Presidential Race 2016

[Ernest Jones]

2 hours ago, newtogolf said:

True, but it doesn't change the fact that throughout their lives the Clinton's have been surrounded by scandals and investigations. 

 

More than Trump's 3500 lawsuits in 30 years?  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/

The left may be ignoring some of the slime on Hilary (and I think she's plenty slimy), but the right is closing their eyes to the fact that Trump is a complete buffoon.

I think they both suck, but if you're stuck in a two party system, I'd recommend not voting for the buffoon.

 

[iacas]

21 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

More than Trump's 3500 lawsuits in 30 years?  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/

The left may be ignoring some of the slime on Hilary (and I think she's plenty slimy), but the right is closing their eyes to the fact that Trump is a complete buffoon.

I think they both suck, but if you're stuck in a two party system, I'd recommend not voting for the buffoon.

It's not like he's just a regular dude who has sued people or been sued 3500 times.

Quote

Alan Garten, general counsel for the Trump Organization, said in an interview that the number and tenor of the court cases is the “cost of doing business” and on par with other companies of a similar size. "I think we have far less litigation of companies of our size," he said.

Can you refute that?

Because if you can't, the 3500 number carries little to no weight. He probably employs many lawyers.

---

I don't even have a clue for whom I'll vote. I'll probably write someone in.

But let's strive to say things here that aren't so… hyperbolic? Biased? Throw-away?

[Elmer]

"the details are less important than the political point"
Trump is shaping a vision 
or as some would call it political marketing

regardless this is a great article that shows the difference in making political points and facts!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/03/fact-checking-donald-trumps-nine-graph-tweet-proving-that-obama-has-failed/

 

[saevel25]

59 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

I think they both suck, but if you're stuck in a two party system, I'd recommend not voting for the buffoon.

I almost have to agree. 

1. Who ever is president has to deal with very polarized party system were very little gets done. I doubt any significant changes will happen unless there is a gigantic shift in the house and senate. That will be tough with the amount of gerrymandering that has occurred over the past decade. 

2. Trump is a hot head and the President has immense power with regards to military capability and the drone strike system that has no oversight.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/48-hours-presents-the-spymasters-cia-in-the-crosshairs/

With that regard, I trust Hillary over Trump.

The only thing that bothers me is the supreme court picks. The next president might get to pick 3 justices. I might be willing to gamble on Hillary getting very little done, and she might not even win re-election. 

39 minutes ago, Elmer said:

regardless this is a great article that shows the difference in making political points and facts!

It's really nice you can't see the text on the chart. It looks like the charts were shown to maximize visual impact instead of actual quantitative impact. 

Like Labor Force Participation. There has only been a 3% drop. If you look at that chart you'd think it would be more. 

I wouldn't trust tweets like that until you actually look up the data and try to understand the data. 

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, Ernest Jones said:

More than Trump's 3500 lawsuits in 30 years?  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/

The left may be ignoring some of the slime on Hilary (and I think she's plenty slimy), but the right is closing their eyes to the fact that Trump is a complete buffoon.

I think they both suck, but if you're stuck in a two party system, I'd recommend not voting for the buffoon.

 

Civil / Business  lawsuits are different than criminal investigations.  Trump may be a buffoon but Hillary is a criminal. 

[saevel25]

7 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Civil / Business  lawsuits are different than criminal investigations.  Trump may be a buffoon but Hillary is a criminal. 

Has she been found guilty of anything?

Oh, she was exonerate in the Whitewater case. 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/23/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-hillary-was-completely-exonerate/

 

[Golfingdad]

7 hours ago, newtogolf said:

Since some of you are young and may not remember how corrupt Bill and Hillary were during his presidency I'll leave this here.  I'll take an asshat over a crook any day.  

 

The thing that strikes me the funniest about these videos - and this is true as well (actually maybe more) of video and pictorial media of Trump too - is that you don't even need the sound or the text on the screen to know the opinions of the source on the subject.  Every photo on there was less appealing than the previous one.  And every negative story on Trump is the same - accompanied by a picture of him mid words or making a ridiculous face and/or gesture.

You can also tell by the audio alone ... it's basically just a 19 minute anti-Hillary negative tv ad.

[Dave2512]

I don't watch videos like that be it for or against any candidate. Hard to take serious and IMO totally ineffective.

[Chilli Dipper]

22 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

The thing that strikes me the funniest about these videos - and this is true as well (actually maybe more) of video and pictorial media of Trump too - is that you don't even need the sound or the text on the screen to know the opinions of the source on the subject.  Every photo on there was less appealing than the previous one.  And every negative story on Trump is the same - accompanied by a picture of him mid words or making a ridiculous face and/or gesture.

You can also tell by the audio alone ... it's basically just a 19 minute anti-Hillary negative tv ad.

In the early days of YouTube, there were all sorts of "fan videos" that were just extended slideshows of uploader's favorite actors or singers, usually accompanied by a Linkin Park song. They were terrible, and they always clogged up the search results when you were looking for a specific movie clip or music video. I don't think I've seen any of these videos since 2009, but that's the aesthetic I think of when I watch negative political videos like the one above, or basically anything Alex Jones produces.

[GolfLug]

This much is clear: Both HRC and DT have a seriously unethical past, have been heavy handed, exploited their position of power at some point or the other and we are not talking about forgetting to conveniently pay for a candy bar at 7-11.

Not voting is not an option. Gotta keep looking for what they will do right. I have gotten over my personality based dislike for DT, but still not enough to sway me as I haven't sensed enough substance yet.

  

 

[Ernest Jones]

I'm not trying to be divisive or anti-Trump with this post, but have y'all seen the clips of The Donald speeches played at half speed? I don't care which side of the divide you fall on, that shit is funny as hell! Lol.  

[Chilli Dipper]

8 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

I'm not trying to be divisive or anti-Trump with this post, but have y'all seen the clips of The Donald speeches played at half speed? I don't care which side of the divide you fall on, that shit is funny as hell! Lol.  

Trump's recent speeches are already at half-speed compared to where he was at the start of the year. I hate the man, but I hope he takes some time to recharge between now and the convention, for his health's sake.

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

The thing that strikes me the funniest about these videos - and this is true as well (actually maybe more) of video and pictorial media of Trump too - is that you don't even need the sound or the text on the screen to know the opinions of the source on the subject.  Every photo on there was less appealing than the previous one.  And every negative story on Trump is the same - accompanied by a picture of him mid words or making a ridiculous face and/or gesture.

You can also tell by the audio alone ... it's basically just a 19 minute anti-Hillary negative tv ad.

 

1 hour ago, Dave2512 said:

I don't watch videos like that be it for or against any candidate. Hard to take serious and IMO totally ineffective.

But you'll watch all the anti-Trump Stephen Colbert videos and take them seriously because he's an objective and insightful political journalist.  

Yes the video is biased, but it's not fabricated, all of these investigations and wasted taxpayer money was/are real.  You'll dismiss the numerous investigations the Clinton's have been under and their attempts to obstruct justice but use the Trump U civil lawsuit to discredit Trump.  

[Dave2512]

9 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

But you'll watch all the anti-Trump Stephen Colbert videos and take them seriously because he's an objective and insightful political journalist.  

You won't find one mention from me that I watch Colbert, not on this site, not anywhere. FWIW there doesn't need to be any anti-Trump videos he creates his own highlight reels, even Fox has their WTF Trump moments. Haven't mentioned Trump U either.

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

But you'll watch all the anti-Trump Stephen Colbert videos and take them seriously because he's an objective and insightful political journalist.  

Colbert is a satirist. If that video you posted is satire then it's the sorriest piece of satire ever created. If you don't understand satire then you take Colbert way to seriously. 

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

Yes the video is biased, but it's not fabricated, all of these investigations and wasted taxpayer money was/are real. 

Was there investigations, sure. Was their any charges brought against her, nope. As Greg Proops said in one of his podcasts. Besides running for president of Russia, running for president of the US is as hardball as it gets. If you are not willing to back deal, get on your knees and kiss some ass, then you don't get play the game. Anyone who thinks Trump is this bright beacon of hope better realize he's just pointing the worlds brightest flashlight in your eyes laughing his ass off. 

[Ernest Jones]

12 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Anyone who thinks Trump is this bright beacon of hope better realize he's just pointing the worlds brightest flashlight in your eyes laughing his ass off. 

Brilliantly stated Matt!

[Lihu]

7 hours ago, Gunther said:

I agree, there is a massive trade deficit now, that Trump has vowed to balance.  He knows it can't be done through tariffs alone, something that frightens the far right.  I trust the economic team he will be able to assemble far more than whatever Hillary would do.  Trump is focusing on this, Hillary doesn't understand there is even an issue. She'd rather focus on letting men use ladies restrooms because hey, that's an inequality problem that exists in our unfair, evil country.  

Again, the chief reason I support Trump is that he has called out the biggest challenges facing our country and will tackle them.  Will he succeed on every front?  Probably not but I'm confident he's targeting the right things.

Yeah, for sure!

 

7 hours ago, Elmer said:

I dont deny it is a decent idea. However how does he plan on bringing manufacturing back? over the last 30 years small and large scale manufacturing has been leaving either to pay for cheaper labor or cut down on having to import parts and supplies. 
I would imagine if anything it would require tax incentives to the companies but I always thought that is done at a state level?

It sounds like a snarky answer, but lower taxes on businesses. Specifically lower taxes on mid size and small businesses so they can focus on responding to consumer demands.

Cheaper labor is not the only reason for many businesses to move to China, it's also lower taxes and regulations. Yet, the cost of doing some things in China has almost gotten to the point that many products cost the same to build or service here in the states.

However, every time it starts to become more cost effective to build things in the USA, new regulations pop up. Ones such as the new health insurance regulations which have made it more expensive to insure employees of small companies. What started off as a good faith concept inadvertently becomes yet another reason to build or service things in China.

For instance, service and repair centers are now barely able to scrape by even in some places like rural North Carolina. It's still slightly cheaper to repair in the USA, but more taxes and or regulations could change that overnight. Shipping repair product to and back from China then storing them in a low rent facility in the USA is teetering on a thin line with the cost of hiring "minimum wage" workers anywhere in the USA due to many additional costs, taxes and regulations.

Service is one of the main selling points behind USA made products. We need to stand behind our products, and not have people in other countries stand behind our products, right?

Also, people enjoy talking to the people in the country where things are designed or even built.

If Trump lowers taxes on mid size and small businesses and relaxes some of the regulations, then more companies will have the ability to hire more people. The reason why this will likely work now is there is a new worldwide demand for USA made products. If we can build more things and improve our quality and service even more, then we can sell much more.

As to the type of products that we make really good in the USA? Stuff that you don't build in the millions per month or week like in China. Things that are not so good to build in the USA? Things that are made in the millions per month or week.

There are many products that are designed and built to be used by 10,000 to 100,000 consumers over something like a ten year lifetime. USA is great at that. China is not so great at that, and they don't really want to be.

The only way to do grow our economy is to let our mid to small businesses grow and to hire more skilled people, and train our workers to become more skilled, once again.

This is how I read "Make America Great Again."

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, Lihu said:

If Trump lowers taxes on mid size and small businesses and relaxes some of the regulations, then more companies will have the ability to hire more people.

You mean if Congress lowers taxes and reforms regulations.