|
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. |
Do you think Trump might actually be retarded / senile?
He tweets about how Bowe Bergdahl should get the death penalty, thereby making sure that Bergdahl gets a sentence as lenient as possible. I'm assuming Trump's legal people explain this to him. Then he goes off on a rant about the Muslim terrorist in NY should get the death penalty as well, again making sure that he gets as lenient a sentence as possible. Just a week later.
How is someone who spent 70 years living in the US that oblivious of that dynamic, unless they are retarded?
|
On November 06 2017 23:20 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote: Do you think Trump might actually be retarded / senile?
He tweets about how Bowe Bergdahl should get the death penalty, thereby making sure that Bergdahl gets a sentence as lenient as possible. I'm assuming Trump's legal people explain this to him. Then he goes off on a rant about the Muslim terrorist in NY should get the death penalty as well, again making sure that he gets as lenient a sentence as possible. Just a week later.
How is someone who spent 70 years living in the US that oblivious of that dynamic, unless they are retarded? I've not seen evidence for retardation/senility, only narcissism. trump's playing to the crowd, in particular his base. his base likes that stuff so he keeps doing it. he doesn't care about the consequences cuz those don't actually hurt him, it only makes him look bad in the eyes of sensible people who already hate him; all he needs to do is keep pleasing his base.
|
United States42778 Posts
On November 06 2017 22:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 15:06 IgnE wrote:On November 06 2017 13:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2017 13:29 Danglars wrote:On November 06 2017 13:07 xDaunt wrote: Jesus, Igne. I have my work cut out for me. This may take a day or two. Lawyer first  I’m happy to acknowledge underlying tensions in conservatism in principle. A lot of what makes conservatism conservatism is not ideological, but a set of mixed civilizational virtues in part opposition and part strain with each other. Some of the referenced political formulations I’ve found lacking in the past, but you go for first take since it’s closer to what you do for a living. Well, my initial thought upon reading that post was that the tensions were overstated due to the framing being a bit off, but I think a lot of it depends upon what kind of "conservative" that you're talking about. Igne's post is going to look different depending upon whether you read it through the lens of a libertarian-conservative, a religious right conservative, or a neocon/Bush conservative. The framing depends on my probably inadequate summary of nuanced concepts. If I had more than a couple pages (or a lot more time) to make my points it would probably cohere better. But it's also a first attempt at trying to recontextualize this debate over "Western Culture" and trying to point out why I think conservatives are the ones missing the forest for the trees. It's looking different depending on the type of conservative lens is really a product of your initial formulation of "individual liberty, inalienable rights, …" I think the American Right, as a whole, is aligned in practice, if not theory, with what might loosely be identified as "neoliberal" economic principles (even if at this point the word has kind of devolved into a buzzwordy jargon word). I think those economic principles are actually what unites the various factions on the Right, more than any single commitment to roll back abortion, stop immigration, or any other social policy. I don't think that you're wrong here. In fact, I would broaden the link the from "economic freedom" to "individual freedom." And more to the point, I think that this emphasis upon individual freedom (nice job distilling its philosophical etiology, btw) is the root of the American Right's struggle to effectively respond coherently to the culture wars of the past few generations. Traditional American conservatism lacks the framework and vocabulary to deal with such issues. As any libertarian will tell you, America First tariffs, border controls, repatriating wealth, and nationalistic rivalry is antithetical to individual freedom. Borders are an artificial imposition on the natural free movement of peoples, tariffs are theft from the consumer and a bureaucratic distortion of the free market, wealth must be allowed to flow to where it is deemed to have the greatest utility, and nationalism seeks to achieve what is best for the nation, which is an artificial construct, rather than allowing individuals to choose what is best for them.
The Republicans have left freedom a long way behind them.
|
United States42778 Posts
On November 06 2017 22:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: I see people make fun of his pants and I have no idea why. Agreed that this is ridiculous. He's somehow gone this far in his life and nobody has told him the tie should end at your belt buckle. The man can't dress himself.
|
It is weird reading about the misinformation regarding this koi pond. It doesn't make sense to me. I would think that at a time where skepticism of major media outlets is at an all time high, pushing stuff that is presented in an extremely misleading way should be considered self-damaging. And what an awful time to play such a risky card. It's not like this koi story hurt Trump even slightly. All they did was take a giant dump on their own credibility.
|
On November 07 2017 00:31 Mohdoo wrote: It is weird reading about the misinformation regarding this koi pond. It doesn't make sense to me. I would think that at a time where skepticism of major media outlets is at an all time high, pushing stuff that is presented in an extremely misleading way should be considered self-damaging. And what an awful time to play such a risky card. It's not like this koi story hurt Trump even slightly. All they did was take a giant dump on their own credibility.
I don't think anyone really is going to be swayed by this. People who don't like trump took a shot over something dumb, just like people who didn't like obama took a shot over him wearing a tan suit. Nobody will change their mind about anything over this
|
On November 06 2017 22:58 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote: Yeah, making fun of his kids, his wife, his lips that look like a puckered asshole or the orange weave etc. just feel desperate. There's so much you could make fun of, and you choose his physique? Welcome Trump to the world of women who constantly are judged by their appearance and not by what they do or represent. Could make him more sympathetic to their cause. Could...
|
On November 07 2017 00:35 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 00:31 Mohdoo wrote: It is weird reading about the misinformation regarding this koi pond. It doesn't make sense to me. I would think that at a time where skepticism of major media outlets is at an all time high, pushing stuff that is presented in an extremely misleading way should be considered self-damaging. And what an awful time to play such a risky card. It's not like this koi story hurt Trump even slightly. All they did was take a giant dump on their own credibility. I don't think anyone really is going to be swayed by this. People who don't like trump took a shot over something dumb, just like people who didn't like obama took a shot over him wearing a tan suit. Nobody will change their mind about anything over this
Which makes it even worse, right? All this does is empower arguments that everything has a bias and that objective fact isn't real. It lets people dismiss actual issues by pointing to this and saying "see? we can't trust the media".
|
is anyone of this koi stuff coming from actual news sources as actual news? as opposed to tweets or merely in the jokey section some news programs have?
|
On November 07 2017 00:40 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 00:35 IyMoon wrote:On November 07 2017 00:31 Mohdoo wrote: It is weird reading about the misinformation regarding this koi pond. It doesn't make sense to me. I would think that at a time where skepticism of major media outlets is at an all time high, pushing stuff that is presented in an extremely misleading way should be considered self-damaging. And what an awful time to play such a risky card. It's not like this koi story hurt Trump even slightly. All they did was take a giant dump on their own credibility. I don't think anyone really is going to be swayed by this. People who don't like trump took a shot over something dumb, just like people who didn't like obama took a shot over him wearing a tan suit. Nobody will change their mind about anything over this Which makes it even worse, right? All this does is empower arguments that everything has a bias and that objective fact isn't real. It lets people dismiss actual issues by pointing to this and saying "see? we can't trust the media".
If someone looks at this and goes "we can't trust the media" they already did not trust it and never were going to. Maybe I am just a big believer in the idea that a lot of us are idiots who can't really think for themselves. Of course I could easily be one of those people too with statements like that lol
|
United States42778 Posts
Joint Committee on Taxation says the Trump tax plan will produce a revenue shortfall of $1,470,000,000,000 over 10 years. Normally that would kill it in the Senate. However by passing a budget that included a $1,500,000,000,000 shortfall they have grandfathered this increase in the deficit in.
Some reading on budget reconciliation https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/15/how-budget-reconciliation-broke-congress-215706 and the Trump tax plan https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/news/2017/nov/tax-reform-legislation-details-201717798.html
Incidentally does anyone remember Trump saying he would pay off the deficit within 8 years? I do.
Donald Trump: “We’ve got to get rid of the $19 trillion in debt.” Bob Woodward: “How long would that take?” Trump: “I think I could do it fairly quickly, because of the fact the numbers…” Woodward: “What’s fairly quickly?” Trump: “Well, I would say over a period of eight years. And I’ll tell you why.” Woodward: “Would you ever be open to tax increases as part of that, to solve the problem?” Trump: “I don’t think I’ll need to. The power is trade. Our deals are so bad.” Woodward: “That would be $2 trillion a year.” Trump: “No, but I’m renegotiating all of our deals, Bob. The big trade deals that we’re doing so badly on. With China, $505 billion this year in trade. We’re losing with everybody.”
|
On November 06 2017 23:20 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote: Do you think Trump might actually be retarded / senile?
He tweets about how Bowe Bergdahl should get the death penalty, thereby making sure that Bergdahl gets a sentence as lenient as possible. I'm assuming Trump's legal people explain this to him. Then he goes off on a rant about the Muslim terrorist in NY should get the death penalty as well, again making sure that he gets as lenient a sentence as possible. Just a week later.
How is someone who spent 70 years living in the US that oblivious of that dynamic, unless they are retarded?
I wouldnt be surprised if he has early stages of Dementia. When you hear him talk from interviews 10 to 20 years ago its a completely different person.
|
On November 07 2017 00:50 KwarK wrote:Joint Committee on Taxation says the Trump tax plan will produce a revenue shortfall of $1,470,000,000,000 over 10 years. Normally that would kill it in the Senate. However by passing a budget that included a $1,500,000,000,000 shortfall they have grandfathered this increase in the deficit in. Some reading on budget reconciliation https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/15/how-budget-reconciliation-broke-congress-215706and the Trump tax plan https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/news/2017/nov/tax-reform-legislation-details-201717798.htmlIncidentally does anyone remember Trump saying he would pay off the deficit within 8 years? I do. Show nested quote +Trump: “I think I could do it fairly quickly, because of the fact the numbers…” Show nested quote +Trump: “Well, I would say over a period of eight years. And I’ll tell you why.” Show nested quote +Woodward: “Would you ever be open to tax increases as part of that, to solve the problem?” Show nested quote +Trump: “I don’t think I’ll need to. The power is trade. Our deals are so bad.” Show nested quote +Trump: “No, but I’m renegotiating all of our deals, Bob. The big trade deals that we’re doing so badly on. With China, $505 billion this year in trade. We’re losing with everybody.”
Isn't it dead in the Senate anyway, because it increases the deficit after the 10 year window?
|
On November 07 2017 01:25 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 00:50 KwarK wrote:Joint Committee on Taxation says the Trump tax plan will produce a revenue shortfall of $1,470,000,000,000 over 10 years. Normally that would kill it in the Senate. However by passing a budget that included a $1,500,000,000,000 shortfall they have grandfathered this increase in the deficit in. Some reading on budget reconciliation https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/15/how-budget-reconciliation-broke-congress-215706and the Trump tax plan https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/news/2017/nov/tax-reform-legislation-details-201717798.htmlIncidentally does anyone remember Trump saying he would pay off the deficit within 8 years? I do. Donald Trump: “We’ve got to get rid of the $19 trillion in debt.” Bob Woodward: “How long would that take?” Trump: “I think I could do it fairly quickly, because of the fact the numbers…” Woodward: “What’s fairly quickly?” Trump: “Well, I would say over a period of eight years. And I’ll tell you why.” Woodward: “Would you ever be open to tax increases as part of that, to solve the problem?” Trump: “I don’t think I’ll need to. The power is trade. Our deals are so bad.” Woodward: “That would be $2 trillion a year.” Trump: “No, but I’m renegotiating all of our deals, Bob. The big trade deals that we’re doing so badly on. With China, $505 billion this year in trade. We’re losing with everybody.” Isn't it dead in the Senate anyway, because it increases the deficit after the 10 year window? Have enough senators come out saying they will oppose it? Or are we assuming they will. Its not impossible to think that they will pass a bad bill just to get something though after the repeated failures with Healthcare. And taxes are a lot easier to lie about to your constitutions then explaining why their premiums tripled overnight.
|
|
On November 07 2017 01:31 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 01:25 Mercy13 wrote:On November 07 2017 00:50 KwarK wrote:Joint Committee on Taxation says the Trump tax plan will produce a revenue shortfall of $1,470,000,000,000 over 10 years. Normally that would kill it in the Senate. However by passing a budget that included a $1,500,000,000,000 shortfall they have grandfathered this increase in the deficit in. Some reading on budget reconciliation https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/15/how-budget-reconciliation-broke-congress-215706and the Trump tax plan https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/news/2017/nov/tax-reform-legislation-details-201717798.htmlIncidentally does anyone remember Trump saying he would pay off the deficit within 8 years? I do. Donald Trump: “We’ve got to get rid of the $19 trillion in debt.” Bob Woodward: “How long would that take?” Trump: “I think I could do it fairly quickly, because of the fact the numbers…” Woodward: “What’s fairly quickly?” Trump: “Well, I would say over a period of eight years. And I’ll tell you why.” Woodward: “Would you ever be open to tax increases as part of that, to solve the problem?” Trump: “I don’t think I’ll need to. The power is trade. Our deals are so bad.” Woodward: “That would be $2 trillion a year.” Trump: “No, but I’m renegotiating all of our deals, Bob. The big trade deals that we’re doing so badly on. With China, $505 billion this year in trade. We’re losing with everybody.” Isn't it dead in the Senate anyway, because it increases the deficit after the 10 year window? Have enough senators come out saying they will oppose it? Or are we assuming they will. Its not impossible to think that they will pass a bad bill just to get something though after the repeated failures with Healthcare. And taxes are a lot easier to lie about to your constitutions then explaining why their premiums tripled overnight.
I think it violates Senate rules, so even if it has 50 Senators it is DOA. I'm pretty sure that in order to use the budget reconciliation process to pass a bill it can't increase the deficit outside of a 10 year window. That's why the Bush tax cuts weren't permanent.
|
On November 07 2017 01:25 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 00:50 KwarK wrote:Joint Committee on Taxation says the Trump tax plan will produce a revenue shortfall of $1,470,000,000,000 over 10 years. Normally that would kill it in the Senate. However by passing a budget that included a $1,500,000,000,000 shortfall they have grandfathered this increase in the deficit in. Some reading on budget reconciliation https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/15/how-budget-reconciliation-broke-congress-215706and the Trump tax plan https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/news/2017/nov/tax-reform-legislation-details-201717798.htmlIncidentally does anyone remember Trump saying he would pay off the deficit within 8 years? I do. Donald Trump: “We’ve got to get rid of the $19 trillion in debt.” Bob Woodward: “How long would that take?” Trump: “I think I could do it fairly quickly, because of the fact the numbers…” Woodward: “What’s fairly quickly?” Trump: “Well, I would say over a period of eight years. And I’ll tell you why.” Woodward: “Would you ever be open to tax increases as part of that, to solve the problem?” Trump: “I don’t think I’ll need to. The power is trade. Our deals are so bad.” Woodward: “That would be $2 trillion a year.” Trump: “No, but I’m renegotiating all of our deals, Bob. The big trade deals that we’re doing so badly on. With China, $505 billion this year in trade. We’re losing with everybody.” Isn't it dead in the Senate anyway, because it increases the deficit after the 10 year window? I believe they got around this by making the tax cuts for the lower and middle classes temporary
|
On November 07 2017 01:42 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 01:25 Mercy13 wrote:On November 07 2017 00:50 KwarK wrote:Joint Committee on Taxation says the Trump tax plan will produce a revenue shortfall of $1,470,000,000,000 over 10 years. Normally that would kill it in the Senate. However by passing a budget that included a $1,500,000,000,000 shortfall they have grandfathered this increase in the deficit in. Some reading on budget reconciliation https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/15/how-budget-reconciliation-broke-congress-215706and the Trump tax plan https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/news/2017/nov/tax-reform-legislation-details-201717798.htmlIncidentally does anyone remember Trump saying he would pay off the deficit within 8 years? I do. Donald Trump: “We’ve got to get rid of the $19 trillion in debt.” Bob Woodward: “How long would that take?” Trump: “I think I could do it fairly quickly, because of the fact the numbers…” Woodward: “What’s fairly quickly?” Trump: “Well, I would say over a period of eight years. And I’ll tell you why.” Woodward: “Would you ever be open to tax increases as part of that, to solve the problem?” Trump: “I don’t think I’ll need to. The power is trade. Our deals are so bad.” Woodward: “That would be $2 trillion a year.” Trump: “No, but I’m renegotiating all of our deals, Bob. The big trade deals that we’re doing so badly on. With China, $505 billion this year in trade. We’re losing with everybody.” Isn't it dead in the Senate anyway, because it increases the deficit after the 10 year window? I believe they got around this by making the tax cuts for the lower and middle classes temporary
I think that's how they got under the $1.5 trillion number in the budget resolution, but most of the reporting I've seen projects that it still increases the budget deficit after the 10 year window:
Per Senate rules, no provision of a bill passed under reconciliation can add to the deficit outside of the budget's 10-year window. The TCJA's deficit additions would accelerate in later years, with around $166.8 billion projected to be added in the 10th year.
Since the major tax cuts in the bill are proposed to be permanent, the provisions would likely continue to add to the deficit outside of the 10-year window. If that were the case, the bill would need to be rewritten to pass the Senate.
Source
|
My understanding from 538's analysis (which was pretty good during the healthcare boondoggle) is that tax reform is more likely to get to 50 votes than healthcare was, but it's by no means a sure thing and that was before any polling came in showing it having pretty poor public reception. It'll be interesting to see how this week's polling numbers change now that the actual bill is out, especially since it's gotten so little coverage.
There's a conservative caucus that won't vote for anything that increases the deficit but I think they would need an additional R to vote with them to get to 51 no's, which could be easy to find or hard to find depending on how far people are willing to go/who Trump antagonizes and whether they actually stand up for their deficit views.
I think no matter what they'll connive a way to get it to be reconciliation, that's just number manipulation one way or another.
|
Ouch.
Broken ribs are brutal to recover from, even as a young guy. Can't splint it up or anything, just have to wait for it to heal, and at that age that's going to be months.
|
|
|
|