*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Jack Sawyer]

LOOOL That has to be a troll

[Jack Sawyer]

What don't you like about him?

LOL is this a real question?

Hint....it starts with T

And ends with "actical pants"?

[oskar]

This is how I imagine the average trumple at this point of the administration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N8f...utu.be&t=0m57s

[Poopadoop]

Ladies and gentlemen, we got him


https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-is-resigning/

They should have a sign up in the WH:

"X days without a resignation, firing, or something retarded."

They'd never have to change it from 0.

[wufwugy]

LOL is this a real question?

I know literally zero about him.

[OngBonga]

This is how I imagine the average trumple at this point of the administration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N8f...utu.be&t=0m57s

Gets to the other side, America is great again.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah, he sounds like the author of a happy ending for sure:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-go...and-the-brain/

[wufwugy]

Yeah, he sounds like the author of a happy ending for sure:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-go...and-the-brain/

Good god that is hilarious

[Poopadoop]

Trump: Rambling non-sequitur word salad.

Crowd: YAY!

[wufwugy]

Anybody here find it worth questioning that the prominent anti-Trump opinion emerges from a media engine that stops at nothing to try to destroy Trump?

[oskar]

You're a moron.

[wufwugy]

So that's a no?

[oskar]

Is this the first step to a "lul trollllllllled u XDXDXDXD" plot twist, or have you actually lost your mind?

[wufwugy]

What different question do you think I asked than what I asked?

[oskar]

To answer your question: yes, I have considered it. The same way I considered, when I noticed I was starting to lose hair, to have my scalp reduced, but then I remembered - I'm not a fucking moron!

What a weight off my back!

[Poopadoop]

Anybody here find it worth questioning that the prominent anti-Trump opinion emerges from a media engine that stops at nothing to try to destroy Trump?

It comes from his actions, and generally from him being a con man. I don't blame the media for reporting that, no.

[Jack Sawyer]

Anybody here find it worth questioning that the prominent anti-Trump opinion emerges from a media engine that stops at nothing to try to destroy Trump?

Let's try, one recent example.

Scott Pruitt was Trump's appointee for the position of the Head of EPA.

I know literally zero about him.

Ok, let me fill you in.

Pruit was Oklahoma's AG for a number of years. During the time he held this position, he sued the EPA no less than 14 times block clean air and water safeguards from, you guess it, the EPA. Investigations showed that in every suit except one, at least one of Pruitt’s co-litigators contributed to Pruitt’s campaign or a political action committee affiliated with Pruitt – directly, or via an employee or member..

Trump appointed this man as the head of the EPA.

In your honest, unbiased opinion, without any other facts to consider, do you think it's a good idea to have made this person the head of the EPA?



After you gave that opinion, here are some more facts to consider, ofcourse in hindsight as he has already resigned

https://www.axios.com/go-deeper-the-...5dc32a1fd.html
http://fortune.com/2018/07/05/scott-...signs-scandal/

[Poopadoop]

In your honest, unbiased opinion, without any other facts to consider, do you think it's a good idea to have made this person the head of the EPA?

It's the opinion of someone who believes government regulation of business is a bad thing in principle. The problem with that stance is it's been shown repeatedly that without gov't regulation, businesses will happily abuse the rights and well-being of citizens for their own profit.

An example: without EPA regs, mining companies could save money by not cleaning up the toxic byproducts of their operation. There is no laissez faire approach to business regulation that you could argue would self-police this matter.

E.g., a copper mine opens in Montana, takes out all the copper and leaves a bunch of toxic waste behind that bleeds into the drinking water, making everyone and everything that lives there sick for decades. According to some this would be a bad practice for that company economically because people would no longer buy their copper. Only that doesn't happen because the people buying their copper don't give a shit about the drinking water in Montana either.

[CoccoBill]

I think there are two candidates for the correct answer.

1. The invisible hand of the market will fix that, we just don't fully yet understand how. Patience.

2. This is a failure of the public ownership of water. If a company owned all the drinking water, they'd have incentive to protect it. In practice they'd send their private army against the mining company's.

[Poopadoop]

2. This is a failure of the public ownership of water. If a company owned all the drinking water, they'd have incentive to protect it. In practice they'd send their private army against the mining company's.

Yes, but the problems are the private water company:

a) may not have a big enough army to fight the mining company
b) may not realise the damage is being done until it's too late and the mining company has packed up and moved on
c) may not be incentivized to give a shit either if they have a monopoly on the tap water, and may be happy selling water with carcinogens in it rather than paying a mercenary army to fight the mining company

[Poopadoop]

Why do you think the MSM, which is bent on destroying Trump, doesn't give Johnston's work more airplay?

[wufwugy]

I think there are two candidates for the correct answer.

1. The invisible hand of the market will fix that, we just don't fully yet understand how. Patience.

2. This is a failure of the public ownership of water. If a company owned all the drinking water, they'd have incentive to protect it. In practice they'd send their private army against the mining company's.

The invisible hand is shorthand for one of the most well-respected models in the social sciences.

[wufwugy]

It's the opinion of someone who believes government regulation of business is a bad thing in principle. The problem with that stance is it's been shown repeatedly that without gov't regulation, businesses will happily abuse the rights and well-being of citizens for their own profit.

An example: without EPA regs, mining companies could save money by not cleaning up the toxic byproducts of their operation. There is no laissez faire approach to business regulation that you could argue would self-police this matter.

E.g., a copper mine opens in Montana, takes out all the copper and leaves a bunch of toxic waste behind that bleeds into the drinking water, making everyone and everything that lives there sick for decades. According to some this would be a bad practice for that company economically because people would no longer buy their copper. Only that doesn't happen because the people buying their copper don't give a shit about the drinking water in Montana either.

I love laws. What I don't love are laws that cause excessive harm because they are from monopolies.

If monopolies abuse people within the markets they operate, do monopolies that operate in every market abuse people?

[Jack Sawyer]

What is your opinion on the situation I posted to you above wuf?

[wufwugy]

Let's try, one recent example.

Scott Pruitt was Trump's appointee for the position of the Head of EPA.



Ok, let me fill you in.

Pruit was Oklahoma's AG for a number of years. During the time he held this position, he sued the EPA no less than 14 times block clean air and water safeguards from, you guess it, the EPA. Investigations showed that in every suit except one, at least one of Pruitt’s co-litigators contributed to Pruitt’s campaign or a political action committee affiliated with Pruitt – directly, or via an employee or member..

Trump appointed this man as the head of the EPA.

In your honest, unbiased opinion, without any other facts to consider, do you think it's a good idea to have made this person the head of the EPA?



After you gave that opinion, here are some more facts to consider, ofcourse in hindsight as he has already resigned

https://www.axios.com/go-deeper-the-...5dc32a1fd.html
http://fortune.com/2018/07/05/scott-...signs-scandal/

In general I don't have an opinion because I need more information to be well informed.

Things that jump out:

The co-litigator campaign contributions is a good example for why government power should be restrained.

I'm a fan of making the head of the EPA somebody who doesn't like the EPA. I'd prefer the agency not exist and an Amendment to the Constitution declaring that the federal government is prohibited from operating within that space (adding to our rights).

[Poopadoop]

I love laws. What I don't love are laws that cause excessive harm because they are from monopolies.

If monopolies abuse people within the markets they operate, do monopolies that operate in every market abuse people?

You missed (or ignored) the whole point. Free market principles are insufficient to prevent corporate abuse of citizens' rights and well-being.

[wufwugy]

You missed (or ignored) the whole point. Free market principles are insufficient to prevent corporate abuse of citizens' rights and well-being.

It is because I get the point very well that I asked the question I asked.

[Poopadoop]

It is because I get the point very well that I asked the question I asked.

Your question has nothing to do with my point.

[wufwugy]

Your point, as far as I can tell, is that the free market is insufficient to prevent abuse. That is true. Implied (and expressed) along with your point is that you believe that government is then useful to adjust for some of that insufficiency. I jump in here because government mostly (or entirely) makes the system of preventing abuse even less sufficient.

Let's move forward. Do you see how you have claimed that monopolies increase abuse in one dimension and also you claim they decrease abuse in another dimension?

[Poopadoop]

Do you see how you have claimed that monopolies increase abuse in one dimension and also you claim they decrease abuse in another dimension?

I never said the mining company that was poisoning the groundwater had a monopoly...

Oh I see. I can clarify with this new information. It is through monopolistic components that the mining company would do that.

would you argue that there is some free market principle that encourages Mining Company X to pay a lot of money to run a clean operation?

Yes, over the relevant domains. There is nothing that can ensure a specific thing happens at a specific place/time/etc. (government can't change that). What we talk about with markets is how the system functions across all relevant domains. Resource distribution (economics) is a never-ending game with never-ending players and never-ending degrees of change between relevant variables. Across these dimensions, hypothetical companies are less likely to abuse than otherwise when choices are free.

[wufwugy]

lol i accidentally edited your post rather than reply to it

sorry

[wufwugy]

yeah so the quoted is what you said and the non quoted is what i said. though it is under your handle.

really sorry for doing that accidentally. if somebody knows how to fix it that would be great. i'll leave it unless you want it deleted

[oskar]

I like how you don't feel the need to present any evidence to support your position, and you feel completely unencumbered by a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

[CoccoBill]

Do you have a moment to talk about our Lord and Savior Milton Friedman?

[oskar]

You always wonder when you're young what new fad the next generation will come up with that will shock you. I always thought it would be something like cutting holes in your pants and having your balls hang out. Turns out it's trickle down economics and christian conservatism. Well played, generation z!

[Poopadoop]

Yes, over the relevant domains. There is nothing that can ensure a specific thing happens at a specific place/time/etc. (government can't change that). What we talk about with markets is how the system functions across all relevant domains. Resource distribution (economics) is a never-ending game with never-ending players and never-ending degrees of change between relevant variables. Across these dimensions, hypothetical companies are less likely to abuse than otherwise when choices are free.

Sorry but this sounds like a lot of hand waving to me.

History shows that without regulation companies that extract natural resources like minerals, oil and gas, etc., disregard the well-being of citizens, and when they're done extracting their goodies, they just pack up and leave a toxic mess behind. There's no evidence that free market principles stop them from doing that. There IS evidence that if they face a bigly fine for destroying the environment, it becomes in their best interests to be clean.

So yes, the government can make companies behave responsibly towards citizens, through punishing companies for behaving like greedy dicks in ways the free market doesn't punish them.

Here's another example: In the UK housing market, estate agents (people who are hired to look after renting properties on the landlord's behalf) have been unregulated up to now. The consequences: Absurd fees being charged to both landlords and tenants - e.g., an 'admin' fee of several hundred dollars charged to a tenant just for the privelege of having them send you a standard letting agreement to sign, a 'referencing fee' that costs up to 4x what it costs to obtain a reference. Why doesn't the free market end this practice, through rewarding those estate agents who don't charge extortionate fees for doing next-to-nothing? Because THEY ALL FUCKING CHARGE THEM. Otherwise they'd have no reason to exist, and would be out of business.

Next spring, the gov't is introducing regulations that make charging fees to tenants by estate agents illegal. The business of renting housing has been around for decades and this is the only way these fees are being abolished; the free market is not keeping these leeches from running their scams and getting away with it.

I know the free market stuff makes sense in some cases, such as a car manufacturer knowingly putting in faulty airbags and brakes or whatever and then losing money in the long run because of it. But there are a LOT of situations where there simply isn't any natural free market check on dickish behavior on the part of a business.

[Poopadoop]

Soo.. when the guy hired to run the EPA basically takes the view 'we don't need this regulation shit, it's bad for business', that is definitely a bad thing. Because it means that companies will go back to being dicks and the common people (the ones Trump always claims to be championing) will suffer.

Sure, there may be some regulations that are outdated and/or unnecessary, but a lot of them are there for very good reasons. It's not like someone decided to create those regulations just for the hell of it - they were all created to address a specific problem. The reason Pruitt (and for that matter Trump) doesn't want them is because they are bad for HIM, not because they are bad for the country as a whole.

Which comes to the core issue with Trump: He only cares about Trump. Everything he does is done to benefit HIM, not you. He lowers taxes on the wealthiest people, hires people to make things easier for businesses to get away with bad behavior, and all the while there's people who cheer him because they like how he talks and makes fun of his opponents and promises the earth and moon.

He hasn't drained the swamp - he's filled it with people from Goldman Sachs. He hasn't built the wall and made Mexico pay - it's a moronic idea to begin with. He's been tough on immigrants to the point of institutionalized cruelty rivaling fascism. He's fighting a trade war with the entire world that no-one understands and seems to be for no other reason than to get him in the headlines. He's heaping praise on dictators like KJU and VP, and chastising democratically-elected ones like JT and AM. He's lazy, he doesn't work hard. I could go on but I can't even remember all the bad shit he's done or is doing. He's just a fucking train wreck of a president, sorry.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm shocked to hear that a politician has personal goals and will say whatever their constituency wants to hear to achieve the power of office to pursue those goals.
Shocked, I say! (lol. As if dems are any different/better when it comes to ignoring half the country to cater to the other half's whims.)

Sounds like Trump is a politician after all. Wow. How could we have possibly known that a person running for political office would behave like a politician?

***
@wuf: How do you disregard all the wealth of evidence that without regulation, there are many, many ways for a company to be a bad actor without being noticed by their customers until well after the damage is done?

The copper mining example is apt, and fits metaphorically as an archtype of that kind of problem. Even if you want to ignore that, look at the FDA and why it was founded. People were being openly defrauded on a mass scale. They were being lied to, and being sold something that was not what they were told it is. It was not localized to one company, but widespread across the entire industry.

On that regard, look at mob mentality or let's go full Hitler and look at Naziism. 90+% of the Nazi's were just normal folks who didn't really believe in the rhetoric, but also just wanted to get on with their lives. Still, they participated in the most iconic evil known to recent history. My point is that we can wax poetic about the goodness of people in the long run all day long, but it ignores just how much harm can be done in the short run.

[Poopadoop]

Most people when they become president aren't entirely self-serving I would say. They don't give themselves tax cuts, for example.

Edit: Imo, a fair number of presidents are rather conscientious about doing what they think is best for the country. I would say Trump is an exception in that sense, not just another instance of a selfish asshole who became president.

Really, anyone who says things along the lines of 'Trump is just like the rest of the politicians' is really missing alot of what is wrong with this presidency.

[Poopadoop]

Here's an example of what I mean: Nixon was a greedy paranoid cunt of a president. But when it came time to step down, when he was about to be impeached, he did what was best for everybody and quietly stepped down.

Now, does anyone think Trump would do the same thing should the same circumstance arise? Fuck no. He'll have to be dragged out kicking and screaming, and, if he's not in jail, he'll spend the rest of his life going around the country telling everyone he was screwed and encouraging them to revolt against the government.

That's the difference between someone who (ultimately) puts their country ahead of themselves and someone who sees things as the other way around.

[OngBonga]

I don't like Dave because if I asked him to leave my property, he'd tell me to fuck off and make me do it, rather than just politely leaving.

I know this because it happened in my head.

[Poopadoop]

I don't like Dave because if I asked him to leave my property, he'd tell me to fuck off and make me do it, rather than just politely leaving.

I know this because it happened in my head.

Trump's already been kicking and screaming about a "witch hunt" for 18 months now. Before that he prefaced the election by claiming if he lost it would only be because it was rigged. What part of his behaviour makes you think he's just going to turn into a completely different person and say 'ok you got me' if/when they find him guilty?

[oskar]

https://twitter.com/LannyDavis/statu...80422928576513

Oh shit!

[Jack Sawyer]

I'm shocked to hear that a politician has personal goals and will say whatever their constituency wants to hear to achieve the power of office to pursue those goals.
Shocked, I say! (lol. As if dems are any different/better when it comes to ignoring half the country to cater to the other half's whims.)

Sounds like Trump is a politician after all. Wow. How could we have possibly known that a person running for political office would behave like a politician?

***
@wuf: How do you disregard all the wealth of evidence that without regulation, there are many, many ways for a company to be a bad actor without being noticed by their customers until well after the damage is done?

The copper mining example is apt, and fits metaphorically as an archtype of that kind of problem. Even if you want to ignore that, look at the FDA and why it was founded. People were being openly defrauded on a mass scale. They were being lied to, and being sold something that was not what they were told it is. It was not localized to one company, but widespread across the entire industry.

On that regard, look at mob mentality or let's go full Hitler and look at Naziism. 90+% of the Nazi's were just normal folks who didn't really believe in the rhetoric, but also just wanted to get on with their lives. Still, they participated in the most iconic evil known to recent history. My point is that we can wax poetic about the goodness of people in the long run all day long, but it ignores just how much harm can be done in the short run.

Oh, and this

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal

Here in video form for those with short attention spans or reading problems



Companies don't give a fuck about your wellbeing, only about their bottom line. If it makes an extra cent on a million dollar profit, they will do it.

[OngBonga]

What part of his behaviour makes you think he's just going to turn into a completely different person and say 'ok you got me' if/when they find him guilty?

If he's bang to rights, then I don't care how he reacts to getting the boot. He can cry, or he can say sorry and accept it, either way I give zero fucks and would be more interested in who replaces him.

However, if he gets impeached thanks to political motivation, then of course he kicks up a stink. If you want to judge him for that before it even happens, that's your call.

[Jack Sawyer]

Companies don't give a fuck about your wellbeing, only about their bottom line. If it makes an extra cent on a million dollar profit, they will do it.

I should add, no matter if it actually kills you, the consumer. In this case, it actually literally could. There will always be other/more consumers for them to dupe

[Poopadoop]

If he's bang to rights, then I don't care how he reacts to getting the boot. He can cry, or he can say sorry and accept it, either way I give zero fucks and would be more interested in who replaces him.

However, if he gets impeached thanks to political motivation, then of course he kicks up a stink. If you want to judge him for that before it even happens, that's your call.

You should care how he reacts to getting the boot because 1/3 Americans trust his word over their own eyes and ears. So if he says it's a frame-up, which he will even if there's irrefutable proof of his guilt, how do you think those loyal followers are going to respond? It won't be pretty I can tell you that.

And that's the kind of guy he is. Remember Hitler and how he knew the war was lost but just kept making everyone fight until the last bullet rather than give himself up? That's putting yourself ahead of your country. And Trump will be the same way I guarantee it. Even if it tears his country apart.

[Jack Sawyer]

In general I don't have an opinion because I need more information to be well informed.

Things that jump out:

The co-litigator campaign contributions is a good example for why government power should be restrained.

I'm a fan of making the head of the EPA somebody who doesn't like the EPA. I'd prefer the agency not exist and an Amendment to the Constitution declaring that the federal government is prohibited from operating within that space (adding to our rights).

This makes me think you are not a rational actor in thought, and are only in it for the LOLs. You have an agency which, cumbersome or not, is in charge of protecting the environment yet you want to put in charge of that agency someone who actually does not give a single fuck about the environment and is actually paid to do so by his contributors.

This does not compute, it does not make actual sense. It is akin to putting John Gotti as the head of the FBI in the 70's/80's.

The single biggest consequence of this rationale is that his contributors which of course happen to be notorious polluters can simply do their normal doing, but now legally. Like Flint, but everywhere. LA Smog, welcome right back in full power. Rivers? Hah! More like fluid trashcans amirite

Without the EPA I cannot trust businesses to suddenly start giving a fuck about the environment because they have shown to not do so unless it is firmly in their bottom line, like some eco conscious outlet. And waiting for the market to a) have the knowledge to choose properly and float to top the businesses they should and b) weed out the polluters before they completely destroy the environment is in my vie a completely inefficient and ineffective way of doing things

[Jack Sawyer]

[CoccoBill]

You should care how he reacts to getting the boot because 1/3 Americans trust his word over their own eyes and ears. So if he says it's a frame-up, which he will even if there's irrefutable proof of his guilt, how do you think those loyal followers are going to respond? It won't be pretty I can tell you that.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ar_likely_soon

I'll put $10 on the 'cans, they got the guns.

[OngBonga]

how do you think those loyal followers are going to respond? It won't be pretty I can tell you that.

I don't sit here being paranoid about how I think people will react to things that haven't happened.

It's funny though. You talk about how his supporters will react, and how it won't be pretty. I remember reading the same sort of crap during the election, how if Trump lost it would be a wave of butthurt, but if Clinton lost it would be gracious. That turned out well, didn't it?

Remember Hitler

With all due respect (and I sincerely mean this)... fuck off. These comparisons to Hitler are outright disgusting, and an insult to human history. Trump has done NOTHING to warrant such comparisons. When was the last time he gassed any Jews? Has he invaded Mexico yet?

He's not a dictator. He got voted in, and it's going to happen again. He's not as aggressive as previous presidents, we've had no Iraq on his watch. He's not murdering his political opponenets. He's not murdering gays. He's not murdering foreigners, even though he wants them to go home.And as for the Jews, well he seems to get on ok with them, in fact they might like him more than they liked Obama.

No matter how much people scream it, he's not Hitler. And using that man's name in an attempt to slur the president is a great deal more offensive than telling foreigners to fuck off home.

[Poopadoop]

All joking aside CW II would be a disaster for the world.

[Poopadoop]

I don't sit here being paranoid about how I think people will react to things that haven't happened.

It's funny though. You talk about how his supporters will react, and how it won't be pretty. I remember reading the same sort of crap during the election, how if Trump lost it would be a wave of butthurt, but if Clinton lost it would be gracious. That turned out well, didn't it?

You just don't get it. Never mind.

With all due respect (and I sincerely mean this)... fuck off. These comparisons to Hitler are outright disgusting, and an insult to human history. Trump has done NOTHING to warrant such comparisons. When was the last time he gassed any Jews? Has he invaded Mexico yet?

He's not a dictator. He got voted in, and it's going to happen again. He's not as aggressive as previous presidents, we've had no Iraq on his watch. He's not murdering his political opponenets. He's not murdering gays. He's not murdering foreigners, even though he wants them to go home.And as for the Jews, well he seems to get on ok with them, in fact they might like him more than they liked Obama.

No matter how much people scream it, he's not Hitler. And using that man's name in an attempt to slur the president is a great deal more offensive than telling foreigners to fuck off home.

Uh, Hitler was voted in too...

Anyways, I'm not saying he IS Hitler. He doesn't have the nihilistic streak Hitler had. He doesn't hate everybody. But, he is just like Hitler / Mussolini / [insert name of your favourite despot here] inasmuch as he cares more about himself than about the country he runs, and that he'd rather see the country ruined than see himself ruined.

[Poopadoop]

Actually Trump is more like a mix of P.T. Barnum's promotional skills and Hitler's self-absorbed pathos.

[OngBonga]

he cares more about himself than about the country he runs

These words are meaningless. How do you know what motivates him? You don't.

[Poopadoop]

These words are meaningless. How do you know what motivates him? You don't.

His entire life's behaviour has been consistent with him being a con man and grifter. Trump University alone, just think about it. He starts a 'university' that takes money from people to take classes taught by people with no credentials, a classic 'get rich quick' scheme; it gets busted and he has to pay $25m.

The chance he suddenly does a 180 and becomes selfless at the age of 71 is next to nil.

[OngBonga]

I don't even care if he's blagged money off gullible twats who don't do their due dilligence when applying for educational courses. They got a valuable fucking lesson imo.

Do you suppose America has had a selfless president in our lifetime? Do you suppose America would have one if Don lost?

[Poopadoop]

I don't even care if he's blagged money off gullible twats who don't do their due dilligence when applying for educational courses. They got a valuable fucking lesson imo.

Yeah he did those stupid people a big favour by taking their life savings. What a champion of the common man he is.

Do you suppose America has had a selfless president in our lifetime?

Not selfless as in giving up their lives to fight leprosy, but at least every one of them would rather fall on their sword than see America go down. Even Nixon and LBJ did.

Edit: Jimmy Carter sold his peanut farm to avoid a conflict of interest as POTUS. Trump doubled the price of a membership at Mar a Lago.

Do you suppose America would have one if Don lost?

No, she's a fucking bitch. It was her being awful that largely led to desperate people voting for Trump. That doesn't make him a good president, however.

[Poopadoop]

I don't even care if he's blagged money off gullible twats who don't do their due dilligence

And if he's blagging votes off gullible twats...do you care then?

[OngBonga]

And if he's blagging votes off gullible twats...do you care then?

No. I respect an individual's right to be blagged.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Jimmy Carter sold his peanut farm to avoid a conflict of interest as POTUS.

Don't say anything more about him. No matter what it is, it shines a spotlight on just how little I'm doing with my life.


It sucks that we have to go back 40 years to find a POTUS who is so humbling to learn about.


@Poopadoop... you're not turning on the scientist in you when you talk about this stuff. You're speculating about things as though your imagination is a crystal ball. I'm sure you know better, so what gives? Seriously, a non-American cheeba monkey* is talking more sense than you (a trained psychologist, yeah?) about American politics.

*I say that with nothing but love.

[MadMojoMonkey]

And if he's blagging votes off gullible twats...do you care then?

As opposed to what, exactly? Literally every person whom ever received a vote for political office received votes from gullible twats, as you say.

[Poopadoop]

@Poopadoop... you're not turning on the scientist in you when you talk about this stuff. You're speculating about things as though your imagination is a crystal ball. I'm sure you know better, so what gives? Seriously, a non-American cheeba monkey* is talking more sense than you (a trained psychologist, yeah?) about American politics.

*I say that with nothing but love.

Trump-as-con-man is about as public knowledge as you can get. Maybe some people don't like to hear it, and others don't want to believe it, but it's not exactly a secret. Honest businessmen don't open 'universities' or stiff contractors or get sued multiple thousands of times.

And it's hardly wild speculation to say he isn't the type to swallow his pride and bow out gracefully. It's only common sense to say how a person acted in the past and present is a good predictor of how they will act in the future.

[Poopadoop]

As opposed to what, exactly? Literally every person whom ever received a vote for political office received votes from gullible twats, as you say.

It's much worse than that. He has no clue what he is doing as president, doesn't care anyways because he figures it's all show and no substance, and as a consequence he's fucking up your country for decades to come. You need to get rid of him, and the sooner the better.

And your response to all that is 'c'est la vie'? You're supposed to be an intelligent person.

Man, if I lived in America I would be yelling at everybody to get out and vote in November.

[Poopadoop]

No. I respect an individual's right to be blagged.

That's either fucking retarded or immoral or both. If some scam artist comes and convinces your nan to invest her life savings in a Ponzi scheme, I'm sure your response wouldn't be 'Well she's old and not really on the ball, I guess she deserved it. That scam artist was clever to target her, good on him, buyer beware, blah blah.'

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's just that you seem to think that it's just happenstance that he's managed to place himself as one of the charismatic icons of America over the past decades. I don't see how you could argue that he's not excellent at selling his own brand. I get that he's not a political heavyweight. I'm not saying otherwise. I'm saying that the man has skills, and talents, and has built an empire (good or bad) which is familiar to us. He cares about that, and is good at it. I don't think he'd fight a losing criminal case after being impeached when there are much safer alternatives for him. Unless he sees a criminal sentence as a boon for his brand, he's not likely to be caught like a deer in the headlights by an impending trial.

C'mon. Post-impeachment, he has to know that he's already lost. Congress isn't interested in prosecuting a criminal trial against a POTUS. It tarnishes the credibility of the office and of themselves by correlation. They're not going to impeach him unless they're 99% sure that he broke laws. Look at Clinton. He clearly lied under oath in a criminal trial. They weren't going to say that he didn't, but they also had no intention of taking a sitting POTUS to trial over some lies about sex. If they were going to do that, he would have lost the trial. It was on tape, there were witnesses, he had no defense. We DO in fact know what the meaning of the word "is" is, and for him to use it in that context in that setting was 100% not "the whole truth."

If Congress wanted to pursue a trial, he would have resigned rather than go through it all, just to face the inevitable guilty verdict. Trump would be no different. He's a con man, probably, but he's not foolish when it comes to selling his brand.

[BananaStand]

he cares more about himself than about the country he runs, and that he'd rather see the country ruined than see himself ruined.

Name one objectively terrible thing that's happened to the country since Trump took office

[Poopadoop]

It's just that you seem to think that it's just happenstance that he's managed to place himself as one of the charismatic icons of America over the past decades. I don't see how you could argue that he's not excellent at selling his own brand.

Where did you get that from? I compared him to P.T. Barnum. You know who that is right?

I get that he's not a political heavyweight. I'm not saying otherwise. I'm saying that the man has skills, and talents, and has built an empire (good or bad) which is familiar to us. He cares about that, and is good at it. I don't think he'd fight a losing criminal case after being impeached when there are much safer alternatives for him. Unless he sees a criminal sentence as a boon for his brand, he's not likely to be caught like a deer in the headlights by an impending trial.

Here you seem to be suggesting he's much different person than all available evidence suggests: rational, thoughtful, considered.

What seems more telling to me is the fact that he's never admitted to any wrongdoing, ever. What makes you think he's suddenly going to slink away like a beaten dog if worst comes to worst?

Post-impeachment, he has to know that he's already lost.

Again, that implies that he takes a rational approach to knowing he's already lost. Lots of nutjob leaders throughout history must have known they'd lost and wouldn't admit it.

Congress isn't interested in prosecuting a criminal trial against a POTUS. It tarnishes the credibility of the office and of themselves by correlation. They're not going to impeach him unless they're 99% sure that he broke laws. Look at Clinton. He clearly lied under oath in a criminal trial. They weren't going to say that he didn't, but they also had no intention of taking a sitting POTUS to trial over some lies about sex. If they were going to do that, he would have lost the trial. It was on tape, there were witnesses, he had no defense. We DO in fact know what the meaning of the word "is" is, and for him to use it in that context in that setting was 100% not "the whole truth."

Lying about sex is an order of magnitude different from conspiring with a foreign power to influence an election.

Let's just speculate for a minute: let's say Trump really is in Putin's pocket, has been laundering money for Russian oligarchs for years, etc. etc., or for whatever reason we haven't found out yet is being blackmailed by Putin to do his bidding. AND Mueller finds incontrovertible proof of that. What is in Trump's best interest then? Even a sane person would see it's better to deny everything and accuse Mueller of framing him than admit to what amounts to treason.

If Congress wanted to pursue a trial, he would have resigned rather than go through it all, just to face the inevitable guilty verdict. Trump would be no different. He's a con man, probably, but he's not foolish when it comes to selling his brand.

Like I said Trump's crimes are potentially on a completely different level than Clinton's. But even if Congress was going to try Trump for lying about Stormy Daniels, I still doubt he would give in. The man simply doesn't have it in him to admit doing wrong.

[BananaStand]

People like Poop might be surprised to hear this because they think that anyone to the right of Lenin is an alt-right confederate flag waving gun-toting Trump-apostle. But I actually find the notion of a Trump presidency pretty disgusting. I'm not exactly proud that a sleazy celebrity holds that office. I wish Trump weren't president.

But we need him, because the thought of a Hillary presidency is much more intimidating. Trump is president because of the grotesque social overreaches and pitiful economic failures of the Democrat party. Turns out that most of the country doesn't share the same progressive openness that they have in New York and Los Angeles. It turns out that most people don't like being told that their opinions don't matter because they're tainted by 'privilege'. It turns out that most people prefer NOT to engage in a game if identity politics that seeks to label victims and oppressors. It turns out that some people actually care about preserving the ideals of individual rights, freedoms, responsibilities, and opportunities. And it turns out that they'd rather not sacrifice all of that in favor of bullshit equity doctrines.

The democrats went form 0 to 100 mph after 2008, and they had to be stopped. The republicans sent out Mitt friggen Romney dude. Do you remember what happened? They knew that a highly qualified, massively intelligent, impeccably moral person would destroy Obama in a fight over policy. They knew they couldn't engage him on issues. So they took this choir boy who's probably hasn't said the F word since the turn of the century and made him out to be tax-cheating hitler who just wanted to fire everybody and outsource all the jobs.

What did you think was gonna happen after that? If the overwhelmingly qualified and eloquent Mr. Romney couldn't get the country's attention on the republican party, how do you think the GOP would have done with Jeb Bush???? Cmon man. Use your brain.

Trump didn't get where he is because his supporters are stupid and think he's a "very stable genius". We put Trump there because HE IS THE MURDER WEAPON. Dems wouldn't pay attention to Mitt, but we got their fucking attention now don't we?

Now this can go two ways

A) Democrats can own their own baggage and say "whoa! maybe we pushed the social justice stuff a little too hard. maybe we should just embrace a more moderate stance and focus on advocating for the legitimate causes of the working class"

or

B) Democrats can double down on the demagogue rhetoric about privilege, patriarchy, hate, racism, fascism, and all those other words the angry college kids like to use but don't actually know what they mean.

Only one of those strategies will win in November, and in 2020. If your'e against Presdient Trump, fine...I get it. But your problem isn't with Trump, or the republicans. Your problem is with the out-of-control leftists who are doing everything possible to cram a post-modern interpretation of the world down your throat and make you believe that society is nothing but a power-driven hierarchy designed to oppress certain groups.

Engage on the issues, and stop with the divisive, tribalistic demagoguery.

either that............or get ready to salute President Hannity in 2024

[OngBonga]

Boris the Clown has resigned, and has swifly been replaced with a guy whose name is Cockney rhyming slang for cunt.

And here was me thinking USA is a circus.

[wufwugy]

I like how you don't feel the need to present any evidence to support your position, and you feel completely unencumbered by a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

We're not discussing empiricism. We're discussing economics, which is models of logic and math based on desires and constraints.

There is NO conclusive empirical evidence for any position on any of this.

[wufwugy]

Sorry but this sounds like a lot of hand waving to me.

History shows that without regulation companies that extract natural resources like minerals, oil and gas, etc., disregard the well-being of citizens, and when they're done extracting their goodies, they just pack up and leave a toxic mess behind. There's no evidence that free market principles stop them from doing that. There IS evidence that if they face a bigly fine for destroying the environment, it becomes in their best interests to be clean.

So yes, the government can make companies behave responsibly towards citizens, through punishing companies for behaving like greedy dicks in ways the free market doesn't punish them.

Here's another example: In the UK housing market, estate agents (people who are hired to look after renting properties on the landlord's behalf) have been unregulated up to now. The consequences: Absurd fees being charged to both landlords and tenants - e.g., an 'admin' fee of several hundred dollars charged to a tenant just for the privelege of having them send you a standard letting agreement to sign, a 'referencing fee' that costs up to 4x what it costs to obtain a reference. Why doesn't the free market end this practice, through rewarding those estate agents who don't charge extortionate fees for doing next-to-nothing? Because THEY ALL FUCKING CHARGE THEM. Otherwise they'd have no reason to exist, and would be out of business.

Next spring, the gov't is introducing regulations that make charging fees to tenants by estate agents illegal. The business of renting housing has been around for decades and this is the only way these fees are being abolished; the free market is not keeping these leeches from running their scams and getting away with it.

I know the free market stuff makes sense in some cases, such as a car manufacturer knowingly putting in faulty airbags and brakes or whatever and then losing money in the long run because of it. But there are a LOT of situations where there simply isn't any natural free market check on dickish behavior on the part of a business.

We end up talking about two vastly different things. You're discussing things that happen in isolated circumstances and posit cherry picked ones as conclusive evidence. I'm discussing comprehensive economic theory about what happens across all relevant domains.

[wufwugy]

@wuf: How do you disregard all the wealth of evidence that without regulation, there are many, many ways for a company to be a bad actor without being noticed by their customers until well after the damage is done?

If the designated regulator doesn't regulate, this problem arises.

Regulation is awesome. What matters is how regulation is decided. Do we use principles that create more robust regulation or ones that don't?

[wufwugy]

This makes me think you are not a rational actor in thought, and are only in it for the LOLs. You have an agency which, cumbersome or not, is in charge of protecting the environment yet you want to put in charge of that agency someone who actually does not give a single fuck about the environment and is actually paid to do so by his contributors.

This is not expressed nor implied by what I said.

[wufwugy]

On that regard, look at mob mentality or let's go full Hitler and look at Naziism. 90+% of the Nazi's were just normal folks who didn't really believe in the rhetoric, but also just wanted to get on with their lives. Still, they participated in the most iconic evil known to recent history. My point is that we can wax poetic about the goodness of people in the long run all day long, but it ignores just how much harm can be done in the short run.

Freedom of choice in markets works because it assumes people are not good (instead that they are self-interested, which is true). Government monopoly as a "solution" assumes that people are good.