mcbigski Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 Shit can happen to anyone at any time especially into your 70s plus. That being said, Trump still seems to be able to perform spontaneously at his rallies in a way that Biden or Hillary no longer can. Maybe I was just a tad too quick to assume media bias affected your opinion when the media decided it was credible that Kavanaugh post SC nomination masterminded drugging and gang raping girls while he was in high school but media darling and Clinton buddy Weinstein wasn't an issue for decades. The broad cast media clearly tilts the playing field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted November 9, 2019 Author Share Posted November 9, 2019 https://images.app.goo.gl/Sta4WVYQD89yLYGQ7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 3 hours ago, mcbigski said: The broad cast media clearly tilts the playing field. You mean kind of like spending more time on Hillary's emails, rather than talking about policy? Everything about Hillary's emails was nonsense and the media had more important things to cover. Yet, it decided to spend an enormous amount of time on the subject, to the detriment of everything else and giving the suggestion that there was something really important about her emails. If you are a Trumpist, you should have been very happy with the media and its Hillary email coverage. Now, I realize we should spend most of our time worrying about the feelings of super sensitive conservative snowflakes, but I'll make the heretical suggestion that people on the left have some legitimate grievances against the broad cast media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 13 hours ago, Tywin et al. said: Socialism: An interchangeable term used to deflect and belittle my political opponent. Because the term is interchangeable, it can be applied in any setting and always works as a meaningless Trump card. Not a bad definition. Here in the United States in particular, I think socialism means: Any government program or policy I happen to dislike at any particular point in time. Government programs and policies I like aren't socialism because I say so. I can change my mind about a particular government policy or program moving it from the socialist to the non socialist category and vice versa ,and hence changing my own personal definition socialism, any time I please. I can do so without notification. It's up to other people to figure what I mean by socialism even if I change it's definition minute by minute. If you argue with me about socialism and are utterly confused about what we are even talking about, because I'm constantly changing its definition, then that is your fault for being such a socialist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 21 hours ago, Ran said: Well, yes, it's economics. But this is why Saez and Zucman (and Pikett) trying to completely flip economics on its head with their high wealth tax proposals gets me, since they, too, are playing with excessively limited data in which they make a number of controversial (among economists) decisions to get to their conclusions. 21 hours ago, Rippounet said: Well to be fair, the system is extraordinarily complex so very few people (if any) can claim to understand it perfectly. Frankly, saying something is controversial among economist doesn't really illuminate matters much. During the financial crises, economist disagreed over the effects of fiscal stimulus. Robert Lucas, Nobel Prize winner, basically called the well regard Christina Romer a fraud and liar. And of course, economist aren't free from ideological biases either. Sometimes to the point of making ridiculous claims. Recall University of Chicago's John Cochrane and Eugene Fama (another Nobel Prize Winner) basically claiming that a good model of the economy was MV = Py where V is fixed. That was a horrendous analytical mistake for them to make, yet they made it anyway. Another part of the problem is understanding the actual models economist are working with. Lucas and his posse, basically U. of Chicago economics department and the so called fresh water schools, are basically working an RBC model of the economy, which is basically the Arrow-Debreu model. While Arrow Debreu might be an interesting result, there a are plenty of reasons to believe it has nothing to do with the real world. And accordingly, the RBC model is basically a piece of trash. Further, the whole Volker episode should have shown it be an utterly useless model. Yet, a lot of economist still cling to it. There are a lot of economist who think any taxation of capital is bad. But, there thinking primarily comes from the Chamely-Judd model. And it takes a bit of understanding of what goes into that model. For one it assumes perfect foresight. It also assumes that holders of capital are trying to maximize their consumption (or their progeny) and don't accumulate wealth for reasons of status and prestige. Zucman and Saez to their credit have offered models of capital taxation that don't make some of the assumptions of the Chamely-Judd model, which are suspect. Also, some of the standard wisdom does need to be trashed. For example, no basic economic textbook has any business of showing labor markets working according to the the standard partial equilibrium competitive model. There is no reason to think labor markets actually work like that. Yet it still appears in textbooks. Also, you have people like Raj Chetty working to make the discipline more empirically based, which is controversial, among some people. His work has certainly raised the libertarian hackles of people like Russ Roberts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 10 hours ago, Triskele said: I was not aware that there was a Gorilla Channel. Well, that is because you are on it, not viewing it. You are the product, not the customer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 7 hours ago, OldGimletEye said: You mean kind of like spending more time on Hillary's emails, rather than talking about policy? Everything about Hillary's emails was nonsense and the media had more important things to cover. Yet, it decided to spend an enormous amount of time on the subject, to the detriment of everything else and giving the suggestion that there was something really important about her emails. If you are a Trumpist, you should have been very happy with the media and its Hillary email coverage. Now, I realize we should spend most of our time worrying about the feelings of super sensitive conservative snowflakes, but I'll make the heretical suggestion that people on the left have some legitimate grievances against the broad cast media. The media is currently falling all over its self to proclaim what a terrible idea Medicare for All is. It also played a huge part in the swift-boating of John Kerry. The truth is that some of those on the American right know how to tickle the media in just the right places to get the results they want. And that is not even getting in to actual right-wing mouthpieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 12 minutes ago, Martell Spy said: Well, that is because you are on it, not viewing it. You are the product, not the customer. He is a chimp not a gorilla. Do all apes looks the same to you? You sir, are an Apist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 11 hours ago, mcbigski said: Shit can happen to anyone at any time especially into your 70s plus. That being said, Trump still seems to be able to perform spontaneously at his rallies in a way that Biden or Hillary no longer can. Maybe I was just a tad too quick to assume media bias affected your opinion when the media decided it was credible that Kavanaugh post SC nomination masterminded drugging and gang raping girls while he was in high school but media darling and Clinton buddy Weinstein wasn't an issue for decades. The broad cast media clearly tilts the playing field. I don't see the relevance, but my stance with Kavenaugh was the sexual harassment stuff was the wrong approach, almost irrelevant in this era where every new month brings yet another news story of a politician having an affair or some such, My view was the Democratic Party should have forcibly brought up Kavenaugh's record of judicial misdeeds and lack of qualifications, regardless of the republicans wishes - kind of like the Republicans are doing now with the impeachment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 1 hour ago, ThinkerX said: I don't see the relevance, but my stance with Kavenaugh was the sexual harassment stuff was the wrong approach, almost irrelevant in this era where every new month brings yet another news story of a politician having an affair or some such, My view was the Democratic Party should have forcibly brought up Kavenaugh's record of judicial misdeeds and lack of qualifications, regardless of the republicans wishes - kind of like the Republicans are doing now with the impeachment. There's a big difference between consensual adult affairs and sexual harassment or assault. Obviously some affairs, like Bill Clinton's, can be problematic as well when there is coercion or a power imbalance. I thought the allegations against Kavanaugh were credible, and supported by details independently corroborated. And the lies he told and the temper tantrum he threw under questioning should have disqualified him. No need to rehash it, that's simply my belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 judicial appointments can be remedied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 When you actually think about it, so much of the Trump/Republican defence about Ukraine can actually be summarized as ‘Why should you be punished for a crime someone else noticed?’ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 54 minutes ago, sologdin said: judicial appointments can be remedied. À la lanterne? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 22 minutes ago, Triskele said: How? With their lifetime appointments it seems quite hopeless. A 2-term Democratic President would be a good start. Also altering lifetime appointments. Also packing the SC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon in the North Posted November 10, 2019 Share Posted November 10, 2019 1 hour ago, James Arryn said: ‘Why should you be punished for a crime someone else noticed?’ That’s an Arrested Development quote, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted November 10, 2019 Share Posted November 10, 2019 19 hours ago, ThinkerX said: way back when, six or eight months before the last presidential election, I made two statements on this board which were repeatedly ridiculed: First, there was a very strong possibility that Trump would actually win; and Second, Trump also stood a high chance of being impeached. Right now, I'm wondering if I'm going to be two for two here. Then, third... said this many times before, but given Trumps declining physical and mental condition, odds are pushing 50-50 he won't be a viable 2020 presidential candidate. I think most would agree with you that based on his age, lifestyle and behavior Trump is at a very high risk in terms of his physical and mental health. Certainly that point does not warrant ridicule. However, it's rather fundamentally different than making election prognostications, and more importantly I think some people (myself included) feel it's kind of classless to be implicitly rooting for some incapacitating health emergency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted November 10, 2019 Share Posted November 10, 2019 1 hour ago, Dragon in the North said: That’s an Arrested Development quote, right? Yep. Bob Loblaw. I think I got the quote slightly off, I think it’s go to jail’, etc. edit: just saw that poll that 62% of Republican voters say there is literally nothing Trump could possibly do that would cause them to consider not supporting him. That’s...that’s not good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted November 10, 2019 Share Posted November 10, 2019 2 hours ago, DMC said: I think most would agree with you that based on his age, lifestyle and behavior Trump is at a very high risk in terms of his physical and mental health. Certainly that point does not warrant ridicule. However, it's rather fundamentally different than making election prognostications, and more importantly I think some people (myself included) feel it's kind of classless to be implicitly rooting for some incapacitating health emergency. rooting for it is one thing. acknowledging it as a serious possibility is another. You might see it as 'classless,' I see it as 'realistic.' Ignoring a realistic possibility because it is distasteful is foolish. (which, in a sense, is how Trump ended up in the Oval Office to begin with) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted November 10, 2019 Share Posted November 10, 2019 10 minutes ago, ThinkerX said: You might see it as 'classless,' I see it as 'realistic.' Ignoring a realistic possibility because it is distasteful is foolish. Ok, well, I agree it's a realistic possibility, but I don't see any point in bringing up a bunch. That's when it gets classless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted November 10, 2019 Share Posted November 10, 2019 Poll on MSNBC site: something on the order of 0.02%? of voters? Quote If the 2020 presidential election were held today, who would you vote for president? 32% President Trump 62% A Democratic nominee 6% No opinion Based on 258,422 responses. Snapshot of real-time results Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.