Elections Gary Johnson at 12% (3% away from debates), potential game changer

[kpt018]

Here is what you don't get. GJ believe what the fuck he says.

You support a known liar, that is for sale to the highest bidder.

Set up whatever strawman you need here, but it won't work.

My choice is an honest man, or known fucking liars.

Take your ideology and shove it up your ass.

I'm sorry, but you actually have no idea what GJ really thinks. Personally, I am highly skeptical of people who support bad policies out of principles. Besides, who cares if he is honest if his policies would lead to ruin?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah I have 2. First your ridiculous claim that I announced I was about to lie. Second your claim you didn't post in the WR prior to 2011.

I did not post in the WR before 2011. You're straight up lying about that because you have no honor or sense of decency. And I said that you practically declared that you were about to lie with that "hardball comment" and the hints that other nutters would take your word over mine. Note that in your hilarious thread, no one (seriously) backed you up. You just have one guy--who is as dishonest as you--saying that he doesn't remember me posting before that time but I could have. You're making the sig you're going to have to sport soon worse.

 

[Greoric]

I'm sorry, but you actually have no idea what GJ really thinks. Personally, I am highly skeptical of people who support bad policies out of principles. Besides, who cares if he is honest if his policies would lead to ruin?

That's a fair point. Policy and results are the end factor.

I also disagree with how soft he is on his stances, but he's still the most moral candidate because he's willing to allow other means besides violence to solve society's problems both domestically and abroad. I can appreciate that stance.

I think we've all had enough of the psychopaths waving their guns around ordering people to do things they declare as moral. Right?

 

[Fawlty]

This thread is on archive-worthy watch.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

This thread is on archive-worthy watch.

When you get a chance google his old screen name pimptight. He's been on other forums with some awesome threads.

 

[Fawlty]

When you get a chance google his old screen name pimptight. He's been on other forums with some awesome threads.

I remember that account being sometimes hilarious and sometimes disturbing. Seems about right lol.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I did not post in the WR before 2011. You're straight up lying about that because you have no honor or sense of decency. And I said that you practically declared that you were about to lie with that "hardball comment" and the hints that other nutters would take your word over mine. Note that in your hilarious thread, no one (seriously) backed you up. You just have one guy--who is as dishonest as you--saying that he doesn't remember me posting before that time but I could have. You're making the sig you're going to have to sport soon worse.

Fuck your Sig.

You asked, and I provided the examples.

I didn't ask for your dog gone commentary.

 

[Byron Carter]

Democrats would love this.

Less time for Hillary to talk (and lie) and look foolish.

 

[Greoric]

This is really remarkable. I'm explaining how you weaseled out of our bet. You change the subject and ask some unrelated questions. I answer them. You snip the answer and accuse *me* of dodging.

Of course you're dodging. That's your MO. @Madmick and @HendoRuaGOAT among a slew of other posters have both called you out on your slithering. I've been asking the same question for the entire thread.

That's OK. I accept your concession to our bet.

And, again, if the rates are lower than the market is calling for, we'll see rising inflation. If they're higher than the market is calling for, we'll see slow growth and low inflation. You have never been able to acknowledge that very simple point.

They're lower because the Fed reacted to the GFC you nut. Yield spreads were spiking because we were in a financial crisis! Why don't you just ruck up and admit you're a monetary price fixer and interventionist?

Also that explanation has been bullshit for four decades now with stagflation in the 70's. Or would you like to make up another anti fact to counter that?

 

[kpt018]

That's a fair point. Policy and results are the end factor.

Indeed.

I also disagree with how soft he is on his stances, but he's still the most moral candidate because he's willing to allow other means besides violence to solve society's problems both domestically and abroad. I can appreciate that stance.

I think it depends on the position. If we are talking about his stance on legalization of drugs and keeping non-violent offenders from going to jails do like his positions here and agree they are the moral ones. I am not a fan of his foreign policy general position of isolationism. I don't want to get off topic here, but I don't think there is anything immoral (in fact it is moral) in killing terrorists who openly state their goals are to kill infidels. I think what happens here with candidates is they actually get into office and gather all the intelligence and meet with military officials and find out that pulling out of certain regions is a horrible idea. Again, I'm going off topic here but on this issue I am somewhat right of a lot of liberals.

I think we've all had enough of the psychopaths waving their guns around ordering people to do things they declare as moral. Right?

Yeah, we can definitely agree on that!

 

[Jack V Savage]

Of course you're dodging. That's your MO. @Madmick and @HendoRuaGOAT among a slew of other posters have both called you out on your slithering. I've been asking the same question for the entire thread.

That's OK. I accept your concession to our bet.

You asked to back out and I let you. You also indicated that you literally did not even know what GDP was.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Fuck your Sig.

You asked, and I provided the examples.

I didn't ask for your dog gone commentary.

Both of the examples you provided were lies, though, right?

 

[Greoric]

I think it depends on the position. If we are talking about his stance on legalization of drugs and keeping non-violent offenders from going to jails do like his positions here and agree they are the moral ones. I am not a fan of his foreign policy general position of isolationism. I don't want to get off topic here, but I don't think there is anything immoral (in fact it is moral) in killing terrorists who openly state their goals are to kill infidels. I think what happens here with candidates is they actually get into office and gather all the intelligence and meet with military officials and find out that pulling out of certain regions is a horrible idea. Again, I'm going off topic here but on this issue I am somewhat right of a lot of liberals.

Well you mean non-interventionism as opposed to isolationism, right? Isolationism includes a lack of trade. As in the country is isolated in every way. He just doesn't want to intervene. GJ is certainly about prosperity of trade.

As far as killing terrorists goes, don't get me wrong. I'm all about shooting psychopaths in the face when they turn violent. But we've only demonstrated that winning as a counter insurgency over there is a failed objective especially for the amount of resources we would have to pour in to make that happen. They've only become stronger since we've involved ourselves in the 80s.

Also keep in mind I'm not about compelling people to pay for something they're morally against, which is exactly what we're doing with our tax base by funding overseas military operations.

 

[Greoric]

You asked to back out and I let you. You also indicated that you literally did not even know what GDP was.

Oh is that what I indicated? Kind of like how you admitted you didn't know what an interest rate was? Or which way the slope of a supply curve runs?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Oh is that what I indicated? Kind of like how you admitted you didn't know what an interest rate was? Or which way the slope of a supply curve runs?

No, because your examples are false, while my claim is true. You said this:

"But no, if GDP goes negative there is on net a destruction of capital. We've never seen that, and short of a catastrophic natural disaster we won't."

QED.

 

[Greoric]

No, because your examples are false, while my claim is true. You said this:

"But no, if GDP goes negative there is on net a destruction of capital. We've never seen that, and short of a catastrophic natural disaster we won't."

QED.

Yeah, what's wrong with that? If the GDP goes into the red, not just reduced YoY, that means there's a net destruction of capital.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah, what's wrong with that? If the GDP goes into the red, not just reduced YoY, that means there's a net destruction of capital.

No it doesn't. And, FYI, it has happened before (2008, most recently).

GDP is consumption + government spending + investment (in an economic sense) + net exports. It's a measure of flow, not of stock.

Crazy that you talk so much about this kind of thing without even knowing that. It's like someone talking about MMA and not knowing what a submission is.

 

[Greoric]

No it doesn't. And, FYI, it has happened before (2008, most recently).

GDP is consumption + government spending + investment (in an economic sense) + net exports. It's a measure of flow, not of stock.

Crazy that you talk so much about this kind of thing without even knowing that. It's like someone talking about MMA and not knowing what a submission is.

It didn't go negative in '08. The figure was still positive.... unless you mean the rate?

You did mean rate didn't you? Hah. Jack you just fucked up your shtick really bad here pal.

I formally accept your concession of our bet.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It didn't go negative in '08. The figure was still positive.... unless you mean the rate?

You did mean rate didn't you? Hah. Jack you just fucked up your shtick really bad here pal.

I formally accept your concession of our bet.

Dude, you really don't know what you're talking about. GDP itself cannot go negative. Yes, the growth rate was negative in 2008. We bet on whether it would go negative in 2015, and I won, but you weaseled out, pretending that you were only saying that the rate would be *lower* in 2015 than it had been in 2014, NOT that it would be *negative* which is what we actually bet on and you lost. Remember, you were predicting the biggest crash ever, and you're still insisting that the numbers are wrong, right?

This is what you accepted:

"OK. So I have your sig for a year and you have to start a thread on why I was right if by Dec. 31 2015, there has been no additional QE in America and if the end-of-February 2016 Q4 2015 GDP estimate is higher than the end-of-February 2015 estimate of Q4 2014 GDP? ... And if there has been additional QE or the YOY Q4 GDP is negative, you have my sig for a year and I start a thread on why you were right."

Who won the bet? Be honest.

And when are you going to admit that your call of some huge crash (and thus your underlying understanding of the economy) was wrong? It's been funny watching you celebrate every downward move in an overall up market without ever acknowledging when they reverse.

 

[Greoric]

Dude, you really don't know what you're talking about. GDP itself cannot go negative. Yes, the growth rate was negative in 2008.

So then you've just confused GDP for GDP growth rate, when we've already parsed the two in the same thread? Good to know.

I accept your concession.