Like we’ll be eating some rich people and suddenly the rich guy I’m eating is not lefty halal because they aren’t organic or grass fed or some shit.

I think I agree but part of me wonders when the purity testing actually stops…

Don’t worry. We’ll make butter milk out of it lol

Yea no. Try having a nuanced discussion on any (insert heated topic here) on Lemmy and watch the labels fly out faster than the ejaculate of a post pubescent 15 year old.

Just a heads up as of a few hours ago the windows installer is broken.

I think the missing link is viable raw photo management and color space transforms. Photoshop is just built well for that. But in terms of drawing Krita blows Potatoshop out of the water

I don’t know how people got that take from Tropic Thunder when they explicitly make reference inside the movie to how messed up and wrong it was. Like, that was the joke. RDJ was playing a character so full of himself that took method acting to it’s extreme. Am I missing something? Id love to be educated

Sort of. It’s a mixed bag is what I’m saying. It’s just not as impactful as we all imagine it to be. Some politicians are very corrupt obviously. But it’s not this prevalent “corporations own congress” kinda thing.

Access to influence policy and legislation. But they seem to get mixed results. There have been a few studies that looked at the actual effects of lobbying. I may have to dig around but i can track them down. It’s very interesting because it upturned what my assumptions were about lobbying.

It seems they find candidates that are already somewhat aligned and work no push the scale further. Like, someone like Latimer wouldn’t need a lot to push the scale in favor of AIPAC objectives.

It’s very interesting to read up on this.

I used to think lobby groups are influential in determining the outcome of these elections but I think the reality is they align themselves with candidates that are slated to more likely win. Sometimes they even fund both candidates. Money just doesn’t seem to translate to effective victory. Look at Bloomberg in 2016. That guy spent an ungodly amount of money on his campaign - - - more than all the candidates combined or something close.

Cory Bowman was already waning in popularity. From your article:

Bowman had several compounding low-level mistakes and scandals that could easily be hammered home to voters, like pulling the fire alarm at the Capitol or his controversial hip-hop lyrics. Beyond that, Latimer is a popular politician who has represented most of the district’s voters for years. Add in more money than any group has ever spent on a congressional primary by an enormous margin, and you have the conditions for a win.

I think it all depends. I’m not saying AIPAC is not influential. I just don’t think it’s so clear cut. I think the money in more to get access. The reality is Israel is popular with boomers, and Dem boomers vote. We are starting to see a shift with younger voters but it’s just not there yet.

1. Obama didn’t have a fillibuster proof supermajority in the senate.

2. The Dems had a supermaqajority for only 70 days, during which they passed one of the most significant legislature in the last 20 years

3. At the time, supreme court stare decisis was being upheld

“Democratic differences on abortion threatened to derail Obama’s namesake health care law. With Republicans united in opposition, Democrats could not afford to lose a single senator, and Ben Nelson, an anti-abortion Democrat from Nebraska, was the final holdout. To win his support, party leaders included a version of an amendment that prohibits Affordable Care Act plans from covering abortion, which was originally offered by another anti-abortion Democratic representative, Bart Stupak of Michigan.” – Amanda Becker for The 19th News, “Why didn’t Congress codify abortion rights?”

It’s the bread and butter of sophists. Everyone has strong opinions about politics, but when you lift the hood you see most of it is manufactured.

So… No examples. Got it.

So what was the point of bringing up student loans when talking about PPP loans being forgiven???

You love that gish gallop fallacy for some reason. Another thing you guys love is debate bro terms so you can weasel out of answering anything.

Answer the fucking question.

I don’t know what to tell you. You made the silly claim that PPP loans and student debt are equally discharged then when someone pushed back you started crying about gish galloping and “oh no, don’t interrogate me bro, you’re dominating the conversation”. Like holy shit man.

You made the claim. Own it all the way. Walk us from point a to b. How are ppp and student loans the same?

Nah. I used to respond to these idiotic buzz phrases with detailed and sourced responses. After a while I realized I was either talking to people that had no clue what or how US government works or they were actively engaged in spreading misinformation.

I no longer expend my energy in this manner as it’s clear that people that wake these types of declarations:

“PPP loans were forgiven so why not student loans???”

Are way. Way. Way so far off from policy and any conversation grounded in reality that it doesn’t matter what I say or show.

Really if you make a big claim like that, you should be prepared to explain and defend yourself. Call it a " power play" or gish gallop (it’s not) but own it all the way. Walk us from point A to B. Own it.

My issue is very clear: everyone is comfortable levying criticism in broad generalities. Everyone’s very comfortable painting broad strokes and talking in generalities.

No one wants to bring the receipts and talk specifics. That’s why even here, when I push back and ask for specifics you fold. We haven’t even started the discussion about student loans. We’re still nitpicking over feelings and vibes and we presentation at this point.

the president is influential within the party and can and does frequently work with the legislature on bills

Correct. Biden has advocated and advanced numerous bills related to this. It’s quite the list. I’m not going to go over it because I already know the next talking point or buzzphrase.

those things are all determined by laws passed by Congress

Correct

Maybe they should’ve negotiated harder to include changes to how student loans work as part of that deal

Yes. Maybe the coulda/shoulda/woulda. Policy negotiations aren’t easy, esp when dems held only slim majorities in both houses. This here is the crux of discourse on social media.

WELL THEY FORGAVE PPP LOANS I DONT SO WHATS THE BIG DEAL??

It’s all conjecture intended to equivocate between the two parties and dilute the discourse. That’s all it is because it is completely devoid of the specifics in each legislation. It’s all feelings. When people are ready to open up the bills and talk policy, lets go. Lets have that discussion. But for as long as people post this asinine nonsense “WELL THEY FORGAVE PPP…” we’ll be stuck in the realm of buzzwords forever. And both sides are the same, amirite?

I’m tired of all the pseudo intellectuals hijacking every conversation with feels and never providing concrete examples of anything. They’ll dance and dance around general topics and never give us specifics because they know they can get away with saying anything. It’s an effective way to build up narratives without having to be held responsible for anything.

They’ll never give a clear context or path to how / why / where because they know they can talk in generalities and move on. They’re here to stay and either we can all roll over into the post-modern “truth is just a construct world” or we can push back.

Thank you. We can address DWS and Bernies ability to secure the nomination but I want Kronos to engage first. I’m not forking out of this discussion yet but I will come back.