@sliders1234's banner p

sliders1234


				

				

				
2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 19:00:22 UTC

				

User ID: 685

sliders1234


				
				
				

				
2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 19:00:22 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 685

I think his interview was taken out of context. Atleast I hope it was. The reason we borrow money instead of just printing all we need is it basically soaks up money that would end up elsewhere and cause inflation instead of being saved. And inflation reduction device.

He should be smart enough to know that so I have to assume he was just tired or wasn’t sure where they were going and didn’t feel like providing a better answer.

The bill barely does anything to eliminate asylum.

I have repeated told you why I oppose the bill. But it summarizes to I believe the bill would increase immigration I do not want. You are fine to disagree with my logic. What is not fine is acting like I haven’t told you why I oppose it.

The bill lacks any teeth to limit immigration during a Democratic Presidency. America is also very bad at letting the legislature get a second crack at legislating. The Dems offered the GOP very little in this deal. Biden would claim victory if the bill passes, probably enforce the border during the election season, and once the election was over every loophole in the bill would be utilized by the left to flood the border again with immigrants.

I prefer to just boost Trumps chance at election which would allow us to actually fix the border.

If Dems gave us a real bill with teeth and banned the current asylum situation I would vote for the bill and give them the win, but they are not doing it.

I mean a clean bill where we close the border. And not the I claim asylum bullshit.

Why can’t we just have a clean bill that closes the border?

You say the golden triangle. The south is richer than they have ever been. There is always going to be some excuse. America will always be richer than every where else so there will always be economic demand.

I find it interesting you did not try saying these are real asylum seekers.

I prefer Trump over the bill because I know the bill does nothing when the wrong party is in power. Biden could have stopped this but chose not to.

It is in the US. I am not sure it is true in the EU. The population boom in Africa and the population shrinkage makes that feel far more possible over there.

I think it’s far more of a real threat for them and one reason I think Europe might go hard right politics at some point.

I haven’t seen anything specific but based on Biden not sending more equipment it seems true. They will blame the GOP for not passing bills but supposedly he’s had plenty of authorization.

I don’t think peace was ever on the table unless it meant return to pure vassal state. And Ukraine stays poor. Poland very well may be the strongest country in Europe in our lifetime. That’s a tough trade to do when you see how well being a real people like the Polish is.

On 1. Can a lawyer answer for me how that case has gone forward. It feels as though there are serious questions on the law in the case versus proving whether he did the acts in question.

Interpreting the law seems like a question for judges not juries. I guess my question is did Bragg provided the SOL run to the current judge and he agreed it’s a correct interpretation. Now the jury is deciding if he did the actual acts? If he’s convicted then does Trump challenge Bragg’s interpretation of the law to try and get the conviction thrown out. To me it would make more sense to challenge the legal interpretation of the law first (does SOL apply). Then do the jury trial.

Even if Trump is convicted now I feel like there are years of appeals. Potentially all the way to the SC to litigate whether SOL applies. Obviously not a lawyer but I would have thought he could have done a lot of challenges before the trial on the SOL issues. There is no reason to have a jury trial on whether he’s guilty if the underlying act he’s accused of either isn’t a crime or is protected by SOL.

Is Tiberius Gracchus someone we are expected to know here as common knowledge? I’ve actually read Gibbons huge book and can’t place him a long time ago. I assume I am just expected to be smart enough to google and hit Wikipedia.

Yes this is a trivial problem to solve. We already have a massive auto insurance industry. Everything looks like self-driving cars will be safer than human drivers.

You either add it to the costs of the car as essentially pre-bought insurance for the purchaser (which should be cheaper than current policies) or work out some long-term payment plan on the buyer for yearly insurance (with some kind of termination in time after so many years etc).

I an am an ‘80’s kid. We had Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George Bush. Bill Clinton had to brand himself as a neoliberal because the GOP was crushing it.

For all George Bush faults we still worked off the old American deal of a meritocracy. I don’t know the exact date things changed but everything was normal then.

I think the Weatherman sort of prove my point. A few got academic posts but were no threat to me.

Brainwashing has you know a Wikipedia with a defined meaning: “Brainwashing (also known as mind control, menticide, coercive persuasion, thought control, thought reform, and forced re-education) is the concept that the human mind can be altered or controlled by certain psychological techniques. Brainwashing is said to reduce its subject's ability to think critically or independently, to allow the introduction of new, unwanted thoughts and ideas into their minds,[1] as well as to change their attitudes, values, and beliefs“

Which is exactly how you used the word. This just seems like boo outgroup to me.

Or are you saying you used brainwashing in a positive way as in removing ideas that are proven wrong? Did you use brainwashing as in “the round earthers brainwashed the flat earthers who now see the errors in the old models”?

I have no idea why “the majority of whites are against” even means anything. Many things that eventually become accepted by society were unpopular at one point. Once upon a time I believed in Santa Claus.

I consider myself a white nationalist at least adjacent. I’m against killing Jews. I’m pro-English style colonization as a great good. I’m pro-police. I’m pro-western values and civilization as better. I think ethnostates often have a lot of beneficial features.

Jews are just a white ethnicity now. Sacredness is gone.

What they do have is power.

It doesn’t seem very fair to call WN as “brainwashing” or “propaganda”. A lot of their ideas seem very truthful to me. It’s probably impractical to make the US Sweden today, but a society like that with low crime and a far larger percent of their population being able to function in the modern world and therefore a higher trust society and a larger capability for a welfare state feels truthy to me. It’s not like they are just making stuff which brainwashing or propaganda seems to apply to me.

It’s definitely an honest debate on whether the US should move in a white nationalist direction (limit immigration, promote western civ, meritocracy, expect minorities to live by white standards, etc). And very honest for Europe to turn anti-immigrant so they do not develop similar problems as the USA.

That is obviously the Latino versus black debate. It appears the IQ gaps are relative small but the criminality eventually seems to disappear in Hispanic populations but not black populations.

What do you mean by “not well understood”. Do you mean economists do not understand why or the average guy doesn’t understand why.

I think economists would easily cite things like land restrictions, failure to build infrastructure, zone restrictions etc as the cause of high home prices.

Definitely possible. I would say maybe 33% from this hypothesis. And the rest is liberals just take more of these positions and slowly move the foundation into their taste.

People seem to be indicating that NPR was closer to the middle back when she died and left them money. And the change in NPR occurred 10-15 years later.

Probably a good job hunting search for clearly right people to look into these sort of jobs. If an old dude is like 80 and you are mid-career 40 there are likely a lot of opportunities in being the head of the foundation with clear right side traits.

I also want to point out Bezos seems to be going the opposite way with his wife. Old wife spending on leftist causes. I don’t know Lauren Sanchez current politics but they just bought a huge house in Palm Beach. Rich Latin women in Southern Florida screams conservative. Her friends will be. I feel confident predicting the Bezos will be solid GOP donors within about 10 years.

It’s not a laffer curve element. That’s for raising tax revenue alone. It includes other indirect costs like government interest costs.

https://www.thebigquestions.com/2011/04/18/the-man-who-cant-be-taxed/

This thought experiment was popular on econ blogosphere back then. It seems roughly right to me.

Now someone above mentioned they consume capital gains and quit working. The story gets a bit different then since higher cap gains taxes or full consumption would lead to him entering the labor market producing more goods and services for others to consume.

But in general without causing a change in behavior (rich consuming less, getting people to work more) there would be no net gain in government fiscal position.

Elon Musks for example can’t be taxed. If you took $100 billion from him it’s not changing his lifestyle. Just numbers on a bank account. He would still work and he consumes so little compared to his net worth consumption changes would be meaningless.

The traditional economics is that taxing capital doesn’t raise any net tax revenue.

A short summary is all this stuff goes thru the capital markets. A country with high saved wealth has more money sitting in financial assets. A huge amount of financial assets causes money to bid up the price of financial assets. The reverse of a securities price is its yield. Hence a lot of saved assets ends up leading to things like lower real interest rates (or negative real rates). So cheap mortgages and cheap government borrowing. What the government gains in tax revenue is offset by increases in their interest expense. All sums up to 0 net government revenue.

He didn’t say he was going full send in the Air Force. But he did promise more arms than they’ve gotten.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-russia-ukraine-war-b2377077.html

It’s possible in the long-term.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/jan/20/by-2050-a-quarter-of-the-worlds-people-will-be-african-this-will-shape-our-future

4.28 billion Africans in 2100. 1-1.5 billion coming to Europe is possible since it will be wealthier. Europes population is stagnant or declining.

Without cultural change in Europe it would seem quite possible.

He also indicated he would strong arm Russia into peace.

Sure for 50 years. I was trying to steelman. In 150 years it’s back to Canada and US in the view from Moscow.

Fairly sure you are technically wrong on “illegals immigrants”. Being intellectually honest when these debates were going on the asylum seekers are “legal”. They are allowed to claim asylum without proof but that status makes them legally allowed to be in the U.S.

But I too just call them illegals immigrants for dramatic effect. But the Biden administration has in fact found a way to make them “legal”. It’s embarrassing that illegal is technically wrong.

If 2 million “asylum” immigrants is the best deal we can negotiate with Dems then I support a full fledged Trump coup and the end of the Republic.

One is a long term coup and the other is a short term coup. Same thing.