Jump to content
Leoo

Today...

Recommended Posts

I don't know. At least she didn't advocate crimes against humanity (killing families of terrorists) publicly.

 

Trump has never held office, he has no record to compare against.


ozXHe7P.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know. At least she didn't advocate crimes against humanity (killing families of terrorists) publicly.

True, although she's actually done it, which is worse than just advocating for it. Here's an interesting piece on it ( a lot of other stuff in it as well but there are some key quotes): https://medium.com/@mtracey/why-voting-for-hillary-is-morally-untenable-be4d9fe330ac#.gokubl5xa

 

 

Trump has never held office, he has no record to compare against.

He may well turn out to be pretty bad on foreign policy as well, but at least it's not a sure thing like Clinton.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely think Clinton's foreign policies are bad, but all I'm saying is we have no idea how Trump's will compare and his public statements don't inspire any confidence.


ozXHe7P.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely think Clinton's foreign policies are bad, but all I'm saying is we have no idea how Trump's will compare and his public statements don't inspire any confidence.

Fair enough. Still, I think it's reasonable (at least when it comes to this particular issue) to choose a vote for "possibly bad" over "definitely bad". At any rate, it's a done deal now. Time will tell...

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely unrelated:

 

Does anyone know a good file manager for Unix-likes? I use XFCE on FreeBSD, but Thunar crashes way too often. It seems a bug with file sort order changing, and it hasn't been fixed properly.


ozXHe7P.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised. I was optimistic in the last couple of weeks, especially after the Scholastic Children's vote (which has historically be quite accurate). Mostly it just seems surreal.

 

I still don't get how he can be a champion of the working class. I think I've come to understand all the other reasons people support him, and to an extent, I sympathise with many of them, but looking out for the little guy? To me, it looks like he has spent his life doing the exact opposite, exporting their jobs, running that scam of a school, not paying federal income tax. He didn't work his way up from nothing, there is no example of the american success story there either. He's not even that successful as a businessman, just wildly successful as a brand manager. But yeah, too me, it's people like him pulling the political strings that helped get a lot of people in the terrible situations they are in right now.

 

Anyone have an over under on how long before he gets bored and delegates to Pence? I'll be pretty surprised if that never happens. He's been pretty clear that aside from a couple pet projects, he's just in it to win, and doesn't really care about most of the job anyway. Perfect person to be VP for though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll set the O/U at 1.5 years

 

Idk if anyone thinks he sympathizes with the little guy. He just hates the same people they hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does no one think that trade deals that lead to a currency and job deficit are a bad thing?

 

Trump won Ohio, Michigan, Wyoming and Pennsylvania because a lot of people in that area see changing our trade deals as the only way to bring back high paying manufacturing jobs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does no one think that trade deals that lead to a currency and job deficit are a bad thing?

 

Trump won Ohio, Michigan, Wyoming and Pennsylvania because a lot of people in that area see changing our trade deals as the only way to bring back high paying manufacturing jobs

Trade deals are a net positive for the economy, not a bad thing. Sure, we can start making iphones in north America; but that just means they start costing $3000 instead of $700, and only the top 10% will be able to afford them. We don't live in a closed system anymore; today's economy is a global one, and misguided attempts to rollback the odd trade deal won't change that. The heyday of manufacturing in North America is gone; it is not coming back. What outsourcing hasn't killed automation has taken care of, and we're only getting better at that.

 

Of course, this doesn't mean globalization benefits every single person. There are always victims, and how their condition can best be improved is a valid question; but the answer is not increased tariffs and isolationism.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama's "liberal agenda" was mostly halted by a limp dick congress. All three branches are currently majority Republican which is as terrifying as it would be if all 3 were majority Democrat. And while I'm personally generally a little left, I understand the concept of checks and balances is supposed to prevent rampant radical ideology which is less likely to be the case now. I would have settled for a Democratic senate with Trump as head executive, but full on Republican makes me uneasy. Its just baffling how some of these republican candidates think. Some of their ideology in economics is valid, and they're patriotic as all get out but ffs the religious values have to go.

  • Like 1

Quote

 

Quote

Anyone who likes tacos is incapable of logic.

Anyone who likes logic is incapable of tacos.

 

PSA: SaqPrets is an Estonian Dude

Steam: NippleBeardTM

Origin: Brand_New_iPwn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does no one think that trade deals that lead to a currency and job deficit are a bad thing?

 

Trump won Ohio, Michigan, Wyoming and Pennsylvania because a lot of people in that area see changing our trade deals as the only way to bring back high paying manufacturing jobs

(This is just my reasoning.)

 

Economics is a soft science. Personally, I wouldn't discuss social science or psychology (for example) since I'm not well learned in either, so I extend the same reasoning to economics.

 

The exception is I will discuss the merits of economic platforms from an ethical standpoint, but that's a different scope I think.

  • Like 1

ozXHe7P.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna be honest, but the jobs China 'stole' aren't coming back to America and even if they do, you know what companies would do?

 

Use robots and automation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today I finally got around to do my "dailies" on OGame... which was rather overdue because I haven't logged in for a few days :L. After my transports arrive later today, I will building 1,500 Gauss Cannons on one of my planets :) .


melos2_zpsjnpxw8yx.jpg
"To do all that one is able to do, is to be a man; to do all that one would like to do, is to be a god." - Napoleon I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama's "liberal agenda" was mostly halted by a limp dick congress. All three branches are currently majority Republican which is as terrifying as it would be if all 3 were majority Democrat. And while I'm personally generally a little left, I understand the concept of checks and balances is supposed to prevent rampant radical ideology which is less likely to be the case now. I would have settled for a Democratic senate with Trump as head executive, but full on Republican makes me uneasy. Its just baffling how some of these republican candidates think. Some of their ideology in economics is valid, and they're patriotic as all get out but ffs the religious values have to go.

To be fair, Trump is pretty far from mainstream republicanism in many respects. It's far from a given he and congress will just play nice and get along...

  • Like 1

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Does no one think that trade deals that lead to a currency and job deficit are a bad thing?

 

Trump won Ohio, Michigan, Wyoming and Pennsylvania because a lot of people in that area see changing our trade deals as the only way to bring back high paying manufacturing jobs

Trade deals are a net positive for the economy, not a bad thing. Sure, we can start making iphones in north America; but that just means they start costing $3000 instead of $700, and only the top 10% will be able to afford them. We don't live in a closed system anymore; today's economy is a global one, and misguided attempts to rollback the odd trade deal won't change that. The heyday of manufacturing in North America is gone; it is not coming back. What outsourcing hasn't killed automation has taken care of, and we're only getting better at that.

 

Of course, this doesn't mean globalization benefits every single person. There are always victims, and how their condition can best be improved is a valid question; but the answer is not increased tariffs and isolationism.

 

 

Why should America have a trade deal that doesn't benefit America?

 

Why should I vote for someone that won't put the domestic economy first

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should America have a trade deal that doesn't benefit America?

 

They shouldn't, but the point is that on average, free trade deals do benefit America. It doesn't mean every single person in America benefits equally (which as I said is a separate policy issue).

 

Why should I vote for someone that won't put the domestic economy first

See above.

 

Question: What do you think Trump should do to fix this supposed problem? Most of his suggestions deal with imposing large tarrifs and tearing up free trade deals. This sounds nice at first glance, but is not something that consumers will tolerate in the long term. The second the price of a new smartphone quadruples (make no mistake, it will if all manufacturing was done domestically) people would riot.

 

Essentially, globalization and free trade allow for increased economic efficiency - people in the western world get high quality, affordable goods; and people in developing countries get increased work opportunity and the social mobility that comes with it. It is effectively impossible to have the best of both of these worlds; and consumers at large make the choice for free trade with their actions; day in, and day out. This is not something that can be legislated away; short of turning to communism.

 

If I were to predict the state of things four years from now, I'd say that this will be what people will be most disappointed in Trump for. He's made it a big part of his platform, but it's the one thing he has essentially no real control over.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why should America have a trade deal that doesn't benefit America?

 

They shouldn't, but the point is that on average, free trade deals do benefit America. It doesn't mean every single person in America benefits equally (which as I said is a separate policy issue).

 

Why should I vote for someone that won't put the domestic economy first

See above.

 

Question: What do you think Trump should do to fix this supposed problem? Most of his suggestions deal with imposing large tarrifs and tearing up free trade deals. This sounds nice at first glance, but is not something that consumers will tolerate in the long term. The second the price of a new smartphone quadruples (make no mistake, it will if all manufacturing was done domestically) people would riot.

 

Essentially, globalization and free trade allow for increased economic efficiency - people in the western world get high quality, affordable goods; and people in developing countries get increased work opportunity and the social mobility that comes with it. It is effectively impossible to have the best of both of these worlds; and consumers at large make the choice for free trade with their actions; day in, and day out. This is not something that can be legislated away; short of turning to communism.

 

 

You subsidize industry until the infrastructure is built up enough for them to be profitable

 

You use tariffs as a way to shelter your industry until it reaches that point

 

You have the infrastructure to produce and you lower the tariffs to a point where it's still profitable for domestic factories. Some industries might use robots but on the whole more American workers would be employeed than not.

 

Would the world economy be worse off with tariffs? yes

Would the american economy be better? yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You subsidize industry until the infrastructure is built up enough for them to be profitable

This is a pipe dream. You will be subsidizing industry indefinitely (there are jurisdictions that do so). To subsidize industry takes tax dollars; which means less money in the pockets of American citizens, which doesn't fix anything.

 

You use tariffs as a way to shelter your industry until it reaches that point

The industry never does reach the point where it can be profitable. Consumers will always choose the cheaper options, which motivates companies to cost cut (either with outsourcing or automation).

 

You have the infrastructure to produce and you lower the tariffs to a point where it's still profitable for domestic factories.

There's no magic number for tariffs. Every point you lower them leads to increased productivity and profitability, and as consumers experience cheaper goods and services, the urge to outsource grows again.

 

Some industries might use robots but on the whole more American workers would be employeed than not.

Sure, but *employment* by itself is not any sort of goal. If every american had a job earning $1 an hour, would you consider that a success? Of course not; because the purchasing power of that salary is not significant. Whether that number is $1 or $100,000, it's the relative purchasing power that's important; and it is a well understood fact that the decreased efficiency of isolated economies leads to an erosion of purchasing power, not an increase. 

 

Would the world economy be worse off with tariffs? yes

Would the american economy be better? yes

This line of reasoning is strange, to say the least. If the American economy would be better off with increased tariffs, it stands to reason that any other country would also have the same experience. By that token, every country should be totally isolationist in its economic policy. In fact, why even limit it to countries? Let's create trade borders across states - why should someone in Florida be able to buy a car made in Georgia, and vice versa?

 

In fact, this is exactly what Canada has (inter-provincial trade barriers). It is estimated that their removal could boost Canadian GDP by something like 10% alone; that's how bad they are for efficiency and productivity. The same holds true for trade barriers worldwide.

  • Like 2

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do people seriously expect him to put America first? He doesn't even respect the people in it

 

See my previous post if youre an illegal mexican, gay/trans, middle eastern

 

http://forum.tip.it/topic/195466-today/?p=5594316

 

tl;dr Culture swings from one extreme to another

 

 

That said I feel that our culture has swung too far the other way with things like being judged negatively for not supporting Caitlyn Jenner.

Okay, but if you're seriously trying to compare this nonsense to centuries of systematic oppression as comparable extremes, then the only real argument there is that you don't want to leave your comfort zone. There's nothing to argue there. It's not an argument. It's not even a point. it's nothing but privilege to say that "they called me names for disagreeing with them" is even remotely worthy of being considered in the same thought as "they literally want to lock me up and electrocute me until I turn straight, or they want to deny me basic human dignity because my existence doesn't fit in the little bubble they've created for themselves, or they literally want me dead".

 

Because, surprisingly, rejecting bigotry doesn't come from the same as bigotry. If that was seriously the point you wanted to make, just say it. Don't dress it up in silly pseudo-logical arguments. Just say it and I'll drop the whole thing, because it's not a point that's worth arguing against.

 

That's not even getting into the fact that the yam in question throws a temper tantrum every time someone disagrees with him. That's the point I was trying to get at in my previous post. This is a man who's spent the last several months attacking every imaginable minority over nothing; who the world is eager to forgive because that's just what men are supposed to do? I have a hard time his alleged economic policies are worth normalizing bald-faced hate, let alone encouraging it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also if people judge you for being disrespectful towards trans women, maybe you should listen to them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also if people judge you for being disrespectful towards trans women, maybe you should listen to them

 

I'm not disrespectful to trans woman. I have a MTF step sister personally. 

 

 

As far as someones decision to transition and live their life as such I'm fine with and support laws protecting them from discrimination. 

Legally the LGBT+ movement has almost completely won every battle. Arguably same with feminism.

 

 

That said there's a lot of things on the culture side of things most people don't agree with. For example people who try and promote that they're non-binary and try and promote that movement. There's no substance to it even if its a gender philosophy that applies to you and describes your relationship with gender perfectly.

 

Because your not entitled to anyone giving a shit about it, to learn about it or acknowledge it, your just entitled to be able to get a home and a job without discrimination.

 

That is the only fight that matters. A fight about how people are morally wrong for not acknowledging your unique philosophies about the nature of gender is a waste of time and causes some serious pushback from people.  Pushback that arguably ends with some zap the gay away maniac getting vice-pres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's literally what disrespect means though

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its been about a day and I can't stop thinking about this. I'm so anxious about what this means. My two best friends are bisexual women that have been sexually assaulted, one of whom is Latina from a mostly undocumented family, and they are both terrified for their well-being after this and shattered that instead of finally seeing the highest glass ceiling broken they're forced to see that no matter how qualified a woman may be she can be overrun by an incompetent, inexperienced misogynistic man. Seeing that as a man you can be accused of sexual assault by 12 (!!!!!!!!) women in a country where most women are so afraid to come out against their aggressors that rape and sexual assault is barely ever reported (and is not misreported any more frequently than any other violent crime) in addition to standing trial for obvious fraud and possible paedophilia and be congratulated for it and still become the most powerful person in the world. it's just [bleep]ing disgusting. His election enables all kinds of misogyny and racism to be thrown much more into the open than was every previously socially acceptable (a campus landmark at my school had the words "kill 'em all" spray painted on it the night trump won the election as an example off the top of my head) and has people legitimately fearful for their well-being. I can't empathize with anybody who would knowingly thrust this upon somebody else or who gives few enough shits about other people and their agency to recognize this and support him anyways.

 

And as if that isn't enough, we just elected a man who already has a plan to shut down the EPA , deregulate pipeline construction, fracking, and the coal industry and withdraw from the paris climate agreement at a time when we need to be putting dramatic effort into slowing climate change rather than enabling it. and this isn't even getting into how disastorous his tax plans and insurance policy will be for lower/middle class Americans and how he'll have the republican congress and supreme court to actually accomplish it and plenty of more issues that would be the worst . 

 

I know people cry wolf at every election, and there are always people who think their political opponents will end the world where not that much changes. But I just feel like this is something so ridiculously different. The last time republicans controlled all three branches of government was from 2001-2007, where their rampant industry deregulation ended with the great recession. It would be another thing if Democrats controlled at least one body of government as a check for this, but I just have a terrible feeling about this.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.