US Politics: #Musky DeSaster

[DMC]

1 minute ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

You couldn't have done worse than Tulsi, who would've been a younger candidate

Hey!  I know this is not what you meant but just to clarify, Tulsi Gabbard is four years older than me!  And a thousand years crazier.

Anyway, Steny Hoyer endorsed PG County Executive Angela Alsobrooks today for Ben Cardin's seat in the Senate.  This is kinda an under the radar thing right now, but if she can get out of the primary, between her and Lisa Blunt Rochester replacing Carper in Delaware, the Dems may elect a whole two black women to the Senate next November.

[SpaceChampion]

Quote

Ken Paxton went on fellow indicted fraudster Steve Bannon's show and bragged about how he stopped 2.5 million Texas voters from receiving mail in ballots. Thus denying their right to vote. The reason he admitted this theft of votes on a YouTube channel? He wants the Texas Senate to keep him in office so he can do it again. Paxton admitted Trump would have lost Texas if he had allowed the Harris County voters to all vote. He also said Beto O'Rourke would be Governor without his election ballot interference. This was voter fraud on a massive level. Republicans are always talking about voter fraud in the 2020 election. Here it is. Right in front of their very eyes. 63 Texas Republicans voted to impeach Ken Paxton Saturday. Now we need the Senate to do the same and rid Texas of Ken Paxton and his many crimes once and for all.

 

[Madame deVenoge]

5 hours ago, Ran said:

Ahem.

The fact that the above is mostly true for this forum does say rather a lot about the fact that the forum swings left of mainstream Dem voters.

I always thought most around here seriously underrated his deal-making instincts and experience, and the fact that this continues now with people wanting to downplay or even deny his administration's many achievements just goes to show that there's a certain locked-in belief about what "should" happen, regardless if other ways of going about things are putting real wins on the board.

Considering that most of this forum thinks I’m a Republican, when I’ve voted solidly Democratic for 30 years, says quite a bit.

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

38 minutes ago, Madame deVenoge said:

Considering that most of this forum thinks I’m a Republican, when I’ve voted solidly Democratic for 30 years, says quite a bit.

 

Is this about you wanting Ty's eyes as spare - (i don't think you'll get an etenral mangekyo that way, but what do I know?).

[Gaston de Foix]

7 hours ago, DMC said:

This seems to operate under the assumption that a balanced budget is inherently "good," in an empirical sense.  Oftentimes it's not, in spite of Jace's objections.  Indeed, I'd argue Biden has done a surprisingly great job extending federal spending - as it should be regardless of the economic environment - considering the political circumstances.

No, just that standard Keynesian teaching is that the government should run deficits in recessions and surpluses (or at least balance the deficits) in good times and that we have been deficit spending for 23 years now.  And wasted government spending on Afghanistan/Iraq, for example, is undeniable.  

It's not just about government spending though, it's also about government revenue (and enforcing tax rates) and we have been cutting taxes for 23 years and reducing tax enforcement.   

3 hours ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

There is not, actually, a very solid argument for lowering the national debt. There might be one for lowering the deficit, but lowering the debt would entail reduction of spending by the government at a massive scale and would result in a purposeful recession that would likely impact the entire world. 

While interest rates are higher, they are absolutely no where near where they'd need to be to make deficit spending significantly worse and/or an actual problem. Right now the returns on investment on this deficit spending are still much higher than the cost of spending. While I'm not totally convinced about the idea of Modern Monetary theory there's a lot more to it that rings true. Before there were fears that this level of spending would cause out of control inflation and a death spiral of increasing debt to pay down interest, but this has proven to be more and more wrong for over 30 years now. 

Kudos to @The Anti-Targ and @DMC for explaining this in more depth. 

You are right about the history of the last 30 years, but that ignores economic history 300 years before that, and the experience of countries other than the US.  The US is in a unique position for a number of reasons, principally the dollar's status as a global currency.  There is no real question (in my mind at least) in the debate last summer in the UK between Sunak and Truss that Sunak was right to resist tax cuts as fiscally irresponsible.  

There will be short-term fiscal consequences for any deficit reduction plan (let alone anything that tries to reduce the national debt), but there are also (long-term) fiscal consequences for ignoring it.  That's not just my view, btw.  There is a reason the Obama administration tried to reach a grand bargain.  

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Madame deVenoge said:

Considering that most of this forum thinks I’m a Republican, when I’ve voted solidly Democratic for 30 years, says quite a bit.

 

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE 31ST YEAR?!?!?!

[Madame deVenoge]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE 31ST YEAR?!?!?!

Still only been 30 years since I turned 18 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

we have been deficit spending for 23 years now.

While this is technically true, the deficit spending for a lot of those years was VERY low.  Both from FY 2002-2008, and then again from FY 2013 to 2019.  See here.  My point in citing that wikipedia link above is in terms of the national economy, our debt commitments really aren't anything to worry about. 

Yes, at times we've technically violated Keynesian precepts - which I articulated earlier - but that's no reason to prevent the codification of, say, the child tax credit, or plenty of other programs that would actually achieve an equality of opportunity in this country.  That is, btw, sorely behind most industrialized democracies.  Or at least the "western" world that we're supposed to be leading.

5 minutes ago, Madame deVenoge said:

Still only been 30 years since I turned 18 

A convenient excuse.  I'm on to you!

[Tywin et al.]

42 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Is this about you wanting Ty's eyes as spare - (i don't think you'll get an etenral mangekyo that way, but what do I know?).

I'm on to the eye thief. And yes, FYI, our lasers can destroy anything. How do you think we really kicked Ramesses' ass? 

[DanteGabriel]

4 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

That backs the question for Ty.

Can a Space Laser destroy a Golem?

Before you start, yes, I am asking you because you are Jewish. And since both Space Lasers (at least according to Margie) and the Golem are part of the arsenal of mythical Jewish weapons, you are the most reliable source I know. 

I mean, the space laser is high tech, but the golem is magic. You get to decide the eternal battle between technic and magic. 

Surely the answer depends on if you're asking a Reform or Orthodox Jew.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm on to the eye thief. And yes, FYI, our lasers can destroy anything. How do you think we really kicked Ramesses' ass? 

I assume you meant Ramses (the Pharaoh)?

Not really that good with the Torah/Bible (Old Testament) stuff, was one of the Ramsesesses (whatever the plural to Ramses might be) Pharaoh during this baby slaughtering, frog raining etc. stuff. At least I think this is the reference. The answer is probably yes, given there were more Pharaoh's named Ramses, than Czar's named Peter.

Edited June 1 by A Horse Named Stranger

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Surely the answer depends on if you're asking a Reform or Orthodox Jew.

I think this is a trick question, as far as I know Orthodox don't believe in Space Lasers.

[Tywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I assume you meant Ramses (the Pharaoh)?

Not really that good with the Torah/Bible (Old Testament) stuff, was one of the Ramsesesses (whatever the plural to Ramses might be) Pharaoh during this baby slaughtering, frog raining etc. stuff. At least I think this is the reference. The answer is probably yes, given there were more Pharaoh's named Ramses, than Czar's named Peter.

The name is actually spelled in English a few different ways, but my understand is scholars don't think the events in the Torah ever happened as described or under the rule of Ramesses II. Funny how a holy book got that wrong. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Ramses II (sorry, I stick with the spelling I am familar with), was the big conquerer, right? Like I said, I remember there being like ten pharaohs going by that name. Russians at least stopped after their sixth Ivan, and their third Alexander and Peter.

Funnily, I thought Peter was more common than Ivan. But the Peters and Alexanders only started pop up under the Romanovs/Romanoffs.  The more you know.

Edited June 1 by A Horse Named Stranger

[Phylum of Alexandria]

23 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The name is actually spelled in English a few different ways, but my understand is scholars don't think the events in the Torah ever happened as described or under the rule of Ramesses II. Funny how a holy book got that wrong.

Richard Eliott Friedman's book on this topic Exodus is really interesting. He starts with the lack of archeological evidence for a lot of major events in the Torah (including even the battle against the Canaanites), and the puzzle that presents for the stories told (e.g., the Israelites essentially were the Canaanites they say they slaughtered). But the bulk of his book is on linguistic and historical analysis of the Torah itself, and he paints a compelling and convincing portrait of assimilation through creative sacred myth...with some nuggets of accurate history peppered throughout.

[DMC]

52 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Surely the answer depends on if you're asking a Reform or Orthodox Jew.

Reform Jews don't give a shit, they just like to party.

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 hours ago, Madame deVenoge said:

Considering that most of this forum thinks I’m a Republican, when I’ve voted solidly Democratic for 30 years, says quite a bit.

 

That’s unfair having read your posts you may be further to the right or I guess more moderate to me and other posters here on some areas(not to say that’s an unreasonable thing in all cases) but that’s a far cry from being republican(who I acknowledge can still be someone decent and worked with as an individual.).

It’s a important to keep things into perspective.

Edited June 2 by Varysblackfyre321

[Varysblackfyre321]

Notice how quickly we moved from “we just care about the children!” to just blanket attempts at criminalization of all things queer. 
 

 

[Tywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Richard Eliott Friedman's book on this topic Exodus is really interesting. He starts with the lack of archeological evidence for a lot of major events in the Torah (including even the battle against the Canaanites), and the puzzle that presents for the stories told (e.g., the Israelites essentially were the Canaanites they say they slaughtered). But the bulk of his book is on linguistic and historical analysis of the Torah itself, and he paints a compelling and convincing portrait of assimilation through creative sacred myth...with some nuggets of accurate history peppered throughout.

Most of the Torah is nonsense. There's some accurate tales of historical events, but overall it's weird and God in it is a creepy bastard and an idiot. Like just read the first few pages and ask yourself if any of it makes sense. Humans live to be nearly a thousand years and God is tricked by a clueless woman and a talking snake. Idk how you take anything that comes after that. I just treat it like old Greek and Roman stories about their gods (and as a side note, polytheism makes more sense than monotheism, otherwise God is the worst asshole to ever exist). 

To me what it really is outside of the spiritual stuff is a whole lot of advice about how not to die from lack of hygiene a long time ago.  

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Reform Jews don't give a shit, they just like to party.

Pretty much, hence why I've always joked that I was blessed to grow up with this religious background. 

[DMC]

23 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Pretty much, hence why I've always joked that I was blessed to grow up with this religious background.

Dropping 20 grand on a bar/bat mitzvah when you otherwise never go to temple makes absolutely no sense to me, but I'll totally be there for the open bar!