|
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 October 29 2016 16:38 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
There's really too many points there for me to comment on them all.
Thanks for responding, I just wanted you to substantiate claims instead of yelling random Clinton-hate messages.
Has Hillary blamed the economic problems on Bush? Who have they been blaming?
I thought it was pretty common knowledge that Democrats blamed Bush entirely for the GFC? Not that i am stating he is in anyway blameless, just repeating that they cannot blame him still for any further economic issues.
Here is 538s take on it entitled "The Blame Bush era may be at an end" - 2014
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-blame-bush-era-may-be-at-an-end/
Interesting, I've never heard of this stuff. It's also super weird that a majority of people think that Obama didn't inherit the debt. That just blows my mind. How is that even possible. Isn't this some sort of relative bias in effect?
Show nested quote +You say there's an issue with the debt, but his plan is to increase the debt? His plan is to print money.This is how fiat currencies die.I never said he could tackle the US debt, I said nobody can.Just don't pretend Obama is presiding over some amazing economic recovery when it took him 10 trillion dollars to deliver the weakest economic performance since Hoover is all I am saying.
Fair point, but then by opposing Obama so strongly here you're kind of arguing that Trump would be someone who could deliver a stronger economic performance than Obama, which is hard to believe and harder to back up. I don't think most people think Obama has been amazing, but I really can't say that a reasonable person would say Obama has been "disastrous", since he definitely inherited the depression and has improved the economy, however little.
You say Hoover, but Hoover also presided over the depression. Don't you think there's a correlation here?
Invading Libya without congressional approval.Totally illegal.You talk of Assad yet fail to mention every time the US has forcefully removed a dictator the outcome has been worse.Libya was the richest per capita country in North Africa now it is generating hundreds of thousands of refugees per year.That is not a successful outcome.I believe in a more non-interventionist foreign policy so i disagree with Trump increasing military spending.The USA has spent over 5 trillion in the middle east since 9/11.You cannot spin this as anything other than disastrous.The best option in Syria is for the USA to pull out, including stopping funding for so called rebels.Bombing the Syrian army during a cease fire like they did a month back is a war crime.
Cool, so it seems like you disagree with the US being in the Middle East, and what happened the Libya, and nothing positive coming out of the 5 trillion in spending, in fact just stirring the pot more.
But I have to bring up that it was the Bush administrations that brought the US to the Middle East. So Obama inherited the situation, where Hillary was appointed SoS. So for sure the public told the US to leave the Middle East, so Obama pulled out, causing this situation now. What do you believe was the correct strategy then? Because right now it looks like the US fucked up leaving, and is trying to fund the people they believe should be in charge of Syria. Do you think that they should be completely hands-off and let whoever else (ISIS, Assad likely) be in charge? Because that is the consequence of leaving right now, being realistic about the current situation.
With that in mind, do you think that they are purposefully funding rebels who are committing war crimes? Or do you think that the fractured state of the rebel factions means that the US weapons are ending up in the wrong hands? I don't like any of this, but again being realistic, what is a good strategy? I don't think increasing military expenditure over the last 3?5? did anything or was correct, but I can't see how decreasing it would help the situation at all either. Again it's a complex situation where I don't believe you can just say "sorry no more money and weapons". Do you think that pulling out with help? Do you think that pulling out would make things worse? Are you okay with ISIS/Assad being in charge? You're completely fine with letting them handle it themselves completely alone even though we kind of made it that way?
I'm not familiar with Libya so I can't comment on that. But can you see that this whole Middle East fiasco can be disastrous but also probably an extremely reasonable response given the situation?
Show nested quote +How has globalism been a failure? Like specifically how? What are the specific instances you're talking about? Globalism means all sorts of things. Are you not a fan of out-sourcing? Has your job become redundant? Do you feel like your low-middle class hasn't enjoyed any financial security improvements because of "globalism"? Why do you think going backwards on globalism is the solution as opposed to better policies? Why do you assume i am low middle class? The end goal of globalism is to put more power in the hands of fewer people, namely international organisations like the UN, IMF, WTO etc.I think power and decision making is better realised at a local level which is impossible when you're governed top down from an organisation like the EU or UN.Also one other thing I believe it's impossible to have a welfare state and open borders, you really need to decide between one and the other.
I was actually flip-flopping between saying "low-middle-upper" and "low/middle/upper" but decided I don't think the upper class was affected so I removed it without fixing the ambiguity oops. Never meant to assume your class.
I'll have to read up on globalism. Interesting idea, but I'm not sure using a single word like globalism makes sense given how complex the world is. A lot of legislation already occurs at the state-level. Are you saying it should be even more local? That seems hard. The UN and the EU don't really have power, they're just mutual agreements between countries. The US ignores UN actions all the time already. Anyways I'll have to read up on globalism.
I guess you prefer a more typically conservative welfare state and that's why you align with Trump's anti-immigration stance more closely than Clinton's open borders?
On October 29 2016 19:27 RvB wrote:Please point me to all the research which says cutting taxes doesn't help and more specifically corporate taxes.
I'm not really a finances guy but this came from my little attention to Canadian finances and a little bit of googling.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/12/new-study-confirms-that-lower-corporate-tax-rates-dont-create-jobs.html
http://development.lawofwork.ca/?p=3055
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2011/05/03/do-tax-cuts-create-jobs/#3d28627e2450
It seems like it's a very left vs right debate so there's probably some contention depending on where you lie....
|
On October 30 2016 06:55 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 06:11 ChristianS wrote:
There's something very bizarre about American politics, that a country of people who – by nearly any objective measure you might care to choose – are some of the most blessed people in the history of the world, can be so perpetually convinced that they are on the verge of utter destruction. When we say "utter disaster", we mean something more like "getting knocked down to about Spain's level and having no idea how to cope".
Even then, knocked down to Spain's level in what terms? Economic production? Military power? ...Cultural achievement? In what area are we seeing signs of this decline?
|
On October 30 2016 05:38 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 05:34 NukeD wrote:On October 30 2016 03:46 LegalLord wrote:
There was absolutely nothing Comey could have done that wouldn't get half the country to be pissed off at the FBI. This entire investigation was a losing proposition. Not rlly. Everyone would be somewhat satisfied with some degree of negligence charge. What about those that would complain that it wasn't strict enough or those that would complain that the FBI decided to influence the outcome of an election?
Well those people dont make up half of the country.
|
The gamble meme needs to die.
Trump is not a gamble. Know the saying "the house always wins"? It means that if you play the odds long enough, then you will lose, guaranteed.
Horrifies me to think people are willing to throw things like the economy, foreign relations, immigration, taxes, etc. all into a grab bag and say it's okay to fuck up half of those badly as long as he fixes the other half.
|
Political corruption is bad and people shouldn't be able to commit crimes and get away with it because of political connections. But we shouldn't start charging anyone with crimes based on public opinion. The rule of law is designed to combat mob justice.
|
On October 30 2016 06:59 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 03:14 oneofthem wrote:
btw most of the rest of the world would welcome a more robust u.s. fp stance, certainly europeans. obama style aloofness is not building relationships. this idea that hrc is going to mess up a few relations is basically blame america first priors Which europeans are you talking about ? I welcome the change in FP that Obama represented, it was a blessing after the fiasco that was Bush. Yes, the US will always be criticized, because some people out there think somehow that the US has to be the father of the world and save everyone and prevent death and all, but the task - helping people and pushing for democratic agenda - is impossible considering the world as it is. This is actually something people don't want to acknowledge (that most of the "rebels" fighting Assad are islamic radicals at this point) because they somehow want to believe that there is a good solution in Syria and that their opposition to Russia is rational, while most of the democratic opposition to Assad has died out months if not years ago.
This is entirely irrationnal. I thought people understood, after the arabic revolts, that a massive revolt without any kind of progressive philosophy is not a revolution and should not be instantly supported.
I haven't heard any news of this, could you link something? Did it die naturally? How was this in relation to the gassing?
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-assad-benefited-from-ghouta-2014-8
On October 30 2016 07:07 Plansix wrote:
Political corruption is bad and people shouldn't be able to commit crimes and get away with it because of political connections. But we shouldn't start charging anyone with crimes based on public opinion. The rule of law is designed to combat mob justice.
I agree with this. It's hard to tell though when corruption is well hidden and entrenched.
|
In this case I'm not even sold on the crime itself. If the server lead to someone death, people being at risk or sort of substantive damage of American interests, I might be on board with the claims of corruption. But entire investigation has been all bluster with very little substance. Its about "mismanagement of top secret emails" but no one can really tell us exactly what dangerous secrets were exposed. Or even prove that they were exposed.
|
On October 30 2016 07:25 Plansix wrote:
In this case I'm not even sold on the crime itself. If the server lead to someone death, people being at risk or sort of substantive damage of American interests, I might be on board with the claims of corruption. But entire investigation has been all bluster with very little substance. Its about "mismanagement of top secret emails" but no one can really tell us exactly what dangerous secrets were exposed. Or even prove that they were exposed.
The attempts to dodge and cover up make this much worse. She took responsibility at the absolute last minute.
|
|
|
On October 30 2016 07:25 Plansix wrote:
In this case I'm not even sold on the crime itself. If the server lead to someone death, people being at risk or sort of substantive damage of American interests, I might be on board with the claims of corruption. But entire investigation has been all bluster with very little substance. Its about "mismanagement of top secret emails" but no one can really tell us exactly what dangerous secrets were exposed. Or even prove that they were exposed.
You think its a good idea to tell the public which top secrets have been exposed? Eh
|
That does nothing to change my mind on the subject. Finding out that Colin Powell used an AOL account during his time in office tells me this was an ongoing issue no one gave a shit about until the SoS was someone running for President. I am fully aware of Clinton's desire for privacy, but that is nothing new to me or a lot of people. If they had found something, I would care. But right now the Republican's investigation into Clinton has been going on for longer than the 9/11 commission and Watergate. And it will stop when she leaves political office.
And at that point, they will start to investigate Cory Booker and any other Democrat they thing could make a run at the White House.
On October 30 2016 07:38 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 07:25 Plansix wrote:
In this case I'm not even sold on the crime itself. If the server lead to someone death, people being at risk or sort of substantive damage of American interests, I might be on board with the claims of corruption. But entire investigation has been all bluster with very little substance. Its about "mismanagement of top secret emails" but no one can really tell us exactly what dangerous secrets were exposed. Or even prove that they were exposed. You think its a good idea to tell the public which top secrets have been exposed? Eh
If you want a criminal conviction, yeah. Evidence is the cornerstone of law. Without any evidence if was exposed to anyone, then there is no proof of harm that would warrant criminal charges.
|
Why does a Michigan politics website have a .au url? And why post this instead of the original Detroit news site?
Because the actual source says something completely different from this shit website. Bravo.
|
|
|
On October 30 2016 07:33 biology]major wrote:
The attempts to dodge and cover up make this much worse. She took responsibility at the absolute last minute.
Also, her defense to the FBI under oath boiled down to "I was too incompetent to be able to knowingly commit that crime".
|
On October 30 2016 07:43 ticklishmusic wrote:Why does a Michigan politics website have a .au url? And why post this instead of the original Detroit news site? Because the actual source says something completely different from this shit website. Bravo.
I also question the validity of that site. It's other articles seem to have a theme.
|
We're going to make it folks! Meme magic has triumphed!
|
"the rebels are evil" logic in the Syria conflict is pretty ridiculous given that Assad has killed people in the hundred thousands. Naturally every opposition in the country is legitimised if your own government attacks you with chemical weapons. Not to mention of course that Assad opportunistically empowered ISIS and radical forces when they are fighting other rebel groups.
I don't really get how "they are islamic rebels!" is an argument. Well.. it's Syria what did people expect, Shinto rebels?
|
Michigan doesn't have early voting. You can send an absentee ballot but you have to meet the requirements. One of those is if you are 60 years or older etc. Possibly this group of voters doesn't favor Clinton. Bizarre how far some people are willing to go to confirm their own biases. It's not like you can remake reality by posting stuff like this. Notice how nettles dropped the IBD poll since it moved 5+ points in Clinton's favor since last he was talking about it.
|
On October 30 2016 08:07 CobaltBlu wrote:
Michigan doesn't have early voting. You can send an absentee ballot but you have to meet the requirements. One of those is if you are 60 years or older etc. Possibly this group of voters doesn't favor Clinton. Bizarre how far some people are willing to go to confirm their own biases. It's not like you can remake reality by posting stuff like this. Notice how nettles dropped the IBD poll since it moved 5+ points in Clinton's favor since last he was talking about it.
If cherry picking were an Olympic sport he'd stockpile some extra gold
|
Trump is taking full advantage of this, I think if the national lead gets closer within 1-2 points then the electoral map suddenly is unpredictable. The most recent national poll has Clinton up 5, so in the next 3-4 days if we see that cut significantly then it's a new ball game. The Clinton campaign is in a complete bind, they praised the shit out of Comey earlier and now look like hypocrites for criticizing him, what can they really do? If Comey doesn't clarify in the next week AND Trump doesn't fuck up, I think this election will probably go back to 50/50.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
