Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,233,643
@previous (B)
They don't agree with Biden's plans to use a big chunk of the freshly borrowed cash to fund student debt forgiveness, among other of his policies.
Student debt forgiveness is a handout to the loan servicers. Student loan debt is bought from the government and sold to private companies. While many people default on their student loans, they can not be discharged via bankruptcy and represent a nearly risk free loan for a company to buy. This financial instrument should've never been created. These loans should be immediately canceled and the loan servicers need to accept the loss. That's their reward for taking part and lobbying to further expand this parasitic industry.
Anonymous D double-posted this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,233,645
The fact that these loans are not dischargable via bankruptcy also has accelerated the rapid inflation (beyond our "normal" level inflation) of tuition. There's no push-pull that goes on in other markets. There's no incentive for the loan servicers to push back against rising tuition because people can't shake off the debt via bankruptcy and the servicer gets paid no matter what. So, instead, both the loan servicers and the universities have a shared interest in raising tuitions.
Jefferson Dental replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,233,654
@1,233,643 (C)
They have never before conditioned raising the ceiling on spending cuts. Never. Not even under Trump, who raised he debt more than almost any other president in history.
> They have never before conditioned raising the ceiling on spending cuts. Never. Not even under Trump, who raised he debt more than almost any other president in history.
America has never before been 32 and a half trillion dollars in debt and no longer able to just print more dollars.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 31 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,233,663
@1,233,655 (E) > Birthrates are down 20% since 2007, who's going to pay for it all? Import millions of mexicans?
Mexico's birthrate has also now dipped below replacement. Fun times.
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,233,691
@previous (H)
Military personnel are already spoiled.
99% do not see combat, but are support staff doing the same thing as private industry but making more than twice as much after accounting for housing credits, healthcare, free college, free food, military discounts, pensions, and all the other benefits.
If they get cut off they should be grateful they got so much more than everyone else while they did, and accept that they will have to earn a wage the same way as everyone else.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 49 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,233,702
@1,233,690 (H)
Remember when Biden did a prisoner swap with Russia trading a black trans woman basketball player while leaving behind a former marine also imprisoned there on made up charges? The trade was for a Russian heavy arms dealer. Yeah.
> Doesn't this fuck over military folk too? What about supporting the troops?
"Defense" spending will not be part of the cuts. That is one thing Reps and Dems will always agree on. Cuts will be made to non-essential things like health, education and social security. Never, ever, ever to "defense".
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,233,715
@1,233,711 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
There's plenty of reason to believe that she is. More reason than to believe that she isn't.
If you don't believe something without proof, then how can you believe that she isn't? Seems you could only remain indifferent on the matter, if that's how you form your views, no?
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,233,722
@1,233,716 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
She's taller than 99.9% of women. Her voice is lower than >50% of men. Her muscle tone. Her body language.
What are the reasons to believe that she isn't?
If you don't believe something without proof, then how can you believe that she isn't? Seems you could only remain indifferent on the matter, if that's how you form your views, no?
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,233,730
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
So now you're saying something different than what you first said. I provided reasons why I believed one outcome is more likely and you responded that you need proof to believe something. This implies you had some type of black and white ironclad proof, which you are now revealing you do not in fact have. How can we have a discussion here if what you say is not what you mean? How can I continue to assume you are not making arguments in bad faith?
Anonymous H replied with this 2 years ago, 17 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,233,738
@1,233,691 (F)
I don't think military salaries are where the majority of bloat is in the military industrial complex so I don't really know why that's a point.
@1,233,702 (D)
Are you talking about a marine who was also double dipping while selling guns for the CIA or whatever agency it was? Tell me who committed a bigger offense, a woman who went to Russia to play a game and happened to have a weed cartridge, or a guy who sold guns to criminals for the government and his own benefit?
@1,233,706 (I)
No, the American ones that wouldn't be paid. Do you think it's a big zing to just throw in some interjection about Ukraine?
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 12 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,233,755
@1,233,702 (D)
Russia refused to trade the marine. They only offered the basketball player, who is also an American citizen. Biden should have left them both?
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,233,759
@1,233,755 (B)
Yes, the war criminal traded for a bball player had knowledge that could lead to arming even more African child soldiers. He is dangerous, even in old age, because of his know-how on making deals to kill mass amounts of people.
He's probably consulting with Wagner now, because culture war libs want to free the black queer. I hope the hundreds more raped girls in the African heartland appreciate what their sacrifice means when their newly armed oppressors use their bodies for entertainment.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,233,764
@1,233,755 (B)
Yeah, because the president of the most powerful and wealthy nation on earth had to just accept what he was told. Putin designed the trade to make Biden appear weak and he succeeded spectacularly.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,233,770
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Is it inconceivable to you that there are some in the WNBA? There are confirmed instances in other sports organizations. Why would it be less likely in the WNBA?
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,233,772
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC) > A. Its only less likely that they are trans compared to cis, as with all sports
Yes, but it's more likely trans women would succeed in sports meaning it wouldn't be surprising for them to gravitate toward it.
> B. They would likely trumpet the news and use it for marketing as that one theyfab player they have
Not if, for whatever reason, the athlete denied that they are trans. They wouldn't "out" someone like that because that'd result in negative publicity from all "sides".
C. Sure. But there are also people who had botched circumcisions, congenital disfigurements, or whatever and are declared female, sometimes going under immediate surgery upon birth. So there isn't a transition so to speak as they're raised as a girl. Maybe they don't count as trans. I don't know. They may not even be "amabs", but they may be born with a penis or something like it. I think this could be most likely in her case, where she didn't really "transition".
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,233,775
@previous (D)
A. Trans people dont participate in professional sports at higher rates than cis people
B. I do think its a harder to hide being trans than being gay because you can be gay and no one would know unless you have gay sex. But if you're trans people would know if theyve ever seen you naked or before transition
C. So that would make her more intersex than trans
Also Im guessing that other people on her team are also tall and probably have deep voices
> A. Trans people dont participate in professional sports at higher rates than cis people
What reason do you have to believe this?
> B. I do think its a harder to hide being trans than being gay because you can be gay and no one would know unless you have gay sex. But if you're trans people would know if theyve ever seen you naked or before transition
Not every woman dresses or acts like a man and vice versa. It can be very easy to hide.
> C. So that would make her more intersex than trans
It's not mutually exclusive.
> Also Im guessing that other people on her team are also tall and probably have deep voices
No, none of them are as masculinized as her. Not even close.
> Are they all trans and intersex?
None of them are as masculine as her. So, who knows (aside from you, apparently).
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,233,814
@previous (L)
Most amabs are born with penises so I stand by my definition as its easy for people to understand
And no, people born with penises and raised as girls wouldn't be considered to be afabs. That is a designation that doctors make. Not some weird ass parents
Anonymous D double-posted this 2 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,233,821
@1,233,814 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC) > And no, people born with penises and raised as girls wouldn't be considered to be afabs. That is a designation that doctors make. Not some weird ass parents
The designation doctors make is often entirely arbitrary. Very few of them are authorities on these issues or even very knowledgeable about them. So defining "afabs" like that is pretty dumb.
Anonymous H replied with this 2 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,233,823
@1,233,820 (D)
You might have mentioned it in passing as part of a point but when confronted about it you doubled down and argued about trans folk for most of the thread.
Literally no one talks about trans folk as much as transphobic people.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,233,824
@previous (H)
I was clearing up a misconception. I will not have my good name smeared by people like kook intentionally misrepresenting what I'm saying.
Anonymous H replied with this 2 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,233,862
@1,233,824 (D)
The misconception that you referenced a prisoner swap and ignorantly claimed one of the parties is trans before anything else in this thread was said about trans people?
Anonymous D double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,233,869
@1,233,862 (H)
I said a number of things even well before that post, some of it I can imagine being controversial and generally disagreeable to most, but apparently only the trans stuff matters to kook or to you.
Anonymous H replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,233,871
@previous (D)
The only reason I harped over it is because you completely misrepresented a situation in response to my paltry "what about the troops?" If you have to be wrong to get your point across, what's the point?
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,233,875
@previous (H)
I didn't misrepresent anything. If you have evidence to support your views, post it. Don't heckle from the sidelines. Roll up your sleeves and post your arguments.
Anonymous H replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,233,934
@1,233,922 (D)
I think that people come in all shapes and sizes. If Ben Shapiro and Arnold Schwarzenegger are both men, why can't there be a variety of female builds that aren't instantly questioned?
Anonymous H double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,233,935
@1,233,922 (D)
I guess my main reason is I don't delve too deep when I observe someone, I'm not assuming everyone is lying about everything all the time
Anonymous D double-posted this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,233,943
@1,233,934 (H)
There are many signs. No one's saying "she's tall, she must be a trans woman". This is people saying "she has every masculine trait imaginable in a manner more pronounced than many men. She also looks and acts nothing like literally any of the other WNBA players"
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,233,977
@previous (L)
I agree with half of that. An instant payout is slightly more beneficial. No chasing people down, filing court orders, etc. Many people with huge loans make so little that wage garnishment is never going to cover the amount they could get with an instant cash payout. A lot of loan servicers actually re-sell the loan when they see this start to happen. So you know it's not worth the full dollar amount that is claimed on paper. So of course they're going to want to get paid that amount in full, instantly, if they can.
> They are getting paid either way, they don't care. > > No forgiveness means people have their paychecks garnished to pay, and bankruptcy court won't get them out of it.
This isn't true. If you can't afford to pay, there is a low-income repayment plan that allows you to repay with a monthly payment as low as $0 per month depending upon your income level, and after a maximum of ten years of payments (potentially $0) the loan contract is ended. Your wages can only be garnished if you completely ignore your obligation and don't apply to program.
> You want to punish people who lend money to those without credit at a fair market rate.
Never said they need to go to prison. They are also not lending money. The government is and they're buying the loans, often at a discount.
It's not a fair market when normal fair market forces, like bankruptcy have been eliminated. All this does is align the loan servicers with the universities so there's no push back to rising tuition because they will get the money no matter how poor the loan is. Completely unlike any other market where the lender takes the loss for giving bad loans.
> They deserve an appropriate profit, prisons are unjust institutions that punish people filling a market gap.
They don't deserve anything. There is no need for this industry and there's no need for anyone to subsidize it or for the government to bail them out.
Anonymous H replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,018
@1,234,011 (D)
The strawman is saying that because she doesn't fit into a specific binary arrangement of what is a known spectrum, that she must be a man. You are providing the straw, man.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,019
@previous (H)
No, she is providing the man and you are providing the straw. It's not that she doesn't fit into a specific binary arrangement, it's that she falls on the extreme end of the spectrum.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,042
@1,234,039 (H)
No, you're still wrong. I have not questioned her gender. I have questioned her sex. The fact that you're confused on that point tells me you're quite obviously transphobic and also a likely racist.
Anonymous D double-posted this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,043
@1,234,040 (B)
I know. I've never seen a place where I can make controversial statements on a wide range of topics from politics, economic theory, to a variety of social issues and all anyone cares to argue about is an off-hand comment that ever so slightly mentions transgenderism.
I guess when one's livelihood and financial status so heavily depends on appearing to have certain viewpoints on the subject, one can get quite triggered indeed. As we see here.
Anonymous D triple-posted this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,044
@1,234,041 (WSD !m2cp3rR5zw)
I can agree with this too. Not sure why this is so difficult for people. With bankruptcy as an option, natural market forces will eventually come back into to play and bring tuition levels back to sane amounts. Enough of these junk loans. We're heading into a housing-style crisis v2 and all people seem to want is to justify this as if it were the result of a fair market when it is anything but.
Although I see no harm in just wiping the debt and letting the crook servicers take the loss. But just bringing bankruptcy back into the fold seems acceptable enough of a "compromise" in my view.
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 22 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,047
@1,233,738 (H)
It doesn't need to be the majority of the bloat.
I'm responding to the idea that people are going to hurt from this. It's the already spoiled that will return to a normal standard of living if we default.
Meanwhile regular workers will find their paycheck goes a lot further when the federal government isn't dumping trillions of dollars into the economy and diluting their own spending power.
Throughout the U.S., the average salary for a military is roughly $51,584 per year, which boils down to $24.8 per hour. Interestingly enough, militaries have the highest salaries in Santa Clara, CA at about $65,015 per year. For those who are just starting out, the average entry-level salary in Santa Clara, CA is $28,000. Additionally, militaries make more than the average salary in New York, NY, Newark, NJ, Bangor, ME, Hampton, VA, and La Crosse, WI. On a more broad level, military salaries are highest in Alaska, New Jersey, New York, California, Maine, Wisconsin, and Virginia. On the contrary, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Oregon offer the lowest military salaries.
So tell me more about how much more a military member makes, those seem like normal salaries for comparable civilian jobs
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 17 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,234,052
@previous (H)
You left out all the things I mentioned above, like free housing, food, college and healthcare.
You can't compare a $50k private salary where most of your money ends up going to paying for the 4 things I just mentioned, and a $50k military salary where all of those are already covered under your total compensation and that $50k is free to spend on whatever you like.
That's before we get into all the other fringe benefits: discounted products at the base exchange, discounts offered at private business for military, better mortgage rates through the VA, tax writeoffs, fake disability benefits (just claiming you can't hear a beep during discharge), travel benefits, and many GI benefits that save a lot of cash.
Take it all together, and for doing the exact same job many people in the military get paid at least twice as much. Housing alone is the big one, many people spend more than half their income on housing, but that is paid for by the military.
If you actually try to take advantage of every program they offer, it's closer to 3x the pay.