Donald J. Trump: President of the USA Part III Covfefe

[OrbitalDawn]

You know how artificial insemination is less than 100 years old, right?

So...?

How does it help anyone to deny gays marriage? How does it detract, at all, from anyone else who wants to get married?

Giving someone free healthcare doesn't make them richer, and yet this would be welfare.

Well, in an immediate sense if people can save on that cost while not losing their healthcare, it does leave more money available to them without the deleterious effects of not having healthcare.

Access to healthcare is an incredibly useful tool to improve economic and social mobility, especially at an early age.

The Affordable Care Act and Economic Opportunity

Medicaid expansion makes it less likely that the children of poor mothers will grow up to be poor adults

blogs.scientificamerican.com

New research demonstrates that increasing Medicaid eligibility reduces the correlation between parent and child income at the county level. This means that Medicaid makes it less likely that the children of poor mothers will grow up to be poor adults. And when this happens, economic opportunity in that county as a whole improves. For example, today’s adults whose mothers were covered by the Medicaid expansions of the 1980s—when they were pregnant—are more likely to have climbed the economic ladder than children born in the same county to poor mothers before the expansions. This increase in upward mobility was particularly strong for children born to parents at the bottom of the income distribution.

Poverty reduction, too!

The Effect of Child Health Insurance Access on Schooling: Evidence from Public Insurance Expansions

jhr.uwpress.org

We find that expanding health insurance coverage for low-income children increases the rate of high school and college completion.

When it comes to other kinds of welfare, there are massive benefits, too:

Food stamps helped lift the US economy out of the Great Recession

Especially in rural America.

www.vox.com

The new report confirms what progressive policy groups and Democrats have long argued: Large government anti-poverty programs are far more likely to boost the US economy than burden it.

During Trump’s first year in office, income from these safety net programs directly kept 44.9 million people out of poverty.

Families don't eat double just because two parents are working instead of one. Families don't use double the clothes, double the holidays, double the computers, etc. etc.

Having an extra person in the family able to earn an income instead of being a passive consumer gives families an economic boost.

You double the labour supply without doubling the production and the average wage is going to plummet, wiping out the bargaining power of the existing labour base.

In order to represent moral progress for the species, it would actually have to be a development which isn't self-destructive. However, it is useful to know that your considerations about what is good and what is bad and which results work out for the best are not based upon material considerations, but instead principles that have nothing to do with material considerations.

It isn't self-destructive, and a rise in living standards, quality of life, and health and educational outcomes for half the population is tangible and material. As is the associated overall reduction in poverty and crime and economic boost for society as a whole.

Your moral standards will remain worthless for so long as they act in service of a greater immorality whose existence you cannot acknowledge, one that has as its goal the destruction of Western civilisation. Just like all the useful idiots who could not acknowledge the fact that the gulags made the Soviet Union something other than a worker's paradise.

I used my brain.

So... not actual evidence? Pity.

@OrbitalDawn

AOC’s Chief of Staff Admits the Green New Deal Is Not about Climate Change | National Review

The proposal will cost some $93 billion in new government spending over ten years.

www.nationalreview.com

Here's another great example of you being a useful idiot for radical authoritarians as if it's the best thing since sliced bread. And until you can learn to recognise and reject this pernicious tendency within the left, it falls upon every last lefty of good conscience to denounce everything you claim to stand for.

None of this has ever been a secret. Have you read literally anything on the proposal? Like even just the Wiki page or the resolution itself?

It's always openly been about using the immediate challenge that climate change presents to tackle systemic, long-running economic issues in an effort to confront both - especially since many of the systemic issues are part of the reason why the US's carbon emissions are so high. And you need a plan to deal with the fallout coming to workers and communities. Investing in the labour force and in more resilient and sustainable infrastructure is how you do that.

That's why FDR's New Deal is the inspiration, both in name and spirit - an multi-pronged, visionary approach to tackle big issues by tackling the big challenge of the time. Then it was the Great Depression, now it's climate change.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

So...?

How does it help anyone to deny gays marriage? How does it detract, at all, from anyone else who wants to get married?

Because the purpose of the social institution is family propagation...

Well, in an immediate sense if people can save on that cost while not losing their healthcare, it does leave more money available to them without the deleterious effects of not having healthcare.

Or they simply have a safety net to fall back on in the event that they become unhealthy, where otherwise they would simply shuffle off their mortal coil. Poverty conditions alleviated, but no wealth creation as such.

Access to healthcare is an incredibly useful tool to improve economic and social mobility, especially at an early age.

No doubt, but it doesn't produce wealth.

Having an extra person in the family able to earn an income instead of being a passive consumer gives families an economic boost.

Except that all the jobs that could be done by a fulltime home employee has to be outsourced in the form of daycare etc, that results in an increase in living costs, but which is not recouped because household income was not doubled.

Funny how there wasn't a 5-fold increase in wages.

It isn't self-destructive, and a rise in living standards, quality of life, and health and educational outcomes for half the population is tangible and material. As is the associated overall reduction in poverty and crime and economic boost for society as a whole.

Sure, destroying the family unit and the tearing apart the social fabric so that the majority feels an overwhelming sense of alienation and anxiety is what moral progress looks like.

So... not actual evidence? Pity.

If productivity increases but consumption doesn't, what happens?

"No actual evidence"

P.S. If you didn't simply ignore evidence you found inconvenient, I might be more inclined to take your requests for evidence seriously.

None of this has ever been a secret. Have you read literally anything on the proposal? Like even just the Wiki page or the resolution itself?

It's always openly been about using the immediate challenge that climate change presents to tackle systemic, long-running economic issues in an effort to confront both - especially since many of the systemic issues are part of the reason why the US's carbon emissions are so high. And you need a plan to deal with the fallout coming to workers and communities. Investing in the labour force and in more resilient and sustainable infrastructure is how you do that.

That's why FDR's New Deal is the inspiration, both in name and spirit - an multi-pronged, visionary approach to tackle big issues by tackling the big challenge of the time. Then it was the Great Depression, now it's climate change.

Well, at least the tarantula is finally being honest about its intentions this time instead of trying to argue in bad faith about what a disaster climate change is going to be.

Hint: You don't try to cobble together the biggest load of crud ever in order to goad voters into giving up their sovereignty while the authoritarian state rides roughshod over them wholesale.

And notice again how you're avoiding taking responsibility for the extremists whose ideology you're running interferance for.

 

[cerebus]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1166417974946926592

TDS is a powerful thing.

I raise you this

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

Yet the Fed could go much further. Officials could state explicitly that the central bank won’t bail out an administration that keeps making bad choices on trade policy, making it abundantly clear that Trump will own the consequences of his actions.

Trump’s ongoing attacks on Powell and on the institution have made that untenable. Central bank officials face a choice: enable the Trump administration to continue down a disastrous path of trade war escalation, or send a clear signal that if the administration does so, the president, not the Fed, will bear the risks — including the risk of losing the next election.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Because the purpose of the social institution is family propagation...

So is marriage only valuable if the married people procreate? It's not useful for heterosexual married couples that don't?

But still, how does allowing more people to marry, detract, at all, from anyone else who wants to get married and procreate?

Then there's still adoption, fostering, etc.

Either way, the purpose of marriage, cohabitation, long-term partnerships etc. is whatever people want it to be. Catholic dogma isn't the determinant of these social institutions.

Or they simply have a safety net to fall back on in the event that they become unhealthy, where otherwise they would simply shuffle off their mortal coil. Poverty conditions alleviated, but no wealth creation as such.

Yes, not letting people die needlessly is a good thing.

No doubt, but it doesn't produce wealth.

It enables them to build wealth as they're not dragged down by illness or crippled by healthcare costs. Sick people are less productive and economically active.

Sure, destroying the family unit and the tearing apart the social fabric so that the majority feels an overwhelming sense of alienation and anxiety is what moral progress looks like.

Whole lotta claims, not a lot of evidence...

"No actual evidence"

"I used my brain" is not evidence.

P.S. If you didn't simply ignore evidence you found inconvenient, I might be more inclined to take your requests for evidence seriously.

Like you've ignored all the evidence I've posted?

Well, at least the tarantula is finally being honest about its intentions this time instead of trying to argue in bad faith about what a disaster climate change is going to be.

Hint: You don't try to cobble together the biggest load of crud ever in order to goad voters into giving up their sovereignty while the authoritarian state rides roughshod over them wholesale.

And notice again how you're avoiding taking responsibility for the extremists whose ideology you're running interferance for.

This is just meaningless drivel and histrionics. You posted something as if it's some big 'gotcha' when it was always openly the plan.

If you've got better ideas for addressing the issues - let's hear 'em.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

So is marriage only valuable if the married people procreate? It's not useful for heterosexual married couples that don't?

It certainly doesn't produce inter-generational wealth.

But still, how does allowing more people to marry, detract, at all, from anyone else who wants to get married and procreate?

Norms only work if they are enforced.

Then there's still adoption, fostering, etc.

Pretty sure adoption and fostering is even rarer than homosexual orientation.

Either way, the purpose of marriage, cohabitation, long-term partnerships etc. is whatever people want it to be. Catholic dogma isn't the determinant of these social institutions.

So in other words, marriage is whatever we want to say it is at any given moment, with no possibility of establishing a norm.

Yes, not letting people die needlessly is a good thing.

But not itself a producer of wealth.

It enables them to build wealth as they're not dragged down by illness or crippled by healthcare costs. Sick people are less productive and economically active.

But it doesn't produce wealth.

Whole lotta claims, not a lot of evidence...

Whole lotta OD ignoring the evidence he finds inconvenient.

"I used my brain" is not evidence.

And you're not the authority as to what constitutes legitimate evidence.

Like you've ignored all the evidence I've posted?

The problem you have is that what I'm bringing to your attention is proof of a long-standing issue which you have asserted repeatedly does not exist. Until your denialism stops, there's no point in trying to show you how the thing you claim doesn't exist actually influences what evidence is available.

This is just meaningless drivel and histrionics. You posted something as if it's some big 'gotcha' when it was always openly the plan.

So lying to the public in order to support your ulterior motive of taking authoritarian control of the economy while trying to pass yourself off as a liberal is perfectly fine, now?

If you've got better ideas for addressing the issues - let's hear 'em.

It starts with getting rid of all the dissembling within the left. That's the first step to addressing the issues. The question is whether or not you're actually capable of acknowledging the dissembling.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

It certainly doesn't produce inter-generational wealth.

People who don't procreate don't produce inter-generational wealth? Big, if true.

Norms only work if they are enforced.

What 'norm' do you want enforced? That only heterosexual, married couples be allowed to procreate?

And, again, how would you enforce it?

Pretty sure adoption and fostering is even rarer than homosexual orientation.

Probably. How many people should be sacrificed and harmed for your ideological quest to be fulfilled?

But it doesn't produce wealth.

Not sure what this obtuseness achieves, but neither does marriage.

The problem you have is that what I'm bringing to your attention is proof of a long-standing issue which you have asserted repeatedly does not exist. Until your denialism stops, there's no point in trying to show you how the thing you claim doesn't exist actually influences what evidence is available.

Nah, the problem is you invent fantastical, all-encompassing conspiracy theories to justify your ideology. And then dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with it wholesale, including on unrelated matters.

So lying to the public in order to support your ulterior motive of taking authoritarian control of the economy while trying to pass yourself off as a liberal is perfectly fine, now?

What you claim is an'ulterior motive' is what they openly advocate for. It's the opposite of an ulterior motive.

It starts with getting rid of all the dissembling within the left. That's the first step to addressing the issues. The question is whether or not you're actually capable of acknowledging the dissembling.

So until people agree with your ideological crusade, no progress can be made on some of the most pressing issues of our times. Unfortunate.

 

[cerebus]

At a breakfast meeting with the British prime minister, Boris Johnson, Trump was asked if he was rethinking his decision to escalate tariffs against China.
He replied: “Yeah, sure. Why not?”
Asked again, he repeated: “Might as well. Might as well … I have second thoughts about everything.”
White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham, however, said the president’s “answer has been greatly misinterpreted”.

what is wrong with that guy?

 

[rietrot]

At a breakfast meeting with the British prime minister, Boris Johnson, Trump was asked if he was rethinking his decision to escalate tariffs against China.
He replied: “Yeah, sure. Why not?”
Asked again, he repeated: “Might as well. Might as well … I have second thoughts about everything.”
White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham, however, said the president’s “answer has been greatly misinterpreted”.

what is wrong with that guy?

What's wrong with keeping an open mind?

 

[Pegasus]

What's wrong with keeping an open mind?

If it’s someone you don’t like then it’s bad.
It’s a leftist thing...

 

[cerebus]

If it’s someone you don’t like then it’s bad.
It’s a leftist thing...

It's nothing to do with him keeping an open mind. His answer is totally unintelligible.

 

[rietrot]

It's nothing to do with him keeping an open mind. His answer is totally unintelligible.

Why?

 

[cerebus]

Why?

A few days ago he was trying to completely prevent US companies from doing any business with China, by way of Twitter fiat. Now suddenly he's having second thoughts about the tariffs, and 'everything'? You can't tell me this man is fully mentally stable.

 

[Pegasus]

It's nothing to do with him keeping an open mind. His answer is totally unintelligible.

So you are saying that his level of intelligence is too high for you to understand?

 

[cerebus]

So you are saying that his level of intelligence is too high for you to understand?

 

[access]

Now suddenly he's having second thoughts about the tariffs, and 'everything'? You can't tell me this man is fully mentally stable.

they did also say, its not about not implementing it, but rather that it shouldve been higher in the first place.

 

[cerebus]

they did also say, its not about not implementing it, but rather that it shouldve been higher in the first place.

Yea that's the official White House response when they had to scramble to come up with an explanation for Trump's gibberish

 

[access]

Yea that's the official White House response when they had to scramble to come up with an explanation for Trump's gibberish

ah so you prescribe to your own conspiracy theories then

 

[Unhappy438]

So you are saying that his level of intelligence is too high for you to understand?

Yes, president strong brain is on another level.

 

[rietrot]

A few days ago he was trying to completely prevent US companies from doing any business with China, by way of Twitter fiat. Now suddenly he's having second thoughts about the tariffs, and 'everything'? You can't tell me this man is fully mentally stable.

I still don't see the problem?

You just don't get the bigger picture. So this might seem like Trump flip flopping. It's not, it's negotiation.

The bigger picture is not having a trade deficit and not being reliant on other countries for certain important products like steel and oil.

 

[cerebus]

ah so you prescribe to your own conspiracy theories then

Well seeing that they claimed he meant exactly the opposite of what he said, it's not that much of a conspiracy theory.