mozz

I have no reason whatsoever to disagree with this, but somehow I just can't believe it will actually happen this way. I just don't believe it.

I guess my thinking is that, reduced to fundamentals, DWAC is a vehicle for funneling money to Trump either from rubes or from money laundering. And I feel like both of those wells have been sucked on so thoroughly at this point that there can't possibly be 3.5 BILLION dollars sitting untapped in either of them.

But time will tell. Like I say I have no factual disagreement with any of the individual elements.

Russia could potentially retaliate by striking energy infrastructure used by the West

"Motherfucker we're dying here, every day"

"Just send us some fucking shells and let us win, if you don't want the conflict to impact your fucking profit-centers"

a father and son aged 74 and 40

wtf

Fuck's sake not this again

I'll just post a link to some factual debunking from yesterday of this little Goebbels-presentation. As happens every time, you weren't able to say any of it wasn't accurate, and abandoned the conversation when it got too much into boring "this is what happened and what didn't happen" land.

You are welcome to join the conversation here then. We looked at quite a bit of data and I think I did a pretty good job at defending the idea that the poor are, in fact, getting substantially better-off over time under Biden even under pretty challenging economic conditions. My interlocutor, for whatever reason, refused at every turn to just say "oh okay the data seem to agree with you," and kept throwing stuff at the wall until he eventually claimed that it didn't actually matter if a typical person was better off or not, at which point I decided we didn't need to talk anymore. But if you want to pick that up and have a data-based disagreement with any of it, we can rap.

And yeah I was a little bit of a dick about it. I apologize (for real). I've been speaking with people who haven't been real reasonable, and it's made me rude when talking about it, but if you wanna have a polite factually-based discussion I'm up for that. If you plan to ignore all of that detailed sourcing and analysis and just make again the absolutely unjustified claim that I or the OP article are looking for some reason at the fucking stock market, then I'm going to be rude to you. Up to you though; I'm happy being reasonable if we're being reasonable.

Trump definitely knows the word. He used it in reference to NATO recently.

Why he know the word so familiarly when it is indeed a little above his usual reading level is left as an exercise for the reader. That’s why I think it would get under his skin so, so thoroughly; he’s heard it before and it speaks to the little part of his brain that likes to whisper things to him about himself that he cannot bear to hear said.

Human wiring

You're supposed to organize into a hierarchy, find a leader and follow them so they can organize things and make sure the tribe survives.

Unfortunately, so much of our modern picture of the world is formed from TV-and-internet bullshit that people can't even determine what's real or fantasy, and so sometimes the wiring malfunctions and someone sort of snaps into obedience to someone like Donald Trump. For a certain type of mental layout it's as unavoidable as flinching when something comes near your eyes, and it's terribly dangerous.

There's a play "Rhinoceros" by Eugene Ionesco which deals with what it looks like when it's happening to people around you. Or, just exist in the US today if you want to see another example 😢

“Delinquent Don” was right there though

Or “Deadbeat Don”

Biden’s mean-nickname game is bullshit

Someone I think on mander.xyz was saying that regular 90-second cold showers seemed anecdotally to be maybe competitive with medication in terms of how well it combatted depression

“Redeploy”

It doesn't matter if one person's income goes up

...

I'm comfortable ending the conversation here

Why do you want to use household / family income instead of individual income? Median personal income in constant dollars is independent of any confounding factors and doesn't show the same drop; it shows no change at all.

And yes, I could see this being consistent with what I was talking about. I actually already sent you data points (the link text is "fell by 5%") showing the 10th, 50th (i.e. median), and 90th percentiles, which showed -1% change in real income at the 50th percentile. The census bureau numbers show +0.01% instead at the 50th percentile, but pretty similar.

All of that is consistent with a boost for the lowest earners, which is what I've been saying this entire time. "Most of that growth happened at the lowest-wage end of the scale" is how I phrased it.