JCE2011

I know you're gonna believe whatever you wanna believe, but when I posted:

Quote :

"Any other time you'd be expressing concerns about COST. Funny how you suddenly forget those concerns here."

...it was not an accusation of hypocrisy. It was a response to what you had posted:

Quote :

"I can understand not thinking it is a problem. But I can't understand adamantly opposing something that would validate that it is not..."

...meaning: You couldn't even imagine why anyone would be opposed to a large scale investigation of potential voter fraud.

Only a fucking retard would fail to grasp that COST would be an issue to some.

It is not hypocritical to oppose some costs and endorse some costs--that never entered my mind.

What DID enter my mind is: Ordinarily you are so quick to at least CONSIDER cost being a POTENTIAL issue. why the sudden failure on your part to even IMAGINE that might be an issue this time? I was pointing out the IRONY, not hypocrisy.

So why were you incapable of realizing some might object to cost? Were you being disingenuous or merely ignorant? That's what I'm curious about. Not hypocrisy.

Dumbass.

1/26/2017 1:10:28 PM

here's how Fox News covered the first 100 days of the Obama presidency

https://youtu.be/35eRxxZ-Ar0

1/26/2017 1:11:19 PM

Quote :

"ADDICTING THIS COUNTRY TO HEROIN"

1/26/2017 1:19:07 PM

Quote :

"For the anti-west Glenn Greenwald worshipping Russia apologist sub-cult of the left, Obama should have opened his Presidency with a Nuremberg style prosecution of the Bush administration for their Iraq War related crimes. Instead he focused on stabilizing the credit markets, saving the US auto industry, and stopping a recession from becoming a depression. For them, Obama turning out to be a level-headed institutionalist was the ultimate betrayalton."

Classic Shrike. You'll be singing this tune even as Trump accelerates every abuse of power imaginable that was firmly entrenched due to Obama's refusal to limit executive overreach.

1/26/2017 1:24:23 PM

Cabbage, your first post did 2 things.

1) Listed COST as a reason, answering my question
2) Accused me of not being consistent with my concern for tax dollars being wasted

I responded to #2, and you keep acting like it is my response to #1, or as if I am somehow confused on #1. I'm not. I responded to #2 because it was bullshit, and you accuse me of "moving the goalposts" despite being the one to bring it up.

I'm PMing you a bill for this Reading Comprehension Tutor session.

1/26/2017 1:39:19 PM

I bet JCE is still on his parent's cell phone plan.

1/26/2017 1:55:14 PM

Quote :

"if he keeps it up he will pass Obama's 8-year total in a year"

Is that including Executive Memorandum totals? Obama used EMs to obscure the number of EOs being written so that people couldn't complain about EOs?. They have the same effect and are just as legally binding as an EO, just a different name.

1/26/2017 1:55:47 PM

^^^LOL. AS I JUST EXPLAINED, DUMBASS:

I was not accusing you of inconsistency with respect to cost objection/endorsement; it is your prerogative to oppose some costs and endorse others.

I was accusing you of inconsistency with respect to A) Being able to consider cost is a factor when you, personally, object to the cost, while B) Being unable to recognize that OTHERS might object to cost when you, personally, endorse the cost.

Your claim was not that you endorse the voter fraud investigation, your claim was that you could not imagine why ANYONE would oppose it.

COST, dumbass.

I still wonder: Why were you blind to cost being a factor for some people (in this case) while you are so cognizant of it being a factor (in other cases)? Again, this is not an accusation of hypocrisy, it's me wondering why you so completely and utterly fucking failed to even imagine that someone, somewhere, might object to the cost.

If you can't understand that, then fuck off and learn to read for comprehension, dumbass.

[Edited on January 26, 2017 at 1:59 PM. Reason : ^^^]

1/26/2017 1:56:13 PM

I hesitate to ask this question for fear of starting a war but does anyone have any input on news sites that are reputable and not slanted one way or the other. Most of the time I will read some on cnn and then some on fox news to kinda see both sides of the view on something but sometimes I just wanna read something not so biased one way or the other haha.

1/26/2017 2:42:56 PM

Quote :

"What is with you people not knowing how to spell unprecedented? "

1/26/2017 2:43:48 PM

alt-spelling

^^ I too would like to have an answer to this. I generally read the Daily Beast just because I like their website format best, but I definitely wouldn't argue it's not biased

I'd also like to know what's acceptable to post as a source so that HCH, eleusis, etc don't immediately jump on the post like, "OMG OF COURSE YOU POST FROM LIBBY MCLIBERAL NEWS"

[Edited on January 26, 2017 at 2:57 PM. Reason : asdf]

1/26/2017 2:56:18 PM

Quote :

"Reuters Top News ?@Reuters UPDATE: Trump wants to pay for planned wall with border tax as part of tax reform package - White House. http://reut.rs/2jW7947 "

That doesn't seem like Mexico is paying for the dumb wall to me. Gonna be great paying $8 for a pint of blueberries for this bullshit.

1/26/2017 3:07:23 PM

http://abc7.com/politics/mexican-president-says-he-will-not-attend-scheduled-meeting-with-trump/1722076/

1/26/2017 3:09:28 PM

Yeah.... sure the money technically comes from the tax.. but the American people actually pay for it. Surely Trump has at least enough business sense to know that tax always gets passed along to consumers.

1/26/2017 3:09:56 PM

Let the walls pay the wall tax.

1/26/2017 3:17:46 PM

^^^^^

The AP, NPR, Reuters, WSJ, BBC are a few options that tend not to lean either way too much.

1/26/2017 3:22:08 PM

the best I've read for providing informed and unbiased news are the Wall Street Journal and the Economist. Unfortunately, both of them are pay sites. I guess when you're not trying to sell something with your reporting to appease your corporate overlords, you actually have to make money through other means.

1/26/2017 3:22:12 PM

20% tax on imports from Mexico

fuck outta here

also:

SNOWFLAKE ALERT

https://nyti.ms/2k8h6Oa

Quote :

"Trump Strategist Steve Bannon Says Media Should ‘Keep Its Mouth Shut’"

[Edited on January 26, 2017 at 3:33 PM. Reason : .]

1/26/2017 3:30:57 PM

I wish Trump and his team would read the economist

That is a good source though I would disagree with the WSJ at this point. Bloomberg has a surprisingly good balanced take usually as well to me.

Bloomberg View will certainly, by definition, have its biases but I like reading well thought out opinions on both sides from their columnists.

1/26/2017 3:32:40 PM

Read the extremes of both sides, http://www.breitbart.com and then http://www.HuffingtonPost.com

That way you can see the end goal of the spin from either side and spot bullshit.

Then argue about it on TWW to confirm you are right

1/26/2017 3:32:53 PM

I'm a conservative and I feel that the WSJ leans pretty heavily right.

Trump is delusional if he thinks a 20% tax is going to pay for that wall without having any negative impacts on us.

1/26/2017 3:34:18 PM

^^^^ wow, i guess we can see where Trumps delusions are coming from.

1/26/2017 3:37:29 PM

Guess Jose Cuevo will be rethinking that IPO... again. Would be the 3rd time since last year - each attributed to comments Trump made that tanked the peso...

1/26/2017 4:25:41 PM

if this fucks with my avocados i swear to god

1/26/2017 4:37:44 PM

Limes are back up to a buck a pop

1/26/2017 4:50:54 PM

Cocaine and brick weed are going up 20%? Thanks Obama Trump.

1/26/2017 5:15:49 PM

Thanks Trump doesn't roll off the tongue like Thanks Obama.

I prefer Dammit Donald!

1/26/2017 5:57:15 PM

It's really amazing how casually trump throws out falsehoods on a routine basis, and faces no accountability by the right wing media.

1/26/2017 7:30:58 PM

Should we prepare for a president Pence? This isn't the action of a man with full mental faculties.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-pressured-park-service-to-back-up-his-claims-about-inauguration-crowd/2017/01/26/12a38cb8-e3fc-11e6-ba11-63c4b4fb5a63_story.html?utm_term=.6d3706f3d1bb

1/26/2017 7:47:17 PM

I still don't understand how Trump is claiming that this tariff will be Mexico paying for the wall.

Mexicans aren't paying the tax. Americans are paying the tax. The wall will be 100% funded by American consumers.

1/26/2017 8:20:47 PM

^ the same people who cling to Trumps every word like gospel are fooled by his reframing of this tax. The top imports from Mexico to the US are electrical and manufacturing equipment, along wit produce. The net result will be more expensive products for businesses, and more expensive foods.
What happens when Mexico just gets pushed to the edge, and stops buying our vehicles, food, and plastics?

1/26/2017 8:39:50 PM

^^ That's just... sublime

Quote :

"“Here’s a picture of the event. Here’s a picture of the crowd. Now, the audience was the biggest ever, but this crowd was massive. Look how far back it goes. This crowd was massive.”"

The only thing massive is his neighborhood teen bully-like ego.

WTF did I just read???

He is totally acting irrational like Asian and African dictators do vis-a-vis his ego and level of self-praise.

1/26/2017 8:43:08 PM

Misunderstanding the numbers is one thing.

It's another to think that he had any reason to draw more people than the first African American president. Hell, I knew Republicans that went just to be a part of history. You just can't expect to beat something like that. But it still hurts his ego that he didn't.

1/26/2017 9:30:19 PM

It must be a real boner killer that Bloomberg can buy him 5 times over and still have more money.

1/26/2017 9:49:47 PM

crowd size < dick size < brain size

1/26/2017 9:59:21 PM

Quote :

"I still don't understand how Trump is claiming that this tariff will be Mexico paying for the wall. Mexicans aren't paying the tax. Americans are paying the tax. The wall will be 100% funded by American consumers."

Because Americans, in general, on both sides of the aisle, don't understand how tariffs and taxes work in the first place. That's why you have people clamoring for high corporate taxes, not realizing that they are really just taxing consumers.

1/26/2017 11:40:35 PM

https://www.facebook.com/ABCNews/videos/10155316859113812



How old is this child?

And can someone link me to the home run speech he gave? Thanks.

1/27/2017 6:44:23 AM

If you want a good laugh search twitter for "I voted for you but"

1/27/2017 8:09:06 AM

@0EPII1

CIA speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMBqDN7-QLg

I can only find a report from Vanity Fair that states Trump brought his supporters. I know Vanity is biased but I also can't trust Trump when he lies about shit as small as crowd size.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/01/donald-trump-cia-speech

1/27/2017 8:13:58 AM

^ thanks

^^ there is two more:

#Trumpgrets (@trumpbigregrets) | Twitter
https://twitter.com/trumpbigregrets?lang=en
I voted for you but I keep telling you that you sound f'ing stupid saying enjoy. ... @realDonaldTrump I voted for you but please stop acting like a school yard bully.

Trump Regrets (@Trump_Regrets) | Twitter
https://twitter.com/trump_regrets?lang=en
@realDonaldTrump We voted for you but you BETRAYED us by employing the swamp instead of draining it. Does goldman sachs and foreclosure Steve sound ...

I voted for you (@ivotedforyou) | Twitter
https://twitter.com/ivotedforyou?lang=en
The latest Tweets from I voted for you (@ivotedforyou). amplifying ... @realDonaldTrump I support you and voted for u but if u mess w women's rights , game over.

[Edited on January 27, 2017 at 8:15 AM. Reason : ]

1/27/2017 8:15:19 AM

I'd like to know what those people actually thought was gonna happen? For someone like me my hope was that all the shit he was saying was just rhetoric and maybe things wouldnt be so bad once he won. For people who actually voted for him though he is doing exactly what he said and you should have assumed thats what he was going to do...

1/27/2017 8:27:47 AM

Quote :

"Because Americans, in general, on both sides of the aisle, don't understand how tariffs and taxes work in the first place. That's why you have people clamoring for high corporate taxes, not realizing that they are really just taxing consumers."

Tariffs are different in that they artificially decrease supply or increase price and create a lack of efficient use of resources.

But regarding the corporate tax rate you are correct but the problem is that isn't how the GOP frames the debate. They are obsessed with Reagan supply side bullshit so they frame it as the more money businesses have the more they will invest in capital and it will seep down to Joe worker. Of course, companies have record levels of cash since 2008 for obvious reasons but they are sitting on it. The investment only comes when they have higher levels of clarity and optimism.

(I know that is a little CFA theory-y but the point is the GOP doesn't frame the lower corporate tax rate debate correctly)

[Edited on January 27, 2017 at 8:34 AM. Reason : Not to mention Trump can't just slap tariffs around without congress]

1/27/2017 8:33:51 AM

so are we pretending that tariffs won't bring companies back into the US from Mexico? Americans still pay for the wall, but Mexico is going to come out a lot worse financially than if they had just paid for the wall in the first place.

1/27/2017 10:41:19 AM

The really funny part about all this is that Obama handed Trump a golden ticket to a second term if he wanted it. If literally all he did was give campaign speeches for 4 years and do nothing but take credit for the economy as it continues to just improve without his interference, he'd easily win in 2020. Now, if he starts doing dumb shit like starting trade wars (or actual shooting wars), destroying healthcare, and making daily life more expensive for the average American, he'll just be fucking himself. I guess we can be thankful he's too stupid to realize this.

1/27/2017 10:43:10 AM

Trump destroyed healthcare. Riiiiight

1/27/2017 10:53:13 AM

If he starts making things harder/more expensive for his base, he won't just lose an election. He'll begin scapegoating Mexicans, Muslims, "inner cities," gays, etc. to maintain his power, and his base will resort to and support violence.

Stop looking at this through a partisan lens.

1/27/2017 10:53:54 AM

Quote :

"so are we pretending that tariffs won't bring companies back into the US from Mexico? Americans still pay for the wall, but Mexico is going to come out a lot worse financially than if they had just paid for the wall in the first place."

I'm saying it's inefficient and will result in higher prices. Sure, it MIGHT hurt Mexico (though China will certainly step up to mitigate some of that) but I'm not really interested in punitive damages to Mexico. Why would I be?

In general I'm vehemently against protectionist trade policy. Again this is all theoretical because TRUMP CANT DO IT HIMSELF. Not sure why the GOP would go against everything they believe in just to appease a madman.

** and the wall is an ineffective and expensive solution to a near non-existent problem

[Edited on January 27, 2017 at 11:02 AM. Reason : Net-negative rate of illegal immigration]

1/27/2017 11:01:10 AM

If it does hurt Mexico, wouldn't that result in immigration increasing again?

1/27/2017 11:05:23 AM

^^I tried to explain here how ineffective the wall would be, but you have people here (JCE#'s) who honestly believe that a physical barrier is going to somehow keep people from entering. I was reading an article yesterday, probably from CNN who quoted this

"Show me a 20 ft wall and I'll show you a 21 ft ladder"

Again, the ONLY way a wall can be remotely effective is if we man it with at least 2 people per mile (I'm pulling that figure out of my arse, but it sounds like a reasonable figure). If you man 2 people per mile, that means you need at least two shifts of people just standing there. For 12 hours. Even the manning part will become ineffective out of eventual boredom. So we're not just talking about an initial cost (of 15 billion? IDK) but you're also looking at a continual cost of so many man hours.

It makes my brain hurt to think that people out there really believe the wall will be effective.

It was a talking point to get elected. And so many people bought it. Now it will just be an expensive line to mark where our country ends and another begins. And it is going to do much damage with the relationship with the Mexican government.

What will happen when their government stops giving any fucks about the illegal drug trade to the US because of this wall, and they stop doing what they can to curb it?

1/27/2017 11:24:10 AM

Alliance Bernstein did a study back in November and had costs at $15-25bln depending on labor and $700m-1bln of annual maintenance. So you're not far off..

** fwiw I'm partially wrong on tariffs. President could do it "in times of emergency" but man it would be a massive overreach to define this a time of emergency

[Edited on January 27, 2017 at 11:31 AM. Reason : X]

1/27/2017 11:28:52 AM