-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
US PoliERA 2018 |OT6| An Unmitigated Disaster
- Thread starter Midnight Jon
- Start date
- OT
- Status
So are we never gonna hear what happened to that Stone associate that was fighting going in front of the grand jury today?
I will never understand how generations work, particularly when I'm apparently a millennial (37) and so are high school kids (under 18?). There's literally parents in the same generation as their children. This whole system is janky
Thread is completely on point.
That infowars nonsense is useful in that it points out that "Corporate" is a meaningless buzzword.
To a significant chunk of the GOP. millenial is just a term for anyone younger than a baby boomer.
Haven't listened yet. Waiting for the chance to with my wife. She kills me if I listen to Keep It without her so I'm hoping she'll like this one.
That's why armed protests are the best, or at least, some armed component.
The idea is to be as peaceful as possible but ensure that the risk of getting shot is baked into every decision the authorities make.
It would be legally impossible because when could you determine that they become a "fetus." It would open the door to nuttery like investigating every single miscarriage as a criminal case.
Even if they strip it to hell, Roe has to stand in some form because it's completely impractical to legislate all phases of a pregnancy.
That's because high school kids aren't millenials anymore - they're Gen Z. "Millenials" is usually used to refer to people born 1980-1995, e.g. 23-38 year olds. Millenials were graduating high school/college around the time of the great recession, which is one reason why there's been such hand wringing about the future of 'young people.'
A generation is 25 years roughly. There's always an age gap between those at the start and end.
I prefer the Born Before Millennium, Reached Adulthood After definition for Millennials.
If you're a young enough age to have hardly any memory of the world pre 9/11 (or the actual event itself) then you're not a millennial imo. It feels like that's a good enough cut off point.
The generations in that chart are 17, 18, and 15 years.
One of my cousins was born in 1996, and a bit ago we were talking about 9/11. He's just old enough to remember it. That seems to me as good of a cutoff as any for American millennials, at least.
Yep.
I'm just so fucking angry right now.
We're turning into a theocratic authoritarian country. It's happening right in front of our eyes. Largely in part because of a minority party that straight up cheated their way into this. It's hard for me not to get visibly angry knowing how we got here. How do we even fix this?
So court seems to rule here that they agree with the government to protect some evidence against Concord for discovery.
People need to stop bashing democrats because of who they endorsed in the primary. A Primary is made to bring the field down to one candidate. Long as they back the winner in the general, I don't care who they supported in the primary.
They're arbitrary, but are roughly 20 years each. Pew cut Millenials off early at 1996 instead of going 81-00 because 9/11 and the internet created a huge cultural divide and the late '90s kids are way closer to the '00s kids than the '80s and early '90s kids.
Yes, this is mostly a win for Mueller. "Sensitive discovery" is limited to the US law firm representing Concord only. Mind you, this doesn't mean they won't share the information with the Russians, but they would get disbarred and prosecuted if it was discovered that they had done so.
Plus, she endorsed her colleague of many years who hadn't had a primary challenger since 2004. Of course she did. I probably would have if I were her, almost no one saw AOC's victory coming who wasn't specifically on the ground in that district.
I guess I'm finding it pretty laughable how many folk who had never heard of AOC or Crowley before this Tuesday are suddenly full of loud opinions about it.
I don't want to see Kirsten to be the nominee. I don't want a president that just goes for every progressive "base" policy no matter what. There's more Americans than just the most leftwing of the democratic party... America is far from the progressive country the 2020 nominees seem to think it is.
Federal jobs guarantee is so dumb... as if single payer wasn't impractical enough already. That + all of the other government expansion the dems would like to do (much of which is actually quite important).
Only presidential candidate I like so far is Bullock. All of the other ones are too leftwing for me or old (Biden) ... and Bullock is already pretty leftwing. What was wrong with Hillary's platform? Just repeat Hillary's platform and actually sell it with a more charismatic candidate. Her platform was already more progressive than any other dem since McGovern. She didn't lose because she wasn't "progressive" enough. It's not like people didn't vote for Hillary because of policy... most Americans had trouble figuring out what her policies actually were.
The young progressive activists are not nearly as smart or informed as some people on this forum like to think... many seem to barely understand the New Deal coalition that they are so attached to (hint: it revolved around a ton of socially conservative white southerners who really liked Social Security but were weary about much else)
Federal jobs guarantee is so dumb... as if single payer wasn't impractical enough already. That + all of the other government expansion the dems would like to do (much of which is actually quite important).
Only presidential candidate I like so far is Bullock. All of the other ones are too leftwing for me or old (Biden) ... and Bullock is already pretty leftwing. What was wrong with Hillary's platform? Just repeat Hillary's platform and actually sell it with a more charismatic candidate. Her platform was already more progressive than any other dem since McGovern. She didn't lose because she wasn't "progressive" enough. It's not like people didn't vote for Hillary because of policy... most Americans had trouble figuring out what her policies actually were.
The young progressive activists are not nearly as smart or informed as some people on this forum like to think... many seem to barely understand the New Deal coalition that they are so attached to (hint: it revolved around a ton of socially conservative white southerners who really liked Social Security but were weary about much else)
96 is about where I've been marking it for ages also. I specifically think of it as an internet thing
Lol yeah okay let's run a white guy from a state that went for Trump by 20 points, sounds like he will be super representative of the Democratic Party
2 term Governor of Montana who has accomplished many progressive policies (first to instate net neutrality, EITC expansion, Sued all the way up to the Supreme Court over Citizens United, Strict campaign disclosure laws, Medicaid expansion, etc.) despite having an overwhelmingly republican house/senate.
Just two seconds ago you were asking who he is, and you already have an opinion of him?
He's even liberal on gun control, so idk why you judged him just because he's a white guy from Montana. He's progressive on every issue, and actually has the results to show for it.
He made a clear statement why he never sent national guard troops to the border (whereas Dem governors in states like Virginia did), has been attacking the travel ban, obviously attacked the immigrants in cages, has helped negotiate deals with local Native American groups in Montana, and pretty much every other thing a standard democratic politician has done.
Given where he's from it's amazing how much he has accomplished.
I'd consider voting for him in the primary
For some reason this conversation reminds me of one of my favorite jokes:
A man goes to interview for a teaching position. The principal asks him, "Now, if you get this job, will you teach creationism or evolution?"
The man shrugs and replies, "Whichever."
A man goes to interview for a teaching position. The principal asks him, "Now, if you get this job, will you teach creationism or evolution?"
The man shrugs and replies, "Whichever."
The husband of my college classmate clerked for Scalia. It was fucking nauseating reading her fb posts about how kind of a man he was.
If this is true, I wonder if we will see any conflict between Trump and McConnell since McConnell wants to finish this after the midterms.
They could easily drag out the confirmation process 4 months if they want to.
No he doesn't? McConnell wants this done ASAP as well. They don't want to risk the democrats doing well in th mid terms and not being able to stack the court.
I thought he wanted to be done later? Maybe I read something wrong then.
Naw, the Turtle wants to do this right before the midterms to fire up the GOP base, and depress Democratic voter turnout.
They can delay it until after midterms and face no negative consequences since they can still nominate someone in the lame duck period before January. The rationale for this is that it would motivate Republican voters to go out and vote by fear of losing a supreme Court seat.
- Status