Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

It really isn't, and hasn't particularly been that way for a good long while. Donors have influence and whatnot, but dems have been trying to cut into that general money pie for a while now. It's mostly just that conditions on the ground (GOP, conservadems, a lot that shit actually being legitimately unpopular to the US population, etc.) make getting stuff done on that front a small nightmare. Most of the democrat party establishment is pretty supportive of moving in that direction.

[Iduno]

I mean, it's possible that they put forth and electing centrist candidates who almost exclusively violate their idea that progress is better than the status quo completely by accident, but Occam's Razor isn't particularly supportive of that.

[Reelya]

Note what I've said before about "winning the center" doesn't necessarily mean "voting for a centrist". It means tailoring your message to appeal to center voters. it can still be either right wing as fuck or left wing as fuck, you just learn to couch that stuff in language that is broadly appealing. Sanders is up there because he gets this.

[wierd]

More on Donny and the Giant Impeach--

Apparently Mitch McConnell is more corrupt than most thought possible.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/11/politics/mcconnell-impeachment-trial-acquittal/index.html


Because not only should all charges be dropped, but Drumpf would also be completely exonerated --despite being caught on tape, with a paper trail, multiple witnesses, confirmation from foreign dignitaries, and clear testimony as to the purpose and scope of impeachment as the prescribed vehicle for treating abuses of this nature-- engaging in abuse of power, obstruction of justice, and quid pro quo-- because the GOP thinks there's nothing wrong with this behavior.


Dwell on that a bit.

[Kagus]

I dunno if that really qualifies as "more corrupt than most thought possible". Sounds reasonably status quo for him.

[Folly]

Why do the R's keep harping on about the D's wanting to impeach since before Trump was even sworn into office? Are congressmen under any obligation to be unbiased going into an impeachment?
Trump was credibly accused of a multitude of crimes long before he became president, so of course some people would be eager to see him removed from office. I just don't see how that has anything to do with the current proceedings.

[Doomblade187]

Why do the R's keep harping on about the D's wanting to impeach since before Trump was even sworn into office? Are congressmen under any obligation to be unbiased going into an impeachment?
Trump was credibly accused of a multitude of crimes long before he became president, so of course some people would be eager to see him removed from office. I just don't see how that has anything to do with the current proceedings.

It doesn't, they just want to make it seem like a bad faith effort.

[Trekkin]

Why do the R's keep harping on about the D's wanting to impeach since before Trump was even sworn into office? Are congressmen under any obligation to be unbiased going into an impeachment?
Trump was credibly accused of a multitude of crimes long before he became president, so of course some people would be eager to see him removed from office. I just don't see how that has anything to do with the current proceedings.

You know the old saw everyone's been repeating about how if neither the facts nor the law are on your side, you pound on the table? This is that.

See, you're confused in part because you're trying to find meaning in what they're saying. Decades of Fox News and years of Trump have purged the Republican base of almost anyone capable of actually listening to and understanding a complete sentence, so the Republicans need not bother making sense. They know full well that whatever they say is going to end up on Fox, where the "R" next to their name will inevitably trigger approving if inebriated hooting. Equally, they know that whatever points their opponents might make, a capital "D" on the screen will cause all sensory input to be blocked out in a fit of angry belches punctuated with racial slurs. The only reason they bother saying anything at all is to fill up airtime, get sound bites, and give their base new things to chant.

If you're wondering why the R's do anything, imagine them talking to a horde of zombies in red hats. That should make things clear.

[nenjin]

Saw a magazine at the drug store.

All black, with Trump in nice gold letters at the top and a very flattering picture of him. Like, Adobe flattering.

"His legacy."

"His impact."

"His historical achievements."

"A first look in to his second term."

It's almost subtle compared to most things surrounding him.

[Max™]

That's not necessarily correct. There's been a lot of growth of the share of wealth of the top 1%, but almost none of that growth occurred after the GFC.



Note that during the bubble, the top 1% were rapidly gaining more of a share of the nation's income, but that trend completely collapsed when the bubble burst. It's during the "good years" such as the 1990 Clinton era and the Bush housing bubble when the top 1% made the big gains in their share of income. Note also that the bottom 50% have been losing relative income, but that decline more or less went on pause at the height of the crisis.

Your chart is kinda sorta slightly outdated, and showing income, not wealth... which is a MASSIVE difference.

From here apparently: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/#range:1989.3,2019.2



There's some more here about how the inflating bubble we're in is currently making this inequality ever more exaggerated, though some are trying to say when it pops this will go back down but how many here really buy the idea that a massive asset collapse is going to soak the rich, rather than them finding some way to shove the costs off on everyone else, show of hands?

[Folly]

How long does this Impeachment Article Debate last? They started last night and have gone all day today. By now I'm certain that I've heard every person in that room give the same speech at least 3 times. Is this like a filibuster situation where they're not allowed to vote until everybody shuts up?

[Doomblade187]

How long does this Impeachment Article Debate last? They started last night and have gone all day today. By now I'm certain that I've heard every person in that room give the same speech at least 3 times. Is this like a filibuster situation where they're not allowed to vote until everybody shuts up?

I think they vote on Friday? I dunno.

[Folly]

It seems the expectation was that they would vote this afternoon, but the R's kept talking with the intention of forcing the vote late at night when nobody would be awake to see it. Instead the chairman decided to change the schedule and hold the vote first thing in the morning, which has prompted the R's to now rant about sudden unexpected rescheduling without consulting them first.

[wierd]

For a group who's message has been almost a mantra about "Partisanship in this process is bad!!"  they sure are displaying an awful lot of it...

[Reelya]

Your chart is kinda sorta slightly outdated, and showing income, not wealth... which is a MASSIVE difference.

Uhh, your graph in fact backs up my argument, it doesn't refute it. Note the big asset wipe out in 2007-2009 in your graph. Also note that the steepest drop was the assets of the top 1%. They lost the largest percentage of their wealth of any cohort listed.

so you're skeptical that any bubble popping will wipe out the rich? It's exactly what your graph shows happened in 2008.