EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 8919
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 04 2017 22:43 KwarK wrote: What is meant to be the alternative to bankruptcy here? They can't pay and they can't refinance. You forgive the debt and it’s a write off. Which is what should happen, since getting blood from a stone is stupid. And I know how BK law works and it is really questionable to apply it anything the size of a state. But in this case, there the PR is judgment proof. They have no ability to pay and won’t for a decade. | ||
KwarK
United States43206 Posts
The problem with PR is that they are legally barred from seeking bankruptcy as a recourse. It's illegal for them to not make payments with money that they do not have. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
At least they issued a substantial correction. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 04 2017 22:49 KwarK wrote: If someone loans you money you literally cannot repay then whether they forgive the debt is between them and Jesus, the debt is in default either way. The problem with PR is that they are legally barred from seeking bankruptcy as a recourse. It's illegal for them to not make payments with money that they do not have. You are not wrong, but its extra dumb to try and get blood from a stone. I have this discussion with clients all the time. Debt holders rely on the state to enforce that debt. Debt collectors cannot take a debtor’s money, the state does it on their behalf through the power of the court. Courts are generally not pumped to enforce debt against people who have clearly been fucked by life in general. So the debt collectors for PR are shit out of luck. The responsible thing to do would before the Federal government and to work with the debt holds to ease the pain, or offer to buy off the debt at fire sale prices. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35161 Posts
On October 04 2017 22:55 Danglars wrote: https://twitter.com/derekahunter/status/915560560837750785 At least they issued a substantial correction. What a laughable tweet. If there were no standards they wouldn't have changed it and doubled down on the incorrect stuff like Fox does. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
| ||
|
RealityIsKing
613 Posts
On October 04 2017 22:58 Gahlo wrote: What a laughable tweet. If there were no standards they wouldn't have changed it and doubled down on the incorrect stuff like Fox does. Show us a few examples. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43206 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43206 Posts
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/jul/18/greg-gutfeld/fox-news-host-cites-ted-kennedy-kgb-meeting-never-/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/oct/30/megyn-kelly/megyn-kellys-errant-claim-about-colorado-voters-pr/ And incidentally, this old classic http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5 Fox News is a joke. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
http://www.npr.org/2017/05/24/529809256/fox-news-retracts-dnc-staffer-conspiracy-story-but-hannity-keeps-it-alive And this story was debunked months before. And the whole birther thing. They really doubled down on that pile of fake news. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43206 Posts
On October 04 2017 23:10 Plansix wrote: I like how we shelled out to rebuild Nazi Germany, but forgiving a destroyed Puerto Rico’s debt is a bridge to far. Yeah but you have to remember that they were victims antifa bombings. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
What does Puerto Rico's situation look like...say...25 years from now, if nothing changes? Let's say PR hits 200b in debt. What then? Do they eventually get denied loans? What happens then? From my perspective, this has an eventual end where the federal government is forced to swoop in. Is this one of those political things where doing anything is a bad thing? No matter what you do, you lose politically, so just do nothing because re-election and blah blah blah? But if it hits a critical point and you are forced to act, you're just taking care of business rather than advocating for some politically leaning solution? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 04 2017 23:55 Mohdoo wrote: For people who actually know stuff about this kinda thing, unlike me: What does Puerto Rico's situation look like...say...25 years from now, if nothing changes? Let's say PR hits 200b in debt. What then? Do they eventually get denied loans? What happens then? From my perspective, this has an eventual end where the federal government is forced to swoop in. Is this one of those political things where doing anything is a bad thing? No matter what you do, you lose politically, so just do nothing because re-election and blah blah blah? But if it hits a critical point and you are forced to act, you're just taking care of business rather than advocating for some politically leaning solution? When the state is destroyed by a hurricane and literally has no economy and won’t have one for several years. That is the breaking point. But normally it is when the state is close to defaulting on its debt obligation. Once a state goes into default, its economy goes into free fall, because they can’t pay their bills. And by bills, that means the state pay roll, insurance, rent on buildings the state uses. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3249 Posts
On October 04 2017 22:14 Danglars wrote: It's about people here who think those from the right don't criticize as freely or take enough responsibility for Trump. Next breath: GOP hates brown people. So, let me get this straight. You've called us racists and that we hate minorities for how long now? And now you're telling us not to be irresponsible with voicing opposition via Presidential selection when you've taken not one iota of responsibility with your rhetoric? You're going to do the same exact bullshit anyways, might as well give you something to cry about for real this time. In the long term, healing the division is an important topic. It won't happen when one side goes "What division?" every time they win an election by being hyperpartisans. This is such a bizarre idea of responsibility. Many liberals claim Republicans are racist and don't care about or hate minorities, sure. I've heard this rhetoric, too. I don't recall ever making such broad statements myself, unless in the sense of "everybody is somewhat racist," which isn't really the same thing but whatever. So Republicans don't like the left calling them racist, and their response is... to elect a man who's blatantly racist? And then complain when the left tries to hold them responsible for the actions of the man they elected? Why on Earth would they expect that to stop the liberals from calling them racists, when they just offered the best evidence for it the liberals have ever had? I'm trying to think of a role-swap analogy, and the best I have so far is Jonah Goldberg writing a book calling liberals fascists, and liberals responding by literally electing Hitler. Then getting mad when the right cites this as evidence that Goldberg was right. (For the record, if anyone thinks I'm calling Republicans fascists/Godwining with this analogy, you have a poor understanding of what analogies are.) To be clear, I don't think all Trump supporters are racists. But to support Trump you have to either be so oblivious that you don't recognize racism staring you in the face, or you have to not consider his racism a dealbreaker. I don't think either case is going to be changed by liberals saying "you're right, I'm sorry, you're not racist, now let's talk about the Dems' economic message." It might win the Democrats elections, but again, none of us are political operatives for the DNC so I'd rather people not lie to "build a coalition" or whatever. How much of Trump's support do you think was based on spite (e.g. "Libs are gonna do the same bullshit anyways, might as well give them something to cry about for real this time")? I'd like to think Trump supporters honestly thought he'd be better for the country; if they knew how bad he was but just wanted to hurt liberals, that's another story entirely. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21950 Posts
On October 05 2017 00:22 ChristianS wrote: This is such a bizarre idea of responsibility. Many liberals claim Republicans are racist and don't care about or hate minorities, sure. I've heard this rhetoric, too. I don't recall ever making such broad statements myself, unless in the sense of "everybody is somewhat racist," which isn't really the same thing but whatever. So Republicans don't like the left calling them racist, and their response is... to elect a man who's blatantly racist? And then complain when the left tries to hold them responsible for the actions of the man they elected? Why on Earth would they expect that to stop the liberals from calling them racists, when they just offered the best evidence for it the liberals have ever had? I'm trying to think of a role-swap analogy, and the best I have so far is Jonah Goldberg writing a book calling liberals fascists, and liberals responding by literally electing Hitler. Then getting mad when the right cites this as evidence that Goldberg was right. (For the record, if anyone thinks I'm calling Republicans fascists/Godwining with this analogy, you have a poor understanding of what analogies are.) To be clear, I don't think all Trump supporters are racists. But to support Trump you have to either be so oblivious that you don't recognize racism staring you in the face, or you have to not consider his racism a dealbreaker. I don't think either case is going to be changed by liberals saying "you're right, I'm sorry, you're not racist, now let's talk about the Dems' economic message." It might win the Democrats elections, but again, none of us are political operatives for the DNC so I'd rather people not lie to "build a coalition" or whatever. How much of Trump's support do you think was based on spite (e.g. "Libs are gonna do the same bullshit anyways, might as well give them something to cry about for real this time")? I'd like to think Trump supporters honestly thought he'd be better for the country; if they knew how bad he was but just wanted to hurt liberals, that's another story entirely. 80% of Republican voters approve of the job the President is doing. Gallup. If they voted him in while thinking he would do better that number would be lower no? Trump is what the Republicans wanted. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 04 2017 12:20 Gahlo wrote: I'm happy to state the obvious: The United States is not exactly a paragon of well-run, civilized, and industrious society. Y'all on the Left should be shaming this post a little more. I know how much you guys hate having your patriotism questioned, and this kind of stupid shit does nothing but reinforce those very sentiments. | ||
| ||
