Donald Trump and US politics

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

The difference between republican and democrat cities is free shit basically. You give free shit you get more freeloaders. Free citizenship (even for criminals with sanctuary cities) get more liabilities.

All goes back to master philosopher Reagan axiom “If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of something, tax it.”

Citation needed - that this is the main difference, that this actually is a consistent difference, and that this is always a net negative. This smacks me as almost absurdly oversimplified.

Basic law of supply and demand. Raise the price and the demand goes down. Lower the price and the demand goes up.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Supply.html

I am aware of econ 101, thank you kindly. Are you aware that supply and demand is not always a completely accurate model of economic behavior? It would be great if the world was this simple. I don't think it is. Case in point: I have a job, an apartment, eat decent food, and still have money at the end of the month to save or spend on recreation. I've also been unemployed. You could subsidize poverty all you want - pay for my phone contract, give me free housing, pay me to sit on my ass all day - and I wouldn't take it, because I don't enjoy poverty, and I despise being unemployed. You could give me a universal basic income equivalent to what I make at my job, and I would still go to work, because being unemployed for long periods of time sucks.

It's not that simple. Subsidizing poverty does not make people want to be poor. Supply and demand is a drastic simplification, like modeling the weather exclusively on solar output. Yeah, it obviously matters, but there are other, really important factors involved that need to be examined.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Styxhexenhammer, a prominent YouTube occultist and political commentator, contends that the majority of occultists are pro-Trump. He, like some others, view the Cult of Kek as practitioners of a digital ritualism in the form of pursuit of 4chan postnumber "dubs," essentially an online form of chaos magic. The dubs aligned with Trump in a big way, seemingly showing Kek's favor for the candidate. Given the apparent demonstration of power of the Cult of Kek, it is concluded that these Wiccans lack the power to oppose with their meager spells.

I guess the answer to "does it get dumber" is almost universally answered by asking the question, "has it been crossed with 4chan yet?".

"

diablofdb wrote:

I agree... It was a bit too much, I'm all in for Free press and Free speech. But most of these stopped being journalists long ago. CNN did post any real news in the past 10 years, they are the propagandic tool of the democrats.

I wonder if anyone here would actually be interested in supporting their claim that CNN (or, for that matter, the New York Times, which was also barred from the press conference) is "fake news". And perhaps defining what the hell they mean by "fake news", because last I checked, FOX was there, and FOX is perhaps the most consistently dishonest mainstream cable news network currently on air, at least until we get the Breitbart Channel.

If the worst you can point to at CNN is a piece they did interviewing children about their feelings about Trump, then I fail to see the problem here. Hey guys, newsflash: current events tend to filter down to our kids. Including things like anti-immigrant or anti-muslim rhetoric. Kids tend to offer such sentiments without the edges sanded off. Like it or not, thanks to the Trump campaign, we've seen a significant rise in anti-hispanic and anti-muslim bullying. I didn't see the piece, and nobody linked to it, so I couldn't talk about the specifics. But anyone trying to tell me that CNN is more dishonest or partisan than FOX (or indeed, anywhere near as dishonest or partisan) has their heads up their asses.

(And yeah, HuffPo sucks. Big shocker, it's essentially a blogger farm, less a news outlet than an offshoot of Blogspot.)

"

SnowCrash wrote:

So just have state sponsored propaganda from who's ever in power at the time instead of corporate sponsored propaganda?

I was gonna say this, thinking of RT (which, I shit you not, had an entirely credulous interview with an HIV-AIDS denialist whose claims could have been debunked by zooming in on the very paper he held up to the camera), but then I remembered that the BBC and CBC were generally quality enterprises, and that NPR and PBS are consistently some of the best news sources in the USA. So... Depends how you set it up, really. If the value is placed first and foremost on independence and good reporting, then yeah, it can be a really valuable asset.

Heheheh... =^[.]^=

"

sarahaustin wrote:

But i like Big Black Cock!

Milo pls

If Breitbart, Infowars or similar right side "tabloid news" should be treated equally with these left side tabloids, if they are not at a press conference, these other "news" places shouldn't be. #EqualityOfThePress

"

Manocean wrote:

If Breitbart, Infowars or similar right side "tabloid news" should be treated equally with these left side tabloids, if they are not at a press conference, these other "news" places shouldn't be. #EqualityOfThePress

"Left side tabloids" being... What, "OccupyDemocrats"?

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

Manocean wrote:

If Breitbart, Infowars or similar right side "tabloid news" should be treated equally with these left side tabloids, if they are not at a press conference, these other "news" places shouldn't be. #EqualityOfThePress

"Left side tabloids" being... What, "OccupyDemocrats"?

Uhh that's easy.

NY Times, Wash Post, LA Times, USA Today, TIME, the Atlantic, Bloomberg, and any publication that invites a Paul Krugman editorial.

"

Laurium wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

Manocean wrote:

If Breitbart, Infowars or similar right side "tabloid news" should be treated equally with these left side tabloids, if they are not at a press conference, these other "news" places shouldn't be. #EqualityOfThePress

"Left side tabloids" being... What, "OccupyDemocrats"?

Uhh that's easy.

NY Times, Wash Post, LA Times, USA Today, TIME, the Atlantic, Bloomberg, and any publication that invites a Paul Krugman editorial.

Spoiler

jk jk

See you say "jk jk" but for all I know this guy is being serious. And that is sad.

This week in uber irony: Day without immigrants result is getting a bunch of immigrants getting fired.

As predicted. The MSM has now changed the gaggle yesterday which did not allow certain um, news orgs in, into a WH press briefing. They eventually will go too far and even get caught by a moron. Maybe.

"

kolyaboo wrote:

As predicted. The MSM has now changed the gaggle yesterday which did not allow certain um, news orgs in, into a WH press briefing. They eventually will go too far and even get caught by a moron. Maybe.

Funny part about that gaggle is: You see the MSM reaction as: OMG this is madness!!! Discatorship!!!


and then you see general people reaction: "CNN you brought this upon yourself"


and indeed they are going too far, my friend who is a very very big supporter of democrats ended up hating the democrats and realized how biased the media are. He did not became a Trump supporter but his words were: "I don't like him but democrats would have been worse"