In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
That and some conservative groups like Focus on the Family.
I believe the UIGEA was also "tacked on" to other major legislation. That is, I don't believe it was voted on as a stand-alone bill.
it was attached to a completly different bill about port security (to block/deny acquisition of seaports by foreigners)
it was attached to a completly different bill about port security (to block/deny acquisition of seaports by foreigners)
It was originally passed on its own by the House, but then it was consolidated (as above) in the Senate.
According to eurostat, northern africans are the most anti-black racist people in the area
Man, Italy really is the shithole of Westernish Europe. What went wrong? Even the Greeks are less racist, somehow.
Are we taking as stipulated that "I would not let my son/daughter marry a black person" = "I despise blacks"? It seems like the question is designed to elicit a negative response from someone with even the slightest bit of prejudice that doesn't necessarily rise to the level of hate or contempt.
Also, in some of those cultures, I assume they want their children to marry someone of the same cultural background and/or religion. They might not want their son or daughter to marry a white person either.
Lastly, I think it's telling that "I don't get to choose whom my child marries" is not one of the options given. Are we to assume that every respondent answered "Yes" or "No"?
I think a better structure for such a survey would be to ask "Which of the following would you be happy if your child marries?" and options such as "a rich white person", "a poor white person", "a rich black person", "a poor black person", "a rich arabic person", "a poor arabic person". Then you can compare responses like for like. I don't think, as phrased in that image, the responses tell us a huge amount about prejudice towards black people specifically. Some people might just view black people as generally poor and want their child to be financially secure.
oh thx i checked what i had to write would be "raise the question"not sure what you mean with 2), other than attempts to dismiss the relevance of those appointments. Some people mentioned those boards are basically worthless (which *raises* the question about why the **** do those boards then exist) , but the state senator that ended up wounded was on that board as well, so may
No. Crazy moronic right wingers tried their best to make this guy a left winger and this is the best they could do. It didn't end of mattering because he's a right wing religious extremist Trumper.
The R’s are pretty much gutting all of our federal departments that have anything to do with regulation, destroying spending on science and universities, and cutting medicaid with medicare/ss on the horizon, but they are effectively the same?
And what has the response mostly been? Bummer, guys please stop. Or We'll say please again! OK what else can we talk about now? And maybe I'll try to squeeze in a tweet or 2 when I get the time. Total Joke.
And what has the response mostly been? Bummer, guys please stop. Or We'll say please again! OK what else can we talk about now? And maybe I'll try to squeeze in a tweet or 2 when I get the time. Total Joke.
I mean Biden passed a sweeping infrastructure bill, a climate change bill, and even tried to cancel as much student debt as he could.
And the people that get to decide what happens are the voters. Yes, they could have run a better campaign against Trump but we still had every opportunity as voters to choose the party that doesn’t promise to gut social spending and we didn’t.
Part of that will be acknowledging that Americans are not as far left as the average Democrat, so that either means the left needs to do more to get the vote out or they need to be more moderate. The purity testing on deeply unpopular issues stopping might help.
I mean Biden passed a sweeping infrastructure bill, a climate change bill, and even tried to cancel as much student debt as he could.And the people that get to decide what happens are the voters. Yes, they could have run a better campaign against Trump but we still had every opportunity as voters to choose the party that doesn’t promise to gut social spending and we didn’t.Part
With trumpism, it's not obvious anymore that increased turnover benefits democrats. Maybe after Trump it will revert back to that but we don't know.
Part of that will be acknowledging that Americans are not as far left as the average Democrat, so that either means the left needs to do more to get the vote out or they need to be more moderate. The purity testing on deeply unpopular issues stopping might help.
This is the common mistake of assuming people are more politically plugged in than they really are. Obama would have easily beat Trump every time, not because he's more moderate, as the causation works the other way. People like Obama more first, then they backtrack and find reasons why he agrees with their views on important issues.
I mean Biden passed a sweeping infrastructure bill, a climate change bill, and even tried to cancel as much student debt as he could.And the people that get to decide what happens are the voters. Yes, they could have run a better campaign against Trump but we still had every opportunity as voters to choose the party that doesn’t promise to gut social spending and we didn’t.Part
I was talking about post-election. The Rs seem to be able to find a way to fight back/cause trouble when they're out of power. I'm not saying there's zero difference just that particularly on the more fiscal side of things they play within a much narrower range. On the more social side of things they can be and on some issues are diametrically opposed. Noting some exceptions doesn't really change that imo.
I was talking about post-election. The Rs seem to be able to find a way to fight back/cause trouble when they're out of power. I'm not saying there's zero difference just that particularly on the more fiscal side of things they play within a much narrower range. On the more social side of things they can be and on some issues are diametrically opposed. Noting some exceptions do
In the first two years of Biden, with a trifecta (generously gifted by trump who singlehandedly managed to flip the Senate seats against him) for democrats, republicans were utterly irrelevant.
It was only when they took back the house that they used it to try to create as many problems as possible for Biden.
With trumpism, it's not obvious anymore that increased turnover benefits democrats. Maybe after Trump it will revert back to that but we don't know.
Well I just mean to say that the left seems to think there is this untapped group of voters that would show out if they were “offered something” by the Democrats (which is cached out in various ways but most of the time includes M4A, universal college, green new deal style social programs). The example of someone who says this would be like Kyle Kulinski, Krystal Ball, Majority Report, Ryan Grim etc style of independent left media.
So they can try to run campaigns like that but seeing how the Justice Dems have fared I don’t think they will be successful.
I’m not really talking about turnout here, I’m talking about theories of electability. Some people have a theory that says that we need to appeal to the center, others say we need to appeal to our base (with the assumption that our base is very far left).
This is the common mistake of assuming people are more politically plugged in than they really are. Obama would have easily beat Trump every time, not because he's more moderate, as the causation works the other way. People like Obama more first, then they backtrack and find reasons why he agrees with their views on important issues.
I think that there’s a threshold after which an unpopular policy can hurt you. And the thing is that Obama was an unknown senator when he ran, so it’s not like he had this broad name recognition that was working for him.
I think the reasons why people end up voting for x person are kind of complex, and I’m agnostic as to what primarily causes movement from one election to the next. I do think that certain issues can have an outsized impact, and the messaging around those issues that make it into the mainstream are more important than particular facts about how that issue is going in reality.
I was talking about post-election. The Rs seem to be able to find a way to fight back/cause trouble when they're out of power. I'm not saying there's zero difference just that particularly on the more fiscal side of things they play within a much narrower range. On the more social side of things they can be and on some issues are diametrically opposed. Noting some exceptions do
Fair enough. But between elections there’s also a lot that activists and individual members of the public can do, and sometimes these coalitions can be just as important as the actions of politicians.
I still disagree that the range is narrow though. There are plenty of extreme positions on the Republican side that are worth combating.
I also think Democrats have no good options here. Under Pelosi they were accused constantly of being performative, and then when they respond to that they are said to be weak. People just have really high standards for dems they don’t have for Republicans.
Well I just mean to say that the left seems to think there is this untapped group of voters that would show out if they were “offered something” by the Democrats (which is cached out in various ways but most of the time includes M4A, universal college, green new deal style social programs). The example of someone who says this would be like Kyle Kulinski, Krystal Ball, Majority Report, Ryan Grim etc style of independent left media.
So they can try to run campaigns like that but seeing how the Justice Dems have fared I don’t think they will be successful.
over half the country didnt vote a president this time and you guys lost twice to Donald Trump. so I think you may need to adjust your priors as they say.
over half the country didnt vote a president this time and you guys lost twice to Donald Trump. so I think you may need to adjust your priors as they say.
Why would I update my priors based off of false information?
APRIL 30, 2025 — In the 2024 presidential election, 73.6% (or 174 million people) of the citizen voting-age population was registered to vote and 65.3% (or 154 million people) voted according to new voting and registration tables released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. These data come from the 2024 Current Population Survey (CPS) Voting and Registration Supplement for the November 2024 presidential election, which surveyed the civilian noninstitutionalized population in the United States.
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-re...
Unless you’re counting like babies and people who aren’t able to vote lol
Also, what you said is perfectly consistent with what I said. I never gave a strong claim one way or the other. I even said that another solution is for the left to get out the vote, which you won’t because the left never has any agency and prefers to be the perennial loser.
Why would I update my priors based off of false information?https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-re...Unless you’re counting like babies and people who aren’t able to vote lolAlso, what you said is perfectly consistent with what I said. I never gave a strong claim one way or the other. I even said that another
I think the fact that objectively Obama won with "get out the vote " efforts biased things now that (imho) that doesn't help democrats as much.
I might be biased about this myself because people I care about in the USA with decent disposable income ( centrist democrats) were donating a lot to get out the vote efforts in the past but then realized it wasn't as productive anymore and redirected to other stuff (namely Senate primaries and races).
So let's just say I got convinced by that logic
I also think Democrats have no good options here. Under Pelosi they were accused constantly of being performative, and then when they respond to that they are said to be weak. People just have really high standards for dems they don’t have for Republicans.
I think the left have options but they're just too compromised to even consider going that way in their current form. Everything comes out half-assed because they/the Pelosi types etc don't really give a crap about regular people. This country desperately needs a real left not more wealthy corporate stooges. As it is it looks like I'll have to choke down the vomit and vote for some clown like Newsom next go round but I won't like it or think it will really make much difference.
I think the left have options but they're just too compromised to even consider going that way in their current form. Everything comes out half-assed because they/the Pelosi types etc don't really give a crap about regular people. This country desperately needs a real left not more wealthy corporate stooges. As it is it looks like I'll have to choke down the vomit and vote for
You probably want a "real left" because you would feel represented if it existed but I don't understand how you think a "real left" could win presidential elections or purple seats in the house or in the Senate.
Your country median voter simply is a lot to the right of you.
Same as the Italian median voter is dramatically to my left (on the economy).
Given electoral laws in your country, you simply either give up on active politics, or accept the fact you can, at most, increase the chances of a person you still deeply despise winning because the other person is a lot worse than that.
And barring a dramatic societal upheaval that's how it will be for the rest of your life.
Again, same as me in Italy on the economy.
Meanwhile this is what democrats choose to do in the states they control (drag shows in the state house of representatives)
You probably want a "real left" because you would feel represented if it existed but I don't understand how you think a "real left" could win presidential elections or purple seats in the house or in the Senate.
Your country median voter simply is a lot to the right of you. .
On social issues, probably, but other issues like universal healthcare poll very well.
It polls well until you tell them they have to pay more in taxes for it, and/or until you tell them that there will be rationing (as it happens in the totality of places where the state pays), as a minimum in terms of longer waiting lists for non-emergencies.
I mean the question "would you be ok with covering everyone in the USA with healthcare at 0 additional costs for you direct or indirect, and absolutely no change in the quality of treatments you receive" isn't a very honest question.
If you think about it, no matter your attitude that wants to see everyone covered, it's not like there are physicians or healthcare workers doing nothing , in the USA economy.
So if you cover additional people (and/or expand current coverage for currently undercovered people), it HAS physically to come at the detriment of current covered people, at least for enough years until an increasing number of people join the healthcare workforce (if that's possible, because physician residencies themselves are hard capped currently).
When you think in real resources terms, which is something pouring more money toward doesn't fix (not that the USA spends too little for healthcare, the state spends more than double per person than the UK), there is no "universal coverage" that doesn't very significantly reduce current coverage.
Lol politico is using DOGE as a verb (???)
It polls well until you tell them they have to pay more in taxes for it, and/or until you tell them that there will be rationing (as it happens in the totality of places where the state pays), as a minimum in terms of longer waiting lists for non-emergencies.
That’s a functionof his poorly the UHC regiment has been made.
If you show the tens or even hundreds of thousands people have to pay sometimes when they aren’t covered, the costs of private healthcare and the cost of extra tax for UHC it’s a no brainer.
That’s a functionof his poorly the UHC regiment has been made.
If you show the tens or even hundreds of thousands people have to pay sometimes when they aren’t covered, the costs of private healthcare and the cost of extra tax for UHC it’s a no brainer.
If you think it's a nobrainer that they will prefer to have the waiting times of the NHS to their current system, i don't know what to say.
They don't even believe what waiting times are with socialist healthcare. Literally they don't believe it. You link to them that luxembourg is a lot worse than the worst american state and they think it's all made up by rightwing people.
Like the medicaid accessed by the destitute in the USA is A LOT better than what an upper middle class person can access in London.
You need to spend fully out of pocket, outrageous sums, in Milan or London to get what a random drug addicted unemployed person has access to in poor areas of the USA.
All this unless it's a life threatening emergency, socialized healthcare still works fine for those. But all chronic conditions are treated in a way that would make any american go apoplectic if they had that experience.
Yes, i can enter a pharmacy and pay 5 euro for off the counter meds that cost maybe 50 or 100 in the USA (with no state subsidy). That's true and maybe relevant a bit.
But try needing a cataract operation which isn't usually urgent, and see what happens.
