Political Roundtable Part XXVII

[dckingsfan]

Then why have U.S. markets outperformed the world?

What are you f@#$ing talking about

Just because Stephen f@#$ing Mnuchin says something doesn't make it true

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Also pretty sure Mnuchin confused percentages with levels in his little statement. Amateur mistake.

Watch on YouTube

And. AND! 2019 GDP growth was only 2.1% in 4th qurter 2019 so WHAT IS HE EVEN TALKING ABOUT

I said "markets", not "economy".

It's difficult to compare the growth rates of economies because developing markets like China and India are naturally going to have much bigger GDP growth since they have so many inefficiencies to improve upon. I'll bet if you compared the U.S. to other developed economies, we're outperforming though.

If you look at market performance since 2017, the U.S. is killing it. The S&P is crushing the FTSE, DAX and HSI.

With respect, Trump wants it both ways... 2% growth rate is amazing when he is in office and terrible when Obama was in office.

The difference is he is using a tax stimulus. So, really Obama was doing better... and that has to make the orange one's hair flame.

[gtn130]

Money in political campaigns also has diminishing returns after a certain point. The sheer volume of enthusiastic Bernie supporters who will engage and organize is >>>>>>>>> the money advantage Trump has.

I see the MAGA fanatics as equal to the Bernie fanatics, no?

I don't think so. You will find that Bernie 'fanatics' are people who are willing to canvas and make phone calls and drive voters to their polling place. The number of people who showed up to volunteer for the Bernie campaign in Iowa is evidence of that. Trump 'fanatics' are generally older and wealthier and less likely to pound pavement for their guy. Trump traditionally has not had much of a ground game at all - it's all big dollar donations and digital ad buys.

[dckingsfan]

Money in political campaigns also has diminishing returns after a certain point. The sheer volume of enthusiastic Bernie supporters who will engage and organize is >>>>>>>>> the money advantage Trump has.

I see the MAGA fanatics as equal to the Bernie fanatics, no?

I don't think so. You will find that Bernie 'fanatics' are people who are willing to canvas and make phone calls and drive voters to their polling place. The number of people who showed up to volunteer for the Bernie campaign in Iowa is evidence of that. Trump 'fanatics' are generally older and wealthier and less likely to pound pavement for their guy. Trump traditionally has not had much of a ground game at all - it's all big dollar donations and digital ad buys.

Well, two things on this (from my limited point of view). Here in Texas, the Maga's are all over the place. In Maryland (where I was at they hardly showed).

Two, the folks here tend to tune out the Bernie fanatics (along with the MAGA fanatics).

But, as you are (I think) alluding to, getting out the voters is key. I am not seeing them doing the hard work of actually registering voters. They seem to be piggybacking off the moderates and the DNC for that...

Again, limited view. I would think it would be very different in say, NYC or CA.

[doclinkin]

Money in political campaigns also has diminishing returns after a certain point. The sheer volume of enthusiastic Bernie supporters who will engage and organize is >>>>>>>>> the money advantage Trump has.

I see the MAGA fanatics as equal to the Bernie fanatics, no?

I don't think so. You will find that Bernie 'fanatics' are people who are willing to canvas and make phone calls and drive voters to their polling place. The number of people who showed up to volunteer for the Bernie campaign in Iowa is evidence of that. Trump 'fanatics' are generally older and wealthier and less likely to pound pavement for their guy. Trump traditionally has not had much of a ground game at all - it's all big dollar donations and digital ad buys.

And Russian tech ops hacking polling machines. Whether funded by Putin or billionaires on behalf of corporations etc. Dems only win if it isn't even close. Every exit poll since the hanging chads have had Dems winning, but whoopsie the electronic machines say a different outcome. No matter who the D nominee is they have to ride a tsunami wave, otherwise, to use a word from the POS POTUS the game is 'rigged'.

And even then, since the Russians are basically operating openly without censure or ill effect, their best case scenario may be a contested election where there is clear evidence of malfeasance and Trump gets to hold office while the country explodes around him.

[gtn130]

Yeah, I'm not commenting on the efficacy of either campaign or who will ultimately win - I'm just pointing out that the behavior of Trump fanatics and the behavior of Bernie fanatics is not the same.

[TGW]

I see the MAGA fanatics as equal to the Bernie fanatics, no?

I don't think so. You will find that Bernie 'fanatics' are people who are willing to canvas and make phone calls and drive voters to their polling place. The number of people who showed up to volunteer for the Bernie campaign in Iowa is evidence of that. Trump 'fanatics' are generally older and wealthier and less likely to pound pavement for their guy. Trump traditionally has not had much of a ground game at all - it's all big dollar donations and digital ad buys.

And Russian tech ops hacking polling machines. Whether funded by Putin or billionaires on behalf of corporations etc. Dems only win if it isn't even close. Every exit poll since the hanging chads have had Dems winning, but whoopsie the electronic machines say a different outcome. No matter who the D nominee is they have to ride a tsunami wave, otherwise, to use a word from the POS POTUS the game is 'rigged'.

And even then, since the Russians are basically operating openly without censure or ill effect, their best case scenario may be a contested election where there is clear evidence of malfeasance and Trump gets to hold office while the country explodes around him.

Yet, the Democrats refuse to go to paper ballots. I wonder why?

[doclinkin]

I don't think so. You will find that Bernie 'fanatics' are people who are willing to canvas and make phone calls and drive voters to their polling place. The number of people who showed up to volunteer for the Bernie campaign in Iowa is evidence of that. Trump 'fanatics' are generally older and wealthier and less likely to pound pavement for their guy. Trump traditionally has not had much of a ground game at all - it's all big dollar donations and digital ad buys.

And Russian tech ops hacking polling machines. Whether funded by Putin or billionaires on behalf of corporations etc. Dems only win if it isn't even close. Every exit poll since the hanging chads have had Dems winning, but whoopsie the electronic machines say a different outcome. No matter who the D nominee is they have to ride a tsunami wave, otherwise, to use a word from the POS POTUS the game is 'rigged'.

And even then, since the Russians are basically operating openly without censure or ill effect, their best case scenario may be a contested election where there is clear evidence of malfeasance and Trump gets to hold office while the country explodes around him.

Yet, the Democrats refuse to go to paper ballots. I wonder why?

The Democrats? Yeah, no. They're the ones writing laws to require it. And being stonewalled by Republicans who refuse to even fund election safety measures. If and when we ever get out of this era there will need to be some forensic accounting on our public figures. I suspect there are many on the GOP side who are accepting money from shady sources.

https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/443809-senate-dems-introduce-election-security-bill-requiring-paper-ballots

[dckingsfan]

And Russian tech ops hacking polling machines. Whether funded by Putin or billionaires on behalf of corporations etc. Dems only win if it isn't even close. Every exit poll since the hanging chads have had Dems winning, but whoopsie the electronic machines say a different outcome. No matter who the D nominee is they have to ride a tsunami wave, otherwise, to use a word from the POS POTUS the game is 'rigged'.

And even then, since the Russians are basically operating openly without censure or ill effect, their best case scenario may be a contested election where there is clear evidence of malfeasance and Trump gets to hold office while the country explodes around him.

Yet, the Democrats refuse to go to paper ballots. I wonder why?

The Democrats? Yeah, no. They're the ones writing laws to require it. And being stonewalled by Republicans who refuse to even fund election safety measures. If and when we ever get out of this era there will need to be some forensic accounting on our public figures. I suspect there are many on the GOP side who are accepting money from shady sources.

https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/443809-senate-dems-introduce-election-security-bill-requiring-paper-ballots

Interesting narrative that it is the Ds that are suppressing voters, working with Putin and refuse to work on paper ballots.

Fascinating really.

[FAH1223]

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[Zonkerbl]

Aw, Nate, come on don't be like that. It's just good natured ribbing. Political trash talk.

I think conservatives need to learn how to be good sports and lose with dignity. Admitting you're wrong makes you a better conservative. Admitting you're wrong means someday you'll actually convince somebody. Refuse to admit you're wrong and you'll convince people you're a close minded monster.

It's also, I think, extremely useful to conservatives to expose the nonsense coming out of their propaganda machine to real people who can, well, defeat the arguments with 30 seconds of googling. How do you know you're one of the good guys? At the very least, it has to take longer than 30 seconds of googling to prove your argument is total garbage.

Conservatives can't be right about everything, but they are right about a lot of things. Remember when you guys used the "stuck in the middle with you" song to describe me? Before Trump came along I was considered a moderate. But this administration is wrong about *everything* and I think it's important to just keep advocating for truth strenuously. Trump is destroying the conservative brand by spewing out blatantly wrong garbage constantly, knowing that if he just repeats his lies over and over the people watching Fox News will believe it, and then go out in the world repeating it, not even bothering to check its veracity, like Nate just did with Mnuchin's nonsense.

You can see how important it is to value the truth. If you don't, you end up with people like Trump and the GOP manipulating people with lies to serve their own nefarious interests. This administration is *rife* with corruption, never mind the trillion dollar tax giveaway to the rich they just committed. Our government shouldn't be for sale, but Trump is auctioning off government agencies and government policy to the highest bidder. He's a kleptocrat.

This isn't a thread of 30 liberals piling on the poor, innocent little defenseless, victimized conservatives. This is a battleground for the truth. Lose with dignity.

[Zonkerbl]

Speaking of admitting you're wrong, I think I may be wrong about redlining. I've seen some articles floating around claiming bank employees would drive around looking for black people and redlining areas where they saw any. I have no evidence to say that's not true, although it sounds a little expensive. The regulations I was looking at at DOC were all about using non-racist criteria to implement what ends up being a racist policy in effect. I imagine it's possible redlining started out as a more flagrantly racist practice and then as bank regulators started to crack down on it they came up with more subtle ways to implement it.

For example:
https://urbanintellectuals.com/know-black-ghettos-deliberately-created-govt-sponsored-redlining/?fbclid=IwAR1Xc48GPQK2pHFFkfqUEHMuXS03HqC7emy2_olW2K65JH2HxTxVXXBZ_lg#.XkzRDQcKkzQ.facebook

So that's all I'll say about that, except personally I find sneaky racism more outrage provoking than flagrant racism.

[TGW]

And Russian tech ops hacking polling machines. Whether funded by Putin or billionaires on behalf of corporations etc. Dems only win if it isn't even close. Every exit poll since the hanging chads have had Dems winning, but whoopsie the electronic machines say a different outcome. No matter who the D nominee is they have to ride a tsunami wave, otherwise, to use a word from the POS POTUS the game is 'rigged'.

And even then, since the Russians are basically operating openly without censure or ill effect, their best case scenario may be a contested election where there is clear evidence of malfeasance and Trump gets to hold office while the country explodes around him.

Yet, the Democrats refuse to go to paper ballots. I wonder why?

The Democrats? Yeah, no. They're the ones writing laws to require it. And being stonewalled by Republicans who refuse to even fund election safety measures. If and when we ever get out of this era there will need to be some forensic accounting on our public figures. I suspect there are many on the GOP side who are accepting money from shady sources.

https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/443809-senate-dems-introduce-election-security-bill-requiring-paper-ballots

Ok I didn't see this other bill. I know Tulsi Gabbard introduced a bill to push paper ballots in March 2019 that got no support from Democrats.

[TGW]

You’re better than this, Nate

Are you talking about the guy who still thinks white people are superior to blacks because of intelligence quotient scores?

Yea...uh no.

[montestewart]

You’re better than this, Nate

Are you talking about the guy who still thinks white people are superior to blacks because of intelligence quotient scores?

Yea...uh no.

We are all, all of us, capable of better.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Speaking of admitting you're wrong, I think I may be wrong about redlining. I've seen some articles floating around claiming bank employees would drive around looking for black people and redlining areas where they saw any. I have no evidence to say that's not true, although it sounds a little expensive. The regulations I was looking at at DOC were all about using non-racist criteria to implement what ends up being a racist policy in effect. I imagine it's possible redlining started out as a more flagrantly racist practice and then as bank regulators started to crack down on it they came up with more subtle ways to implement it.

For example:
https://urbanintellectuals.com/know-black-ghettos-deliberately-created-govt-sponsored-redlining/?fbclid=IwAR1Xc48GPQK2pHFFkfqUEHMuXS03HqC7emy2_olW2K65JH2HxTxVXXBZ_lg#.XkzRDQcKkzQ.facebook

So that's all I'll say about that, except personally I find sneaky racism more outrage provoking than flagrant racism.

I'm not sure about sneaky vs flagrant racism. Sneaky often isn't intentional. I don't see it as nearly as bad but it's much tougher to snuff out and is ashes from which flagrant racism can be born. It's the wilful ignorance of reality that leads to what appear, from a certain vantage point, to be a logical course of action that result in what should be obvious were a person willing to consider other points of view reasonably.

The biggest issue has always been dealing with poverty, though. It's a huge outlier in many scientific studies, too, where the results always tend to break along wealth lines but they find a way to brush that aside as though a child of a millionaire making $50,000/year is the same as the child who effectively didn't have parents making the same or some other shenanigans. And when poverty is something that people refuse to deal with, it tends to lend itself to all manners of racism/other discrimination because... it's really obvious why. And it gets to the point where it's sometimes impossible to distinguish which is which, nor is there necessarily much value in figuring it out.

[Pointgod]

You’re better than this, Nate

Are you talking about the guy who still thinks white people are superior to blacks because of intelligence quotient scores?

Yea...uh no.

We are all, all of us, capable of better.

Have you really dug into Nate’s posting? To be better someone has to want to be better. I know you’re a mod so you have to be fair but I’m not going to cape for the guy.

[Wizardspride]

You’re better than this, Nate

Are you talking about the guy who still thinks white people are superior to blacks because of intelligence quotient scores?

Yea...uh no.

I still find it amazing he's such a big basketball fan....

[Pointgod]

Speaking of admitting you're wrong, I think I may be wrong about redlining. I've seen some articles floating around claiming bank employees would drive around looking for black people and redlining areas where they saw any. I have no evidence to say that's not true, although it sounds a little expensive. The regulations I was looking at at DOC were all about using non-racist criteria to implement what ends up being a racist policy in effect. I imagine it's possible redlining started out as a more flagrantly racist practice and then as bank regulators started to crack down on it they came up with more subtle ways to implement it.

For example:
https://urbanintellectuals.com/know-black-ghettos-deliberately-created-govt-sponsored-redlining/?fbclid=IwAR1Xc48GPQK2pHFFkfqUEHMuXS03HqC7emy2_olW2K65JH2HxTxVXXBZ_lg#.XkzRDQcKkzQ.facebook

So that's all I'll say about that, except personally I find sneaky racism more outrage provoking than flagrant racism.

Racism whether sneaky or flagrant should be stomped out. Once begets the other. This is why you have white supremacists in the White House and walking around in public spewing their garbage.

[montestewart]

Speaking of admitting you're wrong, I think I may be wrong about redlining. I've seen some articles floating around claiming bank employees would drive around looking for black people and redlining areas where they saw any. I have no evidence to say that's not true, although it sounds a little expensive. The regulations I was looking at at DOC were all about using non-racist criteria to implement what ends up being a racist policy in effect. I imagine it's possible redlining started out as a more flagrantly racist practice and then as bank regulators started to crack down on it they came up with more subtle ways to implement it.

For example:
https://urbanintellectuals.com/know-black-ghettos-deliberately-created-govt-sponsored-redlining/?fbclid=IwAR1Xc48GPQK2pHFFkfqUEHMuXS03HqC7emy2_olW2K65JH2HxTxVXXBZ_lg#.XkzRDQcKkzQ.facebook

So that's all I'll say about that, except personally I find sneaky racism more outrage provoking than flagrant racism.

I'm not sure about sneaky vs flagrant racism. Sneaky often isn't intentional. I don't see it as nearly as bad but it's much tougher to snuff out and is ashes from which flagrant racism can be born. It's the wilful ignorance of reality that leads to what appear, from a certain vantage point, to be a logical course of action that result in what should be obvious were a person willing to consider other points of view reasonably.

The biggest issue has always been dealing with poverty, though. It's a huge outlier in many scientific studies, too, where the results always tend to break along wealth lines but they find a way to brush that aside as though a child of a millionaire making $50,000/year is the same as the child who effectively didn't have parents making the same or some other shenanigans. And when poverty is something that people refuse to deal with, it tends to lend itself to all manners of racism/other discrimination because... it's really obvious why. And it gets to the point where it's sometimes impossible to distinguish which is which, nor is there necessarily much value in figuring it out.

Impossible to figure out, perhaps, but rather than pretending that Rodriguez vs. San Antonio, etc. is the end of the discussion, embracing the notion that success/wealth disparities might be at least partially attributable to racially/ethnically discriminatory factors is itself a valuable step toward fairness. There is an ongoing cottage industry arguing against even the possibility of such disparities.

[montestewart]

Are you talking about the guy who still thinks white people are superior to blacks because of intelligence quotient scores?

Yea...uh no.

We are all, all of us, capable of better.

Have you really dug into Nate’s posting? To be better someone has to want to be better. I know you’re a mod so you have to be fair but I’m not going to cape for the guy.

Some of you who have been here a long time perhaps recall Nate and I debating on race and other issues. I know where he stands, and where I stand, and I stand by my statement. Everyone is capable of better.