*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1602
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3620 on: January 29, 2019, 09:25:10 AM »
When you already know the cards the other side is holding and you know you have the better hand, you always stay in the game.
So if Trump hadn't given in, he'd have lost and be out of the game?
This is confusing since he basically folded.  If he have better cards, you raise (or bluff).  If you have a poor hand, you fold to stay in the game. (Assuming you have more to bet)

Interesting article on Presidential Poker:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-president-trump-is-like-a-terrible-poker-player/?ref=hvper.com&utm_source=hvper.com&utm_medium=website
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6883
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3621 on: January 29, 2019, 01:03:35 PM »
@Honk as much as the creative accounting evident in Trump’s return might be unsavory to those of us living paycheque to paycheque, there is nothing illegal or unethical about using the tax code’s provision for loss carry-forwards.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7674
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3622 on: January 29, 2019, 03:53:16 PM »
When you already know the cards the other side is holding and you know you have the better hand, you always stay in the game.
So if Trump hadn't given in, he'd have lost and be out of the game?
This is confusing since he basically folded.  If he have better cards, you raise (or bluff).  If you have a poor hand, you fold to stay in the game. (Assuming you have more to bet)

What did Trump lose, exactly, by allowing a temporary reopening and allowing his administration to receive backpay?

Of the 800k furloughed, some are contractors. I don't know the number/percentage. But contractors don't get backpay. So there's that. Not to mention 800k works who were not at work normally supporting all of the ancillary workers/businesses that cater to those furloughed. Coffee shops, lunch places, transport, etc. There's also just plain lost productivity cost. I think it was the S&P that calculated 11B lost in the economy due to the shutdown. And DJT said on tape he would own the shutdown. He folded, fine, whatever. He at least gets back his SotU speech back. He will probably have to fold again or own another shutdown, to avoid, he EO's a state of emergency. That will just get gummed up in the courts. At the end of the day, no wall anytime soon, gov't open and his standing will be judged b/c of all this. Whatever that judgement may be.

The contractors do get paid, fyi. I see that you cannot point to where he actually lost anything.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5849
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3623 on: January 29, 2019, 04:00:20 PM »
Better question:
What did Trump gain by letting it go on so long?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7674
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3624 on: January 29, 2019, 04:11:09 PM »
Better question:
What did Trump gain by letting it go on so long?

The Democrats were begging for the extension to make a deal work. Now the clock will tick down, scrutinizing their actions and intent. It is pretty simple to see the benefits of doing this.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6883
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3625 on: January 29, 2019, 04:42:23 PM »
The contractors do get paid, fyi. I see that you cannot point to where he actually lost anything.

He lost 10 points in his approval rating.  He lost credibility that he will build a wall at any cost. He lost bargaining position because now the Dems know that he will cave on a shutdown if planes can't take off anymore.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1602
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3626 on: January 29, 2019, 07:22:04 PM »
When you already know the cards the other side is holding and you know you have the better hand, you always stay in the game.
So if Trump hadn't given in, he'd have lost and be out of the game?
This is confusing since he basically folded.  If he have better cards, you raise (or bluff).  If you have a poor hand, you fold to stay in the game. (Assuming you have more to bet)

What did Trump lose, exactly, by allowing a temporary reopening and allowing his administration to receive backpay?

Of the 800k furloughed, some are contractors. I don't know the number/percentage. But contractors don't get backpay. So there's that. Not to mention 800k works who were not at work normally supporting all of the ancillary workers/businesses that cater to those furloughed. Coffee shops, lunch places, transport, etc. There's also just plain lost productivity cost. I think it was the S&P that calculated 11B lost in the economy due to the shutdown. And DJT said on tape he would own the shutdown. He folded, fine, whatever. He at least gets back his SotU speech back. He will probably have to fold again or own another shutdown, to avoid, he EO's a state of emergency. That will just get gummed up in the courts. At the end of the day, no wall anytime soon, gov't open and his standing will be judged b/c of all this. Whatever that judgement may be.

The contractors do get paid, fyi. I see that you cannot point to where he actually lost anything.

FYI:

"The government is up and running again, and the 800,000 federal employees who went unpaid for more than a month will soon be made whole. The same cannot be said for the hundreds of thousands of contractors who clean toilets, cook meals, and perform other grueling tasks for the federal government.

There’s an effort to change that though. Nearly two weeks ago, a handful of Democratic senators put forward a bill to guarantee back pay to contractors, who are paid by third-party companies. Those companies aren’t getting paid by the government during the shutdown and so the people who work for them are also going unpaid."


http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/government-contractors-are-fighting-for-shutdown-back-pay.html
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7247
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3627 on: January 29, 2019, 08:56:11 PM »
There are tons of things that are morally objectionable or politically-damaging without being illegal. I hesitate to say this because it's such an obvious rebuttal, but don't you remember Hillary? You didn't need her to be arrested or indicted to pass judgment on her actions.

I only ever judged Hillary by things she actually did, though. I never made judgements on stuff she's never released or said she's bad just because she's bad.

Uh, you're kind of jumping the gun here. Trump's tax returns haven't been released, so there are no experts or fake experts analyzing them at all.
I never said that the IRS weren't experts or didn't know what they were doing.

Which is it, Saddam? You just said experts don't analyze his taxes, then you go on to say you never said the IRS aren't experts. Is the logical conclusion that you don't believe the IRS analyzes taxes? I'm really confused on what you mean, here.


I never said that the IRS weren't experts or didn't know what they were doing. Of course they do. But they're not political watchdogs. They don't have the authority to say to the public, "Wow, it looks like this guy is totally bought and paid for by shady Russians/Chinese. They have so much money invested in his businesses and left dangling over his head that he'll most likely do anything they say. We have grave doubts about the wisdom of electing this man to public office, much less the office of president." It's also kind of funny that you'd accuse me of being in thrall to the liberal media when you're the one who's refusing to think for himself and consider anything beyond the official actions of a government agency. Again, you didn't let the FBI tell you what to think about Hillary. You shouldn't need an indictment from the IRS to have an opinion on whether or not you think that potential or current investors in or clients of Trump's vast business empire might bear an inappropriate influence on his policies and positions.

Equating my disagreement with a couple of people at the FBI with the entire IRS is very disingenuous. You've basically just tried to make the argument "they're both government agencies, you can't disagree with one without the other!" The FBI and IRS are composed of people, some of those people are right, and some are not. When the media sources the FBI, what they're really doing is sourcing "an anonymous expert at the FBI" which is really amounting to "my friend Joe the junior analyst at FBI totally agrees with this article". There's a key difference between sourcing the FBI, the organization, and sourcing only one or two people, which of course will be biased.

The problem here is that your assertion requires the entire IRS to be blinded by Trump's apparently cleverly hidden bribery tactics (which only BuzzFeed can uncover!), while my assertions regarding FBI bias only ever required the FBI source to be wrong or lying. That's a big different in my assertions and it just goes to show that you understand very little about what I say or why I say it.

If they find that too high a price to pay, then they shouldn't be running. If they value their privacy above everything and want to keep their head down and be left alone, then they shouldn't be running. If they have a shady past or skeletons in their closet that they don't want the public finding out about, then they shouldn't be running. Again, this goes back to standards. We have every right to be fussy and discriminating when it comes to electing the president. Put another way, there's no cause to ever be fretting about the privacy rights of the most powerful person in the world.

At no point does any of this come close to suggesting that everybody in the world should be okay with releasing their tax returns. I'm talking about presidential candidates, not regular people. So if I ever run for president, I promise you I'll release my tax returns.

That's just your extremely ignorant opinion, though. You think people should have their rights stripped away running for public office because... well just because you think they should be? That's not a very good reason. Again, this boils down to "nothing to fear nothing to hide" logic. Do you agree with that? I'm guessing you agree with it only when it's convenient.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2019, 09:00:14 PM by Rushy »

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 2047
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3628 on: January 30, 2019, 05:33:39 AM »
I only ever judged Hillary by things she actually did, though. I never made judgements on stuff she's never released or said she's bad just because she's bad.

Trump refusing to release his tax returns or divest from his properties is also something he "actually did."

Quote
Uh, you're kind of jumping the gun here. Trump's tax returns haven't been released, so there are no experts or fake experts analyzing them at all.
I never said that the IRS weren't experts or didn't know what they were doing.

Which is it, Saddam? You just said experts don't analyze his taxes, then you go on to say you never said the IRS aren't experts. Is the logical conclusion that you don't believe the IRS analyzes taxes? I'm really confused on what you mean, here.

No, you're not, because we both know that this is a blatant quote mine. The first quote was on the subject of experts offering public commentary and analysis in the hypothetical situation of Trump's tax returns being released. You rather nonsensically accused me of being taken in by fake experts, and so I gave the logical response that because the tax returns haven't been released, there are no real or fake experts for me to be taken in by. It makes perfect sense in context, as anyone who reads over our exchange can see. I'm not going to admit fault for not specifying within that exact same sentence that I was only referring to expert analysis in the sense of public commentary and media coverage, because I don't need to reassert within the same paragraph that the current subject under discussion remains the current subject under discussion. It's not how written language works.

Quote
I never said that the IRS weren't experts or didn't know what they were doing. Of course they do. But they're not political watchdogs. They don't have the authority to say to the public, "Wow, it looks like this guy is totally bought and paid for by shady Russians/Chinese. They have so much money invested in his businesses and left dangling over his head that he'll most likely do anything they say. We have grave doubts about the wisdom of electing this man to public office, much less the office of president." It's also kind of funny that you'd accuse me of being in thrall to the liberal media when you're the one who's refusing to think for himself and consider anything beyond the official actions of a government agency. Again, you didn't let the FBI tell you what to think about Hillary. You shouldn't need an indictment from the IRS to have an opinion on whether or not you think that potential or current investors in or clients of Trump's vast business empire might bear an inappropriate influence on his policies and positions.

Equating my disagreement with a couple of people at the FBI with the entire IRS is very disingenuous. You've basically just tried to make the argument "they're both government agencies, you can't disagree with one without the other!" The FBI and IRS are composed of people, some of those people are right, and some are not. When the media sources the FBI, what they're really doing is sourcing "an anonymous expert at the FBI" which is really amounting to "my friend Joe the junior analyst at FBI totally agrees with this article". There's a key difference between sourcing the FBI, the organization, and sourcing only one or two people, which of course will be biased.

The problem here is that your assertion requires the entire IRS to be blinded by Trump's apparently cleverly hidden bribery tactics (which only BuzzFeed can uncover!), while my assertions regarding FBI bias only ever required the FBI source to be wrong or lying. That's a big different in my assertions and it just goes to show that you understand very little about what I say or why I say it.

This is not at all a relevant response to what I said. I feel like you're just skimming my posts, looking for a few keywords, and then assuming you know what I'm arguing and writing a response. In this case, it looks like you assumed my position was "The IRS is wrong." But that isn't my position, and so there's little point in responding to the relevant counter-arguments. I will say, though, that your assumption that Trump's audit involved the entire IRS while Hillary's misadventures only involved "a couple of people at the FBI" is very amusing.

Quote
That's just your extremely ignorant opinion, though. You think people should have their rights stripped away running for public office because... well just because you think they should be? That's not a very good reason. Again, this boils down to "nothing to fear nothing to hide" logic. Do you agree with that? I'm guessing you agree with it only when it's convenient.

I would support the restricting of these particular rights in the case of presidential candidates (for disclosing tax returns) and presidents (for divesting from businesses) because I feel those rights are outweighed by the public's interest in ensuring they have a president with no major conflicts of interests or dubious financial activity distracting from their duty to the public. You dressing that up in hyperbolic terms about stripping away rights doesn't faze me. For example, I'd argue that being under the constant thumb of the Secret Service is a far greater violation of privacy than any mandatory disclosure laws we could think of.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5849
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3629 on: January 30, 2019, 07:22:37 AM »
Better question:
What did Trump gain by letting it go on so long?

The Democrats were begging for the extension to make a deal work. Now the clock will tick down, scrutinizing their actions and intent. It is pretty simple to see the benefits of doing this.


This is hard to understand as the answer to my question.
I asked why Trump waited three weeks to approve funding without a wall.  The democrats were not asking for any extension, simply to negotiate only when the government was open.  Essentially "Lets not negotiate while people are not being paid".  Makes sense, yes? 


I'm not sure what deal you're talking about either.  They got what they wanted.  And while the clock will tick down, its also ticking down on Trump as well and how he negotiates. 


So are you saying Trump waited three weeks so that Democrats would be watched more closely?  As they would not be watched as closely if he only waited one week then out in the extension?

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7247
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3630 on: January 31, 2019, 12:50:18 AM »
Trump refusing to release his tax returns or divest from his properties is also something he "actually did."

Again, I would like to point out that "nothing to fear, nothing to hide" logic is not correct. You can't say someone is guilty of wrongdoing simply because they've maintained their privacy.

No, you're not, because we both know that this is a blatant quote mine. The first quote was on the subject of experts offering public commentary and analysis in the hypothetical situation of Trump's tax returns being released. You rather nonsensically accused me of being taken in by fake experts, and so I gave the logical response that because the tax returns haven't been released, there are no real or fake experts for me to be taken in by. It makes perfect sense in context, as anyone who reads over our exchange can see. I'm not going to admit fault for not specifying within that exact same sentence that I was only referring to expert analysis in the sense of public commentary and media coverage, because I don't need to reassert within the same paragraph that the current subject under discussion remains the current subject under discussion. It's not how written language works.

I said IRS are the tax experts and then you went on to say experts don't analyze his taxes. It's pretty clear by now that when you say "experts" you really mean "BuzzFeed". I'm sure your erroneously narrow view of what an expert is makes sense to you, but it doesn't make very much sense to me, or anyone else, I imagine.

I would support the restricting of these particular rights in the case of presidential candidates (for disclosing tax returns) and presidents (for divesting from businesses) because I feel those rights are outweighed by the public's interest in ensuring they have a president with no major conflicts of interests or dubious financial activity distracting from their duty to the public. You dressing that up in hyperbolic terms about stripping away rights doesn't faze me. For example, I'd argue that being under the constant thumb of the Secret Service is a far greater violation of privacy than any mandatory disclosure laws we could think of.

I already know it doesn't faze you because you have no respect for people's rights nor does the organization you work for. I'm not trying to appeal to your moral senses because you don't have any, I'm just pointing out the disgusting nature of your beliefs.

*

Offline Снупс

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1868
  • I summon my love back to me
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3631 on: January 31, 2019, 01:28:28 AM »
I said IRS are the tax experts and then you went on to say experts don't analyze his taxes. It's pretty clear by now that when you say "experts" you really mean "BuzzFeed". I'm sure your erroneously narrow view of what an expert is makes sense to you, but it doesn't make very much sense to me, or anyone else, I imagine.

While I may not agree with everything Saddam's said, I can at least pop in and say it's pretty much 100% clear what he's saying, and it's hard to believe you're genuinely this confused. You can have two different contexts within a post, especially when both are replying to completely different subject matter.
Quote from: garygreen date=1480782226
i also took an online quiz that said i was a giraffe.  and i guess you're dumb enough to believe that i must be because the internet said so.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 2047
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3632 on: January 31, 2019, 01:38:39 AM »
I said IRS are the tax experts and then you went on to say experts don't analyze his taxes.

Who are you trying to fool here? Everybody can read this thread. Everybody can see that you're lying! The proof is right here:

Not only that, but I guarantee the "experts" you're referring to aren't experts at all, but in fact just journalists who speak with "people familiar with the matter".

Uh, you're kind of jumping the gun here. Trump's tax returns haven't been released, so there are no experts or fake experts analyzing them at all. Are you complaining about the media response to something that hasn't even happened yet?

We weren't talking about the IRS. We were talking about a hypothetical situation in which Trump's tax returns were released to the public and experts offered commentary on them. This is the equivalent of me saying on a rainy morning, "It's raining," following it with "It's not raining," ten minutes later when the rain has stopped, and you gleefully stringing the two quotes together to show that I don't know what I'm talking about. You are...Rushing me. I've been Rushed.

Quote
I already know it doesn't faze you because you have no respect for people's rights nor does the organization you work for. I'm not trying to appeal to your moral senses because you don't have any, I'm just pointing out the disgusting nature of your beliefs.

reals>feels
« Last Edit: February 02, 2019, 12:34:22 AM by honk »
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5849
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3633 on: January 31, 2019, 09:10:07 AM »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6883
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3634 on: January 31, 2019, 12:28:08 PM »
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/30/689938744/trump-faults-spy-bosses-as-break-widens-between-what-they-advise-and-what-he-doe


Literally no shocker there.

inb4 Trump misrepresenting security and intelligence issues is some kind of Art of the Deal masterplan. 

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5849
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3635 on: January 31, 2019, 12:58:40 PM »
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/30/689938744/trump-faults-spy-bosses-as-break-widens-between-what-they-advise-and-what-he-doe


Literally no shocker there.

inb4 Trump misrepresenting security and intelligence issues is some kind of Art of the Deal masterplan.


I vote Deep State conspiracy.

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #3636 on: February 01, 2019, 11:23:20 AM »
Evidently it is part of the Art of the Deal Master Plan considering no libtard detractor has anything to offer except, "...he can't do that..."

Durrr...yes...

He can.

Must be the hamberders...

LMMFAO!!!

ALL HAIL OUR SUPREME LEADER!!!

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5849
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3637 on: February 01, 2019, 07:48:01 PM »
In an ironic twist: Trump praises the reporting of Fake News MSM.
Apparently its not fake if its pro trump.


https://www.npr.org/2019/02/01/690652631/trumps-exult-following-reports-of-no-phone-contact-ahead-of-2016-russia-meeting

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6883
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3638 on: February 01, 2019, 11:29:15 PM »
The US is still waiting for the sanctions on Russian promised by Trump following the assassination in England. Meanwhile they lift sanctions on Russian aluminum instead of getting rid of the tariff on Canadian aluminum.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 2047
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3639 on: February 02, 2019, 07:12:32 PM »
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y