Support NeoGAF

[Jooney]

The filibuster is a phenomenal excuse for a Senator who wants to appear liberal to constituents without having to do things that major donors might not like.

I can see how this makes sense. I also heard similar analysis about how senate traditionalists (i.e. the older senators) see the filibuster as a mechanism to preserve their own individual power.

All of this of course is to the detriment of the American people, whose will is thwarted by some anonymous a-hole who is not held accountable for his dissent.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Harkin not running for re-election. Could be an interesting and vital 2014 election now in IA.

If Republicans don't help themselves with the people they nominate, Dems don't help with all these resignations!

Harkin is retiring. Good lord dems may be so fucked if republicans don't nominate a bunch of idiots this time.

Don't worry too much about Iowa. IA went Obama 52-46 in 2012, 54-44 in 2008, barely went Bush in 2004 (50-49,) and went Gore in 2000. IA retained a justice that voted for gay marriage (after the debacle in the near aftermath of the decision, losing three justices that also voted for it.)

The Iowa Democratic Party is functioning well, they've already announced a candidate for Sec of State and they were well in the process of recruiting a strong candidate against the R governor, now they use those plans to recruit a candidate for a race they can actually win. This is pretty impressive considering the mess the last D governor left 2 years ago.

The Republican Party of Iowa is in shambles. Less than a year after ousting a competent Executive Director following his gaffe in the caucuses leading to a Paul supporter getting elected ED to fill the remaining term, they fought another bitter fight that again led to a Paul supporter getting elected ED. Following a relatively disappointing election on the down ballot races (although completely expected by anyone with a brain,) and the unsuccessful factions are sharpening their long knives. The Paul faction isn't raising the money the business or Christian factions could, and they don't have the electoral chops to overcome a money deficit.

Assessing the likely players:

• Bruce Braley (D-IA01) Will work his ass off.
• Dave Loebsack (D-IA02) Accidental candidate, too liberal for any district that doesn't include Iowa City and without Obama's coattails.
• Tom Latham (R-IA03) Very low profile in eastern Iowa, where most of the population is outside of Des Moines.
• Steve King (R-IA04) Can't win statewide, and I'm pretty sure he knows it.
• Tom Vilsack (D-Former governor) Statewide name recognition, not sure if he wants it.
• Christy Vilsack (D-Former First Lady, strong challenger to King-IA04) Statewide name recognition, not the strongest candidate, but people like her.
• Roxanne Conlin (D-Former Senate and gubernatorial candidate) Ran a decent campaign against Grassley in '10, could still have the organization to make another run.
• Chet Culver (D-Former gov) Not a chance in hell, I'm just throwing him in for completionists. Even Ds were bitching about him at the end of his last term.

Constitutional officers (Various) All of them seem pretty comfortable where they're at except maybe:

• Kim Reynolds (R-LtGov) Branstad seems to be grooming her more to take over the governor's mansion in 2018, but possible. Scant paper trail.
• Matt Schultz (R-SecState) Huge ego. Even for a politician. Might be smart enough to realize he can't ride the vote fraud bullshit much longer.

Outside those known possible candidates, the party leaderships for both parties initially strike me as not actively aiming higher. Senate Majority Leader Gronstal has the clout to make a run, but I think his time has passed and he'll stand pat. Rep. Tyler Olson (D - Cedar Rapids) sticks out to me as an up-and-comer setting himself up for bigger things, but honestly, I'm pretty clueless on a lot of the younger names in the statehouse. About 10-15 years ago, there was a clique of young Rs that everyone thought were going to move up to bigger things, but they kind of fizzled out and haven't done a lot politically since then (Corbett, Grubbs, Larson, Rants, and Siegrist if you're curious.) One of them might try to resurrect their political careers. Former UofIowa wrestling coach Dan Gable used to get mentioned as a possible R candidate, but he's just pissed about Title IX and probably saw how much UofNebraska football coach Tom Osborne hated Congress.

It's way too early to lay money on the line, but I'm thinking Christy Vilsack gets the nom, and IA finally elects its first woman to Congress. Latham gets the R nom, and IA-03 goes D.

 

[makingmusic476]

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/26/rigging-the-election-for-beginners/

Even the conservative blogs can't dress this one up.

The fucking comments:

Republicans can and should use it to offset the Progressives advantage http://jer-jersplace.blogspot.com/2012/12/all-politics-is-localor-should-be.html

If the Republicans do not do this where they can, they are indeed the stupid party and not worth supporting in order to save our nation, IMO

Raquel Pinkbullet on January 26, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Yeah, that damn advantage that comes from there being more people that wanna vote for you.

This is crazy. "Yes, let's subvert democracy such that the party with less votes is able to win national elections, because it'll SAVE THE COUNTRY."

Subverting democracy for "the good of the country" is what leads to totalitarianism. These people love to bring up Stalin and the USSR, then turn around and support measures similar to what lead to the loss of democracy in such nations.

 

[Hitokage]

If that is directed at me, I clearly stated that not being able to appoint nominees is a negative.

As a footnote to a "largely symbolic" defeat. It's not just you though, as I've seen "well the house is the same so it doesn't matter" line quite a few times this week.

Appointment obstruction is part of how the ATF got neutered and how Republicans intended to neuter the CPB.

 

[Mario]

Yeah, that damn advantage that comes from there being more people that wanna vote for you.

Only because they get free phones and welfare!

This is crazy. "Yes, let's subvert democracy such that the party with less votes is able to win national elections, because it'll SAVE THE COUNTRY."

It has been interesting to watch the deluded masses of the minority come to realize they are not the majority, shifting from accusations of voter fraud and media bias to "let's just do whatever it takes to win it back". Finally, the Republican base is actually becoming aware and aligned with the sly tactics Republican politicians have been applying for years. Just a pity they aren't using it as an opportunity to reassess their support of the party at the cost of the democracy.

 

[Jooney]

As a footnote to a "largely symbolic" defeat. It's not just you though, as I've seen "well the house is the same so it doesn't matter" line quite a few times this week.

Once again, my view is not that it doesn't matter. I was trying to surmise the thought process and reasoning behind Reid's decision.

If you believe the filibuster is bullshit, that it subverts the will of the people, and that it is an undemocratic roadblock that holds up the business of government, then you and I are on the same side.

 

[adamsappel]

So I'm almost done with my article. It will end up being 7 or 8 pages single spaced.

Don't do this. It's a blog, not The Atlantic. If you are discussing a single idea, that's long-winded. If it's several ideas, break them up into multiple blogs. DHP is a new blog, don't drown it.

 

[jamesinclair]

So I'm almost done with my article. It will end up being 7 or 8 pages single spaced.

Congrats, you've failed blogging 101.

Only reason it would be that long if it was a photo essay.

 

[Jack Remington]

McConnell's gotta be the slimiest motherfucker on the hill.

Harry Reid does not deserve a life of happiness or human dignity.

Also, I would like to see a law passed where if the Senate does not confirm a presidential appointment in 60 or 90 days, the President can appoint anyone he wants without confirmation.

 

[Piecake]

Harry Reid does not deserve a life of happiness or human dignity.

Also, I would like to see a law passed where if the Senate does not confirm a presidential appointment in 60 or 90 days, the President can appoint anyone he wants without confirmation.

Id would agree with some provisions to that. Like the president needing to offer a few appointees and the senate needing to decide on an appointee in less than a week after he/she is put forward

Would kinda suck if a republican president got elected, waited 60-90 days, and then appointed a bunch of wackos

 

[zero shift]

I want to physically punch the dude that suggested tying welfare to a kid's grades.

I actually thought about something similar to this. Though it instead revolved around giving the families bonuses in their welfare if the kids did good instead of taking some away if they did bad.

Don't do this. It's a blog, not The Atlantic. If you are discussing a single idea, that's long-winded. If it's several ideas, break them up into multiple blogs. DHP is a new blog, don't drown it.

Congrats, you've failed blogging 101.

Only reason it would be that long if it was a photo essay.

It pretty much is an essay. Unlike the previous ones it isn't a comment on a recent report but more so a huge overview on a specific subject.

Anyway don't worry I'll shorten it. I do this with all my papers. Trim the fat.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Great post Squirrel, thanks for the insight. Did you work on any campaigns last year?

 

[Jack Remington]

After this past week, I definitely think it would be worth having Sharron Angle in the Senate if it meant that we didn't have Harry Reid in the Senate.

 

[zero shift]

So since people joked around my pre-edited article length I looked at The Atlantic and came across this article about smart poor students not applying to colleges: http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-selective-colleges-and-how-to-fix-it/272490/

Is this site serious?

 

[The Librarian]

Harry Reid does not deserve a life of happiness or human dignity.

I'd like to see you pass a comprehensive healthcare reform bill, needing sixty votes, relying only on the votes of the Democratic caucus, and whose views range from as liberal as Bernie Sanders' to as conservative as Bill Nelson's.

 

[Averon]

cc: @Diablos - https://twitter.com/jonhusted/status/295243263345057792

*sigh*

"Chuck God" seems like it was a lifetime ago.

 

[B-Dubs]

So since people joked around my pre-edited article length I looked at The Atlantic and came across this article about smart poor students not applying to colleges: http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-selective-colleges-and-how-to-fix-it/272490/

Is this site serious?

I can tell you one thing, I got into Columbia and they offered me a rather nice scholarship but I didn't go since I'd still have needed an insane student loan that would have taken me decades to pay back. People definitely look at cost when picking a school, I had my pick of schools but went to a city school since it was all I could afford without putting myself under a mountain of debt.

 

[The Librarian]

PoliGAF is full of liberals (like myself). For you guys, is there an issue (if any) for which you take a conservative stance?

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Holy shit @ you guys being on the front page or whatever that is of WordPress.

 

[zero shift]

I can tell you one thing, I got into Columbia and they offered me a rather nice scholarship but I didn't go since I'd still have needed an insane student loan that would have taken me decades to pay back. People definitely look at cost when picking a school, I had my pick of schools but went to a city school since it was all I could afford without putting myself under a mountain of debt.

I just found it amusing that they said "its not the cost, the lack of connections, or that they need to stay home to help their family, its the completely unrealistic debt paranoia."

I also just can't believe that pie chart to be real. Maybe I'm misreading it but it states that almost 40%, more than the other pieces of the pie, of "high performing" students are from the lower 25%? I don't mean to stereotype but I don't equate the slums and ghettos with straight A students.

PoliGAF is full of liberals (like myself). Is there an issue (if any) for which you take a conservative stance?

...no. I mean I guess I don't really like the welfare system but less so from freeloaders and more so that it doesn't encourage reward. The example I gave a few posts up examplfies that. ...I guess that I wouldn't focus on raising taxes but more so close existing loopholes, but modern conservatives are against that too. I can't think of really anything conservative I agree with.

 

[RDreamer]

Holy shit @ you guys being on the front page or whatever that is of WordPress.

It's kind of crazy, actually. I see there are a ton of people begging to be put on that on their twitter, etc. After less than a week we get noticed and have a post put up. Pretty great!

PoliGAF is full of liberals (like myself). For you guys, is there an issue (if any) for which you take a conservative stance?

Interesting question.

I think for me I'm a bit more lenient on the drone stuff than a lot of liberals tend to be. Just a bit, though, I don't give Obama and the rest of them making those decisions a completely free pass. But I'm not as up in arms as many are, and tend to trust some of the decision making. I trust Obama as a decision maker. He has a good heart and moral compass, and so I doubt he turned into some cold-hearted murderer when it comes to drones. I think it's more that he has a shitload more information available to him now about the risks of not doing some of these things, and we don't. We can be peaceniks pretty easily without that sort of stuff and without that sort of pressure on keeping the US people safe. But, again, I'm just kind of lenient on this compared to what other liberals are, rather than being pro-drone strike or whatever. I'd rather we didn't, and I definitely think it will create a terrorism problem in the future, at least a little bit.

Other than that it's really hard for me to say, because I view a lot of democratic policies as conservative stances, and I support them pragmatically. It's hard to say where I'd be if there were a real liberal party in the country. I think I'd be a bit more conflicted over going straight for the lofty ideal or being cautious on implementation of big, sweeping changes. As it stands now I don't really have that choice. I can only vote for the cautious, so I tend to speak up about the ideal.

Perhaps I'm at least a bit conservative on my view on guns? Maybe? I know it's hard to see, because of what I wrote up there. I tend to argue for the ideal, and it gets frustrating having to put down a lot of gun advocates' shitty ass arguments when I'm clearly not anti-gun. But compared to the NRA and their supporters I'd guess I'm definitely not conservative here either.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

It's kind of crazy, actually. I see there are a ton of people begging to be put on that on their twitter, etc. After less than a week we get noticed and have a post put up. Pretty great!

Did you see a noticeable spike in traffic?

PoliGAF is full of liberals (like myself). For you guys, is there an issue (if any) for which you take a conservative stance?

Abortion is the only one I can think of right now. No matter how you slice it, you're basically killing something that was (most likely) going to become a human being. But I wouldn't vote based on it and if I were a deciding supreme court justice or whatever, I wouldn't vote to ban it. Though I guess that's perhaps not really ''taking a conservative stance''. If you meant to imply that it's something you would vote for in a conservative way, if you were in some kind of position of power, like say supreme court justice.

 

[Sirpopopop]

I favor more free trade agreements. I am a lot more wary of labor unions than most of GAF (personal experience). I clash often with OccupyGAF.

My views on foreign policy could also viewed as more conservative (I tend to veer towards the side of more isolationism).

 

[RDreamer]

Did you see a noticeable spike in traffic?

So far, yeah, it's noticeable. Not a metric ton yet (it's still pretty early), but it's noticeable.

Already got one interesting reply:

Have you signed up to join our brothers and sisters in arms? You make Don’t Ask Don’t Tell sound like a bad thing. If you go back to history, it was initiated by our Liberal leaders of the 1990s to prevent asking if someone was gay or not. It opened the door to allow more people into the military without questioning their sexuality. Their sexual identity doesn’t matter. It makes no difference if someone is gay or not, married or not, so long as the service member showed up to work and performed their job professionally. Recent events in the news chastise DADT. Because I was enlisted when DADT was installed and originally in the news, I was harassed by my civilian friends and civilian classmates. I was the subject of many jokes, despite being heterosexual.
I’ve known several homosexuals who performed tremendously in combat. No, wait, I don’t. Because the servicember did not go around announcing his sexuality. Because in the US military, your sexual identity does not matter. You have a job to perform.
You are rightfully supporting women in combat. I’ve know many. And I ask, are you willing to join them?

This sort of defense of DADT confuses the shit out of me...

 

[Tim-E]

Ways that I'm different from traditional liberals? I was very critical of the Occupy movement and I tend to be much more centrist on foreign policy than most libs.

 

[zero shift]

I'm actually a lot less critical on foreign policy than most of the people on here. I feel that while drone strikes are used too happily I'm not that bothered by them as most. That person who was a "US Citizen" who died? Yeah I'd have him killed. "Osama Bin Laden should have stood trial", it was a fucking raid! What do you want them to do? Bring him back to the helicopter while dodging bullets?

EDIT - I also feel that some liberals are in their own little bubble sometimes similar to some conservative in the country. Like that there aren't a significant amount of people that take out welfare and try and do little to try and get off it or that some degree of racial profiling is warranted (I say this as someone who has been notably harassed before). With welfare however I don't support cutting it, I see welfare more so treating the symptom while we work on trying to fix the root of the problem. I just find it a bit odd when asking some liberals what changes to they would put forth its always "Welfare and raise taxes!", like the anti-argument to a conservative's "Lower taxes and less regulation!'. Its like some people have absolutely no visions to where the country should go.

Ways that I'm different from traditional liberals? I was very critical of the Occupy movement.

How so? I never understood how anyone not right wing good be against the Occupy Movement. I mean it was just a pulp leftist protest.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

This sort of defense of DADT confuses the shit out of me...

That... Wow. Don't even know what to think of someone like that. It seems like they support gay people... but then they support DADT for... no real reason? Love the questioning of your patriotism lol.

Edit: Saw your response, good work.

I clash often with OccupyGAF.

Ways that I'm different from traditional liberals? I was very critical of the Occupy movement...

Is this really a conservative thing though? Just because you guys (presumably) wanted occupy to be more effective, doesn't mean you're conservative. You probably agree with most of their goals.

 

[Tim-E]

BUT DUDES WHAT IF HE HITS ON ME. I AINT GAY, Y'ALL.

Is this really a conservative thing though? Just because you guys (presumably) wanted occupy to be more effective, doesn't mean you're conservative. You probably agree with most of their goals.

I thought the idea of screaming to get all of your student loans forgiven is stupid; you agreed to take out that loan and in that agreement you agreed to pay them back, you should stick to what you signed. I'm also not as against free trade as many in support of the movement. The few times they did explicitly state views they were not very realistic.

 

[Hitokage]

PoliGAF is full of liberals (like myself). For you guys, is there an issue (if any) for which you take a conservative stance?

There should never be a legitimate market for certain drugs like cocaine and heroin.

 

[RDreamer]

That... Wow. Don't even know what to think of someone like that. It seems like they support gay people... but then they support DADT for... no real reason? Love the questioning of your patriotism lol.

Heterosexual privilege.

The dude probably talked a ton about any girlfriend he had at the time or even girls he'd love to bang while in service. To him though that's probably not flaunting his sexuality and sexual identity. That's just him being him and being normal.

 

[B-Dubs]

So far, yeah, it's noticeable. Not a metric ton yet (it's still pretty early), but it's noticeable.

Already got one interesting reply:



This sort of defense of DADT confuses the shit out of me...

That is just strange. I don't understand the thought process at all, unless it's one of those "the military can do no wrong" types.

I'm actually a lot less critical on foreign policy than most of the people on here. I feel that while drone strikes are used too happily I'm not that bothered by them as most. That person who was a "US Citizen" who died? Yeah I'd have him killed. "Osama Bin Laden should have stood trial", it was a fucking raid. What do you want them to do? Bring him back to the helicopter while dodging bullets?


How so?

Honestly, I probably would have ordered the kill on Osama as well. It's not like certain politicians (Peter King I am looking at you) would ever allowed us to try him in NYC like he deserved. I'd have liked it better, but it probably wouldn't have been as cathartic for us as a nation if we did.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Is this really a conservative thing though? Just because you guys (presumably) wanted occupy to be more effective, doesn't mean you're conservative. You probably agree with most of their goals.

1. Yes, I felt their method of accomplishing their goals was very ineffective. However...

2. I think their views are a little extreme, and incredibly unrealistic. See: the inability to view Democrats & Republicans as fundamentally different.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Heterosexual privilege.

The dude probably talked a ton about any girlfriend he had at the time or even girls he'd love to bang while in service. To him though that's probably not flaunting his sexuality and sexual identity. That's just him being him and being normal.

Well put. I hadn't even thought of it that way before reading your reply to him.

 

[zero shift]

See: the inability to view Democrats & Republicans as fundamentally different.

Well they aren't. Its like saying one's shit and one's vomit. Yeah I'd rather walk into my room finding vomit on my floor rather than some turds, but its not like I would be more less dis-satisfied with the event.

 

[The Technomancer]

There should never be a legitimate market for certain drugs like cocaine and heroin.

Yup, this is the big one for me. Decriminalize usage, keep distribution very criminal. More broadly I disagree with the overall sentiment of "its my body, I can do what I want to it and any hint of judging or encouraging me to do otherwise is wrong" in several ways.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Well they aren't. Its like saying one's shit and one's vomit. Yeah I'd rather walk into my room finding vomit on my floor rather than some turds, but its not like I would be more less dis-satisfied with the event.

I'm far too lazy to actually type out an elaborate argumentation against this claim, but it is simply not true.

 

[Tim-E]

Well they aren't. Its like saying one's shit and one's vomit. Yeah I'd rather walk into my room finding vomit on my floor rather than some turds, but its not like I would be more less dis-satisfied with the event.

Nothing is more lazy than just saying "olol both sidez suxxx!"

 

[RDreamer]

I feel like parts of Occupy were definitely great, but viewpoints got a bit muddled because you had weird libertarians mixing with practical liberalism, complete hippie liberalism, and partially anarchism. It just got kind of jumbled in that way, and never really had a chance of doing what the Tea Party did with their unified views.

As for Osama, I didn't think anyone would seriously want him taken to court and tried. It seems to me that if we truly believed we were at war with terrorism, then he would basically be the de facto target. If we were allowed to kill anyone in the war on terror, it'd be him.



That guy made another silly comment:

You have valid points. You said people should serve as they really are. Should I tattoo my religion on my forehead so others know what I believe? So that we can sit around and discuss one religious view after another? Of course not.

I’ve enjoyed our discourse yet I still want to know when you plan to join the military or if you ever have.

I see you have a contributor to your site with a masters of divinity. I am curious should that contributor serve as a Chaplain in the military, how he would provide counseling for same sex couples.

Yep, heterosexual privilege.

 

[Giant Panda]

PoliGAF is full of liberals (like myself). For you guys, is there an issue (if any) for which you take a conservative stance?

I am not very supportive of labor unions, like some of the others above I found Occupy as extreme and incompetent. I also agree with Obama's foreign-policy for the most part. While I don't agree with their viewpoint I see being Pro-Life as a legitimate viewpoint.

Is it considered conservative to agree with Scalia's opinion in DC vs. Heller?

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Nothing is more lazy than just saying "olol both sidez suxxx!"

It's especially dissapointing when someone you respect starts saying that.

 

[zero shift]

I'm far too lazy to actually type out an elaborate argumentation against this claim, but it is simply not true.

What Occupy was trying to get at was that both sides use money from the banks and corporations and give them benefits. They actually live on it. Occupy didn't ally itself with either party because they recognize that the Democrats were only a bit less favorable to the banks and corporations then the Republicans are. Obama pretty much proves this.

Now there are some differences in policy but that is less that the Democrats are fighting the good fight and more that Republicans are just extreme in their views. Occupy was giving the message that both parties strings are pulled by the people they claim to fight against by a notable degree.

So while I would prefer a Democrat in office over a Republican, at the end of the day they are most likely supporting the status quo of neoliberal economics. I guess "not dissatisfied" was the wrong word to use. I should have said "slightly not as bad".

Nothing is more lazy than just saying "olol both sidez suxxx!"

I admitted that my example was horrible but I guess that's my horrible sense of humor at work.

 

[T'Zariah]

Nothing is more lazy than just saying "olol both sidez suxxx!"

Pseudo-intellectuals think by taking the "lol both sides suck and Dems and GOP are teh samez!" that they're taking the high ground by being "above" the partisan politics.

Sorry, the real world doesn't work that way.

 

[Tim-E]

What Occupy was trying to get at was that both sides use money from the banks and corporations and give them benefits. They actually live on it. Occupy didn't ally itself with either party because they recognize that the Democrats were only a bit less favorable to the banks and corporations then the Republicans are. Obama pretty much proves this.

Now there are some differences in policy but that is less that the Democrats are fighting the good fight and more that Republicans are just extreme in their views. Occupy was giving the message that both parties strings are pulled by the people they claim to fight against by a notable degree.

So because of one policy area they are "the same". Okay.

 

[The Librarian]

I've got one issue that I'd describe myself as hyper conservative on, but I'll post about that later.

I thought the idea of screaming to get all of your student loans forgiven is stupid; you agreed to take out that loan and in that agreement you agreed to pay them back, you should stick to what you signed. I'm also not as against free trade as many in support of the movement. The few times they did explicitly state views they were not very realistic.

Without any context, sure, that's fair, but isn't that kind of viewpoint only reasonable when you have other options for going to school and you chose to take out a loan? A lot of kids take out student loans because they have to, because if they want a better live they have to take out a loan.

While I don't agree with their viewpoint I see being Pro-Life as a legitimate viewpoint.

Only kind of related to this point, but I'll say it anyway. Setting aside that pro-life may or may not be a legitimate viewpoint, the Pro-Life Movement in America is far more about controlling women's sex lives than it is about abortions.

 

[zero shift]

So because Republicans are a little less aggressive than Democrats in regard to one policy area they are "the same". Okay.

You're right I forgot the social aspect of politics. Though when you look at Occupy Wallstreet it was virtually solely focused on the economic area.]

 

[RDreamer]

What Occupy was trying to get at was that both sides use money from the banks and corporations and give them benefits. They actually live on it. Occupy didn't ally itself with either party because they recognize that the Democrats were only a bit less favorable to the banks and corporations then the Republicans are. Obama pretty much proves this.

Now there are some differences in policy but that is less that the Democrats are fighting the good fight and more that Republicans are just extreme in their views. Occupy was giving the message that both parties strings are pulled by the people they claim to fight against by a notable degree.

So while I would prefer a Democrat in office over a Republican, at the end of the day they are most likely supporting the status quo of neoliberal economics. I guess "not dis-satisfied" was the wrong word to use. I should have said "slightly not as bad".

It made sense for them to have this stance, considering the goal of uniting the 99%. That was their motto, and they tried to be all-inclusionary. And yes, on this issue you're right democrats and republicans are very close.

That said, that decision did hurt them, I think. They were trying to make friends with everyone, but ended up making enemies of everyone. When you call out both sides so much and align yourselves against the entire system as it stands, you'll make enemies of both sides. That and there's no reason for either of them to pick up the issue if they're both the same and being hit for the same sort of thing. If there was a more democratic leaning movement, they could have forced the democrats hands at least a bit more, I think.

I thought the idea of screaming to get all of your student loans forgiven is stupid; you agreed to take out that loan and in that agreement you agreed to pay them back, you should stick to what you signed. I'm also not as against free trade as many in support of the movement. The few times they did explicitly state views they were not very realistic.

Eh, I'm going to disagree with you there, kind of. The notion that the loans should just be forgiven and that's that is pretty nonsense, but this generation did get exceptionally screwed when it comes to schooling. And the kids screaming about it got screwed more because everything collapsed around when they were graduating. The entire country's economy collapsing isn't really a realistic thing to expect people 18 years of age to have to grapple with when deciding their future. The entire system needs reform, and that reform should include some loan forgiveness. What we have right now is completely unsustainable and unforgivable.

 

[Tim-E]

Without any context, sure, that's fair, but isn't that kind of viewpoint only reasonable when you have other options for going to school and you chose to take out a loan? A lot of kids take out student loans because they have to, because if they want a better live they have to take out a loan.

My wife and I will have more in student loan debt than I'd like to admit publicly when we're both done with graduate school, but we still agreed to take out a loan. Context or not, regardless of circumstance, you agreed to pay back a loan. It's a horrifically shitty system, but you should still pay your debts because you knew the downsides going into it. Hoping to change how we finance higher education is fine, but wanting to absolve everyone of debt they've built up just because is unreasonable.

Eh, I'm going to disagree with you there, kind of. The notion that the loans should just be forgiven and that's that is pretty nonsense, but this generation did get exceptionally screwed when it comes to schooling. And the kids screaming about it got screwed more because everything collapsed around when they were graduating. The entire country's economy collapsing isn't really a realistic thing to expect people 18 years of age to have to grapple with when deciding their future. The entire system needs reform, and that reform should include some loan forgiveness. What we have right now is completely unsustainable and unforgivable.

This I agree with.

 

[zero shift]

My wife and I will have more in student loan debt than I'd like to admit publicly when we're both done with graduate school, but we still agreed to take out a loan. Context or not, regardless of circumstance, you agreed to pay back a loan. It's a horrifically shitty system, but you should still pay your debts because you knew the downsides going into it. Hoping to change how we finance higher education is fine, but wanting to absolve everyone of debt they've built up just because is unreasonable.

The giant elephant in the room is that most of these kids are what 18 to 19 years old? The real question is why the hell were they able to take out such big loans and so many to begin with? When I read a story about some 22 year old who owes $100,000 for a music degree, I don't think "man what a dumbass, why did he sign that loan?", but "why the fuck did the bank give $100,000 to someone who's barely legally an adult over the course of four years?" Hell many eighteen year olds don't even have credit cards and now they should deal with tens of thousands of dollars at their hands? I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to take out loans but there should be some control with this. The entire knowledge of these kids financial management comes with their parents and whether or not they actually taught them anything. Just like people "choosing" to take out loans with ridiculously high interest rates, its something that shouldn't have happened in the first place. I find it odd that to most Americans these kids aren't old enough to drink beer yet they can take out enough loans to ruin their lives.

 

[Hitokage]

Yup, this is the big one for me. Decriminalize usage, keep distribution very criminal. More broadly I disagree with the overall sentiment of "its my body, I can do what I want to it and any hint of judging or encouraging me to do otherwise is wrong" in several ways.

Yeah, I'm open on methodology, but certain substances only destroy and the "you gotta try it once" crowd are only evangelizing a neurologically equivalent religious experience.

 

[Tim-E]

The giant elephant in the room is that most of these kids are what 18 to 19 years old? The real question is why the hell were they able to take out such big loans and so many to begin with? When I read a story about some 22 year old who owes $100,000 for a music degree, I don't think "man what a dumbass, why did he sign that loan?", but "why the fuck did the bank give $100,000 to someone who's barely legally an adult over the course of four years?" Hell many eighteen year olds don't even have credit cards and now they should deal with tens of thousands of dollars at their hands? I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to take out loans but there should be some control with this. The entire knowledge of these kids financial management comes with their parents. Just like people "choosing" to take out loans with ridiculously high interest rates, its something that shouldn't have happened in the first place. I find it odd that to most Americans these kids aren't old enough to drink beer yet they can take out enough loans to ruin their lives.

So you think that you should come from a wealthy enough background to pay for college out of pocket, work a shitty minimum wage job for 20 hours a week and magically pay for thousands in tuition in addition to living expenses, or rely entirely on scholarships, otherwise you don't get to go to college?