|
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 November 05 2016 04:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 04:50 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 04:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:34 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 04:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:14 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 04:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:03 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 03:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:51 Madkipz wrote:
[quote]
Your mistake is judging him for what was just common practice and good business moves at the time.
He wasn't a politician back then. You can't judge him on that basis because he wasn't running for office or taking public money. When you're taking public money the people become complicit in your actions and you're held to a higher standard.
So basically ignore everything Trump actually is because this is his first time as a politician, and he automatically becomes the perfect candidate who matches your political visions. Whether you think he's a "poster boy" for the financial elite doesn't sound important when they all endorse or support Clinton. Yeah, I suppose if you don't like the financial elite supporting Clinton, it's much easier just to go straight to the financial elite. Do you mean the hundred-millionaire Clintons? At some point are you planning to loop around to why blue collar workers should vote for the rich business owner who has been exploiting them for decades? Or is this just a contrarian thing from you? I was trying to lead you to realize how nonsensical it is to suggest they need to vote for the hundred-millionaire over the billionaire because being so relatively impoverished she must care more. What you have got to do is start thinking in terms of their actual plans and what they might achieve. That includes asking why corporate interests support Clinton this much. That's where to make the case either way. Not their net worth. Cool, except I wasn't arguing that blue collar workers should vote for Clinton because she's less corporate (though, in general, I would say democrat policies help the lower class much more than republican ones do, and that largely applies to Clinton's policy plans as well). I'm saying that those lower class workers are voting against something...by voting for it. And that's delusional. They're voting against the elite by voting for someone who's rich, this was your point, yes? You're still failing to dissociate someone's identity from their candidacy but the blue collar workers know better. There's also revolutionary undertones here about capitalism and exploitation. Both of which are represented by Trump. The billionaire capitalist who make money exploiting people.
And you can't practically navigate a 21st century capitalist republic with this revolutionary thing about how businesses are evil because the worker doesn't control everything.
On November 05 2016 04:56 oneofthem wrote:
oh right. she has billionaire backers therefore corrupt. but billionaires not bad. she is just bad.
Nobody said the word corrupt. You need to peruse until your strawmen get closer to paraphrasing.
|
On November 05 2016 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 04:54 Gorsameth wrote:On November 05 2016 04:50 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 04:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:34 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 04:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:14 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 04:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:03 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 03:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
So basically ignore everything Trump actually is because this is his first time as a politician, and he automatically becomes the perfect candidate who matches your political visions. Whether you think he's a "poster boy" for the financial elite doesn't sound important when they all endorse or support Clinton. Yeah, I suppose if you don't like the financial elite supporting Clinton, it's much easier just to go straight to the financial elite. Do you mean the hundred-millionaire Clintons? At some point are you planning to loop around to why blue collar workers should vote for the rich business owner who has been exploiting them for decades? Or is this just a contrarian thing from you? I was trying to lead you to realize how nonsensical it is to suggest they need to vote for the hundred-millionaire over the billionaire because being so relatively impoverished she must care more. What you have got to do is start thinking in terms of their actual plans and what they might achieve. That includes asking why corporate interests support Clinton this much. That's where to make the case either way. Not their net worth. Cool, except I wasn't arguing that blue collar workers should vote for Clinton because she's less corporate (though, in general, I would say democrat policies help the lower class much more than republican ones do, and that largely applies to Clinton's policy plans as well). I'm saying that those lower class workers are voting against something...by voting for it. And that's delusional. They're voting against the elite by voting for someone who's rich, this was your point, yes? You're still failing to dissociate someone's identity from their candidacy but the blue collar workers know better. There's also revolutionary undertones here about capitalism and exploitation. Both of which are represented by Trump. The billionaire capitalist who make money exploiting people. You mean living the American Dream? No but seriously, making billions exploiting people is something people aspire to in America. They tend to disagree with the phrasing "exploiting people" and generally prefer some variation of "giving desperate people an opportunity" though. Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 04:54 oneofthem wrote:On November 05 2016 04:41 GreenHorizons wrote:I'm saying that those lower class workers are voting against something...by voting for it. And that's delusional.
Literally what Clinton supporters are doing when it comes to campaign finance, among other issues. what do you mean. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/just because she is not for some dumb particular alternatives doesnt mean she accepts the current situation She's using every thing democrats have ever said was wrong with campaign finance, so people are supporting the personification of what they say they are against regarding that issue.
Hillary is the American Dream, from little beginnings to one of the most powerful political figures in the country.
Trump was born with a silver spoon in his ass and never had to do an honest day of work in his life.
|
On November 05 2016 03:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 03:51 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 05 2016 01:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 00:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 05 2016 00:03 The_Templar wrote:
[quote]
Don't be ridiculous. There won't be a civil war over the result of a single election. Has there been a time since the civil war when America was this divided? And IMO the division is getting worse not better. This is a textbook case of, "My time is the most dramatic/intense ever!" Many people (particularly younger individuals) do this a lot; they see strife or difficulty in their time and think that it could have never been this bad, without having any real perspective on what was really happening throughout history. There have been some pretty awful times in American history. This definitely isn't one of the worst. The economy is doing fairly well, crime is down, etc. etc. etc. The only thing that makes it seem bad is social media-driven echo chambers that constantly perpetuate lies and myths to galvanize each side's unbridled anger at each other. I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse. Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest. Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment. Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back. And Trump is the poster boy for the financial elite? You know, the one that hires the immigrant labourers, outsources his products, doesn't pay his workers and hasn't paid a dime in taxes. But clearly he's the one that will represent the poor factory worker. Your mistake is judging him for what was just common practice and good business moves at the time. He wasn't a politician back then. You can't judge him on that basis because he wasn't running for office or taking public money. When you're taking public money the people become complicit in your actions and you're held to a higher standard. So basically ignore everything Trump actually is because this is his first time as a politician, and he automatically becomes the perfect candidate who matches your political visions.
I never said to ignore everything. I said it was his money. His company. He didn't invent the rules. The politics of the time encouraged such practices. Why shouldn't he take advantage of that? He merely played the game by the rules given to him by the government.
The people who could have stopped him are the politicians at the time who let such practices become commonplace and then never sought to correct them because it benefited them too.
Hillary on the other hand is a longtime political entity. Her entire life is built around taxpayer money, and that makes the public complicit in her actions. She is currently using that power and her political ties to avoid a thorough FBI investigation.
Do you think Trump loosing 900 million and this qualifying him for a taxbreak is somehow damning? is it just as bad as lying to the FBI about your private email server? She is the very image of "too big to fail" or "above the law." Snowden as a whistleblower comparison fled to russia. There are other examples too. http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/hillary-clinton-email-10-punished-less/
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 05 2016 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 04:54 Gorsameth wrote:On November 05 2016 04:50 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 04:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:34 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 04:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:14 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 04:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:03 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 03:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
So basically ignore everything Trump actually is because this is his first time as a politician, and he automatically becomes the perfect candidate who matches your political visions. Whether you think he's a "poster boy" for the financial elite doesn't sound important when they all endorse or support Clinton. Yeah, I suppose if you don't like the financial elite supporting Clinton, it's much easier just to go straight to the financial elite. Do you mean the hundred-millionaire Clintons? At some point are you planning to loop around to why blue collar workers should vote for the rich business owner who has been exploiting them for decades? Or is this just a contrarian thing from you? I was trying to lead you to realize how nonsensical it is to suggest they need to vote for the hundred-millionaire over the billionaire because being so relatively impoverished she must care more. What you have got to do is start thinking in terms of their actual plans and what they might achieve. That includes asking why corporate interests support Clinton this much. That's where to make the case either way. Not their net worth. Cool, except I wasn't arguing that blue collar workers should vote for Clinton because she's less corporate (though, in general, I would say democrat policies help the lower class much more than republican ones do, and that largely applies to Clinton's policy plans as well). I'm saying that those lower class workers are voting against something...by voting for it. And that's delusional. They're voting against the elite by voting for someone who's rich, this was your point, yes? You're still failing to dissociate someone's identity from their candidacy but the blue collar workers know better. There's also revolutionary undertones here about capitalism and exploitation. Both of which are represented by Trump. The billionaire capitalist who make money exploiting people. You mean living the American Dream? No but seriously, making billions exploiting people is something people aspire to in America. They tend to disagree with the phrasing "exploiting people" and generally prefer some variation of "giving desperate people an opportunity" though. Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 04:54 oneofthem wrote:On November 05 2016 04:41 GreenHorizons wrote:I'm saying that those lower class workers are voting against something...by voting for it. And that's delusional.
Literally what Clinton supporters are doing when it comes to campaign finance, among other issues. what do you mean. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/just because she is not for some dumb particular alternatives doesnt mean she accepts the current situation She's using every thing democrats have ever said was wrong with campaign finance, so people are supporting the personification of what they say they are against regarding that issue. this answer was dumb months ago, it still is.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 05 2016 05:06 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 03:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:51 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 05 2016 01:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 00:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
[quote]
Has there been a time since the civil war when America was this divided?
And IMO the division is getting worse not better. This is a textbook case of, "My time is the most dramatic/intense ever!" Many people (particularly younger individuals) do this a lot; they see strife or difficulty in their time and think that it could have never been this bad, without having any real perspective on what was really happening throughout history. There have been some pretty awful times in American history. This definitely isn't one of the worst. The economy is doing fairly well, crime is down, etc. etc. etc. The only thing that makes it seem bad is social media-driven echo chambers that constantly perpetuate lies and myths to galvanize each side's unbridled anger at each other. I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse. Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest. Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment. Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back. And Trump is the poster boy for the financial elite? You know, the one that hires the immigrant labourers, outsources his products, doesn't pay his workers and hasn't paid a dime in taxes. But clearly he's the one that will represent the poor factory worker. Your mistake is judging him for what was just common practice and good business moves at the time. He wasn't a politician back then. You can't judge him on that basis because he wasn't running for office or taking public money. When you're taking public money the people become complicit in your actions and you're held to a higher standard. So basically ignore everything Trump actually is because this is his first time as a politician, and he automatically becomes the perfect candidate who matches your political visions. I never said to ignore everything. I said it was his money. His company. He didn't invent the rules. The politics of the time encouraged such practices. Why shouldn't he take advantage of that? He merely played the game by the rules given to him by the government. The people who could have stopped him are the politicians at the time who let such practices become commonplace and then never sought to correct them because it benefited them too. Hillary on the other hand is a longtime political entity. Her entire life is built around taxpayer money, and that makes the public complicit in her actions. She is currently using that power and her political ties to avoid a thorough FBI investigation. Do you think Trump loosing 900 million and this qualifying him for a taxbreak is somehow damning? is it just as bad as lying to the FBI about your private email server? She is the very image of "too big to fail" or "above the law." Snowden as a whistleblower comparison fled to russia. There are other examples too. http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/hillary-clinton-email-10-punished-less/
you should take the statements you've made them and categorize them into "things i made up" and "actual facts". you'll notice an interesting pattern.
User was warned for this post
EDIT:
trump losing 900m is sketchy in several ways. first is the fact that a purportedly brilliant businessman can lose that much money in the first place. second is the way he weaseled his way into making that a benefit. having a NOL carryforward itself is an established thing and it makes sense for startup businesses who sink capital in prior before revenue ramps and for orgs which have sales cycles that exceed a year. trump's case is arguably one where this wasn't really intended for, though it's fine. where the real problem comes is is how he disposed of that loss by shifting it to others and hiding his debt forgiveness, which is reportable income.
oh yeah, and screwing over your investors, contractors and employees isnt standard business practice.
|
On November 05 2016 05:06 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 03:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:51 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 05 2016 01:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 00:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
[quote]
Has there been a time since the civil war when America was this divided?
And IMO the division is getting worse not better. This is a textbook case of, "My time is the most dramatic/intense ever!" Many people (particularly younger individuals) do this a lot; they see strife or difficulty in their time and think that it could have never been this bad, without having any real perspective on what was really happening throughout history. There have been some pretty awful times in American history. This definitely isn't one of the worst. The economy is doing fairly well, crime is down, etc. etc. etc. The only thing that makes it seem bad is social media-driven echo chambers that constantly perpetuate lies and myths to galvanize each side's unbridled anger at each other. I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse. Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest. Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment. Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back. And Trump is the poster boy for the financial elite? You know, the one that hires the immigrant labourers, outsources his products, doesn't pay his workers and hasn't paid a dime in taxes. But clearly he's the one that will represent the poor factory worker. Your mistake is judging him for what was just common practice and good business moves at the time. He wasn't a politician back then. You can't judge him on that basis because he wasn't running for office or taking public money. When you're taking public money the people become complicit in your actions and you're held to a higher standard. So basically ignore everything Trump actually is because this is his first time as a politician, and he automatically becomes the perfect candidate who matches your political visions. I never said to ignore everything. I said it was his money. His company. He didn't invent the rules. The politics of the time encouraged such practices. Why shouldn't he take advantage of that? He merely played the game by the rules given to him by the government. The people who could have stopped him are the politicians at the time who let such practices become commonplace and then never sought to correct them because it benefited them too. Hillary on the other hand is a longtime political entity. Her entire life is built around taxpayer money, and that makes the public complicit in her actions. She is currently using that power and her political ties to avoid a thorough FBI investigation. Do you think Trump loosing 900 million and this qualifying him for a taxbreak is somehow damning? is it just as bad as lying to the FBI about your private email server? She is the very image of "too big to fail" or "above the law." Snowden as a whistleblower comparison fled to russia. There are other examples too. http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/hillary-clinton-email-10-punished-less/
So your logic is that the business man with billions of dollars in assets which are still up and running, which his family will take over after he's elected (which is not legal, but that's neither here nor there), and which he will return to after his stint as President, will change all the business rules that he has abused.
|
The mere fact that there's a poll out there showing Trump tied with Hillary in Michigan should give democrats pause.
|
could say the same thing about georgia
map looks good for clinton right now, with nevada and north carolina which puts her at 284.
|
|
|
On November 05 2016 05:37 plasmidghost wrote:
Is it safe to assume that whoever wins Florida will likely win the election?
If Hillary wins Florida she wins. If Trump does, he has a chance.
Problem here is that some states that are usually battleground states are not in play.
|
If Clinton wins Florida she wins, Trump needs much more than Florida
|
On November 05 2016 05:06 Madkipz wrote:
Hillary on the other hand is a longtime political entity. Her entire life is built around taxpayer money, and that makes the public complicit in her actions.
The Clintons made most of their money from donors to the Clinton Foundation, not through taxpayer money.
|
On November 05 2016 05:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 05:06 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 03:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:51 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On November 05 2016 01:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
This is a textbook case of, "My time is the most dramatic/intense ever!"
Many people (particularly younger individuals) do this a lot; they see strife or difficulty in their time and think that it could have never been this bad, without having any real perspective on what was really happening throughout history.
There have been some pretty awful times in American history. This definitely isn't one of the worst. The economy is doing fairly well, crime is down, etc. etc. etc. The only thing that makes it seem bad is social media-driven echo chambers that constantly perpetuate lies and myths to galvanize each side's unbridled anger at each other. I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse. Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest. Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment. Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back. And Trump is the poster boy for the financial elite? You know, the one that hires the immigrant labourers, outsources his products, doesn't pay his workers and hasn't paid a dime in taxes. But clearly he's the one that will represent the poor factory worker. Your mistake is judging him for what was just common practice and good business moves at the time. He wasn't a politician back then. You can't judge him on that basis because he wasn't running for office or taking public money. When you're taking public money the people become complicit in your actions and you're held to a higher standard. So basically ignore everything Trump actually is because this is his first time as a politician, and he automatically becomes the perfect candidate who matches your political visions. I never said to ignore everything. I said it was his money. His company. He didn't invent the rules. The politics of the time encouraged such practices. Why shouldn't he take advantage of that? He merely played the game by the rules given to him by the government. The people who could have stopped him are the politicians at the time who let such practices become commonplace and then never sought to correct them because it benefited them too. Hillary on the other hand is a longtime political entity. Her entire life is built around taxpayer money, and that makes the public complicit in her actions. She is currently using that power and her political ties to avoid a thorough FBI investigation. Do you think Trump loosing 900 million and this qualifying him for a taxbreak is somehow damning? is it just as bad as lying to the FBI about your private email server? She is the very image of "too big to fail" or "above the law." Snowden as a whistleblower comparison fled to russia. There are other examples too. http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/hillary-clinton-email-10-punished-less/ So your logic is that the business man with billions of dollars in assets which are still up and running, which his family will take over after he's elected (which is not legal, but that's neither here nor there), and which he will return to after his stint as President, will change all the business rules that he has abused.
Note that Trump himself, at the debates, NEVER said he would change ANY of the things he took advantage of. Only that Clinton never changed them. I mean, I wouldn't expect him to change things even if did say he would, but when he hasn't even said that? No way it's changing.
His tax policy is basically making himself millions of dollars without fixing any problems in the tax system.
|
On November 05 2016 05:46 Lazare1969 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 05:06 Madkipz wrote:
Hillary on the other hand is a longtime political entity. Her entire life is built around taxpayer money, and that makes the public complicit in her actions. The Clintons made most of their money from donors to the Clinton Foundation, not through taxpayer money.
Money that they cannot use for personal stuff. Because its in the Foundation, a charity.
Doing what Trump does with his foundation is actually not legal.
|
On November 05 2016 05:30 xDaunt wrote:
The mere fact that there's a poll out there showing Trump tied with Hillary in Michigan should give democrats pause.
It would give me more pause if the other 4 Michigan polls showed anything similar.
|
|
|
On November 05 2016 05:30 xDaunt wrote:
The mere fact that there's a poll out there showing Trump tied with Hillary in Michigan should give democrats pause.
Little less scary give the pollster skews R in 538, so it's a Clinton +2. But not a great sign and shows the tightening definitely isn't reversing
|
On November 05 2016 05:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 05:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 05:06 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 03:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:51 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:
[quote]
I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse.
Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest. Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment. Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back. And Trump is the poster boy for the financial elite? You know, the one that hires the immigrant labourers, outsources his products, doesn't pay his workers and hasn't paid a dime in taxes. But clearly he's the one that will represent the poor factory worker. Your mistake is judging him for what was just common practice and good business moves at the time. He wasn't a politician back then. You can't judge him on that basis because he wasn't running for office or taking public money. When you're taking public money the people become complicit in your actions and you're held to a higher standard. So basically ignore everything Trump actually is because this is his first time as a politician, and he automatically becomes the perfect candidate who matches your political visions. I never said to ignore everything. I said it was his money. His company. He didn't invent the rules. The politics of the time encouraged such practices. Why shouldn't he take advantage of that? He merely played the game by the rules given to him by the government. The people who could have stopped him are the politicians at the time who let such practices become commonplace and then never sought to correct them because it benefited them too. Hillary on the other hand is a longtime political entity. Her entire life is built around taxpayer money, and that makes the public complicit in her actions. She is currently using that power and her political ties to avoid a thorough FBI investigation. Do you think Trump loosing 900 million and this qualifying him for a taxbreak is somehow damning? is it just as bad as lying to the FBI about your private email server? She is the very image of "too big to fail" or "above the law." Snowden as a whistleblower comparison fled to russia. There are other examples too. http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/hillary-clinton-email-10-punished-less/ So your logic is that the business man with billions of dollars in assets which are still up and running, which his family will take over after he's elected (which is not legal, but that's neither here nor there), and which he will return to after his stint as President, will change all the business rules that he has abused. Note that Trump himself, at the debates, NEVER said he would change ANY of the things he took advantage of. Only that Clinton never changed them. I mean, I wouldn't expect him to change things even if did say he would, but when he hasn't even said that? No way it's changing. His tax policy is basically making himself millions of dollars without fixing any problems in the tax system.
IIRC Hillary actually voted to close that loophole Trump took advantage of.
Of course, that doesn't mean she'll bother with some of the other loopholes...
|
On November 05 2016 05:53 plasmidghost wrote:
I wish I knew enough to determine which polls are good and which ones aren't so I could actually have a way to see odds
use 538s ranking
|
On November 05 2016 05:53 plasmidghost wrote:
I wish I knew enough to determine which polls are good and which ones aren't so I could actually have a way to see odds
This is not a polling issue but a statistics issue.
X total data
Each poll takes X/Y amount of data with each poll having a different Y.
Each poll also has a +/- when it comes to bias.
So the best is to look at each poll, make adjustments based on bias, and then integrate them in some way to show a result. Overall likelihood based on the average of all polls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
