|
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 December 20 2017 13:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2017 13:40 xDaunt wrote:On December 20 2017 13:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Let's just presume that Trump did something wrong. Why would he agree to be interviewed by Mueller? What good could ever come from it particularly when Trump could get prosecuted for any inaccurate answer that he gives? Trump has avoided perjuring himself for a bunch of decades. He maybe able to avoid lying during the interview. As for the second part, I don't think it's political viable to dodge the interview. He might as well just admit guilt to the public, because avoiding the interview will do that for him. Clinton got interviewed during the Ken Star investigation for that very reason.
I think Trump could get away with blowing off the interview. He skated on not producing tax returns and all sorts of similar shit.
|
On December 20 2017 14:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2017 13:45 Plansix wrote:On December 20 2017 13:40 xDaunt wrote:Let's just presume that Trump did something wrong. Why would he agree to be interviewed by Mueller? What good could ever come from it particularly when Trump could get prosecuted for any inaccurate answer that he gives? Trump has avoided perjuring himself for a bunch of decades. He maybe able to avoid lying during the interview. As for the second part, I don't think it's political viable to dodge the interview. He might as well just admit guilt to the public, because avoiding the interview will do that for him. Clinton got interviewed during the Ken Star investigation for that very reason. I think Trump could get away with blowing off the interview. He skated on not producing tax returns and all sorts of similar shit.
He only got away with that because he was running against someone who was as unlikeable as he was and viewed as equally corrupt. The problem now is the spotlight is all on him so he cant dodge and deflect.
|
On December 20 2017 13:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2017 13:40 xDaunt wrote:Let's just presume that Trump did something wrong. Why would he agree to be interviewed by Mueller? What good could ever come from it particularly when Trump could get prosecuted for any inaccurate answer that he gives? Trump has avoided perjuring himself for a bunch of decades. He maybe able to avoid lying during the interview. As for the second part, I don't think it's political viable to dodge the interview. He might as well just admit guilt to the public, because avoiding the interview will do that for him. Clinton got interviewed during the Ken Star investigation for that very reason.
I was gonna say "let's play the replace Trump with Clinton" game and see what happens but you beat me to it.
|
|
|
I don’t know who else is watching Senate floor votes, but Schumer grandstanding with all his lies and Murray behind him looking like the country is about to die was worth it.
|
As far as current foreign policy goes, what are some ways where Russia is a worse actor than the US?
On December 20 2017 14:30 Danglars wrote:
I don’t know who else is watching Senate floor votes, but Schumer grandstanding with all his lies and Murray behind him looking like the country is about to die was worth it.
This is idiotic. Why you think concentrating more wealth at the very top is not destructive to the nation in the long term I'll never understand I imagine.
|
On December 20 2017 14:30 Danglars wrote:
I don’t know who else is watching Senate floor votes, but Schumer grandstanding with all his lies and Murray behind him looking like the country is about to die was worth it.
In another life Schumer was a bag-of-hot-air Hollywood actor.
|
|
|
Somehow the words being avoided for Republican snowflakes in congress is supposed to make it look less bad?
|
In somewhat good news, Cardinal Bernard Law has died.
If there is a hell, he's in it.
|
On December 20 2017 13:31 Plansix wrote:
Guys I know we are on a deregulation kick, but can we cool it for a hot minute.
Terrible clickbait title.
The reason for these experiments is to study how microorganisms develop and evolve and what contributes to their ability to cause a pandemic.
|
Why is this "amazing"?
Didn't this story break like a week ago? The first stories I read about it were on NPR and NYT, and both of them explicitly mentioned that these weren't "banned" words, but words that they were recommended against using so that their budgets could get past conservative Republicans.
This is idiotic. Why you think concentrating more wealth at the very top is not destructive to the nation in the long term I'll never understand I imagine.
I really want Danglars to try to answer this, especially since wealth inequality is conclusively linked to worse education, worse health outcomes (much, much, much, much worse), worse crime, etc. etc. etc.
|
Define "conclusively linked."
The US is a unique country in the world. Every country that is similarly developed has zero resemblance to it in terms of geographic diversity, ethnic diversity, size, and population. Every country that is comparable to it in those characteristics is nothing like the US in terms of development.
Taking lessons from other countries can be instructive, but there's certainly nothing empirically "conclusive" about how such policies would affect the US.
Worse still, even within Europe, the question of which way the causality points between lower inequality and outcomes is an open question.
I could likely just as easily claim that, amongst sufficiently wealthy countries, inequality and innovation are "conclusively linked."
Before someone asks, I'm not positing that inequality drives lower health, lower crime, etc. The argument is that inequality is a byproduct of growth, and that in the long-term it's better to be a faster growing, more innovative nation with greater inequality than the converse. Low inequality is great for Europe, but they're also freeloaders on the American innovation train. Growth also allows increased military spending, which ensures the defense of a liberal (and less necessarily) Western order against countries led by authoritarian despots such as Xi Jinpeng and Vladimir Putin.
Efforts should be made to allow everyone the opportunity to live a good life and to take care of those who've encountered misfortune, but I feel no obligation to slow growth and innovation for the sake of raising outcome numbers of those unwilling to work for outcomes themselves.
It's hardly surprising that countries who rely on someone else for defense and technological advancement are more concerned with inequality than growth.
|
|
|
Today I check the Italian news and the main focus on US politics is Trump holding a glass with two hands. I thought we already scraped the bottom of the barrel...this is honestly pathetic. What kind of news is that?
|
The biggest online Newsportal here (from actual newspapers, not some searchengine thing) has an ever growing Article/Timeline for «small» Trump stuff so they can just drop such things in there.
But today seems to be a really slow news day. The 3 papers i checked have 3 diffrent more or less «pointless» headline articles.
|
On December 20 2017 19:15 SoSexy wrote:
Today I check the Italian news and the main focus on US politics is Trump holding a glass with two hands. I thought we already scraped the bottom of the barrel...this is honestly pathetic. What kind of news is that?
That sounds dumb. If it continues like that we're gonna have something about him not saluting some military guy the right way or something.
|
|
|
Opponents who keep pointing to 2027 are missing out on all the obvious budget fights as pretense for cutting Medicare and Social Security this change sets up. The straight out forecasting is not nearly as persuasive.
|
On December 20 2017 20:43 farvacola wrote:
Opponents who keep pointing to 2027 are missing out on all the obvious budget fights as pretense for cutting Medicare and Social Security this change sets up. The straight out forecasting is not nearly as persuasive.
You're not wrong. Republicans are going to be all about cutting Medicaid and Medicare because they slashed the governments income. And they are going to leave it to the grown ups to raise taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
