|
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 25 2016 06:15 The_Templar wrote:
It definitely benefits Hillary in the primary even if she isn't responsible for it, since it restricts everyone except early voters which are generally her demographic.
edit: clarified
the areas most severely affected are urban, high density, low income hispanic. sanders demographic are low density and rural going by consistent trends from all states. it is not a definite benefit to hillary unless you think sanders voters are all first time voting independents. most of his support are from rural areas.
|
On March 25 2016 06:15 The_Templar wrote:
It definitely benefits Hillary in the primary even if she isn't responsible for it, since it restricts everyone except early voters which are generally her demographic.
edit: clarified
What's funny is that most of the things Bernie supporters really want is something you get when voting for the midterms, not the general. Having them only care about things that should be in the midterm is just a clear sign of how little they know about the world.
Could you imagine if the youth cared about voting practices and voting numbers in the midterm elections as much as they care about them in primary elections?
|
United States43219 Posts
On March 25 2016 06:23 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 05:22 cLutZ wrote:
They could, you know, stop treating AC as a piggybank for the local governments and Trenton. That would be a good start. I always assumed you cut spending when in debt, and increase spending when in surplus. But I'm not an economist so take that with a grain of salt.
Traditionally they do it the opposite way. When the economy is booming there is no need to add any Keynesian stimulus and it'd be a drop in the water anyway. So you take the surpluses and pay down the deficit. Then, when the economy naturally contracts, you increase public spending to break the feedback loop of economic contraction before it gets out of control and becomes a runaway train. This increases the deficit.
In theory the two should balance out but in the UK at least the Chancellor came up with a new model which he promised would end the boom bust economic cycle. Basically what you do is borrow and spend during the bust but then also borrow and spend during the boom. They did that for 13 years. He doesn't work here anymore.
Oddly enough he was actually an economist.
|
United States43219 Posts
On March 25 2016 06:26 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 06:15 The_Templar wrote:
It definitely benefits Hillary in the primary even if she isn't responsible for it, since it restricts everyone except early voters which are generally her demographic.
edit: clarified What's funny is that most of the things Bernie supporters really want is something you get when voting for the midterms, not the general. Having them only care about things that should be in the midterm is just a clear sign of how little they know about the world. Could you imagine if the youth cared about voting practices and voting numbers in the midterm elections as much as they care about them in primary elections?
In fairness does the average supporter of anyone know anything about the world? I'd argue no.
|
things we agree on
-voter suppression is bad
-republicans are pulling weird shit
-the media misreported results
things we don't agree on
-it benefited one candidate over the other (or rather one was hurt less)
-hillary is doing/not doing enough to address the issue
-the media engaged in deliberate malfeasance
|
Yeah, I think a lot of people took issue with the word benefited, because of how it framed Clinton as taking advantage of the voter suppression.
|
I take issue with everyone and their mother, including mods, making unsubstantiated accusations in this thread. Source, data and analysis or gtfo. This election is stock full of vitriol as it is and doesn't need more.
|
On March 25 2016 06:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 06:23 Naracs_Duc wrote:On March 25 2016 05:22 cLutZ wrote:
They could, you know, stop treating AC as a piggybank for the local governments and Trenton. That would be a good start. I always assumed you cut spending when in debt, and increase spending when in surplus. But I'm not an economist so take that with a grain of salt. Traditionally they do it the opposite way. When the economy is booming there is no need to add any Keynesian stimulus and it'd be a drop in the water anyway. So you take the surpluses and pay down the deficit. Then, when the economy naturally contracts, you increase public spending to break the feedback loop of economic contraction before it gets out of control and becomes a runaway train. This increases the deficit. In theory the two should balance out but in the UK at least the Chancellor came up with a new model which he promised would end the boom bust economic cycle. Basically what you do is borrow and spend during the bust but then also borrow and spend during the boom. They did that for 13 years. He doesn't work here anymore. Oddly enough he was actually an economist.
That's what every country ends up doing unless they go through an existential crisis. Politicians love spending money. So they spend in the bad times because "Keynes" then they lock in that spending after, then they spend in the good times because "We got plenty of cash for this".
I mean, if that guy's theory worked we should never have had any post WWII economic crises.
In other news, the 6th Circuit just smacked down the IRS and DOJ:
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0069p-06.pdf
+ Show Spoiler + Among the most serious allegations a federal court can
address are that an Executive agency has targeted citizens for mistreatment based on their
political views. No citizen—Republican or Democrat, socialist or libertarian—should be
targeted or even have to fear being targeted on those grounds. Yet those are the grounds on
which the plaintiffs allege they were mistreated by the IRS here. The allegations are substantial:
most are drawn from findings made by the Treasury Department’s own Inspector General for
Tax Administration. Those findings include that the IRS used political criteria to round up
applications for tax-exempt status filed by so-called tea-party groups; that the IRS often took
four times as long to process tea-party applications as other applications; and that the IRS served
tea-party applicants with crushing demands for what the Inspector General called “unnecessary
information.”
Yet in this lawsuit the IRS has only compounded the conduct that gave rise to it. The
plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of themselves and other groups whose applications the IRS
treated in the manner described by the Inspector General. The lawsuit has progressed as slowly
as the underlying applications themselves: at every turn the IRS has resisted the plaintiffs’
requests for information regarding the IRS’s treatment of the plaintiff class, eventually to the
open frustration of the district court. At issue here are IRS “Be On the Lookout” lists of
organizations allegedly targeted for unfavorable treatment because of their political beliefs.
Those organizations in turn make up the plaintiff class. The district court ordered production of
those lists, and did so again over an IRS motion to reconsider. Yet, almost a year later, the IRS
still has not complied with the court’s orders. Instead the IRS now seeks from this court a writ of
mandamus, an extraordinary remedy reserved to correct only the clearest abuses of power by a
district court. We deny the petition.
|
With that panel, namely Kethledge and McKeague, the smackdown was telegraphed long ago. I say this having taken a class taught by the latter  In any case, the IRS's conduct is pretty hard to justify.
|
On March 25 2016 06:34 ticklishmusic wrote:
things we agree on
-voter suppression is bad
-republicans are pulling weird shit
-the media misreported results
things we don't agree on
-it benefited one candidate over the other (or rather one was hurt less)
-hillary is doing/not doing enough to address the issue
-the media engaged in deliberate malfeasance
Remind me what was said or done by Hillary&co about it in the several other states where there have been obscene lines and questionable practices?
|
|
|
On March 25 2016 07:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 06:34 ticklishmusic wrote:
things we agree on
-voter suppression is bad
-republicans are pulling weird shit
-the media misreported results
things we don't agree on
-it benefited one candidate over the other (or rather one was hurt less)
-hillary is doing/not doing enough to address the issue
-the media engaged in deliberate malfeasance Remind me what was said or done by Hillary&co about it in the several other states where there have been obscene lines and questionable practices?
What you're doing is insinuating. You don't have any proof or even a working model of how election manipulation had been done but yet you continue your slander campaign. This appears to be fueled by your ignorance except that it has to be something worse as the counterexamples you ask for have already been presented to you. Here it is again, an article from a year ago where Clinton fights for the right of young people to vote in GOP controlled states; she even explicitly mentions shorter lines at the stations, among many other things that are relevant:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/us/politics/hillary-clinton-says-republican-rivals-try-to-stop-young-and-minority-voters.html
|
No.
I have showed several examples of proof to which there has been no credible refutations. Though what I'm showing isn't that she is "stealing elections" but that she, the DNC, and the media, have all attempted to manipulate information, primaries/caucuses, and voter registrations, in the ways they could influence the aspects they could in order to try to slant the election toward Hillary.
What people have essentially been saying is not that it's not happening but rather "so what, that's politics" which is fine, but rings disingenuous when they then try to make cases like Hillary's previous speaking on voter suppression and the recent random reddit comment are evidence that really she cared about all the other people who waited in 4+ hour lines in previous states and is concerned about other abnormalities rather than the opposite which it clearly suggests.
It's gone way past absurd at this point.
|
On March 25 2016 06:58 Ghanburighan wrote:
I take issue with everyone and their mother, including mods, making unsubstantiated accusations in this thread. Source, data and analysis or gtfo. This election is stock full of vitriol as it is and doesn't need more.
Seconded.
On March 25 2016 06:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 06:23 Naracs_Duc wrote:On March 25 2016 05:22 cLutZ wrote:
They could, you know, stop treating AC as a piggybank for the local governments and Trenton. That would be a good start. I always assumed you cut spending when in debt, and increase spending when in surplus. But I'm not an economist so take that with a grain of salt. Traditionally they do it the opposite way. When the economy is booming there is no need to add any Keynesian stimulus and it'd be a drop in the water anyway. So you take the surpluses and pay down the deficit. Then, when the economy naturally contracts, you increase public spending to break the feedback loop of economic contraction before it gets out of control and becomes a runaway train. This increases the deficit. In theory the two should balance out but in the UK at least the Chancellor came up with a new model which he promised would end the boom bust economic cycle. Basically what you do is borrow and spend during the bust but then also borrow and spend during the boom. They did that for 13 years. He doesn't work here anymore. Oddly enough he was actually an economist.
I assume his argument was premised on the notion that the "return on investment" made by spending now would outweigh the nominal interest rate payments made on national debt, weighed against inflation.
This however presupposes rational capital markets and stable capital flows, as well as wise/reasonably sane investments on the part of the national government that generate greater velocity of money which...does not necessarily work out.
The United States remains the country that can best leverage a national debt into economic gains (due to USD reserve currency status, which provides both a consistent global demand for US government bonds and economically ties the rest of the world to keep on buying the dollar), and for long periods during the recovery to the 2007 recession, the "cost" of new debt, when factoring incredibly low interest rates against inflation, was actually "negative", and taking on more debt during that time-frame would be a positive if the money spent was net neutral in generating economic activity (assuming future governments were sane and reined in the deficit later, not always a guarantee).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
raising tax and cutting necessary spending is a bit of a death spiral for atlantic city. tax base is shrinking and will shrink further with heavier taxation.
this is more evident with their toll highway. less traffic prompts raising tolls which further drive down traffic.
the austerity stuff is some expectations led voodoo. real business cycle derping
|
The North Carolina state Legislature has passed a law blocking local governments from passing anti-discrimination rules to grant protections to gay and transgender people.
The law comes a month after the city of Charlotte passed a measure protecting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people from being discriminated against by businesses.
That measure was set to go into effect on April 1.
The state's General Assembly wasn't due to meet until late April, but it scheduled a special session — for the first time in 35 years, member station WUNC reports — on Wednesday to respond to the Charlotte measure before it went into effect.
Over the course of 12 hours, the state legislators introduced, debated and passed the bill, and Gov. Pat McCrory signed it into law.
The new law establishes a statewide nondiscrimination ordinance that explicitly supersedes any local nondiscrimination measures. The statewide protections cover race, religion, color, national origin and biological sex — but not sexual orientation or gender identity.
Source
|
On March 25 2016 06:24 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 06:14 Nebuchad wrote:
Well no of course if you don't believe it affects Bernie more than Hillary you wouldn't have much to answer there. Your position is coherent if you make that ridiculous assumption. Your post was "That has not been my experience". There's nothing to reply to that.
All right so don't reply. I apologize if my experience doesn't match what you want. I can only meet the Clinton supporters I meet.
On top of what the Templar has mentioned which is not contested, the notion that independants who registered as democrats in due times and didn't get to vote wouldn't have favoured Bernie is... something else. As is the notion that it's not a number that would have mattered in a state where there are more independants than democrats.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On March 25 2016 08:30 oneofthem wrote:
lol not contested
Do you contest that the only group which wasn't impacted by this, the early voters, favours Hillary?
|
On March 25 2016 08:26 oneofthem wrote:
raising tax and cutting necessary spending is a bit of a death spiral for atlantic city. tax base is shrinking and will shrink further with heavier taxation.
this is more evident with their toll highway. less traffic prompts raising tolls which further drive down traffic.
the austerity stuff is some expectations led voodoo. real business cycle derping
It depends.
In the United States, it absolutely certainly is on the federal level since we have an independent monetary policy, as well as the USD's status as the world reserve currency (and, free flow of capital, if we're going to refer to the Impossible Trinity). Due to the latter, we are essentially too big to fail, when USD makes up 80-90% of world reserves: at least until there's a swap to either an international basket of currency or people buy enough Euros or RMBs to reduce systemic dependence on USDs; prospect on that is highly unlikely for at least a few decades for many reasons.
The main case of austerity would be on either the state or municipal levels which don't have access to the same effectively limitless credit line we have at the federal level due to monetary and currency policy, or in the Eurozone countries which essentially gave up their ability to operate independent monetary policies by signing up for the Euro (in exchange for stable exchange rates/free movement of capital). In those cases it either requires bailout from above and, if none is forthcoming, tight austerity measures which are harmful to the short and long-term economic prospects of the entities involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
