Jump to content
270soft Forum

Getting ready for 5 more years of Trump


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Why not get rid of all automation then? Why stop at car washing? Instead of backhoes, let's use shovels. Instead of tractors, oxen. On and on.

Illegal immigrants tend to take less desirable jobs. So instead of wages being forced up and working conditions improved to expand the labour supply in a given industry, or greater investments in automation or worker productivity, businesses love to import cheap, pliable labour. Is this really good for society overall?

The American workers are replaced either way.  I’m pointing out that the “they take our jobs!” line is false.  
 

At a certain point, as wages go up, automation makes more business sense.  In either scenario, the American worker’s wages do not go up unless their education/skill set does.

Unskilled labor will never be a path to solvency for American workers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

In either scenario, the American worker’s wages do not go up unless their education/skill set does.

I agree with you that the focus ought to be in creating more human capital through training and so on, but either an American does get that job (many jobs illegal immigrants do cannot be straightforwardly automated at this point, Yang-style concerns about the 4th industrial revolution notwithstanding), or an American is trained to increase his productivity (which dovetails with your main point), or a business operating in America gains in productivity through automation. If it's an American owned business or the automation technology is created by an American business, that is a gain for Americans as well.

If non-Americans are taking the jobs, the gain for Americans is only in the owner class. I'm not a Marxist, but the basic Marxist view is applicable here. It is a fairly straightforward transfer of wealth from the working class (typically lower class) to the owner class.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

But dey terk er jerbs!!

Jobs, unless they're specifically of a type that's pre-slated (and those aren't that common), effectively don't belong to anyone until they're taken. And, why have more bile for the Mexican workers than for the American car wash owners hiring them as a preference if I may ask?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

May I ask why?

Any Federal justice selected for ideology over integrity and/or clarity and unbiased nature of rulings is a bad choice. Wait! That's almost ever Federal judge for over 200 years. That puts every Supreme Court ruling in that period into question due to validity for potential bias and ideological tainting and corruption of rulings. That's a serious issue!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

May I ask why?

I mean...google Kavanaugh?

He was credibly accused of sexual assault.  Under oath, he repeatedly lied and came across as extremely unstable.  Because of his selection, a stunning number of Republicans had to publicly declare that they just did not give a shit about sexual assault.

But here’s the thing: they didn’t HAVE to.  They CHOSE to publicly declare they didn’t give a shit.

They could have easily dropped Kavanaugh, picked any other of the thousands of Conservative options, put on a big show about how they were the good guys who were stunned by Kavanaugh’s sexual assaults, they believe women, etc.  
 

This should have been an EASY win for Republicans, costing them nothing.  They’d still get the Supreme Court seat, after all. 
 

So why didn’t they?

Its almost like they didn’t want to set the precedent of “If a person commits sexual assault, they should not be entrusted with federal government leadership positions.”

Now, I wonder why Republicans wouldn’t want to take that stance?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Actinguy said:

He was credibly accused of sexual assault.

This is the question. Was it credible? I watched Ford's testimony, and I didn't think her story was credible.

She couldn't remember where, when, or who was there.

The other people supposedly there didn't corroborate her account.

The accusations emerged publicly in the middle of a highly politicized nomination process, probably the worst time for a legitimate accuser to go public.

The process by which the charges were made public reeked of political shenanigans from Senator Feinstein's office.

Her account doesn't fit with a decades long career complete with many stellar letters of character.

3 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Its almost like they didn’t want to set the precedent

The precedent they would have set is 'Democrats can tank any nominee of ours with decades old, difficult to ascertain, most likely spurious allegations.' That's a terrible precedent for any major party to set.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

This is the question. Was it credible? I watched Ford's testimony, and I didn't think her story was credible.

She couldn't remember where, when, or who was there.

The other people supposedly there didn't corroborate her account.

The accusations emerged publicly in the middle of a highly politicized nomination process, probably the worst time for a legitimate accuser to go public.

The process by which the charges were made public reeked of political shenanigans from Senator Feinstein's office.

Her account doesn't fit with a decades long career complete with many stellar letters of character.

The precedent they would have set is 'Democrats can tank any nominee of ours with decades old, difficult to ascertain, most likely spurious allegations.' That's a terrible precedent for any major party to set.

How many parties in the '80's that you attended, except for a specific event that may have had some profound emotional impact on you, do you remember those kinds of details in clear recall on, if I may ask?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

This is the question. Was it credible? I watched Ford's testimony, and I didn't think her story was credible.

She couldn't remember where, when, or who was there.

The other people supposedly there didn't corroborate her account.

The accusations emerged publicly in the middle of a highly politicized nomination process, probably the worst time for a legitimate accuser to go public.

The process by which the charges were made public reeked of political shenanigans from Senator Feinstein's office.

Her account doesn't fit with a decades long career complete with many stellar letters of character.

The precedent they would have set is 'Democrats can tank any nominee of ours with decades old, difficult to ascertain, most likely spurious allegations.' That's a terrible precedent for any major party to set.

...what show were you watching?

Ford seemed very credible.  It would have been easy to make up details if this was some kind of coordinated attack.  Instead, she was honest that she couldn't remember every detail of an attack that happened decades ago.

When the attack happened, women weren't believed.  There was no point to coming forward.  Now, there was a very strong point to coming forward.

And stellar letters of character?  What in the world kind of bullshit is that?  Anyone who is rich and powerful has friends who are rich and powerful who will vouch for them.  It doesn't mean that they actually are good people.  How many letters would Ford have to submit vouching for her own stellar character before you would blindly believe her?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

How many parties in the '80's that you attended, except for a specific event that may have had some profound emotional impact on you, do you remember those kinds of details in clear recall on, if I may ask?

Exactly. By making it decades in the past, it becomes very difficult to investigate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

Ford seemed very credible.

Yes, and this seems to be what you don't understand. Many people found her to not be credible.

Was she deliberately making things up? Misremembering? Misidentifying? Exaggerating? Or was she telling the truth? My guess is one of the former categories.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

Exactly. By making it decades in the past, it becomes very difficult to investigate.

A very clumsy dismissal, however, and one that doesn't anymore exonerate Kavanaugh by default of the time lapse. But I guess if these crimes were committed so long ago, and time has such a toll that any testimony becomes suspect, than latter-day Nazi hunters and cold case serial killer detectives have no legitimate standing right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Exactly. By making it decades in the past, it becomes very difficult to investigate.

I'd actually agree here. We cannot and should not punish Kavanaugh until we know whether or not the accusations are true. We adhere to an innocent until proven guilty standard in the United States. 

Of course, for most none criminal things we go with "more likely than not" (like in civil suits) but even with that standard Kavanaugh is in the clear. I personally believe Ford, but we must make the distinction between credible claims and claims so far in the past that they can be neither proven or disproved

If an accusation can be proven or disproved, it should have an impact on the confirmation process. But as convincing as Ford's testimony is, there is absolutely no evidence in her favor and even some personal accounts contrary to hers. 

If we allowed this to bring down Kavanaugh, politics would become a mudslinging of "yeah but this person says this candidate this many years ago... and NO ONE can tell me I'm wrong!"

It's such a dangerous precedent to set. I'm glad Kavanaugh was confirmed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

No, but it usually makes it significantly more difficult to investigate - of course!

Not all witnesses to a serial killer's crimes are actually killed by a given serial killer, themselves. And a number of serial killers had "failed" targets who survived, even if injured and otherwise - possibly compromised. The "Son of Sam," had one notable such survivor, for instance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Yes, and this seems to be what you don't understand. Many people found her to not be credible.

Was she deliberately making things up? Misremembering? Misidentifying? Exaggerating? Or was she telling the truth? My guess is one of the former categories.

 

WHY is that your guess?

Why would someone who has nothing to gain and everything to lose step forward with something like this, if they were not telling the truth?

Did Ford look to you like someone who just wanted a ton of national attention into her personal life?

What would be her possible motive to lie?

Even if we imagine that this was some grand Democrat scheme -- to what end?  Kavanaugh could have easily been replaced by another conservative.  It's not like the only options were "It's either Kavanaugh or Supreme Court Justice Bernie Sanders."

What was the GOAL, if not to reveal the truth?

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

I'd actually agree here. We cannot and should not punish Kavanaugh until we know whether or not the accusations are true. We adhere to an innocent until proven guilty standard in the United States. 

Sure, but then why was there no actual investigation done?

I'm not suggesting we lock Kavanaugh in jail without a trial.  I am suggesting that when someone comes forward with serious allegations and nothing to gain, we actually pause for a moment and investigate rather than dismiss it as politically motivated when there's no political victory to be had.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

Sure, but then why was there no actual investigation done?

I'm not suggesting we lock Kavanaugh in jail without a trial.  I am suggesting that when someone comes forward with serious allegations and nothing to gain, we actually pause for a moment and investigate rather than dismiss it as politically motivated when there's no political victory to be had.

Yeah, I think for all the reasons that you give that Ford's accusation should have been handles with some sort of respect, including a sincere investigation. Doing so would have helped in clearing the picture one way or the other. Ford didn't even want to testify. She's not an attention-seeker. She knew speaking out would likely make her life harder, something she didn't want to do. It was a moral impulse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Sure, but then why was there no actual investigation done?

I'm not suggesting we lock Kavanaugh in jail without a trial.  I am suggesting that when someone comes forward with serious allegations and nothing to gain, we actually pause for a moment and investigate rather than dismiss it as politically motivated when there's no political victory to be had.

 

Just now, vcczar said:

Yeah, I think for all the reasons that you give that Ford's accusation should have been handles with some sort of respect, including a sincere investigation. Doing so would have helped in clearing the picture one way or the other. Ford didn't even want to testify. She's not an attention-seeker. She knew speaking out would likely make her life harder, something she didn't want to do. It was a moral impulse. 

The push to disregard any investigation and ram through the confirmation as quickly as possible, also taking into account other possible options for nomination, seems like it could also be credible that Kavanaugh's nomination was due to some kickback nepotistic favour by Trump (maybe not directly to Kavanaugh himself, but possibly to a "middle-man" broker they were both friends with). It certainly smells like such a situation COULD be possible. @admin_270 @Herbert Hoover @Harris/Ernst 2020

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

May I ask why?

Let the above squabbling be my reason for why the Democrats never should have given themselves over to the sexual assault story. Personally I believe Kavanaugh is innocent because there was not nearly enough evidence to say that he wasn't. By polarizing the country with this story which got more fantastical by the day they stopped their one good chance of actually hammering Kavanaugh where it would hurt with Republicans; privacy rights and the right to life. Kavanaugh, no matter what the radical left would have you believe, is no warrior for the rights of the unborn. And he also has a terrible track record on meta data and government spying. This is a guy Mike Lee Ted Cruz and Rand Paul should have instinctively opposed, instead the Democrats muddled the conversation, overplayed their hand on Me Too, and jazzed up the Republicans with the refrains of "Lyin Democrats". Because lets be honest, Ford was a credible allegation to be sure, everything after that was one giant shitshow of more and more wild stories that all fell apart as one giant hoax which looked like a concoction made to destroy an otherwise decent mans life. 

There is no doubt in my mind that Brett Kavanaugh is a good family man, or that Stephen Breyer or Sonia Sotomayor love their children and would never rape someone. 

However, Brett Kavanaugh was a laughable pick for a Republican President with a Republican Senate and represents everything that is wrong with Trumps bastardization of conservatism and his overt statism

When Mike Lee, Ray Kethledge, Amy Coney Barrett, and so many more are on the table, you don't lick Kavanaugh unless you're trying to appease the swamp, which is what Trump did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Actinguy said:

What would be her possible motive to lie?

My guess isn't that she lied, it's that the accusation isn't accurate. Whether she lied or misremembered (or a combination), I don't know. If misremembering (which is very common), there is no need for a motive. The weakness of memory is an important part of almost any trial, even of ones that are relatively recent. We already know she couldn't remember where, when, and who was there. We already know the people she did claim were there do not corroborate her account.

But, outright fabrication is also possible. If so, do we have a possible motive? There are at least 2 obvious possible motives.

First is the obvious partisan motivation. Ford is a Democrat. She almost certainly doesn't like Kavanaugh's political views, or the person who nominated him, and may have seen this as her chance to stop an important nomination.

Second, Ford made at least $700,000 as a result of her allegation. Her legal representation was done for free, arranged by Democratic party operatives. It is possible she believed she would be monetarily supported by Democrats if she made the allegation.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/gofundme-campaigns-support-ford-raise-700k/story?id=58147904

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reagan04 said:

Let the above squabbling be my reason for why the Democrats never should have given themselves over to the sexual assault story. Personally I believe Kavanaugh is innocent because there was not nearly enough evidence to say that he wasn't.

A full investigation should have been done around such serious charges, not just a dismissal by Trump and McConnell to rush the confirmation through. It starts Kavanaugh's career on the Supreme Court with a miscarriage (or rather, stillborn) of justice, because he was cleared with no investigation by high government fiat. And it also makes my theory that his nomination MAY have had favour-trading and/or nepotism involved in it more credible. 

"By polarizing the country with this story which got more fantastical by the day they stopped their one good chance of actually hammering Kavanaugh where it would hurt with Republicans; privacy rights and the right to life."

Both main parties polarize the country horribly over ever issue, and both routinely attack the right to privacy thoroughly. I remind, the (un)Patriot Acts was a bipartisan endeavour, whose dissenters were a few individuals voting by conscience.

"Kavanaugh, no matter what the radical left would have you believe, is no warrior for the rights of the unborn."

How are the unborn relevant to Kavanaugh's possible integrity and criminal nature to be a Supreme Court justice, which, again, was never given a true and full investigation, but a corrupt handwaivinng by high government fiat?

"Because lets be honest, Ford was a credible allegation to be sure, everything after that was one giant shitshow of more and more wild stories that all fell apart as one giant hoax which looked like a concoction made to destroy an otherwise decent mans life."

It's always "destroying a decent man (or woman)'s life" for a strictly partisan thinker when they're in ideological sympathy or agreement. Otherwise, they grab a torch and pitchfork, and say "let me help in the witchhunt."

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

It's always "destroying a decent man (or woman)'s life" for a strictly partisan thinker when they're in ideological sympathy or agreement. Otherwise, they grab a torch and pitchfork, and say "let me help in the witchhunt."

You do understand that that entire statement was me explaining why I'm not in ideological sympathy to Kavanaugh right? You understand that I was explaining why he was a bad pick?

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

How are the unborn relevant to Kavanaugh's possible integrity and criminal nature to be a Supreme Court justice, which, again, was never given a true and full investigation, but a corrupt handwaivinng by high government fiat?

They're not! Which was the whole point, I'm beginning to think you didn't actually read what I wrote and you just made assumptions about what I believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

You do understand that that entire statement was me explaining why I'm not in ideological sympathy to Kavanaugh right? You understand that I was explaining why he was a bad pick?

They're not! Which was the whole point, I'm beginning to think you didn't actually read what I wrote and you just made assumptions about what I believe.

Ah, you've caught me. I missed your "punchline" at the end. That was clever. :P

However, I still believe choosing Supreme Justices purely for ideology on the party spoils and patronage system is just as much a failed choice as one likely chosen for the seeming nepotistic choice of Kavanaugh. Judges who are least vocal and vociferous, and who lower court ruling, betray the least, or mildest ideological or political biases should be chosen as highest priority. The blatant politicization of the Supreme Court about 200 years ago, or so, gravely hurt it's credibility as an institution, and, as I see, all of it's rulings in that period could potentially be suspect. But, then again, I come from a country where judges are not even allowed to belong to a political, write or speak in a politicized periodical or forum, or even vote,  by the Canada Act 1867, to preserve their detachment from political affairs, personally, so they can make their rulings "with a clear mind and conscience."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...