US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9268
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. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On November 18 2017 10:26 a_flayer wrote: I wonder which one of his newfound friends told him it was unfair? | ||
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
On November 18 2017 10:30 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/931669499136434177 Strike #24. Surely something will happen this time. Surely. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22734 Posts
Going forward nothing less bad/obvious than Trump's exploitation of the presidency for personal gain will even be considered as approaching impeachment worthy. If anyone has any substance to their objection to such exploitation (left or right) they'll recognize why Trump and co have to be severely punished and how them not being severely punished will necessitate more drastic action. That is to say, for the people to hold the entire institution responsible and systematically dismantle their insulated power structure. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On November 18 2017 09:52 GreenHorizons wrote: You use "wet" so much to include everything from a blood soaked carpet, to vaginas, to PCP. The word basically has no meaning, so saying water is wet is dumb and I don't believe you. Show me the statistics that prove water is wet and not moist or a neuro-illusion combining sensations of cold and texture to trick us into perceiving "wetness". Water is sometimes wet. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
The NRA seems to have found some weird friends. This is not very pro America, pro democracy of them. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22734 Posts
When is water PCP? It's not! Proof wet is a meaningless word that people might as well stop using. Don't even get me started on moist supremacy. | ||
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On November 18 2017 05:50 Nyxisto wrote: Social mobility in the US is extremely low, in fact among the lowest of the developed world. It's been shown over and over again that social mobility is not the result of upwards mobility (which factually does not exist) but shortening the ladder.And more importantly, pre-tax this holds for all developed countries. Anecdotes about growing up in wooden shacks and making it to the upper class are precisely that, anecdotes. + Show Spoiler + it is only after accounting for Denmark’s high taxes on the rich and large transfers to the poor that its social mobility looks so much better than the U.S.’s. America’s (relatively conservative) economic philosophy is that, with low taxes and little regulation, the market is an open savannah where the most talent will win out. But Denmark’s economic philosophy seems to be that the market is an unfortunate socioeconomic lottery system, and so the country compensates the poor with generous transfers paid by high taxes on the rich. The second big idea in the paper is that Denmark’s large investment in public education pays off in higher cognitive skills among low-income children, but not in higher-education mobility—i.e., the odds that a child of a non-college grad will go on to finish college. Overall, Denmark spends much more than the U.S. on all levels of education. In particular, a much higher share of its poor young children is enrolled in daycare and preschool than the United States. This large public investment in kids seems to increase cognitive skills among poor Danish children compared to their American peers. In international math and reading scores, for example, the poorest quartile in Denmark far outperforms their counterparts in the U.S. But despite this far greater investment in young children and public colleges, Danish children of high-school graduates are still extremely unlikely to go onto college. Put slightly differently, a tiny share of Denmark’s college graduate population comes from homes where neither parent finished high school. The children of college-grads almost always go to college; the children of non-grads often don’t—even in Denmark. Interesting choice to stop quoting that article. Here's the next paragraph: The third big idea is that Denmark’s welfare policies might reduce its citizens’ incentives to go to college. In the early 1990s, when Denmark raised the minimum age of eligibility for social assistance, college enrollment among Danish twentysomethings fell below its trajectory. Based on this finding, the researchers conclude that welfare policies may reduce college enrollment. Denmark makes it more comfortable to be poor and less lucrative to be rich, so many young people decide to end their education after high school. Also, it appears the bold would appear to be flat out contradicted by this: It turns out that 12% of the population will find themselves in the top 1% of the income distribution for at least one year. What’s more, 39% of Americans will spend a year in the top 5% of the income distribution, 56% will find themselves in the top 10%, and a whopping 73% will spend a year in the top 20% of the income distribution. Source On a side note, the field of empirical economics is about one small step up from social psychology in terms of statistical rigor, and if I'm being honest, I don't take any result from that field very seriously (regardless of whether it aligns with or claims to provide against intuition). A noble goal, and perhaps better than flying totally blind, but in most cases worthless as a means to settle a debate. On another side note, it's a shame that most people have been trained to believe academics are some kind of ultimate authority when perhaps near half of academics are essentially statistically illiterate. (I don't mean to imply you are here btw; just a side rant) | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22734 Posts
On November 18 2017 15:12 mozoku wrote: Interesting choice to stop quoting that article. Here's the next paragraph: Also, it appears the bold would appear to be flat out contradicted by this: Source On a side note, the field of empirical economics is about one small step up from social psychology in terms of statistical rigor, and if I'm being honest, I don't take any result from that field very seriously (regardless of whether it aligns with or claims to provide against intuition). A noble goal, and perhaps better than flying totally blind, but in most cases worthless as a means to settle a debate. On another side note, it's a shame that most people have been trained to believe academics are some kind of ultimate authority when perhaps near half of academics are essentially statistically illiterate. (I don't mean to imply you are here btw; just a side rant) I didn't look but does the "top 1% of income distribution account for the types of income? Say someone liquidates their retirement to pay for medical bills? Are they included in the "spent at least one year at x%" | ||
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
And while we're on the topic of selectivity quoting. From that last source Yet while many Americans will experience some level of affluence during their lives, a much smaller percentage of them will do so for an extended period of time. Although 12% of the population will experience a year in which they find themselves in the top 1% of the income distribution, a mere 0.6% will do so in 10 consecutive years. This makes it seem a lot more compatible with general findings on mobility | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On November 18 2017 15:33 Nyxisto wrote: You don't take empirical economics seriously? This isn't occult quantum physics. This relationship between inequality and mobility has been long known as the Gatsby curve and has been confirmed by much more than just a single study And while we're on the topic of selectivity quoting. From that last source This makes it seem a lot more compatible with general findings on mobility That actually makes it seem even more mobile right? If 100% of people were in the top 1% for a decade of their life there'd be something funny going on. | ||
Biff The Understudy
France7811 Posts
anti lgbt christian lawmaker Wes Goodman resigns after having been caught having sex with another man in his office I had to double check it was not satire. Although I always thought that homophobia and repressed homosexuality are two sides of the same coin. Apparently he was called “the conscience of the conservative movement”, which seems to fit just ok. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9351 Posts
On November 18 2017 14:07 GreenHorizons wrote: When is water PCP? It's not! Proof wet is a meaningless word that people might as well stop using. Don't even get me started on moist supremacy. Stop putting your interpretation of water onto me. Water is just a social construct anyway. | ||
mahrgell
Germany3942 Posts
http://www.bbc.com/news/42032629 | ||
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
On November 18 2017 18:34 Biff The Understudy wrote: The good laugh of the day: anti lgbt christian lawmaker Wes Goodman resigns after having been caught having sex with another man in his office I had to double check it was not satire. Although I always thought that homophobia and repressed homosexuality are two sides of the same coin. Apparently he was called “the conscience of the conservative movement”, which seems to fit just ok. Yet more evidence in support of the notion that many of the most vigorous opponents of gay rights happen to be deep in the closet themselves. It would be tragic if these fucks weren't working so hard to keep the hate flowing. | ||
Gahlo
United States35093 Posts
On November 18 2017 22:21 farvacola wrote: Yet more evidence in support of the notion that many of the most vigorous opponents of gay rights happen to be deep in the closet themselves. It would be tragic if these fucks weren't working so hard to keep the hate flowing. It's kind of amazing how many of them are either in the closet themselves or are homophobes because they're afraid gay men will treat them the way they treat women. | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 18 2017 18:34 Biff The Understudy wrote: The good laugh of the day: anti lgbt christian lawmaker Wes Goodman resigns after having been caught having sex with another man in his office I had to double check it was not satire. Although I always thought that homophobia and repressed homosexuality are two sides of the same coin. Apparently he was called “the conscience of the conservative movement”, which seems to fit just ok. If we’re going for anecdotes, I always thought the big male celebrity “women’s rights” advocates were secretly abusers, because they knew they’d get a pass. That one turned out pretty good too. | ||
Biff The Understudy
France7811 Posts
On November 19 2017 00:13 Danglars wrote: If we’re going for anecdotes, I always thought the big male celebrity “women’s rights” advocates were secretly abusers, because they knew they’d get a pass. That one turned out pretty good too. Oh but simply being a hypocritical douche is not nearly as juicy as spending your life defending “family values” by making people’s life miserable and spreading hatred and biggotry simply because you hate yourself. Right wing doesn’t have the monopoly of hypocrisy, but when they do it, geez, they deliver. I mean the guy spends his life attacking gays and is found with his cock in some dude’s mouth. Can’t make that up. | ||
| ||