Donald Trump impeachment investigation over Ukranian phone call...

[SG854]

I've semi-addressed this already. There are those who have entered upperclass from middleclass. This is where things get lost. You claim some have upward mobility but also ignore the downward mobility. Equal parts of people who entered upper class have fallen into lower class. We've also significantly increased the proportion of people in dual income families. We had the dot com boom, more automation, the highest worker productivity in human history, and in the end we've only obtained upward mobility for a minority. If you want to talk to individual people than you can. But multi-generational statistical trends are going to be more objective than anecdotes.

Below is a link that is a good read - It's alot but you have to start somewhere.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-6/understanding-the-labor-productivity-and-compensation-gap.htm

One income families vs two income families. There was a time when one income would be sufficient for most families, would nearly guarantee entrance into middle-class if two incomes were available. We've long lost that option and more american families are forced to have dual incomes to stay afloat. The reasoning behind this pressure for dual incomes is to secure medical benefits and provide a safety net to pay loans/bills if the other spouse is in-between jobs or the employer offers unsatisfactory benefits.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/fathers-day-facts/

"As of 2016, about a quarter of couples (27%) who live with children younger than 18 were in families where only the father works. This marked a dramatic change from 1970, when almost half of these couples (47%) were in families where only the dad worked. The share of couples living in dual-earner families has risen significantly and now comprises the majority of two-parent families with children."

I just want to drive this home about the dual income families that I didn't before. The fact that there is a significant increase in household with dual incomes and that there is not even more people in the middle and upper income bracket is further confirmation that something is broken.

There are some societal factors impacting the dip in dual income at the end, since 2000s, stay at home fathers have emerged. Mr. Moms if you will. There also is a divorce rate influence, but since divorce impacts all social classes, and an equal part of those divorce also remarry, I exclude it.

I am concluding my provision of economic information that is way off-topic. If you need more you have ample resources at your disposal. You don't need me to write essays to continue to inform you. If you want any further discussion with me you will need to provide stats and analysis. I can't just talk about anecdotes. If anyone was to actually support economic policy of any kind I would expect the math to support it or I would declare them a lunatic and move on.

Oh No, I did acknowledge downward mobility. You can look back to the first post I posted in response to your income inequality comment and you can see I mention downward mobility. Downward mobility can be cause by a number of things, someone loosing their business, someone retiring, a person selling their house they move up the income bracket then when they buy a new house they move back down.

I would say the increase in proportions of dual income families is a positive. I prefer women entering the workforce, 1) Women are not forced to be stay at home moms, and 2) dual income means more disposable income for families. Its an all around positive.


So there is an increase in wages as productivity rose, your chart shows people making more then they did in the past. It's just that wages having kept up equally with productivity. Its newer machines and robots that have increased productivity not that humans are working harder. If a company invests millions of dollars in new machines and technology who should reap the benefits of the increased productivity? Because the increased productivity was generated by the owners investment not the workers. I think technology is creating this gap. And I can only assume the democratic position is that even though all that extra money is being generated by the owners investment making him the one entitled to that money, we have to create law to redistribute that money to the workers. Basically making people nowadays earning more for less work compared to their past ancestors.

 

[billapong]

I pay my taxes, unlike billionaires and yuppie scumbags (a group you're probably a part of) that do their best to avoid supporting their country and fellow countrymen.

Yet you want Bezos money. Typical socialist leech. I support people who support themselves, not people who simply want hand outs. I'm not going to support freeloaders and if they die because they refuse to work that's their fault. Not mine. You aren't my responsibility. *spits on the ground*

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I'm not quite sure what your goals are. Do you not want a healthy economy? or a fair and representative government? or public services like firefighters, clean water, or a judicial system?

Or do you believe those things are achieved by the rich obtaining more money and not through reforms and managing influence and wealth?

Sure, I find those things you listed useful and they will vanish or become scarce if we adopt socialism. I want people to put in their best effort. Life isn't fair and it's not my responsibility to feed the rest of the world, especially people who simply refuse to work. They can starve to death and it will serve them right.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Working = rich, unemployed = poor?

Last year unemployment was 6.6mil. But 43.1mil americans were below the poverty line. On average, even with a doctorate, people are still only making five figures a year. Naivety aside, why do people want others to suffer? Where does this "I got mine, fuck everyone else" attitude come from? What happened to making America great?

Because they leeching off of me makes me poor and their attitude is "fuck you, I won't work and you have to pay for me and I'll steal all I want from you". I'm not the bad guy for sticking up for myself. The leeches who would ruin me to support their lousy life styles are the bad guys.

 

[Xzi]

Yet you want Bezos money.

I want people to pay their fair share in taxes if they want to keep calling themselves American. If you want to live in a corrupt oligarchy that provides zero services in return for taxes paid, then Russia's your best bet.

I support people who support themselves, not people who simply want hand outs.

You support the corporate status quo, which means you have no real morals or values. Socialism for the rich, bootstraps for the rest of us.

 

[osaka35]

Sure, I find those things you listed useful and they will vanish or become scarce if we adopt socialism. I want people to put in their best effort. Life isn't fair and it's not my responsibility to feed the rest of the world, especially people who simply refuse to work. They can starve to death and it will serve them right..

What about private businesses which would fail without the government bailing them out? By your logic, wouldn't they have failed hard enough to deserve death?

 

[billapong]

What about private businesses which would fail without the government bailing them out? By your logic, wouldn't they have failed hard enough to deserve death?

In life when you do anything you take the risk of failing. Life isn't fair and you can't make it that way. If you tax the rich to feed the poor the rich are victims and once the rich run out of money then everyone will be poor. If your business fails then it fails. Shit happens. You survive or you don't. The Government needs to keep its hands out of the private sector as their over involvement has stifled innovation and hurts the little man. I don't believe in "bail outs". If you get yourself into a mess than it's your job to dig yourself out and there's a possibility you may never do so. That's just life. There's no need to punish me and make me poor because other people fucked up or refuse to lift a finger. It's not my problem.

 

[tinkle]

ad hominem

Oh, sorry, I fell asleep while you lost the argument.

 

[chrisrlink]

god this turned into a toxic cestpool very fast trump supporters were always like this very close proxcimity to neo nazi's i'll just waqtch from afar and let you rabid dogs fight *pulls out a newspaper*

 

[Taleweaver]

Interesting side discussion, but I'm not sure why it's held in this thread. It's not that there's nothing happening on-topic lately...

Yesterday Gordon Sonderland testified. If that doesn't ring a bell, you might want to check back in this thread a bit (e.g. posts 203 and 217). It's the guy (okay: European ambassador) that texted Taylor that "Trump was crystal clear that he didn't want a quid quo pro" in the Zelenskiy case. He admitted he made that text, but also understood better that some things just ARE crimes even if you say you don't want it to be one. Basically, Zelensky not just had to start an investigation into Hunter Biden, but also to publicly state this(1).

In addition to that, Alexander Vindman will also make statements today. This is the first time a white house employee testifies, but he apparently also has expressed deep concerns that the presidency had plans to have a US citizen prosecuted by a foreign entity for nothing but political gains.

There's also talks of John Bolton for a future hearing. He's currently being stonewalled, but apparently he was anything but buddies with Giuliani (guess over what dispute?).




(1): while the reason of this isn't mentioned, it's not hard to guess that if this hadn't been uncovered, conservative media would ruin Joe's chances of running for president by making all sorts of allegations ("what's the worth of a man whose own son is under investigation?", "Should he be leading the country if he can't even properly raise his son?" and more of those stabs below the belt).

 

[Hanafuda]

Interesting side discussion, but I'm not sure why it's held in this thread. It's not that there's nothing happening on-topic lately...

Yesterday Gordon Sonderland testified. If that doesn't ring a bell, you might want to check back in this thread a bit (e.g. posts 203 and 217). It's the guy (okay: European ambassador) that texted Taylor that "Trump was crystal clear that he didn't want a quid quo pro" in the Zelenskiy case. He admitted he made that text, but also understood better that some things just ARE crimes even if you say you don't want it to be one. Basically, Zelensky not just had to start an investigation into Hunter Biden, but also to publicly state this(1).

In addition to that, Alexander Vindman will also make statements today. This is the first time a white house employee testifies, but he apparently also has expressed deep concerns that the presidency had plans to have a US citizen prosecuted by a foreign entity for nothing but political gains.

There's also talks of John Bolton for a future hearing. He's currently being stonewalled, but apparently he was anything but buddies with Giuliani (guess over what dispute?).

You know you're not getting any of that from actual transcripts, right? It's just what Schiff's staff is leaking, illegally. With their spin on it. The only transcript released in this whole secret circus so far was the actual phone call.

I'm not saying there hasn't been a witness yet with something damaging to say. It's possible, every public figure has enemies. Just, technically all the actual testimony you're reading about in NYT and other sources is not direct reporting ... the media is being fed the Schiff schtory, and they're printing/broadcasting it as truth.

If the House vote on Thursday is for rules of fair due process in which both parties can call witnesses, cross examine witnesses, confront their accusers, be represented by counsel of choice, then it'll be worth hearing what is said. If they vote for anything less than that, then they are just demonstrating how full of shit they are, i.e. show me the man and I will give you the crime.

 

[Taleweaver]

You know you're not getting any of that from actual transcripts, right? It's just what Schiff's staff is leaking, illegally. With their spin on it. The only transcript released in this whole secret circus so far was the actual phone call.

I'm not saying there hasn't been a witness yet with something damaging to say. It's possible, every public figure has enemies. Just, technically all the actual testimony you're reading about in NYT and other sources is not direct reporting ... the media is being fed the Schiff schtory, and they're printing/broadcasting it as truth.

If the House vote on Thursday is for rules of fair due process in which both parties can call witnesses, cross examine witnesses, confront their accusers, be represented by counsel of choice, then it'll be worth hearing what is said. If they vote for anything less than that, then they are just demonstrating how full of shit they are, i.e. show me the man and I will give you the crime.

Interesting. It's true that there's hardly (or even no) open confessions at this point. But that doesn't mean what is brought out is democratic propaganda. Heck...republicans are equally present in these hearings, and as a party, they've got more to win with an impeachment than democrats(1).

I'll also remind you that the white house continues to defy acknowledging the simple fact that the house of representatives has the sole power of impeachment. It is not something the white house can choose to ignore, so their complete lack of co-operation and attempts to forbid members to speak out are acts of crime in and off themselves. Or at the very least strongly paint the context in which the hearings take place.

House of representative republicans never lacked the power to call witnesses, talk to them and so on. They're just playing the victims because they don't have the majority there, that's all.




(1): think about it this way: Trump's popularity never rose above 50% since his inauguration. But due to him being the sitting president, any republican wanting to run for president is just dead in the water. If he's impeached, however, potential candidates have a better chance at securing a 2020 republican president.

 

[Hanafuda]

... But that doesn't mean what is brought out is democratic propaganda. Heck...republicans are equally present in these hearings ...

Are you suggesting the summaries of testimony are being leaked by Republican members of the committee?

I'll also remind you that the white house continues to defy acknowledging the simple fact that the house of representatives has the sole power of impeachment.

The White House has acknowledged that. The House of Representatives has the power, i.e. the whole body, not the Speaker, not any individual committee. And a proper resolution would establish an impeachment committee, not designate the impeachment investigation to an existing committee which already has a job.

Thursday will be the fourth time since December 2017 that the Democrats have held a vote on whether to open an impeachment inquiry. At least the previous three times they did actually vote on it, instead of just going ahead with it without voting first as they did this time.

Also, as far as I know fewer than 40 members of the House can attend and have access to transcripts of Schiff's secret hearings, and are sworn to secrecy about the specifics (leaks notwithstanding). So everyone else in the House voting on Thursday, i.e. the other 400 members, will be doing so based on media reports and scuttlebutt, not actual evidence.

 

[Lacius]

I've posted elsewhere here, recently, that I support public schools. Perhaps I should have been more specific that I support the traditional form of public education, which is through secondary school. That's enough, if the schools are doing their job of teaching correctly, to prepare a person to function as a adult in the workplace and society generally. But Xzi said "higher education." Sorry, can't get on board with that.

But as I said before, no founding document establishes any of those things as rights. They have never historically been considered rights in the USA. If you want them to be rights, pass an amendment.




You're quite wrong, but judging from your immediate use of ad hominem, that probably isn't something you worry about.

Your distinction between free secondary education and free higher education is arbitrary, and it's harmful.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Oh No, I did acknowledge downward mobility. You can look back to the first post I posted in response to your income inequality comment and you can see I mention downward mobility. Downward mobility can be cause by a number of things, someone loosing their business, someone retiring, a person selling their house they move up the income bracket then when they buy a new house they move back down.

Those few things you state in relation to downward mobility are not things that would impact multigenerational data I presented. So I stand by my earlier statement. Those things could explain a temporary shift during a recession, but not the data I provided. And certainly not during economic booms like the .com boom. Please go back and review. I'm not going to debate math with someone who isn't understanding the data beyond a case by case interpretation to try and twist data to only suite their narrative.

I would say the increase in proportions of dual income families is a positive. I prefer women entering the workforce, 1) Women are not forced to be stay at home moms, and 2) dual income means more disposable income for families. Its an all around positive.

I'm not opposed to women participating in the workforce. However, this is Dis-ingenious and such a fallacy to ignore the larger issue. You aren't digesting the facts provided. I keep stating them but it's hard to understand if you are genuinely trying to discuss but so confused on the actual state of reality or if you purposefully keep spouting things that are just demonstrably misleading to avoid addressing the points I have provided in a legitimate manner.

I never said Dual income is a negative thing. However, dual income has become a necessity to offset the lack of increase in wages for an increased proportion of families. Many families have the same purchasing power with two people working than back in the 70s when it was more common to have only a single income provider. We have the same purchasing power which means we are effectively being paid less. That can't be that hard to grasp, can it? We should have seen an increase of the middle class and the upper class by the increase in dual income families but the middle class has only decreased and worse the lower class has increased. This confirms that there is an issue w/ our economy and how it is currently structured.

So there is an increase in wages as productivity rose, your chart shows people making more then they did in the past. It's just that wages having kept up equally with productivity. Its newer machines and robots that have increased productivity not that humans are working harder. If a company invests millions of dollars in new machines and technology who should reap the benefits of the increased productivity? Because the increased productivity was generated by the owners investment not the workers. I think technology is creating this gap. And I can only assume the democratic position is that even though all that extra money is being generated by the owners investment making him the one entitled to that money, we have to create law to redistribute that money to the workers. Basically making people nowadays earning more for less work compared to their past ancestors.

'My chart' - label which one you are referencing. I'm presuming you mean the Productivity chart from Department of Labor.

Of course technology created this gap. No one is confused about this. That's not even worth mentioning. The productivity of workers increases. What goods and services we can provide in a given day with the same labor has increased. Our pay for our labor has not increased as it should. The profits of that productivity increase has not gone to the workforce in any rate that is remotely equivalent to the rate that goes to investors and owners. This is the point, you say you have to create a law to address this, however, we had unions that negotiated on behalf of the workers to ensure their labor was compensated. We've allowed laws (such as 'right to work' among a multitude of others) to cripple the bargaining power workers of a given industry have to ensure proper wages according to their labor.

You still have yet to provide relevant statistics and a proper analysis for us to discuss your point of view. I'm still waiting. If your intent is to merely question mine, then you are doing both of us a disservice.

One final note, 'all that extra money being generated by the owner's investment making him entitled to that money'. I don't think the owner is the one who generates all that extra money if we are talking about labor productivity of workers. Maybe you can clarify because if you think an owner who benefits from the fruits of his employees, from their ingenuity/resourcefulness in cutting costs or expanding client share by using automated tasks that they or another entity other than the owner created, that he should not provide a portion of the profits, to ensure fair compensation of wages that increase as his? Better yet. Don't answer or respond to this as well until you bring a relevant statistic and analysis. For clarity, I'm not talking about a small business owners. I'm talking about CEOs of large corporations and stock investors of publicly traded companies.

Even companies that invest in automation via robotics still have to have workers skilled in the installation, operation, and maintenance of those devices but are they being promptly rewarded at the same growth rate as the CEO and investors year after year? Workers that are undoubtedly essential to the growth and expansion of the business are not compensated on average with a growth rate that is anywhere near the +900% salary jump of CEOs or +%700 jump of stock investors.

I'm talking about growth rates of wages. I'm not sure you can view beyond a single snapshot but I'm discussing something that occurred during the span of my entire lifetime.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Are you suggesting the summaries of testimony are being leaked by Republican members of the committee?




The White House has acknowledged that. The House of Representatives has the power, i.e. the whole body, not the Speaker, not any individual committee. And a proper resolution would establish an impeachment committee, not designate the impeachment investigation to an existing committee which already has a job.

Thursday will be the fourth time since December 2017 that the Democrats have held a vote on whether to open an impeachment inquiry. At least the previous three times they did actually vote on it, instead of just going ahead with it without voting first as they did this time.

Also, as far as I know fewer than 40 members of the House can attend and have access to transcripts of Schiff's secret hearings, and are sworn to secrecy about the specifics (leaks notwithstanding). So everyone else in the House voting on Thursday, i.e. the other 400 members, will be doing so based on media reports and scuttlebutt, not actual evidence.

What they are voting for, just to be clear, is procedural rules of the hearings, ie the format for how they will be conducted. This is not on any articles of impeachment or anything that would require an ounce of evidence. I'm not sure if you are misinformed about the vote or merely gas-lighting.

 

[Hanafuda]

Your distinction between free secondary education and free higher education is arbitrary, and it's harmful.

Ridiculous. And it's not my distinction, it's a historical one. And not just in the US but pretty much globally. I know some countries in Europe have started offering conditional "free" college, but it's a rather recent thing. And it's probably gonna happen here eventually. Doesn't mean I have to think it's the way it should be though.

What they are voting for, just to be clear, is procedural rules of the hearings, ie the format for how they will be conducted. This is not on any articles of impeachment or anything that would require an ounce of evidence. I'm not sure if you are misinformed about the vote or merely gas-lighting.

Yes, I've read that. I referred to that above when I said they need to vote on public hearings where "both parties can call witnesses, cross examine witnesses, confront their accusers, be represented by counsel of choice" to prove this isn't rigged. But why did the House feel it was necessary to have a vote three times before since Dec 2017 on whether to open an impeachment inquiry, but this time the Speaker just announced it was happening without any vote? Because they couldn't get the votes all those other times, so they just did away with it? Defend that.

Voting on procedural rules for an impeachment inquiry, when there hasn't yet been a vote on whether there should be an impeachment inquiry, necessarily requires that the members are voting to approve or reject the inquiry itself. So I disagree with this "it's just about the rules" angle.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Ridiculous. And it's not my distinction, it's a historical one. And not just in the US but pretty much globally. I know some countries in Europe have started offering conditional "free" college, but it's a rather recent thing. And it's probably gonna happen here eventually. Doesn't mean I have to think it's the way it should be though.





Yes, I've read that. I referred to that above when I said they need to vote on public hearings where "both parties can call witnesses, cross examine witnesses, confront their accusers, be represented by counsel of choice" to prove this isn't rigged. But why did the House feel it was necessary to have a vote three times before since Dec 2017 on whether to open an impeachment inquiry, but this time the Speaker just announced it was happening without any vote? Because they couldn't get the votes all those other times, so they just did away with it? Defend that.

Voting on procedural rules for an impeachment inquiry, when there hasn't yet been a vote on whether there should be an impeachment inquiry, necessarily requires that the members are voting to approve or reject the inquiry itself. So I disagree with this "it's just about the rules" angle.

You can reject it but it isn't required. You can claim historical precedent but that's fine. The committees themselves that are involved could vote to dismiss their involvement if they so desired. As far as "both parties can call witnesses, cross examine witnesses, confront their accusers, be represented by counsel of choice" - this will be decided and outlined by Thursday's vote. I'm not concerned with how the process has proceeded because no rules have been broken. If we want to require such votes before proceeding in an inquiry then it needs be written in as a rule. Historical precedent can't be relied on in our government. This goes for both sides. I didn't argue about Mitch McConnell holding up a confirmation vote for a supreme court justice as we didn't put in effect in the rules that he couldn't. If you don't pressure our officials to fix the process using written rules then all you are doing is the same as what the republicans are doing, pounding sand.

 

[Lacius]

Ridiculous. And it's not my distinction, it's a historical one. And not just in the US but pretty much globally. I know some countries in Europe have started offering conditional "free" college, but it's a rather recent thing. And it's probably gonna happen here eventually. Doesn't mean I have to think it's the way it should be though.





Yes, I've read that. I referred to that above when I said they need to vote on public hearings where "both parties can call witnesses, cross examine witnesses, confront their accusers, be represented by counsel of choice" to prove this isn't rigged. But why did the House feel it was necessary to have a vote three times before since Dec 2017 on whether to open an impeachment inquiry, but this time the Speaker just announced it was happening without any vote? Because they couldn't get the votes all those other times, so they just did away with it? Defend that.

Voting on procedural rules for an impeachment inquiry, when there hasn't yet been a vote on whether there should be an impeachment inquiry, necessarily requires that the members are voting to approve or reject the inquiry itself. So I disagree with this "it's just about the rules" angle.

Can you articulate why one should be free but the other should not be free? If you cannot, the distinction is arbitrary, as I said.

 

[billapong]

gas-lighting.

As a victim of actual years long abuse by gas-lighting I find your comments highly offending. For almost a decade I was submitted to it so your frivolent use is horse shit. It's like people saying "They feel raped" about situations that don't involve being held down and forced to participate in sexual actions. Let me tell you, if I were to actually gas light you or rape you I think you'd wouldn't use the words so liberally.

 

[Hanafuda]

Can you articulate why one should be free but the other should not be free? If you cannot, the distinction is arbitrary, as I said.

Well I'd say the most significant distinction, besides the fact that it has been the norm historically in developed nations for over a century, is that generally speaking secondary education covers until the age of adulthood. Once you're an adult, the direction you take and choices you make are yours, or should be.

Is the traditional separation of free public education through secondary school, but not for college, arbitrary? I guess to an extent it is, but when it comes to government provided services, the cutoff usually is to some extent.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

As a victim of actual years long abuse by gas-lighting I find your comments highly offending. For almost a decade I was submitted to it so your frivolent use is horse shit. It's like people saying "They feel raped" about situations that don't involve being held down and forced to participate in sexual actions. Let me tell you, if I were to actually gas light you or rape you I think you'd wouldn't use the words so liberally.

While this doesn't dignify a real response given your responses so far I feel it best to nip this here and now. If you genuinely find offense to a term and demand others to give respect and credence, then you will need to carry yourself in a manner to give in kind.

Furthermore, you couldn't gaslight me in the context as you are suggesting as I'm not subject to your authority. There is a specific and intended use of gaslight in politics, it's been used for years. People have used other terms that have been tabooed in political discussions. Our current president uses witch-hunt, lynching, just to name a few. If you denounce the uses of those by Trump as aggressively as you brought your complaint to me then I would be apt take you seriously as you would have principled ground to stand on.

For now, by someone who has warred against political correctness and all other 'liberal agendas', I just can't. I believe you are an insincere political activist who sways to interject in any manner possible to distract from the current topic of discussion as discussing the current facts are inconvenient for your objective.

 

[billapong]

While this doesn't dignify a real response given your responses so far I feel it best to nip this here and now. If you genuinely find offense to a term and demand others to give respect and credence, then you will need to carry yourself in a manner to give in kind.

Furthermore, you couldn't gaslight me in the context as you are suggesting as I'm not subject to your authority. There is a specific and intended use of gaslight in politics, it's been used for years. People have used other terms that have been tabooed in political discussions. Our current president uses witch-hunt, lynching, just to name a few. If you denounce the uses of those by Trump as aggressively as you brought your complaint to me then I would be apt take you seriously as you would have principled ground to stand on.

For now, by someone who has warred against political correctness and all other 'liberal agendas', I just can't. I believe you are an insincere political activist who sways to interject in any manner possible to distract from the current topic of discussion as discussing the current facts are inconvenient for your objective.

I'm not trying to interfere with the hate Trump circle jerk. I was pointing out that as someone who has been abused your liberal use of the term gas lighting is offensive - just the same outrage you'd find from the Liberals who claim Trump using the word lynching is wrong. Except, they get a pass, right? My objection is relevant because I'm directly responding to the discussion. It's the same thing as the people in LBTQxyz123 threads saying they feel "this and that". If I'm breaking the rules then every one of their posts related to how they "feel" should be removed. As for Trump being impeached, nothing has changed - it still hasn't happened.