Live Thread for the SC Democratic Presidential Debate

[Diesel]

Presidential nominees don't debate anyone else... I don't think it's ever happened.

Obviously. My point remains.

 

[MovingPictures]

David Proval was the best actor in the damn series! He tried-out for the lead roll, and had the chops but was deemed too short and slight of build to get it. So, they went with the big-goombah Gandolfini. But if there was any of the cast that exuded the sociopathic essence of violent criminal, it was Proval!

Check this scene out. Gandolfini is far larger physically, and was the dominate character in terms of position in the organization. But IMO, Provo is the guy that weilds his weight here. He comes off as the real-deal, and pulls it off authentic as hell.

Proval captured the mindset of a psychopath better than anyone else.

Don't get me wrong, they were all great actors, but Proval hit home the idea that someone could be as entertaining as a hell, yet a cold blooded, evil murderer at the same time the best.

The actor that played Ralph was a close second.

 

[RobertU]

I quickly got tired of all those shrill people shooting their hands up and interrupting each other. I switched to a program called Escape to the Country, a British series featuring couples shopping for homes in the very green, very peaceful countryside. The perfect, calming antidote.

 

[Chomsky]

I think it's Bernie who will provide the most incredible debate with trump.

I can't argue against that. I think he or Buttigieg would be great debates with Trump. But it's my opinion that Buttigieg might do better. I think he'd be harder to trip-up, and more likely to expose Trump to errors. My fear is that Trump will lead Bernie into errors. But they would be good debates!

 

[Diesel]

She’s obviously competent. That’s useful in the Senate. Keep her there.

The Senate has passed about seventy bills since the beginning of 2019. It's a waste of time.

 

[Surrealistik]

David Proval was the best actor in the damn series! He tried-out for the lead roll, and had the chops but was deemed too short and slight of build to get it. So, they went with the big-goombah Gandolfini. But if there was any of the cast that exuded the sociopathic essence of violent criminal, it was Proval!

Check this scene out. Gandolfini is far larger physically, and was the dominate character in terms of position in the organization. But IMO, Provo is the guy that weilds his weight here. He comes off as the real-deal, and pulls it off authentic as hell.

Agreed; of all the mobsters on Sopranos, he was the only one that consistently and truly inspired fear and exuded menace; him and Phil to a lesser extent.

 

[cpwill]

Revenue minus spending = surplus (deficits).

You know how simple equations work. TCJA has reduced revenues by about $200-250B per year, which means....deficits have increased by that amount thanks to the tax cuts in TCJA!! It's...MATH. We have a spending and a tax problem.

And yes, nominal revenues increase over time, because inflation, population growth, and the normal economic growth unrelated to tax cuts.

BTW, I have no idea what you found interesting about a Nate Silver article from 2013. You can quote from it if you like. What I saw was him talking about the ever growing share of GDP represented by healthcare and SS, and the GOP answer to those growing fiscal demands was to.....cut taxes and make deficits worse, as spending pressures increase!

:shrug: if the spending is growing above GDP, and above record-high revenues, your problem is the spending. That isn't complicated.

The net effect of nominal rate changes, however, is a bit more so. Static Scoring isn't any more defensible - for all that it is simple - than Trump administration claims that we'll be hitting 4% growth any day now.



Anywho, back to discussion of the debate: I thought both Bloomberg and Buttegeig seemed to have that figured out.

 

[Chomsky]

So, you can show me where it's written in stone as a scientific fact that Klobucher is required for Bernie to win, and he can't win without her as VP? No, you can't. There's more balance to the issue, and Bernie has the responsibility not only to pick a more progressive VP, but to recognize that it's not clear WHO would help him more and a slight boost in that isn't all that matters in the pick.

Because I made no such claim. I'm disputing your claim that Klobuchar would be "bad" for Bernie. You seem to be extrapolating incorrect assumptions from my statement. Take a look back through the thread, if you'd like.

 

[Craig234]

Obviously. My point remains.

Well, the 'push for that' means pretty much nothing.

 

[Diesel]

I quickly got tired of all those shrill people shooting their hands up and interrupting each other. I switched to a program called Escape to the Country, a British series featuring couples shopping for homes in the very green, very peaceful countryside. The perfect, calming antidote.

Lorena Bobbitt killed Nicole Simpson.

 

[Craig234]

I can't argue against that. I think he or Buttigieg would be great debates with Trump. But it's my opinion that Buttigieg might do better. I think he'd be harder to trip-up, and more likely to expose Trump to errors. My fear is that Trump will lead Bernie into errors. But they would be good debates!

I know what you mean, but I've been disappointed by people I thought would be good debaters against horrible Republicans - including Biden against Palin and Ryan, or Edwards against Cheney.

 

[MovingPictures]

Agreed; of all the mobsters on Sopranos, he was the only one that consistently and truly inspired fear and exuded menace; him and Phil to a lesser extent.

The man could build a ramp up to your ass and drive a Lionel up in there.

 

[Diesel]

Well, the 'push for that' means pretty much nothing.

Sick burn, bro. Go bother someone else. (Oh, I see you're just snarking all over the place.)

For the thoughtful audience, Buttigieg debating Trump would be epic.

 

[Craig234]

Because I made no such claim. I'm disputing your claim that Klobuchar would be "bad" for Bernie. You seem to be extrapolating incorrect assumptions from my statement. Take a look back through the thread, if you'd like.

You seem to be misunderstanding what I said, that Amy's policies are too far off from Bernie for her to be a responsible choice - and only fixating on the idea that he needs her to win, which I disagree with. In response to my point about policy, you said "Not getting into office is "badder".", as if that's a guaranteed fact.

 

[Craig234]

Go bother someone else. (Oh, I see you're just snarking all over the place.)

Back at you. Useless comments.

 

[Diesel]

Back at you. Useless comments.

Then don't comment on them. I was never talking to you before you pointlessly decided to start snarking me.

 

[Craig234]

Everyone else is running for VP.

Or a future election. Unfortunately, our election system gives a big advantage to previous candidates it seems. (trump hadn't run before, but he was nationally known as someone who talked about it for several elections).

 

[Craig234]

Then don't comment on them. I was never talking to you before you pointlessly decided to start snarking me.

And yet you reply... simple. You talked about 'pushing for' a debate there's basically no chance of. I pointed out there's basically no chance. All that needs be said. There's a lot of people we'd like to see debate trump. There's a reason trump won't.

 

[Diesel]

And yet you reply... simple. You talked about 'pushing for' a debate there's basically no chance of. I pointed out there's basically no chance. All that needs be said. There's a lot of people we'd like to see debate trump. There's a reason trump won't.

Oh. Cool story.

 

[JasperL]

:shrug: if the spending is growing above GDP, and above record-high revenues, your problem is the spending. That isn't complicated.

No, it's very simple:

Revenue minus expenditures = surplus deficit (i.e. both)

Tax cuts lower revenues and increase deficits, which is what happened with TCJA, about $200B per year so far. :shrug:

The net effect of nominal rate changes, however, is a bit more so. Static Scoring isn't any more defensible - for all that it is simple - than Trump administration claims that we'll be hitting 4% growth any day now.

CBO doesn't use static scoring, and two years in their estimates of a $2T increase in deficits is roughly dead on. -271B in FY 2019 (Box 1-1)

Anywho, back to discussion of the debate: I thought both Bloomberg and Buttegeig seemed to have that figured out.

Hope not.... It's voodoo economics :roll:

 

[Linc]

Because I made no such claim. I'm disputing your claim that Klobuchar would be "bad" for Bernie. You seem to be extrapolating incorrect assumptions from my statement. Take a look back through the thread, if you'd like.

Warren is staying in to prevent other candidates from getting to the 15% threshold, directly helping Sanders. Her going after Bloomberg is no surprise. That’s why she stays in for what is really three straight super Tuesdays — 3/3, 3/10, 3/17.

 

[joko104]

Bloomberg once again rehashing why he's a dinosaur with out of touch and defunct stances on marijuana.

He has a valid point. It is one thing to arrest people using pot. But another to be discouraging smoking cigarettes, discourage vaping nicotine - but putting a pot shop in every mini shopping strip for smoking and vaping pot. It is a drug. It does alter behavior. Should it be not just legalized, but promoted?

 

[Robertinfremont]

Sick burn, bro. Go bother someone else. (Oh, I see you're just snarking all over the place.)

For the thoughtful audience, Buttigieg debating Trump would be epic.

Trump will grin ear to ear if he finds the above post.

 

[Diesel]

He has a valid point. It is one thing to arrest people using pot. But another to be discouraging smoking cigarettes, discourage vaping nicotine - but putting a pot shop in every mini shopping strip for smoking and vaping pot. It is a drug. It does alter behavior. Should it be not just legalized, but promoted?

Yes. Every problem in the world could be solved if every person got high simultaneously.

 

[Diesel]

Trump will grin ear to ear if he finds the above post.

Why?.