371–380 of 420 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, yeah, sure. It's everyone else. Good point.
You live in a bubble if you think a handful of countries in Europe qualify as "everyone else" in the world , and also if you think those countries haven't had any issues with Universal Healthcare.
What were you saying about bubbles?
http://www.newsweek.com/united-states-health-care-rated-wors...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And next, McD's and Carls' are planning to do away with the counter staff. Banks automating tellers completely. Some 30 millions of Americans out of a job, at the lowest levels. What then? Automation is exploding at a dizzying rate for a decade now. Our ability to accommodate will be exceeded soon. Further, that graph looks like what happens when people fall off the employment rolls - they quit looking for a job and…
The number of people employed is also at an all-time high. https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_... Automation may change that in the future, or people may insist on dealing with humans, or new jobs may emerge. Who can predict the future?
This quote: "Using this approach, we estimate large and robust negative effects of robots on employment and wages across commuting zones. We bolster this evidence by showing that the commuting zones most exposed to robots in the post-1990 era do not exhibit any differential trends before 1990. The impact of robots is distinct from the impact of imports from China and Mexico, the decline of routine jobs, offshoring, other types of IT capital, and the total capital stock (in fact, exposure to robots is only weakly correlated with these other variables). According to our estimates, one more robot per thousand workers reduces the employment to population ratio by about 0.18-0.34 percentage points and wages by 0.25-0.5 percent."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry: This "failed to denounce" is just a game, part of the news gossip I described. And the second play of the game is failed to denounce "soon enough". Trump did NOTHING at all wrong. His first speech was fine, presidential, responsible, good leadership, highly ethical, calm the nation, slow, hopefully stop, the violence, save more people from getting killed. The failed to denounce soon enough, strongly enough…
White supremacists came to my city and killed a woman 4 blocks up the street from my house, and the President's message was "there was violence on all sides". Only one side came to Charlottesville and killed someone. Only one side came to Charlottesville and chanted "Blood and Soil" while holding 200 torches in front of the Rotunda. Trump explicitly refused to acknowledge white supremacists when asked about it. The q…
We should NOT settle the issue by fights in the streets.
No political leader should single out one group or person with accusations of violence because: (A) It would tend to further divide the country. (B) It could stimulate opponents to feel that violence was acceptable and to be violent. (C) Even bad people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. More people could be killed. Then you really WOULD have something to blame Trump for.
The newsies try to get politicians to say stupid things. Wisely, Trump declined to do that.
Recall that Obama would never say "radical Islamic terrorism", and that is really bad stuff back to the two attacks on the WTC and many attacks since then.
You've been talked into believing that a politician SHOULD condemn specific groups and people. In this way, you have been manipulated, fooled, led around by your nose, taken advantage of by newsies who want your eyeballs, clicks, and ad revenue and by some special interest groups who paid money to the newsies to get them to push their propaganda.
We are a free country, and you get to have any opinions you want. We have freedom of the press, and they get to say or write nearly anything at all including rivers of total BS, and they take big advantage of it.
But as a citizen, you need to filter out the newsie BS.
By the way, is there something illegal about torches, free assembly, freedom of speech, petitioning government, "blood and soil"? Actually illegal? Violations of specific, actual, written down laws? Uh, maybe there's something in the Constitution along those lines?
What about when BLM shouted "fry'm like bacon"? That was offensive to lots of people, but I can't see that it was illegal. IIRC no one got arrested for shouting such. I don't think they should have been arrested for exercising freedom of speech. Maybe they could be prosecuted for inciting violence, that is, killing police, but I doubt it.
Welcome to a free country with freedom of speech, right to petition the government, freedom of the press, and innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Did some newsies get you all sweaty and up on your hind legs about torches? Did they get your attention, eyeballs, clicks, ad revenue? Did they get you to hate Trump? Did you let them manipulate you?
Offensive to lots of people? No doubt. Illegal?
So, you want a politician to urge violence against people who say things that offend you? You want to let the newsies trick you into such feelings?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this weekend has taught us anything it's that most white supremacists aren't rednecks from the deep south with swastika tattoos. A lot of the are perfectly normal looking, university educated young men living in nice suburbs all across the country.
What did you possibly think before? That bad people fit the cartoonish representation pushed by tag team of media and stereotyping?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The identity politics and pushing "undocumented" migrants angle Could you elaborate on this "going bananas"? > While the right seem to be business as usual. * Pushing through Gorsuch using nuclear option * Trying to deprive 10s of millions of people of healthcare multiple times without even publicly showing the proposed bill(s) * Banning cameras and reporters from briefings * Electing a GOP congressman one DAY AFTE…
> > The identity politics and pushing "undocumented" migrants angle > Could you elaborate on this "going bananas"? In most of Europe a major party advocating for legalising illegal migrants or opening borders doesn't stand a chance. This is why migrants vs refugees discussion is huge in Europe. People are OK to help refugees but most people don't want unlimited uneducated immigrants. The difference is what people see…
It's interesting you bring this up, because it was a surprise to me when I first heard it from Europeans I spoke with while traveling. Of course it's anecdata, but immigration is a huge deal in Europe and many want it severely limited.
The US is routinely painted as racist and xenophobic (and I think on average incorrectly), but Europe if far from a magically enlightened place. And, depending what ethnic group is trying to immigrate into what country, Europeans can be worse than many Americans.
> I'd love to see Trump vs. Sanders election in parallel universe.
I think Sanders would have won. He gave populism a voice without the Trump baggage. I think socially, Sanders would have done wonders for the US.
I hate to get involved in politics here at HN, but maybe I can contribute a comment that really isn't politics but is business and news strategy ? First, I try to stay up on the news , that is, the facts about what has been happening. Well, there's a lot of news on the Internet, so I can get a lot of input on some version of what has been happening. At this point, to me, the news doesn't make any sense. The news does…
The black CEO of Merck resigned from the council when the President failed to denounce white supremacists in Charlottesville (blatantly so, watch the entire raw video through the bill signing). The CEO of Merck was then attacked on Twitter via the @realDonaldTrump account. Later, Under Armour and Intel CEOs both resigned from the council. Both white. Neither were attacked on Twitter. Yesterday, the President went on…
Trump has done just nothing at all wrong. You pointed to nothing, no quotes, no references.
On Twitter, I "follow" just three people, and Trump is one of them; so, I've likely seen all his Tweets. They all seem fine to me.
If you have a bad Tweet, then cough it up and say what's wrong with it.
Who the heck has talked, manipulated you into thinking that Trump has done anything wrong?
A lot of newsies have been trying for 2+ years to find any dirt on Trump, and so far the worst they found that has any credibility was something about two scoops of ice cream.
No, he never said he grabbed a woman by the short hair. He, maybe just as a mentor, just told a younger man that, from a powerful man, some women would permit it. That knowledge didn't take much, just watch a certain TV show or see the associated book: JFK actually did just that, to NJ debutante, 19, engaged to be married, from Miss Porter's School where Jackie Kennedy went, White House intern, Miss Mimi Alford as at
http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/03/16305081-whit...
and it's been on TV at least once, and Miss Alford wrote a book about it. Actually, in fact, on the NBC tape, that's ALL Trump told that man. ALL.
Did some nasty newsies convince you of something else? Sin, crime, sexual molestation, sexism, violence, etc.? Did you get manipulated? All Trump did was relate what was on TV and in the book Miss Alford wrote about what JFK did. Did you get fooled on this one?
No, the Trump campaign did not "collude" with the Russians to help Trump win the election.
Daily, the NYT, WaPo, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, etc. put out all the nasty guesses, accusations, theories, gossip, grab people by the heart, the gut, below the belt, always below the shoulders, never between the ears, etc. against Trump they can find, but so far the worst they have is the two scoops of ice cream.
Have the newsies convinced you of some really bad stuff about Trump? They gave you really good evidence, right? Or did you let them manipulate you?
If you have something serious and solid against Trump, then I'm all ears.
You have been manipulated, led around by the nose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is so confusing to me. Most of the stuff I see in the news that you are referring to as "made-up, cooked-up, stirred-up", etc., is stuff you can see video of. It's clear, from video, that there was a gathering of white supremacists, which became violent and resulted in deaths. It's clear, from video, that the President's response to this was weasely equivocation. It's clear, from primary sources like Twitter, th…
> It's clear, from video, that the President's response to this was weasely equivocation. No, his response was terrific, good leadership, presidential, calm the violence. Your conclusion "weasely equivocation" was JUST from newsie GOSSIP, JUST as I wrote. It was just GOSSIP. You've been had. Why? The newsies wanted Trump to accept their dictation of what should be in his speech. Then (1) Trump looks like an obedient…
It's fine if your interpretation of his statement disagrees with mine, my point here isn't to debate that. What I'm saying is that your identification of the news as the source of our disagreement is mistaken. You don't need a conspiracy theory to explain this, you and I just disagree in our interpretation of a primary source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > The identity politics and pushing "undocumented" migrants angle > Could you elaborate on this "going bananas"? In most of Europe a major party advocating for legalising illegal migrants or opening borders doesn't stand a chance. This is why migrants vs refugees discussion is huge in Europe. People are OK to help refugees but most people don't want unlimited uneducated immigrants. The difference is what people see…
> In most of Europe a major party advocating for legalising illegal migrants or opening borders doesn't stand a chance. This is why migrants vs refugees discussion is huge in Europe. People are OK to help refugees but most people don't want unlimited uneducated immigrants. The difference is what people see as refugees. In Western Europe, only extreme left (= greens and communists) advocate for open borders or legalis…
But on immigration front.. Europe is built on nation states and that won't change for at least several generations, regardless of what media is saying. I think the main difference is US have problem with underclass of different ethnicity. Thus differences are very stark. Poverty amplifies differences and you get the endless loop. Being homogenous, Europe didn't have have such problem until now. There was no place for such issues to come up. Jews may have been somewhat similar case. But they were relatively educated and rich. Which, while bringing in it's own set of issues, covered a lot of other issues.
However, several countries are headed on US path. Personally I don't see how uneducated migrants can get to median life in a generation or two. Especially with less and less industry and more automation. Different culture and poverty is highway to US style racism/xenophoby/etc. This is one of the main reasons why I'm against migration. Today's Europe can't give good life (by Euro standards) to millions of uneducated people from different cultures. Importing people and then keeping them as underclass is not good neither to newcomers, nor to host countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right, it doesn't mean they had to. But they did. The Civil War was fought to abolish slavery, basically a civil rights argument. It was fought and won by the Republicans. Where do the Republicans stand on civil rights issues today? Would Republicans fight a war to protect gay marriage? Would they fight a war to keep businesses from hiring illegal immigrants and paying them pennies on the dollar while working…
That's a nice speech, but I have not claimed that they have not changed positions over the years. I am disagreeing with the notion of the "switch" that supposedly happened in response to the Democrats changing some of their positions. Both parties have altered their message and platform over the years for various reasons.
But no one argued that. No one argued that the Democrats changed so the Republicans said "oh man, guess we have to switch too". It was a gradual shift over decades to the point where Democrats are now the civil rights party when they used to be the pro-slavery party and the Republicans are now the party of holding back civil right progress when they were literally willing to start a war to abolish slavery.
Setting aside the one point that literally only you are arguing, I'm glad we've come to the point where we can realize that we actually do agree. Our only disagreement is that you think the word "switch" implies a sudden and coordinated effort to flip places.
Democrats and Republicans, through decades of policy shifts, now represent views they have historically been against. The point of that is "the party of Lincoln" and "the party of Reagan" is Republican in name only, not in actual policy, and the Democrats surely are not the pro-slavery party anymore.