Here's the main problem. Why the Hell should the opinions of 'around 150 people' matter enough to make the news? This idea that every 'protest' is somehow relevant enough to be taken seriously is totally ludicrous to me...
I mean, literally MILLIONS of people protested the Iraq War. It got less coverage than your average Tea Party rally that Glenn Beck was throwing in 2009.
Here's the main problem. Why the Hell should the opinions of 'around 150 people' matter enough to make the news? This idea that every 'protest' is somehow relevant enough to be taken seriously is totally ludicrous to me...
I mean, literally MILLIONS of people protested the Iraq War. It got less coverage than your average Tea Party rally that Glenn Beck was throwing in 2009.
Totally agree and that's why I've argued on this very forum that protests don't do shit anymore. The only protests that get talked about are the ones that turn violent. One thing I'll say about the Capitol protesters, they may have been nutjobs, but they backed up their words with action.
Holy crap! Apparently the Democrats reached into my back pocket, took my wallet, grabbed a couple of 20's out and gave it to a convicted murderer.
Bastards!
Edit: the tag line wasn't in the article so here's the click bait headline of that article:
"Democratic COVID bill gives mass murderers taxpayer money right out of your pocket"
Totally agree and that's why I've argued on this very forum that protests don't do shit anymore. The only protests that get talked about are the ones that turn violent.
Sadly, this is true, and for the wrong reasons. Generally speaking, at some point we have to recognize that the spectators want to hear about, and even watch, this sort of thing. It's rather morbid if you think about it. As a society, we morbidly cave for drama, violence, and tragedy. Some may say that's just part of human nature. I refuse to believe that. I think we've been nurtured, or even brainwashed, into it.
Besides, if people want to see violence, there are better and safer ways. You could watch boxing, for example. Or better yet, you could start training in boxing yourself. Violent protests are not a spectacle. They are the last resort that a group of people will pursue in order to change an extremely unjust situation that cannot be changed by any other means. In no way should this be turned into a spectacle for people to enjoy as if they were watching a Netflix special while munching down on their popcorn.
Totally agree and that's why I've argued on this very forum that protests don't do shit anymore. The only protests that get talked about are the ones that turn violent.
Sadly, this is true, and for the wrong reasons. Generally speaking, at some point we have to recognize that the spectators want to hear about, and even watch, this sort of thing. It's rather morbid if you think about it. As a society, we morbidly cave for drama, violence, and tragedy. Some may say that's just part of human nature. I refuse to believe that. I think we've been nurtured, or even brainwashed, into it.
Besides, if people want to see violence, there are better and safer ways. You could watch boxing, for example. Or better yet, you could start training in boxing yourself. Violent protests are not a spectacle. They are the last resort that a group of people will pursue in order to change an extremely unjust situation that cannot be changed by any other means. In no way should this be turned into a spectacle for people to enjoy as if they were watching a Netflix special while munching down on their popcorn.
I'm not convinced that any nurturing or brainwashing is required to explain this. Video games, comic books, most fiction novels/stories, movies, TV shows, sports and even music have some level of violence in them. I'm pretty sure it's human nature that attracts people to that.
I'm not convinced that any nurturing or brainwashing is required to explain this. Video games, comic books, most fiction novels/stories, movies, TV shows, sports and even music have some level of violence in them. I'm pretty sure it's human nature that attracts people to that.
It's an interesting discussion, for sure. What I'd say is that, even if violence was part of human nature, acting rationally is part of that nature as well. So my question would be: which of those parts of human nature has greater weight? It depends on how you nurture them. Treat a person like a caged animal, and they will probably lash out like one. Treat them like a thinking being in their own right, and they will probably reciprocate... because why wouldn't they, if that's the rational thing to do?
Holy crap! Apparently the Democrats reached into my back pocket, took my wallet, grabbed a couple of 20's out and gave it to a convicted murderer.
Bastards!
Edit: the tag line wasn't in the article so here's the click bait headline of that article:
"Democratic COVID bill gives mass murderers taxpayer money right out of your pocket"
"Prisoners have all their living and medical expenses paid for by the taxpayer, they don’t pay taxes, they don't contribute to the tax base, they can't be unemployed. Inmates are not economically impacted by Covid," Senator Bill Cassidy argued.
This guy is moron and does not know how prison's work, or does and knows the idiots that follow him do not.
Holy crap! Apparently the Democrats reached into my back pocket, took my wallet, grabbed a couple of 20's out and gave it to a convicted murderer.
Bastards!
Edit: the tag line wasn't in the article so here's the click bait headline of that article:
"Democratic COVID bill gives mass murderers taxpayer money right out of your pocket"
"Prisoners have all their living and medical expenses paid for by the taxpayer, they don’t pay taxes, they don't contribute to the tax base, they can't be unemployed. Inmates are not economically impacted by Covid," Senator Bill Cassidy argued.
This guy is moron and does not know how prison's work, or does and knows the idiots that follow him do not.
I read about this earlier and wasn't even sure what it was. Dick Durbin apparently said something on the Senate floor about prisoner's children being negatively impacted if they were phased out of the money, and a group of Republican Senators engaged in a chorus of sarcastic "awwwws". Nevermind the fact that this is EXACTLY how it worked for the first two rounds under the god emperor. So they are both wholly disingenuous and sociopathic.
As for FOX, the body of the article is fine, but the headline (as @Balrog99 rightly points out) is specifically meant to mislead and anger, because they correctly assume most people either won't read it, or be so incensed by the framing what is in the article won't matter. Disgusting. This could be a case study in how American right-wing propaganda functions. It has everything.
I am self-aware enough to realize I use the words "disingenuous" and "bad faith" constantly when talking about the GOP, but it's because practically EVERYTHING they do is a cynical ploy, animated by their complete contempt for the intelligence of their own audience.
Holy crap! Apparently the Democrats reached into my back pocket, took my wallet, grabbed a couple of 20's out and gave it to a convicted murderer.
Bastards!
Edit: the tag line wasn't in the article so here's the click bait headline of that article:
"Democratic COVID bill gives mass murderers taxpayer money right out of your pocket"
"Prisoners have all their living and medical expenses paid for by the taxpayer, they don’t pay taxes, they don't contribute to the tax base, they can't be unemployed. Inmates are not economically impacted by Covid," Senator Bill Cassidy argued.
This guy is moron and does not know how prison's work, or does and knows the idiots that follow him do not.
I read about this earlier and wasn't even sure what it was. Dick Durbin apparently said something on the Senate floor about prisoner's children being negatively impacted if they were phased out of the money, and a group of Republican Senators engaged in a chorus of sarcastic "awwwws". Nevermind the fact that this is EXACTLY how it worked for the first two rounds under the god emperor. So they are both wholly disingenuous and sociopathic.
As for FOX, the body of the article is fine, but the headline (as @Balrog99 rightly points out) is specifically meant to mislead and anger, because they correctly assume most people either won't read it, or be so incensed by the framing what is in the article won't matter. Disgusting. This could be a case study in how American right-wing propaganda functions. It has everything.
I am self-aware enough to realize I use the words "disingenuous" and "bad faith" constantly when talking about the GOP, but it's because practically EVERYTHING they do is a cynical ploy, animated by their complete contempt for the intelligence of their own audience.
Fox News obviously decided that they were losing out to Newsmax and their ilk. They were almost to the point where I could consider them a valid news source after the election. Alas, there's no room for a 'slightly' right-leaning news source. I'm left with Politico and Foreign Affairs that lean a tiny bit left and Reuters which is pretty much dead center...
Holy crap! Apparently the Democrats reached into my back pocket, took my wallet, grabbed a couple of 20's out and gave it to a convicted murderer.
Bastards!
Edit: the tag line wasn't in the article so here's the click bait headline of that article:
"Democratic COVID bill gives mass murderers taxpayer money right out of your pocket"
"Prisoners have all their living and medical expenses paid for by the taxpayer, they don’t pay taxes, they don't contribute to the tax base, they can't be unemployed. Inmates are not economically impacted by Covid," Senator Bill Cassidy argued.
This guy is moron and does not know how prison's work, or does and knows the idiots that follow him do not.
I read about this earlier and wasn't even sure what it was. Dick Durbin apparently said something on the Senate floor about prisoner's children being negatively impacted if they were phased out of the money, and a group of Republican Senators engaged in a chorus of sarcastic "awwwws". Nevermind the fact that this is EXACTLY how it worked for the first two rounds under the god emperor. So they are both wholly disingenuous and sociopathic.
As for FOX, the body of the article is fine, but the headline (as @Balrog99 rightly points out) is specifically meant to mislead and anger, because they correctly assume most people either won't read it, or be so incensed by the framing what is in the article won't matter. Disgusting. This could be a case study in how American right-wing propaganda functions. It has everything.
I am self-aware enough to realize I use the words "disingenuous" and "bad faith" constantly when talking about the GOP, but it's because practically EVERYTHING they do is a cynical ploy, animated by their complete contempt for the intelligence of their own audience.
Fox News obviously decided that they were losing out to Newsmax and their ilk. They were almost to the point where I could consider them a valid news source after the election. Alas, there's no room for a 'slightly' right-leaning news source. I'm left with Politico and Foreign Affairs that lean a tiny bit left and Reuters which is pretty much dead center...
Incidentally, Newsmax has apparently lost half their audience in recent weeks. I'm assuming because (as it turns out) Trump was not, in fact, installed back into the Presidency on March 4 (yes, this is yet another of the recent doomsday preacher-like prophecies that failed to materialize). GOP voters had a falling out with FOX after 2012 as well, because they had been telling their audience for weeks Romney was a shoe-in. In the end, they always end up coming home. It's like a kid who runs away for 4 hours and is back by supper time because they're hungry. FOX has the production values and the biggest personalities. They know exactly how to administer the drip. Newsmax and OANN are amateur hour in comparison.
The brain can get in an open susceptible state in several ways. If you study media then you get to know these ways and utilise them appropriately.
You can start with a strong statement to incentivise the reader to get the same opinion. Then never get back to it and hide facts between larger statements and opinions (not truths).
This is often how propaganda is used.
You can do it with endless repeats.
This is how schools teach you definitions like 1+1=2.
You can do it by putting it in an open state in which you first state two clear truths, and then the suggestion at which time the person is more likely to accept it.
This is how hypnotism and mentalism work. They don't start with "I bought this watch in Vietnam", because you will be indifferent to that statement. Instead they will first say "you see this red and yellow watch, it's on my wrist, I bought that when I was on holiday in Vietnam because it resembles its flag", and then you are more likely to accept that because the first two statements were clearly verifiable.
You can ask it with a question to which the insinuation is that the answer is yes if you skip reading or listening.
This is done in fake news. The questions they ask are then, "is this the new boyfriend of so and so?". People will believe it and skip it. Unless they read it, at which point it always turns out to be false, otherwise the article statement would not be the question but the statement.
You can get people to believe you if they hear it from someone they either look up to or they trust already.
Home shopping with Mr.T. or simply hearing it from your parents.
I may have missed a few but these are a few very clear ones
On a somewhat unrelated note, do you guys think that Trump has any chances at the next election if he starts his own party? I don't think he has. What percentage of Republican votes would he be able to get? I'm betting less than 10%. He needs the GOP if he wants to continue in politics.
On a somewhat unrelated note, do you guys think that Trump has any chances at the next election if he starts his own party? I don't think he has. What percentage of Republican votes would he be able to get? I'm betting less than 10%. He needs the GOP if he wants to continue in politics.
I agree with you that if Trump starts his own party, then he wouldn't have a chance to win the next election. However, I think you are severely underestimating how many Republicans would vote for him though. I would bet that he could garner anywhere between 30-60% of current Republicans to follow him down the rabbit hole. It would be an unmitigated disaster for the GOP.
On a somewhat unrelated note, do you guys think that Trump has any chances at the next election if he starts his own party? I don't think he has. What percentage of Republican votes would he be able to get? I'm betting less than 10%. He needs the GOP if he wants to continue in politics.
I agree with you that if Trump starts his own party, then he wouldn't have a chance to win the next election. However, I think you are severely underestimating how many Republicans would vote for him though. I would bet that he could garner anywhere between 30-60% of current Republicans to follow him down the rabbit hole. It would be an unmitigated disaster for the GOP.
He's too lazy to start his own party. And he'd lose if even 5% of the GOP base stuck with an establishment candidate. He also doesn't need to start a new party. He still owns 90% of the real estate in the one he's in now. He wouldn't even be challenged for the nomination if he runs, it would just be a straight-up rematch.
Could he win in 2024?? With the way the board is tilted in the Republican direction from an electoral perspective, absolutely. However, the vaccine rollout is moving along at a rapid pace, and once it's complete, you are likely to see an economic boom the likes of which hasn't happened since the 1920s. It's highly unlikely Democrats are going to have a bad economy staring them in face. On the contrary, late 2021 and 2022 will feel better for people than any time since the mid-90s. Is the culture war bullshit enough to overcome all that?? I doubt it.
However, Democrats probably lose the House just based on math and historical trends in 2022. They have 21 more months. They will probably actually hold the Senate just because the states in play are far more favorable than they have been the last couple cycles.
As for the last branch, Stephen Breyer absolutely MUST retire in the next two years, and even that only keeps you at 6-3. There is no scenario where you can play games with this and assume you hold the Senate, because if you don't, we all know for 100% certainty that Republicans will not allow Biden to get any pick.
On a somewhat unrelated note, do you guys think that Trump has any chances at the next election if he starts his own party? I don't think he has. What percentage of Republican votes would he be able to get? I'm betting less than 10%. He needs the GOP if he wants to continue in politics.
I agree with you that if Trump starts his own party, then he wouldn't have a chance to win the next election. However, I think you are severely underestimating how many Republicans would vote for him though. I would bet that he could garner anywhere between 30-60% of current Republicans to follow him down the rabbit hole. It would be an unmitigated disaster for the GOP.
He's too lazy to start his own party. And he'd lose if even 5% of the GOP base stuck with an establishment candidate. He also doesn't need to start a new party. He still owns 90% of the real estate in the one he's in now. He wouldn't even be challenged for the nomination if he runs, it would just be a straight-up rematch.
I think you are under estimating him here. If he feels like he can gain a profit from starting his own party, then he is going to, or at least bluff to.
I wouldn’t put it past him to extort the GOP by threatening to run candidates in elections against them knowing that it’d split votes in the Democrat’s favour.
He has also shown in the past that he cares little for fundraising laws and will do with whatever he wants with any money people are stupid enough to give him. If he doesn’t have to share that money with the rest of the GOP, then all the better for him.
He is already showing signs that this is next move by starting his own PAC and demanding that the GOP stop using his name in their advertising and promotional campaigns.
If the higher ups in the GOP don’t completely tow the line to his demands, expect him to throw tantrums and burn it all to the ground. He knows he has nothing to lose at this point.
Could he win in 2024?? With the way the board is tilted in the Republican direction from an electoral perspective, absolutely. However, the vaccine rollout is moving along at a rapid pace, and once it's complete, you are likely to see an economic boom the likes of which hasn't happened since the 1920s. It's highly unlikely Democrats are going to have a bad economy staring them in face. On the contrary, late 2021 and 2022 will feel better for people than any time since the mid-90s. Is the culture war bullshit enough to overcome all that?? I doubt it.
I agree the midterms are going to probably be bad for Democrats - but I think that, all things be considered, Biden would be favored by a bigger margin to beat Trump in a repeat match in 2024.
Incumbency's effect is diminishing, but it still makes a difference. It was a historically large hurdle for Biden to unseat Trump after only a single term in the first place. Having all the benefits of being in office will make a huge difference.
Furthermore, Trump managed to keep it close (somehow) despite destroying the economy and letting 200,000+ Americans die (and fomenting an insurrection at the capital after the fact). If Biden has essentially beaten the virus and restored the economy... it's hard to believe he'd be in anything but a better position come 2024.
I suppose the biggest wildcard would come in the form of the GOP's attempts to harm democratic norms by instituting all kinds of voter suppression. It's not hard to imagine Biden beating Trump by 2+ more points and still losing Georgia/Arizona in the next election due to the laws the GOP are trying to put in place there.
The other elephant in the room would be Biden's health (and Trump's, to be perfectly honest). No real safe way to predict how that will influence things.
So, this is......something at least. And he's right about the first part. If people want to basically shut down any hope of progress on ANYTHING by requiring 60 votes in the Senate, then they should have to talk until they collapse to do so. That is how things used to be, and should be again. You wanna filibuster a bill, and require it to get more than majority support in a chamber that already is a mockery of actual representation?? Then get ready to talk for 72 hours straight:
I guess it's what everyone is talking about tonight, and I understand that alot of people don't have alot a sympathy for the problems of rich people, but the Oprah interview tonight IS interesting, and my main takeaway is that Prince Harry saw his mother literally hounded to death and said "this isn't going to happen to my wife too, not on my watch".
I'm not gonna get on my high horse and call the British Monarchy ridiculous, it's not my country. But this seems utterly devastating to the whole institution. They basically decided they weren't really going to acknowledge the legitimacy of a mixed-race child.
I guess it's what everyone is talking about tonight, and I understand that alot of people don't have alot a sympathy for the problems of rich people, but the Oprah interview tonight IS interesting, and my main takeaway is that Prince Harry saw his mother literally hounded to death and said "this isn't going to happen to my wife too, not on my watch".
I'm not gonna get on my high horse and call the British Monarchy ridiculous, it's not my country. But this seems utterly devastating to the whole institution. They basically decided they weren't really going to acknowledge the legitimacy of a mixed-race child.
Yeah. I dont think the fact that they're rich means that the message isnt any less important or moving. Meghan and Prince Harry seem to be basically calling the institution that is the British Monarchy deeply racist.
I didnt see the interview, but I saw a few snippets. Yikes.
I've not seen it and have no particular interest in doing so. I would beware though about taking everything at face value given that the whole exercise is a commercial one.
Diana had some great qualities and I have huge sympathy for the fact she had trouble in fitting in with an institution that I would hate to be part of. However, while she undoubtedly had a tough time and was a victim of press intrusion for many years, she also deliberately used the media to portray an inaccurate image of her life. If you look at the way she actually lived in her later years, it was very far from the idea she continued to perpetuate of someone vulnerable being helpless in the face of the 'Firm'.
The bits of press coverage I've seen suggest to me that there is plenty of the same sort of spin in this interview. The idea that Meghan was somehow unable to seek treatment for a mental health condition for instance just doesn't ring true. Again, just look at how they've actually been living their lives for a while now to see the lack of any controls on them.
I've not seen it and have no particular interest in doing so. I would beware though about taking everything at face value given that the whole exercise is a commercial one.
Diana had some great qualities and I have huge sympathy for the fact she had trouble in fitting in with an institution that I would hate to be part of. However, while she undoubtedly had a tough time and was a victim of press intrusion for many years, she also deliberately used the media to portray an inaccurate image of her life. If you look at the way she actually lived in her later years, it was very far from the idea she continued to perpetuate of someone vulnerable being helpless in the face of the 'Firm'.
The bits of press coverage I've seen suggest to me that there is plenty of the same sort of spin in this interview. The idea that Meghan was somehow unable to seek treatment for a mental health condition for instance just doesn't ring true. Again, just look at how they've actually been living their lives for a while now to see the lack of any controls on them.
I was thinking some more about this, and I dont know how much I agree (with the last part, specifically).
First, a few caveats: I dont know a great deal about their lives, nor about the British Monarchy. So feel free to correct me anywhere I'm obviously wrong
Second, we should of course consider anything they say with some amount of skepticism, since it's just an interview. That said, I also dont believe they'd say anything that is just completely and obviously verifiably false because that should be pretty easy then to disprove.
Meghan in one part of the interview said that her Passport and Driver's License were withheld from her for stretches of time. She said she really only got full access to them once the couple fully distanced themselves from official duties in to the palace.
It's not hard to me to imagine than an organization (for lack of a better term?) that can control such sensitive personal identity documents/papers would also be in a position to exert some kind of control or pressure on things like the availability of mental health treatment if it wanted. The control probably wasnt absolute, but it doesnt take too much of a leap of logic for me to imagine a form of soft power coercion used, threatening some aspect of their livelihood if she sought therapy or other mental health related treatments.
Again. That's obviously all speculation - but I wouldnt it put it past the monarchy to have the kind of influence to accomplish those sorts of things.
I've not seen it and have no particular interest in doing so. I would beware though about taking everything at face value given that the whole exercise is a commercial one.
Diana had some great qualities and I have huge sympathy for the fact she had trouble in fitting in with an institution that I would hate to be part of. However, while she undoubtedly had a tough time and was a victim of press intrusion for many years, she also deliberately used the media to portray an inaccurate image of her life. If you look at the way she actually lived in her later years, it was very far from the idea she continued to perpetuate of someone vulnerable being helpless in the face of the 'Firm'.
The bits of press coverage I've seen suggest to me that there is plenty of the same sort of spin in this interview. The idea that Meghan was somehow unable to seek treatment for a mental health condition for instance just doesn't ring true. Again, just look at how they've actually been living their lives for a while now to see the lack of any controls on them.
I was thinking some more about this, and I dont know how much I agree (with the last part, specifically).
First, a few caveats: I dont know a great deal about their lives, nor about the British Monarchy. So feel free to correct me anywhere I'm obviously wrong
Second, we should of course consider anything they say with some amount of skepticism, since it's just an interview. That said, I also dont believe they'd say anything that is just completely and obviously verifiably false because that should be pretty easy then to disprove.
Meghan in one part of the interview said that her Passport and Driver's License were withheld from her for stretches of time. She said she really only got full access to them once the couple fully distanced themselves from official duties in to the palace.
It's not hard to me to imagine than an organization (for lack of a better term?) that can control such sensitive personal identity documents/papers would also be in a position to exert some kind of control or pressure on things like the availability of mental health treatment if it wanted. The control probably wasnt absolute, but it doesnt take too much of a leap of logic for me to imagine a form of soft power coercion used, threatening some aspect of their livelihood if she sought therapy or other mental health related treatments.
Again. That's obviously all speculation - but I wouldnt it put it past the monarchy to have the kind of influence to accomplish those sorts of things.
The money isn't worth it frankly. People get so focused on the wealth of the Royals that they forget the responsibility part of it. I wouldn't trade lives with any of them myself...
This is interesting and kind of explains why I think SCOTUS is better being conservative. The court should be above politics and the way it's set up really is the best way IMHO. Yeah it may suck that there isn't a term limit sometimes, but all in all, I believe that it works the way it was intended; a check on emotional changes made 'in the moment' or to get re-elected...
In all the yelling about the minimum wage and phasing some higher income earners out of checks, one simple fact about the recovery plan just passed is being ignored, more by critics on the left than on the right. This bill, more then the stimulus in 2009, and more than the two last year, is specifically placing a bet that putting money in the hands of the working poor will help fix things. It does game-changing things in regards to access to affordable childcare. And because of the child tax credit provision, combined with the direct payment, it is (in the short-term) going to raise the income of the poorest 20% of the country by roughly 20%. And the child tax credit is written in a way to be easily renewable in future bills. In other words, once it's implemented, it's going to be something that is difficult to vote against and go home and explain.
The problem with Democrats is, as usual, they don't know how to sell anything in the moment. The ACH enjoys widespread popularity now that's its been made part of the fabric of society. But it takes months or years for the benefits to become common knowledge, by which time, no one knows who to give credit to. So while Trump was brazen enough to stamp his name on the front of stimulus checks as if the money was coming out of his own bank account, Democrats don't even bother explaining the incredibly positive and useful policy in their own bill, and just sort of assume that people will figure it out for themselves.
This is interesting and kind of explains why I think SCOTUS is better being conservative. The court should be above politics and the way it's set up really is the best way IMHO. Yeah it may suck that there isn't a term limit sometimes, but all in all, I believe that it works the way it was intended; a check on emotional changes made 'in the moment' or to get re-elected...
I don’t see how this has anything to do with being ‘conservative.’ It was an 8-1 split and only Roberts dissenting.
I also didn’t like Roberts reasoning for dissenting, as his ‘substantial’ claim puts an unknown minimum on what substantial is, but that is a moot point at this point I guess.
I kinda would have loved to see what the ruling would have been if this person was preaching Nitankari Sikhism.
In all the yelling about the minimum wage and phasing some higher income earners out of checks, one simple fact about the recovery plan just passed is being ignored, more by critics on the left than on the right. This bill, more then the stimulus in 2009, and more than the two last year, is specifically placing a bet that putting money in the hands of the working poor will help fix things. It does game-changing things in regards to access to affordable childcare. And because of the child tax credit provision, combined with the direct payment, it is (in the short-term) going to raise the income of the poorest 20% of the country by roughly 20%. And the child tax credit is written in a way to be easily renewable in future bills. In other words, once it's implemented, it's going to be something that is difficult to vote against and go home and explain.
The problem with Democrats is, as usual, they don't know how to sell anything in the moment. The ACH enjoys widespread popularity now that's its been made part of the fabric of society. But it takes months or years for the benefits to become common knowledge, by which time, no one knows who to give credit to. So while Trump was brazen enough to stamp his name on the front of stimulus checks as if the money was coming out of his own bank account, Democrats don't even bother explaining the incredibly positive and useful policy in their own bill, and just sort of assume that people will figure it out for themselves.
Per capita, this will have more direct impact on the economy than Trump's tax break for sure. The gamble is that it won't affect inflation noticeably. In this case I think it won't because it'll contribute to a bull market that's about to take off anyway due to the vaccines. I'm all for this stimulus, but that's not to say I'm for all future stimuli packages. I'm hoping this is a one-time package for a particular dilemma because I don't think this is a working solution for every downturn.
This is interesting and kind of explains why I think SCOTUS is better being conservative. The court should be above politics and the way it's set up really is the best way IMHO. Yeah it may suck that there isn't a term limit sometimes, but all in all, I believe that it works the way it was intended; a check on emotional changes made 'in the moment' or to get re-elected...
I don’t see how this has anything to do with being ‘conservative.’ It was an 8-1 split and only Roberts dissenting.
I also didn’t like Roberts reasoning for dissenting, as his ‘substantial’ claim puts an unknown minimum on what substantial is, but that is a moot point at this point I guess.
I kinda would have loved to see what the ruling would have been if this person was preaching Nitankari Sikhism.
I would really loved to see a similar ruling if, for instance, a college student named Mohammed was engaging in the same behavior, advocating Sharia law in, oh, let's say, February of 2002. Obviously, there are examples of other religions having their freedom upheld, but the overwhelming majority of these cases that seem to come across as news seem to be a court of nine Christians saying that other Christians can use their religion to skirt practically any regulation, workplace rule, or policy. Notice how this magically didn't extend to Native Americans:
This is interesting and kind of explains why I think SCOTUS is better being conservative. The court should be above politics and the way it's set up really is the best way IMHO. Yeah it may suck that there isn't a term limit sometimes, but all in all, I believe that it works the way it was intended; a check on emotional changes made 'in the moment' or to get re-elected...
I don’t see how this has anything to do with being ‘conservative.’ It was an 8-1 split and only Roberts dissenting.
I also didn’t like Roberts reasoning for dissenting, as his ‘substantial’ claim puts an unknown minimum on what substantial is, but that is a moot point at this point I guess.
I kinda would have loved to see what the ruling would have been if this person was preaching Nitankari Sikhism.
I picked it out because Roberts was the only dissenting opinion. The other conservatives ruled against him. It's an example of non-partisan ruling. The actual case was rather unremarkable really, other than as a possible precedent.
Edit: Also it was a CNN article, so no conservative bias.
Well, I certainly never knew how much American conservatives loved the British Monarchy until the last 24 hours. If you took a poll today, Prince Charles could probably win the damn 2024 nomination.
As for me, I'm more inclined to believe an outsider spilling the beans than the people who have built a wall around Prince Andrew, despite the fact he was caught red-handed participating in the most unforgivable aspects of Jeffery Epstein's world. Not in a "I knew this guy because we were rich and he was rich" way like Clinton and Trump, but being called out specifically by accusers as someone who was trafficked to.
The girls in the Netflix documentary are not just tossing every rich person to the wolves. They say that they certainly saw Trump and Clinton in various places, but are adamant neither of them did anything to them. But they call out Prince Andrew, Allen Dershowitz, and former NM Governor Bill Richardson by name.
Point being, if you're willing to protect a sexual predator, you're probably not gonna have any qualms about painting your new in-law as Lady Macbeth. And, as a side note, Piers Morgan has got to be one of the biggest shitheels on Earth. Not a wonder he lost the Larry King time-slot in record time.
Comments
I mean, literally MILLIONS of people protested the Iraq War. It got less coverage than your average Tea Party rally that Glenn Beck was throwing in 2009.
Totally agree and that's why I've argued on this very forum that protests don't do shit anymore. The only protests that get talked about are the ones that turn violent. One thing I'll say about the Capitol protesters, they may have been nutjobs, but they backed up their words with action.
Bastards!
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cotton-covid-relief-bill-convicted-murderers-stimulus-checks
Edit: the tag line wasn't in the article so here's the click bait headline of that article:
"Democratic COVID bill gives mass murderers taxpayer money right out of your pocket"
Sadly, this is true, and for the wrong reasons. Generally speaking, at some point we have to recognize that the spectators want to hear about, and even watch, this sort of thing. It's rather morbid if you think about it. As a society, we morbidly cave for drama, violence, and tragedy. Some may say that's just part of human nature. I refuse to believe that. I think we've been nurtured, or even brainwashed, into it.
Besides, if people want to see violence, there are better and safer ways. You could watch boxing, for example. Or better yet, you could start training in boxing yourself. Violent protests are not a spectacle. They are the last resort that a group of people will pursue in order to change an extremely unjust situation that cannot be changed by any other means. In no way should this be turned into a spectacle for people to enjoy as if they were watching a Netflix special while munching down on their popcorn.
I'm not convinced that any nurturing or brainwashing is required to explain this. Video games, comic books, most fiction novels/stories, movies, TV shows, sports and even music have some level of violence in them. I'm pretty sure it's human nature that attracts people to that.
It's an interesting discussion, for sure. What I'd say is that, even if violence was part of human nature, acting rationally is part of that nature as well. So my question would be: which of those parts of human nature has greater weight? It depends on how you nurture them. Treat a person like a caged animal, and they will probably lash out like one. Treat them like a thinking being in their own right, and they will probably reciprocate... because why wouldn't they, if that's the rational thing to do?
"Prisoners have all their living and medical expenses paid for by the taxpayer, they don’t pay taxes, they don't contribute to the tax base, they can't be unemployed. Inmates are not economically impacted by Covid," Senator Bill Cassidy argued.
This guy is moron and does not know how prison's work, or does and knows the idiots that follow him do not.
I read about this earlier and wasn't even sure what it was. Dick Durbin apparently said something on the Senate floor about prisoner's children being negatively impacted if they were phased out of the money, and a group of Republican Senators engaged in a chorus of sarcastic "awwwws". Nevermind the fact that this is EXACTLY how it worked for the first two rounds under the god emperor. So they are both wholly disingenuous and sociopathic.
As for FOX, the body of the article is fine, but the headline (as @Balrog99 rightly points out) is specifically meant to mislead and anger, because they correctly assume most people either won't read it, or be so incensed by the framing what is in the article won't matter. Disgusting. This could be a case study in how American right-wing propaganda functions. It has everything.
I am self-aware enough to realize I use the words "disingenuous" and "bad faith" constantly when talking about the GOP, but it's because practically EVERYTHING they do is a cynical ploy, animated by their complete contempt for the intelligence of their own audience.
Fox News obviously decided that they were losing out to Newsmax and their ilk. They were almost to the point where I could consider them a valid news source after the election. Alas, there's no room for a 'slightly' right-leaning news source. I'm left with Politico and Foreign Affairs that lean a tiny bit left and Reuters which is pretty much dead center...
Incidentally, Newsmax has apparently lost half their audience in recent weeks. I'm assuming because (as it turns out) Trump was not, in fact, installed back into the Presidency on March 4 (yes, this is yet another of the recent doomsday preacher-like prophecies that failed to materialize). GOP voters had a falling out with FOX after 2012 as well, because they had been telling their audience for weeks Romney was a shoe-in. In the end, they always end up coming home. It's like a kid who runs away for 4 hours and is back by supper time because they're hungry. FOX has the production values and the biggest personalities. They know exactly how to administer the drip. Newsmax and OANN are amateur hour in comparison.
The brain can get in an open susceptible state in several ways. If you study media then you get to know these ways and utilise them appropriately.
You can start with a strong statement to incentivise the reader to get the same opinion. Then never get back to it and hide facts between larger statements and opinions (not truths).
This is often how propaganda is used.
You can do it with endless repeats.
This is how schools teach you definitions like 1+1=2.
You can do it by putting it in an open state in which you first state two clear truths, and then the suggestion at which time the person is more likely to accept it.
This is how hypnotism and mentalism work. They don't start with "I bought this watch in Vietnam", because you will be indifferent to that statement. Instead they will first say "you see this red and yellow watch, it's on my wrist, I bought that when I was on holiday in Vietnam because it resembles its flag", and then you are more likely to accept that because the first two statements were clearly verifiable.
You can ask it with a question to which the insinuation is that the answer is yes if you skip reading or listening.
This is done in fake news. The questions they ask are then, "is this the new boyfriend of so and so?". People will believe it and skip it. Unless they read it, at which point it always turns out to be false, otherwise the article statement would not be the question but the statement.
You can get people to believe you if they hear it from someone they either look up to or they trust already.
Home shopping with Mr.T. or simply hearing it from your parents.
I may have missed a few but these are a few very clear ones
I agree with you that if Trump starts his own party, then he wouldn't have a chance to win the next election. However, I think you are severely underestimating how many Republicans would vote for him though. I would bet that he could garner anywhere between 30-60% of current Republicans to follow him down the rabbit hole. It would be an unmitigated disaster for the GOP.
He's too lazy to start his own party. And he'd lose if even 5% of the GOP base stuck with an establishment candidate. He also doesn't need to start a new party. He still owns 90% of the real estate in the one he's in now. He wouldn't even be challenged for the nomination if he runs, it would just be a straight-up rematch.
Could he win in 2024?? With the way the board is tilted in the Republican direction from an electoral perspective, absolutely. However, the vaccine rollout is moving along at a rapid pace, and once it's complete, you are likely to see an economic boom the likes of which hasn't happened since the 1920s. It's highly unlikely Democrats are going to have a bad economy staring them in face. On the contrary, late 2021 and 2022 will feel better for people than any time since the mid-90s. Is the culture war bullshit enough to overcome all that?? I doubt it.
However, Democrats probably lose the House just based on math and historical trends in 2022. They have 21 more months. They will probably actually hold the Senate just because the states in play are far more favorable than they have been the last couple cycles.
As for the last branch, Stephen Breyer absolutely MUST retire in the next two years, and even that only keeps you at 6-3. There is no scenario where you can play games with this and assume you hold the Senate, because if you don't, we all know for 100% certainty that Republicans will not allow Biden to get any pick.
I think you are under estimating him here. If he feels like he can gain a profit from starting his own party, then he is going to, or at least bluff to.
I wouldn’t put it past him to extort the GOP by threatening to run candidates in elections against them knowing that it’d split votes in the Democrat’s favour.
He has also shown in the past that he cares little for fundraising laws and will do with whatever he wants with any money people are stupid enough to give him. If he doesn’t have to share that money with the rest of the GOP, then all the better for him.
He is already showing signs that this is next move by starting his own PAC and demanding that the GOP stop using his name in their advertising and promotional campaigns.
If the higher ups in the GOP don’t completely tow the line to his demands, expect him to throw tantrums and burn it all to the ground. He knows he has nothing to lose at this point.
I agree the midterms are going to probably be bad for Democrats - but I think that, all things be considered, Biden would be favored by a bigger margin to beat Trump in a repeat match in 2024.
Incumbency's effect is diminishing, but it still makes a difference. It was a historically large hurdle for Biden to unseat Trump after only a single term in the first place. Having all the benefits of being in office will make a huge difference.
Furthermore, Trump managed to keep it close (somehow) despite destroying the economy and letting 200,000+ Americans die (and fomenting an insurrection at the capital after the fact). If Biden has essentially beaten the virus and restored the economy... it's hard to believe he'd be in anything but a better position come 2024.
I suppose the biggest wildcard would come in the form of the GOP's attempts to harm democratic norms by instituting all kinds of voter suppression. It's not hard to imagine Biden beating Trump by 2+ more points and still losing Georgia/Arizona in the next election due to the laws the GOP are trying to put in place there.
The other elephant in the room would be Biden's health (and Trump's, to be perfectly honest). No real safe way to predict how that will influence things.
I'm not gonna get on my high horse and call the British Monarchy ridiculous, it's not my country. But this seems utterly devastating to the whole institution. They basically decided they weren't really going to acknowledge the legitimacy of a mixed-race child.
Yeah. I dont think the fact that they're rich means that the message isnt any less important or moving. Meghan and Prince Harry seem to be basically calling the institution that is the British Monarchy deeply racist.
I didnt see the interview, but I saw a few snippets. Yikes.
Diana had some great qualities and I have huge sympathy for the fact she had trouble in fitting in with an institution that I would hate to be part of. However, while she undoubtedly had a tough time and was a victim of press intrusion for many years, she also deliberately used the media to portray an inaccurate image of her life. If you look at the way she actually lived in her later years, it was very far from the idea she continued to perpetuate of someone vulnerable being helpless in the face of the 'Firm'.
The bits of press coverage I've seen suggest to me that there is plenty of the same sort of spin in this interview. The idea that Meghan was somehow unable to seek treatment for a mental health condition for instance just doesn't ring true. Again, just look at how they've actually been living their lives for a while now to see the lack of any controls on them.
I was thinking some more about this, and I dont know how much I agree (with the last part, specifically).
First, a few caveats: I dont know a great deal about their lives, nor about the British Monarchy. So feel free to correct me anywhere I'm obviously wrong
Second, we should of course consider anything they say with some amount of skepticism, since it's just an interview. That said, I also dont believe they'd say anything that is just completely and obviously verifiably false because that should be pretty easy then to disprove.
Meghan in one part of the interview said that her Passport and Driver's License were withheld from her for stretches of time. She said she really only got full access to them once the couple fully distanced themselves from official duties in to the palace.
It's not hard to me to imagine than an organization (for lack of a better term?) that can control such sensitive personal identity documents/papers would also be in a position to exert some kind of control or pressure on things like the availability of mental health treatment if it wanted. The control probably wasnt absolute, but it doesnt take too much of a leap of logic for me to imagine a form of soft power coercion used, threatening some aspect of their livelihood if she sought therapy or other mental health related treatments.
Again. That's obviously all speculation - but I wouldnt it put it past the monarchy to have the kind of influence to accomplish those sorts of things.
The money isn't worth it frankly. People get so focused on the wealth of the Royals that they forget the responsibility part of it. I wouldn't trade lives with any of them myself...
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/08/politics/supreme-court-free-speech-college-religion-case-chike-uzuegbunam/index.html
The problem with Democrats is, as usual, they don't know how to sell anything in the moment. The ACH enjoys widespread popularity now that's its been made part of the fabric of society. But it takes months or years for the benefits to become common knowledge, by which time, no one knows who to give credit to. So while Trump was brazen enough to stamp his name on the front of stimulus checks as if the money was coming out of his own bank account, Democrats don't even bother explaining the incredibly positive and useful policy in their own bill, and just sort of assume that people will figure it out for themselves.
I don’t see how this has anything to do with being ‘conservative.’ It was an 8-1 split and only Roberts dissenting.
I also didn’t like Roberts reasoning for dissenting, as his ‘substantial’ claim puts an unknown minimum on what substantial is, but that is a moot point at this point I guess.
I kinda would have loved to see what the ruling would have been if this person was preaching Nitankari Sikhism.
Per capita, this will have more direct impact on the economy than Trump's tax break for sure. The gamble is that it won't affect inflation noticeably. In this case I think it won't because it'll contribute to a bull market that's about to take off anyway due to the vaccines. I'm all for this stimulus, but that's not to say I'm for all future stimuli packages. I'm hoping this is a one-time package for a particular dilemma because I don't think this is a working solution for every downturn.
I would really loved to see a similar ruling if, for instance, a college student named Mohammed was engaging in the same behavior, advocating Sharia law in, oh, let's say, February of 2002. Obviously, there are examples of other religions having their freedom upheld, but the overwhelming majority of these cases that seem to come across as news seem to be a court of nine Christians saying that other Christians can use their religion to skirt practically any regulation, workplace rule, or policy. Notice how this magically didn't extend to Native Americans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
I picked it out because Roberts was the only dissenting opinion. The other conservatives ruled against him. It's an example of non-partisan ruling. The actual case was rather unremarkable really, other than as a possible precedent.
Edit: Also it was a CNN article, so no conservative bias.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/08/meghan-markle-oprah-interview-prince-harry-american-conservatives-liberals-474407
Well, I certainly never knew how much American conservatives loved the British Monarchy until the last 24 hours. If you took a poll today, Prince Charles could probably win the damn 2024 nomination.
As for me, I'm more inclined to believe an outsider spilling the beans than the people who have built a wall around Prince Andrew, despite the fact he was caught red-handed participating in the most unforgivable aspects of Jeffery Epstein's world. Not in a "I knew this guy because we were rich and he was rich" way like Clinton and Trump, but being called out specifically by accusers as someone who was trafficked to.
The girls in the Netflix documentary are not just tossing every rich person to the wolves. They say that they certainly saw Trump and Clinton in various places, but are adamant neither of them did anything to them. But they call out Prince Andrew, Allen Dershowitz, and former NM Governor Bill Richardson by name.
Point being, if you're willing to protect a sexual predator, you're probably not gonna have any qualms about painting your new in-law as Lady Macbeth. And, as a side note, Piers Morgan has got to be one of the biggest shitheels on Earth. Not a wonder he lost the Larry King time-slot in record time.