i'm pretty sure this election is his to lose
from what i can tell, he has enjoyed popular support
all he has to do is make sense, speak with any intelligence
win the centrists, sort of like he has done in the past

"secret police"
jeez, this type of tin foil conspiracy is cancerous
i hope his media team wises up and understands florida is politically and culturally very diverse
i'm not sure people want more toxic campaigning...

 rgio wrote:
Who told you that "they" is strictly plural? They were wrong.

 miamizsun wrote:
All language is fluid.  Look no further than the N-word, a term of endearment when used within the group(s) it was created to target, yet so dangerous as to never be typed for fear of retribution.  It's literally Voldemort.

I'm all for people doing whatever they want so long as it involves consenting adults.  The pronoun issue with "they" (IMO) is a problem because basic laws of the English language....singular vs. plural... are obliterated in the "re-use".  I personally like Ze best for non-binary...it can be singular or plural...sounds like he and she...and you don't have to re-write the laws of language to apply it.

I'm still recovering from the damage inflicted by Jawn here in Philly...

 rgio wrote:
Yes, great for glib trivialization. All "identities" matter!

"What's next?! People marrying their dogs!?"

 westslope wrote:

I think it's taken on a meaning of "latinx but not hispanic" at least on official surveys.

 rgio wrote: 
i can see where it might be a trigger for some
however to me it just looks like kids going through a phase, maybe like furries (sp)
i don't have a problem with body decor or modification, i was reffering to sfw's word comment
back in the eighties i had acquaintances that identified as vampires or they did when they were at goth clubs
where are they now? tampa i think
all of this may beg the question, how many pronouns are there? and how do we know when to use them?
maybe pronouns are fluid

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
I often use the term 'non-white'.    Is that a culturally acceptable term these days?


In regards to the article, I wonder if Democrats have had that conversation with folks who can be described as "visible minorities" who oppose high rates of immigration from their country or region of origin?   I ask because well-meaning white folk who talk to nobody get some really strange ideas as to what "those people" actually want.  

 miamizsun wrote:

 That discussion is an incredibly powerful recruiting tool for the right.  Call it whatever-phobic you like...that just adds to the impact.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
buy a vowel? 
and i agree
however, i think it just depends

 Red_Dragon wrote:

Welcome to the romance languages. I'll use whatever term people want me to use, but we get changed to some real nonsense sometimes, and it doesn't solve the problem. In the case of Latinx, if someone says they're Latinx, I assume they're LGBTetc. NTTAWWT but words have meaning and if it's a meaningless word when you start using it, it quickly takes on a meaning.

It was Oriental when I was a kid, then it's Asian. Solved the problem of being defined by where you live relative to Europe, I guess, but Asia is also not Europe, so I never was sure it advanced the cause.

I'm watching with some bemusement as "colored people" is out but "people of color" is in.

Democrats fall flat with ‘Latinx’ language

 haresfur wrote:

What is the GND? What exactly are the investing in, and how are the funds appropriated?
What record does the gov have in green investing?
The current bill is being bounced around, and appears the current strategy is its basically a frame, which will be filled in later...so more we need to pass it to understand it.

Sure, back in early 2020, we need to throw some $ around. But last summer (under both trump and biden), and now almost 2 years later?

Sorry to say, but most republicans are looking pretty reasonable given the democrats rush to get something done...which is also one of the biggest spending bills outside of the pandemic. 

 black321 wrote:
Is anybody in the Democratic Party pointing out that net taxes from a industrial sector x or y are what should matter rather than subsidies when comparing contributions to government revenues?  

These days, nothing greenfield gets done without subsidies.  Politicians of all leanings like to lift their hind leg and mark job creating projects so they can go back to the electorate and say "See?  I delivered!".   Both Canadian and American conservatives (sic) love sucking hard on the welfare state teat as long as their favourite causes are being supported.

Example.  There may very well be subsidies going to the fossil fuel sector that defy good public policy sense but the overall sector, in particular the exploration and production activities are paying significant net taxes to public treasuries.

I cannot say for sure but would guess that oil & gas exploration & production net taxes in Canada exceed most if not all other industrial activities.  

 haresfur wrote:
Another ancient myth.

1896: "There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it."

 black321 wrote:
There's our difference. I think the Green New Deal is a good start on the tax to invest front. And put up by the progressive wing. Too bad Biden just wanted a half-arsed public works program (as I understand it. I admit I don't know the details). But in any case, I don't think you can blame Biden for the failure of the plan. He's trying to get something through when Manchin and the Republicans hold all the cards.

Don't think you can judge by the covid situation, though. An economic crisis was avoided by throwing money around, but it is hard to design that type of program in the short term. A lot of our federal small business support went to big companies that were making a profit anyway. State government here has been doing a somewhat better job of haemorrhaging money to those who need it. You really need to look at what would make up a good long-term policy. 

BTW I do think government should be run like a business. By that I mean they should maximise their revenue by taxing business (and the rich) to the point just before it causes an economic downturn so that their revenue starts falling. The trouble is it is pretty hard to work that given the general economic fluctuations. Since they are supposedly in the business of working for the people, the system should be designed to minimise the tax burden on those that can least afford it and to provide value-added services and ecological outcomes. 

 haresfur wrote:

I believe even by Reagan's standards, trickle down was a s-t fix, which did work and get us out of an economic mess. It wasn't supposed to be l-t economic policy - once the economy balances, shift back the tax burden. But it became a GOP mantra.  Still, increasing taxes does impact growth...there's a fine balance to maximizing tax revenues. And for the record, I was for most of Biden's original tax changes. 

The fourth way is to grow yourself out of a deficit, but that will take growth of 4%+ over the next few decades. 

Tax your way to equality?  
Tax to redistribute? Maybe, there might some merit to this, if that's what the country wants...but what we've done over the past 18 months is akin to throwing $ out the window...completely shotgun approach that led for windfalls to many who didnt need it, while those who did are still suffering. 
Tax to invest? That's a better idea, but I dont see too many good ideas here. 

So bottom line...if you want to raise taxes, what is your plan for that $? How are you going to make the country better, because to date, it hasn't been working. 

And of course the deficit matters, as does interest rates...and those will eventually pop. 

 black321 wrote:

What makes you think that? The progressives have been losing to fear of over-taxation since Reagan. Same way they have been losing to fear of the deficit even though the debt has grown far faster under Republican presidencies than Democrats. There are three ways to get that under control. Roll back some of the Republican tax cuts on the rich, cut military spending, or inflation. Ok, the conservative Democrats argue that the economy can grow fast enough that the deficit doesn't matter but that still leaves the poor getting poorer under the current regime. There is ample evidence over the past 30 or so years that trickle down is a fraud.

 westslope wrote:

I'm skeptical that these investments will provide much of a real return.
And the progressives seem more interested in taxing as some type of revenge...and to build their political power. 

 black321 wrote:

From the same article:

The splits are reflected in the different ways Democrats describe their goals in passing the Biden agenda. The president, articulating the moderates’ views, describes a need to “invest in our people” to better compete in the great global struggle with China. Progressives describe a need to compel the wealthy and corporations to pay to address longstanding social inequities.

———————————————

Please note that these American self-styled progressives seem more interested in taxing the rich and corporations than actually helping the poor and low-income workers.  It is always nice to see American political actors sticking to US exceptionalism.   Must be hard to be smarter than everybody else on the planet including your own experts.

There is a sweet irony to this situation.   For years, American pundits have wrung their hands over complex coalition governments in European democracies that had embraced proportional representation.

Personally, I doubt proportional representation can be shoe-horned into the existing US presidential system.  But would loved to be proved wrong. 

Story applies just as much to the GOP, (excerpt from WSJ article)

The Forces Behind Biden’s Problems: Four Parties, Zero Trust

Faced with split in his party, president is stumbling as he tries to get his big domestic agenda passed

To understand the difficulty President Biden is having enacting his agenda, keep in mind a couple of simple numbers: four and zero.

Specifically, there are effectively four political parties in Washington right now. And there is zero trust among them.

That alignment creates an awfully rocky road, on which Mr. Biden is stumbling as he tries to get his big domestic agenda passed. It would be an exaggeration to say Washington is ungovernable under these conditions, but at the moment it more resembles a parliamentary system with power divided among multiple weak parties than the traditional American system of two strong parties straddling the spectrum.

The Democrats who (barely) control Congress will try this week to regroup and finally agree on a $1.85 trillion social-spending and climate bill, after multiple failed efforts. That agreement might—only might—allow for the House to pass a $1 trillion, bipartisan infrastructure plan that has been languishing there despite Mr. Biden’s repeated pleas to his own party to pass the darn thing.

This impasse exists because the Democratic Party today really is two parties: the progressive version of the party and the moderate version. This split is hardly new, but now the two sides are roughly equal in congressional strength and leverage. Rather than bringing the two sides together, this balance of power has laid bare their differing agendas and priorities and driven them apart, and Mr. Biden has failed to bridge the gap.

This split is mirrored on the other side of the aisle, where the Republican Party also effectively is split in two. There remains the traditionally conservative GOP, which many Republicans refer to as the “governing part of the party,” because it is interested in advancing its agenda through conventional governing channels. Its power now is at least offset, and probably eclipsed, by the populist, nationalist version of the Republican Party, which is animated more by cultural fights with the left than by traditional conservative policy goals. This part of the party often seems more interested in blowing up the system than working within it.

Left to their own devices, the moderate version of the Democratic Party and the governing part of the Republican Party would fight out big tax and spending questions, and perhaps come to some workable compromises. And indeed, that is what they did earlier this year on the bipartisan infrastructure plan.

But moderate Democrats and governing Republicans aren’t really in charge any more, and they can’t work their will when outflanked by progressives on the left and new-wave populists on the right.