Good article here on reducing military spending. Has a plan for it to be cut in half by 2035. Which is way too slow for me but at least it is in the right direction. Compelling logic in here.
We can't continue to have this large of a socialist military-industrial complex.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/25/pentagon-defense-department-21st-century-117110
Trollminator wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Math genius - not too big on IT.
LOLz... remember when you said the debt was in billions? Oh yeah, of course, that one time you were distracted while "teaching" someone.
He not only said it was in billions, he said, "billions with a B", so it wasn't just a typo. It was sheer ignorance. And, there are just too many of those things to point out or even remember at this point. He's not cut out for this thread.
Acosta giving trump a hard time lol. Trump was unable to take a pledge that he would not accept foreign assistance to win... tried to distract with fake news line. It must kill him to have reporters following him around hounding him about the truth.
Republicans lose again wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
LOLz... remember when you said the debt was in billions? Oh yeah, of course, that one time you were distracted while "teaching" someone.
He not only said it was in billions, he said, "billions with a B", so it wasn't just a typo. It was sheer ignorance. And, there are just too many of those things to point out or even remember at this point. He's not cut out for this thread.
Come on dude - I have written papers on the debt. Give it a rest.
Sally Vix wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
There is come causality in there obviously and you are technically wrong. The election is effectively decided on the popular vote within each state. The tilt of the general election therefore has a massive impact on the results of each state. You shouldn't assume that the distribution of any additional Dem votes will be spread disproportionately to NY and CA just because they are big blue states.
2016 was so tight with an 80k count deciding it. That is 0.13% of his total vote count... a 1% drop in his vote count from 2016 is 630k... I'd say he's statistically in bigly danger of a potentially massive loss if any loss of votes happen in critical swing states.
You lost me at "bigly." If anyone working for me used the term "bigly" I would fire on the spot. Please, never use "bigly" again.
Well, no one works for you, obviously, so that's not even a thing.
Sally Vix wrote:
Republicans lose again wrote:
He not only said it was in billions, he said, "billions with a B", so it wasn't just a typo. It was sheer ignorance. And, there are just too many of those things to point out or even remember at this point. He's not cut out for this thread.
Come on dude - I have written papers on the debt. Give it a rest.
They all said, "billions with a B!"
Republicans lose again wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
You lost me at "bigly." If anyone working for me used the term "bigly" I would fire on the spot. Please, never use "bigly" again.
Well, no one works for you, obviously, so that's not even a thing.
I could pay you 9.99 to do work for me. Would that appeal to you? No benefits.
Sally Vix wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
There is come causality in there obviously and you are technically wrong. The election is effectively decided on the popular vote within each state. The tilt of the general election therefore has a massive impact on the results of each state. You shouldn't assume that the distribution of any additional Dem votes will be spread disproportionately to NY and CA just because they are big blue states.
2016 was so tight with an 80k count deciding it. That is 0.13% of his total vote count... a 1% drop in his vote count from 2016 is 630k... I'd say he's statistically in bigly danger of a potentially massive loss if any loss of votes happen in critical swing states.
Please show me EXACTLY where I am wrong and I am salivating to destroy your argument.
For consideration.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-biggest-argument-for-keeping-the-electoral-college-relies-on-a-myth-2019-09-10Forgotten Man wrote:
And like how Dems celebrate the downfall of guys like Manafort, Flynn and Stone?
Yeah, I can see the parallels there.
What's wrong with celebrating the downfalls of liars and cheats?
L L wrote:
Forgotten Man wrote:
And like how Dems celebrate the downfall of guys like Manafort, Flynn and Stone?
Yeah, I can see the parallels there.
What's wrong with celebrating the downfalls of liars and cheats?
Not just liars and cheats, convicted criminals.
Fat hurts wrote:
Racket wrote:
[quote]agip wrote:
well at the risk of being rude I'd say the idea that the fossil fuel companies should be liquidated is one of the most unrealistic and foolhardy 'policy' ideas out there. Shrinking the world econpmy by 40% would not be helpful in any way for green initiatives.
And anyway, blaming the oil companies is like blaming drug dealers. It is us who burns the stuff. If we stop flying and eating and using concrete then the enviro crisis is over.
Keep in mind that Fat Hurts has at times advocated for military action and forceful coercion of other countries to meet C02 emissions goals and is of the opinion that climate change will cost billions of lives over the next 50 years.
He knows this because he's not a scientist, but he read one white paper once
Stop lying. I never advocated for military action. I merely said that it may one day come to that.
You literally said that the US consider military action against Brazil if they continue to burn the rain forest. Go ahead and twist the semantics between "suggested one day it may come to that" and whatever else you want
[quote]
I do have a science and technology background and I am well read on this subject.
At the risk of going off topic, that doesn't make you a scientist. It's an exclusive country club, and you aren't invited. There's already way too much low quality trash and useless horesh!t being published everyday and the last thing we need is a bunch of internet warriors
Ciro wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Please show me EXACTLY where I am wrong and I am salivating to destroy your argument.
For consideration.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-biggest-argument-for-keeping-the-electoral-college-relies-on-a-myth-2019-09-10
I really hope that article references some actual sources because MarketWatch is basically ZeroHedge
A moderate wrote:
Trump promised a wall that would be paid for by Mexico. That was a lie.
Bernie promises free college to anywhere paid for by the 1%. wealthy. Is that a lie?
The thing is if Bernie could actually do that then yeah I’d vote for him. But my concern is that it’s a lie. So instead he will have to tax middle class to pay for all this.
I don't understand your logic here.
Tiny's idea that Mexico would pay for the wall was an obvious lie because the US Government does not have the power to force Mexico to pay us.
But the US Government does have the power to tax Wall Street transactions. If that's what Bernie says he wants to do then there is no reason to believe he is lying. You might think it won't pass congress, but there is no reason to think there will be a tax on the middle class instead.
Racket wrote:
Ciro wrote:
For consideration.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-biggest-argument-for-keeping-the-electoral-college-relies-on-a-myth-2019-09-10I really hope that article references some actual sources because MarketWatch is basically ZeroHedge
One way to find out :)
moderates suck wrote:
agip wrote:
BLINDERS!!!!
yes it was partly to protect slavery but there were also other reasons.
but you choose the thing that modern progressives care most about.
but sure, ignore the other reasons. It's easier for you not to challenge yourself that way.
look through that tube, man. It's easier that way. You are right to make your life simple and easy rather than look at all the complexity of a situation.
I've only spent years doing graduate work in this field.
Dear God it's worse than I feared. It isn't autism at all!
It's a social studies grad!
A moderate wrote:
Trump promised a wall that would be paid for by Mexico. That was a lie.
Bernie promises free college to anywhere paid for by the 1%. wealthy. Is that a lie?
The thing is if Bernie could actually do that then yeah I’d vote for him. But my concern is that it’s a lie. So instead he will have to tax middle class to pay for all this.
The difference here is that the middle class is already paying for their college. There's no one paying for new wall.
But even with a possible new tax, that cost would be less than what they are paying now.
If everyone paid and extra 1% of their salary in taxes, it covers college for everyone.
If you make $75K/year, it's a pretty good deal to handle a $750/year tax hike to not have to worry about college tuition or trade school tuition costs for you or your children ever.
So, I don't know about 100% of it being paid for by the wealthy, but they would kick in a bunch more than the average folk if it's a 1% tax on income.
With Trump's promise of Mexico paying for the wall, there was never a chance and never even a proposal.
L L wrote:
Forgotten Man wrote:
And like how Dems celebrate the downfall of guys like Manafort, Flynn and Stone?
Yeah, I can see the parallels there.
What's wrong with celebrating the downfalls of liars and cheats?
You mean, liars and cheats like Bill and Hillary?
Fat hurts wrote:
A moderate wrote:
Bernie promises free college to anywhere paid for by the 1%. wealthy. Is that a lie?
.
I don't understand your logic here.
Tiny's idea that Mexico would pay for the wall was an obvious lie because the US Government does not have the power to force Mexico to pay us.
But the US Government does have the power to tax Wall Street transactions. If that's what Bernie says he wants to do then there is no reason to believe he is lying. You might think it won't pass congress, but there is no reason to think there will be a tax on the middle class instead.
Plus, to point it out, "free college to anywhere" is not what Sanders has promised.
People with good arguments don't need to lie. Way to go, Moderate!
Ciro wrote:
Racket wrote:
I really hope that article references some actual sources because MarketWatch is basically ZeroHedge
One way to find out :)
Even if I wanted to click on the link (and I don't because it's more convenient to take pretentious cheap shots at a distance) it wouldn't matter because my FireFox blocks redirects among other things and I'm not about to turn it off.
Racket wrote:
Dear God it's worse than I feared. It isn't autism at all!
It's a social studies grad!
Yeah, reading, writing, and critical thinking skills are horrible. Not applicable to anything.