• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 08:33
CEST 14:33
KST 21:33
  • 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 202550RSL 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 teams4Weekly 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
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing RSL Season 1 - Final Week
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series
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 Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series [Update] ShieldBattery: 1v1 Fastest Support! ASL20 Preliminary Maps BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/
Tourneys
CSL Xiamen International Invitational [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
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
Post Pic of your Favorite Food! Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion 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: 954 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6309

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 6307 6308 6309 6310 6311 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.
Slaughter
Profile Blog Joined November 2003
United States20254 Posts
November 24 2016 17:56 GMT
#126161
On November 25 2016 02:21 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 25 2016 02:08 Slaughter wrote:
On November 25 2016 00:42 xDaunt wrote:
On November 25 2016 00:40 farvacola wrote:
Trump's coalition won't give anyone "power for decades".......

Trump stole the Democrat's blue collar base. If he cements that with his policies and then undoes some of the hardened opposition against him from the past election, the democrats are fucked.


The question becomes who are the heirs to this new party after Trump is out of office.

And I'm guessing the pond scum of the Republican Party who obtained new-found relevance under Trump are who you expect to be those heirs?

Honestly I could see a more populist platform develop out of the current party. Probably would require some new faces but it could be done.


I have no idea who will emerge, I don't know much about younger Republican politicians. The pond scum is already sucking at the power teat though, Ala newt and Rudy. They aren't the future though.
Never Knows Best.
ZapRoffo
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States5544 Posts
November 24 2016 17:59 GMT
#126162
On November 24 2016 17:41 Dan HH wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 24 2016 17:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
Well the money got raised. rofl, now the target is $6.5m Also, they added the Ohio green party if you want to donate up to $22,700 (lookin at you farv)

The group eleborated on their thinking

One problem I see for Hillary supporters is that there's no way to believe this and also believe the idea that Hillary (or her supporters) couldn't have also potentially rigged machines in the primary(where there are much less protections).

It's essentially the same argument made by Bernie supporters in the primary, except the anomalies are less suspicious in practically every measure, there are far more protections during the general (the same people supporting Hillary we're the ones running the primary), and they keep mentioning the popular vote (like her margin isn't a result of California and New York, not the contested states)

How can the electronic vote be recounted anyway? If someone were to change the amounts, is there a way to tell? This seems like a waste of time to me. Or is the vote not secret and they can call people and ask them if they voted the way they appeared to?



Most but not all electronic voting has paper trails.


None of which explains why she wants Michigan recounted because thats all paper ballots.If you want to recount it just because it's close why not recount NH as well? thats my point.


They are counted by machine though which has software, and are never manually examined.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion man
Noidberg
Profile Joined June 2011
United States17 Posts
November 24 2016 18:41 GMT
#126163
Oh i get it now. Trump wants to sink cities so he can build them anew in his name. Its called business folks and apparently hes very good at it. Just think of the job creation we can muster due to the suffering of others, its the american way after all.

Man made climate change may not be as catastrophic as natural disasters by why speed up our demise if we can prevent it. I'm not too keen on some green energy such as solar farms and wind since they destroy wild life but seriously fuck coal. Anyone else hopeful the future of clean energy will be something like elon musks solar rooftops? Safe for the environment and its just a cool concept.
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
November 24 2016 18:47 GMT
#126164
On November 25 2016 02:56 Slaughter wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 25 2016 02:21 LegalLord wrote:
On November 25 2016 02:08 Slaughter wrote:
On November 25 2016 00:42 xDaunt wrote:
On November 25 2016 00:40 farvacola wrote:
Trump's coalition won't give anyone "power for decades".......

Trump stole the Democrat's blue collar base. If he cements that with his policies and then undoes some of the hardened opposition against him from the past election, the democrats are fucked.


The question becomes who are the heirs to this new party after Trump is out of office.

And I'm guessing the pond scum of the Republican Party who obtained new-found relevance under Trump are who you expect to be those heirs?

Honestly I could see a more populist platform develop out of the current party. Probably would require some new faces but it could be done.


I have no idea who will emerge, I don't know much about younger Republican politicians. The pond scum is already sucking at the power teat though, Ala newt and Rudy. They aren't the future though.

Almost all of the candidates of any prominence this time around were older folk too. Both parties need some new faces and neither side has truly impressed on that front. Democrats had Obama and have had a hard time finding anyone charismatic enough for a follow-up.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
ChristianS
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States3188 Posts
November 24 2016 19:15 GMT
#126165
On November 25 2016 02:21 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 25 2016 02:08 Slaughter wrote:
On November 25 2016 00:42 xDaunt wrote:
On November 25 2016 00:40 farvacola wrote:
Trump's coalition won't give anyone "power for decades".......

Trump stole the Democrat's blue collar base. If he cements that with his policies and then undoes some of the hardened opposition against him from the past election, the democrats are fucked.


The question becomes who are the heirs to this new party after Trump is out of office.

And I'm guessing the pond scum of the Republican Party who obtained new-found relevance under Trump are who you expect to be those heirs?

Honestly I could see a more populist platform develop out of the current party. Probably would require some new faces but it could be done.

Seems like we're getting ahead of ourselves here. Let's grant, for the moment, that Trump "stole the blue collar base," which seems at least approximately true for present purposes. By virtually everyone's estimation (except a few far-left liberals who think it was about race), he did this by demonizing liberal elites and campaigning against free trade. He promised people would get their manufacturing jobs back with him in office, because he would tear up NAFTA, exit the WTO, set huge tariffs on Chinese goods, etc.

Now I'm no economist, but my understanding is that economic theory is pretty unambiguous on this point: trade is good. In any economic transition there are winners and losers, but in moving toward free trade, the winners win more than the losers lose (that is, the world economy is better off as a whole). Even if you selfishly count any value produced for our foreign trade partners as worthless, we are still probably better off – in a trade, both parties engaging in the trade are better off; it's generally some third party that is losing out on business or something, but that loss is smaller than the gain experienced by those engaging in free trade.

So protectionism hurting the world economy is more or less guaranteed. Protectionism hurting the US economy as a whole is also more or less certain from economic theory. It's possible that while the economy as a whole is hurt, certain sectors might be better off. Here, presumably we're hoping for the American manufacturing to be one of those sectors, although that is by no means certain. The smart money is still on those jobs being gone for good – the inexorable forces of globalization and automation are constantly eroding the need for American manufacturing, and a protectionist policy can only slow globalization, while doing nothing to prevent automation. And even if they did get their jobs back, they would be more impacted than most by the negative economic effects:

-Prices would go up. This looks a bit like inflation, although it's not the money supply that changed, everything just got more expensive. So even if all those white, non-college-educated blue collar workers got $15/hour manufacturing jobs with benefits, they might have more trouble making ends meet than at a $10/hour McDonalds job now.

-Demand would go down. The country as a whole would have less money to spare, because stuff became more expensive. Even if American manufacturing started to pop up again, it could probably only market to other Americans, because foreign trade partners would probably raise their own tariffs in response; and even if they didn't, American manufacturers couldn't compete with foreign industry before, so there's no reason to think that would change. So the new American industry would be selling to the American market, which would already have significantly diminished in purchasing power for reasons discussed above.

-Another recession would be likely. The overall behavior of the economy has a lot of leverage and feedback effects that make it so when it falls, it tends to keep falling. As I said, establishing a protectionist trade policy would almost certainly be a blow to both the world economy as a whole and the US economy specifically; those economic losses would have a good chance to compound to an outcome even worse than the sum of its parts. Since we're discussing this in the context of whether Trump would be blamed for this, it's worth bringing up that the prior probability of a recession in the next four years isn't that likely anyway.

TL;DR: Before we can talk about Trump creating a winning coalition for decades, we first have to contend with his promise to the blue collar workers in question that he can raise them to their former economic glory, using (if his promises are to believed) protectionist trade policy. That promise seems highly dubious at best.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Robert J. Hanlon
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
November 24 2016 19:30 GMT
#126166
I disagree that Trump "stole" the blue collar vote. Hillary Clinton freely and easily gave it away. She focused on identity politics, basically said that Trump's base was a bunch of deplorable fags, and built up a "Trump SO BAD" narrative instead of making a case for herself. Trump did gain a lot of support for his anti-trade views on TPP, TTIP, and NAFTA, but people aren't unaware that he is a clown who is probably not the right person for the job. But he's the only one who was running who even offered them a helping hand.

From a general mainstream economist perspective, trade is good, yes. There are winners and losers but the overall economy probably will grow. The benefits are concentrated strongly into the hands of wealthier parties and urban dwellers, though, since they disenfranchise people who have a hard time competing on a global market. The effects of that are less immediate, but terribly bad for the economy. I wrote this earlier treatise on rural development and trade/globalization issues, not sure if you read it. Long story short, though, the reason the big companies and establishment folk support trade deals while the working class oppose them isn't one side just being stupid and short-sighted, it's based on their own self-interests.

If Trump kills the trade deals, which I believe that it's pretty clear that he intends to do, that would be a first step in giving the rural folk that got him elected a chance to rebuild their local economies. What comes after, though, is neither pleasant nor likely to happen under Trump.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15686 Posts
November 24 2016 19:41 GMT
#126167
Yeah, Trump didn't steal anything. As I have said a million times, in order for a democrat to lose Wisconsin, they need to fail massively. Wisconsin going to Trump highlights what a shit campaign Clinton ran. That's part of why I'm not super angry about this whole thing. When you got so obviously outplayed, its difficult to feel wronged.
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
November 24 2016 19:48 GMT
#126168
The way I see it, I lose with Trump, I would have lost with Clinton. Either way I lose. Best to make the best of things as they are than to bash our president to be, and figure out how to right what he does wrong next time around.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15686 Posts
November 24 2016 19:57 GMT
#126169
On November 25 2016 04:48 LegalLord wrote:
The way I see it, I lose with Trump, I would have lost with Clinton. Either way I lose. Best to make the best of things as they are than to bash our president to be, and figure out how to right what he does wrong next time around.


This is an extremely low resolution perspective. When it comes to climate change, who do you lose with the most? You are ignoring details.
blade55555
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States17423 Posts
November 24 2016 20:20 GMT
#126170
On November 25 2016 04:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 25 2016 04:48 LegalLord wrote:
The way I see it, I lose with Trump, I would have lost with Clinton. Either way I lose. Best to make the best of things as they are than to bash our president to be, and figure out how to right what he does wrong next time around.


This is an extremely low resolution perspective. When it comes to climate change, who do you lose with the most? You are ignoring details.


We're all already doomed anyway. I mean it's gotten so bad I think we'll all be dead in the next 5 years. Damn you humans!!!!!
When I think of something else, something will go here
ChristianS
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States3188 Posts
November 24 2016 20:22 GMT
#126171
On November 25 2016 04:30 LegalLord wrote:
I disagree that Trump "stole" the blue collar vote. Hillary Clinton freely and easily gave it away. She focused on identity politics, basically said that Trump's base was a bunch of deplorable fags, and built up a "Trump SO BAD" narrative instead of making a case for herself. Trump did gain a lot of support for his anti-trade views on TPP, TTIP, and NAFTA, but people aren't unaware that he is a clown who is probably not the right person for the job. But he's the only one who was running who even offered them a helping hand.

From a general mainstream economist perspective, trade is good, yes. There are winners and losers but the overall economy probably will grow. The benefits are concentrated strongly into the hands of wealthier parties and urban dwellers, though, since they disenfranchise people who have a hard time competing on a global market. The effects of that are less immediate, but terribly bad for the economy. I wrote this earlier treatise on rural development and trade/globalization issues, not sure if you read it. Long story short, though, the reason the big companies and establishment folk support trade deals while the working class oppose them isn't one side just being stupid and short-sighted, it's based on their own self-interests.

If Trump kills the trade deals, which I believe that it's pretty clear that he intends to do, that would be a first step in giving the rural folk that got him elected a chance to rebuild their local economies. What comes after, though, is neither pleasant nor likely to happen under Trump.

I must have missed it because the thread moves so fast, thanks for the link. It seems to me that you were arguing a slightly separate point, though. There and in other places, it seems like you've largely been arguing "even if you think Trump is wrong about being able to bring back those manufacturing jobs, the Democrats didn't offer any alternative plan." Basically, you were trying to answer the question of how the Democrats lost this election. And you may well be right, or at least close enough to it. It's well understood that globalization has been detrimental to the white working class in rural and urban areas alike. It's now also clear that this was one of the determining factors in this election. Much of the what-if-ing and denialism on the left going on right now ( e.g. what if there hadn't been a Comey letter?) is useless, because even if it is true that in a slightly different universe Hillary still would have won despite her deficit with white working class voters, that's not the universe we live in.

But forget the debate about whether Donald Trump "stole" the blue collar base. I only picked that language because xDaunt did; if it helps, imagine it in the context of a baseball player stealing a base (that is, it might not have been entirely on his own merit, but also because the pitcher messed up). Point is, Donald Trump apparently convinced white working class workers that he could return them to their former glory, apparently by means of protectionist trade policy.

I'm not trying to answer the question of why the Democrats lost the election, but of what happens next. And it seems to me that even if free trade did take these people's jobs away, it's very unlikely that protectionist policy could bring them back, and even more unlikely that this transition could happen within the next four or eight years. The immediate impact would almost certainly be a big economic negative that would hurt everyone, including these blue collar workers. The more long-term impact might be a new heyday of American industry, but that would be very unlikely to really get going within Trump's presidency (as you argued in your other treatise, building new industries is really, really hard, and takes a lot of time, money, and dedication). And, again, this new heyday might not happen at all. If, for instance, the detriment to the economy is large enough that everyone is worse off, and even with their manufacturing jobs back the white working class still has lower standards of living than before, it's hard to imagine they would look at Trump as win for them.

If Trump had been more measured in his promises – said that it would be a difficult transition back to domestic manufacturing, and that things would get worse before they got better – then maybe the voters wouldn't take the economic consequences quite as hard. But he didn't. He said that liberal elites were cheating them, that the establishment politicians had been selling them out, and that he would put a stop to that. That made it sound like an easy fix. When he said he'd Make America Great Again, it made it sound like we'd go back to an era where America was manufacturing goods that were bought and enjoyed around the world. If it turned out that the economy shrunk, but at least demand in the now-anemic American market was met domestically, that would still be miles short of the prosperity Trump was promising.

After this election, Trump has created kind of a reputation for doing the impossible. But there's no reason to think he can create the future he promised. The most optimistic predictions of a protectionist foreign policy are much more mixed than the "Make America Great Again" message. Even if the Democrats didn't change their messaging at all, how could Trump make that case to the working class ever again, if he didn't deliver the economic salvation he promised?
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Robert J. Hanlon
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
November 24 2016 20:30 GMT
#126172
On November 25 2016 04:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 25 2016 04:48 LegalLord wrote:
The way I see it, I lose with Trump, I would have lost with Clinton. Either way I lose. Best to make the best of things as they are than to bash our president to be, and figure out how to right what he does wrong next time around.


This is an extremely low resolution perspective. When it comes to climate change, who do you lose with the most? You are ignoring details.

Trump seems like he's ultimately going to fall in line with the Paris Accords, so there's that. Besides, it's not like no Trump = we can finally stop climate change! The other candidate likes fracking and it's a long game anyways; sooner or later we will always have more and less climate friendly presidents.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
November 24 2016 20:37 GMT
#126173
On November 25 2016 05:22 ChristianS wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 25 2016 04:30 LegalLord wrote:
I disagree that Trump "stole" the blue collar vote. Hillary Clinton freely and easily gave it away. She focused on identity politics, basically said that Trump's base was a bunch of deplorable fags, and built up a "Trump SO BAD" narrative instead of making a case for herself. Trump did gain a lot of support for his anti-trade views on TPP, TTIP, and NAFTA, but people aren't unaware that he is a clown who is probably not the right person for the job. But he's the only one who was running who even offered them a helping hand.

From a general mainstream economist perspective, trade is good, yes. There are winners and losers but the overall economy probably will grow. The benefits are concentrated strongly into the hands of wealthier parties and urban dwellers, though, since they disenfranchise people who have a hard time competing on a global market. The effects of that are less immediate, but terribly bad for the economy. I wrote this earlier treatise on rural development and trade/globalization issues, not sure if you read it. Long story short, though, the reason the big companies and establishment folk support trade deals while the working class oppose them isn't one side just being stupid and short-sighted, it's based on their own self-interests.

If Trump kills the trade deals, which I believe that it's pretty clear that he intends to do, that would be a first step in giving the rural folk that got him elected a chance to rebuild their local economies. What comes after, though, is neither pleasant nor likely to happen under Trump.

I must have missed it because the thread moves so fast, thanks for the link. It seems to me that you were arguing a slightly separate point, though. There and in other places, it seems like you've largely been arguing "even if you think Trump is wrong about being able to bring back those manufacturing jobs, the Democrats didn't offer any alternative plan." Basically, you were trying to answer the question of how the Democrats lost this election. And you may well be right, or at least close enough to it. It's well understood that globalization has been detrimental to the white working class in rural and urban areas alike. It's now also clear that this was one of the determining factors in this election. Much of the what-if-ing and denialism on the left going on right now ( e.g. what if there hadn't been a Comey letter?) is useless, because even if it is true that in a slightly different universe Hillary still would have won despite her deficit with white working class voters, that's not the universe we live in.

But forget the debate about whether Donald Trump "stole" the blue collar base. I only picked that language because xDaunt did; if it helps, imagine it in the context of a baseball player stealing a base (that is, it might not have been entirely on his own merit, but also because the pitcher messed up). Point is, Donald Trump apparently convinced white working class workers that he could return them to their former glory, apparently by means of protectionist trade policy.

I'm not trying to answer the question of why the Democrats lost the election, but of what happens next. And it seems to me that even if free trade did take these people's jobs away, it's very unlikely that protectionist policy could bring them back, and even more unlikely that this transition could happen within the next four or eight years. The immediate impact would almost certainly be a big economic negative that would hurt everyone, including these blue collar workers. The more long-term impact might be a new heyday of American industry, but that would be very unlikely to really get going within Trump's presidency (as you argued in your other treatise, building new industries is really, really hard, and takes a lot of time, money, and dedication). And, again, this new heyday might not happen at all. If, for instance, the detriment to the economy is large enough that everyone is worse off, and even with their manufacturing jobs back the white working class still has lower standards of living than before, it's hard to imagine they would look at Trump as win for them.

If Trump had been more measured in his promises – said that it would be a difficult transition back to domestic manufacturing, and that things would get worse before they got better – then maybe the voters wouldn't take the economic consequences quite as hard. But he didn't. He said that liberal elites were cheating them, that the establishment politicians had been selling them out, and that he would put a stop to that. That made it sound like an easy fix. When he said he'd Make America Great Again, it made it sound like we'd go back to an era where America was manufacturing goods that were bought and enjoyed around the world. If it turned out that the economy shrunk, but at least demand in the now-anemic American market was met domestically, that would still be miles short of the prosperity Trump was promising.

After this election, Trump has created kind of a reputation for doing the impossible. But there's no reason to think he can create the future he promised. The most optimistic predictions of a protectionist foreign policy are much more mixed than the "Make America Great Again" message. Even if the Democrats didn't change their messaging at all, how could Trump make that case to the working class ever again, if he didn't deliver the economic salvation he promised?

His promises are hyperbolic and will end up coming short, that much is clear. He might be able to open up a path for them that involves a definitively more protectionist approach, but at this point they were a forgotten group that no one was talking about within the scope of political discourse. By getting Trump elected they sent their message, now we see where we can go from here.

Of course if the Democrats do no better than just criticize Trump all the time, they could set themselves up for another stupid loss in four years. Trump being bad evidently wasn't reason enough to elect the delectably electable Hillary Clinton to office.

No one really knows what will come next. I gave some background as to what is involved in this matter and what could be done. It's time to just see what kind of administration Trump constructs and work from there, however it ends up happening.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
ChristianS
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States3188 Posts
November 24 2016 20:39 GMT
#126174
On November 25 2016 05:30 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 25 2016 04:57 Mohdoo wrote:
On November 25 2016 04:48 LegalLord wrote:
The way I see it, I lose with Trump, I would have lost with Clinton. Either way I lose. Best to make the best of things as they are than to bash our president to be, and figure out how to right what he does wrong next time around.


This is an extremely low resolution perspective. When it comes to climate change, who do you lose with the most? You are ignoring details.

Trump seems like he's ultimately going to fall in line with the Paris Accords, so there's that. Besides, it's not like no Trump = we can finally stop climate change! The other candidate likes fracking and it's a long game anyways; sooner or later we will always have more and less climate friendly presidents.

Still seems pretty low resolution to me. The gap between "supports fracking" and "appoints a head of the EPA that doesn't believe in climate change" is pretty huge. It's possible to simultaneously believe that 1) fracking is okay if practiced under the right guidelines, and 2) climate change is a big problem that we should dedicate considerable resources to addressing. It's less possible to believe 1) climate change isn't real, and may or may not be a Chinese hoax, and 2) climate change is a big problem that we should dedicate considerable resources to addressing.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Robert J. Hanlon
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
November 24 2016 20:45 GMT
#126175
On November 25 2016 05:39 ChristianS wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 25 2016 05:30 LegalLord wrote:
On November 25 2016 04:57 Mohdoo wrote:
On November 25 2016 04:48 LegalLord wrote:
The way I see it, I lose with Trump, I would have lost with Clinton. Either way I lose. Best to make the best of things as they are than to bash our president to be, and figure out how to right what he does wrong next time around.


This is an extremely low resolution perspective. When it comes to climate change, who do you lose with the most? You are ignoring details.

Trump seems like he's ultimately going to fall in line with the Paris Accords, so there's that. Besides, it's not like no Trump = we can finally stop climate change! The other candidate likes fracking and it's a long game anyways; sooner or later we will always have more and less climate friendly presidents.

Still seems pretty low resolution to me. The gap between "supports fracking" and "appoints a head of the EPA that doesn't believe in climate change" is pretty huge. It's possible to simultaneously believe that 1) fracking is okay if practiced under the right guidelines, and 2) climate change is a big problem that we should dedicate considerable resources to addressing. It's less possible to believe 1) climate change isn't real, and may or may not be a Chinese hoax, and 2) climate change is a big problem that we should dedicate considerable resources to addressing.

And if Clinton won here, do you think it likely that she could be unpopular enough to let a Trump clone win in 2020?

Look at the long game. This matter goes beyond just the this or the next election. We will have more and less pro-climate presidents, always. The macro effects of how the parties respond to getting smacked might just offer an opportunity for long-term growth that will make things work out for the better. The Clinton Democrats were taking the party in a very wrong direction and it would not be a bad thing to see them purged from relevance.

Whether or not this was the better outcome, there is plenty that can be done from here to make it better.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
ChristianS
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States3188 Posts
November 24 2016 20:50 GMT
#126176
On November 25 2016 05:45 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 25 2016 05:39 ChristianS wrote:
On November 25 2016 05:30 LegalLord wrote:
On November 25 2016 04:57 Mohdoo wrote:
On November 25 2016 04:48 LegalLord wrote:
The way I see it, I lose with Trump, I would have lost with Clinton. Either way I lose. Best to make the best of things as they are than to bash our president to be, and figure out how to right what he does wrong next time around.


This is an extremely low resolution perspective. When it comes to climate change, who do you lose with the most? You are ignoring details.

Trump seems like he's ultimately going to fall in line with the Paris Accords, so there's that. Besides, it's not like no Trump = we can finally stop climate change! The other candidate likes fracking and it's a long game anyways; sooner or later we will always have more and less climate friendly presidents.

Still seems pretty low resolution to me. The gap between "supports fracking" and "appoints a head of the EPA that doesn't believe in climate change" is pretty huge. It's possible to simultaneously believe that 1) fracking is okay if practiced under the right guidelines, and 2) climate change is a big problem that we should dedicate considerable resources to addressing. It's less possible to believe 1) climate change isn't real, and may or may not be a Chinese hoax, and 2) climate change is a big problem that we should dedicate considerable resources to addressing.

And if Clinton won here, do you think it likely that she could be unpopular enough to let a Trump clone win in 2020?

Look at the long game. This matter goes beyond just the this or the next election. We will have more and less pro-climate presidents, always. The macro effects of how the parties respond to getting smacked might just offer an opportunity for long-term growth that will make things work out for the better. The Clinton Democrats were taking the party in a very wrong direction and it would not be a bad thing to see them purged from relevance.

Whether or not this was the better outcome, there is plenty that can be done from here to make it better.

While a Clinton presidency counterfactual is way, way too big to try to evaluate here, suffice to say I think this was the last election that something like Trump's win could happen. But that's mostly with regard to racial issues; on climate change, of course, it's possible that with a Hillary win, maybe a climate change denier would have won in 2020. But it's not even clear if that would be worse than a climate change denier winning in 2016.

If we're discussing climate change, it's a win when candidates that want to do something about it win, and it's a loss when candidates who don't want to do something about it win. It really is that simple. To say "but some candidates are better and some are worse on climate change" isn't really a rebuttal. Of course we will have more and less pro-climate presidents, but that doesn't mean there's no reason to be frustrated by the less pro-climate presidents, nor does it mean we shouldn't criticize them.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Robert J. Hanlon
DarkPlasmaBall
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
United States44286 Posts
November 24 2016 20:52 GMT
#126177
On November 25 2016 05:45 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 25 2016 05:39 ChristianS wrote:
On November 25 2016 05:30 LegalLord wrote:
On November 25 2016 04:57 Mohdoo wrote:
On November 25 2016 04:48 LegalLord wrote:
The way I see it, I lose with Trump, I would have lost with Clinton. Either way I lose. Best to make the best of things as they are than to bash our president to be, and figure out how to right what he does wrong next time around.


This is an extremely low resolution perspective. When it comes to climate change, who do you lose with the most? You are ignoring details.

Trump seems like he's ultimately going to fall in line with the Paris Accords, so there's that. Besides, it's not like no Trump = we can finally stop climate change! The other candidate likes fracking and it's a long game anyways; sooner or later we will always have more and less climate friendly presidents.

Still seems pretty low resolution to me. The gap between "supports fracking" and "appoints a head of the EPA that doesn't believe in climate change" is pretty huge. It's possible to simultaneously believe that 1) fracking is okay if practiced under the right guidelines, and 2) climate change is a big problem that we should dedicate considerable resources to addressing. It's less possible to believe 1) climate change isn't real, and may or may not be a Chinese hoax, and 2) climate change is a big problem that we should dedicate considerable resources to addressing.

And if Clinton won here, do you think it likely that she could be unpopular enough to let a Trump clone win in 2020?

Look at the long game. This matter goes beyond just the this or the next election. We will have more and less pro-climate presidents, always. The macro effects of how the parties respond to getting smacked might just offer an opportunity for long-term growth that will make things work out for the better. The Clinton Democrats were taking the party in a very wrong direction and it would not be a bad thing to see them purged from relevance.

Whether or not this was the better outcome, there is plenty that can be done from here to make it better.


I don't think we can just kick the can down the road four years from now and assume everything will still be fine. Trump's presidency is going to include Scalia-level conservative justices for the next 20 years and free reign for the three Republican branches of government, and undoing scientific and social progress takes time to rebuild.
"There is nothing more satisfying than looking at a crowd of people and helping them get what I love." ~Day[9] Daily #100
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
November 24 2016 20:54 GMT
#126178
Trump seems to have backtracked on the worst of his anti-environment work, including more or less coming to terms with the Paris Accords, so at this point I mostly expect things to normalize. They will probably be worse than I would like but that was a foregone conclusion when I saw who the primary winners were.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-11-24 21:21:41
November 24 2016 20:58 GMT
#126179
On November 25 2016 05:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 25 2016 05:45 LegalLord wrote:
On November 25 2016 05:39 ChristianS wrote:
On November 25 2016 05:30 LegalLord wrote:
On November 25 2016 04:57 Mohdoo wrote:
On November 25 2016 04:48 LegalLord wrote:
The way I see it, I lose with Trump, I would have lost with Clinton. Either way I lose. Best to make the best of things as they are than to bash our president to be, and figure out how to right what he does wrong next time around.


This is an extremely low resolution perspective. When it comes to climate change, who do you lose with the most? You are ignoring details.

Trump seems like he's ultimately going to fall in line with the Paris Accords, so there's that. Besides, it's not like no Trump = we can finally stop climate change! The other candidate likes fracking and it's a long game anyways; sooner or later we will always have more and less climate friendly presidents.

Still seems pretty low resolution to me. The gap between "supports fracking" and "appoints a head of the EPA that doesn't believe in climate change" is pretty huge. It's possible to simultaneously believe that 1) fracking is okay if practiced under the right guidelines, and 2) climate change is a big problem that we should dedicate considerable resources to addressing. It's less possible to believe 1) climate change isn't real, and may or may not be a Chinese hoax, and 2) climate change is a big problem that we should dedicate considerable resources to addressing.

And if Clinton won here, do you think it likely that she could be unpopular enough to let a Trump clone win in 2020?

Look at the long game. This matter goes beyond just the this or the next election. We will have more and less pro-climate presidents, always. The macro effects of how the parties respond to getting smacked might just offer an opportunity for long-term growth that will make things work out for the better. The Clinton Democrats were taking the party in a very wrong direction and it would not be a bad thing to see them purged from relevance.

Whether or not this was the better outcome, there is plenty that can be done from here to make it better.


I don't think we can just kick the can down the road four years from now and assume everything will still be fine. Trump's presidency is going to include Scalia-level conservative justices for the next 20 years and free reign for the three Republican branches of government, and undoing scientific and social progress takes time to rebuild.

No, some things will definitely get worse. And yet there's something to be said for the other side of the coin, the issues that I would expect a Clinton presidency to botch (including the passage of those trade deals against popular opinion).

Trump won't be Hitler, and Clinton wouldn't have been our savior. We had two terrible candidates and one of them won. That one wasn't the one I voted for but the way I see it I lose either way and we have to work with what we got. If Trump is serious about some of his populist goals then I will give him a chance to put his money where his mouth is and show it to be doable.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
TanGeng
Profile Blog Joined January 2009
Sanya12364 Posts
November 24 2016 21:05 GMT
#126180
On November 25 2016 03:47 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 25 2016 02:56 Slaughter wrote:
On November 25 2016 02:21 LegalLord wrote:
On November 25 2016 02:08 Slaughter wrote:
On November 25 2016 00:42 xDaunt wrote:
On November 25 2016 00:40 farvacola wrote:
Trump's coalition won't give anyone "power for decades".......

Trump stole the Democrat's blue collar base. If he cements that with his policies and then undoes some of the hardened opposition against him from the past election, the democrats are fucked.


The question becomes who are the heirs to this new party after Trump is out of office.

And I'm guessing the pond scum of the Republican Party who obtained new-found relevance under Trump are who you expect to be those heirs?

Honestly I could see a more populist platform develop out of the current party. Probably would require some new faces but it could be done.


I have no idea who will emerge, I don't know much about younger Republican politicians. The pond scum is already sucking at the power teat though, Ala newt and Rudy. They aren't the future though.

Almost all of the candidates of any prominence this time around were older folk too. Both parties need some new faces and neither side has truly impressed on that front. Democrats had Obama and have had a hard time finding anyone charismatic enough for a follow-up.


I don't see what the problem with fracking is. Fracking is a perfectly legitimate way if not very economical way to extract oil/gas in the US. It's much better than the coal alternative from a pollution and carbon perspective.

Fracking problems are:
[*] well hole seal failure
[*] fracking fluid cleanup

The well hole sealing failure is a general problem with the oil/gas industry.
Moderator我们是个踏实的赞助商模式俱乐部
Prev 1 6307 6308 6309 6310 6311 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Esports World Cup
10:00
2025 - Day 3
Serral vs ReynorLIVE!
Maru vs Cure
herO vs Solar
Clem vs Classic
EWC_Arena7558
ComeBackTV 2265
Hui .578
TaKeTV 476
JimRising 335
Berry_CruncH335
3DClanTV 236
Rex210
CranKy Ducklings127
mcanning104
Reynor101
SpeCial81
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
EWC_Arena7558
Hui .578
JimRising 335
Rex 210
mcanning 104
Reynor 101
SpeCial 81
ProTech50
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 4638
Bisu 1968
Flash 1076
firebathero 1061
EffOrt 911
BeSt 808
Jaedong 693
Stork 368
Mini 351
Hyuk 335
[ Show more ]
Zeus 302
ggaemo 255
Last 253
Pusan 213
Soma 176
Soulkey 173
Mind 166
Snow 137
ZerO 135
Light 133
Hyun 116
ToSsGirL 102
JYJ95
JulyZerg 71
Larva 68
Dewaltoss 63
Sharp 42
sorry 30
soO 27
Sacsri 24
sas.Sziky 24
Movie 19
yabsab 19
Icarus 15
scan(afreeca) 13
ivOry 4
Terrorterran 3
Dota 2
XcaliburYe301
BananaSlamJamma244
420jenkins110
League of Legends
febbydoto11
Counter-Strike
fl0m1558
x6flipin427
zeus179
sgares138
Other Games
singsing2510
B2W.Neo1237
Beastyqt509
crisheroes345
hiko303
Fuzer 193
QueenE32
ArmadaUGS29
ZerO(Twitch)9
Organizations
StarCraft: Brood War
lovetv 7
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 10294
• WagamamaTV392
League of Legends
• Nemesis1125
• Jankos569
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
22h 27m
OSC
1d 1h
CranKy Ducklings
1d 21h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
CSO Cup
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 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
4 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
5 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
6 days
The PondCast
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.