Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:28 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Yes, contrary to all the actual evidence, they think national healthcare and programs like CHIP and SNAP and subsidized school lunches are somehow ineffective.

Or else they know what the evidence says and just don't care.

So fine, maybe some of them don't hate (poor and nonwhite) kids, they're just idiots.


How would you test this hypothesis? looking at say, adoption rates by party for mixed race families? If they* hate non-white kids, then Republicans would have fewer of the latter resulting from adoption, yes?

*Or, let's say, a statistically significant amount of them. We don't actually need *everyone* Republican to be racist to impact the rates

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:34 pm UTC

Yes, comparing transracial adoption rates is surely the only possible way to discover whether one of the main political parties might be more racist than the other. And that's definitely what it would show, too. Nobody who adopts a black baby can be racist, just like nobody who adopts a daughter can be sexist.

Edit: Also if it somehow turned out that one party was statistically no more likely to be individually racist than the other, that would for certain prove that neither party tends to contribute more to institutional racism than the other.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:41 pm UTC

With regards to children, anyways.

The point isn't that adoption makes you free from flaws, but it seems reasonable to expect that racists in the US would probably be less likely to embrace mixed race families. So, it's a possible test. I would expect results like "disproportionately adopts white babies" or "disproportionately adopts male babies" to point in a certain direction, yknow?

It's not the only possible test, though. Is there another one you have in mind?

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10010
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:43 pm UTC

ech...I am stupidly, Jumping In.
I agree that the Pro-Lifers are Pro-Child.

I know these pep[le, too.
They are decidedly Anti-Adult Women.

That is what I get from taking to them.
"Just put the child up for adoption." they say.

My blood pressure goes up and my eyes cross.
"Just??!"

After carrying a pregnancy to term??
That is a thing a woman can do.

That is Not something Any woman should be forced to do.
Not by economic pressure, not by Law, not by anything!

Even if you are poor, frightened and dark skinned.
No one should do that to another person.

I hate this conversation.
I want Trump to give the children back to their biological parents.
Even if, there are economically better homes, with good christen values, waiting to scoop them up.

Abortions will still happen, even if Roe vs Wade is overturned.
It will go back to being a privilege of The Rich, like it was.

That is not what I was responding to.
This Thread moves Fast sometimes.

ech...I'm leaving my response as a stand alone.
Last edited by addams on Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:47 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:46 pm UTC

addams wrote:That is Not something Any woman should be forced to do.
Not by economic pressure, not by Law, not by anything!


Oh, agreed. Those who give up kids for adoption, knowing that it's best for the kid...they made a hard choice. Good 'on 'em. But trying to force everyone into the adoption path, no.

I think we're all of a similar mindset on that, we're simply using the abortion issue as a venue to explore the conservative and liberal mindsets.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:47 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
It's not the only possible test, though.
It's a bullshit possible test and wouldn't show any of those things.

But neither would any other test of individual racism, even if it was accurate for that.

Gutting programs that demonstrably help poor people is institutionally racist, even if it's done exclusively by people ignorant enough to think it isn't. (It's also institutionally anti-every other group that is disproportionately poor, such as LGBTQ folx and single mothers, which was my point earlier about the "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" lie libertarians like to tell themselves.)

If you cared about poor and marginalized kids and you're not a dumbass who refuses to face demographic and economic evidence, you'd support social programs like food stamps and healthcare.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:55 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Yes, contrary to all the actual evidence, they think national healthcare and programs like CHIP and SNAP and subsidized school lunches are somehow ineffective.


Actually, many see the problem with government programs is that they are very effective, and displace the services once provided by religious institutions...

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:58 pm UTC

So, racism isn't testable?

Gutting programs that demonstrably help poor people is institutionally racist, even if it's done exclusively by people ignorant enough to think it isn't. (It's also institutionally anti-every other group that is disproportionately poor, such as LGBTQ folx and single mothers, which was my point earlier about the "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" lie libertarians like to tell themselves.)


Not every "pro poverty" plan has, in practice, been helpful to those they ostensibly support. It is popular for every plan to claim it's helping every disadvantaged group, but in practice, ehhh.

For instance, lets look at SNAP. It's got a means test, and it's pretty obviously food for kids, the poor, etc, right? As safety net programs go, it's probably among the easiest to justify.

Yet, if you look at SNAP expenditures per capita, they track closely to the unemployment rate*. Therefore, keeping the economy strong pretty directly keeps people from needing SNAP in the first place. Prioritizing economic issues is a perfectly reliable, pro-child/poor policy.

*Page 21, https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/upload ... -21-16.pdf

CorruptUser wrote:Actually, many see the problem with government programs is that they are very effective, and displace the services once provided by religious institutions...


Morals get odd when you factor souls in. Suddenly, a lot of things become justifiable based on preventing an eternity of suffering.

That said, the US is getting less religious in general, but a lot of other policies ain't budging. So, it isn't just religion.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:04 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
So, racism isn't testable?
Yeah that's definitely a thing I said. Well spotted.

For instance, lets look at SNAP. It's got a means test, and it's pretty obviously food for kids, the poor, etc, right? As safety net programs go, it's probably among the easiest to justify.

Yet, if you look at SNAP expenditures per capita, they track closely to the unemployment rate. Therefore, keeping the economy strong pretty directly keeps people from needing SNAP in the first place. Prioritizing economic issues is a perfectly reliable, pro-child/poor policy.
Yes obviously fewer people need social safety nets when more people are doing well. But that's only a relevant observation if those safety nets can't be implemented alongside policies that improve unemployment.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:23 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
So, racism isn't testable?
Yeah that's definitely a thing I said. Well spotted.


Well, you said "It's a bullshit possible test and wouldn't show any of those things. But neither would any other test of individual racism, even if it was accurate for that. "

So, what other conclusion am I to draw from my request for a way to test your claim?

For instance, lets look at SNAP. It's got a means test, and it's pretty obviously food for kids, the poor, etc, right? As safety net programs go, it's probably among the easiest to justify.

Yet, if you look at SNAP expenditures per capita, they track closely to the unemployment rate. Therefore, keeping the economy strong pretty directly keeps people from needing SNAP in the first place. Prioritizing economic issues is a perfectly reliable, pro-child/poor policy.
Yes obviously fewer people need social safety nets when more people are doing well. But that's only a relevant observation if those safety nets can't be implemented alongside policies that improve unemployment.


In at least some part, increased social spending will always trade off with economic potential. Be it taxes, debt or inflation, the bill is paid in some manner that trades off against economic well-being.

Democrat folks are remarkably big on telling us that economic goals are just not reasonable any more, and we need to lower our expectations. Clinton, on the election circuit, told folks that coal jobs were not coming back. On a broader scale, many claimed that high rates of economic growth promised by Trump were unrealistic or impossible*. Now, in fairness, Trump does talk a lot of crap, but tax cuts and so on did prompt increasing growth.

It is the view of the right, as well as the fiscally conservative/socially liberal crowd you despise, that significantly better economic potential is possible over what we see now. Yeah, Trump and his administration might have bumbled onto a few winning things, but it's possible to do way better yet than Trump has done. Proper economic growth will lift more out of poverty than twerking social safety nets will, and those safety nets add economic drag.

*http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-3percent-20170519-story.html or https://money.cnn.com/2016/10/11/news/e ... index.html

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:59 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
So, racism isn't testable?
Yeah that's definitely a thing I said. Well spotted.


Well, you said "It's a bullshit possible test and wouldn't show any of those things. But neither would any other test of individual racism, even if it was accurate for that. "

So, what other conclusion am I to draw from my request for a way to test your claim?
The conclusion to draw is the one I thought I stated fairly explicitly: individual racism isn't the same as institutional racism, so tests of individual racism won't show you (very much about) where institutional racism comes from. ("Even if it was accurate for that" means "Even if it was accurate for individual racism", by the way.)

Trump does talk a lot of crap, but tax cuts and so on did prompt increasing growth.
Growth for whom, exactly?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1935
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:07 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Those who stoop to things like bombing or advocating violence while claiming to value life are guilty of hypocrisy, sure. Direct conflict there.

However, Republicans at large appear to care about children. For starters, they have a lot more of them*. Where is the proposed hypocrisy?

*https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=2344929&page=1
Even if pumping out a lot of kids did actually imply caring more about their offspring, enlarging and caring about your own family isn't the same as caring about children generally.

And this being a political discussion, I was obviously referring to political stances and actions, not personal family planning.


You know who else has a lot of children? Frogs and salmon. Wolves, bears and gorillas have far fewer children than frogs and salmon.

Tyndmyr wrote:How are Republicans anti-child as a matter of political stances and actions, then?

gmalivuk wrote:They don't tend to vote Republican, though, because that real concern also leads to such radical leftist views as "Kids should be able to eat and get medical care regardless of how rich their parents are" and "We shouldn't spend trillions of dollars killing people in other countries".


(added after seeing postscript). Republicans don't oppose government health care because they hate children. They oppose it because they believe government managed healthcare to be ineffective.

Likewise, advocating defense spending is a far cry from hating children.


Iraqi children actually find bombs quite delicious, and are able to extract 90% of the nutrients from them.

Iraqi?

Image

Eh, wherever. I'm sure Israeli kids can digest bombs too. They look like Iraqi kids, don't they?
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6588
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:10 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Now, in fairness, Trump does talk a lot of crap, but tax cuts and so on did prompt increasing growth.
First, it's temporary.

Second, it comes at a great cost (consumer protection, the ecology...)

Third, I'm not at all convinced that the tax cuts are what is continuing the long streak of growth from the Obama era.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
Select 10 years, and note that this is a graph of growth, not a graph of gdp.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:30 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Trump does talk a lot of crap, but tax cuts and so on did prompt increasing growth.
Growth for whom, exactly?


For everyone to some degree. Low unemployment helps the lower income levels most, because they disproportionately suffer the results of high unemployment. That said, he definitely skewed the direct advantages of the tax cut toward the wealthy.

It's a cinch that Trump's actions are not ideal. A great deal more economic improvement is possible over and above his policies. Yet even the status quo under the Trump administration(which is, of course, a result of far more than Trump himself), is superior to what many on the left are aiming for, and represent a great result historically.

Imagine if you had someone truly competent at the helm with an equivalent focus on the economy first.

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Now, in fairness, Trump does talk a lot of crap, but tax cuts and so on did prompt increasing growth.
First, it's temporary.

Second, it comes at a great cost (consumer protection, the ecology...)

Third, I'm not at all convinced that the tax cuts are what is continuing the long streak of growth from the Obama era.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
Select 10 years, and note that this is a graph of growth, not a graph of gdp.

Jose


It's a significant spike, outperforming the Obama years as a whole. There's always *some* growth, but the rate bounced significantly after Obama left office. However, Politifact rates as "mostly true" the claim that Obama was the first administration to never have a single year of 3%+ growth. If you average Obama's yearly results, you get 1.5% growth. The economic recovery under Obama was pretty modest, and it seems unlikely that the effects required Trump's election in order to appear.

Traditional democrat-leaning sources predicted that under Trump, the economy would do worse and the stock market would take a major hit. It's been some time now, and neither result has materialized. The narrative the left has been pushing is that the modern economy, safety nets and all, simply cannot perform at historical levels.

The right believes it can, if only you get rid of sufficient drags on the economy. This does involve some tradeoffs, particularly for the ecology, but the nature of the economy is of exponential growth. Even if we round down to say that there's only 1% additional growth by pursuing an economy-first policy, that's compounding every year on the previous year. Over time, that results in huge gains, which help handle just about any problem.

On the other hand, the recession shows just how costly poor fiscal management can be. The housing bubble, while it may have helped some people at the time, is a significant long term setback if you care about exponential gains.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:43 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
Trump does talk a lot of crap, but tax cuts and so on did prompt increasing growth.
Growth for whom, exactly?

For everyone to some degree. Low unemployment helps the lower income levels most, because they disproportionately suffer the results of high unemployment.

Having a job that still fails to pay for essentials like both rent and medicine is not the kind of improvement you seem to think it is.

And "trade-offs" like sacrificing the ecology and infrastructure and social safety nets just mean you're trading long-term benefits (such as "air with few enough carcinogens to survive on for a while" and "coastal cities that don't flood every time there's a spring tide") for short-term growth (for the wealthiest fraction of a percent, usually).
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Trump presidency

Postby natraj » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:43 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The point isn't that adoption makes you free from flaws, but it seems reasonable to expect that racists in the US would probably be less likely to embrace mixed race families. So, it's a possible test. I would expect results like "disproportionately adopts white babies" or "disproportionately adopts male babies" to point in a certain direction, yknow?


lmao if you think this is true you haven't actually spent much time thinking about or talking directly to folks who have been directly impacted by transracial adoption have you yiiikes.

anyway the problem of white people, ESPECIALLY in the conservative christian community but not exclusively, thinking they are going to "save" children from their savage / heathen background specifically by adopting kids of a different racial background and then proceeding to abuse the fuck out of those kids is a Thinig that has been discussed Extensively in the transracial (as in adoption, not as in dolezal) community but why is it surprising that tyndmyr continues to talk out of his ass?

anyway, i too grew up deeply -- deeeeeply -- enmeshed in pro-life community. like, heavily! like if i said who my father was and you have any inkling at all about pro-life community/politics you almost certainly know him; i have childhood pictures with everyone from james dobson to pope john paul 2 and used to have frequent family dinners with clarence thomas, these types of people were basically my entire life and community on the american side of my family (thank g-d the nonamerican side of my family are all commies.)

it's true that some of them on some level do in fact think they "care" about "saving babies", but not in ANY way that makes even the smallest shred of rational sense; not even if ALL you care about is ending abortion. they do not support any policies at all that would actually reduce the numbers of abortions, they support policies that will punish women for having abortions. i do not think they think about it that way, and that they firmly believe they care about "saving babies", but in practice they do not advocate for anything at all that will lower the abortion rate.

the majority of them, though, absolutely do not care about babies, at any level. they care about a specific notion of moral purity that includes vindictively shaming and punishing women for not toeing their line, and this was drilled into me and everyone else who was socialized female around me. i grew up hearing women called "sluts" and "whores" nonstop, directly in the context of why we should punish women for getting pregnant. specifically and directly, this was the actual reason given for why reproductive freedom did not matter: because women who were slutty deserved punishment, up to and including death. this was not an anomaly, this was the actual message, told not by some outliers but repeatedly, vocally, directly, from the time we were children up through adulthood, by people in all ranks of respectability of the conservative/pro-life movement. if anyone tells you that these people, writ large, have other motivations, they're lying.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:06 pm UTC

natraj wrote:it's true that some of them on some level do in fact think they "care" about "saving babies", but not in ANY way that makes even the smallest shred of rational sense; not even if ALL you care about is ending abortion. they do not support any policies at all that would actually reduce the numbers of abortions, they support policies that will punish women for having abortions. i do not think they think about it that way, and that they firmly believe they care about "saving babies", but in practice they do not advocate for anything at all that will lower the abortion rate.


Oh, it's a dumb strategy they're using, to be sure. Trying to get the supreme court to roll back Roe v Wade is utterly doomed to failure, and despite it not working for literally decades, they still set hope in it. It's a kind of dogmatic inflexibility.

There are definitely way more practical ways to reduce abortions from a support perspective. Some pursue that, but there is an element of relying on authority to force people to do things their way. It's the main theme of their strategy.

I don't think that the stupid strategy demonstrates a lack of belief in their ideology or hypocrisy...it just is a result of a ton of authoritarianism, and the nature of religion. Fighting a doomed fight is still virtuous to them, so feh, they ain't gonna stop just because it doesn't work. Flip side, if they were smarter about strategy, they might do more legal damage. They're sufficiently overt with attempted banning and de-facto banning that nobody is likely to fall for any of their BS.

the majority of them, though, absolutely do not care about babies, at any level. they care about a specific notion of moral purity that includes vindictively shaming and punishing women for not toeing their line, and this was drilled into me and everyone else who was socialized female around me. i grew up hearing women called "sluts" and "whores" nonstop, directly in the context of why we should punish women for getting pregnant. specifically and directly, this was the actual reason given for why reproductive freedom did not matter: because women who were slutty deserved punishment, up to and including death. this was not an anomaly, this was the actual message, told not by some outliers but repeatedly, vocally, directly, from the time we were children up through adulthood, by people in all ranks of respectability of the conservative/pro-life movement. if anyone tells you that these people, writ large, have other motivations, they're lying.


See, I never heard that kind of language directed at them. Now, are the religious nutter sorts super-judgy? God yes. Basically anyone other than them ends up being at least tacitly accepted as inferiors by them, thanks to religion and what not. That said, death for promiscuity wasn't a normal moral. At least in the midwest, the normal viewpoint was that you were supposed to get married, and dutifully care for the kids you didn't want for the next eighteen years. Still a fucked up viewpoint, but perhaps there are regional differences. That said, even at the rallies and stuff, I didn't hear stuff along the "deserving of death" lines. Maybe the occasionally backhanded comment about abortion doctors, but not generally the folks getting the abortions, who were generally cast in the role of ignorant victims.

As an aside, I wonder if we were ever drug to some of the same events. At least in the midwest, they freaking loved using kids as the face of the movement. Lots of kid-made signs, for instance. In my area, they paid kids $5 a sign to make 'em, with possible prizes if enough of the adults really liked yours.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:23 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:See, I never heard that kind of language directed at them.
Well in that case, it must not happen.

That said, even at the rallies and stuff, I didn't hear stuff along the "deserving of death" lines. Maybe the occasionally backhanded comment about abortion doctors, but not generally the folks getting the abortions, who were generally cast in the role of ignorant victims.
There are current politicians and pundits who have advocated the death penalty for the people who get abortions.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6588
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:25 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:It's a significant spike, outperforming the Obama years as a whole.
No it's not. There is no spike, let alone one of any significance, from the Trump administration. It is basically a continuation of the rate from 2010. There's a little noise, and we're actually in a downtrend at the moment.

The years from 2018 to 2010 were from a recession that predated Obama, and which was caused by a housing bubble under (now who was it before Obama?). Presidents are not magicians. Obama could not be reasonably expected to fix the problem instantly.

We are looking at the first year and a half of Trump's reign. I can pick a year too: From 2009 to 2010, under Obama, growth went from negative eight, to positive four. And while the -8 was in Obama's term, again its root cause is from the Shrub's term in office. There are cherries all over to pick from.

Tyndmyr wrote:[Growth] does involve some tradeoffs, particularly for the ecology, but the nature of the economy is of exponential growth.
No, exponential growth is not "in the nature of the economy". It seems so, because population is growing exponentially, but resources are not. If you throw all the logs in the fire, the fire will burn hotter. But the night is long.

And economic growth is not a good thing in and of itself. It is merely an aspect, one of many, of a good, happy, and rewarding life, and this life is being lived by people, not by corporations. Economic growth is of no use if you can't breathe the air or drink the water, or can't send an email without it being read by those who would decide whether or not you can buy a house, or get a job, or vote. And while this seems like hyperbole, it isn't. I lived in SoCal in the 70s; you could not see more than a mile in front of you on many days of the year, my eyes burned, and my throat was always dry. I've gone back now many times as a visitor; it is night and day the difference; the air is clear for miles - like you can see the mountains from way down in the valley! Flint, Michigan is in the news for similar reasons. Though I've never been there, I have no reason to doubt the news.) And you should read the privacy statement for Oath - the mashup of Yahoo, AOL, Verizon, and who knows what else. They claim ownership and rights to everything you send, including the rights to examine and analyze email attachments like photos, spreadsheets, business documents, audio files, medical info, everything that's on their servers. And it looks like it extends to everything that has ever been on their servers. Just click here.

Be careful what you wish for. An economy first policy is throwing all your garbage on your front lawn to save money on trash removal, and then spending your savings on rat poison. But that's ok; you'll be moving out in a few years, and the poison tastes like strawberries.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10010
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:31 pm UTC

Alright....Okay-Dokay....
You two Win in the Creepy Story Category.

hummm....That explains Tyndmyr's 'take' from Time-to-Time.
From your story, I gather, Tyndmyr; You have lived a sheltered existence.
You were raised to pass Judgement quickly and often. It's normal for you.

Do you have any University Experience?

EDIT: oh, Jose; That was entertaining.
And; Very poetic, for you. ...hummm.
If you throw all the logs in the fire, the fire will burn hotter.
But the night is long.
That is visually pretty, for the mind's eye.
An economy first policy is throwing all your garbage on your front lawn to save money on trash removal, and then spending your savings on rat poison. But that's ok; you'll be moving out in a few years, and the poison tastes like strawberries.
We don't always agree.
When we do, we do it Biggy.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:20 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:For everyone to some degree. Low unemployment helps the lower income levels most, because they disproportionately suffer the results of high unemployment. That said, he definitely skewed the direct advantages of the tax cut toward the wealthy.
It's a cinch that Trump's actions are not ideal. A great deal more economic improvement is possible over and above his policies. Yet even the status quo under the Trump administration(which is, of course, a result of far more than Trump himself), is superior to what many on the left are aiming for, and represent a great result historically.
Imagine if you had someone truly competent at the helm with an equivalent focus on the economy first.
It's a significant spike, outperforming the Obama years as a whole. There's always *some* growth, but the rate bounced significantly after Obama left office. However, Politifact rates as "mostly true" the claim that Obama was the first administration to never have a single year of 3%+ growth. If you average Obama's yearly results, you get 1.5% growth. The economic recovery under Obama was pretty modest, and it seems unlikely that the effects required Trump's election in order to appear.
Traditional democrat-leaning sources predicted that under Trump, the economy would do worse and the stock market would take a major hit. It's been some time now, and neither result has materialized. The narrative the left has been pushing is that the modern economy, safety nets and all, simply cannot perform at historical levels.
The right believes it can, if only you get rid of sufficient drags on the economy. This does involve some tradeoffs, particularly for the ecology, but the nature of the economy is of exponential growth. Even if we round down to say that there's only 1% additional growth by pursuing an economy-first policy, that's compounding every year on the previous year. Over time, that results in huge gains, which help handle just about any problem.
On the other hand, the recession shows just how costly poor fiscal management can be. The housing bubble, while it may have helped some people at the time, is a significant long term setback if you care about exponential gains.

You think the GOP's pace of spending and cuts is sustainable? Because I see Republicans, with Trump & swamprats co looting what they can, burning through our metaphorical seed money/rainy day funds. That tax cut to bring in international money was a 1 time deal,(at least several decades worth of previously untaxed receipts, all going in to pay for tax cuts.

You don't seem to believe in disparate impact, because your standard of proof is very high. Eg realtors steering black families away from white wealthy areas, or Dept. of Agriculture giving loans to black farmers last.

You seem to think that abortion for all, only via jumping through a bunch of hoops, is perfectly ok. I'll remind you that if guns were treated this way, you'd call it a de facto gun ban.
Spoiler:
I remember your rant about how Maryland treated gun owners trying to get a firearms license. The lack of providers, the restricted hours, time wasted etc etc. The prolife crowd is getting smarter, and won't just bash their heads repeatedly against the abortion wall (via reversing roe v wade). They already have a template via Texas/deep south states. They'll try to regulate abortions so it'll be rare for poor people in conservative states to have one. "Nearest Abortion clinic is 500 miles away, hope you get there during banker hours. It's surrounded by counseling centers, so good luck trying to find it."

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10010
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:21 am UTC

sardia wrote:You seem to think that abortion for all, only via jumping through a bunch of hoops, is perfectly ok. I'll remind you that if guns were treated this way, you'd call it a de facto gun ban.
Spoiler:
I remember your rant about how Maryland treated gun owners trying to get a firearms license. The lack of providers, the restricted hours, time wasted etc etc. The prolife crowd is getting smarter, and won't just bash their heads repeatedly against the abortion wall (via reversing roe v wade). They already have a template via Texas/deep south states. They'll try to regulate abortions so it'll be rare for poor people in conservative states to have one. "Nearest Abortion clinic is 500 miles away, hope you get there during banker hours. It's surrounded by counseling centers, so good luck trying to find it."
Yep.
Yep
Yep.

Don't forget how the Well-To-Do look down their noses at those women who,
Haven't figured out what causes 'it'.

I can remember my Mother and her Friends laughing at women with....too many children.
My Mother and her Friends had access. It was not illegal; Just, impolite to talk about.

The loop of poverty was heartbreaking.
I look back at my Mom...she didn't know any better.

Birth Control is One Hell of a Lot Better than it was in those days.
Yet; Sexually Transmitted Diseases are More Deadly!

We! Need! Planed! Parenthood!
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
dubsola
Posts: 2292
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:55 am UTC
Location: Sunny Snakeville

Re: Trump presidency

Postby dubsola » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:27 am UTC

Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution by U.S. Stuns World Health Officials

A resolution to encourage breast-feeding was expected to be approved quickly and easily by the hundreds of government delegates who gathered this spring in Geneva for the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly.

Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.

Then the United States delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations.

Great job, America! You're doing swell.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5825
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Angua » Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:11 am UTC

dubsola wrote:Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution by U.S. Stuns World Health Officials

A resolution to encourage breast-feeding was expected to be approved quickly and easily by the hundreds of government delegates who gathered this spring in Geneva for the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly.

Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.

Then the United States delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations.

Great job, America! You're doing swell.

It's ok, Russia saved the day.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

Mutex
Posts: 1388
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:58 am UTC

I'm stunned the Trump administration would care more about corporation profits than the health and wellbeing of children.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10010
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:00 am UTC

Angua wrote:
dubsola wrote:Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution by U.S. Stuns World Health Officials

A resolution to encourage breast-feeding was expected to be approved quickly and easily by the hundreds of government delegates who gathered this spring in Geneva for the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly.

Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.

Then the United States delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations.

Great job, America! You're doing swell.

oh,...How shameful.
The Americans were blunt: If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced.
We were The Good Guys, Once Upon a Time. Hopefully, the nurses of Ecuador will continue to teach the health and financial benefits of breast-feeding to their young mothers. Nurses were on the front lines in the hand washing battle. I hope they fight this battle, too.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1935
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:10 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
ucim wrote:Second, it comes at a great cost (consumer protection, the ecology...)
The narrative the left has been pushing is that the modern economy, safety nets and all, simply cannot perform at historical levels.

The right believes it can, if only you get rid of sufficient drags on the economy. This does involve some tradeoffs, particularly for the ecology, ...


I checked some historical GDP figures, going back a few presidential terms, and China's doing better than the USA on minimum, average and maximum.

Image

Image

Image

The UK is consistently not doing as well as the USA.

Image

German's not doing quite as well as the USA either but is a sight more stable than UK or USA.

Image

I forget how well India's economy's been doing.

Image

Image

Image

If your chosen measure of the economy is the average income of the highest-earning 10% of the population, every increase in the wellbeing of the poorest 50% is going to look like economic damage. If you choose your measures carefully enough, you can probably make the end of slavery look like "an economic disaster from which the country has still not recovered." If you kicked all the poor people out of Vermont and Maine, divided them up into huge estates for the richest 5%, annulled all protection for people, environment and everything else outside those estates, ended Medicaid and Medicare and stopped funding schools, your richest 5% could live like kings. You know, Louis XVI of France, Николай II Алекса́ндрович, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, all that sort. Don't forget to whip your workforce out into the yard from 12 to 1 every day to make sure they get enough sunlight. You don't want them growing up all bendy-kneed from lack of vitamin D, do you?
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10010
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:50 am UTC

You have hit a Great Big Nail on its Head.

Cleaning up the Environment a bit did not 'Tank' our economy.
If the Regulations stay 'Slashed', we may not be able to recover.

Bad ole Uncle Pruitt has made a name for himself in the History Books.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:23 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:It's a significant spike, outperforming the Obama years as a whole.
No it's not. There is no spike, let alone one of any significance, from the Trump administration. It is basically a continuation of the rate from 2010. There's a little noise, and we're actually in a downtrend at the moment.

The years from 2018 to 2010 were from a recession that predated Obama, and which was caused by a housing bubble under (now who was it before Obama?). Presidents are not magicians. Obama could not be reasonably expected to fix the problem instantly.

We are looking at the first year and a half of Trump's reign. I can pick a year too: From 2009 to 2010, under Obama, growth went from negative eight, to positive four. And while the -8 was in Obama's term, again its root cause is from the Shrub's term in office. There are cherries all over to pick from.


Obama had no year with 4% growth.

The -8, in fairness, was due to the recession. That's a big enough event that a certain degree of bleedover is inevitible. I'm not focusing on that simply because focusing on that low point is not an accurate depiction of the Obama years overall. Focusing on the high points, and their relative weakness, is more fair.

Tyndmyr wrote:[Growth] does involve some tradeoffs, particularly for the ecology, but the nature of the economy is of exponential growth.
No, exponential growth is not "in the nature of the economy". It seems so, because population is growing exponentially, but resources are not. If you throw all the logs in the fire, the fire will burn hotter. But the night is long.


Every year's gains are over the preceding year's. As in individuals, wealthy countries tend to continue to be so, because a higher degree of wealth allows you to invest some portion of that towards additional gains. A large part of this country's overall wealth is a result of post-WW2 gains, multiplied forward.

Imagine a hypothetical world identical to ours, save for the housing bubble not occurring. You miss some of the reported climb from mis-valuation of housing, but the correction, when it happens, is much weaker. We may not be able to avoid every market downturn, but they don't have to be as rough as that recession was. You have a lesser recession, growth stays happier, and we're probably all better off at this point in time. Rich and poor alike.

addams wrote:Alright....Okay-Dokay....
You two Win in the Creepy Story Category.

hummm....That explains Tyndmyr's 'take' from Time-to-Time.
From your story, I gather, Tyndmyr; You have lived a sheltered existence.
You were raised to pass Judgement quickly and often. It's normal for you.

Do you have any University Experience?


Sheltered is not really the correct term. Poor/Religious would be accurate. I am now neither of those things, so I don't know that you could ascribe my outlook to merely copying what I was taught, though ascribing at least part of it as reactionary to my upbringing would be fair, I suppose.

Sure, I went to college. In addition to the standard CS track, I've taken a number of courses purely out of curiosity/personal desire to remediate poor early education. Creationist ideology makes for a poor biology education.

sardia wrote:You think the GOP's pace of spending and cuts is sustainable? Because I see Republicans, with Trump & swamprats co looting what they can, burning through our metaphorical seed money/rainy day funds. That tax cut to bring in international money was a 1 time deal,(at least several decades worth of previously untaxed receipts, all going in to pay for tax cuts.


I think the pace would be entirely sustainable if it were better focused. I view Trump as having sort of stumbled into this thanks to his populist approach and existing ideology within the republican party. This isn't quite the same as Trump having some kind of brilliant master plan for economy. He doesn't.

Now, a continued path of one time improvements is at least theoretically possible, but I agree that in many cases, it's not the main thrust of Trump's policies. If the trade war thing works out well, and we see tariffs at far closer to parity, that would be economically helpful. However, there's a big if in there. Kind of an open question at present.

You don't seem to believe in disparate impact, because your standard of proof is very high. Eg realtors steering black families away from white wealthy areas, or Dept. of Agriculture giving loans to black farmers last.


Individual discrimination via structural. I view disparate impact as a possible useful warning sign of racism, but I do not view every disparate impact as such. Intent matters a good deal. We can glance at Trump, and reasonably conclude that, in many cases, his policies have a disparate impact not merely as an accidental byproduct of an otherwise good policy, but as the actual intent.

I believe the difference between those two is significant.

As an abortion-relevant example, the right routinely considers the left racist because minorities disproportionately utilize abortion services. Since they view it as akin to murder, and there's historical ties between abortion advocacy and eugenics, they're happy to label their opposition as supporting genocide or what have you. This is incorrect, as it's imputing values and motivations that are inaccurate to the current fight. It's not their actual motivation. Just because a disparate impact exists does not imply ill intent, or even that a policy is necessarily bad.

You seem to think that abortion for all, only via jumping through a bunch of hoops, is perfectly ok.


That is incorrect. I'm not a particular fan of adding hoops and bureaucracy to abortion, or indeed, to much of anything else.

I do view the de-facto bans as still a fairly obvious tactic, and probably not likely to actually fool many on the left. Much as de-facto gun bans don't actually fool many on the right. They might claim, in a particular instance, that they do not actually want to ban abortion with this law, but when they talk so frequently about reversing Roe v Wade, the logical conclusion is that their intent is definitely to ban abortion, and most things they push are merely stepping stones toward that, not an attempt to make it safer or what have you. As you say, significant parallels between guns and abortion.
Abortion is being discussed as an example for discussing left/right ideologies, being a particularly partisan issue.

Sableagle wrote:I checked some historical GDP figures, going back a few presidential terms, and China's doing better than the USA on minimum, average and maximum.


Right now, sure.

Among other things, there is a cost to environment preservation, that's fair. It isn't the only thing with a cost, though. And at least in some cases, environmentalism is prioritizing the desires of the rich for things to look nice, over the desires of the poor to make a buck.

However, we are probably not at a point where the only way we could possibly improve the economy is by going to third world standards of pollution and sanitation. Our ecological debates are usually more about if we ought to dig for oil or not. Tradeoffs still exist here, but nobody's seriously considering going to China levels of pollution.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6588
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:25 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Obama had no year with 4% growth.
It may not have lasted a full year, but it's there on the graph. It went from -8% to +4% from 2009 to 2010. It was at 5.5% in 2014. Yes, these are the peaks of (probably) seasonal noise, but it's there. In any case, that's a quibble - the point is that the present economic growth is clearly a continuation of Obama's, and not a result of anything Trump did or is doing, no matter how much he bloviates on Twitter.

Tyndmyr wrote:focusing on that low point is not an accurate depiction of the Obama years overall. Focusing on the high points, and their relative weakness, is more fair.
No, it's equally unfair. Instead, look at the graph of growth referenced here (select 10 years), and pretend you don't know when the election happened. Can you see it in the data? I sure can't.

Tyndmyr wrote:Every year's gains are over the preceding year's.
This is not a given. It is just what happens during an economic expansion. It goes the other way too. We don't live in your "hypothetical world identical except for no housing bubble".

Tyndmyr wrote:Among other things, there is a cost to environment preservation, that's fair. It isn't the only thing with a cost, though. And at least in some cases, environmentalism is prioritizing the desires of the rich for things to look nice, over the desires of the poor to make a buck.
Environmentalism is prioritizing the future over the present. It is prioritizing the desires of the poor to have clean air to breathe and water to drink over the desires of the rich to have more wealth in their stock portfolio. Remember, the rich can afford bottled water and gas masks far easier than the poor can.

The same is true of breastfeeding - it's something the poor can do easier than buying formula and trying to find clean water to make it with. Prioritzing nature benefits the poor more than the rich. Destroying nature directly hurts the poor.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:59 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Obama had no year with 4% growth.
It may not have lasted a full year, but it's there on the graph. It went from -8% to +4% from 2009 to 2010. It was at 5.5% in 2014. Yes, these are the peaks of (probably) seasonal noise, but it's there. In any case, that's a quibble - the point is that the present economic growth is clearly a continuation of Obama's, and not a result of anything Trump did or is doing, no matter how much he bloviates on Twitter.


2014 did not have 5.5% growth. It had 2.4%
No quarter in 2014 had 5.5% growth, even.

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

You're relying on an estimation of a visualization over the source data, and it's leading you inaccurately. You don't get to portray the single highest point in time as equivalent to a yearly average, and then extrapolate that to an entire presidential term. That's ridiculous cherry picking.

Tyndmyr wrote:Every year's gains are over the preceding year's.
This is not a given. It is just what happens during an economic expansion. It goes the other way too. We don't live in your "hypothetical world identical except for no housing bubble".


Yes, you can have negative gains. But usually, the economy is expanding. Having a good year instead of a bad year, all else being equal, means compounding gains. Even a marginally higher average growth rate will become increasingly relevant after a number of years.

This should not be confused with "trump provides the highest possible growth rate", which is probably not true.

Environmentalism is prioritizing the future over the present. It is prioritizing the desires of the poor to have clean air to breathe and water to drink over the desires of the rich to have more wealth in their stock portfolio. Remember, the rich can afford bottled water and gas masks far easier than the poor can.


All investment is prioritizing the future over the present. Investing in the environment, a bridge, or a company is not different in that respect.

Prioritzing nature benefits the poor more than the rich. Destroying nature directly hurts the poor.


I dare say the poor are less able to tour national parks than the rich. And a lot more effort is put into cleaning up litter in rich neighborhoods than poor ones. Rich areas are a lot more likely to rate good flood protection efforts, get good water, and so on. The idea that every environmental effort helps the poor more than the rich is wrong.

Some might, but a lot of stuff is definitely skewed towards the wealthy. Consumer vehicles have a ton of restrictions meant to ensure low emissions, but private planes still use leaded gas.

Tobias
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:01 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tobias » Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:08 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I grew up among such people, and I disagree.

Don't get me wrong, the right has all kinds of weird hangups about sex, but abortion is a fight they don't give up on no matter how little sense it makes, and which they prioritize over many other, more reasonable and achievable goals. How they act is congruent with viewing it as murder.


I grew up among such people two. Of them, only two of the ones I've met were sincere about the baby murder thing, where no matter how deep you pried that was truly their driving motivation. Both of them were very religious women. Both of them ended up spending more time advocating birth control than they did fighting against abortion - they still viewed it as wrong, of course.

Not a single one of the other (many) people I've discussed it with actually gave a single flying fuck about the baby murder thing. Yes, they said they did, loud and often - but it was a rhetorical tool, nothing more. Something they said because it provided convenient cover. The real reason, the one that came out when they were drunk or when we were in a small group of trusting peers, was almost always the same: They didn't think women, specifically "sluts", should be allowed to get out of sex consequence free, and that other women not having abortions was an acceptable price to pay. Of course, if their daughter were to get impregnated by some reckless black man, of course that would be an exception and they'd have to regrettably get one done, but that exception is okay because their daughter isn't one of those people, and the entire point of the exercise isn't to save the lives of babies, it's to punish those people.

Considering how often they also hold birth control and sexual education in low regard, how they act towards abortion is way more congruent with the my actual lived experience of their real motivations than it is with the story they use to try to get their opponents on board with their desire to harm promiscuous women.

Tyndmyr wrote:Their ideals are generally self consistent, though, obviously, people fail to live up to them.


This could not be further from my experience. Their professed ideals are driven almost solely by associations and loyalties and hierarchies - not by any sort of cohesive underlying moral code, and change on a dime based on who they adhere too. This happens with all groups, of course, but it's particularly prevalent among the so-called conservatives.

Tobias
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:01 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tobias » Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:13 pm UTC

addams wrote:We were The Good Guys, Once Upon a Time.


Uh... this is perfectly in keeping with our historic relationships with central and south america.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:16 pm UTC

Tobias wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I grew up among such people, and I disagree.

Don't get me wrong, the right has all kinds of weird hangups about sex, but abortion is a fight they don't give up on no matter how little sense it makes, and which they prioritize over many other, more reasonable and achievable goals. How they act is congruent with viewing it as murder.


I grew up among such people two. Of them, only two of the ones I've met were sincere about the baby murder thing, where no matter how deep you pried that was truly their driving motivation. Both of them were very religious women. Both of them ended up spending more time advocating birth control than they did fighting against abortion - they still viewed it as wrong, of course.


Yeah, the anti-birth control goes together with anti-abortion really strongly, despite the former being a really good way to avoid the latter. That always seemed really strange to me, but eh, you've got some "children are a blessing" quiverfull vibes in some quarters.

Also, yes, strong association with women driving the anti-abortion thing in religious circles.

Tyndmyr wrote:Their ideals are generally self consistent, though, obviously, people fail to live up to them.


This could not be further from my experience. Their professed ideals are driven almost solely by associations and loyalties and hierarchies - not by any sort of cohesive underlying moral code, and change on a dime based on who they adhere too. This happens with all groups, of course, but it's particularly prevalent among the so-called conservatives.


Might be regional. Midwest has a heavy dose of religion among it's conservative/anti-abortion types. Not that religious sorts are immune to following authorities and hierarchies, but there's a strong dose of believing in policies for religious reasons. This gets a bit wonky when you get politicians like Trump, but they generally reluctantly accept him as the lesser issue via their hope that the SC will roll back Roe v Wade.

One wonders what would happen to that wing of the party if they ever managed to get that.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:26 pm UTC

Tyndmyr, did you know that the environment is actually everywhere, and not just in national parks?

Lead in water is an environmental issue. Pollution around coal plants is an environmental issue. Whether there are enough fish to feed future generations is an environmental issue. Whether coastal cities end up underwater is an environmental issue.

Furthermore, those are all issues that disproportionately hurt people who can't afford to move elsewhere or buy more expensive food, and they're issues Republicans generally make worse.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6588
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:29 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:2014 did not have 5.5% growth.
Not annualized. But there was a period of time in which it did. Yes, it's reading from a (rounded) graph of growth, but the point wasn't what the actual number was. It was pointing out that there's no indication in the data of when Trump took office. That is, his taking office had no visible effect on the data.

That is, Trump did not cause the growth that is happening today.

Tyndmyr wrote:You don't get to portray the single highest point in time as equivalent to a yearly average...
That's not what I did.

Tyndmyr wrote:But usually, the economy is expanding
If that's true, then let's take some of that expansion and use it to protect consumers, to protect the ecology, to protect freedom, to protect the world order, and to protect peace. As a side benefit, all of these things will, in the long term, contribute to growth as well.

Tyndmyr wrote:All investment is prioritizing the future over the present.
Tautologically, I suppose. Maybe we just have different ideas of what a good future would be. Mine includes clean air, clean water, good health, privacy, and freedom from despots, be they governmental or corporate, and be they overt or covert. It also includes the Oxford comma, but that's another thread.

Tyndmyr wrote:I dare say the poor are less able to tour national parks than the rich....
Perhaps, but that's not the point of the National Parks. It's important that they be there even if nobody visits them.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:45 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Tyndmyr, did you know that the environment is actually everywhere, and not just in national parks?


Yes, if you'd read past that one example, you'd see that I clearly understand that.

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:2014 did not have 5.5% growth.
Not annualized. But there was a period of time in which it did. Yes, it's reading from a (rounded) graph of growth, but the point wasn't what the actual number was. It was pointing out that there's no indication in the data of when Trump took office. That is, his taking office had no visible effect on the data.


Not quarterly, either. Either you're misreading the graph, or the rounding is going above the highest point on it for some reason(potentially an attempt to extrapolate out to short periods of time? That would be odd, but possible). If you look at straightforward reporting of quarters, you see that it never reaches 5.5%.

And if you got the numbers wrong, "not seeing an effect" doesn't mean much.

Anyways,the point isn't generally taking office, it's resulting from activities. Change the tax law, you get an effect. The election itself isn't what causes growth.

Tyndmyr wrote:You don't get to portray the single highest point in time as equivalent to a yearly average...
That's not what I did.


It is. You've selected a point on a curve visualizing the highest quarter in the highest year for the Obama administration. Using that, you are attempting to claim you can see no difference between the Obama administration and the Trump administration.

This is really strange.

You can compare straight averages, highest year, lowest year, whichever, and there's a clear difference. You're claiming that it's Bush's fault, but....this doesn't rely on the recession years. You can ignore the first couple of years, and there is still not great growth.

Tyndmyr wrote:But usually, the economy is expanding
If that's true, then let's take some of that expansion and use it to protect consumers, to protect the ecology, to protect freedom, to protect the world order, and to protect peace. As a side benefit, all of these things will, in the long term, contribute to growth as well.


All of those things have a payoff. However, if the rate of growth for those investments is lower, then you will see an exponentially worse future.

We're not comparing the merits of having a china-like pollution problem, we're looking at the economic results of drilling/building pipelines vs not. In most cases, the former will contribute to growth far more, and far faster, boosting the economy more.

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:All investment is prioritizing the future over the present.
Tautologically, I suppose. Maybe we just have different ideas of what a good future would be. Mine includes clean air, clean water, good health, privacy, and freedom from despots, be they governmental or corporate, and be they overt or covert. It also includes the Oxford comma, but that's another thread.


All of those things, save the comma, require money. A better economy can afford more of them in the long term.

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I dare say the poor are less able to tour national parks than the rich....
Perhaps, but that's not the point of the National Parks. It's important that they be there even if nobody visits them.


While there is some return without visiting, those who get to visit them are clearly getting a lot more from them than those who are not, yes? A nice picture is not quite the same as actually getting to experience it.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6588
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:18 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:You've selected a point on a curve visualizing the highest quarter in the highest year for the Obama administration. Using that, you are attempting to claim you can see no difference between the Obama administration and the Trump administration.
Well, we did do the nose. But nowhere did I use that to extrapolate to the entire year. You cherrypicked, I cherrypicked.

What I did do was look at the shape of the curve for ten years, and its (visual) average. There was no significant change in the last two years.

Tyndmyr wrote:Anyways,the point isn't generally taking office, it's resulting from activities. Change the tax law, you get an effect. The election itself isn't what causes growth.
He changed the tax law. The effect does not show up in the data. And while I wouldn't really expect it to right away, you claimed that there was a big difference.

There isn't.

The economy was growing already. Trump gets no credit for it.

Tyndmyr wrote:However, if the rate of growth for those investments [(clean air, clean water, good health, privacy, and freedom from despots)] is lower, then you will see an exponentially worse future.
What does "worse" mean for you? I like breathing. I like freedom. I like science. And I like living among people who value these things above money, organized superstition, political power, and stupidity.

Tyndmyr wrote:A better economy can afford more of them in the long term.
This does no good if we don't use the better economy to protect them. And we already had a "better economy".

Tyndmyr wrote:While there is some return without visiting, those who get to visit them are clearly getting a lot more from them than those who are not, yes?
Yes. This is true of anything that money can be used for. It's what (extra) money is for. I see nothing wrong with that, nor is this a reason to plow the National Parks under.

Parks are also about animals and plants, and ecology, and the values that support these things. That's probably the most important thing. The National Parks are a symbol of, a result of, and a driving force for, the idea that others, be they people or animals or plants, should not just be trodden over by those with the power to do so. It's one reason why I don't like dictatorships. The parks are a repudiation of the idea that humans white men have, and should have, dominion over everyone else and nature too.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1822
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:33 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:All investment is prioritizing the future over the present. Investing in the environment, a bridge, or a company is not different in that respect.


Prima facie evidence for libertarianism being the idea of "I've got mine, so fuck you."

"I can afford to live in suburbs and commute to my high-paying job, why don't you poor people just work harder like I did?" - asks the middle income white man.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

arbiteroftruth
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:44 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby arbiteroftruth » Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:45 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:All investment is prioritizing the future over the present. Investing in the environment, a bridge, or a company is not different in that respect.


Prima facie evidence for libertarianism being the idea of "I've got mine, so fuck you."

"I can afford to live in suburbs and commute to my high-paying job, why don't you poor people just work harder like I did?" - asks the middle income white man.


It is not even remotely clear to me how you see that sentiment implied by that quote.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests