|
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. |
+ Show Spoiler +On August 02 2017 07:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Yeah, but Democrats appeal to some racial minority groups' justified grievances against racial discrimination too much for some people. If they just proposed solutions for addressing historical and present racial injustices in a way that was comfortable for some white posters in this forum then this would matter. Until then, vote Republican.
|
The Joycean ravings of a mentally disabled person. This is more sad than anything.
|
United States42014 Posts
On the Iran agreementWSJ: You mentioned the Iran deal, but it’s been certified as in compliance twice now. PRESIDENT TRUMP: We’ve been extremely nice to them in saying they were compliant, OK?...If it was up to me, I would have had them noncompliant 180 days ago. WSJ: Do you expect them to be declared noncompliant the next time? PRESIDENT TRUMP: I think they’re taking advantage of this country. They’ve taken advantage of a president, named Barack Obama, who didn’t know what the hell he was doing. And I do not expect that they will be compliant. WSJ: Will you overrule your staff on that, if they come back with a recommendation – PRESIDENT TRUMP: Oh, sure. Sure. Look, I have a lot of respect for Rex and his people, good relationship. It’s easier to say they comply. It’s a lot easier. But it’s the wrong thing. They don’t comply. Apparently Rex and Barry were falsifying Iran's compliance to the agreement but don't worry, Trump's onto them.
|
Anyone notice how there is no longer any talk in this thread whatsoever that maybe Trump is actually really smart and all this and all that? Looking back at late 2016, there are a few posters I can think of who were convinced Trump was some kind of maestro who was about to kick the door down and apply some of that famed corporate productivity to government.
Nowadays, the closest I see to an actual defense of Trump is "That is probably technically not illegal"
|
Congress should just strip him of the ability to nullify the treaty without their approval. Even if they can't do that, let him file a lawsuit and try fight about it.
The man fucking said he would back out of a deal with Iran because he wants to. It doesn't' matter what his advisers say, he will do it because he wants the deal gone. He does that and Iran will double down on sponsoring terrorism for the next 30 years.
|
I'm sure the 10D chess narrative is still alive somewhere. It's pretty much unfalsifiable, so there are surely defenses for our present situation. Maybe people think Trump is drawing his opponents into a big all-in bet on Russia collusion, when he's secretly been sitting on 100% proof of innocence the whole time. Then shortly before the next election he'll drop it and cruise through to re-election.
But yeah, it's gotten harder and harder to think he knows what he's doing.
|
On August 02 2017 07:18 KwarK wrote:On the Iran agreement Show nested quote +WSJ: You mentioned the Iran deal, but it’s been certified as in compliance twice now. Show nested quote +PRESIDENT TRUMP: We’ve been extremely nice to them in saying they were compliant, OK?...If it was up to me, I would have had them noncompliant 180 days ago. Show nested quote +PRESIDENT TRUMP: I think they’re taking advantage of this country. They’ve taken advantage of a president, named Barack Obama, who didn’t know what the hell he was doing. And I do not expect that they will be compliant. Show nested quote +WSJ: Will you overrule your staff on that, if they come back with a recommendation – Show nested quote +PRESIDENT TRUMP: Oh, sure. Sure. Look, I have a lot of respect for Rex and his people, good relationship. It’s easier to say they comply. It’s a lot easier. But it’s the wrong thing. They don’t comply. Apparently Rex and Barry were falsifying Iran's compliance to the agreement but don't worry, Trump's onto them. So, are we taking bets yet whether it's going to be Iran or North Korea that the US will not declare war against but invade or bomb to hell anyway?
|
United States42014 Posts
Iran will be fine, the sanctions aren't America's to hold over their head anymore. Trump can declare them non compliant against the wishes of his advisers but if the rest of the world disagrees then that won't really do much. Only if they're actually found to be non compliant will the teeth built into the agreement function.
|
The worst part about it is that he has done everything his opponents predicted he would do. Right down to bringing his entire family along to appointing unqualified nightmares to his cabinet.
On August 02 2017 07:24 KwarK wrote: Iran will be fine, the sanctions aren't America's to hold over their head anymore. Trump can declare them non compliant against the wishes of his advisers but if the rest of the world disagrees then that won't really do much. Only if they're actually found to be non compliant will the teeth built into the agreement function. Yeah, but that won't stop them from sponsoring terrorism for the next 30 years. Improved relations means less terrorism over time. I like less terrorism.
|
On August 02 2017 07:25 Plansix wrote: The worst part about it is that he has done everything his opponents predicted he would do. Right down to bringing his entire family along to appointing unqualified nightmares to his cabinet.
Trump may be a naturally incompetent, immoral, and dishonest person, but he very clearly broadcast exactly what type of person he is/would be when he was campaigning. I think many of his supporters really liked that type of honesty.
|
On August 02 2017 07:37 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 07:25 Plansix wrote: The worst part about it is that he has done everything his opponents predicted he would do. Right down to bringing his entire family along to appointing unqualified nightmares to his cabinet. Trump may be a naturally incompetent, immoral, and dishonest person, but he very clearly broadcast exactly what type of person he is/would be when he was campaigning. I think many of his supporters really liked that type of honesty. I think it is fair to say that "drain the swamp" is not an actual goal.
|
On August 02 2017 07:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 06:55 Nyxisto wrote:On August 02 2017 06:50 KwarK wrote:Trump on worker mobility and the refusal of people to go to where the jobs are You know, a lot of them don’t leave because of their house. Because they say, gee, my house, I thought it was worth 70,000 (dollars) and now it’s worth nothing. It’s OK. Go, cut your losses, right? I genuinely think though that Americas subsidies towards home ownership are genuinely bad, it does make people less mobile and is essentially a handout to the (upper) middle class Yes and no. The tax breaks almost exclusively go to the upper class because you have to forfeit another tax break to claim the mortgage tax break and for most people that won't be worth it. Only if you have an extremely expensive mortgage or a high income is the tax break worth having. However the average American has no savings to speak of and very little invested. A house is an extremely leveraged investment that can be purchased with low interest rates and tends to trend upwards in value. If middle class Americans didn't own homes they'd never build any wealth at all.
I think you can make the pretty good case that staying close to educational institutions, schools, and lots of employment opportunities (which tend to be found in urban regions nowadays) is more important than an asset like a house.
The idea that diverse housing markets can only trend upward is what got all of us into big trouble just a few years ago. It's not as solid of an asset as it seems, and especially the American tendency to move out of the city and into the suburbs is actually hindering mobility, nonsensical from an ecological viewpoint, and so forth.
Also the US housing market is very segregated because it's all done on the local level and communities get way too much leverage over where and what to built.
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
"Fuck my job, I'd rather be chillin' in my golf club."
Yup, that sounds like Trump alright. Wonder why he wanted the position in the first place.
|
I guess living in the Fucking White Fucking House isn't lavish enough. Have to be making money hand over fist too.
|
Who gives a flying fuck about his comments on the building, look at what it says below that.
"This is my real group."
And inviting them to lobby his cabinet.
Such a great representative for the working class.
|
On August 02 2017 06:45 KwarK wrote:Trump on relative tax rates between different countries. Show nested quote +We’re the highest-taxed nation in the world, essentially, you know, of the size. But we’re the highest-taxed nation in the world. We have – nobody knows what the number is. I mean, it used to be, when we talked during the debate, 2 ½ trillion (dollars), right, when the most elegant person – right? I call him Mr. Elegant. I mean, that was a great debate. We did such a great job. lmao where is this from?
|
On August 02 2017 07:42 LegalLord wrote: "Fuck my job, I'd rather be chillin' in my golf club."
Yup, that sounds like Trump alright. Wonder why he wanted the position in the first place.
I don't think he knew he had to live at the White House. He didn't seem to know how bills became law, either (or how many votes it takes to pass a vote in the Senate when you control the Vice Presidency). I am not sure he could pass a high school civics test when he declared his campaign. I'm not sure he even could now.
All he ever wanted was power and respect. He seems to have gotten the former, and from some people the latter (though probably not the people he probably wanted it from).
|
United States42014 Posts
On August 02 2017 08:10 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 06:45 KwarK wrote:Trump on relative tax rates between different countries. We’re the highest-taxed nation in the world, essentially, you know, of the size. But we’re the highest-taxed nation in the world. We have – nobody knows what the number is. I mean, it used to be, when we talked during the debate, 2 ½ trillion (dollars), right, when the most elegant person – right? I call him Mr. Elegant. I mean, that was a great debate. We did such a great job. lmao where is this from? His interview with the Wall St Journal last week.
|
On August 02 2017 07:06 Plansix wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 02 2017 07:02 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 05:07 a_flayer wrote:On August 02 2017 04:35 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 02 2017 04:29 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2017 04:23 Wegandi wrote:On August 02 2017 04:18 KwarK wrote: People can be racist against blacks without treating a given white person like a king. Do you see why people might think that "white privilege" is stupid? The only "privilege" in this country is if you're connected to the Government, either directly or indirectly. There's no get out of jail card otherwise. No, I don't see why they might think it's stupid. If they think it's stupid the only possible explanations that seem possible to me are a failure to understand what white privilege means or extreme idiocy. I'll go ahead and presume the former on your part. White privilege does not mean that white people don't have problems. It means that there are social advantages to being white that black people don't benefit from. Which is such a broad and obvious statement that it is absolutely baffling to me that someone would question it. There is also black privilege too, for what it's worth. Being black isn't all bad. But black privilege is certainly a worse deal that white privilege. Imagine this were a role play game. If you rolled white as your starting race then you get some fun modifiers like +2 to charisma rolls with law enforcement. It doesn't mean you always win every encounter, if you roll five die and they're all 1s you're still fucked. But it is a race advantage versus had you rolled black as your starting race. White players can still roll all 1s and black players can still roll 6s but if you take the entire group average you'll find the +2 modifier is statistically significant over time. I would never suggest that the concept of white privilege is stupid. I would, however, say that the current obsession with it is very stupid and most of all very counter productive. If you go around insulting/insinuating extremely negative things about the vast majority of the population sooner or later they will get sick of it and then BOOM! Trump. I think there could be a lot more focus from political leaders on finding a common ground between various ethnicities with regards to police brutality, economic inequality, and so on. But people in the US are kept apart by rather meaningless (for their interests) party philosophies such as liberalism and conservatism. The poor people on both of these sides will be stuck in their own little ghettos till they start to work together against this machine of evil that continues to suppress them. Fat chance of that happening though. The three highest income ethnic groups in the US are East Asians (broadly grouped), Hindus, and Jews iirc. I'm not sure if that fits into your implied narrative about the WASP conspiracy that's purposely oppressing all the other races. Racism exists and it's unfair and should be fixed where possible. But in socioeconomic terms, it certainly appears that the market cares more about skills and education more than it does oppressing non-WASPs. Also, let's dust off this chart: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/64a7C9q.jpg) A paper suggested by a liberal poster here claimed rank-rank correlation of US income mobility was 0.6 (the number was corroborated by other authors). This is what that looks like. This is within-generation mobility by the way (correlation between you now and you in 15 years). Which is already heavily biased downward because the most common method of family income mobility is between-generation (i.e. through getting a better education than your parents). Yes, the system isn't fair because not everyone gets a level playing field to start. While there's steps that can and should be taken to try to ameliorate that, it's more or less impossible to completely fix as parents who are successful in their career are always going to impart genes and parenting lessons/practices that generally lead to their kids' career success. Conversely, parents who haven't had successful careers tend to lack the knowledge of what it takes to have a successful career, making it hard to pass it down to their kids. Additionally, families tend to move near other families with similar socioeconomic status, which reinforces this effect both directions. This is also hard to fix, short of government mandating where people live. No, the system isn't what's stopping you from living at least a comfortable upper-middle class life though (in the vast majority of cases). That's fully achievable by working hard and following common sense advise that's told to everyone (i.e. "try hard in school", "play nice with others", "try to excel at your career", etc.). Democrats love to tell their voters that the system is at fault for their problems because it's human nature to blame things other than yourself for your mistakes (ever play a MOBA?). Especially when it's socially acceptable to do so because half of the country is telling you that it's the case. It's a brilliant political strategy. And, as an added bonus, Democrats can then morally justifiably push for redistribution (i.e. taxing to give money disproportionately to their voters), and create an enemy (Wall Street and/or "the 1%"). to energize their base. The whole narrative is like a politician's wet dream, and consequently it's perpetuated; but that doesn't mean it's accurate, nor unfortunately that their solutions fix the portion of the alleged problem that does exist. Democrats support social safety nets that benefit all Americans. Its been a while since I seen the Romney line of "they give gifts out to get people to vote for them". ??? What does the first sentence have to do with my point? Republicans (that aren't foaming at the mouth over the latest Fox News conspiracy) generally support a safety net strong enough to return people to work if they lose their job (i.e. the part that actually benefits all Americans). There's a hundred other voter grab redistribution schemes that Democrats have come up with.
The second sentence only died because Trump realized it was better politics to just throw mud and court part of the Democratic base that would be offended by it. It was true then and it's true now.
|
|
|
|