All Polls are Wrong.....?

"Republicans by double-digit margins said they are willing to ditch their party to follow former President Donald Trump if he breaks out on his own, according to a new poll released Sunday.

Members of the GOP by 46 percent to 27 percent said they would put the Republican Party in the rear-view mirror if Trump creates his own, a USA Today/Suffolk University poll found."

Source:  https://nypost.com/2021/02/21/republicans-willing-to-break-from-party-to-follow-trump-poll/

12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jules,

That's my domain.

I tend to be flexible with long-term members.

But there are fixes. For example, William has a safe space over here on his blog just like they do on college campuses.

Would you like a safe space, too?

I mean, among regulars, we have room for both the boisterous and the snowflakes.

   

Michael

It's not about "boisterous" or "snowflakes", it's not about "strong" or "weak".  That dichotomy is barbarism.  There will always be a portion of society that will try to use primitive tactics and actions to try to gain advantage over others.  It's your forum, you choose to allow or not allow whatever behavior.  Civility exists, but for it to exist there has to be rules and those rules enforced, otherwise the barbaric will have their way.  The rational and moral will be impacted by the "strong" and those who seek superiority over others.  Perhaps the rational and moral will seek out "safe spaces"---as what it is currently being called here on OL---if the behavior of others is primitive and aggressive.  But like you've said before, you pay the bills here on OL.  I'm just one of those long-term members.

47 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Making fun of the author and his concerns about how deeply hurtful this all can be... is taking it personally?

God, you’re so fucking weak and dumb and impotent.

3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

“My premise is very simple. These false conspiracy theories are a problem. They hurt individuals by affecting their life choices, like money, health, and social interactions. They hurt society by distracting from the very real problems of corruption and decreasing genuine participation in democracy. False conspiracy theories are real problems and we can and should do something about them.”

Oh my, oh dear, I certainly hope Google and social media continue to censor those scary and dangerous “conspiracy theories.” They’re 100% NOT TRUE, but oh so very hurtful. Oh, dear me, I need my space now,

Interesting how you took that so personally....

7 hours ago, william.scherk said:

USMCA!

It's fun to sign onto the US.M.C.A
It's fun to sign onto the US.M.C.A
You can cross-border shop, you can buy some cheap cheese
You can do whatever you please

Make Canada Great Again!!

10 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

In two and half billion years.  Don't worry. complex life on earth will be dead and gone by that time.  The Sun will have used up its hydrogen fuel by then,  and will be fusing helium. This will make the Sun 40 percent hotter than it is know, causing the oceans and seas to dry up.  With the water gone, complex life on the surface will become extinct. That includes us, unless we can find another star with an earth like planet to live on.  There are two chances of that happening: slim and none.

 

Well that puts a kink in my plan to live forever...

Bernie Sanders Would Defeat Donald Trump in 2020, New Poll Shows

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/bernie-sanders-would-defeat-donald-trump-in-2020-new-poll-shows-1.6409421

Aug 22, 2018 5:38 PM

[...]

The poll, conducted by Politico/Morning Consult showed that as of Wednesday, Trump was lagging behind Joe Biden, the former vice president, and Vermont Senator, Bernie Sanders. He lagged behind them by 12 points each.

Trump also lagged four points behind Massachusetts Senator, Elizabeth Warren.

The poll contacted 1,974 registered voters between the 16th and 18th of August. There poll claims a margin of error of two points.

[...]

Bernie Sanders introduces ‘Stop BEZOS’ bill to tax Amazon for underpaying workers

https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/5/17819450/bernie-sanders-stop-bezos-amazon-worker-pay-corporate-welfare-tax-bill

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) have introduced a bill that would tax companies like Amazon and Walmart for the cost of employees’ food stamps and other public assistance. Sanders’ Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies Act (abbreviated “Stop BEZOS”) — along with Khanna’s House of Representatives counterpart, the Corporate Responsibility and Taxpayer Protection Act — would institute a 100 percent tax on government benefits that are granted to workers at large companies.

The bill’s text characterizes this as a “corporate welfare tax,” and it would apply to corporations with 500 or more employees. If workers are receiving government aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), national school lunch and breakfast programs, Section 8 housing subsidies, or Medicaid, employers will be taxed for the total cost of those benefits. The bill applies to full-time and part-time employees, as well as independent contractors that are de facto company employees.

[...]

Amazon likely isn’t the company that would be hit hardest by this rule. McDonald’s and Walmart, for instance, had the most SNAP-reliant employees in every state New Food Economy analyzed.

[...]

______________________________________________

Bernie 2020!!!

Is Amazon Bad for the Postal Service? Or Its Savior?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/amazon-postal-service-trump.html

 

April 4, 2018

SEATTLE — Five times in the last week, President Trump has pointed his Twitter arrows at Amazon over what he insists is a bad deal for the United States Postal Service.

Mr. Trump wrote on Tuesday that the agreement, which sets what Amazon pays the Postal Service for many orders, costs American taxpayers billions of dollars. “I am right about Amazon costing the United States Post Office massive amounts of money for being their Delivery Boy,” he wrote.

[...]

But the Postal Service says all such deals it makes are profitable — and must be by law.

An independent body, the Postal Regulatory Commission, oversees the rates that the Postal Service charges for its products. By law, the agreements it cuts with corporate customers like Amazon must cover their “attributable costs” that directly result from their use of the postal network.

Amazon helps lower those costs by organizing the packages it takes to the Post Office by destination ZIP code in over 35 sorting centers around the country, leaving less work that must be done by postal workers. The company relies on the Postal Service strictly for last-mile delivery to customers, short trips that further limit the cost of delivering each package.

[...]

 

A Trump Empire Built on Inside Connections and $885 Million in Tax Breaks

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/nyregion/donald-trump-tax-breaks-real-estate.html

The way Donald J. Trump tells it, his first solo project as a real estate developer, the conversion of a faded railroad hotel on 42nd Street into the sleek, 30-story Grand Hyatt, was a triumph from the very beginning.

The hotel, Mr. Trump bragged in “Trump: The Art of the Deal,” his 1987 best seller, “was a hit from the first day. Gross operating profits now exceed $30 million a year.”

But that book, and numerous interviews over the years, make little mention of a crucial factor in getting the hotel built: an extraordinary 40-year tax break that has cost New York City $360 million to date in forgiven, or uncollected, taxes, with four years still to run, on a property that cost only $120 million to build in 1980.

[...]

Since then, Mr. Trump has reaped at least $885 million in tax breaks, grants and other subsidies for luxury apartments, hotels and office buildings in New York, according to city tax, housing and finance records. The subsidies helped him lower his own costs and sell apartments at higher prices because of their reduced taxes.

[...]

[...]

After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, Mr. Trump lined up a $150,000 grant for one of his buildings near ground zero, taking advantage of a program to help small businesses in the area recover, even though he had acknowledged on the day of the attacks that his building was undamaged.

[...]

In the hours after the attacks, Mr. Trump told German television that his property “wasn’t, fortunately, affected by what happened at the World Trade Center.”

[...]

Well, having worked in the Gov't this "news" aboot Amazon's 'Secret' cloud service doesn't ring any conspiracy bells for me.  Contracts like this happen all the time.  But tracking the argument something doesn't compute here for me.  The original objection was Bezos using contracts, tax schemes, or what-have-you to do something nefarious or unethical.  Providing a legitimate example of Amazon having a cloud service contract with the CIA is not in the same category, and can't be used as an example for "Bezos using <sic> government money"... why?  Because this is a standard, legitimate contract that when I put my Objectivist hat on, violates nothing of the trader principle and ethics.  Why?  because this happens all the time, the gov't needs confidential channels for services provided by public companies.  Believe me, it's just standard practice in the IT/networking world and having a contract with the gov't.  So, I'd say this one has debunked for any wrong-doing.

Amy Peikoff appears again on Foxnews with Tucker, this time in a tangle about Jeff Bezos and his worth.  Amy starts out strong, forcing Tucker into a religious trap with a "moral" obligation to pay workers, causing Tucker to use his upper register nasal cavity in some high-pitched objections to Amy's Objectivist principles.  Amy sensed she had him dazed, but she didn't remain in-focus and instead tried a kung-fu analogy that failed to deliver her fatality, instead the analogy caused her to slip and Tucker was there to make a final-seconds comeback to win the match.

I like seeing Tucker have her on his show, even if it is for the purpose of winning argument and proving that his principles are superior to hers.

Aww

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

Yeah, so are you going address the substance of the criticism? No? Just gonna LOL and triple LOL?

You have nothing.

J

You forgot double LOL!!! 

1 minute ago, Jonathan said:

No, I've presented a criticism of Rand's ideas. You clearly don't grasp it.

J

LOL!!

13 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

See, the deal is that, just because Rand said it, and you've uncritically accepted it

Wrong!  Jonathan, how in the world are you pretending to know whether I did or did not "uncritically accept" it?  LOL!! 

Wait, double LOL!! 

You don't!  Wait, triple LOL!!!

17 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

In fact, the criticism that I brought up is a very common one, and it represents pretty basic stuff that Rand and her circle obviously overlooked.

So, again, address the issue. Right now, it appears that you're not even grasping it, despite its incredible simplicity.

LOL!!  Oh I get it, you disagree with the premise, and I understand your disagreement.  (I have heard it before, LOL!)

Damn you're funny!

16 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

I just did. Go back and focus on what I wrote. Address the points that I made.

J

No need, you've posted your ideas and you're entitled to them.

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

Tony said that "Switching on thinking and focus is volitional..."

That means that one chooses to think and focus. But in order to choose, one must already be thinking, and also focused, about the subject of whether to choose to think and focus or not. And if one is already thinking and focused, prior to making the conscious, volitional choice to think and focus, then, therefore, thinking and focusing would be automatic, and not volitional.

Pretty basic Objectivism stuff to choose to think.  If you're finding a contradiction in that, then it's your idea in contradiction to Rand's.  Care to elaborate more on your idea?

59 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

If one isn't already thinking and focused, how does one "volitionally switch on" thinking and focus?

J

You know, the whole self-awareness thing---humans have the ability to think about their own thoughts.  Sheesh.

Jonathan, are you self-aware?  I'm beginning to wonder about that from reading all of your posts.

On 7/11/2018 at 1:09 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

William,

Are you sure?

Michael

Is that Trump eating pizza?

Thanks!  I'm watching this

11 views at the time of this post... comon' folks!  Click that video, for the OL tribe!

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

When anti-Trumpers bully Trump supporters, it's quite useful...

Michael

I have several family members who voted for Trump, but I wouldn't have called them 'Trumpists'.  They fell into different categories, and I don't know their level of support now, my assumption is they'd probably vote for him again.  And I think there are more categories on the other end than 'anti-Trump', 'critical of Trump' comes to mind.

Why does there have to be a Trump/anti-Trump dichotomy?  Is that the only categories there are?

9 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Further to the teeny phoneme, a non-Trump guy slows down the audio excerpt ...

[...]

(edited:)  I'm seeing the claim is he said "I'd" instead of "I".  It sounds like "I'd" to me, after giving it a more critical listen.  Not sure that it's "fake news" though?