Topic: USA Politics (redux)

[milk]

What climate change and sea level rise will do to American cities


..The space center in Houston surrounded by a moat; the famous beach in Santa Monica, Calif., completely submerged; a former sports stadium in Washington, D.C., turned into a bathtub — these are just some of the startling images of the future in America’s largest cities without action to limit climate change, according to new research by Climate Central, a research and communications nonprofit...

...Because of greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels, average global temperatures have already risen 1.2° Celsius (2.2° Fahrenheit) above the preindustrial era, but as glaciers and polar ice caps melt, there is a decades-long lag for sea level rise. So a team of researchers from Climate Central projected how much the waters will rise if the world reaches only 1.5°C of warming, which is the goal world leaders set forth in the 2015 Paris climate agreement...

...But even limiting temperature rise to 1.5°C will result in flooding in and around some key sites. Santa Monica, for example, will lose its beach at 1.5°C of warming, once sea level rise has caught up. The projections also show how much more the tide will rise in the heart of some of the world’s largest cities and most famous sites if that warming is doubled, which will happen within 100 years if nations take no action to combat climate change...

https://news.yahoo.com/what-climate-change-and-sea-level-rise-will-do-to-american-cities-182832731.html


The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published the first part of its sixth assessment report (AR6), which will form the cornerstone of climate science for the years ahead.

“For global climate indicators, evidence for abrupt change is limited, but deep ocean warming, acidification and sea level rise are committed to ongoing change for millennia after global surface temperatures initially stabilise and are irreversible on human time scales (very high confidence).”

https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-report-on-climate-science

[k a rl h e nn i ng]

Opinion: Biden did not run to stage a revolution. Progressives should stop demanding one.

Opinion by the [Washington Post] Editorial Board

For a moment, progressives seemed to have a dream opportunity to imprint their vision on the country. Democrats in March muscled through a big covid-19 relief bill on a party-line vote. The party seemed unified enough to leverage its thin majorities, as senior lawmakers prepared infrastructure and social spending bills that would cost trillions.

These dreams were never realistic, and they are now evaporating. But many progressives are having trouble accepting this, looking for gimmicky ways to enact broad structural change despite centrists’ objections.

To address the demands of key moderates, Democrats must cut back their big social spending bill from $3.5 trillion to $2 trillion or less. While all seem to agree that there is no way around slashing the price tag for Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), they disagree on how to do it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sent a letter to lawmakers last week arguing that Democrats should “do fewer things well.” House progressives responded with a letter arguing that Democrats should not cut programs but merely fund all of them for a shorter period of time. “This is our moment to make the President’s vision a reality,” the letter read. “This bill offers us a chance to fundamentally transform the relationship between the American people and their government.”

But that is not what President Biden promised when he ran for president. Mr. Biden handily beat the left’s candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), in the Democratic primaries, arguing that one need not stage a revolution to do good. He spoke about returning normalcy and competence to Washington, not renegotiating the social contract.

To be sure, Mr. Biden emphasized certain policy goals, particularly addressing climate change. Democrats still have a chance to make concrete progress on climate, family, health and education issues — if they set aside grandiose ideological ambitions and prioritize. They do not need to expand Medicare for seniors who already have ample benefits; shoring up the Affordable Care Act for Americans of working age is a higher priority. They do not have to provide universal free community college when enhanced Pell Grants can pay the neediest Americans’ tuition bills. They can put stricter income limits on the child tax credit, ensuring that it still cuts child poverty without wasting taxpayer money on higher-income people.

Progressives’ plan to fund everything for fewer years would risk the sudden expiration of social programs in a relative heartbeat. To the extent progressives believe that future Congresses would extend those benefits, they favor budget cheating, making it seem as though their agenda is relatively inexpensive when the low price-tag simply reflects an unusually short spending window. If Democrats used 10 years of new revenue to finance five years of new spending, that would compound the misrepresentation.

This does not mean Democrats should settle for little. If the 2020 election was not a vote for revolution, neither was it an endorsement of stasis. Mr. Biden promised that a return to normalcy would produce tangible results. Mr. Manchin’s reported opposition to acting ambitiously on climate change could torpedo a key element of Mr. Biden’s campaign — and deal untold harm to future generations.

The health of Americans and their climate depends on Democrats passing well-designed, durable programs on which people and businesses can rely. Both sides of the party must keep this in mind as the Democrats pare their legislative ambitions.

[Fëanor]

Opinion: Biden did not run to stage a revolution. Progressives should stop demanding one.

Opinion by the [Washington Post] Editorial Board

For a moment, progressives seemed to have a dream opportunity to imprint their vision on the country. Democrats in March muscled through a big covid-19 relief bill on a party-line vote. The party seemed unified enough to leverage its thin majorities, as senior lawmakers prepared infrastructure and social spending bills that would cost trillions.

These dreams were never realistic, and they are now evaporating. But many progressives are having trouble accepting this, looking for gimmicky ways to enact broad structural change despite centrists’ objections.

To address the demands of key moderates, Democrats must cut back their big social spending bill from $3.5 trillion to $2 trillion or less. While all seem to agree that there is no way around slashing the price tag for Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), they disagree on how to do it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sent a letter to lawmakers last week arguing that Democrats should “do fewer things well.” House progressives responded with a letter arguing that Democrats should not cut programs but merely fund all of them for a shorter period of time. “This is our moment to make the President’s vision a reality,” the letter read. “This bill offers us a chance to fundamentally transform the relationship between the American people and their government.”

But that is not what President Biden promised when he ran for president. Mr. Biden handily beat the left’s candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), in the Democratic primaries, arguing that one need not stage a revolution to do good. He spoke about returning normalcy and competence to Washington, not renegotiating the social contract.

To be sure, Mr. Biden emphasized certain policy goals, particularly addressing climate change. Democrats still have a chance to make concrete progress on climate, family, health and education issues — if they set aside grandiose ideological ambitions and prioritize. They do not need to expand Medicare for seniors who already have ample benefits; shoring up the Affordable Care Act for Americans of working age is a higher priority. They do not have to provide universal free community college when enhanced Pell Grants can pay the neediest Americans’ tuition bills. They can put stricter income limits on the child tax credit, ensuring that it still cuts child poverty without wasting taxpayer money on higher-income people.

Progressives’ plan to fund everything for fewer years would risk the sudden expiration of social programs in a relative heartbeat. To the extent progressives believe that future Congresses would extend those benefits, they favor budget cheating, making it seem as though their agenda is relatively inexpensive when the low price-tag simply reflects an unusually short spending window. If Democrats used 10 years of new revenue to finance five years of new spending, that would compound the misrepresentation.

This does not mean Democrats should settle for little. If the 2020 election was not a vote for revolution, neither was it an endorsement of stasis. Mr. Biden promised that a return to normalcy would produce tangible results. Mr. Manchin’s reported opposition to acting ambitiously on climate change could torpedo a key element of Mr. Biden’s campaign — and deal untold harm to future generations.

The health of Americans and their climate depends on Democrats passing well-designed, durable programs on which people and businesses can rely. Both sides of the party must keep this in mind as the Democrats pare their legislative ambitions.

This sort of crap wouldn't happen in a parliamentary democracy -- let's get that straight.  But Americans, of course, don't live in a democracy, not really, and things are getting worse for them.

The USA seriously needs most of the things the progressives want and the nation could afford it if the Rich and upper middle class paid a share that reflected the benefit they derive from living in America.

[71 dB]

My opinion about this WP opinion:

Opinion: Biden did not run to stage a revolution. Progressives should stop demanding one.

Why? What should the progressives do instead? Campaign for the status quo like the corporatists? The progressives didn't want Biden into the White House to begin with. They wanted Bernie Sanders. So, why are they supposed to just accept the lack of lefty agenda by Biden? Progressives were voted into the office to fight for regular people and that's what they should be doing. Demanding a "revolution" is just that.

Opinion by the [Washington Post] Editorial Board

For a moment, progressives seemed to have a dream opportunity to imprint their vision on the country. Democrats in March muscled through a big covid-19 relief bill on a party-line vote. The party seemed unified enough to leverage its thin majorities, as senior lawmakers prepared infrastructure and social spending bills that would cost trillions.

These dreams were never realistic, and they are now evaporating. But many progressives are having trouble accepting this, looking for gimmicky ways to enact broad structural change despite centrists’ objections.[/QUOTE]

Wars costing trillions are somehow realistic. Wall Street bailouts costing trillions are somehow realistic. Now that it is about improving the lives of regular Americans, it is not realistic. Why? Because of oligarchy. The  $3.5 trillion proposal is very popular among Americans. Vast majority support it. It is the centrist opinion. Those who oppose it represent right wing extremist oligarchic ideology in which the people of the richest country in the World should not have the "nice things" people in other developped countries have.

To address the demands of key moderates, Democrats must cut back their big social spending bill from $3.5 trillion to $2 trillion or less. While all seem to agree that there is no way around slashing the price tag for Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), they disagree on how to do it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sent a letter to lawmakers last week arguing that Democrats should “do fewer things well.” House progressives responded with a letter arguing that Democrats should not cut programs but merely fund all of them for a shorter period of time. “This is our moment to make the President’s vision a reality,” the letter read. “This bill offers us a chance to fundamentally transform the relationship between the American people and their government.”

The bill should have been AT LEAST 6 trillion. The 3.5 trillion bill is already a massive compromise. Manchin and Sinema are unwilling to say clearly what they want cut from the bill, because they know pretty much EVERYTHING in it is massively popular. Manchin doesn't like the green energy stuff, because he gets half a million a year from coal. Sinema knows that and these two EXTREMELY CORRUPT ASSHOLES can play the game enriching themselves while ruining the future of the country and possibly the whole planet.

But that is not what President Biden promised when he ran for president. Mr. Biden handily beat the left’s candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), in the Democratic primaries, arguing that one need not stage a revolution to do good. He spoke about returning normalcy and competence to Washington, not renegotiating the social contract.

Who cares what Biden promised? The lefties can use their political leverage to get their political agenda done as much as possible. Biden beat Bernie Sanders because of the massive support from corporote media (MOST ELECTABLE!!! BERNIE IS CRAZY COMMUNISTS!!! ) and the fuckery in DNC to stop Bernie. Bernie would be the president if the damn country wasn't an oligarchy and the media was reasonable in the way it frames politics. Yes, in oligarchy revolution is needed. Otherwise the top 1 % won't give in one inch. The social contract is ruined.

To be sure, Mr. Biden emphasized certain policy goals, particularly addressing climate change. Democrats still have a chance to make concrete progress on climate, family, health and education issues — if they set aside grandiose ideological ambitions and prioritize. They do not need to expand Medicare for seniors who already have ample benefits; shoring up the Affordable Care Act for Americans of working age is a higher priority. They do not have to provide universal free community college when enhanced Pell Grants can pay the neediest Americans’ tuition bills. They can put stricter income limits on the child tax credit, ensuring that it still cuts child poverty without wasting taxpayer money on higher-income people.

Oh yeah, do not tax the rich!! Don't give anything to the poor! fucking WP! Who believes this shit? Dont expand medicare?? But people WANT that!!! Hello! Big pharma likes this.

Progressives’ plan to fund everything for fewer years would risk the sudden expiration of social programs in a relative heartbeat. To the extent progressives believe that future Congresses would extend those benefits, they favor budget cheating, making it seem as though their agenda is relatively inexpensive when the low price-tag simply reflects an unusually short spending window. If Democrats used 10 years of new revenue to finance five years of new spending, that would compound the misrepresentation.

Yeah, there is ALWAYS problems with what progressives want. OTHER western countries have figured these things out! But then again other countries aren't completely corrupt oligarchies where the rich own most politicians.

This does not mean Democrats should settle for little. If the 2020 election was not a vote for revolution, neither was it an endorsement of stasis. Mr. Biden promised that a return to normalcy would produce tangible results. Mr. Manchin’s reported opposition to acting ambitiously on climate change could torpedo a key element of Mr. Biden’s campaign — and deal untold harm to future generations.

Yes. Dems need to get shit done before the 2022 election. Biden needs to tell Manching and Sinema that if they don't support the 3.5 trillion bill he will campaign to ruin their careers and if they do support it they can have some nice things for their states, whatever they want.

The health of Americans and their climate depends on Democrats passing well-designed, durable programs on which people and businesses can rely. Both sides of the party must keep this in mind as the Democrats pare their legislative ambitions.

Yeah, so why all this talk about progressives and their unrealisistic demands?

[k a rl h e nn i ng]

You may not be happy with the idea of centrism, Poju, but again, Biden won the election because he was not as left as Bernie. A crucial element in Biden's victory was Republicans/Conservatives who abhor Trump. If these people support Biden in spite of not agreeing with him 100% the Progressives ought to manage to be equally adult and realistic, as well.

[71 dB]

You may not be happy with the idea of centrism, Poju, but again, Biden won the election because he was not as left as Bernie. A crucial element in Biden's victory was Republicans/Conservatives who abhor Trump. If these people support Biden in spite of not agreeing with him 100% the Progressives ought to manage to be equally adult and realistic, as well.

No Karl. Biden won (the primary) because of the "most electable" narrative of corporate media + some other things such as "Obama years nostalgia" and the orchestration of corporate candidates going behind Biden at the critical moment. Even Elizabeth Warren stabbed Bernie in the back in her delusional hopes for becoming Biden's VP pick. It was rigged against Bernie from the beginning: Buttigieg* was made the victor of Iowa despite of the race being close (plus things behind the scenes that corporate media didn't talk about) to have the narrative of Bernie being a loser. People wanted rid of Trump so they wanted a winner and despite of agreeing with Bernie the most politically the played safe and went behind the "safe" options regurgitated in media. I followed all of this very closely at the time and it was very frustrating to see so many here so clueless of how the primary went. The DNC practically stopped Bernie two times from becoming the president to protect the oligarchy. It is a massive loss for regular Americans, but hey, why do I care? I have** the nice things millions of Americans can only dream about. My mistake was being so slow to understand the US is not a first world country. It is just a large, very rich and militarily powerful third world country pretending to be a beacon of democracy and freedom what it might have been in the past, but is far from that anymore. The US was a really great country in the WWII and with the Marshall program helping Europe get on its feet and making them allies. In the 50's and 60's the US had prosperous middle class and strong unions, but then things started going wrong and from the late 70's it has been downhill. As a society the US has become very unstable and divided. The corporate media has lied to the people for decades driving a lot of people insane not knowing who they can trust. So they trust "outsiders" like Trump.

Biden got 7 million more votes, but it could have gone for Trump. It was a close call. Covid-19 helped Biden because it exposed to the incompetence of Trump to some voters.

Washington Post does have good articles, but when it comes to defending the oligarchs, it shouldn't be unclear whose side they take. It is corporate media outlet owned by oligarchs. They will take lefty position only when it is convenient such as in symbolic issues. They might be "progressive" on social issues (gay marriage, racism, gender equality etc.) but they are not progressive on economic issues. That's why they call the demands of the progressives unrealistic. Understanding this isn't rocket science. Maybe people are just unwilling to admit the media they have trusted all they lives aren't as trustworthy as they have believed. Cognitive dissonance?

* In the beginning the establishment wasn't so firmly behind Biden. Any corporate candidate would have been good for them such as Pete Buttigieg. The most important thing was to stop Bernie. For the establishment even a second term for Trump would have been better than Bernie as the president, because Bernie would have been the president of the bottom 99 %, not the top 1 %.

** Well, buying Reese's Peanut Butter Cups in Finland is difficult and if they are sold somewhere the price is 3 times what they cost in the US. That's one of the only things I envy Americans for. 

[k a rl h e nn i ng]

No Karl. Biden won (the primary) because of the "most electable" narrative of corporate media + some other things such as "Obama years nostalgia" and the orchestration of corporate candidates going behind Biden at the critical moment. Even Elizabeth Warren stabbed Bernie in the back in her delusional hopes for becoming Biden's VP pick. It was rigged against Bernie from the beginning: Buttigieg* was made the victor of Iowa despite of the race being close (plus things behind the scenes that corporate media didn't talk about) to have the narrative of Bernie being a loser. People wanted rid of Trump so they wanted a winner and despite of agreeing with Bernie the most politically the played safe and went behind the "safe" options regurgitated in media. I followed all of this very closely at the time and it was very frustrating to see so many here so clueless of how the primary went. The DNC practically stopped Bernie two times from becoming the president to protect the oligarchy. It is a massive loss for regular Americans, but hey, why do I care? I have** the nice things millions of Americans can only dream about. My mistake was being so slow to understand the US is not a first world country. It is just a large, very rich and militarily powerful third world country pretending to be a beacon of democracy and freedom what it might have been in the past, but is far from that anymore. The US was a really great country in the WWII and with the Marshall program helping Europe get on its feet and making them allies. In the 50's and 60's the US had prosperous middle class and strong unions, but then things started going wrong and from the late 70's it has been downhill. As a society the US has become very unstable and divided. The corporate media has lied to the people for decades driving a lot of people insane not knowing who they can trust. So they trust "outsiders" like Trump.

Biden got 7 million more votes, but it could have gone for Trump. It was a close call. Covid-19 helped Biden because it exposed to the incompetence of Trump to some voters.

Washington Post does have good articles, but when it comes to defending the oligarchs, it shouldn't be unclear whose side they take. It is corporate media outlet owned by oligarchs. They will take lefty position only when it is convenient such as in symbolic issues. They might be "progressive" on social issues (gay marriage, racism, gender equality etc.) but they are not progressive on economic issues. That's why they call the demands of the progressives unrealistic. Understanding this isn't rocket science. Maybe people are just unwilling to admit the media they have trusted all they lives aren't as trustworthy as they have believed. Cognitive dissonance?

* In the beginning the establishment wasn't so firmly behind Biden. Any corporate candidate would have been good for them such as Pete Buttigieg. The most important thing was to stop Bernie. For the establishment even a second term for Trump would have been better than Bernie as the president, because Bernie would have been the president of the bottom 99 %, not the top 1 %.

** Well, buying Reese's Peanut Butter Cups in Finland is difficult and if they are sold somewhere the price is 3 times what they cost in the US. That's one of the only things I envy Americans for. 

Suffice it to say that I disagree on many points.

[71 dB]

Suffice it to say that I disagree on many points.

Explain why you disagree. It is good to explain your beliefs to other people, because you can "test" your believes that way. I want my beliefs to hold water. If I notice that's not the case I need to adjust my beliefs.

The demands of progressives might sadly be politically unrealistic (maybe because the progressives don't know how to play hardball and use leverage), but those demands are not fiscally unrealistic.

[SimonNZ]

Explain why you disagree. It is good to explain your beliefs to other people, because you can "test" your believes that way. I want my beliefs to hold water. If I notice that's not the case I need to adjust my beliefs.

A variety of people have been - patiently or otherwise - explaining their positions and their reasons for disagreement to you for years now from a variety of angles and a variety of different political positions. You've never challenged your own thinking when they do so, you just get angry and double down. It would be nice for once to hear you say "I hadn't considered that before - looking at it now I think you might be right", but it hasn't happened yet.

Instead of asking people to make their case again and expect a different result why not go back over previous arguments on this thread and the one before it and ask yourself if you really were listening, if you really were trying to challenge your own ideas, or if it just reads as though you really do think you have all the answers and know every issue perfectly?

Don't reply: go back and read.

[milk]

A variety of people have been - patiently or otherwise - explaining their positions and their reasons for disagreement to you for years now from a variety of angles and a variety of different political positions. You've never challenged your own thinking when they do so, you just get angry and double down. It would be nice for once to hear you say "I hadn't considered that before - looking at it now I think you might be right", but it hasn't happened yet.

Instead of asking people to make their case again and expect a different result why not go back over previous arguments on this thread and the one before it and ask yourself if you really were listening, if you really were trying to challenge your own ideas, or if it just reads as though you really do think you have all the answers and know every issue perfectly?

Don't reply: go back and read.

I know there’s a long history with 71 on this kind of exchange but I don’t see the need to keep dragging it up. Maybe I’m missing something but people seem to constantly beat up on 71. I understand there’s some conflict or controversy from the past but it seems way past. I read this post regularly and I don’t think I’ve seen 71 be unreasonable or rude in the last year at least. 71 can ask. If Karl doesn’t want to, he doesn’t have to. I don’t think it’s recommended on any post here, about politics or music, to say “don’t ask that, it’s been answered.” There’s always room for better answers or more discussion. Unless the question is so basic and simple which this isn’t.

[71 dB]

Don't reply: go back and read.

I go to sleep.

[SimonNZ]

I know there’s a long history with 71 on this kind of exchange but I don’t see the need to keep dragging it up. Maybe I’m missing something but people seem to constantly beat up on 71. I understand there’s some conflict or controversy from the past but it seems way past. I read this post regularly and I don’t think I’ve seen 71 be unreasonable or rude in the last year at least. 71 can ask. If Karl doesn’t want to, he doesn’t have to. I don’t think it’s recommended on any post here, about politics or music, to say “don’t ask that, it’s been answered.” There’s always room for better answers or more discussion. Unless the question is so basic and simple which this isn’t.

Fair enough. I wasn't trying to start something but stop something that has proved utterly unfruitful many times over.

The musical analogy I might use, imperfect as it is, would be with posters who wont accept any classical after, say, 1945, and dismiss sit all as "the emperors new cloths", and refuse to budge to the point of calling everyone who does appreciate it as deluded or brainwashed (happily a rarity here, but there was no shortage at TC). There is every bit the sense in those situations that one more conversation is not going help and one might as well just say “don’t ask that, it’s been answered.”

[k a rl h e nn i ng]

[snip] but those demands are not fiscally unrealistic.

On that point I agree completely.

[71 dB]

A variety of people have been - patiently or otherwise - explaining their positions and their reasons for disagreement to you for years now from a variety of angles and a variety of different political positions. You've never challenged your own thinking when they do so, you just get angry and double down. It would be nice for once to hear you say "I hadn't considered that before - looking at it now I think you might be right", but it hasn't happened yet.

Instead of asking people to make their case again and expect a different result why not go back over previous arguments on this thread and the one before it and ask yourself if you really were listening, if you really were trying to challenge your own ideas, or if it just reads as though you really do think you have all the answers and know every issue perfectly?

Don't reply: go back and read.

Good morning! (or whatever the time is for you).

Yes, people have explained their positions, but that doesn't mean I instantly change my own opinions accordingly. I am willing to change my views when convincing arguments are given. It is not my fault if people aren't able to give convincing enough arguments.

Here is something I have changed my views about a little bit: The forcethevote thing almost a year ago and the massive feud between TYT and Jimmy Door has made me much more careful and critical with these outlets. At first it looked as if TYT were frauds and Jimmy Door is the one to be trusted, but lately I trust TYT more and Jimmy Doors seems to have evolved into a total fraud talking about ivermectin and what not. I haven't even listened to him for a while.  Meanwhile what TYT does these days looks trustworthy, but I am critical. So many "good guys" have turned into nonsense regurtating grifters. This doesn't mean I trust American corporate media more. They have been horrible for decades and still are. I trust Kyle Kulinski and David Pakman the most, but I am critical.

[71 dB]

On that point I agree completely.

Our disagreements are possibly much smaller than we think. Our disagreement might be more of semantic kind ("what does unrealistic mean?") than politic.

Something can be unrealistic in the short term, but realistic in the long term. Just 20 years ago it looked unrealistic most Dems (politicians) would support gay marriage, but that changed fast when things started to happen. It is domino effect and it turns unrealistic things realistic. Someone just has to have the courage and strength to push the first domino. Progressives are domino pushers, or at least they should be.

[Fëanor]

...
The DNC practically stopped Bernie two times from becoming the president to protect the oligarchy. It is a massive loss for regular Americans, but hey, why do I care? I have** the nice things millions of Americans can only dream about. My mistake was being so slow to understand the US is not a first world country. It is just a large, very rich and militarily powerful third world country pretending to be a beacon of democracy and freedom what it might have been in the past, but is far from that anymore. The US was a really great country in the WWII and with the Marshall program helping Europe get on its feet and making them allies. In the 50's and 60's the US had prosperous middle class and strong unions, but then things started going wrong and from the late 70's it has been downhill. As a society the US has become very unstable and divided. The corporate media has lied to the people for decades driving a lot of people insane not knowing who they can trust. So they trust "outsiders" like Trump.
...

* In the beginning the establishment wasn't so firmly behind Biden. Any corporate candidate would have been good for them such as Pete Buttigieg. The most important thing was to stop Bernie. For the establishment even a second term for Trump would have been better than Bernie as the president, because Bernie would have been the president of the bottom 99 %, not the top 1 %.

The USA isn't a strong democracy.  Going back to the creation of the US Constitution, the USA was designed to be an upper-middle class oligarchy.

(Trivia:  George Washington was a probably the wealthiest person in the country at the time of the War of Independence.  His anti-British motivations was substantially based on his land speculation activities in trans-Appalachia where the British government as banned settlement.)

The US Constitution, by original design, gave the states far too much influence over the Federal government.  The Senate, though directly elected today, still gives all state the same number of Senators despite huge population size difference.  Worse, maybe, the States control all aspects of the Federal electoral process, including voter registration and district definitions.  And the States' process are control by highly partisan committees that (increasingly) are control by Republicans.

The bottom line is that poor quality of American democracy thwarts progressive policies that have much more popular support than can be expressed in Congress.  I think the conservative grip on the election the President and of Congress will be very hard -- possibly impossible -- to break.

[krummholz]

The demands of progressives might sadly be politically unrealistic (maybe because the progressives don't know how to play hardball and use leverage), but those demands are not fiscally unrealistic.

Political and fiscal considerations are not orthogonal, however. What progressives want is certainly fiscally unrealistic if the revenue cannot be generated to pay for it! But that brings us back to politics: the American voter will never agree to bring the tax rates up to what they would need to be to pay for the most ambitious programs. So if these programs pass, they will be "paid for" by more borrowing, or worse, by simply printing more money. In the end the result will be runaway inflation and, likely, economic chaos. Always be careful what you wish for, because you might get it, and whatever comes with it.

Knowing this, I consider the lesser of the two evils to be to embrace the center and fiscal conservatism.

[k a rl h e nn i ng]

Political and fiscal considerations are not orthogonal, however. What progressives want is certainly fiscally unrealistic if the revenue cannot be generated to pay for it! But that brings us back to politics: the American voter will never agree to bring the tax rates up to what they would need to be to pay for the most ambitious programs. So if these programs pass, they will be "paid for" by more borrowing, or worse, by simply printing more money. In the end the result will be runaway inflation and, likely, economic chaos. Always be careful what you wish for, because you might get it, and whatever comes with it.

Knowing this, I consider the lesser of the two evils to be to embrace the center and fiscal conservatism.

All good sense.

[71 dB]

Political and fiscal considerations are not orthogonal, however. What progressives want is certainly fiscally unrealistic if the revenue cannot be generated to pay for it! But that brings us back to politics: the American voter will never agree to bring the tax rates up to what they would need to be to pay for the most ambitious programs. So if these programs pass, they will be "paid for" by more borrowing, or worse, by simply printing more money. In the end the result will be runaway inflation and, likely, economic chaos. Always be careful what you wish for, because you might get it, and whatever comes with it.

Knowing this, I consider the lesser of the two evils to be to embrace the center and fiscal conservatism.

According to polls most Americans (around 80 % I believe) support increasing taxes for the rich. Paying for these programs don't need to mean increasing the taxes for regular Americans. Also, Americans pay a lot of corporate taxes such as healthcare premiums. These programs alllow getting rid of these taxes and for most Americans the taxes would get lower despite of increased in state taxes. It all comes down to if the corporate media is willing to explain these things correctly to the people instead of fearmongering on the behalf of Big Pharma etc (corporate media and Big Pharma are cahoots because of drug add in the media. The US is insane country for allowing drug adds. Doctors tell what drug you should take! This creates insane insentives for the media to lie about healthcare.

How are increases to the military budget paid for? More borrowing I guess. Corporate media doesn't care, because the military industry complex is the benefactor. Why doesn't military budget increases cause runaway inflation? Funny how helping regular people is always the problem!

[greg]

Meanwhile what TYT does these days looks trustworthy, but I am critical. So many "good guys" have turned into nonsense regurtating grifters. This doesn't mean I trust American corporate media more. They have been horrible for decades and still are. I trust Kyle Kulinski and David Pakman the most, but I am critical.

The root of the problem is the game itself. It's human psychology and money. Both corporate media and small reporters, journalists, and commentators face the same issue. That's why I trust neither.

Everyone needs to know of potential threats in the world. But to hype it up more than it needs to be to catch the attention of groups of people that are concerned with those specific possible threat is what gives them attention (and money). So they will continue to focus on those types of threats, as it is what feeds and houses them.

Even the people I listen to are not exempt from being guilty of that frequently. But at least I recognize it- so many people out there don't, at all.