Y'know your unsolicited advice on my writing style is a waste of breath.

Y'know your suggestion to alter the sentences that way change what I intended to say.

Y'know the way I said it was perfectly effective since you understood what I wrote.

Y'know I'm fucking with you.

Right?

Is that better?

This is the reason you think he should set political policy? In the immortal words of Michael Bloomberg, God help us. But perhaps, hopefully, you were being sarcastic.

Should the same logic apply here? Hopefully.

I think Tom Cruise and Donald Trump are equally unqualified to set public policy, but I can disregard Tom Cruise with impunity; not so with Donald Trump.

The whole point about inequality and unfairness, maybe you get it, maybe you don't. Maybe you get it and you don't give a shit. Maybe you're focused on other people who are also suffering. Regardless, I'm not trying to educate you and I'm stopping trying to persuade you. If you're interested in my ideas, you'll ask. In the meantime, I wish you well in your work with the people who you care about most.

As for your hope that I'll stop talking about it, sorry. I'm gonna keep talking about it, here and in other places. Put me on ignore if it's that painful to you.

Never take anything in Politics personally. We're all trying to figure this out.

This was personal. If that wasn't your attention, maybe I should be offering style pointers to you.

Yeah, it was in response to "Spoken like a true privileged individual." :flipbird:

Are you not used to people actually responding to you when you think those words?

If I may interject, if not fuck you I will anyway. .
Cruise is extremely wealthy, has plenty of free time, has alienated plenty of movie ticket buyers with his connection to "The Cult". His chauffeur or one of his body guards may well be a publicity agent. Yes saying, ya know? :eyebrow:

Do I have the timeline right? I'm just going from memory here, so please correct me where I am getting it wrong.

In the olden days, when I was a wee lad and before that, the Senate was a bit more above the political fray than the rest of politicians. They were respectable. when a President nominated a Supreme Court Justice, the Senate confirmed them because they were moderate nominees.

Sometime in the mid 80s or so, it must have been the elder Bush, nominated a guy named Bork. Bork was moderately conservative. The Democrats controlled the Senate, and they worked hard to block Bork. They succeeded and ushured in a new era of hardball politics with Supreme Court nominees. Why did the Democrats do this? Was a liberal justice being replaced by a conservative one and that was their objection? It must have been.

A decade or two went by, and opposing parties blocked more and more Presidential nominations at all levels of government. It came to a head early in Obama's first term when the Republican minority in the Senate refused to confirm any of his nominees and there was a historically large number of vacant seats throughout the courts and government and nominees not being placed in them.

So the Democrats, who controlled the Senate, went for the "nuclear option" for the lower court vacancies, and changed the Senate rules so that only a simple majority was needed. This stopped the Republicans from their obstruction, and a bunch of seats were filled. The Supreme court nomination process was not changed. A 2/3 majority vote was still needed there to block filibusters. But then a midterm election gave the Senate to the Republicans, and they resumed blocking Obama nominations.

Then a year ago, Scalia died, and President Obama nominated his replacement. That piece of shit, Mitch McConnell, refused to to even consider the nominee and the vacancy lasted for almost a year.
The Democrats are pissed that they didn't get to fill that seat, so they block the Trump pick. So McConnell, that piece of shit, blows up the remaining filibuster rules and the nominee will go through today.

That was a bit long winded, but the pattern I'm seeing is nothing new. These guys are getting worse and worse. They are not working for the good of the people. The way the system is supposed to work is that the president nominates people from his own party who are moderate enough to get votes from the other side. Everyone says they hate extremists, but they continue on the path of extremism.

I think looking back on it, the tipping point was the Bork nomination. That was when the tone changed.

He was a Reagan nominee. The Senate debate was televised and the public told their senate critters they did not want Bork. Especially after he said the biggest mistake the court had made was Brown vs the Board of Education.

But back to your point, yes that was the start of the obstructionism. Although I think the last one above the political fray was King George. ;)

Tomorrow I want to talk about the Trump administration's decision to suspend a rule that was to go into effect today raising the standard for financial advisers' obligations to their clients. The standard that would have gone into effect but is now on hold, is called a "fiduciary standard". This means that the adviser has a duty to recommend what is in the best interest of their client. That may, or may not be what is most profitable for the adviser.

How is this in the best interest of the people, or in the best interest of the country?

I've heard some of the rationale behind the opposition to the suspension of the new higher standard, saying it would make doing business more expensive. Ha.

Financial planners are under-regulated? Here is a "problem" that ONLY affects the upper middle class. It's not exactly the 1%, but it's the 10%-35% who care about this, but good on protecting them and stuff, they are the new Democratic Party after all. Since they are the electorate, they are going to need to be focused on, in the next few decades. Well not "need". They don't "need" but sure enough they will get attention!

You got a financial planner Biggie? Corporate or independent?

I already went and signed a shitload of papers to prepare for this. The guy was bitching about the workload but was aware of the reasoning, and glad they were doing something to clean up his profession.

Normally, the "I don't care if someone's getting screwed, as long as it's not me" rationale is applied to poor people, but kudos to UT for being fair and applying it to the upper-middle class, too.

ƒuck those 10-35% of Americans whining about a rampant, predatory business culture

Maybe having a retirement account at all is what separates upper middle class from the rest, but this isn't just about people who have so much cash they go hire a financial planner.

Also, people on social security are often targeted by people or companies who want to manage their checks for them.

Political Debating 201: Whenever possible, widen the problem to include everyone.