|
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. |
On August 03 2016 05:26 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 02:04 Thaniri wrote:On August 03 2016 00:24 MCWhiteHaze wrote:
You know what the biggest lie people fall into is? This statement right:
"I have to vote for the lesser of the two evils"
What? No you don't... No one holds a gun to your head and says you must vote for Hillary or Donald. That doesn't happen. You can vote for whoever you want, or not vote at all. I personally don't vote because I don't believe in how politics works and/or voting for anyone to me is a waste of time. I believe reform needs to happen on a personal social level before it will happen at the top.
Just my beliefs and I catch a lot of flack for them, oh well.
I get so sick of the presidential season...Family members arguing and getting mad at each other for the most ridiculous of reasons especially when we get such a jaded view and report. We end up arguing about things that aren't even true lol. Stupid.
God help us all. Amen.
In the Canadian parliamentary system there are 5 parties that regularly win seats each election. That doesn't happen if people only think about tory and liberal perspectives. I've seen the game theory post on why it is rational to vote for the lesser evil in an election, but one election alone probably won't fix the system. What was that quote about old men planting trees they will never enjoy the shade under? Do that. We do have FPTP as well and I think it's only pre-1920's that we haven't had at least 3 parties if not 4 or 5 elected to parliament. Now, we also have an independent commission that divides the electoral boundaries- so I don't know how much the ability of the States to legally gerrymander effects things compared to up here. Even given that, I still don't see how third parties couldn't sweep certain regions at the congressional or senate level (presidential is almost impossible because it is winner takes the one and only spot.) Perhaps for all the states rights ballyhoo, party loyalty is far stronger than regional loyalty. Because it seems impossible that something like the Reform Party that swept the West could spring up and throw the bums out- or the Orange wave in Quebec, or if we go further back, the Progressives sweeping the Prairies. Like, there's no midwest revolt or Texas sending a message to Washington that 'Texas wants in" (Reform tagline: The West wants in). Dunno- legal gerrymandering? party loyalty trumps regionalism? Both? Something else? We certainly have far stricter controls of money in politics. Everything seems hyper political in the Right Left divide. Even things like who gets on the Supreme Court is highly political- often described in apocalyptic terms. I'm not sure that our Supreme Court appointments have ever been a serious election consideration. Perhaps with the stakes seemingly lower, we feel a greater freedom to vote in 50 members of a third party that has no hope of governing.
how big tent are the parties there?
Here the national party is just made up of the various local parties, and while they're in agreement in a broad sense, there's a lot of local variation in party quality, and in the particular beliefs of the parties at the state level.
It also depends on whether there are specific strongly regional interests not shared by other groups that couldn't be fit into a larger coalition.
|
On August 03 2016 05:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 05:23 jalstar wrote:On August 03 2016 05:13 LegalLord wrote:
I'm suspicious of investments in "alternative energy" at present because the Obama administration has been quite bad about distinguishing scam artists from good companies worth subsidizing. And I trust his judgment better than Hillary's. I'm suspicious of people being suspicious because Mitt Romney called Tesla a failure in 2012 while saying something similar to what you're saying now. Get back to me when Tesla starts making a profit. I'll believe the company is successful when I see it. Right now it is merely surviving and riding an obscene hype train of government + investor money.
their value to the environment has been in making electric cars cool, and fast, and a status symbol, look at model 3 preorders and say they're a failure.
|
On August 03 2016 05:32 VayneAuthority wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 05:29 zlefin wrote:On August 03 2016 05:25 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 03 2016 05:23 zlefin wrote:On August 03 2016 05:22 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 03 2016 05:21 zlefin wrote:On August 03 2016 05:18 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 03 2016 05:17 zlefin wrote:On August 03 2016 05:13 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 03 2016 05:10 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
then why open up with a quote of extreme ignorance? so we can mock it's stupidity?
Wind doesn't kill all the birds, it only kills some; and the environmentalists complain about that ALL the time. So it's just an example of idiocy and not knowing anything about the topic to claim otherwise. you realize im mocking the quote? Wew Lad I was wondering which hardcore lefty would be the first to bait on this, looks like you get the gold medal zlefin you weren't mocking the quote at all; you brought it up for an unknown purpose. Looks like you were just looking for a fight and happened to fall into a trap, Unlucky my boy. not a trap really; since I wasn't hurt/injured in any way by it. I recommend marking more clearly your intent, because in your case people are not likely to give the benefit of the doubt, and vagueness is likely to be held against you, justified or not. Better luck next time zle "im totally a moderate" fin, don't be so hasty next time! and how is your current line of statements meant to be constructive? How was your attack on me for posting a funny donald trump quote constructive? Isn't this the game you wanted to play I didn't strongly attack you, it was at most a mild attack; and it also included advice, seeking understanding on why you'd use such a thing; and I pointed out several flaws in the statement made by a presidential candidate; that's clearly at least somewhat constructive. Whereas you seem to have gone with the definition of trolling, making a statement to provoke a rise out of people and then laugh at their responses. I advise against doing things like that, or that seem like that, or you're likely to end up banned again. last I checked personal insults are also bannable, guess you should stop doing that  calling me a "stupid, ignorant, idiot" 3 times in a small paragraph is not a "mild insult" I didn't try to get a rise out of anyone, I posted something you would actually find favorable and you chose to personally insult me instead. Shows how badly you are looking for confrontation.
when you post a statement from a candidate, saying you wish to discuss things, and you make no indication where you stand on the posted claims, it's generally assumed you support them, unless you're stances are known to be otherwise. If you had wanted to, your first post could have clearly included a section indicating your intent to mock, and this would not have occurred, you chose to do otherwise, and leave it vague why you were posting such a thing, which serves no real purpose.
|
On August 03 2016 05:35 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 05:32 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 03 2016 05:29 zlefin wrote:On August 03 2016 05:25 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 03 2016 05:23 zlefin wrote:On August 03 2016 05:22 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 03 2016 05:21 zlefin wrote:On August 03 2016 05:18 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 03 2016 05:17 zlefin wrote:On August 03 2016 05:13 VayneAuthority wrote:
[quote]
you realize im mocking the quote? Wew Lad
I was wondering which hardcore lefty would be the first to bait on this, looks like you get the gold medal zlefin you weren't mocking the quote at all; you brought it up for an unknown purpose. Looks like you were just looking for a fight and happened to fall into a trap, Unlucky my boy. not a trap really; since I wasn't hurt/injured in any way by it. I recommend marking more clearly your intent, because in your case people are not likely to give the benefit of the doubt, and vagueness is likely to be held against you, justified or not. Better luck next time zle "im totally a moderate" fin, don't be so hasty next time! and how is your current line of statements meant to be constructive? How was your attack on me for posting a funny donald trump quote constructive? Isn't this the game you wanted to play I didn't strongly attack you, it was at most a mild attack; and it also included advice, seeking understanding on why you'd use such a thing; and I pointed out several flaws in the statement made by a presidential candidate; that's clearly at least somewhat constructive. Whereas you seem to have gone with the definition of trolling, making a statement to provoke a rise out of people and then laugh at their responses. I advise against doing things like that, or that seem like that, or you're likely to end up banned again. last I checked personal insults are also bannable, guess you should stop doing that calling me a "stupid, ignorant, idiot" 3 times in a small paragraph is not a "mild insult" I didn't try to get a rise out of anyone, I posted something you would actually find favorable and you chose to personally insult me instead. Shows how badly you are looking for confrontation. when you post a statement from a candidate, saying you wish to discuss things, and you make no indication where you stand on the posted claims, it's generally assumed you support them, unless you're stances are known to be otherwise. If you had wanted to, your first post could have clearly included a section indicating your intent to mock, and this would not have occurred, you chose to do otherwise, and leave it vague why you were posting such a thing, which serves no real purpose.
ah so your first instinct is to viciously attack the person rather then politely ask what they meant, seems like a rational train of thought.
|
On August 03 2016 05:36 VayneAuthority wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 05:35 zlefin wrote:On August 03 2016 05:32 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 03 2016 05:29 zlefin wrote:On August 03 2016 05:25 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 03 2016 05:23 zlefin wrote:On August 03 2016 05:22 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 03 2016 05:21 zlefin wrote:On August 03 2016 05:18 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 03 2016 05:17 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
you weren't mocking the quote at all; you brought it up for an unknown purpose. Looks like you were just looking for a fight and happened to fall into a trap, Unlucky my boy. not a trap really; since I wasn't hurt/injured in any way by it. I recommend marking more clearly your intent, because in your case people are not likely to give the benefit of the doubt, and vagueness is likely to be held against you, justified or not. Better luck next time zle "im totally a moderate" fin, don't be so hasty next time! and how is your current line of statements meant to be constructive? How was your attack on me for posting a funny donald trump quote constructive? Isn't this the game you wanted to play I didn't strongly attack you, it was at most a mild attack; and it also included advice, seeking understanding on why you'd use such a thing; and I pointed out several flaws in the statement made by a presidential candidate; that's clearly at least somewhat constructive. Whereas you seem to have gone with the definition of trolling, making a statement to provoke a rise out of people and then laugh at their responses. I advise against doing things like that, or that seem like that, or you're likely to end up banned again. last I checked personal insults are also bannable, guess you should stop doing that calling me a "stupid, ignorant, idiot" 3 times in a small paragraph is not a "mild insult" I didn't try to get a rise out of anyone, I posted something you would actually find favorable and you chose to personally insult me instead. Shows how badly you are looking for confrontation. when you post a statement from a candidate, saying you wish to discuss things, and you make no indication where you stand on the posted claims, it's generally assumed you support them, unless you're stances are known to be otherwise. If you had wanted to, your first post could have clearly included a section indicating your intent to mock, and this would not have occurred, you chose to do otherwise, and leave it vague why you were posting such a thing, which serves no real purpose. ah so your first instinct is to viciously attack the person rather then politely ask what they meant, seems like a rational train of thought.
you are now lying. I did not viciously attack you.
and making reasonable assumptions is, by definition reasonable. And I did in fact ask what you meant by it.
|
On August 03 2016 05:34 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 05:27 LegalLord wrote:On August 03 2016 05:23 jalstar wrote:On August 03 2016 05:13 LegalLord wrote:
I'm suspicious of investments in "alternative energy" at present because the Obama administration has been quite bad about distinguishing scam artists from good companies worth subsidizing. And I trust his judgment better than Hillary's. I'm suspicious of people being suspicious because Mitt Romney called Tesla a failure in 2012 while saying something similar to what you're saying now. Get back to me when Tesla starts making a profit. I'll believe the company is successful when I see it. Right now it is merely surviving and riding an obscene hype train of government + investor money. their value to the environment has been in making electric cars cool, and fast, and a status symbol, look at model 3 preorders and say they're a failure.
http://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not-green-think/
Pre-orders are just that, pre-orders.
|
On August 03 2016 05:37 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 05:36 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 03 2016 05:35 zlefin wrote:On August 03 2016 05:32 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 03 2016 05:29 zlefin wrote:On August 03 2016 05:25 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 03 2016 05:23 zlefin wrote:On August 03 2016 05:22 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 03 2016 05:21 zlefin wrote:On August 03 2016 05:18 VayneAuthority wrote:
[quote]
Looks like you were just looking for a fight and happened to fall into a trap, Unlucky my boy. not a trap really; since I wasn't hurt/injured in any way by it. I recommend marking more clearly your intent, because in your case people are not likely to give the benefit of the doubt, and vagueness is likely to be held against you, justified or not. Better luck next time zle "im totally a moderate" fin, don't be so hasty next time! and how is your current line of statements meant to be constructive? How was your attack on me for posting a funny donald trump quote constructive? Isn't this the game you wanted to play I didn't strongly attack you, it was at most a mild attack; and it also included advice, seeking understanding on why you'd use such a thing; and I pointed out several flaws in the statement made by a presidential candidate; that's clearly at least somewhat constructive. Whereas you seem to have gone with the definition of trolling, making a statement to provoke a rise out of people and then laugh at their responses. I advise against doing things like that, or that seem like that, or you're likely to end up banned again. last I checked personal insults are also bannable, guess you should stop doing that calling me a "stupid, ignorant, idiot" 3 times in a small paragraph is not a "mild insult" I didn't try to get a rise out of anyone, I posted something you would actually find favorable and you chose to personally insult me instead. Shows how badly you are looking for confrontation. when you post a statement from a candidate, saying you wish to discuss things, and you make no indication where you stand on the posted claims, it's generally assumed you support them, unless you're stances are known to be otherwise. If you had wanted to, your first post could have clearly included a section indicating your intent to mock, and this would not have occurred, you chose to do otherwise, and leave it vague why you were posting such a thing, which serves no real purpose. ah so your first instinct is to viciously attack the person rather then politely ask what they meant, seems like a rational train of thought. you are now lying. I did not viciously attack you.
Im not lying about anything, its right there in your own words. Why not ask if you're unsure rather then throw a temper tantrum? your post has a very aggressive tone to it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 03 2016 05:34 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 05:27 LegalLord wrote:On August 03 2016 05:23 jalstar wrote:On August 03 2016 05:13 LegalLord wrote:
I'm suspicious of investments in "alternative energy" at present because the Obama administration has been quite bad about distinguishing scam artists from good companies worth subsidizing. And I trust his judgment better than Hillary's. I'm suspicious of people being suspicious because Mitt Romney called Tesla a failure in 2012 while saying something similar to what you're saying now. Get back to me when Tesla starts making a profit. I'll believe the company is successful when I see it. Right now it is merely surviving and riding an obscene hype train of government + investor money. their value to the environment has been in making electric cars cool, and fast, and a status symbol, look at model 3 preorders and say they're a failure.
Not exactly what I'd call a resounding success. The cars are rather expensive and still Tesla does not profit. If it's a solid company and not a failure, then it needs to be stable and profitable. Otherwise it's just an expensive project held up by hype.
|
This might be McCain + Paul's last best change to jump off the Trump train.
|
United States42974 Posts
On August 03 2016 05:39 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 05:34 jalstar wrote:On August 03 2016 05:27 LegalLord wrote:On August 03 2016 05:23 jalstar wrote:On August 03 2016 05:13 LegalLord wrote:
I'm suspicious of investments in "alternative energy" at present because the Obama administration has been quite bad about distinguishing scam artists from good companies worth subsidizing. And I trust his judgment better than Hillary's. I'm suspicious of people being suspicious because Mitt Romney called Tesla a failure in 2012 while saying something similar to what you're saying now. Get back to me when Tesla starts making a profit. I'll believe the company is successful when I see it. Right now it is merely surviving and riding an obscene hype train of government + investor money. their value to the environment has been in making electric cars cool, and fast, and a status symbol, look at model 3 preorders and say they're a failure. Not exactly what I'd call a resounding success. The cars are rather expensive and still Tesla does not profit. If it's a solid company and not a failure, then it needs to be stable and profitable. Otherwise it's just an expensive project held up by hype.
It's a multistage project and too soon to tell. But the first few stages have gone very well. The Tesla is cool, exciting and a status symbol in a way that is fundamentally different to, for example, the Prius. Being environmentally friendly was boring, like sorting your recycling. You know you should do it but you're not gonna brag about it. Tesla changed that and if the next stage, mass production of an affordable version of the Tesla, goes as planned then it'll revolutionize the automobile industry.
Of course it may not, hence too soon to tell. But they've hit every milestone on their plan to success solidly so far.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Trump just might split the Republican party. I'm not sure to what extent his supporters agree with his non-Republican politics, and to which extent they just like his attitude.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 03 2016 05:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2016 05:39 LegalLord wrote:On August 03 2016 05:34 jalstar wrote:On August 03 2016 05:27 LegalLord wrote:On August 03 2016 05:23 jalstar wrote:On August 03 2016 05:13 LegalLord wrote:
I'm suspicious of investments in "alternative energy" at present because the Obama administration has been quite bad about distinguishing scam artists from good companies worth subsidizing. And I trust his judgment better than Hillary's. I'm suspicious of people being suspicious because Mitt Romney called Tesla a failure in 2012 while saying something similar to what you're saying now. Get back to me when Tesla starts making a profit. I'll believe the company is successful when I see it. Right now it is merely surviving and riding an obscene hype train of government + investor money. their value to the environment has been in making electric cars cool, and fast, and a status symbol, look at model 3 preorders and say they're a failure. Not exactly what I'd call a resounding success. The cars are rather expensive and still Tesla does not profit. If it's a solid company and not a failure, then it needs to be stable and profitable. Otherwise it's just an expensive project held up by hype. It's a multistage project and too soon to tell. But the first few stages have gone very well. The Tesla is cool, exciting and a status symbol in a way that is fundamentally different to, for example, the Prius. Being environmentally friendly was boring, like sorting your recycling. You know you should do it but you're not gonna brag about it. Tesla changed that and if the next stage, mass production of an affordable version of the Tesla, goes as planned then it'll revolutionize the automobile industry. Of course it may not, hence too soon to tell. But they've hit every milestone on their plan to success solidly so far.
As far as I've seen it, the basic idea is that if a lot of money is invested it will break open an economy of scale and make things suddenly work out and be affordable and profitable. Which may be true... or it might just be an excuse to say that if things haven't worked it's just because the company needs a few more billion dollars of investment to work out. I'm not saying it will fail, but I'm suspicious and I'll believe it when I see it.
|
He is begging for it. The GOP just needs to surrender and accept they fucked up a while ago by tapping the Tea Party to win the house back. It was a bad plan and that could destroy the party.
|
I take this as Trump trying to sabotage his own campaign so that he can write a book about it and end up with an incredibly loyal post-election following.
|
I love Elon Musk's vision. The man is absolutely brilliant. His ideas are brilliant. But by god his companies are pretty much disasters. This is the one non-short investment I've made that isn't based on fundamentals. I've made money because Tesla is the one company that can miss expectations and go up 5%, but the music is gonna stop eventually, and it's gonna be ugly. Tesla is insanely overvalued - his cars run on electricity, his companies runs on hype. It's burning two billion dollars a year, deliveries are behind and there are numerous problems with them, like critical parts needing to be replaced every couple of years.
The SolarCity merger is going through, and it's lousy. Tesla is buying it for pocket change - Like $26/sh instead of the $29 or so it was trading at. Elon Musk may have abstained from voting, but it's an incredibly incestuous deal. It's being done because SolarCity burned 2B last year and is out of fuel (ironic, but not an unknown story for solar companies) and they have no way to get more money except to merge with Tesla which can. The combined company will be burning a billion dollars a quarter. It's fucking absurd.
Sure Tesla sells well. I've seen the thing about how the model S outsells the A5, the 5 series, etc. and other luxury vehicles in the same price range That's because it's a unique electric boondoggle (and is, honestly, pretty nice to drive and look at). Thing is that won't last. BMW, Audi and Mercedes actually make money. And they're working on their own electric vehicles, and I expect them to do the business properly. Renewable and electric are the future. Tesla is not.
In a couple years, I'll either be a prophet or look like an idiot for this. 
|
Who was it that was claiming the Republicans were more united then the Democrats after the DNC?
|
That looks like Trump getting petty revenge on McCain and Ryan. Petty revenge, at all costs. I have an idea...let's make this guy commander in chief.
|
On August 03 2016 05:55 Gorsameth wrote:Who was it that was claiming the Republicans were more united then the Democrats after the DNC?
Here's a hint: "Russia did nothing wrong when it invaded Crimea."
|
|
|
On August 03 2016 05:56 Doodsmack wrote:
That looks like Trump getting petty revenge on McCain and Ryan. Petty revenge, at all costs. I have an idea...let's make this guy commander in chief.
I get the feeling that Hillary and the DNC also rigged the republican primaries so that they could get Trump the nomination. He is by far the best secret agent that ever lived. Huge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
