|
zoux posted:Other bullshit Obama is not putting up with today "President Obama, are you going to personally order UN stormtroopers to put everyone in FEMA camps on election day?"
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 04:08 |
|
|
If Trump keeps this up much longer he's going to find out that the media loves a death watch almost as much as a horse race.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
illcendiary posted:Trump's campaign being a WCW storyline makes way too much sense. Like I'm having nWo red/white doublecross clusterfuck flashbacks when I look at the current state of the GOP. Wasn't there a WCW angle from that era that involved literal sewage?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:If we're still on TPP-chat, the thing about trade is that tariffs are the main mechanism by which jobs are protected, and the difference, tariff-wise, between TPP and no TPP is like a 1.5% tariff. We have really, really low tariff rates, even without specific free trade deals. The question for me then becomes, what is the net gain or loss in American jobs between the preservation or removal of a 1.5% tariff, and if free trade is overall a net positive, why is Hillary against it (as a supposed sop to Sanders supports) if she doesn't need Sanders supporters to secure her win? Wouldn't her electoral strategy be strengthened by appealing to the centrist upper-class middle whose fortunes would be bettered by the implementation of the TPP?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/761311120107900928 Obama is just no longer giving fucks
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:Lol at SC, MS, TX
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Crow Jane posted:Also he's mad about immigrants from... Somalia, for some reason. Possibly because a Norwegian guy of Somali ancestry went on a stabbing spree in London.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Wasn't there a WCW angle from that era that involved literal sewage? Yup... Kevin Nash dumping sewage into Randy Savage's limo while he was inside. It is possible that I've been re-reading "The Death of WCW" by RD Reynolds and Bryan Alvarez this week.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Personally, failing a 60-vote supermajority, I'm secretly hoping for a dead tie in the Senate, because I want to see Tim Kaine break out the gavel and make goofy dad jokes while tiebreaking the Republican moratorium on appointments into dust.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
This is what happens when the media suddenly raises, "You know what the truth actually is not in the middle. One of the circles in this Venn diagram didn't even intersect with the truth at all"
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:If Trump keeps this up much longer he's going to find out that the media loves a death watch almost as much as a horse race.  
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:If Trump keeps this up much longer he's going to find out that the media loves a death watch almost as much as a horse race. This is what I was thinking months ago. It is going to be loving cathartic as a nation to watch trump disintegrate together. People will happily tune in to watch a 3 month Cheeto roast. He truly will make America great again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i'm saying poster Noam Chomsky can't just say "this one dude said NAFTA cost 700k jobs" and stick to that argument while ignoring everything else going on in the US / Global economy that could have an impact on jobs Is it? I'm not really equipped to dissect the validity of that paper (and if we're being honest, most people here probably aren't either), but it's from a decent, mainstream organization (not "one dude"), and it doesn't do what you're off-handedly claiming it does? "U.S. trade deficits with Mexico as of 2010 displaced production that could have supported 682,900 U.S. jobs; given the pre-NAFTA trade surplus, all of those jobs have been lost or displaced since NAFTA. This estimate of 682,900 net jobs displaced takes into account the additional jobs created by exports to Mexico." It's obviously just an estimate based on one methodology, but the degree to which people are just dismissing it out of hand is a little bizarre. I don't think people are "libertarians" for doing so, but there's a weird acceptance of a lot of ideological assumptions about free trade - these are contentious issues. Also, more importantly to me, people are dancing around or dismissing the issue that even if NAFTA had a net effect of employing people in other sectors of the economy, that still some local economies high and dry, and maybe as a democracy people should have a say whether their region gets turned into a wasteland for the greater good of the economy. There's a deeper issue that people should have a right to dictate the terms of their life, even if that way is "inefficient" by a particular metric, because preserving some continuity in cultures and or in the local economy is actually a measurable positive public good. Having an entire region turn into a opiate-blighted, welfare-sustained region full of now-empty factories for the benefits of other groups of people might also be bad for the country. Both NAFTA and TPP have major issues in that they have been intentionally kept out of the public eye, and it's pretty clear that one of the major reasons is because in both cases, they're pretty unpopular with the public. In a democracy, that's a big deal. You're talking about potential major changes in the economy, positive or negative, with winners and losers, that is receiving shockingly little public input. In TPP, we're talking about a policy that is officially supported by neither the Republican nor the Democratic candidate president, largely on the grounds that they are really unpopular with working class people. Maybe that deserves some deference? If TPP does pass in a lame-duck session, isn't that a little disturbing? Isn't that the sort of thing that has created such a massive level of dissatisfaction with Congress and with our government institutions, that everyone here likes to cite? I'd also like to point out that, some are acting like the Democrats also want to sustain a social safety net, that free trade + social safety net makes this okay, but Bill Clinton was very notable for "reforming" welfare, and being a campaigner against what he felt were excessive welfare that kept people in a cycle of dependency. He still believes this incidentally, this is not an extrapolation or a slur, that's the literal justification he used when he was challenged about it during the primary by left-wingers. As far as I can tell, Hillary Clinton held, and holds the same view (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2016/04/18/3770333/hillary-clinton-welfare-reform/). So voting for Democrats is not a vote for a coherent vision of a modernizing economy supplemented by welfare, you still need to pressure and fight for that. It is perfectly reasonable to see the Democrats as wanting "free trade" agreements as well as slashing welfare, because that's literally what they did the last time. This almost seems like wishful thinking - if (D)'s take the senate and the presidency, well then we'll reinstitute generous social welfare programs and this will offset any temporary economic instability caused by free trade. Is there any reason to believe that Democrats as a party are in a position to craft a New New Deal? Sorry for the long post, this just kept expanding as I wrote. Periodiko fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Aug 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
greatn posted:This is what happens when the media suddenly raises, "You know what the truth actually is not in the middle. One of the circles in this Venn diagram didn't even intersect with the truth at all" https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/761313002419286016 Not even a "critics claim video doesn't exist" whats up with all this BIAS Posting this knowing fully well yall are going to take the wrong lesson from this and freak out about it. https://twitter.com/gdebenedetti/status/761313158350802944
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Crow Jane posted:Also he's mad about immigrants from... Somalia, for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:If Trump keeps this up much longer he's going to find out that the media loves a death watch almost as much as a horse race. This is my kokero wish, that we all join hands together around the Trumpster fire and laugh as he burns.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Not surprising, it's been headed that way for weeks. Wouldn't be surprised to see a stronger move into Arizona and Missouri on the thought that even if they don't take the state they may be able to help Kander and Kirkpatrick.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Please let one of them be Utah 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
https://chomsky.info/secrets03/quote:Q: Anthony Lewis also wrote, "The engine for [the world’s] growth has been…vastly increased…international trade." Do you agree?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Trump is such a disaster that my grandpa who thinks Obama is the worst president of all time is going "Well, they're both awful, I'm not really voting FOR him, but against Hillary." If the only reason you're getting the vote of a rural white guy in his 80s is "Not Hillary", you're in trouble.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:Is it? I'm not really equipped to dissect the validity of that paper (and if we're being honest, most people here probably aren't either), but it's from a decent, mainstream organization (not "one dude"), and it doesn't do what you're off-handedly claiming it does? "U.S. trade deficits with Mexico as of 2010 displaced production that could have supported 682,900 U.S. jobs; given the pre-NAFTA trade surplus, all of those jobs have been lost or displaced since NAFTA. This estimate of 682,900 net jobs displaced takes into account the additional jobs created by exports to Mexico." Just want to chime in and say I agree with this and thanks for posting!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
I'm so glad Im moving to Minneapolis tomorrow from battleground Wisconsin. Going to hopefully dodge 90% of the campaign ads. That said, Hilldawgs campaign ad-fu is strong, especially that last with the children watching TV
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Reminder that Trump honestly considers New York and California as battleground states.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Boon posted:I'm so glad Im moving to Minneapolis tomorrow from battleground Wisconsin. Going to hopefully dodge 90% of the campaign ads. I feel like that one's gonna go down in history along with LBJ's Daisy ad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Reminder that Trump honestly considers New York and California as battleground states. The idea that the worlds of entertainment and finance will reject him is too much for his narcissism to bear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:There's a deeper issue that people should have a right to dictate the terms of their life, even if that way is "inefficient" by a particular metric, because preserving some continuity in cultures and or in the local economy is actually a measurable positive public good. Having an entire region turn into a opiate-blighted, welfare-sustained region full of now-empty factories for the benefits of other groups of people might also be bad for the country. Both NAFTA and TPP have major issues in that they have been intentionally kept out of the public eye, and it's pretty clear that one of the major reasons is because in both cases, they're pretty unpopular with the public. In a democracy, that's a big deal. You're talking about potential major changes in the economy, positive or negative, with winners and losers, that is receiving shockingly little public input. the problem with this argument is the assumption that everything would be hunky-dory in the absence of NAFTA, which doesn't explain the steady decline in american manufacturing which started long before NAFTA job loss due to automatization, globalization, and general increases in efficiency such as the paperless office will inevitably lead to job loss no matter what. picking out free trade agreements to rail against on behalf of some abstract working class is a reactionary argument that does very little to deal with the reality of the modern labor market. really it's just a trojan horse that delivers the payload of "i want to bitch about multinational corporations"
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Is picking on Trump supporters considered punching down if you're an educated white liberal?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/761311120107900928 No Fucks Obama is best Obama
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Does "black swan" just mean "unexpected thing" in politics? If it's something more nuanced could give an example from history? I guess I am used to it coming up as an intro to philosophy/inductive reasoning concept. edit for clarity, maybe!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
poor life choice posted:Does "black swan" just mean "unexpected thing" in politics? If it's something more nuanced could you I get a real-world example? I guess I am used to it coming up as an intro to philosophy/inductive reasoning concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Besides the feel-good nature of crushing the opponent, especially one as crazy as Trump, is there a strategic advantage to trying to win every states as possible? If you told me that a president winning a state has a cascading impact on local / state races (i.e. Democratic president wins, and they vote straight-ticket D), I'd probably believe it, but I guess I'm looking for the evidence. Right now Hillary has pretty much the votes needed, and is going for other states. I'm just curious if it's worth the money to spend on all of that advertisement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:
1) The problem is there is one study claiming the ~700k number while many other studies from more nonpartisan institutions claim it was far fewer. 2) Again, the point is maybe we shouldn't be encouraging entire towns to spring up around a single or small number of factories. That manual work will leave, it's a matter of when it will leave. If that town and the people therein don't create a self-sustaining ecosystem, how the hell do you save it? You can't wait for manufacturing to go tits up and then turn around and go "well poo poo, I guess I should have trained for something else. Hey government, how about some free training?" On the other side, why on earth should we try to affect the global markets in a protectionist move to discourage that company from moving? At that point you're sacrificing a larger variety of goods at cheaper prices (benefiting the many) for the sake of the short-sighted few. 3) The TPP specifically is expected to not only affect trade but in doing so, affect human rights and the treatment of workers in developing Asian/SEA countries. If we were to lose some manufacturing here (we won't - whatever low level manufacturing those countries would take was already moved from us to China/India/Bangladesh already), it is still to the benefit of those people in those nations. On a global scale this is a good thing and considering how much whining Americans do about how we should "do the right thing" and "help those suffering in other nations," I'm shocked at how you're willing to throw away a clear measure to help people across the Pacific. 4) The TPP also works as a way for us to influence China and the spheres of influence in the region without being directly aggressive. By helping the economies of those countries, they can bolster their infrastructure, military and education so they're not small fries who can be pushed around by China (in, for example, South China Sea conflicts).
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
@seiferguy it increases legitimacy and drives down-ballot voting
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
zoux posted:Obama going off on this Iran "conspiracy" It kind of annoyed me to see Colbert of all people going off on this last night. Sure, he hasn't been so great since taking over the Late Show, but to see him spinning jokes based on dumb propaganda that could have been dispelled by an intern with 5 minutes on google is just disappointing. Maybe I should have expected it, since he did a whole segment and a half on HILLARY EMAIL BAD the day after Comey got grilled by congress about it and ruined all of their talking points.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:Besides the feel-good nature of crushing the opponent, especially one as crazy as Trump, is there a strategic advantage to trying to win every states as possible? If you told me that a president winning a state has a cascading impact on local / state races (i.e. Democratic president wins, and they vote straight-ticket D), I'd probably believe it, but I guess I'm looking for the evidence. It could be argued that Mondale's crushing loss had a psychological effect on Democrats that caused them to undermine their own philosophy. I hope something like that happens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mmurraypolitics/status/761319109690810368 this is fully post convention
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
BobTheJanitor posted:It kind of annoyed me to see Colbert of all people going off on this last night. Sure, he hasn't been so great since taking over the Late Show, but to see him spinning jokes based on dumb propaganda that could have been dispelled by an intern with 5 minutes on google is just disappointing. Maybe I should have expected it, since he did a whole segment and a half on HILLARY EMAIL BAD the day after Comey got grilled by congress about it and ruined all of their talking points.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Zophar posted:This Iran video snafu seems like Trump saw a potential headline in it yesterday and is simply trying to keep (a nonstory) in the news cycle, hence claiming "I saw the video, I swears it" over and over. Trump obviously believes it's more important that people think he's right than actually having a coherent narrative against his opponent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:the left wing comedy people have been spectacularly bad and condescending this election Trump's stealing all the good jokes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 04:08 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:the problem with this argument is the assumption that everything would be hunky-dory in the absence of NAFTA, which doesn't explain the steady decline in american manufacturing which started long before NAFTA Yes, and you can make it better or worse, and critics of NAFTA accuse it of being "worse". It's a pretty straight-forward argument, and you're ducking having to make any hard choices about who wins and who loses, about how much protectionism there will be and who will be protected by just throwing up your hands and saying "well it would have happened anyway." Of course it would have, and the question is what we did about it and can do in the future. Critics of NAFTA are criticizing it on the grounds that it was a bad response that made things worse than it had to be. They're not denying the very existence of international trade. Hell, even you've indirectly criticized it in this thread by noting that programs like this need to be combined with ambitious social programs to cope with the restructuring of the economy. NAFTA wasn't. Again, Clinton negotiated NAFTA and slashed welfare. Hunky-dory it ain't. It's weird to say I'm invoking "some abstract working class" when we're talking about two policies that were and are opposed by majorities of the public at large, whose purported effects are on specific local economies, which are major issues in their respective Presidential elections. Periodiko fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Aug 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 23:02
|
|