| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On July 27 2015 03:14 ticklishmusic wrote: You know, Trump's a joke and I really should hate that he's demeaning the political process but he's such a caricature that I can't The political process couldn't really get much lower to be honest. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Hillary Clinton laid out some lofty goals for her presidency in a speech on Friday. "My mission from my first day as president to the last will be to raise the incomes of hardworking Americans so they can once again afford a middle-class life," she said. "This is the defining economic challenge not only of this election but our time." So, she has her work cut out for her. But interestingly, that line came not from a populist barn burner of a speech, but from a policy-focused address about ending "quarterly capitalism" — the tendency for businesses to focus on short-term shareholder gains over long-term investment. The wonkier bits of her speech about capital-gains taxation might only interest a specific subset of people, but she couched them to attract a much broader audience of voters angered by what they see as an unfair economic system. Democrats and Republicans alike are trying to channel that anger, but are offering very different solutions — so much so that the leading candidates for both parties seem to be living in two economic realities. Voters are frustrated by a range of economic issues: inequality, stagnant incomes and debt, to name a few. That frustration is the driving narrative of the 2016 election, as candidates try to convince voters that they can forge an economy that won't make Americans feel stuck in neutral. Americans have barely seen their pay outpace inflation since the recession. Annual wage growth has been stuck at around 2 percent since 2009, and median household incomes are where they were in 1995. But that's not all that's wrong: faith in the American Dream has dipped. In the late 1990s, 74 percent of Americans thought hard work was the way to get ahead in America. By January 2014, it was 60 percent. And since the recession, most Americans just haven't felt — for more than a handful of weeks at a time, anyway — that the economy is getting better. Politicians, of course, have taken notice. Indeed, to win any national election, they simply have to. Source | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On July 27 2015 03:38 Mohdoo wrote: At what point do we stop saying Trump is a joke? How long does he need to be in the top 3 before maybe it's worth considering he's here to stay? When he wins the election. Mitt Romney was a joke too. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22373 Posts
On July 27 2015 03:38 Mohdoo wrote: At what point do we stop saying Trump is a joke? How long does he need to be in the top 3 before maybe it's worth considering he's here to stay? He could become President and he would still be a joke. | ||
|
ACrow
Germany6583 Posts
On July 27 2015 03:38 Mohdoo wrote: At what point do we stop saying Trump is a joke? How long does he need to be in the top 3 before maybe it's worth considering he's here to stay? As soon as he stops acting like a joke?  On July 26 2015 15:35 WolfintheSheep wrote: So basically Vietnam, Korea or the first Iraq war? WW2 got bad, but even the bombing raids were mostly on industrial or military areas, villages or cities weren't slaughtered because of guerrilla activity, and even the occupations were done under imperialistic pretenses, and not "we're trying to find all our enemies". Most of the devastation of civilian areas was because of actual armies fighting their way through them. Conduct of nations and their military in WW2 was very much a bridge between the old imperial conquests and the new wars of ideologies. Sadly, in the european theatre of war, bombing raids against civilians were a common reality in WW2. For example, there is hardly any German city that wasn't bombed (talking about specifically targetting the civilian areas to demoralize, not just industrial areas, the most infamous example would be the bombing of Dresden with approx. 22k to 25k civilians killed within three nights) and earlier in the war the German air force did the same, e.g. when targetting London. WW2 was truely a barbaric time, no sugarcoating possible... | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On July 27 2015 03:48 ACrow wrote: As soon as he stops acting like a joke? Sadly, in the european theatre of war, bombing raids against civilians were a common reality in WW2. For example, there is hardly any German city that wasn't bombed (talking about specifically targetting the civilian areas to demoralize, not just industrial areas, the most infamous example would be the bombing of Dresden with approx. 22k to 25k civilians killed within three nights) and earlier in the war the German air force did the same, e.g. when targetting London. WW2 was truely a barbaric time, no sugarcoating possible... Even bombing the industrial areas is targeting civilians. Who do you think works in the factories? | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11839 Posts
Or really, just war in general? Because the main difference between WW2 and other wars ist just the scale of the shittyness. Other wars tend to be smaller and more localized shitty, but still really, really bad. There is no such thing as a clean war. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On July 27 2015 03:43 Gorsameth wrote: He could become President and he would still be a joke. I think I was more so addressing the fact that a lot of people keep saying he's a nobody that's going nowhere. But if he's turning in his financials for debates and staying strong in polls, does it not appear likely he'll stick around? I would also perhaps argue that even if this did start out as a publicity stunt, the fact that this campaign is actually gaining a lot of steam would very likely encourage him to just go for it. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On July 27 2015 03:48 ACrow wrote: Sadly, in the european theatre of war, bombing raids against civilians were a common reality in WW2. For example, there is hardly any German city that wasn't bombed (talking about specifically targetting the civilian areas to demoralize, not just industrial areas, the most infamous example would be the bombing of Dresden with approx. 22k to 25k civilians killed within three nights) and earlier in the war the German air force did the same, e.g. when targetting London. WW2 was truely a barbaric time, no sugarcoating possible... Major cities are basically what I meant by industrial areas. And regardless, the bombings in the European theatre weren't done because nations didn't want to risk the lives of soldiers. They were losing soldiers in the millions and it wasn't enough (and Germany couldn't get a foothold in the UK, and the allies didn't have a foothold in Europe). That's a stark difference between the more modern use of long range artillery, missiles, drones, etc. and nations who are willing to go to war, but only with minimal risk to soldiers. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On July 26 2015 23:38 lord_nibbler wrote: Civilians killed by the US since 1945? Over 15 million! (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) plus about 10 million by 'US proxies'. Or how about the fact, that the 'West' killed more than 4 million Muslims in the last 15 years in the name of fighting terror. Tell me when exactly do you reach the 'major league' in this category? Yeah. Those numbers are obviously incorrect. Korean War saw a handful of mass killings, but never on a large intentional scale by the US or any Western country. The worst US civilian killings were of refugees mistaken for enemy soldiers due to the NK habit of using fake refugees to attack UN position. South Korea committed many atrocities, and North Korean atrocities continued throughout the war, both on a scale orders of magnitude beyond the US killings. Total civilian deaths were about 2 million, with the US killing Vietnam War total civilian casualty counts range from 300k to 1.5 mil. Best estimates are in the half million range. No sane historian would deny that these were disproportionately caused by VK forces assassinating people, massacring captured cities, and shelling civilian areas. My Lai and its sordid ilk did happen. And Vietnam is certainly the best example for your argument, since the rules of decency were applied sporadically. But it was nothing like the WWII attempts to kill civilians in mass numbers just to "demoralize the enemy." Iraq and Afghanistan are weak arguments however. Yes, many civilians have died there (though nothing like the numbers you'd need to get to 1 million--never mind 15 million--across all these conflicts). Very few were killed by US (or generally Western) forces, comparative to the total. And never has the US (or any Western power) adopted a policy of intentional mass civilian killings. To say that any of this followed and expanded on the WWII methods is to fundamentally misunderstand exactly how brutal WWII was. (Incidentally, Algeria would be a good candidate for insanely ruthless action by a Western country post-WWII). | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22373 Posts
On July 27 2015 04:25 WolfintheSheep wrote: Major cities are basically what I meant by industrial areas. And regardless, the bombings in the European theatre weren't done because nations didn't want to risk the lives of soldiers. They were losing soldiers in the millions and it wasn't enough (and Germany couldn't get a foothold in the UK, and the allies didn't have a foothold in Europe). That's a stark difference between the more modern use of long range artillery, missiles, drones, etc. and nations who are willing to go to war, but only with minimal risk to soldiers. Modern conflicts are giants clubbing baby seals, not multiple developed nations engaged in total war in the way WW2 was and as such tactics will be wildly different | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22373 Posts
On July 27 2015 04:19 Mohdoo wrote: I think I was more so addressing the fact that a lot of people keep saying he's a nobody that's going nowhere. But if he's turning in his financials for debates and staying strong in polls, does it not appear likely he'll stick around? I would also perhaps argue that even if this did start out as a publicity stunt, the fact that this campaign is actually gaining a lot of steam would very likely encourage him to just go for it. Either he craters in the polls and drops out quietly or after the first few Primaries. If he gets through the first primaries well then he becomes a serious contender. I wouldn't expect his joke status to change until then. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On July 27 2015 04:25 WolfintheSheep wrote: Major cities are basically what I meant by industrial areas. And regardless, the bombings in the European theatre weren't done because nations didn't want to risk the lives of soldiers. They were losing soldiers in the millions and it wasn't enough (and Germany couldn't get a foothold in the UK, and the allies didn't have a foothold in Europe). That's a stark difference between the more modern use of long range artillery, missiles, drones, etc. and nations who are willing to go to war, but only with minimal risk to soldiers. People also need to understand that these civilians were under the rule of what we would consider a "legitimate government". If you can't consider people the arms of their governments, then there really is no moral authority for that government to tax, spend, police, etc within those borders. And if you are making the argument that those bombings were illegitimate, you are essentially saying all modern states are as well. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23957 Posts
On July 27 2015 03:40 Millitron wrote: When he wins the election. Mitt Romney was a joke too. I think the larger issue is if Romney was a joke, and the lead person this election is also a joke, does that not reflect on the party as being dominated by joke candidates (and people who support them). Wouldn't the comparisons to people like Cain or Bachmann leading the polls too just further push the idea that the majority of the republican party is by extension also "a joke"? Not to mention the hesitance to admit evolution as fact literally makes most of the republican candidates jokes to the rest of the world (and most of the country). The last nominee the Republicans have liked hasn't run for decades. What does it say about a party that can't choose among themselves someone who they don't then turn around and call a joke or mindfully avoid mentioning. This is well catalyzed by republican responses to the question: Who is the best living current/former president? That all came off harsh toward republicans but If Sanders wasn't having success I would have a similar critique for Democrats. though more focused on corporatization of candidates and not representing the bases opinion. Democrats seem to be getting their ish together (provided Bernie makes it) whereas the republicans seem like they are on a spiral of self-immolation. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
And pretty much the only reason it exists is because of financial support and ridiculously bloated campaign costs. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On July 27 2015 10:27 WolfintheSheep wrote: I've said it before in this thread: the whole concept of preliminaries is completely idiotic. It's two groups each deciding one candidate that the entirety of the country gets to decide to give individual power to. And pretty much the only reason it exists is because of financial support and ridiculously bloated campaign costs. No its not. Primaries exist because without primaries you almost ensure a candidate with under 40% (possibly under 30%) support wins the Presidency. The only system that can avoid that is a runoff or automatic runoff, both of which are not practicable for many reasons. The runoff is bad because either you have too short of a runoff, or you have a very long time between a person being elected President and them actually becoming President if the runoff is ever not needed. The automatic runoff is a superior system in some ways, but was simply not technologically feasible for the entire country pre-1970s, probably not pre-1980s. Additionally, the winnowing down effect of primaries is beneficial to the system because it gives mid-tier candidates chances to elevate while cutting off low-tier candidates. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On July 27 2015 10:55 cLutZ wrote: No its not. Primaries exist because without primaries you almost ensure a candidate with under 40% (possibly under 30%) support wins the Presidency. The only system that can avoid that is a runoff or automatic runoff, both of which are not practicable for many reasons. The runoff is bad because either you have too short of a runoff, or you have a very long time between a person being elected President and them actually becoming President if the runoff is ever not needed. The automatic runoff is a superior system in some ways, but was simply not technologically feasible for the entire country pre-1970s, probably not pre-1980s. Additionally, the winnowing down effect of primaries is beneficial to the system because it gives mid-tier candidates chances to elevate while cutting off low-tier candidates. 1) Your election system doesn't even care about popular vote, so the overall % doesn't even matter. 2) The candidates don't even need >50% of their party's support, so the only difference is when you pretend that the majority voted you in. 3) Winning more than 50% of the vote because you took away all but two choices is not something to be proud of. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On July 27 2015 11:32 WolfintheSheep wrote: 2) Winning more than 50% of the vote because you took away all but two choices is not something to be proud of. This part is kinda inherent in the system. Any instant runoff system still does this. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On July 27 2015 11:55 Yoav wrote: This part is kinda inherent in the system. Any instant runoff system still does this. True, but there's still a vast difference between removing a dozen (or more) candidates because the Democrats/Republicans don't like someone, and removing them because the country as a whole didn't like them. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games Grubby26583 gofns17305 summit1g15190 tarik_tv10332 Liquid`RaSZi3126 FrodaN1833 B2W.Neo648 Pyrionflax170 ToD133 Livibee83 |
|
OSC
Replay Cast
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
GSL
Replay Cast
GSL
WardiTV Spring Champion…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
