Slashdot Mirror
Trump Says He Doesn't Believe Government Climate Report Finding in a New Low (apnews.com)
President Donald Trump on Monday rejected a central conclusion of a dire report on the economic costs of climate change released by his own administration. Associated Press reports: But economists said the National Climate Assessment's warning of hundreds of billions of dollars a year in global warming costs is pretty much on the money. Just look at last year with Hurricanes Harvey, Maria and Irma, they said. Those three 2017 storms caused at least $265 billion in damage, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The climate report, quietly unveiled Friday, warned that natural disasters are worsening in the United States because of global warming. It said warming-charged extremes "have already become more frequent, intense, widespread or of long duration." The report noted the last few years have smashed U.S. records for damaging weather, costing nearly $400 billion since 2015.
"The potential for losses in some sectors could reach hundreds of billions of dollars per year by the end of this century," the report said. It added that if emissions of heat-trapping gases continue at current levels, labor costs in outdoor industries during heat waves could cost $155 billion in lost wages per year by 2090. The president said he read some of the report and "it's fine" but not the part about the devastating economic impact. "I don't believe it," Trump said, adding that if "every other place on Earth is dirty, that's not so good."
"The potential for losses in some sectors could reach hundreds of billions of dollars per year by the end of this century," the report said. It added that if emissions of heat-trapping gases continue at current levels, labor costs in outdoor industries during heat waves could cost $155 billion in lost wages per year by 2090. The president said he read some of the report and "it's fine" but not the part about the devastating economic impact. "I don't believe it," Trump said, adding that if "every other place on Earth is dirty, that's not so good."
Sold to the Americans by entrepreneurial British, Spanish and French, in exchange for the products of cheap southern labor.
Not a new low for that lifetime fraud and recent traitor Drumpf
Sold to the Americans by entrepreneurial British, Spanish and French, in exchange for the products of cheap southern labor.
Sold by entrepreneurial Africans to the British, Spanish and French, in exchange for European industrial products, triangular trade. Oh and there were also American slave traders, lots of them. Any particular reason why you left them out of your list?
In order to avoid looking foolish, it would be a good idea to familiarize oneself with the work of Peter Hadfield, aka Potholer54. He knocks down the common myths and misconceptions on both sides of the issue, often with good humor, and always with peer-reviewed science. Well worth the time.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
...and going "La la la, I can't hear you" is not a good presidential style.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Those three 2017 storms caused at least $265 billion in damage,
The broken window sector of the economy is going to be Yuge! Remember: lost wages means lower unemployment figures! /s
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
You're asking for the President of the United States to be assassinated. Given that there are a number of constitutional and legal means to dump him, I think that would be a low - although not a new one.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.
As much of a dick Trump is you have to separate government from country, you can't really lay that one on him.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Republican idiot is republican idiot is ... waiting for 2019 to watch the Trump insane asylum get ... TRUMPED!
It's more like Trump having Trumpified the Republican party. He commands the fanatical loyalty of a portion of the party that is sufficiently large for the Republican establishment having to suck up to him and appease his followers because they need that portion of the electorate to win elections. In order to win Trump's support they have to follow him in a headlong charge towards the right wing nationalist fringe and cater to his narcissistic bullshit. The last few Republicans that looked moderate because the rest of the party had moved so far to the right have now retired or been primaried and in those cases where they were replaced by Republicans in the recent elections those Republicans are universally hard core Trumkins. So just face it, there is no Republican party anymore. There are two US political parties, the 'Democrats' and the 'Cult of Trump'. I can only imagine how frustrating all of this is to Mitch McConnell. Just when he thought he had secured congressional majorities for the Republicans on the back of the minority vote using gerrymandering, voter suppression, disenfranchisement and intimidation, along comes Trump and basically hijacks the party. I bet it is still nothing compared to how galling it is for old Mitch to have to make an ass of himself in public by kissing Trump's posterior and heaping sycophantic praise on Trump as if he is some oriental god-emperor.
From McConnell's perpspetive he ain't doing too bad : he got what he wanted. Conservative judges filling all the vacanices across the country, 2 (and maybe more) ultra conservative supreme court justices and THE FUCKING NEW TAX CODE (ie stealing from the poor to appease the rich). He has no problem kissing Trump's ass, doing him a blowjob or worse.
You're asking for the President of the United States to be assassinated. Given that there are a number of constitutional and legal means to dump him, I think that would be a low - although not a new one.
There's Trump quote for every occasion. Back in 2016 he said this about Hillary
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”
source (first link on google search)
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
"buffoon" "moron" "racist" "idiot" "retard" "orange" "old" "misogynist" "small hands" "fake hair" "embarrassment" etc...
These are all compelling arguments, I just wish that the only arguments you ever hear against Trump was in some way anchored in something else than personal opinion and dislike. That you personally hate someone does not make them wrong or less competent.
Ponder for a moment who takes over if you off the annoying orange.
That's what every VP since Johnson has been: An assassination deterrent. Sure, you could off the asshole on top, but then an even bigger loony takes charge.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If we wait long enough we will find out for sure if the planet is heating up, will we not? Why argue? Just watch
From McConnell's perpspetive he ain't doing too bad : he got what he wanted. Conservative judges filling all the vacanices across the country, 2 (and maybe more) ultra conservative supreme court justices and THE FUCKING NEW TAX CODE (ie stealing from the poor to appease the rich). He has no problem kissing Trump's ass, doing him a blowjob or worse.
Yes, but on a purely personal level McConnell deeply despises Trump, you can tell when he talks about the guy, no matter how hard he tries to hide it it always shines through. Kowtowing to Trump like the Jade Emperor of China and heaping ridiculous praise on Trump is clearly deeply galling to old Mitch. He'll do it alright, but that does not mean he likes it. For Mitch kowtowing to Trump is probably much like cleaning the toilet is to the rest of us, we don't like doing it but not cleaning the toilet is worse. Mitch, of course, has a servant who cleans his toilets for him, but making an ass of himself by kowtowing to Trump and flattering him in public is the one job Mitch can't outsource.
This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.
As much of a dick Trump is you have to separate government from country, you can't really lay that one on him.
True, that one can't be laid on Trump ... and for the OP: let's not forget that for all it's mistakes, this is also the government that set the slaves free.
Absolutely correct. Pence would be far more competent at getting his agenda done than the Traitor-Tot Trump. Not only that but he'd love to institute a Christian version of Sharia Law in the US. Better to let Trump bumble along and not be all that effective, especially now that the Democrats control the House.
And that bullshit "More hurricanes is because of global warming! And so is the ten years WITHOUT a hurricane!
What 10 years without a hurricane. Just because they didn't hit the CONUS doesn't mean there weren't any hurricanes.
Warm winters? Global warming!
Cold winters? That's global warming too!
You suffer from short term thinking. If you want to understand global warming/climate change you need to look at averages over at least 20 year periods and probably a bit longer. What happens in any one or two year period is just natural variability. The noise of natural variability is great enough to overcome the signal of global warming on any short term basis.
Over 85% of slave traders were Muslim.
Only 1.2% of Americans owned slaves at the height of the slave industry in the Americas.
Sounds like a great idea... except that with our luck, that only makes him stronger, too.
You ever see the movie, "The Blob?" I think he's kind of like that. What we need, if memory serves, is a vast refrigeration system in a place to lure him into... that's how they stopped The Blob, wasn't it?
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
I still can't believe how messed up it is, that a guy like Donald Trump got elected president of the United States of America .
A man who boasts about grabbing pussies of models, because as the boss, he can get away with it. And who basically insinuated that someone assassinate his political opponent.
It is a freakish thing to happen. Fucking nuts is what it is. Somewhat damaged my belief in the democratic process and ordinary people (the electorate) in general.
You want to never forgive...a country...for something it did before you were born ?
I'd pretty much stick to the UN climate report. It runs a bunch of scenarios, and seems to be a bit on the conservative side.
False equivalence arguments are a common deception strategy. It lets someone put out a false extreme as if it carries equal weight to the reasoned (usually dull middle of the road) explanation. Then the false equivalence compares them both as if they were equally valid, and pretends to be the measured middle ground. It isn't.
This "false extreme" is the Fox News game. Take children from their parents at the border, becomes "children saved from human traffickers pretending to be their parents". Wanting healthcare from children and old people become "socialist healthcare to overload hospitals and make people die"..... Kashoggi, the journalist the Saudi Prince tortured live on WhatsApp becomes an "ISIS terrorist" that the Saudi's saved USA from.
Can you really expect someone who lost money owning a casino to have anything worth while to contribute?
This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.
A trade which still exists today in the Middle East:
https://www.theguardian.com/gl...
Climate models predict that injecting more energy (temperature) into the system results in bigger and more frequent hurricanes that can cause more damage.
Where are the actual measurements that haven't been edited or interpreted that support this. I'm asking for the actual data, not conclusive studies of the data.
And guess what? Skepticism is the foundation of actual science - if you claim it's "settled", it isn't science.
Science is about looking at the facts - settled doesn't mean consensus. Some people still belive the earth is flat - and I hope we can agree that that matter is settled.
https://twitter.com/PeterGleic...
No, the black africans were enslaved by other black africans and then sold to muslims, who sold them to portuguese slavers, who brought them to the Americas and sold them there.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
What have you done?
Produced unlimited quantities of salt, apparently.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
It's ok to be white.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
To be fair the only reason Trump wasn't a slave trader is because he hadn't been born yet.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
That has to be the most clueless post I've ever seen someone post here and actually post it non-AC. Please do your part to Make America Great Again and kill yourself.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I'll go one further and say that if someone does they should get the Nobel Peace Prize.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Only 1.2% of Americans owned slaves at the height of the slave industry in the Americas.
Oddly, your numbers are of Americans, which would even include those not in states where Slavery was allowed. But sure, most people in the South didn't own slaves. And yet hundreds of thousands leapt to the defense of the practice to hold over 4 million in bondage.
You spelled hurt wrong.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Impeachment is very unlikely though, as is Trump stepping down voluntarily. Everyone remembers how it worked out with Clinton, i.e. not very well for those trying to dislodge him.
So more likely Trump would just be bogged down by the barrage of legal problems and revelations, and his own party would start to distance itself from him with an eye on the next round of elections. That would limit what Trump can do, which is a realistic and useful goal.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Don't be a moron. The 'climate is not weather' -argument is a counter-argument to the specific anti-scientific claim of 'the climate cannot be warming because it's now extremely cold outside'. That's an irrational and a bullshit claim.
However, as a result of the global climate warming (and hence there being more and more energy in the atmosphere) extreme weather phenomenon are predicted to increases on all sides: more storms, more heatwaves, more droughts etc. In certain geogphraphic regions even the winters will get heavier because increased rainfall means more snow.
Increased hurricanes are a predicted consequence of a warming climate that we're now witnessing. So yes indeed, more and more intensive hurricanes and storms and so on are tied to a warming climate, it's just that idiots like you who do not understand the first thing about climate science see this mentioned and like children parrot the line: 'BUT YOU SAID CLIMATE IS NOT WEATHER' as if the whole reason climate change is a global problem would not be that it makes weather phenomenon more extreme across the board.
So once again my dear baffoon, repeat after me: the fact that the weather can at times be extremely cold and there can be blizzards is not evidence that the climate as a whole is not warming. The fact that we can actually measure temperature and greenhouse gas changes in the atmosphere and we can observe the changes in weather patterns those changes cause is undeniable evidence that it is warming.
How in the fuck there are people over the age of 12 who fail to get this distinction is beyond me.
Mueller considers a sitting president out of scope. Partly because he can be shut down by the president.
If Trump gets impeached it will be from the fallout from the Democrats getting his tax returns, such as tax evasion or fraud, or from the fallout from the Stormy Daniels case, such as setting up a company for an illegal purpose, or from employing family members, such as Ivanka, or from self-enrichment, such as spending money staying at Mar-a-lago.
The Russia investigation may imprison his son-in-law, but that's all.
The argument is that he (claims that he) doesn't believe the findings of the National Climate Assessment. "Buffoon" isn't the argument against him, it's an analysis of the argument against him.
Would someone please get that buffoon out of the Oval Office - he's a disgrace to the human race. However you do it, either through Mueller or your Second Amendment rights, please just get him out of there...
At least it looks as though Mueller might be on track for a classy impeachment setup soon enough after Manafort's lies negating that plea bargain.
Mueller is not your savior. You will have to defeat Trump at the ballot box if you want him out of office. Impeachment is a non-starter unless you are trying to get Trump re-elected in 2020. Hear me out on this..
The Mueller investigation is seemingly nearing it's end. Neither you nor I know what his report will actually say, but we can surmise that Mueller has thoroughly investigated the Russian Collusion claims he was asked to look at. So far, there are no actual charges filed on campaign issues or anything having to do with Russian involvement with the Trump campaign. Maybe he's just keeping his powder dry? Maybe he has nothing? You don't know, nor do I, we have to wait for the report, but unless Mueller is actively trying to avoid charging anybody in the administration, I don't see how we get to this point without at least SOME charges related to his original mandate...
But let's assume the democrats come up with something though their house investigations, (Or perhaps Mueller was holding out on us) and they proceed with impeachment. What's going to happen?
Well, the political firestorm will only sink congress' approval rating further. Partisanship will run amok with absolutely NOTHING getting done. With the impeachment trial in the Senate, Trump won't have to worry about conviction unless the "crime" he's accused of is universally condemned. I dare say the Mueller investigation does not have evidence of such a crime or we'd have more smoke from him by now, but for Republicans to vote to convict it will have to be *serious*. Remember it takes 2/3rds of the Senate to convict, that's turning a LOT of Republicans.
So Trump, if impeached, will not be convicted and you and I know he won't resign, but will likely start swinging at his political foes with renewed vigor. You can bet gridlock will rule the day, Trump will play the martyr in 2020, run on his accomplishments and the democrats LACK of accomplishments. A heavily divided democrat party will likely nominate a radical left leaning "get Trump" progressive that makes Bernie Sanders look like a right wing radical. Trump will win his primary handily, will cast himself as a centrist throughout his campaign and trample the leftist democrat again by capturing the middle, like he did with Hillary. Both sides will be hugely motivated to vote, turn out will be higher than ever before but the middle will fall for Trump, who will win another 4 years.
It's your choice, but I'd recommend you tread carefully with this impeachment thing... It's alright to make a show of doing it, head fake all you want, but if you actually paint yourself into that corner and impeach Trump, you will seal your fate in 2020. You really need some other issue here.. Impeachment just makes Trump a shoe in.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Out of curiosity, do you think the National Climate Assessment is almost certainly bollocks, because you don't believe in the greenhouse effect, or because you think that the impacts of the current warming are almost certainly wrong for some other reason?
Jesus fucking wept. As though lagging indicators weren't really fucking basic economics.
Why should he be frustrated? He's the one who facilitated the Trumpification of the Republican party. He didn't have to, he could've stopped it instead, although at the cost of the overall power of the right. He's the Trump era's Paul von Hindenburg.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
So we need to freeze his ass?
The Democrats didn't take enough Senate seats for impeachment to happen, unfortunately. The Republicans are too blindly and fiercely loyal to Trump to let him be impeached no matter what the Mueller report contains. Videos of their own children being personally raped by Trump wouldn't do it, he'd have to do this in front of their eyes.
The US has only once before come anywhere near this close to a backslide to dictatorship, and that was under the Hamilton administration.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If we're going to be pedantic, we could consider that their descendants were enslaved locally upon birth in most cases.
The Tax changes are responsible for GDP growth and great unemployment numbers we have enjoyed over the last few months. The tax "cuts" have predictably caused in increase in tax revenue due to the increase in economic activity, upping employment, raising household incomes and otherwise causing the "poor" to have more money as more of them have jobs who where unemployed and raising the pay of those who already where working.
The tax cuts reduced revenue. Deficits have doubled.
There was an economic benefit due to the fiscal stimulus- but it didn't cause tax receipts to rise by so much that the tax cuts paid for themselves. It never does.
"Voodoo economics" George Bush Snr called it. We are not at the top of the Laffer curve. We are never at the top of the Laffer curve. Tax cuts are a stimulus the economy didn't need and when a recession comes (and it will) the increased defecits will reduce the ability of the government then in power to enact a fiscal stimulus package when it is actually needed.
With unemployment so low there was no need for the tax cuts.
Also the benefits went to the rich. I know it, you know know it everyone knows it.
Hurricanes are not a function of global warming -- they've been occurring at least since 1970
The ability of some people to out-stupid themselves on the internet never ceases to amaze me.
Trump is a result of many things.
Politics in the US is incredibly polarized. Discontent made it ripe for a populist. Politics is dominated by money. The internet enabled fake news in a way people were unprepared for. Clinton had too much baggage. A lot of the progress made lately on things like same-sex marriage and rights was done via legal process rather than as a reflection of widespread changes in attitudes in every state. The Democrats were too concerned with doing the right thing instead of winning.
These things always correct themselves eventually, it's just a question of how long and how much pain.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I don't think the Republican party has moved if by that you mean that Republicans have changed their beliefs. I think the Party faithful have remained where they've been since Reagan. Nixon had his Southern strategy of picking off Wallace supporters and then the South moved to the Republican camp because Democrats were telling them things they did not want to hear. That started the Evangelicals to renounce the Democrat party. Reagan cashed in on the Evangelical vote and the Southern vote. George Bush extended that a bit, and also produced the Willie Horton ads. Bush Jr. was little different but promised the Evangelicals more. Trump merely caused normal people to quit the Republican party so now it is the party of the leftovers.
He may be the best guy in the world, but if he'd just go and shut the fuck up already he'd be so much better.
Only if you weren't paying attention. About a third of the US population has been "deplorable" for a long time. After WW2, a newspaper poll found that 1/3 of Americans wanted to genocide the Japanese.
Trump came along at exactly the right time for a deplorable shitstain to take power - the electoral playing field had been tilted heavily in Republicans' favor, he had a historically unpopular opponent to defeat who was also being targeted by a foreign interference campaign, the deplorables were absolutely fuming after 8 years of a black President, and finally the straw that broke the camel's back, an October surprise that took his opponent down a peg.
Combined, it was just enough for the deplorables to squeak through an electoral victory with a popular vote loss. It was only a matter of time before coddling these hate-filled garbage people would bite America in the ass, and the clock finally ran out.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It'll depend on what Fox News does. If they support the President, you're right. If they turn on him after whatever information gets released, then he's done. Their audience doesn't have the critical reasoning to judge it. Since Trump is a viewer and seems to get policy ideas from them, they won't turn on him very easily, but they seem to be getting jumpier about how he's treating the press lately. It depends on how unassailable and egregious any findings would be, and how it would affect Murdock's pocketbook.
And yet, deficits are projected to be over a trillion next year...and the next...and the next...I guess short term sugar highs are enough to justify the tax cuts in your book.
Impeachment needs 2/3s of the Senate....not going to happen as long as the Republicans have no honor.
white supremacist dog whistle
Careful, your bias is showing.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Trump cannot be impeached while sycophantic loyalists make up a majority in the Senate. The US will just have to live with an openly criminal president for 2019-2020. There are massive bombshells in the Mueller report and in Trump's tax returns, the only question is whether they'll see the light of day, or if a loyalist will prevent their release.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Trump is only president because the elections aren't democratic enough.
But nevertheless it's extremely concerning that 63 million people thought that a racist, sexist senile fraud of a "businessman" was the best person to lead the country.
You are mentally ill. Seek help.
"he'd love to institute a Christian version of Sharia Law in the US"
This is as tired as any left-wing trope. Really, if Christians had ever wanted this, it would now be old news.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I'm not so sure. The main thing to fear from Pence is open war against the LGBT community and women. Trump's doing a decent job at those on his own. In other areas, I don't expect Pence would be remarkably bad by Republican standards. He won't pointlessly start trade wars or hilariously fuck up foreign policy (including being Russia's and Saudia Arabia's bitch) or consider bombing/invading countries on a whim.
Pence would probably be like a homophobic/chauvinistic Bush Jr. minus Cheney/Rove pounding the war drums (I think he could ignore John "Ares" Bolton), which doesn't sound so bad compared to the status quo.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Trump merely caused normal people to quit the Republican party so now it is the party of the leftovers.
Funny, and here I thought it was the democrats that are on the #walkaway train.
Facts. You can say "fuck!" now.
"His name was James Damore."
Spot on. The fact that the comment you are replying to is modded +5 Insightful is frankly amazing, in the most literal sense, and not in a good way
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Did you know that you just posted a white nationalist meme?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Careful, your bias is showing.
You responded to a call to remove one white male with the comment "it's OK to be white" and their bias is showing? Snort, roffle.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If he were only senile it'd be an improvement. He's an immature manchild, a dysfunctional psychopath (most politicians are either non-psychopaths or functional psychopaths), and a pathological liar (Evidence: he could not stop lying in a simulated scenario in which he was asked not to lie for the purpose of proving that he could avoid lying).
He may or may not be senile but that's the icing on the towering wedding cake of his mental problems.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
In addition, any political clout that Pence had would have been depleted via association with Trump (who at that point would likely have been impeached or something). He might WANT to strip LGBTQ rights and send women's rights back 50 years, but he wouldn't be able to get the backing to do anything major. If Trump were kicked out today, Pence would basically be a seat warmer in the Oval Office until 2020. (I guarantee he'd face primary threats from other Republicans at that point.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Here, we part company. The Tax changes are responsible for GDP growth and great unemployment numbers we have enjoyed over the last few months. The tax "cuts" have predictably caused in increase in tax revenue due to the increase in economic activity, upping employment, raising household incomes and otherwise causing the "poor" to have more money as more of them have jobs who where unemployed and raising the pay of those who already where working.
Sorry but this is absolute horseshit. You're presenting this as an obvious fact but there's absolutely no evidence that these tax changes had any positive impact on what you're claiming. I had some more comments typed up to your other points, but come on dude.
This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.
1) The first slave owner in the US and the one who fought a lengthy legal battle through the British colonial courts to make slavery legal was a black tobacco farmer named Anthony Johnson.
2) Slavery in the American colonies became legal nearly 100 years before any of the "founding fathers" were born. They attempted to outlaw slavery in the colonies but the British Crown Colonial Courts would not allow them to enact anti-slavery laws as British industry was profiting from both the slave trade and the cheap cotton produced.
3) The "3/5ths' Compromise" was a way to limit the number of Representatives Southern slave States could have in Congress thus reducing their ability to overrule Abolitionists.
4) Most of the "founding fathers" abhorred slavery. Thomas Jefferson never bought nor sold a single slave. He ended up inheriting a group of slaves from his in-laws. He could not set them free as it was a hanging offense under British colonial law to free black slaves so he kept them together to not break up families and treated them as well as possible under the laws of the day.
5) The whole "Nixon's Southern Strategy" is a Democrat propaganda lie. Out of all the Southern Dixie-crats only *two* switched Party from Democrat to Republican, Strom Thurmond and one other I don't recall ATM.
6) The US government and military were not racially segregated prior to President Woodrow Wilson(D) who ordered segregation to be implemented.
7) There were actually far more Irish slaves than African slaves, and the Irish slaves were far cheaper and treated far worse as they were much more expendable than expensive African slaves. Where are the Irish-American "Affirmative Action" programs? Where are the proposals for Irish-American slavery Reparations?
That is your red pill for today. You're welcome.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.
Don't kid yourself. England and its colonies had slavery too. Just because they ended it fifty years earlier doesn't make them any less guilty.
It means they have 50 years less guilt.
Regardless though, any government that DIDN'T outlaw it and actively try to prevent it was very guilty. Sadly, slavery has been the norm in history not the exception. It's illegal now, but there are still a large number of slaves kept TODAY in a couple of African countries. The is also sexual slavery, which although not exactly the same thing is just as bad, and that is a world-wide problem.
The Arabic empires all had slaves for hundreds of years. Germanic and Nordic people all had slaves pre Christendom. All the classical empires had slaves. Without going back to pre-history, there probably has not been a single day in all human history where one nation or another hasn't had large numbers of slaves.
Many humans are really quite crappy people and will enslave, or take advantage of other people who are weaker than them. Human history is full of one group of people being horrifically nasty to another group. We're a horrible species in many ways when you think about it.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Democracy is long dead in America. You must be pretty brain washed to consider a two party system, with no real way of ever getting a third party in power, a democracy.
What you have is a system whereby the party best at slandering the other wins. Blaming the current party in power for current problems is a big part of this, which is why we see a regular switch between the two parties in power. As both parties are in the pocket of the rich, good luck ever changing something that will benefit the general public.
The Tax changes are responsible for GDP growth and great unemployment numbers we have enjoyed over the last few months.
The unemployment numbers are a blatant lie based on the fact that people who collect unemployment insurance too long and are no longer eligible to collect it are not counted. The actual unemployment rate is somewhere between the inverse of the labor participation rate, and the U-6 unemployment rate.
The GDP growth is irrelevant to the average American, and thus irrelevant to the economic health of the country, because inflation-adjusted wages remain flat (or, in fact, decline as they have for decades) as profits increase.
Also, the tax code is really stealing from the rich to appease the poor. When you look at how much the rich pay in taxes, it turns out that they pay MORE of the taxes than the poor do
And yet, they still pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes, which proves just how fucked over the tax code is. The people with the most money are deriving the most benefit from the system, and they obviously should pay the most to maintain it because the alternative is torches, pitchforks, and guillotines.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Trump is a result of many things.
Just because deplorables voted for Trump doesn't make them non-persons, it's not appropriate to call them things.
When you boil down the sauce, the primary reason Trump got elected is our garbage education system which doesn't teach critical thinking. It's been deliberately compromised from the start, since it's based on a German system designed to produce obedient factory workers and soldiers. And it's been deliberately compromised even more since, to guarantee the flow of low-information voters.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
He honestly believes he's at least the smartest person alive, if not the smartest person to ever live:
“And I thought that was so brilliant. I said, “Oh, I am so smart. I am the smartest person.” My uncle was a great professor at MIT for 40 years. Can you believe? Forty years. I said, “But I’m smarter than him. I’m smarter than anybody.”
https://middleamericandemocrat...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I believe in climate change and most of the report BIG problems with this posting here
1) The person identified as the poster "msmash" is a first timer with no previous Slashdot record (read the heading with her name versus the typical heading) and no profile.
2) Hate Trump as much as you want, but the Slashdot/AP a headline misrepresents what Trump. said. The Slashdot headline: "Trump Says He Doesn't Believe Government Climate Report Finding in a New Low". AP headline: "Trump: ‘I don’t believe’ government climate report finding. Notice where the quotation marks are. "I don't believe" are in quotes but the rest of the headline isn't. I doubt this bit of misleading headline was an accident by the very smart, competent AP editors. And according to the AP article what did Trump actually say? At https://apnews.com/c1dfca3088b... after SIX paragraphs of editorializing we find what he actually said: "The president said he read some of the report “and it’s fine” but not the part about the devastating economic impact. “I don’t believe it,” Trump said, adding that if “every other place on Earth is dirty, that’s not so good.” So Trump AGREES WITH THE REPORT but questions the conclusion about the impact.
And he has good reason to- the report speculates a "worse case" sometime in the future (no date provided) of a an 8.5 degree temperature rise and further speculates on "outdoor labor unable to work because of climate change" to come up with the 10% loss figure. Even the AP article reviewers have a problem with this approach: "Yohe said it was unfortunate that some media jumped on that 10 percent number because that was a rare case of hyperbole in the report. “The 10 percent is not implausible as a possible future for 2100,” Yohe said. “It’s just not terribly likely.” Kopp, on the other hand, said the 10 percent figure seems believable. “This is probably a best estimate,” Kopp said. “It could be larger. It could be smaller.”. This is an example of the permanent government of DC civil servants (who are sometimes right, sometimes not) piling up a rickety pyramid of assumptions-based-on-assuptions, to come up with a scary hypothesis for 80+ years in the future and and then slapping an imagined, highly speculative "cost" on it This sort of nonsense/propaganda is what leads many reasonable people to think the whole Climate Change" thing is a hoax, which it is not.
3) About the comments. At 7:00 am CST we had five up for a postings on slavery and other off-topic comments. This to me suggests that some bots have crept into the "like" system and maybe the original poster may not be real at all. Not an accusation exactly but no profile and no previous Slashdot comments or posting... a bit suspicious.
Readers, just be aware that all sides are now acting like the Russians and you as a reader have to be apply a very critical eye to the stuff you are being fed.
If you hang around your average people in small towns long enough, it's really not hard to see why he won.
I tend to rant.
He'll do it alright, but that does not mean he likes it. For Mitch kowtowing to Trump is probably much like cleaning the toilet is to the rest of us, we don't like doing it but not cleaning the toilet is worse.
It doesn't really make any difference what he thinks in private, he is a public servant and his public actions - unequivocal support of Trump - speak for themselves. In supporting Trump he shares responsibility for undermining norms and causing severe damage to US reputation and international standing.
If there was a crime "Moral negligence causing decline of USA", then Mitch McConnell would be guilty as a co-conspirator.
So politics can skew your view of science just by touching it. Exactly as intended, good little useful idiot.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Yea! The election process is too democratic! Who cares what the ordinary people of the country wants! They should only elect who I want to be in charge!
Thats what you just wrote. I just took all the bush beating out of it.
Uhm, you do know that over 2.8mil more people voted for Hillary right? Right?
The people voted for Hillary. The electoral college voted for Trump.
https://www.270towin.com/2016_...
Yet because of corruption trump got most states. NOT most people.
There are claims in the press that Trump and/or Trump's Team are already preparing a response to Mueller's report.
The most likely explanation of this (if it is true) is that AG Matt Whitaker demanded a detailed status update from Mueller that provided their key findings to date and that Whitaker simply passed that to Trump. It's the most likely explanation, if we believe that claim that Trump's Team are preparing a response. The only way would be if they have seen a version of the report to start with...
As Rudy Giuliani said when he became the President's mouthpiece, the findings of the Special Investigator are going to be tried in a Court of Public Opinion, not a Court of Law. Unless the findings are both blatant and utterly damning, it seems unlikely that there will be a 2/3 Senate Majority willing to instigate impeachment.
Much more likely is that the Democrats will start a series of detailed, careful investigations over the next two years, likely carefully coordinated so that their findings can be released in concert with the approach to the 2020 Presidential Election.
Perhaps curiously, I wonder if the best approach might be for the Democrats to actually keep their powder dry now and wait for the approach to 2020. If they shoot now and miss, come 2020 anything they share now will be decried and derailed as "old news".
I suspect they are upset because blacks are supporting Trump in large numbers and the DNC is unhappy they "don't know their place" anymore. DNC supported slavery, opposed civil rights act, opposed blacks voting, and now oppose blacks getting jobs
WTF?
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
it's not good for a president. for the good rule is president should believe on government and his team. thanks, sir nice article https://www.technozuzu.com/goo... GOOGLE reCAPTCHA v3 THAT STOP BOTS WITHOUT USER INTERACTION
"the sky is falling so do as I say" or "the sky is not falling so guard your liberty jealously" I'll pick the latter every single time. Good on Trump for expressing skepticism of the AGW-government-academic-industrial complex.
voted for him with this kind of vitriol. Everyone is entitled to an opinion including the President of the United States. If you don't like it then move on, but threatening the life of a POTUS I believe may be one of those things that is not exactly covered by free speech. You may be getting a knock on your door from the Secret Service, FBI or another agency. That kind of attention is not good, not good at all.
That being said, hurricanes happen. What most people don't realize is that the reason they are costing more is people are moving into hurricane prone areas in droves, backing up to forests and timber lands in droves (Fires) and generally not paying attention to the disasters that might befall them.
C02 causes both cooling and warming (cooling in the upper atmosphere and warming in the lower), is benign and not a pollutant. It currently is around 400ppm (that is the same as 4 parts in 10,000. That means if you take 10,000 dollar bills, 4 dollars would be the equivalent in co2. We have .04% of our atmosphere as co2. .04 is not a lot. The true damage will be in lost rights and lost freedom when the "government" takes away freedoms and starts fining and arresting people for releasing C02 (AKA respiration) and turns this country into a police state because we went from .028% co2 to .040% c02. in 100 years.
Also while their are side effects to increased CO2 levels not all of them are bad. Regardless of whether AGW, Climate change or the like are happening (and i'm sure to some extent they are for many reasons) it makes no sense to get violent or reckless trying to solve what may not be that big of a problem to begin with.
Oh and based on all the hate the President is getting I am voting for him in 2020, because if he is pissing everyone off he must be doing something right. I fear a politician everyone likes.
So what you are saying is that the republican establishment is happy to sacrifice the country and wipe their asses with the constitution in order to maintain power.
If that was a defense of the republican party I'm not seeing it.
Actually in this case, I think he could be lured into some sort of Ecto-Containment System using fried chicken as bait.
My money is on advanced stage syphilis.
" The first slave owner in the US and the one who fought a lengthy legal battle through the British colonial courts to make slavery legal was a black tobacco farmer named Anthony Johnson."
Not quite correct. He was not the first slave owner in the US but he was one of the first people in Virginia to have his right to own a slave legally recognised. Snopes and Wikipedia seem to be on the same page with this explanation.
"Anthony Johnson was not the first slave owner in American history, but he was, according to historians, among the first to have his lifetime ownership of a servant legally sanctioned by a court. A former indentured servant himself, Anthony Johnson was a “free negro” who owned a 250-acre farm in Virginia during the 1650s, with five indentured servants under contract to him. One of them, a black man named John Casor, claimed that his term of service had expired years earlier and Johnson was holding him illegally. In 1654, a civil court found that Johnson in fact owned Casor’s services for life, an outcome historian R Halliburton Jr. calls “one of the first known legal sanctions of slavery — other than as a punishment for crime.”"
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Trump is claiming credit for all the stuff that Obama put into place to correct the mess Bush left behind, economic changes take a few years to happen.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
That's not a surprise. If the Democrats had won every Senate seat up for election, they wouldn't have won enough seats to impeach. Keep in mind only 1/3 of the Senate runs at a time.
Don't forget, they won the majority of the seats up for grabs. They may have (net) lost two* seats, which were carried into office by Obama's second win.
*And maybe a third, there's a runoff!
Your ad here. Ask me how!
And if he's impeached - then what? He still completes his term...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Look up where the name 'slave' comes from.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Christians had laws like that. Or from where do you think the Arabs copied them?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
No it doesn't. If you're going to talk about it, learn some basic civics. Bill Clinton was impeached. Impeachment is merely the House bringing charges against a Federal officer. It is then tried in the Senate, and if 2/3rds of the Senate agrees - the officer is removed. Impeachment is the filing of charges; the case is tried in the Senate. Impeachmant has fuck-all to do with the Senate.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
There is no economic boom dumbshit. The defecit has more than doubled under Trump and he is just getting started destroying the economy. It will take a decade to recover from the damage he has already caused. We may *never* recover our reputation with the world.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
New paper in Nature that says there is no climate trend to hurricane damage. Which is opposite of what the Obama-started report states.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Nature magazine says otherwise for a new peer-reviewed paper.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.
Don't kid yourself. England and its colonies had slavery too. Just because they ended it fifty years earlier doesn't make them any less guilty.
It means they have 50 years less guilt.
.
And there are some additions to that list of dubious honor:
Portugal - slavery was legal until 1869
The French Empire - abolished in 1848
Spain - 1873 in Puerto Rico, and 1886 in Cuba
Netherlands - ended 1873
And finally, the most recent user of slavery, Germany who employed it until 1945, a mere 73 years ago. Presumably they would have continued to use slave labor except that the British, the Russians, and the Americans stopped them.
Slavery is a horrifying practice, a cruel practice, and an abomination. But there aren't all that many nations out there with clean hands. Jeebuz had something to say about those without sin being allowed to cast the first stone.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
It's more for the education of onlookers to keep the goosesteppery from spreading.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Comes to the opposite conclusion about storm damage, stating that there is no discernible climate-change trend to hurricane damage in the US. Who's right? Perhaps it's too early to make a judgment given the data is so conflicting...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Brilliant comment and right on the money.
Well done!
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
The US wasn't exactly a leader here... They abolished slavery 32 years after Britain in 1833. After a gigantic war that killed 1.2 Million.
Try looking at inflation adjusted numbers, they don't look any better.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Of course it's hard for a politician to switch parties, but the Nixon strategy was about voters switching. Nixon was documented talking about the strategy; and to a large extent, it worked.
Indentured servitude is not another word for slavery.
BTW, who would have thought a Climate Change post on Slashdot would devolve into argumentative threads about slavery?
At the very least there is obstruction.
Trump has admitted as much.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
You're not supposed to believe. This isn't religion, it's science. The measurements are available. You can do the research yourself, provided you have the required knowledge. If you don't, you're free to get it, the information to learn is available.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What, exactly, has Trump done "against" the LGBT community?
Such nonsense. He's the first pro-gay-marriage President, but I guess that only counts if you're a Democrat given that Dick Cheney was the first pro-gay-marriage VP.
Do you have ESP?
Exactly. Rather than impeach it would be better if he gets bogged down in a legal quagmire where his own people abandon him and he can't do much damage. Then just wait the rest of his term out.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Oh noes, people who want equality for people of different races and recognition of different gender identities!? TEH HORROR! And don't get me started on Antifa, who have killed...wait, infinity times less people than right-wing terrorists? Is this right?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Besides accumulated cyclone energy worldwide trending down for the last 25 years, there is no discernible climate-change signal in the US economic damage from hurricanes. As far as damage/bigger storms go, it seems what is predicted to happen from climate change isn't happening - the facts don't back it up.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Did you know that it's still "okay to be white" even if those four words are a "white nationalist meme"?
Did you know that most of us ignore white nationalists and don't care what they think any more than we care what Louis Farrakhan thinks?
Do you have ESP?
Thanks for this. Stories like this make me want to give up on Slashdot. Comments like yours make me want to stay.
...when everything is a crime, everyone is a criminal.
A trade which still exists today in the Middle East:
It still exists here. Once someone is declared a felon, it's legal to enslave them. For example, paying them $1-2/day to fight fires because the wealthy don't want to pay their fair share of taxes so we can't afford to hire enough firefighters.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"Red pill"? go back to 4 Chan, you racist troll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
All of the garbage you're spewing is thinly veiled white supremacist propaganda bullshit.
I don't respond to AC's.
And yet, deficits are projected to be over a trillion next year...and the next...and the next...I guess short term sugar highs are enough to justify the tax cuts in your book.
This is not dissimilar to the Republicans "emergency Appropriations" used to fuel the Gulf Wars in the early oughts. Push paying the piper ahead, and hope the other party is in power so you can blame them.
Enter 2007 and 2008.
And such foolery to claim that the Republican majority instantly fixed the economy. Because the great recession inherited by O'Blama the moment he was sworn in was not his fault, no more the better economy Trump inherited was his doing.
And we are starting to see the start of the Republican results two years in - now we can start judging, Here's a shot across the bow: General Motors is closing plants in Detroit, Ohio, Ontario and Maryland, and eliminating 14,700 jobs, 8,100 of those white collar.
In a move certain to annoy some Trump loyalists, GM is cutting 25 percent of the Executive staff. Sauce: https://www.10news.com/home/ho...
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Sure it is. Totally okay to be white. But it's a pointless white nationalist meme so let's stop repeating it.
It's usually posted in response to people pointing out that white nationalism is bad, even though it's NOT okay to want to establish a white ethnostate. And "most" is clearly not enough when there is open white nationalism on mainstream news channels (Fox).
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Politics is dominated by money.
Trump spent about half of what Clinton did on his way to the presidency.
The internet enabled fake news in a way people were unprepared for.
Which had no discernible effect.
The Democrats were too concerned with doing the right thing instead of winning.
Yeah, right.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Not in the US, I believe.
Loads of subtext unwritten.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Democracy is long dead in America.
A loudmouth bragging rich person who considers himself a self-made man.......how is that not a representation of America? To people who listen to Howard Stern, it's not surprising at all that he won.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
funny seeing all you people who didnt say a word about obama doubling the national debt all of a sudden caring about fiscal responsibility
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Here, we part company. The Tax changes are responsible for GDP growth and great unemployment numbers we have enjoyed over the last few months. The tax "cuts" have predictably caused in increase in tax revenue due to the increase in economic activity, upping employment, raising household incomes and otherwise causing the "poor" to have more money as more of them have jobs who where unemployed and raising the pay of those who already where working.
Sorry but this is absolute horseshit. You're presenting this as an obvious fact but there's absolutely no evidence that these tax changes had any positive impact on what you're claiming. I had some more comments typed up to your other points, but come on dude.
Of course they didn't have any real impact yet. Real impact doesn't happen that quickly.
More likely the effects of the last couple years were just the O'Blama era running down.
As far as unemployment goes, GM might have something to nudge that number https://www.10news.com/home/ho...
Trump sycophant probably should have waited a while before braying about how his gawd made the trains run on time.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Seriously? You think that 2/3rds of the Senate will vote to convict?
The Clinton impeachment was for lying under oath and they had him dead to rights on that charge. But, if you look at the Senate votes, no democrat voted to convict, not even one. In fact, even in the most egregious of cases impeachment, rarely did any Senator vote to convict a president from his or her own party. If history is any guide, you won't be able to turn enough republicans.
Think of the implications for the republicans, from a political prospective. It makes no sense to convict Trump, as it will sink the party's next election for sure to do so. Also, for *most* Senators with an "R" after their name, voting to convict is a sure fire way to lose the primary next time around. They are literally doubly damned if they do.
So public opinion is going to need to sway a very long way away from Trump, which means what ever the charge happens to be it's going to need to be significantly more damning than anything that's come up so far. I'm personally at a loss as to what that could possibly be? Russian Collusion is all Mueller is looking into (supposedly) and maybe this surfaces some finance irregularities with Trump's business? I don't think that's enough, do you?
Think about it.. Trump survived the "Billy Bush Tapes", "Stormy Daniels", and his lawyer's getting sent to jail. What else could there be? His tax returns?
I think this the democrats strategy is awash in wishful thinking and impeachment is political malpractice unless the charges rise above the political fray in a very big way. We will have to see some kind of incontrovertible evidence of seriously despicable crimes to make impeachment stick. I'm talking stuff that simply has no defense, no way to spin out of, no political perspective or posturing possible. I don't think Trump has done anything remotely like that and I don't think tax evasion or paying kickbacks or any number of possible things rise to the level needed. I also think that if the democrats don't succeed in their impeachment efforts and get the conviction, they will be hurt in a bad way in 2020.
So, my best guess here is that the democrats will keep taking impeachment for as long as they possibly can, but they will bury it. They will find nothing of note on Trump (because they'd already have it out in the open if it existed). IF they do choose to impeach, it will be after December 2019, even as late as summer in a vain effort to tie up Trump and keep him off the campaign trail. IF they impeach, they will get creamed in 2020 again, lose the house and even more Senate seats because it will clearly be partisan politics being played and I think the country is growing tired of this kind of thing.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You really need some other issue here.. Impeachment just makes Trump a shoe in.
Worth mentioning here that when Clinton got impeached, it pushed his approval rating higher than at any other time during his presidency. Come to think of it, both those guys have similar styles........not surprising they are friends.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
the buffoon left office in january of last year
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
He's the first pro-gay-marriage President
LMAO take a look at Trump's "pro-gay-marriage" record:
https://www.vox.com/identities...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
whats amazing is that you people keep saying the exact same thing you have said for 3 years and think THIS TIME!!!! the insults will get people to agree with you
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I relise that attacking the United States and its government is a Past time for many but you forget your history, befor the US was the US it was colonies belonging to other powers for example England, France,spanish and it was these powers that brrought the institution of slaverty to Continent of North America long before the Formation of the US or its government. Some of the founding fathers including Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay were ardent abolitionists. Franklin was President of the Pennsylvania society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery (Hamilton and Jay were members) Thomas Jefferson included a passage about slavery in the Declaration of independence. "He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another." It was of course removed to get the signatures of Southern Colonies. Slavery is and was a evil institution but it is hardly fair to place the entire onus of it upon a nation that was strongly divided over it. No offense but many of the citizens of this country that are not of colour have attachment to slavery either My family came from Germany to Flee Hitler's bowl full of crazy, and the one branch that was here were Northern Illinois Farmers who ran a station on the underground railroad.
However you do it, either through Mueller or your Second Amendment rights, please just get him out of there...
A) Mueller cannot remove him from office. There are only two legal means to do that and both require Congress to act. Won't happen.
B) As vile as Trump is, suggesting he be killed is obscene and you are an asshole for suggesting it. Yes I'm aware he said it first but don't sink to his level or lower. I just want him gone, we don't need him dead.
At least it looks as though Mueller might be on track for a classy impeachment setup soon enough after Manafort's lies negating that plea bargain.
While the democrats could impeach Trump since they control the House of Representatives, doing so will almost certainly not result in his removal from office without a 2/3 majority in the Senate which isn't going to happen. So we're stuck with Trump for another two years. The only saving grace is that now there is some viable opposition in the House to limit the amount of damage he can do. (which unfortunately is still substantial...)
My concern is that the democrats won't send up a good candidate and we'll end up with Trump for another 6 years like with did with W. I would have thought that impossible but apparently our country is over run by imbeciles who think Trump is the good guy.
The whole "Nixon's Southern Strategy" is a Democrat propaganda lie. Out of all the Southern Dixie-crats only *two* switched Party from Democrat to Republican, Strom Thurmond and one other I don't recall ATM.
Bullshit. Was Nixon pushing to end anti-segregation busing, or not? It happened, it was a way to appeal to pro-segregation racists without openly using racial slurs. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean they didn't happen.
And on the party switch: the number of *prominent* politicians that formally switched parties was three: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwin. Many others, though, just started supporting republicans nationally, while continuing to call themselves democrats in local politics. And what really matters here is the voters - the South turned from blue to red, and black voters switched from red to blue.
There were actually far more Irish slaves than African slaves, and the Irish slaves were far cheaper and treated far worse as they were much more expendable than expensive African slaves. Where are the Irish-American "Affirmative Action" programs?
First question: are you purposefully lying to further your partisan agenda, or are you just that ignorant? The Irish were indentured servants, not slaves. Two key differences: 1. Servitude is temporary and 2. Servitude is not heriditary (your kids don't become someone else's property the moment they are born). Take your own red pill before spouting more lies.
That's probably because he reduced it you fucktwat
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
he got it because the dems. ran the wrong person that whole Rigging the Primary so she got the nomination thing many have been part of it. People voted against Hillery not for trump
These things always correct themselves eventually, it's just a question of how long and how much pain.
"Always"? No they do not always correct themselves. Countries can and do follow paths that they cannot recover from. I doubt we are there yet but making sure it stays that way is going to take a lot of effort and vigilance and it's not clear if the citizens of the US are up to the task. The mere fact that Trump actually got elected should provide prima facie evidence that we have an alarming number of people with little moral compass and less brains.
False dilemma fallacy.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
He'll do it alright, but that does not mean he likes it. For Mitch kowtowing to Trump is probably much like cleaning the toilet is to the rest of us, we don't like doing it but not cleaning the toilet is worse.
It doesn't really make any difference what he thinks in private, he is a public servant and his public actions - unequivocal support of Trump - speak for themselves. In supporting Trump he shares responsibility for undermining norms and causing severe damage to US reputation and international standing. If there was a crime "Moral negligence causing decline of USA", then Mitch McConnell would be guilty as a co-conspirator.
Maybe not but knowing that praising Trump and sucking up to him makes McConnell gag, like smellimg rotten meat does to the rest of us, is strangely satisfying.
2) Hate Trump as much as you want, but the Slashdot/AP a headline misrepresents what Trump. said. The Slashdot headline: "Trump Says He Doesn't Believe Government Climate Report Finding in a New Low". AP headline: "Trump: ‘I don’t believe’ government climate report finding. Notice where the quotation marks are. "I don't believe" are in quotes but the rest of the headline isn't. I doubt this bit of misleading headline was an accident by the very smart, competent AP editors. And according to the AP article what did Trump actually say? At https://apnews.com/c1dfca3088b... after SIX paragraphs of editorializing we find what he actually said: "The president said he read some of the report “and it’s fine” but not the part about the devastating economic impact. “I don’t believe it,” Trump said, adding that if “every other place on Earth is dirty, that’s not so good.” So Trump AGREES WITH THE REPORT but questions the conclusion about the impact.
That's a lot of words to try and make it sound like the guy who said he didn't believe the report's conclusions (the important part), chose to release the report at an ideal time for minimizing the attention it might get, and has a long history of calling climate change a hoax, believed the report in some way.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Hillary Clinton had decades of hate placed on her. Despite her actions as a moderate, thoughtful public servant, after being first lady. She had decades of Republican Propaganda painting her has this unhinged power mad liberal. Mainly because she was a known political threat for such a long time.
Trump on the other hand just kinda appeared into politics based on his fame, seeming willing to say anything that a lot of people were thinking, and willing to shift the blame to some "other".
Why is coal slowing down? It isn't because Natural Gas became a cheaper alternative, it was Obama Environmental Regulations.
Why is us not #1 in manufacturing? It isn't because the products in demand require different education skills, and access to different resources. But these countries cheating and undermining our value.
A guy known for building landmark buildings, would surly focus on infrastructure and big building projects.
And also we all know once someone becomes president and is shown the actual facts, their approach seems to be more moderate, mainly because the problem is more complex then a stump speech.
We as citizens had decades of being told Clinton was the Liberal Devil, while Trump seems like this guy perhaps overselling himself, would be on the one to shake things up and get things done.
However having 3 Wins in 2 years (Tax Bill, and 2 Supreme court appointments) in a government where all were GOP controlled (House, Senate, Supreme Court, and Executive Branch) A lot more could had been done.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Co-conspirator is appropriate. If that was a bank robbery, Mitch would be a getaway car driver.
More accurately, "buffoon" is an assessment of his analysis of the National Climate Assessment.
Beware of the Leopard.
Assuming what you say is true, you still have to ask if reaching such goal is worthwhile trade off? That is, damage Trump presidency doing to US is undeniable. USA is worse-off internally or internationally than before Trump presidency. There is now credible talk of China replacing US as a dominant superpower.
in 50 years? He won't be around then, and he's arranged it so that the next 10 generations of his descendants will be living the high life no matter what happens to the rest of us. Climate change just means there will be fewer places that are nice places to live, and those places will be more expensive. So what? They already live in expensive places so they can be around other rich folks and away from the riff-raff. That's not going to change.
Also, the tax code is really stealing from the rich to appease the poor. When you look at how much the rich pay in taxes, it turns out that they pay MORE of the taxes than the poor do, with the top few percent paying over half of all taxes collected.
It's actually stealing from the middle class. The top few percent make most of their income from capital gains, paying a lower tax rate (or in some cases, they are able to pay 0%).
For citations, see Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. Is that fair?
Billionaires avoid paying taxes by borrowing. You, my friend, pay much more in taxes than many rich people.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Don't confuse me with facts or reasoned arguments. Orange man bad! I don't like him so nobody should listen to what he said, just what I think he means.
You people are hilarious.
Okay for anyone wanting the whole story. Here is the story on the left. And then here is the story on the right. Now the story on the left is based on this paper.
I highly suggest folks read the paper and then read the stories. This side by side that's being presented as "Oh look, they're contradicting themselves!!" Is massively deceptive and smart people shouldn't fall for it.
This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.
Um, what? That government was abolished in 1865. Yes, the US government still exists. But it is not the government it was 150 years ago. How could it be?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
You responded to a call to remove one white male
The comment in question:
It would be a pretty limp revolution if only one white male could be removed, I see no reason why it should end at Trump.
Call me when you learn how to read.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
That's because doubling the national debt *was* the fiscally responsible action for Obama. Why? Because the economy was in free-fall in the worse recession since the 1930s. The previous president had cut taxes, started 2 wars and increased entitlements (and increased the deficit before the recession started). Letting the economy bottom out naturally would have increased the debt more than trying to cushion it, and would have been a much worse result for Americans (less employment and more hardship). After dealing with the recession, the deficit shrank every year under Obama.
The fiscally responsible thing to do is run a deficit during a recession, and to cut the deficit until you run a surplus in good years. Trump is increasing the deficit during the good years, and that's fiscally irresponsible.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
We have a spending problem. You could tax the rich 100% of their labor and it would put a dent in the deficit.
The boat is sinking and your bitching about which way is better for it to go under. So yeah, tax away. It's all futile
[citation needed]
All this America, America, America rhetoric everywhere makes me believe people forget this county is less than 250 years old -- still in diapers compared to much of the world
Let's compare shall we? This is a meme that the US is a "young" country but it really isn't. The US is actually rather old compared to most of the countries in the world. Don't confuse the age of a country with the amount of time people have been there. Italy has roots as far back as 700BC but the modern Italy we know today wasn't unified until around 1900 so saying Italy is older than the US is more than a little misleading. Having some old buildings built by ancestors doesn't equal being an old country.
The USofA is the oldest constitutional democracy in the world. The USA is the oldest country in the western hemisphere. It is older than most of the countries in Asia - only Saudi Arabia, Oman, Mongolia, China, and Japan have older governments and even then it's somewhat debatable depending on how you define the age of the country. China has been around a long time in various forms but the People's Republic of China hasn't - there are people alive today who predate the PRofC. The USA is older than most of the countries in Europe at least as they are currently organized. The people have been there a long time but the governments as they are currently constituted aren't generally very old.
That is absolutely correct.
But we discuss many theories that seem to have a solid basis as proven as a short hand, until better data disproves and better theory replaces.
emt 377 emt 4
Nice recitation of the Republican apologist talking points. But ultimately, the history of slavery has little to do with the lingering effects of slavery in the 20th and 21st centuries - and whether you want to address them or simply change the subject...
Whether or not actual Democratic politicians changed parties in the South in response to the Republican Southern strategy, it's hard to argue that Democratic voters didn't change their voting habits and eventually their parties in response to subtle and not-so-subtle pandering to their racial fears and prejudices.
So let's restrict our discussion of racial issues to the relevant ones today. Which party is actively attempting to suppress the votes of Black citizens - rather than to court those votes, which is after all an option to them? Which party is still actively courting white nationalist vote - whether or not they actually support a white nationalist agenda.
The Republican party has long been the party of moneyed interests, which pushes its unpopular economic program with a combination of lies, phony think tank-devised 'theories' and appeals to 'conservative' social positions. The Democratic party has to some extent morphed into the 'party of minorities' - based on having lost a large chunk of the white vote to Republicans' pandering. But at least they've retained an economic policy that (in theory - some of the more 'centrist' ones are pretty beholden to moneyed interests, but hey, let's not go down the false equivalence rabbit hole) actually would be better for the working class white voters than what Republicans are implementing (not just peddling).
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
I dunno man, importing foreigners for labour seems to be more of a democrat thing. They love to talk about how we can bring in foreigners to "do jobs Americans won't do".
Importing foreign labor is a business thing. Business want to minimize their payroll costs. You, with your high standard of living and resistance to exploitation, are not what they are looking for.
My uncle, a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, owns a farm in Pennsylvania which covers about 1000 acres. He has Mexicans come up on temporary work visas to work his farm. I asked him why he doesn't hire Americans. He said that they don't want to show up to work at 5:00 in the morning, or they show up drunk, or hungover, or they just blow off shifts. The Mexicans do none of that. They are reliable and work hard.
Americans really don't want to do these jobs. At least not for the pay. And wages are constricted because my uncle has to sell on the open market. So his prices and therefore costs have to remain competitive. Americans just aren't desperate enough. That's not a bad thing, but it does mean they won't wake up at 4:30 in the morning to do hard work. They'd rather leave that to the Mexicans.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I'm sure it's fine, as in fine and well written.
I'm sure he doesn't believe a word of it given he has a long history of openly denying the research of his own government.
What I'm not sure about, but actually certain of is that he has grabbed you hard by the pussy.
No, that's absolutely wrong. It should be "fewer", not "less".
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
And yet, deficits are projected to be over a trillion next year...and the next...and the next...I guess short term sugar highs are enough to justify the tax cuts in your book.
Obama entered office with a country 8 trillion in debt. He left a country 20 trillion in debt.
If you're going to attempt to bash the current administration, try not to be so dismissive of the damage the last one caused.
Actually it was at ~10 trillion when Obama took over and was at ~19 trillion by the time he left office so Obama added about 9 trillion. It breaks down like this:
FY 2010 -> deficit $1.294 trillion.
FY 2011 -> deficit $1.3 trillion.
FY 2012 -> deficit $1.087 trillion.
FY 2013 -> deficit $679 billion.
FY 2014 -> deficit $485 billion.
FY 2015 -> deficit $438 billion.
FY 2016 -> deficit $585 billion.
FY 2017 -> deficit $666 billion.
In addition to this he borrowed money from things like federal pension funds and the social security trust fund that resulted in a deficit of around 9 trillion. As you can see you most of the growth happened in his first term to a large extent (but not exclusively) as a result of the financial crisis caused by deregulation under Clinton/Bush. The debt growth slowed down significantly during Obama's second presidency when he added only ~2 trillion and he added regulations to rein in the worst excesses of the financial system. Your man Trump, aided by the party of fiscal responsibility, has so far added 2.5 trillion in two years and is thus on track to add some 10 trillion in two terms if he gets a second term and he has already systematically dismantled all the regulations Obama set up to rein in the banks. Trump's record so far is (and keep in mind that his raiding of federal pension funds is not in these figures any more than Obama's):
FY 2016 - deficit $585 billion.
FY 2017 - deficit $666 billion.
FY 2018 - deficit $833 billion.
And here is what Trump wants to do:
FY 2019 - deficit $984 billion.
FY 2020 - deficit $987 billion.
FY 2021 - deficit $916 billion.
Anybody notice a certain upward trend there?
From McConnell's perpspetive he ain't doing too bad : he got what he wanted. Conservative judges filling all the vacanices across the country, 2 (and maybe more) ultra conservative supreme court justices and
Yep, and these are the reasons I overlooked the obvious flaws and voted for Trump, and will do so again.
THE FUCKING NEW TAX CODE (ie stealing from the poor to appease the rich).
Here, we part company. The Tax changes are responsible for GDP growth and great unemployment numbers we have enjoyed over the last few months. The tax "cuts" have predictably caused in increase in tax revenue due to the increase in economic activity, upping employment, raising household incomes and otherwise causing the "poor" to have more money as more of them have jobs who where unemployed and raising the pay of those who already where working.
Also, the tax code is really stealing from the rich to appease the poor. When you look at how much the rich pay in taxes, it turns out that they pay MORE of the taxes than the poor do, with the top few percent paying over half of all taxes collected. So, when you consider what's *fair* I wonder how you determine what's fair? We already have a heavily progressive tax code.
My personal reading of the situation is that your ideas about taxes are based on a fundamental belief that having rich and poor people is evidence of unfairness. This is wrong headed thinking. This is looking at outcomes and not recognizing differing effort and ability and refusing to understand that being created equal doesn't imply outcomes are the same. Thus your decrying of the tax code, robbing from the poor, to pay the rich, even when the FACTS are that the rich pay far more in taxes than the poor because we have a progressive tax system already.
You are misinformed.
Tax revenue has been growing for decades, regardless of tax policy. But it is growing more slowly since the most recent tax cuts. https://www.thebalance.com/cur.... Supply-side economics has been debunked for years. It does not work. the only reason the idea lives on is that it serves as a propaganda item for the ultra rich.
The rich pay more in taxes because they benefit more from society's infrastructure. I'm sure you agree that people should pay their fair share.
Finally, you talk about outcomes when people don't start out in the same spot. Being born rich is a massive advantage, in many ways. The outcome can easily have nothing to do with effort or ability. You might have a point if everyone were born into the same circumstances. But that is not the case.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Ivan bots gonna ivan bot.
Take your both sides suck shit and fuck right off with it. You speak like a shill.
Yeah ok ivan
Don't expect logic, there are studies that show that most american's can't do math and can't even understand basic math let alone complex budget and response mechanisms in a 17 trillion dollar economy.
Hell half the country can't even balance their own checkbook let alone understand why when 15% of the country is unemployed tax receipts drop 30% (business recipients drop when income drops), toss in 2 unfunded wars and all of a sudden you have trillion dollar deficits without increasing spending a dime.
On top of that you've got Fox news running a propaganda campaign talking about all the increased spending when outside inflation spending has actually gone down. So these people that don't understand math believe the propaganda and blame the spending on the president. They also believe the new president who immediately cuts taxes 15% when he says the tax cuts will pay for themselves even though it won't. They'll also believe the same president when he blames these deficits next year on the previous president.
As you said the laffer curve is a made up fantasy that doesn't exist but it's made Arthur Laffer rich! He's laughing all the way to the bank as his plans that each Republican follows blow holes in the economy in the hope that someday they can cancel social security and medicare because the deficits are too big from all the tax cuts and "trickle down" economics.
Did you read the bit where I wrote, "Unless the findings are both blatant and utterly damning, it seems unlikely that there will be a 2/3 Senate Majority willing to instigate impeachment" ?
I think we're in vehement agreement...
You are referring to a specific quote. However, T has claimed multiple times that climate change is a "hoax". I've seen nothing in his new statements that show he changed his mind about hoax-ness*. If he disagrees with the estimated costs of climate change, are the accountants/estimators also hoaxers?
I will agree that a more accurate headline about his recent statements would be something like, "T disputes Federal climate change cost estimates". But, the slashdot writer/editor may have been talking in a more general sense when they made the headline. The context is not clear, but headlines are not intended to carry every detail; that's what article text is for.
It looked at low, medium, and worse-case scenarios, if I'm not mistaken. That's the proper way to give such estimates.
* Perhaps he's saying other nations pollute but we don't. So is that a partial hoax? Clarity & consistency is not his strong point.
Table-ized A.I.
We have a spending and taxing problem. The budget was balanced during the Clinton years because taxes were sufficient to pay for expenses, millitary expenses in particular had declined substantially freeing capital to pay down the debt.
But when Bush took office the first thing he did is give a massive tax cut and dramatically increase military spending. We could balance federal deficits tomorrow if we revoked, but the Bush and Trump tax cuts and reduced military spending to 1999 levels. But this has never been about responsible spending, this has always been about running up deficits to the point that the GOP can claim we can't afford SS and Medicare.
"Hey, I just bought the slaves. It's not like I sold them!"
- You, an idiot
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
https://www.armstrongeconomics...
everyone is so worked up about this global warning thing, but the focus should be on the pollution china is doing...
Then you have quite literally convicted the entire human race.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Considering that the vast majority of societies throughout history condoned slavery, it is hardly fair to place the onus of any particular nation. THEY ARE ALL GUILTY.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Good Lord! Would you people pick up a history book? Slavery was rampant throughout human history. Western civilizations didn't invent it in the dark ages.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
However, your verbose hairsplitting is a weak attempt to normalize Trump.
Yes, and?
Trump is normal. That is the point - he's just a normal guy basically, and always has been.
However he get rabid haters that constantly misquote him or literally lie about what he said (as we see here). Taken all together, you get a picture of Trump that is not Trump...
So Trump SHOULD be normalized, so that everyone can understand what he is actually thinking and doing. It's actually demonization that is causing most of the issues because people just shut down instead of talking rationally.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Seeing as the DNC is calling me a bigot and racist and greedy every time they get in front of a camera, including saying I don't deserve any tax cut, fuck them. Never voting DNC again for the rest of my life.
LOL, like you ever voted for the Democrats....
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I don't believe Trump exits, he's too stupid to be true and a hoax! Fake News!!!
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups
The "damage" to the welfare state is not the same as "damage" to the US. China becoming "dominant" is a sad joke. A joke because it is hilariously funny. Sad, because you believe it.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Which jurisdiction pays felon firefighters $1-2/day? Let me guess, none. These are felons currently serving their prison sentence where the non-violent ones get to go out and work under guarded supervision. Some of them you see alongside the road picking up trash. Others apparently get to fight fires.
Naw, the whole southern strategy thing is a complete myth. When actually studied, the voters in the south who voted Republican were the ones who moved in from the North, the new wealthy suburbanites and those who were younger, all groups which were the least racist. The South also turned Republican starting with the least racist states first, not the other way around, the opposite of what you'd expect if it were racist voters doing the switching.
If you give it a second's thought, the idea that the racists in the Democratic Party, who stayed racist in the South for a long time past the Civil Rights bills, would be left by racist voters in favor of Republicans who were the party of abolition and who voted for the Civil Rights bills much more is silly. People don't switch to the opposite party because that party is known to be less-aligned with their views....
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
No, it's easy enough to argue that racist voters in the South stayed with the Democratic Party and those who voted Republican were the ones who moved in from the North, the new wealthy suburbanites and those who were younger, all groups which were the least racist. A couple of professors wrote a whole book analyzing the change in voting patterns and disproved your myth.
The South also turned Republican starting with the least racist states first, not the other way around, the opposite of what you'd expect if it were racist voters doing the switching.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Sigh!
The budget was "balanced" during the Clinton years because the Social Security money was moved into the general account. There was no balance.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Buddy, I understand and share your frustration about Trump, I want him gone too, but what you just posted is riding the razors' edge of the law against calling for the assassination of POTUS, and the Secret Service can and will find you and arrest/question/charge you. I'd advise you be more careful with what you imply in your posts; you can't continue to be part of the voice of opposition against this insane Administration we're being subjected to if you're in a prison cell.
Natural disasters only cost more than in the past because we are richer and have more expensive stuff to get damaged, at least if you believe the science and the IPCC report. The trend has nothing to do with Climate Change, despite this summary somehow deciding to attribute the entire cost of every hurricane to Climate Change, as if there were never any hurricanes before and they don't have any other causes.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
I'm not going to disagree with you. Yep, it's true, his confrontational style and big mouth are not an asset and have done more harm than good..
HOWEVER, that's style and personality. When I vote I'm judging on policy first. Style doesn't override policy in my perspective.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The Russians didn't use slave labor? I don't know, up to the 1980s more or less? And now we have have Slavery 2.0, the penal system.
But seriously, the weather... skies seem kinda hazy all the time now. wonder if it's all that air traffic
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You haven't been paying attention to how your Antifa attacks have gone down, have you?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
'Sharia' is not only a Arabic word, it is virtually exclusively used to describe Islamic law, based on teachings in the Q'uran, to govern secular and non-secular duties. No one I've heard or read to now has ever claimed it would be used to describe any Christian activity or regulation. Save for, remarkably, a few virulent anti-right outlets that are the exception that proves the rule.
No, you're not correct on this.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
believe,at this stage, any word at all that came out of cartoon president Trump's mouth, or tweeted out of his other end?
Those that are counting are saying he's averaging just less than one lie or inconsistent-with-self public statement per day.
Something like 6,400 such statements in 690ish days of office.
Why are we paying any attention at all?
He's a walking self-parody.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
So Trump was made by Fox News?
I seriously doubt any portion of the media has anything to do with Trump's appeal, including Fox News. The vast majority of the media have been gunning to bring down Trump since he announced he was running. They have failed... I doubt Fox News is single handedly responsible for making Trump. I'm also convinced that the media, INCLUDEING Fox cannot unmake him.
The reason? The media cannot undo that which they didn't first do. They don't have the power or influence to make or unmake Trump, which is why they generally detest him.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The Great White Males in this country, who are all aging and long since having become calcified in their ways and attitudes, have been subjected to womens' rights, LGBTQ rights, gay marriage being legalized, women in positions of power, LGBTQ in positions of power, transgender people living out in the open and using bathrooms not corresponding to what their birth certificates say, and, finally, an African American POTUS for 8 years. What they want is to turn the clock back to the mid 1940's, when things were 'sane' (so far as they're concerned), because all the above is so far outside their comfort zone now, that they're practically peeing their pants every single day from the anxiety of being subjected to these things (and more) that they just can't wrap their heads around and accept. Some people don't want progress, some people just want things to stay precisely the way they've always been and never change, regardless of whether that's actually good or not. Ironically, there are quite a few women of the same vintage as these Great White Males who feel exactly the same as they do -- because they are of a generation that was indoctrinated from birth to believe that what the men-folk want is what they're supposed to want, too, and that 'thinking for themselves' will just get them in trouble -- so they just tow the line.
So that's what brings us to where we have today: half the country votes for a loud-mouthed, ill-behaved, Great White Male for POTUS, because he represents past times when Everything Was Still Okay (or so they think; things actually kinda sucked in significant ways. You can't go back!). They stay safely in denial about all the nasty shit he's doing, because the alternative, so far as they're concerned, was so much worse -- and Trump is 'sticking it to the liberals' that they hate so much, so almost anything he does is okay by them, so long as they get their 'revenge' on the 'libtards' that have brought them so much angst and ruined their black-and-white little Pleasantville world.
I will give you this one bit of hope to hang on to though: The DNC now has control of the House of Representatives again; this is the beginning of the course correction that was inevitable. The needle is now starting to swing back left towards the middle. This will continue over the next 2 years, as Trump continues to show his ass to the country and the world, and all but his staunchest, most deep-in-denial voter base will abandon ship, not being able to hold their noses against the stink he's creating. So hang on for a while longer and keep voting Democrat -- or if you're not Democrat, at least vote for moderate Republicans, who have a brain, which is the back-door way to help the Course Correction happen.
I agree with your assessment, except the crap about the Dems running to the left of Sanders. There's no way in hell that'll happen, and I suspect it's more the opposite. The Trump/Russia hysteria has been used by the useless centrists to avoid actually advocating for anything remotely on the economic left.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
There's hundreds, maybe thousands of voices, all with credentials to back them up, that are saying it's right and correct, against his 'word', backed by nothing credible at all. Human-caused global climate change is a Real Thing, and all the denial in the Universe won't change that or bury the evidence anymore. Sadly we may likely not be able to stop it at all now, so we may all be doomed. But I'll be damned if we're not going to smack the shit out of all the deniers who, through their inaction, helped make it inevitable.
After what happened to Kavanaugh, you still question the wisdom of this policy? Just HOW was Kavanaugh supposed to defend himself against an evidence-less claim? How would Pence defend himself? Why does EVERY company I've worked for in the past 15 years have glass sections beside the doors on EVERY conference room? Yes, it is to combat sexual harrasment.
It is not "anti-woman". It is common sense. And WE are just fine with that.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
If I am misinformed, you are engaging in class envy/warfare. There is nothing wrong with being rich.
IF your ideal is that everybody has the same amount of stuff, then you long for socialism and communist government.
I contend that this only makes EVERYBODY but the political elite poor and history is rife with examples of what I mean. The most recent example is just the other side of the gulf of Mexico. Venezuela was once a rich capitalistic society which had rich natural resources. It's been totally devastated by socialism, to the point that in less than two decades it is a total mess, mass starvation runs wild and only the political elite *have* anything. Robbing the rich to give to the poor doesn't work, never has, never will. You will always have poor people no mater what you do with taxes.
So what is your ideal? What does such a society look like? I dare say that unless you are actually honest and thinking, your ideas are unworkable and history proves it, or you are able to accept capitalist ideas actually accrue to the betterment of more people than any other option.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Did you know that there are other supremacists other than white?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
But it's a pointless white nationalist meme so let's stop repeating it..
It's not pointless when other racists are calling for killing white people, just because they are white (see post above), so it bears repeating.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
At the very least there is obstruction. Trump has admitted as much.
What? Obstruction? By doing what exactly?
The firing of Comey wasn't evidence of that. Asking Comey to not investigate Flynn doesn't rise to obstruction, as Comey didn't obey or object to the statement... And, most importantly, we have no official records of what was actually said from an independent third party. It's a He said, he said, situation where there is no clear winner. Trump can effectively spin what ever he said to Comey any way he wishes, and Comey's testimony doesn't override Trump's.
Also, Mueller doesn't have the mandate to investigate this unless his scope was widened. Given that this change in scope would literally require an act of congress (or an improper widening by Rosenstein) I don't think Mueller has anything to do with this.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
âoeI donâ(TM)t believe it,â Trump said, adding that if âoeevery other place on Earth is dirty, thatâ(TM)s not so good.â So Trump AGREES WITH THE REPORT but questions the conclusion about the impact.
The conclusion about the impact is part of the report, QED, Trump does not agree with the report.
At 7:00 am CST we had five up for a postings on slavery and other off-topic comments. This to me suggests that some bots have crept into the "like" system
They were always there.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The whole "Nixon's Southern Strategy" is a Democrat propaganda lie.
Brother, you say an awful lot of wacked-out shit around here, but denying the existence of the southern strategy as democrat propaganda is right up there with the gay frogs and climate denial from you infowars types.
You should let wikipedia know that their article with 110 citations is democrat propaganda
It's just more of the same denialism as they slowly backpeddle when it becomes clear that their current stage makes them look like residents of a loony bin:
All based on the incredibly strong evidence that it would deeply inconvenience some combination of buddies who own oil companies and people who refuse to drive anything weighing less than 10 tons over the incredibly rugged and adventurous terrain known as a city street.
Let me get this correct.. You are talking about Obama right?
The guy who said that 3% GDP growth was never going to happen and we needed to get used to less?
The guy who campaigned for Hillary claiming Trump would kill the economic recovery?
The guy who pretty much blamed Bush for all his economic troubles, who's party had control of the House, Senate AND the Whitehouse for 2 full years yet couldn't fix anything?
THAT Obama ?
Let's see.. GDP growth ABOVE 3% with every indicator that it's sustained growth for the last 18 months? Record unemployment numbers for a number of demographics, including reducing welfare roles and getting more and more people working than thought possible?
I think Obama is wrong.... No, I KNOW he is... He was wrong about many things, he's unsurprisingly wrong about this too.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Tit for tat, if you claim we should forget Democrat support of slavery The Republican party has long been the party of moneyed interests, than please provide examples of recent Democrats that weren't beholden to moneyed interests.... Hillary being the most glaring example.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Yes.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Critical thinking would suggest Hillary would have been better?
love is just extroverted narcissism
For unemployment, one needs to look at the labor participation rate, the number of people working vrs the ones not working. The headline number is only the people drawing unemployment, which doesn't last very long. We've been putting more people to work for the last 18 months with an increasing labor participation rate and pulling folks off of welfare and other public assistance programs.
What's more, average hourly wages are also increasing. More people are working more hours and getting paid more.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
This is Trump level stupid.
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that damage is limited to welfare state? From where I stand, Trump is indiscriminate in damaging everything he touches.
Actually... they were enslaved by other Africans, then bought by individuals in the US. If you're gonna cry about slavery, at least try and get some facts right.
And yet, deficits are projected to be over a trillion next year...and the next...and the next...I guess short term sugar highs are enough to justify the tax cuts in your book.
Where you complaining about this when Obama was in office? I doubt it.
Where I agree that deficits are a serious issue, I openly wonder if you really care about them and how much you are willing to do about them...
AND are you willing to discuss the national debt in total, and forget this deficit only canard. Because until we are willing to actually look at the whole picture, including entitlements and social programs, I'm going to just sit here and watch as you point fingers for political reasons.
I'd welcome a discussion about limiting the federal government's budget. I actually think that if we simply STOPPED baseline budgeting, by setting the baseline to 0% increase across the board, we could balance the budget and start retiring the debt before the end of the decade. But I'll bet that your side of the isle would bellyache and ballyhoo about all the budget "cuts" we where making and we'd hear about starving children and tossing grandma off the cliff in her wheelchair.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Oh no, I don't care about getting fascists to agree with me at all. I'm just stating what happened.
Oh', it gets worst. A guy like Donald Trump, who insinuates assassination of his political opponents, openly asks his political opponents be locked up without sound legal justifications, labels the free press as the enemy of the people, is elected presidents then sends his armed Secret Service agents to the home of a prominent dissident comedian because the comedian's criticism of the president may incite people to violence. And yes, Donald Trump's base still blindly supports him and he regularly showers them with vitriolic campaign rallies.
I will never forgive the Republican party, nor will I forget the devil's bargain between the hypocrite religious conservatives and the morally bankrupt Donald Trump. I look forward to the day when Trump is removed from the White House.
Based on what we found out about the 60s radicals, the ANTIFA members pushing violence the most would be plants working against ANTIFA.
I know. I thought the media and election manipulation offices had everything sewn up for Hillary. I would rather have a woman that bragged about letting a sexual predator go free or had so many close business partners that just happened to commit suicide. That she won the DNC nomination damaged my belief in the democrat process.
It still exists here. Once someone is declared a felon, it's legal to enslave them
I believe the term you're looking for is "prison." You can google it if you're unfamiliar with the term.
It's a sad commentary on our society that that simple statement is considered to be racist.
It is true that some racists have posted that sentence around, but to call the sentence itself racist is a great exemplar of the ad-hominem attack.
Is there such a thing as "Justice Republicans" akin to the Justice Democrats that don't take corporate money?
horror vacui
The Irish were indentured servants, not slaves.
Oh OK. So modern sex slaves aren't actually slaved, they're just "indentured sex workers".
Have fun defending that one at a feminist convention. I'll start writing your obituary.
Sorry, that's how memes work, nothing I can do about it. Same way pepe the frog is now racist.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
When they talk about "State's Rights" and confuse your poor helpless little brain with their propaganda, what they meant was that they wanted their laws from south to apply in other State's. They didn't mean they wanted the state of Georgia to choose the rules in the State of Georgia, what they meant was that when they traveled to a different State, or to a Federal Territory, they wanted Georgia laws to somehow still apply to that traveler, instead of the local laws in the place they they were visiting.
That's an obviously not-workable policy, but it is what popped up out of their politics in the actual past. The North said no, because obviously the State you're in is the State who has the right to determine the local law. And no fucking way that the North was going to let you bring slaves with you on a business trip to a non-slave State. That's just absurd. But to try to make it happen, the southern States sent an army into northern territory, surrounded a military fort, pointed their weapons at it, and then later quibbled about who actually fired the first shot. As if it fucking matters who shoots first when you send an invasion force and point your weapons at a military installation.
The only fight to preserve a threatened culture was that hundreds of thousands of volunteers fought to preserve the United States. And won.
It's said he calls Hannity daily, and they've done rallies together. A former host is dating his son. His tweet topics correlate to what and when things are discussed on Fox & Friends. The joke is that they're 'state media', but really without them his reach is Twitter or less friendly media. Given his low popularity outside his base, and the stranglehold Fox has on his base's source media, they could easily sink him if they wanted to. If he tariffed something Murdock would get impacted by, it'd be "has the President gone too far?" "is he no longer a true convervative" etc etc, then they'd elevate another conservative populist, who'd take the fall if the cult of personality coup failed. If he decides he's done on his own, they'll tout how its "mission accomplished!" "the swamp has been drained" and he can move on to endorsements and host a show or something.
Trump is only president because the elections aren't democratic enough.
Wrong. They're exactly as democratic as they should be.
States elect the President. Not you. Your state can pretend to listen to you, but most only do so to placate you, which is why they almost all have a winner-takes-all system for their electors. States get as much representation in this nation as individual people do. See the house vs. the senate and the wording of the constitution and its amendments. This is by design.
Yea! The election process is too democratic! Who cares what the ordinary people of the country wants! They should only elect who I want to be in charge!
Thats what you just wrote. I just took all the bush beating out of it.
Uhm, you do know that over 2.8mil more people voted for Hillary right? Right?
The people voted for Hillary. The electoral college voted for Trump.
https://www.270towin.com/2016_...
The people don't vote for the President. The electors in the electoral college do.
Will you ever get tired of winning a race that nobody runs?
That does not square with the storms being worse, though.
If everything was the same value/cost as in the past, wouldn't stronger average hurricanes equal greater damage?
Sounds like somebody derp'd and hand-waved right past the math they were leaning on.
Your main mistake, and a common one, was that you didn't figure out what the article was about. You read the headline, and the headline was phrased in such a way that it matched your prejudices, and so you assumed that the content supported whatever claims you might make.
What that article actually says is that global GDP went up, and so (predictably) did the value of infrastructure damaged in disasters; and that if you do the chart showing cost of damage in dollars, it trends up, and if you do the same thing with the chart in percent of GDP, it trends down.
That tells you fucking nothing about how much the increased severity of storms costs. And it doesn't even try to. It merely is showing that you shouldn't rush to judgment about the causes of a trend line going up or down, or just point at charts and say "climate change." But you didn't understand that message at all, and instead, you fucking pointed at it and said, "see, not climate change." Fucking moron! If the lesson says "X is not the correct answer here," that does not imply that the answer is -X.
Oh OK. So modern sex slaves aren't actually slaved, they're just "indentured sex workers".
Have fun defending that one at a feminist convention. I'll start writing your obituary.
Nice job deflecting to a totally unrelated topic instead of, you know, rebutting a single point. As well, you introduced more lies. Sex slaves don't have a legal contract with terms agreed to voluntarily - otherwise, they *would* just be called sex workers, and indeed they are.
The Irish *signed up* for their temporary servitude. It is in no way comparable to the involuntary, lifelong, hereditary slavery of Africans. This whole "Irish slavery" meme is a complete fabrication by conservative apologists, who are trying to rewrite history to fit their ideology.
TFS talked about losses from hurricanes as a sign of the harm we're facing. When, in fact, there is no climate-change related harm from hurricanes. If they get that wrong - how much more do they get wrong?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
...and in many Middle East countries there was slavery until the mid 1970s.
Oh yes - But 'Murrica is the only one people think of when speaking of slaves.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The Russians didn't use slave labor?
I made no claims to putting a comprehensive list together. Point is, mention slavery, and everyone points a finger at the 'Murricans. When in fact, a lot of presumed more civilized nations practiced slavery much longer than we did.
And a huge difference, exemplified by that willingness to only blame us.
We own it. Time for our betters to own up to their sins.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
"The first slave owner in the US and the one who fought a lengthy legal battle through the British colonial courts to make slavery legal was a black tobacco farmer"
Is this some thinly veiled effort to blame slavery on black people?
"The US government and military were not racially segregated prior to President Woodrow Wilson(D) who ordered segregation to be implemented."
Segregated units did exist as far back as the revolutionary war.
"There were actually far more Irish slaves than African slaves"
Even if this were true, does that make it any more acceptable?
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
besides the very end ("A New Low") everything matches what he said. He doesn't believe the government climate report's finding. That seems pretty cut and dry to me.
The rest of your post is just getting into the weeds. The worst case scenario is irrelevant. The best case scenario is catastrophic. That's according to well over 95% of scientists. That number hits the high end of 99.9 when you take out folks who are paid by the oil industry.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
So Trump was made by Hannity now? Give me a break... Not even Rush Limbaugh has that amount of influence. Trump made Trump...
Your confirmation bias is showing. You keep insisting things are true which are not in evidence.
Trump's approval ratings are not that bad, RPC has them at about %44 which isn't all that out of whack if you think Obama's ratings at this time in his first term where nearly identical. Also, Obama lost how many house AND Senate seats his first midterm election? Trump's midterm loss was only a fraction of Obama's. Trump isn't being supported by Fox news, quite the opposite, they are perhaps not as biased away from Trump as others, but they didn't make Trump, they don't have the influence or power to do that.
The media didn't make Trump so it cannot break him, lord knows they've tried and tried. Hannity didn't make Trump and if Hannity leaves the fray it won't unmake Trump. Trump is what he is, the media (fox included) doesn't have enough power and influence to change this. Trump is who he is, he got elected as a novice running his first election in the face of a media that first used him as a whipping boy, as a clown and now as an enemy of their livelihood, they have utterly failed to change Trump or alter in any appreciable way his support as a populist.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Whatever Trump is he has done a great job in drawing lines. By that I mean you know where people stand. The man who does the things you mention for some people is an automatic fail, for others it isn't. It's good to know who is whom.
Nonsense. The fact Trump was elected is our only proof the democratic process is still working. The Republicans clearly didn't want him as their leader, and neither did any of the massive political class in Washington. Tell me, after reading Podesta's emails, that the Democratic party is the one following democratic ideals? I'll laugh in your face. The Republican party is the only one who listened to what voters wanted. And the US government was intended to be by the people, for the people, all the warts of people included. NOT some elite political class who never does anything wrong (or rather, is good at hiding their humanity). Trump has some huge faults, but is not the crazed lunatic you would believe listening to click-bait CNN. Watch one of his press conferences all the way through. Trump has many reasonable, rational points, and the grown-ups in the room manage to have good conversations except for the toddler (CNN) in the room screaming. Those who believe the "crazed idiot" version of Trump are those guilty of taking all their news from Facebook headlines, not doing any research or critical thinking.
Demonizing your opponent is a classic strategy that paints you in a worse light than them. If you believe one side of this equation is evil and doesn't have valid arguments, you are the problem.
First, let's clear the skies. We got a helluva smog problem right now.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Just saying, but your source is severely biased and written by a SJW with a bone to pick (a never Trumper no-doubt). There GP has a valid argument (though he didn't elaborate), which you'd probably acknowledge if you were more open minded.
As someone pretty well read in current events, meaning ACTUALLY READING and not just Facebook headlines from CNN, yes, I can say Trump often does bring a reasonable view to the table. Your comment highlights the exact problem I see, which is people foam at the mouth over Trump but have no idea why, other than very suspiciously skewed media headlines.
I think there was widespread change in attitudes on same sex marriage. The feds capitulated because so many states were changing their laws, and the states were changing the laws because of pressure from voters. This wasn't even a liberal vs conservative issue.
Remember, back when the Moral Majority was a big influencer they really weren't the majority. It did however have enough influence that it could swing a lot of elections, which isn't that hard given how balanced a lot of contests are.
Sorry, I actually read the article. You should try it. We aren't experiencing stronger hurricanes on average, so there is no need to account for that in damage levels or in cause. Here's a relevant quote from the article you either didn't actually read or didn't understand:
Let you claim this is an outdated analysis, here's the most recent analysis of that very thing published in Nature just yesterday. From the abstract:
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder and chaos. Now take this empty glass. Here it is: peaceful, serene, boring. But if it is destroyed [Pushes the glass off the table. It shatter on the floor, and several small machines come out to clean it up.] Look at all these little things! So busy now! Notice how each one is useful. A lovely ballet ensues, so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people, who will be able to feed their children tonight, so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain of life. You see, father, by causing a little destruction, I am in fact encouraging life. In reality, you and I are in the same business.
Except the frequency hasn't actually increased, according to the latest analysis and the other analysis (cited by the previous link in the post you responded to). So no one is forgetting about frequency, nor intensity, but according to the science, neither of those have changed, instead they've been consistent since 1900.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
The surprise was Trump getting past the primaries. They had a lot of solid candidates (and a few wackos). Trump didn't have the majority of Republicans siding with him at the start, but he did have core supporters that were opposed to mainstream politics and enough of them to sway primaries.
And over time it was clear that the media were giving way too much air time to Trump because he was entertaining in a train-wreck sort of way, and giving less time to more serious candidates who were boring. Ie, do you want to tune in to hear about a policy issue of Jeb Bush or tune in to hear what silly thing Trump said? I'm surprised that Trump never thanked the media for getting him elected.
That the Republicans did a 180 and started praising Trump was a surprise too. It just means Republicans don't really have any firm set of ideals except to be opposed to the Democrats. And to be fair, the core Democratic ideals are probably just to be opposed to Republicans as well. The whole concept of political parties is flawed in my view.
Are the average people just not paying attention? I can believe that. Obamacare did a lot of good; health care prices did not rise as high as they could have, but the fact that they rose at all may have convinced them that it was a bad deal. People see 100 people getting jobs and are happy, but ignore that 1000 people from the same company lost their jobs.
That's one thing I do see from many voters - they always blame the current administration for anything that goes wrong economically, no matter how many years or decades ago the trends started. And they always seem to think that the next candidate can magically fix everything through dictatorial powers.
Trump is normal. That is the point - he's just a normal guy basically, and always has been.
Yep just a normal incredibly rich pathological liar from an incredibly rich family.
Don't worrr Kendall, mate, if you just squeeze your eyes and believe really hard how normal Trump is then you too, a normal guy, will also get to be incredibly rich. Because that's totally how causality works.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
There's really no magical solution. It's too complex for a lot of politicians, let alone the general public.
You can get re-elected over and over again for making your county prosper, while doing so at the expense of your neighboring county who's suffering. They'll re-elect you because they're just glad they aren't *them*.
Yes I meant county, not country. Because it doesn't take a very hard look to see it happening right here at home.
My best offering to any community is to band together and become self-sufficient in every sense of the word. At that point your politics will revolve around keeping the status quo, which will be so much better for everyone collectively in the long run.
Keep all the fundamentals available at all times... The lazy will carry on being lazy without being a burden. The curious will go on being curious without the burden of work. The greedy will go on being greedy, constrained within boundaries that don't allow tampering in any way with the status quo. But the fundamentals MUST be available at all times.
I can already think of multiple ways this fails... It's a complex issue.
I tend to rant.
These aren't matters of opinion, these are facts. It doesn't matter who wrote it if the facts are correct. Trump has requested a military transgender ban, elected an anti-gay-marriage judge to the supreme court and many more to federal courts, has taken many opportunities to argue for "Jim Queer" laws, failed to recognize pride month, and disbanded the HIV/AIDS presidential advisory council. All facts, and just a subset of those in the article. And here's an opinon, those last two look like notable gratuitous F-yous to the LGBT community.
The GP's argument is an ignorant question coupled with an unsupported assertion, there's nothing valid about that.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Trump [...] (as a normal person would),
Trump is not a normal person. If the majority were that venal the world would collapse. Trump cares about one thing: Trump. Normal people are uch, much better than that. The fact you insult normal people by equating them to Trump says more about you than them.
Thing is, no matter how "normal" you act, you'll never get to be as rich as "normal" Trump. Give it up and unshackle yourself from that cart.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Yep just a normal incredibly rich pathological liar from an incredibly rich family.
Sorry, normal for a politician.
You'll see Trump hugging the Obamas after he is out of office, just as Bush does today.
Trump was at Hillary's daughter wedding...
Trump is still Trump, was before and will be after. The only thing that changes is the press coverage.
believe really hard how normal Trump is then you too, a normal guy, will also get to be incredibly rich
Actually I do believe in Trump's basic philosophy of success - really hard work. It has in fact worked to me to the point where I am a lot better off than most people on the planet, even though I started with nothing and came from a poor family.
That's what also got Trump the presidency, was relentless travel and stumping. But then if you knew anything about Trump (which was easy to do before he became president) you would know that is normal for him...
Trump is obviously doing something right if he's able to sleep with porn stars and marry models (whatever the order may be) and have giant buildings with his name on them in multiple cities. He may be flawed as a human but I've not seen anything that says he has any worse flaws than any other president to date, and in fact Trump may be slightly ahead of the curve.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
BTW, who would have thought a Climate Change post on Slashdot would devolve into argumentative threads about slavery?
Well, maybe the conservatives begin to think that "slavery isn't bad (and not our fault anyway)" is an argument easier to win than "Global Warming is a hoax".
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Sorry, that's how memes work, nothing I can do about it. Same way pepe the frog is now racist.
Memes die when enough people take a look at it and say, "Well that's a stupid fucking interpretation. Let's ignore it forever."
Impeachment is very unlikely though, as is Trump stepping down voluntarily.
Impeachment is very likely. Conviction is the unlikely part.
There's been a call for House Democrats to pick one of Trump's illegal activities and impeach him for it, then let the Senate Republicans refuse to convict, just to prove to everyone everywhere what Republicans really are. "Rule of law" party my ass...
They're going to have to do better than "Russian Collusion" though. But Trump's taxes are shady enough, that'll be easy.
But to try to make it happen, the southern States sent an army into northern territory, surrounded a military fort, pointed their weapons at it, and then later quibbled about who actually fired the first shot. As if it fucking matters who shoots first when you send an invasion force and point your weapons at a military installation.
Are you talking about Fort Sumter? That's not in "northern territory" by any definition, but rather in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.
And finally, the most recent user of slavery, Germany who employed it until 1945, a mere 73 years ago. Presumably they would have continued to use slave labor except that the British, the Russians, and the Americans stopped them.
It's misleading to say that Germany employed it until 1945. That implies that it was continuously employed in Germany from time immemorial until 1945. In fact, slavery ceased to exist in Western Europe in the High Middle Ages (albeit later practiced in those countries' overseas colonies), and even serfdom was abolished in Prussia (i.e., what became the majority of modern Germany in 1871) in 1810.
Nice job deflecting to a totally unrelated topic instead of, you know, rebutting a single point.
Nice job sticking your head in the sand and pretending that your point wasn't rebutted.
As well, you introduced more lies. Sex slaves don't have a legal contract with terms agreed to voluntarily - otherwise, they *would* just be called sex workers, and indeed they are.
Sure they do. You're completely ignorant of how much of sex slavery operates, just like you're completely ignorant of how the Irish were treated. The issue is rarely the initial agreement; it's in the susequement abuse, and the power which the owner holds over his slaves.
Are you under some fucked up impression that indentured servitude is actually legal?
The Irish *signed up* for their temporary servitude.
Some did, some didn't. Doesn't really matter; signing up to be a slave doesn't mean that you're not a slave.
Maybe you're confused about what the word means? You know, the dictionary can help you out there:
slave
noun
1. a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
it is in no way comparable to the involuntary, lifelong, hereditary slavery of Africans.
It is in many ways comparable. I think the phrase you were looking for is "it is somewhat different". Which would be true. Still doesn't mean the Irish weren't slaves, though.
This whole "Irish slavery" meme is a complete fabrication by conservative apologists, who are trying to rewrite history to fit their ideology.
The whole "Irish slavery isn't really slavery" meme is a complete fabrication by far left lunatics who are trying to rewrite history to fit their ideology.
Horseshit. The SS trust fund was spent in Regan's first term, mostly on SDI. What you talk about happening in the late 90's happened a decade and a half earlier and had no effect on the budget surpluses run during the Clinton years. Go back and read the history because you don't know what happened.
The US ran a total account surplus for a few years leading up to 1999 due to dramatically reduced military spending and fiscal restraint. When Bush took office that was when we had all those congressional hearings about being worried about paying off the debt to fast so they threw together a plan to cut taxes predicated on those surpluses continuing. We call that tax cut the Bush tax cut, 90% of which went to billionaires. The rapid market crash and recession that followed the 9/11 attacks cratered those surpluses and reversed it doing double damage on the deficits that followed. On top of that Bush dramatically increased the military ranks from about 440K soldiers to more than 580K and then started two wars that were paid for entirely with debt.
What had been a rapidly shrinking debt exploded in just a few years after the bush tax cuts and the recession. Then the 90's and early 00 deregulation spree ran its course into the subprime mortgage crisis and subsequent great recession which caused tax receipts to fall by more than 30%. The massive account deficit and recession Obama inherited started his term with a trillion in new debt a year. Obama whittled that down to $500 billion with solid fiscal policy but then stupidly extended the Bush tax cuts and the first thing Trump does is another HUGE $1.5 Trillion tax cut that guts all the progress in reducing deficits and on top of that overrides the sequester deal and boosts military spending another 20%.
The end result is we now have more than $700 BILLION a year in interest payments and the debt is growing by a trillion a year. Military salaries alone account of almost half of military spending now because the number of troops has approached 600K, not even including all the private contractors the government now uses that cost about 10X doing it with their own forces.
I doubt a bunch of monkeys throwing darts and a dart board to determine spending and taxing could have done a worse job than Congress has since 1980.
I'll say it again, both the bush and Trump tax cuts should be abolished, the military full time rolls should be paired down to the late 90's totals and spending on programs and equipment pared back. Overall military spending should be dramatically reduced and the astronomical wasteful spending of the DOD should be dramatically curtailed. The top tax bracket should be increased to 50% or more and several other changes to not only reduce spending but restore the revenue lost to STUPID tax cuts that have done nothing but spiral the debt.
This countries most prosperous decades were when taxation was the highest.
The US has imprisoned the largest percentage of their population, exploiting their labour for profit. With wealthy lobbyists pushing for ever harsher sentencing...
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
The reality is that most politicians are not willing to actually do anything about it - so in practice don't believe it - whilst claiming the opposite.
I didn't say they made him, I said they can unmake him. If you interact with the people that take Fox News reporting at face value much, you'll see that they are very susceptible of emotionally motivated reasoning. That they're chummy means they won't likely turn on him, they can get whatever they want out of him, but he'd be sunk in a month or two if they started acting shocked and betrayed by whatever Trump is doing at the moment. If he realizes this you'll start seeing stuff about making his own network.
You're asking for the President of the United States to be assassinated.
Thanks to Trump, that's the presidential thing to do.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
I've said it before, but it bears repeating. Nobody but Hillary could have lost to Trump. If the Democratic party had run a 35 yr old potato, we'd have a potato-in-chief right now. Imagine how many Republicans voted, holding their nose in distaste, just out of hatred for Hillary. They'd have stayed home in droves if they hadn't been so motivated to vote against her. Gore would have won. Bernie would have won. Even Tim Kaine would have won. I'd have voted for Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice and among the demographic of people who've never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate, I know for certain I'm not alone. I might not have voted for an actual potato, but I'd have been heavily conflicted between that and the third party vote I did cast.
For a decade or more, I voted for Republican candidates because I agreed more with their platform. After observing their self interested voting records and broken promises for a while, that changed. Mostly I voted for Libertarians, and I still disagree with the Democrat platform, but I'm planning to vote in 2019 based on which candidate is most likely to have a chance to vote for net neutrality so hey, congratulations liberals, you got a convert.
Dozens of policies I disagree with have no chance of changing, and neither do the ones I support, so screw standing on principle. I'm casting my next vote based on something I thoroughly understand and have the tiniest hope of seeing change. This is my new philosophy: vote based on any hope you can sustain that something might change, provided you don't actually vomit in the voting booth. I still won't vote for Hillary, but give me Mrs. Potatohead versus the Angry Cheeto and you've got my vote.
His gut worked so well that he's been married 3 times and has had multiple bankruptcies. Captain Covfefe is a moron.
Sounds like your uncle is a traitorous scumbag who has sold out his own countrymen to make a quick buck.
Here's a hint: Americans will gladly do ANY of these jobs. But you're going to need to pay a good wage, provide healthcare, follow OSHA safety regulations, obey labor laws, etc.
I can already hear the bleating: "but muh profits!!". Well bro, if you can't turn a profit without using slave labor I guess you must really suck as a businessman. Shitty businesses go under and get replaced by businesses that CAN make a profit while playing by the rules.
I don't believe it either, I would bet real money that 2050 will be COLDER than it is now, except that I'll be 100, and most likely dead, in 2050.
We did. You're welcome.
That's what every VP since Johnson has been: An assassination deterrent.
Then I guess John McCain was attempting to take that to a whole new level!
But really, presidential candidates do not think that far ahead. They just want a running mate who will swing them a few votes in marginal electorates.
Pence's job was to appease the religious right, who do not normally take kindly to people who boast of pussy-grabbing.
In my experience, the religious nuts have less problems with someone in charge who grabs pussy than with someone who has one.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yea, they were effective at keeping the fascists at bay.
Considering we have an authoritarian as President who loves demonizing his enemies (the press, immigrants to name 2) and people cheering when he does that, I find your comment rather amusing.
That took 2 minutes of effort and I ignored a lot. Seriously, this isn't hard.
I'll shovel that pile back if I where you..
Under Clinton the accounting rules where changed and SS was taken OFF budget. So, the deficit due to SS spending was moved from the federal budget to off the official books. Clinton benefited because SS was a net loss, removing the SS payments from his budget deficient. So Clinton basically did a accounting slight of hand and you guys some how think he was a miracle worker with the budget deficit.
This was roughly the same as you simply deciding to pay the mortgage but not including the cost in your budget. Oh yea, your budget deficit looks good on paper, it went down, but you are borrowing more money than ever before.
What we need to be looking at is total government debt as a % of GDP. In which case, Clinton didn't improve anything and Obama would rate at the bottom of the list of administrations for doubling the already huge national debt.
Trump isn't doing all the much better, but with GDP growth above 3.5% it's not as bad as Obama's anemic sub %2 growth rate. Like it or not Trump is at least headed in the right direction with the total debt as a % of GDP by slowing the rate of growth. Rome wasn't built in a day but if we can sustain 4% GDP growth and keep the budget growth under 3%, eventually, we will lower the national debt as a % of GDP. If we can do this w/o too much inflation, even better, but I doubt we can avoid that given we have pretty much reached total employment now and GDP growth will be driven by productivity gains from now on.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
We have a spending problem. You could tax the rich 100% of their labor and it would put a dent in the deficit.
The boat is sinking and your bitching about which way is better for it to go under. So yeah, tax away. It's all futile
Shrinking the military budget would go a long way.
A long way to what?
First, the military is one of the few actually mandated responsibilities of the Federal Government outlined in the Constitution. Of all the things the Fed does, this "provide for the mutual defense" of the states should be a priority.
Second, the money spent on the military is actually necessary, unless you want to advocate we depend on an isolationist foreign policy. The US military is a huge force for good around the world, we keep evil forces and countries intent on domination in check. I remember throwing Iraq out of Kuwait back in the 80's, I understand that our forces in South Korea keep a tin pot dictator intent on conquest at bay. I also know that our forces in Europe keeps the Russian's at bay. There are many historical examples of the US military doing great things for the world.
Third, like it or not, military force is what keeps us free and productive. Keeping the conflicts of the world "over there" has huge economic benefits for us here at home.
From my perspective, the military is worth every penny they spend and every dime they waste.
Then there is the whole "How much does the military actually get?" argument. It's what? About 20% ? You won't be able to make up the deficit even if you deleted the whole military part. $600 Billion just doesn't go that far these days where we have $1 Trillion deficits.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The whole "Irish slavery isn't really slavery" meme is a complete fabrication by far left lunatics who are trying to rewrite history to fit their ideology.
Really? Then why does "Irish slavery" not show up as a term in, you know, ANY historical documents? All those far left lunatic historians must have destroyed the evidence in a massive coverup!
The reason that indentured servants are not called slaves is because they are *not the same thing*. Is indentured servitude a good practice? No. Was it ethical to use it to abuse the Irish? Of course not. But is it slavery, or in any way comparable to the treatment of Africans as cattle? No fucking way. We have different words for the practices for a reason.
Indentured servitude is slavery in the same way that cubicle work is imprisonment. In both cases, you spend a lot of time in a confined area, but in one case, you are forcefully put there against your will.
And I'm saying that if they didn't make him, they cannot unmake him.
The problem here is the Trump defies the conventional political logic in almost every way. He never should have won the nomination, never should have won the presidency. The media was biased away from him from the start, INCLUDING Fox. I remember many times where the Fox punditry was proclaiming that Trump was done, washed up, fading away, could never win throughout the campaign. Conventional wisdom says he would lose, and lose badly.
But he didn't lose. Why? The media didn't make him. If they didn't have a hand in making him, how can they unmake him? Haven't they been trying to scuttle him for 2 years now? Why have they not succeeded? Because they are not why he won or lost, they are powerless over him.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
First, let's clear the skies. We got a helluva smog problem right now.
That's the Chemtrails. Hellary is behind this - she's put emasculation chemicals in the jet fuel. Not to mention the mind control poisons in the fire retardant from the firefighting planes. They don't call it retardant for nothing.
I should really stop writing that stuff - I bet I've inadvertently launched a dozen or more conspiracy theories.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It's misleading to say that Germany employed it until 1945. That implies that it was continuously employed in Germany from time immemorial until 1945
Nonsense. That would mean that it was misleading to say that the US employed it until the Emancipation proclamation. The US had only existed for a little under a hundred years. The metric isn't time immemorial, it is that an existing government employed it.
The national Socialists employed it until they were stopped. The US employed it until the north took first place in the US Civil War. That is all.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Nonsense. That would mean that it was misleading to say that the US employed it until the Emancipation proclamation. The US had only existed for a little under a hundred years. The metric isn't time immemorial, it is that an existing government employed it.
"Time immemorial" was a rhetorical flourish. My point is that "until," without a corresponding "from," implies "from the beginning," or at least "from a very long time previous." In America, there was indeed slavery from very close to the beginning of English settlement, and certainly from the beginning of the country. That is why it would be correct to say that America had slavery "until the 13th Amendment." (Not until the Emancipation Proclamation -- slavery remained legal in Unionist slave states such as Maryland, even after the Emancipation Proclamation.)
On the other hand, slavery in Germany ceased to exist for many hundreds of years, before being revived for about 6 years. Someone reading your statement, but otherwise ignorant of the context, would understand you to mean that in the Weimar Republic of the 1920s, one could find slaves in Germany. That is most certainly not correct.
But nevertheless it's extremely concerning that 63 million people thought that a racist, sexist senile fraud of a "businessman" was the best person to lead the country.
When your choices are: The same old shit or shit with new twists, which shit do you think will be chosen when people are tired of the same old shit?
I am confused about why you think anyone voted FOR Trump. I have not heard many people say anything good about Trump, so I really doubt that many people voted FOR him. From my point of view, it looks EXACTLY like everyone rejected Hillary Clinton and due to the two party system, what came out was Trump. Disgusting eh?
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Sounds like your uncle is a traitorous scumbag who has sold out his own countrymen to make a quick buck.
Here's a hint: Americans will gladly do ANY of these jobs. But you're going to need to pay a good wage, provide healthcare, follow OSHA safety regulations, obey labor laws, etc.
I can already hear the bleating: "but muh profits!!". Well bro, if you can't turn a profit without using slave labor I guess you must really suck as a businessman. Shitty businesses go under and get replaced by businesses that CAN make a profit while playing by the rules.
It seems like you missed this part: "I asked him why he doesn't hire Americans. He said that they don't want to show up to work at 5:00 in the morning, or they show up drunk, or hungover, or they just blow off shifts. The Mexicans do none of that. They are reliable and work hard."
It also seems like you missed this part: "And wages are constricted because my uncle has to sell on the open market. So his prices and therefore costs have to remain competitive."
The commodities markets are world wide. My uncle has to compete with farmers in other parts of the world where labor is much cheaper. His selling prices are constrained by that. And he is playing by the rules. His Mexicans come here legally. I don't know if he provides health care (though he does pay their room and board while they are here) but he does comply with OSHA and other labor laws. This is all legal, bro! No slave labor involved. The fact is, Americans largely don't want to do these jobs. Why would my uncle go to the trouble of getting these Mexicans if he could just hire locally?
I understand your sentiment, and I used to feel the same way. But the realities of Capitalism simply don't work that way. The world is not a just or fair place, as it is currently managed and configured. That pisses me off too, but fighting reality is a losing battle.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
illegal immigrants are modern slaves. Got it.
Yeah, they sort of are. But I am not talking about illegal immigrants. The Mexicans my uncle hires come here legally.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
> He said that they don't want to show up to work at 5:00 in the morning, or they show up drunk, or hungover, or they just blow off shifts.
Mexican culture has a long history of alcohol consumption, so I'm not sure if that one is quite accurate.
Are you saying you know more about my uncles employees than he does? I'm not sure how that could be the case. I'm just telling you what he told me when I asked.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
The fiscally responsible thing to do is run a deficit during a recession, and to cut the deficit until you run a surplus in good years. Trump is increasing the deficit during the good years, and that's fiscally irresponsible.
Weird how Congress rarely gets the blame for deficits or other economic issues. If I recall correctly, Congress controls the purse strings and the President either approves or disapproves of the budget. Trump can say anything he wants and it doesn't matter as he doesn't control the allocation or amounts of any money, Congress does.
So how is Trump doing ANYTHING to the deficit or surplus. Am I misunderstanding the roles delineated in the Constitution? Does the President control the purse strings?
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Hurricanes are not a function of global warming -- they've been occurring at least since 1970
The ability of some people to out-stupid themselves on the internet never ceases to amaze me.
Be nice. The OP is NOT wrong... even if it is a very weird thing to say and has no logical use. ;)
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Critical thinking would suggest Hillary would have been better?
I've said it many times before, and I'll probably have to say it many times in the future. As much as I dislike Hillary, and the status quo which she supported, both were superior to the current situation. I supported Sanders, but the DNC spoiled his chance to become president and we ended up with Trump. Worse, at least up through the midterms, there's substantial evidence that the DNC completely failed to learn their lesson. They don't seem to understand that they're going to have to go further left, not try to appeal to centrists, but perhaps the new blood will help them figure that out.
So yeah, Hillary would have been better. Still bad, but less bad. Trump isn't going to help crash the system, Trump is the system. To the extent that he has succeeded in changing things, he's been doing things the Republicans have been trying to do all along. Consequently, there's not even a silver lining, unless the DNC is actually changed by the insurgence of democratic socialists. I, however, am not planning to hold my breath.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Weird how Congress rarely gets the blame for deficits or other economic issues. If I recall correctly, Congress controls the purse strings and the President either approves or disapproves of the budget. Trump can say anything he wants and it doesn't matter as he doesn't control the allocation or amounts of any money, Congress does.
Maybe I've misunderstood the real process of the American budget, but it was my impression that the White House writes a budget and then submits it to Congress, where it is read, debated, and possibly modified and then eventually sent back to the White House for signing.
So how is Trump doing ANYTHING to the deficit or surplus. Am I misunderstanding the roles delineated in the Constitution? Does the President control the purse strings?
If the Trump administration wrote the budget, shouldn't they get both the credit and the blame for the budget?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I am confused about why you think anyone voted FOR Trump. I have not heard many people say anything good about Trump, so I really doubt that many people voted FOR him.
We call that confirmation bias. Step outside of your bubble, people who actively support Trump are all around. You will find them in the comments section. Hell, you will find them here. They are not a majority, the majority doesn't give a shit about politics, but they are not scarce either. Trump's victory emboldened them and they began to speak up more. I'm jealous if you haven't run into them personally. I live in Mendocino county, CA, and there's no shortage here. That's probably because there's so many people with money here.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'm aware of all this, but the vast majority of those people in prison aren't just innocent bystanders that did nothing wrong. You don't just get "declared" a felon...you have to do something to earn that title. I don't agree with all the U.S. policies regarding jails, but the people that are in there are in there for a reason.
Rather than impeach it would be better if he gets bogged down in a legal quagmire where his own people abandon him and he can't do much damage.
A legal quagmire... like impeachment proceedings?
The best thing to do would be to [appear to] attempt to impeach him and then drag it out well into the election.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So how is Trump doing ANYTHING to the deficit or surplus.
Those Tariffs that you Trump-lovers adore so well are costing us money, not least because Trump is having to spend our money to bail out the immediate victims. Of course, all of us are long-term victims, but Trump is getting himself out of debt by staying at his resort every weekend so it's all gravy to him.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Voters didn't like the impeachment of Clinton, it didn't help the Republicans. What I'm saying is that it would be better for the Democrats to stay out of it and to let prosecutors deal with him, maybe just assisting with some subpoenas.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
White nationalist meme because a Newsweek article quoted a single tweet? Talk about fake news. Why is it fine to say "It's ok to be brown" or "It's ok to be gay" but not "It's ok to be white"?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Or you could take it straight from the horse's mouth:
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
But I increasingly suspect that you knew exactly what you were doing...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
What the fuck is your point? Those people are all dead. No living Americans have ever legally owned slaves, nor did their parents. I highly doubt that anyone alive today even had a grandparent that owned a slave.
You want to act all modern? How about you drop the blood-debt bullshit, fuck face.
Did you actually read it? The "hate crime" is making SJWs reveal their hate for white people.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Either your understanding is wrong or mine is.
Congress allocates the money, the President spends the money.
Apparently, it is more complex than that: https://www.nationalpriorities...
TL;DR, The President submits a Budget Request. This budget request is then used by Congress when deciding an actual budget. Again, Congress is still to blame.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
I don't speak to many people in person. My understanding of the "outside world" mostly comes from viewing comments on the Internet. I saw more support for Bill Clinton and/or Ronald Reagan than I have seen for Trump. I am certain there are actual Trump fans out there, but I have not really met one yet. The only impression I am left with is that Trump won because Clinton (Hillary version) was utterly unacceptable.
Seriously though, after there were two Bushes as President, if there would have been two Clinton's I would have started the Revolution myself. Out of 360 million people, Presidents are only coming from two families? Fuck that nonsense. At least we can pretend there is not an Aristocracy now.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
My instant reply to you is that the fucking President doesn't have the authority to implement a tariff. That is purely the job of Congress... but
"Raising taxes and tariffs is usually Congress’s job. But on Thursday, President Donald Trump officially raised tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, despite widespread opposition from Republicans in Congress — and it was completely in his right to do so.
Trump signed an executive order calling on the Commerce Department to impose a 25 percent tariff on steel imports and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum. His reason: Foreign countries’ current trade practices with the United States are a threat to national security.
By law, that’s enough of a reason to bypass Congress altogether."
Taken from: https://www.vox.com/2018/3/8/1...
And now I am fucked up. Where is the fucking Constitution? Why is it being abrogated and derogated constantly? Is the Rule of Law a quaint notion from a simpler time? WTF is going on?
that you Trump-lovers adore
Ummm.... why are you calling me a Trump lover? Congress is responsible for tariffs. I was not aware that the Constitution had been subverted in that way. I place the blame where it belongs, not where I wish it would be.
Can you explain something to me please? Why do so many people, apparently including you, make assumptions where there is no reason to do so? What I mean is this: I pointed out that Trump is not supposed to be blamed for something and I get called a Trump lover? I am not seeing a connection. We are supposed to be dealing with reality, not rewriting reality to satisfy our inner desires. I mean, if you twist words, you could say I was defending Trump, but what I was really doing is impeaching Congress... and yet you still chose to see that as defending Trump and assuming I am a Trump lover. WTF? Where is the logic in that?
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
I should know better than to reply to Anonymous Coward... but, Trump is not in full control. He may be the most important person in the party, he may have absurd levels of influence, but he is NOT in control and individual members of Congress are absolutely required to vote their conscience, not along party lines. Yeah, I know it doesn't always work like that and the issues are even more complex than what I have described, and yet, what I have said is still true.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
It's a message created by white nationalists that serves no real purpose other than to remind people that white nationalists are watching for negative reactions. And you post it and defend it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I'd just like to see them stop being a bunch of destructive racist asshats, that's something they could choose to do.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
What I mean is this: I pointed out that Trump is not supposed to be blamed for something and I get called a Trump lover? I am not seeing a connection.
It's stuff he's responsible for. He pushed for it, he got it. Now you want to give him a free pass for it. Making excuses for him when they're unwarranted makes you a Trump lover. Hope this map is clear enough for you to find your asshole.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Making excuses for him when they're unwarranted makes you a Trump lover.
On the bright side, now I know how it works. On the dark side, I have found that you are an idiot.
What part of "Congress is responsible for tariffs" do you NOT understand? I understand HOW you could think that the idea of Congress being responsible for tariffs equates to defending Trump, but all that does is paint you as an idiot.
Hope this map is clear enough for you to find your asshole.
Ah. An idiot AND a jackass. Nice combo.
I have seen you around for years and I have never detected that you were so ignorant, so I rarely paid any attention to the insults others have thrown your way. You have now demonstrated that you are capable of intentionally being an idiot and I will discount anything further that you have to say.
I honestly never expected you to be so short sighted that once you made an inaccurate judgement, that you would stick with it in the face of evidence to the contrary. Why? Do you really hate Trump THAT much to see Trump lovers everywhere?
Surprisingly, I am disgusted by your behavior, but I do hope to see better/smarter behavior from you in the future. Good luck.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Ah, the difference between 'I wish... ' and 'I would'.
I wish some laws reflected my faith, but I know that's actually not right. So I don't ask for legislation. And after all, Christianity doesn't rely on laws, but on repentance. Legislation solves nothing of faith.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
What you are saying is absolute bullshit. It's pretty clear who the racist is here.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
You are changing the subject. GP was talking about the dollars collected from the rich, not the rates they pay. When someone like Buffet pays 13% or whatever on $1 billion, or $130 million, that's orders of magnitude more that his secretary pays at 30% or whatever her rate is.
GP's point is accurate. The top few percent pay over half of all taxes collected by total dollar value, even though the rate may be lower due to various incentives built into the tax code. Whether that's fair is a different discussion, but the rich pay the same rate their secretaries do on the first $X they earn in regular income up to the secretaries' total income.
It's pretty clear who the racist is here.
Well I can agree on that.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I live in rural Tennessee. I hear that same lazy American shit all the time. It's their excuse that sounds good to others, to the news people, and to the politicians. Bottom line: He doesn't want to pay for Americans. Period, sorry, international market competition be damned. The market isn't his problem to solve, those rupublicunts he keeps voting for made those policies and it's not gonna be fixed by anyone but them, so it's unlikely to be fixed. There's a reason "Americans just aren't desperate enough", we stopped letting greedy cheapskates like your uncle fuck us over.
Oh look, another one who didn't absorb this part: "He said that they don't want to show up to work at 5:00 in the morning, or they show up drunk, or hungover, or they just blow off shifts. The Mexicans do none of that. They are reliable and work hard."
My uncle did hire Americans. The people who applied for the jobs proved unable or unwilling to show up to work on time and in a condition to do hours of physical labor. I only know what he told me, and I don't know what else to tell you.
As the other AC told you, ignoring the market conditions in which you operate your business is not a way run a successful business. My uncle cannot just say, "Fuck the market, I'm going to pay my people $30 an hour because it's the right thing to do." He runs a business, not a charity. And he would not run his business long if he ignored his revenue relative to his costs. The market is not his problem to solve, but it is his to contend with.
Where I agree is the he continues to vote for this crap. I love my uncle, but we do not agree on political matters. He voted for Trump, and I think Trump is a dangerous ignoramus. Rural America is kinda like that though; voting for Republicans. I did not write my initial post to defend Republican voting. I was just trying to illustrate that the matter is not as simple as, "Pay a decent wage and plenty of Americans will do these jobs." I used to think that too, but after talking with someone with first-hand knowledge of the subject I now see that it just isn't that straightforward.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
ummmm no he really didnt reduce the national debt......
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Keep backing Trump you fucking genius.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
That says more about the limitations of your memory than the reality of climate change -- Katherine Hayhoe - one of the recent climate report authors (who was paid $zero for her contribution) writes: "...the president then said that he “didn’t believe” the report. But climate science isn’t a religion: it’s real, whether we believe in it or not. If our decisions are not based in reality, we are the ones who will suffer the consequences." See her pushback here -> https://t.co/OufAyRWY1Z
"The market is not his problem to solve, but it is his to contend with."
Yup. Our trade and immigration laws have created a race to the bottom, as a matter of public policy. You're right, your uncle is running a business. He has no choice, he must try to win the race to the bottom.
But that doesn't really make his employment discrimination against Americans any less scummy, you know? People are right to be angry. And what a sleazebag - slandering the mass of his countrymen as lazy! Because he won't pay a living wage, so he can hire only convicts and hobos.
President Trump SAYS he wants to improve the immigration and trade policies that have wrecked our economy. Now sure, maybe he is lying, or maybe he won't be able to get the changes through Congress, or maybe the changes will be ineffective. Sure.
But the alternative is the Democrat and Republican Establishment. Who SAY they want MORE OF THE SAME policies that have been an absolute disaster for American workers.
pointing out that obama did not in fact reduce the national debt is not backing trump lol how stupid are you anti trump people
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Ah, the difference between 'I wish... ' and 'I would'.
I wish some laws reflected my faith, but I know that's actually not right. So I don't ask for legislation. And after all, Christianity doesn't rely on laws, but on repentance. Legislation solves nothing of faith.
It is possible that is true, but there certainly have been laws on the books in the US that are "faith based". Sunday shopping laws come to mind:
https://www.newyorker.com/busi...
When a politician says "I wish there was a law saying x-y-z", unless they immediately qualify the statement by saying "but I know that would be a bad law so I would never act to implement it" or something similar, I do think it is fair to worry that they might work to make it come to pass.
Yeah, I understand that statements on the campaign trail often come to naught, but to dismiss what a candidate says before the election seems stupid. If they say they want to do something stupid, immoral, or repugnant, maybe we shouldn't elect them, even if it seems unlikely that they would ever do that sort of thing.
Maybe if we had more ranked-choice ballots available, we would get better options and end up electing better candidates: https://www.fairvote.org/
Those were known as 'blue laws'. There was a time you couldn't actually do much in much of American on a Sunday.
But all legislation is someone's morality. Any law is spawned by perceived need, which may be 'real' to a majority, or by a desire. So blue laws were eventually mostly abandoned in the US. So also, since all politics is local, religious displays have been removed across the country, mostly from 'public' property', in deference to the requests and assertions of minorities, that this constituted a government-sponsored or endorsed establishment of religion. Some would argue that this is only because there is no competing or alternative display either permitted or extant, which strikes me as arguing 'If I don't, you can't either'... But this is accepted as observing the principle put forward of a 'separation of church and state', which some propose is 'church subservient to state'. An argument ongoing. Not many candidates have promised to remove religious symbols from every public venue, so they have no specific promises to honor or be held to, but if you examine 'religion' as less commonly but well defined as "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance", you can see much that would meet that definition, and much of it is not merely permitted by government, some is pursued by governmental powers.
One reason I reject the ranked-choice voting method is the result of the California experiment in free primaries, the 'jungle primary' system. If states hold primary elections to permit political parties to choose nominees for a general and final election, why would you permit members of a generally regarded as an opposition party to have any direct say in 'your' party's process? Really? Would you permit the head coach of the opposing team join your planning meetings? Would you share with the batter the signals you give to your pitcher? At the bridge table, do you lay your cards down before you bet? My concern with ranked-choice is that it defers a final, definite decision to multiple layers of decision making. It purports to solve the 'problem' of candidates not reaching a plurality, or even winning with a paucity of votes. But most American jurisdictions hold elections decided by the most votes won of the whole. The complaint that 'spoilers' unduly influence the result doesn't convince me - this affects all political spheres, and ranked-choice does offer a way to diminish the spoiler effect, but it actually empowers it to get past the first test. Since ti still results in a single winner, ranked-choice doesn't lift up marginal candidates, it just leaves them being counted twice and found wanting. Twice.
It's seeming that there's a movement to institute ranked-choice to solve the 'problem' of close results. If we cannot count slips of paper, discern the marker/crayon/ink marks on them, and determine the results of the exercise, we should reconsider our competence in such simple matters, and go back to simpler methods. Really, we can't count votes? Watch - many of the contentious elections are only so because of fraud. Sad, but to claim that politics is rife with corruption in every area EXCEPT vote counting is naive on its face.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I've never understood why anyone but card-carrying, dues paying, party members would have a say in who a party nominates to run in an election. Is there anywhere other than the US where the general public gets a say in who the party nominates? Do the Libertarians, Communists, Greens, or other "3rd party" groups do things differently?
One thing that ranked voting does well in my opinion is to change the mindset of voters to one of "picking people you agree with" rather than "avoiding people you dislike". There is much less of an incentive to do the meta-analysis of "which candidates have a reasonable chance of wining, and how should I vote in light of that analysis?". Eventually, it seems like successful candidates would be incentivized to develop wide-spread appeal and that voters would feel more engaged and represented. Getting to express your opinion when voting rather than holding one's nose to pick the "lesser of two evils", even when the final result is that "one of the two evils" ends up being elected, in my mind, would be a good thing. I think the political climate of the US would be very different if the 2016 election had been voted on using ranked ballots even if the outcome was the same - it would be much easier to feel that "the will of the people" had been invoked if people had been able to express their actual desires rather than the "this is who I will vote for given how I expect other people to vote" decisions everybody needed to do.
Anyhow, hopefully the Maine election will give some positive US experiences in "different" voting methods that will inform future changes. Since we seem almost incapable of learning from other countries' experiences, learning from inside the US might be our only hope.
https://bangordailynews.com/20...
Dum dum duh duh duh duh duh, dum dum duh duh duh duh duh Fraud BUSTERS!
When you've got a prez... and he's crook-ed, who you gonna call?
BOB MUELLER!
etc.
So funny that almost kinda sorta works.
Remember, everything Little Tiny Donny has ever said is, statistically speaking, probably a lie. Also, it's usually projection. Just the other day he was calling Rex Tillerson, who, if I recall correctly, called HIM a... and I quote, "FUCKING MORON" dumb as a rock and lazy as hell.
The guy who is a drooling submoron and who has never worked a day in his life, who is so full of shit he makes Bill Clinton look honest, so stupid he makes George W. Bush look like a genius, calls the former head of a REAL multinational company, (not a phony one like his own,) dumb and lazy.
THIS. IS. PROJECTION.
Lady Liberty is being raped and the Republicans don't give a fuck, because it's their guy doing it. Remember that next time they pretend they're patriots.
Moderation: mod me down now and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine. J/K... but you will burn up a mod-point for no reason, which is just stupid. No one is still reading this story. Trumpheads (or shitheads, as most people call them,) are not merely immune to facts, they're living in their own private, personal version of reality in which up is down, black is bad, orange is white, lies are truth, crimes are only committed by criminals, by which they mean people they don't like, and the law is whatever they want it to be. This, and not any one act by Donny Dipshit, is what is killing the republic. This whole thing only ever worked because we could all agree to abide by the results of free and fair elections, and we don't have those anymore. America has cancer and it's metastasized. It's turning into a banana republic, and it's the repulsive Republican party that's responsible. Corporate "Democrats" share some of the blame for being week, feckless, and unable to inspire people to come out and vote because voters know they're BOUGHT-OFF by their corporate owners, BUT it is the Republicans who are principally responsible for the death of the republic, because they don't care if the so-called 'president' is a crook, as long as he's THEIR crook. And he is.
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.