Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

Kerry was slandered by the right. Obama was slandered by the right. Lies do damage. That is my only point here. If you can definitively put an end to those lies with a fact based response, I believe it is wise to do so.

The people who believe those lies are not people who are inclined to even consider a response, factual or not. You can resurrect the corpse of every single one of her ancestors, and the haters are still going to hate.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

The people who believe those lies are not people who are inclined to even consider a response, factual or not. You can resurrect the corpse of every single one of her ancestors, and the haters are still going to hate.

2. Even if the proof is sketchy, Warren has to get behind it and say, “Its true. I didn’t lie. Criticisms to the contrary are right wing fake news.”

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

It's okay, bud, I'm still mad at the loom too. Don't even get me started on buggy whips.

Except the facts have so far proven me right and you wrong.

You realize you’re the Luddite here. Econ 101 is the buggy whip.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Except the facts have so far proven me right and you wrong.

We skipped the part where I talk about how I've paid the bills since 2000 or so, and then you tell me that I'm the exception that proves the rule. Let's just pretend we did it so we don't have to do it again.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

The people who believe those lies are not people who are inclined to even consider a response, factual or not. You can resurrect the corpse of every single one of her ancestors, and the haters are still going to hate.

There are two ways for the Dems to overcome these haters and get a few votes out of this crowd:

(1) Nominate a white male, preferably in his 70s or 80s and from the south.
(2) Have the Republicans nominate someone other than a white male.

Otherwise, it's a matter of ridiculing and marginalizing these poor excuses for human beings. Get the racist fuckers to crawl back under a rock instead of populating the cabinet.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Except the facts have so far proven me right and you wrong.

You think that the world today is poorer and has fewer jobs on offer than it did in the early 19th century? Okay.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You think that the world today is poorer and has fewer jobs on offer than it did in the early 19th century? Okay.

You ignore the Interim, in which automation and globalization continue to remove living wage jobs in developed economies at a rate far in excess of the rate at which they replace them. You also ignore that the jobs replacing the living wage jobs lost are of inferior quality and for less pay. (And no, the current inflationary trends will not offset this.)

The Interim is bleak. The Interim is what we will get to view during our life span.

A hundred years from now is irrelevant.

In the long run, you may be right. Jobs will be created that we cannot even imagine today. Or jobs will become fewer and far less necessary, as Keynes believed. Or we will continue to split into a tiered society where 30% of us will have excellent jobs, and the other 70% will be on a continuum between treading water and desperation.

I don't know the answer. But I know we're in the Interim, and you're ignoring it because it confounds the silly argument, "Innovation always replaces lost jobs with more jobs!" Notice no economist touting that alleged law ever comments on the timeline in which it does so?

It's the Interim, stupid. The here and now is all that matters to the people in the here and now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

We skipped the part where I talk about how I've paid the bills since 2000 or so, and then you tell me that I'm the exception that proves the rule. Let's just pretend we did it so we don't have to do it again.

You and me, having this conversation. Hell, this entire board... If you think we're the rule, and not exceptions - in several essential regards - I want what you're smoking.

I say this not to kiss anyone's ass, but the conversations here - even the sillier commentaries - are exceptional in comparison to General Main Street America to an extent I'm not sure we can even fathom.

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest I see more Kardashians Watchers and 'Muricans than you do on a regular basis. The slice of people into which you fall is many multiples thinner than you think. That you are paying the bills isn't proof the Luddites had it wrong. It's proof you fall into the upper 30% of society that has a marketable skill set.

You're about as "typical American" are you are female.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You ignore the Interim, in which automation and globalization continue to remove living wage jobs in developed economies at a rate far in excess of the rate at which they replace them. You also ignore that the jobs replacing the living wage jobs lost are of inferior quality and for less pay. (And no, the current inflationary trends will not offset this.)

The Interim is bleak. The Interim is what we will get to view during our life span.

You don't want to talk about what policies are helpful during the Interim, and would rather blow they real problems we face during it out of proportion.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That you are paying the bills isn't proof the Luddites had it wrong.

He said how he pays the bills not that he pays his bills. Like, his actual job is proof the Luddites had it wrong.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Boy, sure is a good thing that none of us said there was nothing to this Russia stuff, right?

Last night, I happened across Oprah doing a piece on 60 Minutes about political polarization. It was a lot like the Frank Luntz piece on Vice, in which he interviews a room full of Trump supporters. In fact, Oprah interviewed Luntz in her piece.

Anyway, Oprah offered one interesting tidbit about the bipartisan group she had been interviewing. People wanted to talk taxes, immigration, and they fought over #metoo, but Russia? It was not high on the list.

It's just not getting much interest. http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/21/cn...t-care-russia/

None of this means Trump will skate. If there's illegal money laundering, it's a major problem for him. But right now, Americans don't care.

And if you think there's "something" there that will involve Putin having colluded directly with Trump, you're nuts. Whatever Mueller finds, Trump will have plausible deniability. There's no way in hell a plan as sophisticated as the Kremlin's would directly involve someone as reckless and dumb as Trump. And... Russia wanted Trump in office. Putin loves nationalism. He wants a fractured world. You think they'd do all this work to plant a nationalist nut atop our Republic, just to have him torpedoed with solid evidence of direct communication with Russians?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

He said how he pays the bills not that he pays his bills. Like, his actual job is proof the Luddites had it wrong.

I wasn't making that distinction. Put away the blue pencil.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You and me, having this conversation. Hell, this entire board... If you think we're the rule, and not exceptions - in several essential regards - I want what you're smoking.

I say this not to kiss anyone's ass, but the conversations here - even the sillier commentaries - are exceptional in comparison to General Main Street America to an extent I'm not sure we can even fathom.

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest I see more Kardashians Watchers and 'Muricans than you do on a regular basis. The slice of people into which you fall is many multiples thinner than you think. That you are paying the bills isn't proof the Luddites had it wrong. It's proof you fall into the upper 30% of society that has a marketable skill set.

You're about as "typical American" are you are female.

For the last century and a half, upstate NY has been a rural backwater dotted with innovation centers. They've changed over time, but your cameras and copiers came out of Rochester, your fancy glassworks and then your fiber cables came out of Corning, Ithaca was one of the centers of the Green Revolution of the 70s, and Fishkill gave us the big computers before the Route 128 and Silicon Valley settlements took hold. It is possible to get back to more dispersed innovation - the heavy concentrations of SV and Boston really all developed only in our lifetime.

We also know what it takes, because there are a lot of smaller innovation hubs that have developed in the last twenty years. It takes more focus on having a well-educated workforce (the presence of which will create jobs up and down the educational ladder), it takes academic research facilities, especially specialty areas of science and tech research, and it takes more open immigration and a greater welcoming of immigrants. Put these together and the rest flows. But a rural area that's not open to having some immigrants move in, whether from other places in the country or other places in the world, will just isolate that big state university plopped down in a field somewhere, rather than build an economy off of it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You don't want to talk about what policies are helpful during the Interim, and would rather blow they real problems we face during it out of proportion.

Retraining low skilled workers is fantasy because they simply aren't smart enough to handle new economy jobs. They've no choice but to fall into the service sector.

Retraining older workers rarely works because, even if they're smart enough to handle a new gig, they have a devil of a time landing one. Hiring for entry level skilled work is biased toward youth, for reasons I needn't explain.

The Interim is just getting started. You're downplaying what doesn't fit your narrative.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

For the last century and a half, upstate NY has been a rural backwater dotted with innovation centers. They've changed over time, but your cameras and copiers came out of Rochester, your fancy glassworks and then your fiber cables came out of Corning, Ithaca was one of the centers of the Green Revolution of the 70s, and Fishkill gave us the big computers before the Route 128 and Silicon Valley settlements took hold. It is possible to get back to more dispersed innovation - the heavy concentrations of SV and Boston really all developed only in our lifetime.

We also know what it takes, because there are a lot of smaller innovation hubs that have developed in the last twenty years. It takes more focus on having a well-educated workforce (the presence of which will create jobs up and down the educational ladder), it takes academic research facilities, especially specialty areas of science and tech research, and it takes more open immigration and a greater welcoming of immigrants. Put these together and the rest flows. But a rural area that's not open to having some immigrants move in, whether from other places in the country or other places in the world, will just isolate that big state university plopped down in a field somewhere, rather than build an economy off of it.

Yup. Allow immigrants to innovate in the depressed areas of the country and you'll see growth. Real growth.

I'd start a program to grant not only entry to skilled immigrants, but to also give them incentives (tax abatements, tax incentives, financing for businesses... hell, free property!) to move into depressed regions.

But we both know, a lot of smart immigrants are going to look at depressed areas and, even with all sorts of incentives, they're going to instead opt to live in developed areas with already thriving markets for their skills. And I don't know how anyone could force them to live in depressed areas as a condition of entry. That's both unconstitutional and generally repugnant.