[zk]

[quote=mixxalot]and your ad hominem attacks are pathetic zika![/quote]

You’re confused on what ad hominem attack means.

This:

[quote=zk]
Your reading comprehension skills are lacking, mixxalot. The original post wasn’t about shaming anyone.[/quote]

is not an ad hominem attack. It explains that you’re mistaken about my argument.

This:

[quote=mixxalot] quit being such a crybaby zika! Go bite some more mosquitos lol.[/quote]

is what an ad hominem attack looks like.

If you have a problem with ad hominem attacks, why do you make them?

[zk]

[quote=mixxalot]Agree and dedicating an entire forum post to shaming one poster is a bit extreme IMHO. That nonsense should be taken offline.

Not defending our lovely BG but still not cool.[/quote]

Your reading comprehension skills are lacking, mixxalot. The original post wasn’t about shaming anyone.

Ah, I don’t know why I’m even responding to you, mix. You’re just a troll.

[zk]

[quote=mixxalot]Go BG!!!!

I wish folks here would just focus on real estate and investment topics and not these emotional attacks.[/quote]

[quote=mixxalot]quit being such a crybaby zika! Go bite some more mosquitos lol.[/quote]

And a hypocritical troll, at that.

[zk]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
I’m interested in the psychology and sociology of Trump’s support — Pride, bluster, badass talk, but little substance.[/quote]

[quote=flyer]With less than 20% of the US population making over $100K, I’d be interested in the psychology and sociology of any voter who actually believes, in reality, not in rhetoric, that any political candidate can make a difference in their lives to a life-changing degree.[/quote]

I think a huge part of the “reasoning” of Trump supporters is exactly this ^^^^^.

Trump supporters agree that no ordinary politician can (or will) make a difference in their lives. But Trump’s supporters think he can. I’ve heard them say, “Trump is not a politician.” The implication seems to be that the reason all these politicians have failed is that they’re politicians. Not “doers.” Compromisers, not demanders. Trump will grab the bull by the horns and punch it in the face, and give Americans back their jobs.

It’s not real complicated to explain why that won’t work, but good luck getting Trump supporters to understand, let alone agree.

[zk]

[quote=dumbrenter]Norway?
Tax everybody and have over $6/gallon gas price even though you are oil rich.[/quote]

But what would you do?

[zk]

[quote=Doofrat]It’d definitely be more efficient to build the automated system, then just profit share with the rich guy.
[/quote]
So the rich guy gets half the profits? Or some other percentage? And what do you do with the government’s share of the profits?

[zk]

[quote=njtosd] Stop looking for someone to protect you from competition and just compete.[/quote]

I think this applies to a lot of Trump voters. The problem is that “compete” used to mean, “join a union and get an unskilled or semi-skilled job that pays a middle-class wage, do that job for 45 years, then collect a pension.” Now it means, “go to college, then fight for a job that pays a middle-class wage, struggle to pay off your student loans, then spend the rest of your life fighting for a string of jobs that pay middle-class wages, hoping that you make it to the upper-middle class, still struggling to pay off your student loans, all the while struggling to put enough into a 401k that you’re not destitute when you retire.”

It’s harder than it used to be. And people are bitter about that.

People harken back to a simpler time, but I think one thing that gets lost is that a middle class existence in the ’50s and ’60s was, from a consumer/financial perspective, not something that would satisfy a lot of people today. A 1200 s.f. house for 4 or 5 people. Maybe only one car. One 19-inch tv. No computer/cell phone/internet. Most things were more expensive, and people had less things. (The debate about whether “things” are important is a separate one. I’m talking about the difference between the financial situations of a middle-class family back then and now.) Part of the reason things were more expensive is that they were manufactured here. We sent those jobs overseas because we could get people to do them for a small fraction of what Americans were paid. And if we bring them back, the price of everything that is currently made overseas and is then made here, which a boatload of stuff – millions of boatloads, actually – doubles or triples or is multiplied by 10. So now you’re back to not being able to afford more than one small tv.

A more important factor, I think, is automation. Even if you bring manufacturing back to the United States, there aren’t going to be 1,000 people on assembly lines in a factory. There will be 25 people overseeing automation in the factory. The rich get richer. The rich can afford to build a highly automated factory and then, instead of creating 1,000 jobs and spreading the wealth, the rich guy is creating 25 jobs and keeping most of wealth for himself.

This brings me to a hypothetical scenario that, I think, merits its own thread:

http://piggington.com/hypothetical_scenario_about_jobsgovernment

Trump seems to promise to bring manufacturing jobs back to America, but it seems to me that, with automation, those jobs just don’t exist anymore at the wages Americans want for them. The only ways that things get manufactured is either overseas at minimal cost, or in a mostly automated fashion, with very few workers and, therefore, at minimal cost.

[zk]

.

[zk]

[quote=mixxalot]Go BG!!!!

I wish folks here would just focus on real estate and investment topics and not these emotional attacks.[/quote]

[quote=mixxalot]Hmm maybe BG, zk and pri dude can get a room together or do an online Celebrity Deathmatch showdown? Now, that would be funny![/quote]

Can you say hypocrisy?

[zk]

[quote=dumbrenter]

Unless some of you know each other personally, what is this deal with honesty? You expect anonymous folks to be honest? Do you expect landlords and realtors to be honest too?

[/quote]

dumbrenter, if she wants to be dishonest in the way that a landlord or a realtor can be dishonest, that’s different from posting untrue things about a person. If I say, “dumbrenter admitted in an earlier post that he cheats on his wife,” is that going to bother you? Are you just going to ignore that?

[zk]

Wow, phaster, you dug this up from a year and a half ago.

While I agree with your assessment of bg, as long as she’s only making a fool of herself and not lying, I, personally, don’t see a need to ban her (not that you were necessarily advocating banning her).

Whether she’s still lying or not, I don’t know, but I haven’t seen it lately.

Just my 2 cents.

[zk]

[quote=bearishgurl]Are we surprised? It’s flu … making an azz of himself … yet again … with nothing better to do in the middle of the business day. I know, I know. It’s pretty hard to contribute anything of value to the readers here with one-liners … using yet another “pseudonym.” Ya-a- w-n . . . it isn’t the first time and won’t be the last :=0

poorgradstudent, just change your name to richgrad, since that name better applies to you now. OR, to get some ideas of what you DON’T want to do, you can study FLU’s various name changes and reversals to his numerous recycled user names on this forum over the years . . . depending on the thread and who was posting on it . . . of course![/quote]

Are we surprised? It’s bg, acting again like the person who bursts into a party and runs around talking loudly to everyone, certain that everybody thinks she’s great, despite all evidence to the contrary, and certain that everyone wants to listen to her, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Yeah, there’s somebody making an ass of themselves here, and it’s not flu.

[zk]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=scaredyclassic]changing your name is lame.[/quote]

… so says walterwhite[/quote]

Let’s see how many I can remember:

scaredycat
walterwhite
squat250
squat300
scaredyclassic

I’m sure there were more. scaredycat is still my favorite. Not just of scaredy’s names, of all the user names.

[zk]

CourtneyCampbel1

[zk]

[quote=zk][quote=poorgradstudent]
So Hillary doesn’t elicit visceral hatred from the right? Really? [/quote]

I clearly remember lots of visceral hatred from the right towards Hillary. I remember wondering where it came from.

I think I figured out where it came from. The same place where the visceral hatred that the right wing has for so many people came from: The right-wing noise machine is constantly filling the brains of the gullible with whatever it takes to make them viscerally hate whomever it is that the right-wing noise machine wants them to hate.

[/quote]

Here’s an interesting article on why Hillary is so reviled:

https://thepolicy.us/thinking-about-hillary-a-plea-for-reason-308fce6d187c#.48jzbkas9

[Author]

Posts