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 26 2016 02:21 xDaunt wrote: This will cause some major sphincter tightening among the Republican establishment:
Marco Rubio is getting clobbered by Donald Trump in home state of Florida, where a Quinnipiac University poll shows the frontrunner is polling at an all-time high in the Republican race for president.
Trump's 44-28 percent lead over Rubio reflects the momentum of the New York billionaire’s string of first-place finishes in the last three early state races, and it blunts the Florida senator's argument that he's the only candidate who can defeat the frontrunner in a one-on-one race.
Also, the results give more ammunition to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich — running a distant third and fourth in the Florida survey — to say that Rubio should leave the race because they're doing better in polls of their home states than Rubio is in his.
"It’s hard to see how Senator Rubio can win his party’s nomination without winning his home state," said Peter A. Brown, director of the Quinnipiac poll.
What do you think? Did the establishment have this coming? Are you hoping for a GOP rebirth?
Absolutely yes, the republican establishment has had it coming. The republican party has been antagonizing its base for at least ten years. Toss in typical political corruption "du jour," and it's pretty easy to see why the republican establishment is in its current predicament.
One thing cannot understated is the role of the internet and the overall democratization of information in all of this. The game has clearly changed.
On February 25 2016 22:54 oneofthem wrote: friedman claims he is using a dsge model but did not provide or specify the model. to get those results you'd need to tweak the govt multiplier very high as well as assume growth baseline from the 90's.
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
If the 90s can't be used, and the aughties can't be used because they were a bubble, and the previous "post-war" decades can't be used because of their special circumstances then why is criticism from some economist hacks about not having an "evidence-based" policy valid? We haven't even established what the new normal is, and Krugman is accusing Friedman of fantasy.
Let's concede that we are in a new era. What do we tell the Americans who were sold a bill of goods on pro-business free-trade policies because they were promised long-run 5% growth? What happens to pensions and 401ks when it turns out that now the best you can expect is 1-3%? We are already at the beginning of a retirement crisis with the baby boomers, and now it looks like the vehicles our privatisizing, market-driven policies have set up may never be able to adequtely provide for people in retirement in an age of low growth.
Re: Bernie not spending enough in high-mulitiplier areas I'm sure Bernie could be persuaded to do so. He has mentioned infrastructure on several occasions. Hillary wouldn't.
On February 26 2016 03:12 Souma wrote: He doesn't have to vote for Hillary in the general, and it's pretty ridiculous of you and others to pressure people into voting for her if she takes the nomination.
I did not vote for Obama in 2012 and I do not plan on voting for Hillary in 2016. Why in the world should anyone vote for someone or some party that does not represent them? The DNC is what it is today because of voters who will settle for the "less worse" instead of challenging the establishment to represent the people who vote for them.
There's currently no way the Democratic candidate, whether it's Hillary or Bernie, will lose in the general from my observations, however even if my vote was the decider and it was Hillary vs. Trump, I'd still vote Green and the DNC would have no one to blame but themselves for becoming the shithole they are now.
And for the Hillary supporters to support her and and the DNC for their actions just because "it always happens," or "Bernie isn't perfect either," or whatever the hell, leave your disgusting apathy at the door because it's further ruining the democratic process that is already a joke.
I'm not going to tell you who to vote for, but you reducing Hillary's supporters to people suffering "disgusting apathy" is very unfair.
The policy stakes are yyyuuugggee right now. Solely with supreme court nominations (let only executive agency appointments and executive orders) the next president is going to be able to implement drastic policy and social changes, for better or worse.
The GOP now controls 2 of the 3 branches of the federal government, as well as most state and local governments. If the next president is not a liberal we are going to have massive set backs in climate policy, racial justice, tax policy, campaign finance, abortion rights, and virtually everything else progressives care about. On climate policy alone, literally millions of lives could be at stake.
I plan to vote for whoever can best prevent that from happening, and I believe that's Hillary. Bernie's left-wing progressive brand is just too far from the mainstream to have a great chance in the general. I could be wrong of course, and if Bernie wins the nomination I'll gladly support him. However, I think the GOP is correct to desperately want to run against him instead of against Hillary.
On February 26 2016 03:24 Souma wrote: 'accepting the process for what it is' = step 1 of apathy.
I don't agree with Bernie nor Jill Stein 100% and implying that I'd only vote for someone if I agreed with them 100% is the same dumb misimpression people have with Bernie the "uncompromising."
There is a limit to how much crap I'm willing to swallow. The DNC and Hillary are well beyond that limit.
First step of being an adult and self-important college grad, tbh. Sorry if everyone doesn't line up with your views and sometimes puts the reality of the situation before their intellectual purity.
Straight up, this is my favorite part about progressives, the ones that refuse to accept that they might have deal work with other people. Just take your ball and go home until the election meets their approval. Meanwhile, we could get some bigoted nightmare as a president. But what matters is that they didn't give into apathy.
On February 26 2016 03:12 Souma wrote: He doesn't have to vote for Hillary in the general, and it's pretty ridiculous of you and others to pressure people into voting for her if she takes the nomination.
I did not vote for Obama in 2012 and I do not plan on voting for Hillary in 2016. Why in the world should anyone vote for someone or some party that does not represent them? The DNC is what it is today because of voters who will settle for the "less worse" instead of challenging the establishment to represent the people who vote for them.
There's currently no way the Democratic candidate, whether it's Hillary or Bernie, will lose in the general from my observations, however even if my vote was the decider and it was Hillary vs. Trump, I'd still vote Green and the DNC would have no one to blame but themselves for becoming the shithole they are now.
And for the Hillary supporters to support her and and the DNC for their actions just because "it always happens," or "Bernie isn't perfect either," or whatever the hell, leave your disgusting apathy at the door because it's further ruining the democratic process that is already a joke.
I'm not going to tell you who to vote for, but you reducing Hillary's supporters to people suffering "disgusting apathy" is very unfair.
The policy stakes are yyyuuugggee right now. Solely with supreme court nominations (let only executive agency appointments and executive orders) the next president is going to be able to implement drastic policy and social changes, for better or worse.
The GOP now controls 2 of the 3 branches of the federal government, as well as most state and local governments. If the next president is not a liberal we are going to have massive set backs in climate policy, racial justice, tax policy, campaign finance, abortion rights, and virtually everything else progressives care about. On climate policy alone, literally millions of lives could be at stake.
I plan to vote for whoever can best prevent that from happening, and I believe that's Hillary. Bernie's left-wing progressive brand is just too far from the mainstream to have a great chance in the general. I could be wrong of course, and if Bernie wins the nomination I'll gladly support him. However, I think the GOP is correct to desperately want to run against him instead of against Hillary.
Read again: I'm accusing people who are approving her and the DNC's underhanded tactics those with "disgusting apathy."
Your premise that Hillary is only recently progressive is incorrect. We are talking about someone who organized protests when MLK was assassinated, went undercover in the South after graduating from Yale Law to research discrimination violations in Southern schools, then went on the record against poor treatment of women in China and poor treatment of LGBT individuals in Africa. She swung towards the center somewhat, but she has always been very progressive after a brief romance with Goldwater (who is not nearly as bad as people make him out to be).
I've already said if Bernie wins I'll vote for him and more. However, even ignoring the fact I'm Team Hillary, I find it mathematically unlikely he will win the nomination based on all the information we have now.
I find it interesting that you'd be amenable to Hillary and David Brock in the general... if it's in support of Bernie.
I don't see a particular problem with trying to convince people to vote for the candidate I support. That's called campaigning. GH has convinced to vote for Bernie IRL. I've done the same for Hillary IRL and online.
On February 26 2016 03:24 Souma wrote: 'accepting the process for what it is' = step 1 of apathy.
I don't agree with Bernie nor Jill Stein 100% and implying that I'd only vote for someone if I agreed with them 100% is the same dumb misimpression people have with Bernie the "uncompromising."
There is a limit to how much crap I'm willing to swallow. The DNC and Hillary are well beyond that limit.
First step of being an adult and self-important college grad, tbh. Sorry if everyone doesn't line up with your views and sometimes puts the reality of the situation before their intellectual purity.
Straight up, this is my favorite part about progressives, the ones that refuse to accept that they might have deal work with other people. Just take your ball and go home until the election meets their approval. Meanwhile, we could get some bigoted nightmare as a president. But what matters is that they didn't give into apathy.
Yes because all adults and college grads must accept the fate that is the "process." How dumb is that? I wish all people thought this way, maybe we'd still be Brits.
Romney said a mean thing about him, so of course he is going to attack him. We should expect this going forward. The man cannot let any slight or insult go unanswered. Just think of the amazing things he will do to reporters once he has police powers and the CIA.
On February 26 2016 03:24 Souma wrote: 'accepting the process for what it is' = step 1 of apathy.
I don't agree with Bernie nor Jill Stein 100% and implying that I'd only vote for someone if I agreed with them 100% is the same dumb misimpression people have with Bernie the "uncompromising."
There is a limit to how much crap I'm willing to swallow. The DNC and Hillary are well beyond that limit.
First step of being an adult and self-important college grad, tbh. Sorry if everyone doesn't line up with your views and sometimes puts the reality of the situation before their intellectual purity.
Straight up, this is my favorite part about progressives, the ones that refuse to accept that they might have deal work with other people. Just take your ball and go home until the election meets their approval. Meanwhile, we could get some bigoted nightmare as a president. But what matters is that they didn't give into apathy.
Yes because all adults and college grads must accept the fate that is the "process." How dumb is that? I wish all people thought this way, maybe we'd still be Brits.
Could you straw-man harder, I'm not feeling it yet? Maybe you should accuse me of being the French during WW2?
Its grown up time. I'll vote for Bernie too, but I'm not going to throw some fit if he isn't an option.
On February 26 2016 03:12 Souma wrote: He doesn't have to vote for Hillary in the general, and it's pretty ridiculous of you and others to pressure people into voting for her if she takes the nomination.
I did not vote for Obama in 2012 and I do not plan on voting for Hillary in 2016. Why in the world should anyone vote for someone or some party that does not represent them? The DNC is what it is today because of voters who will settle for the "less worse" instead of challenging the establishment to represent the people who vote for them.
There's currently no way the Democratic candidate, whether it's Hillary or Bernie, will lose in the general from my observations, however even if my vote was the decider and it was Hillary vs. Trump, I'd still vote Green and the DNC would have no one to blame but themselves for becoming the shithole they are now.
And for the Hillary supporters to support her and and the DNC for their actions just because "it always happens," or "Bernie isn't perfect either," or whatever the hell, leave your disgusting apathy at the door because it's further ruining the democratic process that is already a joke.
I'm not going to tell you who to vote for, but you reducing Hillary's supporters to people suffering "disgusting apathy" is very unfair.
The policy stakes are yyyuuugggee right now. Solely with supreme court nominations (let only executive agency appointments and executive orders) the next president is going to be able to implement drastic policy and social changes, for better or worse.
The GOP now controls 2 of the 3 branches of the federal government, as well as most state and local governments. If the next president is not a liberal we are going to have massive set backs in climate policy, racial justice, tax policy, campaign finance, abortion rights, and virtually everything else progressives care about. On climate policy alone, literally millions of lives could be at stake.
I plan to vote for whoever can best prevent that from happening, and I believe that's Hillary. Bernie's left-wing progressive brand is just too far from the mainstream to have a great chance in the general. I could be wrong of course, and if Bernie wins the nomination I'll gladly support him. However, I think the GOP is correct to desperately want to run against him instead of against Hillary.
Read again: I'm accusing people who are approving her and the DNC's underhanded tactics those with "disgusting apathy."
There's a difference between approving the tactics and saying "Those tactics are the price I pay for not having trump as president? Yes, that's fine."
If I thought there was even a shred of chance for Bernie to win a general, it'd be a different story. I do not have the slightest amount of faith that America is ready for him, as Plansix explained.
On February 26 2016 03:12 Souma wrote: He doesn't have to vote for Hillary in the general, and it's pretty ridiculous of you and others to pressure people into voting for her if she takes the nomination.
I did not vote for Obama in 2012 and I do not plan on voting for Hillary in 2016. Why in the world should anyone vote for someone or some party that does not represent them? The DNC is what it is today because of voters who will settle for the "less worse" instead of challenging the establishment to represent the people who vote for them.
There's currently no way the Democratic candidate, whether it's Hillary or Bernie, will lose in the general from my observations, however even if my vote was the decider and it was Hillary vs. Trump, I'd still vote Green and the DNC would have no one to blame but themselves for becoming the shithole they are now.
And for the Hillary supporters to support her and and the DNC for their actions just because "it always happens," or "Bernie isn't perfect either," or whatever the hell, leave your disgusting apathy at the door because it's further ruining the democratic process that is already a joke.
I'm not going to tell you who to vote for, but you reducing Hillary's supporters to people suffering "disgusting apathy" is very unfair.
The policy stakes are yyyuuugggee right now. Solely with supreme court nominations (let only executive agency appointments and executive orders) the next president is going to be able to implement drastic policy and social changes, for better or worse.
The GOP now controls 2 of the 3 branches of the federal government, as well as most state and local governments. If the next president is not a liberal we are going to have massive set backs in climate policy, racial justice, tax policy, campaign finance, abortion rights, and virtually everything else progressives care about. On climate policy alone, literally millions of lives could be at stake.
I plan to vote for whoever can best prevent that from happening, and I believe that's Hillary. Bernie's left-wing progressive brand is just too far from the mainstream to have a great chance in the general. I could be wrong of course, and if Bernie wins the nomination I'll gladly support him. However, I think the GOP is correct to desperately want to run against him instead of against Hillary.
Read again: I'm accusing people who are approving her and the DNC's underhanded tactics those with "disgusting apathy."
On February 26 2016 03:12 Souma wrote: He doesn't have to vote for Hillary in the general, and it's pretty ridiculous of you and others to pressure people into voting for her if she takes the nomination.
I did not vote for Obama in 2012 and I do not plan on voting for Hillary in 2016. Why in the world should anyone vote for someone or some party that does not represent them? The DNC is what it is today because of voters who will settle for the "less worse" instead of challenging the establishment to represent the people who vote for them.
There's currently no way the Democratic candidate, whether it's Hillary or Bernie, will lose in the general from my observations, however even if my vote was the decider and it was Hillary vs. Trump, I'd still vote Green and the DNC would have no one to blame but themselves for becoming the shithole they are now.
And for the Hillary supporters to support her and and the DNC for their actions just because "it always happens," or "Bernie isn't perfect either," or whatever the hell, leave your disgusting apathy at the door because it's further ruining the democratic process that is already a joke.
I'm not going to tell you who to vote for, but you reducing Hillary's supporters to people suffering "disgusting apathy" is very unfair.
The policy stakes are yyyuuugggee right now. Solely with supreme court nominations (let only executive agency appointments and executive orders) the next president is going to be able to implement drastic policy and social changes, for better or worse.
The GOP now controls 2 of the 3 branches of the federal government, as well as most state and local governments. If the next president is not a liberal we are going to have massive set backs in climate policy, racial justice, tax policy, campaign finance, abortion rights, and virtually everything else progressives care about. On climate policy alone, literally millions of lives could be at stake.
I plan to vote for whoever can best prevent that from happening, and I believe that's Hillary. Bernie's left-wing progressive brand is just too far from the mainstream to have a great chance in the general. I could be wrong of course, and if Bernie wins the nomination I'll gladly support him. However, I think the GOP is correct to desperately want to run against him instead of against Hillary.
Read again: I'm accusing people who are approving her and the DNC's underhanded tactics those with "disgusting apathy."
There's a difference between approving the tactics and saying "Those tactics are the price I pay for not having trump as president? Yes, that's fine."
If I thought there was even a shred of chance for Bernie to win a general, it'd be a different story. I do not have the slightest amount of faith that America is ready for him, as Plansix explained.
Or you could call out your candidate and the establishment for being dirty and still support her because of what you mentioned above. Or what, would that be a little too hard on your conscience if you guys were to accept the fact that Hillary and the DNC are a bit shadier than you'd like yet still vote for them?
Instead of saying, "Hey that's the name of the game," have some integrity ffs.
On February 26 2016 03:35 IgnE wrote: Acquiescing to blackmail is the first step to being an adult. Got it.
Trump would be an average president. How many racist bigoted presidents have we had in our history?
Hillary is in my nightmares, Plansix.
We disagree, but that is fine. I fully expect Trump to abuse every power in that office to silence anyone who criticizes him right up until congress stop him. Bush was bad about this, Trump will be worse. I don't expect that from Hillary.
On February 26 2016 03:24 Souma wrote: 'accepting the process for what it is' = step 1 of apathy.
I don't agree with Bernie nor Jill Stein 100% and implying that I'd only vote for someone if I agreed with them 100% is the same dumb misimpression people have with Bernie the "uncompromising."
There is a limit to how much crap I'm willing to swallow. The DNC and Hillary are well beyond that limit.
You said that voting for "less worse" was a problem.
Not that sometimes it is OK ( under the crap limit) and sometimes not (over the crap limit)
That strategy does "accept the process for what it is"
1. Vote for A (because they are better than B)..A is under crap limit OR 2. Vote 3rd party/don't vote ... B might win the Election, but people might be convinced that C is more electable than they thought (basically look at the long term)...A is over crap limit
EPT
