Music Banter - What Did President Trump Do Now?

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)

- - What Did President Trump Do Now? (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/87986-what-did-president-trump-do-now.html)

"I loved my previous life. I had so many things going," Trump told Reuters in an interview. "This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier."

No matter your opinion on Trump, the bolded is hilariously dumb. Unless Reuters took snippets from a reincarnation debate out of context.

I changed my mind.

https://68.media.tumblr.com/2dfc3369...lphyo1_400.gif

Pretty sure Trump got a boner from his specch in front of the NRA today.

https://68.media.tumblr.com/2dfc3369...lphyo1_400.gif

Pretty sure a bunch of NRA members also got boners.

https://68.media.tumblr.com/2dfc3369...lphyo1_400.gif

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 1828737)

The same bankers that are writing Trump's budget came begging the gov for a handout in 2008 because they ****ed up

Now they want to strip money from strugglingle single mothers so they can afford another yacht

All must go to gulag

The super-wealthy should have their wealth expropriated with force and dealt with as criminals if they resist. Wealth isn't generated by the wealthy, it's generated by the blood, sweat, tears, pain and debt of billions of people who will never be close to becoming wealthy. Wealth is literally violence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 1828951)

It'd be way more expensive if you want to generate a good upbringing

Foster kids right now overwhelmingly end up back in poverty

And it sounds unbelievably **** for a mother to have her child stripped from her when Daddy loses his job

I'm certain she'd end up traumatized and/or depressed. That would make it even harder to find work, or even apply for it. Sounds expensive and counterproductive.

Anyway, in Norway, you don't receive unemployment benefits unless you're a job-seeker. The Labour and Welfare Administration requires you to actively look for jobs and be willing to accept just about any kind of work, practically anywhere in the country. It's practically impossible to live comfortably off of unemployment benefits, even in Norway. Most people who have to aren't very satisfied about it - this also goes for countries that provide "generous benefits".

Generous benefits do NOT make jobless lazy: Study claims countries with best welfare have the least happy unemployed | Daily Mail Online
"So where are all of these able-bodied lazy adults who are luxuriating off of their benefits? They are a fabrication."

7 Common Myths About People on Welfare - Everyday Feminism

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-gwb033015.php

I probably agree with their ideas in those articles, but those aren't very reliable sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 1828951)

And it sounds unbelievably **** for a mother to have her child stripped from her when Daddy loses his job

Didn't catch this edit. You're strawmanning the scenario, we were discussing the event of people abusing the system, not every single parent who uses government assistance.

It's no revelation that, despite the rhetoric, Dems have a long term and passionate romance with Wall Street.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1829041)

I probably agree with their ideas in those articles, but those aren't very reliable sources.

You may be right, I've been hearing bad things about the Daily Mail. I rarely read it. The second one has a clear political agenda (which I'm biased towards). I never heard about the last one before. I didn't think too much about it, I just did a quick Google search and read through a couple of articles I found. I'm sure there are many more reliable sources out there supporting the same claims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1829045)

It's no revelation that, despite the rhetoric, Dems have a long term and passionate romance with Wall Street.

How about rejecting both the Dems and the GOP? Just a thought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater (Post 1829043)

This article.

https://www.vice.com/en_us

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Quote:

Speaking for money is a very large industry. Many people participate in it—journalists, thinkers, college professors, former politicians, consultants of all stripes. Speaking agents routinely field requests from people who are staging events—for profit, for charity, for client entertainment, for education, for employee morale. Many of us, including me, participate in this economy. The fees range all over the place, but it’s extremely lucrative. It’s harder to make more money legally in an hour than you can giving a speech.

The more in-demand you are, the more someone values your presence, the more tickets a producer might be able to sell, the more clients that might be impressed, the greater the entertainment value, the higher the price your agent commands in the market. And, like sports and other entertainment industries, there is a superstar economy. If you’re a company with $50,000 to spend on a speech, you’ll hire Tom Friedman or Malcolm Gladwell. If you have $5,000 or $10,000, you’ll settle for a less luminous nonfiction writer who is an expert on economic and business topics. But there are only so many ex-presidents. So it’s no surprise that the price corporations will pay for Obama, a popular and highly successful ex-president and one of the best orators of our day, is high. There’s a reason Obama’s asking price is $400,000 and George W. Bush gets about $100,000. It’s also no surprise that a firm working in an industry in which conspicuous consumption is a measure of self-worth was the first out of the gate to book Obama.

Even CNN's Republican pundits Kayleigh McEnany and Paris Dennard agreed last night that this is much ado about nothing, and both would do it for a ton less money.

Grasping at straws 101.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isbjørn (Post 1829053)

I'm sure there are many more reliable sources out there supporting the same claims.

I'm sure of it. I'm just not about that bias, ya know.

Quote:

How about rejecting both the Dems and the GOP? Just a thought.

Way ahead of ya. I guess I talk more **** on the Dems here because people have the GOP ****-talking taken care of. Plus, a Democrat was at the point of discussion here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1829063)

I'm sure of it. I'm just not about that bias, ya know.

Obvious bias doesn't really support my point, either. But I doubt that the editors of the Daily Mail share my political leanings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1829063)

Way ahead of ya. I guess I talk more **** on the Dems here because people have the GOP ****-talking taken care of. Plus, a Democrat was at the point of discussion here.

I wasn't really directing it at you, it was more of a general remark. ;)