Election 2016 Thread

[pErvinalia]

I'll communicate however the fuck I like. And however I do communicate, it doesn't give you the right to totally make shit up. Start acting like an adult and take responsibility for your own actions.

[Forty Two]

VW etc cheating emissions tests.

Nurofen lying on it's packaging.

"And, what does that have to do with raising or lowering prices or wages? Is that dishonest behavior or something?"
Try and keep up, will you. Supply-side economics dominates capitalism these days.

????? We've been following Keynesian recommendations of running deficits, bailing out industries, and quantitative easing the money supply... The supply siders were the ones who got us to a near zero deficit (some say zero deficit) and a roaring economy in the 1990s, to early 2000s). The Bushes aren't supply siders - GHWBush called it voodoo economics, and W gave away the store and refused to veto spending bills.

Cutting wages (and/or taxes) frees up capital to be invested in the business (or other businesses). That drives economic growth under the supply-side model.

To that extent, I agree.

Regarding dishonest behaviour, that was in response to your point about artificially reducing wages gives unfair advantage. Since when did fairness have anything to do with capitalism?

Since capitalism requires government regulation to exist, and government regulation under capitalism is targeted at creating a level playing field, and not advantaging one business over another. The rules are supposed to be fair. That's a the heart of capitalism. Unfairness arises when the government sides with one business over another -- crony capitalism. That's unfair - you know, like what Obama does and what the Progressives advocate -- picking out the winners and deciding to make the playing field lopsided to achieve policy goals.

Without fair laws and equal protection of the laws, capitalism cannot exist qua capitalism. Corporate law -- property law - criminal law - commercial transaction law, etc. -- fair laws are necessary for capitalism to function properly and to exist.

[Svartalf]

Could Obama serve as VP after being Prez? I think that would be funny.

Nope, as that would opene the way for a third term should hilly die or otherwise become unsuitable for the presidency

[Scot Dutchy]

Can somebody turn down 42's noise?

[Svartalf]

Can somebody turn down 42's noise?

you can put him on ignore if you find it unsufferable, it worked very well for me when seth was mass posting walls of text.

[Forty Two]

I'll communicate however the fuck I like.

Of course, but if you throw out a sentence fragment during a discussion to advance a point, then people reading it can only interpret it as best they can. It's not "making shit up" to discuss what you mean by a dopey bumper sticker-esque sentence fragment. If you want to be understood, learn to present an argument.

And however I do communicate, it doesn't give you the right to totally make shit up. Start acting like an adult and take responsibility for your own actions.

Look, responding to your dopey post with a discussion of what the reader has read, and what it appears to mean (or potentially mean) is not "making shit up." It's called engaging in a conversation or discussion of the topic. You just want to wing dopey comments out there and not have them analyzed, vetted or tested? Not going to happen. If someone says they take your meaning to be X, and you didn't mean that, then don't be such a little fucking child and flip out about how they didn't magically understand the hidden meaning behind your stupid sentence fragment. Take pill, and respond with a clarification of what the fuck you really mean.

Maybe that's beyond your capacity, though. If so, you may wish to focus less on the political threads and focus more on the ones regarding movies or video games or something.

[Scot Dutchy]

Can somebody turn down 42's noise?

you can put him on ignore if you find it unsufferable, it worked very well for me when seth was mass posting walls of text.

Too drastic.

[Forty Two]

Could Obama serve as VP after being Prez? I think that would be funny.

Nope, as that would opene the way for a third term should hilly die or otherwise become unsuitable for the presidency

Except that the rule is he cannot be "elected" to the presidency more than twice. By serving as VP, he would not be "elected", he would succeed by operation of law, and then he would be barred from seeking election after completing that partial term.

[pErvinalia]

VW etc cheating emissions tests.

Nurofen lying on it's packaging.

"And, what does that have to do with raising or lowering prices or wages? Is that dishonest behavior or something?"
Try and keep up, will you. Supply-side economics dominates capitalism these days.

????? We've been following Keynesian recommendations of running deficits, bailing out industries, and quantitative easing the money supply... The supply siders were the ones who got us to a near zero deficit (some say zero deficit) and a roaring economy in the 1990s, to early 2000s). The Bushes aren't supply siders - GHWBush called it voodoo economics, and W gave away the store and refused to veto spending bills.

Supply side and demand side have little to nothing to do with deficits or surpluses. They are models regarding what primarily drives economic growth. Demand vs Supply. Supply side is the model we have been running under since the inception of neoliberalism in the late 70s ealy 80s. That is, cut taxes and reduce upward pressure on wages, so as to free up capital to drive investment.

Regarding dishonest behaviour, that was in response to your point about artificially reducing wages gives unfair advantage. Since when did fairness have anything to do with capitalism?

Since capitalism requires government regulation to exist, and government regulation under capitalism is targeted at creating a level playing field, and not advantaging one business over another. The rules are supposed to be fair. That's a the heart of capitalism. Unfairness arises when the government sides with one business over another -- crony capitalism.

Yes, I'm talking about the reality of capitalism, not some idealised system. The reality IS crony capitalism.

Without fair laws and equal protection of the laws, capitalism cannot exist qua capitalism. Corporate law -- property law - criminal law - commercial transaction law, etc. -- fair laws are necessary for capitalism to function properly and to exist.

Companies primary concern is making a profit, not making sure capitalism continues to exist. That's the role of the state.

[pErvinalia]

I'll communicate however the fuck I like.

Of course, but if you throw out a sentence fragment during a discussion to advance a point, then people reading it can only interpret it as best they can. It's not "making shit up" to discuss what you mean by a dopey bumper sticker-esque sentence fragment. If you want to be understood, learn to present an argument.

Incredible. You are utterly incapable of taking responsibility for making shit up. I can answer with one word responses, and in no universe would you be justified in claiming "you said abc and xyz". THAT is making shit up.

And however I do communicate, it doesn't give you the right to totally make shit up. Start acting like an adult and take responsibility for your own actions.

Look, responding to your dopey post with a discussion of what the reader has read, and what it appears to mean (or potentially mean) is not "making shit up."

That's not what you did, though. You didn't discuss anything or state I appeared to say something, you outright claimed I said something that I didn't. THAT is making shit up. Take responsibility for your own actions, ffs.

You just want to wing dopey comments out there and not have them analyzed, vetted or tested? Not going to happen.

No, I've explained this all to you before. I'm simply not interested in investing too much time and effort in pointless debate with someone who has consistently shown themselves to misrepresent others and steadfastly refuses to admit that he could ever have been wrong. It's like "debating" with a child.

[Forty Two]

I'll communicate however the fuck I like.

Of course, but if you throw out a sentence fragment during a discussion to advance a point, then people reading it can only interpret it as best they can. It's not "making shit up" to discuss what you mean by a dopey bumper sticker-esque sentence fragment. If you want to be understood, learn to present an argument.

Incredible. You are utterly incapable of taking responsibility for making shit up. I can answer with one word responses, and in no universe would you be justified in claiming "you said abc and xyz". THAT is making shit up.

I never wrote "you said abc and xyz," did I? It is , however, certainly acceptable to discuss what you mean, or what it seems you mean, by an ambiguous statement. Things like, "so you're saying..." or "...that means....X, Y or Z" or "it follows form that...." etc. - there's nothing wrong with that, and it's very common, and you do it too. You take something someone says, and you extrapolate from there what you think they mean.

You've done a good job deflecting this -- as is your usual habit - into a personal thing, and focusing on something other than the topic being discussed. But, that's your modus operandi, and I can't be surprised by it.

And however I do communicate, it doesn't give you the right to totally make shit up. Start acting like an adult and take responsibility for your own actions.

Look, responding to your dopey post with a discussion of what the reader has read, and what it appears to mean (or potentially mean) is not "making shit up."

That's not what you did, though.

It absolutely is.

You didn't discuss anything or state I appeared to say something, you outright claimed I said something that I didn't.

I did not.

THAT is making shit up. Take responsibility for your own actions, ffs.

Fuck off with your disingenuous bullshit.

You just want to wing dopey comments out there and not have them analyzed, vetted or tested? Not going to happen.

No, I've explained this all to you before. I'm simply not interested in investing too much time and effort in pointless debate with someone who has consistently shown themselves to misrepresent others and steadfastly refuses to admit that he could ever have been wrong. It's like "debating" with a child.

That's you, buddy. Stop projecting. You couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag, so you divert, deflect and constantly create fights with people about "you said this" and "i never said that." It's real simple, genius. If I misstated what you meant, then you can easily just go "dude, I didn't mean that at all. Allow me to clarify for you....."

But, you don't. You throw out a vague comment, then bitch that people misstate your meaning.

[pErvinalia]

I'll communicate however the fuck I like.

Of course, but if you throw out a sentence fragment during a discussion to advance a point, then people reading it can only interpret it as best they can. It's not "making shit up" to discuss what you mean by a dopey bumper sticker-esque sentence fragment. If you want to be understood, learn to present an argument.

Incredible. You are utterly incapable of taking responsibility for making shit up. I can answer with one word responses, and in no universe would you be justified in claiming "you said abc and xyz". THAT is making shit up.

I never wrote "you said abc and xyz," did I?

Yes you fucking did! You said I "declare[d] that he called all or even most Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers". I declared no such thing. You were making shit up. I just don't understand you. I'm left with no other conclusion than you are just an outright dishonest person. I've never met someone who lies as much as you do. It's fucking ridiculous.

You didn't discuss anything or state I appeared to say something, you outright claimed I said something that I didn't.

I did not.

How can you just outright bald-face lie like that?!?

[Scot Dutchy]

Go and get a room you two.

[pErvinalia]

I just can't let bald faced lying and misrepresentation go unchallenged. He's been doing this for years. And he never learns that he'll get called on it by me or Hermit (or others). As I said to him, I don't invest much time and effort into replying to him as all conversations with him go this way. The art is to debunk him and show him up for all the lying and misrepresentation with as few words as possible. It's actually a challenge I've set myself. It's an art I want to master.

[Forty Two]

VW etc cheating emissions tests.

Nurofen lying on it's packaging.

"And, what does that have to do with raising or lowering prices or wages? Is that dishonest behavior or something?"
Try and keep up, will you. Supply-side economics dominates capitalism these days.

????? We've been following Keynesian recommendations of running deficits, bailing out industries, and quantitative easing the money supply... The supply siders were the ones who got us to a near zero deficit (some say zero deficit) and a roaring economy in the 1990s, to early 2000s). The Bushes aren't supply siders - GHWBush called it voodoo economics, and W gave away the store and refused to veto spending bills.

Supply side and demand side have little to nothing to do with deficits or surpluses.

of course they do - demand side suggests that deficit spending is good when the economy needs a boost - borrow money to infuse capital into the economy to boost demand. Far from having "nothing to do" with Keynesian demand side economics, It's fundamental to it.

They are models regarding what primarily drives economic growth. Demand vs Supply. Supply side is the model we have been running under since the inception of neoliberalism in the late 70s ealy 80s. That is, cut taxes and reduce upward pressure on wages, so as to free up capital to drive investment.

It's not that simple. We've been a keynesian economy since World War 2. For a brief period, some supply side policies were enacted, but that did not overthrow the basic Keynesian economic policies.

Regarding dishonest behaviour, that was in response to your point about artificially reducing wages gives unfair advantage. Since when did fairness have anything to do with capitalism?

Since capitalism requires government regulation to exist, and government regulation under capitalism is targeted at creating a level playing field, and not advantaging one business over another. The rules are supposed to be fair. That's a the heart of capitalism. Unfairness arises when the government sides with one business over another -- crony capitalism.

Yes, I'm talking about the reality of capitalism, not some idealised system. The reality IS crony capitalism.

Crony capitalism is either fascistic or state-capitalism type socialism. Neither one is more "real" than a proper laissez-faire capitalist system.

Without fair laws and equal protection of the laws, capitalism cannot exist qua capitalism. Corporate law -- property law - criminal law - commercial transaction law, etc. -- fair laws are necessary for capitalism to function properly and to exist.

Companies primary concern is making a profit, not making sure capitalism continues to exist. That's the role of the state.

It's not my concern what companies are primarily concerned with. And, indeed, the role of the government is to regulate such that economic freedom and capitalism can exist. It won't exist without it. There I agree with you, on that role.