Those mittens were the fashion highlight.
3 Likes
(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.
2 Likes
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
1 Like
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.
4 Likes
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
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
Actually Joe Biden has always had a speech impediment, he went through thousands of hours of speech therapy to correct it throughout his life.
So what they claim is a cognitive decline is in fact a life long disability the POTUS had,
1 Like
Yet, that’s what’s happening all over the world. No more trust in science, I saw that on YouTube… 
People are not allowed to make faults anymore. If they once did years and years ago someone will dig it out somewhere and use it against that person. To destroy, belittling or whatever reason. People in public are not allowed to be human. They have to be better humans.
That’s my thing about Bernie, I feel his views are a bit too liberal for my liking. But I do have alot of respect for him
But he’s quite the humble man, while his meme has generated internet fame, he may have helped a nice lady who made his mittens who might be struggling. Kudos to him
1 Like
I guess I worded that wrong, let me rephrase. He’s quite progressive and left thinking which are both good qualities.
I’m all for universal healthcare, and education debt reform because putting a 18 year old me in charge of managing my education debt based on pipe dreams college recruiters sell you Is dangerous. However an immediate wipe of it all will cause turmoil. I get that most people hit by healthcare problems and affordable education are the lowest income earners, but we need to shift slowly in that direction or it can be a disaster waiting to happen
2 Likes
We bailed out banks to the tune of billions. Rectifying that balance and putting more actual spending power in the hands of the educated is not a bad idea for anyone but the banks. Time to lean left, baby!
5 Likes
Isn’t that doing exactly what you’re against? Treating people who treat others differently differently? Is that really the right thing to do? I think not. Do they deserve it if it does happen? Fuck yeah. Fuck racists
1 Like
I think you’re making a false equivalence, @anon89207786. Speaking against moral evil isn’t the same as hate speech. It’s an opposite. I also think, @liv_m it takes more than individuals making people feel bad if they say racist things. It takes a dismantling of a whole caste system, which isn’t primarily about speech but about access to money and privilege.
I agree that it’s totally ridiculous that the US doesn’t have healthcare for everyone. Plus US has lots of other mechanisms for greater inequality than all other rich countries (like far greater incarceration, far more child poverty, terrible underfunding of public schools etc). But, I think its important not to frame the compromises of Obamacare as a sign Obama and his people don’t know all that or were corporate puppets. Obama was very clear, and he’s very clear in his book, that if we were starting from scratch, obviously Medicare for all is best. The Romneycare solution is a partial patched solution to the mess, not a brand new shining dream. It’s not what you’d do if you could get the political backing to throw out the mess and start over. But it’s got lots more people covered than before, and the patches could be sewn a lot better, unless Mitch McConnell trashes everything.
3 Likes