Landlord

I'm not talking about people defined by the specific policies they want, but rather by the same underlying philosophy/perspective that's defined by class warfare, ideological purity, resentment towards capitalism, the state as the solution vs the individual, and so on. They think very similarly at a fundamental level even if they don't have all the same policy beliefs. Anyways, this is spiraling into a different conversation; the only point of my initial post was that as a matter of efficacy, there are reasons why very progressive leftist parties/platforms don't often succeed.

I don't agree. They sometimes have a similar demonization of an "other", but I think two main differences are that one that "other" is usually a minority or a perceived "outside" threat to punch down on (brown immigrants, muslims, jews in nazi germany, etc.), which is distinctly different than punching up at the tyrannical enemy, and two that the right is much more pragmatic about employing the service of or allying with a "those people" who will help them achieve their ends. There's also the whole bootstraps/individual autonomy philosophy where everything is much more individualistic. Mao and Stalin are the two biggest examples of successful (in terms of acquiring power) and extreme left state totalitarianism, so yeah, if the most radical pure left policies win out without balance, there's good historical precedent of that ending very badly (same as on the right).

I'm fine with both. My initial post wasn't even an assessment on progressive left policies being bad or good. MLK also championed a perspective and a prospective future where people were judged by the content of their character and not their categories. But you're right. What I was getting at was that really radical left ideologies tend to often self-destruct (not always and not always the same way), because a common underlying perspective of "those people have what belongs to us" will never end but will only find a new "those people", with the most aggressive either fracturing themselves so small that they're not formidable, or succeeding but then punishing the bigger and bigger "those people" through the power of the state.

When I refer to 'radical left ideology' I'm not talking about MLK/Ghandi or universal healthcare/UBI. I'm talking about class warfare, redistribution of wealth, reparations, eat the rich types. This neo-marxist socialist/communist perspective is getting more and more commonplace, especially in the liberal arts and humanities in colleges in the northeast/west coast/chicago. Those like AOC are at least somewhat in that vein, although she's proven to be more of a tactful and compromising politician than I first expected.

I know in my small town school (450 people) the new teachers getting hired were getting paid way more than the older teachers who had been there a long time and were local.

Have you ever taught outside of Nebraska, or in urban/inner cities with high minority population percentages?

This is what happens with radical leftist ideology, pretty much every time. That's not to say that it never succeeds in gaining power, but every single time in human history that the really left ideas take over, a whole lot of people end up dead, including most of the ones who fought to get there and support.

Jesus seemed much more interested in the kingdom coming down than us ascending to the kingdom, so I don't think you are off base there

If a person has pneumonia, or colon cancer, or Alzheimer's, or a lot of other things, and then becomes positive for COVID-19 and dies, they have 100% died of Sepsis due to COVID-19. They had other co-morbidities, but the actual cause of death is still sepsis due to COVID-19. Their lives were shortened and ended due to this disease. This is how "cause of death" is determined by physicians who complete a death certificate, not just for covid-19, but for all deaths. They're not. Hospitals get medicare payments for medicare patients with cases of covid-19, they don't get more money if they die. Edit: My claim of how cause of death is determined isn't my own understanding, it's from a nurse/administrator/hospice case manager.

This production sponsored by Target, apparently.

Pelosi is a f#&%ing joke.

The world has changed, and the solutions to problems need to change as well. We no longer live in a world of adequate life-long company careers.

to be fair he kinda seems to probably be an expert (or maybe successful visionary) in a larger number of things than anyone else currently living.

Which fields are you referring to that he's presumably doing bad in?

That's what you did. I asked a question, about the possibility of what some businesses are doing, and you treated it as if I made a statement about all businesses. Nobody's said that. Maybe you think AOC meant it, fine, but I don't think she or anyone has said anything to be meant as literal or simple-minded as that.

Sometimes it seems (especially in conversations about business) that you try really hard not to see what the other person actually said. I'm aware of this, and even contributing to it, working on many home projects right now and giving Home Depot hundreds of dollars in profit. If Home Depot had shareholders making themselves significantly richer with bailout money turning into stock buybacks while also laying off a notable percentage of employees, that would be s#!tty, and I would say that a system that very easily allows for that to be possible is one that is broken to some extent.

This is Mike Riley telling that kid to go to OU all over again. I don't hold that against Riley. He gave the kid sound advice over his own best interest

Depends. How/why are those businesses doing very well right now, and who is doing awful and why? Are some businesses doing well by exploiting the ability to make things awful for others?

Kind of.....but not exactly. Systems have emergent qualities of their own that make them more than the individual pieces/people who comprise them. I think the spirit of what she's saying is that, essentially, the system has failed us as Americans when, in a time of crisis and significant increase in suffering and hardship, it's easy and fine and allowable that the most rich and most powerful get even more of both, in some ways at the expense of the poor and disadvantaged.

People do this all the time in P&R and it's exhausting. Refuting or arguing against someone else's claims or position is not the same thing as defending the opposite. Poking holes in Reade's inconsistent story is not defending Biden. Looking into Reade's weird Russia love obsession/connection is not defending Biden. See? Couldn't even get my post in before someone did it AGAIN

This is now a court document showing that she claimed she was having issues of sexual harassment in Biden's office. That's all. No mention of impropriety by Joe Biden specifically, and no mention of assault/rape.

Issues of credibility aside, do you see what is happening with Reade and presumably the Republican bad actors pulling her strings to be different or worse in intention and strategy than Dems with Blassey-Ford?

People are exhausted and aren't paying attention.