The News Thread

50035311_10156870631206678_7648440282832175104_n.jpg



In other news, opinions? Will Theresa May ride the long, overtly sinking Brexit vote ship to a hard Brexit, or will she blink and allow a snap referendum? My money's on the sinking ship, as much as I would like to see a second vote. Article below is referenced purely because of an extraordinarily pompous and lordly insult I came across:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

A longtime advocate on behalf of backbenchers, Mr. Bercow last week scandalized traditionalists by allowing one of these junior lawmakers to put forward for vote an amendment — which passed — that required Mrs. May to come up with a Plan B for Brexit within three working parliamentary days of Tuesday’s vote.

Such permission had not been granted in decades, and many British newspapers were indignant, describing Mr. Bercow the next day as a "sweaty, self-important gnome” and an “egotistical preening popinjay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dak
My money's on the sinking ship, as much as I would like to see a second vote.

I don't see No Deal Brexit as anything close to a "sinking ship", I would even call it optimal. Either way, both leading parties in UK politics are full of grey-haired children dressed in ill-fitting suits. Weak men (and women) make hard times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG
You don't even need to support "eugenics", just kill dependent-based welfare. Stop incentivizing this irresponsible behavior. PP likes to pretend they are solving this problem but they aren't, and it's just a bandaid anyway.
 
https://www.econlib.org/does-losing-less-mean-that-you-are-winning/

tl;dr, As per neutral observers, Trump's tariffs are hurting China approximately four times as much or more as it's hurting the US, but the scope in terms of overall national GDP is relatively small for both countries. Props given to his economic advisors for smart selection of areas to tariff. Not something you're going to read in an MSM headline.

We compute the total economic effect of import tariffs as the sum of the red and green areas in Figure 1. This can be interpreted as the monetary value that Chinese firms and US consumers would be willing to (jointly) pay to avoid these tariffs. The aggregate welfare losses in China and the US are around USD 1.6 billion. Only about one third, or USD 522 million, of these losses are sustained by US consumers (green triangle in Figure (1), while the remainder falls to Chinese exporting firms. To evaluate the total welfare effects for US consumers and firms, we have to consider potential tariff revenues. Most of the tariff incidence falls on Chinese firms. It is their declining profit margins that would pay for a large share of the tariffs, i.e. the red rectangle in Figure 1. These tariff revenues can be used to compensate for the welfare losses of US consumers. In total, the tariff revenues of the tariffs introduced by President Trump amount to USD 22.5 billion, of which USD 18.9 billion are to be paid by Chinese firms. This implies net welfare gains of USD 18.4 billion for US consumers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HamburgerBoy
The article hints that her boyfriend has a job, though even if they are purely a welfare family I don't think they're suddenly going to make good life choices if forced to clean toilets. PP has aborted millions of potential failed humans and I am forever grateful towards Margaret Sanger.
 
On a very basic surface level, I can get behind the idea of culling bad genes from the herd, if we fully understand that the outcome is 90% misery. Problem as usual arises when determining what constitutes an undesireable. Usually people want to jump on the mentally unstable / stupid bandwagon when in discussion but how about inconvenient minor medical problems? That does tend to be partly genetic and god knows us four eyes are fucking useless without glasses. How about people with asthma? Folks with a predisposition towards peanut allergies? Think of all the money our glorious industry titans have to waste making sure the peanut candy isn't in the same room as the fruit candy.
 


That didn't take long. This is the first instance I can think of Tulsi giving into mob pressure to apologize which is especially disappointing because she's never been an identitarian ideologue, which is why she probably doesn't stand a chance this election cycle. My first thought when she first announced she was running was she should have waited until 2024 because she'd be a great post-Trump candidate. Let the vile swine that is the Democratic party cannibalize itself with ideological purity testing so someone like her can come out of the smoke from the dumpster fire. Of course, this video won't be enough to quench the progressive bloodlust. Here's hoping she learns that quickly and in the future refuses to grovel.