***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[RustyShackleford]

You keep doing this thing where you just casually state things I didn't say.

I didn't say: "online progressive can't handle my reality-based take"

i said

"online progressives dislike opinions that run contrary to their own"

maybe you all are right, maybe I'm right. Who can say

But this discontent many may feel about my manner of presentation or the content of the opinion, isn't a data point that refutes my claims.

and if I was acting the exact same way but it was in support of the consensus opinion, undoubtedly people would feel a lot differently about it.

-I have directly addressed your claims about defunding the police and the Dems election results. You seem to be ignoring that to focus on be saying you made an *** of yourself to act like that is the totality of my criticism of your arguments. When in reality, I am making multiple objections. Some objections are that some of your takes are bad and you don't have evidence to back them up, secondly, you made yourself look like an *** with how you acted during the discussion. So if you got an issue with me misrepresenting your position, the feeling is mutual

I am not using other people's opinions as a data point to refute your claims. I am using it as a data point that you made an *** of yourself by the way you acted, beyond your takes on defunding the police. I am not just talking about you holding an opinion that goes against most of the thread.

If you want to people to address exactly what you say when you say it, and not make inferences based on your other comments. Then do the same for others, because you rely on that rhetorical move a ton too. People were calling this out during your rant and you acted like people were just having problems with your take. You do that **** to me all the time as well

(BTW, if you are taking issue about supposedly misrepresenting what you said, it is kinda convenient you skip over the part of my post where I quote your words from a few months back saying you don't have any evidence to back up your point about defunding the police costing the Dems the election. But yeah, alternate reality.)

-Also Others can say if they agree with my assessment if you made an *** of yourself. If you claim that my post was not ground in reality, then other people can weigh in on whose take is more representative of what happened. The thing is, you know other people will disagree with your take, so you want to act like they have a grievance (the fact you said something they disagreed with) that will prevent them from giving an honest assessment.

I know being an internet a-hole is your schtick. Sometimes it is funny, sometimes not.

And Yes, maybe people agree with the a-hole, the a-hole will get less heat. The contrarian a-hole will get tons. That doesn't mean they are not *******s.

It wasn't just about people not liking your takes. Famb, you went full buffoon toward the end when you were getting pressed. Telling people they were just trying to punish the police and other flippant nonsense people wanted to defund the police to pay for M4A.

You can feel different about what happened, but I think reality is on my side.

 

[RustyShackleford]

coincidentally I feel the exact same way about yall.

finally something we can agree on.

Keep fighting against the consensus opinions you think are bad

Not like there is a term for people like that, one you dislike when people call you it

 

[blastercombo]

Ain’t he from Canada too? Opinion is completely worthless. MAGAnada can sit

 

[boxer15]

Ain’t he from Canada too? Opinion is completely worthless. MAGAnada can sit

NT’s Ted Cruz

 

[dwalk31]

 

[janitor]

Them anti-Aunt Teefa’s

 

[RustyShackleford]

The changes to the check criteria seemed stupid because of how petty it was

Seems like Dems centrist wanted a talking point over again else.

I mean they reduced the upper limit by $7,000 for single filler and $14,000 for couples from the last rescue package. That's it?

In a 1.9 trillion dollar bill, why the **** does savings even matter. Plus you already got $15 minimum wage taken out

Joe Manchin is ****ing ***.

 

[junglejim]

2009 is the last time minimum wage was increased and prices fell to 171k by 2011, so I don't think this is cherry picking.

Which date do you think wouldn't be misleading? Surely not right before the bubble burst?

Historical US Home Prices: Monthly Median from 1953-2024

See United States historical monthly median single family home prices from 1953-2024. Non-seasonally adjusted values, with and without inflation.

dqydj.com

Like I said, I don't disagree with the point at all, but using 2009 when houses were about as cheap as they have been in the last two decades is misleading. Regardless the point remains that housing costs are outrageous and its likely only going to get worse due to continued monetary policy of low interest rates.

 

[junglejim]

The changes to the check criteria seemed stupid because of how petty it was

Seems like Dems centrist wanted a talking point over again else.

I mean they reduced the upper limit by $7,000 for single filler and $14,000 for couples from the last rescue package. That's it?

In a 1.9 trillion dollar bill, why the **** does savings even matter. Plus you already got $15 minimum wage taken out

Joe Manchin is ****ing ***.

I'd be real interested in seeing how much this saves on the cost of the bill. If im looking at these IRS tables right only 34M people made income between the reduced limits as at very best case scenario its only saving like $50B on a $1.9T bill. Seems senseless and a real good way to alienate a bunch of voters.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I'd be real interested in seeing how much this saves on the cost of the bill. If im looking at these IRS tables right only 34M people made income between the reduced limits as at very best case scenario its only saving like $50B on a $1.9T bill. Seems senseless and a real good way to alienate a bunch of voters.

I think I saw it saves 12 billion

Remember, this is just the discounting bracket. So these folk were not getting the full $1400 anyway



So yeah, Manchin is a massive ***

 

[blastercombo]

The changes to the check criteria seemed stupid because of how petty it was

Seems like Dems centrist wanted a talking point over again else.

I mean they reduced the upper limit by $7,000 for single filler and $14,000 for couples from the last rescue package. That's it?

In a 1.9 trillion dollar bill, why the **** does savings even matter. Plus you already got $15 minimum wage taken out

Joe Manchin is ****ing ***.

Seemed more like an internal power flex than anything else. Just wanted to see how much pull they had. In the end it’ll cost them their damn seats. Stupid

 

[RustyShackleford]

Seemed more like an internal power flex than anything else. Just wanted to see how much pull they had. In the end it’ll cost them their damn seats. Stupid

This is minor, it will not cost anyone their seats

People are overreacting

Voter suppression and gerrymandering are gonna cost the Dems in their years to come.

And that where Manchin will really hurt the Dems.

 

[blastercombo]

This is minor, it will not cost anyone their seats

People are overreacting

Voter suppression and gerrymandering are gonna cost the Dems in their years to come.

And that where Manchin will really hurt the Dems.

Oh no no, I meant the need to power flex on huge public decisions like this.. not this single bill. And by seats I mean them personally. Another dem not hell bent on being “that guy” will step in.

 

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

Like I said, I don't disagree with the point at all, but using 2009 when houses were about as cheap as they have been in the last two decades is misleading.

Prices hadn't come close to bottoming out in 2009; they were a full 10% lower 2 years later. That said, I was sincerely curious if you thought there was a less misleading baseline to use.

Point in time comparisons are tricky with volatile data, but I'm not sure a strictly less misleading baseline exists - especially given the comparison to minimum wage. You could compare moving averages, but then you just move the debate to an appropriate look-back.

 

[whywesteppin]

They should've given us the option on January 20 to get vaccinated right away and forfeit our stimulus check. I would've done it in a heartbeat. I don't have time or patience for this nickel and diming.

This is of course a bit tongue-in-cheek but the point is that it's becoming ridiculous.

 

[IATT]

 

[elpablo21]

That 12 billie saved better be a down payment on the filibuster

 

[IATT]

 

[RustyShackleford]

That 12 billie saved better be a down payment on the filibuster

Nah

Like gry60 said Manchin is basically Dixiecrat in practice

Sinema too

 

[had pants]

 

[had pants]

 

[had pants]

 

[had pants]

 

[mplsdunk]

The fear in her eyes.

 

[superblytrife]

This is minor, it will not cost anyone their seats

People are overreacting

Voter suppression and gerrymandering are gonna cost the Dems in their years to come.

And that where Manchin will really hurt the Dems.

I think both can be true though. The optics of this in-fighting over minuscule (in the grand scheme of the bill) amounts of $$ isn’t a good look.

Put it this way: this move will in no way bring more Dem voters into the fold. And when you’re fighting voter suppression and gerrymandering, you better do all you can to attract more voters AND keep the ones you already have.