Author Topic: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting  (Read 92835 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13539
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1750 on: December 23, 2017, 03:45:04 PM »
Well it is less black and white than that.  Those two points aren't mutually exclusive.  We can benefit economically personally, in the short term.....all the while helping the rich far more than they need, AND fucking up the future of the country economically .


This is exactly how I feel about it. There are positives, but there are also negatives. I'd feel a lot better about it if they had also cut spending across the board to compensate for the loss of tax revenue.

What in life doesn't have "positives and negatives"?    For the life of me I don't get this recent animosity for the "rich".    Why SHOULDN'T they benefit as well?    If the tax bill lowers taxes for all Americans, why the need to "punish" (I don't know why I used quotes, it's not a euphemism; it's a literal need to punish) someone who has been - on that metric anyway - successful?    I get it; if you're anti-debt, then the logic is, don't give them something they don't desperately need in order to increase the debt, but that's not everyone's argument.   "Helping the ultra rich get richer" is not at all the same thing as "I wouldn't have traded a tax cut for those making more than $x per year in exchange for an increase to the debt."   

Offline The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 3999
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1751 on: December 23, 2017, 08:38:46 PM »
There are plenty of arguments about "Healthcare for all" that boil down to simple economic terms, eg, our current Healthcare is expensive (compared to other first and second world countries) and offers no substantial qualities. I know you've read these arguments because I know myself and others have discussed them with you before. We may not have convinced you of anything, but I know you've seen the arguments, read the arguments, and understand the arguments. So to say that "the argument for healthcare is predicated on a moral argument, not a practical, economic, or efficac[ious] argument" is, frankly, utterly disingenuous.

Look, my preference is single payer, so I understand the "non moral" arguments, but those are not the arguments getting aired on the Senate floor, or in popular discussions of the issue.   The headlines in the NYT are not about the reduction of transaction costs within the health care system (which, by the way, no plan yet has addressed) but rather (wrongly) declaring that the Trump plan will deny coverage to however many the paper feels is relevant at that time.   
That's fair but that's not what you said.

Quote
You're missing my point; I'm not talking about the morality of the person talking about it, I'm saying the argument for healthcare is predicated on a moral argument, not a practical, economic or efficacy argument.   There are plenty of people, including here on this forum, that believe that we should provide healthcare to 100% of people, REGARDLESS of cost, effectiveness, constitutionality, etc.   It's a purely MORAL rationale.   That's a Democrat hallmark in recent times.
I am certainly not denying that there is usually a moral component to these statements but to say they're "predicated on a moral argument, not a practical, economic, or efficacy argument" is fallacious. SOME may be, but all are not.

Quote
Quote
Please quote those people. Please quote them where they say EXACTLY this.

Please.  They can step up themselves.  The arguments are here. 
Hey man, you made the argument and I am frankly unfamiliar with anyone making that sort of argument here.

Quote
Quote
As it pertains to healthcare? Perhaps yes. Some Democrats may feel that there is a moral obligation to care its citizens regardless of the cost, while others may feel similar while also believing that government-sponsored/provided/controlled healthcare would offer a better or similar level of care at a lower cost.

And let's be honest, this type of legislating based entirely upon moral or emotional arguments regardless of their cost, effectiveness, or constitutionality is not unique to Democrats/Liberals. One only has to look at the Republicans continued pushing for tax-cuts (they pay for themselves and invigorate the economy... except for all those times they didn't), Bible-based legislation (we should pass more laws based on religion because the founders were religious or something and totally didn't think that might be problem back when they wrote the Constitution), increasing military spending (our military is in horrible shape and needs more explodey-things despite the fact that the military/defense is hugely wasteful and is the third largest money sink for the government), and voter fraud investigations (voter fraud is a huge problem... such a huge problem that we can't find many instances of statistically significant voter fraud but we should still make it harder to vote because of this phantom issue!).

But "voter fraud" - nonsense though it may be (and it is) - isn't a "moral" issue, per se.  Honestly, I don't know WHAT it is, besides nonsense.  I happen to agree with you on Bible-based legislation, though.  Thankfully, in recent years, the sort of "Moral Majority" arguments have fallen by the wayside.
Okay, that one might be stretching it a bit. But my justification for putting it in there is the continued push for legislation to make voting more difficult in order the combat a problem that no one can prove actually exists in a meaningful way. It's become a "moral issue" not one based on practicality, economics, or efficacy.

If that doesn't convince you, well then, I'll just cross that one off the list.

Quote
Quote
Except for the part where he says, "All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
But, yeah, just observations that may or may not imply judgment. A completely and utterly unbiased reading of both Hillary and Romney's statements right there. Fair and balanced, that's what it is.

I don't follow you; sarcasm?
Romney is very strongly implying the 47% of people who will never vote for him or another, similar Republican is entirely due to them being lazy, government-dependent moochers.

Sure Romney doesn't straight up say that (mostly because he's not a complete asshole like Trump) but he's blowing on his dogwhistle so goddamn hard I imagine most of the dogs in Utah were probably writhing in pain at the time.

Offline The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 3999
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1752 on: December 23, 2017, 08:58:31 PM »
Tax bill passes the House and it on its way to the Senate. Everyone excited to be keeping more of their hard-earned money?
No. By all accounts I likely won't get much back. I'm also far more worried that the right will use the resulting reduction in tax funds to gut social security and medicare for my generation. I know Paul Ryan has a semi-permanent hard on for killing entitlements.

Sorry, "entitlement reform."

It's funny...

One side thinks we're all gonna benefit economically.

The other side thinks we're all fucked and helping the "ultra rich get ultra richer."

Why did the Republican party only have like 37 people try and get the nomination? Clearly everyone in this country is a socioeconomic mastermind that can foresee the future. Me right, you wrong...
One doesn't need to see the future to be able to guess how these things might turn out. One needs to only look at the past to see how similar such projects worked (or didn't in many cases).

I was actually a big proponent of reforming the tax code. Not because I'm a socioeconomic mastermind or anything, but there are plenty of convincing arguments from people who are who advocate doing it, mostly in the form of lowering the rates and broadening the base. It remains to be seen whether this tax bill does that (it doesn't sound like it does) or if it's just a quickly thrown together piece of shoddy legislation. My pre-existing biases point towards the latter but what do I know? I'm just a dumbass with an opinion and internet access. History will either vindicate me (and the others who I agree with) or it won't. Let's hope, for the good of the country, that it doesn't.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6462
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1753 on: December 24, 2017, 12:05:15 AM »
I'm also far more worried that the right will use the resulting reduction in tax funds to gut social security and medicare for my generation.

Hate to break this to you, but Social Security has been self-gutting itself for a while now. Do we kill it off? Or do we let it die its own prolonged, agonizing death?

For the life of me I don't get this recent animosity for the "rich".   

I know you know this but there are several reasons:
1) Envy. We all have it.
2) Politicians in general, and those on the left in particular, want to do stuff, and in order to do stuff, they need money. Who has money? Rich people.
3) The feeling that their wealth is undeserved or ill-gotten, perhaps on the backs of lowly paid laborers. Subjective.
4) The notion that the wealthy do not need all their wealth. Who is one to say how much wealth another should have?
5) The idea that those less fortunate deserve more money, to be provided for by the government, which circles back to #2.
6) The fact that rich people can influence politicians. Has been going on since humans first developed government. No one likes it, it's just how it is, and it ain't going away.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24781
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1754 on: December 24, 2017, 05:19:03 AM »
I know if I was struggling to (or couldn't) pay my mortgage/rent, and/or utilities, and/or put food on the table, and/or <insert any basic necessity of life here>, I'd be damn pissed that people making 10x, or 100x, or 1000x what I made were getting equal or better treatment vis-a-vis tax breaks.

To provide the opposite view to your stance Bill, if the tax breaks benefit all Americans, why should all Americans be treated equally?  Why shouldn't those that need more be given more.  The severe income inequality is driving as much a wedge in society as the politics.  Yes, there have always been "haves" and "have nots", but (like most things in society) the extremes are getting further and further apart.  I know that life isn't fair, but what is wrong with trying to provide benefit to those in need of assistance (for whatever reason) most?  Social Security, Medicaid, Employment Insurance... all examples of that.  Why shouldn't tax reform also have some efforts to help those that need it the most?
I didn't know I could handle another 10 inches and it was rough but in the end I'm glad I did it.
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6462
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1755 on: December 24, 2017, 09:50:02 AM »
You are discussing tax policy, whether good or bad. I was merely addressing Stadler's point of the sheer hatred people have of the rich.

Also, not to nitpick, but social security and employment insurance aren't meant to "provide benefit to those in need of assistance." They are intended for all citizens.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13539
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1756 on: December 24, 2017, 10:56:41 AM »
I am certainly not denying that there is usually a moral component to these statements but to say they're "predicated on a moral argument, not a practical, economic, or efficacy argument" is fallacious. SOME may be, but all are not.

Trimming just for space, but so you understand my opinion or position here, look at Chris Murphy.   Senator for CT (home state of Sandy Hook).  He is probably the loudest advocate for gun control on the left at this point, and EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.  of his speeches is a tear-filled (literally) emotional plea for moral action.  No stats, no facts, no legal argument, just a moral plea for action, because we "can't let any more children DIE!", implying that Republicans DO want children to die, which to me, even as a Libertarian, is a patently offensive thing to say.   I KNOW one of those kids that died (her uncle and I were roommates for a time) and while I literally cried when I heard the news, that doesn't make Chris Murphy right (he's not).   

Quote
Okay, that one might be stretching it a bit. But my justification for putting it in there is the continued push for legislation to make voting more difficult in order the combat a problem that no one can prove actually exists in a meaningful way. It's become a "moral issue" not one based on practicality, economics, or efficacy.

If that doesn't convince you, well then, I'll just cross that one off the list.

Look, I'm neutral on "voter fraud".  I think ACTUAL fraud is almost nonexistent in this age, but I think both sides want to play with the voting process to benefit themselves.    None of it is actual for "integrity" reasons; it's because each method results in higher turnout for their side (or lower turnout for the other, as the case may be).   It all stinks. 

Quote
Romney is very strongly implying the 47% of people who will never vote for him or another, similar Republican is entirely due to them being lazy, government-dependent moochers.

Sure Romney doesn't straight up say that (mostly because he's not a complete asshole like Trump) but he's blowing on his dogwhistle so goddamn hard I imagine most of the dogs in Utah were probably writhing in pain at the time.

We've talked about this, I think (maybe not here; I post at another site, so maybe I'm confused).    He IMPLIED it for those that think in those terms.  But he STATED facts.   The FACT is, that 47% of Americans DO NOT pay taxes, for whatever reason; laziness, handicap, whatever.   You can't blame those people for not wanting to give up their advantage (same as you can't blame the people - some of them here - that don't want to relinquish the benefits they received under the ACA).  But that was a strategic discussion by Romney; how do I win an election knowing that right out the gate, I'm uphill on 47% of the population?   That's 150 MILLION people.  Given that only about 50% of Americans vote, that means he need to get almost 100% of the remaining voters to win (and he, obviously, didn't).   That's far different than Hillary just uniformly declaring anyone that won't vote for her "deplorable" and "morally bankrupt".     It's like the difference between saying "Oh, I don't like Rush because of the timbre of Geddy's vocals, and the imbalance between keyboards and guitar" versus "Oh, I don't like Rush because they're a bunch of quasi-libertarian atheist fucks from the U.S. suburb of Canada."  One's factually based and one's morally based.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13539
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1757 on: December 24, 2017, 11:14:39 AM »
I know if I was struggling to (or couldn't) pay my mortgage/rent, and/or utilities, and/or put food on the table, and/or <insert any basic necessity of life here>, I'd be damn pissed that people making 10x, or 100x, or 1000x what I made were getting equal or better treatment vis-a-vis tax breaks.

Doesn't make you right, though.  It just makes you subject to one of the seven deadly sins (envy).  It's like being a dork in high school and hating the star quarterback for bedding the head cheerleader on the daily.  I know, from experience.  :) 

Quote
To provide the opposite view to your stance Bill, if the tax breaks benefit all Americans, why should all Americans be treated equally?  Why shouldn't those that need more be given more.  The severe income inequality is driving as much a wedge in society as the politics.  Yes, there have always been "haves" and "have nots", but (like most things in society) the extremes are getting further and further apart.  I know that life isn't fair, but what is wrong with trying to provide benefit to those in need of assistance (for whatever reason) most?  Social Security, Medicaid, Employment Insurance... all examples of that.  Why shouldn't tax reform also have some efforts to help those that need it the most?

Why should they?  Because that's what the Constitution promises.  To me, there is no difference between treating the rich differently and treating women, or blacks or Jews differently.  Now, that's not legally true, and the Constitution doesn't bar progressive taxation, but from a mindset perspective, it's accurate.   But having said that, I don't take this that literally.  It's less about "punishing the rich" for me than it is about "who is REALLY needy"?   

I'm glad you mentioned "income equality".   It IS driving a wedge, but it is a purely subjective, political wedge.  It is predicated on a complete falsehood; the Democrat party - starting with our man Barack (he mentioned it in his manifesto, "The Audacity of Hope") and continuing particularly hard in the Bernie wing of the party - has been selling "income inequality" as a thing for a while now in order to fire up the masses.   The problem?   It's a made-up thing, because "income" in the U.S. is not a zero sum game.     Assume Warren Buffet makes $325 million a year.   If he made NOTHING next year, it's not as if the rest of the 325 million Americans are going to make $1M more than they do now.   

My step-nephew is disabled; his IQ is lower than the wattage of my car speakers.   I have zero problem with him being subsidized, because he cannot fend for himself.   He cannot get healthcare, or a livable wage any other way.   In my view, that's the reason for entitlements.   But the guy who opted to be a machinist in Detroit, and refuses to move because the jobs went to Tennessee or Texas?   Whaaaaa.   That's a choice, albeit a hard one.    I don't at all believe that should be subsidized, but now, in the "income inequality redistribution model", it is. 

I am not at all advocating some of the predatory lending tactics that are out there, and they should be illegal.   But if you signed the document, knowingly and with your free will, assuming a student loan, you should pay it back.  PERIOD.   I don't understand just "abdicating" thousands of contracts because people can't live up to their end of the bargain.   

Offline The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 3999
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1758 on: December 24, 2017, 11:50:56 AM »
I'm also far more worried that the right will use the resulting reduction in tax funds to gut social security and medicare for my generation.

Hate to break this to you, but Social Security has been self-gutting itself for a while now. Do we kill it off? Or do we let it die its own prolonged, agonizing death?
Has it? By most estimates, social security has largely been solvent since its creation. Funding is expected to begin becoming more difficult in the future but that's a different argument with solutions still possible. Saying it's been self-gutting itself for decades is patently untrue.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2016/06/24/the-truth-about-social-securitys-solvency-and-you/#6cd16b392199
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/govt-to-report-on-solvency-of-social-security-medicare/

A large part of the issue seems to be down to 2 issues: boomers retiring and the widening level of wealth inequality. The first is obvious, the boomers are a very large cohort and won't be offset by a suffuciently large enough workforce of gen xers and millenials to keep funding at adequate levels (as usual, boomers continue to ruin things ;) ).

As for whether it's worth keeping, well I consider anything that keeps about 22 million people out of poverty and reduced elderly poverty rates by over 25 percent worth keeping. BTW this would totally be an example of a moral argument, for those of you keeping score.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/social-security-keeps-22-million-americans-out-of-poverty-a-state-by-state
http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/summer04/w10466.html

Quote
For the life of me I don't get this recent animosity for the "rich".   

I know you know this but there are several reasons:
1) Envy. We all have it.
2) Politicians in general, and those on the left in particular, want to do stuff, and in order to do stuff, they need money. Who has money? Rich people.
3) The feeling that their wealth is undeserved or ill-gotten, perhaps on the backs of lowly paid laborers. Subjective.
4) The notion that the wealthy do not need all their wealth. Who is one to say how much wealth another should have?
5) The idea that those less fortunate deserve more money, to be provided for by the government, which circles back to #2.
6) The fact that rich people can influence politicians. Has been going on since humans first developed government. No one likes it, it's just how it is, and it ain't going away.
7) The rising levels of wealth inequality. When a small group of people continue to control a larger and more disproportonate level of the world's income, especially when you conpound that with relatively stagnant levels of income amongst more middle income earners, and well there's bound to be some resentment.

Edit: Fixed my shitty quoting job.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2017, 12:25:42 PM by The King in Crimson »

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24781
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1759 on: December 24, 2017, 11:53:46 AM »
Doesn't make you right, though.  It just makes you subject to one of the seven deadly sins (envy). 

You call it envy; I call it wanting something close to fairness.

It's like being a dork in high school and hating the star quarterback for bedding the head cheerleader on the daily.  I know, from experience.  :) 

You're right, it is just like that - except the QB is the one that is receiving unfair treatment - graded on a curve, re-scheduled tests because of games/practices, extensions on assignments, forgiveness for absences... BECAUSE he's the star QB.  He's treated differently because of his situation.  When it comes to standards of basic living, why is it wrong to be considerate of peoples' hardships, and treating them differently because of their situation?

I hate it when anyone makes it sound that every person has a choice and/or an an easy path to change their situation.  A very good friend of mine who is *highly* educated, by all means should be very successful, but hasn't been able to find job commensurate with his education, ended up getting screwed by tenants he'd rented his place to when he DID move to seek said job, ended up getting foreclosed on, bounced around from a few different cities to find acceptable work, but can't, has shit-ass credit because of the foreclosure and mountain of student debt and is now living at home in his 40s. 

That guy in Detroit you mention, what if he's not moving because he has elderly parents that need his care?  It's not ALWAYS choice to be in the situation you're in.

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot get behind the idea that people in that situation should be treated the same as the person who can't figure out how to spend even 1% of what they have in earnings.

There's LOTS of people on this forum that live month-to-month (or worse).  Not sure many of them CHOSE to be in that situation.  Why the Top 1% deserve to be treated equally (or better) is beyond me.  This 'because the Constitution says so' is a BS argument.
I didn't know I could handle another 10 inches and it was rough but in the end I'm glad I did it.
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6462
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1760 on: December 24, 2017, 12:16:34 PM »
This star QB analogy is a bit silly, but to see it through, we could also say that because of him, the school receives increased revenue due to ticket sales, playoff appearances, publicity, etc... so he is contributing more to the benefit of the school than pimple-faced Stadler (and Cool Chris, since I was that guy too) do. That's why he is treated differently.

Sorry to keep getting back to this, but "the rich" are definitely a despised class here in the PNW, despite the fact that the influx of high income wage earners has boosted the regions economy to ridiculous levels. Of course there are downsides: traffic is beyond shit and housing costs are through the roof, but the sheer vitriol toward them has gotten way out of hand. These guys and gals at Amazon/Expedia/MSFT/SBUX are working hard and it's not like the rest of us aren't benefiting from the fruits of their labor. And they are already paying ridiculous property and sales taxes here.

"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 3999
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1761 on: December 24, 2017, 12:24:08 PM »
I am certainly not denying that there is usually a moral component to these statements but to say they're "predicated on a moral argument, not a practical, economic, or efficacy argument" is fallacious. SOME may be, but all are not.

Trimming just for space, but so you understand my opinion or position here, look at Chris Murphy.   Senator for CT (home state of Sandy Hook).  He is probably the loudest advocate for gun control on the left at this point, and EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.  of his speeches is a tear-filled (literally) emotional plea for moral action.  No stats, no facts, no legal argument, just a moral plea for action, because we "can't let any more children DIE!", implying that Republicans DO want children to die, which to me, even as a Libertarian, is a patently offensive thing to say.   I KNOW one of those kids that died (her uncle and I were roommates for a time) and while I literally cried when I heard the news, that doesn't make Chris Murphy right (he's not).   
I thought about bringing up gun control as an example of this, but honestly it's not limited to the left. There's very little direct evidence that the presence of guns tends to negatively or postively affect the level of violent crimes. Research is inconclusive to say the least.

But yes you are correct. The left uses the moral argument quite a bit on gun control.

Quote
Quote
Okay, that one might be stretching it a bit. But my justification for putting it in there is the continued push for legislation to make voting more difficult in order the combat a problem that no one can prove actually exists in a meaningful way. It's become a "moral issue" not one based on practicality, economics, or efficacy.

If that doesn't convince you, well then, I'll just cross that one off the list.

Look, I'm neutral on "voter fraud".  I think ACTUAL fraud is almost nonexistent in this age, but I think both sides want to play with the voting process to benefit themselves.    None of it is actual for "integrity" reasons; it's because each method results in higher turnout for their side (or lower turnout for the other, as the case may be).   It all stinks. 
Whatever their reasons for doing so, the left is not arguing for changing voting laws or increasing regulations so this argument falls flat. The right is arguing for doing so, efficacy and logic be damned. Isn't that what this argument is about? Proposing legislation regardless of the facts or the practicality of doing so?

Quote
Quote
Romney is very strongly implying the 47% of people who will never vote for him or another, similar Republican is entirely due to them being lazy, government-dependent moochers.

Sure Romney doesn't straight up say that (mostly because he's not a complete asshole like Trump) but he's blowing on his dogwhistle so goddamn hard I imagine most of the dogs in Utah were probably writhing in pain at the time.

We've talked about this, I think (maybe not here; I post at another site, so maybe I'm confused).    He IMPLIED it for those that think in those terms.
He implied very strongly and with all of the subtlety of a jackhammer on speed.

Quote
But he STATED facts.
Yes, there are facts in his statements. Facts which he uses to draw hasty and generalized conclusions based on nothing more than standard-issue Republican talking points.

Quote
The FACT is, that 47% of Americans DO NOT pay taxes,
Correction: 47% do not pay income taxes but I'm sure that's what you meant.

Quote
or whatever reason; laziness, handicap, whatever.   
He straight up says they are dependent upon government, believe that they are victims, believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. Romney cites no evidence that all of those people believe those things or are those things or that they even won't vote for him. He has no idea, just preconceived notions and hasty generalizations.

Quote
You can't blame those people for not wanting to give up their advantage (same as you can't blame the people - some of them here - that don't want to relinquish the benefits they received under the ACA).
Again, you just make baseless assumptions about a large group of people. You (and Romney) just assume that these people don't want to work their way out of poverty or are completely comfirtable being on the dole. You assume that that is the only thing that motivates these people.

Quote
But that was a strategic discussion by Romney; how do I win an election knowing that right out the gate, I'm uphill on 47% of the population?   
It's a shitty strategy to denigrate 47% of the population with baseless generalizations. No wonder the brilliant Romney lost.

Quote
hat's 150 MILLION people.  Given that only about 50% of Americans vote, that means he need to get almost 100% of the remaining voters to win (and he, obviously, didn't).   That's far different than Hillary just uniformly declaring anyone that won't vote for her "deplorable" and "morally bankrupt".   
Unless you literally can't read, you know that's not what she said. Shall we pull up the exact quote again to refresh our memories? Funny how you completely refuse to do anything other than a surface-level analysis of Romney's statement but you pull out the back hoe and digging equipment when confronted by Hillary's. It's almost as if there might be some preexisting biases at work herr.

Quote
  It's like the difference between saying "Oh, I don't like Rush because of the timbre of Geddy's vocals, and the imbalance between keyboards and guitar" versus "Oh, I don't like Rush because they're a bunch of quasi-libertarian atheist fucks from the U.S. suburb of Canada."  One's factually based and one's morally based.
Complete false equivalence but I'm sure, deep down, you realize that.

Offline The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 3999
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1762 on: December 24, 2017, 12:29:14 PM »
This star QB analogy is a bit silly, but to see it through, we could also say that because of him, the school receives increased revenue due to ticket sales, playoff appearances, publicity, etc... so he is contributing more to the benefit of the school than pimple-faced Stadler (and Cool Chris, since I was that guy too) do. That's why he is treated differently.

Sorry to keep getting back to this, but "the rich" are definitely a despised class here in the PNW, despite the fact that the influx of high income wage earners has boosted the regions economy to ridiculous levels. Of course there are downsides: traffic is beyond shit and housing costs are through the roof, but the sheer vitriol toward them has gotten way out of hand. These guys and gals at Amazon/Expedia/MSFT/SBUX are working hard and it's not like the rest of us aren't benefiting from the fruits of their labor. And they are already paying ridiculous property and sales taxes here.


Are the super rich despised any more than the cripplingly poor? Really depends upon who is doing the despising.

Also, is it the presence of the super rich that has boosted the economy or the presence of a robust and stable middle class?

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6462
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1763 on: December 24, 2017, 12:42:31 PM »
The rich are most definitely the most despised "class" of people in my region. Your second point is valid. But the "middle class," whatever that is these days, is doing well here too. I cannot speak for national trends.

And I know I went overboard on my Social Security comments, you did bring the conversation back toward the middle.

To elucidate what I think Stadler was getting at is the question of if the wealth of the rich is causing others to be poor. To many on the left, and the Socialists in my area (that is their political party, I am not using the term derisively) they most certainly are. Stadler is implying that is false, if he doesn't mind me speaking for him).
« Last Edit: December 24, 2017, 12:58:55 PM by Cool Chris »
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13539
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1764 on: December 26, 2017, 12:06:28 AM »
Doesn't make you right, though.  It just makes you subject to one of the seven deadly sins (envy). 

You call it envy; I call it wanting something close to fairness.

I think "keeping what you earn" is "fairness".   

Quote

You're right, it is just like that - except the QB is the one that is receiving unfair treatment - graded on a curve, re-scheduled tests because of games/practices, extensions on assignments, forgiveness for absences... BECAUSE he's the star QB.  He's treated differently because of his situation.  When it comes to standards of basic living, why is it wrong to be considerate of peoples' hardships, and treating them differently because of their situation?

I hate it when anyone makes it sound that every person has a choice and/or an an easy path to change their situation.  A very good friend of mine who is *highly* educated, by all means should be very successful, but hasn't been able to find job commensurate with his education, ended up getting screwed by tenants he'd rented his place to when he DID move to seek said job, ended up getting foreclosed on, bounced around from a few different cities to find acceptable work, but can't, has shit-ass credit because of the foreclosure and mountain of student debt and is now living at home in his 40s. 

That guy in Detroit you mention, what if he's not moving because he has elderly parents that need his care?  It's not ALWAYS choice to be in the situation you're in.

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot get behind the idea that people in that situation should be treated the same as the person who can't figure out how to spend even 1% of what they have in earnings.

There's LOTS of people on this forum that live month-to-month (or worse).  Not sure many of them CHOSE to be in that situation.  Why the Top 1% deserve to be treated equally (or better) is beyond me.  This 'because the Constitution says so' is a BS argument.

They need to be treated equally because they are human.  We're ALL - ostensibly - "human" and "equal".  I get to keep what I earn, you get to keep what you earn.   Bad things happen to people all around, and we don't try to after-the-fact judge that and try to equilibrate.   

I'm not at all saying everything is easy or is a choice.   But I am saying that our circumstances are our own.   My dad is handicapped.  He didn't ask for that (nor did my mom for that matter; but she's been married to him for going on 55 years now).  Yet, he worked every day of his life until he was around 74 or so and never took a DIME of social assistance.   I remember putting his socks and shoes on for him in the morning so he could go to work because he couldn't.  I remember him going to a job interview and having the person tell him that they were "looking for someone with a little more physicality".   Did he call a lawyer?  No, he circled ten more jobs in the newspaper and sent out ten more resumes.   Is that fair?   I don't know; not to him maybe, but to me and my brother?  We learned how to work for a living.  We got the best of my dad - he couldn't throw a football with us but he taught us the importance of being sharp mentally at all times.    "I don't know" was never an excuse.  "I don't feel like it" was never an excuse. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13539
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1765 on: December 26, 2017, 12:13:14 AM »
Quote
hat's 150 MILLION people.  Given that only about 50% of Americans vote, that means he need to get almost 100% of the remaining voters to win (and he, obviously, didn't).   That's far different than Hillary just uniformly declaring anyone that won't vote for her "deplorable" and "morally bankrupt".   
Unless you literally can't read, you know that's not what she said. Shall we pull up the exact quote again to refresh our memories? Funny how you completely refuse to do anything other than a surface-level analysis of Romney's statement but you pull out the back hoe and digging equipment when confronted by Hillary's. It's almost as if there might be some preexisting biases at work herr.

Okay, easy.   I can read very well.  I know the quote very well.   If you can read into what Romney said, then I can read into what Hillary said.  You don't get to predicate your argument on Romney's IMPLICATIONS and reject Hillary's.    But there's no bias - I've been clear here that I would have voted for her but for her perjury and complete contempt for our rule of law - and my argument is only that at least he used some facts - even if interpreted wrongly or out of context - whereas Hillary just made sweeping, subjective, moral, judgements of an indistinct and unquantified sector of the population. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13539
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1766 on: December 26, 2017, 12:17:58 AM »
Are the super rich despised any more than the cripplingly poor? Really depends upon who is doing the despising.

Since I don't know anyone that actually DESPISES the cripplingly poor, I'm going to say "yes".

Quote
Also, is it the presence of the super rich that has boosted the economy or the presence of a robust and stable middle class?

Both.  Look, I'm not against taxing the rich, but only if we do it because there is some economic outcome from it, not just because they are rich.   You've got people that believe the tax levels should be in excess of 50 or 60% of income.  Hell, there was one woman arguing with Neal Cavuto (about Bernie's free education plan) that actually advocated for 100% of earnings (on the premise that they have enough reserves to live on).  I tell people this all the time and they do not believe me, but at those levels, THEY WILL LEAVE.  Like Queen went to Munich, like the Stones went to France, etc., they WILL LEAVE and you'll be stuck with 60% tax on $0 income.   

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6462
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1767 on: December 26, 2017, 01:06:40 AM »
I was thinking today that if we are going to TAX THE RICH, I would be much more supportive of the idea if we just took their money and distributed (un)equally to the rest of the population. I don't like the idea of wealth redistribution but I like this idea a lot more than having these taxes go to various government programs to "help the poor." We should just cut out the middle man. But that would mean government cutting out itself, so yeah, never mind.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 3999
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1768 on: December 26, 2017, 10:03:13 AM »
Quote
hat's 150 MILLION people.  Given that only about 50% of Americans vote, that means he need to get almost 100% of the remaining voters to win (and he, obviously, didn't).   That's far different than Hillary just uniformly declaring anyone that won't vote for her "deplorable" and "morally bankrupt".   
Unless you literally can't read, you know that's not what she said. Shall we pull up the exact quote again to refresh our memories? Funny how you completely refuse to do anything other than a surface-level analysis of Romney's statement but you pull out the back hoe and digging equipment when confronted by Hillary's. It's almost as if there might be some preexisting biases at work herr.

Okay, easy.   I can read very well.  I know the quote very well.   If you can read into what Romney said, then I can read into what Hillary said.  You don't get to predicate your argument on Romney's IMPLICATIONS and reject Hillary's.    But there's no bias - I've been clear here that I would have voted for her but for her perjury and complete contempt for our rule of law - and my argument is only that at least he used some facts - even if interpreted wrongly or out of context - whereas Hillary just made sweeping, subjective, moral, judgements of an indistinct and unquantified sector of the population.
I'm not rejecting Hillary's implications and I'm certainly not defending what she said but you should at least quote her accurately. My issue here is your seemingly instinctual need to defend Romney for doing the exact same thing she did. It's a complete double standard.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13539
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1769 on: December 27, 2017, 11:47:01 AM »
Quote
hat's 150 MILLION people.  Given that only about 50% of Americans vote, that means he need to get almost 100% of the remaining voters to win (and he, obviously, didn't).   That's far different than Hillary just uniformly declaring anyone that won't vote for her "deplorable" and "morally bankrupt".   
Unless you literally can't read, you know that's not what she said. Shall we pull up the exact quote again to refresh our memories? Funny how you completely refuse to do anything other than a surface-level analysis of Romney's statement but you pull out the back hoe and digging equipment when confronted by Hillary's. It's almost as if there might be some preexisting biases at work herr.

Okay, easy.   I can read very well.  I know the quote very well.   If you can read into what Romney said, then I can read into what Hillary said.  You don't get to predicate your argument on Romney's IMPLICATIONS and reject Hillary's.    But there's no bias - I've been clear here that I would have voted for her but for her perjury and complete contempt for our rule of law - and my argument is only that at least he used some facts - even if interpreted wrongly or out of context - whereas Hillary just made sweeping, subjective, moral, judgements of an indistinct and unquantified sector of the population.
I'm not rejecting Hillary's implications and I'm certainly not defending what she said but you should at least quote her accurately. My issue here is your seemingly instinctual need to defend Romney for doing the exact same thing she did. It's a complete double standard.

And I don't think it's a double standard, because I don't at all think they are doing the exact same thing.  She was specifically making a moral point and playing on that aspect of her campaign (which was a large part of her campaign, and a large part of the Democrat policy).  She used the word "deplorable", then proceeded to define it with no facts, no stats, no nothing to back her up just sweeping generalizations.   He was making a strategic assessment of his campaign using hard data and erred by not being clear enough, allowing for broad moral implications.   

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20746
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1770 on: December 27, 2017, 12:37:22 PM »
Your distinction is simple enough to follow, but for the life of me I can't figure out why you think it matters. Mitt classified a large slice of democrat voters as deadbeats, did he not? Is your point simply that it was alright because it's true? On the flipside, you know very well what Hillary meant by deplorables. Was it any less true? In the end the only real difference is that Grabby was able to weaponize it remarkably well, which quite frankly, speaks rather poor of his supporters.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13539
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1771 on: December 27, 2017, 01:02:18 PM »
Your distinction is simple enough to follow, but for the life of me I can't figure out why you think it matters. Mitt classified a large slice of democrat voters as deadbeats, did he not? Is your point simply that it was alright because it's true? On the flipside, you know very well what Hillary meant by deplorables. Was it any less true? In the end the only real difference is that Grabby was able to weaponize it remarkably well, which quite frankly, speaks rather poor of his supporters.


Fair question; I am of two minds.   On one level, I don't think ANY of it matters.  I think we should be moving away from the PC, "Say the right thing!" mentality of politics and holding our elected officials accountable on what they DO, not how they say it.  But on another level, I DO think it matters.   Several years ago (probably about 2 decades now) I moved Independent, consciously, because I didn't like the moral arguments of the Right.   There were no compelling arguments against, say, gay marriage that weren't totally morally based, and I don't need government to legislate morals.  I don't support a "murder" law because it's morally right, I support it so I don't - nominally, anyway - have to worry about casual acquaintances killing me for sport.   The Left is now taking that up.   The ACA shouldn't stay because it's working or efficient, or lowering prices, it has to stay because to do otherwise would be to "thrust millions into the heaving swells of an ocean of non-coverage!"   You almost have to have a wad of spittle in the corner of your mouth when you say it, to project the requisite amount of righteousness.   

Look, I get that I am perhaps in the minority, but I believe that racists have the right to vote as much as anyone else does, and like I don't think every woman votes ONLY on woman's issues, and every black doesn't ONLY vote for black candidates*, I don't think that "racists" ONLY vote for racist candidates.   There are volumes and volumes written on people voting against interest, so why does it not apply here?  I don't at all believe in MORAL arguments for our laws.  Our laws are intended to give us the bare minimum of behavior levels, and if we want to go one better, that's up to us and we should be able to do so - or NOT - without anyone saying otherwise. 

So, TL;DR, when it signals, as it does to me, a shift in emphasis of a party's politics, I think it DOES matter.   
« Last Edit: December 27, 2017, 01:19:22 PM by Stadler »

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26865
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1772 on: December 27, 2017, 01:18:33 PM »
Several years ago (probably about 20 decades now) I moved Independent, consciously, because I didn't like the moral arguments of the Right. 

....are you a vampire? You old dude.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13539
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1773 on: December 27, 2017, 01:19:57 PM »
Several years ago (probably about 20 decades now) I moved Independent, consciously, because I didn't like the moral arguments of the Right. 

....are you a vampire? You old dude.

I AM old.  So old that when I was thinking "20 years... that's two decades!" and started typing, I ended up confusing the two!

Online Kattelox

  • Cart Corral Crusader
  • Posts: 4511
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1774 on: December 27, 2017, 01:21:18 PM »
And here I thought you were only 74.
RYM || Last.FM
"No Christ, God, nor religion gave me the answers I was looking for" - Timo Tolkki

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26865
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1775 on: December 27, 2017, 01:28:54 PM »
Several years ago (probably about 20 decades now) I moved Independent, consciously, because I didn't like the moral arguments of the Right. 

....are you a vampire? You old dude.

I AM old.  So old that when I was thinking "20 years... that's two decades!" and started typing, I ended up confusing the two!


Nice try, bub, but I'm on to you.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline SwedishGoose

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 1286

Offline ?

  • Apparently the best username
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11562
  • Gender: Male
  • Less=Moore, Even Less=Wilson

Offline Nekov

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9007
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1778 on: January 03, 2018, 06:08:02 AM »
 :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
When Ginobili gets hot, I get hot in my pants. 

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20171
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1779 on: January 04, 2018, 04:35:03 AM »
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/03/pakistan-china-ties-strengthen-after-president-donald-trumps-rant.html

Just 24 hours after President Donald Trump took aim at Pakistan on Twitter, the South Asian nation already appears to be cozying up to the world's second-largest economy.

A day after the U.S. leader slammed Islamabad for harboring terrorists in a New Year's Day tweet, Pakistan's central bank announced that it will be replacing the dollar with the yuan for bilateral trade and investment with Beijing.



MAGA!!

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13539
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1780 on: January 04, 2018, 10:11:53 AM »
In 20 years, when you're here on DTF talking about chicken sandwiches and how great our government is (because talking about music, politics and religion will be strictly banned) and in Mandarin to boot, I hope you fuckers think back on Stadler (I won't be here because I'll be 126 years old and in a prison camp somewhere) and say "Huh; that old coot was right about one thing:   China handed us our LUNCH."   

Talking about Russia is like the kicker searching for his kicking tee while the return guy has just broken free at mid-field and has nothing but real estate in front of him.   

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24781
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1781 on: January 04, 2018, 10:33:00 AM »
Talking about Russia is like the kicker searching for his kicking tee while the return guy has just broken free at mid-field and has nothing but real estate in front of him.

First of all, 99% of kickers couldn't tackle a dust-bunny.  Second of all, the current Russia investigation is more like making sure Belichick doesn't keep lip reading.

But otherwise, you're right - China is moving in a direction that will put them as the dominant global nation.
I didn't know I could handle another 10 inches and it was rough but in the end I'm glad I did it.
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Offline RuRoRul

  • Posts: 1501
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1782 on: January 04, 2018, 11:16:44 AM »
In 20 years, when you're here on DTF talking about chicken sandwiches and how great our government is (because talking about music, politics and religion will be strictly banned) and in Mandarin to boot, I hope you fuckers think back on Stadler (I won't be here because I'll be 126 years old and in a prison camp somewhere) and say "Huh; that old coot was right about one thing:   China handed us our LUNCH."   
Did you think that you were a lone voice on that, or that most people didn't agree with that?

I know that for me, one of the worst things about Trump becoming president was knowing that in all those "China will be the greatest global power in X years" estimates, that X probably just got cut in half.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6462
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1783 on: January 04, 2018, 11:27:20 AM »
Assuming that China becoming a global power doesn't translate to them launching nuclear warheads at the US, is the US no longer being the "greatest global power" the worst thing in the world? It would do wonders for this country's hubris, and maybe someone else can take over trying to solve every one else's problems for a change. Just a thought.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13539
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1784 on: January 04, 2018, 11:48:08 AM »
In 20 years, when you're here on DTF talking about chicken sandwiches and how great our government is (because talking about music, politics and religion will be strictly banned) and in Mandarin to boot, I hope you fuckers think back on Stadler (I won't be here because I'll be 126 years old and in a prison camp somewhere) and say "Huh; that old coot was right about one thing:   China handed us our LUNCH."   
Did you think that you were a lone voice on that, or that most people didn't agree with that?

I know that for me, one of the worst things about Trump becoming president was knowing that in all those "China will be the greatest global power in X years" estimates, that X probably just got cut in half.

Partly both.   I think the average American (and maybe even a few Canads  ;)) are living 40 years ago when the Soviet Bear was a problem to be reckoned with on a daily basis.    Not only do I not think the Russia thing is a "thing" in terms of the actual actions taken - I don't think "Russia installed Trump in office" - I'm of the opinion that even if it DID happen, it's not the worst thing in the world, because we've been doing that sort of thing with England and Israel for DECADES, and I don't consider Russia an enemy.  Putin doesn't want to destroy the U.S.   He knows full well that a) he can't, and b) if he does, he's fucked because his $1.5 trillion economy and his 145 million people are no match for China's $12 trillion economy and 1.45 BILLION people.   

Did you see "Batman vs. Superman"?   Batman (US) hated Superman (Russia) and wanted to kill him, until that big glowing creature (China!) showed up and they reluctantly colluded to end the bigger thread.