Presidential Race 2016

[Golfingdad]

2 hours ago, boogielicious said:

Did you bleach your hair and give it that Dr. Emmett Brown look so you could fit in?

Great Scott!!!!!!!

Orrrrr ... should I say "great, Scott" ;)

P.S.  Unfortunately I have way less hair now than I had approximately 8 years ago.  Thanks Obama!!!

 

[boogielicious]

2 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Great Scott!!!!!!!

Orrrrr ... should I say "great, Scott" ;)

P.S.  Unfortunately I have way less hair now than I had approximately 8 years ago.  Thanks Obama!!!

 

Ah yes! The Oxford comma at its best!

[StevenR84]

13 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Ah yes! The Oxford comma at its best!

Not the Oxford comma. The Oxford comma gets used in statements like "Hillary won't win the primary because she is unlikable, dishonest, and scared."

[boogielicious]

8 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

Not the Oxford comma. The Oxford comma gets used in statements like "Hillary won't win the primary because she is unlikable, dishonest, and scared."

I stand corrected.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

I stand, corrected.

FTFY.

JK.

[Groucho Valentine]

Ive been kind of apathetic towards this POTUS election. What a circus..

But Im kind of hoping Clinton wins just to witness the pure armageddon that is likley to ensue. lol

Most of my friends and associates are right leaning republican types, and ill tell you that even though they'll never admit it, they feel completely emasculated by Obama's presidency. 

I can only imagine how that sentiment is going to be magnified by a Clinton Presidency. Those lulz are going to be glorious. 

[Elmer]

11 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Ive been kind of apathetic towards this POTUS election. What a circus..

But Im kind of hoping Clinton wins just to witness the pure armageddon that is likley to ensue. lol

Most of my friends and associates are right leaning republican types, and ill tell you that even though they'll never admit it, they feel completely emasculated by Obama's presidency. 

I can only imagine how that sentiment is going to be magnified by a Clinton Presidency. Those lulz are going to be glorious. 

Do you think if Trump loses, he will go away quietly?
How  long of a lawsuit would that be?

[Groucho Valentine]

1 minute ago, Elmer said:

Do you think if Trump loses, he will go away quietly?
How  long of a lawsuit would that be?

They might have to start chopping down redwoods to make all the paper needed to file those briefs.. 

[Golfingdad]

3 minutes ago, Elmer said:

Do you think if Trump loses, he will go away quietly?
How  long of a lawsuit would that be?

At this point, I think it would be silly to rule ANYTHING out ... but I would lean towards thinking he will go away quietly (as quietly as Trump is capable of) and probably be somewhat relieved he doesn't have to deal with that job.

[saevel25]

Just now, Golfingdad said:

At this point, I think it would be silly to rule ANYTHING out ... but I would lean towards thinking he will go away quietly (as quietly as Trump is capable of) and probably be somewhat relieved he doesn't have to deal with that job.

I agree. I don't think he wants to spend more money in a lawsuit he probably would not win. 

[GolfLug]

 

3 hours ago, Braivo said:

It's a shell game. The recent "prosperity" was created using near zero interest rates and record debt. The underlying markers are not good at all. 

BTW, TARP was the absolute worst thing that our government has ever done. They gave a free pass to the folks that created the 2008 bubble. Shameful. 

When was it not a shell game? Quantitative easing is nothing new. Remember, the only true marker of 'healthy economy' is liquidity among the masses - sadly.

It is just one of two popular ways:

1) Feds bet on GDP outpacing debt by 'stimulus' spending of buying securities, lowering taxes, interests, heck even print more money (inflation be damned).. end game is similar to crash of 2008. Massive bailouts. At close to $17 trill, we are almost there. But we must all have jobs, we must all feed our kids today and have money left over to go to Disney. Now. Today. Can't interrupt that or it will start to resemble a recession and we flock to the internets and trash the gubment as the solely responsible entity. So we continue heading to the cliff with feds in the driver engine car instead. See you at the bottom. Don't know when we will get there and what it will look like.

OR..  

2) Feds clamp down on spending, raising taxes, interest, hoping they can knuckle down debt harder and faster than the GDP loss (because liquidity goes down as well when taxes go up, harder to get loans, lesser investment, lower incentives for manufacturing etc.). In principle, this is better poison coz' eventually after the dark night, there will be morning again when the debt will be wiped out and we get back to surplus, but can the general population last a clamp down cycle that can last over a decade of difficult times for it to be even remotely meaningful? It would have to affect ALL major spending including military, healthcare, education. Huge layoffs for the spend cuts, etc., Who is going to sign up for that either?? In today's global dynamic environment, how would we survive the elongated abstinence before we want new government coz' we can't just handle the doldrums anymore?     

Pick your poison. Make no mistake, you MUST pick one. It IS a shell game. Always has been. 

I don't care who ends up taking office, they are unlikely to muster up what I would call straight up magic. I applaud the passion, optimism and even bravery of the Trump and Bernie supporters, and I mean it in the nicest possible way, but don't you think the optimism lacks the eye of the larger picture? Meaning you can't be simply sold to the promises of all the Pauls they are promising to pay. It only presents one side of the coin. Which Peters are you going to rob?? Because the way I see it there is no getting around that. Every government has done it. Tell us who they will be. And then tell us how after the long catharsis you would restore balance. Be realistic. There are many of us who are willing to listen if you actually present it even if it heavily sprinkled with boorishness that has come to be a trademark. Until then I feel unmoved.

 

[Gunther]

Heard an interesting factoid yesterday:  Hillary has 730 people working on her campaign, Trump has 70.  She has almost quadrupled his total spend and she's not done with her primary yet. To me this speaks volumes about Trump and economics.  He is practicing what he preaches, spending only what he must to get the job done.  I believe he will run the country the same way, to the extent it's in his power to do so.

Dems and moderate GOPers, simply do not understand this from a fundamental standpoint.  There's a bottomless pool of money in their minds, let's just throw some at this and that and that will fix it.  We'll no, that is rarely the answer.  

Spend government or company dollars like they were your own.  Trump will, Hillary won't.  To be fair, GWB didn't either nor would have Jeb or most of the other Trump opponents.

[Braivo]

27 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

 

When was it not a shell game? Quantitative easing is nothing new. Remember, the only true marker of 'healthy economy' is liquidity among the masses - sadly.

It is just one of two popular ways:

1) Feds bet on GDP outpacing debt by 'stimulus' spending of buying securities, lowering taxes, interests, heck even print more money (inflation be damned).. end game is similar to crash of 2008. Massive bailouts. At close to $17 trill, we are almost there. But we must all have jobs, we must all feed our kids today and have money left over to go to Disney. Now. Today. Can't interrupt that or it will start to resemble a recession and we flock to the internets and trash the gubment as the solely responsible entity. So we continue heading to the cliff with feds in the driver engine car instead. See you at the bottom. Don't know when we will get there and what it will look like.

OR..  

2) Feds clamp down on spending, raising taxes, interest, hoping they can knuckle down debt harder and faster than the GDP loss (because liquidity goes down as well when taxes go up, harder to get loans, lesser investment, lower incentives for manufacturing etc.). In principle, this is better poison coz' eventually after the dark night, there will be morning again when the debt will be wiped out and we get back to surplus, but can the general population last a clamp down cycle that can last over a decade of difficult times for it to be even remotely meaningful? It would have to affect ALL major spending including military, healthcare, education. Huge layoffs for the spend cuts, etc., Who is going to sign up for that either?? In today's global dynamic environment, how would we survive the elongated abstinence before we want new government coz' we can't just handle the doldrums anymore?     

Pick your poison. Make no mistake, you MUST pick one. It IS a shell game. Always has been. 

I don't care who ends up taking office, they are unlikely to muster up what I would call straight up magic. I applaud the passion, optimism and even bravery of the Trump and Bernie supporters, and I mean it in the nicest possible way, but don't you think the optimism lacks the eye of the larger picture? Meaning you can't be simply sold to the promises of all the Pauls they are promising to pay. It only presents one side of the coin. Which Peters are you going to rob?? Because the way I see it there is no getting around that. Every government has done it. Tell us who they will be. And then tell us how after the long catharsis you would restore balance. Be realistic. There are many of us who are willing to listen if you actually present it even if it heavily sprinkled with boorishness that has come to be a trademark. Until then I feel unmoved.

 

Exactly right.  A POTUS needs the guts to stand up and ask the American people to take a lengthy sacrifice to right the ship. Either that or we dive into the abyss once the point of no return is reached, either way we will get there. Something similar to JFK's "what you can you do for your country" speech is in order. A call to arms for all Americans to work together to make this right. Unfortunately, I find this very unlikely. 

4 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Heard an interesting factoid yesterday:  Hillary has 730 people working on her campaign, Trump has 70.  She has almost quadrupled his total spend and she's not done with her primary yet. To me this speaks volumes about Trump and economics.  He is practicing what he preaches, spending only what he must to get the job done.  I believe he will run the country the same way, to the extent it's in his power to do so.

Dems and moderate GOPers, simply do not understand this from a fundamental standpoint.  There's a bottomless pool of money in their minds, let's just throw some at this and that and that will fix it.  We'll no, that is rarely the answer.  

Spend government or company dollars like they were your own.  Trump will, Hillary won't.  To be fair, GWB didn't either nor would have Jeb or most of the other Trump opponents.

Trump is incredibly efficient. "Ahead of schedule, under budget" is a true statement when it comes to him. He is methodically smashing all of his opponents with laser like precision. Folks claim he is "abrasive" lol. Well, if being abrasive means he can run a $1bn campaign for $100m I'd say he's doing it right. 

[Groucho Valentine]

1 minute ago, Gunther said:

Heard an interesting factoid yesterday:  Hillary has 730 people working on her campaign, Trump has 70.  She has almost quadrupled his total spend and she's not done with her primary yet. To me this speaks volumes about Trump and economics.  He is practicing what he preaches, spending only what he must to get the job done.  I believe he will run the country the same way, to the extent it's in his power to do so.

Dems and moderate GOPers, simply do not understand this from a fundamental standpoint.  There's a bottomless pool of money in their minds, let's just throw some at this and that and that will fix it.  We'll no, that is rarely the answer.  

Spend government or company dollars like they were your own.  Trump will, Hillary won't.  To be fair, GWB didn't either nor would have Jeb or most of the other Trump opponents.

It seems like the media has done a lot of Trumps campaign work for him, so he hasn't needed a full blown political organization like national candidates typically do. For as much as I've heard him complain about the news media, he probably is not where he is without them giving him the constant exposure. From what i read a couple weeks ago, Trump has just recently started to hire professionals that know what they're doing into his organization. 

[Chilli Dipper]

I've also heard that Trump has no general campaign staff on the ground yet in Ohio or Florida, but Hillary does, even though she hasn't officially locked up the Democratic nomination. Perhaps Donald is resting on his laurels a little too much.

[saevel25]

36 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Exactly right.  A POTUS needs the guts to stand up and ask the American people to take a lengthy sacrifice to right the ship. Either that or we dive into the abyss once the point of no return is reached, either way we will get there. Something similar to JFK's "what you can you do for your country" speech is in order. A call to arms for all Americans to work together to make this right. Unfortunately, I find this very unlikely.

I agree, I doubt American's are willing to do that. The American mentality matches the government. We like debt, we like to spend, we don't like to save money. 

https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/credit-card-data/average-credit-card-debt-household/

 

39 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

I've also heard that Trump has no general campaign staff on the ground yet in Ohio or Florida, but Hillary does, even though she hasn't officially locked up the Democratic nomination. Perhaps Donald is resting on his laurels a little too much.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-scorning-of-data-may-not-hurt-him-but-itll-hurt-the-gop/

It was the ground troops that helped Obama smash McCann in 2008. Obama modernized the Democratic party. That machine is behind Hillary. 

[saevel25]

Maybe another contender in the race 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pay-attention-to-libertarian-gary-johnson-hes-pulling-10-vs-trump-and-clinton/

Quote

A Morning Consult survey published Tuesday and found Clinton getting 38 percent of the vote, Trump 35 and Johnson 10, with 17 percent undecided. A Fox News poll conducted from May 14-17 showed Trump leading over Clinton, 42 percent to 39 percent, but Johnson at 10 percent as well. Lest you think this is some fluky May development, a Monmouth University survey conducted in mid-March — while the political universe was still busy wringing its hands over the Republican nomination — found that in a three-way race, Clinton would get 42 percent, Trump 34 percent and Johnson 11 percent.

 

[RandallT]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

Maybe another contender in the race 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pay-attention-to-libertarian-gary-johnson-hes-pulling-10-vs-trump-and-clinton/

 

Two governors with executive experience. Hmm. If they can get on the debate stages and get some media coverage, and then they don't look small in comparison to the "Big Two" parties up on stage (or pull a Sarah Palin with Katie Couric in interviews), people might give them a fair shake.

Typically, third party candidates just don't have the gravitas to be anything more than fringe candidates, but this could be their year to make a bigger dent? They do have policy platforms to draw in disgruntled voters from either side.