-
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.
Vice-Presidential Debate |OT| The Big F$@*ing Deal vs. The Randian from Dairyland
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
Conciliator
Banned
Battle raps. Maaaaaan the debates would be so much more interesting and the country would almost definitely not be any worse off.
Skiptastic
Member
I'm excited for this to happen and it should be fun to watch, but it probably won't make a lick of difference in the overall election.
I go to the school where its being held and they were allowed to distribute 100 tickets to students by lottery. Just got a phone call saying I got one. I'm pretty excited about it.
Perspicacity
Banned
Will Biden be rolling with his gang tonight?
Omegasquash
Member
It's a story from the 48 laws of power, and it's not very detail accurate IIRC.
CyclopsRock
Member
You don't have to agree with someone to think they're smart. I think anyone denying that Ryan is a clever cookie is actively popping their head in the sand.
Agreed. I think he's very smart tbh. But I also think he's a phony that exaggerates and lies copiously and talks out of his ass much of the time. But to do those things successfully whilst coming off as grounded, takes some level of intellect, so I gotta hand it to him really.
Lol, how gracious of you.
Nope, anyone who believes the things he believes in the face if overwhelming evidence to the contrary is not an intelligent person. Sorry. He would be smart if he didn't believe stupid things.
Anyone who gets their overriding philosophy from Ayn Rand isn't a smart person.
One could say the same thing about closed-minded people.
One could point out that rejecting demonstrably poor ideas is not being closed-minded.
How do you know he doesn't just play the game to his benefit? What's to say he isn't aware of the unscrupulous or inaccurate nature of some of his claims but presses them on the basis of the benefits they'd have to him or members of his party, family, businesses etc.
Secondly, even if he wasn't, I don't think it's as clear cut as that. He's lived a different life to you, and will have had a different set of experiences, and maybe even a different kind of education, different set of figures, findings, studies, influences, peers etc etc, it's really not as black and white as you make out.
Facts do not depend on your perspective or your upbringing. His economic philosophy is wrong. That it isn't instantly recognized as wrong is the fault of himself and others pushing it to the ignorant masses, which is why he's an idiot even if he's doing it while knowing it's wrong.
9 PM EST is 2 AM GMT or 3 AM BST -- I regret to say I don't know if you guys are on daylight savings right now. Hopefully not.
I think the question of Ryan's intelligence is a little silly. Nobody gets to where Ryan is by being stupid except Jason Chaffetz. He certainly doesn't have as much book larning as Obama or as much experience as Biden or even Romney. And I don't really believe in prodigies in the field of economies. So I definitely don't think he's up to the standard people suggest.
Intelligence doesn't necessarily have much to do with success in debates, though. As Newt Gingrich should have already taught you, sounding smart and being smart are not actually the same skillset.
Any further thoughts here? I'm sort of surprised there hasn't been any activity in this thread. I know I will have my bucket of popcorn ready for tonight.
Come one guys, get pumped!
Only Ryan could make working out look lame.
So having a "wrong" economic philosophy makes you stupid?
Damn, i never thought Obama was stupid.
CyclopsRock
Member
I can't tell if you're joking or not. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are.
This is a pretty narrow minded viewpoint. Firstly, I vehemently disagree with Ryan's Economic plans, but it's ludicrous to think he's un-intelligent because of them, and it's also silly to think that there is a definitive right or wrong when it comes to such things. There's only an opinion of what people believe to be right or wrong on the subject matter. Doesn't matter what historical data and figures have shown us, such things can be skewed to fit either argument, though I do contest that they have to be done so in a more questionable manner to fit Ryan's viewpoint.
Even then, no amount of historical data (which is actually quite limited when it comes to modern day recessions actually) is the be all end all, because each generation is completely unique with thousands of different factors and new variables at work that change the stakes or rules of play altogether.
Or selective photo editors at Time. The photos they released today are even specifically labeled as outtakes but they are printing them anyway.
No offense, but this is literally an argument that science is stupid and untrustworthy. You could change a few words and add the phrase "intelligent design" in and it would pass unchecked at any Texas State Board of Education meeting.
How so? How does science correlate with economic predictions and ideologies? They're worlds apart. Theres's not even a general consensus on economic policy, which is why we have such polarising opinions and party policies on it in the first place.
There may be no consensus, but assuming the end goal is economic prosperity for all(or close to all, and not just the top), I would say that some plans can easily be dismissed as "wrong"
CyclopsRock
Member
What on earth is wrong with you? You really think that Keynesian, or indeed any economics is as water tight as evolution?
speculawyer
Member
There is a science to economics. There are things that work better than other things. However, our current economic theories are not fully developed and well tested. It is a difficult field since we only have one world and cannot run controlled experiments. And worse, we have lugheads that constantly muddy the waters actively pushing theories that are provably false such that the field is a mess.
But that doesn't mean there is no ability for science to improve the field.
I think a better argument isn't to say a specific economic plan is as "water tight as evolution" but to say that other economic plans are simply wrong.
There may still be a debate on how best to fix this economy, but some plans to fix it can be considered completely wrong.
PotatoeMasher
Member
I live in Danville and attended and worked at Centre College up until last year. This has been a fun week.
wow, seriously? that's pretty dick of Time to do that
Sirpopopop
Member
Make sure that when the debate happens you cheer when Biden says something.
This will have a psychological impact on the millions of viewers watching the debate. "Hey that guy cheered! Biden must have said something good!"
CyclopsRock
Member
the US has an annual budget deficit of $1.2tr. I don't understand how supply side economics are unequivocally considered "wrong" and not worth debating, whilst simultaneously acknowledging that "There may still be a debate". About what, then? The US spends so, so, so much more than it takes in tax revenue. That there alternatives to the current plan may involve cutting so, so, so much should not, then, prove a surprise. You don't have to like an idea to entertain the idea of even discussing it.
Your statement is "when it comes to economics, historical data and figures are completely unreliable and there is no statement with more probative value than an opinion."
This is literally an abdication of rationality. Unless you come from Austria, even in economics there's such a thing as hypothesis, observation, and analysis, and just saying "well, this situation is different in some way so the evidence doesn't count" isn't reasonable thought. There is plenty of reliable history to say that some approaches work better and some approaches don't work at all.
Yes. It's not necessarily a settled field, but there are settled wrong answers.
...this paragraph makes no sense at all. How is the deficit relevant? The reason supply-side economics are considered wrong is because they have never worked.
PotatoeMasher
Member
Oh weird. Another Centre person on GAF? Congrats on getting ticketsI missed the first debate (started my freshman year in '02) and left my job right after we got announced as doing the VP debate again.
Was fun hanging out and talking to the media yesterday. I think we're going to head back to campus this afternoon.
I think the plan in question of being wrong was Paul Ryan's, which has been shown to be mathematically suspicious, and would only increase poverty and the gap between the lower to middle class and the wealthy.
gutter_trash
Banned
Biden is a better debater than Obama, he may have handled Palin carefully to not come across as misogynistic but the gloves will come off against Ryan
Any further thoughts here? I'm sort of surprised there hasn't been any activity in this thread. I know I will have my bucket of popcorn ready for tonight.
Come one guys, get pumped!
The way Ryan smiles just always comes off wrong. He can't turn up the corners of his mouth
DietRob
i've been begging for over 5 years.
I really hope so. Somebody needs to directly call these guys on their bullshit. I'm still pretty shocked POTUS just stood there looking goofy instead of calling Romney on his math skills.
Uncle Joe this is your moment.
PotatoeMasher
Member
He looks like the Scout from TF2.
The idea was that cutting taxes will raise revenue because it would lead to increased investments by the "job creator" class. If you have to start cutting services to make up for the lost revenue then you're admitting that cutting taxes doesn't spur investment.
We've been cutting taxes for years and the only thing it's done is cause more debt.
"He's not smart because he doesn't agree with me on everything, because I'm the smartest of the smart, yay me." Very smart.
Do you normally find reading difficult?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked