Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Marquette, in Marquette County, is a college town. The rest of the UP seems like everyone is dressed for a 70s nostalgia party.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Apparently, he was never going to win TX. That was media horseshit all around.
It was high quality, however. Even I bought it, and I have a shrine to Matt Taibbi in my basement and a huge man crush on Glenn Greenwald. Seeing the media so entirely discredited and shown to be biased is probably the most satisfying element of this election cycle. And yet I read some data, obviously manipulated, and concluded TX might go blue. The bastards put one over on me. Touche.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

One of the things that converts an angry idealist to a pragmatist is age. The other, which goes along with age, is the recognition that massive entrenched interests such as Big Oil or Big Education cannot be tackled through policy. We will continue to burn fossil fuels for a long time to come, and the environment will get worse, because we can’t and won’t go cold turkey, and even if we did, the rest of the developing world will not (https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-w...l-power-plants).

If you talk to people who cover energy, most have done considerable research on climate change. They plan for it to get much worse and see opportunity in retrofitting structures for more intense hurricanes, speculating on land in areas which will become more temperate, and developing technology that addresses sea level rise encroaching on large coastal cities.

As for Big Education, do you really think Democrats would discipline that sector? If they forgive loans, it’d be a great sugar high for the economy. But that’d be temporary. The real fix must be in tightening student loan lending and allowing clawbacks from Universities who give out useless degrees at outrageous costs. The bullshit arguments behind a lot of the looniest progressive policies are written by professors. The Democrats and Academia have a rich history of assisting each other in pushing ideas that sound great but would ultimately have horrible unintended consequences. (Like the very student loan system itself! What sane person would argue that giving 18 year olds unlimited borrowing power for non-dischargeable loans is a good idea? It’s a recipe for parasitic price inflation by providers.) The Progressives aren’t going to shoot their partner in policy sophistry.

This is a long way of saying, humans, particularly American humans, aren’t going to seriously try to fix anything until it’s so bad that there’s no choice. And by then it’s too late, so instead we simply adapt.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

He got 51% against an incumbent and it wasn't close (just took awhile to count). He's got a mandate for whatever.

But no, he doesn't have the Senate. He might after Jan. 5, but that and Joe Manchin are the limits on what he can do.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Ah yes, the young women of color who get a lot of votes are just dumber than you. Sure.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

You have it exactly backward. We will keep dying, uncompetitive fossil fuel industries alive via policy (subsidies) even while wind and solar are cheaper, because they are entrenched, have a lot of money to spend and people fear change. The end will come only when we're sick of paying for them.

The problem with student debt isn't Big Education. It's the financialization of education funding. The problem is Wall Street and our collective decision that kids should leverage their future earning rather than pay for it directly. Yes, I think the Democrats can discipline the education debt financing industry. It's not easy or cheap, but it can be done.

Debt forgiveness is a reset. Kids took out loans based on conditions that didn't anticipate the Great Recession or the pandemic. They just need a bailout, just like lots of others got. And they will get at least some after Biden is sworn in.

The professors aren't underwriting the loans. The problem is/was a lack of jobs, not useless degrees. If the problem was useless degrees, you think Wall Street wouldn't have gotten itself to the power to say no to them?

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I said they were emoting, not critically thinking. I think some of that might be intentional. That’s their appeal. That’s the appeal of many candidates in the moment. They don’t critically think either because they can’t or because they don’t have to. But either way, it’s immaterial.

He’s empathetic.
I could have a beer with her.
He knows struggle and loss.
She’s a decent person.

These are all valid reasons to vote. But they aren’t critical considerations. They’re expressive, based in feelings. This election was a rejection of harshness, of coldness, meanness.

The Squad fits into that narrative. But critical thinkers? AOC, yes.

However, as to intelligence, I think Tlaib is objectively pretty dumb. That’s based on having heard her give a speech or debate on TV. And while Omar is cunning, that’s a different thing than smart (See Trump).

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I think you either have no idea what/who you are talking about or are being transparently misogynistic. No, that's not true, I'm sure it's both.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Here we go again.

Look, if every time I call a person dumb or emotional and the person happens to be female you’re going call me a bigot, put me on ignore.

I call almost every politician stupid and emotional. I’ve called you stupid and emotional. Go back and look through my canon here.

The politician I call smart is the rare - insanely rare - exception.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

1. You will never see a Green New Deal. Ain’t happening. Get a grip.

2. Wall St is part of the problem. But so is Big Ed.

3. I’m not against the bailout, but a bailout that doesn’t discipline Big Ed is a massive lost opportunity that will just lead to more cost inflation.

4. Big Ed is tightly aligned with Democrats. Democrats, like Republicans, serve those with whom they are aligned.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

51% is not a mandate. Besides, what do you think the break down in his voters is between (voted for Biden because we need to get this maniac the fuck out)/(voted for Biden so we can attack climate change)? I'm all for doing things that address climate change, because almost all of it is developing technology. We should do that, like we always have. This is only different because somehow the Rs have decided to fight developing that tech. But he doesn't have a mandate. If you don't believe me, next time you're in a parking lot count the % of SUVs compared to Minis.

I'm not clear what is going on. CNN says it is now 48/48. So there are 4 left: Alaska and North Carolina seem safe for the R. So 48/50. Then there is a run off in Georgia. But that is only 1 seat? Why aren't there 100? Seriously, I can't find a simple answer.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Yes, we all remember the hellscape of 2008-10, when Democratic control of two of the three branches of government set the stage for the economic expansion that continued until this spring. We can all breathe a big sigh of relief that the nation has narrowly escaped the tyranny of ... [checks notes] ... dangerous radicals like Joe Manchin and Steve Bullock.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Horseshit? They didn't know. Exit polling was no good this year because of the pandemic. Some places were putting up mail-in ballots early, and some places late, and it was clear that the media didn't know what was going on. On whatever channel I was watching, they clearly thought Georgia was going red early, and it took most of the evening for them to figure out Biden had a shot there. And in Texas, turnout was way, way up over prior years.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

There are two run-offs in Georgia.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Just read about it. CNN only lists one for some reason.