• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 15:04
CEST 21:04
KST 04:04
  • 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
Serral wins EWC 202534Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 202510Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202580RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15
Community News
[BSL 2025] H2 - Team Wars, Weeklies & SB Ladder8EWC 2025 - Replay Pack4Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced50BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Serral wins EWC 2025 Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 2025 Classic: "It's a thick wall to break through to become world champ" Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation
Tourneys
LiuLi Cup Weeklies and Monthlies Info Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) TaeJa vs Creator Bo7 SC Evo Showmatch Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $10,000 live event
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 484 Magnetic Pull Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced Which top zerg/toss will fail in qualifiers? BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ 2025 Season 2 Ladder map pool
Tourneys
[ASL20] Online Qualifiers Day 2 [ASL20] Online Qualifiers Day 1 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues Small VOD Thread 2.0
Strategy
[G] Mineral Boosting Muta micro map competition Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Beyond All Reason Total Annihilation Server - TAForever [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok)
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
Vanilla Mini Mafia TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread Canadian Politics Mega-thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Gtx660 graphics card replacement 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
ASL S20 English Commentary…
namkraft
The Link Between Fitness and…
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: 754 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2020

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 5135 Next
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!

NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.

Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.


If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
January 12 2020 19:34 GMT
#40381
--- Nuked ---
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
January 12 2020 19:35 GMT
#40382
--- Nuked ---
Vivax
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
21978 Posts
Last Edited: 2020-01-12 19:56:10
January 12 2020 19:47 GMT
#40383
On January 13 2020 04:34 JimmiC wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 13 2020 04:02 Vivax wrote:
On January 13 2020 03:48 Gorsameth wrote:
On January 13 2020 03:41 Vivax wrote:
On January 13 2020 03:24 Wombat_NI wrote:
On January 13 2020 01:37 Vivax wrote:
So what did Trump achieve with that kill? Except that bystanders fleeing the country lost their lives to a spooked military?
Or do you think that one dead general means the end for Irans military planning? A warning shot? If they had plans to attack embassies, they're in a drawer, not on his corpse.

So far to me simply looks like an escalation attempt for reasons untold.

Btw at this rate Trump will win in 2020 because of the dem's candidates, in my opinion, mostly Bloomberg is viable and the least viable somehow seems to be leading the polls. Hating on the rich is fancy these days, but running a country successfully is about electing the smart and well-connected ones regardless of their wealth.
Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I'd vote Bloom.

Viable to who? Bloomberg has generated almost no appreciable enthusiasm and for good reason.

It’s not entirely due to hating the rich being in vogue either, people would overlook that if he stood for well, much of anything.

Not eligible on account of being a Saffer but I could see Elon Musk gaining some traction from at least a reasonable bloc if he ran on some sort of radical tech/infrastructure kind of ticket.

Some people of course have an existential distaste for billionaires, myself very much included in that, but in a more general sense not all billionaires are perceived equally negatively amongst the populace.

Despite almost certainly not actually being true (although I think it will be post-office) Donald Trump’s whole shtick was being a billionaire and that business acumen would be transferable to the Presidency and he still got elected, because he at least presented as standing for particular things to particular demographics.

Bloomberg is well, meh I follow such things reasonably closely and I don’t have the faintest idea what President Bloomberg looks like.


Musk for president? I'll take a ticket to Mars if that actually happens. Maybe I'll have enough money to sit in the luggage compartment, and it's better to die in space than dying to his Orwellian nightmare cars.

I think Bloomberg would be good because he's an old school businessman, who invented/launched something of value, has experience as mayor of the massive city, and has no incentive to use the presidency for personal gains since I wager he already has plenty of power and money. Easy to say he just wants it as a trophy, but keep in mind that his "league" is probably just as concerned about who's in charge now, so it's more likely he just wants to fix the mess.

Successful people are fit to lead. Btw I think being a politician nowadays should not be compensated and be an honorary post. Would get rid of a bunch of corruptible deadbeats who go into politics for personal gain.
The logical evolution of the rich buying politicians is for the rich to seek to be elected directly.
And I don't think that is a good thing.


So you think that the net worth of a candidate carries more weight over his personal achievements and talent?
If you ask me, that's discriminatory (to be judged by the size of your wallet, in both directions). Don't hate the player, hate the game.

What other than wealth and fame would say were the characteristics and achievements that made him first the candidate and then the president? (also keep in mind that his wealth is almost 100% from his father/ tax evasion)


Political and managerial experience, worked early to improve the flow of information, doesn't try to bring up people in the same boat against each other, and subjectively seems like the least terrible choice in the roster.

Plus, being the underdog in a society begging for inflation (because that's what wealth redistribution does) sheds a good light on him and a bad one on the current state of society.

Edit: Ad inflation, what's more important than simply more money in pockets, are lower healthcare, housing and education costs. Speaking of the US, not here. But you won't get those by just cracking down on wallets.

Once in a lifetime opportunity to post on page 2020 in the year 2020 btw.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23230 Posts
Last Edited: 2020-01-12 20:07:48
January 12 2020 20:06 GMT
#40384
On January 13 2020 04:22 Nebuchad wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 13 2020 04:02 Vivax wrote:
On January 13 2020 03:48 Gorsameth wrote:
On January 13 2020 03:41 Vivax wrote:
On January 13 2020 03:24 Wombat_NI wrote:
On January 13 2020 01:37 Vivax wrote:
So what did Trump achieve with that kill? Except that bystanders fleeing the country lost their lives to a spooked military?
Or do you think that one dead general means the end for Irans military planning? A warning shot? If they had plans to attack embassies, they're in a drawer, not on his corpse.

So far to me simply looks like an escalation attempt for reasons untold.

Btw at this rate Trump will win in 2020 because of the dem's candidates, in my opinion, mostly Bloomberg is viable and the least viable somehow seems to be leading the polls. Hating on the rich is fancy these days, but running a country successfully is about electing the smart and well-connected ones regardless of their wealth.
Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I'd vote Bloom.

Viable to who? Bloomberg has generated almost no appreciable enthusiasm and for good reason.

It’s not entirely due to hating the rich being in vogue either, people would overlook that if he stood for well, much of anything.

Not eligible on account of being a Saffer but I could see Elon Musk gaining some traction from at least a reasonable bloc if he ran on some sort of radical tech/infrastructure kind of ticket.

Some people of course have an existential distaste for billionaires, myself very much included in that, but in a more general sense not all billionaires are perceived equally negatively amongst the populace.

Despite almost certainly not actually being true (although I think it will be post-office) Donald Trump’s whole shtick was being a billionaire and that business acumen would be transferable to the Presidency and he still got elected, because he at least presented as standing for particular things to particular demographics.

Bloomberg is well, meh I follow such things reasonably closely and I don’t have the faintest idea what President Bloomberg looks like.


Musk for president? I'll take a ticket to Mars if that actually happens. Maybe I'll have enough money to sit in the luggage compartment, and it's better to die in space than dying to his Orwellian nightmare cars.

I think Bloomberg would be good because he's an old school businessman, who invented/launched something of value, has experience as mayor of the massive city, and has no incentive to use the presidency for personal gains since I wager he already has plenty of power and money. Easy to say he just wants it as a trophy, but keep in mind that his "league" is probably just as concerned about who's in charge now, so it's more likely he just wants to fix the mess.

Successful people are fit to lead. Btw I think being a politician nowadays should not be compensated and be an honorary post. Would get rid of a bunch of corruptible deadbeats who go into politics for personal gain.
The logical evolution of the rich buying politicians is for the rich to seek to be elected directly.
And I don't think that is a good thing.


So you think that the net worth of a candidate carries more weight over his personal achievements and talent?
If you ask me, that's discriminatory (to be judged by the size of your wallet, in both directions). Don't hate the player, hate the game.


Of course the net worth carries more weight. Just look at how many ads Bloomberg and Steyer were able to run. And yes, it's discriminatory, but it's not surprising that it happens under neoliberalism.


Steyer pretty much bought his way onto the debate stage. He just dumped a bunch of ads in the states the other candidates aren't and brought his poll numbers up in those states.

+ Show Spoiler +
The billionaire debate is a fitting one for the 2020-2020 page I suppose
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Gorgonoth
Profile Joined August 2017
United States468 Posts
January 12 2020 20:15 GMT
#40385
Rest In Peace Sir Roger Scruton. Heard him speak once in person and had the pleasure of briefly meeting him. Big loss for the conservative movement.
His works on beauty in particular have impacted me immensely.
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12177 Posts
Last Edited: 2020-01-12 20:57:28
January 12 2020 20:51 GMT
#40386
On January 13 2020 04:47 Vivax wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 13 2020 04:34 JimmiC wrote:
On January 13 2020 04:02 Vivax wrote:
On January 13 2020 03:48 Gorsameth wrote:
On January 13 2020 03:41 Vivax wrote:
On January 13 2020 03:24 Wombat_NI wrote:
On January 13 2020 01:37 Vivax wrote:
So what did Trump achieve with that kill? Except that bystanders fleeing the country lost their lives to a spooked military?
Or do you think that one dead general means the end for Irans military planning? A warning shot? If they had plans to attack embassies, they're in a drawer, not on his corpse.

So far to me simply looks like an escalation attempt for reasons untold.

Btw at this rate Trump will win in 2020 because of the dem's candidates, in my opinion, mostly Bloomberg is viable and the least viable somehow seems to be leading the polls. Hating on the rich is fancy these days, but running a country successfully is about electing the smart and well-connected ones regardless of their wealth.
Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I'd vote Bloom.

Viable to who? Bloomberg has generated almost no appreciable enthusiasm and for good reason.

It’s not entirely due to hating the rich being in vogue either, people would overlook that if he stood for well, much of anything.

Not eligible on account of being a Saffer but I could see Elon Musk gaining some traction from at least a reasonable bloc if he ran on some sort of radical tech/infrastructure kind of ticket.

Some people of course have an existential distaste for billionaires, myself very much included in that, but in a more general sense not all billionaires are perceived equally negatively amongst the populace.

Despite almost certainly not actually being true (although I think it will be post-office) Donald Trump’s whole shtick was being a billionaire and that business acumen would be transferable to the Presidency and he still got elected, because he at least presented as standing for particular things to particular demographics.

Bloomberg is well, meh I follow such things reasonably closely and I don’t have the faintest idea what President Bloomberg looks like.


Musk for president? I'll take a ticket to Mars if that actually happens. Maybe I'll have enough money to sit in the luggage compartment, and it's better to die in space than dying to his Orwellian nightmare cars.

I think Bloomberg would be good because he's an old school businessman, who invented/launched something of value, has experience as mayor of the massive city, and has no incentive to use the presidency for personal gains since I wager he already has plenty of power and money. Easy to say he just wants it as a trophy, but keep in mind that his "league" is probably just as concerned about who's in charge now, so it's more likely he just wants to fix the mess.

Successful people are fit to lead. Btw I think being a politician nowadays should not be compensated and be an honorary post. Would get rid of a bunch of corruptible deadbeats who go into politics for personal gain.
The logical evolution of the rich buying politicians is for the rich to seek to be elected directly.
And I don't think that is a good thing.


So you think that the net worth of a candidate carries more weight over his personal achievements and talent?
If you ask me, that's discriminatory (to be judged by the size of your wallet, in both directions). Don't hate the player, hate the game.

What other than wealth and fame would say were the characteristics and achievements that made him first the candidate and then the president? (also keep in mind that his wealth is almost 100% from his father/ tax evasion)


Political and managerial experience, worked early to improve the flow of information, doesn't try to bring up people in the same boat against each other, and subjectively seems like the least terrible choice in the roster.

Plus, being the underdog in a society begging for inflation (because that's what wealth redistribution does) sheds a good light on him and a bad one on the current state of society.

Edit: Ad inflation, what's more important than simply more money in pockets, are lower healthcare, housing and education costs. Speaking of the US, not here. But you won't get those by just cracking down on wallets.

Once in a lifetime opportunity to post on page 2020 in the year 2020 btw.


He has zero chance of winning the democratic nomination, and if he decides to run in the general it will be just about openly to syphon votes from Sanders (he won't be running if it's not Sanders, maaaaybe Warren) and make sure Trump is reelected. There won't be any good light on him (outside of some media coverage, probably) and that's not how underdog stories go.
No will to live, no wish to die
TentativePanda
Profile Joined August 2014
United States800 Posts
January 12 2020 21:09 GMT
#40387
Bernie Sanders is getting the same type of support as Trump did in 2016, which should be a good sign for him. His supporters are the only ones with passion - similar to Trump in 2016 (and now). Foul play by the media and political establishment both hurt and helped them both, as it misguides the misinformed and energizes those who see through the unfairness at play.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think if Bernie is willing to abandon the "truce" with other nominees he could really leverage the energy surrounding his campaign
Wegandi
Profile Joined March 2011
United States2455 Posts
January 12 2020 22:55 GMT
#40388
On January 13 2020 04:47 Vivax wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 13 2020 04:34 JimmiC wrote:
On January 13 2020 04:02 Vivax wrote:
On January 13 2020 03:48 Gorsameth wrote:
On January 13 2020 03:41 Vivax wrote:
On January 13 2020 03:24 Wombat_NI wrote:
On January 13 2020 01:37 Vivax wrote:
So what did Trump achieve with that kill? Except that bystanders fleeing the country lost their lives to a spooked military?
Or do you think that one dead general means the end for Irans military planning? A warning shot? If they had plans to attack embassies, they're in a drawer, not on his corpse.

So far to me simply looks like an escalation attempt for reasons untold.

Btw at this rate Trump will win in 2020 because of the dem's candidates, in my opinion, mostly Bloomberg is viable and the least viable somehow seems to be leading the polls. Hating on the rich is fancy these days, but running a country successfully is about electing the smart and well-connected ones regardless of their wealth.
Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I'd vote Bloom.

Viable to who? Bloomberg has generated almost no appreciable enthusiasm and for good reason.

It’s not entirely due to hating the rich being in vogue either, people would overlook that if he stood for well, much of anything.

Not eligible on account of being a Saffer but I could see Elon Musk gaining some traction from at least a reasonable bloc if he ran on some sort of radical tech/infrastructure kind of ticket.

Some people of course have an existential distaste for billionaires, myself very much included in that, but in a more general sense not all billionaires are perceived equally negatively amongst the populace.

Despite almost certainly not actually being true (although I think it will be post-office) Donald Trump’s whole shtick was being a billionaire and that business acumen would be transferable to the Presidency and he still got elected, because he at least presented as standing for particular things to particular demographics.

Bloomberg is well, meh I follow such things reasonably closely and I don’t have the faintest idea what President Bloomberg looks like.


Musk for president? I'll take a ticket to Mars if that actually happens. Maybe I'll have enough money to sit in the luggage compartment, and it's better to die in space than dying to his Orwellian nightmare cars.

I think Bloomberg would be good because he's an old school businessman, who invented/launched something of value, has experience as mayor of the massive city, and has no incentive to use the presidency for personal gains since I wager he already has plenty of power and money. Easy to say he just wants it as a trophy, but keep in mind that his "league" is probably just as concerned about who's in charge now, so it's more likely he just wants to fix the mess.

Successful people are fit to lead. Btw I think being a politician nowadays should not be compensated and be an honorary post. Would get rid of a bunch of corruptible deadbeats who go into politics for personal gain.
The logical evolution of the rich buying politicians is for the rich to seek to be elected directly.
And I don't think that is a good thing.


So you think that the net worth of a candidate carries more weight over his personal achievements and talent?
If you ask me, that's discriminatory (to be judged by the size of your wallet, in both directions). Don't hate the player, hate the game.

What other than wealth and fame would say were the characteristics and achievements that made him first the candidate and then the president? (also keep in mind that his wealth is almost 100% from his father/ tax evasion)


Political and managerial experience, worked early to improve the flow of information, doesn't try to bring up people in the same boat against each other, and subjectively seems like the least terrible choice in the roster.

Plus, being the underdog in a society begging for inflation (because that's what wealth redistribution does) sheds a good light on him and a bad one on the current state of society.

Edit: Ad inflation, what's more important than simply more money in pockets, are lower healthcare, housing and education costs. Speaking of the US, not here. But you won't get those by just cracking down on wallets.

Once in a lifetime opportunity to post on page 2020 in the year 2020 btw.


Inflation tends to be bad for the common person as wages are very slow to adjust whereas asset classes are usually some of the first which most rich people have the majority of their wealth in. Saying inflation would be good just shows extreme economic ignorance.

By the way, inflation does not lower those costs (the only thing it does lower is fixed debt generally). If you want to lower those costs how about stop subsidizing them? The #1 reason education and healthcare costs have exploded are because of Government subsidies, and housing is an issue because of zoning and NIMBYism.
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
Vivax
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
21978 Posts
Last Edited: 2020-01-12 23:46:58
January 12 2020 23:36 GMT
#40389
On January 13 2020 07:55 Wegandi wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 13 2020 04:47 Vivax wrote:
On January 13 2020 04:34 JimmiC wrote:
On January 13 2020 04:02 Vivax wrote:
On January 13 2020 03:48 Gorsameth wrote:
On January 13 2020 03:41 Vivax wrote:
On January 13 2020 03:24 Wombat_NI wrote:
On January 13 2020 01:37 Vivax wrote:
So what did Trump achieve with that kill? Except that bystanders fleeing the country lost their lives to a spooked military?
Or do you think that one dead general means the end for Irans military planning? A warning shot? If they had plans to attack embassies, they're in a drawer, not on his corpse.

So far to me simply looks like an escalation attempt for reasons untold.

Btw at this rate Trump will win in 2020 because of the dem's candidates, in my opinion, mostly Bloomberg is viable and the least viable somehow seems to be leading the polls. Hating on the rich is fancy these days, but running a country successfully is about electing the smart and well-connected ones regardless of their wealth.
Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I'd vote Bloom.

Viable to who? Bloomberg has generated almost no appreciable enthusiasm and for good reason.

It’s not entirely due to hating the rich being in vogue either, people would overlook that if he stood for well, much of anything.

Not eligible on account of being a Saffer but I could see Elon Musk gaining some traction from at least a reasonable bloc if he ran on some sort of radical tech/infrastructure kind of ticket.

Some people of course have an existential distaste for billionaires, myself very much included in that, but in a more general sense not all billionaires are perceived equally negatively amongst the populace.

Despite almost certainly not actually being true (although I think it will be post-office) Donald Trump’s whole shtick was being a billionaire and that business acumen would be transferable to the Presidency and he still got elected, because he at least presented as standing for particular things to particular demographics.

Bloomberg is well, meh I follow such things reasonably closely and I don’t have the faintest idea what President Bloomberg looks like.


Musk for president? I'll take a ticket to Mars if that actually happens. Maybe I'll have enough money to sit in the luggage compartment, and it's better to die in space than dying to his Orwellian nightmare cars.

I think Bloomberg would be good because he's an old school businessman, who invented/launched something of value, has experience as mayor of the massive city, and has no incentive to use the presidency for personal gains since I wager he already has plenty of power and money. Easy to say he just wants it as a trophy, but keep in mind that his "league" is probably just as concerned about who's in charge now, so it's more likely he just wants to fix the mess.

Successful people are fit to lead. Btw I think being a politician nowadays should not be compensated and be an honorary post. Would get rid of a bunch of corruptible deadbeats who go into politics for personal gain.
The logical evolution of the rich buying politicians is for the rich to seek to be elected directly.
And I don't think that is a good thing.


So you think that the net worth of a candidate carries more weight over his personal achievements and talent?
If you ask me, that's discriminatory (to be judged by the size of your wallet, in both directions). Don't hate the player, hate the game.

What other than wealth and fame would say were the characteristics and achievements that made him first the candidate and then the president? (also keep in mind that his wealth is almost 100% from his father/ tax evasion)


Political and managerial experience, worked early to improve the flow of information, doesn't try to bring up people in the same boat against each other, and subjectively seems like the least terrible choice in the roster.

Plus, being the underdog in a society begging for inflation (because that's what wealth redistribution does) sheds a good light on him and a bad one on the current state of society.

Edit: Ad inflation, what's more important than simply more money in pockets, are lower healthcare, housing and education costs. Speaking of the US, not here. But you won't get those by just cracking down on wallets.

Once in a lifetime opportunity to post on page 2020 in the year 2020 btw.


Inflation tends to be bad for the common person as wages are very slow to adjust whereas asset classes are usually some of the first which most rich people have the majority of their wealth in. Saying inflation would be good just shows extreme economic ignorance.

By the way, inflation does not lower those costs (the only thing it does lower is fixed debt generally). If you want to lower those costs how about stop subsidizing them? The #1 reason education and healthcare costs have exploded are because of Government subsidies, and housing is an issue because of zoning and NIMBYism.


Looks like you misunderstood my post. My point is that in an inflation everyone loses. If you just go full-out Robin Hood and put money directly into people's pockets, the cost of labour and resources skyrockets. Equities first go to the roof and then collapse. Which is why I don't understand how the candidates who advocate to tax the rich have so much support. And even if the rich were to be taxed, average Joe wouldn't see a penny, and the govt. is currently relying on deficit spending over taxes.

You need to figure out a better way to tackle the sectors I mentioned than to just tax the rich and give it to the poor. In Austria, healthcare and education are socialized. Works well but the population is small so it's easier to manage. The employers pay for the employees insurances.

I don't see how govt. subsidies would increase the prices in healthcare, but then again I'm not familiar with the US system.

If I had to guess wildly, your main problem is that insurances and hospitals aren't one and the same. If a hospital managed to sustain itself from insurance fees, it would be able to offer healthcare at lower costs, at least in my guesswork.

As of right now, don't you have insurances earning their keep apart from the hospitals? So, the hospitals only get paid when they do something, they charge part of the cost to the insurance, for which you pay depending on the risk models they use. Doesn't the insurance earns the most in the process? Well, what they earn that the hospital doesn't, is what the hospital has to charge the patients. So you have two entities in competition. High insurance costs for cheaper health care or low insurance costs and costly emergencies, pick your poison.
WombaT
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Northern Ireland25322 Posts
January 12 2020 23:54 GMT
#40390
On January 13 2020 08:36 Vivax wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 13 2020 07:55 Wegandi wrote:
On January 13 2020 04:47 Vivax wrote:
On January 13 2020 04:34 JimmiC wrote:
On January 13 2020 04:02 Vivax wrote:
On January 13 2020 03:48 Gorsameth wrote:
On January 13 2020 03:41 Vivax wrote:
On January 13 2020 03:24 Wombat_NI wrote:
On January 13 2020 01:37 Vivax wrote:
So what did Trump achieve with that kill? Except that bystanders fleeing the country lost their lives to a spooked military?
Or do you think that one dead general means the end for Irans military planning? A warning shot? If they had plans to attack embassies, they're in a drawer, not on his corpse.

So far to me simply looks like an escalation attempt for reasons untold.

Btw at this rate Trump will win in 2020 because of the dem's candidates, in my opinion, mostly Bloomberg is viable and the least viable somehow seems to be leading the polls. Hating on the rich is fancy these days, but running a country successfully is about electing the smart and well-connected ones regardless of their wealth.
Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I'd vote Bloom.

Viable to who? Bloomberg has generated almost no appreciable enthusiasm and for good reason.

It’s not entirely due to hating the rich being in vogue either, people would overlook that if he stood for well, much of anything.

Not eligible on account of being a Saffer but I could see Elon Musk gaining some traction from at least a reasonable bloc if he ran on some sort of radical tech/infrastructure kind of ticket.

Some people of course have an existential distaste for billionaires, myself very much included in that, but in a more general sense not all billionaires are perceived equally negatively amongst the populace.

Despite almost certainly not actually being true (although I think it will be post-office) Donald Trump’s whole shtick was being a billionaire and that business acumen would be transferable to the Presidency and he still got elected, because he at least presented as standing for particular things to particular demographics.

Bloomberg is well, meh I follow such things reasonably closely and I don’t have the faintest idea what President Bloomberg looks like.


Musk for president? I'll take a ticket to Mars if that actually happens. Maybe I'll have enough money to sit in the luggage compartment, and it's better to die in space than dying to his Orwellian nightmare cars.

I think Bloomberg would be good because he's an old school businessman, who invented/launched something of value, has experience as mayor of the massive city, and has no incentive to use the presidency for personal gains since I wager he already has plenty of power and money. Easy to say he just wants it as a trophy, but keep in mind that his "league" is probably just as concerned about who's in charge now, so it's more likely he just wants to fix the mess.

Successful people are fit to lead. Btw I think being a politician nowadays should not be compensated and be an honorary post. Would get rid of a bunch of corruptible deadbeats who go into politics for personal gain.
The logical evolution of the rich buying politicians is for the rich to seek to be elected directly.
And I don't think that is a good thing.


So you think that the net worth of a candidate carries more weight over his personal achievements and talent?
If you ask me, that's discriminatory (to be judged by the size of your wallet, in both directions). Don't hate the player, hate the game.

What other than wealth and fame would say were the characteristics and achievements that made him first the candidate and then the president? (also keep in mind that his wealth is almost 100% from his father/ tax evasion)


Political and managerial experience, worked early to improve the flow of information, doesn't try to bring up people in the same boat against each other, and subjectively seems like the least terrible choice in the roster.

Plus, being the underdog in a society begging for inflation (because that's what wealth redistribution does) sheds a good light on him and a bad one on the current state of society.

Edit: Ad inflation, what's more important than simply more money in pockets, are lower healthcare, housing and education costs. Speaking of the US, not here. But you won't get those by just cracking down on wallets.

Once in a lifetime opportunity to post on page 2020 in the year 2020 btw.


Inflation tends to be bad for the common person as wages are very slow to adjust whereas asset classes are usually some of the first which most rich people have the majority of their wealth in. Saying inflation would be good just shows extreme economic ignorance.

By the way, inflation does not lower those costs (the only thing it does lower is fixed debt generally). If you want to lower those costs how about stop subsidizing them? The #1 reason education and healthcare costs have exploded are because of Government subsidies, and housing is an issue because of zoning and NIMBYism.


Looks like you misunderstood my post. My point is that in an inflation everyone loses. If you just go full-out Robin Hood and put money directly into people's pockets, the cost of labour and resources skyrockets. Equities first go to the roof and then collapse. Which is why I don't understand how the candidates who advocate to tax the rich have so much support. And even if the rich were to be taxed, average Joe wouldn't see a penny, and the govt. is currently relying on deficit spending over taxes.

You need to figure out a better way to tackle the sectors I mentioned than to just tax the rich and give it to the poor. In Austria, healthcare and education are socialized. Works well but the population is small so it's easier to manage. The employers pay for the employees insurances.

I don't see how govt. subsidies would increase the prices in healthcare, but then again I'm not familiar with the US system.

If I had to guess wildly, your main problem is that insurances and hospitals aren't one and the same. If a hospital managed to sustain itself from insurance fees, it would be able to offer healthcare at lower costs, at least in my guesswork.

As of right now, don't you have insurances earning their keep apart from the hospitals? So, the hospitals only get paid when they do something, they charge part of the cost to the insurance, for which you pay depending on the risk models they use. Doesn't the insurance earns the most in the process? Well, what they earn that the hospital doesn't, is what the hospital has to charge the patients. So you have two entities in competition. High insurance costs for cheaper health care or low insurance costs and costly emergencies, pick your poison.

Why does the population being small or large matter at all? If something is proportionally balanced it should scale up or down.
'You'll always be the cuddly marsupial of my heart, despite the inherent flaws of your ancestry' - Squat
Aquanim
Profile Joined November 2012
Australia2849 Posts
January 12 2020 23:56 GMT
#40391
On January 13 2020 08:54 Wombat_NI wrote:
Why does the population being small or large matter at all? If something is proportionally balanced it should scale up or down.

I don't think this is inherently a universal principle. The number of layers of bureaucracy things have to go through matters.
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15689 Posts
Last Edited: 2020-01-13 01:11:21
January 13 2020 01:11 GMT
#40392
God I want Bernie to surprise take every single early state and rip his shirt in half while calling for Biden to surrender, not concede, but surrender
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42685 Posts
January 13 2020 01:12 GMT
#40393
On January 13 2020 08:36 Vivax wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 13 2020 07:55 Wegandi wrote:
On January 13 2020 04:47 Vivax wrote:
On January 13 2020 04:34 JimmiC wrote:
On January 13 2020 04:02 Vivax wrote:
On January 13 2020 03:48 Gorsameth wrote:
On January 13 2020 03:41 Vivax wrote:
On January 13 2020 03:24 Wombat_NI wrote:
On January 13 2020 01:37 Vivax wrote:
So what did Trump achieve with that kill? Except that bystanders fleeing the country lost their lives to a spooked military?
Or do you think that one dead general means the end for Irans military planning? A warning shot? If they had plans to attack embassies, they're in a drawer, not on his corpse.

So far to me simply looks like an escalation attempt for reasons untold.

Btw at this rate Trump will win in 2020 because of the dem's candidates, in my opinion, mostly Bloomberg is viable and the least viable somehow seems to be leading the polls. Hating on the rich is fancy these days, but running a country successfully is about electing the smart and well-connected ones regardless of their wealth.
Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I'd vote Bloom.

Viable to who? Bloomberg has generated almost no appreciable enthusiasm and for good reason.

It’s not entirely due to hating the rich being in vogue either, people would overlook that if he stood for well, much of anything.

Not eligible on account of being a Saffer but I could see Elon Musk gaining some traction from at least a reasonable bloc if he ran on some sort of radical tech/infrastructure kind of ticket.

Some people of course have an existential distaste for billionaires, myself very much included in that, but in a more general sense not all billionaires are perceived equally negatively amongst the populace.

Despite almost certainly not actually being true (although I think it will be post-office) Donald Trump’s whole shtick was being a billionaire and that business acumen would be transferable to the Presidency and he still got elected, because he at least presented as standing for particular things to particular demographics.

Bloomberg is well, meh I follow such things reasonably closely and I don’t have the faintest idea what President Bloomberg looks like.


Musk for president? I'll take a ticket to Mars if that actually happens. Maybe I'll have enough money to sit in the luggage compartment, and it's better to die in space than dying to his Orwellian nightmare cars.

I think Bloomberg would be good because he's an old school businessman, who invented/launched something of value, has experience as mayor of the massive city, and has no incentive to use the presidency for personal gains since I wager he already has plenty of power and money. Easy to say he just wants it as a trophy, but keep in mind that his "league" is probably just as concerned about who's in charge now, so it's more likely he just wants to fix the mess.

Successful people are fit to lead. Btw I think being a politician nowadays should not be compensated and be an honorary post. Would get rid of a bunch of corruptible deadbeats who go into politics for personal gain.
The logical evolution of the rich buying politicians is for the rich to seek to be elected directly.
And I don't think that is a good thing.


So you think that the net worth of a candidate carries more weight over his personal achievements and talent?
If you ask me, that's discriminatory (to be judged by the size of your wallet, in both directions). Don't hate the player, hate the game.

What other than wealth and fame would say were the characteristics and achievements that made him first the candidate and then the president? (also keep in mind that his wealth is almost 100% from his father/ tax evasion)


Political and managerial experience, worked early to improve the flow of information, doesn't try to bring up people in the same boat against each other, and subjectively seems like the least terrible choice in the roster.

Plus, being the underdog in a society begging for inflation (because that's what wealth redistribution does) sheds a good light on him and a bad one on the current state of society.

Edit: Ad inflation, what's more important than simply more money in pockets, are lower healthcare, housing and education costs. Speaking of the US, not here. But you won't get those by just cracking down on wallets.

Once in a lifetime opportunity to post on page 2020 in the year 2020 btw.


Inflation tends to be bad for the common person as wages are very slow to adjust whereas asset classes are usually some of the first which most rich people have the majority of their wealth in. Saying inflation would be good just shows extreme economic ignorance.

By the way, inflation does not lower those costs (the only thing it does lower is fixed debt generally). If you want to lower those costs how about stop subsidizing them? The #1 reason education and healthcare costs have exploded are because of Government subsidies, and housing is an issue because of zoning and NIMBYism.


Looks like you misunderstood my post. My point is that in an inflation everyone loses. If you just go full-out Robin Hood and put money directly into people's pockets, the cost of labour and resources skyrockets. Equities first go to the roof and then collapse. Which is why I don't understand how the candidates who advocate to tax the rich have so much support. And even if the rich were to be taxed, average Joe wouldn't see a penny, and the govt. is currently relying on deficit spending over taxes.

You need to figure out a better way to tackle the sectors I mentioned than to just tax the rich and give it to the poor. In Austria, healthcare and education are socialized. Works well but the population is small so it's easier to manage. The employers pay for the employees insurances.

I don't see how govt. subsidies would increase the prices in healthcare, but then again I'm not familiar with the US system.

If I had to guess wildly, your main problem is that insurances and hospitals aren't one and the same. If a hospital managed to sustain itself from insurance fees, it would be able to offer healthcare at lower costs, at least in my guesswork.

As of right now, don't you have insurances earning their keep apart from the hospitals? So, the hospitals only get paid when they do something, they charge part of the cost to the insurance, for which you pay depending on the risk models they use. Doesn't the insurance earns the most in the process? Well, what they earn that the hospital doesn't, is what the hospital has to charge the patients. So you have two entities in competition. High insurance costs for cheaper health care or low insurance costs and costly emergencies, pick your poison.

There’s a lot of nonsense in this post. Equities are composed of real assets, their value is denominated in currency but not dependent upon it, in an inflationary environment equities hold their real value. Redistribution of wealth would result in money for working Joes, whether from lower taxes on them due to a more progressive tax code or simply through the government spending that money in their communities. Redistributing money into people’s pockets doesn’t increase the price of labour or goods because it doesn’t involve issuing new currency, the new demand from the newly enriched is taking the place of the demand of the rich whose wealth was redistributed. You’d see more labour going towards building affordable housing and less towards super yachts but you wouldn’t see hyperinflation.

I’m not going to get into the stuff on healthcare beyond saying you should read a basic intro to the US healthcare system rather than “guessing wildly”.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Vivax
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
21978 Posts
January 13 2020 01:55 GMT
#40394
On January 13 2020 10:12 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 13 2020 08:36 Vivax wrote:
On January 13 2020 07:55 Wegandi wrote:
On January 13 2020 04:47 Vivax wrote:
On January 13 2020 04:34 JimmiC wrote:
On January 13 2020 04:02 Vivax wrote:
On January 13 2020 03:48 Gorsameth wrote:
On January 13 2020 03:41 Vivax wrote:
On January 13 2020 03:24 Wombat_NI wrote:
On January 13 2020 01:37 Vivax wrote:
So what did Trump achieve with that kill? Except that bystanders fleeing the country lost their lives to a spooked military?
Or do you think that one dead general means the end for Irans military planning? A warning shot? If they had plans to attack embassies, they're in a drawer, not on his corpse.

So far to me simply looks like an escalation attempt for reasons untold.

Btw at this rate Trump will win in 2020 because of the dem's candidates, in my opinion, mostly Bloomberg is viable and the least viable somehow seems to be leading the polls. Hating on the rich is fancy these days, but running a country successfully is about electing the smart and well-connected ones regardless of their wealth.
Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I'd vote Bloom.

Viable to who? Bloomberg has generated almost no appreciable enthusiasm and for good reason.

It’s not entirely due to hating the rich being in vogue either, people would overlook that if he stood for well, much of anything.

Not eligible on account of being a Saffer but I could see Elon Musk gaining some traction from at least a reasonable bloc if he ran on some sort of radical tech/infrastructure kind of ticket.

Some people of course have an existential distaste for billionaires, myself very much included in that, but in a more general sense not all billionaires are perceived equally negatively amongst the populace.

Despite almost certainly not actually being true (although I think it will be post-office) Donald Trump’s whole shtick was being a billionaire and that business acumen would be transferable to the Presidency and he still got elected, because he at least presented as standing for particular things to particular demographics.

Bloomberg is well, meh I follow such things reasonably closely and I don’t have the faintest idea what President Bloomberg looks like.


Musk for president? I'll take a ticket to Mars if that actually happens. Maybe I'll have enough money to sit in the luggage compartment, and it's better to die in space than dying to his Orwellian nightmare cars.

I think Bloomberg would be good because he's an old school businessman, who invented/launched something of value, has experience as mayor of the massive city, and has no incentive to use the presidency for personal gains since I wager he already has plenty of power and money. Easy to say he just wants it as a trophy, but keep in mind that his "league" is probably just as concerned about who's in charge now, so it's more likely he just wants to fix the mess.

Successful people are fit to lead. Btw I think being a politician nowadays should not be compensated and be an honorary post. Would get rid of a bunch of corruptible deadbeats who go into politics for personal gain.
The logical evolution of the rich buying politicians is for the rich to seek to be elected directly.
And I don't think that is a good thing.


So you think that the net worth of a candidate carries more weight over his personal achievements and talent?
If you ask me, that's discriminatory (to be judged by the size of your wallet, in both directions). Don't hate the player, hate the game.

What other than wealth and fame would say were the characteristics and achievements that made him first the candidate and then the president? (also keep in mind that his wealth is almost 100% from his father/ tax evasion)


Political and managerial experience, worked early to improve the flow of information, doesn't try to bring up people in the same boat against each other, and subjectively seems like the least terrible choice in the roster.

Plus, being the underdog in a society begging for inflation (because that's what wealth redistribution does) sheds a good light on him and a bad one on the current state of society.

Edit: Ad inflation, what's more important than simply more money in pockets, are lower healthcare, housing and education costs. Speaking of the US, not here. But you won't get those by just cracking down on wallets.

Once in a lifetime opportunity to post on page 2020 in the year 2020 btw.


Inflation tends to be bad for the common person as wages are very slow to adjust whereas asset classes are usually some of the first which most rich people have the majority of their wealth in. Saying inflation would be good just shows extreme economic ignorance.

By the way, inflation does not lower those costs (the only thing it does lower is fixed debt generally). If you want to lower those costs how about stop subsidizing them? The #1 reason education and healthcare costs have exploded are because of Government subsidies, and housing is an issue because of zoning and NIMBYism.


Looks like you misunderstood my post. My point is that in an inflation everyone loses. If you just go full-out Robin Hood and put money directly into people's pockets, the cost of labour and resources skyrockets. Equities first go to the roof and then collapse. Which is why I don't understand how the candidates who advocate to tax the rich have so much support. And even if the rich were to be taxed, average Joe wouldn't see a penny, and the govt. is currently relying on deficit spending over taxes.

You need to figure out a better way to tackle the sectors I mentioned than to just tax the rich and give it to the poor. In Austria, healthcare and education are socialized. Works well but the population is small so it's easier to manage. The employers pay for the employees insurances.

I don't see how govt. subsidies would increase the prices in healthcare, but then again I'm not familiar with the US system.

If I had to guess wildly, your main problem is that insurances and hospitals aren't one and the same. If a hospital managed to sustain itself from insurance fees, it would be able to offer healthcare at lower costs, at least in my guesswork.

As of right now, don't you have insurances earning their keep apart from the hospitals? So, the hospitals only get paid when they do something, they charge part of the cost to the insurance, for which you pay depending on the risk models they use. Doesn't the insurance earns the most in the process? Well, what they earn that the hospital doesn't, is what the hospital has to charge the patients. So you have two entities in competition. High insurance costs for cheaper health care or low insurance costs and costly emergencies, pick your poison.

There’s a lot of nonsense in this post. Equities are composed of real assets, their value is denominated in currency but not dependent upon it, in an inflationary environment equities hold their real value. Redistribution of wealth would result in money for working Joes, whether from lower taxes on them due to a more progressive tax code or simply through the government spending that money in their communities. Redistributing money into people’s pockets doesn’t increase the price of labour or goods because it doesn’t involve issuing new currency, the new demand from the newly enriched is taking the place of the demand of the rich whose wealth was redistributed. You’d see more labour going towards building affordable housing and less towards super yachts but you wouldn’t see hyperinflation.

I’m not going to get into the stuff on healthcare beyond saying you should read a basic intro to the US healthcare system rather than “guessing wildly”.


I was talking of what an universal basic income would do, should have mentioned that. I believe it'd lead to inflation if based on deficit spending, and if you are going to tax the rich for it, they will try to avoid that through outsourcing and capital flight and the government would lose taxes needed to finance its deficit, so more deficit it is in both cases, except that one choice keeps their wealth in the country.

But since you're talking about progressive tax code or government spending, I doubt that working Joe would get his wages raised because of it, or that he'd earn enough for a change in taxation to matter, contrary to adjusting the percentage on bigger figures which would probs be a cause for grey hairs in wealthier people.

As for inflations' effect on equities, I use the Caracas stock exchange as example. Although I can't tell for sure if all of its development is due to inflation or what exactly led to it, it looks like the brunt of the effect came from that.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23230 Posts
Last Edited: 2020-01-13 05:14:24
January 13 2020 05:04 GMT
#40395
On January 13 2020 10:11 Mohdoo wrote:
God I want Bernie to surprise take every single early state and rip his shirt in half while calling for Biden to surrender, not concede, but surrender



tbf he's leading in polls in Iowa and NH now so that's the probable outcome. He's probably going to lose SC even with Biden flopping in the previous two contests but it should be a clear choice between Biden and Sanders by the end of super Tuesday.

Those that choose Biden at that point are just flat out selfish/wrong imo
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Dangermousecatdog
Profile Joined December 2010
United Kingdom7084 Posts
January 13 2020 14:38 GMT
#40396
On January 13 2020 08:56 Aquanim wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 13 2020 08:54 Wombat_NI wrote:
Why does the population being small or large matter at all? If something is proportionally balanced it should scale up or down.

I don't think this is inherently a universal principle. The number of layers of bureaucracy things have to go through matters.
May happen in the opposite direction to what you may think with economies of scale and buying power.
WombaT
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Northern Ireland25322 Posts
January 13 2020 14:56 GMT
#40397
On January 13 2020 23:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 13 2020 08:56 Aquanim wrote:
On January 13 2020 08:54 Wombat_NI wrote:
Why does the population being small or large matter at all? If something is proportionally balanced it should scale up or down.

I don't think this is inherently a universal principle. The number of layers of bureaucracy things have to go through matters.
May happen in the opposite direction to what you may think with economies of scale and buying power.

Layers of bureaucracy do matter in terms of cost yes, there aren’t necessarily more layers for bigger populations it depends entirely on the structure.

Healthcare in the US has quite a few but they’re structural issues it’s not because a lot of people live there. The federal regulations, then state regulations and laws, then the commercial insurance industry and medical service providers.

Which is reflected in the rather inefficient spending we see in that sector compared to those in other countries of comparable development.
'You'll always be the cuddly marsupial of my heart, despite the inherent flaws of your ancestry' - Squat
Dangermousecatdog
Profile Joined December 2010
United Kingdom7084 Posts
Last Edited: 2020-01-13 15:32:18
January 13 2020 15:26 GMT
#40398
I'm saying that a large health system should see lower costs due to economies of scale and buying power.
ZerOCoolSC2
Profile Blog Joined February 2015
8983 Posts
January 13 2020 17:01 GMT
#40399
Cory Booker suspends his nomination. Sad he stayed longer than Harris, but it was bound to happen sooner or later. Looks like we're getting back to normality though. Overwhelming white people as nominations to lead the free world. Obama really was an aberration.
Yurie
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
11836 Posts
Last Edited: 2020-01-13 17:09:13
January 13 2020 17:08 GMT
#40400
On January 14 2020 00:26 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I'm saying that a large health system should see lower costs due to economies of scale and buying power.


It can also put anybody they are buying generics from into competition. It costs a pittance to set up a factory compared to getting price gouged when you are big enough. Especially if you co-finance it instead of running it.
Prev 1 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 5135 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
WardiTV European League
16:00
Playoffs Day 2
ByuN vs SKillousLIVE!
WardiTV996
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
IndyStarCraft 161
JuggernautJason100
BRAT_OK 76
SteadfastSC 72
ProTech43
MindelVK 27
StarCraft: Brood War
Mini 626
ggaemo 354
firebathero 205
Zeus 69
Mong 61
HiyA 28
Rock 25
Dota 2
qojqva4017
420jenkins790
LuMiX1
League of Legends
Grubby913
Reynor24
Counter-Strike
fl0m4423
ScreaM1751
sgares461
flusha206
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu502
Khaldor468
Other Games
Beastyqt760
Dendi521
Hui .124
Trikslyr55
QueenE43
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1760
StarCraft 2
angryscii 13
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 19 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH127
• printf 68
• tFFMrPink 27
• iHatsuTV 5
• Kozan
• Migwel
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• sooper7s
• intothetv
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
StarCraft: Brood War
• HerbMon 3
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV240
League of Legends
• Jankos1608
Other Games
• imaqtpie945
• Shiphtur197
Upcoming Events
Sparkling Tuna Cup
14h 56m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
18h 56m
Bonyth vs TBD
WardiTV European League
20h 56m
Wardi Open
1d 15h
OSC
2 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
3 days
The PondCast
4 days
Replay Cast
5 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
5 days
RSL Revival
6 days
[ Show More ]
RSL Revival
6 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

BSL 20 Non-Korean Championship
FEL Cracow 2025
Underdog Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Qualifiers
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
HCC Europe
CC Div. A S7
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025

Upcoming

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
WardiTV Summer 2025
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
Thunderpick World Champ.
MESA Nomadic Masters Fall
CAC 2025
Roobet Cup 2025
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.