What you say is very reasonable.
.
Actually, I was hoping you would flip out and assert:*obviously* the
President can control the economy. Because then I was going to say
I agree, and I also agree George Bush destroyed the American economy and
made us a socialist failure by bailing out the banks.:: kicks stone with toe, and walks away foiled again
Sorry! I will do my best to flip out next time. :)
Actually, I was hoping you would flip out and assert:*obviously* the
President can control the economy. Because then I was going to say
I agree, and I also agree George Bush destroyed the American economy and
made us a socialist failure by bailing out the banks.
Well, the weird thing is, while the president doesn't control the economy, he can AFFECT it.
Right now what I think we're seeing is people at the top holding on to their money because they think Romney might get in. If he does he'll make it easier on them and more lucrative for them to invest. At least that's the perception, and in economics perception is reality much of the time.
Consumer and INVESTOR confidence may be predicated on irrational and false beliefs about Obama being anti-business or a socialist or whatever. But nonetheless if people THINK that they will BEHAVE as if it were so, so it might as well be for all intents and purposes.
Which is why the people who control the information flow are probably the most powerful people in the world.
That's exactly why the speculator hate makes me chuckle. I think it's valid, but political commentators cause much of the same speculation that people react to economicly as trading speculators do.
Back in the good old days, we called speculating "hoarding" and when the plutocrats did it, we'd form mobs and break into their shops with pitchforks and redistribute their wares.
Ah, good times.
Vive le Galt!
That's exactly why the speculator hate makes me chuckle. I think it's valid, but political commentators cause much of the same speculation that people react to economicly as trading speculators do.
The difference being that you or I can't affect price levels like someone who can leverage billions (or even trillions) can. The "speculators" aren't even genuinely speculating, that's just what the practice is called, all they're doing is gaming the system. It's the cynical gaming of the world economy that makes me angry, not any genuine speculation.
If you go around buying up all, or a significant portion, of any product out there you will drive the price up. When you then dump it on the market trying to get the new high price, you will, and then because the market is flooded you will get a price crash. Rinse and repeat. This is called the rocky plateau and it's why oil and gas prices are so volatile right now.
Furthermore I'd like to add that, IIRC, until GHWB was president, if you were going to invest in the futures market you had to have a physical place to store the product. You want to buy the world's supply of peanut butter? You had better have a warehouse that can hold all the world's peanut butter. At the moment the speculation is just trading on thin air, it's artificially inflating the price of oil to the benefit of a few oligarchs. It should not be legal any more than buying up all the flu vaccine and selling it at prohibitively high prices should be.
/rant
I didn't mean us as political commentators. I meant those that get paid to do so for a living. See also: pundits.
I didn't mean us as political commentators. I meant those that get paid to do so for a living. See also: pundits.
Pundits also don't have trillions to leverage to manipulate the world economy
Well, no, but their words can certainly influence people that have jobs to offer, or other capital to spend to grow (or not) the economy.
They're frequently hired however by people with the billions to influence those trillions.I didn't mean us as political commentators. I meant those that get paid to do so for a living. See also: pundits.Pundits also don't have trillions to leverage to manipulate the world economy
That is neither here nor there though.
Are those in the media influence peddlers? No dispute.Is attempting to influence the market in an abstract way anything close to cannily manipulating the system and crashing world economies? Absolutely not.
|
The graph pegs me here...
Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49I have a strong measure of skepticism about this graph as I understand it it was created by the Libertarians and the values are highly dependent on the questions some of which have very subtle nuances to them. In short, one can not consider this test to be without bias.
For example, while I may personally believe that those who have severe genetic issues should pause in thought before having offspring, I do not have the belief that our society has the ethical/moral maturity to enforce such a ban fairly and logically. Similarly, while I do believe that there are persons that this planet would be better off without, I have no faith in our society's ability to enforce a death penalty with sufficient protection for the innocent.
Here's another example.
There were questions about one's views in sexual orientation in there. I can see what they're getting at, but you could conceivably have a gay man take the test, answer those questions as befits his outlook, and get marks in favor of social libertarianism regardless of his actual political beliefs. Questions about social issues fail to be predictive of one's political outlook when they affect one personally. There are plenty of authoritarian people out there who are only permissive when it comes to issues that affect themselves.
"People just don't make good online quizzes anymore." -Gandhi
There are plenty of authoritarian people out there who are only permissive when it comes to issues that affect themselves.
We call those people hypocrites and rightly mock them.
The Party whose candidate wins the White House can't be said to truly "win" the Presidential Election if they fail abysmally on the state and local elections.
Case in point... While Clinton was re-elected, it was the Republicans who carried the day in Congressional elections.
What does that mean?
Vote Whig!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.
who has raised the most money?
.
Seems I'm rather alone in Purple Land.
Well, more drinks and donuts for me.
*purple-land brofist* You're just about three or four lines north of me.
.
Mittens is down by half. Let's go Mittens !!
.
Is Cobra Commander running this year? His super delegates were awesome!
.
The only thing I remember about the Republican Convention is Clint
talking to an invisible Obama in wooden chair ...
Is that the take away they were after?
.
Is this thing still turned on?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Necroing a 4 year old thread!
This election cycle's D-bag or shit sandwich options are actually worse than in 2012.
WILL NOT vote for Hillary. Do not want to vote for Trump.
I'm ready to go Houston Derek and not vote.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since the electoral college insures that my state's whopping three votes will go to WHOEVER the Republican party runs (like, they could put up Idi Amin and win here) I'm spared any notion of "vote pragmatic , hold your nose and pick the one you hate less."
So I'm looking into party platforms to see which wingnut party- not candidate, since they won't win- most deserves my attempt to give 'em 5% of the popular vote.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'll got vote for local folks at least. We'll see about the others.
I'd even consider voting for Sanders instead of Trump. At least he's (seems) genuine. Trump is what you see is what you get. Hillary...is neither of those things.
I'm ready to go Houston Derek and not vote.
:(
Searching through HoustonDerek's posts reveals that he has voted quite a few times.
I, on the other hand, have never even been registered to vote.
Yeah, some people don't like it, but I think it's worth never being called for jury duty.
Anyway, in 2016 I think the Democrats will win again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the DNC will, probably. I know a lot of Dems who would not see a Hillary victory as a victory for Dems.
I enjoyed this article from The New York Review of Books:
Tl;dr: Trump's appeal is that he's been a tv game show host for the past decade. Americans like game show hosts.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you see is a lying opportunistic authoritarian with no real consistent policy, just a few things that sound good
Agreed. Wait, which candidate are we talking about? :D
Drumpf is what you see is what you get.And this is the part I don't get.
What you see is a lying opportunistic authoritarian with no real consistent policy, just a few things that sound good on his stump speeches. I guess that's what you get.
The idea that just because he says offensive, "politically incorrect", bigoted gibberish that he's somehow genuine is nonsense.
Look at his business career. He's a con-man and a cheat. His business model is mostly borrow a bunch of money through a business, pay himself a bundle, declare bankruptcy and walk away leaving everyone else holding the bag. Hell, for all his talk of self-funding, it was all a loan. He's paying himself a salary from campaign funds and channelling expenditures to his properties. If he manages to fundraise enough to pay back his primary loan, he'll likely make a nice profit off the campaign.
I have suspicions about where Trump gets his political inspiration from.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since the electoral college insures that my state's whopping three votes will go to WHOEVER the Republican party runs (like, they could put up Idi Amin and win here) I'm spared any notion of "vote pragmatic , hold your nose and pick the one you hate less."
So I'm looking into party platforms to see which wingnut party- not candidate, since they won't win- most deserves my attempt to give 'em 5% of the popular vote.
LOL. I'm in California and pretty much feel the same way -- the vote's going to go Democrat. I could vote for Lord Valdemort for all the change it would make.
But I vehemently, strongly, in the hugest possible terms agree with thejeff: The vote isn't just for president; there will be senators, representatives, statewide measures, local measures, etc., and if you can't find a single one that you care about enough to walk a few blocks and spend 15 minutes voting, that's rather sad.
I've voted for major-party presidential candidates 4 times in my life: Three to vote against men named Bush (never regretted those votes) and one for Obama's first term (that one I have major buyer's remorse over).
But I've voted in all but one election ever since I turned 18. All the major, minor, and local elections.
Because it's the voters who don't care enough to vote who are turning the country into the mess it is. At least in my incendiary opinion.
If you hate the status quo, go vote and vote against every single incumbent. Not a great idea, but better than not voting at all...
EDIT: I posted this and then 2 minutes later thought, "Good job, that's the attitude that brought about the Tea Party and, as an indirect result, the Trump candidacy. Maybe that's not the world's best advice..."
Well, the DNC will, probably. I know a lot of Dems who would not see a Hillary victory as a victory for Dems.I'm sure you do. I know a few, though I suspect that'll change as the primary fades into the distance. I knew some PUMAs back in 2008 as well.
Polling still suggests that solid majority are behind her and not just as "lesser of evils/beat Trump" option. Far more so than on the Republican side.
I wouldn't qualify Bernie Sanders supporters as pumas by any stretch of the imagination.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the outraged supporter came around long before November. I suspect the same will be true of Bernie Bros. Most of his supporters already have.
Oh they will, unfortunately. Bernie, sheepdog that he is, has pledged every step of the way that he would endorse the Democratic Party candidate, and the highest estimation of Bernie or Bust!ers among his supporters that I ever saw was 30%.
Got word from the party tops today that the Jill Stein campaign asked us to help get her on the ballot, so it looks like I'm going to spend the next month petitioning the electorate of New Hampshire on her behalf. Normally, my ultraleft instincts would make me gag at collecting signatures for a petty-bourgeois party like the Greens, but a) it will give us a chance to reconnect with the Occupy kids-turned-Bernie campaigners we know who are more disgusted with the Democrats than they've ever been; and b) they just adopted an explicitly anti-capitalist plank into their program.
Not that I expect much to come of it, but it'll give us something to do over the summer.
Another Ghandi spot on that political compass test.
On the OkCupid one, I was directly on the Hillary space, which makes sense because that's who I support. :P
Well, the DNC will, probably. I know a lot of Dems who would not see a Hillary victory as a victory for Dems.
That's weird. Literally every Democrat I know would consider a Clinton win a victory for the party. I also know some people who wouldn't, but they go to great lengths to make it clear that they aren't Democrats.
I wouldn't qualify Bernie Sanders supporters as pumas by any stretch of the imagination.
"Party Unity My Ass" might as well be the rallying cry of the Sanders hold-out. It doesn't really matter, though. The vast majority of them will fall in line, and I expect we'll take this election without much of a struggle.
Without much of a struggle? That's refreshing. How do you figure? Earlier polls said "Trump is unelectable". From there, it has gone to "a few percent in favour of Clinton".
Sure, I hope Clinton will bag the election easily. But what has changed since?
Without much of a struggle? That's refreshing. How do you figure? Earlier polls said "Trump is unelectable". From there, it has gone to "a few percent in favour of Clinton".
Sure, I hope Clinton will bag the election easily. But what has changed since?
It's pretty difficult, in terms of demographics, to see a path for Trump to 270 electoral votes. The fact that he is consistently losing every general election poll at this point doesn't paint a pretty picture of his chances, either (with the standard caveat that general election polling this far out is not particularly reliable).
And while Clinton is strongly disliked, she's an incredibly proficient politician and candidate. In addition to everything else, she is in her element. The last few weeks have made it clear that Trump is a fish out of water in politics.
The really nonsensical part about the OP's question is that one party doesn't win "the election" in the U.S.: we can (and do) have divided government. It's actually quite likely that this year's election will see democrats regain the senate but republicans keep the house, resulting in both parties winning and losing in different races.
In the OP's defense, the thread specifically asks which party will win the presidential election.
I know a couple Sanders-holdouts who are self-identified democrats. Or, rather, they were Sanders-holdouts last I checked with them, which was prior to yesterday's announcement from Sanders that he will be voting for Clinton.
As announcements go, not earth-shattering. He's been signaling support for Clinton for months, now. I'm actually surprised we didn't see a full-on endorsement last week. I'm sure that too will come, soon enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright everybody who's ready to HOLD! THAT! NOSE!
|
Without much of a struggle? That's refreshing. How do you figure? Earlier polls said "Trump is unelectable". From there, it has gone to "a few percent in favour of Clinton".
Sure, I hope Clinton will bag the election easily. But what has changed since?
Trump couldn't muster a majority of Republicans in the primary... and they're only ~23% of the total electorate. His nomination is an accident of history... the result of too many Republican candidates thinking they could be 'the one' and thus splitting the remotely sane vote half a dozen different ways while the batshit crazy wing just kept consolidating around the clear standout for their ideals.
The demographics of the general election are vastly different and stacked against ANY Republican candidate at this point... but Trump is especially screwed because women overall despise him. His only hope is that vast numbers of poorly educated older white males have been hiding out in the boondocks waiting for THIS election to finally go to the polls... while the vast number of eligible minority voters that we know haven't been voting continue to stay away. If that happens then he's got a shot. Otherwise, it ain't gonna happen short of an 'October surprise' catastrophe for the Clinton campaign.