President Joe Biden held a press event to brag about a major accomplishment this week. That itself is hardly surprising in an election year, but the boast itself was rather curious. In announcing the writing off of another $1.2 billion owed to the government in student loans, Biden gloated that the Supreme Court could not stop him from acting unilaterally to cancel the debt. For an Administration running on saving democracy from his political opponent, the chest-thumping brag that no one can stop him was a moment of impressive political dissonance.
Biden spoke at the Julian Dixon Library in Culver City, California and noted that his effort to cancel billions in debt was initially halted by the Supreme Court. It has also been opposed by many in Congress and polls show that the public is split on the idea with 47 percent in favor and 41 percent opposed. It is doubtful that the plan could ever make it through Congress.
So Biden, again, acted alone to write off a massive amount of debt owed to the public.
“Early in my term, I announced a major plan to provide millions of working families with debt relief for their college student debt. Tens of millions of people in debt were literally about to be canceled in debts. But my MAGA Republican friends in the Congress, elected officials and special interests stepped in and sued us. And the Supreme Court blocked it. But that didn’t stop me.”
Bragging that the courts cannot stop you is hardly a testament to the democratic process.
Biden has been found to have violated the Constitution with impunity in the past. This includes rulings that his administration has exceeded his authority and engaged in racial discrimination in federal programs. Indeed, Biden has often displayed a cavalier attitude toward such violations.
For example, the Biden administration was found to have violated the Constitution in its imposition of a nationwide eviction moratorium through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Biden admitted that his White House counsel and most legal experts told him the move was unconstitutional. But he ignored their advice and went with that of Harvard University Professor Laurence Tribe, the one person who would tell him what he wanted to hear. It was, of course, then quickly found to be unconstitutional.
Biden showed the same disregard over the unconstitutionality of his effort to unilaterally forgive roughly half a trillion dollars in student debt.
Recently, Biden blasted Trump for saying that he would be a dictator on the first day in taking unilateral action to close the border. (Trump later said it was a joke, but that he was promising immediate and decisive action on the border on his first day back in office).
Biden warned donors “he’s saying it out loud.” The irony is crushing since Biden has been repeatedly found to have violated the Constitution through similar unilateral actions using executive action. He is now bragging that not even the Supreme Court can prevent him from doing so on student debt.
The President is running on his claim that “democracy is on the ballot.” Yet, the no-one-can-stop-me boast makes him seem like the source and not the solution of the problem.
More Turley BS. First of all, the student loan debt that Biden is cancelling is for students: 1. who borrowed $12,000 or less; and 2. who have been making payments for at least 10 years. Per Bloomberg News: “Borrowers enrolled in the plan who initially took out $12,000 or less in federal loans and have made at least 10 years’ worth of payments qualify for their remaining balance to be forgiven. ”
Secondly, while the debts are guaranteed by the government, they are owned by debt purchasers. Turley is wrong in claiming that there is $1.2 billion owed to the government. That’s not how these loans work. Students borrow from a lending institution when in school to cover tuition, living expenses, books, etc, and the government pays the interest on the loan until the student either graduates or leaves school. That’s what’s “guaranteed”–interest payments. After that, if the student defaults, the interest is paid by the government, and the debt purchaser, (which is almost NEVER the original lender–these debts are bundled, purchased, sold and resold, often multiple times, by “investors”) can seize tax refunds, which are applied first to late charges and accrued interest–but not the principal balance. If tax refunds are insufficient to cover the accrued late fees and accrued interest, the remaining balance of late payments and accrued interest are added to the principal balance. And, this is how these the principal balance on these debts continue to grow–sometimes to astronomical amounts, which can make it impossible for many students to have any hope of paying off the loans. They also have little to no hope of buying a house or a good car, taking family vacations or being free of the worry of crushing debt. Their credit rating is dinged for at least 7 years. Most students who are in arrears on student loans are from families in which they are the first to attend college, and they are usually low-income. As Turley points out, most Americans support this debt forgivemess–but that’s not the point of today’s piece, which is to criticize Joe Biden for bragging about the SCOTUS not being able to stop him. Turley’s just a purchased mouthpiece assigned the task of undermining President Joe Biden.
If Turley wants to rail against a president flaunting the law, how on earth can he ignore Trump? Oh, wait! I think I know…..maybe he’s being paid to do so. And, as an incidental side note: the majority of former students benefitting from this program live in Texas.
. who borrowed $12,000 or less; and 2. who have been making payments for at least 10 years
Gigi is in the pool of the innumerates. Numbers mean nothing to this people. That’s why the are so easily fooled.
Gigi, sorry to tell you. There is absolutely no amount of help for a college graduate that cant pay off a $12,000 debt over 10 years. That’s $133 per month. If you cut your starbucks consumption in half, you got that covered. Or you can cut the term in half and make the payment 231 per month
$16500 vs 11500. difference for the two terms.
I can’t fix stupid, and it is clear the college has also failed miserably. But guess what. That worthless college degree is paid in full. The college has a real consumer fraud going on.
Again, if a college graduate cant figure this out (google ‘loan calculator’ and in 90 seconds these numbers are available to even the most innumerate College graduates) then getting a $12000 bail out is only going to exacerbate their life situation.
Student loans aren’t limited to those who graduated from college.
You must be a college graduate, because your comment is meaningless.
What kind of losers couldn’t pay back 12 grand in ten years??? Thats literally $100 a month plus interest.
Losers like Gigi, I guess.
“What kind of losers couldn’t pay back 12 grand in ten years??? Thats literally $100 a month plus interest.”
At first, I thought True! Then it hit me – this is Joe Biden’s economy, with inflation. Maybe the dear child could not pay back the $100 per month. . . 🙂
Gigi, the Soviet Democrat’s sophomoric stand in for Cringe Jean-Pierre assigned to lie about Professor Turley attempted this: “More Turley BS.”
This is the very same sophomoric Gigi who posted desperately to assure us the laptop belonging to The Bagman Formerly Known As The Crackhead Kid was “just Russian election disinformation”.
Because Gigi attempts to be a professional at dispensing Soviet Democrat BS and lies on command, does nothing to suggest she has the quality of honesty to pronounce that opinion pieces pointing out the corruption of her (its?) paymaster are in fact BS.
Gigi – if it isn’t just an amateurish attempt at AI – should sign an organ donor card so its parents can take some comfort in knowing Gigi contributed SOMETHING worthwhile at least once during her/its existence.
“Biden warned donors “he’s [Trump] saying it out loud.” The irony is crushing since Biden has been repeatedly found to have violated the Constitution through similar unilateral actions using executive action. He is now bragging that not even the Supreme Court can prevent him from doing so on student debt.“
**************
Deny, deny, deny and then, when caught red-handed, accuse your accuser of doing the same evil that you are doing. It’s a strategy of liars as old as time and the stock-in-trade of the American intelligence agencies adopted now by our political class. We urgently need a purge of these deceivers. Sometimes you need to cull the heard. Harsh but true since these folks are incorrigible. The farther anything strays from the truth the more corrupt it becomes.
What type of Government does the United States have, is it a democracy, totalitarian democracy, Kleptocracy, Kakistocracy or an Ochlocracy caused by the demagoguery of the American Democrat Party? I have come to the conclusion the American Left has chosen Ochlocracy as the ideal form of governmental structure. The Left rules by passion, oppression and tyranny, abandoning any semblance of adherence to written laws, moral codes, or care for the citizens of this great country [The United States of America]. One could argue that we are closer to a Partocracy (ruled by a singular political party) which I would say that used to be the case until the Democrats adopted Ochlocracy and a new form of Technocracy to enhance their utopian Ochlocracy more fitting for the 21st century, all the while utilizing a Synarchy (deep state) syndicates for control.
These dragons of despair and foolishness must be cast aside as they are the greatest danger to a proper functioning society.
God help us ALL!!!!
George W,
I had to look up a few of the -cracies you mention.
Well said and I think your assessment of a Partocracy and ochlocracy are closest to what we are witnessing.
These are the same people who would also be willing to destroy democracy to supposedly save it, when in reality it would be installing themselves as a totalitarian government.
That is the Democrat party for you.
Upstate I agree. Gw
Like gravity, most politicians gravitate to “unconstitutional authoritarianism” – attempting to exceed their constitutional authority.
The question for us voters is: is the ultimate goal a “constitutional rule of law system” or not? Do we want tribalism instead of a constitutional rule of law system?
Gun rights likely won’t survive in a tribalism system. Marriage equality may not survive in a tribalism system. Women’s rights may not survive in a tribalism system.
Politicians of both parties should support a constitutional rule of law system, since it benefits all of us.
Anon – exactly right. People who are tired of democracy’s messiness, or critical of a conservative majority on SCOTUS, and therefore want to ditch the system, should remember that what we have had is the exception to the rule in human history – most of which has been made up of a much harsher “tribalism system” as you put it. The rule of law is like a shield against that other, much more painful, way of organizing a society. In this regard it’s good to recall the classic snipped of dialogue in the play, A Man for All Seasons:
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
Is this not an impeachable violation of Biden’s oath of office in view of Supreme Court Decision? I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Dems only view SCOTUS decisions as inviolate when they allow abortion at will at any stage of pregnancy.
Last month, Texas Governor Abbott rejected the Supreme Court decision which sided with the Biden Administration to remove razor wire barriers at the border. If it’s an impeachable violation of Biden to ignore a SCOTUS decision, the same standard would clearly apply to Abbott ignoring a SCOTUS decision, right?
Do you have anything to say on the topic other than “whatabout that other guy”?
Besides which, the SCOTUS order did not direct Texas to do anything, so how is Abbot “ignoring” a SCOTUS order? The feds can cut razor wire, but it does not follow that Texas may not re-install it, or install it elsewhere.
SCOTUS vacated an order by the Fifth Circuit that, during the pendency of an ongoing lawsuit between the feds and the state, barred federal authorities from cutting concertina wire that Texas has installed in parts of its 1,254-mile border with Mexico. That is, the Supreme Court held that, for now, the lower courts may not prevent the federal authorities from dismantling barriers. How is that directing Texas to do anything? How is Texas doing anything unconstitutional?
From the Texas Tribune:
“The U.S. Supreme Court ordered Texas to allow federal border agents access to the state’s border with Mexico, where Texas officials have deployed miles of concertina wire. It effectively upholds longstanding court rulings that the Constitution gives the federal government sole responsibility for border security.
The 5-4 order from the Supreme Court vacated a previous injunction from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that prevented Border Patrol agents from cutting the concertina wire.”
Okay, so is Abbott supposedly not allowing the feds to access the state’s border? I thought there was no question that they could, it’s just that he also wants access to the border – perhaps not the same exact spot at the same exact time as the feds – which would not be precluded by the order, right?
If you’re going to claim Abbott is disobeying the actual SCOTUS order, wouldn’t you need to quote the order itself rather than a media report, which may be unreliable in terms of how it summarizes the SCOTUS order?
Here’s what the order says: Application (23A607) to vacate injunction presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is granted. The December 19, 2023 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, case No. 23-50869, is vacated.
So . . . what part of that order is Gov. Abbott defying?
As long as Gov. Abbott abides by the longstanding court rulings that the Constitution gives the federal government sole responsibility for border security, he won’t be defying any part of the SCOTUS order.
Can you name any such ruling that he is defying or potentially defying? Be specific: was it SCOTUS or a lower court? What case are you referring to?
It started with: “Texas Governor Abbott rejected the Supreme Court decision.”
Now the line is: “Abbott should abide by unnamed court rulings, from unnamed courts, and that way he won’t be defying the Supreme Court.”
I mean, can we just admit at this point that this is sea-lioning?
From the Texas Tribune:
“The U.S. Supreme Court ordered Texas to allow federal border agents access to the state’s border with Mexico,
The Texas Tribune lied. The supreme court made no such order. If it had, Abbott would have complied.
Biden didn’t ignore it. He figured out a way to abide by it while also accomplishing his goals.
Just like Trump didn’t ignore it when SCOTUS rejected his initial Muslim ban. He found a way to abide by it while also accomplishing his goals.
As soon as you say “Muslim ban” you lose credibility. It was not a Muslim ban, but a travel ban on several countries most at risk of sending us terrorists – including Venezuela and North Korea (yeah so many Muslims in North Korea, right?).
As soon as you say “SCOTUS rejected” the travel ban you lose all credibility, since SCOTUS upheld it in Trump v. Hawaii (2018).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
“As soon as you say “Muslim ban” you lose credibility.”
Trump’s the one who called it a “Muslim ban” and called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
As for Trump v Hawaii, that was Trump’s THIRD try, just like I said. The first two only included Muslim-majority countries (e.g., the first one rejected all non-American citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen — notice the absence of Venezuela and North Korea) and were rejected as unconstitutional.
Wait, so now whatever Trump calls something, that must be accurate? Well this is quite a change in outlook.
Yes he called it that, but he was wrong. As a purely factual matter, it simply wasn’t a Muslim ban. I’m going by the facts of the case, not what a politician says about it.
Trump’s the one who called it a “Muslim ban” and called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
Obama had the same goal and issued the exact same order
He didn’t. You lie once again.
@Anon
Yup. Apples are oranges, up is down – the sky is, in actual fact, green! Pfft. Try this with less informed people, you are a pox, and no one is listening to you. Give your bosses their dollars back. There is a reason people refer to you as ‘Anonymous The Stupid’. If the sh** fits, wear it; you are a bonafide runway model. 🙄🙄
Another cowardly Anonymous Soviet Democrat attempted a deflecting lie: “Last month, Texas Governor Abbott rejected the Supreme Court decision which sided with the Biden Administration to remove razor wire barriers at the border.”
That’s what Anonymous cowards Lyin’ Like A Proud Biden look like. If they didn’t have lies like this to deflect with, they’d have nothing to support Corrupt Bribery Joe.
SCOTUS actually ruled that Bribery Biden could remove razor wire barriers – they DIDN’T say that Governor Abbott couldn’t continue to put up razor wire even faster than Bribery Biden removed it. And that’s what this lying Anonymous Soviet Democrat is calling “rejecting the Supreme Court decision”. A decision that allowed not just Bribery Biden to do what he wanted to do, but also allows Governor Abbott to continue doing what he wants to do.
It’s a bit of an insult that Bribery Biden and the police state fascist Soviet Democrats send such low quality cowardly Anonymous liars here to pump out their BS and lies.
Of course, Cringe Jean-Pierre, Biden’s White House Spokesliar doesn’t set much of a standard for what an intelligent Soviet Democrat party liar should look like. Circle Back Psaki at least had some deflection and denying skills before leaving to be rewarded by the Marxist Media with a multi-million dollar contract.
Communists respect no Law. They have utter contempt for the Constitution and work to destroy it every day in every way.
No, it is not a violation. He is in full compliance with the law, or at least he claims to be and no court has yet said otherwise. He is not using the statute the court said he couldn’t use. The court didn’t and couldn’t order him not to cancel any more debt. So long as he has a statute he understands as authorizing him to do so, he is free to keep on doing so.
Sort of like when H.W. Bush changed the withholding of taxes, on American workers paychecks right before an election. Adding extra cash to each worker’s paycheck to make the economy appear stronger than it really was.
The following April, most workers were pissed at Bush since they now had to pay back the money not withheld.
H.W. Bush did this without the permission of Congress and without informing American workers that they would owe large tax bills after the election.
There was no change in their tax liability, so not a very similar action.
@Anon
Pbbbbbllt. 😝😝😝 Bush. Trump. Conservatives. Blah! 😝😝😝 You are trained like a Pavlovian dog. And yet you sing the praises of the likes of Liz Cheney. 😝😝😝 Genius. 😝😝
This sounds like Joe Biden’s “Let them Eat Cake” moment. We all know how that era turned out. The Democrats would have us believe that 1/6/21 was an insurrection but curiously people forgot to bring their weapons. If Joe keeps making such idiotic decisions and even worse statements, and treating his opponents as enemies of the state, then he may suffer his own Bastille Day. I think the French brought weapons to Storm the White House. Pardon me I meant to say “storm the Bastille”. One never knows. Joe Biden the absent-minded Autocrat. Or is Jill playing Louis XVl and Joe is Marie Antoinette. I am seriously confused who is playing who.
That is what I have been saying since the “Insurrection” theater first came out. Where were the guns???
Floyd,
Our simplistic leftist friends would have you believe there was an insurrection.
However, they fail to point out in order to have an insurrection, you needs things like a real organization on a large scale, a chain of command, command, control, communications, real actionable objectives, supply and support, and of course, firearms.
The FBI investigation found no firearms inside the Capitol building.
And there was clearly none of the rest of the things I mention.
There never was any real threat.
For a real example of something that looked a lot closer to an insurrection, see Biden’s disastrous withdraw and the Taliban retaking of Afghanistan.
Search the database for “firearm” and “weapon,” and you’ll find out: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
And look up the FBI report that there were NO firearms found INSIDE the Capitol building you simpleton.
Also, with the exception of Ashley Babbit getting shot, no other shots were fired.
And look at the means needed I mentioned above about what it takes for a insurrection to actually succeed. Cross reference that with the Taliban retaking Afghanistan.
Is this what you’re talking about: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/03/04/fact-check-fbi-says-bureau-didnt-recover-guns-capitol-riot/4578286001/
If so, you’ll find that your claim is wrong.
If not, present whatever you’re referring to instead of making me guess.
I’m done following your links. The NEVER support your lies,
All three had guns on the grounds or in their vehicles.
NO guns in Capitol no matter how many times you tell the lie.
You either truly have reading comprehension problems, or you just get off on moving the goalposts, or both. I said that the USA Today article showed that “the FBI report that there were NO firearms found INSIDE the Capitol building” was wrong. My claim is correct. There was no “FBI report” and the FBI never made any comprehensive study of whether any of the LEO’s (USCP, MPD) saw guns inside the Capitol.
And there were never guns found in the capitol. Despite you always desputing the fact
“with the exception of Ashley Babbit getting shot, no other shots were fired.”
Shots were fired outside by one of the rioters.
GEB – I prefer Marie. I mean, Kirsten Dunst is just so much better looking than any of the Bidens.
Well, since Turley mentions Biden’s claim that democracy on the ballot, let’s recap. We have the most successful and stable democratic system in history, yet last month Trump told a cheering rally crowd “This country is finished if we don’t win.” If you check the public record to see if Turley ever condemned Trump & his cheering supporters for proclaiming that our country is finished if Trump doesn’t win, you’ll sadly come up empty.
Democracy is on the ballot? Four weeks before Congress certified Biden’s Electoral College victory, 125 House Republicans signed onto a Texas lawsuit which attempted to invalidate millions of legal mail-in ballots in 4 states which Biden won. When the Supreme Court said the Texas lawsuit lacked merit, Trump called SCOTUS “totally incompetent and weak on the massive Election Fraud that took place in the 2020 Presidential Election. If we have corrupt elections, we have no country!”
Trump has spent the past 3 years attacking state election officials for certifying Biden’s victory after numerous recounts. Trump has been undermining trust in our elections for 8 years. Shortly after he was elected in 2016, he proclaimed Hillary Clinton received millions of illegal votes & he was the real winner of the popular vote.
Yet Turley only sets his sights on Biden for claiming democracy is on the ballot. God bless America, JT.
The Texas lawsuit was rejected for lack of standing to bring the suit, not on the merits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Pennsylvania
As for Trump’s rhetoric, which mirrors the Democrat’s rhetoric about an existential threat to “our democracy”, he, in contrast to the Democrats, may be correct. If he does not win, and if Democrats control both Houses of Congress, I can imagine a combined campaign of censorship, Lawfare (civil and criminal), advertising boycots, targeted riots, physical confrontations with and violence against conservatives, which will cripple the ability of the Republican Party to win another national election. If that happens, the country will cease to exist as a free country. We still are too naive about the evil of the leaders of the Democratic Party and their media/academic allies.
Edward, you forgot the end of the filibuster, the nationalization of federal elections, i.e. no voter ID laws, universal mail in ballots etc etc, 5 new Justices and 2 new states.
MAGA influencer Jack Posobiec as CPAC: “Welcome to the end of democracy! We’re here to overthrow it completely. We didn’t get all the way there on January 6th, but we will endeavor to get rid of it and replace it with this [the goals of CPAC] right here.”
A reminder that any country where ultimate power is held by the people is a democracy. He wants to end that. We are both a democracy and a republic: https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/19/the-u-s-is-both-a-republic-and-a-democracy/
Golly gee wiz, that sounds just like being a DICTATOR to me!!!
If the US tax slaves, otherwise known as “CitiZens, are forking over $1B/day in INTEREST to the Global Central Banksters what’s another $1B to relieve some stress on said CityZens? I mean, it is a leap year…
Who wants to become the dictator now?
Trump.
Dems feign the love of “democracy” but, when given the chance, as we’ve seen with Biden and Obama, they love autocratic dictates and creating policy by executive fiat. Before you start your claims about Trump using executive actions, most of his were to undo ill-advised previous executive actions. After initially saying only Congress had the authority and power to do it, Obama illegally created DACA, and largely got away with it. He even bragged about it. At least, we now have a SCOTUS that will partially reign in Biden’s lust for imposing his will on the American public completely independent of any congressional action.
Who has the authority to do something about Biden disobeying the Supreme Court?
Voters?
He isn’t.
The Biden admin.
The MOST un-Constitutional admin ever.
And Biden’s criticism of Trump is that Trump was a “threat to democracy” as an authoritarian dictator who exceeded authority and broke laws???? Wow.
Lin,
Well said.
This is the admin that said they would bring back all those norms Trump broke!
Exactly. Projection at its worst.
Amazingly enough NOBODY has done anything to stop the constitutional violations. Words on paper and mean letters do nothing. President(s) are lawless as are all the “in it for myself” crowd we call the Senate and the House that were elected to serve their constitutes!
Well thank you Biden.
You just proved people can agree to take on debt, then whine and cry about it and you will forgive them in exchange for their vote, and leave the rest of us to pay for their debt.
Those of us who choose not to go to college, who worked hard, saved our money, stayed out of debt of any kind as much as possible, get to pay for your bribery.
“Those of us who choose not to go to college, who worked hard, saved our money, stayed out of debt of any kind as much as possible, get to pay for your bribery.” — UpstateFarmer
As do those of us who repaid our student loans…
Upstate: And that is what makes you a VESTED and valued person in America, whose opinion counts. (And yes to Anonymous @9:53, who added “As do those of us who repaid our student loans…”
But I do not think that any of us is going to repay what has been forgiven. The increase in debt will just sit there, and next year, there will be another few trillion added to the debt. Same as with the interest on the debt. It will just sit there, and we will issue new bonds to replace the expired bonds, like transferring the balance on one credit card to a new card. Look Ma! I paid off my Chase credit card! Ma, if she is sensible, asks how? Then Junior says, “I put it on my new Capital One card.
Coinicidentally, I listened to this the other day, and the preacher was talking about the same thing back in the late 60s, early 70s. I found this for my neighbors, who have been getting revived for going on two weeks now.
I meant to add to this, that the balance will keep getting bigger, and the interest will be more and more, and inflation will increase, and one day, the whole scheme will stop working. Because there won’t be any takers on the debt, unless it is at junk bond interests rates, and then not even that.
Floyd,
There is that, the debt that Biden just increased with his attempt at bribery.
Be funny if all those people who got their debt paid off by me, S. Meyer and all those others either did not take on college debt or paid their off, voted for Trump.
If I did not know any better, I would say the Biden admin and the DNC were trying to accelerate the collapse of America that much faster.
I wonder sometimes. You know, like when your kids are begging you to discipline them.
Yes, Upstate, I stand with you in the trenches. My marriage started in a slum. We saved and paid for our children’s private schools, universities, and graduate schools, though it kept us counting pennies. When all the children left, we maintained that type of lifestyle, believing it best (except for business leverage purposes) to be debt-free.
Now I am asked to pay for someone’s frat parties? Did I make a mistake? Should I have taken out loans for my children and my lifestyle and then gone bankrupt? Like you, I have had enough of this cr-p.
And it is not just school loans where decent people get stiffed. Has anyone here applied for a new job recently? There is a form, I-9, that you have to fill out, with two forms of acceptable ID. There are criminal penalties if you don’t. What about millions of illegal aliens? They don’t have to. The law does not apply to them.
And I say this, as someone who believes school loans should be forgiven across the board, and the whole school loan program scrapped in its entirety. Education cost will drop dramatically, and like in the Good Old Days, you can pay for college with a part-time job. Particularly when so many classes are on line, and don’t even have to go to class.
Would this be fair? No, not in the least. Responsible people paid their loans back. But I think the country is in trouble and needs to massively deleverage. Consider the Seisachtheia. (No, that is not a Joe Biden imaginary word.)
“Overall, these reforms paint a picture of an unpleasant situation. Most people then were subsistence-level farmers, and on top of that some or all of them found themselves saddled with debt that they had no way of escaping. And, to be clear, they found themselves in that situation because the rules had been set up to allow that to happen. It was legal to loan money using people’s future income and their very bodies as security for the loan. It was also legal to loan money to people who had no reasonable means of ever paying the sum back.
Seisachtheia literally means “shaking off of burdens”. It refers to a series of reforms of the early 6th century BCE in Athens and the surrounding countryside that were pushed through by the politician Solon (who lived c. 630–560 BCE). However, no one knows for sure quite what those reforms were. The two main elements were probably these: first, the Seisachtheia ended the practice whereby people could be sold into slavery for non-payment of debts; second, it abolished a serfdom system in which some or all farmers were compelled to pay one sixth of their harvest to the local big man. Those smaller farmers were known as the hektemoroi (“sixth-parters”). The ancient sources also talk about a general debt cancellation in Athens, and a limit on personal wealth, but both of these are today viewed as unlikely.[1]
https://antigonejournal.com/2022/01/solon-seisachtheia/
I have read in other places that so many people were deported to Greek colonies to work off the debt, that the life of the city was suffering.
“And I say this as someone who believes school loans should be forgiven across the board and the whole school loan program scrapped in its entirety.”
Floyd, forgiving loans is the first time we disagree, but I will say the government has no business being involved. Free frequently causes people to discount the value of something.
Charity is not well understood by many, so I suggest people read Maimonides’s levels of charity. I would end all 501 C3 foundations, tax deductions to universities and most other places. I was asked by an associate who had difficulty paying for his educaytion if I would help contribute to a foundation that would pay for the education of others. I said I would and that I would give triple the amount, but all those in the group benefiting from the money would be responsible for paying that money back, along with some to pay it forward, increasing the number of people helped. He refused such a provision because he didn’t understand charity, and his object was to feel good about himself. If the schooling helped him earn more money than others, then he should be willing to part with a portion of the increased income he wouldn’t have had.
There is a form, I-9, that you have to fill out, with two forms of acceptable ID. There are criminal penalties if you don’t. What about millions of illegal aliens? They don’t have to. The law does not apply to them.
That isn’t true. They are subject to the exact same law. They have been issued ID that is acceptable for the I-9
After taking a short course discussing the arguments put forward for and against the Federalist’s reasoning behind their push for a strong central government and the cautions against structuring our constitution in such a manner, I do believe the anti-Federalists were spot on in their wariness of a strong central government. Hamilton was dead wrong and so was Madison in that they did not consider great unwashed and uneducated, landless voters overwhelming the polls and electing tyrants who would provide them with bread and circuses in exchange for their votes. We are at that tipping point, my friends, and we had better act quickly.
OT, re: the Alabama ruling that extrauterine embryos (e.g., frozen embryos) are “children,” thereby allowing wrongful deaths suits when they’re accidentally destroyed or even murder cases if they’re purposefully destroyed …
1 of every 65 live births in Alabama was the result of IVF in 2022. But three of the state’s four IVF clinics have already announced they’re halting all IVF treatments.
Next thing you know, the state will demand that all IVF embryos be implanted or put up for “adoption.”
And then they’ll come for birth control. God forbid that women enjoy recreational sex as much as men.
Lol at such nonsense. Nobody is “coming for birth control”.
Places like the conservative Heritage Foundation are trying to pretend that it’s “feminist,” but it isn’t.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/the-heritage-foundation_it-seems-to-me-that-a-good-place-to-start-activity-7068300106462081025-vpzs
“Lol at such nonsense.” Nobody is “coming for birth control”.”
I am going to disagree with you on that. It may be a few more years, but I bet governments will move to end both birth control and abortion. And the whole “gay is great!” nonsense. They will have to, or their populations will reduce to the point where they are easy pickings for other nations where men are men, and women are women, and as a result, they need Lebensraum.
I predict this will happen in non-Western countries first, like Japan, and then spread to Western countries. Because the immutable facts of life are, each woman has to have 2.2 babies under normal death rates to sustain a population. Period. Go below that, and your population declines. The debt to person ratio goes up. The population pool for replacement workers go down. The social security type safety net features become unaffordable. True, immigration can solve some of the immediate problems, but Japan wants to be Japanese. Not Chinese, not Kurdish, not African.
What the Woke Left does not realize, is that all the power they have been vesting in government, is going to one day bite them in the a$$. They will become the societal pariahs that they have always been. Countries need real men and real women who make real babies. Countries do not need self-indulgent perverts, freaks, and silly narcissists. And governments will turn on them.
So, I look for birth control to be available for women who have had three kids. I look for sex dolls and manga sexual-assault magazines to be outlawed. I look for things to return to a state, whether a woman is required to be a good wife and mother, as opposed to the marketing director for some silly product.
If only there was some religion that said you should not be promiscuous, and that you should leave your mother and father and go get married. And that you should not have sex with people of your own sex. And that you should love one another, and not just use them to get a tingle.
Glad to know that you don’t believe in equal rights.
What you call “equal rights” has not worked. That legislation was passed to make life better, and fairer. That was the THEORY. At that time, I was a young man, married with one child. I was paid more because I was a married man with a family. After that, wages went down, it seemed like, by not keeping up with inflation.
But, I want you to think about this. Assume 2 countries border each other. Both are normal with a good family structure, and similar sized populations. Let’s say that both are patriarchal. Then Country B gets taken over politically by a Liberal/Left party. Country B legalizes homosexuality to be fair. Country B begins to pay safety net money to women, who have children and are unmarried, to be fair and just. Country B passes Equal Pay laws. Country B changes its divorce laws, so that women can leave a marriage easier if they choose. Country B activists preach that women are the same as men, and anything a man can do, so can a woman. Including sex, smoking cigarettes, and being promiscuous. Country B legalizes abortion, and to stay in power, the leadership of the Liberal/Left party encourages a minority in the country, to view themselves as victims of oppression. They even begin to do away with educational standards. Criminals are treated lighter, and not often executed. The military, though large, has become infested with twinks and trannies. Religion is discouraged, and people are taught meaningless relationships are cool, and God is silly, and you are here on Planet Earth to pretty much do whatever you like?
Over time, the population of Country B has a slower birth rate. It costs more to live, because more money is given to the social problem-causing class. Prison, drug programs, food programs. You name it. The people become narcissistic, and immature. They become stupid, and addicted to welfare, victimhood, and pleasure seeking. They have been taught to hate their own country in the process. Many young people cannot multiply 15 x 4 and get the right answer.
So here is my question? How long before Country A, with a growing population, and very few of the social problems of Country B, and needing land and resources, just says screw it, and invades. How long after that, does Country A execute the useless members of that society, or flatly enslave them? How long after that do all the “fair and just” programs disappear? And how long before the survivors of Country B, rejoice in that?
How long after that, do the Liberal/Left in our country begin to doubt their own versions of all that Country B stuff? I can answer that question – NEVER.
“What you call “equal rights” has not worked.”
Yes and no. It’s better than it was: women earn more than they did (though still less than men), women can leave abusive marriages and marital rape is now illegal, etc. But it’s not yet where it needs to be, and arguably there’s greater equality in some other countries than in the US.
As for your imaginary world, you can imagine whatever you wish, and that imagined world will be as you wish, because it’s your imagination. But you’ve made things up that don’t reflect reality. For example, “Country B begins to pay safety net money to women, who have children and are unmarried, to be fair and just” doesn’t reflect reality the US. In the US, some single women (with or without children) get safety net $ and others support themselves. In the US, some single men (with or without children) get safety net $ and others support themselves. In the US, some poor married couples (with or without children) get safety net $ and others support themselves. And so forth for the rest of your imagined scenario (more than 3/4s of the population is religious, …).
“infested with twinks and trannies”
Wow. I truly feel sorry for you that this is how you think about people: as an infestation. And I feel even sorrier for LGBT people who have to deal with you. Have you ever in your life even knowingly spoken with a trans person? If not, you should.
But it’s not yet where it needs to be, and arguably there’s greater equality in some other countries than in the US.
But still, people from over 160 nations are breaking their neck to get to the evil United States before Jan 2025. Because then the freebies end for illegals
No, people from countries where there’s greater equality than in the US are not “breaking their neck to get to the … United States.”
And those traveling around the globe to get here, would go to those better countries.
First, let me apologize to you for not responding sooner. I have been pre-occupied today, and on the wrong thread. I do wish that you would get a user name besides Anonymous, because it would be easier to find you and distinguish you from some of the shills.
Now, my point was, that things we take for granted, as good, often because the word sounds warm and fuzzy, have another side to them. Equal pay for women, for example. If the choice was, lower pay for a single woman in 1955 versus equal pay for a single young woman in 2024, it looks simple. More money in the budget is better! And it’s fair! But what if the woman in 1955, who was not doing that well financially, got married, had kids and ended up relatively happy, all things considered. That, versus a single woman in 2024, who will never get married, never have kids, yet is able to buy groceries and a new car. And, is on Wellbutrin, and smokes pot and drinks too much, and is over-weight to some degree, and has shallow relationships with men. Was the lack of incentive to get married a good thing for her, as opposed to the girl from 1955?
That is a matter of opinion. With hindsight, I would say no. You might say yes. But the point of Equal Pay, was to make society better. That was the theory. Did it really work? I say no. I do not see how the country could have ever avoided trying it, because again, it sounds good and it sounds fair. It just didn’t work, in my opinion. And that genie is not going back in that bottle. You see, the marginalized people talk about “lived experiences.” Well, I have lived those experiences. I remember when my mother was a stay at home mom. As a family, we ate better, and we had time for things. We were not always rushed, and trying to make up for chores that needed to be done. Then, when I was older, my mom went back to school, and got a job. I have also lived the both parents working thing, and stress was pretty much a constant.
As far as some people being an “infestation.” Yes, I do think that way. And I am not ashamed of it. Have you seen those pictures of the plank people in Philadelphia? How about the druggies in San Fran? I have sympathy for a woman who has one child out of wedlock. I have sympathy or use for a woman who has four born out wedlock. The military has always been a place for masculine gay men, and masculine women. They kept quiet and did their job. I can respect that, But you can’t throw the military open to the sissy gays, and men who want to be women, and non-binary clowns with pink hair. That is going to end badly if we get into a drawn out war with a major power. That is my opinion. YMMV.
@Floyd
Your comments are generally well thought out, but no, not bloody likely. No one is ‘coming for birth control’. You took a step a wee bit too far.
We’ll see. It won’t happen here for a while, and my money is on Japan to be the first. Look at this:
“TOKYO (AP) — Japan’s birth rate declined for a seventh consecutive year in 2022 to a record low of 1.26, the Health Ministry said Friday, adding to a sense of urgency in a country where the government is seen as too slow to take measures to address its rapidly shrinking and aging population.
The average number of children a woman gives birth to in her lifetime fell to 1.26 in 2022 from 1.30 a year earlier, tying the record low from 2005, according to the annual population statistics. The fertility rate is far below the rate of 2.06 -2.07 considered to be needed to maintain a population.
Japan’s population of more than 125 million has been declining for 16 years and is projected to fall to 87 million by 2070. A shrinking and aging population has huge implications for the economy and for national security as Japan fortifies its military to counter China’s increasingly assertive territorial ambitions.”
===============
I think there were like 80,000 births there last year, and like 1.6 million deaths. They are hemorrhaging people. There were about 125,000 abortions, which all by itself can not stem the losses. They got to outlaw the pill, and condoms, unless a woman has already had 3 or 4 children.
Yes, it would be terrible if our global population of over 8B were to grow more slowly.
Global population clock: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Births per day are more than double deaths per day.
The system mistakenly marked the above comment as spam. Restored
Global population continues to grow: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
How awful that’s it’s growing more slowly. /s
Here’s the growth over the last 3 centuries and anticipated growth through 2100, where it’s expected to level off at ~10B:
https://info.nicic.gov/ces/sites/info.nicic.gov.ces/files/Worldometer.png
The system mistakenly marked the above comment as spam. Restored
Thanks!
Sorry for the duplicate, I figured I’d try a second time when the first one didn’t post.
no worries.
Absolutely. Women have shirked their responsibilities entirely.
It is a necessary thing if there is going to be a human population on Earth. Personally, if we went from 8 billion people down to 4 billion, and then things leveled out, then the biggest problem would be the distribution. If, out of that 4 Billion, 2 Billion are Chinese, and 25 million are Japanese, and half of that number is over 65 – well only a narrow stretch of ocean separates the two countries. And how long before China says, “What a nice island you guys have! and out goes the Chinese Navy.
And remember, if China can institute a One Child Policy, then they could institute a Three Child Policy, or more.
But we’re at 8B and growing: worldometers.info/world-population (I’ve tried posting this twice and it hasn’t gone through, so I’m omitting the beginning of the URL, but this is enough to find the site and see how the population is changing in real time).
And we’re not even expected to even off til 2100:
https://info.nicic.gov/ces/sites/info.nicic.gov.ces/files/Worldometer.png
I do not doubt your numbers. But like I asked earlier, does Japan want to become not-Japan? And the distribution matters. Those numbers I gave you on Japan – 125 million now, going down to 80 million in 2070. Only 80,000 births per year, and 1.6 million deaths. That’s 20 to 1, dying over being born. And, 125,000 abortions per year. Outlaw abortions, and now you have 200,000 births, and still 1.6 million deaths. Now you are at 8 to 1 deaths over births, which is still fatal to Japan.
And as you point out, if the world population is still growing, then Japan just becomes weaker vis a vis other nations.
I predict that a leader will emerge in Japan to turn that around, or there will not be a Japan. My question is, how bad does it have to get before that leader emerges?
“to turn that around”
Floyd, you probably are aware that Orban of Hungry has been pushing to help families and increase Hungary’s fertility rate. It is too early to know if those measures work, especially since the curves are not cooperative, but there has been a slow recent increase. Is it meaningful? Who knows.
@SMeyer
I hope they work. Orban seems to have good sense, and the rest of the EU leaders are giving him heck for it.
“125 million now, going down to 80 million in 2070. Only 80,000 births per year, and 1.6 million deaths”
Those numbers don’t reconcile, so I looked it up, and it’s ~800K births per year, not 80K.
“does Japan want to become not-Japan?”
Maybe. It wouldn’t be the first society to collapse historically.
“Most House Republicans have cosponsored a bill declaring that life begins from the moment of conception, a position under increased scrutiny after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are “unborn children.” This Congress, 125 House Republicans — including Speaker Mike Johnson — have cosponsored the “Life at Conception Act,” which states that the term “human being” includes “all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.” The bill does not include any exception for in vitro fertilization (IVF), a reproductive treatment that allows mothers to fertilize several eggs outside the womb in order to increase the chances of a viable pregnancy. Several healthcare providers in Alabama have already halted IVF programs in the wake of the ruling, given that IVF treatments may include the discarding of fertilized eggs, which may now violate the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. …”
https://www.businessinsider.com/house-republicans-life-at-conception-ivf-exception-2024-2
This is what’s being described as “children”:
http://adventuresinfatherland.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/3day_embryos.jpg
Not only might IVF treatments “include the discarding of fertilized eggs,” but many embryos die prior to implantation, and now doctors think they might be at risk of wrongful death suits for those natural deaths. It’s not as if a dead embryo can be assessed by a coroner to determine whether or not the death was a natural death. Are they going to employ geneticists to determine whether the embryo has fatal genetic anomalies?
Will Wilkinson:
“The “Great Replacement” folks really have themselves in a corner when they start signing on to bills that would ban medical procedures used almost entirely by white people to create white babies. There’s a big tension here between the “restore patriarchy” and “restore white supremacy” programs.”
Enjoying “recreational sex” as you so put it in a pedestrian sort of manner, also requires some forethought into BIRTH CONTROL on both parties part and if you are not capable of that, perhaps a blow up doll or a good vibrator should be your choice for such recreation. In this day there really isn’t a very good excuse for an unwanted pregnancy unless it was an accident or a rape (which is a very small percentage of pregnancies)
Again: there’s a call among some conservatives that birth control is bad because sex is intended for procreation. There are people arguing against the easy availability of birth control, as well as current discussion of outlawing specific kinds of birth control like IUDs.
There is a call by some liberal that abortion should be allowed 30 days after birth.
Nonsense.
It’s actually called for up to 3 years old, where the purveyors finally admit a sort of “person” exists.
It is not conservatism alone that wonders why so many “educated” young women find themselves impregnated when a simple selection of many birth control options were always available. I used birth control of various sorts throughout my marriage until the time was right for having children, it can be done. But women who just want to jump into bed for fun and don’t plan ahead are not bright enough to hold any job of significance beyond burger flipper or house cleaner. Feminism did nothing but highlight the various potential faults of women rather than prove them “capable” (all you have to do is take a daily scan of all the female politicians in hot water because they haven’t the common sense that G-d gave a donkey. If abortion is your fallback method of birth control you are a sorry excuse for a woman.
Not all men and women are “educated,” nor are all of them responsible.
“I used birth control of various sorts throughout my marriage until the time was right for having children”
Great. Know that some conservatives do not want that easily available. For ex., “House Bill 3216, also known at the Oklahoma Right To Human Life Act, would overhaul how the state handles the few legal abortions it allows, creates a database within the Oklahoma State Department of Health that would track which women have abortions and how many they’ve had, would require doctors to submit written justification of an abortion under oath, moves some contraceptives currently available over the counter to needing physician approval, and restricts certain uses of intrauterine devices (IUDs).”
All forms of birth control sometimes fail. Women and girls are sometimes raped. Women and girls sometimes develop pregnancy complications, or have miscarriages that require care that’s also used for elective abortions, or learn that their fetuses have been diagnosed with fatal abnormalities.
“Feminism did nothing but highlight the various potential faults of women …”
Yeah, who cares about things like equal pay, or being able to sue when you’ve experienced sex discrimination, etc.?
Sorry, forgot to provide a link for the quote: https://www.fox23.com/news/new-abortion-bill-would-also-restrict-contraceptives-iuds-and-create-an-abortion-database/article_16657b96-cba7-11ee-99fd-032cd643a12c.html
The good part of being a Federal Republic of States is that a certain state can legislate such items, just as imprudent states such as NY or CA legislate that illegals can vote. If you do not like what a particular state advocates you are free to move to a state that offers better options (hence the mass exoduses from states such as CA and NY) or you can elect officials that offer what you prefer. Using such a strawman argument is a sign of either desperation or willful ignorance. Our error, in the history of this nation, was our straying from the Federal Republic status to one of overwhelming Federal control of all state matters. I blame firstly Hamilton and secondly Lincoln – neither were friends of the Republic but were advocates for an overwhelming central government with a trajectory of executive reach far beyond what the anti-federalists warned about.
So it’s OK if some states come after birth control, got it.
If you are the same anonymous that I was discussing pair bonding and female unhappiness with, – I could not respond to your complaint about the cites I gave. It was too deep into the thread. So, here. The point is, those cites were for your benefit, to get you started researching those ideas. Because it seemed to me like you had never heard of those things. I was not trying to “prove” something to you, because time. Because energy. Because who knows if you are amenable to new ideas. Personally, I never did rely on a study to reach my opinion that high body equated to pair bonding problems, for women even more than men. To me, when I first encountered those ideas, on youtube, it was intuitive and self-evident, because that is what I have seen over the years. That the girls who sleep around, just keep sleeping around, and the more they do, the more problems they have being with one person. It is that way with other bad habits, and bad behavior tends to get repeated. Any relationship is difficult and no matter how much you love someone, or they love you, there are going to be problems. The high-body count people have been there before, and what happened – they left and went to a new person. That has become their habit. Common sense to me.
In summary, if you are interested, and if you are the kind of person who needs a “study” to validate your opinion on something like this, keep on researching. I am sure you can find studies and cites which you approve, if not believe.
Yes, I’m the same person. I’ve worked as a researcher, and the things that seem intuitively true aren’t always true in actuality. Also, correlation isn’t causality (e.g., it could be that difficulty pair-bonding with anyone leads the person not to marry and also to have lots of partners, rather than having lots of partners creating difficulty pair-bonding, or perhaps there’s something else going on). Are you familiar with that expression (correlation isn’t causality)? It’s important in research. And the first graph in the second video shows that there’s not significantly different happiness in marriage for people who’ve never had other partners and for people who’ve had many partners, so the situation is clearly not as cut-and-dried as you’re suggesting.
“who knows if you are amenable to new ideas. ”
If I weren’t, I wouldn’t have chased down what turned out to be a 1-pager and a blog column, thinking that they were studies. You think that someone who isn’t amenable to new ideas spends time doing that?
I have also heard that you do not have causality without correlation. But that doesn’t matter to me. I do not require a scientific study as a precondition to me believing most things. More often than not, correlation provides plenty of basis. Not to mention, that when it comes to social-type studies, I am not sure science is the first place to look, much less a source of great knowledge. Once they get past counting numbers, then things become more subjective. And, has the Left side of the spectrum used science to believe that there are such things as trans kids? Not that I am aware of. In fact, the classification of such, was deemed a mental disorder prior to being grabbed by the activists. Science is great, and studies are great at determining the half-life of a material. But, on “does have a high-body count negatively impact a woman’s ability to pair-bond?” – but I am not looking to science. I have lived almost 70 years, so I prefer my own observations. And like you noted, perhaps there is some underlying mental condition (like border-line personality disorder) that causes a woman to have pair-bonding problems, and a high body count is the result, not the cause. Whichever, there is going to be correlation. And most people do not wish to marry someone with serious mental issues.
Speaking of Borderline Personality Disorder – how do you diagnose it? Here is how!
A licensed mental health professional—such as a psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker—can diagnose borderline personality disorder A licensed mental health professional—such as a psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker—can diagnose borderline personality disorder (BPD) based on a thorough evaluation of a person’s symptoms, experiences, and family medical history.
See, they look at their experiences. It’s observational in that sense.
Now assume, that someone did a well-structured study, and they discovered that women with high-body counts, had just as happy, long term marriages as other women. And they got there just by counting numbers, such as body count in actual numbers, years being married, etc. Even then, I would doubt the conclusions because, it is my experience, that most women lie about the number of partners they have had. That would tend to over-present the number of “low body count” women, and thus many failed relationships, because of high-body count would be under-counted.
And I have also observed over the years, that people tend to repeat their behaviors, good or bad. For example, you want to hire a housekeeper, and Sally applies. Sally was fired from her last three jobs for being late, doing a lousy job, and ripping off laundry detergent. Do you hire her? No. Do you have to do a scientific study to give you a reason? No. So, say your son comes to you, and introduces Sue “Runaround Sue” Jones. Your son says, Dad, Sue has been with a lot of men over her life, maybe a hundred or so, but I think she is ready to settle down, and make me a good wife!
What do you do? Do you consult a study, to see how likely this is? Or, do you say, “Son, if she has been thru that many relationships, then you need to stay away from her. Either the men in her life have dumped her, or she has dumped them, but whichever, she does not seem to be the type of girl that you want to take out a 30-year mortgage on a home with. Son, she may have an underlying problem, like BPD, or she may just enjoy the thrill of the chase (like my friend Jezebel), but whatever she is probably not a keeper.”That is what you are going to tell your son, because of the high body count.
“when it comes to social-type studies, I am not sure science is the first place to look, much less a source of great knowledge.”
Scientific studies (including social scientific studies) may have weaknesses, but to know that, you have to read a study and assess it. In terms of odds, if one is making a society-wide claim, then I think scientific studies are more likely to be a good basis for conclusions than anecdotal evidence (personal stories). You may have a different opinion about that.
“Once they get past counting numbers, then things become more subjective.”
Anecdotes are also subjective.
“it is my experience, that most women lie about the number of partners they have had”
How would you establish that? You’d have to have some external means of determining the actual number. Do you spy on them in their bedrooms? (Joking, but it’s hard for me to imagine that you have actual evidence of them lying about it vs. having a belief that they’re lying about it.)
As for Sue who has been with 100 men, your original claim was “once a woman has had more than a few men, she loses her ability to pair bond.” There’s a big difference between “more than a few” and 100, so you’re moving the goalposts. And I doubt that a man who has had a 100 partners is going to settle down either. But it’s not because I think the number of partners is itself causal. Rather, I’d think that there’s an underlying issue.
That is nothing but the truth. Having sex, just for fun, has ruined many lives. And frankly, once a woman has had more than a few men, she loses her ability to pair bond. Because there is nothing special about the act anymore, outside of a physical tingle.
Is it fair that a woman can not have recreational sex like a man? No, not in a Cosmic Sense, but the point is, the Old way worked. I think most polls show women are not as happy as they were back in the June Cleaver days. Think of all the women on anti-depressants and pot.
And the other side of the “fun” gig, is that men are choosing “fun” over marriage. Why marry some chick, who is going to nag at you all the time, spend your money, and give you a child that you have to take care of for the next 18 or so years? And then, divorce you after 7 years, take half your stuff, and leave you struggling to make ends meet. And, screw up your child to boot.
That is what the “me” generation did with their immature narcissism.
“once a woman has had more than a few men, she loses her ability to pair bond.”
What bunk. And how nice of you to say this about women but not claim it of men.
“the Old way worked.”
It didn’t work for a lot of women.
“I think most polls show women are not as happy as they were back in the June Cleaver days.”
Present one.
“Why marry some chick, who is going to nag at you all the time, spend your money, and give you a child that you have to take care of for the next 18 or so years? And then, divorce you after 7 years, take half your stuff, and leave you struggling to make ends meet. And, screw up your child to boot.”
What a nice view of men and women you have.
I would tell you to do your own research, but you wouldn’t. And if you did, you would find some reason to not believe it. So, for other people, who are not like you, here is one link. There are gazillions more. I could also offer you my own testimony, because I was born in the 1950s, and have lived thru the changes. But you would not want to listen, and if you did, you would not learn. Anyway:
“Only a little more than half (58.6%) of respondents said yes. What’s interesting, though, is the people who said yes also tend to be among the least happy and fulfilled. In survey after survey, it turns out that people who espouse a secular worldview, people who identify as liberals, and people who never attend religious services report the lowest levels of personal satisfaction, but they also report the highest levels of support for feminist ideals. Indeed, as feminism’s influence has grown over the past half century, women have become less happy
In 1963, Betty Friedan was writing about “the problem that had no name.” But women’s problems in the 21st century can absolutely be named. More often, they are trying to raise children on their own, which can be exhausting even with financial resources. They are sexually liberated, but that often means they are going from one relationship to another without any sense of financial security or emotional stability. And while many are no doubt fulfilled in their careers, a lot of them actually enjoy raising children, but they can’t spend the bulk of their time doing this, thanks to financial exigencies and society’s expectations.
Friedan noticed in her day that some housewives were being prescribed “happy pills” to get them through the day. But according to the most recent statistics, one in five women between 40 and 59 are taking antidepressants. They are more than twice as likely to be on these drugs than men. Maybe feminism has lost its mystique.
https://nypost.com/2022/10/29/why-60-years-of-feminism-has-not-made-women-any-happier/
As far as pair bonding vis a vis high body count, here is a good start:
So by your own poll, when asked “All things considered, has feminism benefited American families?,” a majority answered “yes.” And if you look at the analysis of the answers by sex, you’ll find that women responded “yes” at a higher rate: 64.9%. Fewer men are happy with feminism. Quelle surprise.
She claims “the people who said yes also tend to be among the least happy and fulfilled … as feminism’s influence has grown over the past half century, women have become less happy,” but she provides no evidence for it. She links to an American Family Survey report, but if you search on “happy,” there is no question with that word. And questions with “satisfied” or other similar word don’t ask if people are satisfied (or more satisfied) with their lives. The odd thing is that the document she linked to doesn’t include the question “All things considered, has feminism benefited American families?,” so I’m wondering where she got the data for it, and what other questions are missing from the report she linked to.
Do YOU have evidence for “the people who said yes also tend to be among the least happy and fulfilled … as feminism’s influence has grown over the past half century, women have become less happy”? If so, please present it, so that I can learn from it.
“you would not want to listen, and if you did, you would not learn.”
You’re lying about me once again. You seem to be fond of that. You apparently wish to believe things about me that aren’t true, perhaps because you find them more to your liking than the truth.
As for the video, the “study” he refers to isn’t a study. It’s a 1 page discussion written by “Medical Institute Science Department Staff” (no authors identified), where its page on the MIS website leads to a “page not found” error: https://www.medinstitute.org/articles/pair-bonding-and-the-brain/ (I was able to find a copy elsewhere: archive.ph/t39jt#selection-403.0-403.42), and the only footnote that deals with humans rather than other animals does not support the conclusions (that study deals with the evolution of brain size). As you can see, I look things up because I’m open to learning. Care to present an actual study that supports your claim? If you do, I’ll learn from it.
Prove me wrong. Learn from it:
https://stageinthesky.files.wordpress.com/2022/11/stats-sexual-partners-2.png
Let me add, what you can do with the pair bonding issue on a scientific basis, is count numbers. That is pretty much it. But beyond that is some common sense, and observation. The more a person does a thing, the more they get used to it. Oh, your first autopsy? Puke vomit hurl! Your 20th autopsy? Hey, can I have some of that pizza?
When you get used to leaving relationships, or being left, then you get used to it. Simple as that. I have seen it with my own eyes numerous times. I could tell you stories, and you would never believe them.
As far as the Happiness Factor, there are multiple studies out there. The one I gave you, if you read it properly, is that the women who believe in feminist stuff, a majority, are less happy. That is a common finding, and you can find those on your own. Here is another stat one for you:
Re: the slide …
First, when you present an image but do not say where it’s from, it’s impossible to learn about the sample, questions, whether there was any attempt to address potentially confounding factors (e.g., the role of age at first sexual activity, rape), how “stable” marriage is defined, etc. Can you tell me where the data are from, or do you not know?
Second, your claim was “once a woman has had more than a few men, she loses her ability to pair bond.” “Married” and “pair-bonded” are not synonyms. They intersect, but each has a non-empty complement, and the data simply don’t explore “pair-bonded.”
Third, your data do not explore whether a woman has “lost” that ability, or if she instead chooses not to be in a long-term relationship. Again, these are not synonymous. The data also don’t address correlation vs. causality.
Fourth, your slide doesn’t say whether lesbians are included or not, and if the pattern is similar or not.
Lastly, I’m curious what the data would show for men, and if there is no correlate for men, that’s striking. It’s already striking that you made the claim for women but not for men.
As for the rest, re: “what you can do with the pair bonding issue on a scientific basis, is count numbers,” you’re mistaken. It can also be researched using qualitative methods (e.g., interviews) and mixed methods, and mixed methods — along with a better statistical study — would actually be the best choice for this issue.
“I could tell you stories, and you would never believe them.”
No way to know unless you share them. I’ve already proved you wrong about some of your assumptions about me.
“The one I gave you, if you read it properly, is that the women who believe in feminist stuff, a majority, are less happy.”
No, you didn’t cite a study for that. You cited an op-ed. Do you understand the difference?
That one “op-ed” had about four different studies and slides presented. Did you even watch it? If you do not trust me, then you do some research. Here are some search terms to get you started, “high body count” “promiscuity” “pair bonding”. Here is you a chart. It was included in that “op-ed”. FWIW, yes the same problem affects men, just not as much. It was in the op-ed, too.
You said this, “Third, your data do not explore whether a woman has “lost” that ability, or if she instead chooses not to be in a long-term relationship. Again, these are not synonymous. The data also don’t address correlation vs. causality.”
One guy I gave you, explained some of the “causality.” That doing something over and over creates a pattern in the brain that self-reinforces. I don’t know – seems reasonable. But I have also seen it with my own eyes. I had a good friend, I will call her Jezebel. She was beautiful and intelligent, and a lot of fun to be around. But she went thru men like the Rohirrim went thru the Orc Army. She literally left a trail a death and destruction behind her. She was not a sex addict. From what I was told by numerous lovers and two husbands, that might be a once a month or two thing. They all griped about that to me. It was all about an inability to bond with anyone. Including her two children. Jezebel was into high body counts before high body counts became a thing. One night, we were all out drinking and there were three guys at the bar. Jezebel whispered to me, “Oh no! I have slept with all three of those guys! I hope they don’t get to talking about it. I knew the guys, and she was telling the truth. So I have seen it. And not just with her.
As far as whether a woman has lost that ability – sometimes there are outside forces at play, because men usually do not want to settle down with a woman with a high body count. So at some point, age and reputation probably take over the choice.
Before, you said “The one I gave you, if you read it properly, is that the women who believe in feminist stuff, a majority, are less happy.” That was a statement about the op-ed, not about the videos. And THAT was the op-ed I was referring to: the one you asked me to read.
Now you’re saying “That one “op-ed” had about four different studies and slides presented. Did you even watch it?” Do you understand that you’ve moved from the op-ed — the one you referred to and I responded about — to the videos? Don’t pretend that I was calling either of the videos an “op-ed.” I wasn’t.
As for you new question, I watched the first video and part of the second video. I stopped watching the second one about 5 minutes into it when it became clear that he was never going to tell us the title of the study OR the author(s) of the study OR read even one sentence that would let me do a quoted internet search, thus making it hard to chase down the actual study to read it. I want to read the study itself, not listen to a non-researcher talk about it, picking a graph that makes his point, but saying nothing about the sample, the questions, etc., that I need to interpret the results for myself. He claimed “it’s multiple sources,” describing it as a “metastudy” (he likely meant “meta-analysis”). But if that were correct, a meta-analysis still presents the sample(s) and it gives citations for the studies that were used in the analysis. I had to hunt for 20 minutes on ifstudies.org (after I looked up the organization he referred to) to see if I could find the study his first graph was taken from. It’s not a study. It’s a blog post that refers to data from some surveys (not studies). If you look at the data table that was used for the graph, it says that there is no statistically significant difference for being very happy in one’s marriage between having had a single partner versus having had 3 partners prior, or 11-20 partners prior, or even 21+ partners prior. The lowest points in the graph were for 4 partners and 6-10 partners. And the graph is misleading: the y-axis starts at 50% instead of 0.
So that’s the problem with the video: I had to spend a half-hour listening to part of it + chasing down a blog column to find the actual data and then reading the column, and learning that when you actually look at the data, it tells a different story.
If you want me to look at the other studies he mentions in the video, find the actual studies. I’m not going to take another half-hour to chase them down.
@Floyd
You presume a whole lot. That is not useful, whichever side of the fence one is on. Don’t be another troll in the opposite direction. You are close.
I would not do that. It would be dishonorable. I might be wrong about a thing, but I have no need to deceive anyone. As far as the pair bonding and the unhappiness stuff, that is pretty real. It is all over the net. I could give you some real examples, that I have seen with my on eyes. As far as the end of birth control on demand, just look at the numbers I gave you on Japan. That is simply the math of it. Assume that you are the Emperor of Japan, or its ruling party. What do you do? Try to pay people to have babies? Where does the money come from on a declining population? Immigration? Yes, that would work for a while, if you are willing to see Japan become not-Japan. But after becoming Japan-ized in a generation or two, then you have the same problem with the immigrants. I think you will see a strong leader there do this.
Good try on all your posts and links. People generally won’t understand the first time they see and hear the other side of the coin, but the seed has been planted.
It will eat at them inside, and over time they will notice and experience those truths, some faster some slower.
It is inevitable.
BTW, it’s not my job to look up evidence for your claims. Your claim, your burden of proof.
What bunk. And how nice of you to say this about women but not claim it of men.
Because men and women respond exactly the same to all situations.
Anyone that has take a single anthropology class knows how stupid that is.
No, men and women respond exactly the same to all situations, nor did I suggest they did. You have great trouble with reading comprehension. Sad.
The above comment was mistakenly picked up by the spam filter. Restored
Thanks
* should have been: DON’T respond exactly the same
And that was the point made you scoffed at.
Now you admit that women and men do internalize random sex differently.
As I mentioned this is anthropological stuff.
“men and women don’t respond exactly the same to all situations” does not imply either “once a [person] has had more than a few [sexual partners], s/he loses her/his ability to pair bond” for either sex, much less does it imply it for women but not for men.
@whimsicalmama
Yup. This is what happens when people decide basic biology is simply an inconvenience. We might as well be telling kids they can’t get pregnant if they do it upside down. This is a new Dark Ages, to be sure, where a baby is a virus to be eradicated.
Whimsicalmama and James: I’m sure all of us at one time or another have found a cracked bird egg on the ground, with an under-developed fetus inside that mama bird decided to throw out of the nest.
And we felt true pathos. Even little kids will go, “aw, poor little baby bird.”
All I care about is that the remains of human embryos,- whether they are the result of IVF, or early termination of pregnancy, or rape, or incest, -are handled with some sense of what they represent when they are discarded….
The USA will cease to function with 10 years if Democrats win 2024…they are fighting a CIVIL WAR against America!
Everywhere will look like Camden NJ which the Democrats have run into the ground after 60 years of control…as they get more money the WORSE they make things!
There is no civil war.
Just like there was no civil war during the civil rights movement, even though that also involved changes that some people didn’t like. And there was no civil war during the suffragette movement, even though that also involved changes that some people didn’t like. Learn what is and is not civil war.
he told you what changes have been coming and will continue to come, the destruction of anything of value across massive swaths of the nation. The Detroitization of the nation. And of course people don’t like it, it has no value to anyone except corrupt would be Russian-style oligarchs and those that would prefer to get theirs absent effort.
You, otoh, seem to imply that some sort of wonderful event has been repressed, like equality. Because we already have that, what exactly are you referring to? Pate is great, being the goose is not so great. So given your penchant for equality, who is the goose and who’s getting pate in the changed US you predict? Or perhaps you have a brighter vision for all, equally?
I doubt it, your tone intimates your preference for sour grapes. I smell millenial, raised by single parent, good schools, bad education. I could be wrong though.
Among doesn’t understand the use of metaphor.
@Anon
There are petri dishes deeper than this argument. Straw man. 🙄🙄
That you equate civil rights with modern totalitarianism: phew. You are stretchier than a yogi. Don’t strain anything.
Democrats are not totalitarianists.
Then why are (many) Democrats acting like totalitarians…?
They aren’t.
Drop the loaded question.
Saving “Our Democracy™” by Democrats using lawfare* against the leading Republican candidate looks pretty totalitarian-ary to me…
Prosecutors running for office on “Get Trump” platforms, then bringing trumped-up civil and criminal charges; an obviously biased judge mugging for the cameras after awarding a grossly “excessive fine” in a fraud case with no victims; while the prosecutor threatens the defendant’s assets in front of the press; and the state governor expressly confirms that if you’re not Trump you’ve nothing to fear from the law… Yeah, nothing to see here.
You know what is totalitarian.
A single person in the Untied States can strip a citizen of 1/2$billion dollars for a crime that involved zero damages. And you have no appeal.
Yup, judges can determine disgorgements, as the lies damage law and order. And Trump is free to appeal.
Name another example of a single person wielding such power. With no appeal until all fines are 100% paid or bonded
He gets it back if he wins the appeal.
I asked for a single time, such a miscarriage of justice occurred. Where the opinion of a single person levied such monstrous penalties, with zero damage.
You lied that “you have no appeal.”
“lies damage law and order” If that is true, we will always live in chaos, because governments lie all the time.
@Anon
You are ridiculous person. 😂 It would be hilarious were it not so serious. You are also a coward.
A fundamental transformation of America where the advocates for this declare our constitution a lie and poisonous is not just an “adjustment” but a rejection of everything that this nation was created for. You are ignoring the larger goal of the prog/left because their goals do not end with the destruction of our nation as we know it, but that fundamental transformation into something never envisioned by our founding fathers and I say to those who want to change this nation – go somewhere else and make your utopia and leave this nation as it was founded.
BS. Again, you seem so blinded by hatred for the left that you believe things that simply aren’t true.
I see what is in front of me and I compare it with things that have transpired in the past of human history. You seem to advocate for a certain ideology, I only reflect on actions today and how they resonate against human nature and historical incidents in the past. If you sincerely doubt that the “fundamental transformation” of this nation is not an item of concern then you are not, truly, a rational source for discussion on a platform such as this – you protect the left for some unknown and irrational reason when history and facts abut against your platitudes.
Anon- we will learn what is and what is not “civil war” right after you learn what is and what is not “insurrection”.
@guyventer
I’d argue we can’t take even four more years, and the ineptitude of so many in younger generations may make us cease functioning regardless. We are really in a pickle.
And as many are slowly recognizing, Tail Gunner Joe was correct almost 80 years ago and we have allowed this plague to infest every facet of our culture for that long and we did nothing and now it is almost too late. It was the same cabal of our media/education industry that shuttered McCarthy back then. He was a terrible messenger, much like Trump, but his message was spot on – just like Trump – and they are destroying Trump in the same manner because they both exposed the putrid truth about the prog/left.