2023 State Of The Union Address

[Elixir]

I‘d favor a requirement to more heavily regulate ALL semi-auto firearms more stringently than single shot, bolt action or revolver-type firearms.

Why? They are all very deadly.

If I was only worried about myself, a la right wing extremists, than that would be a point. But mass murder is not so easily accomplished with a revolver. I suggest you get more familiar with the various types of weapons you are pretending to favor.

I'd favor more regulation on ALL firearms. But not to the point that it becomes onerous regulation whose purpose is to restrict access for most people.

The lexical confusion that pervades the debate is unfortunate and serves only to keep weapons of mass murder in the hands of those who will use them for their intended purpose.

Weapons of mass murder? How exactly would you define them?

I don't have a rigorous definition. But it is obvious that a greater rate and longer endurance of fire is going to kill more people if that is the intent of the individual wielding it. Grounding in reality dictates that we cannot ban all firearms as you suggest. It also suggests the benefit of banning the most dangerous and least utilitarian (for anyone other than a mass murderer) of them. It matters less where the line is drawn, than that some line IS drawn.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Trump is the moron who recently mistook a photo of Jean Caroll who he raped for his ex-wife. Trump is not all there.

There is no evidence that Trump raped her. Trump may be a moron and "not all there" but that does not mean she is not batshit insane herself. Her talk of "sexy rape" on AC360. Her hanging up the dress and keeping it for 25 years without washing it. And her allegation, as unlikely it is on its face, becomes even more unbelievable given similarities to a Law and Order SVU plot.'

Also, it's "whom".

No. “Who” is correct here. Jean carrol is the object of “mistook”. Whom did the moron mistake? Jean. Who mistook Jean? The moron. Who is the moron? Trump.

In “Trump is the moron” the moron is not an object of “is”.

Learning grammar from memes is not the best idea.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump is the moron who recently mistook a photo of Jean Caroll who he raped for his ex-wife. Trump is not all there.

There is no evidence that Trump raped her. Trump may be a moron and "not all there" but that does not mean she is not batshit insane herself. Her talk of "sexy rape" on AC360. Her hanging up the dress and keeping it for 25 years without washing it. And her allegation, as unlikely it is on its face, becomes even more unbelievable given similarities to a Law and Order SVU plot.'

Also, it's "whom".

No. “Who” is correct here. Jean carrol is the object of “mistook”. Whom did the moron mistake? Jean. Who mistook Jean? The moron. Who is the moron? Trump.

Knowing when to use who v whom is at the bottom of my bucket list and I'm not certain I'll ever get to it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The important issue here is that Trump's mind is in decline. If he cannot distinguish between a woman he raped and an ex-wife, he has no business running for any office again.

 

[Elixir]

The important issue here is that Trump's mind is in decline.

Nonononono!
The issue is that Deric hath determined that there is “no evidence that Trump raped her.”
It is urgent that Ms Carroll be advised of this determination, which negates any chance of her winning in court.
If only we all had Derec’s ability to determine the existence/non-existence of evidence from afar!
I suppose we should have known, given the orange innocence oozing from the pores of the innocent victim of this persecution.

 

[ZiprHead]

The maximum benefit depends on the age you retire. For example, if you retire at full retirement age in 2023, your maximum benefit would be $3,627. However, if you retire at age 62 in 2023, your maximum benefit would be $2,572. If you retire at age 70 in 2023, your maximum benefit would be $4,555.

What is the maximum Social Security retirement benefit payable?

Is that per day? per week? Per month? Per annum? Is it the total amount you get for the rest of your life?

Per month.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Trump is the moron who recently mistook a photo of Jean Caroll who he raped for his ex-wife. Trump is not all there.

There is no evidence that Trump raped her. Trump may be a moron and "not all there" but that does not mean she is not batshit insane herself. Her talk of "sexy rape" on AC360. Her hanging up the dress and keeping it for 25 years without washing it. And her allegation, as unlikely it is on its face, becomes even more unbelievable given similarities to a Law and Order SVU plot.'

Also, it's "whom".

No. “Who” is correct here. Jean carrol is the object of “mistook”. Whom did the moron mistake? Jean. Who mistook Jean? The moron. Who is the moron? Trump.

In “Trump is the moron” the moron is not an object of “is”.

Learning grammar from memes is not the best idea.

Haha on me. I didn't see the second "who". You are correct. it is "whom he raped" and it should be in commas as it's a non-restrictive clause. I apologize for the miscorrection, Derec.

 

[thebeave]

So, that monkey is wrong afterall? And for all these years, I trusted those buggers advice so much...

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, that monkey is wrong afterall? And for all these years, I trusted those buggers advice so much...

No. I was wrong for not properly reading something early in the morning. Monkeys are almost always right and should be followed as closely as possible.

 

[laughing dog]

CBO figures show U.S. discretionary spending for 2023 is $1.6 trillion. The 2023 deficirs are estimated to be $1.2 trillion. SS and Medicare are not discretionary spending. Obviously, balancing the budget with spending cuts alone is impossibe. Unless we slash SS and Medicare deeply. The GOP still operates on the Norquist pledge to never raise taxes for any reason.

The concept that the budget must be balanced is simply financial stupidity - it makes sense to pay for infrastructure spending over time since the citizenry uses it over time.

The concept that the budget must be balanced immediately is kamikaze economics: any immediate potential benefits would be dwarfed by the immediate reduction in economic activity and concomitant reduction in well-being.

The concept that the balancing the budget requires reductions in spending or increases in tax rates is arithmetically ignorant. Restricting the growth in spending to the rate of inflation while holding tax rates constant results in tax revenues growing faster than spending, because GDP grows faster than inflation over time.

The GOP is pandering to their base and to economic morons with this posturing.

 

[marc]

The important issue here is that Trump's mind is in decline. If he cannot distinguish between a woman he raped and an ex-wife, he has no business running for any office again.

To be fair, he probably raped his ex wife as well

 

[bilby]

Knowing when to use who v whom is at the bottom of my bucket list and I'm not certain I'll ever get to it.

It's simple. Use who; Whom is archaic and pretentious, and literally nobody will misunderstand you if you say "who" when "whom" wouldn't have been incorrect.

"Who" is always correct in modern English. Unless you're planning a time machine trip to the past, you need never be worried about using it. And there's always the added bonus that it might irritate some pedantic prescriptivist fool, to whom the distinction is apparently important.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Knowing when to use who v whom is at the bottom of my bucket list and I'm not certain I'll ever get to it.

It's simple. Use who; Whom is archaic and pretentious, and literally nobody will misunderstand you if you say "who" when "whom" wouldn't have been incorrect.

"Who" is always correct in modern English. Unless you're planning a time machine trip to the past, you need never be worried about using it. And there's always the added bonus that it might irritate some pedantic prescriptivist fool, to whom the distinction is apparently important.

Nothing is “correct” in English it’s all just convention. That being said, I prefer the “rules” that preserve the ability to communicate in shades of meaning. So, tone distinction, keeping words from losing nuanced definitions and differences, etc.

 

[bilby]

Knowing when to use who v whom is at the bottom of my bucket list and I'm not certain I'll ever get to it.

It's simple. Use who; Whom is archaic and pretentious, and literally nobody will misunderstand you if you say "who" when "whom" wouldn't have been incorrect.

"Who" is always correct in modern English. Unless you're planning a time machine trip to the past, you need never be worried about using it. And there's always the added bonus that it might irritate some pedantic prescriptivist fool, to whom the distinction is apparently important.

Nothing is “correct” in English it’s all just convention.

I know. That's why I said "wouldn't have been incorrect", and not "would have been correct".

Nothing in language is "correct", but anything that fails to convey the intended meaning is, nevertheless, "incorrect".

That being said, I prefer the “rules” that preserve the ability to communicate in shades of meaning. So, tone distinction, keeping words from losing nuanced definitions and differences, etc.

Sure, me too. But using "whom" rather than "who" almost never makes even a nuanced difference to the textual meaning; It only adds the subtextual message that the speaker believes his education to be superior to that of others (and often to that of the individual to whom he is speaking).

I am in favour of retaining the ability of language to convey condescension, but only insofar as it allows me to be condescending to others, and certainly not in ways that allow others to condescend to me.

 

[Elixir]

Sure, me too. But using "whom" rather than "who" almost never makes even a nuanced difference to the textual meaning; It only adds the subtextual message that the speaker believes his education to be superior to that of others (and often to that of the individual to whom he is speaking).

Oh really? Whom says?

I am in favour of retaining the ability of language to convey condescension, but only insofar as it allows me to be condescending to others, and certainly not in ways that allow others to condescend to me.

You'll understand when you're older

 

[Shadowy Man]

Knowing when to use who v whom is at the bottom of my bucket list and I'm not certain I'll ever get to it.

It's simple. Use who; Whom is archaic and pretentious, and literally nobody will misunderstand you if you say "who" when "whom" wouldn't have been incorrect.

"Who" is always correct in modern English. Unless you're planning a time machine trip to the past, you need never be worried about using it. And there's always the added bonus that it might irritate some pedantic prescriptivist fool, to whom the distinction is apparently important.

Nothing is “correct” in English it’s all just convention.

I know. That's why I said "wouldn't have been incorrect", and not "would have been correct".

But you did say “‘who’ is always correct in Modern English” and that was I was responding to.

Nothing in language is "correct", but anything that fails to convey the intended meaning is, nevertheless, "incorrect".

That being said, I prefer the “rules” that preserve the ability to communicate in shades of meaning. So, tone distinction, keeping words from losing nuanced definitions and differences, etc.

Sure, me too. But using "whom" rather than "who" almost never makes even a nuanced difference to the textual meaning; It only adds the subtextual message that the speaker believes his education to be superior to that of others (and often to that of the individual to whom he is speaking).

I can’t think of an instance when using who instead of whom actually conveys a different meaning than intended, but perhaps there is.

I do agree that holding onto a “rule” for tradition’s sake isn’t worth it. I yearn for the best language if that’s even possible.

I am in favour of retaining the ability of language to convey condescension, but only insofar as it allows me to be condescending to others, and certainly not in ways that allow others to condescend to me.

Nice.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're going to crash the stock market horribly and thus preclude investment.

People are not going to invest in the market because of a FICA tax on gains?

You said "trades", not "gains".

You're also going to render every pension fund out there horribly insolvent and you'll crash everyone's 401ks. Retirees will have little more than SS to live on because everything else will have crashed.

Well saying it over and over again doesn't provide evidence that people will flee the stock market because of a 6.2 or percent tax.

1) You said "trades".

2) It's 15.3%. Normally the employer pays half but if you have no employer you pay the whole thing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Who said anything about increasing benefits?

If you increase FICA limit on contributions, you would automatically increase their benefits. Or am I misunderstanding how social security works, at least currently?

Yes, you are misunderstanding how SS works.

FICA benefits are based on what you paid in in your 35 highest years, but the relationship is nonlinear. Removing the FICA cap would increase what the rich paid in and would thus increase their SS checks.

Not if we did something as remotely simple as CAPPING THEIR CHECKS. Is this brain surgery for people? The bigger issue is that this only addresses income from working. So removing the cap helps, but it'll stop helping.

Thus converting it from a retirement program to a welfare program. Are you a stealth Republican trying to destroy SS?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The maximum benefit depends on the age you retire. For example, if you retire at full retirement age in 2023, your maximum benefit would be $3,627. However, if you retire at age 62 in 2023, your maximum benefit would be $2,572. If you retire at age 70 in 2023, your maximum benefit would be $4,555.

What is the maximum Social Security retirement benefit payable?

Is that per day? per week? Per month? Per annum? Is it the total amount you get for the rest of your life?

Per month

Thanks. I find it bizarre when official websites omit information that they assume will be obvious, when including it would cost zero effort.

Working with the general public, it is very clear to me that nothing is ever so obvious that there won't be a significant number of people who don't understand it.

The amount of the benefit is listed as a monthly payment. It would be very unusual for an American to be interested in the max without knowing the interval.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I‘d favor a requirement to more heavily regulate ALL semi-auto firearms more stringently than single shot, bolt action or revolver-type firearms.

Why? They are all very deadly.

If I was only worried about myself, a la right wing extremists, than that would be a point. But mass murder is not so easily accomplished with a revolver. I suggest you get more familiar with the various types of weapons you are pretending to favor.

Very few mass shootings involve a fire rate beyond what a revolver can do. Speedloaders are not that much slower than clips.

I don't have a rigorous definition. But it is obvious that a greater rate and longer endurance of fire is going to kill more people if that is the intent of the individual wielding it. Grounding in reality dictates that we cannot ban all firearms as you suggest. It also suggests the benefit of banning the most dangerous and least utilitarian (for anyone other than a mass murderer) of them. It matters less where the line is drawn, than that some line IS drawn.

Except most mass shootings are limited by available targets, not the gun.