menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events Topic
Topic: Housing-gate continues
Page: 9 of 15
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
5/24/2018 8:40 PM
TheBobcatBandit wrote:expand_more
"Four decades ago, while working for Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.), I had a hand in creating the Republican tax myth. Of course, it didn’t seem like a myth at that time — taxes were rising rapidly because of inflation and bracket creep, the top tax rate was 70 percent and the economy seemed trapped in stagflation with no way out. Tax cuts, at that time, were an appropriate remedy for the economy’s ills. By the time Ronald Reagan was president, Republican tax gospel went something like this:
The tax system has an enormously powerful effect on economic growth and employment."

The argument that lowering taxes helps the economy has nothing to do with whether someone is a republican or democrat. He instantly changes the argument about the effectiveness of taxes to one that is about who's tax plans is better. We need to get away from this team format. What if there is a third idea that is better than both of theirs.
[/QUOTE]He is not making the argument that the 'effectiveness of taxes' has anything to do with whether somebody is a Republican or Democrat. He is, in fact, making the same argument you are. You're just so blinded by your own biases that you see anything framed politically as useless and don't have the reading comprehension to understand the actual thesis of the article you're criticizing.


"By the time Ronald Reagan was president, Republican tax gospel went something like this:
The tax system has an enormously powerful effect on economic growth and employment."
High taxes and tax rates were largely responsible for stagflation in the 1970s.
Reagan’s 1981 tax cut, which was based a bill, co-sponsored by Kemp and Sen. William Roth (R-Del.), that I helped design, unleashed the American economy and led to an abundance of growth."

Ok again what does what the republican want to do with taxes have to do with the tax system itself.
He's explaining why his opinion is credible. By pointing out that he was one of the architects of a bill that reduced taxes and spurred economic growth, he's showing that he does, under some circumstances, believe in the value of tax cuts.

"Based on this logic, tax cuts became the GOP’s go-to solution for nearly every economic problem. Extravagant claims are made for any proposed tax cut. Wednesday, President Trump argued that “our country and our economy cannot take off” without the kind of tax reform he proposes. Last week, Republican economist Arthur Laffer said, “If you cut that [corporate] tax rate to 15 percent, it will pay for itself many times over. … This will bring in probably $1.5 trillion net by itself.”
That’s wishful thinking. So is most Republican rhetoric around tax cutting. In reality, there’s no evidence that a tax cut now would spur growth."

OK right here, what? This is what I mean when I say the media cherry picks data or quotes of people to straw man the argument into something it has nothing to do with. You can't just simplify the effectiveness of lowering taxes into just being about the corporate tax rate. There is way more that goes into taxes than the corporate tax rate. The tax of citizens as well as the other measures you can use such as deregulation and cutting government spending can have a huge effect into the effectiveness. Again they're leaving out a number of key points when it comes to taxes.
He is not in any way shape or form saying that lowering taxes is only about the corporate tax rate. He addresses several other factors throughout the piece. You even quote him doing so. In fact, the entire point he's making is that lowering taxes is not a one-size fits all solution and doing so only spurs growth if other factors are accounted for.

Again, he's making the same point you are.

Next off he says

"Moreover, GOP tax mythology usually leaves out other factors that also contributed to growth in the 1980s: First was the sharp reduction in interest rates by the Federal Reserve. The fed funds rate fell by more than half, from about 19 percent in July 1981 to about 9 percent in November 1982. Second, Reagan’s defense buildup and highway construction programs greatly increased the federal government’s purchases of goods and services. This is textbook Keynesian economics.
[Why would anyone in Puerto Rico want a hurricane? Because someone will get rich.]"

The interest rate and how you apply it can effect the economy. Yet the writer just points how republicans don't think about it without having any evidence of that being true. He also does the same thing he accuses them of and blatantly lies. How does Keynesian economics have anything to do with what political side you're on. I am a conservative and I hate Keynesian economics. Still struggling to see how we have gotten to the conclusion that taxes are bad.
What is he blatantly lying about?

Further, he's not arguing that Keynesian economics necessarily has anything to do with party. He's saying that the Reagan tax cuts, without reduced interest rates and increased infrastructure and defense spending wouldn't have spurred the same level of growth.

You're welcome to disagree with that. But as is, you're not engaging around his actual points, you're just calling him a liar and accusing him of playing partisan politics despite the fact that he's a Republican writing an article critical of Republican tax policy.

"Third, there was the simple bounce-back from the recession of 1981-82. Recoveries in the postwar era tended to be V-shaped — they were as sharp as the downturns they followed. The deeper the recession, the more robust the recovery."

He still has yet to talk about the interworking of taxes and of what he would propose. He literally is just talking about what happened in the economy and not tying it to taxes at all.
He has talked about that, actually. In fact, it's all he's talked about. He's saying that the policy he was the architect of -- which paired tax cuts with increased infrastructure/defense spending and interest rate cuts -- is a superior alternative to the Trump proposal which solely cuts taxes. One of his key points is that cutting taxes without taking other factors into account provides a quick political victory but is poor policy.

So again, he's agreeing with you that tax policy requires reckoning with a wide variety of variables.

"Finally, I’m not sure how many Republicans even know anymore that Reagan raised taxes several times after 1981. His last budget showed that as of 1988, the aggregate, cumulative revenue loss from the 1981 tax cut was $264 billion and legislated tax increases brought about half of that back."

Nothing to do with how you can use taxes to benefit the economy. Is just saying what republicans do is wrong. They might be wrong but that doesn't mean lowering taxes is good or bad. We have learned nothing about how taxes work and only about why the way republicans want it to work is wrong.
His point here is simple: Reagan cut taxes to spur economic growth but recognized that you couldn't maintain such a low rate indefinitely as it decreased revenue too much. You can spur growth with tax cuts but it's wise, in his opinion, to recoup that revenue once the economy is in better shape.

What I don't understand is this: Republicans currently control every branch of government. Their tax policy is now our tax policy and that's what this writer is responding to. He's debating the efficacy of our current tax policy. You think it's too partisan to discuss tax policy merely because said policy was implemented by a political party?

"Today, Republicans extol the virtues of lowering marginal tax rates, citing as their model the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which lowered the top individual income tax rate to just 28 percent from 50 percent, and the corporate tax rate to 34 percent from 46 percent. What follows, they say, would be an economic boon."

Ok the Tax reform act of 1986 has nothing to do with whether cutting taxes helps or hurts the economy. There are other factors that you have to implement and to just simplify it to this is embarrassing.
You cite your interest in history as relevant to the discussion, but when this author cites the historical impact of a particular tax policy you deem it irrelevant.

And of course there are other factors you have to implement. That's the entire point of his argument.

OK right here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You could ignore all the other flaws and just read this!!!

"Indeed, textbook tax theory says that lowering marginal tax rates while holding revenue constant unambiguously raises growth."

He admits taxes can have a positive impact on growth!!!!
He admitted that in the first paragraph. He is, if you recall, the architect of a tax policy that used tax reduction to spur growth. This isn't some gotcha. It's actually the thesis of his entire argument.

Your reading comprehension is terrible.


Then once again he changes the argument about whether taxes could help the economy to about the 1986 tax reform act being bad.

"But there is no evidence showing a boost in growth from the 1986 act. The economy remained on the same track, with huge stock market crashes — 1987’s “Black Monday,” 1989’s Friday the 13th “mini-crash” and a recession beginning in 1990. Real wages fell."
No, he doesn't change the argument. His argument is very consistent, you just don't understand enough about the 1986 tax act to understand why.

Strenuous efforts by economists to find any growth effect from the 1986 act have failed to find much. The most thorough analysis, by economists Alan Auerbach and Joel Slemrod, found only a shifting of income due to tax reform, no growth effects: “The aggregate values of labor supply and saving apparently responded very little,” they concluded."

Again notice we aren't talking about cutting taxes we're talking about the 1986 tax reform act. They may have cut taxes then but there are a million other factors you have to consider.
That there are other factors you need to consider is exactly his point. Your reading comprehension is terrible.

Do I even need to keep going. This is fake news. I don't know how much more clear I can make it. I will finish demolishing this article but I'm not doing the others. This is a waste of my time.
Back to fake news. Again, this is opinion, and opinion you're free to disagree with. But because you disagree with it doesn't make it fake. He has valid opinions and supports them with evidence and data.

You, on the other hand, provide no evidence or data. You just make vague statements like "there are other factors to consider" and think that somehow means you're "demolishing an article."

All you've done is demonstrate you didn't understand it. Because your reading comprehension is terrible.

"The flip-side of tax cut mythology is the notion that tax increases are an economic disaster — the reason, in theory, every Republican in Congress voted against the tax increase proposed by Bill Clinton in 1993. Yet the 1990s was the most prosperous decade in recent memory. At 37.3 percent, aggregate real GDP growth in the 1990s exceeded that in the 1980s."

That has no reason to do with why I hate tax increases. I hate them because it takes the money I work for and therefor gives me less to spend on the things I want and more with the things the government wants. I at least know what I want, how do we know there isn't corruption in the people in government that we don't know about. Also if you raise taxes that gives the government more money which effectively gives them more power. I, as a conservative want the federal and state governments to have less power because the more power they have the too big and complex it gets for people to understand, which in turn makes it easier for corruption.
Your point here, I guess, is that this author should have the exact same opinions as you?

"Despite huge tax cuts almost annually during the George W. Bush administration that cost the Treasury trillions in revenue, according to the Congressional Budget Office, growth collapsed in the first decade of the 2000s. Real GDP rose just 19.5 percent, well below its ’90s rate."

Why is he falsely attributing growth decline to taxes? Strawman!
He's using this example to support his thesis, which is that tax cuts do not necessarily spur growth.

"We saw another test of the Republican tax myth in 2013, after President Barack Obama allowed some of the Bush tax cuts to expire, raising the top income tax rate to its current 39.6 percent from 35 percent. The economy grew nicely afterward and the stock market has boomed — up around 10,000 points over the past five years."

Again he falsely attributes the gains in the economy to taxes. I could also argue in many ways the economy is worse off than it was in 2008 so by saying the economy grew nicely is a joke to make. The economy has nothing to do with the stock market.
Then make that argument. Seriously. I would really, really, really love to see you make the argument that the economy of 2008, the year the global economy collapsed, was better than it was in 2016.

And then once you're done, make sure you come back here and lecture others about intellectual honesty some more.

Seriously. Please make that argument.

"Now, Republicans propose cutting the top individual rate to 35 percent, despite lacking evidence that this lower rate led to growth during the Bush years, and a drop in the corporate tax rate to just 20 percent from 35 percent. Unlike 1986, however, this $1.5 trillion cut over the next decade will only be paid for partially by closing tax loopholes."

Ok, nothing to do with how taxes work.
You make a really good argument here and support it with a lot of strong data. You're right and not at all hypocritical to criticize others in this regard.

"Republicans’ various claims are irreconcilable. One is that the rich will not benefit even though it is practically impossible for them not to — those paying the most taxes already will necessarily benefit the most from a large tax cut. And there aren’t enough tax deductions, exclusions and credits benefiting the rich that could be abolished to offset a cut in the top rate."

Yes this might be true but there are better ways out there than the republicans. Why does he continue to make this political.......
The Republicans control all three branches of the government and just implemented the tax policy he's critical of. He's "making it political" because politicians implement policy and policy has real world impact. He's concerned, for various reasons, about the impact said policy might have and therefore he's speaking out against politicians and their policy.

"Even if they had released a complete plan — not just the woefully incomplete nine-page outline released Wednesday — Republicans have failed to make a sound case that it’s time to cut taxes."

What does this have to with the issue of taxes? I agree with Kaepernick, yet he makes an issue about taxes into an issue about race?? That's abhorrent. This is fake news!!!!!! If republicans haven't made a good case then why don't we find someone else that does instead of just assuming this means the left team wins.
Just to reiterate: your reading comprehension's terrible. You know how I know? You copy and pasted a link to a Kaepernick article that was posted alongside the article you're critiquing and thought it was part of the article itself. The article you're "demolishing" doesn't mention Kaepernick or race anywhere. And you weren't following the author's argument well enough to recognize that a headline about Kaepernick was unrelated.

Seriously, your reading comprehension's terrible. Like comically so. You should be embarrassed right now. I mean, you're sitting here trying to position yourself as a tax policy expert that's torn apart this 'fake news' article and you don't even understand it well enough to recognize the difference between an unrelated link and the author's point.

[QUOTE=TheBobcatBandit]
This is more of the same as the rest of the article. I have made my criticism about what he is doing clear.
No you didn't.
Last Edited: 5/24/2018 8:49:21 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
TheBobcatBandit
5/25/2018 12:44 AM
Like I said, waste of my time, you didn’t comprehend any of my points and tried to insult my intelligence at a number of points. The flaw in everything you just said is in this quote right here.


TheBobcatBandit wrote:expand_more
"The flip-side of tax cut mythology is the notion that tax increases are an economic disaster — the reason, in theory, every Republican in Congress voted against the tax increase proposed by Bill Clinton in 1993. Yet the 1990s was the most prosperous decade in recent memory. At 37.3 percent, aggregate real GDP growth in the 1990s exceeded that in the 1980s."

That has no reason to do with why I hate tax increases. I hate them because it takes the money I work for and therefor gives me less to spend on the things I want and more with the things the government wants. I at least know what I want, how do we know there isn't corruption in the people in government that we don't know about. Also if you raise taxes that gives the government more money which effectively gives them more power. I, as a conservative want the federal and state governments to have less power because the more power they have the too big and complex it gets for people to understand, which in turn makes it easier for corruption.
“Your point here, I guess, is that this author should have the exact same opinions as you?”



You spent your whole response saying that the author actually agrees with me and I can’t comprehend what’s he’s saying. So which is it? Does he agree or doesn’t he? Based on what he says right here he clearly doesn’t agree with me and has a left wing bias. So tell me is he for or against tax cuts? This whole article had nothing to do with the taxes themselves and all to do about bashing the republican plan for taxes. You literally just accused me of making my arguments political then the very first source you site is extremely political and doesn’t go in depth at all with taxes.

He spends the whole article bashing republicans for their tax policy then compliments the left on their tax policy. Don’t you see a problem here?? Even though you and I both agree ,I think? that tax cuts are only a single factor in the multi level economy. He is writing as if because the economy went down during tax cuts in the 80’s, and went up during the tax raises in the 90’s. That high taxes are > than low taxes for the economy. That’s bull shit and that is a false equivalency. If he wasn’t doing that then why write this article? How does this article at all help us solve the tax system? It doesn’t, all it does is attack the republican plan for taxes. He doesn’t talk about the issue at all..........
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
5/25/2018 9:56 AM
TheBobcatBandit wrote:expand_more
"The flip-side of tax cut mythology is the notion that tax increases are an economic disaster — the reason, in theory, every Republican in Congress voted against the tax increase proposed by Bill Clinton in 1993. Yet the 1990s was the most prosperous decade in recent memory. At 37.3 percent, aggregate real GDP growth in the 1990s exceeded that in the 1980s."

That has no reason to do with why I hate tax increases. I hate them because it takes the money I work for and therefor gives me less to spend on the things I want and more with the things the government wants. I at least know what I want, how do we know there isn't corruption in the people in government that we don't know about. Also if you raise taxes that gives the government more money which effectively gives them more power. I, as a conservative want the federal and state governments to have less power because the more power they have the too big and complex it gets for people to understand, which in turn makes it easier for corruption.
[/QUOTE]
You spent your whole response saying that the author actually agrees with me and I can’t comprehend what’s he’s saying. So which is it? Does he agree or doesn’t he?
Actually, I just spent my whole response pointing out failures in your reading comprehension. That showed itself in instances where you failed to grasp the author's point so thoroughly that you reiterated his point when you actually thought you were arguing against him. In fact, you're still doing that at points in this post.

This is clearly impossible for you to understand because you have a bent towards making complex issues overly simplistic, but you and the author agree on certain things and disagrees with others. Crazy, right? That complex issues lead to complex opinions?

Which brings us back to reading comprehension. You can't seem to pick out one argument from the next and clearly failed to understand basic points. Your summation of his first paragraph is fully false, and you didn't pick up the very basic premise of the piece which is that one of the architects of the Reagan tax cuts -- somebody who clearly understands the impact on growth that tax cuts can have -- doesn't think tax cuts are always the clear cut path to growth.

Seriously. You missed the very basic premise. Why should any other points you've made be given credence?

Based on what he says right here he clearly doesn’t agree with me and has a left wing bias. So tell me is he for or against tax cuts? This whole article had nothing to do with the taxes themselves and all to do about bashing the republican plan for taxes. You literally just accused me of making my arguments political then the very first source you site is extremely political and doesn’t go in depth at all with taxes.
Your reading comprehension is terrible. Seriously.

First, I didn't even cite this source. You're having a conversation with two different posters -- me and DelBobcat -- and conflating the two. You've attributed things I've said to him and vice versa. My theory as to why, I'm sure you can guess, has to do with your reading comprehension.

Second, in your own words, you "demolished" this guy's points but you don't actually understand the very basic premise of his point. That you've read that article, feel you demolished it, and have no idea whether he's "for or against taxes" just, you know, proves that your reading comprehension is terrible.

It's very clear. He believes in tax cuts given the right economic environment and provided they're couples with other factors.

Which presumably you agree with him on, given that the only cogent thing you've managed to say on the subject is "there are a lot of factors to consider."

Also: you're accusing the architect of the Reagan tax plan of a left wing bias because he only believes in tax cuts given the proper economic environment. Which is also the point you've made repeatedly.

Which brings me back to another key point I've been making: your reading comprehension is terrible.

He spends the whole article bashing republicans for their tax policy then compliments the left on their tax policy. Don’t you see a problem here??
Again: Your reading comprehension is terrible.

He begins the article by explaining why GOP tax policy of the 80s spurred growth. He designed the plan. I honestly don't understand how you don't understand this yet. He is in favor of tax cuts under the right circumstance and when coupled with other actions, but thinks the most recent plan fails to take key factors into play.

That you think he spends the whole article "bashing republicans for their tax policy" just, you know, demonstrates the issues with your reading comprehension. He is a Republican that devised Republican tax policy. He's simply stating his case for how to properly implement tax cuts.

And that you think citing positive GDP growth of the 90s is somehow revealing of bias really just underscores your own bias.

Speaking of your bias, you gonna take a stab at explaining why the economy of 2008 was better than the economy of 2016? I'm still really looking forward to that.

[QUOTE=TheBobcatBandit]
Even though you and I both agree ,I think? that tax cuts are only a single factor in the multi level economy. He is writing as if because the economy went down during tax cuts in the 80’s, and went up during the tax raises in the 90’s. That high taxes are > than low taxes for the economy. That’s bull shit and that is a false equivalency. If he wasn’t doing that then why write this article? How does this article at all help us solve the tax system? It doesn’t, all it does is attack the republican plan for taxes. He doesn’t talk about the issue at all..........
Again: Your reading comprehension is terrible.

First of all, he never states that "the economy went down in the 80s." In fact, one of the key points he's making is about why his tax policy -- which included tax cuts -- led to growth in the 80s. So he states the exact opposite of that. He's explaining the multiple factors that contributed to growth in the 80s to contrast them against the current plan.

I mean honestly man, your reading comprehension is terrible.

You genuinely don't understand the very basic point of this piece. You've completely missed the point, demonstrated you lack very basic reading comprehension skills, and done all of that with a completely misplaces confidence that's convinced you you're the smartest person in the room.

The good news though is that you don't have to and won't acknowledge any of what I'm saying. I'm sure it's just fake news like everything else you disagree with.
Last Edited: 5/25/2018 11:33:35 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
akroncat
5/25/2018 1:44 PM
I agree with rpbobcat on job availability. I work with underprivileged in the Akron area, not a hot bed of industrial growth. We work with an agency that trains and helps people find jobs. Right now, there are more jobs than qualified candidates. The qualification generally lacking is drug-free. Many restaurants, small businesses and retail have help wanted signs out. It has been more than ten years since I have seen this type of an employment situation. I don't know if the economy is better, but I do know that there are jobs for anyone willing to work.
mail
TheBobcatBandit
5/26/2018 10:07 AM
“He's simply stating his case for how to properly implement tax cuts.”

No he doesn’t, show me where in the article he states his case.

“Speaking of your bias, you gonna take a stab at explaining why the economy of 2008 was better than the economy of 2016? I'm still really looking forward to that. “


https://youtu.be/-phSXvHq3Zk

https://youtu.be/sgRGBNekFIw

The media does not understand how the economy works. You need to wake up. I’m not arguing this anymore. We need a new party, the two we have are corrupt as is the media. It has become all about entertainment and arguing about who is right. It has nothing to do about the core of the issues.
Last Edited: 5/26/2018 10:24:10 AM by TheBobcatBandit
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
5/26/2018 10:59 AM
TheBobcatBandit wrote:expand_more
“He's simply stating his case for how to properly implement tax cuts.”

No he doesn’t, show me where in the article he states his case.

“Speaking of your bias, you gonna take a stab at explaining why the economy of 2008 was better than the economy of 2016? I'm still really looking forward to that. “


https://youtu.be/-phSXvHq3Zk

https://youtu.be/sgRGBNekFIw

The media does not understand how the economy works. You need to wake up. I’m not arguing this anymore. We need a new party, the two we have are corrupt as is the media. It has become all about entertainment and arguing about who is right. It has nothing to do about the core of the issues.
Your explanation for how media fails to understand the economy links to. . .media. Peter Schiff is a media commentator. He appears on CNN and CNBC. How views are also available to anybody with an internet connection. The Joe Rogan Experience has 66.5 million monthly downloads and another 23.5 million YouTube views. As I cited upthread, Hannity has 12 million unique viewers a month. This isn't an apples to apples comparison, but it should help you see the scale here. You have exerted such effort and anger railing against "the media" because they "don't understand the economy" and are "fake" without realizing how widespread and accessible your favored channels are. More people see Peter Schiff on Joe Rogan than on CNN. By a factor of 3.


And of course, what he's pointing to is a real concern, but it's still only a concern and not one that's unavoidable. That the economy has potential for collapse does not make it worse than the 2008 economy, which was collapsed. And if you think otherwise, you should sit down with the families that lost their houses and savings and explain it to them. But you would never actually do that. Because you know that the economy of 2016 isn't worse than it was in 2008. You're just making a blindly political argument, and you're not even doing it in good faith, just like a cable news talking head.

As for the WaPo piece you don't understand, he is very clear about process and the need for the heavy lifting of a CBO snoring process. He also makes it very clear that interest rate cuts and infrastructure and defense spending increases were a big part of 80s growth. Those are all points about the process of implementimg tax cuts. You're welcome to disagree, but how you've chosen to voices your disagreement is stupid. It harms the discourse, does damage to an important institution, and ultimately does nothing but reinforce the partisanship you think you're above. You've ignored his ideas, misinterpreted the basic premise of his op-ed, and dismissed it as fake because he dare discuss tax policy in a political context. Even though tax policy exists in a political context.

I think your heart's in the right place. I just think you think you're 200x smarter than you are and should do a lot more listening and a lot less yelling "fake news!!!!!" at things you don't understand.

You know, because your reading comprehension is bad.
Last Edited: 5/26/2018 11:01:19 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
TheBobcatBandit
5/26/2018 11:59 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
“He's simply stating his case for how to properly implement tax cuts.”

No he doesn’t, show me where in the article he states his case.

“Speaking of your bias, you gonna take a stab at explaining why the economy of 2008 was better than the economy of 2016? I'm still really looking forward to that. “


https://youtu.be/-phSXvHq3Zk

https://youtu.be/sgRGBNekFIw

The media does not understand how the economy works. You need to wake up. I’m not arguing this anymore. We need a new party, the two we have are corrupt as is the media. It has become all about entertainment and arguing about who is right. It has nothing to do about the core of the issues.
Your explanation for how media fails to understand the economy links to. . .media. Peter Schiff is a media commentator. He appears on CNN and CNBC. How views are also available to anybody with an internet connection. The Joe Rogan Experience has 66.5 million monthly downloads and another 23.5 million YouTube views. As I cited upthread, Hannity has 12 million unique viewers a month. This isn't an apples to apples comparison, but it should help you see the scale here. You have exerted such effort and anger railing against "the media" because they "don't understand the economy" and are "fake" without realizing how widespread and accessible your favored channels are. More people see Peter Schiff on Joe Rogan than on CNN. By a factor of 3.

(((((((((((((((((((
Yes because people are waking up, they realize CNN, Fox, NBC, ect... all of the mainstream cable networks are full of shit. Yet they still run our debates, which I don’t understand how you don’t realize is a huge problem. We need to get those 12 million viewers on Hannity and the other 12 million on CNN, and the other 12 Million on NBC, to switch over to forums like Joe Rogan or Dan Carlin, or Peter Schiff. There are many who have but the people who voted for trump or Hillary haven’t because if they did they would see how full of it they are. There is a reason our voter turnout is like 20%.

CNN, and CNBC hardly let him on anymore because they don’t like what he says. Look it up, he will tell you that himself. They are fake news and our silencing opinions that don’t fit there narrative that everything is fine and the economy is fine and our government is fine when they’re all corrupt.
))))))))))))

And of course, what he's pointing to is a real concern, but it's still only a concern and not one that's unavoidable. That the economy has potential for collapse does not make it worse than the 2008 economy, which was collapsed. And if you think otherwise, you should sit down with the families that lost their houses and savings and explain it to them. But you would never actually do that. Because you know that the economy of 2016 isn't worse than it was in 2008. You're just making a blindly political argument, and you're not even doing it in good faith, just like a cable news talking head.

No it does make it a concern because nobody is talking about it. You just acted like everything was fine and that the economy recovered. It didn’t actually recover. Our country is borrowing money to put off the real problems, which aren’t being talked about. The problem is they can’t do that forever, and because we didn’t actually deal with the real problems the next recession will be worse. It’s not. Political argument, you don’t understand the economy.

As for the WaPo piece you don't understand, he is very clear about process and the need for the heavy lifting of a CBO snoring process. He also makes it very clear that interest rate cuts and infrastructure and defense spending increases were a big part of 80s growth. Those are all points about the process of implementimg tax cuts. You're welcome to disagree, but how you've chosen to voices your disagreement is stupid. It harms the discourse, does damage to an important institution, and ultimately does nothing but reinforce the partisanship you think you're above. You've ignored his ideas, misinterpreted the basic premise of his op-ed, and dismissed it as fake because he dare discuss tax policy in a political context. Even though tax policy exists in a political context.

I think your heart's in the right place. I just think you think you're 200x smarter than you are and should do a lot more listening and a lot less yelling "fake news!!!!!" at things you don't understand.

You know, because your reading comprehension is bad.
Ok, again I do disagree and this is fake news. So he is saying to cut interest rates and bring up military spending. That doesn’t fix the economy. Both those things are why it is in terrible shape. Did you even listen to the videos I just sent you. What did he say? He said the fed has been keeping interest rates artificially low since the recession and because of that it has appeared like the economy has recoved. It’s the whole point I would make why the economy is worse than it was in 08.So why would our country with low interest rates lower the interest rates more? That makes no sense. We can’t lower them more, they have to and are going to go up. The problem is that when you raise the interest rates the cost of borrowing will go up and because of that our trillions of dollars in debt will be harder to pay off leading to an economic collapse of the dollar. We can’t continue to keep them low, will also loess to inflation, it’s not sustainable.

Also why would we increase military spending. We spend more on our military then the next serveral countries combined. I don’t want WW3. We need to be cutting military spending to shrink our debt and to ue that money in other ways. If you want to implement good tax cuts you need to cut government spending, and reduce regulation. Those are the things that boost the economy in helpful ways. I don’t want us building more bombs and increasing the incentive of the government to go to war again abd see more Americans dying or returning with PTSD. If that is his argument it is terrible and is exactly the reason this country is in so much trouble. Yet you won’t hear any of this in the debates that the fake news hold because they’re corrupt and making money off all of this misinformation. I’m sick of it. I’d be for infrastructure except our government can’t afford that right now. Unless they shift all of that money from the military which according to this guy they aren’t going to do.







Fake news
Last Edited: 5/26/2018 12:04:31 PM by TheBobcatBandit
mail
TheBobcatBandit
5/26/2018 12:28 PM
https://youtu.be/AmTCu-2C_8w
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
5/26/2018 1:08 PM
TheBobcatBandit wrote:expand_more
Ok, again I do disagree and this is fake news.
[/QUOTE]This is an opinion piece. It is labeled as a 'perspective' by The Washington Post, which includes the following disclaimer: "Perspective: Discussion of news topics with a point of view, including narratives by individuals regarding their own experiences."

That you're not smart enough to understand the difference between that and news is your own issue. Disagreeing with somebody's viewpoint doesn't make it "fake." Your rebuttal was to simply link to a different opinion. You're welcome to place more stock in one than the other, but the idea that because you disagree an opposing viewpoint's "fake news" is stupid.

You ranted for 1,000 words about how the news needs to present policy instead of opinion. It's clear what you actually mean is that the news needs to present the opinions on policy that you think are right.

What's being demonstrated by this conversation is the manner in which the media creates a marketplace of ideas and provides differing insights that let people better understand issues and draw conclusions based on a variety of data and insight. You, on the other hand, are shouting down a portion of those voices because you disagree with their opinions. You assume bad faith on the part of others and assume that you and the people you trust are inherently right. And I bet, based on your Jordan Peterson name drop previously, that you think there's a free speech crisis on college campuses. And you likely believe that while you shout "Fake News!!!" at opinion pieces you disagree with. That is blatant moral hypocrisy.

But here's the thing, as I said before: I think you actually mean well and that you're approaching this from an honest, moral standpoint. I just think you're not nearly as smart as you think you are and that you should listen and learn more than you've demonstrated you're willing to.

You've managed. somehow, to convince yourself that US tax policy has easy right and wrong answers and that anybody who states anything else is not only "fake" but also part of a media conspiracy to keep evil people in power. That somehow makes more sense to you than the much simpler explanation: complex issues require complex solutions and the solutions that worked yesterday may not work tomorrow.

So he is saying to cut interest rates and bring up military spending. That doesn’t fix the economy. Both those things are why it is in terrible shape. Did you even listen to the videos I just sent you. What did he say? He said the fed has been keeping interest rates artificially low since the recession and because of that it has appeared like the economy has recoved. It’s the whole point I would make why the economy is worse than it was in 08.So why would our country with low interest rates lower the interest rates more? That makes no sense.
I actually don't agree, personally, with the idea that interest rates should be lowered. I'm simply in support of the author's right to make the argument and don't think an opinion that differs from mine's inherently fake. I was also pointing out your poor reading comprehension.

We can’t lower them more, they have to and are going to go up. The problem is that when you raise the interest rates the cost of borrowing will go up and because of that our trillions of dollars in debt will be harder to pay off leading to an economic collapse of the dollar. We can’t continue to keep them low, will also loess to inflation, it’s not sustainable.
A perfectly valid opinion. Many economists believe cheaper capital spurs growth. What's your proposal, exactly? That they not be allowed to publicly state their opinions?

Also why would we increase military spending. We spend more on our military then the next serveral countries combined. I don’t want WW3. We need to be cutting military spending to shrink our debt and to ue that money in other ways.
Again, a valid opinion. I also favor reduced military spending. When somebody disagrees with us, should they not be able to publicly state their opinion? Does that make it fake?

If you want to implement good tax cuts you need to cut government spending, and reduce regulation. Those are the things that boost the economy in helpful ways. I don’t want us building more bombs and increasing the incentive of the government to go to war again abd see more Americans dying or returning with PTSD. If that is his argument it is terrible and is exactly the reason this country is in so much trouble. Yet you won’t hear any of this in the debates that the fake news hold because they’re corrupt and making money off all of this misinformation.
This is fucking stupid. Not because your opinion's wrong. Again, I largely agree. But because it's dishonest. There are plenty of voices in the media expressing exactly what you're expressing. These were topics discussed and debated during the Presidential campaign. They are covered by the 'fake news" and in dozens of other media channels. Your insistence on 'fake news' relies on a false premise -- that the ideas you think are right aren't made available by the media. You're wrong.


[QUOTE=TheBobcatBandit]
I’m sick of it. I’d be for infrastructure except our government can’t afford that right now. Unless they shift all of that money from the military which according to this guy they aren’t going to do.

Fake news
You've fallen in love with a tag line so stupid that it detracts from the valid points you do make. There aren't always easy answers. The world's not as simple as fake and real. Your approach to this debate is damaging, close-minded and lazy thinking masquerading as righteousness. You're contributing to the erosion of policy-based politics in this country by writing off policy opinions you disagree with as "fake news" and inherently dishonest. It's harmful. But more than that, it's fucking stupid. Be smarter.
Last Edited: 5/26/2018 1:20:21 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
TheBobcatBandit
5/26/2018 1:33 PM
I’m not mad that he presented his opinion, or that he shouldn’t. It’s that his opinions and many others on different issues I think are wrong and need to be debated. Many people will read that story and vote on that opinion without hearing the other side because they aren’t being debated in any in an depth or fair way. Especially in political debates. They divert the conversation to completely different subjects. It has been this way for the past 50 some years. The fact that the media hasn’t changed this makes them either willfully corrupt or blindfully stupid. I hope it’s blindfully stupid but it could be corruption as well. I can’t help but feel all that commercial profit they bring in affects the way they present certain subjects like the pharmaceutica industry for example. That is why it is fake news. We should have had these debates a long time ago and fixed our countries problems but we still haven’t. If I’m wrong then explain to me how trump got into office. Obviously the public isn’t getting properly educated on the issues. I blame that on the media.

I know you’re mad I’m using the term fake news but my use of it has nothing to do with any support of mine towards trump or conservatives. It has to do with the flaws in the way the media presents information.
Last Edited: 5/26/2018 1:36:10 PM by TheBobcatBandit
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
5/26/2018 1:54 PM
TheBobcatBandit wrote:expand_more
The fact that the media hasn’t changed this makes them either willfully corrupt or blindfully stupid. [/QUOTE]There's just no evidence to support the idea that the media hasn't changed.

The entire media landscape has changed in the last 10 years. The fucking Joe Rogan Experience now gets 3x the audience than the most popular cable news show on television. The idea that the media hasn't changed is hilariously wrong. What hasn't changed is your warped view of what counts as media. That's it. And because you misunderstand the media landscape so thoroughly, you've become a foot soldier in a damaging war on accountability.

[QUOTE=TheBobcatBandit]
That is why it is fake news. We should have had these debates a long time ago and fixed our countries problems but we still haven’t. If I’m wrong then explain to me how trump got into office. Obviously the public isn’t getting properly educated on the issues. I blame that on the media.
And I blame the people. The 'debate' you reference has been taking place for centuries. All of the world's information's available to anybody who wants to access it. That dumb people prefer easy answers isn't the media's fault. It's the people's fault for not demanding more of themselves and the people who represent them.
Last Edited: 5/26/2018 1:56:43 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
TheBobcatBandit
5/26/2018 2:24 PM
The presidential debates have not changed and you can’t blame the people bacause many of them don’t have the time or idea to access any of this other information that is out there. If these ideas on Joe Rogan or many of the other great podcast were being brought up in the debates and people were still ignoring them I would agree with you and blame the people too, but they aren’t being brought up and that’s a problem.
mail
person
cc-cat
5/29/2018 10:22 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
That dumb people prefer easy answers isn't the media's fault. It's the people's fault for not demanding more of themselves and the people who represent them.
Most people also prefer/demand THEIR answer -- the news that supports their view. It is why Fox, MSNBC, etc do well. These outlets deliver the info that supports the views of their audience (and often do not deliver news/facts that disrupt their audience's single dimensional views). People then get to feel right, and smart, and superior. The next step is contrary information is biased. And then you can add the conspiracy step which is "fake" news. We can blame the media, and they are certainly complicit (although an interesting sociology question would be chicken or egg?), but the root is the tribalism of US citizens. Us/them politically speaking is replacing racism as the primary divider in our country.
Last Edited: 5/29/2018 10:26:41 AM by cc-cat
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
5/29/2018 11:10 AM
TheBobcatBandit wrote:expand_more
The presidential debates have not changed and you can’t blame the people bacause many of them don’t have the time or idea to access any of this other information that is out there. If these ideas on Joe Rogan or many of the other great podcast were being brought up in the debates and people were still ignoring them I would agree with you and blame the people too, but they aren’t being brought up and that’s a problem.
I can blame the people and will continue to do so. That the Presidential debates don't include detailed policy discussions isn't a reason to indict an entire industry. Thus far, your entire argument about "fake news" has basically boiled down to the idea that your opinions often differ from those portrayed by mainstream media sources and mainstream political candidates.

Your thinking's super lazy and biased. You like Peter Schiff, so because Trump and Clinton didn't talk about investing in gold and hyper-inflation Americans aren't getting access to the truth. You are, once again, over simplifying the discussion here. Your point throughout this conversation has basically been that your opinion is right and anything that doesn't mirror that opinion is fake. Here, the definition of a good Presidential debate, is one that mirrors what you think. The Washington Post article was "fake news" because you disagreed with a few of the conclusions and you're afraid a reader might agree with something you disagree with.

The irony of all of this is that you clearly position yourself as an independent thinker, yet you're Trump's mark and have fallen for his fake news scam. You've become his lackey, fighting legitimate news and opinion because it doesn't reinforce your worldview.
mail
DelBobcat
5/29/2018 12:53 PM
God bless you BLSS. You have more patience than me.
mail
TheBobcatBandit
5/29/2018 1:10 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
I can blame the people and will continue to do so. That the Presidential debates don't include detailed policy discussions isn't a reason to indict an entire industry. Thus far, your entire argument about "fake news" has basically boiled down to the idea that your opinions often differ from those portrayed by mainstream media sources and mainstream political candidates. [\QUOTE]

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((That’s not my argument, my argument is that the most important job interview in the world should have detail to them. Yet it doesn’t and nobody in the media acts like that is a big deal. All they do is criticize the candidate from the party across from them instead of trying to figure out how every year we end up with two terrible candidates. It’s because the debates are terrible and nobody gets called out for how full of shit they’re. I don’t understand how we can have two terrible people as our choices and have you act like the process that led to that isn’t flawed. It obviously is flawed or we wouldn’t have two terrible canidates. There are many flaws but a big one is the setup of the debates and the media’s coverage of the canidate. Again if you can’t get the canidate to sit down for three hours and have a serious discussion about policy they what kind of canidates are we picking from. )))))))))))))))))))

[QUOTE=Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame]
Your thinking's super lazy and biased. You like Peter Schiff, so because Trump and Clinton didn't talk about investing in gold and hyper-inflation Americans aren't getting access to the truth. You are, once again, over simplifying the discussion here. Your point throughout this conversation has basically been that your opinion is right and anything that doesn't mirror that opinion is fake. Here, the definition of a good Presidential debate, is one that mirrors what you think. The Washington Post article was "fake news" because you disagreed with a few of the conclusions and you're afraid a reader might agree with something you disagree with.

The irony of all of this is that you clearly position yourself as an independent thinker, yet you're Trump's mark and have fallen for his fake news scam. You've become his lackey, fighting legitimate news and opinion because it doesn't reinforce your worldview.
You keep strawmanning my argument. Yes I agree with Peter Schiff but I’m open to have a debate about it. The problem is there is no forum to debate it and you keep ignoring the possibility that could be a problem. It’s not that the other opinions are fake it’s that the other opinions are presented as a fact when they’re an opinion. I would like to see them debated instead of acting like it is a fact. Which the media constantly does. The fact that you hadn’t even heard an argument that the economy could be worse off and that you thought a was crazy for ever saying so is a testimate to this. People surround themselves with opinions they agree with and don’t want to hear the other side. The media needs to provide a forum to debate everything. everything should be up for debate. That is how democracy works and our lack of debate is why our democracy is failing. You need to stop strawmanning my argument and accept some criticism of the media.
Last Edited: 5/29/2018 1:20:05 PM by TheBobcatBandit
mail
TheBobcatBandit
5/29/2018 1:37 PM
cc-cat wrote:expand_more
That dumb people prefer easy answers isn't the media's fault. It's the people's fault for not demanding more of themselves and the people who represent them.
Most people also prefer/demand THEIR answer -- the news that supports their view. It is why Fox, MSNBC, etc do well. These outlets deliver the info that supports the views of their audience (and often do not deliver news/facts that disrupt their audience's single dimensional views). People then get to feel right, and smart, and superior. The next step is contrary information is biased. And then you can add the conspiracy step which is "fake" news. We can blame the media, and they are certainly complicit (although an interesting sociology question would be chicken or egg?), but the root is the tribalism of US citizens. Us/them politically speaking is replacing racism as the primary divider in our country.
I agree with this breakdown but would say that you can’t blame people for being dumb. Why is the media creating content to keep people dumb instead of creating content to make people smart. it’s not like anyone is telling people that this is a flawed way to consume media. Once you think about that you realize that the media is corrupt and these shows that do this have to go. They use these shows to get people’s votes instead of actually educating them on the issues.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
5/29/2018 3:37 PM
TheBobcatBandit wrote:expand_more
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((That’s not my argument, my argument is that the most important job interview in the world should have detail to them. Yet it doesn’t and nobody in the media acts like that is a big deal. All they do is criticize the candidate from the party across from them instead of trying to figure out how every year we end up with two terrible candidates. It’s because the debates are terrible and nobody gets called out for how full of shit they’re. I don’t understand how we can have two terrible people as our choices and have you act like the process that led to that isn’t flawed. It obviously is flawed or we wouldn’t have two terrible canidates. There are many flaws but a big one is the setup of the debates and the media’s coverage of the canidate. Again if you can’t get the canidate to sit down for three hours and have a serious discussion about policy they what kind of canidates are we picking from. )))))))))))))))))))
[/QUOTE]I'm aware of what your argument is, I just think it's stupid and at this point it's clear you can't provide substantiating evidence. To wit, you're accusing me of "strawmanning" your argument, when the entire premise of your argument rests on the idea that the media "doesn't act like it's a big deal" that candidates don't dig deeply enough into policy. That's an absurd proposition. The media pressed both candidates on policy over and over. You know who didn't give a shit that one candidate wasn't willing/able to provide policy specifics? Voters.

I mean, this is a guy who said he'd repeal the ACA on day one and replace it with "something terrific." And that was enough for his voters.

And the media was endlessly critical of him for his lack of policy specifics. So much so that it hurt your feelings because the coverage of Trump was so negative. You, the guy who thinks elections should be policy based, thinks the media was needlessly unfair to the candidate who didn't run on policy at all. And also thinks the media doesn't "act like it's a big deal" when candidates don't discuss policy. And also thinks voters shouldn't have to use the internet to find that info.

You keep strawmanning my argument. Yes I agree with Peter Schiff but I’m open to have a debate about it. The problem is there is no forum to debate it and you keep ignoring the possibility that could be a problem.
I'm actually not ignoring that possibility, at all. In fact, I'm the one arguing for the importance of a free and open media environment where different ideas and presented and debated. In case you've forgotten, I'm not the one that threw a fit about somebody at the Washington Post having an opinion that differs from mine and yelled about "fake news."

In fact, you've shown a complete unwillingness to have a debate about anything. You've insisted that opinions that differ from yours are "fake news" without any substantiating facts. You're the one who has become a foot soldier in the war against the first amendment, my man. Sort of hard to argue you're arguing in favor of a forum to debate ideas when you're screaming about other people' opinions being fake.

It’s not that the other opinions are fake it’s that the other opinions are presented as a fact when they’re an opinion.
I can't stress this enough: you just can't tell the difference. You've demonstrated that over and over.

I would like to see them debated instead of acting like it is a fact. Which the media constantly does.
You haven't presented a single example of this. In fact, you've done the opposite by presenting instances in which the same issue is discussed from varying viewpoints.

The fact that you hadn’t even heard an argument that the economy could be worse off and that you thought a was crazy for ever saying so is a testimate to this.
I still think you're crazy for saying so. It's a really stupid argument and what's more, is that you haven't actually made it yet.

What you've done is post a link to a podcast in which somebody is talking about structural issues in the economy which could have repercussions in the future. But that is not the same thing as saying that the economy of 2016 is worse that the economy of 2008.

There is no reasonable argument to be made that the economy of 2008 is better than the economy of 2016. That you think you've made that argument just illustrates how sloppy your thinking is.

People surround themselves with opinions they agree with and don’t want to hear the other side. The media needs to provide a forum to debate everything. everything should be up for debate. That is how democracy works and our lack of debate is why our democracy is failing.
This is exactly the role the media plays currently. You're not smart enough to understand it, but you're the one who is attempting to shut that down. You're the one shouting "fake news" at valid opinions. You're the problem.

[QUOTE=TheBobcatBandit]
You need to stop strawmanning my argument and accept some criticism of the media.
You're reading comprehension is terrible. There is no rational way to read what I've written and think I'm not critical of the media. I just don't accept your particular criticisms of the media, because I think they're stupid and you've yet to provide any evidence to support them.
Last Edited: 5/29/2018 3:45:56 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
cc-cat
5/29/2018 4:14 PM
TheBobcatBandit wrote:expand_more
That dumb people prefer easy answers isn't the media's fault. It's the people's fault for not demanding more of themselves and the people who represent them.
Most people also prefer/demand THEIR answer -- the news that supports their view. It is why Fox, MSNBC, etc do well. These outlets deliver the info that supports the views of their audience (and often do not deliver news/facts that disrupt their audience's single dimensional views). People then get to feel right, and smart, and superior. The next step is contrary information is biased. And then you can add the conspiracy step which is "fake" news. We can blame the media, and they are certainly complicit (although an interesting sociology question would be chicken or egg?), but the root is the tribalism of US citizens. Us/them politically speaking is replacing racism as the primary divider in our country.
I agree with this breakdown but would say that you can’t blame people for being dumb. Why is the media creating content to keep people dumb instead of creating content to make people smart. it’s not like anyone is telling people that this is a flawed way to consume media. Once you think about that you realize that the media is corrupt and these shows that do this have to go. They use these shows to get people’s votes instead of actually educating them on the issues.
Sorry, if someone chooses to inhale from one hose, they will be dumb. And in today's world, where information is omnipresent and able to be validated, I certainly blame people for being dumb, and racists, and ignorant. Agree that the media is more interested in shaping views, than reporting news. All the more reason to not look to one source - yet soooo many do, and then dismiss info from another source - simply because it is "other" - even smart, college educated folks on this board. Sad. Pathetic. As one tweeter likes to say.
Last Edited: 5/29/2018 4:19:08 PM by cc-cat
mail
TheBobcatBandit
5/29/2018 10:26 PM
cc-cat wrote:expand_more
That dumb people prefer easy answers isn't the media's fault. It's the people's fault for not demanding more of themselves and the people who represent them.
Most people also prefer/demand THEIR answer -- the news that supports their view. It is why Fox, MSNBC, etc do well. These outlets deliver the info that supports the views of their audience (and often do not deliver news/facts that disrupt their audience's single dimensional views). People then get to feel right, and smart, and superior. The next step is contrary information is biased. And then you can add the conspiracy step which is "fake" news. We can blame the media, and they are certainly complicit (although an interesting sociology question would be chicken or egg?), but the root is the tribalism of US citizens. Us/them politically speaking is replacing racism as the primary divider in our country.
I agree with this breakdown but would say that you can’t blame people for being dumb. Why is the media creating content to keep people dumb instead of creating content to make people smart. it’s not like anyone is telling people that this is a flawed way to consume media. Once you think about that you realize that the media is corrupt and these shows that do this have to go. They use these shows to get people’s votes instead of actually educating them on the issues.
Sorry, if someone chooses to inhale from one hose, they will be dumb. And in today's world, where information is omnipresent and able to be validated, I certainly blame people for being dumb, and racists, and ignorant. Agree that the media is more interested in shaping views, than reporting news. All the more reason to not look to one source - yet soooo many do, and then dismiss info from another source - simply because it is "other" - even smart, college educated folks on this board. Sad. Pathetic. As one tweeter likes to say.
You’re right in a way it is there fault, but at the same time I don’t think it is helping them or our country to just ignore the problem. I think we have already ignored it far to long. We can’t keep them dumb. When people turn on the news they think they’re being educated, so the intent on their part is good. If we set up the news so that we had top people in their fields come on it and talk about at length(over an hour) what they do and what the issues are in their profession and really get to know the person from the bottom up, we would have a much more educated society. Then when we have these national debates people would be able to cut through all of the noise and realize that these canidates have no idea what they’re talking about and they would hold a much higher threshold for their canidates.

So yes I agree they’re dumb and in some sense is there fault but what’re we going to do about it? Are we just going to keep them dumb? How does that help our society?
mail
TheBobcatBandit
5/29/2018 10:30 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((That’s not my argument, my argument is that the most important job interview in the world should have detail to them. Yet it doesn’t and nobody in the media acts like that is a big deal. All they do is criticize the candidate from the party across from them instead of trying to figure out how every year we end up with two terrible candidates. It’s because the debates are terrible and nobody gets called out for how full of shit they’re. I don’t understand how we can have two terrible people as our choices and have you act like the process that led to that isn’t flawed. It obviously is flawed or we wouldn’t have two terrible canidates. There are many flaws but a big one is the setup of the debates and the media’s coverage of the canidate. Again if you can’t get the canidate to sit down for three hours and have a serious discussion about policy they what kind of canidates are we picking from. )))))))))))))))))))
I'm aware of what your argument is, I just think it's stupid and at this point it's clear you can't provide substantiating evidence. To wit, you're accusing me of "strawmanning" your argument, when the entire premise of your argument rests on the idea that the media "doesn't act like it's a big deal" that candidates don't dig deeply enough into policy. That's an absurd proposition. The media pressed both candidates on policy over and over. You know who didn't give a shit that one candidate wasn't willing/able to provide policy specifics? Voters.

I mean, this is a guy who said he'd repeal the ACA on day one and replace it with "something terrific." And that was enough for his voters.

And the media was endlessly critical of him for his lack of policy specifics. So much so that it hurt your feelings because the coverage of Trump was so negative. You, the guy who thinks elections should be policy based, thinks the media was needlessly unfair to the candidate who didn't run on policy at all. And also thinks the media doesn't "act like it's a big deal" when candidates don't discuss policy. And also thinks voters shouldn't have to use the internet to find that info.

You keep strawmanning my argument. Yes I agree with Peter Schiff but I’m open to have a debate about it. The problem is there is no forum to debate it and you keep ignoring the possibility that could be a problem.
I'm actually not ignoring that possibility, at all. In fact, I'm the one arguing for the importance of a free and open media environment where different ideas and presented and debated. In case you've forgotten, I'm not the one that threw a fit about somebody at the Washington Post having an opinion that differs from mine and yelled about "fake news."

In fact, you've shown a complete unwillingness to have a debate about anything. You've insisted that opinions that differ from yours are "fake news" without any substantiating facts. You're the one who has become a foot soldier in the war against the first amendment, my man. Sort of hard to argue you're arguing in favor of a forum to debate ideas when you're screaming about other people' opinions being fake.

It’s not that the other opinions are fake it’s that the other opinions are presented as a fact when they’re an opinion.
I can't stress this enough: you just can't tell the difference. You've demonstrated that over and over.

I would like to see them debated instead of acting like it is a fact. Which the media constantly does.
You haven't presented a single example of this. In fact, you've done the opposite by presenting instances in which the same issue is discussed from varying viewpoints.

The fact that you hadn’t even heard an argument that the economy could be worse off and that you thought a was crazy for ever saying so is a testimate to this.
I still think you're crazy for saying so. It's a really stupid argument and what's more, is that you haven't actually made it yet.

What you've done is post a link to a podcast in which somebody is talking about structural issues in the economy which could have repercussions in the future. But that is not the same thing as saying that the economy of 2016 is worse that the economy of 2008.

There is no reasonable argument to be made that the economy of 2008 is better than the economy of 2016. That you think you've made that argument just illustrates how sloppy your thinking is.

People surround themselves with opinions they agree with and don’t want to hear the other side. The media needs to provide a forum to debate everything. everything should be up for debate. That is how democracy works and our lack of debate is why our democracy is failing.
This is exactly the role the media plays currently. You're not smart enough to understand it, but you're the one who is attempting to shut that down. You're the one shouting "fake news" at valid opinions. You're the problem.

You need to stop strawmanning my argument and accept some criticism of the media.
You're reading comprehension is terrible. There is no rational way to read what I've written and think I'm not critical of the media. I just don't accept your particular criticisms of the media, because I think they're stupid and you've yet to provide any evidence to support them.
Ok this isn’t going anywhere so I'm going try something else. I just want a yes/no answer from you. Were Hillary and Trump good canidates go choose from?
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
5/30/2018 6:34 AM
TheBobcatBandit wrote:expand_more
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((That’s not my argument, my argument is that the most important job interview in the world should have detail to them. Yet it doesn’t and nobody in the media acts like that is a big deal. All they do is criticize the candidate from the party across from them instead of trying to figure out how every year we end up with two terrible candidates. It’s because the debates are terrible and nobody gets called out for how full of shit they’re. I don’t understand how we can have two terrible people as our choices and have you act like the process that led to that isn’t flawed. It obviously is flawed or we wouldn’t have two terrible canidates. There are many flaws but a big one is the setup of the debates and the media’s coverage of the canidate. Again if you can’t get the canidate to sit down for three hours and have a serious discussion about policy they what kind of canidates are we picking from. )))))))))))))))))))
I'm aware of what your argument is, I just think it's stupid and at this point it's clear you can't provide substantiating evidence. To wit, you're accusing me of "strawmanning" your argument, when the entire premise of your argument rests on the idea that the media "doesn't act like it's a big deal" that candidates don't dig deeply enough into policy. That's an absurd proposition. The media pressed both candidates on policy over and over. You know who didn't give a shit that one candidate wasn't willing/able to provide policy specifics? Voters.

I mean, this is a guy who said he'd repeal the ACA on day one and replace it with "something terrific." And that was enough for his voters.

And the media was endlessly critical of him for his lack of policy specifics. So much so that it hurt your feelings because the coverage of Trump was so negative. You, the guy who thinks elections should be policy based, thinks the media was needlessly unfair to the candidate who didn't run on policy at all. And also thinks the media doesn't "act like it's a big deal" when candidates don't discuss policy. And also thinks voters shouldn't have to use the internet to find that info.

You keep strawmanning my argument. Yes I agree with Peter Schiff but I’m open to have a debate about it. The problem is there is no forum to debate it and you keep ignoring the possibility that could be a problem.
I'm actually not ignoring that possibility, at all. In fact, I'm the one arguing for the importance of a free and open media environment where different ideas and presented and debated. In case you've forgotten, I'm not the one that threw a fit about somebody at the Washington Post having an opinion that differs from mine and yelled about "fake news."

In fact, you've shown a complete unwillingness to have a debate about anything. You've insisted that opinions that differ from yours are "fake news" without any substantiating facts. You're the one who has become a foot soldier in the war against the first amendment, my man. Sort of hard to argue you're arguing in favor of a forum to debate ideas when you're screaming about other people' opinions being fake.

It’s not that the other opinions are fake it’s that the other opinions are presented as a fact when they’re an opinion.
I can't stress this enough: you just can't tell the difference. You've demonstrated that over and over.

I would like to see them debated instead of acting like it is a fact. Which the media constantly does.
You haven't presented a single example of this. In fact, you've done the opposite by presenting instances in which the same issue is discussed from varying viewpoints.

The fact that you hadn’t even heard an argument that the economy could be worse off and that you thought a was crazy for ever saying so is a testimate to this.
I still think you're crazy for saying so. It's a really stupid argument and what's more, is that you haven't actually made it yet.

What you've done is post a link to a podcast in which somebody is talking about structural issues in the economy which could have repercussions in the future. But that is not the same thing as saying that the economy of 2016 is worse that the economy of 2008.

There is no reasonable argument to be made that the economy of 2008 is better than the economy of 2016. That you think you've made that argument just illustrates how sloppy your thinking is.

People surround themselves with opinions they agree with and don’t want to hear the other side. The media needs to provide a forum to debate everything. everything should be up for debate. That is how democracy works and our lack of debate is why our democracy is failing.
This is exactly the role the media plays currently. You're not smart enough to understand it, but you're the one who is attempting to shut that down. You're the one shouting "fake news" at valid opinions. You're the problem.

You need to stop strawmanning my argument and accept some criticism of the media.
You're reading comprehension is terrible. There is no rational way to read what I've written and think I'm not critical of the media. I just don't accept your particular criticisms of the media, because I think they're stupid and you've yet to provide any evidence to support them.
Ok this isn’t going anywhere so I'm going try something else. I just want a yes/no answer from you. Were Hillary and Trump good canidates go choose from?
It's not going anywhere because you're making a non-sensical argument.

As I've said before, neither Clinton nor Trump were particularly inspiring.
mail
TheBobcatBandit
5/30/2018 10:04 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((That’s not my argument, my argument is that the most important job interview in the world should have detail to them. Yet it doesn’t and nobody in the media acts like that is a big deal. All they do is criticize the candidate from the party across from them instead of trying to figure out how every year we end up with two terrible candidates. It’s because the debates are terrible and nobody gets called out for how full of shit they’re. I don’t understand how we can have two terrible people as our choices and have you act like the process that led to that isn’t flawed. It obviously is flawed or we wouldn’t have two terrible canidates. There are many flaws but a big one is the setup of the debates and the media’s coverage of the canidate. Again if you can’t get the canidate to sit down for three hours and have a serious discussion about policy they what kind of canidates are we picking from. )))))))))))))))))))
I'm aware of what your argument is, I just think it's stupid and at this point it's clear you can't provide substantiating evidence. To wit, you're accusing me of "strawmanning" your argument, when the entire premise of your argument rests on the idea that the media "doesn't act like it's a big deal" that candidates don't dig deeply enough into policy. That's an absurd proposition. The media pressed both candidates on policy over and over. You know who didn't give a shit that one candidate wasn't willing/able to provide policy specifics? Voters.

I mean, this is a guy who said he'd repeal the ACA on day one and replace it with "something terrific." And that was enough for his voters.

And the media was endlessly critical of him for his lack of policy specifics. So much so that it hurt your feelings because the coverage of Trump was so negative. You, the guy who thinks elections should be policy based, thinks the media was needlessly unfair to the candidate who didn't run on policy at all. And also thinks the media doesn't "act like it's a big deal" when candidates don't discuss policy. And also thinks voters shouldn't have to use the internet to find that info.

You keep strawmanning my argument. Yes I agree with Peter Schiff but I’m open to have a debate about it. The problem is there is no forum to debate it and you keep ignoring the possibility that could be a problem.
I'm actually not ignoring that possibility, at all. In fact, I'm the one arguing for the importance of a free and open media environment where different ideas and presented and debated. In case you've forgotten, I'm not the one that threw a fit about somebody at the Washington Post having an opinion that differs from mine and yelled about "fake news."

In fact, you've shown a complete unwillingness to have a debate about anything. You've insisted that opinions that differ from yours are "fake news" without any substantiating facts. You're the one who has become a foot soldier in the war against the first amendment, my man. Sort of hard to argue you're arguing in favor of a forum to debate ideas when you're screaming about other people' opinions being fake.

It’s not that the other opinions are fake it’s that the other opinions are presented as a fact when they’re an opinion.
I can't stress this enough: you just can't tell the difference. You've demonstrated that over and over.

I would like to see them debated instead of acting like it is a fact. Which the media constantly does.
You haven't presented a single example of this. In fact, you've done the opposite by presenting instances in which the same issue is discussed from varying viewpoints.

The fact that you hadn’t even heard an argument that the economy could be worse off and that you thought a was crazy for ever saying so is a testimate to this.
I still think you're crazy for saying so. It's a really stupid argument and what's more, is that you haven't actually made it yet.

What you've done is post a link to a podcast in which somebody is talking about structural issues in the economy which could have repercussions in the future. But that is not the same thing as saying that the economy of 2016 is worse that the economy of 2008.

There is no reasonable argument to be made that the economy of 2008 is better than the economy of 2016. That you think you've made that argument just illustrates how sloppy your thinking is.

People surround themselves with opinions they agree with and don’t want to hear the other side. The media needs to provide a forum to debate everything. everything should be up for debate. That is how democracy works and our lack of debate is why our democracy is failing.
This is exactly the role the media plays currently. You're not smart enough to understand it, but you're the one who is attempting to shut that down. You're the one shouting "fake news" at valid opinions. You're the problem.

You need to stop strawmanning my argument and accept some criticism of the media.
You're reading comprehension is terrible. There is no rational way to read what I've written and think I'm not critical of the media. I just don't accept your particular criticisms of the media, because I think they're stupid and you've yet to provide any evidence to support them.
Ok this isn’t going anywhere so I'm going try something else. I just want a yes/no answer from you. Were Hillary and Trump good canidates go choose from?
It's not going anywhere because you're making a non-sensical argument.

As I've said before, neither Clinton nor Trump were particularly inspiring.

Ok, why do you think we got two uninspiring canidates, vs two inspiring ones?
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
5/30/2018 10:27 AM
TheBobcatBandit wrote:expand_more
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((That’s not my argument, my argument is that the most important job interview in the world should have detail to them. Yet it doesn’t and nobody in the media acts like that is a big deal. All they do is criticize the candidate from the party across from them instead of trying to figure out how every year we end up with two terrible candidates. It’s because the debates are terrible and nobody gets called out for how full of shit they’re. I don’t understand how we can have two terrible people as our choices and have you act like the process that led to that isn’t flawed. It obviously is flawed or we wouldn’t have two terrible canidates. There are many flaws but a big one is the setup of the debates and the media’s coverage of the canidate. Again if you can’t get the canidate to sit down for three hours and have a serious discussion about policy they what kind of canidates are we picking from. )))))))))))))))))))
I'm aware of what your argument is, I just think it's stupid and at this point it's clear you can't provide substantiating evidence. To wit, you're accusing me of "strawmanning" your argument, when the entire premise of your argument rests on the idea that the media "doesn't act like it's a big deal" that candidates don't dig deeply enough into policy. That's an absurd proposition. The media pressed both candidates on policy over and over. You know who didn't give a shit that one candidate wasn't willing/able to provide policy specifics? Voters.

I mean, this is a guy who said he'd repeal the ACA on day one and replace it with "something terrific." And that was enough for his voters.

And the media was endlessly critical of him for his lack of policy specifics. So much so that it hurt your feelings because the coverage of Trump was so negative. You, the guy who thinks elections should be policy based, thinks the media was needlessly unfair to the candidate who didn't run on policy at all. And also thinks the media doesn't "act like it's a big deal" when candidates don't discuss policy. And also thinks voters shouldn't have to use the internet to find that info.

You keep strawmanning my argument. Yes I agree with Peter Schiff but I’m open to have a debate about it. The problem is there is no forum to debate it and you keep ignoring the possibility that could be a problem.
I'm actually not ignoring that possibility, at all. In fact, I'm the one arguing for the importance of a free and open media environment where different ideas and presented and debated. In case you've forgotten, I'm not the one that threw a fit about somebody at the Washington Post having an opinion that differs from mine and yelled about "fake news."

In fact, you've shown a complete unwillingness to have a debate about anything. You've insisted that opinions that differ from yours are "fake news" without any substantiating facts. You're the one who has become a foot soldier in the war against the first amendment, my man. Sort of hard to argue you're arguing in favor of a forum to debate ideas when you're screaming about other people' opinions being fake.

It’s not that the other opinions are fake it’s that the other opinions are presented as a fact when they’re an opinion.
I can't stress this enough: you just can't tell the difference. You've demonstrated that over and over.

I would like to see them debated instead of acting like it is a fact. Which the media constantly does.
You haven't presented a single example of this. In fact, you've done the opposite by presenting instances in which the same issue is discussed from varying viewpoints.

The fact that you hadn’t even heard an argument that the economy could be worse off and that you thought a was crazy for ever saying so is a testimate to this.
I still think you're crazy for saying so. It's a really stupid argument and what's more, is that you haven't actually made it yet.

What you've done is post a link to a podcast in which somebody is talking about structural issues in the economy which could have repercussions in the future. But that is not the same thing as saying that the economy of 2016 is worse that the economy of 2008.

There is no reasonable argument to be made that the economy of 2008 is better than the economy of 2016. That you think you've made that argument just illustrates how sloppy your thinking is.

People surround themselves with opinions they agree with and don’t want to hear the other side. The media needs to provide a forum to debate everything. everything should be up for debate. That is how democracy works and our lack of debate is why our democracy is failing.
This is exactly the role the media plays currently. You're not smart enough to understand it, but you're the one who is attempting to shut that down. You're the one shouting "fake news" at valid opinions. You're the problem.

You need to stop strawmanning my argument and accept some criticism of the media.
You're reading comprehension is terrible. There is no rational way to read what I've written and think I'm not critical of the media. I just don't accept your particular criticisms of the media, because I think they're stupid and you've yet to provide any evidence to support them.
Ok this isn’t going anywhere so I'm going try something else. I just want a yes/no answer from you. Were Hillary and Trump good canidates go choose from?
It's not going anywhere because you're making a non-sensical argument.

As I've said before, neither Clinton nor Trump were particularly inspiring.

Ok, why do you think we got two uninspiring canidates, vs two inspiring ones?
Literally thousands of reasons.
mail
DelBobcat
5/30/2018 10:45 AM
BobcatBandit,

Interestingly, and related to your claims about the media, there was a good piece on Vox this morning. Two business professors at University of Maryland take a look at why Elon Musk is going after the media. Maybe his concerns are not altruistic after all?

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/5/30/17405922/elon-...
Showing Messages: 201 - 225 of 354
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)