Joe Biden 2021

[DonkeyCigars 144]

8 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

That's a lot of words to literally offer zero suggestions and say...what exactly? We should realize we're different and continue to not get along at all? Not even bother to face the reality that we are a shared country with shared problems even if we're different? You just took about 600 words to make a superfluous illustration to how America is in a bad spot (we know) and offer ZERO ideas or remedies. Where's the part that discussed how we practically live another day? Which is what I requested. 

You are right, in hindsight I mainly just drilled into and tried to articulate the problem statement, didn't I?

I think the risk is that we ignore, or perhaps worse yet just continue to call the 35-40% stupid and assume being shamed or called names will do anything but reinforce their position or invite back deeper entrenchment and resistance. It's like calling your cancer on your skin ugly and stupid and it just doesn't get how it's ruining your life, expecting that to change anything.

I cosigned on the idea that "Media Reform" has to be front and center to any reform if we want to heal. That's the best way to stop the growth from advancing any further. A tourniquet, if you will.

To the question of what is the answer to ever get folks back onboard that doesn't involve a civil war or otherwise bloody conflict? I have to honestly say, I don't have one. I don't even have a good idea of what one could begin to look like. This is what informs my thinking that we are a broken country with a very sizable contingent who really do not like each other. As I said in the other thread, we are roommates in the same building who despise one another but can't move out and there is no other alternative, right now.

Either a good alternative will be ideated and brought to bear (from which I think that person or persons will be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize-- it's that complex and important and difficult a problem to solve, which is why asking me for a solution or being annoyed I don't have an answer is a bit silly) or we will continue to ratchet up the hostilities and internal conflicts until it boils over and explodes again. I think those are the two options and I'm not well-suited to provide value to either as of today.

['stache 21744]

I recognize the fallacy in the "slippery slope" argument, but I do have concerns about anything called "media reform." Remember that the republican minority in this country will often have a majority in the senate, will have an unfair advantage is electing a president, and already owns the entire federal judiciary. Any type of "reform" isn't going to be the type you think would help, it would be the type that makes it worse. Like immunizing fox news and oan from any type of slander, because "free speech" to them is absolute if its something they like, and they like their right wing lie factories. It's just the reality of the situation. The best way to fight misinformation is to keep calling it out and hope that enough people see the lies for what they are, which is not very likely, but needs to continue to be tried.

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Btw - 6.4% Q1 economic growth.

I was told Joe Biden was going to crash the economy and stock market if he was elected. 

Yep. Instead in 100 short days he has built the greatest economy the world has ever seen after his dumbshit predecessor trump drove it straight into a ditch.

Congrats Joe. On behalf of the American people I thank you! Greatest president in history! Thank you Mr. President! 

[washparkhorn 9931]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Btw - 6.4% Q1 economic growth.

Year over year is a good pulse in the right direction, but we are still recovering from an economy cratered 2020 Q1 and Q2.  We are not out of the woods according to the Fed yesterday and we won't be until 2023 if we continue on the same trajectory and maintain safety nets for the economy as a whole. Using standard Keynesian economics - now is the time to invest in Americans - the Golden Goose in our economy.

Austerity lunatics in the Republican Party and Democratic Wall Street will use this data point to rhetorically ask in bad faith - why do we need any more spending on humans? 

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by washparkhorn
humans v. normal corporate/high wealth welfare

[JimmyJames 12271]

How come Biden hasn’t tweeted yet about how great of a speech he gave and the media is treating him and covering it unfairly and why hasn’t everyone thanked him yet for creating the greatest economy in world history? 
 

I mean what exactly is going on in the White House nowadays? 

[DonkeyCigars 144]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

I recognize the fallacy in the "slippery slope" argument, but I do have concerns about anything called "media reform." Remember that the republican minority in this country will often have a majority in the senate, will have an unfair advantage is electing a president, and already owns the entire federal judiciary. Any type of "reform" isn't going to be the type you think would help, it would be the type that makes it worse. Like immunizing fox news and oan from any type of slander, because "free speech" to them is absolute if its something they like, and they like their right wing lie factories. It's just the reality of the situation. The best way to fight misinformation is to keep calling it out and hope that enough people see the lies for what they are, which is not very likely, but needs to continue to be tried.

I think the truth of the matter is what a lot of smart, politically savvy folks on this site like wildcat and captainant and JS1 and these guys who, while I fundamentally disagree with who they are and choose to be by way of their thoughts, beliefs, values and ideals-- they are on the right track and how I would think if I were of like mind. Democrats need to act now with a bravery to rip the band-aid off and if a bloody conflict arises (which is doubtful) then it would have come down the line anyways, might as well get out in front of it. If not, great, you've crippled the 35-40% cancer. That would look like creating huge political reforms and changes to cripple the opposition while you have power:

• Add DC and PR as a state to further your electoral count
• Cripple the more sparsely populated states like WY or ND through a combination
• Or maybe even do away with electoral college and rely on popular vote, which will skew your favor for sure
• Do away with filibuster
• Pack the courts

Essentially do anything and everything within your power to cripple the opposition in a legal, pen-is-mightier-than-the-sword type way. And then from there hope that it works out and you don't have a situation where the opposition thrives on the margin and roars back worse than ever when a bureaucratic machine is inefficient. 

[jimmyjazz 45513]

13 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I recognize the fallacy in the "slippery slope" argument, but I do have concerns about anything called "media reform." Remember that the republican minority in this country will often have a majority in the senate, will have an unfair advantage is electing a president, and already owns the entire federal judiciary. Any type of "reform" isn't going to be the type you think would help, it would be the type that makes it worse. 

I'm pretty sure the FCC's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine was a big factor in fucking our country over.  It allowed the rise of the echo chamber, to whatever degree a particular broadcast outlet cared to be homogenous in their presentation of controversial issues.

[YChang 3430]

26 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm pretty sure the FCC's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine was a big factor in fucking our country over.  It allowed the rise of the echo chamber, to whatever degree a particular broadcast outlet cared to be homogenous in their presentation of controversial issues.

Adding on this... anyone knows why it's not a thing anymore? What's the talking points these days against bringing this back now?

[troph 24549]

14 minutes ago, YChang said:

Adding on this... anyone knows why it's not a thing anymore? What's the talking points these days against bringing this back now?

I think it was done away with during the rise of talk radio in the 90s but I could be wrong. There are no talking points about it, we’ve completely forgotten it.  

[jimmyjazz 45513]

1987.  The argument was that it violated free speech rights.  I think that's rubbish -- broadcast media outlets were in no way prevented from airing their opinions on any particular issue.  Being required to air an opposing viewpoint would not imply a restriction of free speech.  Label it as opposing and move on.  There wasn't even an "equal air time" requirement.

[elfenix 34168]

20 minutes ago, troph said:

I think it was done away with during the rise of talk radio in the 90s but I could be wrong. There are no talking points about it, we’ve completely forgotten it.  

it was done away with prior to the rise of talk radio.  rush debuted a year after repeal. 

Quote

1987.  The argument was that it violated free speech rights.  I think that's rubbish -- broadcast media outlets were in no way prevented from airing their opinions on any particular issue.  Being required to air an opposing viewpoint would not imply a restriction of free speech.  Label it as opposing and move on.  There wasn't even an "equal air time" requirement.

that was the supreme court's 8-0 viewpoint in 1969, at least.  you can say what you want, but you're just a custodian of this limited public resource, not a monopolist of it, so you can be required to air an opposing viewpoint.  the supreme court almost went so far as saying the first amendment required the airing because the goal of the first amendment is an informed populace, iirc. 

Edited April 29, 2021 by elfenix

[wildcat09 29187]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

it was done away with prior to the rise of talk radio.  rush debuted a year after repeal. 

 

Some political talk radio existed before it was repealed (there's a bit of discussion of this in the Behind the Bastards episodes on Rush), but it didn't really stop them because it required an administration that wanted to enforce it. The doctrine probably had an impact on the major networks that wanted to be seen as trustworthy, but they still do want to be seen as trustworthy even though we haven't had the fairness doctrine for decades. The difference is that liars have convinced idiots not to trust them anyway and now there are alternatives that tell people lies they want to hear. 

With the rise of the internet, it would be virtually impossible to implement a modern day version of the fairness doctrine and I can't think of a more horrible weapon to hand to the GOP than the power to regulate what people can be told. The only "fix" to our problem is a better education populace.

[jimmyjazz 45513]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The only "fix" to our problem is a better education populace.

. . . and guess which side largely wants to impede that education.

 

 

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by jimmyjazz
can't type

[wildcat09 29187]

54 minutes ago, elfenix said:

it was done away with prior to the rise of talk radio.  rush debuted a year after repeal. 

that was the supreme court's 8-0 viewpoint in 1969, at least.  you can say what you want, but you're just a custodian of this limited public resource, not a monopolist of it, so you can be required to air an opposing viewpoint.  the supreme court almost went so far as saying the first amendment required the airing because the goal of the first amendment is an informed populace, iirc. 

I'm 100% certain today's SCOTUS would find that argument unpersuasive, at least when made by Democrats (or anyone not interested in brainwashing the public with conservative nonsense). 

Edited April 29, 2021 by wildcat09

[gmr548 16463]

Y’all don’t mind me. After spending the morning with my divorce lawyer, this has me emotional.

Beto’s not gonna appreciate this!

[Willfully Horn 7913]

Good on them. 

[Beau Vine 53965]

The S&P 500 and the Dow closed today at record levels, so I'd like to again congratulate Joe Biden for building the greatest economy the world has ever seen.

[Ghost of LL 15348]

5 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

The S&P 500 and the Dow closed today at record levels, so I'd like to again congratulate Joe Biden for building the greatest economy the world has ever seen.

Is @Johnny Sack now a Democrat because of how great his 401K is doing?

[Bama Chick 28596]

Reinstating The Fairness Doctrine wouldn’t even help now because it doesn’t apply to cable (Fox News/OANN/Newsmax) or the internet (YouTube/Twitter/Facebook).

Fox News and YouTube and Facebook are THE three biggest platforms that enable and encourage information silos.

I truly don’t think that problem is fixable.

[kevwun 15595]

If they keep refusing to get vaccinated, it might work itself out.

[jimmyjazz 45513]

9 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Is @Johnny Sack now a Democrat because of how great his 401K is doing?

Actually, yes.  He and I happened to be on the same Mobile Loaves & Fishes truck today, and afterwards we both schlepped 4 minorities each to get vaccinated.  He managed to get 3 of his registered to vote, but I only succeeded with one.  I asked for his secret, but he was pretty circumspect.

[Willfully Horn 7913]

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

23 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Is @Johnny Sack now a Democrat because of how great his 401K is doing?

He would be. But Biden is also exhibiting  too much wokeness. So he’s torn between the upward 401k and the upward black mobility. 

[Ghost of LL 15348]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

He would be. But Biden is also exhibiting  too much wokeness. So he’s torn between the upward 401k and the upward black mobility. 

I bet you I know which will win out.

[JimmyJames 12271]

15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Actually, yes.  He and I happened to be on the same Mobile Loaves & Fishes truck today, and afterwards we both schlepped 4 minorities each to get vaccinated.  He managed to get 3 of his registered to vote, but I only succeeded with one.  I asked for his secret, but he was pretty circumspect.

I give this a wokeness rating of 8.5. 

[wildcat09 29187]

Nobody is taking that bet. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

I bet you I know which will win out.

Yeah that’s the thing. A rising tide lifts all boats unless you’re a greedy asshole and then it just costs you money. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

23 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Reinstating The Fairness Doctrine wouldn’t even help now because it doesn’t apply to cable (Fox News/OANN/Newsmax) or the internet (YouTube/Twitter/Facebook).

Fox News and YouTube and Facebook are THE three biggest platforms that enable and encourage information silos.

I truly don’t think that problem is fixable.

While you are definitely correct, over the air talk radio was the incubator of the whole thing and rush was by far the most powerful voice in that. 
 

But since he’s now dead and rotting in hell and the train has left the station it’s probably too late. 

[jimmyjazz 45513]

I love how we deregulate the shit out of things (media, guns, healthcare), they all go to hell in a handbasket, and then we say we can't reverse policy because "the horse is out of the barn".

Gah.

[atomheartbevo 89362]

6 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Y’all don’t mind me. After spending the morning with my divorce lawyer, this has me emotional.
 

Sorry to hear about the divorce.

[Biff Tannen 45478]

4 hours ago, elfenix said:

the goal of the first amendment is an informed populace, iirc

Well we fucking failed there didn’t we?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Is @Johnny Sack now a Democrat because of how great his 401K is doing?

You guys are funny.  My wife and I max out tax deferred accounts every year and have since I started working 17 years ago.  But it is not something that I mess with much or care about.  The big swing down last March and up the last year is not material for me. Never been a big stock market guy.  I like buying assets that produce income.  Shit I understand.  If I did have a material part of my net worth in the market right now I wouldn't sleep all that well (nothing to do with Biden, I would have not slept all that well having my wealth in the market at any time in the last 15 years).

I honestly look at my tax deferred accounts about once a year.

[Ghost of LL 15348]

9 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You guys are funny.  My wife and I max out tax deferred accounts every year and have since I started working 17 years ago.  But it is not something that I mess with much or care about.  The big swing down last March and up the last year is not material for me. Never been a big stock market guy.  I like buying assets that produce income.  Shit I understand.  If I did have a material part of my net worth in the market right now I wouldn't sleep all that well (nothing to do with Biden, I would have not slept all that well having my wealth in the market at any time in the last 15 years).

I honestly look at my tax deferred accounts about once a year.

Actually, you said right at a year ago that you cashed out your 401K in January 2020.  So, of course, that was a lie.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

20 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Actually, you said right at a year ago that you cashed out your 401K in January 2020.  So, of course, that was a lie.

I cashed out one from an old job because I had changed jobs.  I have other tax deferred accounts.  So no, not a lie.  
 

And it wasn’t a cash out. I was changing custody from my old job 401k.  They sold.  My shit was in limbo for a bit while custody was being transferred.  The market dropped tremendously in that period due to covid.  So I bought back in cheap. It wasn’t material. But was lucky.  

Edited April 30, 2021 by Johnny Sack

[Johnny Sack 8397]

By all means bump and quote what I did post without your editorializing.  That will solve it. 

[TwiceHorn 31184]

21 hours ago, elfenix said:

Actually, going grey and white can be a godsend to balding men.  Dark hair on a light scalp is a bad look.

[TwiceHorn 31184]

3 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

While you are definitely correct, over the air talk radio was the incubator of the whole thing and rush was by far the most powerful voice in that. 
 

But since he’s now dead and rotting in hell and the train has left the station it’s probably too late. 

Not true.  The Doctrine was "repealed" in 1987 after at least a couple of years of debate, including whether it was the sole province of the FCC, or a Congressional mandate.  Rush didn't go nationwide until 1988, he wasn't even regionally syndicated previously, just Sacramento.  My law school roommate  knew of him because he grew up partly in Sacramento and his dad liked him.  It was before he went nutso and was just a commentator with a conservative and sarcastic bent.

Its "repeal" (more accurately abolition or non-enforcement) by the FCC most certainly enabled Rush and those who broadcast him, and those who followed.

But the rise of cable TV and internet media has destroyed the ability of the FCC to impose it.    The justification was the broadcast spectrum is a limited public resource that the FCC is charged to administer, and doing things like imposing content rules was within that charge.  The cable and internet spectra are not so limited and so, presumptively, the FCC lacks the ability to impose content rules.  It's not clear whether Congress could validly impose such a thing on cable and internet broadcasters.

Don't get me wrong, I liked the Fairness Doctrine and wish we still had it, but I'm not sure this shit wasn't somewhat inevitable once information came off the broadcast spectrum.

Edited April 30, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Satchel 6908]

So much for Trump’s best economy in the history of the world:

KEY POINTS

• First-quarter GDP for 2021 increased at a 6.4% rate, just below the Dow Jones estimate.
• It marked the second-fastest pace for growth since the second quarter of 2003 and was exceeded only by the reopening-fueled burst of Q3 in 2020.
• Initial jobless claims fell to a fresh pandemic-era low but were higher than expected.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/29/us-gdp-rose-6point4percent-in-the-first-quarter-vs-6point5percent-increase-expected.html

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

[SubliminalHorn 6648]

19 hours ago, Red Five said:

Look, he's gonna get to it ok? He also has to destroy the suburbs, kill god, and cancel Christmas so he's got a lot on his plate. 

He has his country’s 500th anniversary to plan, his wedding to arrange, his wife to murder, and Guilder to frame for it. He’s swamped!

[GRHorn 105]

 

But Biden is throwing so much new funding at the IRS that it isn't clear whether the agency will be capable of using it all. "I'm not sure you'd be able to efficiently use that much money," John Koskinen, who ran the IRS for part of the Obama presidency, tells The New York Times. "That's a lot of money."

[Js1 85056]

Tax cops. 

Why do you hate the police now? 

[Willfully Horn 7913]

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33825]

lol @ GR's link. what a maroon

[jimmyjazz 45513]

My malware/antivirus is exploding on this page -- which one of you dipshits posted a bad link?

This is why we can't have nice things.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33825]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

My malware/antivirus is exploding on this page -- which one of you dipshits posted a bad link?

This is why we can't have nice things.

I think all the links on this page are twitter, so it's probably on your end

[Biff Tannen 45478]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

 

But Biden is throwing so much new funding at the IRS that it isn't clear whether the agency will be capable of using it all. "I'm not sure you'd be able to efficiently use that much money," John Koskinen, who ran the IRS for part of the Obama presidency, tells The New York Times. "That's a lot of money."

Make sure people pay what they are supposed to pay in order to fund programs that help people have better lives and educations so they can make more money. What a terrible and horrifying concept. 

[Js1 85056]

Sounds pretty commusociantifa to me 

[GRHorn 105]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Make sure people pay what they are supposed to pay in order to fund programs that help people have better lives and educations so they can make more money by significantly expanding financial surveillance, including getting regular reports on American’s bank accounts. What a terrible and horrifying concept. 

FIFY. 
 

Oh yeah, and if a recent IRS director says he has no idea how to spend that much money, you can be guaranteed that it will not just be “rich” people’s accounts being tracked.

In fact I haven’t actually seen the parameters of who they will want to track. It wasn’t in the Treasury guidance. 
 

4 hours ago, Js1 said:

Tax cops. 

Why do you hate the police now? 

Try again. 
 

I’ve never been a big fan of the police. Especially the Feds. Especially the Tax Man. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

6 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

FIFY. 
 

Oh yeah, and if a recent IRS director says he has no idea how to spend that much money, you can be guaranteed that it will not just be “rich” people’s accounts being tracked.

In fact I haven’t actually seen the parameters of who they will want to track. It wasn’t in the Treasury guidance. 
 

Try again. 
 

I’ve never been a big fan of the police. Especially the Feds. Especially the Tax Man. 

Personally I think the solution should be anyone who makes more than 10 million dollars a year and personally donates a dime to any political candidate or PAC gets an automatic audit. 
 

I mean if you have done nothing wrong you’ve got nothing to worry about, right? And they can afford a simple audit where they’ve done nothing wrong no doubt.