Some of them get it -- Sullivan Before the Election

[olofscience 480]

16 minutes ago, base698 said:

I was jointly referring to Santa Monica, which I left in 2020 and various towns in NC not in the major hubs, if you can call NC cities a major hubs.

Thanks. For additional clarification, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you hoping for the following:

• Trump will heavily restrict immigration, causing
  • house prices to drop
  • infrastructure (roads, etc) to be relieved
  • salaries to grow
• Trump will appoint Elon Musk to make the government more efficient by firing 70+% of government workers
  • freeing up more funds for... (ok you'll have to fill me in here as I don't know what things you want funded)
• Trump will slap tariffs on goods from China and the rest of the world
  • causing a renaissance in US manufacturing, therefore more jobs

It's good to want better things for places like Santa Monica, but we disagree on how to solve it. But it's a complex system so I'm gathering data to check what works and what doesn't.

[base698 15]

8 minutes ago, jakee said:

Ultimately, if the Dems were abusing the system the way you say they are, Trump wouldn't have won this election. You can't have it both ways.

They lost their grip somewhere between 2021 and when Trump was shot.  The SV elite alignment around Trump (Bill Ackman, Elon, David Sacks, Marc Andresson) and Zuck refusing to endorse or get involved and Bezos saying WaPo won't be a propaganda arm of the DNC anymore shows something changed.  

It was like the world collectively decided, maybe we don't want to have shit on the street and widespread looting.  You can feel it in the air.

[jakee 1,499]

5 minutes ago, base698 said:

They lost their grip somewhere between 2021 and when Trump was shot. 

Then why are you talking shit about jury decisions in 2023? You can't have it both ways.

[base698 15]

6 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Trump will appoint Elon Musk to make the government more efficient by firing 70+% of government workers

Given the budget deficit and debt I'm more interested in stopping that so we don't have to print even more money.  I'd prefer not to pay $36 for my hamburger because they doubled the money supply again.  

If we do that and get the budget under some reasonable threshold we talk what to do about it. 

[wmw999 2,452]

5 minutes ago, base698 said:

It was like the world collectively decided, maybe we don't want to have shit on the street and widespread looting.  You can feel it in the air.

Or maybe it was more like “we know he’s a vindictive guy and we don’t want to risk our money.”

And I’m guessing shit in the Capitol is better than shit on the street? The Democrats didn’t cause homelessness, and the Republicans aren’t going to solve it (it takes money to improve it, and republicans aren’t going to spend money on people without influence)

Wendy P. 

[jakee 1,499]

22 minutes ago, olofscience said:

 

• Trump will slap tariffs on goods from China and the rest of the world
  • causing a renaissance in US manufacturing, therefore more jobs

Funny one that, isn't it? Didn't happen in Trump 1 (manufacturing hit a plateau well before covid at a lower level than it has reached under Biden), so why would it happen now?

Related point, what will those jobs be worth? Boeing just lost an enormously costly fight against its own union which ended with a staggered 38% pay rise and other benefits, well after threatening that rejection of a previous 'final' 30% offer would result in a less generous offer and other retribution. The strike was brought on by highly skilled workers in an extremely specialised industry who weren't earning enough to be able to buy houses and support families. What side would Trump and Musk, who just got together and laughed about great it is to fire workers who ask for better pay, have taken in that dispute? 

So even if, somehow, magically, Trump and Musks government brings back a ton of manufacturing jobs for people instead of giving them to the robots - who will end up thinking that's a good thing if those jobs are poverty line jobs?

Edited November 10, 2024 by jakee

[jakee 1,499]

11 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

The Democrats didn’t cause homelessness, and the Republicans aren’t going to solve it (it takes money to improve it, and republicans aren’t going to spend money on people without influence)

The Republican view that base698 has been tricked into believing is that the problem with homelessness can be solved by simply removing the homeless people they see in front of them right now. 

There's a fairly obvious flaw with that logic.

[kallend 2,027]

On the whole I think better candidates came out of "smoke filled rooms" than are produced by the primary election system.

[kallend 2,027]

1 hour ago, base698 said:

Given the budget deficit and debt I'm more interested in stopping that so we don't have to print even more money.  I'd prefer not to pay $36 for my hamburger because they doubled the money supply again.  

If we do that and get the budget under some reasonable threshold we talk what to do about it. 

History shows that since WW2 the debt increased more under GOP administrations than under Dem.  Reagan tripled the debt.

 

[base698 15]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

And I’m guessing shit in the Capitol is better than shit on the street? The Democrats didn’t cause homelessness, and the Republicans aren’t going to solve it (it takes money to improve it, and republicans aren’t going to spend money on people without influence)

Yes, every American city being crime and filth ridden for a decade is worse than a single day of rednecks wandering around the Capitol.

Money certainly will not solve it as the Democrats have proven spending billions on the problem and having it get progressively worse (pun intended).  All the money spent on homeless seems to do is get given to connected Dem donors.

[base698 15]

36 minutes ago, kallend said:

History shows that since WW2 the debt increased more under GOP administrations than under Dem.  Reagan tripled the debt.

Yep and those administrations are just as responsible.  I hate neocons as does most of the new right.  If you don't see the difference perhaps read "The New Right".  It is a good overview.

[gowlerk 2,205]

7 minutes ago, base698 said:

perhaps read "The New Right".  It is a good overview.

Google search returns many news articles with that title.. Which one are you referring to?

[base698 15]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

Google search returns many news articles with that title.. Which one are you referring to?

New Right by Michael Malice: https://www.amazon.com/New-Right-Journey-American-Politics/dp/1250154669

 

https://x.com/pmarca/status/1577366792233660416 list is solid, but crosses a lot of domains and general history.  In particular the Machiavellians by Burnham but it is more history and political science.

[jakee 1,499]

38 minutes ago, base698 said:

Yes, every American city being crime and filth ridden for a decade is worse than a single day of rednecks wandering around the Capitol.

Money certainly will not solve it as the Democrats have proven spending billions on the problem and having it get progressively worse (pun intended).  All the money spent on homeless seems to do is get given to connected Dem donors.

Haven't heard that before, do you have examples?

The implication here is also that Trump either spent nothing on homelessness first time around or that he also gave all the money to Dem donors. Why do you think it's going to be different this time?

[base698 15]

11 minutes ago, jakee said:

Haven't heard that before, do you have examples?

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/11/us/california-homeless-spending/index.html

California has spent a stunning $17.5 billion trying to combat homelessness over just four years.

Nearly $4 billion went to local governments to spend on anti-homelessness initiatives. $3.7 billion went to a program called Project Homekey, which also funds local governments, but specifically to buy properties like motels and commercial buildings to turn into permanent, affordable housing. So far 13,500 units have been finished.

I'm not going to look it up but there are tons of examples of tiny homes being constructed for multiples of the price of a small 2 bedroom in lower cost of living area. The homeless refuse to stay in because they have restrictions on drug use if they stay.  

11 minutes ago, jakee said:

Why do you think it's going to be different this time?

Political climate is the main one.  The appetite for a solution like, mobilizing the military to bus them to treatment centers out of cities is there.  People aren't going to tolerate the "BUT THEY ARE UNHOUSED NOT HOMELESS" BS, they just want it fixed.  There are a bunch of videos circulating X that were made a year or two ago by Trump with some specifics.

 

Edited November 10, 2024 by base698

[winsor 236]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

On the whole I think better candidates came out of "smoke filled rooms" than are produced by the primary election system.

Agreed.

[kallend 2,027]

52 minutes ago, base698 said:

Yep and those administrations are just as responsible.  I hate neocons as does most of the new right.  If you don't see the difference perhaps read "The New Right".  It is a good overview.

I don't see a difference between Trump 1 and his GOP predecessors in terms of debt.

You expect him to be different this time?  You know what they say about insanity. . . 

[wmw999 2,452]

How do you deal with the citizenship and rights thing if you’re busing them to (free?) treatment centers? Because they have the right to sue to not be forced to do something they don’t want to, also. Or are only the willing going to get the free forced treatment, and the willing get to pay for the expensive unavailable treatment, until they’re so bad off that they have to be forced?

These are legitimate questions; I actually have some experience volunteering and working with homeless and very poor people. They’re no more simple and one-dimensional than you or I

Wendy P  

 

[base698 15]

6 minutes ago, kallend said:

I don't see a difference between Trump 1 and his GOP predecessors in terms of debt.

You don't see a difference between having Elon Musk who is going to be the head of "DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY" and JD Vance who has paid lip service to the Fed issues and an administration that had Mike Pence and other swamp creatures?

[base698 15]

3 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

How do you deal with the citizenship and rights thing if you’re busing them to (free?) treatment centers? Because they have the right to sue to not be forced to do something they don’t want to, also.

It's an emergency.  We have a precedent 4 years ago.  If we can prevent free movement selectively for the sniffles I think we can for 100,000 dead a year and the risk of little Jenny inhaling Fentanyl on the subway accidentally.

[kallend 2,027]

12 minutes ago, base698 said:

You don't see a difference between having Elon Musk who is going to be the head of "DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY" and JD Vance who has paid lip service to the Fed issues and an administration that had Mike Pence and other swamp creatures?

And they answer to the six time bankrupt;  the guy who bankrupted four casinos.

Trump was quoted by Newsweek in 2011 saying, "I do play with the bankruptcy laws—they're very good for me."

https://www.newsweek.com/kurtz-trump-backlash-66503

Edited November 10, 2024 by kallend

[base698 15]

4 minutes ago, kallend said:

Trump was quoted by Newsweek in 2011 saying, "I do play with the bankruptcy laws—they're very good for me."

Poor (meaning people without a $10 million+ net worth) are propagandized against bankruptcy.  He was quoted as saying, "You can grab the bank by the justice system and just stop paying your loans.  When you're rich, they let you do it."

 

Quote

And they answer to the six time bankrupt;  the guy who bankrupted four casinos.

Is it hard to run a casino?  Do you have some kind of knowledge about the number of casinos that go bankrupt vs ones that open?  Do you have market analysis for areas and demographics that are more/less risky? 

Edited November 10, 2024 by base698

[jakee 1,499]

41 minutes ago, base698 said:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/11/us/california-homeless-spending/index.html

California has spent a stunning $17.5 billion trying to combat homelessness over just four years.

Nearly $4 billion went to local governments to spend on anti-homelessness initiatives. $3.7 billion went to a program called Project Homekey, which also funds local governments, but specifically to buy properties like motels and commercial buildings to turn into permanent, affordable housing. So far 13,500 units have been finished.

Are we saying here that local governments are Dem donors? That doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me. And notice again that the article here talks about California spending, not federal government spending, because this is not a federal issue.

43 minutes ago, base698 said:

Political climate is the main one.  The appetite for a solution like, mobilizing the military to bus them to treatment centers out of cities is there.  

Leaving aside that a tent city in the middle of nowhere is unlikely to be a particularly effective treatment centre - the military? 

We're saying here that Trump can direct the Army to drive into cities, abduct local people without the authorisation of State or Municipal authorities or law enforcement ad drop them in the middle of nowhere? 

This is going to be one of those things he'll need that shiny new immunity deal for, isn't it? Shame anyone who carries out those orders won't be covered.

[jakee 1,499]

29 minutes ago, base698 said:

You don't see a difference between having Elon Musk who is going to be the head of "DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY" and JD Vance who has paid lip service to the Fed issues and an administration that had Mike Pence and other swamp creatures?

Oh right, sure. The deficit wasn't Trump's fault - it was that mean old Mike Pence who wrote the budget! Because again - there's nothing bad in the world of any member of the new right that isn't someone else's fault.

[base698 15]

7 minutes ago, jakee said:

Oh right, sure. The deficit wasn't Trump's fault

It was, I don't mean to imply it wasn't.  Just the people around him and his signaling indicates this is not the case in 2024.

 

11 minutes ago, jakee said:

Are we saying here that local governments are Dem donors? That doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me.

Who do you think owns the commercial properties and hotels?  Do you think it's likely to be a republican donor or a democratic one?  I bolded it so you wouldn't miss it, yet you focused on the part that was not bold.

Edited November 10, 2024 by base698