PBP: Trump vs Clinton - Battle in Hofstra: Holy crap what have we done

I disagree. They'll find a job for us.

 

Some thing has to power the machines!

 

Going back to the debate, this is an interesting analysis on what happened:

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...ned-to-Trump-yesterday-System-2-can-be-tiring

If you recall, Trump had a pretty good start in the debate. He sparred pretty well for the first 15 minutes or so. But as time went on, he slowly fell apart; and towards the end, he was blathering some nonsense about Rosie O Donnell. This was, in my opinion, the result of Trump’s blood sugar level being depleted because he was forced to deploy System 2 over and over again by Secy Clinton. This is what happens when you dont practice ~ Dan Kahneman also taught us that with enough practice, you can turn your System 2 response to a System 1 response. As an example, consider what happens when we first learn how to drive ~ when we first get behind the wheel, we have to consciously (ie, via our System 2), process every object on the road. As time goes on, and with enough practice, we develop an instinctive response to those objects (ie, via our System 1), and dont need to deploy our System 2 anymore. Secy. Clinton had practiced, so her responses were System 1 for the most part. The Donnie was too smart to practice (he has the best brains, remember) ~ he was having to deploy his System 2 all the time ~ and that can be very tiring.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

She forced him to deploy his System 2 on the plan comparison. And then she hits him with the climate change = Chinese hoax. And here is one more thing that Dan Kahneman taught us: when your System 2 is not able to take charge, you tend to rely on your System 1 more than you should. Trump’s System 2 was processing the plan comparison, and he could not avoid taking the bait on the climate change = Chinese hoax. Now what do you think Trump’s System 2 is thinking. “Holy shit… I totally screwed up here. Kellyanne told me such outbursts are bad, and I am going to have to explain that somehow” . He went on to spout a word salad about...something. Under the circumstances, that is what should have happened.​

 

Live fact checking works!


Kinda....


https://www.wired.com/2016/09/millions-people-fact-checked-debate-clintons-website/

 

Well, might as well put thi here. LONG article from the NYT on the benefits of trade, but also the problems that @totti fan was bringing up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/b...t-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

But trade comes with no assurances that the spoils will be shared equitably. Across much of the industrialized world, an outsize share of the winnings have been harvested by people with advanced degrees, stock options and the need for accountants. Ordinary laborers have borne the costs, suffering joblessness and deepening economic anxiety.

These costs have proved overwhelming in communities that depend on industry for sustenance, vastly exceeding what economists anticipated. Policy makers under the thrall of neo-liberal economic philosophy put stock in the notion that markets could be entrusted to bolster social welfare.

In doing so, they failed to plan for the trauma that has accompanied the benefits of trade. When millions of workers lost paychecks to foreign competition, they lacked government supports to cushion the blow. As a result, seething anger is upending politics from Europe to North America.​

​

I have to agree with Totti fan: this is a policy failure. I disagree with him that Trump would be the least bit capable of solving this problem.

But the article is right, and it's not as simple as "Trade. Good" vs "No. Trade.BAD."

The anti-trade backlash, building for years, has become explosive because the global economy has arrived at a sobering period of reckoning. Years of investment manias and financial machinations that juiced the job market have lost potency, exposing longstanding downsides of trade that had previously been masked by illusive prosperity.

This tide of animosity may prove nearly impossible to reverse, given that technological disruption and economic upheaval are now at work in an era of scarcity. Today, many major nations are grappling with weak growth, tight credit and a gnawing sense that a lean future may persist indefinitely.​

​

Now, this is serious, and it's the sort of policy discussion that should be driving the campaigns, but it's too complicated for the entertainment news media to cover.

"We do need to have these trade agreements,” Mr. Bown said, “but we do need to be cognizant that there are going to be losers and we need to have policies to address them.”

The extent of the damage suffered by these “losers” has accelerated an erosion of faith in the wealth-creating powers of free trade. A profound skepticism has taken root in some of the largest trading powers, notably the United States, France, Italy and Japan.​

​

Oh, and about retraining...

Trade Adjustment Assistance, a government program started in 1962 and expanded significantly a dozen years later, is supposed to support workers whose jobs are casualties of overseas competition. The program pays for job training.

But Mr. Simmons rolls his eyes at mention of the program. Training has almost become a joke. Skills often do not translate from old jobs to new. Many workers just draw a check while they attend training and then remain jobless.

A 2012 assessment of the program prepared for the Labor Department found that four years after completing training, only 37 percent of those employed were working in their targeted industries. Many of those enrolled had lower incomes than those who simply signed up for unemployment benefits and looked for other work.

​

​

Of course, it is done better in Europe.

European workers have fared better. In wealthier countries like Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark, unemployment benefits, housing subsidies and government-provided health care are far more generous than in the United States.

In the five years after a job loss, an American family of four that is eligible for housing assistance receives average benefits equal to 25 percent of the unemployed person’s previous wages, according to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. For a similar family in the Netherlands, benefits reach 70 percent.​

​

This is a bipartisan failure, and I don't see any way of addressing it. The one person who is siding more directly with the people who are suffering most is an ADHD-afflicted nihilist who will damage the institutions needed to help solve the problem.

 

It's not intended to be "logic," it's my opinion. But to elaborate further: Ensuring Trump loses is the most important thing to me. And having Johnson and Stein representing the libs and greens is not going to drive third party growth long term because they are fools, IMO. So I am not bothered by keeping them out of the debate.

 

If ensuring Trump loses is the most important thing, why not advocate for excluding Trump from the debates then? By including him in the debates, he is automatically presented as a viable candidate.

And even if Johnson and Stein are fools (because they don't want to bomb Muslim countries, which for most is the definition of seriousness) in your opinion, so what? Shouldn't people get to decide that on their own? Why should you get to decide for them?

 

Of course we are naturally conditioned not to think of the more fundamental question "Why do you need so many shoes?" I'm a freethinker, so I am inclined to ponder such thoughts.

 

Of course Trump is a viable candidate, he is the fvcking gop nominee! Any undecideds out there needed to see exactly what he is like without the distractions of sideshow Gary and sideshow Jill. For the good of the country.

And no, I don't get to decide. This is my opinion on a soccer website that (practically) nobody reads. And it is my opinion that, with 100 million viewers watching, the alternative parties really should be putting their best foot forward. So if their candidates are going to talk about the sun swallowing the earth and anti-vaxxer crap, I really do think that it's better in the long term that the biggest audience in history does not associate the parties with these nominees because it would permanently damage the "brand."

 

After Monday night, including him in the debates seems to be a pretty good tactic to make sure he does lose.

 

It seems the people in charge of Fox News realized they needed to reign somethings back a bit.

http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-online-debate-polls-trump-drudge-2016-9

 

Don't have time to search for the link, but CNN conducted the first scientific poll on who people think won the debate. 62% Clinton and 27% Trump. Even if you account for a generous margin of error, that is a convincing beatdown.

Another clue to keep an eye on is the Mexican Peso. The last several weeks it has been almost perfectly correlated to Trump's rises and falls in the polls. The day after the debate the Peso gained 2% vs the Dollar which was the biggest gain of any currency on the planet in that 24 hr period. Investors obviously concurred that Trump lost.

 

Fox has editorial standards? I had not realized ...

 

It ends at "Shawn, you shouldn't have done that."

 

Hard to believe but I read that they actually restricted Hannity from appearing in any more Trump commercials.

 

I rest my case.

 

No.

Since the memo was issued, however, some Fox hosts have continued to cite the online polls, often failing to even note such polls were unscientific and conducted over the internet.

Host Sean Hannity, who has led the charge citing the unscientific polls, continued to do so Tuesday night, after the memo went out.

"You've got this list of polls, Donald Trump wins," he said during on segment. "You watch TV, Hillary Clinton wins."​

​

 

FYP!

 

Whatever you think..you are wrong. She's right

 

Ok...admit it...wifey is standing right behind you!

 

Everything is fine (open) Everything is fine (close)

SHE'S WRONG....said in a whisper

 

Are you all ironically channeling sexist stereotypes as some sort of performance art argument to close this thread?