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 March 18 2016 06:43 trulojucreathrma.com wrote: But is it really that scary to have Trump for president when the alternative is someone who has voted for a 15 trillion bailout and a 2 trillion war? She doesn't even regret those decisions.
Write off another 17 trillion dollar or so the moment she is president.
The quality of posts in this thread have gone noticeably down over the past few weeks. It used to be the case that nonsense like this was posted episodically by people who would participate for a bit and then disappear. Now that's no longer the case.
On March 18 2016 06:43 trulojucreathrma.com wrote: The question is, do Bernie supporters fear Trump enough to go out and vote for Clinton? Anyway, it only matters in swing states. If you aren't in a swing state, your vote doesn't count.
But is it really that scary to have Trump for president when the alternative is someone who has voted for a 15 trillion bailout and a 2 trillion war? She doesn't even regret those decisions.
Write off another 17 trillion dollar or so the moment she is president.
I have supported Bernie Sanders and I will vote for Hillary if/when she becomes the nominee. I think you overestimate general hatred for Hillary Clinton. Those who feel strongly about her (on both sides) are very loud, but many still associate her with her husband's presidency and at least on the democrat side that is a positive association.
And yes, it really is that scary to have Trump for president, no matter who is on the other side. He is an unintelligent, belligerent demagogue who is already trying to bend the law to suppress those who disagree with him and he isn't even president yet. I think he's more central on social issues than many people give him credit for, but I also think he is so unpredictable that who knows what will actually happen if he becomes president. Likely Putin will insult his hands and start WW3.
On March 18 2016 06:43 trulojucreathrma.com wrote: But is it really that scary to have Trump for president when the alternative is someone who has voted for a 15 trillion bailout and a 2 trillion war? She doesn't even regret those decisions.
Write off another 17 trillion dollar or so the moment she is president.
The quality of posts in this thread have gone noticeably down over the past few weeks. It used to be the case that nonsense like this was posted episodically by people who would participate for a bit and then disappear. Now that's no longer the case.
If you have nothing to contribute, don't press the 'post' button.
You really think Putin will hesitate to push around Clinton but think lightly of Trump? Right or wrong, in his mind, I doubt Putin has much respect for Clinton. He will think she is just there because of her husband.
Trump on the other hand has a track record of strongarming everyone in his way, and winning.
On March 18 2016 06:43 trulojucreathrma.com wrote: But is it really that scary to have Trump for president when the alternative is someone who has voted for a 15 trillion bailout and a 2 trillion war? She doesn't even regret those decisions.
Write off another 17 trillion dollar or so the moment she is president.
The quality of posts in this thread have gone noticeably down over the past few weeks. It used to be the case that nonsense like this was posted episodically by people who would participate for a bit and then disappear. Now that's no longer the case.
If you have nothing to contribute, don't press the 'post' button.
I had something to contribute, about the quality of posts in this thread, the nonsense you posted being an example of a poor quality post. The bailout was not even close to 15 trillions, and there's no reason to regret voting for it since it greatly helped with the recovery. She also has repeatedly said voting for the Iraq war was a mistake. Finally, saying "Write off another 17 trillion dollar or so the moment she is president" is just so profoundly stupid I'm not sure what we're supposed to respond to that.
By referring to a $15 trillion bailout, dotcom guy shows he (or she) clearly doesn't understand how derivatives work. It should be noted that what the government did was essentially create a line of credit to provide liquidity for the banks, and that was repaid in full. Heck, we might have even come out ahead considering we sued them.
Ironically, he vastly underestimates the cost of the Iraq War. I'm also tired of explaining how it was authorization for use of military force (which puts the military option on the table), not a declaration of war.
On a separate note, it's interesting that Bernie supporters (or Bernie supporter supporters?) are trying to play victim now. At the risk of sounding melodramatic, oh how the self-assured have fallen.
On March 18 2016 06:55 ticklishmusic wrote: By referring to a $15 trillion bailout, dotcom guy shows he (or she) clearly doesn't understand how derivatives work. It should be noted that what the government did was essentially create a line of credit to provide liquidity for the banks, and that was repaid in full. Heck, we might have even come out ahead considering we sued them.
That's not how economics works. I admit that all that money isn't just 'gone'. But you can't spend the same dollar twice.
Maybe more importantly, we can blame Clinton for the damage Wall Street did to the economy. Harder to estimate, but more important. Clinton&Clinton deregulated Wall Street, then did nothing, and now the banks that had to be bailed out because they were too big to fail are now bigger and the leverage we got for bailing them out was miniscule. Look up the estimates themselves, as you won't believe anything I post anyway.
Ironically, he vastly underestimates the cost of the Iraq War. I'm also tired of explaining how it was authorization for use of military force (which puts the military option on the table), not a declaration of war.
That is because I can't just pick the highest estimate and run with it. I might get called out by a 'quality poster' asking for a source.
That's meaningless because she still defends the reasoning. She says it was a mistake with hindsight. Not a mistake back then. She would do the same thing again, according to her.
Read her wording. Not the journalist's headline. She thinks she was tricked by Cheney. Her position right now is the same as Bush's position right now. Just as they were the same back then. That's meaningless.
You would really re-elect W Bush to make sure we don't have another crazy president starting crazy wars?
On March 18 2016 03:36 Nyxisto wrote: Apparently dismantling the IRS is viable now. Why again would someone dismantle one of the best working tax agencies on the planet?
because they think all taxes are evil while forgetting what it does for them?
The core of the conservative structure is that people should pay for the things they use, not the things they do not use.
And this overly simplistic view of society is probably playing a role in the slow demise of the party.
The west wing put it best: “No where did the founders say you didn’t have to pay for stuff you didn’t like. Lots of people don’t like tanks. Even more don’t like congress.”
Pretty sure a lot of people like tanks.
That entire quote was lost on you, huh? Reading is not really your thing today.
Can't help but notice they messed up the captions while trying to insult his intelligence. Listening to Hillary's team and seeing this commercial confirms to me Hillary would lose because she would continue to make the same mistakes Republicans did.
Now Trump is going to say something like "Hillary's a typical politician using a superPAC hitman to try to besmirch me, blah blah blah".
Then Hillary will hit Trump back on his superPAC...
There are many estimates, people disagree, but I used the 15 trillion number as a rounded-off average.
So, which Clinton vote are you talking about here? I thought you were talking about the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Apparently, you're talking about the Fed's loan program. Are you sure you even understand what you're referencing?
On March 18 2016 06:57 trulojucreathrma.com wrote: How is it profoundly stupid? She has never admitted her mistake. We can count on her to do the same thing again.
1. The bailout wasn't a mistake. 2. She admitted her mistake on Iraq. 3. There is zero reason to argue that her becoming president would be synonymous with "[writing] off another 17 trillion dollar" - the money in the fund she voted for was not written off (and the same goes for the Fed's loans), and the bailout happened because there happened to be a financial crisis going on.
EPT
