|
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 February 21 2017 14:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2017 14:22 Gahlo wrote:On February 21 2017 14:19 KwarK wrote:On February 21 2017 13:40 BlueBird. wrote:On February 21 2017 12:46 zlefin wrote:
I'm happy to have windmills save family farms. much preferable to massive welfare payments in the form of farm subsidies for failing businesses.
on robot taxing: wouldn't the money already be taxed anyways? I mean, if the owner/corporation earns money from the production of the robot, that would be taxed. so what about that doesn't work? or maybe it just does work. part of the thing is that the robot reduced the value of the work I suppose, so it's no longer worth the original $50k (as per the example number in the post a bit above). efficiency improvements change the valuation of work. We currently tax profits created from a worker for a company and the workers income. I'm assuming it's a bit more complicated than that but that is the way I understand it. When you cut out the worker you now have an unemployed Person further burdening the government and now you have higher corporate profits which are taxed but you have no income tax to tax and it likely doesn't balance out because of the former workers and their families needing your help now. The net positive effect on the community from that company is now lessened in a sense, it could even be a burden if there are externalities on the community like air pollutants and the trade off of jobs goes away. If you replace a worker with a robot and don't change the price of what you sell then corporate profits will increase (otherwise you'd not want the robot) which are taxed there. If multiple rival companies do it then the savings are passed on directly to the consumer which is its own benefit. A progressive sales tax mixed with some kind of UBI is probably the optimal solution. I'll buy that when America's internet isn't both a) shitty and b) reasonably priced for its quality. Because right now, it isn't. The companies don't care because they've all got a piece of the pie. I said it was either or. Either they're raking in dollars for doing fuck all, in which case corporate taxes and taxes on dividends/capital gains scoop that up, or they're passing the savings on, in which case that's a direct benefit to the public.
I agree with your analysis but I don't think it ends up in a "net gain" place.
In the first case, corporate taxes and capital gains taxes are again usually lower on the same volume than income taxes are. Unless there is a corresponding massive increase in demand _because_ of automation (which I think is a stretch) I think this still ends up with a net loss of collected taxes. (There may be more subtleties here also depending on who is collecting -- state or fed)
In the second case, we are removing tax dollars from budgets which can be generally applied to social causes and turning them into specific benefits for specific consumer bases who may not be the ones who need the attention of social services in the first place. I don't think money is the same regardless of whose account it is in.
|
On February 21 2017 10:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2017 09:47 xDaunt wrote:On February 21 2017 05:49 IgnE wrote:On February 21 2017 03:53 xDaunt wrote:
Big mistake for CPAC. Maybe the mistake was inviting him in the first place. I mostly agree with Drone's discussion on this topic. No, CPAC was right to invite Milo, and they should have kept him rather than get bowled over by this faux controversy. His comments basically distill down to having the age of consent somewhere between 13 and 16 is fine. The argument for that isn't exactly outrageous. Like I tell my Never-Trumper friends, Milo is too important to the conservative cause to dismiss or cast aside. Even though he is more libertarian than social conservative, he has done more to roll back the liberal cultural stranglehold than anyone in recent memory -- particularly among younger folks. 1. What about the controversy is faux? 2. Why is Milo so important to the conservative cause? What does he bring to the table, exactly? I rarely see him even talking about anything besides hating on groups of people.
He was the gay friend they all had that made their anti-gay legislation OK.
|
On February 21 2017 17:18 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2017 10:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 21 2017 09:47 xDaunt wrote:On February 21 2017 05:49 IgnE wrote:On February 21 2017 03:53 xDaunt wrote:
Big mistake for CPAC. Maybe the mistake was inviting him in the first place. I mostly agree with Drone's discussion on this topic. No, CPAC was right to invite Milo, and they should have kept him rather than get bowled over by this faux controversy. His comments basically distill down to having the age of consent somewhere between 13 and 16 is fine. The argument for that isn't exactly outrageous. Like I tell my Never-Trumper friends, Milo is too important to the conservative cause to dismiss or cast aside. Even though he is more libertarian than social conservative, he has done more to roll back the liberal cultural stranglehold than anyone in recent memory -- particularly among younger folks. 1. What about the controversy is faux? 2. Why is Milo so important to the conservative cause? What does he bring to the table, exactly? I rarely see him even talking about anything besides hating on groups of people. He was the gay friend they all had that made their anti-gay legislation OK.
It's okay, they have Peter Thiel now.
|
Milo may be a libertarian of some kind, but he is hardly a conservative. Promiscuity and conservatism don't go hand in hand.
|
On February 21 2017 18:46 maybenexttime wrote:
Milo may be a libertarian of some kind, but he is hardly a conservative. Promiscuity and conservatism don't go hand in hand.
I don't follow him much, but he seems socially conservative on at least some issues according to what I saw of him on the Bill Maher show. He did support bathroom laws prohibiting transgender people from using the bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity, and he cited protecting women and children as the reason.
|
On February 21 2017 18:46 maybenexttime wrote:
Milo may be a libertarian of some kind, but he is hardly a conservative. Promiscuity and conservatism don't go hand in hand.
Depends on what time period and social group you define conservatism for. If you are conservative for the Palaeolithic period it goes hand in hand pretty well as far as I know.
|
I guess talking about this provocative guy is the new hobby to avoid to discuss the current shitshow at the head of your country. Wait a minute, could it be that is what he wants???
|
That's not exactly a fair statement; while you may be right insofar as Milo getting too much attention is concerned, it isn't as though we're sacrificing anything in discussing the ongoing topic of CPAC and the broader topic as to who exactly fits inside the conservative tent. Most of us are pretty sure this guy should just go away for everyone's sake, yet some here still think he's an important figure. Nevertheless, take it from this US citizen, we're focusing on plenty else (as this thread would itself indicate  ).
|
|
|
warning:incoming media rant.
The lengths to which cnn goes to bash trump is incredible,a huge contrast with the bbc. It is funny,but most foreign media treat trump with much more respect then the mainstream American media,and their reporting is much more objective,based on facts instead of trying to convey an image of a failing president.
Yesterday cnn referred to the president simply as "mr trump" while it is normal to address him as the president. That is just one of the many small things. Later on the evening they had a bigger item about the Swedish remark from trump again about which no one really cares and which is largely irrelevant in the grand sceme of things. Analysing how it was not true and what not,It was pathetic to see. On bbc on the other hand they talked about policy,analysing how nato would develop and other bigger isues like the plans to deal with isis. All without prejudice and without the goal of creating an image of a failing president. Talking about him in a respectfull way,referring to him as "the president of the usa" or "president trump"
Now today fareed zakaria,once a good journalist,had the job of creating horrible journalism by writing an article/tv item about how president trump has basicly done nothing yet. It goes on every single day. Cnn will never ever say anything positive about trump,trump could defeat isis (well not trump himself off course lol) and create a more or less peacefull situation in Syria and cnn would simply ignore it,they would still find ways to criticize him on that. Obama on the other hand could do absolutely nothing wrong.
Cnn is no longer a source of objective information,this will cost them a lot of money somewhere down the line but they probably don't even care. its not an instrument to make money,its an instrument to influence public opion,
And the interesting thing is,by reporting so one sided about the president,all their reporting is starting to look bad and less credible/objective. Even the people who are against trump will get annoyed by their reporting eventually,it is without any class. Cnn is the new fox for the highly educated.
Anyway,i am done with my rants about the media so this will be my last one rejoice.
|
Norway28562 Posts
The BBC is one of the best media outlets out there. I do like a couple of CNN journalists but I've also always considered them more of a tv-tabloid, they're about the biggest culprit when it comes to sensationalism, theatrics and simplifying of complex issues.
|
On February 21 2017 21:30 SoSexy wrote:Milo on pedophilia, September 2015 + Show Spoiler +
He's incredibly inconsistent when it comes to issues that really shouldn't be controversial (like child molestation). One day you'll see him condemning them to hell, and the next he'll make light of the situation and talk about how the children probably had fun. Then he'll out and ostracize some child molesters, and then he'll protect other child molesters' identities. The fact that he's been wishy-washy with something like this is concerning, at the very least. There aren't that many issues that are black-and-white, but surely we can all come to an agreement that raping kids is bad...
|
|
|
On February 21 2017 21:34 pmh wrote:
Cnn is no longer a source of objective information,this will cost them a lot of money somewhere down the line but they probably don't even care. its not an instrument to make money,its an instrument to influence public opion,
And the interesting thing is,by reporting so one sided about the president,all their reporting is starting to look bad and less credible/objective. Even the people who are against trump will get annoyed by their reporting eventually,it is without any class. Cnn is the new fox for the highly educated.
I'm not so sure that a shift to highly partisan reporting will lose anyone money, between the fact that it really got going around when the internet started threatening traditional news and the fact that people love to be told they're right it seems much more likely to me that the shift towards highly partisan reporting is mostly about making money.
|
On February 21 2017 21:34 pmh wrote:warning:incoming media rant. The lengths to which cnn goes to bash trump is incredible,a huge contrast with the bbc. It is funny,but most foreign media treat trump with much more respect then the mainstream American media,and their reporting is much more objective,based on facts instead of trying to convey an image of a failing president. Yesterday cnn referred to the president simply as "mr trump" while it is normal to address him as the president. That is just one of the many small things. Later on the evening they had a bigger item about the Swedish remark from trump again about which no one really cares and which is largely irrelevant in the grand sceme of things. Analysing how it was not true and what not,It was pathetic to see. On bbc on the other hand they talked about policy,analysing how nato would develop and other bigger isues like the plans to deal with isis. All without prejudice and without the goal of creating an image of a failing president. Talking about him in a respectfull way,referring to him as "the president of the usa" or "president trump" Now today fareed zakaria,once a good journalist,had the job of creating horrible journalism by writing an article/tv item about how president trump has basicly done nothing yet. It goes on every single day. Cnn will never ever say anything positive about trump,trump could defeat isis (well not trump himself off course lol) and create a more or less peacefull situation in Syria and cnn would simply ignore it,they would still find ways to criticize him on that. Obama on the other hand could do absolutely nothing wrong. Cnn is no longer a source of objective information,this will cost them a lot of money somewhere down the line but they probably don't even care. its not an instrument to make money,its an instrument to influence public opion, And the interesting thing is,by reporting so one sided about the president,all their reporting is starting to look bad and less credible/objective. Even the people who are against trump will get annoyed by their reporting eventually,it is without any class. Cnn is the new fox for the highly educated. Anyway,i am done with my rants about the media so this will be my last one rejoice.
So CNN is crap because they called the president "Mr."? While that's certainly not respectful, and they should not do that, the rest of your post is speculation (i.e., "Cnn will never ever say anything positive about trump,trump could defeat isis (well not trump himself off course lol) and create a more or less peacefull situation in Syria and cnn would simply ignore it,they would still find ways to criticize him on that."). Also, giving someone the wrong title (i.e., Mr. instead of President) doesn't mean that they haven't been reporting the news. I'm not saying that CNN is the best source out there, but you should be remarking more on the validity of the actual content and substance presented, rather than focusing on something as superficial as a name. Keep in mind that even Fox News is calling Trump out on his bullshit, so reporting the things that Trump actually says and does is not inappropriate.
Also, it's important to note that international news has taken potshots at Trump too, although you could imagine that foreign press might cover Trump a little bit less frequently than American press. BBC is great, I agree, and here's an example of them sharing anti-Trump memes: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39015879
Obama on the other hand could do absolutely nothing wrong.
Well he certainly did a lot less wrong during his first month in office...
|
This is why the Democrats lost everything in the election. Keep in mind that the Sanders campaign late in the election literally begged the Clinton camp to campaign and do stop overs in such areas, they refused.
Anthony Rice’s house in Youngstown, Ohio is a mile away from a river valley once filled with factories offering jobs. Many of those left in the 1980s, and with them, many residents.
His home is one of the few occupied on the street. Empty lots or boarded-up homes make up most of the block. He points to those remaining, listing his neighbors and their age. They are all over 70. “This neighborhood is okie-dokie, although not much goes down here”, he says. “Stores used to be all around here, but they mostly gone. The people left are either too old to move or waiting for someone to buy them out.”
The road itself is a patchwork of potholes. “This street hasn’t been paved in like forever. They just don’t care about us. But we used to that.”
Youngstown is the largest city in Mahoning County, Ohio, where Donald Trump narrowly lost a county Barack Obama won twice easily. That was partly because turnout in Youngstown – which is lower income, younger, and close to half African American – dropped by roughly 15%.
It was a blueprint replicated across the US – getting just enough working class, older, and wealthier suburban whites to flip and turn out for Trump, while a small enough sliver of minorities and younger white voters did not turn out. It was achieved in just the right places: Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
I ask Anthony about the election. “Most people in this neighborhood sat idle. We didn’t have a dog in this fight. It is like we had our president, and it is time for them to have their president. I voted for Hillary. But I don’t mind Trump, although I do think he is crazy. He is jamming a stick in the beehive, and some think it will break their way.”
Did Trump’s win surprise him? “No. Obama promised a lot and only a little came of it. Maybe New York City got delivered promises. This street here is still filled with homes falling down.”
A lot of the US is like that. I have seen it all over, when I put 100,000 miles on my car before the election. I have heard and seen the frustrations of countless people – of all races and faiths – in wildly different places, from Nebraska to Louisiana.
To get out beyond successful neighborhoods in DC, New York City and the elite college campuses – beyond where prevailing socio-political opinions are made – is to see another America.
It isn’t a more “real” America – a glib and offensive cliche – it is simply a different one. It is an America that values and experiences different things, emphasizing local community and faith, rather than career or educational status. It is an America that has been on a downward trajectory for decades, hurt by the loss of jobs and with downtowns emptied of energy and filled with drugs. It has made staying in these communities harder.
In this America hope is fading, not growing. People’s lives are a constant tangle of changing and uncertain jobs. The path that offers a way out – education – requires threading a narrow needle of opportunities from an early age. If that small chance is missed it means a lifetime of feeling looked down on by the “other America.”
In these towns, “America already is great” rings hollow and offensive. Trump exposed and exploited that, coming into these communities with a simple and angry message – one that effectively said: “This ain’t working for you. So let’s knock it all over!”
He also came with a message of division and fear, inflaming a long ugly thread of racial politics in American history. It made supporting him almost impossible for frustrated minorities such as Anthony, who was blunt: “Trump isn’t a racist, but sure does surround himself with racists.” Some registered their frustration by simply not voting, a process exploited by a cynical GOP that has made it harder to vote.
Hattie Wilkins, 66, witnessed that. She is a former steel worker and union president who is now a community activist.\
She hates Trump but also doesn’t like Hillary Clinton. She actively supported Bernie Sanders in the primaries. Frustrated and angered by Clinton, she eventually voted for her, but as a vote against Trump. “I had to,” she says. “It hurt but I did.”
She had trouble convincing many of her neighbors to get out and vote: “I ran into a lot of people who didn’t like either of them, so they weren’t voting.” Despite that, she worked hard to get as many people registered as she could, even trying to coax the drug dealers in her neighborhood to do so.
Source
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
We can't afford to nominate a socialist. We have to win this election no matter the cost. And to that end, it would be irresponsible to choose anyone but the most experienced, electable candidate we could possibly have. Never mind anything else, we have to win, and Trump is SO BAD.
|
On February 21 2017 22:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
This is why the Democrats lost everything in the election. Keep in mind that the Sanders campaign late in the election literally begged the Clinton camp to campaign and do stop overs in such areas, they refused.
Hattie Wilkins, 66, witnessed that. She is a former steel worker and union president who is now a community activist.
She hates Trump but also doesn’t like Hillary Clinton. She actively supported Bernie Sanders in the primaries. Frustrated and angered by Clinton, she eventually voted for her, but as a vote against Trump. “I had to,” she says. “It hurt but I did.”
She had trouble convincing many of her neighbors to get out and vote: “I ran into a lot of people who didn’t like either of them, so they weren’t voting.” Despite that, she worked hard to get as many people registered as she could, even trying to coax the drug dealers in her neighborhood to do so.
Bernie would have won.
|
so finally you made it to stage 4 - The 5 stages of grief and loss are: 1. Denial and isolation; 2. Anger; 3. Bargaining; 4. Depression; 5. Acceptance.
i'm curious what the necessary consequence of stage 5 would bring; fingers crossed.
|
All right, lets give a couple of thoughts with regards to the situation in Sweden. First off, the Fox News piece is a hyper-partisan and misleading segment, since the subject of it is Horowitz film, which is heavily edited, a la O'Keefe. This is an interview in a Swedish Newspaper (in English) with the two policeofficers in the segment http://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/nyheter/swedish-police-featured-in-fox-news-segment-filmmaker-is-a-madman/.
We do have huge challenges with regards to immigration, but I do believe we can handle it. We received tens of thousands of refugees during the Balkan war, and they are mostly integrated and an integral part of society today. The Syrian refugees, which are a large segment of the recently admitted refugees are kind of similar. Their pre-war society was relatively stable and they have an overall quite high educational level.
One of the strengths of Swedish society is that we are heavily regulated with everything from hyperstrong Unions and very clear rules on how certain things are made. This, however, leads to certain difficulties when accepting the huge influx of people, as they can't be accepted into a workforce immediately. We also have long waiting times for a permanent Visa (years in some times). This leads to many people sitting around doing nothing, and surviving on what the state provides (which is housing, food and a very small allowance of pockey money).
We have many initiatives staffed by volunteers which tries to provide activities for refugees, for example board gaming or soccer, which improves the quality of life immensly for them. Because a huge factor in wether a refugee becomes a criminal or not is the level of interaction he or she has with the local community. If you look at the size of the population, they are absolutely overrepresented, even if you make allowances for an overall lower level of prosperity (among the native population, the poorer are overrepresented in criminal statistics). However, there is still a very low percentage of immigrants/refugees that are or become criminals. A recent Facebook post by a veteran police officer is causing a furore on social media, since he asserts that the only criminals he interacts with have foreign-sounding names. However, this does not mean he interacts with the entire immigrant/refugee population. Just the criminal part of it.
So, what we need to do is do a better job of integrating immigrants in our society, and speed up the path from being accepted and put in a holding facility to getting our and being a part of the workforce.
Our BNP per capity increased to record levels 2016, so it's not like we're super poor or anything (or that our society is anywhere near a systemic collapse), but we have also had a record rate of growing inequality between rich and poor (one of the Highest in the EU since the 90's if I'm not mistaken) which makes for a poorer social cohesion. It also makes it much easier for fearmongering politicians to get a lot of support, because feelings are seen as the truth, not hard statistical data, since the data doesn't match up with what the poorer people are feeling. Personally, I'm an arrogant bastard so I have little patience for "jobless people who get free healthcare, free internet and want a second flatscreen TV in their bedroom" who vote for fearmongers like the Sweden Democrats, but nobody's perfect .
TLDR:
Sweden's great but have yuge challongas. We have the best society in the entire world. Immigrants are more likely to be criminals. Immigrants despite this have a very low rate of criminality percentage-wise.
It'll all turn out well in the end, unless the Sweden Democrats get into power. Then I'm out. Canada?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C5Jv-3DWAAAT9U1.jpg)
