EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3024
| 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. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23515 Posts
| ||
|
strongwind
United States862 Posts
On February 25 2016 18:00 JW_DTLA wrote: How about the real criticism against Bernie: even in theory his economic plans don't add up. He needs 5% real GDP growth and assumes 1999 levels of labor participation. And Bernie never levels with how much he will have to raise W2 income taxes to pay for moving the health insurance system into the IRS. For a guy running on a plan to help the 99%, Bernie should have done his homework and come up with a plan that would pass the wonk test. Clinton may not have pilloried him for running on Unicorn plans, but you better believe Republicans will call him out for failing to get even liberal professional economists on board. "We are concerned to see the Sanders campaign citing extreme claims by Gerald Friedman about the effect of Senator Sanders’s economic plan—claims that cannot be supported by the economic evidence." https://lettertosanders.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/open-letter-to-senator-sanders-and-professor-gerald-friedman-from-past-cea-chairs/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/02/17/what-has-the-wonks-worried/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body&_r=0 yes yes there's a debate among economists as to what will work http://observer.com/2016/02/liberal-economists-defend-bernie-sanders-against-a-chorus-of-critics/ obviously it's not as clear-cut when it comes to large scale economic changes that we haven't seen before in this country And again, it goes back to my original point. Why is Bernie the one so heavily scrutinized? Does anyone have economic policy specifics from Trump, other than "I'm a billionaire and I know how to fix things"? What does Hillary offer, other than status-quo? It bothers me that when someone puts forth big ideas, it's almost more politically expedient to be wishy-washy with the details. If you actually put forward a detailed plan, people will scrutinize it to death. Sure, Bernie could spend all his time hashing out the details, but he has this thing called an election to win. And the vast majority of Americans really don't care about the specifics. They care that their candidate is smart, capable, and trustworthy enough to figure out the details once they're in office. Sometimes I wonder if FDR could win an election in this day and age.. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6261 Posts
When Republicans have proposed large tax cuts for the wealthy and asserted that those tax cuts would pay for themselves, for example, we have shown that the economic facts do not support these fantastical claims. Calling Republican claims fantastical is not enough scrutiny? I think it's pretty clear that economists like Krugman and Krueger are hardly fans of the economic policy of the Republican candidates. Anyway I agree with this part of the Galbraiths letter: You write that you have applied rigor to your analyses of economic proposals by Democrats and Republicans. On reading this sentence I looked to the bottom of the page, to find a reference or link to your rigorous review of Professor Friedman's study. I found nothing there. big.assets.huffingtonpost.com I expected an analysis with the letter as well | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18159 Posts
On February 25 2016 16:03 LegalLord wrote: Well, you're not wrong about Bernie; a lot of the flaws that you mentioned are valid and legitimate criticisms of him. However, based on who you support, it seems you think that Hillary is a good candidate. I disagree, and I think that if there were another candidate with Sanders' ideas who was a bit better about being part of the party and about having a broader appeal, said candidate would easily exploit Hillary's weaknesses and defeat her. Sure, he's not great at foreign policy - Hillary is god damn awful at it with a proven track record of doing badly. And I will agree that he is a little less-than-practical about ideas such as Wall Street, fiscal policy, etc., though he does bring up good points that could be implemented if done right. His big advantage is that people don't really trust Hillary very much. Right now she is like the Richard Nixon of the Democratic party, with more than a fair share of party support and connections but with a shady and checkered history that will come back to bite her in the ass. If Hillary were a strong candidate then she would have been able to easily dismiss Sanders early on in the campaign. The fact that he is still around is a sign of her being a very weak and ineffective candidate. This may be true, but you have a choice between two flawed candidates (either of which is a few miles ahead of whichever clown the Republicans end up with; don't forget that). I'm not a big fan of this berning drive to create a schism in the party. Both candidates have their problems, and it's a matter of opinion which problems you think are more important (and whose strengthso you like better). | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23515 Posts
Did anyone know there was a Rep Town Hall last night? | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
On February 25 2016 22:08 GreenHorizons wrote: Seriously? You guys are sooo slow. Not a coincidence you haven't heard yet. Did anyone know there was a Rep Town Hall last night? I assume you're talking about this? + Show Spoiler + It certainly won't help, but idk how much it'll hurt. I'm not very good at gauging that type of thing, but it did get #WhichHillary trending. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
On February 25 2016 22:25 LegalLord wrote: I don't see Hillary losing the black vote. They always tend to favor one party and candidate overwhelmingly and will almost never be convinced otherwise. You're right, she won't ever lose it. The question is, then, can Sanders put enough of a dent in her support for it to matter? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On February 25 2016 22:13 jcarlsoniv wrote: I assume you're talking about this? + Show Spoiler + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqLfvQfuvsA It certainly won't help, but idk how much it'll hurt. I'm not very good at gauging that type of thing, but it did get #WhichHillary trending. Add this to the reasons people stopped taking BLM seriously. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18843 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23515 Posts
As the resident black person, maybe she holds on in SC since it seems to be some sort of media black hole down there but she will probably lose the under 40 black vote even in SC which means it's just a matter of time before her last "firewall" falls. On February 25 2016 22:38 Mohdoo wrote: Add this to the reasons people stopped taking BLM seriously. Yeah the responses like this is exactly what Hillary needs for black voters. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it is quite a mistake to say it is just a regular model just talking the underlying economics, yes there is a demand problem, but when you boost demand the companies may not return to their previous level of hiring. the ratchet and and clank of reorganization and restructuring is going towards smaller staff and so on so it's just difficult to see those numbers from just government spending. the most effective spending (infrastructure, some childcare stuff) are not even the main part of sander's plan. the medical and college stuff don't have a high multiplier | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On February 25 2016 22:43 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah the responses like this is exactly what Hillary needs for black voters. When BLM started out, a lot of people on my FB, myself included, supported and reposted stuff pertaining to police brutality etc. But as time has gone on, with things like the video above, "safe zones" and the like, I saw the transition from support to cynicism to ignoring. I think it could have been great and could have done a lot regarding police brutality. Edit: I really don't see how anyone can see this idiot girl as anything more than a joke. "Can you please apologize to black people for mass incarceration?" LMAO. Yeah, get out. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
1. After Clinton beats Sanders in a clear majority of the states voting in early March, Sanders should recognize (after March 15 at the latest) that he's not going to win the nomination, and he should go talk to Clinton to discuss his leaving the race. 2. This discussion between Sanders and Clinton should lead Hillary to amend some of her plans to include more input from Sanders (and possibly some promises to him with regards to the composition of her future administration). Sanders, meanwhile, should declare in his concession speech that he endorses Hillary as strongly as possible, and that he has confidence her plan to regulate Wall Street is solid (which it is). He should declare that his support of Clinton goes hand-in-hand with his continuous fighting for the 99%, and that he's going to stay active this election to keep fighting this fight. 3. For the rest of the campaign, Sanders should actively campaign for Hillary, and pounce on Republicans as hard as he can, targeting the youth in particular. 4. Hillary's message should be reworked to be more inspiring and highlight the huge challenges ahead (climate change, inequalities, infrastructure, financial regulations, terrorism, international tensions etc.), how she's going to tackle them ambitiously and inclusively, and how she's going to use them as opportunities to build a better future for all Americans (green energy, more social mobility and opportunities, modernization of infrastructure, etc.). This will make sure that Hillary does not have to waste any more money to win the Democratic nomination that she's going to win anyway, and that Democrats can go back to building up her image that has largely been damaged by utterly dishonest and false Republican attacks over Benghazi. Meanwhile, if the clown show that is the Republican nomination continues without Trump emerging as the winner yet and with Marco looking to make gains, that bitter fight can boost the Democrats in the eyes of the electorate. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23515 Posts
On February 25 2016 22:56 Mohdoo wrote: When BLM started out, a lot of people on my FB, myself included, supported and reposted stuff pertaining to police brutality etc. But as time has gone on, with things like the video above, "safe zones" and the like, I saw the transition from support to cynicism to ignoring. I think it could have been great and could have done a lot regarding police brutality. Edit: I really don't see how anyone can see this idiot girl as anything more than a joke. "Can you please apologize to black people for mass incarceration?" LMAO. Yeah, get out. Haha, I'm used to you all so this doesn't surprise me. Best of luck keeping the black vote with Hillary supporters going around calling BLM protesters "idiot girls" and "jokes" I'm very familiar with how that goes. | ||
|
Deathstar
9150 Posts
Obama and Reid are currently vetting a former Republican governor who's anti-union for SCOTUS. I don't even... | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the regular black leaders are backing hillary and that seems to be the most direct way to communicate with that community | ||
|
farvacola
United States18843 Posts
| ||
| ||
