Classiest refugee camp money can buy! What a time to be a Syrian, eh? Murderous clowns to the left of you, racist jokers to the right. And then there's Donald J. Trump, with a once-in-a-lifetime business opportunity you will not want to miss: Mr. Trump said he would like to “build a safe zone in Syria, build a big, beautiful safe zone, and you have whatever it is, so they can live.” He could get such a deal with his real estate background for a “swatch” of land, he said.
I live in a "top 100 population" city with the country's largest Afghan population, many of whom were refugees. This city has a household income over $100K.
So, what does "kevin" think the problem is, again?
And I'm not a fan of pointing at U-6 as a "real" rate. As I understand, the differences between U-3 and U-6 are:
1) U-3 counts as "in the labor force" people who have looked for work once in the last 12 weeks, whereas U-6 counts once in the last 51 weeks. U-3 seems a lot more reasonable here.
2) U-6 includes "part time looking for full time" and U-3 doesn't. They should be counted, but not at par - they should be counted at the difference between their hours and "full-time" hours - that would represent the actual labor market "slack". So, neither make sense to me here.
But yeah, "kevin" is regurgitating the same sort of lies that "Mr. 47%" told his donors.
The refugees are going to do BENGHAZI to us all, and Hillary and Sidney Blumenthal are going to laugh and laugh and then send emails to each other in French about how much they hate America and Christians.
I'll give him some credit for being more original than what I expected. I've been waiting for several days for him to propose building a giant wall around Syria. One that he will make them pay for, no doubt.
I suppose this could be interpreted as irony, comparing our dismissiveness over Bin Laden to our dismissiveness over say, HIV in the 80's. With the ultimate goal of saying 'look how ignoring it turned out'. But people usually don't make these comparisons until hindsight, and even then this would be WAY over the heads of Trump's readers.
Bottom line, NO ONE except a few in US intelligence believed this guy was capable of anything, and anyone except maybe Richard Clarke saying 'I told you so' afterward is full of shit.
There's no getting around that, though. "Sensible" is whatever each of us as individuals decides it is, so "common sense" is always going to be an individual call.
We need to refocus back on the issue and avoid arguments over who is being "sensible" vs. who is being "stupid." Decisions about policy shouldn't turn on matters of one-upmanship. It isn't an arm-wrestling match.
I know this is likely to be tl;dr, but...<<< ...so "common sense" is always going to be an individual call. >>>Well, the problem is that so many try to apply their own personal "common sense" to others - it's like saying everyone should hate broccoli because I do.Thus, when some wingnut thinks the idea that "all government is bad" is only common sense, we all suffer. I agree that mockery is a kinda last resort ( as does Drum in subsequent MJ posts, specifically about President Obama's recent "putdown" of the fearmongers )
<<<...here's the problem. Obama started off by speaking for a full two minutes calmly and rationally—exactly what I think he should have done. Then he briefly offered up a bit of mockery. I actually think that's OK too because it was prefaced with a deep and sustained acknowledgement of the problem at hand.
But can you guess how much of that first two minutes has been quoted? Can you guess how much of the mockery has been quoted? That's right: barely any of the former and mountains of the latter.... >>>
I read this as Drum admitting that most "ordinary people" will ignore the facts/explanation and focus on the sound bite.
It's not an arm-wrestling match - it's a brain ( and logic- ) wrestling match - and too many "ordinary people" are 98-lb weaklings when it comes to this, despite the "respect" they demand for their "common sense". So, when you and Drum say that we should avoid mockery, you ignore the point that many ( ok, maybe not many Wonketteers ) have TRIED to speak reasonably to their opponents, and have been ignored. What else is left - resorting to "Second Amendment solutions", as at least one rightwinger said the right would do?
I live in a "top 100 population" city with the country's largest Afghan population, many of whom were refugees. This city has a household income over $100K.
So, what does "kevin" think the problem is, again?
I'm glad you "think" that. It's false, but by all means "think" that.
And I'm not a fan of pointing at U-6 as a "real" rate. As I understand, the differences between U-3 and U-6 are:
1) U-3 counts as "in the labor force" people who have looked for work once in the last 12 weeks, whereas U-6 counts once in the last 51 weeks. U-3 seems a lot more reasonable here.
2) U-6 includes "part time looking for full time" and U-3 doesn't. They should be counted, but not at par - they should be counted at the difference between their hours and "full-time" hours - that would represent the actual labor market "slack". So, neither make sense to me here.
But yeah, "kevin" is regurgitating the same sort of lies that "Mr. 47%" told his donors.
Boncentration Bamps!
The refugees are going to do BENGHAZI to us all, and Hillary and Sidney Blumenthal are going to laugh and laugh and then send emails to each other in French about how much they hate America and Christians.
Will I still be able to eat coq au vin?
I'll give him some credit for being more original than what I expected. I've been waiting for several days for him to propose building a giant wall around Syria. One that he will make them pay for, no doubt.
Oh, I know. Counting U-6 as real unemployment is an exaggeration, hence the scare quotes around "real".
I just have no idea where folks like that get their information aside from huffing paint and making things up during the delusions.
Mr. Trump said he would like to “build a safe zone in Syria, build a big, beautiful safe zone...
Now he wants to build the Alexandria-Safe Zone. So the answer is yes, he IS running a comic book version of a campaign.
I suppose this could be interpreted as irony, comparing our dismissiveness over Bin Laden to our dismissiveness over say, HIV in the 80's. With the ultimate goal of saying 'look how ignoring it turned out'. But people usually don't make these comparisons until hindsight, and even then this would be WAY over the heads of Trump's readers.
Bottom line, NO ONE except a few in US intelligence believed this guy was capable of anything, and anyone except maybe Richard Clarke saying 'I told you so' afterward is full of shit.
One of the last of the City States; like Byzantium but with BBQ and boots.
Very well said.
He may portray it as Alexandria-like, but I suspect that it would turn out to more closely resemble Woodbury.
There's no getting around that, though. "Sensible" is whatever each of us as individuals decides it is, so "common sense" is always going to be an individual call.
We need to refocus back on the issue and avoid arguments over who is being "sensible" vs. who is being "stupid." Decisions about policy shouldn't turn on matters of one-upmanship. It isn't an arm-wrestling match.
I know this is likely to be tl;dr, but...<<< ...so "common sense" is always going to be an individual call. >>>Well, the problem is that so many try to apply their own personal "common sense" to others - it's like saying everyone should hate broccoli because I do.Thus, when some wingnut thinks the idea that "all government is bad" is only common sense, we all suffer. I agree that mockery is a kinda last resort ( as does Drum in subsequent MJ posts, specifically about President Obama's recent "putdown" of the fearmongers )
http://www.motherjones.com/...
<<<...here's the problem. Obama started off by speaking for a full two minutes calmly and rationally—exactly what I think he should have done. Then he briefly offered up a bit of mockery. I actually think that's OK too because it was prefaced with a deep and sustained acknowledgement of the problem at hand.
But can you guess how much of that first two minutes has been quoted? Can you guess how much of the mockery has been quoted? That's right: barely any of the former and mountains of the latter.... >>>
I read this as Drum admitting that most "ordinary people" will ignore the facts/explanation and focus on the sound bite.
It's not an arm-wrestling match - it's a brain ( and logic- ) wrestling match - and too many "ordinary people" are 98-lb weaklings when it comes to this, despite the "respect" they demand for their "common sense". So, when you and Drum say that we should avoid mockery, you ignore the point that many ( ok, maybe not many Wonketteers ) have TRIED to speak reasonably to their opponents, and have been ignored. What else is left - resorting to "Second Amendment solutions", as at least one rightwinger said the right would do?
Well let's get it done so we can put tRump in it.