Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Flight attendant this AM dishing on having the Trump sons on a recent flight- “ they were PIGS left newspapers piled all around.” I call bullshit. Trumps read?

Re: Khashoggi
 

This does not apply if one of your deeply hidden and unspoken policy aims is to normalize and enshrine “the only rule is power” as an international foreign policy baseline.

I think a lot of nationalists and would be fascists in DC are appalled by the extent of what MbS did, but secretly applaud such a brazen act. They like the idea of being able to take the gloves off with critics. They’d like to jail and sue the media rather than kill them, but those are just different points on the same continuum of thought.

Re: Khashoggi
 

Reports state Khashoggi was injected with a drug before being killed, or perhaps killed with a drug. The former seems more likely. The Saudis sedate prisoners to be executed before beheading. If this was done to Khashoggi, and he was then killed by decapitation, this may have been meant to convey a message, to hold the imprimatur of a truly official execution.

Re: Khashoggi
 

I understand that everyone is all upset about this guy getting killed and all the lying about it and everything, but could we all just stop for a moment to remember that time that President Obama wore a tan suit? That was really awful.

But it wouldn’t be make believe if you believed in me.
 

There’s a double standard. There has always been a double standard. We need to get over it.

By the way, I saw this photo and can not determine who this is. I’m pretty sure that it’s a younger* Tatum O’Neal (and a really big dog) but am too lazy to really look. Bueller? Anyone?lw

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dp0eHTlU...jpg&name=small

*Not this young, which relates to the re line how?

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-78_b_RZ7Q...2Bfoto%2B1.jpg

Re: But it wouldn’t be make believe if you believed in me.
 

Double standard? There's no standard at all. Cf.:

Willard: They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.
Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?
Willard: I don't see any method at all, sir.

Speaking of double standards, Why Are The Proud Boys So Obsessed With Not Masturbating?

Re: Khashoggi
 

What do you think - will Trump give Gianforte a bone saw for Christmas?

Re: Khashoggi
 

Trump doesn’t “give.” He might loan with an expectation of result.

Re: Khashoggi
 

As someone else said on Twitter, we are a few weeks from Trump doing an imitation of Khashoggi at rallies.

Re: Khashoggi
 

I found that odd myself. If you're going to wear a tan suit, it should be a cotton summer weight one. But Reagan wore far worse awful brown suits. And Obama's was a minor sin. It's not like he was wearing a pinned collar, or metal buckle loafers with a suit.

Re: But it wouldn’t be make believe if you believed in me.
 

I don't trust people who don't drink, but are neither recovering alcoholics nor afflicted with some allergy or medical condition compelling them to teetotal. This same rule applies to a person who eschews masturbation.

I've no issue with a person who claims to be master if his or her domain. "Infrequently," or "I get enough sex that I don't need to do that," are among the most common of white lies. But a person who actually lets that kettle boil for days, perhaps weeks, without pulling it off the stove is a sick individual.

Re: But it wouldn’t be make believe if you believed in me.
 

Ther's no double standard. The Right simply attacks everything the President does when he's a Democrat and the Left does not do so as effectively when he's a Republican.

In the current climate, I think the Left is tripping over dollars while chasing nickels. It spends an enormous amount of its time on squabbles over who is a more pure Leftie (shaming its moderates and engaging in virtue signalling competitions that alienate voters), purges its own best generals (Franken), and focuses on niche issues (often involving identity politics) that don't translate to the broader public.

Wealth Inequality
Tax Cuts for Plutocrats
Health Care
Middle Class Job Insecurity

Slam the GOP over the head with those four things over and over. Those are winning arguments. The Democrats should be talking about winning the Senate right now instead of wondering how thin their majority margin will be in the House.

Russia, #metoo, climate, Trump acting like a would-be dictator, grievance politics, Khashoggi, Kavanaugh... These are all important things. But they are issues that resonate most with people who are already voting Democrat... sermons to the converted.

I find the Khashoggi thing sickening, and I'm a person who already believes, particularly in foreign relations, that power is the only real rule (I increasingly believe so on domestic matters as well, but still hold out some hope of rescue). And it is galling that idiocy like Benghazi was in the media for years, while Trump's gutless reaction (enabling, really) to the Saudis on Khashoggi will probably be forgotten in two weeks. But if Democrats want Trump out, they're going to have to speak to the people who put Trump into office, on basic domestic issues.

And the message that works will not be, "We know in a global economy, you're losers, and it sucks, but we'll take care of you. We'll give you safety nets." The message that works will be, "We are not going to leave you behind. We are not going to simply offer you care. We are going to give you a seat at the policy-making table. You will be treated as equals, not as problems for elites to manage." This will be a lie to some degree, of course, for reasons I needn't note, but that message will work.

The voters both parties need - these new populists - want a say in where their lives are going. The party that gives them the promise of that will win. The party that talks about "double standards" plays the GOP's game. And loses.

Re: But it wouldn’t be make believe if you believed in me.
 

Just because Ty doesn’t post on weekends does mean it’s okay to passive aggressively attack him on two fronts like this.

Re: But it wouldn’t be make believe if you believed in me.
 

I don’t ordinarily post a reply that has nothing to do with the original post, but ...

I am pissed because I spent an hour trying to do a parody of the Spin Doctors’ “Two Princes” featuring MBS and Jared, and I am blocked. Not that any of you fuckers care; my “Tobin, PJ, and Squi” parody got no love. I mean, it wasn’t my best work (I’m partial to “Me and Sebby D” as sung by dtb. Sniff.), but still.

Fine - I can’t do it. I have to reply to Hank.

Hank, I think that Ty has mentioned having a drink (or maybe wine?) before. But I could be Not Right.

Re: But it wouldn’t be make believe if you believed in me.
 

he quit- he once drained boxes of wine, but no more.

Re: But it wouldn’t be make believe if you believed in me.
 

I couldn't make it through this Administration without drinking.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

FOUNDING FATHER: we must always have an electoral college and 2 senators per state

ME: ok but what if 40 million people live in california

FOUNDING FATHER (spits out tea prepared by a slave): there’s HOW many people in WHAT

linky

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Talking about getting rid of the electoral college and the senate make up is stupid- but 200,000 dems (hi sebby!) voted for Stein or Johnson in both Pa and Mi, so we can't expect smart. i will say that highlighting that 40 million people are in Cali only highlights for me why I'm glad there is an electoral college. You can take out great lakes water when you can pry it out of the cold dead hands of my 2 senators.


there were imbalances of about 10 to 1 in the 13 original states BUT they each agreed to let each have 2 senators.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

There's a simple solution to this, which would probably drive more people into coastal states: Expansion of states' rights via decrease in Federal control of states.

The red states are a net loss in terms of federal tax revenue versus expenditures. The blues are a net gain. It seems terrifically unfair for California to subsidize Kentucky and then be dictated to by Kentucky. Similarly, however, it's terrifically unfair for Kentucky to be dictated to by California simply because California has a much greater population. These states are about as similar as Germany and Italy.

Perhaps the answer to all of this is to give the states' righters what they've desired all along. Pull back on Federal control over states and allow those states to legislate as they like and find ways to tax and pay for their own govt.

This will, of course, compel us to cease (or at least decrease) interfering with states' rights via Federal oversight. But that's the trade that must be made. California cannot cease to pay for Missouri yet still tell Missouri how to govern itself in 80% of matters. (Of course, some federal oversight would need to continue, but it'd be limited, and that's an argument of degree.)

The Left will have problems with this because it will leave people within red states at the whim of conservative state legislatures that will limit rights and pass regressive laws. Again, this is part of the trade. If the people in those states are oppressed, they can move to the progressive states. (The progressive states could also pass laws allowing them a fresh start, such as rules that would preclude debts from their previous locales to be collected or liened against them in their new locales, allowing them to more easily leave residences behind.)

In this situation, California wouldn't have to worry about having to adhere to rules passed by red states. It'd have more autonomy. And the red states couldn't carp about coastal and metropolitan elites telling them how to live, as they'd have more autonomy. And my suspicion is people would increasingly vote with their feet, starving the regressive red states of intellectual and actual capital faster than they're already being starved.

The clarion call of the Right has always been states' rights and personal responsibility (no free lunches). Maybe it's time to give them what they want.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I don't like Trump and I still won't vote for him. But he's provided economic benefit to me that Hillary would not have. And I'm not talking about the market or taxes. I have seen an uptick in development and middle class jobs resulting from an increase in hiring in small to mid-sized businesses. This benefits my family's bottom line as we're partly dependent on middle class consumption.

I've also seen a decrease in litigation involving loans gone bad. Commercial lending seems a bit less skittish. I'm happy to have lost revenue on this side. (And I'm confident it'll come back next recession.)

I can't say I was smart for voting as I did. But you cannot call me stupid, either. It has worked out badly in terms of us having a jackass at the helm, but economically, I can confidently assert things are better than they'd have been under Hillary. (I think they'd have been better under her as well, but not as much for the middle class consumers from which we derive revenue.) Much of this accrues from Obama's policies, but Trump has freed up some previously dormant or temporarily bearish "animal instincts" in the business community which would not have emerged under Hillary.

It could all be a sugar high from the tax cuts. It could all come crashing down with a staggering recession triggered by rate increases, middle east crisis, China tanking, etc. But for now, I can't complain. It's a strange place to be. On one hand, I see this man and think, "Unfit." On the other, I think, "Economically, this nut might have some skills I don't understand." I can't figure it out. I keep waiting for the whole thing to pull a Hindenburg. But I waited for that throughout Obama's term as well, and the market makes no fucking sense to me at all anymore.

The market seems fixed. The economy seems to have already peaked. And yet the trajectory remains upward. I'm told endlessly this is the top of the business cycle... that the fervor for high risk investments like marijuana, and the continual rise in the social media and app sectors indicate things are about to roll over. But that doesn't seem to happen.

Once more, I'll think I'll just "tend my garden." Shorting Pangloss doesn't seem to be getting anyone anywhere anymore.

Re: Besides, he's right, yo know.
 

Whether I agree with him or not, I will always defend Hank's right to call you stupid.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I have a feeling you meant this to mean "not very similar" and yet I'm not sure it really creates that reaction.

So, basically abandon the women and people of color in those states? Let them pollute resources that cross state borders? Stop paying social security and medicare for their residents?

Seems like a lot of people would be materially hurt.

I do not think you have a realistic impression of the amount of federal control over states.

One of the great libertarian myths is that sort of thing happens quickly and without great cost and suffering.

ETA: I think there's also just as much resentment against the people in their own cities in red states as anything else.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Okay, dude.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

What do you do with shit like that?

If he thought a few minutes, I'm sure he'd realize the foolishness of the statement, but, then, it's already after 10 so he's in the sauce and maybe not.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Their economies and economic policies primarily. I was looking for a comparison where the difference isn't too dramatic.

You've reacted exactly as hysterically as I expected. And you've ignored my suggestion that blue states embrace policies that allow people in red states to move.

If these red states are such a problem that we must abolish the electoral college, why aren't they such a problem that we might consider "internal secession" from them? They love the idea of states' rights. Give it to them. See how that works out for them.

If Ty's suggesting getting rid of the electoral college, it seems a lot of people are getting materially hurt now, doesn't it?

That's an argument of degree. But apparently, it's enough that these states keep clamoring for their more states' rights. Give them all the rights they like, but in exchange, they get less money from the feds.

Because property ownership is too sticky in this country. Our lack of labor flexibility accrues considerably from our fixation with owning homes that cannot easily be resold.

That's something I considered. A micro version of the states' rights argument could be applied there. To an extent, it already is. Cities tend to have bespoke codes that grant them certain exemptions and rights smaller communities do not have. They also frequently place certain unique obligations on cities. Those obligations should be relaxed, and the cities allowed to economically and administratively disconnect themselves from the counties, and vice versa.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

For me, and only economically.

Things may not be economically better than they would be for you under Hillary. I don't know.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I'm not fixated on the electoral college - there is a degree to which Dems just need to go get some more small states to go with our big ones, and I think that's more doable than many people think.

But I enjoy history, so here goes. There is a huge difference in the imbalances in the colonies and the imbalances today. Back then we had about 2.4 million people and 13 states. If you split the Senators equitably, 26 senators would each represent a bit less than 100,000 people each. Virginia was the biggest state with a little more than 450,000 people, so under equal representation it might have had 5 Senators, but then just Massachusetts and Pennsylvania might have just made it to 3 Senators rounding up. Basically, Virginia let South Carolina, Georgia and Delaware each get one of its extra votes, Mass gave its neighbor NH one of its, Pennsylvania let NJ have one, and Rhode Island took one from the little bits of rounding from all the other states.

The fault lines really were between big states that would dominate the Presidency, as Virginia and Massachusetts did (through two generations of Adams), and little states that would not, and it was the fact that everyone could see that Virginia would be dominating the Presidency for the foreseeable future (with some possible representation there from Mass. and Penn) that led to the great compromise. Indeed, you didn't see a small state President until the admission of western states changed the calculus, with Jackson being the first some 45 years later.

The idea today that big states are at a massive disadvantage because of the electoral college would have been the big surprise for the founders. Of course, the idea of 50 states would have shocked them, too. Most of them thought the next state admitted might well be Ontario, and that Virginia would ultimately control territory all the way to the French border in the West.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

You've just shown why it will never happen. Population of the US is about 325 million. Population of Michigan is about 10 million. So you are underrepresented in the Electoral College and the Senate, proportionately, but you're more motivated by the idea of somehow losing out to California.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

If California has 40 million people it will have 4 times the Senators Michigan has. i guess it does have 4 times the congressmen? This makes the breakdown even more important to me. NYC alone has about the same population as Michigan- how do we get my State's interest heard? Now extend that to Wyoming? With Montana and the Dakotas they have to share 1 Senator?

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Why not just eliminate the Senate and go unicameral?

Small government, dude.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cp...8183_usgdp.png

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

What if I was just sharing a tweet that I found funny?

eta: I don't think that Democrats should spend any time trying to change the composition of the Senate and the Electoral College. I do think they should propose a constitutional right to vote and spending on polling stations and technology to make it convenient and easy to vote.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I own 5x the percentage of my firm that some of these knuckleheads own- but we each get 1 vote? NWTAF? The problem though isn't to hate on the firm's constituting documents- my problem is that we voted "small potato" a partner when he was destined to not own so much- you're pissed that Wyoming has two Senators go get angry at the people that said it could be a state- with what i know now I'd say, "fuck Wyoming, you don't justify statehood." But it is too late{sad face}

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I wasn't comparing Trump to Obama, but since you did, I find this provides a more complete picture than that graph (which by the way, when taken in whole, averaging peaks and toughs, isn't making the case you think it is):

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...oming-economy/

Critical of Trump: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...-by-gdp-growth

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/4...omy-whos-right

I've seen a much more bullish business atmosphere in the past year and a half. The first six months were everybody holding their breath, but after people absorbed that Trump was not a doomsday event, bullish sentiment has surged. Is it sustainable? I don't know. Beyond my pay grade. But it is interesting that, despite all the cycle indicators that traditionally suggest we've peaked and are about to roll over, we haven't done so yet.

Like I said, I'm baffled. But what I thought would be economically awful has proven to be pretty good. YMMV, of course, depending on what you do and where you do it.

As to the rest of his Presidency, the degradation of the office, and the general ugliness of things, all criticisms of Trump hold true.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Deleted because I don't give enough of a shit to discuss.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

We have been in a long expansion that started under Obama and has never stopped. If you perceive a much more bullish atmosphere, that says more about your perceptions than anything else. For example, if you have been expecting the party to end and instead it keeps going, it certainly is outperforming your expectations.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Actually, your own graph shows the economy slowing pre-Trump.

And given how fast you replied, you read 0% of what I sent.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Of course the Right has more hacks. I've actually attacked friends on the Right for lying. Sent them Snopes articles refuting their "facts." But if you ask them why they send knowingly false items, they'll admit, "If it helps my side, I don't care."

The Left values being seen as thoughtful. The Right Does. Not. Care.

Oh, and somewhat related: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...re-immigration

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

My own graph shows things speeding up and slowing down before Trump, and after Trump. I read all of what you say. I think your views suffer heavily from a form of attribution fallacy. It's certainly possible that people around you are more bullish -- polling shows that the way Republicans described the economy changed quite a bit before and after the election, despite little change in the facts. I don't think Trump has had much effect on the economy. We are now running big deficits, which should help keep the party going for a while (but will also make it harder to help when the next recession comes, as it will). His trade moves haven't had a lot of effects yet.

I get that your basic game here is to be provocative. You wanted to get a rise out of people by saying something nice about Trump -- so, nicely done, you did.

The Trump government and Republicans in general are much more interested in winning zero-sum games -- re-allocating government taxes and spending, political power and social status to themselves -- than they are in fostering growth. That much is plain to see. So you wouldn't expect much change in the near term from what they've done.