|
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 July 07 2017 00:29 Zambrah wrote:
Financial literacy is pretty abyssmal unfortunately, some high school courses would go a LONG way towarda improving that imo. The basics aren't crazy difficult, but I think many financially illiterate just think finances are something entirely out of their league because they were never taught anything about them and money managing is one of those things fancy folk in suits and ties go to Harvard for. Being able to take a financials course in high school for a math credit would likely help improve the situation a ton. Especially since most entry level statistics courses literally amount to "board game class" in public schools.
Sure makes me grateful my Mom has helped me work up to a solid credit score...
I went to university with a 700 score. I blew it.
Good for you that your mother helped you. A lot of people don't have that.
|
United States42695 Posts
On July 07 2017 00:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 23:17 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 17:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I took home ec growing up. I'm 30. I can balance a checkbook and manage my money just fine, by keeping current on the trends in the market place. It's not perfect and my credit is shot from helping family and taking credit when I couldn't afford it, but I understand the market. I did a fantasy stock exchange a long time ago, and made out like a bandit on smart investing and watching the market. You can teach yourself the skills you need in life. Some people don't have access to things like that. Simple tools to help you.
Now that I'm older and looking for a home to buy, my credit from 12 years ago still haunts me. It'll take me a long time to get that up to where it needs to be (5 years tops), but it's a hindrance now. I can't provide for myself, let alone a prospective family, with shit credit. And there is no way to get out from under it other than playing by their rules.
In America, credit is king. If you don't have it, you won't make it. I have a great network and connections in all sectors of every industry, but my credit won't allow me to take advantage of that, and that, my friends, is what is killing me.
EDIT: I don't mean this in an offense manner. But fuck anyone who says that they made it. No, your credit history made it. And you were lucky to get as far as you could with your socioeconomic background, whereas others, who are just as, if not more than, capable, are barely breathing. Your credit got you to your position. Nothing more. You have what others "covet" because it was bought in credit and smartly managed. (All my opinion. Take it as you will).
Edit2: I was taught in history in high school that my teacher, a 40 year old white male, could sign his name and get almost anything he wanted. Because of those facts. Sure, there are extenuating circumstances to preclude that, but the point stands. I could have the same credentials, and still be denied. Solely based on my socioeconomic background. I'm a little curious about some of the details here. Nothing from 12 years ago should still be on your credit unless you accidentally refreshed stuff. Even a bankruptcy won't still be impacting you now. To answer your curiosity, CC in college when I had a school loan to pay back to continue, I maxed out 3 cards. The limit was minimal, mind you. But family said they would take care of it. They didn't. That dropped my score to the bottom. I paid all of them off (for less than was debted). But raising that score with more credit, when every APR is 24%+ is difficult. I've held a steady job since then and even joined the military. The bulk of my bad credit is school related. I'm paying back a lot of money with minimum wage jobs that don't make the cut because I can't afford to work 40+ hours a week during school. I recently graduated, so I'm looking at a sum total of $5k+ without a job for once. No CC. No family to help. No job to fix it. Plus minor identity theft issues. The problems can multiply and put you under and it's hell to get back out.
Are you carrying a balance to build credit? Because APR shouldn't make a difference when building credit. Getting a credit card, putting a monthly low cost revolving charge like Spotify on it and paying it off each month will work fine. There's a myth that you need to pay interest to build credit but it's, well, a myth.
Had you continued to not pay the cards and defaulted 12 years ago you'd actually be better off. Making payments after your family screwed you is the only thing that kept those debts alive. Good on you for paying them back but the reason they took less than you owed was because they probably couldn't collect anything.
Good news is that credit reports only take information from the last 7 years so things will eventually age out.
|
On July 07 2017 00:17 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 00:08 Plansix wrote:On July 07 2017 00:04 Gahlo wrote:On July 06 2017 23:52 Wulfey_LA wrote:
I have had credit cards for 20 years. Never carried a balance. Why would you carry a balance? Always pay it off every month. You'd be surprised how many people live paycheck to paycheck. If something happens like the washer goes, replacing it can cause problems for people living like that. This is the reality of credit cards. People who live pay check to pay check end up using them for things like car repairs or some other emergency to avoid losing their job. These are stable people most of the time, right up until some sort of “shock” causes them to go into debt. And this starts a cycle of being unable to make ends meet and falling further in debt. i mean i've been there and paid off my debt and paid a fairly decent interest charge because of it. and i guess i just disagree here. in your last post you said something to the effect of 'effectively shaming ourselves for taking money we couldn't afford to pay back' and yes. yes that's how i feel. don't do it if you can't afford to. like i had, i understand that for some there aren't options. but for each case of those there are as many people who do it purely out of stupidity. and for those people i don't think i'll be swayed to have any sympathy. i certainly haven't been yet.
And it is nice that you were able to do that, but that doesn’t make the people who couldn’t any more irresponsible that the companies that extended them the credit. Or stupid. I’ve worked with them, they are just people. The credit was extending with the full knowledge it might not be possible for the borrower to pay it back. And it was accepted with the same understanding. They did exactly what everyone in this thread said they should do, get a card and use it responsibly. But then Murphy’s law took over and plans went sideways. You can’t plan around a car accident and then losing your job a month later. So then they would come to the firm I worked for and ask to file BK to get a fresh start. They would feel all ashamed and I would always ask “Why? Those companies knew this could happen.”
Unsecured debt is easy to discharge in bankruptcy. It is the first thing to go because they knew it was high risk. The credit card companies don’t even try to fight about it because they know. I’m not asking you to feel bad for these people. But don’t feel bad for the credit card companies when they have to write off that debt.
|
On July 07 2017 00:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 00:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 06 2017 23:17 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 17:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I took home ec growing up. I'm 30. I can balance a checkbook and manage my money just fine, by keeping current on the trends in the market place. It's not perfect and my credit is shot from helping family and taking credit when I couldn't afford it, but I understand the market. I did a fantasy stock exchange a long time ago, and made out like a bandit on smart investing and watching the market. You can teach yourself the skills you need in life. Some people don't have access to things like that. Simple tools to help you.
Now that I'm older and looking for a home to buy, my credit from 12 years ago still haunts me. It'll take me a long time to get that up to where it needs to be (5 years tops), but it's a hindrance now. I can't provide for myself, let alone a prospective family, with shit credit. And there is no way to get out from under it other than playing by their rules.
In America, credit is king. If you don't have it, you won't make it. I have a great network and connections in all sectors of every industry, but my credit won't allow me to take advantage of that, and that, my friends, is what is killing me.
EDIT: I don't mean this in an offense manner. But fuck anyone who says that they made it. No, your credit history made it. And you were lucky to get as far as you could with your socioeconomic background, whereas others, who are just as, if not more than, capable, are barely breathing. Your credit got you to your position. Nothing more. You have what others "covet" because it was bought in credit and smartly managed. (All my opinion. Take it as you will).
Edit2: I was taught in history in high school that my teacher, a 40 year old white male, could sign his name and get almost anything he wanted. Because of those facts. Sure, there are extenuating circumstances to preclude that, but the point stands. I could have the same credentials, and still be denied. Solely based on my socioeconomic background. I'm a little curious about some of the details here. Nothing from 12 years ago should still be on your credit unless you accidentally refreshed stuff. Even a bankruptcy won't still be impacting you now. To answer your curiosity, CC in college when I had a school loan to pay back to continue, I maxed out 3 cards. The limit was minimal, mind you. But family said they would take care of it. They didn't. That dropped my score to the bottom. I paid all of them off (for less than was debted). But raising that score with more credit, when every APR is 24%+ is difficult. I've held a steady job since then and even joined the military. The bulk of my bad credit is school related. I'm paying back a lot of money with minimum wage jobs that don't make the cut because I can't afford to work 40+ hours a week during school. I recently graduated, so I'm looking at a sum total of $5k+ without a job for once. No CC. No family to help. No job to fix it. Plus minor identity theft issues. The problems can multiply and put you under and it's hell to get back out. Are you carrying a balance to build credit? Because APR shouldn't make a difference when building credit. Getting a credit card, putting a monthly low cost revolving charge like Spotify on it and paying it off each month will work fine. There's a myth that you need to pay interest to build credit but it's, well, a myth. Had you continued to not pay the cards and defaulted 12 years ago you'd actually be better off. Making payments after your family screwed you is the only thing that kept those debts alive. Good on you for paying them back but the reason they took less than you owed was because they probably couldn't collect anything. Good news is that credit reports only take information from the last 7 years so things will eventually age out.
I paid them off a few years after I got them. Almost (probably did) cost me my security clearance. The only debt I have now, that won't go away, is school. And that was from years ago with a new $1500 going on top. I can make payments, bring them out of default, and slowly build my credit again. But like I stated earlier, it's killing me now, because I can't buy/finance a home or car.
Edit: American Express is a wonderful company in my eyes. They really do work with people and help you get things situated to where you can make the payments you owe with as little to no hassle as possible. If I could get another card from them, I'd be happy.
|
On July 07 2017 00:32 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 00:29 Zambrah wrote:
Financial literacy is pretty abyssmal unfortunately, some high school courses would go a LONG way towarda improving that imo. The basics aren't crazy difficult, but I think many financially illiterate just think finances are something entirely out of their league because they were never taught anything about them and money managing is one of those things fancy folk in suits and ties go to Harvard for. Being able to take a financials course in high school for a math credit would likely help improve the situation a ton. Especially since most entry level statistics courses literally amount to "board game class" in public schools.
Sure makes me grateful my Mom has helped me work up to a solid credit score... I went to university with a 700 score. I blew it. Good for you that your mother helped you. A lot of people don't have that.
Yeah I'm quite thankful because otherwise I'd be in the boat of "money?! That's way out of my intellectual league..." boat. Sadly parents don't always (often, even?) take the initiative to financially educate their kids.
I have a friend whose parents make 160k a year and manage to blow it on cars and vacations, so I guess some people just can't teach financials because they're not financially responsible themselves. Should really be something mandatory to learn in high school.
|
On July 07 2017 00:39 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 00:32 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 07 2017 00:29 Zambrah wrote:
Financial literacy is pretty abyssmal unfortunately, some high school courses would go a LONG way towarda improving that imo. The basics aren't crazy difficult, but I think many financially illiterate just think finances are something entirely out of their league because they were never taught anything about them and money managing is one of those things fancy folk in suits and ties go to Harvard for. Being able to take a financials course in high school for a math credit would likely help improve the situation a ton. Especially since most entry level statistics courses literally amount to "board game class" in public schools.
Sure makes me grateful my Mom has helped me work up to a solid credit score... I went to university with a 700 score. I blew it. Good for you that your mother helped you. A lot of people don't have that. Yeah I'm quite thankful because otherwise I'd be in the boat of "money?! That's way out of my intellectual league..." boat. Sadly parents don't always (often, even?) take the initiative to financially educate their kids. I have a friend whose parents make 160k a year and manage to blow it on cars and vacations, so I guess some people just can't teach financials because they're not financially responsible themselves. Should really be something mandatory to learn in high school.
My grandparents taught me. They told me a story of an uncle who would pay everything cash. Cars. Houses. Whatever. Cash. His credit was A1 but he didn't trust banks. Just paid cash. Grandmother had terrific credit. Got sick. There goes the credit rating. It doesn't take much. She still preaches that we need to make sure our credit is good so that we can live the "good life". My sister is doing well to raise hers back up. I'm just now beginning my journey.
|
On July 07 2017 00:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 00:39 Zambrah wrote:On July 07 2017 00:32 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 07 2017 00:29 Zambrah wrote:
Financial literacy is pretty abyssmal unfortunately, some high school courses would go a LONG way towarda improving that imo. The basics aren't crazy difficult, but I think many financially illiterate just think finances are something entirely out of their league because they were never taught anything about them and money managing is one of those things fancy folk in suits and ties go to Harvard for. Being able to take a financials course in high school for a math credit would likely help improve the situation a ton. Especially since most entry level statistics courses literally amount to "board game class" in public schools.
Sure makes me grateful my Mom has helped me work up to a solid credit score... I went to university with a 700 score. I blew it. Good for you that your mother helped you. A lot of people don't have that. Yeah I'm quite thankful because otherwise I'd be in the boat of "money?! That's way out of my intellectual league..." boat. Sadly parents don't always (often, even?) take the initiative to financially educate their kids. I have a friend whose parents make 160k a year and manage to blow it on cars and vacations, so I guess some people just can't teach financials because they're not financially responsible themselves. Should really be something mandatory to learn in high school. My grandparents taught me. They told me a story of an uncle who would pay everything cash. Cars. Houses. Whatever. Cash. His credit was A1 but he didn't trust banks. Just paid cash. Grandmother had terrific credit. Got sick. There goes the credit rating. It doesn't take much. She still preaches that we need to make sure our credit is good so that we can live the "good life". My sister is doing well to raise hers back up. I'm just now beginning my journey.
Well I have no doubt your credit will be in good shape in due time, sounds like you're on top of your game, at this point it's all time. 
|
The problem I always see with people with debt is they don’t pull the bankruptcy trigger early enough. Filing bankruptcy ruins your credit score, but so does missing payments and falling behind. If you are doing to destroy your credit score, do it on your terms and get rid of a bunch of debt along the way. Plus if you have a good attorney, it is almost a give in that one of your creditors will screw up and violate fair debt and screw themselves.
|
On July 07 2017 00:20 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 23:05 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 19:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 07:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You would vote for a man who insults the media who disagrees with him, lies to the media, denigrates the justice system, drop the biggest non-nuclear bomb randomly without regard to how civilian casualties will make America less safe, fights against bureaucracy that make the president accountable, whilst enriching his own singular monetary interest?
Somehow that should run countrary to your own professed interest would it not? I will vote for that man twice if it means denying an unequivocally worse president the white house. What part of "actively merits a return to the other choice in the election" do you not understand? That's the thing though. Your argument literal makes no sense. By your own criteria, Donald Trump is the worse candidate. He does the very opposite of what you want a president to do. He takes your criteria and makes it worse, whilst by your own reckoning Hillary Clinton would keep the current status which you view as deplorable. I don't really see how a negative change by Donald Trump is better than no change by Hillary Clinton to your criteria. Note that I am taking your assumptions at face value. The only way your argument makes any sense at all is if you are totally unaware what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Not even close, dangermouse. You really need to read the post you didn't quote and remind yourself of the positive changes I mentioned, add to it another originalist on the court, and try again. The current direction is catastrophic, the current status is simply one mark on a descent to societal collapse and poverty. The better guy won in 2016, full stop. The country dodged a bullet and Trump simply isn't competent enough to beat Hillary in her foreign state corruption, idiotic internationalism/globalism, politics of class and race war, regulation, and a host of others. You slow or stop the descent and that's a positive thing even if enacted by a bumbling fool. It's better for a little chaos up top than a slick operation to centralize even more power in Washington. It wouldn't take much reading on the history of conservatism to cure your "literal no sense" misunderstanding (deliberate perhaps) of the other side. If you don't like the liberal media and their tactics, you need to understand that Trump is making that worse by leaps and bounds, by making the media more successful and sustainable as a business. America first rhetoric? You would never have tolerated NATO being diminished before you needed to excuse your vote for Trump. You've been conned by a snake oil salesmen into Trump Family First - see China and Saudi Arabia. As for the administrative state, how is Jared Kushner doing with that? And what is this bumbling fool enacting other than EOs that are statements of intent and laws that are marginal at best? Dangermouse's point is that the bumbling fool is taking you backwards on your stated points, not helping. You trusted a bumbling fool to help you but he's gonna screw it all up. No, he wanted to say Trump is the worse candidate based on my own stated criteria, which was objectively false and showed he needs to reread the material, as you should do to his post. One more time for the cheap seats: "tolerating" x, y, and z is always framed against what the other choice would've been. I can tolerate a heap of stuff from the Trump White House knowing that he did defeat the way worse possible occupier of that office. Get it? I'll criticize him left right and center for some EOs, religious freedom one comes to mind, and all the rest. Secondly, the insanity of the liberal media is on full display and helpful to cause Americans to reject their message. Track down meme creators/reposters the president retweeted? Issue full retractions and apologies for false Russia stories, and shown to be totally pants-on-fire wrong from congressional testimony? These are helpful to my cause. CNN as a corporation might just have a thinner skin than Trump, and that's useful for future presidencies when Trump is out of office. For the rest, you have one big unacknowledged problem. Republicans are winning cross country in special elections because voters know Trump's his own man. People can separate the man from other candidates since he ran so obviously against the party regulars and is very much removed from the norm. Lastly, a slowdown in the expansion of power in the reulatory state is obvious from a guy that can't appoint his own guys quickly and made two-cut-per-one-made rules. When he flails in three directions, he's comparatively better than a Hillary that pushing policies with federal agencies that I know to be harmful. What's funny is that you would claim liberals talk down to those they argue with. Keep in mind you didn't just tolerate, you praised it. Praising America first rhetoric includes the NATO rhetoric, which should really show you the degree to which you've excused Donald Trump. The guy is bumbling up your own hopes for government, not helping.
Show me the praise, liar. The minor issue is that I support Europeans paying more for their national defense at something like 2% GDP. I linked articles showing the one-way street. I also criticized Trump for his rhetoric that was off base. And like before, I'm rather happy at a divided government than one focused on growing its power, indebtedness, and limiting our freedoms. This is the third time on this, so I guess it's falling on deaf ears.
Cherry picking some media mistakes against the backdrop of a leaking sieve of a West Wing doesn't help to form an accurate picture. CNN has thinner skin because of one little line in a story? CNN has thinner skin than Trump? That's far removed from reality.
You could write an entire book on how the media has fucked up from the beginning. When there was nothing to the collusion story, it was obstruction. When it wasn't obstruction, it was the aura of the investigation. When all their claims were shattered in multiple testimonies, there was silence. And on and on and on. CNN tracking down and threatening a meme poster is an example of seeing Trump lash out at injury and saying, "Hold my beer." Anything less is blind ignorance of what goes around you.
Republicans are winning special elections in red districts. I think that's all there is to say on that. Signs point to Trump harming your Congressional majorities. Things like the hiring freeze only cause more money to be spent by the government. Arbitrary 2 for 1 rules are only counterproductive. It's all bumbled up stuff from people who don't know their ass from the ground.
Har dee har. You think these things are counterproductive. Show me your proof. Republicans are doing well in elections, media organizations are becoming less and less trusted. The overall election was a win compared to Hillary's anticipated plans. Sorry that it went wrong, but my advice is not transparently showing how upset you are at the election loss in criticism months later. He's actually not that hard to legitimately criticize, aka attack him for stupidity and unpresidential behavior and not these moronic invitation to violence through WWE video.
|
On July 07 2017 00:47 Plansix wrote:
The problem I always see with people with debt is they don’t pull the bankruptcy trigger early enough. Filing bankruptcy ruins your credit score, but so does missing payments and falling behind. If you are doing to destroy your credit score, do it on your terms and get rid of a bunch of debt along the way. Plus if you have a good attorney, it is almost a give in that one of your creditors will screw up and violate fair debt and screw themselves.
Here's the thing. Most people do that on their own. My aunt has done it 2-3 times already. My mom just did it for the first time. They'll wait a while and then start the cycle all over again.
|
On July 06 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 19:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 07:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You would vote for a man who insults the media who disagrees with him, lies to the media, denigrates the justice system, drop the biggest non-nuclear bomb randomly without regard to how civilian casualties will make America less safe, fights against bureaucracy that make the president accountable, whilst enriching his own singular monetary interest?
Somehow that should run countrary to your own professed interest would it not? I will vote for that man twice if it means denying an unequivocally worse president the white house. What part of "actively merits a return to the other choice in the election" do you not understand? That's the thing though. Your argument literal makes no sense. By your own criteria, Donald Trump is the worse candidate. He does the very opposite of what you want a president to do. He takes your criteria and makes it worse, whilst by your own reckoning Hillary Clinton would keep the current status which you view as deplorable. I don't really see how a negative change by Donald Trump is better than no change by Hillary Clinton to your criteria. Note that I am taking your assumptions at face value. The only way your argument makes any sense at all is if you are totally unaware what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Not even close, dangermouse. You really need to read the post you didn't quote and remind yourself of the positive changes I mentioned, add to it another originalist on the court, and try again. The current direction is catastrophic, the current status is simply one mark on a descent to societal collapse and poverty. The better guy won in 2016, full stop. The country dodged a bullet and Trump simply isn't competent enough to beat Hillary in her foreign state corruption, idiotic internationalism/globalism, politics of class and race war, regulation, and a host of others. You slow or stop the descent and that's a positive thing even if enacted by a bumbling fool. It's better for a little chaos up top than a slick operation to centralize even more power in Washington. It wouldn't take much reading on the history of conservatism to cure your "literal no sense" misunderstanding (deliberate perhaps) of the other side.
What post I didn't mention? There's a few hundred posts on this thread a day. I'm not going to go trawling through a thousand posts looking for a post you haven't described. But at least you answered the question. You are simply unaware of what Donald Trump has been up to as president. It's 2017 not 2016. The election is long gone. Also it's a bit scary that you only seem able to talk in nonsensical soundbites.
|
On July 07 2017 01:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 19:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 07:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You would vote for a man who insults the media who disagrees with him, lies to the media, denigrates the justice system, drop the biggest non-nuclear bomb randomly without regard to how civilian casualties will make America less safe, fights against bureaucracy that make the president accountable, whilst enriching his own singular monetary interest?
Somehow that should run countrary to your own professed interest would it not? I will vote for that man twice if it means denying an unequivocally worse president the white house. What part of "actively merits a return to the other choice in the election" do you not understand? That's the thing though. Your argument literal makes no sense. By your own criteria, Donald Trump is the worse candidate. He does the very opposite of what you want a president to do. He takes your criteria and makes it worse, whilst by your own reckoning Hillary Clinton would keep the current status which you view as deplorable. I don't really see how a negative change by Donald Trump is better than no change by Hillary Clinton to your criteria. Note that I am taking your assumptions at face value. The only way your argument makes any sense at all is if you are totally unaware what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Not even close, dangermouse. You really need to read the post you didn't quote and remind yourself of the positive changes I mentioned, add to it another originalist on the court, and try again. The current direction is catastrophic, the current status is simply one mark on a descent to societal collapse and poverty. The better guy won in 2016, full stop. The country dodged a bullet and Trump simply isn't competent enough to beat Hillary in her foreign state corruption, idiotic internationalism/globalism, politics of class and race war, regulation, and a host of others. You slow or stop the descent and that's a positive thing even if enacted by a bumbling fool. It's better for a little chaos up top than a slick operation to centralize even more power in Washington. It wouldn't take much reading on the history of conservatism to cure your "literal no sense" misunderstanding (deliberate perhaps) of the other side. What post I didn't mention? There's a few hundred posts on this thread a day. I'm not going to go trawling through a thousand posts looking for a post you haven't described. But at least you answered the question. You are simply unaware of what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Also it's a bit scary that you only seem able to talk in nonsensical soundbites.
The post you responded too initially. I gave my reasons. You respond now that "he takes my criteria and makes it worse" without even touching on the reasons I consider him better. Try harder. He's bad in isolation, somewhere between moderately good and fantastic considering a fictional President Hillary Clinton. This nation dodged a bullet. Now let me suggest a return yourself to less than sound bites. When I say he's comparatively good, don't blindly rush off giving his bad reasons in isolation. He didn't run and win against Jesus incarnate. If you can extend your attention span for one second, you might realize that conservative values call everything Clinton proposed and was likely to do destructive to this country. The Flight 93 article is a good touchstone because it brings context that's totally lacking from your comprehension. Don't miss the forest for the trees, even if Trump's flashy outbursts are all sparkly to your eyes.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
I know you criticized the "liberal" press but the conservative media when compared always comes out looking worse. Yes CNN had to retract a story about Russia and then fire the reporters but when Fox made up a story about a DNC staffer being killed as part of a cover up. They quietly retracted it and one of the hosts kept talking about it even after and there was no accountability whatsoever. Every year that idiot James O'Keefe puts out a new doctored video alleging some major misconduct and every year it is taken seriously and then months later when its shown how its radically altered its quietly not talked about anymore.
Basically mainstream media might make some mistakes but they actually hold themselves accountable for it whereas conservative media will lie without remorse and then just not mention it after being called on it in the hopes that people do not realize they were wrong.
|
The thing is if someone proposed a highschool financial literacy class the credit industry would lobby super hard against it. Not that that's a reason not to do it, just an observation.
|
In case you thought any of your near-former Republican friends weren't completely delusional ... have some data. Yes, Republicans really are out of their minds. They have fully swallowed the alternate reality story-line and readily align their thoughts with Dear Leader without question.
A stark poll by Survey Monkey finds that 89% of Republicans view President Trump as more trustworthy than CNN, and 91% of Democrats think the opposite. Among all adults, trust for CNN is 7 points ahead of Trump. Among independents, CNN wins by 15 points.
https://www.axios.com/exclusive-astonishing-poll-about-trump-and-media-2453120782.html
|
On July 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 01:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 19:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 07:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You would vote for a man who insults the media who disagrees with him, lies to the media, denigrates the justice system, drop the biggest non-nuclear bomb randomly without regard to how civilian casualties will make America less safe, fights against bureaucracy that make the president accountable, whilst enriching his own singular monetary interest?
Somehow that should run countrary to your own professed interest would it not? I will vote for that man twice if it means denying an unequivocally worse president the white house. What part of "actively merits a return to the other choice in the election" do you not understand? That's the thing though. Your argument literal makes no sense. By your own criteria, Donald Trump is the worse candidate. He does the very opposite of what you want a president to do. He takes your criteria and makes it worse, whilst by your own reckoning Hillary Clinton would keep the current status which you view as deplorable. I don't really see how a negative change by Donald Trump is better than no change by Hillary Clinton to your criteria. Note that I am taking your assumptions at face value. The only way your argument makes any sense at all is if you are totally unaware what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Not even close, dangermouse. You really need to read the post you didn't quote and remind yourself of the positive changes I mentioned, add to it another originalist on the court, and try again. The current direction is catastrophic, the current status is simply one mark on a descent to societal collapse and poverty. The better guy won in 2016, full stop. The country dodged a bullet and Trump simply isn't competent enough to beat Hillary in her foreign state corruption, idiotic internationalism/globalism, politics of class and race war, regulation, and a host of others. You slow or stop the descent and that's a positive thing even if enacted by a bumbling fool. It's better for a little chaos up top than a slick operation to centralize even more power in Washington. It wouldn't take much reading on the history of conservatism to cure your "literal no sense" misunderstanding (deliberate perhaps) of the other side. What post I didn't mention? There's a few hundred posts on this thread a day. I'm not going to go trawling through a thousand posts looking for a post you haven't described. But at least you answered the question. You are simply unaware of what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Also it's a bit scary that you only seem able to talk in nonsensical soundbites. The post you responded too initially. I gave my reasons. You respond now that "he takes my criteria and makes it worse" without even touching on the reasons I consider him better. Try harder. He's bad in isolation, somewhere between moderately good and fantastic considering a fictional President Hillary Clinton. This nation dodged a bullet. Now let me suggest a return yourself to less than sound bites. When I say he's comparatively good, don't blindly rush off giving his bad reasons in isolation. He didn't run and win against Jesus incarnate. If you can extend your attention span for one second, you might realize that conservative values call everything Clinton proposed and was likely to do destructive to this country. The Flight 93 article is a good touchstone because it brings context that's totally lacking from your comprehension. Don't miss the forest for the trees, even if Trump's flashy outbursts are all sparkly to your eyes.
This post Danglars? If there is another post, then it is up to you to post it, as I have no idea to what you are refering to.On July 06 2017 07:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 06:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:55 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:47 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:27 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 04:20 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:18 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 03:26 Buckyman wrote:On July 06 2017 03:13 KwarK wrote:
I don't see the issue with classical liberalism at all. A functioning free market economy that provides a strong foundation for people from all backgrounds to compete on an even basis through the provision of healthcare, education, housing and so forth for all without discrimination on the basis of sex, race, sexual preference etc. Seems pretty much ideal to me.
The problem is that in America you can't join the political right without pledging allegiance to the anti-science anti-gay agenda and even the free market economics is little more than crony capitalism. Meanwhile the centre left comes under fire for not being extreme enough, as if that's some kind of failing. This is the same political left that subsidizes wind and solar power so heavily that other forms of renewable energy can't compete? Or that threatened a boycott of an entire corporation because one executive says something off the clock? Or, in the case of California, boycotts specific states whose social legislative agendas it disagrees with? Or that in many states across many professions makes union membership effectively mandatory? And that's before taking into account the "liberal religion" argument, which argues that American liberals have founded an atheist religion with all the accoutrements thereof and are trying to establish themselves as the official government religion by selectively using the establishment clause against other religions. It seems like the Democratic party uses Enlightenment ideals only by coincidence. What sorts of ideals permit the nomination and election of Donald Trump, a man whose word is not credible? Keeping Hillary Clinton out could qualify as an ideal in my book. FWIW in 2020 I would vote Trump if it's Trump vs Clinton again. Keep in mind we're also talking about the nomination. This is an affirmative choice of Donald Trump. And I question why your vote would have changed, especially after seeing Trump in action after a couple months. Trump was the best Republican candidate so it's no surprise he won when the establishment backed a Bush then had no follow up when he got utterly brutalized. Vote changes because Trump may be bad but it's time for the Clinton Democrats to come to terms with the reality that their bullshit pursuit of putting an unelectable failure into office is a bigger threat to this country than Trump. Somehow they still haven't learned. The reality is that between Bernie and Clinton (who were the only options due to a week crop of candidates) Clinton better fit my ideology. Hopefully a better candidate comes along but I still think Clinton would have adequately represented my interests and generally been a good president. We get that you don't like her, you've said that plenty of times. But Clinton was the best option from a very limited pool and while I hope I get a better pool in future, if I don't get more options I'd still back her. You act like there are no centrists to whom she appealed and that the Democrats failed by not committing to a hard left populist alternative to Trump's populism. Maybe they failed you, they didn't fail me. I could see why people would choose Clinton over Sanders. They might have been wrong but seeing how the campaign went that is acceptable. What isn't is the whole "I don't like Hillary but I will shill for her till my last breath" phenomenon. No, she was a goddamn vile choice for president and she made it worse by showing she had no intention of changing or reaching outside her core base. If she refuses to step aside now she is merely enabling the Republicans and Trump to do their shit by promising to be marginally less bad. And I don't subscribe to your "Trump is fascism and worse than Hillary murdering people in the streets" as per your hyperbole from like eight months back. Four more years of buffoon would be infinitely preferable to another decade of the Clintonites hijacking the left and hampering progress. Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 06:09 zlefin wrote:
legal, your claims of hillary's vileness as potential president are unfounded as usual; as is your broad claim of people shilling when in many cases they're doing far less than that yet you still call it shilling. no new ground to tread though; just old arguments you keep making over and over. Frankly, the endless repeat of calling Trump absolute trash and wondering why he's president and does what he does actively merits a return to the other choice in the election. He was the better general election candidate and I'd vote for him in 2020 if Dems return Hillary to their ticket for another try. If we had widespread acceptance of why he was elected, and particularly how some present actions are exactly what he was sent to office to do (say, media machine antagonism however ill-organized, America first rhetoric on foreign policy, fights against an unaccountable bureaucratic/administrative state with its own insulary interests), it wouldn't even need mentioning. That's the essential element missed by #Resist and Trump-as-fascist dialogue
By your own critera, then yes, his present actions are contrary to your interests. You haven't described what he has been doing as President, only what his campaign broadly promised what he will do. The election is long gone and as can be seen his action create an evermore media biases, makes America less safe, and is intent on removing presidential checks and balances in order to further enrich himself. That you can say these are positive simply means that you appear to be living in an alternate reality.
|
When I hoped a president would talk about the Iraq war and how we lied to by our goverment, I should have prefaced that I didn't want him to do it at the G20 when asked about Russian hacks of our voter registries. That was my bad, I should have been clearer and I'll try harder in the future.
|
On July 07 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote:
When I hoped a president would talk about the Iraq war and how we lied to by our goverment, I should have prefaced that I didn't want him to do it at the G20 when asked about Russian hacks of our voter registries. That was my bad, I should have been clearer and I'll try harder in the future.
God Damn it Plansix! You need to be clear on these things! We all know Trump is an active member of these forums
|
On July 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 01:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 19:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 07:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You would vote for a man who insults the media who disagrees with him, lies to the media, denigrates the justice system, drop the biggest non-nuclear bomb randomly without regard to how civilian casualties will make America less safe, fights against bureaucracy that make the president accountable, whilst enriching his own singular monetary interest?
Somehow that should run countrary to your own professed interest would it not? I will vote for that man twice if it means denying an unequivocally worse president the white house. What part of "actively merits a return to the other choice in the election" do you not understand? That's the thing though. Your argument literal makes no sense. By your own criteria, Donald Trump is the worse candidate. He does the very opposite of what you want a president to do. He takes your criteria and makes it worse, whilst by your own reckoning Hillary Clinton would keep the current status which you view as deplorable. I don't really see how a negative change by Donald Trump is better than no change by Hillary Clinton to your criteria. Note that I am taking your assumptions at face value. The only way your argument makes any sense at all is if you are totally unaware what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Not even close, dangermouse. You really need to read the post you didn't quote and remind yourself of the positive changes I mentioned, add to it another originalist on the court, and try again. The current direction is catastrophic, the current status is simply one mark on a descent to societal collapse and poverty. The better guy won in 2016, full stop. The country dodged a bullet and Trump simply isn't competent enough to beat Hillary in her foreign state corruption, idiotic internationalism/globalism, politics of class and race war, regulation, and a host of others. You slow or stop the descent and that's a positive thing even if enacted by a bumbling fool. It's better for a little chaos up top than a slick operation to centralize even more power in Washington. It wouldn't take much reading on the history of conservatism to cure your "literal no sense" misunderstanding (deliberate perhaps) of the other side. What post I didn't mention? There's a few hundred posts on this thread a day. I'm not going to go trawling through a thousand posts looking for a post you haven't described. But at least you answered the question. You are simply unaware of what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Also it's a bit scary that you only seem able to talk in nonsensical soundbites. The post you responded too initially. I gave my reasons. You respond now that "he takes my criteria and makes it worse" without even touching on the reasons I consider him better. Try harder. He's bad in isolation, somewhere between moderately good and fantastic considering a fictional President Hillary Clinton. This nation dodged a bullet. Now let me suggest a return yourself to less than sound bites. When I say he's comparatively good, don't blindly rush off giving his bad reasons in isolation. He didn't run and win against Jesus incarnate. If you can extend your attention span for one second, you might realize that conservative values call everything Clinton proposed and was likely to do destructive to this country. The Flight 93 article is a good touchstone because it brings context that's totally lacking from your comprehension. Don't miss the forest for the trees, even if Trump's flashy outbursts are all sparkly to your eyes.
What do you precisely expect from Trump outside of not running things like Clinton? What did he do until now which satisfies you and what did not? I think it would be a more interesting start for a discussion, let's forget Clinton even exists. We're lacking a bit of conservatives perspective in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
