Forestluv

Moderator
  • Content count

    11,687
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Forestluv

  • Rank
    - - -
  • Birthday 12/31/1969

Personal Information

  • Location
    Michigan
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

21,268 profile views
  1. I'd prefer a socialist/capitalist hybrid system similar to the Nordic model. This would be progress for the U.S. Yet I know the bigger picture and I'm not an expert in the details of how that system would be engineered. Other systems like Resource-Based economy has been proposed, yet I think this is too far advanced for where we are now. This is a Tier 2 level and most humans are at red-orange. For example, the majority of humans want to use technology for war and profits - not for sustainability and efficient communication in a holistic system. We need to evolve through Orange and Green first which is a socialist/capitalist hybrid system from my pov
  2. I'm not an economist and don't know specific numbers. Yet wealth in the U.S. has become hyper-concentrated and is causing serious problems. Concentration of money is concentration of power and it becomes toxic. And unregulated toxic capitalism becomes more and more concentrated in a hyper competitive, profits first system. There is no variable in capitalism to prevent this. The exploitation and destruction of the earth's resources and societies will get worse and worse. I think having spoonfuls of capitalism is healthy and can promote progress, yet too much is toxic. Kinda like adding curry powder to a dish of tikka masala. A couple table spoons spices it up, yet adding a couple cups of curry spice to a dish would make it grotesque and inedible.
  3. @holderofhands That is a combined effective rate on the wealthy, not a statutory rate. The combined effective rate would be more like 50%, which isn't a major increase. Trump/GOP did large tax reductions / exemptions for the wealthy. I'd be in favor of rolling back those reductions, yet it's also important were the money goes. If the increased governmental revenue goes to increasing the military budget and warmongering, I'd be against it. If the money goes to improving schools and health care, I'm for it. For example, when there is a covid vaccine to make it free for everyone. As well, I'd like to see actual tax codes enforced. Money is power and money has become so concentrated in the uber wealthy that they have so much power they are essentially writing tax policy and evading taxes without consequence. The framing of "If we increase taxes on the rich, the rich will be disincentivized and may leave the U.S." is a framing of plutocrats. We are not talking about high tax rates for someone making $100,000 or less a year. In this zone, yes, making more money is incentive to work hard and be more productive. Yet once we get into people earning and accumulating 100s of millions and billions of dollars - the dynamics changes. This form is incentive to make even more billions of dollars is toxic. It becomes extreme greed and involves exploitation of others to keep increasing profits. That is toxic capitalism.
  4. What is perceived as a 'crime' is relative. In a polarized mindset, all 'crimes' against the other side are justified and good - especially a red/blue mindset since they lack self reflection. Trump's tax evasion and impeachment has increased his status with his base. And MAGA gleefully chants "Lock them up" against their perceived enemies for imagined 'crimes'. On the flip side, Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for his populism. His imprisonment helped elevate him to social hero status and he became a beloved president of South Africa. Yet for Trump. . . I think if he got convicted and did any prison time it would be seen as a stain by the majority of Americans (yet the 30% of MAGA would likely idolize him even more).
  5. In terms of psychology, people don't like to be associated with losing. Imagine a city's sports team had a 90% chance of losing the game. How many fans are going to show up to the game? Not many. Yet I also don't think suggesting a blowout win for Trump is good for driving up Republican turnout. If we are fabricating data here and bullshitting our audience, I would tell them we are up a few points and need to turnout in force to help Trump win. Similar to telling our sportfans that we are slight favorites - yet we need to pack the stadium and makes lots of noise to help our team. Telling their audience Trump has a 91% chance of winning, likely calms down some jitters that Trump is a big underdog. Yet unfortunately, it plays into the narrative that Trump is a lock and the only way he could lose as by Democrat election fraud. There are a lot of Trumpers that think there is no fair way that Trump could lose. This makes it more difficult to have a smooth transition of power.
  6. I do respect a prognosticator that comes out early as Stantic did. That is much riskier than waiting to late October. Yet is month-old prediction is already wrong: "“It is maybe early, but I can tell you that the trend we identified in advance last time is holding.” It's not holding. Biden's lead has significantly increased by 3% in the polling aggregate since Stantic released his prediction. Stantic's decisive state is Minnesota for Trump?! Really? Trump gave up on Minnesota months ago and Biden is up 9.1% in the polling aggregate. It isn't a swing state and even Trump's team has conceded it. Flipping Minnesota alone would flip Stantic's model to a Biden victory.
  7. 4 of those 6 were clear predictions by polls and relatively easy calls. How does he do in presidential elections in which his model chooses a 10pt underdog? My hunch is he is 0-0 and about to be 0-1. There are many ways to spin odds. Be careful in Vegas. . .
  8. Last comment on this thread was over 4 years ago. Please be mindful about bumping old threads.
  9. The possibilities in the thread were based upon extensive empirical data, so it’s not fair to call them biased - unless you consider the data from dozens of polling agencies, including republican, to all be biased in a conspiracy against Trump. The alternatives you chose are possible, yet unlikely based on empirical data and modeling.
  10. This guy is a hack. He doesn’t include polls in his “model” because he says the polls failed in 2016 and that 2020 is a carbon copy. This is willfully ignorant - the 2020 polling dynamics are very different than in 2016. In 2016, Hilary and Trump went back and forth over the campaign. On Election Day, Hilary had a slight lead and some forecasters like 538 showed considerable chances of a Trump win. In 2020 Biden has the largest, most consistent lead in modern presidential elections. Clinton wasn’t even close.
  11. AOC doesn’t like Trudeau. AOC likes Singh. You seem to want to place AOC and Biden close together. The left isn’t a monolithic group. The left is a spectrum with a range of different groups: anarchist communes, socialists, democratic socialists, neoliberals etc. There is a reason AOC won’t endorse Biden - because he is very far away from her ideologically. And you are listing right-wing gaffes of AOC. That is not the measure of intelligence. Have you watched any of her extended 30min+ interviews or congressional hearings? Those go deeper and are a better measure of intellect. And it is totally normal for a green level politician to say no to a blue level pundit. She is TWO conscious levels higher than Ben and she has a higher platform. It makes no sense for her to compromise her integrity. Just like it’s totally reasonable to say no to a QAnon spokesperson or a flat-earther. And Ben would not “embarrass her”. Stage blue does not embarrass a solid stage green. That would be like saying an algebra student would embarrass a calculus professor. The only people who would think AOC got embarrassed would be stage blue people.
  12. Trump often thinks out loud, so he may be thinking about leaving. Or it may have just popped in his head in that moment. Kinda like him talking about injecting disinfectant. Hard to tell how serious he is.
  13. Have you watched extended interviews and court hearings of AOC? She has an intellect. She is sharp. Biden and AOC are very far apart. They would be in different parties in countries with multi-party systems. For example, AOC is much closer aligned to the NDP in Canada. She is would be in the same NDP as Singh. Biden would be more aligned with Trudeau, although Biden is still further right. A recent poll showed a strong majority of those in the canadien Conservative party would choose Biden over Trump. So Biden is a 1.5 parties away from AOC in Canada. In terms of SD, AOC is solid Green and Biden is Orange (with some sympathy for Green). AOC even refuses to endorse Biden.
  14. Needing to flip a one close state with a recount is a very different dynamic than needing to flip multiple close states. Al Gore refused to concede because he just needed Florida to win. Imagine Hilary refusing to concede because she wants to contest Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan AND Wisconsin ftw. Trump may try it, yet it’s very different than only needing to flip one state. That’s likely why he is trying to establish a narrative of widespread mail in fraud. He could say that there was mail in fraud in all five states he needs to flip, yet its still a stretch.