Enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8TE_QMa3fw
I don't think this is the end of sjws, though I do think he brings up many good points. The issue of Russia and nuclear war is one of them.
I've been pretty on the fence with how I feel about this election still. I hate to say it, but I agree with what
@Baruch said about Hillary, pre-election. Hillary would have been *almost* equally shit, in a different way. I still have a feeling Trump is still going to be worse than Hillary would have, but looking at the issues as a whole, in retrospect, and without the pressure of the election, I can look at the issues at hand a little more clear-er as, I assume, most of us can.
This is a long video, at just shy of 50 min, but it's a pretty analytical one.
Here is an interesting statistic, mentioned in the comments.
QuoteWhite people didn't get Trump into office. They voted the same as they always do. Trump gains of white voters was 1% over Romney. That's all. NOW, Trump gained 7% of black votes over Romney; 8% of Latinos over Romney and 11% of Asians over Romney. White people didn't elect shit. Minorities did. This data is all exit polling gathered by, of all places, New York Times; the most liberal of rags in the mainstream you can find
And here is some numbers and analysis about that subject...
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/
A lot of hate, prejudice and prejudging even before Trump is president.
To give him some chance to prove himself as a president is too much to ask?
I expect a lot of roadblocks, even sabotage being put in Trump's path from the left to make his job even more difficult.
The left WANT him to fail. The Media will be against him big time.
Good luck America, you need it. The world is watching you.
Don't screw your country up even more than already is.
Eliminate Soros and his supporters ... and the Left is castrated (when they aren't self castrated). Progressives do sing beautiful falsetto arias however ;-)
Humanity lacks good leadership, always has. It won't change just to keep Snowflakes happy. Wish it wasn't so, but political-economics is adult, not juvenile.
Give trump a chance? HA! That's not going to happen, but on the other hand I am completely out of other options. With the Rs fully in power I expect economic disaster. My parents lived through a depression and I probably will too.
The economic disaster is alrady here.
America is nearly $$20 trillon in debt alrady.
You can't blame Trump fo that.
Quote from: pr126 on January 20, 2017, 10:27:04 AM
The economic disaster is alrady here.
America is nearly $$20 trillon in debt alrady.
You can't blame Trump fo that.
Yeah..that so called debt is all on paper..well actually in bytes. And you think Donny is gonna fix it?
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on January 20, 2017, 10:37:07 AM
Yeah..that so called debt is all on paper..well actually in bytes. And you think Donny is gonna fix it?
I dont know. Neither do you.
I liked Sargon until he started getting a hard-on for the Trumperor, who basically opposes everything Sargon cherishes as a libertarian liberal.
Quote from: pr126 on January 20, 2017, 10:27:04 AM
The economic disaster is alrady here.
America is nearly $$20 trillon in debt alrady.
You can't blame Trump fo that.
You can, however, blame Bush, because he tripled our national debt, while it rose by less than a third under Obama.
One thing I can guarantee is that Trump's reign as King of America will be an utter disaster. The rape of Lady Liberty has begun.
Quote from: Baruch on January 20, 2017, 07:16:56 AM
political-economics is adult, not juvenile.
Yeah right. You might want to think about that.
Quote from: Atheon on January 20, 2017, 01:10:04 PMI liked Sargon until he started getting a hard-on for the Trumperor, who basically opposes everything Sargon cherishes as a libertarian liberal.
Same.
I have noticed even guys like bearing are following this line of give trump a chance.
Btw, trumps gone bankrupt several times, and now is in charge of economic growth for his entire country. Not looking to good on the horizon.
Quote from: pr126 on January 20, 2017, 05:14:22 AM
A lot of hate, prejudice and prejudging even before Trump is president.
To give him some chance to prove himself as a president is too much to ask?
I expect a lot of roadblocks, even sabotage being put in Trump's path from the left to make his job even more difficult.
The left WANT him to fail. The Media will be against him big time.
Good luck America, you need it. The world is watching you.
Don't screw your country up even more than already is.
Yeah, after all, the Germans gave Shitler the benefit of the doubt, and look how well that turned out...
I'm in no way looking forward to a Trump presidency, and from how I perceive it, neither is Sargon. He is explaining why he won. And he brought up many good points. While everyone is focusing on the sexism of Trump and his bankruptcies, they completely disregard the policies that Hillary would have put in to place. I don't know about you, but nuclear war isn't something I would have been happy with. And he's right, we very possibly would have had Russia attempt to drop some nukes on us... Because there is no other way that they would be a threat otherwise.
Look. Trump is so far a travesty, as predicted. But we need to look at the bigger picture of why he won, to understand and hopefully fix it and prevent something like that from happening again.
Sent from your mom.
Quote from: Munch on January 20, 2017, 02:42:57 PM
Btw, trumps gone bankrupt several times, and now is in charge of economic growth for his entire country. Not looking to good on the horizon.
"Chump can bankrupt his companies and America at the same time - he should put America first."*
*Heard somewhere on NPR
Quote from: PickelledEggs on January 20, 2017, 02:55:34 PM
I'm in no way looking forward to a Trump presidency, and from how I perceive it, neither is Sargon. He is explaining why he won. And he brought up many good points. While everyone is focusing on the sexism of Trump and his bankruptcies, they completely disregard the policies that Hillary would have put in to place. I don't know about you, but nuclear war isn't something I would have been happy with. And he's right, we very possibly would have had Russia attempt to drop some nukes on us... Because there is no other way that they would be a threat otherwise.
Look. Trump is so far a travesty, as predicted. But we need to look at the bigger picture of why he won, to understand and hopefully fix it and prevent something like that from happening again.
Sent from your mom.
Trump's win is complex with lots of things to consider.
He had a lot of negative baggage, but so did Hillary. This helped level the playing field. It doesn't make any difference whether Hillary's baggage was real or mostly the result of years of Republican attacks. Baggage is baggage. Trump was running against a weak candidate. Supposedly, her experience and knowledge should have won the day, but it didn't. She was not seen as trustworthy. This didn't necessarily do her in. An actual majority outside the electoral college wanted her over Trump. What the baggage did was eliminate her power to inspire, and this probably kept some disenfranchised Democrats from bothering with the inconvenience of long lines at polling places.
The Democratic strategy of identity politics is outmoded I think. Democrats want to brake glass ceilings and help selected underdogs to have a better chance. These goals are honorable, but they don't speak to or benefit everyone. Auto workers are still wanting jobs. The everyday rank and file who are no longer in the middle class, feel left out. It doesn't help them to see a woman rather than a man running X Inc., which still wants a monopoly. Identity politics attempts to pull up a few, some into glorious positions, but it doesn't speak to the problems average Americans face. I view identity politics as trickle down politics, and fails for the same reason as trickle down economics. Hillary claimed she wanted to advocate for blacks and racial minorities, but she could never inspire the black vote as Obama did. Trump appealed to a wide cross section of people. Never mind that the appeal was vulgar. He connected with almost half of the voters.
I think it's a waste of time to find fault with the electoral college. Our system is what it is, and while I think Democrats understand the importance of playing the electoral college game, they just didn't offer the right goods to win it. I'm not sure how they could have, but that's a problem the insiders need to work on.
The last 8 years, Democrats didn't accomplish much, partly because of Republican interference, but for whatever the reasons, the Democratic Party was not starting the new race with an image of a can do party. They did preside over a slowly improving economy, although coming in, the economy was so bad it had to go up. It doesn't do any good to list Obama's accomplishments, when many of those are viewed as just "OK". And avoid including health care in the list. Most people are not that impressed. Does it help people? Sure, some, but not everyone, and those who don't have decent coverage as a condition of employment are spending an inordinate part of the paycheck trying to fulfill their new legal obligation to buy insurance.
The Democrats didn't do well in the election. Considering the circumstances, they gave it a good shot, I think, but they need to do better for everyone when it comes to passing legislation. There's more than just a "message" articulated during elections. Actual on the job performance counts as something too. I actually like the message, but am not so impressed with the performance.
And as for career politicians, people are fed up. This is true for both parties. Congress gets a dismal report card in voter satisfaction. Obama won as an outsider. He was relatively new to the game, and not all that well known. He beat Hillary 8 years ago. Trump is even more of an outsider. We watched the Republican voters ignore the entrenched insiders, the glowing headliners the party had groomed and offered, and the rank and file went for the new guy, not turned off by his pussy grabbing, bankruptcy declaring, and insane wall building promise to be done by Americans and paid for by Mexicans. Hillary was part of the old school, while a lot of voters, especially younger voters, are looking for a new direction.
Likeable or not, Trump resonated. You have to give him that. A lot of Americans are happy today. Under present politics and the system we use, only half of America can be happy over an election.
I'm likely wrong in my musings, but I don't seek to offend. I offer these ideas for consideration. If they are rejected, my feelings won't be hurt.
The reason Chump won is because God ran out of other ways (like hurricanes, earthquakes, etc,) to punish America for its sins. He's got us by the inaugural balls this time...
Quote from: pr126 on January 20, 2017, 05:14:22 AM
A lot of hate, prejudice and prejudging even before Trump is president.
To give him some chance to prove himself as a president is too much to ask?
I expect a lot of roadblocks, even sabotage being put in Trump's path from the left to make his job even more difficult.
The left WANT him to fail. The Media will be against him big time.
Good luck America, you need it. The world is watching you.
Don't screw your country up even more than already is.
For next two years (and most likely four as more Democrat seats are up for election), GOP has supermajority in Congress. He has zero excuse for failing to accomplish anything of what he promised.
Anything blaming Democrats will simply be shifting responsibility away from party who has enough votes in Congress, Supreme Court, and White House to make anything happen as they see fit.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on January 20, 2017, 10:37:07 AM
Yeah..that so called debt is all on paper..well actually in bytes. And you think Donny is gonna fix it?
As easy as punching the DEL key ... if one is brave enough to do that ;-) As humanity as a whole, we do owe it only to ourselves ... so it can be cancelled at any time ... except it is useful for Davos Man to rule over the rest of us. The problem is if you delete part of it ... then you are benefiting one set of debtors and harming another set of creditors ... usually not the same people. One is symmetrical, the rest is asymmetrical. Because it cements the rule of the Elite, it won't happen, the Elite will go to the guillotine again and again to prevent it. So yes, if we all agree, all of us, to drop any financial claims we have on anyone, in creditor or debtor mode ... it is gone. Since when will all agree?
Quote from: PickelledEggs on January 20, 2017, 02:55:34 PM
I'm in no way looking forward to a Trump presidency, and from how I perceive it, neither is Sargon. He is explaining why he won. And he brought up many good points. While everyone is focusing on the sexism of Trump and his bankruptcies, they completely disregard the policies that Hillary would have put in to place. I don't know about you, but nuclear war isn't something I would have been happy with. And he's right, we very possibly would have had Russia attempt to drop some nukes on us... Because there is no other way that they would be a threat otherwise.
Look. Trump is so far a travesty, as predicted. But we need to look at the bigger picture of why he won, to understand and hopefully fix it and prevent something like that from happening again.
Sent from your mom.
I like Sargon on America, because he isn't American, but doesn't hate us either. That is at least approximate objectivity, something you won't get with any American.
Quote from: SGOS on January 20, 2017, 02:01:56 PM
Yeah right. You might want to think about that.
It isn't childish when the tax man brandishes and knife at your throat, and cuts your purse from your waist. It isn't childish when a candidate promises you a free lunch, or to cut a new orifice, on your behalf, in someone you don't like. That is what it amounts to, otherwise stay out of the bar and the whorehouse.
Quote from: Munch on January 20, 2017, 02:42:57 PM
I have noticed even guys like bearing are following this line of give trump a chance.
Btw, trumps gone bankrupt several times, and now is in charge of economic growth for his entire country. Not looking to good on the horizon.
Notice that those bankruptcies did not hurt him personally; just the workers suffered, not him.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 20, 2017, 09:00:28 PM
Notice that those bankruptcies did not hurt him personally; just the workers suffered, not him.
Don't like the tax code, then vote to change it.
Quote from: Baruch on January 20, 2017, 09:01:52 PM
Don't like the tax code, then vote to change it.
I did--but so the fuck what??
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 20, 2017, 09:10:33 PM
I did--but so the fuck what??
Don't blame me for your failure ;-)
No, I don't care for the loophole that Congress provided, that Trump used, to write off 1 billion in bad loans earlier in his checkered career. But then I would scrap almost all of the tax code, not just on fairness, but on sanity. Most of the bad individual and corporate bad decisions are based on the Twister result of the tax code.
Workers always suffer, it is their role in every society ;-(
I find it interesting that by pointing out the flaws of a Hillary presidency, someone has a hard-on for Trump. I see this frequently, especially recently
If someone points out a flaw in a statement, even if they agree with every other aspect of it, they become the enemy.
"I don't like Trump. I still think Hillary would have made a better president, but we need to consider the facts of why people voted for Trump instead of her and why he got elected."
"You bring up Hillary's flaws, therefore you are in disagreement with everything I say and stand for!"
of course that short dialogue is an exaggeration, but it is pretty much what I've been seeing.
Again, the American voters had a choice.
Voted for the lesser of the two evils.
But one wonders. Out of 320 million Americans this was the only two available?
My take: Trump was "allowed" to run because it was a foregone conclusion that he had zero chance of winning.
Edit: pay attention to the interview with the Soviet defector at the end of the video in the OP.
He describes accurately the process that made this situation that America is in.
Decades of Communist brainwashing. Worked perfectly.
Quote from: Baruch on January 20, 2017, 06:36:17 PM
It isn't childish when the tax man brandishes and knife at your throat, and cuts your purse from your waist. It isn't childish when a candidate promises you a free lunch, or to cut a new orifice, on your behalf, in someone you don't like. That is what it amounts to, otherwise stay out of the bar and the whorehouse.
But my original comment was in response to your claim was that "political economics is adult, not juvenile." The above behaviors stand out not for their adult qualities, but as examples of cruelty and sadism. In fact, in spite of their barbarity, they could also be categorized as juvenile.
Quote from: pr126 on January 21, 2017, 02:01:02 AM
But one wonders. Out of 320 million Americans this was the only two available?
I think it's because politics in America is the domain of slime. You are not rewarded for statesmanlike behavior. You are expected to lie, slander, and to do favors for money. The system draws to it a most despicable element of society. There are few people of integrity that want to compete in that environment, and fewer still that could compete successfully. Congress is filled with arrogant hypocrites that have no shame. They can be deposed by voters for contemptible behavior and be back seeking office, sometimes successfully, as if they are as pure as the driven snow.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on January 21, 2017, 12:41:47 AM
I find it interesting that by pointing out the flaws of a Hillary presidency, someone has a hard-on for Trump. I see this frequently, especially recently
If someone points out a flaw in a statement, even if they agree with every other aspect of it, they become the enemy.
"I don't like Trump. I still think Hillary would have made a better president, but we need to consider the facts of why people voted for Trump instead of her and why he got elected."
"You bring up Hillary's flaws, therefore you are in disagreement with everything I say and stand for!"
of course that short dialogue is an exaggeration, but it is pretty much what I've been seeing.
Strictly theoretical, like Confederates discussing what the world would be like if the South won the War, over mint juleps. Even discussing what the new President will do at this time, is strictly theoretical. Talking wistfully about the past, the future, the alternative past, the alternative future ... masturbation. Doing the same thing negatively ... self abuse.
Except we now do know that the Senate approved two ex-Marine generals to head up DoD and DHS. Too bad he didn't choose ex-military officers for the other departments ;-)
Quote from: SGOS on January 20, 2017, 05:22:27 PM
Trump's win is complex with lots of things to consider.
1. Baggage is baggage. Trump was running against a weak candidate. She was not seen as trustworthy.
2. The Democratic strategy of identity politics is outmoded I think. These goals are honorable, but they don't speak to or benefit everyone. The everyday rank and file who are no longer in the middle class, feel left out. Identity politics attempts to pull up a few, some into glorious positions, but it doesn't speak to the problems average Americans face.
3. And avoid including health care in the list.
4. We watched the Republican voters ignore the entrenched insiders, the glowing headliners the party had groomed and offered, and the rank and file went for the new guy, not turned off by his pussy grabbing, bankruptcy declaring, and insane wall building promise to be done by Americans and paid for by Mexicans.
Nice post. Chose some snippets for reflection.
1. I don't trust her. Anderson Cooper, first debate.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/cooper-to-hillary-will-you-say-anything-to-get-elected/article/1045235
So yes, she was a very weak candidate. No reasonable person could believe her campaign promises. You can go back and look into the Obama vs Clinton campaign and see him saying the same things about her.
2. The everyday rank and file are a large number of people. The blow-back is enormous for the very people IdP was intended to help. It is a reasonable business decision to avoid potential cost by not employing the very people who these laws were intended to aid. Less than 15 employees and you are exempt from Fed discrimination laws. That is 2 of the last 3 employers I worked for. The third was only 23 people.
3. So far, NO ONE has been able to explain to me how the ACA reduced cost. Making more people pay is not health care cost reduction. I have no confidence in Trumps or republicans in general ideas about health care. But via ACA , I am better off changing jobs frequently, or having two part time jobs. And that gives me GREAT healthcare via ACA. However, I have several co-workers, people with kids who are quitting (or considering quitting) because under ACA they are forced to take an employer offered insurance that cripples their income flexibility.
4. Exactly. Republican voters rejected the "its his turn" insider. DNC thwarted the Sanders campaign to inflict their "chosen successor" on the voters and in turn cost themselves the election because they failed to recognize the reality of point #1.
Quote from: chill98 on January 21, 2017, 09:59:10 AM
3. So far, NO ONE has been able to explain to me how the ACA reduced cost. Making more people pay is not health care cost reduction. I have no confidence in Trumps or republicans in general ideas about health care. But via ACA , I am better off changing jobs frequently, or having two part time jobs. And that gives me GREAT healthcare via ACA. However, I have several co-workers, people with kids who are quitting (or considering quitting) because under ACA they are forced to take an employer offered insurance that cripples their income flexibility.
In theory, the ACA was supposed to lower medical costs, a separate issue from medical insurance, by giving the poor the means to stop stiffing the emergency rooms. Thereby reducing the overall costs of those who were paying the tab with higher medical bills. I was skeptical about that, and I haven't been aware that medical practitioners and hospitals have been lining up to pass this extra cash flow on to consumers. But the theory itself became a big selling point early on. We no longer hear much about it, probably because it didn't have any perceptible affect. I think it was mostly an advertising gimmick. I think the theory could work to a small degree if one factors out human and corporate nature. It's hard to determine if this actually happened to any extent given the very high inflation rate of medical delivery. Someone could probably do the math, but with the variables involved, it's beyond my ability.
No government designed insurance, including single payer, will address the costs of medical care itself. That could be tackled, but if there was any interest in it, it's been shelved long ago.
Until American ill health and hypochondria and entitlement are overcome, health care cost will escalate by 15% a year until that is the whole GDP (of course what actually occurs is societal collapse). Rearranging the crooked health care insurance (it is all crooked, not just ACA) ... doesn't eliminate the cause, it just massages the symptoms.
Yes, the ACA has saved money ... for the insurance companies. Before ACA they were going bankrupt quickly, with ACA they are going bankrupt more slowly. The cost of insurance for a family of four hasn't gone down ... it went up even more than usual in advance of ACA, and then continued its inexorable increase after ACA. There is a reality and a theory. Pay attention to the reality, ignore the theory. Fact is, since 2000 the US is going bankrupt culturally, politically and economically. The American Century is over. The only question is how we can become a poor country without civil war, and what kind of poverty it will be. The government once declared war on poverty, but poverty has won.
most of ACA was written by insurance lobbyists. The only reason for the insurance to not be making out like bandits is because they believed the lie that people without insurance go to the doctor. In most cases it doesnt matter that much if insurance is making money because insurance companies and hospitals are owned by the same people. There isnt anything in the ACA that puts new rules on hospitals. If the hospitals could charge an arm and a leg before they still can after.
Since I read that monster I can tell you the short version of "The patient protection and affordable care act of 2010" is all about medical insurance reform. We gotta have insurance reform to make health care affordable but anybody who thinks that insurance reform by itself is gonna make health care affordable is smokin some good stuff. Hey!!! pass it around.
Medicine and undertaking are rackets, that they know you can't avoid. So of course it attracts criminals and politicians.
Quote from: SGOS on January 21, 2017, 01:53:54 PM
But the theory itself became a big selling point early on. We no longer hear much about it, probably because it didn't have any perceptible affect. I think it was mostly an advertising gimmick.
No government designed insurance, including single payer, will address the costs of medical care itself. That could be tackled, but if there was any interest in it, it's been shelved long ago.
Yes, your answer is similar to the answers I get from people who support the ACA (broad generalization).
But I don't want to drift far from the topic, which is why did the dems lose to Trump. The ACA hurt working people greatly and Clinton offered nothing to fix it.
EDIT: Trump says he likes parts, parts I think are good also. I wait to see if he sticks to it, refusing to repeal without a replacement in hand.
I don't think the ACA as a bill (and not as a propaganda piece for Republicans) is what won Trump the election (and I say that as someone who has suffered because of it), and I don't think it's because Trump supporters are generally bad people. I think what won Trump the election is a changing demographics and global economy that is increasingly putting more and more strain on certain classes of workers, and the Republicans are better liars about how they will help them out.
I don't think the Democrats or the Republicans have a solid answer for these people who live in what is falling back into, or becoming a new, Rust Belt... nor do I think this is an American issue but rather a global one. The reasons people voted for Trump are the same reasons people voted for bigots in England like Farage or Greece. It's not that they are bad people, it's that bad people have consistently and incessantly lied to their faces and convinced them that their hateful ideologies are the solution to their problems. In truth, their problems mostly stem from economies no longer working the way they did 20, 30 years ago and the in-demand labour moving elsewhere... something neither party has control over.
That being said, there is a large number of Trump supporters and Republicans who vote for the party simply because they share the same hateful ideology, and that is what I think distinctly signifies the difference between the two parties.
https://canipunchnazis.com/
just incase you were confused
Quote from: Jannabear on January 22, 2017, 04:44:58 PM
https://canipunchnazis.com/
just incase you were confused
This may come across as an absolute shock, but I have two friends that I am in a pretty heated argument with at the moment over this because I do not find this type of behaviour acceptable. I know, I know, I am the resident SJW, but this is just pouring fire on the flame that violence is an acceptable answer to people we disagree with.
Good intention as it may be, and however much the guy might deserve it, it is if not just morally the low route but also the politically foolish one to take.
ah Baruch I thought a politician was a category of criminal. Are you saying they are two different things?
well we cant forget that the American Medical Association is just another cartel after everybody's money. They dont really give a rats ass if you live or die; as long as they get your money before you go.
Lot of people in the middle of the U.S. lost their jobs in the name of increasing Wall st profits by going to Mexico or China. I don't see how you can get the jobs back by putting another Wall st class person in charge.
There's a saying : "He who lies loudest, wins". Who has a bigger mouth? a Democrat, a Republican, or a priest
ah Baruch I thought a politician was a category of criminal. Are you saying they are two different things?
well we cant forget that the American Medical Association is just another cartel after everybody's money. They dont really give a rats ass if you live or die; as long as they get your money before you go.
Lot of people in the middle of the U.S. lost their jobs in the name of increasing Wall st profits by going to Mexico or China. I don't see how you can get the jobs back by putting another Wall st class person in charge.
There's a saying : "He who lies loudest, wins". Who has a bigger mouth? a Democrat, a Republican, or a priest
I left it ambiguous as to whether a politician and a criminal are the same set of people ... but you missed the other implication ;-)
That politicians are often undertakers, because they start wars ;-(
And of course the nostrums of the politicians are mere patent medicines ;-(
Quote from: fencerider on January 22, 2017, 12:37:04 PM
most of ACA was written by insurance lobbyists. There isnt anything in the ACA that puts new rules on hospitals. If the hospitals could charge an arm and a leg before they still can after.
Since I read that monster I can tell you the short version of "The patient protection and affordable care act of 2010" is all about medical insurance reform.
This is a valid part of the issue.
With the health care industry closing in on 20% of the GDP, there is motive to keep those numbers high. To reduce that impact makes the country look poorer.
Quote from: fencerider on January 22, 2017, 04:54:45 PM
Lot of people in the middle of the U.S. lost their jobs in the name of increasing Wall st profits by going to Mexico or China. I don't see how you can get the jobs back by putting another Wall st class person in charge.
Which of the two candidates are you referring to here? in my not so humble opinion, Clinton was far more indebted to wall street than Trump.
The NAFTA and China trade agreements were very one sided. It was not just wall street profits, it was business itself that did not want to invest in the new power plants to support their needs, the very regulations the Baby Bush waylaid when he took office- as old power plants reached their end-of-life they were supposed to be upgraded to the best of the current pollution reduction methods available, as one example.
We would have been able to afford these things IF americans were still building american product, earning a decent wage and paying taxes on that wage.
I remember pointing out to someone around 20 years ago, as GM moved its production to Mexico, that the vehicles they offered for sale were the same/comparable price to (at the time) dodge vehicles that were still manufactured here. We the people never saw a cost savings in the market place.
I cannot remember if it was Gephart or Daschle or someone else who lobbied hard to get the treaties to include things like Free Elections, environmental protections, some labor rights, etc. due to the unfairness of the existing regulations in the usa that changed the smogged in cities, the flaming rivers, etc.
Free trade agreements cost more than jobs. They have made the world a more dangerous place. China has invested heavily in its military. The Saudis buy a lot of weapons. And we knew this would happen, as it happened in both India and Pakistan via shipping our jobs there. Piss and shit still run down the streets, large parts have rolling blackouts and it takes no time at all to see their electrical grids are in disarray... but they both have nuke weapons and well armed military.
And we will get blamed for the smog problem in China also. If we are not at war with them over the very trade agreements that allowed them to arm themselves so handily.
And we made no conditions, or ignored these conditions, and kept shipping our jobs and money into their coffers.
Right out of Hunt for Red October... you arrogant ass, you've killed us...
Quote from: Jannabear on January 22, 2017, 04:44:58 PM
https://canipunchnazis.com/
just incase you were confused
It's not called punching. It's called alternate face greetings.
Quote from: chill98 on January 22, 2017, 08:00:48 PM
This is a valid part of the issue.
With the health care industry closing in on 20% of the GDP, there is motive to keep those numbers high. To reduce that impact makes the country look poorer.
GDP voodoo economics. If everyone but one man died, then the per-capita wealth would go thru the roof! Most of the components of the GDP don't matter to real people.
Quote from: Baruch on January 23, 2017, 12:06:09 AM
GDP voodoo economics. If everyone but one man died, then the per-capita wealth would go thru the roof! Most of the components of the GDP don't matter to real people.
Sure they do! GDP voodoo economics during the housing boom put a lot of construction workers (not to mention real estate magicians) into higher tax brackets (temporarily anyways).
The Roman Empire started to decline, the day they stopped being able to steal profitable shit from their barbarian neighbors. The US has been dying since about 1890 for the same reason. This unavoidable need to constantly expand, is why WW I happened. That need hasn't gone away, so the need for world wars haven't gone away, they have just morphed, since 1945 into quasi-wars. It is thought by some, if we banned all interest on loans, that the absence of the exponential function would allow a less competitive situation. And in finance, that function is what drives all assets and income in ever greater amounts into the financial sector, to the detriment of the real economy. Population pressure and desire for a higher living standard would remain.
Quote from: Baruch on February 04, 2017, 07:45:19 AM
The Roman Empire started to decline, the day they stopped being able to steal profitable shit from their barbarian neighbors. The US has been dying since about 1890 for the same reason. This unavoidable need to constantly expand, is why WW I happened. That need hasn't gone away, so the need for world wars haven't gone away, they have just morphed, since 1945 into quasi-wars. It is thought by some, if we banned all interest on loans, that the absence of the exponential function would allow a less competitive situation. And in finance, that function is what drives all assets and income in ever greater amounts into the financial sector, to the detriment of the real economy. Population pressure and desire for a higher living standard would remain.
Well, never let it be said that I can't agree with you on something, at least in a very general way.
The US economy HAS changed. Not necessarily for the better but changed.
USA exists in the context of historical Western civilization ... we don't exist in the Star Trek Federation of Planets. While I like some of the fictional adventures of scifi characters .. we can't live there. Courage, wisdom other values ... are real however.
Quote from: Baruch on February 05, 2017, 11:52:54 AM
USA exists in the context of historical Western civilization ... we don't exist in the Star Trek Federation of Planets. While I like some of the fictional adventures of scifi characters .. we can't live there. Courage, wisdom other values ... are real however.
Straw Man argument... I have always discussed the US in current and historical terms.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 05, 2017, 01:19:06 PM
Straw Man argument... I have always discussed the US in current and historical terms.
But but ... you aren't the only poster .. unless I am you or you are me. Current terms are subject to prejudice and politics. Historical terms can't be cross examined.
Quote from: Baruch on February 05, 2017, 04:19:51 PM
But but ... you aren't the only poster .. unless I am you or you are me. Current terms are subject to prejudice and politics. Historical terms can't be cross examined.
Facts are always cross-examinable. It is only people who think they are not who get confused by this.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 05, 2017, 01:19:06 PM
Straw Man argument... I have always discussed the US in current and historical terms.
But history is propaganda. And propaganda has a short shelf life. At least a Straw Man can be used as tinder. We are now finding out that the 2nd tier in State Department interfered (a felony) with the FBI investigating of Hillary's stupid home email server. They were covering for their former boss. But all those guys conveniently resigned, as soon as Trump was inaugurated. Good thing too, Trump retained Comey.
I think Trump's stupid behavior has exceeded Hillary's stupid email behavior a long time ago.
Sat night live is gonna have to extend the show into Sun afternoon or they're gonna be wasting a lot of good material
Quote from: fencerider on February 19, 2017, 04:28:25 PM
I think Trump's stupid behavior has exceeded Hillary's stupid email behavior a long time ago.
Sat night live is gonna have to extend the show into Sun afternoon or they're gonna be wasting a lot of good material
SNL is set for many years.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 20, 2017, 12:55:58 AM
SNL is set for many years.
Will be fun for D folk watching TV in the FEMA camp ;-(
FEMA camp would be a bad idea for whoever is in power. That would give D a chance to organize a resistance.
Quote from: fencerider on February 20, 2017, 11:00:44 PM
FEMA camp would be a bad idea for whoever is in power. That would give D a chance to organize a resistance.
Good ... if the Ds actually resisted, instead of triangulating ... I would have hope. There must always be antithesis, to oppose thesis, or there is no synthesis.
But realistically, it will be the poor, regardless of party affiliation, who will be sent to work camps. Albeit Mach Frei.
I wonder how long it will take regular Republicans to realize that acknowledged and publicized government emails and not quite as bad as a dictator-wannabe?
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 05:55:59 AM
I wonder how long it will take regular Republicans to realize that acknowledged and publicized government emails and not quite as bad as a dictator-wannabe?
Republicans hate Trump. Republicans created the Tea Party as Dr Frankenstein created the monster. Inevitably, the monster turned on its creator. Both the Republicans (villagers with torches) and Democrats (villagers with pitch forks) are attempting to corral the monster. But per the many sequels ... I don't think they will succeed. The US is toast. Fortunately I like toast.
BernieBros want to create their own monster ... but it would only be My Little Pony. With Tom Perez as DNC chair now, the Democrats are set to nominate Hillary or Chelsea in 2020.
Quote from: Baruch on February 26, 2017, 08:39:48 AM
Republicans hate Trump. Republicans created the Tea Party as Dr Frankenstein created the monster. Inevitably, the monster turned on its creator. Both the Republicans (villagers with torches) and Democrats (villagers with pitch forks) are attempting to corral the monster. But per the many sequels ... I don't think they will succeed. The US is toast. Fortunately I like toast.
BernieBros want to create their own monster ... but it would only be My Little Pony. With Tom Perez as DNC chair now, the Democrats are set to nominate Hillary or Chelsea in 2020.
Republicans are now marching in Trump-step. I wonder when he will demand the goose-steps?
And it won't be a Clinton in 2020. Warren, Perez, someone else.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 08:45:16 AM
Republicans are now marching in Trump-step. I wonder when he will demand the goose-steps?
And it won't be a Clinton in 2020. Warren, Perez, someone else.
D party in 2020? You can hope they will be sane, but I see no preponderance of evidence. Putting Rep Ellison as head of DNC would have been brilliant. Nominating Bernie would have been brilliant. All Democrats are mentally deficient thanks to the R plot of fluoride in the water supply.
Trump isn't leading, he is following, but what does a bear know? Hibernate until 2020 ... then we will see. Trump might not get re-nominated ... even if he lasts 4 years, because the Bush mafia is pissed, and their children, like Chelsea, are coming up for the gold ring.
Quote from: Baruch on February 26, 2017, 08:49:28 AM
D party in 2020? You can hope they will be sane, but I see no preponderance of evidence. Putting Rep Ellison as head of DNC would have been brilliant. Nominating Bernie would have been brilliant. All Democrats are mentally deficient thanks to the R plot of fluoride in the water supply.
Trump isn't leading, he is following, but what does a bear know? Hibernate until 2020 ... then we will see. Trump might not get re-nominated ... even if he lasts 4 years, because the Bush mafia is pissed, and their children, like Chelsea, are coming up for the gold ring.
Please... if there was anyone here to talk to, I would!
"Flouride in the water" is too inane even for you.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 09:05:15 AM
Please... if there was anyone here to talk to, I would!
"Flouride in the water" is too inane even for you.
You are clearly a product of the fluoride in water and fluoride rinse from dentist.
If you want to plot the takeover of the US by the DNC ... you need to go to their website. But they aren't atheists, they believe Hillary is their god.
Quote from: Baruch on February 26, 2017, 09:10:41 AM
You are clearly a product of the fluoride in water and fluoride rinse from dentist.
If you want to plot the takeover of the US by the DNC ... you need to go to their website. But they aren't atheists, they believe Hillary is their god.
Fluoridated water has no effect, we don't consider Hillary a "god" (especially we atheists). But I do worry that you might drinking water from lead pipes and vessels.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 09:38:35 AM
Fluoridated water has no effect, we don't consider Hillary a "god" (especially we atheists). But I do worry that you might drinking water from lead pipes and vessels.
Lead was quite invigorating to us Romans. Prepare to be assimilated, resistance to Latin is futile ... Resistere futilis
Quote from: Baruch on February 26, 2017, 08:34:56 PM
Lead was quite invigorating to us Romans. Prepare to be assimilated, resistance to Latin is futile ... Resistere futilis
It's good thing that 7 didn't drink leaded water. She couldn't even manage a glass of wine. (Her optical-cortex integrtator went all fuzzy once).
My point was that non nequiquam resistentia est! I will resist both theist and nonlogical statements from anyone.