US Current Events December: Inflation Growing Faster than Santa's Belt Size

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Current Events December: Inflation Growing Faster than Santa's Belt Size

«‹›140 »

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

DarkCrawler posted:

All politicians, in U.S. or elsewhere, promise material gain through one means or other. What separates this new promise from the old ones? Why would this electorate believe it any more? Did not say, Bernie Sanders, already promise material gain?

Not every politician makes those promises the centerpieces of their campaigns, though. The campaigns that fail to do so, tend to be losing ones. See, for example, Clinton '16, Kerry '04, etc, etc. Bernie promised material gain, and that's why he did as well as he did in the face of overwhelming odds. Biden promised at least a certain degree of material gains, and so did the Dems running for Georgia's Senate seats. They won in part because of these promises.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 06:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 21:00

Pentecoastal Elites: Feb 27, 2007

It's not really worth it to argue any of this with DarkCrawler, who has been on this track since at least the old GE threads and probably well before. But they live in the netherlands or something and believe that everyone who has ever voted for a republican is a subhuman, howling demon who can't recognize anything other than their lust for wanton destruction and defilement. I didn't bother to check but I'm sure they've already posted ITT about how it's your moral duty to cut any family members who eg. watch fox news completely out of your life or you're just as bad etc.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Dec 3, 2021 06:48

Ghost Leviathan: Mar 2, 2017; Exploration is ill-advised.

Centrist liberals it seems are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the notion that they can win elections literally by just saying 'I'm not Trump' and rubbing their fingers together expectantly.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 07:11

Wang Commander: Dec 27, 2003; by sebmojo

Ghost Leviathan posted:

Centrist liberals it seems are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the notion that they can win elections literally by just saying 'I'm not Trump' and rubbing their fingers together expectantly.

People like their big wet boy!

# ? Dec 3, 2021 07:16

VideoGameVet: May 14, 2005; It is by caffeine alone I set my bike in motion. It is by the juice of Java that pedaling acquires speed, the teeth acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my bike in motion.

Willa Rogers posted:

Well, yeah: I'm not saying CRT is real + bad, or that the GOP isn't using it as a figleaf.

I'm saying that McAwful saying "parents shouldn't be telling schools what to teach" landed particularly hard & was effectively exploited by the GOP because of genuine parental anger, and whether it was a dog whistle or a train whistle CRT is going to be broadened into a wider appeal to parents based on that anger, especially bc of their success in Virginia.

I agree. Virginia was less of a 'trend' and more about a really stupid man staying something that was easily exploited by Republicans. The dumbest thing politically since Dukakis answered the "wife got murdered" question.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 07:17

Sanguinia: Jan 1, 2012; ~Everybody wants to be a cat~
~Because a cat's the only cat~
~Who knows where its at~

Willa Rogers posted:

What "causes a political problem" is that there is no non-GOP political sector in power recognizing the very real pain that non-richie Americans are experiencing in trying to meet their basic needs while being told they should be grateful for inflation that raised their wages to still-sub-minimum living wages, and instead brushing it off as ignorant chuds who just don't appreciate how good they have it.

You say this as if the GOP IS a political sector in power that recognizes the pain of the non-richie Americans. Unless by "recognize their pain," you're talking about how they work to make it worse while giving them permission to be bigots as a distraction I guess.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 07:25

-Blackadder-: Jan 2, 2007; Game....Blouses.

Willa Rogers posted:

Imagine giving away your political power to this extent:

https://twitter.com/ddayen/status/1466412054361772033

And then, when the programs fail bc of their reliance on the gop, you catch the blame for their failure.

I mean in terms of electoral strategy letting the states do it would be pretty ingenious in a couple ways.

1: If Republicans don't implement these programs but Democrats do, it highlights the disparity between Dem run states and Republican run states, and prompts voters to vote for Dems, ie, if you want helpful programs in your state then elect Dem governors who will actually implement them, rather than Republicans who won't, and will just let you suffer so they can give the middle finger to the Dems.

2: If Republicans implement these programs but intentionally gently caress them up, while the Democratic state programs run well, it highlights how loving stupid the Conservatives obsession with doing everything on the State level is and how it always turns into a poo poo show.

3: If Republicans implement these programs but intentionally gently caress them up, while the Democratic state programs run well, it again highlights why Dem run states > Republican run states, so go elect Dem governors if you want good programs that actually loving work.

4. If Republicans implement these programs and run them well, then while the Republican governors will no doubt take as much credit as they can for them, they won't be able to hide that the program actually originated with a Dem president, who will also get credit.

So basically no matter what Republicans do with Dem run programs, the Dems come out looking good.

Of course, would is emphasized here because all of the above has the critical prerequisite that voters spend more than a half second thinking about any of this. As we know they absolutely will not and will instead just think: Biden did a thing -> a thing didn't work good in my state -> Biden bad.

-Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Dec 3, 2021

# ? Dec 3, 2021 08:39

rare Magic card l00k: Jan 3, 2011

-Blackadder- posted:

I mean in terms of electoral strategy letting the states do it would be pretty ingenious in a couple ways.

1: It highlights the disparity between Dem run states and Republican run states, and prompts voters to vote for Dems, ie, if you want helpful programs in your state then elect Dem governors who will actually implement them, rather than Republicans who will just let you suffer so they can give the middle finger to the Dems.

2: If Republicans implement these programs but intentionally gently caress them up, it highlights how loving stupid the Conservatives obsession with doing everything on the State level is and how it always turns into a poo poo show.

3: If Republicans implement these programs but intentionally gently caress them up, and we assume the Dems don't, it again highlights why Dem run states > Republican run states, so go elect Dem governors if you want good programs that actually loving work.

Of course, would is emphasized here because all of the above has the critical prerequisite that voters spend more than a half second thinking about any of this. As we know they absolutely will not and will instead just think: Biden did a thing -> a thing didn't work good in my state -> Biden bad.

If the 'electoral strategy' people spent more than a half a second thinking about it they'd also realize that what they did to people was: Biden did a thing -> Thing was designed to not help me -> Biden bad, which is a 100 percent accurate assessment of this 'ingenious' tactic.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 08:42

-Blackadder-: Jan 2, 2007; Game....Blouses.

rare Magic card l00k posted:

If the 'electoral strategy' people spent more than a half a second thinking about it they'd also realize that what they did to people was: Biden did a thing -> Thing was designed to not help me -> Biden bad, which is a 100 percent accurate assessment of this 'ingenious' tactic.

The programs are designed to help them. If the programs are implemented as they're supposed to be, then they would help. That's by design. Period.

In those instances the Republicans are the ones that stopped that help from happening. People should be able to parse that fact and base their choices on who to elect based on their self interest. That's how it's supposed to work. If Dems try to give you things you want, and Republicans stop that from happening , stop loving voting for Republicans.

Voters complaining that the Democrats didn't protect the program from being sabotaged by Republicans governors THAT THE VOTERS THEMSELVES ELECTED is pretty stupid. This is especially true since, as is factually evident, the state run programs also have the added important feature of being the ones we can actually pass.

-Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 09:14 on Dec 3, 2021

# ? Dec 3, 2021 09:03

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

-Blackadder- posted:

I mean in terms of electoral strategy letting the states do it would be pretty ingenious in a couple ways.

1: If Republicans don't implement these programs but Democrats do, it highlights the disparity between Dem run states and Republican run states, and prompts voters to vote for Dems, ie, if you want helpful programs in your state then elect Dem governors who will actually implement them, rather than Republicans who won't, and will just let you suffer so they can give the middle finger to the Dems.

2: If Republicans implement these programs but intentionally gently caress them up, while the Democratic state programs run well, it highlights how loving stupid the Conservatives obsession with doing everything on the State level is and how it always turns into a poo poo show.

3: If Republicans implement these programs but intentionally gently caress them up, while the Democratic state programs run well, it again highlights why Dem run states > Republican run states, so go elect Dem governors if you want good programs that actually loving work.

4. If Republicans implement these programs and run them well, then while the Republican governors will no doubt take as much credit as they can for them, they won't be able to hide that the program actually originated with a Dem president, who will also get credit.

So basically no matter what Republicans do with Dem run programs, the Dems come out looking good.

Of course, would is emphasized here because all of the above has the critical prerequisite that voters spend more than a half second thinking about any of this. As we know they absolutely will not and will instead just think: Biden did a thing -> a thing didn't work good in my state -> Biden bad.

Or, you know, they could pass legislation not written in a way that allows Republican state governments to block its effects. This would also have the much stronger electoral benefit of giving a clear, nation-wide benefit attributed to a Democratic administration. Since this is something they could have done, people aren't exactly wrong to think "the Democrats chose not to help me."

Given that anyone who isn't extremely stupid can anticipate that this legislation won't result in Democrats gaining control of state legislatures, this is basically just "Democrats choosing to pass a bill that won't actually provide the stated benefits to most people."

Your post literally only makes sense as some sort of awkward post-hoc rationalization obviously coming from a position of "how can I make this look good for the Democrats (or at least not look bad)?" It's like someone having the option of giving food to a thousand starving people, unnecessarily creating a requirement that they don't get the food if some of those people had bad opinions, and then taking the angle of blaming the people who had bad opinions, even though they're the actual person with power and the restriction in question is completely unnecessary.

-Blackadder- posted:

The programs are designed to help them. If the programs are implemented as they're supposed to be, then they would help. That's by design. Period.

In those instances the Republicans are the ones that stopped that help from happening. People should be able to parse that fact and base their choices on who to elect based on their self interest. That's how it's supposed to work. If Dems try to give you things you want, and Republicans stop that from happening , stop loving voting for Republicans.

Voters complaining that the Democrats didn't protect the program from being sabotaged by Republicans governors THAT THE VOTERS THEMSELVES ELECTED is pretty stupid. This is especially true since, as is factually evident, the state run programs also have the added important feature of being the ones we can actually pass.

It's not "by design" when it's contingent on something you know isn't going to happen. The people who wrote the legislation in question know full well that many/most people won't see the benefits.

Also, you realize that multiple people live in states, right? Some random person in a red state doesn't have the power to make other people stop voting for Republicans. While you might be fine with sacrificing them on the alter of "having the justification for saying Republicans are bad on the internet," they probably won't share your perspective.

Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Dec 3, 2021

# ? Dec 3, 2021 09:35

TheIncredulousHulk: Sep 3, 2012

If you ever catch yourself brainstorming a scenario in which you posit that what looks like a straightforward policy failure could actually be the Democrats setting up some kind of clever ruse to fool their enemies, you should probably stop for a second and ask yourself how sure you are that it's the Republicans they're trying to trick with it and how you arrived at that conclusion

# ? Dec 3, 2021 09:58

Sanguinia: Jan 1, 2012; ~Everybody wants to be a cat~
~Because a cat's the only cat~
~Who knows where its at~

Ytlaya posted:

Or, you know, they could pass legislation not written in a way that allows Republican state governments to block its effects. This would also have the much stronger electoral benefit of giving a clear, nation-wide benefit attributed to a Democratic administration. Since this is something they could have done, people aren't exactly wrong to think "the Democrats chose not to help me."

Literally a couple of pages ago this very thread discussed interview with Biden/Youngkin voters from Virginia that couldn't even remember that either Biden OR Trump gave them bailout checks. That was less than a calendar year ago. Why should I or anyone else take the notion that skirting around state government will magically be more effective at getting votes than leaving it in state government's hands?

You want the voter's feeling that "Democrats choose not to help me," to be rational because if it is you can create the mythical cross-party proletariat solidarity by offering greater material benefits. It's not rational.

Sanguinia fucked around with this message at 10:28 on Dec 3, 2021

# ? Dec 3, 2021 10:11

Wang Commander: Dec 27, 2003; by sebmojo

So on the Roe news, are Obergefell and Loving pretty much dead now too?

# ? Dec 3, 2021 10:21

Sanguinia: Jan 1, 2012; ~Everybody wants to be a cat~
~Because a cat's the only cat~
~Who knows where its at~

Wang Commander posted:

So on the Roe news, are Obergefell and Loving pretty much dead now too?

In the oral arguments Judge Beer and Judge Cultist and their fellow blood-gurglers apparently went out of their way to frame arguments about overturning Roe as NOT being the first step on a slippery slope to wiping out other rights because Sotomayor explicitly asked them that.

It's horse poo poo of course, they'd wipe out the entire constitution under their veil of constitutional originalism if they thought they could get away with it.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 10:41

Regarde Aduck: Oct 19, 2012; c l o u d k i t t e n; Grimey Drawer

Pentecoastal Elites posted:

It's not really worth it to argue any of this with DarkCrawler, who has been on this track since at least the old GE threads and probably well before. But they live in the netherlands or something and believe that everyone who has ever voted for a republican is a subhuman, howling demon who can't recognize anything other than their lust for wanton destruction and defilement. I didn't bother to check but I'm sure they've already posted ITT about how it's your moral duty to cut any family members who eg. watch fox news completely out of your life or you're just as bad etc.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

rofl this deep into the nightmare this planet has become and you want to give actual voting republicans a pass? Buddy at this point being a centrist is basically supporting the destruction of most/all life on earth because the center cannot hold.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 11:02

the_steve: Nov 9, 2005; We're always hiring!

Regarde Aduck posted:

rofl this deep into the nightmare this planet has become and you want to give actual voting republicans a pass? Buddy at this point being a centrist is basically supporting the destruction of most/all life on earth because the center cannot hold.

I don't think that's remotely close to the point they were trying to make.

That being said:
IK Hat
If people want to keep arguing the pros/cons/logistics of severing chuds from your life, take it to it's own thread, quit dredging it up in here.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 11:28

Srice: Sep 11, 2011

TheIncredulousHulk posted:

If you ever catch yourself brainstorming a scenario in which you posit that what looks like a straightforward policy failure could actually be the Democrats setting up some kind of clever ruse to fool their enemies, you should probably stop for a second and ask yourself how sure you are that it's the Republicans they're trying to trick with it and how you arrived at that conclusion

heck we already have an example of how it works with that kind of policy that states can choose to not accept: the ACA medicaid expansion

it uh, wasn't exactly a huge blow to republicans!

# ? Dec 3, 2021 12:23

-Blackadder-: Jan 2, 2007; Game....Blouses.

Ytlaya posted:

Or, you know, they could pass legislation not written in a way that allows Republican state governments to block its effects. This would also have the much stronger electoral benefit of giving a clear, nation-wide benefit attributed to a Democratic administration. Since this is something they could have done, people aren't exactly wrong to think "the Democrats chose not to help me."

Or you know, why stop there? The Democrats control all the branches of government, why not just skip the lame platitudes and and institute a socialist Utopia tomorrow?

Ytlaya posted:

Given that anyone who isn't extremely stupid can anticipate that this legislation won't result in Democrats gaining control of state legislatures, this is basically just "Democrats choosing to pass a bill that won't actually provide the stated benefits to most people."

"Basically" is doing a lot of work here.

Ytlaya posted:

Your post literally only makes sense as some sort of awkward post-hoc rationalization obviously coming from a position of "how can I make this look good for the Democrats (or at least not look bad)?" It's like someone having the option of giving food to a thousand starving people, unnecessarily creating a requirement that they don't get the food if some of those people had bad opinions, and then taking the angle of blaming the people who had bad opinions, even though they're the actual person with power and the restriction in question is completely unnecessary.

This is unhinged. There's no intent to defend the Democrats. That's clearly not even why they're doing it. Biden obviously wanted a lot more than he's getting.

Ytlaya posted:

It's not "by design" when it's contingent on something you know isn't going to happen. The people who wrote the legislation in question know full well that many/most people won't see the benefits.

Also, you realize that multiple people live in states, right? Some random person in a red state doesn't have the power to make other people stop voting for Republicans. While you might be fine with sacrificing them on the alter of "having the justification for saying Republicans are bad on the internet," they probably won't share your perspective.

Good lord. Rereading this post I can see what the problem is here. The Democrats are not a monolithic block, they don't all want the same things. And the reality is most of the Democrats don't even agree with us on most things and those aren't even the moderates. And there's a good amount of lovely moderates. Because of that, legislation ends up being less than ideal to get passed.

If you're so frustrated by the watered down legislation maybe direct some of that energy constructively and volunteer to pound the pavement for a candidate that can primary some of those lovely moderates that are causing it.

Or maybe even flip a seat from Red to Blue.

Or run for office yourself. An Islamaphobic Truck Driver with no experience and a campaign budget of $2200 ran as a Republican and beat a 20 year incumbent Democrat in New Jersey so it really can't be that hard.

We can start GoonPac and begin raising money for goon candidates. But what would be their policy platform?

-Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 13:07 on Dec 3, 2021

# ? Dec 3, 2021 12:55

Nonsense: Jan 26, 2007

https://twitter.com/evanhill/status/1466513079391375371?s=20

I can�t believe that a Congress of Democrats gave billions to this fantasy.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 13:13

Bellmaker: Oct 18, 2008; Chapter DOOF

DeSantis wants to bring back the Florida State Guard:

quote:

The Florida State Guard was created in 1941 during World War II as a temporary force to fill the void left behind when the Florida National Guard was deployed to assist in the US combat efforts. It was disbanded after the war ended, but the authority for a governor to establish a state defense force remained.

States have the power to create defense forces separate from the national guard, though not all of them use it. If Florida moves ahead with DeSantis' plan to reestablish the civilian force, it would become the 23rd active state guard in the country, DeSantis' office said in a press release, joining California, Texas and New York.
"Reestablishing the Florida State Guard will allow civilians from all over the state to be trained in the best emergency response techniques and have the ability to mobilize very, very quickly," DeSantis said during a visit to Pensacola on Thursday.

Seems useful in hurricane hell zone but the National Guard exists? This just feels like a workaround/creepy personal guard.

quote:

But in a nod to the growing tension between Republican states and the Biden administration over the National Guard, DeSantis also said this unit, called the Florida State Guard, would be "not encumbered by the federal government." He said this force would give him "the flexibility and the ability needed to respond to events in our state in the most effective way possible." DeSantis is proposing bringing it back with a volunteer force of 200 civilians, and he is seeking $3.5 million from the state legislature in startup costs to train and equip them.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/02/politics/florida-state-guard-desantis/index.html

# ? Dec 3, 2021 13:15

Barrel Cactaur: Oct 6, 2021

Nonsense posted:

https://twitter.com/evanhill/status/1466513079391375371?s=20

I can�t believe that a Congress of Democrats gave billions to this fantasy.

It was generating bad news cycles. It was being picked up that it generated reliable bad news cycles. Blame cable news for constantly airing people in the diplomatic service getting vertigo, heat injury, tinnitus, and mass hysteria as the next Russian super weapon.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 13:26

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Bellmaker posted:

DeSantis wants to bring back the Florida State Guard:

Seems useful in hurricane hell zone but the National Guard exists? This just feels like a workaround/creepy personal guard.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/02/politics/florida-state-guard-desantis/index.html

It�s DeSantis so definitely assume the worst

# ? Dec 3, 2021 14:00

Cheesus: Oct 17, 2002; Let us retract the foreskin of ignorance and apply the wirebrush of enlightenment.; Yam Slacker

Culture war in the deep southern town of Bristol, Vermont:
https://www.wcax.com/2021/12/03/large-police-presence-expected-mount-abraham-high-school-following-threats-disruption/
Last night the principal posted:

quote:

Dear Students and Families,

Over the past couple of days we have had students wearing flags as capes in support of a person, cause, or movement. Conversations were had with individuals about the purpose for wearing the flags and desired impact. After meeting with the students, the understanding was that if the flags were worn in a way that didn�t disrupt the learning environment at school they would be an acceptable personal expression. However, today the flags became disruptive to our learning environment. This developed into two demonstrations (walking around chanting, cheering, yelling) that included inappropriate and disrespectful language, arguments between students, disrespect to peers and adults and a general feeling of tension, intimidation, and unrest. While there was no physical violence, there was harm done today using words and symbols. We held an assembly this afternoon and I shared the following:

I am disheartened that after the work we have done in the past 18 months as a community to be more inclusive, accepting, and welcoming of all has deteriorated due to the improper display, use, and discourse about the various flags. The flags, chants, and disrespectful interactions have created a divide amongst our student body. It has gone way beyond publicly showing your support for a political viewpoint, advocacy and activism for marginalized groups, and individual beliefs. It has led to inappropriate, disrespectful, hurtful, hateful dialogue between students and adults. As a school, we are here to do the opposite.

As the principal, I support all opinions, viewpoints, perspectives, and beliefs. I want us all to learn how to respectfully disagree, and talk about our differing views in a productive way. Sadly, we are not there yet and need to continue building our skills around communication, civil discourse and conversation, appropriate civil protest and demonstrations, and the sharing of one's beliefs and how to behave at school.

Because the flags have created a major disruption in school, causing many students to feel unwelcome, uncomfortable, mistreated, and unsafe has forced me to make the decision to disallow the wearing of flags or banners in school. This is in accordance with the Supreme Court decision of Tinker v. Des Moines, that states clothing and other paraphernalia can only be worn in school if it does not disrupt the learning environment. Students wearing flags, or other banners and the like, will be asked to remove the item. The item will be left in the office and can be picked by the family. We will not tolerate students engaging in uncivil discourse, showing disrespect to their peers based on their identity or beliefs, or gathering in large groups chanting things that are intimidating to others. Consequences have been, and will continue to be assigned to students who cannot follow our school wide expectations. These consequences range from:

Administrator calls home
Consultation with School Counselor
Conference with student
Consultation with SEL team
Creation of Student Support Plan
Contact Local Police
Contact Superintendent of Schools
Meetings with the Behavior Interventionist
Outside therapy
Recommendation to the School Board of Mt. Abraham Unified School District
Reentry Circle
Restorative Action
Restorative Circle
Restorative Conversations
Risk Assessment
School based counseling/therapy
Self-reflection form
Targeted Behavior Plan
Time away from the learning community as determined by the school administration
Any other logical consequence as determined by the school administration

We utilize a progressive discipline approach and can use one, two or many of the aforementioned interventions. There is zero tolerance for unsafe and/or threatening behavior. Students exhibiting such behaviors will undergo a school based risk/threat assessment with a school counselor or clinician. If the risk is moderate to high, the family will be contacted and required to bring their student to CSAC ACCESS for an immediate, more in depth assessment to determine if they are safe to return to school. Upon receiving the results of the assessment a reentry meeting will be scheduled and families required to attend.
Faculty, staff, and administration met after school today to share advisory conversations, ideas, and develop a plan for tomorrow and the coming days and weeks. Students reported feeling uncomfortable, there are ways to present what you believe in a less dramatic and more appropriate way, students need to be more kind to one another, partnering older and younger students together to develop positive relationships and model appropriate behaviors, the need to show H.E.A.R.T., we are all Eagles, no matter our race, family, religion, political party, gender, or sexuality, we all belong, to name a few. We have many, many students that are hearing the call for action to partner with our faculty, staff, and administration to make Eagle Nation the best, most welcoming school that it can be for ALL students.

Sadly, students who were frustrated with the decision to disallow flags and banners in school have made comments about wearing more inappropriate tomorrow, continuing to chant things like �Let�s go Brandon�, which is slang for f�- Joe Biden, and some students that we have been unable to identify expressed demonstrating their second amendment rights tomorrow by bringing a weapon to school. This is a terrifying thought, the emails and voicemails of the administration have been overwhelmed by students and families scared to come to school tomorrow and I can�t blame them!

Out of an abundance of caution, tomorrow students, families, faculty and staff will see a strong police presence tomorrow. We encourage students and families to see (hear) something, say something so we can follow up on any conversations, posts, or comments about bringing weapons to school. Identified students will be escorted to the office and searched by school administration in the presence of law enforcement, as an additional precaution and in accordance with the school board search and seizure procedure. Any infraction of the weapons policy will result in the suspension from school, required threat assessment, notification to law enforcement, recommendation for counseling, an in depth restorative process, reentry meeting with the family. If the infraction is egregious and there is an identified threat to cause harm, the student may be recommended to the school board for an expulsion hearing. Additionally, students will be given time in advisory and classes, to process and reflect on how they are currently feeling about being in school, ways that we can meet their needs, and action steps we all can take to improve the school experience for all students.

FAMILIES! WE NEED YOUR HELP! Please take the time to talk with your student(s) about how to have civil disagreements, show respect and empathy for others, not lean on social media to spread hurtful or hateful videos or pictures, demonstrate kindness everyday, and other ways to build our school community up-�not tear it down. If you need to, please check your students belongings before they get on the bus, or out of your car, to make sure they don�t have a flag or paraphernalia that has symbols of hate. One student wrote �I am ashamed of our school�. This is so sad and together we can do better, I know we can, but we � our school faculty and staff, cannot do it alone, it is going to take a village.

Thank you for your continued support and teaming as we overcome and learn from our experiences today.
Respectfully,
Shannon Warden, Principal

Apparently the flags kids are wearing are confederate flags.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 14:08

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

-Blackadder- posted:

I mean in terms of electoral strategy letting the states do it would be pretty ingenious in a couple ways.

1: If Republicans don't implement these programs but Democrats do, it highlights the disparity between Dem run states and Republican run states, and prompts voters to vote for Dems, ie, if you want helpful programs in your state then elect Dem governors who will actually implement them, rather than Republicans who won't, and will just let you suffer so they can give the middle finger to the Dems.

2: If Republicans implement these programs but intentionally gently caress them up, while the Democratic state programs run well, it highlights how loving stupid the Conservatives obsession with doing everything on the State level is and how it always turns into a poo poo show.

3: If Republicans implement these programs but intentionally gently caress them up, while the Democratic state programs run well, it again highlights why Dem run states > Republican run states, so go elect Dem governors if you want good programs that actually loving work.

4. If Republicans implement these programs and run them well, then while the Republican governors will no doubt take as much credit as they can for them, they won't be able to hide that the program actually originated with a Dem president, who will also get credit.

So basically no matter what Republicans do with Dem run programs, the Dems come out looking good.

Of course, would is emphasized here because all of the above has the critical prerequisite that voters spend more than a half second thinking about any of this. As we know they absolutely will not and will instead just think: Biden did a thing -> a thing didn't work good in my state -> Biden bad.

Another thing they might think is
Biden did a thing-> thing designed on purpose to gently caress over (mostly PoC) Democratic voters in red states to get a talking point to use against Republicans->Biden doesn't give a poo poo about me->Biden bad, which is 100% true

# ? Dec 3, 2021 14:13

Thom12255: Feb 23, 2013; WHERE THE FUCK IS MY MONEY

-Blackadder- posted:

I mean in terms of electoral strategy letting the states do it would be pretty ingenious in a couple ways.

1: If Republicans don't implement these programs but Democrats do, it highlights the disparity between Dem run states and Republican run states, and prompts voters to vote for Dems, ie, if you want helpful programs in your state then elect Dem governors who will actually implement them, rather than Republicans who won't, and will just let you suffer so they can give the middle finger to the Dems.

2: If Republicans implement these programs but intentionally gently caress them up, while the Democratic state programs run well, it highlights how loving stupid the Conservatives obsession with doing everything on the State level is and how it always turns into a poo poo show.

3: If Republicans implement these programs but intentionally gently caress them up, while the Democratic state programs run well, it again highlights why Dem run states > Republican run states, so go elect Dem governors if you want good programs that actually loving work.

4. If Republicans implement these programs and run them well, then while the Republican governors will no doubt take as much credit as they can for them, they won't be able to hide that the program actually originated with a Dem president, who will also get credit.

So basically no matter what Republicans do with Dem run programs, the Dems come out looking good.

Of course, would is emphasized here because all of the above has the critical prerequisite that voters spend more than a half second thinking about any of this. As we know they absolutely will not and will instead just think: Biden did a thing -> a thing didn't work good in my state -> Biden bad.

This didn't really happen with the medicare expansions though.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 14:14

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Maybe let me put it another way: if Elon Musk came to me and said "hey I want to give your family thousands of dollars because you're struggling and I see you need the help" and then added "but I won't just give it to you, I will tell one of the biggest dripping assholes in the country he can deliver a check from me to you if he wants but if he doesn't tough titties then" then yes I will blame Greg Abbott when he says no, but I would also be pretty pissed at the guy with all the money and power to help me for creating this totally unnecessary dependency in the first place. If you have the power to help me, but let a raging rear end in a top hat decide whether you help me or not, and you don't have to let him, are you any less of an rear end in a top hat than that guy in the end? At the end of the day you're making a choice that ends up with me not getting help.

And no "well just vote against Greg Abbott in two years" doesn't help because I've voted against him twice and he's still there and I can't magically flip Texas all by myself

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Dec 3, 2021

# ? Dec 3, 2021 14:32

DeeplyConcerned: Apr 29, 2008; I can fit 3 whole bud light cans now, ask me how!

why did they decide to go this circuitous route through the states? it's basically because they didn't want to shell out for it right?

# ? Dec 3, 2021 14:46

Srice: Sep 11, 2011

DeeplyConcerned posted:

why did they decide to go this circuitous route through the states? it's basically because they didn't want to shell out for it right?

It's pretty much set up to fail. Even some blue states won't want to go for it because the funding dries up in less than a decade and if republicans are in power by then, well, it sure won't be getting renewed.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 14:47

Thom12255: Feb 23, 2013; WHERE THE FUCK IS MY MONEY

Should've gone all in on the child tax credit IMO for helping families with kid costs.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 14:49

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

Tired of living in this fantasy world where we have to pretend the GOP is either better at paying lip service to poor Americans or electoral strategy. They are not just evil, they are also a bumbling, idiotic organization that loses half of elections to Democrats and there is nothing admirable about them, nor anything to be emulated.

"Enemy of my enemy" thinking will take you to some stupid loving places, people.

(Trust me, I know: I support Democrats :v:

)

# ? Dec 3, 2021 14:54

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

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

DeeplyConcerned posted:

why did they decide to go this circuitous route through the states? it's basically because they didn't want to shell out for it right?

Because the states have the infrastructure in place already and it is much cheaper/faster to set up to work through the existing Pre-K regulations and networks already established in each state than to develop a new federal bureau of Pre-K to vet and credential every Pre-K program in the country in compliance with each state's rules.

If you want to know why a federal program is poorly designed without obvious financial benefit to anyone, then the answer is almost always:

- Constitutional issue.
- Cheaper to farm it out to the states.
- Having the staff from 50 different state DHSS and DOEs set up and administer a program is more efficient, less work, and cheaper (for the federal government) than hiring the equivalent amount of full-time federal employees with benefits to do it in perpetuity.

Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Dec 3, 2021

# ? Dec 3, 2021 14:55

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Srice posted:

It's pretty much set up to fail. Even some blue states won't want to go for it because the funding dries up in less than a decade and if republicans are in power by then, well, it sure won't be getting renewed.

Yeah states unlike the federal government can go bankrupt so by forcing the states to pay for almost all of it through a ridiculous formula they can say they didn't increase the federal deficit.
https://twitter.com/MattBruenig/status/1465679815110017026

So there will definitely even be blue states that reject it for the same reason that federal Democrats are refusing to pay for it: blue state Democrats won't want to make a vote to raise state taxes or increase their state's deficit and be called "tax-and-spend fiscally irresponsible Democrats"

Also they think all humans work on debate club rules so if you don't give a poo poo about giving them credit for help you didn't get they can say "well *akshually* I voted to ask someone else to help you and they said no, so ipso facto quod et decorum est you may only be mad at them and must thank me" and then Dumblodore will say "scintillating logical riposte, 10 points to your house, Ravenclaw wins the House Cup!" and everyone cheers and nobody points out the ridiculous sleight-of-hand you're using to gently caress them over because your argument won you the House Cup!

E: what the hell he deleted his tweet in the 5 minutes since I posted? Hang on
E2: ok there

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Dec 3, 2021

# ? Dec 3, 2021 14:59

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Sanguinia posted:

You say this as if the GOP IS a political sector in power that recognizes the pain of the non-richie Americans.

I meant that that the GOP will be able to exploit it politically, just as the Dems, say, exploited the child concentration camps under Trump.

Recognizing something isn't agreeing to do something about it, as we've seen with the child concentration camps under Biden. They were useful tools for Dems politically, though, as education was for the GOP in Virginia, and thus likely to be used in upcoming political battles.

-Blackadder- posted:

I mean in terms of electoral strategy letting the states do it would be pretty ingenious in a couple ways.

This was pretty much the thinking behind allowing states to determine expanded Medicaid (after scotus ruled against all-or-nothing funding by the feds), and yet in the following decade after passage Dems lost like a thousand seats in state & local government.

And, as we saw in state referenda in places like Missouri, voters can support a program like expanded Medicaid while also supporting the party that opposes it.

Maybe a more... muscular party than the Dems could pull off that kind of political jiu jitsu, but I wouldn't put my eggs in any of those baskets, given recent political history.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 15:09

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

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Remember when Tucker Carlson was going on about how he had Hunter Biden's emails and then suddenly he announced that he mailed the hard drive to himself (without making a copy) and lost it?

Seems like it is because they did find an instance in 2014 of Hunter Biden trying to use his name to help someone else profit.

It was Tucker Carlson emailing Hunter to beg him to help his son get into Georgetown (Tuck Jr. eventually went to UVM, so Hunter's letter must not have carried a lot of weight).

And, of course, Tucker Carlson's son is named "Buckley"

https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1466570869120065536
https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1466591346609774595

We also have confirmation that Hunter is a depressed druggie, his dad cut him off for 13 years until Beau died, and that he was sleeping around with anything that moved. But, pretty sure that was all public knowledge.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 15:17

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Nonsense posted:

https://twitter.com/evanhill/status/1466513079391375371?s=20

I can�t believe that a Congress of Democrats gave billions to this fantasy.

Have you ever seen the roll calls of votes for military-funding bills?

DeeplyConcerned posted:

why did they decide to go this circuitous route through the states? it's basically because they didn't want to shell out for it right?

Gotta cut the care dollar$ so there's enough left over to restore that tax break for richie homeowners.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 15:21

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Remember when we were assured that the SALT cap was a brilliant tactical man�uver by Democrats because for Republicans would never criticize a tax cut for billionaires or else they'd be hypocrites?

https://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley/status/1466437141370753028

uh oh

# ? Dec 3, 2021 15:28

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Yeah the SALT thing is such a bad issue for Dems. But the donors are essentially demanding it

# ? Dec 3, 2021 15:32

Groovelord Neato: Dec 6, 2014

The people in power have gutted this country for decades - wages have been stagnant since before I was born and our already not great safety net was snipped in a bipartisan fashion. The economy collapsed because of the actions of both parties and when there was a shot to change the system they just propped it up and virtually all the gains went to the richest of the rich. Can you really blame people for their inability to connect candidates and policies?

# ? Dec 3, 2021 15:36

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

VitalSigns posted:

Remember when we were assured that the SALT cap was a brilliant tactical man�uver by Democrats because for Republicans would never criticize a tax cut for billionaires or else they'd be hypocrites?

Why do you just make stuff up like this? (I swear to god every time somebody uses the word "assure" in D&D it's some disingenuous nonsense like this.) People said Republicans would be slow to criticize it, but not that it was a "brilliant tactical man�uver" because nobody thinks passing bad policy is brilliant. And I honestly doubt anybody "assured" you of anything.

Like the real brilliant man�uver would've been passing this thing in a loving month instead of running around looking like rear end in a top hat dickheads for almost a year.

+1 for the fancy New Yorker spelling, though, respect.

Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Dec 3, 2021

# ? Dec 3, 2021 15:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 21:00

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Mellow Seas posted:

Why do you just make stuff up like this?

No, I also remember a few people here saying that the GOP would never run ads against the SALT break because then they'd look like hypocrites. Plus, the GOP is the party of richies so it'd look bad to go against their own.

It's a natural progression of cartoon thinking (GOP = richies; Dems = working stiffs), but not aligned with what has happened & will continue to happen. I guarantee that the GOP will run ads talking about how the Dems favor tax breaks for the richies while siccing the IRS on hairdressers' & food servers' bank accounts.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 15:45

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Current Events December: Inflation Growing Faster than Santa's Belt Size

«‹›140 »