Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[UnifiedDivide]

Imagine being such a sandwich of bigoted stupidity you actually publicly express the idea that one of the most powerful megacorporations of capitalist economics is communist.

This is what capitalism looks like, you homophobic asspimple.

Directed at the Rep, not UnifiedDivide, obviously. But stated so there's no confusion.

They redefine words as needed. "Socialism" and "Communism" are the easy ones, after spending so many years making sure their typical base now equates anything remotely close to those labels as evil.

[Fugus]

They redefine words as needed. "Socialism" and "Communism" are the easy ones, after spending so many years making sure their typical base now equates anything remotely close to those labels as evil.

Yeah, but then the hamster falls off the wheel when you point out to them that a standing military, public police, and fire departments are all forms of Socialism or Communism and that the capitalist versions of them are mercenaries and private security and then watch them trying to reconcile hating and supporting them at the same time.

[Edge-]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/20/polit...ers/index.html

Welp, after 4 years of a fairly big exodus of diplomatic staff, the State Department is roaring back to life.

he US State Department is expecting its strongest year for foreign service intake in a decade, a department spokesperson told CNN, reversing a trend that began under the Trump administration.

According to the spokesperson, internal numbers show that 327 career foreign service employees have been onboarded this fiscal year, which began in October, with 179 sworn in last week. Their projection is based on onboarding so far and additional classes scheduled.

"I extend my hearty congratulations to our new Foreign Service class of 179 superb employees, putting the State Department on track for its best year for Foreign Service intake since 2012," Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a statement. "The size of our classes is a testament to the strong appeal of the Foreign Service and the State Department more broadly. I look forward to seeing the work that this class does to advance US diplomacy in the years to come."

The spokesperson said that 2017 -- when the department was led by then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson -- marked the lowest foreign service intake in a decade.

Joe Biden is Making Diplomacy Great Again!

[UnifiedDivide]

Yeah, but then the hamster falls off the wheel when you point out to them that a standing military, public police, and fire departments are all forms of Socialism or Communism and that the capitalist versions of them are mercenaries and private security and then watch them trying to reconcile hating and supporting them at the same time.

It still tickles me when I see people say that the US "has no socialism!" Reminds me of people that hated Obamacare, but loved the ACA.

People are dumb, and Republicans rely on that.

[Xyonai]

Honestly it's baffling and frustrating seeing Decades of LGBT activism and political ground-making starting to come undone by less than a year of Republicans making up a problem and screaming really loudly about it; dredging back up the ol' tactic of labeling them and their supporters Pedophiles because, to their hilariously limited understanding, they just think LGBT issues are some fetish thing. Same with their astroturf'd concern about CRT making White Kids hate themselves for learning about history (when Kids didn't actually take any courses on CRT and they were just using CRT as a Boogyman to scrub classrooms of talking about anything race related at all).

Republicans ran out of actual legislative issues to run on because the only way they can get their base to vote is dumb culture war bullshit, so they've decided to double down on it and this is the result.

[Kaleredar]

Honestly it's baffling and frustrating seeing Decades of LGBT activism and political ground-making starting to come undone by less than a year of Republicans making up a problem and screaming really loudly about it; dredging back up the ol' tactic of labeling them and their supporters Pedophiles because, to their hilariously limited understanding, they just think LGBT issues are some fetish thing. Same with their astroturf'd concern about CRT making White Kids hate themselves for learning about history (when Kids didn't actually take any courses on CRT and they were just using CRT as a Boogyman to scrub classrooms of talking about anything race related at all).

Republicans ran out of actual legislative issues to run on because the only way they can get their base to vote is dumb culture war bullshit, so they've decided to double down on it and this is the result.

It's an illustration of what can happen when people choose apathy and "assume" that progress is safe enough for them to remove themselves and their voice from the political arena because "neither candidate is progressive enough, so they might as well be the same" or "I didn't like the one candidate's attitude." It's a thesis I wholeheartedly reject, and think is colossally self-absorbed and ultimately nothing but self-destructive and does nothing in practice but help one's political rivals. Luckily most people seemed to have learned that lesson after 2016, but it bears reminding. Because the ramifications are still being felt today, and until a major shakeup in the supreme court it's likely to continue.

If the dems controlled the supreme court, this anti-LGBT and anti-voting rights stuff would have been DOA and it's doubtful the GOP would have even tried it. "Stagnation" is far from the worst thing that can happen in politics, as illustrated here.

Because even if one were to argue that the democrats are a "stagnant" party, at the very least they aren't actively crusading against things like LGBTQ+ rights, voting rights, economic reforms, and so forth.

[Endus]

It's an illustration of what can happen when people choose apathy and "assume" that progress is safe enough for them to remove themselves and their voice from the political arena because "neither candidate is progressive enough, so they might as well be the same" or "I didn't like the one candidate's attitude." It's a thesis I wholeheartedly reject, and think is colossally self-absorbed and ultimately nothing but self-destructive and does nothing in practice but help one's political rivals. Luckily most people seemed to have learned that lesson after 2016, but it bears reminding. Because the ramifications are still being felt today, and until a major shakeup in the supreme court it's likely to continue.

If the dems controlled the supreme court, this anti-LGBT and anti-voting rights stuff would have been DOA and it's doubtful the GOP would have even tried it. "Stagnation" is far from the worst thing that can happen in politics, as illustrated here.

Because even if one were to argue that the democrats are a "stagnant" party, at the very least they aren't actively crusading against things like LGBTQ+ rights, voting rights, economic reforms, and so forth.

The thesis isn't completely invalid. The problem is in applying it to the modern American status quo; the supposed equality of the two parties does not exist. The Republicans have become become venal, bigoted fascists, without any deeper platform than that. That's not just disagreeable politics, it's a looming threat to all who don't support the Republicans, in a very real "you'll likely get killed down the line if they solidify power" sense, without hyperbole; fascism always ends up at mass killings of those deemed "other".

If it were 1992 again, and your options were Clinton, H.W. Bush, or Perot, throwing your hands up and saying they all suck in different ways equally is kinda reasonable. Do I think Clinton was "better"? Sure. But Bush hadn't ruined things in his 4 years prior, either. And there was dark shit that came about with the Democrats under Clinton. Like the crime bill, pushed hard by Biden at the time, which did a lot to reinforce the apalling state of American policing and the brutal targeting of black Americans. Which they've never really taken ownership of.

But in 2012 through today? No, if you're pushing that "both sides are bad" argument to justify not voting, you're just as much a bad-faith participant as any Republican trying to pull that shit to deflect blame from Republican malfeasance. You're the kind of person who, in the Weimar elections in the late '20s and early '30s, would be refusing to vote because "the Nazis aren't any better or worse than the Social Democrats". And there's a word for people like that, looking back in history, generally.

That word is "Nazi".

- - - Updated - - -

Honestly it's baffling and frustrating seeing Decades of LGBT activism and political ground-making starting to come undone by less than a year of Republicans making up a problem and screaming really loudly about it; dredging back up the ol' tactic of labeling them and their supporters Pedophiles because, to their hilariously limited understanding, they just think LGBT issues are some fetish thing. Same with their astroturf'd concern about CRT making White Kids hate themselves for learning about history (when Kids didn't actually take any courses on CRT and they were just using CRT as a Boogyman to scrub classrooms of talking about anything race related at all).

Republicans ran out of actual legislative issues to run on because the only way they can get their base to vote is dumb culture war bullshit, so they've decided to double down on it and this is the result.

It's the same with race issues.

The problem isn't, fundamentally, that there wasn't a lot of progress on those issues. The problem, fundamentally, is there's still a fuckin' lot of bigots in the USA, who aren't being called out and having their lives ruined over their bigotries, and thus those bigotries have been allowed to fester and build over time, reinforcing themselves and infiltrating themselves irrevocably into agencies like various faith groups or policing or what have you. The "progress" was legalistic, but it never had full support of the populace, not in a way they were willing to fight for.

And the bigots have decided they are willing to fight over it, now. So either you can start punchin' Nazis for being bigoted fuckbags, or the only people taking swings are gonna walk away with the win.

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/LisPower1/status...02526450552836

Fox News host Sandra Smith, attempting to attack Biden for current inflation and show that she's a real "Average Jane" that understands "Real Americans" and isn't an out-of-touch rich person...

Thinks a gallon of milk in New York is $11. Is she buying important yak milk or something?

The attempts to attack Biden for inflation he's not responsible for and blow current inflation out of proportion is just sad. And reveals some of these people to be the out-of-touch "elites" that they supposedly rail against.

[Zan15]

https://twitter.com/LisPower1/status...02526450552836

Fox News host Sandra Smith, attempting to attack Biden for current inflation and show that she's a real "Average Jane" that understands "Real Americans" and isn't an out-of-touch rich person...

Thinks a gallon of milk in New York is $11. Is she buying important yak milk or something?

The attempts to attack Biden for inflation he's not responsible for and blow current inflation out of proportion is just sad. And reveals some of these people to be the out-of-touch "elites" that they supposedly rail against.

but but Pelosi ice cream something something.....

Just remember when a republican is attacking a democrat for something stupid/exaggerated/illegal, they are usually the ones guilty of it.

[Edge-]

https://www.businessinsider.com/bide...dit-bbb-2022-4

"We lack one Democrat and 50 Republicans from keeping it from passing this time around," he said. "But it really fundamentally changed the lives of millions of people."

Biden talking about the expiration of the monthly child tax credit. And singling out Manchin pretty obviously here.

I mean, also "singling" out all 50 Republicans that apparently like poor families with children to struggle to put food on the table and all. But Manchin too.

[NED funded]

Do you think I can still get free money from the student forgiveness thing if I take a loan rn?

[Edge-]

Do you think I can still get free money from the student forgiveness thing if I take a loan rn?

Why don't you apply and find out? Ain't nobody stopping you from taking out a $50K student loan, bro.

[Masark]

Why don't you apply and find out? Ain't nobody stopping you from taking out a $50K student loan, bro.

Well, there's also the problem of being accepted somewhere as a student. Even a diploma mill might waffle on accepting him.

[fwc577]

It still tickles me when I see people say that the US "has no socialism!" Reminds me of people that hated Obamacare, but loved the ACA.

People are dumb, and Republicans rely on that.

Medicare says

[Endus]

Well, there's also the problem of being accepted somewhere as a student. Even a diploma mill might waffle on accepting him.

And y'know, without being accepted and actually going to school, what he's talking about is just go-to-prison levels of fraud.

[Breccia]

Do you think I can still get free money from the student forgiveness thing if I take a loan rn?

A student loan is not free money.

[tehdang]

Student debt forgiveness is student debt forgiveness. The people that didn't get degrees, or paid them off, don't make out as good as the people most indebted or (depending on the terms) take out a large loan prior to some bipartisan deal to do it.

[Kaleredar]

Student debt forgiveness is student debt forgiveness. The people that didn't get degrees, or paid them off, don't make out as good as the people most indebted or (depending on the terms) take out a large loan prior to some bipartisan deal to do it.

"What's the point of relieving suffering if people before you still suffered?" isn't a particularly good take.

Like, if you were to feel burned because you had to pay off a loan, but someone else doesn't have to pay off their same loan... so what? Whether that person pays off their loan or not doesn't involve you in any way, shape, or form. You don't get your loan money back if they do, and you aren't out any additional money if they don't. At that point... you're just wishing someone to have to pay money.


Seeing as the price of... everything... is going up, except for the wages that companies are paying out, not additionally saddling young people with tens of thousands of dollars of debt is only a good thing. It doesn't teach them the importance of money, or the importance of loan assessment, all it does is hurt their financial prospects and make them bitter at the system that's undervaluing their labor and overvaluing everything they want them to buy. People complain about millennials and Gen Xers "not buying houses" or "not buying diamonds" or whatever other things that boomers had more or less guaranteed them with minimal education and effort don't realize that rent isn't 150 hundred bucks a month. Simple fact of the matter, most jobs don't pay enough to afford those things, especially not on single incomes.

Let's put this to some numbers: the average one bedroom apartment in Orlando costs 1600 dollars a month. That is a 40% increase in the price of rent since last year, which itself was a 20% jump from the year before that. You think wages in Orlando have risen 40% in the last year to match? I can't imagine how someone working minimum wage making $10 an hour in Orlando affords to make ends meet. And Florida is supposedly in the center of "low taxation conservative bootstraps heaven," why hasn't Desantis done anything to rectify the situation there? Hell, his little move with Disney, if it goes through, would probably just increase the taxes people in the Orlando area pay.

[tehdang]

"What's the point of relieving suffering if people before you still suffered?" isn't a particularly good take.

Like, if you were to feel burned because you had to pay off a loan, but someone else doesn't have to pay off their same loan... so what? Whether that person pays off their loan or not doesn't involve you in any way, shape, or form. You don't get your loan money back if they do, and you aren't out any additional money if they don't. At that point... you're just wishing someone to have to pay money.


Seeing as the price of... everything... is going up, except for the wages that companies are paying out, not additionally saddling young people with tens of thousands of dollars of debt is only a good thing. It doesn't teach them the importance of money, or the importance of loan assessment, all it does is hurt their financial prospects and make them bitter at the system that's undervaluing their labor and overvaluing everything they want them to buy. People complain about millennials and Gen Xers "not buying houses" or "not buying diamonds" or whatever other things that boomers had more or less guaranteed them with minimal education and effort don't realize that rent isn't 150 hundred bucks a month. Simple fact of the matter, most jobs don't pay enough to afford those things, especially not on single incomes.

Let's put this to some numbers: the average one bedroom apartment in Orlando costs 1600 dollars a month. That is a 40% increase in the price of rent since last year, which itself was a 20% jump from the year before that. You think wages in Orlando have risen 40% in the last year to match? I can't imagine how someone working minimum wage making $10 an hour in Orlando affords to make ends meet. And Florida is supposedly in the center of "low taxation conservative bootstraps heaven," why hasn't Desantis done anything to rectify the situation there? Hell, his little move with Disney, if it goes through, would probably just increase the taxes people in the Orlando area pay.

You think the money students borrowed for college hasn't already been spent? Or what about telling America the college degrees they obtained through the debt were a massive ripoff, through the underlying rationale for the cancellation?

I'm not invested enough in the "cancelling student debt is an incredibly dumb idea" argument to say I can analyze everything you want to place in the 'pro' column for what's true, false, and in between. If that's what you're really looking for. I can read and learn more on the subject. Let me start here: Let's say your fraternal twin came up to me and said saddling people with thousands of dollars of debt in their mortgages is a terrible idea, we need to cancel all housing debt, and as a bonus, we get further than the third of Americans under 30 with student loan debt. I'd give him the same answer. Sounds bad, the money's been spent, and you're just bickering over passing the bill on to some other poor schlub. God knows even today, with the pandemic-related suspension of payments, taxpayers are already on the hook for the tens of billions of dollars.

And that's not even addressing the issue of battling the cost of the ferrari by transferring all the debt created to pay for it. You're back to whatever debt number you think is outrageously too large in no time flat. It's the next borrower, deemed credit worthy to borrow the money, and buying at the same price.

That's probably enough to chew on. I'm not here on a crusade to get people to put down their pitchforks on the student debt issue. I'd just like to see some acknowledgement of the other angles. If I'm going pie-in-the-sky ideas, with a stress on having some happy feel-good moral valence, I'd like to include billing your college for this terrible situation you find yourself in. Maybe focus it on the top 10% or 1% of colleges whose student graduates find themselves unable to pay back their loans after graduation.

[Kaleredar]

You think the money students borrowed for college hasn't already been spent? Or what about telling America the college degrees they obtained through the debt were a massive ripoff, through the underlying rationale for the cancellation?

"Wow, I'm saddled with all this debt! It must mean my degree is really worth it!" ~ nobody, ever, in the history of the world.

I'm not invested enough in the "cancelling student debt is an incredibly dumb idea" argument to say I can analyze everything you want to place in the 'pro' column for what's true, false, and in between. If that's what you're really looking for. I can read and learn more on the subject. Let me start here: Let's say your fraternal twin came up to me and said saddling people with thousands of dollars of debt in their mortgages is a terrible idea, we need to cancel all housing debt, and as a bonus, we get further than the third of Americans under 30 with student loan debt. I'd give him the same answer. Sounds bad, the money's been spent, and you're just bickering over passing the bill on to some other poor schlub. God knows even today, with the pandemic-related suspension of payments, taxpayers are already on the hook for the tens of billions of dollars.

We're not talking about mortgages, generally entered in to by adults, appraised by banks who assess your viability in paying, and who have a finite attached cost that all parties weigh against their current assets and liabilities.

We're talking about student debt. Basically, a contract entered into by a 17 or 18 year old with no other option, whose career prospects and income are not wholly defined.

Apples and oranges.

And don't hit me with some "well their parents should know better..." or "well maybe they shouldn't get a degree in underwater women's basketweaving studies..." or some other piece of trite pablum on the matter.

And that's not even addressing the issue of battling the cost of the ferrari by transferring all the debt created to pay for it. You're back to whatever debt number you think is outrageously too large in no time flat. It's the next borrower, deemed credit worthy to borrow the money, and buying at the same price.

You're arguing about the "cost" of a pittance of the taxpayer dollar.

That's probably enough to chew on. I'm not here on a crusade to get people to put down their pitchforks on the student debt issue. I'd just like to see some acknowledgement of the other angles. If I'm going pie-in-the-sky ideas, with a stress on having some happy feel-good moral valence, I'd like to include billing your college for this terrible situation you find yourself in. Maybe focus it on the top 10% or 1% of colleges whose student graduates find themselves unable to pay back their loans after graduation.

I don't have any student debt, actually. My financial situation was secure enough that I didn't need to take out any loans to attend college and get a degree. But I realize that not everyone is in the same boat.

I'm capable of having concerns about others that don't start and stop at whether I personally stand to profit or not. Perhaps you should try it.