Here’s a question. With congress divided, what will actually be pressing enough to get passed in the next two years? In the past two years, we had the infrastructure bill and the chips bill passed with bipartisan support. I guess infrastructure and microchip manufacturing were too important to ignore. Will we have anything like that in the next two years?
CNN)A far-right internet personality who goes by the pseudonym "Baked Alaska" was sentenced on Tuesday to two months in prison for unlawfully protesting inside the US Capitol during the January 6, 2021, insurrection. Anthime Gionet, who livestreamed his breach of the Capitol in a nearly 30-minute video to more than 16,000 people, was also ordered to pay a $2,000 fine and $500 in restitution for damage done to the Capitol building by the mob the day of the riot.
Gridlock is gridlock. Not much will happen away from Hunter Biden.
generally Wall Street likes divided government like this because there will likely be no surprises. problem is this GOP is anti-America and actively trying to burn it all down. So we may get some surprises after all.
It's because liberals can't speak truth to power, and vice versal. They can't do that, as if they were dyslexicalist on the topic. So, there is your answer to your attempted poignance.
Right, but my point (whether or not it applies to intersectionality, I don't know), in part, is that there isn't always necessarily more than 1 problem. There are terribly complex problems, and far less complex (if not fixable) problems. If one thinks that something is multi-variable, fine, tackle many or all of them. But that probably won't always be the case, or at least not clearly and/or dominantly.
I'm guessing that poverty might be really good example. Tons of problems/challenges stemming from poverty. And PERHAPS, dominantly at least, poverty ALONE.
And where that is likely the case, I think that liberals likely LOSE support when they want to "bring in" a host of other variables (race, ethnicity, gender, persuasion, etc.) that seem dubious and/or much less significant.
Human beings are capable of tackling two problems at once. Theoretically anyway. I’m not sure that collectively we can tackle any problem at all.
Right, but my point (whether or not it applies to intersectionality, I don't know), in part, is that there isn't always necessarily more than 1 problem. There are terribly complex problems, and far less complex (if not fixable) problems. If one thinks that something is multi-variable, fine, tackle many or all of them. But that probably won't always be the case, or at least not clearly and/or dominantly.
I'm guessing that poverty might be really good example. Tons of problems/challenges stemming from poverty. And PERHAPS, dominantly at least, poverty ALONE.
And where that is likely the case, I think that liberals likely LOSE support when they want to "bring in" a host of other variables (race, ethnicity, gender, persuasion, etc.) that seem dubious and/or much less significant.
Maybe liberals lose general support by proclaiming to fight against racism and sexism, although people of color and women vote democrat, so I’m not so sure it loses them support. I believe that the liberals have already won the culture war and being vehemently against racism and sexism (even if it’s just in theory) is probably good for their chances of winning going forward. Old white men aren’t getting any younger or healthier either.
Although in reality, the liberals aren’t fighting even against poverty. Fighting poverty is even more unpopular than fighting racism. Ask Adult what he thinks about his taxes going to single mothers.
Zinke:” Despite the deep state's attempts to repeatedly stop me I stand before you as a duly elected member of the congress and tell you that a deep state exists… They want to wipe out the American cowboy”
hahahaha! idiots
Perhaps I shouldn't comment without more context, but....I'm guessing that even with all the context in the world, this remains every bit as stupid. Best I can tell, this translates as:
"I won an election, so simply believe what I tell you about a deep state."
So very persuasive. Yet tens of millions comply. Great country.
I'm always torn between what is more stupid and SHOULD lose Trumper Rs more support?
1) Claiming that federal law enforcement and intelligence and defense are CHOCK FULL of squishy radical leftists out to get the Rs at all costs, or,
2) "We owned the Executive Branch for 4 years and yet apparently couldn't do SQUAT about the supposed problem."
Because it's "DEEP," I guess. Exhibit 1: Trump kept the same FBI Director for most of his term. How the F*** do you defend that if there's a festering Deep State in the FBI ??? But the mouth-breathing continues, undisturbed.....
Here’s a question. With congress divided, what will actually be pressing enough to get passed in the next two years? In the past two years, we had the infrastructure bill and the chips bill passed with bipartisan support. I guess infrastructure and microchip manufacturing were too important to ignore. Will we have anything like that in the next two years?
It's because liberals can't speak truth to power, and vice versal. They can't do that, as if they were dyslexicalist on the topic. So, there is your answer to your attempted poignance.
Right, but my point (whether or not it applies to intersectionality, I don't know), in part, is that there isn't always necessarily more than 1 problem. There are terribly complex problems, and far less complex (if not fixable) problems. If one thinks that something is multi-variable, fine, tackle many or all of them. But that probably won't always be the case, or at least not clearly and/or dominantly.
I'm guessing that poverty might be really good example. Tons of problems/challenges stemming from poverty. And PERHAPS, dominantly at least, poverty ALONE.
And where that is likely the case, I think that liberals likely LOSE support when they want to "bring in" a host of other variables (race, ethnicity, gender, persuasion, etc.) that seem dubious and/or much less significant.
Maybe liberals lose general support by proclaiming to fight against racism and sexism, although people of color and women vote democrat, so I’m not so sure it loses them support. I believe that the liberals have already won the culture war and being vehemently against racism and sexism (even if it’s just in theory) is probably good for their chances of winning going forward. Old white men aren’t getting any younger or healthier either.
Although in reality, the liberals aren’t fighting even against poverty. Fighting poverty is even more unpopular than fighting racism. Ask Adult what he thinks about his taxes going to single mothers.
I'm not remotely close to a political junkie, but isn't it claimed that the Rs are doing better amongst lower-income whites than they used to? Regardless, I can't imagine that there's all THAT many D politicians who can afford to not worry about what lower-income whites think about them.
Either way, as mentioned previously, I find the following quite plausible: "I'm a poor/lower-income white who's LESS inclined to vote for Ds because they often seem to be MORE concerned about poverty/low-income amongst various minorities than they are about MY poverty/low-income."
And way too many of these folks are easy pickings for the Trumps of the world....
Maybe liberals lose general support by proclaiming to fight against racism and sexism, although people of color and women vote democrat, so I’m not so sure it loses them support. I believe that the liberals have already won the culture war and being vehemently against racism and sexism (even if it’s just in theory) is probably good for their chances of winning going forward. Old white men aren’t getting any younger or healthier either.
Although in reality, the liberals aren’t fighting even against poverty. Fighting poverty is even more unpopular than fighting racism. Ask Adult what he thinks about his taxes going to single mothers.
I'm not remotely close to a political junkie, but isn't it claimed that the Rs are doing better amongst lower-income whites than they used to? Regardless, I can't imagine that there's all THAT many D politicians who can afford to not worry about what lower-income whites think about them.
Either way, as mentioned previously, I find the following quite plausible: "I'm a poor/lower-income white who's LESS inclined to vote for Ds because they often seem to be MORE concerned about poverty/low-income amongst various minorities than they are about MY poverty/low-income."
And way too many of these folks are easy pickings for the Trumps of the world....
Yes, more poor white people are voting Republican today than previously. It’s a trend that has been occurring since the 1960s and I think a lot of it can be attributed to the increase in racist dog whistling rhetoric used by Republican politicians like Nixon and Reagan that didn’t age very well. I think the Democrats are on the better side of this going forward.
It's because liberals can't speak truth to power, and vice versal. They can't do that, as if they were dyslexicalist on the topic. So, there is your answer to your attempted poignance.
So… a bill won’t be passed or what?
What do I look like? Jailhouse Rock? How do I know what bill gets passed? I can tell you what bill should get passed -- the Fair Tax (FATA) bill. The FATA would abrogate the liberal's IRS which they have weaponized to un-Constitutionally shake down J. Christ-fearing men from the sweat of their toils. But liberals can't imagine a world without their beloved taxes they inflict on the actual workers of America from coast to coast, sea to sea, in the rich tapestry of American destiny.
I'm not remotely close to a political junkie, but isn't it claimed that the Rs are doing better amongst lower-income whites than they used to? Regardless, I can't imagine that there's all THAT many D politicians who can afford to not worry about what lower-income whites think about them.
Either way, as mentioned previously, I find the following quite plausible: "I'm a poor/lower-income white who's LESS inclined to vote for Ds because they often seem to be MORE concerned about poverty/low-income amongst various minorities than they are about MY poverty/low-income."
And way too many of these folks are easy pickings for the Trumps of the world....
Yes, more poor white people are voting Republican today than previously. It’s a trend that has been occurring since the 1960s and I think a lot of it can be attributed to the increase in racist dog whistling rhetoric used by Republican politicians like Nixon and Reagan that didn’t age very well. I think the Democrats are on the better side of this going forward.
it's part racism/anti-immigration but it's mostly the same rural vs city divide we've been seeing around the world lately.
rurals increasingly see their interests diverging from city people. The same divide can be seen in another way - college vs non-college.
What do I look like? Jailhouse Rock? How do I know what bill gets passed? I can tell you what bill should get passed -- the Fair Tax (FATA) bill. The FATA would abrogate the liberal's IRS which they have weaponized to un-Constitutionally shake down J. Christ-fearing men from the sweat of their toils. But liberals can't imagine a world without their beloved taxes they inflict on the actual workers of America from coast to coast, sea to sea, in the rich tapestry of American destiny.
And now I’ve spent my last thirty minutes reading about this tax proposal. Some people think it’s is a good idea and some people think it’s a bad idea. I’m guessing that the people who think it’s a good idea stand to benefit from the change, but I’m just guessing.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the new narratives emerging in the media in anticipation of the investigation into Biden influence peddling. The comments by NBC’s Meet the Press ho…