|
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. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 03 2016 08:23 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 07:33 oneofthem wrote:
you are not funding this through tax, just bonds. accounting for displaced programs it's not going to cost a whole lot.
by the by a great opportunity for 'basic income day loan' enterprises. If it doesn't cost a whole lot (displaced programs), then it wouldn't have that much effect. And funding it through bonds would be just as damaging as through taxes (although different sectors would take the damage) If you are just reorganizing existing programs into one unified one, then you won't get some massive benefit. The only real benefit is a lot of civil servants/tax attorneys out of work. While that would be good for the economy and more efficient, its not magical. Most people's finances wouldn't change that much, they would just have less paperwork to keep those finances. A good idea but not as good as some people describe it (although this is true of all good ideas) the income effect boosting the economy should be minor, but that is not really the point of hte basic income. there are massive differences in incentive (more long term thinking) and increased coverage for youth who otherwise may commit crimes.
reason why i bought up tax is that you are assuming this simplistic budget model for the government when the reality is that fiscal boosting of the economy is possible.
|
On March 03 2016 08:27 xDaunt wrote:
Back to yesterday's turnout numbers....
According to NBC News, that graphic that has been passed around is accurate in that it already accounts for California and NY not being included. In other words, only the same 9 states in each election were included. I have yet to see anyone post a competing year over year tally.
So are we really sure that it's inaccurate?
Well, Kwark said I have a small dick, so we had settled on the numbers being accurate but not comparable, but you may be right:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/super-tuesday-voter-turnouts-similar-08-republicans-democrats-reversed-n530071
|
On March 03 2016 08:37 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 08:27 xDaunt wrote:
Back to yesterday's turnout numbers....
According to NBC News, that graphic that has been passed around is accurate in that it already accounts for California and NY not being included. In other words, only the same 9 states in each election were included. I have yet to see anyone post a competing year over year tally.
So are we really sure that it's inaccurate? Well, Kwark said I have a small dick, so we had settled on the numbers being accurate but not comparable, but you may be right: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/super-tuesday-voter-turnouts-similar-08-republicans-democrats-reversed-n530071
I asked the same question this morning and did not receive a satisfactory response. So I figured that it was time to try again.
|
Seeing people so confident all over FB that Trump will lose convincingly to any democrat is so frustrating. How many times do people need to mischaracterize his mechanism of reaching people before we stop thinking we're right every time? We are now the GOP establishment 6 months ago. It's like we keep thinking "Alright, I get it now. I totally get it". Dude, we keep being wrong. We should be planning for a Trump revolution and celebrating if it doesn't happen. This arrogant approach to 2016 is really unnerving.
|
United States43211 Posts
On March 03 2016 08:37 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 08:27 xDaunt wrote:
Back to yesterday's turnout numbers....
According to NBC News, that graphic that has been passed around is accurate in that it already accounts for California and NY not being included. In other words, only the same 9 states in each election were included. I have yet to see anyone post a competing year over year tally.
So are we really sure that it's inaccurate? Well, Kwark said I have a small dick, so we had settled on the numbers being accurate but not comparable, but you may be right: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/super-tuesday-voter-turnouts-similar-08-republicans-democrats-reversed-n530071
All I said is that information can be both accurate and presented misleadingly out of context in order to lead to false conclusions.
|
On March 03 2016 08:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Carson dropping out couldn't come at a worse time for Rubio. As the supporters will either head to the Trump camp or Cruz camp. Carson was a spoiler for Cruz well not anymore it seems.
He's probably going to run for Rubio's Senate seat (with the support of the establishment). This presidential run may end Rubio's political career and it will be off to K street for him.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 03 2016 08:44 Mohdoo wrote:
Seeing people so confident all over FB that Trump will lose convincingly to any democrat is so frustrating. How many times do people need to mischaracterize his mechanism of reaching people before we stop thinking we're right every time? We are now the GOP establishment 6 months ago. It's like we keep thinking "Alright, I get it now. I totally get it". Dude, we keep being wrong. We should be planning for a Trump revolution and celebrating if it doesn't happen. This arrogant approach to 2016 is really unnerving.
it's one of the conditions necessary to push for a far left candidate, on the theory that victory is guaranteed so might as well get more out of it.
the 55 year olds coming out to smack some reality into people should not be underestimated.
|
As a minor side note, I don't think conservatives would rebel if Cruz picked Rubio. Rubio may have played the establishment game this time, but he's still one of the more conservative senators.
It obviously is wise, however, to wait until after the nomination (as is always done) due to Rubio's amnesty stance. Trump would hammer that.
I only mention this at all because it relates to Rubio. One reason he is still in is because he chose not to run for Senate again, so I don't see how he has a political future without being either the GOP presidential candidate or the VP choice.
And to be perfectly honest I'm not sure Carson would have a great shot at becoming Florida senator, unless he rides a good overall turnout for the presidential race. So I'm not sure why that is being floated.
|
So in looking at the brokered convention plans I guess it should be mentioned that the VP pick is also picked by the delegates. They are only tied to vote for the candidate their district picked they are no obligation to agree with his VP pick.
EDIT: Oh and just to touch the Bill Clinton in Mass. Yeah no he wasn't "just there" he was talking up his wife ~50' from the polling entrance with a megaphone. It's definitely illegal. I don't think in and of itself it is a huge deal, but part of a larger "win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat" mentality out of the Clinton campaign.
|
|
|
On March 03 2016 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
So in looking at the brokered convention plans I guess it should be mentioned that the VP pick is also picked by the delegates. They are only tied to vote for the candidate their district picked they are no obligation to agree with his VP pick.
EDIT: Oh and just to touch the Bill Clinton in Mass. Yeah no he wasn't "just there" he was talking up his wife ~50' from the polling entrance with a megaphone. It's definitely illegal. I don't think in and of itself it is a huge deal, but part of a larger "win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat" mentality out of the Clinton campaign.
This is assuring to me. I want a candidate that smashes someone into the dirt, not someone who beats them. I am still convinced that Trump has a good shot and that democrats will have a tough job ahead of them. I trust in the Clinton empire's ability to take down Trump, based on what I am hearing about how she treats Sanders. Take no chances. Crush everything.
|
On March 03 2016 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Oh and just to touch the Bill Clinton in Mass. Yeah no he wasn't "just there" he was talking up his wife ~50' from the polling entrance with a megaphone. It's definitely illegal. I don't think in and of itself it is a huge deal, but part of a larger "win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat" mentality out of the Clinton campaign.
Do you have any actual evidence that he broke the law?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
yep. back in 08 this was my reason for preferring hillary, because she's a fighter.
obama had this enthusiasm but failed to use it at all when he became president.
|
On March 03 2016 09:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
So in looking at the brokered convention plans I guess it should be mentioned that the VP pick is also picked by the delegates. They are only tied to vote for the candidate their district picked they are no obligation to agree with his VP pick.
EDIT: Oh and just to touch the Bill Clinton in Mass. Yeah no he wasn't "just there" he was talking up his wife ~50' from the polling entrance with a megaphone. It's definitely illegal. I don't think in and of itself it is a huge deal, but part of a larger "win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat" mentality out of the Clinton campaign. This is assuring to me. I want a candidate that smashes someone into the dirt, not someone who beats them. I am still convinced that Trump has a good shot and that democrats will have a tough job ahead of them. I trust in the Clinton empire's ability to take down Trump, based on what I am hearing about how she treats Sanders. Take no chances. Crush everything.
Yeah until the tables are turned and Trump brings one of Bill's alleged victims on stage and Hillary gets to choose between defending her husband or believing the victim. Then the whole country gets a refresher on how terrible what she and the Clinton camp did was with fresh 21st century "PC culture" eyes. It would be devastating. Wouldn't be surprised to see Trump ask Hillary on a debate stage why she's in a sham of a political marriage. Getting in the mud with Trump is not a winning strategy.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
^that would be a good move how? it makes hillary look extremely sympathetic with all the bullying from trump. she's already taking the harmless grandma getting bullied route, watch it
|
On March 03 2016 09:33 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Oh and just to touch the Bill Clinton in Mass. Yeah no he wasn't "just there" he was talking up his wife ~50' from the polling entrance with a megaphone. It's definitely illegal. I don't think in and of itself it is a huge deal, but part of a larger "win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat" mentality out of the Clinton campaign. Do you have any actual evidence that he broke the law?
The law/release from the SoS and video/pictures from him doing it and the proximity to the polling place. What more are you expecting?
On March 03 2016 09:36 oneofthem wrote:
^that would be a good move how? it makes hillary look extremely sympathetic with all the bullying from trump. she's already taking the harmless grandma getting bullied route, watch it
Because she's not the victim in a situation where her husband sexually assaulted someone and she slandered them to protect him and her political career. Her playing the victim would sit sour with women who have been victims and had powerful people or other women cast doubt.
It hits her from at least 2 sides, from the pc crowd since they aren't going to like the things she said back then, and from the anti-pc crowd who are sick of people claiming they are victims.
|
On March 03 2016 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 09:33 kwizach wrote:On March 03 2016 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Oh and just to touch the Bill Clinton in Mass. Yeah no he wasn't "just there" he was talking up his wife ~50' from the polling entrance with a megaphone. It's definitely illegal. I don't think in and of itself it is a huge deal, but part of a larger "win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat" mentality out of the Clinton campaign. Do you have any actual evidence that he broke the law? The law/release from the SoS and video/pictures from him doing it and the proximity to the polling place. What more are you expecting?
The statement from a state official that I linked to earlier actually said he didn't break the law, so I was wondering if you had any actual evidence that he did.
|
On March 03 2016 08:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 08:37 oBlade wrote:On March 03 2016 08:27 xDaunt wrote:
Back to yesterday's turnout numbers....
According to NBC News, that graphic that has been passed around is accurate in that it already accounts for California and NY not being included. In other words, only the same 9 states in each election were included. I have yet to see anyone post a competing year over year tally.
So are we really sure that it's inaccurate? Well, Kwark said I have a small dick, so we had settled on the numbers being accurate but not comparable, but you may be right: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/super-tuesday-voter-turnouts-similar-08-republicans-democrats-reversed-n530071 All I said is that information can be both accurate and presented misleadingly out of context in order to lead to false conclusions.
Chronic strawmanners can read something into the facts that isn't there and then impugn their accuracy if they so choose, but the main point here is just that the numbers reflect the fact that the Republican nomination process has been far more contentious than the Democratic one so far.
On March 03 2016 08:44 Mohdoo wrote:
Seeing people so confident all over FB that Trump will lose convincingly to any democrat is so frustrating. How many times do people need to mischaracterize his mechanism of reaching people before we stop thinking we're right every time? We are now the GOP establishment 6 months ago. It's like we keep thinking "Alright, I get it now. I totally get it". Dude, we keep being wrong. We should be planning for a Trump revolution and celebrating if it doesn't happen. This arrogant approach to 2016 is really unnerving.
Yes. We need to dispel with this notion that Trump doesn't know what he's doing.
|
On March 03 2016 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 09:33 kwizach wrote:On March 03 2016 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Oh and just to touch the Bill Clinton in Mass. Yeah no he wasn't "just there" he was talking up his wife ~50' from the polling entrance with a megaphone. It's definitely illegal. I don't think in and of itself it is a huge deal, but part of a larger "win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat" mentality out of the Clinton campaign. Do you have any actual evidence that he broke the law? The law/release from the SoS and video/pictures from him doing it and the proximity to the polling place. What more are you expecting? Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 09:36 oneofthem wrote:
^that would be a good move how? it makes hillary look extremely sympathetic with all the bullying from trump. she's already taking the harmless grandma getting bullied route, watch it Because she's not the victim in a situation where her husband sexually assaulted someone and she slandered them to protect him and her political career. Her playing the victim would sit sour with women who have been victims and had powerful people or other women cast doubt. It hits her from at least 2 sides, from the pc crowd since they aren't going to like the things she said back then, and from the anti-pc crowd who are sick of people claiming they are victims.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/01/politics/bill-clinton-campaigning-polling-place-super-tuesday/index.html
So like are you just making stuff up? Because no one has filed charges and the "law" isn't involved from all reports.
|
On March 03 2016 09:42 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 09:33 kwizach wrote:On March 03 2016 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Oh and just to touch the Bill Clinton in Mass. Yeah no he wasn't "just there" he was talking up his wife ~50' from the polling entrance with a megaphone. It's definitely illegal. I don't think in and of itself it is a huge deal, but part of a larger "win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat" mentality out of the Clinton campaign. Do you have any actual evidence that he broke the law? The law/release from the SoS and video/pictures from him doing it and the proximity to the polling place. What more are you expecting? The statement from a state official that I linked to earlier actually said he didn't break the law, so I was wondering if you had any actual evidence that he did.
Like I said there is the law, there is the video. What more do you need?
On March 03 2016 09:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 03 2016 09:33 kwizach wrote:On March 03 2016 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Oh and just to touch the Bill Clinton in Mass. Yeah no he wasn't "just there" he was talking up his wife ~50' from the polling entrance with a megaphone. It's definitely illegal. I don't think in and of itself it is a huge deal, but part of a larger "win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat" mentality out of the Clinton campaign. Do you have any actual evidence that he broke the law? The law/release from the SoS and video/pictures from him doing it and the proximity to the polling place. What more are you expecting? On March 03 2016 09:36 oneofthem wrote:
^that would be a good move how? it makes hillary look extremely sympathetic with all the bullying from trump. she's already taking the harmless grandma getting bullied route, watch it Because she's not the victim in a situation where her husband sexually assaulted someone and she slandered them to protect him and her political career. Her playing the victim would sit sour with women who have been victims and had powerful people or other women cast doubt. It hits her from at least 2 sides, from the pc crowd since they aren't going to like the things she said back then, and from the anti-pc crowd who are sick of people claiming they are victims. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/01/politics/bill-clinton-campaigning-polling-place-super-tuesday/index.htmlSo like are you just making stuff up? Because no one has filed charges and the "law" isn't involved from all reports.
I never mentioned the law? Not to mention we all know reality doesn't constrain Trump's rhetoric.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
