#6 is key because of how unregulated the things are. Their worth is only based on how much people are willing to pay for them and their current popularity (see the rise of Doge Coin). There is no correlation to their price and some substantial good. For example, very, very vaguely, most world currencies are at least tied GDP, rare metals are tied to supply and demand and stocks are tied to a specific companies well being. Cryptos do not have any of this. There is no safety net, or gauge to determine if it’ll do well besides rumour and hype which makes them easily be manipulated with pump and dump tactics and other borderline fraudulent tactics or even worse, articles like this b.s.: https://investorplace.com/hypergrowthinvesting/2021/05/the-crypto-crash-is-here-heres-why-its-time-to-buy-the-altcoin-dip/
One of my favourite youtubers (the spiffing Britt) recently did a video where he purchased every cryptocurrency available on Biance and tracked it for a week. There was no rhyme or reason why coins went up or down (and most of them went down) and now he is waiting a month to do a follow up video.
Everyone looks are Bitcoin and the early detractors from that as proof that cryptocurrency is here to stay. I am still against it. You’re buying people’s stupidity with your own stupidity and money when you transfer your funds there. You can’t buy anything substantial (ly legal) with the things. You are basically saying ‘some idiot will buy this from me for a profit.’ That’s it, that’s all it boils down to and you just hope you aren’t the last idiot holding the digital bag.
I've been looking for an article that can coherently and easily pull back the veil cryptocurrency, and I think this one really does the trick. There are many points here I haven't been able to articulate very well until reading this article, but have been thinking about, foremost among them being:
1.) Evangelists about the currency will bury you in techno dude-bro jargon that is meant to sound really impressive and intricate, but means very little in the grand scheme of things.
2.) There is a heavy overlap between libertarian political views and the rise of these "currencies".
3.) Much of the appeal is about "taking control of you own money without a middle-man", but as this author quite astutely points out, while people may have a problem with banks when it comes to things like overdraft fees and overzealous fraud alerts, the simple act of the bank holding onto your money for you is not even an on-the-radar issue for most people.
4.) Alot of the third parties crypto purports to phase out are, in fact, what give you at least SOME semblance of protection against fraud.
5.) If the dollar frequently lost 10% of it's value in one day (like these currencies often do) we'd be in an inflation crisis the likes of which we've never seen.
6.) As with any pyramid or ponzi scheme, a bunch of people WILL make significant money off of it before it crashes and burns. But in the end, a whole lot a people are also left holding the bag.
I've been goofing around with crypto a bit for a couple months now. There's money to be made and I've done alright so far. Gives me something to do with my savings instead of leaving it in the bank to earn 0.1% interest/year (and paying taxes on even that pittance). I definitely wouldn't recommend anybody risk any money they can't afford to lose though. Also, if you're risk-averse it wouldn't be for you...
There isn't anything to say about Republicans filibustering a investigation of January 6th. But Democrats.......they continue to bring a rulebook to a knife fight when the opposition shows up with bazooka. The only meaningful distinction in American politics at this moment is that one of the major parties is riding a (small d) anti-democratic train straight to hell. And the media and many Democrats are acting like these are normal policy debates. They just aren't up to the task of stopping them. Within the next 4 years, Republican-controlled states will refuse to certify Democratic wins in an election. Book it.
Edit: Interesting thought, maybe I'm a liberal conservative...
I haven't cared about this concept (bipartisanship) for about 20 years. No one else outside the beltway press does either. The idea that something is more worthwhile or noble, or that more people will like whatever the bill is because Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski jump on board is absurd.
I don't know if Joe Manchin is just feigning shock at what Republicans did today, or if he is genuinely surprised, but either way it's a huge problem. He's either cynically pretending to be appalled, or he's too dense to understand what he's dealing with on the other side. Of course, regardless, he steadfastly remains the key roadblock to fixing the problem, which is ending this absurd requirement of a super-majority for literally everything that isn't passed through an arcane budget process.
Edit: Interesting thought, maybe I'm a liberal conservative...
I haven't cared about this concept (bipartisanship) for about 20 years. No one else outside the beltway press does either. The idea that something is more worthwhile or noble, or that more people will like whatever the bill is because Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski jump on board is absurd.
I don't know if Joe Manchin is just feigning shock at what Republicans did today, or if he is genuinely surprised, but either way it's a huge problem. He's either cynically pretending to be appalled, or he's too dense to understand what he's dealing with on the other side. Of course, regardless, he steadfastly remains the key roadblock to fixing the problem, which is ending this absurd requirement of a super-majority for literally everything that isn't passed through an arcane budget process.
Unless your side is perpetually in power, getting rid of the filibuster is a double-edged sword. I say keep it but make the Senators ramble on for days on end like the good 'ol days...
Edit: Interesting thought, maybe I'm a liberal conservative...
I haven't cared about this concept (bipartisanship) for about 20 years. No one else outside the beltway press does either. The idea that something is more worthwhile or noble, or that more people will like whatever the bill is because Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski jump on board is absurd.
I don't know if Joe Manchin is just feigning shock at what Republicans did today, or if he is genuinely surprised, but either way it's a huge problem. He's either cynically pretending to be appalled, or he's too dense to understand what he's dealing with on the other side. Of course, regardless, he steadfastly remains the key roadblock to fixing the problem, which is ending this absurd requirement of a super-majority for literally everything that isn't passed through an arcane budget process.
In 2011 Manchin supported filibuster reform that would have forced public filibustering and eliminated the ability to block bills without attaching your name to that block. I really don't get why even this modest form of reform isn't already a done deal. If the filibuster is going to exist at all (and it didnt in the Senate's early history) it at least needs to return to being a public and exhausting form of opposition.
Edit: Interesting thought, maybe I'm a liberal conservative...
It's a pretty solid column, and I'd just like to add that bipartisanship isn't a requirement for having a healthy democracy.
This line was good: "But as news consumers and voters, we need to remember that the halo that reporters and pundits, and politicians themselves, hoist over “bipartisanship” is a shuck. And when it isn’t a shuck, it’s a rhetorical cudgel that politicians use to brand themselves as noble and reasonable while slamming their opponents as petty and vindictive."
Folks on here from other countries can chime in, but the norm in almost all other democracies, even multiparty democracies, is that the majority party or coalition rules, gets to pass legislation, appoint judges etc, without having to placate the other party or coalition. And the opposition coalition gets to voice how they would run things if given the chance. This is of course assuming legislative majorities. And this has also been the norm for much of US political history.
Edit: Interesting thought, maybe I'm a liberal conservative...
I haven't cared about this concept (bipartisanship) for about 20 years. No one else outside the beltway press does either. The idea that something is more worthwhile or noble, or that more people will like whatever the bill is because Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski jump on board is absurd.
I don't know if Joe Manchin is just feigning shock at what Republicans did today, or if he is genuinely surprised, but either way it's a huge problem. He's either cynically pretending to be appalled, or he's too dense to understand what he's dealing with on the other side. Of course, regardless, he steadfastly remains the key roadblock to fixing the problem, which is ending this absurd requirement of a super-majority for literally everything that isn't passed through an arcane budget process.
Unless your side is perpetually in power, getting rid of the filibuster is a double-edged sword. I say keep it but make the Senators ramble on for days on end like the good 'ol days...
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
Look, there are some major issues with the filibuster, and our state of American politics is problematic right now.
Eliminating the filibuster will have a knock on effect that will ultimately be very bad for Democrats because the Senate is enormously biased to benefit the GOP right now. The partisan lean of the senate means that there will be at least 50 GOP senate seats a vast majority of the time. If you kill the filibuster, you will ensure that those senates will be able to legislate more freely.
So the question becomes - is it worth letting the Democrats do what they want 30% of the time if you're going to also let the GOP do what it wants 70% of the time, which will consistently include the undoing of anything the Democrats have done during their time a majority?
(The Democrats could kill the filibuster and then let PR and DC in as states, but even if all 4 of those senate seats were filled by Democrats 100% of the time (unlikely for PR) - the mat still puts the GOP in power far more often than Democrats in the senate).
I'm all for reforming the filibuster to make it harder like it used to be, but I am against getting rid of the filibuster in general because I honestly believe it benefits the GOP far more than it benefits the Democrats.
Edit: Interesting thought, maybe I'm a liberal conservative...
I haven't cared about this concept (bipartisanship) for about 20 years. No one else outside the beltway press does either. The idea that something is more worthwhile or noble, or that more people will like whatever the bill is because Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski jump on board is absurd.
I don't know if Joe Manchin is just feigning shock at what Republicans did today, or if he is genuinely surprised, but either way it's a huge problem. He's either cynically pretending to be appalled, or he's too dense to understand what he's dealing with on the other side. Of course, regardless, he steadfastly remains the key roadblock to fixing the problem, which is ending this absurd requirement of a super-majority for literally everything that isn't passed through an arcane budget process.
Unless your side is perpetually in power, getting rid of the filibuster is a double-edged sword. I say keep it but make the Senators ramble on for days on end like the good 'ol days...
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
Look, there are some major issues with the filibuster, and our state of American politics is problematic right now.
Eliminating the filibuster will have a knock on effect that will ultimately be very bad for Democrats because the Senate is enormously biased to benefit the GOP right now. The partisan lean of the senate means that there will be at least 50 GOP senate seats a vast majority of the time. If you kill the filibuster, you will ensure that those senates will be able to legislate more freely.
So the question becomes - is it worth letting the Democrats do what they want 30% of the time if you're going to also let the GOP do what it wants 70% of the time, which will consistently include the undoing of anything the Democrats have done during their time a majority?
(The Democrats could kill the filibuster and then let PR and DC in as states, but even if all 4 of those senate seats were filled by Democrats 100% of the time (unlikely for PR) - the mat still puts the GOP in power far more often than Democrats in the senate).
I'm all for reforming the filibuster to make it harder like it used to be, but I am against getting rid of the filibuster in general because I honestly believe it benefits the GOP far more than it benefits the Democrats.
I understand this fear, but I think the House and the presidency are sufficient checks in the long run. Not to mention the Supreme Court, which doesn't have to be a conservative majority forever. Yes, ditching the filibuster does run a risk, but the GOP would also have to commit to some seriously unpopular legislation. And they really haven't shown the political courage to do any serious legislative agenda except tax cuts with their current party platform and voter bloc.
In fact, I'd argue their ability to merely by the party of "No" is what's enabled them a decent amount of election success (along with some structural advantages). It's also what's enabled grifters who have no interest in true governing to dominate the party. Having to commit to some kind of reform project with the ambition of Obamacare would likely tear apart their coalition.
Edit: Interesting thought, maybe I'm a liberal conservative...
I haven't cared about this concept (bipartisanship) for about 20 years. No one else outside the beltway press does either. The idea that something is more worthwhile or noble, or that more people will like whatever the bill is because Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski jump on board is absurd.
I don't know if Joe Manchin is just feigning shock at what Republicans did today, or if he is genuinely surprised, but either way it's a huge problem. He's either cynically pretending to be appalled, or he's too dense to understand what he's dealing with on the other side. Of course, regardless, he steadfastly remains the key roadblock to fixing the problem, which is ending this absurd requirement of a super-majority for literally everything that isn't passed through an arcane budget process.
Unless your side is perpetually in power, getting rid of the filibuster is a double-edged sword. I say keep it but make the Senators ramble on for days on end like the good 'ol days...
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
Look, there are some major issues with the filibuster, and our state of American politics is problematic right now.
Eliminating the filibuster will have a knock on effect that will ultimately be very bad for Democrats because the Senate is enormously biased to benefit the GOP right now. The partisan lean of the senate means that there will be at least 50 GOP senate seats a vast majority of the time. If you kill the filibuster, you will ensure that those senates will be able to legislate more freely.
So the question becomes - is it worth letting the Democrats do what they want 30% of the time if you're going to also let the GOP do what it wants 70% of the time, which will consistently include the undoing of anything the Democrats have done during their time a majority?
(The Democrats could kill the filibuster and then let PR and DC in as states, but even if all 4 of those senate seats were filled by Democrats 100% of the time (unlikely for PR) - the mat still puts the GOP in power far more often than Democrats in the senate).
I'm all for reforming the filibuster to make it harder like it used to be, but I am against getting rid of the filibuster in general because I honestly believe it benefits the GOP far more than it benefits the Democrats.
I understand this fear, but I think the House and the presidency are sufficient checks in the long run. Not to mention the Supreme Court, which doesn't have to be a conservative majority forever. Yes, ditching the filibuster does run a risk, but the GOP would also have to commit to some seriously unpopular legislation. And they really haven't shown the political courage to do any serious legislative agenda except tax cuts with their current party platform and voter bloc.
In fact, I'd argue their ability to merely by the party of "No" is what's enabled them a decent amount of election success (along with some structural advantages). It's also what's enabled grifters who have no interest in true governing to dominate the party. Having to commit to some kind of reform project with the ambition of Obamacare would likely tear apart their coalition.
I get this argument, and it makes sense - but if we agree that the GOP in its current incarnation is trending towards authoritarianism, then do we really think the GOP wouldnt try to force national legislation with 50 senators +a VP to massively restrict or otherwise damage the chances of Democrats from being elected?
I feel like the anti HR-1 is something that the GOP would consider pushing through. You say that the SCOTUS isnt permanently conservative leaning, and while that's true - since the GOP has shown that it is willing not to allow a Democrat to nominate a SCOTUS member unless they also control the senate means that the SCOTUS now effectively has the same partisan bent as the senate at large does (That is, GOP favored).
I think the only really good argument for getting rid of the filibuster is that it will force senators to make actually difficult votes (Either pushing unpopular legislature through or killing popular legislature). That's a good thing, and I want that - but is it worth what we will also get (the GOP in charge of the senate more often than not and controlling the agenda of the country?)
A business that has not changed it's structure or model in thirty years is a dead business. Our government will change or die. Gotta say that I am rooting for change. We can hope for everything, but maybe just hoping for functioning will be a bandage until we figure it out.
240 years, we had a good run but change is needed... and imminent. I just might wish that the changes I have seen were positive. Hey, maybe it is just a cyclical thing. It doesn't feel that way though does it?
Speaking of businesses not changing........the recent hissy fits being thrown by business owners (but ESPECIALLY restaurants) of people not wanting to come back to work, supposedly because of fairly meager unemployment benefits of an extra $300.00 is honestly music to my ears. Post-pandemic, at least for the moment, the power has shifted to the worker, who has never had it before, and the onus is on business operators to either adjust or go away.
People aren't all that interested in working for indentured servant wages anymore (and this is more true than you might expect in restaurants, where some literally charge you for your "uniforms", which are usually three ill-fitting shirts, out of your first paycheck, and customers are expected to subsidize the worker's wages through tips so the owner doesn't have to). Either pay someone a decent wage, or your shitty bar and grill, which probably shouldn't exist in the first place, is going under.
The push I've seen in articles in the media about how working from home is actually really bad are even more laughable. Many of us have learned over the last 14 months that there is absolutely no reason to be in the office, and more importantly, there is no reason for us to waste two hours of our day going to and from the on-site location. There is zero chance I am going back if given ANY say in the matter.
I literally saw an article which argued that co-workers miss out on valuable in-person team-building exercises like "employee birthdays" which almost had me rolling on the floor laughing. Employee birthdays in an office setting, at most, amount to you never interacting whatsoever with the person whose birthday it is, and eating a slice of stale cake in the lunch room on your 15-minute break. The shit they are trying to sell to get people to go back to the office is laughable. If you want to go back, fine, but many of us have seen the light, and forcing a mass movement back will lead to people simply quitting in large numbers and finding a job that recognizes the new reality, which is that we never needed to be there in the first place.
Hey, maybe it is just a cyclical thing. It doesn't feel that way though does it?
It is, and it does to me. It's just that the cycles are REALLY long. Generations even sometimes...
The Republican Party has become reactionary, not conservative. They think their way of life is threatened. They're not wrong on the macro scale. The trouble is, you can't hold back the ocean by keeping your fingers in the holes of the dike forever. Especially when they're bigger than their fingers and there are more holes than they have fingers...
Hey, maybe it is just a cyclical thing. It doesn't feel that way though does it?
It is, and it does to me. It's just that the cycles are REALLY long. Generations even sometimes...
The Republican Party has become reactionary, not conservative. They think their way of life is threatened. They're not wrong on the macro scale. The trouble is, you can't hold back the ocean by keeping your fingers in the holes of the dike forever. Especially when they're bigger than their fingers and there are more holes than they have fingers...
Prime example: the outrage de jour this morning is that Kamala Harris sent out a tweet that said "enjoy the long weekend", with the implication being this is disrespectful to soldiers. Let's leave out the fact that Trump's Memorial Day tweets often called his political opponents "losers" and the same people PRETENDING to be outraged about this (and it's all a show) didn't say a word. The simple fact is that most Americans DO look at Memorial Day and Veteran's Day as "long weekends" and pretending everyone spends 3 days in silent contemplation remembering the legacy of dead soldiers is disingenuous nonsense. Even my extended family, who actually goes to a grave and short ceremony because my uncle died in Vietnam, has that take up about 30 minutes of the 72 hours. The rest is booze and BBQ.
Memorial Day is about "soldiers" as much as Christmas is about the birth of Jesus, which is to say, hardly at all in the grand scheme of things. It's retro top-40 countdowns on the radio, mattress sales, a rush on liquor stores, and pot luck picnics. It's far more widely accepted purpose is the "kickoff to summer", just like Christmas is a retail bonanza about buying presents. The true meanings were lost so long ago I don't even know if I was alive when they were relevant.
To be fair, Labor Day is also just looked at as a day off and MLK's birthday too. It's not just so-called conservative Holidays that are losing their relevance. It won't be long before you won't even need the capital H in Holiday even when referring to Christmas or Good Friday. Now that I think about it. Does anybody really give a shit about all of these 'special' months, weeks or days? Who the Hell can even keep track of them anymore?
What's scary about this, is that authoritarian governments may look for wars to distract their people from their problems at home. The rhetoric between China and Australia has gotten pretty heated lately. Things could get ugly fast. Embers in the South China Sea are already starting to flare up...
Also an article on the future of cryptocurrencies. Yeah, my daughter is with her mother this weekend so I have a chance to relax and catch up on current events...
Edit: Interesting thought, maybe I'm a liberal conservative...
I haven't cared about this concept (bipartisanship) for about 20 years. No one else outside the beltway press does either. The idea that something is more worthwhile or noble, or that more people will like whatever the bill is because Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski jump on board is absurd.
I don't know if Joe Manchin is just feigning shock at what Republicans did today, or if he is genuinely surprised, but either way it's a huge problem. He's either cynically pretending to be appalled, or he's too dense to understand what he's dealing with on the other side. Of course, regardless, he steadfastly remains the key roadblock to fixing the problem, which is ending this absurd requirement of a super-majority for literally everything that isn't passed through an arcane budget process.
Unless your side is perpetually in power, getting rid of the filibuster is a double-edged sword. I say keep it but make the Senators ramble on for days on end like the good 'ol days...
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
Look, there are some major issues with the filibuster, and our state of American politics is problematic right now.
Eliminating the filibuster will have a knock on effect that will ultimately be very bad for Democrats because the Senate is enormously biased to benefit the GOP right now. The partisan lean of the senate means that there will be at least 50 GOP senate seats a vast majority of the time. If you kill the filibuster, you will ensure that those senates will be able to legislate more freely.
So the question becomes - is it worth letting the Democrats do what they want 30% of the time if you're going to also let the GOP do what it wants 70% of the time, which will consistently include the undoing of anything the Democrats have done during their time a majority?
(The Democrats could kill the filibuster and then let PR and DC in as states, but even if all 4 of those senate seats were filled by Democrats 100% of the time (unlikely for PR) - the mat still puts the GOP in power far more often than Democrats in the senate).
I'm all for reforming the filibuster to make it harder like it used to be, but I am against getting rid of the filibuster in general because I honestly believe it benefits the GOP far more than it benefits the Democrats.
I understand this fear, but I think the House and the presidency are sufficient checks in the long run. Not to mention the Supreme Court, which doesn't have to be a conservative majority forever. Yes, ditching the filibuster does run a risk, but the GOP would also have to commit to some seriously unpopular legislation. And they really haven't shown the political courage to do any serious legislative agenda except tax cuts with their current party platform and voter bloc.
In fact, I'd argue their ability to merely by the party of "No" is what's enabled them a decent amount of election success (along with some structural advantages). It's also what's enabled grifters who have no interest in true governing to dominate the party. Having to commit to some kind of reform project with the ambition of Obamacare would likely tear apart their coalition.
I get this argument, and it makes sense - but if we agree that the GOP in its current incarnation is trending towards authoritarianism, then do we really think the GOP wouldnt try to force national legislation with 50 senators +a VP to massively restrict or otherwise damage the chances of Democrats from being elected?
I feel like the anti HR-1 is something that the GOP would consider pushing through. You say that the SCOTUS isnt permanently conservative leaning, and while that's true - since the GOP has shown that it is willing not to allow a Democrat to nominate a SCOTUS member unless they also control the senate means that the SCOTUS now effectively has the same partisan bent as the senate at large does (That is, GOP favored).
I think the only really good argument for getting rid of the filibuster is that it will force senators to make actually difficult votes (Either pushing unpopular legislature through or killing popular legislature). That's a good thing, and I want that - but is it worth what we will also get (the GOP in charge of the senate more often than not and controlling the agenda of the country?)
I'm all for trying the less radical solution first, forcing filibusters to be costly, public events. Maybe that will be good enough. But if it doesn't work, I do think Democrats ought to consider abandoning it completely.
Edit: Interesting thought, maybe I'm a liberal conservative...
I haven't cared about this concept (bipartisanship) for about 20 years. No one else outside the beltway press does either. The idea that something is more worthwhile or noble, or that more people will like whatever the bill is because Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski jump on board is absurd.
I don't know if Joe Manchin is just feigning shock at what Republicans did today, or if he is genuinely surprised, but either way it's a huge problem. He's either cynically pretending to be appalled, or he's too dense to understand what he's dealing with on the other side. Of course, regardless, he steadfastly remains the key roadblock to fixing the problem, which is ending this absurd requirement of a super-majority for literally everything that isn't passed through an arcane budget process.
Unless your side is perpetually in power, getting rid of the filibuster is a double-edged sword. I say keep it but make the Senators ramble on for days on end like the good 'ol days...
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
Look, there are some major issues with the filibuster, and our state of American politics is problematic right now.
Eliminating the filibuster will have a knock on effect that will ultimately be very bad for Democrats because the Senate is enormously biased to benefit the GOP right now. The partisan lean of the senate means that there will be at least 50 GOP senate seats a vast majority of the time. If you kill the filibuster, you will ensure that those senates will be able to legislate more freely.
So the question becomes - is it worth letting the Democrats do what they want 30% of the time if you're going to also let the GOP do what it wants 70% of the time, which will consistently include the undoing of anything the Democrats have done during their time a majority?
(The Democrats could kill the filibuster and then let PR and DC in as states, but even if all 4 of those senate seats were filled by Democrats 100% of the time (unlikely for PR) - the mat still puts the GOP in power far more often than Democrats in the senate).
I'm all for reforming the filibuster to make it harder like it used to be, but I am against getting rid of the filibuster in general because I honestly believe it benefits the GOP far more than it benefits the Democrats.
I understand this fear, but I think the House and the presidency are sufficient checks in the long run. Not to mention the Supreme Court, which doesn't have to be a conservative majority forever. Yes, ditching the filibuster does run a risk, but the GOP would also have to commit to some seriously unpopular legislation. And they really haven't shown the political courage to do any serious legislative agenda except tax cuts with their current party platform and voter bloc.
In fact, I'd argue their ability to merely by the party of "No" is what's enabled them a decent amount of election success (along with some structural advantages). It's also what's enabled grifters who have no interest in true governing to dominate the party. Having to commit to some kind of reform project with the ambition of Obamacare would likely tear apart their coalition.
I get this argument, and it makes sense - but if we agree that the GOP in its current incarnation is trending towards authoritarianism, then do we really think the GOP wouldnt try to force national legislation with 50 senators +a VP to massively restrict or otherwise damage the chances of Democrats from being elected?
I feel like the anti HR-1 is something that the GOP would consider pushing through. You say that the SCOTUS isnt permanently conservative leaning, and while that's true - since the GOP has shown that it is willing not to allow a Democrat to nominate a SCOTUS member unless they also control the senate means that the SCOTUS now effectively has the same partisan bent as the senate at large does (That is, GOP favored).
I think the only really good argument for getting rid of the filibuster is that it will force senators to make actually difficult votes (Either pushing unpopular legislature through or killing popular legislature). That's a good thing, and I want that - but is it worth what we will also get (the GOP in charge of the senate more often than not and controlling the agenda of the country?)
I'm all for trying the less radical solution first, forcing filibusters to be costly, public events. Maybe that will be good enough. But if it doesn't work, I do think Democrats ought to consider abandoning it completely.
That could have the effect of making every election cycle a bloodbath though. I really hope it doesn't come to that. Keep in mind that as divisive as things are now, these times are not unique. The US has been at loggerheads in the past too. That's why they devised these rules in the first place.
At the moment, you not only don't have to stand on the floor and speak, it's not even clear to me you need to be present in the chamber. It's just "we're filibustering this", and the vote total necessary becomes 60 instead of 51 (or, in the case of the other day, 54, because about 9 people didn't bother to show up, including one Democrat, the increasingly absurd Krysten Synema).
Changing the subject, we have some news out of Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu is out. Washington Post link
Israel has a multiparty parliamentary system, and this is a coalition of basically everyone except Netenyahu's Likud party. Hard-right Jews, the left, Islamists ... they all agree on "not him".
How long this new coalition government will last before its ideological divisions break it up is an open question.
Changing the subject, we have some news out of Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu is out. Washington Post link
Israel has a multiparty parliamentary system, and this is a coalition of basically everyone except Netenyahu's Likud party. Hard-right Jews, the left, Islamists ... they all agree on "not him".
How long this new coalition government will last before its ideological divisions break it up is an open question.
Ah. I don't visit the WP often, so I'm not anywhere close to the (presumably monthly) limit and didn't notice. Here's an alternate version of the story: BBC link
According to this version, they haven't finalized the deal yet ... three days to the deadline.
Changing the subject, we have some news out of Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu is out. Washington Post link
Israel has a multiparty parliamentary system, and this is a coalition of basically everyone except Netenyahu's Likud party. Hard-right Jews, the left, Islamists ... they all agree on "not him".
How long this new coalition government will last before its ideological divisions break it up is an open question.
This would be almost as welcome as Trump being defeated. Maybe even more so, to be honest.
Well Trump was his usual assholish self when he handled the Ukraine/Burisma situation, but that doesn't mean there wasn't something fishy going on. Whether or not Hunter Biden was involved or not, we may not know for years...
Trump's blog shut down yesterday after being operational for 29 days. Most reading are saying to themselves "Trump had a blog??" This speaks to the inherent laziness at the heart of MAGA in general, but also something else.
There is a reason this blog, Parler, Gab and right-wing dating sites are niche at best and barely register on any radar. It's because a public forum where there aren't any liberals to piss off for sport isn't of any use to modern conservatives. There may have been a comment section on this blog (or not) and you can post your insane takes on Parler, but if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?? Technically, but the appeal isn't in what they say, it's in getting a reaction out of people they don't like. When trolling becomes your political philosophy, no matter how much you claim to hate Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube, you will go back every time because that's the only place what you crave exists.
There are spme numbers about the economic recovery (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/02/opinion/june-jobs-report-us.html) and one thing I'm noticing reflects a theory I've had since sometime after the 2008 recession. In the '08 recession, the government spent over a trillion dollars and yet there was very little inflation. The same held true for the Trump administration's tax cuts before the pandemic hit. But the most recent stimulus bill has increased inflation to some extent. My theory is that the reason previous bills didn't increase inflation much is because they were targeted at the wealthy, who generally tend to burn money on buying investments and essentially shoring up their existing wealth--it won't raise everyday prices much if the money gets spent on buying stocks instead; it will just increase stock values and further enrich the wealthy, whose wealth is much more based on stocks than the ordinary American.
But when the more recent stimulus simply sent out checks to individuals and families, they actually spent it on everyday needs, which would increase the prices of those things, hence the increased inflation.
If the theory is true, then inflation isn't necessarily the result of government spending. Inflation is instead the result of government spending directed at folks besides the wealthy. Inflation is a marker of who is benefiting from the economy.
There are spme numbers about the economic recovery (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/02/opinion/june-jobs-report-us.html) and one thing I'm noticing reflects a theory I've had since sometime after the 2008 recession. In the '08 recession, the government spent over a trillion dollars and yet there was very little inflation. The same held true for the Trump administration's tax cuts before the pandemic hit. But the most recent stimulus bill has increased inflation to some extent. My theory is that the reason previous bills didn't increase inflation much is because they were targeted at the wealthy, who generally tend to burn money on buying investments and essentially shoring up their existing wealth--it won't raise everyday prices much if the money gets spent on buying stocks instead; it will just increase stock values and further enrich the wealthy, whose wealth is much more based on stocks than the ordinary American.
But when the more recent stimulus simply sent out checks to individuals and families, they actually spent it on everyday needs, which would increase the prices of those things, hence the increased inflation.
If the theory is true, then inflation isn't necessarily the result of government spending. Inflation is instead the result of government spending directed at folks besides the wealthy. Inflation is a marker of who is benefiting from the economy.
Interesting insight. The beneficiaries are thus penalized for their stimulus largess via inflation? That almost sounds like a feedback loop. Of course the wealthy also benefit from the spending of the poor. That means the only true way out is to become wealthy yourself then...
The other obvious factor at play right now is a relative level of worker power that hasn't been seen in......well, as long as I can remember to be quite honest. I'm not one for boycotts, but the ONE thing that I can guarantee would cause me to never visit a restaurant again is if they hang one of these (suspiciously) nearly identical signs that say "please be nice to the workers we do have, no one wants to work because of unemployment payements". Frankly, I find this to be a load a of BS, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Chamber of Commerce is handing out these things like candy at a parade.
What's actually happening, especially in regards to restaurants, is that ALL jobs are now filling positions, and people no longer feel like they need to work for meal comps and tips to survive. I'm not saying there aren't good restaurant owners out there, but, in the United States, they've been relying on the public to subsidize their employee's wages for them by way of tips, which allow them the ability to not have to pay a real wage. And a large, large amount of people are tired of being exploited so the owner of their shitty bar and grill can put a new hot-tub on his deck this year.
I absolutely believe they are having trouble filling positions. It's just that I believe the real problem is that they've become so accustomed to exploiting their workers that they have no idea how to react when those workers have actual options. What food service employees are saying, en masse, at the moment, is to either pay your employees a living wage or go fuck yourself. This is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. I'll gladly wait the 20 extra minutes for food or pay 50 cents more for my burrito.
Comments
One of my favourite youtubers (the spiffing Britt) recently did a video where he purchased every cryptocurrency available on Biance and tracked it for a week. There was no rhyme or reason why coins went up or down (and most of them went down) and now he is waiting a month to do a follow up video.
Everyone looks are Bitcoin and the early detractors from that as proof that cryptocurrency is here to stay. I am still against it. You’re buying people’s stupidity with your own stupidity and money when you transfer your funds there. You can’t buy anything substantial (ly legal) with the things. You are basically saying ‘some idiot will buy this from me for a profit.’ That’s it, that’s all it boils down to and you just hope you aren’t the last idiot holding the digital bag.
I've been goofing around with crypto a bit for a couple months now. There's money to be made and I've done alright so far. Gives me something to do with my savings instead of leaving it in the bank to earn 0.1% interest/year (and paying taxes on even that pittance). I definitely wouldn't recommend anybody risk any money they can't afford to lose though. Also, if you're risk-averse it wouldn't be for you...
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/05/28/bipartisan-congress-dead-washington-491372
Edit: Interesting thought, maybe I'm a liberal conservative...
I haven't cared about this concept (bipartisanship) for about 20 years. No one else outside the beltway press does either. The idea that something is more worthwhile or noble, or that more people will like whatever the bill is because Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski jump on board is absurd.
I don't know if Joe Manchin is just feigning shock at what Republicans did today, or if he is genuinely surprised, but either way it's a huge problem. He's either cynically pretending to be appalled, or he's too dense to understand what he's dealing with on the other side. Of course, regardless, he steadfastly remains the key roadblock to fixing the problem, which is ending this absurd requirement of a super-majority for literally everything that isn't passed through an arcane budget process.
Unless your side is perpetually in power, getting rid of the filibuster is a double-edged sword. I say keep it but make the Senators ramble on for days on end like the good 'ol days...
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36545745/joe-manchin-senate-filibuster-then-and-now/
In 2011 Manchin supported filibuster reform that would have forced public filibustering and eliminated the ability to block bills without attaching your name to that block. I really don't get why even this modest form of reform isn't already a done deal. If the filibuster is going to exist at all (and it didnt in the Senate's early history) it at least needs to return to being a public and exhausting form of opposition.
It's a pretty solid column, and I'd just like to add that bipartisanship isn't a requirement for having a healthy democracy.
This line was good: "But as news consumers and voters, we need to remember that the halo that reporters and pundits, and politicians themselves, hoist over “bipartisanship” is a shuck. And when it isn’t a shuck, it’s a rhetorical cudgel that politicians use to brand themselves as noble and reasonable while slamming their opponents as petty and vindictive."
Folks on here from other countries can chime in, but the norm in almost all other democracies, even multiparty democracies, is that the majority party or coalition rules, gets to pass legislation, appoint judges etc, without having to placate the other party or coalition. And the opposition coalition gets to voice how they would run things if given the chance. This is of course assuming legislative majorities. And this has also been the norm for much of US political history.
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
Look, there are some major issues with the filibuster, and our state of American politics is problematic right now.
Eliminating the filibuster will have a knock on effect that will ultimately be very bad for Democrats because the Senate is enormously biased to benefit the GOP right now. The partisan lean of the senate means that there will be at least 50 GOP senate seats a vast majority of the time. If you kill the filibuster, you will ensure that those senates will be able to legislate more freely.
So the question becomes - is it worth letting the Democrats do what they want 30% of the time if you're going to also let the GOP do what it wants 70% of the time, which will consistently include the undoing of anything the Democrats have done during their time a majority?
(The Democrats could kill the filibuster and then let PR and DC in as states, but even if all 4 of those senate seats were filled by Democrats 100% of the time (unlikely for PR) - the mat still puts the GOP in power far more often than Democrats in the senate).
I'm all for reforming the filibuster to make it harder like it used to be, but I am against getting rid of the filibuster in general because I honestly believe it benefits the GOP far more than it benefits the Democrats.
I understand this fear, but I think the House and the presidency are sufficient checks in the long run. Not to mention the Supreme Court, which doesn't have to be a conservative majority forever. Yes, ditching the filibuster does run a risk, but the GOP would also have to commit to some seriously unpopular legislation. And they really haven't shown the political courage to do any serious legislative agenda except tax cuts with their current party platform and voter bloc.
In fact, I'd argue their ability to merely by the party of "No" is what's enabled them a decent amount of election success (along with some structural advantages). It's also what's enabled grifters who have no interest in true governing to dominate the party. Having to commit to some kind of reform project with the ambition of Obamacare would likely tear apart their coalition.
I get this argument, and it makes sense - but if we agree that the GOP in its current incarnation is trending towards authoritarianism, then do we really think the GOP wouldnt try to force national legislation with 50 senators +a VP to massively restrict or otherwise damage the chances of Democrats from being elected?
I feel like the anti HR-1 is something that the GOP would consider pushing through. You say that the SCOTUS isnt permanently conservative leaning, and while that's true - since the GOP has shown that it is willing not to allow a Democrat to nominate a SCOTUS member unless they also control the senate means that the SCOTUS now effectively has the same partisan bent as the senate at large does (That is, GOP favored).
I think the only really good argument for getting rid of the filibuster is that it will force senators to make actually difficult votes (Either pushing unpopular legislature through or killing popular legislature). That's a good thing, and I want that - but is it worth what we will also get (the GOP in charge of the senate more often than not and controlling the agenda of the country?)
240 years, we had a good run but change is needed... and imminent. I just might wish that the changes I have seen were positive. Hey, maybe it is just a cyclical thing. It doesn't feel that way though does it?
People aren't all that interested in working for indentured servant wages anymore (and this is more true than you might expect in restaurants, where some literally charge you for your "uniforms", which are usually three ill-fitting shirts, out of your first paycheck, and customers are expected to subsidize the worker's wages through tips so the owner doesn't have to). Either pay someone a decent wage, or your shitty bar and grill, which probably shouldn't exist in the first place, is going under.
The push I've seen in articles in the media about how working from home is actually really bad are even more laughable. Many of us have learned over the last 14 months that there is absolutely no reason to be in the office, and more importantly, there is no reason for us to waste two hours of our day going to and from the on-site location. There is zero chance I am going back if given ANY say in the matter.
I literally saw an article which argued that co-workers miss out on valuable in-person team-building exercises like "employee birthdays" which almost had me rolling on the floor laughing. Employee birthdays in an office setting, at most, amount to you never interacting whatsoever with the person whose birthday it is, and eating a slice of stale cake in the lunch room on your 15-minute break. The shit they are trying to sell to get people to go back to the office is laughable. If you want to go back, fine, but many of us have seen the light, and forcing a mass movement back will lead to people simply quitting in large numbers and finding a job that recognizes the new reality, which is that we never needed to be there in the first place.
It is, and it does to me. It's just that the cycles are REALLY long. Generations even sometimes...
The Republican Party has become reactionary, not conservative. They think their way of life is threatened. They're not wrong on the macro scale. The trouble is, you can't hold back the ocean by keeping your fingers in the holes of the dike forever. Especially when they're bigger than their fingers and there are more holes than they have fingers...
Prime example: the outrage de jour this morning is that Kamala Harris sent out a tweet that said "enjoy the long weekend", with the implication being this is disrespectful to soldiers. Let's leave out the fact that Trump's Memorial Day tweets often called his political opponents "losers" and the same people PRETENDING to be outraged about this (and it's all a show) didn't say a word. The simple fact is that most Americans DO look at Memorial Day and Veteran's Day as "long weekends" and pretending everyone spends 3 days in silent contemplation remembering the legacy of dead soldiers is disingenuous nonsense. Even my extended family, who actually goes to a grave and short ceremony because my uncle died in Vietnam, has that take up about 30 minutes of the 72 hours. The rest is booze and BBQ.
Memorial Day is about "soldiers" as much as Christmas is about the birth of Jesus, which is to say, hardly at all in the grand scheme of things. It's retro top-40 countdowns on the radio, mattress sales, a rush on liquor stores, and pot luck picnics. It's far more widely accepted purpose is the "kickoff to summer", just like Christmas is a retail bonanza about buying presents. The true meanings were lost so long ago I don't even know if I was alive when they were relevant.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2021-05-28/chinas-inconvenient-truth
What's scary about this, is that authoritarian governments may look for wars to distract their people from their problems at home. The rhetoric between China and Australia has gotten pretty heated lately. Things could get ugly fast. Embers in the South China Sea are already starting to flare up...
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/30/bitcoin-investment-wall-street-lobbying-491399
I'm all for trying the less radical solution first, forcing filibusters to be costly, public events. Maybe that will be good enough. But if it doesn't work, I do think Democrats ought to consider abandoning it completely.
That could have the effect of making every election cycle a bloodbath though. I really hope it doesn't come to that. Keep in mind that as divisive as things are now, these times are not unique. The US has been at loggerheads in the past too. That's why they devised these rules in the first place.
Washington Post link
Israel has a multiparty parliamentary system, and this is a coalition of basically everyone except Netenyahu's Likud party. Hard-right Jews, the left, Islamists ... they all agree on "not him".
How long this new coalition government will last before its ideological divisions break it up is an open question.
The article is behind a pay wall unfortunately...
BBC link
According to this version, they haven't finalized the deal yet ... three days to the deadline.
This would be almost as welcome as Trump being defeated. Maybe even more so, to be honest.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/03/blue-star-burisma-justice-department-investigation-491681
There is a reason this blog, Parler, Gab and right-wing dating sites are niche at best and barely register on any radar. It's because a public forum where there aren't any liberals to piss off for sport isn't of any use to modern conservatives. There may have been a comment section on this blog (or not) and you can post your insane takes on Parler, but if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?? Technically, but the appeal isn't in what they say, it's in getting a reaction out of people they don't like. When trolling becomes your political philosophy, no matter how much you claim to hate Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube, you will go back every time because that's the only place what you crave exists.
But when the more recent stimulus simply sent out checks to individuals and families, they actually spent it on everyday needs, which would increase the prices of those things, hence the increased inflation.
If the theory is true, then inflation isn't necessarily the result of government spending. Inflation is instead the result of government spending directed at folks besides the wealthy. Inflation is a marker of who is benefiting from the economy.
Interesting insight. The beneficiaries are thus penalized for their stimulus largess via inflation? That almost sounds like a feedback loop. Of course the wealthy also benefit from the spending of the poor. That means the only true way out is to become wealthy yourself then...
What's actually happening, especially in regards to restaurants, is that ALL jobs are now filling positions, and people no longer feel like they need to work for meal comps and tips to survive. I'm not saying there aren't good restaurant owners out there, but, in the United States, they've been relying on the public to subsidize their employee's wages for them by way of tips, which allow them the ability to not have to pay a real wage. And a large, large amount of people are tired of being exploited so the owner of their shitty bar and grill can put a new hot-tub on his deck this year.
I absolutely believe they are having trouble filling positions. It's just that I believe the real problem is that they've become so accustomed to exploiting their workers that they have no idea how to react when those workers have actual options. What food service employees are saying, en masse, at the moment, is to either pay your employees a living wage or go fuck yourself. This is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. I'll gladly wait the 20 extra minutes for food or pay 50 cents more for my burrito.