| 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. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
We have hundreds of millions of people in this country. I don't want to vote in the wife of a former president. It's ridiculous. Honestly that's good enough reason to not vote for her. It really is. Can people really not see this? Do people not care whether or not we are ruled by an oligarchy? | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On February 11 2016 02:45 KwarK wrote: 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. Read what I posted If you divide the number taxed by the number earned the US is still the highest. In your scenario it would be 1/9 vs .5/1, aka a regressive system. In ours its more like this: 100 cookies Top 1/3 get 50, 25 taxed, next third get 30, 10 taxed, next third get 20, 0 taxed. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 11 2016 03:03 travis wrote: Some people, including myself, find lineages and "ruling families" to be a giant red flag. We have hundreds of millions of people in this country. I don't want to vote in the wife of a former president. It's ridiculous. Honestly that's good enough reason to not vote for her. It really is. Can people really not see this? Do people not care whether or not we are ruled by an oligarchy? I generally base my vote on what I feel is best for the country and me, rather than some abstract idea of what the person represents. If forced to choose between Trump or Clinton, it’s easy. Same with her and almost all of the Republican candidates. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
is a clinton mole this is the storyline im going with | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On February 11 2016 03:06 Plansix wrote: I generally base my vote on what I feel is best for the country and me, rather than some abstract idea of what the person represents. If forced to choose between Trump or Clinton, it’s easy. Same with her and almost all of the Republican candidates. I tend to just admit I don't know. I honestly don't know what most of the presidential candidates actually would do, or even what they could accomplish if they wanted to try. I don't actually care to vote for a candidate unless I think they are a trustworthy person who is more interested in helping the country or humanity than they are in playing some sort of game where they get more power, money, or influence for themselves or their clique. This is why I have never voted. Because I have never thought that. And time and time again I have been proven right by what actually happens in the following 4 years. Bernie Sanders would be the first time I would bother voting. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5784 Posts
On February 11 2016 03:01 TheTenthDoc wrote: Trump is better than Hillary in Republican 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. By the same token, Democratic debates wouldn't be comparable to general election debates. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 11 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote: 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. voter base will be different. not all americans do gop primary | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On February 11 2016 01:45 oneofthem wrote: well it's not that flattering to say a field's theory is entirely inadequate starting point and only manage to adjust because of mistakes too large to ignore. maybe when the agency based models get sophisticated enough we'll get something better and less theory laden. i'd like to be a corrupt bureaucrat in such a model making arbitrary decisions It is not mathematics that is at the core of neoclassical economy's flaws, but its epistemology. Social sciences are not refutable, every context is impossible to "saturate" (derrida) and thus there are no laws. Neoclassical economy is not dynamic, doesn't imagine the effect of anything in a context (it is everything equal and out of time), and thus makes huge mistakes in the relationship it enlight between variables. See, for exemple, how the neoclassical economy destroyed the phillips curve : they thought Phillips analysed a possible trade off between inflation and unemployment, and thus thought that the simple existence of a high unemployment and a high inflation was a possible refutation to Phillips' work - and then proposed that phillips was only right in the short run. In reality, Phillips (in the article, I suggest reading it, it is one of the best piece of economy made in the XXth century, and it's ten page long) analysed a non linear and multicausal relation between the level of unemployment, the variation of wages with various other secondary variables, such as the role of syndicates, politics, negotiations and the desire to "control the economy", but neoclassical economists were not able to even understand the non linear, dynamic model that Phillips proposed. There are mathematical ways to build dynamic models with multicausal relationships between variables, but economists can't do it unless they completly forget about the idea of equilibrium (because most dynamic models are unstable, and revolve around one or X equilibriums) that is at the core of neoclassical ideology. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21997 Posts
On February 11 2016 03:03 travis wrote: Some people, including myself, find lineages and "ruling families" to be a giant red flag. We have hundreds of millions of people in this country. I don't want to vote in the wife of a former president. It's ridiculous. Honestly that's good enough reason to not vote for her. It really is. Can people really not see this? Do people not care whether or not we are ruled by an oligarchy? No I think its a dumb reason to rule out anyone. Politicians should be judged on their merit, not on who they are related or married to. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
kennedy was doing ok | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21997 Posts
On February 11 2016 03:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Clinton lost young Women by 60 points, or 4 out of 5... Holy fuck. I didn't anyone saw that coming. Just being a women doesn't get women to vote for you, same with race. You have to actually have a message they care about. | ||
|
Deathstar
9150 Posts
| ||
|
Deathstar
9150 Posts
On February 11 2016 03:15 Gorsameth wrote: Just being a women doesn't get women to vote for you, same with race. You have to actually have a message they care about. That's not true. AFAIK in SC, and nationally, many black people consider Bill Clinton an honorary black person and they will stay loyal to his wife. That's the extent of their politics. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 11 2016 03:17 Deathstar wrote: That's not true. AFAIK in SC, and nationally, many black people consider Bill Clinton an honorary black person and they will stay loyal to his wife. That's the extent of their politics. Extent of “their” politics? Are you for real right now? Are you sure that blacks don’t vote with Clinton because Bill listened to their issues and they expected the same from his wife? And the Republicans have really be courting the black vote for a while, right? And by courting it, I mean not making any effort to attract black voters. Edit: Also, can we put a stop of the posting of rando youtube videos by people with 1000 subscribers? That is some facebook level garbage. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5784 Posts
On February 11 2016 03:14 oneofthem wrote: political dynasties are not all bad. there is some long term thinking in there as opposed to revolving dooring. kennedy was doing ok Executives are supposed to be switched often in the US system. The rest of your political career can be somewhere else doing long-term things, like as a legislator. We should be skeptical (but open) right off the bat of the likelihood of people with the same last name all being exceptional enough to hold the highest office arguably on the planet. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21997 Posts
On February 11 2016 03:17 Deathstar wrote: That's not true. AFAIK in SC, and nationally, many black people consider Bill Clinton an honorary black person and they will stay loyal to his wife. That's the extent of their politics. Some people will think like that, the vast majority will not. If Carson won the republican nomination, would he sweep in 80% of the black vote because he is black? Is Fiorina getting every female republican's vote? If your message is shit, it doesn't matter what your race or gender is. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8669 Posts
they know they will lose the general because their field is weak and in disarray AF. bernie winning the primary would be christmas and easter bunny combined. get a grip people like xdaunt, you had a rough awakening after romneybot lost. you will have a second one when hillarybot wins I reckon ^^ big picture did not change - not even a bit. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On February 11 2016 03:13 Gorsameth wrote: No I think its a dumb reason to rule out anyone. Politicians should be judged on their merit, not on who they are related or married to. I feel like this is very naive when you start examining the friends and family connections between those in power in the U.S. "Merit" is interesting. Do you think it's harder or easier to get jobs in politics when you are deeply entrenched in a network of super rich politicians and businessmen? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
ByuN vs Solar
Clem vs Classic
Cure vs herO
Reynor vs MaxPax
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
