I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Hank Chinaski]

also, not looking to defend Trump, but on the Star of David/Hil issue, is there any reason to believe Trump would want to paint Hil as friendly to Israel or Jewish people in general? It seems more that he will say she/Obama were hostile to Israel.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Biology. People are hard wired for tribal thinking. The more enlightened we become, the more we correct for the remnant instincts which had served us well during the period in which we evolved from bands of cavemen to nascent states.

But it's going to take at least a few thousand more years to entirely breed out those instincts. And our economic and political systems don't help the situation.

It's all lizard brain stuff. The world isn't shit. Fifty percent of humans are.

So what are your views on democracy? Ah, never mind.

Daily Dose time. Grooved-out bass line? Check. Distorted wah wah guitars? Check. Driving horn lines? Check. Incorporation of the word "funk" into the band or song name? Check! It's Con-funk-shun with "Clique":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YNM0MGv8lo

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

also, not looking to defend Trump, but on the Star of David/Hil issue, is there any reason to believe Trump would want to paint Hil as friendly to Israel or Jewish people in general? It seems more that he will say she/Obama were hostile to Israel.

Isn't it more that someone in his camp is taking images from fucking neo-Nazi websites and using them in his campaign?

Who gives a shit what he says at this point?

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Isn't it more that someone in his camp is taking images from fucking neo-Nazi websites and using them in his campaign?

TM

The star was from a Nazi site? Or something else was? David Duke actually called him out so I guess there is something going on.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The star was from a Nazi site? Or something else was? David Duke actually called him out so I guess there is something going on.

"Critics erupted with complaints that the graphic evoked anti-Semitic imagery and the Trump campaign refused to answer questions about the tweet even as reports emerged that the image had been posted to an anti-Semitic, white supremacist message board 10 days earlier."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/04/politi...eet-explained/

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The star was from a Nazi site? Or something else was? David Duke actually called him out so I guess there is something going on.

The whole incident is a clusterfuck. It was a tweet and might have been easily dismissed as the work of his proverbial much maligned intern with a quick apology and a pull down, but he managed instead to make it a three day story complete with details on it being pulled from a twitter user with five followers whose tweets included swastikas and other lovely stuff.

Pretty much, the way we've gotten here. The entire Republican party, which acknowledged last time they got their asses handed to them that it was in part because of the Hispanic vote and resolved to do better instead spent their primaries debating who hated immigrants more and would build a bigger wall to keep them out. Clusterfuck after clusterfuck.

Leaving the question of why anyone would put the Clusterfuck Party in charge of anything.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The whole incident is a clusterfuck. It was a tweet and might have been easily dismissed as the work of his proverbial much maligned intern with a quick apology and a pull down, but he managed instead to make it a three day story complete with details on it being pulled from a twitter user with five followers whose tweets included swastikas and other lovely stuff.

Wow. Sounds like he was really careless, about something of limited import, nothing top secret, but still careless.



TRANSLATION FOR THE SHORT TEMPERED (hi sidd!): I will vote against Trump, not for clinton. But the choice we have this year is by far the worst I have seen. When your party nominates someone as compromised as hillary you do not have space to goof on the other party. Your nominee will make me throw up a little when I vote for her. WTG!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Uh...it comes to bite you in the ass?

Unless you're now arguing that the increased costs associated with less frequently traveled routes should be spread across all airlines, I don't really understand your point. Air travel is very cheap to places that do not have the costs associated with connecting flights. It's not because there is a tremendous amount of competition. Competition helps, obviously. But the reason why it's cheap to fly to Chicago and not Cincinnati is because there is way more traffic to Chicago, resulting in larger planes and a bigger hub, etc.--all the economies of scale shit that make the per person costs lower.

From this string, your argument would be to force the bigger airlines to give up those economies of scale ("Then I guess we'll just have to outlaw loans that big") and spread costs from the crappy routes to consumers of the cheap routes.

But that model works so well for the Post Office....

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Wow. Sounds like he was really careless, about something of limited import, nothing top secret, but still careless.



TRANSLATION FOR THE SHORT TEMPERED (hi sidd!): I will vote against Trump, not for clinton. But the choice we have this year is by far the worst I have seen. When your party nominates someone as compromised as hillary you do not have space to goof on the other party. Your nominee will make me throw up a little when I vote for her. WTG!

Hillary is obviously compromised and has never been a great candidate. But if you don't see dramatic differences between her and Trump, well.....

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Hillary is obviously compromised and has never been a great candidate. But if you don't see dramatic differences between her and Trump, well.....

Confidential to RT: if me and some of other socks donate, you know, anon, could you arrange for Sidd to have a remedial reading comprehension course?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Wow. Sounds like he was really careless, about something of limited import, nothing top secret, but still careless.



TRANSLATION FOR THE SHORT TEMPERED (hi sidd!): I will vote against Trump, not for clinton. But the choice we have this year is by far the worst I have seen. When your party nominates someone as compromised as hillary you do not have space to goof on the other party. Your nominee will make me throw up a little when I vote for her. WTG!

I feel your pain.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I feel your pain.

So you agree sidd is a numbskull?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So you agree sidd is a numbskull?

I feel his pain, too.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So, I didn't really listen in macroeconomics. When someone says the economy really did well under President ____, what is the implication? Is it spending to stimulate jobs/ cash flowing, or cutting back to fight down inflation? Or is the economy really not under anyone's real control?

What does a president really do?

Depends somewhat on when you're talking about. Nixon's price controls, for example, were not a good idea that might have mattered.

Presidents have a role to play in attempting to steer fiscal policy towards the counter-cyclical in a boom or bust, but I don't think there are many people left who see fiscal policy as playing a role in relatively normal times.

A president can be a part of structural reforms, like removing unnecessary regulation, for example, but those tend to be longer term things that I don't think are motivating anyone who observes how the economy did under a given president.

Anyway, I agree with your implied premise. A president has very little to do with the business cycle in relatively normal times, where monetary policy plays the key role in managing growth and inflation. Someone crediting a president for the economy he presided over is merely making a political argument.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Given that I have generally changed my mind about what causes terror in the name of Islam, does anyone have thoughts on this?

My thought: we play a very, very dangerous game when we buy into the jihadist worldview of cosmic warfare.