Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
IheartIheartTesla

US politics: Just another Mueller Monday

410 posts in this topic

There's no way that a text message of "Vote Democrat!  Your neighbors are watching." is sent from an actual democratic campaign with the intention of making it more likely to vote for democrats.  That would be just about the stupidest message you could send to actually get someone to agree with you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Martini Sigil said:

The tragedy is that this medium is inadequate to vent properly... there is simply to much nonsense to address ... I wrote a book about how Christian Dominionim is less about religion, and is actually the sociological means employed by capital interests towards achieving a two-tier, Orwellian economy...

Could you give us the title please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the great many things I will never understand about US politics is why people are comfortable being publicly registered as a member of a political party. And, for that matter, why the party itself doesn't have any control over who gets to join it, or remain in it. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously the VA gubernatorial race is getting all the attention, but there’s another important race happening too. Democrats seem all but set to reclaim NJ, which is big when it comes to redistricting, and furthermore, there are 17 seats in the lower chamber that Republicans hold that are districts that Clinton won, so hopefully the Dems can pick up a majority of them.

11 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

There's no way that a text message of "Vote Democrat!  Your neighbors are watching." is sent from an actual democratic campaign with the intention of making it more likely to vote for democrats.  That would be just about the stupidest message you could send to actually get someone to agree with you. 

I mean, we are talking about Democrats, the masters of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Maithanet said:

There's no way that a text message of "Vote Democrat!  Your neighbors are watching." is sent from an actual democratic campaign with the intention of making it more likely to vote for democrats.  That would be just about the stupidest message you could send to actually get someone to agree with you. 

Well, it certainly is a very dumb and stupid tactic. And I hope it isn't sent from the Democratic Party. 

But, just because it's a really dumb idea, doesn't necessarily rule out the Democratic Party. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that the Republican Party is such an utterly flaming mess and an utter total disaster, I'd be inclined to think the Democratic Party is the most screwed up party in existence.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

There's no way that a text message of "Vote Democrat!  Your neighbors are watching." is sent from an actual democratic campaign with the intention of making it more likely to vote for democrats.  That would be just about the stupidest message you could send to actually get someone to agree with you. 

To be clear, it didn't say vote democrat.  I will have to find the exact message which she sent to me, but it was along the lines of: Dear Mary, Your vote is a public record.  We see that you voted in 2016 but not in 2015.  Do better, vote today (your neighbors are watching).

6 minutes ago, Hereward said:

One of the great many things I will never understand about US politics is why people are comfortable being publicly registered as a member of a political party. And, for that matter, why the party itself doesn't have any control over who gets to join it, or remain in it. :huh:

Well in some states, mine included, you have to register for the party to vote in the primary, and the primary often decides the election.  But I completely agree and act accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 In one of them I had five fake girlfriends, though my actual girlfriend was none too pleased.

I'm a psychology professor myself, and I can't imagine what this research was. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This hasn't been officially reported yet, but rumors have it that New Jersey Rep Frank LoBiondo is going to retire after this term. If that's true, that's a major pickup opportunity with his district being quite swingy.

Edited by denstorebog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Hereward said:

One of the great many things I will never understand about US politics is why people are comfortable being publicly registered as a member of a political party. And, for that matter, why the party itself doesn't have any control over who gets to join it, or remain in it. :huh:

And that’s why, my godless Eurocommie friend, you’ll never know the sweet blissful taste of freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2017 at 6:39 PM, Martell Spy said:

Just saw this (don't know how I missed it). I can't help but add commentary. Sorry.

Now conservative people:

Let’s just ignore any issues where raising the minimum wage may increase worker productivity or any issues of monopsony.

Lets just talk Marshallian Partial Equilibrium and adjustment processes for a moment.

Like Keynes and, even Milton Friedman, I’m Marshallian in thought, at least to a first approximation. None of that Walrasian garbage for me. No thanks.

Anyway, conservative sorts of people, Marshall’s scissors is done holding everything else constant. Depending on the application, this may be a reasonable analysis. Then again it may not. Adjustment on one market, may spur adjustment on another market. Unfortunately, this little fact often isn’t emphasized very well in many micro courses.

 Anyway,

Lets say, I have low wage labor market. The demand function looks something like X(w:p(l)) where p(l) is the price of the low wage good. Notice conservative sorts of people, the labor demand curve is traced out holding p(l) constant. And then of course there is a market for the low wage good which looks something like X(p(l):w), which is traced out holding the wage constant. Let's just assume here that things in this model adjust quickly and we'll assume that it isn’t too much of an ass pull to assume that the demand curve for the low wage good is given exogenously. If a minimum wage law gets passed and the new wage is above the market clearing level, what happens? Does something happen on the low wage good market? Yes, a good chance it does. The supply curve will shift. Now if the demand curve is fairly inelastic, consumers will eat most of the price increase, with relatively little output drop (and in fact, there is empirical evidence for this). Now will minimum wage workers be better off? Yes possibly they will. Just suppose conservative sorts of people we have an exogenous good p(h) that isn’t affected by the minimum wage increase, then if the unemployment effects are rather small, then those who benefit from a minimum wage increase will likely be better off. Essentially, this is what Kwak is talking about when he writes;

Quote

In the above examples, a higher minimum wage will raise labor costs. But many companies can recoup cost increases in the form of higher prices; because most of their customers are not poor, the net effect is to transfer money from higher-income to lower-income families.

The point here conservative sorts of people is that just looking at one partial equilibrium diagram may not be enough, to figure out what is going on. And without getting to theories about monopsony or increased productivity gains, if you're not thinking about what might happen on other markets, as you're looking at Marshall's scissors, you just might be screwing up. You just might end up sounding like a bit of a conservative clown.

Anyway, I see a whole string of conservatives saying stupid stuff. And when I see conservatives saying dumb shit, I can’t help but think, “now well, there is a target of opportunity”. So, I think I’ll just make a few random snotty comments here:

Quote

Henry Hazlitt wrote in Economics in One Lesson, “For a low wage you substitute unemployment. You do harm all around, with no comparable compensation.”

Yes, Hazlitt, a libertarian idiot from way back. Thought, he made a point, talkin’ about hoodlums breakin’ windows and such, but really he didn’t.
 

Quote

Jude Wanniski similarly concluded in The Way the World Works, “Every increase in the minimum wage induces a decline in real output and a decline in employment.”

A founding father of supply side economics. Don’t snicker and laugh too hard.

Quote

On the campaign trail in 1980, Ronald Reagan said, “The minimum wage has caused more misery and unemployment than anything since the Great Depression.”

I usually don’t take advice from guys that think trees cause pollution. Just sayin’.

Quote

“If the price of something rises, people buy less of it—including labor. Thus governmental interferences such as minimum-wage laws lower the quantity of labor demanded.”

In many cases that may be true (where prices cause people to buy less), but the gains maybe worth it. And those situations where the wage is below the MPL, then no. Nice try conservative man, but your argument doesn’t quite cut it.
 

Quote

Jonah Goldberg of the American Enterprise Institute and National Review chimed in, “A minimum wage is no different from a tax on firms that use low-wage and unskilled labor. And if there’s anything that economists agree upon, it’s that if you tax something you get less of it.

Oh yes, chickenhawk Shitbird has something to say. Anyway, aside from Shitbird’s opinions on the mininimum wage, what I’d really like to know is do you have anything you’d like to say to us, Shitbird? Like whose, playin’ footsy with Nazis these days? Hint: It ain’t liberals, there buddy.
 

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

To be clear, it didn't say vote democrat.  I will have to find the exact message which she sent to me, but it was along the lines of: Dear Mary, Your vote is a public record.  We see that you voted in 2016 but not in 2015.  Do better, vote today (your neighbors are watching).

Well in some states, mine included, you have to register for the party to vote in the primary, and the primary often decides the election.  But I completely agree and act accordingly.

Yes, that's why I had to switch from Ind. to Rep. because I wanted to vote in I think the 2012 primary, and then never changed back.  But, now I will.  I'm even tempted to unregister, if that is even possible, that way no one will know my political leanings when the mob finally takes over, LOL.  It's not very funny though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far today, Donald Jr. has tweeted to people that they should get out and vote for Ed Gillespie tomorrow ... twice.

Now, in his third attempt, he has settled for telling people to go out and "vote tody", probably realizing that that's the best he'll be able to do.

Edited by denstorebog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been registered as Independent even though I almost always vote for the Democrat.  Still, I don't want to be an official part of either one of those nerd clubs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

My mother's vote was literally changed by a barrage of text messages [purportedly] from Democrat-linked PACs.  One of them (she forwarded) was "Your vote is public record, MARY.  Your Neighbors are Watching."  Another was "Polls are open until 7 PM DAVID.  Improve your voting record!".  Her name is not David.  She has only missed two elections EVER.  She will be voting for Gillespie.

Fair play to her. She should also know this shit is happening. With crap like this going on, I find it hard to believe that there are text messages from Dem Super PACs with misspellings in them that are that creepy but hey, what do I know.

Edited by Mexal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I'm a psychology professor myself, and I can't imagine what this research was. :)

I kind of mentioned it before. This lab required two couples to participate, but one of the couples was fake. The practitioner would bring both couples into an office and have them sit together, across from one another, at a large table. Then each couple would select an egg (like Easter eggs kids find candy or money in) and in both of them was a piece of paper that said “active.” The fake couple would always pretend that theirs said “watch.” Then the real couple would have ten minutes to put together an extremely difficult puzzle while the fake couple pretended to watch. Afterwards, the real couple is split up and brought into separate rooms to do two surveys. The first one was somewhat meaningless (IIRC), and before they’d do the second one they’d get feedback that was either positive or negative and it would come from either the individual’s spouse or the fake couple (the feedback was also fake). Then they’d take the second survey which studied their reactions to the feedback. What we trying to see is how people reacted to negative feedback when it came from someone in your in group versus strangers. We also did the study with different conditions (family, teammates in a sport, etc.), but I was exclusively in the romantic lab. And that is how I had five fake girlfriends for a year.

Also if anyone’s interested, the data led us to concluded that women ages 18-24 are doing dating all wrong, per our all female grad staff. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I mean, we are talking about Democrats, the masters of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I'm not a member of any organized political party. I’m a Democrat.

Might have been true when Will Rogers first said those words. Seems definitely true today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I kind of mentioned it before. This lab required two couples to participate, but one of the couples was fake. The practitioner would bring both couples into an office and have them sit together, across from one another, at a large table. Then each couple would select an egg (like Easter eggs kids find candy or money in) and in both of them was a piece of paper that said “active.” The fake couple would always pretend that theirs said “watch.” Then the real couple would have ten minutes to put together an extremely difficult puzzle while the fake couple pretended to watch. Afterwards, the real couple is split up and brought into separate rooms to do two surveys. The first one was somewhat meaningless (IIRC), and before they’d do the second one they’d get feedback that was either positive or negative and it would come from either the individual’s spouse or the fake couple (the feedback was also fake). Then they’d take the second survey which studied their reactions to the feedback. What we trying to see is how people reacted to negative feedback when it came from someone in your in group versus strangers. We also did the study with different conditions (family, teammates in a sport, etc.), but I was exclusively in the romantic lab. And that is how I had five fake girlfriends for a year.

Also if anyone’s interested, the data led us to concluded that women ages 18-24 are doing dating all wrong, per our all female grad staff. :P

OK. But as you describe this, the experiment did not require you to kiss or touch your fake girlfriend, so it's hard for me to see why your real girlfriend would be upset. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ormond said:

OK. But as you describe this, the experiment did not require you to kiss or touch your fake girlfriend, so it's hard for me to see why your real girlfriend would be upset. :)

Perhaps Tywin is a method actor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm obviously not going to agree on much with somebody like Cornyn. And I think, I'd probably rather jab a sharp pencil in my eye, than vote for him.

But, if he's serious about this, then good on him.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/7/16618762/background-check-john-cornyn-sutherland-springs

Quote

A Republican lawmaker wants to beef up the federal background check system for guns.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said on Tuesday, according to the Hill, that he’ll introduce a bill that will “ensure that all federal departments and agencies, including the Department of Defense, upload the required conviction records into the national database.” Cornyn argued that the number of records sent to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) today is “staggeringly low.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'm obviously not going to agree on much with somebody like Cornyn. And I think, I'd probably rather jab a sharp pencil in my eye, than vote for him.

But, if he's serious about this, then good on him.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/7/16618762/background-check-john-cornyn-sutherland-springs

 

Right. I mean, we have these systems in place for a reason.  And, you know, there are plenty who are are very vigilant about making sure that felons don't VOTE, so let's make sure they can't get an arsenal, mmk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0