Irish oddsmaker gives 33% chance Trump will be impeached

[Matrix Dragon]

I always remember the witchhunts of the 1950s, when quite a few millionaires used McCarthy and his fellow fanatics to target union leaders, in order to discredit and destroy the union movement. I have a particular loathing of Walt Disney for that.

(Kids, don't look to Communism as your ideal. That way lies a lot of corpses, corruption, and a bad end. Look to the union movements of the late 19th and early 20th century. Remember the days they fought for child labor laws, OHSA, sick leave, eight hour work days as opposed to eighteen... And never forget the Radium Girls.)

[Rajvik]

And while we're asking questions, how the hell is "socialism" communism? Even Marx thought they were different things.

That one is easy.  Their parents grew up hearing nothing but COMMIES COMMIES COMMIES during the Cold War and that anything that smacked of "Socialism" was the Enemy.  McCarthyism at its worse.

I think Walt Kelley, cartoonist of the infamous Pogo, said it best when he misquoted Oliver Perry: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Thank you BA, that was half my answer to that, so i'll give you the other half, Socialism inevitably leads to revolution, at that point it is a toss up whether it will try to go capitalist, or communist, with the odds leaning towards communism.

BA, to answer your questions

True capitalism stays the hell out of the public services sector. And this is pretty much what the Democrats want - for the corporations to get the hell out of the public services sector.

I agree with the first half but point out that the second half is not completely correct, they want the corps out, but they want the government to control the corps. That is socialism/communism aka central planning which the soviets showed does not work. Also, remember how "business" became a problem in government in the first place, the federal government unionized.

So, how the hell is it "socialism" when we want a federally-funded public schools option for higher education?

How the hell is it "socialism" when we want affordable healthcare without insurance companies jacking up the prices?

[size=undefined] [/size]
because all this public funding seems to do is encourage the colleges to raise their prices on tuition to the point that all you can afford to do is take the government's school which at the lower level education has done nothing but dumb down the population by teaching to the lowest common denominator. Same for healthcare or have you not noticed that since the passing of the Affordable Care Act that the cost of healthcare has done nothing but go up while your choices get fewer and fewer. 

How the hell is it "socialism" when we want fair living wages? 

its not, the socialism there is how you go about it. Here is where we are going to seriously disagree as we have in previous threads. You want to be able to afford to live on your wages then CLOSE THE FUCKING BORDER to immigration! stop the cheap immigrant labor from coming in and then you can bargain, collectively or individually, for better wages without the boss being able to go "No, i'll just hire some immigrant who doesn't know any better or will work under the table because they are illegal." Forcing companies to raise their wages artificially has always forced inflation higher and done nothing but fuck everyone over[/quote]

[classicdrogn]

Assume your "get rid of all the illegal immigrants" plan works. How is having collective bargaining or whatever forcing wage increases going to end any differently than a government mandated one, with the prices of goods and services rising to provide the money to fulfill it? Oh, I know, they'll act like the government and get a loan from China!

... wait ...

e: Less facetiously, the most likely result is the companies that can afford the up-front costs cutting more jobs and replacing them with automation for longer term savings, and the ones that can't going overseas or shutting down entirely. And that's with the nebulous "immegunts took ma jerbs" theory intact, instead of mostly taking jobs Americans don't want, and mostly could only live on near or below the poverty line.

[Rajvik]

Drogn, its not that prices wont go up, they will, thats life. its a matter of that prices will not go up completely across the board all at the same time meaning people can adjust and adapt to the rising costs not be hammered by them

[classicdrogn]

But like I said, how does ending immigration factor into that at all, aside from ensuring that meat and vegetables are among the first things to see a big increase in cost because of all the migrant harvest and packing plant workers getting shut out, along with the nannies and housekeepers?

[Rajvik]

By ending immigration, you stop them from having a pool of unskilled/barely skilled people that will work for lower wages to pull from. To keep the necessary number of workers (because let's face it, if it could be automated, the farmers and the packing plants already would have) they will raise wages. Nannies and housekeepers will either be done without, or else be jobs taken up by teens/college students and those with little to no ambition in life, the second, freeing up a number of fast food jobs for teens in the process.

[robkelk]

Assume your "get rid of all the illegal immigrants" plan works. How is having collective bargaining or whatever forcing wage increases going to end any differently than a government mandated one, with the prices of goods and services rising to provide the money to fulfill it?

This is an especially good question, since farmers hire migrant workers because citizens refuse to work for the wages farmers can afford to pay. Close the borders and food prices have to go up.

[Rajvik]

Rob, migrant labor does not necessarily mean immigrant labor, that said, as I stated above, not denying that prices will go up, that's going to happen regardless. Its just not going ALL go up at the same time.

That said also, the federal government already subsidizes farmers, this could arguably be something that gets folded into that.

This was almost an edit: reschedule the school year so that kids have a harvest and planting break so that they can be put to work out there, hire people out of government housing, (which is the first likely step if you can get their asses out in the fields.

[Dartz]

hire people out of government housing, (which is the first likely step if you can get their asses out in the fields

Taking people out of social housing as forced labourers?

At the very least, people who may be:
Working in another job
Have children attending school
Be too ill to work...

Among a dozen other things.

It's also arguable that there's a benefit from some people such as single parents not working. Better for the kid.

[Black Aeronaut]

And while we're asking questions, how the hell is "socialism" communism? Even Marx thought they were different things.

That one is easy.  Their parents grew up hearing nothing but COMMIES COMMIES COMMIES during the Cold War and that anything that smacked of "Socialism" was the Enemy.  McCarthyism at its worse.

I think Walt Kelley, cartoonist of the infamous Pogo, said it best when he misquoted Oliver Perry: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Thank you BA, that was half my answer to that, so i'll give you the other half, Socialism inevitably leads to revolution, at that point it is a toss up whether it will try to go capitalist, or communist, with the odds leaning towards communism.

BA, to answer your questions

True capitalism stays the hell out of the public services sector. And this is pretty much what the Democrats want - for the corporations to get the hell out of the public services sector.

I agree with the first half but point out that the second half is not completely correct, they want the corps out, but they want the government to control the corps. That is socialism/communism aka central planning which the soviets showed does not work. Also, remember how "business" became a problem in government in the first place, the federal government unionized.

Well of course they want to regulate the damn stock market.  The last thing we need is a repeat of the Sub-prime Mortgage Crisis.  This free-wheeling attitude towards corporations is part of the problem.  I don't think Capitalism is a bad thing, but it needs some hard and fast rules to it so that corporations actually benefit the public at large, and not just a few already wealthy people.

I don't mind the idea of other people becoming wealthy.  Neither do the Democrats for that matter.  BUt that's the thing: Other people need to have that honest, legitimate shot.  Because the way things are right now?  You have to be a combination of highly educated, lucky, and even a little bit sociopathic in order to make it big in our economy.  (Sociopathy in this case simply meaning that you're not bothered by consequences.)

They just want some rules in place so they can put the kibosh on activity that is going to be harmful to the economy.  Is that so horrible a thing to ask for?  We're looking more at the Nordic Model here, not the Chinese Model.

So, how the hell is it "socialism" when we want a federally-funded public schools option for higher education?

How the hell is it "socialism" when we want affordable healthcare without insurance companies jacking up the prices?

because all this public funding seems to do is encourage the colleges to raise their prices on tuition to the point that all you can afford to do is take the government's school which at the lower level education has done nothing but dumb down the population by teaching to the lowest common denominator. Same for healthcare or have you not noticed that since the passing of the Affordable Care Act that the cost of healthcare has done nothing but go up while your choices get fewer and fewer.

Uhm....  wat.

No.  Really.  What?

Seriously.  You're gonna have to draw a diagram for me to make sense of that.

First: Rules of Competition.  If a competitor is offering the same product/service at a lower cost, then you need to lower your costs to match them.

OH.  Now I get what you're talking about.  You think that I mean we should increase subsidy funding for private schools.

No.

I mean we should stop subsidizing private schools and focus on funding public schools.

And private schools are not magically better than public schools.  The thing about Private Schools is that they get to pick and choose who attends.  So of course they're gonna look better than the public option - the private schools want nothing to do with 'problem children'.  You know it, I know it, so please do not pretend that public schools are 'worse' - they only look that way because they have to deal with 'The Worst'.

Now, in regards to Health Care, that's not what Democrats wanted, and you know it!!!  They system that's in place now still has the healthcare system fully in control of the insurance agencies, and that's why the costs have been getting jacked up more and more.

At the very worst (by your reckoning) Democrats want a system where the entire system is operated and administered by the Government so that any citizen can have any procedure they need done, no questions asked.  "Can I see some identification?  Thank you, Mr. Smith, we'll triage you right away and get you into the queue."

Yes, private enterprise will be involved in the form of manufacturers of drugs and medical equipment, but the Democrats would like it if these corporations had to negotiate directly with the government over pricing.

The REAL cost of proper Healthcare is nowhere nearly as expensive as the health insurance companies would like you to believe.  A lot of it is unnecessary medical tests that are prohibitively expensive.  That's mostly demanded by the insurance companies, otherwise they refuse to allow certain procedures done.  FFS, let the damn Doctors decided what's necessary and what isn't!  (Trust me: if you ask your doctor point-blank, the answer will always boil down to, "The insurance company demands it.")

How the hell is it "socialism" when we want fair living wages?

its not, the socialism there is how you go about it. Here is where we are going to seriously disagree as we have in previous threads. You want to be able to afford to live on your wages then CLOSE THE FUCKING BORDER to immigration! stop the cheap immigrant labor from coming in and then you can bargain, collectively or individually, for better wages without the boss being able to go "No, i'll just hire some immigrant who doesn't know any better or will work under the table because they are illegal." Forcing companies to raise their wages artificially has always forced inflation higher and done nothing but fuck everyone over

Uhm...  Not seeing it.

Seriously.  When was the last time you saw an illiterate Mexican working in something other than an orange grove over there?  Maybe you've seen a few working janitorial jobs or yard maintenance work.

Seriously.  How many do you see each day, gainfully employed, that you honestly believe are immigrants?

Short answer: Probably a lot less than you thought once you stop to ACTUALLY think about it.

Now, here's where I'm gonna stop you from crying about migrant labor.

You know the thing about Migrant Labor?

THEY PAY THEIR FUCKING TAXES.

It's not much.  A pittance, really.  But they do.

These people come here to work.  To make money.  To have a shot at a better life.

See, this is what I don't fucking get about you.

You sing praises to the almighty gods of capitalism all the fucking time.

But the moment migrants enter the picture?  The moment someone else want's to get in on THE ALMIGHTY CAPITOLISM OF AMERICA?

SHOOT THE BASTARDS!  SEND THEM BACK! THEY AREN'T EVEN WORTHY OF BEING CALLED HUMAN!

I'm not exaggerating.  Those are pretty much your reactions.  You legitimately act as if they are not human.

You know who else thought certain other people weren't worthy of being treated as Human beings?  I don't think I need to say it, but I will say this:

I find your thoughts to be disturbing and you should probably seek professional help.

No, I am not kidding and I am not trying to be insulting here.

You legitimately worry me.

[SilverFang01]

Let’s define some terms:


And second considering much of this new generation has gotten only the bad side of capitalism and none of the perks, they are starting to question things that were previously taken as ironclad, like our healthcare system is the best or our education system or a thousand other things that other countries have figured out how to do better.

That is what these “communist” accusations are truly about. People are questioning assumptions and those who benefit from keeping things as they are don’t like it. And since the boogeyman of communism worked once before...

[Labster]

By ending immigration, you stop them from having a pool of unskilled/barely skilled people that will work for lower wages to pull from. To keep the necessary number of workers (because let's face it, if it could be automated, the farmers and the packing plants already would have) they will raise wages. Nannies and housekeepers will either be done without, or else be jobs taken up by teens/college students and those with little to no ambition in life, the second, freeing up a number of fast food jobs for teens in the process.

Actually you raise an interesting point parenthetically, but mangle it mostly.  Companies pay wages when they are cheaper than automation.  A lot of manufacturing has returned to the United States in the past 10 years, but jobs have not returned with the industry.  The reason is that it's cheaper to be automated than to pay people in the U.S.  Outside the U.S. humans are used, because the wages are cheaper.  Given enough capital, industry will choose the lower price point.

The main exception to all this are the few industries that have already hit the wall on automation, largely car manufacturing.  Elon's recent experiments prove the point that the industry is already maxed out on robots, and attempts to add more will not work with current tech levels.  Agriculture, in contrast, still has places to automate, with watering systems, harvesting devices, and planters.  People are now at work on robotic strawberry pickers, so if it hasn't been invented yet, maybe it will be soon enough.

Your example of "fast food jobs for teens" is laughable, first for the assumption that fast food jobs should or are currently filled by teens.  But the deeper problem is that automation is just getting started in the fast food industry, because of the abundance of cheap labor.  Over in Europe, where it's more expensive, McDonalds has touchscreens that let you place your order, even customize the product.  Imagine taking orders and paying with apps!  If the labor market tightens, less people will be employed in fast food than currently.  This even extends out the the casual dining market segment -- Outback Steakhouse has little credit card readers at every booth, so servers don't have to take money.  Self-checkout at grocery stores is just the start, as Amazon already has a few cashless stores where customers walk around with barcode readers.

In short, software is eating the world, and humans are already competing with robots in the workplace.  Limiting labor supply drives the price point of human services in many industries to the point where automation is the long-term cheaper approach.

[hazard]

Thank you BA, that was half my answer to that, so i'll give you the other half, Socialism inevitably leads to revolution, at that point it is a toss up whether it will try to go capitalist, or communist, with the odds leaning towards communism.

Ehm, historically?

The thing that most often lead to revolutions was the abuse of power (real or perceived) of whomever was in charge eventually pissing off people enough that they took up arms. Most attempted revolutions failed miserably, struck down as rebellions so often are. Socialism as a movement actually stopped a lot of revolutions from happening because it offered the working class especially a non-violent and thus lower risk if often slower alternative to a revolution they'd likely get killed in fighting. It was socialism that forced the establishment of things like health and safety standards, building codes, food safety regulations and environmental standards.

It gave them a buy in in the political situation and convinced them non-violent action could still improve their own situations and the future of their children.

BA, to answer your questions

I agree with the first half but point out that the second half is not completely correct, they want the corps out, but they want the government to control the corps. That is socialism/communism aka central planning which the soviets showed does not work. Also, remember how "business" became a problem in government in the first place, the federal government unionized.

Ehm... it's entirely reasonable for the government to set standards that corporations have to follow. I mean, they also set standards for people that they have to follow, they're called laws and regulations. Also, there's absolutely no requirement that any socialist or communist political system has to use a planned economy. It's a sign of an authoritarian government if the economy is planned to the extent that a given production facility has to produce to the central government's standards regardless of market demand, including in quantity.

However, I'll note that when no standards exist or are insufficiently enforced various producers and providers of goods and services can and will lie and cheat in whatever way they can as long as they believe that doing so will increase their profit margins. Chalk dust has been mixed with flour, water has been mixed with butter, horse flesh has been sold as beef and vice versa, and various illegal drugs have been cut with a wide variety of substances ranging from the harmless to the flat out lethal entirely because there is no government agency enforcing drug purity standards.

because all this public funding seems to do is encourage the colleges to raise their prices on tuition to the point that all you can afford to do is take the government's school which at the lower level education has done nothing but dumb down the population by teaching to the lowest common denominator. Same for healthcare or have you not noticed that since the passing of the Affordable Care Act that the cost of healthcare has done nothing but go up while your choices get fewer and fewer. 

Are we talking for profit colleges? Because for profit colleges are for profit, not even nominally for the purpose of providing the students studying there with a solid education. For profit colleges can and will draw in as much money as possible from its students and any others paying for that student to attend while providing as little as they possibly can. Up to and including promising diplomas that are actually not even worth the cost of the paper they are printed on, or hiring vastly unqualified teachers to provide make work for the students at absolutely rock bottom cost for the company while keeping the students too busy to realize they are being scammed.

Public education initiatives aren't perfect, but they are answerable to locally elected officials in the USA (the various boards of education). They are also supposed to act to the benefit of the students, and they can do that a lot better when they are adequately funded, supplied and checked. When your schools have to lean on corporate donations for any reason because otherwise they won't be able to educate their students you've got a problem, because those corporations will happily abuse that power they've got and they are not accountable to anybody but the majority shareholders of that company.

And as for healthcare? The Dutch have had for years a system where private health insurers offer the bulk of the health insurance, offering a package every citizen has to take by law. It works pretty well, even if insurance premiums have increased by about 30% over a 12 year period, while the yearly copay has increased to 385 euros. Which, I'll note, is more or less what I can expect to pay for my total covered care package in a single year outside the insurance premiums. No matter what happens.

its not, the socialism there is how you go about it. Here is where we are going to seriously disagree as we have in previous threads. You want to be able to afford to live on your wages then CLOSE THE FUCKING BORDER to immigration! stop the cheap immigrant labor from coming in and then you can bargain, collectively or individually, for better wages without the boss being able to go "No, i'll just hire some immigrant who doesn't know any better or will work under the table because they are illegal." Forcing companies to raise their wages artificially has always forced inflation higher and done nothing but fuck everyone over

News flash Rajvik: Those bosses will happily hire anybody who is willing to work under the table. Estimates of the black market, including any illegal and thus untaxed labour, runs to about 1/5th of a given region's total economy. Immigration won't stop that at all. If anything, you are going to see migrant labour being drawn from USA slums and other poor areas under exactly the same terms to exactly the same jobs and regions that right now see migrant labour drawn from Meso and South American countries.

To the companies the only question that is relevant to them when it comes to hiring somebody under any term is 'is this person going to bring in more money than it costs to employ them?' And any fines and other financial and legal repercussions for employing them in a manner that breaks the law like by not officially employing them to avoid the various employment taxes are part of the answer to that company. If they believe they can just take the fine after a given number of months or years and that they won't be caught until after that time has passed it's a financially sensible decision to hire that person.

Raising wages to the point that at least locally it's equal to the cost of living is actually a good thing for the economy. The world is actually largely running a surplus of production in most products and especially primary need products. Forcibly raising the wages to that level actually boosts the economy because it means that less resources are wasted because the money to pay for them has been pocketed by the executives to rack up their scores and then left to waste away in a back account. It means that money is returned to the people who worked it and then spend to acquire the things they need.

Drogn, its not that prices wont go up, they will, thats life. its a matter of that prices will not go up completely across the board all at the same time meaning people can adjust and adapt to the rising costs not be hammered by them

Actually... no that's not right.

You see, it's not a problem if the prices of all goods and services rise as long as wages also rise to the same extent. It's also not a problem if the price of a single good or service rises as long as the average cost inflation is not higher than the average wage inflation for all people to whom that cost inflation is relevant. If my travel costs rise by 400% but that only means my total cost of living rises by 1% there is no issue as long as my net income also rises by 1%. If that's true I still have the same effective access to resources, even if I appear to have a vastly increased expense in a single sector of my life. It also doesn't matter if everything I buy becomes 1% more expensive as long as my net income also increases by 1% because again, I have effectively the same access to resources.

However, if costs rise by 2% while my net income rises by 1%, or if costs rise by even 1/2 a percent while my income does not change at all I have a problem, because now I have effectively less access to resources, to wit, I have effectively lost 1% and 0.5% of my access respectively.

[hazard]

This was almost an edit: reschedule  the school year so that kids have a harvest and planting break so that they can be put to work out there, hire people out of government housing, (which is the first likely step if you can get their asses out in the fields.

Sorry for the double post, but I have to.

This is exactly the purpose of pretty much every already scheduled vacation in the western school schedule. To let the children from farming communities stay at home to help with some of the more labour intensive jobs.

[Epsilon]

Then who is pure Epsilon, because all I seem to see are varying shades of red

That says more about you than the world. If you truly believe that everyone in the world is scum, then I pity you.

I suggest you go down to a homeless shelter or soup kitchen and put in some hours volunteering.

[robkelk]

Well, I think this thread took a left turn at Albuquerque and isn't looking back.

Bob, would you split post #36 and everything following into its own thread, please? Then we can go back to talking about impeachment in this thread.

[Labster]

Suggested title: Damn Commies

[Rajvik]

I'm fine with this being given its own thread, I'm even fine with Labster's probably sarcastic suggestion of a title. That said, my apologies, I'm not going to be able to answer tonight, a proper answer requires a proper keyboard and I don't think I will be able to get to one tonight before I have to go to bed.

[Dartz]

...anyway, back to the topic of hand.

We've gone from 'No Collusion' to It's not wrong to collude anyway

I mean. Your President took assistance from a foreign power to get elected. And has shown deference to that foreign power in response. And this doesn't alarm anybody?

Republicrat of Democan, that has to be unnerving on some level.

[Black Aeronaut]

Oh, it's wrong on all levels.

And I find it incredibly ironic that people who actually fear that the UN is going to conquer America still support Trump despite this.

[SilverFang01]

Lawyer’s analysis of the Mueller report:

[Black Aeronaut]

Sounds like impeachable offenses to me.

However, I think that the Democrats would be wise to actually wait until Trump is near the end of his term.

Reason?

Michael Fucking Pence.

He couldn't make it as a candidate for the big seat, so he decided to hitch a ride on Trump's coat tails - I wouldn't be surprised if they actually expected him to get impeached early on so that Pence could slide right into Trump's place.

If the Democrats wait until we're near the end of Trump's term in office, then Pence winds up becoming a seat warmer for the next President.  But if we pull the trigger too soon, then he will actually have time to campaign and build his support base - something that he cannot really do with Trump still in office because Trump would see it as a betrayal.

And we all know how Trump handles betrayal.

Yes.  Let's impeach the bastard.  But let's also take our time with it.  We not only want to do this right, but we also want to make an example out of him.

[hazard]

Another benefit to waiting: The entire Trump administration is getting pretty mangled in a reputation sense, including everyone working for it. If the Democrats take their time to get everything ready for an impeachment proceeding Pence gets more stained by Trump's reputation, if because of no other reason than association after working for him and facilitating his actions. Also, if they do this right? They can sink any Republican candidate the same way the Republicans used the last round of Benghazi hearings to smear Hillary Clinton, but without coming off like a bunch of political hacks obviously making a politically motivated attack rather than actually looking for an explanation and solution to an identified problem.

[Black Aeronaut]

What I worry about is that "educated" populists that had been under Bernie's flag before the Democrats chose Hillary over him will rear their heads and suddenly wonder if there actually was a conspiracy - that is, if the Democrats make a picturesque slam-dunk out of this that no Republican who is actually thinking more than a few months into the future would vote against.

[robkelk]

Trump's odds of staying in office: The Day 6 Impeach-O-Meter for July 27

First update since Mueller testified in front of Congress. Guess which way the meter went.

Spoiler

Down!

Editor's note: When we started the Impeach-O-Meter, we settled on getting people who watch U.S. politics closely to estimate the odds that Donald Trump's presidency would "end in impeachment." We've come to realize that it wasn't always clear whether that meant that the U.S. House of Representatives would vote to impeach him or that additionally, the U.S. Senate would vote to remove him from office as a result of being impeached by the House of Representatives.

We've always intended that to mean being impeached by the House of Representatives, so for the sake of clarity, we've changed the language to "the odds that Donald Trump will be impeached by the House of Representatives."