@Balrog99 "You don't have to put up with shit just because there aren't any alternatives..."
Unfortunately, this just isn't true for nearly half of Americans. Few things are scarier than poverty in a capitalistic society.
I'm willing to bet that most of them have access to the internet. That alone makes it easier to shop around. Especially with free-shipping becoming more and more common.
I think we ended up talking about 2 different things and I am confused. Probably my fault.
I think you're right. Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough.
My belief is that companies have become more conscious of their public image due to the internet and globalization making it easier for consumers to 'boycott' the bad players. There are exceptions. Defense contractors in particular don't rely on public sales, for example.
I see what you're saying. Customers can't really boycott corporations though. You'd have to have a global scale boycott to put even a dent into the billions that corporations bring in. The whole idea of "vote with your wallet" was something popularized by the companies that it supposedly sways. I can't think of a single corporation that ISN'T boycotted by people for some reason or another. It doesn't make any difference, and they don't care.
Its even more useless when one learns that half of americans live paycheck to paycheck. They can't afford to be choosey. They need to go with the cheapest option, regardless of ethics, or starve.
Corporations live paycheck to paycheck too, though. The company I work for, a multi-national chemical giant, panics when we have one bad quarter!
No multinational company lives paycheck to paycheck. The main focus these days is to maximize short term profits as much as possible. Horrified reactions to a downturn is greed, not concern for livelihood.
"It's not just millionaires though, a major amount of those shares are held by regular folks in their 401k accounts..."
401k? Oh, those things that most americans don't have and my generation typically only ever hears of from grandparents?
@Balrog99 "You don't have to put up with shit just because there aren't any alternatives..."
Unfortunately, this just isn't true for nearly half of Americans. Few things are scarier than poverty in a capitalistic society.
I'm willing to bet that most of them have access to the internet. That alone makes it easier to shop around. Especially with free-shipping becoming more and more common.
I think we ended up talking about 2 different things and I am confused. Probably my fault.
I think you're right. Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough.
My belief is that companies have become more conscious of their public image due to the internet and globalization making it easier for consumers to 'boycott' the bad players. There are exceptions. Defense contractors in particular don't rely on public sales, for example.
I see what you're saying. Customers can't really boycott corporations though. You'd have to have a global scale boycott to put even a dent into the billions that corporations bring in. The whole idea of "vote with your wallet" was something popularized by the companies that it supposedly sways. I can't think of a single corporation that ISN'T boycotted by people for some reason or another. It doesn't make any difference, and they don't care.
Its even more useless when one learns that half of americans live paycheck to paycheck. They can't afford to be choosey. They need to go with the cheapest option, regardless of ethics, or starve.
Corporations live paycheck to paycheck too, though. The company I work for, a multi-national chemical giant, panics when we have one bad quarter!
No multinational company lives paycheck to paycheck. The main focus these days is to maximize short term profits as much as possible. Horrified reactions to a downturn is greed, not concern for livelihood.
"It's not just millionaires though, a major amount of those shares are held by regular folks in their 401k accounts..."
401k? Oh, those things that most americans don't have and my generation typically only ever hears of from grandparents?
Yeah, only 60 million Americans have 401k's (from the above article). That's what, half the work force? Not all that rare really...
@Balrog99 "You don't have to put up with shit just because there aren't any alternatives..."
Unfortunately, this just isn't true for nearly half of Americans. Few things are scarier than poverty in a capitalistic society.
I'm willing to bet that most of them have access to the internet. That alone makes it easier to shop around. Especially with free-shipping becoming more and more common.
I think we ended up talking about 2 different things and I am confused. Probably my fault.
I think you're right. Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough.
My belief is that companies have become more conscious of their public image due to the internet and globalization making it easier for consumers to 'boycott' the bad players. There are exceptions. Defense contractors in particular don't rely on public sales, for example.
I see what you're saying. Customers can't really boycott corporations though. You'd have to have a global scale boycott to put even a dent into the billions that corporations bring in. The whole idea of "vote with your wallet" was something popularized by the companies that it supposedly sways. I can't think of a single corporation that ISN'T boycotted by people for some reason or another. It doesn't make any difference, and they don't care.
Its even more useless when one learns that half of americans live paycheck to paycheck. They can't afford to be choosey. They need to go with the cheapest option, regardless of ethics, or starve.
Corporations live paycheck to paycheck too, though. The company I work for, a multi-national chemical giant, panics when we have one bad quarter!
No multinational company lives paycheck to paycheck. The main focus these days is to maximize short term profits as much as possible. Horrified reactions to a downturn is greed, not concern for livelihood.
"It's not just millionaires though, a major amount of those shares are held by regular folks in their 401k accounts..."
401k? Oh, those things that most americans don't have and my generation typically only ever hears of from grandparents?
Yeah, only 60 million Americans have 401k's (from the above article). That's what, half the work force? Not all that rare really...
Homeless and other people without jobs count as well. The fact that only half the workforce have any kind of retirement options should be extremely alarming.
This article is the final form of "conservatives have no agency and are simply victims of whatever liberals force them to do". What we've arrived at is the theory that liberals are badgering people to get vaxxed because we know it will harden their position and they won't get vaxxed, and thus kill a large number of them, resulting in electoral gains. Where the excuses and complete erasure of all personal responsibility go from here is impossible to tell. I've given up thinking there is a bottom to hit.
This article also lets the cat out of the bag in regards to how conservative media feels about their audience. They believe they are SO gullible and unable to think for the themselves they assume that OF COURSE they would be susceptible to a mass reverse psychology campaign. Shit, maybe they aren't wrong. Maybe if this idea takes hold they'll start making vaccine appointments.
This article is the final form of "conservatives have no agency and are simply victims of whatever liberals force them to do". What we've arrived at is the theory that liberals are badgering people to get vaxxed because we know it will harden their position and they won't get vaxxed, and thus kill a large number of them, resulting in electoral gains. Where the excuses and complete erasure of all personal responsibility go from here is impossible to tell. I've given up thinking there is a bottom to hit.
This article also lets the cat out of the bag in regards to how conservative media feels about their audience. They believe they are SO gullible and unable to think for the themselves they assume that OF COURSE they would be susceptible to a mass reverse psychology campaign. Shit, maybe they aren't wrong. Maybe if this idea takes hold they'll start making vaccine appointments.
The article appears to me like someone choosing specific arguments encouraging vaccination, for a particular group of people who have resisted that so far. The use of exaggeration and hyperbole (like the repeated use of the 99.5% figure which is clearly not correct) and the questioning of who is "owning" who, reads like an attempt to frame the argument in a way which will be persuasive to that group.
This article is the final form of "conservatives have no agency and are simply victims of whatever liberals force them to do". What we've arrived at is the theory that liberals are badgering people to get vaxxed because we know it will harden their position and they won't get vaxxed, and thus kill a large number of them, resulting in electoral gains. Where the excuses and complete erasure of all personal responsibility go from here is impossible to tell. I've given up thinking there is a bottom to hit.
This article also lets the cat out of the bag in regards to how conservative media feels about their audience. They believe they are SO gullible and unable to think for the themselves they assume that OF COURSE they would be susceptible to a mass reverse psychology campaign. Shit, maybe they aren't wrong. Maybe if this idea takes hold they'll start making vaccine appointments.
The article appears to me like someone choosing specific arguments encouraging vaccination, for a particular group of people who have resisted that so far. The use of exaggeration and hyperbole (like the repeated use of the 99.5% figure which is clearly not correct) and the questioning of who is "owning" who, reads like an attempt to frame the argument in a way which will be persuasive to that group.
The "come to Jesus moment" is clearly aimed at the religious folks on the right as well. I really hope more of these right-wing writers and bloggers start using this tactic. Nothing else seems to be working...
Assuming this theory is true and they are just doing that to encourage people to get vaccinated (and I honestly can't tell anymore):
I find attempts to get people to get the vaccination by further demonizing liberals to be highly problematic. Even if it helps in the short-term (doubtful in my opinion, given that even Trump gets booed when he pushes the vaccine) it will cause other problems.
They are basically making up another conspiracy of liberals wanting them all dead.
Assuming this theory is true and they are just doing that to encourage people to get vaccinated (and I honestly can't tell anymore):
I find attempts to get people to get the vaccination by further demonizing liberals to be highly problematic. Even if it helps in the short-term (doubtful in my opinion, given that even Trump gets booed when he pushes the vaccine) it will cause other problems.
They are basically making up another conspiracy of liberals wanting them all dead.
I agree, sort of. Let's face it though, a lot of these people aren't the sharpest tools in the drawer. It cracks me up that they would probably consider me a 'Librul' just for getting vaccinated and wearing a mask when I'm out in public. If it takes making them dislike me even more to get them vaccinated, hey at least they're vaccinated and we're one step closer to normal.
Basically if and when the hard right accepts that climate change is a thing it will probably pivot to using it as yet another reason to foster global inequality and anti-immigration rhetoric.
This really highlights how bad our inability to return to normal is. Adults have lost 2 years. Children are losing the most crucial times of their lives for developing. Some kids do better remotely in terms of education ( I know I did), but I doubt that's the case for most. Even then, the loss of that direct social interaction is ruinous for any developing person.
Basically if and when the hard right accepts that climate change is a thing it will probably pivot to using it as yet another reason to foster global inequality and anti-immigration rhetoric.
This is almost certainly exactly what will happen. First, they will pretend they didn't deny it was happening and fight tooth and nail to actively make it worse for half a century. Then, as more and more refugees of the crisis attempt to make their way to the United States, the bunker mentality will set in. It will make their positions on COVID-19 seem like the good old days. And, if necessary, they will openly advocate for wiping out anyone in the way of resources we "need", which, to many Americans, makes them "ours" whenever we decide we want to declare them as such.
Couple things, the first being it's been pretty obvious from the beginning kids don't have any real issue with masks. They are infinitely more mature about the subject than their parents (if their parents happen to be the type of people showing up at these school board meetings you keep seeing video of). The parents are cynically using their children as shields to justify their own conspiracy theories.
Secondly, the focus on testing will not necessarily reward those who work the hardest, or even know the most about the subject, but people who are good at taking tests. There were 3 or 4 people in my high school class MUCH smarter in regards to science and math than I was. But what a timed test rewards are a.) people who read and process information quickly and b.) people who know how tests work and how to answer questions you aren't sure about with a high probability of success anyway. When I took my ACT, my goal was, first and foremost, to actually finish. Everything I wasn't sure about I left til the end, then went back and made educated guesses based on the available answers. I was manipulating it as much as I was taking it. Which allowed me to outperform the valedictorian types by a significant margin.
I still do this at work to this day. Every couple months, we have to do mandatory compliance training at work, and for every course there are optional test-outs where if you get 80%, you can skip the training course. It is incredibly easy to not even know what the subject matter is really about, open the questions, and get 8 out 10 or 12 out 15 correct simply by realizing many of the choices presented to you as possible answers are ridiculous and can't possibly be the correct answer.
A general rule in most multiple choice questions you are presented: if there is an option for "d.) all of the above" that is the correct answer well over 75% of the time you see it. This is less true in something more serious like an SAT or ACT, but the difficulty of a test with multiple choice answers depends almost entirely on how much work the people who make the test are putting into making the wrong answers seem like viable options. And, in most cases, the answer to that question is "not much".
In tests, I always got a lot of mileage out of my stress response. Study? Why would I do that? I'd do better in the test than I would in practice anyway, just because I think clearer and faster under the influence of adrenaline.
There really aren't any truly fair ways to evaluate students. We gravitate toward tests, because they're relatively efficient in terms of time. Especially multiple choice, because the grading for that can be automated.
@jjstraka34 That got me through every math course past the 4th grade.
What got me through pre-Calculus in 11th grade was purposefully staying home sick for 75% of the test days, and having the resident math whiz tutor me for an hour during first period study hall the next day about exactly what was on it to be able to show enough work to get about an 80-85% (because for some reason that is how math teachers grade, even if you don't get any of the problems correct). This did not seem sustainable to me for another year however, and I bowed out of 12th grade Calculus and became an aide to my English teacher for that hour instead.
I've seen that Breitbart article now and its insane. Can we get a graph of all the different, conflicting, yet somehow supposed to still all be true, conspiracy theories coming out of the Right? That's gotta be some real alien geometries there.
Lot of big things happening right now. Right after the pull from Afghanistan the Biden admin drones innocents and kills several kids, lies about it and finally comes clean when exposed...
The Indictment of Hillary Clinton's Lawyer is an Indictment of the Russiagate Wing of U.S. Media - by Glenn Greenwald - Glenn Greenwald (substack.com)
...and what is going down on these here boards? Some whining about a Breitbart article nobody cares about or reads and something called Avacodo politics? About- surprise! how conservatives are really nasty and stuff.
What an absolute joke lmao. If you didn't have a borderline mentally ill obsession with trying to find ways to hate fringe right wing conspiracy nuts you would have nothing at all.
Said it before but I can't believe I ever put so much time and good faith into a small group of people who have nothing to offer other than their hatred of the other.
This thread has been fairly inactive for stretches of time, aside from one or two posters talking about issues relevant to them (for the most part) for the past few months. Being upset at a thread that doesnt see a lot of activity for not preemptively discussing the news you want discussed when you're not here to spur on discussion of it is... something.
Also. Lots of misleading information in that post. For example, the article on family separations explains (with strong detail) the differences between what is happening at the border under Trump and Biden - and to attempt to handwave those differences to issue allegations of hypocrisy at the left isnt is problematic.
Also, the Harris Guatemala bit: in addition to be over 3 months old - (I'm noticing a lot of your links seem to be months and months old. The separation one is from MARCH): It's pretty clear that her mission to central America was aimed at trying to understand the problem in the countries sending migrants. If the issue is dealt with at home, then the hope is that the people wouldnt make the dangerous trip all the way to the US border.
I'm not going to spend my afternoon going through each of your news articles, but suffice it to say that there's a lot of context missing here in order to justify your recriminations tacked on at the end.
In Zeke's defense, the Afghanistan debacle is a legitimate Biden gripe. The only reason I didn't bring it up more was that I was mostly just happy we were finally leaving. I never really believed it would go without a hitch. The use of a civilian airport when a military one was readily available, and the dumb-ass drone strike are on Biden and his team (handlers?) though...
We talked about Afghanistan exclusively for about 5-7 straight days. The fact it ended with a drone strike that killed innocent people is the only way it could have ended, since it has been a regular occurance for twenty years. The right move would to have done nothing and just leave after the bombing at the airport, but, of course, the deaths couldn't go "unanswered", whatever that means in the grand scheme of things.
But, again, this particular drone strike got more coverage than every other one that has taken place in that country for the last two decades COMBINED. And there have been hundreds if not thousands of them. The media picture was "oh, look at how bad things have gotten in the last few days" instead of the correct take, which was "look at how screwed up things have been this entire time".
In Zeke's defense, the Afghanistan debacle is a legitimate Biden gripe. The only reason I didn't bring it up more was that I was mostly just happy we were finally leaving. I never really believed it would go without a hitch. The use of a civilian airport when a military one was readily available, and the dumb-ass drone strike are on Biden and his team (handlers?) though...
I said virtually the day it happened that this was Biden's fault. Yes, it would have happened to probably any president who tried to leave, but Biden is the one who made the decision, and so it follows that it is his fault how the war came to its conclusion. Buried within there is that Biden gets the credit for ending the war, but American exceptionalism overrides that, and because we looked bad in how it ended, he's going to wear that failure for the rest of his administration.
I was also here arguing that this was going to have longer and bigger ramifications in terms of approval polling. His polling averages went from roughly 9 points over to about 3 points underwater during this crisis, and have stayed there.
I do think there's a chance for return to the norm, but I think he's never going to be much more than 1 or two points above water from here on out.
The program of drone strikes looks very attractive from a distance in offering a relatively low cost method to attack a perceived enemy, without any US servicemen being put at risk. I suspect though that the results of that whole program are contrary to the intended ones.
A successful strike will have a direct and immediate impact on the targeted enemy, particularly in disrupting command and control structures. However, that impact seems to me to be considerably outweighed by the indirect effects. The demonstration of asymmetric warfare by the US seems likely to encourage a similar approach by enemies and the drone strikes are likely to make them more fanatical, rather than less. The impact on civilians, which has always been much greater than admitted, will also pull in far more recruits than are killed or scared off by the drones, as well as increasing hostility to the US by the population at large.
Also, the Harris Guatemala bit: in addition to be over 3 months old - (I'm noticing a lot of your links seem to be months and months old. The separation one is from MARCH): It's pretty clear that her mission to central America was aimed at trying to understand the problem in the countries sending migrants. If the issue is dealt with at home, then the hope is that the people wouldnt make the dangerous trip all the way to the US border.
Just gonna add here that the Harris quote has been grossly taken out of context. Not just right now but by many pundits talking about the issue -- either conservatives cynically scoring points or lefty pro-immigration folks who think the administration isn't doing enough.
I certainly think there's some shortcomings to the current immigration policy. But that quote is Harris warning Central Americans about the dangerous trek required to make it to the US. And the fact that once you arrive, you are not guaranteed to get in, much less to be able to stay long term. So you are risking a very dangerous trip for possibly zero reward. Hence the humanitarian-minded warning.
Now, I certainly think it's reasonable for many Central Americans to still ignore that advice, since many have daily lives just as dangerous as the trek. We really ought not base our judgments off three-word quotes, if we're going to have substantive discussions here.
Just to try and piggyback a bit off @BallpointMan ...
This is from out in Iowa. Obviously state polls are different, but Iowa is still pretty solidly a swing-state (Obama/Clinton won twice. Gore won it, as well) so seeing this is surprising.
Ann Selzer, the woman who conducted it, might be the best pollster in the country at the moment. Pretty sure she gets an A from 538, for people who are a fan of those guys. If there's a rebound in store, it certainly isn't showing in this data.
Just to try and piggyback a bit off @BallpointMan ...
This is from out in Iowa. Obviously state polls are different, but Iowa is still pretty solidly a swing-state (Obama/Clinton won twice. Gore won it, as well) so seeing this is surprising.
Ann Selzer, the woman who conducted it, might be the best pollster in the country at the moment. Pretty sure she gets an A from 538, for people who are a fan of those guys. If there's a rebound in store, it certainly isn't showing in this data.
Iowa, like Florida and Ohio, is a swing-state in name only at this point. I would view a Democrat winning any of them in 2024 as a massive upset. On the other side, Colorado, Virginia and New Mexico are now incredibly difficult for Republicans. The new swing states replacing them are Georgia, Arizona, and to a lesser extent North Carolina.
If I was running a campaign, Ohio and Iowa wouldn't even be on my radar. Florida is still a conceivable though very tough get, and worth fighting for. Ohio and Iowa are gone barring a major shift in the make-up of those populations and their recent voting habits. Neither one were remotely close to what the polling suggested was possible in 2020. Trump walked away with both of them. The one outlier being the pollster you mention above. But I'm certainly not going to quake in my boots about Biden's approval among the demographics in Iowa. Any crossover support he had there was tepid at best.
I'll maintain my position that no one is going to cast their vote in 2024 on whether Joe Biden didn't make a strategically sound decision about the use of Bagram Air Force Base in the summer of 2021. The American people completely erased the entire conflict from their memory for 15+ years. The idea they're gonna have vivid and hardened views on the subject 3 years from now gives the American voter's attention span far, FAR more credit than it deserves. Trump assassinated one of the most high ranking military and political leaders in Iran and was one poorly prepared Big Mac away from war with them, and it wasn't even a top 100 issue in the last campaign.
I've been lax on calling out the left on their conspiracy theories because the far right has become totally unhinged and makes the moderate right, my usual choice, not not worthy of my support anymore. This, by no means implies that I support the left though. I just think the wackos on the right are more of a threat than the moderates on the left right now.
Just to try and piggyback a bit off @BallpointMan ...
This is from out in Iowa. Obviously state polls are different, but Iowa is still pretty solidly a swing-state (Obama/Clinton won twice. Gore won it, as well) so seeing this is surprising.
Ann Selzer, the woman who conducted it, might be the best pollster in the country at the moment. Pretty sure she gets an A from 538, for people who are a fan of those guys. If there's a rebound in store, it certainly isn't showing in this data.
Iowa, like Florida and Ohio, is a swing-state in name only at this point. I would view a Democrat winning any of them in 2024 as a massive upset. On the other side, Colorado, Virginia and New Mexico are now incredibly difficult for Republicans. The new swing states replacing them are Georgia, Arizona, and to a lesser extent North Carolina.
If I was running a campaign, Ohio and Iowa wouldn't even be on my radar. Florida is still a conceivable though very tough get, and worth fighting for. Ohio and Iowa are gone barring a major shift in the make-up of those populations and their recent voting habits. Neither one were remotely close to what the polling suggested was possible in 2020. Trump walked away with both of them. The one outlier being the pollster you mention above. But I'm certainly not going to quake in my boots about Biden's approval among the demographics in Iowa. Any crossover support he had there was tepid at best.
I'll maintain my position that no one is going to cast their vote in 2024 on whether Joe Biden didn't make a strategically sound decision about the use of Bagram Air Force Base in the summer of 2021. The American people completely erased the entire conflict from their memory for 15+ years. The idea they're gonna have vivid and hardened views on the subject 3 years from now gives the American voter's attention span far, FAR more credit than it deserves. Trump assassinated one of the most high ranking military and political leaders in Iran and was one poorly prepared Big Mac away from war with them, and it wasn't even a top 100 issue in the last campaign.
I mostly agree with your viewpoint. The fact that merely 100 Americans are being discussed as 'left behind' is pretty much verification that this is miniscule as a major talking point with moderates. The optics are pretty bad temporarily. However, I don't think anybody is going to change their politics based solely on Afghanistan so politically this is probably a non-issue..
If you read through the article again you’ll note that, while its primary focus is the ethnonationalist right, and its historical connections to environmentalism, it’s not just conservatives who are likely to use environmental issues to bolster support for their particular programmes. For example it makes mention of how some left wingers have also made use of ‘watermelon politics’, and have regarded democracy as being incompatible with thoroughgoing environmentalism, and how Macron has implied that the rainforests should be protected via military intervention if necessary.
Not being an American myself I don’t really find helpful the implication that President Biden and the Democrats’ conduct should be the sole or even primary focus of an international forum, but if you go back a few pages you’ll note that I was rather critical of the manner of America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Comments
No multinational company lives paycheck to paycheck. The main focus these days is to maximize short term profits as much as possible. Horrified reactions to a downturn is greed, not concern for livelihood.
"It's not just millionaires though, a major amount of those shares are held by regular folks in their 401k accounts..."
401k? Oh, those things that most americans don't have and my generation typically only ever hears of from grandparents?
Yeah, only 60 million Americans have 401k's (from the above article). That's what, half the work force? Not all that rare really...
Homeless and other people without jobs count as well. The fact that only half the workforce have any kind of retirement options should be extremely alarming.
https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2021/09/10/nolte-howard-stern-proves-democrats-want-unvaccinated-trump-voters-dead/
This article also lets the cat out of the bag in regards to how conservative media feels about their audience. They believe they are SO gullible and unable to think for the themselves they assume that OF COURSE they would be susceptible to a mass reverse psychology campaign. Shit, maybe they aren't wrong. Maybe if this idea takes hold they'll start making vaccine appointments.
The article appears to me like someone choosing specific arguments encouraging vaccination, for a particular group of people who have resisted that so far. The use of exaggeration and hyperbole (like the repeated use of the 99.5% figure which is clearly not correct) and the questioning of who is "owning" who, reads like an attempt to frame the argument in a way which will be persuasive to that group.
The "come to Jesus moment" is clearly aimed at the religious folks on the right as well. I really hope more of these right-wing writers and bloggers start using this tactic. Nothing else seems to be working...
I find attempts to get people to get the vaccination by further demonizing liberals to be highly problematic. Even if it helps in the short-term (doubtful in my opinion, given that even Trump gets booed when he pushes the vaccine) it will cause other problems.
They are basically making up another conspiracy of liberals wanting them all dead.
I agree, sort of. Let's face it though, a lot of these people aren't the sharpest tools in the drawer. It cracks me up that they would probably consider me a 'Librul' just for getting vaccinated and wearing a mask when I'm out in public. If it takes making them dislike me even more to get them vaccinated, hey at least they're vaccinated and we're one step closer to normal.
https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-12-winter-2020/avocado-politics
Basically if and when the hard right accepts that climate change is a thing it will probably pivot to using it as yet another reason to foster global inequality and anti-immigration rhetoric.
https://www.salon.com/2021/09/19/as-the-culture-engulfs-their-schools-kids-say-adults-arent-listening-to-them-at-all/
This really highlights how bad our inability to return to normal is. Adults have lost 2 years. Children are losing the most crucial times of their lives for developing. Some kids do better remotely in terms of education ( I know I did), but I doubt that's the case for most. Even then, the loss of that direct social interaction is ruinous for any developing person.
This is almost certainly exactly what will happen. First, they will pretend they didn't deny it was happening and fight tooth and nail to actively make it worse for half a century. Then, as more and more refugees of the crisis attempt to make their way to the United States, the bunker mentality will set in. It will make their positions on COVID-19 seem like the good old days. And, if necessary, they will openly advocate for wiping out anyone in the way of resources we "need", which, to many Americans, makes them "ours" whenever we decide we want to declare them as such.
Couple things, the first being it's been pretty obvious from the beginning kids don't have any real issue with masks. They are infinitely more mature about the subject than their parents (if their parents happen to be the type of people showing up at these school board meetings you keep seeing video of). The parents are cynically using their children as shields to justify their own conspiracy theories.
Secondly, the focus on testing will not necessarily reward those who work the hardest, or even know the most about the subject, but people who are good at taking tests. There were 3 or 4 people in my high school class MUCH smarter in regards to science and math than I was. But what a timed test rewards are a.) people who read and process information quickly and b.) people who know how tests work and how to answer questions you aren't sure about with a high probability of success anyway. When I took my ACT, my goal was, first and foremost, to actually finish. Everything I wasn't sure about I left til the end, then went back and made educated guesses based on the available answers. I was manipulating it as much as I was taking it. Which allowed me to outperform the valedictorian types by a significant margin.
I still do this at work to this day. Every couple months, we have to do mandatory compliance training at work, and for every course there are optional test-outs where if you get 80%, you can skip the training course. It is incredibly easy to not even know what the subject matter is really about, open the questions, and get 8 out 10 or 12 out 15 correct simply by realizing many of the choices presented to you as possible answers are ridiculous and can't possibly be the correct answer.
A general rule in most multiple choice questions you are presented: if there is an option for "d.) all of the above" that is the correct answer well over 75% of the time you see it. This is less true in something more serious like an SAT or ACT, but the difficulty of a test with multiple choice answers depends almost entirely on how much work the people who make the test are putting into making the wrong answers seem like viable options. And, in most cases, the answer to that question is "not much".
There really aren't any truly fair ways to evaluate students. We gravitate toward tests, because they're relatively efficient in terms of time. Especially multiple choice, because the grading for that can be automated.
What got me through pre-Calculus in 11th grade was purposefully staying home sick for 75% of the test days, and having the resident math whiz tutor me for an hour during first period study hall the next day about exactly what was on it to be able to show enough work to get about an 80-85% (because for some reason that is how math teachers grade, even if you don't get any of the problems correct). This did not seem sustainable to me for another year however, and I bowed out of 12th grade Calculus and became an aide to my English teacher for that hour instead.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/us/politics/pentagon-drone-strike-afghanistan.html
The Biden admin begins deporting Haitians in Texas
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/20/world/americas/deported-haitians-shocked.html
Deported by U.S., Haitians Are in Shock: ‘I Don’t Know This Country’ - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
...after condemning deportations
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/time-biden-calls-obama-deportations-big-mistake-69010125
For first time, Biden calls Obama deportations 'big mistake' - ABC News (go.com)
...while Harris tells Guatemalans not to come here
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/07/harris-message-in-guatemala-do-not-come-492047
Harris' blunt message in Guatemala: 'Do not come' to U.S. - POLITICO
...as the "kids in cages" facilities are re opened
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/24/us-to-allow-migrants-from-mexico-as-critics-slam-kids-in-cages
US to allow migrants from Mexico as critics slam ‘kids in cages’ | Coronavirus pandemic News | Al Jazeera
...and they've outsourced family separation to the other side of the border
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/20/border-family-separation-mexico-biden-477309
Biden Brings Back Family Separation—This Time in Mexico - POLITICO
...and Clinton's lawyer is indicted for lies related to the Russia conspiracy.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-indictment-of-hillary-clintons-b42
The Indictment of Hillary Clinton's Lawyer is an Indictment of the Russiagate Wing of U.S. Media - by Glenn Greenwald - Glenn Greenwald (substack.com)
...and what is going down on these here boards? Some whining about a Breitbart article nobody cares about or reads and something called Avacodo politics? About- surprise! how conservatives are really nasty and stuff.
What an absolute joke lmao. If you didn't have a borderline mentally ill obsession with trying to find ways to hate fringe right wing conspiracy nuts you would have nothing at all.
Said it before but I can't believe I ever put so much time and good faith into a small group of people who have nothing to offer other than their hatred of the other.
Also. Lots of misleading information in that post. For example, the article on family separations explains (with strong detail) the differences between what is happening at the border under Trump and Biden - and to attempt to handwave those differences to issue allegations of hypocrisy at the left isnt is problematic.
Also, the Harris Guatemala bit: in addition to be over 3 months old - (I'm noticing a lot of your links seem to be months and months old. The separation one is from MARCH): It's pretty clear that her mission to central America was aimed at trying to understand the problem in the countries sending migrants. If the issue is dealt with at home, then the hope is that the people wouldnt make the dangerous trip all the way to the US border.
I'm not going to spend my afternoon going through each of your news articles, but suffice it to say that there's a lot of context missing here in order to justify your recriminations tacked on at the end.
But, again, this particular drone strike got more coverage than every other one that has taken place in that country for the last two decades COMBINED. And there have been hundreds if not thousands of them. The media picture was "oh, look at how bad things have gotten in the last few days" instead of the correct take, which was "look at how screwed up things have been this entire time".
I said virtually the day it happened that this was Biden's fault. Yes, it would have happened to probably any president who tried to leave, but Biden is the one who made the decision, and so it follows that it is his fault how the war came to its conclusion. Buried within there is that Biden gets the credit for ending the war, but American exceptionalism overrides that, and because we looked bad in how it ended, he's going to wear that failure for the rest of his administration.
I was also here arguing that this was going to have longer and bigger ramifications in terms of approval polling. His polling averages went from roughly 9 points over to about 3 points underwater during this crisis, and have stayed there.
I do think there's a chance for return to the norm, but I think he's never going to be much more than 1 or two points above water from here on out.
A successful strike will have a direct and immediate impact on the targeted enemy, particularly in disrupting command and control structures. However, that impact seems to me to be considerably outweighed by the indirect effects. The demonstration of asymmetric warfare by the US seems likely to encourage a similar approach by enemies and the drone strikes are likely to make them more fanatical, rather than less. The impact on civilians, which has always been much greater than admitted, will also pull in far more recruits than are killed or scared off by the drones, as well as increasing hostility to the US by the population at large.
Just gonna add here that the Harris quote has been grossly taken out of context. Not just right now but by many pundits talking about the issue -- either conservatives cynically scoring points or lefty pro-immigration folks who think the administration isn't doing enough.
I certainly think there's some shortcomings to the current immigration policy. But that quote is Harris warning Central Americans about the dangerous trek required to make it to the US. And the fact that once you arrive, you are not guaranteed to get in, much less to be able to stay long term. So you are risking a very dangerous trip for possibly zero reward. Hence the humanitarian-minded warning.
Now, I certainly think it's reasonable for many Central Americans to still ignore that advice, since many have daily lives just as dangerous as the trek. We really ought not base our judgments off three-word quotes, if we're going to have substantive discussions here.
This is from out in Iowa. Obviously state polls are different, but Iowa is still pretty solidly a swing-state (Obama/Clinton won twice. Gore won it, as well) so seeing this is surprising.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2021/09/21/president-joe-biden-job-approval-rating-plunges-after-afghanistan-covid-surge/8378224002/
Ann Selzer, the woman who conducted it, might be the best pollster in the country at the moment. Pretty sure she gets an A from 538, for people who are a fan of those guys. If there's a rebound in store, it certainly isn't showing in this data.
Iowa, like Florida and Ohio, is a swing-state in name only at this point. I would view a Democrat winning any of them in 2024 as a massive upset. On the other side, Colorado, Virginia and New Mexico are now incredibly difficult for Republicans. The new swing states replacing them are Georgia, Arizona, and to a lesser extent North Carolina.
If I was running a campaign, Ohio and Iowa wouldn't even be on my radar. Florida is still a conceivable though very tough get, and worth fighting for. Ohio and Iowa are gone barring a major shift in the make-up of those populations and their recent voting habits. Neither one were remotely close to what the polling suggested was possible in 2020. Trump walked away with both of them. The one outlier being the pollster you mention above. But I'm certainly not going to quake in my boots about Biden's approval among the demographics in Iowa. Any crossover support he had there was tepid at best.
I'll maintain my position that no one is going to cast their vote in 2024 on whether Joe Biden didn't make a strategically sound decision about the use of Bagram Air Force Base in the summer of 2021. The American people completely erased the entire conflict from their memory for 15+ years. The idea they're gonna have vivid and hardened views on the subject 3 years from now gives the American voter's attention span far, FAR more credit than it deserves. Trump assassinated one of the most high ranking military and political leaders in Iran and was one poorly prepared Big Mac away from war with them, and it wasn't even a top 100 issue in the last campaign.
https://theconversation.com/conspiracy-theories-on-the-right-cancel-culture-on-the-left-how-political-legitimacy-came-under-threat-in-2020-150844
I mostly agree with your viewpoint. The fact that merely 100 Americans are being discussed as 'left behind' is pretty much verification that this is miniscule as a major talking point with moderates. The optics are pretty bad temporarily. However, I don't think anybody is going to change their politics based solely on Afghanistan so politically this is probably a non-issue..
If you read through the article again you’ll note that, while its primary focus is the ethnonationalist right, and its historical connections to environmentalism, it’s not just conservatives who are likely to use environmental issues to bolster support for their particular programmes. For example it makes mention of how some left wingers have also made use of ‘watermelon politics’, and have regarded democracy as being incompatible with thoroughgoing environmentalism, and how Macron has implied that the rainforests should be protected via military intervention if necessary.
Not being an American myself I don’t really find helpful the implication that President Biden and the Democrats’ conduct should be the sole or even primary focus of an international forum, but if you go back a few pages you’ll note that I was rather critical of the manner of America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan.