earthmansurfer wrote:I think that is a pretty brutal front page for the NY Post. I wonder if Trumps policies regarding immigration don't look so bad now. (Meaning having a relatively open border is a dangerous policy.)
Here in Germany, Merkel is up for re-election next year and her one big downfall with the people is the relatively open borders regarding immigration.

I don't get why you post stuff from Fox or NYPost. If you think the MSM is biased then you should regard both Fox and NYPost as even more lopsided.

What is your take on both of those media outlets?

holfresh wrote:

arkrud wrote:

holfresh wrote:

arkrud wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:

arkrud wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

arkrud wrote:All current researches are based on premise that urbanization continue to be the main driver for population shift.
But reality shows that this trend is reversing.
Automation, robotization, computerization, and productivity grows already created huge excess of working hands and heads in the cities and we will see outflow of people back out of overcrowded urban centers as soon as the social help will not be able to keep them afloat. People will stream back to country site where they can be self-sufficient at least to the level of surviving.
This is already happening in Russia and other countries which are industrialized but failed to collect enough of public wealth to support large unemployed and underemployed population in cities.
It will take more time in US but is inevitable.
What most of the pundits see as racial or nationalistic issues are in fact demographic issues which they always were.
The refusal of general public to accept this reality is related to human race inability to control demographic for the most part.
The loss of control is psychologically unacceptable and depressive for many people.

demographics and race are intertwined. trump campaigned on race - i don't think that's even up for debate. there is enough data to support it.

i think white people in this country were ready for a change (obama) but to overcome what's in the subconscious takes a long time and trump was able to revert many back to it. racism isn't just about screaming at someone who's a different color - it's engrained in everyone since this country was built on racism. it's still very institutional and all of us have it in us whether we choose to admit it or not. but the fact is, one race has dominated all the others in this country - and any set back in terms of racial unity - and this election is a set back - takes years to overcome and further engrains what's already in our subconscious.

10th if not hundreds of millions emigrants came to US after slavery was abolished and even after segregation was ended.
Still they posses racist and nationalistic views they brought from other countries.
At least on the surface this manifests as such.
Deep inside it is the same tribal "us against the world" position which comes out of necessity to survive.
The only way to overcome this huge drag on the progress is to collect as much of public wealth as possible to support basic needs of all population groups. We are not there yet and focus should be on getting the pie bigger no evenly distributed.
Later proved to make it smaller.
Obviously it is counterintuitive and not easily accepted by those who are on the tin end.
But life in not fair. It is just what it is.

I do believe you are contradicting yourself here. On page one you explained that "wasteland" is of the social variety, and how US is not "wasteland" when it comes to that. I have to agree, compared to some of the other countries the United States have better social programs , but that's a direct result of splitting the wealth or "pie" to pay for healthcare, welfare, SS, education, disability etc. In this post you are advocating for concentration of the wealth which effectively cuts those said programs and would actually increase the "social wasteland" effect.
So which is it? Should US support its social benefits or give everything to the rich and pray that they take it upon themselves to distribute that wealth using the wonderful yet unexistant trickle down effect? To go the first path Trump is not the right leader. The second path will bring America closer to the proverbial and aforementioned "social wasteland" and yes, in that case Trump is your man.

There is no way the rich will give anything to the pure. They will not.
The mechanics of the society should make this act profitable and desirable.
You do this act and it makes you better financially and raze your social status.
People in general statistically are not inclined to do anything for anybody without some kind of profit.
Financial, psychological, moral, or whatever.
There are exceptions but they just proving the rule.
I think our society is setup to force people give up part of their wealth to support unfortunate or inept once.
And Trump/No-Trump has nothing to do with it.
And yes - we do have our internal "wastelands" and this problem will grow and will need attention.
The only way to make the things better is to work on them and to put aside any illusions and utopias about what people are.
We are still ugly creatures and we need to be kept in check. All of us.

Do you ever think about some of the things you say???So the 245 years of slavery where the wealthy of this country benefited from free slave labor is what then???..Was society set up then to benefit the wealthy literally on the backs of the poor..Can you really be that obtuse???

Human race had thousands years of slavery in many countries.
It was more advanced social setting comparing to primitive tribal society.
In Rome Empire or ancient Egypt citizens benefited from slavery until this settings became a drag to progress and gone.
The wealth concentration is required for progress. The way it is done can be ugly and it is.
But this is how human race evolved and operates.
Any attempt to brake this ended up in disaster.
We are what we are - greedy and selfish carnivores.
We are getting better over time but really slowly.

Their descendants are some of the inept ones you are referring to..Those people didn't become inept on their own, they were helped to that place and you are benefiting from a system built on that..So whether you not you have a valid point about where tax money goes, you should try to appreciate the historical context of how we got here...

I do understand the historical context and the fact that this is very sensitive subject.
But you should also agree that AA not only people in the world and in America who were suffering on the bad end of historical process.
You can blame some people who leave at a time of this unfolding but not their descendants or anyone leaving now for that matter.
We all are using the wealth build on blood and suffering of countless generations of humans who literally pawed the road of progress for us with their blood and tears.
For people to come together in piece and compassion we have to remember the pats but stop projecting it to each other.
Otherwise you will hate all the world and became what ISIS is, what KKK is, and any other countless proponents of hate are.
There is easy to find and run with hate but hard to come up with compassion and love.

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:I think that is a pretty brutal front page for the NY Post. I wonder if Trumps policies regarding immigration don't look so bad now. (Meaning having a relatively open border is a dangerous policy.)
Here in Germany, Merkel is up for re-election next year and her one big downfall with the people is the relatively open borders regarding immigration.

I don't get why you post stuff from Fox or NYPost. If you think the MSM is biased then you should regard both Fox and NYPost as even more lopsided.

What is your take on both of those media outlets?

Do you think the hundreds of people who work for Fox or the NY Post only speak 1 point? There is absolutely nothing wrong with having an open mind to different sources.
As Krisnamurti once said, "See the truth in the false." I take that too heart and look at lots of information.

MSM mostly doesn't go deep with important issues with our president and such, I mean their parent companies are usually in bed with big money, politics, etc.
You think you are helping by making them the standard? You are playing into MSM's control. That expression "The revolution will not be on T.V." is a true expression. And they've
tried their best to not show it.

To not show Trumps Rally Crowds of 10's of thousands, but zoomed in on Hillaries crowds of 350 or so. Love him or hate him, Trump is just
a reflection of this time we are in. The Brexit, Trump, on Sunday we have an important Italian referendum vote, La Pen in France is challenging for the next presidency, fairly
important vote coming up in Austria, The S. Korean government scandal, etc. We are in the middle of something huge, and Trump is just reflecting that, regardless of being for or against.

MSM is dying, hard. They are in a bind. "Luckily" they have been able to somewhat censor the new MSM in Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. (And I have experienced it first hand on Reddit, absolutely shocked me as to be honest, I thought it was some kind of conspiracy theory but it happened to me again and again.) And not to attack you, but you are a mod and the owner. How can you be neutral (as a mod) and profess to dislike Trump (and like Hillary?)? You are essentially MSM here in that you can exert great influence and that is not the news' job or your job. I mean you are questioning me for posting the cover of the NY Post, which I said was brutal and asked an honest question. They have many readers. What does this do? It changes public opinion some, just like all media does.

They are working hard to stop this movement. Obviously it is extremely important to them. They want to keep this corrupt story going and it looks like it isn't going to happen now.
In a funny way, They Live by Carpenter was a very symbolic movie regarding this. Cult classic for a reason.

Terror.

Nalod wrote:The flu kills about 4500 people in the US.

Terror.

smackeddog wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:I think that is a pretty brutal front page for the NY Post. I wonder if Trumps policies regarding immigration don't look so bad now. (Meaning having a relatively open border is a dangerous policy.)
Here in Germany, Merkel is up for re-election next year and her one big downfall with the people is the relatively open borders regarding immigration.

I don't get why you post stuff from Fox or NYPost. If you think the MSM is biased then you should regard both Fox and NYPost as even more lopsided.

What is your take on both of those media outlets?

Do you think the hundreds of people who work for Fox or the NY Post only speak 1 point? There is absolutely nothing wrong with having an open mind to different sources.
As Krisnamurti once said, "See the truth in the false." I take that too heart and look at lots of information.

MSM mostly doesn't go deep with important issues with our president and such, I mean their parent companies are usually in bed with big money, politics, etc.
You think you are helping by making them the standard? You are playing into MSM's control. That expression "The revolution will not be on T.V." is a true expression. And they've
tried their best to not show it.

To not show Trumps Rally Crowds of 10's of thousands, but zoomed in on Hillaries crowds of 350 or so. Love him or hate him, Trump is just
a reflection of this time we are in. The Brexit, Trump, on Sunday we have an important Italian referendum vote, La Pen in France is challenging for the next presidency, fairly
important vote coming up in Austria, The S. Korean government scandal, etc. We are in the middle of something huge, and Trump is just reflecting that, regardless of being for or against.

MSM is dying, hard. They are in a bind. "Luckily" they have been able to somewhat censor the new MSM in Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. (And I have experienced it first hand on Reddit, absolutely shocked me as to be honest, I thought it was some kind of conspiracy theory but it happened to me again and again.) And not to attack you, but you are a mod and the owner. How can you be neutral (as a mod) and profess to dislike Trump (and like Hillary?)? You are essentially MSM here in that you can exert great influence and that is not the news' job or your job. I mean you are questioning me for posting the cover of the NY Post, which I said was brutal and asked an honest question. They have many readers. What does this do? It changes public opinion some, just like all media does.

They are working hard to stop this movement. Obviously it is extremely important to them. They want to keep this corrupt story going and it looks like it isn't going to happen now.
In a funny way, They Live by Carpenter was a very symbolic movie regarding this. Cult classic for a reason.

So basically if you agree with the article it's true, and if you don't it's false? I can understand saying the MSN is in bed with big business, but I dont understand how you think Trump isn't.

Opinions are no longer debatable... as long as some support them, they are true, no matter what the "facts" are.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/scottie-nell-hughes-there-are-no-more-facts

Science might be dead in a Trump administration.

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

holfresh wrote:Im watching CSpan right now..Republicans in the house talking about corporate tax cuts to help the deficit..It's comical..I had math in school..A negative number plus another negative number makes a bigger negative number..

Talking about elimination of the death tax..Trump's kids must be creaming themselves..

I wonder what's in it for these congressmen..Maybe the lobbyist just working them before they kick out that Christmas bonus..

Trickle down...one more time. Never worked...never will, but the GOP has an addiction to it.

Holfresh too (Was that article not clear?)

One of the creators of the tax plan, which I posted before (here is the link: Trump's Plan Isn't Trickle-Down Economics http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StephenMoore/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-trickle-down-economics/2016/10/04/id/751523/) said it isn't trickle down economics. Just because corporations are getting a tax cut, that doesn't make it trickle down. The cuts are across the board.

EMS, read up on what happened in the state of Kansas. It was hailed as the great experiment in 2010 for governor Brown. Tax cuts across the board; and indeed this is trickle down.

https://newrepublic.com/article/119574/sam-brownbacks-conservative-utopia-kansas-has-become-hell

The midterm elections of 2010 were good for Republicans nearly everywhere, but amid the national Tea Party insurgency, it was easy to overlook the revolution that was brewing in Kansas. That year, the GOP won every federal and statewide office. Sam Brownback, a genial U.S. senator best known for his ardent social conservatism, captured the governor’s mansion with nearly double the votes of his Democratic opponent.And having conquered Kansas so convincingly, he was determined not to squander the opportunity. His administration, he declared, would be a “real live experiment” that would prove, once and for all, that the way to achieve prosperity was by eliminating government from economic life.

Brownback’s agenda bore the imprint of three decades of right-wing agitation, particularly that of the anti-government radicals Charles and David Koch and their Wichita-based Koch Industries, the single largest contributors to Brownback’s campaigns. Brownback appointed accountant Steve Anderson, who had developed a model budget for the Kochs’ advocacy arm, Americans for Prosperity, as his budget director. Another Koch-linked group, the Kansas Policy Institute, supported his controversial tax proposals. As Brownback later explained to The Wall Street Journal, “My focus is to create a red-state model that allows the Republican ticket to say, ‘See, we’ve got a different way, and it works.’”

Brownback established an Office of the Repealer to take a scythe to regulations on business, he slashed spending on the poor by tightening welfare requirements, he rejected federal Medicaid subsidies and privatized the delivery of Medicaid, and he dissolved four state agencies and eliminated 2,000 state jobs. The heart of his program consisted of drastic tax cuts for the wealthy and eliminating taxes on income from profits for more than 100,000 Kansas businesses. No other state had gone this far. He was advised by the godfather of supply-side economics himself, the Reagan-era economist Arthur Laffer, who described the reforms as “a revolution in a cornfield.”

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-kansas-tea-party-disaster-20141023

Extremist Republicans turned their government into a lab experiment of tax cuts and privatization. And now they may be losing control of one of the reddest states in the nation

The devastation to that state is unreal. Tax cuts in this manor do not work.

Also, math must be done so that we can realize the % of money that represents savings when tax cuts are given from top to bottom. Even if you give a tax cut to the bottom 75% of everyone, that still only represents a proportionally small amount of total.

Thanks for sharing that with me. Not sure why you would share anything with someone with such low intelligence and whose posts you just skip over.
But seriously, what is going to work? Obama (for whatever reason) has tripled the debt. The banking system is on the edge, really just being kept afloat since 2008 in this experiment called Quantitative Easing (better known as money printing to the banks, whose bad debt is bought.) I'm serious with this btw. No matter who got in as president, the cards are stacked against them.

There seems to be, and has been, a Globalist Agenda going on for years. There are some nice things for people regarding globalization, namely less of a chance of war (I think) but mostly it has raised unemployment in the States, but "helped" Mexico, China and some other manufacturing places that are "cheaper".

So, what would be best? What could get us out of this hole? Honestly.

In a very basic way, if we lower taxes across the board, and cut governments spending by a percentage of that amount (we don't need to cut it all by that, as spending will of course go up. Poor, people, lower middle class, who don't have enough would have more, they would spend that money.) Companies would spend more (I hope) and if they just planned on stock buy backs, perhaps we need to have clauses regarding these cuts. I'm not for more "laws" but we are between a rock and a hard place. We can't do what we've been doing, during a terrible economic and global situation and expect good results.

EMS

It just seems like a lot of the information you are working off is just plain wrong, therefore your conclusions are generally wrong.....You can help yourself to be more informed by finding new places to get your information...You may want to consult more than one source or consult sources that are reputable and known to put out accurate information..This can go along way in clearing up many of your questions..Just a suggestion...

Maybe I should attached the reasons..
1. The level of debt Obama met when he took office is incorrect, it could not be tripled
2. The reason the debt continued to increase, look it up..Also look up spending by Presidents going back to 1980...
3. The purpose of Quantitative Easing is incorrect
4. The health of the banking system is incorrect, they are as sound as ever and hitting all time highs..
Just a few and there are more I can highlight...

It seems like you only accept your data and your posts using MSM are the standard. The very thing you often accuse me of is what you do.

You try to find a flaw in my post and attack that, just like many here do, instead of looking at the larger point. As in #1, you don't mention Obama doubled (or is it 1.7X?) the deficit, just that my number was wrong.

1. He basically doubled the debt. Sorry about that I had the context wrong (from article). Now it becomes me being wrong and not the actual terrible statistic.
The tripling should have been applied to going back under Bush, as is stated below.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/apr/09/rand-paul/rand-paul-debt-has-tripled-bush-took-office/

2. "But more to the point, a major factor in the debt explosion has been the decline in government revenues because of the recession. "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/is-obama-responsible-for-a-5-trillion-increase-in-the-debt/2012/05/15/gIQACA0QSU_blog.html?utm_term=.5aa4999cf522
So, Obama should have been doing what Trump just started as President Elect and bring some jobs home. Trump is already starting to be President and that is sick. Obama should be doing his job. Nobel Peace Prize???

Look at what has happened under Obama:
8 years of near zero economic growth (is that near the worst in our history?)
Invaded and helped overturn a couple of governments in foreign countries.
illegal gun trafficking operation into Mexico that resulted in the deaths of Americans
IRS targeted political opponents (was Obama involved?)
Targeted Americans with Drones, now we have drones bombing in what, 8 countries? (Ron Paul got on him about this)
More lower paying jobs, just keep moving them overseas. More people working more PT jobs and losing benefits.

So, I'm not really happy about the last 8 years.

3. I didn't give the purpose of QE, I'm aware of that, I gave in simple terms (some) of what they do. The banking system was so broken in 2008 (or there abouts), that they started trying to control the economy by printing money, instead of adjusting interest rates; hence the term quantitative easing. They are trying to control the economy by controlling the supply of money and they are just really liberal with helping the banks buy back bad debt (in part) but seem to have a problem giving it to the common Joe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing

Quantitative easing (QE) is a monetary policy used by central banks to stimulate the economy. It is usually used when standard monetary policy has become ineffective.[1][2][3][4] A central bank implements quantitative easing by buying financial assets from commercial banks and other financial institutions, thus raising the prices of those financial assets and lowering their yield, while simultaneously increasing the money supply.[5][6] This differs from the more usual policy of buying or selling short-term government bonds to keep interbank interest rates at a specified target value.[7][9][10]

Expansionary monetary policy to stimulate the economy typically involves the central bank buying short-term government bonds to lower short-term market interest rates.[11][12][13][14] However, when short-term interest rates reach or approach zero, this method can no longer work.[15] In such circumstances, monetary authorities may then use quantitative easing to further stimulate the economy by buying assets of longer maturity than short-term government bonds, thereby lowering longer-term interest rates further out on the yield curve.

4. America could go bankrupt. If you were America, you could file bankruptcy, and we might actually have to look into that, in part anyway, as the system is broken. Don't listen to MSM here. Just because the stock market is going up that doesn't mean things are good.

A newly published paper by a researcher for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis warns that a ballooning budget deficit and pension and welfare timebomb is growing into a $65.9 trillion fiscal gap that will force the United States into bankruptcy.
In the view of Prof. Laurence Kotlikoff of Boston University, the U.S. is already bankrupt – at least the government is.
Snippet
“The U.S. government is, indeed, bankrupt,” he writes, “insofar as it will be unable to pay its creditors, who, in this context, are current and future generations to whom it has explicitly or implicitly promised future net payments of various kinds.”

...

“The proper way to consider a country’s solvency is to examine the lifetime fiscal burdens facing current and future generations. If these burdens exceed the resources of those generations, get close to doing so, or simply get so high as to preclude their full collection, the country’s policy will be unsustainable and can constitute or lead to national bankruptcy.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2006/07/37037/#iAAw2abdILz8SBmj.99

earthmansurfer wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:For anyone who doesn't know about Pepe the Frog as a hate symbol...

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/781119167533420548

I know it was not originally an offensive symbol...but neither was the swastika, a design used thousands of years before the Nazis.

If you actually go to Alt-Right sites on the web or check out certain Twitter accounts you see Pepe on a regular basis.

Anyone using this symbol in a political discussion is getting called out by me if I happen to see it. "Alt-Right," Neo-Nazi, White Supremacy stuff has no place around here.

I understand that we have some folks around here with racist views, but using something now listed as a symbol of hate by the ADL does not see appropriate around here.

Walt, you replied to my post in the other thread (which it appears was deleted as I can't find it?), where there was a small picture of that frog with no Swastika or anything negative about it, with something like "You're using that picture with that F'n Neo Nazi Pepe Character" Do you really think using the "F" word is appropriate? Do you not think that would offend people, like maybe me? It is just ironic, you get offended and come back with that language? Is that why the post was deleted, but here you are posting a Pepe image with the very symbology you denounce?
I had zero idea that frog could be offensive and I really doubt most people are using it with hate in mind.

The anti defamation league has said that not all Pepe usage is racist. Of course not, you yourself said it was hijacked. That character is all over Reddit and from the posts I've read (hundreds) I didn't see racist statements, just some in poor taste perhaps. I didn't see Pepe with Swastikas either. You basically attacked me for a mistake and never apologized, checked in with me, or the like. And you talk about offensive? In hundreds of pages there was that 1 use of the character (that I saw) and here you are laying ground rules on posting? And you called me ignorant?

Who here has racist views? I was accused of having racist views because I asked for responsible borders and admitted I was against Mexico paying for the wall. The name calling ended real quick when I mentioned my Grandfather was from Syria...

Peace,
EMS

The fact that you posted something with NO evidence to back it, is typical of the shyte that Trump has done. By the way...you might like to read about this fellow, who got convicted for something in the past, but was working for Trump in Michigan...https://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/michigan-trump-staffer-convicted-on-ten-counts-of-felony-election-fraud/

If you don't understand what is going on in this country now, that is your problem...and yeah, I'll call it ignorance of a sort. If you're in Germany you should have an understanding of what the "AltRight" really is and what it means when guys are getting up at a meeting in f'n Washington DC and giving Nazi salutes to Spencer... or seeing the KKK getting a little amped up. Maybe this means nothing to you...but it does, to some.

We just had our political process hacked by the Russians (Oh, that's right, you're an Assangist, and probably can't admit he was getting tooled by the Putin and his hackers.) but that doesn't seem to matter to some folks, I guess, even though we are being laughed at by much of the free world at this moment, but expecially by the Putin, who played us big time.

Once again...you see Pepe in a political discussion and it has connotations...The fact that you did not understand this tells me your not that aware of certain things going on here, but it does not mean that I'm going to let it pass. If you are going to talk with any kind of certitude on things try to understand what you are talking about.

Live with it.

smackeddog wrote:

martin wrote:this is our country

I despair, because I have no idea how you counter that politically- just people who refuse to acknowledge or accept a basic fact.

The argument is basically:

"I believe x and I know that because of y"
"But y isn't true- it never happened"
"Well I still believe it!"

Much of this is about the popular vote, by the way. Trump and fans cannot accept the fact that they won the Electoral College but got beat significantly (2.5M and climbing) in the popular vote.

My bet is Donald Trump does many things he says or close to it. He will create jobs lower taxes and build up some much needed nationalism in a common sense way. Right now he is at a very low floor--42%. When he starts producing--those numbers go up and he chunks out a higher approval rating--high enough to grab another 4 years in office in 2020 if he wants to. He has changed the map and will cater to that map. He will strengthen some of the close wins and add some close flips. Almost impossible to stop if he executes. So now use bitchin bout it--just get used to it. Fact.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/804680078785445890