• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 05:42
CEST 11:42
KST 18:42
  • 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 202568RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced2BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8
StarCraft 2
General
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Server Blocker Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond)
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
Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced Simple editing of Brood War save files? (.mlx) BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance
Strategy
[G] Mineral Boosting Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile
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
Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Post Pic of your Favorite Food!
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread 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
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale 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
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 732 users

Herman Cain - Page 15

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 13 14 15 16 17 29 Next All
Kiarip
Profile Joined August 2008
United States1835 Posts
October 16 2011 23:09 GMT
#281
On October 17 2011 08:07 cskalias.pbe wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 17 2011 07:35 Kiarip wrote:
Money in itself isn't wealth, it's what you spend the money ON that's wealth.


I don't necessarily disagree that we should be moving more towards a consumption based tax, but I don't believe your statement is what is known as a a technical definition. Seems more like a false assumption to prove your points.

Does your "unspent" money also involve things like cash in interest bearing accounts or invesments?


Ok, but even if you have interest on your CASH... it's still worthless to you until you spend it, and if you get mroe of it via investing, and then spend more than you originally had you're gonna pay more taxes, because you're spending more.

And lets not forget that while the money is being saved in the bank or w.e for the interest, it's put to use by having people loan it and try to start/expand their businesses.
Kiarip
Profile Joined August 2008
United States1835 Posts
October 16 2011 23:11 GMT
#282
On October 17 2011 08:00 BlackJack wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 17 2011 07:35 Kiarip wrote:
On October 17 2011 07:17 BlackJack wrote:
On October 16 2011 16:51 Kiarip wrote:


peter schiff discusses what 9 9 9 plan actually does


I thought this guy was pretty cool after the whole "Peter Schiff was right" video but this is just so dumb. He basically starts by saying "liberals think this is a regressive tax but their is a flaw in that thinking." What's the flaw that he goes on to describe? That the rich are the job creators and they need more money to create more jobs. That's not a flaw in the logic, that's just saying "yes it is a regressive tax but regressive taxes are awesome!"

The truth is there is no flaw in the logic. Poor people spend 100% of their income and rich people don't. Their tax rate will be higher, period. Too bad he couldn't just come out and tell the truth instead of trying to spin it like any other piece of crap politician.


... yeah there IS a flaw in logic.

Because if a rich person is spending as much as a poor person, he's only getting as much benefit out of his "rich-ness" as much as a poor person is getting out of his....

Money in itself isn't wealth, it's what you spend the money ON that's wealth. If a rich person wants to over-indulge and spend his income, then he will pay more taxes than a person who's poorer, but if he's not spending his money... he's not actually BENEFITTING from his wealth, so why should he be taxed?


Bill Gates could spend 1% of his income and I am sure he will get more benefit out of his richness than a poor person that spends 100%.

But again, that is not an argument that it's not a regressive tax. I'm not even sure what that is an argument for. Like I said, there is no flaw in thinking that this is a regressive tax because IT IS a regressive tax.


Well a regressive tax is just what people in favor of the "progressive tax" call the flat tax.

It's in fact a flat tax. i do think that maybe it's reasonable given the shitpile we're currently in to temporarily institute a "progressive tax," as long as it's also spending and not income based.
BlackJack
Profile Blog Joined June 2003
United States10495 Posts
October 16 2011 23:37 GMT
#283
On October 17 2011 08:11 Kiarip wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 17 2011 08:00 BlackJack wrote:
On October 17 2011 07:35 Kiarip wrote:
On October 17 2011 07:17 BlackJack wrote:
On October 16 2011 16:51 Kiarip wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iJvtQpyx1A

peter schiff discusses what 9 9 9 plan actually does


I thought this guy was pretty cool after the whole "Peter Schiff was right" video but this is just so dumb. He basically starts by saying "liberals think this is a regressive tax but their is a flaw in that thinking." What's the flaw that he goes on to describe? That the rich are the job creators and they need more money to create more jobs. That's not a flaw in the logic, that's just saying "yes it is a regressive tax but regressive taxes are awesome!"

The truth is there is no flaw in the logic. Poor people spend 100% of their income and rich people don't. Their tax rate will be higher, period. Too bad he couldn't just come out and tell the truth instead of trying to spin it like any other piece of crap politician.


... yeah there IS a flaw in logic.

Because if a rich person is spending as much as a poor person, he's only getting as much benefit out of his "rich-ness" as much as a poor person is getting out of his....

Money in itself isn't wealth, it's what you spend the money ON that's wealth. If a rich person wants to over-indulge and spend his income, then he will pay more taxes than a person who's poorer, but if he's not spending his money... he's not actually BENEFITTING from his wealth, so why should he be taxed?


Bill Gates could spend 1% of his income and I am sure he will get more benefit out of his richness than a poor person that spends 100%.

But again, that is not an argument that it's not a regressive tax. I'm not even sure what that is an argument for. Like I said, there is no flaw in thinking that this is a regressive tax because IT IS a regressive tax.


Well a regressive tax is just what people in favor of the "progressive tax" call the flat tax.

It's in fact a flat tax. i do think that maybe it's reasonable given the shitpile we're currently in to temporarily institute a "progressive tax," as long as it's also spending and not income based.


The numbers are flat for everyone but what people actually pay in taxes won't be flat for everyone.
Kiarip
Profile Joined August 2008
United States1835 Posts
October 16 2011 23:39 GMT
#284
On October 17 2011 08:37 BlackJack wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 17 2011 08:11 Kiarip wrote:
On October 17 2011 08:00 BlackJack wrote:
On October 17 2011 07:35 Kiarip wrote:
On October 17 2011 07:17 BlackJack wrote:
On October 16 2011 16:51 Kiarip wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iJvtQpyx1A

peter schiff discusses what 9 9 9 plan actually does


I thought this guy was pretty cool after the whole "Peter Schiff was right" video but this is just so dumb. He basically starts by saying "liberals think this is a regressive tax but their is a flaw in that thinking." What's the flaw that he goes on to describe? That the rich are the job creators and they need more money to create more jobs. That's not a flaw in the logic, that's just saying "yes it is a regressive tax but regressive taxes are awesome!"

The truth is there is no flaw in the logic. Poor people spend 100% of their income and rich people don't. Their tax rate will be higher, period. Too bad he couldn't just come out and tell the truth instead of trying to spin it like any other piece of crap politician.


... yeah there IS a flaw in logic.

Because if a rich person is spending as much as a poor person, he's only getting as much benefit out of his "rich-ness" as much as a poor person is getting out of his....

Money in itself isn't wealth, it's what you spend the money ON that's wealth. If a rich person wants to over-indulge and spend his income, then he will pay more taxes than a person who's poorer, but if he's not spending his money... he's not actually BENEFITTING from his wealth, so why should he be taxed?


Bill Gates could spend 1% of his income and I am sure he will get more benefit out of his richness than a poor person that spends 100%.

But again, that is not an argument that it's not a regressive tax. I'm not even sure what that is an argument for. Like I said, there is no flaw in thinking that this is a regressive tax because IT IS a regressive tax.


Well a regressive tax is just what people in favor of the "progressive tax" call the flat tax.

It's in fact a flat tax. i do think that maybe it's reasonable given the shitpile we're currently in to temporarily institute a "progressive tax," as long as it's also spending and not income based.


The numbers are flat for everyone but what people actually pay in taxes won't be flat for everyone.


With respect to what they spend it's flat. With respect to they earn it can be but probably won't... nothing wrong with encouraging people to save anyways.
jjbothman
Profile Joined June 2011
United States6 Posts
October 16 2011 23:55 GMT
#285
The 9% sales tax is what is considered to be regressive as poorer individuals spend a greater percentage of their income thus causing them to pay a greater effective percentage of their income on sales taxes
Kiarip
Profile Joined August 2008
United States1835 Posts
October 16 2011 23:59 GMT
#286
On October 17 2011 08:55 jjbothman wrote:
The 9% sales tax is what is considered to be regressive as poorer individuals spend a greater percentage of their income thus causing them to pay a greater effective percentage of their income on sales taxes


Well you can call it whatever you want I guess. It's still more economically sound.
Deja Thoris
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
South Africa646 Posts
October 17 2011 00:01 GMT
#287
I'm sorry but that guys a joke.

He put his foot completely in his mouth with the muslim comment and I'm sure plenty more gems will be dug up now that hes thrown himself into the spotlight.

His policies also seem retarded. It's easy to make grand promises but I don't think they will stand up to the reality test.
cskalias.pbe
Profile Joined April 2010
United States293 Posts
October 17 2011 00:07 GMT
#288
On October 17 2011 08:09 Kiarip wrote:
And lets not forget that while the money is being saved in the bank or w.e for the interest, it's put to use by having people loan it and try to start/expand their businesses.


Yeah I agree that the financial system exists to facilitate transactions that don't want to spend money now and those that do (for houses/small businesses, whatever). I don't disagree with you there. Although its an oversimplification to suggest that deposits necessarily go towards starting/expanding businesses and giving out loans. The current system isn't perfect. It allows much of these deposits to go toward proprietary trading, but I think I'm going on a tangent...

You are basically arguing that by incentivizing increased deposits we are in fact increasing loans to business to improve the economy, but I think this is logically fallacious. By incentivizing increased deposits you are actually .... incentivizing increased deposits! People would rather park that money at the bank than start new businesses themselves. What you really want to do is make parking money at the bank no better than keeping it under your mattress: you gain no interest so why not put your money in places where you CAN get returns like a small business. This is actually along the lines of what Bernanke is trying to do (disincentivize holding cash because it gains so little interest so people consume/invest and companies can cheaply take out loans to better infrastructure).

Again, I'm not really against a tax that is more consumption based (depending on what you consider to be "consumption"). I just don't understand how you can argue that money is "worthless" until you "spend" it when it seems to serves a purpose as a vehicle for investing in other products or as a vehicle for liquidity.




Signet
Profile Joined March 2007
United States1718 Posts
October 17 2011 00:14 GMT
#289
On October 17 2011 08:11 Kiarip wrote:
Well a regressive tax is just what people in favor of the "progressive tax" call the flat tax.

It's in fact a flat tax. i do think that maybe it's reasonable given the shitpile we're currently in to temporarily institute a "progressive tax," as long as it's also spending and not income based.

Progressive tax = as your income increases, you pay a higher %
Flat tax = no matter what your income, you pay the same %
Regressive tax = as your income increases, you pay a lower %
Wegandi
Profile Joined March 2011
United States2455 Posts
October 17 2011 00:15 GMT
#290
Wanting to tax the rich more is as morally bankrupt as wanting to tax the poor, or the middle income earners more. The goal is not to tax anyone, especially not to raise taxes on anyone. What it boils down to is your philosophy on what the role of Government ought to be. We could get rid of the Federal Income Tax and go back to the year 2000 spending and have a surplus. There should never be any reason ever, to either increase taxes on anyone, or to institute a new tax. In politics today there is usually a false dichotomy portrayed by people who are unable to see through the forest.

It is either increase taxes on the rich, or on the non-rich (rich is subjective and is different for each person, thereby giving rise to societal conflict when people look to the Gun (the Government is the Gun)). The actual solution is to confine Government, especially the Federal Government to limited precise purposes (such as to ensure Free-Trade amongst the states, or in their times, to regulate interstate commerce (regulate = to make regular in 1789!), maintain a limited Navy, and establish commerce and peaceful relations to other Nations). In doing so we return power to the individual and to communities, and thus, can eliminate the vast majority of Federal taxation. The problem is an expenditure problem which is a symptom of the appetite of the average American for an out of control Government whether it is Warfare or Welfare. Ideally, a return to Confederated States would be optimal (An improved Articles of Confederation that does not centralize Government like the Constitution -- more akin to Swiss Confederation and Independent Cantons (States/Communities)).

This requires a profound enlightenment among the people. Put down the TV folks, and start picking up books on philosophy, economics, morality, the State, etc. In order to improve the country, your community, or even just your next-door neighbor, you have to improve yourself as an individual. Without individual desire and change, nothing will get accomplished.

Every American should be reading Voltaire, De Tocqueville, Locke, Etienne De la Boetie, William Graham Sumner, the Anti-Federalist Papers, Richard Overton and the Levellers, Frederic Bastiat, Leonard Read, Carl Menger, etc.
Thank you bureaucrats for all your hard work, your commitment to public service and public good is essential to the lives of so many. Also, for Pete's sake can we please get some gun control already, no need for hand guns and assault rifles for the public
Kiarip
Profile Joined August 2008
United States1835 Posts
October 17 2011 00:17 GMT
#291
On October 17 2011 09:07 cskalias.pbe wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 17 2011 08:09 Kiarip wrote:
And lets not forget that while the money is being saved in the bank or w.e for the interest, it's put to use by having people loan it and try to start/expand their businesses.


Yeah I agree that the financial system exists to facilitate transactions that don't want to spend money now and those that do (for houses/small businesses, whatever). I don't disagree with you there. Although its an oversimplification to suggest that deposits necessarily go towards starting/expanding businesses and giving out loans. The current system isn't perfect. It allows much of these deposits to go toward proprietary trading, but I think I'm going on a tangent...

You are basically arguing that by incentivizing increased deposits we are in fact increasing loans to business to improve the economy, but I think this is logically fallacious. By incentivizing increased deposits you are actually .... incentivizing increased deposits! People would rather park that money at the bank than start new businesses themselves. What you really want to do is make parking money at the bank no better than keeping it under your mattress: you gain no interest so why not put your money in places where you CAN get returns like a small business. This is actually along the lines of what Bernanke is trying to do (disincentivize holding cash because it gains so little interest so people consume/invest and companies can cheaply take out loans to better infrastructure).

Again, I'm not really against a tax that is more consumption based (depending on what you consider to be "consumption"). I just don't understand how you can argue that money is "worthless" until you "spend" it when it seems to serves a purpose as a vehicle for investing in other products or as a vehicle for liquidity.







Oh yes I agree. But if everyone puts money in bank and no one wants to take loans, then the banks will be forced to lower rates, and then people will consider to take out loans to actually invest, because lower interest rates means that there's less incentive to save money. But this will only happen once there's in fact a large supply of money.

Notice that right now the rates are low, when they should be high, the debt is huge so logically the supply of moeny should be really low, and so banks should charge more for loans, but they don't becasue the FED suppresses the rates.


The rates will first need to rise dramatically, and then when there's finally a larger supply of money (which corresponds to a supply of unused resources in the marketplace) the rates will drop and peopel will take out money to buy up these resources and try to do something with them (which can result in job creation.)


Note that right now the rates are low which does in fact signify a large supply of money (the FED printing it,) but the large supply of money does NOT correspond to a large supply of resources or products, in facts the productivity is down, but the savings aren't up so if anything there's a lack of resources in the marketplace, but the easy money supply has resulted in the enormous debts and mal-investments which resulted in bubbles.

So yeah, you're right a sales tax will encourage savings for everyone, so the money won't be immediately borrowed, but if people stop wanting to borrow money then the savings will accumulate and the banks will decrease the interest rates, which will result in real growth, so eventually the money IS going to be lent out.
Dapper_Cad
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United Kingdom964 Posts
October 17 2011 15:55 GMT
#292
I can't be sure but some of these post might better fit the A look at the 9-9-9 Tax Code thread.

On Herman Cain's ties to the Koch brothers and Americans for Prosperity.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/long-ties-to-koch-brothers-key-to-cains-campaign/2011/10/16/gIQAKTLPoL_story.html
But he is never making short-term prediction, everyone of his prediction are based on fundenmentals, but he doesn't exactly know when it will happen... So using these kind of narrowed "who-is-right" empirical analysis makes little sense.
koreasilver
Profile Blog Joined June 2008
9109 Posts
October 19 2011 00:36 GMT
#293
http://www.rferl.org/content/herman_cain_not_focused_on_ubeki-beki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan/24356264.html

This man would make America the laughing stock of the world.
CurLy[]
Profile Joined August 2010
United States759 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-10-19 17:51:45
October 19 2011 17:50 GMT
#294
\/ Open me \/
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]


This looks like a good plan....



if you an aspiring millionaire.
Great pasta mom, very Korean. Even my crown leans to the side. Gangsta. --------->
Holophonist
Profile Joined December 2010
United States297 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-10-20 03:05:22
October 20 2011 03:04 GMT
#295
On October 20 2011 02:50 CurLy[] wrote:
\/ Open me \/
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]


This looks like a good plan....



if you an aspiring millionaire.


Do you know anything about how stats and numbers are manipulated so they look cool in a chart for people like you to parade around on the internet?

Those amounts are in actual dollars, not % or share or anything like that. A flat decrease across the board would generate a similar chart simply because the top 1% pay more because they make more. Understand? If everybody got a 5% tax break, but you put it in actual dollar amounts on the chart, it would look like it's extremely skewed in the rich's favor, even though everybody got the same tax break.

Not to mention he's conservative, of course he wants the rich to pay less than they currently are.
Just like my Grandpa used to say, "Never forget that the... thing.. and there was like.... a guy with this. Hmmm......"
Oreo7
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States1647 Posts
October 20 2011 03:59 GMT
#296
I like Cain, if only for the entertainment factor he adds to the Debates.

I'm a democrat, so I disagree with him on most everything, but I'll admit he's got charisma.
Stork HerO and Protoss everywhere - redfive on bnet
Reedjr
Profile Joined April 2011
United States228 Posts
October 20 2011 04:35 GMT
#297
On October 20 2011 12:04 Holophonist wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 20 2011 02:50 CurLy[] wrote:
\/ Open me \/
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]


This looks like a good plan....



if you an aspiring millionaire.


Do you know anything about how stats and numbers are manipulated so they look cool in a chart for people like you to parade around on the internet?

Those amounts are in actual dollars, not % or share or anything like that. A flat decrease across the board would generate a similar chart simply because the top 1% pay more because they make more. Understand? If everybody got a 5% tax break, but you put it in actual dollar amounts on the chart, it would look like it's extremely skewed in the rich's favor, even though everybody got the same tax break.

Not to mention he's conservative, of course he wants the rich to pay less than they currently are.


But this chart shows it's not an actual tax break and that 80% of people will actually pay more of their income in taxes. If all of the numbers went down, you might have a point. But they don't.
TutsiRebel
Profile Joined August 2011
United States172 Posts
October 20 2011 05:25 GMT
#298
On October 20 2011 12:04 Holophonist wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 20 2011 02:50 CurLy[] wrote:
\/ Open me \/
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]


This looks like a good plan....



if you an aspiring millionaire.


Do you know anything about how stats and numbers are manipulated so they look cool in a chart for people like you to parade around on the internet?

Those amounts are in actual dollars, not % or share or anything like that. A flat decrease across the board would generate a similar chart simply because the top 1% pay more because they make more. Understand? If everybody got a 5% tax break, but you put it in actual dollar amounts on the chart, it would look like it's extremely skewed in the rich's favor, even though everybody got the same tax break.

Not to mention he's conservative, of course he wants the rich to pay less than they currently are.



I can tell you about what I see... I'll have to pay around 4k more a year in taxes if Cain's plan goes through


nothanksbro
I can bhop irl
koreasilver
Profile Blog Joined June 2008
9109 Posts
October 20 2011 05:51 GMT
#299
On October 20 2011 12:04 Holophonist wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 20 2011 02:50 CurLy[] wrote:
\/ Open me \/
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]


This looks like a good plan....



if you an aspiring millionaire.


Do you know anything about how stats and numbers are manipulated so they look cool in a chart for people like you to parade around on the internet?

Those amounts are in actual dollars, not % or share or anything like that. A flat decrease across the board would generate a similar chart simply because the top 1% pay more because they make more. Understand? If everybody got a 5% tax break, but you put it in actual dollar amounts on the chart, it would look like it's extremely skewed in the rich's favor, even though everybody got the same tax break.

Not to mention he's conservative, of course he wants the rich to pay less than they currently are.

Seems to me that no matter how you put it, most people will be paying more in taxes out of this. The only break is for people that already have more money than is needed to live comfortably.
darthfoley
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
United States8003 Posts
October 26 2011 01:38 GMT
#300
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/herman-cain-makes-the-worst-campaign-ad-ever

LOL what the fuck is that?
watch the wall collide with my fist, mostly over problems that i know i should fix
Prev 1 13 14 15 16 17 29 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 18m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 216
StarCraft: Brood War
Bisu 666
Larva 481
ToSsGirL 326
firebathero 302
Mind 234
Zeus 222
Free 195
EffOrt 178
Dewaltoss 87
Soulkey 75
[ Show more ]
ZerO 58
Hyun 49
ggaemo 49
Shinee 32
Movie 26
Rush 16
zelot 12
ivOry 9
Dota 2
XcaliburYe654
League of Legends
JimRising 506
Counter-Strike
shoxiejesuss362
edward78
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor181
Other Games
singsing1569
Happy345
Fuzer 324
crisheroes253
Beastyqt96
ZerO(Twitch)10
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick958
StarCraft: Brood War
lovetv 7
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH289
• StrangeGG 29
• LUISG 25
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota2206
League of Legends
• Jankos1002
Upcoming Events
CranKy Ducklings
18m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4h 18m
CSO Cup
6h 18m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
8h 18m
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
23h 18m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 4h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 8h
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
Online Event
3 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
4 days
[ Show More ]
The PondCast
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Korean StarCraft League
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Esports World Cup 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
BSL Team Wars
CSLPRO Last Chance 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

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.