StrangeSox

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 10, 2015 -> 09:14 AM) How are these rich people cheating more than the 19th century rich people? Was that when the american people had the american dream? When did the american dream happen? They're not, but we created and enforced anti-trust laws and busted up monopolies in response to the Gilded Age. We're sliding back towards more and more industry consolidation these days, though.

This is why it doesn't really matter if Trump personally believes that bulls*** he's saying: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/dona...3tvcaS12G"" target="_blank">White supremacist groups see Trump bump 'He has sparked an insurgency,' Stormfront founder says. Related:

That's not an advantage they enjoyed, but it is something fundamental to the wealth they have that they didn't make. Standing on the shoulders of giants etc. There's also timing /luck (if gates is born five years later we never hear of him) and survivorship bias (some OS would inevitably become the market leader, MS wasn't really groundbreaking) That part is really more about other parts of society enabled them and why they "owe" something to society. Just another way of phrasing "you didn't build that."

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 9, 2015 -> 05:11 PM) Did you read the link? 1) Most are NOT from wealthy families, according to that study. I'm sure the vast majority come from "good" homes versus "bad" homes, but so do tens of millions of other people that don't become so insanely wealthy and successful. Yes, I did. Look at their own listed examples: Bill Gates' parents were successful, wealthy lawyers who sent him to elite schools and had connections to the CEO at IBM (who gave Microsoft their first break). Phil Knight's father was a successful lawyer-turned-publisher, though Knight's marketing genius and cheap overseas labor really is what did it for him. Buffett's father was a wealthy businessman and Congressman. Stephen Schwarzman came from successful parents as well. Aside from Knight, the rest of that article's "self-made" examples all attended elite schools. Or they were in the right place at the right time in conditions that never existed before and won't ever exist again (that one mainly applies to Gates). Society allows for intellectual property--without laws explicitly creating it, there would be no patent or copyrights and the wealth of guys like Gates and Zuckerberg and Bezos would be non-existent. Without important public spending in the first place, Facebook and Amazon aren't even a concept. For Microsoft, they repeatedly engaged in anti-trust behavior. It doesn't devalue what they've done or created, but it puts the claim of "self-made" into perspective. Nobody becomes wealthy without the work of others. Society created the conditions that allowed them to accumulate unfathomable amounts of wealth in the first place, so yeah, they should feel responsible to give back to society. More broadly, that sort of super-concentrated wealth is unhealthy for society in general. Yes, I agree. However, for the capital class, their wealth is derived from holding wealth itself, not from labor. People who own shares in the company I work for make money off of the work I do. My work helps pay for the CEO's salary. This of course applies to everyone in the company from the top on down. I'm not arguing for Marx's labor theory of value here, but just for some perspective on how "self-made" the wealthy really are.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Dec 9, 2015 -> 04:48 PM) I've said several times Donald Trump is playing the game to get elected and that he'll probably renege on everything if he gets the nomination. You just can't be fanatical and expect to win the presidency. It just isn't going to happen. He's a got a $1 bet with someone to see just how far he can go and still stay in the lead.

1) They're still mostly from wealthy or at least well-off and well-connected families. Bill Gates' parents were successful, wealthy lawyers who sent him to elite schools and had connections to the CEO at IBM (who gave Microsoft their first break). Phil Knight's father was a successful lawyer-turned-publisher, though Knight's marketing genius and cheap overseas labor really is what did it for him. Buffett's father was a wealthy businessman and Congressman. Stephen Schwarzman came from successful parents as well. Aside from Knight, the rest of that article's "self-made" examples all attended elite schools. 2) A lot of those guys' wealth is built on IP law protections (Zuckerberg, Gates) or other public projects (e.g. the internet), which means they owe society for that in the first place. 3) By and large, their wealth is still derived from the labor of others (especially someone like Nike who sells shoes for hundreds of dollars that they paid laborers pennies to make). That doesn't mean these people didn't work hard or have some unique ideas that flourished, but they also had a leg up on an overwhelming majority of people.

Yeah,we're all idiots for caring about the rhetoric and support that the months-long GOP frontrunner represents and you're so smart for simultaneously saying he should be ignored and also that he'll get lots of votes.

This...does not sound wise. Gun rights groups to stage mock mass shooting at UT

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Dec 9, 2015 -> 12:45 PM) What are some people's beef with Bernie Sanders' policies? General ideological opposition to welfare state policies like universal health care and higher taxes especially on the wealthy.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 9, 2015 -> 12:38 PM) I took his point to mean that both say what people want to hear rather than what they actually believe. Whether that's to a fringe portion of the party (with major power) or to a large portion of the electorate (also with power and opposed to a more extreme candidate) doesn't really matter. They lack an actual message/agenda other than to be President. Ok, but what I think NSS was saying is that even a cynical politician like Hilary has limits on how far she'll go. Trump is neck-deep in the fever swamps of right-wing conservatism and shows no signs of stopping. I'm not even sure what the left-wing equivalent would be (straight-up Maoism?), but we don't have any evidence that Hilary would gladly appeal to the worst aspects of leftist ideologies and doesn't appear to have any personal limits whatsoever. Saying that you'll adjust your position to coincide with a large portion of the electorate covering the middle ground of American politics is quite a bit different than aligning yourself with the farthest 5% fringe.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 11, 2015 -> 01:48 PM) Analysis of Republican tax plans from the Tax Foundation: The Tax Policy Center has also analyzed Bush's plan: Unsurprisingly, it gives massive breaks to the wealthiest and blows a huge hole in the deficit.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 9, 2015 -> 12:05 PM) Ok, well, one of you gets it then. In anything he's involved in, be it an election, a contest, or a negotiation, he does this. He will say ANYTHING, including things he KNOWS he cannot do or actually believes. Ok. Presumably, he also says things he believes. I don't doubt, for example, that he knows he couldn't really get Mexico to pay to build a gigantic wall across the entire border, but I see no reason to doubt that he really does have anti-Mexican (along with a bunch of other) bias. In the end, if he's still broadcasting this message and would still try to follow through on it on some level once in office, whether or not he "genuinely believes" in it isn't really relevant. It's giving voice and a major platform to fascist, racist, sexist, bigoted rhetoric. Compare it to George Wallace. Supposedly, he really was not quite the racist asshole he portrayed himself to be in public. Still, he pursued racist policies and spouted racist ideology and gained a decent amount of support for it. Should the people adversely affected by that really care if he "genuinely" believed in what he was saying and doing? edit: earlier in this thread, you said that Trump wouldn't lose by a landslide and would get a lot of votes from a lot of people. Shouldn't we all be concerned that a man who has been saying what Trump has been saying would get such strong support, regardless of whether he truly believes it himself?

Nah, just make your actual point. Trump is currently the frontrunner for the Republican nomination and has been for a long time. It's not exactly surprising that people in a political subforum would comment on him and the toxic ideology he's spreading regardless of whether he really believes it or not. And, again, I see zero reason to assume he doesn't genuinely believe that s*** he's saying.

The tree was a co-option of pagan winter celebrations and so is the whole gift-giving Santa Claus. Hell, it wasn't until the Victorian era that Christmas really became a big deal at all (thanks, Dickens!), and again it was a co-option of pagan winter solstice festivals. Regardless of the roots, though, Christmas decorations and Santa Claus are still pretty much straight-up secular these days.

What have we been "played" into?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 9, 2015 -> 10:57 AM) That's awful. Nothing warranted that action by the cop, whatsoever. Subject was compliant in every way. And that guy is going back on the street? I really don't know how a jury comes to a "not guilty" verdict there. Hopefully the civil settlement is huge. This is the counterpoint to how effective more dash and body cams will really be. In some cases, sure, in others, no, and not for any easily discernible reason. From a different article Jesus christ "sprinter's position" And they charged him with resisting arrest.

The Pros And Cons Of Political Correctness

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 9, 2015 -> 10:49 AM) Yeah but a lot of the independent and even borderline conservative people that MIGHT vote for her don't support those ideas, or maybe they do in theory but don't see that's its economically feasible. She's playing to her base and to those people who are scared off by how leftist Sanders is. That's entirely consistent with what SS2K5 said. A lot of independent and even borderline conservative people hopefully reject what Trump's saying, though. That's the parallel that ss2k5 was trying to make, and it really just doesn't hold. Trump is appealing to the basest instincts of the conservative base (terrible pun intended) but Clinton is (and always pretty much has) appealing to the center-left of the Democratic party. edit: aside from a few recent years due to Obamacare backlash, a majority of Americans have supported a federal universal health care system for a long, long time.

Delaware cop gets off scot-free after punting innocent black man’s head like a football on video

In what sense has he "played" me? What reason do you have to think he doesn't genuinely hold these views? edit: and even if he doesn't "genuinely believe" what he's saying, it's still dangerous to have someone with the media platform he has and the support he has saying what he is saying.

you seem pretty upset

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 9, 2015 -> 10:27 AM) He's a life long reality tv media whore, so much so he was doing it before reality tv even existed. Throughout the 80's, Trump and his crazy marriage in the media was basically the entire Kanye/Kim storyline BEFORE Kanye/Kim. He says outlandish things because it makes people notice him, not because he actually means any of it...and people keep falling for it over and over. This presidential race is nothing but more reality tv to him, and unlike his opponents, he doesn't have to spend a dime. Nearly all of the things Trump is saying CANNOT EVEN BE DONE, and he KNOWS THAT. He's NOT the dumbass people try to make him out to be. I'm fine with calling anyone who openly espouses fascism and racism, whether or not they "actually mean any of it," a dumb ass, especially if they're doing it as the front-runner for nomination for President of a major political party. He's also an old white dude saying ridiculous s*** that at least some small but significant percentage of his supporters fully embrace. I see no reason to assume that Trump doesn't genuinely believe the s***ty things he's saying.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 9, 2015 -> 10:18 AM) I honestly don't buy that. I think she is better at hiding it, while the group that supports Trump wants to see that, which is why he puts on the show. If the preferences of the demographics were different, I am sure Hillary would be doing the same things. This only makes sense if you think that the political parties that candidates choose to align with and draw their support from are random or something. I mean it's basically saying "if Hillary were a radical right-wing Republican trying to appeal to radical right-wing Republicans, she'd do the same thing!" edit: and you can look at her own stances in comparison with what the Democratic base wants, and it doesn't really support that idea. Most liberals are strongly in favor of Universal Health Care and many (possibly most?) support free college plans, but she's criticizing Sanders from the right on both of those issues.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 9, 2015 -> 10:14 AM) Trump has played every last one of you. care to elaborate?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 9, 2015 -> 10:10 AM) Only in common in that both will swing with polls to get elected. But No chance Hillary has the lack of boundaries for it that Trump does. No way. Trump is "special" that way. Not to mention that the polls she swings around on don't put her into hate territory. Their stance on same-sex marriage doesn't look great, but never did they imply some group of people should be deported or kept out en masse, which Trump has done with multiple groups now. Not even close. And that comes from someone who would rather anyone by Hillary gets the Dem nod. You want a politician to have some convictions and ground they'll hold, but on the other hand, it seems sort of silly to criticize them for changing their stances in tune with their constituency's changing desires over 10-15 years e.g. support for LGBT equality. I think it's good that Hillary has shifted noticeably leftward on some issues compared to her 2008 campaign in response to what Democratic voters want.