US Politics Megathread

[iNcog]

Spoiler

Been saying this for a while. Migration from South America into the US will eventually build an electoral base for Republicans, as lots of these newcomers have a Catholic background with strong family values.
Even though traditionally Hispanics have been supporters of Dems so far, this was because they had a low status in the country, so they were seeking support from a political party to improve their standing in US society.

But once the tide turns and they become an entrenched political force, one that doesn't need any political props to stand on its own feet... this happens:




Será mejor que empieces a aprender español, compa.

Interesting, lol.

You know, I've been wanting to make a thread dumping on Christianity and how it's probably the worst religion ever.

[n0el]

Except she is going to lose in the fall.

[Dolan]

I've been wanting to make a thread dumping on Christianity and how it's probably the worst religion ever.

You can join that chorus, though even one of the staunchest supporters of banishing religion from public life has, in the meantime, recanted his position.



He's now taking a "sea water is drinkable for the fish but toxic for non-fish" approach.
In other words, if you force all the non-fish living beings to drink sea water, you might not get the same positive effects as with sea fish.

[callentournies]

People gotta make meaning. Meaning-making ends when rights of others are violated.

American Nationalist Christianity (and others) has nothing to do with being "little Christs." It isn't bad because religion is bad. It's bad because bad is bad. Tools are dangerous and necessary.

[Goodspeed]

I've been wanting to make a thread dumping on Christianity and how it's probably the worst religion ever.

You can join that chorus, though even one of the staunchest supporters of banishing religion from public life has, in the meantime, recanted his position.

[image]

He's now taking a "sea water is drinkable for the fish but toxic for non-fish" approach.
In other words, if you force all the non-fish living beings to drink sea water, you might not get the same positive effects as with sea fish.

It's also often used as an excuse to do bad things.

I think ending religion is bad because religion is good for some people's mental health. There's just a lot of bad religions out there (most of them tbh), which ideally would disappear and all the plebs who need a higher purpose in life can then convert to something a little less destructive like buddhism or some shit

[fightinfrenchman]

I like how people just casually talk about the pros and cons of "abolishing religion" without really thinking about how that would work in practice

[Goodspeed]

It will obviously never happen, there's no point discussing the politics of it

[fightinfrenchman]

Saying "the politics of it" kind of downplays that it would require an incredibly invasive totalitarian government to abolish religion, and even then you still wouldn't

[Goodspeed]

How is it downplaying that

[fightinfrenchman]

How is it downplaying that

The article excerpt mentions that without religion, crimes like shoplifting would go up, which is just a funny thing to comment on when there would obviously be mass scale violence if anyone attempted to actually "abolish religion"

[iNcog]

I've been wanting to make a thread dumping on Christianity and how it's probably the worst religion ever.

You can join that chorus, though even one of the staunchest supporters of banishing religion from public life has, in the meantime, recanted his position.



He's now taking a "sea water is drinkable for the fish but toxic for non-fish" approach.
In other words, if you force all the non-fish living beings to drink sea water, you might not get the same positive effects as with sea fish.

It isn't about ending religion, it's about how putting at the forefront of politics is going to hurt so many people.

[lejend]

Show hidden quotes

Sasse for prez?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... angelicals

No, he sucks

You misspelled 'is the best'

He's one of the most cowardly people in the GOP, which is really saying something

It's not cowardice to wait for the right time to attack.

He isn't doing anything to "attack." He just thinks Trump is going to lose and wants to look like he was on the right side of things

I didn't say he's attacking right now, though this is a taste of what's to come. What do you think he should've done?

Has "what's to come" happened yet or is Sasse still a totally useless moron

What exactly do you want him to do

[fightinfrenchman]

Show hidden quotes

Sasse for prez?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... angelicals

No, he sucks

You misspelled 'is the best'

He's one of the most cowardly people in the GOP, which is really saying something

It's not cowardice to wait for the right time to attack.

He isn't doing anything to "attack." He just thinks Trump is going to lose and wants to look like he was on the right side of things

I didn't say he's attacking right now, though this is a taste of what's to come. What do you think he should've done?

Has "what's to come" happened yet or is Sasse still a totally useless moron

What exactly do you want him to do

I already answered that question, answer mine. Saying "this is a taste of what's to come" implies that something will happen and that you have advanced knowledge of it

[lejend]

Show hidden quotes

Sasse for prez?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... angelicals

No, he sucks

You misspelled 'is the best'

He's one of the most cowardly people in the GOP, which is really saying something

It's not cowardice to wait for the right time to attack.

He isn't doing anything to "attack." He just thinks Trump is going to lose and wants to look like he was on the right side of things

I didn't say he's attacking right now, though this is a taste of what's to come. What do you think he should've done?

Has "what's to come" happened yet or is Sasse still a totally useless moron

What exactly do you want him to do

I already answered that question, answer mine. Saying "this is a taste of what's to come" implies that something will happen and that you have advanced knowledge of it

It's been so long I don't even remember what we were talking about

[fightinfrenchman]

Show hidden quotes

Sasse for prez?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... angelicals

No, he sucks

You misspelled 'is the best'

He's one of the most cowardly people in the GOP, which is really saying something

It's not cowardice to wait for the right time to attack.

He isn't doing anything to "attack." He just thinks Trump is going to lose and wants to look like he was on the right side of things

I didn't say he's attacking right now, though this is a taste of what's to come. What do you think he should've done?

Has "what's to come" happened yet or is Sasse still a totally useless moron

What exactly do you want him to do

I already answered that question, answer mine. Saying "this is a taste of what's to come" implies that something will happen and that you have advanced knowledge of it

It's been so long I don't even remember what we were talking about

You can just read the quotes and see what it was referencing. I understand why you don't want to do that though since defending the integrity of The Vanishing American Senator is impossible

[lejend]

Show hidden quotes

Sasse for prez?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... angelicals

No, he sucks

You misspelled 'is the best'

He's one of the most cowardly people in the GOP, which is really saying something

It's not cowardice to wait for the right time to attack.

He isn't doing anything to "attack." He just thinks Trump is going to lose and wants to look like he was on the right side of things

I didn't say he's attacking right now, though this is a taste of what's to come. What do you think he should've done?

Has "what's to come" happened yet or is Sasse still a totally useless moron

What exactly do you want him to do

I already answered that question, answer mine. Saying "this is a taste of what's to come" implies that something will happen and that you have advanced knowledge of it

It's been so long I don't even remember what we were talking about

You can just read the quotes and see what it was referencing. I understand why you don't want to do that though since defending the integrity of The Vanishing American Senator is impossible

Okay, so the article I posted is from October '20

In February '21 Sasse voted to convict Trump. And he regularly speaks out against Trumpism, e.g. this speech from two weeks ago:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/351 ... dy-figure/

So, what more do you want from him?

[Cometk]

[princeofcarthage]

tweets like this should be banned tbh

[lejend]

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front ... -benefits/

Forgiving all student debt would be a transfer larger than the amounts the nation has spent over the past 20 years on unemployment insurance, larger than the amount it has spent on the Earned Income Tax Credit, and larger than the amount it has spent on food stamps.

Even $10,000 in debt forgiveness would involve a transfer that is about as large as the country has spent on welfare (TANF) since 2000 and exceeds the amount spent since then on feeding hungry school children in high-poverty schools through the school breakfast and lunch program. Likewise, it dwarfs spending on programs that help feed low-income pregnant women and infants or provide energy assistance to those who otherwise struggle to heat their homes in winter.

Beyond the sums that debt forgiveness would represent, the beneficiaries of student loan forgiveness would be higher income, better educated, and whiter than beneficiaries of other transfer programs.

Accounting correctly for both human capital and effect of subsidies in student lending plans, almost a third of all student debt is owed by the wealthiest 20 percent of households and only 8 percent by the bottom 20 percent. Across-the-board student loan forgiveness is regressive measured by income, family affluence, educational attainment—and also wealth.

[callentournies]

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front ... -benefits/

Forgiving all student debt would be a transfer larger than the amounts the nation has spent over the past 20 years on unemployment insurance, larger than the amount it has spent on the Earned Income Tax Credit, and larger than the amount it has spent on food stamps.

Even $10,000 in debt forgiveness would involve a transfer that is about as large as the country has spent on welfare (TANF) since 2000 and exceeds the amount spent since then on feeding hungry school children in high-poverty schools through the school breakfast and lunch program. Likewise, it dwarfs spending on programs that help feed low-income pregnant women and infants or provide energy assistance to those who otherwise struggle to heat their homes in winter.

Beyond the sums that debt forgiveness would represent, the beneficiaries of student loan forgiveness would be higher income, better educated, and whiter than beneficiaries of other transfer programs.

Accounting correctly for both human capital and effect of subsidies in student lending plans, almost a third of all student debt is owed by the wealthiest 20 percent of households and only 8 percent by the bottom 20 percent. Across-the-board student loan forgiveness is regressive measured by income, family affluence, educational attainment—and also wealth.

Article says it's better to shore up other social safety nets for low income and people of color. Are you in favor of social safety nets?

[fightinfrenchman]

Article says it'd be better to shore up other social safety nets. Are you in favor of social safety nets?

No he's not, he's going to show examples of so-called "moderate" Republicans talking about how they support certain welfare programs while ignoring the fact that they constantly push to weaken these programs with shit like work requirements

[knusch]

student loan forgiveness certainly some of the weirdest policies imaginable

[lejend]

Article says it's better to shore up other social safety nets for low income and people of color. Are you in favor of social safety nets?

Brookings is a left-wing institution, so obviously I don't agree with all their policy objectives; if I did, I would've included it in my quote above. How does this rebut their claim that forgiving student loan debt would disproportionately benefit rich white people, though?

[Goodspeed]

Is anyone even for forgiving all student debt or is this a straw man?

[princeofcarthage]

$1.5 trillion is honestly that much for US. Should just do it tbh