Jump to content

Joe Biden 2021


tantric superman

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

That's a lot of words to literally offer zero suggestions and say...what exactly? We should realize we're different and continue to not get along at all? Not even bother to face the reality that we are a shared country with shared problems even if we're different? You just took about 600 words to make a superfluous illustration to how America is in a bad spot (we know) and offer ZERO ideas or remedies. Where's the part that discussed how we practically live another day? Which is what I requested. 

You are right, in hindsight I mainly just drilled into and tried to articulate the problem statement, didn't I?

I think the risk is that we ignore, or perhaps worse yet just continue to call the 35-40% stupid and assume being shamed or called names will do anything but reinforce their position or invite back deeper entrenchment and resistance. It's like calling your cancer on your skin ugly and stupid and it just doesn't get how it's ruining your life, expecting that to change anything.

I cosigned on the idea that "Media Reform" has to be front and center to any reform if we want to heal. That's the best way to stop the growth from advancing any further. A tourniquet, if you will.

To the question of what is the answer to ever get folks back onboard that doesn't involve a civil war or otherwise bloody conflict? I have to honestly say, I don't have one. I don't even have a good idea of what one could begin to look like. This is what informs my thinking that we are a broken country with a very sizable contingent who really do not like each other. As I said in the other thread, we are roommates in the same building who despise one another but can't move out and there is no other alternative, right now.

Either a good alternative will be ideated and brought to bear (from which I think that person or persons will be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize-- it's that complex and important and difficult a problem to solve, which is why asking me for a solution or being annoyed I don't have an answer is a bit silly) or we will continue to ratchet up the hostilities and internal conflicts until it boils over and explodes again. I think those are the two options and I'm not well-suited to provide value to either as of today.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recognize the fallacy in the "slippery slope" argument, but I do have concerns about anything called "media reform." Remember that the republican minority in this country will often have a majority in the senate, will have an unfair advantage is electing a president, and already owns the entire federal judiciary. Any type of "reform" isn't going to be the type you think would help, it would be the type that makes it worse. Like immunizing fox news and oan from any type of slander, because "free speech" to them is absolute if its something they like, and they like their right wing lie factories. It's just the reality of the situation. The best way to fight misinformation is to keep calling it out and hope that enough people see the lies for what they are, which is not very likely, but needs to continue to be tried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Btw - 6.4% Q1 economic growth.

I was told Joe Biden was going to crash the economy and stock market if he was elected. 

Yep. Instead in 100 short days he has built the greatest economy the world has ever seen after his dumbshit predecessor trump drove it straight into a ditch.

Congrats Joe. On behalf of the American people I thank you! Greatest president in history! Thank you Mr. President! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Btw - 6.4% Q1 economic growth.

Year over year is a good pulse in the right direction, but we are still recovering from an economy cratered 2020 Q1 and Q2.  We are not out of the woods according to the Fed yesterday and we won't be until 2023 if we continue on the same trajectory and maintain safety nets for the economy as a whole. Using standard Keynesian economics - now is the time to invest in Americans - the Golden Goose in our economy.

Austerity lunatics in the Republican Party and Democratic Wall Street will use this data point to rhetorically ask in bad faith - why do we need any more spending on humans? 

 

Edited by washparkhorn
humans v. normal corporate/high wealth welfare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How come Biden hasn’t tweeted yet about how great of a speech he gave and the media is treating him and covering it unfairly and why hasn’t everyone thanked him yet for creating the greatest economy in world history? 
 

I mean what exactly is going on in the White House nowadays? 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

I recognize the fallacy in the "slippery slope" argument, but I do have concerns about anything called "media reform." Remember that the republican minority in this country will often have a majority in the senate, will have an unfair advantage is electing a president, and already owns the entire federal judiciary. Any type of "reform" isn't going to be the type you think would help, it would be the type that makes it worse. Like immunizing fox news and oan from any type of slander, because "free speech" to them is absolute if its something they like, and they like their right wing lie factories. It's just the reality of the situation. The best way to fight misinformation is to keep calling it out and hope that enough people see the lies for what they are, which is not very likely, but needs to continue to be tried.

I think the truth of the matter is what a lot of smart, politically savvy folks on this site like wildcat and captainant and JS1 and these guys who, while I fundamentally disagree with who they are and choose to be by way of their thoughts, beliefs, values and ideals-- they are on the right track and how I would think if I were of like mind. Democrats need to act now with a bravery to rip the band-aid off and if a bloody conflict arises (which is doubtful) then it would have come down the line anyways, might as well get out in front of it. If not, great, you've crippled the 35-40% cancer. That would look like creating huge political reforms and changes to cripple the opposition while you have power:

  • Add DC and PR as a state to further your electoral count
  • Cripple the more sparsely populated states like WY or ND through a combination
  • Or maybe even do away with electoral college and rely on popular vote, which will skew your favor for sure
  • Do away with filibuster
  • Pack the courts

Essentially do anything and everything within your power to cripple the opposition in a legal, pen-is-mightier-than-the-sword type way. And then from there hope that it works out and you don't have a situation where the opposition thrives on the margin and roars back worse than ever when a bureaucratic machine is inefficient. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I recognize the fallacy in the "slippery slope" argument, but I do have concerns about anything called "media reform." Remember that the republican minority in this country will often have a majority in the senate, will have an unfair advantage is electing a president, and already owns the entire federal judiciary. Any type of "reform" isn't going to be the type you think would help, it would be the type that makes it worse. 

I'm pretty sure the FCC's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine was a big factor in fucking our country over.  It allowed the rise of the echo chamber, to whatever degree a particular broadcast outlet cared to be homogenous in their presentation of controversial issues.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm pretty sure the FCC's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine was a big factor in fucking our country over.  It allowed the rise of the echo chamber, to whatever degree a particular broadcast outlet cared to be homogenous in their presentation of controversial issues.

Adding on this... anyone knows why it's not a thing anymore? What's the talking points these days against bringing this back now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, YChang said:

Adding on this... anyone knows why it's not a thing anymore? What's the talking points these days against bringing this back now?

I think it was done away with during the rise of talk radio in the 90s but I could be wrong. There are no talking points about it, we’ve completely forgotten it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1987.  The argument was that it violated free speech rights.  I think that's rubbish -- broadcast media outlets were in no way prevented from airing their opinions on any particular issue.  Being required to air an opposing viewpoint would not imply a restriction of free speech.  Label it as opposing and move on.  There wasn't even an "equal air time" requirement.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, troph said:

I think it was done away with during the rise of talk radio in the 90s but I could be wrong. There are no talking points about it, we’ve completely forgotten it.  

it was done away with prior to the rise of talk radio.  rush debuted a year after repeal. 

Quote

1987.  The argument was that it violated free speech rights.  I think that's rubbish -- broadcast media outlets were in no way prevented from airing their opinions on any particular issue.  Being required to air an opposing viewpoint would not imply a restriction of free speech.  Label it as opposing and move on.  There wasn't even an "equal air time" requirement.

that was the supreme court's 8-0 viewpoint in 1969, at least.  you can say what you want, but you're just a custodian of this limited public resource, not a monopolist of it, so you can be required to air an opposing viewpoint.  the supreme court almost went so far as saying the first amendment required the airing because the goal of the first amendment is an informed populace, iirc. 

Edited by elfenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

it was done away with prior to the rise of talk radio.  rush debuted a year after repeal. 

 

Some political talk radio existed before it was repealed (there's a bit of discussion of this in the Behind the Bastards episodes on Rush), but it didn't really stop them because it required an administration that wanted to enforce it. The doctrine probably had an impact on the major networks that wanted to be seen as trustworthy, but they still do want to be seen as trustworthy even though we haven't had the fairness doctrine for decades. The difference is that liars have convinced idiots not to trust them anyway and now there are alternatives that tell people lies they want to hear. 

With the rise of the internet, it would be virtually impossible to implement a modern day version of the fairness doctrine and I can't think of a more horrible weapon to hand to the GOP than the power to regulate what people can be told. The only "fix" to our problem is a better education populace.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, elfenix said:

it was done away with prior to the rise of talk radio.  rush debuted a year after repeal. 

that was the supreme court's 8-0 viewpoint in 1969, at least.  you can say what you want, but you're just a custodian of this limited public resource, not a monopolist of it, so you can be required to air an opposing viewpoint.  the supreme court almost went so far as saying the first amendment required the airing because the goal of the first amendment is an informed populace, iirc. 

I'm 100% certain today's SCOTUS would find that argument unpersuasive, at least when made by Democrats (or anyone not interested in brainwashing the public with conservative nonsense). 

Edited by wildcat09
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reinstating The Fairness Doctrine wouldn’t even help now because it doesn’t apply to cable (Fox News/OANN/Newsmax) or the internet (YouTube/Twitter/Facebook).

Fox News and YouTube and Facebook are THE three biggest platforms that enable and encourage information silos.

I truly don’t think that problem is fixable.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Is @Johnny Sack now a Democrat because of how great his 401K is doing?

Actually, yes.  He and I happened to be on the same Mobile Loaves & Fishes truck today, and afterwards we both schlepped 4 minorities each to get vaccinated.  He managed to get 3 of his registered to vote, but I only succeeded with one.  I asked for his secret, but he was pretty circumspect.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Actually, yes.  He and I happened to be on the same Mobile Loaves & Fishes truck today, and afterwards we both schlepped 4 minorities each to get vaccinated.  He managed to get 3 of his registered to vote, but I only succeeded with one.  I asked for his secret, but he was pretty circumspect.

I give this a wokeness rating of 8.5. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Reinstating The Fairness Doctrine wouldn’t even help now because it doesn’t apply to cable (Fox News/OANN/Newsmax) or the internet (YouTube/Twitter/Facebook).

Fox News and YouTube and Facebook are THE three biggest platforms that enable and encourage information silos.

I truly don’t think that problem is fixable.

While you are definitely correct, over the air talk radio was the incubator of the whole thing and rush was by far the most powerful voice in that. 
 

But since he’s now dead and rotting in hell and the train has left the station it’s probably too late. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Is @Johnny Sack now a Democrat because of how great his 401K is doing?

You guys are funny.  My wife and I max out tax deferred accounts every year and have since I started working 17 years ago.  But it is not something that I mess with much or care about.  The big swing down last March and up the last year is not material for me. Never been a big stock market guy.  I like buying assets that produce income.  Shit I understand.  If I did have a material part of my net worth in the market right now I wouldn't sleep all that well (nothing to do with Biden, I would have not slept all that well having my wealth in the market at any time in the last 15 years).

I honestly look at my tax deferred accounts about once a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You guys are funny.  My wife and I max out tax deferred accounts every year and have since I started working 17 years ago.  But it is not something that I mess with much or care about.  The big swing down last March and up the last year is not material for me. Never been a big stock market guy.  I like buying assets that produce income.  Shit I understand.  If I did have a material part of my net worth in the market right now I wouldn't sleep all that well (nothing to do with Biden, I would have not slept all that well having my wealth in the market at any time in the last 15 years).

I honestly look at my tax deferred accounts about once a year.

Actually, you said right at a year ago that you cashed out your 401K in January 2020.  So, of course, that was a lie.

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Actually, you said right at a year ago that you cashed out your 401K in January 2020.  So, of course, that was a lie.

I cashed out one from an old job because I had changed jobs.  I have other tax deferred accounts.  So no, not a lie.  
 

And it wasn’t a cash out. I was changing custody from my old job 401k.  They sold.  My shit was in limbo for a bit while custody was being transferred.  The market dropped tremendously in that period due to covid.  So I bought back in cheap. It wasn’t material. But was lucky.  

Edited by Johnny Sack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

While you are definitely correct, over the air talk radio was the incubator of the whole thing and rush was by far the most powerful voice in that. 
 

But since he’s now dead and rotting in hell and the train has left the station it’s probably too late. 

Not true.  The Doctrine was "repealed" in 1987 after at least a couple of years of debate, including whether it was the sole province of the FCC, or a Congressional mandate.  Rush didn't go nationwide until 1988, he wasn't even regionally syndicated previously, just Sacramento.  My law school roommate  knew of him because he grew up partly in Sacramento and his dad liked him.  It was before he went nutso and was just a commentator with a conservative and sarcastic bent.

Its "repeal" (more accurately abolition or non-enforcement) by the FCC most certainly enabled Rush and those who broadcast him, and those who followed.

But the rise of cable TV and internet media has destroyed the ability of the FCC to impose it.    The justification was the broadcast spectrum is a limited public resource that the FCC is charged to administer, and doing things like imposing content rules was within that charge.  The cable and internet spectra are not so limited and so, presumptively, the FCC lacks the ability to impose content rules.  It's not clear whether Congress could validly impose such a thing on cable and internet broadcasters.

Don't get me wrong, I liked the Fairness Doctrine and wish we still had it, but I'm not sure this shit wasn't somewhat inevitable once information came off the broadcast spectrum.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So much for Trump’s best economy in the history of the world:

KEY POINTS
  • First-quarter GDP for 2021 increased at a 6.4% rate, just below the Dow Jones estimate.
  • It marked the second-fastest pace for growth since the second quarter of 2003 and was exceeded only by the reopening-fueled burst of Q3 in 2020.
  • Initial jobless claims fell to a fresh pandemic-era low but were higher than expected.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/29/us-gdp-rose-6point4percent-in-the-first-quarter-vs-6point5percent-increase-expected.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But Biden is throwing so much new funding at the IRS that it isn't clear whether the agency will be capable of using it all. "I'm not sure you'd be able to efficiently use that much money," John Koskinen, who ran the IRS for part of the Obama presidency, tells The New York Times. "That's a lot of money."

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

 

But Biden is throwing so much new funding at the IRS that it isn't clear whether the agency will be capable of using it all. "I'm not sure you'd be able to efficiently use that much money," John Koskinen, who ran the IRS for part of the Obama presidency, tells The New York Times. "That's a lot of money."

Make sure people pay what they are supposed to pay in order to fund programs that help people have better lives and educations so they can make more money. What a terrible and horrifying concept. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Make sure people pay what they are supposed to pay in order to fund programs that help people have better lives and educations so they can make more money by significantly expanding financial surveillance, including getting regular reports on American’s bank accounts. What a terrible and horrifying concept. 

FIFY. 
 

Oh yeah, and if a recent IRS director says he has no idea how to spend that much money, you can be guaranteed that it will not just be “rich” people’s accounts being tracked.

In fact I haven’t actually seen the parameters of who they will want to track. It wasn’t in the Treasury guidance. 
 

4 hours ago, Js1 said:

Tax cops. 

Why do you hate the police now? 

Try again. 
 

I’ve never been a big fan of the police. Especially the Feds. Especially the Tax Man. 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

FIFY. 
 

Oh yeah, and if a recent IRS director says he has no idea how to spend that much money, you can be guaranteed that it will not just be “rich” people’s accounts being tracked.

In fact I haven’t actually seen the parameters of who they will want to track. It wasn’t in the Treasury guidance. 
 

Try again. 
 

I’ve never been a big fan of the police. Especially the Feds. Especially the Tax Man. 

Personally I think the solution should be anyone who makes more than 10 million dollars a year and personally donates a dime to any political candidate or PAC gets an automatic audit. 
 

I mean if you have done nothing wrong you’ve got nothing to worry about, right? And they can afford a simple audit where they’ve done nothing wrong no doubt.

  • Haha 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...