Corner of Berkshire & Fairfax Message Board

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: rkbabang on November 01, 2016, 04:00:06 PM

Title: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 01, 2016, 04:00:06 PM
Just shoot me  :(
Thank goodness it's almost over.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Liberty on November 01, 2016, 04:27:39 PM
Good read:

http://www.businessinsider.com/and-then-they-came-for-me-2016-11
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: ccplz on November 01, 2016, 04:54:30 PM
The Clinton Rules:
1. Everything, no matter how ludicrous-sounding, is worthy of a full investigation by federal agencies, Congress, the "vast right-wing conspiracy," and mainstream media outlets
2. Every allegation, no matter how ludicrous, is believable until it can be proven completely and utterly false. And even then, it keeps a life of its own in the conservative media world
3. The media assumes that Clinton is acting in bad faith until there's hard evidence otherwise
4. Everything is newsworthy because the Clintons are the equivalent of America's royal family
5. Everything she does is fake and calculated for maximum political benefit
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: ccplz on November 01, 2016, 04:56:45 PM
Also KKK endorses Trump: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/01/the-kkks-official-newspaper-has-endorsed-donald-trump-for-president/

You can't make this shit up.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Gregmal on November 01, 2016, 06:03:44 PM
The Clinton Rules:
1. Everything, no matter how ludicrous-sounding, is worthy of a full investigation by federal agencies, Congress, the "vast right-wing conspiracy," and mainstream media outlets
2. Every allegation, no matter how ludicrous, is believable until it can be proven completely and utterly false. And even then, it keeps a life of its own in the conservative media world
3. The media assumes that Clinton is acting in bad faith until there's hard evidence otherwise
4. Everything is newsworthy because the Clintons are the equivalent of America's royal family
5. Everything she does is fake and calculated for maximum political benefit

Isn't this typically how the media has worked? Only difference is, how up until last week, its all been heavily slanted and one sided reporting. The same camp that lauded the FBI's handling in July now throws a complete hissy fit when new information comes to light that needs to be investigated. A lady who was gone so far out of her way to hide things she's even feigned a concussion, now "demands" full transparency. Oh the irony. Emails released show evidence of collusion between campaign staff and media outlets. Even to the chagrin on folks less popular, but nonetheless within the same party. And this is really what the Dems thought was their best bet?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 01, 2016, 06:45:56 PM
The Clinton Rules:
1. Everything, no matter how ludicrous-sounding, is worthy of a full investigation by federal agencies, Congress, the "vast right-wing conspiracy," and mainstream media outlets
2. Every allegation, no matter how ludicrous, is believable until it can be proven completely and utterly false. And even then, it keeps a life of its own in the conservative media world
3. The media assumes that Clinton is acting in bad faith until there's hard evidence otherwise
4. Everything is newsworthy because the Clintons are the equivalent of America's royal family
5. Everything she does is fake and calculated for maximum political benefit

Isn't this typically how the media has worked? Only difference is, how up until last week, its all been heavily slanted and one sided reporting. The same camp that lauded the FBI's handling in July now throws a complete hissy fit when new information comes to light that needs to be investigated. A lady who was gone so far out of her way to hide things she's even feigned a concussion, now "demands" full transparency. Oh the irony. Emails released show evidence of collusion between campaign staff and media outlets. Even to the chagrin on folks less popular, but nonetheless within the same party. And this is really what the Dems thought was their best bet?
Dude, seriously? I mean I'm down with everyone to nail the media to the wall. Ever since they decided to move news from a loss leader to a profit center it has gone to shit. It no longer news. It's entertainment. It's reality TV Washington edition. There is no more Walter Cronkite. That era is is over.

But the whole thing begin slanted against Trump really? How did he even get to this point? Why didn't the media nail his ass to the wall for the million outrageous and ridiculous things he said and did. Which reporter stepped up and put him in his place the way he deserves to be? None. Why was he allowed to call into shows of the can or wherever? Cause they're not doing their job.

Everyone is blowing up about Donna Brazile being a partisan. The former chairwoman of the DNC is a partisan. What a shock! CNN also hired Corey Lewandowski. I'm guessing he's gonna be fair, balanced, and full of journalistic integrity. He'll never leak anything to Trump. What a joke!

And the leaked emails? I've looked at a lot of them. They're actually a pretty  boring depiction of a highly motivated high powered organization that is proceeding is a deliberated and highly calculated way towards a goal. Since when is that a bad thing? I'd like my leaders when faced with big and complex problems to move in a calculated and deliberated way, not shoot from the hip.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Gregmal on November 01, 2016, 07:27:14 PM
The Clinton Rules:
1. Everything, no matter how ludicrous-sounding, is worthy of a full investigation by federal agencies, Congress, the "vast right-wing conspiracy," and mainstream media outlets
2. Every allegation, no matter how ludicrous, is believable until it can be proven completely and utterly false. And even then, it keeps a life of its own in the conservative media world
3. The media assumes that Clinton is acting in bad faith until there's hard evidence otherwise
4. Everything is newsworthy because the Clintons are the equivalent of America's royal family
5. Everything she does is fake and calculated for maximum political benefit

Isn't this typically how the media has worked? Only difference is, how up until last week, its all been heavily slanted and one sided reporting. The same camp that lauded the FBI's handling in July now throws a complete hissy fit when new information comes to light that needs to be investigated. A lady who was gone so far out of her way to hide things she's even feigned a concussion, now "demands" full transparency. Oh the irony. Emails released show evidence of collusion between campaign staff and media outlets. Even to the chagrin on folks less popular, but nonetheless within the same party. And this is really what the Dems thought was their best bet?
Dude, seriously? I mean I'm down with everyone to nail the media to the wall. Ever since they decided to move news from a loss leader to a profit center it has gone to shit. It no longer news. It's entertainment. It's reality TV Washington edition. There is no more Walter Cronkite. That era is is over.

But the whole thing begin slanted against Trump really? How did he even get to this point? Why didn't the media nail his ass to the wall for the million outrageous and ridiculous things he said and did. Which reporter stepped up and put him in his place the way he deserves to be? None. Why was he allowed to call into shows of the can or wherever? Cause they're not doing their job.

Everyone is blowing up about Donna Brazile being a partisan. The former chairwoman of the DNC is a partisan. What a shock! CNN also hired Corey Lewandowski. I'm guessing he's gonna be fair, balanced, and full of journalistic integrity. He'll never leak anything to Trump. What a joke!

And the leaked emails? I've looked at a lot of them. They're actually a pretty  boring depiction of a highly motivated high powered organization that is proceeding is a deliberated and highly calculated way towards a goal. Since when is that a bad thing? I'd like my leaders when faced with big and complex problems to move in a calculated and deliberated way, not shoot from the hip.

Trump's entire rise was because he completely played the media for free attention largely because they are too stupid, biased, and ratings hungry to notice. Every outrageous or deplorable thing DT has said has been spam blasted ad nauseam because these clowns think they are successfully bashing him, getting tons of clicks/views, and bringing him down when all its done is drive his campaign without him actually having to spend.

The HRC campaign has sat by and at best encouraged this, or at worst, been working with the media to manipulate the narrative(something now being substantiated by emails). The fact that her campaign is now throwing the FBI under the bus because they are doing their jobs does nothing more than highlight what an act it all is; mainly because they sat there and praised these same people 2 months ago when they got what they wanted from them.

Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: DooDiligence on November 01, 2016, 07:42:42 PM
Once again; I point to an AWESOME little cartoon originally posted by Liberty which does a beautiful job of explaining why these a55h0les who run our country act as they do.

The film is agnostic & can be appreciated by lefties & righties.

Understanding doesn't get rid of the anger but it sure helps...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

I enjoyed it and thought some here might enjoy it too. Good look at the realpolitiks of taking and keeping power in both dictatorships and democracies.

P.S. I almost voted "Just shoot me" but I don't wanna die (that was a great TV sitcom BTW!)
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 02, 2016, 05:37:54 AM
Once again; I point to an AWESOME little cartoon originally posted by Liberty which does a beautiful job of explaining why these a55h0les who run our country act as they do.

The film is agnostic & can be appreciated by lefties & righties.

Understanding doesn't get rid of the anger but it sure helps...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

I enjoyed it and thought some here might enjoy it too. Good look at the realpolitiks of taking and keeping power in both dictatorships and democracies.

P.S. I almost voted "Just shoot me" but I don't wanna die (that was a great TV sitcom BTW!)

Yeah, even though I voted "Just shoot me" if you really did hold a gun to my head I'd probably vote Johnson.   If you held a gun to my head and told me I had to vote Hillary or Trump?  I'd have to seriously think long and hard about whether I'd vote for Trump or tell you to pull the trigger.  It'd be a close call.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Liberty on November 02, 2016, 06:20:44 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwQWAhtW8AEl78-.jpg:large)
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 02, 2016, 07:39:54 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwQWAhtW8AEl78-.jpg:large)

"most conservatives (including Trump) have no understanding of [blah, blah, blah, our hateful lunacy])

Thank god for that at least.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 02, 2016, 08:47:10 AM
If you are Polish be prepared to be visited by men in sheets next Tuesday
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Liberty on November 02, 2016, 09:16:37 AM
A bit of levity: Louis C.K. on the election:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFOkBnYGfIM&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: DTEJD1997 on November 02, 2016, 09:16:50 AM
hey all:

I was on the West side of Detroit the other day...

I saw an impromptu Trump rally at a busy intersection.  There were at least 100 people, with most of them being women. Some of them were pretty darn good looking too!  They were holding signs with "Women for Trump",  "Hillary for Prison" and things like that.   Cars were honking wildly and it was borderline pandemonium.  Very, very high energy level.

What is really interesting is that it was in Livonia.  Livonia is a "better" suburb of Detroit.  It is a "new money" type of area.

On the other hand...

In the Grosse Pointe area, most of the yard signs are for Hillary.  What is interesting is that the Grosse Pointe area is OLD, established money.  It is very, very upscale suburb of Detroit.  I guess the Grosse Pointers see Hillary as part of the establishment?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: KinAlberta on November 02, 2016, 09:39:29 AM
hey all:

I was on the West side of Detroit the other day...

I saw an impromptu Trump rally at a busy intersection.  There were at least 100 people, with most of them being women. Some of them were pretty darn good looking too!  They were holding signs with "Women for Trump",  "Hillary for Prison" and things like that.   Cars were honking wildly and it was borderline pandemonium.  Very, very high energy level.

What is really interesting is that it was in Livonia.  Livonia is a "better" suburb of Detroit.  It is a "new money" type of area.

On the other hand...

In the Grosse Pointe area, most of the yard signs are for Hillary.  What is interesting is that the Grosse Pointe area is OLD, established money.  It is very, very upscale suburb of Detroit.  I guess the Grosse Pointers see Hillary as part of the establishment?

"Some of them were pretty darn good looking too!"  ...and this observation means what?  :-)


Sorry, forgive me but I'm a Canadian and I don't fully understand US politics. I can only guess as to what the presence of a high ratio of pretty darn good looking" women, in Detroit, might mean.

Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: KinAlberta on November 02, 2016, 09:43:11 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwQWAhtW8AEl78-.jpg:large)

"most conservatives (including Trump) have no understanding of [blah, blah, blah, our hateful lunacy])

Thank god for that at least.


Hilarious - "Listen 24 Hours a Day."

I can't imagine listening even one minute of one day in my life, let alone a marathon 24 hour session.  :-)
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: DTEJD1997 on November 02, 2016, 09:48:43 AM
hey all:

I was on the West side of Detroit the other day...

I saw an impromptu Trump rally at a busy intersection.  There were at least 100 people, with most of them being women. Some of them were pretty darn good looking too!  They were holding signs with "Women for Trump",  "Hillary for Prison" and things like that.   Cars were honking wildly and it was borderline pandemonium.  Very, very high energy level.

What is really interesting is that it was in Livonia.  Livonia is a "better" suburb of Detroit.  It is a "new money" type of area.

On the other hand...

In the Grosse Pointe area, most of the yard signs are for Hillary.  What is interesting is that the Grosse Pointe area is OLD, established money.  It is very, very upscale suburb of Detroit.  I guess the Grosse Pointers see Hillary as part of the establishment?

"Some of them were pretty darn good looking too!"  ...and this observation means what?  :-)


Sorry, forgive me but I'm a Canadian and I don't fully understand US politics. I can only guess as to what the presence of a high ratio of pretty darn good looking" women, in Detroit, might mean.

What this means is that a good percentage of the women were younger...in their 20's and 30's.  Some of them were fit & trim, well dressed.  A lot of them looked "prosperous".  Some of them looked like "preppies", some were professional looking.

Some of them were older...grandmotherly types.

Some of them looked bedraggled...but in general it was a "normal" group of people.

A lot of times, political activists look like "hippies" and look like they've "been sleeping in a ditch", or they simply look "rough".  Probably not the type of people that board members would want to associate with.  Other times, political activists look like "rent a mob" type people.  There are many, many stories of unions and other political protestor groups going to the local "labor ready" day laborer offices and renting people to demonstrate.  These are "fakes".

I very much doubt that was the case in what I witnessed.  I believe that the women & others I saw yesterday were GENUINE Trump supporters and were GENUINELY enthusiastic to be there...

I have seen NO Hillary demonstrations like this...
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 02, 2016, 09:53:35 AM
hey all:

I was on the West side of Detroit the other day...

I saw an impromptu Trump rally at a busy intersection.  There were at least 100 people, with most of them being women. Some of them were pretty darn good looking too!  They were holding signs with "Women for Trump",  "Hillary for Prison" and things like that.   Cars were honking wildly and it was borderline pandemonium.  Very, very high energy level.

What is really interesting is that it was in Livonia.  Livonia is a "better" suburb of Detroit.  It is a "new money" type of area.

On the other hand...

In the Grosse Pointe area, most of the yard signs are for Hillary.  What is interesting is that the Grosse Pointe area is OLD, established money.  It is very, very upscale suburb of Detroit.  I guess the Grosse Pointers see Hillary as part of the establishment?

"Some of them were pretty darn good looking too!"  ...and this observation means what?  :-)


Sorry, forgive me but I'm a Canadian and I don't fully understand US politics. I can only guess as to what the presence of a high ratio of pretty darn good looking" women, in Detroit, might mean.

It means they weren't what one pictures in their mind when someone says "women Trump supporters":

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/07/13/09/2A7B4CF200000578-3158958-image-a-14_1436774530030.jpg)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/07/13/08/2A7B4CD300000578-3158958-image-a-12_1436774148815.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/1b/90/b4/1b90b48a3e1e61183c28b779da13780a.jpg)
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 02, 2016, 09:57:59 AM
What this means is that a good percentage of the women were younger...in their 20's and 30's.  Some of them were fit & trim, well dressed.  A lot of them looked "prosperous".  Some of them looked like "preppies", some were professional looking.

Some of them were older...grandmotherly types.

Some of them looked bedraggled...but in general it was a "normal" group of people.

A lot of times, political activists look like "hippies" and look like they've "been sleeping in a ditch", or they simply look "rough".  Probably not the type of people that board members would want to associate with.  Other times, political activists look like "rent a mob" type people.  There are many, many stories of unions and other political protestor groups going to the local "labor ready" day laborer offices and renting people to demonstrate.  These are "fakes".

I very much doubt that was the case in what I witnessed.  I believe that the women & others I saw yesterday were GENUINE Trump supporters and were GENUINELY enthusiastic to be there...

I have seen NO Hillary demonstrations like this...

Oh well this election is over. Some dude in Detroit saw a rally of women, Gave them a grade on looks and class scale and is convinced Trump's crowd is high energy.

While you are over there in Detroit, do you mind visiting the car companies and let us know how do they look energywise ?

Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 02, 2016, 10:07:47 AM
Oh well this election is over. Some dude in Detroit saw a rally of women, Gave them a grade on looks and class scale and is convinced Trump's crowd is high energy.

That's what I was thinking too.

Quote
While you are over there in Detroit, do you mind visiting the car companies and let us know how do they look energywise over there?

Oh wait were you being sarcastic?


Seriously though.  I have noticed a huge lack of yard signs and bumper stickers in general compared to past presidential election years.  It seems that there are very few people willing to signal their voting intentions out on their cars or lawns.   And the few I do see are about 5 times more likely to be Trump than Hillary.
Although I have seen a few signs which aren't supportive of either candidate such as : "Hillary for Prison".

I don't know what this all means other than it is a very odd election.  I still think Hillary will probably win.

Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 02, 2016, 10:38:07 AM
Seriously though.  I have noticed a huge lack of yard signs and bumper stickers in general compared to past presidential election years.  It seems that there are very few people willing to signal their voting intentions out on their cars or lawns.   And the few I do see are about 5 times more likely to be Trump than Hillary.
Although I have seen a few signs which aren't supportive of either candidate such as : "Hillary for Prison".

I don't know what this all means other than it is a very odd election.  I still think Hillary will probably win.

Yes, this election is clearly separated along the class lines. Right where I live, there are all Clinton signs. I saw one sign for a local republican senator but not Trump's. But this is a progressive upscale community. Last week we drove through some white working class neighborhoods and its all Trump country. People are really afraid to cross the political boundary of their neighborhoods this time.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 02, 2016, 10:53:43 AM
Seriously though.  I have noticed a huge lack of yard signs and bumper stickers in general compared to past presidential election years.  It seems that there are very few people willing to signal their voting intentions out on their cars or lawns.   And the few I do see are about 5 times more likely to be Trump than Hillary.
Although I have seen a few signs which aren't supportive of either candidate such as : "Hillary for Prison".

I don't know what this all means other than it is a very odd election.  I still think Hillary will probably win.

Yes, this election is clearly separated along the class lines. Right where I live, there are all Clinton signs. I saw one sign for a local republican senator but not Trump's. But this is a progressive upscale community. Last week we drove through some white working class neighborhoods and its all Trump country. People are really afraid to cross the political boundary of their neighborhoods this time.

But have you noticed that lack of signs and bumper stickers?  In past elections there were signs everywhere and bumper stickers on tons of cars for both candidates.  Now you can hardly notice any.  My town traditionally votes hugely Republican and yet even Trump signs are few and far between (Interestingly in contrast to what you described, in New Hampshire some of the wealthiest towns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_communities_by_household_income) vote Republican (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford,_New_Hampshire#Politics) and the poorer ones Democrat where as when I lived in Massachusetts it was the opposite and more like you described).  Anyway there are so few signs that the ones you see stick out as odd.   You see signs for local and statewide races, but just no signs for the presidential race.  I drive on the highway 30min to and from work, from New Hampshire into Massachusetts and I don't see any bumper stickers.  I mean almost none.  In 2008 and 2012 there were Obama stickers everywhere you looked. Even in Mass there are very few Hillary stickers.   This race isn't going to be decided by Hillary supporters versus Trump supporters, it is going down to Hillary haters versus Trump haters.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: eclecticvalue on November 02, 2016, 11:07:49 AM
Most definitely, I am seeing the same trends rkbabang and valcont. Very interesting, Indeed!
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: onyx1 on November 02, 2016, 11:16:43 AM
It seems that there are very few people willing to signal their voting intentions out on their cars or lawns.   

Probably applies to pollster's questions as well.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 02, 2016, 11:18:28 AM
This race isn't going to be decided by Hillary supporters versus Trump supporters, it is going down to Hillary haters versus Trump haters.

Great comment. I am not voting for Clinton , I am voting against Trump. Thus no bumper stickers.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: DTEJD1997 on November 02, 2016, 10:16:05 PM
What this means is that a good percentage of the women were younger...in their 20's and 30's.  Some of them were fit & trim, well dressed.  A lot of them looked "prosperous".  Some of them looked like "preppies", some were professional looking.

Some of them were older...grandmotherly types.

Some of them looked bedraggled...but in general it was a "normal" group of people.

A lot of times, political activists look like "hippies" and look like they've "been sleeping in a ditch", or they simply look "rough".  Probably not the type of people that board members would want to associate with.  Other times, political activists look like "rent a mob" type people.  There are many, many stories of unions and other political protestor groups going to the local "labor ready" day laborer offices and renting people to demonstrate.  These are "fakes".

I very much doubt that was the case in what I witnessed.  I believe that the women & others I saw yesterday were GENUINE Trump supporters and were GENUINELY enthusiastic to be there...

I have seen NO Hillary demonstrations like this...

Oh well this election is over. Some dude in Detroit saw a rally of women, Gave them a grade on looks and class scale and is convinced Trump's crowd is high energy.

While you are over there in Detroit, do you mind visiting the car companies and let us know how do they look energywise ?

I'm getting more than a little tired of the tone of discussion on this & other threads.

I am reporting on something that I saw....something I've never seen before for any candidate in any election.  Maybe things are different in your corner of the world.

It is fine if you disagree....that makes a discussion.  I can do without the snarkiness & sarcasm.

I am about ready to leave this board far behind...
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 02, 2016, 10:25:50 PM
I'm getting more than a little tired of the tone of discussion on this & other threads.

I am reporting on something that I saw....something I've never seen before for any candidate in any election.  Maybe things are different in your corner of the world.

It is fine if you disagree....that makes a discussion.  I can do without the snarkiness & sarcasm.

I am about ready to leave this board far behind...
Chill out dude, at times like these sarcasm and a sense of humor is what gets you through to the other side. Gotta hang in there. Not that much longer to go.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 02, 2016, 11:04:08 PM
Well it seems like this election is gonna go down to the wire and it's gonna split along partisan lines and be decided by GOTV ops. Based on anecdotal evidence that means that Clinton is still likely to win a close election. But it's close to a coin flip.

All of this means that the evangelicals voted for Trump. I know I've railed against them and their hypocrisy on this thread in the past. However that wasn't very fair of me. I mean it felt good and they were an easy target. But everyone knew it was gonna break this way with evangelicals cause everyone knows they're full of shit despite all the preaching and self righteousness.

However if Trump wins will be because women voted for him. Even if he doesn't, the close result he will get will be due to the fact that loads of women supported him. Not just the "typical trump women" depicted in pictures here. Side note, take it easy DTEJD while his polling methods may not be scientific he does have a point.

Now Trump may be as close as you can get to a perfect anti-woman candidate. So roughly half the women said basically, yea I'm cool with that. To put it another way, very few republican women said I'm not with him. So what weight does this assign now to women's gender grievances? My whole life, whether in a social or professional setting I've stood up for women and spoke up when i saw a guy try to pull some sort of crap. But if women aren't willing to stand up for themselves why should i?

P.S. I guess this is one of my un-PC posts. Who knows, maybe tomorrow I'll tackle Latinos for Trump (unlikely)  :).
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: ccplz on November 02, 2016, 11:47:36 PM
What this means is that a good percentage of the women were younger...in their 20's and 30's.  Some of them were fit & trim, well dressed.  A lot of them looked "prosperous".  Some of them looked like "preppies", some were professional looking.

Some of them were older...grandmotherly types.

Some of them looked bedraggled...but in general it was a "normal" group of people.

A lot of times, political activists look like "hippies" and look like they've "been sleeping in a ditch", or they simply look "rough".  Probably not the type of people that board members would want to associate with.  Other times, political activists look like "rent a mob" type people.  There are many, many stories of unions and other political protestor groups going to the local "labor ready" day laborer offices and renting people to demonstrate.  These are "fakes".

I very much doubt that was the case in what I witnessed.  I believe that the women & others I saw yesterday were GENUINE Trump supporters and were GENUINELY enthusiastic to be there...

I have seen NO Hillary demonstrations like this...

Oh well this election is over. Some dude in Detroit saw a rally of women, Gave them a grade on looks and class scale and is convinced Trump's crowd is high energy.

While you are over there in Detroit, do you mind visiting the car companies and let us know how do they look energywise ?

I'm getting more than a little tired of the tone of discussion on this & other threads.

I am reporting on something that I saw....something I've never seen before for any candidate in any election.  Maybe things are different in your corner of the world.

It is fine if you disagree....that makes a discussion.  I can do without the snarkiness & sarcasm.

I am about ready to leave this board far behind...

Go ahead.

You won't be missed.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: onyx1 on November 03, 2016, 04:49:11 AM
What this means is that a good percentage of the women were younger...in their 20's and 30's.  Some of them were fit & trim, well dressed.  A lot of them looked "prosperous".  Some of them looked like "preppies", some were professional looking.

Some of them were older...grandmotherly types.

Some of them looked bedraggled...but in general it was a "normal" group of people.

A lot of times, political activists look like "hippies" and look like they've "been sleeping in a ditch", or they simply look "rough".  Probably not the type of people that board members would want to associate with.  Other times, political activists look like "rent a mob" type people.  There are many, many stories of unions and other political protestor groups going to the local "labor ready" day laborer offices and renting people to demonstrate.  These are "fakes".

I very much doubt that was the case in what I witnessed.  I believe that the women & others I saw yesterday were GENUINE Trump supporters and were GENUINELY enthusiastic to be there...

I have seen NO Hillary demonstrations like this...

Oh well this election is over. Some dude in Detroit saw a rally of women, Gave them a grade on looks and class scale and is convinced Trump's crowd is high energy.

While you are over there in Detroit, do you mind visiting the car companies and let us know how do they look energywise ?

I'm getting more than a little tired of the tone of discussion on this & other threads.

I am reporting on something that I saw....something I've never seen before for any candidate in any election.  Maybe things are different in your corner of the world.

It is fine if you disagree....that makes a discussion.  I can do without the snarkiness & sarcasm.

I am about ready to leave this board far behind...

Go ahead.

You won't be missed.

Speak for yourself, Speech Policeman.  I appreciate DTE's anecdotal evidence. 
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: DooDiligence on November 03, 2016, 05:06:17 AM
Go ahead.

You won't be missed.

Speak for yourself, Speech Policeman.  I appreciate DTE's anecdotal evidence.

I too have found DTE's thoughts to be useful for many years!
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: petec on November 03, 2016, 05:36:40 AM
Go ahead.

You won't be missed.

Speak for yourself, Speech Policeman.  I appreciate DTE's anecdotal evidence.

I too have found DTE's thoughts to be useful for many years!

+1
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 03, 2016, 05:37:54 AM
Go ahead.

You won't be missed.

Speak for yourself, Speech Policeman.  I appreciate DTE's anecdotal evidence.

I too have found DTE's thoughts to be useful for many years!

As have I.  Haters gonna hate.  DTEJD1997, don't let a few rude comments get you down on the whole board.  You have to have a bit of a sense of humor about these things some times.  Even if 100 people quietly agree with you and appreciate what you wrote there will be that one person who publicly calls you an idiot.  Believe me, I know this well.  Try not to let it bother you.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: DonFanucci on November 03, 2016, 05:46:41 AM
Go ahead.

You won't be missed.

Speak for yourself, Speech Policeman.  I appreciate DTE's anecdotal evidence.

I too have found DTE's thoughts to be useful for many years!

+1

+1

Why are you guys so rude?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: onyx1 on November 03, 2016, 06:01:37 AM
Go ahead.

You won't be missed.

Speak for yourself, Speech Policeman.  I appreciate DTE's anecdotal evidence.

I too have found DTE's thoughts to be useful for many years!

+1

+1

Why are you guys so rude?


Chapter One of the left's playbook: "If you can't refute the message, attack the messenger."
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 03, 2016, 06:43:35 AM
OK, now back to our regularly scheduled candidate bashing.  These are awesome.  If political ads were honest:

(http://www.snopes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/hashtag-draftourdaughters.jpg)

(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv2qZ_pXEAAU9Sk.jpg)

(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv0-LaQUMAAaiUv.jpg)

(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv3bBfmUkAEVBbX.jpg)

(http://thepeoplescube.com/images/DraftOurDaughters_Hillary_War.jpg)

(http://www.trump-conservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/hillary-clinton-draft-women-3.jpg)

(https://pics.onsizzle.com/she-wins-we-win-we-canvassed-for-her-in-peace-5623110.png)

(https://pics.onsizzle.com/paid-for-by-hillary-for-america-hillary-clinton-is-a-5591790.png)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv07HznUIAA92BU.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv0xFmuXgAAmYCM.jpg)

(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/4f34530ecb12e336a9dfe29c/t/58136cc96b8f5b7aa2f23236/1477668733470/IMG_4112.JPG)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv5ewOJXYAAVAtm.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv3sIOJUMAAj8ro.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv5OEQoVMAAjlPN.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv0YCWFUIAAr9zG.jpg)

(https://pics.onsizzle.com/fightforhillary-lets-show-putin-what-a-nasty-woman-looks-like-5612390.png)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv263OpWAAATczD.jpg)

(https://i.redd.it/5dth5rqj15ux.png)
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Jurgis on November 03, 2016, 07:53:56 AM
Now Trump may be as close as you can get to a perfect anti-woman candidate. So roughly half the women said basically, yea I'm cool with that. To put it another way, very few republican women said I'm not with him. So what weight does this assign now to women's gender grievances? My whole life, whether in a social or professional setting I've stood up for women and spoke up when i saw a guy try to pull some sort of crap. But if women aren't willing to stand up for themselves why should i?

Human beings in general are screwed up in the head. Politics may just be the place where this shows up most.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: onyx1 on November 03, 2016, 08:12:43 AM
Now Trump may be as close as you can get to a perfect anti-woman candidate. So roughly half the women said basically, yea I'm cool with that. To put it another way, very few republican women said I'm not with him. So what weight does this assign now to women's gender grievances? My whole life, whether in a social or professional setting I've stood up for women and spoke up when i saw a guy try to pull some sort of crap. But if women aren't willing to stand up for themselves why should i?

Human beings in general are screwed up in the head. Politics may just be the place where this shows up most.


Spot on.  Humans aren't close to being rational, but they are universally certain it's just the other guy who is irrational.  Once you understand this, you become the One-Eyed King in the land of the blind.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: TorontoRaptorsFan on November 03, 2016, 08:23:48 AM
Go ahead.

You won't be missed.

Speak for yourself, Speech Policeman.  I appreciate DTE's anecdotal evidence.

I too have found DTE's thoughts to be useful for many years!

+1

+1

Why are you guys so rude?

Just CCPLZ, he's COBF resident keyboard warrior.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Tim Eriksen on November 03, 2016, 08:29:00 AM
Now Trump may be as close as you can get to a perfect anti-woman candidate. So roughly half the women said basically, yea I'm cool with that. To put it another way, very few republican women said I'm not with him. So what weight does this assign now to women's gender grievances? My whole life, whether in a social or professional setting I've stood up for women and spoke up when i saw a guy try to pull some sort of crap. But if women aren't willing to stand up for themselves why should i?

Human beings in general are screwed up in the head. Politics may just be the place where this shows up most.

Maybe these women think differently than you.  Maybe they are smarter.  Maybe they compared both candidates and decided that a corrupt, serial liar, who supports the killing of unborn children at any time for any reason is worse in their mind than Trump.  It doesn't mean they love Trump, or even like Trump.  Nor does it mean they don't care about sexual harassment or the disabled.  It means they believe HRC is a worse choice in their minds.   You can rip on them or respect their choice even if you don't agree.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 03, 2016, 08:37:52 AM
Now Trump may be as close as you can get to a perfect anti-woman candidate. So roughly half the women said basically, yea I'm cool with that. To put it another way, very few republican women said I'm not with him. So what weight does this assign now to women's gender grievances? My whole life, whether in a social or professional setting I've stood up for women and spoke up when i saw a guy try to pull some sort of crap. But if women aren't willing to stand up for themselves why should i?

Human beings in general are screwed up in the head. Politics may just be the place where this shows up most.

It is simply a system setup with improper incentives leading to crazy outcomes.  You are dealing with a system where the people who make the mistakes are not the ones who suffer the consequences.   And these people are chosen by a method where your vote counts so little that it doesn't make much sense to spend real time and effort to educate yourself.   You have a better chance of winning powerball then you do casting the deciding vote in this election. If you spent a lot of time on how you are going to vote, was that really an intelligent use of your limited time on this planet?  They say the lottery is a tax on those who are bad at math. An election is a way to give those bad at math a false illusion of control.  The perverse incentives are everywhere, at every level, in every step of the process, from the government policing itself to printing its own money, to the lack of oversight, you name it.   You could never run a successful company this way: Start by letting the public vote on your management (everyone gets 1 vote whether they are customers or shareholders or not)...

People aren't completely irrational, but they do respond to incentives (both good and bad).

Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 03, 2016, 09:05:51 AM
It is simply a system setup with improper incentives leading to crazy outcomes.  You are dealing with a system where the people who make the mistakes are not the ones who suffer the consequences.   And these people are chosen by a method where your vote counts so little that it doesn't make much sense to spend real time and effort to educate yourself.   You have a better chance of winning powerball then you do casting the deciding vote in this election. If you spent a lot of time on how you are going to vote, was that really an intelligent use of your limited time on this planet?  They say the lottery is a tax on those who are bad at math. An election is a way to give those bad at math a false illusion of control.  The perverse incentives are everywhere, at every level, in every step of the process, from the government policing itself to printing its own money, to the lack of oversight, you name it.   You could never run a successful company this way: Start by letting the public vote on your management (everyone gets 1 vote whether they are customers or shareholders or not)...

People aren't completely irrational, but they do respond to incentives (both good and bad).

I am becoming a fan of your thought process even though you post some crazy sh**t from time to time. Just the other day, me and the wife were discussing if people should go through a test before voting and weather their test results should determine how much their vote would count. Would that be a fair system? Probably not because it will disenfranchise some segment of population. Would that be better for the country? The closest thing to that system is China( Believe it or not, their  politburo is extremely meritorious) and the jury is out if its working or not.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 03, 2016, 09:15:35 AM
Maybe these women think differently than you.  Maybe they are smarter.  Maybe they compared both candidates and decided that a corrupt, serial liar, who supports the killing of unborn children at any time for any reason is worse in their mind than Trump.  It doesn't mean they love Trump, or even like Trump.  Nor does it mean they don't care about sexual harassment or the disabled.  It means they believe HRC is a worse choice in their minds.   You can rip on them or respect their choice even if you don't agree.

Wow! In one paragraph in one post you managed to lecture about respecting women's choices and railed against abortion. That's just a complete new level of bs right there.

And no, I don't have to respect people's choices when they are bad choices. It's not like you're ordering something for dinner - well that looks gross but I respect your choice. When it comes to corruption and lies there are actually metrics and facts they can look at. So they either didn't compare, did bad research, or did good research but they still didn't care. None of that is worthy of respect.

Now here Cardboard is as partisan and ideological as they come. But even he went like "C'mon man, this guy Trump is too much". Now he and I probably disagree on a lot of things and will probably continue to disagree on a lot of things. But that is worthy of respect.

In addition, if you guys are so worried about the number of abortions then why are the anti-abortion people so against contraception and sex education which are the biggest factors in decreasing the number of abortions?

Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: onyx1 on November 03, 2016, 09:25:16 AM
Maybe these women think differently than you.  Maybe they are smarter.  Maybe they compared both candidates and decided that a corrupt, serial liar, who supports the killing of unborn children at any time for any reason is worse in their mind than Trump.  It doesn't mean they love Trump, or even like Trump.  Nor does it mean they don't care about sexual harassment or the disabled.  It means they believe HRC is a worse choice in their minds.   You can rip on them or respect their choice even if you don't agree.

And no, I don't have to respect people's choices when they are bad choices. When it comes to corruption and lies there are actually metrics and facts they can look at.


Here's corruption and lies metric:

Which candidate is under criminal investigation by the FBI with a highly likely indictment forthcoming?

Clinton ...... YES
Trump ....... NO
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Tim Eriksen on November 03, 2016, 09:26:30 AM
Maybe these women think differently than you.  Maybe they are smarter.  Maybe they compared both candidates and decided that a corrupt, serial liar, who supports the killing of unborn children at any time for any reason is worse in their mind than Trump.  It doesn't mean they love Trump, or even like Trump.  Nor does it mean they don't care about sexual harassment or the disabled.  It means they believe HRC is a worse choice in their minds.   You can rip on them or respect their choice even if you don't agree.

Wow! In one paragraph in one post you managed to lecture about respecting women's choices and railed against abortion. That's just a complete new level of bs right there.

And no, I don't have to respect people's choices when they are bad choices. It's not like you're ordering something for dinner - well that looks gross but I respect your choice. When it comes to corruption and lies there are actually metrics and facts they can look at. So they either didn't compare, did bad research, or did good research but they still didn't care. None of that is worthy of respect.

Now here Cardboard is as partisan and ideological as they come. But even he went like "C'mon man, this guy Trump is too much". Now he and I probably disagree on a lot of things and will probably continue to disagree on a lot of things. But that is worthy of respect.

In addition, if you guys are so worried about the number of abortions then why are the anti-abortion people so against contraception and sex education which are the biggest factors in decreasing the number of abortions?

So you actually believe that when it comes to lies and corruption that Trump is a worse choice than Hillary.  Are you trolling me?   Seriously, you have to be joking or blind to reality.           
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Tim Eriksen on November 03, 2016, 09:28:02 AM
Maybe these women think differently than you.  Maybe they are smarter.  Maybe they compared both candidates and decided that a corrupt, serial liar, who supports the killing of unborn children at any time for any reason is worse in their mind than Trump.  It doesn't mean they love Trump, or even like Trump.  Nor does it mean they don't care about sexual harassment or the disabled.  It means they believe HRC is a worse choice in their minds.   You can rip on them or respect their choice even if you don't agree.

And no, I don't have to respect people's choices when they are bad choices. When it comes to corruption and lies there are actually metrics and facts they can look at.


Here's corruption and lies metric:

Which candidate is under criminal investigation by the FBI with a highly likely indictment forthcoming?

Clinton ...... YES
Trump ....... NO

It appears to be multiple investigations - the misuse of classified information (email server) and the Foundation. 
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: onyx1 on November 03, 2016, 09:36:18 AM
Maybe these women think differently than you.  Maybe they are smarter.  Maybe they compared both candidates and decided that a corrupt, serial liar, who supports the killing of unborn children at any time for any reason is worse in their mind than Trump.  It doesn't mean they love Trump, or even like Trump.  Nor does it mean they don't care about sexual harassment or the disabled.  It means they believe HRC is a worse choice in their minds.   You can rip on them or respect their choice even if you don't agree.

And no, I don't have to respect people's choices when they are bad choices. When it comes to corruption and lies there are actually metrics and facts they can look at.


Here's corruption and lies metric:

Which candidate is under criminal investigation by the FBI with a highly likely indictment forthcoming?

Clinton ...... YES
Trump ....... NO

It appears to be multiple investigations - the misuse of classified information (email server) and the Foundation.

And if your choice of media is CNN, you wouldn't even know it.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Liberty on November 03, 2016, 09:39:04 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8U0IaMsRf4
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 03, 2016, 09:40:31 AM
Well Onyx, the FBI didn't say that they've reopened the investigation into Clinton, nor has anyone talked about an indictment, nor about its probability. But if you have a credible source from DOJ that says that Hillary is highly likely to be indicted please post it so I can stand corrected.

Tim, I'm not trolling you. On Hillary's side you have conspiracy theories about the Clinton foundation.

On Trump's side he is on video basically talking about how he bribes politicians. He has improperly contributed to political campaigns and has a history of investigations into his business going away shortly after making large political donations to state AGs - exactly how he bragged on video. I don't know if the pending RICO fraud and racketeering case falls under corruption or another category.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: wachtwoord on November 03, 2016, 09:42:58 AM
I opened this thread afraid to be disappointed again but I'm pleasantly surprised :)
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Tim Eriksen on November 03, 2016, 09:48:31 AM
Well Onyx, the FBI didn't say that they've reopened the investigation into Clinton, nor has anyone talked about an indictment, nor about its probability. But if you have a credible source from DOJ that says that Hillary is highly likely to be indicted please post it so I can stand corrected.

Tim, I'm not trolling you. On Hillary's side you have conspiracy theories about the Clinton foundation.

On Trump's side he is on video basically talking about how he bribes politicians. He has improperly contributed to political campaigns and has a history of investigations into his business going away shortly after making large political donations to state AGs - exactly how he bragged on video. I don't know if the pending RICO fraud and racketeering case falls under corruption or another category.

Then it is clear that we cannot have a rational discussion on the issue. 
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: RichardGibbons on November 03, 2016, 09:49:52 AM
Here's corruption and lies metric:

Which candidate is under criminal investigation by the FBI with a highly likely indictment forthcoming?

Clinton ...... YES
Trump ....... NO

Here's corruption and lies metric:

Which candidate currently has three open investigations for fraud, including one going to trial on November 28, and has a lawsuit going to trial in December for raping a 13-year-old child?

Clinton ...... NO
Trump ...... YES

But you're right--Clinton's way worse.  She used her own computer server.  Hard to imagine anything more evil!  Seth Meyers summarizes the situation nicely, showing how malevolent Clinton is compared to Trump:

https://twitter.com/latenightseth/status/793982502008397825
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: onyx1 on November 03, 2016, 09:57:44 AM
Well Onyx, the FBI didn't say that they've reopened the investigation into Clinton, nor has anyone talked about an indictment, nor about its probability. But if you have a credible source from DOJ that says that Hillary is highly likely to be indicted please post it so I can stand corrected.

Bret Baier reports the latest news about the Clinton Foundation investigation from two sources inside the FBI. He reveals five important new pieces of information in these two short clips:

1. The Clinton Foundation investigation is far more expansive than anybody has reported so far and has been going on for more than a year.

2. The laptops of Clinton aides Cherryl Mills and Heather Samuelson have not been destroyed, and agents are currently combing through them. The investigation has interviewed several people twice, and plans to interview some for a third time.

3. Agents have found emails believed to have originated on Hillary Clinton's secret server on Anthony Weiner's laptop. They say the emails are not duplicates and could potentially be classified in nature.

4. Sources within the FBI have told him that an indictment is "likely" in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation, "barring some obstruction in some way" from the Justice Department.

5. FBI sources say with 99% accuracy that Hillary Clinton's server has been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that information had been taken from it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/02/fbi_sources_tell_fox_news_indictment_likely_in_clinton_foundation_case.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/02/fbi_sources_tell_fox_news_indictment_likely_in_clinton_foundation_case.html)



The DOJ has publicly committed to accept the recommendation of the FBI in Clinton email investigation.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Packer16 on November 03, 2016, 09:58:04 AM
Well Onyx, the FBI didn't say that they've reopened the investigation into Clinton, nor has anyone talked about an indictment, nor about its probability. But if you have a credible source from DOJ that says that Hillary is highly likely to be indicted please post it so I can stand corrected.

Tim, I'm not trolling you. On Hillary's side you have conspiracy theories about the Clinton foundation.

On Trump's side he is on video basically talking about how he bribes politicians. He has improperly contributed to political campaigns and has a history of investigations into his business going away shortly after making large political donations to state AGs - exactly how he bragged on video. I don't know if the pending RICO fraud and racketeering case falls under corruption or another category.

I have a friend who has seen Hillary in action in the pay for play.  He works for a federal agency & had caught some Swiss bankers in money laundering & had them in custody in the US.  Clinton comes in & tells the agency employees to leave.  Next thing you know the bankers are free and a donation to the Clinton Foundation appeared from these folks.  I have to believe this is not just one instance as this is how HRC bullies and encourages others to bully on her behalf.  Do you think this person who has bullied in the US gov't for years and got away with it is the right person to be the President?  Or a guy who has made bullying remarks that are mainly bluster?

Packer 
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Liberty on November 03, 2016, 09:59:37 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-only-way-trump-can-win/2016/11/02/1512d15c-a07c-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: vox on November 03, 2016, 10:02:33 AM
So you actually believe that when it comes to lies and corruption that Trump is a worse choice than Hillary.  Are you trolling me?   Seriously, you have to be joking or blind to reality.         

I believe this. To put the issue in context, the Clintons have been political figures for nearly forty years. The couple's tax returns since 1977 are public. There has been opposition research and special prosecutor investigations that have spent easily in excess of $100 million trying to find proof of criminal behavior on their part. On the other hand, Donald Trump has steadfastly refused to release any of his tax returns - even those that are not under audit. Thanks to investigative reporting by David Fahrenthold, there is abundant evidence that he used his charity for self-dealing.

Michael Chertoff, lead Republican counsel on the Senate Whitewater Committee will vote for Hillary Clinton. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-03/clinton-s-former-prosecutor-michael-chertoff-endorses-her

Kenneth Starr, former Whitewater independent counsel praises Bill Clinton for his philantropic work. He stated: "President Clinton of course is serving the country magnificently, the work of the Clinton Foundation, his leadership in Haiti obviously. The then first lady is an extremely and able energetic secretary of state." http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/02/17/why-ken-starr-would-apologize-to-bill-clinton.html
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 03, 2016, 10:04:28 AM
yea, what vox said.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Jurgis on November 03, 2016, 10:04:36 AM
It is simply a system setup with improper incentives leading to crazy outcomes.  You are dealing with a system where the people who make the mistakes are not the ones who suffer the consequences.   And these people are chosen by a method where your vote counts so little that it doesn't make much sense to spend real time and effort to educate yourself.   You have a better chance of winning powerball then you do casting the deciding vote in this election. If you spent a lot of time on how you are going to vote, was that really an intelligent use of your limited time on this planet?  They say the lottery is a tax on those who are bad at math. An election is a way to give those bad at math a false illusion of control.  The perverse incentives are everywhere, at every level, in every step of the process, from the government policing itself to printing its own money, to the lack of oversight, you name it.   You could never run a successful company this way: Start by letting the public vote on your management (everyone gets 1 vote whether they are customers or shareholders or not)...

People aren't completely irrational, but they do respond to incentives (both good and bad).

And that's where we disagree. Yeah, US/European-democracy/republic is not perfect, but there's nothing better at this time in human development. Perhaps humans will become more ... something ... and then we can have other solutions. Right now that's the best there is.

And just to respond to some things: there are incentives in voting/elections; there is government control: it's called elections/voting; the fact that your vote is one of millions is a feature not a bug: the outcome is based on majority will;

Perhaps we should have voting on issues/laws rather than voting for people/parties. But if you look at referendums and California (not to pick on CA, but that's example I know) "resolutions" (or whatever they are called), the outcome of people voting for issues/laws seems to be even worse than when they vote for politicians/parties. Perhaps more-direct-democracy would work when people become something ... more. But I think I'm somewhat in the camp of "republicans" (not to be confused with GOP): I think that like we have experts for surgery, aircraft flying, etc., so we should have experts for governing. So no direct democracy, but some kind of meritocratic republic. (OT: I don't believe China is an example, sorry valcont).
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 03, 2016, 10:12:25 AM
Well Onyx, the FBI didn't say that they've reopened the investigation into Clinton, nor has anyone talked about an indictment, nor about its probability. But if you have a credible source from DOJ that says that Hillary is highly likely to be indicted please post it so I can stand corrected.

Tim, I'm not trolling you. On Hillary's side you have conspiracy theories about the Clinton foundation.

On Trump's side he is on video basically talking about how he bribes politicians. He has improperly contributed to political campaigns and has a history of investigations into his business going away shortly after making large political donations to state AGs - exactly how he bragged on video. I don't know if the pending RICO fraud and racketeering case falls under corruption or another category.

I have a friend who has seen Hillary in action in the pay for play.  He works for a federal agency & had caught some Swiss bankers in money laundering & had them in custody in the US.  Clinton comes in & tells the agency employees to leave.  Next thing you know the bankers are free and a donation to the Clinton Foundation appeared from these folks.  I have to believe this is not just one instance as this is how HRC bullies and encourages others to bully on her behalf.  Do you think this person who has bullied in the US gov't for years and got away with it is the right person to be the President?  Or a guy who has made bullying remarks that are mainly bluster?

Packer
So countless investigations into Clinton keep coming empty, but a buddy told you she's corrupt and that should settle it then?

By the way, I don't see Trump's remarks as mainly bluster. He's a thin skinned, petty bully who holds onto his grudges and never lets go and follows through. Case in point: A he picks up a fight with Rosie O'Donell then a decade later he makes time for a shout-out to Rosie during a presidential debate which he is loosing. Sure. Give that man an army, the FBI, and the rest of the security aparatus.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Packer16 on November 03, 2016, 10:15:31 AM
You are right about our system.  Despite its flaws & attempts to manipulate public opinion on average the best answer is arrived at despite as Churchill said about Americans that we will try everything else before arriving at the best answer.  I think social media has enhanced this.  I think past Presidents probably did alot that could be covered up that today cannot & this transition is painful for those who were used to spinning things.  I think for the most part folks have caught onto the spin and are rebelling against it.

Packer
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 03, 2016, 10:17:16 AM
I am becoming a fan of your thought process even though you post some crazy sh**t from time to time.

Thank you. I do my best.  :)

Quote
Just the other day, me and the wife were discussing if people should go through a test before voting and weather their test results should determine how much their vote would count. Would that be a fair system? Probably not because it will disenfranchise some segment of population. Would that be better for the country? The closest thing to that system is China( Believe it or not, their  politburo is extremely meritorious) and the jury is out if its working or not.

My first reaction to this is that I want to be the one to write the test.  Which probably means it is a bad idea.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 03, 2016, 10:21:19 AM
I am becoming a fan of your thought process even though you post some crazy sh**t from time to time.

Yes he does say some crazy sh*t from time to time

Quote
Just the other day, me and the wife were discussing if people should go through a test before voting and weather their test results should determine how much their vote would count. Would that be a fair system? Probably not because it will disenfranchise some segment of population. Would that be better for the country? The closest thing to that system is China( Believe it or not, their  politburo is extremely meritorious) and the jury is out if its working or not.

Quote
My first reaction to this is that I want to be the one to write the test.  Which probably means it is a bad idea.
Then he say something insightful and funny like that and you just gotta love him. :)
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 03, 2016, 11:23:54 AM
Just cast my vote if it matters for anything although Wisconsin is still a swing state. The line was long and there were a lot more women than men. I was really tempted to ask few women if they are Trump or Hillary fan but the passions are running so high in this election , I thought I would get beat up if I was incorrect.

The person at the polling center told me that they decided to extend the hours from 4:30 to 7:30PM due to the crowds.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 03, 2016, 11:41:22 AM
Seriously, what's with these long lines? If you have long lines, why not add more polls?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 03, 2016, 11:46:19 AM
Just cast my vote if it matters for anything although Wisconsin is still a swing state. The line was long and there were a lot more women than men. I was really tempted to ask few women if they are Trump or Hillary fan but the passions are running so high in this election , I thought I would get beat up if I was incorrect.

The person at the polling center told me that they decided to extend the hours from 4:30 to 7:30PM due to the crowds.

Early voting?   What lengths they are now going to try to get people to vote.  Pandora plays an ad a few times per hour lately (probably paid for with your tax dollars) with Obama saying that it gets him "fired up" when people say that votes don't matter.  What is next them coming to your house to ask you for your vote?     This is all evidence to me that not voting matters.  The ruling elite doesn't care who you vote for, just as long as you lend the system legitimacy by voting.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 03, 2016, 11:47:23 AM
Seriously, what's with these long lines? If you have long lines, why not add more polls?

It's a perception thing.  There are long lines, because everyone is voting.   The last thing they want is the perception that I went to vote and almost no one was there.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 03, 2016, 11:54:56 AM
Seriously, what's with these long lines? If you have long lines, why not add more polls?

It's a perception thing.  There are long lines, because everyone is voting.   The last thing they want is the perception that I went to vote and almost no one was there.

Sort of like a night club huh. I don't know. I might have hit the lunch crowd. But tomorrow is the last day to vote as an absentee ballot here. I'm sure lot of people are realizing that there will be even longer lines on the election day so coming out early.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 03, 2016, 12:02:55 PM
It's not just early voting I remember that on every election day there are long lines. Some places longer than others *cough*darkerplaces*cough*.

And I don't see why it should be inconvenient to vote, yes even to vote early. It doesn't even have to cost the tax payer anything. Pay for it with a fee/tax on PACs and SuperPACs. If these clowns are gonna spend countless millions on telling people who to vote and who not to vote, why not pitch in a little to make sure those people are comfortable when they vote?

I know, I know, I'm dreaming.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 03, 2016, 12:03:49 PM
Seriously, what's with these long lines? If you have long lines, why not add more polls?

It's a perception thing.  There are long lines, because everyone is voting.   The last thing they want is the perception that I went to vote and almost no one was there.

Sort of like a night club huh. I don't know. I might have hit the lunch crowd. But tomorrow is the last day to vote as an absentee ballot here. I'm sure lot of people are realizing that there will be even longer lines on the election day so coming out early.

Maybe that is a little too conspiracy-theory-ish, but even if it isn't by design, it probably explains why they won't be in a rush to add more.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Tim Eriksen on November 03, 2016, 12:12:12 PM
It's not just early voting I remember that on every election day there are long lines. Some places longer than others *cough*darkerplaces*cough*.

And I don't see why it should be inconvenient to vote, yes even to vote early. It doesn't even have to cost the tax payer anything. Pay for it with a fee/tax on PACs and SuperPACs. If these clowns are gonna spend countless millions on telling people who to vote and who not to vote, why not pitch in a little to make sure those people are comfortable when they vote?

I know, I know, I'm dreaming.

Do you not even realize that your idea violates the Constitution??  You can't tax certain groups for participating in the political process.   

The reasons lines are long is government is incompetent and doing even simple things such as holding an election. 
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 03, 2016, 12:25:07 PM
Well the dreaming part implies that I actually haven't given this stuff a lot of thought. And yes you can't tax PACs and SPACs but i think you can hit them with registration fees and the sort. Anyway it wasn't a serious proposal.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: TorontoRaptorsFan on November 03, 2016, 05:01:37 PM
Maybe these women think differently than you.  Maybe they are smarter.  Maybe they compared both candidates and decided that a corrupt, serial liar, who supports the killing of unborn children at any time for any reason is worse in their mind than Trump.  It doesn't mean they love Trump, or even like Trump.  Nor does it mean they don't care about sexual harassment or the disabled.  It means they believe HRC is a worse choice in their minds.   You can rip on them or respect their choice even if you don't agree.

And no, I don't have to respect people's choices when they are bad choices. When it comes to corruption and lies there are actually metrics and facts they can look at.


Here's corruption and lies metric:

Which candidate is under criminal investigation by the FBI with a highly likely indictment forthcoming?

Clinton ...... YES
Trump ....... NO

It appears to be multiple investigations - the misuse of classified information (email server) and the Foundation.

And if your choice of media is CNN, you wouldn't even know it.

I can't stand Van Jones. I wish they fired him when they fired Donna Brazile.
I just wish CNN was more neutral. They'll line their expert panel with 8 Clinton supporters and only 2 Trump supporters (Jeffrey Lord and Kayleigh McEnany).
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rukawa on November 03, 2016, 05:02:29 PM
It's not just early voting I remember that on every election day there are long lines. Some places longer than others *cough*darkerplaces*cough*.

And I don't see why it should be inconvenient to vote, yes even to vote early. It doesn't even have to cost the tax payer anything. Pay for it with a fee/tax on PACs and SuperPACs. If these clowns are gonna spend countless millions on telling people who to vote and who not to vote, why not pitch in a little to make sure those people are comfortable when they vote?

I know, I know, I'm dreaming.

Do you not even realize that your idea violates the Constitution??  You can't tax certain groups for participating in the political process.   

The reasons lines are long is government is incompetent and doing even simple things such as holding an election.

Correction. The AMERICAN government is incompetent at holding an election. The Canadian government holds elections every year. Everything is extremely orderly.

If I were to guess the reason (because I don't really know much) I would suspect that the reason for this is that your election system is a legacy of your whole political culture. Your political culture is based on the idea of democracy, in particular the idea that the people should be running the government. In practice, what this used to mean, is that a large number of offices in your government were actually politically appointed. What used to happen is that you had a spoils systems in which political parties would reward members of the party by giving them political appointments. Over time this changed and more and more of the American government was professionalized. This meant that there was in fact a large number of people not politically appointed who would serve in government regardless of which party was in power.

Your elections system though still follows the old model. Firstly based on your constitution the election system is not centralized...each state runs its own part of the election separately and your voters don't vote for the president..they vote for electors. This is bad. But what is worse is that the States often decentralize the election even further to the local level. This election processes differ even inside the State. Second many of the people actually in charge of the election are political appointees and are partisans of either the Democrats or Republicans. They game the elections to try and give their side the advantage. You basically have a really stupid system that is the legacy of your history and constitution.

Contrast this with Canada. We have Elections Canada. Its non-partisan and independent of government. And it runs the election across the whole country. Simple, easy, effective. If I were to guess, I would guess that nearly every country in the developed world runs elections like this except maybe for Switzerland (since it decentralized and an old democracy).

Its not a government problem.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: RichardGibbons on November 03, 2016, 10:21:24 PM
Pandora plays an ad a few times per hour lately (probably paid for with your tax dollars) with Obama saying that it gets him "fired up" when people say that votes don't matter.  What is next them coming to your house to ask you for your vote?     This is all evidence to me that not voting matters.  The ruling elite doesn't care who you vote for, just as long as you lend the system legitimacy by voting.

Another alternative--which actually seems more likely to me--is that Pandora has figured out that people who listen to Pandora (and possibly even your particularly playlist) are more likely to vote Democrat.  And, they might also believe that an appeal by Obama is more likely to sway a Democrat.

Thus, a Democratic president telling a group of mostly Democrats to vote might not be evidence that they don't care who you vote for, but rather that they're pretty good at targeted advertising.

(To test this, one strategy might be to create an account with a bunch of country music, and see if these appeals go away, or switch to something that would be more appealing to Republicans. Might not matter though, since younger demographics are more likely to be Democrats and Pandora users are more likely to be younger.  It depends on how smart they are with their market segmenting.)
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 03, 2016, 10:48:39 PM
They have gotten incredibly good at this stuff - media segmentation and targeting. On the left and on the right. But especially on the left. They're also really good at negotiating media buys and being very efficient at how much to buy. It's incredible really.

One of the things I'm working on requires a media campaign. Nothing too creative, but we need to hit some specific demographics. We've decided to go with one of the political shops on the left as opposed to a Madison ave shop. Nothing to do with ideology, the left guys have much better targeting on the segments we're looking at as opposed to the right wing guys. They're also so much cheaper than the the regular ad guys.

It's a pity that none of these guys are public. They're so focused on their little corner of the world, but once they figure out all the stuff they can do commercially they'll make a lot of money.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 04, 2016, 05:27:13 AM
Pandora plays an ad a few times per hour lately (probably paid for with your tax dollars) with Obama saying that it gets him "fired up" when people say that votes don't matter.  What is next them coming to your house to ask you for your vote?     This is all evidence to me that not voting matters.  The ruling elite doesn't care who you vote for, just as long as you lend the system legitimacy by voting.

Another alternative--which actually seems more likely to me--is that Pandora has figured out that people who listen to Pandora (and possibly even your particularly playlist) are more likely to vote Democrat.  And, they might also believe that an appeal by Obama is more likely to sway a Democrat.

Thus, a Democratic president telling a group of mostly Democrats to vote might not be evidence that they don't care who you vote for, but rather that they're pretty good at targeted advertising.

(To test this, one strategy might be to create an account with a bunch of country music, and see if these appeals go away, or switch to something that would be more appealing to Republicans. Might not matter though, since younger demographics are more likely to be Democrats and Pandora users are more likely to be younger.  It depends on how smart they are with their market segmenting.)

That would be an interesting experiment, but it would mean spending an hour or so listening to country music.  That's too high a price to pay for a datapoint.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: wachtwoord on November 04, 2016, 05:50:32 AM
@Rukawa Switzerland is actually (one of) the best functioning democracies in the world because of the decentrilization.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: DonFanucci on November 04, 2016, 05:52:48 AM
If I were to guess the reason (because I don't really know much) I would suspect that the reason for this is that your election system is a legacy of your whole political culture. Your political culture is based on the idea of democracy, in particular the idea that the people should be running the government.

Actually this is not true. The founding fathers of America were very much anti-democracy. America was designed as a republic- a form of government focused on the protection of individual rights. This is why we have separation of powers, the electoral college, indirect representation in congress, etc. In a republic, voting isn't all that important because the issues you can change via vote are supposed to pertain only to the execution of the government's protection of rights.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 04, 2016, 06:01:43 AM
Not really election related, but this is gold. I've always said that Biden is the Democratic Dan Quayle. If he were a Republican the press would be quoting him daily and making fun of him nonstop.  Here's an email to The Boss from The Stupid Sidekick.

Quote
> FROM: JoeyBiden@geocities.com
> TO: BarackH@gmail.co.ke > 
> OK, I cann barely type this but my hand i sstuck insdie the vendign machine aand if I let go I lose the snickers, tell me what to do boss.
>
(Source: Wikileaks (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8882))


BTW: I do know this is a joke, but it is hilarious considering it isn't Republicans making it.  This is what his own party thinks of him in private.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Liberty on November 04, 2016, 07:06:10 AM
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/4/13500018/clinton-email-scandal-bullshit
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: vox on November 04, 2016, 07:09:36 AM
It also looks like that "likely indictment" Fox News reported is inaccurate.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/03/media/baseless-fox-news-indictment-report/index.html?sr=twnewday110416baseless-fox-news-indictment-report1010AMVODtopVideo&linkId=30696896
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 04, 2016, 07:49:39 AM
It also looks like that "likely indictment" Fox News reported is inaccurate.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/03/media/baseless-fox-news-indictment-report/index.html?sr=twnewday110416baseless-fox-news-indictment-report1010AMVODtopVideo&linkId=30696896

Not sure if you guys know this in Canada but Fox news is not considered a legitimate news outlet here. Its more of an entertainment channel featuring  blondes who passes Ailes 'sniff' test. They pride themselves on high ratings but since they are the only ones who peddles these crackpot theories , this is the channel of choice for deplorables. I can't wait for Trump to launch his own. That'll be the race to the bottom.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 04, 2016, 10:26:33 AM
It also looks like that "likely indictment" Fox News reported is inaccurate.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/03/media/baseless-fox-news-indictment-report/index.html?sr=twnewday110416baseless-fox-news-indictment-report1010AMVODtopVideo&linkId=30696896

Not sure if you guys know this in Canada but Fox news is not considered a legitimate news outlet here. Its more of an entertainment channel featuring  blondes who passes Ailes 'sniff' test. They pride themselves on high ratings but since they are the only ones who peddles these crackpot theories , this is the channel of choice for deplorables. I can't wait for Trump to launch his own. That'll be the race to the bottom.
Yes, up here in the great white north we are very much aware that Fox is not a legitimate news source. You guys down south seem to have a problem figuring that out.

Up here we're also beginning to clue into the fact that our neighbor and partner to the south, a nuclear armed superpower, is starting to resemble something of a failed state and that is horrifying!
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 04, 2016, 10:44:25 AM
It also looks like that "likely indictment" Fox News reported is inaccurate.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/03/media/baseless-fox-news-indictment-report/index.html?sr=twnewday110416baseless-fox-news-indictment-report1010AMVODtopVideo&linkId=30696896

Not sure if you guys know this in Canada but Fox news is not considered a legitimate news outlet here. Its more of an entertainment channel featuring  blondes who passes Ailes 'sniff' test. They pride themselves on high ratings but since they are the only ones who peddles these crackpot theories , this is the channel of choice for deplorables. I can't wait for Trump to launch his own. That'll be the race to the bottom.

While I agree 100%, what I've always found hilarious is that those on the left think that CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, Washington Post, New York Times, etc,   are any less biased than Fox News is.   There is no such thing as an unbiased news source.  If you think you are watching/reading unbiased news it simply means that you share the same biases as the source.

Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: vox on November 04, 2016, 11:03:17 AM
To be clear, there are reporters and anchors on Fox News that follow journalistic standards. There's a reason why Chris Wallace was chosen to be the moderator for the third Presidential debate. Bret Baier who broke the indictment story is supposed to be one of them, which is why the story had legs. There are also Fox News entertainers like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly who do not follow the standards. Implicit bias may be present in journalists for the amount and tenor of the way they choose to cover certain stories, but you won't find traditional media sources hawking completely unfounded conspiracy theories like on the Hannity show.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Liberty on November 04, 2016, 11:14:26 AM
All media has bias: Yes. It's all run by humans.

The quantity of bias is the same in all media: No. Clearly not.

I'll take the NYT or the WSJ over the Soviet Pravda or that 2003 Iraqi minister of information... Some organizations have bias coming from the top down and pervading the whole organizations; they consider it their actual mission to convince people of a certain cause or to support a certain ideology or political party; while others try to hold themselves to high professional standards of fairness and objectivity and have failures that are more on a case-by-case basis or in their blind spots. Sins of omission vs sins of commission, in a way. Or trying to do the right thing and coming short rather than trying to do the wrong thing to begin with.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: frank87 on November 04, 2016, 11:15:37 AM
Re: Fox:

I found this interesting:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/11/04/white-racist-kills-two-cops-iowa-ambush-and-fox-news-goes-quiet/214294
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 04, 2016, 11:19:54 AM
Seriously? There's no difference between the New York Times and Fox News?  Are you making funnies?

I think everyone would agree that MSNBC is pretty left leaning. CNN? I think they're so bad that they don't even know how to lean. Anyway, CNN and MSNBC are a joke. Allmost all cable news is.

If you're looking for no bias or as close to it as possible I recommend Reuters. One of the few proper news outlets left.

Btw, this is tricky to formulate but sometimes maybe some bias is a good thing. I know that doesn't come out right, but Edward Murrow comes to mind. Was Murrow biased against McCarthy? I think so. Was it the right thing to do? Absolutely.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 04, 2016, 11:26:53 AM
To be clear, there are reporters and anchors on Fox News that follow journalistic standards. There's a reason why Chris Wallace was chosen to be the moderator for the third Presidential debate. Bret Baier who broke the indictment story is supposed to be one of them, which is why the story had legs. There are also Fox News entertainers like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly who do not follow the standards. Implicit bias may be present in journalists for the amount and tenor of the way they choose to cover certain stories, but you won't find traditional media sources hawking completely unfounded conspiracy theories like on the Hannity show.
Yea, but what's the % of Hannity and O'reilly type stuff vs Chris Wallace stuff? At some point you stop being a news channel. I don't think that "we have an hour or two of non crazy stuff" is a saving grace.

The Bret Baier stuff is case in point for Fox. That sort of story wouldn't have made it on a legitimate news organization because they still have certain journalistic standards. Those standards are obviously lacking/missing at Fox.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 04, 2016, 11:40:54 AM
It is the same thing, the difference in some cases a matter of degree, not of kind.  Also comparing CNN news to Hannity or O'Reilly  isn't fair. Those two would be the first to admit that they are conservatives on the far right and that their shows are biased as such.  But compare the CNN news reporting to the Fox News news reporting and you will find they generally report on the same stories only one from the left and one from the right.   Are you going to tell me that Chris Wallace isn't a liberal and that you can't tell by the phrases he uses and the expression on his face as he talks about certain things?  It may be hard to notice when you agree with him, but he is coming from a left wing point of view.   

Just look at the post about Biden from me above, do you deny that he got a pass from the media where Dan Quayle did not?   If he were a Republican you would hear about him endlessly, but because he's a Democrat they ignore him and hope no one notices. 

Don't get me wrong I'm not criticizing the bias of any news source.  I don't think it is possible to be unbiased.  But for the most part Fox News is open about its bias and the rest of them claim to have none which is BS.

Again this is hard to see when it coincides completely with your own point of view.  All of these news outlets Fox and CNN alike are biased in favor of the United States in apposed to the Middle East for example, but none of them admit as much.  If you were to see a newscast in Iran or Russia you would notice the bias, but in the US you do not see it (unless you are on the left and you watch Foxnews).
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 04, 2016, 11:51:38 AM
Up here we're also beginning to clue into the fact that our neighbor and partner to the south, a nuclear armed superpower, is starting to resemble something of a failed state and that is horrifying!

It might look that way when you read it in the media but I don't sense any of that on the ground unless I'm living in my own little bubble. Ultimately the demographic trends , money and power are on the correct side. Look at the red states and they are usually poor, backward and struggling. Not all blue states are heaven but most of the money and power is concentrated in those. If that changes then we are screwed.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: vox on November 04, 2016, 12:04:21 PM
RE: rb

I don't know the exact breakdown, and I imagine that total viewership is more important than the hours of content, but they do program an hour of Megyn Kelly in between Hannity and O'Reilly. I don't think that Bret Baier released his story with the intent to deceive, I think his private sources were probably overzealous and misled him.

RE: rkbabang

You're shifting your position from being 'the mainstream media is not any less biased than Fox News' to 'Fox News is open or apparent about their bias and the mainstream media is not.'

Joe Biden has been criticized roundly for his gaffes when he ran for President. Frankly, he doesn't get covered because people care about the Vice President an order of magnitude less than the President.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 04, 2016, 12:22:42 PM
Seriously? There's no difference between the New York Times and Fox News?  Are you making funnies?

I think everyone would agree that MSNBC is pretty left leaning. CNN? I think they're so bad that they don't even know how to lean. Anyway, CNN and MSNBC are a joke. Allmost all cable news is.

If you're looking for no bias or as close to it as possible I recommend Reuters. One of the few proper news outlets left.

Btw, this is tricky to formulate but sometimes maybe some bias is a good thing. I know that doesn't come out right, but Edward Murrow comes to mind. Was Murrow biased against McCarthy? I think so. Was it the right thing to do? Absolutely.

We don't see a lot of Reuters here in the US it is more of a British thing our newspapers print Associated Press rather than Reuters.  I'll try reading more Reuters online and see what I think.

I agree with you on Murrow.  Bias is a good thing.  Pretending you aren't biased is what I don't like.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 04, 2016, 12:25:49 PM
RE: rb

I don't know the exact breakdown, and I imagine that total viewership is more important than the hours of content, but they do program an hour of Megyn Kelly in between Hannity and O'Reilly. I don't think that Bret Baier released his story with the intent to deceive, I think his private sources were probably overzealous and misled him.

RE: rkbabang

You're shifting your position from being 'the mainstream media is not any less biased than Fox News' to 'Fox News is open or apparent about their bias and the mainstream media is not.'

Yes I am shifting my opinion as I think about it more.

Quote
Joe Biden has been criticized roundly for his gaffes when he ran for President. Frankly, he doesn't get covered because people care about the Vice President an order of magnitude less than the President.

Tell that to Dick Cheney.
(http://cdns.yournewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/DevilDick.jpg)
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 04, 2016, 12:54:34 PM
Up here we're also beginning to clue into the fact that our neighbor and partner to the south, a nuclear armed superpower, is starting to resemble something of a failed state and that is horrifying!

It might look that way when you read it in the media but I don't sense any of that on the ground unless I'm living in my own little bubble. Ultimately the demographic trends , money and power are on the correct side. Look at the red states and they are usually poor, backward and struggling. Not all blue states are heaven but most of the money and power is concentrated in those. If that changes then we are screwed.

I'm not talking so much about the money part but the structural part such as:

1. Candidate for president talks about jailing his opponent after he wins
2. Candidate for president talks about not accepting result of election is he looses
3. Candidate for president invites foreign adversary to hack communications of political opponent. Half of political spectrum doesn't care or cheers when that comes to pass
4. The main internal security service appears to be partisan and is getting involved in the electoral process
5. Parliament doesn't have any agenda except for obstructionism
6. Members of parliament are talking about impeaching a future president before the election is even held, never mind the result of said election
7. Members of senate impeding the operation of the supreme court by threatening to not confirm justices to the supreme court until they control the executive branch and the appointment process

The list goes on, but all that is starting to sound a little failed statey, even if it's a rich one.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Schwab711 on November 04, 2016, 12:56:23 PM
Seriously? There's no difference between the New York Times and Fox News?  Are you making funnies?

I think everyone would agree that MSNBC is pretty left leaning. CNN? I think they're so bad that they don't even know how to lean. Anyway, CNN and MSNBC are a joke. Allmost all cable news is.

If you're looking for no bias or as close to it as possible I recommend Reuters. One of the few proper news outlets left.

Btw, this is tricky to formulate but sometimes maybe some bias is a good thing. I know that doesn't come out right, but Edward Murrow comes to mind. Was Murrow biased against McCarthy? I think so. Was it the right thing to do? Absolutely.

We don't see a lot of Reuters here in the US it is more of a British thing our newspapers print Associated Press rather than Reuters.  I'll try reading more Reuters online and see what I think.

I agree with you on Murrow.  Bias is a good thing.  Pretending you aren't biased is what I don't like.

"Fair and Balanced"?

I saw a headline the other day titled "5 Reasons to Vote for Donald Trump" from WaPo. Would we ever see that from Fox News, Breitbart, ect? The counter-argument "Fox News is just as biased [or insert similar language] as [insert left-leaning media outlet]" is perfect. It cannot be refuted and conveys that "conservative media" only does what "liberal media" does. There is certainly liberal media. But the US has a lot of centrist media as well. We have a media source for every ideology and demographic. I like your writing but I disagree on the magnitude of "media bias".

I have similar feelings about government ineptness. I'd like government to be a little smaller. I'd like less double-taxation and over-regulation. At the same time, I think we operate more than adequately as is. USPS provides the same services as FedEx and UPS for roughly 40%-80% less with government bureaucracy. Most government activities are meant to provide services that the private sector couldn't provide because they weren't profitable. Of course these activities are somewhat inefficient! We knew this ahead of time! I think it would be great to see more "investor-like" language when discussing policies. When folks talk about "failed policies", they are usually saying something along the lines of "I think we are paying 10% too much for these services".

I think Packer captured this phenomena well in an earlier post. We are all guilty of tailoring our news intake to our personal tastes because it makes sense to do so. There's negative consequences to this and I think we are seeing them in this election. Like the financial crisis, everyone contributed. It would be great to see an organization remind everyone just how similar the dem and rep parties really are. They both want the same things, just sometimes in modestly different ways.

I'll go back to planning for corp tax cuts now.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 04, 2016, 01:06:08 PM
RE: rb

I don't know the exact breakdown, and I imagine that total viewership is more important than the hours of content, but they do program an hour of Megyn Kelly in between Hannity and O'Reilly. I don't think that Bret Baier released his story with the intent to deceive, I think his private sources were probably overzealous and misled him.
I don't know whether Baier wanted to deceive or he was just an eager reporter. I just said that Fox seems to be lacking journalistic standards that exist elsewhere. Standards that would have prevented him from coming out with the story.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 04, 2016, 01:10:04 PM
Quote
Joe Biden has been criticized roundly for his gaffes when he ran for President. Frankly, he doesn't get covered because people care about the Vice President an order of magnitude less than the President.

Tell that to Dick Cheney.
I don't want to pile on Biden. I think a lot of his gaffes are really endearing. But here's my favorite one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rcK5tHbLn0
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: LC on November 04, 2016, 02:20:03 PM
Seriously, what's with these long lines? If you have long lines, why not add more polls?

It's a perception thing.  There are long lines, because everyone is voting.   The last thing they want is the perception that I went to vote and almost no one was there.

Here in Colorado they mail you a ballot weeks beforehand, you fill it out and drop it off. Simple. New York was a joke: dense areas had lines around 2-3 blocks.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Liberty on November 04, 2016, 04:25:46 PM
Did the FBI leak things to the Trump camp?  ???

https://mobile.twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/794539625348038658/video/1
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 05, 2016, 06:21:17 AM
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/national-enquirer-paid-to-kill-trump-affair-story-report.html

Oh Oh Melania got RickRolled..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: tengen on November 05, 2016, 08:22:33 AM
A reporter has documented all the falsehoods told by Trump:

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/uselection/2016/11/04/donald-trump-the-unauthorized-database-of-false-things.html

Clinton is a paragon of honesty in comparison.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: TorontoRaptorsFan on November 05, 2016, 08:55:19 AM
I think it's hilarious to see so many people here get worked up about the election yet have no control over the situation.

Second point is I also think a lot of people are foolish for putting down Trump when he's clearly been a success in life. I'm still laughing about the thread where a lot of people here were saying they would rather have Buffett's life than Trump's - which is crazy.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 05, 2016, 09:55:03 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/report-melania-trump-worked-in-us-without-proper-permit/2016/11/05/3ddc5a8a-a302-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html

It can't get any better than this. Look at the republican base, you have evangelicals who preaches family values and are voting for an adulterer and an extremely unethical candidate. You have deplorables who don't like illegals but the candidate's wife was an illegal immigrant in this country. Bunch of pathetic hypocrites. Hilarious.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 05, 2016, 09:57:49 AM
I think it's hilarious to see so many people here get worked up about the election yet have no control over the situation.

Second point is I also think a lot of people are foolish for putting down Trump when he's clearly been a success in life. I'm still laughing about the thread where a lot of people here were saying they would rather have Buffett's life than Trump's - which is crazy.
Well i guess it depends on how different people view and define success. For you and Trump it's glitz and glamour. Other people have other definitions. You laugh at those people and call them crazy. I don't think they really care. The truth is that there are a lot of those people. Case in point is Buffett. He doesn't have Trump's life because he doesn't want it not because he can't afford it.

This idea that we should put the wealthy in charge of the country is called an Oligarchy. We've decided a long time ago that it's not a good thing.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 05, 2016, 10:07:07 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/report-melania-trump-worked-in-us-without-proper-permit/2016/11/05/3ddc5a8a-a302-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html

It can't get any better than this. Look at the republican base, you have evangelicals who preaches family values and are voting for an adulterer and an extremely unethical candidate. You have deplorables who don't like illegals but the candidate's wife was an illegal immigrant in this country. Bunch of pathetic hypocrites. Hilarious.
Don't forget about the women who are lining up behind the misogynist sexual assaulter. The fiscal conservatives who are lined up behind the guys who's gonna blow up the debt and deficit. The flag waving patriots who think that Russia's involvement in the election is just dandy. The list goes on.

There's a bunch of writes in Hollywood right now going like "Damn! Even we couldn't make this shit up!"
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Gregmal on November 05, 2016, 01:02:09 PM
This idea that we should put the wealthy in charge of the country is called an Oligarchy. We've decided a long time ago that it's not a good thing.

This is not an idea that should be done in an absolute sense, but theres definitely merit to it. Truth is that there are people who simply shouldn't be able to vote, or at the least not have a vote count as much as other folks. Its, cute, warm, and fuzzy to some that everything goes around thinking they are equal. But there is something inherently flawed with a system in which some drug addict who relies on entitlements casts a vote that has the same power as Mark Cuban's vote. Because of the system, the vast majority of lower income folks only care about their entitlements and will cast misguided votes if they think it will result in getting something for nothing. How many of the "Obama iz gunna pay my gas billz!!" videos were out there? Or this gem..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJbOU4nmHQ

Then on the other end you have those highfalutin, wannabe philanthropist types in the upper middle class neighborhoods who mean well but are misguided as they preach about "giving back" based ideologies while driving 5 series BMWs and living in 800k homes.  And like Trump, they're all for giving back but conveniently abuse the system when it benefits them. Sandwiched in between are the middle class that is perpetually getting squeezed by real inflation, stagnant wages, and ever increases taxes, both direct and indirect.

Bottom line, is the people contributing should have more say than those that don't. There needs to be a balance of "creators" and "takers".
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: JoelS on November 05, 2016, 01:10:48 PM
I fear people have become desensitised to the behaviour of Trump. I was watching a documentary on Saddam Hussein. The guy was a megalomaniac with an obsession for being a "winner" & building monuments to himself. The point is Trump fits the pattern. The same pattern of behaviour as guys like Erdogan in Turkey and countless others in history. His irrational and cruel persecution of the Central Park five for his own benefit. I see these videos of reporters being abused at his rallies and his encouragement of it. That is absolutely unacceptable in a modern democracy.

Why anyone would vote for such a person is beyond me.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 05, 2016, 01:44:08 PM
This idea that we should put the wealthy in charge of the country is called an Oligarchy. We've decided a long time ago that it's not a good thing.

This is not an idea that should be done in an absolute sense, but theres definitely merit to it. Truth is that there are people who simply shouldn't be able to vote, or at the least not have a vote count as much as other folks. Its, cute, warm, and fuzzy to some that everything goes around thinking they are equal. But there is something inherently flawed with a system in which some drug addict who relies on entitlements casts a vote that has the same power as Mark Cuban's vote. Because of the system, the vast majority of lower income folks only care about their entitlements and will cast misguided votes if they think it will result in getting something for nothing. How many of the "Obama iz gunna pay my gas billz!!" videos were out there? Or this gem..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJbOU4nmHQ

Then on the other end you have those highfalutin, wannabe philanthropist types in the upper middle class neighborhoods who mean well but are misguided as they preach about "giving back" based ideologies while driving 5 series BMWs and living in 800k homes.  And like Trump, they're all for giving back but conveniently abuse the system when it benefits them. Sandwiched in between are the middle class that is perpetually getting squeezed by real inflation, stagnant wages, and ever increases taxes, both direct and indirect.

Bottom line, is the people contributing should have more say than those that don't. There needs to be a balance of "creators" and "takers".
So basically screw that democracy thing.

Well now that we're disfranchising folks let take a closer look at that. Technically the president is not elected by the people but by the electoral college. Now let's go ahead and disfranchise the takers. Ok now the president is elected by the following states: California, Massachusetts, Wyoming, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Utah, Colorado, New York, Kansas, Ohio, Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota, and Delaware.

Election night headline: Welcome Madame President!: Hillary Clinton makes history by becoming the first female president in a 151-43 electoral college landslide!

Btw, i gave Ohio to Trump in that EV count.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: alwaysinvert on November 05, 2016, 03:05:10 PM
It is the same thing, the difference in some cases a matter of degree, not of kind.  Also comparing CNN news to Hannity or O'Reilly  isn't fair. Those two would be the first to admit that they are conservatives on the far right and that their shows are biased as such.  But compare the CNN news reporting to the Fox News news reporting and you will find they generally report on the same stories only one from the left and one from the right.   Are you going to tell me that Chris Wallace isn't a liberal and that you can't tell by the phrases he uses and the expression on his face as he talks about certain things?  It may be hard to notice when you agree with him, but he is coming from a left wing point of view.   

Just look at the post about Biden from me above, do you deny that he got a pass from the media where Dan Quayle did not?   If he were a Republican you would hear about him endlessly, but because he's a Democrat they ignore him and hope no one notices. 

Don't get me wrong I'm not criticizing the bias of any news source.  I don't think it is possible to be unbiased.  But for the most part Fox News is open about its bias and the rest of them claim to have none which is BS.

Again this is hard to see when it coincides completely with your own point of view.  All of these news outlets Fox and CNN alike are biased in favor of the United States in apposed to the Middle East for example, but none of them admit as much.  If you were to see a newscast in Iran or Russia you would notice the bias, but in the US you do not see it (unless you are on the left and you watch Foxnews).

It's truly staggering to me that people can't see this, and this is not unique  to the US. It is the exact same way here, and my guess is the same goes for every Western country. Most major publications are left-of-center including, and most egregiously so, public service broadcasters of both radio and tv. It's written in their statutes that they have to be objective but everybody except the journalists themselves knows they are left-leaning. The journalists vote +80% for the left but have somehow convinced themselves this doesn't show in either reporting, style or news selection. It's mind-blowing to me how this narrative can even sustain itself.

The only explanation I have - which doesn't involve malicious intent - is that leftists are worse at understanding different worldviews than their own and so consequently don't know when they are being biased. Which some of Jonathan Haidt's work seems to confirm.

Quote
What Haidt found is that conservatives understand liberals’ moral values better than liberals understand where conservatives are coming from. Worse yet, liberals don’t know what they don’t know; they don’t understand how limited their knowledge of conservative values is.

http://www.aei.org/publication/liberals-or-conservatives-whos-really-close-minded/ 
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Gregmal on November 05, 2016, 03:07:32 PM
This idea that we should put the wealthy in charge of the country is called an Oligarchy. We've decided a long time ago that it's not a good thing.

This is not an idea that should be done in an absolute sense, but theres definitely merit to it. Truth is that there are people who simply shouldn't be able to vote, or at the least not have a vote count as much as other folks. Its, cute, warm, and fuzzy to some that everything goes around thinking they are equal. But there is something inherently flawed with a system in which some drug addict who relies on entitlements casts a vote that has the same power as Mark Cuban's vote. Because of the system, the vast majority of lower income folks only care about their entitlements and will cast misguided votes if they think it will result in getting something for nothing. How many of the "Obama iz gunna pay my gas billz!!" videos were out there? Or this gem..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJbOU4nmHQ

Then on the other end you have those highfalutin, wannabe philanthropist types in the upper middle class neighborhoods who mean well but are misguided as they preach about "giving back" based ideologies while driving 5 series BMWs and living in 800k homes.  And like Trump, they're all for giving back but conveniently abuse the system when it benefits them. Sandwiched in between are the middle class that is perpetually getting squeezed by real inflation, stagnant wages, and ever increases taxes, both direct and indirect.

Bottom line, is the people contributing should have more say than those that don't. There needs to be a balance of "creators" and "takers".
So basically screw that democracy thing.

Well now that we're disfranchising folks let take a closer look at that. Technically the president is not elected by the people but by the electoral college. Now let's go ahead and disfranchise the takers. Ok now the president is elected by the following states: California, Massachusetts, Wyoming, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Utah, Colorado, New York, Kansas, Ohio, Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota, and Delaware.

Election night headline: Welcome Madame President!: Hillary Clinton makes history by becoming the first female president in a 151-43 electoral college landslide!

Btw, i gave Ohio to Trump in that EV count.

People who do not contribute should not be dictating the rules(which are a derivative of those elected to office) of the land and especially not be influencing the implementation of hardships upon those who are net creators or contributors. So its great and all that the Buffetts and Zuckerbergs of the world think "giving" more is a grand old idea. Its also not shocking that the have nots will support anything in which they "get" more. The ones getting royally effed are the middle class in between. Who are now consistently squeezed out of more and more; with the end game being the greater divide and ensuing class warfare in which those chasing the American Dream are cannibalized by those living "their" own versions of it.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: TorontoRaptorsFan on November 05, 2016, 03:18:51 PM
I fear people have become desensitised to the behaviour of Trump. I was watching a documentary on Saddam Hussein. The guy was a megalomaniac with an obsession for being a "winner" & building monuments to himself. The point is Trump fits the pattern. The same pattern of behaviour as guys like Erdogan in Turkey and countless others in history. His irrational and cruel persecution of the Central Park five for his own benefit. I see these videos of reporters being abused at his rallies and his encouragement of it. That is absolutely unacceptable in a modern democracy.

Why anyone would vote for such a person is beyond me.

Yes he was a megalomaniac but look what happened when they got rid of him, Gaddafi, and Assad (barely). Those creeps were a system of checks and balances in the region. When they disappeared chaos, ensued.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 05, 2016, 03:57:05 PM
I fear people have become desensitised to the behaviour of Trump. I was watching a documentary on Saddam Hussein. The guy was a megalomaniac with an obsession for being a "winner" & building monuments to himself. The point is Trump fits the pattern. The same pattern of behaviour as guys like Erdogan in Turkey and countless others in history. His irrational and cruel persecution of the Central Park five for his own benefit. I see these videos of reporters being abused at his rallies and his encouragement of it. That is absolutely unacceptable in a modern democracy.

Why anyone would vote for such a person is beyond me.

Yes he was a megalomaniac but look what happened when they got rid of him, Gaddafi, and Assad (barely). Those creeps were a system of checks and balances in the region. When they disappeared chaos, ensued.
Because the US is just like Libya and Syria.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: alwaysinvert on November 05, 2016, 04:02:18 PM
I fear people have become desensitised to the behaviour of Trump. I was watching a documentary on Saddam Hussein. The guy was a megalomaniac with an obsession for being a "winner" & building monuments to himself. The point is Trump fits the pattern. The same pattern of behaviour as guys like Erdogan in Turkey and countless others in history. His irrational and cruel persecution of the Central Park five for his own benefit. I see these videos of reporters being abused at his rallies and his encouragement of it. That is absolutely unacceptable in a modern democracy.

Why anyone would vote for such a person is beyond me.

Yes he was a megalomaniac but look what happened when they got rid of him, Gaddafi, and Assad (barely). Those creeps were a system of checks and balances in the region. When they disappeared chaos, ensued.
Because the US is just like Libya and Syria.

Of course not, don't be silly. It's exactly like Germany in 1933.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: ccplz on November 05, 2016, 08:35:48 PM
No matter what happens with the election one thing is sure, this has been the greatest Game of Thrones episode.........ever.

GRRM couldn't make this up.

GRRM does have something to say about Trump though:

http://grrm.livejournal.com/504703.html?utm_source=twsharing&utm_medium=social
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Liberty on November 06, 2016, 05:58:47 AM
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/documenting-trumps-abuse-of-women

"For his 1993 book, Harry Hurt III acquired Ivana’s divorce deposition, in which she stated that Trump raped her."

 Also, a good tweet storm by a combat veteran : https://twitter.com/modestproposal1/status/795285932920315905
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 06, 2016, 01:01:53 PM
Well turns out that the new FBI thing was a pile of nothing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-director-comey-says-agency-wont-recommend-charges-over-clinton-email/2016/11/06/f6276b18-a45e-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: EliG on November 06, 2016, 04:09:29 PM
Trump's rally in Minnesota:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwnTc35WIAkhjUs.jpg:small)
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Liberty on November 06, 2016, 04:11:42 PM
Well turns out that the new FBI thing was a pile of nothing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-director-comey-says-agency-wont-recommend-charges-over-clinton-email/2016/11/06/f6276b18-a45e-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html

So basically, if they had followed the usual FBI procedure of not commenting on ongoing work, nothing would've ever come out because there was nothing after all.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwmxtLFWEAAZN5_.jpg)
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: cwericb on November 06, 2016, 04:41:17 PM
alwaysinvest: "It's exactly like Germany in 1933."
This is exactly what I've been saying for months now.

Read this on Facebook and it tends to put things in perspective:

"If you needed open-heart surgery and had to pick between a doctor with a malpractice suit filed against them or the manager of a Wendy’s, which person would you choose to perform that surgery?

This is the American election in a nutshell."


Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 06, 2016, 04:49:30 PM
alwaysinvest: "It's exactly like Germany in 1933."
This is exactly what I've been saying for months now.

Read this on Facebook and it tends to put things in perspective:

"If you needed open-heart surgery and had to pick between a doctor with a malpractice suit filed against them or the manager of a Wendy’s, which person would you choose to perform that surgery?

This is the American election in a nutshell."
Except that there isn't even a malpractice suit, just a bunch of doctors from a rival hospital talking shit.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Gregmal on November 06, 2016, 05:11:41 PM
alwaysinvest: "It's exactly like Germany in 1933."
This is exactly what I've been saying for months now.

Read this on Facebook and it tends to put things in perspective:

"If you needed open-heart surgery and had to pick between a doctor with a malpractice suit filed against them or the manager of a Wendy’s, which person would you choose to perform that surgery?

This is the American election in a nutshell."
Except that there isn't even a malpractice suit, just a bunch of doctors from a rival hospital talking shit.

Yes but too many people that would generally be viewed as intelligent and capable are revealing themselves as pea brained and sheepish in regards to their following/understanding of the election. First, the president, is basically just a talking head. A character who by himself doesnt really do much. So its hilarious on several levels seeing people waste so much time nitpicking and scrupulously foaming at the mouth over the many flaws of Trump/Clinton. Especially so with the media thinking they have all this "gotcha" type fodder that seemingly backfires when the next poll results are released. The president is basically a hood ornament. The system is the rest of the car.

Essentially, both candidates are massively flawed. But this isnt about an individual candidate. Anyone who thinks so is missing the forest for the trees. I love reading these "Hey look! Clinton/Trump did this". Its a great form of entertainment actually. Tells you a lot about someones ability(or lack thereof) to see the bigger picture. What its come down to is that voting for Hillary is a vote for the status quo which is entirely corrupt, broken, and systematically skewed against 99.5% of the population.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 06, 2016, 05:32:33 PM
Right, the president is just a hood ornament. That's why they're fighting so hard to win that position. Is it because the whole executive branch of government has no power thus the president as the head of the executive branch has no power?

I mean i find it hard to believe that someone that carries the title commander in chief of the most powerful military is really ornamental. But then what do I know? I'm probably one of those with the pea brain.

Btw, the hood ornament has a 54% approval rating. The rest of the car has an approval rating around 13%. Obviously there's the bigger problem is with the rest of the car. The rest of the car is on the ballot as well. However I don't see any of you "change the status quo" people advocating for a change in the rest of the car.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: ccplz on November 06, 2016, 05:35:54 PM
alwaysinvest: "It's exactly like Germany in 1933."
This is exactly what I've been saying for months now.

Read this on Facebook and it tends to put things in perspective:

"If you needed open-heart surgery and had to pick between a doctor with a malpractice suit filed against them or the manager of a Wendy’s, which person would you choose to perform that surgery?

This is the American election in a nutshell."
Except that there isn't even a malpractice suit, just a bunch of doctors from a rival hospital talking shit.

Still, a manager of Wendy's has no business performing open heart surgery.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: cwericb on November 06, 2016, 05:42:55 PM
I doubt that even the good folks at Wendy's would hire Trump with his big mouth, comments about women, bankruptcies, etc.
If Wendys asked to see his resume, Trump would refuse to release it. 
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 06, 2016, 05:47:58 PM
alwaysinvest: "It's exactly like Germany in 1933."
This is exactly what I've been saying for months now.

Read this on Facebook and it tends to put things in perspective:

"If you needed open-heart surgery and had to pick between a doctor with a malpractice suit filed against them or the manager of a Wendy’s, which person would you choose to perform that surgery?

This is the American election in a nutshell."
Except that there isn't even a malpractice suit, just a bunch of doctors from a rival hospital talking shit.

Still, a manager of Wendy's has no business performing open heart surgery.
I know, I was trying to make a point. That line about the doctor and the manager is trying to convey how ridiculous the comparison between Clinton and Trump is. But even a line that tries to point out how ridiculous the comparison is manages to understate the level of ridiculousness. That's how unreal this situation is.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: alwaysinvert on November 06, 2016, 06:11:37 PM
The comparison is not so different to Germany in 1933.

I agree and Lampert is the new Buffett. No, Berkowitz is. No, Pabrai is. No, Fairfax is the new Berkshire and Prem is the new Buffett. No, Biglari is pretty clearly the new Buffett. And Dubya is the new Hitler. Wait no, Trump is the new Hitler.

"History is a great teacher" -Adolf Hitler
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: cwericb on November 06, 2016, 06:15:15 PM
And... He who ignores history is bound to repeat it.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: alwaysinvert on November 06, 2016, 06:25:21 PM
I agree but let me be clear: the only situation actually worth knowing about is Nazi Germany and Hitler. You may not know this, but no other events in world history lend themselves to analogies.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Gregmal on November 06, 2016, 06:33:54 PM
Right, the president is just a hood ornament. That's why they're fighting so hard to win that position. Is it because the whole executive branch of government has no power thus the president as the head of the executive branch has no power?

I mean i find it hard to believe that someone that carries the title commander in chief of the most powerful military is really ornamental. But then what do I know? I'm probably one of those with the pea brain.

Btw, the hood ornament has a 54% approval rating. The rest of the car has an approval rating around 13%. Obviously there's the bigger problem is with the rest of the car. The rest of the car is on the ballot as well. However I don't see any of you "change the status quo" people advocating for a change in the rest of the car.

IDK, I learned in like third grade the pretty much anything the president does is reactionary to other avenues of the political spectrum. In fact, pretty much anything he does is subject to the veto power of congress. Many within the conservative circles hoped Bernie Sanders would win knowing that his views were so extreme nothing would ever get done because of this.

And approval rating? Polling results from asking regular people. Yea that controls public policy... My goodness

People fight hard to become president because of the status and wealth that come with it. Duh...
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Gregmal on November 06, 2016, 06:57:10 PM
The comparison is not so different to Germany in 1933.

I agree and Lampert is the new Buffett. No, Berkowitz is. No, Pabrai is. No, Fairfax is the new Berkshire and Prem is the new Buffett. No, Biglari is pretty clearly the new Buffett. And Dubya is the new Hitler. Wait no, Trump is the new Hitler.

"History is a great teacher" -Adolf Hitler

There is a troubling trend of guys hitting it big, either on one investment (hello John Paulson) or having a decent enough period of performance to blow up AUM (Lampert, Ackman) and then going completely rogue. I guess when you are wealthy enough you can do whatever you want.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: ccplz on November 06, 2016, 08:40:33 PM
The comparison is not so different to Germany in 1933.

I agree and Lampert is the new Buffett. No, Berkowitz is. No, Pabrai is. No, Fairfax is the new Berkshire and Prem is the new Buffett. No, Biglari is pretty clearly the new Buffett. And Dubya is the new Hitler. Wait no, Trump is the new Hitler.

"History is a great teacher" -Adolf Hitler

What are you talking about?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 06, 2016, 08:46:10 PM
I agree but let me be clear: the only situation actually worth knowing about is Nazi Germany and Hitler. You may not know this, but no other events in world history lend themselves to analogies.
I find it hard to tell from your posts if you're serious or sarcastic. Not your fault really, just a side effect of how crazy the conversation has become. I'll go with sarcastic.

Nazi Germany and Hitler is an easy go to because everyone knows about it. If you want to reference another lesser known situation then you have to give a whole history lesson because let's face it, history is not one of Americans' strong suit. I'll try to give a half assed shot below.

Hitler and Nazi Germany did not happen in a vacuum. Just like now there was a whole movement with fascism happening in multiple places: Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Franco in Spain, Peron in Argentina, Ion Antonescu/Iron Guard in Romania just to name a few.

Now I agree that Hitler and Germany is not the best analogy. After all, Hitler despite being a despicable human being with no moral compass to speak of was not ignorant and quite capable (just a fact, not a fan, please don't send me hate mail). I think that Mussolini and Italy is a better comparison. A more ignorant and unfit leader, a large personality full of himself and hot air, that loved to give self-centered mumbling speeches to large adoring crowds (remind you of anyone?). One of his themes was also restoring Italy to the former greatness of the Roman province of Italia which controlled the Mediterranean basin. (Make Italy Great Again?).

It's not hard to see that Trumpism is a fascism or a derivative thereof. What's surprising is how easily America succumbed. One of the main causes of fascism was economic hardship brought upon by WWI and the great depression. But America in the aftermath of the Great Recession did not even come close to the level of suffering of Europe post WWI.

Cwericb quoted that famous line: He who ignores history is bound to repeat it. While this Trumpist (or whatever you want to call it) movement is developing there's one interesting thing. It's not catching on in formerly fascist countries. Maybe America needs to put more emphasis on teaching history. I guess on the eve of the election I remain hopeful that despite the all the rhetoric Americans will listen to their better angels, make the right choice, and reject fascism.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: KinAlberta on November 07, 2016, 05:29:20 AM
And now for something a bit lighter.  :-)

A very horny Dinold Trump:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQmbttoxUeE
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Packer16 on November 07, 2016, 05:53:16 AM
Those who compare Trump to Hitler & Mussolini really do not know history & are playing off a superficial knowledge of it.  Trump is more akin to those who have a large mouth but not much to back it up with.  Hitler & Mussolini had bands of thugs around them that would suppress the opposition.  I see no evidence of this other than protesters paid by others to cause trouble.  Also both men were great at inciting others to do there bullying for them a trait Hillary is better at the Trump.  The other major difference is Trump changes his positions to the mainstream over time.  Immigration is an example.  Going from mass deportation to deporting the criminals, securing the border then dealing with amnesty.  Another characteristic of both men is they did the worst is secret and covered up the truth with lies.  Now this is Hillary's specialty and different than Turmp who lets the good and the bad all hang out there.

Packer   
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Liberty on November 07, 2016, 06:10:28 AM
Tepper on Trump

David Tepper: Trump didn't give one dime! http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000565869
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000565869

David Tepper slams Donald Trump for being selfish, calls him 'father of lies' http://www.cnbc.com/id/104085338
http://www.cnbc.com/id/104085338
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: vox on November 07, 2016, 06:24:49 AM
The other major difference is Trump changes his positions to the mainstream over time.  Immigration is an example.  Going from mass deportation to deporting the criminals, securing the border then dealing with amnesty.

The reason Donald Trump has and would be forced to shift his plans is because they are unrealistic, impractical, and would cause massive harms. He either has a deep ignorance on policy to think that it would be reasonable to deport 12 million people without resorting to a police state, or is intentionally misleading his followers by taking a hard-line approach he doesn't intend to carry out. Let's remember that as recently as last month, Donald Trump was doubling down on his belief that the exonerated men convicted of a rape in Central Park were guilty despite DNA evidence and the confession of the real perpetrator.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: ccplz on November 07, 2016, 06:30:11 AM
This was written a year ago, but seems more apt than ever:

I don’t like making Nazi comparisons–they’re emotionally charged and often highly unfair. But in the last few months, the things Trump has been saying are eerily reminiscent of the kinds of things that right authoritarian politicians claim when they are trying to win a democratic election for the purposes of doing away with that system. There’s a group that is demonized (immigrants and Muslims), there are draconian policies to deal with the “problem” group (the wall, the database, the ID cards, surveillance, closing mosques), the politicians who disagree are accused of ignoring reality, and ordinary folks who disagree are condemned as troublemakers or enemy sympathizers who ought to be “roughed up”.

Right authoritarian politicians emerge in democracies when there is a group of people who feel that the democratic system exists to take things away from them and give those things to other people. During the Obama administration, the Republican Party has consistently nurtured this belief among its supporters–that the government and the democrats want to take things from them and give this “free stuff” to “those people” (the poor, the blacks, the immigrants, the Muslims). When Mitt Romney said that his party is going up against “the 47%” who do not pay income tax, the implication is that politics is a class war between the Americans who work hard and have stuff and the Americans who are lazy and take things. The republicans were overwhelmingly confident that they were going to win in 2012. When they lost, the implication was that there are too many “useful idiots”–those willing to help the 47% take things–for the republicans to take the presidency. And while some Republicnas believe that 2016 will be different, there’s a chunk of these people for whom 2012 established more deeply than ever that the only way to stop the 47% from taking their stuff is to use all available means. On internet forums, these people contemplate armed rebellion, they stockpile gold, and they look for a great leader who can protect them from the left. This chunk of Republicans believe that their country and its values are under attack, that they themselves are going to be expropriated by a government permanently captured by socialists. Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the Republican Party itself have all deliberately fed into these fears to mobilize support for republican candidates. As time progresses, these people grow steadily more desperate and steadily more willing to do things that most of us would consider unthinkable. They believe that Donald Trump is their guy.

Is he? Maybe, maybe not. But he sure knows how to use them. And the trouble with using these people like this is that you cannot use them without creating more of them and without making the ones we already have more reactionary and extreme over time. The US does not have a draft anymore–the military is all-volunteer, and because much of the left disdains the armed forces, reactionaries are over-represented in the military. As time progresses and the Republican Party continues to encourage this zero sum view, they are inadvertently potentially creating a situation in which the state could be captured by right wing authoritarians, either through the election of a figure like Trump or through a military coup.

While folks like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush pretend it’s 1996, the U.S. political system is devolving in dangerous and sinister ways. Donald Trump may personally turn out to be harmless, but his supporters are anything but. It probably won’t be this year or this election, but every four years these people seem to be stronger and more influential in the Republican Party. If the U.S. continues down this path, we may all live to regret it.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Packer16 on November 07, 2016, 07:07:48 AM
The real question you need to ask can you deal with a guy who lets you know upfront what his initial point is and in the end it will be negotiated or do you want someone who tell you what you want to hear and after the deal is done you find out that there is something in there if you knew you would not make the deal.  In terms of all the ethics and other discussions I think they both are pretty bad each in there own way that is why there are so many undecided close to 13% going into election day.  They both are bullies.  One is explicit about it & the other is more refined.  I would rather deal with the explicit one versus dealing with more refined deceiver.

Packer
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 07, 2016, 07:20:43 AM
Seriously, what's with these long lines? If you have long lines, why not add more polls?

It's a perception thing.  There are long lines, because everyone is voting.   The last thing they want is the perception that I went to vote and almost no one was there.

Here in Colorado they mail you a ballot weeks beforehand, you fill it out and drop it off. Simple. New York was a joke: dense areas had lines around 2-3 blocks.

That seems like a much better way of doing it.  It would probably prevent fraud too.  In Massachusetts (where I lived when I last voted) you wait in a huge line, then give your name and address, they find your name in a book and put a checkmark next to it.  I always wondered what would happen if they said, sorry you already voted" and you hadn't.  You could have voted multiple times by getting back in line later and giving your neighbor's name or anyone else you know in town, who would know?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: vox on November 07, 2016, 07:57:34 AM
Can you be more specific as to what negotiating experience your basing your opinion off of? Donald Trump has never held an elected office, so I'm not sure what you're judging his negotiating skills from, other than his ghost-written autobiography. Some of the Secretary of State's negotiations are secret for national security interests, as it always has been, and would continue to be under a Donald Trump presidency. 
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Gregmal on November 07, 2016, 08:11:34 AM
Can you be more specific as to what negotiating experience your basing your opinion off of? Donald Trump has never held an elected office, so I'm not sure what you're judging his negotiating skills from, other than his ghost-written autobiography. Some of the Secretary of State's negotiations are secret for national security interests, as it always has been, and would continue to be under a Donald Trump presidency.

Is there really an argument here that a career politician may not have the same skills/experience negotiating deals as an accomplished businessman? This was one of the most shocking aspects of the 2012 election; that there were people who held it against Romney that he was successful and claimed Obama would be better for the economy. For one, somebody who has made their living taking other people's money(through taxation and donation) can't possibly have the same respect for details as someone looking out for their own dollar/investors/business.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: vox on November 07, 2016, 08:20:05 AM
Can you be more specific as to what negotiating experience your basing your opinion off of? Donald Trump has never held an elected office, so I'm not sure what you're judging his negotiating skills from, other than his ghost-written autobiography. Some of the Secretary of State's negotiations are secret for national security interests, as it always has been, and would continue to be under a Donald Trump presidency.

Is there really an argument here that a career politician may not have the same skills/experience negotiating deals as an accomplished businessman? This was one of the most shocking aspects of the 2012 election; that there were people who held it against Romney that he was successful and claimed Obama would be better for the economy. For one, somebody who has made their living taking other people's money(through taxation and donation) can't possibly have the same respect for details as someone looking out for their own dollar/investors/business.

Donald Trump is not Mitt Romney, nor does he have Mitt Romney's endorsement.

Quote
Donald Trump, who often says he only likes winners, tells one grand tale of loss: In 1990, he nearly went bankrupt and was forced to ask dozens of banks to whom he owed money to change the terms on their loans and forgive some of his debts.

It was, the real estate developer admits in his 1997 book "The Art of the Comeback," the darkest period of his professional life. In his telling, it's a story of redemption, of resilience, and proof of his exceptional negotiating skills and shrewd thinking.

Six people who participated in the loan workout negotiations have a different recollection, raising questions about a key part of the personal narrative that many of Trump's supporters have found compelling as he campaigns to be the next president of the United States on Nov. 8. On the campaign trail he has portrayed himself as a survivor and a master negotiator.

Trump says his comeback began when he recognized a downturn in the real estate market and quickly asked banks to renegotiate his loans. "That decision was perhaps the smartest thing I did," he wrote.

The six bankers and lawyers involved in the talks say the bailout wasn't based on any overture Trump initiated with the banks - and the terms of the deal were dictated by what was best for the banks, not Trump.

Three of the participants say Trump didn't acknowledge he had a problem until his lenders reviewed his books, realized he was on the brink of collapse, and summoned him for debt restructuring talks.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-bankruptcies-insig-idUSKCN0ZX0GP
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: frank87 on November 07, 2016, 08:41:11 AM

Is there really an argument here that a career politician may not have the same skills/experience negotiating deals as an accomplished businessman?

I still LOL hard at "accomplished businessman".
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 07, 2016, 09:17:58 AM
Can you be more specific as to what negotiating experience your basing your opinion off of? Donald Trump has never held an elected office, so I'm not sure what you're judging his negotiating skills from, other than his ghost-written autobiography. Some of the Secretary of State's negotiations are secret for national security interests, as it always has been, and would continue to be under a Donald Trump presidency.

Is there really an argument here that a career politician may not have the same skills/experience negotiating deals as an accomplished businessman? This was one of the most shocking aspects of the 2012 election; that there were people who held it against Romney that he was successful and claimed Obama would be better for the economy. For one, somebody who has made their living taking other people's money(through taxation and donation) can't possibly have the same respect for details as someone looking out for their own dollar/investors/business.
Do you actually think that negotiating at the nation level, say for a cease fire or a peace deal is the same as negotiating a bulk purchase of mattresses? If I was hiring someone to negotiate a fancy renovation maybe I'd pick Trump but if I'm looking for a cease fire I'll take Clinton over Trump without thinking twice.

Why are we still talking about this nonsense of how the economy would be so great under Romney because he was a businessman v.s that crappy Obama? We don't know because he didn't win. But remember Romney promised that at the end of his first term he would have achieved the heroic feat of bringing unemployment down to 6%. Barack H. Obama: 4.9%. I'd say some respect is warranted.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: wachtwoord on November 07, 2016, 09:20:54 AM
Can you be more specific as to what negotiating experience your basing your opinion off of? Donald Trump has never held an elected office, so I'm not sure what you're judging his negotiating skills from, other than his ghost-written autobiography. Some of the Secretary of State's negotiations are secret for national security interests, as it always has been, and would continue to be under a Donald Trump presidency.

Is there really an argument here that a career politician may not have the same skills/experience negotiating deals as an accomplished businessman? This was one of the most shocking aspects of the 2012 election; that there were people who held it against Romney that he was successful and claimed Obama would be better for the economy. For one, somebody who has made their living taking other people's money(through taxation and donation) can't possibly have the same respect for details as someone looking out for their own dollar/investors/business.
Do you actually think that negotiating at the nation level, say for a cease fire or a peace deal is the same as negotiating a bulk purchase of mattresses? If I was hiring someone to negotiate a fancy renovation maybe I'd pick Trump but if I'm looking for a cease fire I'll take Clinton over Trump without thinking twice.

Why are we still talking about this nonsense of how the economy would be so great under Romney because he was a businessman v.s that crappy Obama? We don't know because he didn't win. But remember Romney promised that at the end of his first term he would have achieved the heroic feat of bringing unemployment down to 6%. Barack H. Obama: 4.9%. I'd say some respect is warranted.

But Clinton doesnt want a cease fire. She loves war.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 07, 2016, 09:34:35 AM

Do you actually think that negotiating at the nation level, say for a cease fire or a peace deal is the same as negotiating a bulk purchase of mattresses? If I was hiring someone to negotiate a fancy renovation maybe I'd pick Trump but if I'm looking for a cease fire I'll take Clinton over Trump without thinking twice.

Why are we still talking about this nonsense of how the economy would be so great under Romney because he was a businessman v.s that crappy Obama? We don't know because he didn't win. But remember Romney promised that at the end of his first term he would have achieved the heroic feat of bringing unemployment down to 6%. Barack H. Obama: 4.9%. I'd say some respect is warranted.
[/quote]

But Clinton doesnt want a cease fire. She loves war.
[/quote]
Because you say so? Is there any proof Trump is a great pacifist? Between the two of them Hillary actually negotiated cease fires. The only proof of Trump's negotiating prowess comes from his mouth. The only evidence of Trump coming ahead on negotiations is by not paying or not keeping his side of the bargain. That doesn't really work for Nation level negotiations.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: vox on November 07, 2016, 09:38:10 AM
But Clinton doesnt want a cease fire. She loves war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apaToLjdRp4&feature=youtu.be&t=46m24s
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 07, 2016, 09:48:27 AM
Those who compare Trump to Hitler & Mussolini really do not know history & are playing off a superficial knowledge of it.  Trump is more akin to those who have a large mouth but not much to back it up with.  Hitler & Mussolini had bands of thugs around them that would suppress the opposition.  I see no evidence of this other than protesters paid by others to cause trouble.  Also both men were great at inciting others to do there bullying for them a trait Hillary is better at the Trump.  The other major difference is Trump changes his positions to the mainstream over time.  Immigration is an example.  Going from mass deportation to deporting the criminals, securing the border then dealing with amnesty.  Another characteristic of both men is they did the worst is secret and covered up the truth with lies.  Now this is Hillary's specialty and different than Turmp who lets the good and the bad all hang out there.

Packer   
Does it have to identical to movements of the past to call it what it is? Do we need have to wait for the Trump Shirts before we say something?

Is it so far fetched that we may get Trump goons in the future? He's already recruiting poll watchers to go to "certain areas". The usual creepy characters seem to have answered the call.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/27/militia-group-calls-on-members-to-patrol-polls-on-election-day/
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Packer16 on November 07, 2016, 10:26:15 AM
Those who compare Trump to Hitler & Mussolini really do not know history & are playing off a superficial knowledge of it.  Trump is more akin to those who have a large mouth but not much to back it up with.  Hitler & Mussolini had bands of thugs around them that would suppress the opposition.  I see no evidence of this other than protesters paid by others to cause trouble.  Also both men were great at inciting others to do there bullying for them a trait Hillary is better at the Trump.  The other major difference is Trump changes his positions to the mainstream over time.  Immigration is an example.  Going from mass deportation to deporting the criminals, securing the border then dealing with amnesty.  Another characteristic of both men is they did the worst is secret and covered up the truth with lies.  Now this is Hillary's specialty and different than Turmp who lets the good and the bad all hang out there.

Packer   


Does it have to identical to movements of the past to call it what it is? Do we need have to wait for the Trump Shirts before we say something?

Is it so far fetched that we may get Trump goons in the future? He's already recruiting poll watchers to go to "certain areas". The usual creepy characters seem to have answered the call.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/27/militia-group-calls-on-members-to-patrol-polls-on-election-day/

I think we need to wait for evidence.  At this point Trump has a loud mouth with no goons.  Hillary has more goons at her disposal that she has never dismissed like the Black Panthers who are poll watchers from the her side & she is so secretive versus the public Trump you would not know until it is too late, like Hitler and Mussolini.  So you have the loud mouth you can see coming & in the end is a pragmatist in the end versus the stealthy person playing pay for play & thinking she is above the law.  Which would you choose?

BTW using the same type of login with Clinton she would be looting the government for her personal gain.

Packer   
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Liberty on November 07, 2016, 10:54:02 AM
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/07/campaign-manager-on-trump-charity-donations-ive-seen-him-write-checks.html

Apparently Trump running for president is a huge sacrifice for him, even a kind of charitable donation, according to the man's campaign manager.

Quote
Conway told CNBC, however, that she has personally seen Trump write donations to charity.
"It is not true," she said of those claims that Trump is lying about his charitable giving. "I'm rebutting it right now, it's not fair and it's not true."

"He's a very generous man, I've seen him write checks, I've been there when he's writing checks to people," she added.

In fact, Conway said, Trump's run for the presidency is an example of his penchant for civic sacrifice.

"And the fact is that the idea that somebody who has made such a tremendous sacrifice to run for president — basically a huge sacrifice: didn't need the money, didn't need the fame, didn't need the power, didn't need the status — and you've got a lot of deals that didn't get done, I'm sure, in the Trump Corporation because the guy at the top is running for president," she said.

"Those are tremendous sacrifices, he's been incredibly generous, he doesn't talk about it, but he's been able to connect people with resources and opportunity and to help them get a hand up over time, and I think it's incredibly important that people look at that."

Strange that charities aren't finding these checks. Maybe he writes them and keeps them in a drawer somewhere...

 ::)
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: LC on November 07, 2016, 11:54:25 AM
The real question you need to ask can you deal with a guy who lets you know upfront what his initial point is and in the end it will be negotiated or do you want someone who tell you what you want to hear and after the deal is done you find out that there is something in there if you knew you would not make the deal.  In terms of all the ethics and other discussions I think they both are pretty bad each in there own way that is why there are so many undecided close to 13% going into election day.  They both are bullies.  One is explicit about it & the other is more refined.  I would rather deal with the explicit one versus dealing with more refined deceiver.

Packer
I respect that. That's how I felt about Anthony Weiner actually when I first heard of the sexting, but then it just got worse and worse.

The flip side is the "explicit" deceiver will continue to make the same mistakes over and over. The "refined" deceiver will at least stop doing so in order to hide their future deceit.

To make it more clear: Trump will continue doing the same stupid shit he has done in the past. At least now that the world has shined a light on Hillary's fuck-ups, she'll probably stop doing so. I.e. won't be using a private email server, obviously selling out to foreign interests, etc. She'll still do shady shit, but it will have to be more calculated and therefore she'll have to compromise more.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: JoelS on November 07, 2016, 12:00:45 PM
This discussion on Trump reminds me of the guy who gets caught by his wife in bed with another woman, to which the husband cries "are you gonna believe what you see, or what I tell you!".

All the evidence is there. Trump may not be Hitler reincarnated but he sure has persuaded people with more than a few "Big Lies"... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: ccplz on November 07, 2016, 02:24:42 PM
Those who compare Trump to Hitler & Mussolini really do not know history & are playing off a superficial knowledge of it.  Trump is more akin to those who have a large mouth but not much to back it up with.  Hitler & Mussolini had bands of thugs around them that would suppress the opposition.  I see no evidence of this other than protesters paid by others to cause trouble.  Also both men were great at inciting others to do there bullying for them a trait Hillary is better at the Trump.  The other major difference is Trump changes his positions to the mainstream over time.  Immigration is an example.  Going from mass deportation to deporting the criminals, securing the border then dealing with amnesty.  Another characteristic of both men is they did the worst is secret and covered up the truth with lies.  Now this is Hillary's specialty and different than Turmp who lets the good and the bad all hang out there.

Packer   


Does it have to identical to movements of the past to call it what it is? Do we need have to wait for the Trump Shirts before we say something?

Is it so far fetched that we may get Trump goons in the future? He's already recruiting poll watchers to go to "certain areas". The usual creepy characters seem to have answered the call.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/27/militia-group-calls-on-members-to-patrol-polls-on-election-day/

I think we need to wait for evidence.  At this point Trump has a loud mouth with no goons.  Hillary has more goons at her disposal that she has never dismissed like the Black Panthers who are poll watchers from the her side & she is so secretive versus the public Trump you would not know until it is too late, like Hitler and Mussolini.  So you have the loud mouth you can see coming & in the end is a pragmatist in the end versus the stealthy person playing pay for play & thinking she is above the law.  Which would you choose?

BTW using the same type of login with Clinton she would be looting the government for her personal gain.

Packer

Hey, let's ignore all of this:

"There’s a group that is demonized (immigrants and Muslims), there are draconian policies to deal with the “problem” group (the wall, the database, the ID cards, surveillance, closing mosques), the politicians who disagree are accused of ignoring reality, and ordinary folks who disagree are condemned as troublemakers or enemy sympathizers who ought to be “roughed up”."

I don't hear any of this rhetoric from the Democratic side.

Also no response to this from the Trump side:

"If you needed open-heart surgery and had to pick between a doctor with a malpractice suit filed against them or the manager of a Wendy’s, which person would you choose to perform that surgery?"

I guess there isn't really much to say heh?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Packer16 on November 07, 2016, 03:08:03 PM
I heard a great add-on to the Trump wall analogy that is we will build a wall with a door to let in those we want to let in.  This BTW is what the rest of the world does (only lets in who they want in a controlled fashion vs. a free for all).  As you have noticed the solutions have evolved to more practical solutions over time and have gotten folks involved versus the made in Washington/think tank solutions foisted upon folks by Clinton et al.  You are right about the Dems they think there enemies are the 50% of US citizens that are deplorable for not thinking like them.

As to the next President being a brain surgeon, I would rather have one who knows how put together a great team versus one who knows how put together a corrupt team whose focus is more CYA than doing what is right.  Some of the smartest presidents, Carter for example, have been some of the worst because they thought they knew what to do.  Just my 2c.

Packer
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: JoelS on November 07, 2016, 04:43:41 PM
An interesting FT opinion piece on comparisons with the Fascism of the 1930's: https://www.ft.com/content/599fbbfc-a412-11e6-8898-79a99e2a4de6

Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Liberty on November 07, 2016, 05:58:22 PM
China https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RDrfE9I8_hs&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Liberty on November 07, 2016, 06:42:06 PM
https://twitter.com/KenTremendous/status/795795975365226499

So he just made up an award and said he won it. In normal time this could be a big scandal, but this year it doesn't register...
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: RichardGibbons on November 07, 2016, 06:58:56 PM
The flip side is the "explicit" deceiver will continue to make the same mistakes over and over. The "refined" deceiver will at least stop doing so in order to hide their future deceit.

To make it more clear: Trump will continue doing the same stupid shit he has done in the past. At least now that the world has shined a light on Hillary's fuck-ups, she'll probably stop doing so. I.e. won't be using a private email server, obviously selling out to foreign interests, etc. She'll still do shady shit, but it will have to be more calculated and therefore she'll have to compromise more.

One really interesting thing about this election is that there's really good evidence that Trump lies about pretty well everything, sexually assaults people, scams workers, discriminates based on gender, race, and disability, insults war heroes, says he loves war, thinks nukes are a good way to solve problems, encourages war crimes, encourages the beating of up journalists and anyone who disagrees with him, and wants to start wars based on minor slights.

The other candidate has been under constant examination for twenty-five years, with the right looking for any possible way to discredit her. In all that time, the best thing they could come up with was that she sent emails from a private server, just like many of the high-ranking Republicans have done. She hasn't been convicted of anything in all that time.

The conclusion? HRC is corrupt but incredibly good at hiding it, and has done so successfully because the media is kind to her, the justice system is completely corrupt, and everyone in power is following her lead.  Therefore, Trump is the better candidate.

Not a thought is spared on the idea that HRC is a human, better than many, who has dedicated much of her life to public service, and, though she's messed up a couple times, hasn't messed up any more than any other human would be likely to do so in her position.

Instead, of taking a slightly flawed human who tries, they'll vote for the known maniac.  (And really, anyone who actually believe HRC is the great Satan must be really impressed with her abilities, getting every powerful person in the nation to buckle under her fist, and keeping them in line for 25 years.  Like, really? Really?)

To me, it shows the true power ideology combined with Fox's 25 year propaganda campaign, repeating the same message every day for decades. It's pretty amazing, really.

Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 07, 2016, 07:35:17 PM
To me, it shows the true power ideology combined with Fox's 25 year propaganda campaign, repeating the same message every day for decades. It's pretty amazing, really.

What I am surprised is how little it would take to move the needle to the other side. Imagine if we just had another meltdown similar to 2008. I can guarantee that Trump would have won handily no matter how racist,misogynist, dangerous tyrant he would sound. How are we any different than the authoritarian countries that we lecture every day about the wonders of democracy and open society ? They just happen to have shitty economy and bad neighbors.Doesn't make China look so bad does it when they clamp down on the free media? How about Venezuela or Iran who blame their neighbors for their problems? Or Russia who employs the draconian measure to save the republic? Or Israel who we lecture how to treat the muslims.

Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 07, 2016, 07:54:46 PM
To me, it shows the true power ideology combined with Fox's 25 year propaganda campaign, repeating the same message every day for decades. It's pretty amazing, really.

What I am surprised is how little it would take to move the needle to the other side. Imagine if we just had another meltdown similar to 2008. I can guarantee that Trump would have won handily no matter how racist,misogynist, dangerous tyrant he would sound. How are we any different than the authoritarian countries that we lecture every day about the wonders of democracy and open society ? They just happen to have shitty economy and bad neighbors.Doesn't make China look so bad does it when they clamp down on the free media? How about Venezuela or Iran who blame their neighbors for their problems? Or Russia who employs the draconian measure to save the republic? Or Israel who we lecture how to treat the muslims.
This close race is what scares the hell out of me. I wore why I believe this is fascism. The thing is that compared to past fascists Trump is kind of incompetent and kind of an idiot. He ranks pretty low on the scale. What if we got a more competent one. Or what if he didn't pick on Mexicans but instead picked on the Chinese or something. He may very well have closed that small gap.

We got luck this time (hopefully. don't count chickens and jinx it). Hopefully tomorrow is a wake up call and after the hangover clears America realizes it had a close call, does some serious introspection and cleans up its act. I won't hold my breath though.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 07, 2016, 08:34:52 PM
As to the next President being a brain surgeon, I would rather have one who knows how put together a great team versus one who knows how put together a corrupt team whose focus is more CYA than doing what is right.  Some of the smartest presidents, Carter for example, have been some of the worst because they thought they knew what to do.  Just my 2c.

Packer
This is frigging hilarious.

Trump's view on foreign policy advisors:
Quote
I'm speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain. I speak to a lot of people, but my primary consultant is myself, and I have a good instinct for this stuff.

As for Trump building good teams? In one election first he brings in the Corey Lewandowski JV team. Then he fires JV team. Then he bring the Russian stooge Paul Manafort team. Then he fires the Russian stooge team. Then he brings in the despicable team: Kellyanne Conway (of Todd Akin legitimate rape fame among other creeps) and Steve Bannon (of Breitbart fame). Special team mention for his chosen running mate: Mike Pence. Pence thinks you can pray away the gay and as a governor he almost triggered an HIV epidemic in his state. It's also worth noting that he has recruitment problems because loads of serious professional republicans refused to work with/for him and/or publicly denounced him.

Two of the most prominent and public members of the Trump team are Rudy Juliani who seems to have a problem identifying top, bottom, middle and side and Chris Christie. Who I'm hearing has some problems with a bridge? Maybe Christie for Secretary of Transportation?

If Trump is someone who builds great teams and this is how great teams look how do bad teams look like?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Tim Eriksen on November 07, 2016, 10:09:53 PM
To me, it shows the true power ideology combined with Fox's 25 year propaganda campaign, repeating the same message every day for decades. It's pretty amazing, really.

What I am surprised is how little it would take to move the needle to the other side. Imagine if we just had another meltdown similar to 2008. I can guarantee that Trump would have won handily no matter how racist,misogynist, dangerous tyrant he would sound. How are we any different than the authoritarian countries that we lecture every day about the wonders of democracy and open society ? They just happen to have shitty economy and bad neighbors.Doesn't make China look so bad does it when they clamp down on the free media? How about Venezuela or Iran who blame their neighbors for their problems? Or Russia who employs the draconian measure to save the republic? Or Israel who we lecture how to treat the muslims.
This close race is what scares the hell out of me. I wore why I believe this is fascism. The thing is that compared to past fascists Trump is kind of incompetent and kind of an idiot. He ranks pretty low on the scale. What if we got a more competent one. Or what if he didn't pick on Mexicans but instead picked on the Chinese or something. He may very well have closed that small gap.

We got luck this time (hopefully. don't count chickens and jinx it). Hopefully tomorrow is a wake up call and after the hangover clears America realizes it had a close call, does some serious introspection and cleans up its act. I won't hold my breath though.

The reason it is close race is because of how flawed Clinton is.  A decent candidate would destroy Trump.  That so many on this board cannot see that is what amazes me.  Instead of looking at their candidate and/or her policies they call the other side deplorables, and draw comparisons to Nazi Germany.  It is not deplorable to want to protect life, freedoms of speech and religion, second amendment rights, have lower taxes, or want to control our borders.  Don't get me wrong, Trump sucks.  He is a pig.  Just as any decent Democrat should easily beat Trump, any decent Republican would be comfortably ahead of Clinton.  Like it or not they are our only two real choices.   
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 07, 2016, 11:26:59 PM

The reason it is close race is because of how flawed Clinton is.  A decent candidate would destroy Trump.  That so many on this board cannot see that is what amazes me.  Instead of looking at their candidate and/or her policies they call the other side deplorables, and draw comparisons to Nazi Germany.  It is not deplorable to want to protect life, freedoms of speech and religion, second amendment rights, have lower taxes, or want to control our borders.  Don't get me wrong, Trump sucks.  He is a pig.  Just as any decent Democrat should easily beat Trump, any decent Republican would be comfortably ahead of Clinton.  Like it or not they are our only two real choices.   

Tim, we're not really gonna engage on the abortion topic cause that's not gonna lead anywhere good.

That argument that Hillary is such a flawed candidate and anyone else would win bigly is such BS. Hillary is sitting on a 4-5% polling lead right now. One of the polls tested a generic Obama against trump and it came out that he would win by 12. That's Obama that is having a Regan like approval rating. But it's also an Obama that's not running so he didn't take electoral fire for for 18 months. If he were to actually run he'll win maybe by 6 and that would be mainly because of higher black turnout. So give me a break with the flawed candidate.

As for the deplorable part, I think H said that about half of Trump supporters fall into a basket, then she revised it to maybe less than that. The fact is that there is a good chunk of deplorables supporting Trump: the alt-right (hell one of the leaders of the alt-right is his campaign "CEO"), the KKK, the guy yelling Jew-S-A. That's a pretty deplorable bunch. Top it off with Trump supporters self identifying as deplorables and being proud. Then you have the family values people standing firmly behind Trump. While I know a lot of them and know that they're not depolable, they're still committing a pretty deplorable act. Let's call it hypocritical instead.

As for freedom of speech. Trump is the one banning media outlets, talking about opening up libel laws, raving about dishonest media, and directing ire toward the media at his rallies. Secret service never had to escorts journalists out of Clinton rallies for their protection. They had to do that at Trump rallies.

As for freedom of religion. Clinton never threatened anyone's freedom of religion. Trump is the one who talked about closing places of worship, surveillance of places of worship, and banning people belonging to a religion from entering the US.

On taxes, Trump's people just say lower taxes. They don't care where they go or what they do they just want lower taxes. There can be a discussion here but they're not engaging on it at least not honestly. There are two dimensions. One around services - this is more mathematical. This is an efficiency argument. My view is there are some services that can be more efficiently delivered by the private sector and should be shifted. Also there are some services that are more efficiently  delivered by the public sector and should be shifted.

The other dimension is welfare - this is more personal and subjective. We live in an unequal society. Because of this I am a well off individual. Because of this others are not. Then I sit back and look at what kind of society I want to live in. For example, I do not want to live in one where people are in danger of disease and death because they are poorer than i am. To live in that kind of a society I am willing to pay more. What's amazing to me is that people that are so concerned with life do not share my view. They're so concerned with the 9 months between ejaculate and birth. After that they're just concerned with low taxes.

In the US there's still one man, one vote. Everyone can vote for anyone they want. You want to vote for Trump, it's your right. Go ahead and do that, I respect that. But please spare me the bullshit. That I do not respect. Or maybe come up with some better one. I may be able to respect that.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: wachtwoord on November 08, 2016, 01:22:06 AM
To me, it shows the true power ideology combined with Fox's 25 year propaganda campaign, repeating the same message every day for decades. It's pretty amazing, really.

What I am surprised is how little it would take to move the needle to the other side. Imagine if we just had another meltdown similar to 2008. I can guarantee that Trump would have won handily no matter how racist,misogynist, dangerous tyrant he would sound. How are we any different than the authoritarian countries that we lecture every day about the wonders of democracy and open society ? They just happen to have shitty economy and bad neighbors.Doesn't make China look so bad does it when they clamp down on the free media? How about Venezuela or Iran who blame their neighbors for their problems? Or Russia who employs the draconian measure to save the republic? Or Israel who we lecture how to treat the muslims.
This close race is what scares the hell out of me. I wore why I believe this is fascism. The thing is that compared to past fascists Trump is kind of incompetent and kind of an idiot. He ranks pretty low on the scale. What if we got a more competent one. Or what if he didn't pick on Mexicans but instead picked on the Chinese or something. He may very well have closed that small gap.

We got luck this time (hopefully. don't count chickens and jinx it). Hopefully tomorrow is a wake up call and after the hangover clears America realizes it had a close call, does some serious introspection and cleans up its act. I won't hold my breath though.

Me too but the other way around. I would vote for a randomly drawn individual over Hillary all day long as she's evil. The old Buffet quote applies:

“Somebody once said that in looking for people to hire , you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy . And if you don’t have the first, the other two will kill you. You think about it; it’s true. If you hire somebody without [integrity], you really want them to be dumb and lazy.” –Warren Buffett

I believe Clinton is likely to wage many wars while Trump will just be a protectionist bigot.

Oh and if you don't lower taxes soon you will go the way of Europe. Everyone will turn lazy. It wil become part of the culture. But we have effective tax rates considerably north of yours. It's one of the main reasons I will not live here for many years to come. I don't like people leeching of me.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: petec on November 08, 2016, 02:07:09 AM
Clinton strikes me as a fairly standard politician: she's told some lies, she's made some dubious money, she's made some bad decisions, she's spun some half truths, she has a lifetime of service and experience.

Trump is an out and out bastard.

As a matter of theory, I'd trust a warmonger over a rapist any day.   That might sound odd, but to go to war with someone on the other side of the globe in the name of a good cause requires far less intrinsic evil, far less hate, and a far less twisted personality than deliberately harming someone right in front of you - even if that war turns out to be a disaster.

Now, Trump's not a rapist.   But there is a mountain of evidence that he is a vindictive liar who gets a kick out of imposing himself on other people.   So it's not a huge leap of faith to think he might have the character of a rapist (especially since his ex-wife swore under oath that he raped her).

Hillary is not perfect but this is the simplest election decision I have ever seen.

I'm also intrigued to know how many of the people who castigate Hillary for being a warmonger would say the same of G. W. Bush.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: wachtwoord on November 08, 2016, 04:02:28 AM
Clinton strikes me as a fairly standard politician: she's told some lies, she's made some dubious money, she's made some bad decisions, she's spun some half truths, she has a lifetime of service and experience.

Started some wars ...

And yes, the advantage of Trump he's not a standard politician. Standard politicians are crap and corrupt. Hillary is a prime example.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: petec on November 08, 2016, 04:17:40 AM
If I thought Trump was competent and honest, I'd agree entirely.   

Edit: if I thought Trump was competent OR honest, I'd agree entirely.   But he can't even get over that hurdle.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Packer16 on November 08, 2016, 04:48:16 AM
As to team builders I would rather have a guy that can change folks when appropriate then one who holds unto the same team no matter what, that is the cause of corruption.  The retention of Debbie Wasserman Schultz is an example.  Both of these folks have paranoid personalities but if the you have to fall back on the false Nazi analogy then you are on a lower level than Trump with his conspiracy theories.  Clinton had the opportunity to keep this on the issues but she chose to get in the gutter with Trump on conspiracy theories and innuendos but maybe that is her personality.  I just think that whoever wins is going to have a terrible time governing & has a high probability of impeachment given their paranoia.  This may be a Pyrrhic victory for the winner here.

This is a great board because like most conversations amongst friends the conversation is to try to understand the others point of view not to bash someone because they have a different point of view.  Frank Luntz had a great piece on 60 minutes about how since he started in the 1990s the lack of wanting to understand the other side has declined.  He gave the example with Bush v Gore, in post election focus groups folks would wait until the person was done speaking versus speaking over folks which is quite common in focus groups today.  I think we are different.  If we come to our conversation with an attitude of discovery we may actual learn something. I know I have.

Packer
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: cwericb on November 08, 2016, 05:09:45 AM
Yes, the value of this board is the reasonable exchange of differing viewpoints.

That said, I still cannot understand how a large percentage of American voters will vote for a man like Trump. It doesn’t matter how bad you think of Hillary, Trump is on a whole different scale.

We have seen how he has acted during his campaign where candidates are on their best behavior. If that’s the best he can do, can you imagine what he would be like if he actually had the power of a President?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: wachtwoord on November 08, 2016, 05:23:19 AM
This is an election where a surprising low amount of people like their candidate.

People in favor of Trump think Clinton is one of the most terrible things ever (my camp)
People in favor of Clinton think Trump is one of the most terrible things ever

At least we can all agree that both independent candidates are better then both Trump and Hilary?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: ccplz on November 08, 2016, 05:38:09 AM
To me, it shows the true power ideology combined with Fox's 25 year propaganda campaign, repeating the same message every day for decades. It's pretty amazing, really.

What I am surprised is how little it would take to move the needle to the other side. Imagine if we just had another meltdown similar to 2008. I can guarantee that Trump would have won handily no matter how racist,misogynist, dangerous tyrant he would sound. How are we any different than the authoritarian countries that we lecture every day about the wonders of democracy and open society ? They just happen to have shitty economy and bad neighbors.Doesn't make China look so bad does it when they clamp down on the free media? How about Venezuela or Iran who blame their neighbors for their problems? Or Russia who employs the draconian measure to save the republic? Or Israel who we lecture how to treat the muslims.
This close race is what scares the hell out of me. I wore why I believe this is fascism. The thing is that compared to past fascists Trump is kind of incompetent and kind of an idiot. He ranks pretty low on the scale. What if we got a more competent one. Or what if he didn't pick on Mexicans but instead picked on the Chinese or something. He may very well have closed that small gap.

We got luck this time (hopefully. don't count chickens and jinx it). Hopefully tomorrow is a wake up call and after the hangover clears America realizes it had a close call, does some serious introspection and cleans up its act. I won't hold my breath though.

Me too but the other way around. I would vote for a randomly drawn individual over Hillary all day long as she's evil. The old Buffet quote applies:

“Somebody once said that in looking for people to hire , you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy . And if you don’t have the first, the other two will kill you. You think about it; it’s true. If you hire somebody without [integrity], you really want them to be dumb and lazy.” –Warren Buffett

I believe Clinton is likely to wage many wars while Trump will just be a protectionist bigot.

Oh and if you don't lower taxes soon you will go the way of Europe. Everyone will turn lazy. It wil become part of the culture. But we have effective tax rates considerably north of yours. It's one of the main reasons I will not live here for many years to come. I don't like people leeching of me.

Buffett is endorsing Hillary.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: vox on November 08, 2016, 05:59:09 AM
If Hillary Clinton changes her mind on a position - like she has on TPP or gay marriage, she is cast as a "refined deceiver."
If she does not change her mind on the issues, she is cast as an ideologue who is 'not open to negotiations.'

If Hillary Clinton does not force out Debbie Wasserman Schultz, she is 'perpetuating corruption.'
If she does force out Schultz, she would be cast as throwing others under the bus for her own misbehavior.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Tim Eriksen on November 08, 2016, 08:26:30 AM

The reason it is close race is because of how flawed Clinton is.  A decent candidate would destroy Trump.  That so many on this board cannot see that is what amazes me.  Instead of looking at their candidate and/or her policies they call the other side deplorables, and draw comparisons to Nazi Germany.  It is not deplorable to want to protect life, freedoms of speech and religion, second amendment rights, have lower taxes, or want to control our borders.  Don't get me wrong, Trump sucks.  He is a pig.  Just as any decent Democrat should easily beat Trump, any decent Republican would be comfortably ahead of Clinton.  Like it or not they are our only two real choices.   

Tim, we're not really gonna engage on the abortion topic cause that's not gonna lead anywhere good.

That argument that Hillary is such a flawed candidate and anyone else would win bigly is such BS. Hillary is sitting on a 4-5% polling lead right now. One of the polls tested a generic Obama against trump and it came out that he would win by 12. That's Obama that is having a Regan like approval rating. But it's also an Obama that's not running so he didn't take electoral fire for for 18 months. If he were to actually run he'll win maybe by 6 and that would be mainly because of higher black turnout. So give me a break with the flawed candidate.

As for the deplorable part, I think H said that about half of Trump supporters fall into a basket, then she revised it to maybe less than that. The fact is that there is a good chunk of deplorables supporting Trump: the alt-right (hell one of the leaders of the alt-right is his campaign "CEO"), the KKK, the guy yelling Jew-S-A. That's a pretty deplorable bunch. Top it off with Trump supporters self identifying as deplorables and being proud. Then you have the family values people standing firmly behind Trump. While I know a lot of them and know that they're not depolable, they're still committing a pretty deplorable act. Let's call it hypocritical instead.

As for freedom of speech. Trump is the one banning media outlets, talking about opening up libel laws, raving about dishonest media, and directing ire toward the media at his rallies. Secret service never had to escorts journalists out of Clinton rallies for their protection. They had to do that at Trump rallies.

As for freedom of religion. Clinton never threatened anyone's freedom of religion. Trump is the one who talked about closing places of worship, surveillance of places of worship, and banning people belonging to a religion from entering the US.

On taxes, Trump's people just say lower taxes. They don't care where they go or what they do they just want lower taxes. There can be a discussion here but they're not engaging on it at least not honestly. There are two dimensions. One around services - this is more mathematical. This is an efficiency argument. My view is there are some services that can be more efficiently delivered by the private sector and should be shifted. Also there are some services that are more efficiently  delivered by the public sector and should be shifted.

The other dimension is welfare - this is more personal and subjective. We live in an unequal society. Because of this I am a well off individual. Because of this others are not. Then I sit back and look at what kind of society I want to live in. For example, I do not want to live in one where people are in danger of disease and death because they are poorer than i am. To live in that kind of a society I am willing to pay more. What's amazing to me is that people that are so concerned with life do not share my view. They're so concerned with the 9 months between ejaculate and birth. After that they're just concerned with low taxes.

In the US there's still one man, one vote. Everyone can vote for anyone they want. You want to vote for Trump, it's your right. Go ahead and do that, I respect that. But please spare me the bullshit. That I do not respect. Or maybe come up with some better one. I may be able to respect that.

Right.  Let's not discuss abortion cause that never gets anywhere good (sarcasm).  You try to make a moral argument on help later in life but refuse to engage in moral arguments while in the womb.  Don't misunderstand, I am NOT trying to switch the discussion to the killing of over a million people each year.  My only point was you fail to see how that is a meaningful issue to a large chunk of the electorate.  You fail to see that Hillary's position is extreme (any time for any reason).   

The point I was making you recognize but then irrationally dismiss.  You know Obama would be up big in a hypothetical matchup (12 points), but then assume that it would not really be the case in a real matchup (you arbitrarily make it 6),  You are ignoring the facts and spinning them to defend a flawed candidate. That was my point and you proved it.  The only bullshit is what you are telling yourself.  The overwhelming majority of the country sees the flaws in both candidates and you don't.  You are just like the person who thinks Trump is good and Hillary bad, you just have it reversed.  It is pure partisanship.   It is pure self deception.  That was my only point.  You proved it but you still don't see it. 

I don't want to vote for Trump.  I do prefer the Republican platform on social and economic issues over the Democratic platform.  That is how I voted.   

 
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 08, 2016, 08:36:09 AM
Just thought I'd point out that "Just shoot me. :(" is now in second place!
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 08, 2016, 08:41:21 AM
Just thought I'd point out that "Just shoot me. :(" is now in second place!
I thought it was kind up there all along.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: SmallCap on November 08, 2016, 08:42:10 AM
Trump supporters say that a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Hillary.
Hillary Supporters say that a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Trump.

How does that actually work????

Is one of them right or are they both wrong? If only one of them is right then which is it and why?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Liberty on November 08, 2016, 08:43:11 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/08/dear-ann-coulter-just-say-you-only-want-white-people-to-vote/

As I posted previously, Coulter is actually an advisor to Trump and he got some policy ideas from her books.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 08, 2016, 08:45:58 AM
Trump supporters say that a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Hillary.
Hillary Supporters say that a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Trump.

How does that actually work????

Is one of them right or are they both wrong? If only one of them is right then which is it and why?
They're both right.

Since America is so polarized Trump supporters are likely to say that to people on the right who would break Trump's way if they don't go 3rd party. Ditto for H. supporters.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 08, 2016, 08:46:09 AM
Just thought I'd point out that "Just shoot me. :(" is now in second place!
I thought it was kind up there all along.

It was in third last time I noticed.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 08, 2016, 08:47:20 AM
Yes but very close
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 08, 2016, 08:51:02 AM
Trump supporters say that a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Hillary.
Hillary Supporters say that a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Trump.

How does that actually work????

Is one of them right or are they both wrong? If only one of them is right then which is it and why?
They're both right.

Since America is so polarized Trump supporters are likely to say that to people on the right who would break Trump's way if they don't go 3rd party. Ditto for H. supporters.

I'm not voting at all, so considering that if I did vote, I'd vote for Johnson, is my not voting a vote for Trump or a vote for Hillary?
I guess that if you are a Hillary supporter a vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump, so my not voting for Johnson must be a for Hillary.
And if you are a Trump supporter a vote for Johnson is a vote for Hillary, so my not voting for Johnson must be a vote for Trump.
This is all very complicated.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 08, 2016, 08:57:19 AM
No it's not complicated. Rkbabang you're so pure libertarian that your Johnson vote would really just be a a vote for Johnson.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Liberty on November 08, 2016, 09:04:00 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwwTeRxXUAInzbL.jpg)
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 08, 2016, 09:06:34 AM
LOL! Awesome! Gotta make sure.

I don't know why he's so concerned though. It's not like he's gonna be close in New York.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: RichardGibbons on November 08, 2016, 09:07:28 AM
Right.  Let's not discuss abortion cause that never gets anywhere good (sarcasm).  You try to make a moral argument on help later in life but refuse to engage in moral arguments while in the womb.  Don't misunderstand, I am NOT trying to switch the discussion to the killing of over a million people each year.

Just out of curiosity, if you feel this way, would you have the courts throw women who have abortions into prison for first degree murder?  (Like, if you think abortion is the deliberate killing of people then it's murder.  And it's clearly premeditated, which makes it first degree.)

I saw a video where they asked some anti-choice protestors that, and only one suggested prison was the right punishment, which seemed odd to me.  So I'm curious if that's where your beliefs lead you, to first degree murder charges.  Or do you just say fetuses are people who deserve to be protected, but are different somehow so it would be a lesser charge than first degree murder?  Or something else?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: cwericb on November 08, 2016, 09:28:39 AM
"As I posted previously, Coulter is actually an advisor to Trump and he got some policy ideas from her books."

Liberty, are you suggesting that Trump has actually read some books?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: CorpRaider on November 08, 2016, 09:36:35 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwwTeRxXUAInzbL.jpg)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!! HA!
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 08, 2016, 09:48:23 AM
Wow! When Jennifer "Jenghazi" Rubin accuses you of suffering from Clinton Derangement Syndrome you have a real problem.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/11/08/give-it-a-rest-republicans/
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Liberty on November 08, 2016, 09:52:11 AM
"As I posted previously, Coulter is actually an advisor to Trump and he got some policy ideas from her books."

Liberty, are you suggesting that Trump has actually read some books?

Maybe he had an unpaid intern give him a bullet point version...
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 08, 2016, 10:21:01 AM
Here's another one. Apparently there's a certain level of suspicion that the Trump women may be with Her.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cwwh_TGXUAozk4X.jpg)
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Tim Eriksen on November 08, 2016, 10:45:00 AM
Right.  Let's not discuss abortion cause that never gets anywhere good (sarcasm).  You try to make a moral argument on help later in life but refuse to engage in moral arguments while in the womb.  Don't misunderstand, I am NOT trying to switch the discussion to the killing of over a million people each year.

Just out of curiosity, if you feel this way, would you have the courts throw women who have abortions into prison for first degree murder?  (Like, if you think abortion is the deliberate killing of people then it's murder.  And it's clearly premeditated, which makes it first degree.)

I saw a video where they asked some anti-choice protestors that, and only one suggested prison was the right punishment, which seemed odd to me.  So I'm curious if that's where your beliefs lead you, to first degree murder charges.  Or do you just say fetuses are people who deserve to be protected, but are different somehow so it would be a lesser charge than first degree murder?  Or something else?

That is an excellent question.  Would I have courts throw women who have abortions into prison for first degree murder?  NO.  Prior to Roe v Wade (and Doe v. Bolton) while some state laws made it a crime for the woman, as best I can tell, no one was ever actually prosecuted.  The laws and more importantly prosecution were focused on the abortionist.  The abortionist should be the only one charged.  That is why pro-life people were stunned by Trump's comments in a townhall during the campaign, which he later corrected.           
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 08, 2016, 10:51:20 AM
Well if abortion is murder of babies. Why shouldn't murder charges be levied?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: RichardGibbons on November 08, 2016, 11:12:04 AM
That is an excellent question.  Would I have courts throw women who have abortions into prison for first degree murder?  NO.  Prior to Roe v Wade (and Doe v. Bolton) while some state laws made it a crime for the woman, as best I can tell, no one was ever actually prosecuted.  The laws and more importantly prosecution were focused on the abortionist.  The abortionist should be the only one charged.  That is why pro-life people were stunned by Trump's comments in a townhall during the campaign, which he later corrected.           

Thanks Tim, for your thoughtful response.  It is an interesting conundrum for me, because if you hire a hit man to kill someone, I think you can equally be charged with murder, not just the hit man.  And I think you should be.

To me, this question might be problematic to the anti-choicers in the same way as "can you abort a baby while the mom is labor, about to deliver it?" is to the pro-choicers.  The pro-choice counter-argument is that such a scenario basically never occurs outside life-threatening scenarios. But that's still intellectually unsatisfying, even if it is a practical position to take. Just as "charge the doctor, not the woman" is a practical anti-choice solution, but still intellectually unsatisfying.  (You can pay a person to kill someone for you, and not be charged? And what if the woman goes at herself with a coat hook so she's the doctor and the patient?)

I think the big problem is the main milestones in development that people understand are conception and birth. If technology adds a couple other milestones like "ability to think" (don't ask me to define that, because I don't know), it might make some of these answers easier.  (For instance, we already consider death to be cessation of brain functions, so a loose parallel is already there.)
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: CorpRaider on November 08, 2016, 11:15:37 AM
Here's another one. Apparently there's a certain level of suspicion that the Trump women may be with Her.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cwwh_TGXUAozk4X.jpg)

Either that or perhaps they were confused about how to vote.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: alwaysinvert on November 08, 2016, 11:30:26 AM
LOL at the predictableness of that final talking point.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 08, 2016, 11:41:30 AM
No it's not complicated. Rkbabang you're so pure libertarian that your Johnson vote would really just be a a vote for Johnson.

I'll try to demonstrate why the theory "if you vote for X it is a vote for Y" is so absurd.  Take someone who prefers Johnson, but their 2nd choice would have been Hillary.  You can make an ordinal list of such a person's preferences as maybe being:

1) Johnson
2) Hillary
3) Stein
4) Don't vote
5) Trump

Your theory is that this person voting for Johnson is really a vote for Trump, because Hillary is who they most prefer out of the two major candidates. 

My preference list is:

1) Don't vote
2) Johnson
3) Stein
4) Trump
5) Hillary

Sure both Hillary and Trump are further down my list than on the lists of many other people, but it is true that I prefer Trump to Hillary, so why doesn't your rule apply to me as well as the person above?   You are saying if the person above was forced to choose between the two candidates that person would choose Hillary so a vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump.  Well if I were forced to choose between the two candidates I would choose Trump, so by your theory a vote for Johnson, Stein, or no vote at all is a vote for Hillary.   I think the whole theory is nuts, because no one is forced to vote for Hillary or Trump. There are multiple other options (at least 3) and one should vote for his or her prefered option.  A vote for Johnson therefore is simply a vote for Johnson.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: ajc on November 08, 2016, 11:45:20 AM

That is an excellent question.  Would I have courts throw women who have abortions into prison for first degree murder?  NO.  Prior to Roe v Wade (and Doe v. Bolton) while some state laws made it a crime for the woman, as best I can tell, no one was ever actually prosecuted.  The laws and more importantly prosecution were focused on the abortionist.  The abortionist should be the only one charged.  That is why pro-life people were stunned by Trump's comments in a townhall during the campaign, which he later corrected.           

Thanks Tim, for your thoughtful response.  It is an interesting conundrum for me, because if you hire a hit man to kill someone, I think you can equally be charged with murder, not just the hit man.  And I think you should be.

To me, this question might be problematic to the anti-choicers in the same way as "can you abort a baby while the mom is labor, about to deliver it?" is to the pro-choicers.  The pro-choice counter-argument is that such a scenario basically never occurs outside life-threatening scenarios. But that's still intellectually unsatisfying, even if it is a practical position to take. Just as "charge the doctor, not the woman" is a practical anti-choice solution, but still intellectually unsatisfying.  (You can pay a person to kill someone for you, and not be charged? And what if the woman goes at herself with a coat hook so she's the doctor and the patient?)

I think the big problem is the main milestones in development that people understand are conception and birth. If technology adds a couple other milestones like "ability to think" (don't ask me to define that, because I don't know), it might make some of these answers easier.  (For instance, we already consider death to be cessation of brain functions, so a loose parallel is already there.)


Area men compete to see who will be the Rachel Dolezal of abortion.


Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Tim Eriksen on November 08, 2016, 12:05:13 PM

That is an excellent question.  Would I have courts throw women who have abortions into prison for first degree murder?  NO.  Prior to Roe v Wade (and Doe v. Bolton) while some state laws made it a crime for the woman, as best I can tell, no one was ever actually prosecuted.  The laws and more importantly prosecution were focused on the abortionist.  The abortionist should be the only one charged.  That is why pro-life people were stunned by Trump's comments in a townhall during the campaign, which he later corrected.           

Thanks Tim, for your thoughtful response.  It is an interesting conundrum for me, because if you hire a hit man to kill someone, I think you can equally be charged with murder, not just the hit man.  And I think you should be.

To me, this question might be problematic to the anti-choicers in the same way as "can you abort a baby while the mom is labor, about to deliver it?" is to the pro-choicers.  The pro-choice counter-argument is that such a scenario basically never occurs outside life-threatening scenarios. But that's still intellectually unsatisfying, even if it is a practical position to take. Just as "charge the doctor, not the woman" is a practical anti-choice solution, but still intellectually unsatisfying.  (You can pay a person to kill someone for you, and not be charged? And what if the woman goes at herself with a coat hook so she's the doctor and the patient?)

I think the big problem is the main milestones in development that people understand are conception and birth. If technology adds a couple other milestones like "ability to think" (don't ask me to define that, because I don't know), it might make some of these answers easier.  (For instance, we already consider death to be cessation of brain functions, so a loose parallel is already there.)


Area men compete to see who will be the Rachel Dolezal of abortion.

How does a white woman viewing herself as black relate???
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 08, 2016, 12:35:28 PM
Here's another one. Apparently there's a certain level of suspicion that the Trump women may be with Her.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cwwh_TGXUAozk4X.jpg)

Either that or perhaps they were confused about how to vote.
HAHAHAHA! Maybe they're with Her as well  ;D :D
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Liberty on November 08, 2016, 01:19:12 PM
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/11/08/warren-buffett-drives-nebraskans-to-vote/

(http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-QR662_WBElec_J_20161108145248.jpg)
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: DonFanucci on November 08, 2016, 03:43:33 PM
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/11/08/warren-buffett-drives-nebraskans-to-vote/

(http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-QR662_WBElec_J_20161108145248.jpg)

That turtle neck can't be comfortable.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Spekulatius on November 08, 2016, 07:17:19 PM
Anybody looking at futures? The MXN.JPY  urgency future is down 11.5%, the SP500 future ~ 3%. Interesting night.

Oops - make that -4%.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: whiterose on November 08, 2016, 08:00:26 PM
Yeah I am.. still awake at 5am in europe.
It's f***ing unbelievable, a Brexit-like event at a much larger (global) scale.
I'm really disappointed by the outcome and the huge number of people Trump was able to rally.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Jurgis on November 08, 2016, 08:13:14 PM
Well, I had a better opinion about Americans until today.

So: the optimistic scenario is 4 years of Trump + Republican Senate/House. Obamacare gone. Taxes down (maybe). Recession likely. Stocks down 20% or so. 2 Supreme Court justices who may or may not be very conservative.

Pessimistic scenario: Recession to depression. Trump organizes the Trump-shirts. Free press suppressed. Next election cancelled. Possibly martial law. In short: fascist state in US.

I still hope it doesn't come to that, but I'm no longer sure it won't.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Cardboard on November 08, 2016, 08:16:07 PM
So far America is saying NO to corruption and the establishment/status quo and YES to pro-growth policies. This down move in equities won't last. Even pigs such as Tepper and Soros love money more than their so called love for the poor via entitlement. Call it more their buying of peace to maintain their status vs true charity.

Even if Trump loses we have gridlock blocking the left with Congress and Senate in Republican hands. It is all positive either way.

Cardboard
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: hyten1 on November 08, 2016, 08:27:17 PM
i didn't vote for donald... lets get that out of the way

however, if people think supporters of donald are simply crazy, racist or stupid, i think you have to think hard to why someone would vote for donald, given what he has said and done etc.

i would also argue donald (if he wins) is a continuation of obama, along the lines of "change". people were tired of the status quo and wanted change, so they voted for someone (obama) who was different and promise the "change", however he still had part of his foot in the establishment. for a lot of people the "change" wasn't enough, or simply didn't work for them personally. now the change has been amp up 10 fold. the change is now someone who is completely outside of the status quo. despite of all the crazy/sexist things that donald has said and done.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Gregmal on November 08, 2016, 09:11:54 PM
Looks like those that saw the forest despite the trees are well prepared. Meanwhile those posting pictures of a guy wearing a shirt, making utterly ridiculous yet hilariously empty comparisons to Nazi Germany, and blanketing this as symbolic of the entire election lose their shirts. As I said, the pea brains didn't and probably never will "get it". To the rest of us, we didn't get caught up in the nonsense; we weren't mindlessly manipulated by the likes of the Huffington Post, Washington Post, and the likes, and ultimately everyone will get what they deserve.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: whiterose on November 08, 2016, 09:22:05 PM
Is there any way to challenge the result via the legal system in the US?

I guess a vote for a third party candidate was a vote for Trump after all, now that it is so close.
A lot of liberals/greens had the Democrats as second choice or at least more than the Republicans. In this election it would have been better to vote strategically, rather than on principle, as many liberal pundits suggested.

Would be interesting if Clinton still wins in the last minute..
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 08, 2016, 09:24:58 PM
She's not gonna win it. Wisconsin is done.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: TwoCitiesCapital on November 09, 2016, 06:54:46 AM
So, do we all still think Scott Adams is just a lucky wacko? Or did he call the election correctly before any of the professional forecasters?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: onyx1 on November 09, 2016, 07:01:59 AM
So, do we all still think Scott Adams is just a lucky wacko? Or did he call the election correctly before any of the professional forecasters?

Scott Adams nailed it.  He also completely changed how I view the world.  Big learning experience for me.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Liberty on November 09, 2016, 07:04:22 AM
So, do we all still think Scott Adams is just a lucky wacko? Or did he call the election correctly before any of the professional forecasters?

He's a wacko for other reasons, but he understands very well the importance of salesmanship/charisma/persuasion. I agree with him on many of these points, and I've had good discussions in private messages about with with a couple people form this forum; I just think it's too bad that the man who could sell himself so well and understand how to tap into the electorate's emotional hooks was someone of low character. Many presidents were also very good persuaders (Obama did it better than most, esp. his first election) who won over all kinds of rivals who might have been just competent but didn't have the charisma.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: onyx1 on November 09, 2016, 07:12:25 AM
So, do we all still think Scott Adams is just a lucky wacko? Or did he call the election correctly before any of the professional forecasters?

I just think it's too bad that the man who could sell himself so well and understand how to tap into the electorate's emotional hooks was someone of low character.


Low character became unimportant with Bill Clinton.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Liberty on November 09, 2016, 07:15:17 AM
So, do we all still think Scott Adams is just a lucky wacko? Or did he call the election correctly before any of the professional forecasters?

I just think it's too bad that the man who could sell himself so well and understand how to tap into the electorate's emotional hooks was someone of low character.


Low character became unimportant with Bill Clinton.

There are many degrees between 0 and 1.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 09, 2016, 07:24:45 AM
So, do we all still think Scott Adams is just a lucky wacko? Or did he call the election correctly before any of the professional forecasters?

He saw something I didn't.  I'm am going to go back and re-read his prediction from August of 2015 and see if I can understand what he saw and why it was so important.

Michael Moore also predicted that Trump was going to win when the newspapers were saying his chances "are approaching zero".

And it is obvious, but worth pointing out, that neither Michael Moore nor Scott Adams are Trump supporters.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 09, 2016, 07:30:03 AM
So, do we all still think Scott Adams is just a lucky wacko? Or did he call the election correctly before any of the professional forecasters?

Scott Adams nailed it.  He also completely changed how I view the world.  Big learning experience for me.

Gotta give him the credit. He nailed it and no doubt about that. In future his word will matter a lot.I have also started to believe that we are in a simulation that went horribly bad.

I have no problems in admitting when I'm wrong. Heck I was wrong about my state. All of us looked at the polls and assumed he will lose. But since ALL of these polls were wrong, I am inclined to believe the Trump's argument that they are rigged.


Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Cardboard on November 09, 2016, 07:35:34 AM
Polls were not rigged. There was such negative press and comments from people such as yourself that people didn't want to be associated with Trump.

So do you believe that they all answered that they would vote for Trump when asked?

Cardboard
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Tim Eriksen on November 09, 2016, 08:43:19 AM
The analysis on this election will be interesting.  Polls were wrong by 2-3 points on average, worse if not for the few LA Times poll. 

Was it that people were afraid to give their true leaning?  The problem with that is the polls were wrong on the Senate races too.  I don't see how the argument holds up.  No major reason to be embarrassed to vote R in NC, PA, WI, MO, etc.  Maybe the Trump supporter just didn't participate in the polls.

Was it late undecideds?  Trump did run hard hitting and I thought effective ads the last week. 

Was it a poor job by the Clinton campaign?  They spent heavily in OH, FL and NC and little in states they knew Trump needed and was targeting demographically (rust belt ex OH).  She didn't target just what she needed to win, she tried to win and swing the Senate.  Was it just a case of overreach?

Or was it the recent American "tradition" of Presidential change every 8 years?  Ike, Kennedy/Johnson, Nixon/Ford, Carter only 4 but he stunk, Reagan/Bush an unusually long 12 years, Clinton, Bush 43, Obama. 

 
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Cardboard on November 09, 2016, 09:06:29 AM
"The problem with that is the polls were wrong on the Senate races too.  I don't see how the argument holds up. "

If you think that I am wrong then look at the New Hampshire Republican primary polls.

Regarding the Senate polls, they never indicated a highly probable loss for the Republicans unlike for Trump.

Cardboard
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 09, 2016, 09:24:27 AM
The analysis on this election will be interesting.  Polls were wrong by 2-3 points on average, worse if not for the few LA Times poll. 

Was it that people were afraid to give their true leaning?  The problem with that is the polls were wrong on the Senate races too.  I don't see how the argument holds up.  No major reason to be embarrassed to vote R in NC, PA, WI, MO, etc.  Maybe the Trump supporter just didn't participate in the polls.

Was it late undecideds?  Trump did run hard hitting and I thought effective ads the last week. 

Was it a poor job by the Clinton campaign?  They spent heavily in OH, FL and NC and little in states they knew Trump needed and was targeting demographically (rust belt ex OH).  She didn't target just what she needed to win, she tried to win and swing the Senate.  Was it just a case of overreach?

Or was it the recent American "tradition" of Presidential change every 8 years?  Ike, Kennedy/Johnson, Nixon/Ford, Carter only 4 but he stunk, Reagan/Bush an unusually long 12 years, Clinton, Bush 43, Obama. 

 
I think you probably nailed it with your post. It was probably a combination of all you mentioned.

Yes there is a "tradition to switch after 8 years". Yes, they were probably sloppy in the mid-west. It was clear that they have a problem in Ohio. If you have a problem in Ohio you should be worried about Michigan. Wisconsin is a real head scratcher They lost by 27,000 votes, so it was tight. But Obama won it 4 years ago with Paul Ryan on the R ticket.

As for the polls, they were definitely off somewhat. I don't think that it was the silent Trump voter or people afraid to give their true leaning. Polling organizations collect the responses and they they pass it through proprietary turnout models. The secret sauce if you wish. Those models are based on a lot of things including past election turnouts and are the main reason why polls differ from each other. So if you have an election where turnout of non-college degree whites is slightly higher than the model and the black turnout is slightly lower than the model you get basically what just happened.

I would say that the number of undecideds seemed weirdly high. It's hard for me to believe that after such a long campaign with such high profile candidates you would have so many undecideds at the end. So there may be something there.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 09, 2016, 09:39:24 AM
Polls were not rigged. There was such negative press and comments from people such as yourself that people didn't want to be associated with Trump.

So do you believe that they all answered that they would vote for Trump when asked?

I don't think they are rigged, but I think their methodology must be flawed in some systematic way in order for them to have been so universally wrong.  If the goal is to create a "scientific" poll that accurately predicts how people will vote, then you would think that this proves that however it is being done it is not working so methods need to be adjusted next time.  When your methodology doesn't produce results that turn out to be true, it is time to look at your methodology because it is flawed.  I don't know why, but I do have some theories.  Are they calling only landlines?   Maybe Hillary won overwhelmingly with people who not only still have landlines but answer them when they don't recognize the caller ID.  Even with cellphones I would never answer a call from a number I didn't recognize, if it were important they could leave a message and I'd call back.  Therefore I would never be able to take part in any of these polls.  Also what time of day are they calling?  If during the day, they are selecting for housewives, elderly women, and the unemployed.  Who is answering these calls and how can you extrapolate the answers they give to all of society?   I suspect the answer is "you can't".
And then there is always the question are people being honest with the pollsters?  I'm not sure you can ever adjust for that, because you have no idea how the person you talked to ended up voting.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 09, 2016, 10:19:43 AM
Polls were not rigged. There was such negative press and comments from people such as yourself that people didn't want to be associated with Trump.

So do you believe that they all answered that they would vote for Trump when asked?

Cardboard

Oh I see what you are saying. They don't have the strength of the character to say what they believe in. Too ashamed to admit.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Cardboard on November 09, 2016, 10:32:29 AM
They don't all have tough skin like me to deal with people like you telling them that they are idiots or trying to make them feel as such.

In related news: Obama was able to admit defeat and he is going to help with the transition and I applause him for that.

Cardboard
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: onyx1 on November 09, 2016, 10:38:03 AM
Polls were not rigged. There was such negative press and comments from people such as yourself that people didn't want to be associated with Trump.

So do you believe that they all answered that they would vote for Trump when asked?

Cardboard

Oh I see what you are saying. They don't have the strength of the character to say what they believe in. Too ashamed to admit.

Strength of character?  Ashamed?  I don't believe so. 

A large part of the electorate that voted Trump was fed up with the leftist bullies.  Trump supporters avoided bumper stickers because they didn't want their car vandalized.  Why would they admit to supporting Trump knowing they would be labeled racist, sexist, xenophobe, stupid, uneducated, poor, deplorable, immoral, and unredeemable jackasses?  It's not worth it.  Talk softly, vote bigly.  Bullies lose. 


 
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 09, 2016, 11:07:16 AM
In related news: Obama was able to admit defeat and he is going to help with the transition and I applause him for that.

Cardboard

This is what decent people do, admit the defeat and move on. I doubt it if Trump would have done that.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: onyx1 on November 09, 2016, 11:08:26 AM
In related news: Obama was able to admit defeat and he is going to help with the transition and I applause him for that.

Cardboard

This is what decent people do, admit the defeat and move on. I doubt it if Trump would have done that.


Appears to me you haven't either.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Jurgis on November 09, 2016, 11:13:59 AM
In related news: Obama was able to admit defeat and he is going to help with the transition and I applause him for that.

Cardboard

This is what decent people do, admit the defeat and move on. I doubt it if Trump would have done that.

I seem to remember someone on this forum claiming that Obama will impose martial law to prevent Trump from becoming president...  ::)
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 09, 2016, 11:19:20 AM
Appears to me you haven't either.

I didn't have a horse in this race. I voted against Trump not for Hillary. I just regret voting for the republican senator since I believed the polls and wanted the balance of power. Never again!!

His victory will not change my life the slightest. I doubt his supporter's will either.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rukawa on November 09, 2016, 11:58:30 AM
Quote
Pessimistic scenario: Recession to depression. Trump organizes the Trump-shirts. Free press suppressed. Next election cancelled. Possibly martial law. In short: fascist state in US.

Well if you take Keynesianism seriously a large massive tax cut should massively stimulate the economy and lead to a huge boom. The greater worry now is inflation...not depression. Paul Krugman should love Trump...he argued against austerity for years and for more stimulus. Now he is about to get what he always wanted.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 09, 2016, 12:20:41 PM
Quote
Pessimistic scenario: Recession to depression. Trump organizes the Trump-shirts. Free press suppressed. Next election cancelled. Possibly martial law. In short: fascist state in US.

Well if you take Keynesianism seriously a large massive tax cut should massively stimulate the economy and lead to a huge boom. The greater worry now is inflation...not depression. Paul Krugman should love Trump...he argued against austerity for years and for more stimulus. Now he is about to get what he always wanted.
I've been thinking about that quite a bit. Basically no one can know what's gonna happen because Trump is all over the place. The stimulus helps if the money goes into the real economy and is spent. So

1. The infrastructure plan. This will definitely help the economy. It's gonna be spent and create jobs.
2. The tax cut. Not so much help because it's geared to mostly high incomes. So most of the tax cut will be saved not spent
3. With Trump coming in will businesses cut investment due to uncertainty?
4. If Trump starts a trade war there will be job losses with maybe not so many corresponding gains. Aerospace sector (coincidentally the largest US export sector) comes to mind as greatly at risk.

Also how do you pass a large public spending effort, with a tax cut, and the resulting blow up of the deficit with a republican congress? Will there be draconian cuts to public spending? If so that's hugely contraction. The worst case scenario is abandoning the infrastructure plan cause he can't get it through Congress, then passing the tax cut offset by large cuts in public spending.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Jurgis on November 09, 2016, 12:35:31 PM
Quote
Pessimistic scenario: Recession to depression. Trump organizes the Trump-shirts. Free press suppressed. Next election cancelled. Possibly martial law. In short: fascist state in US.

Well if you take Keynesianism seriously a large massive tax cut should massively stimulate the economy and lead to a huge boom. The greater worry now is inflation...not depression. Paul Krugman should love Trump...he argued against austerity for years and for more stimulus. Now he is about to get what he always wanted.
I've been thinking about that quite a bit. Basically no one can know what's gonna happen because Trump is all over the place. The stimulus helps if the money goes into the real economy and is spent. So

1. The infrastructure plan. This will definitely help the economy. It's gonna be spent and create jobs.
2. The tax cut. Not so much help because it's geared to mostly high incomes. So most of the tax cut will be saved not spent
3. With Trump coming in will businesses cut investment due to uncertainty?
4. If Trump starts a trade war there will be job losses with maybe not so many corresponding gains. Aerospace sector (coincidentally the largest US export sector) comes to mind as greatly at risk.

Also how do you pass a large public spending effort, with a tax cut, and the resulting blow up of the deficit with a republican congress? Will there be draconian cuts to public spending? If so that's hugely contraction. The worst case scenario is abandoning the infrastructure plan cause he can't get it through Congress, then passing the tax cut offset by large cuts in public spending.

Good post, rb. There's also a question of inflation, which might be why banks are rallying. But that's also not necessarily good.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: muscleman on November 09, 2016, 12:37:37 PM
They don't all have tough skin like me to deal with people like you telling them that they are idiots or trying to make them feel as such.

In related news: Obama was able to admit defeat and he is going to help with the transition and I applause him for that.

Cardboard

+1

I fought hard in this thread earlier but decided not to waste more time. This is my last post in this thread.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 09, 2016, 12:50:01 PM

Good post, rb. There's also a question of inflation, which might be why banks are rallying. But that's also not necessarily good.
I'm not worried at all about inflation. Btw if you get the inflation it means that things are going well and you got nothing to worry about. But now I'd probably take a closer look at those Fairfax hedges.

I think the banks are rallying today because Elizabeth Warren won't be the Chairwoman of the Senate Finance Committee.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Jurgis on November 09, 2016, 12:52:56 PM

Good post, rb. There's also a question of inflation, which might be why banks are rallying. But that's also not necessarily good.
I'm not worried at all about inflation. Btw if you get the inflation it means that things are going well and you got nothing to worry about.

Not if the inflation is caused by prices rising due to trade war...

Anyway, we'll see.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 09, 2016, 12:55:25 PM
That's not inflation. That's just a one time price shock.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: JBird on November 09, 2016, 12:56:32 PM
They don't all have tough skin like me

Nobody has tough skin like you Donald, nobody.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: RichardGibbons on November 09, 2016, 01:03:05 PM
Strength of character?  Ashamed?  I don't believe so. 

A large part of the electorate that voted Trump was fed up with the leftist bullies.  Trump supporters avoided bumper stickers because they didn't want their car vandalized.  Why would they admit to supporting Trump knowing they would be labeled racist, sexist, xenophobe, stupid, uneducated, poor, deplorable, immoral, and unredeemable jackasses?  It's not worth it.  Talk softly, vote bigly.  Bullies lose.

Aside from the gratuitous ad-hominem (bullying and insulting Democrats for being bullying and insulting), I think you're actually right about the general concept.  Both candidates were unpopular and controversial, so many people didn't want to deal with the BS they might have to go through if they admitted that they liked a candidate.  Hence, the high number of undecided, and potentially a lot of people lying to pollsters.  (And really, it doesn't even have to be that high.  The swing states often had a sub three percentage point difference.  So if you're polling the typical 1000 people, that's only 30 people lying to you during a really controversial campaign.)

Plus, the other thing is that I think by the end Nate Silver gave Trump just under a 1 in 3 chance of winning based on the data from the polls.  So, has anyone here ever rolled a die and had it come up 1 or 2?  Did you think that die was rigged? What about rolling a 7 with a pair of dice?  If you believe the polls, that's all that had to happen for Trump to win.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: TwoCitiesCapital on November 09, 2016, 02:26:12 PM
Strength of character?  Ashamed?  I don't believe so. 

A large part of the electorate that voted Trump was fed up with the leftist bullies.  Trump supporters avoided bumper stickers because they didn't want their car vandalized.  Why would they admit to supporting Trump knowing they would be labeled racist, sexist, xenophobe, stupid, uneducated, poor, deplorable, immoral, and unredeemable jackasses?  It's not worth it.  Talk softly, vote bigly.  Bullies lose.

Aside from the gratuitous ad-hominem (bullying and insulting Democrats for being bullying and insulting), I think you're actually right about the general concept.  Both candidates were unpopular and controversial, so many people didn't want to deal with the BS they might have to go through if they admitted that they liked a candidate.  Hence, the high number of undecided, and potentially a lot of people lying to pollsters.  (And really, it doesn't even have to be that high.  The swing states often had a sub three percentage point difference.  So if you're polling the typical 1000 people, that's only 30 people lying to you during a really controversial campaign.)

Plus, the other thing is that I think by the end Nate Silver gave Trump just under a 1 in 3 chance of winning based on the data from the polls.  So, has anyone here ever rolled a die and had it come up 1 or 2?  Did you think that die was rigged? What about rolling a 7 with a pair of dice?  If you believe the polls, that's all that had to happen for Trump to win.

The crazy thing is, Trump supporters were painted as racist, sexist, white men for the entire election process. The newsflash from voter demographics is that's simply not true.

Slightly more than half of white men voted for Trump (which means slightly less than Half supported Hillary)
Around 30% of women voted Trump.
Around 30% of Latinos voted Trump.

A group that represents 1/2 of white men, 30% of all women, and 30% of all latinos doesn't sound like a group that can be labeled as a bunch of bigoted, sexist white dudes who are terrified of strong, successful women and immigrants.

The only vote that appeared to go straight down race lines was the african american vote which was close to 90% to Clinton.

I think the results are pretty clear - this election wasn't about race or sex like the Democrats would have us believe. It was about an anti-establishment vote from voters who are pissed off after 17 years of stagnant wages, sub-par growth, soaring healthcare premiums, an exploding wealth/wage gap, a massive run-up in Federal Debt with little progress to show for it, constant foreign wars new threats from the Middle East, and a general fed-up attitude towards the outcomes being the same from establishment Democrats and Republicans over the past 16 years. 

We saw the anti-establishment vote support Obama as a relative young, "outsider" who promised Change. When he failed to deliver, we saw the movement grow and move further to extremes in support of Bernie, Trump, and 3rd party candidates.

The DNC knew that Hillary didn't have the support of millennials and independents. She was projected to lose against Trump for that very reason BEFORE emails leaked, before the FBI's investigation results, and before the DNC selected her as the nominee. They picked her anyways. A tactical error.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Jurgis on November 09, 2016, 02:40:26 PM
The crazy thing is, Trump supporters were painted as racist, sexist, white men for the entire election process. The newsflash from voter demographics is that's simply not true.

Depends on how you choose to disect the votes.
But, yes, part of reason of Trump's win was due to sexism (btw, perhaps you don't realize that women can be sexist against women too).
And yes, the white racism also played the part.
Read Nate Silver's site slicing of the votes.

Quote
I think the results are pretty clear - this election wasn't about race or sex like the Democrats would have us believe. It was about an anti-establishment vote from voters who are pissed off after 17 years of stagnant wages, sub-par growth, soaring healthcare premiums, an exploding wealth/wage gap, a massive run-up in Federal Debt with little progress to show for it, constant foreign wars new threats from the Middle East, and a general fed-up attitude towards the outcomes being the same from establishment Democrats and Republicans over the past 16 years.

I'll repeat myself: let's see how many of these Trump will even try to resolve.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Spekulatius on November 09, 2016, 03:42:43 PM

Good post, rb. There's also a question of inflation, which might be why banks are rallying. But that's also not necessarily good.
I'm not worried at all about inflation. Btw if you get the inflation it means that things are going well and you got nothing to worry about. But now I'd probably take a closer look at those Fairfax hedges.

I think the banks are rallying today because Elizabeth Warren won't be the Chairwoman of the Senate Finance Committee.

Inflation does not mean that things are going well. I was very young then, but I do remember the seventies and things were definitely not going well.

I do think the banks rallied because of the perception that higher interest rates are more likely under Trump.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Spekulatius on November 09, 2016, 04:27:11 PM
A few thought son the election:

The rift within the populace appears to be deepening.  There are regions where 80% of the votes go to one party (Philadelphia and Democrats), while in some rural areas almost 80% of the votes go to Trump /Republicans. This makes it harder for a President to represent all the people. If only half the people feel represented by the current government, then this does not bode well.

Many voters are upset enough, that they are willing to roll the dice on a candidate. It is astonishing to see that Trump can actually defeat both parties and win the election. I do think that both of the above increase the risk that we get a  very wrong person as a president eventually.

I do see some parallel to Germany in 1933, when the Nazis took over. no, I don't think that Trump is a Nazi or even remotely should be compared to a Nazi. I do think some framework is the same, a country that is split in two fractions without middle ground, people that want change and are willing to roll the dice on who,leads the country, as well as people neglecting deep character flaws (I guess because they want change and don't care about the rest). Eventually withnthe above, I think the US runs serious risk of electing someone who will do a lot of change and not for the better.

Demagogy works. It's just sad.

Both parties seem seriously screwed up in how they elect their leaders. In fairness, Trump rolled over his party, but Clinton was the best that the Democrats could come up with? With a less decisive front runner, they sure should have won this Election.

I dislike Trump, but I hope he will be a better President than many think he will be. Much depends on who will run the government with him. My biggest fear is what will happen with the next Elections? The folks that want change now, who will they vote for next, if they don't get the change? It's scary to think that they will double up in change and elect a real whacko? I hope I am too pessimistic here.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: EliG on November 09, 2016, 04:57:46 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cw2OIGhXgAAQBUu.jpg:small)

Interesting graph. Trump got less popular votes than Romney and McCain. It wasn't a Trump surge but a Clinton collapse.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 09, 2016, 06:40:32 PM
I think Trump's victory has given the left especially the Bernie-Warren wing a golden opportunity to destroy the conservative ideology for good. Conservatives who prides themselves in the small government, personal responsibility and free trade must be very nervous with their populist leader who has no ideological leanings and an inflated ego. Trump would not put up with an ideology that has no role for him and he ran on a populist agenda.The left wing should actively coopt with Trump to implement it rather than blocking him like the republicans did in '08. Give him the cover to walk out of the trade deals. That would also help weakening the Clinton-Schumer wing who are sold out and are corrupt. Trump would soon find out that the best he can do is to stop the bleeding and not get back the jobs. The tax breaks for the rich and fiscal reforms would take time to work out, the time that Trump doesn't have and wouldn't wait for. He would need an instant fix and will look to the big ole Govt for solutions. The Dems should help him set up all the entitlements like free education, healthcare,housing support, unemployment. Let him package it whatever the way he wants to but get the populace used to the idea of Trump(and by extension the Govt.) helping them. Off course the Republicans would balk at such measures but they have no choice and the Dems should use the division to drive the wedge. Let him kill Obamacare but nudge him towards something that has his name on it. Use him to fight the big pharma to drive down the costs. Get him to fund an infrastructure plan to provide jobs.

Off course the Dems wouldn't like his agenda on social issues and climate change. They should oppose it but not let it get in the way of him enacting a populist agenda. Let him kill the conservative ideology and the demographics will take care of the rest.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Jurgis on November 09, 2016, 07:08:10 PM
I think Trump's victory has given the left especially the Bernie-Warren wing a golden opportunity to destroy the conservative ideology for good. Conservatives who prides themselves in the small government, personal responsibility and free trade must be very nervous with their populist leader who has no ideological leanings and an inflated ego. Trump would not put up with an ideology that has no role for him and he ran on a populist agenda.The left wing should actively coopt with Trump to implement it rather than blocking him like the republicans did in '08. Give him the cover to walk out of the trade deals. That would also help weakening the Clinton-Schumer wing who are sold out and are corrupt. Trump would soon find out that the best he can do is to stop the bleeding and not get back the jobs. The tax breaks for the rich and fiscal reforms would take time to work out, the time that Trump doesn't have and wouldn't wait for. He would need an instant fix and will look to the big ole Govt for solutions. The Dems should help him set up all the entitlements like free education, healthcare,housing support, unemployment. Let him package it whatever the way he wants to but get the populace used to the idea of Trump(and by extension the Govt.) helping them. Off course the Republicans would balk at such measures but they have no choice and the Dems should use the division to drive the wedge. Let him kill Obamacare but nudge him towards something that has his name on it. Use him to fight the big pharma to drive down the costs. Get him to fund an infrastructure plan to provide jobs.

Off course the Dems wouldn't like his agenda on social issues and climate change. They should oppose it but not let it get in the way of him enacting a populist agenda. Let him kill the conservative ideology and the demographics will take care of the rest.

Interesting suggestion. I don't think it's that easy IRL but interesting nonetheless. :)
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: DooDiligence on November 09, 2016, 07:19:37 PM
He can be led by his ego & he's not intelligent enough to see where the path winds up!

valcont you're an evil genius...
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 09, 2016, 08:08:27 PM
He can be led by his ego & he's not intelligent enough to see where the path winds up!

valcont you're an evil genius...

DooDiligence,
   Have to learn from the history. Look at the way the Spaniards approached the conquest. Rape, pillage and plunder. Yes you can conquer the population but its hard to control and scale because of the constant resistance. On the other hand the British let the colonies live their way of life but savagely attacked their ideology and belief system and they were able to conquer the world with such a little effort.

BTW your attempt to defuse the tension by way of humor on every thread is refreshing.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: DooDiligence on November 09, 2016, 08:22:46 PM
He can be led by his ego & he's not intelligent enough to see where the path winds up!

valcont you're an evil genius...

DooDiligence,
   Have to learn from the history. Look at the way the Spaniards approached the conquest. Rape, pillage and plunder. Yes you can conquer the population but its hard to control and scale because of the constant resistance. On the other hand the British let the colonies live their way of life but savagely attacked their ideology and belief system and they were able to conquer the world with such a little effort.

BTW your attempt to defuse the tension by way of humor on every thread is refreshing.

Thanks for that bit of history & your appreciation of the refreshments...
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: LC on November 09, 2016, 09:30:56 PM
My boy Bernie put out a statement on Trump:

Quote
“Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media.  People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while the very rich become much richer.

“To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.”

Seems about as reasonable as it can get. I wish this guy could have run instead  ;D
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: TwoCitiesCapital on November 10, 2016, 05:44:38 AM
The crazy thing is, Trump supporters were painted as racist, sexist, white men for the entire election process. The newsflash from voter demographics is that's simply not true.

Depends on how you choose to disect the votes.
But, yes, part of reason of Trump's win was due to sexism (btw, perhaps you don't realize that women can be sexist against women too).
And yes, the white racism also played the part.
Read Nate Silver's site slicing of the votes.

I'm aware the women can be sexist, but to make the claim that 40% of the women are sexist, you're going to need a little more data than a single women candidate losing an election...especially when there are other explanations that do a FAR better job of tying together the diverse groups that supported Trump.

Quote
Obviously race played the same role it has in every election. Racist white males tend to lean to the extreme right - that's been the case in every election. There wasn't suddenly a surge of racist individuals that were born 18 years ago that could vote in this election that chose Trump over Hillary. Further, minority groups outside of African Americans provided Trump a sizable amount of support.

Quote
I think the results are pretty clear - this election wasn't about race or sex like the Democrats would have us believe. It was about an anti-establishment vote from voters who are pissed off after 17 years of stagnant wages, sub-par growth, soaring healthcare premiums, an exploding wealth/wage gap, a massive run-up in Federal Debt with little progress to show for it, constant foreign wars new threats from the Middle East, and a general fed-up attitude towards the outcomes being the same from establishment Democrats and Republicans over the past 16 years.

I'll repeat myself: let's see how many of these Trump will even try to resolve.

Sure. I'm not saying he will or won't. I'm just saying it was clear Hillary wouldn't, which is why the anti-establishment candidate won.

Had the DNC selected Bernie - the DNC would have had a chance. But just as the pre-convention polls showed, Hillary lost to Trump.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: DooDiligence on November 10, 2016, 05:46:57 AM
Bang on Bernie!
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 10, 2016, 06:14:39 AM
“To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.”

That's my boy Bernie. Lets go get these fiscal conservatives and their bullsh.t Ayn Rand crap. Time to double the entitlement state.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: DooDiligence on November 10, 2016, 06:48:28 AM
Fiscal conservative & Ayn Rand (as Greenspan learned, the 2 have very little in common...)

The only thing she did worth reading was Anthem
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 10, 2016, 07:08:17 AM
Fiscal conservative & Ayn Rand (as Greenspan learned, the 2 have very little in common...)

The only thing she did worth reading was Anthem

Anthem was good but I wasn't into the dystopian fiction at the time. I still had hard time reading the Hunger Games even though my wife loves it.

Fountainhead did it for me. I would read it every year but I was a sheltered teenager then. It took me a while to figure out the inefficacy of the propaganda.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: TwoCitiesCapital on November 10, 2016, 08:07:05 AM
Fiscal conservative & Ayn Rand (as Greenspan learned, the 2 have very little in common...)

The only thing she did worth reading was Anthem

Anthem was good but I wasn't into the dystopian fiction at the time. I still had hard time reading the Hunger Games even though my wife loves it.

Fountainhead did it for me. I would read it every year but I was a sheltered teenager then. It took me a while to figure out the inefficacy of the propaganda.

Fountainhead was good. Less preachy than Atlast Shrugged. I like both books and generally agree with the overarching theme, but am not as radical with it as most. Still agree with a progressive taxes policies, social safety nets, etc. - just approach it from a "less is more" mindset and prefer any governance that can be done at the local level to be left at the local level.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 10, 2016, 09:45:40 AM
Speaking of dystopian fiction this was the best quote I saw yesterday:

"It seems that the American people are rather hesitant to elect a woman who both looks and acts like the shadowy dictator in every dystopian young adult novel ever written. When given a choice between a character from reality TV or the villain from the Hunger Games, the American people chose the former."

From: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/matt-walsh-liberals-this-is-very-simple-you-lost-because-hillary-clinton-is-objectively-terrible/
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 10, 2016, 12:08:17 PM
I think Trump's victory has given the left especially the Bernie-Warren wing a golden opportunity to destroy the conservative ideology for good. Conservatives who prides themselves in the small government, personal responsibility and free trade must be very nervous with their populist leader who has no ideological leanings and an inflated ego. Trump would not put up with an ideology that has no role for him and he ran on a populist agenda.The left wing should actively coopt with Trump to implement it rather than blocking him like the republicans did in '08. Give him the cover to walk out of the trade deals. That would also help weakening the Clinton-Schumer wing who are sold out and are corrupt. Trump would soon find out that the best he can do is to stop the bleeding and not get back the jobs. The tax breaks for the rich and fiscal reforms would take time to work out, the time that Trump doesn't have and wouldn't wait for. He would need an instant fix and will look to the big ole Govt for solutions. The Dems should help him set up all the entitlements like free education, healthcare,housing support, unemployment. Let him package it whatever the way he wants to but get the populace used to the idea of Trump(and by extension the Govt.) helping them. Off course the Republicans would balk at such measures but they have no choice and the Dems should use the division to drive the wedge. Let him kill Obamacare but nudge him towards something that has his name on it. Use him to fight the big pharma to drive down the costs. Get him to fund an infrastructure plan to provide jobs.

Off course the Dems wouldn't like his agenda on social issues and climate change. They should oppose it but not let it get in the way of him enacting a populist agenda. Let him kill the conservative ideology and the demographics will take care of the rest.
Good post. Let me add a little bit to it.

Firstly, the Schumer-Clinton wing of the Democratic Party is probably done as of roughly this morning. There's center left democrat will become about as common as the center right republican. An endangered species. It's the Liz Warren show going forward. No more Mr. Nice Liberal. And why not? This shit works. Republicans do it and they win.

Now my friends on the right (i have a lot of them) tell me that we on the left just don't get it. We don't understand the other America or the real America. I think that they're somewhat right. I for one thought a significant portion of the right would reject Trump's message. I was wrong.

I like to point to our friends on the right the possibility that they do not understand the left very well either. Now that it's the 2nd day after the election and the hangover is lifting i can look at things more coldly and clearly. The republicans won. But this was not a great victory. It was not Regan 1984. It was a squeaker. Also despite all the pomp, circumstance, and rhetoric it turns out it was not a special election. The republican coalition voted republican, the democratic coalition voted democratic, and there was a collapse in democratic turnout.

Our friends on the right and some on the left told us Hillary was a horrible candidate. Possible the worst we could have done. It appears they were right on this as well. I guess that's why the democratic turnout collapsed. However when all is said and done Hillary will win the popular vote by 1-2%. So if the democrats win the popular vote by 2 points when they run the worst possible candidate what happens when they run a half decent candidate, not to mention a great candidate?

No, the left is not dead. It's just waking up. This is gonna be fun!

All this being said I wish President Trump the best of luck. I also hope that from time to time he chooses a liberal kale salad over the KFC buckets. While I find a Trump presidency horrific Mike Pence frankly scares the shit outta me.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: DonFanucci on November 10, 2016, 12:28:24 PM
Fiscal conservative & Ayn Rand (as Greenspan learned, the 2 have very little in common...)

The only thing she did worth reading was Anthem

Anthem was good but I wasn't into the dystopian fiction at the time. I still had hard time reading the Hunger Games even though my wife loves it.

Fountainhead did it for me. I would read it every year but I was a sheltered teenager then. It took me a while to figure out the inefficacy of the propaganda.

Fountainhead was good. Less preachy than Atlast Shrugged. I like both books and generally agree with the overarching theme, but am not as radical with it as most. Still agree with a progressive taxes policies, social safety nets, etc. - just approach it from a "less is more" mindset and prefer any governance that can be done at the local level to be left at the local level.

She was exactly right about what's destroying the country right now- collectivism and altruism. Collectivism on the right via Trump's nationalism. Collectivism on the left via Bernie's socialism. Both supported by the idea of self sacrifice as a virtue. Sacrifice to the nation for trump, or sacrifice to the collective for Bernie. It's a collective war of all against all now. Blacks vs. whites. Women vs. men. Rich vs. poor. Natural born vs. immigrants. Pick your identity group.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: frank87 on November 10, 2016, 03:06:00 PM
Now much of this may be isolated incidents, but this is highly disturbing nonetheless:

https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656

It seems like many of these people, who were previously silent, are now more emboldened than ever.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 10, 2016, 03:24:48 PM
Now much of this may be isolated incidents, but this is highly disturbing nonetheless:

https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656

It seems like many of these people, who were previously silent, are now more emboldened than ever.
I've read that. It's horrible. But maybe it's necessary. Liberals have been a pampered and spoiled bunch. They need to learn a less. I learned a few as detailed above. It's a simple lesson: Don't boo!... Vote!
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Jurgis on November 10, 2016, 03:44:19 PM
It's a simple lesson: Don't boo!... Vote!

You would have thought people learned that lesson after Brexit...
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 10, 2016, 04:17:24 PM
It's a simple lesson: Don't boo!... Vote!
You would have thought people learned that lesson after Brexit...
Well they didn't. They also didn't get it after Bush 2. As I've said the liberals are a coddled bunch. They need a kick in the ass and some tough love. The saying goes: Democrats need to fall in love. Republicans fall in line. Need to change that. Need to introduce some order in the ranks.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Jurgis on November 10, 2016, 04:25:24 PM
Need to introduce some order in the ranks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACf5ZYxPqes
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: DonFanucci on November 11, 2016, 07:15:57 AM
Now much of this may be isolated incidents, but this is highly disturbing nonetheless:

https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656

It seems like many of these people, who were previously silent, are now more emboldened than ever.

This is definitely very disturbing. I think people need to start asking the tough question. Why is it that after decades of left wing controlled public schools and universities, race relations are in a downward spiral? I think the answer is that the new left is extremely racist, and has been feeding racism for years and years. Of course there are racists on the right wing, but they have no intellectual impetus behind them. They are rightfully disgraced in the eyes of every thinking person.

But on the left you see a real rise of self-righteous, intellectually motivated and justified racism. For example, you open New York Magazine and see the following article entitled "Another Way White Men are Ruining it for the Rest of Us (http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/05/white-men-trump-clinton.html)". In what universe is that OK to publish? The same universe that you turn on your TV and see Samantha Bee blame "white people" for Trump (https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/nov/10/samantha-bee-donald-trump-white-people). The same universe that it's OK for Hillary to chastise "white people" for not listening, and for Bernie Sanders to apologize for things he never did, but people of his skin color once did. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egr01a6oDMo) The same universe where this child apologizes for his white privilege (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4Q1jZ-LOT0), and is praised for it.

What could be more disturbing than teaching a helpless child to feel guilt for things that he has no choice about, to feel guilty for the color of his skin and his lot in life, in essence, to feel guilt for his existence? This is exactly what I was taught in school, at the university level. Self hatred by white people, particularly white men, is thought of as a moral virtue- something that should be praised (http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/13/us/teen-slam-poet-white-privilege-hln/). Why would one expect that teaching children of every race that white people are immoral because of their skin color will make people more color blind? I think what you should expect to get is exactly what we see- growing resentment between races. People should be speaking out against this stuff as ardently as they speak out against the disgusting stuff you see from the racist right.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: onyx1 on November 11, 2016, 07:53:25 AM
Now much of this may be isolated incidents, but this is highly disturbing nonetheless:

https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656 (https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656)

It seems like many of these people, who were previously silent, are now more emboldened than ever.

This is definitely very disturbing. I think people need to start asking the tough question. Why is it that after decades of left wing controlled public schools and universities, race relations are in a downward spiral? I think the answer is that the new left is extremely racist, and has been feeding racism for years and years. Of course there are racists on the right wing, but they have no intellectual impetus behind them. They are rightfully disgraced in the eyes of every thinking person.

But on the left you see a real rise of self-righteous, intellectually motivated and justified racism. For example, you open New York Magazine and see the following article entitled "Another Way White Men are Ruining it for the Rest of Us (http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/05/white-men-trump-clinton.html)". In what universe is that OK to publish? The same universe that you turn on your TV and see Samantha Bee blame "white people" for Trump (https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/nov/10/samantha-bee-donald-trump-white-people). The same universe that it's OK for Hillary to chastise "white people" for not listening, and for Bernie Sanders to apologize for things he never did, but people of his skin color once did. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egr01a6oDMo) The same universe where this child apologizes for his white privilege (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4Q1jZ-LOT0), and is praised for it.

What could be more disturbing than teaching a helpless child to feel guilt for things that he has no choice about, to feel guilty for the color of his skin and his lot in life, in essence, to feel guilt for his existence? This is exactly what I was taught in school, at the university level. Self hatred by white people, particularly white men, is thought of as a moral virtue- something that should be praised (http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/13/us/teen-slam-poet-white-privilege-hln/). Why would one expect that teaching children of every race that white people are immoral because of their skin color will make people more color blind? I think what you should expect to get is exactly what we see- growing resentment between races. People should be speaking out against this stuff as ardently as they speak out against the disgusting stuff you see from the racist right.

This guy predicts things will improve:

"Prediction: In four years opinion surveys will show Americans LESS racist, homophobic, and sexist. (Watch and learn.)"  - Scott Adams
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: DonFanucci on November 11, 2016, 09:11:40 AM
This guy predicts things will improve:

"Prediction: In four years opinion surveys will show Americans LESS racist, homophobic, and sexist. (Watch and learn.)"  - Scott Adams

While I wish that were true, the President has no power to affect the long term intellectual trends in the country. Again, this is something that is being taught, as I was taught it, at the university level. A Trump presidency won't change what professors teach. It can't make it unacceptable for Lena Dunham to preach that straight white men are a problem, and that she feels good about their extinction (https://twitter.com/lenadunham/status/793929098926166016?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw). People on the left need to stand up and say 'this is wrong'.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 11, 2016, 09:34:37 AM
This guy predicts things will improve:

"Prediction: In four years opinion surveys will show Americans LESS racist, homophobic, and sexist. (Watch and learn.)"  - Scott Adams

So much for that:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/n-kkk-group-hold-victory-parade-donald-trump-article-1.2868491
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 11, 2016, 09:58:22 AM

Oh boy:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/10/trumps-transition-team-considers-sarah-palin-for-possible-cabinet-spot/

DC is going to be a trailer community pretty soon.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 11, 2016, 10:23:35 AM
This guy predicts things will improve:

"Prediction: In four years opinion surveys will show Americans LESS racist, homophobic, and sexist. (Watch and learn.)"  - Scott Adams

So much for that:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/n-kkk-group-hold-victory-parade-donald-trump-article-1.2868491

I know this week has been dragging on slowly, but four years has yet to pass.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: wachtwoord on November 12, 2016, 04:33:40 AM
This guy predicts things will improve:

"Prediction: In four years opinion surveys will show Americans LESS racist, homophobic, and sexist. (Watch and learn.)"  - Scott Adams

So much for that:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/n-kkk-group-hold-victory-parade-donald-trump-article-1.2868491

I know this week has been dragging on slowly, but four years has yet to pass.

And KKK members have been racist since way longer than Trump has been, or will be president. Just ignore them, they don't matter.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Gregmal on November 12, 2016, 03:51:28 PM
This guy predicts things will improve:

"Prediction: In four years opinion surveys will show Americans LESS racist, homophobic, and sexist. (Watch and learn.)"  - Scott Adams

So much for that:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/n-kkk-group-hold-victory-parade-donald-trump-article-1.2868491

I know this week has been dragging on slowly, but four years has yet to pass.

The trailer community may be better for the country than the filth that currently inhabits DC. Want a microcosm of why Trump received twice as many electoral votes as pretty much every one of these folks predicted? Look at how DC voted. 93% for Clinton. Then look at the break down for the rest of the country. Yup, just another example of how out of touch these folks are. DC is and pretty much always has been a circus. Adding Palin to  the mix just gives another act to complement the Paul Ryan, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, and Pochahontas shows.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Pauly on November 12, 2016, 04:46:51 PM

...and Pochahontas shows.


Ugh. Way to drag the conversation even lower and invalidate anything useful you had to say. These types of comments are now fair game since your guy won the election, is that right?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 12, 2016, 04:57:21 PM

...and Pochahontas shows.


Ugh. Way to drag the conversation even lower and invalidate anything useful you had to say. These types of comments are now fair game since your guy won the election, is that right?
I for one think it's great and I hope it keeps going on for another 4 years
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Gregmal on November 12, 2016, 05:16:55 PM

...and Pochahontas shows.


Ugh. Way to drag the conversation even lower and invalidate anything useful you had to say. These types of comments are now fair game since your guy won the election, is that right?

Missing the forest for the trees. Seems like a common trait amongst many of you. If you choose to cover your eyes and ears because I choose a humorous name for a circus spectacle character, be my guest. If you'd like to sit at the big boy table and discuss my point that DC(both traditional Dems and Republicans) is a circus show, well then step right up. Thanks
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Gregmal on November 12, 2016, 05:24:18 PM

...and Pochahontas shows.


Ugh. Way to drag the conversation even lower and invalidate anything useful you had to say. These types of comments are now fair game since your guy won the election, is that right?
I for one think it's great and I hope it keeps going on for another 4 years

It will, no doubt about it. Every cycle needs a spark for the circus cannon to light. Banker bashing was cool the past 8 years, now its transitioning into healthcare/obamacare and pharma/drug pricing. The forest for the trees crowd gets easily distracted, but the rest of us see that Trump is more or less a life long Democrat who played the game and won. His policies are going to be much more populist than many expect. His biggest opponent will still likely be hardcore conservative yawkers
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Spekulatius on November 13, 2016, 09:36:42 AM
This guy predicts things will improve:

"Prediction: In four years opinion surveys will show Americans LESS racist, homophobic, and sexist. (Watch and learn.)"  - Scott Adams

So much for that:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/n-kkk-group-hold-victory-parade-donald-trump-article-1.2868491

I know this week has been dragging on slowly, but four years has yet to pass.

The trailer community may be better for the country than the filth that currently inhabits DC. Want a microcosm of why Trump received twice as many electoral votes as pretty much every one of these folks predicted? Look at how DC voted. 93% for Clinton. Then look at the break down for the rest of the country. Yup, just another example of how out of touch these folks are. DC is and pretty much always has been a circus. Adding Palin to  the mix just gives another act to complement the Paul Ryan, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, and Pochahontas shows.

I expect he swamp in DC to exist in 4 years, only some of the inhabitants will change.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 13, 2016, 09:48:00 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/anti-trump-protesters-march-tens-thousands-nationwide-43503821

This is how the left loses people in the middle. What is the point of these protests other than an inconvenience to most of the people?The time for protest and organizing was BEFORE the election. Instead of sucking up and accepting the results, they are rioting and appears as sore losers. Trump won fair and square with the rules that were in place. He proved everyone wrong. I don't like the electoral college but what is the point of saying now that Clinton won the popular vote. Who gives a sh*t? I hope democrats distance themselves from them otherwise they are looking at another big surprise come 2020.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: RichardGibbons on November 13, 2016, 10:33:45 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/anti-trump-protesters-march-tens-thousands-nationwide-43503821
What is the point of these protests other than an inconvenience to most of the people?

I suspect the point is to influence policy now.  Suppose there's some policy that Trump's just barely on the cusp of implementing.  If he believes that everyone who dislikes the policy will just accept it, he might be more likely to pass the policy than if he believes that the people who hate the policy will shut down a major city for weeks and leave him with horrible media coverage.

(I have no idea if that works, or if that's what they're really thinking, but it is one plausible and logical reason for protests.)
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 13, 2016, 11:37:32 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/anti-trump-protesters-march-tens-thousands-nationwide-43503821
What is the point of these protests other than an inconvenience to most of the people?

I suspect the point is to influence policy now.  Suppose there's some policy that Trump's just barely on the cusp of implementing.  If he believes that everyone who dislikes the policy will just accept it, he might be more likely to pass the policy than if he believes that the people who hate the policy will shut down a major city for weeks and leave him with horrible media coverage.

(I have no idea if that works, or if that's what they're really thinking, but it is one plausible and logical reason for protests.)

Protests in response to an event or policy may be justified to some extent but protesting just because you are anticipating the skies to fall is foolhardy.
The guy hasn't even assumed the office.
Either way one thing the left has to learn is to better understand the public's perception. They get so wound up with their agenda and the interest groups that they lose the big picture. Its half the battle in the politics and Trump seemed to be better at it than Clinton. He ran left of Clinton and the only way to beat him is to help him implement his leftist agenda and divide the republican party.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Pauly on November 13, 2016, 12:02:08 PM

...and Pochahontas shows.


Ugh. Way to drag the conversation even lower and invalidate anything useful you had to say. These types of comments are now fair game since your guy won the election, is that right?

Missing the forest for the trees. Seems like a common trait amongst many of you. If you choose to cover your eyes and ears because I choose a humorous name for a circus spectacle character, be my guest. If you'd like to sit at the big boy table and discuss my point that DC(both traditional Dems and Republicans) is a circus show, well then step right up. Thanks

Dog whistle bigotry is humorous to you, got it. Keep that up and you'll surround yourself with some terrific people. And wait..what? DC is a circus you say! And politicians are the clowns!! Why I never...
Some truly ground breaking ideas are coming from your big boy table.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: RichardGibbons on November 13, 2016, 12:49:28 PM
[Protests in response to an event or policy may be justified to some extent but protesting just because you are anticipating the skies to fall is foolhardy.

Not so much.  Once he's president (and not campaigning), if he says he'll do X, I believe he'll do his utmost to do it, and protests will make no difference.   So, a totally reasonable strategy is to do things that will encourage him not to say he'll do X in the first place.

(Almost everyone cares about saving face, and I think Trump more than most.)
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Uccmal on November 13, 2016, 04:22:01 PM
This guy predicts things will improve:

"Prediction: In four years opinion surveys will show Americans LESS racist, homophobic, and sexist. (Watch and learn.)"  - Scott Adams

So much for that:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/n-kkk-group-hold-victory-parade-donald-trump-article-1.2868491

I know this week has been dragging on slowly, but four years has yet to pass.

lol,

And the latest.  PE apparently likes to sleep in his own bed at night.  During the campaign he would fly home at night so he could wake up in his own bed in Trump tower, hence the evening rallies.  He wants to know how many days per week he has to stay in the Whitehouse.  I know alot of 70 year olds who are like that. 

Oh, the laws of unintended consequences..... 
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 13, 2016, 04:34:15 PM
Would not surprise me one bit is the PE will govern from Trump Tower.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Uccmal on November 14, 2016, 05:56:03 AM
Would not surprise me one bit is the PE will govern from Trump Tower.

Nightmare scenario for the secret service.  Securing a few block radius of Manhattan. 

Maybe they can build him a replica in the Whitehouse as part of the infrastructure project. 
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 14, 2016, 06:58:48 AM
This guy predicts things will improve:

"Prediction: In four years opinion surveys will show Americans LESS racist, homophobic, and sexist. (Watch and learn.)"  - Scott Adams

So much for that:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/n-kkk-group-hold-victory-parade-donald-trump-article-1.2868491

I know this week has been dragging on slowly, but four years has yet to pass.

lol,

And the latest.  PE apparently likes to sleep in his own bed at night.  During the campaign he would fly home at night so he could wake up in his own bed in Trump tower, hence the evening rallies.  He wants to know how many days per week he has to stay in the Whitehouse.  I know alot of 70 year olds who are like that. 

Oh, the laws of unintended consequences..... 

I like to sleep in my own bed at night too, that is why whenever I move I bring my bed with me to my new home.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Jurgis on November 14, 2016, 08:32:39 AM
Would not surprise me one bit is the PE will govern from Trump Tower.

Nightmare scenario for the secret service.  Securing a few block radius of Manhattan. 

Maybe they can build him a replica in the Whitehouse as part of the infrastructure project.

Just demolish that old fashioned white hut and build a proper White Tower there. Well, with golden T on top.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 14, 2016, 09:21:31 AM
Would not surprise me one bit is the PE will govern from Trump Tower.

Nightmare scenario for the secret service.  Securing a few block radius of Manhattan. 

Maybe they can build him a replica in the Whitehouse as part of the infrastructure project.

Just demolish that old fashioned white hut and build a proper White Tower there. Well, with golden T on top.
Well they do need more office space the the WH.  8)
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 14, 2016, 09:32:06 AM
Would not surprise me one bit is the PE will govern from Trump Tower.

Nightmare scenario for the secret service.  Securing a few block radius of Manhattan. 

Maybe they can build him a replica in the Whitehouse as part of the infrastructure project.

Just demolish that old fashioned white hut and build a proper White Tower there. Well, with golden T on top.
Well they do need more office space the the WH.  8)

It would make it easier to hit with a plane though, you have to keep that in mind.  Maybe that isn't a bad thing, though now that I think about it. It is better than the terrorists targeting innocent people.

Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 14, 2016, 09:34:19 AM
Meh, just install some SAM sites on the South Lawn
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: cwericb on November 14, 2016, 09:48:50 AM
Here's what gets me.

Trump won. I didn’t want to see him win - but he did.

He was elected democratically and to protest his election is simply protesting against the democratic process.

These protesters need to suck it up and go home.

Save your protests for when you really do have something legitimate to protest against. Protesting now just discredits any future legitimate protests.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: berkshiremystery on November 14, 2016, 03:52:55 PM
Trump nixes Presidential salary from $400,000 to symbolic $1.
Cheers!


Trump nixes presidential salary, may spend time in New York, Florida


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/14/trump-nixes-presidential-salary-may-spend-time-in-new-york-florida.html


Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Uccmal on November 14, 2016, 04:32:59 PM
Here's what gets me.

Trump won. I didn’t want to see him win - but he did.

He was elected democratically and to protest his election is simply protesting against the democratic process.

These protesters need to suck it up and go home.

Save your protests for when you really do have something legitimate to protest against. Protesting now just discredits any future legitimate protests.

Protests are a normal reaction.  There were protests throughout the last 4 terms.  In a democracy protesting is good.  It gets bad when you send the national guard into a University campus to shoot people.  Besides, isn't there a permanent encampment of protestors at the edge of capitol hill?  It is home.   

What doesn't help is idiots like Giuliani telling the protestors to stop whining.  As ambivalent as I am about Trump, I really hate Rudy.  I hope for his sake he has his own secret service detail.  The man is a walking target. 
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: cwericb on November 14, 2016, 05:46:17 PM
Agree with your sentiments on Rudy 100%. He gives me the feeling he just escaped from some horror movie.

I have no problem with protesting, I just don't see the point at this particular time. Wait for a few months or years and see where things are going to go.

But what really concerns me is that I can't help wondering how you turn over most of the western world's top secrets to people like Trump, Bannon, Giuliani and all of the rest of Trumps crew. How do you do that and ensure these guys will not use the info for their own personal and political uses? I wouldn't trust Steve Bannon with the White House's phone number let alone state secrets.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 14, 2016, 05:57:46 PM
yes protests tend to happen after every election.

However I've always been baffled by how hard people come down on protests in the US. Especially the people of the right who always talk about freedom and constitution. Isn't protest protected? Isn't that one of the basic freedoms guaranteed by the constitution? Isn't that one of the things that differentiates a democracy from a totalitarian/authoritarian regime? Why are some parts of the constitution more equal than others?

The US has lectured lots of countries to allow protests. They should practice some of what they preach.

Quote
But what really concerns me is that I can't help wondering how you turn over most of the western world's top secrets to people like Trump, Bannon, Giuliani and all of the rest of Trumps crew. How do you do that and ensure these guys will not use the info for their own personal and political uses? I wouldn't trust Steve Bannon with the White House's phone number let alone state secrets.

This is how democracy works. The people choose and that's the way it goes. Politicians always say that there's nothing more wise than the wisdom of the people. That's bullshit. Sometimes people choose wrong. Presidents make a mess and then someone comes in comes in and cleans up the mess. But people get the government that they've wanted. I'm not saying it's a perfect system but it's the best one we figured out yet, all the other ones are worse.

All you have to hope when a bad one comes in that he doesn't break something that is irreplaceable. It doesn't matter if someone is corrupt. America is rich enough. Or if someone implements bad policies. America can suffer. All that matters is nuclear weapons in general or in this case some crazy war such as America attacking Iran, or letting Russia redraw some borders in Europe. Everything aside from that is fixable. This is also one of the reasons we should wish we could disinvent nuclear weapons. Sadly we can't
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: cwericb on November 14, 2016, 06:08:11 PM
Something that confuses me. How can Trump turn over his businesses interests to his children, shouldn't the businesses be put into a blind trust? And now Trumps wants his children to have secret security clearances.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 14, 2016, 06:27:09 PM
Something that confuses me. How can Trump turn over his businesses interests to his children, shouldn't the businesses be put into a blind trust? And now Trumps wants his children to have secret security clearances.
There is no rule that a president has to put his affairs in a blind trust. That was more of a best practices thing. Kind of like disclosing your tax returns. Given everything that has happened I don't see why anyone should be surprised or confused by any of what's happened or what will come to pass.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: cwericb on November 14, 2016, 06:31:07 PM
As that old Chinese curse goes... "may you live in interesting times". The next few years are bound to be interesting. :)
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 14, 2016, 06:40:34 PM
Indeed.

When I was younger in the 1990s I was thinking of all the stories that my grandparents were saying about wars and big events and life experiences. I was thinking boy when I talk to my grandkids I'll be so boring because now all the problems are solved, everything is right, and we're all living our good, boring lives without much excitement.

Boy was I wrong! I think in the past 15 years we've had enough interesting times to last a lifetime. Can we please go back to a good, boring place where our biggest problem is that the president got a blow job? I have enough stories to tell my grand kids.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Jurgis on November 14, 2016, 06:56:43 PM
Boy was I wrong! I think in the past 15 years we've had enough interesting times to last a lifetime. Can we please go back to a good, boring place where our biggest problem is that the president got a blow job? I have enough stories to tell my grand kids.

We should just hope that we don't experience a World War or localized nuclear war or nuke terrorism.

I'm fine with "enough stories".  8)
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Uccmal on November 15, 2016, 05:08:29 AM
As that old Chinese curse goes... "may you live in interesting times". The next few years are bound to be interesting. :)

I am making a concerted effort to go 4 years without hearing Trump's voice.  Interesting doesn't begin to describe how sick I am of him.  Unlike other presidents, his NPD (narcisitic pd) doesn't allow him to shut the fuck up for awhile.  I'm pining for the heady days of the Shrub.  :-). 

Its like were subjected continuously to the  inner workings of the dude's brain. 

Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: cwericb on November 15, 2016, 06:56:00 AM
"I am making a concerted effort to go 4 years without hearing Trump's voice. "

Yeah, well good luck with that!  :)

Should we now start a new thread:  Donald 'The Wall' Trump's campaign promises.
 
Hillery is no longer going to jail.
The great, great wall is being downgraded to a fence.
Obamacare is not being repealed but tweeked.
And how's that process of "Draining the Swamp" coming along?
So what happens when the redneck portion of his supporters finally clue in that they have been duped?

Now to look on the bright side of things I have to admit I would prefer watching Melania and Ivanka rather than Hillary for the next 4 years.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 15, 2016, 07:00:07 AM
So what happens when the redneck portion of his supporters finally clue in that they have been duped?


Don't worry about that. Not going to happen. Ever!!
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: RobBob on November 15, 2016, 07:16:26 AM
I voted third party but its clear that the Democrats/liberals'/SJWs' response to the election of DT is indicative as to why he won.  If you keep this "everybody I disagree with is a deplorable" up for long, TD will be a two-termer for sure.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Cardboard on November 15, 2016, 07:49:28 AM
"But what really concerns me is that I can't help wondering how you turn over most of the western world's top secrets to people like Trump, Bannon, Giuliani and all of the rest of Trumps crew. How do you do that and ensure these guys will not use the info for their own personal and political uses?"

Don`t you realize that the Clinton`s became centi-millionaires doing exactly that? It is not like they could do it. They have done it!

Cardboard
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: cwericb on November 15, 2016, 08:12:07 AM
So you're okay with continuing and expanding the practice?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: TwoCitiesCapital on November 15, 2016, 08:24:12 AM
So you're okay with continuing and expanding the practice?

We weren't really given a choice...

Your options were to vote for the career criminal who has enriched herself by selling political influence for favors/money
OR vote for the bigot who had few clear policy stances and appears to lack the temperament for the position
OR waste your vote on a third party candidate who is probably unqualified, but embodies the ideals you would like seen put in place.

I voted 3rd party, but am not blind to the extremely low likelihood one would ever get elected. Was simply hoping for 5-10% of the popular vote to help influence future policy and encourage people to run in local races.

Unfortunately, most of America thinks it's a waste of their time to try to support them since they aren't championed by either major party ( at least not collectively - each side champions some of the ideals of each 3rd party candidate). Since we appear to be ok with blatant career criminals and racist fear mongers as our presidential candidates, we will probably see more of them attempting to run for positions of political power.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Cardboard on November 15, 2016, 09:20:39 AM
"So you're okay with continuing and expanding the practice?"

When you become reasonable enough to understand that someone who did commit something vs someone who could commit something is different, then maybe we can discuss.

Cardboard
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 15, 2016, 09:50:55 AM
An interesting take on it.   http://rare.us/story/how-president-trump-will-make-politics-better-for-gay-americans/

"Trump is the first president in US history to enter office supporting gay marriage... Obama didn’t embrace same sex marriage until 2012, reversing his earlier opposition. “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage,” Obama said in 2008. Hillary Clinton didn’t embrace same sex marriage until 2013, reversing her previous opposition."
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 15, 2016, 09:59:13 AM
Theres too many choice quotes in Marks memo. Im a big fan of him because he's brutally honest.

Some really good ones. Here are my favorite:

"The phoney [sic] electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!"

"He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!"

--  DJT in 2012


Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: cwericb on November 15, 2016, 10:15:31 AM
“When you become reasonable enough to understand that someone who did commit something vs someone who could commit something is different, then maybe we can discuss.”

I have yet to see any proof as to what the Clintons did that was illegal. Specifically, to what are you referring? As far as getting an introduction to a politician in exchange for a charitable donation, that is certainly nothing new and is the way many charities work. The Clinton foundation has used that money to give hundreds of millions in aid world wide.

On the other hand, is it true that the Trump Foundation donated $25,000 to the re-election campaign of the Florida Attorney General? Is that a charity? Could it possibly be connected or is it just coincidence that this same Attorney General then dropped the criminal investigation into Trump University?

And then of course, there is the whole issue of Trump U.

Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 15, 2016, 11:18:11 AM
https://www.ft.com/content/ef21b3c0-a80d-11e6-8898-79a99e2a4de6

Quote
"In Michigan and Wisconsin, the two states that arguably swung the election, Mrs Clinton received roughly 300,000 fewer votes than Mr Obama did, suggesting that the president’s supporters either stayed at home or cast their votes for Mr Trump or a third-party candidate."


Go figure! Howard Marks
https://www.oaktreecapital.com/docs/default-source/memos/go-figure.pdf

Theres too many choice quotes in Marks memo. Im a big fan of him because he's brutally honest.
I read the memo. I don't think that it was brutal. I think it was honest and pragmatic. Now reality may be brutal, but that's another thing.

His conclusions are to the point as well. Big changes are afoot in democratic party. It will be vastly different in the future and a lot more progressive.

What's really amazing to me is that the transformation on the left is happening in an almost identical manner as it did on the right just with an 8 year lag.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Jurgis on November 15, 2016, 11:29:19 AM
What's really amazing to me is that the transformation on the left is happening in an almost identical manner as it did on the right just with an 8 year lag.

I'm gonna misuse a quote (since apparently it was intended the opposite way), but I'm concerned that "The only things in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillos." (Jim Hightower. I haven't read the book).

I'm the same way unhappy about leftization of the left as I'm unhappy about the rightization of the right. Both lead to policies that are populist and mostly broken.

(Yeah, I'm mostly there with dead armadillos.)
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 15, 2016, 11:36:18 AM
Lol, yea. That's what the dems and H got wrong. They thought that there was this big center. Turns out they were wrong. It's basically you, me, and Ken Bone. Oh, and the armadillos.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: wachtwoord on November 16, 2016, 05:45:34 AM
Yup, politics is extremely polarized right now.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 16, 2016, 08:10:44 PM
I think Trump's victory has given the left especially the Bernie-Warren wing a golden opportunity to destroy the conservative ideology for good. Conservatives who prides themselves in the small government, personal responsibility and free trade must be very nervous with their populist leader who has no ideological leanings and an inflated ego. Trump would not put up with an ideology that has no role for him and he ran on a populist agenda.The left wing should actively coopt with Trump to implement it rather than blocking him like the republicans did in '08. Give him the cover to walk out of the trade deals. That would also help weakening the Clinton-Schumer wing who are sold out and are corrupt. Trump would soon find out that the best he can do is to stop the bleeding and not get back the jobs. The tax breaks for the rich and fiscal reforms would take time to work out, the time that Trump doesn't have and wouldn't wait for. He would need an instant fix and will look to the big ole Govt for solutions. The Dems should help him set up all the entitlements like free education, healthcare,housing support, unemployment. Let him package it whatever the way he wants to but get the populace used to the idea of Trump(and by extension the Govt.) helping them. Off course the Republicans would balk at such measures but they have no choice and the Dems should use the division to drive the wedge. Let him kill Obamacare but nudge him towards something that has his name on it. Use him to fight the big pharma to drive down the costs. Get him to fund an infrastructure plan to provide jobs.

Off course the Dems wouldn't like his agenda on social issues and climate change. They should oppose it but not let it get in the way of him enacting a populist agenda. Let him kill the conservative ideology and the demographics will take care of the rest.

Oh oh looks like my strategy is taking shape here word by word (notice the coopt)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/17/us/politics/democrats-house-senate.html?_r=0

" Senate Democrats’ Surprising Strategy: Trying to Align With Trump
Congressional Democrats, divided and struggling for a path from the electoral wilderness, are constructing an agenda to align with many proposals of President-elect Donald J. Trump that put him at odds with his own party.
Mr. Trump campaigned on some issues that Democrats have long championed and Republicans resisted: spending more on roads, bridges and rail, punishing American companies that move jobs overseas, ending a lucrative tax break for hedge fund and private equity titans, and making paid maternity leave mandatory.Some Democrats are even co-opting Mr. Trump’s language from the campaign. Every single person in our caucus agrees the system is rigged, said Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan.
Still, there will be areas of bright-line disagreement. Democrats are speaking out against Mr. Trump’s appointment of Stephen K. Bannon as his chief strategist, and will oppose his promised tax cuts for the wealthy and his vow to deport millions of illegal immigrants."

If Dems can execute this perfectly ,we would have a single payer aka socialized medicine, free college,complete rejection of conservative ideology and the government bigger than the size of Trump's ego . And 2020 election will be fought on who is more populist than the other.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: TwoCitiesCapital on November 17, 2016, 11:25:24 AM
I think Trump's victory has given the left especially the Bernie-Warren wing a golden opportunity to destroy the conservative ideology for good. Conservatives who prides themselves in the small government, personal responsibility and free trade must be very nervous with their populist leader who has no ideological leanings and an inflated ego. Trump would not put up with an ideology that has no role for him and he ran on a populist agenda.The left wing should actively coopt with Trump to implement it rather than blocking him like the republicans did in '08. Give him the cover to walk out of the trade deals. That would also help weakening the Clinton-Schumer wing who are sold out and are corrupt. Trump would soon find out that the best he can do is to stop the bleeding and not get back the jobs. The tax breaks for the rich and fiscal reforms would take time to work out, the time that Trump doesn't have and wouldn't wait for. He would need an instant fix and will look to the big ole Govt for solutions. The Dems should help him set up all the entitlements like free education, healthcare,housing support, unemployment. Let him package it whatever the way he wants to but get the populace used to the idea of Trump(and by extension the Govt.) helping them. Off course the Republicans would balk at such measures but they have no choice and the Dems should use the division to drive the wedge. Let him kill Obamacare but nudge him towards something that has his name on it. Use him to fight the big pharma to drive down the costs. Get him to fund an infrastructure plan to provide jobs.

Off course the Dems wouldn't like his agenda on social issues and climate change. They should oppose it but not let it get in the way of him enacting a populist agenda. Let him kill the conservative ideology and the demographics will take care of the rest.

Oh oh looks like my strategy is taking shape here word by word (notice the coopt)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/17/us/politics/democrats-house-senate.html?_r=0

" Senate Democrats’ Surprising Strategy: Trying to Align With Trump
Congressional Democrats, divided and struggling for a path from the electoral wilderness, are constructing an agenda to align with many proposals of President-elect Donald J. Trump that put him at odds with his own party.
Mr. Trump campaigned on some issues that Democrats have long championed and Republicans resisted: spending more on roads, bridges and rail, punishing American companies that move jobs overseas, ending a lucrative tax break for hedge fund and private equity titans, and making paid maternity leave mandatory.Some Democrats are even co-opting Mr. Trump’s language from the campaign. Every single person in our caucus agrees the system is rigged, said Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan.
Still, there will be areas of bright-line disagreement. Democrats are speaking out against Mr. Trump’s appointment of Stephen K. Bannon as his chief strategist, and will oppose his promised tax cuts for the wealthy and his vow to deport millions of illegal immigrants."

If Dems can execute this perfectly ,we would have a single payer aka socialized medicine, free college,complete rejection of conservative ideology and the government bigger than the size of Trump's ego . And 2020 election will be fought on who is more populist than the other.
[/b]

Sounds like a recipe for failure though....
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: DonFanucci on November 17, 2016, 12:32:15 PM
I think Trump's victory has given the left especially the Bernie-Warren wing a golden opportunity to destroy the conservative ideology for good. Conservatives who prides themselves in the small government, personal responsibility and free trade must be very nervous with their populist leader who has no ideological leanings and an inflated ego. Trump would not put up with an ideology that has no role for him and he ran on a populist agenda.The left wing should actively coopt with Trump to implement it rather than blocking him like the republicans did in '08. Give him the cover to walk out of the trade deals. That would also help weakening the Clinton-Schumer wing who are sold out and are corrupt. Trump would soon find out that the best he can do is to stop the bleeding and not get back the jobs. The tax breaks for the rich and fiscal reforms would take time to work out, the time that Trump doesn't have and wouldn't wait for. He would need an instant fix and will look to the big ole Govt for solutions. The Dems should help him set up all the entitlements like free education, healthcare,housing support, unemployment. Let him package it whatever the way he wants to but get the populace used to the idea of Trump(and by extension the Govt.) helping them. Off course the Republicans would balk at such measures but they have no choice and the Dems should use the division to drive the wedge. Let him kill Obamacare but nudge him towards something that has his name on it. Use him to fight the big pharma to drive down the costs. Get him to fund an infrastructure plan to provide jobs.

Off course the Dems wouldn't like his agenda on social issues and climate change. They should oppose it but not let it get in the way of him enacting a populist agenda. Let him kill the conservative ideology and the demographics will take care of the rest.

Oh oh looks like my strategy is taking shape here word by word (notice the coopt)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/17/us/politics/democrats-house-senate.html?_r=0

" Senate Democrats’ Surprising Strategy: Trying to Align With Trump
Congressional Democrats, divided and struggling for a path from the electoral wilderness, are constructing an agenda to align with many proposals of President-elect Donald J. Trump that put him at odds with his own party.
Mr. Trump campaigned on some issues that Democrats have long championed and Republicans resisted: spending more on roads, bridges and rail, punishing American companies that move jobs overseas, ending a lucrative tax break for hedge fund and private equity titans, and making paid maternity leave mandatory.Some Democrats are even co-opting Mr. Trump’s language from the campaign. Every single person in our caucus agrees the system is rigged, said Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan.
Still, there will be areas of bright-line disagreement. Democrats are speaking out against Mr. Trump’s appointment of Stephen K. Bannon as his chief strategist, and will oppose his promised tax cuts for the wealthy and his vow to deport millions of illegal immigrants."

If Dems can execute this perfectly ,we would have a single payer aka socialized medicine, free college,complete rejection of conservative ideology and the government bigger than the size of Trump's ego . And 2020 election will be fought on who is more populist than the other.

Then we can finish off the enlightenment values this country stood for permanently. We can squeeze out individual freedom with a socialist left and a fascist right. Then we will be only a few steps from dictatorship and western civilization on a clear path to a return of the dark ages. Happy days ahead.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 17, 2016, 12:39:42 PM
Then we can finish off the enlightenment values this country stood for permanently. We can squeeze out individual freedom with a socialist left and a fascist right. Then we will be only a few steps from dictatorship and western civilization on a clear path to a return of the dark ages. Happy days ahead.
LOL thanks that gave me a chuckle. Individual freedoms.... all you guys care about is not paying taxes.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: DonFanucci on November 17, 2016, 12:56:45 PM
Then we can finish off the enlightenment values this country stood for permanently. We can squeeze out individual freedom with a socialist left and a fascist right. Then we will be only a few steps from dictatorship and western civilization on a clear path to a return of the dark ages. Happy days ahead.
LOL thanks that gave me a chuckle. Individual freedoms.... all you guys care about is not paying taxes.

Glad someone finds a silver lining in the trajectory of the west. A right to choose ones education, ones healthcare, ones retirement, who to hire, what business to start, how to run ones business, how to spend ones money, what to think and say, and who to trade with are not individual freedoms? I guess all I care about it my tax rate.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 17, 2016, 12:59:43 PM
What's preventing you right now from doing any of that?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: DonFanucci on November 17, 2016, 01:07:52 PM
What's preventing you right now from doing any of that?

I was referring to the proposals of Trump and Clinton, but of course some are true right now: A government monopoly in education, an utterly distorted health care market with forced redistribution, forced retirement planning, a fascist regulatory state, obscene tax rates with my money spent on things I oppose, a proposed revision of the first amendment, and proposed tariffs cover just the freedoms I listed.

Edit: Looks like I forgot immigration policies that prevent me from hiring foreigners.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 17, 2016, 01:11:10 PM
What's preventing you right now from doing any of that?

I was referring to the proposals of Trump and Clinton, but of course some are true right now: A government monopoly in education, an utterly distorted health care market with forced redistribution, forced retirement planning, a fascist regulatory state, obscene tax rates with my money spent on things I oppose, a proposed revision of the first amendment, and proposed tariffs cover just the freedoms I listed.
That's the thing right? All those freedoms are pretty much available in all countries no matter they left or right lean with a few exceptions like Cuba or whatever. So the freedoms are there. You're just complaining about the price.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 17, 2016, 01:12:57 PM
Quote
Then we can finish off the enlightenment values this country stood for permanently. We can squeeze out individual freedom with a socialist left and a fascist right. Then we will be only a few steps from dictatorship and western civilization on a clear path to a return of the dark ages. Happy days ahead.
I think the only way for the right to act rationally is to not act at all. I thought 2008 taught them that but nope, we are back to square one. I would rather have a wannabe socialist than an irrational tyrant. This whole conservative ideology is repulsive at this point since it lacks any moral foundation and must go. How else can you explain the so called fiscal conservatives voting for a populist who ran left of Clinton?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: DonFanucci on November 17, 2016, 01:38:22 PM
What's preventing you right now from doing any of that?

I was referring to the proposals of Trump and Clinton, but of course some are true right now: A government monopoly in education, an utterly distorted health care market with forced redistribution, forced retirement planning, a fascist regulatory state, obscene tax rates with my money spent on things I oppose, a proposed revision of the first amendment, and proposed tariffs cover just the freedoms I listed.
That's the thing right? All those freedoms are pretty much available in all countries no matter they left or right lean with a few exceptions like Cuba or whatever. So the freedoms are there. You're just complaining about the price.

"those freedoms are pretty much available"... I can't not pay my social security tax and invest it now instead, I can't start a bank with a few of my neighbors, I can't hire someone for $6 an hour, I can't start a medical practice, I can't open a shampoo parlor for that matter, I can't start an insurance company and offer whatever insurance my customers want, I can't stop paying for older people's medicare, I can't stop funding the EPA with my tax dollars. Soon I won't be able to hire a Mexican. How am I free to open a school if my customers are all forced, under threat of jail, to give money to my competitors? This is a very unusual definition of 'available'.

This whole conservative ideology is repulsive at this point since it lacks any moral foundation and must go.

The moral foundation is stated in the declaration of independence, and it is this: every human being has a right to their own life. It doesn't belong to the state, or the collective, or anyone else. Happiness is the purpose of life, and people have a moral right to pursue it. No one else gets to dictate with a gun how you go about achieving it. What is the moral foundation for the idea that your life is to be decided by everyone but you?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 17, 2016, 01:42:27 PM
Quote
Then we can finish off the enlightenment values this country stood for permanently. We can squeeze out individual freedom with a socialist left and a fascist right. Then we will be only a few steps from dictatorship and western civilization on a clear path to a return of the dark ages. Happy days ahead.
I think the only way for the right to act rationally is to not act at all. I thought 2008 taught them that but nope, we are back to square one. I would rather have a wannabe socialist than an irrational tyrant. This whole conservative ideology is repulsive at this point since it lacks any moral foundation and must go. How else can you explain the so called fiscal conservatives voting for a populist who ran left of Clinton?
Yea, but he's not a stinkin' coastal liberal..... Oh wait...
It's because he embodies traditional family values!.... shit, not that either....
hmm... I wonder what it could be? Well he wants lower taxes... maybe that's it.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: valcont on November 17, 2016, 01:48:01 PM
The moral foundation is stated in the declaration of independence, and it is this: every human being has a right to their own life. It doesn't belong to the state, or the collective, or anyone else. Happiness is the purpose of life, and people have a moral right to pursue it. No one else gets to dictate with a gun how you go about achieving it. What is the moral foundation for the idea that your life is to be decided by everyone but you?

"every human being has a right to their own life"

Lets just stop here because the right hasn't even settled on this yet. I doubt if they include blacks,women or muslims and their leader has openly stated that. Let them get to that intellect level first and then we can read the rest.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 17, 2016, 02:01:18 PM
"those freedoms are pretty much available"...
I can't not pay my social security tax and invest it now instead,
I can't stop paying for older people's medicare
I can't stop funding the EPA with my tax dollars
Taxes
Quote
I can't hire someone for $6 an hour
Yea that one you can't. I'll give you that one. Though I'm not really sure it's an individual freedom. You're still free to pay them nothing though.
Quote
I can't start a medical practice. I can't open a shampoo parlor for that matter.
Lots of people people open medical practices. But for some weird reason society decided that you should be a doctor to do that. Crazy I know. There's also lots of people opening shampoo shops and there's tons of private schools - those are actually really easy to open. Also don't think those fall under the bill of rights.

Hiring Mexicans doesn't fall under the bill of rights either, but I'm also fairly sure you'll be able to hire Mexicans in the future. There may be somewhat less of them around, but u'll be able to hire them.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: DonFanucci on November 17, 2016, 03:29:33 PM
So what if it's taxes? I should be able to keep my property and do with it as I see fit. If I can't, then I'm a slave. That why private property flourished as the right to life was discovered. They are intertwined. As James Madison believed, private property is the implementation of all rights. What is the right to open a shampoo parlor other than the right to use your property? What is the right to free speech other than the right to use your printing press, or your radio station, or your computer? If someone takes my money, they've impaired my ability to control my life. Theft is a violation of individual rights and it's wrong.

[All those freedoms are pretty much available in all countries no matter they left or right lean with a few exceptions like Cuba or whatever. So the freedoms are there. You're just complaining about the price.

If this is the case, then everywhere on earth is a free country. North Korea is a free country. In fact, I bet if you asked Kim Jong Un if North Korea is free, he'd argue the same thing. You want to start a newspaper in North Korea? Well, you're completely free to do so. You just have to get permission from Kim. It's just a higher price.

You are providing an argument that justifies unlimited dictatorship. The world is moving in the wrong direction, and if we want to figure out why, the first place we need to look is our own opinions.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 17, 2016, 04:51:46 PM
Well that's what I've said in the beginning you just don't want to pay taxes. So give me a break with the personal liberty bullshit.

Like it or not you are part of a society. The society has decided to oppress people like you and me by not letting us open up medical practices because we didn't graduate from med school. I'm willing to bet that's not gonna change no matter who wins the presidency in the future. So you and I will have to continue being slaves.

One thing you never consider is that you enjoy the standard of living you do and you have the amount of money and property that you do because of such oppression. There are places in this world that conform to your world view: you can do whatever you want, open whatever business you want without any approval or regulation, you don't have to pay taxes, ext. The problem is that for some reason nobody wants to live there.

Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Tim Eriksen on November 17, 2016, 04:54:37 PM
The moral foundation is stated in the declaration of independence, and it is this: every human being has a right to their own life. It doesn't belong to the state, or the collective, or anyone else. Happiness is the purpose of life, and people have a moral right to pursue it. No one else gets to dictate with a gun how you go about achieving it. What is the moral foundation for the idea that your life is to be decided by everyone but you?

"every human being has a right to their own life"

Lets just stop here because the right hasn't even settled on this yet. I doubt if they include blacks,women or muslims and their leader has openly stated that. Let them get to that intellect level first and then we can read the rest.

This has to be the dumbest comment I have seen in a while.   Who supports the right of the unborn?  Who supports freedom not to buy health insurance?  Who supports charter schools?  Who supports smaller government?   Who supports freedom not to sell a wedding cake for a same sex marriage?   
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Rainforesthiker on November 17, 2016, 06:22:37 PM
Well that's what I've said in the beginning you just don't want to pay taxes. So give me a break with the personal liberty bullshit.

Like it or not you are part of a society. The society has decided to oppress people like you and me by not letting us open up medical practices because we didn't graduate from med school. I'm willing to bet that's not gonna change no matter who wins the presidency in the future. So you and I will have to continue being slaves.

One thing you never consider is that you enjoy the standard of living you do and you have the amount of money and property that you do because of such oppression. There are places in this world that conform to your world view: you can do whatever you want, open whatever business you want without any approval or regulation, you don't have to pay taxes, ext. The problem is that for some reason nobody wants to live there.

There is nothing about personal liberty that is bullshit.  The standard of living we enjoy is due to liberty, free markets, and capital accumulation, not the State.  The growth of the State detracts from our standard of living.  Governments don't create any wealth, they can only redistribute it, and they waste half or more of it in the process. 

And by the way, medical licensing requirements, while in small part well intentioned, are just a way of limiting supply of medical services and hence raising prices.  If I want to go see a non-registered practitioner to have a small skin cancer removed for $50, instead of paying an MD $300 for the same service, why can't I make that choice?

I'm 100% with DonFanucci.

Btw, where is this mythical place with no business regulations and no taxes, but with the rule of law and strong private property rights? 
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 17, 2016, 06:36:29 PM

Btw, where is this mythical place with no business regulations and no taxes, but with the rule of law and strong private property rights?
That place doesn't exist and I never claimed it did. I never said anything about rule of law and strong private property rights. That's the cognitive dissonance I was trying to point out. Once you're talking about rule of law and strong private property rights you're talking about state, government, and taxes to pay for it.

Btw, since you're looking for those things, which are provided by the state/government. I'd argue that it's exhibit number 1 that the state can contribute to the standard of living and the creation of wealth.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: onyx1 on November 17, 2016, 06:47:51 PM
Once you're talking about rule of law and strong private property rights you're talking about state, government, and taxes to pay for it.  Btw, since you're looking for those things, which are provided by the state/government.

News flash:  In the USA, the Constitution provides that the people give rights to the government, not the other way around.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 17, 2016, 06:49:05 PM
And why does that make any difference to what I've said?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Rainforesthiker on November 17, 2016, 06:49:23 PM

Btw, where is this mythical place with no business regulations and no taxes, but with the rule of law and strong private property rights?
That place doesn't exist and I never claimed it did. I never said anything about rule of law and strong private property rights. That's the cognitive dissonance I was trying to point out. Once you're talking about rule of law and strong private property rights you're talking about state, government, and taxes to pay for it.

Btw, since you're looking for those things, which are provided by the state/government. I'd argue that it's exhibit number 1 that the state can contribute to the standard of living and the creation of wealth.

I never said there was no role for the State; my point was that our current manifestation of the State, far beyond what our Founding Fathers envisioned or the Constitution literally allows, hugely infringes on our personal liberty.  In the prior discussion you seemed to be arguing for all of the taxes and government regulations currently proffered by our DC overlords.  Government should be for the most part limited to enforcing the rule of law / property rights and defense.  When it does more than that, by and large it destroys both our standard of living and liberty.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: onyx1 on November 17, 2016, 06:54:52 PM
And why does that make any difference to what I've said?

Because you appear to believe that government is responsible for the high standard of living we enjoy in the USA.  Sadly mistaken:

One thing you never consider is that you enjoy the standard of living you do and you have the amount of money and property that you do because of such oppression.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 17, 2016, 07:02:55 PM

Btw, where is this mythical place with no business regulations and no taxes, but with the rule of law and strong private property rights?
That place doesn't exist and I never claimed it did. I never said anything about rule of law and strong private property rights. That's the cognitive dissonance I was trying to point out. Once you're talking about rule of law and strong private property rights you're talking about state, government, and taxes to pay for it.

Btw, since you're looking for those things, which are provided by the state/government. I'd argue that it's exhibit number 1 that the state can contribute to the standard of living and the creation of wealth.

I never said there was no role for the State; my point was that our current manifestation of the State, far beyond what our Founding Fathers envisioned or the Constitution literally allows, hugely infringes on our personal liberty.  In the prior discussion you seemed to be arguing for all of the taxes and government regulations currently proffered by our DC overlords.  Government should be for the most part limited to enforcing the rule of law / property rights and defense.  When it does more than that, by and large it destroys both our standard of living and liberty.
See now it would be nice if you brought some evidence to back those facts up. I would say that empirical evidence would indicate that there's a point of balance between gov't and private market. Too much gov't is bad and too little again bad. This sweet spot also depends on the people and society, also on recognition on efficiencies that gov't can bring and also new trends such as entrepreneurial government etc.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 17, 2016, 07:19:38 PM
And why does that make any difference to what I've said?

Because you appear to believe that government is responsible for the high standard of living we enjoy in the USA.  Sadly mistaken:

One thing you never consider is that you enjoy the standard of living you do and you have the amount of money and property that you do because of such oppression.
Who exactly is part of this we? The 42 million Americans living in food insecure households? The 47 million Americans living in poverty? Or are those just the soon to haves? The working class, most of whom are not part of those statistics but yell that they were left behind anyway? You may want to be a little careful with that "we" term.

It's hard for me to prove. But I'll tend to agree with you that the gov't hasn't done as much for the people in the US as in other places. But is that such a surprise when you try to sabotage it at every turn and hope for its failure?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Tim Eriksen on November 17, 2016, 11:40:11 PM
You do realize that poverty statistics exclude from income all government benefits?  to say we have 47 million living in poverty is not accurate.   In other words, yes we have some poor, but no one is starving.  There is substantial assistance to the poor in this country in terms of education, food, housing, healthcare, unemployment, etc.       

The government has done and continues to do an immense amount for the poor in this country.  Of course "government" is an entity funded by income and corporate tax payers, so the upper middle class and rich have done this for them.  The goal is not make the poor middle class.  It is a safety net, which for most should be short term, to allow them to better their own lives. 

For most of my life I have been solidly middle class, and I received far more in benefits just from public education than what I or my parents contributed.  I am thankful to the wealthy for their generosity because I do not have a right to expect another to pay for me or for my children.   
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 18, 2016, 05:03:57 AM
You do realize that poverty statistics exclude from income all government benefits?  to say we have 47 million living in poverty is not accurate.   In other words, yes we have some poor, but no one is starving.  There is substantial assistance to the poor in this country in terms of education, food, housing, healthcare, unemployment, etc.       

The government has done and continues to do an immense amount for the poor in this country.  Of course "government" is an entity funded by income and corporate tax payers, so the upper middle class and rich have done this for them.  The goal is not make the poor middle class.  It is a safety net, which for most should be short term, to allow them to better their own lives. 

For most of my life I have been solidly middle class, and I received far more in benefits just from public education than what I or my parents contributed.  I am thankful to the wealthy for their generosity because I do not have a right to expect another to pay for me or for my children.   


Tim you are absolutely correct.  There are a few mentally ill people living on the streets because they refuse to go to the homeless shelters and get help, but for the most part no one in America is poor by historical or even current 3rd world standards.   It is quite extraordinary that there are 350M people and no one is starving, even if they refuse to lift a finger to be productive or help themselves.   In fact the poorest among us regularly consume too many calories not too few, while playing video games on their large screen TVs in their temperature controlled homes.   We have such phenomenal abundance of wealth that it is insane what seems poor to us.  I'm sure a truly poor child in Haiti would be quite amazed at the wealth of those "47 million Americans living in poverty" that rb talks of.

Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: onyx1 on November 18, 2016, 05:56:45 AM
(http://www.heritage.org/~/media/images/reports/2011/09/b2607/b2607_chart1.ashx?w=500&h=536&as=1)


Americans in poverty today live better the the richest people in the world did 100 years ago.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: onyx1 on November 18, 2016, 06:21:25 AM
And why does that make any difference to what I've said?
Because you appear to believe that government is responsible for the high standard of living we enjoy in the USA.  Sadly mistaken:

One thing you never consider is that you enjoy the standard of living you do and you have the amount of money and property that you do because of such oppression.
Who exactly is part of this we? The 42 million Americans living in food insecure households?

Food insecure household?  This is another government contrived term that is designed to mislead the gullible.   Laughable.

The definition is so broad that someone who wanted organic kale but can only afford regular kale is considered "food insecure", and most people labeled "food insecure" are obese.

The non-profits exploit the gullible by creating an illusion of a nationwide hunger crisis.  September is Hunger Action Month, got to keep the money coming in!

Sadly this charade dilutes the very small portion of people who are truly in need.


Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: vinod1 on November 18, 2016, 06:44:26 AM
You do realize that poverty statistics exclude from income all government benefits?  to say we have 47 million living in poverty is not accurate.   In other words, yes we have some poor, but no one is starving.  There is substantial assistance to the poor in this country in terms of education, food, housing, healthcare, unemployment, etc.       

The government has done and continues to do an immense amount for the poor in this country.  Of course "government" is an entity funded by income and corporate tax payers, so the upper middle class and rich have done this for them.  The goal is not make the poor middle class.  It is a safety net, which for most should be short term, to allow them to better their own lives. 

For most of my life I have been solidly middle class, and I received far more in benefits just from public education than what I or my parents contributed.  I am thankful to the wealthy for their generosity because I do not have a right to expect another to pay for me or for my children.   


Tim you are absolutely correct.  There are a few mentally ill people living on the streets because they refuse to go to the homeless shelters and get help, but for the most part no one in America is poor by historical or even current 3rd world standards.   It is quite extraordinary that there are 350M people and no one is starving, even if they refuse to lift a finger to be productive or help themselves.   In fact the poorest among us regularly consume too many calories not too few, while playing video games on their large screen TVs in their temperature controlled homes.   We have such phenomenal abundance of wealth that it is insane what seems poor to us.  I'm sure a truly poor child in Haiti would be quite amazed at the wealth of those "47 million Americans living in poverty" that rb talks of.

+1

I generally in agreement with rb on most political/economic issues, but not this one.

Poor or those in poverty in say a country like India, is an entirely different thing than what it is in USA. You cannot compare a family whose 9 year old daughter works at another family home cleaning dishes and many many other such chores to "poverty" in USA. Do you think that the kid gets play time? or even food in the morning? This is a very benign example.

If you do not see it in person I do not think one can even comprehend what poverty looks like in a country like India.

Vinod
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: vinod1 on November 18, 2016, 06:51:15 AM
If I had to guess, I would say that the bottom 20% in US by family income would be in the top 5% in India by PPP.

Vinod
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: wachtwoord on November 18, 2016, 07:10:04 AM
If I had to guess, I would say that the bottom 20% in US by family income would be in the top 5% in India by PPP.

Vinod

I think you can go with top 1% of India there https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-income-levels-for-the-top-1-in-India
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Jurgis on November 18, 2016, 07:46:42 AM
+1

I generally in agreement with rb on most political/economic issues, but not this one.

Poor or those in poverty in say a country like India, is an entirely different thing than what it is in USA. You cannot compare a family whose 9 year old daughter works at another family home cleaning dishes and many many other such chores to "poverty" in USA. Do you think that the kid gets play time? or even food in the morning? This is a very benign example.

If you do not see it in person I do not think one can even comprehend what poverty looks like in a country like India.

Vinod

The fact that poverty in India is much worse than poverty in USA does not subtract from issues of poverty in USA.
Yeah, I would rather alleviate poverty in India and other super poor countries. Yeah, I mostly donate for charities outside USA.

But rich rightwingers like people in previous messages who casually dismiss US poor likely haven't seen their living conditions either. It's very easy to dismiss US homeless who die in the streets as mentally unstable or addicts. A lot of them are, but there are numerous examples of normal people who lose their mobile houses (haha, let's perhaps read about BRK's Clayton again), have no employment, are buried in debt, and have no money for medicine or other necessities. Should we read about Flint again? Should we read about native American reservations?

It's always possible to blame them as clearly they've had much better opportunities than people in India, but that's the common practice of blaming the victim.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 18, 2016, 08:10:23 AM
+1

I generally in agreement with rb on most political/economic issues, but not this one.

Poor or those in poverty in say a country like India, is an entirely different thing than what it is in USA. You cannot compare a family whose 9 year old daughter works at another family home cleaning dishes and many many other such chores to "poverty" in USA. Do you think that the kid gets play time? or even food in the morning? This is a very benign example.

If you do not see it in person I do not think one can even comprehend what poverty looks like in a country like India.

Vinod

The fact that poverty in India is much worse than poverty in USA does not subtract from issues of poverty in USA.
Yeah, I would rather alleviate poverty in India and other super poor countries. Yeah, I mostly donate for charities outside USA.

But rich rightwingers like people in previous messages who casually dismiss US poor likely haven't seen their living conditions either. It's very easy to dismiss US homeless who die in the streets as mentally unstable or addicts. A lot of them are, but there are numerous examples of normal people who lose their mobile houses (haha, let's perhaps read about BRK's Clayton again), have no employment, are buried in debt, and have no money for medicine or other necessities. Should we read about Flint again? Should we read about native American reservations?

It's always possible to blame them as clearly they've had much better opportunities than people in India, but that's the common practice of blaming the victim.

No one disputes that there are people out on the tail who really are in need, but throwing around numbers like 42 or 47 million is not even close to reality.  The numbers of such people are very small.  The fact is that those 47 million are taking resources from very few who are truly in need.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: frank87 on November 18, 2016, 08:18:58 AM
For those who enjoy long-form journalism, the following New Yorker piece on Obama is one of the best articles I've read this year. Whether left or right, I think we as human beings can all admire the man's rationality, integrity and perhaps most importantly, optimism.

I think that we will miss him.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/28/obama-reckons-with-a-trump-presidency
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: RichardGibbons on November 18, 2016, 08:49:48 AM
Here is what it means to be poor in America (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/), from Scalzi.

Certainly not the same as being poor in India, or in America 200 years ago.  Nevertheless, I'd greatly prefer not to be there. The biggest problems for me would be the constant, wearying grind, and the knowledge that even if I work really hard, and I'd still have a high chance of never getting out of poverty. In combination, these things would be crippling.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Cardboard on November 18, 2016, 08:59:26 AM
But, you worked hard and made millions selling the business that you built Richard. Why change the trend of the system that has worked so well towards the left? 

Why do you believe that it would be easier to get out of poverty if there was more entitlements (what a terrible word after all), more regulations and a larger safety net?

All these things make it more difficult for people to get out of poverty: reduced motivation, complications. And when one gets out of poverty in the current system, he or she likely gets out a few more along the way with whatever business was created and/or the inspiration.

I am not saying that we should eliminate all safety nets but, we should certainly be worried about its expansion and effects.

Cardboard 
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Jurgis on November 18, 2016, 09:12:41 AM
For those who enjoy long-form journalism, the following New Yorker piece on Obama is one of the best articles I've read this year. Whether left or right, I think we as human beings can all admire the man's rationality, integrity and perhaps most importantly, optimism.

I think that we will miss him.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/28/obama-reckons-with-a-trump-presidency

Great though painful article. Thanks.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Jurgis on November 18, 2016, 09:46:42 AM
Here is what it means to be poor in America (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/), from Scalzi.

Certainly not the same as being poor in India, or in America 200 years ago.

Right. And I see how people from poor countries might dismiss American poverty as non-issue. Yeah, I have friends and relatives who immigrated to America and are doing "fine" while working mostly menial jobs (for some definition of "fine": some still have no health insurance and just hope not to get sick; they may have to retire back home where it's much cheaper to live; etc.). So it's easy to say: "Hey everyone in America could do as well as an immigrant who cleans floors and wipes asses of rich seniors". Except that's a huge simplification and does not really cover the issues of American poverty.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: DonFanucci on November 18, 2016, 10:07:43 AM
Two takeaways from this thread: 1) Most people are not in honest pursuit of the truth on political matters. 2) Pushing one level below concrete policy into philosophical thought on the issues is met with insult and diversion back to the level of the concrete policies.

Everyone seems interested in the precise definition of 'poverty'. Does anyone want to discuss whether there's moral justification for owning your own life or whether people should be slaves to some other entity ('society', the pope, Donald Trump)?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: RichardGibbons on November 18, 2016, 10:53:14 AM
But, you worked hard and made millions selling the business that you built Richard. Why change the trend of the system that has worked so well towards the left? 

It's a reasonable question.  Part of the answer is that I didn't do it within the American system, and couldn't have done it in the American system.  If we're talking about the Canadian system, then there are a few things I'd change, some toward the left, and some toward the right.

Another part of the answer is the recognition that people are different, and luck played a huge role in my success--likely more than my own efforts.  Like, I was born in Canada, come from a middle class background with caring parents who impressed on my the value of education, I was really good at school, particularly math and science (I was best math student in my city), I had good nutrition, and had few worries about money.  All these things are luck.

Plus, I know that my personal outcome means almost nothing. So the right strategy isn't to generalize from it. Rather, the right strategy is to try to arrange the system to minimize the effects of luck, so that the people who work the hardest have a chance at the greatest success.

Why do you believe that it would be easier to get out of poverty if there was more entitlements (what a terrible word after all), more regulations and a larger safety net?

Not sure where I said that I wanted more regulations. I largely want regulations of the kind that ensure people get what they pay for in cases where it is unreasonable for individuals to properly investigate whether they would get what they think they're paying for before they buy. (e.g. Someone shouldn't need to investigate every bridge every time they drive over it, nor send their food to a lab to see if it will kill them before eating it).  I'm not sure if this level of regulation is more or less than there is now.

With a larger safety net and expanded social programs, I think it would be easier to get out of poverty because the statistics show that it is when you compare income mobility across countries and across states.  (That said, I don't necessarily think the same about everything in Canada, since there's diminishing returns.)

All these things make it more difficult for people to get out of poverty: reduced motivation, complications. And when one gets out of poverty in the current system, he or she likely gets out a few more along the way with whatever business was created and/or the inspiration.

I don't think the reduced motivation is that significant an effect.  Pretty well everyone seems to want to get ahead. I think it sucks being poor, and people care a lot about relative wealth. This keeps motivation high in most cases.

When they did guaranteed income experiments, the only classes of people who significantly reduced the amount they worked were older teenagers, who spent more time being educated, and mothers who spent more time taking care of their kids.  To me, both those outcomes seem good for society, and also don't support the premise that lower motivation as a result of social programs is a huge problem.

So I take it from the fact that you're against complications, that you're in favor of a single payer healthcare system?  It's far less complicated, collecting the taxes that are already being collected, cutting out all the waste caused by middlemen in the US system, maximizing the negotiating abilities of the single payer, cutting the tie between jobs and healthcare, greatly increasing employment mobility.  The evidence I've seen indicates that single payer leads to the same outcomes as the messed up American system, at two-thirds the cost, and you don't get all these people dying because they can't afford medical care, nor bankrupted from some random illness. A no-brainer, right?

I am not saying that we should eliminate all safety nets but, we should certainly be worried about its expansion and effects.

I agree. Everything should be done thoughtfully, and not to appease some populist sentiment.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: RichardGibbons on November 18, 2016, 11:01:45 AM
Does anyone want to discuss whether there's moral justification for owning your own life or whether people should be slaves to some other entity ('society', the pope, Donald Trump)?

Sure. Is morality always black and white, or are there ever shades of grey? Am I a slave if society prevents me from raping you and burning down your home? 

I think there is moral justification for society to prevent its members from doing whatever they want and also making those members pay for it, primarily because there doesn't seem to me to be any reasonable alternative.  Are there any rapists or arsonists around here who strongly disagree, and can offer their own solutions?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rkbabang on November 18, 2016, 11:13:28 AM
Pushing one level below concrete policy into philosophical thought on the issues is met with insult and diversion ...

Does anyone want to discuss whether there's moral justification for owning your own life or whether people should be slaves to some other entity ('society', the pope, Donald Trump)?

Take cover!

You keep talking like that you might accumulate as many people blocking you as already block me.  Philosophy matters, but most people like to pretend that it doesn't.  Mostly because they have not given much thought to the underlying philosophy at the base of their beliefs.  A libertarian starts out with a philosophy and derives his policy from it (communists & real socialists do this as well), but most people just have a mish-mash of policies they support with no philosophical basis for why they feel that way.  (notice I said feel not think).  There is no reason that someone who is pro-abortion rights need to be anti-gun rights for instance, but we are told by the 2 party system that those go together.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Cardboard on November 18, 2016, 11:46:19 AM
"So I take it from the fact that you're against complications, that you're in favor of a single payer healthcare system?  It's far less complicated, collecting the taxes that are already being collected, cutting out all the waste caused by middlemen in the US system, maximizing the negotiating abilities of the single payer, cutting the tie between jobs and healthcare, greatly increasing employment mobility.  The evidence I've seen indicates that single payer leads to the same outcomes as the messed up American system, at two-thirds the cost, and you don't get all these people dying because they can't afford medical care, nor bankrupted from some random illness. A no-brainer, right?"

It is not a no-brainer at all because the Canadian system means garbage for all. I have seen my father treated here and in Florida and the difference is absolutely striking. Now, I know that you seem to disregard personal experience but, to me it counts and what I also hear from many others.

Two major reasons for that is abuse by patients with many still going to see their doctors for minor scratches, colds and doing things that they could do on their own such as blood pressure. Also, how much is spent each year on free and repeated STD's detection must be out of this world. People paying a little bit for each visit would help a lot.

And extremely strong unions and terrible hospital administrations who render the system unproductive.

Then other stupidity from the system such as prescription renewals requiring a visit to the doctor and pharmacists who can't do basic/common sense prescriptions.

So no Canada is not perfect. Very far from it.

Cardboard
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: DonFanucci on November 18, 2016, 03:21:56 PM
Am I a slave if society prevents me from raping you and burning down your home? 

Obviously not, Richard. Does property rights protection mean it's legal to steal? Does making murder a criminal act mean it's legal to murder my neighbor? Does A equal non A?

Which brings me to my third observation about this thread. It's a frustrating waste of everyone's time.

Philosophy matters, but most people like to pretend that it doesn't.  Mostly because they have not given much thought to the underlying philosophy at the base of their beliefs.  A libertarian starts out with a philosophy and derives his policy from it (communists & real socialists do this as well), but most people just have a mish-mash of policies they support with no philosophical basis for why they feel that way.  (notice I said feel not think).

100% true.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: tengen on November 18, 2016, 04:28:44 PM
Something that might generate a little hope for the USofA, Van Jones has a respectful dialog with people who voted for Trump in Gettysburgh:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/12/opinions/van-jones-messy-truth/

Apologies if someone already posted this but I think it's worth viewing multiple times.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: cwericb on November 18, 2016, 05:20:31 PM
Not to hijack the thread but...
“Two major reasons for that is abuse by patients with many still going to see their doctors for minor scratches, colds and doing things that they could do on their own such as blood pressure. Also, how much is spent each year on free and repeated STD's detection must be out of this world. People paying a little bit for each visit would help a lot.”

This is a pet peeve of mine.
I have always thought that the Canadian medicare system could be drastically improved if only we had a small basic charge. Even a $10 or $20 charge per visit with a maximum of something like $100 per year. It would stop many of those nonsense visits that consume doctors time and the revenue produced would help defray other costs. For those concerned about the fee increasing and eroding free medicare, require an act of Parliament for any increases, or tie it to the inflation rate. Or does this make too much sense?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Cardboard on November 18, 2016, 06:06:46 PM
Cwericb,

We agree on something politically charged!!!  ;D

Catdboard
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: DooDiligence on November 18, 2016, 06:21:00 PM
Time to snip this thread...
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: cwericb on November 18, 2016, 06:24:36 PM
Haha, I was thinking that Cardboard.  :)

While I find DT's methods and rhetoric offensive I am all for giving him a chance to see how he handles the next 4 years and sincerely hope he is able to convert me to a fan. This is why I was very much against the protests that were spreading across the country. The guy was voted in democratically so those who were protesting against him need to suck it up and see what he is actually going to do in the coming months before complaining about it.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 18, 2016, 08:06:45 PM
Wow, I take a day of meetings and all of this develops on what's supposed to be a dead thread. I won't go through everything, but I'll make a couple of points.

1. I started talking to the libertarians from the basics. I wanted to point out that the the state/gov't can create value/wealth. Law and property rights is the most obvious point but there are others.

2. I challenged the idea that prosperity in the US is not provided by the fact that government is more limited there. My thoughts are along the lines that there are lots of countries out there with similar prosperity to the US. Most of those countries have taxation/governments bigger than the US. So the source of prosperity is not the size of government. But the answers are not based on figures, no it's theft, slavery, etc.

3. My "we" post was meant to show that there is not this great wealth utopia in the US. Yes a lot of people may have microwaves and air conditioners and still be poor. I still wouldn't want to be "them". As we've seen with this election, a greater lot of people that do not fall into those poverty statistics are not happy with their situation nonetheless and guess what, they're looking for a government solution.

4. I agree that the poor in the US or Canada could seem down right spoiled compared to the poor in India or some other God forsaken place. But I don't think that's an excuse. Should we strive to converge to the lowest denominator or should we strive to excel and push the boundaries for the better? Btw, I don't think we should institute new welfare programs. (A Camaro in every driveway?) But i do think that as we make decisions they should be balanced and move in the right direction for prosperity and welfare of the people. I don't think that a tax cut for top earners paid for with a cut in Medicare is a move in the right direction.

5. A lot of people are trying to politicize economics. This has a lot to do with people's beliefs and not so much with economics. Economics is vulnerable to these influences because it's a slow moving science (for good reason) and very influential. But economics itself is agnostic to political thoughts. Maybe pay more attention to it's data and mechanisms and less to talking heads that know nothing about economics. Probably not a lot to do with this post, but it's a pet peeve of mine, and while I'm on a roll..... why not?
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 18, 2016, 09:20:48 PM
Haha, I was thinking that Cardboard.  :)

While I find DT's methods and rhetoric offensive I am all for giving him a chance to see how he handles the next 4 years and sincerely hope he is able to convert me to a fan. This is why I was very much against the protests that were spreading across the country. The guy was voted in democratically so those who were protesting against him need to suck it up and see what he is actually going to do in the coming months before complaining about it.

Quote from: Catdboard
Cwericb,

We agree on something politically charged!!!  ;D

Catdboard
Quote
I think that despite our leanings and heated discussions we agree on a lot of things.

For example on Trump. I think he will be (hopefully) a medium sized disaster. Nonetheless, he won the election. Yes he lost the popular vote by a good margin(he should probably note that), but that's not the way it works down there. So he should be president. Congress will do what Congress does, and there will be another election in 4 years. Personally hope he does all 4 years because Pence is down right scary.

On protestors, a lot of these people didn't vote? Why not? Wouldn't it have been so much easier to go vote, get the problem solved, and not have to spend so much time making signs? Maybe learn a lesson a lesson and vote next time. You won't see me at a protest, I generally don't think they achieve much. I go vote - I think that's more effective. But then I respect the rules of our democracy which say that people are allowed to protest, so I'm not gonna stand in the way. Go ahead and protest. Also there have been very successful protests in the past - Gandhi and MLK come to mind, maybe Vietnam. Those changed the world. So obviously I can be wrong and protest can work. People should be free to do it.

On the subject of healthcare my views are formed mainly by empirical data, namely that a public "medicare" system is more efficient. It delivers the an amount of care for a lesser cost. Yes, some of that care goes to some people that didn't pay enough for it and is subsidized - but let's put that aside for a bit. As Cardboard points out the Canadian single payer Medicare system is not all milk and honey.

One of the ways that the system keeps costs under control is some rationing of healthcare and triage. This system is as old as healthcare itself but what it means is that you get some crappy customer service. The outcomes are pretty good (you'll get fixed) and the price is good. But it's not unlike dealing with the cable company - and nobody likes doing that.

However I don't want to blow up the system by saying to hell with it, let's make it all private, but maybe introduce some more efficiencies into the system. Maybe then use those efficiencies to reduce cost or redistribute towards better customer service. I agree with Cardboard's suggestions. There should be some nominal fee to see a doctor. That can be structured in such a way to discourage frivolous visits but not prevent access to people with legitimate sickness. The prescription visits I agree are another low hanging fruit. I know a number of doctors that only write prescriptions with zero refills. In my opinion this is tantamount to fraud and we should do something about that.

I'm not sure I agree on the STD testing stuff because I'm not sure if society would benefit from a bunch of idiots out there distributing syphilis. But I also posit that there are further efficiencies that can be used. Such as the gov't using monopsony power to negotiate drug prices. If Costco can use its size to negotiate good drug prices for its customers why shouldn't the government use its size to do the same?

Anyway just trying to point out some area where I think we think alike despite leanings and approaches. Apologies for the wall of text... :)
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: RichardGibbons on November 18, 2016, 09:59:56 PM
It is not a no-brainer at all because the Canadian system means garbage for all. I have seen my father treated here and in Florida and the difference is absolutely striking. Now, I know that you seem to disregard personal experience but, to me it counts and what I also hear from many others.

"Garbage for all" in the sense that it has the same outcomes as the US system, at lower costs.  You are right that I give very little weight to anecdotes as opposed to scientific studies with data sets that can show significance.

That said, I think that Canada actually has the best of both worlds--everyone gets good healthcare at reasonable prices, and rich, grass-is-greener people can jump down to the USA. And Canada gets to be a freeloader on US medical R&D.  It's actually awesome for the rest of the world that Americans are happy being grossly overcharged.

Two major reasons for that is abuse by patients with many still going to see their doctors for minor scratches, colds and
doing things that they could do on their own such as blood pressure.

This would actually be interesting to test, because preventative stuff is typically very cost-effective. So, it would be interesting to know if the preventative effect of people going to the doctor "too often" actually saves money.

Also, how much is spent each year on free and repeated STD's detection must be out of this world.

Not sure what your point is here.  We shouldn't test for STDs?  People who enjoy having sex are evil?

I actually was curious what the number was here, but couldn't find it in 5 minutes of searching.  Thanks for ruining my browser history.  :)

People paying a little bit for each visit would help a lot.

I'd be totally into trying a small fee for service (small relative to the patient's income), to see the impact on both costs and outcomes.

And extremely strong unions and terrible hospital administrations who render the system unproductive.

Don't forget doctors deliberately restricting the supply of physicians.  It's amazing that with all these factors adding inefficiencies, the US system is over 50% less efficient, isn't it?

Then other stupidity from the system such as prescription renewals requiring a visit to the doctor and pharmacists who can't do basic/common sense prescriptions.

I agree.  I bet this is another "doctor monopoly" thing.

So no Canada is not perfect. Very far from it.

Yeah, it certainly isn't perfect. It's just far closer to perfect than the American system.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: RichardGibbons on November 18, 2016, 10:15:13 PM
Obviously not, Richard. Does property rights protection mean it's legal to steal? Does making murder a criminal act mean it's legal to murder my neighbor? Does A equal non A?

Let me make this very simple for you.  How are you going to enforce property rights and make murder illegal without a government and a legal system, and who will pay for those costs?

In math, the most common way to prove something is true is to assume it isn't true, and then show that that assumption leads to a contradiction.

That's why you're frustrated. You've assumed property rights and without government or taxation, and that leads to a very simple contradiction.  You really want to be able to say with a clear conscience that taxation is stealing and also want to believe in property rights and basic legal protection. Yet you can't get property rights and legal protections without the government and taxes.  Darn.

It can be really annoying when you realize that a core belief leads to a contradiction.   When people with intellectual honesty run into such a sticky situation, they change their core belief, but in your case, I recommend just waving your hands and whining that nobody's taking your argument seriously.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 18, 2016, 10:23:36 PM
Obviously not, Richard. Does property rights protection mean it's legal to steal? Does making murder a criminal act mean it's legal to murder my neighbor? Does A equal non A?

Let me make this very simple for you.  How are you going to enforce property rights and make murder illegal without a government and a legal system, and who will pay for those costs?

In math, the most common way to prove something is true is to assume it isn't true, and then show that that assumption leads to a contradiction.

That's why you're frustrated. You've assumed property rights and without government or taxation, and that leads to a very simple contradiction.  You really want to be able to say with a clear conscience that taxation is stealing and also want to believe in property rights and basic legal protection. Yet you can't get property rights and legal protections without the government and taxes.  Darn.

It can be really annoying when you realize that a core belief leads to a contradiction.   When people with intellectual honesty run into such a sticky situation, they change their core belief, but in your case, I recommend just waving your hands and whining that nobody's taking your argument seriously.
Dude, shhh... don't try to relitigate. I already got the libertarians to admit that the state/government can add value/crate wealth by establishment of law and property rights. That was like 6 pages back or whatever. I don't know if it means much, but when the libertarians admit that the government is useful just that's a pretty big thing. I was surprised myself at that. Lol, just take a win and leave it. Move on to the next fight.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Packer16 on November 19, 2016, 05:11:28 AM
I think what some folks may not get here is the differences between the US free enterprise system and the more restrained or blended form in other former British/Dutch empires & the Nordics.  In the former B/D colonies & the Nordics, historically the government worked together with free enterprise in many ventures like Crown corporations in Canada and the Dutch and British East India companies to name a few.  The US has historically had a government as a check on corporations in contrast to colluding with corporations.  Both have there pluses and minuses.  The possibility of corruption is higher in the collusion model as referee is also a player on the field.  To prevent this many of these countries have rules enforced by law versus voluntary compliance.  In those countries the rules are accepted for this.  Many of these same rules would not be accepted in the US as a restriction on free choice. 

Now the upside for the US is an environment like no else in the world where IP can be exploited for maximum gain.  This leads to high investment in IP-type businesses and more important attracts the people with best ideas to come here to maximize their gains.  Now others can free-ride this R&D but they are also forgo the IP investment environment in the US.  I do think as a a part of this free ride other countries should have to give concessions to the US in trade negotiations which is another area I think Trump can add some value here as we no longer need allies to fight the communists. 

Packer
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: onyx1 on November 19, 2016, 05:26:36 AM
Which brings me to my third observation about this thread. It's a frustrating waste of everyone's time.

Once you accept that facts don't matter in politics, it's a lot less frustrating. 

Trump understands what many miss: people don’t make decisions based on facts
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/16/13426448/trump-psychology-fact-checking-lies (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/16/13426448/trump-psychology-fact-checking-lies)

These threads rarely changes minds, but they do confirm our own beliefs with the like-minded.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: DooDiligence on November 19, 2016, 05:55:29 AM
Which brings me to my third observation about this thread. It's a frustrating waste of everyone's time.

Once you understand that facts don't matter in politics, it's a lot less frustrating. 

Trump understands what many miss: people don’t make decisions based on facts
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/16/13426448/trump-psychology-fact-checking-lies (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/16/13426448/trump-psychology-fact-checking-lies)

These threads rarely changes minds, but they do confirm our own beliefs with the like-minded.

You are a Buddha (that's a complement & not a reference to excessive girth or male pattern baldness...)

You're dog looks cool too!
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Rainforesthiker on November 19, 2016, 06:49:33 AM
Obviously not, Richard. Does property rights protection mean it's legal to steal? Does making murder a criminal act mean it's legal to murder my neighbor? Does A equal non A?

Let me make this very simple for you.  How are you going to enforce property rights and make murder illegal without a government and a legal system, and who will pay for those costs?

In math, the most common way to prove something is true is to assume it isn't true, and then show that that assumption leads to a contradiction.

That's why you're frustrated. You've assumed property rights and without government or taxation, and that leads to a very simple contradiction.  You really want to be able to say with a clear conscience that taxation is stealing and also want to believe in property rights and basic legal protection. Yet you can't get property rights and legal protections without the government and taxes.  Darn.

It can be really annoying when you realize that a core belief leads to a contradiction.   When people with intellectual honesty run into such a sticky situation, they change their core belief, but in your case, I recommend just waving your hands and whining that nobody's taking your argument seriously.
Dude, shhh... don't try to relitigate. I already got the libertarians to admit that the state/government can add value/crate wealth by establishment of law and property rights. That was like 6 pages back or whatever. I don't know if it means much, but when the libertarians admit that the government is useful just that's a pretty big thing. I was surprised myself at that. Lol, just take a win and leave it. Move on to the next fight.

Perhaps you are referring to my comment.  Some libertarians believe in a small role for the state wrt rule of law, property rights and defense.  Some are more of the anarcho-capitalist mold which believe in a different form of organization than the state based more on private mutual cooperation.  For example, despite my comments above, I think it very possible that a private law enforcement model, paid in the form of insurance premiums, would be better than our current tax / law enforcement from the state.  Also, given the propensity of governments to assume ever greater amounts of power and ultimately start wars or commit genocide, and given my belief in the power and importance of individual liberty, I think in general the less state the better. 

Since this is supposed to be an investing forum, this whole thread seems to be a large distraction.  I will say no more on this subject here.  Good luck.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Cardboard on November 19, 2016, 06:53:20 AM
"Not sure what your point is here.  We shouldn't test for STDs?  People who enjoy having sex are evil?"

No, but some people definitely abuse with free testing every few months. I am not kidding here. Why do you or I pay for their frequent switching of partners without them being more cautious?

"Don't forget doctors deliberately restricting the supply of physicians."

That is a very good point that I forgot to mention. Actually it applies also to dentists and pharmacists.

"That said, I think that Canada actually has the best of both worlds--everyone gets good healthcare at reasonable prices, and rich, grass-is-greener people can jump down to the USA."

Here I disagree with hours in line, months to get some treatments. And do you think that Trudeau or Harper would wait at all? No. And they get the most competent physicians/specialists right away. So it is not fair for everyone.

Cardboard
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: RichardGibbons on November 19, 2016, 11:10:34 AM
"Not sure what your point is here.  We shouldn't test for STDs?  People who enjoy having sex are evil?"

No, but some people definitely abuse with free testing every few months. I am not kidding here. Why do you or I pay for their frequent switching of partners without them being more cautious?

For the same reason you pay for people who don't exercise enough, eat too much, drive poorly, don't go for periodic preventative check-ups, smoke, drink alcohol or coke, ski, box, canoe, eat bacon, play football, hike, collect garbage, donate blood, work as a nurse, doctor, or other hospital worker, work in mines and other heavy industry....

In both the US and Canada, because it is essentially an insurance model, everyone pays for the negative decisions of everyone.  The fact that some people like to have sex with different people get checked for STDs doesn't seem that different than me eating bacon and needing to get cholesterol checked occasionally.

Also the bigger issue to me is what that "abuse" costs, and it's a bit silly for us to argue about it without a good understanding of the costs.  My SWAG would that there's about 10 million people between the ages of 20 and 40.  Say 5% of those swap partners a lot, and of those, 10% go to the doctor quarterly to get tested at a cost of $100.  Then the total cost would be $20M, which doesn't seem like that bad a deal.  Isn't a heart attack from eating too much bacon running in the tens of thousands?  You don't need many of those to exceed $20M.  (I imagine AIDS is pretty expensive to treat too, though.)

"That said, I think that Canada actually has the best of both worlds--everyone gets good healthcare at reasonable prices, and rich, grass-is-greener people can jump down to the USA."

Here I disagree with hours in line, months to get some treatments. And do you think that Trudeau or Harper would wait at all? No. And they get the most competent physicians/specialists right away. So it is not fair for everyone.

They also pay for round-the-clock security for the Prime Minister, because we think it's a good idea to keep him not dead and functioning effectively. If you're going to suggest "not fair" examples, it would be much more persuasive if it weren't the leader of the entire country.  (Like say, his wife and kids, who would also probably jump the queue.  That would be an awesome political controversy.  :) ) 

That said, my goal would never be total fairness. Naively striving for absolute fairness is pointless--we need to be practical, not live in fairy tales. My goal is to reduce the effects of luck in life, so the people who work the hardest have the best possible chance to get ahead.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: RichardGibbons on November 19, 2016, 11:27:01 AM
Now the upside for the US is an environment like no else in the world where IP can be exploited for maximum gain.  This leads to high investment in IP-type businesses and more important attracts the people with best ideas to come here to maximize their gains.  Now others can free-ride this R&D but they are also forgo the IP investment environment in the US.  I do think as a a part of this free ride other countries should have to give concessions to the US in trade negotiations which is another area I think Trump can add some value here as we no longer need allies to fight the communists. 

The interesting thing about IP is that it's a total fiction, a very weak artificial monopoly, and China's really shown that.  I think there's substantial value in protecting IP, but I also think if US went too hard placing a too high a value on  IP during trade negotiations, they'd find everyone abandoning that fiction pretty quickly, resulting in trade wars that would be bad for everyone.

Re: "we no longer need allies to fight the communists": Most of the west is allies with US, and therefore they don't need a huge military.  If they are no longer allies, I wouldn't expect them to continue to have a small military, and it would be foolish to expect USA to get better treatment at that point.  It isn't that long since Germany, Italy, and Japan took over much of the world.

Encouraging everyone to massively increase their military to sizes where they become a real threat to the USA, and encouraging them to ally instead with Russia and China seems like a really stupid strategy.

Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Packer16 on November 19, 2016, 01:03:23 PM
It is only fiction to those who free ride on others efforts & are catching up technologically but not truly innovating.  The fiction you speak of is why the US has and will be dominate going forward in innovation.  It is no fiction that the most innovative firms are in the US.  If you think China is such a great place why is money flooding out of China to real estate and other assets to the US because China is such an innovative place.  The US has such an environment because of the incentives in the US system.  This would become obvious if we charged foreigners to access our markets.  I am not saying innovation does not occur in other places just that US has an incentive system to maximize it & Obama et al was changing the system to be like the rest of the world were the incentives do not exist.

Packer
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: LC on November 19, 2016, 01:41:54 PM
Am I a slave if society prevents me from raping you and burning down your home? 

Obviously not, Richard. Does property rights protection mean it's legal to steal? Does making murder a criminal act mean it's legal to murder my neighbor? Does A equal non A?

Which brings me to my third observation about this thread. It's a frustrating waste of everyone's time.



It's a bit disingenuous to first chastise members for not wanting to debate underlying philosophical issues, then stomp out the conversation and call it a "waste of time" when someone steps up to the plate.

I personally agree with Richard on his shades of grey comment regarding your philosophy.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: onyx1 on November 19, 2016, 05:28:22 PM
Latest New Yorker issue:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/28/obama-reckons-with-a-trump-presidency (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/28/obama-reckons-with-a-trump-presidency)

"And Trump understands the new ecosystem, in which facts and truth don’t matter."


Looks like the MSM are just catching on to the reality that facts don't matter in politics.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Packer16 on November 19, 2016, 07:04:45 PM
I was reading an editorial by Luigi Zengalos and he has stated that in Italy that the only effective way to defeat a guy like Trump (Burlesconi) was with facts.  Attacking him on an emotional level only made him stronger.

Packer
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rukawa on November 20, 2016, 08:57:12 PM
I think what some folks may not get here is the differences between the US free enterprise system and the more restrained or blended form in other former British/Dutch empires & the Nordics.  In the former B/D colonies & the Nordics, historically the government worked together with free enterprise in many ventures like Crown corporations in Canada and the Dutch and British East India companies to name a few.  The US has historically had a government as a check on corporations in contrast to colluding with corporations.  Both have there pluses and minuses.  The possibility of corruption is higher in the collusion model as referee is also a player on the field.  To prevent this many of these countries have rules enforced by law versus voluntary compliance.  In those countries the rules are accepted for this.  Many of these same rules would not be accepted in the US as a restriction on free choice. 

Now the upside for the US is an environment like no else in the world where IP can be exploited for maximum gain.  This leads to high investment in IP-type businesses and more important attracts the people with best ideas to come here to maximize their gains.  Now others can free-ride this R&D but they are also forgo the IP investment environment in the US.  I do think as a a part of this free ride other countries should have to give concessions to the US in trade negotiations which is another area I think Trump can add some value here as we no longer need allies to fight the communists. 

Packer

My interpretation is a bit different. Here I am thinking of Canada. We are a small market. That means that generally there tends to be few competitors and a lot of oligopolies. So the natural impulse is to regulate to prevent oligopoly abuse. For instance there is a lot of weird, inconsistent policies our federal government has pursued to ensure that there are 4 mobile carriers. And our companies tend to be risk averse...why take chances when you are making oligopoly profits.

I think the size of America is incredibly important. America is the largest free trade zone in the world. And I think that not only explains your economic success but in addition many of your economic policies. You don't need government to prevent oligopoly abuse because your competitive market does it for you. You don't need the government to encourage innovation, because your market is so incredibly competitive that your companies will be left in the dust if they don't. There are few countries that have these advantages.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 20, 2016, 09:04:17 PM
Yes, because there are no oligopolies in areas such as telecom in the US.
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: rb on November 20, 2016, 10:14:48 PM
I think what some folks may not get here is the differences between the US free enterprise system and the more restrained or blended form in other former British/Dutch empires & the Nordics.  In the former B/D colonies & the Nordics, historically the government worked together with free enterprise in many ventures like Crown corporations in Canada and the Dutch and British East India companies to name a few.  The US has historically had a government as a check on corporations in contrast to colluding with corporations.  Both have there pluses and minuses.  The possibility of corruption is higher in the collusion model as referee is also a player on the field.  To prevent this many of these countries have rules enforced by law versus voluntary compliance.  In those countries the rules are accepted for this.  Many of these same rules would not be accepted in the US as a restriction on free choice. 

Now the upside for the US is an environment like no else in the world where IP can be exploited for maximum gain.  This leads to high investment in IP-type businesses and more important attracts the people with best ideas to come here to maximize their gains.  Now others can free-ride this R&D but they are also forgo the IP investment environment in the US.  I do think as a a part of this free ride other countries should have to give concessions to the US in trade negotiations which is another area I think Trump can add some value here as we no longer need allies to fight the communists. 

Packer
Yea, about that Nordic corruption you may wanna check out the link below, fyi US is number 16. And are the US SROs such a bright spot? They worked brilliantly in the financial industry.

http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015?gclid=CKDEwoWOudACFUY8GwodQJMJpg

On the IP and innovation side you make it sound like the US is some shining city on a hill and every other country is just a dumbass. There is no authoritative ranking of innovation but there are a few of them and the US rarely ranks first. There are tons of really innovative businesses, very IP driven, which are not from the US and have no desire to be. It is true that the US has a lot of innovation but a lot of other countries with different systems are extremely innovative as well.

In the tech space: The US has Google and Apple and a host of other tech companies as well. But other countries do too. For example, the current president used a Canadian phone, the president elect uses a Korean one - they must be good for something. All the phones you use are powered by chips who's IP is British.

In the pharma space, out of the top 10 companies only 4 are American. The number 1 is Swiss.

I could go on. But guess what, innovation and invention is going on at high rates in other places in the world as well. Many other places in the world have high incomes and prosperity under different systems from the US. Your post has the feel of the guy in the crowd yelling USA! USA! USA!

On the trade side, you should read more on the subject because the US is not in the business of giving freebies. As a matter of fact they use their security guarantee to get concessions. It'll be interesting to see how it all develops but the US may be in for a surprise if they pull that guarantee. I'm a geek when it comes to that so I'll watch closely.

On the military side, it's been a bit pricey but it been pretty good for the US. And let's face it the US loves to have it's big dominant military as opposed to a regional force. Yes it paid some money, but in turn they get world dominance and stability - which is good for business. In a world with long and integrated supply chains you don't want a bunch of wars popping up all over the place. Germany got to save some money. Japan maybe too (not so familiar with that) but they did buy a lot of fancy weaponry that was made in the USA. However, these countries do have the financial resources and man-power to build large and sophisticated armies. Of course, nothing ever went wrong when Britain, France, Germany, and Japan armed themselves to the teeth.

I like how your post end with the note that you no longer need allies to fight the communists... (i guess it's ok to discard allies now)... very classy. I should point out that the only time when NATO article 5 was invoked it was by the US and it's allies stepped up. As the saying goes, with friends like these....
Title: Re: If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If
Post by: Packer16 on November 21, 2016, 10:10:26 AM
I am trying to illustrate the differences between the systems without making a value judgement.  Each person can make that for him/herself and decide which is best for them.  Assuming that one is better than the other and forcing the characteristics of that system on all is denying choice and is what IMO the election in the US was all about.  In the US you really have both systems co-existing in places like NY and Calif versus Texas so you can choose what you like best.

Packer