Chit-Chat: The Feels

[Is Everyone Gone]

35 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Well technically, being a pro-life Catholic means from the womb to the tomb, and the Church is against capital punishment. She just may well be someone who read past the anti-abortion section. 

She might also be pro-life in thinking that all lives have value, including LGBT people.

[tearknee]

Trump just signs whatever gets put in front of him and then the real rulers laugh once they are out of the room.

[Dimity]

40 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

The only poltiical stunt that will backfire is the purging of the Kennedy Center board and replacing it with Trump loyalists. Now they can have their own performing arts center for Kid Rock and Lee Greenwood to perform. Broadway still exists and people can still get their musical theater fix there  or catch a touring company in another city. 

I'm still not sure how he thinks this will backfire on Lin-Manuel.  Along with winning a Pulitzer, a few Tonys and a handful of other awards he's already a Kennedy Centre  Honouree. 

Oh no maybe Trump won't invite him golfing...

Edited 21 hours ago by Dimity

[Notabug]

12 minutes ago, Dimity said:

I'm still not sure how he thinks this will backfire on Lin-Manuel.  Along with winning a Pulitzer, a few Tonys and a handful of other awards he's already a Kennedy Centre  Honouree. 

Oh no maybe Trump won't invite him golfing...

Lin-Manuel's Hamilton has already grossed over $1 billion at the box office.  As author of the piece, he has earned over $100,000 weekly during the Broadway run, not counting any of the touring companies which also pay him part of their take.  Hamilton is now in its 10th year on Broadway, we can all do the math.  He also starred in the original Broadway production and the Disney channel special, but that's small potatoes compared to the rest.

I really don't think Lin-Manuel Miranda is worried that MAGA is going to bankrupt him or destroy his career or legacy.

Edited 21 hours ago by Notabug

[Lugal]

1 hour ago, tearknee said:

Most importantly, "Palestine" has no territory over which is exercises sovereignty, which is the most basic requirement of statehood. All of Judaea and Samaria (the West Bank) is controlled directly or indirectly by Israel, and Gaza is currently being fought over by Israel and Hamas. It is a puzzle how the "friends of Palestine" can on the one hand assert that Palestine is a sovereign state, while on the other hand denouncing the Israeli occupation of that state's territory.

Palestine is a state in Gaza and the West bank, but Israel has been undermining that sovereignty by illegally occupying and settling the West Bank since 1967 in violation of international law (UNSC Resolution 2334) and it illegally occupied and settled Gaza until 2005.

1 hour ago, tearknee said:

The main argument against recognition is that it would reward the Palestinian leadership for their decades of rejectionism and refusal to negotiate seriously with Israel to secure a real, as opposed to fake, Palestinian state. If the Palestinian leadership had been willing to give up their fantasy of destroying Israel and driving the Jews into the sea, there would have been a real Palestinian state decades ago - and a much bigger one than any they are likely to secure in the future. Rewarding Palestinian rejectionism with diplomatic recognition of their fantasy state would send exactly the wrong message.

The Palestinians rejected UNGA 181 because it violated the right to self determination of the Arab majority in Palestine (which was backed up by the 1947 UNSCOP Report in Chapter II, Paragraph 176). Because the Arabs rejected the takeover of half their country, Ben-Gurion used it an excuse to take more than half.  Palestinians did accept the 1967 borders and limited return of refugees.  Netanyahu has promised there would never be a Palestinian state for over a decade, and any limited self-rule arrangement would involve an IDF permanent presence in the West Bank.

For all the talk of Palestinian rejectionism, the counteroffers and proposals that Israel has rejected are never mentioned.  Shlomo Ben Ami, Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs and one of the main negotiators at Camp David later said: “Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well.”

[ProudMary]

6 hours ago, tres bien said:

Looking at the democrats landscape today for 2028 it’s a desert. It’s almost like Joe Biden was the dems last chance of a white male candidate that is just a regular guy. The overall electorate seems to abhor any one of color, a female or a non straight person being fit to be president 

Many others here have shared this same opinion. I only quoted yours because it's fresh.

I disagree. US voters have already proven that they'll elect a person of color, not just once, but twice! Kamala Harris didn't lose because she's Black/Asian. She lost because she has a uterus. 

I first started to worry that VP Harris might lose when early voting opened in GA. Turnout was amazing across almost all the groups Dems would want to see, except one: Black men were turning out well below 2020 and nowhere near their turnout for 2008 and 2012. 

The majority of men in this country don't want a woman as president. Racism will always be an issue, but misogyny is also incredibly strong. I think the Dems should run a Black man in 2028. My personal choice would be Cory Booker, but others may emerge.

However, I'm kind of tired of reading about how the Democrats lost because they did this wrong, and this wrong, and this wrong. The Democrats lost because the Republicans suppressed the vote at every level. First, Citizens United. Then, SCOTUS gutting the Voting Rights Act because America dared to elect a Black man to the presidency twice. That made it easier to gerrymander CDs making it harder for Dems to keep the House. Purged voter rolls. Voter ID requirements. Polling places eliminated in areas where public transit exists, moving the new polling places to areas only  accessible by car. Not allowing church groups to bus voters to polling places on Sundays in areas that had early voting on Sundays. Ridiculous laws prohibiting people from distributing water to voters waiting in the resulting, incredibly long lines. Threats against election workers. SIXTY, count em, SIXTY bomb threats at Georgia polling places in predominantly Black districts. And much more.

If there is any chance of outvoting the suppression, the Democrats must find ways to sway the huge group of eligible people who consistently do not vote. I think this needs to be at a one-to-one level and truthfully, ups the tension a bit. When canvassing/door knocking, one is given a list of addresses in the area for residents who at some point in the past have shown themselves to lean Democratic. The conversation the canvasser engages in is probably going to be with a like-minded person. Moving forward, Dems need to engage with people who never vote. That's much tougher to do. More than a third of voting-age Americans just don't vote. I hope smarter people than I am are thinking about ways to reach them.

[peacheslatour]

7 minutes ago, Dimity said:

link

 

Link is borked. 😔

[partofme]

17 hours ago, kittykat said:

Oh God not Newsom.  I'm from California originally and all my blue friends and family are not Newsom fans.  Too old guard establishment.

I don’t like Newsom because of the way he treated the homeless in his state.  

[Lugal]

20 minutes ago, tearknee said:

The Arabs even rejected Peel, which only gave the Jews 20%.

For the same reasons they rejected UNGA 181 because it violated the right to self determination of the Arab People.  Why should they give up "only" 20% of their country?

And the Munich massacre and Klinghoffer affairs were acts of terrorism and I condemn them, just like I condemn the Deir Yassin Massacre and the King David Hotel Bombing.

[tearknee]

Just now, Lugal said:

For the same reasons they rejected UNGA 181 because it violated the right to self determination of the Arab People.  Why should they give up "only" 20% of their country?

And the Munich massacre and Klinghoffer affairs were acts of terrorism and I condemn them, just like I condemn the Deir Yassin Massacre and the King David Hotel Bombing.

Refusing to compromise and demanding 100% of the prize was a shitty move. If you proclaim Might ["majority"] Means Right, you don't get to ask for takesie backsies when the other side proves to have More Might.

As noted by the modern Arab political class, Deir Yassin was blown all out of proportion by the extremist leader Husseini. So, you are still parroting pseudo-history.

[Ohiopirate02]

3 minutes ago, ProudMary said:

However, I'm kind of tired of reading about how the Democrats lost because they did this wrong, and this wrong, and this wrong. The Democrats lost because the Republicans suppressed the vote at every level. First, Citizens United. Then, SCOTUS gutting the Voting Rights Act because America dared to elect a Black man to the presidency twice. That made it easier to gerrymander CDs making it harder for Dems to keep the House. Purged voter rolls. Voter ID requirements. Polling places eliminated in areas where public transit exists, moving the new polling places to areas only  accessible by car. Not allowing church groups to bus voters to polling places on Sundays in areas that had early voting on Sundays. Ridiculous laws prohibiting people from distributing water to voters waiting in the resulting, incredibly long lines. Threats against election workers. SIXTY, count em, SIXTY bomb threats at Georgia polling places in predominantly Black districts. And much more.

If there is any chance of outvoting the suppression, the Democrats must find ways to sway the huge group of eligible people who consistently do not vote. I think this needs to be at a one-to-one level and truthfully, ups the tension a bit. When canvassing/door knocking, one is given a list of addresses in the area for residents who at some point in the past have shown themselves to lean Democratic. The conversation the canvasser engages in is probably going to be with a like-minded person. Moving forward, Dems need to engage with people who never vote. That's much tougher to do. More than a third of voting-age Americans just don't vote. I hope smarter people than I am are thinking about ways to reach them.

I want to add to the bolded part--requiring voter ID at the same time the state cuts funding to the departments who issue said ID. I think I have mentioned this before, but my state passed a voter ID amendment. For most people the only available ID option is a state issued drivers license or state ID done through the DMV. As this was going on, the state moved the DMV for my county from an easily accessible shopping center to a place in the middle of nowhere right on the edge of the county. And the new location is not on the bus routes in the main city of my county. Everyone who does not drive has to find their own transportation to get a state ID now, and some of them live 15-20 miles away from the office. Then they cut the staff in the office and the average wait time to snag an appointment is 1 month which also has to be done online. You can try to show up without an appointment, but that means being at the DMV before it opens to wait in line along with everyone else who's trying to walk-in. And again, the location is out in the middle of nowhere so you cannot walk to grab a bite to eat while you wait for an opening. I hope they have a public restroom there, I really do not know. Then you have to wait to receive your ID. The state no longer prints the ID at the location. It's now done at the capital and mailed out to you. If Trump and Musk do succeed in privatizing the post office, then many of the rural residents in nearby (to me) counties will have a hard time getting their ID.

But at least our polling places including early voting locations are easy to get to and do take into consideration the size of our county.

[Calvada]

34 minutes ago, Dimity said:

Brought to you by the guy who bankrupted 6 casinos...

 

It's the same with the IRS.  Cutting the IRS increases the chances tax cheats can get away with it, thus lessening revenue into US coffers.  To Republicans, tax crimes only matter when they are committed by the son of a Democratic president.  

[Eri]

44 minutes ago, ProudMary said:

The majority of men in this country don't want a woman as president. Racism will always be an issue, but misogyny is also incredibly strong. I think the Dems should run a Black man in 2028. My personal choice would be Cory Booker, but others may emerge.

I agree with this; I thought this country might finally be mature enough to handle a woman president...apparently not (but they can somehow accept the HIGHLY EMOTIONAL and VOLATILE actions of a manchild and his bulldog) - make it make sense! :(

I really like Wes Moore - no major skeletons in the closet as far as I've seen.

• He's young but well educated
• He doesn't want to control my body
• He's a military veteran
• He's worked on Wall Street
• He's an author
• Has a healthy marriage
• Overall seems well rounded and liked by moderates
• Interested in progressive policies
• Very people-oriented and generally likable

He just needs more time in office to get the experience to know the game. He's one of the stronger Democratic governors right now in battleground states next to Shapiro, Kelly and Beshear. He also assigned the Maryland National Guard to North Carolina after Hurricane Helene (which stood out to me) so he's willing to help his neighbors even if they hate him.

44 minutes ago, ProudMary said:

If there is any chance of outvoting the suppression, the Democrats must find ways to sway the huge group of eligible people who consistently do not vote. I think this needs to be at a one-to-one level and truthfully, ups the tension a bit. When canvassing/door knocking, one is given a list of addresses in the area for residents who at some point in the past have shown themselves to lean Democratic. The conversation the canvasser engages in is probably going to be with a like-minded person. Moving forward, Dems need to engage with people who never vote. That's much tougher to do. More than a third of voting-age Americans just don't vote. I hope smarter people than I am are thinking about ways to reach them.

Maxwell Frost said it best:

"Democrats, number one, you have to make a decision. Are you gonna be the minority, or are you gonna be the opposition? You travel the world and you see that parties, when they're not in power in government, they're not called the minority party. They're called the opposition party, and they think that's what we need.

We are sleepwalking as a country towards an authoritarian government and losing our democracy in a constitutional crisis. And authoritarians and neo fascists come to power throughout history when there is no real opposition. And so we have to be the opposition as Democrats in Congress."

Why Dems can't agree on this as a coalition bloc, I don't know, but they need to find their footing on that question and soon. It's precisely why I'm tired of them throwing up their hands saying they no longer have the House or Senate. So what!? Even if they don't have legislative power anymore doesn't mean they don't have political power and they need to be using it to the fullest extent of their abilities. 

None of them should be working with Republicans on ANYTHING. Not while they're confirming unqualified candidates, killing jobs and funding to institutions they dislike, whitewashing history, and censuring politicians who dares to speak out against this madness. And certainly not with this impending spending bill/govt shutdown looming.

Edited 19 hours ago by Eri

[Makai]

1 hour ago, partofme said:

I don’t like Newsom because of the way he treated the homeless in his state.  

I’m often torn on Newsom. He is a highly effective politician and he is a scumbag. There are a lot of things that he has done that I really like but he hasn’t effectively handled the biggest issues like homelessness or the housing crisis. 

[tres bien]

If the democrats were to run a black man Wes Moore would be good choice. I’ve always thought that governors have an upper hand versus a senator mainly because they have an actual record to run on  and tout

I hope the democrats don’t get into infighting and before you know it there’s a dozen candidates (2020) or one candidate with a few long shots (2016)

 

 

[kittykat]

 

10 minutes ago, Makai said:

I’m often torn on Newsom. He is a highly effective politician and he is a scumbag. There are a lot of things that he has done that I really like but he hasn’t effectively handled the biggest issues like homelessness or the housing crisis. 

Agreed.  And the whole high speed rail from LA to Vegas and SF has been an epic fail this far.  I love California but when it comes to wasteful government spending they have not done themselves any favors. Housing in my hometown is even higher than the greater Seattle area, which is saying something.  I know Harris has been floated as a possible successor as governor, which might be interesting.

[tearknee]

Any Democratic (or British Labour Party) woman can be stereotyped as a radfem to the floating voters.

 

That's why leaders who break the glass ceiling tend to be Tory or Republican (Thatcher, Kim Campbell et al).

[annzeepark914]

Newsom has too much baggage. And none of the 2020 primary candidates need apply either. We need new faces. And before the midterm, Democrats need to figure out once & for all if Musk had anything to do with the 2024 election results.

[Absolom]

7 hours ago, fairffaxx said:

Would ignoring the person who quoted the ignored poster prevent the ignored content from being displayed?  I'm going to try that.

Yes, it should, but you would likely be cutting out quite a number of posters because you'd be ignoring everyone who responded to that person.  Of course, you could bypass a lot of arguments that way. 

[Anela]

14 minutes ago, tearknee said:

Any Democratic (or British Labour Party) woman can be stereotyped as a radfem to the floating voters.

 

That's why leaders who break the glass ceiling tend to be Tory or Republican (Thatcher, Kim Campbell et al).

Bur radical misogynists are just fine, apparently. They're elected all the time. 

[Absolom]

6 hours ago, Intuition said:

So you think that ignoring someone you agree with just because they replied to someone you ignored is a fair solution? So all of us have to worry that we'll get penalized if we have the nerve to respond to someone that doesn't agree with the majority here? I'd rethink that if I were you. At some point it becomes petty. How hard could it be to just scroll past those posts? Don't make the rest of us afraid that we're going to be ignored if we dare to reply to someone.

You feel "penalized" because someone might not want to see your response to something they didn't want to see anyway?  You might be surprised how many of us "soft ignore" responses when we see the quote.  I don't usually read anything written by the selected group and I don't usually read anything responding to them unless something catches my eye skimming along.  I don't view that as penalizing you or any other poster.  I view it as protecting myself from arguments or discussions that I see as an irritant or a waste of my time.

[tearknee]

2 minutes ago, Anela said:

Bur radical misogynists are just fine, apparently. They're elected all the time. 

familiarity. Progressives and radicals tend to want to upend things. Not a problem in NYS or Washington State but a bit more of a problem in the states in the EC that aren't them.

[Dimity]

19 minutes ago, tearknee said:

That's why leaders who break the glass ceiling tend to be Tory or Republican (Thatcher, Kim Campbell et al).

Is there another Kim Campbell because the Canadian one basically took the fall for Mulroney.  She was never elected PM. 

She rocks IMO though if for no other reason than she disavows Pierre Poilevre:

 

[tearknee]

2 minutes ago, Dimity said:

Is there another Kim Campbell because the Canadian one basically took the fall for Mulroney.  She was never elected PM. 

She rocks IMO though if for no other reason than she disavows Pierre Poilevre:

 

She was still the first woman PM. But you're right that parties turn to a woman when "We're not sinking! WE'RE CRASHING!"

Edited 17 hours ago by tearknee

[Eri]

Republicans have a history of putting unqualified black or POC in power so when they screw up, people think it's because they're black or POC, not because they're Republicans - they do the same with women. 

Think of all the minority or women candidates they've put forth in the last 15-20 years. The most clownish of clowns.

[Anela]

21 minutes ago, tearknee said:

familiarity. Progressives and radicals tend to want to upend things. Not a problem in NYS or Washington State but a bit more of a problem in the states in the EC that aren't them.

And then they vote for the men who will do their best to upend any rights that the rest of us in all fifty States, who aren't men, white, or hetero, have acquired in the last 50-100 years, and the women who are stupid enough to align with them. 

Republicans are radical. They are extremists. 

Edited 17 hours ago by Anela

[tearknee]

Looks at the 2023 Aboriginal referendum here in my adopted country where our friends on the left didn't know when it is smarter to shut the hell up and not say 'always was, always will be', everywhere you stand, you're on Aboriginal land' and other similar stuff. 

[Makai]

It’s worth noting that the problem of who to run in 2028, I as big, if not, bigger for the Republicans. I feel like all the previous candidates and top names are non-starters. Trump is going to do a lot of the work of building opposition on his own with all the face eating happening. 

[Anela]

13 minutes ago, tearknee said:

Looks at the 2023 Aboriginal referendum here in my adopted country where our friends on the left didn't know when it is smarter to shut the hell up and not say 'always was, always will be', everywhere you stand, you're on Aboriginal land' and other similar stuff. 

But it is, isn't it? Just like here, with the Native Americans, where our ancestors stole their land. 

A lot of the Republicans here, think this country belongs to white people. It doesn't. 

[isalicat]

6 hours ago, Milk-Eyed Mender said:

er the BBC, a pro-Palestinian group has vandalized the president's Turnberry golf property. I don't approve of this sort of thing, but I understand it. Since he's loudly and proudly declared a desire to raze Gaza and turn it into a playground for the wealthy, actions such as this are bound to happen. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

"I don't approve of this sort of thing..." "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." So which is it - you either approve or you don't, and I presume from your last sentence you do approve. How does vandalizing a golf property help the Palestinians? Sincerely asking because "this sort of thing" is exactly what has turned the general public in a direction I'm not sure the protestors were intending.

(This is also true when the homes of several major university presidents were vandalized by pro-Palestinian operatives. Completely non-productive, in my estimation.)

6 hours ago, Bliss said:

Copied & pasted from today's news:

(Bolded - to point out the "waste".)

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump’s insistence on playing golf at his Florida courses has now cost American taxpayers more than $18 million since he regained the presidency, setting him on a pace to exceed the $151.5 million he spent in his first term, according to a HuffPost analysis.

On Saturday, Trump is playing golf for the 13th day of his 48 in office. It was his 10th day playing at his course in West Palm Beach, across the Intracoastal Waterway from his Mar-a-Lago country club home and adjacent to the Palm Beach County Jail.

He spent another three days at his course in Doral, just east of the main runways at Miami International Airport.

According to a 2019 Government Accountability Office report examining the first four trips Trump took to Mar-a-Lago during his first administration, each one costs $3,383,250 — a sum based on 2017 dollars that is likely higher now.

Trump and his entourage fly down on Air Force One while the military brings down the vehicles for his motorcade on C-17 transports. Because Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, straddles the width of the barrier island, police boats with machine guns mounted on the bows patrol the Intracoastal while a Coast Guard vessel is stationed off the beach in the Atlantic. Additional costs include law enforcement and explosive-sniffing dogs.

On his first trip after retaking office to California, Nevada, and, ultimately, his Doral golf resort, reporters aboard Air Force One asked Trump if he would be playing golf on that trip. “No. I don’t think so. I’m busy,” he said.

Two days later, a Fox News reporter posted photos of him playing golf at his Doral course.

Many, many news sources I could quote in reply, but here is just one:

https://www.aol.com/joe-biden-577-vacation-days-123805105.html

[Dimity]

20 minutes ago, Makai said:

It’s worth noting that the problem of who to run in 2028, I as big, if not, bigger for the Republicans. I feel like all the previous candidates and top names are non-starters. Trump is going to do a lot of the work of building opposition on his own with all the face eating happening. 

I can't see him being happy to give up even one iota of power (which is why the way he seems to abdicate so much to Musk is just so totally out of character).  I can see him trying to anoint one of his children, probably Don Jr.  but even the MAGA element may balk at that.

[tres bien]

Governor Walz hasn’t made a decision if he’ll run for a third term in ‘26 he’s also not ruled out a presidential run 

It was a short campaign and I think he wasn’t used effectively by the Harris campaign. Putting Kamala on the stage with Oprah and Liz Cheney was a waste of time IMO

Harris and Walz should have been doing town halls everywhere even in places that were out of their reach. They let Trump gain voters in unlikely places because he showed even if it doing stunts or mimicking a nazi style rally in Madison Square Garden 

I don’t know who in the democrat party has the playbook that they need to start using to get their selves out of the wilderness. But  I think getting a unified message would be a start 

Edited 16 hours ago by tres bien

[bluegirl147]

10 hours ago, tres bien said:

22 minutes ago, Makai said:

It’s worth noting that the problem of who to run in 2028, I as big, if not, bigger for the Republicans. I feel like all the previous candidates and top names are non-starters. Trump is going to do a lot of the work of building opposition on his own with all the face eating happening. 

 

Vance will most likely think he is the heir apparent but I don't seem him getting the nomination.  Cruz might throw his hat back in the ring but he has been awfully quiet lately.  Nikki Haley might try again.  Whoever it is I guarantee they will be just as bad as Trump.

11 hours ago, tres bien said:

 

 

[Dimity]

Just now, bluegirl147 said:

Whoever it is I guarantee they will be just as bad as Trump.

Republicans gonna republic but where almost anyone will differ, I hope, is in the blind loyalty that Trump has got going for him.  Only Trump gets to be Trump.  So far....

[lookeyloo]

20 hours ago, annzeepark914 said:

Jared Polis – Governor of Colorado - remains to be seen.

Gay - so no way. Sadly. 

[peacheslatour]

11 minutes ago, Dimity said:

Republicans gonna republic but where almost anyone will differ, I hope, is in the blind loyalty that Trump has got going for him.  Only Trump gets to be Trump.  So far....

Unfortunately, the issue in the USA is that entertainment media got blended with news, and then with radical extreme rightwing political propaganda, which weaponised the ignorant people by making them irrationally angry about fuckin' made up shit like litterboxes in classrooms and Wokeism. And now are being told that things like "education" and "trade with allies' is a problem that needs to be stopped.

It's not just that the ignorant people were left to get unhappy.

It's that they were cultivated and weaponised.

[isalicat]

34 minutes ago, Anela said:

But it is, isn't it? Just like here, with the Native Americans, where our ancestors stole their land. 

A lot of the Republicans here, think this country belongs to white people. It doesn't. 

And so? Are you getting ready to move to some place where the land was not confiscated by the winning side? Where would that be? (seriously asking, because there is no such place, including anywhere in Europe...or Canada...or anywhere on planet Earth).

[Makai]

32 minutes ago, isalicat said:

Many, many news sources I could quote in reply, but here is just one:

https://www.aol.com/joe-biden-577-vacation-days-123805105.html

Breaking Down How Much Time Biden Spent on Vacation While President – It's Not 40%
 

Quote

A claim popularized by the Republican National Committee (RNC) that former U.S. President Joe Biden spent 40% of his presidency on vacation stretched the truth. The RNC treated partial days outside of the White House as full days on vacation, made outright errors in its calculations and included locations that are not always used as vacation settings in its analysis. 

Due to the duties of the office, the president is never truly on vacation. Therefore, Snopes focused on determining how many days Biden spent in a vacation setting, which was about 117 or 118 full days, or about 8% of his presidency, depending on which source you use (his public calendar or pool reports). Biden also spent an additional 66 partial days in a vacation setting, or about 4.5% of his presidency. 

 

[PRgal]

9 minutes ago, isalicat said:

And so? Are you getting ready to move to some place where the land was not confiscated by the winning side? Where would that be? (seriously asking, because there is no such place, including anywhere in Europe...or Canada...or anywhere on planet Earth).

And before anyone says Thailand, they may not have been colonized by any European countrymen, but they were occupied by Japan during WWII.  

[isalicat]

7 minutes ago, Makai said:

Due to the duties of the office, the president is never truly on vacation.

So, do you extend that courtesy to Trump as well? (not a Trump voter here, by the way...just interested in fairness)

[Makai]

1 minute ago, isalicat said:

So, do you extend that courtesy to Trump as well? (not a Trump voter here, by the way...just interested in fairness)

My post wasn’t out of courtesy to Biden. When I see information that seems unlikely to me, I like to check the source out myself. 

Generally speaking, how much time each president spends on vacation is low priority to me. 

[bluegirl147]

38 minutes ago, peacheslatour said:

Unfortunately, the issue in the USA is that entertainment media got blended with news, and then with radical extreme rightwing political propaganda, which weaponised the ignorant people by making them irrationally angry about fuckin' made up shit like litterboxes in classrooms and Wokeism. And now are being told that things like "education" and "trade with allies' is a problem that needs to be stopped.

It's not just that the ignorant people were left to get unhappy.

It's that they were cultivated and weaponised.

You know what the most scary thing is to a Republican politician?  An informed voter.  It's why Trump said he loved the uneducated. It's why they want to dismantle the Department of Education.  They hope if they leave it up to the states blue states will also become undereducated.  They are doing their best to make us a true idiocracy.

7 minutes ago, Makai said:

 

Generally speaking, how much time each president spends on vacation is low priority to me. 

But how much money they spend on vacations should be noted.  Biden went home to Delaware.  A lot cheaper to do than traveling to Florida pretty much on a weekly basis.

[Makai]

7 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

But how much money they spend on vacations should be noted.  Biden went home to Delaware.  A lot cheaper to do than traveling to Florida pretty much on a weekly basis.

I do agree with that. Particularly, because Trump and republicans have made spending the main focus. Don’t tell me all these drastic cuts and layoffs that are hurting the economy are necessary while you approach the presidency as a rich tourist. 

[annzeepark914]

1 hour ago, peacheslatour said:

Unfortunately, the issue in the USA is that entertainment media got blended with news, and then with radical extreme rightwing political propaganda, which weaponised the ignorant people by making them irrationally angry about fuckin' made up shit like litterboxes in classrooms and Wokeism. And now are being told that things like "education" and "trade with allies' is a problem that needs to be stopped.

It's not just that the ignorant people were left to get unhappy.

It's that they were cultivated and weaponised.

I know too many folks with advanced degrees who are Trumpers. Not sure what their excuse is, other than not wanting to pay any taxes.

[Anela]

1 hour ago, isalicat said:

And so? Are you getting ready to move to some place where the land was not confiscated by the winning side? Where would that be? (seriously asking, because there is no such place, including anywhere in Europe...or Canada...or anywhere on planet Earth).

The winning side?? Trump was considering removing the birthright citizenship of Native Americans. What the actual fuck? https://www.juneauempire.com/news/birthright-citizenship-of-native-americans-questioned-by-trump-administration/

And this country still does not belong to white people. 

[peacheslatour]

8 minutes ago, annzeepark914 said:

I know too many folks with advanced degrees who are Trumpers. Not sure what their excuse is, other than not wanting to pay any taxes.

And anyone who have been in a room with bunch of smart people would tell you they're not exactly the best at managing resources or even having a common goal. They can argue ad nauseum and have infinite things to try. And for a group survival this can be very detrimental.

 

Edited 15 hours ago by peacheslatour

[supposebly]

You don't need a degree to read a decent article. However if there's no decent journalism that aims for nonpartisan information, you have uninformed voters who vote emotionally and shortsightedly. Fascist regimes thrive on misinformation. Just ask Joseph Goebbels.

It's just now done by privatizing media, leaving it to private companies to control the flow of misinformation, something they have no interest in since it costs money, trapping people in echo chambers taking advantage of our lazy brain's tendency to go with our biases. Education helps but media literacy has to be learned. Especially today.

[peacheslatour]

1 minute ago, supposebly said:

You don't need a degree to read a decent article. However if there's no decent journalism that aims for nonpartisan information, you have uninformed voters who vote emotionally and shortsightedly. Fascist regimes thrive on misinformation. Just ask Joseph Goebbels.

It's just now done by privatizing media, leaving it to private companies to control the flow of misinformation, something they have no interest in since it costs money, trapping people in echo chambers taking advantage of our lazy brain's tendency to go with our biases. Education helps but media literacy has to be learned. Especially today.

Have you ever noticed that a lot of the factual, verifiable and deeply researched news organizations all have pay walls, while garbage like Fox and News Max are free?

[bluegirl147]

Echo chambers and silos are problem but at some point even those protected areas are pierced by reality.  What Trump and Musk are doing is going to affect everyone. Now to be fair some people may not know who to blame but I'm not going to cut them any slack.  There is too much at stake for people to continue to be willfully ignorant.

[supposebly]

Newspapers have always lived on subscriptions. Are you saying they should be free too? How?

And in Germany and Canada, we still have public broadcasters. And there's the BBC in the UK. I hope it stays that way.