Different Types of republicans

The modern GOP is in no way a united political party. It's more of an umbrella organisation now, and has been for some time. There are several distinct groups vying for control, and their interests don't always coincide.

You have the 'traditional' Conservative (with a capital 'C') stream, who probably represent the last bastion of what Republican Party ought (for lack of a better term) to be. Sensible, intelligent pragmatists who have conservative views and who genuinely believe that a smaller government is what's best but who believe that everyone deserves a fair crack of the whip. Think John Huntsman. Hell, think George HW Bush. Think Campaign Kasich, if not necessarily Governor Kasich.

Then you have the Money Party, arguably an offshoot of the above who are firm in their belief that the ultra rich really are 'job creators' and deserve special consideration. Of course, they're not all ultra rich themselves. Many are 'temporarily embarrassed billionaires'. But a lot of them are rich, and always have been, and have grown up insulated from 'real' people. They tend to be out of touch, corporatist and, whether unintentionally or intentionally, callous. They're the 'let them eat cake' faction. Mitt Romney is arguably a representative, and richer yet are people like Sheldon Adelson, who are undeniably looking out for themselves and to hell with everybody else. These guys are master manipulators, and are used to getting their own way. They're not above exploiting other factions.

Among those exploited factions are the GUNS JESUS Republicans, who are generally not very well off, under-educated white social conservatives or, less kindly, the Redneck faction. These are the Trailer Park Republicans, who are easily manipulated by the Moneypublicans. These 'grass roots' folks are the reason deep red states take in so much Federal money, while braying and howling about Federal money being given to anyone else. They're the Welfare Republicans, who have been convinced to vote against their own interests because the Moneypublicans know they're a valuable resource when it comes to elections. LBJ shepherded them into the GOP fold when he turned his back on the Blue Dogs, and Nixon cemented their loyalty with the Southern Strategy.

Beyond them, you have the CHRISTIAN (all caps) Republicans. These guys are scary, and they're an offshoot of Reagan's plan to bring Fallwell's flock and their ilk into the Republican fold. They're the hard-core fundamentalist Protestant (usually) ultra-conservatives, almost exclusively white and generally (but not always) quite comfortable, money wise. They believe that temporal concerns like the economy, the military, health care, infrastructure...you name it...should all take a back seat to school prayer, the Ten Commandments in public places, and JESUS in general. America's problems only appear geopolitical to them, but they know that everything from natural disasters and stock market crashes to terrorist attacks and hospital waiting lists are really caused by gay people and abortions, and know that America can be put right again by getting rid of these things. They're the Dominionist Party, operating under the umbrella of the GOP. Ted Cruz and Michelle Bachmann are good examples. They are fucking insane.

There's a lot of overlap between the last couple of groups I've mentioned and the Tea Party, the only sub-faction to have given themselves a separate name and a definite identity. They're just as gun crazy and Jesus loopy as the last few factions, but they're better at dressing it up as patriotism and constitutional fundamentalism. They're a safe haven for the loud and unsmart. Like many of the other factions, there's a distinctly racist bent to their outlook, but it's not too high on their list of priorities. They're the thin end of the anti-establishment wedge, and they're dangerous primarily because they smarten up well (style over substance) and they're a feeder group for both the CHRISTIAN Republicans and the last and lowest of their GOP stablemates; the Trumpists.

The Trumpists were just waiting in the wings until they had a figurehead to unite behind and they've done it by siphoning from the GUNS JESUS group, the CHRISTIAN group, the Tea Party and the like. They're RINO to the core, and they're flying under a flag of convenience when they call themselves Republicans. They've fully subscribed to Donald Trump's cult of personality. They're aggressively nationalistic, misogynist, fundamentally racist and sectarian, loud, uneducated, irrational, fact-blind (if not downright anti-fact) and delighted to have the backup and support of millions of like-minded howler monkeys now, after years of having to couch their language and views to make them more acceptable to the mainstream. They exalt ignorance. They draw on the worst dregs of the Redneck Republicans, the Tea Party, the CHRISTIAN Republicans and any other wide-eyed, spittle-flecked unaffiliated 'Republicans' out there. These are the lowest common denominators within the GOP. These are the people who will rant and rave about the US Constitution while never having read it. They're Breitbart in human form. They're The Brownshirts. They're The_Donald.

So...what is the modern Republican Party? Truthfully, there is no such thing. These people will all vote Republican because the abstract concept which has taken over from the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, Taft and Eisenhower is the one in which they can see, if they squint, a reflection of themselves somewhere in the hall of mirrors the GOP has become since the 1980s.

EDIT: A lot of people have said (smart people...the best people...) that I overlooked the Libertarian wing. I haven't, I'm just not sure what to make of them. I answered one of those smart, best people with this (and there's a quick breakdown of my take on the Democrats somewhere in the maelstrom too...and that link ought to work now):

"I find them (the Libertarian Republicans) to be a bit of an anomaly. I was going to mention the Pauls, but there's already a Libertarian party. I view Libertarian Republicans as a bit of a curveball, and I haven't given them as much thought as I ought to, so I decided that not mentioning them at all would be better than half-assing a mention just for the sake of it.

I like Rand Paul. I like Ron Paul. I can't think of too many other examples. I wouldn't vote for them, but I think I'd enjoy talking to them, and that we'd find a lot of common ground."

I'd like to point out that not a huge amount of thought went into this post. It's not some sort of political thesis, and it makes a lot of generalizations. I didn't expect it to get as much attention as it has. Posters have accused me of copying it from somewhere, of spending a lot of time on it, of having some sort of agenda, of being biased, of being paid by Hillary Clinton, etc. 

None of that is true. I type fast, I had a few minutes to spare where I felt like giving a detailed response to another poster. That was off the cuff, 

I'm not a Democrat or a Republican (or even an American) and while I'll admit that there is a certain anti-Republican bias, it's not a 'Correct The Record' effort. At no point have I claimed it was a dispassionate, academic analysis of the GOP. It's a quick musing and it's more of a stream of consciousness than anything else. That said, to the dozens of people who've taken it as a personal insult: relax. It's just Reddit. And read it again, because some of the things you're accusing me of aren't actually there at all.

There is no smoke. There are no mirrors. I'm not a shill. I'm not a pundit. I'm not a Democrat. I'm just some guy who's bored with the work he's supposed to be doing and who's fascinated with the Great Big 2016 Shitshow.

SOURCE

Charitable Giving and Homelessness

I don't think it's appropriate to restrict charitable giving to only supporting organised charity or government initiatives. I also think that only giving people "things" (ie food) is a bad idea. Here are a few reasons.

Homeless shelters and services like soup kitchens develop a culture. Everyone needs humans to interact with and a society to be a part of. However, the homeless congregate around these services, especially when they have no other option. The "scene" that results from this is incredibly toxic. Instead of having an opportunity to be around functional, healthy people in a different environment, we only interact with other homeless people. People who have poor coping skills, who have addictions, mental illnesses, learned helplessness, and all of the other crap that accompanies homelessness. People who all believe that there's essentially no way out, and that to find a way out is in some way disloyal. Getting out and learning how to interact with society is already really, really fucking hard. 

But when you have a ready made peer group of, perhaps, the only people who won't look down on you or treat you differently because of your situation, it's that much harder to collect the internal resources necessary to pry yourself away from that community and learn how to function in another one. The horrible, abusive, and dysfunctional interpersonal dynamics among the group seems not only normal, but inevitable. This is, in my opinion, only heightened by the presence of the people running the charity. These people are usually educated (almost always more educated than the service users), from a relatively stable or "normal" background, and the class differences between users and providers is obvious, and often insurmountable. Not because of ill intentions on the part of those providing charity, but because there are basic, fundamental differences in things like communication and priorities that come with class differences. 

There is almost always some sense of patronization, sometimes obvious, sometimes subtle, sometimes only felt by the receivers. The distinct sense of we the givers are different from you, the lowly receivers, whether intended or not, almost always seems to be there. This makes one thing apparent: that as a lowly receiver, the kind of person I am not is: whatever the giver is. Stable, normal, secure, educated- those are other qualities, and they have nothing to do with me.

To that effect, some of the best charities I've experienced are ones that were primarily run by people who had substantial experience with poverty. Now, don't mistake what I'm saying here, because nowadays most charities that have job postings request that the candidates have "lived experience". This is often essentially bullshit, and someone's week going hungry in college doesn't compare in any real way to being poor, where poor is literally an essential component of your identity and culture.

That brings me to another point, which is that organised charity usually requires employees to ensure its running. There is a big problem with this, and anyone who has had to take charity and who has also paid careful attention will already know what it is: these people's jobs depend on there being enough poor people of the correct demographic for them to serve.

Many charities depend at least in part on grants and government funds. I have seen firsthand the ways that organisations manipulate the system to ensure that they continue to receive maximum funding, while providing questionable value to the users.

Of course there are metrics that are used to determine if an organisation is being effective and if they are needed. And of course, the organisations are adept at fudging the numbers and gaming the system. I doubt if I have the room or energy to get into it in detail, but please believe me when I say that there are plenty of homeless shelters, job search organisations, soup kitchens and so on dedicated to keeping people dependent on the system as long as possible, and/or getting credit for those people's successes, whether or not it was actually due to charity. On the other hand, pure donation and volunteer based charities are unpredictable and unreliable.

A related concern to this kind of manipulation is the learned helplessness that is instilled in us. Giving people money is important in two ways. One is that money is an essential component of social function. If you don't have money, you basically don't exist. Exchanging currency for goods and services is such a basic function of modern living that taking it away from people denies them the opportunity of one of the most basic forms of interaction we have. It denies people the opportunity to function in society on a very basic level. it denies them autonomy. This is negative in a number of ways. One is that it is impossible to learn to have a functional relationship with money when you never have an opportunity to use money. Another is that taking away people's opportunity to choose- even if they make bad choices- reduces them to basically helpless infants. We cannot learn to make good decisions if we do not get to make decisions. Doing the homeless shuffle from park bench to soup kitchen where you eat whatever is put in front of you back to park bench to a meeting with a social worker that you're obligated to go to because someone said so, doesn't encourage you to look beyond the park bench. People don't have goals if their life is spent without choices.

The assumption, as well, that homeless people are incapable of making the best choices for themselves given the resources they have available only cements that exhausted learned helplessness even further. Now, I don't know what things are like for people who were doing well and then fell into addiction, but for people like me who were never doing well, who grew up looking forward to welfare day (pizza!) and food bank day (a garbage bag full of stale donuts!), We make decisions with money that may be foolish or self defeating to a rich person, but there was usually something behind it. Sometimes it was "if I spend ten dollars on twenty five cigarettes I can smoke away my hunger twenty five times" sometimes it was "if I have money in my pocket I can't get arrested for vagrancy", sometimes it was "I want to save this so I can sit at the all night diner tonight instead of going to the shelter because of Reasons", and sometimes it was, yes, "fuck this, I gotta get high/drunk". But denying me those options altogether denies that I'm even capable of making decisions.

That brings me to Why We Don't Always Want You Giving Us Food/Supplies.

Food and supplies are nice and wonderful. But I am not going to eat food that isn't prepackaged that a stranger gives me. I've heard of people spitting on, putting garbage, razor blades, roofies, and God knows what else, in food that gets given to homeless folks. And im not going to go with some stranger to get food either. No. I live on a street corner. If I never come back, nobody is calling the cops. Nobody is looking for me. Have you ever had a guy get mad at you because he bought you dinner and you won't put out? Well, it's a lot worse when you don't have anyone to call or go to for comfort, or if he decides he's really mad and he's allowed to do whatever he wants to you because you're just some homeless girl and you don't matter. And you're afraid to make a scene, because who do you think is going to get in trouble? Nice clean upstanding citizen, or trash?

And im not just talking about rape. I'm talking about being spat on, being pissed on, being beaten up, having them tell the cops you tried to rob them, out of spite. Or for kicks. And I'm not saying this kind of thing only happens to women. And it could be even worse. What if he (or she) is a pimp? Or a murderer? Do you know how often the murders of homeless people are investigated? Not. Nobody fucking cares about us. So no, i'm not a bad person because I don't want your food and i don't want to go anywhere with you.

There's a less frightening side to having some stranger buy you food: the shame. The shame of being paraded into a diner as someone's good deed. The shame of being afraid to ask for anything because you aren't allowed to ask for things. The shame of being on display as the Poor Person Being Bought A Meal by the Good Person. When you purchase something with money that you pull out of your own pocket, even if you stink and you know you're disgusting, there's some kind of dignity left.

That brings me to what I think is effective. Soup kitchens that charge, even if it's ten cents for a coffee, where the volunteers are at least 50% homeless or ex homeless or on probation or whatever. No condescension. And if Fred, everyone knows Fred, he's not all there, doesn't pay, nobody says too much, but in theory you're still a person, you still have to pay. Or that require everyone to help out and where the volunteers eat the food too.Resource centers that offer computers, showers and laundry machines, but not a lot of places to sit around. Resources that are available without necessarily being mandatory. Welfare. As in straight up, flat out, handing people checks. Bigger if you can prove you found an apartment or have a big expense, smaller otherwise. Charity thrift shops where the prices are actually low. Like, joke low. To give people an opportunity to experience being selective, making- though small- financial decisions. Organised charities that have a definite scale and limit. Systems that aren't set up in such a way as to impede people when they do become motivated. And patience, virtually endless patience. Heh.

Now, the situation is a bit different with people who aren't really able to function independently because of some condition. I'm only talking about people who probably could.

SOURCE

Sesame Oil

There's toasted sesame oil, refined sesame oil, and unrefined sesame oil.

Refined sesame oil basically works like canola or vegetable oil. It has a very light sesame flavor, and a light color.

Unrefined sesame oil can be cooked with a bit, but things generally taste better when the sesame oil is added at the end as a seasoning. It tends to have a better flavor when it hasn't been used as the cooking oil, and doesn't have that high of a smoke point. And this is pretty much what everyone buys when they go buy sesame oil at the store for general use.

Toasted sesame oil has an even stronger flavor and is even less suited to cooking with.

How to Tell When a Girl is Flirting

Here's a list of hints a girl likes you. Disclaimer: every girl is different.

Observe her "baseline behavior" and see if she has deviations from that behavior. Example: She doesn't touch anyone, but hugs you a lot.

Girls prefer to "create opportunities" for the guy to make a move, rather than make a move herself. These are clues, not confirmation. Real answer is to ask her out.

• She says compliments like, "Hey, I like your shirt." If she keeps walking, no go. If she stays to chat? Stop, talk to her and get her phone number. It's a common piece of dating advice in women's magazines to say something like that to guys. The problem is, men assume the girl likes their clothes, not likes them.

• She asks what kind of girls you like, who you have a crush on, your relationship status, says you could get any girl you want, etc.
  
• She asks what clothes you think look sexy, hairstyles, etc. Sends you photos of herself in outfits to get your opinion. Green flag: you tell her, and she dresses that way. Or she changes her hairstyle based on your preference. If she doesn't change fashion but her friend does, she was a wingwoman to gather info for her friend to date you.
  
• "Friendly Inquisition" - her friend(s) ask, "What do you think of [girl's name]?" "Is she your type?" "Would you go out with her?" She sent them as spies. Variation: her friend calls and asks. The girl is on the line too, listening to what you'll say.
  
• She creates excuses to hang out alone, e.g. studying together, watching a movie, show a talent. But she spends more time flirting with you and asking personal questions. Green flag if you're not even in the same classes or she does not need help studying.
  
• She asks you to help her with easy stuff. Key is she's over-the-top grateful and doesn't want you to leave.
  
• She's always "around." When you arrive at class, when you leave class, at the coffee shop you like, when you're at an event, etc.
  
• She's gotten off work and has no reason to stay. You're the reason she wants to stay. If she's at work but says when she gets off work--she wants to hang out with you after.
  
• She preemptively mentions being single. Or that she's broken up with her boyfriend.
  
• She gives you her phone number without you even asking for it. Or she gets your number from someone else.
  
• She texts you cute/sexy pictures and invites you to hang out.
  
• She shows interest in your hobbies even though she didn't before. "Come to my house to play video games."
  
• She brings up a movie she wants to see, a bar or restaurant she wants to check out, a party that's happening, etc. Especially if she says, "But I have no one to go with." She wants you to ask her out.
  
• She casually bring up events, and gauges your reaction. If you show interest, she pounces and says you should go together. [4 hours later that night] "Wait, did she ask me out on a date?"
  
• "Self-invite" date, e.g. you tell her about a cool bar you went to, and she says, "You should take me there!"
  
• "Reminder" date, e.g. "When are you gonna take me for a spin in your car?" "When are we going to watch that TV show at your place?"
  
• She asks if you have plans for the night or weekend. Ask her out for drinks.
  
• Calls, texts (especially when it's late), likes all your Facebook posts, etc. Key thing: when you do invite her to hang out in person, she does, and she's eager to. If she constantly flakes, she just enjoys your attention and doesn't want to escalate further. If she acts like this with you while in a relationship with someone else, stay away.
  
• She shares songs, photos, quotes, videos, stories etc. with you related to love. It's a "test" to see if you think about her in those ways.
  
• Writes big long messages in your yearbook, her phone number and an invite to hang out.
  
• "Third Party Endorsement." When she expresses what she wants as if it was the opinion of other people. Saying things like: "My friends think we would make a cute couple." "My Mom asked if you're my boyfriend yet 'cuz we hang out together so much." "Since we're alone together in your room, the other people at the party probably think we're hooking up right now."
  
• Touching, hugging, sitting on your lap, holds your hand, puts your arm around her, dances close, etc. Asks "Have you been working out?" and feeling your biceps or abs. Massages and back rubs (takes off top). Play fighting.
  
• Clumsiness or acting drunk as an excuse to lean on you, for you to hold her, and get your faces in kissing range.
  
• She complains about being cold. If you're outside, put your arms around her. If you're lying down watching TV together, cuddle closer. If she says her hands are cold, hold her hands.
  
• She shows off her body. Bends forward to show you her chest or butt, shows off her legs, answers the door wearing little clothing (or a towel). She's really trying if she tells you to look at her dress, legs, etc. "Look how short my skirt is!" Or she invites you to touch. "I just used a new razor to shave my legs and they're so smooth. Come and feel!"
  
• She finds excuses to remove clothes. Too hot, has to take a shower, change clothes, etc. Key is she doesn't change rooms or close the door or kick you out.
  
• She "steals" something from you--like a hat. You're supposed to chase her into a room and make out. Or takes a small item from you and drops it down her top.
  
• She "borrows" things (she doesn't need) to make up a reason to talk to you.
  
• She "forgets" things at your place so she has a reason to come back--and hook up.
  
• "The Friend Fadeaway." You go out on a group outing with her and friends. They gradually leave until you're alone with the girl, maybe even her house or room. Variation: you show up thinking it's a group outing or a party, but she's the only one there.
  
• "Party of Two." She invites you to a party or event, but sticks to you the whole night.
  
• If you get sick or injured, she gets more worried and concerned beyond what you think a normal friend would. If she comes over with food and other supplies and plays nurse, it's a big hint.
  
• After a night out at a bar, nightclub, or party, when she's ready to leave she asks to split a taxi with you back to her place. And she doesn't mentions sharing a cab with the whole group of friends, just you.
  
• If she has a party at her place, at the end of the night she shoos out all the other guests but wants you to stay. Or she'll come with some excuse that you're too drunk, your home is too far, weather is too bad for you to drive home now, and she insists you sleep over.
  
• If she's dropping people off after a party, night out, event, etc. she drops off everyone first and you last, even passing by your home to do it. To get you alone.
  
• She "misses" the last train, bus, etc. so she can sleep over. Or makes excuses not to leave your car.
  
• She brings up sleeping arrangements. She doesn't want you to sleep on the couch (or floor), and insists you share a bed with her.
  
• She mentions how she's home alone tonight, roommate is away, her parents out of town, etc. She wants you to invite yourself over to fool around. Or for you to ask her to come over to your place. Hot tip: text her "coming over" or "come over" and see how she reacts.
  
• If she comes over to your place, she confirms repeatedly that you're alone (no roommates or parents).
  
• Thirst: "I'm so horny!" "I need to get laid tonight" "I've never fucked in [location you're both in now]."
  
• She brags about her sexual skills. "I give great blowjobs."
  
• She implies that the current circumstances are ideal for sex. "We're the only ones here." "We could fool around no one would know. "No one can hear us with these walls." "This bed is really comfortable, you know." "I'm not wearing panties." "I'm on birth control." "I've got condoms in that drawer." Those aren't random facts she just brought up.
  
• She kisses another girl in front of you--and wants you to watch. Or invites you into a room to fool around more. How threesomes start.
  
• She asks you out. She's tired of hinting. Straight talk is the last resort.
  
• She says she used to have a crush on you. If she's single, she could be hinting she still has a crush and you should ask her out. He gets hung up on how she used the past tense, and treats it as her saying, "I'm not interested in you now."
  
• Negative tactics. Some girls do these things to attract guys, but they actually repel guys.
  
• She tries to make you jealous. She brags about guys asking her out, flirts with guys in front of you but always looks at you to make sure you see it, etc. She wants to let you know she's "in demand" so you'll want her. The problem is girls are turned on by competition in relationships, while most guys are turned off.
  
• Complain about guys hitting on her. What she means is, "I don't like it when other guys do it, but it's okay for you because I like you." This backfires, because the guy will assume the girl doesn't want him to make a move too.
  
• She bad-mouths any girl you date, because she's jealous of them getting to be intimate with you.
  
• She opens the conversation by insulting you. house_robot explained this really well in another thread.

Quote:

When a girl says, "Oh you're a player aren't you?" its similar to when they say shit like, 

"Oh you want me to go home with you? You sure you don't have other girls there already?"

Its the female approach to giving a man a compliment: passive aggressively, and couched as an insult. Shes letting you know you have desirable qualities.

When girls say this type of nonsense to you, never confirm or deny it.

It took me a while to realize this was a thing. I'd meet a new girl, she'd break my balls, and I'd be turned off. Hear later she liked me. WTF?

Let's end on a positive note.

• Food (+1 if she cooked or baked it herself), gifts, handmade greeting cards, mixtapes, poems or stories she wrote, etc.

Good luck!

SOURCE

Why Trump's Ideas Suck

Taxes

The bottom 40% already pay an effective federal rate of 0%.

The nominal tax rate for most of the middle class is already 25% - so no change there.

Only about 15% of earners making $50k or less currently have effective tax rates above 12%.

So those 15% would see some amount of savings under Trump's plan. All told it's an average of less than a 0.5% increase in after tax income for the bottom 80% of filings.

Who definitely gets tax cuts then?

• Make more than $150k? 3% cut.
• Make more than $230k? 8% cut.
• Make more than $411k? 2% cut.
• Make more than $465k? 7% cut.

And of course, the estate tax cut for those families worth more than $10.5M. That'd save the Trump family $4B.

So nothing for the poor, a slice of the middle class gets money, but if you're already doing well you're getting a nice bump in after tax income and a free pass to your well off children.

Speaking of children, his child tax deduction pretty much only helps the wealthy as well... you'll notice a trend here.

Some problems then.

• This increases income inequality.
• Tax cuts to the wealthy are the least effective tax cuts (the lower your income, the more likely you are to spend your tax cuts and put that money directly back into the economy instead of plugging it into the stock market).
• There are no spending offsets to cover the revenue lost in the tax cuts - so he wants to massively increase the deficit.
• Remember: tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

We literally just went through this with the Bush tax cuts and the economic analysis shows: weak improvements to the economy that aren't enough to offset revenue losses resulting in increases in the deficit. If you both understand and give a shit about domestic fiscal policy - this plan is outdated, stupid, and offensive.

This plan would be like a doctor prescribing smoking to fix your throat ailments.

Trade

• Trump's biggest trade plan is to impose tariffs on countries like China and Mexico if they don't play by his rules.He has said that he doesn't mind starting a trade war. He would back us out of trade agreements like NAFTA and WTO (as we would violate those agreements with these tariffs), which would certainly result in massive retaliatory tariffs and might possibly result in war. That is not hyperbole. International trade agreements are seen as a way of preventing world war. You don't shoot your customer.
• So best case scenario we get retaliatory tariffs, which have been aptly described by the Cato Institute as a tax increase, most especially on the poor (as the goods they consume would be more expensive due to import tariffs) as well as on US manufacturers (as the goods they export would be less competitive due to export tariffs).
• To reiterate, retaliatory tariffs from our three largest export destinations - Canada, Mexico, and China - would be devastating for US manufacturers.
• Trump's tariffs on Mexico and China would average a 4% tax increase on all Americans and an 18% increase on the poorest of Americans. That's without accounting for the negative effect of retaliatory tariffs.
• The benefit that Trump is touting is that isolationist trade policy would bring manufacturing jobs back to America, which is a nice idea but there's a couple of issues with his approach. 1) Any country not under the tariffs would become more competitive and would take over the previous cost leader's role in exporting to the US., and 2) reductions in US manufacturing have been largely the result of gains in efficiency, not job loses to low wage countries. So unless Trump plans to tariff every country in the world (an 11% tax increase on Americans) and outlaw robots at home, we're not getting those jobs back.
• The best thing we can say about Trump's trade plan is that he simply cannot complete all of it without Congressional approval. So the less effective Trump is in enacting the plan, the better off for Americans and the world economy. The most efficient way of keeping Trump from enacting his plans is to not elect him at all.
• That's why the US Chamber of Commerce is against Trump, economists from all sides of the spectrum are against Trump, and the heads of these companies are against Trump.

Schools

Briefly: They're largely funded by local property tax - so failing schools directly correlate to failing communities. Help poor communities and you help poor schools. Cutting the Department of Education isn't part of that equation. Some would call it a scapegoat.

Deportation

• Would cost a lot to do. Between about half to two thirds the cost of the entire federal budget in a single year.
• Would cost even more to keep up. More than the annual budget of the Marines and Army combined.
• It would cost our economy in the long run, with a 6% drop in future GDP.
• And it wouldn't likely help raise wages in the short term. In fact it'd likely kill jobs.
• While private sector output would decline by 3-5%.

His policies fucking suck and there's broad bipartisan agreement on that. If you give a shit about the American economy and you do your research, you denounce Trump's economic policies loudly.

The Rise of Trump and Right Wing Hate

Of course the far-right conservative media bubble is primarily responsible for the nomination of a candidate as delusional as Trump. It's not just the delegitimization of 'mainstream' sources, though of course Sykes has a point that, if you discount the sources of opposing views as a whole, then you've effectively poisoned the well.

But it goes farther than a 'critique of liberal bias' with unintended consequences. The responsibility is also in the content. For decades now there has been an alliance between serious, intellectual conservatives, the right-leaning business and professional classes, and a long list of populist demagogues who enjoy mass audiences and are able to say outrageous, false and incendiary claptrap without censure. The right only curbs these fanatics and fomenters when they go 'off-message', but no attack or prevarication is too far if they remain loyal. (Remember Sandra Fluke?[1])

Of the top five radio shows in the US, three are 'conservative' demagogues, all of whom support Trump. Limbaugh and Michael Savage have 13 million listeners; Hannity has 12.

They are all, each of them, iniquitous liars, despicable hate-mongers, and dissembling sophists. They are never rebuked by the 'serious' wing of the party. They are too useful. Limbaugh reacted just the other day to Trump's insane comment that Obama founded ISIS by saying, on his show, that

"The truth appears to be so outrageous because we've had so many years of BS sufficing as the truth that when somebody actually utters the truth, 'It's just unacceptable; it's outrageous. How dare you!' but I'm not backing off of it," he says, "and I'm gonna continue to do it. That's what I'm here to do. It did me pretty well in the primaries, and I'm gonna keep doing it." He will not walk back the fact that Obama founded ISIS. Now, we all know... Those of us and you in the audience, of course, we know exactly what he's talking about. And he's right. Now, Obama didn't go over there and convene a meeting and have negotiations with the ISIS leaders. His name's not on any of the founding documents or any of that. But Trump is saying what he's saying, hoping to shock people into realizing just who Obama is, because the point is, since Obama became president, terrorism is expanding around the world.: "http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/08/11/trump_just_won_t_stop_telling_the_truth_obama_and_hillary_co_founded_isis

I urge you to listen to the segment, since it is both perfectly clear what the audience is supposed to feel, it is perfectly conveyed in Limbaugh's tone and delivery, while the content is--well, what is the content except weasel words and implications and tone and insinuation and dog whistles?

Later, Trump claimed his comment was sarcastic, admitting that he liked the attention provocative phrasing garners him, as if a right-wing Marilyn Manson was running for president to sell CDs. That didn't stop Limbaugh from being a loyal tribalist and taking the airwaves to imply the 44th President of the United States is, in fact, a foreign-born terrorist leader, a conceit so idiotic it would barely serve as the premise for a Tom Clancy novel.

But that's how unhinged things have gotten. The lunacy of a Trump candidacy where climate change is a 'Chinese hoax' and the host of the country's most-listened to radio program says "there have been some very crazy, cozy decisions made by this administration that have led to the rather sudden blooming of this terrorist group."

In a saner world, such intimations would draw condemnation and ostracization. Instead they are the bread and butter of American mass conservative politics: a pungent mix of dark conspiracy, religious fanaticism, and ugly xenophobia, occasionally punctuated by a Washington think-tank issuing a report claiming top-bracket tax cuts will lead to increased government revenue.[2]

If there is an intellectual conservative movement left at the end of this--any honest people who work at these think tanks, or edit at the National Review--the first thing they will have to do is destroy the Limbaughs and Hannitys. Trump is their monster, a shambling delusional fever-dream creation genetically grown from their angry spittle and the scapegoats offered as sacrifice for the real, and imagined, grievances of their audience.[3]

[1] http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/george-will-republican-leaders-are-afraid-of-rush-limbaugh/

[2] Speaking of, guess who is on Trump's board of economic advisers? Arthur Laffer! That's right, the guy who sketched a napkin doodle in 1974 to Rumsfeld and Cheney (yes, those same Iraq War assholes) claiming that tax cuts would mean more tax revenue, a claim divorced enough from reality that even Greg Mankiw, patron saint of Serious Conservative Economists, felt compelled to warn against the view in his classic textbook. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Laffer#Laffer_curve)

[3] There are real grievances, and the Democrats (and the left generally, in the US) has done a terrible job at articulating a progressive vision that captures the political attention of Trump's core demographics. Instead the left has been high-handed and contemptuous. We are very lucky that this demographic cannot carry the election. Can you fucking imagine.

SOURCE

Don't Vote for Trump

Trump's official stance is anti-gay. I also feel compelled to point out that the GOP platform is further right on these issues than it perhaps ever has been. The platform is also strongly anti-choice. If Trump manages to win, he will likely have an accompanying Republican congress and the ability to appoint judges which will serve lifetimes on the Supreme Court and do irreparable damage to the rights that you have said you value.

Now that that's out of the way, let's talk about globalism. It is an inexorable reality. Everything we do is interconnected via the markets, via global opinion, via our allies and interests. Trump serves up a reductionist view ("let's stop being global"), while manufacturing his own products in China. This is not a man you can trust with protectionism. A real pro-US candidate will use their knowledge of the intricacies of foreign policy and trade to position the US well in that complex web. Donald Trump has already demonstrated that he's dangerously unaware of even the most basic geopolitical realities, and has no interest in learning.

Yes, there are domestic jobs lost to globalism. We know this to be true in the short term. But it's better to follow a plan that uses progressive taxation to ease the localized burdens of those growing pains than to resist the march of progress and lose out the growth that is nearly universally agreed upon by economists. Globalism is a powerful force for growth, we just need policies in place to protect the people most vulnerable to its downsides and ensure the wealth goes to benefit the most Americans.

The Donald's vision of how to "fix globalism" is also factually skewed. He scapegoats, for example, immigration, as one of the things that hurts us most. Well, that's not entirely true. Immigrants, particularly undocumented ones, are propping up entire critical sectors of our economy, like agriculture. We need to fix this, because it's exploitative, but the way to do it isn't mass deportation. He says they're bringing crime, but immigrants, even undocumented immigrants, have a lower crime rate than citizens.

I bothered to write all this because you seem like a sensible person, and I wanted to present more sides to the issues. I've only just scratched the surface, but I hope this acts as a starting place for more discussion.

The Truth About Immigrants and Terror Attacks

Europe isn't America in a tremendously large number of ways.

Firstly, we have a history, tradition, and culture of integrating people from a diverse set of backgrounds into our country; our nation is not defined by ethnicity or culture but by e pluribus unum--this is the single most important way that we differ from Europe.

This tradition of multuculturalism is the primary reason why our immigrant outcomes differ greatly from Europe.

Take a look, for example, at second generation Americans. These are Americans that are born to at least one immigrant parent. You'll see that in America, second-generation immigrants are better educated than the general population, make more money than the general population, have a higher home ownership rate and lower poverty ratethan the general population, speak English perfectly, a majority describe themselves as American first, and nearly all of them get along well with others.

Compare this with Europe, where they earn substantially less, have higher unemployment, and "migrant" is used to describe even children who are third-generation British, and many struggle to speak the native language.

Why does this matter? Consider some recent terror attacks in Europe that have made the news:

France - stabbing of police officer and wife. Suspect: Larossi Abballa, born in France.

France - Charlie Hebdo and related attacks. Suspects: Saïd Kouachi, Chérif Kouachi, Amedy Coulibaly. All born in France.

France - 2015 Attacks in downtown Paris and Belgium - Brussels bombings. Suspects: Abdelhamid Abaaoud, Salah Abdeslam, Ibrahim El Bakraoui, Khalid El Bakraoui, Najim Laachraoui, Mohamed Abrini, all born in Belgium,and Osama Krayem, born in Sweden.

France - attack on priest. Suspects: Adel Kermiche and Abdel Malik Petitjean. The former was born abroad butgrew up in France, and the latter was born in France.

---

The fact of the matter is that most of the terror attacks in Europe have been perpetrated by European citizens, not migrants, and certainly not refugees. USA does not have the same problem, because

1. Our immigrants are relatively successful and have fewer reasons to lash out against society
2. Our immigrants' children are virtually 100% assimilated, doing as well or better than those of us who have been here for generations
3. Our immigrants by and large do not live in multi-generational ethnic ghettos that breed contempt for society

American Muslims stand out as starkly more integrated than do European Muslims. This is why the US the situation is much better on this side of the Atlantic.

---

So what about American Muslims?

Well, I'll tell you about American Muslims.

• They have more non-Muslim friends than Muslims friends, in contrast with the rest of the world
• They're anomalously liberal when it comes to believing that other faiths can lead to heaven
• The percent of Muslims that go to mosque is nearly identical to the percent of Christians that go to church
• They consider themselves American first and belonging to their religion second moreso than do white evangelical Christians
• They are, in fact, less religious than evangelicals, and generally in line with the American populace
• They are substantially less likely to say that the Quran is the literal word of God than evangelicals are to say that the Bible is the literal word of God.
• They percent which believe that religion and modernity are in conflict is identical to US Christians
• They overwhelmingly believe that hard work brings success
• They are much less likely to believe that science is in conflict with religion than the American public

And I haven't even gotten into Sunni vs Shia. If you look at Shia Muslims in the United States, they're about as liberal as American Jews--which is to say, much moreso than the general US population.

---

The moral of the story is that if you aren't afraid of your zealously religious evangelical Christian neighbor, you shouldn't be afraid of your Muslim neighbor. Between 4% and 6% of terror attacks in the US are linked to jihadist ideology; white supremacists have killed twice as many people as Muslims since 9/11. Mosques are not a threat of radicalization in the American Muslim community, and American Muslims are not radicalizing. And have you ever heard of a crime committed by a refugee on American soil? I haven't. We know that illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the average population, so I'd surmise that refugees are, too. By the way, did you know that net positive illegal immigration isn't really happening, anymore?

And do you think the world is getting scarier? Consider that 2016 is an anomaly.

• From the 1970s through the 1980s, Europe was scourged with levels of terror equal to or higher than 2016. One year doesn't make a trend, and the terror has been declining since the 90s.
• Did you know that there were 80 plane hijackings in 1969? People would flip their shit if terror levels were that high, today.

And in America?

• Homicides of police officers are down... way down. There were double as many police killed per year during the Reagan administration than there are, today (it's even more stark if you scale it by population).
• The homicide rate is down to 1960s levels (and for left-wingers, this is despite the market being flooded with guns, btw).
• Non-fatal gun crimes are down a staggering 300%
• Rape is down by over 30%.
• Missing children are down 40%.
• Basically all crime is way, way down.
• School drop-out rates are at historic lows.
• Teen pregnancy has been more than cut in half
• Even the abortion rate is half that in the 1970s

What to Look for When Buying a House to Flip

There's really no simple answer, but here's the nuts and bolts of it;

Houses have a few major "components" that can fail, and if they fail the replacements are expensive, but even more expensive to delay.

They also have fairly predictable lifespans and predictable replacement costs.

Roof: Easy to see how much life is left. If it is already leaking, replace it yesterday, because otherwise mould, rotten roof trusses or soggy insulation costs WAAAAAY more to fix. The cost depends on how big the roof is, how steep, and what kind of roof you want to replace it with (builder basic or something a bit nicer looking).

Furnace/HVAC: not as easy to see how much life is left, and when it fails, you need to replace it right away.

A/C is not vital to replace if it fails, but a broken furnace in the winter....just like a roof....replace it yesterday. Otherwise frozen pipes, etc etc.

You can usually get a gut feeling for the furnace lifespan by looking at how old it is, and how well its been maintained.

If you are looking to buy a house; pull out the air filter. If it's clean, chances are the rest of the house has also been maintained. Look at the condenser coils on the outdoor AC unit, if they are full of leaves/dirty, then the whole unit hasn't been maintained.

Water heater is a bit of a variable.....Many have a drain spigot. You can drain a cup full of water out from the bottom drain. If it is cloudy/rusty/brown, the water heater is well past half way through its life.

Windows are easy to figure out how much life left. If the seals are dry and cracked, or you can hear the pssssstttt of wind or road noise, the seals are going.

Flooring, same thing....use your eyeballs.

Electrical, if it has knob and tube wiring, or aluminium wiring, count on replacing that to lower your insurance, or even get a policy

Long story short.....a house is like a car in a lot of ways. A brand new one off the dealer lot won't need any maintenance or repairs, and will give you worry free ownership for ~5 years.

A used car will be a lot cheaper, but may have "surprise" maintenance and repairs that need to be fixed right away, and could be expensive.

Even if you don't intend to do the work yourself, DO NOT look at real estate investment unless you have a strong "gut feeling" for what home repairs/reno/replacements will cost.

Replacing a toilet could be $120 at home depot and a half an hour of your time.....OR a $750 bill from a plumber, depending on how much of a sucker you are. There's no right answer. 1% of a property value in Vancouver isn't the same as 1% of a property's value in SK.... even though they may have the same maintenance costs.

Where the house is....(geography, weather) how it's made (2x4 and 2x6) with above or below grade basements, footings, concrete or stone foundation, flat sheet roofing, or shingle or cedar shakes, drywall or stucco interior, natural gas or oil or electric heat, single or double pane windows, real hardwood floors or $1/sq ft vinyl laminate..... proper landscape with water drainage or no eaves troughs and negative grade slope, recent permitted work or a lot of homeowner DIY...........and on and on and on.

You want a simple answer.....there isn't one.

Buy shares of a REIT, or offer up "hard money" to a local flipper for a chance at a % of the profit....but unless you have a LOT of ability to throw meaningful numbers into a spreadsheet and let the spreadsheet answer your question....stay away from real estate.

Trust me on this.....I secretly love guys like you. Real estate flipping is my "side hustle"and I LOVE to swoop in and buy a house that's half renovated or driven into the ground by an absent/slum landlord and hellish tenants.

Here's how it would likely go:

You'll buy a house with big dreams, and dump another hundred grand into it....and then six months of carrying costs and delays, and BS from contractors and city permits, you'll dry up your savings and the bank will call the mortgage or you will just put it up for sale. You meet with a few agents, and tell them your story. The agent will say "Mr Penguins...I see from MLS you paid $500k for this house six months ago....but in its current state....I think we should list it for $450K". You've already dumped $50K into it, so you are balls deep for $550K and don't want to lose your shirt. You push back....and eventually get an agent (likely a new one who just wants a listing) and list your house at $550K. Well, after two months and only a few wishy-washy offers, with inspection contingencies and finance contingencies that make the offers nonviable....you've spent another 3-4K just on mortgage payments and property tax and vacant occupancy insurance, keep in mind you are already broke.

You get frustrated, decide to fire your agent and list it yourself on property-guys or craigslist or whatever.

Now I show up.....I hmmm and haww and fake looks of disappointment and disgust about the condition as you guide me through your house. I throw you some fake compliments about the quality of the work you've done so far, and how I admire your vision, and poke and prod for some more of your desperate financial situation.

I walk the property, take a TON of notes (see all the stuff I mentioned at the start....furnace, water heater, roof, attic insulation, wiring and fuse panel, windows, foundation etc) take a bunch of measurements, and look up the tax records and title and permit history, and then call you back the next day to meet you at a local coffee shop to make my offer in person.

I arrive in my 1997 Honda CRV (not my classic Porsche) dressed in jeans and a T shirt so you don't think I've got a lot of money....I get myself a coffee and sit down with you, and tell you I'm able to buy the house from you, and close inside a week, all cash, for $400K, no conditions.

You paid $500 purchase + 50K in renos and purchase of materials so far + carry costs. But you put 20% down as an investment property so you only have a mortgage for $400K. I know this before I even met you or saw the property. At this point you are so tired of spending money on this "great investment" where you've had dead-beat tenants that took 3 months to kick out, and then tried to fix and repair their damage, but got in over your head.

You want out....and so you take my offer. I slide you a cashier's cheque for $40K (10% of purchase price) right there....you sign the contract and we both enjoy the last few sips of our machiato-frappe-latte-caramel-no-fat-Colombian-roast-organic-fair-trade-double-shot espressos.

A few days later we meet again at my lawyer’s office (I offered to cover all closing costs so you don't have to pay your side of it all)....and you and I close. I get the keys, you get out of your bad investment, $150K poorer.

I spend my evenings and weekends repairing and replacing what's needed, hiring out to local contractors when I get too busy with my day job, and in another 2-3 months, I carefully screen tenants and rent the place out, and call it a day.

Please don't be that guy. I love you man, but really, it's a cut throat world and (no homo) even with his dreamy eyes, Scott McGillivray is just another actor. Mike Holmes and his bulky biceps make it look so easy, and even if you paint everything white like Sara Richardson, home renovations and flipping is NOT EASY, and NOT ALWAYS profitable. IF you want to get into real-estate, find a partner or mentor. Get on deeper pockets or that Don Campbell website and find some other local guy who already knows all the answers to your post, and in exchange for some free labour now and then, or the cost of a nice steak dinner at the Keg, will tell you EVERYTHING you want to know about How do you estimate repair and maintenance costs when considering a property you might buy?

SOURCE

Three Simple Ideas to Change Your Life

I do not intend these ideas to be "universal" - but just wanted to present these things that have personally worked for me and can maybe benefit someone else. If I slip into direct address and say "you" - I'm really just referring to myself.

Long story short - about two years ago, I hated where I was in life. It was the recognition of these three ideas that kept me going and helped me to turn my life around. I should add that these ideas aren't original, but things that I've come across during that time and paraphrased one way or another.

1. The human being is meant to bear the burden of 24 hours -- no more, no less. 

If you live in the future, you will get anxious; if you live in the past, you will get depressed. Twenty four hours is all that you have to live in. Give up all the other burdens to the universe, to god, to your cat, to whatever - but the burdens of the past are not yours. The burdens of the future aren't yours either. Let them go. 

The day is your material. It's what's in front of you, it's the only thing that you have the power to change or to shape or to use. It's your canvas. It's your material. So use it well.

2. Happiness is not something you can pursue - but instead the byproduct of doing the right thing. 

We get so tripped up thinking that happiness is an end goal -- and then get frustrated when it slips through our fingers. Instead, focus on whatever the right thing is - and happiness will follow. 

Feel like shit at the end of the day? Maybe it's because you ate a tub of ice cream for dinner, forgot to call your mom back, blew off homework to play video games, etc. On the surface, those are all things that should make you "happy" - but I've found that when I'm feeling most depressed, its usually a factor of actions I either did or (more likely) did not do. 

If you're passively waiting for happiness to wash over you like a wave -- it's not going to happen. Instead, take action, do whatever the "right thing" is, and that feeling of warmth and fulfillment will follow of its own accord.

3. The world's idea of success is total shit. 

Don't get sucked into it. On television, on the street, when talking with friends or family - it seems like everyone confuses the concept of rewards with success itself. Whether it's money, fame, recognition, praise, sex, the rewards are not up to you -- they are all dependent on someone else. 

Instead, think of success as sustained effort of will. It begins and ends with YOU, and no one else. Think of any fantasy or goal you may have -- say you've always wanted to be a great artist. Imagine it. What does that look like? I guarantee you're thinking about palling around in Paris with beautiful women and having your art work admired in galleries and being given the Nobel prize - basically you're fantasizing about having been a great artist and not actually making the art. 

That way of thinking can totally mess you up because it once again puts the emphasis on passive recognition over active, sustained effort. The more you shift focus onto your own actions, the more you create sustained effort, and the more likely it is that the rewards will follow.

Lastly, as a bit of an addendum 

It's good to remember the difference between stopping and quitting. This helps me when I'm feeling a bit lost or down on myself -- or during those times when I've just chucked these three ideas to the wind and sat on the couch all day instead. 

If you've ever strayed from what you feel you were supposed to do or who you were supposed to be - remember that everyone has to stop. Whatever it is we're doing, whatever our grand ambitions are in life, we stop. We have to stop. We have to go to bed, or go on vacation, or we have a kid and not have much time to ourselves etc. 

But quitting is stopping without ever beginning again. So as long as you're here, as long as you're alive and pulling air through your lungs, you can begin again. And if you begin again, then you haven't quit. So begin again.

Hope this helps someone out there.

SOURCE

Dixon Ticonderoga Pencils

Can we talk about the Dixon Ticonderoga for a minute?

It is, by far, the best pencil on the market. And let me tell you why: because the little nub of rubber on top of it actually erases things. I'm sure that other pencils had this feature too, long ago, but at some point in history, pencilmakers everywhere decided that instead of a useful eraser, what consumers really wanted on top of their pencil was a shitty little piece of plastic that left a pinkish, streaky mess all over the paper.

But not Dixon. The Ticonderoga still can actually erase. And for that, I salute you, Dixon.

EDIT: Thanks for the gold. But for less than the price of reddit gold, you could have bought a fresh, new pack of Ticonderogas and almost had enough money left over for another fresh, new pack of Ticonderogas.

EDIT 2: Lots of people trashing the Ticonderoga and trying to push the Palamaladingdong Black Wing 602. These cost $1.90 per pencil. And that is ridiculous. The good people at Dixon aren't going to rip you off like that. And you know what? They make a black Ticonderoga that is equally sexy, IF NOT SEXIER, than the Black Wing 602. AND a black Ticonderoga will only run you about 21 cents per pencil, which is a much better deal.

EDIT 3: Some people are trying to push mechanical pencils. Sure, people can use those. Mechanical pencils are all well and good. But here is why the Dixon Ticonderoga is better than any mechanical pencil.

#1. The Ticonderoga has its graphic embedded inside of it. This guarantees that the graphic will never slip up inside of the pencil body if you press down too hard, which tends to happen frequently with low-end mechanical pencils. It may happen less frequently with high-grade ones, but it will never happen with a Ticonderoga.

#2. You must sharpen the Ticonderoga. Some people may think that this is a weakness, but I assure you that it is a strength. After writing a few pages, you'll see that your once-sharp tip is now a dull nub. It's a fine indication of all of the work you've done thus far. That dull nub tells you that you've accomplished something. And once you've sharpened it and started writing again? Boy oh boy, there is no finer feeling that using a freshly-sharpened pencil.

#3. Sharpening the Ticonderoga releases a delectable wood scent into the air. The wood used in Dixon brand Ticonderogas is of a high quality, and is pleasant to smell. This cannot be achieved while using a mechanical pencil without also purchasing some sort of artificial wood scent spray.

#4. The Ticonderoga is made of wood. This means that the pencil is always pleasant to the touch. It has a solid, natural feel to it, which you can't get with low-grade mechanical pencils, which are made of plastic. High-end mech pencils tend to be metal. When I wake up first thing in the morning, and grab one of my several Ticonderogas to start the day's crossword puzzle, do you know what I don't feel? The biting cold of a metallic pencil body against my fingers. What a way to ruin a perfectly good morning.

SOURCE

Donald Trump for President?

The Khan fiasco:

Openly mocked the grieving Khan family who spoke at the 2016 DNC. Pondering if the mother was silenced because she was oppressed by the Husband

Trump diminished the Khan's family grief by further saying he too "sacrificed" like they did, citing his previous business dealings and hiring of people

Openly mocked McCain for serving 5-years as a POW

Openly mocked a disabled reporter

Said the Judge presiding over his fraud case couldn’t be impartial because he has a Mexican heritage

Openly mocked the appearance of Ted Cruz’s wife

Said women who have been abused by Roger Ailes should be thankful that he gave them a career

Said Megyn Kelly was harsh to him in the GOP debate because she was on her period

Said women who have abortions should be punished

Lied about himself by creating multiple alter egos in the 80’s and 90’s and served as his own PR man

Lied about seeing “thousands of muslims” cheering in American streets after 9/11

Self-congratulates himself only hours after the 2016 Orlando shooting tragedy

Lied about claiming to have been opposed to the Iraq War from the start

Conspiracies and oddities:

Lied and spread the conspiracy that the Clintons secretly killed Vince Foster

Lied in an early GOP debate by saying vaccines cause autism

Lied about “uncovering amazing things” regarding Obama’s past, acted a main figure early on in the birther movement AND speculated that Obama’s secret Kenyan birth certificate might show that he’s secretly a muslim

Said Ted Cruz’s father was part of the JFK assassination

Said Climate Change is a Chinese Hoax

Pondered in an 1994 interview about the future breast size of his then-infant daughter

Pondered in a 2006 interview about dating his daughter if she weren’t related to him

Randomly lies about the NFL, claiming they sent him a letter which agrees to his opposition to the Presidential debate schedules times

Trump repeatedly tried to meet with the Koch brothers, desperate for donations. They refused. He randomly lies, falsely saying it was HE who turned THEM down

Randomly lies about the Colorado State Fire Marshall during a campaign event, when the marshal refused to let more people seat beyond the event's capacity, by saying the Marshal is a Clinton supporter

Trump on Torture/war crimes:

‘Torture works, we won’t take anything off the table’

‘I’d bring back a Hell of a Lot Worse than Waterboarding’

'We have to take out the terrorists families'

‘Terror suspects will talk faster when tortured’

Multitude of times with retweeting lies/propaganda from racists and white supremacists:

Incident #1 of Trump retweeting false statistics from a white supremacist source

Incident #2 of Trump retweeting from a white supremacist

Incident #3 of Trump retweeting from a white supremacist

Incident #4 of Trump retweeting from a white supremacist

Incident #5 of Trump retweeting from a white supremacist 'Star of David'

Foreign Policy
Trump says Putin will never invade the Ukraine, evidently unaware of Crimea

Trump says Crimea may actually belong to Russia, therefore the invasion was OK

Edit 1. I put this list together and share it to remind people just how many times Trump has said something horrifically stupid, insensitive, racist, misogynistic, and so forth. These examples go back months, and of course none of this REALLY touches upon party platform or policy...that is a whole separate embarrassment. What this list shows is CHARACTER, or lack thereof. He brags about being rich, but money will never buy him empathy, integrity, or humility.

Edit 2. Thanks for the gold! Also..this list is by no means exhaustive! As many have pointed out..other examples of Trump oddities include: Threatening to pull out of the World Trade Organization, pledging to defend a nonexistent article of the US constitution, suggesting that the US should possibly do more racial profiling, saying the US should ban muslims from entering the country, etc etc. The shocking thing is much of this list has been compiled from stuff done in recent months, and there are still 3 more months to go!

Edit 3. Regarding the Iraq war, some of the responses are slamming Clinton and praising Trump. First things first: Trump never opposed the war (see one of my links above), so this is bullshit. Second, yes, Clinton voted for the Iraq war resolution, but so did many other democrats like Joe Biden, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, John Edwards, Joseph Lieberman, and Diane Feinstein. And these aren't exactly "send the-troops-to-die-in-needless-wars type politicians. These were senators who made a decision at a time when public support in 2003 for War in Iraq was at 72% and they were being systematically lied to by the Bush Administration. So this wasn't a black/white issue, or as clear cut as it is today. Just a thought.

SOURCE

The Decline of Rollerblading

Rollerblading was extremely popular in the 1990's, especially it's trick oriented version known as "aggressive skating."

On June 28th, 1999, Tony Hawk made history. He completed a 900-degree rotation on a skateboard. The hype surrounding this event was aligned with ESPN Xgame's movement of bringing skateboarding into the lime-light of the Xgames and getting rollerbalding out. That same year they halved the number of blading events, leaving only vert and street (which are both aggressive stunt events).

Xgames was looking to push sports which were decidedly non-recreational and unapproachable by older enthusiasts and at the same time was more economically approachable. You're more likely to find a suburban mom on rollerblades than a skateboard. This was to craft the image of skateboarding as a separate and distinct youth oriented activity which could not be appropriated by an older market.

Regarding the costs, a new set of good blades can run you $300+ where a new good skateboard will run you $100. Maintenance for an actively used board is about $40/yr for a board where actively used aggressive blades will run you $100+/yr in parts. Add to that; blades have to be purchased every year for a growing kid, where a skateboard is for the most part, the same size as the kid grows.

If you're ESPN you want as many viewers and enthusiasts as possible for the largest addressable market. Pushing skate boarding as your lead sport made the most sense for the mass market of america, especially post .com crash.

Around that same time period a massive new generation of skate boarders started up who were all 10-18 y/o. As teenagers do, they looked for any and every way they could distance themselves from anybody who wasn't down with what they were down with (recall middle school classic arguments such as "You're a basser, I'm a metal head, you suck!"). During this time the joke "Do you know what's the hardest thing about rollerbalding? Punchline: Telling your parents you're gay!" became full force and permeated every skate park in the US. Animosity between boards and bladers (well lets be honest, between boarders and anybody else in a skate park that wasn't on a board) reached it's height in the early naughts and by 2004 rollerblading was kicked out of the Xgames entirely and went "underground."

In the subsequent years, skate boarding has gone on to become the most dominate extreme sport in the world in terms of overall market cap and salaries for pro athlese.

Meanwhile the best rollerbladers in the world such as Richie Eisler can barely scrape together livings. These guys go all fucking out busting their asses doing tricks that are amazing and get much of nothing in the way of compensation for their skills.

For those so inclined there is an hour long documentary called Barely Dead which covers some of the things I've mentioned above.

Note: Everything I've mentioned here is relative to the North American market. Blading is still generally ok in EU and Asia. Nowhere near as popular as the 90's in the US, but it is a welcomed part of extreme sports exhibitions and compositions in other continents besides N. America.

Also note the Nitro Circus features two pro rollerbladers and treats them with respect. One of their core features is the variety of wheeled athletes who can ride their mega ramp and blading fits in well there. I'm happy that the Nitro Circus is giving blading a chance to shine again.

SOURCE