Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    38479
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. VAT is irrelevant, because it is applied to domestic and imported goods. It provides no advantage or disadvantage. But, you're sitting here trying to rationalize the policies of a clear moron.
  2. Problem is, that dumb sonofabitch ain't saving shit.
  3. The backstory is he's been quoting Goebbels for 15 years. https://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/state/collin-county-judge-uses-nazi-quote-in-campaign/article_93fe9b35-c5ec-5c4d-8ef6-41d4013945be.html
  4. Also worth noting, again, that guys like Gates donate sums beyond the comprehension of most of us. But his wealth grows anyway, because it too is incomprehensible.
  5. So, Cass seems like a pretty reasonable guy. But, he is by admission and criticism, a wonk and not super-big on implementation. But compared to other conservative "intelligentsia," a breath of sane fresh air. But some of his stuff veers toward "common good," and there are some dangerous, authoritarian ideas there. I'd be interested to find out if he approves of those social ideas. Also, Jon Stewart is really just fantastic. Sharp, incisive, passionate when needed, civil, courteous and fun with a reasonable guy like Cass.
  6. Had a pair, liked them, but they keep changing them up. Right or wrong, I want knuckle protection. Too easy to whap into a tree round here.
  7. I do think someone told him that weakening the dollar would help the trade balance, which seems to be his main thing, as brisket notes. So, he thinks China and whoever else manipulated currency to strengthen the dollar. 🤪 Also, it's been noted in the context of international arms sales, but one of Trump's fuzzier ideas is to open more markets to US goods, which dollar weakening might help. The again, this whole tariff-trade war thing works against that. He's so completely incoherent.
  8. Do note that I didn't say Gates was not still an asshole, but the asshole part apparently is still there, just lower-profile.
  9. I suspect that more "modern" billionaires, from this era of "disruptors" and short-term profits, may be more disgusting humans than some of their predecessors. But they probably have at some point in their acquisition of wealth exhibited some sociopathy. Take Bill Gates. He's been pretty quiet and highly philanthropic for the last 20 or so years. But hark back to the M$ antitrust trial and a lot of cocksucker behavior and entitlement revealed then. Even if they aren't total greenheads, they seem to have some sort of messianic complex (you should thank me for Windoze and Internet Explorer, not sue me).
  10. The fundamental problem with that is that Constitutional law has ALWAYS been a word game, Calvinball if you prefer. Yes, it's worse now than it's ever been (although the Court during FDR's administration was quite incoherent), but it's just a matter of degree, not difference.
  11. I I think the way this would come up is sane states object to putting Trump on the ballot as VP. Trump would sue, and it would go pretty much just like the 14th Amendment/insurrectionist cases as far as timing and procedure go. And if Stephen Gillers says it's plausible, he is super-credible.
  12. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-describes-how-he-could-solve-russia-ukraine-conflict-24-hours "I know Zelenskyy very well, and I know Putin very well, even better. And I had a good relationship, very good with both of them. I would tell Zelenskyy, no more. You got to make a deal. I would tell Putin, if you don't make a deal, we're going to give him a lot. We're going to [give Ukraine] more than they ever got if we have to. I will have the deal done in one day. One day," Trump responded.
  13. And when asked at his hearing who was Stew Peters, he said he didn't know. As Wittes documented, Patel, among other things, is a liar.
  14. I know some of ya are younger fellas, but this is actually Strom Thurmond: And the above is not.
  15. From the comments:
  16. There are lots of fairly "pissant" schools that are ABET-accredited, for engineering, at least 27 in Texas. https://amspub.abet.org/aps/
  17. Granted, I was an engineer, but UT was way too liberal for me back in the day. But I was astute enough to realize even then, that it wasn't the institution, it was its inhabitants that trended liberal, some students, a lot of professors. But also that that is the nature of high-level learning: many of its devotees are going to be proponents of the "latest, greatest ideas" circulating out there, and, while many of those ideas may not stand the test of time, they are the seeds of progress. So, yeah, UT can be identified as "liberal" as can most institutions of higher learning, it's their nature. But I wouldn't say it attracts liberals any more than any other school. The only people that make university choices based on personal ideology at this point are conservatards. Even conservatives should be fans of progress, just perhaps more measured and incremental than more left-leaning types. This intellectual revanchism disgusts me.
  18. Do you disagree? It's a tiny, minimally accredited college basically in a strip mall that costs upward of $40k annually all-in. Although currently tuition seems to be covered by a scholarship gained by admission. The only appeal it would have is to people with some sort of ideological axe to grind with traditional academia.
  19. Funny thing, their admission criteria looks a lot like UTs did 40 years ago, except it goes "more holistic" after the automatic admission criteria. Yes, standardized tests correlate pretty strongly to academic success, or at least potential, but they're also culturally/economically biased. And so, troublesome as a sole admission criteria. And part of the bias is the ability for the economically advantaged to "game" it through preparation and repeat test-taking. But I think it was the "SAT only" admission criteria that led the admissions counselor to remark that UT was full of "scary smart" kids: those unchallenged by high school who compiled an above-average, but mediocre record, but were ready to tear it up in the university setting. But some of those same kids also continued to underachieve, despite their ability. Which leads to the other criticism. All admissions is "pattern matching." It's absurd for this place to criticize what has become the normal "group" of criteria, while applauding their own pattern of fewer factors. It's not superior. It's just different, and something they are able to do because they don't really have to be selective.
  20. It's so very Trump. He and his cabal have figured out that they can try and encant the magic words "national security" and "foreign affairs" and it makes everything he does untouchable. It's not that far from "Hannibal Lecter."
  21. Slippery slope used to be a favorite argument of conservatards everywhere. Now that we're actually on one, big shrug.
  22. It's a threadjack. Pato made kind of a mess of constitutional interpretation there.
  23. Just a point of order. Originalists, or textualists, or strict constructionists, any of the constitutional interpretation methods "in opposition" to a "living Constitution," do not hold the original document as perfect. Rather, they hold that if it is to encompass and address matters not confronted by society at the time of ratification, it should be amended, in order to more democratically address such issues, or address them fully in the modern context in which they occur. By the same token, amending the constitution and treating it as a "living document" are somewhat at odds. If it's a perfect artifact, capable of addressing all societal issues via intention and penumbrae, why amend it? Of course, none of these modes of interpretation can, by itself, solve all constitutional problems, so I guess it's fine to make a hash of them. It's never not been Calvinball. It's just that the practitioners now are more willing to transparently and dramatically change the rules more often.
  24. https://www.fidelity.com/retirement-ira/schedule-appt-401k-rollover-ira-steps?s_tnt=186061%3A1%3A0&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID%3D21687B1982216371-5CC4FE8D468EE73D|MCORGID%3DEDCF01AC512D2B770A490D4C%40AdobeOrg|TS%3D1743392024&adobe_mc_ref=https%3A%2F%2Fduckduckgo.com%2F For reference, Fidelity will run a 401k for an employer for nothing or close to it. They just want the funds. It's a no-brainer as a small-business employer. https://presents.voya.com/Retirement/SelectAdvantage/content/206943.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...