Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (democratic socialist) wins NY primary

[babe]

For what is supposedly such an earth-shaking win, I had never heard of her opponent before. And I generally pay pretty close attention to American politics.

This person is likely to be the Left's version of Dave Brat. Kind of an interesting curiosity, but someone without much gas.

Don't diss something nobody saw coming.

I think she'd win in my precinct...…

Mia Love has her intellectual sophistication, but we love Mia. The Utah Rino R caste.... LDS interests, Rio Tinto interests, military interests, chamber of commerce, etc. begged Paul Ryan to teach her how to be a good R.

Surely the DNC could get Pelosi to teach her how to be good, too.

Anybody who seriously believes she even knows what democratic socialism is should research it a bit.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

That is an issue, both parties don't have great economic strategies anymore from what I see. But I'm still more conservative in general in my preferences but I don't mean that in terms of liberal vs conservatives. I mean that just in general economics terms of conservative.

I'd agree that neither party has a great economic strategy, and I think their stated strategy is different than what happens when they take power.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

It's a long rambling post. My best babe impression I guess. I said I would watch a couple videos on Shapiro, so y'all got my non stop thoughts live while watching it. Prolly should have edited, but that seems like a bigger waste of time.

I understood what you meant, just found it too much at a distance or ambiguous, which was a fair response given the two rehashing the time old debate over supply vs. demand fostering healthy markets and increased living standards. Those two did it in the dumbest, most basic ways possible. Neither advanced anything about equilibrium, collaborative capitalism, or the various reasons markets are unable to clear in an imperfect world. There was nothing on sticky wages, prices or costs. Nothing about deficit spending or the Keynesian cross (Cenk made an incorrect statement on tax and spend and Shapiro should have pounced with some Mankiw). Nothing about policy responding differently to different market environments. Nothing about total tax burden or benefit.

As far as Shapiro's alleged fallacy, that was a fair response IMO to Cenk's own fallacy. Cenk attempted to link high growth with high taxation and inferred causation through correlation. This is a well abused tactic by pundits from both sides. Cenk said nothing of baby boom, post depression, or the ensuing stagflation that was caused by excessive government social program spending funded by debt and combined with policy fueled by a modern leftist's wet dreams.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

I'd agree that neither party has a great economic strategy, and I think their stated strategy is different than what happens when they take power.

Policy campaigning and what they actually enact tend to be strangely opposite. I.E. where the hell were all the balanced budget Republicans during passage of the TCJA atrocity? They all but vanished into the woods at a time when they could have actually achieved debt reduction or neutralization while growth decreases the ratio without hurting the economy.

 

[candrew]

As far as Shapiro's alleged fallacy, that was a fair response IMO to Cenk's own fallacy. Cenk attempted to link high growth with high taxation and inferred causation through correlation. This is a well abused tactic by pundits from both sides. Cenk said nothing of baby boom, post depression, or the ensuing stagflation that was caused by excessive government social program spending funded by debt and combined with policy fueled by a modern leftist's wet dreams.

The context in which I've always heard Cenk's argument is that high tax rates do not necessarily impede high growth. Not that they're linked in that high tax rates result in high growth. I'd think Shapiro knew better - but decided to play to the crowd and create a straw man argument.

 

[Ron Mexico]

The context in which I've always heard Cenk's argument is that high tax rates do not necessarily impede high growth. Not that they're linked in that high tax rates result in high growth. I'd think Shapiro knew better - but decided to play to the crowd and create a straw man argument.

That's what I thought he was trying to say but he was struggling to make a point.

 

[Ron Mexico]

I understood what you meant, just found it too much at a distance or ambiguous, which was a fair response given the two rehashing the time old debate over supply vs. demand fostering healthy markets and increased living standards. Those two did it in the dumbest, most basic ways possible. Neither advanced anything about equilibrium, collaborative capitalism, or the various reasons markets are unable to clear in an imperfect world. There was nothing on sticky wages, prices or costs. Nothing about deficit spending or the Keynesian cross (Cenk made an incorrect statement on tax and spend and Shapiro should have pounced with some Mankiw). Nothing about policy responding differently to different market environments. Nothing about total tax burden or benefit.

As far as Shapiro's alleged fallacy, that was a fair response IMO to Cenk's own fallacy. Cenk attempted to link high growth with high taxation and inferred causation through correlation. This is a well abused tactic by pundits from both sides. Cenk said nothing of baby boom, post depression, or the ensuing stagflation that was caused by excessive government social program spending funded by debt and combined with policy fueled by a modern leftist's wet dreams.

I was trying to avoid talking about the debated issues specifically because I knew the conversation would turn into discussing those issues.

I haven't listened to Shapiro and have heard he was smart. I don't really care about what Cenk was saying or his debating skills. But it was very obvious to me that Shapiro is smart and a quick thinker but just uses silly tactics to convince the crowd and confuse his opponent. Almost every argument he made was a logical fallacy. But he used those on purpose because they work against most people and they work on a crowd.

The actual discussion of economics sucked. I'm no expert in that but clearly neither of them are either. That rarely leads to a good debate. I'm guessing you know more about that than either of them.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

The context in which I've always heard Cenk's argument is that high tax rates do not necessarily impede high growth. Not that they're linked in that high tax rates result in high growth. I'd think Shapiro knew better - but decided to play to the crowd and create a straw man argument.

Thanks for clarifying, I suppose. Maybe I'll give some of his show a shot. I haven't been able to stand what I've seen thus far. It's too grating or pompous in my view.

 

[candrew]

Thanks for clarifying, I suppose. Maybe I'll give some of his show a shot. I haven't been able to stand what I've seen thus far. It's too grating or pompous in my view.

I like Cenk. Whether or not you agree with him I'm pretty confident he believes in what he says and his heart is in the right place. Some of the regulars on his TYT show are downright obnoxious so I'm not an avid follower.

I listened to Shapiro on The Joe Rogan show and I have to admit he says some things that make sense - I certainly prefer him to the other conservative pundits but that's not much to brag about.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Yet people in medical school can get student loans to cover pretty much anything based on the likelihood they will end up a doctor. They have loans practically thrown at them. Not having money is not as big of a road block to becoming a doctor as you make it sound.

Don't you think I have a better perspective on this than you do?

Once you pass a certain point, you are financially guaranteed to be fine, other than the years it will take to pay off those loans, which seems high but is really easier to pay off than most other degrees.

This isn't what I'm talking about.

If you can get to medical school with decent grades, you are set. If you in particular are not, then you haven't tried.

Lmao.

Across the continent, schools are moving away from grade-specific evaluations of students, instead valuing extra-curriculars heavily alongside good degree marks and standardized testing marks.

Guess who doesn't have the money to write the MCAT multiple times, take MCAT-prep courses (which cost in the multiple thousands), take unpaid internships in other cities/countries, or pursue large community/volunteering commitments due to financial insecurity?

Poor people. If economics weren't a constraint for successful medical school applicants, then why is med filled with rich people? If it's not them descending from wealth, what's the reason? Because rich people are smarter? If that's your argument, I invite you to present evidence indicating that.

 

[Siro]

Don't you think I have a better perspective on this than you do?



This isn't what I'm talking about.



Lmao.

Across the continent, schools are moving away from grade-specific evaluations of students, instead valuing extra-curriculars heavily alongside good degree marks and standardized testing marks.

Guess who doesn't have the money to write the MCAT multiple times, take MCAT-prep courses (which cost in the multiple thousands), take unpaid internships in other cities/countries, or pursue large community/volunteering commitments due to financial insecurity?

Poor people. If economics weren't a constraint for successful medical school applicants, then why is med filled with rich people? If it's not them descending from wealth, what's the reason? Because rich people are smarter? If that's your argument, I invite you to present evidence indicating that.

Completely off topic, but I'm not so sure of the wisdom of getting away from testing. I've heard a lot of people over the past decade poopooing testing as an evaluation tool. I understand the objections, but I think consequential testing is essential to the process of retaining information, since delayed recollection is a tried and true method for memory retention. And it is understood from a neurological perspective. Maybe a change of perspective on testing is needed, but I don't think such a powerful tool should be marginalized.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Oh...now experience and perspective matter for Dala?

I remember when he told me he understood farming like I do because his grandparents had a 10 acre farm or some **** decades ago.

Lol.

Have you decided that GMO’s are ok yet btw? Or are you still clinging to the idea they’re mad for you?