No Joy in Trumpville Today

digitusmedius said:

And straw-man arguments like that are the rightwing stock-in-trade alternative to having any kind of valid argument.

Click to expand...

where have you called for less government?

pinqy said:

I once saw a young guy, early 20's, driving a fairly nice Volvo up to a pawnshop to cell cds because he did not know the value of a dollar and spent too much on what luxury goods he could afford and didn't have enough to maintain that.

Click to expand...

The problem with argument by anecdote is that it doesn't evaluate the statistical trends.

Are the poor more rational spenders than the wealthy?

http://www.theguardian.com/business...en-wealth-distributed-to-poor-instead-of-rich

9 obscene ways the rich spend their money - Salon.com

Absentglare said:

The problem with argument by anecdote is that it doesn't evaluate the statistical trends.

Click to expand...

And the problem with a generalized statement about a diverse group is that one anecdote is enough to make it not true.

Poor people pay closer attention to small transactions and budgeting and spending. Because they have to. That richer people do not, does not necessarily mean they are worse at it. But rich people are better at handling large sums of money. I believe that about a third of major lottery winners lose it all within 5 years?

Are the poor more rational spenders than the wealthy?

Economic growth more likely when wealth distributed to poor instead of rich | Business | The Guardian

9 obscene ways the rich spend their money - Salon.com

Click to expand...

The last two links agree with what I was saying about wealth distribution. Right now, the U.S. GINI coefficient is higher than is probably ideal.

TurtleDude said:

where have you called for less government?

Click to expand...

I was gonna ask the same thing.

pinqy said:

And the problem with a generalized statement about a diverse group is that one anecdote is enough to make it not true.

Poor people pay closer attention to small transactions and budgeting and spending. Because they have to. That richer people do not, does not necessarily mean they are worse at it. But rich people are better at handling large sums of money. I believe that about a third of major lottery winners lose it all within 5 years?


The last two links agree with what I was saying about wealth distribution. Right now, the U.S. GINI coefficient is higher than is probably ideal.

Click to expand...

My point was that if you're trying to sell $300 ice cubes to rich morons, you'll probably have to spend a lot of money on extravagance in ways that are in direct conflict with poor people's lifelong spending habits. They've been concerned with survival, so they have a harder time appealing to wasteful, superficial financial flamboyancy. Their financial coping mechanisms make them poorly suited for selling luxury goods.

pinqy said:

I once saw a young guy, early 20's, driving a fairly nice Volvo up to a pawnshop to cell cds because he did not know the value of a dollar and spent too much on what luxury goods he could afford and didn't have enough to maintain that.

Click to expand...

I once saw a pig fly.

TurtleDude said:

contribution level

Click to expand...

Same thing, or at least should be. Of course in Trump's example he wouldn't be allowed to vote and, of course, shouldn't be allowed to run for any kind of office if we're going to parcel out citizenship rights based on the amount of taxes (sorry, "contributions") paid. You wanna rethink this idea or call a friend?

digitusmedius said:

Same thing, or at least should be. Of course in Trump's example he wouldn't be allowed to vote and, of course, shouldn't be allowed to run for any kind of office if we're going to parcel out citizenship rights based on the amount of taxes (sorry, "contributions") paid. You wanna rethink this idea or call a friend?

Click to expand...

Are you arguing Trump hasn't been a net tax payer over the course of his life? I bet his father's estate paid millions

TurtleDude said:

you miss the point. You have a Clinton attack pac attacking a senator for agreeing with Clinton

Click to expand...

Now you're adding context that wasn't present in the original comment and also renders your assumption not just false but completely senseless.

digitusmedius said:

Now you're adding context that wasn't present in the original comment and also renders your assumption not just false but completely senseless.

Click to expand...

you're missing the entire point

TurtleDude said:

you must be reading something I didn't write

try again

Click to expand...

You wrote this at #182:

Its always hilarious listening to people who aren't all that wealthy or successful constantly lecturing others about economics.

Click to expand...

This suggests that only rich people really understand economics which is patently and absurdly false. In fact, judging by the behavior and track record of many rich people it appears that the opposite could be true--your Trump being a prime example. What he's really hiding is what an utter failure on balance his economic judgment has been time and time again. But it underlies the fundamental ignorance of the idea that making a lot of money is the same as economics much less confers wisdom on economics by people who have a lot of money. But it does reveal this worship of rich people by the people of your political stripe and thus explains why you vote so many morons who habitually ruin the economy whenever they get the chance. And finally it makes the false assumption that only people who aren't successful are doing the lecturing. I'd suggest that you pay some more attention to what Warren Buffett is saying about your boy and his trumped-up-trickle-down fiscal ideas.

TurtleDude said:

Are you arguing Trump hasn't been a net tax payer over the course of his life? I bet his father's estate paid millions

Click to expand...

I'll bet he didn't. And relative to Trump's assertions to the size of his wealth and what we're finding out now about how he's used his "foundation" to play fast and loose with what would have been taxable income I'd bet that his effective tax rate has always been lower than what most middle class taxpayers pay. His tax returns would show us a Mt. Everest of shadiness if not downright tax fraud.

TurtleDude said:

where have you called for less government?

Click to expand...

The reduction ad absurdum position that less government is better government; that idiotic adage that "the government that governs least governs best." It's a nice sound bite or bumper sticker slogan but it's meaningless. The best government is government that protects its citizens from abuse by other citizens (as well as itself, course). When have you ever called for that kind of government? Isn't your real wish for a "government" that allows you to do anything you want but not necessarily for anyone else to be able to if your ox is in danger of being gored? That's really it, isn't it? You want a government that supports the things you like and doesn't for things you don't like. IOW, there's nothing different about what you want than what you accuse your political adversaries from wanting.

TurtleDude said:

you're missing the entire point

Click to expand...

And your "broken record" response indicates that you never had one.

BrewerBob said:

Trump started off strong, easily winning the first 1/3 of the debate. But he obviously didn't prepare for the hard questions, which is odd because he had to know they were coming. I guarantee you Hillary already has her answers ready for things about Benghazi and the Clinton Foundation. Trump's ADD is getting the better of him.

Click to expand...

The focus groups disagree with you. The majority, of the 2 focus groups I read about, thought Clinton had it throughout the debate, to varying degrees. Even the members of the focus groups (who were independents) who leaned Trump.

The polls (not online polls, which are not real polls) are now coming in and showing that Clinton won the debate. The expression on Trump's face immediately after the debate showed that he knew Clinton had gotten the better of him.

But I understand that Trump's supporters are taking a cue from Trump: Never, never admit you lost (at anything). Even if you know you lost, say you won. If you say it enough times, people will believe you.

That is for real Trump's philosophy. Guess who else had that philosophy?

Another of Trump's philosophic beliefs: Never admit you were wrong. Never.

Another of Trump's philosophic beliefs: If someone gets the better of you or attacks you, double down and spare nothing and no one in attacking back full force....no apologies (and the truth be dammed). Unfortunately, Trump directs his attacks at little people with no power (like the beauty queen), so it amounts to bullying, really. Or, he attacks back by lying on the spur of the moment, forgetting that his prior statements are on tape (proving he's lying).

Another of Trump's beliefs (taken from Carl Rove): Whatever your weakness is, claim that your opponent has that weakness. (You heard an example of this in the debate, when Trump claimed his temperament is much better than Clinton's. Unfortunately it didn't work; the audience laughed.) You heard an example of this earlier in the campaign, when his team claimed Clinton is mentally unstable, can't control herself (this is in fact what some people have stated, because of his behavior - but it wasn't Clinton's campaign, at least at time).