|
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 25 2016 11:27 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Lol what. You have to be hella stupid to be spending 52 dollars for MWH of natural gas, and 65 for coal. In Alberta, at 30CAD (so way less US), the electricty producing companies are rolling in money.
I suspect some massive fudging of the numbers, and would just take the source as completely unreliable. Any person who knows any technical details of electricity production knows those numbers are a joke.
A key thing to keep in mind is in Alberta we built the power plants right next to the coal mines so the coal is extracted and put into the furnace almost immediately. This is a big money saver. Another key point is the power companies do not get to set their prices. The government does. They have to submit applications to raise rates and have a justifiable reason to do so and those applications need to be approved by parliament. And since that's public knowledge, every news organization reports it and it is purely bad press for the company.
That said, yes, numbers are being manipulated in the energy costs there. My guess is base extract and deliver cost and taxes associated with it are lumped in without any tax breaks subtracted. IDK though for sure
|
On November 25 2016 13:01 Sermokala wrote:
I think if democrats get the recount and the election goes somehow hillary's way that would cause large scale civil unrest and violence that would change the nation for the worse forever.
The recount won't change the winner of the election -- the gap is much too important in Pennsylvania, for example. If it did, though, I don't think the nation would be changed "for the worse" to a worse extent than with Trump's presidency. With regards to potential civil unrest, it would depend on Trump's reaction, although we would maybe witness some Bundy-inspired acts. In any case, Clinton would have been a great president (with obstacles facing her, though, with Republican majorities in Congress), and it would have been interesting to see her detractors be somewhat forced to stop resorting to her e-mails and to false equivalences to attack her 
|
On November 25 2016 13:08 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2016 13:01 Sermokala wrote:
I think if democrats get the recount and the election goes somehow hillary's way that would cause large scale civil unrest and violence that would change the nation for the worse forever. The recount won't change the winner of the election -- the gap is much too important in Pennsylvania, for example. If it did, though, I don't think the nation would be changed "for the worse" to a worse extent than with Trump's presidency. With regards to potential civil unrest, it would depend on Trump's reaction, although we would maybe witness some Bundy-inspired acts. In any case, Clinton would have been a great president (with obstacles facing her, though, with Republican majorities in Congress), and it would have been interesting to see her detractors be somewhat forced to stop resorting to her e-mails and to false equivalences to attack her
She would've been an awful president with more jobs lost to China.
She would've kept on pushing the SJW mentality at colleges campuses.
Neither would be beneficial to the country.
|
If it did, though, I don't think the nation would be changed "for the worse" to a worse extent than with Trump's presidency.
In any case, Clinton would have been a great president
That's a really, REALLY low bar for "great president" then. That's something i'll never understand, why americans see "their candidate" as some form of sports team. Except they don't criticise them if they "play bad", like they do in sports (edit: or any other nationality when it comes to "their team").
No, Clinton would not have been a great president. She might've not been the worst president in the US history, but again, how does that make her "a great president"?
Why, and this now is an honest question, have american people such a big problem with seeing "wrongs" on whatever political candidate they support? We saw this to a ridiculous extend with trump supporters and their helpless attempts to whitewash or justify weird racist rambles etc - but don't think for a second that HRC supporters look any different to someone not subjected to US media.
edit: that being said, she definitely would've picked "better" (from my point of view) judges for the supreme court. That's where i think trump will throw back your country decades, whereas HRC wouldn't have.
|
On November 25 2016 13:08 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2016 13:01 Sermokala wrote:
I think if democrats get the recount and the election goes somehow hillary's way that would cause large scale civil unrest and violence that would change the nation for the worse forever. The recount won't change the winner of the election -- the gap is much too important in Pennsylvania, for example. If it did, though, I don't think the nation would be changed "for the worse" to a worse extent than with Trump's presidency. With regards to potential civil unrest, it would depend on Trump's reaction, although we would maybe witness some Bundy-inspired acts. In any case, Clinton would have been a great president (with obstacles facing her, though, with Republican majorities in Congress), and it would have been interesting to see her detractors be somewhat forced to stop resorting to her e-mails and to false equivalences to attack her
Dude no one would understand who should be president and who shouldn't. People would accuse the democrats of rigging the election through the recount if Hillary became president and would accuse republicans of rigging the election if trump became president.
Once the legitimacy of the executive becomes disputed then everything goes up in smoke and becomes chaos.
I mean all the shit the worst red necks said about obama at the very least they said that he was elected president.
|
@m4ini: I wasn't saying that not being as bad as Trump is what would've made Clinton a great president, and I'm not saying either that being a great president would have meant that plenty of criticism couldn't have legitimately been leveled at her. The same is true of Obama -- I consider him to have been a great president, whose ability to implement his agenda was unfortunately severely limited at the domestic level by Republican obstructionism (and, in some case, conservative democrats), but who nevertheless can also be rightly criticized on a variety of issues. I'm not sure why you think one can't both strongly support someone and recognize that person's flaws.
On November 25 2016 13:45 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2016 13:08 kwizach wrote:On November 25 2016 13:01 Sermokala wrote:
I think if democrats get the recount and the election goes somehow hillary's way that would cause large scale civil unrest and violence that would change the nation for the worse forever. The recount won't change the winner of the election -- the gap is much too important in Pennsylvania, for example. If it did, though, I don't think the nation would be changed "for the worse" to a worse extent than with Trump's presidency. With regards to potential civil unrest, it would depend on Trump's reaction, although we would maybe witness some Bundy-inspired acts. In any case, Clinton would have been a great president (with obstacles facing her, though, with Republican majorities in Congress), and it would have been interesting to see her detractors be somewhat forced to stop resorting to her e-mails and to false equivalences to attack her Dude no one would understand who should be president and who shouldn't. People would accuse the democrats of rigging the election through the recount if Hillary became president and would accuse republicans of rigging the election if trump became president. Once the legitimacy of the executive becomes disputed then everything goes up in smoke and becomes chaos. I mean all the shit the worst red necks said about obama at the very least they said that he was elected president.
As I said, I think it would have depended on Trump's reaction to a significant extent. The 2000 election was a complete mess, but Al Gore conceded the race again after the Supreme Court ruling and urged his supporters to recognize Bush as the legitimate president-elect. I agree that it would be an even bigger shitshow in this case, but I'm simply saying that I think the Trump presidency will be even worse in its overall negative impact.
|
By the way, here's another article detailing the findings of independent researchers on Russian involvement in the election through the spreading of fake news:
Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say
The flood of “fake news” this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation.
Russia’s increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery — including thousands of botnets, teams of paid human “trolls,” and networks of websites and social-media accounts — echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia.
Two teams of independent researchers found that the Russians exploited American-made technology platforms to attack U.S. democracy at a particularly vulnerable moment, as an insurgent candidate harnessed a wide range of grievances to claim the White House. The sophistication of the Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on “fake news,” as they have vowed to do after widespread complaints about the problem.
There is no way to know whether the Russian campaign proved decisive in electing Trump, but researchers portray it as part of a broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in U.S. democracy and its leaders. The tactics included penetrating the computers of election officials in several states and releasing troves of hacked emails that embarrassed Clinton in the final months of her campaign.
“They want to essentially erode faith in the U.S. government or U.S. government interests,” said Clint Watts, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute who along with two other researchers has tracked Russian propaganda since 2014. “This was their standard mode during the Cold War. The problem is that this was hard to do before social media.”
Source
|
@m4ini: I wasn't saying that not being as bad as Trump is what would've made Clinton a great president, and I'm not saying either that being a great president would have meant that plenty of criticism couldn't have legitimately been leveled at her. The same is true of Obama -- I consider him to have been a great president, whose ability to implement his agenda was unfortunately severely limited at the domestic level by Republican obstructionism (and, in some case, conservative democrats), but who nevertheless can also be rightly criticized on a variety of issues. I'm not sure why you think one can't both strongly support someone and recognize that person's flaws.
Oh i agree, while i like Obama as a person (obviously never met him, so i guess i'm talking his charisma), i do see problems that he didn't or couldn't address. I might've phrased it incorrectly, it's not just directed at you, but HRC supporters in general. Which, and that's hardly arguable, constantly see themselves as the "righteous" supporter.
That said, seeing flaws is something that really didn't happen that much in regards to HRC. That's why supporters were so incredibly surprised about the outcome (obviously media played a role too), whereas others actually weren't that sure right from the get go. And by others i mean europeans, mexicans etc - people not "emotionally bound" to a candidate.
Again. She certainly would've been the better president in regards to the supreme court. I am without doubt there. That would not have made her a great president. It wouldn't even made her a decent president. She's not a decent person. She doesn't have decent views, or views i personally would've liked to be represented (rig an election if it suits you, ie palestine).
There is no way to know whether the Russian campaign proved decisive in electing Trump, but researchers portray it as part of a broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in U.S. democracy and its leaders. The tactics included penetrating the computers of election officials in several states and releasing troves of hacked emails that embarrassed Clinton in the final months of her campaign.
To be fair, that's on her.
|
We're going to have to agree to disagree on your assessment of her, but I think one issue that has affected how some of her supporters have been willing or unwilling to discuss her flaws is the fact that she was so caricatured by a significant portion of her opposition throughout the election season that very often discussions between her detractors and supporters were centered on accusations that her supporters simply did not recognize as valid (for example, her supposedly being "corrupt", being a "neoconservative", being a "criminal", etc.). This would prevent more fruitful discussions on her actual flaws, that I've personally seen plenty of HRC supporters debate openly in situations where the exchanges were not as polarized.
|
True, when the opposition is in full "Lock her up!" mode and you have bitter segments of your own faction who are one step away from that mode you can see why some people were circling the wagons. Everything about the two candidates was highly polarized. Most people thought they would be the best president evaaaar or they should be in jail. It feels like the appreciation for nuance and balance has been lost and people feel like they can't give any ground.
|
On November 25 2016 13:01 Sermokala wrote:
I think if democrats get the recount and the election goes somehow hillary's way that would cause large scale civil unrest and violence that would change the nation for the worse forever.
I think their goal here is to give Wisconsin to Hillary and then persuade as many electoral voters as possible to switch from Trump to Hillary.This all stinks to high heaven to me.
|
An interesting article on Trump’s transition-team adviser on financial policies and appointments, and on the general strategy the GOP might use against financial sector regulations:
Surprise: Trump’s Advisor on Wall Street Regulations is a Longtime Swamp-Dweller
President-elect Donald Trump’s transition-team adviser on financial policies and appointments, Paul Atkins, has been depicted as an ideological advocate of small government. But the ways that the Trump administration and Congressional Republicans are likely to approach financial deregulation could serve Atkins’ wallet as well as his political agenda. Like Trump himself, Atkins himself faces potential conflicts between his business dealings and his public role.
In 2009, a year after he finished his term as a Republican member of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Atkins formed Patomak Global Partners, a consulting firm headquartered on 17th Street, nestled blocks from the Hay-Adams Hotel and the south lawn of the White House. While Trump promised to “drain the swamp” of Washington, Atkins’ environs could not get any swampier. Patomak’s president is Daniel Gallagher, also a right-leaning former SEC commissioner who might be a candidate for SEC chairman under Trump. Former high-level government officials populate Patomak’s ranks.
Patomak has thrived as financial firms tried to navigate the new world of post-crisis regulations. Patomak and its counterparts, like Promontory Financial Group, are not technically lobbyists, but they exploit their connections to regulators to help their clients — banks and other financial institutions — navigate the rules. (Such consulting firms say they help clients comply with, not circumvent, the rules. A Patomak spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment.) [...]
Experts say the GOP isn’t likely to repeal Dodd Frank wholesale. Instead, they will likely chip away at it, opening up loopholes. Some changes will come from Congress, others from inside the regulatory bodies themselves. Many “elements can be dismantled in back rooms,” says Marcus Stanley, policy director of the consumer group Americans for Financial Reform.
Instead of shuttering the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the GOP-controlled Congress may change its leadership structure, shift its source of funding, and shave its budget. Instead of repealing the Volcker Rule, which prohibits banks from trading for their own account, regulators may widen the number of trades that fall outside the definition. Legislators have floated proposals to loosen derivatives trading rules. They aspire to weaken the Financial Stability Oversight Council. Congress will likely continue to trim the budgets for the SEC and the CFTC and reverse rules extending fiduciary standards to new classes of financial advisors.
Source
|
There is some irony in Trump being (rightfully) called out for his "rigged election" rhetoric then after he wins, the other side has a fair number of people who are just so desperate to avoid a Trump presidency that they are willing to throw every principle out the window just for the sake of a chance of beating Trump and/or having Hillary win.
Just goes to show you that the reality of a moral high ground for this election never existed.
|
On November 25 2016 16:03 LegalLord wrote:
There is some irony in Trump being (rightfully) called out for his "rigged election" rhetoric then after he wins, the other side has a fair number of people who are just so desperate to avoid a Trump presidency that they are willing to throw every principle out the window just for the sake of a chance of beating Trump and/or having Hillary win.
Just goes to show you that the reality of a moral high ground for this election never existed.
What are you talking about? HC has not made any move for a recount. I really do not think she wants it at all because there is no way it flips all three states. It will just make her look like a bigger loser.
The only people calling for it are the fringe and Jill S.
|
On November 25 2016 16:17 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2016 16:03 LegalLord wrote:
There is some irony in Trump being (rightfully) called out for his "rigged election" rhetoric then after he wins, the other side has a fair number of people who are just so desperate to avoid a Trump presidency that they are willing to throw every principle out the window just for the sake of a chance of beating Trump and/or having Hillary win.
Just goes to show you that the reality of a moral high ground for this election never existed. What are you talking about? HC has not made any move for a recount. I really do not think she wants it at all because there is no way it flips all three states. It will just make her look like a bigger loser. The only people calling for it are the fringe and Jill S.
Yeah, so "a fair number of people from the other side", as he mentioned in his post. He never said HC wanted a recount.
|
On November 25 2016 13:01 Sermokala wrote:
I think if democrats get the recount and the election goes somehow hillary's way that would cause large scale civil unrest and violence that would change the nation for the worse forever.
I predict the same. I think we should cut our losses and move forward. I know that sounds shitty, but if the results are altered, roughly half the country is going to figuratively (and some literally) lose their minds. I don't wanna have to arm myself and go into hiding because some fuckhead won by a razor thin margin instead of a lying career politician. Doesn't seem worth it to me.
|
On November 25 2016 13:31 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2016 13:08 kwizach wrote:On November 25 2016 13:01 Sermokala wrote:
I think if democrats get the recount and the election goes somehow hillary's way that would cause large scale civil unrest and violence that would change the nation for the worse forever. The recount won't change the winner of the election -- the gap is much too important in Pennsylvania, for example. If it did, though, I don't think the nation would be changed "for the worse" to a worse extent than with Trump's presidency. With regards to potential civil unrest, it would depend on Trump's reaction, although we would maybe witness some Bundy-inspired acts. In any case, Clinton would have been a great president (with obstacles facing her, though, with Republican majorities in Congress), and it would have been interesting to see her detractors be somewhat forced to stop resorting to her e-mails and to false equivalences to attack her She would've been an awful president with more jobs lost to China. She would've kept on pushing the SJW mentality at colleges campuses. Neither would be beneficial to the country.
jobs are lost and not coming back anyways. And at this point they're not going to china anymore, usually india/se asia.
I don't think president has that much influence on the SJWs at campus; that's young kids being idiots. It's gonna persist regardless.
|
On November 25 2016 22:30 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2016 13:31 RealityIsKing wrote:On November 25 2016 13:08 kwizach wrote:On November 25 2016 13:01 Sermokala wrote:
I think if democrats get the recount and the election goes somehow hillary's way that would cause large scale civil unrest and violence that would change the nation for the worse forever. The recount won't change the winner of the election -- the gap is much too important in Pennsylvania, for example. If it did, though, I don't think the nation would be changed "for the worse" to a worse extent than with Trump's presidency. With regards to potential civil unrest, it would depend on Trump's reaction, although we would maybe witness some Bundy-inspired acts. In any case, Clinton would have been a great president (with obstacles facing her, though, with Republican majorities in Congress), and it would have been interesting to see her detractors be somewhat forced to stop resorting to her e-mails and to false equivalences to attack her She would've been an awful president with more jobs lost to China. She would've kept on pushing the SJW mentality at colleges campuses. Neither would be beneficial to the country. jobs are lost and not coming back anyways. And at this point they're not going to china anymore, usually india/se asia. I don't think president has that much influence on the SJWs at campus; that's young kids being idiots. It's gonna persist regardless.
1.
The point is to not continue losing jobs.
2.
Obama himself spewed the wage gap myth on TV so you are wrong on that. The current generation of leftist utilizes the education system to brainwash kids into sensitive victims, paint the country into an awful place and that's not something to be proud of.
|
On November 25 2016 23:33 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2016 22:30 zlefin wrote:On November 25 2016 13:31 RealityIsKing wrote:On November 25 2016 13:08 kwizach wrote:On November 25 2016 13:01 Sermokala wrote:
I think if democrats get the recount and the election goes somehow hillary's way that would cause large scale civil unrest and violence that would change the nation for the worse forever. The recount won't change the winner of the election -- the gap is much too important in Pennsylvania, for example. If it did, though, I don't think the nation would be changed "for the worse" to a worse extent than with Trump's presidency. With regards to potential civil unrest, it would depend on Trump's reaction, although we would maybe witness some Bundy-inspired acts. In any case, Clinton would have been a great president (with obstacles facing her, though, with Republican majorities in Congress), and it would have been interesting to see her detractors be somewhat forced to stop resorting to her e-mails and to false equivalences to attack her She would've been an awful president with more jobs lost to China. She would've kept on pushing the SJW mentality at colleges campuses. Neither would be beneficial to the country. jobs are lost and not coming back anyways. And at this point they're not going to china anymore, usually india/se asia. I don't think president has that much influence on the SJWs at campus; that's young kids being idiots. It's gonna persist regardless. 1. The point is to not continue losing jobs. 2. Obama himself spewed the wage gap myth on TV so you are wrong on that. The current generation of leftist utilizes the education system to brainwash kids into sensitive victims, paint the country into an awful place and that's not something to be proud of.
most job losses are due to automation, you can't stop that, it'll happen anyways.
and protectionism will merely end up costing americans lots of money. the jobs saved are only saved by being subsidized.
do you have a citation on obama reciting that point?
also pretty sure he's not the one who truly found out that number first. People gonna claim inaccurate stuff regardless of who's president, and some will believe it. That isn't gonna change because of a different president. and the presence or absence of one talking point isn't going to change the dynamics of stupid people claiming stupid things. In particular embracing a philosophy of ignoring facts is likely to make the problem worse not better.
|
On November 25 2016 23:33 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2016 22:30 zlefin wrote:On November 25 2016 13:31 RealityIsKing wrote:On November 25 2016 13:08 kwizach wrote:On November 25 2016 13:01 Sermokala wrote:
I think if democrats get the recount and the election goes somehow hillary's way that would cause large scale civil unrest and violence that would change the nation for the worse forever. The recount won't change the winner of the election -- the gap is much too important in Pennsylvania, for example. If it did, though, I don't think the nation would be changed "for the worse" to a worse extent than with Trump's presidency. With regards to potential civil unrest, it would depend on Trump's reaction, although we would maybe witness some Bundy-inspired acts. In any case, Clinton would have been a great president (with obstacles facing her, though, with Republican majorities in Congress), and it would have been interesting to see her detractors be somewhat forced to stop resorting to her e-mails and to false equivalences to attack her She would've been an awful president with more jobs lost to China. She would've kept on pushing the SJW mentality at colleges campuses. Neither would be beneficial to the country. jobs are lost and not coming back anyways. And at this point they're not going to china anymore, usually india/se asia. I don't think president has that much influence on the SJWs at campus; that's young kids being idiots. It's gonna persist regardless. 1. The point is to not continue losing jobs. 2. Obama himself spewed the wage gap myth on TV so you are wrong on that. The current generation of leftist utilizes the education system to brainwash kids into sensitive victims, paint the country into an awful place and that's not something to be proud of.
I don't understand why people think he is going to bring back american jobs when virtually every economist has said that if he implements half of the stuff he said then we are going to have a serious downturn in the economy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
