TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
144. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    26 18.06%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    51 35.42%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    50 34.72%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    4 2.78%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    13 9.03%

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #1676
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy

  2. #1677
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2002
    Location: Pacific Northwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    You know, the one thing I dislike the most about Trump is that he's still a total black box.
    That's why I think hand wringing is pointless. I'd be very surprised if his presidency fit the glove his more, well, questionable supporters want him to wear.

  3. #1678
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Well Trump is off to a cracking start. His transition team is taken from the candy store of hate groups.
    https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/...its-not-pretty

  4. #1679
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Something that both Bernie and Trump supporters will be happy about...

    >>> Donald Trump promised to rip up trade deals. TPP is the first casualty <<<

    President-elect Donald Trump’s pledge to upend U.S. trade policy is claiming its first casualty, as Republican leaders in Congress have closed the door on the Obama administration’s hopes for last-minute ratification of an expansive Pacific Rim trade accord before the president leaves office.

  5. #1680
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    My friend living as an expat in Venuzela told a story about a jar of mayonaise being $30 and when asked people just shrug and say it's imported. Enjoy your $20 pineapples, my fellow Americans. Money for nothing. Tariffs are basically a pointless and wasteful tax that punishes efficiency and makes baby Reagan cry. Watermelons are up to $40 in Japan and this is why.
    Last edited by demagogue; 11th Nov 2016 at 19:13.

  6. #1681
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: The Land of Make Believe
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    My friend living as an expat in Venuzela told a story about a jar of mayonaise being $30 and when asked people just shrug and say it's imported. Enjoy your $20 pineapples, my fellow Americans. Money for nothing. Tariffs are basically a pointless and wasteful tax that punishes efficiency and makes baby Reagan cry. Watermelons are up to $40 in Japan and this is why.
    Honestly, I can barely believe in this day and age that we still have something as idiotic as tariffs.

    "Ooh, we have to put a 100% tariff on these foreign potatoes or our potato farmers will go out of business."

    So fucking what? Grow cheaper potatoes, or get out of the potato growing business. Don't expect me to pay through the arse to compensate for your uselessness at growing cheap potatoes.

  7. #1682
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2005
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    It's pretty telling how all of your examples are Arabs.
    Yeah, there aren't a whole lot of Mexicans or African-Americans in France for some reason. The main ethnic minority here is composed of "Arabs". This is just a catch-all term to designate people whose ancestors originated from Maghreb countries, and I did not mean any offense by using it.

    And my point about the whole "hate crime" thing, in case you didn't get it, is that it creates a slippery slope leading to a hierarchization of suffering. Double standards if you will. And it's an eminently racist view of the world, because it implies that people are defined by their race first and foremost. In truth ugly people, fat people and deformed people suffer discrimination just as much as coloured or gay people do, but for some reason a crime committed against them would not count as a "hate crime".

    Basically, I'm tired of seeing the hypocritical leftist bourgeoisie (which I consider you to be a part of) trying to turn communities against one another.

    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    Whereas in France the FN is looking like a prominent contender for getting into power. It's people power which got her there.
    Actually what got Marine Le Pen there is the corrupt mass media and politicians who do their darnedest to promote her every chance they get. I've explained why they do this a hundred times before, but I'll explain it again: ever since the Mitterrand election in 1981 the FN party has been used as a sort of scarecrow to mislead people and get them to vote for a certain candidate. It basically goes like this "Oh noes the fascist menace is rising! Quick vote for us or it will be the darkest hours of our history again! We know you hate us but at least it's better than Hitler, right?".

    And so every presidential election it's the same routine: promote the FN during the campaign, then when the time has come to vote, the two major parties – who, on their own, can barely scrape together 25% of the electorate each – unite themselves to form a "Republican front" and you end up with the 2002 election or more recently the "régionales" election. Everyone pats themselves on the back, satisfied that they've vanquished evil and avoided the Armageddon. But then you look at the numbers and realize it was all bullshit: there never was a fascist threat to begin with, the FN never broke their glass ceiling of 20% voters, but you end up with the same assholes in power so they can screw you over one more time. Rinse and repeat, ad nauseum.

    Up until recently, my money was on the same thing happening again in 2017. 85% for Juppé in the second turn against Marine Le Pen. And everyone patting themselves on the back thinking they'd won a great victory, before realizing they got fucked over once more.

    Now after the Brexit vote and the election of Trump, I'm not so sure. She might very well be elected for all I know. But the truth is, whether her or Juppé, it's a win-win situation for the establishment. She's not the evil extremist they paint her to be. She's just the same old neo-liberal who will faithfully apply Brussel's policies. She's from the same mold as the other candidates: a rich, corrupt and manipulative career politician who's never worked an honest day in her life, and who got to where she is through nepotism. The only difference is the coat of paint. She'll kneel before her US masters like the others before her and she'll remain in the EU. She won't actually do anything about immigration, but she'll probably ramp up the conflict in the Middle-East to fool the idiots.

    Basically, at worst, she'll be an Obama light. Those who expect her to somehow get rid of all the ethnic minorities are in for a huge disappointment (haters and fans alike).

  8. #1683
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    When Trump whined about the protests being unfair, it dawned on me that it's what we are going to have for the next 4 year. Complaints how unfair everything is and how everything is rigged against him. And that's from the same guy who wrote this after the last election:

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...34630820507648

    We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!

  9. #1684
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    I know a few investment bankers Tony. Mostly they seem to do a job which could just as easily be handled by computers, as Danial Kahnemann aptly showed when he analysed 20 years worth of Goldman-Sachs trading data and found zero correlation between any individual employee and the performance of the accounts they handled. Largely, it seems to be about persuading people to invest in things on the basis of what seems like pointless education about how to predict markets since there is no way to predict markets outside of insider trading.
    And...nope. You just proved that you don't know what investment bankers do.

    What you're talking about is going to be called asset management or private wealth management, NOT investment banking.

    http://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/what-bankers-do/

    Investment bankers are mostly corporate finance consultants, and managing portfolios doesn't really have anything in common with what an investment banker does.


    And some of you all REALLY need to get a clue.




    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by SD View Post
    How bizarre. Hillary Clinton was arguably the most qualified Presidential candidate in history.

    And of course you're not whining. Libertarian or Republican, either way you'll get what you want - someone who'll shrink the state until it's small enough to fit in the bedroom.
    These are the words of the ignorant. It's not like America has had previous presidents who led the largest military coalition in the history of the world, The person who wrote the bill of rights, someone who served consecutively as a governor, then senator, then secretary of state, then secretary of war....or any number of candidates who were vice president first.

    Secretary of State is great but it doesn't make Hillary even close to being the "most qualified candidate in history". If you look at it in terms of more than just credentials(no, holding a title doesn't mean you've accomplished jack shit) and factor in the results that person produced it makes her look terrible.

    I have to ask...what is it with you people and the need to, almost literally, worship people in the elite who regard you as stupid, insignificant plebs?
    Last edited by Tony_Tarantula; 12th Nov 2016 at 01:04.

  10. #1685
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    If there has been one good thing about this election, it's that it's done a great job of exposing the sanctimonious and crazy among us.

  11. #1686
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Just saw this on Ars Technica.

    So what Trump and the Republicans are proposing is basically Obamacare without the mandates, meaning that insurance companies can no longer deny preexisting conditions, and parents can insure their children until age 26. But without that mandate, we're going back to the problems we faced previously, where the poor and/or willingly uninsured ride up a bill they can't pay, leaving hospitals with no subsidy to help ease the blow. And with no options to negotiate imports for medicines, that'll only serve to further drive up prices of an already prohibitively expensive system.

    Plus there's a bunch of base massaging pro-life crap slapped on the end.

    Yeah, for a system that's already prohibitively expensive, I can see this working perfectly. I guess the Republicans really do want us to have a single payer system, they're just taking the long way around to it.

  12. #1687
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    So what Trump and the Republicans are proposing is basically Obamacare without the mandates, meaning that insurance companies can no longer deny preexisting conditions, and parents can insure their children until age 26.
    Well, these two are quite popular with the people, so it's hard for them to slash the whole package.

  13. #1688
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    But absolutely none of that matters since they are going to start decreasing subsidies to zero. 99% will drop out at the first increase of insurance dues.

    I think an even worse thing we all need to pay attention to is the elimination of Dodd-Frank. That will leave the US shark bait for the next investment bank-world depression causing collapse.

  14. #1689
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Well, these two are quite popular with the people, so it's hard for them to slash the whole package.
    Yeah, the last thing the Republicans would want to do is make all these huge claims about fixing our healthcare system, then turn around and kick millions off their insurance first thing.

    Though I don't have much faith that their plan will work, even if and when they implement state line competition among the insurance companies. Here's a situation where even with everyone paying into the system, prices were still rising at exactly the same rate they were before Obamacare was implemented. The ACA was ultimately a lateral move, giving a few extra boons, but not addressing the core of the problem itself. So the Republicans turn around, implement a plan that will take money out of the system, while providing extra government blessed protections to our insurance companies, who have many times previously shown they're not willing to work in good faith to earn a profit.

    So less money flowing, more overly expensive drugs, with the only added advantage being that you don't HAVE to pay for it. So...freedom?

  15. #1690
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Yeah, here's one explanation why it's not as easy as "repealing all the bad bits while keeping all the good bits": https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ver-obamacare/

  16. #1691
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    I've heard people make the argument that they should only have to get insurance when they need it. A nice as that would be, if everyone were to do that, it'd only succeed in collapsing the entire market.

    Insurance is a subsidy in and of itself, working off a similar principal to single payer. The people who don't need it are paying for those who are, and everyone who has it is contributing to the pot on a monthly basis in the event that they themselves do. Having more people contributing keeps the system flush with money, so it can not only afford to pay for treatments for everyone under its umbrella, but also turn a profit. If we were allowed to only get it when they need it, you'd have people suddenly finding out they have cancer scrambling to pay for a $400 monthly premium for a year or so, expecting their insurance in turn to cover the $200,000+ cost for their treatment, then cancel it once they're either cured or dead.

    Anyone who can do basic math should understand why that wouldn't work, but it's amazing how many people think that's how it should.

  17. #1692
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Knock knock.
    Who's there?
    Subsidy.
    Subsidy who?
    Exactly.

    Nothing y'all are talking about amounts to a thing without it. 22 million people will quit. The 22 million who are on it now. What good is insurance nobody can afford? Why even have insurance nobody is on?

  18. #1693
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by SD View Post
    So fucking what? Grow cheaper potatoes, or get out of the potato growing business.
    What if the countries producing potatoes for lower prices can do so because they use indentured labor or pay a pittance? Do you just let domestic industry die because a dollar a week doesn't cut it for fair wages? Do you repeal minimum wage and join a race to the bottom?

    I mean, leaving potatoes aside, China is able to undercut the US electronics industry by such an enormous amount because they A. pay their workers next to nothing since it's cheaper to replace suicides than to pay what we would consider a decent wage, B. have no concept of intellectual property rights and are free to rip off foreign technology as much as they like, and C. have the explicit support of the Chinese government in doing both of the above because it's proving to be a successful means of economic warfare.

    A tariff is about the only way to keep domestic industry viable, and make some money for the Treasury at the same time. Yeah, it sucks for the consumer that they don't get to exploit the work of slave labor for dirt-cheap anymore, but it's better than inflation and economic collapse because your industries are dying in the face of competition that they are legally incapable of beating.

  19. #1694
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    There is also a D. China manipulates it's currency.

  20. #1695
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    @catbarf, textile factories are now moving out of China because their labor standards are improving, so they're moving into Cambodia. Guess what the labor NGOs are doing? Pushing labor reforms in Cambodia. H&M just sided with laborers under pressure and forced their factories to reform. (Uniqlo is still siding with the factories and getting slammed.) If Cambodia's standards get too high, they'll probably move to Laos next. Then advocacy moves to Laos. And then they don't have anywhere else to go.

    Labor rights don't improve until you get money coming into a country, develop state institutions and fair courts, etc. If the factories didn't come, you'd still have child and slave labor in the fields making pennies. With the factories comes financial support, transparency, and Western disgust. Those are good things. Those are the things that build actual pressure to reform corruption and bad practices. But a country can't pull itself out of poverty and have a functioning government until other countries open their makets to it.

    It's a bumpy road, but the solution to poverty and misery around the world IMO is not to shut the rest of the world out & close your eyes to every problem but what's in your own borders. And note that Western supply factories actually do have legal restrictions on their overseas operations against uaing slavery and labor exploitation. We can get them to follow them easier than foreign companies following weak foreign laws.

    There is the problem of dislocated American workers, which is why we have programs to help their transition that could be improved. And not every industry uses slave labor and labor exploitation to get a relative advantage. So the issue works differently for different sectors.
    Last edited by demagogue; 13th Nov 2016 at 01:43.

  21. #1696
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    I mean, leaving potatoes aside, China is able to undercut the US electronics industry by such an enormous amount because they A. pay their workers next to nothing since it's cheaper to replace suicides than to pay what we would consider a decent wage...
    One thing I learned while discussing this same topic elsewhere is for your average Chinese worker, the state, being the quasi-communist, semi-capitalist weirdo juxtaposition that it is, provides quite a bit for its labor force. Food, board, healthcare, and all the bare necessities are given to your average Foxconn worker, making that $35 they make during a 60 hour week basically extra spending cash. Now don't take this as me extolling its virtues here. These people are practically stuck in their position, living barely a sliver above poverty levels, without any real hope of escape. But it explains why these Chinese sweatshops can get away with paying their workers so little.

    Nearly their entire blue collar workforce is subsidized by the state, kept in perpetually cost efficient conditions to milk as much profits from their enterprises as possible. It's basically the worst aspects of both communism and capitalism, two otherwise diametrically opposed ideals, being squeezed together into an unholy alliance. We won't ever be able to compete with them on price without first being willing to lower ourselves to their circumstances.

  22. #1697
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    One thing I learned while discussing this same topic elsewhere is for your average Chinese worker, the state, being the quasi-communist, semi-capitalist weirdo juxtaposition that it is, provides quite a bit for its labor force. Food, board, healthcare, and all the bare necessities are given to your average Foxconn worker, making that $35 they make during a 60 hour week basically extra spending cash. Now don't take this as me extolling its virtues here. These people are practically stuck in their position, living barely a sliver above poverty levels, without any real hope of escape. But it explains why these Chinese sweatshops can get away with paying their workers so little.

    Nearly their entire blue collar workforce is subsidized by the state, kept in perpetually cost efficient conditions to milk as much profits from their enterprises as possible. It's basically the worst aspects of both communism and capitalism, two otherwise diametrically opposed ideals, being squeezed together into an unholy alliance. We won't ever be able to compete with them on price without first being willing to lower ourselves to their circumstances.
    And we're doing a fine job of that already between the creeping expansion of the welfare state and the proliferation of low-income conditions for most Americans.

  23. #1698
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Accounting for inflation, we spend less on our welfare state now than we did in the 60's and 70's. Reagan did quite a bit to gut most New Deal programs during his terms in office, and the Republicans are doing everything in their power to further extend his legacy.

    But even if it were funded per the old standard, our system is designed to attempt to quickly get people out of it, to put them back on the road to self sufficiency. It's a safety net, as opposed to the Chinese model, which is designed to care for considerably more aspects of its citizens needs throughout their lives than ours is. The fact that some people stick to our system longer than intended is more an inevitable side effect due to myriad reasons, rather than an unstated ultimate goal.

    Your alarmist bullshit is noted, and dismissed.

  24. #1699
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: The Land of Make Believe
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    What if the countries producing potatoes for lower prices can do so because they use indentured labor or pay a pittance? Do you just let domestic industry die because a dollar a week doesn't cut it for fair wages? Do you repeal minimum wage and join a race to the bottom?

    I mean, leaving potatoes aside, China is able to undercut the US electronics industry by such an enormous amount because they A. pay their workers next to nothing since it's cheaper to replace suicides than to pay what we would consider a decent wage, B. have no concept of intellectual property rights and are free to rip off foreign technology as much as they like, and C. have the explicit support of the Chinese government in doing both of the above because it's proving to be a successful means of economic warfare.

    A tariff is about the only way to keep domestic industry viable, and make some money for the Treasury at the same time. Yeah, it sucks for the consumer that they don't get to exploit the work of slave labor for dirt-cheap anymore, but it's better than inflation and economic collapse because your industries are dying in the face of competition that they are legally incapable of beating.
    Well, demagogue already said most things I would want to say, much more eloquently and knowledgeably than I could.

    The thing that is worth bearing in mind is that low wages are often the biggest competitive advantage that these countries have, and that a crappy job is better than no job. Foreign companies outsourcing these crappy jobs is actually a hugely important conduit for getting wealth to the developing world.

    There isn't a single developed nation on the planet that didn't get there without at one point in history having its citizens working long hours for terrible wages. The hope is that you get through that phase as quickly as possible, and you look at places like Singapore who have made the transition from developing country to developed country in under half a century (I would also note that tariffs in Singapore are very low).

    Eventually you get situations like you have now, where Western firms are relocating call centres back from India, because wages have risen so much in India, it no longer makes economic sense to outsource them.

  25. #1700
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    It just occurred to me... After I'm sure Le Pen wins in France, it's interesting to me that an East German woman will be the last defender of the postwar liberal democratic order. I bet they wouldn't have predicted that in 1950!

Page 68 of 558 FirstFirst ... 18232833384348535863646566676869707172737883889398103108113118168318 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •