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 October 15 2016 06:22 Kickboxer wrote: Farvacola you use long strings of big words but communicate little sound sense.
UBI is not conceptually designed as a social welfare service, although it does efficiently replace the need for those kinds of bloated and human-factor-operated mechanisms.
UBI at its core is "communism in practice" without any of the fascist bs, it merely ensures that every citizen of planet Earth receives some of his human inheritance in the form of resources necessary to avoid existential terror / ruin so they can participate on the free market as a sovereign player.
First, I'll admit it; I'm going to shift the goalposts a little. I should have clarified the above post as one only pertaining to how the UBI would work in the United States. Sorry about that.
Nevertheless, you can wax poetic all day about what a UBI may or may not look like through the lens of someone unaffiliated with the structures that will give it shape should it come to be, but that doesn't change the fact that it would not be implemented in the idealistic sense you've outlined, particularly in the United States. It is difficult to conceive of a shift in federal and state government culture that would prevent what would come alongside the implementation of the UBI, namely the privatization of many government provided services. With a few select exceptions (turnpikes for example), the quality of the service privatized usually declines or the government version is simply superior (Medicare works very well in the states that let it, for example). There isn't a United States currently in existence that wouldn't largely cut itself to pieces in reliance on the UBI.
Edit: Hillary Clinton was just on Ellen and she wasn't all that inhuman.
On October 15 2016 05:34 zlefin wrote: [quote] you're talking about an awfully big tax increase. 9k/year per person, runs around 3 trillion total. So you'd need to raise revenue by some 1.75 trillion, or about 9% of gdp iirc. halving military spending would get you .3 trillion (and is obviously politically infeasible). so you'd still need 1.45 trillion; so a tax increase of say 7% on EVERYONE, with no exceptions or deductions reducing it. Or you'd run a tax increase of 10% on some people; which pushes the net brackets quite high, they're already high enough that diminishing returns effects hamper them.
7% tax on people making middle class income now is not that big a deal when they are getting $9k back in UBI.
your vague assertions about diminishing returns are unconvincing
i'm providing information for those who ask it. I'm not interested in people being needlessly argumentative. You're also not doing a full accounting about the money they'd be getting back, and the net changes to how various distributions would affect each group, and what the actual change in net distributions is. You're more than welcome to do a full look at the numbers if you're not satisfied with mine, and make your own vague claims about them; or do a full work-up of the feasibility of various approaches.
im responding to your complete dismissal of the idea based on incomplete back of the envelope calculation. yeah i did'nt do a full accounting but i think ive established that its far more plausible than you make it out. its always rich to hear you call me argumentative while acting like an impartial arbiter just taking note of objective "facts".
I provided my estimate of its feasibility. If I were in congress, I'd have given a far more thorough dismissal, but this is an internet gaming forum, so the standards are lower (despite evidence to the contrary). Just because the numbers can be reconciled doesn't mean it's anywhere near politically feasible; nor does it mean the net economic effect of such would be beneficial. You're free to do your own analysis and post it. I'd rather you disagree by bringing in more facts and analysis. And people can freely choose to believe my estimates or not.
And I aim to spread the riches, so I'm glad you got rich by hearing me talk thus.
the "politically feasible" argument is not only mostly irrelevant but feeds back into itself, as the discussion itself affects the public's estimation of its feasibility. it's a lazy argument that takes advantage of the fact that the future is contingent upon the present.
so you bring up your doubts about its "net economic benefit" which, no doubt, has been your major objection all along, and is the center from which your productivist, liberal ideolofg radiates outward. i would just point to my previous discussikn about the benefits of worker bee pollination in a "knowledge economy" as the basis for what my argument would be for why i think UBI as part of more comprehensive reforms would be a net positive
I disagree on the feasibility arguments. It's hard to push something without laying more groundwork. You're welcome to try campaigning on such a platform.
Now you strawman me, and assume what my position is, rather than asking, which proves that you are arguing improperly and are not worth discussing with further. You're also using jargon I do not recognize, which makes some of that paragraph unintelligible.
im not strawmanning you, ive actually been arguing very narrowly: you claimed we arent rich enough to do it and i think thats bullshit.
in that respect feasibility and groundwork are obvious prerequisites that have no necessary relation to whether we are materially wealthy enough to implement a UBI.
you said: "so you bring up your doubts about its "net economic benefit" which, no doubt, has been your major objection all along, and is the center from which your productivist, liberal ideolofg radiates outward" which looks like strawmanning to me.
are you serious? are you telling me that you think if it were politically feasible it would be a net economic benefit? that the only problem would be rejiggering the accounting?
or is your main objection, the one that underlines your entire dismissal of UBI as something only meant for a society w seven times the american per capita, that you don't think implementing a UBI by redistributing our current wealth away from the rich and to the poor would increase our economic growth? that we could only afford to give everyone a minimum income reasonable now if the rich had seven times as much as they currently do?
you asserted my position was something, rather than asking what it was. and you did so in an unmannerly tone. I require no more to feel distaste for continuing. and you then accuse me of posting only straw when I've been the one providing the bulk of the actual numbers in the discussion. So no, you are not worth talking to further as you are not engaging productively, if anyone else has questions on the topic I will answer them. You I will answer no further for awhile.
On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote: so you personally are opposed to UBI because you are opposed to charity handouts but value keynesian stimulation as long as you get to decide how its spent. so in other words my criticism was dead on.
im not the one trying to tell the trumpkins how to spend their share of society's bounty. i am just pointing out that a discussion with you about your pseudofascist ordoliberal welfare schemes oppose UBI is going to be different than one with a conservative mid westerner who opposed welfare all together.
I still don't see what's fascist about it, it seems like a basic idea of fairness that if we redistribute money we don't do so unconditionally, this is already true for almost all tax redistribution. We don't just hand you your healthcare benefits in cash, we pay for your medical bills. Is this fascist? Should we just send you a syringe and and a bonesaw and you can have at it? Is paid childcare authoritarian?
Almost all form of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance why is this offensive all of the sudden?
I'd rather see that expanded because it is a material benefit for the poor rather than reducing it and handing you bitcoin because that's much less 'technocratic'.
because the real affliction for those in poverty is not the material deprivation, it's the lack of autonomy. the assertion that almost all forms of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance is incoherent on its own terms (what is "assistance"?) but is also clearly wrong. social security is a cash payment that is a significant portion of the budget. disability and unemployment are cash payment with strings attached.
@whitedog
i don't see why you can't have both. jobs need doing. UBI is not the same as enforcing completely egalitarian incomes. provide a base level of UBI w no strings and jobs.
Don't you think ot will be used as such ? In europe, most UBI i've learned about goes with the end of social security. It's an individualization of welfare.
I saw it more as a "making a good socialized program is hard so let's just hand out a lump sum of money instead!" system in most UBI proposals I saw.
Buy dem Nikez or pay for insurance. What you do ?
this facile critique is the opposite of "stalinist commune or gulag? what do you do?" how about college is free and there are plenty of valuable jobs that you might wish to take but you are also going to be provided with a minor stipend to spend as you see fit to create a less deprived space for you to pursue yur own goals rather than living where we tell you to live, working where we tell you to work, and consuming what we tell you to consume. the danger in having a welfare system determined by the state is falling into the productivist trap that destroyed 20th century socialism
20th century socialism failed for various reasons. You misunderstand the role of social security ; it was not, at its origin, a state program. It was built as a secondary form of payment, taken on wage and used by collective associations (in France called les caisses de sécurité sociale) managed by elected workers. It was not a state program, but a socialized pay. This is the essence of socialism. My point is, the UBI, much like the poor laws, will put the poor in a state of complete dependancy, deplete them of their collective power, individualized without any social value aside from their consuming power.
yes this is true in a world where the means of production continue to not be owned by the workers. combine UBI with worker-owned and operated enterprises. i don't understand an opposition to UBI on the basis of its atomizing character without criticizing a state that dictates to a heterogeneous nation a homogenizing welfare solution. if your critique is that we have to bolster citizens' stake in the socius then we have to reevaluate everything, not just UBI in a vacuum. inthink for example that cutting everything and instituting a flat UBI like some kind of anarcho-capitalist compromise would be a disaster
Then we completly agree. The problem is that many liberal people are pro UBI because they see the UBI in a vacuum ; a way to cut down the role of the state to its bare minimum, no further need for regulation, etc. Farva's post is pretty well written so I'll say I support his message.
I keep seeing all these random videos of people from parties(mostly republican) fuck up on public television and I feel like that never(or atleast, rarely) happens in Netherlands(or Europe that much for that matter, although it is very possible I don't hear about it).
Why is this even a thing, are these people woefully unprepared or something? Are there so many of them that a percentage of them are bound to fuck up?
"Rebels" in Aleppo is not a single group, it is multiple different groups each with their own biases and issues. That you think there is a united rebel force shows you know about as much about what's happening as Bernie and Johnson does. Its a complicated mess.
I can bet that i know much more than you will ever know about this matter, the rebels in Aleppo have their hands tied because they need the support of Alqaeda and other extremist groups, the latest offensive to break the siege paved way to the unification of many of the rebels forces there and also prompted the re branding of Alnusra into Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham. I could name the majority of rebels forces present on all the major offensives, can you do the same? Now back to my question, why would the americans arm the rebels in Aleppo thus helping Alqaeda achieve their goals in Syria?
Take into consideration that i have been against the regime and the russian intervention from the beginning, as you can attest by checking my posts back in 2011 when the civil war started. Right now your presidential candidate openly says that she wants to arm Alqaeda and you americans are still whiling to vote for her, that i cannot understand.
If you are unwilling to think of Syrian rebels as anything but Alqaeda terrorists, then we should just end this discussion right now.
I'm not but nice straw man i have been siding with the rebels for the majority of the civil war, but right now Alqaeda is the main force behind the offensive operations in Aleppo.. those are the facts.
Oh really? Because you said:
arm the rebels in Aleppo thus helping Alqaeda
And you also said:
she wants to arm Alqaeda
So tell me how you are not equating the rebels as being Alqaeda? And once you figured out what that argument is, convince yourself of it so you don't contradict yourself so embarrassingly.
Rebels are getting support from whoever is giving said support. They are dying, en mass, they will take help from anyone. Providing support to those asking for it is not the same as giving support to the previous suppliers of it.
A,B => A,C is not A,B => B,C
It seems you are not that smart,
The rebels depend on Alqaeda to be successful, if they depended on isis instead would you still want to help them? When you give the weapons to those rebels in Aleppo knowing that they will be used by Alqaeda, because they are the brunt of the attack forces would equal to supporting them thus helping Alqaeda achive their goals in Syria, do you understand now or you need me to paint it for you?
Nice backtrack.
So you started by saying the helping the rebels is helping alqaeda and now you're backtracking to helping the rebels gives alqaeda possible access to the resources we give to the rebels. So the real issue you have is that right now the rebels don't have enough resources to be able to both say no to help from Alqaeda and continue fighting. Which makes this a resource scarcity discussion and not a "Syrian Rebels are Alqaeda" discussion.
Dude i said that if you send weapons to the rebels you will be helping Alqaeda, if the rebels are able to break the siege it will be due to Alqaeda help, they are the most competent forces among the rebels, if they are able to win in Aleppo Alqaeda will be seen as the heroes and their street cred will go trough the roof. I don't think the rebels would turn their backs on them as it would culminate in more infighting. Alqaeda is playing the long game, and that's the scary part. They are gaining more and more influence with each victory they are able to achieve in Syria.
If you simply walk over to the rebels and dropped cratefuls of weapons and ammo, then yes you will be helping alqaeda. For you to actually help arm the rebels you need to provide them enough support that they do not need alqaeda--a much broader and complex project than just leaving crates full of weapons for whoever is just passing by. It would mean resources and possibly manpower. It would mean air support, eyes on the ground, etc...
On October 15 2016 07:09 Kipsate wrote: I keep seeing all these random videos of people from parties(mostly republican) fuck up on public television and I feel like that never happens in Netherlands(or Europe that much for that matter, although it is very possible I don't hear about it).
Why is this even a thing, are these people woefully unprepared or something? Are there so many of them that a percentage of them are bound to fuck up?
I think its that no one competent wants to attach himself to Trump so the only people he has to speak on his behalf are the rejects and the crazies.
"Rebels" in Aleppo is not a single group, it is multiple different groups each with their own biases and issues. That you think there is a united rebel force shows you know about as much about what's happening as Bernie and Johnson does. Its a complicated mess.
I can bet that i know much more than you will ever know about this matter, the rebels in Aleppo have their hands tied because they need the support of Alqaeda and other extremist groups, the latest offensive to break the siege paved way to the unification of many of the rebels forces there and also prompted the re branding of Alnusra into Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham. I could name the majority of rebels forces present on all the major offensives, can you do the same? Now back to my question, why would the americans arm the rebels in Aleppo thus helping Alqaeda achieve their goals in Syria?
Take into consideration that i have been against the regime and the russian intervention from the beginning, as you can attest by checking my posts back in 2011 when the civil war started. Right now your presidential candidate openly says that she wants to arm Alqaeda and you americans are still whiling to vote for her, that i cannot understand.
If you are unwilling to think of Syrian rebels as anything but Alqaeda terrorists, then we should just end this discussion right now.
I'm not but nice straw man i have been siding with the rebels for the majority of the civil war, but right now Alqaeda is the main force behind the offensive operations in Aleppo.. those are the facts.
Oh really? Because you said:
arm the rebels in Aleppo thus helping Alqaeda
And you also said:
she wants to arm Alqaeda
So tell me how you are not equating the rebels as being Alqaeda? And once you figured out what that argument is, convince yourself of it so you don't contradict yourself so embarrassingly.
Rebels are getting support from whoever is giving said support. They are dying, en mass, they will take help from anyone. Providing support to those asking for it is not the same as giving support to the previous suppliers of it.
A,B => A,C is not A,B => B,C
It seems you are not that smart,
The rebels depend on Alqaeda to be successful, if they depended on isis instead would you still want to help them? When you give the weapons to those rebels in Aleppo knowing that they will be used by Alqaeda, because they are the brunt of the attack forces would equal to supporting them thus helping Alqaeda achive their goals in Syria, do you understand now or you need me to paint it for you?
Nice backtrack.
So you started by saying the helping the rebels is helping alqaeda and now you're backtracking to helping the rebels gives alqaeda possible access to the resources we give to the rebels. So the real issue you have is that right now the rebels don't have enough resources to be able to both say no to help from Alqaeda and continue fighting. Which makes this a resource scarcity discussion and not a "Syrian Rebels are Alqaeda" discussion.
Dude i said that if you send weapons to the rebels you will be helping Alqaeda, if the rebels are able to break the siege it will be due to Alqaeda help, they are the most competent forces among the rebels, if they are able to win in Aleppo Alqaeda will be seen as the heroes and their street cred will go trough the roof. I don't think the rebels would turn their backs on them as it would culminate in more infighting. Alqaeda is playing the long game, and that's the scary part. They are gaining more and more influence with each victory they are able to achieve in Syria.
If you simply walk over to the rebels and dropped cratefuls of weapons and ammo, then yes you will be helping alqaeda. For you to actually help arm the rebels you need to provide them enough support that they do not need alqaeda--a much broader and complex project than just leaving crates full of weapons for whoever is just passing by. It would mean resources and possibly manpower. It would mean air support, eyes on the ground, etc...
Its messy, difficult, and complex.
Sounds like a lot of work. Just giving weapons and training, on the other hand, is pretty cheap, easy, and under-the-radar but has the downside of biting you in the ass a few years down the road.
On October 15 2016 07:09 Kipsate wrote: I keep seeing all these random videos of people from parties(mostly republican) fuck up on public television and I feel like that never(or atleast, rarely) happens in Netherlands(or Europe that much for that matter, although it is very possible I don't hear about it).
Why is this even a thing, are these people woefully unprepared or something? Are there so many of them that a percentage of them are bound to fuck up?
90% of the people affiliated with the Trump campaign are either outcasts or complete newbies to the political arena. Part of the anti-establishment nature of the campaign, I guess. The ones who are experienced have never had to spin as hard as they do for Trump (before it was like a washing machine, now it's like a Cat 5 hurricane of spin they have to put on).
On October 15 2016 07:09 Kipsate wrote: I keep seeing all these random videos of people from parties(mostly republican) fuck up on public television and I feel like that never happens in Netherlands(or Europe that much for that matter, although it is very possible I don't hear about it).
Why is this even a thing, are these people woefully unprepared or something? Are there so many of them that a percentage of them are bound to fuck up?
I think its that no one competent wants to attach himself to Trump so the only people he has to speak on his behalf are the rejects and the crazies.
Trump has an impressive collection of washed-up has-beens who tethered themselves to his campaign in a bid to reacquire relevance.
7% tax on people making middle class income now is not that big a deal when they are getting $9k back in UBI.
your vague assertions about diminishing returns are unconvincing
i'm providing information for those who ask it. I'm not interested in people being needlessly argumentative. You're also not doing a full accounting about the money they'd be getting back, and the net changes to how various distributions would affect each group, and what the actual change in net distributions is. You're more than welcome to do a full look at the numbers if you're not satisfied with mine, and make your own vague claims about them; or do a full work-up of the feasibility of various approaches.
im responding to your complete dismissal of the idea based on incomplete back of the envelope calculation. yeah i did'nt do a full accounting but i think ive established that its far more plausible than you make it out. its always rich to hear you call me argumentative while acting like an impartial arbiter just taking note of objective "facts".
I provided my estimate of its feasibility. If I were in congress, I'd have given a far more thorough dismissal, but this is an internet gaming forum, so the standards are lower (despite evidence to the contrary). Just because the numbers can be reconciled doesn't mean it's anywhere near politically feasible; nor does it mean the net economic effect of such would be beneficial. You're free to do your own analysis and post it. I'd rather you disagree by bringing in more facts and analysis. And people can freely choose to believe my estimates or not.
And I aim to spread the riches, so I'm glad you got rich by hearing me talk thus.
the "politically feasible" argument is not only mostly irrelevant but feeds back into itself, as the discussion itself affects the public's estimation of its feasibility. it's a lazy argument that takes advantage of the fact that the future is contingent upon the present.
so you bring up your doubts about its "net economic benefit" which, no doubt, has been your major objection all along, and is the center from which your productivist, liberal ideolofg radiates outward. i would just point to my previous discussikn about the benefits of worker bee pollination in a "knowledge economy" as the basis for what my argument would be for why i think UBI as part of more comprehensive reforms would be a net positive
I disagree on the feasibility arguments. It's hard to push something without laying more groundwork. You're welcome to try campaigning on such a platform.
Now you strawman me, and assume what my position is, rather than asking, which proves that you are arguing improperly and are not worth discussing with further. You're also using jargon I do not recognize, which makes some of that paragraph unintelligible.
im not strawmanning you, ive actually been arguing very narrowly: you claimed we arent rich enough to do it and i think thats bullshit.
in that respect feasibility and groundwork are obvious prerequisites that have no necessary relation to whether we are materially wealthy enough to implement a UBI.
you said: "so you bring up your doubts about its "net economic benefit" which, no doubt, has been your major objection all along, and is the center from which your productivist, liberal ideolofg radiates outward" which looks like strawmanning to me.
are you serious? are you telling me that you think if it were politically feasible it would be a net economic benefit? that the only problem would be rejiggering the accounting?
or is your main objection, the one that underlines your entire dismissal of UBI as something only meant for a society w seven times the american per capita, that you don't think implementing a UBI by redistributing our current wealth away from the rich and to the poor would increase our economic growth? that we could only afford to give everyone a minimum income reasonable now if the rich had seven times as much as they currently do?
you asserted my position was something, rather than asking what it was. and you did so in an unmannerly tone. I require no more to feel distaste for continuing. and you then accuse me of posting only straw when I've been the one providing the bulk of the actual numbers in the discussion. So no, you are not worth talking to further as you are not engaging productively, if anyone else has questions on the topic I will answer them. You I will answer no further for awhile.
you claiming that you are being strawmanned is one of the most predictable things in this thread. i asserted your position was what you said it was
So Trump's bombshell proof that he wasn't guilty of the airplane thing is a british character witness by the name of Anthony Gilberthorpe. A guy who also claimed that he supplied young boys to people in british government when he was 17.
Donald Trump’s campaign says a British man is countering claims that the GOP presidential nominee groped a woman on a cross-country flight more than three decades ago.
The man says he was sitting across from the accuser and contacted the Trump campaign because he was incensed by her account — which is at odds with what he witnessed.
“I have only met this accuser once and frankly cannot imagine why she is seeking to make out that Trump made sexual advances on her. Not only did he not do so (and I was present at all times) but it was she that was the one being flirtatious,” Anthony Gilberthorpe said in a note provided to The Post by the Trump campaign.
In an exclusive interview arranged by the campaign, Gilberthorpe said he was on the flight — in either 1980 or 1981— where Jessica Leeds claimed Trump groped her.
Gilberthorpe, 54, said he was sitting across the first class aisle from the couple and saw nothing inappropriate. Leeds was wearing a white pantsuit, he said, while Trump was wearing a suit and cuff-links, which he gave to his British flight companion.
Indeed, Gilberthorpe claimed, Leeds was “trying too hard” in her attempt to win Trump over.
“She wanted to marry him,” Gilberthorpe said of Leeds, who apparently made the confession when Trump excused himself and went to the bathroom.
There was no kissing, but the “shrill” Leeds was “very much in your face” with the real estate developer.
Gilberthorpe made headlines in 2014, when he went public with a claim that as a 17-year-old he procured boys (some who “could have been” underage”) for sex parties with high-ranking British politicians.
‘If there’s evidence Trump’s done it, sure, hang him from the post, but I was there, I was in a position to know that what she said was wrong, wrong, wrong.’ Gilberthorpe has no evidence to back up his claim — just his self-described excellent memory.
“What she said about Trump is wrong,” he told The Post. “I mean, no decent human being could sit by and have a woman go on television and tell the United States of America — accuse an individual of sexually molesting. It’s wrong for Trump, it’s wrong for me. But you know something else? It’s wrong for the American people,” he said.
Leeds alleged this week in interviews with The New York Times and CNN that Trump groped her, touching her “wherever he could find a landing spot.”
“The guy in the seat across the aisle could see. And I kept thinking, maybe the stewardess is going to come and he’ll stop, but she never came,” Leeds told CNN.
That allegation infuriated Gilberthorpe, a retiree living in northwest England, who said, “That I sat there — eyes bulging — and not intervening is nonsense.”
“If there’s evidence Trump’s done it, sure, hang him from the post, but I was there, I was in a position to know that what she said was wrong, wrong, wrong,” he said.
He immediately recognized Leeds when he saw video of her in The Times earlier this week holding up a younger picture of herself.
“Undoubtedly it was her,” he said. “I have a good photographic memory. I recognized her.”
He said he contacted the Trump campaign because he didn’t like that Leeds said that another passenger sat by while she was molested.
At a rally Friday in North Carolina, Trump claimed all allegations against him are “100 percent totally and completely fabricated.”
Speaking of Leeds, Trump said, “When you looked at the horrible woman last night, you said ‘I don’t think so.'”
Gilberthorpe is even challenging Leeds to a public confrontation.
“I will go to head to head with her — I will meet her again. I will see her eyes across the table with my eyes and I will challenge her on the points she made. And I’ll tell you what, I would do this whether it was for Trump, for Clinton, for Obama, or for any man who’s been accused of sexually molesting someone when I know he did not,” he said.
Leeds could not immediately be reached for comment.
I question the viability of 4chan as it increases in popularity and hitches itself onto other political movements. But that report is amazing and beyond weird. But my favorite response so far has been the superior "Even the UN doesn't get 4chan." Shitty, ironic behavior is a mystery to us all.
I recommend all y'all in the UBI discussion, whether you're for it or not, to read Robert Greenstein's take on its problems and challenges from a pro targeted welfare perspective
God this shit is so fabulous to watch. Clinton is basically blasting Trump with rape allegations the way big companies flood small businesses with legal battles. Trump is finally mustering up some shit to deal with the girl on the plane, but now suddenly we are going to have a couple of days of press about this. At the end of the day, "Trump + sexual assault(?) + women" is STILL the topic going on less than a month before election day. People already voting. He is being completely buried with attacks to the point where nothing else can continue until they are dealt with.
By first starting with CLEAR AND SOLID proof that he is willing to sexually assault women, all of these allegations are suddenly worth airtime. I will be surprised if much else manages to make headlines between now and the election. He is being given zero room/time to recover. Clinton is freezing his terrible numbers and making everyone stop with skepticism before going back to Trump.
I told you guys the Clinton machine would bury Trump. It is a massive, destructive leviathan of political might.
Can we get an idea from a pull quote in the actual thread rather than just a link? It might be interesting, banal drivel, or just a list of hot singles in my area dying to meet me.
I don't think this is all Clinton's doing. I don't think the Post or the Times told her about the story. I bet they knew that the sexual assault claims were out there, but didn't know how to broach the issue. But the women coming forward all at once, that is all in response to Trump denying the charges live on TV. Even if Clinton's people knew about all of the, they wouldn't risk contacting them or trying to coordinate the release. It also doesn't match up to what the Times has said about the story. They knew about the two women in their story for about 6 months, but both were not willing to go on the record until Trump flat out denied ever sexually assaulting a women.
On October 15 2016 07:44 Dan HH wrote: I recommend all y'all in the UBI discussion, whether you're for it or not, to read Robert Greenstein's take on its problems and challenges from a pro targeted welfare perspective
EPT
