Decency, Trump and Obama.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-13-2017, 03:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Damn, I was working for about a nickel an hour when I was deployed then.

You don't even want to do the math for hostile fire pay. But, let's put it this way, I leave a bigger tip for one hour of bad service at a restaurant than what you get per day in hostile fire pay.

[Belsnickel]

(03-13-2017, 05:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and yet, not sure we crack the top 5 in per capita.

Gotta pay the cost to be the boss.

Last report I saw had us at number 4, and I'd be perfectly happy if we weren't even in the top 10.

[*bfine32*]

(03-13-2017, 05:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Last report I saw had us at number 4, and I'd be perfectly happy if we weren't even in the top 10.

Well there's a chance you can be perfectly happy as this one has us at 11:

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=132

[Belsnickel]

(03-13-2017, 05:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well there's a chance you can be perfectly happy as this one has us at 11:

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=132

That's percent of GDP, not per capita.

[*bfine32*]

(03-13-2017, 05:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's percent of GDP, not per capita.

So it is.

[Belsnickel]

(03-13-2017, 09:26 PM)Dill Wrote: Last I saw had us at #18 (ppp).
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

But if our top 1% can increase their share of the world's economic pie, then our per capita will certainly rise, whether our income remains the same or drops.

That is just GDP per capita and doesn't have to do with military spending. Get with it, Dill.

[Dill]

(03-12-2017, 09:41 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: President Trump is following the worst 2 term POTU ever. He divided the country, weakened our military, lied to us to promote a social program everyone with a brain knew would drive up costs for healthcare especially for the middle class.

We all know Obama sucked, lets see what the new guy can do the next 8 years before we roast his Presidency.

Tell it like it is, Luvnit!

Unemployment was 4.2% in Bush's second month of office. But it was already at 8.2% during Obama's second month in office.

Trump heard it was as high as 42% under Obama at one point.

Now that Trump is president, unemployment is already down to 4.7% in his second month.

Trump has brought Americans back together again. With the country behind him, he and Paul Ryan are preparing a new health care plan which will significantly cut taxes for everyone earning over $250,000.00. I am feeling better already.

People who lose their health insurance when the plan goes into effect will be paying much less for healthcare than they were under Obama.

The money we save on health care can go back into the military. Once again our carrier groups will ply the world's waters preventing terror attacks on the homeland. Countries will stop laughing at our weakness.

[Dill]

(03-13-2017, 09:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That is just GDP per capita and doesn't have to do with military spending. Get with it, Dill.

Yeah, i realized that after I posted. That's what I get for not looking at the previous  posts.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-13-2017, 10:26 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Maybe one day you and others will figure out raising the minimum wage or changing OT pay rules will not equate to higher income net gain due to the costs rising on the consumer side. I figured out a long time ago if I wanted higher wages to be the best worker, always on time and present and loyal. That is how you go from close to minimum wage to 100K a year within 15 years.

Minimum wage is entry wages to start the learning process. Once in the door almost every company has opportunities to advance if one is motivated.

This is what loyalty gets you . . .

(03-14-2017, 11:47 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The Oline franchise tag is $14.4 mil, $12.6 for the transition tag.

The Rams made Whitworth the 10th highest paid LT in the league based upon average salary/year.

Whit's cap hit is $9.17 mil this year.

That contract doesn't seem crazy to me considering the state of the Bengals' oline.

Jesus Christ!  Looking at the contract, if the Rams want to cut Whit next season the dead money is only $3.33 million which they would be able to spread over two years if they designate him a June 1st cut.  

$9.17 + $3.33 = $12.5 million

They basically signed him to a one year deal for less than the transition tag if they want to cut him next year.  Now, I'm ***** pissed!

[*michaelsean*]

(03-14-2017, 12:37 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: This is what loyalty gets you . . .

If they signed Whit, whete would they get money for injury settlements?  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-14-2017, 02:19 PM)michaelsean Wrote: If they signed Whit, whete would they get money for injury settlements?  

I know, right?  The extra $166,667 they would have to pay Whitworth this season would sure cut into the extra $12 million they got in salary cap space.

[Belsnickel]

(03-13-2017, 10:26 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Maybe one day you and others will figure out raising the minimum wage or changing OT pay rules will not equate to higher income net gain due to the costs rising on the consumer side. I figured out a long time ago if I wanted higher wages to be the best worker, always on time and present and loyal. That is how you go from close to minimum wage to 100K a year within 15 years.

Minimum wage is entry wages to start the learning process. Once in the door almost every company has opportunities to advance if one is motivated.

I missed this earlier. This is all fine and dandy, but in the real world there aren't enough positions to make this reasoning work. Not everyone can move up into a better position, and we need people at the bottom rungs. This whole premise has the same fault as the one that has caused an overabundance of college educated people not using their degrees. If we aren't going to have every person be able to work a full-time job and make a living wage, then there needs to be an adequate social safety net in place to support them.

[Benton]

(03-14-2017, 04:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I missed this earlier. This is all fine and dandy, but in the real world there aren't enough positions to make this reasoning work. Not everyone can move up into a better position, and we need people at the bottom rungs. This whole premise has the same fault as the one that has caused an overabundance of college educated people not using their degrees. If we aren't going to have every person be able to work a full-time job and make a living wage, then there needs to be an adequate social net in place to support them.

The issue becomes what's livable.


I read an article a few years ago about how "poor" the top (I think it was top 10%) of earners think they are. Basically, it was a lot of folks with Mike Brown Syndrome — millions of dollars in the bank, significant recurring income, and yet they feel like they don't have enough money. On the other end of the spectrum, you've got guys who think they're set for life if they can get a job making more than $14 an hour with insurance. And a lot of businesses — maybe the bulk — are supported by spending from those somewhere in between.

[Belsnickel]

(03-14-2017, 04:23 PM)Benton Wrote: The issue becomes what's livable.


I read an article a few years ago about how "poor" the top (I think it was top 10%) of earners think they are. Basically, it was a lot of folks with Mike Brown Syndrome — millions of dollars in the bank, significant recurring income, and yet they feel like they don't have enough money. On the other end of the spectrum, you've got guys who think they're set for life if they can get a job making more than $14 an hour with insurance. And a lot of businesses — maybe the bulk — are supported by spending from those somewhere in between.

I don't disagree. People have different ideas of what is livable, and then of course we have differences based on location. I'm not in favor of a federal solution to the problem (other then potentially helping states fund it with block grants) because there are so many variables.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-14-2017, 04:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I missed this earlier. This is all fine and dandy, but in the real world there aren't enough positions to make this reasoning work. Not everyone can move up into a better position, and we need people at the bottom rungs. This whole premise has the same fault as the one that has caused an overabundance of college educated people not using their degrees. If we aren't going to have every person be able to work a full-time job and make a living wage, then there needs to be an adequate social net in place to support them.

How's Logan's Run for a social net?

[Dill]

(03-13-2017, 03:43 AM)hollodero Wrote:
- So if one can argue that the president acts as mouthpiece for Breitbart or Alex Jones (who now obviously is some kind of Trump adviser, probably on Sandy Hook conspiracy and gay frog issues), sensible people might actually think a bit harder about that one. While, as is demonstrated widely, they don't really are inclined to do so regarding other quite valid points (valid to us at least), as your follow-up post shows. They seem to snap back to the defending state; which, of course, is mind-boggling.

I would not say that Trump acts as a mouthpiece for Breitbart or Alex jones so much as I would say both respond primarily to the same political base. 

For them the issue is less Sandy Hook than immigration and Muslims first, then after that a range of threats to white working class masculine identity, ranging from feminism to smart liberals who ignore their issues to gun control.  I am speaking of the "core" here. There are also Trump voters who, uninformed but hurting because their jobs are gone and they lack healthcare, took a leap in the dark and voted for the very party now primed to remove the last social protections they had. They will turn from Trump when his healthcare scam hits them, but the core will not.

That political base are not necessarily all avid followers of Breitbart or Infowars. Many may not even use the internet. but they are fellow travelers in their incapacity to vet conspiracy theories that support policies they would like to see--like the exclusion of (Latino) immigrants and Muslims.

That's why the 3,000,0000 to 5,000,000 claim does not undermine Trump's credibility for that group. Rather, for them, the credibility of institutions based upon social science is undermined where they challenge Trump and Infowars. 

If you don't really understand the social skill and "government literacy" it takes to get branches and department of government working together to effect policy, then it may not set off alarm bells when a candidate post's pictures of other candidates' "ugly" wives or parades Clinton accusers at a national debate, or likens the CIA to Nazis or accuses his predecessor of felonious wire-tapping and asks the Senate and House to investigate. A president can just do things, right? Doesn't have to gain support for his policies or even listen to people who don't agree. If 1,000 state department employees sign a letter of protest and critical mid-level managers resign, it is not because they see real problems ahead, but because they are biased, like the MSM.

Right wing radio pounds this audience daily with claims that Trump is resisted only because people (the Democrats and "establishment" Republicans) don't want to see "change," not because knowledgeable people everywhere recognize he is doing harm to the nation.  If anyone pointed out to Trump that his Muslim ban EO would not stand up in the courts, his hangers on could just step up and repeat--"They said he wouldn't run, then they said he wouldn't win the primary, then they said he wouldn't win the election . . . ." --convincing Trump himself that he need not listen.

What will happen when this guy has to address the N Korean problem now? Will we have anymore leverage with China at all? Maybe he can get Taiwan to stop trading with them.

[Dill]

(03-14-2017, 04:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I missed this earlier. This is all fine and dandy, but in the real world there aren't enough positions to make this reasoning work. Not everyone can move up into a better position, and we need people at the bottom rungs. This whole premise has the same fault as the one that has caused an overabundance of college educated people not using their degrees. If we aren't going to have every person be able to work a full-time job and make a living wage, then there needs to be an adequate social safety net in place to support them.

LOL--if all soldiers worked hard, they could all be generals.

Think how great the Army would be if even half of them made general.

[Benton]

(03-14-2017, 07:23 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL--if all soldiers worked hard, they could all be generals.

Think how great the Army would be if even half of them made general.

in fairness, it works in some areas. Look at the bengals. Our halfback coach is basically just the guy who shows up. Same could be said with a few of our position coaches.

hell, Marvin's done pretty good as the guy who shows up on time and is nice.

[Belsnickel]

(03-14-2017, 07:26 PM)Benton Wrote: in fairness, it works in some areas. Look at the bengals. Our halfback coach is basically just the guy who shows up. Same could be said with a few of our position coaches.

hell, Marvin's done pretty good as the guy who shows up on time and is nice.

I don't know if I'd be using that as an example of it working out.

[hollodero]

(03-14-2017, 07:13 PM)Dill Wrote: I would not say that Trump acts as a mouthpiece for Breitbart or Alex jones so much as I would say both respond primarily to the same political base. 

For them the issue is less Sandy Hook than immigration and Muslims first, then after that a range of threats to white working class masculine identity, ranging from feminism to smart liberals who ignore their issues to gun control.  I am speaking of the "core" here. There are also Trump voters who, uninformed but hurting because their jobs are gone and they lack healthcare, took a leap in the dark and voted for the very party now primed to remove the last social protections they had. They will turn from Trump when his healthcare scam hits them, but the core will not.

That political base are not necessarily all avid followers of Breitbart or Infowars. Many may not even use the internet. but they are fellow travelers in their incapacity to vet conspiracy theories that support policies they would like to see--like the exclusion of (Latino) immigrants and Muslims.

Yes. That's one way to see the core, and I see it the same way.

(03-14-2017, 07:13 PM)Dill Wrote: That's why the 3,000,0000 to 5,000,000 claim does not undermine Trump's credibility for that group. Rather, for them, the credibility of institutions based upon social science is undermined where they challenge Trump and Infowars. 

If you don't really understand the social skill and "government literacy" it takes to get branches and department of government working together to effect policy, then it may not set off alarm bells when a candidate post's pictures of other candidates' "ugly" wives or parades Clinton accusers at a national debate, or likens the CIA to Nazis or accuses his predecessor of felonious wire-tapping and asks the Senate and House to investigate. A president can just do things, right? Doesn't have to gain support for his policies or even listen to people who don't agree. If 1,000 state department employees sign a letter of protest and critical mid-level managers resign, it is not because they see real problems ahead, but because they are biased, like the MSM.

Right wing radio pounds this audience daily with claims that Trump is resisted only because people (the Democrats and "establishment" Republicans) don't want to see "change," not because knowledgeable people everywhere recognize he is doing harm to the nation.  If anyone pointed out to Trump that his Muslim ban EO would not stand up in the courts, his hangers on could just step up and repeat--"They said he wouldn't run, then they said he wouldn't win the primary, then they said he wouldn't win the election . . . ." --convincing Trump himself that he need not listen.

Also true, but that's my lever.

(03-14-2017, 07:13 PM)Dill Wrote: What will happen when this guy has to address the N Korean problem now? Will we have anymore leverage with China at all? Maybe he can get Taiwan to stop trading with them.

Leverage, still yes, but it took a severe hit, I'd say. You still have a fancy military, though.
--

Well. In the last days I wrote some of my worst comments, it's just I know I want to say something, I even feel like I know something you don't know yet, but I can't just find the right words. Language barrier, maybe.

It's how to deal with the alt-right voters, and I see a different "core". I agree with Hillary about the "deplorable core" (biiig mistake to say it though, of course, maybe the biggest of them all) which is not to be talked to - and the others who would be open to seeing the points you mentioned I commented with "that's my lever". Your definition is very valid too, it just seperates core from periphery at another point.

But the analogies to my country fail at very important points, the situation is so different. And yet some mechanisms are so strikingly similar, something I never saw in american politics before (similarities I mean). I can only see it as it was taken from Europe, who took it from us, see "Jörg Haider" "HC Strache" or "FPÖ" (you know some of those probably, don't feel prompted to google the others, doesn't matter). What happens in the US, we invented... but again, vast differences, our alt-rights have their own party and didn't need to overtake another one, we don't have a vain dumb-dumb millionaire who is driven by reaching historic immortality they can use as a tool, and we don't have to deal with North Korea and stuff like that.

Our alt-rights... more as if Stephen Miller Kellyanne Conway and many more of those had an own party (we do have Bannons). A typical talking point is the media/leftist/elite conspiracy brain-washing the population (everyone but their supporters), things like they withhold murder, rape and terror attacks from muslims for their "agenda". Many take it as far as saying "...because this media/leftist elites hate our country and want the population to perish". And many people believe it. Either because they are flat-out Nazis (that's what we say here, you might use KKK or whatever) or because they're dumb and/or conspiracists (these two groups are the "deplorables", no point to talk to them) or because their tolerance was only a thin fassade they are now told they could as well let go of. Alt-right brings out the worst in people and aims for that. That's why they are so dangerous.

And then there is hate of the elites and the belief we need to "give someone else a chance", those who vote out of protest to hurt the others. They bring alt-right to success, for the core alone isn't sufficient for winning elections. And there are very decent, intelligent people amongst them, the "moderates" for lack of another word, and the non alt-right society keeps losing them. For we do not talk, we make a constant mockery of them. And the "left" is a very intolerant group of people feeling superior, which regarding their intelligence they often are not.
And very specifically in the US, you have the conservatives too, these people have their own parties here, which is better of course. And of course there are many very decent, intelligent people among them too. They are not "alt-right core" by a long shot. So that completes the picture of the Trump voter, somehow.
In my country we see alt-right success after success, and it's not the "deplorables" that just grow in numbers, it's the moderates that get driven away. And you can bring them to think about it, they often do when alt-right is in power (that's where they ultimatively fail, thank God, or else they would try to get rid of democratic structures). Now what makes your country special amongst other things, you additionally hate the conservatives, and the "anti-liberal" base is very strong, and that's why I feel the alt-right usurpers of the GOP are way more dangerous in the US.

And the alt-right governed administration can have "success", not because of Trump, but in spite of him, for there's a conservative agenda, conservatives who believe they use and play Trump. Which is not the case. They get played and used. And the republican voter base gets played and used, too. They need to see that. Should Trump get reelected, it might be over, and they lose too. That's the mistake, to think you could contain the alt-rights in the long run. In my country, voters ultimatively run away (mainly to the conservatives), but you only have the democrats where they can run to, and many will never bring themselves to do that, not even to being complicit to a democrat win by not voting at all. The notion of "avoiding the liberal win" in the United States might be the biggest alt-right chance to raise to sustainable power and shape the world. That's what's so scary.

That's also why you need to bring out the moderates, maybe even the conservatives - and those who do not vote, which is half the population. Or you need a new party, whatever, but you need to change your ways of thinking and talking politics. Or we all, even in Europe, face a huge danger.

And that's why you need a different way of talking, I see it here and everywhere, I see the "left" making the same mistake over and over again they also make here, which I make as well, which is being arrogant, condescending, the more sensible human being with the better values, all that, and trying to win the argument no matter what. I see the media staring at the phenomena like the rabbit stares at the snake and not knowing what to do - except doing exactly what I described. They all exaggerate things too, don't make the right points, turn to arrogance, get attackable and that's how fascists (for lack of a better term) can raise.

Just use the picture itself is what I'd argue. That is Trump, that is the alt-right, urge people to take a hard look at them, that's all I can say. Maybe also drag Bannon to the surface, again and again. It's way more subtle than that, but you keep losing by thinking to win the argument doing all of the things described before. In the end, respect plays a part, many things do, but that's my drift, that's why I'm here instead of posting twice a month (which would be more my thing).
That's all.

This comment isn't that much better than the previous ones, but whatever. Still took me long enough to write it anyway - I made the thread, so I can spam it.