Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm doing great because we bought our house 20 years ago. My kids, both with professional, degreed jobs and in their 20s, cannot even look at buying a house. They can barely afford rent (and no, they don't live with us).
No one in their generation is able to get close to the "American dream". If you want to argue with that, go find 10 Gen Z people and argue with them. Whatever you're doing, it's not working.
That's not the right way of looking at it. The right way of looking at it is what percentage is it of the federal government's total tax "revenue." Hint: it's growing at an untenable rate. Maybe look into that and get back to me.And the interest we spend on servicing that debt is what percentage of our yearly gdp?
What exactly makes it untenable?That's not the right way of looking at it. The right way of looking at it is what percentage is it of the federal government's total tax "revenue." Hint: it's growing at an untenable rate. Maybe look into that and get back to me.
A couple of days ago you were arguing for accommodating the right in regards to Trump's sentencing.It would be (very) wrong to look at other important parts of the world right now, and not draw some possible parallels.
Seems (to me) that those parallels are pretty clear: A pushback against what is perceived as anti-nationalism (or, the dilution of nations by immigration and cultural norms). And to get more specific, it's immigration without expectation/requirements of assimilation. There are other issues as well, mostly centering around cultural topics.
We can pretend this isn't happening, or we can consider the possibility that there is a significant number of people who feel this way. To ignore it would be a mistake. To mock it would be a mistake. To attack and punish it would CONTINUE to be a mistake.
Seems to me the concerns are reasonable, even if they are advanced in (very) counterproductive ways. THIS is REAL.
Thoughts?
Germany's far-right makes strong gains in EU vote despite scandals
The far-right Alternative for Germany shrugged off a string of scandals to make solid gains and take second place in Sunday's EU election, according to first exit polls, a result that, if conmfirmed, would underscore the party's resilience ahead of next year's federal election. The forecast...www.yahoo.com
French President Macron calls a snap legislative election after defeat in EU vote
French President Emmanuel Macron said Sunday he was dissolving the National Assembly and calling a snap legislative election after his party suffered a heavy defeat in elections for the European Parliament.apnews.com
EU nightmare over fresh right-wing surge with Scholz humiliated at election
Right-wing forces across the continent are expecting to make gains on their liberal and Left-wing rivals.www.express.co.uk
What makes you think he's progressive?A couple of days ago you were arguing for accommodating the right in regards to Trump's sentencing.
Yesterday you were arguing for accommodating the right in regards to cultural issues.
Here you are arguing for accommodating the right in regards to immigration. This by going by a false premise by the way since it's not that immigration doesn't come with expectations of assimilation in Europe.
So I'll ask again, and I really would like you to answer the question this time. Since I've asked it twice before and you're kind of vague about it. How does that accommodation/compromise look according to you? I know it's a hard question, but maybe that should tell you something about the fault in your reasoning.
To make the question a bit more practical. The Democrats have tried to pass an immigration bill that was written by an Republican immigration hawk. It had nothing off consequence in it for the left, besides that is aid to allied countries. (Hardly something that the base of the left typically calls for.) That bill was torpedoed.
What does it mean to be a progressive when you keep on arguing for moving further to the right, because the other side is gaining support? It seems to me that the path you are suggesting simply leads to not just a right wing nationalist victory but a complete capitulation of the entire left.
The increasing percentage of the tax revenue.What exactly makes it untenable?
I actually know he isn't. He's center right. But the question is valid, since his premise is to simply give in and basically be less combative when fighting the extremely right that is currently in charge of the GOP. So if that's the premise, I want a clear answer how he thinks that should look.What makes you think he's progressive?
Great answer. Really sounds like you know what you're talking about....The increasing percentage of the tax revenue.
I don't believe in "accommodating" either the Right or the Left. I think the hardcore ends of the spectrum are the problem, and I believe the best and longest-lasting solutions come from collaboration and innovation. As I explained before, that means that everyone has skin the game and wants an idea to succeed.A couple of days ago you were arguing for accommodating the right in regards to Trump's sentencing.
Yesterday you were arguing for accommodating the right in regards to cultural issues.
Here you are arguing for accommodating the right in regards to immigration. This by going by a false premise by the way since it's not that immigration doesn't come with expectations of assimilation in Europe.
So I'll ask again, and I really would like you to answer the question this time. Since I've asked it twice before and you're kind of vague about it. How does that accommodation/compromise look according to you? I know it's a hard question, but maybe that should tell you something about the fault in your reasoning.
To make the question a bit more practical. The Democrats have tried to pass an immigration bill that was written by an Republican immigration hawk. It had nothing off consequence in it for the left, besides that is aid to allied countries. (Hardly something that the base of the left typically calls for.) That bill was torpedoed.
What does it mean to be a progressive when you keep on arguing for moving further to the right, because the other side is gaining support? It seems to me that the path you are suggesting simply leads to not just a right wing nationalist victory but a complete capitulation of the entire left.
Often times ignorance is insolent.Great answer. Really sounds like you know what you're talking about....
He wants to give in because he's center right. He's not a progressive. He dislikes the progressive left more than he dislikes the MAGAt right. Like most of the center right he believes placating them mutants on the right will bring them back into the establishment fold.I actually know he isn't. He's center right. But the question is valid, since his premise is to simply give in and basically be less combative when fighting the extremely right that is currently in charge of the GOP.
The 20th century saw Jim Crowe born out of a shift toward equality for people of color and I dont think that the learned message was that nations were better off segregated and oppressed. Progress is not even. It goes two steps forward and one backwards. It doesnt surprise me that nations that have been very exclusive in their policies are uncomfortable with the evolution of a more diverse and globalized populace.It would be (very) wrong to look at other important parts of the world right now, and not draw some possible parallels.
Seems (to me) that those parallels are pretty clear: A pushback against what is perceived as anti-nationalism (or, the dilution of nations by immigration and cultural norms). And to get more specific, it's immigration without expectation/requirements of assimilation. There are other issues as well, mostly centering around cultural topics.
We can pretend this isn't happening, or we can consider the possibility that there is a significant number of people who feel this way. To ignore it would be a mistake. To mock it would be a mistake. To attack and punish it would CONTINUE to be a mistake.
Seems to me the concerns are reasonable, even if they are advanced in (very) counterproductive ways. THIS is REAL.
Thoughts?
Germany's far-right makes strong gains in EU vote despite scandals
The far-right Alternative for Germany shrugged off a string of scandals to make solid gains and take second place in Sunday's EU election, according to first exit polls, a result that, if conmfirmed, would underscore the party's resilience ahead of next year's federal election. The forecast...French President Macron calls a snap legislative election after defeat in EU vote
French President Emmanuel Macron said Sunday he was dissolving the National Assembly and calling a snap legislative election after his party suffered a heavy defeat in elections for the European Parliament.EU nightmare over fresh right-wing surge with Scholz humiliated at election
Right-wing forces across the continent are expecting to make gains on their liberal and Left-wing rivals.
See forkup, he has no real ideological beliefs beyond the establishment corporatism that the center loves so much. He simply doesn't understand people having actual ideals they believe in and fight for.I don't believe in "accommodating" either the Right or the Left. I think the hardcore ends of the spectrum are the problem, and I believe the best and longest-lasting solutions come from collaboration and innovation. As I explained before, that means that everyone has skin the game and wants an idea to succeed.
The right wingers here equate cooperation with capitulation, and that's the feeling I get from the Left too. Is that correct?
I'm not ideological. I think that commitment to an ideology distorts a person's thinking and robs them of one of a person's most important traits: Honest curiosity. As I've said before, American business from coast to coast succeeds when disparate ideas come together to innovate, to create something new. We refuse to use the same approach in politics, because our "system" (ha) incentivizes and rewards the opposite.
I don't know how else to explain this.
I think you go by a perfectly understandable misconception.I don't believe in "accommodating" either the Right or the Left. I think the hardcore ends of the spectrum are the problem, and I believe the best and longest-lasting solutions come from collaboration and innovation. As I explained before, that means that everyone has skin the game and wants an idea to succeed.
The right wingers here equate cooperation with capitulation, and that's the feeling I get from the Left too. Is that correct?
I'm not ideological. I think that commitment to an ideology distorts a person's thinking and robs them of one of a person's most important traits: Honest curiosity. As I've said before, American business from coast to coast succeeds when disparate ideas come together to innovate, to create something new. We refuse to use the same approach in politics, because our "system" (ha) incentivizes and rewards the opposite.
I don't know how else to explain this.
I'm probably not that far apart from an ideological standpoint. But I'm not willing to compromise without expecting... well a compromise.See forkup, he has no real ideological beliefs beyond the establishment corporatism that the center loves so much. He simply doesn't understand people having actual ideals they believe in and fight for.
Reagan would be to the left of Biden?I think you go by a perfectly understandable misconception.
The fact is that the Democratic party at the moment is NOT led by the extreme end of it's base on the left. But rather it's extreme end on the right. A place I consider myself closely aligned but somewhat more to the left off. You pretend though that that's NOT were they are.
Politics in the US has steadily moved to the right over the last four decades. If the number in your handle is your birth year you know that's true. Someone like Reagan would not fit in today's Republican Party and he would be left of Joe Biden on everything but maybe his position on economics. Point in case the bill I was referring to.
So when you say "compromise", or whatever term you care to use, you are not asking to meet in the middle. You are asking to move further to the right. In my opinion so far, the whole idea of ideological distinction becomes completely meaningless. That's why I want to pin you down on something that you would consider am acceptable compromise. To illustrate this
What ideology?I'm probably not that far apart from an ideological standpoint. But I'm not willing to compromise without expecting... well a compromise.
The Trumpsters here either don't know this or won't admit it, but prior to Election Day 2016, the topic I posted about more than any other (by far) was PC & Identity Politics, warning the Left here that they were going FAR too far with it. For that, I was called every name in the book by the Left here. I kept warning that a pushback was coming, and sure as shit, here it is.I think you go by a perfectly understandable misconception.
The fact is that the Democratic party at the moment is NOT led by the extreme end of it's base on the left. But rather it's extreme end on the right. A place I consider myself closely aligned but somewhat more to the left off. You pretend though that that's NOT were they are.
Politics in the US has steadily moved to the right over the last four decades. If the number in your handle is your birth year you know that's true. Someone like Reagan would not fit in today's Republican Party and he would be left of Joe Biden on everything but maybe his position on economics. Point in case the bill I was referring to.
So when you say "compromise", or whatever term you care to use, you are not asking to meet in the middle. You are asking to move further to the right. In my opinion so far, the whole idea of ideological distinction becomes completely meaningless. That's why I want to pin you down on something that you would consider an acceptable compromise and prove to me you actually don't believe in "accommodating" the right.
www.usmessageboard.com
Oh look at fucking Nostradumbass here. You warned of push back? Gee thanks. No one would of guessed that mutants would push back on progressive policy without your warning and the only reason the left continues is because we don't understand it, not because we simply don't care how mutants feel about it.The Trumpsters here either don't know this or won't admit it, but prior to Election Day 2016, the topic I posted about more than any other (by far) was PC & Identity Politics, warning the Left here that they were going FAR too far with it. For that, I was called every name in the book by the Left here. I kept warning that a pushback was coming, and sure as shit, here it is.
And now, the Trumpsters scream TDS! at me because I'm doing the same thing, only with this orange madness. Yeah, right now, I consider this the biggest problem, and I think it constitutes an immediate threat.
You brought up immigration. Here is my completely independent, non-ideological and specific idea for immigration, one that address the root of the problem: Demand. You may or may not agree with it, but you want an example of collaboration (again, I'm not defaulting to "surrender" or "compromise"):
How AMERICAN CAPITALISM can help us address at least two major issues
Mac's apolitical and capitalist approach to two separate large problems: THE ISSUE: China THE PROBLEM: China's increasing wealth and influence, financed largely by our insatiable appetite for cheap stuff, presents a profound global, geopolitical threat not only to America, but to the rest of...
Bigotry and isolationism is normal to you?A step toward a return to normalcy.
To todays left wing “Far right” means rejecting the ideas that a man can get pregnant or that a homeless white is privileged.
Also working people in the USA and elsewhere enjoyed a much much better economy under Trump.
Mac, what you posted is aspirational... not an answer to my question. Since you aren't really stating an acceptable compromise but simply your opinion, and most important directly contradicts the premise of the OP.The Trumpsters here either don't know this or won't admit it, but prior to Election Day 2016, the topic I posted about more than any other (by far) was PC & Identity Politics, warning the Left here that they were going FAR too far with it. For that, I was called every name in the book by the Left here. I kept warning that a pushback was coming, and sure as shit, here it is.
And now, the Trumpsters scream TDS! at me because I'm doing the same thing, only with this orange madness. Yeah, right now, I consider this the biggest problem, and I think it constitutes an immediate threat.
You brought up immigration. Here is my completely independent, non-ideological and specific idea for immigration, one that address the root of the problem: Demand. You may or may not agree with it, but you want an example of collaboration (again, I'm not defaulting to "surrender" or "compromise"):
How AMERICAN CAPITALISM can help us address at least two major issues
Mac's apolitical and capitalist approach to two separate large problems: THE ISSUE: China THE PROBLEM: China's increasing wealth and influence, financed largely by our insatiable appetite for cheap stuff, presents a profound global, geopolitical threat not only to America, but to the rest of...
