Board 8 > Politics Internment Topic 226

(+) Yeah! (+)

Plot twist: he called them back because he would rather wait until there IS a significant human cost to the strikes
---

I assume he planned to call back the strike before he called in the strike in the first place, as well as the plan to leak this to the media, with the purpose of intimidating Iran or other countries.
---

So to avoid hypocrisy, I imagine military operations are called off by many people for a wide variety of reasons across the world incredibly regularly.

Without being in the room and having access to the information and communication at the time, both calling AND cancelling the mission could have been completely reasonable and to say otherwise is just attacking someone you hate because you can.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I mean, yeah

But a competent president would not have issued an order in which they weren't confident enough to not change their mind in a few hours

Strong disagree. These sorts of things are time critical. You can call off a sniper shot before he takes the shot, but if he's not in position, you can't make it happen after the fact.
---

GildedFool posted...

Strong disagree. These sorts of things are time critical. You can call off a sniper shot before he takes the shot, but if he's not in position, you can't make it happen after the fact.

He didn't just approve units getting in position to strike. He approved the strikes themselves. If he was uncertain, he shouldn't have given a go ahead to actually attack.

Furthermore, going to war with Iran over them shooting down a drone (even if it was a hundred million dollar piece of equipment) is completely insane.
---

I mean, America is not going to war with Iran over a drone being down.

They're going to war with Iran because they want to change the balance of power in the Middle East, which may be related to Iran's nuclear development.

Drones are not in and around the airspace of Iran for no reason.
---

If this was just a normal drill do you think Iran would feel threatened? Would China feel scared? The EU? The point is to create the impression that the US President is unstable and erratic. So other countries come to the bargaining table and give Trump negotiation wins.

There is a reason that under Trump, the US has only once actually fired missiles at an adversary other than the ones we've been in embroiled in conflict with for years. It happened while Trump was having dinner with Xi Jinping at Mar a Lago. A classic power play, showing off how powerful he is that he can order missile strikes during a state dinner. Transparent? Sure. But the point is made.
---

And yeah, Trump is not going to start a war he's not prepared to win. The biggest problem of course with his strategy is that the tricks that fool the Democrats 100% of the time are not going to be very effective against the likes of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. They will assume any American president is smart, and Trump's brand of politics makes complete sense in a Russian or Chinese setting anyways. So they're not going to believe Trump is erratic and unstable no matter how much absurd saber rattling he does.
---

America's going to war with Iran because certain warhawks in Washington have wanted a war with Iran for a long time, like for more than a decade.

Like this guy:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/bolton-keeps-trying-goad-iran-war/592108/

"Bolton Keeps Trying to Goad Iran Into War"

Bolton has wanted war with Iran since he worked in the Bush administration.

(And based on pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal, it really doesn't seem like it's the nukes they care about, they just want regime change in Iran).
---

Trump employs those warhawks to make his bluster sound credible. And to make sure he doesn't get impeached, by letting the country know that if he's gone, we're getting Bush 3.0, with less intelligence and more aggression than Bush 2.
---

Anybody following/know about what's going on in Oregon? I got sent this article https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2019/06/oregon-republican-senator-issues-threat-to-state-troopers.html

Which uh, while utterly absurd on its face, seems like it skipped a couple steps? Or is it really as simple as "Republicans are walking out on legislative session to prevent quorum and the governor has legal authority to use the cops to compel their presence" as was very briefly explained to me?

I can only assume that the governor really does have the legal authority to use the police to do this, otherwise the police wouldn't do it

Paratroopa1 posted...

I can only assume that the governor really does have the legal authority to use the police to do this, otherwise the police wouldn't do it

Well, yeah. But going from that to an elected official saying "Send bachelors and come heavily armed"?

Reg posted...

Paratroopa1 posted...

I can only assume that the governor really does have the legal authority to use the police to do this, otherwise the police wouldn't do it

Well, yeah. But going from that to an elected official saying "Send bachelors and come heavily armed"?

Oh that part doesn't surprise me at all. There's a real wild west mentality that still lives on in the rural parts of Oregon and Washington

red sox 777 posted...

A liberal is someone who reads a Paul Krugman blog post and thinks that he is now qualified to argue with someone who has actually studied economics, and contemptuously dismiss their arguments.

red sox 777 posted...

If liberals read deep, multi-layered texts like the Bible more often, they would probably be better able to empathize with others and understand complex arguments, which would help them win elections.

so you're bascially saying all liberals are ignorant idiots who are unable to empathize with others while all conservatives are well-read smart people with tons of empathy, while providing 0% evidence for any of these claims. ok.
---

red sox only ever posts...

bullshit about all liberals being ignorant idiots while all conservatives are smart people, while never providing evidence for anything

Feels over reals

---

i know the majority of the regulars in this topic gave up on red sox ages ago but i'm disappointed to see this shit from him, honestly. i remember a long time ago in the freedom topic, when muffin said "krugman is such an idiot," red sox actually reprimanded him and said "krugman may be wrong, but he's not dumb."

seems like he's totally fine with being in the "LIBERALS ARE IDIOTS LOL" camp now, though.
---

On the face of it, he's only describing a subset of left-leaning individuals.

The whole point of the "liberal" strawman is that it's a logical trick where one can posit the existence of this absurdity and then attempt to maintain a seemingly rational position in any particular debate by saying "I know EVERYONE isn't like this come on guys" while still also using the existence of the "liberals" in a general sense as an allegedly meaningful way to solidify their own beliefs.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

A liberal is someone who reads a Paul Krugman blog post and thinks that he is now qualified to argue with someone who has actually studied economics, and contemptuously dismiss their arguments.

red sox 777 posted...

If liberals read deep, multi-layered texts like the Bible more often, they would probably be better able to empathize with others and understand complex arguments, which would help them win elections.

so you're bascially saying all liberals are ignorant idiots who are unable to empathize with others while all conservatives are well-read smart people with tons of empathy, while providing 0% evidence for any of these claims. ok.

Well, if someone was good at empathy, I wouldn't call them a (modern American) liberal. Doubtless there are lots of people who hold liberal views who are good at empathy (for example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg), but that doesn't mean I have to call them a liberal.
---

Krugman is not dumb. You can't win a Nobel prize in economics if you aren't good at economics. That doesn't mean his readers can't be dumb.
---

pyresword posted...

On the face of it, he's only describing a subset of left-leaning individuals.

The whole point of the "liberal" strawman is that it's a logical trick where one can posit the existence of this absurdity and then attempt to maintain a seemingly rational position in any particular debate by saying "I know EVERYONE isn't like this come on guys" while still also using the existence of the "liberals" in a general sense as an allegedly meaningful way to solidify their own beliefs.

Yes, except it isn't a strawman, because "liberals" do exist, in numbers large enough and loud enough to be relevant.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Doubtless there are lots of people who hold liberal views who are good at empathy (for example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg), but that doesn't mean I have to call them a liberal.

why are people who hold liberal views not liberals?
---

Because liberals are idiots and so if you're not an idiot you're not a liberal duh
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Doubtless there are lots of people who hold liberal views who are good at empathy (for example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg), but that doesn't mean I have to call them a liberal.

why are people who hold liberal views not liberals?

I hold many liberal views myself. And I hold many conservative views. Ideally, I would describe myself as a liberal and a conservative, simultaneously, or neither. But people here don't seem to like nuance or independent thinking and just call me a "conservative." So by their own standard, they are "liberals."

As I understand it, the political environment in Europe, at least for now, is a good deal more healthy in the sense that the center-left and center-right respect each other.
---

So the Trump administration (Sarah Fabian, you may remember her as the lawyer who couldn't show up to court because she had dog sitting duties) is arguing that migrant children do not need access to soap, blankets, or toothbrushes.

But of course, the right is way more concerned over them being called 'concentration camps' than the treatment of children. Maybe if they were fetuses? Nah, they probably wouldn't care then either if I'm being honest.
---

red sox 777 posted...

As I understand it, the political environment in Europe, at least for now, is a good deal more healthy in the sense that the center-left and center-right respect each other.

It probably helps that in Europe, the center-left and center-right (and the actual left, for that matter) aren't constantly fighting for control of the same party.
---

red sox 777 posted...

I hold many liberal views myself. And I hold many conservative views. Ideally, I would describe myself as a liberal and a conservative, simultaneously, or neither. But people here don't seem to like nuance or independent thinking and just call me a "conservative." So by their own standard, they are "liberals."

i mean, earlier in this topic you were spouting super conservative things ("lowering taxes helps the poor because it creates jobs!"). don't know how you can say stuff like that and claim that you're not a conservative, unless you're trying to pull some gary johnson-ish "i'm socially liberal, economically conservative" nonsense.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i mean, earlier in this topic you were spouting super conservative things ("lowering taxes helps the poor because it creates jobs!"). don't know how you can say stuff like that and claim that you're not a conservative, unless you're trying to pull some gary johnson-ish "i'm socially liberal, economically conservative" nonsense.

I don't think I said that. I said that lowering taxes on the working class helps them because they have more money since they can pay less taxes. That seems uncontroversial to me.

As far as lowering taxes on the rich to create jobs, I think I said that conservatives believe this in good faith, not that I necessarily agree. I think, based on theory, it's fairly clear that the optimal tax rate to create jobs is not 100%. Then, it's an open question whether that tax rate is 0% or something else. If it's not 0, then there's same logic of the Laffer Curve applies and there is some tax rate above which cutting taxes would create jobs. If it is 0%, obviously there is a tax rate above which cutting taxes would create jobs.

As for what I think actually would be the ideal tax rate for maximizing jobs? That's a complex factual question, and I don't think anyone really knows. Certainly economists cannot agree on this. Muffin would say that it is 0%, and I would tend to disagree.

Based on the record low unemployment in the US now, I would suggest that empirical evidence suggests the current rates are pretty good. But obviously one data point is hardly conclusive.

I think the more relevant question right now is whether Ricardian Equivalence is still a relevant concept for the US. This is the idea that with a rational market, government spending based on borrowing cannot create jobs because in the long run, the only way for government to spend is to tax. Even if it borrows in the short run it will have to repay the loans in the future, and will have to collect taxes in the future to do so. A rational market would see government borrowing in the short run and expect higher taxes in the future to pay for the borrowing, and would therefore allocate more money to saving in anticipation of having to pay future taxes. Thus, there is no net increase in spending across the whole economy (private + government) and the government stimulus plan fails.

The Ricardian Equivalence concept is relevant because the modern Republican concept of a tax cut is essentially the same as the old Democratic concept of deficit spending, just dressed up in different rhetoric. This is because the modern Republican tax cut does not call for any decrease in government spending. Ergo, it calls for an increase in government borrowing. Both of these are attempts to increase total national spending to stimulate the economy and create jobs in the short run. Ricardian Equivalence says neither should work because rational actors should expect higher taxes in the future to pay off the increased government debt, and would cut spending to save for that day.

There's been a lot of research over the years regarding how deficit spending (the old/Democratic version of this) might produce net gains to the economy by using the scale of the government to allow borrowing at a lower interest rate than its citizens can get. And there's been a lot of debate among economists as to whether there is any advantage to this or if the lower interest rate is outweighed by the inefficiency of government bureaucracy.

But with Trump in office, and following years of economic growth in which the market has seemingly only cared about the short term, we now have a new reason why Ricardian Equivalence might not be applicable. Maybe people don't expect higher taxes in the future to pay off the national debt because they don't expect the debt to ever be paid. And it's not their problem - we can live in the moment and spend other people's money!
---

Dancedreamer posted...

So the Trump administration (Sarah Fabian, you may remember her as the lawyer who couldn't show up to court because she had dog sitting duties) is arguing that migrant children do not need access to soap, blankets, or toothbrushes.

But of course, the right is way more concerned over them being called 'concentration camps' than the treatment of children. Maybe if they were fetuses? Nah, they probably wouldn't care then either if I'm being honest.

was enjoying Chuck Todd trending for a few hours on twitter the other day just getting blasted for his ridiculous segment on it

more people realizing chuck is garbage is always great
---

New allegation of borderline rape against Trump:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/president-donald-trump-faces-new-rape-accusation.html

The victim told two friends at the time (which they corroborated).
---

Actually I shouldnt say borderline; it was rape. He just didnt finish.
---

A senior White House official said in a statement, This is a completely false and unrealistic story surfacing 25 years after allegedly taking place and was created simply to make the President look bad.

Why do Republicans think that the president needs assistance in looking like a POS
---

Also, Lasa, please notice that when I put a lot of time into posts like #479 here it usually doesn't get a lot of responses. Whereas posting "#ThisIsWhyYouLost" will get dozens of responses with minimal effort.
---

I don't see why a new accusation matters, pretty everybody has already made up their mind on whether Trump is a rapist and whether it's OK or not.
---

The conduct alleged here is more serious than the other allegations (with the exception of the marital rape claim that Ivana made but recanted; I still believe that it probably happened, though).

But yeah, Im sure that the people who dismissed the last 15 or however many it was will dismiss this too.
---

The article from E. Jean Carroll describing Trump and several other men assaulting her throughout her life:

https://www.thecut.com/2019/06/donald-trump-assault-e-jean-carroll-other-hideous-men.html
---

red sox 777 posted...

I don't think I said that. I said that lowering taxes on the working class helps them because they have more money since they can pay less taxes. That seems uncontroversial to me.

ok, i misunderstood what you were saying, then. you were saying that lowering taxes helps the poor, though. does the working class count as the poor?
---

red sox 777 posted...

Also, Lasa, please notice that when I put a lot of time into posts like #479 here it usually doesn't get a lot of responses. Whereas posting "#ThisIsWhyYouLost" will get dozens of responses with minimal effort.

i noticed that. at the same time, earlier in this topic cyclo made a pretty long post in response to your post about whether or not lowering taxes helps the poor, and you responded to it with one line of text. when you're lecturing people about how they should reply to posts that had a lot of effort put into them, perhaps you should follow your own advice too >_>
---

I mean the only text of red sox that I see these days is what gets quoted by others, so yeah I'm not gonna respond to your bad faith junk. Quantity isn't the same as quality, buddy. I could type you a novel here about squirrels fucking, that doesn't mean it would be good or something you'd be interested in reading.
---

i do think that discussion/debate is a good thing, provided that it's not with someone who only comes in here to act like a total asshole (like sephyg).

muffin regularly posts in vlado's politics topic and he responds to 5% (at most) of the posts that are a response to his posts. his almost complete refusal to have a discussion gets pretty tiresome.
---

Discussion and Debate are only good if done in good faith.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

I don't think I said that. I said that lowering taxes on the working class helps them because they have more money since they can pay less taxes. That seems uncontroversial to me.

ok, i misunderstood what you were saying, then. you were saying that lowering taxes helps the poor, though. does the working class count as the poor?

Yes, I mean the working class. It helps the poor too to the extent that the poor have any taxes to be cut, but in the US they often don't have any "income tax." They do get charged social security, medicare, and sales taxes, which are regressive. IMO, poor people should not have to pay any of these taxes and the actual tax burden as a percentage of income is higher for poor people than the middle class because poor people spend 100% of their income and are paying an effective tax of approximately 25% in CA or NY between those taxes, even without paying a dime of income tax.

And the Republican tax cuts don't help people who don't pay any income tax, because there is nothing to cut and they don't cut the flat taxes we have. So they could certainly do better on that front. But they also didn't raise taxes on the poor.
---

ok. but what did the tax money that's now disappeared go to? like, if it went to healthcare and the hospitals in the US suffer because they're receiving less money that kinda sucks for the working class (and everyone else). (this is just an example, i have no idea if this happens.) i think you might be oversimplifying things by stating "trump has improved the lives of the working class because they have more money because they have to pay less taxes."

another thing to take into consideration is how much trump lowered taxes for the working class. obviously, if they have to spend $1 less than before, this improvement is so marginal that it's not worth taking into account.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

ok. but what did the tax money that's now disappeared go to? like, if it went to healthcare and the hospitals in the US suffer because they're receiving less money that kinda sucks for the working class (and everyone else). (this is just an example, i have no idea if this happens.) i think you might be oversimplifying things by stating "trump has improved the lives of the working class because they have more money because they have to pay less taxes."

another thing to take into consideration is how much trump lowered taxes for the working class. obviously, if they have to spend $1 less than before, this improvement is so marginal that it's not worth taking into account.

Government spending hasn't gone down at all. Government borrowing has gone up.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Government borrowing has gone up.

is this not a bad thing?
---

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1142183301777625089?s=21
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Government borrowing has gone up.

is this not a bad thing?

Muffin would think so. For me, it's worth it.

The US government gets such low interest rates, it seems like good business to borrow a lot. Trump probably thinks the GOP is crazy for opposing borrowing more for so long.
---

How can you mock nebulous strawman "liberals" about reading an economics book once and thinking they can debate economics when you voted for and support a president based on the merits of having zero experience in his chosen job, red sox.

Someone who can think of a pun should make the next topic
---