Total posts: 2,768
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
I'm not particularly motivated to explain what I said. My post was poorly articulated, and I'm already lazy
Whelp, I think you’ll fit right in ;)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
As I understand, MPP started in early 2019; and while there’s no detailed data on exactly how many were - it seems sound 70,000 people were moved to Mexico out of 300,000 who applied for affirmative or defensive asylum.
CBP data indicates that in CY2019, ~790k people were apprehended crossing the border. (850 in FY2019),
Data also indicates the average daily ice/CBP custody population was around 50k by the end of 2019 with an average stay of 34.3 days. Meaning around 600k went through detention facilities.
Ice removed 267,000 people in 2019. This includes border removals (but not title 42 removals - which only started early 2020)
So, out of 790k people crossing the border, 70k went to Mexico, 50k are held in detention centres - at most 267k of the detained were sent home (probably much less - as this number includes deportations from those already in the US) leaving around 400,000 illegal immigrants in the system not in detention. The numbers I’ve found for releases from ice detention on bond, or recognizance - rather than released across the border was around 263k.
This is to say that suggestion that MPP or ending “catch and release” (2017/2018) had a huge impact doesn’t seem to match the data; there’s possibly some movement, but for 800k people, a few tens of thousands here and there isn’t going to make much of a dent.
A big factor in 2020 - was Trumps section 42 expulsions - where individuals can basically be driven back across the border and dropped off - and the pandemic, which dropped everything through the floor - and illegal immigration has been picking up since Augusta last year.
In 2021. There are slightly fewer families and more unaccompanied kids than in 2019; but the big difference is single adults; which are way way up. In 2019 recidivism in crossing was at around 7%, and is currently around 38% recently. While it’s unclear the previous rates for previous months; this appears a pretty significant factor in the volume current number of crossings - single adults crossing multiple times because section 42 gives no appreciable repercussions for multiple crossing attempts. With crossings beginning to rise before any policy was actually changed.
CBP data indicates that in CY2019, ~790k people were apprehended crossing the border. (850 in FY2019),
Data also indicates the average daily ice/CBP custody population was around 50k by the end of 2019 with an average stay of 34.3 days. Meaning around 600k went through detention facilities.
Ice removed 267,000 people in 2019. This includes border removals (but not title 42 removals - which only started early 2020)
So, out of 790k people crossing the border, 70k went to Mexico, 50k are held in detention centres - at most 267k of the detained were sent home (probably much less - as this number includes deportations from those already in the US) leaving around 400,000 illegal immigrants in the system not in detention. The numbers I’ve found for releases from ice detention on bond, or recognizance - rather than released across the border was around 263k.
This is to say that suggestion that MPP or ending “catch and release” (2017/2018) had a huge impact doesn’t seem to match the data; there’s possibly some movement, but for 800k people, a few tens of thousands here and there isn’t going to make much of a dent.
A big factor in 2020 - was Trumps section 42 expulsions - where individuals can basically be driven back across the border and dropped off - and the pandemic, which dropped everything through the floor - and illegal immigration has been picking up since Augusta last year.
In 2021. There are slightly fewer families and more unaccompanied kids than in 2019; but the big difference is single adults; which are way way up. In 2019 recidivism in crossing was at around 7%, and is currently around 38% recently. While it’s unclear the previous rates for previous months; this appears a pretty significant factor in the volume current number of crossings - single adults crossing multiple times because section 42 gives no appreciable repercussions for multiple crossing attempts. With crossings beginning to rise before any policy was actually changed.
The claim that various policies is deterring people from crossing doesn’t seem to really compute. If family separation didn’t significantly reduce family crossings - it’s hard to believe that processing a fraction of asylum claims in Mexico, or only releasing a huge fraction of asylum claims on bond instead of a slightly huger fraction would move the needle by much.
Poor conditions, violence, in various Latin American countries are producing a supply of people willing to risk the trek to the border; the risk of getting to and crossing the border with the potential of being caught is only going to deter people if the worst case result of making the trip is worse than what would happen if they stay.
The only thing Trump has done that could have impacted this decision was family separation: and if that didn’t move the needle: I’m sure as sh*t that the possibility that they’d be deported to Mexico isn’t going to either. You may find that just being a New Democratic president who isn’t a colossal d**k hole is going to boost the numbers just by traffickers being able to claim immigrants will be welcomed in open arms. Hell, all these news reports from right wing news and social media saying that the border is now completely open, that all these illegal immigrants are being let in unchallenged, and everyone’s being welcomed in with open arms, and will be granted welfare is probably more to blame than any individual change of policy. Hondurans watching Tucker Carlson screeds on Facebook about how nothing is being done are probably thinking that now is a pretty good time to make the crossing after all.
In terms of level of crisis; rightly or wrongly. Biden is still keeping title 42 expulsions, which means the bulk of those being picked up are being sent right back: while this doesn’t address the surge of numbers, or the fact that resources are still being stretched - it does mean that the overall impact is not as bad as 2019; as only 500k immigrants so far have made it through: which that could for sure increase; the apocalyptic hand waving is mostly overstated as a result.
The only thing that is going to help fix the southern border issues is when Latin American countries are as stable as Canada. Full stop.
Anything short of that, resources/policy allocated to other goals are largely pointless bandaids.
$100m dollars of wall supplies whether left on the ground, or assembled into a fence is really just a waste of money either way; because it’s not dealing with the pressure that is driving people here in the first place.
Don’t get me wrong: I don’t think Biden is handling the surge of immigrants as well as he should be; there should be more resources dedicated, more negotiation with Latin American countries, etc; but I don’t think the narrative that change policy is playing a significant role in the surge doesn’t seem to match reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
THE LAWS OF PHYSICS"as if that is the holy grail of ultimate knowledge. Bullshyte, and science will be first to admit it. The "laws" of physics are in constant flux; they're not a just a constant. Just two hundred years ago, [the age of climate science, at best, by the way - so goes Green New Deal] the laws of physics said Earth was central to the universe. All the evidence pointed to that. Two hundred years. A blink.
What in earth is this ridiculous drivel? You’ve just sailed off onto a silly tangent.
We’re talking about Occams Razor. In this respect, you have to assume there is some part of your brain that exists outside the laws of physics.
Laws of physics as in the physical principles in which physical things interact - which definitely appear to exist - rather than the physical laws and theories that humans have created to describe them.
That’s still true; and nothing you said challenges that characterization. Meaning that free will still fails Occam’s razor
That being said, the “laws” as written by humans are not actually flux at all - that’s what makes them laws. I mean, the laws of thermodynamics, motion, electromagnetism, gravity, etc - are still as true now as they were when they were written. We have additional laws, and broader understanding- but it’s not like chemistry suddenly works differently than it did yesterday.
Worse still it misses the point: we measure our brain as physical, our understanding of it, is that it is governed by electrochemical reactions - we may not have all the understanding of how it works, or the laws it follows; but it requires no assumption to presume a physical thing follows physical laws - no matter how much you want it to. That’s my point ; that you ignored.
So don't give me your "laws" of physics. They're as changeable as probability, and you admitted that probability is/is not in play. Make up your mind.
No they’re not lol. When’s the last time you floated off the earth because the law of gravity changes: or computers stopped working because laws of quantum tunneling shifted. This is petulant nonsense.
If you paid attention, they key point between quantum and non-quantum determinism is that in one case you have no real choice, but the outcome is not fixed if the exact same state was repeated, and in the other you have no real choice, but the outcome remains unchanged if the same state was repeated.
Even with QT; the brain is probably large enough that quantum effects are not sufficient to change choice.
But free will has been what it is for thousands of years.
Your confusing what determinism is again lol.
Free will, could simply be an illusion caused by our brains being matter obeying physical rules; and it would be unchanged for thousands of years - too.
It seems that your only argument is continually pretending determinism is something it isn’t.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Occam would not agree with the convolution that is determinism. Nor does God.
Well that’s a load of nonsense. I think you can probably add Occam’s razor the list of things you don’t seem to understand.
Occam’s razor is that explanations with fewer assumptions are more likely.
Given that determinism is simply the application of our laws of physics - and that any assertion of non-deterministic free will requires you to assume there is part of the brain that is not subject to the known laws of physics in the way we observe them - it’s pretty clear that the free will side is clearly at he wrong end of the razor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
What if, after all that thinking, I chose something else?
Again; for about the 26th time you comprehensively fail to understand what determinism actually is. You are conflating the choices we make deriving solely as a product of the laws of physics (determinism); with not being able to make choices. It’s bizarre.
The choice you make, after all that thinking, is the product of physical laws operating on your brain. You can’t make any other choice. The choices we make feel free, and feel as if they are our own, but this free will is illusory.
Or in other words. If you are confronted with a fork in a road: you can go left, you can go right. The decision is governed solely by the laws of physics and chemistry; not by any agency - because any exercise is that agency itself is determined by these same physical laws.
There is no quantifiable difference between a system of true free will, and a deterministic system in which choice is determined by chaotic processes that are impossible to practically predict.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Where action driven is by prior thought , the thought is the cause. But thinking is not determinism, because determinism is just like abdicating to letting a coin toss determine your action. Therefore, determinism is a coin toss, and act of limited results, whereas thinking through a problem of which action to take is reflective of past experience, and contemplating different actions if different results are expected, since doing the same thing expecting different results is caving into the last time the situation you're now in occurred, and that's caving to the coin toss. Therefore, reflecting on different actions to achieve a different result is free will at work, not wokeness.
It appears, again, you do not seem to understand what determinism actually is.
What Determinism actually is - is us making choice, us thinking things through, and us making decisions - but that the cause of our decisions is not some ephemeral agency; but the laws of physics.
We receive light, sound, touch: physics.
The physical inputs are converted into electrochemical signals : physics
Those electrochemical signals cause a neurone for fire electrochemical signals to its neighbours: physics.
A complex interaction of input to the neurone, together with its strength of connection to neighbour ripples across various portions of the brain: physics and chemistry.
Those infections continue to fire, and then exercise motor neurones connected to muscle: physics
Muscles contract and actions are performed: physics.
It’s all just physics.
“Choice” is what we call our perception of how that process plays out.
We are fire, but a bit more complex - a very long, very complex and very slow chemical reaction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I keep hearing about how Biden completely opened up the border - even though the border has been effectively closed to non essential travel…
Created:
Copy-pasting posts in the forums isn’t against any standard that I can think of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Occam turning in his grave, such a convoluted spin you unravel. What, don't get how coin tosses work? See Occam.
I am actually completely fine with coin tosses, chaos theory, etc.
It’s just completely unclear how anything you said relates to what I am talking about; and even less clear as to why you feel I am making additional assumptions that warrants the invocation of Occam.
It seems you’ve made a bit of a rambling argument and forgot to explain why what you said is actually relevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
That argument is disconnect. First you say no non-physical entity can qualify choices, then say we, physical entities, cannot make personal choices. Who can, then? Of course, that's your point; no one can, thus determinism, quantum, or not.Then, as I offered - disagreeing with the concept, you believe the coin toss. But, just as the ultimate realization from Matrix is that there is no spoon, then there is neither a coin. What now?
Huh? I read this post three times and it’s still not clear what your point is.
If i decide whether to have Pizza or Burgers tonight, it feels like a free choice that I could make - but the reality is that it is the laws of physics ultimately determining which choice I make; what deal like me making a true choice is merely an illusion that feels like true choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Some of you; you know who you are, inject Trump into a string having naught to do with him. Hint: He is no longer the President. He is no longer your boogey man. But, you're so woke, you still think the subject is relevant, which is one reason why I accuse being woke, as being completely unconscious. You just cannot move on. Why?
Normally either in the context of pointing out how the people who supported him are colossal, unmitigated hypocrites but pointing out the things they supported that they are now complaining about; eg “you guys kept talking about Hilary Clinton for years, right”; or to point out his continued impact, on his supporters in terms of current events.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
My understanding of determinism; is that when someone makes a choice; what that choice ends up being does not stem from our conscious ability to chose: but from the physical laws operating on our brain; such that if we knew enough about the states of all the matter involved; the decision would be predictable.
However, the number of potential qualifying factors are so large that we would never realistically be able to predict anything.
I’m of the view of Quantum Determinism: that chance plays a factor in a quantum sense; so some things will boil down to probabilities - but there is still no non physical entity that is able to qualify our choices - so the things we do is ultimately dependent on the laws of physics, rather than our own personal volition.
Created:
I find it rather ironic that the “don’t erase our history” brigade are particularly touchy when their history is actually ends up being taught.
Critical Race theory is one of the underpinning social theories about systemic racism.
That is not being taught.
What is being taught, from what I can see, is a deeper and more specific set of history about historical racism, the impacts of racism; how various groups have been historically oppressed, which is more “history” than “critical race theory”.
There’s the occasional “let’s use inclusive language and understand how we talk about each other can have wider impact on those that are different”, which is more “teaching people how not to be dicks”, than “CRT”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Yes, but what did I say about creation? That God had no intent, and did not create a perfect world.
Etc etc.
The difference between an imperfect world, that allows us to learn, grow and overcome adversity in order for us to better ourselves - and this world - with arbitrary excruciating deaths, pointless suffering, unavoidable consequences and levels of horror simply beggars belief - is so vast that I can’t even begin to explain exactly how much your sanitized, hallmark, PG tellanovella interpretation missing the mark.
This world isn’t just imperfect, it’s odious, vile, and the idea that humans have had to put up with over 10,000 years of unending painful suffering through disease an illness that we’ve only been able to cure for the last 100 years is frankly sickening.
Tell me, all those third world children dying painful deaths of dysentery, malaria and cholera - what opportunity have they been given to better themselves.
This laughable attempt to justify whatever the shit you think nature is, is simply And purely self deception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
When an obvious sock puppet troll account pops up, it’s only natural to speculate to whom the sock puppet troll account belongs.
It’s actually kinda fun sometimes!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Enter the purpose of creation. The design is not flawed, we were not intended to be created as perfect beings. As I said, we were given the gift of dominion to learn how to overcome our inadequacies, to learn how to become perfect by our own efforts, with help from God if we ask properly.
I sometimes like the way the religious grossly over simplify reality, nature and our place within it in order to printed the grotesque, irrational shit show of how things actually are in reality are somehow reasonable.
For example, there are amoeba that eat children’s eye balls. Mountains explode and wipe out everyone nearby; there can be massive tsunamis that follow earthquakes that wipe out everything in its path.
There are droughts, locusts, plagues, the Black Death, Malaria, Pedophiles, asteroid impacts; not to mention God flooding the planet, wing out cities and having a preferred race of people who he commands to murder almost everyone else.
If this reality is about allowing humans to overcome our limitation: it sure as hell has had 10,000 years of both needless suffering, and a system that has been inherently set up for our own failure.
What you sound like, is the Starwars Fanboys trying to justify how the Kessel Run was actually some convoluted distance related thing: whereas the reality, they are simply covering for a human error in the construction of the story.
Christian Apologists are just the equivalent of professional Fan theorists trying to explain all the plot holes in Harry Potter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Say what you will about Republicans but being brainwashed into cult like enthusiasm for their congressional leaders is the opposite of the truth. Democrats have a reasonable degree of skepticism as well, I don't think accusing Democrat voters of just going along with whatever their party establishment says would be a fair attack at all, but it's a completely ludicrous one to level against Republicans.
I think you’ve interpreted what I said a lot more broadly than it was intended or and are assuming it’s a bit more general than what it was being directed at.
Generally speaking, everyone’s pretty hypocritical to some degree; there is always a bit of grey are where there are different scenarios, different considerations where you have a bit of plausible deniability. We’re talking Lindsay Graham’s monologue at Clinton impeachment trial, and a whole ton of stuff the democrats do too. Most of the accusations of hypocrisy are really just trying to smear the other side, some of it has truth, much of it doesn’t, but a lot is just political kabuki theatre. It’s the general noise; and other than to push partisan bickering it doesn’t really have any other real impact.
In terms of Policy; what the Republicans broadly, especially the senate republicans, do so much better than Democrats - like Jesus H Christ we’d be in trouble if the democrats started doing it - is not giving the first flying fuck how bad things look, or are, or the impact of what they do, providing they win. 6-3 instead of 5-4 is a case in point. The Democrats Hem and Haw about the fillibuster, knowing if they lose power, they may not have any other option - but no reasonable person would expect that Mitch McConnell would even blink for a second before removing the filibuster if control of the senate hinges upon some legislation he could not pass by other means.
The debt ceiling, is a particularly good example of this aspect. Debt was used as a cudgel to beat democrats to death with and sweep into broad power on the back of it - recall the tea party - there were shutdowns, the US credit rating was downgraded. When Trump won; this was forgotten almost overnight - big tax cuts, increases in the military, and surprisingly little complaints other than people like Rand Paul making a big show of opposing things at the last minute before voting for the bills. Between November 2016, and November 2020, the debt ceiling was an irrelevance - and is all of a sudden now an issue again. Indeed, it isn’t the first previously nonpartisan, pro forma task that has been turned into a partisan struggle.
This is what I refer to as the Weaponized hypocrisy of the right. It’s straight up piss on your head and tell me it’s raining ridiculousness, for which simply having cover to say something is true is all that is required, no matter how untrue it actually is. This extends almost across the board; democrats continue to have the normal amount of hypocrisy; republicans have it weaponized. Trump specifically was the epitome of “I’m going to say and do whatever I want, regardless of it’s truth.” The likes of Fox News, OAN, newsmax, etc follow that pattern too in a way that is not emulated to as substantial degree by other left wing outlets.
Democrats have nothing even close to approaching this level, because at some level, they really don’t like being called hypocrites; this is not to say that they never are, just that the nature is never even close to as extreme.
So that’s one half of what I’m talking about.
The other half of the point are some of the supporters - not everyone, but the likes of more than a few individuals on this forum - are part of the die hard core of Trumpism. Bear in mind that out of the rightish wing folks I’ve engaged with here - you’re the only one who appears broadly rational; sadly the next most rational person is wylted - and if he didn’t spend so much time being a pointless bell-end, it’d be good to have him around. Not everyone else here fits into that category; but there are enough.
There’s various flavours - from the QAnon crazies, to the bill-gates-is-microchipping-me brigade; with a fair amount of overlap in all the various sub groups.
I could talk about the causes, the history, blame, and patterns over time (I have 0 doubt that the vocal supporters of Trump today, are the same ones that shouted at me for being a Terrorist Sympathizer for suggesting that Iraq likely doesn’t have any big stash of WMDs is going to turn into a shit show ; way back 2002) - but there’s a surprisingly large group of Trump supporters have created shortcuts for rejecting any information that disagrees with them.
Any news they don’t like is fake; politicians say something they don’t like - it’s the swamp; any member of the civil service speak out - it’s the deep state; democrats say something; they’re evil and trying to destroy the country; private sector individuals - they’re shills. And in many cases, any engagement is deflected towards prepared, comfortable talking points. These are the people I’m talking about. Similar to 2009 creationists; Ken Hams and Kent Hovinds.
In this respect; all that matters is the worldview, sometimes that’s aligned with congressional politicians - sometimes not. But when it is; the justification is often post hoc.
In this case, I don’t think for a second that these people actually give a f**k about the debt ceiling; you could probably argue about spending in general, of opposition to economic policy - but this issue of the debt ceiling, and buying into that weaponized hypocrisy is part of that larger ability to systematically maintain that worldview posthoc.
Don’t get me wrong; the democrats have some crazies too - one of the people in various other threads fit that criteria too; but there’s far fewer of them, and one of the main issues with democrats is that the party is typified by pie fights and internal disagreement. This also not to say the left all have well justified well thought-out opinions on all policy matters; neither side does - only that this, relatively large, group on the right has a novel, cult-like capacity for rejecting any contrary point of view in a way that it those in the left do not currently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If a particular demographic has the imagination to concoct the story that Bill Gates invented Covid so he could microchip everyone with the vaccine; then Grarg the caveman was probably capable enough to make the claim that plants grow because the Sun is magic; and it may get mad if we don’t thank it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
What often happens is that a particular drug has an impact on cells in-vitro, in a way that is not replicable through possible medication.A great example is of the famous headline “sniffing farts cures cancer”.
So I think it’s quite possible that it could be an inhibitor - but not in a way conductive to be a therapeutic.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Actually all of those things except for “occasionally violent” are people just exercising their rights.
Ignoring the actual instances of real violence for a moment (which are increasing): In the street yes, absolutely - in a teacher, or school board members face - no.
Created:
-->
@thett3
This is a good litmus test for who is worth having a conversation with. There is no crisis of death threats and violence against school board members or administrators
Actually, there has been a definite rise in threats, violence, intimidation and arrests of parents relating specifically to mask mandates. There have been a large number of school board meetings to which the police have had to be called, more reports and arrests.
Is it a “crisis” - probably not an overt one requiring FBI crackdowns; but certainly significant enough that warrants offering FBI meetings with local law enforcement to work out ways of reducing it. It’s certainly not unmarked federal police teargassing non-violent protestors, or snatching them up off the street level bad, for sure.
At worst, it’s just a noncommittal memo to pacify the teachers union.
The lie being peddled here, that the small minority of angry, shouting, abuse - occasionally violent - anti-mask protesters, and those rallying against are just exercising their rights and should not be intimidated, is just a load of old horseshit - just as much as portraying all the protesters in Portland as peaceful.
Created:
“Threats against public servants are not only illegal, they run counter to our nation's core values,”-Garland“And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”-Waters
So you’re saying the first is not okay, and the second is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
I called Wylted
But intense paranoia got me thinking you could be both Lebronski and Wylted.
Created:
For people that brand ideological opposition to Marxism as terrorists. For people that treat microaggressions as crimes worthy of FBI intimidation.
By “ideological opposition” you mean “issuing death threats”, and by “Marxism” you mean “teachers”, and “terrorists” you mean “someone who has issued death threats”, and by “microaggressions” you mean “actual criminal behaviour” and by “FBI intimidation” you mean “FBI review”, that would be accurate.
Just thought I would correct that, as you seem to be continually grotesquely exaggerating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Are these effects verified at a particular human dosage? Or do they come from in-vitro, (or in-silico) studies where ivermectin is introduced to a COVID infected cell culture?
What often happens is that a particular drug has an impact on cells in-vitro, in a way that is not replicable through possible medication.
A great example is of the famous headline “sniffing farts cures cancer”.
Created:
And this is why we have the 2nd amendment.
You have the second amendment so that you can protect parents rights to send death threats to Teachers?
Created:
If they disagree with the school unions which own Washington DC.
If by “ disagree with” you mean “threaten, intimidate, or engage in criminal behaviour against” and by “the school unions” you mean “teachers”, and by “own Washington DC” you mean “are just trying to do their job”, then your post would be largely accurate.
On the other hand, “if” “they” and “which” are still accurate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
interesting? so is the point that demand-side economics is always bad?
That seems to be the implication.
However that point omits the case of velocity of money, or the concept of borrowing to pay for demand.
Created:
Posted in:
Ramshutu with the 'blues clues'
What makes you think we’re not both right? ;)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
There is no leverage if Democrats and pass a bill anyways lol. Do Democrats really value a reconciliation that they could get the next FY over catastrophe? Apparently so.
Again - simply ignoring everything Nd and repeating the same thing is not conducive to a decent discussion.
The debt ceiling suspension expired - and when the issue was put forward as legislation, the republicans filibustered it. The reason they filibustered it, was to for s the democrats into using their remaining reconciliation bill.
So, specifically, the Republicans were trying to leverage fear of default in the democrats in order to prevent the democrats doing other things.
Now, you may very well be okay with that; but it is indeed the republicans leveraging that threat and precipitating that risk for partisan gain.
This ridiculous pretence you are using throughout - as if the democrats can simply pass something without any other consequences - is a flat out lie, and we both know it.
This was a transparent attempt to use the risk of economic calamity to try and force the democrats to derail their legislative agenda.
That is by definition holding the country hostage and is the specific reason that republicans here deserve the majority of the blame.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Again; the Republicans decided that they will hold the US hostage to a catastrophic economic default in order to force the democrats to use up a reconciliation bill. They did this by filibustering the debt bill - even though there is absolutely no reason to do so - they can simply vote no and allow an up down vote.Indeed - the republicans stopped when the democrats offered to pass legislation via removing the filibuster.This is 100% republicans trying to leverage catastrophic economic harm to try prevent the democrats from doing something.The fact of the matter is there is great reason for it. If the democrats let the republicans hold the country hostage - it will happen again, and again and again and again. The Republicans will keep filibustering debt bills, and then claim this as a precedent.You can’t hold someone hostage - and then blame the other side for not giving into your demands. Your logic is ridiculous.
You appear to have missed the key point again; please refer to my old post; I’ve helpfully bolded the important parts.
Republicans are leveraging the threat of catastrophic default - by filibustering debt legislation - in order to force democrats to use up their spending bill.
It’s not that democrats “can just pass the bill” - republicans are holding up the debt ceiling to try and prevent the democrats from doing something.
So yes - they are very much trying to hold the country hostage, and use the threat of default to get their way. And as bolded; the democrats have a very good reason to not give in, given that if they do, this will be the new norm each time the debt ceiling comes up (at least under a democratic president)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I’m sure many people, including perhaps a substantial number of people in this thread - actually do believe this, but in the same way that people unswervingly believed that Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.
Orwell’s Ministry of truth wasn’t about changing the facts so that intellectually honest people were mislead - but changing the truth so that the people that blindly believed in the party could maintain their own self deception.
In this respect, Tucker Carlsons rants, or Mitch McConnells Letter are not about trying to convince anyone, but to give their supporters the fig-leaf they need to maintain their belief that the party is always right.
I think various individuals here truly believe that republicans did nothing wrong every bit as much as they would unswervingly believe that the democrats are economic terrorists unreasonably holding the country hostage under threat of economic catastrophe if they did the same thing in 18 months.
History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Demand side would be creating a virus in a lab so that a vaccine could be sold.
If you wanted good examples of demand side economics - rather than silly strawman - a good example would be COVID stimulus checks - borrowing to supply money to spur demand, rather than borrowing to supply money to invest in supply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Again; the Republicans decided that they will hold the US hostage to a catastrophic economic default in order to force the democrats to use up a reconciliation bill. They did this by filibustering the debt bill - even though there is absolutely no reason to do so - they can simply vote no and allow an up down vote.
Indeed - the republicans stopped when the democrats offered to pass legislation via removing the filibuster.
This is 100% republicans trying to leverage catastrophic economic harm to try prevent the democrats from doing something. They should stood.
The fact of the matter is there is great reason for it. If the democrats let the republicans hold the country hostage - it will happen again, and again and again and again. The Republicans will keep filibustering debt bills, and then claim this as a precedent.
You can’t hold someone hostage - and then blame the other side for not giving into your demands. Your logic is ridiculous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
EILI5
The Broken Window Fallacy relates to economics.
The idea is that if you break a window, you have to pay for a glazier to fix it. But you can’t call this new economic activity (IE: growth) because the money that is used may be money that was going to pay for groceries, or petrol; so you’re just taking money out of one thing into another.
Demand side economics is the principle that if you want growth and high employment, you need to encourage people to buy things - to increase demand.
This is as opposed to supply side economics, which is where you cut rich people’s taxes under the hope they will invest in things and grow the economy. It has never worked, partly because of the velocity of money I explained, but mostly because there’s only so much growth you’re going to get if there’s less demand for any of the things you can invest in.
The hugely laboured point GP appears to be making is that taxing the rich to pay for things like infrastructure suffers from the broken window fallacy, as we’re paying for infrastructure - but taking away the money earned by rich people. Unfortunately for GP, the issue he omits is the velocity of money - it gets spent rapidly in one case but not the other; and investment in a low demand economy nets less economic growth than generating that demand.
Created:
Posted in:
We already have a system in place to break the windows of a person both rich and poor that stuffs dollars under the bed.Inflation.
Your original post was now demand side economics can work without falling victim to the BWF.
I think I’ve answered that fairly well, right? I can’t see any objections, questions, rebuttal, or anything related to it - so does that mean you agree? You’ve conceded that whatever objections you may have had are unreasonable?
I’m not sure - you didn’t say.
You’re now making a completely new statement - it’s not clear exactly why - but one that seems not to have anything to do with the OP.
What’s odd, is that the statement doesn’t make sense; the BWF is that if you have a broken window, while it seems like paying the glazier is New economic Activity, it’s preventing other activity.
Your suggestion that inflation “breaks the windows of both” doesn’t seem to make sense in context as broken window represents redirection of existing cash.
While it’s true that inflation dilutes spending power; that’s only true if wages don’t keep up with it.
I mean, I could go into a whole treatise one inflation and various impacts; but it’s not particularly clear what you’re trying to say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Democrats can raise the debt ceiling without a single GOP vote in the House and Senate. Why don’t they do it?
Republicans can allow cloture and allow an up/down debt ceiling vote they can all vote no to. Why don’t they do it?
Republicans can allow a vote to extend or suspend the debt ceiling to cover existing approved responsibilities - as democrats each time it was done during Trump; why not this time?
Republicans can allow a vote to extend or suspend the debt ceiling to cover existing approved responsibilities - as democrats each time it was done during Trump; why not this time?
The spending is already approved, right?
Why should democrats waste an opportunity to legislate in the face of Republican obstruction - simply because Republicans are threatening the country with a crippling default? What would stop trying to leverage a default next time?
It’s like the Republicans have doused the house with Gasoline, and are holding a lit match; and your suggesting the fire will be the democrats fault for not running fast enough to fetch a fire hose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
This is pretty simple.
If democrats vote not to raise the debt limit - it’s the fault of democrats.
If republicans vote not to raise the debt limit - it’s the fault of republicans.
If the republicans prevent the bill from being voted on through filibuster - it’s the republicans fault.
You can not prevent the other side from governing; and then claim it’s the other sides fault because they aren’t governing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Yeah that’s it; in the middle of that I was having a conversation about the difference between trolling, and serious debate; and in the process the were multiple mentions of the word serious in exactly the same context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
In public Discord main chat.
It’s either Wylted or Whiteflame: and I am like 52% sure this is not whiteflames style.
Created:
Posted in:
Is there any scenario where Demand-side economics does not suffer from the broken window fallacy?
Idle resources, and consideration of velocity of money.
Specifically, the BWF only works if the money being spent on the broken window was going to be spent somewhere else. If the money was sitting in a bank account, savings, etc, then it’s new output.
The fallacy is correct for a low income individual who has little spare cash. But not for, say, a higher income individual who may have spare cash sitting idle in stocks, savings etc.
In this case the economic output is generated by increasing the velocity of the money in the system.
To be more specific, if you break a poor guys $250 window, he won’t be able to afford going to the baker and shoemaker. Break a rich guys window - so to speak - the glazier now gets paid and goes to the baker and shoemaker; but the rich guy still does too - as he has the money. So the glacier, baker and shoemaker now have more income; and they buy more ingredients from the Miller, who can now invest in better equipment, increases his yield etc; so that the original $250 may have been spent dozens of times in a year.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
this will make others not want to use this site because it isnt serious.AND most people here arent serious.its real bullshit
This is very, very, specifically and very very explicitly referring to something I had just-so-happened to have been talking to Wylted about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
I believe that not only are science and religion on the same coin, I believe true science and true religion are the same side of a coin, and, therefore, can use either forum.Obviously, you do not. That's okay. I, unlike some, do not believe anyone should be banned from either forum for their thinking.
I am specifically pointing out that an argument that is underpinned by a whole lot of meaningless religious mumbo jumbo, rather than a logical or empirical argument is best suited to the religion forum; where the topic is generally all in some way related to meaningless religious mumbo jumbo.
There is no way to credible assess you’re odd assertions based on scripture, that are neither testable nor founded on any sort of observational evidence.
Finally; I am not entirely sure what planet you are on where you feel that I support banning people for posting in the wrong forum, that’s as bizarrely ridiculously as it is comprehensively false. I don’t have enough characters here to lol at that sufficiently.
It’s just an issue of relevance; if you wish to try and justify an argument with religious drivel, it’s probably best to put it in the religion forum where those interested and capable in aforementioned drivel may assess it appropriately.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
You're close, and far, with. little to justify either position, but excessively DiSoRgAnIzEd. That type, for example, does not help. So. why do it?
Because you’re in the science forum, you offered an argument that purported to be one thing; then when challenged simply decided to throw out a large volume of religious Mumbo jumbo in lieu of an argument.
It seems you don't have Either a logical or scientific point here; so there’s not much else that’s possible to say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
When God placed Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden, they were told [Gen 2: ] "...of every tree thou mayest freely eat." That's free agency. Their's, and ours, was and is the choice, to eat of all, some, or none. No determinism. God made one exception, the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Not that they could not choose it, for they were free to choose, but that its choice had a dire consequence, like us telling a young child to avoid touching a hot stovetop; that it had a dire consequence. Nevertheless, they were free to choose. Even Satan told them they would not surely die [God told them they would, in the day that they ate of that tree. ] Tells us, by the way, that "day" ["yom" in Hebrew] was not just a 24-hour day, but also an understanding of a longer period of time. But, they did eventually die because one of the things they also learned is that by eating that particular fruit, they introduced mortality into the world; they would now die, eventually.Satan told them by eating that fruit, their eyes were opened to an understanding of both good and evil. From these, God later told them, they were also free to choose. Their actions would not be forced. "Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself," [II Nephi 2: 16]
So let me paraphrase:
You: I have a new argument to counter determinism based on how humans react when lost.
Me: but isn’t determinism that our choices are not real choices but dependent on physical lass and state of the universe.
You: that’s the point; because in one example it’s a choice.
Me: but the whole premise of determinism is that choices aren’t real choices; how does your example show the choice is a true choice.
You: ......BeCaUsE JeSuS
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
No, determinism is false because the universe is not the creator of man. God is, and he granted us free agency, which is a law unto itself by which the universe does not operate nor understand.
So, determinism is false because you say so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
My chemistry and the state of the universe? What a load of absolute, unmitigated bullshit defeatism! IIIII am the master if my destiny, no one and no thing else, unless I allow it by my free choice, worlds without end. The greatest sin is to limit God. Don't do that. The second greatest sin is to limit ourselves. Don't do that, either.
So, determinism is false because you don’t like it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dfss9788
The code of conduct requires "unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives" to objectively justify the bans, which is a pretty high bar. It's doubtful that what happened rose to that level. I don't think it did. This is the issue that seems problematic to me.
If you review the last few months of Wylteds posts - and their content - I think it’s very easy to argue a variety of issues in that CoC clause covering invective, hate speech, etc; and I have no doubt that Wylted was repeatedly warned for it; and the repeated systematic ignoring of all those warnings is probably more closely related to his ban than any individual thing he’s said.
My issue is that he’s trolling; he’s obviously trolling; and making no attempt to present his arguments or position in a way any regular person could or would take seriously.
In that respect: he’s really just trying to say controversial things for the sake of it; with little constructive or practical value. I think the same is true of many other member (such as Brother D Thomas), who really adds little value to this site other than to antagonize others.
That’s the big issue here; if you want to debate or discuss stuff, I’m cool with that; I’m actually okay with Mesmer for that very reason. When you’re just trying to be an antagonistic edge lord, who is less interested in intellectual discussion, and more interested in simply being controversial - I think it’s perfectly fair to ask people to chose another way to troll than by raging about “the Jews”.
Created: