Trump just won the election

[NeuroTypical]

In case anyone needs to be slightly more hip and cool than they currently are:

Doge?

 

Nah.  Dogecoin?

 

Nah. Doge?

 

Nah.   Always remember, Doge started here:  

Some top tier Doge right there, I tells ya.   

[mordorbund]

On 11/14/2024 at 3:28 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Yeah, anger isn't the only threshold someone can cross before discussing issues becomes a waste of time.  I'd add fear to the list.  Actually, it seems like fear and anger often o hand in hand in talking religion and politics

No one ever expects political fights!! Our chief weapon is anger… anger and fear… fear and anger… Our two weapons are anger and fear… and othering… Our THREE weapons are anger, fear, and othering… and division… Our FOUR… no, AMONGST our weapons… amongst our weaponry are such elements as anger, fear… I’ll come in again.

 

[mordorbund]

10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

And she gave us meaningless platitudes and promises that were so generic and general that we couldn't really depend on what that would really mean.  She never went into the details of any plan or idea.

$6000 child credit, $25000 down payment, no tax on tips to support an opportunity economy.

[Carborendum]

7 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

$6000 child credit, $25000 down payment, no tax on tips to support an opportunity economy.

Yes, those slipped my mind.  But...

1. We need to acknowledge that the no tax on tips came from Trump.  She stole it and claimed it was her own idea.

2. The child tax credit expired under Biden's/Harris's watch.  Then all of a sudden they want to bring it back?  How about if you just didn't let it expire in the first place?  And she wanted to increase it to $6000? (just shy of half a $Trillion)  I'm not sure that's a good idea.

3.The $25k downpayment certainly sounds good for a sound bite.  But it will do nothing but the same thing that medicare and government education grants have done.  It made them all less affordable to the point that it was basically paid for by inflation.  So, this doesn't really do any good (just like most Democrat fiscal policies).  Yet, the average person would still want to vote for it.

[person0]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

2. The child tax credit expired under Biden's/Harris's watch.  Then all of a sudden they want to bring it back?  How about if you just didn't let it expire in the first place?  And she wanted to increase it to $6000? (just shy of half a $Trillion)  I'm not sure that's a good idea.

They also stole this from Trump.  Vance announced a $5000 credit about two weeks before she said 6k.  So, of those three, only the 25k down payment (a terrible idea) is originally hers during this election cycle.

[Carborendum]

33 minutes ago, person0 said:

They also stole this from Trump.  Vance announced a $5000 credit about two weeks before she said 6k.  So, of those three, only the 25k down payment (a terrible idea) is originally hers during this election cycle.

Even $5000 is too much.  I don't know.  Someone more expert in the economy might disagree.

[person0]

23 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Even $5000 is too much.  I don't know.  Someone more expert in the economy might disagree.

I agree that it is too much.  The only reason I can support it is because it incentivizes having children when our birth rates are dropping.  I actually think we should go in a more specific direction with the goal of reducing abortion rates and increasing marriages, both via financial incentives.  Of course, in a perfect world, such things would be unnecessary and not ideal, but our world is very imperfect. 😕

[Vort]

22 minutes ago, person0 said:

I agree that it is too much.  The only reason I can support it is because it incentivizes having children when our birth rates are dropping.  I actually think we should go in a more specific direction with the goal of reducing abortion rates and increasing marriages, both via financial incentives.  Of course, in a perfect world, such things would be unnecessary and not ideal, but our world is very imperfect. 😕

The idea of bribing people into having children is so repulsive that I'm not sure what to think of it. Except that it's repulsive.

[person0]

44 minutes ago, Vort said:

The idea of bribing people into having children is so repulsive that I'm not sure what to think of it. Except that it's repulsive.

Is it more repulsive than abortion?

[Ironhold]

17 hours ago, Vort said:

The idea of bribing people into having children is so repulsive that I'm not sure what to think of it. Except that it's repulsive.

Japan's birth rate is so low that they're literally undergoing a baby *bust* and it's jeopardizing their entire economic structure. If it keeps up, Japan as a nation will be in danger of collapse. 

Couples are being offered tax incentives to offset the cost of pregnancy and potential lost income, while company after company - including the national rail lines - has begun offering child care services or the like in order to make it more convenient for couples to continue working even after they have children. Yes, larger rail stations are now offering day care and child care services, with certified caregivers, electronically locked facilities, and webcam access for parents. 

[Vort]

16 hours ago, person0 said:

Is it more repulsive than abortion?

 

2 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

Japan's birth rate is so low that they're literally undergoing a baby *bust* and it's jeopardizing their entire economic structure. If it keeps up, Japan as a nation will be in danger of collapse. 

Couples are being offered tax incentives to offset the cost of pregnancy and potential lost income, while company after company - including the national rail lines - has begun offering child care services or the like in order to make it more convenient for couples to continue working even after they have children. Yes, larger rail stations are now offering day care and child care services, with certified caregivers, electronically locked facilities, and webcam access for parents. 

This is the heartbreak. Either we bribe people to have children and remove many of the responsibilities (and joys) of parenthood, or else people will just kill their children to avoid having to get up at night, miss out on clubbing, and not be able to afford that boat.

[NeuroTypical]

I overheard a sad progressive the other day being sad about the Trump election.  One of the reasons he was sad, was because Trump would deport and curtail immigration, which, he said, "is the only way we can continue to grow as a nation".  

He's not wrong.  It's just that it's his fault.  Birth control, same-sex marriage, no-fault divorces, normalizing abortion as birth control, all the pushing for a 'living wage' to be paid to younger unmarried workers.  All of 'em progressive/liberal initiatives, most of 'em fought through and eventually destroyed conservative resistance to become just the way things are done now.

I understand falling replacement rates are a global phenomenon.  I wonder how much of it globally can also be blamed on a similar list.

[Carborendum]

On 11/14/2024 at 11:04 AM, Carborendum said:

Senate Seats RECOUNT:

PA: Dave McCormick (R) wins by 0.4% = 26,000 votes (as of this writing).  Bob Casey (D) has demanded a recount.
WI: Tammy Baldwin (D) wins by 0.9% = 29,000 votes (as of this writing). Eric Hovde (R) has demanded a recount.

Both protesters are legally allowed to require a recount when the margin is less than 1%.  So, we'll see how it goes.

Hovde has chosen to concede because the counters are refusing to take a look at the legitimacy of any of the ballots.  They will simply count the same ballots that they counted before -- which is one of the criteria you're supposed to consider during a recount.

Casey is holding firm that the ballots are legitimate.  But he believes that the counting was not accurate.

Hmmm.

[NeuroTypical]

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Hovde has chosen to concede because the counters are refusing to take a look at the legitimacy of any of the ballots.

Are the elections officials following the documented process?  Does the process specify a recount is taking all of the ballots previously allowed to be counted, and counting them again?  If so, I'm strongly opposed to "changing the rules" in the middle of the process.  It's what Gore and Broward county were trying to do in 2000.  

It's like something we're all supposed to learn in our first games of Uno with grandma - you don't change the rules in the middle of a game.  

Not sure if that's what was happening, but if that's what Hovde declined to try when he conceded, then kudos to him for having integrity.  

[Carborendum]

On 11/16/2024 at 5:34 PM, NeuroTypical said:

I overheard a sad progressive the other day being sad about the Trump election.  One of the reasons he was sad, was because Trump would deport and curtail immigration, which, he said, "is the only way we can continue to grow as a nation".  

He's not wrong.  It's just that it's his fault.  Birth control, same-sex marriage, no-fault divorces, normalizing abortion as birth control, all the pushing for a 'living wage' to be paid to younger unmarried workers.  All of 'em progressive/liberal initiatives, most of 'em fought through and eventually destroyed conservative resistance to become just the way things are done now.

I understand falling replacement rates are a global phenomenon.  I wonder how much of it globally can also be blamed on a similar list.

Most of them were because of a plethora of progressive ideologies being preached about the end of the world due to...

Whatever the flavor of the month, all the problems of society (any society) were either blamed on having babies or were reasons to not have any more babies.

• Environmentalism had a huge plank of its platform that "humans are a virus on the earth that needs to be eradicated."
• Abortion is a woman's right to choose to not have babies until they're too old to have babies.  So, they froze their eggs only to find out it was only 38% successful.  
• Trans right to "live your authentic self" resulted in a huge portion of children becoming surgically or medically castrated.
• Marriage as an institution has been denigrated to the point that whatever children are actually born don't have nearly as great a chance to be raised in an intact 2-parent home.
• It has become popular now to tell young people that they shouldn't get married until a few years after your brain has fully developed (i.e. a few years after 25 years).  But too many young women are being told that if they are not married by 25, they're an old maid and not worth marrying.

Well, that's enough doomsay report for today.

[Carborendum]

4 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Are the elections officials following the documented process?  Does the process specify a recount is taking all of the ballots previously allowed to be counted, and counting them again?

Hovde's contention was that many ballots did not satisfy the standards for being valid in the first place.  And he wanted those thrown out.  The election officials refused that one concession.  So, given that.  He decided that the re-count would be meaningless.

I have no idea if his contention had any merit or not.  But that was the argument. 

And because they would not agree to his condition, he figured there was no point in a recount.

[NeuroTypical]

Yep, sounds like everyone was following the rules, and he considered asking them to change the rules, decided against it, and conceded.   

Good for him.  Nobody likes a sore loser.  "But they cheated last week, so I should win today!" = stuff 6 year olds say.

[Carborendum]

45 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yep, sounds like everyone was following the rules, and he considered asking them to change the rules, decided against it, and conceded.   

Good for him.  Nobody likes a sore loser.  "But they cheated last week, so I should win today!" = stuff 6 year olds say.

Wow.  Ok, apparently a different tune than what I was led to believe.

For the PA race US Senate, Casey (D) is not saying there was a miscount.  He's asking to count the ballots that have been determined to be invalid because they didn't have signatures, or were provisional, or...  These were declared invalid by the State Supreme Court.  But Casey wants them counted.  This is the mirror image of what Hovde was saying about his race.

This was the quote of the day:

Quote

I think we all know that precedent by a court doesn’t matter anymore in this country.

 -- Bucks County Commissioner Diane Ellis-Marseglia

(I believe she was referring to overturning Roe)

So, they are counting those invalid ballots in the recount in direct violation of court orders.

Edited November 18, 2024 by Carborendum

[person0]

On 11/16/2024 at 4:42 PM, Vort said:

 

This is the heartbreak. Either we bribe people to have children and remove many of the responsibilities (and joys) of parenthood, or else people will just kill their children to avoid having to get up at night, miss out on clubbing, and not be able to afford that boat.

I agree.  It is heartbreaking.  I wish society hadn't steered so far off course. 😕
I fear we are nearing ripeness, and it could happen faster than one may think.

[Carborendum]

On 11/12/2024 at 1:38 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Oh, I'm complaining big time.   Politically, I'm at my least happy when one party has both houses of congress and the presidency.  When that happens, our federal government turns into a burst dam of poorly-thought-out legislation and money spending.  I would absolutely have preferred if one of the houses stayed a nice solid blue.

With the existence of DOGE, we hope that won't happen.  And with the team put together so far, it seems that their entire goal is to rein in spending and government overreach.  I certainly hope he accomplishes that. 

The danger here (and I hope it doesn't materialize) is that when either party can get a hold of both houses, the White House, and SCOTUS, there is a serious danger of tyranny.  Orwell warns us that the people who begin a revolution often feel sorry that they won because when the original goal is achieved, new powers continue to exercise power in a way that was never intended by the people who started it.  And this scenario has played itself out again and again throughout history.

We can only hope that the Constitution will be the shield that protects us from that.

Part of me fears that the reason the US has been so powerful, politically, socially, economically, militarily, is because we've been exercising unrighteous dominion against the world.  Was it beyond appropriate limits?  Probably.  Enough to cause us to lose that strength after we gut the government?  I don't know.

The thing is that all the concerns that we all should have because of his moral failings are compounded by his "chaos".  

I believe he wants what is best for America.  And he'll do what he feels like needs doing, especially if it is new and different.  He wants to leave his mark as someone who did what no one else did.  In today's political landscape, that is a very good thing.

But, let's say he fixes everything.  Then what?  Will he walk away?  Or will he still seek out more marks to make before his term is through?  Can he walk away from power?

If he does, then we have greatly underestimated his ethical code.  If he then takes the time to do more stuff that doesn't need doing, we'll just repeat history.

Edited November 27, 2024 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

On 11/12/2024 at 11:44 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Your point is totally valid.  But yeah, having a majority in the house, even if in name only, means stuff besides just voting on bills.

So, here is the first symptom of what I was talking about.

Quote

“I don’t understand it.  The American people gave him a mandate. This is his team now. He needs the opportunity to put the people around him that are gonna help him with his agenda. Who are we to say that we know more about these people than Trump?”

“I went through the first process with Biden when I first got here.  There were zero Democrats that voted against any of his nominees. Zero. We got three or four of these nominees fighting to get all the Republican votes. They’re fighting hard and they’re having to go see senators more than once. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.”

 -- Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville

So, we won the Senate.  But did we, though?

[Phoenix_person]

On 12/10/2024 at 9:11 AM, Carborendum said:

So, here is the first symptom of what I was talking about.

So, we won the Senate.  But did we, though?

I think this says volumes more about Trump's cabinet picks than the GOP legislators who are vetting them. There's literally no reason on earth for Republicans to push back against Trump, and it's well known that he'll make life a living heck for any Rs who he views as a problem. So maaaaaybe they're seeing things that we aren't. Or in the case of Pete Hegseth, they're looking into concerns about him and still haven't reached a conclusion. 

Personally, I'd be thrilled if I saw Dem lawmakers giving this level of scrutiny to a Dem cabinet nominee. Trump may have been given a mandate by the voters, but so was every member of Congress. Balance of powers and whatnot.

 

Edited December 11, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[Carborendum]

56 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

I think this says volumes more about Trump's cabinet picks than the GOP legislators who are vetting them.

Ketanji Jackson Brown.

ZERO Democrats voted against her.

And then there was this judicial nominee that had no experience to warrant such a post.

ZERO Democrats voted against her.

There were plenty more.  One nominee was asked what Article III of the US Constitution covered.  Her answer was that she was not very familiar with that article.

It's the part of the Constitution that covers the Judicial Branch of the Federal Govt.

ZERO Democrats voted against her.

So, if you want to argue "quality" of the nominees, that doesn't hold water.

Edited December 11, 2024 by Carborendum

[Phoenix_person]

52 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Ketanji Jackson Brown.

ZERO Democrats voted against her.

Should they have? Make your case, cuz I don't see it. I actually really liked that pick.

 

52 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

There were plenty more.  One nominee was asked what Article III of the US Constitution covered.  Her answer was that she was not very familiar with that article.

It's the part of the Constitution that covers the Judicial Branch of the Federal Govt.

ZERO Democrats voted against her.

So, if you want to argue "quality" of the nominees, that doesn't hold water.

Are you expecting me to sit here and defend Democrats? I'm hurt. All this time here and it's like you don't even know me. And it's not like I was being subtle, in this case.

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

Personally, I'd be thrilled if I saw Dem lawmakers giving this level of scrutiny to a Dem cabinet nominee.

I meant that 100%. I've always hated circle-the-wagons politics. Some wagons are meant to be burned.

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

Should they have? Make your case, cuz I don't see it. I actually really liked that pick.

Defend the choice of an openly non-textualist, non-originalist (and non-intentionalist) individual for the position of Supreme Court justice. This would cover Jackson, Sotomayor (an even worse pick than Jackson), and to some extent, possibly Kagan. (Though I admit I rather like Kagan's writing and some of her reasoning. She's not my preferred flavor of cookie, but she is a smart cookie.)