? It's a mess that is contradicted throughout the various questions. Shitloads of people have no response, and there is not a single demographic group that says Trump should run (see image). So what this is telling me is that people don't want Trump to run in an absolute sense and they would prefer if Biden didn't run. That's not an indictment against Democrats per se, but was also the position of many Democrats in 2020 when they voted for a lesser of two evils. I'm not even convinced Biden will run again next time anyway. There isn't enough information in the one question you posted to really say what you seem to be suggesting about millennials. Edit- even the question I posted doesn't provide enough context. People may prefer Trump to run because they are confident he would lose, in the same way they preferred Hillary to run so they could run against her. Edit2- in a kind of generic 'needs to be said' kind of way, 40-44 year olds aren't millennials. Older people tend to respond to surveys more than younger people, so despite 30% of that part of the survey not being millennials in a perfectly distributed sample, they are probably overrepresented therein and the sample is already only 400. Shammypants fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Nov 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 00:56
|
|
|
I seriously doubt that people are double-psyching out the GOP nominee so that Biden wins against Trump, especially since only half of Dems want Biden to run again in '24, according to other polling. But yeah, the fact that so few people want Trump to run again (if that's from the same poll; you didn't provide a link) would be a data point in favor of the generational crosstabs being less of a boost for Trump. I just thought it was interesting that millennials (eta: and some percentage of xers) in this poll favored Biden way less than the detested boomers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 01:07
|
|
|
atriptothebeach posted:I like mostly dont post in here or respond 1) Please tell me why I'm wrong to applaud a governor that enacts an order that returns agency from massive agribusiness monopolies to tax paying citizens. In 2020, the governor of my state signed an EO that repealed a measure that made it illegal to grow edible plants on the road-facing side of a property - a very common feature of communally maintained sources of produce. This is objectively a good thing, even if all the other things you're referencing are bad things. Despite my faith in elections, I'm mad as hell that he interfered in the restoration of voting rights to incarcerated people, but that doesn't change that this one specific item is a good and praiseworthy measure. 2) If you'd like to address anything I've said in cspam, come address it in cspam. I won't be engaging in interforum drama in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 01:07
|
|
bc the whole crossposting responses back to the brigading thread
|
Byzantine posted:Who, the Greens? It is with a heavy heart that I report that the Greens aren't any better about climate action
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 01:08
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I seriously doubt that people are double-psyching out the GOP nominee so that Biden wins against Trump, especially since only half of Dems want Biden to run again in '24, according to other polling. Yea no one is excited about either candidate. That's kind of the point here, but that was also the point in 2020. We have a lot of data showing that Republicans preferred Hillary to be the nominee for Democrats also back in 2015, because they thought she was the candidate that inspired the most Republican enthusiasm. I am a millennial and I would prefer Trump to run again because he would lose, I doubt I am alone. I am more concerned with a Trump like candidate without the direct stench of Trump. Shammypants fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Nov 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 01:11
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:1) Please tell me why I'm wrong to applaud a governor that enacts an order that returns agency from massive agribusiness monopolies to tax paying citizens. In 2020, the governor of my state signed an EO that repealed a measure that made it illegal to grow edible plants on the road-facing side of a property - a very common feature of communally maintained sources of produce. This is objectively a good thing, even if all the other things you're referencing are bad things. Despite my faith in elections, I'm mad as hell that he interfered in the restoration of voting rights to incarcerated people, but that doesn't change that this one specific item is a good and praiseworthy measure. Your governor repealed an obviously extremely dumb law stopping people from growing their own tomatoes that doesn't affect "agribusiness" at all? And this is your sign things are getting better? This is very dire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 01:14
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:Ends don't justify the means. This is a fundamental aspect of moral systems, even bad ones. This is easily disproven. -Vaccine shots hurt -Vaccines benefit society at large -Therefore, the ends (society being relatively free of disease) justify the means (hurting people) Obviously that is an extreme example, because the harm caused by shots is extremely minor compared to the benefit. But it disproves your idea as an absolute statement. You could have said "the ends don't necessarily justify the means" and I would agree with you. And it is definitely not accurate to say it's a fundamental aspect of moral systems. How are u posted:I think student loan payments are not going to be the single issue determining whether generations younger than the boomers vote for a party that wants to take climate action vs the party that cannot acknowledge that climate change is real. For someone so invested in electoral politics, you don't seem to have a firm grasp on how it works. Elections are won on the margins. No, student loan payments are not going to be the single issue for the vast majority of voters. But all it takes is a tiny percentage of people to change their vote, or just not vote at all, to flip an election. Especially when you factor in gerrymandering and the electoral college. Let me flip your question over: if Trump offered student debt relief (and Biden didn't), how would you tell people who are up to their gills in debt, who's lives would be massively improved by that relief, not to vote for him?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 01:14
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:Your governor repealed an obviously extremely dumb law stopping people from growing their own tomatoes that doesn't affect "agribusiness" at all? And this is your sign things are getting better? This is very dire. Yeah, it is pretty dire that things are so bad that "taking a miniscule amount of money out of the Waltons' or the Publix heiress's bank accounts" passes muster for a win, but Florida is a special circle of hell in a burning hell world. Popular policy decisions should be noted. How else would you incentivize making popular policy moves? Should I scold him for it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 01:18
|
|
|
How are u posted:If Donald Trump offered student debt relief would you vote for him in 2024? Depends on what the Dems offer me
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 01:35
|
|
|
camoseven posted:Depends on what the Dems offer me Something about SALT cap deductions
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 01:36
|
|
|
What’s the logical fallacy where people make up impossible scenarios as part of their argument? In what universe would republicans ever help student loan debtors?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 01:38
|
|
|
Shammypants posted:What’s the logical fallacy where people make up impossible scenarios as part of their argument? In what universe would republicans ever help student loan debtors? I don't know if this is a joke post, but: I haven't paid student loans since early in the pandemic because the republican controlled federal government paused interest accumulation. The biden admin plans to restart payment in January.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 01:45
|
|
|
Biden, the guy that backed a bill that stripped students of bankruptcy protections is surely the person to push through student debt relief. It was a campaign promise, after all. He just wants to do it the right way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 01:48
|
|
|
camoseven posted:I don't know if this is a joke post, but: I haven't paid student loans since early in the pandemic because the republican controlled federal government paused interest accumulation. The biden admin plans to restart payment in January. And republicans want to continue pausing accumulation? That’s news to everyone on earth. What happened with covid was an unusual case, and it’s clear republicans who have spent a poo poo ton of time arguing against student debt relief at every level of government since 2020 would attest to that (or before covid for that matter). Shammypants fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Nov 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 01:48
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:Your governor repealed an obviously extremely dumb law stopping people from growing their own tomatoes that doesn't affect "agribusiness" at all? And this is your sign things are getting better? This is very dire. In so, so many ways DeSantis is no Jeb!, who literally sent state shock troopers door to door to execute orange trees to protect the huge agribusiness growers
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 01:53
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:This is a feel-good fig leaf to cover the fact that Republicans are just better, in some ways, at politics. Yeah the reality is that Dems are also a deeply irresponsible and norm-disrespecting party, they’re just bad at winning elections
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 01:56
|
|
|
Shammypants posted:And republicans want to continue pausing accumulation? That’s news to everyone on earth. What happened with covid was an unusual case, and it’s clear republicans who have spent a poo poo ton of time arguing against student debt relief at every level of government since 2020 would attest to that. It's not up to Republicans to do something; it's up to the Democratic president & Democratic House & Democratic Senate to do something, as the GOP did when they ran the table on all but the House last year. And all signs point to "lol" on Dems extending the repayment hiatus, for the stated reason (by the administration) that it'd be a bad indicator that the economy isn't doing as well as they say it is. (This seems to be a good point at which to respond to that lying-eyes-as-a-trope thing someone quibbled with yesterday. I take full responsibility for propagating this, since I've used it several times as an apt counter to bullshit like "service workers are getting an average of 11 percent increases to their still-subminimum-living wage so they're actually lucky duckies who are doing better than you may think!" Tell that to their lying eyes, iow.) eta: It was Trump who extended the student-loan forgiveness last year through an executive order, when the Dem House refused to give him a pre-election win by passing it in Congress, lol. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Nov 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 01:56
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Regardless of what difference you think exists between the US political parties, both are equally in opposition to anything that would even remotely lead to a fair, equitable society that addresses issues like climate change or inequality. The former administration made it legal to leak methane and nearly started subsidizing the coal industry because they're no longer competitive with renewables. The two parties are night and day different when it comes to climate change. Hell, Bush Jr. tried to privatize social security. Don't take my word for it, https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1455548347104825344?s=20
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 02:05
|
|
|
quote:And all signs point to "lol" on Dems extending the repayment hiatus, for the stated reason (by the administration) that it'd be a bad indicator that the economy isn't doing as well as they say it is. “All signs” being one source from one article posted the other day. So maybe they will end it and maybe they won’t. I think that most borrowers being unable to repay at that time will win out over perceptions of the economy being other than strong (that is a decision will be made favoring borrowers temporarily by necessity and not because they are really ideologically motivated to help them).
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 02:07
|
|
|
Shammypants posted:“All signs” being one source from one article posted the other day. So maybe they will end it and maybe they won’t. I think that most borrowers being unable to repay at that time will win out over perceptions of the economy being other than strong (that is a decision will be made favoring borrowers temporarily by necessity and not because they are really ideologically motivated to help them). If you can count on anything, it's that Democrats will do the right thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 02:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
Shammypants posted:“All signs” being one source from one article posted the other day. So maybe they will end it and maybe they won’t. I think that most borrowers being unable to repay at that time will win out over perceptions of the economy being other than strong (that is a decision will be made favoring borrowers temporarily by necessity and not because they are really ideologically motivated to help them). All signs being the loving government student loan website: https://studentaid.gov/announcements-events/covid-19 quote:On Aug. 6, 2021, the U.S. Department of Education announced a final extension of the student loan payment pause until Jan. 31, 2022.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 02:10
|
|