America - The Official Thread

[Rallywagon]

Uh... ok those are two separate things. Why would you link them? Spending vs. Income are not really the same thing. So why would you refuse to change your incorrect assumptions about income because of spending?

ok, well, we were actually talking about taxes. Danoff brought up GDP. I expanded my discussion based off that.

They don't. I didn't ask you to.

groovy.

Not seeing where you're going with this.

The point being people have been working for under their fair value cause people still need to put food on the table, so idea that companies are paying fair wagesis probably bs.

You seem to be keen on drawing economic conclusions anyway.

damn straight, but Ill keep that in mind next time you comment on something your not an expert on. BTW, where did you get your economics degree and what major bank do you work for exactly?

Economics is not really a matter of opinion. You're just drawing incorrect conclusions from incorrect assumptions. This is not a case of "I don't like the color blue", this is a case of "1+1=3".

Agree to disagree. Btw. 5. 1+1 is 5, unless I follows E, then its 12.

 

[Danoff]

ok, well, we were actually talking about taxes. Danoff brought up GDP. I expanded my discussion based off that.

...to demonstrate how revenue can go up when taxes go down. Which was exactly counter to your point.

The point being people have been working for under their fair value cause people still need to put food on the table, so idea that companies are paying fair wagesis probably bs.

Define fair.

damn straight, but Ill keep that in mind next time you comment on something your not an expert on. BTW, where did you get your economics degree and what major bank do you work for exactly?

You don't need a degree to discuss facts.

 

[Rallywagon]

...to demonstrate how revenue can go up when taxes go down. Which was exactly counter to your point.




Define fair.



You don't need a degree to discuss facts.

That's called the Laffer curve I believe, which isnt always applicable. If I recall, the initial tax rate has to be higher than that of the Laffer peak. Is that the case today?

Fair being something both parties agree is fair. Someone who had to take a job because they have to feed their kids doesnt mean they feel are being fairly paid, it just means they had to find a job to feed their kids.

Great on that last point. Maybe keep that in mind next time you want to point out Im not an expert.

 

[Danoff]

That's called the Laffer curve I believe, which isnt always applicable. If I recall, the initial tax rate has to be higher than that of the Laffer peak. Is that the case today?

The Laffer curve is... kinda the general principal behind it. I'm not specifically claiming the federal budget can be modeled that simply.

Fair being something both parties agree is fair. Someone who had to take a job because they have to feed their kids doesnt mean they feel are being fairly paid, it just means they had to find a job to feed their kids.

Are you saying that if someone thinks they should be paid more that their wage is unfair? Or that if an employer thinks you should be paid less that your wage is unfair? That would mean that there is no such thing as fair.

Great on that last point. Maybe keep that in mind next time you want to point out Im not an expert.

I'm not saying you need to be an expert about it. I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about. There's a difference.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Who are some people who could start to bring the country back together (maybe as president)? Ideally it would be someone tolerable to both sides, even if not exactly loved by either. It will probably need to be somebody notable enough to be taken seriously, but definitely not a celebrity.

John Kasich is one I often see capable of this.
Al Franken ? Idk if he's ever coming back
Joe Biden? Sometimes I think he's too confrontational
Michael Bloomberg?

Man, that's all I got.

Maybe??

A Michael Bloomberg presidential candidate with somebody with bonafide progressive chops (Elizabeth Warren, to be specific) as a running mate would be a very solid democratic ticket, IMO. You could roll all of the independents, progressives, and moderates (from both sides of the aisle) into one coalition with those two, probably representative of 2/3 or more of the country. Hell, it might even save the Democratic party. Trump can say he isn't scared of MB all he wants, but I can almost promise you it's his worst nightmare.

 

[PocketZeven]

Maybe??

A Michael Bloomberg presidential candidate with somebody with bonafide progressive chops (Elizabeth Warren, to be specific) as a running mate would be a very solid democratic ticket, IMO. You could roll all of the independents, progressives, and moderates (from both sides of the aisle) into one coalition with those two, probably representative of 2/3 or more of the country. Hell, it might even save the Democratic party. Trump can say he isn't scared of MB all he wants, but I can almost promise you it's his worst nightmare.

I am still hoping for Oprah and Tom hanks as vice president

 

[Sanji Himura]

The contents of the article to which you linked contradict the assertion you made in linking to it.

The article states that her actions provoked a response from a single person representing a people in an official capacity only. In addition, that response isn't indicative of outrage, rather it reads like an official statement.

I had Pat Gray explain the outrage. The reason why they are so outraged is because each tribe has their own way of legitimizing blood results on an individual person. I should know this because I claim to be a member of two tribes, but I just don't know the process of being legitimized within the tribe.

 

[Rallywagon]

I had Pat Gray explain the outrage. The reason why they are so outraged is because each tribe has their own way of legitimizing blood results on an individual person. I should know this because I claim to be a member of two tribes, but I just don't know the process of being legitimized within the tribe.

Google blood quantum. That's generally how its figured out. That's is to say, an arbitrary number is picked and you need that percentage of native blood.
Which is why a tribe, regardless of Warren's ancestors, would not take her. It's not that she doesnt have native ancestry. It's that she doesnt have enough.

 

[TexRex]

I had Pat Gray explain the outrage. The reason why they are so outraged is because each tribe has their own way of legitimizing blood results on an individual person.

'Kay...

...what outrage?

The right's use of that word is hilarious. Any reaction to anything from "librulz" is labeled as such, and now an official response to the actions of a liberal figurehead is referred to as such.

Your inability to present anything that indicates actual outrage suggests that there is none, and you simply wish to suggest someone with whom you disagree did something worthy of actual outrage.

 

[PocketZeven]

'Kay...

...what outrage?

The right's use of that word is hilarious. Any reaction to anything from "librulz" is labeled as such, and now an official response to the actions of a liberal figurehead is referred to as such.

Your inability to present anything that indicates actual outrage suggests that there is none, and you simply wish to suggest someone with whom you disagree did something worthy of actual outrage.

I have seen "X outrage over X", "you wont believe", "X destroys X" etc. seem to be more and more common in clickbait kind of titles. CNN, Fox etc.are guilty of using these terms to bait people more and more often.

 

[Sanji Himura]

'Kay...

...what outrage?

I don't think that anyone here is disputing anything at this point. However, in the interest of fairness here, it is the outrage that is exemplified by the indian tribes over HOW Elizabeth Warren proved that she is Cherokee.

The right's use of that word is hilarious. Any reaction to anything from "librulz" is labeled as such, and now an official response to the actions of a liberal figurehead is referred to as such.

Again, I don't dispute what Elizabeth Warren is selling here with the test. The issue is how she suddenly became a public figure for the Native American tribes by making these results public.

Your inability to present anything that indicates actual outrage suggests that there is none, and you simply wish to suggest someone with whom you disagree did something worthy of actual outrage.

Again, I don't have an official position over Sen. Warren's claims here. By even remotely suggesting that I somehow do have a position is ill-guided at best and intellectually dishonest at worse.

Native American tribes just have their own way of doing things (as they are semi-independent of each other). What outrage is there, if any, is HOW Elizabeth Warren sidestep the entire process almost as if she had her test done at Ancestery.com or some other service and presented THAT as evidence of her heritage. Nothing more, and nothing less.

 

[TexRex]

I don't think that anyone here is disputing anything at this point. However, in the interest of fairness here, it is the outrage that is exemplified by the indian tribes over HOW Elizabeth Warren proved that she is Cherokee.

I'm disputing the existence of outrage. You keep referring to "the outrage" and have yet to provide any indication that there is any. All narrative, no substance.

Again, I don't dispute what Elizabeth Warren is selling here with the test. The issue is how she suddenly became a public figure for the Native American tribes by making these results public.

Is that what she's done? Care to provide anything that supports such an assertion?

Seems to me all she's done is call the bluff of a loudmouthed dumbass with a bad comb over.

Again, I don't have an official position over Sen. Warren's claims here. By even remotely suggesting that I somehow do have a position is ill-guided at best and intellectually dishonest at worse.

Native American tribes just have their own way of doing things (as they are semi-independent of each other). What outrage is there, if any, is HOW Elizabeth Warren sidestep the entire process almost as if she had her test done at Ancestery.com or some other service and presented THAT as evidence of her heritage. Nothing more, and nothing less.

"What outrage is there, if any" is the most reasonable thing you've said, as it doesn't outright assert any outrage that has been shown to exist. That you've finally said as much after repeatedly referring to outrage that hasn't been shown to exist is intellectually dishonest. But hey, feel free to throw in some more "I'm not disputing"s and "I don't have a position"s should you choose to respond to this--you won't be unringing any bells but it might make you feel better.

And what does it matter that the manner in which she established her ancestry through DNA testing didn't conform to standards dictated by Native American tribes? This wasn't an attempt to be welcomed into a tribe; it was done in an effort to stump Trump. Is there really such a rich tradition of using such testing to establish tribal ancestry anyway? At the absolute longest, it's been done for about 40 years--though it seems unlikely that tribes adopted these methods when they were first established--and that's a drop in the bucket that is the history of these peoples.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Congratulations to the U.S. of A. on being judged the most competitive economy on the planet by the World Economic Forum

The World Economic Forum is introducing the new Global Competitiveness Index 4.0 as a much-needed economic compass, building on forty years of experience of benchmarking the drivers of long-term competitiveness and integrating the latest learnings about the factors of future productivity. The GCI 4.0 is organized into 12 pillars: institutions; infrastructure; ICT adoption; macroeconomic stability; health; skills; product market; labour market; financial system; market size; business dynamism; and innovation capability. The Index also introduces a new progress score ranging from 0 to 100, with the frontier (100) corresponding to the goal post for each indicator and typically representing a policy target. This approach emphasizes that competitiveness is not a not a zero-sum game between countries—it is achievable for all countries.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I'm disputing the existence of outrage. You keep referring to "the outrage" and have yet to provide any indication that there is any. All narrative, no substance.

You seriously don't believe the Cherokee Nation themselves now do you?

"A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America," Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. said. "Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation. Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage."

Is that what she's done? Care to provide anything that supports such an assertion?

Seems to me all she's done is call the bluff of a loudmouthed dumbass with a bad comb over.

She proved that she has indian in her blood, nothing more.

And what does it matter that the manner in which she established her ancestry through DNA testing didn't conform to standards dictated by Native American tribes? This wasn't an attempt to be welcomed into a tribe; it was done in an effort to stump Trump. Is there really such a rich tradition of using such testing to establish tribal ancestry anyway? At the absolute longest, it's been done for about 40 years--though it seems unlikely that tribes adopted these methods when they were first established--and that's a drop in the bucket that is the history of these peoples.

Her card has been played, and it completely failed. Several times over, if this is to be believed:

https://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/elizabeth-warren-native-american-cherokee-controversy/

Be sure to check the sources.

 

[TexRex]

You seriously don't believe the Cherokee Nation themselves now do you?

I believe that Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. released an official statement, however that official statement reads like an official statement (go figure) and isn't indicative of outrage.

She proved that she has indian in her blood, nothing more.

What more was expected? I mean...that's the most that would result from the asinine manner in which Trump himself proposed she be tested:

We will take that little kit, and say, but we have to do it gently. Because we're in the MeToo generation so we have to be very gentle. And we will take that little kit and we will slowly toss it, hoping it doesn't hit her and injur her arm, even though it only weighs probably two ounces, and we will say, "I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you're an Indian, you know." And let's see what she does, right? I have a feeling she will say no, but we'll hold that for the debates, do me a favor and keep it within this room, 'cause I don't want to give away any secrets, and the press is very honorable they won't, please don't tell her what I just said.

It's unlikely the Cherokee Nation would have approved of that method, and that's fine, you know, because it wasn't done for them. The Cherokee Nation, which are very great people by the way, would not approve of that method.

That said, it seems she may not actually have a claim to the million dollar charity donation offer, seeing as the two didn't actually debate.

You know...I think it'd be great if Trump donated $1 million to NIWRC anyway--in his own name, of course--even if purely out of spite.

Her card has been played, and it completely failed. Several times over, if this is to be believed:

https://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/elizabeth-warren-native-american-cherokee-controversy/

Be sure to check the sources

She was never going to placate Trump; she should have known that and just let his imbecilic ramblings fade into obscurity, at least until the event that they are brought back up due to topical ocurrences at such time. If unable to do so, as she clearly was, she definitely shouldn't have responded when she did--that was just stupid.

 

[mustafur]

I think Trump owes her $970 the amount of Indian she is out of 1 Million.

 

[PocketZeven]

I think Trump owes her $970 the amount of Indian she is out of 1 Million.

That is not what he said though. He said it and then flat out denied saying it. This is not a lie that was broken, because of compromise to political pressure. Its just a lie.

Remember the 1 million is meant for a charity and not her personally. So a charitable donation for "the beauty of me is that I'm very rich" Billionair Trump should not be a problem. And being a man of his word should have some value for his following ?

 

[Johnnypenso]

That is not what he said though. He said it and then flat out denied saying it. This is not a lie that was broken, because of compromise to political pressure. Its just a lie.

Remember the 1 million is meant for a charity and not her personally. So a charitable donation for "the beauty of me is that I'm very rich" Billionair Trump should not be a problem. And being a man of his word should have some value for his following ?

Do you think a test that shows someone is as little as .1% Indian, in which actual Indian DNA was not used to establish that link, shows that someone is an Indian? What it shows is that she is in the range of the average North American and if that makes her Indian, then we are all Indian by that measure and being an Indian loses all meaning. If you did a test showing that your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather was African, would you consider yourself African?

 

[PocketZeven]

Do you think a test that shows someone is as little as .1% Indian, in which actual Indian DNA was not used to establish that link, shows that someone is an Indian? What it shows is that she is in the range of the average North American and if that makes her Indian, then we are all Indian by that measure and being an Indian loses all meaning. If you did a test showing that your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather was African, would you consider yourself African?

That is beside the point and for another possible thread about genetics and heritage. The claim was that she has indian heritage and not that she is indian. He himself stated that he was confident he had more indian heritage (being 0%) then her. So the amount % is irrelevant. For his promise she only needed to be more from indian heritage then Trump.

If you were 0.1 procent african, you can still claim you are of african heritage.

 

[Johnnypenso]

That is beside the point and for another possible thread about genetics and heritage. The claim was that she has indian heritage and not that she is indian. He himself stated that he was confident he had more indian heritage (being 0%) then her. So the amount % is irrelevant. For his promise she only needed to be more from indian heritage then Trump.

If you were 0.1 procent african, you can still claim you are of african heritage.

No the percent is not irrelevant. The percent is actually the only thing that matters. You see you get special benefits and treatment by claiming native status. In Canada for example, you pay no provincial tax if you have an Indian Status card, which automatically puts you 8% ahead of me with every purchase. So if her amount is no great then the average North American and that allows me to claim "Indian heritage", should I also be able to get an Indian status card?

Trump's actual words were:

I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you're an Indian.’

So the question is, does as little as 1/1024th, without even using actual Indian DNA to conduct the test, make you an Indian? If it does, does that mean we are all Indians?

 

[PocketZeven]

No the percent is not irrelevant. The percent is actually the only thing that matters. You see you get special benefits and treatment by claiming native status. In Canada for example, you pay no provincial tax if you have an Indian Status card, which automatically puts you 8% ahead of me with every purchase. So if her amount is no great then the average North American and that allows me to claim "Indian heritage", should I also be able to get an Indian status card?

Trump's actual words were:

So the question is, does as little as 1/1024th, without even using actual Indian DNA to conduct the test, make you an Indian? If it does, does that mean we are all Indians?

Is she applying for that indian status card? No? Then it isnt relevant. If you are 1% indian heritage, you can claim indian heritage, but not apply indian status card.

Dont quote out of context:
"I promise you I'll do this: I will take, you know those little kits they sell on television for two dollars? ‘Learn your heritage!’ … And in the middle of the debate, when she proclaims that she is of Indian heritage because her mother said she has high cheekbones — that is her only evidence, her mother said we have high cheekbones. We will take that little kit -- but we have to do it gently. Because we're in the #MeToo generation, so I have to be very gentle. And we will very gently take that kit, and slowly toss it, hoping it doesn't injure her arm, and we will say: ‘I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you're an Indian.’ And let’s see what she does. I have a feeling she will say no. But we’ll hold that for the debates. Do me a favor and keep it within this room, because I don’t want to keep any secrets."

To be fair he did say he would offer that 1 million dollars during a debate. So if he is a man of his word and if Warren would run, then that debate is going to be an expensive one for trump.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Is she applying for that indian status card? No? Then it isnt relevant. If you are 1% indian heritage, you can claim indian heritage, but not apply indian status card.

Dont quote out of context:
"I promise you I'll do this: I will take, you know those little kits they sell on television for two dollars? ‘Learn your heritage!’ … And in the middle of the debate, when she proclaims that she is of Indian heritage because her mother said she has high cheekbones — that is her only evidence, her mother said we have high cheekbones. We will take that little kit -- but we have to do it gently. Because we're in the #MeToo generation, so I have to be very gentle. And we will very gently take that kit, and slowly toss it, hoping it doesn't injure her arm, and we will say: ‘I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you're an Indian.’ And let’s see what she does. I have a feeling she will say no. But we’ll hold that for the debates. Do me a favor and keep it within this room, because I don’t want to keep any secrets."

To be fair he did say he would offer that 1 million dollars during a debate. So if he is a man of his word and if Warren would run, then that debate is going to be an expensive one for trump.

No the percent is not irrelevant. The percent is actually the only thing that matters.
So the question is, does as little as 1/1024th, without even using actual Indian DNA to conduct the test, make you an Indian? If it does, does that mean we are all Indians?[/QUOTE]

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/pompeo-...ery-fact-is-going-to-get-out-about-khashoggi/

“I’m told that what followed when those cameras were off was a blunt, direct message from Secretary of State Pompeo to the crown prince MBS and that Pompeo warned the crown prince that every fact about what happened is going to come out and that he has to, quote, own the situation, take responsibility, and that Pompeo also told him in no uncertain terms that the Saudis had better get their investigation done very quickly, and Pompeo stressed that they have to deal with the people involved, and the quote was that they have to deal with them sharply. And finally that the Secretary of State went on to tell the crown prince that if the Saudis don’t take action, the U.S. will have to deal with this, that the president’s hand will be forced because the world will demand it.”

 

[TexRex]

I think Trump owes her $970 the amount of Indian she is out of 1 Million.

Humorous...really...but surely doing such a thing would draw further ire from supposed outraged individuals and/or groups, right?

Do you think a test that shows someone is as little as .1% Indian, in which actual Indian DNA was not used to establish that link, shows that someone is an Indian? What it shows is that she is in the range of the average North American

Pity he didn't establish any parameters regarding the manner in which her blood was to be tested or the degree to which she could be considered Indian in his proposal.

and if that makes her Indian, then we are all Indian by that measure and being an Indian loses all meaning.

He himself stated that he was confident he had more indian heritage (being 0%) then her.

Since I haven't come across any such assertion, do you have a source for the statement or the percentage attributed to him?

No the percent is not irrelevant. The percent is actually the only thing that matters. You see you get special benefits and treatment by claiming native status.

Yeeeeaaahh...she wasn't seeking any of the more typical benefits with the release of the results. The only benefit she was seeking was shutting Trump up (And who doesn't benefit from that?). That such a benefit was not provided isn't the least bit surprising, and no official statement has been released explaining the reasoning behind that.

In Canada for example, you pay no provincial tax if you have an Indian Status card, which automatically puts you 8% ahead of me with every purchase. So if her amount is no great then the average North American and that allows me to claim "Indian heritage", should I also be able to get an Indian status card?

How does an individual who wasn't previously represented in the Indian Register go about acquiring said card?

In my [admittedly brief] research on the Indian Act and registration requirements, as well as a separate search that included mention of DNA, I wasn't able to find any definitive information (let alone percentages) regarding the use of DNA testing to establish eligibility for the benefits that cardholders have.

You seem to be well informed regarding the subject, and I'd like to know the DNA requirements (with the obligatory sources).

 

[Danoff]

Pretty sure that the reasonable response to someone claiming heritage corresponding to a tiny percentage of their lineage, is to consider it misleading, misrepresenting, lying, re-appropriating, and generally insulting.

Not that heritage should really matter at all, it shouldn't.

 

[PocketZeven]

Pity he didn't establish any parameters regarding the manner in which her blood was to be tested or the degree to which she could be considered Indian in his proposal.





Since I haven't come across any such assertion, do you have a source for the statement or the percentage attributed to him?

In the video he he stated he has zero procent indian heritage. Seeing these are his own words this should be the parameter that he himself established

 

[TexRex]

Pretty sure that the reasonable response to someone claiming heritage corresponding to a tiny percentage of their lineage, is to consider it misleading, misrepresenting, lying, re-appropriating, and generally insulting.

Not that heritage should really matter at all, it shouldn't.

So then the appropriate response is to consider that heritage shouldn't matter?

In the video he he stated he has zero procent indian heritage. Seeing these are his own words this should be the parameter that he himself established

Ah, I hadn't seen that, and it's such an incoherent mess that I likely wouldn't have noticed the remark had I not been looking for it.

 

[PocketZeven]

Pretty sure that the reasonable response to someone claiming heritage corresponding to a tiny percentage of their lineage, is to consider it misleading, misrepresenting, lying, re-appropriating, and generally insulting.

Not that heritage should really matter at all, it shouldn't.

Heritage should not matter at all, but Trump kept saying pocahantas and bringing it up himself at every opportunity. The only reason she did it is to shut him up and perhaps as an opportunity to earn a chairty a million dollars.

 

[Danoff]

So then the appropriate response is to consider that heritage shouldn't matter?

Yea, heritage shouldn't matter. But someone's bogus claims... that matters. That's lying.

 

[TexRex]

Yea, heritage shouldn't matter. But someone's bogus claims... that matters. That's lying.

But if the claim is heritage, and evidence exists (regardless how miniscule the percentage) to support the claim, is it still bogus? Had her claim been that she was predominantly of said heritage, I'd be on board with you 100%, but it wasn't. The claim was actually very vague and previous notions to support it didn't go a very long way to do so. "High cheekbones"? 'Kay.

 

[Johnnypenso]

In the video he he stated he has zero procent indian heritage. Seeing these are his own words this should be the parameter that he himself established

The questions I asked earlier remain unanswered.