Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - DonaldD

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 17
General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: November 25, 2017, 06:58:29 AM »
We're splitting hairs about what exactly to call such a person. The point is that we should probably assume any 14 year olds that got into the mix were girls he probably thought were 16
Why should we assume that? The man was targeting minors at the mall, among other places.  He was also at the time an ADA, responsible for prosecuting people who were accused of breaking the law.  More than anybody else in society, and assuming he was not actively pursuing her because she was 14, he would have been aware of the likelihood of some of his conquests being below the age of consent. 

It would be more fair to assume he targeted her because of her age, or that he simply did not care that she was below the age of consent, given that he knew very well the risks, was not ignorant of the law, and was at least nominally intelligent given his position as an ADA at the time.

General Comments / Re: Republican Tax Plan
« on: November 23, 2017, 08:16:33 AM »
Fact: Corporate profits have been increasing over a number of years.
Fact: Wage rates have been stagnant over that same period.
Fact: Corporate profits are at an all time high.
Fact: Reducing actual corporate taxes will increase corporate profits further.
Wishful thinking: the profit increases related to reduced corporate taxes will be redirected in significant amounts to raising wages, where profit increases not related to tax reduction have not gone towards raising wages.

As to this
But hey, "corporations" have "too much money" ergo higher taxes must be good.  /sigh
This goes a long way to understanding why you are unable to process these points.  On this topic, as on many others, your argument is based on how you perceive others' motives for holding a position, as opposed to their actual reasons.

General Comments / Re: Republican Tax Plan
« on: November 21, 2017, 03:52:50 PM »
You'd have to posit that the corporate tax change won't increase the economy or salaries (notwithstanding that all evidence globally is that this is a settled fact, and most other countries have deliberately lowered their corporate tax rates to achieve this effect), which if either occur, virtually all income groups improve, but particularly the middle class.
I don't think the word "fact" means what you think it means.

Corporations are already making record profits.  Increasing their profits and expecting that will magically lead to higher salaries?  it's just not going to happen; otherwise, their record profits in recent years would have led to higher salaries, not to the salary stagnation that we have seen.

As for "increasing the economy" (whatever that means): I suppose giving shareholders, board members and C-level administrators stock value increases might be considered "increasing the economy", but I can't imagine most people think that to be terribly sexy.

General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: November 21, 2017, 09:30:36 AM »
Personally, I think the non-consensual kiss was worse.

General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: November 17, 2017, 02:33:34 PM »
Can everyone please stop using the term "fake news"?  It has come to mean everything from "things that make me uncomfortable" to "accurate reporting of things that my team lied about" to "accurate reports of what people said" said, to, well, pure propaganda and lies.

In this case, why not just say Moore's lawyer misrepresented the facts, possibly on purpose (there is a term for that, actually).

The term annoys me almost as much as the usage of the verb "to ask" as a noun. (nouning the verb, now?)

General Comments / Re: The accused
« on: November 14, 2017, 11:23:11 AM »
Hmmm... there is a difference between a court mandating that information concerning an alleged perpetrator (or even victim) be withheld as part of court proceedings, and the idea that people should be constrained from mentioning allegations in general.

You fall very quickly into a morass of conflicting speech freedom arguments, and those arguments will also differ greatly between countries.

I can't see any way that the release of the allegations concerning Takei or Moore could have been preemptively censored.

The current, albeit flawed solution, is to make people responsible for the damage that their false allegations have on an unfairly accused person.  Absent a time machine, I'm not sure how else to control the release of this type of information.

General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: November 13, 2017, 06:43:57 PM »
Assuming you are using "proof" and "evidence" as synonyms, your statement still makes no sense.  Maybe you disbelieve the evidence, as is your prerogative, but your disbelief does not somehow make the evidence disappear.  Like it or not, there are at least 30 "shreds" of evidence; whether you accept their veracity is another question.

Now, if you meant "proof" to mean, "proven" then using the term "not a shred of" is also silly - something is either proven, or not; one doesn't say there isn't a shred of "proveness"

At any rate, I don't see anyone here claiming that his alleged actions have been proven.  But speculating on the evidence and what it means does not somehow equate to having proved his guilt, nor even to "condemning the guy".

General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: November 13, 2017, 06:32:41 PM »
The simplest explanation is that they came forward now because they thought they might be believed and taken seriously
From what I've read, this is backwards: according to the WaPo, Moore's background was being delved into specifically because he had become the Republican candidate.  During the investigation, a number of people made statements suggesting there was something potentially newsworthy to be investigated.  After further investigation, 4 women were identified as having had relationships with the then 30-odd year old Moore while they were in their teens.  The WaPo was then eventually able to convince these women to speak on the record. Also from what I've read, they needed to be convinced to go on the record.

Stating that these women "came forward", if the WaPo is to be believed, is not accurate.  Which is actually important, because there are different motivations that could be inferred in the two different narratives.

General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: November 13, 2017, 05:36:15 PM »
why wait for even a shred of proof
Do you mean a shred of evidence?  If so, that's just what the WAPO provided - statements from the 4 witnesses and corroborating evidence from roughly 25 other people.

Or were you asking for other corroborating evidence not already included in the evidence  provided by the 30 people referenced in the article?

My own position is that, in the Facebook age, there is too often a rush to condemn and shame.  That being said, disregarding the WAPO article and characterizing it as not being "even a shred of proof" is just silly.

General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 08, 2017, 05:13:45 PM »
Note they were not just saying that the allegations were false but that making those allegations hurt US democracy.
Making those false allegations does hurt US democracy. Making particular true claims would be painful, maybe, but would in the long term allow the country to address the identified issues...  in a perfect world, where partisanship hasn't caused the country to fall into insanity.

General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 08, 2017, 05:09:33 PM »
TheDaemon, you completely missed the point of that post - it was in response to the claim that the DNC/Obama/Clinton/the Democrats waited until after they lost, and only then did they bring up Russian malfeasance - which is clearly not true, as evidenced by the links provided.

You might think them whinging, you might think their complaints unworthy, but to state that the time to "decry Russian interference was before the election night" is to suggest that the Democrats did not do so prior to the election day.  Which is simply not true.

General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 07, 2017, 04:33:19 PM »
I know that's what you like to present, but your actual words and unintentional slips tend to disprove that.

General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 07, 2017, 04:27:07 PM »
Gotcha D.W. - I didn't get that reference at first.

So I just noticed this
Nothing there is new so cannot be grounds for suggesting the illegitimacy of an election.
I know this wasn't a response to me, but you really do seem to be focused so exclusively on how the Russian investigation might affect your team winning (or even just how it might reflect on the legitimacy of your team winning) that you have become constitutionally incapable of even thinking about defending your country against external threats, if doing so might seem to be reinforcing the perception of illegitimacy.

General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 07, 2017, 04:13:49 PM »
I will say that I was unaware at the attempts by Russia to influence us (in this way) prior to this election; so the, "nothing new here" strikes me as very odd.
Clearly, the information about the extent of the Russian attacks has evolved over the past 18 months - as one would expect, since investigations rarely wrap up in a single day.  Just consider how long it took for Facebook to even acknowledge there might have been abuse of their systems, never mind how long it took them to actually analyze and then provide the information.

There seems to be an argument that, since one particular claim was not made prior to the election, then adding that claim to the knowledge of the Russian attack is somehow moving the goal posts - whereas really, all it means is that our understanding of the methods of the attacks has improved.

General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 07, 2017, 04:09:04 PM »
The big incident that I think is being trumpeted falsely is the DNC leak, which has never been proven or demonstrated in any acceptable way to be Russian hacking
My personal position is that the DNC hack was only one of many facets of the Russian attack, and likely not the most consequential, and not as important as the overall attack, regardless.

That being said, your use of "trumpeted falsely" and never having been "demonstrated in any acceptable way" clearly puts proof to your inability to process evidence in any kind of unbiased way.

One might have doubts about the trustworthiness of any particular US intelligence agency, but to disregard the statements of all of them that actually analyzed the Russian campaign of hacking of the DNC is further evidence of your blind partisanship - or an irrational belief in a widespread conspiracy theory that rises to the level of moon-landing craziness.

General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 07, 2017, 03:24:46 PM »
Your position would have more credibility if the alarm bells rang before Trump was elected since the essential facts of these allegations were already known.


The time to decry Russian interference was before the election night.
You seem to have forgotten that Clinton was decrying Russian interference months before election night, as was the Obama administration.  Could Obama have provided more clarity and evidence?  Probably, but that would have led to charges of him getting the intelligence apparatus of the federal government involved in the election, and given that he probably expected Clinton to win anyway, I expect that also factored into how the release of information was limited.

I expect your memory has been compromised by listening to Trump's misdirections for the past year.  You do realize he doesn't feel himself bound by the truth, right?

Here are just a few instances of exactly what you seem to have forgotten, all pre-dating election night.  There are probably a dozen more where those came from.

Obama administration: October 19 2016:
Obama administration: October 8, 2016:
US Defense Secretary: September 7, 2016:
Hillary Clinton: October 19 2016:

General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 06, 2017, 05:34:53 PM »
In which case I would suggest you stop biting off your nose to spite your face.  Russia doesn't become less of a bad actor just because some US partisans want to take advantage of the domestic political opportunities.

General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 06, 2017, 04:46:22 PM »
the people pushing the Russia-hack narrative are only doing so to take down Trump
No, I'm really, really not.

I've explained over and over why Russian activities internationally have destabilized a number of democratic elections - but your US-centric blinders seemingly preclude you from understanding. Although I am beginning to wonder whether you are, in fact, Russian...

General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 06, 2017, 04:21:13 PM »
Russia is also pushing propaganda into France, England, Spain, Greece... possibly others; strangely, Trump is not a factor in any of those countries.  And no, no other country has invested nearly as much in destabilizing western democratic processes. 

I get the feeling though that the assumption that concern about Russian interference is linked to anti-Trump sentiments is what is driving reticence about investigating Russian aggression in this sphere, in much the same way as concern about the political implications of climate science creates a backlash against the science of climate change.

General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 03, 2017, 04:32:28 PM »
The most serious allegation re Russian meddling was that it hacked DNC servers and leaked internal emails to the public.
Not really.  The most serious allegation is that Russia implemented a broad spectrum attack on the US election, sure, including hacks of basically everything that it could, including DNC servers but as well as election equipment and social hacking of electoral processes, but also dis-information programs and attempts to instigate and exacerbate social divisions in the country.  The social media attacks on the country were probably worse, in that the effects were not just limited to the election results.

General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: November 03, 2017, 01:26:47 PM »
I'm trying to think of a situation where the "US government" pretended to be both a white supremacist group and a Muslim religious organization, and organized concurrent, co-located demonstrations with the intent to create a riot.

I see a lot of hand waving what-aboutism recently - "oooh, our government does it too" but generally, there is little equivalence when you dig down onto the details.

But if it makes it easier to rationalize Russian state aggression, why not?

General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: November 01, 2017, 09:08:16 PM »
I can't imagine how anyone might object to this:
At a Wednesday US Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Chairman Richard Burr released several Facebook ads allegedly purchased by Russia-linked organizations. None from Burr's office mentioned Clinton or Donald Trump; instead, they touched on immigration-related issues in order to widen divisions among the US electorate.

Among them was an attempt to get pro-Texas Facebook users and Muslims to clash at competing events in Houston on May 21, 2016. The pro-Texas page—called Heart of Texas—encouraged its 253,000 followers to gather at an Islamic Center in the city on that day to stop the "Islamization of Texas," while a "United Muslims of America" page, which had 328,000 followers, pushed an event at the same time and place, calling on supporters to "Save Islamic Knowledge."

General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: November 01, 2017, 03:55:00 PM »
So I must ask, is you fixation on the Russians over the fact they interfered, or that you want Trump out of office?
Ummm... since I've answered or addressed this multiple times already, even in the very last post that you just quoted from, I have to assume you are somehow unable to process my statement. The issue of Russian interference is completely separate from whether Trump was also involved.

From a purely selfish perspective, I don't care who your president is.  But Russian meddling in the electoral process and in the basic public sphere is now affecting all democracies, although not all equally.
Just to be clear, my tepid response to “Russian influence” is separate from saying that we should just ignore hacking.  Hardening our cyber-security is all but mandatory in response
Hardening your cyber security, especially on its own, would likely have little effect; whereas having the EU, USA, and other western democratic nations agreeing on a package of targeted embargoes, visa restrictions, account freezes, import tariffs... that might actually do something.

General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: November 01, 2017, 02:58:40 PM »
Much like Coca-Cola can provide all the indirect support it wants to a candidate(thanks to the SCotUS), the Russians acting independently of Donald Trump to support Donald Trump is not Donald Trump's "problem."
These are two completely separate points: that it is not Donald Trump's problem is obvious.  But whether a foreign government and a corporation subject to the laws of the USA are equivalent, or at least should be treated as such from the perspective of legal protections under the constitution is certainly debatable (at the very least).

It's weird that this keeps coming back to Donald Trump - he is completely secondary to this whole affair.  Yes, Yes, CNN, MSNBC, the DNC are all hyperventilating over the Trump campaign, but that is simply burying the lead - your country is at war, but instead of fighting the aggressor, you instead eat your own children.

General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: November 01, 2017, 02:49:08 PM »
The only thing that "matters" is the question of if Trump was actively working and collaborating with the Russian Government in an effort to either undermine the electoral system in the United States, or otherwise employ "dirty tricks" against Hillary Clinton (either at Trump's request, or with his knowledge). Also obviously in play is if Trump received direct material support, which would be a no-no even if it came from Coca-Cola, never mind a foreign government.
I of course disagree - that Russia intervened so directly in its hacking and propaganda efforts is as or more important than whether Trump assisted in the effort.

Sure, that would also be important, but it is something with which the existing government (and possibly legal) structures can deal.

This attack by an enemy nation, however, is an order of magnitude more important - and I cannot stress this too much, this enemy nation has been systematically attacking allies of the USA in much the same fashion for years, and is getting better at it.  It is no longer an option to simply bury your heads in the sand and hope, when the damage being done has become so costly.

"But, but, but - freedom of speech!" one might respond.  Foreign governments are not protected by the bill of rights, and the USA is not constrained by the first amendment in how it deals with them.

General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: November 01, 2017, 01:48:12 PM »
Something else I've noticed is that people conflate a problem with its solution... to the extent that even allowing oneself to think about a problem must be  constrained as the obvious solutions are anathema to their worldview.  This has been the case for so many topics, and this one is no different: it isn't an important issue, because there is no obvious solution (that is not unpalatable).

But of course, without allowing yourself to think about the problem, you won't allow yourself to identify possible responses.

General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: November 01, 2017, 12:57:00 PM »
Why does this seem obvious to you?  The Russian propaganda impact (and all propaganda impact) could almost be completely eliminated by teaching the American citizens to seek facts in forming their opinions, to study logic.  Why exactly do we have a K to 12 system that produces citizens who can't use even rudimentary logic and research skills?
This seems more than a little naive.

There are people posting on this site - educated, intelligent people - who have diametrically opposed views of the importance of, for instance, the Uranium One deal. And it's not even a close thing, shades of ambiguity, an "I can see your point", type of thing.  Diametrically opposed to the point of thinking that the interlocutor cannot possibly be arguing in good faith.  Without getting into who is right, there is clearly a challenge even among the educated and informed to get past their subconscious biases.

You think somehow the vast majority of people are going to be able, in the future, through some kind of underfunded educational system, to become better able to cut through their own partisan blindness than the average Ornery poster?  I guess it's possible we are already the bottom of the barrel here, but I haven't seen evidence of it, honestly.

General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: November 01, 2017, 12:40:47 PM »
Because we live in a free and open society where we are entitled to hear from any one, even the Russian's on any topic without censorship?  Or did I mistake how the first amendment works?
Yes, you misunderstand what the first amendment means.

General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: November 01, 2017, 08:37:33 AM »
TheDaemon, your view is unfortunately quite representative of too many of those living in the USA - completely blinkered to the outside world.

Russia has been attacking western democratic institutions aggressively over the past few years with unprecedented success.  Not just in the USA.  And if left unchecked, it very likely will change those countries in ways beneficial to Russia and likely not to the benefit of those countries' interests.

Yes, the USA has been a bad actor in its actions towards many foreign countries.  I'm just surprised that you would use that as an argument to allow Russia to attack your country without response. "Well, we sent troops to Vietnam, so I guess we should ignore the troops Russia has sent into Washington, London and Paris - fair's fair, after all"   ::)

General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: October 31, 2017, 10:39:43 PM »
There's no blindness quite like partisan blindness, is there?

An enemy nation has just perpetrated the largest propaganda attack on your country in its history, and your rationalization for supporting the attack is that national political entities play dirty?

Notwithstanding that this really isn't the same hijinx as the Democratic and Republican parties have gotten up to in the past, if you really believe that foreign powers should have unfettered access to sow divisions within your society, why don't you also support the federal vote for every resident of the planet?

It seems ridiculously obvious that the Russians, if allowed to continue destabilizing western democracies in this fashion (and they have also perpetrated these attacks in France, the UK and Greece in the past few years) are going to succeed in irrevocably damaging the western world as a whole, certainly for decades to come.  And since Russia is effectively a dictatorship, there is no possible quid pro quo in the market of ideas. So sure, you can continue to ignore what is effectively a war on your country, and on all western countries. The question is why you seem to welcome it.

General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: October 31, 2017, 04:26:28 PM »
More details - not really surprising, as this has been coming out in dribs and drabs already from the different platforms.

Facebook informed lawmakers that roughly 126 million Americans may have been exposed to content generated on its platform by a Russian government-linked troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency between June 2015 and August 2017.

Twitter disclosed that it has identified 2,752 accounts linked to the Internet Research Agency. It found a total of 36,746 accounts that appeared to be associated with Russia, though not necessarily with the Internet Research Agency, which generated automated, election-related content.

Colin Stretch, Facebook's general counsel, called the content of the Russian-bought ads "deeply disturbing" in his prepared remarks. He said it was "seemingly intended to amplify societal divisions and pit groups of people against each other."
Still, nothing to see here... no worries.

General Comments / Re: Russia and US politics
« on: October 30, 2017, 04:11:34 PM »
Neither of which, BTW, addresses whether the chicken came first, or the egg.

General Comments / Re: Russia and US politics
« on: October 30, 2017, 03:47:48 PM »
Why would CNN attempting to spin preclude the administration also attempting spin? (hint - it doesn't)

General Comments / Re: Republican Tax Plan
« on: October 30, 2017, 01:16:04 PM »
So someone making $50,000/yr would currently pay $2000 for their first $20,000 and $4500 for their next $50,000, for a total of $6500.
Did you mean $70,000 the first time you mentioned $50,000, or $30,000 the second time? ;)

General Comments / Re: Russia and US politics
« on: October 30, 2017, 12:23:43 PM »
Ah, but was the Republican and Administration push to change the subject last week the cause of the indictments' timing, or were those attempts to inoculate the administration the result of knowing that the indictments were about to drop?

General Comments / Re: Russia and US politics
« on: October 26, 2017, 05:31:12 PM »
I wouldn't suggest even slightly that CNN is not waaay biased against all things Trump, but CNN was reporting yesterday about the Clinton campaign and DNC funding for the dossier, and only today did they start reporting on the denials.

General Comments / Re: Russia and US politics
« on: October 25, 2017, 12:43:04 PM »
That’s a pretty straight line, goes even to Putin.
Well, no - you only get where you want to go if you ignore the complete analysis, and stop at the preamble.
Moreover, there is no evidence Fusion took money from the Russian government. It worked on behalf of an American law firm, which was hired by a company owned by a Russian whose father is a government official. Even Browder, a fierce critic of Fusion, said in an interview the White House is “conflating two issues.”
Fusion GPS has worked for both Democrats and Republicans.  Your "pretty straight line" is basically a game of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, where I am almost certainly as closely linked to Putin as this company is.

General Comments / Re: Russia and US politics
« on: October 25, 2017, 11:46:50 AM »
FusionGPS is directly tied to Russia.
No, it's not.

Taking Sarah Huckabee Sanders at her word is not the wisest decision.

General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: October 23, 2017, 11:11:16 PM »
he was being asked to go speak to a journalist who was going to publish material about Weinstein's character, and his assignment was to (truthfully) say that Weinstein was a stand-up guy
No.  Damon was asked to give a professional reference for Lombardo, not Weinstein... that is, if you believe any of the principals in the story, either Waxman or Damon

General Comments / Re: Anti-boycott bill
« on: October 20, 2017, 03:32:27 PM »
Hmmm... it's almost as if a government is forcing its citizens to purchase specific products...

General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: October 19, 2017, 12:36:52 PM »
I hadn't noticed this before:
What you really want to claim, though, is that something untoward was going on involving Trump and colluding with the enemy, and that's a completely different kettle of fish.
No.  I very carefully stayed away from insinuating anything of the sort.  That the Russian efforts seemed to be supporting Trump was clear, but the issue is not which side the Russians supported this go-around, but rather that they had effectively waged a war against your electoral system.

I understand that separating partisanship from position is difficult for you, so you tend to project that same tendency on others... :P

General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: October 19, 2017, 12:26:21 PM »
Nikki Haley claims Russian interference in US elections is "warfare":

General Comments / Re: Republican Tax Plan
« on: October 19, 2017, 12:06:09 PM »
Oh, and "austerity" is not exactly a liberal buzzword. In economics, it is a long-standing and essentially value-neutral term. Heck, David Cameron, at the time British Conservative Party leader, embraced the term "age of austerity" while proposing to reduce government overspending in the future.

General Comments / Re: Republican Tax Plan
« on: October 19, 2017, 10:24:50 AM »
By what metric did the economic recovery of the USA "tank"?  It wasn't the unemployment rate or GDP per capita, which both showed strong positive trends over the period in question. Given that those two metrics show strong growth over the period, characterizing the effects of whatever actions Obama took as having tanked the economy requires a bunch of other metrics having strong and unambiguous negative responses over that same period.  What are they?

General Comments / Re: Russia and US politics
« on: October 18, 2017, 02:17:39 PM »
Hmmm... it's beginning to sound like there is broadening agreement that Russian covert interference in USA politics needs to be actively investigated.

General Comments / Re: What's the objective of the NFL kneeling?
« on: October 12, 2017, 06:25:59 PM »
I'm not arguing this is unusual - just pointing out that the "ceasing to exist" thing is irrelevant to the point most people having a problem with the stunt are making.

Oh, and generally, when a trip is for a fundraiser, generally the executive / party repay some fraction of the difference associated with the incremental costs, though it is not mentioned in your link.

General Comments / Re: What's the objective of the NFL kneeling?
« on: October 12, 2017, 04:11:56 PM »
I'm saying, if he didn't stay there he still would have had to be somewhere, so when they total up the cost they are doing it as if he would cease to exist for several hours.
I'm pretty sure the incremental costs were associated to the additional flights between the west coast, which would not have been required, and not the costs associated with Pence's simple existence.  Whether you consider his choice to attend the singing of the anthem a stunt (knowing that he would, with 99% certainty, be returning to the west coast immediately following the anthem) is really where some people will consider the flights a waste of money. 

General Comments / Re: Republican Tax Plan
« on: October 11, 2017, 11:04:13 AM »
What D.W. said - if your argument is trickle-down, make that argument.  I know it has become normalized to treat everything the president says as a-factual, and I know we could all waste years debating his lies instead of the substance of the proposals, but shouldn't the substance actually be debated at least a little?

General Comments / Re: Las Vegas shooting
« on: October 04, 2017, 10:25:57 PM »
Or there may be a sense of helplessness due to structural problems with the electoral system, such as gerrymandering, the ability of a small quantity of persons to completely overwhelm the discussion (citizens united) or the primary system that rewards political extremes.

General Comments / Re: Buffet's unintended tax irony
« on: October 04, 2017, 01:24:07 PM »
Note also he has a fiduciary responsibility in managing Berkshire - he's not dealing with only his money. Should he start distributing his investors wealth based on his personal beliefs?
I'm pretty sure that hypothetical ($350M now or $250M in a few months) related to personal wealth ("... if I realized $1 billion worth of gains")

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 17