EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5739
| 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. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On October 23 2016 06:07 a_flayer wrote: Well, I do agree with what it tries to do to some extent. It is frustrating that there are so many regulations, no matter what they might be worth in the end. If a rule like this forces the government somehow to find a way to simplify the situation, that could be beneficial. But obviously the way it is put here is a bit in the absurd. I can see arguments for simplifying the individual income tax code. But simplifying regulations for the sake of simplifying regulations is shortsighted, nonsensical, and counterproductive-especially if you do it on a "number of regulations" basis. What, so if studies find out lead levels actually need to be lower, or some other chemical, we need to delete two other regulations for no reason whatsoever? It's gibberish. Regulations are complicated because it turns out keeping people from dying and keeping business from abusing the trust of people is complicated. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On October 23 2016 05:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: You really think pro-choice and gay marriage proponents invoke God as much as pro-life and traditional marriage advocates? Not all of social progress is summed up in those two issues. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On October 23 2016 05:46 a_flayer wrote: I'd say that's about true. Very often people zoom in on one specific part of the speech and repeat it endlessly. Reading through the whole thing of his policies, there are only like 4 or 5 parts that really turn me off. I don't have a solid of a grasp to consider some of the others, but there's also a few that seem to hit the right spot regarding term limits and lobbyists. Not sure if it would have the desired effect, but it might be beneficial to the governing process. Add some reversing of citizens united and you could have a decent hotfix to the system. Maybe another way to reduce corporate influence... Maybe people can discuss these issues? I'm happy to discuss issues, though I'll probably be echoing the statements other people have already made. 1. term limits have been tried in some places, they mostly don't work out that well in practice. 2. dumb, shows ignorance of the topic. first reduce the amount of work they have to do, THEN cut down on how many of them there are. 3. dumb, a hard and fast rule which does nothing to identify which regulations are good and which are bad; has an end state of 0 regulation, and would just lead to paralysis, like the sequester. 4. has some merit, there are a lot of existing rules raound lobbyists, I wonder what they are. 5. lifetime seems a bit long, maybe 20-30 years would be sufficient. I wonder how much this actually happens (and from which gov'ts and lobbying for what, like our allies hiring lobbyists to help with their diplomatic efforts in our country doesn't seem like a problem) 6. pretty sure there's already some pretty strong limits on foreign money in us elections. iirc he had some other proposals, but no need to do them all at once. In general: having a list of things you'd like done is easy, most of the posters here could make up a list of 5+ good policies easily, the hard part is getting them passed into law. Also in some cases the devil's in the details that a vague and general position doesn't get into. having vague points that sound good is easy, having things that work when you've looked close at the actual implementation challenges, and the fineries of an issue, is much harder. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On October 23 2016 05:46 a_flayer wrote: I'd say that's about true. Very often people zoom in on one specific part of the speech and repeat it endlessly. Reading through the whole thing of his policies, there are only like 4 or 5 parts that really turn me off. I don't have a solid of a grasp to consider some of the others, but there's also a few that seem to hit the right spot regarding term limits and lobbyists. Not sure if it would have the desired effect, but it might be beneficial to the governing process. Add some reversing of citizens united and you could have a decent hotfix to the system. Maybe another way to reduce corporate influence... Maybe people can discuss these issues? This one also seemed disastrous. SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure Even if you don't care for action on climate change, the idea of canceling in progress payments and investments should be a huge red flag both for the economic impact it would have as those programs tank, and because of the damage it does to a country's reputation. | ||
|
KOFgokuon
United States14912 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9248 Posts
On October 23 2016 06:37 plasmidghost wrote: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/ Three polls released today have Trump ahead, on average, by 2/3 of a percent, compared to polls 1-2 weeks ago that had Clinton as far as 14 points ahead. I'm quite concerned to say the least That's a meaningless comparison, Clinton wasn't ahead a week ago in any of those three. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On October 23 2016 06:51 Logo wrote: This one also seemed disastrous. Even if you don't care for action on climate change, the idea of canceling in progress payments and investments should be a huge red flag both for the economic impact it would have as those programs tank, and because of the damage it does to a country's reputation. Oh dear god I didn't see that one. But what does environmental infrastructure entail? I'm probably trying to read far too much into the scribbles of a 5 year old. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On October 23 2016 06:37 plasmidghost wrote: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/ Three polls released today have Trump ahead, on average, by 2/3 of a percent, compared to polls 1-2 weeks ago that had Clinton as far as 14 points ahead. I'm quite concerned to say the least Latimes poll is constructed in such a way that it will have a systematic bias since they sample one population and re-poll them continuously. That's the least meaningful poll to look at raw numbers-wise, but should be examined trend-wise (and it's basically trending Clinton lately). It's fascinating that IBD/TPP is showing such a close race, though, because that's almost incompatible with the batch of state polls released today. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On October 23 2016 07:06 TheTenthDoc wrote: Latimes poll is constructed in such a way that it will have a systematic bias since they sample one population and re-poll them continuously. That's the least meaningful poll to look at raw numbers-wise, but should be examined trend-wise (and it's basically trending Clinton lately). It's fascinating that IBD/TPP is showing such a close race, though, because that's almost incompatible with the batch of state polls released today. Just as important as polling(possibly moreso) is trends on the early voting in the key states and except for Iowa and Ohio all of those are looking really good for the Clinton campaign (like blowout territory good) | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On October 23 2016 07:25 Adreme wrote: Just as important as polling(possibly moreso) is trends on the early voting in the key states and except for Iowa and Ohio all of those are looking really good for the Clinton campaign (like blowout territory good) Where are you seeing these blowout numbers? | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4456 Posts
On October 23 2016 07:00 Nevuk wrote: I thought the LA times look has flat out admitted they are about 5 points more Trump leaning on average by some interpretations. 538 poll analysis has them at +2 Trump. What really matters though is turnout.I'm not seeing anywhere near the enthusiasm for Clinton that Obama had in 08 or even 12. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4456 Posts
http://theweek.com/speedreads/656889/oprah-reminds-people-dont-have-like-clinton-vote-not-coming-over-house | ||
|
PassiveAce
United States18076 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
| ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
On October 23 2016 08:43 Barrin wrote: Maybe this has already been posted, but on the note of not needing to like candidates to vote for them: I've voted third party last two elections, but both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are just too damn clueless, as John Oliver displays above. #lesserof4evils /sigh It is just the fourth time it is posted. Or 5th? | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
| ||
| ||
