Is Texas reshifting to the right again? (vs, homeless)

[Raider Scott]

We need more choices.


The two party system IS the problem.

[As Above So Below...]

Originally Posted by ParaguaneroSwag

The Republican Party is more hypocrite on economic issues. The Democratic party is more hypocrite on social issues.

The Democratic party claims to be the party of the people. And while they are actively more involved on infrastructure, the areas with money get the vastly higher proportion (something they like to roast Republicans for).

The Republican Party preaches low tax, regulation free economics but only when it fits the Anglo American conservative ideologies. They’re the first to cry and find it “unconstitutional” when Dick’s, a private company decided to pull guns off their shelves (which by the way, they still sell under their Field & Stream brand, they played y’all). First to complain when Police, Fire department, or military spending lowers (or doesn’t rise as much as they’d like) yet are the ones who claim to enjoy low taxes and government spending.

Human nature does it’s work in politics.

Originally Posted by Raider Scott

We need more choices.


The two party system IS the problem.

And this I agree with.

I honestly dont see myself voting for either party in national elections again.

[Dopo]

Originally Posted by Raider Scott

We need more choices.
The two party system IS the problem.

This is the type of thing I support


Opening the Presidential Debates

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is a partnership between three Democrats and three Republicans. They initiate the rules on the most important conversations political candidates have with the American people.

Federal election law requires the CPD to be nonpartisan and use “objective criteria” to determine who can be in their debates.

However, the CPD has made it impossible for independent and third party candidates to be included on the debate stage by changing the rules to serve their private purpose of advancing partisan candidates.

One example of this is the “15% rule” which requires candidates outside the major parties to poll at 15% in national polls that are handpicked by the CPD just seven weeks before Election Day. Independent and third party candidates are often left out of public polling and media coverage, thus making it impossible for them to acquire the name recognition needed to meet the polling threshold.

[Raider Scott]

Originally Posted by Dopo

This is the type of thing I support


Opening the Presidential Debates

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is a partnership between three Democrats and three Republicans. They initiate the rules on the most important conversations political candidates have with the American people.

Federal election law requires the CPD to be nonpartisan and use “objective criteria” to determine who can be in their debates.

However, the CPD has made it impossible for independent and third party candidates to be included on the debate stage by changing the rules to serve their private purpose of advancing partisan candidates.

One example of this is the “15% rule” which requires candidates outside the major parties to poll at 15% in national polls that are handpicked by the CPD just seven weeks before Election Day. Independent and third party candidates are often left out of public polling and media coverage, thus making it impossible for them to acquire the name recognition needed to meet the polling threshold.

Yes, but did you notice that the last few election cycles had us with 15-18 candidates for the two parties and most of those candidates were carbon copies of each other.


Was there an ounce of difference in most of the GOP candidates? Not really. Ditto for the Democrats....all saying the same things and supporting the same policies.


Where IS the choice, really? I don't think there is one.



I also dislike seeing people that have hung around DC for decades getting the nomination as well as family dynasties like the Kennedys, Clintons and Bushes. The inside cronyism is the most unappealing part of all of this process.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by As Above So Below...

And this I agree with.

I honestly dont see myself voting for either party in national elections again.

Per the former you are agreeing with a guy who makes things up - per economics - as he goes. It's creepy, weird and sad.

[ParaguaneroSwag]

Originally Posted by EDS_

Per the former you are agreeing with a guy who makes things up - per economics - as he goes. It's creepy, weird and sad.

Imagine still being salty about being wrong days later on an Internet forum.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by ParaguaneroSwag

Imagine still being salty about being wrong days later on an Internet forum.

Been waiting for an rGDP reference for days.......you were and are lying. Further, no one with a functioning brainstem who reads your several lines of nonsense above would believe you.......that's all that really matters.

This isn't an econ. classroom, people should have a lot leeway......that ends when people like you make things up and go full-throttle-child when caught.

I'm out of this thread but you ID'd yourself a full on poser and fraud................rGDP, can't read % change vs. $ change graphs, does not know that year to year change demonstrates rate of change etc. Thanks for the laughs.

FWIIW this isn't just about you......I dislike it when people play games with economics.

[ParaguaneroSwag]

Originally Posted by EDS_

Fail.


https://www.statista.com/statistics/...tes-1930-2019/

Originally Posted by ParaguaneroSwag

Real GDP isn’t a calculator of prosperity. It’s consistently going to be higher overtime unless some major apocalypse forms. A better statistic (though still not perfect) would be rGDP growth.

Not that I agree with the post you were responding to, but this doesn’t prove otherwise.

Originally Posted by EDS_

Are you trying to be funny?.......the chart shows Real GDP growth.

All this due to a post that posted annual Real GDP (since this term seems more attractive to you) rather than growth. After a few "partying" and "I'm qualified" emotional posts without any factual backing, you managed to change your claim from "that chart shows growth" to "you can calculate them and the results would be identical". Effectively, you either realized you posted the wrong thing accidentally or you learned something new. Regardless, you posted post after post changing your stance. Which was already mentioned in this post.

Originally Posted by ParaguaneroSwag

No. The chart lists annual real GDP. Not rGDP growth. If it showed rGDP growth, you’d see a handful of negative years (2020, 2008, etc). You can this on your own with the given data, but that’s not what is shown. And once again, the rGDP of the 20s 30s, 40s, 50s, etc are a shell of what todays rGDP is but this doesn’t signify exonomic growth. That would be determined by marginal change year to year.

As for the Real GDP claim being the fourth or fifth thing you're mad about, all you need to do is a simple google search to see it is used in acronyms occasionally. I could be wrong, but if I recall, you have children that are students, therefore our college years are in completely different eras (mine being more recent). If you want to see this used in a textbook, go ahead and pay the 20-30 dollars on the FlatWorld website to view their Macroeconomics textbook where rgdp is used as a shortened acronym where it gets shortened. This thing known as the internet age happened and internet acronyms are now commonly used. It wasn't what was originally pointed out in the first place and seems you're arguing just to argue.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/at...s-nominal-gdp/

Through all this, none of this is a reason to be upset in the first place (it wasn't a reason to begin with), no ones goal is to get under your skin. You posted something, there was a flaw in the data, and it was pointed out.

[As Above So Below...]

Originally Posted by EDS_

Per the former you are agreeing with a guy who makes things up - per economics - as he goes. It's creepy, weird and sad.

Sort your differences amongst yourself. I don’t care.

I do agree that both parties suck.

[supfromthesite]

Originally Posted by ParaguaneroSwag

The Republican Party is more hypocrite on economic issues. The Democratic party is more hypocrite on social issues.

The Democratic party claims to be the party of the people. And while they are actively more involved on infrastructure, the areas with money get the vastly higher proportion (something they like to roast Republicans for).

The Republican Party preaches low tax, regulation free economics but only when it fits the Anglo American conservative ideologies. They’re the first to cry and find it “unconstitutional” when Dick’s, a private company decided to pull guns off their shelves (which by the way, they still sell under their Field & Stream brand, they played y’all). First to complain when Police, Fire department, or military spending lowers (or doesn’t rise as much as they’d like) yet are the ones who claim to enjoy low taxes and government spending.

Human nature does it’s work in politics.

I am a libertarian, sort of. I generally support people's right to do whatever they want. Businesses should be able to sell to or sell whatever items they want. If Dicks did in fact stop selling guns then I find that in incredibly lame. Are people that support the free market not allowed to have opinions about businesses? Of course they are, that is the entire purpose of the free market. If republicans or libertarians or even democrats decide to quit shopping somewhere for some reason and shop somewhere else we should be happy about this because it is the free market working how it is intended.