Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 119: This Place is a Dump

(+) Yeah! (+)

red sox 777 posted...

They would probably do better to talk about the total wealth destroyed, rather than percentages. I think 0.3% of US stocks is pretty close to $100 billion.

And, since Trump took office, the average (arithmetic mean) American has gotten about $16,000 richer from stocks alone. And that includes children, retired, and unemployed people, so if you are an average (arithmetic mean) working person, you've probably gotten around 30k richer just from stocks.

Of course, Americans hold much more wealth in real estate than stocks, so really, you should be crediting Trump with a gain of at least 100k....and that's either gonna be taxed at 15% for stocks or 0% for real estate, as long as you always buy another house when you sell yours.

Given the high taxes imposed by Democrats on income from working, President Trump has increased your wealth by the equivalent of at least 150k in earned income in 6 months.

All while going on vacation every week and using most of his working hours fending off witch hunts. What a dealmaking master!

What's that you say? Median? No, no, arithmetic mean is much better, median is fake news, that's all folks.

Why not take the p=infinity power mean
I'm sure Gates or Bezos or Buffet (or whoever has the most money invested) has gained quite a lot!
---

I saw you guys talking about 2020 Democratic candidates last topic.

Booker is totally running, I agree, but if you want someone who seems to be staying under the radar a bit, Gillibrand is totally positioning herself for a run, IMO. I'd say the two of them would be early fontrunners, unless Sanders or Biden get in.
---

Gillibrand does have the "Against Trump" status. But she's also too connected to Wall Street. I think the Dems need to run someone without wall street connections who can stand up and say "Trump is wall street, I'm main street"
---

I wasn't expressing my opinion of who I would like to see run (I'm honestly not too sure. Sanders and Warren are probably the biggest names I think I'm in most agreement with, but I have some concerns about their chances, particularly Warren), just who I think is running.
---

Hate to be that guy, but I'm not sure if electing another woman is the soundest strategy for Democrats next time. Most of us believed that it would have been tougher for Trump to be his normal douchebag self against a female opponent without feeling the repercussions. If anything, the opposite may be the case, with a female opponent struggling to hit him hard without being seen as shrill or a bitch. It's unfair as all hell, but it may be the reality of things.
---

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/893254018771939328

Democratic Governors Association: "Jim Justice deceived the voters of West Virginia."

The excerpt goes on to accuse Justice of what Republicans previously accused him of: owing money to Russia.
---

Gillibrand's biggest advantage over someone like Hillary is that she's a fairly attractive woman. not sure how old she is now but she can probably still turn heads. that may sound pretty bad but that's pretty much why Palin is still known at all today. that momentary pause with the right hook gets people to listen, for better or worse. dems can use all the advantages they can get.

mind you, i think she wouldn't really be a good candidate for president in the end but she could technically work as VP i think. but still not very good overall.

besides, for some fucking reason Kamala Harris seems to be the corporate pick already and she's a black woman, giving her more points on the progressive stack than white blond chick. and Kamala seems like a pretty awful candidate to choose but hey, corporate dems have got to be the shittest candidate pickers.
---

Wanglicious posted...

besides, for some f***ing reason Kamala Harris seems to be the corporate pick already and she's a black woman, giving her more points on the progressive stack than white blond chick. and Kamala seems like a pretty awful candidate to choose but hey, corporate dems have got to be the s***test candidate pickers.

Specifically what's your problem with her?
---

honestly my biggest problem really is just corporate dems picking somebody 3 and a half years ahead. i'd probably hate any candidate that gets picked by them at this point since that means they're being pushed up by interests i don't like.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2dhU6TAKjg

7:24 in to watch Lindsey Graham with some of the best sarcasm during this presidency.
---

I don't know too much about Harris, so I don't have much of an opinion one way or another yet. The complaints I've heard from her left have to do with her time as AG I think. Not pursuing some financial stuff, I believe?

That said, I haven't heard anything that sounded like a deal-breaker, and I'd like to think if those complaints were to rise to that level I'd have heard more about it.
---

Democrats should run Tammy Duckworth. Just imagine the Trump Campaign!

"I like people who don't lose their legs!"

"She can't even walk, how's she going to be President? Low energy."

"Was she even born in this country?"
---

Wanglicious posted...

honestly my biggest problem really is just corporate dems picking somebody 3 and a half years ahead. i'd probably hate any candidate that gets picked by them at this point since that means they're being pushed up by interests i don't like.

Youre pretty much setting yourself up to hate any non dark horse rhetorically.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2dhU6TAKjg

7:24 in to watch Lindsey Graham with some of the best sarcasm during this presidency.

Lindsey Graham is my guilty pleasure - yeah, I wouldn't vote for him, but he seems like the guy that OTHER people seem to think Trump is - funny and charismatic

CaptainOfCrush posted...

Hate to be that guy, but I'm not sure if electing another woman is the soundest strategy for Democrats next time. Most of us believed that it would have been tougher for Trump to be his normal douchebag self against a female opponent without feeling the repercussions. If anything, the opposite may be the case, with a female opponent struggling to hit him hard without being seen as shrill or a bitch. It's unfair as all hell, but it may be the reality of things.

You're doing that thing.

That thing where you try to take something that happened to Hillary as being a precedent for any other candidate ever.

Please stop.
---

I think it's pretty hard to argue that sexism wouldn't be a factor with another female candidate (especially with mega-misogynist Donald Trump as the other candidate). I don't really buy it as a reason to avoid female candidates (otherwise you're basically making it a self fulfilling prophecy), but it would absolutely be there, bigly.
---

Yeah I disagree with Graham on most policy, but he seems like a guy I could be friends with.
---

It's honestly a little frustrating how people will say "Okay we did this one minority already so we should just go back to pushing white male candidates".

Even if it's not said maliciously or it's said without intentions of racism or sexism, it's still kind of bad.
---

If the Republican Party were the party of Lindsey Graham and not Donald Trump the country would be a better place and i might have half a mind to vote Republican sometimes
---

Ha, Trump's new line is "There were no Russians in my campaign."

I think that's a goalpost he might actually hit
---

I can't wait for it to somehow be wrong as well!
---

It seems unfair for Democrats to scream "sexism!" from the highest rooftops in regards to why Hillary lost but then get upset when someone suggests that another woman might find similar trouble in 2020.
---

Sexism was a thing for Hillary, but also I wish she would have doubled down on it and picked Warren for VP. That would have bridged more gaps within her party than burned bridges with people already feeling against her.
---

I haven't heard about this in any media outlets, but the company I work for makes a healthcare - related news summary daily. On today's, it mentions the Senate passing a Right to Try bill, that would allow terminally ill patients near automatic access to experimental drugs that haven't yet been approved by the FDA. My first idea on this is that this is a good idea and is the humane thing to do. But I'm worried that it could be like Steam Early Access and there won't be enough incentives to go through with a finished product.

Thoughts?
---

I think the most sexist thing I've seen in this topic is is the idea that, " if Hillary couldn't win, WELL OBVIOUSLY NO OTHER WOMAN IN AMERICA COULD EITHER."
---

Peace___Frog posted...

I haven't heard about this in any media outlets, but the company I work for makes a healthcare - related news summary daily. On today's, it mentions the Senate passing a Right to Try bill, that would allow terminally ill patients near automatic access to experimental drugs that haven't yet been approved by the FDA. My first idea on this is that this is a good idea and is the humane thing to do. But I'm worried that it could be like Steam Early Access and there won't be enough incentives to go through with a finished product.

Thoughts?

Seems ok on the surface, but there needs to be real reason to believe the experimental drug will actually help, instead of letting people just try everything and hope something sticks. And probably protection for the drug maker too w.r.t things like side effects, honestly.
---

Yeah, I (personally) don't recall seeing much sexism thrown in Hillary's direction. She was just a terrible candidate, her gender didn't have anything to do with that.

Regaro posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

I haven't heard about this in any media outlets, but the company I work for makes a healthcare - related news summary daily. On today's, it mentions the Senate passing a Right to Try bill, that would allow terminally ill patients near automatic access to experimental drugs that haven't yet been approved by the FDA. My first idea on this is that this is a good idea and is the humane thing to do. But I'm worried that it could be like Steam Early Access and there won't be enough incentives to go through with a finished product.

Thoughts?

Seems ok on the surface, but there needs to be real reason to believe the experimental drug will actually help, instead of letting people just try everything and hope something sticks. And probably protection for the drug maker too w.r.t things like side effects, honestly.

Especially with the bolded part, I feel like this is laying the groundwork for basically wringing the money out of desperate, terminally ill patients.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Especially with the bolded part, I feel like this is laying the groundwork for basically wringing the money out of desperate, terminally ill patients.

If you don't protect the drug makers, it turns into the reverse if something unexpected happens, which can cause its own set of problems.

Protecting the patients is done by requiring there be a real reason to think the drug will make a significant difference.
---

Anyways

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2017/08/03/tangled-web-connects-russian-oligarch-money-gop-campaigns

DMN is no NYT/WaPo/WSJ etc obv, but sometimes they run interesting pieces.
---

Regaro posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Especially with the bolded part, I feel like this is laying the groundwork for basically wringing the money out of desperate, terminally ill patients.

If you don't protect the drug makers, it turns into the reverse if something unexpected happens, which can cause its own set of problems.

Protecting the patients is done by requiring there be a real reason to think the drug will make a significant difference.

Yeah, this makes sense. There needs to be more than just "this drug might do something idk" from one side and "your drug saved my life but now i have a rash on my toe that won't go away fuck you" from the other side.
---

Skyridge87 posted...

Yeah, I (personally) don't recall seeing much sexism thrown in Hillary's direction. She was just a terrible candidate, her gender didn't have anything to do with that.

Yeah... Sexism is a subtle thing. A lot of people, even ones who don't think of themselves as sexist, have native biases that play out at times like this. While I only know a few voters who straight-up told me they didn't think a woman should be president (and they do exist!), like... How many times did you hear people complain about Hillary's look? I mean, did you see Bernie's hair? That was the hair of a man who didn't give a fuck. A woman isn't allowed to not give a fuck. How many times did you hear people complain about Hillary yelling? Bernie's inside voice is a slightly muted shout. And when Hillary did try to keep a measured, presidential tone, people said she came off like a robot. Hillary gets emotional, people cry "crocodile tears"; Biden gets emotional, and the entire Internet gives him a group hug.

What I'm trying to say is, sexism's a bitch. Rooting it out takes work -- necessary and important work, but work all the same.
---

yeah, wouldn't say sexism had NOTHING to do with hillary's loss. not saying "she lost because she was a woman" but sexism was, in fact, a factor in her loss.

and yeah, i hated hillary's voice but bernie's was almost as bad - he sounded like a super old dude who was constantly out of breath. seems like i heard little complaining about bernie's voice, though, especially in comparison to the massive complaining about hillary's.
---

Sexism isn't about "oh you're a women I don't like you". It's about being under more scrutiny and not getting as much leeway as a man would. I really don't think anybody could argue that Hillary was under a lot more policing than any other candidate had gotten - a man fighting to get ahead isn't as taboo, it's "tough" and acting like a man. When a woman does it it's under a more critical eye. Shit she literally got blasted for not smiling at debates AND for how she did smile at the debates.
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

Sexism isn't about "oh you're a women I don't like you". It's about being under more scrutiny and not getting as much leeway as a man would. I really don't think anybody could argue that Hillary was under a lot more policing than any other candidate had gotten - a man fighting to get ahead isn't as taboo, it's "tough" and acting like a man. When a woman does it it's under a more critical eye. Shit she literally got blasted for not smiling at debates AND for how she did smile at the debates.

I agree with this while at the same time thinking it was much worse for Hillary just because she is Hillary. By no means should this be used as a reason to say we should shy away from woman candidates in general. A lot of what she took heat for was due to her negative charisma morseo than just being a woman. Uncharismatic men get similar treatement.

I mean you guys are literally the studio execs who thought literally Wonder Woman couldn't have a successful movie because Elektra and Catwoman didn't do so hot.
---

Ashethan posted...

Democrats should run Tammy Duckworth. Just imagine the Trump Campaign!

"I like people who don't lose their legs!"

"She can't even walk, how's she going to be President? Low energy."

"Was she even born in this country?"

Democratic Senators from Illinois have a pretty good track record in recent presidential elections!
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Ashethan posted...

Democrats should run Tammy Duckworth. Just imagine the Trump Campaign!

"I like people who don't lose their legs!"

"She can't even walk, how's she going to be President? Low energy."

"Was she even born in this country?"

Democratic Senators from Illinois have a pretty good track record in recent presidential elections!

Duckworth's from Bangkok. *folds arms*
---

redrocket_pub posted...

GuessMyUserName posted...

Sexism isn't about "oh you're a women I don't like you". It's about being under more scrutiny and not getting as much leeway as a man would. I really don't think anybody could argue that Hillary was under a lot more policing than any other candidate had gotten - a man fighting to get ahead isn't as taboo, it's "tough" and acting like a man. When a woman does it it's under a more critical eye. Shit she literally got blasted for not smiling at debates AND for how she did smile at the debates.

I agree with this while at the same time thinking it was much worse for Hillary just because she is Hillary. By no means should this be used as a reason to say we should shy away from woman candidates in general. A lot of what she took heat for was due to her negative charisma morseo than just being a woman. Uncharismatic men get similar treatement.

I really don't think they get the "same" treatment at all. I mean look at Jeb, he just comes out as a goofball or dumb. Hillary comes out as an evil shrew.

Like again I'm not just saying Hillary didn't have problems, but being a women certainly exacerbates them.
---

That's because Jeb comes off as privileged and low energy, not as conniving, although both are really uncharismatic. Hillary was an exceptionally bad candidate. My guess for why she was so much worse than a typical politician for charisma is that normally, people without charisma don't get to run for high office. But Hillary has a very famous, charismatic, popular, husband who made her nationally well known. And Jeb has a very famous brother and father.
---

And as far as elections go, it's better to be an evil shrew than privileged and low energy IMO. Just look at Jeb's disastrous results at the polls!
---

While women and minority candidates with low charisma get more vocal opposition than someone like Jeb the end result is still people not voting for them.

Of course Jeb wouldn't have to deal with true sexists/racists so obviously he'd get a leg-up in that regard.
---

Jeb! was high energy! You could tell by the !
---

Hillary's sexism hit her extra hard because she came after some "boy's club" issues over the years like guns and video games. That's politics with a strong gender bias in each of those, so that got blown up against her and some bad feelings reside. I'm still mad about the video games-stuff, so I have to double-check myself and try to be fair to her elsewhere.

Hillary's sexism also hit her extra hard because her opponent was scoring points off of how badly he treated women: Rosie O'Donnel, Megyn Kelly, Carly Fiorina, Hillary didn't look like a President, and probably more. I think Grab 'Em By The Pussy was the only thing to backfire against him, and even then that was history and wasn't an intended part of his campaign.

Hillary's sexism also hit her hard because her campaign was crying wolf against Bernie Bros. I don't know how many progressives wanted to speak up for her after those accusations were thrown around in the primary against them.


We can argue how valid her actions were that drew this ire or what she expected in response of some of those actions..but I agree that some sexism was real with her and think she was probably hit by it worse than most women due to her opponent and past actions.

I say some sexism because I think a big Conservative motivator was to stop with the "it's my turn" social politics of voting. Obama was the first black President, so they weren't into having another first anything else yet. That's sexism, but also there may be a better term for that kind of bad timing and there would have been a similar fallout with another candidate that ran their campaign like "vote for me because I'll be the first _____."
---

I mean you can't really compare Jeb and Hill's fight against Trump, Jeb was part of a larger field of candidates.



although I still have no idea how Ted god damn Cruz ended up as Trump's greatest rival in those primaries wtf
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

although I still have no idea how Ted god damn Cruz ended up as Trump's greatest rival in those primaries wtf

Cruz was the most different so he was able to avoid LFF. It also helped that he got favourable states early in the primaries (Iowa, Texas, Oklahoma).
---

Cuz Ted Cruz had a message. He was the true movement conservative's choice.
---

https://twitter.com/billdixonish/status/892909444471808002


wow this is the most transparent pandering ever. I 1000% will never vote for Zuck.
---

If trump can call himself a Christian, then anyone can
---

Nobody is voting for Big Z because he has the charisma of a rock.
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

https://twitter.com/billdixonish/status/892909444471808002


wow this is the most transparent pandering ever. I 1000% will never vote for Zuck.

Most transparent pandering? We LITERALLY just watched Donald Trump bullshit his way through a campaign.
---