DonkeyCigars

And this is where I diverge from those masses I guess, because I feel like outside of the COVID stimulus bill, which would have been passed in some flavor or another no matter who was President, Biden has largely done not much materially at all to affect the nation, one way or another. If his presidency serves as great optics for stabilization and he talks a good talk (to Democrats and/or Progressives) but largely does nothing because he a) doesn't have the support and/or b) doesn't want to break glass to get things done (e.g. abolish filibuster, take hard stands against Manchin, calling folks out, taking unilateral actions, etc.) then I think that's awesome. Biden as a stabilizing, seat-warmer for 2024 is the best case scenario for me and my ilk and I'm here for it.

So back to the topic: Why hasn't Biden changed anything in 4.5 months? I gave my answer, what do you guys say is the answer?

yea he got that rammed through with his one silver bullet of reconciliation not needing the votes. He can't go back to the well too many times with that one, right? Were you around when this was discussed or no?

1) Green New Deal Support 2) Raise Minimum Wage 3) Raise my taxes as a high income earner 4) Free Tuition / Student Loan Forgiveness 5) Raise corporate taxes to pay for inefficient stuff About the only things I want him to do are: 1) moderate gun reform 2) legalize marijuana That said, I love how the conversation moved from the actual topic of why Biden can't get anything done to "but what about YOU!?". I guess it was a gotcha after all. Sorry JS1

Personally, I don't think that Biden would do much to impact the quality of my life, unlike a Bernie-type. Again, without getting bogged down into the specifics of my personal political positions as they relate to where Biden stands which I don't think anyone here wants (if I wrong, I am happy to oblige I guess this afternoon when I get some time), I was simply answering the question as to why nothing drastically different or negative has befallen. Further, I answered it because I found it interesting and funny that the question was posed almost as if Biden has championed and gotten through a ton of policy when, to my knowledge and I could be wrong, he's really only passed some stimulus for Covid-19 a couple of months ago. Everything else has either been stalled, getting re-worked/whittled down, or proposed lacking the red meat that Democrats really wanted (e.g. student loan forgiveness). Why do you think all that is? Is it not because of a) his own party and b) the existence of the filibuster? Because that was my point. He's been leashed (but even unleashed I'm not sure what is real heart for dramatic change would be; he might love that he's hampered because it provides a great excuse for inaction). Edit to add: I didn't mention it because it seems obvious that expecting/hoping for the other side of the aisle to get on board and vote for things they are in conflict with in a bipartisan way is the epitome of political foolishness. Just wanted to make sure we are all singing from the same sheet of music there.

JS1 posed the question which was essentially "why hasn't Biden done anything negative yet like people who opposed him predicted?" My point was that he's been more or less handcuffed from passing anything too detrimental due to either public influence or a lack of support in his own party. I think he'll eventually abolish the filibuster and get there, but if you tell me that he will be a good, decorum rich President and the rest of his tenure will look like the last 4.5 months-- I think everyone who is waiting for 2024 will call that a win (considering what changes could be enacted).

alrighty then, back to the drawing board. one of these days you'll enjoy a riposte of mine, or i'll die trying.

Because he can't get the votes from his own party and hasn't resorted to abolishing the filibuster yet?

Good luck...I was in since 8$ so I'll take my double up and try to get back in when whatever is going on calms down. Thing didn't move at all with all the good news months ago so I since a rug pull tomorrow or next week I love all the red. I was born in the red. This is home to me. I thrive and love all the red, it just means to buy MOAR!

You need two mirrors, like when you are finished with a haircut so you can see the back of the head.

I read something tonight that further accentuates the points I've tried to make around a) monolithic, institutional "truths" we historically bought in with trust were always only meant for the white/male and for equality/inclusiveness to work in modernity, these things must be broken up like Ma Bell into factional flavors for all representation and b) the paradox of creating more equality and inclusiveness has only served to further divide and entrench us against one other as balkanized fiefdoms of conflicting core beliefs. There is a book called Americanon, which is about how seemingly innocuous bestselling books have served quietly as blueprints for "the good American," molding our common language, culture, and customs. The critique is that there are 13 American canon books that synthesize our national shared thought and ethic historically. They are the best selling books in history as well: Webster's Dictionary, Emily Post's Etiquette, Betty Crocker's Cookbook, Old Farmer's Almanac, Everything You wanted to know about Sex, Dale Carnegie's How to win friends, etc. These are not books as much as utilities to be used, it is argued. The article goes on to show how the strategy of attacking current inequities in American life is done by attacking prior representations of those inequities. Or for the purpose of our conversation, these monolithic, exclusive to white/men/cis/middleupperclass institutions in favor of subverticals and microverticals that provide a lid for every one of the 380mm pots in America. I'll quote some of the article and link it for those who have the time and inclination. I just happened to stumble upon it tonight and thought it topical: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/06/07/what-our-biggest-best-sellers-tell-us-about-a-nations-soul

Baka move, selling for measly profits. I've got all my money in BB averaged ~$15, with tons in calls for the next few weeks. I'm trying to 10x here.

LeBron looks washed. Shame.

Are you accusing me of being a Centrist Democrat?

You will get no disagreement from me on the applications you just described, all I was stating was that the ability to execute so effectively on these stated strategies (and really any strategy where you are giving voice and power to hitherto disconnected and otherwise marginalized people on all sides) was because seemingly overnight the interoperability and connectivity-- the ability to reach, communicate, share-- was decentralized, democratized and at the finger tips of everyone. It would be like giving everyone a gun and then saying why are you blaming the gun for all the gun violence happening with a bunch of factions of people who aren't on the same page of hardly anything and are in conflict with each other that's only ratcheting up in emotion and gravity? It's only a tool.

Toothpaste is out of the tube. Pandora's box. Whatever other idiom you need to hear to understand that we cannot be sufficiently governed and regulated by an old model that does not factor in for the rise of a paradigm where every single person is their own little emperor.

Yes, and what I'm thinking is that the social contract or compact as you call it, is fraying and disconnecting at the fabric. The social contract/compact was between those with influence and power-- as more and more formerly marginalized people gain agency and demand to become stakeholders to the contract, the old contract (and old model/way of thinking as discussed with Brisket) needs to be ripped up and a new one needs to be formed. Or else we will continue even further on the path of living in an unlawful, breach of contract America.

But again, this is where the rub comes in: There is a real possibility (and it is, again, my hypothesis) that because technology has allowed merit to every voice and point of view, that we are living in the beginnings of something like a multi-verse where being "right or wrong" is too binary. Everyone has their own versions of what is right and wrong-- there is no shared value because we all have different perceptions and realities. The old model of shared societal thinking is dead and broken. Maybe to keep pining for it is romance and vanity. "Listening to evidence" doesn't mean anything anymore, in the way you are using it, because there is no shared trust in institutions that were built to provide that for society-- like Journalism as we are talking about here. Science being another-- there are now many subverticals and microverticals of all these once monolithic shared values-- journalism, science, government, politician, celebrity, warriors/soldiers, heroes, businessmen, etc. There is a flavor for everyone, each monetized to maximize profit and each in conflict with the others. Sounds like a bad lyric from RHCP's Californication, but I think that is where we are.

I apologize, I should have looked up the number 400-500, let's call it based on the last thing I read about the folks who were charged for the extremely foolish and stupid actions. I guess I let the photos of those who made it deep inside to the chambers and rooms etc. color my thinking there-- again, apologize. Edit to add: I, in no way, shape or form endorse those deranged people's actions on that day and want to go on record as thinking they are very, very stupid and wrong.

Fair enough, and I think this is the point I was trying to make. What is the alternative in your view to horrific political violence, as you said, in your opinion? Bonus points for an answer that addresses the physiological problem as outlined in the OP.

Same on Village. I enjoyed Unbreakable and the "stealth sequel" of Split. Thought Glass was stupid. This trailer looked awesome. *Ducks*

And here is my hot political opinion that I hope doesn't tailspin us here-- you are right that a true violent test is not improbable which is why it's all the more-- I'll choose my word diplomatically here-- unwise, let's say, to characterize, exaggerate and hyperbolize a couple dozen mentally ill far right people terrorizing the capital building as an "insurrection". The insurrection, if it ever comes, will be a very, very scary and well monied and executed tragedy IMO.

I think a lot of us will live. Just depends on how the battle lines are drawn, who gets the good warfare tech and generals and who does civil war better. I have no idea what that will look like, or when, or ever. While these things have historically ended in blood, there is no doubt we are in a new historical paradigm (again, thanks to technology/internet) without precedence.

You make a point that I was trying to (and failed) in three paragraphs, in two sentences. I'll sign up for your writer workshop.

You joke, I think, but you have a point. When Journalism stopped being a labor of love and a craft of passion, one which appealed to a certain personality driven by certain standards and ideals, and became corporations to make profits and, you lost the essence of what Journalism and the mission was professed to be.