|
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. |
On February 11 2016 02:04 LemOn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2016 23:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 10 2016 21:51 LemOn wrote:
Man did Rubio fuck up with the debate performance
Can trump be actually the nominee now? This is like the first time even the bookies see him as a big favorite.
Can he actually...be a president? Hillary looks to win the nom, and there's no question who's better head to head in debates.
I mean it's great entertainment and I'm loving it but it was because it was safe to say he can't actually make it. Trump has never head to head debated anyone really. His style will not work well with it imo. He thrives on multiple people chiming in, all nailing him on different things, and thus all looking contradictory, then sitting back and saying something vague that people interpret however they want. That may be, but Hillary just comes across so bad with her insincere body language, constant writing down and looking at her papers controlled style. I mean maybe she's improved since she imploded against Obama, but based on look at her rallies, public appearances etc. I doubt that
I don't think that Hillary will be able to deal with Trump in a debate. Trump will flatten Hillary in a debate through sheer force of unrelenting shamelessness. Unlike everyone else, Trump won't hesitate to throw haymakers at Hillary.
|
On February 11 2016 02:16 oneofthem wrote:
people are too appearance focused with hillary it's crazy. for supposed progressive sanders supporters too
Why is it crazy? It's how we're programmed to assess women. You can't just snap your fingers and expect millenia of societal evolution to be undone.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
crazy as in contradictory to professed values
|
On February 11 2016 02:27 oneofthem wrote:
crazy as in contradictory to professed values
Hypocrisy from progressives? SSSSSSSSSSSHHHOCKING!
(particularly on the part of the feminists)
|
On February 11 2016 02:21 Reaper9 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 01:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Christie's officially pulled out of the race. What's Christie going to do with all his free time, since he ended his presidential run today and ended his effort to govern New Jersey months ago? Maybe he can hand over the keys to a person who knows what he/she is actually doing in my state.
Are you a New Jerseyan as well? 
|
@DarkPlasmaBall Indeed I am. I'm just surprised our state has not spontaneously erupted into a ball of flames. Most likely because his second in command, and the army of office gophers are doing their jobs perfectly fine without him. Makes me wonder why we even need him at all lol.
|
oops. double post when editing.
|
On February 11 2016 02:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 02:04 LemOn wrote:On February 10 2016 23:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 10 2016 21:51 LemOn wrote:
Man did Rubio fuck up with the debate performance
Can trump be actually the nominee now? This is like the first time even the bookies see him as a big favorite.
Can he actually...be a president? Hillary looks to win the nom, and there's no question who's better head to head in debates.
I mean it's great entertainment and I'm loving it but it was because it was safe to say he can't actually make it. Trump has never head to head debated anyone really. His style will not work well with it imo. He thrives on multiple people chiming in, all nailing him on different things, and thus all looking contradictory, then sitting back and saying something vague that people interpret however they want. That may be, but Hillary just comes across so bad with her insincere body language, constant writing down and looking at her papers controlled style. I mean maybe she's improved since she imploded against Obama, but based on look at her rallies, public appearances etc. I doubt that I don't think that Hillary will be able to deal with Trump in a debate. Trump will flatten Hillary in a debate through sheer force of unrelenting shamelessness. Unlike everyone else, Trump won't hesitate to throw haymakers at Hillary.
The delusion is strong with this one. Trump is absolutely terrible at debating, and the contrast between the two in terms of actual knowledge of the issues will be incredibly stark. If it's Clinton vs Trump, the Democrats have the election in the bag.
|
United States19573 Posts
On February 11 2016 00:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2016 21:45 oneofthem wrote:
the much higher middle class tax burden You need to look at tax statistics. The US middle class are fucked. The poor are too poor to have anything worth taxing and the rich are too rich to pay more than 15%. The superrich do still pay a lot of tax but that's only because 15% of 90% of the money is still far more than 40% of the remaining 10% of the money.
That's actually not true. Even accounting for % of national income, the US rich pay the highest % of overall tax burden of any OECD country.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/422013187855
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/other-countries-dont-have-a-47/
|
On February 11 2016 02:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 02:16 oneofthem wrote:
people are too appearance focused with hillary it's crazy. for supposed progressive sanders supporters too Why is it crazy? It's how we're programmed to assess women. You can't just snap your fingers and expect millenia of societal evolution to be undone.
Crazy is the wrong word. Disappointing for people who are/try to be progressive to see it be so prevalent and hand waved as a non-issue. I am waiting for some liberal pundit to start talking about how she is “to aggressive” or that she doesn’t smile enough. Its only a matter of time.
|
On February 11 2016 02:21 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2016 23:38 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2016 23:34 kwizach wrote:On February 10 2016 22:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The good thing is that Sanders voice will have been heard, which is hugely positive, and that he will probably lose to Clinton, which is probably for the best. In my opinion, a win-win situation on the Democratic side. The danger, as I see it, is Bernie supporters getting increasingly critical of Hillary, to the point where they don't even vote for her in the general election. Sanders is heavily playing the "she's in bed with banks and corporations" card, and it might damage Clinton's chances in the general election once she will have defeated him. I hope he will be gracious enough to throw his full support behind her once she becomes the clear nominee. This is my concern as well. People are getting so laughably aggressive towards Clinton as if they have a chance at winning the primary. It's just stupid. Build Bernie up all you want, but actively trying to destroy the democratic nominee is stupid. Wait Sanders supporters are supposed to get all excited and hopeful while knowing and accepting that Clinton will win in the end? Isn't that a pretty anti-democratic way of thinking? This kind of "be submissive to the Party and don't raise your voice" way of doing things is what killed democracy in Western countries
What was once Sanders support has turned into Clinton hate. So, so, so much content out there that try to highlight why Sanders is great in contrast to why Clinton is terrible. Not just worse, but utterly untrustworthy and not even SLIGHTLY progressive.
It's kind of like how people like a sports team so much that they start to completely hate the other team. That's what bugs me. At the end of the day, Clinton remains heavily favored to win the nomination. Ruining her chances against the GOP doesn't help anyone. Sanders supporters are so desperate to start some sort of revolution that they are willing to destroy the safe plan along the way.
|
On February 11 2016 02:38 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 02:24 xDaunt wrote:On February 11 2016 02:04 LemOn wrote:On February 10 2016 23:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 10 2016 21:51 LemOn wrote:
Man did Rubio fuck up with the debate performance
Can trump be actually the nominee now? This is like the first time even the bookies see him as a big favorite.
Can he actually...be a president? Hillary looks to win the nom, and there's no question who's better head to head in debates.
I mean it's great entertainment and I'm loving it but it was because it was safe to say he can't actually make it. Trump has never head to head debated anyone really. His style will not work well with it imo. He thrives on multiple people chiming in, all nailing him on different things, and thus all looking contradictory, then sitting back and saying something vague that people interpret however they want. That may be, but Hillary just comes across so bad with her insincere body language, constant writing down and looking at her papers controlled style. I mean maybe she's improved since she imploded against Obama, but based on look at her rallies, public appearances etc. I doubt that I don't think that Hillary will be able to deal with Trump in a debate. Trump will flatten Hillary in a debate through sheer force of unrelenting shamelessness. Unlike everyone else, Trump won't hesitate to throw haymakers at Hillary. The delusion is strong with this one. Trump is absolutely terrible at debating, and the contrast between the two in terms of actual knowledge of the issues will be incredibly stark. If it's Clinton vs Trump, the Democrats have the election in the bag.
Apparently you're not paying close enough attention to the dynamics of the republican debates. Do you really think that Clinton's policy wonk responses are really going to hold up to Trump's barrage of criticism -- particularly on foreign policy issues? It's going to be like shooting fish in a barrel for Trump. And when Hillary brings up her feminist credentials? Trump will slap her down as an empowerer of a serial womanizer/abuser of women/rapist/however far down that particular rabbit hole Trump wants to go. These debates aren't going to be graded and assessed by the voting public in an informed, technical sense. It's going to be a brawl in the mud, and no candidate can hang with Trump in that arena.
|
United States42021 Posts
On February 11 2016 02:40 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 00:34 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2016 21:45 oneofthem wrote:
the much higher middle class tax burden You need to look at tax statistics. The US middle class are fucked. The poor are too poor to have anything worth taxing and the rich are too rich to pay more than 15%. The superrich do still pay a lot of tax but that's only because 15% of 90% of the money is still far more than 40% of the remaining 10% of the money. That's actually not true. Even accounting for % of national income, the US rich pay the highest % of overall tax burden of any OECD country. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/422013187855
You completely missed my point. They pay a lot because they have so much more than the middle class, not because they're taxed at a higher rate.
Imagine there are ten cookies. The rich guy takes 9, the middle class guy takes 1, the poor guy takes none. The rich guy is taxed one cookie, the middle class guy half a cookie and then the rich guy bitches to the middle class guy about how the poor guy didn't even have to pay any.
Same principle. Yes in absolute terms the rich guy gave up the 2/3 of the total cookies taxed (1 out of 1.5). However that's a very bad way of measuring what happened.
|
On February 11 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 02:38 kwizach wrote:On February 11 2016 02:24 xDaunt wrote:On February 11 2016 02:04 LemOn wrote:On February 10 2016 23:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 10 2016 21:51 LemOn wrote:
Man did Rubio fuck up with the debate performance
Can trump be actually the nominee now? This is like the first time even the bookies see him as a big favorite.
Can he actually...be a president? Hillary looks to win the nom, and there's no question who's better head to head in debates.
I mean it's great entertainment and I'm loving it but it was because it was safe to say he can't actually make it. Trump has never head to head debated anyone really. His style will not work well with it imo. He thrives on multiple people chiming in, all nailing him on different things, and thus all looking contradictory, then sitting back and saying something vague that people interpret however they want. That may be, but Hillary just comes across so bad with her insincere body language, constant writing down and looking at her papers controlled style. I mean maybe she's improved since she imploded against Obama, but based on look at her rallies, public appearances etc. I doubt that I don't think that Hillary will be able to deal with Trump in a debate. Trump will flatten Hillary in a debate through sheer force of unrelenting shamelessness. Unlike everyone else, Trump won't hesitate to throw haymakers at Hillary. The delusion is strong with this one. Trump is absolutely terrible at debating, and the contrast between the two in terms of actual knowledge of the issues will be incredibly stark. If it's Clinton vs Trump, the Democrats have the election in the bag. Apparently you're not paying close enough attention to the dynamics of the republican debates. Do you really think that Clinton's policy wonk responses are really going to hold up to Trump's barrage of criticism -- particularly on foreign policy issues? It's going to be like shooting fish in a barrel for Trump. And when Hillary brings up her feminist credentials? Trump will slap her down as an empowerer of a serial womanizer/abuser of women/rapist/however far down that particular rabbit hole Trump wants to go. These debates aren't going to be graded and assessed by the voting public in an informed, technical sense. It's going to be a brawl in the mud, and no candidate can hang with Trump in that arena.
So in other words he's going to continue to say random shit and it will work because the populace is going to eat it up. Democracy is in trouble
|
On February 11 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 02:38 kwizach wrote:On February 11 2016 02:24 xDaunt wrote:On February 11 2016 02:04 LemOn wrote:On February 10 2016 23:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 10 2016 21:51 LemOn wrote:
Man did Rubio fuck up with the debate performance
Can trump be actually the nominee now? This is like the first time even the bookies see him as a big favorite.
Can he actually...be a president? Hillary looks to win the nom, and there's no question who's better head to head in debates.
I mean it's great entertainment and I'm loving it but it was because it was safe to say he can't actually make it. Trump has never head to head debated anyone really. His style will not work well with it imo. He thrives on multiple people chiming in, all nailing him on different things, and thus all looking contradictory, then sitting back and saying something vague that people interpret however they want. That may be, but Hillary just comes across so bad with her insincere body language, constant writing down and looking at her papers controlled style. I mean maybe she's improved since she imploded against Obama, but based on look at her rallies, public appearances etc. I doubt that I don't think that Hillary will be able to deal with Trump in a debate. Trump will flatten Hillary in a debate through sheer force of unrelenting shamelessness. Unlike everyone else, Trump won't hesitate to throw haymakers at Hillary. The delusion is strong with this one. Trump is absolutely terrible at debating, and the contrast between the two in terms of actual knowledge of the issues will be incredibly stark. If it's Clinton vs Trump, the Democrats have the election in the bag. Apparently you're not paying close enough attention to the dynamics of the republican debates. Do you really think that Clinton's policy wonk responses are really going to hold up to Trump's barrage of criticism -- particularly on foreign policy issues? It's going to be like shooting fish in a barrel for Trump. And when Hillary brings up her feminist credentials? Trump will slap her down as an empowerer of a serial womanizer/abuser of women/rapist/however far down that particular rabbit hole Trump wants to go. These debates aren't going to be graded and assessed by the voting public in an informed, technical sense. It's going to be a brawl in the mud, and no candidate can hang with Trump in that arena.
Not only am I paying attention to the dynamics of the republican debates, but you seem to be the one missing the point: Clinton would not face Trump in a republican debate, she would face Trump in several general election debates. The crowd will be less sympathetic to Trump's positions, and more importantly he will not be able to weasel his way out of answers through his usual nonsense, because he will be alone on the stage next to Clinton. There won't be half a dozen other candidates waiting for their turn to speak, meaning that each candidate will be under the spotlight much longer. Clinton has shown that she can easily handle that, and Trump has shown the exact opposite: the deeper he has to get on issues, the more embarrassing for him it gets. If you seriously think his empty rhetoric is going to earn him points among many people who aren't already warm to his candidacy, you're more delusional than I thought.
edit: Seriously, if you genuinely believe that Trump would win 1-on-1 against Clinton, I am ready to make a money bet with you over the winner if it comes down to that scenario.
|
On February 11 2016 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 02:21 OtherWorld wrote:On February 10 2016 23:38 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2016 23:34 kwizach wrote:On February 10 2016 22:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The good thing is that Sanders voice will have been heard, which is hugely positive, and that he will probably lose to Clinton, which is probably for the best. In my opinion, a win-win situation on the Democratic side. The danger, as I see it, is Bernie supporters getting increasingly critical of Hillary, to the point where they don't even vote for her in the general election. Sanders is heavily playing the "she's in bed with banks and corporations" card, and it might damage Clinton's chances in the general election once she will have defeated him. I hope he will be gracious enough to throw his full support behind her once she becomes the clear nominee. This is my concern as well. People are getting so laughably aggressive towards Clinton as if they have a chance at winning the primary. It's just stupid. Build Bernie up all you want, but actively trying to destroy the democratic nominee is stupid. Wait Sanders supporters are supposed to get all excited and hopeful while knowing and accepting that Clinton will win in the end? Isn't that a pretty anti-democratic way of thinking? This kind of "be submissive to the Party and don't raise your voice" way of doing things is what killed democracy in Western countries What was once Sanders support has turned into Clinton hate. So, so, so much content out there that try to highlight why Sanders is great in contrast to why Clinton is terrible. Not just worse, but utterly untrustworthy and not even SLIGHTLY progressive. It's kind of like how people like a sports team so much that they start to completely hate the other team. That's what bugs me. At the end of the day, Clinton remains heavily favored to win the nomination. Ruining her chances against the GOP doesn't help anyone. Sanders supporters are so desperate to start some sort of revolution that they are willing to destroy the safe plan along the way.
Maybe because some Sanderes supporters actually support Sanders himself, an independant, instead of supporting the big machine that is the Democratic Party? Thus they have no interest in a "safe plan"?
Though I agree that it's never good to hate on rivals. Doesn't do anyone good.
|
On February 11 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 02:38 kwizach wrote:On February 11 2016 02:24 xDaunt wrote:On February 11 2016 02:04 LemOn wrote:On February 10 2016 23:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 10 2016 21:51 LemOn wrote:
Man did Rubio fuck up with the debate performance
Can trump be actually the nominee now? This is like the first time even the bookies see him as a big favorite.
Can he actually...be a president? Hillary looks to win the nom, and there's no question who's better head to head in debates.
I mean it's great entertainment and I'm loving it but it was because it was safe to say he can't actually make it. Trump has never head to head debated anyone really. His style will not work well with it imo. He thrives on multiple people chiming in, all nailing him on different things, and thus all looking contradictory, then sitting back and saying something vague that people interpret however they want. That may be, but Hillary just comes across so bad with her insincere body language, constant writing down and looking at her papers controlled style. I mean maybe she's improved since she imploded against Obama, but based on look at her rallies, public appearances etc. I doubt that I don't think that Hillary will be able to deal with Trump in a debate. Trump will flatten Hillary in a debate through sheer force of unrelenting shamelessness. Unlike everyone else, Trump won't hesitate to throw haymakers at Hillary. The delusion is strong with this one. Trump is absolutely terrible at debating, and the contrast between the two in terms of actual knowledge of the issues will be incredibly stark. If it's Clinton vs Trump, the Democrats have the election in the bag. Apparently you're not paying close enough attention to the dynamics of the republican debates. Do you really think that Clinton's policy wonk responses are really going to hold up to Trump's barrage of criticism -- particularly on foreign policy issues? It's going to be like shooting fish in a barrel for Trump. And when Hillary brings up her feminist credentials? Trump will slap her down as an empowerer of a serial womanizer/abuser of women/rapist/however far down that particular rabbit hole Trump wants to go. These debates aren't going to be graded and assessed by the voting public in an informed, technical sense. It's going to be a brawl in the mud, and no candidate can hang with Trump in that arena.
I question how Trump’s shameless pandering will fly in the general elections. He is universally disliked every other demographic but his base. His unfavorables are and always have been horrific to the point of unelectable and they have never improved. That stuff might flight in the Republican debates, but he has to win over the people that decide elections, independent voters. Being the living embodiment of a Youtube comment section isn’t going to fly for the general population in a 1 on 1 debate. There are not enough truly stupid people in this country to pull that off.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 11 2016 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 02:21 OtherWorld wrote:On February 10 2016 23:38 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2016 23:34 kwizach wrote:On February 10 2016 22:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The good thing is that Sanders voice will have been heard, which is hugely positive, and that he will probably lose to Clinton, which is probably for the best. In my opinion, a win-win situation on the Democratic side. The danger, as I see it, is Bernie supporters getting increasingly critical of Hillary, to the point where they don't even vote for her in the general election. Sanders is heavily playing the "she's in bed with banks and corporations" card, and it might damage Clinton's chances in the general election once she will have defeated him. I hope he will be gracious enough to throw his full support behind her once she becomes the clear nominee. This is my concern as well. People are getting so laughably aggressive towards Clinton as if they have a chance at winning the primary. It's just stupid. Build Bernie up all you want, but actively trying to destroy the democratic nominee is stupid. Wait Sanders supporters are supposed to get all excited and hopeful while knowing and accepting that Clinton will win in the end? Isn't that a pretty anti-democratic way of thinking? This kind of "be submissive to the Party and don't raise your voice" way of doing things is what killed democracy in Western countries What was once Sanders support has turned into Clinton hate. So, so, so much content out there that try to highlight why Sanders is great in contrast to why Clinton is terrible. Not just worse, but utterly untrustworthy and not even SLIGHTLY progressive. It's kind of like how people like a sports team so much that they start to completely hate the other team. That's what bugs me. At the end of the day, Clinton remains heavily favored to win the nomination. Ruining her chances against the GOP doesn't help anyone. Sanders supporters are so desperate to start some sort of revolution that they are willing to destroy the safe plan along the way.
Truth is that a lot of people like neither the Republicans nor Clinton. It has less to do with her positions that with trust.
So show the polls, anyways.
|
On February 11 2016 01:02 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2016 23:42 RvB wrote:On February 10 2016 22:32 GoTuNk! wrote:
I still don't understand why people like Krugman and Stiglitz are still hold on high steem and their opinions worthy of anything. It's because political ideology plays a big part in economics as a science. Simply put leftists will like Keynesian more while someone from the right (like me and I assume you as well) like neoclassical. econjwatch.orgpapers.ssrn.comedit: I will say though that I think that Keynes is an excellent economist. He's just very wrong. People listen to Krugman and Stiglitz, because amongst neoclassical economists (because they are... did they ever refuted the dominant model ?), they're the most intelligent - a fact for anybody who knows about economy a little and read about Krugman's work (on economic geography or international trade) and stiglitz work (on information for exemple, he is like one of the dominant figure of modern economics, please...).
New Keynesian to be more accurate. And yes I've read Stiglitz and Krugman and respect them. They're not nobel prize winners for nothing. My response was more to the question of why some people think their opinions are worth nothing (like GoTunk) or mostly agree with them. Though I might've been unclear.
Anyway didn't you call Friedman a hack?
|
On February 11 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2016 02:38 kwizach wrote:On February 11 2016 02:24 xDaunt wrote:On February 11 2016 02:04 LemOn wrote:On February 10 2016 23:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 10 2016 21:51 LemOn wrote:
Man did Rubio fuck up with the debate performance
Can trump be actually the nominee now? This is like the first time even the bookies see him as a big favorite.
Can he actually...be a president? Hillary looks to win the nom, and there's no question who's better head to head in debates.
I mean it's great entertainment and I'm loving it but it was because it was safe to say he can't actually make it. Trump has never head to head debated anyone really. His style will not work well with it imo. He thrives on multiple people chiming in, all nailing him on different things, and thus all looking contradictory, then sitting back and saying something vague that people interpret however they want. That may be, but Hillary just comes across so bad with her insincere body language, constant writing down and looking at her papers controlled style. I mean maybe she's improved since she imploded against Obama, but based on look at her rallies, public appearances etc. I doubt that I don't think that Hillary will be able to deal with Trump in a debate. Trump will flatten Hillary in a debate through sheer force of unrelenting shamelessness. Unlike everyone else, Trump won't hesitate to throw haymakers at Hillary. The delusion is strong with this one. Trump is absolutely terrible at debating, and the contrast between the two in terms of actual knowledge of the issues will be incredibly stark. If it's Clinton vs Trump, the Democrats have the election in the bag. Apparently you're not paying close enough attention to the dynamics of the republican debates. Do you really think that Clinton's policy wonk responses are really going to hold up to Trump's barrage of criticism -- particularly on foreign policy issues? It's going to be like shooting fish in a barrel for Trump. And when Hillary brings up her feminist credentials? Trump will slap her down as an empowerer of a serial womanizer/abuser of women/rapist/however far down that particular rabbit hole Trump wants to go. These debates aren't going to be graded and assessed by the voting public in an informed, technical sense. It's going to be a brawl in the mud, and no candidate can hang with Trump in that arena.
Trump is better than Hillary in Republican shouting contests debates.
This is not in any way whatsoever a reflection of his future ability in presidential debates. It's like comparing basketball skills with golf skills. I mean I'm sure Paul Ryan would have been lovely in Republican debates in 2012, but against Biden he failed incredibly hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
