Presidential election, 2016

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-12-2017, 05:46 PM)taramarie Wrote: If an argument cannot be won probably best to drop it. Ugh with the pointless bickering. Probably does not matter what someone thinks if they are not important in your life.

Lots of common sense in that, especially from a Feeler's point of view.  Thing is, this place is loaded with extreme partisans.  An extreme partisan almost has to promote his world view and values and it is nearly impossible to significantly change the world views and values of an extreme partisan.  A feeler may not be able to get how important it can be for some thinkers to defend their system of thought.

Now, I've long since given up on convincing Eric of the low value of using astrology to acquire objective facts.  I barely even tried to convince the fundamentalist that the Bible was not Absolute Truth.  Such efforts would qualify as Mission Impossible attempts at moving immovable objects.  However, to an occultist or a fundamentalist, such discussions are anything but pointless.  These are near the core of their being.  If part of what we're doing here is arguing the merits of our world views, if we drop arguments that go no where, that defeats the purpose of much of the conversation that goes on here.  Thinkers gotta bump thoughts against each other.  Think of us as like rams during rutting season.  That's what we do.

There are multiple believers in borrow and spend trickle down here.  Belief in borrow and spend trickle down is in many respects no different from belief in the Bible or the Stars.  As with many types of world views, the believer will have unshakable pillars and blind spots.  Under my scheme of understanding how humans think, arguments involving borrow and spend trickle down and the opposing blue economics schemes might well be unresolvable, and they aren't going to go away.  They are at the core of the red / blue clash.  This clash has been going on since before there have been T4T web forums, and shows no sign of abating.  Warren has spent a lot of time researching his perspective, and can defend it as well as the fundamentalist could defend prejudice against homosexuals.  He is putting new twists in the tornado, which might or might not benefit from more twists.

I'm for the most part backing out of the economic discussion, in part from the wisdom you expressed above.  Mikebert can work the hard math aspect far better than I.  There are lots of other blue folk taking up the discussion at the more intuitive level.  I've not much to add, though I don't want it forgotten that excessive supply side stimulus can lead to bubbles and financial collapses.

Granted, the latest example involving my supposed feeling based perspective is pointless bickering, but if one is clashing on central principle things are apt to leak over into the silly stuff.

Meanwhile, the discussion is giving me an excuse to review my angle on world views, as if I need an excuse...