Politics and Statesmenship: A Forum Special Report

[Gromnir]

 

Another one bites the dust

Just because it sucked for some of us doesn't mean it will suck for everyone. Besides, Gifted, Shady, Hurlshot, TN, all seem to have done well. So there is hope.

 

Not for me though. Two attempts and two failures. Either I'm a terrible judge of character or I'M the problem. Either way, not getting on THAT horse again. 

 

am not good with gardening. have killed many plants over the years, and at some point we gave up trying to become a good gardner.  is no rule which says you need to be good at everything and 'course the stakes is much lower when dealing with roses and tomatoes than spouses.   

 

stubborn trying to prove you is good at marriage would be only reason to criticize.

 

...

 

we were actual engaged during our 3rd year at boalt.  found out 'bout a medical condition and decided marriage weren't a responsible life path.

 

on the positive side, from our pov, most married folks we know is making us think o' polar bear clubs.

 

 

got a goodly number o' people enduring a shared agony while trying to laugh and smile through the unpleasantness. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps edit to get back to politics

 

candace owen

 

we actual watched the entire "two hour" clip and she is kinda mischaracterizing her response, though she didn't deserve the admonishment she received.

 

 

 

the nationalism question were asked at 38:30

 

ms. owens' response begins at 40:54. ends 41:55.  listen to the entire 1 hour and 16 minutes at your own peril.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

[Gfted1]

President Trump Is 'Giving Strong Consideration' to Sanctuary Cities for Migrants.

 

And there arose a great squee…

[Gromnir]

well the folks in charge at dhs and ice initial thought the bus-to-sanctuary cities were a joke proposal when floated in november. legal advice made clear the idea were a non-starter. so miller (via trump) clears the folks in charge at dhs and ice and is again trying to get momentum for an idea which were deemed doomed and stupid in late 2018?  

 

 

this will go to courts, and like near all other trump admin ideas, it is gonna lose multiple times 'fore they get it right... if they can get it right. at minimum, government effort need be rationale related to a legit government purpose to legal move detainees.  rational basis test is lowest standard o' review.  it may surprise some people but punishment for democrats is not gonna be considered a legit government purpose.  

 

oh well, gd's gas station owner is safe for another day.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

President Trump Is 'Giving Strong Consideration' to Sanctuary Cities for Migrants.

 

And there arose a great squee…

 

 

Such a small, small man.

[Gfted1]

The act itself...agreed. But it would be humorous to see "sanctuary cities" put their money where their mouths are.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

oh well, gd's gas station owner is safe for another day.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Good, he knows how I like my coffee

[Zoraptor]

is not same as cancelling a line o' credit.

 

Yes it is, if you stop buying up the new bonds to replace the old ones that line of credit is cancelled, you're no longer lending to that entity and the debt is called in since the principal has to be repaid in accordance with the loan contract. The individual loans making up that debt are not called in, but no more loans until the old ones are paid in full is 100% cancelling a line of credit and calling debt in, it just isn't demanding immediate repayment of that line of credit.

 

It's not the same as cancelling a line of credit to an individual, but that's why a credit card analogy is an analogy, rather than a direct equivalent.

 

even if china stopped buying US securities tomorrow, it wouldn't necessarily result in any kinda overall US default short or long term.

 

 

"In the long term sure, when someone gets the balls to actually call in unsustainable US debt". You're 100% ignoring the "long term" part to talk about short term. Same thing you did with Russia in 2014 thinking they would go bankrupt, you looked at the short term effects and what would happen if Russia did literally nothing in response apart from spend cash in hand. As it stands they didn't do literally nothing- and still can pay off debt out of cash in hand even in 2019 5 years after you said they'd be bankrupt.

 

If China called in US debt tomorrow- not exactly long term there, but whatever- it wouldn't matter much as the debt is not unsustainable, yet, it's the deficits generating that debt that are unsustainable, and that in the longer term. The US has no problem servicing debt at the moment. In the long term constant deficit spending that outstrips increases in ability to repay is unsustainable whether you're the US, Guatemala or Joe Bloggs because eventually people start worrying that you cannot repay and want to be repaid without issuing new debt, which is a problem if your repayment method involves taking out more debt. The entity most likely to stop issuing credit and demand actual repayment is China, as they're big enough too in both respects.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Zoraptor

[Gromnir]

local and municipal not having money brought 'bout the surge o' sanctuary cities in the 1990s, a surge spearheaded by law enforcement agencies.  sanctuary cities do not protect local citizens from deportation-- they can't. if ice wants to come in and run an operation in harvey county, kansas, is not as if the local sheriff is gonna do anything to stop 'em... and harvey county kansas is anything but a hotbed o' liberal ideology.

 

so why did so many counties (like harvey) and cities in the 90s adopt sanctuary city policies?  'cause ice demands, particularly detainer, were expensive. pull over an undocumented alien for a minor traffic stop and ice wanted 'em locked up for 48 hours during which time ice might come pick 'em up.  in addition to ice functional requesting local law enforcement do all the leg work on their investigations, city and county jails were needing hold ice suspects, and if, god forbid, a local jail accidental failed to timely release an individual when ice were no-shows to retrieve, then the local sheriff or police were gonna be stuck with the bill if the undocumented personage decided to bring a lawsuit, and courts as a whole were not big fans o' detainer policies. sanctuary cities/counties arose not as some kinda ideological response.  reasons were practical.  were money.  feds were having local law enforcement do fed jobs w/o paying 'em, so local law enforcement said, "no mas." 

 

in 2010s, the sanctuary city stuff became politicized and were given an ideological spin, but the reasons we got so many sanctuary cities is not to protect illegals, but 'cause the fed were trying to get free work from state and local law enforcement. is few who were failing to put their money where their mouth were which brought 'bout the whole sanctuary city movement in the first place... and now trump wants to stick harvey, kansas with a new bill?

 

and zor is a laugh a minute trying to not only change meaning of call in loans/debt, but long-term as well?

 

HA!

 

you referenced long term when somebody calls in the debt.  call in is, by definition a demand for immediate repayment. so, long term, when somebody finally demands immediate repayment... etc. pay off a freaking 30 year mortgage in 30 years, at which point bank returns the deed, is not the bank growing a pair and calling in the debt. is no "demands" or foad as the US treasury reliable and methodical pays in a timely fashion.  *groan*  you are gonna eventually come to realization the debt on the treasury securities cannot be called in.  refuse to offer second or third mortgage, while far more analogous than silly credit card bit, would still NOT be CALL IN by the lender. not even close.  

 

and since you wanna revisit golden oldies, this reading comprehension issue is exact like when you attempted to reimagine statements which failed to recognize that the ar-15 is a semi-auto in contrast to an ak, or like your more recent misunderstanding o' how in the US a manifesto must be likely to result in an immediate violent response for it to be subject to censoring, regardless o' how many times we stressed immediacy as vital. and as to russia, is exact like the bloomberg chart you misused, which showed how russian currency had tanked far worse than norway's in spite o' both nations being heavily dependent on oil.  the entire point o' the visual were to the show the contrast and you mistaken saw the similarity.  the russia thing is still funny as the point you bring up is how we quoted harvard economists who stated, quite clear, that if russia didn't make drastic changes, they would go bankrupt... were direct quotes from us and were in response to you mindless posting russian currency reserve, which hardly protected russia from their little oil issue a few years back.  so russia cuts into pension money and has major increase in population poverty rate, but they avoid bankruptcy... and is arguable as to which woulda' been the better result particular as they still ain't made necessary changes to avoid a repeat o' same functional collapse if oil takes another header. oh and use iae as a source to show iran weren't developing weapons grade nuke when it were iae who specific said opposite were another amusing bit for us... etc.

 

will happily keep current, but if you wanna revisit in an attempt to deflect, we will oblige.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Katphood]

 

What a surprise...

[Zoraptor]

Trump's about as far from a details guy as you can get, I doubt he personally knows anything much about them or Assange except that they hurt Hillary in the election.

 

[stuff]

 

I'm highly amused by your list, as in every example you had a case of the comprehension fails. You left earthquakes out, but if you still remember the Mercalli Scale exists my time has not been completely wasted.

 

If your repayment of debt requires you to issue new loans to repay the old ones the debt is not being repaid, just the individual loans. The debt is rolled over, it is called in when repayment of the actual debt is demanded and new loans are not accepted to cover the old ones as they come due as at that point you have to repay actual principal instead of proroguing. That isn't inevitable and the debt is currently sustainable, but longer term if the US runs ~trillion dollar deficits p/a it will not be.

 

A mortgage example would be fine as an analogy, if you paid the original mortgage by taking out a second one- exactly as with my credit card example. The situation with US debt is not a situation where monthly payments are made and in the end, freehold house equivalent, it's a situation where the owner gets progressively newer, larger mortgages to pay off the old one because the owner is spending more than they earn. Paying off a mortgage to get freehold only works as an equivalence if there is a surplus and debt is being paid down.

[Gromnir]

is very putin o' you that when confronted by your mistakes, you claim Gromnir is the one actual in error.  the fact that every time you blunder you deflect or insist black is now white is exact how we get to where we is today. even so, if you still remember that is not logical to respond to an appeal to authority with an appeal to authority after complaining 'bout logic, am feeling we made progress. 

 

aside: you should order the copi volume we linked, or am foreseeing future claims 'bout logic going awry for you in equal comical ways. am suspecting you honest didn't know logic enough to realize how bad were your error, which made even more funny.  doubt you wanna repeat.    

 

to call in debt is, by definition, an immediate demand for repayment.  therefore, this statement

 

"In the long term sure, when someone gets the balls to actually call in unsustainable US debt- in the full knowledge that the US would likely tell you to FOAD and a demand would likely implode the world economy you rely on."

 

makes sense if there is a debt subject to an immediate demand for payment. such a situation makes holder o' the debt capable o' "demand" and provides a scenario where the debtor may respond to the demand by telling the lender to "foad." with fixed term treasury securities, there is no call in situation, which simple fact you have now spent multiple pages attempting to ignore and from which you is continuous attempting to deflect.  

 

the 8% debt china holds, in the form o' US treasury securities, is not offering much practical leverage for china.  china could stop purchasing such bonds, but is nothing tantamount to a call in and the effects would be felt extreme slow and likely mitigated by domestic and foreign purchasers, such as japan which has 6% of US debt.  mores significant, china currency would increase in value relative to US and its exports to US an other nations would subsequent plummet. such an ineffectual and self-defeating poison pill threat isn't worth considering, and isn't 'bout china testicles, that is for sure. 

 

however, as Gromnir has mentioned in the past, watching china and japan and brazil and Ireland debt holding is useful as a barometer o' US economic health.  if china noticeable and dramatic decreases investment in US treasury securities, it will be a wake-up call for any number o' folks.  yeah, the impact o' such will go unfelt by the ordinary consumer as the 8% slack from china, some o' which has 30 years to be due, will be absorbed by other investors, but the message to the US should be impossible to ignore.

 

copi.  serious.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

[smjjames]

I don't remember the release of Sarah Palins emails ever being a big deal. It probably should include stuff like the massive release of various diplomatic cables and all that, but that would show up as both having the 'grinding the gears' image and would ruin the joke somewhat.

[Zoraptor]

to call in debt is, by definition, an immediate demand for repayment.  therefore, this statement

 

A link to a google search. At least find an actual definition.

 

If you are rolling over debt and someone refuses to issue the new loans you need to repay it then they are calling in that debt. It is an immediate demand for payment of principal, because they are no longer allowing you to roll it over- issue new bonds to cover the old ones' repayment- any more and you have to actually repay them instead of kicking them down the road.

 

And you're still talking about the situation now as if that will be the situation forever. You admit yourself it won't be, but then go back to arguing about today again, as that's the only way your argument makes sense.

 

if you still remember that is not logical to respond to an appeal to authority with an appeal to authority after complaining 'bout logic, am feeling we made progress.

 

 

Unfortunately you only picked up the words Appeal to Authority, not the meaning. With Russia going bankrupt I provided hard figures and reasoning as to why your experts were wrong and your response was 'but my experts'. Ultimately, I was proven correct and they weren't. Here all the experts- DoC, MPI, NZP, PM, Police Minister, Federated Farmers, Fish and Game etc- agreed that s/a guns are necessary for pest control and the only expert opinion or data you've cited against that is your own, gained 6500 miles away.

[Gromnir]

the link to the google search finds you literal dozens o' definitions all which say approx. the same thing.  you would know this if you understood call in of debt, but you keep digging the same hole to deeper depths.

 

as to logic.

 

HA!

 

you still believe more authorities and what you believe is better authorities does anything to diminish the fallacy?  lordy.  you are the gift which keeps on giving.

 

copi.  read copi... or any other introductory book on logic.  better yet, don't raise logic as an issue until you have at least the smallest inkling of what you are talking 'bout.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Boeroer]

@KP: congrats!

 

I've been married for ten years now and it's as awesome as it was ten years ago. Sure: different - but great.

 

My parents are still married, my wife's parents as well. My wife's siblings (3): all happily married. Doesn't look like that's going to change soon.

 

The bottom line is: don't let them discourage you!

 

@Topic: does US media report a lot or at all about "Fridays for Future"?

[Guard Dog]

I don't remember the release of Sarah Palins emails ever being a big deal. It probably should include stuff like the massive release of various diplomatic cables and all that, but that would show up as both having the 'grinding the gears' image and would ruin the joke somewhat.

IIRC the Palin thing wasn't her e-mails, it was e-mails about her from the McCain campaign staff.

[BruceVC]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-need-an-antidote-to-nationalism/2019/04/11/0ba94fe2-5c95-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html?utm_term=.43731b611ce0

 

Good  read about populist nationalism and why the left doesn't seem to know how to deal with it effectively, or offer a viable alternative,  in numerous countries including the USA

[smjjames]

Kind of a short read and doesn't really go into the why, just that they are. Though this portion goes a good way towards explaining it: "The danger for liberals is that they underestimate the power of these raw, emotional appeals. For centuries, liberals have assumed that nationalism was a kind of irrational attachment that would grow weaker as people became more rational, connected and worldly.", it doesn't entirely explain why they're having trouble coming up with a viable alternative. Although that is likely in part because the previous alternative, globalism, is the one producing the backlash.

[Guard Dog]

The real problem is people in the US are being offered two different flavors of the same ice cream. Nationalist capitalism or Socialism lite. Both are just collectivism by different names. Both should be equally unacceptable to a people who value both liberty and sound economics. Apparently they are not which is why we are all utterly, hopelessly, and completely f----d. We are going to get a lethal dose of one or the other. 

[BruceVC]

Kind of a short read and doesn't really go into the why, just that they are. Though this portion goes a good way towards explaining it: "The danger for liberals is that they underestimate the power of these raw, emotional appeals. For centuries, liberals have assumed that nationalism was a kind of irrational attachment that would grow weaker as people became more rational, connected and worldly.", it doesn't entirely explain why they're having trouble coming up with a viable alternative. Although that is likely in part because the previous alternative, globalism, is the one producing the backlash.

Yes that quote is an accurate synopsis of the overall point Fareed is making  and we are seeing this throughout the world, if you just take the EU and Merkels  well meaning but flawed policy of taking in Syrian  immigrants it has   had serious consequences for the overall EU and some of its Democratic values and institutions 

 

I was wrong to initially support this generosity of the Germans but to be fair Merkels offer  was 1.5 million, or so, Syrians and then suddenly millions more people from countries outside of Syria suddenly assumed they could also  immigrate to the EU

 

Add to that the EU also assumed all member states should just absorb these immigrants and there was no accurate assessment done about how the citizens in the EU really feel about this...trying to force integration led to rise of populist parties who are not all " far right " but rather recognize valid concerns like border control and then more irrational fears like the fundamental values and culture of the EU being undermined

 

We see this in South Africa where we have porous borders and millions of undocumented people from failed African countries coming to South Africa and we simply dont have the resources to absorb them. This has now lead to some cases of  violence against these foreigners and even though this is unacceptable and criminal the average South African is just asking for proper regulation of border control and our government to take responsibility for this refugee crisis 

 

Instead we get lectured and  told by the failed African Union  "  we mustn't be Xenophobic and Afriphobic ". If the AU was actually doing its job and enforcing its own rules we wouldn't have so many failed countries in Africa or people living in poverty with no economic future . I feel sorry for these immigrants as I know why they leave there countries but that doesnt mean it should be South Africas responsibility to just take them in ..we battle to deliver services and create jobs for our own citizens. Its just not sustainable what is currently happening 

 

So now my view around immigration is  " diversity and multiculturalism is fine but it must be seriously measured,controlled and realistically implemented"  ...and it cannot be done at the expense of the citizens of the country people are immigrating to illegally

Edited April 14, 2019 by BruceVC

[smjjames]

The real problem is people in the US are being offered two different flavors of the same ice cream. Nationalist capitalism or Socialism lite. Both are just collectivism by different names. Both should be equally unacceptable to a people who value both liberty and sound economics. Apparently they are not which is why we are all utterly, hopelessly, and completely f----d. We are going to get a lethal dose of one or the other. 

 

Speaking of, since Marianne Williamson is going to have a town hall tonight, as is Andrew Yang (separately, obviously), I checked out her campaign page and it sounds kind of like she would be more Green party than Democrat. Although, despite her being labelled a New Age author, the issues page doesn't have any New Ageness to it though it still has the hint of that perspective. So, she's going to have to work to get past that image.

[Zoraptor]

you still believe more authorities and what you believe is better authorities does anything to diminish the fallacy?  

 

 

In order to be an Appeal to Authority fallacy it has to actually be a fallacy- stating that experts must be right in the face of evidence proving otherwise; just because they're experts. I showed that Russia could pay off its debt in cash, that fundamentally counters an assertion of imminent bankruptcy since bankruptcy involves having debts that cannot be paid off, and ultimately I was correct and your experts wrong. You plinking the odd squirrel in the Dakotas isn't evidence of anything except your own hubris given that the similarities between the Dakotas and NZ consist of, basically, being on the same planet.

[Gromnir]

 

you still believe more authorities and what you believe is better authorities does anything to diminish the fallacy?  

 

 

In order to be an Appeal to Authority fallacy it has to actually be a fallacy- stating that experts must be right in the face of evidence proving otherwise; just because they're experts. 

 

 

"You need s/a rifles for pest control because you can shoot 46 rabbits in 2 hours with them, in daylight, in one field and can shoot dozens of feral goats/ thar/ deer/ pigs with them from helicopters- and that's what users, our PM, Police Minister, Police Commissioner and experts all say; and they trump your anecdotal expertise in the field since that field was in Dakota 6500 miles away."

 

is classic appeal to authority fallacy.  your reading comprehension o' the fallacy needs be an utter fail not to get this one. is a fallacy 'cause you are claiming your conclusion is correct 'cause your authorities says so.   whether you think they is right 'cause is superior experts is inconsequential as to whether or not you indulged in LOGIC fallacy.  we showed how fast a bolt or pump or lever weapon could be fired via multiple videos.  extrapolated number o' kills.  and yeah, we indulged in appeal to authority fallacy, but is not Gromnir who raised the spectre o' logic-- you did.  logic is not a you win button.  you brought up logic while simultaneous complete failing to understand syllogism and basic logic fallacies.  you are still arguing this point in spite o' fact you is comical wrong. pathological?

 

and the russia thing is, as usual, your reading comprehension fail.  based on rate russia were burning through currency reserves, if russia did not make drastic changes, they woulda' reached bankruptcy in 6-18 months.  russia made drastic changes to everything except their freaking dependence 'pon exports.  

 

but heck, by the end o' the day you is gonna learn a bit 'bout logic fallacies, whether you wish to or not. consider this a win. 

 

now if only we can get you to understand what imminent or immediacy is.  were a problem for manifesto censorship and is clear a reading comprehension fail with calling in debt.  zor got some weird mental block?

 

HA! Good Fun!