|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 30 2016 00:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:
There's a reason that he and his constituents, much like the GOP, are against raising minimum wage to $12+
I skipped through it, it's even worse than I thought.
You've just argued that people who think the minimum wage should be higher than $12 should ally with people who think it should be lower than $12 because in both cases, they agree that it shouldn't be $12. Picture that in your head for a second and look for the flaw.
|
On June 30 2016 01:12 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 00:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 30 2016 00:38 Plansix wrote:
Life long socialist from Vermont running on a socialist platform is not going to be the VP to a race baiting trust fund baby who opened a fake university to defraud single parents out of money. Not happening. Which is why I said that pride is the main reason he wouldn't do it. No way Bernie would want to be seen with people he considers beneath him. It's quite fascinating to me that you are at a place in your life where you have actually managed to believe that the left-wing and the far right-wing differ only because of pride. You are, by definition of how the spectrum of politics works, closer to the far right theory of politics than any leftist is or will ever be. You have successfully noticed that Trump has tried to make himself appear closer to the left-wing, because he's attempting to obtain votes from Bernie supporters. But somehow you take that to mean Sanders and Trump are similar. It's unbelievably shortsighted, in the sense that I actually can't really believe someone is that shortsighted.
Actually no. I do not think that the left and right wing only differ based on Pride. I think that the populist movement in the right wing was successful in upending the status quo of the republican party and it will have a long lasting effect in how the party operates (for good or bad) and part of that is Trumps willingness to do anything he could to make that change happen.
Bernie, unlike Trump, has too much pride to do what it takes to deliver on his promise and make changes to the party.
You see, Bernie is trying to sell a revolution, but is unwilling to do everything he can to find ways to push that revolution through. Why? Because he's actually a politician trying to play the politics game, and when push comes to shove he's a party line local trying to make a splash.
Hilary is a politician, tells us she's a politician, and is more controlled by what her constituents ask for than some crusade to reform the known world.
Bernie has pride. Bernie is not actually trying to change the system. Bernie is not willing to actually break away from the rules of the system to get what he wants because he actually likes the system he is in.
|
On June 30 2016 01:27 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 00:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:
There's a reason that he and his constituents, much like the GOP, are against raising minimum wage to $12+
I skipped through it, it's even worse than I thought. You've just argued that people who think the minimum wage should be higher than $12 should ally with people who think it should be lower than $12 because in both cases, they agree that it shouldn't be $12. Picture that in your head for a second and look for the flaw.
Being that the $12 amount was estimated by experts as what is feasible and passable while the $15 dollar amount mainly came from McDonald Protest youtube videos, yeah, I really think setting too high a bar outside of what researchers say is doable is the same as Texas adding overly high requirements for abortion clinics in the name of women's safety. It does nothing but ensure it doesn't happen.
|
On June 30 2016 01:27 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 00:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:
There's a reason that he and his constituents, much like the GOP, are against raising minimum wage to $12+
I skipped through it, it's even worse than I thought. You've just argued that people who think the minimum wage should be higher than $12 should ally with people who think it should be lower than $12 because in both cases, they agree that it shouldn't be $12. Picture that in your head for a second and look for the flaw.
Why not ?
Its just a number open for negotiation.
The extreme left and the extreme right have more in common then meets the eye.
They do appeal to a smiliar demographic and also in policy there are quiet a few similarities. (in Europe for example,the "extreme" left wing parties are just as much against immigration as the extreme right wing parties)
Sure they also have their (big) differences but on the differences you can compromise to achieve the goals you both share.
|
So the right and left are transforming fighting robots?
|
On June 30 2016 01:50 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 01:27 Nebuchad wrote:On June 30 2016 00:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:
There's a reason that he and his constituents, much like the GOP, are against raising minimum wage to $12+
I skipped through it, it's even worse than I thought. You've just argued that people who think the minimum wage should be higher than $12 should ally with people who think it should be lower than $12 because in both cases, they agree that it shouldn't be $12. Picture that in your head for a second and look for the flaw. Why not ? Its just a number open for negotiation. The extreme left and the extreme right have more in common then meets the eye. They do appeal to a smiliar demographic and also in policy there are quiet a few similarities. (in Europe for example,the "extreme" left wing parties are just as much against immigration as the extreme right wing parties) Sure they also have their (big) differences but on the differences you can compromise to achieve the goals you both share.
The extreme left and the extreme right have in common exactly what meets the eye about them: they are both extreme, far from the center. That's not a hidden connexion, that's a very obvious one. You bring up Europe and by doing so you immediately bring up a framing that is very different from the one discussed here, given that Bernie is center left on any european framing of positions.
|
that horseshoe thing that we have going on in Europe is happening in America as well. Trump isn't traditional right wing. He's authoritarian as hell and has no knowledge and/or does not respect public or legal institutions
|
Aaaand the UK markets are back to pre-Brexit numbers. That was quick.
|
Does anyone else agree that even if Trump loses, this venture will be incredibly profitable for his brand? Think about all the cash Palin made. Trump is like some sort of super-Palin.
|
On June 30 2016 01:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 01:27 Nebuchad wrote:On June 30 2016 00:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:
There's a reason that he and his constituents, much like the GOP, are against raising minimum wage to $12+
I skipped through it, it's even worse than I thought. You've just argued that people who think the minimum wage should be higher than $12 should ally with people who think it should be lower than $12 because in both cases, they agree that it shouldn't be $12. Picture that in your head for a second and look for the flaw. Being that the $12 amount was estimated by experts as what is feasible and passable while the $15 dollar amount mainly came from McDonald Protest youtube videos, yeah, I really think setting too high a bar outside of what researchers say is doable is the same as Texas adding overly high requirements for abortion clinics in the name of women's safety. It does nothing but ensure it doesn't happen.
It's kind of hard to answer this post because I struggle to think it has been written in good faith. Just in case it was, though, let me explain the difference: in one case, you are fighting to increase the minimum wage because you want it decreased. There is a disconnect between what you fight for and what you (according to you) want. In the other case, you are fighting to increase the difficulty to have abortions because you want less abortions. There is a clear coherence between your fight and your objective.
|
On June 30 2016 02:19 cLutZ wrote:
Aaaand the UK markets are back to pre-Brexit numbers. That was quick.
If the EU doesn't hurt its exports to punish Brexit, this will help more Leave parties in Europe and boost the biggest anti-establishment face, Trump.
|
On June 30 2016 02:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 02:19 cLutZ wrote:
Aaaand the UK markets are back to pre-Brexit numbers. That was quick. If the EU doesn't hurt its exports to punish Brexit, this will help more Leave parties in Europe and boost the biggest anti-establishment face, Trump.
Only if they are dumb enough to believe that they are all the UK. And they are far from out of the woods yet.
|
I'd hardly count it a bounce back. The pound is still far lower.
Barclays is also still 30% or so down.
|
On June 30 2016 02:19 cLutZ wrote:
Aaaand the UK markets are back to pre-Brexit numbers. That was quick.
Only FTSE 100, which is a poor indicator of the UK economy as it primarily consists of international firms that do business overseas, and which can benefit from the depressed pound (like mining companies, which get boosted by rises in gold prices). FTSE 250 and 350, which are better indicators of domestic UK business, are still shaky though recovering. You can attribute it to the cash injection made by the Bank of England to calm the markets.
The pound remains fairly depressed however, and it's only been the first wave of uncertainty and shock that's hit because of the referendum. Article 50 hasn't been invoked (which will cause another sharp drop in the markets), and a formal exit hasn't been made either, which will be the actual deathblows. There's still a number of people banking on the UK remaining in the EU, though firms are beginning to hedge their bets and investing elsewhere. FDI in the UK is beginning to dry up even with just the referendum. Firms are in a "wait and see" approach at the moment, and aren't pulling out yet until they see the UK take the plunge with Article 50. When that happens, financial institutions will start shifting to Frankfurt/Paris, and firms that were basing operation in the UK because of EU common market access/English will move to Ireland or elsewhere.
|
Basically a slow burning dumpster fire, as opposed to the chemical fire we had earlier.
|
On June 30 2016 02:46 Plansix wrote:
Basically a slow burning dumpster fire, as opposed to the chemical fire we had earlier.
Better think of it as the tide before the tsunami, if the UK commits to a divorce. It's calm now as firms are holding their breath, but if a Brexit fully materializes, expect economic trauma for the UK, which is very much dependent on their EU status for their current economic growth (strong financial sector servicing the EU, English language and good basing location for shipping and firms looking to break into the EU market, all of which can be migrated elsewhere in the EU).
|
I really don't think there's any chance the split happens. And if they do split, it will be in name only. The financial and immigration stuff will be identical
|
On June 29 2016 23:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2016 17:42 Godwrath wrote:On June 29 2016 11:38 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 11:31 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2016 10:36 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 10:31 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2016 10:22 Plansix wrote:
TARP was paid back in full with interest. Imagine you and your friend went bankrupt. Your friend got bailed out by the community and you didn't. You lost everything and he paid back his loan with interest. And now whenever you say hey he got bailed out and that was unfair the community says, "but he paid back the loan with interest." Now imagine your friend was your landlord and paid back the loan with the money you paid him for rent after you lost your house. Life isn't fair. I'm fine with that. A second great depression is something I would not be fine with. . . . Fuck you got mine?? ???? I don't work for banks. They are just one of our clients. Once again, its better than the great depression part 2. The point is that the poorest suffered the crysis while the rich who were compromised got uplifted out of it, and even better, they actually didn't use it to alleviate the poor situations, but to profit from it. That's why people get angry and to point out "that's better than a great depression part 2" is just silly apologism to someone who lost their house. Wait, so you're saying you'd rather that everyone go bankrupt than just a portion go bankrupt, because it doesn't feel fair that not everyone suffered the same way? Like, if the choice was everyone starve vs only a portion of the population starve, you'd rather have EVERYONE starve.... just because you're angry? I'm sorry, but that's super villain logic. That's not what i said, but if you expect someone who loses his house due to the banks not being somewhat lenient after a bailout because they are profit hungry to think to himself "Phew, that was a close one, thank you goverment for saving us from the depression", or else they are supervillains, sure man, go with your narrative.
|
On June 30 2016 03:15 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2016 23:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 29 2016 17:42 Godwrath wrote:On June 29 2016 11:38 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 11:31 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2016 10:36 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 10:31 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2016 10:22 Plansix wrote:
TARP was paid back in full with interest. Imagine you and your friend went bankrupt. Your friend got bailed out by the community and you didn't. You lost everything and he paid back his loan with interest. And now whenever you say hey he got bailed out and that was unfair the community says, "but he paid back the loan with interest." Now imagine your friend was your landlord and paid back the loan with the money you paid him for rent after you lost your house. Life isn't fair. I'm fine with that. A second great depression is something I would not be fine with. . . . Fuck you got mine?? ???? I don't work for banks. They are just one of our clients. Once again, its better than the great depression part 2. The point is that the poorest suffered the crysis while the rich who were compromised got uplifted out of it, and even better, they actually didn't use it to alleviate the poor situations, but to profit from it. That's why people get angry and to point out "that's better than a great depression part 2" is just silly apologism to someone who lost their house. Wait, so you're saying you'd rather that everyone go bankrupt than just a portion go bankrupt, because it doesn't feel fair that not everyone suffered the same way? Like, if the choice was everyone starve vs only a portion of the population starve, you'd rather have EVERYONE starve.... just because you're angry? I'm sorry, but that's super villain logic. That's not what i said, but if you expect someone who loses his house due to the banks not being somewhat lenient after a bailout because they are profit hungry to think to himself "Phew, that was a close one, thank you goverment for saving us from the depression", or else they are supervillains, sure man, go with your narrative.
As someone who actively worked on refinance deals during that time, you assume wrong.
1: Banks don't want to take peoples houses, it is not profitable in any way.
2: The TARP bail out didn't change the fact that it is illegal to make a deal that turns a mortgage into a non-profitable investment. At best it can be "meh".
3: Most of the time, the economics didn't work out.
And not having TARP around would have made that worse. Banks would have failed, the failing mortgages would have been purchased at bargain basement prices and god knows how the companies that bought them would have acted.
|
In 2005, as he was making a transition from developing real estate to capitalizing on his fame through ventures like a reality show and product-licensing deals, Donald J. Trump hit upon a two-pronged strategy for entering the field of for-profit education.
He poured his own money into Trump University, which began as a distance-learning business advising customers on how to make money in real estate, but left a long trail of customers alleging they were defrauded. Their lawsuits have cast a shadow over Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign.
But Mr. Trump also lent his name, and his credibility, to a seminar business he did not own, which was branded the Trump Institute. Its operators rented out hotel ballrooms across the country and invited people to pay up to $2,000 to come hear Mr. Trump’s “wealth-creating secrets and strategies.”
And its customers had ample reason to ask whether they, too, had been deceived.
As with Trump University, the Trump Institute promised falsely that its teachers would be handpicked by Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump did little, interviews show, besides appear in an infomercial — one that promised customers access to his vast accumulated knowledge. “I put all of my concepts that have worked so well for me, new and old, into our seminar,” he said in the 2005 video, adding, “I’m teaching what I’ve learned.”
Reality fell far short. In fact, the institute was run by a couple who had run afoul of regulators in dozens of states and been dogged by accusations of deceptive business practices and fraud for decades. Similar complaints soon emerged about the Trump Institute.
Yet there was an even more fundamental deceit to the business, unreported until now: Extensive portions of the materials that students received after forking over their seminar fees, supposedly containing Mr. Trump’s special wisdom, had been plagiarized from an obscure real estate manual published a decade earlier.
Together, the exaggerated claims about his own role, the checkered pasts of the people with whom he went into business and the theft of intellectual property at the venture’s heart all illustrate the fiction underpinning so many of Mr. Trump’s licensing businesses: Putting his name on products and services — and collecting fees — was often where his actual involvement began and ended.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
