Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 393: Raid on Bungling Bay

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/potus/status/1559678752497565696?s=21&t=LxvNt5EAUzXf5i15eYLTmA

JonThePenguin posted...

https://twitter.com/grocerieswegner/status/1559290958843449346

This was one of the GOAT tweets ever until I realized it's not the real Twitter page for the business. Just someone online making a parody account and having some fun.

StartTheMachine posted...

it's not the real Twitter page for the business

to be fair there is no such business as "Wegner's" as I understand it, he mashed up two different store names because he definitely shops there a lot

If it was Trump v Biden again, and Liz Cheney ran as an independent, who would she take more votes away from? Would she take more anti-Biden votes that would have gone to Trump or anti-Trump votes that would have gone to Biden?

Anti-Trump.

Yang would take more Trump votes than Cheney

I'm not convinced Cheney takes many Biden votes (or whoever the Dem presidential nominee is) away from them at all. Sure, there's a lot of "resistence liberals" or whatever out there, but for president? They're still going to vote for the Democrat.

I'm also not convinced she takes away many Trump votes either. Like...if you're an anti-Trump conservative, you weren't going to vote for him to begin with and were probably just going to sit out voting for president.

GuessMyUserName posted...

Yang would take more Trump votes than Cheney

I also think this is laughable. I mean Cheney's not taking away any Trump votes anyway as I just stated. But I'm sure there's plenty of leftists like me, even very politically active, that weren't keeping up with Yang as he faded from relevancy. They still might think he's a UBI-supporting liberal, at least at this moment in time.

But yeah, reading up on the Forward Party, what a garbage turn he took.

hm, let's check out this forward party on wikipedia

Ideology Human-centered capitalism[2]
Radical centrism[3]
Populism[4]

...oh

Last I heard from those guys they were trying to defend a platform of "we have no platform but voting is cool"

Literally won't state any policy positions, even on things like abortion, in interviews and hired people from the Trump, Bush, and Reagan administrations to head the party

lol

Mr_Lasastryke posted...

Radical centrism

???

"We're just Conservatives who don't want to be made fun of for being Conservatives and Liberals easy enough to trick into joining in"

HanOfTheNekos posted...

"We're just Conservatives who don't want to be made fun of for being Conservatives and Liberals easy enough to trick into joining in"

To be way too generous to them, I think the idea, based on their own words, is they'll have some liberals and some conservatives in the party and run different candidates depending on the area. Which is like...why even have a new party to begin with for that? For some semblance of unity?

But you're correct. The party will naturally lean right because that's what happens in this country.

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1560276702433263628

Allen Weisselberg, the CFO of the Trump Organization, has plead guilty to 15 felonies.

NYT and others reporting that the plea deal (sounds like 5 months prison) comes with him flipping on the Trump Organization itself and that he will testify at that trial in October.

https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1560033567153029120

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/7/8/AAcM16AADk2i.jpg

I've seen multiple peoe unironically advocate versions of radical centrism and it's funny every time

Mr_Lasastryke posted...

hm, let's check out this forward party on wikipedia

...oh

So it's the Hillary Clinton/LOTM party, except they want to be populists too. Don't think that's going to work.

Technically radical centrism is just centrism that supports institutional overhauls, the issue of course being that US institutions are effectively designed to enforce centrism (between the parties) through deadlock. So which institutions would you like to change, Yang?

Also, the name may be a turn off for conservatives. Forward? What about people who want to go backward or stay right where we are?

Is there any business that the trump family has engaged in that wasn't implicated in fraud?

Peace___Frog posted...

Is there any business that the trump family has engaged in that wasn't implicated in fraud?

Home Alone 2?

I will say, looking at the Forward Party website is even funnier. They have no policies, other than a vague commitment to ranked choice voting, explicit say we dont have a platform! and when you click the learn more part of the priorities section it just takes you to a PDF with the exact same information on it.

What is really hilarious though, is how they say that they will not police the beliefs of Forward members, and will not check party memberships. Its like theyve never heard of entryism. This is likely to be a fully fascist party within a year.

red_sox_777 posted...

So it's the Hillary Clinton/LOTM party, except they want to be populists too. Don't think that's going to work.

Id never vote for a joke party like this!

To be fair the LOTM party exists and is called the Democratic Party.

StartTheMachine posted...

I also think this is laughable. I mean Cheney's not taking away any Trump votes anyway as I just stated. But I'm sure there's plenty of leftists like me, even very politically active, that weren't keeping up with Yang as he faded from relevancy. They still might think he's a UBI-supporting liberal, at least at this moment in time.

But yeah, reading up on the Forward Party, what a garbage turn he took.

Time and time again has shown that Dem voters have absolutely rejected Yang in the voting booth, literally Tulsi Gabbard did better than him. Even coming in with all his newfound fame and attention he then couldn't even crack the top 3 in the NY mayoral campaign, amounting to half of 3rd place's votes.

Yang does however have an actual fanbase among young disillusioned men who don't particularly care about traditionally conservative policies, would actually like UBI as well because it benefits them, but cares most of all about culture wars complaining about woke SJWs which Yang has done nothing but side with them on. I'd agree that the older traditional Republican base isn't going to be interested in him but the younger R voters absolutely do, it's Yang's only substantively existing base.

Who are the Cheney supporters? They aren't from Trump's camp or anyone watching Fox News who completely revile her existence, meanwhile on the end instead with conservative Democrats and Never Trumpers she's been nothing but idolized as a literal Hero.

Imagine an actual campaign with all these options and how the media will be speaking on each candidate. Yang's a regular on Fox News, an organization that holds nothing but contempt for Cheney. Meanwhile CNN & MSNBC have been lavishing praise for Cheney for standing up to Trump and being the "traditional conservative moderate" the Chuck Todds of the world have been clamouring for, who repeatedly pull their both sides shit on Biden who they claim is too far left. Yang on the other hand just got his ass handed to him by Acosta.

The thing is, that base is absolutely tiny. It just seems like it isnt because its disproportionately represented online. Weve seen time and time again, across the world, the woke boogeyman the right have created fail to be a vote winner because at the end of the day, most people dont care. Also, the fact that it doesnt actually mean anything.

Based on what I've witnessed with movie fandoms, it reeks of entitlement. Whenever something 'woke' flopped, it did so because it's woke. Whenever something 'woke' hits, it actually flopped.

https://twitter.com/gop/status/1560388823145668612?s=21&t=qPoX6sUX6pd4gngQ334tqA

Yeah how dare he!

Gop constantly posts stuff like that to promote racism. It reenforces their belief that undocumented immigrants are bad people, and Biden is to blame for not building their monument to racism which would totally prevent everyone from getting through. Cause you know, terrorists aren't super committed or anything. They see a giant wall and just go "rats, foiled again!"

https://twitter.com/RawStory/status/1561391182604865538

Look, if you drop your support for democracy but pick it back up within five seconds it's still okay, right?

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/gop/status/1560388823145668612?s=21&t=qPoX6sUX6pd4gngQ334tqA

Yeah how dare he!

I've always have had mixed feelings about these conclusions because a similar thing is used in drug laws, for example Oklahoma, made it harder to get sudafed because of our massive meth problem, and in the years after people pointed to the fact that there were significantly fewer meth lab busts as a sign as it was working.

and ive always thought that didnt mean anything

Hey, if anyone wants some good news - the Inflation Reduction Act had language in it on climate to basically give SCOTUS the finger on the recent ruling that stripped the EPA of most of its regulatory power.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/22/climate/epa-supreme-court-pollution.html

The New York Times reports...

When the Supreme Court restricted the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to fight climate change this year, the reason it gave was that Congress had never granted the agency the broad authority to shift America away from burning fossil fuels.

Now it has.

Throughout the landmark climate law, passed this month, is language specifically written specifically to address the Supreme Court's justification for reining in the E.P.A., a ruling that was one of the court's most consequential of the term. The new law amends the Clean Air Act, the country's bedrock air-quality legislation, to define the carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels as an "air pollutant."

This language, according to legal experts as well as the Democrats who worked it into the legislation, explicitly gives the E.P.A. the authority to regulate greenhouse gases and to use its power to push the adoption of wind, solar and other renewable energy sources.

Whining from Cruz about it, giving up the game:

https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1562096872730361857

SCOTUS: If you want to regulate greenhouse gases you should have explicitly said so!
Dems: k
SCOTUS: wait no

How dare you do the thing we said you should have done!

https://twitter.com/bencjacobs/status/1562223404190945286?s=21&t=BGnZEweNEWmlAPB-55_WLQ

This is scary as hell

Thorn posted...

https://twitter.com/RawStory/status/1561391182604865538

Look, if you drop your support for democracy but pick it back up within five seconds it's still okay, right?

lmfao five second ruling crimes

mister judge sir, me firing the bullet that led to this man's death lasted five seconds. that is my entire involvement!

https://twitter.com/ryanmatsumoto1/status/1562284702173634561?s=21

The Supreme Court backfiring may save the country??

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The Supreme Court backfiring may save the country??

I mean I called this back in April? Everyone was talking about how we were toast.

And I dont think this is an issue that is going to go away as we will have a steady stream of 12 year olds giving birth against their will.

I will say gas prices going back down also helps. I think as long as it stays below 3.50 thats going to be a non factor

Word on the street is we'll get some information on student loans today. I hope there's more to it than "forgiving $X" because for people who have more than X, they need details on what resumed payments will look like for next week. Loan ownership has changed at least once over the past 2 years for a lot of borrowers, and I'm seeing a lot of confusion in the space.

Peace___Frog posted...

Word on the street is we'll get some information on student loans today. I hope there's more to it than "forgiving $X" because for people who have more than X, they need details on what resumed payments will look like for next week. Loan ownership has changed at least once over the past 2 years for a lot of borrowers, and I'm seeing a lot of confusion in the space.

I've gotten roughly 700 emails about my loan servicer changing and setting up a new account. I don't know why we would hear about anything like that from the government. If anything I would expect a directive that people need to actually start paying again

Would be nice if they could cancel the outrageous interest rates at least, but best to not expect anything

swordz9 posted...

Would be nice if they could cancel the outrageous interest rates at least, but best to not expect anything

How much is your interest rate? My Graduate loans are something like 6.5% which is very low for unsecured debt

I dont have student debts, but a lot of people drown in the total plus the interest that piles up over time to where they barely put a dent in their debt

I don't remember my specifics, but I think that my subsidized loans average to around 6%, and the unsubsidized are something like 8% or 9%?

I've gotten emails and voicemails from my new provider about the new account, but the information that they've given me has been very obviously steered towards scaremongering me and getting me to think that I should have been sending them payments months ago.

I also hope they announce some plan for moving forward but that's probably going too far.

Forgiving existing debt is great! But we'll just be in the same spot again if there isn't any reform for current and future students.

swordz9 posted...

I dont have student debts, but a lot of people drown in the total plus the interest that piles up over time to where they barely put a dent in their debt

I mean this is just the nature of unsecured debt. There is no collateral to collect.

Peace___Frog posted...

I also hope they announce some plan for moving forward but that's probably going too far.

Forgiving existing debt is great! But we'll just be in the same spot again if there isn't any reform for current and future students.

This is the problem yeah. Student loans is not an effective solution. Colleges are dramatically over charging because they get money from the government regardless of the price tag.

Harvard has a 53 billion dollar endowment.

Just let that number sink in.

Quick math, Harvard has 23,000 students and costa 76,000 a year including room and board.

You could make all education free including room and board for 31 years with that endowment (And thats assuming the cost of providing the education is equal to tuition which we know it isnt) Dont include room and board and you could easily pay for everything with the interest from the endowment

Harvard should be free

But they don't get enough funding from the government. That's the entire problem. After 2008, a lot of states slashed the funding to public colleges.
Even in 2022, the Pennsylvania state legislature tried to withhold more funding from the university of Pittsburgh because they have a research department that handles cells that gross Republicans out.

And these schools cost a lot of money to run, even if they don't give $96M to their sports coaches.

masterplum posted...

Quick math, Harvard has 23,000 students and costa 76,000 a year including room and board.

You could make all education free including room and board for 31 years with that endowment (And thats assuming the cost of providing the education is equal to tuition which we know it isnt) Dont include room and board and you could easily pay for everything with the interest from the endowment

Harvard should be free

Endowments are a problem that Congress probably needs to address. The way non-profit status works, the donated funds have to be used for non-profit purposes, so they can't cash out the endowments and distribute them. But when your endowment is $53B, you don't have any non-profit uses that would make a dent in that. So the money just keeps getting invested and growing ever larger and larger. It's a black hole of money, really.

The donors also don't understand this - they think they are donating money for a good cause when they are actually dumping their money into a black hole where it will never be used for any purpose other than investment.

I think the solution is to end the non-profit status of colleges in general and tax them on tuition received. Well, a softer option would be to tax them like any other corporation - on income - but if you wanted to get more aggressive you could directly tax tuition and fees.*

*There is some question about constitutionality I suppose with this approach since the 16th Amendment only authorizes direct income taxes and schools could argue they are losing money and hence have no income to tax. There is a federal gas tax which is per gallon though so maybe it would be okay. What I really want is a progressive tax based on the amount of tuition so that a public university charging a few thousand a year on tuition doesn't pay much tax but schools charging 60k or whatever it is they are charging now have to fork over a very significant amount of that. You can use the money to create a fund to directly refund students.

I'm sure there's lots of people who went to Harvard who have student loans, but the real issue comes from the next tier(s) down, IIRC. I don't have any first hand experience, but my understanding is that Ivy leagues, and other schools at the top tier are actually very generous with financial aid, because their reputation depends on having the top students, regardless of ability to pay. It's when you get to the schools that don't care (and you don't have to go that far for this, tbqh) that the crisis starts spiraling.

Or at least this was the case a couple years ago.