| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 07 2018 03:19 JimmyJRaynor wrote: nah, i think Reagan was a good prez and he got re-elected in a massive marjority due to that fact. I'm not sure why you're saying "nah" as if that counters my correct point; or that it address the clearly established lack of credibility from your statements. you seem to be ignoring my point entirely and simply asserting that you're correct. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada18017 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=261#5220 | ||
KwarK
United States44410 Posts
On June 07 2018 03:19 JimmyJRaynor wrote: nah, i think Reagan was a good prez and he got re-elected in a massive marjority due to that fact. his excellent performance on the economy was only 1 aspect of his good work as Prez. Cutting taxes while raising spending has always been popular with voters while fiscal responsibility is always a hard sell unfortunately. The average voter also struggles with whether two things can happen at similar times without one having caused the other. In Britain Thatcher coincided with striking oil in the North Sea and receiving a colossal government revenue windfall. It’s important to remember that she didn’t find the oil money through her economic policy, that was going to happen anyway. Her economic policy was the reason why all the oil money got spent on unemployment benefits to the half of the country she laid off. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 07 2018 03:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote: you don't let me finish. It's a forum post; you have all the time in the world to finish before you submit the post. If it's not finished, then don't post it. otherwise I'm not sure what your point is. so you're simply lying. as I CANT STOP YOU from finishing. you might want to do less editing, and more focusing on getting your post right the first time. also, I don' tneed to prove that reagan did a bad job, because that's not my claim; my claim is that your claim of him doing a great job which massively improved the economy is ignorant nonsense. to provide a link to the topic: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-let-trump-or-any-president-take-credit-for-strong-jobs-numbers/ and there's plenty of other links out there with cites to the scholarly research | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 07 2018 03:24 KwarK wrote: Cutting taxes while raising spending has always been popular with voters while fiscal responsibility is always a hard sell unfortunately. The average voter also struggles with whether two things can happen at similar times without one having caused the other. People also forget the recession that followed Reagen and his economic policies. It’s easy to make the economy burn hot for a couple of years with tax cuts and spending. But that catches up with you real quick. | ||
|
brian
United States9644 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada18017 Posts
On June 07 2018 03:16 zlefin wrote: You've just proven you don't understand how causation works, and hence your points about reagan have no credibility  you're merely an exemplar of a fact that's been massively documented in the political science literature: presidents are given FAR more blame/credit for the economy than is actually warranted for the limited amount of influence they actually have. in 1984, the average american viewed Reagan is one of the important causal factors of the improvement in the economy from 1980 to 1984. This along with other good things Reagan did resulted in a massive 1984 landslide victory. during the 1979 election campaign Reagan went on and on about how he'd improve the economy. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8281 Posts
On June 07 2018 03:34 brian wrote: your 2) is a sentence, maybe, but surely not a convincing argument. no part of that sentence betrays to me how the words ‘Planned Parenthood’ have aluded to your claim. surely those seeking abortions are specifically avoiding parenthood. having an abortion, you’ll find, is not the definition of a planned parenthood. you even go on to call having the baby ‘unplanned parenthood,’ i would think this suggests maybe it’s not in the name. i’m with you on the rest, but i’m specifically skeptical of the claim ‘it’s literally in their name.’ i’m also happy to leave it unanswered should that be the case. You're ignoring the "planned" part of planned parenthood here. An abortion 'now' is because it was unplanned, so you can have a kid at a later time when it is planned instead. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On June 07 2018 03:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote: the economic boom lasted 7+ years. it went from very bad.. to very good from 1980 to 1984. in 1984, the average american viewed Reagan is one of the important causal factors of the improvement in the economy from 1980 to 1984. This along with other good things Reagan did resulted in a massive 1984 landslide victory. Reagan simply practised good old Keynesianism. Cut taxes and use deficit spending to grow the economy, obviously it's popular because it works (especially if you don't have to be around for the part where you're supposed to raise taxes) | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 07 2018 03:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote: the economic boom lasted 7+ years. it went from very bad.. to very good from 1980 to 1984. in 1984, the average american viewed Reagan is one of the important causal factors of the improvement in the economy from 1980 to 1984. This along with other good things Reagan did resulted in a massive 1984 landslide victory. yes, the average american was wrong; I'm not sure what your point is? noone contested that people's foolish false attribution of the economy to reagan affected his success; and it specifically matches up with what I said. Do you even understand the argument that's being made? | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada18017 Posts
On June 07 2018 03:41 zlefin wrote: yes, the average american was wrong; I'm not sure what your point is? noone contested that people's foolish false attribution of the economy to reagan affected his success. Do you even understand the argument that's being made? i do and i stated it in a previous post. Reagan did a good job with the economy and as a result of this and other factors like the sun not burning out or a nuclear war with the USSR the economy went from very bad to very good during his term as Prez and then continued to do well the remainder of his presidency. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12613 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 07 2018 03:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote: the economic boom lasted 7+ years. in 1984, the average american viewed Reagan is one of the important causal factors of the improvement in the economy from 1980 to 1984. This along with other good things Reagan did resulted in a massive 1984 landslide victory. I don’t think you’ll find many people willing to relitigate how much credit Reagan deserves from the boom following his economic policy, and the stoppage of the Carter stagflation. I’m with you in the main. I have never seen a soul willing to concede that he deserves tremendous credit and plaudits having originally concluded otherwise. It means too much to current ideological, political, economic, and fiscal doctrines today. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 07 2018 03:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i do and i stated it in a previous post. Reagan did a good job with the economy and as a result of this and other factors like the sun not burning out or a nuclear war with the USSR the economy went from very bad to very good. can you demonstrate that you understand what my argument is? for instance, can you restate my argument? not just quoting it, but restate in your own words, as a demonstration of understanding? because what you've been doing so far demonstrates a complete failure to understand my argument. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44410 Posts
On June 07 2018 03:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote: the economic boom lasted 7+ years. it went from very bad to very good from 1980 to 1984. it was a big change. the 1990 recession was not as bad as the recession that occurred at the end of Carter's presidency. in 1984, the average american viewed Reagan is one of the important causal factors of the improvement in the economy from 1980 to 1984. This along with other good things Reagan did resulted in a massive 1984 landslide victory. during the 1979 election campaign Reagan went on and on about how he'd improve the economy. You’re sliding between two extremely different claims without substantiating one of them. Arguing that the average American thought Reagan was responsible is claim one, and a claim I’m totally fine with. I’m not going to dispute claim one. But you then attempt to switch to claim two, Reagan was responsible, and don’t support claim two at all. They’re not the same thing, you can’t turn them into one claim and insist we swallow both. Also has any politician ever not claimed to have a plan to improve the economy? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 07 2018 03:43 Nebuchad wrote: I will never understand how people can watch a bunch of rich people supporting politicians saying "If you give money to rich people it will trickle down on you so that's good for you", then watch those politicians proceed to give money to rich people and be rewarded with more support from the same rich people, and never at least think "Hmm this looks mildly suspicious". Because they foolishly believe their bosses who say that they are all in it together and when the company does well, everyone does well. And they assume that applies to a national scale. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada18017 Posts
On June 07 2018 03:45 KwarK wrote: You’re sliding between two extremely different claims without substantiating one of them. Arguing that the average American thought Reagan was responsible is claim one, and a claim I’m totally fine with. I’m not going to dispute claim one. But you then attempt to switch to claim two, Reagan was responsible, and don’t support claim two at all. They’re not the same thing, you can’t turn them into one claim and insist we swallow both. Also has any politician ever not claimed to have a plan to improve the economy? good point, i'll provide substantiation for both claims when i have more time. On June 07 2018 03:45 KwarK wrote: Also has any politician ever not claimed to have a plan to improve the economy? i know several NDP MPs and MPPs that never discuss the economy. its pretty bizarre the MPs that got elected in Quebec. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On June 07 2018 03:44 Danglars wrote: I don’t think you’ll find many people willing to relitigate how much credit Reagan deserves from the boom following his economic policy, and the stoppage of the Carter stagflation. I’m with you in the main. I have never seen a soul willing to concede that he deserves tremendous credit and plaudits having originally concluded otherwise. It means too much to current ideological, political, economic, and fiscal doctrines today. It's pretty much always ridiculous to conflate correlation with causation when it comes to presidents and economic developments. Bill Clinton didn't turn the deficit to zero because he had great presidential abilities but because he rode the dotcom boom, Obama wasn't lavishly spending but had to absorb the public debt of the bank bailouts. President don't really have magical skills. ![[image loading]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EvtjolYJlLI/WCTIdvPCZfI/AAAAAAAACwA/_yYznouL4uoCBB8whybUh5lwKAqaAOCqQCLcB/s1600/figure0.png) | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
In an attempt to be charitable, I'm going to say that Trump just joked about Canadians being the ones to burn down the White House in the War of 1812, as he moved to impose a national security tariff on their steel that we import. Although, when he's labeling Canada as a national security risk by effecting this tariff, it's hard to imagine he's joking, and instead doesn't know middle school-level US history, or indeed anything about how to treat your allies. This bodes well. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 07 2018 04:02 NewSunshine wrote: https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1004419922380943361 In an attempt to be charitable, I'm going to say that Trump just joked about Canadians being the ones to burn down the White House in the War of 1812, as he moved to impose a national security tariff on their steel that we import. Although, when he's labeling Canada as a national security risk by effecting this tariff, it's hard to imagine he's joking, and instead doesn't know middle school-level US history, or indeed anything about how to treat your allies. This bodes well. It really looks like you’re demonstrating that the rationalization is a joke, since you conclude this is no way to treat allies, not that it has implications for the defense department and homeland security. Do you really think national security isn’t just an excuse to unilaterally impose tariffs that he called for in the campaign? Contrary to your point, it’s very easy to believe Trump does not seriously take Canada to be a national security risk. | ||
| ||
|
|
Patches Events
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
OSC
IntoTheTV X SOOP
Reynor vs Solar
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs MaxPax
herO vs Rogue
WardiTV Invitational
IPSL
WorsT vs nOmaD
Dewalt vs andersOn
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
