**OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby uscbucsfan » Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:43 am

Ken Carson wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:Here's a big difference in our ideology.

I want you to have what you want. I want you to be able to live in a place where you can have all the socialism you can handle, but I don't want any part of that. Much like Zarni said earlier. California should be able to implement a single payer healthcare if it wants, but South Carolina wants nothing to do with that. That's how it should be.

You want me to have and live the way you want. Period...the end.



The biggest difference between your ideology and mine is that I want what I think is best for the country. What you want is what you think is best for the country sort of, but more so what is best for you and your family. If I had to rank it, it'd be 1.) usc and family, 2.) the parts of the country I like and people who agree with me, and 3.) everyone else.



What I want I believe to be the best for the country. What you want I believe is terrible for this country...hence differing ideologies. I've spent a good portion of my life in socialized countries. I don't want that here. What they have is not better for the average person. Their lowest common denominator have better lives and most, outside of the rich, suffer to accommodate.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 75 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby DreadNaught » Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:20 am

Ken Carson wrote:The biggest difference between your ideology and mine is that I want what I think is best for the country. What you want is what you think is best for the country sort of, but more so what is best for you and your family. If I had to rank it, it'd be 1.) usc and family, 2.) the parts of the country I like and people who agree with me, and 3.) everyone else.


Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but are you saying your ideological hierarchy is different at the top (#1) and that you prioritize what "you think" is best for people you'll never meet (#3 "everyone else") or #2 "people you like and agree with" OVER what is best for you and your family?

I want what I think is best for the country, But I'll never be ashamed to admit that me and my family will always come first.

This really gets to the root of difference between the right and left ideologies, where the right places the impetus on the individual while the left are collectivists.

The wife and I are planning to retire at 58, we want to send our daughter to good schools, etc. Those are my priorities. We only live once and I'm likely halfway through my life expectancy so I'm not trying prioritize what is best for Ken Carson or Zarni over what my is best for me and my family. If that makes me greedy or "a **** move" as MB would describe it, than so be it.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9968
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 397 times
Been thanked: 400 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:55 am

DreadNaught wrote:so I'm not trying prioritize what is best for Ken Carson or Zarni .




Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby beardmcdoug » Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:20 am

DreadNaught wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:The biggest difference between your ideology and mine is that I want what I think is best for the country. What you want is what you think is best for the country sort of, but more so what is best for you and your family. If I had to rank it, it'd be 1.) usc and family, 2.) the parts of the country I like and people who agree with me, and 3.) everyone else.


Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but are you saying your ideological hierarchy is different at the top (#1) and that you prioritize what "you think" is best for people you'll never meet (#3 "everyone else") or #2 "people you like and agree with" OVER what is best for you and your family?

I want what I think is best for the country, But I'll never be ashamed to admit that me and my family will always come first.

This really gets to the root of difference between the right and left ideologies, where the right places the impetus on the individual while the left are collectivists.

The wife and I are planning to retire at 58, we want to send our daughter to good schools, etc. Those are my priorities. We only live once and I'm likely halfway through my life expectancy so I'm not trying prioritize what is best for Ken Carson or Zarni over what my is best for me and my family. If that makes me greedy or "a **** move" as MB would describe it, than so be it.


since it is a precursor to all that I will experience, and will be afforded the opportunity to experience, the health of the nation and the republic is to me, the number one priority. Within that boundary, my family is number one - far above any other individual or their family - especially zarni's. you don't hike up that mountain and enjoy the view without drinking water first

let me clarify: I do not necessarily care about how certain policies affect small portions the country, so long as the health of the overall machine is maintained. This is why I have such an "extreme" stance on immigration and "nationalism" - we have many of the problems we have because of our sloppy as **** attitudes towards this country, the culture we promote within it, our financial systems, our legislative systems - specifically the moral corruption that has plagued all of those facets. We idolize mobsters and gang violence, romanticize the dregs, and brow-beat intelligence, then wonder why the **** everything is in shambles in this country. we've been forgoing proper maintenance for 70 years

also, I know this reads as very ideological, and not really tangible, but it is a response to the idea that there are two ways to prioritize things: 1) you and yours first; or 2) people you haven't met first... I am just proposing a 3rd, The Nation first. I am not necessarily a "socialist", but some economic "socialist" systems make sense to me, for the health of the system. Just as some portions I believe should be left to merit-based, capitalistic approaches. But this is all done with the nation's health in mind first, not what helps the individual
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 1940
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 196 times
Been thanked: 130 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:05 pm

I would hate to live in a country where Nation is prioritized.

I can’t think of many things in history that worked out worse.

Ugggghhhhhhh!!!!!!
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:42 pm

As it pertains to the discussion in general...I can't think of anyone more short sighted than someone that doesn't recognize the valid and legitimate moral claims made by the other side. Some of the posts in this thread by people are downright scary.



As most of you know I am very much a small government person. My entire philosophy is built around my moral compass...and it sure as hell isn't "I got mine, **** you"...If someone wants to know how my personal moral code has led me to my political viewpoints I would be more than happy to engage in that discussion. I have incorporated moral theories from ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato and Socrates...the religious moral philosophers I hold dear such as Augustine, Aquinas, the thoughts incoporated in the gospels....literary moral philosophers such as Blake and Tolstoy...economic philosophers who talked just as much about morality as economics such as Smith and Bastiat, and political philosophers who focused on moral justifications just as many of our founders did as well as the French Revolutionaries.



And as most of you know, I'm very much against the intervention that the modern progressive supports...but I sure as heck can see the comprehensive moral foundation supporting that intervention.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:07 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:As it pertains to the discussion in general...I can't think of anyone more short sighted than someone that doesn't recognize the valid and legitimate moral claims made by the other side. Some of the posts in this thread by people are downright scary.



As most of you know I am very much a small government person. My entire philosophy is built around my moral compass...and it sure as hell isn't "I got mine, **** you"...If someone wants to know how my personal moral code has led me to my political viewpoints I would be more than happy to engage in that discussion. I have incorporated moral theories from ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato and Socrates...the religious moral philosophers I hold dear such as Augustine, Aquinas, the thoughts incoporated in the gospels....literary moral philosophers such as Blake and Tolstoy...economic philosophers who talked just as much about morality as economics such as Smith and Bastiat, and political philosophers who focused on moral justifications just as many of our founders did as well as the French Revolutionaries.



And as most of you know, I'm very much against the intervention that the modern progressive supports...but I sure as heck can see the comprehensive moral foundation supporting that intervention.

Which moral claims are valid and legitimate and which are not?
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 9856
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 513 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby uscbucsfan » Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:16 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:As it pertains to the discussion in general...I can't think of anyone more short sighted than someone that doesn't recognize the valid and legitimate moral claims made by the other side. Some of the posts in this thread by people are downright scary.



As most of you know I am very much a small government person. My entire philosophy is built around my moral compass...and it sure as hell isn't "I got mine, **** you"...If someone wants to know how my personal moral code has led me to my political viewpoints I would be more than happy to engage in that discussion. I have incorporated moral theories from ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato and Socrates...the religious moral philosophers I hold dear such as Augustine, Aquinas, the thoughts incoporated in the gospels....literary moral philosophers such as Blake and Tolstoy...economic philosophers who talked just as much about morality as economics such as Smith and Bastiat, and political philosophers who focused on moral justifications just as many of our founders did as well as the French Revolutionaries.



And as most of you know, I'm very much against the intervention that the modern progressive supports...but I sure as heck can see the comprehensive moral foundation supporting that intervention.

Which moral claims are valid and legitimate and which are not?


That's subjective.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 75 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:44 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Which moral claims are valid and legitimate and which are not?


That's subjective.


I don’t necessarily agree with that. While that is certainly the case in some dimensions, certainly not all of them. Throughout the history of human civilization cultures have found common ground on tenets of morailty/goodness/Justice/acceptable behavior/righteousness/etc — be those societies pagan, Christian, Jewish, Taoist, Buddhist, Atheist, Confucian, etc
Last edited by Zarniwoop on Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:45 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:As it pertains to the discussion in general...I can't think of anyone more short sighted than someone that doesn't recognize the valid and legitimate moral claims made by the other side. Some of the posts in this thread by people are downright scary.



As most of you know I am very much a small government person. My entire philosophy is built around my moral compass...and it sure as hell isn't "I got mine, **** you"...If someone wants to know how my personal moral code has led me to my political viewpoints I would be more than happy to engage in that discussion. I have incorporated moral theories from ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato and Socrates...the religious moral philosophers I hold dear such as Augustine, Aquinas, the thoughts incoporated in the gospels....literary moral philosophers such as Blake and Tolstoy...economic philosophers who talked just as much about morality as economics such as Smith and Bastiat, and political philosophers who focused on moral justifications just as many of our founders did as well as the French Revolutionaries.



And as most of you know, I'm very much against the intervention that the modern progressive supports...but I sure as heck can see the comprehensive moral foundation supporting that intervention.

Which moral claims are valid and legitimate and which are not?



That’s for you to decide yourself. I’m happy to tell you which I believe in and those I think most societies agree upon
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby uscbucsfan » Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:23 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:
That's subjective.


I don’t necessarily agree with that. While that is certainly the case in some dimensions, certainly not all of them. Throughout the history of human civilization cultures have found common ground on tenets of morailty/goodness/Justice/acceptable behavior/righteousness/etc — be those societies pagan, Christian, Jewish, Taoist, Buddhist, Atheist, Confucian, etc


We can get into a debate as to why religions focus on certain tenets, but I think that "through out human civilizations" is a stretch. I mean depending on where and when in the world everyone does something they believe to be "moral", just, or in the name of survival that others would find reprehensible. Adhering to our Judeo christian based "morals" we would find some of those acts abhorrent, but to my original point, some of that is relative to the culture. This could take us down a dark rabbit hole with questioning each individual travesty throughout time and in various places and questioning whether they were moral in their actions. It's all stretching the definition of morals as well. I'd rather not do that, but in the end survival has always been the base of morals. It's just less prevalent in modern developed societies.

When I said that's subjective in response to MB, I was basing that off the morals and laws we all grew up with in our society and how we interpret them and apply them to our ideals.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 75 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:43 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Which moral claims are valid and legitimate and which are not?



That’s for you to decide yourself. I’m happy to tell you which I believe in and those I think most societies agree upon

Okay so let's go back to this.

I can't think of anyone more short sighted than someone that doesn't recognize the valid and legitimate moral claims made by the other side.


Setting aside the fact that we all know the context of this statement (me being an ***hole yesterday) Am I not free to reject someone else's moral claim?
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 9856
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 513 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:48 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:
I don’t necessarily agree with that. While that is certainly the case in some dimensions, certainly not all of them. Throughout the history of human civilization cultures have found common ground on tenets of morailty/goodness/Justice/acceptable behavior/righteousness/etc — be those societies pagan, Christian, Jewish, Taoist, Buddhist, Atheist, Confucian, etc


We can get into a debate as to why religions focus on certain tenets, but I think that "through out human civilizations" is a stretch. I mean depending on where and when in the world everyone does something they believe to be "moral", just, or in the name of survival that others would find reprehensible. Adhering to our Judeo christian based "morals" we would find some of those acts abhorrent, but to my original point, some of that is relative to the culture. This could take us down a dark rabbit hole with questioning each individual travesty throughout time and in various places and questioning whether they were moral in their actions. It's all stretching the definition of morals as well. I'd rather not do that, but in the end survival has always been the base of morals. It's just less prevalent in modern developed societies.

When I said that's subjective in response to MB, I was basing that off the morals and laws we all grew up with in our society and how we interpret them and apply them to our ideals.




Nice response...I should clarify my original post. I probably shouldn't have used the different religious sects to represent different cultures. But the idea of common or universal morals is one I believe in. Buc2 and I just had this conversation a little bit about natural law. Now of course there are going to be exceptions to what I type next because there always are but for the most part most societies have in some for believed in what we know call the golden rule. The #1 tenet of that rule is not to murder. Most societies throughout history have had that norm in their internal culture. Now that isn't to say, they lived by it perfectly....every society makes exceptions to that.

In the US we currently have exceptions to not killing people in wartime...we kill criminals...etc. Both of those "exceptions" are fairly common across history. In the past other societies have different exceptions to it. Many societies have felt that its "OK" to kill folks outside of their own society for gain/plunder. Others will say that the no killing thing doesn't apply to the "lowest" members of their society - and maybe they defined lowest by ethnicity, race, gender, slavery, etc.

In a similar vein, most societies have had laws/norms/customs against rape. But just like above, they may have made exceptions to this -- its OK to rape the enemy's women, it's OK to rape a slave, etc. But the norm still stood. It was just applied in an awful way.

personally I think the topic of Natural Law is fascinating. You had folks like Plato attacking it and then 1500 years later Aquinas doing it from a religious bend.


-----------


But I digress and agree that this is getting off the subject of what my original post is about
Last edited by Zarniwoop on Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:59 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:

Setting aside the fact that we all know the context of this statement (me being an ***hole yesterday) Am I not free to reject someone else's moral claim?




If I thought this applied only to you I would have specifically named you and only you -- I think we are good enough posting buddies that we are frank with each other. Yes, your posts were indeed the catalyst of my post and I borrowed your words but they certainly aren't applied singly to you -- nor do I think deep down you even believe what you posted...if you did, you could never be so civil and friendly in other threads with me, Buc2, USC, DN, RL, etc. For I know if I thought someone was amoral, I would want nothing to do with them, nor would I waste my time with them.

As to the crux of your post


You are absolutely free to reject someone's claim. If my moral compass said I should bang thousands of chicks and impregnate them and run away, I would hope you would reject it. If my moral compass said I believe physical violence should solve confrontations I would hope you would reject it as well.


However, very few things boil down to such an easy case of right or wrong. For example, which parent has moral superiority here.....

Parent A loves his child and whenever his child gets in financial trouble he bails them out and gives them what they need

Parent B loves his child and but rather than bailing them out feels the better way to prepare them for life is the tough love approach, namely saying, sorry the world kicked your ass, pull yourself up and get ready for the next time it does it again.

I see the inherent morality underlying both parent A's actions (helping mediate the difficulty in their child's life) and parent B's actions (helping prepare them for the next time). Now we will all have our own feelings on which way is better but id have a hard time saying either parent had no moral compass or isn't acting out of what they think is best





I believe in politics we have many similar issues....I think deep down both sides want what is best. However, they define "best" differently and use different time perspectives -- short term versus long term. It gets even more complicated when you add the complexity of multiple dimensions on a singular issue. When I see issues like this...I don't simply say my side has moral superiority and the other is morally bankrupt. Not to mention, so many times political discussion gets convoluted for the simple fact that if one side assumes just because the other doesn't think the federal government should do it, they necessarily feel it shouldn't be done. For example, I can point to many instance where I don't want the government involved but involve myself through time and donations. I'm sure there are similar examples on the progressive side -- here's one -- often times Christian Conservatives want to legislate morality through the federal government. Just because a progressive doesn't want the government doing that, doesn't mean that the progressive is evil and hates that particular moral dimension.




(extension -- mind you, i neither think every conservative nor every progressive has a developed moral compass and follows it....I absolutely believe that there are people who share the same positions that I do that have a "i got mine, **** you" attitude...just as I have seen progressives that have a "i'm jealous and a failure so i want to take your money" attitude. My conversation here is strictly about whether the generally accepted policy positions of both parties can have a viable moral undertone to them)
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby RedLeader » Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:53 pm

Okay...

I think it's time for a drink...


Image



Waddya having?
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 1916
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:28 pm

To Flake or not to Flake
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby RedLeader » Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:42 pm

Nice. I started off with a Durban Soda, but this Pornstar Punch ain’t bad. Lol
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 1916
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby The Outsider » Sat Jan 20, 2018 11:01 am

The Affordable Beer Act sounds so awful I'd have to try it.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 2746
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 192 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby StillCSG » Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:02 pm

My discussion on 45...

Gimme the Pornstar Punch followed by the Orange Fuckstick dropping dead of a stroke...I would also except him being a vegtable
Image
User avatar
StillCSG
 
Posts: 3996
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:54 am
Location: My House
Has thanked: 670 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Swashy » Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:14 pm

RedLeader wrote:Hi All. I know there are plenty of threads already going on regarding the POTUS and Co...

But the truth is that most of the threads out there are just a wee-bit slanted, or outright biased from their inception... Makes it hard to post anything other than negative **** without ostensibly pissing on someone else's thread. So to avoid the dumb ****, I wanted to create an open thread - where we can post and discuss the progress of the current administration - good, bad, or indifferent.

That said, as it stands, our President currently has the lowest approval rating of any other first year President in recent history.. if not ever.

First year presidential approval percentages:

Kennedy 76%
Eisenhower 69%
Bush 43 68%
Bush 41 66%
Carter 62%
Nixon 61%
Reagan 57%
Obama 57%
Clinton 49%
Trump 39%
(Gallup)

And yet, yesterday marked another milestone as the DOW surpassed 26,000 for the first time ever...
December job creation smashed expectations...
The unemployment rate is at its lowest percent since 2000...
Job cut announcements are the lowest since 1990...
Manufacturing in the US had its best year since 2004...
More and more companies announcing planned bonuses, wage hikes, and charitable donations...
We've reduced ISIS ranks to all time lows, losing 98% of the territory they once held in the last year...
The economy grew 3.2 percent from July through September - the highest quarterly economic growth in 3 years...

So what gives? Why the low rating still? Why all the hate?


I mean, besides being a pompous, grandstanding, elitist sonovabitch, he seems to be getting the job done...



Can a Twitter feed really be that distracting?


We can report all the record smashing facts we want. But I'd buy you a beer if UNDER-employment was not at least 12% right now at I'd buy you two beers if it was under 30% for the 20 to 35 year old demographic. The term "working poor" is not misplaced here.

The statistic we REALLY want to see is how many people have gotten off of over-the-counter government programs like welfare, Obamacare etc. These measures slowed the bleeding of the recession. As a consequence of time going by, the unemployment rate of the Obama administration sharply declined due to people simply no longer looking for jobs or applying for them.

Depending on the number of people who have gotten off of welfare you have two outcomes

1. It means that the trickle down gubbermint worked and people survived the recession long enough to find employment again and the collective sound we hear is the Republicans shuddering at the thought of Obama doing something right by giving them a hand out that lasted long enough for businesses to get their **** back together by the end of his term

Far more likely (better than 50/50 I'd say)

2. People who are on welfare are still no longer looking for work and it has re-adjusted the unemployment rate amongst those who wish to seek employment

The other can of worms we need to open is wages versus cost of living

Maybe someone can find the graph but I'll bet you a 3rd beer (**** it let's call it a 6 pack) that cost of living per citizen is exponentially higher versus the pay they get and that the conclusion drawn up is that minimum wage should probably be 1 and a half to 2 times higher than it really is in order for people to comparatively measure against workers from 20 or more years ago.

At this point I can only conclude that after a year of taking office, Trump just hasn't done anything to **** things up worse than they already were when he swore in.
Swashy
 
Posts: 3042
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:11 pm
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 93 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby The Outsider » Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:43 am

What Swashy said was mostly hyperbole, but Trump can't take credit for the current economy any more than Obama gets credit for the housing bubble bursting. Economic policy doesn't take drastic effect in such a short span as a year. On top of that, it's very easy to quote statistics on the economy without listing Trump's achievements, or lack of achievements, when it comes to implementing any drastic economic policy changes. I mean, the tax bill is less than 3 months old. It's going to take at least another year or so to see any sort of significant impact from that particular piece of legislation.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 2746
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 192 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:36 pm

Senator Duckworth "Will not be lectured to about what the military needs by a five deferment draft dodger."
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 9856
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 513 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Zarniwoop » Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:45 pm

The Outsider wrote:What Swashy said was mostly hyperbole, but Trump can't take credit for the current economy any more than Obama gets credit for the housing bubble bursting. Economic policy doesn't take drastic effect in such a short span as a year. On top of that, it's very easy to quote statistics on the economy without listing Trump's achievements, or lack of achievements, when it comes to implementing any drastic economic policy changes. I mean, the tax bill is less than 3 months old. It's going to take at least another year or so to see any sort of significant impact from that particular piece of legislation.


Agreed. I think the best anyone can say is that it increases optimism...optimism will influence short term behavior by businesses, but not long term...as evidenced by bonuses, etc.

As to the long term effect on GDP we will see.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:51 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
The Outsider wrote:What Swashy said was mostly hyperbole, but Trump can't take credit for the current economy any more than Obama gets credit for the housing bubble bursting. Economic policy doesn't take drastic effect in such a short span as a year. On top of that, it's very easy to quote statistics on the economy without listing Trump's achievements, or lack of achievements, when it comes to implementing any drastic economic policy changes. I mean, the tax bill is less than 3 months old. It's going to take at least another year or so to see any sort of significant impact from that particular piece of legislation.


Agreed. I think the best anyone can say is that it increases optimism...optimism will influence short term behavior by businesses, but not long term...as evidenced by bonuses, etc.

As to the long term effect on GDP we will see.

No argument from me on short term optimism which is par for the course with a change at POTUS.

It's also par for the opposition party to make gains in mid term elections. This year will tell the tale about how much impact President Trump's bellicosity will benefit or cost him in terms of political power.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 9856
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 513 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Zarniwoop » Sun Jan 21, 2018 8:24 pm

Yes we definitely see the opposition gain more often then lose 2 yrs after election

I haven’t dug into whose up for re-election but it wouldn’t surprise me if the Ds pick up seats
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby RedLeader » Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:30 pm

Image




Why do we even bother polling 18-29 year olds? ;)
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 1916
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:57 pm

RedLeader wrote:Image




Why do we even bother polling 18-29 year olds? ;)





Look at all those misandrists...it's an epidemic!!!!!

#MensMarch
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Swashy » Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:59 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:Yes we definitely see the opposition gain more often then lose 2 yrs after election

I haven’t dug into whose up for re-election but it wouldn’t surprise me if the Ds pick up seats


The Dems have a lot of seats to defend in the Senate. Without looking I'm pretty sure it's something like 14 seats meanwhile Republicans have maybe half that number and the majority are in safe Republican states. If Democrats were to actually win majority it would be an upset. I don't know how it would really be quantified but it could provide a gauge to how the country trends towards 2020. To be honest I do not expect much movement in the Senate. The House on the other hand, yeah. No surprise there if it swings Democratic. Like you said, the President's opposing party more often than not gains 2 years after an election.

If they DO take control of the Senate (and I'd say they have a snowball's chance in hell) then the Trump backlash is real. That or the young population is making their voice heard
Swashy
 
Posts: 3042
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:11 pm
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 93 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Swashy » Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:11 pm

RedLeader wrote:Image




Why do we even bother polling 18-29 year olds? ;)


Jesus Christ... The Republican party isn't gonna have a leg to stand on once the boomers kick the bucket. Republicans better pray to sweet baby Jesus that they've all got another 20 years so that there is enough time to reinvent their image. Because the only 18 to 29 year old's they'll have are the ones from the Solid South and Bread Basket that are genetically programmed to cast their vote for the big red elephant and they better start praying that rural America keeps having more and more kids.
Swashy
 
Posts: 3042
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:11 pm
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 93 times

Re: **OFFICIAL 'FORTY-FIVE' DISCUSSION THREAD**

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:11 pm

Swashy wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:Yes we definitely see the opposition gain more often then lose 2 yrs after election

I haven’t dug into whose up for re-election but it wouldn’t surprise me if the Ds pick up seats


The Dems have a lot of seats to defend in the Senate. Without looking I'm pretty sure it's something like 14 seats meanwhile Republicans have maybe half that number and the majority are in safe Republican states. If Democrats were to actually win majority it would be an upset. I don't know how it would really be quantified but it could provide a gauge to how the country trends towards 2020. To be honest I do not expect much movement in the Senate. The House on the other hand, yeah. No surprise there if it swings Democratic. Like you said, the President's opposing party more often than not gains 2 years after an election.

If they DO take control of the Senate (and I'd say they have a snowball's chance in hell) then the Trump backlash is real. That or the young population is making their voice heard

I won't speculate on final results, but I do expect an above average turnout for millenials who trend left and a below average turnout for boomers who trend right.

The media will spin it any way they want so you have to take it race by race.

Honestly, I'm shocked we haven't gotten into the 2018 election cycle as a discussion here yet. FL governor is on the line and the Bucs are done so...
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 9856
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 513 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests