General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 68

what a bad prediction of what will happen, lol

 

Trump and Bernie couldn't be more opposite, I wouldn't see it as them subtly agreeing on many topics. And you know Bernie doesn't flat-out trash Hillary, and I highly doubt they'd be high-fiving over their shared disdain for her. Bernie would keep it on the issues which Trump straight up doesn't do. Bernie is trying to get to the convention with as many delegates as possible and there's a portion of the population out there right now - many independents - who are probably on the fence between either Bernie or Trump (and yes I know how ridiculous that sounds) so it could help to sway some people. But honestly, for me it would just be fun to watch. You wouldn't be able to script something that would be better than whatever would happen during this debate. Yeah, Bernie is essentially mathematically eliminated at this point so how is it a problem? What does he have to lose?

 

A more accurate prediction will be they will both say the same things we've heard the say a million times, they will go after each other a little. Trump will call Bernie a socialist and unamerican, Benrie will call trump a racist. They will both trash the system and Hillary. Bernie supporters will think Bernie won, Trump supporters will think Trump won. Hillary will be the big loser.

 

I am altogether unconcerned with lame duck/already lost primary candidates hurting the presumptive nominee, especially given that it's Hillary, who had no such concerns with regard to Obama and went after him much harder (and racist-er) than Bernie has been going at her.

 

I'm not gonna lie, I agree that it would be pretty fun to watch, although frustrating as a Hillary supporter.

And they would be subtly agreeing when they both trash the establishment. The issue is, if Bernie truly is against having Trump as president, he does "lose" in that indirect sense.

IMO debates are better when it's not two polar opposites or discussing issues that the debaters obviously would disagree with - ie. it's 2008 and you know that McCain and Obama disagree on publicized health care, so it would be "more of the same" for them to both just give their stump speeches on their well-known positions.

 

Yes, clearly Sanders and Trump are going to spend two hours agreeing with each other. I have encountered but a few Clinton supporters online and in the real world. I have encountered none that have any agreeable, let alone critical, sense of reality.

The best attack politician we've seen? That has to be a joke, right?

Also, no democrat has debated the Trumpernaut.

 

Trump team already using the debate to attack Hillary

"Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but senior adviser Sarah Huckabee Sanders told MSNBC that the prospect of the debate "just goes to show that Donald Trump is not afraid of Bernie Sanders nearly as much as Hillary Clinton is who refuses to debate Bernie."

"If she can't handle the guys in her own party, how do we expect her to take on foreign leaders that are probably much more aggressive than Bernie Sanders," Huckabee Sanders added. "Whether it happens or not, I think we're all waiting to see about that. But Donald Trump certainly is happy to debate Bernie Sanders, I think, at any point."

 

I mean, look at how Trump was attacked during the primaries and look where he is now.


And seriously? You support Clinton=you have no sense of reality?

 

Sorry, one of the best defense politicians. Good article on how he does it. is http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...oiting_cruz_and_rubio_s_biggest_weakness.html

In a sense his defense is his attack. The best offense is a good defense.

 

Believe it or not, our tax system does a pretty good job collecting the taxes it's supposed to collect. Our tax code is loopholed out the ass of course, but that's a lot different from what was going on in Greece.

And when i say extreme amounts of debt, I'm talking their debt to GDP ratio is up near 175% right now. To put that in perspective, we're roughly around 100% right now, depending on how you look at it (if you include all debts and not just public or external or etc). We also of course have the luxury of being the world's currency.

 

Gotcha. Thanks for the info. That's a good point. Japan has a crazy debt problem going on now too right? I guess the main point is we are getting up there, and piling on isn't necessarily a good idea. But then again, as long as it jumpstarts the economy, it doesn't really matter. You just have to hope it works. Like I said, It's a gamble.

 

No idea how reliable, but bad for Bernie if true.

 

Wouldn't be the first time they debated

 

That makes much more sense.

In a sense that isn't tailor made for racist morons, I would argue that in fact Hillary Clinton is the best defensive debater of our time. On offense, she comes off as a total dick, but it's incredible how hard it is to corner her in a debate given all the inconsistencies in her platform, contradictions in her policy history, and obvious corruption.

Also, that comes off as majorly backhanded, but it's a genuine belief. The woman has a great deal of political savvy on the stage and she did a good job of turning Sanders' progressive statements into anti-liberal, anti-Obama, quasi-racist slander to solidify her standing with black Southern voters. Reprehensible, but effective. Might as well be Clinton's slogan.

 

I do not think most Hillary supporters actually support her. Their default setting is the status quo, who seems more likely to win, who has the best chance at stopping Trump, etc. There isn't much of an activist base around her. Do not get me wrong, there are some zealous Hillary supporters, but they aren't the norm. And those zealous supporters are detached from reality, both given Clinton's record and what she is likely to do in office. They also happen to be more likely to accept the "new democrat" consensus, which jettisons responsibilities towards the poor and people of color in favor of third-way (right-wing) policies that have a liberal gloss; they're more interested in how something appears to be liberal than the actual form of legislation.

 

Holly shit. I love that slogan. And you may be right, she might be better than trump. It's going to be interesting watching them debate.

 

Yeah Japan's debt to GDP ratio is something north of 220% I think lol. They've been able to keep it afloat with easy money policies though--bascially our QE program on Barry Bonds/Mark McGuire type steroids.

As for piling on debt...yeah, probably not the best idea. But a large public health care system doesn't have to come with large amounts of debt. It can be paid for in various taxes, and I'd venture a guess most of the negative economic effects from those higher taxes would be offset by the amount of capital suddenly freed up for companies who no longer have to provide health insurance to their workers. I assume some of them, especially big companies, would keep offering private insurance as a competitive advantage, but a public health care system would be especially liberating for smaller companies and businesses who can't afford providing health insurance for all their workers.

 

This is a good point. I have a friend who is a die hard Hillary fan, so I hope you don't mind that I quoted you to him to get his take, and also wanted to see how a Hillary supporter would defend them selves on this. Here is his response:

"I thinks his characterization of moderate democrats is unfair. I think that the far left has co-opted the term "liberal" and used it to define their narrow beliefs, and thus, are able to call anyone less radical than them a "conservative". Then they are able to say anyone not in their camp is basically a conservative, even though there is a huge ideology gap between someone like Hillary and actual conservatives like Paul Ryan, John Kasich, etc. It is the same thing the Tea Party does on the republican side. Anyone who doesn't fully align with the furthest right ideology is called a RINO or "basically a Democrat". Its just one tactic radicals use to legitimize their own beliefs, along with calling everyone who is moderate "establishment".

 

Someone tell me how I'm supposed to feel about this Peter Theil vs Gawker thing.

On one hand, the whole gawker network is gross and I'd be happy to see it gone. What they did to both thiel and hulk hogan is in fact terrible.

On the other hand, watching how easily a billionaire can litigate an entire media network to death is terrifying.

 

Unfortunately, to me, the answer comes in the big hypothetical of how this would have gone for Hulk Hogan without Theil's intervention. The result could have been the same. Or it could have had a different outcome

 

Idk, in the article I read about it this kind of stood out to me:

Mr. Thiel added: “I can defend myself. Most of the people they attack are not people in my category. They usually attack less prominent, far less wealthy people that simply can’t defend themselves.” He said that “even someone like Terry Bollea who is a millionaire and famous and a successful person didn’t quite have the resources to do this alone.”

Mr. Thiel said that he had decided several years ago to set his plan in motion. “I didn’t really want to do anything,” he said. “I thought it would do more harm to me than good. One of my friends convinced me that if I didn’t do something, nobody would.”

Sounds like he didn't take down a media network, bur a cyber bully.

 

That's the main takeaway. He's not like some patent troll doing legal action for the sake of legal action - he did this because Gawker actually did something wrong.

 

Yeah, Gawker can choke on it.

 

Bernie agreeing to the "debate" so quickly was a pretty excellent move by him.

1) Trump agrees to the debate. Bernie gets bonus coverage, also gets a chance to help take down Trump. People get to see first hand how different their policies really are.

2) Trump runs away from the debate. Bernie still gets some coverage but less, but Trump looks weak.

 

The far left has most definitely not co-opted the term "liberal." The far left (basically starting at farther than Bernie, probably, or anything "radical") wants nothing to do with the term "liberal." Leftists are self described as leftists for the most part. We don't need to paint liberals as conservatives because we disagree with liberalism anyway. Liberalism is capitalism, we are anti-capitalists. We also don't need to "legitimize" our beliefs, they are legitimized by the legitimate philosophical grounding built up throughout history. I also reject the "huge ideology gap" between Hillary and conservatives. They are flavors of the ideology of liberal capitalism. They all want law and order policing, they all want free markets with some degree of regulation, they all support wage labor and private property. The gap between these flavors is far less than that between liberalism and socialism, which has a totally different ontological grounding. Its pretty laughable to reject an "establishment" label for Hillary as well. If that doesn't bother you, fine, but serving the party line in the senate, being hawkish as hell as Secretary of State, and taking as much money from wall street as anyone is pretty 'establishment' to me.