The Next President is...

[bfargin]

3 hours ago, Negatory said:

I assume you are referring to the socialist United States of America of 1936-1980. 🇺🇸 

Trying to be a smartass, but stating the truth. FDR was a complete douchebag and a socialist to the hilt. Almost every policy that he advocated for and got passed by Congress was socialist in nature. He was the ultimate big government bureaucrat who didn't do anything but increase the size and reach of government. It took us years to roll back some of those taxes, but sadly, most of his programs are ingrained into our governmental fabric now.

[Negatory]

Stop just saying socialism with no context when you just don’t like a policy. It’s pointless. You debase literally the meaning of the word. This is what you sound like:

Also, alternative reality to your “truth”: he led America through the Great Depression and WWII, ultimately giving America the ability to rise to be a world superpower. Sorry that the effects of his policies don’t fit your narrative.

Do you think Ike and Nixon were also socialists since they presided over similar times?

Edited October 22, 2020 by Negatory

[Guardian]

There is a lot out there that FDR and the government full of his ideals caused the depression to last longer and wasn’t followed by a big recovery.

And you are race bating by equating someone saying that socialism is bad or social policies aren’t good are equated to something that everyone agrees is bad, racism.

Dude. That’s really really sick how terrible and racist your comment is negatory. Seriously, sit down and consider your equations and analogies when you revert to equating to racism. That’s really bad.

[Sim]

1 hour ago, slackline said:

He literally only posts propaganda.

Please seek medical attention. 

[Guardian]

Stop just saying socialism with no context when you just don’t like a policy. 

Context.....do you understand what you are saying?

[Waves]

Hah, literally the exact same thing right back atcha buddy.

[Negatory]

1 hour ago, Guardian said:

 

There is a lot out there that FDR and the government full of his ideals caused the depression to last longer and wasn’t followed by a big recovery.

 

I’d be interested to read more about this if you have sources.

[Guardian]

FDR’s folly is a book about it.

Here’s a WSJ article on it. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304024604575173632046893848

A google search locates many more opinions on the topic.

I don’t know economics only that I had read some on the topic that FDR actually hurt the recovery. One thing pointed out how every depression or recession since has recovered a lot quicker and the new deal happened at the time when the Great Depression should have been recovering. But again. I’m not claiming to know or understand the topic. I just know there are some that argue against it.

[kaputt]

10 minutes ago, Negatory said:

I’d be interested to read more about this if you have sources.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123353276749137485
 

Literally the top google search that took 2 seconds to look up. 
 

^ beat me

Edited October 22, 2020 by kaputt

[brickhistory]

Clapper/Brennan, et al, are not exactly unbiased observers.

It is amusing how so many Trump-related stories have relied on anonymous sources - Steele Dossier/leaked tax returns/supposed disparaging of US war dead, etc, etc, etc - is perfectly valid and doesn't require confirmation even though on the record actors often times have refuted the allegations.

Here, a physical laptop was dropped off by Hunter Biden for repair.  There is a published work order receipt with Biden's signature on that work order.  He failed to pick it up.  His attorney, when this started to become a thing, called the shop to demand the laptop.   For an unpaid $85, rocket scienctist Hunter opened up this whole can of stupidity.

Which had already been subpeonaed by the FBI for a grand jury investigation.  

Those are on the record facts.  Written and attested to by photographic evidence, FBI statements, court filings.

The emails on that laptop, on the record verified by at least some of the to/from addressees, reveal a lot about Hunter Biden's means of wealth.  Selling his name is an old tradition and not illegal.

Where the questions arise are did anyone in the government, to include Joe, do illegal things for that money or the promise of more money?

 

I hope that folks here can be intellectually honest to admit that A) if the name Trump were associated with any of these shenanigans, you'd be calling for more investigative journalism and B) that the same media that relied, literally for years, on anonymous sources that by definition can't verify anything, ran with the stories/issues above incessantly.  Even back to the now infamous Dan Rather fakes of W. Bush's Guard letters for which Rather lost his job.  Unverified but ran with the story anyway.

 

Now they are not a thing unless the "right" news sources say it's a thing.  Aided and abetted by Facebook and Twitter.  It is completely an editorial decision to go with a story or not, so if the media accepted as the "only" acceptable media doesn't run it, it is dishonest at the least, but totally their call.  For Facebook and Twitter, that is also an editorial decision.  Not one of a neutral provider.

 

In 2017, a PRC company deposited $5 million into a Delaware-based LLC listing it as an interest free loan.  Which spent the next 12 months depositing that money directly into Hunter's account.

 

[Lord Ratner]

On 10/21/2020 at 1:11 PM, slackline said:

I don’t understand our need to act so superior to this. I’m not saying you specifically here, but comments like this pop up so much. Clearly, that style government doesn’t work for us, and wouldn’t be well received. I’m on the same page as you for that.

My issue with this is, those people living in Germany, Scandinavian countries, etc. are extremely happy. If it works for them, who are we to hate on it. We have problems they don’t, they have problems we don’t. Paying those taxes doesn’t seem to really hurt them a whole bunch, and they seem to have just as many toys as us from expendable income. I just don’t get it.

For most of Europe, I’ll grant you 1000% the fact that they are able to save a significant chunk of change on defense because of Uncle Sam...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The problem I have is that they aren't doing much to push the world forward. If you look at where innovation comes from, it is vastly, vastly disproportionate. If you were to remove the United States from the equation, or cripple our output to look more like the European countries, the advancement of the planet as a whole would be handicapped.

 

My political philosophy boils down to about 75% caring about what's going to make the world better in 50 years, and 25% making sure that the people who are here now are not suffering unnecessarily. I don't care how the German people are doing right now, my question is are there grandkids going to be better off because of the German way of life, or the American way of life?

 

And yeah, the fact that no one on the left wants to acknowledge that all of these European countries are able to do what they're doing solely due to the largesse of American military spending is rather frustrating.

[Lord Ratner]

22 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Maybe it is more difficult to get healthy food. But there are a lot of things that are more difficult when you don't have money. One solution I advocate for is that EBT cards should not work in convenience stores or should be able to purchase "processed" items. They should be allowed to purchase raw produce only. Buying a chicken and some salad and rice is not more expensive than eating out for a whole family. It just isn't.

 

I always found this argument amazing. My wife and I make restaurant-quality food 5/7 nights a week, and it's usually between $5-10 in ingredients per person. And we only buy meat from whole foods. What are people buying at grocery stores that's more expensive than restaurants? Filet mignon?

[drewpey]

33 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Clapper/Brennan, et al, are not exactly unbiased observers.

It is amusing how so many Trump-related stories have relied on anonymous sources - Steele Dossier/leaked tax returns/supposed disparaging of US war dead, etc, etc, etc - is perfectly valid and doesn't require confirmation even though on the record actors often times have refuted the allegations.

Here, a physical laptop was dropped off by Hunter Biden for repair.  There is a published work order receipt with Biden's signature on that work order.  He failed to pick it up.  His attorney, when this started to become a thing, called the shop to demand the laptop.   For an unpaid $85, rocket scienctist Hunter opened up this whole can of stupidity.

Which had already been subpeonaed by the FBI for a grand jury investigation.  

Those are on the record facts.  Written and attested to by photographic evidence, FBI statements, court filings.

The emails on that laptop, on the record verified by at least some of the to/from addressees, reveal a lot about Hunter Biden's means of wealth.  Selling his name is an old tradition and not illegal.

Where the questions arise are did anyone in the government, to include Joe, do illegal things for that money or the promise of more money?

 

I hope that folks here can be intellectually honest to admit that A) if the name Trump were associated with any of these shenanigans, you'd be calling for more investigative journalism and B) that the same media that relied, literally for years, on anonymous sources that by definition can't verify anything, ran with the stories/issues above incessantly.  Even back to the now infamous Dan Rather fakes of W. Bush's Guard letters for which Rather lost his job.  Unverified but ran with the story anyway.

 

Now they are not a thing unless the "right" news sources say it's a thing.  Aided and abetted by Facebook and Twitter.  It is completely an editorial decision to go with a story or not, so if the media accepted as the "only" acceptable media doesn't run it, it is dishonest at the least, but totally their call.  For Facebook and Twitter, that is also an editorial decision.  Not one of a neutral provider.

 

In 2017, a PRC company deposited $5 million into a Delaware-based LLC listing it as an interest free loan.  Which spent the next 12 months depositing that money directly into Hunter's account.

 

They approached news outlets with the story, and the reporters asked to verify the original emails and Rudy said no despite having copies.  They asked more details about where it came from and he was evasive.

The right has been crying wolf for years on stories fueled largely by Russian disinformation.  You act shocked when the media process works like it is supposed to and verifies stories before publication.  If you think the journalistic process is so shady, then call up these same outlets claiming to have dirt on a republican and send them only PDFs of proof and see where it gets you.  You should have taken a journalism elective in college, it would have done you some good.

[Lord Ratner]

6 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

For one the FBI hasn’t said anything other than they “have nothing to add” to what the DNI said. They’re not going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/fbi-hunter-biden-laptop-russia/2020/10/20/3478408a-133d-11eb-bc10-40b25382f1be_story.html

“The Washington Post has been unable to verify the authenticity of any of the emails published by the New York Post, and the Biden campaign has disputed the New York Post’s claims about what the emails show.”

 

You're being intentionally ignorant, which is not like you.

 

What part of the story is difficult to believe? And how is it less believable than the many Trump scandals you have not had the same standard on?

 

Are we really going to pretend that a moron who has been in the senate for four decades being corrupt is a surprise? The surprise will be if it's not true.

[ClearedHot]

As of a few hours ago the NY Post validated at least some of the emails via someone who was also on the receiving end.

I have also seen reports on NY Post and Foxnews (waiting for more), that the person who confirmed the emails also confirmed the "Big Guy" is Joe Biden.  Numerous other reports note that hunter always referred to his father as the "Big Guy" or "His Chariman."

Personally I believe the FBI has been purposely quiet because there is an ongoing investigation.

If this is indeed validated and Joe was taking money...a FAR bigger story than Watergate.

[Lord Ratner]

8 minutes ago, drewpey said:

They approached news outlets with the story, and the reporters asked to verify the original emails and Rudy said no despite having copies.  They asked more details about where it came from and he was evasive.

The right has been crying wolf for years on stories fueled largely by Russian disinformation.  You act shocked when the media process works like it is supposed to and verifies stories before publication.  If you think the journalistic process is so shady, then call up these same outlets claiming to have dirt on a republican and send them only PDFs of proof and see where it gets you.  You should have taken a journalism elective in college, it would have done you some good.

That's all will and good, but your standard is one sided.

 

If anyone had put that level of concern into allegations about Trump, there'd be no Mueller report. Hell, the story surrounding Flynn and the FBI is 100x more substantiated, a true conspiracy, and what you would think the press would go bananas over, the government going after a citizen. How's the coverage of that investigation compared to the non-stop Mueller coverage?

 

It's not that I care that they suck, it's that they suck unequally.

[drewpey]

3 hours ago, Sim said:

President Ronald Reagan once observed: “The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.”

 

https://www.journalism.org/2020/01/24/americans-are-divided-by-party-in-the-sources-they-turn-to-for-political-news/pj_2020-01-24_media-polarization_2-02/

 

Just because the audience leans left doesn't mean the news does.  The study you reported was specifically about where people get their news and whether they trust their news sources.  Cons get news from a smaller pool and trust fewer sources.  It's a good read, but doesn't really support the argument you are trying to make.

[lloyd christmas]

10 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Personally I believe the FBI has been purposely quiet because there is an ongoing investigation.

The dirty career officials in the FBI really left the FBI in a bad spot after the Comey news conference in 2016 declaring Hillary innocent.  I doubt they will speak out pre-election for fear of having the same thing happen again.  And like you said, it is an ongoing investigation.  

[drewpey]

16 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

That's all will and good, but your standard is one sided.

 

If anyone had put that level of concern into allegations about Trump, there'd be no Mueller report. Hell, the story surrounding Flynn and the FBI is 100x more substantiated, a true conspiracy, and what you would think the press would go bananas over, the government going after a citizen. How's the coverage of that investigation compared to the non-stop Mueller coverage?

 

It's not that I care that they suck, it's that they suck unequally.

I know it seems like a lifetime ago, but most news networks didn't touch the dossier initially either.  Buzzfeed broke the story without verification and caught a ton of flak for it, and the story blew up and became it's own news because the populace wanted to know the extent Russia fucked with our election process.  This story doesn't stick with the audiences because no one besides conservatives care, thus only conservative echo chambers are running with it. 

If you had a squeaky clean candidate running against him the message would stick better as the republican party would be offering a better product (no corruption) against Biden...but you aren't so what is a Democrat supposed to do?  "Biden is corrupt, better abandon all my political positions and vote Trump because he totally isn't corrupt".  Democrat's aren't single-issue voters, and you aren't going to dissuade voters because you found out a politician may be corrupt.  Everyone has been paying attention to the Russian interference from 2016, and the many warnings that they are actively interfering with the election, and can't help but wonder if this is it.

In 2016 I think a lot of democratic voters wanted a perfect candidate and they didn't get that, so they didn't show up to the polls.  They learned the lesson that perfect is the enemy of good, and sometimes you have to just take the small win instead of the big win.  Biden is far from what most Democrats want in 2020, but to echo Republicans from 2016..."at least he isn't Hillary Trump"

[Guardian]

Nah. The lesson was that a woman can definitely be a president and mess it up just as bad as a man. But no one wants a lying old bag who has a junk attitude to be that woman.

[slackline]

The problem I have is that they aren't doing much to push the world forward. If you look at where innovation comes from, it is vastly, vastly disproportionate. If you were to remove the United States from the equation, or cripple our output to look more like the European countries, the advancement of the planet as a whole would be handicapped.
 
My political philosophy boils down to about 75% caring about what's going to make the world better in 50 years, and 25% making sure that the people who are here now are not suffering unnecessarily. I don't care how the German people are doing right now, my question is are there grandkids going to be better off because of the German way of life, or the American way of life?
 
And yeah, the fact that no one on the left wants to acknowledge that all of these European countries are able to do what they're doing solely due to the largesse of American military spending is rather frustrating.

One of THE only things I like about Trump is the fact that he calls out European countries in their weakness, and other countries doing crappy things. I wish he were more "presidential" about it, but it's a good thing, long overdue.

Outside of that, he's an absolute disaster. Not trying to convince you, not asking you to convince me. For the record, I hold Biden barely, barely above Trump. I've been staring at my ballot for almost a week. Not voting Trump for sure, but I can't quite make myself vote for Biden either...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guardian]

Don’t vote for president then. Vote for the Vice President. And there is an obvious clear choice there

[Guardian]

I realized I’m bias. So if just like to hear from others. How did tonight go?

[17D_guy]

3 hours ago, slackline said:

One of THE only things I like about Trump is the fact that he calls out European countries in their weakness, and other countries doing crappy things. I wish he were more "presidential" about it, but it's a good thing, long overdue.

Very much agreed.  With his current presentation a lot of nations/people just roll their eyes at "Crazy Uncle Donny" when he deviates (and he always deviates) from the fact we carry the western world on our back.

Someone on here mentioned innovation not happening elsewhere like in the US.  I can't say this is the case for my field (Cyber/IT).  There are tons of new innovations coming out of other countries because the barriers to entry are extremely low.  There's so much talent out there the H1B visa situation is something I used to watch more closely.  Where those barrier to entry are high (manufacturing of equip) those companies (ex. CISCO) are picking up tons of foreigners.

[17D_guy]

3 minutes ago, Guardian said:

I realized I’m bias. So if just like to hear from others. How did tonight go?

I'll get the recap from John Oliver so I can avoid bias. 🤣