Chit-Chat: The Feels

[bluegirl147]

1 hour ago, partofme said:

I didn’t like that the survey asked nothing about US domestic policy.   Still I got Progressive Left, which is accurate even though I prefer the term liberal.  

I got the same results and was a little surprised.   I would have thought Establishment Liberal but you say potatoe I say potahto.  And I will always consider myself a liberal.

[Kemper]

What I wonder about is the mindset of MTG's constituents. Have they given any thought to what she has accomplished for them during her tenure? Has she worked on proving she has their interests at heart...and not her own childish, look-at-me agenda? Introduced any legislation that would show that she cares, even a wee bit, about their daily lives and struggles?

Getting her name and face in the news; working on how she "presents" re hair and makeup? That she has attained. But to her voters? Epic fail. 

[annzeepark914]

1 hour ago, peacheslatour said:

I couldn't complete the survey because I don't believe any country should be a military super power.

I took the survey and was stunned that it said I am establishment liberal. That's odd as MrP914 refers to me as a Republican (he's a *mega* Progressive so of course I must seem conservative to him 😁). Surveys like this are really only meant for people who see things in black or white, no in-betweens. I consider myself a moderate Democrat, flexible, liberal in some areas, conservative in others.  

[partofme]

28 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

I got the same results and was a little surprised.   I would have thought Establishment Liberal but you say potatoe I say potahto.  And I will always consider myself a liberal.

I will always use the term liberal because I remember growing up hearing Republican politicians on tv using the word liberal like a dirty word, though on domestic policy I am very far left, the politicians I most align with are Warren, Sanders and AOC.  

[peacheslatour]

2 minutes ago, partofme said:

I will always use the term liberal because I remember growing up hearing Republican politicians on tv using the word liberal like a dirty word, though on domestic policy I am very far left, the politicians I most align with are Warren, Sanders and AOC.  

Same here. Although it cracks me up how some of the most zealous Bernie supporters are also the ones that wouldn't shut up for a second about Biden's age.

[partofme]

Is anyone as disgusted as I am by the Laken Riley immigration bill that is likely to pass that allows immigrants who haven’t been charged with a crime to be detained?  Only 9 Democratic senators had the balls to vote against it.  I’ve lived in NJ for about a year now, usually I really miss NY, but I am so proud of both my NJ senators for voting against it, unlike the two useless ones from NY.  

[peacheslatour]

7 minutes ago, partofme said:

Is anyone as disgusted as I am by the Laken Riley immigration bill that is likely to pass that allows immigrants who haven’t been charged with a crime to be detained?  Only 9 Democratic senators had the balls to vote against it.  I’ve lived in NJ for about a year now, usually I really miss NY, but I am so proud of both my NJ senators for voting against it, unlike the two useless ones from NY.  

When was the vote held? The only one I could find was held Jan. 7 and there were 159 Dem. votes against it.

[Dimity]

23 minutes ago, Kemper said:

Introduced any legislation that would show that she cares, even a wee bit, about their daily lives and struggles?

I'm amazed she hasn't introduced legislation yet targeting the Jews who started the LA fires with lasers - or some such nonsense.  Anyone who voted for her a second time needs to give back their high school diplomas.

[partofme]

13 minutes ago, peacheslatour said:

When was the vote held? The only one I could find was held Jan. 7 and there were 159 Dem. votes against it.

January 9.  The roll call is listed in the link. 
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00001.htm

This was the Senate vote, it may have gone differently in the house. 

Edited January 12 by partofme

[peacheslatour]

4 minutes ago, Dimity said:

I'm amazed she hasn't introduced legislation yet targeting the Jews who started the LA fires with lasers - or some such nonsense.  Anyone who voted for her a second time needs to give back their high school diplomas.

After the Both Sides Are Bad discussion we had here the other day, I've been ruminating on exactly which rights the big bad left is supposed to have taken away from Americans the way the right has with voting rights, Roe, marriage equality and coming to a Republican legislature near you contraception, freedom of movement, no fault divorce, a whole slew of privacy laws. Name one thing any Democratic legislature has done that's come even close.

[Dimity]

2 minutes ago, peacheslatour said:

Name one thing any Democratic legislature has done that's come even close.

By the same token, I've asked Trump supporters who are reading this thread to discuss the positives they saw in the last Trump administration and the things they feel he is going to do that will benefit the country.  So far...

[bluegirl147]

22 minutes ago, partofme said:

I will always use the term liberal because I remember growing up hearing Republican politicians on tv using the word liberal like a dirty word, though on domestic policy I am very far left, the politicians I most align with are Warren, Sanders and AOC.  

I love Elizabeth Warren.  In 2106 while I liked a lot of Bernie's policies I wasn't crazy about him.  

19 minutes ago, partofme said:

Is anyone as disgusted as I am by the Laken Riley immigration bill that is likely to pass that allows immigrants who haven’t been charged with a crime to be detained?  Only 9 Democratic senators had the balls to vote against it.  I’ve lived in NJ for about a year now, usually I really miss NY, but I am so proud of both my NJ senators for voting against it, unlike the two useless ones from NY.  

I read a quote by a House Dem and he said his constituents voted for him to vote yes on bills like this.  Did they though? This is what happens.  Dems move right get the scars thrown to them.

12 minutes ago, Dimity said:

I'm amazed she hasn't introduced legislation yet targeting the Jews who started the LA fires with lasers - or some such nonsense.  Anyone who voted for her a second time needs to give back their high school diplomas.

She is the one who harassed one of the Parkland students when they were in DC.  Everything she is does is performative.  Her and Boebert are the absolute worst.

[Dimity]

[bluegirl147]

4 minutes ago, peacheslatour said:

After the Both Sides Are Bad discussion we had here the other day, I've been ruminating on exactly which rights the big bad left is supposed to have taken away from Americans the way the right has with voting rights, Roe, marriage equality and coming to a Republican legislature near you contraception, freedom of movement, no fault divorce, a whole slew of privacy laws. Name one thing any Democratic legislature has done that's come even close.

Don't you know they want us to suffer by having Social Security and Medicare waiting for us when we retire.  They have the gall to want people to be able to vote more easily.  Oh and the kicker is they want us to stay a democracy.

[peacheslatour]

1 minute ago, bluegirl147 said:

Don't you know they want us to suffer by having Social Security and Medicare waiting for us when we retire.  They have the gall to want people to be able to vote more easily.  Oh and the kicker is they want us to stay a democracy.

History's greatest monsters.

[partofme]

3 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

love Elizabeth Warren.  In 2106 while I liked a lot of Bernie's policies I wasn't crazy about him.  

I didn’t vote for him, I love HRC, but I would have happily voted for him had he got the nomination.  I agree with Sanders completely on domestic policy, I just think some like Elizabeth Warren, who I also love (and met and had my picture taken with!!!) is a better messenger.  

[bluegirl147]

1 minute ago, partofme said:

I didn’t vote for him, I love HRC, but I would have happily voted for him had he got the nomination.  I agree with Sanders completely on domestic policy, I just think some like Elizabeth Warren, who I also love (and met and had my picture taken with!!!) is a better messenger.  

Totally agree.  Bernie always came across as an angry old man.  The type who would yell at you to get off his lawn.  But Warren is like a kind caring teacher who wants us all to learn what she is teaching so not only do we pass her class but we take what we have learned and go out and make the world a better place.

[tearknee]

5 minutes ago, peacheslatour said:

After the Both Sides Are Bad discussion we had here the other day, I've been ruminating on exactly which rights the big bad left is supposed to have taken away from Americans the way the right has with voting rights, Roe, marriage equality and coming to a Republican legislature near you contraception, freedom of movement, no fault divorce, a whole slew of privacy laws. Name one thing any Democratic legislature has done that's come even close.

The thing i truly dislike about the left if i had to be pressed is pacifism. "Blood for oil" always deliberately ignored that if the USA -- or any country -- wanted Iraq's oil -- it can simply buy it, as it did both before and after the Iraq War. The "peace movement"'s philosophy -- "our goal must always be peace. Continue with diplomacy" means "continue with torture and murder" to every tinpot and not-so-tinpot tyrant or regime.

Diplomacy and sanctions are particularly useless if the regime is backed by powers such as Russia or the PRC [both nuclear ones].

 

[peacheslatour]

4 minutes ago, tearknee said:

The thing i truly dislike about the left if i had to be pressed is pacifism. "Blood for oil" always deliberately ignored that if the USA -- or any country -- wanted Iraq's oil -- it can simply buy it, as it did both before and after the Iraq War. The "peace movement"'s philosophy -- "our goal must always be peace. Continue with diplomacy" means "continue with torture and murder" to every tinpot and not-so-tinpot tyrant or regime.

Diplomacy and sanctions are particularly useless if the regime is backed by powers such as Russia or the PRC [both nuclear ones].

 

I agree but tariffs will work for sure! 

[tearknee]

4 minutes ago, peacheslatour said:

I agree but tariffs will work for sure! 

My great-grandfather was a WW1 veteran. He spent the remaining years of his life disabled to the point of incapacity (with the means and support in that era) after Kaiser Bill's army sent gas into his trench. He and his pals knew what they were fighting against. He would have regarded the "peace movement" with utter and rightful contempt.

[bluegirl147]

War is no longer about protecting another country or liberating another country.  It's not even about settling a score.  It's about funneling money to defense contractors.  Remember back during the Iraqi war "soldiers" working for Blackwater were making a lot more money than soldiers in our military.

[PRgal]

17 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

Totally agree.  Bernie always came across as an angry old man.  The type who would yell at you to get off his lawn.  But Warren is like a kind caring teacher who wants us all to learn what she is teaching so not only do we pass her class but we take what we have learned and go out and make the world a better place.

My husband thinks Warren looks like the librarian who is always trying to shush kids, even those who are using their "library voices."

[peacheslatour]

4 minutes ago, tearknee said:

My great-grandfather was a WW1 veteran. He spent the remaining years of his life disabled to the point of incapacity (with the means and support in that era) after Kaiser Bill's army sent gas into his trench. He and his pals knew what they were fighting against. He would have regarded the "peace movement" with utter and rightful contempt.

Not even relevant though. It's all going to be cyber warfare and chemical attacks. Huge corporations have more money and power than most countries these days.

[PRgal]

If you tax the very wealthy, what would your definition be?  Top 1% in the US is under $1M/year income, according to this chart from the Chicago Booth Review (further investigation tells me it's around $750K/year if you're talking about income.  Top 1% for net worth is something entirely different.  Research online says it's in the low eight figures).  That, to me, is a notch or two above "the millionaire next door."  These people will still have budgets to deal with, especially if they have young children.  I get that dealing with expensive camps (for example) is a "nice to have" and a "privilege" but to these families, it's a matter of enrichment.  And then there are the usual childcare, mortgages, groceries that a lot of other people have to deal with.  Especially you're talking about the top 1% INCOME.  It's really not as much as you think.  

Top 1% income in Canada is much lower, at $579,100 (2021) Canadian, according to Statistics Canada for anyone who wants to know.  And stuff up here can be more expensive.  Oh well, at least our healthcare is (mostly) taken care of by the government.

[peacheslatour]

4 minutes ago, PRgal said:

If you tax the very wealthy, what would your definition be?  Top 1% in the US is under $1M/year income, according to this chart from the Chicago Booth Review (further investigation tells me it's around $750K/year if you're talking about income.  Top 1% for net worth is something entirely different.  Research online says it's in the low eight figures).  That, to me, is a notch or two above "the millionaire next door."  These people will still have budgets to deal with, especially if they have young children.  I get that dealing with expensive camps (for example) is a "nice to have" and a "privilege" but to these families, it's a matter of enrichment.  And then there are the usual childcare, mortgages, groceries that a lot of other people have to deal with.  Especially you're talking about the top 1% INCOME.  It's really not as much as you think.  

Top 1% income in Canada is much lower, at $579,100 (2021) Canadian, according to Statistics Canada for anyone who wants to know.  And stuff up here can be more expensive.  Oh well, at least our healthcare is (mostly) taken care of by the government.

I think we're talking about CEO level taxation. Not people who make decent money. An executive can make 300K a year while a CEO makes that much in a week. That kind in income inequality, coupled with offshore accounts, shady bookkeeping and various loopholes mean a person making 400M a year effectively pays no taxes at all.

[lookeyloo]

2 hours ago, Kemper said:

What I wonder about is the mindset of MTG's constituents. Have they given any thought to what she has accomplished for them during her tenure? Has she worked on proving she has their interests at heart...and not her own childish, look-at-me agenda? Introduced any legislation that would show that she cares, even a wee bit, about their daily lives and struggles?

Getting her name and face in the news; working on how she "presents" re hair and makeup? That she has attained. But to her voters? Epic fail. 

We live in an adjacent district.  The people in her district voted her in by 64.4%  The ones who voted for her love her, regardless of what she does for them.  She probably says out loud what a lot of them are thinking and want a way to get it out there.  They probably like that she is "sticking it to the libs".  I guess that is enough for them.

[bluegirl147]

13 minutes ago, PRgal said:

If you tax the very wealthy, what would your definition be?  Top 1% in the US is under $1M/year income, according to this chart from the Chicago Booth Review (further investigation tells me it's around $750K/year if you're talking about income.  Top 1% for net worth is something entirely different.  Research online says it's in the low eight figures).  That, to me, is a notch or two above "the millionaire next door."  These people will still have budgets to deal with, especially if they have young children.  I get that dealing with expensive camps (for example) is a "nice to have" and a "privilege" but to these families, it's a matter of enrichment.  And then there are the usual childcare, mortgages, groceries that a lot of other people have to deal with.  Especially you're talking about the top 1% INCOME.  It's really not as much as you think.  

Top 1% income in Canada is much lower, at $579,100 (2021) Canadian, according to Statistics Canada for anyone who wants to know.  And stuff up here can be more expensive.  Oh well, at least our healthcare is (mostly) taken care of by the government.

Why is it poor people are always told to live within their means but you never hear rich people told that. 

I don't have a problem with rich people.   I have a problem with super rich people continuing to get richer at the expense of everyone else.  Bezos and the Walton family got super rich because so many other businesses went under. Back in the day they would have been called robber barons.

[PRgal]

4 minutes ago, peacheslatour said:

I think we're talking about CEO level taxation. Not people who make decent money. An executive can make 300K a year while a CEO makes that much in a week. That kind in income inequality, coupled with offshore accounts, shady bookkeeping and various loopholes mean a person making 400M a year effectively pays no taxes at all.

I guess it also depends on the CEO!  I could start a company and call myself the CEO, but I wouldn't be making that much, especially when it's still in start up mode.  And even the very wealthy don't necessarily have the actual cash unless they sell off some of what they invested.  Say one invested $100 and a year later, it's $150.  Sure, it's an additional $50, but unless they sell that investment, they don't actually get to touch the $50 they earned.  Why tax them more when they're not going to use it (unlike income earned through one's job).

[ProudMary]

2 hours ago, Dimity said:

By the same token, I've asked Trump supporters who are reading this thread to discuss the positives they saw in the last Trump administration and the things they feel he is going to do that will benefit the country.  So far...

I've also been waiting for our Trump supporters on this forum to answer this question. I'd like to add a second question, multiple choice so it should be even easier to answer: Is Russia an adversary of the United States or an ally?

[Dimity]

So Danielle Smith the Premier of Alberta has gone to Trumpland to kiss his ring.  Another name to add to the list of traitors prepared to sell off Canada.  She and O'Leary are leading the disreputable pack but thankfully they are in a very small minority.   Makes me think of a book I read recently "Hitler's British Traitors".  Things did not end well for many of them.

Edited January 12 by Dimity

[tearknee]

1 hour ago, PRgal said:

If you tax the very wealthy, what would your definition be?  Top 1% in the US is under $1M/year income, according to this chart from the Chicago Booth Review (further investigation tells me it's around $750K/year if you're talking about income.  Top 1% for net worth is something entirely different.  Research online says it's in the low eight figures).  That, to me, is a notch or two above "the millionaire next door."  These people will still have budgets to deal with, especially if they have young children.  I get that dealing with expensive camps (for example) is a "nice to have" and a "privilege" but to these families, it's a matter of enrichment.  And then there are the usual childcare, mortgages, groceries that a lot of other people have to deal with.  Especially you're talking about the top 1% INCOME.  It's really not as much as you think.  

Top 1% income in Canada is much lower, at $579,100 (2021) Canadian, according to Statistics Canada for anyone who wants to know.  And stuff up here can be more expensive.  Oh well, at least our healthcare is (mostly) taken care of by the government.

Those who want to tax "the one percent" or rail against billionaires seem to think that the working class hate the rich as much as the university/college educated middle-class activist left do (they do not).

[PRgal]

19 minutes ago, tearknee said:

Those who want to tax "the one percent" or rail against billionaires seem to think that the working class hate the rich as much as the university/college educated middle-class activist left do (they do not).

Well, the top 1% aren't billionaires, that's for sure.  They're pretty normal people as I said.  And @Dimity, don't worry, Danielle Smith would probably think I vote NDP based on her views.  

Edited January 12 by PRgal

[Anela]

3 hours ago, partofme said:

I will always use the term liberal because I remember growing up hearing Republican politicians on tv using the word liberal like a dirty word, though on domestic policy I am very far left, the politicians I most align with are Warren, Sanders and AOC.  

Same. 

2 hours ago, PRgal said:

My husband thinks Warren looks like the librarian who is always trying to shush kids, even those who are using their "library voices."

I love her, and I think she really cares about helping everyone.  

19 minutes ago, tearknee said:

Those who want to tax "the one percent" or rail against billionaires seem to think that the working class hate the rich as much as the university/college educated middle-class activist left do (they do not).

I’ve seen a lot of people angry at the billionaires, calling them out. 

[Dimity]

11 minutes ago, Anela said:

I’ve seen a lot of people angry at the billionaires, calling them out. 

I don't think most people hate wealthy people (envious? sure, but they don't hate them) what people are seeing now is enormous wealth held by relatively few people and they are justifiably concerned about the implications of that.  I think working class people are just as concerned about that as anyone else.  Except the delusional (and this isn't just limited to working class, whatever that term even means anymore) who think they too will be outrageously wealthy one day.

Edited January 12 by Dimity

[PRgal]

5 minutes ago, Dimity said:

I don't think most people hate wealthy people (envious? sure, but they don't hate them) what people are seeing now is enormous wealth held by relatively few people and they are justifiably concerned about the implications of that.  I think working class people are just as concerned about that as anyone else.  Except the delusional (and this isn't just limited to working class, whatever that term even means anymore) who think they too will be outrageously wealthy one day.

Except when I hear people who criticize those who send their children to private schools, I assume they also mean anyone who is slightly above-above average income.  Definitely NOT billionaires. Not even CLOSE.  This is why you hear a lot of upper middle class young people talk about "slumming." 

[bluegirl147]

3 minutes ago, Dimity said:

I don't think most people hate wealthy people (envious? sure, but they don't hate them) what people are seeing now is enormous wealth held by relatively few people and they are justifiably concerned about the implications of that.  I think working class people are just as concerned about that as anyone else.  Except the delusional who think they too will be outrageously wealthy one day.

It's the obscenely wealthy people who do things like buy politicians that are the target of the anger of all.of the rest of us. The Koch brothers did it.  Then Sheldon Adelston and now Musk.  Sure there has always been wealthy donors who would want things in return but Citizens United opened up the piggy banks and now they don't have to hide their corruption.   Money in politics is the root of so many of our problems.

And it's not just politics.  The lack of affordable housing can be traced to more and more private equity firms buying up houses and using them as rental properties. After the 2008 crash they bought a lot of foreclosed homes and offered to rent them to the original mortgage holder.  At two and three times the amount of their mortgage.  

Red Lobster filing for bankruptcy wasn't because of unlimited shrimp although that didn't help.  A private equity firm bought Red Lobster and with that the real estate the restaurants sat on.   They started charging them outrageous rents.  The greed is becoming unstainable for all the rest of us.

[Annber03]

47 minutes ago, tearknee said:

Those who want to tax "the one percent" or rail against billionaires seem to think that the working class hate the rich as much as the university/college educated middle-class activist left do (they do not).

Working class person here, and "hate" is a strong word, but I also firmly believe people like Musk and Zuckerberg should not be allowed to have as much money as they do. I think we absolutely need a cap on that sort of thing and we should tax the shit out of the rich. 

(I will say that I absolutely despise guys like Musk and Zuckerberg, but the fact they have obscene amounts of money is only part of the reason why.) 

Edited January 12 by Annber03

[Anela]

19 minutes ago, Dimity said:

I don't think most people hate wealthy people (envious? sure, but they don't hate them) what people are seeing now is enormous wealth held by relatively few people and they are justifiably concerned about the implications of that.  I think working class people are just as concerned about that as anyone else.  Except the delusional (and this isn't just limited to working class, whatever that term even means anymore) who think they too will be outrageously wealthy one day.

Yes, the enormously wealthy like Bezos. 

Also, the Kardashians, when it comes to their calling out the mayor, after they used more water than they were supposed to, when everyone was supposed to limit their water usage in Southern California. 

12 minutes ago, PRgal said:

Except when I hear people who criticize those who send their children to private schools, I assume they also mean anyone who is slightly above-above average income.  Definitely NOT billionaires. Not even CLOSE.  This is why you hear a lot of upper middle class young people talk about "slumming." 

Why would they talk about “slumming”? Wouldn’t that make them arrogant? Thinking they’re above others?

Edited January 12 by Anela

[peacheslatour]

4 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

It's the obscenely wealthy people who do things like buy politicians that are the target of the anger of all.of the rest of us. The Koch brothers did it.  Then Sheldon Adelston and now Musk.  Sure there has always been wealthy donors who would want things in return but Citizens United opened up the piggy banks and now they don't have to hide their corruption.   Money in politics is the root of so many of our problems.

And it's not just politics.  The lack of affordable housing can be traced to more and more private equity firms buying up houses and using them as rental properties. After the 2008 crash they bought a lot of foreclosed homes and offered to rent them to the original mortgage holder.  At two and three times the amount of their mortgage.  

Red Lobster filing for bankruptcy wasn't because of unlimited shrimp although that didn't help.  A private equity firm bought Red Lobster and with that the real estate the restaurants sat on.   They started charging them outrageous rents.  The greed is becoming unstainable for all the rest of us.

That happened here with Bartell Drugs, a wonderful family owned chain that everybody shopped at. They were purchased by Rite Aid who immediately sold all the assets, gutted the stores of inventory and cut down employed workers. They're now ghosts of their former selves with nothing on the shelves, spotty associates and crappy products. They're closing stores all over the area. Vulture Capitalism at it's most voracious. We're going to be seeing pharmacy deserts in the very near future and who is going to scoop up the business? Amazon, of course.

[bluegirl147]

10 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

Working class person here, and "hate" is a strong word, but I also firmly believe people like Musk and Zuckerberg should not be allowed to have as much money as they do. I think we absolutely need a cap on that sort of thing and we should tax the shit out of the rich. 

But I can understand people who do hate them.  I mean they seem to hate us.  I used to work for a food service company. They were part of (small) corporation and every year with the budget they were always told to cut labor costs. Now it wasn't like there was less work to do.  They just wanted to pay less people to do it.

What did Musk do when he bought Twitter? Laid off a bunch of employees. What did Mitt Romney do when him and his company would take over other companies?  Lay off employees.  And they always get applauded for it.  Cutting costs they say is good for business.  I never see rhe media do stories on what happens to those people considered costs cut.

Edited January 12 by bluegirl147

[Dimity]

3 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

What did Musk do when he bought Twitter? Laid off a bunch of employees. What did Mitt Romney do when him and his company would take over other companies?  Lay off employees.  And they always get applauded for it.  Cutting costs they say is good for business.

Musk, a foreign born billionaire is about to implement major cuts throughout the civil service.  If the US is anything like Canada a lot of people will applaud that as they perceive civil servants very negatively. 

[bluegirl147]

2 minutes ago, Dimity said:

Musk, a foreign born billionaire is about to implement major cuts throughout the civil service.  If the US is anything like Canada a lot of people will applaud that as they perceive civil servants very negatively. 

Same here.   People look at them as part of an unnecessary bureaucracy. They are also jealous of their benefits. Meanwhile they could take a civil service exam but don't.

[tearknee]

55 minutes ago, Anela said:

Same. 

I love her, and I think she really cares about helping everyone.  

I’ve seen a lot of people angry at the billionaires, calling them out. 

Activists? Or the ordinary people who don't give a shi-care about politics?

[kittykat]

4 hours ago, peacheslatour said:

Same here. Although it cracks me up how some of the most zealous Bernie supporters are also the ones that wouldn't shut up for a second about Biden's age.

A lot of them also went for Trump this election cycle.

 

3 hours ago, peacheslatour said:

After the Both Sides Are Bad discussion we had here the other day, I've been ruminating on exactly which rights the big bad left is supposed to have taken away from Americans the way the right has with voting rights, Roe, marriage equality and coming to a Republican legislature near you contraception, freedom of movement, no fault divorce, a whole slew of privacy laws. Name one thing any Democratic legislature has done that's come even close.

Daring to make a more equal ground for non white males and women.  They're seriously trying to further entrench that their privileges remain intact.

[PRgal]

25 minutes ago, Anela said:

Yes, the enormously wealthy like Bezos. 

Also, the Kardashians, when it comes to their calling out the mayor, after they used more water than they were supposed to, when everyone was supposed to limit their water usage in Southern California. 

Why would they talk about “slumming”? Wouldn’t that make them arrogant? Thinking they’re above others?

I last heard the term 20 years ago.  By "slumming," they mean they don't want to look like they're better off and an easy target.  This usually pertains to road trips.  They'll rent a beat up car, for example.

[tearknee]

40 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

Working class person here, and "hate" is a strong word, but I also firmly believe people like Musk and Zuckerberg should not be allowed to have as much money as they do. I think we absolutely need a cap on that sort of thing and we should tax the shit out of the rich. 

(I will say that I absolutely despise guys like Musk and Zuckerberg, but the fact they have obscene amounts of money is only part of the reason why.) 

You are interested actively in poli-social issues.

Ordinary (i.e. most) people are not.

Also did to you go to college or university? Live in a decent area?

A working-class *background* is *not* the same as working-class.

[Annber03]

12 minutes ago, tearknee said:

You are interested actively in poli-social issues.

Ordinary (i.e. most) people are not.

Also did to you go to college or university? Live in a decent area?

A working-class *background* is *not* the same as working-class.

I took one semester of community college and never wound up graduating. That's it. That's the extent of my post K-12 schooling. And the areas I live in - they weren't crime ridden, but they weren't exactly upscale or fancy, they were about as working class as it gets.

When I say I am "working class" I mean I am very literally working class. My family has never once gotten to middle class status in our entire lives. I grew up in a trailer park as a kid. My family has rented every place we've ever lived, never owned a home. I and my family have worked minimum wage jobs. Even now, despite having a decent paying office job, my mom and I still live in a tiny apartment on the top floor of someone else's house because that's all we're able to afford, as many homes here are not cheap to rent, let alone buy. 

So yeah. Trust me when I say that I know of what I speak when it comes to working class backgrounds. 

And I know a lot of people aren't interested in poli-social issues. Which is a large part of why we're in the mess we're in. 

[bluegirl147]

39 minutes ago, PRgal said:

I last heard the term 20 years ago.  By "slumming," they mean they don't want to look like they're better off and an easy target.  This usually pertains to road trips.  They'll rent a beat up car, for example.

My definition of slumming is someone doing something they consider beneath them but is getting something out of it.  A lot of times in relation to dating/sleeping with someone not in their social circle.

10 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

I took one semester of community college and never wound up graduating. That's it. That's the extent of my post K-12 schooling. And the areas I live in - they weren't crime ridden, but they weren't exactly upscale or fancy, they were about as working class as it gets.

When I say I am "working class" I mean I am very literally working class. My family has never once gotten to middle class status in our entire lives. I grew up in a trailer park as a kid. My family has rented every place we've ever lived, never owned a home. I and my family have worked minimum wage jobs. Even now, despite having a decent paying office job, my mom and I still live in a tiny apartment on the top floor of someone else's house because that's all we're able to afford, as many homes here are not cheap to rent, let alone buy. 

So yeah. Trust me when I say that I know of what I speak when it comes to working class backgrounds. 

And I know a lot of people aren't interested in poli-social issues. Which is a large part of why we're in the mess we're in. 

I am and always have been working class.  I currently live in a mobile home but I do own the land it sits on.  I am not college educated but have had people assume that I am.  I take pride in that. I have a job now that pays me more than I have ever made but I am still what would be considered low income.  I rely on the ACA for my insurance and fear that next year it will either be made unaffordable or canceled.  I am not someone Republican politicians would ever be interested in talking to.   I don't have any money or inclination to vote for them so I don't even exist in their minds.

Edited January 12 by bluegirl147

[Anela]

40 minutes ago, tearknee said:

Activists? Or the ordinary people who don't give a shi-care about politics?

Not activists, although activists are also regular people. Are you aware of how many people know who the Kardashians are? I don't watch their show, but I saw the news about them ignoring instructions that everyone had, when it came to water usage. If it's okay to call out hypocritical politicians who ignored their own rules for covid protection, why isn't it okay to call out billionaires, and expect them to pay their fair share? We are always just getting by, and my dad's initial tax calculation had him owing $10,000, in 2023, which we have never had. It was way too much. He got it wittled down a bit, but still owed at least $6000. If my Regular Joe dad can pay more than he can afford, these billionaires can pay what they can easily afford.

39 minutes ago, PRgal said:

I last heard the term 20 years ago.  By "slumming," they mean they don't want to look like they're better off and an easy target.  This usually pertains to road trips.  They'll rent a beat up car, for example.

Ohhh, okay. Thank you for explaining. 

Edited January 12 by Anela

[tres bien]

Today I read that Governor Abbott (R TX) is sending 135 firefighters to CA he released a heartfelt statement praising the firefighters and sending condolences and prayers to the fire victims. I was touched because he’s usually someone that I believe is awful 

On the other hand I saw a video clip of Senator Brasso (R WY) on today’s Face the Nation. Host Margret Brennen asked him will CA continue to receive aid from the federal government after Trump takes office. In the annuals of the we don’t give a shit about CA party Brasso answered “I expect there will be strings attached to money that’s ultimately approved “. Of course you do 

And as for Head MAGA he has consistently sent out mean absurd criticisms of the governor never failing to call him by the stupid mean girl name he finds funny. Not one word of thanks to firefighters risking their lives or concern for the families and victims that have lost their lives or homes and everything they owned

Oh but whatever Joe Biden’s old and Kamala cackled