negative... the goal posts simply move like they're on wheels.

Definitions do matter because if we aren’t careful, people will just give opinions as truths & exaggerate. And, of course, polling methodology (good to see you aren’t using gaming simulation (?)) now.

https://www.filesforprogress.org/dat...dated_tabs.pdf

Like does ‘overwhelming’ support mean (per your poll) ‘strongly support’ (probably yes, 52%) and ‘somewhat support’ (arguably mixed, lukewarm 24%).

I’m not a pollster but on #1, the nos don’t come close to adding up to totals? Poll claims to do some weighting but there’s a lot of weighting for 100 to add up to 1,335 on ‘top line’ and similarly others. But fair chance I’m misunderstanding the totals. Edit - nvm, it’s % they are showing but adding up to 1,335.

Please note, I don’t disagree that majority are okay with upping or eliminating payroll caps (doesn’t adversely impact them so why not), I’m all for it myself. I disagreed with your use of a gaming simulation (?) poll to support your ‘overwhelming’ comment. This was the 75% of the SS gap I had originally said was accounted.

BTW, using your same poll #2 it shows 64% are very concerned (and 20% are somewhat concerned) ‘ The U.S. government running out of funding to cover full Social Security benefits for future generations’. I guess I’m part of the 64% very concerned.

Probably not as solvable as we may hope. After all why didn't Biden push this through in his first 2 years as president?

After all measures such as raising the cap are popular with the voters.

I think we know why it’s not been done by Dems and Rep when they’ve held power. It’s part of the third rail of US politics and needs bipartisan support with tough negotiations. So easier to kick the can down the road until the last minute.

But I do believe it’s solvable for sure before approx 2035. It’s just who gets adversely impacted and the political ramifications. It ain’t gonna be easy an easy fix.

You still need 60 votes in the Senate.

Says the guy whose assertions have been nakely the result of skimming headlines.


1. You haven't explained what that was of no value.

2. Most of the results were in line with polling values.


Before you respond, Edward, please state clearly what your assertion is. I've already disproven your "it's an imminent crisis" assertion, so I'm asking for the next one. Or are you just nitpicking for the heck of it?

As I am close to retirement, I assure you I’ve not been skimming headlines. But admittedly, I’m definitely not a policy wonk. Don’t know how to prove it to you other than I like reading AARP, Kiplingers and (at one time) Money. So take it for what it’s worth.


Your overwhelming 81% in #1 from your gaming simulation is arguably 52+% is real world polling. So you are ultimately misrepresenting the level of support and the ease to remediation.

.

See above 81% vs 52+%


Sure let me just copy and paste from above.



I don’t see you’ve proven that unless your stance is it’s solvable therefore no crisis?

I think it’s a crisis because although it’s solvable, there will be tough negotiations and many people will be adversely impacted which leads to political resistance. It’s imminent because the deadline is approx 2035 and the only political will is to kick it down the road.

So how about you also clearly state your position? Feel free to copy and paste the relevant sections

How about we dont muck up this thread with Edwards nonsense?

Hey, I was going to let it go with the agree to disagree but then he had to be a dick about it, so glad to continue. Let me know if you want me to create another thread.

Well there's the least surprising thing of the week.

And good luck getting 60 senators to vote to raising taxes on the rich.

Agree to disagree until you provide your definition of 'thing'.

She has to be the dumbest fucker to ever serve

Lauren Boebert was today years old when she learned what Google and Apple maps do pic.twitter.com/r7peOWz15p

— ProLib | Resist Fascists ���� (@prolibshow) February 6, 2023

Why would China want directions to my house?

(Also, that's from a parody account, apparently. But the point stands, and has to go for whatever info they might be able to get from social media. What can they get? Are they going to sell me some new, devious style of pizza?)

This of course is NOT a parody account:

https://twitter.com/GOP/status/1622613618750529536

(It's a picture of...California.)

Here's the most depressing thing I read todaY:

https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status...57035397517314

Apparently, our age of hyper-polarized 48% vs. 48% of the country is going to endure for generations.

And that's BEFORE they "fix" public education with the DeSantis blueprint.

It does mirror what I've seen though. I know I've posted about my then-14 year old niece who had a Trump flag in her room. Totally normal for a teen girl...

My daughter occasionally comes home from school telling me some kid was talking shit on Biden, etc...

Wife and I also had a big argument, which never happens, because my daughter came home from Nanas asking why we like Joe Biden when he lets illegals cross the border and has allowed gas prices to get so high. Told my wife if her mom is going to fill our daughters head with propaganda she isn't going to be allowed to see her anymore. Wife didn't take kindly to that, but agreed her mom needs to stop it, which she has so I suppose my wife talked to her mom or her dad.

Let's back away from the keyboards, guys.

Meta talking about community members never ends well and almost always ends poorly.

Kevin Drum with the clear answer on Social Security.

https://jabberwocking.com/fixing-soc...ly-1-5-of-gdp/

More DeSantis ideas for how to lock down the media.

The big target at the roundtable: a 1964 Supreme Court decision in which justices ruled public officials cannot get legal damages from journalists who report false information unless it was done with “actual malice." https://t.co/Cxy7nC0SAx

— Tallahassee Democrat (@TDOnline) February 8, 2023

Seriously Edward, this is why people won't engage with you anymore.


Somehow, that's even worse. Maybe step away from the keyboard and do some research if you feel so strongly about it.



Or, you know, 76%.


Oh, someone's certainly mis-representing something, that's for sure.


There you go again.

You have no argument on the merits,* so you choose to wedge in on technicalities, forcing your counterpart to do thing like argue on dictionary definitions.

*e.g. 82%, 52%, and 76% all show majority support. If you were actually supporting your assertion that it was a crisis, these would not be the numbers that would effectively support it.


I stated my position clearly earlier. You could have, in fact, copy and pasted it. The fact that you haven't, and in fact have reframed my words, indicates that you are not, in fact, interested in arguing in good faith.


I stated my position clearly earlier. You could have, in fact, copy and pasted it. The fact that you haven't, and in fact have reframed my words, indicates that you are not, in fact, interested in arguing in good faith.


You want me to re-state my position so as to increase the surface area for your tangential attacks since, again, you can't argue on the merits.

Maybe this is just how you are, Edward, but it is rather a pattern with you, so, again, allow me to copy and paste:

I am officially out of this argument with Edward. And maybe all future ones as well. Unless I get really bored.

Just like I stated my position clearly above also. But wanted to answer your question so there was no misunderstanding. Sorry you did not extend same courtesy you expect from me. Oh well, no big deal

I guess I can say the same for you?

NP. Always willing to have a debate without insults and sarcasm. And always ready to return in kind. Come back whenever

One thing I find amusing here is that I can't think of a single example of an extended debate that people actually think is good and useful. They seem to be either quick ones about whether a decision Democrats make sucks, the merry-go-round about how Trump/GOP are horrible and bad with nobody really disagreeing, or back-and-forth discussions. The last category, regardless of topic or who is participating, inevitably has people complaining about the thread being ruined. On a forum for discussing such issues.

I thought the Coronavirus thread was pretty decent initially. Lots of sharing of info, fears, what to do etc.

And of course, how to hit on a co-worker was pretty good

Both had little political content

It's because we tend to have singular threads for topics that are meant to encapsulate the totality of discourse around that topic for like a year or more. But then the arguments often diverge so far from the original thread topic or delve so deep into minutiae that anyone who isn't vested in the banal back and forth of pedantic self-fellation still has to slog through it in hopes that someday things will get back on track.

- They don't have to slog through it. They can ignore those posts.
- I would say the way you describe extended debates is ... highly uncharitable, to put it kindly.

Someone needs to tell DeSantis that his line of, I don't spend my time smearing other Republicans, will just let Trump beat the hell out of him like he did to Ted Cruz in 2016.

I think one key difference is no one that votes R now liked Ted Cruz. No one liked Jeb Bush. They like Desantis. This is probably the first real test to see how if Trump's attacks work against someone popular with GOP voters. Trump has mostly gone at low hanging fruit.

DeSantis seems like he'd be really easy to beat in a general election. Even in a primary, you can see that Trump is going to go after him for his inappropriate behavior with teenagers back in the day. Also, his new policies are incredibly creepy when laid out there.

If the Dems somehow lost to DeSantis, they should just shudder the party.

At the end of the day, a lot of Trump voters will never vote for another nominee if Trump says so and all of the GOPers that support DeSantis will fall in line if Trump is the nominee. It may take a while, but eventually, they'll all figure this out and Trump will win.

Why does that matter? Trump probably raped multiple women and paid them off. Matt Gaetz was re-elected easily. These voters do not actually care about the quality of their candidates, they just want people who shout loudly about the good old days and how libs are going to usher in the Chinese and Russian militaries to run our schools.

The base loves his new policies...he actually did what Trump only talked about. He gets to pick who runs the schools. He is deciding what classes the colleges can teach and what topics high schools can have AP classes for. The base loves autocracy.

I agree that I don't think a sex scandle is a disqualifier for a GOP candidate anymore. Republican voters only care about one thing, and that is "owning Libs."

Right. Remember, one of the things Trump was accused of was busting into an area where Miss Teen contestants were dressing/undressing. What's a little boozy party?

I think the access hollywood tape showed they couldn't care less.

"one mans sexual assault is another mans flirtation"

This is his base and they will never abandon him.

An aside, Klepper is so freaking good at this.

De-Sanctimonious is a horrible nickname when you can just call him something like RINO Ron

90% of Trumps audience doesn't know what sanctimonious means.

He was friends with Epstein, has something like 25 women that have accused him of sexual misconduct, backed someone in the midterms that had allegations, and stated his supporters don't care about that stuff.

You can downplay that stuff your entire life, build a brand based partially on misogyny, and expect this stuff to suddenly stick with people you've told that this isn't a big deal.

Agree that the base loves a good autocrat. But you aren't going to get suburban votes with his policies.

Most of them hate women, so sexually assaulting a woman is a badge of honor. I get it. If DeSantis beat his wife or was accused of rape, he'd be fine.

I think the kids stuff is different, even to his base. I mean they lost a Senate seat in Alabama of all places because they nominated a pedophile. Would Roy Moore be able to win Pennsylvania or Georgia? I doubt it.

Some portion of Trump's voters will care about whatever Trump says they should care about. Hypocrisy and consistency don't matter.

The campaign against DeSantis is simple. He wanted high school students to report to the state about their menstrual cycles. This was going to be mandatory.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-...ry-to-schools/

They had an emergency vote today to no longer make that mandatory. You have to wonder about the timing, as it happened right after Trump insinuated that DeSantis is a pedo.

Regardless, that's the campaign. Why did Ron DeSantis want your 14-year-old daughter to provide details on her menstrual cycle to the state? What's his fascination with your teenager's genitals? Creepy shit like that doesn't play in the suburbs.

Sure seems like they had enough to indict Gaetz.

Matt Gaetz Evades Charges in Sex Trafficking Probe

This seems like the type of crap where he should be drug to court, even if to end up not guilty. It sounds like more than enough evidence to charge, even if it may not be overwhelming enough to stick with 12 "peers"

SI