• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
thepotatoman said:
This completely ignores how absolutely terrible the loses were in 10, 14, and 16. 10 and 14 were some of the biggest waves in modern history, and 16 was an extremely important election against an extremely unliked candidate.
Click to expand...

The Democrats won more House seats in 2008 than Republicans did in both 2010 and 2014. Highest number of seats since 1992. Not to mention 60 seats in the Senate which hadn't happened for either party since the 70s. That's a pretty big wave, too.

People have got to accept there will be always be wins and losses in politics. You can't always win. Especially during a midterm election when the electoral environment always turns against the ruling party. You always should try to win, but the reality is that you can't always win.
 
K

kirblar

Member
Carpe Libertatem said:
The Democrats won more House seats in 2008 than Republicans did in both 2010 and 2014. Highest number of seats since 1992. Not to mention 60 seats in the Senate which hadn't happened for either party since the 70s. That's a pretty big wave, too.

People have got to accept there will be always be wins and losses in politics. You can't always win. Especially during a midterm election when the electoral environment always turns against the ruling party. You always should try to win, but the reality is that you can't always win.
Click to expand...
Once you've lived through '94, '06, '10 and (likely) '18, you see the pendulum and you start to realize that you can't actually stop it.

The elections depend on the people who know the least about them.
 
N

neurosisxeno

Member
Makai said:
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/06/07/531957453/episode-776-here-we-grow-again

This was a neat Planet Money. They had a budget guy calculate how we could get to 3% GDP growth. Conclusion: implausible without immoral policies like work camps.
Click to expand...

That's what happens when your GDP is already insanely high. A 2% growth for the US is equivalent to a ~1.9% gain for the entire EU. A 3% growth for the US is equivalent to about $540 billion--the equivalent of the entire GDP of Iraq oddly enough, and more than Sweden, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Austria, Norway, or Finland's entire GDP.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
neurosisxeno said:
That's what happens when your GDP is already insanely high. A 2% growth for the US is equivalent to a ~1.9% gain for the entire EU. A 3% growth for the US is equivalent to about $540 billion--the equivalent of the entire GDP of Iraq oddly enough, and more than Sweden, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Austria, Norway, or Finland's entire GDP.
Click to expand...

In 1980, 8% of America's GDP would have been close to one of the ten richest countries in the world.

We then grew at 8% in 1983.

This is not a historically sound argument.

Obviously poor countries can grow faster than rich countries (if the poor countries are stable and have good economic systems) because of diminishing returns, but this argument is not good for determining whether our level of growth is normal or whether or not it could be improved upon.
 
K

kirblar

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
In 1980, 8% of America's GDP would have been close to one of the ten richest countries in the world.

We then grew at 8% in 1983.

This is not a historically sound argument.

Obviously poor countries can grow faster than rich countries (if the poor countries are stable and have good economic systems) because of diminishing returns, but this argument is not good for determining whether our level of growth is normal or whether or not it could be improved upon.
Click to expand...
It just doesn't happen in normal scenarios. The time period coming out of the '70s stuff w/ Volcker's fixes isn't normal in the slightest.
 
M

Makai

Member
neurosisxeno said:
That's what happens when your GDP is already insanely high. A 2% growth for the US is equivalent to a ~1.9% gain for the entire EU. A 3% growth for the US is equivalent to about $540 billion--the equivalent of the entire GDP of Iraq oddly enough, and more than Sweden, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Austria, Norway, or Finland's entire GDP.
Click to expand...
I think we can do it if we can get productivity growth again. Like maybe automated cars or other algorithm actually works well enough to radically change our economy. I strongly doubt it, though.
 
N

neurosisxeno

Member
kirblar said:
It just doesn't happen in normal scenarios. The time period coming out of the '70s stuff w/ Volcker's fixes isn't normal in the slightest.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Makai said:
I think we can do it if we can get productivity growth again. Like maybe automated cars or other algorithm actually works well enough to radically change our economy. I strongly doubt it, though.
Click to expand...

Mandatory amphetamine use for all citizens. 18 hour work days. Bootstraps and what have you.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
According to this IMF chart, Canada is 8% of US GDP. Time for Trump to activate that secret NAFTA clause that annexes Canada that Ed Broadbent and John Turner warned me about.
 
broz0rs

broz0rs

Member
Bikers going door-to-door in Marietta, GA to get out the vote for Karen Handel lol

DB_gQIVUQAApMZu.jpg
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/alexis_levinson/status/873663431857106944
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Bonen no Max'd said:
I support any annexation of Canada as long as we adopt their federal government structure and healthcare system.
Click to expand...
You'd want a federalized system in which the head of the executive branch is elected not directly by the people but by other people who are elected by voters in geographically distinct areas of varying sizes who then gather to elect the executive no matter what the national popular vote is?

And a healthcare system in which the individual territories run things on their own terms but are granted federal funding to assist paying for it in exchange for federal guidelines?

No, that kind of system would never be allowed in Reagan's America.

Only twice since 1962 has the winning Canadian party topped 45% of the national popular vote. They've only cracked 40% once since 1988.
 
D

dramatis

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
8% of the US economy in 1965 would have been the tenth richest country in the world.

We grew at 8% in 1965.
Click to expand...
But we're not in 1965 or 1983, are we? If you have the numbers to show how we can grow 8% now, show us your math. The point of the planet money pod was to crunch numbers from now to figure out how to grow just 3%.
 
N

neurosisxeno

Member
dramatis said:
But we're not in 1965 or 1983, are we? If you have the numbers to show how we can grow 8% now, show us your math. The point of the planet money pod was to crunch numbers from now to figure out how to grow just 3%.
Click to expand...

Repeal labor laws. Stuff the entire population full of amphetamines. Everyone works 6 18 hour days a week for minimum wage. Also lower the minimum wage to like $5/hr, no overtime. Sundays off because Supply Side Jesus frowns upon working on Sundays. Production per worker would skyrocket, and each person employed like this would only make $28,000 a year pre-tax.
 
B

barber

Member
neurosisxeno said:
Repeal labor laws. Stuff the entire population full of amphetamines. Everyone works 6 18 hour days a week for minimum wage. Also lower the minimum wage to like $5/hr, no overtime. Sundays off because Supply Side Jesus frowns upon working on Sundays. Production per worker would skyrocket, and each person employed like this would only make $28,000 a year pre-tax.
Click to expand...
With that amount of money normal people wouldn't be able to buy commodities which would impact a lot the market. What is the importance of being able to build a lot and cheap if your main market has no money to buy it?
The way for a 3% GDP increase would be either a bubble or New Deal 2.0 with lots of money comming from the Government (aka nothingness as it can be printed "indefinitely") to prop up new industries. Either that or another industrial revolution such as automatization or machine learning (which we should be in a cusp of obtaining) but those changes could make GDP calculation worthless as the effect on human employment could be more important than the economic "improvement".
 
P

Poodlestrike

Banned
Bonen no Max'd said:
I guess, I just don't see who is going to have missed the fact that they live in an R+400 district and be disappointed that they lost after Bernie told them they could win.

my takeaway from this discussion is that we need more sewer socialists
Click to expand...

See, you're right, but at the same time, I don't think Sanders has displayed the level of nuance or savvy you're attributing to him at any point? So I don't think it's what Bernie was saying. I think people are right that it's what he believes to be literally true.
 
D

dramatis

Member
neurosisxeno said:
Repeal labor laws. Stuff the entire population full of amphetamines. Everyone works 6 18 hour days a week for minimum wage. Also lower the minimum wage to like $5/hr, no overtime. Sundays off because Supply Side Jesus frowns upon working on Sundays. Production per worker would skyrocket, and each person employed like this would only make $28,000 a year pre-tax.
Click to expand...
What??? You still have minimum wage???

Joking aside, the planet money pod didn't do things like that, but they have a set of steps that are actually crazier if you want to take a listen lol
 
M

Makai

Member
dramatis said:
What??? You still have minimum wage???

Joking aside, the planet money pod didn't do things like that, but they have a set of steps that are actually crazier if you want to take a listen lol
Click to expand...
We haven't even tapped chilld labor - 50 million new jobs, easy.
 
M

Makai

Member
barber said:
Either that or another industrial revolution such as automatization or machine learning (which we should be in a cusp of obtaining) but those changes could make GDP calculation worthless as the effect on human employment could be more important than the economic "improvement".
Click to expand...
I really doubt it. ML will be like digital spreadsheets - increased the number of accountants. Handcalculating was slow and expensive, but Excel made it possible for more businesses to afford accounting and make better financial decisions. When ML matures, a bunch of paraquants will get hired to do datascience for small companies.
 
R

Roland_Gunner

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
In 1980, 8% of America's GDP would have been close to one of the ten richest countries in the world.

We then grew at 8% in 1983.

This is not a historically sound argument.
Click to expand...

So lets replicate what lead to that growth. All we need is for:

1. The fed to jack up interest rates to insanely high levels and cause a severe recession.
2. Drop them back down, which releases pent up demand and spikes consumption.
3. At the same time have the government engage in massive stimulus through tax cuts and increased spending.

Even then you only get to 6% or so because the population is growing more slowly and has more old folks who don't consume as much. Plucking one data point out of the air without considering context doesn't make something historically sound.
 
T

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Bonen no Max'd said:
I mean, I think you're blowing that out of proportion. Bernie's saying that the Democrats can get victories by organizing and not giving up on victories ahead of time because they're considered out of reach. He isn't saying that if only the Democrats got their shit together they could hold every single seat in the House after 2018, but we've brought two districts that haven't been held by Democrats since 94 and 96 to 6-point races. That was like, the whole point of the fifty-state strategy everyone gets excited about!

This is frustrating because it's like, the least charitable interpretation of what he said. Yeah, we're probably not picking up UT-1 or KS-1 but we also weren't supposed to have a chance at KS-4 and then we came close because of the grassroots support for Thompson. The DCCC ignored the race because they thought it didn't matter but people organized and made Estes sweat on election day even if Thompson ultimately lost.
Click to expand...

I mean Bernie Sanders is on record as being incredulous that Republicans get more than like 20% of the vote or something so its hard for me to give his words the benefit of the doubt here.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
benjipwns said:
You'd want a federalized system in which the head of the executive branch is elected not directly by the people but by other people who are elected by voters in geographically distinct areas of varying sizes who then gather to elect the executive no matter what the national popular vote is?

And a healthcare system in which the individual territories run things on their own terms but are granted federal funding to assist paying for it in exchange for federal guidelines?

No, that kind of system would never be allowed in Reagan's America.

Only twice since 1962 has the winning Canadian party topped 45% of the national popular vote. They've only cracked 40% once since 1988.
Click to expand...

At least we don't elect people who lose the popular vote


And do so twice in the past 17 years
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Those tweets this morning pretty much are the epitome of delusion.
 
B

BUNTING1243

Banned
Tarydax said:
Well, coming from him, that is kind of funny. Clowns are supposed to make you laugh, right?

...

Bernie gets major control over the Democratic platform even though he lost the primary by millions of votes, he gets his own unity tour, he becomes the new outreach chair, and yet he keeps shitting on the Democratic Party. Nothing but absolute control will ever be enough for him. I wish O'Malley would have done to Bernie what Christie did to Rubio. The Democratic Party would be better for it.
Click to expand...

So in your ideal universe does the Democratic Party just have no critics from the left?

I'm so frequently confused by this idea that infighting in a party that just lost an election is bad and counterproductive. There were a lot of factors to why Trump won, but one of them is that the Democratic platform doesn't connect with voters the way it did under Obama. Doesn't that the fact we lost mean *something* needs to change in the party? Shouldn't that be a conversation that's happening in the open?

I just don't see how it can be anything other than healthy for the party to have its critics pushing it leftwards. If one of those critics happens to be the most popular politican in the country right now, then so be it.
 
D

dramatis

Member
BUNTING1243 said:
So in your ideal universe does the Democratic Party just have no critics from the left?

I'm so frequently confused by this idea that infighting in a party that just lost an election is bad and counterproductive. There were a lot of factors to why Trump won, but one of them is that the Democratic platform doesn't connect with voters the way it did under Obama. Doesn't that the fact we lost mean *something* needs to change in the party? Shouldn't that be a conversation that's happening in the open?

I just don't see how it can be anything other than healthy for the party to have its critics pushing it leftwards. If one of those critics happens to be the most popular politican in the country right now, then so be it.
Click to expand...
There's constructive criticism, and then there's playing your own schtick to your own benefit.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Bernie does nothing to help the party. I'm not sure what his end game is because I'm not convinced that he's got the magic strategy to win everything back. We should be listening to and observing some of his ideas, sure, but the dude is not a cure all for the party's woes or the overall political turmoil in this country.
 
T

Tarydax

Banned
BUNTING1243 said:
So in your ideal universe does the Democratic Party just have no critics from the left?
Click to expand...

I'm fine with criticism as long as it's credible and constructive - criticism from Bernie Sanders is neither. He blasts the Democratic Party for losing when he himself has almost nothing but losses under his belt. Almost all (if not all - I can't think of a single Bernie type who won) of his guys lost during the election and oftentimes lagged behind Hillary. Ellison lost the DNC chair race in part because Bernie stuck his foot in his mouth as usual. Mellow and Quist lost their recent special elections. If he wants to complain about Democrats losing elections, he should look in the mirror first. People have negatively compared him to Jeremy Corbyn, but Corbyn has major, tangible wins under his belt. Bernie doesn't. If I were Jeremy Corbyn, I would be deeply offended at any comparison to Bernie Sanders.

BUNTING1243 said:
I'm so frequently confused by this idea that infighting in a party that just lost an election is bad and counterproductive. There were a lot of factors to why Trump won, but one of them is that the Democratic platform doesn't connect with voters the way it did under Obama. Doesn't that the fact we lost mean *something* needs to change in the party? Shouldn't that be a conversation that's happening in the open?
Click to expand...

Bernie had tons of control over the 2016 platform.

He isn't trying to have a conversation. He actively shat on the party during the Dem primary, and he's continuing to do that. He only cares about his own brand. Dubbedinenglish is right - even if Bernie got complete control over the Democratic Party, he would still be complaining.

BUNTING1243 said:
I just don't see how it can be anything other than healthy for the party to have its critics pushing it leftwards. If one of those critics happens to be the most popular politican in the country right now, then so be it.
Click to expand...

It was pushed leftward. The Democratic Party platform is more progressive than it has ever been, but Bernie keeps putting his foot in his mouth, because that's almost all he can do.

The only reason Republicans and right-wing "independents" seem to like him is because of how he actively hits Democrats with friendly fire.
 
S

SomewhatGroovy

Banned
Slayven said:
The decline of Van Jones is so sad.
Click to expand...

The Jones and Cory Booker of the world are opportunists who took Trump's election to make a name for themselves. As much as I want and need a voice that represents and upholds Progressive values, I trust these two about as much as something that, er, is untrustworthy
 
E

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
Bernie really does want an actual revolution. Not difficult to understand where he stands. He never actually compromises, anything that looks like a compromise is a temporary just to be able to get a better footing.
 
T

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Ether_Snake said:
Bernie really does want an actual revolution. Not difficult to understand where he stands. He never actually compromises, anything that looks like a compromise is a temporary just to be able to get a better footing.
Click to expand...
I'd be more onboard with Bernie if I thought he wanted an actual revolution, TBH. Or at least I would respect him more. He has a very specific set of politics and he just wants the entire political system to mirror those politics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

your favorite racing games by year (2002-2022)
2
72
4K
marcincz replied
[GfK data] In the UK, Xbox Series S and X has now overtaken sales of the original Xbox. PS5 is now closing in on 3DS/2DS sales.
Sales-Age 2
51
5K
Thirty7ven replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
238
44K
Hrk69 replied
Evolution of Open World Games 1980-2021
2 3
141
13K
IbizaPocholo replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
59K
DGrayson replied
Top Bottom