Is this right wing “idea” that UI is to blame for the slow economic recovery gaining steam/traction? Starting to see it crop up everywhere in the MSM all of the sudden after some GQP Congresscritters started pushing the idea and some states like MT and SC are cutting off UI early.

I was glued to the news and podcasts (esp Diane Rehm show) for the first few years after 9/11 and became a small donor to them and our local PBS held a kids event every summer that we took our kids to. After awhile though I started to get really irritated at their "bothsiderism". I still tune in every once in a while but it still is pretty bad and some of the better correspondents have since left. Still somewhat better than most corporate owned media but it has become severely degraded by right wing control and defunding over the years. :-/

It all really comes to hating the idea of us having two more Democratic Senate Seats and at least one additional House seat, probably filled by POC. If it were a potentially right-leaning state, you know they'd be all for it.

but he shouldn't be feeding into Republican/right-wing propaganda about "wokeness" and "elitism". It's cheap, a waste of time, energy, and it doesn't even mean anything other than that which the Republicans/right-wing doesn't like. To me, rejecting "wokeness" is "respectability politics" at its worst and if we have to choose (hint: we don't) between winning elections and supporting the interests of diversity and minority groups within society, I'm going with interests of diversity and minority groups within society. Years of evidence has also shown that everytime Democrats run away from progressivism and diversity, it doesn't really work or net us any more votes among the white racists that this is supposed to (in theory) appeal to.

can we just assume he's opposed to EVERYTHING- unless he says otherwise?

This afternoon, I got into it with some progressives whom are upset about the stagnation of the Equality Act and are upset about Biden's inability to get Congress to pass this bill. It's been passed in the House but languishing in the Senate. Biden promised to sign it into law within the first 100 Days of his Administration, however, his ability to do so hinges on getting 51-60 votes (some Republican will probably try to filibuster it) and, at least at the moment, the prospects thereof seem somewhat slim and some progressives are slamming Biden for it. I am coming to believe that, although it seems like candidates pretty much have to promise to do *something* in order to be elected President, maybe it would be better if they stuck to things that are more certain to pass or not straightjacket themselves into getting laws passed during the first 100 days. Or something. Promising things that may be difficult to get the entire Congress to agree to pass just seems to perpetually create a lot of friction, especially between progressives and other Democrats if things they like don't get passed. Or if they don't get passed in the way that they are promised during the campaign. I've followed politics for years and understand the reality of the "sausage-making" when it comes to legislation, so *I* get it when legislation doesn't end up quite like it was initially proposed (like the $1400 COVID relief checks instead of the $2000 checks that were promised during the campaign). And I get it that Presidents can propose and support bills but they don't, of course, wield a "Mind Stone" that can force Congress to do what they want all or sometimes even most of the time. But some people don't seem to recognize this or understand how it works and it just seems like Presidential candidates should be more careful about what they promise or how they promise to get things done if it's not in their sole power to do. What does everybody else think?

and then the Q folks will agree that the election wasn't stolen. Just one more.........

It's significant that we are electing African-Americans to the highest offices (219 years into the history of our country) in the land now but it certainly doesn't prove anything about the existence (or lack thereof) of systemic racism. I would ask if he were paying attention to the kind of attacks President Obama (and even Kamala Harris endured to a lesser extent) while in office, but then again, he was part of the party causing all of the problems and making those attacks.

were posed about Congress too. Joe can do some things as POTUS but it's going to take Congress to enact a lot of stuff as well. And I know most Dems support progressive things like this but we have to have enough of them, primarily in the Senate, to really get things done. Some (but not all) progressives think that they'll automatically get the policies want if they just elect the "right" POTUS (i.e. Bernie Sanders) but seem to blow right past the part of electing enough Democrats to Congress regularly to pass those laws. Democrats largely controlled Congress for several decades until 1994. By 2022, we have only had a grand total of 6 years (15%) where we've had both Congress and President in Democratic hands, which means that for 22 years (85%) of the last 28 years, we will have had either Republicans in full control of both branches or divided government. And people wonder why more progressive things don't get done. I try to explain this to some people on my FB over and over again, but just get accused of "making excuses" for Democrats.

but the rightness or wrongness of a bill/law doesn't rise or fall on whether there are instances of something or not- nor on whether or not something has "broad support".