n8nrgim

They agreed to spend a billion. That's tiny in the bigger scheme of things. There will be more drug enforcercers but it's diminishing returns when they were already cracking down and hardly any drugs come from there. It's all theatrics at this point to give trump a fake win. Most of trumps objectives weren't met so he caved to lip service and theatrics. Classic trump, create fake problem, cause dysfunction, create fake solution, fixing some of what he broke but not what's important, then declare victory and his idiot sheep applaud wildly

Canada said they'd Crack down on drug flow so he relented. They were already doing that so not much changed. Total drugs from Canada r a fraction of 1 percent so it don't change much. Canadians tried to negotiate before the tariffs but trump wouldn't. It makes us out to be an unreliable to our biggest allie. Considering not much changed and trump was under huge pressure politically to back off, yes, trump caved. 

Trump is like an abusive husband who beats his wife, the American people, and the people think they deserve it and ask for more

Pointing out the technical French definition doesn't change the fact that in the usa it generally means unregulated free market. You are getting hung up on something irrelevant. The real debate is which limited smart regulations and safety nets r good. Not only that, but then u go on to say Marxism is bad, as if barely anyone is arguing it's good. Even the democratic party is mostly conservative in the bigger picture. For some reason u r getting hung up on the far left. Plus, this is a thread about tariffs. I don't know the context of your Marxist points initially but what do they have to do with trumps trade war? Self described anti Marxists usually rail against things like what trumps doing here. Your posts contain intelligence but it's a hot mess per relevancy. Focus, man, focus

The world isn't magically split into Marxism and laissez Faire economics. There's such a thing as limited and smart regulation and limited and smart social safety nets

Good zinger

Whats the sex like with AI robots?

Also does bonding spiritually with another human with a soul count for nothing?

i mean, i can relate. the federal government is bloated and often dysfunctional. but how does slashing over half the work force help? i think laymen like me and you just go with our gut... my gut says maybe some good could come of it, but in order to effectively implement our laws like the president and executive branch is suppose to do, we need people who can make the details operate correctly. didn't they say they want to cut two thirds of the federal work force? while i can sympathize with trimming bloated government, i can't help but think getting rid of that many people will just lead to poorly ran and implemented laws and government. 

trump's first term was chaos and dysfunction. it seems like his second term will be the same thing, on steroids. 

Your posts slamming grayparrot so much r hilarious. His points r so irrelevant and he's so lost in his alternative reality, that he deserves to be mocked. It's almost like u r picking on someone with special needs tho. Lol

I could live with that. Corporate ownership and people hoarding properties is a big strain on housing demand for ordinary people to compete with

The bottom line is implementing my idea might be rocky practically, but if we could transition into it slowly, it would probably work. Do you hear the opposition and what they r saying? The system can't handle corporations not owning 25 percent of homes? 65 percent of homes r owner occupied. I just can't see excluding corporations would cause financial Armageddon. Lol ridiculous, gtf outta here. As long as we responsibly transitioned into it

According to Google, corporations own 25 percent of homes. Would a 15 to 25 percent drop in demand be such a bad thing? The transition could be rocky, is all.

Im just trying to use data to draw inferences. Which is a lot more to speak for than knee jerk sky is falling rhetoric

Look at it this way, the only way there would be a meltdown in the industry is if the rich own too much to begin with. In that case, a shake up would be plausible. According to Google most rich landlords only own 3 or 4 houses, usually. That's hardly going to make a dent on demand if they end up paying 10 to 30 percent on their profit. I don't know if corporations own an excessive amount, but if they do, that makes a shake up all the more needed, as mentioned. Really u r the one being arrogant, u act cock sure of your sky is falling rhetoric, whereas I admit im not sure. I don't know if my tax scheme would reduce demand by 10 percent, 25, or 50. It's almost surely not the same as the financial crisis 16 years ago, I just don't know the extent. 

Violence is inherent in the system. It goes both ways. It's not just taking at gun point through taxes, it's also deprives resources at gun point from your side. And yes there r plenty of banana republics that r almost pure capitalism. Our meager welfare state should be the right balance, but ya all too crooked to leave it at that. The status quo and our split government will probably mostly vindicate me, about our supporting our meager welfare state. Cause no reasonable person could think unfettered capitalism is the right idea

I've had this convo plenty here. There r countries with unfettered capitalism, they're all third world countries. At the very least, our meager welfare state should be good enough, but even that's not good enough for you fiends 

As if unfettered capitalism is the solution? My ideas r measured and thought out, trying to strike the right balance between the free market and the common good. All libertarians and Republicans and skeptics can offer is criticism, no ideas themselves. 'More capitalism' that conservatives like to push and being the party of 'no', isn't the solution you think it is

you have a lot of good points, that would need ironed out if this plan were to be implemented. but those are just the details. i think the crux of the issue, is that i think home builders would just find a new price point that isn't so ridiculously high, and you think they wouldn't be able to muster it. only an empirical study of this would show who is right, but, i think at least if we did this fifty years ago or sooner, it wouldn't be such a blast to the status quo. and, that's all you for sure have here... this would for sure be a blast to the status quo, and it could even cause recessions or even a depression if done the wrong way. but that's the thing with actual policy that actually helps people, it's a crash to the status quo and scandalous if not a blast to the existing power brokers. that doesn't mean they're bad ideas, they just need gradually phased in, or something. take almost any policy solution to the problems that ail us, and you will see existing power brokers lose out and entrenched lobbyists throw all hell at preventing change. this all doesn't mean all change is bad... there's winners and losers to everything. that doesn't mean we shouldnt try to form a more perfect union and do better. at any rate, this is a democracy and someone like trump would come along and deregulate it again and say it was common sense all along what we're doing. that dont mean it's true, though. most of major change that can help people, healthcare, gun policy, education, housing, etc, would require major shock to the system. you'd be the one standing in the way every single time. what's your usual method to help people? just criticize other ideas, like libertarians, or maybe do you just like to take incremental approaches that aren't such a shock to the system? my guess is that you dont have too many original ideas, and maybe just some DNC talking points. 

Home developers would still build houses. That's their thing, so they'd just find a new equilibrium on the price point. Incomes r still high in the usa and some landlords would still own multiple properties. Instead of the the average house being 400k in the usa, which is self evidently absurd, maybe the new price point would be 200k. I doubt it'd go as low as 100k but I dunno. Plus there would still be upward pressure in housing prices not just from high incomes, but our embedded mortgage system. The bottom line is that there would just be a better price point and u r too critical to obvious solutions. If u lived when cars were made, u would be one of the people saying cars hurtling past each other at 55 mph is a disaster waiting to happen. 

First corporations and foreigners shouldn't even be allowed to own houses

Next, to discourage rich people from hoarding property at the expense of others,  the second house they own should be taxed at 10 percent of the profits, third house at 20 percent profits, and so forth, up to 90 percent tax on 10th and all subsequent houses.

Apartment buildings should be taxed the same way, except it's not based on number of apartments but number of buildings. This would encourage efficiency in building and living

This all would lower house prices and encourage more home ownership

Why is this such a bad idea?

The dude who exploded the cyber truck in nevada in his manifesto called out income inequality in the usa, and ultimately elevated trump and Elon musk as solutions to his grievances. 

To me that doesn't make sense at all. But Which party to you is better at addressing income inequality and why?

you can draw an analogy like you did, which is fair, but going out alone at night isn't the same as dressing slutty. dressing slutty is an active move in the direction of harm, not incidental like going out alone at night 

good arguments

literally, of course they aren't asking to be raped or assaulted. but i saw an argument that got me thinking. true, just because you dress slutty doesn't mean you should be assaulted. and someone made an analogy... if you go out, does that mean someone can hit you in the head if you dont wear a helmet? no you shouldn't have to wear a helmet to avoid being hit in the head. but that got me thinking.... if i know there are people looking to hit me in the head when i go out, then it'd make sense to wear a helmet. so if women know there are lots of men looking to take advantage of them, doesn't it make sense not to dress slutty? 

I grew up catholic and would identify as one if the pope dropped the ahistorical infallibility claim. So I would love an apologetic about christianity with a focus on catholicism

what do you think of my last post? 

here is a mass sighting of the virgin Mary in egypt over a few years

there's also Lourdes and the miracles associated with that apparition site. and the incorrupt body of the visiionary who is incorrupt to this day. 

and there's stigmata in catholic circles, such as Padre PIO and St Francis. there's many supernatural looking things with padre PIO. 

there's Eucharistic miraces. such as the ongoing one at lanciano. 

there's incorreput saints in cathologisim and the eastern Orthodox, 

there's the science of the afterlife, 'evidence of the afrerlife' by doctor jeffrey long, 

to say there's no evidence of the supernatural, or at least the afterlife, is idiotic. willfully blind 

Lol

Actually it's the opposite... the elites want us fighting culture wars, to distract us from economic grievances 

should sins be outlawed? some people think for example that sodomy should be outlawed. historically, it was an outlawed practice. some old school catholics might want to outlaw the sins defined in their church, but progressive catholics or moderate ones might want to respect the autonomy of other people as long as the sin doesn't hurt other people. 

that might be appropriate for very disabled and poor people. but even for them, why not look at it as social/health insurance? anybody could have been the one who was very disabled, it's largely random. i dont see a reason to say it's inherently theft to have a social insurance program.

as for the rest of people, healthcare is excessively expensive. if it's too expensive for the ordinary person, or lower middle class or upper lower class, that means the system is inherently flawed, because there's no good reason these people shouldn't be able to afford healthcare. we're too rich for people to be hoarding wealth at the expense of others. that'd be like a dude claiming a million acres of land against the cave men. none of the cavemen would stand for it.. yes violence is inherent in the social contract. yes the government is taking taxes from people at gun point and ensuring people can afford healthcare. every other developed country delivers healthcare to everyone at half the cost of us, and usually has better quality results. there's no reason we shouldn't be able to do so too. 

also a lot of libertarian types think charity is how healthcare should be tackled for the less privilegeded. the problem with that, is just that it's not chariy's burden to share. we're the richest country in the world and every other developed country delivers healthcare to everyone at half the cost... the social contract should be such that the government figures out a solution. 

That's true but his wife said he got death threats from those who didn't have adequate coverage

The public sentiment on the intertubes is "fuck em". This insurance company leads the pack in denying claims, somewhere around a third of claims r denied. Some posts on the net are sayin vigilante justice is never acceptable, and those posts r actually getting down voted. There is a palpable bloodlust in public opinion from the masses, unsympathetic to the murder. The public knows enough to know health insurance companies are a middle man who serves no real purpose other than to leech money from healthcare and police coverage, deny claims. Of course the public doesn't realize that it's probably the hospital ceos who are just as if not more responsible for our exorbitant healthcare costs, although they aren't the ones denying insurance coverage.

What say you? Are you sympathetic? What do you think of the practical details of the assassination and of the politics surrounding it?

there's actually an interesting argument that traditionalist catholics are right about recent popes not being legitimate. if that were true,  the teachings would need to be such that non catholics are condemned and unbaptized infants are condemned and the death penalty is moral. those teachings were officially taught, but the contradictions of those teachings were not necessarily dogmatically taught. when a teaching in taught infallibly, the context must be there that the teaching was 'binding' and a lot of the modern teachings might not be 'beinding' based on context. or if the current popes are legitimate, the their offical looking teachings are not which casts doubt on them as beacons of truth. 

see above

it would behoove you to read the opening two posts if you are sincerely interested in learning about the history of infalliblity. 

also, you keep making the point that the pope is special or has primacy, or should be listened to, but you aren't arguing its infallible other than by your own preference or inference. if the church really was infallible, it woudln't have taken over a thosuand years for it to become clear. or talked about. even when the orthodox split with the pope, there wasn't talk of inerrancy on faith and morals. even when it was defined at vatican I, the pope squashed the dissenters and cast them out, and the historicans who disagree with the teaching were excommunited. infallibility isn't historical. the pope being special is, but that's a sepaarte point. 

"How would the Church preserve universal doctrinal consistency without a clear, binding authority?"

as i said to the other poster, the church moves into truth. the church is infallible, the individuals are not. we might not like lack of definitiveness, but the issue is one of interpreation. the spirit guides thechurch and the individials interpret how the church and spirit are moving. i think the pope should be head of the church, and the orthodox should rejoin, but it would require a thorough reexamining of what the pope's role should be. 

to be more precise, the pope must 'bind' something. not necessarily just teach. that's why learned catholics have a good argument, that the catechism isn't always infallible, cause it's contradicted itself over time, and that's not necessarily insincere if infalliblity is true. but still, the church has done a 'binding' on dogmas that are not consistent. and by the context of the teachings, it has did 'binding' teachings countless times, not rarely as is the common myth 

i still dont think you are responding  to most of my points in the opening two points. but if the pope is the 'root and matrix' of catholic (and orthodox) as cyprian said (who as i previously mentioned fought against the pope exerting his will over other bishops) and has a primacy of honor as the orthodox teach, then it should call into question about who should be listened to when there's disagreements. i think all bishops have equal authority, but rome's authority is greater, it has higher persuasive power and where the pope goes is where the church goes. at least if the west and the east were to one day be reunited. i'm kind of a liberal catholic or maybe non denonminational or 'orthodox curious', so i have very unique views. but the orthodox churches teachings are more historical than catholocisms other than to say the pope did and should have a special role. 

The church is infallible. The individuals are not. And what is infallible is open to interpretation. Just the way it is

I'm not saying the church is inconsistent thus fallible. I'm saying the church is only infallible when it is consistent with Jesus... when its not consistent it isnt really the church speaking. Its a truism... the church is infallible when its infallible. That means it is infallivle even if individuals mess it up. How can we tell when that's the case? Only by interpretation. A lotta folks might not like that answer but it's the best we got. Plus even catholics and orthodox have to figure out what's official teaching v not and have their own room for interpretation. Plus 

the be more precise, the pope isn't infallible. you have a certain logic that jesus is infallible and thus the church is by extension as both are the body of christ. however, the church is only infallble when it's consistent with jesus. no church, protestants, catholic, or orthodox, teach consistently such that they can be said to be always infallible. the orthodox church might be, but how they define their authority and submission elements aren't defined very well and are open to interpretation and there's lots of contradicting teachings, depending how you define it. maybe the catholic church could be said the same thing, but only if it dropped the obviously false teaching of infallibility .

also you point to peter and the keys in the bible. but jesus later gave all the apostles the power of binding and loosing. explicitly. so what makes peter so special? 

i could get behind the idea that if the catholic and orthodox churches were reunited, the pope should be reqjuired to be a part of the church, unlike how the east is now. and all can agree a 'first among equals'. they can't be first if they are excommunited. but the catholics should drop the idea of infalliblity of the pope, or at least not require faith in that teaching to foster unity. 

you didn't show evidence for infallibility in the early church. it's just not there, or scarce. yes there's evidence that the pope should be listened to, but that doesn't indicate infallible. a lot of the quotes that the catholic church uses to support even papal power, are distorted in translation. you also say papal primacy was in the early church, but no one contests this, not even the orthodox. primacy doesn't prove supremecy, papal supremacy. you also did a very poor job responding to all my points in my opening posts. the catholic church has contradicted itself several times, which an infallible agency cannot do. you didn't respond to the authority behind early church councils and the context of that, and you didn't show any supporting evidence for men like aquanis, augustine, irenanaous, or cyprian. it's pretty clear you are deeply brainwashed if my arguments haven't changed your perception. 

for something to be infallibly defined, it has to have the following elements: the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. there's a myth floating around that the church has acted infallibly only a handful of times or less. that's blatantly untrue and not historical.

Carrot God does not approve. 🥕 

I was trying to move the debate forward and you dropped my responses. how do you respond? 

also I did back during the pandemic look up how long it takes for side effects to show up. the said with every vaccine in history, the bad effects show up within a couple weeks or a month, almost never longer. plus, the experts know how the vaccine interacts with our body, info I wouldn't claim to know. and, skeptics say the vaccine creation was rushed, but as the experts point out, the background research was already done before the pandemic even started. so its not that much of a rushed vaccine either.

again, the bottom line I s that all I see you doing, is using third grade logic about the scientific process against expert consensus opinion. 

trump says he wants universal care, but he's too incompetent to do anything smart in that regard. he tried to repeal Obamacare, but John McCain was the deciding vote to stop him. he tried to take away people's healthcare, without a replacement. then, in this election, he said his tinkering with Obamacare is what saved Obamacare. he didn't do anything constuctive with it, and only damaged it, yet tried to take credit for it. most experts think trump won't try to repeal Obamacare, cause it gives so many people healthcare, even early retirees and it's been the law for around fourteen years. so what will trump do this time? he'll probably gut the addded subsidides to make it more affordable. he'll turn it into a catastrophic plan essentially, and make it too expensive for most people to use, and many will drop it. that is a republican idea anyway, if they at least say they want universal care, catostrophic care. and then, in the next election cycle, he will simply say he saved Obamacare from imploding, and then blame a dysfunctional law, on Obama and the Democrats. that's the way trump operates, it's pretty predictable.