Yes!, same origin story - details not important. A lot of stuff is like that. We muddle thru and do amazing things sometimes and often by accident.
Waiting for one of these posts to go viral and finally get paid lol.

Have any of us "figured it out". Weez up against some powerful forces I wouldn't be too proud to align myself with but
My Meth pipe is never far away, lol

Is Meth like Heroin?. Heroin has been the inspiration of some of the best music in history
[.. kids, don't do drugs!]

Check out any cover ever done of this one by the Stranglers:

A cover:

Agree to the extent you guys are always battling with him. Yes, he generalizes and yes, the factoids of the two parties on most any given issue weigh in favor of the "Dems". That isn't the point with "you guys". This is a religious belief your party affiliation and likely for generations. It don't matter what the details are. Youz only gots two parties. You are not going to sit down at Thanksgiving with a family of committed party supporters without a sore azz - cuz you would get a good woopin',lol
It's strong - this religious fervour of affiliation. Want to know another and even worse - Nationalism. Another root of many evils in my opinion. Like I said earlier - accident of birth. I could be in some militia in some tribe in the Sudan spewing my bullshit right now.

Didn't catch that part. Like I intimated, the origins of the internet was talked about or linked to earlier and I wish I had half the memory of Biden to recall it!..

Arizona really?. Do you know B4 is on Meth and if he was that's the most compassionate thing you can come up with?.

He's obviously a smart guy that can put his words together so I don't think he's on Meth.

Is he really responsible for his state. Like me stuck here an accident of birth.. wtf?.

Reading ahead, I don't think you selected the lessor of two weevils. eom.

Very generous but acceptable margin of error.

This however,

Hang on, link back. We already saw and know the internet was created somewhere in Europe which did little with it till it crossed the ocean.
US army had it for 20 years or maybe not and a myth lol.
That's likely off, still looking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vint_Cerf
https://spanish-presidency.consilium.europa.eu/en/news/internet-user-day-eu/

That's another topic back to Cucker Tarlson

That one's tricky. God doesn't likely think if he/it/her exists and Tucker definitely is no one to speak for he/it/her if he/it/her does.
The family we can ask.

There ain't nothin' like a friend

Ha ha, so good .. Tucker's fail. Wonder if he will get another gig.

Ha ha, love that Chappelle one.. guess talking about it prime time is something.

And, filthy rich at Davos were crying to pay more taxes is something.

Might have been some economic forum. Many top shelfers giving it away is something - might be quicker those two things than trying to fix the system.

Don't follow the tit for tat bickering playing out like Hur thing

Kinda having fun with that one, no worries and thanks - it was a good game on many levels

Here's Tucker getting pissed for fun
https://twitter.com/MS_Sambo_/status/1757170667793879156

Dinner calls

Your not wrong B4 and good points. I suppose I would want a side by side comparison before I buy as Newmed says.

I'm sure some of the more informed posters here have that information at hand and R. Nader is long gone but fwiw:

How many presidents have been elected on promises to stamp out lobbyist, reign in corps and their money that overwhelm DC then lead for all people...

Several presidents throughout history have campaigned on promises to address the influence of lobbyists, rein in corporate power, and govern for the benefit of all people. However, the extent to which they fulfilled these promises can vary, and the issue of money in politics remains a complex and ongoing challenge. Here are a few examples:

Jimmy Carter campaigned on a platform of reducing the influence of money in politics and promoting government accountability during his 1976 presidential campaign. He emphasized his commitment to ethics and transparency in government.

Barack Obama campaigned on a message of hope and change in 2008, promising to reduce the influence of lobbyists and special interests in Washington. He advocated for campaign finance reform and sought to limit the role of corporate money in politics.

Donald Trump ran for president in 2016 as an outsider candidate who promised to "drain the swamp" in Washington, D.C. He criticized the influence of lobbyists and corporate interests in government and pledged to prioritize the interests of ordinary Americans.

Joe Biden campaigned for the presidency in 2020 with a message of unity and restoring the soul of the nation. He emphasized the need to address systemic issues, including the influence of money in politics, and pledged to govern in a way that benefits all Americans, not just the wealthy or powerful interests.

While these presidents made efforts to address the influence of lobbyists and corporate power to varying degrees, the issue remains deeply entrenched in American politics, and progress in reforming campaign finance laws and reducing the influence of money in politics has been incremental at best.

That was put to ChatGPT

Thanks Zab, hope you found it interesting
Author is probably a Shorter ;).
Oh yes, they say 72 is the new 52 ;).

Ok, thx

We all do it. Insinuate our pet peeves and politics in everything. Some are better hiding it or don't need to because it is solid argument or scholarship.
The departure from a good discussion is when beliefs (or emotions like a sore azz ;) come into play.
A weak ego simply won't allow some "foreign" material in becuz it's too risky or untenable in some way.
Prolly locked in a closet/fed under the door for a month in their childhood.
Is it nature or is it nurture?. Is one of those a question someone will risk exploring?.
True, as we saw yesterday from the winning team - a good offense is the best defense.
Or, for the more laziazz types - Fuck you and anyone who looks like you ;).

edit

That wasn't really in reply to you or your comment but this is ;):

User
why do many liberal leaning Americans despise Noam Chomsky. He's such a Humanist or social minded?
ChatGPT

Noam Chomsky, despite his status as a prominent intellectual and activist, is not universally despised among liberal-leaning Americans. However, there are some critiques and disagreements that arise from various quarters, even within liberal circles. Here are a few reasons why some liberal-leaning individuals might not fully support or align with Chomsky:

Foreign Policy Critiques: Chomsky is known for his sharp criticism of US foreign policy, particularly its interventions and actions in various parts of the world. While many liberals also critique aspects of US foreign policy, they may not always agree with Chomsky's assessment or his proposed solutions.

Israel-Palestine Conflict: Chomsky's views on the Israel-Palestine conflict have been controversial and have garnered criticism from both conservative and liberal camps. While he is a staunch critic of Israel's policies towards Palestinians, some liberals may feel that his views are overly one-sided or not fully nuanced.

Style and Rhetoric: Chomsky's writing and speaking style can be complex and uncompromising, which can sometimes alienate or frustrate those who prefer more moderate or diplomatic approaches to advocacy and discourse.

Criticism of Mainstream Media: Chomsky is known for his critique of mainstream media, arguing that it often serves elite interests and perpetuates propaganda. While many liberals agree with some aspects of this critique, others may feel that Chomsky's views on media are overly cynical or dismissive of the important role that journalism plays in society.

Economic Views: Chomsky is a critic of capitalism and advocates for more socialist or anarchist economic systems. While some liberals may share his concerns about income inequality and corporate power, others may be more supportive of regulated capitalism or market-based solutions.

Overall, while Chomsky has a significant following and has influenced many liberal activists and thinkers, his views and style are not universally embraced within liberal circles, leading to some level of disagreement or criticism.

Here I disagree,

.. there's a graph for everything.. It can say anything we want no matter what it really says..

We have to respect the best (economic) science has to give us and not make everything subjective.

Further, I would discount that impulse wholeheartedly - root of many problems in the information age with disinformation and misinformation.

.. threatening everyone else in the world that could hold me accountable

Accountability is a good point. Laws.

.. charts only mean anything to someone who wants destruction

I don't think you are saying the charts are far from reality but the interpretation of them. Just take the alpine gondola trip for one on inequality in the economy - do you not value that data?. Do we just leave it to continue?. No tweakin' req'd?..

There are other graphs.

Chomsky and Chris Hedges do critique the influence of corporations on society even so far as to say that they have "captured democracies". What solutions do they offer?.

Noam Chomsky and Chris Hedges both offer critiques of the influence of corporations on society, including their impact on democracy. While they may offer various solutions or proposals in their writings and speeches, some common themes emerge:

Political Activism: Both Chomsky and Hedges emphasize the importance of political activism and citizen engagement in challenging corporate power. They argue that grassroots movements and collective action are essential for creating meaningful change in society.

Regulation and Reforms: Chomsky and Hedges often advocate for increased regulation of corporate power. This might involve reforms to campaign finance laws to reduce the influence of money in politics, antitrust measures to break up monopolies, and stronger consumer protection laws.

Democratic Participation: They stress the need for greater democratic participation and decision-making at all levels of society. This could include measures such as expanding public financing of elections, promoting community-owned businesses and cooperatives, and implementing participatory budgeting processes.

Media Reform: Chomsky and Hedges frequently discuss the need for media reform to counter corporate influence on the dissemination of information. They advocate for diverse, independent media outlets that prioritize public interest over corporate profit.

Economic Justice: Both thinkers argue for policies that promote economic justice and reduce inequality. This might involve raising the minimum wage, implementing progressive taxation, strengthening labor rights, and investing in social welfare programs.

Educational Initiatives: Chomsky and Hedges emphasize the importance of education in empowering individuals to critically analyze and challenge corporate power. They support educational initiatives that promote civic engagement, critical thinking, and media literacy.

Overall, their proposed solutions often center around empowering citizens, reining in corporate influence, and promoting democratic values and institutions. However, the specifics of their proposals may vary based on the particular issues they are addressing and the context in which they are writing or speaking.

Lol, that was great, if I could vote...

With all respect u sounding like a snowflake ;)

I only listen to those listed to see what the appeal is and to date just Tate n Brand

The point was those graphs kind of illustrate the race to the bottom peeps talk about.

How about you?.. any solutions?.

Insults for me I liken to the effect progressive criticism have on (corporatized) rubberized institutions.

edit

Dear Chat.. who coined the phrase corporatized "rubberized institutions"
ChatGPT

The phrase "corporatized rubberized institutions" is associated with Noam Chomsky, a prominent American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and political activist. Chomsky has often critiqued the influence of corporations on various aspects of society, including education, media, and politics, and this phrase may have been used by him in this context. However, without specific context or sources, it's difficult to attribute the phrase to him definitively.

No one has a lock on ideas. Don't just write someone off because of their background.

Don't think he's a locksmith but entrepreneur, denizen of comedy clubs and divorced like you ;).

The student funding thing was unpalatable fo sho but if you read further some interesting trends in those graphs. Those would be facts (if not altered).

edit

That's why I shared with Zab. He pretty good for synthesizing complex economics.
I ask or throw stuff out for interpretation
The Rudeboy stuff is often fun as well and thanks! ;)

So I ask you and the intellectual dem party,,,,,, How do you address it?

I await your answers sir....As the dems promise only more of the same.....

Lol, I asked you first!..

Just kidding. I will keep looking and as I said I think we might get close to answers if we look at Chris Hedges but
So far, all I find is criticisms. Obviously, if one attempts to proactively do a reversal of a criticism - it's repair, they are likely to find a positive outlook.
Maybe, the answer is incrementalism. No fast solution but deeper awareness of the issues and problems and getting down to the hard work.

Zab, thought of you with this wall street guy's very lengthy future looking post. I understood some of the graphs ;)..
https://www.quora.com/Will-the-United-States-ever-collapse/answer/James-Altucher

For some reason I just replied to 12 and that was meant for you (maybe you can answer for that as well ;)
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173828274

Correct me if I'm wrong but what you describe seems to be fairly close to what Chris Hedges outlines.

I was just about to ask ChatGPT what are Chris Hedges SOLUTIONS to this problem and came across a discussion on Quora which looks like it was generated by a Chatbot:

Chris Hedges, a prominent American journalist, has indeed expressed concerns about the decline of America across various aspects. It's important to note that his viewpoints represent his own analysis and opinions, which may not be universally shared.

When discussing the decline or challenges faced by a society, it is essential to consider the broader context and not limit the analysis solely to the United States. While Hedges may focus on the United States specifically, societal challenges and concerns are not exclusive to any single country.

Many of the issues and trends identified by Hedges, such as wealth inequality, political polarization, environmental degradation, and the erosion of democratic institutions, are not confined to the United States alone. These challenges can be observed in varying degrees across multiple Western societies and, to some extent, globally.

Different countries and regions face their unique socio-political, economic, and cultural circumstances that contribute to their specific challenges. However, there are commonalities among Western societies, such as the influence of neoliberal economic policies, the impact of globalization, and the effects of technological advancements, which can contribute to shared concerns.

It's important to approach discussions about societal decline or challenges with a nuanced perspective, taking into account the complexities and variations within different countries and regions. Comparative analysis and examination of shared trends and systemic factors can provide a broader understanding of societal issues beyond any single nation.

---------------
Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author who has written extensively about the decline of America. He argues that the United States is facing a number of existential threats, including economic inequality, political corruption, and environmental destruction.

Hedges' concerns about the decline of America are shared by many people, both inside and outside the country. However, there is no consensus on whether the United States is the sole and leading phenomenon of this collapse, or whether it is typical of "Western" societies more broadly.

Some people argue that the United States is unique in its decline, pointing to the country's history of exceptionalism and its role as a global superpower. They argue that the United States is facing a number of challenges that other Western countries do not face, such as the rise of China and the decline of the middle class.

Others argue that the decline of America is part of a broader trend of decline in Western societies. They point to the fact that many Western countries are facing similar challenges, such as economic inequality, political polarization, and environmental degradation. They argue that these challenges are the result of the same underlying factors, such as the rise of neoliberalism and the decline of social democracy.

It is too early to say definitively whether the United States is the sole and leading phenomenon of the decline of Western societies. However, it is clear that the United States is facing a number of serious challenges, and that these challenges are not unique to the country. It is also clear that the decline of Western societies is a complex issue with no easy solutions.

Here are some of the challenges that Western societies are facing:

* **Economic inequality:** The gap between the rich and the poor is widening in many Western countries. This is leading to social unrest and political instability.

* **Political polarization:** People in Western countries are becoming increasingly divided along political lines. This is making it difficult to find common ground and solve problems.

* **Environmental degradation:** Western countries are contributing to climate change and other environmental problems. This is threatening the planet's future.

These are just some of the challenges that Western societies are facing. It is important to address these challenges in order to prevent the decline of these societies.
https://www.quora.com/Chris-Hedges-has-expressed-deep-concerns-about-the-decline-of-America-in-various-aspects-Is-the-United-States-the-sole-and-leading-phenomenon-of-this-collapse-or-is-it-typical-of-Western-societies

“ARE YOU IN LOVE WITH ME”?!?!?! TRAVIS KELCE DID NOT JUST FUCKING SAY THAT?!?!?! pic.twitter.com/i2wMvzxLpK

— hayl ⸆⸉ 🪩🦇 (@inmydream1and) February 12, 2024

tayvis is smiling at eachother like this???? and donna is smiling at them smiling at eachother???? and i just have to what???? go to work tomorrow???? pic.twitter.com/UqjPEfCY4l

— hayl ⸆⸉ 🪩🦇 (@inmydream1and) January 29, 2024

Ok, thanks gl.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/otcapi/company/financial-report/392108/content

News!, lol - correct me if I'm wrong; these, something about Jane people have nothing to do with HRAL'$ now,

https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=17256146&guid=ZNd-kKuJUTECJth

Rule 13d-1(b) is the “Institutional Investor” exemption and provides that certain Institutional Investors (defined below) that acquire securities in the ordinary course of its business and not with the purpose nor with the effect of changing or influencing the control of the issuer (nor in connection with or as a participant in any transaction having such purpose or effect) may file a Schedule 13G in lieu of a Schedule 13D; provided that such person promptly notifies any other person on whose behalf it holds, on a discretionary basis, securities exceeding 5 percent of the class, of any acquisition or transaction on behalf of such other person that might be reportable by that person under Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act. “Institutional Investors” include certain (1) broker dealers; (2) banks; (3) insurance companies; (4) registered investment companies; (5) registered investment advisers; (6) ERISA plans; (7) parent holding companies or control persons, provided the aggregate amount held directly by the parents or control persons, and directly and indirectly by their subsidiaries or affiliates that are not persons specified in this list of individuals, does not exceed 1 percent of the securities of the subject class; (8) savings associations; (9) church plans excluded from the definition of investment company; (10) a non-US institution that is the functional equivalent of any of the institutions listed above that is subject to a regulatory scheme that is substantially comparable to the regulatory scheme applicable to an equivalent US institution; and (11) any group whose members are all persons enumerated in this list.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=41a16a1b-a159-409c-98ad-39051b7f4753

Bill says look around you soft bellied hypocrites (no, it's much funnier than that ;):

Rubio forcefully denounced Trump, pointing out that Trump’s threat, if made good on, would embolden a despot, destabilize the world, break treaties and upend a 75-year commitment to defend our allies. he also called Trump a reckless moron who smelled like a butt, and refused to endorse him for president.

ha ha! just kidding! none of that shit happened.

That made my morning Sorta ;)

.. a Repug stepping outside this surreality if only briefly

So, established - the choice between the two main parties will be a bitter pill to swallow (from these polls as you well illustrate)

The lessor of two evils is also a good point notwithstanding the don't vote out of fear argument if

One sees like a Chris Hedges the systemic problems of a "captured democracy by Corporate interests".

Set's up the conundrum - vote for Jill Stein if she get's the nod this July and give Trump another vote by default.

What are you going to do?.

It sounds like you want to vote Dem because you keep bemoaning the Dem this Dem that like some unrequited love.

I doubt they will be able to come over to your way of thinking in time. Would you compare notes of the two main parties and see who goes the furthest in
Anti-Monopoly Anti-Trust legislation?. What does your scorecard say to you at this point?.

Trump doesn't register on my scorecard. I do see your point that he represents a sort of boycott and populist movement for many. A dismantling of Institutions. Draining of the Swamp. Shirley, you must see thru that - he wasn't draining anything; just replacing with more larcenous players.

This is a good post that needs your considered opinion: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173823292

The idea that, at this point, the figure in the executive branch exercises that much power, given the power of the war industry and Wall Street, is a myth.

***

Starting five months after this discussion, we had four years of Trump. We saw what his bigotry and hatefulness did to America. We witnessed how he divided America into two angry camps that are still furious with each other. We endured his giant tax cut to the rich and big corporations. We watched his attempted coup. We suffered through his refusal to concede the 2020 election and his big lie that it was “stolen” from him. He is now running again, in an even more paranoid and bigoted campaign than in 2016 or 2020.

I rest my case.

You missed a couple points there, no rest for the Ommissioner

Enjoyed that game last night and this is cool, Patrick miked up:
https://twitter.com/i/events/1751801645590032384

I didn't question the facts but commented on the simplistic editorializing/opinion making (like you just did ;):
Ever see these facts on media? And unreasonable people will find ways to try and discredit those facts if not convenient! Cut out partisan opinions, you still have the facts.......(both site the same report)

Please!, do and try and .. like you say "Cut out partisan opinions".

Doesn't mean you can't side with one party or the other after presenting some facts.

For example, someone hangin' with org. crime, foreign money, prostitution, stat. rape, extortion, and on record (these are facts!) with over 35,000 lies is
NOT Editorializin'!.

Lol, exactly and suspension talk was on topic..

Have a great Super Bowl everyone - heading out..

My reading as well and as for the italics - what editorial one would expect from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Air

Nope, apparently it's bad form to rub it in.

Interesting B4, looks like you aren't the only Independent, Repug or Dem looking at these things

Did you read the rest of that article? - the title doesn't do justice; half way down you get:

One thing that doesn’t get mentioned is that if you look at the very bottom of the list, say the bottom 20 districts on the list, Democrats represent 13 of them. So Dems still have a slight edge at the very bottom of the median income but not nearly as dramatic as the advantage they have at the top.

Rep. Kaptur has been showing the chart to her Democratic colleagues and she says they often get very quiet.

“There’s an elitism that pervades when you have wealth,” she added.

Kaptur has given a version of the chart to President Joe Biden, and says she presented the document to members at a recent caucus meeting. According to her, Democrats ranging from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries down to rank-and-file lawmakers are often taken aback by the visual.

“And then they’re quiet, and they just study it,” she said. “I don’t know where it takes us, except I hope to a more enlightened future.”

They’ve become the party of the elite or at least of the successful upper middle class. What does this do to all of their past rhetoric about the 99%, income disparity and wealth inequality? Do they still care about those things now that their voters appear to be the ones benefitting?

There is a caveat here. Just because Democrats represent top earning districts doesn’t mean that all of the wealthy people in those districts voted for Democrats. Insider points to some 2020 exit polling which seems to show that Biden won among voters making less than $100,000. Trump won among those making between $100,000 and $200,000 and those making above $200,000 were evenly split.

So the picture gets more complicated the closer you look. It may be that even in districts with high median incomes team blue does slightly better among those who are below the median while team red does slightly better with those above the median. Still, Democrats clearly have a significant edge in those top 100 districts (nearly 70%), enough so that the more successful Republican leaning voters are overwhelmed in most cases.

It’ll be interesting to see how Democrats market themselves in light of this information. They were always the party of the downtrodden and those in need of government help. Now they seem to be the party of the better off. This is so contrary to their self-conception that I’m not surprised many of them react to Rep. Kaptur’s list by going silent.

Excellent thanks.. I thought of a way to maybe make these long lists more relevant - put it to any or all posters:

Given these two candidates and these "issues that are factors for your vote"

Place name of your candidate beside each factor that best reflects your values or priorities..

edit

I see this a little problematic starting the mental activity myself;
I would give Trump credit for zero points on the lists..

So, if I read this board correctly this is going to be a common problem which is ok, that way we can narrow it down to all the fence sitters. Also, we may need a third category of candidate still tbd.

Try and keep it clean

with so many issues and complexity and only one vote - what would you give as the main reasons that crystallize that vote?, thanks..
ChatGPT

Certainly, when it comes to crystallizing one's vote amidst the complexity of numerous issues, several overarching factors often come into play. These factors can vary depending on individual priorities and values, but some of the main reasons that tend to crystallize a person's vote include:

Core Values: Individuals often vote based on the alignment of a party's values with their own. This could include beliefs about individual freedom, social justice, economic opportunity, equality, or traditional moral values.

Key Issues: Voters may prioritize one or two key issues that they feel strongly about, such as healthcare, the economy, education, immigration, or national security. They may base their vote on which party they believe has the best approach to addressing these issues.

Leadership and Competence: Perception of the candidates' leadership qualities, competence, integrity, and ability to effectively govern can heavily influence a voter's decision. Trust in a candidate's character and judgment often plays a significant role.

Party Affiliation: Many voters have long-standing allegiances to a particular party based on family background, cultural identity, or ideological alignment. Party loyalty can strongly influence voting behavior, even if individual policies or candidates may not align perfectly with one's beliefs.

Trust and Credibility: Voters may assess which party or candidate they trust more to follow through on their promises, enact meaningful change, and serve the best interests of the country and its citizens.

Perceived Impact: Voters may consider how their vote will impact their own lives, as well as the lives of others, both domestically and internationally. They may weigh the potential consequences of policies and decisions on various groups and communities.

Strategic Considerations: Some voters may take a strategic approach, considering which party or candidate has the best chance of winning or preventing the election of a candidate they strongly oppose. This can involve tactical voting or prioritizing electability over ideological purity.

Character of the Candidates: Personal qualities of the candidates, such as empathy, authenticity, relatability, and temperament, can sway voters who prioritize these attributes in their elected representatives.

Crisis or Context: Extraordinary circumstances, such as economic crises, public health emergencies, or national security threats, can elevate certain issues or qualities in voters' minds and influence their decision-making.

Information and Media Influence: The information voters receive, including news coverage, advertising, social media, and personal networks, can shape their perceptions of the candidates and their priorities.

Ultimately, the combination of these factors, along with individual circumstances and experiences, determines how voters crystallize their decisions and cast their ballots.

Not sure bout' y'all but not crystal clear at all with all that how this election is gonna go.

Thanks Man, in this chaotic world good to have some things one can depend on..