The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Brian Swartz]

The first two paragraphs of that link area all I needed to read; proof positive that the piece is intellectually unserious.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'm not saying you should like him. I'm saying you don't accomplish what Laffer has by being dumb - he demonstrably isn't. I don't get why we have to exaggerate and/or flat make up flaws about people who have plenty of legit things to criticize them for.

Same type of argument about Musk. Irrational and unnecessary belittling when all evidence points to the contrary.

[RainMaker]

That's how he writes. Unlike people like Laffer and Kudlow, he understands these things.

Kudlow by the way is a Princeton grad with a resume of working for global leaders. He also told everyone that the economy was great and there was no housing bubble over a decade ago. He will be part of this "team" too.

The Housing Bears Are Wrong Again | National Review

Bush Boom Continues | National Review

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Same type of argument about Musk. Irrational and unnecessary belittling when all evidence points to the contrary.

The coronavirus panic is dumb

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 6, 2020

[Brian Swartz]

So if I'm understanding your definition of dumb correctly, it is 'anyone who has ever once in their life been wrong about anything, regardless of anything else they have achieved or whether or not they were ever right about anything'.

Do I have that right, or are there additional nuances I should consider?

[Brian Swartz]

Elon wasn't wrong; the panic was dumb. Panic is nearly always dumb and counterproductive.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The coronavirus panic is dumb

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 6, 2020

So you point out one-two-three dumb statements when his accomplishments tell a different story? Talk about judgmental.

Plenty of dumb statements and late responses ... Cuomo

Mar 6

"I'm not urging calm. I'm urging reality," he said. "I'm urging a factual response as opposed to an emotional response."

Mar 18

He also reiterated that New York would not follow other states by implementing "shelter in place" measures.

And finally on Mar 20 (days after De Blasio asked for it)

Cuomo announced all non-essential businesses across the state would have to close under his "New York State on PAUSE" order.

Confirmed cases reached 7,102.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

So if I'm understanding your definition of dumb correctly, it is 'anyone who has ever once in their life been wrong about anything, regardless of anything else they have achieved or whether or not they were ever right about anything'.

Do I have that right, or are there additional nuances I should consider?

If your life's work has been repeatedly proven to be wrong and yet you still keep pushing it, you are dumb. I'm sorry, but Art Laffer is dumb and the results show that.

Just because you have a degree from a fancy university doesn't make you impervious to criticism. Jared Kushner is a Harvard grad. And while I know his Daddy bought his way through, he still gets to put that diploma on the wall.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Plenty of dumb statements and late responses ... Cuomo

Yeah, I bashed him about a week ago for his pathetic response.

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yeah, I bashed him about a week ago for his pathetic response.

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - The Trump Presidency – 2016

Feel free to be judgmental and call him about about being "dumb".

I'm sure I can find many other similar examples of Democrats that said "dumb" things about the coronavirus response. It does not make them overall dumb.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If your life's work has been repeatedly proven to be wrong and yet you still keep pushing it, you are dumb. I'm sorry, but Art Laffer is dumb and the results show that.

There's lots of conservative economists, and also lots of ways to interpret the results of varying economic policies. For example, there's a significant school of thought that holds that governors, presidents, etc. have very limited impact with their economic policies one way or the other.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

ust because you have a degree from a fancy university doesn't make you impervious to criticism.

This we totally agree on. People should be criticized when they are wrong. Hence my statement a few posts up about 'plenty of legit things to criticize'. It's not like I'm saying give Laffer a medal; in fact I've not said one thing positive about his proposals at all.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Feel free to be judgmental and call him about about being "dumb".

I'm sure I can find many other similar examples of Democrats that said "dumb" things about the coronavirus response. It does not make them overall dumb.

I have spoken plenty about how the Democratic Party is filled with dumb people. It is why they always fucking lose.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

There's lots of conservative economists, and also lots of ways to interpret the results of varying economic policies. For example, there's a significant school of thought that holds that governors, presidents, etc. have very limited impact with their economic policies one way or the other.

I'm fairly certain what Brownback did in Kansas had a pretty big impact on their economy.

[QuikSand]

I understand it appeals mostly to those of us sold that he's a bag of shit. But still warms my heart to see it communicated so effectively...

For all my new MAGA trolls, please enjoy this:https://t.co/edpHI9TXbR

— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) April 10, 2020

[Thomkal]

nice, he really is his own worst enemy

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I understand it appeals mostly to those of us sold that he's a bag of shit. But still warms my heart to see it communicated so effectively...

For all my new MAGA trolls, please enjoy this:https://t.co/edpHI9TXbR

— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) April 10, 2020

My kingdom for Dem messaging half as good.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I understand it appeals mostly to those of us sold that he's a bag of shit. But still warms my heart to see it communicated so effectively...

For all my new MAGA trolls, please enjoy this:https://t.co/edpHI9TXbR

— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) April 10, 2020

I think Trump’s an embarrassment as a man, let alone a president, but the start of this video is the sort of thing that helps bolster his support.

It claims he paid no attention to a memo and WHO advice by holding rallies and playing golf. The memo is dated 29th January, the WHO info the 30th January

Two of the three rallies shown are considerably earlier than the 29th, the third was on the 30th January. Plus at that time everybody got the seriousness wrong, and him holding a rally or playing golf in January is not the reason CV-19 hit the US

The details from February onwards are valid, but with so much valid criticism, why open yourself up to allegations of twisting facts by inserting events that were before the critical events they themselves chose to focus on, and had little relevance at that time anyway?

[albionmoonlight]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...288_story.html

This encapsulates Trump so well. He wants the economy open. He is advised to do the hard work necessary to do it. He does not, and instead wants to just reopen it shitshow style. And if someone points out that we can't just reopen things without a plan and resources, they are just against Trump.

They really do seem to think that those of us who care enough to try and do this right are actually happy with 30% unemployment, kids out of school, and thousands of people dying.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

They really do seem to think that those of us who care enough to try and do this right are actually happy with 30% unemployment, kids out of school, and thousands of people dying.

He is a narcissistic sociopath. He believes everything is about him. So, yes. If you are against any of his plans, including this one, then you are just out to get him.

[JPhillips]

Our smart guy president:

Trump calls the virus "a brilliant enemy." He adds, "Antibiotics used to solve every problem" but now "the germ has gotten so brilliant that the antibiotic can't keep up with it." He adds, "There's a whole genius to it." He adds of the virus, "It's hidden, but it's very smart."

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) April 10, 2020

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Our smart guy president:

Trump calls the virus "a brilliant enemy." He adds, "Antibiotics used to solve every problem" but now "the germ has gotten so brilliant that the antibiotic can't keep up with it." He adds, "There's a whole genius to it." He adds of the virus, "It's hidden, but it's very smart."

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) April 10, 2020

Accidentally posted this to the coronavirus thread instead of the Trump thread and see you posted it.

I honestly don't understand how anyone could think this man is doing a good job handling this when he doesn't understand the difference between bacteria and a virus.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Accidentally posted this to the coronavirus thread instead of the Trump thread and see you posted it.

I honestly don't understand how anyone could think this man is doing a good job handling this when he doesn't understand the difference between bacteria and a virus.

DUDE>GAS IS UNDER 2 BUCKS!!!!

[JPhillips]

Not for long. Trump is working with the Saudis and the Russians to limit oil production and raise prices.

[QuikSand]

I see "wash over" is trending this morning. Great. He was openly talking about untold numbers of American deaths being ushered in as a means to protect the momentary economy, which he sees as central to his electoral strategy.

I again fall for that silly delusion that "maybe this will be the thing that sticks, maybe American supporters who have thought of him as a leader or whatever will finally see that he is simple-minded, uncaring, and absurdly unfit for leadership of any kind."

Then the feeling rightfully goes away, again, and leaves sadness behind.

[QuikSand]

Holy shit...

The White House Pushed FEMA To Give its Biggest Coronavirus Contract to a Company That Never Had to Bid — ProPublica

How long until we uncover that the company's CEO ponied up a million for the fucking inauguration, or illegally helped the Stormy Daniels defense fund, or helped silence some assault victim, or whatever?

OMG I am over the edge, complete TDS case.

[QuikSand]

And also, I really don't understand the political logic behind the harsh stance against the ...{checks notes}... postal service. I get that the guy is a pure villain, but at least I typically understand the political upside to being evil. Here, I'm just missing it.

So, word is, he'll hold up or veto the next COVID relief package if it contains help for the postal service. Okay...

So, what is the plan, then? They're losing money, does he think this is because they are "bad businessmen" or something like that? They made bad deals? Didn't do a good job? (Trying to water it down to the monosyllabic Seussian level that he speaks)

(Oh...is this about him hating Bezos? Can that honestly be it?)

So...we just close up shop? Is that really where this ends? The USPS becomes insolvent and we just... don't have mail anymore?

Does he think a private company is going to step in with cheap, universal, service like that? Hint: if it's not universal service, and in any private model it surely wouldn't be... the people in the hinterlands who get fucked... you know who they mostly voted for?

So, we go to $1.40 for first class mail through the Amazon Post, limited service options apply, grandma. This is... good for Trump? Or for the GOP?

I mean, I get there's a purist small-government argument there, but that has never been what Trump has been about, he doesn't have any deeply-held principles, other than fucking around behind his wives' backs and manufacturing the false impression that he understands business. And the modern GOP doesn't have any serious budget or deficit hawks anymore, it's just too lucrative to be in the tax giveaway business.

So... how does this scheme even add up?

[JPhillips]

I'm not sure this is Trump. I think this is probably being driven by Pence and Meadows. The GOP has been working to destroy the government for 40 years, and this is the crisis they've been waiting for. Killing the USPS can't be done in normal times, but they might get away with it now.

What I don't understand is why the Dems aren't already playing offense on this. As you say, what's the alternative to the post office? Seems clear that less options and more expensive mail is a losing argument.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by whomario

this whole "unemployment can't be incentivised" thinking from that Laffer guy is so damn ancient even outside a crisis situation

As someone currently collecting unemployment for the first time in his life, this really does bother me from a personal standpoint. I'm attempting to get work as a professional shopper, my last real possibility right now. If I do so, I'll be slashing my overall income under the current situation, and it'll be paying me more than the job I'm laid off from. That's on top of taking away the extra time I currently have to devote to other things including my side hustle.

I don't see how it's good for society to encourage people to be unproductive. That's always true, but in the present situation the more people that want to do things like deliver groceries to vulnerable populations, isn't that better? I want to contribute and if I'm successful in getting an opportunity to do so I'll definitely take it. Now one could definitely argue that the answer is simply drastically jacking up minimum wage etc., but that also comes with the cost of eliminating some jobs/businesses permanently, devaluing the education and training of others, etc. I think it's not easy to know what the right approach is in these areas.

[molson]

I'm sure the Republicans don't want it for appropriate reasons, but many European countries have gone to full-privatization of mail, or have a big private component to their postal systems. I'm sure there's different obstacles for the U.S. like with other European models some people want to adopt (The U.S. being much more rural for one) but, maybe that can be a longer-term goal to work towards that makes sense in a world where mail volume have changed dramatically. Or USPS can stick with letters and rural areas and private carriers who pay taxes can run package-delivery.

In other contexts, I read about how Europe is so enlightened and superior and that we should just do what they do. Even they saw that that governments couldn't effectively run postal services any more. Why isn't this something that has more appeal from the side of the political spectrum who otherwise think that European countries do things better?

[PilotMan]

next big thing


gig jobs for mail delivery


gig is nothing more than turning people into professional gophers with no external protections or supports.

[QuikSand]

Seems to me that the massively different geography of super-dense Belgium and super-spacious America might necessitate different solutions for things where that geographical spacing is relevant. Like, say, travel and delivery of people and information. But for a lot of other areas that are basically independent of density concerns, it seems fair to think about approaches from other developed areas with similar socioeconomic demographics as a fair comparison. I think it's fair to hold both those views at once.

[QuikSand]

In other news...

Great businessman & philanthropist Bernie Marcus, Co-Founder of Home Depot, said that Congress was too distracted by the (phony) Impeachment Witch Hunt when they should have been investigating CoronaVirus when it first appeared in China. Media played a big roll also!@dcexaminer

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 12, 2020

Just...ugh. How did we let this happen?

[molson]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Seems to me that the massively different geography of super-dense Belgium and super-spacious America might necessitate different solutions for things where that geographical spacing is relevant. Like, say, travel and delivery of people and information. But for a lot of other areas that are basically independent of density concerns, it seems fair to think about approaches from other developed areas with similar socioeconomic demographics as a fair comparison. I think it's fair to hold both those views at once.

I think there's lots of differences between the U.S. and Europe that can impact policy and how government is run, not just one. Our postal services shouldn't be exactly the same either. But I think we'd be more open to modernizing our postal service like the rest of the world has if the Republicans didn't decide that was their lane first, and didn't do it in their unique aggressive and hostile way. That makes everybody defensive of a broken entity that's stuck in 1950 and could provide better and more important services to people if it dramatically changed, while still being a mail carrier of last resort as needed.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm sure the Republicans don't want it for appropriate reasons, but many European countries have gone to full-privatization of mail, or have a big private component to their postal systems. I'm sure there's different obstacles for the U.S. like with other European models some people want to adopt (The U.S. being much more rural for one) but, maybe that can be a longer-term goal to work towards that makes sense in a world where mail volume have changed dramatically. Or USPS can stick with letters and rural areas and private carriers who pay taxes can run package-delivery.

In other contexts, I read about how Europe is so enlightened and superior and that we should just do what they do. Even they saw that that governments couldn't effectively run postal services any more. Why isn't this something that has more appeal from the side of the political spectrum who otherwise think that European countries do things better?

Not only did the 2006 bill screw the Post Office with unreasonable retirement funding rules, it also made it much more difficult to compete with private companies. There are all sorts of rules from that bill that limit "market disruption" and compel the USPS to calculate expenses as if they were private companies. They also have to jump through hoops in order to establish new products and services.

The easiest way to fix the USPS would be to deregulate, but in this case, the regulation was always meant to starngle and kill the postal service.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Not only did the 2006 bill screw the Post Office with unreasonable retirement funding rules, it also made it much more difficult to compete with private companies. There are all sorts of rules from that bill that limit "market disruption" and compel the USPS to calculate expenses as if they were private companies. They also have to jump through hoops in order to establish new products and services.

The easiest way to fix the USPS would be to deregulate, but in this case, the regulation was always meant to starngle and kill the postal service.

Why is it the Post Office prefunding its retirement fund unreasonable? If they don't then there's a good chance they would require a bailout in the future.

More governments should be making sure its pensions are fully funded instead of just kicking the financial can down the road.

My former county could be in for a financial storm in the future. The largest employer in the county is in a dispute with the government over property taxes and has threatened to leave. If they do then the county would say goodbye to at least a quarter of its income but yet they still have to pay the pensions of people who no longer work. That means the county will have to cut the services it is providing to citizens.

I can only imagine what this virus is going to do our current underfunded pension plans.

[JPhillips]

The time frame was unreasonable and designed to sink the USPS. There's no good reason to prefund the pensions for 75 years. That's prefunding pensions for people that aren't hired yet.

Like so much the GOP legislates, it was superficially reasonable, but really designed to wreck government and public employees.

[NobodyHere]

I'll agree that 75 years is a little zealous but I'm sticking to the idea that pensions be funded instead of kicking the can down the road.


Then again this is the federal government and they'll probably find a way to piss away the money.

[Atocep]

'60 Minutes' brings the receipts for Peter Navarro's feisty interview - Business Insider

Get called on your BS and double down on bullshit. It's like this is an administration-wide strategy or something.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

But that's the thing. It's not the looniest 4% of the country who believe this MAGA (for lack of a better all-encompassing term) claptrap hook, line, and sinker. It's FORTY PERCENT OF AMERICA. Just the math says that some of the people who go for this stuff are in actual positions of authority and power. They are military officers, police officers, doctors, business owners, and everything else. Yes, some sit at home and shake their fist at "those people" to whatever chant Fox News has going at the moment, but this isn't a trifle. They have captured enough "persuadable" voters to win the Electoral College, this just in. It's not a fringe group.

Nate Cohn on Twitter: "So far, national polls show virtually no change among white voters with or without college degree over the last four years. But Biden does appear to be doing quite a bit better among older voters and weaker among nonwhite voters… https://t.co/K4bB0ljN9i"

Basically, for those of us who feel like its been some version of a nightmare for the last 3.5 years that has really accelerated into the endgame in the last 3 months, it can be sobering and disorienting to realize that for 45% of the country--that happens to disproportionately live in Electoral College swing states--they knew what exactly they were voting for, they have been very happy with how this has been going, and they look forward to working over the next few months to give us all four more years of it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Nate Cohn on Twitter: "So far, national polls show virtually no change among white voters with or without college degree over the last four years. But Biden does appear to be doing quite a bit better among older voters and weaker among nonwhite voters… https://t.co/K4bB0ljN9i"

Basically, for those of us who feel like its been some version of a nightmare for the last 3.5 years that has really accelerated into the endgame in the last 3 months, it can be sobering and disorienting to realize that for 45% of the country--that happens to disproportionately live in Electoral College swing states--they knew what exactly they were voting for, they have been very happy with how this has been going, and they look forward to working over the next few months to give us all four more years of it.

I really worry about the aftermath of yet another GOP candidate gets fewer votes and wins the election. Three of those in twenty years is not a recipe for stability.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I really worry about the aftermath of yet another GOP candidate gets fewer votes and wins the election. Three of those in twenty years is not a recipe for stability.

Kerry almost beat Bush in the EC while losing the popular vote. If that had happened right after Bush did the same thing to Gore, we might have had a bipartisan movement to take steps to have the winner of the election be the person who received more votes than the other guy.

But that ship has sailed, and the EC is now seen as favoring the GOP, so we are locked into stalemate with it.

[bob]

I hate the whole EC / popular vote argument because people ignore that if the rules were different, campaign and voter behavior would be different too. You can't just say "if we did popular vote then candidate X would have won" without acknowledging that campaigns would run differently to play by those rules instead.

[JPhillips]

Perhaps, but democracy doesn't work long-term if the party that gets the most votes isn't given power. It's a recipe for the whole thing to fall apart.

[bob]

Maybe its worth discussing the balance of federal vs state power at this point then. That's the root cause of this, no?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by bob

I hate the whole EC / popular vote argument because people ignore that if the rules were different, campaign and voter behavior would be different too. You can't just say "if we did popular vote then candidate X would have won" without acknowledging that campaigns would run differently to play by those rules instead.

For sure. You would have a lot more areas in play. GOP playing for NYC and Los Angeles suburban voters. Dems campaigning in Dallas and Houston and Atlanta.

And campaigns still paying lots of attention to Florida, Michigan, etc. b/c lots of people live there.

There are a few areas that would suffer for attention compared to the current system: New Hampshire, that one swing district in Maine, etc.

But, overall, you'd see real national campaigns, which would be an improvement.

And you are 100% right that trying to find a winner wouldn't be as easy as saying "Clinton would have beat Trump" or "Gore would have beat Bush" because the campaigns would have run totally differently.

Which is why the Dems should not assume it would solve everything, and the GOP should not consider it a death knell.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by bob

Maybe its worth discussing the balance of federal vs state power at this point then. That's the root cause of this, no?

These are the rules and that's why the party with fewer votes gets to control two branches of government may be accurate, but it eventually leads to legitimacy problems. How many times can this happen before people refuse to accept the results? Eventually, the system will collapse.

[JPhillips]

Look, don't tell anybody about this ok? Because this is an email that was sent only to me, for my eyes only, with the kind of deal that only a really special person like myself could ever dream of getting access to. I'm going to act now because supplies are limited! pic.twitter.com/3W2hj9cTJZ

— Seth Cotlar (@SethCotlar) April 13, 2020

Everything's a con.

[bob]

Will people refuse to accept the results if they follow the rules that have been in place for 200+ years? Its not like this is a surprise.

Look, I get what you are saying, but this system is in place for a reason. You might argue that reason isn't valid anymore, but be careful, because you open up a lot of questions about federal vs state power. Would you want Trump to have been the one in charge of shutting down the states if hypothetically governors didn't have that power.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by bob

Will people refuse to accept the results if they follow the rules that have been in place for 200+ years?

Yes. Because prior to 2000, this issue had only happened 3 times where the person with a lead in the popular vote lost the election to the EC. And one of those was obvious cheating (1876).

If it becomes common place - 3 in 20 years, it will cause the system's legitimacy to be questioned.

[bob]

I'll take your word for it.

Most people I have discussed this with realize the rules are win the EC count, not the popular vote.