Total posts: 1,971
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
When someone mentions the concept of a “benevolent dictator,” LKY and Singapore come to mind. Leadership matters… a lot. Singapore is an amazing success story but has its issues— mainly with its retired population, I’ve been told. Many nations have an issue there, though. And LKY has his flaws and detractors, too.
Just shows you that even successful nations will have their issues, and good leaders will have their flaws and detractors…
Created:
the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.
So… everyone who voted for your opponent poses a threat to the republic? There just might be an issue with this sort of messaging…
Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology.I know because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans.But there is no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans, and that is a threat to this country.
So, which is it? “Not even the majority if Republicans are MAGA Republicans” or the party is “dominated… by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans”? The latter clearly recants the former.
But I’m an American President — not the President of red America or blue America, but of all America.
This seems like cheap talk now, after what you just said and continue to say in this speech:
They refuse to accept the results of a free election.
I’m sure Stacey Abrams was applauding this speech as much as anyone…
MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards — backwards to an America where there is no right to choose
Oh, so if you’re pro life, that makes you… one of THEM! (a threat to the republic and democracy) Hey, you’re Catholic, aren’t you, Mr. President?
They promote authoritarian leaders
Heh, ok, Mr. vaccine mandate…
They don’t understand what every patriotic American knows: You can’t love your country only when you win. It’s fundamental.
Funny you should say that, Mr. President:
“The “patriotism gap” is nothing new. Gallup has asked its respondents how proud they are to be Americans periodically since 2001. According to those polls, one year after the Sept. 11 attacks, 93 percent of Democrats and 99 percent of Republicans said they were either “extremely” or “very” proud to be Americans. The GOP number stayed comfortably in the 90s for the duration of George W. Bush’s presidency, but by January 2007, amid an unpopular war in Iraq that sparked no small amount of liberal dissent, the share of Democrats who were “extremely” or “very” proud to be Americans had shrunk to 74 percent — 21 points lower than the Republican share (and, to that point, the widest gap since Gallup started asking the question). The Democratic share increased during Barack Obama’s presidency (reaching a high of 85 percent in 2013) but was still consistently lower than the GOP’s: The share of Republicans who said they were “extremely” or “very” proudly American never dipped below 89 percent despite the extremely low opinionGOP voters had of Obama.”
The MAGA Republicans believe that for them to succeed, everyone else has to fail.
Oh, the great majority were succeeding (whether they liked to admit it or not) until the pandemic… and your presidency…
That speech should get a big Bronx cheer!
Created:
Posted in:
Does anyone know of a debate where one or more of the judges actually changed their mind on a subject because of the debate? That would be remarkable, particularly if it were a “hot button” topic…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
As he said, it’s growing faster than mere biology could predict or explain. There’s something societal and psychological going on here. The worst of it is how transgenderism is being entertained more and more among minors— not just the indoctrination, but actual drugs and even irreversible surgeries.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
But the problem is, again, I don't conform to the naturalistic fallacy. I don't think evolutionary advantage equates good. Avery does, so I argue that, if it is the case that evolutionary advantageousness can be equated to good, it follows that rape is also good.
These sorts of topics, evolution and morality, are much more complex than that. You have not met your burden that rape is generally accepted as advantageous, especially in civilized societies; you’ve just made simplistic, very general arguments in favor of that position from a biological perspective. You tacitly give the OP credit outright for meeting the large burden of establishing the evolutionary advantage of religion. Instead of challenging THAT as obviously intended by the OP, you dive straight for the seemingly clever shock value. There’s a name for that.
The fact remains that you made a personal assumption, and when shown to be mistaken, you resorted to bully behavior, and when called out on it, you still refuse to own up to it.
Other than all of that, nice job…
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
And wouldn’t be the outright flat earth style denial the OP suggested… You’re basically agreeing with me, that the type of denial the OP suggests doesn’t really exist
I agree that the explicit denial claimed by the OP doesn’t exist, which is why I presented my position that a de facto denial does exist. The OP can take issue with my position as he sees fit, but I think it would be a minor point of contention, really.
I’m saying that there are a whole number of reasons for which “defunding the police” could be the suggested approach - that does need to deny facts; you have assumed out of whole clothe that the motivation is because BLM assume that there is low crime.
I have not assumed that; you are reading things I have not written or even thought to myself. What I am saying is that for BLM’s stated goal— less police— to be implemented, they must ignore inconvenient facts and cause and effect.
And revisiting your previous response as everything else proceeds from it:
There’s all manner of motivations that are not predicated on such denial; and simply assuming the motivation that implies denial out of all the possibilities is called “begging the question”.
The best way I know how to untie your word pretzels and offer greater clarity on this matter is by way of analogy, but I predict you won’t like it:
Me: “Enjoying a spaghetti dinner essentially involves getting marinara spots on your shirt.”
You: “There are various motivations to enjoy eating spaghetti other than to get sauce on one’s shirt. Simply assuming the single motivation to get sauce on one’s shirt is known as ‘begging the question.’”
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
If I started citing articles showing the world was warming, that carbon dioxide was rising, and height measurements from tidal gauges and then claimed that the right denies this evidence - that would be a straw man.
Not to get too far off on a tangent, but I think climate data is misinterpreted, minimized, decontextualized, etc. routinely by pundits… so the denial is there. Again, it just isn’t the outright, blatant, flat earth style denial that you seek with this crime data.
That the only reason why someone would lesson police presence would be if crime was low: is assuming your own conclusion.
Not sure what you’re saying here. If you’re saying that it is a fallacy to cut the police over low crime if the real reason for the low crime is the current size of the police force, then I agree… yet I don’t see how this counters what I am saying.
If, for example, BLM wanted to defund the police because they’re hindering more than they’re helping with that crime rate, and that they want to approach the problem differently - that still allows them to support defunding the police without ignoring the data.
Where’s the data showing that police are a net hindrance on decreasing crime? If you are posing this scenario as a hypothetical (“if”), then it is a meaningless one as it assumes an implausible premise regarding the police and crime rates.
There’s all manner of motivations that are not predicated on such denial; and simply assuming the motivation that implies denial out of all the possibilities is called “begging the question”.
I never said that defunding the police is “predicated on denying crime stats.” What I am saying is that cutting already strained police ranks— for whatever reason OTHER than the current size of police = a net increase in crime (!)— is essentially to deny/ignore/avoid crime statistics.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
If you want someone to link you to the article “Violent Crime Statistics Broken Down By Race Are False,” you are correct: there is no such declaration— just as you won’t find someone denying that the climate is changing (ie “I don’t deny the climate is changing; it has been, is, and always will be changing…”). The level of vocal denial you need to see to be satisfied you might be incorrect is implausibly high.
BLM essentially denies the crime stats by starting the “defund the police” movement. To lessen police presence is to deny that crime is a problem, by deeds if not by exact words.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Again - just claims that BLM is too focused on police - no specific examples of anyone denying the numbers.
The BLM movement’s central narrative— that law enforcement poses the greatest threat to black lives— essentially denies the violent crime stats in black communities.
Created:
I read the Chicago Tribune article, which is actually a good one.
Funny— years ago I claimed to a coworker that while black people might harbor an anger toward white people because of racism, they don’t have feelings of superiority over other races. To this, my coworker just responded, “They don’t?”
Well, that gave me pause… the thing about the oppressor/oppressed paradigm is that the oppressor is regarded as being immoral, whereas the oppressed is regarded as moral almost by default. I had to admit that this could give rise to feelings of moral superiority, at least.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
You still aren’t addressing this:
So you are confused then, which explains a lot. You say you are an atheist, but then say religion solves our problems, which implies that we should follow religion because it solves said problems, which entails believing in religion.
Mirroring this line of attack to your position:
“So you are confused then, which explains a lot. You say you aren’t a rapist, but then say rape offers a reproductive advantage, which implies that men should rape women because it offers a reproductive advantage, which entails being a rapist.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
So you are confused then, which explains a lot. You say you are an atheist, but then say religion solves our problems, which implies that we should follow religion because it solves said problems, which entails believing in religion.
No need to be a bully.
Need I remind you— YOU are the one attempting to derail the topic and pressing the case for rape as an advantageous behavior. Does this imply you are a rapist? Or does it mean you are confused about whether you should rape or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
Oh, I wasn’t necessarily putting a stamp of approval on all those pursuits/ideologies. The mention of North Korea and Soviet Union assures you of that, I hope. What I was implying is that in absence of religion, it is by necessity replaced with something, and an individual or society should be very cognizant of what that something is and its ramifications. I’m not saying this so much to you as I am to those who see religion unquestionably as a negative. There are many such people as this very thread shows…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Incredibly poor optics— I can’t fathom who thought this stage setup was a good idea— but befitting the central theme of the speech, sadly: cooperate with me, or be deemed an enemy of democracy!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
Yep… it seems that way.
The important thing to keep in mind is that in the absence of typical, spiritual religion, something MUST take its place lest a nihilistic, purposeless emptiness become all that is left. Societies and individuals replace religion with quasi-religions, either knowingly or unknowingly, such as:
- the state, as in North Korea and former Soviet Union
- fighting climate change/environmentalism
- fighting poverty/humanism
- fighting animal cruelty
- fighting racial discrimination
- scientism
- accumulation of wealth/capitalism
- philanthropy/legacy creation
Of course, except for allegiance to the state and perhaps scientism, none of these preclude religious belief, but they can serve as replacements to religion if people are deciding to reject religion outright.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I have only watched a sampling and read a bunch of the (self-righteously depressed and repetitive) comments, but I think I get the gist:
The green movement’s actions are akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Industrialization and our desire for comfort and convenience are to blame for us being on the Titanic. Oh, there aren’t any lifeboats, either, and a bunch of poor animals are already drowning down below. (Ironically, the producer of the documentary has a first class suite on the ship.)
Is any resolution offered? We should be crossing the Atlantic in sailboats like Greta? Sailboats made in factories powered by sun and wind? Oh, right… the doc already told us that “green energy” doesn’t do any good…
Created:
-->
@thett3
You have some detailed predictions, but they seem reasonable. I don’t have much to offer in this regard other than a couple things:
The US will convert public employee pensions to something like Australia’s superannuation, or I hope we do, at least— basically a 401(k) that employers must contribute to but isn’t taxed going in or out.
Livestock will go out of favor much like fossil fuels will. The way we treat and eat animals now will be seen in the future much as we see slavery today— morally reprehensible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Being realistic about your personal limitations is a large part of success. The lack thereof is what made the “American Idol” auditions so entertaining…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Of course if Biden made gas go up, he now deserves the credit for making it go down.
Non sequitur. There are various possibilities: the president caused both the increase and the decrease; he caused neither the increase nor the decrease; he caused the increase but not the decrease; or he didn’t cause the increase but he caused the decrease. (Also, it’s implausible that a president would be the complete cause, so it is more correct to say “helped cause [the increase or decrease].”
Just baldly claiming any one of the above 4 scenarios doesn’t make it so. Whatever the case, I believe the price will head back up again before long. Winter’s coming!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
“The Left denies reality as it attempts to transition completely to green energy. The capacity simply isn’t there yet.”
Do you know what the word "transition" means?
Yes.
I believe you know what “Meanwhile, this causes “green” nations to import ever more unclean energy from other oil producing nations, some of which make for strange, if not dangerous bedfellows, as the world is witnessing with Russia’s oil resources. It merely reveals itself as a NIMBY stance. In various ways, it causes unintended consequences which undermine its very goal and threatens the security of the various nations which fully subscribe to it” means, so I will refrain from insulting your intelligence in kind…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
One man’s garbage is another man’s treasure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Basti123
Yes, easier not easy as I mentioned in the OP. I’m pretty sure that is to make for a grabbier headline…
Realistically, there are not enough resources for everyone on earth to be “rich,” so it simply cannot be literally “easy.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
With the Inflation Reduction Act, the perfect storm just got… perfecter.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Remember the time when the government would provide assistance directly to affected people instead of engaging in corporate welfare?
Aren’t insulin price caps an example of the former?
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
I’m not going to bat for the GOP vote on this, as they appear to lack a counter proposal of any kind. It seems like a “price controls bad!” sort of reaction which, while not entirely false, is an oversimplification which doesn’t lead to any solutions.
That said, my research shows that it wouldn’t be the insulin manufacturer’s benefitting from a lack of price controls. To the contrary, price controls would take the price pressure off of them and put it onto insurance companies, followed by insurance holders and taxpayers. Here is a good, nonpartisan article which brings up the point that middlemen are getting more of the insulin profits over time, while the insulin manufactures are getting less. Comprehensive reform should address all aspects of the insulin money flow:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Oh, the Left denies reality in more substantive ways than you give it credit. “Acknowledging trans women exist”? To my knowledge, no one denies that trans women exist. The reality denial is claiming that transgenders are 100% the gender they claim to be, and that such claims are beyond question. “Yes, there ARE men who can get pregnant!” “Yes, there ARE women who have a penis!” Such a platform sows confusion and chaos in a society, which weakens it. This is precisely why Russia is continually attempting to do just that (sow confusion and chaos in the US in order to weaken it). And when the Left thinks that the bulk of society will be ok with the government indoctrinating its citizenry’s children in such controversial ideology, it is again denying reality… and losing elections.
The Left denies reality when it enacts largely demand side economic policies such as the American Rescue Plan when both supply and demand have been externally restrained via pandemic era policies. Supporting demand that merely needed to be unleashed, while simultaneously in a period of low supply, leads to runaway inflation. How anyone who should have known better could claim it was “merely transitory” is beyond me… more like “the perfect storm.”
The Left denies reality as it attempts to transition completely to green energy. The capacity simply isn’t there yet. Meanwhile, this causes “green” nations to import ever more unclean energy from other oil producing nations, some of which make for strange, if not dangerous bedfellows, as the world is witnessing with Russia’s oil resources. It merely reveals itself as a NIMBY stance. In various ways, it causes unintended consequences which undermine its very goal and threatens the security of the various nations which fully subscribe to it.
The Left denies reality when it pushes the idea that law enforcement is the primary threat to the safety of black people. This has inevitably led to the demonization of police, followed by less police, followed by an increase in violent crime, which has led to an increase in fatalities in black communities.
The Left denies reality when it pushes the efficacy of lockdowns, school closures, and vaccine mandates, all while exhorting us to “follow the science” while lacking the supporting data. Rahm Emmanuel once said, “Don’t let a good crisis go to waste.” Well, much of the population is getting the idea that the Left has been exploiting the COVID crisis to expand its power.
As for the rise in public distrust and conspiracy thinking, this is the inevitable outcome when influential institutions such as academia, healthcare, media, multinational corporations, FBI, CIA, DOJ, IRS become more and more politically activist, polarized, and weaponized. The command “stay in your lane” comes to mind…
None of these things lead to good outcomes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Also, it depends on what “rich” is.
Defining that is a personal decision and should be a part of setting one’s goals. What is “rich enough” for you? (Rhetorical question)
Finally, you can get rich easily, go make some dollars and donate some of them towards Dart.
???
Not sure what you’re getting at, if anything. FYI, this thread is not about commanding others what to do with their money.
Created:
Posted in:
From a site called Alux.com:
The video has a very positive yet realistic vibe. I believe it eventually admits that gaining financial independence isn’t exactly “easy,” but easier than many believe and easier than it used to be.
My thoughts: the video provides food for thought and can hopefully provide inspiration to those open to listening to it. It certainly isn’t material for the “woe is me” type. Financial independence requires discipline, focus, patience, adaptability, and a positive attitude— with these traits, gaining wealth is easier now than ever— perhaps even close to a mathematical certainty. Thing is, many people do not possess all of these traits and will continue to scrape by as they always have.
One important thing missing from this particular video: the importance of good relationships. Part of a healthy and wealthy life is good relationships with good people. It is good for emotional health and well being as well as networking into a career. We are social creatures after all…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Sounds like a 20+ year wait. What will you drive in the meantime?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yellen is now redefining a recession to be something other than 2 consecutive quarters of GDP decline.
They had no problem calling it a recession when governments were commanding stores, bars, restaurants, arenas, etc. to close and for citizens to stay home. Just like any other recession, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
One can only speculate, but yeah I’d say about half the nation would say that things would not be any better now under Trump— I can’t say if that counts as blaming Trump. However, up to 70% blame Biden after these 2 years of his leadership. There remains a core 30% whose political motto is “It’s not Biden’s fault” and that most every problem we are experiencing is simply “a global phenomenon.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It is nonsense to say that this non value has changed.
False. The proof is you will not part with all, or even half of your alleged valueless money for no value in return.
The value of money is defined by what you can exchange it for. When you need more money this year than last year to exchange it for the same goods, that money is indeed losing its value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok… here’s another, better way to put it that hopefully answers your question:
Goods have generally the same value; it’s just that your money is losing value…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
THEN inflation is the mass delusion that everything in the world is more valuable today than it was yesterday.
Here’s a more realistic way of looking at it:
It means that you can buy something for a lower price today than you can tomorrow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Fact checked false:
Ok, but you cited an article which claims the opposite:
“Eight years later, Jimmy Carter, promoting himself as a small-government/fiscal conservative, rejected the Nixon precedent. One of his first acts as president was to turn down the Democratic Congress’s offer to authorize standby wage and price controls—a move that Stuart Eizenstat, his chief domestic policy adviser, later admitted was his biggest mistake.”
Point being, you cite an article which, factually correct or not, doesn’t support your point, and I merely felt the need to point that out…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, price fixing! Go Carter! Too bad some Democrats blocked it or we could have 40 years of Democrats out of power instead of the projected 20.
I don’t think that article says what you imply it does. That publication is decidedly left biased but factually reliable. The article is PRO price fixing, which Carter did not do, and Nixon did. Disclosure: just looked this up— Nixon instituted a 90 day wage/price fix to prevent the notorious “wage/price spiral.” According to your posited article, it was a successful policy which was out of character for a Republican prez.
Instead of a temporary price and wage fix as Nixon had done, Carter reduced federal spending and appointed Volcker as fed chair, who then raised interest rates appreciably. This later did ease inflation, but not before making things worse in the short term and making things ripe for Reagan’s landslide election.
The article is a cautionary tale in favor of keeping Democrats in power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Ah, I see. From what I have gathered, it seems to be a matter of properly incentivizing electrical grid usage times. My other concern is getting all the materials required for all the batteries…
Created:
Posted in:
It appears to be a given that electric vehicles (EVs) are going to be increasing in number into the foreseeable future as THE superior alternative to internal combustion engines (ICE). My concern is that EVs have definite disadvantages, such as limited range, long charge times, drain on the electrical grid, heavy batteries… it seems to me that plug in hybrids would be the best of both worlds or at least serve as a more workable transition until the infrastructure is better suited to pure EVs.
So, why the current uncompromising trend toward pure EVs?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Biden did promise that he could do something about oil, namely phase it out
Rising gas prices aren’t a bug in Biden’s energy policy; they’re a feature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Whether or not lockdowns were too long is really a decision for politicians, taking into account all relative issues, including economics.
\/\/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The pandemic AND the policies enacted in response to the pandemic— such as lockdowns and paying citizens NOT to produce goods and services— affected economies globally. Sure, it was arguably the right thing to do for a limited time, but that time was extended well past its due date.
“Predict… with hindsight”? That is contradictory and nonsensical. What I am saying— and I don’t know why this is so groundbreaking and difficult to accept— is that once people were being paid not to produce, which started in the Spring of 2020, I predicted that inflation would markedly increase once demand resumed, which happened once the vaccines were distributed and societies reopened. That was a prediction looking forward (not a particularly miraculous one), not an observation in hindsight.
Once inflation did materialize, why did so many officials who should have known better label it “transitory”? Got me…
Created:
-->
@Kritikal
Yes, semi auto shotguns as well— age 21
Created:
-->
@Kritikal
Handguns already have an age 21 minimum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
It’s pretty straightforward, really. I will explain again:
When governments pay people essentially to hibernate instead of producing goods and services, inflation is the inevitable result when hibernation ends and pent up demand (for goods that have not been produced, with money given rather than earned, saved up during lockdown) is unleashed.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
No, I’m in favor of raising the age to own semi auto to 21.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
I mean the Fed actively tightened policy when they should have been loosening (no, “cutting rates” isn't loosening, because the natural rate of interest fell sharply during the recession, so insofar as you keep the rate above the natural rate, you’re actively reducing how much money there is in the economy relative to a counterfactual where the Fed “did nothing”), for a brief period.
Ah, ok. Wouldn’t inflation have been a greater danger if they loosened policy?
I still think this is less useful than someone seeing the specific policy that was passed, and predicting later inflation due to it.
But that’s precisely what I laid out in post 5. Government gave money to citizens to keep them from producing goods and services and put moratoriums on rent payments— those are specific policies. Hence, I predicted inflation would result when stifled demand was unleashed, which is exactly what resulted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Hope you had a good flight!
In fact, I'd say the Obama Administration and particularly the Fed went the wrong way during the Great Recession.
By “the wrong way,” do you mean not far enough in the proper direction? If not, I’m not getting what you’re saying…
Don’t think this is a prediction of 2021–22 inflation though.
It sure is— I wasn’t saying that I predicted inflation would occur in the Spring of 2020. To be clear, I was saying that in the Spring of 2020, I was predicting high inflation would occur later— which is now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
During the stimulus and quantitative easing of the Obama administration, I was hearing talk of inflation… inflation which never materialized. Looking back, I think that is because Obama was dealing with a general weakness in demand from the Great Recession and its high unemployment.
What has happened during the COVID era is totally different— demand has been artificially and temporarily restrained, like a compressed spring. Meanwhile, production slowed down immensely from lockdowns, artificially low demand, and labor illnesses. Governments were literally paying people not to produce— a perfect storm for inflation: low supply and demand just waiting to be freed from lockdown.
The Biden admin mistook the COVID economy for the Great Recession economy, and the results speak for themselves.
Created: