• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

The 110,000,000,000$ gift to Afghanistan would provide 2,750,000 4 year degrees

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
US military spending is a travesty.

Whether or not Bernie could enact any of his more outlandish schemes, he's the only person I trust in this race to NOT send out troops all over the world. Hillary is as much a warmonger as any of the Republicans.
 

Hugo Drax

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2011
5,649
47
91
Well at least Trumps game is more into Casinos,hotels and entertainment. I would rather have someone who profits from that than another warmonger who profits from war and getting into world affairs we have no business getting into.

Trumps best interests is not more wars since he makes no profits on them unlike clinton and bush.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,032
2,588
126
Well at least Trumps game is more into Casinos,hotels and entertainment. I would rather have someone who profits from that than another warmonger who profits from war and getting into world affairs we have no business getting into.

Trumps best interests is not more wars since he makes no profits on them unlike clinton and bush.
Trumps game is to start business and see what works and what doesn't. Do you believe for one moment that if elected President he wouldn't start some business to profit on the decisions he makes?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Here's a hypothetical:

You are President and Lord Emperor of the United States and have recently happened upon a forgotten fund of one billion dollars to use in any way you please. You're feeling generous, and want to help the little people in some way. Two groups approach you.

One represents an American student group 30,000 strong, all of which are upper-middle class. Their parents make too much money to receive a free ride through undergrad, and so they have to take out loans instead. They will graduate with significant debt, and it may take them a couple decades to pay it down depending on how good they are at saving their money.

Another represents Sandistanabad, an impoverished war-stricken nation with minimal natural resources in the middle of a record-breaking drought. You can supply potable water, simple housing, and basic staple foods and ensure that 300,000 of their most vulnerable do not die.

Which group do you fund and why?
Sandistanabad sounds like a place where those 300,000 people want me dead anyway.

Not to worry. Your boy, the Trumpster, promises boots on the ground in Syria & carpet bombing of ISIS held territory so that the proud tradition of American Exceptionalism & spreading Democracy with the guns of the Neocons will continue.

Of course Afghanistan turned into a cock-up. It was an eyes wide shut Republican plan, remember?
The Republicans look especially bad considering that Syria and Libya are now virtual paradises, eh?

Sanders says that waste and fraud, bad trade deals, and a few other related issues are major problems, but that none of them will end as long as our politicians are owned by Wallstreet. If you want to tackle those issues you have to first tackle the issue of our government being run by corporations. Trump of course does not want to talk about that because he is literally the face of a corporation.

The immigration issue is somewhere that is in full disagreement. Sanders and his supporters simply do not see it as a major problem. We are a nation of immigrants, it has always been that way. The main problem with illegal immigration is that our immigration laws are too hard to navigate. Fewer immigrants would be illegal if we made it easier to be a legal immigrant.

But that is not what the Conservative crowed wants to hear because what they are really trying to say is that there are too many dark skinned people about and the liberal solution to illegal immigration does nothing to solve that.
It's certainly true that far fewer immigrants would be illegal if we made it easier to be a legal immigrant. That is a solution exactly like raising the legal definition of theft to anything over $5,000 is a solution to shoplifting. Shoplifting laws are just too hard to navigate. But thanks for playing the race card; certainly none of us expected that. We are laughing in awe of your brilliance.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,177
18,977
136
Sandistanabad sounds like a place where those 300,000 people want me dead anyway.


The Republicans look especially bad considering that Syria and Libya are now virtual paradises, eh?


It's certainly true that far fewer immigrants would be illegal if we made it easier to be a legal immigrant. That is a solution exactly like raising the legal definition of theft to anything over $5,000 is a solution to shoplifting. Shoplifting laws are just too hard to navigate. But thanks for playing the race card; certainly none of us expected that. We are laughing in awe of your brilliance.
This is a terrible analogy as shoplifting is basically universally regarded as bad. Immigration can be good or bad. If our requirements are criminalizing perfectly good immigration then they definitely are a problem.
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
8,847
222
106
Here's a hypothetical:

You are President and Lord Emperor of the United States and have recently happened upon a forgotten fund of one billion dollars to use in any way you please. You're feeling generous, and want to help the little people in some way. Two groups approach you.

One represents an American student group 30,000 strong, all of which are upper-middle class. Their parents make too much money to receive a free ride through undergrad, and so they have to take out loans instead. They will graduate with significant debt, and it may take them a couple decades to pay it down depending on how good they are at saving their money.

Another represents Sandistanabad, an impoverished war-stricken nation with minimal natural resources in the middle of a record-breaking drought. You can supply potable water, simple housing, and basic staple foods and ensure that 300,000 of their most vulnerable do not die.

Which group do you fund and why?
Are you implying that only upper-middle class kids have to take out loans for school?

Or do you just feel like asking loaded questions?
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,210
456
126
I bet that money can build a wall across Mexico and the change fix up a large part of our crumbling bridges/infrastructure in the US. It would provide jobs here in the US as well.

We already have the most effective wall ready and able to stop illegal immigration as well as outsourcing/ h1b visa abuse and restore the prosperity which fewer and fewer remember,

It's called hire an American
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,137
13,081
136
US military spending is a travesty.

Whether or not Bernie could enact any of his more outlandish schemes, he's the only person I trust in this race to NOT send out troops all over the world. Hillary is as much a warmonger as any of the Republicans.
Which explains her support for the Iran deal & Rebubs raving like it's the end of the world, I suppose.

I don't have a problem downsizing the military. OTOH, it's basically a very expensive jobs & tech training program so what should we do to replace that aspect of it?

As we've seen, it's also dangerous to have that kind of power because sooner or later some bunch of damned fools will use it for something other than a deterrent. Given the chance, our Neocon friends will find excuses to use it.
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,354
126
I'd prefer it go to infrastructure investment here at home but the point is taken. Free higher education drives up the price of that higher ed (even though it's free, it's not free), dilutes the quality that can be delivered given the influx of demand on limited resources, and even though it doesn't make the best selling point the student body as a whole is better served with some skin in the game (the same argument was made for mortgage originators and risk retention) so that the resources aren't wasted.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,032
2,588
126
It's certainly true that far fewer immigrants would be illegal if we made it easier to be a legal immigrant. That is a solution exactly like raising the legal definition of theft to anything over $5,000 is a solution to shoplifting. Shoplifting laws are just too hard to navigate.
I ask myself why do you believe that immigration is bad? I am willing to bet that someone in your direct family history was an immigrant. So I'm left with two solutions that I can think of:
1. You are racist and think that more dark skinned people is bad.
2. You believe that adding more people floods the job market with out increasing demand.

Number 1 is an opinion, one that I do not like, but ultimately just an opinion.
Number 2 is demonstrably false. People need things to survive. If more people are buying thing to survive demand for those things increase.

So, I'm left to believe that you are either a racist or stupid.


But thanks for playing the race card; certainly none of us expected that. We are laughing in awe of your brilliance.
I noticed that you don't deny my claim, you just don't like that I made it.
Maybe because it is hard to defend?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,137
13,081
136
I'd prefer it go to infrastructure investment here at home but the point is taken. Free higher education drives up the price of that higher ed (even though it's free, it's not free), dilutes the quality that can be delivered given the influx of demand on limited resources, and even though it doesn't make the best selling point the student body as a whole is better served with some skin in the game (the same argument was made for mortgage originators and risk retention) so that the resources aren't wasted.
You're comparing apples to aardvarks.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
I ask myself why do you believe that immigration is bad? I am willing to bet that someone in your direct family history was an immigrant. So I'm left with two solutions that I can think of:
1. You are racist and think that more dark skinned people is bad.
2. You believe that adding more people floods the job market with out increasing demand.

Number 1 is an opinion, one that I do not like, but ultimately just an opinion.
Number 2 is demonstrably false. People need things to survive. If more people are buying thing to survive demand for those things increase.

So, I'm left to believe that you are either a racist or stupid.
This is one of the worst posts you've ever made. You're either stupid or... stupid.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,032
2,588
126
This is one of the worst posts you've ever made. You're either stupid or... stupid.
I see you really have this arguing thing down, but I think I can see a problem with one of your premises. You don't have one.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
I see you really have this arguing thing down, but I think I can see a problem with one of your premises. You don't have one.
Your post was so bad, a fleshed out response seemed unnecessary. But if you're going to double down on stupidity, I might as well respond.

First, the conversation is about illegal immigration. As unhinged nutjobs tend to do, you filter out the pieces of the conversation that don't fit your insanity. This leads you to start with the race card.

1. You are racist and think that more dark skinned people is bad.
As is usually the case, when a nutter leads with the race card, it probably means their hand it pretty bad. But we'll continue anyway.

2. You believe that adding more people floods the job market with out increasing demand.
Well that's one option I suppose. Though I saw nothing that indicated anyone believed this, so... nice strawman? You did fail to leave out other option grounded in reality such as the economic benefit of an illegal immigrant being outweighed by the economic damage they do to the value of labor. Reality being in direct opposition to insanity, I can see why you'd avoid it though. So let's find out where this blisteringly painful stupidity leads you:

Number 2 is demonstrably false. People need things to survive. If more people are buying thing to survive demand for those things increase.
People need things to survive. That's brilliant. Someone alert the Nobel committee. They're going to want to hear about you.

Did it ever occur to you that a job given to an illegal immigrant for $4/hr instead of an American for $8/hr actually reduces aggregate demand? Needing things to live doesn't magically increase spending power. "Oh," but you say, "that illegal immigrant is now creating demand, and that American can provide them things needed to survive!" Yes, I suppose they may. They could provide $4/hr worth of things that the illegal immigrant needs to survive . But it would probably be better if the American were getting paid $8/hr, and buying things needed to survive from another American. Don't ya think?

It's truly bizarre to watch Democrats complain about the race to the bottom, but as soon as the topic turns to illegal immigration they switch their brains off and insist that low wage workers are an economic boon. "$15 MINIMUM WAGE NOW!!! BUT BRING IN MORE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TO DO JOBS AMERICANS WON'T DO BECAUSE IT WILL CREATE DEMAND!!! THEY NEED THINGS TO SURVIVE!!!" If that's the case, then eliminating the minimum wage would have no negative affect on the economy. Paying people next to nothing won't matter, we'll make it up in demand. Because we need things to survive.

And finally, based on your own complete lack of logic and/or intelligence, you determined that werepossum was "racist or stupid". I think you have the right labels, but you're not applying them correctly. Put those stickers on your forehead, chief.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,175
423
126
^
Heh!
Now that post was a bit of an ass-whippin' but the dolt being responded to deserved it.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,660
4,483
126
That's pennies compared to how much the wars cost us. But I guess wars are OK, but money for roads is the one I should be upset about?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY