American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Woowee

https://twitter.com/user/status/1523036745264107521

And Republicans are waging a war against student loan forgiveness because - wait for it - it is a gift to the wealthy.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by Dion

Republicans Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine both support abortion access but voted no along with Manchin who said the Bill was too broad.

So why wouldn't the silly Democrats draft a bill that these three could get behind? Even if it was not 100% what they wanted it would be better than what is about to happen. I think I read, though, that the next step would have required 2/3 approval. So might be moot anyway.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by chedder

So why wouldn't the silly Democrats draft a bill that these three could get behind? Even if it was not 100% what they wanted it would be better than what is about to happen. I think I read, though, that the next step would have required 2/3 approval. So might be moot anyway.

Because it's literally impossible. If they try to address their "concerns" with the current bill, then they simply move the goalposts and vote no with new "concerns". Republicans, Manchin and Sinema do not govern in good faith, which makes trying to work with them pointless

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Because it's literally impossible. If they try to address their "concerns" with the current bill, then they simply move the goalposts and vote no with new "concerns". Republicans, Manchin and Sinema do not govern in good faith, which makes trying to work with them pointless

It's this. Manchin and Sinema are DINOs. They're basically Republicans that will sometimes vote with the Democrats to give the illusion that the Democrats control the Senate, and then the Republican can say "see how ineffective the Dems are, vote for us".

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

It's this. Manchin and Sinema are DINOs.

People need to stop with this "No true Scotsman" washing of the Democratic Party. This is who a large chunk of them are. If it wasn't Manchin and Sinema, it'd be Maggie Hasan and John Hickenlooper or some ####.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by rubecube

People need to stop with this "No true Scotsman" washing of the Democratic Party. This is who a large chunk of them are. If it wasn't Manchin and Sinema, it'd be Maggie Hasan and John Hickenlooper or some ####.

Yeah, maybe? But why aren't they doing that now?

I'd argue the fallacy is actually that the Democratic Party is left wing, or far-left. They're a right wing party.

It's a two-party system with a right wing party and an ultra-right wing party.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Yeah, maybe? But why aren't they doing that now?

Because they have Manchin and Sinema taking the heat for it so they don't have to. Classic rotating villain stuff. The Dems always have a couple on standby.

EDIT: And I think you're right. They are a right-wing party. So let's stop pretending that Manchin and Sinema aren't Democrats when they do right-wing things.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Because they have Manchin and Sinema taking the heat for it so they don't have to. Classic rotating villain stuff. The Dems always have a couple on standby.

EDIT: And I think you're right. They are a right-wing party. So let's stop pretending that Manchin and Sinema aren't Democrats when they do right-wing things.

Could a progressive candidate that primaries Sinema win in Arizona? Would the Democrats even allow Sinema to get primaried or would the Dems just want to keep the status quo?
We all know a progressive candidate would lose West Virginia by 30 points.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Could a progressive candidate that primaries Sinema win in Arizona? Would the Democrats even allow Sinema to get primaried or would the Dems just want to keep the status quo?
We all know a progressive candidate would lose West Virginia by 30 points.

I think Sinema will end up getting primaried, but I doubt they run a progressive candidate. That said, I don't think they necessarily need a full-blown "progressive." Contrary to what people seem to attribute my beliefs to be, I still think "less Republicans" is better than "more Republicans," so I still want them to run a candidate that can win.

I think people would happily settle for a candidate that isn't going to openly torpedo the president's agenda.

[rubecube]

On another note, being a conservative commentator/politician must be the easiest job in the world. You can just completely make #### up like this and at least 30% of the population will be like "HE'S RIGHT! GOD DAMN SOCIALISTS ARE MAKING ME WASH MY OWN DISHES!"

https://twitter.com/user/status/1524458691520569345

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Could a progressive candidate that primaries Sinema win in Arizona? Would the Democrats even allow Sinema to get primaried or would the Dems just want to keep the status quo?
We all know a progressive candidate would lose West Virginia by 30 points.

Arizona has just started voting Democrats by a tiny margin. I doubt a progressive candidate could win there. Before Sinema won in 2018, there hadn't been a Democratic senator since 1995.

And even then both current Arizona senators beat the same Republican candidate over a 2 year period. She may just have been a terrible candidate and it goes back to republicans in the next cycle.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by rubecube

On another note, being a conservative commentator/politician must be the easiest job in the world. You can just completely make #### up like this and at least 30% of the population will be like "HE'S RIGHT! GOD DAMN SOCIALISTS ARE MAKING ME WASH MY OWN DISHES!"

He's probably getting a fancy expensive foreign model that isn't made in America. Could probably pick up a Kitchenaid any day he wanted.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

And Republicans are waging a war against student loan forgiveness because - wait for it - it is a gift to the wealthy.

Well it is. It’s only a political issue for a small fraction of voters. And the people who would benefit the most from loan forgiveness or upper-middle-class professionals.

If Biden Forgives Student Loans, Voters Won’t Forget It

…Only 13 percent of Americans carry any federal student debt in the first place, and those who carry the most are also among those likely to earn the most in the future.

The issue offers little political benefit to Biden. As Demsas reported, the percentage of Americans who rate student debt as a top concern is too small for pollsters even to measure. But if carried out, student-debt relief could bring large downside risk because it so obviously involves a transfer of wealth from average-income Americans to the most energized, but also more advantaged, parts of the Democratic coalition...

The amount of money at stake may be comparatively small, but the symbolism of what’s being done could be huge: a tax on the voters whom the Democratic Party most desperately needs to regain. And all in order to benefit small but internally influential blocs of activists.

Nobody is proposing to forgive $10,000 of federally guaranteed home-mortgage debt. So why student debt? It’s a classic case of opting for strong claimants over strong claims.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...larity/629752/

Smart Democrats - the ones interested in winning mid-term races - should be opposing student loan forgiveness too.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Well it is. It’s only a political issue for a small fraction of voters. And the people who would benefit the most from loan forgiveness or upper-middle-class professionals.



Smart Democrats - the ones interested in winning mid-term races - should be opposing student loan forgiveness too.

Dopey argument. Do people without kids get angry because people with kids get the child benefit? No. As long as its mean tested - i.e. rich people don't get it. No one will care.

[MoneyGuy]

Our dishwasher is done and it’ll take a long time to get a new one. Thanks, Biden.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Dopey argument. Do people without kids get angry because people with kids get the child benefit? No. As long as its mean tested - i.e. rich people don't get it. No one will care.

There's actually evidence that means-testing things actually makes them more politically unpopular.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Well it is. It’s only a political issue for a small fraction of voters. And the people who would benefit the most from loan forgiveness or upper-middle-class professionals.



Smart Democrats - the ones interested in winning mid-term races - should be opposing student loan forgiveness too.

Total bull#### post there Cliff You want to really talk about student debt, let's get it on. You game?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Dopey argument. Do people without kids get angry because people with kids get the child benefit? No. As long as its mean tested - i.e. rich people don't get it. No one will care.

Student loans are already means tested. That's a red herring. You can't get loans if you or your parents have the means. That's what FAFSA determines and how much potential aid you have access to. That's why the rich are against student loan forgiveness as it doesn't give them a massive windfall. It most affects middle to lower class students who have gone to school on the back of loans rather than mommy and daddy's money.

The problem with student loans is not the fact that they should be paid back, its the predatory nature in which they are taken out, the criminal administration, the unbearable terms, and the vig that never seems to go in the student's favor. Fix the system and the larger problem will resolve itself.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Student loans are already means tested. That's a red herring. You can't get loans if you or your parents have the means. That's what FAFSA determines and how much potential aid you have access to. That's why the rich are against student loan forgiveness as it doesn't give them a massive windfall. It most affects middle to lower class students who have gone to school on the back of loans rather than mommy and daddy's money.



The problem with student loans is not the fact that they should be paid back, its the predatory nature in which they are taken out, the criminal administration, the unbearable terms, and the vig that never seems to go in the student's favor. Fix the system and the larger problem will resolve itself.

The most idiotic response I've seen to this is when conservatives say "You agreed to the terms, so you should pay it back," or they'll blame it on the kids for picking the wrong major. You know, because 17-18 isn't old enough to drink, but it's certainly old enough to make life-altering decisions that you should have to live with for the rest of your life.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

He's probably getting a fancy expensive foreign model that isn't made in America. Could probably pick up a Kitchenaid any day he wanted.

He probably had a Mexican maid that got deported and now has immigration on his arse