|
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. |
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 07 2016 11:51 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 11:48 Souma wrote:On March 07 2016 11:46 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 07 2016 11:43 Souma wrote:On March 07 2016 11:38 Ghanburighan wrote: Err, fracking was 50% of US oil production a year ago, it's more now. There is no way they can stop it without a massive effect on global oil prices. I think this a common issue when people hear Bernie speak. Many of his big proposals aren't going to be enacted overnight. They will happen over a certain time frame. And he has admitted before that he most likely will have to compromise on most of his proposals, but as he said at one of the town halls, "If you aim for 100, you might get 50, but if you aim for 50, you might get 0." Obviously a very simplistic notion and not all that applicable but it expresses his pattern of thought, which is that one should aim high. Very far from straight talk that. I just say that the "tough talk" is BS as I know it can't happen like that. This is exactly what people hate about promises made by politicians. This kind of populism is very popular though, and it's really up to journalists and other politicians to explain why it's misleading. This election cycle, they are failing miserably (especially on the GOP side). Nothing he said about fracking is misleading. I think you're still missing the point. We can replace fracking over a certain time frame with other alternatives. Don't underestimate the pace at which the renewable energy sector is advancing. There isn't a single serious analysis that supports this within the time frame of the next presidential term, or even 2. You realize that many policies happen over a time period of 10-20 years right? It doesn't have to happen within their term. Many of Obama's policies happen over a period of 20 years.
|
your Country52797 Posts
On March 07 2016 11:51 kwizach wrote: It's just so obvious in this debate that Sanders is all about making promises and telling people that he'll achieve what they want to see happen regardless of how unrealistic those promises are, while Hillary is about detailing realistic plans and concrete solutions to the issues raised. Really? Doesn't look like that to me.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Damn, Bernie just hit me with the feels there. *tear*
Edit: This is a stupid question but Hillary is bsing as hard as she can lmao.
|
wtf is this bullshit section about religion. how is this still a thing?
|
On March 07 2016 11:52 oneofthem wrote: problem is bernie policies are plain bad
I wouldn't say they were bad if the US as a country was committed to pivoting to the kind of changes at the cultural level he is pushing.
|
your Country52797 Posts
On March 07 2016 11:56 Acrofales wrote: wtf is this bullshit about religion. how is this still a thing? Should definitely be kept out of politics.
I think Sanders' answer here is better but he got a less insane question, so hard to tell.
|
On March 07 2016 11:56 Acrofales wrote: wtf is this bullshit section about religion. how is this still a thing?
It's the US. It will be relevant for a long time. Much less so for the Democrat side though.
|
On March 07 2016 11:57 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 11:56 Acrofales wrote: wtf is this bullshit about religion. how is this still a thing? Should definitely be kept out of politics. I think Sanders' answer here is better but he got a less insane question, so hard to tell.
He got a more answerable question. "Who do you pray for" is an absurd thing to ask in a debate.
|
On March 07 2016 11:56 Acrofales wrote: wtf is this bullshit section about religion. how is this still a thing? One more reason why questions from the crowd aren't a great idea.
|
0 foreign policy. Disappointing Dem debate again. Especially silly considering the way that these two candidates differ.
|
I think it should make it fair to ask Republicans how old they think the earth is approximately.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Oh you're right, no foreign policy.
Bernie lives another day.
|
|
|
your Country52797 Posts
On March 07 2016 11:57 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 11:57 The_Templar wrote:On March 07 2016 11:56 Acrofales wrote: wtf is this bullshit about religion. how is this still a thing? Should definitely be kept out of politics. I think Sanders' answer here is better but he got a less insane question, so hard to tell. He got a more answerable question. "Who do you pray for" is an absurd thing to ask in a debate. Exactly. His question was actually somewhat sane in comparison as I said.
|
So Sanders wins another very white state.Too bad Clinton dominates with minorities or he might have had a chance at this thing.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 07 2016 11:56 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 11:52 oneofthem wrote: problem is bernie policies are plain bad I wouldn't say they were bad if the US as a country was committed to pivoting to the kind of changes at the cultural level he is pushing. would be disastrous if put into practice
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 07 2016 12:00 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 11:56 Slaughter wrote:On March 07 2016 11:52 oneofthem wrote: problem is bernie policies are plain bad I wouldn't say they were bad if the US as a country was committed to pivoting to the kind of changes at the cultural level he is pushing. would be disastrous if put into practice You're such a drama queen.
I would love to see an anime called Trade Wars though.
|
On March 07 2016 12:00 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 11:56 Slaughter wrote:On March 07 2016 11:52 oneofthem wrote: problem is bernie policies are plain bad I wouldn't say they were bad if the US as a country was committed to pivoting to the kind of changes at the cultural level he is pushing. would be disastrous if put into practice
the trade deals are still irrelevant. Tariffs are down so much anyway that the net benefit is miniscule. If anything the developed economies are demand starved.
|
On March 07 2016 11:52 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 11:51 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 07 2016 11:48 Souma wrote:On March 07 2016 11:46 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 07 2016 11:43 Souma wrote:On March 07 2016 11:38 Ghanburighan wrote: Err, fracking was 50% of US oil production a year ago, it's more now. There is no way they can stop it without a massive effect on global oil prices. I think this a common issue when people hear Bernie speak. Many of his big proposals aren't going to be enacted overnight. They will happen over a certain time frame. And he has admitted before that he most likely will have to compromise on most of his proposals, but as he said at one of the town halls, "If you aim for 100, you might get 50, but if you aim for 50, you might get 0." Obviously a very simplistic notion and not all that applicable but it expresses his pattern of thought, which is that one should aim high. Very far from straight talk that. I just say that the "tough talk" is BS as I know it can't happen like that. This is exactly what people hate about promises made by politicians. This kind of populism is very popular though, and it's really up to journalists and other politicians to explain why it's misleading. This election cycle, they are failing miserably (especially on the GOP side). Nothing he said about fracking is misleading. I think you're still missing the point. We can replace fracking over a certain time frame with other alternatives. Don't underestimate the pace at which the renewable energy sector is advancing. There isn't a single serious analysis that supports this within the time frame of the next presidential term, or even 2. You realize that many policies happen over a time period of 10-20 years right? It doesn't have to happen within their term. Many of Obama's policies happen over a period of 20 years.
Now that the debate is over and before I head to bed, here's a quick recap of why this is seen as problematic:
Sanders said he doesn't support fracking, i.e., he'd ban it within 4 or 8 years. The issue with this is that it would triple fuel prices assuming no other country does anything (i.e., OPEC doesn't enact its production quotas). The nice fantasy land response is that oil will be replaced by alternative sources of fuel. But this won't happen in 4 or 8 years, so either Sanders will raise oil prices until alternative fuel sources appear sometime in the future, or he does in fact have to support fracking.
It's very annoying that the moderators didn't press them on the economic and foreign policy effects of this response, as it might be single most important indicator for the global economy and it has a major effect on Russia, China and the ME.
Good night.
|
On March 07 2016 11:51 kwizach wrote: It's just so obvious in this debate that Sanders is all about making promises and telling people that he'll achieve what they want to see happen regardless of how unrealistic those promises are, while Hillary is about detailing realistic plans and concrete solutions to the issues raised.
if you aim for a full loaf, you might get half a loaf
|
|
|
|
|
|