American Politics

[kkck]

I am pretty sure the world at large wants normalization with russia as soon as humanly possible. They still produce a lot of crap the world needs even if going forward both the EU and US divest away from it energy wise. Though we'll see how that plays out now that russia went from internet troll to factual military threat to europe...

 

[xi0]

I say we forgive Russia or whatever as soon as possible, just let them or even help them take Ukraine. We need them to help us fight climate change. We can't let ourselves get separated like this, we should be working together. For the good of all of us, forgive Russia. https://www.scmp.com/news/world/rus...thout-russia-harder-tackle-climate-change-and

Well, at least you're not saying we need to team up with Russia against China or some nonsensical bullshit right-wing media keeps trying to say.

Forgiveness isn't a component of it though. This entire thing is only about what nations are capable of tolerating.

 

[shionoro]

I never said it was about deplatforming, I'm just saying cancel culture isn't about ostracism, nor is it a thing. Though maybe as ninjabot pointed out, digging up old posts and tweets might be close to it, at least if people throw a shitfit.

You can, but you still can't get cancelled. She was still making videos, still getting views, and still likely getting money and getting interviewed. That's not being cancelled. Kaepernick was cancelled in NFL because no team was willing to hire him because he refused to stop kneeling in protest of USA's treatment of Black people. And even then, he wasn't really cancelled because he still has a lot of support and is working with Nike, and I say this as someone who supports his action and is disgusted with how he's been blackballed.

YOu're putting words in my mouth and accusing me of saying things I never even came close to hinting at thinking. Cancel culture is not a thing because it hasn't destroyed lives, for the most part, nor have people really been hurt. Ninety-five percent of the time, at the very least, people confuse accountability with cancel culture, and I rarely see proof otherwise.

That's not cancel culture. What happened to Corbyn is part of politics, the other side dug up dirt on him and used that to hurt his standing. It's a tactic. Does contrapoints have a job? Does she still earn money? Does she still work with others? If so, she's definitely not cancelled.

I am not, you are. I've actually looked up what it means. If cancel culture existed, then people like Chris Brown wouldn't be releasing songs and working with other artists, he'd be casted out of the industry for being an abusive, , violent, and homophobic piece of shit. Hell, James Gunn was under fire for his old tweets, but he wasn't truly cancelled because he still got hired for different projects even though he did get fired from GotG.

Bet you think Harvey Weinstein, R Kelly, and Bill Cosby got unfairly cancelled.

But it very much IS about that.You cant just move the goalpost, change the definition and then claim it does not exist.
You are trying to define away a very real issue, namely the shunning and ostracism via a mob that tries to make a person into a pariah based on moral outrage.
And that happens a lot, with varying degrees of success, it really isnt like there is no harm done.

There was harm done to corbyn, there was harm done to the girl that used the N word years ago, there was harm done to my professor that i talked about and there is harm done to many different people.

Explaining it away as 'part of politics' in case of corbyn is like explaining away bullying as 'part of human interaction'. It is just a way to ignore the issue.

 

[xi0]

There are 2 different GOP models.

The Bush model which invokes MMT (modern monetary theory) trickle down economics.

And the Reagan / Trump model which is the opposite of trickle down.

The articles criticisms apply only to the Bush model.

No, Reaganomics is not the opposite of trickle-down, it was just rebranded as supply-side economics after trickle-down was treated as a pejorative. Read what Reagan's own budget director has said about it, Stockman has acknowledged this himself.

There is no point in differentiating between Bush and Reagan/Trump, when the critique was aimed at tax cuts not helping wage stagnation. The entire economic policy of every GOP president since Reagan has been predicated upon tax cuts, but the absolute most for the wealthiest. That is what trickle down theory is.

"If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows."

 

[Sanity Check]

No, Reaganomics is not the opposite of trickle-down, it was just rebranded as supply-side economics after trickle-down was treated as a pejorative. Read what Reagan's own budget director has said about it, Stockman has acknowledged this himself.

There is no point in differentiating between Bush and Reagan/Trump, when the critique was aimed at tax cuts not helping wage stagnation. The entire economic policy of every GOP president since Reagan has been predicated upon tax cuts, but the absolute most for the wealthiest. That is what trickle down theory is.

"If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows."

Reagan and Trump tax cuts targeted the poor and middle class.

Bush tax cuts targeted the wealthy. (Trickle down economics was invented in the Bush era.)

The house.gov website contained clear information proving this, which was deleted.

I have the files saved on hard disk, don't make me dig them up. They were also saved in internet archives.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 28, 2022, Original Post Date: Mar 28, 2022 ---

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

@xi0

There is the house.gov page proving Reagan tax cuts were effective (and the opposite of Bush tax cuts), which was deleted, have fun.

 

[xi0]

Reagan and Trump tax cuts targeted the poor and middle class.

Bush tax cuts targeted the wealthy. (Trickle down economics was invented in the Bush era.)

The house.gov website contained clear information proving this, which was deleted.

I have the files saved on hard disk, don't make me dig them up. They were also saved in internet archives.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 28, 2022, Original Post Date: Mar 28, 2022 ---

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

@xi0

There is the house.gov page proving Reagan tax cuts were effective (and the opposite of Bush tax cuts), which was deleted, have fun.

You can try to uncouple Trump from GWB all you want, lying doesn't change reality. Trickle-down theory was invented in the 1800s. Something can not be "invented" in the Bush era if people are quoted having used not only the concept, but the term itself before either Bush held the office of the president. Like I said, David Stockman, Reagans own budget director is quoted using the term and admitting to no longer using the term because it became a point of criticism for Reagan and the GOP in general.

I never said who was and wasn't targeted, I said the greatest benefit was to those that are wealthy. Trump's tax cuts for the poor and middle class weren't permanent either, unlike those for business owners.

The topic wasn't about them being "effective" or not. The article you screenshot and shared yourself made a clear point that wage growth stagnated when Reagan took office and is still in that state today.

Probably going to move this to the politics thread, because we're being annoying.

 

[Sanity Check]

You can try to uncouple Trump from GWB all you want, lying doesn't change reality. Trickle-down theory was invented in the 1800s. Something can not be "invented" in the Bush era if people are quoted having used not only the concept, but the term itself before either Bush held the office of the president. Like I said, David Stockman, Reagans own budget director is quoted using the term and admitting to no longer using the term because it became a point of criticism for Reagan and the GOP in general.

I never said who was and wasn't targeted, I said the greatest benefit was to those that are wealthy. Trump's tax cuts for the poor and middle class weren't permanent either, unlike those for business owners.

The topic wasn't about them being "effective" or not. The article you screenshot and shared yourself made a clear point that wage growth stagnated when Reagan took office and is still in that state today.

Probably going to move this to the politics thread, because we're being annoying.

The screenshot I posted selected an arbitrary point before Reagan's election, for no reason at all.

Reagan and Trump are the only 2 US Presidents in the past 50 years that came from outside politics, who weren't part of the system.

That's the motive behind both being attacked by the media, journalists and authors for being outsiders.

Its also the reason why I'll never support career politician DeSantis (who definitely kissed the ring and bent the knee) over Trump.

The modern version of trickle down economics emerged under George W. Bush although its origins stem back to Keynes and earlier figures.

If you want to get technical, socialism could also be considered a form of trickle down economics, where people believe paying higher taxes and granting greater power and authority to the government will "trickle down" and benefit them more.

 

[M3J]

But it very much IS about that.You cant just move the goalpost, change the definition and then claim it does not exist.
You are trying to define away a very real issue, namely the shunning and ostracism via a mob that tries to make a person into a pariah based on moral outrage.
And that happens a lot, with varying degrees of success, it really isnt like there is no harm done.

There was harm done to corbyn, there was harm done to the girl that used the N word years ago, there was harm done to my professor that i talked about and there is harm done to many different people.

Explaining it away as 'part of politics' in case of corbyn is like explaining away bullying as 'part of human interaction'. It is just a way to ignore the issue.

As I said, I looked up the definition, and by the looks of it, Milo and Palestinians who have spoken up are the ones actually being cancelled. Although, I don't know what's going on with Milo now, but he's trash so w/e. He lost his job and was tweeting how he needed money years ago - he was actually cancelled because he lost his job, and as consequence he suffered financially because people didn't want to put up with his transphobia and bigotry anymore.

That's not a real issue. Real issue is that despite saying or doing horrible stuff, people like Chris Brown aren't cancelled, but when someone like Nicki Minaj is criticized, people whine about cancel culture. The real issue is that people try to avoid accountability by crying cancel culture. The harm is usually short-term. Again, Gina Carano, got fired for not listening to her employer, but she got hired by someone else almost quickly.

The harm done to Corbyn is not related to cancel culture at all. What girl? What's her name?

It's not ignoring the issue. This has been part of politics for decades, especially in the USA. You yourself cried about how Trump was attacking Clinton and all, even. Slinging dirt is how politicians try to at least get their opponents to lose support.

 

[DeadCosmos]

ofcourse money doesn't trickle down, it's god damn paper which is solid! only water trickles!

 

[xi0]

The screenshot I posted selected an arbitrary point before Reagan's election, for no reason at all.

Reagan and Trump are the only 2 US Presidents in the past 50 years that came from outside politics, who weren't part of the system.

That's the motive behind both being attacked by the media, journalists and authors for being outsiders.

Its also the reason why I'll never support career politician DeSantis (who definitely kissed the ring and bent the knee) over Trump.

The modern version of trickle down economics emerged under George W. Bush although its origins stem back to Keynes and earlier figures.

If you want to get technical, socialism could also be considered a form of trickle down economics, where people believe paying higher taxes and granting greater power and authority to the government will "trickle down" and benefit them more.

Arbitrary or not, it still demonstrated a distinct point for when wage growth began to stagnate. That is why I addressed it.

Reagan wasn't a political outsider, he was the Governor of California for 8 years. Before that he campaigned for Barry Goldwater when he ran against LBJ. This notion that Reagan was some renegade political outsider is a myth. he was establishment as it comes. Ironically, insisting on comparing Reagan to Trump for this myth of a reason only reflects poorly on Trump if being an "outsider" is something that you value.

You are focusing on the wrong things. I feel like I drew a very obvious conclusion from what you posted. Was posting it supposed to only indict the Bush family for their economic policies? Or the economic policy of Reagan that the GOP look so favorably on that it is still a focal point of every economic platform they've had since he was in office? Invoking Reaganomics to praise Trump and then acting like it's the opposite of trickle-down economics, when it is the basis for any Republican President's economic policy, is you being in denial.

No, "modern" trickle-down economics existed before Reagan was elected. He just popularized it as a "winning" concept in part due to the economic recovery from the recession in the 70s. But again, it still obviously didn't do much for wage growth.

 

[Sanity Check]

Arbitrary or not, it still demonstrated a distinct point for when wage growth began to stagnate. That is why I addressed it.

Reagan wasn't a political outsider, he was the Governor of California for 8 years. Before that he campaigned for Barry Goldwater when he ran against LBJ. This notion that Reagan was some renegade political outsider is a myth. he was establishment as it comes. Ironically, insisting on comparing Reagan to Trump for this myth of a reason only reflects poorly on Trump if being an "outsider" is something that you value.

You are focusing on the wrong things. I feel like I drew a very obvious conclusion from what you posted. Was posting it supposed to only indict the Bush family for their economic policies? Or the economic policy of Reagan that the GOP look so favorably on that it is still a focal point of every economic platform they've had since he was in office? Invoking Reaganomics to praise Trump and then acting like it's the opposite of trickle-down economics, when it is the basis for any Republican President's economic policy, is you being in denial.

No, "modern" trickle-down economics existed before Reagan was elected. He just popularized it as a "winning" concept in part due to the economic recovery from the recession in the 70s. But again, it still obviously didn't do much for wage growth.

Jesse Ventura did 1 term as governnor of minnesota, the FBI investigated and interrogated him trying to figure out how he had won the election.

A person can be governor and involved in politics, without actually being a part of the inner circle system which dominates the political landscape.

Trump and Reagan are the only 2 US Presidents in the past 50 years who cut american taxes. They were also the only two outsiders to hold the highest office. Coincidence?

Obama also started out his Presidency as an outsider, which is the reason behind the stark contrast in his early policies in comparison to his later ones which were the complete opposite.

Keynesian economics assume precedents to the opposite of trickle down. It assumes gains in productivity are distributed equally as a backbone of its theory. Which existed via omission before Reagan. Then later became the norm, which everyone was blind to, due to economic theory not acknowledging its potential.

 

[M3J]

Republicans do not know anything about economy, it seems. They just prefer to bullshit their way into getting more money and giving the wealthy and big businesses more money.

 

[Sanity Check]

Republicans do not know anything about economy, it seems. They just prefer to bullshit their way into getting more money and giving the wealthy and big businesses more money.

I invite you to join the numerai financial tournament and showoff your financial knowledge:

The Numerai Tournament

The hardest data science tournament on the planet. Build the world's last hedge fund by predicting the stock market. https://numer.ai/ Start with hedge fund quality data. It is clean and regularized, designed to be usable right away. Obfuscated, so it can be given out for free. Apply...

mangahelpers.com

 

[M3J]

how are hedge funds and stock markets related to the fact that republicans keep screwing over workers way more than the democrats are?

 

[Sanity Check]

If republicans are screwing over workers.

Everyone should move to democrat new york and democrat california, where they won't be screwed?

 

[DeadCosmos]

haha even DEMOCRAT nasty pelosi bought house in REPUBLICAN florida, no one wants to live in the 2 states with the highest homeless unless they are rich enough to distance themselves from all that filth and weirdos.

 

[M3J]

If republicans are screwing over workers.

Everyone should move to democrat new york and democrat california, where they won't be screwed?

You mean, two states with the highest populations? And let's not forget both states were run by republicans as well, and if republicans ran it again, it'd be even worse.

But also, good job ignoring that I said Democrats aren't that much better. You'd like the NYC mayor, he's democrat but doing a lot of things that republicans would love, mostly hurting houseless people.

 

[kkck]

Well, at least you're not saying we need to team up with Russia against China or some nonsensical bullshit right-wing media keeps trying to say.

Forgiveness isn't a component of it though. This entire thing is only about what nations are capable of tolerating.

Gotta wonder how much russia will tolerate ukraine going forward then. The war is by all appearances a disaster for russia, they are no closer to winning a month in and by all appearances it's army looks... about as good as you should expect from their economy. It doesn't look like their security concerns will be meaningfully addressed either. At least not the ones they started with... Mostly because nothing that has happened will prevent ukraine from distancing itself from russia going forward even if neutrality is assured or promised or whatever.

 

[DeadCosmos]

Does anyone here support Brandon and would vote for him in 2024? I am curious. Is a serious question.

 

[Sanity Check]

Russia Was Prepared to Withstand Sanctions. Why Wasn't Europe Prepared to Impose Them?

It has been eight years since Russia last invaded Ukraine. What has changed, and what has not?

theovershoot.co

Not the best write up, but it says things that need to be said.