|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, maybe that's a conversation that should be conducted in PM, just so the thread isn't locked?
I entirely agree.
If I go over budget I have to not eat or pay certain bills until I get more cash, why doesn't the government need to meet their budget and be balanced?
Because the government, broadly speaking, creates money. It's one of their jobs. There's no need for them to make sure that they bring in as much money as they spend, because they can always conjure more into existence. (And, in fact, it's very good for the economy for them to be continually conjuring more money, because it means that money keeps moving.)
Or, more tersely, because macroeconomics is different in a lot of nonintuitive ways from microeconomics. Running a government is not very similar to running a household.
Are you familiar with the baby-sitting co-op model of macroeconomics? You might want to look at that before you start ranting about macroeconomics.
I think the big difference between a family versus the government not paying bills to meet their budget is that in the governments case not paying bills means not funding services. It's not the government that suffers in that case, its the people/companies being funded.
|
Whoa man, Trump has been for LGBT rights all his life, okay? He's not a flip flopper like HRCAlso.Ah crap, Poe's Law.
I was just pointing out how ridiculous it is to grill people who are over 50 (or even older at all) for being anti-lgbt at some point and then changing their stance. It sucks but a great deal of Americans were not for LGBT rights even 20 years ago. However, what matters is where they stand now.
I'll admit: I got Poe'd. :)
Whoa man, Trump has been for LGBT rights all his life, okay? He's not a flip flopper like HRC
I actually haven't found any indication that the Observer has a pro-Trump line. In fact, I wouldn't have even known it was owned by his son-in-law if they didn't run disclaimers every now and then. But then again, I admit, I only read their articles when they come across my feed.
More generally, I've heard some commentators opine that the WikiLeaks stash are gonna be studied for a long time as documentary evidence of how a successful presidential campaign operates. So far, I've enjoyed watching how talking points her staffers came up with last year have been successfully disseminated. For example,
"Earlier in Clinton's campaign, emails from October 2015 show staff trying to build a defense for their candidate's late arrival on supporting gay marriage, and her history of supporting 1996's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Again, Clinton campaign staff had to figure out how to defend her on something she actually believes in. 'I'm not saying double down or ever say it again,. I'm just saying that she's not going to want to say that she was wrong about that, given she and her husband believe it and have repeated it many times. Better to reiterate evolution, opposition to DOMA when court considered it, and forward looking stance.'"
Also interesting are Bill Clinton's comments from 2000 when he opined that he was more in line with the "gay agenda" than she was and that she was "really a little put off by some of this stuff."
"Really a little put off" still hasn't reached the levels of hate and oppression contained in the one word "deplorable." And then to group them in "baskets." Never has american politics sunk so low! :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the big difference between a family versus the government not paying bills to meet their budget is that in the governments case not paying bills means not funding services. It's not the government that suffers in that case, its the people/companies being funded.If I go over budget I have to not eat or pay certain bills until I get more cash, why doesn't the government need to meet their budget and be balanced?
Because the government, broadly speaking, creates money. It's one of their jobs. There's no need for them to make sure that they bring in as much money as they spend, because they can always conjure more into existence. (And, in fact, it's very good for the economy for them to be continually conjuring more money, because it means that money keeps moving.)
Or, more tersely, because macroeconomics is different in a lot of nonintuitive ways from microeconomics. Running a government is not very similar to running a household.
Are you familiar with the baby-sitting co-op model of macroeconomics? You might want to look at that before you start ranting about macroeconomics.
Nope. The difference is that a government literally can't run out of money, any more than the NBA can run out of points. If the NBA decided that, next season, a basket made from beyond half-court counted for five points, scoring would probably go up, but would there be any risk that a game would have to be stopped because there weren't any points left?
What it would do, if the decision were badly enough taken, is devalue the point (which, in an economic context, we call "inflation"). Of course, given that the US goverment right now is having problems with too little inflation (the target rate is 2.0, which we haven't seen since 2011), boosting inflation by spending more money would actually be a good thing.
The reason that the current government doesn't pay its bills is because Congress is, literally, a deadbeat.
Whoa man, Trump has been for LGBT rights all his life, okay? He's not a flip flopper like HRCI actually haven't found any indication that the Observer has a pro-Trump line.
But now I have:
All in the family: New York Observer endorses Trump
Some, but not all, of the same ground covered in Chicago Tribune who, for the record, have endorsed Gary Johnson after their GOP pick, Rubio, got cut.
My point is those two are worthless, each in their own special way.[Insert Orfamay's ever-enlarging aneurysm over false equivalences here] I despise both Trump and Clinton (for separate reasons), but it's absolutely not accurate to compare them as equals.
It is if it makes you angry! :D
It is if it makes you angry! :DMy point is those two are worthless, each in their own special way.[Insert Orfamay's ever-enlarging aneurysm over false equivalences here] I despise both Trump and Clinton (for separate reasons), but it's absolutely not accurate to compare them as equals.
Try that again, but this time in a way that makes sense.
Running Subtheme: Standing Rock
About 40 minutes of Democracy Now! coverage starting here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obama to Trump: "Stop whining"
I know they're not going to be Potus and VP anymore but can Obama and Biden stick around in some sort of capacity, like tenured professors?
Someone else mentioned that after Clinton is sworn in, Obama can stick around as her Anger Translator.
For myself, I have thrown in my lot for Trump. I was waiting to see what bombshell would be thrown in October that would put Trump's back to the wall. I wanted to see if he would quit when it would look hopeless. Meaning actually quit the race or give up and just go through the motions until election day.
And he didn't quit. He actually fought back. For the first time in a long time, a Republican is actually fighting back harder than his Democrat opponent. He is fighting dirtier too.
So I respect his courage. Too many people in politics fold when the media turns against them, but Trump is someone who won't and he hits back when someone hits him.
He keeps hitting my enemies so how can I not cheer him on.
I still think there is another grenade coming in November designed to hit when there is no adequate time to respond. I also think the election will be close, but I won't call it for Trump. Not when the betting sites have him at 4:1 odds or longer.
The Poe is strong here.
Nevermore.
|
Obama to Trump: "Stop whining"I know they're not going to be Potus and VP anymore but can Obama and Biden stick around in some sort of capacity, like tenured professors?Someone else mentioned that after Clinton is sworn in, Obama can stick around as her Anger Translator.
Also valid.
For myself, I have thrown in my lot for Trump. I was waiting to see what bombshell would be thrown in October that would put Trump's back to the wall. I wanted to see if he would quit when it would look hopeless. Meaning actually quit the race or give up and just go through the motions until election day.
And he didn't quit. He actually fought back. For the first time in a long time, a Republican is actually fighting back harder than his Democrat opponent. He is fighting dirtier too.
So I respect his courage. Too many people in politics fold when the media turns against them, but Trump is someone who won't and he hits back when someone hits him.
He keeps hitting my enemies so how can I not cheer him on.
I still think there is another grenade coming in November designed to hit when there is no adequate time to respond. I also think the election will be close, but I won't call it for Trump. Not when the betting sites have him at 4:1 odds or longer.
Perhaps because cheering him on is encouraging his sexual assaults.
NPC Dave is rapping at my door
For myself, I have thrown in my lot for Trump. I was waiting to see what bombshell would be thrown in October that would put Trump's back to the wall. I wanted to see if he would quit when it would look hopeless. Meaning actually quit the race or give up and just go through the motions until election day.
And he didn't quit. He actually fought back. For the first time in a long time, a Republican is actually fighting back harder than his Democrat opponent. He is fighting dirtier too.
So I respect his courage. Too many people in politics fold when the media turns against them, but Trump is someone who won't and he hits back when someone hits him.
He keeps hitting my enemies so how can I not cheer him on.
I still think there is another grenade coming in November designed to hit when there is no adequate time to respond. I also think the election will be close, but I won't call it for Trump. Not when the betting sites have him at 4:1 odds or longer.
Which "people in politics" have you seen "fold when the media turns against them?" Please offer specific examples.
Also, when did fighting dirtier become courageous? Cowards fight dirty.
As a goblin, I must say, fighting dirty isn't about cowardice, it's about all my opponents are twice my size.
Someone else mentioned that after Clinton is sworn in, Obama can stick around as her Anger Translator.
Running Subtheme From Other Thread
|
For myself, I have thrown in my lot for Trump. I was waiting to see what bombshell would be thrown in October that would put Trump's back to the wall. I wanted to see if he would quit when it would look hopeless. Meaning actually quit the race or give up and just go through the motions until election day.
And he didn't quit. He actually fought back. For the first time in a long time, a Republican is actually fighting back harder than his Democrat opponent. He is fighting dirtier too.
So I respect his courage. Too many people in politics fold when the media turns against them, but Trump is someone who won't and he hits back when someone hits him.
He keeps hitting my enemies so how can I not cheer him on.
I still think there is another grenade coming in November designed to hit when there is no adequate time to respond. I also think the election will be close, but I won't call it for Trump. Not when the betting sites have him at 4:1 odds or longer.
Which "people in politics" have you seen "fold when the media turns against them?" Please offer specific examples.
Also, when did fighting dirtier become courageous? Cowards fight dirty.
He wants a candidate with no dignity. The base has been begging for it.
Slick Willy[Bil Clinton] could out talk and out fib Michelle O 10 days out of 10. That's why he got the nickname Slick Willy.
Too bad hes not a stand up guy like Tricky Dick.
Yeah, it's a nice change to see someone attack Hillary for once. That's really never happened before in politics.God the snark levels are lethal. Everybody out of the thread, we need to fumigate.
More seriously: The biggest attempts I'm seeing to discredit Hillary come from the Wikileaks Emails, which are mostly being quoted out of context and when actually read don't really say anything incriminating; and from the new James O'Keefe videos which appear to feature Dems admitting to voter fraud, which do seem really damning until you remember that Mr. O'Keefe is not at all above editing videos in order to falsely push his Conservative agenda, as he was definitively caught doing with his last big leak regarding Planned Parenthood.
I'm unconvinced. If they had a curveball, they'd have thrown it by now.
Mr. O'Keefe claims he proved voter impersonation happens in Michigan. The problem is that in his videos, no one actually commits voter impersonation, or allows him to commit it. In one video, he's given a ballot (if memory serves), but he didn't actually submit it. Of course, maybe that's cause he knows it'd be a felony.
I only (lol) want congress and the house dismantled and remade so they have term limits and no life-time paycheck.
I like the lifetime paycheck. It means a politician is bribed out of greed, not greed or the need to go walter white
I only (lol) want congress and the house dismantled and remade so they have term limits and no life-time paycheck. Who is gonna do that? No one.
I for one wouldn't even vote for it.
My impression is - I don't follow Congress closely enough to back up my impression with math, but if I'm wrong I'm sure Orfamay or someone will set me straight - my impression is that a disproportionate amount of the compromise-equals-surrender ideologues eager to f+!+ up the machinery of society are freshmen whereas the seniors have learned a bit about compromise over their careers.
(not a rule, just a tendency)
I only (lol) want congress and the house dismantled and remade so they have term limits and no life-time paycheck. Who is gonna do that? No one.
I think term limits would be a useful tool, but I think longer than most who call for such measures makes sense. I think 12 years for the house and 18 for the senate would be OK. I just don't like the idea of someone sitting in the same seat for 40 years. But 30 on the hill? Seems OK.
But to your other point, I think the exact opposite is a better alternative. Increase congress salary to $2M a year, and continue that as an annual pension for life (even if they serve only one term) with full health benefits.
This would go a long way toward alleviating the pressure many congress critters feel when the lobbyists arrive, as well as the call to become a lobbyist themselves after.
Quote the Bells: Time marches on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quote the Bells: Time marches on.
That wasn't The Bells, that was Metallica.
Right well I should get that right more often since I'm a huge Metallica fan. Which means -15,000 XP for me...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right well I should get that right more often since I'm a huge Metallica fan. Which means -15,000 XP for me...
*Thomas Seitz Fades to black*
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps because cheering him on is encouraging his sexual assaults.
I'm a Republican.
Well, I was one. For most of my life. I was very Center Right and even as the party got crazier and crazier, I tried defending it and defending it.
The straw that broke me was Trump getting the nomination. As much as I don't like Hillary, I looked at her platform, saw a lot of Center Right stuff that I used to count on from the Republicans and decided that given my choices, I had to hold my nose and vote for her.
I'm sorry, if this is the Republican Party now, this is where I get off the train.
|
|
For myself, I have thrown in my lot for Trump. I was waiting to see what bombshell would be thrown in October that would put Trump's back to the wall. I wanted to see if he would quit when it would look hopeless. Meaning actually quit the race or give up and just go through the motions until election day.
And he didn't quit. He actually fought back. For the first time in a long time, a Republican is actually fighting back harder than his Democrat opponent. He is fighting dirtier too.
So I respect his courage. Too many people in politics fold when the media turns against them, but Trump is someone who won't and he hits back when someone hits him.
He keeps hitting my enemies so how can I not cheer him on.
I still think there is another grenade coming in November designed to hit when there is no adequate time to respond. I also think the election will be close, but I won't call it for Trump. Not when the betting sites have him at 4:1 odds or longer.
First I wish to salute your courage in admitting here that you are Republican and that you support Trump.
As you might have noticed the posters here are vastly anti-Trump and more than a few are anti-Republican IMO
That said, I think you are mistaken if you believe that Trump is a Republican. What Trump is is the worst kind of opportunist and demagogue. He does not care one iota for political stances and topics. He only cares about people cheering him and maybe getting him elected. He is high on a mad power rush and will do and say anything to keep experiencing it
It does not show courage but an addict's mad cravings
And what enemies of yours are you talking about ? Because Trump is vituperating against so many people that it is hard to keep count. And I believe that many of his supporters indeed believe that he rightly denounce their own enemies. Except that if they were to compare their opinions, they would realize that they actually do not agree on who these enemies are
But Trump does not care about this. He does not care about the Republicans and he does not care about you
Trump cares only about Trump
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
narcissistic personality disorder
If you have narcissistic personality disorder, you may come across as conceited, boastful or pretentious. You often monopolize conversations. You may belittle or look down on people you perceive as inferior. You may feel a sense of entitlement — and when you don't receive special treatment, you may become impatient or angry. You may insist on having "the best" of everything — for instance, the best car, athletic club or medical care.
At the same time, you have trouble handling anything that may be perceived as criticism. You may have secret feelings of insecurity, shame, vulnerability and humiliation. To feel better, you may react with rage or contempt and try to belittle the other person to make yourself appear superior. Or you may feel depressed and moody because you fall short of perfection.
Text book description i'll let you guys decide how its related.
Trump has been Trump a long, long while. It is probably difficult to trigger a bout of narcissistic rage in him now, simply because he likely knows himself by now. If Clinton could do so, however, there wouldn't be a need to continue the debate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's also worth remembering that such impersonation would have to take place on a large scale, even in most close states. You'd think at least some of them would get caught. Some of the tens of thousands at a minimum you'd need to make it worthwhile. Sure, some races turn out much closer than that, but it's hard to predict which ones .Mr. O'Keefe claims he proved voter impersonation happens in Michigan. The problem is that in his videos, no one actually commits voter impersonation, or allows him to commit it. In one video, he's given a ballot (if memory serves), but he didn't actually submit it. Of course, maybe that's cause he knows it'd be a felony.Yeah, it's a nice change to see someone attack Hillary for once. That's really never happened before in politics.God the snark levels are lethal. Everybody out of the thread, we need to fumigate.
More seriously: The biggest attempts I'm seeing to discredit Hillary come from the Wikileaks Emails, which are mostly being quoted out of context and when actually read don't really say anything incriminating; and from the new James O'Keefe videos which appear to feature Dems admitting to voter fraud, which do seem really damning until you remember that Mr. O'Keefe is not at all above editing videos in order to falsely push his Conservative agenda, as he was definitively caught doing with his last big leak regarding Planned Parenthood.
I'm unconvinced. If they had a curveball, they'd have thrown it by now.
The other aspect is that there are already safeguards against voter impersonation.
Let's say someone impersonates you in the morning. You get off work to vote in the afternoon. Seeing that you've already voted, if you're willing to sign an affidavit assuring that you indeed are the person you say you are (and have some proof) and swear you haven't voted yet, most states will give you another ballot and let you vote. It will then be investigated by the state's election commission. Only one ballot will be counted, the investigation will determine which one.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
narcissistic personality disorder
If you have narcissistic personality disorder, you may come across as conceited, boastful or pretentious. You often monopolize conversations. You may belittle or look down on people you perceive as inferior. You may feel a sense of entitlement — and when you don't receive special treatment, you may become impatient or angry. You may insist on having "the best" of everything — for instance, the best car, athletic club or medical care.
At the same time, you have trouble handling anything that may be perceived as criticism. You may have secret feelings of insecurity, shame, vulnerability and humiliation. To feel better, you may react with rage or contempt and try to belittle the other person to make yourself appear superior. Or you may feel depressed and moody because you fall short of perfection.
Text book description i'll let you guys decide how its related.
I'd actually prefer if we don't do armchair diagnoses of people's mental health. There's plenty of other things to point to and say he's unfit to be president, we don't need to stigmatize mental health while doing it.
Trump has been Trump a long, long while. It is probably difficult to trigger a bout of narcissistic rage in him now, simply because he likely knows himself by now.
I'm not sure how difficult it is.
* "tiny hands"
* The Khan family
* Alicia Machado
Trump seems to have a rage-related meltdown on Twitter on a regular basis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was very Center Right and even as the party got crazier and crazier, I tried defending it and defending it.
The straw that broke me was Trump getting the nomination. As much as I don't like Hillary, I looked at her platform, saw a lot of Center Right stuff that I used to count on from the Republicans and decided that given my choices, I had to hold my nose and vote for her.
I'm sorry, if this is the Republican Party now, this is where I get off the train.
(Pardon me, Citizen Cursor, for using your post.)
Well this, plus Wikileaks quotes that the Clinton campaign didn't want to run against Jeb because there was little in his economic plan the Clinton campaign disagreed with, bodes pretty ominously for a "progressive" Clinton presidency.
"Basket of Deplorables" is really just the nicest way to say "Bag of Dicks" you could manage on television.
But it was a strategic mistake to frame things the way Clinton did. It fed into the perception of the Midwestern and rural areas that she's part of the Eastern elite who are out of touch with the moral center of the rest of the country.
Trump is supported by almost half of the country, and she pretty much wrote them off the same way that Sarah Palin had done "The Other America" before.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well this, plus Wikileaks quotes that the Clinton campaign didn't want to run against Jeb because there was little in his economic plan the Clinton campaign disagreed with, bodes pretty ominously for a "progressive" Clinton presidency.
The American population doesn't want "progressive." That's the mistake the Democrats made for more than 20 years (between 1968 and 1992).