[QUOTE=Chonch;51198930]Nowhere in the article is a default suggested. The last paragraphs actually say the strategy would work, but it wouldn't make much difference on its own. I can't speak to a Trump budget though without not-vague figures, which nobody has given us.[/QUOTE]
Trump didn't explicitly say the word "default", but he absolutely did imply that he would use the threat of default as leverage for renegotiation, even in his 'clarified' plan. I think you and I both know how finicky markets and investors are. The fact that his choice of words was so ambiguous that default can be interpreted or inferred by people versed in finance suggests that he's absolutely incapable of running the country. You don't want to scare off investors accidentally and tank the economy again when we're right on the cusp of another recession.
The last paragraph absolutely does not say that his plan would work. It says there exist a way for him to reissue some debt, but that it wouldn't contribute significantly to the overall debt (that is of course assuming we keep the same deficit trajectory, which all reputable third-party analysts have said would not be the case under any of Trump's tax plans).
You must have missed the part where uncertainties over debt repayment end up hurting consumers as well. Trump's 'plan' will very likely drive up interest rates in a way that hurts consumers as investors try to recoup their losses.
As for Trump's budget, several analyses have already been done. Trump keeps changing his plan because analysts keep demonstrating that his plans are awful. The last time he changed his public platform concerning the budget, he did so damn near at the last minute before the first presidential debate. He's deliberately keeping things vague and difficult to track because he's an idiot, and all that does is bring about more uncertainty for investors, further amplifying the problems listed above.
We've been over all of these things and more for months now. Someone hasn't been paying attention.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;51198490]Debate topics? What's the point, over two debates they've answered like two questions and then on the rest they just spiel on about how great they are or recite some scripted zinger about the other.[/QUOTE]
i don't know what you're talking about, everyone's staying on topic these days. furthermore, i play guitar every day and my favorite color is purple
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51198663]Global Warming/Climate Change is invariably tied with energy policy which was already asked at the last debate. Both of their answers sucked and droning on it won't do anything.[/QUOTE]
Isn't global warming/climate change the topic you care most about tho
Can't wait to see how hard Trump back pedals on immigration/foreign hot spots.
[QUOTE=Cold Blood;51198500]They actually going to go over all these topics or continue to degrade one another?[/QUOTE]
They're going to continue to bicker like 12 year olds. The topic list might as well be all struck out with 'Bicker and cry and moan and insult each other for 90 minutes'.
[QUOTE=cdr248;51199172]Isn't global warming/climate change the topic you care most about tho[/QUOTE]
As in every thread, I have explained that reviving the American nuclear power infrastructure (read: building about 200 reactors en masse) is the only practical option we have to meet both energy demand and carbon emission limits by 2050, which is about as far as climatologists/environmentalists will project before saying the world is doomed by climate change.
Trump spewed bs about coal, Clinton spewed bs about renewables. Both approaches will fail to meet the two goals. I'm doubtful that nuclear power would be brought up this close to election day anyway.
[editline]13th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Firetornado;51198933]No fucking NASA... or climate change[/QUOTE]
As much as I would love to see NASA and space travel be discussed, its not one of the most important issues we have right now. If we have communication/defense satellites failing or international space race to Mars in the term then NASA will be brought to the forefront of politics again.
[QUOTE=Sableye;51198497]fox news, "fair" and """balanced"""*[/QUOTE]
TBH, I would be very surprised if this wasn't the most fair debate of them all. Wallace isn't a fan of Trump. I don't think he's really given any support to either. It won't be like the last debate where the moderator basically tried to argue against Trump.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51198561]Will Trump finally be able to invoke 「[I]THE WALL[/I] 」?[/QUOTE]
If he talks about the wall, he'll basically be signing his death warrant so for the love of God I hope he does.
[QUOTE=meharryp;51198489]Why does there need to be a 15 minute discussion on this lol[/QUOTE]
Crooked Hillary doesn't have the stamina to be president, don't you know? These are the facts that matter more to people than Climate Change!
[url]http://www.thisisinsider.com/debate-climate-change-trump-clintonn-2016-9[/url]
[QUOTE]
[B]Debate moderators say climate questions don’t make good TV[/B]
Four years ago, CNN's Candy Crowley had the perfect opportunity to ask President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney what they would do about climate change. An audience question on gas prices sparked a heated debate about energy policy and oil drilling. But when neither candidate mentioned global warming, Crowley quickly moved on.
[...]
Los Angeles Times columnist Doyle McManus, who moderated primary debates in 2000 and 2008, said: The second big goal, to put it as crassly as possible, is to produce a good television show. Climate, apparently, gets poor ratings — a conclusion you can also draw from the scant amount of coverage it receives on thenightly network news.
It doesn't grab viewers the same way other stuff does: bombing in New York, terror, immigration, says Tom Fahey, a former New Hampshire Union Leader reporter who worked two presidential primary debates. I'm just talking about Joe Sixpack.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=phaedon;51198611]Question to native speakers, does 'fitness' in this context exclusively translate to "the other candidate is physically/mentally unfit to be POTUS-- she doesn't have the STAMINAH!" or can it be a broader discussion about each candidate's personality?[/QUOTE]
in this election, both
[QUOTE=sgman91;51200331]TBH, I would be very surprised if this wasn't the most fair debate of them all. Wallace isn't a fan of Trump. I don't think he's really given any support to either. It won't be like the last debate where the moderator basically tried to argue against Trump.[/QUOTE]
When a candidate lies on stage, it's up to the moderator to call them on it. Live fact checking is how it should be done.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51201017]When a candidate lies on stage, it's up to the moderator to call them on it. Live fact checking is how it should be done.[/QUOTE]
No, this will waste time. Candidates will start arguing with the moderators and I doubt undecided voters even care.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51199507]international space race to Mars[/QUOTE]
It's not international yet as far as I'm aware, but [url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-04/boeing-ceo-vows-to-beat-musk-to-mars-as-new-space-race-beckons]a space race to Mars is in fact beginning[/url] (warning: autoplaying video).
[QUOTE=archangel125;51201017]When a candidate lies on stage, it's up to the moderator to call them on it. Live fact checking is how it should be done.[/QUOTE]
"Live fact checking" is showing a number that is 100% false or pointing out a misquote. It is not providing a different opinion about a situation or giving an alternate possibility, especially by interrupting the candidate every 5 seconds. The moderator did the latter.
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;51200454]Crooked Hillary doesn't have the stamina to be president, don't you know? These are the facts that matter more to people than Climate Change!
[url]http://www.thisisinsider.com/debate-climate-change-trump-clintonn-2016-9[/url][/QUOTE]
Wow that's shitty. Who needs to discuss the future of Earth? That's boring.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51198930]Nowhere in the article is a default suggested. The last paragraphs actually say the strategy would work, but it wouldn't make much difference on its own. I can't speak to a [B]Trump budget though without not-vague figures, which nobody has given us[/B].[/QUOTE]
Including Trump himself. However, you don't need a Master's in economics to understand that you can't RAISE spending while LOWERING TAXES and somehow [I]decrease[/I] national debt. If it helps, though, countless people who do have Master's have already confirmed as much.
Trump's financial plans for the country are impossible. Like everything else out of his mouth, they are the result of demagoguery and hollow rhetoric, with no basis in reality.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.