The Great Reset

printer said:

The problem with the capitalist system is it expects constant growth and in our terms that means resource extraction and throw it away culture. The right wing types think it can go on forever like that, well at least while they are alive. They scoff at people being able to have a global effect on the world.

Click to expand...

Until you get into areas like data, art, writing, teaching, renewable energy, on and on.

Fogdog said:

AOC wrote a very nice and well thought out overview of what a positive response to the harm industrial age fossil fuel burning can look like. I think it's a fine roadmap and will support the Biden team if they will just pick a few action items on that list to get started on.

But this thread is not about that. It's about some private lobbyist who works for the fossil fuel industry placing an opinion piece in The Hill about a fanciful Biden administration who implements a Stalinist take-over of our government.

I appreciate the OP because it brings to light that this kind of crap is already coming from The Hill. The Hill isn't saying they vouch for the piece:

BY JUSTIN HASKINS, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 12/03/20 11:30 AM EST
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

It's not even in the fine print.

Click to expand...

It is a shame they don't go on and say something like THE HILL JUST GIVES THESE PAID PROPAGANDISTS A HUGE PLATFORM TO LEND THEM OUR LEGITIMACY TO OUR AUDIENCE, LIKE JOE ROGAN.

printer said:

The problem with the capitalist system is it

Click to expand...

...isn't an actual free market, but it's often used by ignorant and/or evil people as a strawman to blame the results of "crony capitalism" on a free market.

A free market and what most people commonly call "capitalism" in the present iteration are vastly different.

That's the problem with "capitalism".

hanimmal said:

Until you get into areas like data, art, writing, teaching, renewable energy, on and on.


It is a shame they don't go on and say something like THE HILL JUST GIVES THESE PAID PROPAGANDISTS A HUGE PLATFORM TO LEND THEM OUR LEGITIMACY TO OUR AUDIENCE, LIKE JOE ROGAN.

Click to expand...

The Hill is just another propaganda organ for a wealthy person to use for his own purposes.

Jimmy Finkelstein, the owner of The Hill, has flown under the radar. But he's played a key role in the Ukraine scandal


New York (CNN Business)James "Jimmy" Finkelstein, the owner of The Hill newspaper, is not a widely known media executive, but he is one of the era's most consequential.
Finkelstein resides at the nexus of President Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and John Solomon, the now-former executive at The Hill and current Fox News contributor who pushed conspiracy theories about Ukraine into the public conversation.
While Solomon has received significant media attention for his work at The Hill, Finkelstein has stayed out of the headlines, despite having himself played a crucial role in the saga.

Fogdog said:

. . . . . . . . In the 1990s, Heartland worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health regulations. . . . . . . .

Click to expand...

Sure he is a hack, but at least he is helping save Social Security. We need those poor people to keep smoking.

The Hill has has some opinion pieces that were slanted to the right, as said, Solomon being one of the more damaging ones. But they are always opinion pieces and you have to take them as such. On a whole I find The Hill more factual that most news organizations and more articles on developments as they happen. Politico has more in depth reporting but there is an obvious Left lean to them. As I was taught in school long time ago, when reading the article determine who is writing it and what their bias is.

printer said:

The Hill has has some opinion pieces that were slanted to the right, as said, Solomon being one of the more damaging ones. But they are always opinion pieces and you have to take them as such. On a whole I find The Hill more factual that most news organizations and more articles on developments as they happen. Politico has more in depth reporting but there is an obvious Left lean to them. As I was taught in school long time ago, when reading the article determine who is writing it and what their bias is.

Click to expand...

The Hill is owned by a wealthy man who sees advantage in Trump and Republicans remaining in office and that piece was a sample of the crap his media outlet will run during the life of Biden's presidency and against Democrats for the life of Finkelstein.

I appreciate the OP for showing us what The Hill is.

That opinion piece was as fake as the proposals at the end of a series of The Bachelor. It does not deserve discussion other than for showing us what The Hill is.

Fogdog said:

The Hill is owned by a wealthy man who sees advantage in Trump and Republicans remaining in office and that piece was a sample of the crap his media outlet will run during the life of Biden's presidency and against Democrats for the life of Finkelstein.

I appreciate the OP for showing us what The Hill is.

That opinion piece was as fake as the proposals at the end of a series of The Bachelor. It does not deserve discussion other than for showing us what The Hill is.

Click to expand...

I disagree. They have opinion writers on both sides. I have been reading on The Hill for 5 years and there are mostly factual reporting and most was on Trump era abuses.



Washington, D.C., Attorney General Karl Racine said Thursday that Ivanka Trump's public comments regarding her deposition in an investigation into her father's inauguration were “highly misleading."
Earlier in the day, the president’s oldest daughter confirmed that she was deposed as part of an investigation into the use of inauguration funds.
"This week I spent 5+ hours in a deposition with the Democrat D.C. AG’s office where they questioned the rates charged by the Trump Hotel at the inauguration," Trump said in a statement, which she posted to social media. "I shared with them an email from 4 years ago where I sent instructions to the hotel to charge 'a fair market rate.'"


Scott O’Grady, the nominee for a top post at the Pentagon, retweeted messages that falsely said President-elect Joe Biden had won the election in a "coup" and that President Trump should declare martial law, according to a report by CNN’s KFILE.

Trump nominated O'Grady to be assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs at the Pentagon.

Biden is set to take office on Jan. 20 and it seems unlikely the Senate would act to confirm O'Grady before then. His nomination was sent to the Senate on Monday, and comes after a series of resignations at the Pentagon following Trump’s firing of former Defense Secretary Mark Esper via tweet last month.


The retweet of a message about marital law could be particularly troublesome for O'Grady given his nomination to the Pentagon.

The CNN review of the tweets, which are protected on the platform and can only be seen by approved followers, showed that on Nov. 25 O’Grady retweeted a post that said, "Trump won & Biden & his Comrades will now attempt a coup," next to a doctored image of Biden beside Chinese President Xi Jinping.


Top Trump allies Corey Lewandowski and David Bossie are among nine new members of a Pentagon advisory board installed after the administration fired the previous members.

The purge at the Defense Business Board, which provides Pentagon leaders with outside advice on business management issues, was first reported Friday by Politico.

It is the latest shake-up at the Department of Defense (DOD) following President Trump’s loss to President-elect Joe Biden in November’s election.

The Biden administration can replace them when he takes office, but their appointment marks Trump's latest effort to inject politics into the Pentagon in the waning days of his presidency.


The real news in the site is just that. Not hard to figure out the opinion pieces, especially when they are labeled opinion pieces.

printer said:

I disagree. They have opinion writers on both sides. I have been reading on The Hill for 5 years and there are mostly factual reporting and most was on Trump era abuses.

DC attorney general: Ivanka Trump ‘highly misleading’ on lawsuit deposition

Washington, D.C., Attorney General Karl Racine said Thursday that Ivanka Trump’s public comments regarding her deposition in an investigation into her father’s inauguration were “h…

thehill.com

Washington, D.C., Attorney General Karl Racine said Thursday that Ivanka Trump's public comments regarding her deposition in an investigation into her father's inauguration were “highly misleading."
Earlier in the day, the president’s oldest daughter confirmed that she was deposed as part of an investigation into the use of inauguration funds.
"This week I spent 5+ hours in a deposition with the Democrat D.C. AG’s office where they questioned the rates charged by the Trump Hotel at the inauguration," Trump said in a statement, which she posted to social media. "I shared with them an email from 4 years ago where I sent instructions to the hotel to charge 'a fair market rate.'"

Trump Pentagon nominee alleged Biden ‘coup’: report

Scott O’Grady, the nominee for a top post at the Pentagon, retweeted messages that falsely said President-elect Joe Biden had won the election in a “coup” and that President Trump …

thehill.com

Scott O’Grady, the nominee for a top post at the Pentagon, retweeted messages that falsely said President-elect Joe Biden had won the election in a "coup" and that President Trump should declare martial law, according to a report by CNN’s KFILE.

Trump nominated O'Grady to be assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs at the Pentagon.

Biden is set to take office on Jan. 20 and it seems unlikely the Senate would act to confirm O'Grady before then. His nomination was sent to the Senate on Monday, and comes after a series of resignations at the Pentagon following Trump’s firing of former Defense Secretary Mark Esper via tweet last month.


The retweet of a message about marital law could be particularly troublesome for O'Grady given his nomination to the Pentagon.

The CNN review of the tweets, which are protected on the platform and can only be seen by approved followers, showed that on Nov. 25 O’Grady retweeted a post that said, "Trump won & Biden & his Comrades will now attempt a coup," next to a doctored image of Biden beside Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Lewandowski, Bossie added to Pentagon advisory board after latest purge

Top Trump allies Corey Lewandowski and David Bossie are among nine new members of a Pentagon advisory board installed after the administration fired the previous members.The purge at the Defen…

thehill.com

Top Trump allies Corey Lewandowski and David Bossie are among nine new members of a Pentagon advisory board installed after the administration fired the previous members.

The purge at the Defense Business Board, which provides Pentagon leaders with outside advice on business management issues, was first reported Friday by Politico.

It is the latest shake-up at the Department of Defense (DOD) following President Trump’s loss to President-elect Joe Biden in November’s election.

The Biden administration can replace them when he takes office, but their appointment marks Trump's latest effort to inject politics into the Pentagon in the waning days of his presidency.


The real news in the site is just that. Not hard to figure out the opinion pieces, especially when they are labeled opinion pieces.

Click to expand...

That piece came directly from The Heartland Institute and it wasn't an "opinion" piece. It was a lie and propaganda. It deserves no other discussion than that.

It doesn't matter that sometimes The Hill posts facts-based opinions. Liars lie. Don't listen to them. There are plenty of other and better sources of information.

Another Trump mistake. All his people have told him not to do it. Just when a stable government was going to form pulling out will just cause the bad guys to reform.

Trump orders Pentagon to pull nearly all troops from Somalia

President Trump has ordered the Pentagon to withdraw nearly all of the 700 U.S. troops stationed in Somalia by early next year, the Department of Defense (DOD) announced Friday.
Trump “has ordered the Department of Defense and the United States Africa Command to reposition the majority of personnel and assets out of Somalia by early 2021,” the Pentagon said in a statement.
Approximately 700 troops are deployed in Somalia where for more than a decade the United States has helped quell local al Qaeda affiliate al-Shabab, and more recently the local ISIS organization. U.S. forces train and assist local security forces to fight the militant groups and also carry out airstrikes.

The move follows acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller’s surprise visit to Somalia the day after Thanksgiving, where — among rumors of a drawdown — he assured partner forces of U.S. help in fighting the terrorist groups.
The Pentagon on Friday stressed that the United States “is not withdrawing or disengaging from Africa” and officials “remain committed to our African partners and enduring support through a whole-of-government approach.”
DOD did not say how many troops would leave the country or where they would be moved, but that some forces “may be reassigned outside of East Africa.” Those remaining “will be repositioned from Somalia into neighboring countries in order to allow cross-border operations by both U.S. and partner forces to maintain pressure against violent extremist organizations operating in Somalia.”
The Wall Street Journal reported that forces would transfer to bases in Kenya and Djibouti and enter Somalia for shorter counterterrorism missions.
The announcement marks Trump’s latest move to pull troops from overseas conflicts before leaving office in January.

In November he ordered 2,000 U.S. troops to be pulled from Afghanistan and 500 from Iraq by mid-January, going against the recommendations of military and national security leaders.

The withdrawal from Somalia, meanwhile, goes against the plan of recently ousted Pentagon chief Mark Esper, who advocated for a leaner force presence in Africa by pulling troops from more northern countries in the Sahel region.

The inspectors generals of the Defense Department, State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development had also advised against such a decision, last month warning that Somali forces are not able to resist terrorist threats within the country without the support of U.S. forces.

“Somalia's security forces are unable to contain the threat from Al-Shabaab and ISIS-Somalia, which poses a smaller but still potent threat, without significant international support,” the three wrote in a joint report.

Fogdog said:

There are plenty of other and better sources of information.

Click to expand...

I am always open to new ones.

printer said:

I am always open to new ones.

Click to expand...

I meant no disrespect. I thought that you were posting that piece to show what kind of propaganda is being produced by The Hill and other right wing propaganda organs about Biden.

Agree that there is good content in The Hill. Like a grocery store that draws people in with sales, loss leaders, and then sock them with overpriced stuff, The Hill produces fair unbiased and objective news articles then gigs their readers with opinion pieces that are as bad as anything you'll see in Brietbart. Bugeye loved the opinion section of the Hill, BTW.

You are a careful reader, yet they got one over on you. The Hill has a Mostly Factual rating at media bias/fact check. Mostly Factual, sounds good but is actually a poor rating for a news media outlet. They point out that their opinion section may contain garbage.


The Hill

LEAST BIASED
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased Sources.

• Overall, we rate The Hill Least Biased based on editorial positions that are currently balanced and news reporting that is low biased. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting, rather than High, due to previous opinion columns promoting unproven claims.

The notification that the author worked for The Heartland Institute was the flag to me that this was bullshit:

Heartland Institute

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate the Heartland Institute Right Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of anti-science propaganda, lack of transparency with funding, and more than 5 failed fact checks by IFCN fact-checkers.

You seem to be a careful reader. I read what you post. I give feedback if what is posted is bullshit and I'll explain why. What you posted in the OP is bullshit. If your intent was to share a valid point of view, you failed. That's OK. I do hope you don't mind being told that you failed.

Please, jump right in and tell me when I fail too.

As recommended by people who study and understand how to combat propaganda, I won't discuss the merits in a bit of propaganda. I just point out that it is propaganda. Discussing what is said in propaganda reinforces the message of propaganda even if the talking points are negative.

Fogdog said:

I meant no disrespect. I thought that you were posting that piece to show what kind of propaganda is being produced by The Hill and other right wing propaganda organs about Biden.

Agree that there is good content in The Hill. Like a grocery store that draws people in with sales, loss leaders, and then sock them with overpriced stuff, The Hill produces fair unbiased and objective news articles then gigs their readers with opinion pieces that are as bad as anything you'll see in Brietbart. Bugeye loved the opinion section of the Hill, BTW.

You are a careful reader, yet they got one over on you. The Hill has a Mostly Factual rating at media bias/fact check. Mostly Factual, sounds good but is actually a poor rating for a news media outlet. They point out that their opinion section may contain garbage.


The Hill

LEAST BIASED
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased Sources.

• Overall, we rate The Hill Least Biased based on editorial positions that are currently balanced and news reporting that is low biased. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting, rather than High, due to previous opinion columns promoting unproven claims.

The notification that the author worked for The Heartland Institute was the flag to me that this was bullshit:

Heartland Institute

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate the Heartland Institute Right Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of anti-science propaganda, lack of transparency with funding, and more than 5 failed fact checks by IFCN fact-checkers.

You seem to be a careful reader. I read what you post. I give feedback if what is posted is bullshit and I'll explain why. What you posted in the OP is bullshit. If your intent was to share a valid point of view, you failed. That's OK. I do hope you don't mind being told that you failed.

Please, jump right in and tell me when I fail too.

As recommended by people who study and understand how to combat propaganda, I won't discuss the merits in a bit of propaganda. I just point out that it is propaganda. Discussing what is said in propaganda reinforces the message of propaganda even if the talking points are negative.

Click to expand...

I should have read deeper into the story you are right. I was reading other stories that have been leaning towards the same direction although not negatively. I was more interested in the idea, that it is time and we may have the people to start the process. UI do not expect a revolution from Biden. One bill from the Democrats that has been tacked onto the military funding one was on shell companies no longer hiding the owners. That is one good step toward this 'reset'.

But getting back to the rating of the Hill, mostly factual and center biased. That is a lot better than most news sources. As I said, I have no problem reading others. If you have some that are more relevant and higher rated than the Hill, please share.

printer said:

I should have read deeper into the story you are right. I was reading other stories that have been leaning towards the same direction although not negatively. I was more interested in the idea, that it is time and we may have the people to start the process. UI do not expect a revolution from Biden. One bill from the Democrats that has been tacked onto the military funding one was on shell companies no longer hiding the owners. That is one good step toward this 'reset'.

But getting back to the rating of the Hill, mostly factual and center biased. That is a lot better than most news sources. As I said, I have no problem reading others. If you have some that are more relevant and higher rated than the Hill, please share.

Click to expand...

The chart below shows the gamut of news agencies. The Hill is kind of an outlier because, while they DO contain NEWS articles that are as good as any, their opinion section is unreliable. I didn't criticize the article because it came from The Hill, I criticized it because it came from the muthreffin Heartland Institute, which is pure evil. Evil, that is, unless you support the big industrial companies in their rapacious quest for profit regardless of outcome. The Heartland Institute has been on the wrong side of all of the noxious corporate issues of our times: Nuclear power, Big Tobacco, Chemical companies who pollute (Freon, for example) and recently, opposition to addressing climate change.

Regarding who are good sources, the graphic below summarizes it pretty well. AP, Reuters, NBC, ABC, NPR, Politico, BBC and even The Hill if one stays in their News section are all good sources. I also like the NY Times and Washington Post.

I read the other shit too but more carefully and don't often post it here.




My apologies if I have come off preachy. Reading what I've said, I can see how it can be taken that way. It probably is. I mean no disrespect by it.

printer said:

I should have read deeper into the story you are right. I was reading other stories that have been leaning towards the same direction although not negatively. I was more interested in the idea, that it is time and we may have the people to start the process. UI do not expect a revolution from Biden. One bill from the Democrats that has been tacked onto the military funding one was on shell companies no longer hiding the owners. That is one good step toward this 'reset'.

But getting back to the rating of the Hill, mostly factual and center biased. That is a lot better than most news sources. As I said, I have no problem reading others. If you have some that are more relevant and higher rated than the Hill, please share.

Click to expand...

I always start with ap news.

Click to expand...

I found this on the AP, but it was something I haven't seen before, paid content, that came with a disclaimer that they didn't have anything to do with it.

https://apnews.com/press-release/newmediawire/0fc680cddee6c0665bce15f6c04d49ac



IMO just remember that 'mostly true' is the same as 'partially full of shit'.

Fogdog said:

The chart below shows the gamut of news agencies. The Hill is kind of an outlier because, while they DO contain NEWS articles that are as good as any, their opinion section is unreliable. I didn't criticize the article because it came from The Hill, I criticized it because it came from the muthreffin Heartland Institute, which is pure evil. Evil, that is, unless you support the big industrial companies in their rapacious quest for profit regardless of outcome. The have been on the wrong side of all of the noxious corporate issues of our times: Nuclear power, Big Tobacco, Chemical companies who pollute (Freon, for example), and recently opposition to addressing climate change.

Regarding who are good sources, the graphic below summarizes it pretty well. AP, Reuters, NBC, ABC, NPR, Politico, BBC and even The Hill if one stays in their News section are all good sources. I also like the NY Times and Washington Post.

I read the other shit too but more carefully and don't often post it here.

The Chart, Version 3.0: What, Exactly, Are We Reading? - Ad Fontes Media

Note: this is actually version 3.1 of The Chart. Learn more about the minor changes I made from version 3.0. Summary: What’s new in this chart: I edited the categories on the vertical axis to more accurately describe the contents of the news sources ranked therein (long discussion below). I...

www.adfontesmedia.com

View attachment 4759975

My apologies if I have come off preachy. Reading what I've said, I can see how it can be taken that way. It probably is. I mean no disrespect by it.

Click to expand...

Beat me with the chart by moments, but I am too mentally drained to delete mine now.

hanimmal said:

I found this on the AP, but it was something I haven't seen before, paid content, that came with a disclaimer that they didn't have anything to do with it.

https://apnews.com/press-release/newmediawire/0fc680cddee6c0665bce15f6c04d49ac
View attachment 4759980

Click to expand...

Yikes,

The right wing media propaganda machine has already started running full bore against Biden's environmental initiatives and he hasn't even been sworn in, much less done anything. It won't be long before the socks start showing up to repeat it all with an even sharper twist. I don't think he meant it that way but when the words "market socialism" showed up in this thread, I kind of felt defeated already. Propaganda works very, very well.

The New York Times has an article on Biden's environmental policy initiatives.


Biden Plans to Move Fast With a ‘Climate Administration.’ Here’s How.

WASHINGTON — President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., eager to elevate climate change issues throughout his administration, is already drafting orders to reduce planet-warming pollution and seeking nominees who will embed climate policy not only in environmental agencies but in departments from Defense to Treasury to Transportation.

Top candidates for senior cabinet posts, such as Michèle Flournoy for defense secretary and Lael Brainard for Treasury, have long supported aggressive policies to curb climate change. Mr. Biden’s inner circle routinely asks “is the person climate-ambitious?” of candidates even for lower profile positions like the White House budget and regulatory offices, according to a person advising the transition.

Transition team members have been instructed to identify policies that can improve pollution levels in Black and Latino communities. And one of Mr. Biden’s early executive orders is expected to require that every federal agency, department and program prepare to address climate change.
“We have to re-establish American leadership globally on climate change, and re-establishing global leadership is going to require getting our house in order domestically,” said Ernest Moniz, a former energy secretary and adviser to Mr. Biden’s campaign.

I can't see how this kind of attention to something that hasn't even started can help anybody but Republicans. On the left side, people like Padshuystikk will carp about how they aren't doing enough. On the radical right, they will talk about how this is Stalinist. Democrats can't shut the fuk up. This kind of fluff riles up the opposition even when it's just coming from a nobody in the administration. Only, in this case, there isn't an administration yet. I just want the Biden team to zip it for a while. Make your intent clear through your actions.

Fogdog said:

The New York Times has an article on Biden's environmental policy initiatives.

Biden Plans to Move Fast With a ‘Climate Administration.’ Here’s How. (Published 2020)

President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. will embed climate policy throughout his government, not only in environmental agencies but in departments like justice, defense, the Treasury and transportation.

www.nytimes.com

Biden Plans to Move Fast With a ‘Climate Administration.’ Here’s How.

WASHINGTON — President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., eager to elevate climate change issues throughout his administration, is already drafting orders to reduce planet-warming pollution and seeking nominees who will embed climate policy not only in environmental agencies but in departments from Defense to Treasury to Transportation.

Top candidates for senior cabinet posts, such as Michèle Flournoy for defense secretary and Lael Brainard for Treasury, have long supported aggressive policies to curb climate change. Mr. Biden’s inner circle routinely asks “is the person climate-ambitious?” of candidates even for lower profile positions like the White House budget and regulatory offices, according to a person advising the transition.

Transition team members have been instructed to identify policies that can improve pollution levels in Black and Latino communities. And one of Mr. Biden’s early executive orders is expected to require that every federal agency, department and program prepare to address climate change.
“We have to re-establish American leadership globally on climate change, and re-establishing global leadership is going to require getting our house in order domestically,” said Ernest Moniz, a former energy secretary and adviser to Mr. Biden’s campaign.

I can't see how this kind of attention to something that hasn't even started can help anybody but Republicans. On the left side, people like Padshuystikk will carp about how they aren't doing enough. On the radical right, they will talk about how this is Stalinist. Democrats can't shut the fuk up. This kind of fluff riles up the opposition even when it's just coming from a nobody in the administration. Only, in this case, there isn't an administration yet. I just want the Biden team to zip it for a while. Make your intent clear through your actions.

Click to expand...

Democrats or Democrats?

Fogdog said:

Yikes,

The right wing media propaganda machine has already started running full bore against Biden's environmental initiatives and he hasn't even been sworn in, much less done anything. It won't be long before the socks start showing up to repeat it all with an even sharper twist. I don't think he meant it that way but when the words "market socialism" showed up in this thread, I kind of felt defeated already. Propaganda works very, very well.

Click to expand...

hanimmal said:

Democrats or Democrats?


View attachment 4760006

Click to expand...

in my compendium of political personalities, on the side of good, there are Democrats and Progressives. Progressives are too few to get anything done, so they will ally with Democrats in order to get something they want done. Mostly, they need to get their names attached to Democratic legislation as Bernie Sanders has done many, many times in his otherwise unproductive career. Progressives are left leaning idealists who sometimes border upon fanaticism, which is when they must be put on ignore. Because they tend to fanaticism, Progressives are not reliable allies and sometimes cause harm to Democrats who do the bulk of their work. That said, they aren't anything like the Voldemorts of this world, such as Trump or the Death Eaters like Mitch McConnel and Rush Limbaugh, who serve Trump.

Because they use the word, progressive, in a way that doesn't match the common use definition or even the description in wikipedia, they are called Progressive with a capital P and it is used as a noun. The green font denotes a fanatical Progressive.

The new troll's thread is pushing this 'Great Reset' nonsense.

Click to expand...

hanimmal said:

The new troll's thread is pushing this 'Great Reset' nonsense.



View attachment 4954605

Click to expand...

I am just ignoring her, all 'she' wants to do is clutter up the forum. Mind you, she makes PJ seem reasonable.

I posted The Hill opinion piece as I was hoping governments would be pushed by the pandemic to realize we need a strategy for the future, after all it was just an opinion piece. I normally do not read them and stick to The Hill's news.

In the first three pages of the Political forum 'she has 18 threads going. And it is not like 'she' has much to say. Just a big old troll.