• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 08:54
CEST 14:54
KST 21:54
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202559RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings What tournaments are world championships? RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion Dewalt's Show Matches in China [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? [G] Mineral Boosting Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Post Pic of your Favorite Food! The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 968 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5576

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 5574 5575 5576 5577 5578 10093 Next
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.
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-10-14 18:44:58
October 14 2016 18:38 GMT
#111501
On October 15 2016 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2016 03:12 IgnE wrote:
On October 15 2016 03:09 Nyxisto wrote:
On October 15 2016 03:05 IgnE wrote:
On October 15 2016 02:53 Nyxisto wrote:
On October 15 2016 02:52 IgnE wrote:
On October 15 2016 02:49 Nyxisto wrote:
Biggest problem with UBI is that handing cash out isn't very effective, better to put the money into some compulsory fund that people can spend, like foodstamps but for more stuff.


and this is based on what? studies of cash transfers in war torn african countries?


The idea is that if we transfer cash from one guy to another we ought to have at least some say in how it's spend, like with most other shared social resources.

I don't mind paying for someone's healthcare or food, I do mind paying for homeopathy and booze. If we socialise something we have a collective interest that it's being used responsibly.


and you are the one that gets to decide what a "responsible" use is? why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that people will be using their meagre guaranteed income on homeopathy?

but really i object to the idea that "you are paying" for someone else, like it's charity rather than social obligation. you are only fine with UBI when it's used to further the ends of a productivist technocracy that will increase your material well being. you are only for UBI when it is the only means around the barrier to capital reproduction that increasing inequality and consequent lack of aggregate demand presents.

edit: even the pro-market liberal above me agrees that your german ordoliberalism is ridiculous


I think you have it the wrong way around, if you're going to look where the support for universal income is largest it's going to be a college campus, not the Midwest. The people that bring the responsibility argument forward are almost always people who aren't that well off. "Our taxes aren't spent well" is an argument that you're not going to hear often in liberal technocratic circles.

The people that will block your generous UBI without conditions are going to be the people that need it the most if you're framing it in a way that looks like a gift. Those people like responsibility, they don't want sharing without conditions, has this really not gotten into people's heads after this whole election?


so are you saying that you personally are fine with UBI without restrictions you just don't think that the republicans would go for it? i was speaking to you, not debating trumpkins


I don't like the idea of 'helicopter money' in principle (I honestly haven't read many studies whether it makes a big practical difference if we're just talking about a bare minimum UBI) but I'm not sure the distinction makes sense or is that interesting. I'm more interested in how we can get more social welfare to people and an important part of that is taking into account that especially in the US, but also in a lot of other places, unconditional redistribution will be perceived as a form of charity handouts and that is not going to be supported even by the poor.

I think it's very ironic that you accuse me of being the aloof technocrat and then go on to brush off the Trumpkins, which are after all the people for which UBI is most relevant. It's what tanked Bernie's primaries, his whole talk about 'making the system work for the poor' was very far removed from the mindset that the people had he wanted to win over. That's why Clinton, the aloof technocrat, wins 90% of the black vote.


so you personally are opposed to UBI because you are opposed to charity handouts but value keynesian stimulation as long as you get to decide how its spent. so in other words my criticism was dead on.

im not the one trying to tell the trumpkins how to spend their share of society's bounty. i am just pointing out that a discussion with you about your pseudofascist ordoliberal welfare schemes opposed to UBI is going to be different than one with a conservative mid westerner who opposed welfare all together.

@zlefin it would be helpful if you provided the guaranteed UBI number you are using instead of just saying 3-7x as wealthy. most UBI schemes propose numbers at or below the poverty threshold. it's also interesting that you round down (people might work less) instead of rounding up (increase in demand and the unleashing of the worker bees in a cognitive capital regime would increase material wealth).
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
Sent.
Profile Joined June 2012
Poland9193 Posts
October 14 2016 18:38 GMT
#111502
On October 15 2016 03:30 PassiveAce wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2016 03:27 oBlade wrote:
On October 15 2016 03:22 PassiveAce wrote:
its interesting how people react to terms like "rape culture" "microaggression" "political correctness" etc.

When I talk to conservative members of my family I find I can be much more persuasive if I just avoid using those buzzwords.

For example, if I argue to my cousin that asking colored americans 'where are you from," to try and find out their ethnic identity is an ignorant thing to do, then he will agree with me. But if I use the word "micro-aggression" in my argument then hel go off about how people are too sensitive.

I think people are just kind of conditioned to stop listening when they hear certain familiar phrases. like if you use the words 'mens rights' i pretty much stop listening to you.

Do you explicitly use the phrase "colored Americans" when teaching your cousin how to be less offensive?

no cuz its offensive in the US for some reason ;d


I thought it's offensive everywhere altough maybe it's a result of it being offensive in the US first.
You're now breathing manually
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21666 Posts
October 14 2016 18:39 GMT
#111503
On October 15 2016 03:26 Nebuchad wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2016 02:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Nice to have this reminder why people stopped trying to have discussions with GH...

Claims made, conspiracies parroted, youtube/twitter embedded, insult everyone disagreeing with him, ignore all requests for evidence and details.

Good to have this all reiterated.


See here's the problem. When someone like WolfintheSheep mentions conspiracies, someone like Gorsameth should jump on him, cause he has argued that it would be perfectly normal for the DNC to play favourites. But he doesn't. Cause WolfintheSheep is on the right side of the debate, as he argues against GH.

There are countless examples of that. You're not arguing positions, you're arguing against him. I take issue with that.

I have at times questioned ridiculous statements from 'my side of the debate' and defended Trump (not that he does a lot that is worth defending)
But I can accept that I overlook things based on my bias yes.

(probably proven by the fact that I think 'my side' throws out a lot less conspiracy theories into this thread in the first place)
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
RvB
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
Netherlands6209 Posts
October 14 2016 18:40 GMT
#111504
On October 15 2016 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2016 03:12 IgnE wrote:
On October 15 2016 03:09 Nyxisto wrote:
On October 15 2016 03:05 IgnE wrote:
On October 15 2016 02:53 Nyxisto wrote:
On October 15 2016 02:52 IgnE wrote:
On October 15 2016 02:49 Nyxisto wrote:
Biggest problem with UBI is that handing cash out isn't very effective, better to put the money into some compulsory fund that people can spend, like foodstamps but for more stuff.


and this is based on what? studies of cash transfers in war torn african countries?


The idea is that if we transfer cash from one guy to another we ought to have at least some say in how it's spend, like with most other shared social resources.

I don't mind paying for someone's healthcare or food, I do mind paying for homeopathy and booze. If we socialise something we have a collective interest that it's being used responsibly.


and you are the one that gets to decide what a "responsible" use is? why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that people will be using their meagre guaranteed income on homeopathy?

but really i object to the idea that "you are paying" for someone else, like it's charity rather than social obligation. you are only fine with UBI when it's used to further the ends of a productivist technocracy that will increase your material well being. you are only for UBI when it is the only means around the barrier to capital reproduction that increasing inequality and consequent lack of aggregate demand presents.

edit: even the pro-market liberal above me agrees that your german ordoliberalism is ridiculous


I think you have it the wrong way around, if you're going to look where the support for universal income is largest it's going to be a college campus, not the Midwest. The people that bring the responsibility argument forward are almost always people who aren't that well off. "Our taxes aren't spent well" is an argument that you're not going to hear often in liberal technocratic circles.

The people that will block your generous UBI without conditions are going to be the people that need it the most if you're framing it in a way that looks like a gift. Those people like responsibility, they don't want sharing without conditions, has this really not gotten into people's heads after this whole election?


so are you saying that you personally are fine with UBI without restrictions you just don't think that the republicans would go for it? i was speaking to you, not debating trumpkins


I don't like the idea of 'helicopter money' in principle (I honestly haven't read many studies whether it makes a big practical difference if we're just talking about a bare minimum UBI) but I'm not sure the distinction makes sense or is that interesting. I'm more interested in how we can get more social welfare to people and an important part of that is taking into account that especially in the US, but also in a lot of other places, unconditional redistribution will be perceived as a form of charity handouts and that is not going to be supported even by the poor.

I think it's very ironic that you accuse me of being the aloof technocrat and then go on to brush off the Trumpkins, which are after all the people for which UBI is most relevant. It's what tanked Bernie's primaries, his whole talk about 'making the system work for the poor' was very far removed from the mindset that the people had he wanted to win over. That's why Clinton, the aloof technocrat, wins 90% of the black vote.

UBI isn't helicopter money. It's financed by tax and government deficits. Helicopter money is a monetary phenomenon where new money is created and directly given to consumers.
WolfintheSheep
Profile Joined June 2011
Canada14127 Posts
October 14 2016 18:41 GMT
#111505
On October 15 2016 03:26 Nebuchad wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2016 02:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Nice to have this reminder why people stopped trying to have discussions with GH...

Claims made, conspiracies parroted, youtube/twitter embedded, insult everyone disagreeing with him, ignore all requests for evidence and details.

Good to have this all reiterated.


See here's the problem. When someone like WolfintheSheep mentions conspiracies, someone like Gorsameth should jump on him, cause he has argued that it would be perfectly normal for the DNC to play favourites. But he doesn't. Cause WolfintheSheep is on the right side of the debate, as he argues against GH.

There are countless examples of that. You're not arguing positions, you're arguing against him. I take issue with that.

No, I spent the previous two pages arguing positions and asking for evidence, and after getting the usual runaround I reiterated that it's pointless to have discussions with GH.

If you would like to discuss DNC favouritism, that would be great. Let me reiterate my points on that: yes, it's normal for the system to allow favouritism because the Super Delegate system is very bluntly about the party having the power to override popular vote. It's is dishonest to say internal emails talking about opinions is against the rules when there is a much more blatant and official system that allows for far greater manipulation of results right in the open.

With that said, the question is if favouritism resulted in manipulation or impact on the popular vote, which is what requires evidence, and which is also a "conspiracy" so long as it's built only on supposition and suspicion.
Average means I'm better than half of you.
PassiveAce
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
United States18076 Posts
October 14 2016 18:42 GMT
#111506
On October 15 2016 03:38 Sent. wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2016 03:30 PassiveAce wrote:
On October 15 2016 03:27 oBlade wrote:
On October 15 2016 03:22 PassiveAce wrote:
its interesting how people react to terms like "rape culture" "microaggression" "political correctness" etc.

When I talk to conservative members of my family I find I can be much more persuasive if I just avoid using those buzzwords.

For example, if I argue to my cousin that asking colored americans 'where are you from," to try and find out their ethnic identity is an ignorant thing to do, then he will agree with me. But if I use the word "micro-aggression" in my argument then hel go off about how people are too sensitive.

I think people are just kind of conditioned to stop listening when they hear certain familiar phrases. like if you use the words 'mens rights' i pretty much stop listening to you.

Do you explicitly use the phrase "colored Americans" when teaching your cousin how to be less offensive?

no cuz its offensive in the US for some reason ;d


I thought it's offensive everywhere altough maybe it's a result of it being offensive in the US first.

iv heard people in west europe use it to describe people of middle-eastern, west asian descent.
maybe it is offensive everywhere i dunno
Call me Marge Simpson cuz I love you homie
Nyxisto
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany6287 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-10-14 18:50:13
October 14 2016 18:45 GMT
#111507
On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:
so you personally are opposed to UBI because you are opposed to charity handouts but value keynesian stimulation as long as you get to decide how its spent. so in other words my criticism was dead on.

im not the one trying to tell the trumpkins how to spend their share of society's bounty. i am just pointing out that a discussion with you about your pseudofascist ordoliberal welfare schemes oppose UBI is going to be different than one with a conservative mid westerner who opposed welfare all together.


I still don't see what's fascist about it, it seems like a basic idea of fairness that if we redistribute money we don't do so unconditionally, this is already true for almost all tax redistribution. We don't just hand you your healthcare benefits in cash, we pay for your medical bills. Is this fascist? Should we just send you a syringe and a bonesaw and you can have at it? Is childcare authoritarian?

Almost all form of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance why is this offensive all of the sudden?

I'd rather see that expanded because it is a material benefit for the poor rather than reducing it and handing you bitcoin because that's much less 'technocratic'.
WhiteDog
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
France8650 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-10-14 18:48:55
October 14 2016 18:46 GMT
#111508
On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2016 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:
On October 15 2016 03:12 IgnE wrote:
On October 15 2016 03:09 Nyxisto wrote:
On October 15 2016 03:05 IgnE wrote:
On October 15 2016 02:53 Nyxisto wrote:
On October 15 2016 02:52 IgnE wrote:
On October 15 2016 02:49 Nyxisto wrote:
Biggest problem with UBI is that handing cash out isn't very effective, better to put the money into some compulsory fund that people can spend, like foodstamps but for more stuff.


and this is based on what? studies of cash transfers in war torn african countries?


The idea is that if we transfer cash from one guy to another we ought to have at least some say in how it's spend, like with most other shared social resources.

I don't mind paying for someone's healthcare or food, I do mind paying for homeopathy and booze. If we socialise something we have a collective interest that it's being used responsibly.


and you are the one that gets to decide what a "responsible" use is? why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that people will be using their meagre guaranteed income on homeopathy?

but really i object to the idea that "you are paying" for someone else, like it's charity rather than social obligation. you are only fine with UBI when it's used to further the ends of a productivist technocracy that will increase your material well being. you are only for UBI when it is the only means around the barrier to capital reproduction that increasing inequality and consequent lack of aggregate demand presents.

edit: even the pro-market liberal above me agrees that your german ordoliberalism is ridiculous


I think you have it the wrong way around, if you're going to look where the support for universal income is largest it's going to be a college campus, not the Midwest. The people that bring the responsibility argument forward are almost always people who aren't that well off. "Our taxes aren't spent well" is an argument that you're not going to hear often in liberal technocratic circles.

The people that will block your generous UBI without conditions are going to be the people that need it the most if you're framing it in a way that looks like a gift. Those people like responsibility, they don't want sharing without conditions, has this really not gotten into people's heads after this whole election?


so are you saying that you personally are fine with UBI without restrictions you just don't think that the republicans would go for it? i was speaking to you, not debating trumpkins


I don't like the idea of 'helicopter money' in principle (I honestly haven't read many studies whether it makes a big practical difference if we're just talking about a bare minimum UBI) but I'm not sure the distinction makes sense or is that interesting. I'm more interested in how we can get more social welfare to people and an important part of that is taking into account that especially in the US, but also in a lot of other places, unconditional redistribution will be perceived as a form of charity handouts and that is not going to be supported even by the poor.

I think it's very ironic that you accuse me of being the aloof technocrat and then go on to brush off the Trumpkins, which are after all the people for which UBI is most relevant. It's what tanked Bernie's primaries, his whole talk about 'making the system work for the poor' was very far removed from the mindset that the people had he wanted to win over. That's why Clinton, the aloof technocrat, wins 90% of the black vote.


so you personally are opposed to UBI because you are opposed to charity handouts but value keynesian stimulation as long as you get to decide how its spent. so in other words my criticism was dead on.

im not the one trying to tell the trumpkins how to spend their share of society's bounty. i am just pointing out that a discussion with you about your pseudofascist ordoliberal welfare schemes opposed to UBI is going to be different than one with a conservative mid westerner who opposed welfare all together.

@zlefin it would be helpful if you provided the guaranteed UBI number you are using instead of just saying 3-7x as wealthy. most UBI schemes propose numbers at or below the poverty threshold. it's also interesting that you round down (people might work less) instead of rounding up (increase in demand and the unleashing of the worker bees in a cognitive capital regime would increase material wealth).

I'm personally against UBI because it will be a good excuse for politicians to accept high level of unemployment, and I believe work to give much more to individuals than a simple revenu.
As for handling cash to individuals, it is the most efficient after directly investing in infrastructure, according to all evaluations.
"every time WhiteDog overuses the word "seriously" in a comment I can make an observation on his fragile emotional state." MoltkeWarding
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
October 14 2016 18:56 GMT
#111509
On October 15 2016 03:45 Nyxisto wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:
so you personally are opposed to UBI because you are opposed to charity handouts but value keynesian stimulation as long as you get to decide how its spent. so in other words my criticism was dead on.

im not the one trying to tell the trumpkins how to spend their share of society's bounty. i am just pointing out that a discussion with you about your pseudofascist ordoliberal welfare schemes oppose UBI is going to be different than one with a conservative mid westerner who opposed welfare all together.


I still don't see what's fascist about it, it seems like a basic idea of fairness that if we redistribute money we don't do so unconditionally, this is already true for almost all tax redistribution. We don't just hand you your healthcare benefits in cash, we pay for your medical bills. Is this fascist? Should we just send you a syringe and and a bonesaw and you can have at it? Is paid childcare authoritarian?

Almost all form of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance why is this offensive all of the sudden?

I'd rather see that expanded because it is a material benefit for the poor rather than reducing it and handing you bitcoin because that's much less 'technocratic'.


because the real affliction for those in poverty is not the material deprivation, it's the lack of autonomy. the assertion that almost all forms of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance is incoherent on its own terms (what is "assistance"?) but is also clearly wrong. social security is a cash payment that is a significant portion of the budget. disability and unemployment are cash payment with strings attached.

@whitedog

i don't see why you can't have both. jobs need doing. UBI is not the same as enforcing completely egalitarian incomes. provide a base level of UBI w no strings and jobs.
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12172 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-10-14 18:58:38
October 14 2016 18:57 GMT
#111510
On October 15 2016 03:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2016 03:26 Nebuchad wrote:
On October 15 2016 02:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Nice to have this reminder why people stopped trying to have discussions with GH...

Claims made, conspiracies parroted, youtube/twitter embedded, insult everyone disagreeing with him, ignore all requests for evidence and details.

Good to have this all reiterated.


See here's the problem. When someone like WolfintheSheep mentions conspiracies, someone like Gorsameth should jump on him, cause he has argued that it would be perfectly normal for the DNC to play favourites. But he doesn't. Cause WolfintheSheep is on the right side of the debate, as he argues against GH.

There are countless examples of that. You're not arguing positions, you're arguing against him. I take issue with that.

No, I spent the previous two pages arguing positions and asking for evidence, and after getting the usual runaround I reiterated that it's pointless to have discussions with GH.

If you would like to discuss DNC favouritism, that would be great. Let me reiterate my points on that: yes, it's normal for the system to allow favouritism because the Super Delegate system is very bluntly about the party having the power to override popular vote. It's is dishonest to say internal emails talking about opinions is against the rules when there is a much more blatant and official system that allows for far greater manipulation of results right in the open.

With that said, the question is if favouritism resulted in manipulation or impact on the popular vote, which is what requires evidence, and which is also a "conspiracy" so long as it's built only on supposition and suspicion.


It's obvious that it has impact. The question that you ask is whether this impact should be criticized or not.
No will to live, no wish to die
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21666 Posts
October 14 2016 19:01 GMT
#111511
On October 15 2016 03:57 Nebuchad wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2016 03:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On October 15 2016 03:26 Nebuchad wrote:
On October 15 2016 02:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Nice to have this reminder why people stopped trying to have discussions with GH...

Claims made, conspiracies parroted, youtube/twitter embedded, insult everyone disagreeing with him, ignore all requests for evidence and details.

Good to have this all reiterated.


See here's the problem. When someone like WolfintheSheep mentions conspiracies, someone like Gorsameth should jump on him, cause he has argued that it would be perfectly normal for the DNC to play favourites. But he doesn't. Cause WolfintheSheep is on the right side of the debate, as he argues against GH.

There are countless examples of that. You're not arguing positions, you're arguing against him. I take issue with that.

No, I spent the previous two pages arguing positions and asking for evidence, and after getting the usual runaround I reiterated that it's pointless to have discussions with GH.

If you would like to discuss DNC favouritism, that would be great. Let me reiterate my points on that: yes, it's normal for the system to allow favouritism because the Super Delegate system is very bluntly about the party having the power to override popular vote. It's is dishonest to say internal emails talking about opinions is against the rules when there is a much more blatant and official system that allows for far greater manipulation of results right in the open.

With that said, the question is if favouritism resulted in manipulation or impact on the popular vote, which is what requires evidence, and which is also a "conspiracy" so long as it's built only on supposition and suspicion.


It's obvious that it has impact. The question that you ask is whether this impact should be criticized or not.

Please provide evidence that the impact on votes from DNC favoritism is obvious.
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
October 14 2016 19:03 GMT
#111512
On October 15 2016 04:01 Gorsameth wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2016 03:57 Nebuchad wrote:
On October 15 2016 03:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On October 15 2016 03:26 Nebuchad wrote:
On October 15 2016 02:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Nice to have this reminder why people stopped trying to have discussions with GH...

Claims made, conspiracies parroted, youtube/twitter embedded, insult everyone disagreeing with him, ignore all requests for evidence and details.

Good to have this all reiterated.


See here's the problem. When someone like WolfintheSheep mentions conspiracies, someone like Gorsameth should jump on him, cause he has argued that it would be perfectly normal for the DNC to play favourites. But he doesn't. Cause WolfintheSheep is on the right side of the debate, as he argues against GH.

There are countless examples of that. You're not arguing positions, you're arguing against him. I take issue with that.

No, I spent the previous two pages arguing positions and asking for evidence, and after getting the usual runaround I reiterated that it's pointless to have discussions with GH.

If you would like to discuss DNC favouritism, that would be great. Let me reiterate my points on that: yes, it's normal for the system to allow favouritism because the Super Delegate system is very bluntly about the party having the power to override popular vote. It's is dishonest to say internal emails talking about opinions is against the rules when there is a much more blatant and official system that allows for far greater manipulation of results right in the open.

With that said, the question is if favouritism resulted in manipulation or impact on the popular vote, which is what requires evidence, and which is also a "conspiracy" so long as it's built only on supposition and suspicion.


It's obvious that it has impact. The question that you ask is whether this impact should be criticized or not.

Please provide evidence that the impact on votes from DNC favoritism is obvious.


If someone has to ask, then its not obvious.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12172 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-10-14 19:05:11
October 14 2016 19:04 GMT
#111513
On October 15 2016 04:01 Gorsameth wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2016 03:57 Nebuchad wrote:
On October 15 2016 03:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On October 15 2016 03:26 Nebuchad wrote:
On October 15 2016 02:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Nice to have this reminder why people stopped trying to have discussions with GH...

Claims made, conspiracies parroted, youtube/twitter embedded, insult everyone disagreeing with him, ignore all requests for evidence and details.

Good to have this all reiterated.


See here's the problem. When someone like WolfintheSheep mentions conspiracies, someone like Gorsameth should jump on him, cause he has argued that it would be perfectly normal for the DNC to play favourites. But he doesn't. Cause WolfintheSheep is on the right side of the debate, as he argues against GH.

There are countless examples of that. You're not arguing positions, you're arguing against him. I take issue with that.

No, I spent the previous two pages arguing positions and asking for evidence, and after getting the usual runaround I reiterated that it's pointless to have discussions with GH.

If you would like to discuss DNC favouritism, that would be great. Let me reiterate my points on that: yes, it's normal for the system to allow favouritism because the Super Delegate system is very bluntly about the party having the power to override popular vote. It's is dishonest to say internal emails talking about opinions is against the rules when there is a much more blatant and official system that allows for far greater manipulation of results right in the open.

With that said, the question is if favouritism resulted in manipulation or impact on the popular vote, which is what requires evidence, and which is also a "conspiracy" so long as it's built only on supposition and suspicion.


It's obvious that it has impact. The question that you ask is whether this impact should be criticized or not.

Please provide evidence that the impact on votes from DNC favoritism is obvious.


Hi, I'm the establishment. My stranglehold on politics in the US is so big that it's completely impossible to get elected without the help of one of the two major parties. However, when I'm one of those two major parties and I choose one candidate as my favourite over another, it has absolutely no impact on the chances of this candidate.
No will to live, no wish to die
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-10-14 19:08:09
October 14 2016 19:07 GMT
#111514
On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2016 03:19 Nyxisto wrote:
On October 15 2016 03:12 IgnE wrote:
On October 15 2016 03:09 Nyxisto wrote:
On October 15 2016 03:05 IgnE wrote:
On October 15 2016 02:53 Nyxisto wrote:
On October 15 2016 02:52 IgnE wrote:
On October 15 2016 02:49 Nyxisto wrote:
Biggest problem with UBI is that handing cash out isn't very effective, better to put the money into some compulsory fund that people can spend, like foodstamps but for more stuff.


and this is based on what? studies of cash transfers in war torn african countries?


The idea is that if we transfer cash from one guy to another we ought to have at least some say in how it's spend, like with most other shared social resources.

I don't mind paying for someone's healthcare or food, I do mind paying for homeopathy and booze. If we socialise something we have a collective interest that it's being used responsibly.


and you are the one that gets to decide what a "responsible" use is? why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that people will be using their meagre guaranteed income on homeopathy?

but really i object to the idea that "you are paying" for someone else, like it's charity rather than social obligation. you are only fine with UBI when it's used to further the ends of a productivist technocracy that will increase your material well being. you are only for UBI when it is the only means around the barrier to capital reproduction that increasing inequality and consequent lack of aggregate demand presents.

edit: even the pro-market liberal above me agrees that your german ordoliberalism is ridiculous


I think you have it the wrong way around, if you're going to look where the support for universal income is largest it's going to be a college campus, not the Midwest. The people that bring the responsibility argument forward are almost always people who aren't that well off. "Our taxes aren't spent well" is an argument that you're not going to hear often in liberal technocratic circles.

The people that will block your generous UBI without conditions are going to be the people that need it the most if you're framing it in a way that looks like a gift. Those people like responsibility, they don't want sharing without conditions, has this really not gotten into people's heads after this whole election?


so are you saying that you personally are fine with UBI without restrictions you just don't think that the republicans would go for it? i was speaking to you, not debating trumpkins


I don't like the idea of 'helicopter money' in principle (I honestly haven't read many studies whether it makes a big practical difference if we're just talking about a bare minimum UBI) but I'm not sure the distinction makes sense or is that interesting. I'm more interested in how we can get more social welfare to people and an important part of that is taking into account that especially in the US, but also in a lot of other places, unconditional redistribution will be perceived as a form of charity handouts and that is not going to be supported even by the poor.

I think it's very ironic that you accuse me of being the aloof technocrat and then go on to brush off the Trumpkins, which are after all the people for which UBI is most relevant. It's what tanked Bernie's primaries, his whole talk about 'making the system work for the poor' was very far removed from the mindset that the people had he wanted to win over. That's why Clinton, the aloof technocrat, wins 90% of the black vote.


so you personally are opposed to UBI because you are opposed to charity handouts but value keynesian stimulation as long as you get to decide how its spent. so in other words my criticism was dead on.

im not the one trying to tell the trumpkins how to spend their share of society's bounty. i am just pointing out that a discussion with you about your pseudofascist ordoliberal welfare schemes opposed to UBI is going to be different than one with a conservative mid westerner who opposed welfare all together.

@zlefin it would be helpful if you provided the guaranteed UBI number you are using instead of just saying 3-7x as wealthy. most UBI schemes propose numbers at or below the poverty threshold. it's also interesting that you round down (people might work less) instead of rounding up (increase in demand and the unleashing of the worker bees in a cognitive capital regime would increase material wealth).


I'm not using any specific number, but am considering an approximate vague range. It hadn't seemed necessary to go into details before.

let me look up some numbers: US poverty threshold guideline for a single individual: 11770; though it notes that additional individuals in the same household add far less, so there appears to be a considerable base cost; each extra individual in the household increases the threshold by 4160.
alot would depend on which of those you focus on for setting UBI.


based on http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go
it looks like around 1.25 trillion spend on non-medical welfare programs.
with US pop around 320 million, that amounts to ~3900/person. state and local welfare programs surely add some, but are in general much smaller in size compared to the federal ones, so it should still be no more than ~4500/person.
Of course current spending levels are in part due to deficit spending, they'd be around 15% lower without that.
And if one were to shift all welfare programs to UBI, the money would be less focused on the elderly/disabled, so they'd be getting less than they currently do. (and it might not be enough, they tend to have higher needs than younger, healthier people who can do more of their own work)

The food support systems generally assume around $6.00/day/person to feed a person decently (it can be done for less, if you have good stores nearby and do your own cooking, not sure how the amortization of basic kitchen supplies works).
Housing costs are considerable, some places in the country have quite high housing costs. Rents from 500-1000/month depending on location, for basic housing. add a bit more for utilities (depending on whether utilities were covered under the rent)


I round down because I prefer to be conservative in fiscal projections, so that there is a safety margin in case the programs consequences are worse than estimates indicated; there's always some uncertainty in such things. It's easy to handle a surplus gracefully, it's much harder to handle a deficit well.

So, there are some numbers of things, provided as requested.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
October 14 2016 19:08 GMT
#111515
The biggest favoritism was probably simply the massive superdelegate advantage Hillary started with. That basically crowded out all other viable establishment opposition, leaving Bernie Sanders as the only possible viable opposition. He also suffered strongly from poor exposure early on in the campaign, probably also because of Hillary's superdelegate advantage. And people really do have a tendency to just fall in line with the party line option, which in this case was Hillary without a doubt. If he had more exposure earlier in the campaign, he may well have managed to edge Hillary out. Judging by the fact that there have been quite a few people who said they chose Hillary but now wonder if Sanders might have been better, while most Sanders people still think they were right to make that choice, timing might have made a substantial difference.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Nevuk
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States16280 Posts
October 14 2016 19:08 GMT
#111516
Anyone watching Allred's press conference? Supposedly it is an apprentice candidate alleging abuse. Don't have tv or non mobile internet to watch myself atm
WhiteDog
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
France8650 Posts
October 14 2016 19:08 GMT
#111517
On October 15 2016 03:56 IgnE wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2016 03:45 Nyxisto wrote:
On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:
so you personally are opposed to UBI because you are opposed to charity handouts but value keynesian stimulation as long as you get to decide how its spent. so in other words my criticism was dead on.

im not the one trying to tell the trumpkins how to spend their share of society's bounty. i am just pointing out that a discussion with you about your pseudofascist ordoliberal welfare schemes oppose UBI is going to be different than one with a conservative mid westerner who opposed welfare all together.


I still don't see what's fascist about it, it seems like a basic idea of fairness that if we redistribute money we don't do so unconditionally, this is already true for almost all tax redistribution. We don't just hand you your healthcare benefits in cash, we pay for your medical bills. Is this fascist? Should we just send you a syringe and and a bonesaw and you can have at it? Is paid childcare authoritarian?

Almost all form of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance why is this offensive all of the sudden?

I'd rather see that expanded because it is a material benefit for the poor rather than reducing it and handing you bitcoin because that's much less 'technocratic'.


because the real affliction for those in poverty is not the material deprivation, it's the lack of autonomy. the assertion that almost all forms of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance is incoherent on its own terms (what is "assistance"?) but is also clearly wrong. social security is a cash payment that is a significant portion of the budget. disability and unemployment are cash payment with strings attached.

@whitedog

i don't see why you can't have both. jobs need doing. UBI is not the same as enforcing completely egalitarian incomes. provide a base level of UBI w no strings and jobs.

Don't you think ot will be used as such ? In europe, most UBI i've learned about goes with the end of social security. It's an individualization of welfare.
"every time WhiteDog overuses the word "seriously" in a comment I can make an observation on his fragile emotional state." MoltkeWarding
Nyxisto
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany6287 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-10-14 19:13:10
October 14 2016 19:11 GMT
#111518
On October 15 2016 03:56 IgnE wrote:
because the real affliction for those in poverty is not the material deprivation, it's the lack of autonomy. the assertion that almost all forms of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance is incoherent on its own terms (what is "assistance"?) but is also clearly wrong. social security is a cash payment that is a significant portion of the budget. disability and unemployment are cash payment with strings attached.


but this is only autonomy in a super-individualist sense. For example if we had to choose between sending you to college for free or paying for your college stipend and handing you out the equivalent amount of money in cash, you technically have more autonomy with the cash handout but you're not building towards any kind of community or social structure. Aren't you the guy always stressing that humans are social animal? UBI is essentially the latest form of capitalism, you're turning everybody into a mini-investor. There's no shared responsibility in that system at all, which for me is a much more meaningful way to talk about autonomy.

edit: whoops ninja'd. I agree with WhiteDog, what a time to be alive
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
October 14 2016 19:11 GMT
#111519
On October 15 2016 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2016 03:56 IgnE wrote:
On October 15 2016 03:45 Nyxisto wrote:
On October 15 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote:
so you personally are opposed to UBI because you are opposed to charity handouts but value keynesian stimulation as long as you get to decide how its spent. so in other words my criticism was dead on.

im not the one trying to tell the trumpkins how to spend their share of society's bounty. i am just pointing out that a discussion with you about your pseudofascist ordoliberal welfare schemes oppose UBI is going to be different than one with a conservative mid westerner who opposed welfare all together.


I still don't see what's fascist about it, it seems like a basic idea of fairness that if we redistribute money we don't do so unconditionally, this is already true for almost all tax redistribution. We don't just hand you your healthcare benefits in cash, we pay for your medical bills. Is this fascist? Should we just send you a syringe and and a bonesaw and you can have at it? Is paid childcare authoritarian?

Almost all form of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance why is this offensive all of the sudden?

I'd rather see that expanded because it is a material benefit for the poor rather than reducing it and handing you bitcoin because that's much less 'technocratic'.


because the real affliction for those in poverty is not the material deprivation, it's the lack of autonomy. the assertion that almost all forms of social benefits are supplied in the form of goods, institutions or assistance is incoherent on its own terms (what is "assistance"?) but is also clearly wrong. social security is a cash payment that is a significant portion of the budget. disability and unemployment are cash payment with strings attached.

@whitedog

i don't see why you can't have both. jobs need doing. UBI is not the same as enforcing completely egalitarian incomes. provide a base level of UBI w no strings and jobs.

Don't you think ot will be used as such ? In europe, most UBI i've learned about goes with the end of social security. It's an individualization of welfare.

I saw it more as a "making a good socialized program is hard so let's just hand out a lump sum of money instead!" system in most UBI proposals I saw.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21666 Posts
October 14 2016 19:14 GMT
#111520
On October 15 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote:
The biggest favoritism was probably simply the massive superdelegate advantage Hillary started with. That basically crowded out all other viable establishment opposition, leaving Bernie Sanders as the only possible viable opposition. He also suffered strongly from poor exposure early on in the campaign, probably also because of Hillary's superdelegate advantage. And people really do have a tendency to just fall in line with the party line option, which in this case was Hillary without a doubt. If he had more exposure earlier in the campaign, he may well have managed to edge Hillary out. Judging by the fact that there have been quite a few people who said they chose Hillary but now wonder if Sanders might have been better, while most Sanders people still think they were right to make that choice, timing might have made a substantial difference.

Yeah that sounds right.
I wouldn't call that favoritism tho. Hillary is a Democrat who has worked with Democrat super delegates for years.
Bernie was an outsider coming in.
The super delegates favoring Hillary early on makes perfect sense.
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
Prev 1 5574 5575 5576 5577 5578 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Esports World Cup
11:00
2025 - Final Day
Solar vs ClassicLIVE!
Cure vs TBD
Serral vs TBD
EWC_Arena13238
ComeBackTV 3189
TaKeTV 697
Hui .600
JimRising 309
3DClanTV 298
Fuzer 295
Rex262
EnkiAlexander 194
CranKy Ducklings135
Reynor122
BRAT_OK 70
SpeCial43
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
EWC_Arena13238
Hui .600
JimRising 309
Fuzer 295
Rex 262
Reynor 122
BRAT_OK 70
UpATreeSC 49
SpeCial 43
StarCraft: Brood War
Nal_rA 5748
Horang2 5543
Shuttle 2537
Bisu 1886
BeSt 1310
EffOrt 823
Larva 638
Barracks 422
Mini 364
actioN 360
[ Show more ]
Stork 342
Soma 221
ggaemo 200
Snow 186
TY 142
Hyun 118
Backho 106
JYJ106
Soulkey 103
Rush 55
Sharp 41
sSak 32
sorry 28
Shinee 18
Icarus 18
Aegong 18
Terrorterran 17
Sacsri 16
soO 13
Stormgate
BeoMulf57
Dota 2
Gorgc3899
XcaliburYe250
KheZu76
420jenkins75
Counter-Strike
fl0m1569
sgares174
Other Games
gofns6778
singsing2036
B2W.Neo1392
Beastyqt651
ArmadaUGS108
KnowMe94
QueenE73
djWHEAT17
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 12 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV404
League of Legends
• Nemesis4531
Upcoming Events
OSC
1h 7m
CranKy Ducklings
21h 7m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 1h
CSO Cup
1d 3h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 5h
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
1d 20h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
Online Event
4 days
[ Show More ]
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
5 days
The PondCast
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.