Why doesn't truth matter & middle ground

[rangerx]

Trump has native American soldiers in his office today. He opened by insulting Sen. Elizabeth Warren, using a racial slur. In truth it's Trump who said it, not "they". His lies are that obvious.

Truth is, if he represents the truth as America knows it, then America has become a land of serfs under a psychotic dictator. What an embarrassment! A slap in the face to democracy and an affront to human decency.

Not to be outdone though, he insulted CNN international as fake news. As the walls close in around his inner circle by the special prosecutor, Trump is reiterating the phony assertion that his involvement with Russia is a liberal conspiracy cooked up because they lost the election. Top that off with him challenging the Access Hollywood tape as fake.

So, in one day. Insults to native Americans, a lie about coining derogatory names. Then derides the media for reporting the truth. Then lied about his own sexism.

Then of course, the lies about the consumer protection agency and their role, so they can gut that for the sake of their cronies corruption.

The republican sycophants (including the OP) eat it up the lies, the illegality and affronts to the constitution  like good little Russians, they've been indoctrinated to be. Putin won.

The OP loves to cite the 2nd Amendment as a constitutional tool to prevent tyranny, yet fail to recognize the tyrant in their midst, instead using it as a means to facilitate mass shootings.

America has lost. Not just to itself, but to the rest of the world too. For shame.

[waitforufo]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Optimism doesn't put food on the table.

Neither does pessimism, but if it did you would never go hungry.  Lighten up.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

What peer-reviewed research can you point to that shows it to be BS? Or is it that it needs to be BS because it disagrees with your narrative?

You stated that memories of a better past was nothing more than childhood nostalgia.  My 20s, 30s, and 40s were all very prosperous.  So my memories of a better past are quite clear and don't involve my childhood.  

10 hours ago, swansont said:

I asked about the economic conditions necessary to "bring forth prosperity again" and you've replied with an anecdote about the past. You have a narrative, not an argument. Not that I'm surprised.

How about this.  If you want to bring forth prosperity again, vote Republican.  Democrats are focused on putting people on the dole. 

10 hours ago, swansont said:

How many 20-somethings do you know with a 12th grade education who have made it into the middle class? What do they do for a living?

First, I said "an economy that produces  jobs that a person with a 12th grade education can get and work their way up to the middle class. "  That might not happen while you are still in your 20s.  I certainly wouldn't have considered myself middle class while I was in my 20's, but I was moving up fast.  I am up to your challenge however. 

Nephew, 27, Electrician, Newmont Mining, Elko NV.  Started working at the mine at 19.  At 21 applied for an electrician assistant position.  Now he makes $75k base.

Nephew, 26, Heavy equipment operator, Battle Mountain NV.  Started working at the mine at 20.  At 22 applied for heavy equipment operator trainee,  Now makes $85k base.

Cousin's son, 29, Oil Rig operator Williston, North Dakota.  Started as a mudder at 20.  Now makes $80 base.

Niece's Husband, Mechanic, Started at a local shop based on high school auto shop class. Took his ASE certification on line.  Now works a local dealership.  Makes $50k

My kids all have college degrees and two of them are not doing as well as the miners or the oil patch worker and they are all older.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

I think, upon closer examination, you will find that the GOP cares far less about education, except a means to enrich themselves. (see: current Secretary of Education, proposed tax legislation)

Well if you are going to get yourself deep in debt getting an education, gainful employment certainly isn't a frivolous incentive.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

All Americans, huh? I did Nazi that coming. 

 See, there you go with that pessimistic and my I add paranoid BS again.  Just how many Nazi's do you think there are in the United States.  How many people do you think are there supporters. Virtually all Americans condemn white supremacists.  To say otherwise is delusional.  Take a xanax 

  

Edited November 27, 2017 by waitforufo

[Ten oz]

14 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

 

You stated that memories of a better past was nothing more than childhood nostalgia.  My 20s, 30s, and 40s were all very prosperous.  So my memories of a better past are quite clear and don't involve my childhood.  

  

When was this 20yrs of prosperity and how are you quantifying it: GDP, unemployment, inflation, average wage, or what?

[waitforufo]

Well it all started with a president named Ronald Reagan.  Yeah his first term sucked a bit but after the train wreck of Jimmy Carter what could one expect.  Ronnie's second term was economically fantastic.   From Ronnie's second term through GHW Bush, Bill Clinton, and all but the last year of GW Bush times were good.  A few ups and downs but nothing too serious.  I base that on the increase in prosperity of every person I know and every person I worked with.  

[Ten oz]

33 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Well it all started with a president named Ronald Reagan.  Yeah his first term sucked a bit but after the train wreck of Jimmy Carter what could one expect.  Ronnie's second term was economically fantastic.   From Ronnie's second term through GHW Bush, Bill Clinton, and all but the last year of GW Bush times were good.  A few ups and downs but nothing too serious.  I base that on the increase in prosperity of every person I know and every person I worked with.  

 How are you quantifying prosperity: GDP, unemployment, inflation, average wage, or what? This is the 3rd time I am asking.

[waitforufo]

7 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 How are you quantifying prosperity: GDP, unemployment, inflation, average wage, or what? This is the 3rd time I am asking.

Well the wages were particularly good, but I would have to say opportunity.  Jobs were plentiful.  .  

[Ten oz]

22 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Well the wages were particularly good, but I would have to say opportunity.  Jobs were plentiful.  .  

So you are aren't willing to answer the question? GDP is a measured thing we can look at, as if unemployment, inflation, average wage, graduation rate, home ownership percentage, and etc. You aren't answering the question. Rather you are just saying you felt things were better then. 

 

[rangerx]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

So you are aren't willing to answer the question?

Since when does waitforufo answer questions insomuch as trolling up new one's to deflect from the issues presented to them?

[waitforufo]

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

So you are aren't willing to answer the question? GDP is a measured thing we can look at, as if unemployment, inflation, average wage, graduation rate, home ownership percentage, and etc. You aren't answering the question. Rather you are just saying you felt things were better then. 

 

I said job were plentiful and easy to find.  I think that points to unemployment no? 

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

I said job were plentiful and easy to find.  I think that points to unemployment no? 

Only in the same way that me commenting about vegetables in my garden speaks to childhood hunger across the nation. 

[Ten oz]

17 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

I said job were plentiful and easy to find.  I think that points to unemployment no? 

Unemployment at the end of Obama's tenure was good as Reagan's or Bush 41's. So by this your standard Obama (Democrat) delivered the same economic conditions as Reagan or Bush 41?

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

 

[waitforufo]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Unemployment at the end of Obama's tenure was good as Reagan's or Bush 41's. So by this your standard Obama (Democrat) delivered the same economic conditions as Reagan or Bush 41?

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

 

Look at economic growth then.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543

Clinton didn't do to bad, but not as good as Reagan and Bush.

 

Also, the quality of jobs today sucks.  Jobs under Reagan/Bush were great.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

Well the wages were particularly good, but I would have to say opportunity.  Jobs were plentiful.  .  

Jobs?

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

I said job were plentiful and easy to find.  I think that points to unemployment no? 

Rgr that, jobs!

39 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Unemployment at the end of Obama's tenure was good as Reagan's or Bush 41's. So by this your standard Obama (Democrat) delivered the same economic conditions as Reagan or Bush 41?

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

 

You're welcome.

26 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Look at economic growth then.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543

Clinton didn't do to bad, but not as good as Reagan and Bush.

 

Also, the quality of jobs today sucks.  Jobs under Reagan/Bush were great.

Oh, it isn't jobs anymore?Huh, it is GDP now? Okay, which agencies official numbers shall we use?

[MigL]

Its not too often that I agree with RangerX, but just to add to the list of trade deals that have been 're-negotiated' in bad faith by the current American administration, I offer up the Boeing dispute with Bombardier and its new C series airliners.
Boeing, afraid that their slice of the airliner pie is shrinking from competition by Airbus and Embraer, and emboldened by the Trump administration's 'America First', decided to go after Bombardier ( before they become viable competition ) when Delta ordered 90 aircraft from them. They launched a complaint with the State Department, which promptly slapped a 300% tariff on the Bombardier airliners, as Boeing claims they cost 80 mill apiece to produce, but Delta is only getting charged approx. 20 mill apiece. They claim Bombardier can afford to do this because of government ( federal and provincial ) subsidies; This claim from a defense contractor, the most heavily subsidized American industry.
Delta still wants their aircraft, though, so Airbus walks in and buys a 51% controlling interest in the C series, and since Airbus produces some of their aircraft in the US, they are able to sell without tariffs. Airbus gained market share, and Boeing got bent over and violated.

This type of attitude with the US' biggest/best trading partners will come back to bite them in the a*s everytime, and is counterproductive to rebuilding/improving the economy which Waitforufo remembers. Unfortunately, I don't think the manufacturing jobs which provided that robust economy, and which left North America during/after that period are ever coming back.

 

[rangerx]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Its not too often that I agree with RangerX, but just to add to the list of trade deals that have been 're-negotiated' in bad faith by the current American administration, I offer up the Boeing dispute with Bombardier and its new C series airliners.
Boeing, afraid that their slice of the airliner pie is shrinking from competition by Airbus and Embraer, and emboldened by the Trump administration's 'America First', decided to go after Bombardier ( before they become viable competition ) when Delta ordered 90 aircraft from them. They launched a complaint with the State Department, which promptly slapped a 300% tariff on the Bombardier airliners, as Boeing claims they cost 80 mill apiece to produce, but Delta is only getting charged approx. 20 mill apiece. They claim Bombardier can afford to do this because of government ( federal and provincial ) subsidies; This claim from a defense contractor, the most heavily subsidized American industry.

At least you and I as Canadians see eye to eye on some issues, because they affect us in the same ways. Americans supporting Trump on the other hand would rather bite off their own noses to spite their faces. PM Harper was a crook, a liar and a bigot, but he had thick skin and was not childishly obsessed with his opponents. He did what he did with conviction and in no uncertain terms. He was a strong leader, unlike the shell of a man in the White House today.

American neocons are all giddy about a supposed couple of grand per year extra, while Ivanka and Don Jr. get several million hacked off their inheritance taxes when the old man rots in hell. Then of course, double, triple or even quadruple health care, or deny it entirely. New home, no problem, who cares if it costs 30-35% more than under NAFTA, so long as Trump wins. Trump and his base of minions think, ha, we'll fix those over apologetic canucks by docking our own people and pocketing the cash. Meanwhile in Canada, nothing changed. We did our jobs, got paid what we expected and moved on. And I laugh, I'm sure you do too. Remember when Americans bought French wine at export/import retail, just so they could pour it down the drain? They sure fixed those guys that can't even speak American, huh? Even though it was less than 10 years ago, I'll bet most Americans don't even recall why, without having to google it.

Thought they'd never admit it, republicans apparently love big government taking money through added or hidden taxation, under the guise of tax breaks and incurred more debt than any party in history.

America isn't back on track to greatness, it's rapidly going to hell in a hand basket. A cold, (un)civil war. That won't change until they come the realization that truth really does matter. Not a minute before.

[swansont]

13 hours ago, waitforufo said:

 You stated that memories of a better past was nothing more than childhood nostalgia.  My 20s, 30s, and 40s were all very prosperous.  So my memories of a better past are quite clear and don't involve my childhood.  

That's not actually what I said, but it's interesting that you summarize it this way. Are you even aware of the straw men that you are making?

13 hours ago, waitforufo said:

How about this.  If you want to bring forth prosperity again, vote Republican.  Democrats are focused on putting people on the dole. 

Prosperity like the the great recession? (Republican leadership across the board) Or most recessions (9 out of the last 10 under Republican presidents)

How about some facts? The economy does better with democrats at the helm. here's a link. (I know you're allergic to putting them in your own posts)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/11/07/trump-is-right-about-one-thing-the-economy-does-better-under-the-democrats/#257208476786

 

13 hours ago, waitforufo said:

First, I said "an economy that produces  jobs that a person with a 12th grade education can get and work their way up to the middle class. "  That might not happen while you are still in your 20s.  I certainly wouldn't have considered myself middle class while I was in my 20's, but I was moving up fast.  I am up to your challenge however. 

Nephew, 27, Electrician, Newmont Mining, Elko NV.  Started working at the mine at 19.  At 21 applied for an electrician assistant position.  Now he makes $75k base.

Nephew, 26, Heavy equipment operator, Battle Mountain NV.  Started working at the mine at 20.  At 22 applied for heavy equipment operator trainee,  Now makes $85k base.

Cousin's son, 29, Oil Rig operator Williston, North Dakota.  Started as a mudder at 20.  Now makes $80 base.

Niece's Husband, Mechanic, Started at a local shop based on high school auto shop class. Took his ASE certification on line.  Now works a local dealership.  Makes $50k

My kids all have college degrees and two of them are not doing as well as the miners or the oil patch worker and they are all older.

Good for them.

Can we build an economy where everyone is an electrician or oil rig worker, etc.? 

13 hours ago, waitforufo said:

Well if you are going to get yourself deep in debt getting an education, gainful employment certainly isn't a frivolous incentive.

Not addressing the point. Again.

13 hours ago, waitforufo said:

 See, there you go with that pessimistic and my I add paranoid BS again.  Just how many Nazi's do you think there are in the United States. 

One is too many, but you said "All Americans want to see opportunities for everyone", so your admission that there are Nazis (and other versions of white supremacists, etc.) means that it's not all Americans. Your statement was inaccurate. 

13 hours ago, waitforufo said:

How many people do you think are there supporters. Virtually all Americans condemn white supremacists. 

The president is one notable exception to this.

13 hours ago, waitforufo said:

To say otherwise is delusional.  Take a xanax 

Was Heather Heyer's death all in her head? 

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Was Heather Heyer's death all in her head? 

This is why facts matters. Some people attempt to create false equivalences between BLM, kneeling football players, and White Supremacists but free speech and murder aren't equivalent. 

[waitforufo]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Was Heather Heyer's death all in her head? 

What's truly unfortunate going forward is that the white supremacist murderer will likely get off.  His defense will be a simple one.  All he has to do is convince one juror that he was fleeing for his life from a murderous mob trying to break into his car to kill him.  He will claim it was a simple case of self defense.  

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

He will claim it was a simple case of self defense. 

And his claim would be easily rejected in by a country that values evidence and truth since we have video of the event disproving such a claim. The problem, of course, as being discussed as a central topic in this very thread, is that for a great many in our country the truth and evidence no longer matter.

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

What's truly unfortunate going forward is that the white supremacist murderer will likely get off.  His defense will be a simple one.  All he has to do is convince one juror that he was fleeing for his life from a murderous mob trying to break into his car to kill him.  He will claim it was a simple case of self defense.  

I suspect the clop-clop-clop I hear is you galloping away from the questions before you, as you answer a rhetorical question and try to move the discussion in another direction.

[waitforufo]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

And his claim would be easily rejected in by a country that values evidence and truth since we have video of the event disproving such a claim. The problem, of course, as being discussed as a central topic in this very thread, is that for a great many in our country the truth and evidence no longer matter.

Perhaps you should study the legal meaning of reasonable doubt.  The driver was in town to participate in a march and rally which received a legal permit by the city.  There is plenty of video of the counter protesters initiating clashes with legally permitted march and rally participants.  Now I'm sure they have the car as evidence.  Now if that car has dents and scratches in the hood, trunk lid, and rear quarter panels that's all evidence.   His defense simply has to create a reasonable doubt in the mind of one juror that the defendant was fleeing for his life and the Nazi bastard will get off.  Having been on a criminal  jury, I think he has a good chance of getting off.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

I suspect the clop-clop-clop I hear is you galloping away from the questions before you, as you answer a rhetorical question and try to move the discussion in another direction.

No, I was just in a bit of a hurry when I made that post.  Now that I have more time let me get back to your post.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

That's not actually what I said, but it's interesting that you summarize it this way. Are you even aware of the straw men that you are making?

You were dismissing my previous comments about past prosperity with your studies on childhood nostalgia.  So I pointed out that my memories of the past were not from my childhood.  Your studies therefore do not apply.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

How about some facts? The economy does better with democrats at the helm. here's a link. (I know you're allergic to putting them in your own posts)

And I presented my counter facts.  Economic growth during the second Reagan term per year was, 7.3%, 4.2%, 3.5%, and 3.5%.  Under Obama economic growth was -0.3%, -2.8%, 2.5%, 1.6%, 2.2%, 1.7%, 2.6%, 2.9% ,1.5%.  Never once in 8 years did economic growth break 3% under Obama. Sure Obama was burdened with the great recession, but Reagan was burdened with the stagflation of Jimmy Carter.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Good for them.

Can we build an economy where everyone is an electrician or oil rig worker, etc.? 

You gave me a challenge, and I rose to the challenge. I showed that people with at 12th grade education can still work there way into the middle class.  Also, I think we need more jobs where people can do this. I think all of us should be interested in assuring that those with a 12th grade education can make it into the middle class.  I would be surprised to find out that the Democratic party would find such a goal bad or foolish.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Not addressing the point. Again.

  What is your point?

5 hours ago, swansont said:

One is too many, but you said "All Americans want to see opportunities for everyone", so your admission that there are Nazis (and other versions of white supremacists, etc.) means that it's not all Americans. Your statement was inaccurate. 

Yes one is too many, but what are your going to do?  Round them up and put them in camps.  After that will Republicans be next?

Oh wow, you got me there.  There are a tiny minority of bad people that don't want opportunities for everyone.  Your hysteria is however blown way out of proportion.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Was Heather Heyer's death all in her head? 

I believe I covered this one.

Edited November 28, 2017 by waitforufo

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

The driver was in town to participate in a march

 

Most people do that on foot.

16 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

and rally which received a legal permit by the city.

Now we're talking.

18 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Perhaps you should study the legal meaning of reasonable doubt.

Indeed, driving at full speed in a rally is perfectly reasonable, it's the bloody spectators that get in the way that is to blame.

28 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

There is plenty of video of the counter protesters initiating clashes with legally permitted march and rally participants.  Now I'm sure they have the car as evidence.  Now if that car has dents and scratches in the hood, trunk lid, and rear quarter panels that's all evidence.   His defense simply has to create a reasonable doubt in the mind of one juror that the defendant was fleeing for his life and the Nazi bastard will get off.  Having been on a criminal  jury, I think he has a good chance of getting off.

Oh, you were being serious?  my bad...

[swansont]

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

You were dismissing my previous comments about past prosperity with your studies on childhood nostalgia.  So I pointed out that my memories of the past were not from my childhood.  Your studies therefore do not apply.

Allegedly do not apply, to you. But that would be completely beside the point, on both fronts. Having good memories of later years is not a rebuttal to the studies, and unless you are claiming to be representative of all people, such an anecdote is not a rebuttal to the findings.

Quote

And I presented my counter facts.  Economic growth during the second Reagan term per year was, 7.3%, 4.2%, 3.5%, and 3.5%.  Under Obama economic growth was -0.3%, -2.8%, 2.5%, 1.6%, 2.2%, 1.7%, 2.6%, 2.9% ,1.5%.  Never once in 8 years did economic growth break 3% under Obama. Sure Obama was burdened with the great recession, but Reagan was burdened with the stagflation of Jimmy Carter.

Presented, as in past tense? I didn't see any facts.

Why only give Reagan's second term? Maybe because it was 2.6% and then  -1.9%  in the first two years? (7.3% was in '84, the last year of his first term) And why compare to Obama? (I know why. The cherries are just too delicious not to pick them. Can't compare to Clinton, or include either of the Bushes.)

https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543

 

Quote

You gave me a challenge, and I rose to the challenge. I showed that people with at 12th grade education can still work there way into the middle class.  Also, I think we need more jobs where people can do this. I think all of us should be interested in assuring that those with a 12th grade education can make it into the middle class.  I would be surprised to find out that the Democratic party would find such a goal bad or foolish.

I asked about policies, too, and how such things could work for the whole country, not just a select few. You say we need more jobs where we can do this — what jobs would these be?

Quote

  What is your point?

That your insinuation that the democrats don't care about education and the republicans do is BS.

Quote

Yes one is too many, but what are your going to do?  Round them up and put them in camps.  After that will Republicans be next?

More red herrings and innuendo. Your claim was that there are none, since all Americans want everyone to proper. How about just admitting that you were engaging in hyperbole?

Quote

Oh wow, you got me there.  There are a tiny minority of bad people that don't want opportunities for everyone.  Your hysteria is however blown way out of proportion.

Part of this (allegedly tiny) minority is currently in power. So no, I don't my "hysteria" is blown way out of proportion.

Quote

I believe I covered this one.

No, I don't believe you did.

[CharonY]

49 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

And I presented my counter facts.  Economic growth during the second Reagan term per year was, 7.3%, 4.2%, 3.5%, and 3.5%.  Under Obama economic growth was -0.3%, -2.8%, 2.5%, 1.6%, 2.2%, 1.7%, 2.6%, 2.9% ,1.5%.  Never once in 8 years did economic growth break 3% under Obama. Sure Obama was burdened with the great recession, but Reagan was burdened with the stagflation of Jimmy Carter.

I assume we are talking about annual GDP growth rate. When we look at those numbers we see that the highest average rates were (in order) Kennedy (5.4%), Johnson (5%), Clinton (3.8%), Reagan (3.5%), Carter (3.2%) Nixon (3%), Eisenhower  (2.5%), H.W. Bush (2.1%), Bush (1.6%), Obama (1.2%). I am a bit lost on the overall point of it. At least I would be hard-pressed to see that either party has a working plan to benefit working class. The literature is contentious, but there are really no good stories regarding the US working class. Some conclude that the overall social mobility is declining since the 90 (esp. compared to other countries, and especially in the lowest income classes,  as the  paper from Wilkinson and Pickett suggest). Others with longer-term data suggest that it was always low. One thing that seems to be a common themes is that it is consistently overrated in the US.

 

[swansont]

Just now, CharonY said:

I assume we are talking about annual GDP growth rate. When we look at those numbers we see that the highest average rates were (in order) Kennedy (5.4%), Johnson (5%), Clinton (3.8%), Reagan (3.5%), Carter (3.2%) Nixon (3%), Eisenhower  (2.5%), H.W. Bush (2.1%), Bush (1.6%), Obama (1.2%). I am a bit lost on the overall point of it.  

I was rebutting the claim that voting for the GOP is in your economic best interest. But as we see, waitforufo decided to compare the GOP's best performance with the democrat's worst.