Discussion:
Biden's VP pick - Predictions
Add Reply
g***@gmail.com
2020-05-03 15:01:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
me (***@gmail.com change)
8:00 AM (less than a minute ago)
A minority?

A woman?

How about a minority woman?

Who also happens to be vegan and into animal rights?

Talk about DIVERSITY. Could THAT be topped?

Yes. What if she is ALSO LGBT?

What MORE could he ask for?

Where IS she when he NEEDS her?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Velez-Mitchell
g***@gmail.com
2020-05-03 15:03:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
8:00 AM (less than a minute ago)
A minority?
A woman?
How about a minority woman?
Who also happens to be vegan and into animal rights?
Talk about DIVERSITY. Could THAT be topped?
Yes. What if she is ALSO LGBT?
What MORE could he ask for?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Velez-Mitchell
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/vice-president-pick-biden/
g***@gmail.com
2020-05-03 15:04:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
8:00 AM (less than a minute ago)
A minority?
A woman?
How about a minority woman?
Who also happens to be vegan and into animal rights?
Talk about DIVERSITY. Could THAT be topped?
Yes. What if she is ALSO LGBT?
What MORE could he ask for?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Velez-Mitchell
And they could bill themselves as TARZAN AND JANE.
g***@gmail.com
2020-05-03 15:05:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by g***@gmail.com
8:00 AM (less than a minute ago)
A minority?
A woman?
How about a minority woman?
Who also happens to be vegan and into animal rights?
Talk about DIVERSITY. Could THAT be topped?
Yes. What if she is ALSO LGBT?
What MORE could he ask for?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Velez-Mitchell
And they could bill themselves as TARZAN AND JANE.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/vice-president-pick-biden/
r***@gmail.com
2020-05-04 01:17:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by g***@gmail.com
8:00 AM (less than a minute ago)
A minority?
A woman?
How about a minority woman?
Who also happens to be vegan and into animal rights?
Talk about DIVERSITY. Could THAT be topped?
Yes. What if she is ALSO LGBT?
What MORE could he ask for?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Velez-Mitchell
And they could bill themselves as TARZAN AND JANE.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/vice-president-pick-biden/
Nonsense. It will be Hillary for VP, then when Biden is declared incompetent or found guilty of MeToo-ism 'Guess Who' will be the Presidential candidate. Does Trump win again, or is Hillary going to seem more genuine this time?
Oscar
2020-05-04 01:28:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
Nonsense. It will be Hillary for VP, then when Biden is declared incompetent or found guilty of MeToo-ism
'Guess Who' will be the Presidential candidate. Does Trump win again, or is Hillary going to seem more
genuine this time?
President Trump will keep winning. That's the beauty of it. He will have the opportunity to serve the American people and create _another_ record-breaking economy. I foresee 4 percent growth starting in late 2020/early 2021, the start of a bull market that will make the Reagan/Bush/Clinton run seem like tiddlywinks.
Frank Berger
2020-05-04 02:55:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Oscar
Post by r***@gmail.com
Nonsense. It will be Hillary for VP, then when Biden is declared incompetent or found guilty of MeToo-ism
'Guess Who' will be the Presidential candidate. Does Trump win again, or is Hillary going to seem more
genuine this time?
President Trump will keep winning. That's the beauty of it. He will have the opportunity to serve the American people and create _another_ record-breaking economy. I foresee 4 percent growth starting in late 2020/early 2021, the start of a bull market that will make the Reagan/Bush/Clinton run seem like tiddlywinks.
If the is little sign of growth before the election, Trump is history, I
think. I do believe the economy, if the virus is controlled one way or
another, we bounce back much more quickly than a lot of pundits fear.
Pundits seem always to be gloomy.

I vividly recall a lecture in graduate school where Armen Alchian, a
great economist, person, and teacher, spoke about business cycles. He
said the common idea that growth eventually must end (what goes up must
come down) is incorrect as usually understood. Unless a growing economy
is impacted by an external force (pandemic, crop failures, asteroid
strike, or mismanagement by government, an economy can continue to grow
forever. When the external force that caused the recession is removed,
there are natural forces that want to pull the economy of out of
recession (basically, people want to work in order to eat). In my
opinion, if the government stays largely out of the way, we can
certainly have the v-shaped recovery that the pundits are doubtful about.
Bob Harper
2020-05-04 03:28:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Oscar
Post by r***@gmail.com
Nonsense. It will be Hillary for VP, then when Biden is declared
incompetent or found guilty of MeToo-ism
'Guess Who' will be the Presidential candidate. Does Trump win again,
or is Hillary going to seem more
genuine this time?
President Trump will keep winning. That's the beauty of it. He will
have the opportunity to serve the American people and create _another_
record-breaking economy. I foresee 4 percent growth starting in late
2020/early 2021, the start of a bull market that will make the
Reagan/Bush/Clinton run seem like tiddlywinks.
If the is little sign of growth before the election, Trump is history, I
think.  I do believe the economy, if the virus is controlled one way or
another, we bounce back much more quickly than a lot of pundits fear.
Pundits seem always to be gloomy.
I vividly recall a lecture in graduate school where Armen Alchian, a
great economist, person, and teacher, spoke about business cycles. He
said the common idea that growth eventually must end (what goes up must
come down) is incorrect as usually understood. Unless a growing economy
is impacted by an external force (pandemic, crop failures, asteroid
strike, or mismanagement by government, an economy can continue to grow
forever.  When the external force that caused the recession is removed,
there are natural forces that want to pull the economy of out of
recession (basically, people want to work in order to eat).  In my
opinion, if the government stays largely out of the way, we can
certainly have the v-shaped recovery that the pundits are doubtful about.
The danger, though, Frank, is that the government will NOT stay largely
out of the way. Never was the sage advice, "Don't do something, just
stand there" more needed and less likely to be followed. We already see
the distortion in labor markets caused by the extra $600/wk in
unemployment for several millions. Why work when you can make more on
the dole, at least for a (presumably) limited time. I hope I'm wrong.

Bob Harper
Frank Berger
2020-05-04 03:33:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Oscar
Post by r***@gmail.com
Nonsense. It will be Hillary for VP, then when Biden is declared
incompetent or found guilty of MeToo-ism
'Guess Who' will be the Presidential candidate. Does Trump win
again, or is Hillary going to seem more
genuine this time?
President Trump will keep winning. That's the beauty of it. He will
have the opportunity to serve the American people and create
_another_ record-breaking economy. I foresee 4 percent growth
starting in late 2020/early 2021, the start of a bull market that
will make the Reagan/Bush/Clinton run seem like tiddlywinks.
If the is little sign of growth before the election, Trump is history,
I think.  I do believe the economy, if the virus is controlled one way
or another, we bounce back much more quickly than a lot of pundits
fear. Pundits seem always to be gloomy.
I vividly recall a lecture in graduate school where Armen Alchian, a
great economist, person, and teacher, spoke about business cycles. He
said the common idea that growth eventually must end (what goes up
must come down) is incorrect as usually understood. Unless a growing
economy is impacted by an external force (pandemic, crop failures,
asteroid strike, or mismanagement by government, an economy can
continue to grow forever.  When the external force that caused the
recession is removed, there are natural forces that want to pull the
economy of out of recession (basically, people want to work in order
to eat).  In my opinion, if the government stays largely out of the
way, we can certainly have the v-shaped recovery that the pundits are
doubtful about.
The danger, though, Frank, is that the government will NOT stay largely
out of the way. Never was the sage advice, "Don't do something, just
stand there" more needed and less likely to be followed. We already see
the distortion in labor markets caused by the extra $600/wk in
unemployment for several millions. Why work when you can make more on
the dole, at least for a (presumably) limited time. I hope I'm wrong.
Bob Harper
You are not wrong.
Bob Harper
2020-05-04 03:52:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Oscar
Post by r***@gmail.com
Nonsense. It will be Hillary for VP, then when Biden is declared
incompetent or found guilty of MeToo-ism
'Guess Who' will be the Presidential candidate. Does Trump win
again, or is Hillary going to seem more
genuine this time?
President Trump will keep winning. That's the beauty of it. He will
have the opportunity to serve the American people and create
_another_ record-breaking economy. I foresee 4 percent growth
starting in late 2020/early 2021, the start of a bull market that
will make the Reagan/Bush/Clinton run seem like tiddlywinks.
If the is little sign of growth before the election, Trump is
history, I think.  I do believe the economy, if the virus is
controlled one way or another, we bounce back much more quickly than
a lot of pundits fear. Pundits seem always to be gloomy.
I vividly recall a lecture in graduate school where Armen Alchian, a
great economist, person, and teacher, spoke about business cycles. He
said the common idea that growth eventually must end (what goes up
must come down) is incorrect as usually understood. Unless a growing
economy is impacted by an external force (pandemic, crop failures,
asteroid strike, or mismanagement by government, an economy can
continue to grow forever.  When the external force that caused the
recession is removed, there are natural forces that want to pull the
economy of out of recession (basically, people want to work in order
to eat).  In my opinion, if the government stays largely out of the
way, we can certainly have the v-shaped recovery that the pundits are
doubtful about.
The danger, though, Frank, is that the government will NOT stay
largely out of the way. Never was the sage advice, "Don't do
something, just stand there" more needed and less likely to be
followed. We already see the distortion in labor markets caused by the
extra $600/wk in unemployment for several millions. Why work when you
can make more on the dole, at least for a (presumably) limited time. I
hope I'm wrong.
Bob Harper
You are not wrong.
My fear as well.
msw design
2020-05-04 13:30:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Why work when you can make more on
the dole, at least for a (presumably) limited time. I hope I'm wrong.
Bob Harper
Try imagine that a lot of people value working for the sense of self-worth it gives them and decide not to work for safety reasons. Try imagining that if you were in their position, you might feel the same.
Frank Berger
2020-05-04 14:14:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by msw design
Post by Bob Harper
Why work when you can make more on
the dole, at least for a (presumably) limited time. I hope I'm wrong.
Bob Harper
Try imagine that a lot of people value working for the sense of self-worth it gives them and decide not to work for safety reasons. Try imagining that if you were in their position, you might feel the same.
Try considering that theoretically and in reality people tend to respond
to incentives. Try considering that in the news there have been reports
of employers having difficulty calling their workers back to work
because of the payments. This is not to say that subsidies are
necessarily a bad idea, but they have to be structured in a way the
doesn't destroy work incentives.

Try considering that people are real and don't conform to some mostly
imaginary, stylized view that you seem to have.
msw design
2020-05-04 16:34:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by Bob Harper
Why work when you can make more on
the dole, at least for a (presumably) limited time. I hope I'm wrong.
Bob Harper
Try imagine that a lot of people value working for the sense of self-worth it gives them and decide not to work for safety reasons. Try imagining that if you were in their position, you might feel the same.
Try considering that theoretically and in reality people tend to respond
to incentives. Try considering that in the news there have been reports
of employers having difficulty calling their workers back to work
because of the payments. This is not to say that subsidies are
necessarily a bad idea, but they have to be structured in a way the
doesn't destroy work incentives.
Try considering that people are real and don't conform to some mostly
imaginary, stylized view that you seem to have.
All that and you don't even mention the pandemic? There are news channels you can turn to where the biggest enemy is always the government, and where people's concerns about unsafe workspaces are so trivial hey can be ignored. The biggest incentive of all is staying alive, but for you and Bob, that's not a consideration worth mentioning.
Frank Berger
2020-05-04 16:47:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by Bob Harper
Why work when you can make more on
the dole, at least for a (presumably) limited time. I hope I'm wrong.
Bob Harper
Try imagine that a lot of people value working for the sense of self-worth it gives them and decide not to work for safety reasons. Try imagining that if you were in their position, you might feel the same.
Try considering that theoretically and in reality people tend to respond
to incentives. Try considering that in the news there have been reports
of employers having difficulty calling their workers back to work
because of the payments. This is not to say that subsidies are
necessarily a bad idea, but they have to be structured in a way the
doesn't destroy work incentives.
Try considering that people are real and don't conform to some mostly
imaginary, stylized view that you seem to have.
All that and you don't even mention the pandemic? There are news channels you can turn to where the biggest enemy is always the government, and where people's concerns about unsafe workspaces are so trivial hey can be ignored. The biggest incentive of all is staying alive, but for you and Bob, that's not a consideration worth mentioning.
One of the most evasive answers I've ever seen. I didn't say anything
anti-government. And whether there is or isn't a pandemic people respond
to incentives.
msw design
2020-05-04 20:56:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by Bob Harper
Why work when you can make more on
the dole, at least for a (presumably) limited time. I hope I'm wrong.
Bob Harper
Try imagine that a lot of people value working for the sense of self-worth it gives them and decide not to work for safety reasons. Try imagining that if you were in their position, you might feel the same.
Try considering that theoretically and in reality people tend to respond
to incentives. Try considering that in the news there have been reports
of employers having difficulty calling their workers back to work
because of the payments. This is not to say that subsidies are
necessarily a bad idea, but they have to be structured in a way the
doesn't destroy work incentives.
Try considering that people are real and don't conform to some mostly
imaginary, stylized view that you seem to have.
All that and you don't even mention the pandemic? There are news channels you can turn to where the biggest enemy is always the government, and where people's concerns about unsafe workspaces are so trivial hey can be ignored. The biggest incentive of all is staying alive, but for you and Bob, that's not a consideration worth mentioning.
One of the most evasive answers I've ever seen. I didn't say anything
anti-government. And whether there is or isn't a pandemic people respond
to incentives.
Frank, you said "Try considering that in the news there have been reports
of employers having difficulty calling their workers back to work because of the payments." Are you offering this as a fact? Who reported it? Well, gosh, maybe employers. And you dare leave it at that and not mention workplace safety or risk of infection, but instead lecture me that "in reality people tend to respond to incentives."

All of what you wrote is basically accurate- people do tend to respond to incentives. But your lecture rings hollow if you leave off the one that matters the most.
Frank Berger
2020-05-05 02:35:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by Bob Harper
Why work when you can make more on
the dole, at least for a (presumably) limited time. I hope I'm wrong.
Bob Harper
Try imagine that a lot of people value working for the sense of self-worth it gives them and decide not to work for safety reasons. Try imagining that if you were in their position, you might feel the same.
Try considering that theoretically and in reality people tend to respond
to incentives. Try considering that in the news there have been reports
of employers having difficulty calling their workers back to work
because of the payments. This is not to say that subsidies are
necessarily a bad idea, but they have to be structured in a way the
doesn't destroy work incentives.
Try considering that people are real and don't conform to some mostly
imaginary, stylized view that you seem to have.
All that and you don't even mention the pandemic? There are news channels you can turn to where the biggest enemy is always the government, and where people's concerns about unsafe workspaces are so trivial hey can be ignored. The biggest incentive of all is staying alive, but for you and Bob, that's not a consideration worth mentioning.
One of the most evasive answers I've ever seen. I didn't say anything
anti-government. And whether there is or isn't a pandemic people respond
to incentives.
Frank, you said "Try considering that in the news there have been reports
of employers having difficulty calling their workers back to work because of the payments." Are you offering this as a fact? Who reported it? Well, gosh, maybe employers. And you dare leave it at that and not mention workplace safety or risk of infection, but instead lecture me that "in reality people tend to respond to incentives."
All of what you wrote is basically accurate- people do tend to respond to incentives. But your lecture rings hollow if you leave off the one that matters the most.
I did leave it out. I didn't immediately think of it. But whether
cash payments disincentivizing less than the fear of getting sick is
pure conjecture on your part.

Regarding "reports of employers having difficulty....," I read about in
the news. I suppose it could be fake news, but the details in the story
suggested truth to me. As an economist, who is aware of multiple
studies on multiple subjects showing strong response to incentives
(conforming to theory), it is intuitively obvious to me that this could
be a problem, depending on how the payments are structured, even without
any particular evidence in this case.
Bob Harper
2020-05-04 16:55:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by Bob Harper
Why work when you can make more on
the dole, at least for a (presumably) limited time. I hope I'm wrong.
Bob Harper
Try imagine that a lot of people value working for the sense of self-worth it gives them and decide not to work for safety reasons. Try imagining that if you were in their position, you might feel the same.
Try considering that theoretically and in reality people tend to respond
to incentives. Try considering that in the news there have been reports
of employers having difficulty calling their workers back to work
because of the payments. This is not to say that subsidies are
necessarily a bad idea, but they have to be structured in a way the
doesn't destroy work incentives.
Try considering that people are real and don't conform to some mostly
imaginary, stylized view that you seem to have.
All that and you don't even mention the pandemic? There are news channels you can turn to where the biggest enemy is always the government, and where people's concerns about unsafe workspaces are so trivial hey can be ignored. The biggest incentive of all is staying alive, but for you and Bob, that's not a consideration worth mentioning.
That is simply not true. I want everyone to be safe; I also want them to
be able to afford to live. The present situation is unsustainable, and
the sooner we recognize that the better.

Bob Harper
Frank Berger
2020-05-04 18:49:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by Bob Harper
Why work when you can make more on
the dole, at least for a (presumably) limited time. I hope I'm wrong.
Bob Harper
Try imagine that a lot of people value working for the sense of
self-worth it gives them and decide not to work for safety reasons.
Try imagining that if you were in their position, you might feel the
same.
Try considering that theoretically and in reality people tend to respond
to incentives.  Try considering that in the news there have been reports
of employers having difficulty calling their workers back to work
because of the payments.  This is not to say that subsidies are
necessarily a bad idea, but they have to be structured in a way the
doesn't destroy work incentives.
Try considering that people are real and don't conform to some mostly
imaginary, stylized view that you seem to have.
All that and you don't even mention the pandemic? There are news
channels you can turn to where the biggest enemy is always the
government, and where people's concerns about unsafe workspaces are so
trivial hey can be ignored. The biggest incentive of all is staying
alive, but for you and Bob, that's not a consideration worth mentioning.
That is simply not true. I want everyone to be safe; I also want them to
be able to afford to live. The present situation is unsustainable, and
the sooner we recognize that the better.
Bob Harper
Just another tiresome case of the Left believing the Right is heartless.
Bob Harper
2020-05-04 19:34:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Bob Harper
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by Bob Harper
Why work when you can make more on
the dole, at least for a (presumably) limited time. I hope I'm wrong.
Bob Harper
Try imagine that a lot of people value working for the sense of
self-worth it gives them and decide not to work for safety reasons.
Try imagining that if you were in their position, you might feel
the same.
Try considering that theoretically and in reality people tend to respond
to incentives.  Try considering that in the news there have been reports
of employers having difficulty calling their workers back to work
because of the payments.  This is not to say that subsidies are
necessarily a bad idea, but they have to be structured in a way the
doesn't destroy work incentives.
Try considering that people are real and don't conform to some mostly
imaginary, stylized view that you seem to have.
All that and you don't even mention the pandemic? There are news
channels you can turn to where the biggest enemy is always the
government, and where people's concerns about unsafe workspaces are
so trivial hey can be ignored. The biggest incentive of all is
staying alive, but for you and Bob, that's not a consideration worth
mentioning.
That is simply not true. I want everyone to be safe; I also want them
to be able to afford to live. The present situation is unsustainable,
and the sooner we recognize that the better.
Bob Harper
Just another tiresome case of the Left believing the Right is heartless.
As I have said so many times I'm tired of saying it: We believe they are
wrong; they believe we are evil. I reject that, and I think you do as
well. But the attraction of virtue-signalling is powerful.

Bob Harper
msw design
2020-05-04 20:46:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Bob Harper
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by Bob Harper
Why work when you can make more on
the dole, at least for a (presumably) limited time. I hope I'm wrong.
Bob Harper
Try imagine that a lot of people value working for the sense of
self-worth it gives them and decide not to work for safety reasons.
Try imagining that if you were in their position, you might feel
the same.
Try considering that theoretically and in reality people tend to respond
to incentives.  Try considering that in the news there have been reports
of employers having difficulty calling their workers back to work
because of the payments.  This is not to say that subsidies are
necessarily a bad idea, but they have to be structured in a way the
doesn't destroy work incentives.
Try considering that people are real and don't conform to some mostly
imaginary, stylized view that you seem to have.
All that and you don't even mention the pandemic? There are news
channels you can turn to where the biggest enemy is always the
government, and where people's concerns about unsafe workspaces are
so trivial hey can be ignored. The biggest incentive of all is
staying alive, but for you and Bob, that's not a consideration worth
mentioning.
That is simply not true. I want everyone to be safe; I also want them
to be able to afford to live. The present situation is unsustainable,
and the sooner we recognize that the better.
Bob Harper
Just another tiresome case of the Left believing the Right is heartless.
As I have said so many times I'm tired of saying it: We believe they are
wrong; they believe we are evil. I reject that, and I think you do as
well. But the attraction of virtue-signalling is powerful.
Bob Harper
1) Bob, I tend to think that you easily revert to asshole-ism, even though I recognize you as smart, principled and quite interesting to listen to when you write something of substance.
2) I have never thought of you or Frank as evil. That you actually wrote this stands as strong evidence for my first point.
3) I just looked up "virtue signalling". Wow, way to stomp on people. Is this a phrase you use often? I should think it a very popular notion among the EVIL. And that is a joke, though in all serious, the notion seems altogether noxious, and if this is how you explain away other people, perhaps the result is not altogether just.
Bob Harper
2020-05-05 18:14:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by msw design
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Bob Harper
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by Bob Harper
Why work when you can make more on
the dole, at least for a (presumably) limited time. I hope I'm wrong.
Bob Harper
Try imagine that a lot of people value working for the sense of
self-worth it gives them and decide not to work for safety reasons.
Try imagining that if you were in their position, you might feel
the same.
Try considering that theoretically and in reality people tend to respond
to incentives.  Try considering that in the news there have been reports
of employers having difficulty calling their workers back to work
because of the payments.  This is not to say that subsidies are
necessarily a bad idea, but they have to be structured in a way the
doesn't destroy work incentives.
Try considering that people are real and don't conform to some mostly
imaginary, stylized view that you seem to have.
All that and you don't even mention the pandemic? There are news
channels you can turn to where the biggest enemy is always the
government, and where people's concerns about unsafe workspaces are
so trivial hey can be ignored. The biggest incentive of all is
staying alive, but for you and Bob, that's not a consideration worth
mentioning.
That is simply not true. I want everyone to be safe; I also want them
to be able to afford to live. The present situation is unsustainable,
and the sooner we recognize that the better.
Bob Harper
Just another tiresome case of the Left believing the Right is heartless.
As I have said so many times I'm tired of saying it: We believe they are
wrong; they believe we are evil. I reject that, and I think you do as
well. But the attraction of virtue-signalling is powerful.
Bob Harper
1) Bob, I tend to think that you easily revert to asshole-ism, even though I recognize you as smart, principled and quite interesting to listen to when you write something of substance.
2) I have never thought of you or Frank as evil. That you actually wrote this stands as strong evidence for my first point.
3) I just looked up "virtue signalling". Wow, way to stomp on people. Is this a phrase you use often? I should think it a very popular notion among the EVIL. And that is a joke, though in all serious, the notion seems altogether noxious, and if this is how you explain away other people, perhaps the result is not altogether just.
If I use the term 'virtue-signalling', it is because it is the best
descriptor for certain kinds of statements. Sorry if you don't like it.

Bob Harper
Andrew Clarke
2020-05-08 00:37:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by msw design
3) I just looked up "virtue signalling". Wow, way to stomp on people. Is this a phrase you use often? I should think it a very popular notion among the EVIL. And that is a joke, though in all serious, the notion seems altogether noxious, and if this is how you explain away other people, perhaps the result is not altogether just.
A left-liberal is always trying to help lame dogs over stiles even though the vet hospital is in the opposite direction and there are land mines on the other side of the stile.

A virtue-signaller is always protesting on behalf of the dogs.

Andrew Clarke
Canberra
msw design
2020-05-04 20:31:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Just another tiresome case of the Left believing the Right is heartless.
Frank, I have resisted the temptation to say that you are here to represent the Right, the Republican Party, business owners, or any other group. I don't say "you are the Right", and yet you pull this kind of crap regularly. It is beneath your intellect - even if it is a convenient fantasy - to pass off the responses I give you as the droning voice of all your political opponents.
Frank Berger
2020-05-05 02:19:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
Just another tiresome case of the Left believing the Right is heartless.
Frank, I have resisted the temptation to say that you are here to represent the Right, the Republican Party, business owners, or any other group. I don't say "you are the Right", and yet you pull this kind of crap regularly. It is beneath your intellect - even if it is a convenient fantasy - to pass off the responses I give you as the droning voice of all your political opponents.
If the shoe fits....I don't see what the problem is with my making a
statement about the Left in general when you express a typical leftist
idea.

By the way, an accusation (not that you did, wink wink) of my supporting
the Republican party would be absurd considering that in the last 40
years (I voted for Reagan in 1980) I have voted for exactly one
Republican candidate in any election. I was mad at the Libertarian
party and voted for Romney in 2012. I have never been a business owner,
not have any immediate family ever been business owners. If I seem to
defend business owners (and even speculators) it's because I believe
they are unfairly besmirched by, wait for it, THE LEFT. Not because
they (meaning the left) evil, but because they are wrong.
msw design
2020-05-04 20:59:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by Bob Harper
Why work when you can make more on
the dole, at least for a (presumably) limited time. I hope I'm wrong.
Bob Harper
Try imagine that a lot of people value working for the sense of self-worth it gives them and decide not to work for safety reasons. Try imagining that if you were in their position, you might feel the same.
Try considering that theoretically and in reality people tend to respond
to incentives. Try considering that in the news there have been reports
of employers having difficulty calling their workers back to work
because of the payments. This is not to say that subsidies are
necessarily a bad idea, but they have to be structured in a way the
doesn't destroy work incentives.
Try considering that people are real and don't conform to some mostly
imaginary, stylized view that you seem to have.
All that and you don't even mention the pandemic? There are news channels you can turn to where the biggest enemy is always the government, and where people's concerns about unsafe workspaces are so trivial hey can be ignored. The biggest incentive of all is staying alive, but for you and Bob, that's not a consideration worth mentioning.
That is simply not true. I want everyone to be safe; I also want them to
be able to afford to live. The present situation is unsustainable, and
the sooner we recognize that the better.
Bob Harper
I agree. The question that is not getting asked enough, and is not getting much support at all at the federal level, is how to best create safe workspaces. If there aren't universal systems of testing, tracking and isolating, removing restrictions will not overcome the incentives to stay alive.
g***@gmail.com
2020-05-04 21:44:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by Bob Harper
Why work when you can make more on
the dole, at least for a (presumably) limited time. I hope I'm wrong.
Bob Harper
Try imagine that a lot of people value working for the sense of self-worth it gives them and decide not to work for safety reasons. Try imagining that if you were in their position, you might feel the same.
Try considering that theoretically and in reality people tend to respond
to incentives. Try considering that in the news there have been reports
of employers having difficulty calling their workers back to work
because of the payments. This is not to say that subsidies are
necessarily a bad idea, but they have to be structured in a way the
doesn't destroy work incentives.
Try considering that people are real and don't conform to some mostly
imaginary, stylized view that you seem to have.
All that and you don't even mention the pandemic? There are news channels you can turn to where the biggest enemy is always the government, and where people's concerns about unsafe workspaces are so trivial hey can be ignored. The biggest incentive of all is staying alive, but for you and Bob, that's not a consideration worth mentioning.
That is simply not true. I want everyone to be safe; I also want them to
be able to afford to live. The present situation is unsustainable, and
the sooner we recognize that the better.
Bob Harper
- The forces in a capitalist society, if left unchecked, tend to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Jawaharlal Nehru
msw design
2020-05-05 18:31:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
- The forces in a capitalist society, if left unchecked, tend to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Jawaharlal Nehru
But License Raj.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Raj
Andy Evans
2020-05-05 19:46:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
We have an election choice between someone who is completely incapable of doing anything about global warming and someone who is probably almost completely incapable of doing anything about global warming.

Either way it's a disaster moving forwards, and clearly we're running out of time. USA is one of the worst offenders in all respects and frankly I don't see any motivation within the country to do anything about it. Not that the rest of the world is that much better, but some countries really are trying and that's a tiny ray of hope in a very dark reality.
Frank Berger
2020-05-05 21:02:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
We have an election choice between someone who is completely incapable of doing anything about global warming and someone who is probably almost completely incapable of doing anything about global warming.
Either way it's a disaster moving forwards, and clearly we're running out of time. USA is one of the worst offenders in all respects and frankly I don't see any motivation within the country to do anything about it. Not that the rest of the world is that much better, but some countries really are trying and that's a tiny ray of hope in a very dark reality.
In 2018, the U.S. was the 17 worse offender (carbon emissions per
capita). True we are worse than most developed nations, but on a par
with Australia and Canada.

If you look at carbon emissions normalized by GDP, as of 2014 (the most
recently available), the U.S. seems to be more or less on a par with
other developed countries. China, Iran and Russia are much worse
according to this measure, FWIW.

There seems to be less disparity in the last measure, suggesting to me
that the amount you pollute is more or less proportional to what you
produce. Not that there can't be technologies that will reduce
pollution (maybe we use then more than Russia, China and Iran, or maybe
it's just that they have lots of coal and we have lots of natural gas).

Saying we are one of the worst polluters based on total tonnage of
emissions is meaningless.
msw design
2020-05-05 21:38:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
There seems to be less disparity in the last measure, suggesting to me
that the amount you pollute is more or less proportional to what you
produce. Not that there can't be technologies that will reduce
pollution (maybe we use then more than Russia, China and Iran, or maybe
it's just that they have lots of coal and we have lots of natural gas).
Saying we are one of the worst polluters based on total tonnage of
emissions is meaningless.
Meaningless? It's a entirely relevant data point. As the wealthiest country in the world, we should presumably be able to accomplish the most change with the smallest per capita investment. Yes, other countries will continue to pollute, and some more than us on a per capita basis. What do you think is the responsible thing to do? Continue to elect leaders to who ignore reality and make it easier for industry to pollute? Is removing government-enforced environmental safeguards one of the ways we get to a more pure form of capitalism?
Frank Berger
2020-05-05 20:44:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by msw design
Post by g***@gmail.com
- The forces in a capitalist society, if left unchecked, tend to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Rubbish. I can't believe a thinking, observing person could believe
such a thing. We can argue about whether capitalism tends to increase
the disparity between the rich and poor. But believing that the poor
get poorer is beyond stupidity.

Also, why people characterize economic systems that are heavily loaded
with government intrusion as capitalist in the first place is puzzling.

This is similar to characterizing a trade agreement is evidencing free
trade, when free trade would need no trade agreement at all. Any
agreement (other than one that stipulates zero tariffs and zero other
restrictions is not free trade.
Post by msw design
Post by g***@gmail.com
Jawaharlal Nehru
But License Raj.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Raj
msw design
2020-05-05 21:20:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
We can argue about whether capitalism tends to increase
the disparity between the rich and poor. But believing that the poor
get poorer is beyond stupidity.
You can't rule out the possibility. It's just one potential outcome of a number of economic variables. And it does seem to have some pertinence to the past 30 years, even if it isn't axiomatic.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10875541003711813
Post by Frank Berger
Also, why people characterize economic systems that are heavily loaded
with government intrusion as capitalist in the first place is puzzling.
The fact that you can imagine something that you think would be actual capitalism doesn't change the fact that our existing economic system is called capitalism. I can respect that in a sense you are right. Maybe this person is also right, too:

https://iea.org.uk/but-that-wasnt-real-socialism-part-1/
Frank Berger
2020-05-05 21:31:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
We can argue about whether capitalism tends to increase
the disparity between the rich and poor. But believing that the poor
get poorer is beyond stupidity.
You can't rule out the possibility. It's just one potential outcome of a number of economic variables. And it does seem to have some pertinence to the past 30 years, even if it isn't axiomatic.
If the statement to which I responded doesn't describe the phenomenon as
axiomatic, I don't know what would.

Let's allow for it, though. How much poorer do the poor get under
capitalism (as opposed to what I don't know, socialism, autocracy,
fascism??). Do they keep getting poorer to the point of extinction?
Then there are no poor. Are there economic that predict the degree to
which the poor get poorer? Is the whole idea just leftist propoganda?
Post by msw design
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10875541003711813
Post by Frank Berger
Also, why people characterize economic systems that are heavily loaded
with government intrusion as capitalist in the first place is puzzling.
I can call you Joe or Harry. That doesn't make you Joe or Harry. It's
a cheap shot to respond to free-market espousers by saying look what we
have isn't working well. We don't have a free market. What we have may
be closer to free market than pure socialism, but it isn't free market.
In principle it's not difficult to analyze the effects of government
intrusions. Such as minimum wages. Those who have low skilled jobs may
earn more than without minimum wages (the object of the program), but
there are many, many few low skilled jobs extant, due to automation and
other responses by employers (an unintended consequence).
Post by msw design
https://iea.org.uk/but-that-wasnt-real-socialism-part-1/
msw design
2020-05-05 21:59:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
We can argue about whether capitalism tends to increase
the disparity between the rich and poor. But believing that the poor
get poorer is beyond stupidity.
You can't rule out the possibility. It's just one potential outcome of a number of economic variables. And it does seem to have some pertinence to the past 30 years, even if it isn't axiomatic.
If the statement to which I responded doesn't describe the phenomenon as
axiomatic, I don't know what would.
I'm not talking about that. The poor can get poorer. And sometimes they do. I'm not interested in crazy fantasy talk, but one where we admit that economic trends, and systems of law can increase the likelihood of this happening.
Post by Frank Berger
Let's allow for it, though. How much poorer do the poor get under
capitalism (as opposed to what I don't know, socialism, autocracy,
fascism??). Do they keep getting poorer to the point of extinction?
Then there are no poor. Are there economic that predict the degree to
which the poor get poorer? Is the whole idea just leftist propoganda?
I don't recognize anything fruitful here. It's not axiomatic, but it is happening.
Post by Frank Berger
It's
a cheap shot to respond to free-market espousers by saying look what we
have isn't working well. We don't have a free market. What we have may
be closer to free market than pure socialism, but it isn't free market.
I'll skip the "minimum wage stifles pay" stuff. Where does child labor fit in to your fantasy of capitalism unhinged?
Frank Berger
2020-05-05 22:06:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
We can argue about whether capitalism tends to increase
the disparity between the rich and poor. But believing that the poor
get poorer is beyond stupidity.
You can't rule out the possibility. It's just one potential outcome of a number of economic variables. And it does seem to have some pertinence to the past 30 years, even if it isn't axiomatic.
If the statement to which I responded doesn't describe the phenomenon as
axiomatic, I don't know what would.
I'm not talking about that. The poor can get poorer. And sometimes they do. I'm not interested in crazy fantasy talk, but one where we admit that economic trends, and systems of law can increase the likelihood of this happening.
The question was simply, does capitalism make the rich richer and the
poor poorer. That is, as a result of capitalism, not a result of
something else that you want to introduce to the conversation. Perhaps
if I try I can think of something that makes the rich richer and the
poor poorer. But it wouldn't be due to capitalism, per se.
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
Let's allow for it, though. How much poorer do the poor get under
capitalism (as opposed to what I don't know, socialism, autocracy,
fascism??). Do they keep getting poorer to the point of extinction?
Then there are no poor. Are there economic that predict the degree to
which the poor get poorer? Is the whole idea just leftist propoganda?
I don't recognize anything fruitful here. It's not axiomatic, but it is happening.
Post by Frank Berger
It's
a cheap shot to respond to free-market espousers by saying look what we
have isn't working well. We don't have a free market. What we have may
be closer to free market than pure socialism, but it isn't free market.
I'll skip the "minimum wage stifles pay" stuff. Where does child labor fit in to your fantasy of capitalism unhinged?
It stifles employment among the very group you are trying, supposedly,
to help. The evidence is overwhelming. As far as child labor, I will go
so far as to say I oppose slavery. But the question is loaded, not
taking into account a country's stand of living, level of education,
etc. for example.
msw design
2020-05-05 23:32:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[Minimum wage] It stifles employment among the very group you are trying, supposedly,
to help. The evidence is overwhelming.
Links, please. Article, book, whatever.

No point in responding to you on child labor. Stripes shown.
Frank Berger
2020-05-06 00:52:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by msw design
[Minimum wage] It stifles employment among the very group you are trying, supposedly,
to help. The evidence is overwhelming.
Links, please. Article, book, whatever.
I suppose you were incapable of googling "mimimum wages and employment."

https://wol.iza.org/articles/employment-effects-of-minimum-wages/long
for an overview.

As I recall, consistent with the above, in the early 90s there was one
study, possible done at the NBER, that found no negative impact of
mimimum wages on employment. Later research found the the methodolgy of
this paper was flawed. It is my recollection that the vast majority of
research shows a negative effect. Think about it. It there were no
negative effect on employment, why should there even be a limit on
minimum wages? Why not $100 per hour? Or $1000? Sometimes common sense
should rule.

Note that no one says that implementing a minimum wage is going to
trigger an immediate layoff of thousands of employees. The effect is
more to prevent future jobs from ever coming into existence. I myself
lost a job a had as a kid collating the sections of our local Sunday
newspaper. The year after the mimimum wage was increased the newspaper
started collating in the factory by machine. It no longer payed them to
hire unskilled labor to do the job. That anyone can not see the common
sense in this is shocking to me.

In the 1940s and before, before minimum wages were prevalent the
unemployment rate among African American teenagers was similar to that
among white teenagers. Today the black rate is approximately double the
white rate. If you can think of a reason other than that, on average,
more poorly educated, lower skilled kids being priced out of the market,
let me know. You can't argue that somehow racism has gotten worse.
Post by msw design
No point in responding to you on child labor. Stripes shown.
You didn't define what you meant by child labor. How could I possibly
give a thoughtful response?
msw design
2020-05-06 02:09:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
I suppose you were incapable of googling "mimimum wages and employment."
https://wol.iza.org/articles/employment-effects-of-minimum-wages/long
for an overview.
So I Googled "minimum wages and employment".

First result:
"On April 1, 1992 New Jersey's minimum wage increased from $4.25 to $5.05 per hour. To evaluate the impact of the law we surveyed 410 fast food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania before and after the rise in the minimum. Comparisons of the changes in wages, employment, and prices at stores in New Jersey relative to stores in Pennsylvania (where the minimum wage remained fixed at $4.25 per hour) yield simple estimates of the effect of the higher minimum wage. Our empirical findings challenge the prediction that a rise in the minimum reduces employment. Relative to stores in Pennsylvania, fast food restaurants in New Jersey increased employment by 13 percent. We also compare employment growth at stores in New Jersey that were initially paying high wages (and were unaffected by the new law) to employment changes at lower-wage stores. Stores that were unaffected by the minimum wage had the same employment growth as stores in Pennsylvania, while stores that had to increase their wages increased their employment."

Now the second hit would have been more to your liking. But there's no point in acting like "the evidence is overwhelming" when there evidence that minimum wage hikes can raise worker pay and have nominal impact on the overall job market (Seattle).

So I asked you what you like.
Post by Frank Berger
As I recall, consistent with the above, in the early 90s there was one
study, possible done at the NBER, that found no negative impact of
mimimum wages on employment. Later research found the the methodolgy of
this paper was flawed. It is my recollection that the vast majority of
research shows a negative effect. Think about it. It there were no
negative effect on employment, why should there even be a limit on
minimum wages? Why not $100 per hour? Or $1000? Sometimes common sense
should rule.
Look, you may think that what you believe is "common sense" and "overwhelming" but that's you. A flawed study that failed to prove something doesn't at the same time prove you right.
Post by Frank Berger
Note that no one says that implementing a minimum wage is going to
trigger an immediate layoff of thousands of employees. The effect is
more to prevent future jobs from ever coming into existence. I myself
lost a job a had as a kid collating the sections of our local Sunday
newspaper. The year after the mimimum wage was increased the newspaper
started collating in the factory by machine. It no longer payed them to
hire unskilled labor to do the job. That anyone can not see the common
sense in this is shocking to me.
Never minding that I find personal anecdote hardlly reliable as evidence, you seem to be wishing for a world where unskilled labor can be cheaper than automation. Why build clothes by machine when we can have a sweatshop? I thought you had something big to say about how minimum wages suppressed earning spotential, but all you seem to be considering is number of jobs. I'm not interested in creating jobs - or allowing corporations to maintain low-paying part-time jobs a la Walmart - that leave people so poor they qualify for and need public assistance to pay for food and rent.
Post by Frank Berger
In the 1940s and before, before minimum wages were prevalent the
unemployment rate among African American teenagers was similar to that
among white teenagers. Today the black rate is approximately double the
white rate. If you can think of a reason other than that, on average,
more poorly educated, lower skilled kids being priced out of the market,
let me know. You can't argue that somehow racism has gotten worse.
This is interesting, but Googling it got me nowhere. Again, you are talking total jobs, not income levels. Both matter.
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
No point in responding to you on child labor. Stripes shown.
You didn't define what you meant by child labor. How could I possibly
give a thoughtful response?
Your turn to Google, Frank. "Child labor and the FLSA".
Frank Berger
2020-05-06 03:59:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
I suppose you were incapable of googling "mimimum wages and employment."
https://wol.iza.org/articles/employment-effects-of-minimum-wages/long
for an overview.
So I Googled "minimum wages and employment".
"On April 1, 1992 New Jersey's minimum wage increased from $4.25 to $5.05 per hour. To evaluate the impact of the law we surveyed 410 fast food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania before and after the rise in the minimum. Comparisons of the changes in wages, employment, and prices at stores in New Jersey relative to stores in Pennsylvania (where the minimum wage remained fixed at $4.25 per hour) yield simple estimates of the effect of the higher minimum wage. Our empirical findings challenge the prediction that a rise in the minimum reduces employment. Relative to stores in Pennsylvania, fast food restaurants in New Jersey increased employment by 13 percent. We also compare employment growth at stores in New Jersey that were initially paying high wages (and were unaffected by the new law) to employment changes at lower-wage stores. Stores that were unaffected by the minimum wage had the same employment growth as stores in Pennsylvania, while stores that had to increase their wages increased their employment."
Now the second hit would have been more to your liking. But there's no point in acting like "the evidence is overwhelming" when there evidence that minimum wage hikes can raise worker pay and have nominal impact on the overall job market (Seattle).
So I asked you what you like.
Post by Frank Berger
As I recall, consistent with the above, in the early 90s there was one
study, possible done at the NBER, that found no negative impact of
mimimum wages on employment. Later research found the the methodolgy of
this paper was flawed. It is my recollection that the vast majority of
research shows a negative effect. Think about it. It there were no
negative effect on employment, why should there even be a limit on
minimum wages? Why not $100 per hour? Or $1000? Sometimes common sense
should rule.
Look, you may think that what you believe is "common sense" and "overwhelming" but that's you. A flawed study that failed to prove something doesn't at the same time prove you right.
Post by Frank Berger
Note that no one says that implementing a minimum wage is going to
trigger an immediate layoff of thousands of employees. The effect is
more to prevent future jobs from ever coming into existence. I myself
lost a job a had as a kid collating the sections of our local Sunday
newspaper. The year after the mimimum wage was increased the newspaper
started collating in the factory by machine. It no longer payed them to
hire unskilled labor to do the job. That anyone can not see the common
sense in this is shocking to me.
Never minding that I find personal anecdote hardlly reliable as evidence, you seem to be wishing for a world where unskilled labor can be cheaper than automation. Why build clothes by machine when we can have a sweatshop? I thought you had something big to say about how minimum wages suppressed earning spotential, but all you seem to be considering is number of jobs. I'm not interested in creating jobs - or allowing corporations to maintain low-paying part-time jobs a la Walmart - that leave people so poor they qualify for and need public assistance to pay for food and rent.
Post by Frank Berger
In the 1940s and before, before minimum wages were prevalent the
unemployment rate among African American teenagers was similar to that
among white teenagers. Today the black rate is approximately double the
white rate. If you can think of a reason other than that, on average,
more poorly educated, lower skilled kids being priced out of the market,
let me know. You can't argue that somehow racism has gotten worse.
This is interesting, but Googling it got me nowhere. Again, you are talking total jobs, not income levels. Both matter.
Income levels? Sure those that lose their jobs or grow up finding no
jobs available have zero income. Oh, wait we'll just tax the rich to
support them. No problem.

The statistics are easily found. I found them in seconds. I spent an
entire career working with and for economists. I couldn't begin to
count the number of times this very topic came up, usually in response
to a pending minimum wage increase. I don't recall a single person
questioning whether the number of jobs available to low skilled people
would be impacted. Now we could discuss the trade off. Maybe the
well-being of those who would continue to work at the higher wage would
outweigh the loss of those who would lose their jobs or grow up unto a
labor market where fewer jobs were available. Maybe employers who
couldn't automate would increase training so that that the workers who
still had jobs could be made to earn their keep so to speak.

To me we are discussing something as fundamental as demand curves being
downward sloping (at lower prices consumers will choose to buy more) and
supply curves being upward sloping (at higher prices producers will
produce more).
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
No point in responding to you on child labor. Stripes shown.
You didn't define what you meant by child labor. How could I possibly
give a thoughtful response?
Your turn to Google, Frank. "Child lab
msw design
2020-05-06 12:49:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
I suppose you were incapable of googling "mimimum wages and employment."
https://wol.iza.org/articles/employment-effects-of-minimum-wages/long
for an overview.
So I Googled "minimum wages and employment".
"On April 1, 1992 New Jersey's minimum wage increased from $4.25 to $5.05 per hour. To evaluate the impact of the law we surveyed 410 fast food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania before and after the rise in the minimum. Comparisons of the changes in wages, employment, and prices at stores in New Jersey relative to stores in Pennsylvania (where the minimum wage remained fixed at $4.25 per hour) yield simple estimates of the effect of the higher minimum wage. Our empirical findings challenge the prediction that a rise in the minimum reduces employment. Relative to stores in Pennsylvania, fast food restaurants in New Jersey increased employment by 13 percent. We also compare employment growth at stores in New Jersey that were initially paying high wages (and were unaffected by the new law) to employment changes at lower-wage stores. Stores that were unaffected by the minimum wage had the same employment growth as stores in Pennsylvania, while stores that had to increase their wages increased their employment."
Now the second hit would have been more to your liking. But there's no point in acting like "the evidence is overwhelming" when there evidence that minimum wage hikes can raise worker pay and have nominal impact on the overall job market (Seattle).
So I asked you what you like.
Post by Frank Berger
As I recall, consistent with the above, in the early 90s there was one
study, possible done at the NBER, that found no negative impact of
mimimum wages on employment. Later research found the the methodolgy of
this paper was flawed. It is my recollection that the vast majority of
research shows a negative effect. Think about it. It there were no
negative effect on employment, why should there even be a limit on
minimum wages? Why not $100 per hour? Or $1000? Sometimes common sense
should rule.
Look, you may think that what you believe is "common sense" and "overwhelming" but that's you. A flawed study that failed to prove something doesn't at the same time prove you right.
Post by Frank Berger
Note that no one says that implementing a minimum wage is going to
trigger an immediate layoff of thousands of employees. The effect is
more to prevent future jobs from ever coming into existence. I myself
lost a job a had as a kid collating the sections of our local Sunday
newspaper. The year after the mimimum wage was increased the newspaper
started collating in the factory by machine. It no longer payed them to
hire unskilled labor to do the job. That anyone can not see the common
sense in this is shocking to me.
Never minding that I find personal anecdote hardlly reliable as evidence, you seem to be wishing for a world where unskilled labor can be cheaper than automation. Why build clothes by machine when we can have a sweatshop? I thought you had something big to say about how minimum wages suppressed earning spotential, but all you seem to be considering is number of jobs. I'm not interested in creating jobs - or allowing corporations to maintain low-paying part-time jobs a la Walmart - that leave people so poor they qualify for and need public assistance to pay for food and rent.
Post by Frank Berger
In the 1940s and before, before minimum wages were prevalent the
unemployment rate among African American teenagers was similar to that
among white teenagers. Today the black rate is approximately double the
white rate. If you can think of a reason other than that, on average,
more poorly educated, lower skilled kids being priced out of the market,
let me know. You can't argue that somehow racism has gotten worse.
This is interesting, but Googling it got me nowhere. Again, you are talking total jobs, not income levels. Both matter.
Income levels? Sure those that lose their jobs or grow up finding no
jobs available have zero income. Oh, wait we'll just tax the rich to
support them. No problem.
The statistics are easily found. I found them in seconds. I spent an
entire career working with and for economists. I couldn't begin to
count the number of times this very topic came up, usually in response
to a pending minimum wage increase. I don't recall a single person
questioning whether the number of jobs available to low skilled people
would be impacted. Now we could discuss the trade off. Maybe the
well-being of those who would continue to work at the higher wage would
outweigh the loss of those who would lose their jobs or grow up unto a
labor market where fewer jobs were available. Maybe employers who
couldn't automate would increase training so that that the workers who
still had jobs could be made to earn their keep so to speak.
To me we are discussing something as fundamental as demand curves being
downward sloping (at lower prices consumers will choose to buy more) and
supply curves being upward sloping (at higher prices producers will
produce more).
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
No point in responding to you on child labor. Stripes shown.
You didn't define what you meant by child labor. How could I possibly
give a thoughtful response?
Your turn to Google, Frank. "Child labor and the FLSA".
To me this fails on the level of advocacy and, to the degree it makes the issues personal to you, makes it harder to disagree without being insulting. I figured it better to say this than just drop out.
Frank Berger
2020-05-06 14:26:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
I suppose you were incapable of googling "mimimum wages and employment."
https://wol.iza.org/articles/employment-effects-of-minimum-wages/long
for an overview.
So I Googled "minimum wages and employment".
"On April 1, 1992 New Jersey's minimum wage increased from $4.25 to $5.05 per hour. To evaluate the impact of the law we surveyed 410 fast food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania before and after the rise in the minimum. Comparisons of the changes in wages, employment, and prices at stores in New Jersey relative to stores in Pennsylvania (where the minimum wage remained fixed at $4.25 per hour) yield simple estimates of the effect of the higher minimum wage. Our empirical findings challenge the prediction that a rise in the minimum reduces employment. Relative to stores in Pennsylvania, fast food restaurants in New Jersey increased employment by 13 percent. We also compare employment growth at stores in New Jersey that were initially paying high wages (and were unaffected by the new law) to employment changes at lower-wage stores. Stores that were unaffected by the minimum wage had the same employment growth as stores in Pennsylvania, while stores that had to increase their wages increased their employment."
Now the second hit would have been more to your liking. But there's no point in acting like "the evidence is overwhelming" when there evidence that minimum wage hikes can raise worker pay and have nominal impact on the overall job market (Seattle).
So I asked you what you like.
Post by Frank Berger
As I recall, consistent with the above, in the early 90s there was one
study, possible done at the NBER, that found no negative impact of
mimimum wages on employment. Later research found the the methodolgy of
this paper was flawed. It is my recollection that the vast majority of
research shows a negative effect. Think about it. It there were no
negative effect on employment, why should there even be a limit on
minimum wages? Why not $100 per hour? Or $1000? Sometimes common sense
should rule.
Look, you may think that what you believe is "common sense" and "overwhelming" but that's you. A flawed study that failed to prove something doesn't at the same time prove you right.
Post by Frank Berger
Note that no one says that implementing a minimum wage is going to
trigger an immediate layoff of thousands of employees. The effect is
more to prevent future jobs from ever coming into existence. I myself
lost a job a had as a kid collating the sections of our local Sunday
newspaper. The year after the mimimum wage was increased the newspaper
started collating in the factory by machine. It no longer payed them to
hire unskilled labor to do the job. That anyone can not see the common
sense in this is shocking to me.
Never minding that I find personal anecdote hardlly reliable as evidence, you seem to be wishing for a world where unskilled labor can be cheaper than automation. Why build clothes by machine when we can have a sweatshop? I thought you had something big to say about how minimum wages suppressed earning spotential, but all you seem to be considering is number of jobs. I'm not interested in creating jobs - or allowing corporations to maintain low-paying part-time jobs a la Walmart - that leave people so poor they qualify for and need public assistance to pay for food and rent.
Post by Frank Berger
In the 1940s and before, before minimum wages were prevalent the
unemployment rate among African American teenagers was similar to that
among white teenagers. Today the black rate is approximately double the
white rate. If you can think of a reason other than that, on average,
more poorly educated, lower skilled kids being priced out of the market,
let me know. You can't argue that somehow racism has gotten worse.
This is interesting, but Googling it got me nowhere. Again, you are talking total jobs, not income levels. Both matter.
Income levels? Sure those that lose their jobs or grow up finding no
jobs available have zero income. Oh, wait we'll just tax the rich to
support them. No problem.
The statistics are easily found. I found them in seconds. I spent an
entire career working with and for economists. I couldn't begin to
count the number of times this very topic came up, usually in response
to a pending minimum wage increase. I don't recall a single person
questioning whether the number of jobs available to low skilled people
would be impacted. Now we could discuss the trade off. Maybe the
well-being of those who would continue to work at the higher wage would
outweigh the loss of those who would lose their jobs or grow up unto a
labor market where fewer jobs were available. Maybe employers who
couldn't automate would increase training so that that the workers who
still had jobs could be made to earn their keep so to speak.
To me we are discussing something as fundamental as demand curves being
downward sloping (at lower prices consumers will choose to buy more) and
supply curves being upward sloping (at higher prices producers will
produce more).
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
No point in responding to you on child labor. Stripes shown.
You didn't define what you meant by child labor. How could I possibly
give a thoughtful response?
Your turn to Google, Frank. "Child labor and the FLSA".
To me this fails on the level of advocacy and, to the degree it makes the issues personal to you, makes it harder to disagree without being insulting. I figured it better to say this than just drop out.
As usual, this last statement was indeed insulting. My arguments are
based on years of economics study, not "advocacy." You have no
intellectual or analytical argument to make so you accuse me of having
an agenda. It's actually funny how the various behavioral things you
accuse me of all the time are exactly the things you do.
Time for me to drop
msw design
2020-05-06 16:50:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
I suppose you were incapable of googling "mimimum wages and employment."
https://wol.iza.org/articles/employment-effects-of-minimum-wages/long
for an overview.
So I Googled "minimum wages and employment".
"On April 1, 1992 New Jersey's minimum wage increased from $4.25 to $5.05 per hour. To evaluate the impact of the law we surveyed 410 fast food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania before and after the rise in the minimum. Comparisons of the changes in wages, employment, and prices at stores in New Jersey relative to stores in Pennsylvania (where the minimum wage remained fixed at $4.25 per hour) yield simple estimates of the effect of the higher minimum wage. Our empirical findings challenge the prediction that a rise in the minimum reduces employment. Relative to stores in Pennsylvania, fast food restaurants in New Jersey increased employment by 13 percent. We also compare employment growth at stores in New Jersey that were initially paying high wages (and were unaffected by the new law) to employment changes at lower-wage stores. Stores that were unaffected by the minimum wage had the same employment growth as stores in Pennsylvania, while stores that had to increase their wages increased their employment."
Now the second hit would have been more to your liking. But there's no point in acting like "the evidence is overwhelming" when there evidence that minimum wage hikes can raise worker pay and have nominal impact on the overall job market (Seattle).
So I asked you what you like.
Post by Frank Berger
As I recall, consistent with the above, in the early 90s there was one
study, possible done at the NBER, that found no negative impact of
mimimum wages on employment. Later research found the the methodolgy of
this paper was flawed. It is my recollection that the vast majority of
research shows a negative effect. Think about it. It there were no
negative effect on employment, why should there even be a limit on
minimum wages? Why not $100 per hour? Or $1000? Sometimes common sense
should rule.
Look, you may think that what you believe is "common sense" and "overwhelming" but that's you. A flawed study that failed to prove something doesn't at the same time prove you right.
Post by Frank Berger
Note that no one says that implementing a minimum wage is going to
trigger an immediate layoff of thousands of employees. The effect is
more to prevent future jobs from ever coming into existence. I myself
lost a job a had as a kid collating the sections of our local Sunday
newspaper. The year after the mimimum wage was increased the newspaper
started collating in the factory by machine. It no longer payed them to
hire unskilled labor to do the job. That anyone can not see the common
sense in this is shocking to me.
Never minding that I find personal anecdote hardlly reliable as evidence, you seem to be wishing for a world where unskilled labor can be cheaper than automation. Why build clothes by machine when we can have a sweatshop? I thought you had something big to say about how minimum wages suppressed earning spotential, but all you seem to be considering is number of jobs. I'm not interested in creating jobs - or allowing corporations to maintain low-paying part-time jobs a la Walmart - that leave people so poor they qualify for and need public assistance to pay for food and rent.
Post by Frank Berger
In the 1940s and before, before minimum wages were prevalent the
unemployment rate among African American teenagers was similar to that
among white teenagers. Today the black rate is approximately double the
white rate. If you can think of a reason other than that, on average,
more poorly educated, lower skilled kids being priced out of the market,
let me know. You can't argue that somehow racism has gotten worse.
This is interesting, but Googling it got me nowhere. Again, you are talking total jobs, not income levels. Both matter.
Income levels? Sure those that lose their jobs or grow up finding no
jobs available have zero income. Oh, wait we'll just tax the rich to
support them. No problem.
The statistics are easily found. I found them in seconds. I spent an
entire career working with and for economists. I couldn't begin to
count the number of times this very topic came up, usually in response
to a pending minimum wage increase. I don't recall a single person
questioning whether the number of jobs available to low skilled people
would be impacted. Now we could discuss the trade off. Maybe the
well-being of those who would continue to work at the higher wage would
outweigh the loss of those who would lose their jobs or grow up unto a
labor market where fewer jobs were available. Maybe employers who
couldn't automate would increase training so that that the workers who
still had jobs could be made to earn their keep so to speak.
To me we are discussing something as fundamental as demand curves being
downward sloping (at lower prices consumers will choose to buy more) and
supply curves being upward sloping (at higher prices producers will
produce more).
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
No point in responding to you on child labor. Stripes shown.
You didn't define what you meant by child labor. How could I possibly
give a thoughtful response?
Your turn to Google, Frank. "Child labor and the FLSA".
To me this fails on the level of advocacy and, to the degree it makes the issues personal to you, makes it harder to disagree without being insulting. I figured it better to say this than just drop out.
As usual, this last statement was indeed insulting. My arguments are
based on years of economics study, not "advocacy." You have no
intellectual or analytical argument to make so you accuse me of having
an agenda. It's actually funny how the various behavioral things you
accuse me of all the time are exactly the things you do.
Time for me to drop out as well.
My statement was not intended to be insulting at all. I value advocacy and an eagerness to share ideas. I'm sorry if the word has a negative cadence to you- none intended. Advocate-proponent-exponent-evangelist. All good ideas deserve someone with an eagerness to share them in a positive fashion.

It sounds like you wish to preserve a sense of yourself as neutral and free from bias or priorities. In my mind, everbody has motivations, interests, biases and something akin to an agenda. Me, you, everyone. It's unavoidable. The question is how well we can speak to those interests, fortify them with evidence and recognize the limits of one's own position.

I am at my limit, but I did not mean anything in my last post to be aggressive or personally judgmental. Farthest from it. Peace to you.
g***@gmail.com
2020-05-05 22:03:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by g***@gmail.com
- The forces in a capitalist society, if left unchecked, tend to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Rubbish. I can't believe a thinking, observing person could believe
such a thing. We can argue about whether capitalism tends to increase
the disparity between the rich and poor. But believing that the poor
get poorer is beyond stupidity...
Not according to the latest news:

https://news.google.com/search?q=poor%20poorer&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
g***@gmail.com
2020-05-06 10:02:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Bob Harper
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by Bob Harper
Why work when you can make more on
the dole, at least for a (presumably) limited time. I hope I'm wrong.
Bob Harper
Try imagine that a lot of people value working for the sense of self-worth it gives them and decide not to work for safety reasons. Try imagining that if you were in their position, you might feel the same.
Try considering that theoretically and in reality people tend to respond
to incentives. Try considering that in the news there have been reports
of employers having difficulty calling their workers back to work
because of the payments. This is not to say that subsidies are
necessarily a bad idea, but they have to be structured in a way the
doesn't destroy work incentives.
Try considering that people are real and don't conform to some mostly
imaginary, stylized view that you seem to have.
All that and you don't even mention the pandemic? There are news channels you can turn to where the biggest enemy is always the government, and where people's concerns about unsafe workspaces are so trivial hey can be ignored. The biggest incentive of all is staying alive, but for you and Bob, that's not a consideration worth mentioning.
That is simply not true. I want everyone to be safe; I also want them to
be able to afford to live. The present situation is unsustainable, and
the sooner we recognize that the better.
Bob Harper
- The forces in a capitalist society, if left unchecked, tend to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Jawaharlal Nehru
The following recent article begins:

- Warren Buffett would be the first to describe himself as a capitalist. And yet he has noted many times over the years that market forces have their limitations, and that the government plays a role particularly in addressing inequities that are created by our economy.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-ideas-to-end-inequality-134650421.html
g***@gmail.com
2020-05-04 21:45:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by Bob Harper
Why work when you can make more on
the dole, at least for a (presumably) limited time. I hope I'm wrong.
Bob Harper
Try imagine that a lot of people value working for the sense of self-worth it gives them and decide not to work for safety reasons. Try imagining that if you were in their position, you might feel the same.
Try considering that theoretically and in reality people tend to respond
to incentives. Try considering that in the news there have been reports
of employers having difficulty calling their workers back to work
because of the payments. This is not to say that subsidies are
necessarily a bad idea, but they have to be structured in a way the
doesn't destroy work incentives.
Try considering that people are real and don't conform to some mostly
imaginary, stylized view that you seem to have.
All that and you don't even mention the pandemic? There are news channels you can turn to where the biggest enemy is always the government, and where people's concerns about unsafe workspaces are so trivial hey can be ignored. The biggest incentive of all is staying alive, but for you and Bob, that's not a consideration worth mentioning.
That is simply not true. I want everyone to be safe; I also want them to
be able to afford to live. The present situation is unsustainable, and
the sooner we recognize that the better.
Bob Harper
Is this what we are waiting for?:

- A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new; when an age ends; and when the soul of a nation long suppressed finds utterance.

Jawaharlal Nehru
number_six
2020-05-05 00:02:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
snip <
I vividly recall a lecture in graduate school where Armen Alchian, a
great economist, person, and teacher, spoke about business cycles.
I never met Alchian, but remember him first as co-author of the textbook used in one of my undergraduate classes, and second, I believe he was one of the participants in an anecdote related in William Poundstone's brilliant book PRISONER'S DILEMMA -- JOHN VON NEUMANN, GAME THEORY, AND THE PUZZLE OF THE BOMB.

If I recall, Alchian did not want to cooperate and the other principal in a simulation got a bit exasperated with him!
Frank Berger
2020-05-05 02:46:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by number_six
snip <
I vividly recall a lecture in graduate school where Armen Alchian, a
great economist, person, and teacher, spoke about business cycles.
I never met Alchian, but remember him first as co-author of the textbook used in one of my undergraduate classes, and second, I believe he was one of the participants in an anecdote related in William Poundstone's brilliant book PRISONER'S DILEMMA -- JOHN VON NEUMANN, GAME THEORY, AND THE PUZZLE OF THE BOMB.
If I recall, Alchian did not want to cooperate and the other principal in a simulation got a bit exasperated with him!
"University Economics." Since supplanted by "Universal Economics."
Totally different than any other econ textbook at that time. It was a
bible for UCLA graduate students. It had the novel idea that micro
economics, being the foundation of macro behavior should be learned
first. Duh. I was hardly close with Alchian, but I did play golf with
him once. That is we teed off together, but he was a fine golfer who
played fast and was long gone by the time I got to the third hole.
Frank Berger
2020-05-04 02:45:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by g***@gmail.com
8:00 AM (less than a minute ago)
A minority?
A woman?
How about a minority woman?
Who also happens to be vegan and into animal rights?
Talk about DIVERSITY. Could THAT be topped?
Yes. What if she is ALSO LGBT?
What MORE could he ask for?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Velez-Mitchell
And they could bill themselves as TARZAN AND JANE.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/vice-president-pick-biden/
Nonsense. It will be Hillary for VP, then when Biden is declared incompetent or found guilty of MeToo-ism 'Guess Who' will be the Presidential candidate. Does Trump win again, or is Hillary going to seem more genuine this time?
If the worst of the pandemic is, or seems to be, behind us, and if the
economy shows signs of recovering, Trump will be unbeatable, no matter
what Biden or Clinton do. The Trump haters will never vote for him, The
Trump lovers will always for for him, but enough of the others, who will
swing the election, will support the "commander in chief" during the
crisis (giving him the benefit of the doubt, so to speak.) If the virus
has resurged and we have 30% unemployment, a chimpanzee will beat Trump.
Of course, those are the extreme cases so who knows what will actually
happen? Many Democrats, I think, have convinced themselves that Trump's
"performance" has already made him unelectable, but they are, as usual,
wrong.

What would be the process by which Biden is dumped (before the
nomination or between the nomination and the election) for either or
both of the reasons you mention (other than voluntarily stepping aside)?
If he is not the candidate, I can't see how the nominee could possibly
be anyone other than Clinton.
i***@gmail.com
2020-05-03 15:14:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by g***@gmail.com
8:00 AM (less than a minute ago)
A minority?
A woman?
How about a minority woman?
Who also happens to be vegan and into animal rights?
Talk about DIVERSITY. Could THAT be topped?
Yes. What if she is ALSO LGBT?
What MORE could he ask for?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Velez-Mitchell
And they could bill themselves as TARZAN AND JANE.
And at the beginning of each rally, they could both do a Tarzan yell.
Frank Berger
2020-05-03 15:36:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by g***@gmail.com
8:00 AM (less than a minute ago)
A minority?
A woman?
How about a minority woman?
Who also happens to be vegan and into animal rights?
Talk about DIVERSITY. Could THAT be topped?
Yes. What if she is ALSO LGBT?
What MORE could he ask for?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Velez-Mitchell
And they could bill themselves as TARZAN AND JANE.
And at the beginning of each rally, they could both do a Tarzan yell.
I will personally be outraged if she is not physically challenged in
some way. The more challenged the better. Maybe someone in a
vegetative state.
John Fowler
2020-05-06 19:21:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
8:00 AM (less than a minute ago)
A minority?
A woman?
How about a minority woman?
Who also happens to be vegan and into animal rights?
Talk about DIVERSITY. Could THAT be topped?
Yes. What if she is ALSO LGBT?
What MORE could he ask for?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Velez-Mitchell
RUTH BADER GINSBURG FOR VP
she will make Joe Biden look young and vital.
Frank Berger
2020-05-06 19:57:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Fowler
Post by g***@gmail.com
8:00 AM (less than a minute ago)
A minority?
A woman?
How about a minority woman?
Who also happens to be vegan and into animal rights?
Talk about DIVERSITY. Could THAT be topped?
Yes. What if she is ALSO LGBT?
What MORE could he ask for?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Velez-Mitchell
RUTH BADER GINSBURG FOR VP
she will make Joe Biden look young and vital.
Much of a muchness.
Oscar
2020-05-06 20:30:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by John Fowler
RUTH BADER GINSBURG FOR VP
she will make Joe Biden look young and vital.
Much of a muchness.
He won't pick Abrams. Harris is more his style, but she completely ripped him as a racist in the first debate (bad strategery, Kamala—looked desperate then, and from 11 months remove it looks just plain stupid). That in and of itself could be a P.R. liability, along with her prosecutorial record as Calif. A.G. Moreover, she just isn't likable, at all. She is a junior senator with no distinguishing marks on her record. Klobuchar would be a safe bet. No one cares about her. Gillibrand is incompatible with a hair-sniffer b/c #metoo. Will be interesting to see who his campaign selects. Oprah? Btw, Biden has not been seen in public for nearly 3 weeks. By the press, by anyone not in his basement. This is getting strange.
Frank Berger
2020-05-07 00:58:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Oscar
Post by Frank Berger
Post by John Fowler
RUTH BADER GINSBURG FOR VP
she will make Joe Biden look young and vital.
Much of a muchness.
He won't pick Abrams. Harris is more his style, but she completely ripped him as a racist in the first debate (bad strategery, Kamala—looked desperate then, and from 11 months remove it looks just plain stupid). That in and of itself could be a P.R. liability, along with her prosecutorial record as Calif. A.G. Moreover, she just isn't likable, at all. She is a junior senator with no distinguishing marks on her record. Klobuchar would be a safe bet. No one cares about her. Gillibrand is incompatible with a hair-sniffer b/c #metoo. Will be interesting to see who his campaign selects. Oprah? Btw, Biden has not been seen in public for nearly 3 weeks.
By far, his best strategy.

By the press, by anyone not in his basement. This is getting strange.
wkasimer
2020-05-07 17:56:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Oscar
He won't pick Abrams.
Biden won't pick anyone. The DNC will make the VP selection.
Oscar
2020-05-07 21:13:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wkasimer
Post by Oscar
He won't pick Abrams.
Biden won't pick anyone. The DNC will make the VP selection.
Correct. I alluded to as much later in my post: "Will be interesting to see who his campaign selects." His campaign being the Tom Perez and D.N.C. political-industrial complex. I really can't believe we're seeing a replay of 2016 insofar as one candidate carries neither momentum, nor a substantive policy profile (merely "I'm not Trump" suffices), nor an ability to generate any kind of sympathy with the American people (talk about 'malaise'), and this is all without mentioning a total _rejection_ of that all-important Liberal 'intersectionality stuff. Here is yr old, white, career politician, hair-sniffing fuddy-duddy with deep ties to the big banks of Delaware and who in 1991 went all Rottweiler on Anita Hill. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Alas, Joe Biden—there is no 'there' there, as it was with Hillary. If Trump loses it will because of things both within his control: a) his recalcitrance in the face of even his most loyal advisors, e.g. stop the daily press briefings!!; and without his control: b) the Chinese Coronavirus, which is the worst headwind imaginable for an incumbent's campaign sail to steer through. Trump is kinda screwed _right now_. But don't count in Biden just yet! (See what I did there??)
Frank Berger
2020-05-07 22:07:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Oscar
Post by wkasimer
Post by Oscar
He won't pick Abrams.
Biden won't pick anyone. The DNC will make the VP selection.
Correct. I alluded to as much later in my post: "Will be interesting to see who his campaign selects." His campaign being the Tom Perez and D.N.C. political-industrial complex. I really can't believe we're seeing a replay of 2016 insofar as one candidate carries neither momentum, nor a substantive policy profile (merely "I'm not Trump" suffices), nor an ability to generate any kind of sympathy with the American people (talk about 'malaise'), and this is all without mentioning a total _rejection_ of that all-important Liberal 'intersectionality stuff. Here is yr old, white, career politician, hair-sniffing fuddy-duddy with deep ties to the big banks of Delaware and who in 1991 went all Rottweiler on Anita Hill. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Alas, Joe Biden—there is no 'there' there, as it was with Hillary. If Trump loses it will because of things both within his control: a) his recalcitrance in the face of even his most loyal advisors, e.g. stop the daily press briefings!!; and without his control: b) the Chinese Coronavirus, which is the worst headwind imaginable for an incumbent's campaign sail to steer through. Trump is kinda screwed _right now_. But don't count in Biden just yet! (See what I did there??)
Can the
Bob Harper
2020-05-07 22:43:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Oscar
Post by Oscar
He won't pick Abrams.
Biden won't pick anyone.  The DNC will make the VP selection.
Correct. I alluded to as much later in my post: "Will be interesting
to see who his campaign selects." His campaign being the Tom Perez and
D.N.C. political-industrial complex. I really can't believe we're
seeing a replay of 2016 insofar as one candidate carries neither
momentum, nor a substantive policy profile (merely "I'm not Trump"
suffices), nor an ability to generate any kind of sympathy with the
American people (talk about 'malaise'), and this is all without
mentioning a total _rejection_ of that all-important Liberal
'intersectionality stuff. Here is yr old, white, career politician,
hair-sniffing fuddy-duddy with deep ties to the big banks of Delaware
and who in 1991 went all Rottweiler on Anita Hill. Meet the new boss,
same as the old boss. Alas, Joe Biden—there is no 'there' there, as it
was with Hillary. If Trump loses it will because of things both within
his control: a) his recalcitrance in the face of even his most loyal
advisors, e.g. stop the daily press briefings!!; and without his
control: b) the Chinese Coronavirus, which is the worst headwind
imaginable for an incumbent's campaign sail to steer through. Trump is
kinda screwed _right now_. But don't count in Biden just yet! (See
what I did there??)
Can the DNC prevent Biden from being nominated?
I suspect they can. If they think they can win with him they won't do
so; if they believe he will lose, they will get rid of him--sorry, he
will withdraw.

Bob Harper
Frank Berger
2020-05-07 23:00:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Oscar
Post by Oscar
He won't pick Abrams.
Biden won't pick anyone.  The DNC will make the VP selection.
Correct. I alluded to as much later in my post: "Will be interesting
to see who his campaign selects." His campaign being the Tom Perez
and D.N.C. political-industrial complex. I really can't believe we're
seeing a replay of 2016 insofar as one candidate carries neither
momentum, nor a substantive policy profile (merely "I'm not Trump"
suffices), nor an ability to generate any kind of sympathy with the
American people (talk about 'malaise'), and this is all without
mentioning a total _rejection_ of that all-important Liberal
'intersectionality stuff. Here is yr old, white, career politician,
hair-sniffing fuddy-duddy with deep ties to the big banks of Delaware
and who in 1991 went all Rottweiler on Anita Hill. Meet the new boss,
same as the old boss. Alas, Joe Biden—there is no 'there' there, as
it was with Hillary. If Trump loses it will because of things both
within his control: a) his recalcitrance in the face of even his most
loyal advisors, e.g. stop the daily press briefings!!; and without
his control: b) the Chinese Coronavirus, which is the worst headwind
imaginable for an incumbent's campaign sail to steer through. Trump
is kinda screwed _right now_. But don't count in Biden just yet! (See
what I did there??)
Can the DNC prevent Biden from being nominated?
I suspect they can. If they think they can win with him they won't do
so; if they believe he will lose, they will get rid of him--sorry, he
will withdraw.
Bob Harper
He may already have disappeared.
v***@protonmail.com
2020-05-08 00:44:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Oscar
Post by wkasimer
Post by Oscar
He won't pick Abrams.
Biden won't pick anyone. The DNC will make the VP selection.
Correct. I alluded to as much later in my post: "Will be interesting to see who his campaign selects." His campaign being the Tom Perez and D.N.C. political-industrial complex. I really can't believe we're seeing a replay of 2016 insofar as one candidate carries neither momentum, nor a substantive policy profile (merely "I'm not Trump" suffices), nor an ability to generate any kind of sympathy with the American people (talk about 'malaise'), and this is all without mentioning a total _rejection_ of that all-important Liberal 'intersectionality stuff. Here is yr old, white, career politician, hair-sniffing fuddy-duddy with deep ties to the big banks of Delaware and who in 1991 went all Rottweiler on Anita Hill. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Alas, Joe Biden—there is no 'there' there, as it was with Hillary. If Trump loses it will because of things both within his control: a) his recalcitrance in the face of even his most loyal advisors, e.g. stop the daily press briefings!!; and without his control: b) the Chinese Coronavirus, which is the worst headwind imaginable for an incumbent's campaign sail to steer through. Trump is kinda screwed _right now_. But don't count in Biden just yet! (See what I did there??)
Good post. My shorter version: Biden is the Dems' version of Bob Dole '96.
Dem elites are fine with Mr. Trump: they can fundraise off of him for four
more years, while at the same time their donor class benefit from his
policies (e.g. the tax cut, which they only cried crocodile tears about).
v***@protonmail.com
2020-05-08 00:54:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Adding: Read a little of this NYT Op-ed for a Dem 'Communications Expert':

"If Joe Biden plays his cards right, the death of the traditional presidential campaign will turn out to be a blessing in disguise. The 77-year-old Mr. Biden, whom the president derisively calls “Sleepy Joe,” can become the hottest bad boy and disrupter in the media game.
It seems likely that social distancing will force the presidential campaign to be played out entirely on our screens. That will free Mr. Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, of the burden of running a grueling, expensive campaign involving incessant travel.
Instead, he can be digitally omnipresent — at a small fraction of the cost and physical toll — and create a new paradigm for how presidential campaigns communicate in the press for years to come.."

So a Depends™-wearing corporatist is going to be the Dems' "hottest bad-boy..", according to Ms. Smith?

They're trolling us *so hard*.
v***@protonmail.com
2020-05-08 00:55:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/opinion/joe-biden-trump-2020.html
Frank Berger
2020-05-08 01:29:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by v***@protonmail.com
"If Joe Biden plays his cards right, the death of the traditional presidential campaign will turn out to be a blessing in disguise. The 77-year-old Mr. Biden, whom the president derisively calls “Sleepy Joe,” can become the hottest bad boy and disrupter in the media game.
It seems likely that social distancing will force the presidential campaign to be played out entirely on our screens. That will free Mr. Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, of the burden of running a grueling, expensive campaign involving incessant travel.
Instead, he can be digitally omnipresent — at a small fraction of the cost and physical toll — and create a new paradigm for how presidential campaigns communicate in the press for years to come.."
So a Depends™-wearing corporatist is going to be the Dems' "hottest bad-boy..", according to Ms. Smith?
They're trolling us *so hard*.
You can put Biden on TV, but you can't make people watch.
Bob Harper
2020-05-08 04:09:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by v***@protonmail.com
"If Joe Biden plays his cards right, the death of the traditional
presidential campaign will turn out to be a blessing in disguise. The
77-year-old Mr. Biden, whom the president derisively calls “Sleepy
Joe,” can become the hottest bad boy and disrupter in the media game.
It seems likely that social distancing will force the presidential
campaign to be played out entirely on our screens. That will free Mr.
Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, of the burden of running a
grueling, expensive campaign involving incessant travel.
Instead, he can be digitally omnipresent — at a small fraction of the
cost and physical toll — and create a new paradigm for how
presidential campaigns communicate in the press for years to come.."
So a Depends™-wearing corporatist is going to be the Dems' "hottest
bad-boy..", according to Ms. Smith?
They're trolling us *so hard*.
You can put Biden on TV, but you can't make people watch.
Oh, I don't now, Frank. Watching someone whose sentence structure (?)
makes Ike's most tortured constructions sound like Cicero could be fun.

Bob Harper
Oscar
2020-05-08 04:21:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Expect lots of more this, for the arc of the moral universe of long, but its bends toward electoral politics.

<< Black 'jogger' Ahmaud Arbery was "shot down in cold blood," Biden said, comparing a video of the shooting to seeing him "lynched before our very eyes." He said Arbery's family deserves "a swift, full and transparent investigation." >>

Release the files, Joe! Say it ain't so! Why were yr people at Univ. of Delaware going through yr papers last year?!


From Jeff Bezos's Washington Post:

<<Glitches, awkwardness and blank screens mar Biden's virtual Tampa rally
By Sean Sullivan
May 7, 2020

"They introduce me?" a blurry Joe Biden asked five seconds after he appeared on-screen. "Am I on?" he added, as he walked toward the camera on choppy video and removed his aviator sunglasses.

What was supposed to be a crisp and cool introduction instead stoked confusion.

"Good evening, Tampa," the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said. "I wish we could have done this together and it had gone a little more smoothly."

"This" was an event Thursday billed as a "Virtual Rally with Joe Biden in Tampa." It was an hour plagued by technical glitches, awkward pauses, delays and even some blank screen time.

For a campaign seeking a substitute for the rousing events that Biden would be holding if not for the coronavirus, the first-of-its kind rally served as a tough lesson about the perils of remote campaigning that played out in real time.

At the start, it had all of the trappings of a typical Biden campaign rally. A high schooler led the Pledge of Allegiance from his room. DJ Jack Henriquez played upbeat tunes. An emcee welcomed speakers by name.

But as the rally went on, problems surfaced.

There was the cut to Janet Cruz, a state senator who sat silent before the screen cut away from her, only to cut back without explanation moments later. There was the shot of Rep. Charlie Crist, D-Fla., dabbing his chin as he waited in silence against a backdrop of palm trees and high rises. It was unclear whether he knew he was on.

And throughout, there was distorted video and audio that some on social media likened to transmissions coming in via a dial-up modem.

The event showed how the pandemic has dramatically changed the campaign. It also underlined the growing pressure on Biden to expand his footprint in the battleground states expected to decide the November election.

Even before it kicked off, Biden's supporters acknowledged the virtual rally was a far cry from the excitement generated by a candidate's actual visit to a crucial swing state. John Morgan, a top Biden donor from Florida, said he was not even planning to tune in.

Still, Biden has few options, he added. "You have to try," Morgan said. "If not, you just sit there on your Peloton and look out the window. It's like these restaurants who are serving takeout. Is that the best option? No. But it's an option."

At one point, as footage of Crist speaking became so hard to follow, the screen went to black, piping in his audio with no video feed.

When Biden finally appeared from his home in Delaware, he was clearly aware of the issues. As he spoke, the technical issues continued, making parts of his speech indiscernible.

"We need to remember who we are. We're the United States of America," he said toward the end, a line he has often used on the campaign trail. As he spoke, a bird could be heard singing loudly in the background.

A Biden campaign spokesman did not immediately respond to a question seeking clarity on the cause of the technical issues.

Thursday's event was broadcast on the Biden campaign website and on YouTube, allowing anyone to view it, including those outside of Florida. Biden digital director Rob Flaherty said before it started that the campaign collected sign-in information from supporters as it would at a traditional rally.

Organizers promoted the event via Facebook ads in the Tampa area and sent people reminders, Flaherty said. For the future, the campaign is contemplating enabling people to sign in and get an exclusive watch-and-chat experience, he said.

Biden's rally was the second of two Florida virtual events on Thursday. At a roundtable with African-American leaders from Jacksonville, Biden made his most forceful comments yet on the killing of Ahmaud Arbery, a young black man from Georgia killed while jogging by two armed men who told police he looked like a burglary suspect.

Biden decried the shooting as part of a "rising pandemic of hate" that he said requires a new focus on mending racial inequities.

Arbery was "shot down in cold blood," Biden said, comparing a video of the shooting to seeing him "lynched before our very eyes." He said Arbery's family deserves "a swift, full and transparent investigation."

Florida is seen by strategists in both parties as an important battleground in November. Donald Trump carried the state in 2016, but Biden's strong performance there in the primary and his to appeal to the state's many older voters has raised Democratic hopes of turning it blue.

In a typical year, a campaign visit to such a state would motivate supporters, garner attention from local news outlets and signal to voters that the candidate cares about the state. Unable to do those things in person, the Biden campaign sought to replicate the feeling of a candidate visit, even if Biden never set foot outside his home six states away.

Biden may face additional pressure to ramp up his visibility since he's challenging a sitting president, one who has resumed traveling and holding public events. President Trump on Tuesday visited a mask production facility in Arizona, his first trip outside the Washington area since late March. Like Florida, Arizona is seen as a competitive state in November.

Some Democrats have voiced worries about Biden's low profile and have urged him to make a bigger splash in the national debate over covid-19. Because Biden does not currently hold public office, he has sometimes been overshadowed not only by Trump but by other Democrats such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Biden has ramped up efforts to host state-specific virtual events, a strategy his team says it plans to continue. On Wednesday, Biden's wife, Jill Biden, appeared in a trio of online gatherings with supporters in Michigan, a crucial state that Trump won in 2016.

Appearing as one of several faces in a Zoom grid, she recalled that Michigan was the last state she had visited in person, since Michigan's March 10 primary turned out to mark the end of traditional campaigning this year.

"The world has changed immeasurably since that trip," Jill Biden said, speaking from the Bidens' makeshift basement television studio with its backdrop of books, photos, a football and a flag folded into a triangle.

"And we've had to figure out, you know, what it means to run a presidential campaign when you can't fly or have a bus tour or even visit people's homes."

She asked the participant to picture a moment when Trump is no longer president.

"I want to take you into the future," Jill Biden said. "It's a beautiful morning and you're sipping your coffee. You pick up the morning paper. And the headline isn't about some late-night tweetstorm. Instead, it's about how the United States is once more leading a global health security agenda."

It was enough to make Katie Scott, who participated in the event, become emotional. "I felt like was going to cry," she told Jill Biden. Conversations during the event were limited to the supporters the campaign had lined up.

"November is only five and a half months away, so keep the faith," Jill Biden responded.

"I'm hanging on," Scott replied.

The switch to remote campaigning is particularly jarring when it comes to Biden because personal interactions are such a staple of his pitch to voters. During the primary, he had a habit of engaging with fans and critics at town halls, drawing both cheers and scorn. He often stuck around long after events ended in Iowa and New Hampshire to shake hands, snap selfies and mingle with the crowds who came to see him.

The pandemic has removed him from the setting that many allies had hoped would showcase his empathy and expand his appeal in the general election.

Some efforts to re-create that personal touch remotely have been more effective than others. Biden has been holding virtual fundraisers, including one on Wednesday that more than 100 guests attended. That's enabled him to replenish his campaign coffers after a competitive primary and give donors a chance to hear directly from the candidate.

Less successful has been an attempt to set up what the campaign called a "virtual rope line," a reference to the one-on-one conversations Biden had with voters after his campaign appearances. He would often grasp a voter's hand or shoulder and listen as the voter shared a personal story.

But the campaign is unlikely to continue virtual rope lines, Flaherty said, concluding that it is an unwieldy format in part because of Biden's proclivity for chatting at length with supporters.

- - -

The Washington Post's Felicia Sonmez contributed to this report. >>
wkasimer
2020-05-08 11:49:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
You can put Biden on TV, but you can't make people watch.
He'd better hope that's the case.

Is he or his campaign aware of just how hypocritical this is?:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/496518-biden-says-hell-reverse-devos-rule-to-bolster-protections-for-those-accused
msw design
2020-05-08 12:32:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wkasimer
Post by Frank Berger
You can put Biden on TV, but you can't make people watch.
He'd better hope that's the case.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/496518-biden-says-hell-reverse-devos-rule-to-bolster-protections-for-those-accused
This is what someone says when they don't really care about the topic. It's also an exercise in feigned ignorance of what a politician with a record does when given an opportunity to further that record. Finally, it shows that you expect and perhaps desire the accusation against Biden to weaken him.
wkasimer
2020-05-08 12:43:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by msw design
This is what someone says when they don't really care about the topic.
Which topic might that be? Sexual assault or right to due process? I care quite a bit about both of those topics.
Post by msw design
It's also an exercise in feigned ignorance of what a politician with a record does when given an opportunity to further that record.
I'm also aware of that. As well as the fact that most politicians assume that the voters are clueless, uninformed morons who won't notice their hypocrisy.
Post by msw design
Finally, it shows that you expect and perhaps desire the accusation against Biden to weaken him.
Indeed I do. I make no claim to impartiality. Biden is a weak candidate, and more important, is a weak man who will let the loudest voices in his party control him.
msw design
2020-05-08 12:54:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wkasimer
Post by msw design
This is what someone says when they don't really care about the topic.
Which topic might that be? Sexual assault or right to due process? I care quite a bit about both of those topics.
Then talk about them. Judging a politician's actions by whether they appear hypocritical to their own belief or actions is the worst way to measure anyone. It's what the media does because it wants to hide its own value system and appear "objective".
Post by wkasimer
Post by msw design
It's also an exercise in feigned ignorance of what a politician with a record does when given an opportunity to further that record.
I'm also aware of that. As well as the fact that most politicians assume that the voters are clueless, uninformed morons who won't notice their hypocrisy.
Well, yeah, because it is true. Never been truer.
Post by wkasimer
Post by msw design
Finally, it shows that you expect and perhaps desire the accusation against Biden to weaken him.
Indeed I do. I make no claim to impartiality. Biden is a weak candidate, and more important, is a weak man who will let the loudest voices in his party control him.
Anyone's claims of impartiality are bull.

And all that really matters in this election is the Senate.
msw design
2020-05-08 13:56:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wkasimer
I make no claim to impartiality. Biden is a weak candidate, and more important, is a weak man who will let the loudest voices in his party control him.
One more thing- it is ironic to see such a complaint about Biden because Trump shored up support from traditional Republicans by signalling that on key issues like judges and tax cuts, he would simply do what the party wanted.

Was that a bad thing? Or are you saying that party control is fine when it is a Republican and bad when it is a Democrat?

Wouldn't you be complaining if the dem nominee were "stronger" AND was likely to advocate for the same policies? Maybe you would just be quiet, recognizing that because Bernie was a "stronger" candidate, but his rigidity would sink him in the general.

I can only guess that you'd be calling Biden "strong" if he were fighting in the name of his Republican friends and the good-old-boy relationships he had in the Senate. But he's not stupid enough to think Lindsey Grahm is going to be his pal once he's elected.
Frank Berger
2020-05-08 14:32:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by msw design
Post by wkasimer
I make no claim to impartiality. Biden is a weak candidate, and more important, is a weak man who will let the loudest voices in his party control him.
One more thing- it is ironic to see such a complaint about Biden because Trump shored up support from traditional Republicans by signalling that on key issues like judges and tax cuts, he would simply do what the party wanted.
Was that a bad thing? Or are you saying that party control is fine when it is a Republican and bad when it is a Democrat?
Wouldn't you be complaining if the dem nominee were "stronger" AND was likely to advocate for the same policies? Maybe you would just be quiet, recognizing that because Bernie was a "stronger" candidate, but his rigidity would sink him in the general.
I can only guess that you'd be calling Biden "strong" if he were fighting in the name of his Republican friends and the good-old-boy relationships he had in the Senate. But he's not stupid enough to think Lindsey Grahm is going to be his pal once he's elected.
This incessant questioning of people's character and motivation instead
of just arguing facts and analyzing them is unattractive. It is also
often a losing strategy in debate. It causes people to rally around the
accused and assume you have nothing substantive to say.
msw design
2020-05-08 15:40:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
This incessant questioning of people's character and motivation instead
of just arguing facts and analyzing them is unattractive.
What in my prior words amount to judging Bill's character and motivation?
All I see are some honest questions as to where his argument leads and a guess about what he might see as "strength". And he is welcome to correct me. I'm sincerely, truly, interested.

As for not judging people's character, you'r the one who keeps talking about me as if I am a representative of THE LEFT, and Bob announced I think you two are evil. You had nothing to say about that one, and I really can't think of anything more personally insulting.

It is also maddeningly inconsistent of you to demand others "argue [and analyze] about facts" while you take issues being discussed and turn them into fables from your biography. "Well in my life, this is what happened to me" is NOT a fact-based argument. I told you I felt this made it impossible to address the issues without becoming personally insulting, and you managed to find that insulting.

Bill seems perfectly capable of speaking for himself, stating his interests, unhesitatingly admitting he is not a "neutral" and arguing his points. I fully respect that.
Frank Berger
2020-05-08 16:38:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
This incessant questioning of people's character and motivation instead
of just arguing facts and analyzing them is unattractive.
What in my prior words amount to judging Bill's character and motivation?
I quote:

"I can only guess that you'd be calling Biden "strong" if he were
fighting in the name of his Republican friends and the good-old-boy
relationships he had in the Senate."

You have repeatedly looked for ulterior motives instead of just
discussing issues.
Post by msw design
All I see are some honest questions as to where his argument leads and a guess about what he might see as "strength". And he is welcome to correct me. I'm sincerely, truly, interested.
As for not judging people's character, you'r the one who keeps talking about me as if I am a representative of THE LEFT
No I spoke of you as a member of the left and described some things you
have said as representative of the left, which they were. I don't know
why you take offense at that. And sometimes a comment in a thread isn't
really about you even though I may be responding to a post of yours. Y



, and Bob announced I think you two are evil. You had nothing to say
about that one, and I really can't think of anything more personally
insulting.
I don't know what Bob said. Both he and I have quote the stereotypical
observation that the Left things the Right is wrong (or sometimes
stupid) and the Right things the Left is evil. Obviously this is a
generalization. I believe there is truth to it. I don't believe I have
ever literally applied it to you, but constantly looking for and
accusing people of having agendas and ulterior motives is not dissimilar.
Post by msw design
It is also maddeningly inconsistent of you to demand others "argue [and analyze] about facts" while you take issues being discussed and turn them into fables from your biography. "Well in my life, this is what happened to me" is NOT a fact-based argument.
.


I told you I felt this made it impossible to address the issues without
becoming personally insulting, and you managed to find that insulting.
I have come to believe there is something odd about you. Please don't
consider that personally insulting.
Post by msw design
Bill seems perfectly capable of speaking for himself, stating his interests, unhesitatingly admitting he is not a "neutral" and arguing his points. I fully respect that.
There are no private conversations here. I am stunned you would think
there are. If they were supposed to be private, we would just use e-mail.
Bob Harper
2020-05-08 17:09:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
This incessant questioning of people's character and motivation instead
of just arguing facts and analyzing them is unattractive.
What in my prior words amount to judging Bill's character and motivation?
"I can only guess that you'd be calling Biden "strong" if he were
fighting in the name of his Republican friends and the good-old-boy
relationships he had in the Senate."
You have repeatedly looked for ulterior motives instead of just
discussing issues.
Post by msw design
All I see are some honest questions as to where his argument leads and
a guess about what he might see as "strength". And he is welcome to
correct me. I'm sincerely, truly, interested.
As for not judging people's character, you'r the one who keeps talking
about me as if I am a representative of THE LEFT
No I spoke of you as a member of the left and described some things you
have said as representative of the left, which they were.  I don't know
why you take offense at that.  And sometimes a comment in a thread isn't
really about you even though  I may be responding to a post of yours.  Y
, and Bob announced I think you two are evil. You had nothing to say
about that one, and I really can't think of anything more personally
insulting.
I don't know what Bob said.  Both he and I have quote the stereotypical
observation that the Left things the Right is wrong (or sometimes
stupid) and the Right things the Left is evil. Obviously this is a
generalization.  I believe there is truth to it.  I don't believe I have
ever literally applied it to you, but constantly looking for and
accusing people of having agendas and ulterior motives is not dissimilar.
Backwards, Frank, at least for me. As I see it, we think they (the Left)
are wrong, they think we (the Right) are evil. I regret that, but it
seems to me an accurate characterization of the way the two 'sides' see
things.

Bob Harper
Frank Berger
2020-05-08 18:26:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
This incessant questioning of people's character and motivation instead
of just arguing facts and analyzing them is unattractive.
What in my prior words amount to judging Bill's character and motivation?
"I can only guess that you'd be calling Biden "strong" if he were
fighting in the name of his Republican friends and the good-old-boy
relationships he had in the Senate."
You have repeatedly looked for ulterior motives instead of just
discussing issues.
Post by msw design
All I see are some honest questions as to where his argument leads
and a guess about what he might see as "strength". And he is welcome
to correct me. I'm sincerely, truly, interested.
As for not judging people's character, you'r the one who keeps
talking about me as if I am a representative of THE LEFT
No I spoke of you as a member of the left and described some things
you have said as representative of the left, which they were.  I don't
know why you take offense at that.  And sometimes a comment in a
thread isn't really about you even though  I may be responding to a
post of yours.  Y
, and Bob announced I think you two are evil. You had nothing to say
about that one, and I really can't think of anything more personally
insulting.
I don't know what Bob said.  Both he and I have quote the
stereotypical observation that the Left things the Right is wrong (or
sometimes stupid) and the Right things the Left is evil. Obviously
this is a generalization.  I believe there is truth to it.  I don't
believe I have ever literally applied it to you, but constantly
looking for and accusing people of having agendas and ulterior motives
is not dissimilar.
Backwards, Frank, at least for me. As I see it, we think they (the Left)
are wrong, they think we (the Right) are evil. I regret that, but it
seems to me an accurate characterization of the way the two 'sides' see
things.
Bob Harper
Argh. Right. Backwards. That's going to be confusing.
msw design
2020-05-08 17:40:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
This incessant questioning of people's character and motivation instead
of just arguing facts and analyzing them is unattractive.
What in my prior words amount to judging Bill's character and motivation?
"I can only guess that you'd be calling Biden "strong" if he were
fighting in the name of his Republican friends and the good-old-boy
relationships he had in the Senate."
You have repeatedly looked for ulterior motives instead of just
discussing issues.
I don't see words here that name a "motive". I'm looking for a clear definition of what we see as strength and asking for clarity on what Bill thinks a "strong" Biden would look like. You are seeing something pejorative here, while I see the proposed scenario as a rational consideration that even I might offer as Biden's idea of strength.

In a sense, I am agreeing with Bill- Biden may be receptive to other influences, and to the interests of his constituencies because the authentic part of himself that he might put forward if he thought he could just "be himself" isn't viable at this moment and hasn't served him in other presidential runs. What Bill sees as "weakness" is precisely what has given Biden his power through the primaries. And that may be a key to success, because even Donald Trump placated various groups by giving them what they wanted.
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
As for not judging people's character, you'r the one who keeps talking about me as if I am a representative of THE LEFT
No I spoke of you as a member of the left and described some things you
have said as representative of the left, which they were. I don't know
why you take offense at that. And sometimes a comment in a thread isn't
really about you even though I may be responding to a post of yours.
You're begging me to stick to facts and analysis, but you are the one who gets to judge me by assigning me to a group, and then Harper chimes in with his judgement of the group? And that's all fine with you?
Post by Frank Berger
I don't know what Bob said.
We are talking about words posted to this very thread just days ago. You are in a position to know exactly how Bob responds to things I say in response to you.

Both he and I have quote the stereotypical
Post by Frank Berger
observation that the Left things the Right is wrong (or sometimes
stupid) and the Right things the Left is evil. Obviously this is a
generalization. I believe there is truth to it. I don't believe I have
ever literally applied it to you, but constantly looking for and
accusing people of having agendas and ulterior motives is not dissimilar.
And you consider this a defense?

I don't think we are likely to reach agreement here on the possibility of some people not having an "agenda". People's interests are never entirely rational and disinterested. And that's OK.
Post by Frank Berger
I have come to believe there is something odd about you. Please don't
consider that personally insulting.
The moment you see me as just a person and not your token enemy form the left, that is progress. Keep my oddity in mind and see if you can respect it.
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Bill seems perfectly capable of speaking for himself, stating his interests, unhesitatingly admitting he is not a "neutral" and arguing his points. I fully respect that.
There are no private conversations here. I am stunned you would think
there are. If they were supposed to be private, we would just use e-mail.
There's a disconnect here. No point in being stunned by thing I'm not saying.
msw design
2020-05-08 15:47:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by wkasimer
I make no claim to impartiality. Biden is a weak candidate, and more important, is a weak man who will let the loudest voices in his party control him.
One more thing- it is ironic to see such a complaint about Biden because Trump shored up support from traditional Republicans by signalling that on key issues like judges and tax cuts, he would simply do what the party wanted.
Was that a bad thing? Or are you saying that party control is fine when it is a Republican and bad when it is a Democrat?
Wouldn't you be complaining if the dem nominee were "stronger" AND was likely to advocate for the same policies? Maybe you would just be quiet, recognizing that because Bernie was a "stronger" candidate, but his rigidity would sink him in the general.
I can only guess that you'd be calling Biden "strong" if he were fighting in the name of his Republican friends and the good-old-boy relationships he had in the Senate. But he's not stupid enough to think Lindsey Grahm is going to be his pal once he's elected.
This incessant questioning of people's character and motivation instead
of just arguing facts and analyzing them is unattractive. It is also
often a losing strategy in debate. It causes people to rally around the
accused and assume you have nothing substantive to say.
I think I've gotten under your skin, Frank, so much so that you read everything I post as snarky. That's a mistake.

My last post was serious and not a veiled attempt to paint Bill's argument as fundamentally false because I could see the limits to his argument.

"Strength" matters to a certain degree, but it isn't everything. In looking at hypothetical scenarios, we might recognize that while we think it is something we value (I value it, too! But also, what is it?), what we really want are results. And everyone can compromise if the package brings results. So my ultimate point was that sticking to "strength" as a measure of a candidate may be missing something.
Frank Berger
2020-05-08 16:39:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
Post by msw design
Post by wkasimer
I make no claim to impartiality. Biden is a weak candidate, and more important, is a weak man who will let the loudest voices in his party control him.
One more thing- it is ironic to see such a complaint about Biden because Trump shored up support from traditional Republicans by signalling that on key issues like judges and tax cuts, he would simply do what the party wanted.
Was that a bad thing? Or are you saying that party control is fine when it is a Republican and bad when it is a Democrat?
Wouldn't you be complaining if the dem nominee were "stronger" AND was likely to advocate for the same policies? Maybe you would just be quiet, recognizing that because Bernie was a "stronger" candidate, but his rigidity would sink him in the general.
I can only guess that you'd be calling Biden "strong" if he were fighting in the name of his Republican friends and the good-old-boy relationships he had in the Senate. But he's not stupid enough to think Lindsey Grahm is going to be his pal once he's elected.
This incessant questioning of people's character and motivation instead
of just arguing facts and analyzing them is unattractive. It is also
often a losing strategy in debate. It causes people to rally around the
accused and assume you have nothing substantive to say.
I think I've gotten under your skin, Frank, so much so that you read everything I post as snarky. That's a mistake.
If it sounds snarky, it's snarky.
Post by msw design
My last post was serious and not a veiled attempt to paint Bill's argument as fundamentally false because I could see the limits to his argument.
"Strength" matters to a certain degree, but it isn't everything. In looking at hypothetical scenarios, we might recognize that while we think it is something we value (I value it, too! But also, what is it?), what we really want are results. And everyone can compromise if the package brings results. So my ultimate point was that sticking to "strength" as a measure of a candidate may be missing something.
You questioned is motivation for saying what he said. Or seemed to.
Maybe you just need to read what you write and see how others might
interpret it.
msw design
2020-05-08 17:57:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
If it sounds snarky, it's snarky.
That's mistaken, Frank. There are always other readings. And that is a good thing to recognize that there will be other readings.

As for me, if I put on a snarky air and re-read some of my prior messages, they sound like a series of phrases with only judgment in mind. I'm sorry that's possible, but accept that casual banter is the rule here: I've said that's not what I intended. I aimed for a serious questioning of

1) What would a "strong" Biden be like? We are talking about more than his speech patterns, right? I think that to be the case.
2) Could this political moment accommodate such "strength"?
3) Is it possible his success is because of what Bill perceives as his "weakness"?
4) Have other candidates shown similar flexibility and been rewarded?
5) Does "strength" even matter? What if some "weak" candidates had a natural advantage over "strong" ones (especially where the Democratic Party is concerned with its patchwork quilt of differing constituencies)?
6) What if Bill is right but in this case weakness is strength? (Yes, that's the Orwell joke hanging out here. But it seems to apply.)
msw design
2020-05-08 18:02:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
If it sounds snarky, it's snarky.
That's mistaken, Frank. There are always other readings. And that is a good thing to recognize that there will be other readings.
Most of the below is irrelevant now that I've seen Bill's response. Thanks again, Bill.
Post by msw design
As for me, if I put on a snarky air and re-read some of my prior messages, they sound like a series of phrases with only judgment in mind. I'm sorry that's possible, but accept that casual banter is the rule here: I've said that's not what I intended. I aimed for a serious questioning of
1) What would a "strong" Biden be like? We are talking about more than his speech patterns, right? I think that to be the case.
2) Could this political moment accommodate such "strength"?
3) Is it possible his success is because of what Bill perceives as his "weakness"?
4) Have other candidates shown similar flexibility and been rewarded?
5) Does "strength" even matter? What if some "weak" candidates had a natural advantage over "strong" ones (especially where the Democratic Party is concerned with its patchwork quilt of differing constituencies)?
6) What if Bill is right but in this case weakness is strength? (Yes, that's the Orwell joke hanging out here. But it seems to apply.)
wkasimer
2020-05-08 17:27:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by msw design
One more thing- it is ironic to see such a complaint about Biden because Trump shored up support from traditional Republicans by signalling that on key issues like judges and tax cuts, he would simply do what the party wanted.
Nothing ironic. I had serious issues with Trump - I still do, and didn't vote for him in 2016 (not that I voted for Clinton), but it was encouraging to see that his judicial picks would be reasonable.
Post by msw design
Was that a bad thing? Or are you saying that party control is fine when it is a Republican and bad when it is a Democrat?
In fact, the latter is exactly what I'm saying. As for the former, I'm a libertarian first, a conservative second, and a Republican a distant third.
Post by msw design
Wouldn't you be complaining if the dem nominee were "stronger" AND was likely to advocate for the same policies?
At least I'd know where a stronger candidate stands on issues. I have no idea what Biden would do as POTUS.
Post by msw design
I can only guess that you'd be calling Biden "strong" if he were fighting in the name of his Republican friends and the good-old-boy relationships he had in the Senate. But he's not stupid enough to think Lindsey Grahm is going to be his pal once he's elected.
No, I'd call him strong if he showed consistent principles. He hasn't. Not that I'd vote for Sanders, but at least I'd know what I'd be getting.

Have a nice day.
Oscar
2020-05-08 17:49:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wkasimer
Nothing ironic. I had serious issues with Trump - I still do, and didn't vote for him in 2016 (not that I
voted for Clinton), but it was encouraging to see that his judicial picks would be reasonable.
I could not pull the lever for Trump in 2016, either. Mind you, I also understand the how the electoral college works and predicted he would lose to Hillary by 25 points in Calif. He lost by 30. I will be voting for him in 2020 just to send a message. His vainglory is the most disturbing thing about him. But I am encouraged by his judicial selections, and know that a Biden victory is nothing less than a Trojan horse to a big government free-for-all the likes we haven't seen since . . . the end of March and the CARES Act? Which btw I do feel is essential and necessary. Just that, there will be no going back if Biden is victorious. Everything will change either way, but the assault on our liberties will be wholesale and furiously paced.

Joe looks just awful recently. I truly cannot imagine him seated in the Oval Office making decisions. The Reade story is not going away. Indeed, it is picking up steam. Who knows what else the Republican PACs have on him and his son? It's going to be a long hot summer.
Frank Berger
2020-05-08 18:33:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Oscar
Post by wkasimer
Nothing ironic. I had serious issues with Trump - I still do, and didn't vote for him in 2016 (not that I
voted for Clinton), but it was encouraging to see that his judicial picks would be reasonable.
I could not pull the lever for Trump in 2016, either. Mind you, I also understand the how the electoral college works and predicted he would lose to Hillary by 25 points in Calif. He lost by 30. I will be voting for him in 2020 just to send a message. His vainglory is the most disturbing thing about him. But I am encouraged by his judicial selections, and know that a Biden victory is nothing less than a Trojan horse to a big government free-for-all the likes we haven't seen since . . . the end of March and the CARES Act? Which btw I do feel is essential and necessary. Just that, there will be no going back if Biden is victorious. Everything will change either way, but the assault on our liberties will be wholesale and furiously paced.
Joe looks just awful recently. I truly cannot imagine him seated in the Oval Office making decisions. The Reade story is not going away. Indeed, it is picking up steam. Who knows what else the Republican PACs have on him and his son? It's going to be a long hot summer.
It occurs to me that if the Republicans succeed in getting the Democrats
to dump Biden, whoever is chosen to replacement him might have a better
chance of winning. The Dems seem do think they are favorites to win the
White House and re-take control of the Senate. I can see their blind
faith and inability to conceive of a second Trump term, but OTOH I
wonder if they believe it. Maybe they know it doesn't matter who their
candidate is.
msw design
2020-05-08 20:29:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
It occurs to me that if the Republicans succeed in getting the Democrats
to dump Biden, whoever is chosen to replacement him might have a better
chance of winning. The Dems seem do think they are favorites to win the
White House and re-take control of the Senate. I can see their blind
faith and inability to conceive of a second Trump term, but OTOH I
wonder if they believe it. Maybe they know it doesn't matter who their
candidate is.
The odds of the Dems taking the Senate are low, period. Not to say Dems shouldn't fight like hell for it, but anyone who thinks it is likely is talking smack.
Frank Berger
2020-05-08 20:58:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by msw design
Post by Frank Berger
It occurs to me that if the Republicans succeed in getting the Democrats
to dump Biden, whoever is chosen to replacement him might have a better
chance of winning. The Dems seem do think they are favorites to win the
White House and re-take control of the Senate. I can see their blind
faith and inability to conceive of a second Trump term, but OTOH I
wonder if they believe it. Maybe they know it doesn't matter who their
candidate is.
The odds of the Dems taking the Senate are low, period. Not to say Dems shouldn't fight like hell for it, but anyone who thinks it is likely is talking smack.
If the economy is not showing signs of recovery by November
and if the number of new Covid-19 cases and deaths is still
high ("experts" are talking about a resurgence in the fall
after all), I don't see why the electorate couldn't decide
to give Biden (or whoever) a chance. And I don't see why
his coattails couldn't be long enough to give them the Senate.

OTOH the electorate's has a natural tendency to support the
President as commander in chief during crises.

Prior to the pandemic I was certain (not that I couldn't
have been wrong) that Trump was going to be re-elected. I'm
not at all sure now.
wkasimer
2020-05-08 19:01:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Oscar
I could not pull the lever for Trump in 2016, either. Mind you, I also understand the how the electoral college works and predicted he would lose to Hillary by 25 points in Calif. He lost by 30. I will be voting for him in 2020 just to send a message.
I'm pretty much in the same situation here in Massachusetts. It really doesn't matter how I vote for POTUS, because the Democrat will always win by a huge margin. And it's only getting worse.
Post by Oscar
Who knows what else the Republican PACs have on him and his son? It's going to be a long hot summer.
I don't think that the Republicans are going to have the chance to use any of it, since the Democrats are going to scuttle him before they have the opportunity.
Frank Berger
2020-05-08 19:28:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wkasimer
Post by Oscar
I could not pull the lever for Trump in 2016, either. Mind you, I also understand the how the electoral college works and predicted he would lose to Hillary by 25 points in Calif. He lost by 30. I will be voting for him in 2020 just to send a message.
I'm pretty much in the same situation here in Massachusetts. It really doesn't matter how I vote for POTUS, because the Democrat will always win by a huge margin. And it's only getting worse.
Post by Oscar
Who knows what else the Republican PACs have on him and his son? It's going to be a long hot summer.
I don't think that the Republicans are going to have the chance to use any of it, since the Democrats are going to scuttle him before they have the opportunity.
I always get a kick out of people talking about how their vote doesn't
matter because their state or congressional district is overwhelmingly
Democratic or overwhelming Republican. Even in heavily contested
elections no single vote matters in the end unless the election turns
out to be decided by 2 votes or less, which has never happened in a
major election. If votes because they think it's a duty or they want to
exercise their privledge or it makes them feel good or because their
Rabbi says they should (mine does), fine. But voting to influence an
election makes little sense.
number_six
2020-05-08 21:09:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by wkasimer
Post by Oscar
I could not pull the lever for Trump in 2016, either. Mind you, I also understand the how the electoral college works and predicted he would lose to Hillary by 25 points in Calif. He lost by 30. I will be voting for him in 2020 just to send a message.
I'm pretty much in the same situation here in Massachusetts. It really doesn't matter how I vote for POTUS, because the Democrat will always win by a huge margin. And it's only getting worse.
Post by Oscar
Who knows what else the Republican PACs have on him and his son? It's going to be a long hot summer.
I don't think that the Republicans are going to have the chance to use any of it, since the Democrats are going to scuttle him before they have the opportunity.
I always get a kick out of people talking about how their vote doesn't
matter because their state or congressional district is overwhelmingly
Democratic or overwhelming Republican. Even in heavily contested
elections no single vote matters in the end unless the election turns
out to be decided by 2 votes or less, which has never happened in a
major election. If votes because they think it's a duty or they want to
exercise their privledge or it makes them feel good or because their
Rabbi says they should (mine does), fine. But voting to influence an
election makes little sense.
The 2-vote margin construct may be more persuasive in theory than in practice.

In real elections, we have tabulation error -- even with machine counts. We have recounts when margins are close. We sometimes have litigation by candidates who came up short.

Politicians, like college football coaches, like to run up the score. The coach wants his team to move up in the rankings; the pol wants to claim a "mandate".

The more narrow the margin, the more avenues open up to challenge the legitimacy of the result -- not only for well-founded claims, but for spurious claims also.
Frank Berger
2020-05-08 21:20:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by number_six
Post by Frank Berger
Post by wkasimer
Post by Oscar
I could not pull the lever for Trump in 2016, either. Mind you, I also understand the how the electoral college works and predicted he would lose to Hillary by 25 points in Calif. He lost by 30. I will be voting for him in 2020 just to send a message.
I'm pretty much in the same situation here in Massachusetts. It really doesn't matter how I vote for POTUS, because the Democrat will always win by a huge margin. And it's only getting worse.
Post by Oscar
Who knows what else the Republican PACs have on him and his son? It's going to be a long hot summer.
I don't think that the Republicans are going to have the chance to use any of it, since the Democrats are going to scuttle him before they have the opportunity.
I always get a kick out of people talking about how their vote doesn't
matter because their state or congressional district is overwhelmingly
Democratic or overwhelming Republican. Even in heavily contested
elections no single vote matters in the end unless the election turns
out to be decided by 2 votes or less, which has never happened in a
major election. If votes because they think it's a duty or they want to
exercise their privledge or it makes them feel good or because their
Rabbi says they should (mine does), fine. But voting to influence an
election makes little sense.
The 2-vote margin construct may be more persuasive in theory than in practice.
In real elections, we have tabulation error -- even with machine counts. We have recounts when margins are close. We sometimes have litigation by candidates who came up short.
Politicians, like college football coaches, like to run up the score. The coach wants his team to move up in the rankings; the pol wants to claim a "mandate".
The more narrow the margin, the more avenues open up to challenge the legitimacy of the result -- not only for well-founded claims, but for spurious claims also.
OK, but I don't see what this is to do with my point, which
was about an individual's incentive to vote and sloppy
thinking when votes matter and when they don't.

msw design
2020-05-08 18:01:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wkasimer
Post by msw design
One more thing- it is ironic to see such a complaint about Biden because Trump shored up support from traditional Republicans by signalling that on key issues like judges and tax cuts, he would simply do what the party wanted.
Nothing ironic. I had serious issues with Trump - I still do, and didn't vote for him in 2016 (not that I voted for Clinton), but it was encouraging to see that his judicial picks would be reasonable.
I don't think much of his appointees, but I can respect this position.
Post by wkasimer
Post by msw design
Was that a bad thing? Or are you saying that party control is fine when it is a Republican and bad when it is a Democrat?
In fact, the latter is exactly what I'm saying. As for the former, I'm a libertarian first, a conservative second, and a Republican a distant third.
Very nice- agree to disagree.
Post by wkasimer
Post by msw design
Wouldn't you be complaining if the dem nominee were "stronger" AND was likely to advocate for the same policies?
At least I'd know where a stronger candidate stands on issues. I have no idea what Biden would do as POTUS.
I actually think there is something to this. So, yeah, this is the limit of weakness being a strength. But I also think that this kind of uncertainty comes with a lot of candidates, especially in the campaign season. So it doesn't bother me as much as you.
Post by wkasimer
Post by msw design
I can only guess that you'd be calling Biden "strong" if he were fighting in the name of his Republican friends and the good-old-boy relationships he had in the Senate. But he's not stupid enough to think Lindsey Grahm is going to be his pal once he's elected.
No, I'd call him strong if he showed consistent principles. He hasn't. Not that I'd vote for Sanders, but at least I'd know what I'd be getting.
Have a nice day.
Well-spoken, appreciate it.
wkasimer
2020-05-08 19:03:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by msw design
I actually think there is something to this. So, yeah, this is the limit of weakness being a strength. But I also think that this kind of uncertainty comes with a lot of candidates, especially in the campaign season. So it doesn't bother me as much as you.
One of Trump's strengths - perhaps his only one - is that he had largely done what he said he would do when campaigning.
Owen
2020-05-08 18:31:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by msw design
Post by wkasimer
I make no claim to impartiality. Biden is a weak candidate, and more important, is a weak man who will let the loudest voices in his party control him.
One more thing- it is ironic to see such a complaint about Biden because Trump shored up support from traditional Republicans by signalling that on key issues like judges and tax cuts, he would simply do what the party wanted.
The party controlled Trump? You mean all those other Republican
candidates who got mowed down by Trump, like Jeb Bush, Rubio, et al,
weren't more preferable to the party elites? You remember how they used
to say the Koch brothers controlled the Republican party? Don't hear
that much anymore.

Trump won the nomination the old fashioned way, he got the vote out.
Hard to kill a candidate when he's pulling in massive votes, and why
would you want to? The rest of the GOP field was a snooze fest,
although more "woke" then Biden is now.

Where did all the Never-Trumper Republicans come from? We didn't have
any Never-Obama Democrats. There can't be two months go by when one
nostalgic for the old GOP goes on a rant in Harper's, or the Atlantic.

Trump was a complete upheaval to the Republican party, a party who was
first and foremost a my-turn kind of party to grant favor to a candidate
to run for President. Think Bob Dole. Wasn't this supposed to be Jeb's
year?
Post by msw design
Was that a bad thing? Or are you saying that party control is fine when it is a Republican and bad when it is a Democrat?
Does the word SuperDelegates ring a bell? Talk about party elites. At
least the Republicans smartly steered clear of that. Better off with
the smoke filled rooms of yore when nobody will see your dirty undies.
Post by msw design
Wouldn't you be complaining if the dem nominee were "stronger" AND was likely to advocate for the same policies? Maybe you would just be quiet, recognizing that because Bernie was a "stronger" candidate, but his rigidity would sink him in the general.
Bernie was hurt bad this year because he hurt his voters bad 4 years
ago. When Hillary was reeling from the Wikileaks revelations, that's
when Bernie threw in the towel. I suppose she had some major dirt on
Bernie, probably to do with his wife but passionate voters don't forget
their guy gave up the fight at the moment he seemed poise to start a
comeback.
Post by msw design
I can only guess that you'd be calling Biden "strong" if he were fighting in the name of his Republican friends and the good-old-boy relationships he had in the Senate. But he's not stupid enough to think Lindsey Grahm is going to be his pal once he's elected.
I'd say Biden's got more problems trying to get elected than win friends
and influence in the Senate.

-Owen
Oscar
2020-05-08 04:26:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>
So a Depends™-wearing corporatist is going to be the Dems' "hottest bad-boy..", according to Ms. Smith?
They're trolling us *so hard*.
LOL yes indeed.
Oscar
2020-05-08 04:59:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Re the 'jogger' and the killer down in Dixieland:


From The The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

<< Georgia shooter’s father previously investigated victim Ahmaud Arbery
By Christian Boone
May 7, 2020

ATLANTA—Greg McMichael, who provided gun cover for his son as he fought and eventually shot a young Black jogger, may have known the victim long before their encounter in a subdivision just south of Brunswick, Ga., The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has learned.

In his letter of recusal to Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, Waycross Judicial Circuit District Attorney Roger Barnhill wrote that his son, a prosecutor in the Brunswick DA’s office, and McMichael, then an investigator in that same office, “both helped with the previous prosecution of (Ahmaud) Arbery.”

McMichael, a former Glynn County cop, told Glynn police he recognized Arbery, 25, from surveillance video that captured a recent burglary in his mostly white neighbourhood. He said he planned to make a citizen’s arrest.

When he was in high school, Arbery was sentenced to five years probation as a first offender on charges of carrying a weapon on campus and several counts of obstructing a law enforcement officer. He was convicted of probation violation in 2018 after he was charged with shoplifting, court documents show.

McMichael, who retired from the DA’s office in April 2019, made no mention of his work on that investigation to police, though it’s unknown whether he remembered it at the time.

Barnhill wrote that he learned about his son and McMichael’s ties to Arbery “three or four weeks” earlier.

He didn’t say why he waited so long to recuse himself, but claimed “a local ‘rabble rouser’ has taken up this cause and begun publishing wild and factually incorrect and legally wrong accusations on Facebook and other social media formats calling for marches and physical affronts (to) be made against the McMichaels at their homes, and my son’s home in Brunswick etc.”

Arbery’s mother, Wanda Cooper Jones, had requested Barnhill’s recusal, but told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Thursday that she didn’t know his son — or, for that matter, McMichael — worked on Ahmaud’s case.

“I just looked him up on Facebook and saw this son worked for the Brunswick DA,” she said.

It was a crucial decision. Without it, Cooper Jones’s lawyer, Lee Merritt, said, “the case would’ve been no billed to a grand jury and the McMichaels would’ve gotten away with murder.”

In a letter to Glynn County police, Barnhill wrote that criminal charges were unwarranted against Greg McMichael, his son Travis McMichael, who appeared to fire all three shots, and a third man, William Bryan, who helped them corner Arbery on Feb. 23 inside their neighbourhood just south of Brunswick.

The prosecutor said Arbery, who was unarmed, initiated contact with Travis McMichael.

“This family are not strangers to the local criminal justice system,” Barnhill wrote in his letter to Carr. “From best we can tell, Ahmaud’s older brother has gone to prison in the past and is currently in the Glynn jail, without bond, awaiting new felony prosecution. It also appears a cousin has been prosecuted by DA Johnson’s office.”

Merritt questioned what that had to do with Arbery’s shooting.

“This speaks to the wider issue of mass incarceration,” Merritt said. “If Black people have any kind of criminal record, somehow that justifies their murder.”

Meanwhile, a Brunswick criminal defence lawyer on Thursday said he released the explosive video showing Arbery’s shooting.

“There had been very little information provided by the police department or the district attorney’s office, but there was entirely too much speculation, rumour, false narratives and outright lies surrounding this event,” said the lawyer, Alan Tucker. “I didn’t release this to ‘show that they did nothing wrong,’ as is being circulated.”

The video has proved to be a game-changer, with everyone from former U.S. vice-president Joe Biden to NBA star LeBron James condemning the shooting. U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters Thursday that he had not seen the video.

“My heart goes out to the parents and the loved ones of the young gentleman,” Trump said. “I will be getting a full report this evening.”

In the video, Arbery attempts to run around the pickup truck but runs into Travis McMichael. A struggle ensues and three shots are fired. The video concludes with Arbery collapsing, face first, onto the pavement, never to regain consciousness.

Barnhill credited the video to Bryan.

Tucker’s involvement is something of a mystery. He said his firm has not been retained to represent anyone involved in the case, but, in the very next sentence, added a caveat: “We may be, we may not be.”

“I love this community and have spent my career helping people in this community,” he wrote. “My sole purpose in releasing the video was absolute transparency because my community was being ripped apart by erroneous accusations and assumptions.”

Thursday evening, according to USA Today, Gregory McMichael, 64, and his son Travis McMichael, 34, were both charged with murder and aggravated assault in the Feb. 23 shooting of Arbery. >>
msw design
2020-05-08 12:34:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Got you mind made up already, Oscar? Big surprise.
Oscar
2020-05-08 16:45:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by msw design
Got you mind made up already, Oscar? Big surprise.
You mean, like the Trump-Russia collusion matter? The Steele dossier? The uncorroborated Brett Kavanaugh rape allegations?

At any rate, I foresee the Dixie killer being convicted of 2nd degree murder. It certainly doesn't look good for him; the video recording is horrifying. But more will be revealed of the 'jogger', too. Maybe it's just me, but I do not give benefit of the doubt to those convicted of carrying a weapon on campus and several counts of obstructing a law enforcement officer. And then he was convicted of probation violation in 2018 after being charged with shoplifting? He was likely involved in burglarizing homes; his mother admitted he was "just looking around" the home under construction on the day of the killing, where video evidence exists. Sometimes in life you mess with the bull you get the horns. Doesn't make extra-judicial vigilantism lawful or 'centered on the moral arc of justice'.
Todd Michel McComb
2020-05-08 19:00:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Oscar
I really can't believe we're seeing a replay of 2016 insofar as
one candidate carries neither momentum, nor a substantive policy
profile (merely "I'm not Trump" suffices), nor an ability to
generate any kind of sympathy with the American people (talk about
'malaise'), and this is all without mentioning a total _rejection_
of that all-important Liberal 'intersectionality stuff. Here is
yr old, white, career politician, hair-sniffing fuddy-duddy with
deep ties to the big banks of Delaware and who in 1991 went all
Rottweiler on Anita Hill. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
It's funny since so many of your posts are basically pure looney
tunes stuff, but I agree almost completely with your characterization
of Biden. (Well, other than your US media version of "liberal"
that is....)

The only way I'd even consider voting for him is if there's some
wink-wink deal for him to step down immediately if elected....
wkasimer
2020-05-08 19:05:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
It's funny since so many of your posts are basically pure looney
tunes stuff, but I agree almost completely with your characterization
of Biden. (Well, other than your US media version of "liberal"
that is....)
Right - intersectionality is leftist, not liberal.
Todd Michel McComb
2020-05-08 19:19:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wkasimer
Right - intersectionality is leftist, not liberal.
And if anyone wants to learn intersectionality, rather than the
cartoon politics versions, Patricia Hill Collins is an excellent
educator.
g***@gmail.com
2020-05-06 19:32:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
8:00 AM (less than a minute ago)
A minority?
A woman?
How about a minority woman?
Who also happens to be vegan and into animal rights?
Talk about DIVERSITY. Could THAT be topped?
Yes. What if she is ALSO LGBT?
What MORE could he ask for?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Velez-Mitchell
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/496310-handicapping-the-biden-vp-race-kamala-harris-by-a-mile
Loading...