|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 05 2022 07:29 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 06:53 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 05 2022 05:59 plasmidghost wrote:On May 05 2022 05:31 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 05 2022 05:22 plasmidghost wrote:On May 05 2022 04:50 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 05 2022 04:26 plasmidghost wrote:
Here's another perspective to consider on abortion:
People often say things like "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be included in the constitution", but that erases the lived experience of transgender men and non-binary people that can get pregnant.
I've had over a dozen trans men tell me that after coming out, they were violently raped by people that knew them or by the police. Should abortion access be removed, not only would they be forced to carry a rapist's baby, they would also be forcibly detransitioned. There's a factually incorrect assumption that testosterone HRT makes you infertile if you have a uterus, which in conjunction with attacks on the bodily autonomy of trans people, would almost certainly end up with states banning anyone assigned female at birth from taking testosterone. Additionally, hysterectomies, already ridiculously difficult to get unless you have cancer, for trans men would probably be made illegal due to wanting to force them to have the opportunity to get pregnant against their wishes. Interesting concern. What leads you to believe that testosterone would be targeted for the purpose of eliminating contraception, if it's factually irrelevant? What exactly do you mean by these people being forcibly de-transitioned (I genuinely don't know what you mean by this.) I suppose I can understand these fears if it were believed that the pro-life side were actively working to force all women to produce babies, but I find that a far cry from the stance of protecting a life that's already been put into motion. I'm not attacking your perspective, just finding it hard to make that leap, myself. Forcibly detransitioned in this context means that if you want to have anything done medically in the context of gender transition, such as getting on testosterone, and you're on it, the state could make it illegal to take it like they're trying here in Texas and in dozens of other states. It doesn't mean that the person isn't trans, of course, it's that they're losing the opportunity to transition I see. I hadn't heard of any push to restrict a person's access to hormone treatment (aside from the issue of minors, which is a different situation.) On May 05 2022 05:26 Acrofales wrote:On May 05 2022 04:50 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 05 2022 04:26 plasmidghost wrote:
Here's another perspective to consider on abortion:
People often say things like "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be included in the constitution", but that erases the lived experience of transgender men and non-binary people that can get pregnant.
I've had over a dozen trans men tell me that after coming out, they were violently raped by people that knew them or by the police. Should abortion access be removed, not only would they be forced to carry a rapist's baby, they would also be forcibly detransitioned. There's a factually incorrect assumption that testosterone HRT makes you infertile if you have a uterus, which in conjunction with attacks on the bodily autonomy of trans people, would almost certainly end up with states banning anyone assigned female at birth from taking testosterone. Additionally, hysterectomies, already ridiculously difficult to get unless you have cancer, for trans men would probably be made illegal due to wanting to force them to have the opportunity to get pregnant against their wishes. Interesting concern. What leads you to believe that testosterone would be targeted for the purpose of eliminating contraception, if it's factually irrelevant? What exactly do you mean by these people being forcibly de-transitioned (I genuinely don't know what you mean by this.) I suppose I can understand these fears if it were believed that the pro-life side were actively working to force all women to produce babies, but I find that a far cry from the stance of protecting a life that's already been put into motion. I'm not attacking your perspective, just finding it hard to make that leap, myself. Being pregnant is (1) a psychological barrier to "being a man", but also releases a crapload of hormones which do things like make your breasts swell and wreak havoc on your body. No doubt those hormones undo whatever hormone treatment the person has already undergone and is undergoing. That would mean you are forcibly de-transitioned. I understand, thank you both for clarification There is a bill proposed in Missouri that would ban trans medical care to anyone under 25. I don't think it's passed the Senate, but it passed the House If you're referring to this: https://abcnews.go.com/US/missouri-lawmakers-move-forward-bills-targeting-transgender-youth/story?id=84322160it is in regards to minors, as it bars physicians and health care professionals employed by state and local governments from providing “gender transition procedures” to anyone under the age of 18. It also prohibits state or locally-run facilities from performing the procedure on minors. I have not heard anything about adults being affected by any restriction on medical hormone treatments. It's a rather important distinction to make when framing the possible future of removing personal liberties from citizens (at least in my opinion.) Hmm, I looked it up and it seems that it was just the legislators arguing for the 25 year-old age restriction. The thing with the procedure language is that I don't know of any doctors that perform transition-related surgeries on anyone under 18. This language defines things like puberty blockers as a procedure, so they wouldn't be allowed, even though there is 0% risk to using them, as has been evidenced since it was first tried in the early 1980s. If kids and teens can't get access to puberty blockers or hormones, there's a severe mental, physical, and financial strain put on them. For instance, I didn't get on hormones until I was 23, well after puberty, and the cost to medically transition if I were to do medically necessary transition surgeries would be well over $100,000 since insurance doesn't cover more than the absolute bare minimum. As for the mental effects, the depression and general hopelessness that I experienced during my puberty as a result of the physical changes I was experiencing drove me to suicide attempts on over a dozen different times. I don't want any trans kid to go through what I went through.
That's fair. At this time I will have to bow out of this discussion because the effects of minors using puberty blockers is not something I have a firm biological understanding of, and am likely to become inflammatory on this subject. I am willing to read studies about the long-term effects if you provide, however. Have a wonderful day.
|
United States24660 Posts
On May 05 2022 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:
This is honestly infuriating. No one cares about the debt. Spending and tax reduction is how each party throws meat to their base. Biden trying to pay off the debt makes me feel like he's truly just trying to speed run sub-30 approval. Who in the fucking world is going to vote for Biden now that he has reduced debt?
NO ONE IS ASKING FOR THIS
If this is cover to forgive a shit load of student debt, whatever, sure. But if he's really pulling this bullshit "tighten the belt!!!" 90s bullshit, I am enraged. A country is not a check book.
If the country is actually being fiscally responsible, no reason not to take credit for it. There's a reason besides "winning elections" to attempt to stop the debt from ballooning. Also, if the current times (or recent times) were not good times to reverse the debt trends, when is the right time? Will you not be happy until the country defaults?
|
There probably is no right time because the country goes through fuckin' crises over and over again, but that won't change 'til the government gets off its fat lazy asses and reshapes the country or the populace gets off their tired beaten asses to reshape the country for them.
|
On May 05 2022 08:25 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:https://twitter.com/EmilieSimons46/status/1521850521350516739This is honestly infuriating. No one cares about the debt. Spending and tax reduction is how each party throws meat to their base. Biden trying to pay off the debt makes me feel like he's truly just trying to speed run sub-30 approval. Who in the fucking world is going to vote for Biden now that he has reduced debt? NO ONE IS ASKING FOR THIS If this is cover to forgive a shit load of student debt, whatever, sure. But if he's really pulling this bullshit "tighten the belt!!!" 90s bullshit, I am enraged. A country is not a check book. If the country is actually being fiscally responsible, no reason not to take credit for it. There's a reason besides "winning elections" to attempt to stop the debt from ballooning. Also, if the current times (or recent times) were not good times to reverse the debt trends, when is the right time? Will you not be happy until the country defaults?
There will be no default. There will be nothing close to a default. The entire idea is non-real and we have zero reason to think it would happen.
|
On May 05 2022 08:23 NrG.Bamboo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 07:29 plasmidghost wrote:On May 05 2022 06:53 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 05 2022 05:59 plasmidghost wrote:On May 05 2022 05:31 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 05 2022 05:22 plasmidghost wrote:On May 05 2022 04:50 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 05 2022 04:26 plasmidghost wrote:
Here's another perspective to consider on abortion:
People often say things like "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be included in the constitution", but that erases the lived experience of transgender men and non-binary people that can get pregnant.
I've had over a dozen trans men tell me that after coming out, they were violently raped by people that knew them or by the police. Should abortion access be removed, not only would they be forced to carry a rapist's baby, they would also be forcibly detransitioned. There's a factually incorrect assumption that testosterone HRT makes you infertile if you have a uterus, which in conjunction with attacks on the bodily autonomy of trans people, would almost certainly end up with states banning anyone assigned female at birth from taking testosterone. Additionally, hysterectomies, already ridiculously difficult to get unless you have cancer, for trans men would probably be made illegal due to wanting to force them to have the opportunity to get pregnant against their wishes. Interesting concern. What leads you to believe that testosterone would be targeted for the purpose of eliminating contraception, if it's factually irrelevant? What exactly do you mean by these people being forcibly de-transitioned (I genuinely don't know what you mean by this.) I suppose I can understand these fears if it were believed that the pro-life side were actively working to force all women to produce babies, but I find that a far cry from the stance of protecting a life that's already been put into motion. I'm not attacking your perspective, just finding it hard to make that leap, myself. Forcibly detransitioned in this context means that if you want to have anything done medically in the context of gender transition, such as getting on testosterone, and you're on it, the state could make it illegal to take it like they're trying here in Texas and in dozens of other states. It doesn't mean that the person isn't trans, of course, it's that they're losing the opportunity to transition I see. I hadn't heard of any push to restrict a person's access to hormone treatment (aside from the issue of minors, which is a different situation.) On May 05 2022 05:26 Acrofales wrote:On May 05 2022 04:50 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 05 2022 04:26 plasmidghost wrote:
Here's another perspective to consider on abortion:
People often say things like "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be included in the constitution", but that erases the lived experience of transgender men and non-binary people that can get pregnant.
I've had over a dozen trans men tell me that after coming out, they were violently raped by people that knew them or by the police. Should abortion access be removed, not only would they be forced to carry a rapist's baby, they would also be forcibly detransitioned. There's a factually incorrect assumption that testosterone HRT makes you infertile if you have a uterus, which in conjunction with attacks on the bodily autonomy of trans people, would almost certainly end up with states banning anyone assigned female at birth from taking testosterone. Additionally, hysterectomies, already ridiculously difficult to get unless you have cancer, for trans men would probably be made illegal due to wanting to force them to have the opportunity to get pregnant against their wishes. Interesting concern. What leads you to believe that testosterone would be targeted for the purpose of eliminating contraception, if it's factually irrelevant? What exactly do you mean by these people being forcibly de-transitioned (I genuinely don't know what you mean by this.) I suppose I can understand these fears if it were believed that the pro-life side were actively working to force all women to produce babies, but I find that a far cry from the stance of protecting a life that's already been put into motion. I'm not attacking your perspective, just finding it hard to make that leap, myself. Being pregnant is (1) a psychological barrier to "being a man", but also releases a crapload of hormones which do things like make your breasts swell and wreak havoc on your body. No doubt those hormones undo whatever hormone treatment the person has already undergone and is undergoing. That would mean you are forcibly de-transitioned. I understand, thank you both for clarification There is a bill proposed in Missouri that would ban trans medical care to anyone under 25. I don't think it's passed the Senate, but it passed the House If you're referring to this: https://abcnews.go.com/US/missouri-lawmakers-move-forward-bills-targeting-transgender-youth/story?id=84322160it is in regards to minors, as it bars physicians and health care professionals employed by state and local governments from providing “gender transition procedures” to anyone under the age of 18. It also prohibits state or locally-run facilities from performing the procedure on minors. I have not heard anything about adults being affected by any restriction on medical hormone treatments. It's a rather important distinction to make when framing the possible future of removing personal liberties from citizens (at least in my opinion.) Hmm, I looked it up and it seems that it was just the legislators arguing for the 25 year-old age restriction. The thing with the procedure language is that I don't know of any doctors that perform transition-related surgeries on anyone under 18. This language defines things like puberty blockers as a procedure, so they wouldn't be allowed, even though there is 0% risk to using them, as has been evidenced since it was first tried in the early 1980s. If kids and teens can't get access to puberty blockers or hormones, there's a severe mental, physical, and financial strain put on them. For instance, I didn't get on hormones until I was 23, well after puberty, and the cost to medically transition if I were to do medically necessary transition surgeries would be well over $100,000 since insurance doesn't cover more than the absolute bare minimum. As for the mental effects, the depression and general hopelessness that I experienced during my puberty as a result of the physical changes I was experiencing drove me to suicide attempts on over a dozen different times. I don't want any trans kid to go through what I went through. That's fair. At this time I will have to bow out of this discussion because the effects of minors using puberty blockers is not something I have a firm biological understanding of, and am likely to become inflammatory on this subject. I am willing to read studies about the long-term effects if you provide, however. Have a wonderful day.
Sure thing! I know it's a very intense topic of debate, so I'm going to provide a link to the biggest study on trans people to date (I think) and spoiler some of the language so as to not take up the thread. The relevant findings are: trans kids that had access to puberty blockers at 14-15 reported a 222% decrease in mental health issues from the previous month before the blockers and a 135% decrease in mental health issues from a year before blockers.
+ Show Spoiler +The median age of participants who reported accessing GAH during early adolescence was 21.0 (IQR 18.0–35.0). After adjusting for demographic and potential confounding variables, recalled access to GAH during early adolescence was associated with lower odds of past-month severe psychological distress (aOR = 0.3, 95% CI = 0.2–0.4, p < .0001) and past-year suicidal ideation (aOR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2–0.6, p < .001) when compared to desiring GAH but never accessed them. For participants who recalled GAH access in early adolescence, these results represent a 222% decrease in adjusted odds for past-month severe psychological distress and a 135% decrease for past-year suicidal ideation. We detected no difference for other mental health variables measured (Table 2).
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0261039
|
United States24660 Posts
On May 05 2022 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 08:25 micronesia wrote:On May 05 2022 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:https://twitter.com/EmilieSimons46/status/1521850521350516739This is honestly infuriating. No one cares about the debt. Spending and tax reduction is how each party throws meat to their base. Biden trying to pay off the debt makes me feel like he's truly just trying to speed run sub-30 approval. Who in the fucking world is going to vote for Biden now that he has reduced debt? NO ONE IS ASKING FOR THIS If this is cover to forgive a shit load of student debt, whatever, sure. But if he's really pulling this bullshit "tighten the belt!!!" 90s bullshit, I am enraged. A country is not a check book. If the country is actually being fiscally responsible, no reason not to take credit for it. There's a reason besides "winning elections" to attempt to stop the debt from ballooning. Also, if the current times (or recent times) were not good times to reverse the debt trends, when is the right time? Will you not be happy until the country defaults? There will be no default. There will be nothing close to a default. The entire idea is non-real and we have zero reason to think it would happen.
Even if you are technically correct, the way you made your case comes across as delusional, and doesn't even address the rest of my post.... so I take it you agree?
|
Don't see anything indicating that tucker's claim is one that's also being made by russian state TV. But go on with the "Russian collusion" / "Russian asset" talking points.
|
On May 05 2022 09:39 Doc.Rivers wrote:Don't see anything indicating that tucker's claim is one that's also being made by russian state TV. But go on with the "Russian collusion" / "Russian asset" talking points.
You have to admit that his latest conspiracy theory of Democrats going to war with Russia to get revenge on Trump is nothing short of crazy.
|
On May 05 2022 09:02 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:On May 05 2022 08:25 micronesia wrote:On May 05 2022 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:https://twitter.com/EmilieSimons46/status/1521850521350516739This is honestly infuriating. No one cares about the debt. Spending and tax reduction is how each party throws meat to their base. Biden trying to pay off the debt makes me feel like he's truly just trying to speed run sub-30 approval. Who in the fucking world is going to vote for Biden now that he has reduced debt? NO ONE IS ASKING FOR THIS If this is cover to forgive a shit load of student debt, whatever, sure. But if he's really pulling this bullshit "tighten the belt!!!" 90s bullshit, I am enraged. A country is not a check book. If the country is actually being fiscally responsible, no reason not to take credit for it. There's a reason besides "winning elections" to attempt to stop the debt from ballooning. Also, if the current times (or recent times) were not good times to reverse the debt trends, when is the right time? Will you not be happy until the country defaults? There will be no default. There will be nothing close to a default. The entire idea is non-real and we have zero reason to think it would happen. Even if you are technically correct, the way you made your case comes across as delusional, and doesn't even address the rest of my post.... so I take it you agree?
No, I don’t agree. I think you are applying ideas to federal debt that don’t readily or reasonably apply. The US could triple its debt and it would not default.
If you told someone in the 90s what the US debt in 2022 would be, they’d assume the world collapsed and the US was a 3rd world nation. The fact is that none of the ideas surrounding “but what about the debt” are valid or realistic.
|
United States24660 Posts
On May 05 2022 10:51 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 09:02 micronesia wrote:On May 05 2022 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:On May 05 2022 08:25 micronesia wrote:On May 05 2022 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:https://twitter.com/EmilieSimons46/status/1521850521350516739This is honestly infuriating. No one cares about the debt. Spending and tax reduction is how each party throws meat to their base. Biden trying to pay off the debt makes me feel like he's truly just trying to speed run sub-30 approval. Who in the fucking world is going to vote for Biden now that he has reduced debt? NO ONE IS ASKING FOR THIS If this is cover to forgive a shit load of student debt, whatever, sure. But if he's really pulling this bullshit "tighten the belt!!!" 90s bullshit, I am enraged. A country is not a check book. If the country is actually being fiscally responsible, no reason not to take credit for it. There's a reason besides "winning elections" to attempt to stop the debt from ballooning. Also, if the current times (or recent times) were not good times to reverse the debt trends, when is the right time? Will you not be happy until the country defaults? There will be no default. There will be nothing close to a default. The entire idea is non-real and we have zero reason to think it would happen. Even if you are technically correct, the way you made your case comes across as delusional, and doesn't even address the rest of my post.... so I take it you agree? No, I don’t agree. I think you are applying ideas to federal debt that don’t readily or reasonably apply. The US could triple its debt and it would not default. If you told someone in the 90s what the US debt in 2022 would be, they’d assume the world collapsed and the US was a 3rd world nation. The fact is that none of the ideas surrounding “but what about the debt” are valid or realistic.
I meant, agree with the rest of my post, which you still have not addressed. And your argument that risk associated with the debt is not valid/realistic is generally yet to be presented. If you don't want to agree with me, that's fine, but it seems like you think you've demonstrated that your position is the correct one.
|
United States42495 Posts
On May 05 2022 10:51 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 09:02 micronesia wrote:On May 05 2022 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:On May 05 2022 08:25 micronesia wrote:On May 05 2022 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:https://twitter.com/EmilieSimons46/status/1521850521350516739This is honestly infuriating. No one cares about the debt. Spending and tax reduction is how each party throws meat to their base. Biden trying to pay off the debt makes me feel like he's truly just trying to speed run sub-30 approval. Who in the fucking world is going to vote for Biden now that he has reduced debt? NO ONE IS ASKING FOR THIS If this is cover to forgive a shit load of student debt, whatever, sure. But if he's really pulling this bullshit "tighten the belt!!!" 90s bullshit, I am enraged. A country is not a check book. If the country is actually being fiscally responsible, no reason not to take credit for it. There's a reason besides "winning elections" to attempt to stop the debt from ballooning. Also, if the current times (or recent times) were not good times to reverse the debt trends, when is the right time? Will you not be happy until the country defaults? There will be no default. There will be nothing close to a default. The entire idea is non-real and we have zero reason to think it would happen. Even if you are technically correct, the way you made your case comes across as delusional, and doesn't even address the rest of my post.... so I take it you agree? No, I don’t agree. I think you are applying ideas to federal debt that don’t readily or reasonably apply. The US could triple its debt and it would not default. If you told someone in the 90s what the US debt in 2022 would be, they’d assume the world collapsed and the US was a 3rd world nation. The fact is that none of the ideas surrounding “but what about the debt” are valid or realistic.
People knew about compounding, both of interest and inflation, in the 90s. They would assume that the US was still the global reserve currency and that inflation had been the levels frequently seen in the 70s and 80s.
|
|
|
|
|
On May 05 2022 13:05 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 09:39 Doc.Rivers wrote:Don't see anything indicating that tucker's claim is one that's also being made by russian state TV. But go on with the "Russian collusion" / "Russian asset" talking points. They have said it is the USs fault. This one is silly it probably would be hard for even them to sell. But again I do not think Tucker is a Russian asset. I think it is supersad and depressing that matching their message or intent sells on US cable "news". How sad is it that so many tune into some stating what is obviously stupid and wrong. It is the level of dumb that those grocery store tabloids used to have where batboy was controlling the white house, but its cables most watched show and way to many Americans consider Tucker a source of news or worse yet "truth' It is a massive yikes. How does something this stupid pwm the libs? Please tell me you didnt watch and think, yeah maybe hilary made putin invade the Ukriane so hilary could also force a regime change on putin.
It's not a very realistic theory from Tucker. What amuses me is when people on the left say or imply that the conspiracy theories are limited to the stupid people who on the right who didn't go to college. Meanwhile it was pretty mainstream on the left to believe that trump was a Russian asset, Trump had dementia, etc.
|
On May 05 2022 10:58 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 10:51 Mohdoo wrote:On May 05 2022 09:02 micronesia wrote:On May 05 2022 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:On May 05 2022 08:25 micronesia wrote:On May 05 2022 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:https://twitter.com/EmilieSimons46/status/1521850521350516739This is honestly infuriating. No one cares about the debt. Spending and tax reduction is how each party throws meat to their base. Biden trying to pay off the debt makes me feel like he's truly just trying to speed run sub-30 approval. Who in the fucking world is going to vote for Biden now that he has reduced debt? NO ONE IS ASKING FOR THIS If this is cover to forgive a shit load of student debt, whatever, sure. But if he's really pulling this bullshit "tighten the belt!!!" 90s bullshit, I am enraged. A country is not a check book. If the country is actually being fiscally responsible, no reason not to take credit for it. There's a reason besides "winning elections" to attempt to stop the debt from ballooning. Also, if the current times (or recent times) were not good times to reverse the debt trends, when is the right time? Will you not be happy until the country defaults? There will be no default. There will be nothing close to a default. The entire idea is non-real and we have zero reason to think it would happen. Even if you are technically correct, the way you made your case comes across as delusional, and doesn't even address the rest of my post.... so I take it you agree? No, I don’t agree. I think you are applying ideas to federal debt that don’t readily or reasonably apply. The US could triple its debt and it would not default. If you told someone in the 90s what the US debt in 2022 would be, they’d assume the world collapsed and the US was a 3rd world nation. The fact is that none of the ideas surrounding “but what about the debt” are valid or realistic. I meant, agree with the rest of my post, which you still have not addressed. And your argument that risk associated with the debt is not valid/realistic is generally yet to be presented. If you don't want to agree with me, that's fine, but it seems like you think you've demonstrated that your position is the correct one.
I don't think he is being fiscally responsible. Investing money is better than sitting on money. I am saying your position is not demonstrated as the correct one. I have not seen any reason to believe paying down the debt is a positive for the US as a whole.
In the most basic case, the money should have been spent on SNAP instead, per here: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2019/july/quantifying-the-impact-of-snap-benefits-on-the-u-s-economy-and-jobs/
|
On May 05 2022 13:30 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 10:58 micronesia wrote:On May 05 2022 10:51 Mohdoo wrote:On May 05 2022 09:02 micronesia wrote:On May 05 2022 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:On May 05 2022 08:25 micronesia wrote:On May 05 2022 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:https://twitter.com/EmilieSimons46/status/1521850521350516739This is honestly infuriating. No one cares about the debt. Spending and tax reduction is how each party throws meat to their base. Biden trying to pay off the debt makes me feel like he's truly just trying to speed run sub-30 approval. Who in the fucking world is going to vote for Biden now that he has reduced debt? NO ONE IS ASKING FOR THIS If this is cover to forgive a shit load of student debt, whatever, sure. But if he's really pulling this bullshit "tighten the belt!!!" 90s bullshit, I am enraged. A country is not a check book. If the country is actually being fiscally responsible, no reason not to take credit for it. There's a reason besides "winning elections" to attempt to stop the debt from ballooning. Also, if the current times (or recent times) were not good times to reverse the debt trends, when is the right time? Will you not be happy until the country defaults? There will be no default. There will be nothing close to a default. The entire idea is non-real and we have zero reason to think it would happen. Even if you are technically correct, the way you made your case comes across as delusional, and doesn't even address the rest of my post.... so I take it you agree? No, I don’t agree. I think you are applying ideas to federal debt that don’t readily or reasonably apply. The US could triple its debt and it would not default. If you told someone in the 90s what the US debt in 2022 would be, they’d assume the world collapsed and the US was a 3rd world nation. The fact is that none of the ideas surrounding “but what about the debt” are valid or realistic. I meant, agree with the rest of my post, which you still have not addressed. And your argument that risk associated with the debt is not valid/realistic is generally yet to be presented. If you don't want to agree with me, that's fine, but it seems like you think you've demonstrated that your position is the correct one. I don't think he is being fiscally responsible. Investing money is better than sitting on money. I am saying your position is not demonstrated as the correct one. I have not seen any reason to believe paying down the debt is a positive for the US as a whole. In the most basic case, the money should have been spent on SNAP instead, per here: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2019/july/quantifying-the-impact-of-snap-benefits-on-the-u-s-economy-and-jobs/
This is fun, when we pointed out that instead of forgiving student debt there are many other ways to spend money spending, such as SNAP, that would be a lot more beneficial than forgiving student debt, you claimed that Biden couldn't bypass Congress to spend on such programs, but could do that to forgive student debt, so it was the best program of those he can actually do by E.O. Now it turns out he can pay down US debt by E.O. (or not even, I think a surplus in income gets used automatically to pay down the debt... I don't think Biden even *did* anything here) and you say he should spend that money on SNAP instead. What is it? Can Biden increase SNAP spending unilaterally? Or is he bound by what Congress allows him to spend it on?
I think paying down US debt is probably a better use of money than forgiving rich people's student debt in the absence of further education reform.
|
Apparently GQP congressman Madison Cawthorn had a fucking gay sex tape leak, and I can't confirm this because the situation is so wild but apparently it might be his cousin?
Im not going to link it for obvious reasons. Fucking wild.
https://twitter.com/CawthornforNC/status/1521994807526281218?s=20&t=B35lGfd063acOBBLlc2IrA
EDIT: Warning, the video is in this tweets comments so, uh, don't wind up like me.
There is a version that someone edited with the Bennyhill music if thats your thing though.
|
On May 05 2022 20:42 Zambrah wrote:Apparently GQP congressman Madison Cawthorn had a fucking gay sex tape leak, and I can't confirm this because the situation is so wild but apparently it might be his cousin?Im not going to link it for obvious reasons. Fucking wild. https://twitter.com/CawthornforNC/status/1521994807526281218?s=20&t=B35lGfd063acOBBLlc2IrAEDIT: Warning, the video is in this tweets comments so, uh, don't wind up like me. There is a version that someone edited with the Bennyhill music if thats your thing though.
Is that the guy who keeps bringing guns to airports and knives to schools?
|
On May 05 2022 20:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2022 20:42 Zambrah wrote:Apparently GQP congressman Madison Cawthorn had a fucking gay sex tape leak, and I can't confirm this because the situation is so wild but apparently it might be his cousin?Im not going to link it for obvious reasons. Fucking wild. https://twitter.com/CawthornforNC/status/1521994807526281218?s=20&t=B35lGfd063acOBBLlc2IrAEDIT: Warning, the video is in this tweets comments so, uh, don't wind up like me. There is a version that someone edited with the Bennyhill music if thats your thing though. Is that the guy who keeps bringing guns to airports and knives to schools?
He is one of those, hes the one in a wheelchair
|
Your congressmen have sex, and some of them are gay. More news at 11.
The only noteworthy thing there is that he was dumb enough to record it, but still, /shrug.
Having sex with one's first cousin is a bit creepy, but he's probably from Alabama or something, where first cousins count as "basically a stranger" on the incestometer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
