US Politics

A new poll from CNN finds that a majority of Republicans think that believing Donald Trump won in 2020 (which he did not) is an important tenet for being a Republican.


One of the beliefs listed for Republicans is the false assertion Trump won in 2020. 59 percent believe that to be an important part of being in the GOP.


36 percent said it was “very important,” 23 percent said “somewhat important,” 15 percent said “not too important,” and 25 percent said “not at all important.”
Click to expand...

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/new-...t-is-an-important-part-of-being-a-republican/

They live in a different reality. A progressive "litmus test" is whether you support government healthcare. These people define their political identity through whether you reject legitimate elections. Absolutely bonkers.
 
Sky1981 said:
Is it a surprise with the eating habit alone is enough to draw the averages down a few notch.
Click to expand...
The two things that surprised me:
1) That in Europe the life expectancy is so close for people of differing socio-economic groups (aka rich & poor).
2) That wealthy Americans life expectancies are not closer to the European ones.
 
Proper activism by a sitting member of Congress.



Maybe next time she can tag team her wardrobe with Sinema.
 
Good on CA. This all seemed like a completely pointless exercise to begin with.

Will be a landslide win.
 
An expensive joke, that recall effort.
Maybe now my trumpy neighbours will take down their yard signs for Elder but who knows; they still have their Trump 2020 signs up. :lol:
 
Thankfully the GOP's undemocratic effort to install a GOP shill has failed in the California Recall Election. Over 64% voted no on the recall. Turnout was still quite low overall but for an election held on a random Tuesday in the middle of September its not too terrible. The GOP definitely seemed to want to tarnish Newsom's reputation since he looks like a viable Presidential candidate for 24 or 28.

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/202...l-effort-has-failed-newsom-remains-in-office/
 
Raoul said:
Proper activism by a sitting member of Congress.



Maybe next time she can tag team her wardrobe with Sinema.
Click to expand...


Such an ill advised move what did she hope to achieve with this bs?
Society of the Spectacle shit.
 
Suv666 said:
Such an ill advised move what did she hope to achieve with this bs?
Society of the Spectacle shit.
Click to expand...

Raise awareness.
Back up her actions in Congress with something in the media that is sure to gain attention.
Be a lot more honest than most of what goes on at an event like that.

Why do you feel it's ill-advised?
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Raise awareness.
Back up her actions in Congress with something in the media that is sure to gain attention.
Be a lot more honest than most of what goes on at an event like that.

Why do you feel it's ill-advised?
Click to expand...

Met Gala is an event that celebrates decadence and excess. Looks weird advocating progressive leftist policies while partaking in a party where everyone competes to be the winner of the most outlandish and ridiculously expensive outfit.
 
Suv666 said:
Met Gala is an event that celebrates decadence and excess. Looks weird advocating progressive leftist policies while partaking in a party where everyone competes to be the winner of the most outlandish and ridiculously expensive outfit.
Click to expand...

All the more reason why it was not at all ill-advised in my opinion.

What you posted is all the more reason for someone to do what AOC did. It comes off as necessary IMO and definitely a better critique than if a multi-millionaire Hollywood celeb wore that dress. I mean these events will go on with or without AOC so might as well interrupt an monument to opulence with a message sure to go viral. At least people are talking about Tax the Rich instead of whatever 50,000 dress J-Lo was wearing.
 
truly embarrassing and just downright disingenuous. next she will say hipsters, techies with million dollar houses in brooklyn aren’t necessarily rich because the private schools in manhattan are too expensive.

 
Last edited:
entropy said:
truly embarrassing and just downright disingenuous. next she will say hipsters, techies with million dollar houses in brooklyn aren’t necessarily rich because the private schools in manhattan are too expensive.

Click to expand...


Not really sure what you mean here at all.

But this is a good comment in that thread "America spends billions on propaganda for poor people to hate other (relatively poor) people rather than blame the ultra wealthy, and that is ON PURPOSE. I want you to know that poverty, global warming & world hunger could be solved TOMORROW. but they aren’t, because the rich want you to be poor. Period."
 
the reality is anyone who claims to be working class in nyc would be lucky to have a job that pays them 100k per year. instead, they are stuck holding down multiple jobs that at best pay 50k per year.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
But this is a good comment in that thread "America spends billions on propaganda for poor people to hate other (relatively poor) people rather than blame the ultra wealthy, and that is ON PURPOSE. I want you to know that poverty, global warming & world hunger could be solved TOMORROW. but they aren’t, because the rich want you to be poor. Period."
Click to expand...
this was his comment prior to the one you just posted - “I don’t understand how this is confusing…the doctor next door with 2 extra cars isn’t oppressing you, the billionaires who globally exploit people are”
 
entropy said:
she is being fast and clumsy with her definition of rich. according to her it doesn’t involve doctors, lawyers etc which is a sick joke and a straight up lie coming from someone born and raised in nyc like herself.
Click to expand...

Not, she addressing an important point and counteracting typical conservative criticism before it happens. Fact is, a majority of doctors and lawyers aren't "rich" in the way people think when we criticize the wealthy. Doctors, lawyers, tenured college professors and other professionals with a good salary are still far, far below any threshold for what really makes the rich and powerful that influence politics and control the state of affairs.

Sure you have a few superstar lawyers (like Doucheowitz) and a few super-wealthy doctors (like the tiny percentage of successful plastic surgeons for the stars) but you also have far more doctors like those that take Medicare or work in the thousands of clinics around the country(and world) and plenty of lawyers who aren't the ambulance chasers with billboards all over town.

When I personally criticize the "richest Americans" I make the exact same disclaimer that she does because its important to differentiate salary earning professionals who might make a good living (say 200-350K per year) by the time they are in their 50s, but are not remotely in the leisure class, the wealthy people that truly control the vast majority of assets, people that pay far less taxes with their "unearned income" from investments. The salaried professionals are the ones that in reality pay the highest federal income tax rates as a share of income in the country. A bog-standard public defender or prosecutor or ER doctor with hundreds of thousands in education debt or even an eventual tenured university professor with great benefits will still pay far more in taxes (percentage wise) than Trump or Mitt Romney while not even earning remotely close to what the truly rich make.

So she is 100% spot on to make that distinction. Someone earning 100K is not fecking "rich" the same way the donor class of unearned income cnuts are rich and shouldn't be lobbed into the same bucket. Trying to lob a salaried professional (public defender, general practitioner that takes medicare, typical tenured professor) into the "rich" along with Trump, Romney, and the Kochs is the really disingenuous tactic that the right-wingers use to a great effect to subvert the message of progressives. Don't fall into the right-wing populist trap.

entropy said:
this was his comment prior to the one you just posted - “I don’t understand how this is confusing…the doctor next door with 2 extra cars isn’t oppressing you, the billionaires who globally exploit people are”
Click to expand...

And he is 100% percent correct.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Not, she addressing an important point and counteracting typical conservative criticism before it happens. Fact is, a majority of doctors and lawyers aren't "rich" in the way people think when we criticize the wealthy. Doctors, lawyers, tenured college professors and other professionals with a good salary are still far, far below any threshold for what really makes the rich and powerful that influence politics and control the state of affairs.

Sure you have a few superstar lawyers (like Doucheowitz) and a few super-wealthy doctors (like the tiny percentage of successful plastic surgeons for the stars) but you also have far more doctors like those that take Medicare or work in the thousands of clinics around the country(and world) and plenty of lawyers who aren't the ambulance chasers with billboards all over town.

When I personally criticize the "richest Americans" I make the exact same disclaimer that she does because its important to differentiate salary earning professionals who might make a good living (say 200-350K per year) by the time they are in their 50s, but are not remotely in the leisure class, the wealthy people that truly control the vast majority of assets, people that pay far less taxes with their "unearned income" from investments. The salaried professionals are the ones that in reality pay the highest federal income tax rates as a share of income in the country. A bog-standard public defender or prosecutor or ER doctor with hundreds of thousands in education debt or even an eventual tenured university professor with great benefits will still pay far more in taxes (percentage wise) than Trump or Mitt Romney while not even earning remotely close to what the truly rich make.

So she is 100% spot on to make that distinction. Someone earning 100K is not fecking "rich" the same way the donor class of unearned income cnuts are rich and shouldn't be lobbed into the same bucket. Trying to lob a salaried professional (public defender, general practitioner that takes medicare, typical tenured professor) into the "rich" along with Trump, Romney, and the Kochs is the really disingenuous tactic that the right-wingers use to a great effect to subvert the message of progressives. Don't fall into the right-wing populist trap.
Click to expand...
there are rich professions and then there are poor ones. going to med school, law school doesn't usually fall in the latter. of course, it goes without saying not everyone who takes up this line of work is rich. but at the end of the day, these are well-paying professions.
 
entropy said:
@oneniltothearsenal if you're a doctor/lawyer in nyc with two cars you are rich af. it isn't even up for debate tbh.
Click to expand...

Define "rich af" first.

I would disagree with your odd take here especially since a lot of doctors and lawyer with "two cars" are just driving typical cars and have extra cars because they have families with 2-4 kids (not Ferraris and Bentleys). AOC is 100% correct and sorry entropy but you are falling into a typical conservative trap trying to lob people like a public defender with a pick-up truck, a Subaru, and a 6-year-old Prius into the same 'rich af' category as the Jared Kushners and Koch brothers of the world.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Define "rich af" first.

I would disagree with your odd take here especially since a lot of doctors and lawyer with "two cars" are just driving typical cars and have extra cars because they have families with 2-4 kids (not Ferraris and Bentleys). AOC is 100% correct and sorry entropy but you are falling into a typical conservative trap trying to lob people like a public defender with a pick-up truck, a Subaru, and a 6-year-old Prius into the same 'rich af' category as the Jared Kushners and Koch brothers of the world.
Click to expand...
i just did. if you are able to afford to live in nyc with two extra cars then you are richer than the majority of the working-class folks. most people in nyc don't even have a car and those who do are stuck paying car payments and delivering uber eats.
 
entropy said:
i just did. if you are able to afford to live in nyc with two extra cars then you are richer than the majority of the working-class folks. most people in nyc don't even have a car and those who do are stuck paying car payments and delivering uber eats.
Click to expand...

But there's a clear difference between a wealthy and well off doctor in NYC compared to the hedge fund managers who literally sit on their ass, take a shit, piss, eat, and they're making money somewhere hand over fist while losing money on days, but gaining it all back by simply doing nothing compared to that NYC doctor. There's a difference. Do you live in NYC or the U.S.?

It's "easier" to become a doctor than this actual uber rich folks in NYC we're talking about. Like the ones who own empty apartment buildings in NYC, multiple of them units acting as a front or tax right off....then compare that to the NYC doctor who has two cars. At least that guy drives his cars, unlike the uber rich folks who have chaperones and the like.
 
entropy said:
@oneniltothearsenal if you're a doctor/lawyer in nyc with two cars you are rich af. it isn't even up for debate tbh.
Click to expand...
Poppycock! There’s no way to know that so it most definitely is up for debate, tbh. They may not be on the breadline but I could see how they’re not rich af.
Those two doctors/lawyers are most likely upper middle class but could be ridden by debt for their schooling and if they have kids they’ll be paying huge money for private schooling and to live in a nice area. They could actually be close to being broke.
 
utdalltheway said:
Poppycock! There’s no way to know that so it most definitely is up for debate, tbh. They may not be on the breadline but I could see how they’re not rich af.
Those two doctors/lawyers are most likely upper middle class but could be ridden by debt for their schooling and if they have kids they’ll be paying huge money for private schooling and to live in a nice area. They could actually be close to being broke.
Click to expand...
of course, there is no way to know for sure. but a quick google will tell you doctors are some of the highest-paid people in this country.
 
edcunited1878 said:
But there's a clear difference between a wealthy and well off doctor in NYC compared to the hedge fund managers who literally sit on their ass, take a shit, piss, eat, and they're making money somewhere hand over fist while losing money on days, but gaining it all back by simply doing nothing compared to that NYC doctor. There's a difference. Do you live in NYC or the U.S.?

It's "easier" to become a doctor than this actual uber rich folks in NYC we're talking about. Like the ones who own empty apartment buildings in NYC, multiple of them units acting as a front or tax right off....then compare that to the NYC doctor who has two cars. At least that guy drives his cars, unlike the uber rich folks who have chaperones and the like.
Click to expand...
they are still rich though. not as rich as hedge fund managers maybe (some might be) but still rich. and their politics are more likely to align with rich hedge fund managers than with those who make 40-60k per year. which is why i find it weird to label them as "not rich". the doctor with two extra cars will be just fiiiineee. he won't even think twice before voting against someone like bernie sanders.
 
Last edited:
Doctor is one of those professions that should be rich. Their work is hard, requires a lot of training, and is actually worth a lot to the people they treat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.