I don't even want to look at this thread, democratic debates kill brain cells. If Bernie Sanders or Clinton wont the election, the real loser would be America.
(On Lantern Control)"A guy who literally just sits there and mills cards he doesn't like from your library while he slowly, slowly kills you this way."
"If a person's profile includes anime or My Little Pony, feel free to ignore everything they say."
tldr:
- They guesstimate his current chances of winning at around 15%. For comparison, they've been pegging Trump's chances of winning the Republican nomination at about 5%.
15% may not be good, but with it being much better than 5% for Trump, I can't really complain .
I hate disagreeing with Nate, but well, get used to "Nominee Trump"
The GOP won't nominate Trump (or Cruz for that matter). Neither have any hope whatsoever in the general election because they are too extreme to pull in moderate voters. Yeah, they will secure the 15% of voters that are extreme right-wing, but any GOP candidate will get them. Kasich, Bush, or Rubio will be the nominee.
As for Sanders, he'll pull in the entire younger voting demographic, and at least he admits the US voting system is entirely broken. But the word "socialist" scares older voters, who make up the largest voting base. That leaves Clinton, creating an ugly mess.
Rubio short-circuited on the national stage, Kasich is too centrist to win the primary and then there's "Please Clap".
We're two primaries down and all three of them haven't won either. The best they did was second in new Hampshire which isn't enough to win. Polling data in south Carolina backs this up. The Republican people have spoken: Trump!
(On Lantern Control)"A guy who literally just sits there and mills cards he doesn't like from your library while he slowly, slowly kills you this way."
"If a person's profile includes anime or My Little Pony, feel free to ignore everything they say."
"We are concerned to see the Sanders campaign citing extreme claims by Gerald Friedman about the effect of Senator Sanders’s economic plan—claims that cannot be supported by the economic evidence. Friedman asserts that your plan will have huge beneficial impacts on growth rates, income and employment that exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans about the impact of their tax cut proposals.
As much as we wish it were so, no credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes."
As a side note, I find it interesting that potential supporters of Bern are way more active in the Trump thread.
As a side note, I find it interesting that potential supporters of Bern are way more active in the Trump thread.
You're assuming that because someone is liberal or very against Trump that they, by default, have to be supporters of the other side. Any rational human being should be against Trump, regardless of political ideology. He represents the absolute worst of America.
I also don't support Bernie. While I'm a proponent of socialized medicine, overall his plans seem like they're going to be way too expensive and unlikely to succeed politically.
As a side note, I find it interesting that potential supporters of Bern are way more active in the Trump thread.
You're assuming that because someone is liberal or very against Trump that they, by default, have to be supporters of the other side. Any rational human being should be against Trump, regardless of political ideology. He represents the absolute worst of America.
I also don't support Bernie. While I'm a proponent of socialized medicine, overall his plans seem like they're going to be way too expensive and unlikely to succeed politically.
Indeed. It would seem that a great number of his opponents come from his own party so it is a huge stretch to see anti-Trump and automatically jump to pro-Sanders.
You guys are awful defensive over a simple observation.
Also, Jay13x, I'm not the one making the assumptions.
An observation would require an observable trait. I have yet to see anyone recently in the trump thread come out to indicate support for Sanders. Without that you are left with assumptions, but I have an observation. Both Trump and your friend Cruz have a lot of opponents in their own party.
As a side note, I find it interesting that potential supporters of Bern are way more active in the Trump thread.
It's quite obvious that a portion of the posters in the Trump thread are left wing. That makes them potential supporters. Unless you want to deny that too.
As a side note, I find it interesting that potential supporters of Bern are way more active in the Trump thread.
It's quite obvious that a portion of the posters in the Trump thread are left wing. That makes them potential supporters. Unless you want to deny that too.
I do deny it. As previously stated you do not need to be left wing to oppose Trump. You do not go about calling Cruz "left-wing" because he is running against Trump do you?
Eh? Non sequitur? I'm not talking about Republicans who hate Trump. Not sure what the point of denying the patently obvious is, but whatever floats your boat.
Eh? Non sequitur? I'm not talking about Republicans who hate Trump. Not sure what the point of denying the patently obvious is, but whatever floats your boat.
Then what's the point of your post? This is the debate forum. If you don't want people to be critical of your opinions, go elsewhere. It certainly seems like the only point you're trying to make is a snide ad hominem. Even if every single Bernie supporter posted in the Trump thread instead of here, what does it matter?
Edit: You might find I actually agree with you, if you weren't being so blatantly partisan and using ad hominem allusions to imply... something you're not willing to outright state.
Wow, dude. I'm not sure what I've said to earn your seething hatred, but you are reading a hell of a lot into this.
Fact: The Sanders thread has 141 replies.
Fact: The Trump thread has 856 replies.
"It's interesting how one is so much more popular than another despite the fact that there are people who would potentially be supporters of Bern in the other thread"
And somehow that equals an Ad Hominem? I suppose I am suppose to let people make assumptions and jump around with non-sequiturs about my simple observation without any speculation at all? Because it's Debate.
Your reply assumes a bunch of things about what I think or was saying that are not true. And now, I am supposedly the one with the Ad Hominems. Alrighty then.... It just makes me wonder even more, because I am evidently triggering people hardcore just by pointing it out.
Wow, dude. I'm not sure what I've said to earn your seething hatred, but you are reading a hell of a lot into this.
Fact: The Sanders thread has 141 replies.
Fact: The Trump thread has 856 replies.
"It's interesting how one is so much more popular than another despite the fact that there are people who would potentially be supporters of Bern in the other thread"
And somehow that equals an Ad Hominem? I suppose I am suppose to let people make assumptions and jump around with non-sequiturs about my simple observation without any speculation at all? Because it's Debate.
Your reply assumes a bunch of things about what I think or was saying that are not true. And now, I am supposedly the one with the Ad Hominems. Alrighty then.... It just makes me wonder even more, because I am evidently triggering people hardcore just by pointing it out.
Jay has a point and I don't htink you need to take it personally. This is the debate forum if you do not want your posts to be questioned then do not put them here.
Eh? Non sequitur? I'm not talking about Republicans who hate Trump. Not sure what the point of denying the patently obvious is, but whatever floats your boat.
It sounds like you just want to ignore the debate section and not have anything you post called into question. So I will restate what has already been said, why is it a big deal if more people post in the Trump forum than the Sanders forum. If anything it only indicates that there is more controversy surrounding Trump(shocking, controversy around Trump who would have thought?)
@Dox: Yes, the 20 posts in this and the other thread with you equate to me wanting to ignore the debate section. If I say 1+1=2 and you say, no it doesn't, and I say yes it does and it's self-evident. If you want to dig in your heels that 1+1=3, then mate, we ain't getting far in that debate. But honestly, do you want to have a debate, or do you want to talk about what you think about me? Because one is appropriate and one is not, and I certainly am not interested in debating the latter.
Wow, dude. I'm not sure what I've said to earn your seething hatred, but you are reading a hell of a lot into this.
Fact: The Sanders thread has 141 replies.
Fact: The Trump thread has 856 replies.
"It's interesting how one is so much more popular than another despite the fact that there are people who would potentially be supporters of Bern in the other thread"
And somehow that equals an Ad Hominem? I suppose I am suppose to let people make assumptions and jump around with non-sequiturs about my simple observation without any speculation at all? Because it's Debate.
Your reply assumes a bunch of things about what I think or was saying that are not true. And now, I am supposedly the one with the Ad Hominems. Alrighty then.... It just makes me wonder even more, because I am evidently triggering people hardcore just by pointing it out.
Seething Hatred? I don't hate or even dislike you, I'm trying to get you to post more substantially. I'm not saying 'how dare you say this', I'm trying to understand what you actually mean by those statements.
The way you posted that observation, initially, made it seem like you were implying something that, now that I've gotten more out of you, it's pretty clear you were not. You're reading a lot into my post as well.
It's interesting how one is so much more popular than another despite the fact that there are people who would potentially be supporters of Bern in the other thread
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply by saying it's "interesting", what about it is interesting? Trump is a sideshow and people have strong feelings about him. There was definitely more activity in the other thread and it kind of became the "general politics" discussion a few times as you can note by it going way off topic more than once.
let's first ask whether an economic growth rate, as projected, of 5.3 percent per year is, as you
claim, “grandiose.” There are not many ambitious experiments in economic policy with which to
compare it, so let's go back to the Reagan years. What was the actual average real growth rate in 1983,
1984, and 1985, following the enactment of the Reagan tax cuts in 1981? Just under 5.4 percent. That's
a point of history, like it or not....
It is not fair or honest to claim that Professor Friedman's methods are extreme. On the contrary, with
respect to forecasting method, they are largely mainstream. Nor is it fair or honest to imply that you
have given Professor Friedman's paper a rigorous review. You have not.
Big night for Bernie last night. As per Nate Silver:
If Sanders winds up winning in Michigan, in fact, it will count as among the greatest polling errors in primary history. Clinton led by 21.3 percentage points in our final Michigan polling average. Previously, the candidate with the largest lead to lose a state in our database of well-polled primaries and caucuses was Walter Mondale, who led in New Hampshire by 17.1 percentage points but lost to Gary Hart in 1984.
Still an uphill battle, but winning Michigan means it's a ballgame.
tax plan the GOP has been trotting out since 1984. Cut taxes on the extremely wealthy and corporations because they will use that to "trickle down" and create jobs.
I just want to clarify on some misunderstandings here. There were a couple of tax reforms that Reagan enacted in the 80s. The first was an accross the board effective tax cut of about 23%. The second was a further reduction in the marginal rates, with further consolidation of brackets and the removal of a large amount of deductions. Indeed, the highest rates got a very significant change in the process, going from 70% to 28%. But this was not the only change. A huge part of the reform was fixing issues with bracket creep which put many people into difficult situations when they jumped rates even slightly. This was an enormous boon for the middle class.
Also, "Trickle Down" was not a term that was used or argued for by the GOP at the time. This is an oft referred to misrepresentation that originates from Democrats who were opposing Reagan's proposed cuts. The fact is that the cuts played a significant role in invigorating the economy, increasing actual government revenue, and pulling us out of the recession of the 70s. As is commonly the case in politics, perception is confused for reality, and people continue to use this political terminology from arguments that were thoroughly disproven at the time.
"Reaganism" is Keynesianism.
The issue was that the taxes were cut too much, and spending increased too much and that in part required raising taxes under Bush and Clinton. It wasn't until second Bush that we started to see the tax cuts combined with increases in spending that lacked the necessary investments to create the possibilities frontier economically.
Equally, Reagan's move to see the market as a divine force combined with the fall of Communism globally created a market hubris that lasts to today. Clinton used deregulation and free trade deals to try and make the market better, however we're seeing the ugly side of a market economy without proper government influence. But that isn't so much Reagan as much as people like Ayn Rand, Ludwig Mises, and other influential intellectuals who influenced people like Alan Greenspan to make stupid judgement calls on economic matters rather than using history and science to guide policy.
Then we have Grover Norquist and his pledge. Which basically means you can only lower taxes, not raise them. This isn't the movie speed where if you go above 80 miles per hour the bus going to set off a bomb, rather good taxation taxes everything a little than a lot.
Conservative economic policies that follow the New Deal trend are better for the country, while also having clear regulatory framework that is easy to sift through and easy to manage. This means cutting down paper work, but as soon as you talk about regulations everyone wants either more or to get rid of them. It's like government is an STD, and that abstinence is best... doesn't work after 30 years. And I am a conservative.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
Reagan was not Keynesian. Keynes was about government spending as a basis of growth. If you want Keynes then look to the obscenely expensive stimulus packages we put through under Bush and Obama (that did all of nothing).
If you want Keynesian, let's talk Sanders who wants to return to a 70% tax rates we had before Reagan. Speaking of whom, Sanders won MI but lost the majority of delegates anyway to Clinton. How's that work?
Reagan was not Keynesian. Keynes was about government spending as a basis of growth. If you want Keynes then look to the obscenely expensive stimulus packages we put through under Bush and Obama (that did all of nothing).
I do not think it is fair to say that it did nothing at all. We cannot know for sure how much worse the recession would have been had the other companies that received a bailout failed like Lehman brothers did. Additionally the bailout has now turned a net positive in tax revenue. I know seven years later is not ideal but the recovery is in full swing and that is hard to deny.
Speaking of whom, Sanders won MI but lost the majority of delegates anyway to Clinton. How's that work?
Super-delegates. On the Democratic side (the GOP doesn't have super-delegates) party elites count as extra delegates that are not voted on, and are allowed to pledge their support to whomever they want. No surprise, almost all of them are supporting Hillary. The catch is that they are allowed to switch their delegate support at any time. ie In 2008 many super-delegates came out for Hillary at the beginning and then later switched over to supporting Obama.
It is a system designed with the express purpose of knee-capping candidates like Trump and Sanders who are popular with voters but whom the party elites are not fans of.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Rubio short-circuited on the national stage, Kasich is too centrist to win the primary and then there's "Please Clap".
We're two primaries down and all three of them haven't won either. The best they did was second in new Hampshire which isn't enough to win. Polling data in south Carolina backs this up. The Republican people have spoken: Trump!
Who needs 50 states when 2 speaks for the country?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/02/18/bernie-sanders-told-to-stop-saying-bernies-economic-plans-will-be-terrific/#72ef122246d7
Excerpt, a quote from that letter
As a side note, I find it interesting that potential supporters of Bern are way more active in the Trump thread.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
I also don't support Bernie. While I'm a proponent of socialized medicine, overall his plans seem like they're going to be way too expensive and unlikely to succeed politically.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Also, Jay13x, I'm not the one making the assumptions.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
An observation would require an observable trait. I have yet to see anyone recently in the trump thread come out to indicate support for Sanders. Without that you are left with assumptions, but I have an observation. Both Trump and your friend Cruz have a lot of opponents in their own party.
It's quite obvious that a portion of the posters in the Trump thread are left wing. That makes them potential supporters. Unless you want to deny that too.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
Edit: You might find I actually agree with you, if you weren't being so blatantly partisan and using ad hominem allusions to imply... something you're not willing to outright state.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Fact: The Sanders thread has 141 replies.
Fact: The Trump thread has 856 replies.
"It's interesting how one is so much more popular than another despite the fact that there are people who would potentially be supporters of Bern in the other thread"
And somehow that equals an Ad Hominem? I suppose I am suppose to let people make assumptions and jump around with non-sequiturs about my simple observation without any speculation at all? Because it's Debate.
Your reply assumes a bunch of things about what I think or was saying that are not true. And now, I am supposedly the one with the Ad Hominems. Alrighty then.... It just makes me wonder even more, because I am evidently triggering people hardcore just by pointing it out.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
Jay has a point and I don't htink you need to take it personally. This is the debate forum if you do not want your posts to be questioned then do not put them here.
but when you say things like this:
It sounds like you just want to ignore the debate section and not have anything you post called into question. So I will restate what has already been said, why is it a big deal if more people post in the Trump forum than the Sanders forum. If anything it only indicates that there is more controversy surrounding Trump(shocking, controversy around Trump who would have thought?)
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
The way you posted that observation, initially, made it seem like you were implying something that, now that I've gotten more out of you, it's pretty clear you were not. You're reading a lot into my post as well.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply by saying it's "interesting", what about it is interesting? Trump is a sideshow and people have strong feelings about him. There was definitely more activity in the other thread and it kind of became the "general politics" discussion a few times as you can note by it going way off topic more than once.
And here is an interesting response:
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/ResponsetoCEA.pdf
Still an uphill battle, but winning Michigan means it's a ballgame.
"Reaganism" is Keynesianism.
The issue was that the taxes were cut too much, and spending increased too much and that in part required raising taxes under Bush and Clinton. It wasn't until second Bush that we started to see the tax cuts combined with increases in spending that lacked the necessary investments to create the possibilities frontier economically.
Equally, Reagan's move to see the market as a divine force combined with the fall of Communism globally created a market hubris that lasts to today. Clinton used deregulation and free trade deals to try and make the market better, however we're seeing the ugly side of a market economy without proper government influence. But that isn't so much Reagan as much as people like Ayn Rand, Ludwig Mises, and other influential intellectuals who influenced people like Alan Greenspan to make stupid judgement calls on economic matters rather than using history and science to guide policy.
Then we have Grover Norquist and his pledge. Which basically means you can only lower taxes, not raise them. This isn't the movie speed where if you go above 80 miles per hour the bus going to set off a bomb, rather good taxation taxes everything a little than a lot.
Conservative economic policies that follow the New Deal trend are better for the country, while also having clear regulatory framework that is easy to sift through and easy to manage. This means cutting down paper work, but as soon as you talk about regulations everyone wants either more or to get rid of them. It's like government is an STD, and that abstinence is best... doesn't work after 30 years. And I am a conservative.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
If you want Keynesian, let's talk Sanders who wants to return to a 70% tax rates we had before Reagan. Speaking of whom, Sanders won MI but lost the majority of delegates anyway to Clinton. How's that work?
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
Super-delegates. On the Democratic side (the GOP doesn't have super-delegates) party elites count as extra delegates that are not voted on, and are allowed to pledge their support to whomever they want. No surprise, almost all of them are supporting Hillary. The catch is that they are allowed to switch their delegate support at any time. ie In 2008 many super-delegates came out for Hillary at the beginning and then later switched over to supporting Obama.
It is a system designed with the express purpose of knee-capping candidates like Trump and Sanders who are popular with voters but whom the party elites are not fans of.