Trump / Musk (other than DOGE) Omnibus Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12K
  • Views: 324K
  • Politics 
05C40 said:
First time I heard the expression "like a fart in church," was when I was about six and my grandfather said it about something. I asked what that meant. He explained, "It's something everyone hears or sees, but pretend they don't." For the next couple years after that, I may have overused that expression, a tad, and may have, on occasion, used in in situations were it really wasn't appropriate. All of which is to say, be careful about using that expression around young boys, unless you are their grandfather. If you are their grandfather, then go for it, but don't expect any "Thank yous" from your daughters-in-law.
Click to expand...
Good post. One of the advantages to bring a grandfather is you can say stuff like that around your young grandchildren. When my grandchildren were little I would say things like that. My daughter or wife would roll their eyes and say, “Don’t listen to Pop.”
 
Trump may not have Taylor, but sadly seems like he got Janet Jackson.

www.theguardian.com

‘I think I am breaking the pattern’: Janet Jackson on bad relationships, new music and Kamala Harris

After five decades in the public eye, three marriages and the ‘wardrobe malfunction’ that torpedoed her career, the pop megastar is back. She opens up about family, fame and her fears of mayhem after the US election
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com


“On [the Rhythm Nation album], for us, it was about making a difference in a kid’s life, a teenager’s life, from them taking this path with drugs and going down the wrong street to trying to make something of themself.”

On that record she sang about “joining voices in protest to social injustice” and “pushing toward a world rid of colour lines”. I wonder where she stands on the forthcoming election. After all, I say, America could be on the verge of voting in its first black female president, Kamala Harris.

“Well, you know what they supposedly said?” she asks me. “She’s not black. That’s what I heard. That she’s Indian.”

She looks at me expectantly, perhaps assuming that I have Indian heritage.

“Well, she’s both,” I offer.

“Her father’s white. That’s what I was told. I mean, I haven’t watched the news in a few days,” she coughs. “I was told that they discovered her father was white.”

I’m floored at this point. It’s well known that Harris’s father is a Jamaican economist, a Stanford professor who split from her Indian mother when she was five. “My mother understood very well that she was raising two black daughters,” Harris wrote in her book The Truths We Hold.

The people who are most vocal in questioning the facts of Harris’s identity tend to be hardcore QAnon-adjacent, Trump-loving conspiracy theorists. I don’t think Jackson falls into that camp, but I do wonder what the algorithms are serving her. I start again. Harris has dual heritage, I say, and, given this moment, does Jackson think America is ready for her – if we agree she’s black? Or, OK, a woman of colour?

“I don’t know,” Jackson stage whispers. “Honestly, I don’t want to answer that because I really, truthfully, don’t know. I think either way it goes is going to be mayhem.”

She doesn’t think there will be a peaceful transition of power?

“I think there might be mayhem,” she falters. “Either way it goes, but we’ll have to see.”
 
altmin said:
Trump may not have Taylor, but sadly seems like he got Janet Jackson.

www.theguardian.com

‘I think I am breaking the pattern’: Janet Jackson on bad relationships, new music and Kamala Harris

After five decades in the public eye, three marriages and the ‘wardrobe malfunction’ that torpedoed her career, the pop megastar is back. She opens up about family, fame and her fears of mayhem after the US election
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com


“On [the Rhythm Nation album], for us, it was about making a difference in a kid’s life, a teenager’s life, from them taking this path with drugs and going down the wrong street to trying to make something of themself.”

On that record she sang about “joining voices in protest to social injustice” and “pushing toward a world rid of colour lines”. I wonder where she stands on the forthcoming election. After all, I say, America could be on the verge of voting in its first black female president, Kamala Harris.

“Well, you know what they supposedly said?” she asks me. “She’s not black. That’s what I heard. That she’s Indian.”

She looks at me expectantly, perhaps assuming that I have Indian heritage.

“Well, she’s both,” I offer.

“Her father’s white. That’s what I was told. I mean, I haven’t watched the news in a few days,” she coughs. “I was told that they discovered her father was white.”

I’m floored at this point. It’s well known that Harris’s father is a Jamaican economist, a Stanford professor who split from her Indian mother when she was five. “My mother understood very well that she was raising two black daughters,” Harris wrote in her book The Truths We Hold.

The people who are most vocal in questioning the facts of Harris’s identity tend to be hardcore QAnon-adjacent, Trump-loving conspiracy theorists. I don’t think Jackson falls into that camp, but I do wonder what the algorithms are serving her. I start again. Harris has dual heritage, I say, and, given this moment, does Jackson think America is ready for her – if we agree she’s black? Or, OK, a woman of colour?

“I don’t know,” Jackson stage whispers. “Honestly, I don’t want to answer that because I really, truthfully, don’t know. I think either way it goes is going to be mayhem.”

She doesn’t think there will be a peaceful transition of power?

“I think there might be mayhem,” she falters. “Either way it goes, but we’ll have to see.”
Click to expand...
Just means she's uneducated. Don't think she's a trump type. Jermaine though ... Yeah.

The whole Jackson family is just messed up
 
NYCBlueBlood said:
Why is it a terrible policy? Not disagreeing. I can see pros and cons. But you seem definitive, and you usually have good reasons when you take a hard stance.
Click to expand...

Versions of this have been implemented in several countries in Latin America. Ironically, its been by parties on the left end of the political spectrum which are usually the politicians that don't understand the impacts of price controls. I saw this process up close and personal about four years ago.

In the best of cases, a cap is put on interest rates, so banks just shift everything to fees. And like discount airlines, they start charging for everything which just makes it a nuisance for customers. Countries that came later put cap on interest rates as well as some limits on fees, that is where disaster looms.

At any given time, about 30-40% of the credit cards in a portfolio don't make any money for the bank: they cost more than what they bring in. That loss is covered by what the bank makes on the other 60-70% of the portfolio (and usually, 20% of the accounts represent 80% of the profit). So what happens when you slash the interest rate from say 25% to 10%? Just a rough estimate, but I'm guessing the cards that would lose money would probably go up to about 50-60% of the portfolio. Banks, like other business, are not in the business of losing money...so what's the next step? You cancel large swaths of the accounts that lose the most money (in CR it was estimated that the bottom 20% of CC and personal loan customers lost their accounts). Those are usually the tranches of customers that have lower level of credit ratings (and usually of income). The banks will also tighten credit to new accounts and those accounts that survived (with half the interest income...youre only willing to risk on the very best bets). That reduction in credit by itself is already bad enough...

And that's the "good" part. The thing is, those people who lost their account...their need for credit doesn't disappear. The problem is that the formal market no longer has a viable option for them (in CR the cap on interest rates was across the board for all products...usually what has been implemented in markets that do this). So the more desperate customers turn to the informal sector, the neighborhood loan shark (here known as little drop loans). In the last two years we have been flooded by cases of beatings and thefts associated to this phenomenon; its given oxygen to our local mafia.

There is a bill in the legislation to relax the cap a bit. I do believe some financial institutions charge rates that border on usury. But time after time we have seen that price controls don't work. The harsher the price control, the more collateral effects it engenders.
 
CRHeel94 said:
Versions of this have been implemented in several countries in Latin America. Ironically, its been by parties on the left end of the political spectrum which are usually the politicians that don't understand the impacts of price controls. I saw this process up close and personal about four years ago.

In the best of cases, a cap is put on interest rates, so banks just shift everything to fees. And like discount airlines, they start charging for everything which just makes it a nuisance for customers. Countries that came later put cap on interest rates as well as some limits on fees, that is where disaster looms.

At any given time, about 30-40% of the credit cards in a portfolio don't make any money for the bank: they cost more than what they bring in. That loss is covered by what the bank makes on the other 60-70% of the portfolio (and usually, 20% of the accounts represent 80% of the profit). So what happens when you slash the interest rate from say 25% to 10%? Just a rough estimate, but I'm guessing the cards that would lose money would probably go up to about 50-60% of the portfolio. Banks, like other business, are not in the business of losing money...so what's the next step? You cancel large swaths of the accounts that lose the most money (in CR it was estimated that the bottom 20% of CC and personal loan customers lost their accounts). Those are usually the tranches of customers that have lower level of credit ratings (and usually of income). The banks will also tighten credit to new accounts and those accounts that survived (with half the interest income...youre only willing to risk on the very best bets). That reduction in credit by itself is already bad enough...

And that's the "good" part. The thing is, those people who lost their account...their need for credit doesn't disappear. The problem is that the formal market no longer has a viable option for them (in CR the cap on interest rates was across the board for all products...usually what has been implemented in markets that do this). So the more desperate customers turn to the informal sector, the neighborhood loan shark (here known as little drop loans). In the last two years we have been flooded by cases of beatings and thefts associated to this phenomenon; its given oxygen to our local mafia.

There is a bill in the legislation to relax the cap a bit. I do believe some financial institutions charge rates that border on usury. But time after time we have seen that price controls don't work. The harsher the price control, the more collateral effects it engenders.
Click to expand...
Thank you! This is VERY helpful. I had not thought of most of this on my own.
 

"Melania Trump has barely been seen on the campaign trail this year. One of the few times she has appeared at a political event, she’s received a six-figure paycheck – a highly unusual move for the spouse of a candidate.

The former first lady spoke at two political fundraisers for the Log Cabin Republicans this year, and she was paid $237,500 for an April event, according to former President Donald Trump’s latest financial disclosure form. The payment was listed as a “speaking engagement.”

Trump’s latest disclosure form said Melania Trump was paid by the Log Cabin Republicans for the April fundraiser. But it’s a mystery who actually cut the check: Charles Moran, president of the Log Cabin Republicans, told CNN earlier this month the group did not put up the money for her to speak, and the disclosure form did not give any more information about the source of the payment.

... Campaign finance and government ethics experts say a payment to a presidential candidate’s spouse to appear at political fundraisers in an election is unusual, ethically questionable and should, at the very least, be properly noted in the disclosure forms.

“It seems pretty self-serving. From my own general observation, I’m not used to seeing that,” said Virginia Canter, the chief ethics counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics.

If the organization did not in fact make the payment to Melania Trump, the former president’s financial disclosure form may run afoul of ethics rules because it should have listed the sponsor who paid Melania Trump and not just where she spoke, Canter said. ..."
 
CRHeel94 said:
Versions of this have been implemented in several countries in Latin America. Ironically, its been by parties on the left end of the political spectrum which are usually the politicians that don't understand the impacts of price controls. I saw this process up close and personal about four years ago.

In the best of cases, a cap is put on interest rates, so banks just shift everything to fees. And like discount airlines, they start charging for everything which just makes it a nuisance for customers. Countries that came later put cap on interest rates as well as some limits on fees, that is where disaster looms.

At any given time, about 30-40% of the credit cards in a portfolio don't make any money for the bank: they cost more than what they bring in. That loss is covered by what the bank makes on the other 60-70% of the portfolio (and usually, 20% of the accounts represent 80% of the profit). So what happens when you slash the interest rate from say 25% to 10%? Just a rough estimate, but I'm guessing the cards that would lose money would probably go up to about 50-60% of the portfolio. Banks, like other business, are not in the business of losing money...so what's the next step? You cancel large swaths of the accounts that lose the most money (in CR it was estimated that the bottom 20% of CC and personal loan customers lost their accounts). Those are usually the tranches of customers that have lower level of credit ratings (and usually of income). The banks will also tighten credit to new accounts and those accounts that survived (with half the interest income...youre only willing to risk on the very best bets). That reduction in credit by itself is already bad enough...

And that's the "good" part. The thing is, those people who lost their account...their need for credit doesn't disappear. The problem is that the formal market no longer has a viable option for them (in CR the cap on interest rates was across the board for all products...usually what has been implemented in markets that do this). So the more desperate customers turn to the informal sector, the neighborhood loan shark (here known as little drop loans). In the last two years we have been flooded by cases of beatings and thefts associated to this phenomenon; its given oxygen to our local mafia.

There is a bill in the legislation to relax the cap a bit. I do believe some financial institutions charge rates that border on usury. But time after time we have seen that price controls don't work. The harsher the price control, the more collateral effects it engenders.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of this. I'd put it slightly differently, though. The market for credit card receivables is extremely competitive. If the interest rate on a loan is currently 21%, it means that the market deems that price to be necessary to be profitable given the characteristics of that loan. If the maximum rate is 18%, it's unlikely that the bank will extend the loan. There is so much data out there about credit card defaults and payments that it's just not very hard for banks to predict the default rate on cards.

On the other hand, one way of implementing a non-distorting price control would be for the government to use subsidies to the issuers to compensate them for extending a loan with a negative ex ante value. Or even more simply, the government could just buy the credit card receivables at the price that those receivables would have received under today's laws. Then it would be the government on the hook.
 
nycfan said:
If the organization did not in fact make the payment to Melania Trump, the former president’s financial disclosure form may run afoul of ethics rules because it should have listed the sponsor who paid Melania Trump and not just where she spoke, Canter said. ..."
Click to expand...
The Trump Campaign running afoul of ethics rules?

Shocked GIF by The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon
 
nycfan said:

"Melania Trump has barely been seen on the campaign trail this year. One of the few times she has appeared at a political event, she’s received a six-figure paycheck – a highly unusual move for the spouse of a candidate.

The former first lady spoke at two political fundraisers for the Log Cabin Republicans this year, and she was paid $237,500 for an April event, according to former President Donald Trump’s latest financial disclosure form. The payment was listed as a “speaking engagement.”

Trump’s latest disclosure form said Melania Trump was paid by the Log Cabin Republicans for the April fundraiser. But it’s a mystery who actually cut the check: Charles Moran, president of the Log Cabin Republicans, told CNN earlier this month the group did not put up the money for her to speak, and the disclosure form did not give any more information about the source of the payment.

... Campaign finance and government ethics experts say a payment to a presidential candidate’s spouse to appear at political fundraisers in an election is unusual, ethically questionable and should, at the very least, be properly noted in the disclosure forms.

“It seems pretty self-serving. From my own general observation, I’m not used to seeing that,” said Virginia Canter, the chief ethics counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics.

If the organization did not in fact make the payment to Melania Trump, the former president’s financial disclosure form may run afoul of ethics rules because it should have listed the sponsor who paid Melania Trump and not just where she spoke, Canter said. ..."
Click to expand...

Campaign pays candidate’s spouse $250k to speak at a campaign event at the candidate’s home.
 
altmin said:
Cards against Humanity is suing Musk


Neighbors of Starbase continue to be perplexed by some of SpaceX’s activities. Last year, a homeowner in the area, Keith Reynolds, noticed that SpaceX builders had cleared a parcel and were storing construction materials there. The parcel belonged to Cards Against Humanity, a card game company that sometimes engages in progressive political activism and bought land there to thwart a border wall with Mexico.
Reynolds said he called SpaceX to complain, but got no response. He also phoned an executive at Cards Against Humanity to inform them. The executive, who asked not to be identified by name, told Reuters that Denise Marrufo, a SpaceX real estate analyst, called afterward, asking if the company wanted to sell the property.

The executive ignored the offer.

Marrufo didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Cards Against Humanity on Thursday filed a $15 million lawsuit against SpaceX in Cameron County District Court, alleging illegal trespassing and destruction of property.

459364832_548159550983084_2652470503442141367_n.jpg459904617_522145877186994_7437505816964353331_n.jpg459230101_2230117167354777_8359174110971860200_n.jpg459330464_541824368423582_4032994770973539221_n.jpg459432860_1047864077036026_5847644784578271406_n.jpg459289788_538632558820789_3228431496755048361_n.jpg
Click to expand...
I hope they're not inadvertently running afoul of litigation funding rules here (though I suspect Texas is fairly permissive in that regard).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top