Donald Trump

[Dax777]

The problems of the US are far more structural than just Trump, when Trump is gone there is a fair likelyhood that we will get a new one like Trump or even a more radical on than Trump.

The next conservative candidate will be far more conservative than Trump. That's certainly a guarantee. And that's partly because Trump isn't terribly Conservative.

Frankly i hope Biden gets as much SCOTUS reforms trough while he still can.More as a way from stopping it getting worse than a way to get it better but thats the situation the US is in.

I doubt there'd be any Scouts reform l. Other than Biden nominating someone to it if one of the current Members resign or passes away.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

The problems of the US are far more structural than just Trump, when Trump is gone there is a fair likelyhood that we will get a new one like Trump or even a more radical on than Trump.

Frankly i hope Biden gets as much SCOTUS reforms trough while he still can.More as a way from stopping it getting worse than a way to get it better but thats the situation the US is in.

I hope you're wrong and I think you might be. Trump lost in 20, the red wave was a trickle in the midterms, and if Trumpism can again be repudiated in 24, the GOP can continue to try to run out the retreads again or recognize that the message isn't bringing anyone new under the tent and is in fact increasingly alienating and angering people.

But to your point . . . as GOP voter volume dies/drops, its ever more important for the hardcore base to show up, which means you need to kowtow to them as a GOP representative, so it's a quandary -- expand the message/base and alienate the hardcore and/or risk being primaried/not winning, or think long-term about crafting a new message.

They've only themselves to blame and as I've said often it won't get easier as more southern states gradually turn blue due to in-migration from CA and the northeast states. That said, the SF Fed did an interesting paper recently predicting a return to in-migration to the midwest/northeast thanks to climate change, so maybe that slows/reverses the move to the south.

 

[FlemishDuck]

I hope you're wrong and I think you might be. Trump lost in 20, the red wave was a trickle in the midterms, and if Trumpism can again be repudiated in 24, the GOP can continue to try to run out the retreads again or recognize that the message isn't bringing anyone new under the tent and is in fact increasingly alienating and angering people.

But to your point . . . as GOP voter volume dies/drops, its ever more important for the hardcore base to show up, which means you need to kowtow to them as a GOP representative, so it's a quandary -- expand the message/base and alienate the hardcore and/or risk being primaried/not winning, or think long-term about crafting a new message.

Pointing to demographics for one is not a bad argument i must admit.

Somewhere between 20 and 30 years ago i was warning people for the trend of the increasing wealth gap between poor and rich. My concern was that this trend would continue to graduatly make democracy more shallow as that wealth would buy more and more influence versus the rest trough such things like lobbying, clientilism and media control.

This is a trend that seems to continue up to this day withought slowing down. And that forms my main concern as to the likelyhood that we will arrive at some more oliarchic/autocratic system.

But another big cocern is automation and what might it might lead to in the future, especially when it spawns the question "do we really need as much people in the world that we have, wouldnt it be much better if for those who remain if we had far less", this very question and the interests behind it i fear might at some point cause something very serious indeed, a sort of push for "poppulation reduction", one that might prove Capitalisms real sollution to climate change. Indeed the strongest argument facism might ever find for itself is "8 billion people is not nessecary, we'd be better of with just having 100 million on the globe, can work just as well if not arguably better ... for the ones remaining".

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Pointing to demographics for one is not a bad argument i must admit.

Somewhere between 20 and 30 years ago i was warning people for the trend of the increasing wealth gap between poor and rich. My concern was that this trend would continue to graduatly make democracy more shallow as that wealth would buy more and more influence versus the rest trough such things like lobbying, clientilism and media control.

This is a trend that seems to continue up to this day withought slowing down. And that forms my main concern as to the likelyhood that we will arrive at some more oliarchic/autocratic system.

But another big cocern is automation and what might it might lead to in the future, especially when it spawns the question "do we really need as much people in the world that we have, wouldnt it be much better if for those who remain if we had far less", this very question and the interests behind it i fear might at some point cause something very serious indeed, a sort of push for "poppulation reduction", one that might prove Capitalisms real sollution to climate change. Indeed the strongest argument facism might ever find for itself is "8 billion people is not nessecary, we'd be better of with just having 100 million on the globe, can work just as well if not arguably better ... for the ones remaining".

The future:

 

[FlemishDuck]

The future:

Please please someone invent a working FTL engine already.

 

[Dax777]

Be really honest now, have you actually read any of the scientific literature on this?

Any? Yes, I've read a few.

I’m not talking about blog posts, I’m talking about peer reviewed papers and studies from proper medical bodies. Doctors who know what they’re talking about and have decades of experience?

I have read lots of both. Reports, reviews and reviews of reports. But that's neither here nor there.

Because I hear this a lot. I’m not the one out here claiming to know about things I don’t. I readily admit my knowledge is weak, and so I defer to people who dedicate their lives to study.

But you are claiming to know though. Because you are accepting they claims of some people.

Do you have evidence the people you are differing to are experts and that they are correct?


I think what you have here is a burden of proof problem. The burden of proof doesn't lie with those who have known one thing to be true for eternity, it lies with those who claim that which has always been true, isn't. And that something fantastical and impractical should replace it.

It isn't that this isn't possible, it's that great proof is required for great claims. And there seems to be very little around.

Yet you seem to be making some kind of absolute claim that you know the answer and therefore can confidently assert it is all 100% nonsense.

I don't have to be certain they are wrong. They have to be certain they are right and then show indisputable evidence.

There is hardly any. And a lot of institutions that bought into it are now backing out.

So who is the one supposedly flexing some form of superior intellect here? Because it looks like it’s you from my angle.

Again, not to change the topic or get bogged down in a trans-ideology debate. The simple pount im making, which I'm sure you can understand, is that 'Science' isn't always just science. Sometimes, it's simply ideology in a costume.

BTW it's worth noting that your argument here mirrors that of those often deemed anti-intellectual.

Funny how we sometimes come full circle.

 

[KS55]

This is a self patronizing definition. People are not anti intellect. They just don't think it is the be all and end all. They are not intellectual, as most of those who disagree philosophically with the self styled "intellectuals" are themselves intellectuals. They just disagree with the self anointed types.

They are not opposed to science. They are opposed to those who use science as a cuddle when it suits them but ignore it when it doesn't.

But the above definition is very smart, it tries to ridicule the very thing it in fact is sometimes. Very often 'Science' is simply political or else how does one explain the proliferation of many genders and changing sexes? What's the science of that?

Im essence, they are opposed to faux-intellectualism Often exhibited by those who mistake their ideological preferences for intellectual superiority.

To repeat what a libertarian intellectual once said "your indoctrination is not a sign intellectual superiority."

Blimey, Dax, you’ll have people agreeing with you next.

 

[Vienna_70]

I haven't commented on the political situation, just on a statement that seemed to claim that anyone who voted for Trump was uneducated, but failed to mention that maybe his opponents had a fair share of lesser educated voters also. Then the pile on started, as is the wont on the BM political forum.

I'm told that I'm a closet Trumper, need to educate myself until I agree with the groupthink, get called stupid, a troll etc, etc.... Someone even claims to know me better than I know myself. LOL

I think that I may have disturbed their reacharound ?

No one claimed that anyone, who votes for Trump is uneducated.

The original statement was that people, who didn’t go to college, are more likely to vote for him.

There is a huge difference.

It was you, who either didn’t read the post correctly, or chose to interpret it erroneously.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I'm always amused by these types of analysis. Because you'd never find an equitable in depth analysis of worse things said by Liberals.

Trump thinks Black jobs will be impacted the most by illegal immigration. He is right. Low wage jobs of whixh a higher proportion of black workers rely on will be most impacted by illegal immigration.

I personally think it is those who don't have skin in the game that don't get it. I'm not surprised a rich and famous black athlete doesn't get it.

Anyway, to each their own.

Setting aside that “black jobs” is dog megaphone racist, there is absolutely no evidence that immigration (even extremely high “burst” immigration over a short period) has any significant impact on employment or wages, other than some evidence that it actually may increase wages (and lower prices) in the mid-term. That includes lower and middle wage households.

In fact, often immigrants are one of the only things actually propping up local economies.

Immigrants are not hurting U.S.-born workers: Six facts to set the record straight

The immigrant share of the labor force reached a record high of 18.6% in 2023, according to our analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.{{1}} Anti-immigration advocates have been out in full force, using this as a talking point for deeply misguided...

www.epi.org

What Immigration Means For U.S. Employment and Wages

Our nation’s immigration policy continues to be an issue of debate among policymakers, particularly the impact on the U.S. labor force. Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney highlight the economic evidence on what immigration means for U.S. jobs and the economy.

www.brookings.edu

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/Untying_the_Knot_Series_051909.pdf

Immigrants Contribute Greatly to U.S. Economy, Despite Administration’s “Public Charge” Rule Rationale | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The Department of Homeland Security’s recently finalized “public charge” rule directs immigration officials to reject applications from individuals who seek to remain in or enter the U.S....

www.cbpp.org

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/02/27/economy-immigration-border-biden/

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w21123/w21123.pdf

Here is the abstract from the NBER paper linked above:

Most research on the effects of immigration focuses on the effects of immigrants as adding to the supply of labor. By contrast, this paper studies the effects of immigrants on local labor demand, due to the increase in consumer demand for local services created by immigrants. This effect can attenuate downward pressure from immigrants on non-immigrants' wages, and also benefit non-immigrants by increasing the variety of local services available. For this reason, immigrants can raise native workers' real wages, and each immigrant could create more than one job. Using US Census data from 1980 to 2000, we find considerable evidence for these effects: Each immigrant creates 1.2 local jobs for local workers, most of them going to native workers, and 62% of these jobs are in non-traded services. Immigrants appear to raise local non-tradables sector wages and to attract native-born workers from elsewhere in the country. Overall, it appears that local workers benefit from the arrival of more immigrants.

 

[Vienna_70]

I think Trump is a knob and id never vote for him, but calling him a fascist or a nazi is ridiculous. Words like racist or nazi are losing all meaning because of how easily they are being thrown around

But he is a racist.

It’s been proven beyond doubt.