Ted Cruz Thinks Everyone Is Out to Get Him

[S.J.]

When did I proclaim that I was smarter than everyone else? Please, quote me. Hint: You are not everyone.

Oh, but SJ certainly THINKS he speaks for everyone! He's really proving himself to be no different than the typical radical Saul Alinsky liberal. He is just a different side of the same coin. He thinks his loud mouth insulting and denigrating is appealing to others... and believe it or not, he seems to have some support. There are people thanking his posts and agreeing with him on everything... so he is embolden by this and thinks he is being brilliant.

Now the irony is, we're probably going to see how all this plays out on the national stage in November. We'll see how well SJ and his candidate fare against the most powerful political machine of our time. I personally think he is going to fail for the same reason his candidate Trump is going to fail... their skin is way too thin. They become flustered and upset when you raise any kind of valid objection or argument to their positions and then the name-calling starts. You know as well as I, once your opponent starts that, it's game over... they've lost the argument.

If 60% of the GOP base throws up it's hands and walks away because it kept getting kicked in the balls and insulted to death... they can't beat the Democrats. But we're going to have to watch them get politically embarrassed before they get it. Right now, they all think exactly like SJ... that they speak for everyone and those of us who don't agree are a bunch of loser jerks who don't matter.

You get the prize for the most ironic post of the week.

 

[Never3ndr]

I simply stated that recent academic work and recent international news paints a Trump presidency in a bad light. If you actually feel that my point is not correct then please present your case instead of continuing to claim that I am condescending because I happen to read things by people with different viewpoints or higher levels of education than I do or have.

He isn't president yet so that would fall into the category of pulling an opinion out of their asses. I suppose the same folks give obama glowing reviews?

Recent academic work and international news was a good touch though. Comedy gold.

You do realize that economic forecasting is a thing, right? You do realize that there are things we know that are things unfavorable for the economy, like an extreme system of government ownership (like the USSR or China of old), right? You do realize that based off of what we know doesn't work well, we can have a reasonable (although not surefire) look at the future and what is likely or not likely to work, right? It is like when you add one and one...you don't need to find two apples to count them...you know that the answer is going to be two. Likewise (although not as black and white as that scenario) academic work is based off our body of knowledge and tries to guide use towards practices that are more favorable than unfavorable. You don't have to actually go through a scenario to know if it would work or not. Acting like you do makes you out to be a bit of an idiot.

Put it this way...if the weather man gave you a clear forecast of bad weather due to a large hurricane system coming your way...should you ignore him? Well, it obviously hasn't happened yet so how the hell can he know? That is literally your line of logic. Maybe, just maybe, we should put a bit more faith in people who have a lot more knowledge and experience than we do AND literally spend their lives working on a subject like the economy. Will they always get things, right? Nope. But you better be damn sure I'mma bring my raincoat.

 

[Iceweasel]

I simply stated that recent academic work and recent international news paints a Trump presidency in a bad light. If you actually feel that my point is not correct then please present your case instead of continuing to claim that I am condescending because I happen to read things by people with different viewpoints or higher levels of education than I do or have.

He isn't president yet so that would fall into the category of pulling an opinion out of their asses. I suppose the same folks give obama glowing reviews?

Recent academic work and international news was a good touch though. Comedy gold.

You do realize that economic forecasting is a thing, right? You do realize that there are things we know that are things unfavorable for the economy, like an extreme system of government ownership (like the USSR or China of old), right? You do realize that based off of what we know doesn't work well, we can have a reasonable (although not surefire) look at the future and what is likely or not likely to work, right? It is like when you add one and one...you don't need to find two apples to count them...you know that the answer is going to be two. Likewise (although not as black and white as that scenario) academic work is based off our body of knowledge and tries to guide use towards practices that are more favorable than unfavorable. You don't have to actually go through a scenario to know if it would work or not. Acting like you do makes you out to be a bit of an idiot.

Put it this way...if the weather man gave you a clear forecast of bad weather due to a large hurricane system coming your way...should you ignore him? Well, it obviously hasn't happened yet so how the hell can he know? That is literally your line of logic. Maybe, just maybe, we should put a bit more faith in people who have a lot more knowledge and experience than we do AND literally spend their lives working on a subject like the economy. Will they always get things, right? Nope. But you better be damn sure I'mma bring my raincoat.

No one predicted the economic crash, worldwide or countrywide. "Academics" need to eat and will sell whatever puts food on the plate. You can put stock in it, I don't.

Economies are complex but some facts are a given. You can't spend your way into prosperity. 19 trillion in debt and growing is not a good thing. No one can predict what influence or change a Trump presidency might bring. Hillary would be far more predictable, pretty much more of the same. If the "academics" aren't concerned about that then I'll just dismiss them for what they really are.

 

[MarcATL]

And you're still in denial. Get your head out of your ass, Cruz is finished.

Get your head outta Trump's ass!

It's not over yet!

It is for Cruz.

Nope... it's really NOT. Sorry... wish you luck... hope you aren't betting the farm!

Did you? Aren't you EMBARRASSED?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

You dumb shit, I'm backing the guy who has a chance of winning. You're backing a fucking loser who can't break 600 delegates. How the hell is he gonna win in the general? The American people don't fucking want Cruz, can't you get that through your fucking head? Every damn day he shows himself to be exactly what people are sick and tired of. Back room deals, bribes, lying about other candidates dropping out, all the shit people are fed up with. You have no room to berate ANYBODY for backing Trump. Go sulk.

There has been NO "back room deals" made by Cruz. That's yet another bold-face lie from you despicable clowns... which is becoming your trademark. It doesn't matter how many delegates anyone has right now... if they don't have 1,237 by the first ballot at the convention, they don't win the fucking nomination on the first ballot, then it's anybody's game.

And I know that you've worked yourself into such a state that YOU don't want Cruz and probably wouldn't vote for him if he wins the nomination. You and a whole bunch of other little Trump asswipes... so we're probably going to lose to Hillary. But YOU and your little clown brigade don't speak for all of America. You don't even speak for a majority of the GOP!

Let me ask you something... honestly... WHY have you and others chosen to become SO fucking nasty and sleazy in this primary race? Are you just following Trump's lead like a bunch of mindless zombies? What the fuck are you thinking... that you can polarize your OWN PARTY and win in November? Are you smoking crack or something? You DO realize Ted Cruz isn't a Liberal Democrat... right? I mean... I could understand if this were the general election and Cruz were the Democrat opponent... tee off! Let him have it! Hold no punches! But this is supposed to be our party (we're supposed to be on the same side) deciding who to run against Hillary Clinton.

Surely to God you have enough fucking goat sense to understand that you're not going to win Cruz supporters back after what you've done and said in this primary. So what the fuck is your deal, are you TRYING to ensure Hillary Clinton wins in a landslide or what?

So....still believe that?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

You dumb shit, I'm backing the guy who has a chance of winning.

EVERY POLL at RealClear Politics says he loses to Hillary... some have him losing by double digits. Not one single poll that has been taken by any credible pollster has ever shown Trump beating Hillary. Kasich beats Hillary... Cruz is within the margin of error... Trump is sucking hind teat. So you are backing the one guy who is almost certain to LOSE to Hillary!

In the process, you are absolutely destroying a man who has stood up to the establishment for Constitutional Conservatism time and time again and taken the heat for it. The best HOPE we've had for a true Conservative president in the past 40 years! And you're using sleazy and dishonest Alinsky-like tactics to do it... that's the worst part!

I'm gonna tell you something, buddy... if YOU are the example of the new face of the Republican Party.. color me GONE... I'll never vote Republican again. I thought you were a Conservative and I thought this party was mostly Conservatives who were frustrated with the beltway elites not hearing their Conservative voices... but you're worse than any fucking liberal drone out there... and that's saying something.

So, still feel that way?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Never3ndr]

I simply stated that recent academic work and recent international news paints a Trump presidency in a bad light. If you actually feel that my point is not correct then please present your case instead of continuing to claim that I am condescending because I happen to read things by people with different viewpoints or higher levels of education than I do or have.

He isn't president yet so that would fall into the category of pulling an opinion out of their asses. I suppose the same folks give obama glowing reviews?

Recent academic work and international news was a good touch though. Comedy gold.

You do realize that economic forecasting is a thing, right? You do realize that there are things we know that are things unfavorable for the economy, like an extreme system of government ownership (like the USSR or China of old), right? You do realize that based off of what we know doesn't work well, we can have a reasonable (although not surefire) look at the future and what is likely or not likely to work, right? It is like when you add one and one...you don't need to find two apples to count them...you know that the answer is going to be two. Likewise (although not as black and white as that scenario) academic work is based off our body of knowledge and tries to guide use towards practices that are more favorable than unfavorable. You don't have to actually go through a scenario to know if it would work or not. Acting like you do makes you out to be a bit of an idiot.

Put it this way...if the weather man gave you a clear forecast of bad weather due to a large hurricane system coming your way...should you ignore him? Well, it obviously hasn't happened yet so how the hell can he know? That is literally your line of logic. Maybe, just maybe, we should put a bit more faith in people who have a lot more knowledge and experience than we do AND literally spend their lives working on a subject like the economy. Will they always get things, right? Nope. But you better be damn sure I'mma bring my raincoat.

No one predicted the economic crash, worldwide or countrywide. "Academics" need to eat and will sell whatever puts food on the plate. You can put stock in it, I don't.

Economies are complex but some facts are a given. You can't spend your way into prosperity. 19 trillion in debt and growing is not a good thing. No one can predict what influence or change a Trump presidency might bring. Hillary would be far more predictable, pretty much more of the same. If the "academics" aren't concerned about that then I'll just dismiss them for what they really are.

You take one scenario and base your entire world view upon it...genius. I actually stated that they don't get everything right, like your local weatherman, but that they do get most things correct and serve as the basis of our understanding for our system.

You speak about debt...but anything we know about why a debt is good or bad is based off of information and theories that are generated by economists. Whether or not you realize it you also listen to what they say...you just cherry pick the statements that you like to hear versus trying to digest the larger body of work. It is almost inane that you continue to debate this. Do you also not believe in mathematics? That field was also generated by academics...I mean shit when was the last time we witnessed a phenomena like a perfect sphere in nature? Welp, it hasn't happened so their entire knowledge base must not be worthwhile! If you are going to say you don't like what the academics are saying about the economy...you can't actually mention anything about the economy in retort...since our entire knowledge base comes from them.

You really sound like a total idiot here.

 

[Iceweasel]

I simply stated that recent academic work and recent international news paints a Trump presidency in a bad light. If you actually feel that my point is not correct then please present your case instead of continuing to claim that I am condescending because I happen to read things by people with different viewpoints or higher levels of education than I do or have.

He isn't president yet so that would fall into the category of pulling an opinion out of their asses. I suppose the same folks give obama glowing reviews?

Recent academic work and international news was a good touch though. Comedy gold.

You do realize that economic forecasting is a thing, right? You do realize that there are things we know that are things unfavorable for the economy, like an extreme system of government ownership (like the USSR or China of old), right? You do realize that based off of what we know doesn't work well, we can have a reasonable (although not surefire) look at the future and what is likely or not likely to work, right? It is like when you add one and one...you don't need to find two apples to count them...you know that the answer is going to be two. Likewise (although not as black and white as that scenario) academic work is based off our body of knowledge and tries to guide use towards practices that are more favorable than unfavorable. You don't have to actually go through a scenario to know if it would work or not. Acting like you do makes you out to be a bit of an idiot.

Put it this way...if the weather man gave you a clear forecast of bad weather due to a large hurricane system coming your way...should you ignore him? Well, it obviously hasn't happened yet so how the hell can he know? That is literally your line of logic. Maybe, just maybe, we should put a bit more faith in people who have a lot more knowledge and experience than we do AND literally spend their lives working on a subject like the economy. Will they always get things, right? Nope. But you better be damn sure I'mma bring my raincoat.

No one predicted the economic crash, worldwide or countrywide. "Academics" need to eat and will sell whatever puts food on the plate. You can put stock in it, I don't.

Economies are complex but some facts are a given. You can't spend your way into prosperity. 19 trillion in debt and growing is not a good thing. No one can predict what influence or change a Trump presidency might bring. Hillary would be far more predictable, pretty much more of the same. If the "academics" aren't concerned about that then I'll just dismiss them for what they really are.

You take one scenario and base your entire world view upon it...genius. I actually stated that they don't get everything right, like your local weatherman, but that they do get most things correct and serve as the basis of our understanding for our system.

You speak about debt...but anything we know about why a debt is good or bad is based off of information and theories that are generated by economists. Whether or not you realize it you also listen to what they say...you just cherry pick the statements that you like to hear versus trying to digest the larger body of work. It is almost inane that you continue to debate this. Do you also not believe in mathematics? That field was also generated by academics...I mean shit when was the last time we witnessed a phenomena like a perfect sphere in nature? Welp, it hasn't happened so their entire knowledge base must not be worthwhile! If you are going to say you don't like what the academics are saying about the economy...you can't actually mention anything about the economy in retort...since our entire knowledge base comes from them.

You really sound like a total idiot here.

What one scenario did I present? You want to use weathermen getting it wrong as a defense to the "academics" possibly getting it wrong about Trump? Then why make the point in the first place?

Academics created the field of mathematics? Wow. That's deep. But it has what to do with predicting a bunch of economic unknowns about a candidate you don't like? But no, our entire knowledge base isn't provided by "academics". It's hard to find two that agree on everything.

 

[HenryBHough]

"get"?

Nope.

He been "GOT".

Sorry (not really), Jake.....

 

[Never3ndr]

I simply stated that recent academic work and recent international news paints a Trump presidency in a bad light. If you actually feel that my point is not correct then please present your case instead of continuing to claim that I am condescending because I happen to read things by people with different viewpoints or higher levels of education than I do or have.

He isn't president yet so that would fall into the category of pulling an opinion out of their asses. I suppose the same folks give obama glowing reviews?

Recent academic work and international news was a good touch though. Comedy gold.

You do realize that economic forecasting is a thing, right? You do realize that there are things we know that are things unfavorable for the economy, like an extreme system of government ownership (like the USSR or China of old), right? You do realize that based off of what we know doesn't work well, we can have a reasonable (although not surefire) look at the future and what is likely or not likely to work, right? It is like when you add one and one...you don't need to find two apples to count them...you know that the answer is going to be two. Likewise (although not as black and white as that scenario) academic work is based off our body of knowledge and tries to guide use towards practices that are more favorable than unfavorable. You don't have to actually go through a scenario to know if it would work or not. Acting like you do makes you out to be a bit of an idiot.

Put it this way...if the weather man gave you a clear forecast of bad weather due to a large hurricane system coming your way...should you ignore him? Well, it obviously hasn't happened yet so how the hell can he know? That is literally your line of logic. Maybe, just maybe, we should put a bit more faith in people who have a lot more knowledge and experience than we do AND literally spend their lives working on a subject like the economy. Will they always get things, right? Nope. But you better be damn sure I'mma bring my raincoat.

No one predicted the economic crash, worldwide or countrywide. "Academics" need to eat and will sell whatever puts food on the plate. You can put stock in it, I don't.

Economies are complex but some facts are a given. You can't spend your way into prosperity. 19 trillion in debt and growing is not a good thing. No one can predict what influence or change a Trump presidency might bring. Hillary would be far more predictable, pretty much more of the same. If the "academics" aren't concerned about that then I'll just dismiss them for what they really are.

You take one scenario and base your entire world view upon it...genius. I actually stated that they don't get everything right, like your local weatherman, but that they do get most things correct and serve as the basis of our understanding for our system.

You speak about debt...but anything we know about why a debt is good or bad is based off of information and theories that are generated by economists. Whether or not you realize it you also listen to what they say...you just cherry pick the statements that you like to hear versus trying to digest the larger body of work. It is almost inane that you continue to debate this. Do you also not believe in mathematics? That field was also generated by academics...I mean shit when was the last time we witnessed a phenomena like a perfect sphere in nature? Welp, it hasn't happened so their entire knowledge base must not be worthwhile! If you are going to say you don't like what the academics are saying about the economy...you can't actually mention anything about the economy in retort...since our entire knowledge base comes from them.

You really sound like a total idiot here.

What one scenario did I present? You want to use weathermen getting it wrong as a defense to the "academics" possibly getting it wrong about Trump? Then why make the point in the first place?

Academics created the field of mathematics? Wow. That's deep. But it has what to do with predicting a bunch of economic unknowns about a candidate you don't like? But no, our entire knowledge base isn't provided by "academics". It's hard to find two that agree on everything.

You stated the recent economic recession in 2008 as proof positive that economists don't get things right all the time...a point I actually agreed with and stated myself in an earlier post. However, you use this one case as reason for you to never believe them...something I've been continually saying is absurd and indicating clear reasons why.

I've been trying to use other fields of study to show you how absurd your logic is...if you fail to understand that I'm going to have to assume you have never entered a debate in your life. It is a common tactic to replace a like variable and apply the same logic to show an incorrect or weak logic chain.

You keep saying that "I don't like a candidate" I feel that the difference here is that I'm taking the viewpoints of others, many of which know far more than I ever could, about subjects...digesting their arguments...and then coming to an objective conclusion. You seem to form the basis of your opinion on whether or not you "like" the candidate...and then try to search for reasons why. If I am wrong about this then please point towards the academic work that supports your case and why you have formed your OBJECTIVE opinion about Trump. Because this is exactly what I'm doing here.

If economists would come out and say that Trump looks to far better for the economy than the alternatives, I would be behind him staunchly in that arena. In fact, the work of economists is the reason why I give Trump a lot of credit for trying to better control our flow of low-skilled immigration...specifically the work of Dr. George Borjas, an economist at Harvard. However, immigration is only one slice of the pie and, on the whole, it doesn't look good for Trump unless he changes a lot of things about himself.

 

[Iceweasel]

He isn't president yet so that would fall into the category of pulling an opinion out of their asses. I suppose the same folks give obama glowing reviews?

Recent academic work and international news was a good touch though. Comedy gold.

You do realize that economic forecasting is a thing, right? You do realize that there are things we know that are things unfavorable for the economy, like an extreme system of government ownership (like the USSR or China of old), right? You do realize that based off of what we know doesn't work well, we can have a reasonable (although not surefire) look at the future and what is likely or not likely to work, right? It is like when you add one and one...you don't need to find two apples to count them...you know that the answer is going to be two. Likewise (although not as black and white as that scenario) academic work is based off our body of knowledge and tries to guide use towards practices that are more favorable than unfavorable. You don't have to actually go through a scenario to know if it would work or not. Acting like you do makes you out to be a bit of an idiot.

Put it this way...if the weather man gave you a clear forecast of bad weather due to a large hurricane system coming your way...should you ignore him? Well, it obviously hasn't happened yet so how the hell can he know? That is literally your line of logic. Maybe, just maybe, we should put a bit more faith in people who have a lot more knowledge and experience than we do AND literally spend their lives working on a subject like the economy. Will they always get things, right? Nope. But you better be damn sure I'mma bring my raincoat.

No one predicted the economic crash, worldwide or countrywide. "Academics" need to eat and will sell whatever puts food on the plate. You can put stock in it, I don't.

Economies are complex but some facts are a given. You can't spend your way into prosperity. 19 trillion in debt and growing is not a good thing. No one can predict what influence or change a Trump presidency might bring. Hillary would be far more predictable, pretty much more of the same. If the "academics" aren't concerned about that then I'll just dismiss them for what they really are.

You take one scenario and base your entire world view upon it...genius. I actually stated that they don't get everything right, like your local weatherman, but that they do get most things correct and serve as the basis of our understanding for our system.

You speak about debt...but anything we know about why a debt is good or bad is based off of information and theories that are generated by economists. Whether or not you realize it you also listen to what they say...you just cherry pick the statements that you like to hear versus trying to digest the larger body of work. It is almost inane that you continue to debate this. Do you also not believe in mathematics? That field was also generated by academics...I mean shit when was the last time we witnessed a phenomena like a perfect sphere in nature? Welp, it hasn't happened so their entire knowledge base must not be worthwhile! If you are going to say you don't like what the academics are saying about the economy...you can't actually mention anything about the economy in retort...since our entire knowledge base comes from them.

You really sound like a total idiot here.

What one scenario did I present? You want to use weathermen getting it wrong as a defense to the "academics" possibly getting it wrong about Trump? Then why make the point in the first place?

Academics created the field of mathematics? Wow. That's deep. But it has what to do with predicting a bunch of economic unknowns about a candidate you don't like? But no, our entire knowledge base isn't provided by "academics". It's hard to find two that agree on everything.

You stated the recent economic recession in 2008 as proof positive that economists don't get things right all the time...a point I actually agreed with and stated myself in an earlier post. However, you use this one case as reason for you to never believe them...something I've been continually saying is absurd and indicating clear reasons why.

I've been trying to use other fields of study to show you how absurd your logic is...if you fail to understand that I'm going to have to assume you have never entered a debate in your life. It is a common tactic to replace a like variable and apply the same logic to show an incorrect or weak logic chain.

You keep saying that "I don't like a candidate" I feel that the difference here is that I'm taking the viewpoints of others, many of which know far more than I ever could, about subjects...digesting their arguments...and then coming to an objective conclusion. You seem to form the basis of your opinion on whether or not you "like" the candidate...and then try to search for reasons why. If I am wrong about this then please point towards the academic work that supports your case and why you have formed your OBJECTIVE opinion about Trump. Because this is exactly what I'm doing here.

If economists would come out and say that Trump looks to far better for the economy than the alternatives, I would be behind him staunchly in that arena. In fact, the work of economists is the reason why I give Trump a lot of credit for trying to better control our flow of low-skilled immigration...specifically the work of Dr. George Borjas, an economist at Harvard. However, immigration is only one slice of the pie and, on the whole, it doesn't look good for Trump unless he changes a lot of things about himself.

It was a rather big one to miss, but no, I didn't offer you, an annoying anonymous individual on the internet my life's observations. I gave a good example, a really really good one to prove "academics" are often about as good as you can throw them.

I don't care if you like it or not.

 

[Never3ndr]

You do realize that economic forecasting is a thing, right? You do realize that there are things we know that are things unfavorable for the economy, like an extreme system of government ownership (like the USSR or China of old), right? You do realize that based off of what we know doesn't work well, we can have a reasonable (although not surefire) look at the future and what is likely or not likely to work, right? It is like when you add one and one...you don't need to find two apples to count them...you know that the answer is going to be two. Likewise (although not as black and white as that scenario) academic work is based off our body of knowledge and tries to guide use towards practices that are more favorable than unfavorable. You don't have to actually go through a scenario to know if it would work or not. Acting like you do makes you out to be a bit of an idiot.

Put it this way...if the weather man gave you a clear forecast of bad weather due to a large hurricane system coming your way...should you ignore him? Well, it obviously hasn't happened yet so how the hell can he know? That is literally your line of logic. Maybe, just maybe, we should put a bit more faith in people who have a lot more knowledge and experience than we do AND literally spend their lives working on a subject like the economy. Will they always get things, right? Nope. But you better be damn sure I'mma bring my raincoat.

No one predicted the economic crash, worldwide or countrywide. "Academics" need to eat and will sell whatever puts food on the plate. You can put stock in it, I don't.

Economies are complex but some facts are a given. You can't spend your way into prosperity. 19 trillion in debt and growing is not a good thing. No one can predict what influence or change a Trump presidency might bring. Hillary would be far more predictable, pretty much more of the same. If the "academics" aren't concerned about that then I'll just dismiss them for what they really are.

You take one scenario and base your entire world view upon it...genius. I actually stated that they don't get everything right, like your local weatherman, but that they do get most things correct and serve as the basis of our understanding for our system.

You speak about debt...but anything we know about why a debt is good or bad is based off of information and theories that are generated by economists. Whether or not you realize it you also listen to what they say...you just cherry pick the statements that you like to hear versus trying to digest the larger body of work. It is almost inane that you continue to debate this. Do you also not believe in mathematics? That field was also generated by academics...I mean shit when was the last time we witnessed a phenomena like a perfect sphere in nature? Welp, it hasn't happened so their entire knowledge base must not be worthwhile! If you are going to say you don't like what the academics are saying about the economy...you can't actually mention anything about the economy in retort...since our entire knowledge base comes from them.

You really sound like a total idiot here.

What one scenario did I present? You want to use weathermen getting it wrong as a defense to the "academics" possibly getting it wrong about Trump? Then why make the point in the first place?

Academics created the field of mathematics? Wow. That's deep. But it has what to do with predicting a bunch of economic unknowns about a candidate you don't like? But no, our entire knowledge base isn't provided by "academics". It's hard to find two that agree on everything.

You stated the recent economic recession in 2008 as proof positive that economists don't get things right all the time...a point I actually agreed with and stated myself in an earlier post. However, you use this one case as reason for you to never believe them...something I've been continually saying is absurd and indicating clear reasons why.

I've been trying to use other fields of study to show you how absurd your logic is...if you fail to understand that I'm going to have to assume you have never entered a debate in your life. It is a common tactic to replace a like variable and apply the same logic to show an incorrect or weak logic chain.

You keep saying that "I don't like a candidate" I feel that the difference here is that I'm taking the viewpoints of others, many of which know far more than I ever could, about subjects...digesting their arguments...and then coming to an objective conclusion. You seem to form the basis of your opinion on whether or not you "like" the candidate...and then try to search for reasons why. If I am wrong about this then please point towards the academic work that supports your case and why you have formed your OBJECTIVE opinion about Trump. Because this is exactly what I'm doing here.

If economists would come out and say that Trump looks to far better for the economy than the alternatives, I would be behind him staunchly in that arena. In fact, the work of economists is the reason why I give Trump a lot of credit for trying to better control our flow of low-skilled immigration...specifically the work of Dr. George Borjas, an economist at Harvard. However, immigration is only one slice of the pie and, on the whole, it doesn't look good for Trump unless he changes a lot of things about himself.

It was a rather big one to miss, but no, I didn't offer you, an annoying anonymous individual on the internet my life's observations. I gave a good example, a really really good one to prove "academics" are often about as good as you can throw them.

I don't care if you like it or not.

You didn't give a good example to prove academics aren't worth listening to...you gave an example why you literally search for reasons that work for your world view...but ignore pretty much everything else. Again, any comment about the recession or the economy, whether it is how we got into, what we did to get out of it, whether we are still in one, what we could have done better, etc....ALL comes from academics...yet you still throw those opinions out as if they are verifiable fact. You don't disregard everything academics say, you just disregard what they say when you don't like what you hear.

My point, in pointing out that you have failed to show us reasons why you believe in Trump, is to point out that, as far as we know, you have no reasons to support Trump, other than that you like what you hear. I've provided reasons why I do not support him...it isn't like I went into this election knowing I wouldn't want to vote for Trump...in fact, I went into this election with almost the opposite view...knowing I wouldn't want to vote for Hillary (but we have enough evidence against her to make that an objective rather than an emotion conclusion) and looking heavily at the Republican field to find a candidate to support. I've judged Trump, objectively, since he has had little political involvement before this (other than the birth cert debacle) on what he's said, what he's done, and how he's run his campaign. The conclusion is that he is even worse than Hillary.

Now, again, if you want to provide reasons for why you support Trump rather than just saying that you like him and prancing around acting like evidence to the contrary doesn't work simply because it doesn't sound good...then I cannot stop you...so go ahead. But, at the very least, know that you just make yourself look like an idiot.

 

[Iceweasel]

No one predicted the economic crash, worldwide or countrywide. "Academics" need to eat and will sell whatever puts food on the plate. You can put stock in it, I don't.

Economies are complex but some facts are a given. You can't spend your way into prosperity. 19 trillion in debt and growing is not a good thing. No one can predict what influence or change a Trump presidency might bring. Hillary would be far more predictable, pretty much more of the same. If the "academics" aren't concerned about that then I'll just dismiss them for what they really are.

You take one scenario and base your entire world view upon it...genius. I actually stated that they don't get everything right, like your local weatherman, but that they do get most things correct and serve as the basis of our understanding for our system.

You speak about debt...but anything we know about why a debt is good or bad is based off of information and theories that are generated by economists. Whether or not you realize it you also listen to what they say...you just cherry pick the statements that you like to hear versus trying to digest the larger body of work. It is almost inane that you continue to debate this. Do you also not believe in mathematics? That field was also generated by academics...I mean shit when was the last time we witnessed a phenomena like a perfect sphere in nature? Welp, it hasn't happened so their entire knowledge base must not be worthwhile! If you are going to say you don't like what the academics are saying about the economy...you can't actually mention anything about the economy in retort...since our entire knowledge base comes from them.

You really sound like a total idiot here.

What one scenario did I present? You want to use weathermen getting it wrong as a defense to the "academics" possibly getting it wrong about Trump? Then why make the point in the first place?

Academics created the field of mathematics? Wow. That's deep. But it has what to do with predicting a bunch of economic unknowns about a candidate you don't like? But no, our entire knowledge base isn't provided by "academics". It's hard to find two that agree on everything.

You stated the recent economic recession in 2008 as proof positive that economists don't get things right all the time...a point I actually agreed with and stated myself in an earlier post. However, you use this one case as reason for you to never believe them...something I've been continually saying is absurd and indicating clear reasons why.

I've been trying to use other fields of study to show you how absurd your logic is...if you fail to understand that I'm going to have to assume you have never entered a debate in your life. It is a common tactic to replace a like variable and apply the same logic to show an incorrect or weak logic chain.

You keep saying that "I don't like a candidate" I feel that the difference here is that I'm taking the viewpoints of others, many of which know far more than I ever could, about subjects...digesting their arguments...and then coming to an objective conclusion. You seem to form the basis of your opinion on whether or not you "like" the candidate...and then try to search for reasons why. If I am wrong about this then please point towards the academic work that supports your case and why you have formed your OBJECTIVE opinion about Trump. Because this is exactly what I'm doing here.

If economists would come out and say that Trump looks to far better for the economy than the alternatives, I would be behind him staunchly in that arena. In fact, the work of economists is the reason why I give Trump a lot of credit for trying to better control our flow of low-skilled immigration...specifically the work of Dr. George Borjas, an economist at Harvard. However, immigration is only one slice of the pie and, on the whole, it doesn't look good for Trump unless he changes a lot of things about himself.

It was a rather big one to miss, but no, I didn't offer you, an annoying anonymous individual on the internet my life's observations. I gave a good example, a really really good one to prove "academics" are often about as good as you can throw them.

I don't care if you like it or not.

You didn't give a good example to prove academics aren't worth listening to...you gave an example why you literally search for reasons that work for your world view...but ignore pretty much everything else. Again, any comment about the recession or the economy, whether it is how we got into, what we did to get out of it, whether we are still in one, what we could have done better, etc....ALL comes from academics...yet you still throw those opinions out as if they are verifiable fact. You don't disregard everything academics say, you just disregard what they say when you don't like what you hear.

My point, in pointing out that you have failed to show us reasons why you believe in Trump, is to point out that, as far as we know, you have no reasons to support Trump, other than that you like what you hear. I've provided reasons why I do not support him...it isn't like I went into this election knowing I wouldn't want to vote for Trump...in fact, I went into this election with almost the opposite view...knowing I wouldn't want to vote for Hillary (but we have enough evidence against her to make that an objective rather than an emotion conclusion) and looking heavily at the Republican field to find a candidate to support. I've judged Trump, objectively, since he has had little political involvement before this (other than the birth cert debacle) on what he's said, what he's done, and how he's run his campaign. The conclusion is that he is even worse than Hillary.

Now, again, if you want to provide reasons for why you support Trump rather than just saying that you like him and prancing around acting like evidence to the contrary doesn't work simply because it doesn't sound good...then I cannot stop you...so go ahead. But, at the very least, know that you just make yourself look like an idiot.

See above.