depends. has he admitted any mistakes and apologized and been contrite yet? how about that "trump university" scam? has he admitted wrong doing and deceit and refunded money?
or is he instead trying to intimidate the judge presiding his case, just as he attacks anyone who points out his past mistakes?
if the latter, then yes it still matters. forgiveness is earned.
He should go down already, for trying to use his position as a candidate to intimidate a judge presiding over his case.
Even worse, that judge has already decided in Trumps favor several times, most recently in agreeing to postpone the trial date until after the election, just as Trump has requested.
slap yourself until the stupid falls out. across the entire company it may approximate a bell curve, but the reviews aren't being done company wide, but at the individual team level. and at that level the entire process breaks down.
you keep describing yourself. psychologists call that projection.
back in reality, the only one saying you are right...is you. the ones saying we are right includes most of the most respected economists talking about these things. I suggest getting your economics from actual economists. you'll be wrong less often.
no that's not how it works. that god awful argument has been debunked so many times its not even worth getting into yet again. but simply there wouldn't be some new massive supply of money; its no different than MW increases, which occur traditionally in response to inflation, not as a cause of it. inflation occurs on its own in a growing economy. and the plea of "million dollars" isn't even a legitimate question, these things are always tied to cost of living and right now that's no where near a cool million.
plus, the UBI already exists in a different form. we call it the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Tuition did not rise because of student loans. The loans came into existence and rose because tuition did. Tuition rose because most state colleges used to be tax supported with the students contributing only a small portion in tuition. but in the tax cutting frenzies of the 70s and 80s that support went away. this happened at the same time that college sports began growing tremendously, eating more and more of the school's budget, further inflating costs (sports weren't only thing though; expanding programs contributed too, as people began maligning the idea of a "generic college education" ie liberal arts, and wanted more vocational-in-everything-but-name type degrees).
all of which upped costs, nearly all of which is now passed on to students. that what raised tuition: the loss of tax dollars.
as for the inflation angle, its no more true here than it is when arguing against increasing the minimum wage. and for the same reason: you got it backwards. in a healthy growing economy the cost of living is continually rising. it becomes detrimental when it rises faster than the minimum wage, which causes people to get left behind.
thus, increasing the minimum wage doesn't cause inflation. rather, increasing the minimum wage is necessary in order to keep up with inflation.
IE, an economy that has recovered from the largest economic crash ever (larger than the great depression, but better sustained because we actually had saefty nets this time around), 74 consecutive months of economic growth, largest US economy of all time, wall street at record levels, unemployment at lowest rate in over a decade.
Simply put, the economy has rarely been better than it is right now. By these metrics, Obama is the worst socialist ever.
and if you're trying to limit it to just "culture"....well, some people are opposed to expanses in civil rights. we call those people bigots. or fools.
and frankly both apply to any person who thinks the past 8 years were a bad thing. in fact, the only thing that held them back from being even better was the GOP led congress that has stood in the way of progress for the past several years simply because there was a black guy in charge.
the better comparison is that we survived 8 years of bush. and spent the last 8 years picking up the pieces.
Immigrants, undocumented or otherwise, tend to be either very low skilled or very high skilled. Day laborers and janitors, and doctors and professors, etc. And because americans tend to be neither, but rather tend to be in the middle, neither very low skilled no highly skilled, because that's what our schools and economy excel at cranking out.
so the graphs of the two workforces (if plotted as population vs labor skill level) are total opposites, and the result of their combination is that they don't take our jobs, rather they only ever compliment the American workforce. and suddenly removing them wont lead to suddenly employing more American citizens.
and that's before considering that with unemployment now going well below 5% we're getting very close to maximum employment (much lower is actually a negative for the economy as it indicates several undesirable things, such as lack of employment mobility or opportunity, most which indicate or lead to economic stagnation).
and all of that is completely ignoring the massive economic stimulus from their presence (~10% of the US economy), let alone the tax dollars they contribute at all levels (fed, state, local) without receiving nearly any benefit in turn (~11 billion$ a year).
removing them only hurts our economy, not helps it.
The companies made unions the scapegoats for their own poor decisions. Odd how the unions are still there though. And the auto industry recovered (following a few bailouts). And American cars are as good as ever.
Odd: Portland is consistently voted as one of the top places to live in America, with a thriving downtown, high rate of entrepreneurial activity, and a great place to raise a family.
Portland is far more liberal than Detroit ever was. And its one of the best cities in the nation.
Detroit's problems wasn't liberalism. It was the loss of its tax base.
As a result of white flight following the migration of minorities migrated to the area for manufacturing jobs, the tax base of the city decreased beyond sustainable levels, even while the city had outstanding obligations (pensions etc) to people who no longer lived there. the result was a migration of money out of the city; city dollars weren't being respent within the city, but in the surrounding area. its a problem almost every major metropolitan area has faced and had nothing to do with liberalism or democrats. Detroit (which has been recovering steadily the past few decades btw) was simply the biggest example of a problem that struck every major manufacturing hub regardless of party affiliation. pointing out Detroit while ignoring all the other parts of the rust belt that has similarly struggled and declined is simply ignorance.
Unions didn't drive the plants out. Poor corporate decisions did in the face of cheaper but better made cars with better mileage from Japan and Korea, at a time that also coincided with frequent gas shortages.
The ultimate thing that killed Flint and Detroit was not liberalism or democrats, but simple white flight. When the money moved out leaving behind mostly poor and low income people, that killed the tax revenues of the cities.
but that's ok. facts have a hard time penetrating the republican skull.
I remember a time when Microsoft was held accountable and taken to court by the DOJ over a web browser.
this seems far worse, yet so far nary a peep from any one in authority on the matter, beyond a few individual persons. Not the DOJ, not the EFF, no one.
personally, I see the chance for a two-fer here: -chance to kill the -assumed- binding nature of EULAs -chance to kill this mandatory arbitration (waiving class action) nonsense
Chicago is a favorite red herring of the gun nuts that relies on the reader being uninformed about Chicago.
So read. and become informed: a) Chicago proper is a rather small area, and guns very easy to get in the surrounding cities that make up the metro area b) Chicago isn't even in the top 10 cities for gun violence. The cities that top that list are St Louis, Birmingham, New Orleans, and other red-state cities with far looser gun laws and higher gun availability. c) Chicago's gun laws aren't the strictest of any major US city. in fact, by state law (GOP legislature), Chicago actually cannot pass any more gun laws than it already has d) NYC's gun laws are even stricter than Chicagos. Its gun violence rate is also lower. This same pattern is repeated in several other gun control heavy cities. e) http://www.bloomberg.com/polit...
Slashdot Mirror
I used to think Scott Adams was an intelligent and insightful man.
Now I'm not so sure.
Yes, Trump has had a tremendously sexist mysoginst past.
Yes, Trump also has a racist past.
His kids have appeared on white nationalist radio.
yes, you've analyzed your problem correctly.
now how about the post you were replying to?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
depends.
has he admitted any mistakes and apologized and been contrite yet?
how about that "trump university" scam? has he admitted wrong doing and deceit and refunded money?
or is he instead trying to intimidate the judge presiding his case, just as he attacks anyone who points out his past mistakes?
if the latter, then yes it still matters.
forgiveness is earned.
Or that the Ford Fusion is a car.
Seriously, what is the point of your ignorant statements here?
He should go down already, for trying to use his position as a candidate to intimidate a judge presiding over his case.
Even worse, that judge has already decided in Trumps favor several times , most recently in agreeing to postpone the trial date until after the election, just as Trump has requested.
Are we honestly supposed to believe he never heard of the KKK and David Duke until he was 70 years old?
Further, I would contend that if he is that sheltered, then it's simply even more evidence that he is not qualified for office.
This is not flamebait and should not be modded as such.
in the same way that saying "but I have black friends" doesn't mean you cannot be racist.
http://stevetilford.com/wp-con...
slap yourself until the stupid falls out.
across the entire company it may approximate a bell curve, but the reviews aren't being done company wide, but at the individual team level. and at that level the entire process breaks down.
it is stupid and you are stupid for defending it.
you keep describing yourself.
psychologists call that projection.
back in reality, the only one saying you are right...is you.
the ones saying we are right includes most of the most respected economists talking about these things.
I suggest getting your economics from actual economists.
you'll be wrong less often.
no that's not how it works.
that god awful argument has been debunked so many times its not even worth getting into yet again. but simply there wouldn't be some new massive supply of money; its no different than MW increases, which occur traditionally in response to inflation, not as a cause of it. inflation occurs on its own in a growing economy. and the plea of "million dollars" isn't even a legitimate question, these things are always tied to cost of living and right now that's no where near a cool million.
plus, the UBI already exists in a different form.
we call it the Earned Income Tax Credit.
most people posting here have no idea what they are talking about.
especially you.
actual economists have torn down every argument you're making.
you have no legitimacy here.
you got your chicken and egg backwards.
Tuition did not rise because of student loans.
The loans came into existence and rose because tuition did.
Tuition rose because most state colleges used to be tax supported with the students contributing only a small portion in tuition.
but in the tax cutting frenzies of the 70s and 80s that support went away. this happened at the same time that college sports began growing tremendously, eating more and more of the school's budget, further inflating costs (sports weren't only thing though; expanding programs contributed too, as people began maligning the idea of a "generic college education" ie liberal arts, and wanted more vocational-in-everything-but-name type degrees).
all of which upped costs, nearly all of which is now passed on to students.
that what raised tuition: the loss of tax dollars.
as for the inflation angle, its no more true here than it is when arguing against increasing the minimum wage. and for the same reason: you got it backwards. in a healthy growing economy the cost of living is continually rising. it becomes detrimental when it rises faster than the minimum wage, which causes people to get left behind.
thus, increasing the minimum wage doesn't cause inflation.
rather, increasing the minimum wage is necessary in order to keep up with inflation.
the arguments you present are essentially the same ones deployed against raising the minimum wage, and just as wrong.
"cultural Marxism with Comrade Obama "
IE, an economy that has recovered from the largest economic crash ever (larger than the great depression, but better sustained because we actually had saefty nets this time around), 74 consecutive months of economic growth, largest US economy of all time, wall street at record levels, unemployment at lowest rate in over a decade.
Simply put, the economy has rarely been better than it is right now.
By these metrics, Obama is the worst socialist ever.
and if you're trying to limit it to just "culture"....well, some people are opposed to expanses in civil rights.
we call those people bigots.
or fools.
and frankly both apply to any person who thinks the past 8 years were a bad thing.
in fact, the only thing that held them back from being even better was the GOP led congress that has stood in the way of progress for the past several years simply because there was a black guy in charge.
the better comparison is that we survived 8 years of bush.
and spent the last 8 years picking up the pieces.
Immigrants, undocumented or otherwise, tend to be either very low skilled or very high skilled. Day laborers and janitors, and doctors and professors, etc.
And because americans tend to be neither, but rather tend to be in the middle, neither very low skilled no highly skilled, because that's what our schools and economy excel at cranking out.
so the graphs of the two workforces (if plotted as population vs labor skill level) are total opposites, and the result of their combination is that they don't take our jobs, rather they only ever compliment the American workforce. and suddenly removing them wont lead to suddenly employing more American citizens.
and that's before considering that with unemployment now going well below 5% we're getting very close to maximum employment (much lower is actually a negative for the economy as it indicates several undesirable things, such as lack of employment mobility or opportunity, most which indicate or lead to economic stagnation).
and all of that is completely ignoring the massive economic stimulus from their presence (~10% of the US economy), let alone the tax dollars they contribute at all levels (fed, state, local) without receiving nearly any benefit in turn (~11 billion$ a year).
removing them only hurts our economy, not helps it.
Rule 34.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
The companies made unions the scapegoats for their own poor decisions.
Odd how the unions are still there though.
And the auto industry recovered (following a few bailouts).
And American cars are as good as ever.
http://www.examiner.com/articl...
Odd: Portland is consistently voted as one of the top places to live in America, with a thriving downtown, high rate of entrepreneurial activity, and a great place to raise a family.
Portland is far more liberal than Detroit ever was.
And its one of the best cities in the nation.
Detroit's problems wasn't liberalism.
It was the loss of its tax base.
As a result of white flight following the migration of minorities migrated to the area for manufacturing jobs, the tax base of the city decreased beyond sustainable levels, even while the city had outstanding obligations (pensions etc) to people who no longer lived there. the result was a migration of money out of the city; city dollars weren't being respent within the city, but in the surrounding area. its a problem almost every major metropolitan area has faced and had nothing to do with liberalism or democrats. Detroit (which has been recovering steadily the past few decades btw) was simply the biggest example of a problem that struck every major manufacturing hub regardless of party affiliation. pointing out Detroit while ignoring all the other parts of the rust belt that has similarly struggled and declined is simply ignorance.
Big screed. Ultimately nothing but BS though.
Unions didn't drive the plants out. Poor corporate decisions did in the face of cheaper but better made cars with better mileage from Japan and Korea, at a time that also coincided with frequent gas shortages.
The ultimate thing that killed Flint and Detroit was not liberalism or democrats, but simple white flight.
When the money moved out leaving behind mostly poor and low income people, that killed the tax revenues of the cities.
but that's ok.
facts have a hard time penetrating the republican skull.
I remember a time when Microsoft was held accountable and taken to court by the DOJ over a web browser.
this seems far worse, yet so far nary a peep from any one in authority on the matter, beyond a few individual persons.
Not the DOJ, not the EFF, no one.
personally, I see the chance for a two-fer here:
-chance to kill the -assumed- binding nature of EULAs
-chance to kill this mandatory arbitration (waiving class action) nonsense
rofl at including FDR.
and of course at the typical inclusion of governments and collectives.
Chicago is a favorite red herring of the gun nuts that relies on the reader being uninformed about Chicago.
So read.
and become informed:
a) Chicago proper is a rather small area, and guns very easy to get in the surrounding cities that make up the metro area
b) Chicago isn't even in the top 10 cities for gun violence. The cities that top that list are St Louis, Birmingham, New Orleans, and other red-state cities with far looser gun laws and higher gun availability.
c) Chicago's gun laws aren't the strictest of any major US city. in fact, by state law (GOP legislature), Chicago actually cannot pass any more gun laws than it already has
d) NYC's gun laws are even stricter than Chicagos. Its gun violence rate is also lower. This same pattern is repeated in several other gun control heavy cities.
e) http://www.bloomberg.com/polit...
oh. hey. racism from an AC.
big surprise.
cant tell if parody...
or just stupid.