Jump to content
DireWolfSpirit

U.S. Politics: Attaquer son cul orange!

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

 

Then, third...

said this many times before, but given Trumps declining physical and mental condition, odds are pushing 50-50 he won't be a viable 2020 presidential candidate.

 

Given the ages of the 'D' contenders (especially after the heart attack bit), their choices for Vice Presidents become crucial

All the best media orgs that talked about the Gorilla Channel and yet didnt have enough evidence to report on Epstien 3 years ago are the ones saying he s impaired.  So that must be true.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

way back when, six or eight months before the last presidential election, I made two statements on this board which were repeatedly ridiculed:

 

First, there was a very strong possibility that Trump would actually win; and 

Second, Trump also stood a high chance of being impeached. 

Right now, I'm wondering if I'm going to be two for two here.  

Then, third...

said this many times before, but given Trumps declining physical and mental condition, odds are pushing 50-50 he won't be a viable 2020 presidential candidate.

 

Given the ages of the 'D' contenders (especially after the heart attack bit), their choices for Vice Presidents become crucial

Well, we are still firmly under the thumb of the Baby Boomers. They are both our saviors and oppressors, like it or not. That is part of why I was hoping for a Harris Presidency, but it does not look like it will happen now. I guess I will just have to settle for the low bar Bill Gates has set for voting for a Presidential candidate, and hope the candidate that wins is the one that has a professional approach.

Quote

 

The average voter hasn’t a clue how public debt is financed and the television journalists who ask pointed questions on the debate stage seem similarly adrift. In fairness, the extent to which advanced economies like ours can sustain large debts is a highly complicated matter that economists have long debated. But there are a few facts about our fiscal position that progressives should know and explain to the public. The current American public debt-to-GDP ratio—that is, how much the government owes to others represented as a proportion of the size of our economy—is projected to hit 78 percent by the end of the year. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the United States is on track to surpass the public debt record set at the end of World War II—a debt to GDP ratio of 106 percent—around the 2030s. That makes our current debt seem high, but it’s not without precedent among our peer economies. Japan’s public debt, for instance, reached 236 percent of GDP in 2017. Yet the Japanese economy has been humming along for most of the past decade.

Much of the concern about the sustainability of high debt is animated by two dynamics. First, at higher levels of debt, borrowing money can become more expensive for governments—creditors can demand higher interest rates to cover the increased risk of their lending. Second, government overspending can put too much money into the economy, bringing about inflation. On both fronts, the United States is in good shape. Interest rates are currently historically low, as is our rate of inflation. It should be said, too, that when inflation does rise to unhealthy levels, policy measures can deflate the economy. Doing so could be economically costly, but would be much less damaging than, say, not taking on the existentially necessary project of addressing and adapting to climate change.

 

Against Debt Hysteria
When it comes to paying for the future, Democrats needn't accept the premises offered by Beltway scribblers and cable news pundits.

https://newrepublic.com/article/155639/debt-hysteria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

All the best media orgs that talked about the Gorilla Channel and yet didnt have enough evidence to report on Epstien 3 years ago are the ones saying he s impaired.  So that must be true.  

With me, it was something a bit different:

 

Went to the doctors office a couple years ago.  Saw a chart on the wall: risk of heart attack by age, height, and weight with attached notes about diet and exercise.  Got back, fired up the computer, and saw a profile picture of Trump - damn, he's obese!  Literally checks off all the bad boxes.  Notorious for not exercising and eating mostly junk food.  

 

As to his mental condition - about fifteen years ago, I was with a 'van service.'  Half of my riders were Alzheimer's patients.  I watched them deteriorate, month by month.  More and more, going from the various video clips, Trump sounds like somebody in the early stages of Alzheimer's.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shit can happen to anyone at any time especially into your 70s plus.  That being said, Trump still seems to be able to perform spontaneously at his rallies in a way that Biden or Hillary no longer can.  

Maybe I was just a tad too quick to assume media bias affected your opinion when the media decided it was credible that Kavanaugh post SC nomination masterminded drugging and gang raping girls while he was in high school but media darling and Clinton buddy Weinstein wasn't an issue for decades.

The broad cast media clearly tilts the playing field.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mcbigski said:

The broad cast media clearly tilts the playing field.  

You mean kind of like spending more time on Hillary's emails, rather than talking about policy? Everything about Hillary's emails was nonsense and the media had more important things to cover. Yet, it decided to spend an enormous amount of time on the subject, to the detriment of everything else and giving the suggestion that there was something really important about her emails. If you are a Trumpist, you should have been very happy with the media and its Hillary email coverage.

Now, I realize we should spend most of our time worrying about the feelings of super sensitive conservative snowflakes, but I'll make the heretical suggestion that people on the left have some legitimate grievances against the broad cast media.

Share this post


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

Socialism: An interchangeable term used to deflect and belittle my political opponent. Because the term is interchangeable, it can be applied in any setting and always works as a meaningless Trump card.

Not a bad definition.

Here in the United States in particular, I think socialism means:

Any government program or policy I happen to dislike at any particular point in time. Government programs and policies I like aren't socialism because I say so. I can change my mind about a particular government policy or program moving it from the socialist to the non socialist category and vice versa ,and hence changing my own personal definition socialism, any time I please. I can do so without notification. It's up to other people to figure what I mean by socialism even if I change it's definition minute by minute. If you argue with me about socialism and are utterly confused about what we are even talking about, because I'm constantly changing its definition, then that is your fault for being such a socialist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Ran said:

Well, yes, it's economics. But this is  why Saez and Zucman (and Pikett) trying to completely flip economics on its head with their high wealth tax proposals gets me, since they, too, are playing with excessively limited data in which they make a number of controversial (among economists) decisions to get to their conclusions. 

 

21 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Well to be fair, the system is extraordinarily complex so very few people (if any) can claim to understand it perfectly.

Frankly, saying something is controversial among economist doesn't really illuminate matters much.
During the financial crises, economist disagreed over the effects of fiscal stimulus. Robert Lucas, Nobel Prize winner, basically called the well regard Christina Romer a fraud and liar.
And of course, economist aren't free from ideological biases either. Sometimes to the point of making ridiculous claims. Recall University of Chicago's John Cochrane and Eugene Fama (another Nobel Prize Winner) basically claiming that a good model of the economy was MV = Py where V is fixed. That was a horrendous analytical mistake for them to make, yet they made it anyway.
Another part of the problem is understanding the actual models economist are working with. Lucas and his posse, basically U. of Chicago economics department and the so called fresh water schools, are basically working an RBC model of the economy, which is basically the Arrow-Debreu model. While Arrow Debreu might be an interesting result, there a are plenty of reasons to believe it has nothing to do with the real world. And accordingly, the RBC model is basically a piece of trash. Further, the whole Volker episode should have shown it be an utterly useless model. Yet, a lot of economist still cling to it.
There are a lot of economist who think any taxation of capital is bad. But, there thinking primarily comes from the Chamely-Judd model. And it takes a bit of understanding of what goes into that model. For one it assumes perfect foresight. It also assumes that holders of capital are trying to maximize their consumption (or their progeny) and don't accumulate wealth for reasons of status and prestige. Zucman and Saez to their credit have offered models of capital taxation that don't make some of the assumptions of the Chamely-Judd model, which are suspect.
Also, some of the standard wisdom does need to be trashed. For example, no basic economic textbook has any business of showing labor markets working according to the the standard partial equilibrium competitive model. There is no reason to think labor markets actually work like that. Yet it still appears in textbooks. Also, you have people like Raj Chetty working to make the discipline more empirically based, which is controversial, among some people. His work has certainly raised the libertarian hackles of people like Russ Roberts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

You mean kind of like spending more time on Hillary's emails, rather than talking about policy? Everything about Hillary's emails was nonsense and the media had more important things to cover. Yet, it decided to spend an enormous amount of time on the subject, to the detriment of everything else and giving the suggestion that there was something really important about her emails. If you are a Trumpist, you should have been very happy with the media and its Hillary email coverage.

Now, I realize we should spend most of our time worrying about the feelings of super sensitive conservative snowflakes, but I'll make the heretical suggestion that people on the left have some legitimate grievances against the broad cast media.

The media is currently falling all over its self to proclaim what a terrible idea Medicare for All is. It also played a huge part in the swift-boating of John Kerry. The truth is that some of those on the American right know how to tickle the media in just the right places to get the results they want. And that is not even getting in to actual right-wing mouthpieces.

Edited by Martell Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Well, that is because you are on it, not viewing it. You are the product, not the customer.

He is a chimp not a gorilla. Do all apes looks the same to you?

You sir, are an Apist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Shit can happen to anyone at any time especially into your 70s plus.  That being said, Trump still seems to be able to perform spontaneously at his rallies in a way that Biden or Hillary no longer can.  

Maybe I was just a tad too quick to assume media bias affected your opinion when the media decided it was credible that Kavanaugh post SC nomination masterminded drugging and gang raping girls while he was in high school but media darling and Clinton buddy Weinstein wasn't an issue for decades.

The broad cast media clearly tilts the playing field.  

I don't see the relevance, but my stance with Kavenaugh  was the sexual harassment stuff was the wrong approach, almost irrelevant in this era where every new month brings yet another news story of a politician having an affair or some such,  My view was the Democratic Party should have forcibly brought up Kavenaugh's record of judicial misdeeds and lack of qualifications, regardless of the republicans wishes - kind of like the Republicans are doing now with the impeachment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

I don't see the relevance, but my stance with Kavenaugh  was the sexual harassment stuff was the wrong approach, almost irrelevant in this era where every new month brings yet another news story of a politician having an affair or some such,  My view was the Democratic Party should have forcibly brought up Kavenaugh's record of judicial misdeeds and lack of qualifications, regardless of the republicans wishes - kind of like the Republicans are doing now with the impeachment.

 

There's a big difference between consensual adult affairs and sexual harassment or assault. Obviously some affairs, like Bill Clinton's, can be problematic as well when there is coercion or a power imbalance.

I thought the allegations against Kavanaugh were credible, and supported by details independently corroborated. And the lies he told and the temper tantrum he threw under questioning should have disqualified him. No need to rehash it, that's simply my belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We lost, folks.

 

 

Quote

 

WASHINGTON — In the face of some stunning electoral setbacks this week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and President Trump are trying to get their party to refocus the mission at hand: confirming judges.

Now, with the government lurching ever closer to another shutdown in the coming weeks, and with Democrats opposing the GOP’s attempt to move on to a defense spending bill, McConnell is planning to confirm at least 30 conservative judicial nominees before year’s end, which will bring joy to Trump’s base and build a legacy that will outlast both of their political careers.

 

McConnell and Trump have already overseen the confirmation of more than 150 judges — a whopping 40 more than former President Barack Obama had confirmed at a similar point in his tenure.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you actually think about it, so much of the Trump/Republican defence about Ukraine can actually be summarized as ‘Why should you be punished for a crime someone else noticed?’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, sologdin said:

judicial appointments can be remedied.  

How?  With their lifetime appointments it seems quite hopeless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Triskele said:

How?  With their lifetime appointments it seems quite hopeless.

A 2-term Democratic President would be a good start. Also altering lifetime appointments. Also packing the SC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×