Worrying About a Trump Victory? Don't.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-10-2016, 06:36 AM
RE: Worrying About a Trump Victory? Don't.
(25-10-2016 07:52 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(25-10-2016 05:47 PM)Dom Wrote:  I think she is a good candidate. She knows her stuff, her husband was the only one who significantly reduced the national debt while still supporting full "entitlements" (which to me just means that all the freaking money I paid to the government for my retirement will at least pay me some back.) I don't think she will start any new wars.

Of course she is bought and paid for - every freaking politician is. (That's why people love Sanders and Trump). Even freaking town majors are bought and paid for in many cases.
You aren't going to stop this by choosing someone less qualified. There needs to be change - and it needs to start with lobbying and election finance. I think everyone wants that.

Vilifying her for being a politician is stupid. If you want change, change the system. Electing an incompetent prez isn't going to do anyone any good.

I think you are giving too much credit/blame to any president for the economy during their presidency. If anything, you need to be blaming and giving credit Congress and The Fed, but even that's dubious, as there are a lot of things completely out of their control that can and do drastically effect the economy. If you're hellbent on giving the president credit, as many do, then you are statistically one of the people prone to confirmation bias, E.G. when my candidate's in office and the economy sucks, it was because of the last guy in office, but when it's good it's because my guy is a economics genius that controls everything expertly. Maybe that isn't you, so if it's not, so be it.

It's easy to say that every politician is bought and paid for, but that's not really true. We both know intellectually that there are some honest politicians. The truth is though, that the more prominent of a politician you are, the more likely it is you got there by compromising yourself. There are occasionally exceptions, and there are those at the bottom hoping to sell out, but there are honest politicians.

You seem to be saying, only those who have been corrupted are qualified, as if that is the qualification. I.E. He/She knows how to sell themselves out, therefore they are smart, therefore they are the best choices to govern us. I find that logic to be faulty and intellectually offensive. If you meant otherwise, please clarify your point, because that's exactly what I got out of it.

Just because the likes of Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and Darrell Castle, as examples, aren't being "sponsored" by Goldman Sachs, does not make them less qualified, it makes them more qualified.

Where did I say that this is causal? I most certainly didn't say they were qualified because they were bought and paid for. These are not causally related. They just happen to often occur together because of the way the lobbying system works.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2016, 07:23 AM
RE: Worrying About a Trump Victory? Don't.
(26-10-2016 04:08 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  I was kind of bothered about him when I saw "@ScottAdamsSays".

My first thought was, "Here is a man right up his own arse."

He's a rather pathetic excuse for a modern caveman (sans the muscles and with extra primitive attitudes).

But that arse bit reminded me of one of my most favourite QI moments ever. Applies to so many... Dodgy





"My back would be pretty sore too, if I had spent the last 25 years with my head up my own arse." Price-less! Ba dum and all that jazz [Image: drum.gif]

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2016, 07:41 AM
RE: Worrying About a Trump Victory? Don't.
(25-10-2016 08:43 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(25-10-2016 08:27 PM)Fireball Wrote:  Any president who takes credit for any economic change for the better, or denies it if it is worse, in the first two years of his (her) term is full of shit. It takes that long before anything the president wants to get enacted into the system, and then it may or may not help that position.

^ QFT.

"Economics columnist Robert J. Samuelson this summer dismissed presidential economic influence, including Reaganomics and Clintonomics, writing, “Sensible voters ... should recognize that if presidents could control the business cycle, recessions would never occur, there would always be 'full employment' and inflation would remain forever tame."

Me, I think that the things they do that are routine and bureacratic don't have an impact. But if a guy signs massive tax cuts for the wealthy and then sends the nation into a military conflict that costs a 1 billion USD per week...I am a bit skeptical if I am told that action has no impact.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like tomilay's post
26-10-2016, 09:24 AM
RE: Worrying About a Trump Victory? Don't.
(26-10-2016 06:36 AM)Dom Wrote:  
(25-10-2016 07:52 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I think you are giving too much credit/blame to any president for the economy during their presidency. If anything, you need to be blaming and giving credit Congress and The Fed, but even that's dubious, as there are a lot of things completely out of their control that can and do drastically effect the economy. If you're hellbent on giving the president credit, as many do, then you are statistically one of the people prone to confirmation bias, E.G. when my candidate's in office and the economy sucks, it was because of the last guy in office, but when it's good it's because my guy is a economics genius that controls everything expertly. Maybe that isn't you, so if it's not, so be it.

It's easy to say that every politician is bought and paid for, but that's not really true. We both know intellectually that there are some honest politicians. The truth is though, that the more prominent of a politician you are, the more likely it is you got there by compromising yourself. There are occasionally exceptions, and there are those at the bottom hoping to sell out, but there are honest politicians.

You seem to be saying, only those who have been corrupted are qualified, as if that is the qualification. I.E. He/She knows how to sell themselves out, therefore they are smart, therefore they are the best choices to govern us. I find that logic to be faulty and intellectually offensive. If you meant otherwise, please clarify your point, because that's exactly what I got out of it.

Just because the likes of Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and Darrell Castle, as examples, aren't being "sponsored" by Goldman Sachs, does not make them less qualified, it makes them more qualified.

Where did I say that this is causal? I most certainly didn't say they were qualified because they were bought and paid for. These are not causally related. They just happen to often occur together because of the way the lobbying system works.

Well, I can tell you exactly the reasons why, but there is a fantastic video explaining why which I recommend anyone wanting to understand politics give a watch. If you do decide to watch it, remember that the third party candidates are the ones he is wishing luck on, and Hillary has too much metaphorical gold going to the folks with the metaphorical keys.




Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2016, 09:56 AM
RE: Worrying About a Trump Victory? Don't.
If I was POTUS I'd scrap a couple of aircraft carriers those things cost the entire GDP of a small country to run and maintain you could probably reduce the deficit by doing that although I somehow think it wouldn't be a popular decisionBig Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2016, 12:10 PM
RE: Worrying About a Trump Victory? Don't.
(26-10-2016 09:56 AM)adey67 Wrote:  If I was POTUS I'd scrap a couple of aircraft carriers those things cost the entire GDP of a small country to run and maintain you could probably reduce the deficit by doing that although I somehow think it wouldn't be a popular decisionBig Grin

You could use them to house 6000 homeless.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2016, 12:26 PM
RE: Worrying About a Trump Victory? Don't.
(26-10-2016 12:10 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(26-10-2016 09:56 AM)adey67 Wrote:  If I was POTUS I'd scrap a couple of aircraft carriers those things cost the entire GDP of a small country to run and maintain you could probably reduce the deficit by doing that although I somehow think it wouldn't be a popular decisionBig Grin

You could use them to house 6000 homeless.

Or to send back those refugees.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2016, 01:19 PM
RE: Worrying About a Trump Victory? Don't.
(26-10-2016 12:26 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(26-10-2016 12:10 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You could use them to house 6000 homeless.

Or to send back those refugees.

And then use them to bomb said refugees no doubt. No
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2016, 01:21 PM
RE: Worrying About a Trump Victory? Don't.
(26-10-2016 12:10 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(26-10-2016 09:56 AM)adey67 Wrote:  If I was POTUS I'd scrap a couple of aircraft carriers those things cost the entire GDP of a small country to run and maintain you could probably reduce the deficit by doing that although I somehow think it wouldn't be a popular decisionBig Grin

You could use them to house 6000 homeless.
Sorry but no, that would be too sensible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2016, 01:27 PM
RE: Worrying About a Trump Victory? Don't.
(26-10-2016 01:21 PM)adey67 Wrote:  
(26-10-2016 12:10 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You could use them to house 6000 homeless.
Sorry but no, that would be too sensible.

Neither of those would be sensible. You'd be better off making fewer carriers, which is precisely the plan, and by 2. That's not enough to put a dent in the deficit though. Budgets are never reduced, just shifted around here and there. The military really wastes money on small things anyway, pens, buckets, paper, printers, tools, cleaning supplies, etc. It's designed to be as wasteful as possible. And we could stop building billion dollar embassies, invading foreign nations, dropping bombs on people, removing ourselves from places like Japan, England, and Germany, stop spending billions on the military industrial complex....a couple of carriers is nothing.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: