All Things Trump

[laklak]

Camelot and all that. I don't blame him, I bet shagging Jackie was like fucking a dead flounder.

[Tero]

How could the founding fathers be so dumb as to leave it out of the constitution?
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. Nader noted that no president had ever tried to pardon himself and that the framers of the Constitution believed such a notion was "inherently corrupt."

[Sean Hayden]

What's next, no more term limits!

[Tero]

Putin comes over and becomes his strongman in place of that wimpy Pence. Mexico wall construction begins.

[pErvinalia]

Unemployment being low may be meaningless to you, but to most people it isn't.

That's because most people don't know what does and doesn't measure.

As we near full employment, it pays massive dividends to the economy as a whole. To suggest that the unemployment rate is irrelevant is pig ignorance.

Enlighten me, what are some of the massive dividends full employment (and arbitrary number) pay to the economy?

Climate change? https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/20 ... d8f5f23535

"According to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, since 2005 annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons. That is by far the largest decline of any country in the world over that timespan and is nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union.

What does Trump have to do with any of that?

The US isn't really bad on wealth inequality. The big issue with the US is that most billionaires are from the US, so that skews the numbers up.

I really don't think you know how stats work. The large number of billionaires IS wealth inequality, not a qualifier. If you had, say one trillionaire, and not many billionaires, then that would be a skew on the numbers. But when you don't have many outliers, then that's not a skew.

But as has been pointed out to you before, our middle class is way above the world average in wealth, and our poor are even (on average) far less poor than when compared to most other countries in the world.

And as has been pointed out to you before in response to this, this is a disingenuous stat as it doesn't account for cost of living (i.e. PPI dollars). Of course a poor person in the US would be not poor in India. They got their assets and income in US dollars, not Indian Rupees. And they are still poor in the US because they have to pay US prices for stuff, not Indian prices.

[pErvinalia]

Nowadays, though, a 21 or 22 year old intern who blows the chiefest chief executive of any organization in the US, and probably the world - one of the most powerful men in the world - would be seen as being raped.

No it wouldn't.

What do you think your belittling of the power dynamic in cases of possible sexual assault does for the way you are viewed here? You keep saying you aren't conservative or alt-right, but rhetorically dissing the idea of a power dynamic doesn't do you many favours in that regard. What about a 15 year old who blows her teacher? Probably would be seen as sexual assault. LOL, eh!

[Scot Dutchy]

Yep quoting Forbes. You cant get proper data from the USA. It is all guestimates. So why bother quoting it?

[Forty Two]

Nowadays, though, a 21 or 22 year old intern who blows the chiefest chief executive of any organization in the US, and probably the world - one of the most powerful men in the world - would be seen as being raped.

No it wouldn't.

What do you think your belittling of the power dynamic in cases of possible sexual assault does for the way you are viewed here? You keep saying you aren't conservative or alt-right, but rhetorically dissing the idea of a power dynamic doesn't do you many favours in that regard. What about a 15 year old who blows her teacher? Probably would be seen as sexual assault. LOL, eh!

Starting with the 15 year old blowing her teacher, that depends on the jurisdiction. In most, if not all, of the US, it would be statutory rape, not just "seen as sexual assault," it would be a sex crime - criminal sexual conduct, and also statutory rape, because the 15 year old would be blowing an adult.

I haven't "belittled the power dynamic." I've specifically pointed out that in the 1990s, when this was occurring, the same "power dynamic" was not recognized in the Lewinsky case. The argument was between "it's private sexual conduct!" on the one hand, and "...he perjured himself!" on the other, with another hand yelling about Clinton dragging the Presidency into an immoral mire (the religious right hand).

Nobody was suggesting - or hardly anyone was, anyway - that Clinton was guilty regardless of her actual consent, because he had a tremendous power position over her and took advantage of that power to get sex from her. Now, that power dynamic is being brought up much more, just like the interview with Clinton yesterday where he flipped out because he was asked about apologies to Lewinsky and whether he would resign if it all happened today. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... ir-n879721

What's your view on it? Did Clinton abuse a power dynamic, thereby committing an offense of some kind against Lewinsky? If so, what offense?

[Scot Dutchy]

Trump trying to infiltrate Europe:

German politicians call for expulsion of Trump's Berlin envoy

Richard Grenell criticised for saying he wants to ‘empower’ conservative forces in Europe

German politicians have called for Donald Trump’s envoy in Berlin to be expelled from the country after he said in an interview that he wanted to “empower” conservative forces throughout Europe.

Ambassador Richard Grenell, who has been in office for less than a month, has caused irritation in Berlin with a series of perceived breaches of diplomatic etiquette.

On Monday, the former Fox News contributor further strayed beyond his ambassadorial remit by requesting a short meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu at Berlin’s airport following the Israeli prime minister’s meeting with Angela Merkel.

Close down all American embassies.

[Forty Two]

Yep quoting Forbes. You cant get proper data from the USA. It is all guestimates. So why bother quoting it?

Is your view that proper data was also unavailable from 2009 through 2016? Or, just now?

I disagree that "it is all guesstimates," or that the US gathers and publishes data in a way less accurate than European sources. Here is a comparison of US, Canadian and European methods of calculating unemployment. https://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/06/art1full.pdf

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics has been gathering data for decades. What I've noticed is that some people rely on these statistics when a Democrat is in office, but when a Republican is in office, they are declared to be fabricated, and only accurate if doubled, at best.

[Scot Dutchy]

Still talking crap I see. You dont have proper data in America. It is impossible. You have not got a clue about anything and just make guesstimations. No two states collect data the same way and all have different definitions. It is one statistical mess.

[Forty Two]

Trump trying to infiltrate Europe:

German politicians call for expulsion of Trump's Berlin envoy

Richard Grenell criticised for saying he wants to ‘empower’ conservative forces in Europe

German politicians have called for Donald Trump’s envoy in Berlin to be expelled from the country after he said in an interview that he wanted to “empower” conservative forces throughout Europe.

Ambassador Richard Grenell, who has been in office for less than a month, has caused irritation in Berlin with a series of perceived breaches of diplomatic etiquette.

On Monday, the former Fox News contributor further strayed beyond his ambassadorial remit by requesting a short meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu at Berlin’s airport following the Israeli prime minister’s meeting with Angela Merkel.

Close down all American embassies.

Jesus, you don't have to say much of anything to be called upon to be banned. He wants to "empower conservatives." Oh, my! I wonder if it's o.k. to say you want to empower progressives. Would that be o.k?

As for his ambassadorial remit, I'm not clear on why taking a meeting with Bibi Netanyahu at the Berlin Airport would be a breach of his remit. Are ambassadors obliged not to meet with officials of government X on government Y's soil or something?

Grenell is also meeting with the Austrian Chancellor. This is described as an unusual move, because the US's ambassador to Austria was installed last month. Well, what is unusual about that? Do ambassadors not meet with foreign leaders of countries other than the one to which they are ambassador? A spokesman for the US said the request came from Austria. I mean, Ambassadors meet with foreign leaders -- it's part of their job.

Sahra Wagenknecht, the co-chair of leftwing party Die Linke, called for the envoy to be recalled to the US.

Die Linke was founded 10 years ago by the merger of the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS) and the Electoral Alternative for Labour and Social Justice (WASG). LOL. So, that's where this is coming from. The other politician mentioned as calling for Grenell to be expelled was Martin Schulz who was head of the EU's socialist block.

[Forty Two]

Still talking crap I see. You dont have proper data in America. It is impossible. You have not got a clue about anything and just make guesstimations. No two states collect data the same way and all have different definitions. It is one statistical mess.

Collecting data in different ways does not make the data "guesstimates." Which data are you talking about? Unemployment? We have very accurate unemployment data in the US, and it's compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (which is a federal/national Bureau). The definitions are published online, clearly, easily understandable. The criteria and data are easy to vet. Nobody else but you is saying that the US data are unavailable or just giant guesses.

There is only one official definition of unemployment—people who are jobless, actively seeking work, and available to take a job. That's the same general definition used in Europe by Eurostat (although there are slight differences in the details) The official unemployment rate for the nation is the number of unemployed as a percentage of the labor force (the sum of the employed and unemployed).

To try to clear it up for you, the "state" unemployment data is collected the same way by each state - they keep track of unemployment insurance claims (people who are unemployed apply for unemployment compensation). However, the number of people who claim and are receiving unemployment compensation are not the same as the number of unemployed. Like almost every country in the world, unemployment insurance is not unlimited. It doesn't last forever. However, people who have collected unemployment but their benefits have run out, and are still unemployed, looking for work, and able to work -- those people will still be counted in the national statistic as unemployed. I.e. the national statistic does not rely on the state unemployment insurance numbers, because to do so would exclude people who, say, were recently students but now went back to looking for work, or who recovered unemployment for a year or year and a half and are still ready, willing and able to work but haven't gotten a job yet, or people who were homemakers and joined the labor force but are still looking for a job, etc.

I hope that clears it up for you. Your suggestion that the US numbers, which are among the most detailed, most comprehensive, most transparent/public numbers on the planet, are mere "guesstimates" (compared to what, you haven't said) is ridiculous, Dutchy.

[Tero]

You are only unemployed if you register as unemployed.

[Forty Two]

Unemployment being low may be meaningless to you, but to most people it isn't.

That's because most people don't know what does and doesn't measure.

It doesn't matter what most people know. It matters what it is, which is an economic indicator, and like inflation, interest rates, the Fortune 500 or the Dow, the GDP growth rate, GNP, tax receipts, real estate starts and new construction, business start-ups, manufacturing and industrial expansion rates, etc., all provide information on which to judge the state of the economy.

As we near full employment, it pays massive dividends to the economy as a whole. To suggest that the unemployment rate is irrelevant is pig ignorance.

Enlighten me, what are some of the massive dividends full employment (and arbitrary number) pay to the economy?

Tax revenues for one. More income earners means more tax payers.
Less unemployment insurance payouts. More wage/income earners means fewer unemployment compensation claims, which benefits the public treasury.
Fewer welfare program claims. More wage/income earners means fewer claims against state welfare programs, which benefits the public treasury.
High unemployment costs the unemployed person and their family in terms of savings and investments, loss of assets, and loss of skills and training through long-term inactivity.
High unemployment reduces GDP.
High unemployment reduces consumer spending, which impacts the economy.
High unemployment causes a reduction in demand for consumer products.
High unemployment can cause social unrest
High unemployment reduces consumer and business confidence, which restrains economic activity.

Climate change? https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/20 ... d8f5f23535

"According to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, since 2005 annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons. That is by far the largest decline of any country in the world over that timespan and is nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union.

What does Trump have to do with any of that?

Nothing yet, because the statistics aren't available for Trump's time in office, yet. If the trend just continues as it has been, however, then the US is doing just fine on Climate Change.

The US isn't really bad on wealth inequality. The big issue with the US is that most billionaires are from the US, so that skews the numbers up.

I really don't think you know how stats work. The large number of billionaires IS wealth inequality, not a qualifier. If you had, say one trillionaire, and not many billionaires, then that would be a skew on the numbers. But when you don't have many outliers, then that's not a skew.

The point is that (a) US stands below some European countries on wealth inequality, but generally, looking at the world, the US isn't too bad.

The US has 41% of the global personal wealth. The US is by far the richest country in the world, despite this figure having fallen for decades. Denmark and Switzerland both have higher wealth inequality GINI coefficients than the US.

And, wealth inequality is certainly a relevant statistic, but it is not the only relevant statistic. Standard of living is important. And, if you have your trillionaires, but the middle and lower economic strata are still much higher than the rest of the world, then the inequality is not a particularly important issue. Inequality measures mean far more in a country like Brazil, where the poor represent about half the population, and where poor really means "fucking poor - tin roof, shack fucking poor."

But as has been pointed out to you before, our middle class is way above the world average in wealth, and our poor are even (on average) far less poor than when compared to most other countries in the world.

And as has been pointed out to you before in response to this, this is a disingenuous stat as it doesn't account for cost of living (i.e. PPI dollars). Of course a poor person in the US would be not poor in India. They got their assets and income in US dollars, not Indian Rupees. And they are still poor in the US because they have to pay US prices for stuff, not Indian prices.

It's not about "not being poor in India." They're not poor here. It's why the US is such a popular destination here. The poor here don't live like the poor in India or Brazil and the like. They floor is much higher here. Worlds higher. That's why we are talking about walls and tightening immigration - the flood is into the US, not out of it.

Median income in the US is in the global 1% - https://www.thebalance.com/american-mid ... st-3973493

The American poor live better than most of humanity - https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstal ... 94795d54ef

The information does not suggest that an American poor person would not be poor in India. The numbers show that the American poor don't, overall, live a life in the US that would be considered poor anywhere else. http://www.oregonlive.com/hovde/index.s ... ricas.html

Pew has additional data: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... dle-class/

But how does the well-being of the American family compare with the well-being of people in other countries?

The U.S. still fares very well on that score. On a global scale, the vast majority of Americans are either upper-middle income or high income. And many Americans who are classified as “poor” by the U.S. government would be middle income globally, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis.

The analysis includes 111 countries, which account for 88% of the global population. We divided people into five income groups: People who are poor (living on $2 or less daily), low income ($2.01-10), middle income ($10.01-20), upper-middle income ($20.01-50) and high income (more than $50). The global middle-income range translates to an annual income of $14,600 to $29,200 for a family of four.

The U.S. stands head and shoulders above the rest of the world. More than half (56%) of Americans were high income by the global standard, living on more than $50 per day in 2011, the latest year that could be analyzed with the available data. Another 32% were upper-middle income. In other words, almost nine-in-ten Americans had a standard of living that was above the global middle-income standard. Only 7% of people in the U.S. were middle income, 3% were low income and 2% were poor.

Compare that with the rest of the world, where 13% of people globally could be considered middle income in 2011. Most people in the world were either low income (56%) or poor (15%), and relatively few were upper-middle income (9%) or high income (7%).

This is not to say that the U.S., along with other advanced economies, does not struggle with issues of income inequality and poverty. But given the much higher standard of living in the U.S., what is considered poor here is a level of income still not available to most people globally.

This is not an attack on Europe or Australia/NZ. Western Europea, Canada, Oz/NZ are all very high up there, dominating the world. Australia does very well on standard of living and wealth inequality measures. There are issues for the US to solve, and work to be done. I'm not arguing otherwise. I'm not noting this as a competition or as some sort of jab at other countries. I want the poor of the world to be "not poor." I applaud western Europe, Oz, NZ, and Canada too. Good job. My point is to defend against the absurd notion that the US is equivalent to third world countries, where the poor die in the streets, where people are destitute and live worse than in Cuba or the Dominican Republic, with worse health care. Such arguments are political arguments directed for ideological purposes, and they do not accurately portray the US.