**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

I agree completely, these false accusations like birth certificates, Benghazi, emailgate, Uranium One etc are indeed a VERY bad thing. Sad.

You'd have to let me know which parts are false accusations that you think I agree with.

How do you feel about the tax plan?

Not sure. The Senate took a hatchet to what started out as a good bill.

Confirmation bias in full effect. If you've decided to stand by Trump you need to support him all the way, including his support for Moore, which means he must be innocent. You can't just go about accepting that Trump could be wrong here, since it would open the door to the idea he might be wrong about something else too. Can't have that, otherwise the whole house of cards would crumble.

The Trump effect on this one was probably negative, actually. Trump campaigned against Moore in the primaries and Moore still won. And then in the general election, "pious" Christians completely abandoned Moore because Bannon backed Moore. Of the three wings warring over control of the Republican Party, the pious Christians wanted the Bannon wing to lose at all costs. So they decided to fall in line with somebody who goes against everything they believe in.

The extent of my concern of the situation is how it has been impacted by a lie.

[BananaStand]

The extent of my concern of the situation is how it has been impacted by a lie.

What lie? Roy Moore's own words say he did it.

He refused to concede the election when everyone in the universe knew he lost. The man is no stranger to denial.

Yet he doesn't deny this....

[wufwugy]

What lie? Roy Moore's own words say he did it.

He refused to concede the election when everyone in the universe knew he lost. The man is no stranger to denial.

Yet he doesn't deny this....

He said emphatically MANY times he did not do it. Interpreting the line you are is very hard to do. It can mean all sorts of things from he's bad at making jokes to he's dumb when he is given enough time to talk to he has done similar things to he did this particular thing.

[CoccoBill]

You'd have to let me know which parts are false accusations that you think I agree with.

Why?

Not sure. The Senate took a hatchet to what started out as a good bill.

So what were the good parts that were cut out? Or did the senate add the part where everyone gets tax cuts but for those earning less than $75k/year it's just temporary? What stops you from criticizing the bill?

The Trump effect on this one was probably negative, actually. Trump campaigned against Moore in the primaries and Moore still won. And then in the general election, "pious" Christians completely abandoned Moore because Bannon backed Moore. Of the three wings warring over control of the Republican Party, the pious Christians wanted the Bannon wing to lose at all costs. So they decided to fall in line with somebody who goes against everything they believe in.

The extent of my concern of the situation is how it has been impacted by a lie.

You've been using the word "lie" for half a dozen times and you've been asked what you mean by it, but you haven't answered. What's the "lie"?

[wufwugy]

So what were the good parts that were cut out? Or did the senate add the part where everyone gets tax cuts but for those earning less than $75k/year it's just temporary? What stops you from criticizing the bill?

I'm not criticizing it because I don't criticize things I don't know much about it. From those who do know a good deal about it, it looks like if it passes, it might be a mild good, but it started out much better. We need a significant reform bill before we need cuts, and this isn't much reform though cuts aren't necessarily bad. Could even be negative reform, I don't know. The Democrat party is fighting against good reform, and the Republican party is not fighting hard enough for good reform.

You've been using the word "lie" for half a dozen times and you've been asked what you mean by it, but you haven't answered. What's the "lie"?

Sexual assault. All of which was denied and the only evidence of which is very very bad.

[CoccoBill]

I'm not criticizing it because I don't criticize things I don't know much about it. From those who do know a good deal about it, it looks like if it passes, it might be a mild good, but it started out much better. We need a significant reform bill before we need cuts, and this isn't much reform though cuts aren't necessarily bad. Could even be negative reform, I don't know. The Democrat party is fighting against good reform, and the Republican party is not fighting hard enough for good reform.

To me it sounds like redistribution from to poor to the wealthy. The only way to see that as a "good" is to just look at the market as a whole, assuming it would create net growth. If the top 1% does great and everyone else is suffering, the metric says everything is great, which obviously is not the case. The only justification for this I've ever heard is the trickle-down effect of the net growth. You have personally claimed that neither you nor any economist claims trickle-down is a thing, so how exactly is this good? That's some reverse robin hood shit right there.

Sexual assault. All of which was denied and the only evidence of which is very very bad.

What kind of concrete evidence of sexual harassment that happened decades ago would be sufficient, in your mind? Why do you automatically believe Moore and don't believe his assumed victims? Don't you find it a bit suspicious that you take Moore's word over the victims' so vehemently, that the case is not just undecided or unclear, it's LIES?

[wufwugy]

To me it sounds like redistribution from to poor to the wealthy.

The distribution scheme we have currently is significantly from wealthy (and working class) to poor such that the poor pay negative taxes and working earners pay taxes. If a tax cut is "redistribution" it is really just a reduction of in current redistribution.

The only way to see that as a "good" is to just look at the market as a whole, assuming it would create net growth. If the top 1% does great and everyone else is suffering, the metric says everything is great, which obviously is not the case.

A neat thing about this is that in a capitalist market economy, it can't be the case that the wealthy do well and the non-wealthy do not. The wealthy would do only as well as the working and vice versa. An example for this is that for a business owner to make money he needs workers to produce, and in order for workers to produce they need business owners to pay them. A relatively free market economy raises the benefit for all because of this.

What kind of concrete evidence of sexual harassment that happened decades ago would be sufficient, in your mind? Why do you automatically believe Moore and don't believe his assumed victims? Don't you find it a bit suspicious that you take Moore's word over the victims' so vehemently, that the case is not just undecided or unclear, it's LIES?

I was calling the accusation of sexual assault highly suspicious before Moore even commented on it. This is because I follow politics closely and we see false accusations emerge with this timing often. Other facts for how they emerged make them even more suspicious. Then when the main accusation was shown as tampered, confirmation that the accusation was false hit all time high.

[Poopadoop]

There's a lot of possibilities. One is that it's all a smear campaign. Another is that it's legit and those women came forward at that time because of all the other women coming forward recently. A third is that someone realised the D's might actually have a chance of winning this one and it was a good time to bring these things up. What seems almost certain is that RM has a thing for underage girls and it makes the public all the more open to the idea that these charges are real.

The whole 'fake yearbook' defense is lame, you should just give it up. First, the signature there is either a perfect forgery or it's him. Second, it isn't even a big part of the case against him; there's nothing wrong with signing someone's yearbook. Third, the fact that she wrote something below it and admits that is meaningless.

What do you think of the timing of these other women coming out against Trump signifies?

[wufwugy]

In the past, Trump has had many opportunistic accusations against him that vanish the moment they becoming irrelevant to his opposition.

Now, anything part of the MeToo movement is highly suspect. Which is very sad because some of the stuff is true. Everybody wants to signal their virtue, and it harms the real victims.

[Poopadoop]

Everybody wants to signal their virtue, and it harms the real victims.

How does accusing someone of sexual misconduct signal your virtue?

The only way I can see the movement being abused is if some scorned or delusional woman uses it as a revenge tactic.

[CoccoBill]

A neat thing about this is that in a capitalist market economy, it can't be the case that the wealthy do well and the non-wealthy do not. The wealthy would do only as well as the working and vice versa. An example for this is that for a business owner to make money he needs workers to produce, and in order for workers to produce they need business owners to pay them. A relatively free market economy raises the benefit for all because of this.

Would you describe that the poor in America at the moment are doing good and/or that the wealthy are not?

I was calling the accusation of sexual assault highly suspicious before Moore even commented on it. This is because I follow politics closely and we see false accusations emerge with this timing often. Other facts for how they emerged make them even more suspicious. Then when the main accusation was shown as tampered, confirmation that the accusation was false hit all time high.

So who lied? There were several accusations by several defendants. You're absolutely convinced that they're all just paid trolls, because that's how the dems roll? That's your occam's razor?

^^^ I meant to say "the only time capital does nothing is when you burn it".

Wouldn't that deflate the value of everyone else's monies?

[wufwugy]

Would you describe that the poor in America at the moment are doing good and/or that the wealthy are not?

The lot of both are improving.

So who lied? There were several accusations by several defendants. You're absolutely convinced that they're all just paid trolls, because that's how the dems roll? That's your occam's razor?

I've been referring to the allegations made by the person who provided evidence that she altered.

Wouldn't that deflate the value of everyone else's monies?

I don't know, and there are differing opinions among economists with this sort of thing. It's because it could start as one thing then move to another thing or something like that. And some economists would say in the real world you can't extrapolate from micro to macro like this (because monetary policy something something). What they agree on, however, is that the portion of real wealth in the economy presented by the burned money would be lost without gaining anything else to make up for it. Say's Law is good for this. It says that demand derives from supply, meaning that what somebody can buy emerges from what they produce, i.e., if you didn't build those widgets you wouldn't have gotten a wage in which you can buy some gidgets.