mistertim Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I don't follow politics that much, but I can't envision Donald Trump being president of this country. That would be...horrible. Does he know anything about foreign policy? Does he know anything about social services? Does he know anything about the government whatsoever? Just listening to the guy talk makes me laugh and cringe at the same time. I kind of appreciate his brash stances, but a buffoon like that should never be president of our country. He's a loud and extreme person, that's why he appeals to so many people. But his intelligence and class is lacking severely. He knows that everyone who doesn't agree with him is a STUPID FACED IDIOT. That's all he needs to know. That would be the extent of his foreign policy summits abroad. I can just see him at some huge summit sitting at the table and live tweeting about how ugly this world leader is and how stupid this other one is while the rest of them are discussing major global policy issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I haven't decided by I find myself every day getting close and closer to supporting Trump. I said, back before a single candidate had announced, that I planned on supporting the most moderate Republican to send my message to the party they needed to move away from the fringes. Right now that person looks like Trump. Yes there are a lot of things he stands for and he says that I don't like. But as many have said, he is the most moderate R candidate right now. And if the D's had but up better candidates, they could have easily pulled me over in the general. But they didn't. Thanks for the insight. Makes sense to me. I always thought that Rubio was fairly moderate, but I haven't been paying very close attention to the issues at all quite yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Thanks for the insight. Makes sense to me. I always thought that Rubio was fairly moderate, but I haven't been paying very close attention to the issues at all quite yet. Rubio came in with the Tea Party wave, and is very conservative, with one issue where he is moderate (immigration). He also has one issue where he is very extreme (his neocon foreign policy). Compared to Cruz he's moderate, and he's not a carnival barker like Trump. He's basically George W. Bush part II. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Let me be clear, you can cherry pick certain things and say hey the government is doing this good or bad (tishile did the same thing with respect to DARPA and the internet), but those things are balanced by "bad" investments by the government and considering we are running a debt plus interest. So what's your point? The government drives the economy in one way or another. As a small business owner it's a struggle to know all the regulations I must abide by. You can pick a point or just not choose any points and be milquetoast and say one good offsets another bad. Ok, no discussion needed. Kind of like well the Government keeps interest rates artificially and provides all of these college grants so kids can get cheap money. But then say well college tuition is grossly outpacing inflation and the average tuition is $25,000 a year to go out of state and kids are up to their ears in student loans so it's a wash. At the end of the day we all pay the price. So the democrats solution to the government driving up tuition costs is to give free tuition. Obviously I am being overly dramatic, but the system isn't working. And it's rampant. Now let me go get my phone, my Super Pac is calling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Rubio came in with the Tea Party wave, and is very conservative, with one issue where he is moderate (immigration). He also has one issue where he is very extreme (his neocon foreign policy). Compared to Cruz he's moderate, and he's not a carnival barker like Trump. He's basically George W. Bush part II. Well that would be better than Trump, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Trump knows that everyone who doesn't agree with him is a STUPID FACED IDIOT. Trump inauguration speech: "You know, everyone who didn't vote for me is a Loser and a Putz! Can I still say putz? Oh my, you know the PC warriors in the media are going to go crazy on me now. Ha ha putz putz putz. Imagine if I had called them Faggots! They'd go crying home to mommy. Well, try and stop me, elitist media jerks. You can't tell America what to do! Cmon, let's show these faggots they cant tell us what to do! * Points at reporter pool in the back of the crowd and leads crowd in chant of FAGGOTS FAGGOTS for 5 minutes straight* Now that's what I call taking America back! The Real America!" *approval ratings shoot through the roof* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Let me be clear, you can cherry pick certain things and say hey the government is doing this good or bad (tishile did the same thing with respect to DARPA and the internet), but those things are balanced by "bad" investments by the government and considering we are running a debt plus interest. You think what DARPA did in terms of computers and the internet has a 'bad' that balances it out? We're talking bout a MAJOR part of our economy, and something that reaches into every other part of the economy. We're talking about something that's put us ahead of everyone else militarily. DARPA has a few projects that paid for itself in its direct savings many times over. Like the AI work that brought about the planning for the first gulf war. I don't even know how you could reasonably measure the boost the internet project gave to our country. It's changed the way the advanced worlds work... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Well that would be better than Trump, no? I'm honestly not sure. Trump is a fraud and a carnival barker, but I don't think he wants to start more wars. Not repeating the Iraq blunder is a huge issue to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I don't even know how you could reasonably measure the boost the internet project gave to our country. It's changed the way the advanced worlds work... . . . It virtually eliminated the porn industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 . . . It virtually eliminated the porn industry. It also makes me have to work late all the time because I spend too much time on the Tailgate. I'm not sure the productivity thing is entirely positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 So what's your point? The government drives the economy in one way or another. As a small business owner it's a struggle to know all the regulations I must abide by. You can pick a point or just not choose any points and be milquetoast and say one good offsets another bad. Ok, no discussion needed. Kind of like well the Government keeps interest rates artificially and provides all of these college grants so kids can get cheap money. But then say well college tuition is grossly outpacing inflation and the average tuition is $25,000 a year to go out of state and kids are up to their ears in student loans so it's a wash. At the end of the day we all pay the price. So the democrats solution to the government driving up tuition costs is to give free tuition. Obviously I am being overly dramatic, but the system isn't working. And it's rampant. Now let me go get my phone, my Super Pac is calling. What price are we paying? Is somebody burning their money? Hiding it under their mattress? (Oh and if you are trying to say that "cheap" money is driving up college tuitions, you are wrong, but that's another conversation. The price of college education is going up because the costs to colleges are going up while public money is going down.) I thought I was pretty clear. My point is that long term in large stable democracies that changes in government regulations do not drive economic growth for the most part. We're playing at the edges. Our pattern of long term GDPs is essentially the same relationship as Canada's and the Euro zone's (ln linear). Given we have different economic and governmental philosophies that suggest that it wouldn't matter in terms of GDP whether we were more like Europe or Canada. Our GDP growth would be the same. You think what DARPA did in terms of computers and the internet has a 'bad' that balances it out? We're talking bout a MAJOR part of our economy, and something that reaches into every other part of the economy. We're talking about something that's put us ahead of everyone else militarily. DARPA has a few projects that paid for itself in its direct savings many times over. Like the AI work that brought about the planning for the first gulf war. I don't even know how you could reasonably measure the boost the internet project gave to our country. It's changed the way the advanced worlds work... If DARPA funding caused some large difference in GDP it should show up when you compare us to Canada and the Euro zone. It doesn't. Our economy over long periods of times is not a whole lot better if at all than Canada's and the Euro zone's. It just isn't. If we say the internet was really good for our economy vs. Canada and the Eurozone's than that benefit must have been canceled out somewhere. There must have been an equal and offsetting bad investments. (Part of that is almost certainly "wasted" money in developing early infrastructure, which doesn't tend to be efficient/effective. Other countries get to jump into the more developed technology without that waste.) In terms of the military, I don't think that really matters for the most part. Our military involvement costs us as much as it benefits us. If we get any real benefit from being the dominant military power in the world, I haven't seen it. 9-11 didn't happen in Canada. Canada doesn't have nearly the same number of injured and dead young people from wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 GOP Congressman circulates petition urging Cruz or Rubio to drop out of Race. Right, That's the problem. Cruz won't do it because he doesn't care about the party, the country or anything except Ted Cruz. He's already demonstrated that by trying to bankrupt the country and calling his party leadership liars for not allowing it to happen. Rubio won't do it because party leadership doesn't find Trump more distasteful alternative to Cruz. . . . It virtually eliminated the porn industry. Is that true? Actually I think the Porn Industry is the largest benefactor of the Internet. Prior to Netflix I think something like 90% of the internet's traffic was related to porn... I think I've got at least 2% of the remaining 10% related to extremeskins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 If DARPA funding caused some large difference in GDP it should show up when you compare us to Canada and the Euro zone. Is that really the measuring stick though? By the nature of the technology, other countries are able to reap the benefits with significantly less cost. We didn't keep the internet for ourselves. I have a hard time understanding that it doesn't show up somewhere, just because canada has kept pace with us (relatively speaking.) They use the internet too... But this is over my head so that's about all I can add to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 What price are we paying? Is somebody burning their money? Hiding it under their mattress? (Oh and if you are trying to say that "cheap" money is driving up college tuitions, you are wrong, but that's another conversation. The price of college education is going up because the costs to colleges are going up while public money is going down.) I thought I was pretty clear. My point is that long term in large stable democracies that changes in government regulations do not drive economic growth for the most part. We're playing at the edges. Our pattern of long term GDPs is essentially the same relationship as Canada's and the Euro zone's (ln linear). Given we have different economic and governmental philosophies that suggest that it wouldn't matter in terms of GDP whether we were more like Europe or Canada. Our GDP growth would be the same. Government regulations/interference drive/stifle economic growth through innovation and small business creation and thriving. To imply it has no drive on that is absurd. We need small businesses and innovation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Is that really the measuring stick though? By the nature of the technology, other countries are able to reap the benefits with significantly less cost. We didn't keep the internet for ourselves. I have a hard time understanding that it doesn't show up somewhere, just because canada has kept pace with us (relatively speaking.) They use the internet too... But this is over my head so that's about all I can add to it Well, I can't compare our GDP growth with and without the internet. I can tell you that our GDP growth was ln linear for decades before the internet was invented and has essentially been the same since the internet was invented. A mathematical relationship that described our GDP growth before the invention of the internet still does after the fact. I've gotten to the point that I suspect unless somebody is doing something like burning money, hiding it under their mattress or intentionally doing something really stupid with it (things that I contend don't happen much at all) in the end it doesn't matter much. (I mean if the government starts doing things like imprisoning people willy nilly that would be an issue, but that sort of thing doesn't tend to happen in large stable democracies.) We might be able to affect who benefits from growth in GDP, but we can't do much to affect long term changes. Government regulations/interference drive/stifle economic growth through innovation and small business creation and thriving. To imply it has no drive on that is absurd. We need small businesses and innovation. Well, I'm not sure why we in particular need small businesses, but I've yet to see a large stable democracy do something to completely eliminate small businesses or innovation. So I'm not too worried about that being an exception I have to include. Regulations can drive innovations and the production of small businesses too. Again, you'd have to argue that governments were doing more one way than the other. And I don't think you can predict at any real reliable manner which ones are going to spur innovation and which ones are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I still don't understand why black folk love the Clintons. Mass incarceration due to the crime bill would be enough for me. Super predators lol http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-hillary-clinton-explain-superpredators-comment-article-1.2543581 On Wednesday, Ashley Williams, an activist from Charlotte, N.C., paid $500 to attend a private fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in South Carolina. Once at the event in Charleston, it was the intention of Williams — in a peaceful, but confrontational protest — to ask Clinton why she called black boys "superpredators" back in 1996 and to seek an apology for her role in promoting mass incarceration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I still don't understand why black folk love the Clintons. Mass incarceration due to the crime bill would be enough for me. Hillary wearing blue is enough for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Is that true? Actually I think the Porn Industry is the largest benefactor of the Internet. Prior to Netflix I think something like 90% of the internet's traffic was related to porn... I think I've got at least 2% of the remaining 10% related to extremeskins. Actually I have absolutely no clue if it's true. I'm absolutely certain that there's commercial porn on the Internet. (Although I do note Playboy announcing that they will no longer have nude photos, supposedly because of amateur Internet competition.) FWIW, I was recently killing time in a doctors office, and read the supposedly, at peak hours, Netflix accounts for 27% of Internet traffic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I still don't understand why black folk love the Clintons. Mass incarceration due to the crime bill would be enough for me. Super predators lol http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-hillary-clinton-explain-superpredators-comment-article-1.2543581 Pretty much everyone supported that bill at that time. Bernie Sanders voted for it. The black congressional caucus supported it. Crime was high and no one realized it was starting to fall. The Republicans only voted against the bill because it contained an assault weapons ban and the NRA made them say no. They made it very clear that they also loved the parts about increased hiring of cops and longer sentences. Chipwhich, you would have voted for that bill twice over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I'm honestly not sure. Trump is a fraud and a carnival barker, but I don't think he wants to start more wars. Not repeating the Iraq blunder is a huge issue to me. Trump has isolationist instincts. He has a very "not my problem" attitude to things that don't directly impact the US, or, at least, that's what he says. He wants to destroy ISIS because they're against us directly, but he probably doesn't care much about Assad. In this day and age, I prefer isolationist instincts over neoconservative instincts. Intervention now would put us in direct conflict or in a potential position of direct conflict with Russia. Imagine if a President put boots on the ground to defeat ISIS. Some of these soldiers are ordered to change objectives and focus on Assad, potentially clandestinely, but ordered to do so nonetheless. A Russian bomber hits some of our soldiers because we're supposedly fighting ISIS while secretly but openly helping rebels fight Assad, while the Russians are supposedly fighting ISIS while secretly but openly bombing rebels. Instant international crisis of massive proportions. Throw in some heated rhetoric before that happens, with attempts to put economic sanctions on Russia, and the situation escalates to really scary places. The ideal is likely somewhere in the middle of isolationist and interventionist, but I'll settle for not putting ourselves at risk of a major international conflict for a while, the loss in standing internationally is worth not triggering MAD. Not to mention, Russia is flailing around propping itself up with the military industrial complex. That can't last forever. Their economy is pretty screwed up with oil being so cheap, they need an industry to keep their country's economy from being too deep into the toilet. It'd be interesting to see how Russia would act if tomorrow gas went back up to where it was a few years ago and their exports jumped. I'd bet they'd be way more chill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 If DARPA funding caused some large difference in GDP it should show up when you compare us to Canada and the Euro zone. Yeah not really. It is true that DARPA pioneered the technology that is the basis of the internet TCP/IP. It's also true that the internet along with the microcomputer have dramatically increased productivity which has allowed for unprecedented economic expansion while not incurring inflation... But that's a global effect because DARPA didn't keep TCP/IP to ourselves, they shared it with the world. If DARPA had kept it to ourselves then of coarse it wouldn't have had nearly the economic impact it did.. Oh and DARPA didn't invent the internet, they invented the technology that made the internet possible. Arguable Al Gore and Rick Adams invented the internet. and that enabled Tim Berners-Lee working at the CERN to create the Web which is how most folks consumer the internet today. Trump has isolationist instincts. Wow.. That's just crazy talk... The man is an international business man. How does wanting something other than a one sided deal translate into being isolationist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 [Trump is an isolationist] Wow.. That's just crazy talk... The man is an international business man. Umm... those two things have nothing to do with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Wow.. That's just crazy talk... The man is an international business man. One's business leanings and one's proclivity to perform military intervention are two completely different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Pretty much everyone supported that bill at that time. Bernie Sanders voted for it. The black congressional caucus supported it. Crime was high and no one realized it was starting to fall. That doesn't explain why everybody was still for it after it resulted in such massive increases in incarcerations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Pretty much everyone supported that bill at that time. Bernie Sanders voted for it. The black congressional caucus supported it. Crime was high and no one realized it was starting to fall. The Republicans only voted against the bill because it contained an assault weapons ban and the NRA made them say no. They made it very clear that they also loved the parts about increased hiring of cops and longer sentences. Chipwhich, you would have voted for that bill twice over. 3 strikes and you are out sounded logical to 12 year old SHF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.