Your life is impacted by a lot of different things. As for my life, good decisions led to luck. If I hadn't made good decisions, I don't know where I would be. I didn't have parents that prepared me for the world and it shows in their other 3 children.

I won't pretend that I know what it is like to be someone else, but my life experiences make me believe you're in control of your own destiny regardless of who you are.

My brother is a good example. He was going to enlist in the USAF. On his way to the recruiter to sign the enlistment papers, the friend who was giving him a ride convinced him not to go. Instead, he moved in with that friend and started working the night shift at a dog food plant. That was 15 years ago. Today, that friend is dead, killed in a drug deal gone bad. My brother has been strung out on various drugs on and off over that same time.

One bad decision changed the course of his life.

I am not going to argue that certain people in the world have it harder than others and their options are limited. I believe that is true. But I also believe the best way to over come those odds is to beat them yourself, not to ask someone else to change them just for you.

Even after saying that, I know everyone's situation is different and that way of thinking may not work for everyone.

Agreed.

With the example in the article Atocep posted I would argue that life is not Monopoly, but whatever.

The truth is somewhere in the middle, does luck pose a factor? Yes. If you are an athlete and your best game is when a scout is in attendance that is luck. However, your hard work is what put you in position to take advantage of that luck factor. In many cases people seem to always fall on their feet, is that due to luck or hard work?

With regards to the results of the model in the article, it is flawed, but I can answer where the gap in real world results and their model results lay, and that is in taking advantage of luck (with regards to the results, it would be interesting to see results of initial hardship vs. windfalls and see where they wind up. Most simulations like this wind up not producing any overall wealth, which we do see wealth increasing in the world. You would expect wealth growth in this simulation to trend towards 0.) Luck is not a wad of cash that is handed to you, luck is the opportunities provided to us. The harder we have worked to become the best at what we do, the better prepared we are to take advantage of those opportunities.

Someone posted before, we are not born the best at anything. That is 100% correct. You might be blessed with genes that would make you a great basketball player, or a great scientist, but you need to maximize that initial advantage. What happens when that basketball player puts his energies into being a scientist and the scientist tries to be a basketball player?

There are a lot of jobs out there that people are either unaware of or do not want to do. There is a shortage of welders, WWTP operators, WTP operators, maintenance technicians, etc. For the WTP and WWTP positions you need certain certifications, but many facilities are willing to help with the cost of education and certification. Most of these facilities you can retire with full benefits after 25-35 years depending upon the municipality.

Welders have been able to go to W. Texas, the Dakotas, the tar sands in Alberta and basically write their own check. You can also go out to the oil rigs in the Gulf as well. Many of these jobs earn over 6 figures and in the case of the oil rigs, it is often a 6 months on, 6 months off rotation, so you are earning the money over half the year. This is not a job that requires a ton of education, you just need training on how to do it.

Why do people not do these jobs? For one, many are not aware of the opportunities there. WWTP and WTP operators are gaining visibility with the increased environmental awareness but people do not talk a ton about these jobs. With regards to welders, we do not talk to kids about the trades any more. You don't have someone coming from a job site telling kids to go in the construction industry. The fact of the matter is we should.

Where I am going with all of this is that we need to improve the chances that people are equipped to take advantage of opportunities when they come along. Whether that opportunity is due to sheer luck, or if you believe you create your own luck.

Where we disagree as a society is how to maximize this. Those that are less fortunate are going to have less opportunities. Education is one way we can increase those opportunities (also, while general education is better than no education, we need to focus on paths that lead to better results and opportunities). Hard work is another way we can increase those opportunities. The question is what else can we do?

But sometimes it is a wad of cash.

One of my favorite former students was only able to come to the college becuase of a program to give full-rides to a limited number of disadvantaged students. She was great. She worked her ass off. But she only attended college becuase she was chosen to get free tuition, her parents had so little interest in her education that they didn't even stay for her admissions interviews.

She entered the Peace Corps after graduation and is now doing non-profit work and making a big difference in the lives of other diadvantaged children. None of that would have been possible, though, without the gift of a big wad of cash in the form of free tuition.

I think this is a fascinating discussion and one that isn't had nearly enough.

I dont think any (logical) person denies that there are varying degrees of challenges faced by people. And there are varying degrees of likely potential successes that are in fact shaped by where you start.

I dont think this is inherently bad, though its certainly not ideal. But I also dont know how you "fix" it.

I fully believe however, that if a person chooses to keep getting up. To keep fighting. That eventually they will improve their position on the socio-economic ladder. Granted outside of rare talent or natural gifts bottom of the ladder to Malibu Palace probably isn't attainable.

But my why, my reason for getting up everyday is not to get rich its to lay the absolute best foundation I can for my kids to build a better settlement on with the hopes that my grandkids build an empire. I am driven by the concept of generational change. Not everyone is. I get that. But I do think we all should be allowed to aspire to change our family tree.

If your parents werent driven by that, it does suck. Trust me. I know. But that isnt a reason to quit its a reason to work harder.

But we all have pros and cons. None of us are good or bad. Attractiveness was mentioned up thread. Yes, some people are ore attractive. undeniable. And some are naturally more intelligent. But how you use your advantage and minimize your disadvantage to me is what determines your fate, if fate is ever determined at all. As we keep evolving and changing until the end.

re: attractiveness. Studies have shown that being attractive is a HUGE benefit to getting your foot in the door. Getting interviews and being hired for jobs goes up significantly if you are attractive (though it is even higher if your interviewer is of the opposite sex).

The attractiveness element also leads back to racism somewhat, in that most folks generally find people outside of their own race less attractive.

I've kind of wondered about that recently

If I say I find white women more attractive than black women does that make me racist? Would other people call me racist?

But what if I say that I find red haired ladies more attractive than blondes or brunettes. Does anyone care other than those that disagree?

The two statements are morally equivalent right?

Not a racist, maybe a bigot :)

Now that we are getting into a philosophical world - I wonder if people really understand what would be involved with everyone having an "equal opportunity" of success when they are born. For one, you would basically have to get rid of all personal wealth and you would still need to deal with personal biases, racism, etc. The world isn't (and will never be) fair. But, I do think we have an obligation as a society to provide support options for when people are in a tough situation as means of pulling themselves out. Unfortunately, that process can be difficult and not all people will make the decisions required to get back on track. Still, that shouldn't dissuade us from continuing to provide that support.

But, this whole discussion about luck vs skill in success is kind of a moot point. Let's say it is 75% luck, what steps are we really prepared to take (as a society) to reduce that? I think the only thing we can do is give people options when bad luck strikes and hope they can ride that out until "good luck" come in.

Can we replace the word 'luck' with 'coincidence' and all of this mean the same thing?

We can all look back at out lives and see coincidences that lead us to where we are. Was it coincidence, luck, or are they the same?

I think luck implies something totally different and may not be the right word here.

Luck is "success or failure brought by chance rather than through one's own actions"

I think it fits perfectly

As long as parenthood is a concept, some people are going to start off way better than others.

People love to brag that they KNOW about white privilege, but I've never seen one of them sacrifice their kid's schooling or upbringing to improve a minority's chances at the same opportunities they handed their kids on a silver platter. But somehow just expressing that knowledge of their upper middle-class existence makes them less guilty than someone less fortunate but also not as woke.

They don't mean the same thing to me but wasn't sure how to express it well so here's a google opinion.

https://forum.thefreedictionary.com/...ncidence-.aspx

This is pretty close to my feelings and experiences within the tech industry. I only got my foot in the door by knowing someone, but once I was in there was a whole world of jobs that I didn't even know existed previously, and I imagine there are scores and scores of entire industries, representing millions of potential jobs, that underprivileged kids don't even realize exist. Folks of better privilege may get introduced into these professional industries/jobs, or just be familiar with their existence, thanks to better schooling, or connected family and friends that are more likely to be involved in these exclusive, more rewarding industries.

In the cases of the trades, I agree that was also never presented to me as an option as a kid, and I think there are whole swaths of kids (including my past self) that would benefit from such a focused path, rather than heading off to college with zero focus, or working at the local plant, just because it's the expected thing to do.

There are things that can be done. Part of the goal of public education is to provide opportunities for those unable to afford a private education. There's a lot in between nothing and some dystopian idea of perfect equality.

No abuse of power. Nothing to see here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/u....co/qkdB1VEzvj

Nobody cares who you find more attractive or who you'd rather sleep with. But if it means as a hiring manager or in some other position your "preferences" even unwittingly bleed over into who you're more comfortable with, that's where problems lie. It extends beyond that to social interactions, too.

It's not about attractiveness or preferences, it's when those preferences get tied to things like denying people's humanity, and negating the structural reasons why certain people don't live in certain neighborhoods or own businesses or have generational wealth to pass down.

And the D.C. Appeals ruled Congress has no standing to sue over emoluments effectively meaning impeachment is the only corrective to violating that clause of the Constitution.

Wonder what he has planned?

Venezuela's economy is rebounding (after years of pain). Not sure if its sustainable but it may be too late to act now since Guaido seemed to have lost the momentum.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/06/polit...ing/index.html

Great point and an element of subconscious fear of what is different than us plays into this too. I think people who are exposed to more diversity/culture are less likely to let this inadvertently influence them, and I don't know that is often the case if someone has not been exposed to or interacted with cultures/races outside their own.

Excellent point.
Even outside the realm of sex/race I think we all have a tendency -let me change that, I know I have a tendency and I try to consciously fight it - to transitive characteristic people to people they remind us of. Early on my hiring career I tried to replicate my A players. I did this through hiring people from similar back grounds or similar paths...it was very subconscious. But I'd be in an interview and say "This guy reminds me of Mike. Mike is the best resi-guy I have. I need a resi-guy. Im going to hire him and Ill have another Mike."...then Id be disappointed when he wasn't Mike. And I can admit I did this racially as well. I had a hispanic who worked for me who was the hardest working dude I had (stereotype I know) so I set out to intentionally hire more hispanic because I wanted that characteristic. In some cases it worked and in some it failed spectacularly. Shocking I know they were humans just like me and varied.

I dont say that to brag, but to admit that I made those mistakes. In the moment I couldnt have told you I was even making those choices. Looking back I certainly was. At this point I have hired over 400 employees in my career. I still dont think Im good at it. I couldnt write a book on it thats for sure. Yet I routinely get calls from friends asking for tips because they think I do a great job at identifying talent.Im nt real comfortable giving that advice because its basically 'screw up a bunch and learn from your mistakes'...

But all that said we are all subject to our own internal bias. On the way home there are two gas stations across the road from each other. I stop at 1 because...well I dont know. But the cashier likes to show off cleavage and I find that appealing and we talk daily. So I am bias towards cleavage. That in itself is discriminatory, and I get that. But Im not sure how to change it. Do I make it a point to avoid stores that have female cashiers. No that's discriminatory also. And I have zero clue how to legislate it. In fact Ive got a good friend who is a brain doc employed by the US DOD to study soldier thought processes and improve our combat operations. He says the brain is remarkably good at identifying threat vs ally...until we start thinking and trying to evaluate it intelligently..then we are remarkably shitty at it.

Agreed. We can do much more to help provide skills for people to be able to successfully make the most of opportunities, and remove the road-blocks that keeps people from being able to find them.

But the issue is that luck is by far the most important thing. Look at inter-generational mobility. Look at the most successful people in the world. They are represented primarily by people who were born lucky.

A percent of the population has no opportunity to say become a doctor. They can't afford med school. They don't have rich parents who can buy them enrollment or give them more study time because they don't need to work a job on the side. No matter how hard they work, it just isn't happening.

In my opinion, the goal should be to level the opportunity playing field as much as we can. To actually create real competition and let the cream rise to the top. If you want to have the best doctors running the show, you let everyone who want to compete in.

But a lot of people don't want it and I understand. More people with opportunity means more competition. Some people crave competition and feel it makes them and everyone around them better. Others want an easy way out. It's easier to pat people on the head and tell them to be a welder instead.

And this stuff goes beyond college. Take the justice system.

For some people, getting pulled over with weed means getting locked up, a permanent record, and a huge setback financially.

For others, they can commit billions in bank and wire fraud and end up becoming the Treasury Secretary.

How does that equate into the "hard work to get to the top" scenario?

Lt Col Vindman was escorted out of the White House today, after being told his services where no longer needed. What a shock.

A system like you describe just isn't feasible. There's no way to setup a system where a kid grown into a one-parent home in poverty will ever have the same chance at success as someone born in a Beverly Hills mansion. It can't happen. The hope is that we setup an education system that allows the poor kid a *chance* at getting good grades, going to college/trade school and then setting up a situation where his kid is in a better spot. But, it's going to be very hard for that kid when he lives in an area with no good role models, no supervision because his one parent works two jobs and within a poverty culture that cares more about drug pushing than algebra exams. None of this is the kid's fault, it's just what he was born into.

It's not about wanting it, it's about being realistic. There's just no way to achieve pure competition in any society. So, you need to be honest with what is going on, do what you can to make marginal improvements and just understand a certain % of society is just starting from a real bad position. What you can do is provide avenues for the kids that find a way to persevere and help them get out. But for every one that does that, there will be 10 (or more) that just stay in this bad position their entire life. It's sad, but acting like we can waive a magic wand and change it is really disingenuous.

Of course you can't level every variable. But you can do your best to level what you can. Other countries do this successfully.

The culture thing is a copout. There are bad role models and criminals everywhere. Difference is in a poor area, your poor actions have consequences.


I never said pure competition. I said you can do a lot to create more competition. To level the playing ground so that a profession is based more on skill and less on how rich your parents are.

But like I said, a lot of people don't want that and realize they can't compete if the doors are open. That's why they'll make excuses for why it can't be changed.

So you're saying a person born into a culture where two parents went to college, value education, help their kids do homework and save to help pay for their college is no different than a person born into a single parent home with only a high school education and very little support/supervision? Basically, if the laws were changed and that single parent was given more welfare - everything would be equal? Culture and starting point matters a great deal.

I don't know that less capable/qualified candidates being consistently passed over in jobs for lesser qualified "richer kids" is a big problem. We value results more than we ever have and if someone is in over their skis, they will usually be replaced at some point. Where it helps is giving richer kids access to better education. Then, if you have a kid that graduated Dartmouth going against a kid that went to Indiana State, chances that other kid will get the job. But if he stinks, he will be replaced. It's not like hedge funds are going to allow people who loose millions of dollars to stay on or doctor's who continually make major mistakes are going to be allowed to practice.

I'm still not even sure what changes you want? I get changing some laws and I am for that too - but that's 1% of the problem you are talking about. What other things can we do to get this better competition you keep hoping for?

Vindman's twin brother was also fired today.

I'll throw out some possibilities.

Universal pre-k
Expanded healthcare
Schools feed children at no cost to the child
Federal program to rebuild crumbling schools

And my favorite, lead abatement. There's simply nothing that would as cheaply improve as many lives.

No, that doesn't fix everything, but that's not the goal. Those programs will make a lot of lives better and provide opportunity to a lot of kids.

No, I'm saying that you have this implication that if someone is wealthy they are immediately morally superior and better parents than someone who hasn't.


I'm not talking about the actual job portion, I'm talking about the opportunity to get there. The more money you are born into, the higher chance you have of affording to go to college and being able to spend your time their studying. The less debt you would leave school with so that you could take risks and be innovative.


Were you around during the great recession? They were handing out bonuses like candy at companies that were insolvent. There are some industries where you're held accountable for your job, but finance isn't one of them.


Expand public education through college for those who qualify. Then let the brightest, hardest working people win out. That's a decent start.

It's weird how the people who talk about hard work to succeed seem to be the most against setting up a meritocracy. Almost like it's overcompensating.

Remember the people who were convinced that Republicans were really upset about kneeling because it disrespected the troops? :lol:

That's just comedy.

I don't think wealthy people are morally superior at all. In terms of parents, it's a lot easier to be a good parent when you are working salary and not juggling two hourly jobs. But, I don't think it's a stretch to say that someone living in an upper middle class home will have better supervision than someone who has one parent in poverty.

I'm on record as saying the highest in-state tuition should be for public state universities is 8-10K. I also support financial grants for community colleges/JC to make those inexpensive for lower income. But, education isn't the main driver in this as you seem to believe. You can offer free college to every inner city kid tomorrow and many won't even enroll. And of those that do, many will fail out because they haven't been taught how to study or to prioritize education. You need to find a way to make education a priority to lower income people and I'm not sure how you do that.

I agree that there is an intellectual break on the conservative end with this stuff. One one hand, they want a pure capitalistic culture and take pride that anyone can succeed if they "work hard". On the other, they never want to pay the small amount it would cost to help subsidize better education options for lower income kids. That said, it is not just "give them cheap school and everything works out". You have to find a way to show these kids how important a good education is and get these families to prioritize it. Some simply can't because they are working multiple jobs and just trying to survive.

Gordon Sondland fired. He sure did learn his lesson, Susan Collins.

Sondland sure did. smh

He now belongs to a very select group of only the best people




List of Trump administration dismissals and resignations - Wikipedia

Gary Johnson has endorsed Tulsi and is pushing her to run Libertarian.

Remember when we all thought he had principles?

Libertarians are a laughingstock these days.

What? Tulsi run third party? No. Who could have ever seen that coming.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I can't say I know exactly how it works, but the Libertarian party actually runs state primaries and I was amused to see that Lincoln Chafee is currently in a tight battle with Vermin Supreme for second place. Vermin carried New Hampshire (17.3% of the 150 votes cast), but Lincoln fared better in Iowa - where the libertarians held their caucuses yesterday and managed to already count all the votes. Though it's probably easier when there's only 282 total votes.

I feel like I could maybe win the Idaho primary if that's a thing. I have a strong coalition of drinking buddies and acquaintances and think I could manage at least 20 votes, which should be enough. Maybe at least have a Skype debate with Vermin Supreme. Who's willing to put a sign in their yard?

Now Johnson is apologizing for confusing people and says he's supporting Bill Weld.

Isn't he running in the Republican primary against Trump?

Yep.

Yeah I remember this board being hugely supportive and sympathetic to Gary Johnson and his principles. (sarcasm intended) My guess is that Johnson likes her stance on the Washington DC war machine but I would agree she is hardly Libertarian with her economic views. What confuses me is why she is so hated by liberals? She would seem to be in line with most of the principles I see you discuss here, just doesn't devote 24-7 to hating Trump like is needed?

Sadly the truth is probably her opposition to the war mongering. Deep down both parties love it and so do most of the American people. I mean how could somebody like her who actually served in the military oppose the endless war in the Middle East?

I wish Bill Weld was on top of the ticket last time around. It can be hard to take Gary Johnson seriously at times and as a 3rd party candidate you don't need that.

Tulsi, among her numerous problems, is more than willing to defend Assad from chemical warfare charges. You can be against the forever war without siding with a man slaughtering his civilian population.

We have a different memory of Johnson in 2016. If the bar is support, sure not many here did, but I think there wa a lot of acknowledgement that Johnson was sincere and honest in his beliefs. But now... not so much.

Only reason Johnson got support here or nearly anywhere in 2016 was because he wasn't Trump or Hillary. I voted for him and that was pretty much my reason.

That's most libertarians. Talk a big game but never back it up in the real world. Look what Rand Paul has been up to the past couple months.

Hes not a Libertarian, hes a Republican. Didnt realize there were all kinds of elected Libertarians who weren't backing up their ideologies in Congress.

So what is his end game if he isnt being sincere? Hes a Russian sympathizer? He secretly wants Trump reelected?

He's seems like a lot of libertarians, mostly concerned about legal pot.

edit: But really, how the fuck do I know? All I now is you can't both support libertarian policies and Tulsi's platform.

dola

The Philippines sent notice that they are ending the Visiting Forces Agreement.

So much winning.

Gallup's Mood of the Nation survey. Looking pretty good for Trump in the question "are you better off today than before". Independents is one of the major battlegrounds so this should be worrisome to the Dems.

The article has a link to more details. At the bottom of the linked survey, there is a breakdown between white/non-white and age groups.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/284264/...-finances.aspx

Once again, he's basically benefiting from a 10 year long run in the economy and market. He's done nothing substantially more than pour a bunch of jet fuel in an engine and kept driving straight. You can see it in the trend line. If I was a market analyst and used this, I could see that the last time that things "got this good" a hard market fall happened.



That is actually what I'm fearful of. The economy is due for a decline. And that just so happens to coincide with whatever happens in the fall. There's a strong chance that trump is gone, and with that, the next person will not have the same advantage of a steadily growing economy. Which leads to trump just spending the next 4 years tweeting how all this is just because he wasn't elected, then he runs again in '24. Setting us up for another fml moment. Or he could die. Today.

I'm kinda hoping the stock market plummets before the election. Whatever it takes to get him out of office.

DoJ central is going to overrule the prosecutor on the Roger Stone case and lessen the recommended sentence. Details of the new rec are set to be released this afternoon.

Loving this season of Curb.

Larry figured out that a MAGA hat was a great way to make sure nobody would sit next to him at the sushi bar, and to get out of social engagements.

This to me is as bad or worse than JiMGa's "enemies" nonsense. What an asinine thing to hope for.

The judge is likely going to ignore the revised sentencing recommendation which sets Trump up to justify the eventual pardon.

He says he is.


‘I’m very serious about running,’ Ron Paul’s son says – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Party of law and order!

He'll be getting a pardon right after the election. Likely will have to spend a little time in prison but it likely only helps his street cred in the cult.

I figure we're overdue for a big drop. It's been a long expansion, propped up by the Fed with quantitative easing and artificially low interest rates (which Trump keeps hammering Powell to lower further). Better for it to happen under Trump's watch than leave the next guy holding the bag when it all blows up. The markets will recover. The environment may not if Trump gets his way.

So far two prosecutors on the Stone case have resigned today.

Pretty sure, the extreme, obvious levels of cronyism that we've seen would've been impeachable under anyone else, especially a D. Most leaders go out of their way to avoid even the appearance of it as a possibility, he just desensitizes us so when it happens it's expected. That's fucking dangerous and it's fucking bullshit.

I agree.

I agree with you that a recession is overdue and if one was to happen then ideally it would happen in time to blunt Trump.

I would be with you for a recession last year but don't think it will help much this year if/when it happens. Trump could arguably blame any recession on China/coronavirus impact, the market/economy was anticipating a Democrat win etc.

I don't know why there is not more support for this by the "never Trump'ers" on this board. The market/economy is a key strengths that will resonate well with the independent swing voters.

A hypothetical question I would pose to the die-hard Libs on this board:

If it was a King Solomon's choice between (1) have a typical 11 month recession that guarantees a Democrat will win or (2) no recession that guarantees Trump will be re-elected ... which would you choose?

1, all day and twice on Sunday. Economies rebound.

1. Easy choice.

1. The economy will come back and I can live off less if need be. 4 more years of Trump, who can now do what he wants with zero checks and balances, will destroy us as a nation. If he hasn't already.

Kinda funny ... what are the odds?

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/11/trum...nies-maga.html

Ahh branding....


Nobody else is concerned about the whole Roger Stone/ Justice department/ do whatever trump says bullshit that it appears is going on today?

Extremely. Even if democrats can win in November, there's still almost a whole year left of our democracy being eroded away.

It's amazing how corrupt, incompetent politics sustains itself with very little effort. Like the news of exasperated DOJ lawyers resigning en masse.

I'd like to believe that the more corrupt & inept an administration the harder it would be for them to operate in the American political & legislative environment, and some group of competent heroes would step up in oversight, but instead all the competent folks simply leave on their own regard in frustration.

Our political system isn't built to protect us from a corrupt President and Senate. There's very little that can be done other than vote in November.

What is there to erode away? Don't get me wrong, Trump is a piece of shit. But he's not doing anything that hasn't been done to this country since its inception.

There was never a democracy in this country. Neither party has ever supported it no matter how many times we get on our soapbox and proclaim it to the world. Rich, white folks with good connections don't have to follow the law. They've always been above it. How do you erode things that were never there?

Trump just turns the lights on what this country is (a crumbling, corrupt oligarchy). Instead of hiding behind some fancy bullshit and "decorum", he does his deeds in the open (which is what really pisses people off). He's open about how only certain people should be allowed to vote. He's made it clear that certain people should be above the law. If anything, it's refreshing to see the wrapping off the turd.

Does anyone think Mayor Pete is going to change anything? The guy is funded by Wall Street and has a Goldman Sachs guy on his policy team. His team is filled with Obama grifters who got their ass kicked for 8 years. If Pete somehow won, he'd be just another sniveling pussy to the handful of rich folks who call the shots in this country. But he'd do it with class so we could pretend it's not happening.

Madison stated that the primary goal of government should be to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority". The country was literally founded on the basis that a handful of rich folks should call all the shots. It wasn't created for the people.

I realize this is an echo chamber for a handful of you guys but it's pretty disgusting the number of people who would "bring on a recession" because Trump is living rent free in their heads. I mean we are talking about something that would effect the entire country. Don't even know what to say but it least it exposes to what lengths some of you would go to "support their team". A team I might add that really doesn't care as much about you as you do about them.

What if I told you a Trump supporter was given the option of a small terror attack (nowhere on the magnitude of 9-11 or even OKC but a few dead and a city's collective psyche shaken to the ground) and they said sure it's probably due anyways and it won't effect me as much as some other people? That would be insane right? That's exactly what you guys sound like with this "small" recession stuff. You think this "small" recession would only eat the rich? Wow...

Follow-up question for those who said yes to the recession. Please list the ways Trump has actually impacted your life that is worse than a recession would impact it.

So in answer to that I think it's a question of how far you have to look outside your own bubble. IF I have a really small circle around me and only care about what's happening to me and my family today then I would feel one way BUT if I give a shit about 1, 5, 10, 30 years from now I'd feel different. Couple that with whether or not I feel empathy for people outside my bubble and I really have to allow myself to feel differently Outside of the headline religious bend. Anti-Abortion Rights trumps all, etc.

I personally have seen my bubble get smaller in the last ten years but lets equate it to selfishness without the word's negative connotation but just for discussion sake. The more selfish I am the more I can feel one way or the other about a topic. For example lets say I'm 100% selfish, I could argue that Trump is my guy. If I'm 0% selfish he's the opposite for me. I'm able to feel differently because I'm neither 0 or 100.

The irony of it all is the willingness of people to vote against their self interests for things that I cannot understand. For example, my MIL should be Democrat through and through, low level wages, treated like shit, needs of medicare and social safety nets for being deaf BUT because she's ignorant (again not necessarily negatively) she voted big R because she's like scared of diversity, believes in the Bible tried and true, thinks that g means take away guns, etc WHICH NONE OF THESE THINGS AFFECT HER. So she votes against her self interest because she reads a headline, is vulnerable to the marketing, and MAGA. When you try to explain to her that all of the things that affect her, Trump is against it doesn't carry any weight because it's not in 40 font type on the paper.

Nobody dies due to a recession. A "strong economy" is one of Trump's main legs to stand on for his own re-election. (I would argue that the markets are being manipulated for the political gain of Trump and those in power.) I am willing to take an economic hit to sweep that leg out from under him. Recessions are cyclical. Terrorism is not. Totally different scenario. It can easily be argued that KEEPING Trump in office is triggering small terrorist attacks all the time. His rhetoric stokes anger and fear that results in wackos going out and shooting things up on a semi-regular basis.


1. He is deregulating environmental protections that lower the quality of the air we all breathe and the water we all drink. He is doing irreparable harm to the environment every day.

2. He and Republicans stand in the way of sensible gun regulation. People, including kids, die every day because of this.

3. He very nearly just pulled us into a war with Iran that would result in countless deaths.

4. He is stoking division in our country with his words and his actions every day. He is pitting us against each other for his own personal gain.

5. He is trying to kill Obamacare in the courts. He is working to get rid of protections for millions of people with pre-existing conditions.

6. He is running up the federal deficit at a record pace during a time of economic expansion. That's when you are supposed to be shrinking the deficit and increasing interest rates. When recession does come, we are not going to have much ammo to fight against it.

I could go on.

So wishing a recession on the country for personal political beliefs not selfish? Wouldn't effect almost everyone in the country?

He sucks as a president, you will get no argument from me. So I won't argue with 4. I think you are giving him waaayyy too much credit for #1. #2,3, and 6 are standard operating procedure for every president and Congress in DC. Sorry I even have to LOL if you think a Bernie Sanders presidency during a recession is going to fix #6.

Still am just dumbfounded that people think a recession isn't going to screw the whole country (especially the poor and middle class) and would invite this because they think it somehow will help "their side" win. I realize Edward's question was worded that the recession would somehow cause a Democrat to get elected but what if it didn't? Now you have a recession and Trump as president. Hate to enact Goodwin's law here but...

And as far as nobody dies due to a recession? You want to equate gun control with dead kids but think a recession won't effect suicide rates, people going into poverty, crime rates...

They were answering the question as posed by Edward64.

Kodos wasn't.

And the whole premise of his question is whether you would want a recession if it could guarantee Trump isn't reelected. So it is all about personal gain at the expense of anyone with money invested or jobs dependent on the economy. (i.e. basically everyone)

Who says I support Bernie Sanders?

Didn't say you did but he is the leading Democratic candidate who in this theoretical exercise would be running against Trump. Or is your hope for a recession, no Trump, and your choice of Democrat?

I will support whoever wins the nomination. Personally, I am hoping for a young moderate (Pete or Amy). But if Bernie wins, I'll vote for him.

The longer we artificially hold off a market correction, the worse it will be when we finally get one.

You mean like Trump supporters being OK with farmers losing their farms and committing suicide for the greater good of a China deal?

Yes. (I know Larrymcg I am a broken record...) If I choose not to play the D/R game and say "But... but... they do it" then I don't have to get caught in what you think is a gotcha moment. I don't support anyone who wishes harm to get "their guy" elected and sure as hell don't wish for a recession because it might change the election odds from 53/47 to 51/49.

So you're okay with kids being shot but not okay with less money in your wallet?



See how easy it is to play your little game?

You do realize that recessions are always going to happen, right? The car that already had all the emergency fuel dumped in it will run out. People are gonna be hurt one way or another. It's not about wishing pain on the world so one guy loses or wins. Which coincidentally is the argument trump uses. He says only I can fix it, or solve it, or help. Regardless of the damage he causes in the process. He wants to be there longer, has supporters talking about keeping him longer, encourages people to support his kids in their future runs after him to keep it in the family. I mean, if there's one group out there with a single minded, selfish, me first approach, the recession isn't it.

There's no game. You wished for a recession, actually wished for it before Edward's hypothetical. I think that point of view is absurd.

I mean if you've studied economics at all, you'd know that recessions are part of the normal business cycle. Hell, they are even called 'corrections' in some economic circles. I don't see anything wrong with wanting the upcoming recession to happen at an advantageous time and be small.

Good lord this board is stupid. Advantageous time for a recession for political purposes? You guys really do stick together with even the dumbest ideas I will give you that.

I can live with that.

Not everyone is as bright or altruistic as you. You win. :bowdown:

Hell, I just have a degree in economics, but what do I know?