Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

You can?t do any polling with PDJT in the question. You have to ask the question generally. Do you support tariffs? Do you support tariffs to help steel? Do you support free trade?

Yeah, I agree the sampling gets skewed by dropping his name. But I'm thinking in general the reversal has occured....Dems overall more in favor of free trade than "conservatives" now

[Ghengis Jon]

320,000,000 times 1,000,000

you math much bro?

Eh, just general numbers for a point. Once you reach a certain level of wealth, more doesn't matter. Nothing against Bezos.

Glad to see geezer is alive, figured a little poke would trigger a spew of hollow propaganda for us to enjoy.

[Ghengis Jon]

I see that Chump reiterated last night that he's running for re-election. Wonder how the market will react to that statement today.

[Kapture1]

Eh, just general numbers for a point. Once you reach a certain level of wealth, more doesn't matter. Nothing against Bezos.

Glad to see geezer is alive, figured a little poke would trigger a spew of hollow propaganda for us to enjoy.

I get that a leftist would take the position that the state should confiscate 100% of a person's income after a certain point, but Bezos would be that rich if he sold his stock and divested right now. Thats like counting your winnings in a casino before cahsing in. Same reason Buffett never worries about a major drop in the stock market, and the same reason the only ones that should worry about a major drop in housing values are the ones selling.

But if he had that much cash, and gave everyone in the country 4 bucks he would have just spent over a billion dollars. I think 1,000,000 to every person to "wipe out poverty" would cost 320 trillion dollars. And that wouldn't work because in a year you would have the same % of people in poverty because there are people that are just unable to be responsible with money, and you know it.

[iam416]

Yeah, I agree the sampling gets skewed by dropping his name. But I'm thinking in general the reversal has occured

I really can't remember where the Ds were with NAFTA, but they've seemed like they've been generally free trade since Bill. They may have ticked up a little bit. I reiterate, that's what made HRC's TPP bullshit so hard to stomach for me.

The difference is that the Rs have started to take in the "blue dog Ds" or State of Youngstown voter. Traditional Rs are still very much free trade. The Youngstown voter, however, is with the Rs these days. So, their collective support has ticked down considerably.

If you did a straight poll with legit questions my guess is Ds favor free trade slightly more than Rs -- which is a big change, but it's not the +/- 60 points shown in the poll you linked. In fact, my guess is a majority of people in each party would support "free trade" AND "tariffs to help US industries" -- if phrased like that.

[iam416]

David French on intersectionality: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...ngerous-faith/

Co-signed.

And, of course, the #GentryProgs in full action: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...cation-agenda/

It's so fucking Orwellian.

[SeattleLionsFan]

What are your thoughts on the State of Georgia repealing tax breaks for a company because of its associational beliefs and “speech” in withdrawing NRA discounts?

That seems to be a criminally underreported move by the government to undermine a company’s ability to freely associate.

[iam416]

Companies that enter the political arena are subject to the political process. I would be adamantly opposed to the legislature imposing a fine on a company or otherwise treating that company negatively relative to Georgia law. That would not only be a First Amendment issue but likely an attainder.

I am not opposed, in the least, to a state legislature removing a benefit from a company and treating them like anyone else. Corporations, of course, are entitled to their own speech and actions. If they choose to wade into the political field then they ought to consider political ramifications. There is, afterall, no legal reason why any political body has to give any corporation a tax break. You spend a lot of time lobbying for those breaks and convincing the legislature that they're good for the folks (lol...or cynically, good for the legislators) and they enact them through the political process. But it's always easy come, easy go. So, be on your best behavior and avoid pissing off the constituents of the folks who voted you that break.

I know it’s not the free speech issue of an Evanston elementary school

Well, I agree that the relatedness of the two is not at all. I mean, if it were actually meant to be an analogy, it's a terrible one. I do not find it odd, however, that your first thought isn't "well, this is weird" but rather, fuck those Georgia republicans. Good job staying Woke, my friend.

[Kapture1]

So Kappy, what would you do with $112B?

I'd build a stone castle out in the woods on a lake, establish a trust for my descendants and give the rest away.

I would give everyone in America 40 bucks and live on welfare.


I mean why employ 10's of thousands of people and provide investments and products that people want when I can give everyone in America 40 dollars and solve poverty once and for all?

[SeattleLionsFan]

Companies that enter the political arena are subject to the political process. I would be adamantly opposed to the legislature imposing a fine on a company or otherwise treating that company negatively relative to Georgia law. That would not only be a First Amendment issue but likely an attainder.

I am not opposed, in the least, to a state legislature removing a benefit from a company and treating them like anyone else. Corporations, of course, are entitled to their own speech and actions. If they choose to wade into the political field then they ought to consider political ramifications. There is, afterall, no legal reason why any political body has to give any corporation a tax break. You spend a lot of time lobbying for those breaks and convincing the legislature that they're good for the folks (lol...or cynically, good for the legislators) and they enact them through the political process. But it's always easy come, easy go. So, be on your best behavior and avoid pissing off the constituents of the folks who voted you that break.


Well, I agree that the relatedness of the two is not at all. I mean, if it were actually meant to be an analogy, it's a terrible one. I do not find it odd, however, that your first thought isn't "well, this is weird" but rather, fuck those Georgia republicans. Good job staying Woke, my friend.

I had edited out that comment before your response posted because it was needlessly provocative. It?s very strange to me though that you are so focused on stupid meaningless bullshit and bigger free speech issues go unmentioned.

How do you draw the line about what speech the government can punish by withdrawing benefits and which speech can not be punished? Can a city cancel a variance because a developer doesn?t give enough money to Planned Parenthood?

Can a state deny a business license to any company that doesn?t use unionized labor?

[iam416]

I had edited out that comment before your response posted because it was needlessly provocative. It’s very strange to me though that you are so focused on stupid meaningless bullshit and bigger free speech issues go unmentioned.

Well, that's where we disagree. The stupid meaningless bullshit of today is the convention of tomorrow. The #GentryProgs have their faith and it's not going away. Evanston may be but a canary, but it's a canary in a coal mine. You don't much care, so whatever. Personally, I find the idea of segregation stupid. But here we are, in the 21st C, with numerous Universities having all-black dorms. I find the idea of a K-12 curriculum designed to dismantle the white power structure preposterous. But it's taking hold. I find the idea of purely outcome-based, disparate impact analyses mind-numbingly stupid. Yet, they control.

So, you know, we disagree. You don't have to read the article nor do I have any illusion that we'll ever be within three time zones of agreeing on any of the above. One day, though, 15-20 years from now, you'll say -- hmmmm....that stupid ass bullshit Talent was complaining about...seems like its commonplace. You won't care because you agree with it -- so there's that.

How do you draw the line about what speech the government can punish by withdrawing benefits and which speech can not be punished?

As I said, it's fairly easy -- actually, remarkably straight-forward. Governments can't penalize companies or individuals for political speech. And they can't penalize companies and individuals through legislation in any event (Bill of Attainder). They can, however, treat all companies and individuals of whatever the class may be equally. If a company is given a legislative benefit -- a tax break or other incentive -- that's a benefit. Removing the benefit is not a legal penalty, it simply restores that company to parity with all others in its class.

To answer your questions -- are the variances normally given? If the are, then no. If they are not -- if this is a special exception, then yes. The state can pass a law that requires a company use unionized labor (I think). I imagine they can implement that through licensing procedures. However, they must be applied equally. If, e.g., a company successfully lobbied a State for an exception to the law, then the State could, fucking of course revoke that exception at its whim.

[hack]

I agree that the selective focus of the character Talent plays here -- discriminatory within the context of any particular issue -- is quite notable, and raises questions about the whole edifice. But he knows that and is cool with that. Plus he is from Ohio and still lives there so we should only expect so much.

[AlabamAlum]

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
Then the whining schoolboy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slippered pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything."

-WS

[hack]

Agreed. By the way, when's your next exit?

[hack]

But, anyways, look -- if there's one thing I know you'll all agree on its that Robert Mueller is the best-dressed independent prosecutor in the history of the republic, and the finer points of his shirting choices make clear the heroism and leadership on display, especially in contrast with the sloppy president and the sharkskin spendthrift Manafort. The fashion choices alone justify the investigative efforts.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/on-and-off-the-avenue/robert-mueller-style-icon