US Presidential Election XII

[martha]

Read his website on how Mexico will pay for the wall

Nope.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Axver]

its reality tv.

So Survivor is a real thing that actually happened, not a concept shot and edited for TV?

Not a single reality show reflects reality.

 

[cobl04]

trolololol

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

its reality tv. One person actually got to work for Trump.

silly (not you, the thought) Reagan got elected and he was simply an actor....Trump is a business person...movies vs deals, okay...

I think this post and the thought put into it represents probably like 80% of his base. The other 20% are just assholes.

 

[Axver]

Ah, Trump, a man of true honesty: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/trump-lies/

For two straight days, they asked Trump question after question that touched on the same theme: Trump’s honesty.

The lawyers confronted the mogul with his past statements — and with his company’s internal documents, which often showed those statements had been incorrect or invented. The lawyers were relentless. Trump, the bigger-than-life mogul, was vulnerable — cornered, out-prepared and under oath.

Thirty times, they caught him.

If, by this point, you still support Trump because you perceive him as more honest than the alternatives, I have some seaside real estate to sell you in Arizona.

 

[BVS]

Sorry if you feel yanked, didn't mean to come across that way.

Hmm, no apologies necessary.

Your reference to Satan? I am a follower of Christ, the devil may care.

Then why be concerned if the devil cares?

I have not vilified other's higher education. Obama went to Harvard, props to him.

No, but your party in general does.

Apprentice was a great show, I followed one season all the way through. Have you seen him at work in "the board room"? He is thoughtful, intense, listens to others and weeds out the problems. He is looking for success $$.

Apprentice was an entertaining show for a brief moment. But that's all it was, entertainment. Unless you're a casting director, it's not resume material.

Try not to misconstrue what I am saying, it is my point of view, and we all have different ones, everyone is allowed to comment, right?

And don't misconstrue my responding to your comment as anything less than that. Don't fall into the victim game, no one has even attempted to question your right to comment.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[DaveC]

its reality tv. One person actually got to work for Trump.

silly (not you, the thought) Reagan got elected and he was simply an actor....Trump is a business person...movies vs deals, okay...

holy fucking shit.

this is either genius-level trolling, or brick-level stupidity.

 

[Hewson]

silly (not you, the thought) Reagan got elected and he was simply an actor....

The 2 terms as Governor of California notwithstanding of course.

 

[IWasBored]

I'm thinking this could be yet again another brilliant alter.

I thought it was already established that ogregopa/bobsagetfan made himself a friend to discuss their love of bad disaster movies starring John Cusack.

 

[womanfish]

Is Trump going to bring back the Textile Industry of 1840s Massachusetts? Obviously Not. He might as well lock up Crooked Boss Tweed while he's at it.

I cannot speak for everybody here, but for many Americans wages have flatlined over the past 20 years while the cost of living has gone up. Opportunities have diminished for millennials who want nothing more than to work than be stuck in their parents basements while the student loan bills fill the mailbox. At the end of the day the health of the American Dream is represented in the bi-weekly pay checks they look at twice a month. Whatever candidate can successfully connect the string of pearls from their macro-economic vision to those pay checks will win the election.

Hillary seems to be offering the status quo in economic policy. I haven't heard anything novel yet in her message. I've heard 'we will retrain workers for the jobs of tomorrow'. Perhaps teaching coal miners to build solar panels and wind turbines. Retraining and investments would entail more government spending. Picking winners and losers for government funding hasn't had a great track record I.E. Solyndra.

I'm more attracted to Trump's plan of getting the government off the backs of business, be it large corporations down to mom & pop shops. Dropping the business tax rate from 35 to 15% creates incentive for tremendous growth in the economy. More growth equals more jobs. Dropping the rate would establish the US as a favorable base of operations for foreign companies as well. All of this expands the tax base. Wage growth increases the amount going to government coffers. This is running the United States as a business.

So Trump filed bankruptcy restructuring ~5 times out of 500 or so business ventures? That's actually not a bad scorecard.

Secondly, the world craves energy and we have it. This argument will not sit well with the Climate Apocalypse crowd . . . So be it. Trump proposes ramping up energy production by lifting regulations currently in place. The US has or is soon to pass Saudi Arabia in oil production. Not only will we become energy independent (not beholden to foreign interests in the Middle East/Russia) but we will profit through energy exports of coal, oil, and natural gas. Comparatively speaking we have an environmentally safer extraction technology compared to the rest of the world. We hear about Obama wanting to kick BPs ass for Deepwater Horizon but spills happen with much higher frequency in the shitty pipeline construction in Nigeria, damaging the African ecosystem.

I'm bound to get the "I can't believe you believe in this trickle down fantasy" responses, but I have more faith in the free market than a bunch of DC technocrats who've never run a pizza parlor let alone a multi-trillion dollar economy. The entitlement bills are coming due with the next wave of retirees. We need to start turning a profit or we will be screwed. In Hillary I see a manager of America's slow decline. In Trump I see a leader that will give the economy the shot of adrenaline it needs.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Don't you find it odd that non-partisan economic studies show that Clinton's plans would add 10.4 million jobs in her first term, bringing unemployment to 3.7%, and have moderate increase in economic growth, while adding little if anything (some say decrease) the deficit...

while Trumps would lose 3.5 million jobs, and add 12 trillion to the deficit, and slow growth?

Just believing the repeated line that trickle down works, does not make it true. We've had plenty of history now that shows the opposite.

 

[BEAL]

Don't you find it odd that non-partisan economic studies show that Clinton's plans would add 10.4 million jobs in her first term, bringing unemployment to 3.7%, and have moderate increase in economic growth, while adding little if anything (some say decrease) the deficit...

while Trumps would lose 3.5 million jobs, and add 12 trillion to the deficit, and slow growth?

Just believing the repeated line that trickle down works, does not make it true. We've had plenty of history now that shows the opposite.

You can't study the economy, you have to just feel it. What feels right for you? Then that's how you should manage it. Statistics/numbers just get in the way.

Eventually the more freedom and breaks you give to the top, they'll eventually tire and start funneling it down our way.

You have to believe in it though, or it won't come true.

 

[PhilsFan]

Donald Trump is bad with money.

 

[iron yuppie]

Don't you find it odd that non-partisan economic studies show that Clinton's plans would add 10.4 million jobs in her first term, bringing unemployment to 3.7%, and have moderate increase in economic growth, while adding little if anything (some say decrease) the deficit...

So she would bring unemployment to its lowest level in the modern measurement age and below even the Fed's target rate? That's nearly as fanciful as trickle-down economics.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Donald Trump on Wednesday again slammed Hillary Clinton and her campaign for allowing the father of Orlando shooter Omar Mateen to sit in the stands behind her at a recent rally.

But sitting behind Trump was ex-congressman Mark Foley, who resigned in disgrace in 2006 after sending sexually explicit messages to underage teenage boys.

"When you get those seats, you sort of know the campaign. You sort of know the campaign," Trump said at the rally in Sunshine, Florida. As Trump upbraided Clinton for having Mateen in the stands behind her, Foley smiled, applauded and even waved at Trump.

"How many of you people know me?" Trump asked those seated behind him.

Foley, visible just to Trump's left, quickly raised his hand in response.

The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday night.

The rows of seats directly behind Trump, where Foley was seated, had signs that marked the seats as "RESERVED."

I wonder if they're members of the same NAMBLA chapter

 

[martha]

Smart people are saying they are.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Debra S]

Hmm, no apologies necessary.
Then why be concerned if the devil cares?

No, but your party in general does.

Apprentice was an entertaining show for a brief moment. But that's all it was, entertainment. Unless you're a casting director, it's not resume material.


And don't misconstrue my responding to your comment as anything less than that. Don't fall into the victim game, no one has even attempted to question your right to comment.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Sorry, was out of line with some of that, will try to be less combative. btw, I am a Democrat.

 

[Irvine511]

Smart people are saying they are.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

The terrific people are saying the same.

 

[Diemen]

The terrific people are saying the same.

Is it true? I don't know, but it's worth looking into. The media should really look into it.

 

[BEAL]

Is it true? I don't know, but it's worth looking into. The media should really look into it.

Look, I'm not saying it's true or not. I am just hearing things. Smart people are coming up to me and asking me "Have you heard?", and I tell them it's worth looking into. I'm going to look into it. We'll look and see.

 

[Hewson]

So she would bring unemployment to its lowest level in the modern measurement age and below even the Fed's target rate? That's nearly as fanciful as trickle-down economics.

She's a modern day marvel, not only will she add 10.4 Million jobs in year 1, she will defy all laws of modern economics and have unemployment down to a staggering 0% by 2018.

 

[BEAL]

She's a modern day marvel, not only will she add 10.4 Million jobs in year 1, she will defy all laws of modern economics and have unemployment down to a staggering 0% by 2018.

Remember, we're talking about Clinton. The most evil, brilliant mastermind that's ever lived. She'll totally murder the unemployment rate if it doesn't lower itself.

 

[nbelcik]

Not the past 8 years

Obama is still a neoliberal and tends to follow the consensus of the post Reagan years. We've had 35 years of trickle down economics and tax cuts for the rich and they have not worked for the middle class.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Debra S]

Remember, we're talking about Clinton. The most evil, brilliant mastermind that's ever lived. She'll totally murder the unemployment rate if it doesn't lower itself.

lol

 

[Debra S]

Obama is still a neoliberal and tends to follow the consensus of the post Reagan years. We've had 35 years of trickle down economics and tax cuts for the rich and they have not worked for the middle class. View attachment 10832


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I think Trump will end trickle down economics because he is a builder. So new construction etc jobs. Plus he wants to lower taxes on the middle class and take out strangling regulations for small businesses (which employ the majority of Americans).

 

[Oregoropa]

I thought it was already established that ogregopa/bobsagetfan made himself a friend to discuss their love of bad disaster movies starring John Cusack.

2012 is a guilty pleasure in a genre I like.

They can't all be classics like Tremors.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[womanfish]

So she would bring unemployment to its lowest level in the modern measurement age and below even the Fed's target rate? That's nearly as fanciful as trickle-down economics.

The unemployment rate part is one that i don't think is achievable either. But the CBO has been pretty accurate with projections of deficit, debt and job growth. I do think low 4's could be achieved. Remember that Romney was boasting that he could get the unemployment rate down to 6%!! That was a campaign year "promise" which means an unlikely stretch. No one thought we would be at 4.9%

What is clear though is that one plan would almost certainly gain a large amount of jobs, while another would most likely cost jobs.

Trumps economic plan is based on economic growth of 6.2%!!! which is the most ridiculous load of BS. The actual analysts project growth under his plan would run somewhere around 2.4%

 

[martha]

But he's a builder!



His plans to fuck with the trade with China would lay waste to California's economy, what with all the ports and shipping we have here. So tanking the sixth largest economy in the world isn't all that helpful. It would take a lot of building and construction jobs to make up for that.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[iron yuppie]

Trumps economic plan is based on economic growth of 6.2%!!! which is the most ridiculous load of BS.

That is a ludicrous expectation.

The thing about job creation is that outside the public sector, it is far from an exact science. In the early stages of the recession, if I remember correctly, the Gov and Fed had all the incentives in place for job creation and investment, yet it was sluggish for much longer than anticipated. It is funny that the economy is such a major factor in presidential elections, because it's probably one of things the president has the least direct control over.

 

[digitize]

You can't study the economy, you have to just feel it. What feels right for you? Then that's how you should manage it. Statistics/numbers just get in the way.

This is obviously a joke, and I have no intention of defending Trump. However, studies claiming to have a clue what the unemployment rate will be or how many jobs will be created or even what the deficit will be in four years under various policies are full of shit.

I do believe, and I think most people who know what they're talking about, can conclude that Clinton's economy would be better than Trump's at the very least because he could pursue disastrous trade policies and possibly cause foreign fallings-out that could have awful consequences.

What policies the president supports, even assuming a cooperative Congress, have a relatively minor impact on the economy compared to broader economic forces. Big economic shocks rarely are predictable or fixable with policy; those who predict them tend to have "Economists Have Predicted 7 Out Of the Last 3 Recessions" Syndrome and don't really provide useful predictions because of it. The truth is that we really haven't a clue what the economy will look like in 2020. We can assume that broadly the same forces will affect it that are affecting it now, and that policy will be the central driver, but that's silly. Doing that in 2005, we'd assume that housing would rise forever, oil would rise forever, and the dollar would stay really weak. Doing that in 2010, we'd assume a pretty quick and even recovery from the recession. Doing that in 2013, we'd fail to see oil cratering and BRICS would still be a relevant buzzword. Et cetera.

And even policies that do have some real amount of impact on the economy are unpredictable in their effects. A good example is the minimum wage; the empirical research on it is an inconclusive mess. And Macro models can produce really specific outputs while being based on who-the-hell-really-knows-if-they're-true assumptions.

Signed, someone who once wanted to be an Economics Ph.D. student at this point in my life but then got really cynical about the field.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Debra S]

But he's a builder!



His plans to fuck with the trade with China would lay waste to California's economy, what with all the ports and shipping we have here. So tanking the sixth largest economy in the world isn't all that helpful. It would take a lot of building and construction jobs to make up for that.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

China is cheating and stealing business secrets from the US and this has to stop! Plus they are rigging their monetary value to reap profits at our expense. Really, it is all just helping Walmart, and Hilary sat on it's board, look it up. There are plenty of countries we can trade with, our economy will readjust and the US will reassert it's rights to free and fair trade!