| 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. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On March 15 2016 03:29 Jormundr wrote: But you said he couldn't get anything done... Clearly, Sanders is going to simultaneously get absolutely nothing done due to his ideological fervor while also single-handedly destroying every last positive vestige of US government due to.......his ideological fervor? Either way, I'm voting for the apocalypse  | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 15 2016 03:29 Jormundr wrote: But you said he couldn't get anything done... that'd be the best outcome. anyway as humans we are capable of engaging with a political candidate in a multitude of noncontradictory ways. i'm here engaged with the false belief that sanders' platform is good, or his supporters having wrong ideas about what his platform would do. the other view is talking about him lacking strategy to accomplish his goals, or his supporters having magical thinking with how much of his platform can be passed. both are legit criticisms | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
Re: Russia, well, there is the Syrian peace deal. The bombing put a dent in the rebels (the ISIS-affiliates and the "moderates") and Assad looks like he's safe along with the Russian bases. This echoes the George W Bush mission accomplished image, though I guess we Americans at least had the grace to stay in Iraq. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 15 2016 03:30 IgnE wrote: What's the mechanism for "very severe inflation of basic necessities?" Are basic necessities currently inflating without the TPP? trade makes available cheaper goods, mostly affecting mid-low level consumer goods. so poor who spend a high % of their income and on these cheap goods are most benefited by trade in the dimension of having more bang for the buck. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
On March 15 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote: Yeah, I'm not really into the whole "burn down the energy sector so they need to build new things". We tried to build a wind farm in MA, its a nightmare. Sanders seems to be getting less and less desirable. While Hillary gets more desirable with each passing day! | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On March 15 2016 03:37 ticklishmusic wrote: Sanders isn't precisely anti-science, but it does seem he figures out what he likes and then goes to find support for his position. Not exactly how it's supposed to work. It does explain how he's anti nuclear, anti fracking (this one has a more nuance about safety and such) and anti-GMO while supporting climate change legislation. And as a rib, I gotta point out the ridiculous things he wrote about cancer and orgasms though I hope he's changed his mind on those particular issues. Re: Russia, well, there is the Syrian peace deal. The bombing put a dent in the rebels (the ISIS-affiliates and the "moderates") and Assad looks like he's safe along with the Russian bases. This echoes the George W Bush mission accomplished image, though I guess we Americans at least had the grace to stay in Iraq. I wonder how much of it has to do with his legitimate views based on scientific ignorance, and how much of it is pandering to the leftist audience? I mean, there's no real good way to know, but it'd be pretty interesting, especially since that stuff is almost exclusively hard left anti-science stance. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On March 15 2016 03:38 oneofthem wrote: trade makes available cheaper goods, mostly affecting mid-low level consumer goods. so poor who spend a high % of their income and on these cheap goods are most benefited by trade in the dimension of having more bang for the buck. bang for the buck is not the only desireable variable though, as it gets usually easily beaten by: "will there be a buck next month?" as we had earlier, manufacturing in the US is doing fine, but the employment and wages stagnate where will all those people buying great deals from china get their livelyhood from in a couple of years? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On March 15 2016 03:36 oneofthem wrote: that'd be the best outcome. anyway as humans we are capable of engaging with a political candidate in a multitude of noncontradictory ways. i'm here engaged with the false belief that sanders' platform is good, or his supporters having wrong ideas about what his platform would do. the other view is talking about him lacking strategy to accomplish his goals, or his supporters having magical thinking with how much of his platform can be passed. both are legit criticisms It will be interesting to see when panic finally sets in about global warming. Many of the arguments for maintaining the status quo rest on implicit assumptions of mortgaging the future. Of course clean coal is worth it now, otherwise the minimum wage slaves we have will be broken by higher energy prices. Of course we should continue to open up global labor markets and solidify American IP protections, otherwise food costs will rise. And you know not everyone is as scientifically enlightened. I'd probably have to run myself to agree with every single position a candidate had. How much do I care that he's anti-nuclear? Not that much. It's not like we've had a pro-nuclear President since I was born, and Clinton certainly isn't. ![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/US_Nuclear_Power_Reactors_1955-2011.png/1024px-US_Nuclear_Power_Reactors_1955-2011.png) I'm also sure there were good economic arguments for not freeing the slaves in the antebellum south. Think about the crash in the confederate economy that was bound to follow. I'm sure there were some very well-meaning men in 1860 that argued that if you really truly cared about people you wouldn't just free the slaves; they'd have to start paying for inflated basic necessities after all. And where would they find jobs? I have faith though that the TPP and our technocratic elite will find a way to safely transition us towards a post-scarcity future without ever experiencing a drop in American purchasing power, higher energy prices, falling stocks, or really any economic malaise. The budget will be balanced in no time, I'm sure. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On March 15 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote: Yeah, I'm not really into the whole "burn down the energy sector so they need to build new things". We tried to build a wind farm in MA, its a nightmare. Sanders seems to be getting less and less desirable. He's slowly being exposed as not just really in favor of financial regulations. He's also just insanely liberal in all sorts of other ways. Against GMO? lol. Against **NUCLEAR**??? what in the fuck. The scientific consensus regarding new-age (and by new age I mean last 20 years @___@) reactors is that they extremely safe. Modern nuclear power is our 100% best option right now and seeing Sanders against it is just depressing. Being against nuclear is almost as anti-science as disbelief in evolution. It just hurts my ability to at least assume he's got the best intentions. Being against nuclear means you decided not to listen to scientists and just assumed it was just another evil non-photon form of energy. Ugh. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On March 15 2016 03:38 oneofthem wrote: trade makes available cheaper goods, mostly affecting mid-low level consumer goods. so poor who spend a high % of their income and on these cheap goods are most benefited by trade in the dimension of having more bang for the buck. Ok so you are talking out of your ass. Council of experts predicts that TPP will lead to cheaper goods. Therefore if we renege on TPP we are going to experience "very severe inflation of basic necessities." | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
Here's a hint Mohdoo; arguments against the encouragement of nuclear energy doesn't rely exclusively on issues of safety, they instead usually turn on issues of waste, and if you don't think the latter deserves at least some lip-service, well, go visit Yucca Mountain edit: puerk gets it. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 15 2016 03:49 puerk wrote: bang for the buck is not the only desireable variable though, as it gets usually easily beaten by: "will there be a buck next month?" as we had earlier, manufacturing in the US is doing fine, but the employment and wages stagnate where will all those people buying great deals from china get their livelyhood from in a couple of years? there has been some new jobs created but it's probably a problem best understood in terms of local ecosystems. particular geographical areas are really hardest hit by job losses. if an area is deprived of a spending base due to massive job loss, then people would probably just move out, and those left behind are also those who were not very connected to the economy in the earlier situation. this is the classic path of urban decay for the rust belt. basically i think a geographically sensitive analysis does a better job than aggregate. still, once the job loss has happened, it isn't coming back in the same quantity and for the same people. while protectionist measures would increase prices immediately. | ||
|
ragz_gt
9172 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 15 2016 03:51 IgnE wrote: i was talking about the extent of sanders' platform, so taking his word for it, Ok so you are talking out of your ass. Council of experts predicts that TPP will lead to cheaper goods. Therefore if we renege on TPP we are going to experience "very severe inflation of basic necessities." sanders would repeal all trade deals, so the figures are for trade benefits in general, as the CEA link shows. the tpp is a regulatory harmonization and institution building thing, it does reduce some barriers faced by u.s. exporters but our own tariffs are already very low. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On March 15 2016 03:48 wei2coolman wrote: I wonder how much of it has to do with his legitimate views based on scientific ignorance, and how much of it is pandering to the leftist audience? I mean, there's no real good way to know, but it'd be pretty interesting, especially since that stuff is almost exclusively hard left anti-science stance. Sanders is a very smart guy. However, he's held back by being an ideologue which blinds him to a lot of evidence and other perspectives. My new quip is in this race we have a demagogue (Trump), an ideologue (Bernie) and a catalogue (Hillary). | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On March 15 2016 03:53 farvacola wrote: This notion that SCIENCE and SCIENCE alone can provide us with an answer to a problem like energy production is hilariously stupid. If you come to the table with oneofthem goggles on and assume that someone with an anti-nuclear or anti-fracking perspective is inherently ignorant of science, good luck leaving that table having accomplished anything. Here's a hint Mohdoo; arguments against the encouragement of nuclear energy doesn't rely exclusively on issues of safety, they instead usually turn on issues of waste, and if you don't think the latter deserves at least some lip-service, well, go visit Yucca Mountain edit: puerk gets it. It's the complex of Orpheus : you can't look back or you die ... | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 15 2016 03:51 Mohdoo wrote: He's slowly being exposed as not just really in favor of financial regulations. He's also just insanely liberal in all sorts of other ways. Against GMO? lol. Against **NUCLEAR**??? what in the fuck. The scientific consensus regarding new-age (and by new age I mean last 20 years @___@) reactors is that they extremely safe. Modern nuclear power is our 100% best option right now and seeing Sanders against it is just depressing. Being against nuclear is almost as anti-science as disbelief in evolution. It just hurts my ability to at least assume he's got the best intentions. Being against nuclear means you decided not to listen to scientists and just assumed it was just another evil non-photon form of energy. Ugh. To be clear, I think there should be greater oversight over GMOs in general, but I'm not for removing them all together. Nuclear should be regulated heavily because they are super fucking dangerous, but that doesn't mean we stop building or using them. I respect them like any science, which that they can be used for good and be abused if used negligently. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games summit1g10713 Liquid`RaSZi1424 shahzam787 C9.Mang0357 Sick237 XaKoH  219uThermal181 Maynarde101 ArmadaUGS100 |
|
CranKy Ducklings
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs Flash
INu's Battles
ByuN vs herO
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
The PondCast
OSC
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
