This is literally about the memes thread. Mostly.
I feel in two minds about the Biden memes posted en masse by @Charlesfreck. On the one hand, it’s comforting that there is really so little to say against him. He’s a decent hardworking guy with a very inoffensive centrist platform. Not crazy, not a criminal, not a fake businessman or tv personality, not born with a golden spoon in his mouth: he is a reader, a family guy, deeply religious, and the country is ready for a bit of basic competence and decency. If the worst you got is that he has a speech impediment and you cite a gaffe from 12 years ago, well, hey… None of the Fox News/meme tropes on Biden are about actual policy, so maybe there’s hope of bipartisan progress. Same for the content- free recycling of old tropes about “Clinton wrote some emails!” Or “Pelosi is a woman in power, yuck!”: it says something about the person posting and the state of right wing media, but nothing about the topic, and no substantive policy disagreement. Maybe there’s hope of actual progress on the economy, climate, jobs, the pandemic, etc. if lots of people who may have absorbed some of the Fox tropes are actually all for at least some elements of the Biden Harris platform. People often worry the dems will ruin the economy, but they like it when the dems save it yet again. So that could be ok. But on the other hand, it’s a downer that there’s so much recycling of tired old tropes, and sad how many people have drunk a whole lot of conspiracy kool aid. I’m not sure how sad to feel for the country and the world, when almost a third of American voters still approve of a president who has done everything in his power to destroy the fragile institutions of democracy. Even apart from the kids in cages, etc. and the mudslinging, the ridiculous claims of victimhood, and the total failure to give a damn about anyone.
But right now I’m trying to hang onto some optimism. The end of this administration is in sight.
Just on the Uighurs, I thought one of the most damning moments in John Bolton’s book was the revelation that Trump encouraged the detainment camps. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.axios.com/trump-uighur-muslim-bolton-73ebf1e2-9d34-4aaf-a9ba-17340d2847e4.html I hope and believe there will be much more consistent attention to human rights policies at home and abroad under the next administration; that alone would be reason enough to be glad he’s voted out. Trump foreign policy was a mess that will take a long time to rebuild, as will the mess of the economy and the battle for souls and minds, many of which are possessed by conspiracy bubbles and hatred.
Your ‘daming revelation’, the article you cite, in it’s headline, says ‘Bolton alleges’. Alleges.
It isn’t alleged that Barbara Boxer registered as an agent for a Chinese surveillence firm, she did.
And it’s also true that Microsoft and Google have worked with China on AI and surveillence.
I’ve watched Biden for years and his ‘impediment’ seems to have been missing for most of his political life. Sadly, it seems clear that the man is suffering from something much worse. And when I write ‘sadly’ I mean that, I wouldn’t wish what I suspect it is on anyone.
He’s never had a job in his life, he’s a career politician, which of course most people in politics are in the US and UK. Completely out of touch with reality and continually tempted by lobbyists. Kids in cages, brought in by Obama and Biden, AOC crying by the fence of a car park, a whole year of civil disruption, destruction of businesses, beatings, rapes, murders, - all conveniently washed away with one day of lunacy and the Ministry of Truth will tidy everything up.
The interesting challenge for Joe is that he had 8 years with Obama, but to be fair they were hampered, this time he won’t be hampered and I sincerely hope the US benefits enormously from that. Only time will tell.
After the disaster of last year China is now set to take over the US as the World’s largest economy by 2028.
Actually, Kalashnikov was a Communist. There’s a difference.
If you’re scared by two humans who have very little in common beyond being women in power, is it at all possible that your feelings about women in power might be the issue?
Those mittens were the fashion highlight.
(Me: trying to remember why we separate the chatter from the memes, but still just doing it anyway)
Because many of the memes are abhorrent and inflammatory, and these discussions are generally not. 
Edited to add in the smiley face as it read harsher than intended.
I hear alot of fear mongering regarding the new administration, but I have some adult like perspective
We just let a narcissistic drama queen who was a TV celebrity run the country for 4 years, I said if you watch the progress before he got nominated he wasn’t taking it seriously he was using it for a publicity stunt. People bought into it, and believed he could fix things, on some facets he did well improved the economy, was fighting to end the wars, covid destroyed the economy and the American response was terrible towards it. However we became a country heavily divided.
At this point a woman in power, is also something new, it could be ingenious or could be a disaster, we have 4 years to figure it out. Do I hope for the best, absolutely.
I’m also a strong believer the best qualified candidate gets the job, regardless of color creed religion or sexual orientation, at first I believed Biden chose her for a gain in popularity and votes, which may still be true. However I also believe she is well qualified based on my understanding of her background
Must admit - Tulsi really stood head and shoulders above the others, which is probably why Hillary started the smear campaign.
I’m not sure why people think being a senator is not a job. Senators generally work over 70 hours a week. Nor why people seem to think it’s better to be unqualified and ignorant of the institutions of government, if you’re trying to get hired as the top public servant, ie president. You wouldn’t hire a teacher who’d never met a kid, lawyer who hadn’t gone to law school, or a doctor who was saved from being a hospital insider by total lack of medical training. Or maybe Trump would, but I wouldn’t. It’s weird and specific to the way US culture prizes the ideal of the know nothing amateur. But at the same time, it’s a country full of brilliant scholars and scientists etc.
There was a similar sentiment in the Brexit referendum, a rejection of ‘experts’. Obviously incredibly frustrating for the people who have faith in said experts. But I guess for the people who had seen their quality of life erode for years/ decades, it was harder to have that faith. Don’t know if it translates across the pond but it’s definitely something that has been discussed a lot here.
Not read this article so not sure what conclusions it draws, if any, but I heard a radio interview at the time about this concept of ‘somewheres and anywheres’ as a more relevant description of political division (compared to left v right) that feeds populism - https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/03/anywheres-vs-somewheres-split-made-brexit-inevitable
After watching President Biden’s articulate inaugural speech and subsequent press briefings, I’m wondering if anyone still believes he’s suffering from mental decline.
Is that 70 hours per week on the days they’re actually in session each year which averages around 165, which if regarded as a 14 hour, 5-day week would be 33 weeks of the year.
I believe that makes US Senators less lazy that UK MPs.
Congratulations!
Definitely - and I’ll happily apologise to you in 4 year’s time if he stays the course and heals the nation.
The 70 hrs per week number is from the Congressional Research Foundation’s 2013 study, which also found members spend 59 hrs per week working when they are in their districts (not in session) (see p. 5-6 of this doc):
Page 6 breaks down the work into detail for your review.
260 week days per year, and let’s take off 15 days (3 weeks vacation time); when in session 70 hrs in a 5-day work week is 14 hrs a day; out of session (in district) 5-day work week is 11 hrs and 48 mins per day.
(Edit to crunch numbers: 165 days in session at 14 hrs per day = 2,310 hrs; 80 days in district [constituent & local work] at 11 hrs 48 mins per day = 944 hrs; total work year = 3,254 hrs. For comparison: someone working 9 hrs a day for 50 weeks a year, 5 days a week, works 2,250 hrs a year. Even if they work 6 days a week it’s still only 2,700 hrs.)
Altogether members of Congress work much, much longer hours than many of us.
Thanks for that @Matt, I’ll have a thorough read through it when I return from work.
In quickly scanning pages 5-6 the only mild concern I’d initially have is that in these 2 paragraphs:
• When asked about their hours in a typical seven-day week, Members report that they work on average 70 hours per week while the House of Representatives in session, and 59 hours per week when their chamber is out of session.
• When the House is out of session and not voting, or when the House has scheduled “district/constituent work periods” (otherwise known as “recess”), the majority of Members return to their districts. In this
study, 78% of Members report spending more than 40 weekends each year in their district.
… the indication seems to be that the study is based upon what Members themselves report. I’ll definitely read through it to see if there’s something more substantial than, let’s say ‘allowing students to mark their own homework’. I’m sure there has to be.
Of course. I can see you’re a person interested in reliable, relevant, validated research. As you read the report you will see in the opening, About this Research Report, that it is presented as a qualitative study; that is, one interested in the “what” “why” and “how” of life (and not on “how much” which is the concern of quantitative research). Since the purpose is to study the day to day life of members of congress, the members themselves must provide the data. (The audience for this report is the administrative and management team supporting congress: it provides data about the lived experience of members of Congress, which can improve the performance of the institution. The report therefore fulfills its intended and necessary role.)
We need both qualitative and quantitative research to answer the question of “how efficiently is Congress working”. This report provides one half of the needed data. In addition to the other half - quantitative data - we also need people to analyze and discuss these two sets of data in good faith, specifically: A) Faith that government as a human activity is necessary, useful, and improveable (in the same way that, for example, vehicle design is necessary, useful, and improveable), and B) Faith that the members of government are worthy people who perform a challenging and necessary human function and that they approach their jobs in a spirit of service.
The problem, in this thread, is that if this faith in human activity isn’t in place, then the real question is not about the reliability, validity, or relevance of the data.