2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Lexicus]

See, if you guys were all still farming you'd know the wealthy being risk takers thing is bull****

I don't need to farm to know this, just for the record

Recessions are better for the rich than booms.

yass

 

[Farm Boy]

Yes, but. Some people don't. Hell, even some farmers don't, but... It's more tangible.

Maybe it's different now, but if you don't have a pension and all the accumulated wealth you're planning for the kids is gone, well, then you've probably got one significant insurance asset left while your premiums are still up to date.

 

[El_Machinae]

See, if you guys were all still farming you'd know the wealthy being risk takers thing is bull****.

I've written before - the average farm contains nearly every single example of why 'free market capitalism' has a losing end-game. It highlights each need for a social contract that prevents the end-game damage from actualizing or even preventing its pivot into 'damaging to the aggregate'.

Trump wanted tax-cuts for the rich plus QE, and he was convinced of that by inviting the Bush-era economic thinkers into selling out his economy - again.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't know how to get an Eisenhower back in there. His appointments to the court even were legendary.

Pain. The answer is probably pain. Guess we aren't there yet.

 

[onejayhawk]

Isn't that true for Trump as well? Or are you saying that Trump voters are less sure they actually can stomach voting for him, and are waiting until the last minute so that they can change their mind? I don't know... I think a Biden administration tamps that down, and maybe even rejoins the TPP.

I'm saying that the current has been running against Biden. He lost the second debate, the allegations of corruption are gaining traction, he made the serious gaff about phasing out oil and gas use. He had a very bad week or two.

Having actually coached (and played) football, I can say for 100% certain that it is way harder to make a terrible team into a mediocre one than it is to make a mediocre team into a playoff team. You can make it into the playoffs without even improving from mediocre. Mediocre teams make it all the time. The NFC East will almost certainly send an 8-8 team or even one with a losing record to the playoffs this season. So that football analogy fails about as bad as Gurley remembering too late that he wasn't supposed to score a TD last week.

Just looking at the Dow alone, Obama came into office with it at around 8,000 and left with it well over 19,000, nearly tripling it. Conversely, Trump took office with it at 19,000 and actually managed to get it lower than what he started with at one point... right now its around 26,000, which is lower than it was at the beginning of the year. And Republicans have the nerve to call Obama's recovery "sluggish". Its just completely dishonest. Trump has done nothing for the economy but ride Obama's coat-tails, then wreck it. And blaming it on Obama starting with a crashed economy just doesn't cut it. Clinton came in with a Dow around 3,000 and left office with it well over 10,000, so Clinton tripled it as well. Baby Bush took that 10,000 Dow Clinton left him, and crashed it into an 8,000 Dow to turn over to Obama. The reality is that Democrats have been tripling the Dow... Republicans then come in and crash it. ​

If you are going to use a football analogy, think of the US economy as being a 9-7 sort of team. It's much easier to get them from a 6-10 season back to 9-7 than it is to push from 9-7 to a Super Bowl team. In your analysis of the economy, you equate the economy in 2009 to a bad economy, say Argentina. It would be very difficult to build a winning economy in Argentina. In the NFL, compare to Detroit or Las Vegas. The US economy is more Baltimore or Seattle. Right now the Seahawks coming off a down cycle. Likewise, our economy had the equivalent of a major injury to Russell Wilson, but the foundation was there to build upon.​

reference, this is US GDP:

And now, predictably, his supporters are acting like a large growth after a deep trough - one that, as @Sommerswerd pointed out, brings us not quite where we were before - is some proof of his genius.Jay is even calling it a v-shaped recession....

I called it V shaped and your graph proves it. Thank you.

I cannot claim the name. It was common back in the late spring/early summer.

J

 

[Takhisis]

As far as US foreign policy is concerned, the rest of the world cannot have failed to notice that Trump didn't start any new war.

The EU government hasn't, either, but you still hate them.

See, if you guys were all still farming you'd know the wealthy being risk takers thing is bull****. The risk has been collateralized and actuarialized out. When the economy drops out, banks take all the acres. The farms don't disappear, it's just that now instead of 20 farms, you have 2 with 10 very experienced hired hands. Recessions are better for the rich than booms.

With debt-fuelled (and -dependent) growth boom times are when the rope is payed out to lure the fish to the hook and the recession is when you reel them in.

 

[Lexicus]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...M4Lhqqq1fhMuG72nLgc9s0W7ViB8j8-YF1u8eYj3qittc

The firm’s analysis of early vote numbers also show a surge of non-college educated White voters, who largely back President Donald Trump, compared to voters of color, who overwhelmingly support Biden.



The situation is particularly stark in Florida where Republicans currently have a 9.4% turnout advantage in Miami-Dade County, a place where analysts say Biden will need a significant margin of victory to carry the state.

Biden's gonna lose outright lol

 

[Edmund Ironside]

Oh, well I dont need the fossil record for that. There's more people alive today than in the past so global warming is supporting more people. The population increased and civilization was born during a period of global warming and we're riding that wave. The proof was right before you and will be there tomorrow with an even warmer world and a larger human population.

The human population has been increasing rapidly for a long time, clearly not related to current global warming. The human population started to rise after the last Ice Age. Your original point was that humans would do better in a warmer climate then now. You have presented no evidence to back this claim up. Either present evidence that global temperature rises of 3c or higher then current would support more human life then currently, or admit your point is worthless.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ere-than-expected-by-2100-study-idUSKBN1E02J6

I dont know how you're defining hot, temperate and cold so lets deal with actual temperatures. I've seen estimates Greenland warmed up to 18F within a few decades. You argued the current rise in temperature is unprecedented given the time frame. Now you're claiming a small rise in temperature constitutes a 'hot' world, so how would you describe past worlds when the average temp was 15-30F warmer than today?

You seem to describe the last ice age as 'temperate' and temperatures since then as 'global warming.' If we take it from a human perspective, we are on the high side of temperate currently "most of the world's population live in areas with a mean annual temperature of between 11 and 15 degrees Celsius (51.8 to 59 degrees Fahrenheit)," with global warming likely to move us away from this desirable temperature range. I keep referencing this article for temperature references, perhaps you could just read it so I don't have to keep quoting it at you?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/05/world/global-warming-climate-niche-temperatures-intl-hnk/index.html

I also fear the Greenland temperature ranges you are quoting might be based on faulty information?
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factche...res-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change

Less stable, cooler conditions... or more stable, warmer conditions. Those who will, can. Those who wont will adapt. I've lived in below freezing cold and Phoenix, I worked in an open warehouse that would hit 125F, thats a helluva range.

Your faith in peoples ability to adapt seems to assume everyone has the resources that we have in the west. This is clearly not the case. The rich nations may be able to reduce the damage wrought by climate change, poorer nations are less likely to be so lucky. If we look back at history even modest climate change can cause entire civilizations to collapse. See the Harappans in the article below, but there are many other examples such as the Maya, or various nations during the bronze age collapse.
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/world-history-beginnings/ancient-india/a/the-indus-river-valley-civilizations#:~:text=Many scholars believe that the,great flood struck the area.

You also don't seem to care about the mass extinctions of species and ecosystem collapses continued global warming will cause.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...ng-ecosystem-biodiversity-rising-heat-species

Also worth noting "the worst mass extinction event in Earth’s history was caused by global warming analogous to current climate crisis"
https://news.mongabay.com/2019/01/w...-warming-analogous-to-current-climate-crisis/

Also I believe we are both religious? If so then here from Genesis:
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

If it is good, should we not try to preserve it?

My final thought on climate change.
This from the Union of concerned scientists perfectly encapsulates my concerns:
"The direct impacts of climate change are devastating by themselves, but they also worsen existing inequalities and conflicts. For example: hotter temperatures and droughts will make corn, wheat, and other staple crop supplies less stable, leading to price spikes and food shortages. The roughly 800 million people currently living in extreme poverty will be most affected.
As entire regions become less livable, people will leave. By the end of the century, sea level rise alone could displace more than 100 million people. These migrations, as well as conflicts over increasingly scarce resources, will exacerbate existing political and social tensions, and significantly increase the risk of conflict and war.
Animals, insects, and plants—already threatened by habitat destruction and pollution—will fare even worse. Only a small amount of warming will kill 70 to 90 percent of the world’s coral reefs; up to half of plant and animal species in the world’s most naturally rich areas could face extinction."
https://www.ucsusa.org/climate/impacts

My final final thoughts on our discussion on climate change.
I could keep quoting scientific sources on the risk of climate change, but am I right in thinking you are not going to change your mind?
I can exclusively reveal your position that global warming is a good thing is not really doing much for me.

Here are the answers to my little quiz.

A = 0
B > 0
C > 0

B+C>A

Therefore Trump has been responsible for more deaths than Biden. QED.

I might also add that when assigning blame this is a good philosophy = president > vice president > opposition senator

Self defense justifies war

I don't disagree with this, though history has proven the idea easy to abuse.

 

[Takhisis]

You have presented no evidence to back this claim up.

This is more or less 90% of his posts, why do you even bother typing out an entire page of comments?

 

[Farm Boy]

With debt-fuelled (and -dependent) growth boom times are when the rope is payed out to lure the fish to the hook and the recession is when you reel them in.

Gotta make it so if you don't grow you're obsolete and oob to really nail it home, but sure.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

This is more or less 90% of his posts, why do you even bother typing out an entire page of comments?

Well he is at least polite in the discussion. However as I alluded to in my post, neither of us are going to change our views, so it is probably not a great use of either of our times. Plus just reading all the posts on this thread alone is an epic undertaking!

By the way how long can you keep up adding comrade to everyone's posts!?

 

[Birdjaguar]

What are you talking about? He doesn't call anyone deranged in that article.

Lex, I read it wrong. Thank you.

Huh? I must have missed something. A post has gone missing maybe?

 

[Edmund Ironside]

Are you alluding to a flyting? Because I am learned to not go in too hard on suckling piglets unable to even read the fundamental message of a single sentence. Especially those who claim ironside while obviously just being green jelly dripping sided turncoats. ;-)

You win this time...

 

[Takhisis]

Well he is at least polite in the discussion. However as I alluded to in my post, neither of us are going to change our views, so it is probably not a great use of either of our times. Plus just reading all the posts on this thread alone is an epic undertaking!

But, Comrade, nobody reads all the posts in the thread. And also his politeness is just a façade. The level of intellectual dishnesty in his posts implies that he's calling everybody an idiot.

By the way how long can you keep up adding comrade to everyone's posts!?

You're not part of the revolution then?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...covid-numbers-are-almost-nothing-day-n1245449

Donald Trump Jr. says Covid deaths are 'almost nothing' on a day reporting 90,000 infected, 1,000 dead
The president's son dismissed medical experts as "truly morons" in an interview on Fox News.

The sleazeball's sleazeball son ladies and gentlemen.

But his daddy said so

https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...pandemic-2020-10?international=true&r=US&IR=T

The White House listed 'ending the COVID-19 pandemic' as one of Trump's achievements, despite record number of infections

What is it this time? They're trying not to create a panic again?

Yeah, you want that guy in charge of fighting the pandemic. Maybe he could hold rallies against the pandemic. Rallies solve everything.

 

[Farm Boy]

Huh? I must have missed something. A post has gone missing maybe?

He quoted it, but I was being a dip.

 

[Takhisis]

deaths are ‘almost nothing’
+pro-life
+guns and militia
…
profit!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You know, it's liberal media making them say these things on Fox.

It's just shoddy journalism see.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

Win, sure. Landslide is possible, but less likely than a couple months ago. The first debate loss hurt Trump badly.

Based on your location referencing George Bush, I am assuming you are in Texas? If so, you might be sweating not just from the heat, but on the prospect of Trump losing the state. He is up by only 1.2 in the polls, and in 2016 there was a 3% swing against Trump from what the polls predicted...

I'm glad you mention Greens, because the third party vote was big in 2016, but not this year.

This we can agree on. But a collapse in the third party vote might not be a good thing for Trump. For example Greens such as myself are more likely to vote for Biden over Trump (mainly due to Trumps anti-environmental policies & rhetoric), this is also shown in Rhode Island where their supporters blocked Howie Hawkin being on the ballot as a Green citing the dangers of Trump winning another election. Also third party 2016 voters favor Biden over Trump 2:1

You're not part of the revolution then

I guess I didn't get the flyers!

 

[uppi]

I often caution people against assuming Puerto Rico would be a dependable Democratic power center if it became a state. Many Latinx people in the US have conservative views and would likely support the GOP if only they would stop actively trying to put their children in cages and demonizing them 24/7.

Well, if the GOP did stop that, it would be a win.