***Official H&F LC Thread***
A valid strategy for getting ripped imo.
(From http://extrafabulouscomics.com/, kyleb's (RIP) favorite web comic)
Correct. This is the LC thread where people in the sub discuss random shiet. Sometimes that random shiet is poiltics. There have been tons of political discussions here over the years. If you doubt this, you might want to check out the posting history our good friend jdock and his subsequent incarnations. I don't recall you ever reminding him that "This isn't the Politics forum". Maybe you just didn't notice any of his numerous political posts.
I didn't say it's a no-politics zone. I found it weird that Soulman, out of the blue, is calling out my non-2+2 posts. It wasn't in response to anything I posted on 2+2. I have one whole post ITT -- a very short one at that -- that merely says Trump generally avoids going to war.
Here's the thing. The mediocrity of the last 4 years was at least in part a figment of people's imaginations. People who thought things were worse than they actually were voted Trump. Here's one poll which showed that.
Some of that is spin too, though. Crime is not at an all-time hight, but it is too high. And, many cities aren't prosecuting crime as they once did, making it seem more ubiquitous than it was prior.
Similarly, inflation is not at an all-time high, but overall prices are high. Inflation is the rate of change of prices, so lower inflation just means prices are increasing at a lower rate than prior. Also, inflation is generally calculated on an annual rate. which many people would see as an arbitrary distinction. So, yeah, people answering the question are likely saying prices are high, or that total inflation over the past 3.5 years is high.
People discussing inflation will also include housing costs, interest rates, and everything else they spend their money on. Their measure of inflation is what they can buy with what they have left after they pay their bills, not what the FED calculates as year-over-year change in costs of certain goods.
No idea about the stock market. It was down a couple of years ago. Some people may have bailed back then and see that time frame as still being within the Biden Administration timeline. That beings said, Fox News and others report quite regularly on the stock market.
The border crossings question is similar to the inflation question. Biden presided over a very porous border for 3.5 years. He finally issued the executive orders he should have issued over three years ago and slowed new illegal entries, but most of the people who were already here are still here. So, the total number of illegals remains very high.
None of that is a figment of people's imagination. Nor is it stuff they merely read on social media. Often Dems can be too smart for their own good, like when they use euphemisms for everything. An influx of illegal aliens is "immigration". Illegals are "migrants". Sex changes are "gender affirming care." Biological males in women's and girls' sports and locker rooms are "people choosing sporting that aligns with their gender identity." This doesn't play as well in the heartland as high-priced Beltway consultants might think it should. Then, when it doesn't, they try to explain it away with thinks like the chart you posted or explanations that people are "too dumb" to vote for their own interests (hint: they aren't).
Also the funny thing is that people actually prefer Harris/Dem policies to Trump/Republican ones. Take Missouri for example. There were referrendums on specific laws pertaining to providing abortion access, increasing the min wage, and paid sik leave.
There were many issues this election beyond those three. The border, law and order, men in women's sports and spaces, the economy, and many other issues were bigger this election cycle.
Was it really a mystery that these are things she supported and Trump didn't
Dems keep claiming this proves a bunch of voters are uneducated and dumb. Again, not so shockingly, this isn't playing as well as some think it would.
As far as immigration, Biden has already been deporting at record levels and there is again tons of footage of her being very anti-immigration. People unfortunately don't believe it.
The people being deported are merely some of the people Biden let cross illegally. For example, if a president allows record numbers to cross illegally and then deports 10% of them, that president wouldn't get credit for the deportations. He'd get blamed for the 90% who remained. I don't have Biden's numbers in front of me, but that's the situation he's being judged on.
"I'm going to deport 20 million people" with no plan on how to do that.
Don't worry. Homan has plans.
In the end, I agree overall that Harris was a bad candidate. At the same time I'm hard pressed to figure out what she could/should have done better enough that would have led to a win. While she was a bad candidate, I don't think she would have been a bad president. She would have been pretty much establishment dem, replacement level, which is better than what we ended up with.
Her move to the center seemed fake and contrived, as did much of her candidacy. Her aligning with the Cheneys was a terrible decision. Her refusal to do tough interviews cost her as well.
Rich,
I'm far more interested in how you think Soulman was going to "cancel" you. But let's go with what you did post.
Some of that is spin too, though. Crime is not at an all-time hight, but it is too high.
LOL so it's "too high". According to what? Your feels? That was my point! If you've got some stats or facts to cite, I'd love to hear them. According to most measures I've seen, crime has been steadily on the decline. If you'd like some citations, let me know. I can provide you with plenty, but I doubt it would change your mind.
And, many cities aren't prosecuting crime as they once did, making it seem more ubiquitous than it was prior.
Yes, I think you've figured out the problem as well. Sounds like even you think it is not real.
Similarly, inflation is not at an all-time high, but overall prices are high. Inflation is the rate of change of prices, so lower inflation just means prices are increasing at a lower rate than prior. Also, inflation is generally calculated on an annual rate. which many people would see as an arbitrary distinction. So, yeah, people answering the question are likely saying prices are high, or that total inflation over the past 3.5 years is high.
Exactly! We don't actually get deflation unless we have severe economic collapse. The best that is practical and desirable is a reduction in inflation. Prices rose all over the globe due to post COVID supply chain issues and all sorts of other things well beyond Biden's (or any President's) control. You are correct that low info normies don't realize this. That is MY point.
People discussing inflation will also include housing costs, interest rates, and everything else they spend their money on. Their measure of inflation is what they can buy with what they have left after they pay their bills, not what the FED calculates as year-over-year change in costs of certain goods.
LOL do you think economists don't know this? Measures like the CPI include things like food, housing, transportation, health care, etc. What economists are calculating is literally exactly what you are claiming that people are "discussing"
No idea about the stock market. It was down a couple of years ago. Some people may have bailed back then and see that time frame as still being within the Biden Administration timeline. That beings said, Fox News and others report quite regularly on the stock market.
LOL, well isn't that convenient. You've got "no idea", eh. Setting aside that I don't believe you, let's not forget that Orange Man was constantly touting the market going to all time highs as evidence of his economic genius. Since you're unaware, we were at all times highs pre-election. Of course, we can't give Biden credit for that. Not possible.
To be fair, I don't personally think that the President has that much to do with the stonk market, but I cant' tell you how many Trumpers pre-2020 were slurping Trump for the gains in their IRAs and 401ks. Some how those same Trumpers don't find the gains as sweet when they come under Biden. Curious isn't it?
The border crossings question is similar to the inflation question. Biden presided over a very porous border for 3.5 years. He finally issued the executive orders he should have issued over three years ago and slowed new illegal entries, but most of the people who were already here are still here. So, the total number of illegals remains very high.
Ok, so we're agreed that Biden did the thing that you wanted, but still not good enough. Also, let's not forget that Trump personally tanked the bipartisan bill that would have reduced crossings and increased deportations. But you're not mad at him for that? Also curious.
None of that is a figment of people's imagination. Nor is it stuff they merely read on social media.
Dude. You've literally explained how it's a figment of people's imagination. Look at your own post. You acknowledge crime is going down and you try to explain why it seems higher to people. Inflation is going down and you try to rationalize why people don't understand that it's a good thing. Biden cracks down on border crossings and in the same period Trump tanks a border security bill, yet we're supposed to trust the second guy.
Often Dems can be too smart for their own good, like when they use euphemisms for everything. An influx of illegal aliens is "immigration". Illegals are "migrants".
They're words you don't like. They're not wrong. You're free to use others.
By the way, what is "They're eating the dogs!" Also a euphemism? If not, what would you call it?
Sex changes are "gender affirming care." Biological males in women's and girls' sports and locker rooms are "people choosing sporting that aligns with their gender identity." This doesn't play as well in the heartland as high-priced Beltway consultants might think it should.
Wat? Everyone knows it plays horribly in the heartland. Humans, in general, are intolerant bigots. Hundreds of years ago treating Black people the same as White people didn't play well in the heartland either. Sometimes the right causes don't play well.
Then, when it doesn't, they try to explain it away with thinks like the chart you posted or explanations that people are "too dumb" to vote for their own interests (hint: they aren't).
There were many issues this election beyond those three. The border, law and order, men in women's sports and spaces, the economy, and many other issues were bigger this election cycle.
Dems keep claiming this proves a bunch of voters are uneducated and dumb. Again, not so shockingly, this isn't playing as well as some think it would.
Oh really, they're not dumb? You care to explain those Missouri results. Let's vote for abortion, increased min wage, and paid sick leave. Let's also vote for people who hate those things and will try to take them away from us. That's 3D chess.
I'm 100% with you that calling dumb voters dumb is a terrible strategy. It doesn't mean they aren't dumb.
I also love how men in women's sports is on your list of really important issues. I'd think that you would know that this is an issue that affects approximately zero people out of the approx 350 million here. But it's very good at tapping into people's prejudices, so campaigning against trans rights is good strategy, even if it is wrong. No argument there.
The people being deported are merely some of the people Biden let cross illegally. For example, if a president allows record numbers to cross illegally and then deports 10% of them, that president wouldn't get credit for the deportations. He'd get blamed for the 90% who remained. I don't have Biden's numbers in front of me, but that's the situation he's being judged on.
Don't worry. Homan has plans.
You mean like that Trump health care plan he promised a thousand times and never delivered on? Also does he have plans for the massive economic fallout that will occur as a result.
Her move to the center seemed fake and contrived, as did much of her candidacy. Her aligning with the Cheneys was a terrible decision. Her refusal to do tough interviews cost her as well.
Agreed on all that. Except the interviews thing. It's not like Trump did tough interviews on purpose. He did one on accident and came off as a racist moron. Didn't hurt at all because apparently, that is what a lot of Americans want. Any now they'll have it.
TBH I agree with everything Rich wrote. No idea why Soulman thinks any of that is beyond the pale. Governments systematically understate inflation and game the CPI to make inflation look way lower than it really is. Because ultimately inflation enriches them and their friends while allowing them to continue huge amounts of deficit spending to win elections as incumbents by promising gibs to constituents. They can always rely on the money printer to devalue debt while at the same time enriching the asset holding class. This is what is fundamentally driving increasing levels of inequality, which from my perspective is probably the singular most important issue to fix. It has so many downstream negative consequences socially... But just focusing on tax+redistribution policy or minimum wages isn't enough. Nobody has been radical enough to point out the federal reserve as the main culprit of this since Ron Paul in 2008. Neither repubs nor dems seem to be willing to address this, but at least reindustrializing + limiting illegal low skilled immigration seems like a better plan to deal with income inequality than "bro just raise minimum wage and tax the rich more and give it to poor people bro what could go wrong bro its simple bro"
We discuss politics here because actual politard subforum is full of close minded people who ban/lock anything they disagree with or that "offends' them.
LOL so it's "too high". According to what? Your feels? That was my point! If you've got some stats or facts to cite, I'd love to hear them. According to most measures I've seen, crime has been steadily on the decline. If you'd like some citations, let me know. I can provide you with plenty, but I doubt it would change your mind.
Everything you wrote in reply, and the attitude behind it all, is why Kamala lost and the GOP won the trifecta. Trying to argue to win a forum discussion won't really help you understand why you all lost so badly.
As for crime, it's too high because any crime is too high. How much crime do you feel is acceptable?
Even CA voted to re-criminalize shoplifting, and LA voted out Gascon.
Exactly! We don't actually get deflation unless we have severe economic collapse. The best that is practical and desirable is a reduction in inflation. Prices rose all over the globe due to post COVID supply chain issues and all sorts of other things well beyond Biden's (or any President's) control. You are correct that low info normies don't realize this. That is MY point.
So, you think inflation in the present is bad but inflation in the past is not only good, but must be preserved? Weird. We don't want a lengthy deflationary spiral accompanied by stagnant economic growth, but a rebalancing based on where prices should be is a good thing.
Temporary price spikes are supposed to self-correct. Gas, eggs, milk, airline tickets, and lots of others things regularly drop in price. Other things that had spiked often return to where they belong. LOL at you wanting to maintain all prior inflation.
LOL do you think economists don't know this? Measures like the CPI include things like food, housing, transportation, health care, etc. What economists are calculating is literally exactly what you are claiming that people are "discussing"
You're just being argumentative. I'm not here to argue. I was answering your questions. If you prefer ignorance, enjoy.
LOL, well isn't that convenient. You've got "no idea", eh. Setting aside that I don't believe you, let's not forget that Orange Man was constantly touting the market going to all time highs as evidence of his economic genius. Since you're unaware, we were at all times highs pre-election. Of course, we can't give Biden credit for that. Not possible.
To be fair, I don't personally think that the President has that much to do with the stonk market, but I cant' tell you how many Trumpers pre-2020 were slurping Trump for the gains in their IRAs and 401ks. Some how those same Trumpers don't find the gains as sweet when they come under Biden. Curious isn't it?
My portfolio is doing well. I follow the market closely. My point was that I'm not familiar with anyone believing the market is currently down. I haven't seen any discussion on social media saying it is either.
The chart doesn't say how many people believed the stock market isn't near an all-time high. I guess it could just be a small percentage of people who believe that.
Ok, so we're agreed that Biden did the thing that you wanted, but still not good enough. Also, let's not forget that Trump personally tanked the bipartisan bill that would have reduced crossings and increased deportations. But you're not mad at him for that? Also curious.
No, we don't agree on that. Biden left the border open for 3.5 years and then finally had to do something for election year cover. Trump opposed the crappy border bill because it was a bad bill. It was DOA in the House (which passed HR 2, an actual border bill that Schumer would not take up in the Senate) even before Trump called it out for being terrible.
The bill would have funded and facilitated more mass illegal immigration. It would have given taxpayer money to sanctuary cities & states to pay for illegal aliens they welcomed to their cities too. It would also have given taxpayer money to the NGOs that have been facilitating mass illegal immigration.
It also allowed up to 5000 illegals per day before the border would be secured, among other issues.
It's laughable that you all believe we rejected a good bill and that Trump openly said so, and it's really funny that libs keep trying to tell conservatives how conservative the bill was. MSNBC leads Kamala voters around like sheep.
AND....if you really believed it then, watching them all whine about the actual border security that's coming should dissuade you of that.
Dude. You've literally explained how it's a figment of people's imagination. Look at your own post. You acknowledge crime is going down and you try to explain why it seems higher to people.
I didn't say that. I said it's too high, which it is. You seem good with crime. Lots of people don't like crime. They voted for Trump.
Wat? Everyone knows it plays horribly in the heartland. Humans, in general, are intolerant bigots. Hundreds of years ago treating Black people the same as White people didn't play well in the heartland either. Sometimes the right causes don't play well.
Sports are segregated by biological sex because males have an innate benefit over women and girls. But, call it bigotry all you wish. I hope every one of you do that. That's guaranteed election wins for us.
Oh really, they're not dumb? You care to explain those Missouri results. Let's vote for abortion, increased min wage, and paid sick leave. Let's also vote for people who hate those things and will try to take them away from us. That's 3D chess.
Trump and SCOTUS didn't ban abortion anywhere, nor is Trump seeking a federal ban. SCOTUS simply restored democracy, where we the people make our own laws at the state level. Kamala tried to make abortion an issue, but what was she going to do about it? Sign a bill if Congress passes one?
They voted for a state minimum wage increase within their state. Same for paid sick leave. They were able to get that without voting for the Democrat platform, so that's what they did.
I also love how men in women's sports is on your list of really important issues. I'd think that you would know that this is an issue that affects approximately zero people out of the approx 350 million here. But it's very good at tapping into people's prejudices, so campaigning against trans rights is good strategy, even if it is wrong. No argument there.
It's not my personal list. It's a reason Kamala lost. It's like crime. How many people have to be affected before it's wrong. According to you, women should have to give up their spots to biological men. That's fine. We voted on it and we'll continue to vote on it.
Agreed on all that. Except the interviews thing. It's not like Trump did tough interviews on purpose. He did one on accident and came off as a racist moron. Didn't hurt at all because apparently, that is what a lot of Americans want. Any now they'll have it.
But Trump didn't lose. We're talking about why Kamala lost.
We discuss politics here because actual politard subforum is full of close minded people who ban/lock anything they disagree with or that "offends' them.
I didn't mean we can't discuss it. Obviously we can and do. My point was about Soulman thinking he can attack me when I hadn't really even posted in here.
Everything you wrote in reply, and the attitude behind it all, is why Kamala lost and the GOP won the trifecta. Trying to argue to win a forum discussion won't really help you understand why you all lost so badly.
As for crime, it's too high because any crime is too high. How much crime do you feel is acceptable?
I don't know who "you all" is referring to. I didn't personally lose anything. Anyway, back to the "content"
I live in the real world where crime is an unfortunate reality. We can't get crime down to zero. Not Biden. Not Orangeman, not anyone. Crime has been steadily going down. You just can't accept and have to spin this ridiculous attempt at a point. This is really a perfect encapsulation of the imaginary world you Trump slappies live in and the allergy to facts that you seem to have.
I guess Trump admin 1.0 failed on crime too, since we still had crime.
While we're on the subject of crime, thoughts on the crime school shootings? How many of those do you feel is acceptable. As you know Trump and Republicans suggest that it's just something we just need to live with (let me know if you need a cite for that). Sure sounds like he feels that some crime is acceptable! I'm sure this will cause you to reexamine your fervent Trump support.
Even CA voted to re-criminalize shoplifting, and LA voted out Gascon.
Looks like you too have fallen prey to right-wing disinformation. Shoplifting was never decriminalized in CA. Yes, Trump said it a lot and rubes believed it. But it was not the truth. From NYT, link below:
TrumpÂ’s implication that the shoplifting of goods worth $950 or less is not a crime in California is false because such acts can be charged as a misdemeanor, carrying a jail sentence as long six months.
Yes, many of these misdemeanors never received prison sentences because jails were overcrowded. This is a thing that happens all over the place. Also, it's not like the CA law was special.
While CaliforniaÂ’s $950 felony threshold for shoplifting has been held up as an example of leniency in a famously liberal state, it is actually the 10th strictest in the nation. States such as Republican-led Texas, Alabama and Mississippi allow even higher levels of theft before a felony is triggered.
link:
So, you think inflation in the present is bad but inflation in the past is not only good, but must be preserved? Weird. We don't want a lengthy deflationary spiral accompanied by stagnant economic growth, but a rebalancing based on where prices should be is a good thing.
Come on, man. Read my post. I never said inflation is good. Inflation naturally happens though even in times of prosperity.
Temporary price spikes are supposed to self-correct. Gas, eggs, milk, airline tickets, and lots of others things regularly drop in price. Other things that had spiked often return to where they belong. LOL at you wanting to maintain all prior inflation.
Again, you're just making up things that I said. Yeah, I would love systemic deflation with out systemic economic hardship. Just like I would also love your crime free utopia. Also please explain where prices "belong" and how we determine that.
You're just being argumentative. I'm not here to argue. I was answering your questions. If you prefer ignorance, enjoy.
I love it
Rich: People don't care about stats. They care about things they actually spend money on like food, housing, etc.
Melk: The CPI includes all of those things
Rich: You're just being argumentative.
Good talk!
My portfolio is doing well. I follow the market closely. My point was that I'm not familiar with anyone believing the market is currently down. I haven't seen any discussion on social media saying it is either.
The chart doesn't say how many people believed the stock market isn't near an all-time high. I guess it could just be a small percentage of people who believe that.
Fair enough. So how much credit do you give Biden for your yuuuge portfolio gainz.
No, we don't agree on that. Biden left the border open for 3.5 years and then finally had to do something for election year cover. Trump opposed the crappy border bill because it was a bad bill. It was DOA in the House (which passed HR 2, an actual border bill that Schumer would not take up in the Senate) even before Trump called it out for being terrible.
The bill would have funded and facilitated more mass illegal immigration. It would have given taxpayer money to sanctuary cities & states to pay for illegal aliens they welcomed to their cities too. It would also have given taxpayer money to the NGOs that have been facilitating mass illegal immigration.
It also allowed up to 5000 illegals per day before the border would be secured, among other issues.
It's laughable that you all believe we rejected a good bill and that Trump openly said so, and it's really funny that libs keep trying to tell conservatives how conservative the bill was. MSNBC leads Kamala voters around like sheep.
AND....if you really believed it then, watching them all whine about the actual border security that's coming should dissuade you of that.
This is a fantastic retcon of the whole situation. It's gonna take a while to unwind this one. Let's start slow. Can we agree that the bill would have passed if Trump hadn't intervened? Is that too much too ask? Can we at least operate on that shared plane of reality? If we can, then explain this too me. How is it that there were enough Republicans on board to pass it. Were they lead like sheep by MSNBC? Heck, McConnell basically developed the bill. Is he soft on the border as well?
Sports are segregated by biological sex because males have an innate benefit over women and girls. But, call it bigotry all you wish. I hope every one of you do that. That's guaranteed election wins for us.
Golly, I'd never thought of that. I'm sure the scientists that are part of governing bodies for sport never thought of that either. And they sure as heck didn't make specific rules regarding hormone levels and such to address that. I guess none of those things happened.
Trump and SCOTUS didn't ban abortion anywhere, nor is Trump seeking a federal ban. SCOTUS simply restored democracy, where we the people make our own laws at the state level. Kamala tried to make abortion an issue, but what was she going to do about it? Sign a bill if Congress passes one?
Ah yes, Trump and Republicans aren't pro-life. They just love democracy. Can you actually say that with a straight face? The whole point was to reduce abortion access. You are just describing the mechanism by which they did it.
They voted for a state minimum wage increase within their state. Same for paid sick leave. They were able to get that without voting for the Democrat platform, so that's what they did.
Dude, those things are the Democratic platform.
Tbh, this is a bit weird, because you "agreed" with him and then proceeded to write a bunch of things that he didn't say at all.
No idea why Soulman thinks any of that is beyond the pale. Governments systematically understate inflation and game the CPI to make inflation look way lower than it really is.
Come on, man. This is very different from what Rich said. He clearly did not even know that the CPI included housing. Like at all. I get that you have ended up in the same place as him, but you're getting there very differently.
Because ultimately inflation enriches them and their friends while allowing them to continue huge amounts of deficit spending to win elections as incumbents by promising gibs to constituents. They can always rely on the money printer to devalue debt while at the same time enriching the asset holding class. This is what is fundamentally driving increasing levels of inequality, which from my perspective is probably the singular most important issue to fix. It has so many downstream negative consequences socially... But just focusing on tax+redistribution policy or minimum wages isn't enough. Nobody has been radical enough to point out the federal reserve as the main culprit of this since Ron Paul in 2008. Neither repubs nor dems seem to be willing to address this,
It's late, so maybe I'll take this up tomorrow. But I've got to say, on the hot take scale, the idea that the biggest problem that we face is wealth inequality (again something Rich didn't say) and the answer to that is .... Repbulicans is pretty nuclear. I've barely heard one of them say that "wealth inequality" is even a problem. Have you? I'm sure you can find some examples with google, but just off the top of your head, do any come to mind?
As you say, neither party is really going to cut spending. They both spend like maniacs. Even Trump did. Pre-pandemic he was still racking up record deficits. In fact, the only budget surplus we've had in the last 30 yrs has been under a Dem President (Clinton).
but at least reindustrializing + limiting illegal low skilled immigration seems like a better plan to deal with income inequality than "bro just raise minimum wage and tax the rich more and give it to poor people bro what could go wrong bro its simple bro"
I think you need to show your work on this one. Why exactly does seem better to you? I'm sure you can think of Euro countries which have high minimum wages, high taxes on the rich and less income inequality than here. They're also getting lots of immigrants (and many of them react to it the way Rich and his ilk do). They're also not exactly "re-industrializing" as you put it. I'm sure they still buy all sorts of cheap shiet from China.
I live in the real world where crime is an unfortunate reality. We can't get crime down to zero. Not Biden. Not Orangeman, not anyone. Crime has been steadily going down. You just can't accept and have to spin this ridiculous attempt at a point. This is really a perfect encapsulation of the imaginary world you Trump slappies live in and the allergy to facts that you seem to have.
People feel crime is too high and politicians are too soft on it. They voted for Trump. You can say you think they're wrong and that they should be more tolerant of crime all you want, but it played a role in Kamala's loss. And, no, it wasn't because people are too dumb not to accept crime.
Again, you're fixated on this one year. Crime was high the three prior years. You keep expecting people to have forgotten all about that time frame as if it never happened. We didn't.
While we're on the subject of crime, thoughts on the crime school shootings? How many of those do you feel is acceptable. As you know Trump and Republicans suggest that it's just something we just need to live with (let me know if you need a cite for that). Sure sounds like he feels that some crime is acceptable! I'm sure this will cause you to reexamine your fervent Trump support.
Kamala and Joe have done nothing to address school safety, aside from thoughts and prayers. Do politicians get thoughts and prayers when their safety is threatened? No, they get security. Where has their school security plan been? Oh yeah...that would have detracted from their gun ban agenda.
So, no, unlike Joe and Kamala I don't think any shootings are acceptable. I think schools should have the same security government buildings and courthouses get. Our children are more important than our politicians.
Looks like you too have fallen prey to right-wing disinformation. Shoplifting was never decriminalized in CA. Yes, Trump said it a lot and rubes believed it. But it was not the truth....
Yes, many of these misdemeanors never received prison sentences because jails were overcrowded. This is a thing that happens all over the place. Also, it's not like the CA law was special.
If people aren't getting punished for it, it was de facto decriminalized. Voters don't care if something is on the books but doesn't get enforced. They care about what actually happens.
Again, you're just making up things that I said. Yeah, I would love systemic deflation with out systemic economic hardship. Just like I would also love your crime free utopia. Also please explain where prices "belong" and how we determine that.
Prices are determined by the free market, by forces like supply and demand. Prices returning to where they were a couple of years ago won't shut down the economy. Really.
Rich: People don't care about stats. They care about things they actually spend money on like food, housing, etc.
Melk: The CPI includes all of those things
Rich: You're just being argumentative.
Good talk!
I didn't answer beyond that because you're wrong. The CPI includes rent but not homes people own. It doesn't include mortgage interest, property taxes, or costs of upkeep either.
Fair enough. So how much credit do you give Biden for your yuuuge portfolio gainz.
Not enough to vote for Kamala. My portfolio went up under Trump too, and will under Trump 2.0.
This is a fantastic retcon of the whole situation. It's gonna take a while to unwind this one. Let's start slow. Can we agree that the bill would have passed if Trump hadn't intervened? Is that too much too ask? Can we at least operate on that shared plane of reality? If we can, then explain this too me. How is it that there were enough Republicans on board to pass it. Were they lead like sheep by MSNBC? Heck, McConnell basically developed the bill. Is he soft on the border as well?
It wasn't going to pass. MSNBC tells you it was bipartisan because Lankford (not McConnell) was on it, and a couple of RINOs like Romney were going to vote for it. It wasn't going to pass the House even if Trump stayed silent. It wasn't even a sure thing in the Senate. If it were Trump merely stating he didn't support it wouldn't have stopped its passage.
There's a reason only liberals mourn the bill. Those same cheerleaders are now complaining about how we're actually going to secure the border now and deport the illegal aliens.
Golly, I'd never thought of that. I'm sure the scientists that are part of governing bodies for sport never thought of that either. And they sure as heck didn't make specific rules regarding hormone levels and such to address that. I guess none of those things happened.
Some schools have been allowing biological males with no hormone suppression to compete against girls, like in Connecticut. Also, suppressing hormones does nothing regarding the lifetime of benefits a biological male gains from maleness.
And, yeah, what you seem to think happened never did happen. Rather, it's been a politicized process, which is why we the people have stepped in to address it via the democratic process.
Ah yes, Trump and Republicans aren't pro-life. They just love democracy. Can you actually say that with a straight face? The whole point was to reduce abortion access. You are just describing the mechanism by which they did it.
Most of us conservatives wanted it returned to the states, which it has been. You wanted people to vote against Trump out of revenge, to close the barn doors after the horses got out? Odd. Most everyone knew he'd nominate conservative justices. I don't know what you think the surprise was.
Biden was in the Senate in 1973 when Roe was decided. He and the Dems had a half-century to codify the decision and never did, preferring to use it for political gain.
Dude, those things are the Democratic platform.
Those aren't the entirety of the Democrat platform. They are merely a couple of planks. People were able to get those individual items without getting stuck with the rest of their woke, big government agenda.
You're not too bright, are you?
Owned housing units themselves are not priced in the CPI Housing Survey. Like most other nations' economic statistics programs, the CPI program views owned housing units as capital (or investment) goods distinct from the shelter service they provide, and therefore not as consumption goods. Spending to purchase and improve houses and other housing units is treated as investment and not consumption in the CPI. Interest costs (such as mortgage interest), property taxes, real estate fees, most maintenance, and all improvement costs are part of the cost of the capital good and are also not treated as consumption items. These non-consumption costs of owned housing are out of scope for the CPI under the cost-of-living framework that guides the index.
If this is your attempt at a gotcha, we're gonna have some fun!
You do realize that there are housing costs besides "owned housing"? There is this thing called "renting". You may want to check it out. And here is something that is really going to blow your mind, when the price of "owned housing" goes up, then the price of renting also goes up.
Also let's look at your initial claim:
People discussing inflation will also include housing costs, interest rates, and everything else they spend their money on.
Huh, "owned" wasn't in there was it? You said "housing costs". And I assure you when you find out what "renting" is you will discover that it is indeed a housing cost.
I'm sure you were just thinking it the whole time. You just forgot.
You were correct about one thing. Soulman was wrong. This is entertaining AF!
The gotcha wasn't that you were wrong. It's that I CLEARLY let you slide by merely claiming you were being argumentative. That should have struck you as odd, as I had all the details and all the facts on everything in the discussion. Instead, you thought you had a gotcha, and you then posted and then doubled down on it. You should have seen what was happening and at least verified your assumptions before continuing to post incorrect information.
And, yeah, I know what the CPI is. I know it includes rent and, unlike you, I know it doesn't include owned homes.
I didn't answer beyond that because you're wrong. The CPI includes rent but not homes people own. It doesn't include mortgage interest, property taxes, or costs of upkeep either.
Speaking of owned, I hope you don't mind getting owned for the second time since Nov. 5th. 😀
Exactly! That's what I'm saying. It's feels, not facts. The question is whether they are right or wrong about that.
and politicians are too soft on it. They voted for Trump. You can say you think they're wrong and that they should be more tolerant of crime all you want, but it played a role in Kamala's loss. And, no, it wasn't because people are too dumb not to accept crime.
Again, you're fixated on this one year. Crime was high the three prior years. You keep expecting people to have forgotten all about that time frame as if it never happened. We didn't.
I'm not saying you forgot, I'm saying you're just making stuff up. Let's look at an actual source, shall we.
From article linked below:
Misleading statements about crime and public safety are already proliferating in this election cycle. As November draws closer, misinformation is likely to intensify. That makes it even more important to take a close look at what the best and most recent crime data tells us. One major trend is becoming clear: violent crime dropped in 2021 and 2022 — and then declined again, significantly, in 2023.
source:
This crime one is the funniest thing ever. The stats overwhelmingly show it's going down. You kind of know this, so you come up with "Well it's not zero". Let's set aside that Trump didn't get it to zero. Is clear that it doesn't matter how low it gets. It's just not low enough because the wrong team is in charge.
Kamala and Joe have done nothing to address school safety, aside from thoughts and prayers. Do politicians get thoughts and prayers when their safety is threatened? No, they get security. Where has their school security plan been? Oh yeah...that would have detract from their gun ban agenda.
So, no, unlike Joe and Kamala I don't think any shootings are acceptable. I think schools should have the same security government buildings and courthouses get. Our children are more important than our politicians.
Again you're making stuff up. Did Biden or Harris say school shootings are acceptable. You got any quotes on that? I mean we know Vance said that they are a "fact of life" and Trump said we need to "get over" them (if you need citations, let me know). What specifically did Biden or Harris say?
If people aren't getting punished for it, it was de facto decriminalized. Voters don't care if something is on the books but doesn't get enforced. They care about what actually happens.
They are getting prosecuted. They just aren't always getting jail time. This exact thing happens in Texas also. You mad at them also?
Prices are determined by the free market, by forces like supply and demand. Prices returning to where they were a couple of years ago won't shut down the economy. Really.
And what are "prices"? If we can't look at the CPI what do we look at? Your romanticized recollection of days past?
I didn't answer beyond that because you're wrong. The CPI includes rent but not homes people own. It doesn't include mortgage interest, property taxes, or costs of upkeep either.
I think I addressed this in the post above. If you'd said that the first time, I'd have given the response I alluded to above.
Not enough to vote for Kamala. My portfolio went up under Trump too, and will under Trump 2.0.
Good luck. And if it doesn't I'm sure you'll have an excuse at the ready why he isn't to blame.
It wasn't going to pass. MSNBC tells you it was bipartisan because Lankford (not McConnell) was on it, and a couple of RINOs like Romney were going to vote for it. It wasn't going to pass the House even if Trump stayed silent. It wasn't even a sure thing in the Senate. If it were Trump merely stating he didn't support it wouldn't have stopped its passage.
There's a reason only liberals mourn the bill. Those same cheerleaders are now complaining about how we're actually going to secure the border now and deport the illegal aliens.
Ok, no shared reality I guess. Well that's too bad. I'm sure you're right and the news is wrong. Let's take a quick look at this exchange between Cavuto (Fox News anchor I'm sure you're familiar with) and Lankford .
Source:
“You are a real gentleman about this, and I know you’re not trying to zing your colleagues, but it’s your colleagues in your party, sir, who torpedoed this, who didn’t get the facts right on what you just outlined was in that measure,” Cavuto said. “They killed it, ironically. Not Democrats.”
During negotiations in February, Lankford lamented the right-wing pushback—led by Trump and his allies—and revealed that a popular conservative media figure even demanded that he not address the immigration topic until after the election, or else be “destroyed.”
Also, McConnell was definitely heavily involved in the bill.
Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congres...
Within 48 hours of the release of a long-awaited immigration and foreign aid bill he had championed, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnellÂ’s Republican conference rejected his pitch to support it, knifed the deal and left it for dead.
Just four Republicans voted for it. In the end, even McConnell backtracked and voted against the package that he had helped develop.
Some schools have been allowing biological males with no hormone suppression to compete against girls, like in Connecticut. Also, suppressing hormones does nothing regarding the lifetime of benefits a biological male gains from maleness.
I'm sure these scientists never thought of this either. For scientists they sure are dumb!
And, yeah, what you seem to think happened never did happen. Rather, it's been a politicized process, which is why we the people have stepped in to address it via the democratic process.
Again, you're making stuff up. NCAA for example has clear guidelines. And they are followed. "Never did happen" is false. But if a trans person actually wins, you're going to be results oriented and say "see trans person won, obviously the guidelines were wrong". Hopefully, on a poker forum I don't need to explain to you the problem with this thinking. But if you need it, let me know.
I'm sure that we can find some isolated cases of some younger trans kids competing without strict guidelines in place. As I said earlier, we both know that this issue affects approximately zero people. Why is it that it is so massively important to you?
Most of us wanted it returned to the states, which it has been. You wanted people to vote against Trump out of revenge, to close the barn doors after the horses got out? Odd. Most everyone knew he'd nominate conservative justices. I don't know what you think the surprise was.
Biden was in the Senate in 1973 when Roe was decided. He and the Dems had a half-century to codify the decision and never did, preferring to use it for political gain.
Look dude, you're just basically lying or delusional at this point. There are absolutely zero pro-choice people who said, "You know what, Roe was wrong, we need to overturn it so we can give control to the states". This is yet another figment of your imagination.
I don't what is this "revenge" you're talking about is. When people don't like what a politician does they vote against that person. That's like how politics works.
Yeah, Dems should have codified it. Terrible move. No argument here. I'm still not sure SCOTUS would have come up with some "reasoning" to overturn that law, but they still should have done it.
Those aren't the entirety of the Democrat platform. They are merely a couple of planks. People were to have those individual items without getting stuck with the rest of their agenda.
Ok fine. Very important planks, but sure, whatever.
However, it makes even less sense to vote for stuff and then vote for people who will try to undermine those very things (abortion access, higher min wage, labor protections) on a federal level. That's dumb. Calling dumb people dumb is a terrible strategy if you want them to vote to you. But not calling them dumb doesn't make that less dumb. Since we're arguing this on a dying subforum of a dying forum, what I do in my posts is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with optimal Dem strategy should be.
The gotcha wasn't that you were wrong. It's that I CLEARLY let you slide by merely claiming you were being argumentative. That should have struck you as odd, as I had all the details and all the facts on everything in the discussion.
I love it. I got "owned" because you didn't type "owned" in your post and I was supposed CLEARLY to assume you meant it despite your overall tenuous grasp of facts. Sure thing, man. LOL
"Let's just pretend I said something different from the thing I actually said" is definitely a common strategy used by people who know what they are talking about.
Also as I explained above, you do realize that if "owned housing" costs go up then rents also go up, so the CPI doesn't ignore it entirely. If it helps try to imagine who the folks who are renting are renting from.
I'm not sure I can dumb it down more than that. I thought it was clear the first time I said it.
Rich,
It's clear we've got some time on our hands. While we're at it ,can you explain Soulman's evil plot to cancel you? Specifically what do you mean by "cancel" and how was he supposedly going to achieve it.
I see melkerson still melkmelking, love it.
Rich,
It's clear we've got some time on our hands. While we're at it ,can you explain Soulman's evil plot to cancel you? Specifically what do you mean by "cancel" and how was he supposedly going to achieve it.
I already answered you. Besides, Soulman didn't PM me. What he said is there for you to read and interpret how you wish.
Exactly! That's what I'm saying. It's feels, not facts. The question is whether they are right or wrong about that.
Not really. I'm not going to keep rehashing what I already wrote. I simply point out the obvious. People see crime as high because it's been high for the duration of the Biden-Harris Administration. Just because it's down this past year doesn't wipe out the prior three years. Same for inflation and the border. You're free to agree or disagree, but that's what many voters saw, and that's what was voted on.
Again you're making stuff up. Did Biden or Harris say school shootings are acceptable. You got any quotes on that? I mean we know Vance said that they are a "fact of life" and Trump said we need to "get over" them (if you need citations, let me know). What specifically did Biden or Harris say?
Where is Biden's school security plan? I don't even care about his words. I care about his deeds. His deeds say he thinks it's acceptable. We both know shootings of politicians would have drawn calls for increased security.
They are getting prosecuted. They just aren't always getting jail time. This exact thing happens in Texas also. You mad at them also?
Conservatives want to punish crime. The far left apparently doesn't. People votes on that.
Good luck. And if it doesn't I'm sure you'll have an excuse at the ready why he isn't to blame.
That was decided on Nov. 5th. We the people voted on it and we blamed Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and the Democrat Party.
Again, you're making stuff up. NCAA for example has clear guidelines. And they are followed. "Never did happen" is false. But if a trans person actually wins, you're going to be results oriented and say "see trans person won, obviously the guidelines were wrong". Hopefully, on a poker forum I don't need to explain to you the problem with this thinking. But if you need it, let me know.
We just voted on this too. Just because it doesn't matter to you doesn't mean it doesn't matter to the rest of us.
Look dude, you're just basically lying or delusional at this point. There are absolutely zero pro-choice people who said, "You know what, Roe was wrong, we need to overturn it so we can give control to the states". This is yet another figment of your imagination.
What did you think overturning Roe would do? And how many pro-life people did you ask about their goals to make your determination?
Since we're arguing this on a dying subforum of a dying forum, what I do in my posts is irrelevant.
That's another reason I don't know why we want a politics thread in H&F. We have just a handful of posters. Dividing it further seems bad to me. I'm here to post my workouts and to discuss training.
I love it man. The psychosis runs deep.
Rich Muny: I said one thing. You said it was wrong. Then I said a different thing. It's your fault for not knowing I meant the second thing. Ha ha. I slow rolled you. I'm not sure I've encountered someone who was so aggressively smug about his obivious wrongness. Maybe, Soulman might be on to something.
But ok, Rich, for fun let's just pretend you initially said the thing that you didn't say. Mind answering a couple of questions. I promise, they're easy.
1. Is renting a housing cost?
2. What happens when to renting cost, when cost to own a house goes up? Does it go up or down?
3. What happens to the CPI when renting cost goes up, when all else is equal?
Bonus:
When god king Trump reduces prices how are we going to judge that? Can't use CPI, so what do we use?
Not really. I'm not going to keep rehashing what I already wrote. I simply point out the obvious. People see crime as high because it's been high for the duration of the Biden-Harris Administration. Just because it's down this past year doesn't wipe out the prior three years.
Dude, can you read? I just posted a source that showed otherwise. I even bolded the relevant parts for you. Here it is again. Link to source in last post.
Misleading statements about crime and public safety are already proliferating in this election cycle. As November draws closer, misinformation is likely to intensify. That makes it even more important to take a close look at what the best and most recent crime data tells us. One major trend is becoming clear: violent crime dropped in 2021 and 2022 — and then declined again, significantly, in 2023.
I know, I know. When confronted with facts that don't square with your reality, you go with what you feel is true. That's like literally the exact point of the poll that I first posted. Facts don't matter to you guys. And that's your prerogative. There is no law that says you have to accept facts. You can go by a random number generator. Or feels. Whatever you like. I guess we didn't need that poll. We could have just had you post a bit.
Anyway, let me just make sure I understand your crime position. I promise, I'm really trying to summarize the position accurately.
Crime is down under Biden. You think it was high for some of the time during his admin and only came down in the last year. You don't seem to feel to need to post any sources for this despite reading sources to the contrary. Despite the fact that crime is historically low, it is "too high" now. Any crime above zero crime is too high. Now Trump didn't get to zero crime either, so presumably he failed at this task also. But he's clearly better on crime. Even though we're at historic lows now.
Did I get that right?
,
Where is Biden's school security plan? I don't even care about his words.
Well, obviously you don't care about words. Anyone who cares about the words that come out of Trump's mouth would never vote for him. Why judge people by what they say? Much better to just imagine stuff that they may or may not do and base it on that.
Also what was first Trump admin's "school security plan"? How did that work out?
I care about his deeds. His deeds say he thinks it's acceptable. We both know shootings of politicians would have drawn calls for increased security.
This is dumb, even for you. Obviously dems care about school shootings. Their preferred solution revolves gun control. Your preferred solution seems to revolve around, I don't know... Secret service level details for every school? Every kid? Despite that someone got a shot at Trump but I'm sure it will work for every school in the country.
That's impractical for myriad reasons, which I suppose we can get into, but even the dumbest Trumpkins I've met don't think Dems think that school shootings are acceptable. They just think (wrongly, imo) that dems have a terrible solution for it. And Dems sure as heck don't say that they're a "fact of life" like one of your guys.
Conservatives want to punish crime. The far left apparently doesn't. People votes on that.
You keep posting the same stuff without responding to the stuff I post. I showed you that TX has an even higher rate for shoplifting to be a felony (over 2K). California's is only $950. Do they care less about crime in TX? They also don't often throw people in jail for misdemeanor shoplfiting in TX (like CA). Are you mad at TX? If not, why not? If so, is that Biden's fault too.
That was decided on Nov. 5th. We the people voted on it and we blamed Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and the Democrat Party.
I don't know who you think is suggesting otherwise. My point, as was evidenced by the sources I posted, is that a significant number of these voters were stupid and/or irrational. People who believed things that were clearly untrue voted more for Trump. People with better grip on reality, voted more for Harris. Also when candidates names were separated from the policies, they clearly preferred Harris'. Yes, people are stupid sometimes. That's why sometimes people like Hitler get in power. Yes, Trump won. No one is disputing that. Especially not me.
We just voted on this too. Just because it doesn't matter to you doesn't mean it doesn't matter to the rest of us.
FFS man, just learn to read. I fully accept that it matters to you. I never said otherwise. I would like you to state why. Is that really so hard to understand.?
What did you think overturning Roe would do?
Are these supposed to be trick questions? I thought it would reduce abortion access. That is what it did. Did you not realize that?
And how many pro-life people did you ask about their goals to make your determination?
I'm sure I've had some form of this discussion with at least 50-100 people who are pro-life. You really think there are a significant number of pro-choice people who wanted Roe overturned? I'd ask for a source, but it's clear that "sources" and "facts" aren't your thing.
That's another reason I don't know why we want a politics thread in H&F. We have just a handful of posters. Dividing it further seems bad to me. I'm here to post my workouts and to discuss training.
Well, at least you're good at that. Definitely solid work for an old guy.
Crime is down under Biden. You think it was high for some of the time during his admin and only came down in the last year. You don't seem to feel to need to post any sources for this despite reading sources to the contrary. Despite the fact that crime is historically low, it is "too high" now. Any crime above zero crime is too high. Now Trump didn't get to zero crime either, so presumably he failed at this task also. But he's clearly better on crime. Even though we're at historic lows n
I am going to post here because this is a mental health issue. Not because I have a political view.
This is my 2c opinion. Read it for what it is worth.
There are lies, Damn Lies... and then there are Statistics (or lets say reports based on recorded information.)
I am not an American but I have travelled to Seattle every year at the same time for 4 days or so for the last 15 years or so.
From 2010 until 2022 (just post covid) or so Seattle was an amazing city. Super clean/friendly. You could easily walk from the downtown convention Center to Pike Place market and every store was busy and friendly. Now (2024) there are many closed shops and security standing in front of Nordstrom... the Hard Rock cafe and many other stores have closed. The closings started slowly 3 years ago and now there are many closed shops.
When people say.. they feel like crime has increased in the past 4 years that is because what used to constitute a crime has gone way way up, but now no longer counts as a crime.
If you say violent crime has decreased (because of stats) then make the extension that Crime under Biden has decreased, that is a 'statistic.'
It may be true that violent crime has gone down, but the every day person does not see violent crime.
Extending the violent crime statistic to saying that (overall) Crime has gone down in the last 2-3 years is not how people feel.
Ok but we (the left) do not base our claim on feel but reports and statistics!
Here is the reality that makes this issue hard for left/right to understand.
If I change the law to make any theft under $900 not a true crime and will not be reported/prosecuted, nor added to a report on overall crime then it is true that 'reported crime' has gone down.
Everyone sees the shops closing and petty theft going on, open drug use on the streets (not a crime in the last 4 years) What used to be recorded as a crime... now NOT recorded as a crime has probably gone up 1000%. This is just a guess, but 4 years ago, I never saw any petty theft. Now I can see it and the results of it every time I walk on the street. The Walgreens has an armed security guard at the entrance now and they check your bags etc. I feel it and I am a tourist.
In fact it has gone up so much that every block walking from the convention center to Pike Place Market in 2024 has bums and closed stores on it and I no longer feel safe walking there after sunset.
The left says (recorded) crime has gone down. True from the reports. The Right says I see petty theft and open drug use,(crime in my eyes) on a daily basis. I see it and feel it, because the stores are closing (Also True) The stores say they are closing because they are no longer profitable. What they really mean is that we are being robbed on a daily basis and our police have been defunded to the point that there is essentially a no response to a theft under $900.
That is why Prop 36 passed in California.
Now pay me my 2c.
