EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4592
| 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. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22298 Posts
On July 31 2016 09:45 LegalLord wrote: If they flip flop, how can you believe that they will do what they say they will do? Good thing then that we have stuff like the senate records so we can see what Hillary actually did rather then just what she believes. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On July 31 2016 09:45 LegalLord wrote: If they flip flop, how can you believe that they will do what they say they will do? In hillarys case she has a long history of elected office we could examine | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On July 31 2016 09:45 LegalLord wrote: If they flip flop, how can you believe that they will do what they say they will do? Clinton's first term would be based on modeling aimed at winning the second term. Same as Obama. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 31 2016 09:45 LegalLord wrote: If they flip flop, how can you believe that they will do what they say they will do? because flip-flopping is just a derogatory term? also, it's rather inaccurate because people don't flip back and forth constantly; at least not in most cases of accused flip-flopping. And you can use different metrics on which some people are very stable, as I showed previously. They do what they say they'll do because it's in their interest to do so, keeping your word does have some value. I'd also say I personally, want my leaders to change their stance if new information warrants it, even if they promised to do otherwise. | ||
KwarK
United States43964 Posts
On July 31 2016 08:52 Cowboy24 wrote: Actually, the only people I've ever seen act this way are hardcore internet leftists. Even hardcore leftists don't act that way when they are in person, because they know there will be at least some kind of response. Anonymity combined with a childish inability to argue without attaching personal value to one's position leads some to lash out with utterly ridiculous and over the top attacks when challenged. My nation's aims are not served by NATO, but I refuse to argue with someone who cannot argue in good faith, so I will say nothing further to you. Have a nice life. See this shit is what I'm talking about. You say something dumb and get ridiculed for your ignorance. And then instead of going through a moment of self reflection about what could be causing people to mistake you for an idiot every time you say something, you claim that you speak for America, that mocking you is mocking America and that you (America apparently) won't take it anymore. At which point you get ridiculed some more and you conclude that everyone else, not you, is the one not arguing in good faith. And then you follow that up with "you wouldn't act that way in person because there would be some kind of response" which is only a hair's breadth short of "fite me irl 1v1". You do understand that this doesn't happen to most other people, right? That thing that happens when you open your mouth in a social context when people share sideways glances and sigh audibly, that's not just what happens, that's a reaction to you. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) — Billionaire industrialist and conservative benefactor Charles Koch's expansive political network will not help Donald Trump win the presidency. That's the message from one of the Koch network's chief lieutenants as hundreds of the nation's most powerful Republican donors gathered for a weekend retreat on Saturday. With Election Day just three months away, Koch lamented the state of the 2016 contest during a welcome reception inside a luxury hotel at the foot of the Rocky Mountains. "We don't really, in some cases, don't really have good options," Koch said of the "current political situation." The ambitious Koch network has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to influence politics and public policy over the last decade. It won't spend anything to help the Republican presidential nominee directly in 2016, even though it may evoke Hillary Clinton in attacks of Democratic congressional candidates, said Mark Holden, general counsel and senior vice president of Koch Industries. None of the presidential candidates are aligned with the Koch network "from a values, and beliefs and policy perspective," Holden said, citing other determining factors such as "running a good campaign" and talking about key issues "in a positive productive way." "Based on that, we're focused on the Senate," Holden said, noting that the Koch network has devoted around $42 million so far to television and digital advertising to benefit Republican Senate candidates. The comments came Saturday, the first day in the three-day exclusive gathering for donors who promise to give at least $100,000 each year to the various groups backed by the Koch brothers' Freedom Partners — a network of education, policy and political entities that aim to promote a smaller, less intrusive government. At least three governors, four senators and four members of the House of Representatives are also scheduled to attend, including House Speaker Paul Ryan. Republican presidential candidates have been featured at past Koch gatherings — but not this one. Source | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 31 2016 09:45 LegalLord wrote: If they flip flop, how can you believe that they will do what they say they will do? Are you saying that Hilary does not have a record of shifting her beliefs to what the party represents save for corner case issues she really cares about? Because that, to me, is what I see in her record. A record that focuses more on what the majority wants more than what she personally wants, a record that shows her towing the party line and being willing to play whatever long-game is needed for her to get what she wants. Heck, the main attacks of "flip flop" bernie supporters throw at her is that she is willing to shift to what the people want to readily and that at least Bernie is willing to ignore what the people ask for so long as its what he believes in. So tell me--what type of person would you rather be representing you? The one willing to do whatever to match your opinions, or the person who doesn't give a damn about your opinions? | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
So tell me--what type of person would you rather be representing you? The one willing to do whatever to match your opinions, or the person who doesn't give a damn about your opinions? You are not really adressing his point tho, and your question does not make any sense. A society is made of many people, and amongst those people there are many opinions shared by diverses groups. The goal of politics is to find the person that will defend the ideas / values / opinion that you share. So yeah, people prefer someone who stick to his/her opinion, because if he/she does get elected, it means that those are the opinions of the majority and that they will, most likely, not be betrayed. May I add that there is an underlying point about identity and promises that plays a huge role. People who stick to their belief / promises are easy to understand / identify. And people that you can understand are easier to trust. "you wouldn't act that way in person because there would be some kind of response" which is only a hair's breadth short of "fite me irl 1v1". Fistycuff in the air. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On July 31 2016 00:04 zlefin wrote: Related to flip-flopping and stances, as a would-be politician, one potential problem for me is that the tax deduction for mortgage payments is very popular; but since it doesn't apply to rent, it ends up being somewhat regressive, and causes some market distortions, plus it encourages home ownership even when it'd be a bad idea, so I believe that the country would be better off without the deduction. Yet I also don't care that deeply about it, and it's not something I'd class as inherently immoral (and hence would have to oppose on principle), to some extent government is about keeping people happy, so accepting something that I believe is a dumb idea because a lot of people like and enjoy it has some merit (as long as I've informed them that I don't think it's good policy). We need mortgages so they can be used as securitized collateral in repo markets and to provide the liquidity that keeps the hundred trillion dollar financial roulette wheel spinning. It's not just about supporting tbe suburban american dream. Eliminating the mortgage deduction is actually a serious threat to the global economic system. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
So tell me--what type of person would you rather be representing you? The one willing to do whatever to match your opinions, or the person who doesn't give a damn about your opinions? The latter, clearly. Just think a fricking minute about it. Who says "populist X" is gonna match your opinion? Imagine "populist X" chasing Cowboy24s opinion constantly. Or white supremacists. Or whoever you want, really. Hell, i wouldn't want a politician follow up on MY ideas, because i KNOW they wouldn't work out. "The one willing to do whatever to match your opinion" is only a good choice for an incredibly arrogant person, who thinks he has shit figured out. If it were that easy, you would've had a president like that already. Multiple times. Or do you think it'd be hard for a president to say "well you guys wanted that, not my fault that half the country lies in ruins and 50% of you don't have a job anymore", if he'd just do whatever people want? I think it's honestly surprising how many people think that "what they want" is actually "what they need". To my knowledge, there's only one other group that has this trait, and they'd be <12 years old. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On July 30 2016 10:55 biology]major wrote: You earned that (I'm assuming), screw giving it to the government. Can't stand progressive tax codes, it screws over the upper class while leaving the 1 percent and up relatively unaffected. I can't stand these super left liberals who want free shit and paid for by the rich. Putting aside what it means to "earn" a particular salary, all that he "earned", if you want to be an economic realist about it, is his take-home pay. I don't understand why libertarians who fetishize the market don't understand that the salary market takes taxes, healthcare, and other costs into consideration when determining price. He says he is living good and he is, because he's part of the professional class and because he gets paid a take-home amount that theoretically coincides with his value on the market. Everyone in the market he is competing against also has taxes and other deductions from their gross salary. There is literally no sense in even talking about how he "earned" his salary and so shouldn't have to give it to the government. This is obvious when you compare black market, under-the-table wages to similar positions that come with a 1040 and tax deductions. If income taxes were abolished employers would be pocketing that extra money, not paying it to employees. Wages are set by the costs of reproducing the worker not according to some intrinsic value scale that taxes dip into. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 31 2016 11:38 m4ini wrote: The latter, clearly. Just think a fricking minute about it. Who says "populist X" is gonna match your opinion? Imagine "populist X" chasing Cowboy24s opinion constantly. Or white supremacists. Or whoever you want, really. Hell, i wouldn't want a politician follow up on MY ideas, because i KNOW they wouldn't work out. "The one willing to do whatever to match your opinion" is only a good choice for an incredibly arrogant person, who thinks he has shit figured out. If it were that easy, you would've had a president like that already. Multiple times. Or do you think it'd be hard for a president to say "well you guys wanted that, not my fault that half the country lies in ruins and 50% of you don't have a job anymore", if he'd just do whatever people want? I think it's honestly surprising how many people think that "what they want" is actually "what they need". To my knowledge, there's only one other group that has this trait, and they'd be <12 years old. According to this logic you shouldn't vote for a politician whose principles you agree with--which is stupid. The goal of politics is to make laws that tell society what they can or can't do and to develop checks that allows an objective way to resolve both conflicts within and conflicts abroad. If there is a large group of people who have a similar aggregate of opinions, and there's a politician who is willing to help that aggregate--then its a plus for that aggregate. Should the needs of that aggregate change, then it would be great if the politician cares enough about those people to continue helping them. The worse thing for a political leader to be is stubborn, not wanting to listen to other's opinions because he wants to stick with his principles. Of course you would think that's good when the leader has the same opinions as you, but that person could just as easily have the OPPOSITE opinion as you. Imagine you're a woman or an immigrant and a misoygynistic xenophobe comes into power because he "tells it as it is" sticks with his principles and would rather say what he believes that adapt to what the nation needs. Oh right, we do have someone like that. Those types of people are the worse thing to happen to politics. You know what's better? Instead of leaning on one leader, you support a united party who through teamwork build together a system of laws that helps the majority. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On July 31 2016 12:39 Thieving Magpie wrote: You know what's better? Instead of leaning on one leader, you support a united party who through teamwork build together a system of laws that helps the majority. Unfortunately, no major party in the US can be called "united" right now. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4945 Posts
On July 31 2016 12:14 IgnE wrote: Putting aside what it means to "earn" a particular salary, all that he "earned", if you want to be an economic realist about it, is his take-home pay. I don't understand why libertarians who fetishize the market don't understand that the salary market takes taxes, healthcare, and other costs into consideration when determining price. He says he is living good and he is, because he's part of the professional class and because he gets paid a take-home amount that theoretically coincides with his value on the market. Everyone in the market he is competing against also has taxes and other deductions from their gross salary. There is literally no sense in even talking about how he "earned" his salary and so shouldn't have to give it to the government. This is obvious when you compare black market, under-the-table wages to similar positions that come with a 1040 and tax deductions. If income taxes were abolished employers would be pocketing that extra money, not paying it to employees. Wages are set by the costs of reproducing the worker not according to some intrinsic value scale that taxes dip into. I'm not sure a taxation-is-theft libertarian* would disagree with all of that. People certainly leave places (like CA) for tax reasons, which I think they would count as a market consideration. Which is why I suspect you can't so easily set aside what it means to "earn" a particular salary. And the fact that taxes are in large part a political force, as well as an economic one. When the phrase "your fair share" enters into the discussion, it's not merely economic anymore. *am not a taxation-is-theft libertarian. Edit: actually, a taxation-is-theft libertarian probably would disagree with all of that. But not most libertarians. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 31 2016 12:41 TheYango wrote: Unfortunately, no major party in the US can be called "united" right now. The Democratic primary just had its winner have a lead against her opponent in every single metric: total votes, pledged delegates, super delegates. She won these by being ahead in high voter turnout states with her opponent primarily only getting ahead in caucus states where voting is difficult and limited. Hilary won by a massive landslide and we mainly spent months sitting around wondering why the other guy was still running. For the most part the only group not united in the democratic party is reddit and facebook. The party itself is super fucking united. | ||
|
Atreides
United States2393 Posts
On July 31 2016 09:31 Falling wrote: So if Sunday and Monday are the ones always to avoid because of football, this year 2/4 were on those days. (Or with Thursdays 3/4) 2012 1/4 were on those days (Thurs 2/4) 2008 1/4 were on those days. (Thurs 3/4) 2004 0/4 were on those days. (Thurs 1/4) 2000 0/4 were on those days. (Thurs 1/4) edit 1996 1/4 were on those days (a Sunday no less) (Thurs 1/3) 1992 2/4 were on those days (Thurs 3/4) 1988 1/3 were on those days (Thurs 1/3) 1984 2/3 were on those days (two Sundays) (Thurs 3/3) 1980 (1/2) were on those days (Thurs 1/2) So I guess it's possible they were avoiding those days in the past and now they just don't care. But it's hard to guess intent. With Thursdays included, there's actually no pattern at all. edit If Thursdays are also included as a no go, you are starting to run out of days of the week. There'll be Survivor premier here and another tv show premier there, something else big. At some point you just got to pick your times and go with it. I mean, Fridays are probably bad because people go out to party or something. Accusing Hillary of rigging the debate days is complete nonsense, however. double edit. Okay, I conclude Trump's conspiracy is entirely and completely false at least going by historical patterns. The only pattern I see is that they used to hold debates on Sundays and do so no longer. Well the whole thing is retarded and there is clearly no conspiracy, but it's quite possible they used to avoid them. For a long time Monday night was only prime time game then they added Sundays a while back. Thursday is relatively recent. Point is it's unreasonable to mark 3 days of week as off limits anyways. | ||
|
MasterCynical
505 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 31 2016 13:02 MasterCynical wrote: I'm in complete support of Trump over Hillary. She and many others should be charged for election fraud over evidence shown in the DNC leaks and countless cases beforehand. It was already suspect when exit polls were off by miles compared to the results released. You mean the evidence that the people being badmouthed by Sanders did not like Sanders? What evidence are you talking about? | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On July 31 2016 12:52 Thieving Magpie wrote: The Democratic primary just had its winner have a lead against her opponent in every single metric: total votes, pledged delegates, super delegates. She won these by being ahead in high voter turnout states with her opponent primarily only getting ahead in caucus states where voting is difficult and limited. Hilary won by a massive landslide and we mainly spent months sitting around wondering why the other guy was still running. For the most part the only group not united in the democratic party is reddit and facebook. The party itself is super fucking united. It seems you missed the protests within the DNC convention, the seat fillers and the blocking of the media. Or the leaked mails. | ||
| ||
