The Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High-Quality Posts

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

Columbine is probably the most recent major event in US history that I have no memory of, so I can't really comment on my personal experience of how Columbine changed US culture. But I can comment from personal experience that in the early 2000s, Columbine was treated as very much a unique event in US history, unlike anything that had come before or since, and thus, while tragic, it was not something that had any sort of major impact on how everyday Americans lived their lives and thought about school security, and maybe even gun control as well, although I wasn't exactly plugged into that conversation at the time. For example, I did not have to do school shooter drills growing up in the aftermath of Columbine, nor did anyone I know in my generation. Really, the only conversation I remember being a hot topic in the aftermath of Columbine was the whole "violent video games" discussion, but that was just as much tied into moral panics about drugs and gang violence as it was violence at school.

The event I really remember as being the catalyst of the current era of perpetual school shootings wasn't Columbine. It was Virginia Tech. If you were following the news in 2007, you remember just how much media attention that shooter got, with his pictures posing with guns shared constantly on the news and the comparisons of how many more people he had killed than other shooters. And there's really no other way around it, the media made that dude look like the epitome of the bad-ass "lone wolf" in a way that I'm sure appealed to a lot of the same young men that the "sigma mindset," incel, ISIL, and other radicalizing ideologies have since.

From there, it's really easy to draw a line of inspiration from the Virginia Tech shooter to the Isla Vista killings, the Parkland shooting, and plenty of others, in terms of how the shooter saw himself and prepared for the attack in a way that I don't think you can do with Columbine. Columbine afterall was multiple attackers working together and not the "lone gunman" we see in pretty much every case more recently, and was also originally intended to be mainly a bombing attack and not a spree shooting, with the shootings only happening after the bombs failed. (Sidenote: I highly recommend this video by mortician Caitlin Doughty on some of the reality vs. popular narrative disconnects on Columbine) Plus, I'd be far from the first to point out one of the single biggest unifying factors in most recent shootings is the shooter's hatred of women. This was also true at Columbine, but didn't receive nearly as much attention as the trench coats, the Marilyn Manson, and the video games.

After Virginia Tech was the first time our school started locking its doors during the day - I was in middle school at the time - and we needed to use a key code to get in the door. It was such an unusual concept to me at the time that I literally to this day still remember that key code. It was a literal daily reminder that the world had become more dangerous for school students. And I'm sure it was also a daily challenge for some just how much awe and horror they could inflict on school children if they ever wanted to just end it all.

And while I think the media has gotten better since 2007 in terms of not glorifying the attackers, the cake is already pretty much baked in that regard. The mythos has been created, the notion of attacking school students totally established as a go-to extremist method totally engrained in every American's mind, and plenty of communities bringing on new recruits, even if they obviously don't coordinate every attack with one-another. And that doesn't even get into issues of generational trauma that come from feeling school is not a safe place to be.

[S019]

Accolades to you - wow - just wow. You were somehow able to take even this and rationalize it to the extent that I get why Biden did this now. You have a great skill of defending Biden through and through. I commend you. I know I've said it before - but I mean it very seriously: You should be Biden's Press Secretary. You really know how to defend him and rationalize what he does no matter what, and you do it so well that (I think) most reasonable people feel compelled to agree with you. It is a great skill. You could've taken the easy way out and just criticized Biden like all the rest of us have, but instead you've written a long, well-reasoned, logical post that really makes what Biden did sound reasonable and the best option.

No, he does not deserve credit for contorting himself into a pretzel to kiss Biden's ass defend Biden no matter what, as if Biden will give him a job if he keeps at it. He claims that somehow Saudi Arabia is far better than Iran and suggests they aren't on Russia's side (Lavrov was literally in Riyadh today). The difference between Saudi Arabia and Iran is the former values money ahead of Islamic fundamentalism, while the latter values Islamic fundamentalism ahead of money. You wouldn't even need American oil execs in Tehran - there are existing brokers and intermediaries to do that. Actually, you wouldn't even need to bring a single drop of oil into the US from Iran to alleviate the current situation.

Please tell me how "letting Putin win" is worse than letting MBS win. If that's how we're defining the stakes, Putin has already won.

Interesting. You might be right that Iran > Saudi Arabia. I'm no Middle East expert. However, he did bring up anti-American sentiment all over Iran following Soleimani's assassination. It might be very risky to go to Iran to get oil? Again, I don't know, and both of you guys know better than I. All I know that neither option is good at all. I just don't know which is worse. I believed GMac but what you said makes sense to me too.

Iran is definitely not a better ugly friend than Saudi Arabia.

First of all, Iran f---ing hates our guts and will never be our friend.  Saudi Arabia may murder journalists but at least they don't chant "Death To America" during their Friday prayer service every week.

Second of all, Iran has us over the barrel already because Trump dismantled the JCPOA.  Iran is now making a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel, and we're in an incredibly weak negotiating position because we already reneged on the deal once.  We're already having to play really nice with them to avoid a potential Israel-Iran nuclear exchange.  Having to beg them for oil as well will really undermine our position.

Thirdly, Iran is absolutely one of Russia's key allies.  Thanks to western sanctions, Iran does most of its trade with Russia.  Iran buys most of its weapons from Russia.  Iran and Russia are on the same side in every middle eastern conflict Iran is involved in.  Russia also shares intelligence with Iran.  None of this is true of Saudi Arabia.  Santander casually implied that both Saudi Arabia and Iran are equally friendly with Russia because "Lavrov was in Riyadh" but of course this is just a lie.  Saudi Arabia has been a military partner of the United States ever since the Gulf War and we have American bases there.

Moreover, there's an implicit agreement between America and Saudi Arabia that if Iran ever gets a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia will be protected by the American nuclear threat.  Because Iran and Saudi Arabia are mortal enemies and Iran would absolutely love to obliterate Saudi Arabia just as soon as it's finished with Israel.  That's just another reason why it's so bizarre to even consider the notion of "flipping" from Saudi Arabia to Iran as a regional partner.

[MATTROSE94]

He ran a pointless vanity campaign, talked about nukes as a response to people not wanting to give up their guns, farted on national TV, screamed at Biden on the debate stage about passing the torch, and associated with a confirmed Chinese spy, and named his daughter Cricket. Easy guy to make fun of.

[YE]

It's insane to assume that parents might always be at fault. There's simply no way even good parents can know everything going on inside their child's mind, particularly in a culture where emotional expression isn't exactly encouraged, nor are close-knit families a societal norm. There are certainly some cases of negligence present in suicide cases, but either way, it certainly doesn't seem like the parents played a part here, so this argument is a complete non-sequitur.

As for the topic at hand, this issue is one of many demonstrating why I will continue to consider myself left-wing despite my increasing number of gripes with the Democrats and segments of the left. The right just keeps finding ways of getting worse and becoming an ever uglier stain on humanity. Conservatives are acting so repulsively on this issue and not showing an ounce of empathy, and there's no justification for it. It's one thing for someone to say that they can't understand how or why someone would want to identify as transgender. Heck, I can't say I can fully wrap my mind around it. Whatever one might personally believe is going on though, how hard is it to simply respect how someone wants to identify, or more to the point, not believe that they should surrender their rights and protections if they identify as something that doesn't make sense to you? Is it really necessary to intentionally make other people feel like s***, threaten their safety and well-being because their identity "offends your sensibility" or "doesn't seem logical" to you?

People are being downright cruel, and gleefully so on this issue. Maybe, just maybe, it really doesn't matter if you personally think someone who is a transgender woman is "really" a woman or not. Maybe you can realize that you're not helping "God" or whoever by proclaiming that a transgender woman is actually a man. It only makes you feel better, and I'm sorry, but as many of you might say, your feelings aren't everything.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

Went back to the original thread where the original child abuse policy was announced. Here's a list of posters who deflected this and turned the thread into a debate about puberty blockers, minimized the obvious cruelty and stupidity behind this policy, or outright showed support behind it and agreed with its sentiment.

John Dule
TheTarHeelGent
Mr. Reactionary
Conservatopia
Sprouts
ShadowOfTheWave
realisticidealist
Christian Man
DaleCooper
Xeuma
Okthisisnotepic.
heatcharger
Abdullah
Grassroots
PiT
Averroës Nix
BabyAlligator
DelTachi
Russian Bear
Farmlands
RFayette
Shua
TheReckoning
BG-NY
DeadPrez
Horus

 every single one of you.

To the likes of John Dule and DaleCooper, you aren't smarter or better than other people by trying to turn everything into a game to where if you show any kind of emotion you lose. There are real lives that are being impacted because politics is not a ing middle school debate team competition.

To the conservatives, the policies you support are evil. You are all aware of this deep down but refuse to admit it to yourselves. You will happily waive away the continued suffering of others caused by the politicians you support because you are so selfish and depraved that you can not possibly show any ounce of compassion or sympathy towards other human beings. You will cling onto your twisted and morally bankrupted understanding of Christianity that in your mind somehow justifies the continued abuse of anyone who isn't like you.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I'm a trans woman. Most of my posts are about trans issues. My transness and positions on many trans issues are not obscure, but my positions have been mischaracterized and strawmanned many times, and there are quite a few trans issues on which I've never made my position clear on this forum.

First of all, before stating my position on how things should be, one must understand that the facts of how things currently are, are greatly misunderstood by the vast majority of cis debatebros and online talkshow hosts who have made Pwning the Troons their favorite past time. We spend a lot of time discussing youth transitioners, but ignore how hard it is for trans adults to obtain their healthcare. It often requires multiple doctors' notes, years of gender therapy, and years of living openly as their gender (without any transition care or legal name changes). Even once someone is on hormones, it requires years of waiting to even be considered for surgeries, and then more years of waiting to actually get those surgeries. A lot of stuff isn't covered by insurance because it's considered "experimental" and/or "cosmetic" — even hormones aren't covered a lot. It's ten times harder for minors.

Informed consent should be the standard model for all adults, and everything should be covered by insurance. Most posters know I would expand this informed consent model to those below the age of 18; I think 15 would be a good age for that right to apply to. Hormones should be available to those below that age with reasonable restrictions; parental consent can certainly play a role in the approval process, but there should be ways to be approved without parental consent due to the prevalence of parents who oppose their children's transition for transphobic reasons, often in an explicitly abusive way. I think puberty blockers should have few if any restrictions. We need to streamline the name change and gender marker changing process; people never talk about how hard that is. I do support protections of trans workers from tranpshobic harassment in the workplace, and accept that those protections could lead to the firing the transphobic co-workers. None of this is stuff I haven't said before on Atlas.

I never commented on my position of trans sports issues, though assumptions have been made about my position, assumptions that aren't accurate. I come at this issue from a unique position, not just as a trans woman, but as a former youth sports official, a fairly good former youth athlete, and a much bigger sports fan than the average trans girl (I know hundreds of trans women; I know two, besides myself, who enjoy watching sports, and I don't know any former athletes besides myself). I officated boys, girls, and co-ed varieties of basketball, soccer, baseball, and softball, ranging from kindergarten to 8th grade levels.

As an athlete, my best sport was baseball (I was the starting catcher for my high school boys' junior varsity team, more on that later), but I played soccer on a co-ed team until 5th grade. Starting in 5th grade, the boys and girls split off into their own soccer team. I wanted to play on the girls' team, the girls on the team wanted me to join them, and the coaches were open to looking into it. But I got beaten at home (a liberal, secular, and pro-gay household, mind you) and by the boys on the team, so that was the end of my soccer career.

As an official of all different combinations of genders and age levels in multiple sports, here is my view. First of all, I've never once had a trans kid, to my knowledge, play in a game I've officiated, so this issue is not as prominent as transphobes would like you to believe. Secondly, I have seen co-ed teams where cis girls, even at junior high ages, were far better players players their male counterparts; the idea that testosterone makes a male athlete automatically capable of destroying their female counterparts is false. As an official of these public rec leagues, my job was not only to call balls and strikes, but to ensure that the leagues were safe, educational, and fun for the kids. I had to protect kids from angry parents and coaches. I had to protect kids from bullying from other kids. Some of these kids, I'm sure, have gone on to fine high school and college athletic careers, but the point of my job and our leagues was not to facilitate a a minor league for the World Cup, March Madness, or the World Series. It was about recreation more than competition. It was about teaching kids about teamwork, physical fitness, creativity, practice, following rules, and fun. Youth sports are an extremely valuable tool for kids to learn, grow, and bond with peers. We should not take that away from kids, regardless of gender, even if gender entails being transgender.

When we start talking about NCAA, Olympics, and pro sports, yes, competition becomes a more valid concern. The NCAA and Olympics already have restrictions on trans athletes which I think are more or less fair. You have to be on HRT for X amount of time to compete, and while we can argue about what X should equal, I agree with that rule. Pro sports are private leagues; they can set their own rules, I don't really care. I'll say this about HRT — I used to pitch during blowouts in high school baseball to preserve the arms of the pitchers with talent, and I could max out my pitch velocity at 70mph (which is way less than what the best cis women can throw). After a year of estrogen, I was curious to see how hard I could throw; I could only throw mid 50s — if I felt like blowing my arm out, maybe I could have touched 60. I'm probably maxing out at low-mid 50s now, if I tried, so the myth that trans women are super athletes is simply false.

But youth sports should not have those restrictions. It should be about the kids and ensuring that they get out of sports the important lessons and values that sports have a unique ability to fulfill. And in general, when we talk about sports, I'm a big fan of co-ed sports and think there should be more of them. Not only do we see that girls can and do kick the boys' assess across sports and age levels (the advantage that testosterone gives over estrogen in sports and physical strength really only starts to show when we're comparing the best athletes of both genders against each other; most regular people are average, not superathletes), I think we have an epidemic in this country where men and women don't know how to interact and work with each other, they don't trust each other, they stereotype and hate each other. I think that has a lot to do with gender segregation that starts in school. Boys in co-ed sports are less likely to become misogynistic. I support co-ed sports. But, when sports are segregated by gender, I do want trans kids included on their preferred gender's team with no questions asked if it's a public or youth league.

I am confident that the policies against trans people right now constitute the makings of a genocide. The message to trans people is clear: stop existing as trans people, and if that means you stop existing as living people, then tough sh!t. It is so ridiculous that such a small minority has been targeted to this extent for little reason other than to throw red meat at a base of angry, bigoted people. I have never seen a minority, except maybe for Muslims, get this much hate from secular, social liberals, many of whom are pro-LGB where it counts. This is a horrifying time to be trans. This is a major civil rights issue. It's scary. And it's not going to end with trans people. We're an easy target, but so were the commies, queers, Gypsies, and Jews in the beginning days of the Holocaust.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Why do so many liberals and progressives prefer Carter? Yes, he's a massive FF as person and has done incredible work during his post-presidency, but while in office, he was medicore at best. Not to mention that his policies moved somewhat away from the New Deal and Great Society as his administration passed a number of deregulation bills (not to mention he didn't get along with congress despite much more bipartisanship at the time and Democrats having solid majorities).

Biden's policy objectives have been much more progressive and labor friendly. Not to mention that with his handling of Ukraine (and even Afghanistan withdrawl) he's been better on foreign policy overall as well. Furthermore, Biden already had accomplishments during his vice presidency. All things Biden has failed to deliver is the result of a closely divided congress and next to no bipartisanship at all. Overall, Biden should be the superior choice here. Obviously, Republicans preferring Bush is quite understable.

[fhtagn]

A lot of non-Atlas blue states have moved left on abortion since 2018, creating new public or public-private partnerships to increase abortion access/education (especially for Black/Brown women.)

It's unsurprising that a culture that increasingly celebrates abortion would have more of it. 

Nobody celebrates abortion. The need for it is a fact of modern life.

You're kidding yourself if you think the culture doesn't celebrate abortion.  The days of "safe, legal and rare" are long gone.

There are holidays that celebrate abortion, Andrew Cuomo lit up the World Trade Center in pink to celebrate New York state legalizing late-term abortions, and celebrities on award stages are applauded when crediting their success to a decision to terminate a human life.

And Democrats are complicit in this new, celebratory culture around abortion.  Arguments like "abortion is healthcare" or that abortion "empowers" women are advanced in service to the goal of normalizing and destigmatizing mass abortion. 

Abortion can be legally protected while still acknowledging it as a personal and moral failure.  But is that even what you (and the Democrats more broadly) believe these days?

I offer that it's not a celebration of abortion, but rather a celebration of the freedom of choice. Freedom from oppression by perhaps people like you who want to throw your own personal morality and fear of God into the ring as the standard for all.

Using terms like "freedom of choice" is exactly the type of celebratory jargon that whitewashes what abortion really is - the termination of human life.

Your post tells how perfectly happy you are to celebrate and #ShoutYourAbortion as long as it's to "own" those tirelessly defending the sanctity of life.  You're equating abortion rights to the war to defeat the Nazis or something.  Grow up.   

No one should be happy to talk about abortion, much less happy to have one.  Abortion is a shameful and hurtful reality, but the pro-choice movement has had the normalization and promotion of abortion as their goal for several years now.     

[Politician]

Lots of people here need to read Thomas Frank's book What's the Matter with Kansas?.  It actually gives some insight as to how the Democrats managed to actually lose their status as the party of the Working Class (an unthinkable thought in my youth). 

With the decline of the Political Bosses and Organized Labor, the Democratic Party has become, disproportionately, the party of Lawyers, especially Trial Lawyers.  Much of what is called "The Swamp" is actually a massive network of Law Firms and Lobbying Firms (often headed by lawyers) that are very much attuned to the special interests of their clients, while being incredibly disconnected from the broader swath of society.  The Republicans, on the other hand, have (at least until recently) very much been the "Business Party".  They're certainly the party of SMALL business, and they are (still) the favored party of Corporate America (so long as we're not talking about Trumppublicans). 

Whatever you want to say about "businesspeople", I would argue that entrepreneurs and corporate types, as a rule, have their finger on the pulse of the average citizen far more than the lawyer and consultant class do.  This doesn't mean that they're necessarily more altruistic, but their BUSINESS depends on knowing what people want, what they can afford, what they view themselves as "needing" versus "wanting", etc.  Small business owners are far more living "where the rubber meets the road" on any number of issues, and this constituency is an almost exclusively Republican constituency.  And the Small Business Owners that are elected to office are almost exclusively Republican in most places.  (This goes back to the New Deal when Big Business could afford to accomodate New Deal regulations that were burdensome on Small Business.) 

This makeup makes the GOP the party more attuned to the pulse of America.  Whether they use that to serve or manipulate is another matter.  But the GOP is FAR more aware of what the average American thinks these days, and it gives them an advantage, even when they advocate issue positions that the average person might not support if they looked at the issue.

[Santander]

Lots of people here need to read Thomas Frank's book What's the Matter with Kansas?.  It actually gives some insight as to how the Democrats managed to actually lose their status as the party of the Working Class (an unthinkable thought in my youth). 

With the decline of the Political Bosses and Organized Labor, the Democratic Party has become, disproportionately, the party of Lawyers, especially Trial Lawyers.  Much of what is called "The Swamp" is actually a massive network of Law Firms and Lobbying Firms (often headed by lawyers) that are very much attuned to the special interests of their clients, while being incredibly disconnected from the broader swath of society.  The Republicans, on the other hand, have (at least until recently) very much been the "Business Party".  They're certainly the party of SMALL business, and they are (still) the favored party of Corporate America (so long as we're not talking about Trumppublicans). 

Whatever you want to say about "businesspeople", I would argue that entrepreneurs and corporate types, as a rule, have their finger on the pulse of the average citizen far more than the lawyer and consultant class do.  This doesn't mean that they're necessarily more altruistic, but their BUSINESS depends on knowing what people want, what they can afford, what they view themselves as "needing" versus "wanting", etc.  Small business owners are far more living "where the rubber meets the road" on any number of issues, and this constituency is an almost exclusively Republican constituency.  And the Small Business Owners that are elected to office are almost exclusively Republican in most places.  (This goes back to the New Deal when Big Business could afford to accomodate New Deal regulations that were burdensome on Small Business.) 

This makeup makes the GOP the party more attuned to the pulse of America.  Whether they use that to serve or manipulate is another matter.  But the GOP is FAR more aware of what the average American thinks these days, and it gives them an advantage, even when they advocate issue positions that the average person might not support if they looked at the issue.

That is a standard Fuzzy stupidpost.

[Politician]

Lots of people here need to read Thomas Frank's book What's the Matter with Kansas?.  It actually gives some insight as to how the Democrats managed to actually lose their status as the party of the Working Class (an unthinkable thought in my youth). 

With the decline of the Political Bosses and Organized Labor, the Democratic Party has become, disproportionately, the party of Lawyers, especially Trial Lawyers.  Much of what is called "The Swamp" is actually a massive network of Law Firms and Lobbying Firms (often headed by lawyers) that are very much attuned to the special interests of their clients, while being incredibly disconnected from the broader swath of society.  The Republicans, on the other hand, have (at least until recently) very much been the "Business Party".  They're certainly the party of SMALL business, and they are (still) the favored party of Corporate America (so long as we're not talking about Trumppublicans). 

Whatever you want to say about "businesspeople", I would argue that entrepreneurs and corporate types, as a rule, have their finger on the pulse of the average citizen far more than the lawyer and consultant class do.  This doesn't mean that they're necessarily more altruistic, but their BUSINESS depends on knowing what people want, what they can afford, what they view themselves as "needing" versus "wanting", etc.  Small business owners are far more living "where the rubber meets the road" on any number of issues, and this constituency is an almost exclusively Republican constituency.  And the Small Business Owners that are elected to office are almost exclusively Republican in most places.  (This goes back to the New Deal when Big Business could afford to accomodate New Deal regulations that were burdensome on Small Business.) 

This makeup makes the GOP the party more attuned to the pulse of America.  Whether they use that to serve or manipulate is another matter.  But the GOP is FAR more aware of what the average American thinks these days, and it gives them an advantage, even when they advocate issue positions that the average person might not support if they looked at the issue.

That is a standard Fuzzy stupidpost.

Why don't you stop polluting this thread with your partisan hackery.

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

I don't particularly care how "Woke" the performing arts get.  I simply don't support it with my hard-earned money.  If the entire entertainment industry collapsed due to public refusal to support it, I will not have lost a thing. 

The "performing arts" don't "enrich" my existence in any way.  Millions of ordinary Americans can say this; they're too busy living their life to indulge the worthless performing arts class that enjoys far too much influence in our society.  We will become a better nation when the importance of the opinions of actors, jocks, and other celebrities is put in its proper place.

Fuzzy, as someone who has respected you as a poster, please reconsider what you’re saying here. The performing arts are much more than Hollywood. They have an enormous impact in the lives of many, and are a way for many young people to find their voice as well as a community that they can belong to. If you don’t personally partake in seeing performances, then fine, that is your choice, but it is not the case that the performing arts as a whole (Hollywood isn’t exactly representative of most performing artists) have “too much influence” in society. If anything, many within both conservative and liberal circles are too quick to write them off as unimportant or superfluous. Many artists have suffered enormously over the past few years, and within education, the arts have seen massive cuts.

And I’ll also say that one of the many roles of the arts has been to present commentary on society. Said commentary has often been controversial, not all have agreed with it, and thus it has caused many to think. Even if you don’t feel that the performing arts enrich your existence, know that it has for millions of people, and this planet would not be the same without them.

Despite our disagreements I respect Fuzzy as a poster and value the handful of Recommends he’s given me. His most recent post shared in this thread makes a lot of sense, even though it paints small business owners and lawyers as being more one-sidedly partisan than those groups actually are.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Our God IS an Awesome God!

This decision is only ging to drive younger people further and further away from religion. You do realise that?

Four people to date have recommended this, none of which have a history of caring what God might thing enough to change their mind on an issue.  I take these assessments with a grain of salt. 

I can assure you that God's reputation is in the toilet, especially among younger people in this country, and it's "Christians" who have put it there. Prominent Christians in this country made the decision a while back to whore themselves and their faith out for worldly influence, and because of that sin, Christianity in the US is now often seen as a brand or cultural identity rather than a genuine faith. And that's a reputation that all Christians, even the good ones, have to deal with now.

Christians have forgotten what they're here for, and that's to serve others and lead people to Christ. It's not to save the world themselves through political action. Look at Trump, one of the men most responsible for this repeal. He's a hell-bound man. Trump is 76 and will soon die, and the "Christians" who have been kissing his ass for the last few years have never once bothered to attempt to lead that man to Christ. Even worse, they're willing to publicly pretend that he's Christian because they need his influence and power. They're fine with him and his devotees burning in hell if it means they can get some more political power to push whatever their next issue is. It's goddamn disgusting. How can you possibly expect people who don't already agree with you to take anything you say related to God seriously?

[fhtagn]

This "fundamental right to consequence-free sex" is just about the most asinine, preposterous thing I have ever heard.

This is like saying "I have a fundamental right to have a great time getting absolutely blitzed drunk without the consequences of a hang-over." You can pace yourself and hydrate and drink Pedialyte before and after, and maybe you can avoid the hangover. But you might get the hangover. That is the risk you run.

Or "I have a fundamental right to gorge myself on decadent food without any consequences." Well you can try do exercise to offset the consumption. But there is also the chance you put on weight or damage your heart or get diabetes. That is the risk you run.

Life is full of consequences. Everywhere. You just have to do a cost/benefit analysis to decide if that is something you really want to do. The hangover? Yeah those suck but they go away after a day or so, so maybe you get drunk anyway. Sex? Amazing. Great. Fun. But getting pregnant? Well that's a pretty flipping big consequence that maybe you have to fully grasp the magnitude of. And if you don't want to run that risk of having a child, then maybe you need to explore other options to having a good time.

But a fundamental right to life doesn't exist?

It does exist, and that right is granted to you at birth.

Where does the "fundamental right" to consequence free sex come from?

It doesn't "come from" anything, I just think it's a good idea. I used my own internal moral compass to reach this conclusion.

So it is something that you just made up. Jesus....

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

You called it a fundamental right. Look up the definition of a fundamental right. Fundamental rights are not just something that are "made up." "Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by a high degree of protection from encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in a constitution, or have been found under due process of law." So no, you can't just make something up and claim it is a fundamental right.

Your biggest gripe with what I said is that I chose to use the word "fundamental" instead of something else like "important" or "essential"?

This is a level of pedantry that others can only dream of, congratulations.

This entire thread is about a Supreme Court case that decided what "rights" are guaranteed to you by the Constitution. So you said "no I'm not talking about a Constitutional right, I am talking about a fundamental right that is guaranteed to you at birth. No I didn't actually mean fundamental right I meant important or essential right." Like, what are we doing here?

But fine. Let's go back to what you said. You said "Everyone has a right to consequence free sex. Why should consensual sex have any 'consequences'? There is nothing shameful about it."

It has nothing to do with anything being consensual or not. It has nothing to do with anything being shameful or not. It is just the simple truth that there is no logical basis for the idea that you have the right to be free from the natural, scientific, and biologically-intended consequences of a specific action.

Maybe we should ban casts for broken arms now, since they allow the wearer to escape the "natural consequences" (malunion and permanent physical impairment) of a fractured bone.

Literally all medical science is about escaping the medical "consequences of our actions." This argument makes about as much sense as saying people should suffer the "natural consequences" of brain hemorrhages, pneumonia, and appendicitis. Goddamn, pro-lifers just do not think.

[President Johnson]

Some might disagree for sure, but these posts are pretty good in my opinion.

The dooming and "defeatist attitude" from some Dems gets kind of tiresome, imho. You would never hear a GOPer say stuff like that, even if their prez was at low 30s approvals. They always act and talk like winners and fighters, and that's what most people like.

Sure, things are not exactly going the way they should because (a) we lack a clear governing majority in congress to get stuff done while the GOP is unwilling to actually govern and (b) Biden is not a particularly charismatic politician, although he has his strengths such as personal engagement with voters and a ton of experience.

Just because Biden has medicore approvals at this point in time doesn't mean he - or any D candidate - is DOA in 2024. The previous presidents back to Clinton, and even some before, looked more vulnerable than they were in the end. The election won't take place for another 2.5 years, which is a lifetime in politics.

What Dems generally need to do, and what I'm kind of mad about, is get better in messaging, talk more kitchentable issues and call out Republican extremism more forcefully. And with that I mean how their agenda would hurt average Joe types, not just repeat the "orange man bad" stuff. Leave Trump alone with his legal problems and revelations; there's a reason he was voted out of office; simply because many Americans were tired of him.

The media environment is just abysmal for the Democrats right now.  The media decided it hated Biden after he decided to pull out of Afghanistan and it's just been history ever since, ruthless non-stop brutalizing of the man and zero credit for any accomplishments.

Crisis after crisis after crisis, emergency after emergency after emergency, the media demands Biden solve it at noon, and if he hasn't solved it by 6 PM they declare him a failure.  Then when he actually does solve the crisis, nobody cares.  They just talk about how bad the crisis was and how awful Biden was for not solving it faster.

Biden does dozens of excellent things every day, and they get no coverage.  No coverage at all.  I bet most people on this board can't even name three of the good things Biden has done.  The American people trip all over themselves to make excuses for Trump and discuss the few "good" things they give him credit for.  But they'll never acknowledge a single good thing Biden has done.

Meanwhile the media just normalizes and apologizes for Trump at every opportunity.  The both-sides-ing is off the charts.  They absolutely devour everything the right throws at them and let the Republican Party control the narrative 24/7.  People complain about Democratic "messaging failures" but the media won't cover anything we say.  They just ask the RNC for talking points and then present those as "bad news for the Democrats."  Just sheer garbage.  Look at the recent Peter Alexander.  Literally just dumping talking points sent directly to his inbox from right-wing operatives, totally uncritically.  Imagine if Democrats had that kind of power!

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

I think the issue is both Defund the Police and Blue Lives Matter, like many such movements, have elements of the truth and do speak to sections of the population but neither have a particularly credible solution.

The issue is that the American police system is institutionally incompetent especially at a local level. The failings we see in particular are quite common to all institutions: an interest in using cash for flashy purchases rather than longterm investment in their people, which is why you have so many Chief Wiggums with a minor nation's armoury at their disposal; attempts to deal with anti-discrimination laws etc with meaningless tickbox exercises; a rewards system that prioritises low level targets over high investment, risky investigations (so you end up with hundreds of minor, petty infractions to fill unofficial quotas while home invasion, assault, rape and even murder are increasingly met with inaction) and systematic neglect of certain areas of town (you know which areas).

This reality squares badly with both of these slogans. Blue Lives Matter may be a nice statement if you're talking to some lumpenproletariat buddies on the Facebook, but it does not track with the lived experience many people (especially black people) who view the police as, at best, a bunch of jumped-up bureaucrats from a different part of town. I do have some sympathy for besieged police officers who feel consumed by public hatred and believe they are doing something, in the same way I feel sympathy for child protection and social care workers who simultaneously are often pushed as too neglectful and too heavy handed, and are subject to public ire in the event of catastrophic failure.

The issue is DtP also gets the wrong end of the stick. Firstly, we should say that the democrats embrace of it made them look very weak and was not a particularly convincing guise. Classic example of a politician saying anything in the moment to an angry crowd with the subtext "if i say this will you go away??!". But it also fails to address the issue at hand, a symptom of its origins in academia and adoption by a not hugely representative clique of activists. It relies on utopian politics, almost never a particularly sustainable platform, and fails to realise people do want a version of the police, just not the police they have right now. Public schooling can also be criticized as racist and mismanaged, but democrats would tend to have a dim opinion of a campaign to essentially privatise it on this basis.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Basically no mainstream economists believe that we are currently in a recession. Most mainstream economists don't believe we're teetering on the verge of a recession either. The main issue at play here is that people are confusing a rough heuristic (2 consecutive quarters of negative quarter-on-quarter real GDP growth = recession) with how a recession is actually defined (NBER committee assembles to say we are in a recession). Actual insiders who know how this committee operates don't think they would classify the present as a recession because labor markets remain very strong and this is foundational to how recessions are defined.

No one would argue that the economy isn't softening or that there isn't a large probability of recession over the next year. In fact, I would argue that you'd have to be pretty stupid to bet against the yield curve, which has inverted, and remains the strongest historical predictor of recession. That said, this doesn't mean that we are in a recession now and this should surprise no one. Key facts:

• monetary policy operates with a long-lag - some estimate it is as long as a 2 year lag
• unsurprisingly, we see that consumption isn't cratering, labor markets are strong
• inflation is still very, very hot
• commodity prices and stock prices are affected by monetary prices contemporaneously - they have cratered
• these prices reflect expectations about the future and they don't really say anything about "real" economic activity now.
• one reason why blue avatars on this forum have been wrong about the economy over the past two months is that they are assuming because financial market implosions in the past imply the current stock rout means we are zooming towards recession. This is insanely wrongheaded: financial crises have this affect because lending dries up and firms are forced to shutdown overnight. Equity prices plunging is not the same as a financial crisis.
• red avatars can't have it both ways either. Good news about oil prices is largely due to expectations about the future - investors and others think we will be in recession next year, which affects oil futures.

As usual, partisanship results in magical thinking about economics. Republicans have historically been very prone to magical thinking of ideology, believing that the Laffer curve somehow applies at the state level when taxes are very low, or that cutting spending will increase growth. Democrats have embraced some nonsense related to Magic Money Tree, because it allows them to do things without doing the hard work of increasing taxes. They have also decided that price controls are a magical elixir, presumably because it allows them to not increase taxes. Both kinds of partisans want to believe in perpetual motion machines. You are both wrong - sorry!

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Just a note to ALL DEMS USERS, you can make D nut maps and overestimate D's chances because these aren't votes or donations,  our votes or donations matter for EDay these are just user predictions that are mock that have no bearing on the real election to users like S019

If you are a D and KY, FL, NC are the first states up that will determine the control of the H not the Senate what's the purpose of scoreboard watching if you don't think Fs can we we have a 1/3 chance to win red states just like in today's MI poll Rs have a 1)3 to win blue states including WU that's why Evers after all the R gerrymandering still leads Kleefisch in a MQK poll the most accurate pollster 47/43 and Tammy Baldwin beat Tommy Thompson so users acting like Barnes can't beat Johnson Barnes is leading 46/44 isn't true, Barnes will win

[GregTheGreat657]

Set a population limit of 10k.

Top Five Democratic - Washington

• D + 79.4 - Seattle, King County (Population 738,095) - The Emerald City needs no introduction. Long a bastion of labor activism, counterculture, environmentalism, LGBT culture, and tech innovation, Seattle attracts progressives from across the country, young and old alike, and high-skill immigrants from around the world. The city has a massive wealth divide between downscale renters, disproportionately younger and less white, and wealthy homeowners determined to keep their share of the pie. Both factions are highly educated and agree on one thing above all: the word "Republican" is a slur citywide. Seattle has seen large population growth, becoming increasingly diverse over the past two decades, standing at 59% White, 21% Asian, 9% Black, and 8% Hispanic, although that growth has stopped since the pandemic.
• D + 72.5 - Vashon Island, King County (Population 11,061) - Accessible only by ferry and other watercraft, Vashon Island sits at the crossroads of Seattle, Tacoma, and Bremerton, simultaneously a commuter suburb and natural retreat. The island once hosted large strawberry farms, orchards, and vineyards-- many run by Japanese-Americans until their mass relocation during World War II-- but has since moved away from all but small organic farms toward small shops, especially local arts and crafts. Like most ferry-dependent communities, Vashon is highly reliant on both government funding and tourism, including eco-tourism. The island's crunchy granola character can be seen in its very low vaccination rates prior to COVID, among the lowest in the country.  84% White, 6% Hispanic, 4% Asian. Population has grown a bit as commuters have been forced further out from Seattle and Tacoma, but still seen as somewhat disconnected from the rest of the mainland.
• D + 70.7 - Port Townsend, Jefferson County (Population 10,154) - A Bohemian port city once thought destined to be the fulcrum of the Puget Sound region, Port Townsend attracted substantial investment and build-up in the late 1800s. The Panic of 1893 crashed the local economy and ended hopes of extending rail lines from the east Puget Sound, but not before large numbers of Victorian houses were constructed, houses which-- unique among the region-- survived the crash. The economy of the city turned to shipbuilding and paper mills, creating a strong labor presence in the city, which has never been particularly wealthy. Port Townsend's unique combination of natural beauty, relative isolation, and old world architecture attracted artists, rebels, activists, former hippies, and tourists throughout the decades, building the perfect recipe for a progressive stronghold. 86% White, 4% Hispanic, 3% Asian, 3% Native. Population has remained relatively stagnant over recent decades.
• D + 70.2 - Bainbridge Island, Kitsap County (Population 24,830) - Wealthy ferry suburb of Seattle, although with a single bridge to the rest of Kitsap County. Birthplace of pickleball, Washington's state sport. One of the few municipalities in Washington where gay marriage ran ahead of Obama. 84% White, 7% Asian, 5% Hispanic. Solid population growth in the last decade.
• D + 64.2 - Lake Forest Park, King County (Population 13,634) - Leafy inner Seattle suburb at the north end of Lake Washington bordering Snohomish County. Almost entirely older, larger single family homes amid preserved green space with little commercial or multifamily presence. Primarily commuters to Seattle or the Eastside. 72% White, 16% Asian, 5% Hispanic. Restrictive zoning has led to lower than average population growth for the area.

Top Five Republican - Washington

• R + 38.0 - Lynden, Whatcom County (Population 15,756) -  The heart of the Dutch Reformed community in the lower Fraser River Valley, Lynden is the city of windmills. One of the most religious communities in Washington, once claiming the most churches per capita and per square mile in the country. Most commercial stores still close on Sundays, and Sunday alcohol sales were prohibited until 2008. The agricultural nature of the area has led to an influx of Hispanic farmworkers; the city stands at 78% White, 12% Hispanic, and 5% Asian. Population growth in the 2010s was very high, almost 30%.
• R + 27.5 - West Richland, Benton County (Population 16,303) - Outer suburb/exurb of the Tri-Cities, the most conservative population center in Washington. Formed in the 1940s by Manhattan Project workers who found government regulations on land ownership in Richland (run by the War Department) too restrictive. The Tri-Cities region has become a haven for retirees due to having the warmest year-round temperatures in the state and access to recreation on the Columbia River. Industry in the Tri-Cities mixes agriculture and food processing, defense contracting, manufacturing, nuclear power, and logistics/transportation. West Richland is whiter than the canonical Tri-Cities at 77% White, 14% Hispanic, and has seen robust growth over the past decade, nearly 40% since 2010.
• R + 26.8 - Moses Lake, Grant County (Population 25,224) - The center of the largest potato-growing county in the country, Moses Lake formed in the 1940s with the construction of the Grand Coulee Dam and the Moses Lake Army Air Base. The military, who used the area to train pilots, dominated the local economy until the Columbia Basin Project provided irrigation to the region in the mid-1950s and agriculture flourished. More recently, Moses Lake has seen an influx of retirees and Hispanics for similar reasons as West Richland, but has also seen an uptick in manufacturing, especially tech components, renewable energy components, and automobiles. 54% White, 36% Hispanic, 4% Asian, 4% Native. Population growth was strong, if slightly below West Richland and Lynden at 24% in the 2010s.
• R + 22.9 - Battle Ground, Clark County (Population 20,762) - Exurb of Vancouver (or Portland, if you prefer), Battle Ground saw huge growth in the 1990s and 2000s, with slower but still above average growth in the 2010s at 18%. Like most of Clark County, an attractive place for anti-tax Washingtonians who take advantage of the lack of income tax in Washington and the lack of sales tax in Oregon. 81% White, 9% Hispanic, 4% Asian, 3% Native.
• R + 21.6 - Graham, Pierce County (Population 32,692) -  Quiet exurb of Tacoma in the shadow of Mount Rainier, Graham saw strong population growth throughout the 2010s at 39%. Near to Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Graham is a more affordable option for many employed there, especially after the opening of JBLM's East Gate. Relatively religious by Puget Sound standards, and reasonably diverse at 69% White, 11% Hispanic, 8% Asian, 7% Black, and 4% Native.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Bagel is misunderstanding the conservative complaint.

The problem isn't that most of Atlas wants us gone. The problem is that a significant minority of Atlas is entirely uninterested in engaging with conservatism, and therefore their dealings with forum conservatives contain appalling amounts of bad faith arguments, strawmanning, and outright smears of conservative voting groups/conservative posters.

While I agree with Bagel that most of Atlas doesn't want us "silenced", it doesn't take a majority to induce conservative posters to decide full engagement isn't worth it, and to self-censor, reduce posting activity, limit posting to certain sub-forums etc. Personally, I've gradually reduced my posting activity and focused on the higher quality international and demographics boards in response. It's just not worth the crap doing full on debates in most cases.

It just gets so exhausting to see. My religion is routinely smeared on USGD, in terms that if applied to most groups would be understood as hate speech.. People post "no uterus, no opinion" on an abortion thread, but I also see a bunch of teenage virgins critique the reproductive and parenting choices that my wife, and I, and my fellow conservative Christians make, up to and including a few instances of arguing that the state should take my children away from me.

So yeah, I'm glad most of Atlas doesn't hate me, and that the mods are quick to delete the most egregious personal attacks, but that's besides the point. We shouldn't  have to put up with it at all.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Calling the attempt to interfere with election certification a "riot" in the first place is nothing short of dishonest revisionism

Almost like hand waving away hundreds of riots in a matter of months as "firey but mostly peaceful protests that escalated due to hundreds of years of oppression". Even during the Rittenhouse trial you still had violence appologists claiming the violent rioters who were shot were "racial justice protesters at a protest" even though it occurred at night time, while trespassing on private property, and involved illegal arson, window smashing, property destruction, vandalism, and assault. That is not a protest. Legitimate protests dont happen at night and dont involve arson and window smashing. The 2020 rioters and the Capitol rioters should both be punished severely. Yet when the Biden transition happened, DOJ dismissed most of the 2020 prosecutions and focused on MAGA meemaws walking between the velvet ropes rather than the Portland Antifa terrorists.

In June of 2020 when violent rioters breached the White House and burned the church across the street there were a ton of posters on this site gleefully mocking Trump as a coward for being evacuated to the White House bunker. Then on Jan. 6 when an ostensibly less destructive riot forced members of congress into bunkers yall claim its literally a treesuncoo. Both should be prosecuted as violent riots. Instead Biden claimed Antifa didnt exist and had most of the 2020 prosecutions dismissed while shamefully comparing Jan. 6 to 9/11 and pearl harbor.

So much cover was given to the 2020 riots that it desensitized the nation to political violence. Dozens of politicians encouraged 2020. AOC told rioters to wear "heat-resistant gloves" and to conceal their identities. Popular Mechanics did an article on how to illegally pull down statues. The VP tweeted bail funds for rioters. There were articles on how looting was "reparations". Louise Lucas in Portsmouth ordered the police to stand down from stopping a riot. Seattle and Portland local governments permitted riots, autonomous zones, and attacks on federal property and Soros prosecutors refused to prosecute the violent rioters. The 2020 riots were an order of magnitude worse than Jan. 6 and yet you expect us to forget that and just focus on the 1 riot that scared the Dems. If yall had been consistent on locking up rioters and werent just trying to claim "insturrection" to invoke the 14th amendment I doubt most of the Republicans would have boycotted the Commission. I want the Jan. 6 rioters prosecuted too but I refuse to accept the Dem propaganda that it was worse than 2020.

[wesmoorenerd]

The main reason is that too many of the folks there whose support he needed are now Democrats or at least strongly anti-Trump independents.  Kent County is the part of the district where this trend (which shows no signs of slowing down) is strongest.  However, there are some much smaller factors that probably also contributed (I’d say at the margins, but in a race as close as this primary, who knows what the deciding factor was?):

- Meijer kinda tried to have it both ways towards in late 2021/early 2022 whenhe’d make occasional statements vaguely implying that Biden was a greater threat to democracy than Trump.  However, this complicated his messaging.  This was when I knew his own internals were showing him in a really bad spot and IIRC he even told a reporter in early-to-mid 2022 that he fully expected to lose his primary.  

Anyway, I think Meijer would’ve been better off sticking to the original strategy of just owning his impeachment vote and running as a bipartisan champion of democracy.  He shifted back to that towards the end, but it likely muddled the messaging a bit in the meantime.  

- I also think redistricting really, really hurt Meijer in the primary in a way that has largely gone undiscussed.  Meijer originally had like 3-4 different C-list Trumpist primary opponents who all seemed pretty determined to stick it out to the primary.  Even if one had dropped out, Meijer did well enough that he likely would’ve won under such a scenario.  

However, all of the challengers except Gibbs were drawn out of the district under the new map.  One of them (Norton) even got like ~35% challenging a pretty Trumpy Republican incumbent, so Gibbs and him would’ve likely split the vote enough on their own for Meijer to win.  Unfortunately for Meijer, Gibbs ended up as his only opponent which gave the Trumpers plenty of time to consolidate.  

- Finally, the DCCC did some last minute ratf***ing to boost Gibbs b/c he’d be a far easier GE opponent.  I doubt this mattered too much, but the race was close enough that it’s worth mentioning.  My views on this are a little weird.  

I strongly support the DCCC’s meddling in Republican congressional primaries in districts with a potentially competitive GE.  This race was no exception and the beltway pundits need to stop whining about this.  Their job is to elect as many Democrats as possible and Meijer losing shifts this seat from Lean R -> Lean D.  However, if I lived in the district, then I would crossover to the Republican primary this cycle and vote for Meijer.  He risked his career to stand up for American democracy and that should count for something.  If you’re a Democratic operative than the right thing to do is to help boost Gibbs in the primary, but for me as a private individual, I want Republicans to see that really standing up to Trump (as opposed to just being disliked by him for some random arbitrary reason) isn’t automatic political suicide in a Republican primary.

I doubt this seat will decide control of the House, so it becomes a win-win.  Either we likely flip a Republican district in 2022 and hold onto it for most/all of the decade (worst case, it doesn’t flip until 2024) or a truly anti-Trump Republican beats Trump’s pick in a genuinely competitive primary.
______________________________________________________________________________
On a different note, I really hope Newhouse and JHB win Re-election.  These are both safe Republican districts, so they are likely the best we will get.  Newhouse’s challenger in particular, Loren Culp, seems  to be an especially despicable individual.  Plus, in a way, there might be more utility in showing that one can survive being anti-Trump in a Safe Republican district than showing that one can survive it in a suburban swing district.  The latter is likely much easier to handwave away.  But I digress…

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Calling the attempt to interfere with election certification a "riot" in the first place is nothing short of dishonest revisionism

Almost like hand waving away hundreds of riots in a matter of months as "firey but mostly peaceful protests that escalated due to hundreds of years of oppression". Even during the Rittenhouse trial you still had violence appologists claiming the violent rioters who were shot were "racial justice protesters at a protest" even though it occurred at night time, while trespassing on private property, and involved illegal arson, window smashing, property destruction, vandalism, and assault. That is not a protest. Legitimate protests dont happen at night and dont involve arson and window smashing. The 2020 rioters and the Capitol rioters should both be punished severely. Yet when the Biden transition happened, DOJ dismissed most of the 2020 prosecutions and focused on MAGA meemaws walking between the velvet ropes rather than the Portland Antifa terrorists.

In June of 2020 when violent rioters breached the White House and burned the church across the street there were a ton of posters on this site gleefully mocking Trump as a coward for being evacuated to the White House bunker. Then on Jan. 6 when an ostensibly less destructive riot forced members of congress into bunkers yall claim its literally a treesuncoo. Both should be prosecuted as violent riots. Instead Biden claimed Antifa didnt exist and had most of the 2020 prosecutions dismissed while shamefully comparing Jan. 6 to 9/11 and pearl harbor.

So much cover was given to the 2020 riots that it desensitized the nation to political violence. Dozens of politicians encouraged 2020. AOC told rioters to wear "heat-resistant gloves" and to conceal their identities. Popular Mechanics did an article on how to illegally pull down statues. The VP tweeted bail funds for rioters. There were articles on how looting was "reparations". Louise Lucas in Portsmouth ordered the police to stand down from stopping a riot. Seattle and Portland local governments permitted riots, autonomous zones, and attacks on federal property and Soros prosecutors refused to prosecute the violent rioters. The 2020 riots were an order of magnitude worse than Jan. 6 and yet you expect us to forget that and just focus on the 1 riot that scared the Dems. If yall had been consistent on locking up rioters and werent just trying to claim "insturrection" to invoke the 14th amendment I doubt most of the Republicans would have boycotted the Commission. I want the Jan. 6 rioters prosecuted too but I refuse to accept the Dem propaganda that it was worse than 2020.

What would your response be to someone who thinks both are bad? This type of reply only works as a rebuttal, not a standalone argument.

[Schiff for Senate]

I'm in a certain mood and feel like - just maybe - sharing an anecdotal experience of my Deep South private-sector unionized family.

My mother, at the age of 25, was hired as a bakery worker for a new opening of a Kroger in NW Georgia - the first of its kind in the area - in November 1980. She, along with the vast majority of people who started working at the new store, were unionized under UFCW. She paid 2% of her weekly paycheck, and in exchange, would inevitably enjoy higher wages than non-unionized employees over the decades, up to 6 weeks of vacation pay (assuming 20 years of employment), insurance coverage comparable to Medicare, minimal stock options & a pension if one retired at or beyond the age of 62.

While they (UFCW 1996: pretty much all of Georgia's Krogers) came close to striking on multiple occasions, the collective bargaining procedure prevented such. Over the decades, the union gave in more and more to the company's demands as the nature of unions shifted through the US. Insurance coverage shrank, future pay increases were dulled, etc.

Eight years after my mother started working at Kroger, I was born. It's important I think to illustrate the fact that I am probably - structurally, at least - one of the poorest people who has been consistently active on this forum. Despite being born in the late 80s in rural Georgia in a singlewide trailer running on well water, I've - somehow - managed to be a DNC delegate, a county Democratic committee Vice-Chair (4 years) and Chair (6 years), among other things. But the aforementioned is the life into which I was born.

Throughout most of my life, my mother worked at least 50 hours per week. After the age of 5, I started living in a single-parent household (at least financially). For all but about 3 years of my first decade, it was my grandmother who raised me because my mother worked 2PM-10PM, 6 days per week (plus unofficial off-clock time due to her nature and not protesting union violations), so even if I knew and loved my mother (who financially provided for me and did so because of such), I spent far more time with my grandmother. I only saw her in the mornings and on the occasional weekend day; otherwise, I was already asleep when she got off of work.

At some point during my early childhood, my mother became the bakery manager of her store. Her pay increased as a result, but not as much as you would think: frankly, given the willingness of the store to pay her consistent overtime as opposed to hiring new individuals was a key reason why she had to work so much and why she missed out so much on my childhood. At multiple points, she was offered management of the entire store - she declined, which is where she and I differ: she didn't want the added mental stress, but the sheer physical stress she experienced over the decades would have disappeared had she simply agreed to such requests.

At the age of 63 & at the end of 38 years of loyalty - which involved not only mental management and organizing of the department, ordering consistent amounts of supplies, cooking and making most items offered within the bakery and doing tons of physical labor (such as carrying 50+ lb buckets of icing across the store), my 63 year-old mother was forced into retirement on a technicality after having double-knee replacement due to her work of spending the better part of a half-century working 50 hours per week in retail, and after they had grinded her bones into dust.

At the time of her retirement (2018), what was her reward? She - as a manager - was earning $20 per hour, had her aforementioned 6 weeks of paid vacation per year (which obviously disappeared upon retirement), enjoyed around $50k worth of company stock that had split multiple times over decades, and drew a $1600 per month net pension. All for a lot of skilled and intense manual labor over nearly 40 years, most of which involved working 6 days/50 hours per week. My mother had to claim SSI early, lost a ton of potential long-term payments, developed a neuromuscular condition a couple of years later (which I believe had somewhat to do with my mother working manual labor from the age of 12), and ultimately died less than 3 years after her retirement (just after her 65th birthday, right after Medicare kicked in but too late to cover much of her healthcare costs).

The difference in living situations? Had my mother had such a position at virtually any other comparable retail outlet, she and I would have been stuck in abject poverty. Instead, I was fortunate enough to be merely working class after her working a literal half-century full-time across multiple jobs. God forbid a union allows the average worker from being completely poor to being only somewhat poor!