This is not a place for a “both sides” argument. The scale of the corruption involving Trump, his family, and the Republican apparatus that backs and enables him has no parallel in U.S. history.
Last edited:
The New Lounge
- Thread starter hpnole
- Start date
This is not a place for a “both sides” argument. The scale of the corruption involving Trump, his family, and the Republican apparatus that backs and enables him has no parallel in U.S. history.
And you don’t have to be an experienced muckraker to find the quid pro quo for the jet. All you need is a room temperature IQ and access to the Internet. From Qatar’s seemingly overnight transformation from terrorist supporter to respected mediator in peace talks, to Trump family’s multibillion $ investment in Qatari luxury resort/ golf course, it’s all right there for everyone to see.
I'm glad to see at least one conservative dropping the narrative that young people are a buncha avocado toast-eating whiners.
Lest any of us go too far either way in defending or denouncing socialism at the mo, I would point out that the same kind of desperation that led to so many giving Trump a chance is what's driving so many young people toward democratic socialism. We've been indoctrinated from the cradle with the ideas that democracy and capitalism are so great, but when people see such concepts not working out for them in practice, they devalue them and turn from them. In the case of President Trump, with his strongman persona and positioning himself as the single person capable of fixing all of our problems, enough of us were willing to sacrifice democratic principles to give him a chance. Now, capitalism isn't working out for so many they're willing to sacrifice economic freedom for something more beneficial to the collective. Whatever difference there is in the details, those 2 things are very similar.
Democratic Socialism. I guess by putting Democratic before Socialism it’s going to be great for our country. Of course socialism has been great in all the other countries, that’s why everyone wants to come to the U.S.
Yes. Universal healthcare, paid family leave, stronger worker protections, etc. would be great for this country.
We already have socialism in this country anyway. It’s just socialism for billionaires through tax breaks, subsidies, and bailouts. I’d personally rather prioritize working families instead.
I don’t have a problem prioritizing working families. I do have a problem prioritizing non working families. The middle class is what keeps this country running. I’m tired of going to the grocery store and buying what’s on sale and then I see a non working person pull out their WIC card and buy 4 thick ribeye steaks and not bat an eye. The middle class gets screwed by both parties, especially the Democrats.
It’s probably SNAP. Wic’s mostly for peanut butter, eggs, and milk, etc for mothers and children under 5. But to your point some of these DSA candidates’ platforms include Housing is a right, and advocacy for universal basic income. This would further erode the incentive to work for unskilled, low wage workers and make the working class feel even more like suckers. On their wishlist, the DSA would try to get universal health care through first and then proceed downward. And since the prisons would be emptied, the pool of free loaders would grow significantly.
When will the folks on the left wake up and realize we’ve been played by both sides for a long, long time? Trump did not cause the “mess” our country is in. You can argue things he’s done or doing that are hurting us, but he sure as hell ain’t the reason. The rich have been getting richer, the poor have been poor, and the middle class takes the brunt. This isn’t new.
It’s very funny (not really) that everyone right of center said very similar things during the four years Sleepy Joe’s handlers were running our country.
It’s very funny (not really) that everyone right of center said very similar things during the four years Sleepy Joe’s handlers were running our country.
Some are to some extent non working, but many go to work and work hard everyday, for very little pay and thus qualify.....but
"At any given time, roughly 67% of SNAP participants do not work because they are children, the elderly, or disabled individuals and are not expected to work. Conversely, among able bodied working age adults, the vast majority are employed, but often cycle on and off benefits due to low wages and unstable hours."
So 33% are milking the system and that’s supposed to be ok? What qualifies as disabled? I see a lot of healthy young people milking the system and then I see elderly people just trying to make it by working in grocer stores and fast food restaurants. Teenagers used to work those jobs. Regardless, it ticks me off when people play the system.
I’ll take you on your word about this part, and go a step further and say all the right leaners here have empathy for these people, contrary to what @Ghost of Dattier tries spinning.
Like @dukesince91 said, what about the 33%?
Last edited:
Did both of you guys actually read the last sentence?
A little more though....
Of the 33% you have referred to...households that do contain "non-disabled", working-age adults, employment range from 82% to over 90%. These individuals often rely on SNAP to supplement low wages or to get by during periods of unemployment.
And that 2/3 is more closely to 71%, so that 33% is closer to 29%
Only about 18-25% of able bodied people are w/o employment and many are between jobs or actively participating in job training programs
About 12.5% of the entire US population has some involvement w/ SNAP, which is about 42 million people
NC has about 12.9% of its population w/ SNAP involvement....about 1.44 million
A little more though....
Of the 33% you have referred to...households that do contain "non-disabled", working-age adults, employment range from 82% to over 90%. These individuals often rely on SNAP to supplement low wages or to get by during periods of unemployment.
And that 2/3 is more closely to 71%, so that 33% is closer to 29%
Only about 18-25% of able bodied people are w/o employment and many are between jobs or actively participating in job training programs
About 12.5% of the entire US population has some involvement w/ SNAP, which is about 42 million people
NC has about 12.9% of its population w/ SNAP involvement....about 1.44 million
The dementia is getting worse.
Half the country would vote to make this guy president if he were American.
Last edited:
When you pivot almost immediately to "what about the 33%" it gives the lie to how much you care. Further, he told you about the 33%: "the vast majority are employed, but often cycle on and off benefits due to low wages and unstable hours."
What's "vast majority" of 33%? How about 2/3? I think that's pretty low, but the math is easy. 2/3 of 33% is 22%, which brings the cynical question down to 11%. What about the 11%? I DON'T KNOW. Maybe they're complete frauds who are also secretly laughing at you, personally, for being a sucker who works. Know what I'm not going to do? Blow up the whole system for the 89% -- including children, the elderly, and the disabled -- because of my ego.
And as for your "both sides" crap... yeah, duh, everybody knows both sides are compromised. But when your side is in complete control -- executive, legislative, and judicial -- and it's your side that is center stage with the spotlight on them, and THAT is the context in whioch you wanna talk about "both sides"? No, sir.
Uh... kinda, yeah. You modify something and it becomes something else. We already have "socialism" for roads, emergency services, schools, and libraries.
You think painting all socialism as the same thing makes you look like the smart person here?
Hey, Ronald Reagan called. He wants his "Welfare Queen" fanfiction back.
How arrogant and hateful do you have to be to (allegedly) see that and think you know everything about that person's life and every circumstance and motive about it? Are you like some evil Rainman, counting coupons over someone's shoulder and auditing their receipt?
What you're prioritizing is the hyperpolicing of working families while ignoring the wealthy nonworkers and their exploitation of the system and the working class.
You saying everybody know both sides are compromised is just empty words. You only talk bad about the Elephants. Spare me the "I'm fair" line. You're a lot of things, but being fair when it comes to social/political issues? The answer is an easy NO.
Some of our politicians have good intentions, but to stay up there? You gotta play the game. Too many love the power they wind up getting. Or they get bought off. Come reelection time? Pander to "your base" to get back in. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Until we get the lobbyists, donors, bribes, payoffs... out of DC, it doesn't matter who is in office. But you will dismiss what I'm saying, and probably continue marching on as you always have.
Last edited:
Yeah, our schools are in great shape. Lol.
It’s sad what has happened to our public schools, but go ahead and tell us how great the socialist schools are doing. What percentage of graduates can’t even read on a third grade level? As far as being smart, you have that covered. You having common sense, I’m not so sure about.
No, the NCGA has absolutely gutted public schools with uncapped charter expansion, vouchers, and low corporate income tax. I'd argue that what's screwing up our schools is capitalism, not socialism.
And I agree that it's sad what's happening to our public schools. It's also embarrassing that as a retired public school teacher, you don't see the why more clearly. Conservatives are so fond of ignoring experts in favor of what they see with their own eyes, but here you are ignoring what you experienced firsthand in favor of anti-public school talking points.
Last edited:
I said nothing either way on the issue of my fairness. You made up something, claimed I said it, then criticized me for it. That's what a strawman is. It's also known as a lie.
Anyway, you were proven quite wrong using simple language and simple math, so now you're coming at me.
I said when it’s about politics, you aren’t fair. Years of reading your posts prove that.
No, you literally said, "Spare me the 'I'm fair' line." That's a direct quote. Politics may be the context, but it implies that *I* claimed I was fair when I said no such thing either way. You created a strawman -- you lied.
Years of disagreeing with me "proves" yourself right? Oh, okay.
ANYWAAAAAAY again, you were proven quite wrong using simple language and simple math, so now you're coming at me.
Last edited:
I've never claimed you said you are fair, but that's kind of the point. You aren't. You're only interested in your side winning. If you'd take your liberal goggles off, things wouldn't be as bad here as they are.
Do I need to continue?
Last edited:
Sure, why don't you continue with anything that's the actual point, rather than coming at me personally? Like, you could start by acknowledging that the welfare fraud you were raging about yesterday is a canard, that you didn't know what you were talking about, and that it won't come up again now that you've been set straight.
Again, yes. You did. You implied it. I just explained that very clearly. You created a strawman/lie rather than attempt to address what I actually said. That's why your amateur psychologist act never lands: you prefer to target a made-up, non-existent version of me that's easier for you to counter.
I think I know you well Datt. Believe you’re a decent person, but delusional when it comes to politics and social issues. I have quit relying on Fox News, podcasters as fully reliable sources. I do believe Fox is more reliable than the left wing sites, but no longer believe they’re Gospel.
You on the other hand? A true fighter/follower to the left. Which, like I stated, makes you delusional.
If Rosa Parks had just shut up and moved to the back of the bus, things wouldn't be as bad here as they are.
Do I need to continue?
It was good she took a stand. Would race relations have possibly improved had Rev Al and Rev Jesse come back to the microphone and apologized to the Duke Lacrosse players?
One side is not always right.
Uhh, you have said, and I quote you directly, exactly, and yet again, that what I believe is "evil to the bone." So you either need to walk that crap back or stop trying to claim you think I'm a decent person.
FoxNews is far, far worse than every other legacy media. abc, CBS, NBC, NPR, PBS, and even CNN. It's about tied with MSNBC, which fortunately doesn't have nearly the reach of FoxNews. The reason FoxNews is far, far worse, is that from its very inception, its intention was to present the news with a conservative bias. That was its very purpose. The other legacy media -- as compromised as most of them have become -- did not start like that. They started with the intention of being journalism with integrity. It's humanly impossible to be completely without bias, but they absolutely tried. That's why Walter Cronkite, Edward R Murrow, Roger Mudd, Diane Sawyer, David Brinkley, Tom Brokaw, Connie Chung, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather (for most of his career), Katie Couric, Jim Lehrer, Robert McNeil, Ted Koppel, and Sam Donaldson were widely respected and trusted. The only people you can say that about in the history of FoxNews are about the people who gained credibility by leaving. Competition and advertising dollars are the primary corrupters of mainstream/legacy media. FoxNews was compromised from the very start and it dragged other news media down to their level. Your criticism of mainstream media is no different than supporters of President Trump -- and adjudicated rapist with close ties to a pedophile ring -- wagging their jowls over Graham Platner. Worry about the plank in your own eye.
Good for you for moving away from heavy reliance on FoxNews and podcasters. Just like urban living among diverse people and a well-rounded education, exposure to diverse news sources makes people more liberal.
It's a waste of my time to elaborate yet again on all the ways and reasons I am not sheeplike in my extreme Leftism. You always ignore it and dismiss it in favor of casting me in terms you understand: a strawman, an accusation-as-confession.
Oh, it was good she took a stand, but I should just shut up so things wouldn't be as bad here as they are? Yet again you think it's a simple matter of others needing to stop doing something wrong and they will automatically be in harmony with whatever you believe.
The point wasn't race. The point was that the idea of things being peaceful if people would stop speaking up about things they think are wrong is stupid. It's like telling people who want America to live up to its promise of freedom and opportunity to "love it or leave it." It's stupid. You don't want peace. You don't want justice. You want compliance and silence. You want to preserve your bubble.
And no, it wouldn't have helped, because conservatives have fought to preserve the racism of the status quo every step of the way. It doesn't matter that Tawana Brawley and Crystal Mangum lied because y'all don't believe any actual, genuine incidents involving racism, either. Eric Garner asphyxiated and died, yet because he could say, "I can't breathe," conservatives say he must have been able to breathe. Conservatives justify his death because he was selling loosie cigarettes, which is against the law. Same with every suspicious death or alleged injustice involving a Black person as the victim. Walter Scott shouldn't have run. Philando Castille shouldn't have reached for his CCP. Alton Sterling shouldn't have been selling bootleg CDs. Sandra Bland shouldn't have had an attitude. Kohen Wiley's mom shouldn't have stolen diapers. Tamir Rice shouldn't have been 12 years old playing in a park with a toy gun. Botham Jean shouldn't have been using marijuana in his own apartment. John Crawford shouldn't have picked up a gun that Walmart had available for sale on a shelf.
Conservatives have chosen the wrong side of history with every single advancement in civil rights this country has ever made. It's in the very word: conservative. It means to preserve things as they are. B-b-but Republicans freed the slaves? Yeah, and they weren't conservatives at the time.
Thoughts on my response to your Rosa Parks example? If you have any decency about politics/social issues, you'll admit the two "Revs" were wrong. They got what they came for though. More tv time, which equals for money.
Fox leans to the right, no doubt. But they were created to take away the monopoly that the other outlets had. You can deny me calling you a sheep to the left, but you are.
Your comment on why the legacy media has become compromised? Surely you know why. A way to control the masses is by controlling the media. The media is controlled by whoever makes the biggest donations.
Covid has been a very touchy issue. Big pharma makes huge donations through commercials. Now do you think the news outlet that those commercials are aired on will say anything that goes against those ads? Of course not.
Your delusion is on full display. I can't recall each incident you've referenced. Maybe you're right on all of them, but I have my doubts. The problem is every one is automatically (with great enthusiasm too) labeled an act of racism. Some are, some aren't. That's why each "potential one" should be dealt with on its own. Handling them case by case would be the logical way to go. But our media has NO desire for that. You're just like them. Ready, FIRE, then aim.
We all know why the media does what they do too. To keep us divided. Two of your hero's are perfect examples. They should have been MEN and publicly apologized to the Lacrosse players. They know if they would have done that, it would have possibly diminished some of the power they have had. They knew there was no more money and attention to be grabbed, so like the gutless cowards they are, they cut and ran.
Did you ever say what happened to them was wrong? If you have any decency at all, you did. It's also a very weak, pathetic attempt by you to label conservatives as being on the wrong side. Especially when every level headed person knows white liberals are generally more racist than conservatives.
Last edited: