The Next President is...

[ClearedHot]

18 minutes ago, Waingro said:

They didn't retract the story, it appears reading comprehension isn't strong among these commenters. They issued a correction which is substantially different. The story itself is materially the same: POTUS directly contacts a state elections official, urging them to scrutinize ballots in specific locations. Which is an absolutely mind blowing story by itself, and would only be acceptable in some banana republic. Now with the correction and the recovered recording, there's proof.

Don't let your bias cloud the facts.  Urging them to scrutinize ballots in certain locations is not illegal...the optics of how those votes came is was odd to some but they were ultimately validated and true votes...the LIE was saying the Trump said to "FIND THE FRAUD"...which is far closer to a crime but a complete fabrication.

[Waingro]

16 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Don't let your bias cloud the facts.  Urging them to scrutinize ballots in certain locations is not illegal...the optics of how those votes came is was odd to some but they were ultimately validated and true votes...the LIE was saying the Trump said to "FIND THE FRAUD"...which is far closer to a crime but a complete fabrication.

Correct, the "find the fraud" statement was verified not to have been said. Again though, the story wasn't retracted (as has been incorrectly and repeatedly stated in many posts above this one). Because the substance of the story is largely unchanged!

Even if it's a minority of Americans, how have this many of us been conditioned to be ok with POTUS contacting elections officials? The best of us are rightly horrified by this, as we would be if Hillary, Romney, McCain, Gore, or any other loser of the general election were to do the same. Nevermind that it was POTUS. 

Sources can be wrong and/or mislead. Newspapers print corrections as needed. This correction here isn't some shocking indictment on print journalism.

[ClearedHot]

1 hour ago, Waingro said:

Correct, the "find the fraud" statement was verified not to have been said. Again though, the story wasn't retracted (as has been incorrectly and repeatedly stated in many posts above this one). Because the substance of the story is largely unchanged!

Even if it's a minority of Americans, how have this many of us been conditioned to be ok with POTUS contacting elections officials? The best of us are rightly horrified by this, as we would be if Hillary, Romney, McCain, Gore, or any other loser of the general election were to do the same. Nevermind that it was POTUS. 

Sources can be wrong and/or mislead. Newspapers print corrections as needed. This correction here isn't some shocking indictment on print journalism.

If you can't see the difference, no need to continue the debate.

[brickhistory]

1 hour ago, Waingro said:

Correct, the "find the fraud" statement was verified not to have been said. Again though, the story wasn't retracted (as has been incorrectly and repeatedly stated in many posts above this one). Because the substance of the story is largely unchanged!

Even if it's a minority of Americans, how have this many of us been conditioned to be ok with POTUS contacting elections officials? The best of us are rightly horrified by this, as we would be if Hillary, Romney, McCain, Gore, or any other loser of the general election were to do the same. Nevermind that it was POTUS. 

Sources can be wrong and/or mislead. Newspapers print corrections as needed. This correction here isn't some shocking indictment on print journalism.

A correction to a news story has traditionally been along the lines of "We said that Bob had brown hair.  In fact, he has blonde hair.  We regret the error."

This "correction" negates the entire story.  It's a big deal.  

Along with the many media outlets that also said they independently verified the story.

Every single one of those outlets used the same anonymous source.  One source connected to an important player in the story.  Basic integrity would seem to question the bias of that source and that other sources or facts need to be checked in order to have confidence in the original source.

But "Orange Man bad" was enough validity.

It directly corroborates the disbelief in journalism that exists.  If they'd lie, my word/"correct," your word this, what else have they reported on previously, or will in the future, that relies on such a single source?

Funny, the infamous Hunter Biden laptop story was suppressed because it was fake news - despite on the record sources, documentation of the FBI seizing said laptop, etc, etc, etc.

Yet this one anonymous source got front page/lead stories from the usual suspects and it's all good.

I believe some truth teller has the mantra "Democracy dies in darkness" boldly attached to their frontpage.  But nothing about truth.

Ok, the rules are known now.

 

And, Fatboy Slim aka "I coulda been Defense Minister" Vindmann wants to determine who can have access to information sources and decide for themselves:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-litigation-help-deradicalize-right-wing-media

 

Deciding what is good for people to know/have access to/make their own determination is a good gig if you can get it.

 

[lloyd christmas]

1 hour ago, Waingro said:

Sources can be wrong and/or mislead. Newspapers print corrections as needed. This correction here isn't some shocking indictment on print journalism.

The “nothing to see here” argument may work if it were not for the cumulative amount of hypocrisy and deceit being displayed today by the media and in politics.  It is everywhere and people either willingly ignore it, are part of it or are misinformed by those who willingly ignore it or are part of it.  I believe it’s also why Biden doesn’t take questions.  His handlers know he’s not up to the task of answering for any of it without exposing the blatant hypocrisy.   Transparency and the truth will send this house of cards crashing down.  And that will be good for the majority of American citizens regardless of which side of the aisle you’re on.  

[brickhistory]

Another one of those (in)famous "resets?"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/03/17/russia-recalls-its-us-ambassador-after-biden-labels-putin-killer/4740400001/

 

A foreign policy expert indeed.  But at least he didn't do it via a mean tweet.

 

[Sua Sponte]

5 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Another one of those (in)famous "resets?"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/03/17/russia-recalls-its-us-ambassador-after-biden-labels-putin-killer/4740400001/

 

A foreign policy expert indeed.  But at least he didn't do it via a mean tweet.

 

Weird, thought he didn’t give interviews?

[brickhistory]

To Stephanopolous?

 

[brickhistory]

At last, an honest man in Washington, DC:

Say my name  at the :19 second mark

Edited March 18, 2021 by brickhistory

[brickhistory]

So let's review this past week for this Administration:

13,000 kids in "not cages."

Russia recalls its ambassador; Putin challenges Biden to a debate which is declined.

China embarrasses the SecState in the first meeting with this Administration.

And Biden busts his ass not once, not twice, but three times climbing AF1 stairs.  On the same climb.  Good think it wasn't a ramp like Trump's or there'd be calls for a health evaluation...

 

But he has kept off Twitter so there's that win.

[Homestar]

40 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

But he has kept off Twitter so there's that win.

Everyone keeps saying this, as if Twitter was an actual issue and not incompetence. 

[brickhistory]

19 minutes ago, Homestar said:

Everyone keeps saying this, as if Twitter was an actual issue and not incompetence. 

I refer the poster to the preceding lines in the post excerpted as examples of "competence."

[arg]

Yep this works

https://bongino.com/psaki-businesses-wont-raise-prices-just-because-we-raise-taxes/?fbclid=IwAR05w20s5Y9xFLA26Zv4Cilg6JeuS6zgolWsIwvktKwk53cHtYj9TI6Wzz8

[kaputt]

The border situation is a literal shit show and this administration has done absolutely nothing other than tacitly, if not openly, encourage the rush to the Rio Grande. 
 

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/a-man-made-disaster-at-the-border/

It’s obvious to anyone with half a brain that this is not even incompetence, but a deliberate long game strategy of obtaining a super majority of voters for one political party. 
 

 

[ClearedHot]

[brabus]

12 hours ago, arg said:

Yep this works

https://bongino.com/psaki-businesses-wont-raise-prices-just-because-we-raise-taxes/?fbclid=IwAR05w20s5Y9xFLA26Zv4Cilg6JeuS6zgolWsIwvktKwk53cHtYj9TI6Wzz8

Just asked my 9 year old what he would do if he sold a toy for $10 and the government decided to start taking an extra $100 a month from him in taxes? He replied, “I’d sell my toy for $15.” This was with no leading questions/information or previous discussion of this article. So yeah, a 9 year old understands basic economics better than the President’s press secretary (or worse, the entire administration...if her statement truly represents the administration’s position).

[M2]

[DosXX]

6 hours ago, brabus said:

Just asked my 9 year old what he would do if he sold a toy for $10 and the government decided to start taking an extra $100 a month from him in taxes? He replied, “I’d sell my toy for $15.” This was with no leading questions/information or previous discussion of this article. So yeah, a 9 year old understands basic economics better than the President’s press secretary (or worse, the entire administration...if her statement truly represents the administration’s position).

This response is a meme within economics and he would lose more money in doing so than if he kept the price roughly the same for consumers due the highly elastic demand of unnecessary consumer products like toys. Sounds like he needs to study a bit more "basic economics" but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt since he's 9 😉. Good reading for you guys though.

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ref/econ101e.html

Don't expect Psaki to know what she's talking about with regard to economics, but even if she did I doubt she would answer that question with a nuanced discussion on the implications of demand elasticity, money velocity, tax revenue optimization, etc., with respect to the new policy. To think those writing policy within the administration would lack a basic understanding of economics is disingenuous.

 

[brickhistory]

3 hours ago, DosXX said:

To think those writing policy within the administration would lack a basic understanding of economics is disingenuous.

 

Errr, same crew that says white extremism is the #1 threat for the Defense Department?

I'm pretty genuine in my opinion...

[brabus]

5 hours ago, DosXX said:

This response is a meme within economics and he would lose more money in doing so than if he kept the price roughly the same for consumers due the highly elastic demand of unnecessary consumer products like toys. Sounds like he needs to study a bit more "basic economics" but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt since he's 9 😉. Good reading for you guys though.

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ref/econ101e.html

Don't expect Psaki to know what she's talking about with regard to economics, but even if she did I doubt she would answer that question with a nuanced discussion on the implications of demand elasticity, money velocity, tax revenue optimization, etc., with respect to the new policy. To think those writing policy within the administration would lack a basic understanding of economics is disingenuous.

 

Well yeah, it was a basic scenario for a 9 yr old. Doesn’t change the fact it’s an incredibly stupid/naive statement to say raising taxes on businesses, raw materials, etc. won’t affect things like consumer prices, employee benefits, employee hours, or even job availability. 

Edited March 21, 2021 by brabus

[Lord Ratner]

7 hours ago, DosXX said:

This response is a meme within economics and he would lose more money in doing so than if he kept the price roughly the same for consumers due the highly elastic demand of unnecessary consumer products like toys. Sounds like he needs to study a bit more "basic economics" but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt since he's 9 😉. Good reading for you guys though.

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ref/econ101e.html

Don't expect Psaki to know what she's talking about with regard to economics, but even if she did I doubt she would answer that question with a nuanced discussion on the implications of demand elasticity, money velocity, tax revenue optimization, etc., with respect to the new policy. To think those writing policy within the administration would lack a basic understanding of economics is disingenuous.

 

Ah yes, economics. Incredibly complex and counterintuitive answers to simple questions, requiring even more complicated explanations when the aforementioned answers prove incorrect.

I really liked when the fed, which is fully staffed with economists, admitted that they simply can't explain the rates of inflation over the past years, so maybe they just need different goals...

https://econofact.org/why-did-the-fed-change-its-framework-and-why-does-it-matter

Sometimes I think economists were invented to take the heat off of meteorologists.

[N730]

Well yeah, it was a basic scenario for a 9 yr old. Doesn’t change the fact it’s an incredibly stupid/naive statement to say raising taxes on businesses, raw materials, etc. won’t affect things like consumer prices, employee benefits, employee hours, or even job availability. 

I'm not arguing either way, I honestly think taxes have a smaller impact on large businesses than we think. Their armies of accountants move enough around that they'll make the math work out in their favor.

It's not like they ever lower prices when their taxes go down. Remember all the companies that said the tax cuts they got would go to their employees? That didn't happen in 99% of the companies that claimed the tax cuts were a win for workers and consumers.

Businesses are inherently selfish, which they should be without an incentive to act otherwise. We know that they'll consistently raise prices regardless of need until their demand goes down to the point they can make more by selling their products at a lower price.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

[ViperMan]

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Ah yes, economics. Incredibly complex and counterintuitive answers to simple questions, requiring even more complicated explanations when the aforementioned answers prove incorrect.

I really liked when the fed, which is fully staffed with economists, admitted that they simply can't explain the rates of inflation over the past years, so maybe they just need different goals...

https://econofact.org/why-did-the-fed-change-its-framework-and-why-does-it-matter

Sometimes I think economists were invented to take the heat off of meteorologists.

IMO, what is driving low interest rates is a desire to make up for a variety of deflationary forces at work in the world:

1. Technology.
2. Aging demographics (see Japan and USA) - most modern countries have populations that are "aging out" and past something known as "peak spending" which occurs at age 46 (approximately).
3. Globalization - outsourcing of production - i.e. a drastic increase in the availability of labor.

In order to counteract these forces, the fed allows grossly low interest rates in order to stimulate spending that wouldn't otherwise happen - which is all to counteract the aforementioned factors that work in one direction. There is no confusion about how the world works. There's only the "show" that we all watch and wonder "why?".

[ViperMan]

11 minutes ago, N730 said:

I'm not arguing either way, I honestly think taxes have a smaller impact on large businesses than we think. Their armies of accountants move enough around that they'll make the math work out in their favor.

It's not like they ever lower prices when their taxes go down. Remember all the companies that said the tax cuts they got would go to their employees? That didn't happen in 99% of the companies that claimed the tax cuts were a win for workers and consumers.

Businesses are inherently selfish, which they should be without an incentive to act otherwise. We know that they'll consistently raise prices regardless of need until their demand goes down to the point they can make more by selling their products at a lower price.

Riddle me this then: why doesn't the government just "move enough around" (likewise) to make it work out in their favor? They're bigger than any one company and can afford more accountants, right?

Better yet, ask yourself why do we need taxes at all if the government can just run the money printer and just make themselves however much money they need...

Edited March 21, 2021 by ViperMan

[Lord Ratner]

42 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

IMO, what is driving low interest rates is a desire to make up for a variety of deflationary forces at work in the world:

1. Technology.
2. Aging demographics (see Japan and USA) - most modern countries have populations that are "aging out" and past something known as "peak spending" which occurs at age 46 (approximately).
3. Globalization - outsourcing of production - i.e. a drastic increase in the availability of labor.

In order to counteract these forces, the fed allows grossly low interest rates in order to stimulate spending that wouldn't otherwise happen - which is all to counteract the aforementioned factors that work in one direction. There is no confusion about how the world works. There's only the "show" that we all watch and wonder "why?".

I agree completely. Massive, massive deflationary forces from unfathomable progress on automation and exploiting foreign labor have made the inflation from runaway government spending invisible.

 

But the geniuses at the Fed haven't put that together. Problem is, there aren't many places left in the world to get nearly-free labor. If we can't keep dropping the prices on TVs and t-shirts, the stagnation in wage growth for the past couple decades and the aforementioned spending spree is going to kick us in the teeth. And the Fed has nowhere to go with rates at zero. Get ready...