2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

6,351 to 6,400 of 7,079 << first < prev | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

It truly depends on what the new emails say. If there is ubdisputable criminal evidence Secretary Clinton broke the law, especially pay to play of millions of dollars, I think Comey is safe. If there is not undisputable criminal evidence, he's toast.


Fergie wrote:
I think a vast amount of support for Democrats is really just opposition to Republicans, and vice versa. I think there is very little support for most politicians, beyond defeating their hated opponent. In other words, most people vote against their opponent, not for their candidate.

A look at favorability ratings proves this wrong. Hillary and Donald have historically low favorability ratings, but that is by no means common. I can assure you, plenty of Democrats and Independents loved Obama in his elections—even 2008.

Fergie wrote:
I think the Butt Plug Bunch got off because the people of Oregon, like much of the rest of the country, don't think the government is legit enough to be worth defending from conspiracies, nor capable of deciding who gets to carry guns where.

No. The majority of Oregonians hate Bundy and want him and his terrorist buddies behind bars. The problem is, that makes us "biased", according to the people who chose the jury this time. So all you get is the few people who are already skewed enough to the right to be "undecided".

Fergie wrote:
I think the Bundy's and the other "occupiers" are among the worst type of dangerous a-holes this country produces, but even I would have a difficult time judging them for conspiracy, and would probably let them off on the weapons charges.

They bulldozed Native American burial grounds. They scared and threatened federal employees. They were demonstrably guilty.


Ajaxis wrote:
It truly depends on what the new emails say. If there is ubdisputable criminal evidence Secretary Clinton broke the law, especially pay to play of millions of dollars, I think Comey is safe. If there is not undisputable criminal evidence, he's toast.

Well yeah, but there's little reason to think there is. I mean, sure, maybe this time it's finally the smoking gun that lays bare the criminal enterprise Clinton's been running for decades, but that's been promised in every investigation since Whitewater. This could be it, of course, but I wouldn't bet on it.

The argument that he's not toast goes more like: Any action she takes against him will look politically motivated, so she should leave him in place to avoid the bad PR. I think that misses the new reality - they'll drum up the bad PR no matter what. Leaving him in place means he was her pawn all along - remember the outrage over him deciding not to prosecute? If he stays and doesn't bring her down, he's covering up the secrets found in the emails. If she fires him, she's taking political revenge and covering up her crimes. There's no winning play. Might as well can him and install a crony, since that's what she'll be accused of anyway.

Edit: And toast of course means fired from his job and safe in a nice cosy position somewhere in a right wing think tank, lobbying firm or pundit job.


...Which might be circumvented if Obama reminds him of how he wants to spend time with his family - with Christmas coming! - on November 9th. XD

Though, aren't they usually appointed to, like, 10-year positions specifically so they can't be hired and fired at will?


Rednal wrote:

...Which might be circumvented if Obama reminds him of how he wants to spend time with his family - with Christmas coming! - on November 9th. XD

Though, aren't they usually appointed to, like, 10-year positions specifically so they can't be hired and fired at will?

As I understand it, it's a ten year position but they can be fired. It just raises the political stakes a bit to do so.

Unlike cabinet posts and other positions it's not supposed to be a political job where the new President gets to pick his team, but he's still an employee who can be replaced.

Of course, the other consideration is that the Senate has to confirm any replacement and is that a fight Clinton wants to pick right away? OTOH, a FBI director willing to use his agency to play political games is a serious threat. Remember Hoover?


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Almost certainly nothing at all.

From the article:

Quote:
his chances of at least making things very interesting may be as high as 1 to 3 percent — about the same as the odds of the Cubs’ coming back to beat the Giants on Monday.


Only 73 hours (or so) until this whole g!~!%*n thing is over.

Praise ORCUS!


The lord of the undead? He's busy being boring at the bottom of [Spoiler].

Praise Yidhra instead! \o wo/


Yidhra,

Nah. I'm going to praise Orcus since I still owe him like 60 billion souls.


So after the election and everyone gets their AHA's out of the way is it safe to call this thread dead?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, I dunno. We might want at least a few days to discuss the fallout and see how many things are on fire.

...

I might mean that literally.


Devon Northwood wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
Quote:
Trump is good at being born rich. Seriously. He inherited his entire fortune and would have been richer if he'd just sold the company and put the money into other peoples investments .
It’s Donald Trump’s fault he doesn’t have more money because he couldn’t see decades into the future?

Well...yes?!

If he is a successful businessman, that means he can invest money better than other people.

Actually no. Let’s review the definition of a businessperson

Quote:
A businessperson is someone involved in business - in particular someone undertaking activities (commercial or industrial) for the purpose of generating cash flow, sales, and revenue utilizing a combination of human, financial, intellectual and physical capital with a view to fuelling economic development and growth. An entrepreneur is an example of a businessperson. The term "businessperson" may refer to founder, owner, or majority shareholder of a business or it can also be used to describe a high-level executive who does the everyday running and management of a business even though the executive is not the owner.

Notice the word “invest” is nowhere to be found. A successful businessman is successful in running a business or building up a business or creating a business. Someone who can invest money better than other people is a skilled investor...

Quote:
An investor allocates capital with the expectation of a future financial return.[1] Types of investments include: equity, debt securities, real estate, currency, commodity, derivatives such as put and call options, futures, forwards, etc. This definition makes no distinction between those in the primary and secondary markets. That is, someone who provides a business with capital and someone who buys a stock are both investors.
randomwalker wrote:
And he can't, not if he is beaten by the index. No seeing-into-the-future involved.

Two different words, two different definitions, two different skill sets. Donald Trump claims he is skilled in “closing a deal”, not investing for a higher rate of return. Warren Buffet is the master of getting the highest rate of return. This whole argument is nothing but a bait-and-switch. And yes, they do have to assume Trump can see the future when they make this argument…I will use this article to show why.

Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Meh. Paris Hilton is objectively better at business than Trump is.

That article links to the following Fortune article which says

Quote:

Trump’s net worth has grown about 300% to an estimated $4 billion since 1987, according to a report by the Associated Press. But the real estate mogul would have made even more money if he had just invested in index funds. The AP says that, if Trump had invested in an index fund in 1988, his net worth would be as much as $13 billion. The S&P 500 has grown 1,336% since 1988.

If you are wondering why they chose 1988, that would be because there was a stock market crash in 1987. If Donald Trump had invested his entire net worth in 1987 instead of 1988, he might have ended up a lot poorer. It would depend on what he decided to do after the greatest one-day market crash in history. A lot of people were panicking then…

How exactly is Donald Trump supposed to know to start investing in the stock market in 1988 instead of 1987? Why not 1982? Why not 1976? Why not 1999? Either he has to learn a new skill set he never claimed to have, or he has to have precognitive abilities, or he has to have someone come back from the future and tell him when to invest all this money and where.

Not surprising he decided to stick with real estate and the Trump brand, things he knows.


randomwalker wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
Why would Comey be worried about leaks? Because Trump is keeping up the pressure, demanding justice. That is LEADERSHIP...

It may be called leadership, but to me it certainly doesn't sound like he wants justice. It looks exactly like he just wants her out of the way so he can grab power.

Shouting for someone to be imprisoned without a trial or even evidence is just sad. Doing so for obvious political gains is disgusting. And not questioning the motives of those shouting loudest is stupid.

:-(

Donald Trump promised to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton in that same debate. By definition, a prosecutor receives the evidence gathered by investigators, formulates charges based on that evidence(if any), and then presents that evidence at trial. He said she “should” be in jail, not that he would throw her in jail without trial or evidence.

cmastah wrote:

Isn't threatening to jail your opposition if you win undemocratic?

I meant attempting to intimidate your opponent with threats of jailing them should you win is not in the spirit of democracy. The reasons he cites are nonsense as all investigations against her have found nothing, if he jails her he'll be no different than democratically elected dictator.

If Trump were to win, and Hillary Clinton is put on trial and found guilty of breaking the law and then thrown in jail, that would not make Trump a dictator. That would simply mean Trump is enforcing the rule of law.

But if he were to break his promise and just throw her in jail without a trial, then yes that would make him a dictator.


Spastic Puma wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:

"Trump has shown us that you don’t need a billion dollars or more to run for President"

Really? REALLY? The guy who's a rich business man? The one who's entire identity revolves around making money and mastering the "art of the deal"? The guy who sticks his name on skyscrapers, steaks, vodka, etc. and whatever else he can (attempt) to make a profit off of? The one who owns his own private jets?
The guy who has used his own private real estate and transportation the entire campaign and paid for it using donation money so that it all gets funneled back into his company?

Yes really. If you don't believe me, . Hillary Clinton has raised over $1 billion, Donald Trump has half of that.

I will agree he “self-financed” his entire primary campaign, he did it with $56 million of his money and all that press coverage.
You are going to see people follow this route first with congressional races, both at the state and the federal level. There the overall monetary needs are lower. From there it will only be a matter of time before someone tries it for governor and then eventually president once again. By that time they will need a lot less than the $500 million of capital to make a presidential run, relying even further on social media and the networks than Trump did.

This still doesn't address the heart of my post. Trump's identity and claim to fame IS HIS WEALTH. He's a rich guy by anyone's definition.

You know it.
I know it.
Saying that Trump proves that you don't need to be rich to run for president is literally the most ludicrous example you could have chosen.

I didn’t say you don’t need to be rich, I said you don’t need a billion dollars. That was the conventional wisdom going into 2015, that you would need to raise and spend over $1 billion to become president.

Fundraising for the 2004 US presidential election: John Kerry $310 million George Bush $345 million

Fundraising for the 2008 US presidential election: Barack Obama $760 million John McCain $358 million

Fundraising for the 2012 US presidential election: Barack Obama $985 million Mitt Romney $992 million

The trend was clear. More and more politicians needed to look to billionaire sugar daddies to keep them well-funded and have any hope of being President. And people were demanding campaign finance reform, without any clear idea of exactly how this was going to be stopped.

Hillary Clinton continues the trend, she needed that $1 billion. But in a ludicrously ironic twist, a billionaire has bucked the trend, showing a new way to build a brand instead of being an empty suit for your billionaire backers. You can do more with less money if you have a message and you have a pre-built audience. Trump steamrolled his Republican rivals at 10 cents on the dollar. And now he has a good shot at winning the Presidency at half-price. If he gets the US Presidency back for the American people at half the price, that is a good deal from the guy who brought us The Art of the Deal.

Whether Trump wins or not(but especially if he wins), the billionaires are going to be demanding their paid flunkies collect more votes for less money. Even politicians have to adapt to the pressures of a competitive free market.


Coriat wrote:

Taxes/proposed additional item: In my previous post I was not following the nomenclature that BNW/you advanced, apologies if that confused my point. Attempting to use that nomenclature, it seems I should say that his plan involves a tax cut for all, plus additional tax breaks (most pertinently elimination of the estate tax and an enormous cut to the corporate tax rate) for the wealthy (which obviously is in large part made up of those who collect corporate profits). I'm willing to use these names, but I'm not seeing how changing the name makes this anything other than a win for the rich.

The upper middle class pays estate taxes, but not the 1%. The 1% use trusts to completely evade estate taxes. When Sam Walton, founder of Wal-mart, passed away, the government thought it was going to get a big payday. It got nothing.

Now corporate taxes…you got me on that one. If Trump cuts corporate taxes, some of the 1% are going to benefit. That is unavoidable if Trump is serious about making America great again and bringing business and industry back into the USA. Currently the corporate tax rates encourage businesses to keep as much money and investment overseas where they don’t have to pay the US taxes. Even though the rate is nominally 35%, it is effectively lower with corporations keeping profits overseas. I won’t argue that trickle-down economics is going to help poor people, only that corporate tax reductions are one way of bringing back American jobs. But yes that one will help billionaires too.

Quote:

1) Not disputing.

2) While I tend to agree that there is a decent chance of a recession in the next four years (under any conceivable candidate), it's not clear that it will be the type of severe recession that would prompt such enormous bailout pressure. Most recessions are milder. That said, this is kind of a dodge, so assuming that it is a severe recession, it's not clear to me why we wouldn't expect Trump to cut a deal for a bailout. I don't see where you show there is a link between his behavior in personal feuds (when attacked, counterattack) and what he would or would not do when facing a bailout question that has little to do with personal feuds and where he hasn't tied himself strongly to any particular outcome in advance.

Wall Street is heavily invested in a Clinton victory

The donations to each candidate show where Wall Street thinks the candidates sympathies are..
Hillary $65,000,000
Trump $716,407

Trump has collected just 1% of the total Hillary collected from the traders and bankers. That is the most evidence I can show you, unless Trump wins. If so, his Treasury Secretary pick will either discredit or strengthen my claim.

Quote:
3) I think you've got rose-tinted glasses on and are interpreting those personal feuds with some wealthy/powerful people as a battle against wealth and power. I'm not sure you've presented a convincing reason to agree with you - on billionaires in the cabinet, for example, your argument seems to basically boil down to "I'll interpret him as being this way because this is the way I hope that he would be." If you take off the rose-tinted glasses, big tax breaks (to use correct nomenclature?) for the wealthy and billionaires in the Cabinet is a damn weird way to go about hobbling the billionaire class.

Yes I am wearing rose-tinted glasses when it comes to Trump, guilty as charged. We all have it for our preferred candidate, confirmation bias.

So let me try and take the glasses off as best I can, and address your point.

First his personal feuds have gone way beyond personal, he has established a stark contrast this election. It is Donald Trump and his supporters versus the “political establishment.” His latest ad can be viewed here, and it keeps hammering that message home. And the ad isn’t just attacking the Clintons and the Democratic party, it attacks Janet Yellen and the Federal Reserve, it attacks George Soros, it attacks the G20 central bank governors, it attacks NAFTA, and it attacks TPP.

Donald Trump has permanently burned his bridges with the global elite and with the political establishment. They will never stop hating him for what he has done. Every single US presidential election since 1912 has had both the Democratic and Republican party candidates vetted and approved by the political establishment and the 1% with the sole exceptions of Barry Goldwater and Donald Trump. This may be the only election in our lifetimes where we can vote for someone whom the political establishment hates and despises that is in one of the two main parties.

Going back to the presidential cabinet, I should explain why I don’t consider it important beyond a few key appointments which symbolically(such as Treasury Secretary) show what direction Trump is going to take. That is because, IMO, it is impossible for the President to effect change with his(or her) appointments.

All the appointments a President makes are found in the Plum Book. That amounts to between 4000-5000+ people, mostly heads of federal departments, directors and top deputies of federal agencies, members of federal commissions, and heads of regulatory agencies. First, it is impossible to know that many people, let alone manage them. If you appoint 10 people a day, it still takes over a year to fill all the positions. And once they have the job, it will take six months to get up to speed. So that means some departments won’t see anyone new until halfway through the first Presidential term.

And now we come to the biggest problem…the bureaucracy is entrenched to make sure it serves the interests of the bureaucrats who already work there…NOT the President or the Presidential appointee who just arrived and will be gone in a year or two or three. Civil service law means the bureaucrats can’t be fired. How do you effect change when you can’t fire the entrenched bureaucracy if it refuses to change? You can’t. Oh, and anyone the President appoints has to be willing to move to DC for at least two years and presumably relocate their family and rent out their current house if they own it. Not many people want to do that, so you have a limited pool of people you can appoint, many beltway types already in DC who drift in and out of government their whole lives and are part of the problem.

So, to be fair, I need to come up with a substitute for what Trump can do to show he is on the side of Ordinary Joe Schmoes when he gets in office, and how he can get their input. What he has to do is keep his direct social media channels open with his voters, and keep them involved with his legislative initiatives. Now the President can’t legislate, he can only ask Congress to pass laws. So Trump will have to use his communication channels to get the people to lobby their congressional representatives for his legislative agenda. Those in Congress who give him a hard time will need to have their feet held to the fire. One thing true for all politicians, “when they feel the heat, they see the light.” First said by a very effective lobbyist.

And this also gives Trump feedback on what people really want. If he can’t get them pushing hard against their own congress rep, then that isn’t the law he should be pushing to have enacted. Congress can affect those entrenched bureaucrats, with budget cuts. Pulling money out of departments that have too much(like the Pentagon) and giving it to other departments will enable Trump to get the bureaucrats fighting for him instead of against him. If the Pentagon loses budget dollars to the National Park Service, those NPS bureaucrats will fight more savagely than Navy Seals to preserve their bigger budget even after Trump leaves office.

So that is what Trump has to set up and implement to show he is going to listen to Ordinary Joe Schmoes, if he wins. If he doesn’t do that, his presidency will likely end in failure. And if the voters lose interest, which is actually likely considering most Americans only like to get hyped up about politics once every four years, then Trump will still likely fail. He can’t succeed in office without the people who put him there continuing to help him succeed.

Is he going to actually do this? No idea, but that is how he can keep the promise he makes in that ad.


Jaçinto wrote:
Has anyone here actually claimed Trump was any good? Hillary sucks but come on, so does Trump.

Yes, I am claiming Trump is good. Well, that he is doing some objective good running for President. If you are asking if I think Trump is a good person, I can’t exactly say that. But you can quote me in saying that I firmly believe Donald Trump is not 100% a…

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Rednal wrote:
Though, aren't they usually appointed to, like, 10-year positions specifically so they can't be hired and fired at will?

After Hoover, Congress put a ten year term limit in place. The intent was primarily to prevent the kind of abuses Hoover engaged in, but it theoretically also made it harder to replace directors on a whim.

That said, the only FBI Director to serve a full ten year term was Robert Mueller... who actually got a congressional extension to 12 years.

So... still not all that difficult to replace them.

I'd say Comey's best shot to remain in place would be to actually find and fire the FBI leakers. Technically it is the OSC's job to investigate Hatch Act violations, but Comey could certainly get them on violating various FBI protocols. While he is at it he should question Giuliani and then prosecute him for lying to the FBI... that guy changes his story so often you need a flowchart to keep track.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
NPC Dave wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
Has anyone here actually claimed Trump was any good? Hillary sucks but come on, so does Trump.

Yes, I am claiming Trump is good. Well, that he is doing some objective good running for President. If you are asking if I think Trump is a good person, I can’t exactly say that. But you can quote me in saying that I firmly believe Donald Trump is not 100% a…

Ok. What? What, precisely, has Trump done that is objectively good runnign for President?


Forget fear and loathing. The US election inspires projectile vomiting--Barbara Ehrenreich


2 people marked this as a favorite.

An elector from Washington State has said he won't vote for Clinton no matter what. It'll be interesting to see if he gets removed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
NPC Dave wrote:


I didn’t say you don’t need to be rich, I said you don’t need a billion dollars. That was the conventional wisdom going into 2015, that you would need to raise and spend over $1 billion to become president.

Fundraising for the 2004 US presidential election: John...

You're right! You don't need a billion dollars! You just need a fleet of your own private jets and a hotel empire you can stay at. For free! Oh, wait -- not for free. For profit!

Yeah, I really don't see where you're going with this. If your point is, "Hilary has spent more" than yeah, that's apparent to anyone. But my issue with your posts is that you are ignoring the context of the way he has run his campaign (and more importantly) how he came to be a public figure in the first place. His "free" media coverage stemmed from his celebrity status (a trait that isn't something you can simply acquire on a political track) and by continually shocking the public with how bigoted he could be (a trait NO politician should ever have). No matter how you look at it, Donald Trump IS NOT suitable poster child for grass roots campaigning on any level.

So if your point is that Trump has proven that you don't have to look to billionaires to fund your campaign (even though they did) anymore, that point comes with a major limitation: You just have to be one.

Oh, and you probably won't win. Just like McCain in the 2008 election who only raised half as much money. So the status quo of "who raises the most money, wins" still continues.

The only trail that Trump is blazing is a frightening and, frankly, embarrassing one that I hope is never followed in the future of US politics.

Sovereign Court

PRAISE RAZMIR!


NPC Dave wrote:
Coriat wrote:

Taxes/proposed additional item: In my previous post I was not following the nomenclature that BNW/you advanced, apologies if that confused my point. Attempting to use that nomenclature, it seems I should say that his plan involves a tax cut for all, plus additional tax breaks (most pertinently elimination of the estate tax and an enormous cut to the corporate tax rate) for the wealthy (which obviously is in large part made up of those who collect corporate profits). I'm willing to use these names, but I'm not seeing how changing the name makes this anything other than a win for the rich.

The upper middle class pays estate taxes, but not the 1%. The 1% use trusts to completely evade estate taxes. When Sam Walton, founder of Wal-mart, passed away, the government thought it was going to get a big payday. It got nothing.

Now corporate taxes…you got me on that one. If Trump cuts corporate taxes, some of the 1% are going to benefit. That is unavoidable if Trump is serious about making America great again and bringing business and industry back into the USA. Currently the corporate tax rates encourage businesses to keep as much money and investment overseas where they don’t have to pay the US taxes. Even though the rate is nominally 35%, it is effectively lower with corporations keeping profits overseas. I won’t argue that trickle-down economics is going to help poor people, only that corporate tax reductions are one way of bringing back American jobs. But yes that one will help billionaires too.

Quote:

1) Not disputing.

2) While I tend to agree that there is a decent chance of a recession in the next four years (under any conceivable candidate), it's not clear that it will be the type of severe recession that would prompt such enormous bailout pressure. Most recessions are milder. That said, this is kind of a dodge, so assuming that it is a severe recession, it's not clear to me why we wouldn't expect Trump to cut a deal for a bailout. I don't see where you show there is a link between his behavior in personal feuds (when attacked, counterattack) and what he would or would not do when facing a bailout question that has little to do with personal feuds and where he hasn't tied himself strongly to any particular outcome in advance.

Wall Street is heavily invested in a Clinton victory

The donations to each candidate show where Wall Street thinks the candidates sympathies are..
Hillary $65,000,000
Trump $716,407

Trump has collected just 1% of the total Hillary collected from the traders and bankers. That is the most evidence I can show you, unless Trump wins. If so, his Treasury Secretary pick will either discredit or strengthen my claim.

Quote:
3) I think you've got rose-tinted glasses on and are interpreting those personal feuds with some wealthy/powerful people as a battle against wealth and power. I'm not sure you've presented a convincing reason to agree with you - on billionaires in the cabinet, for example, your argument seems to basically boil down to "I'll interpret him as being this way because this is the way I hope that he would be." If you take off the rose-tinted glasses, big tax breaks (to use correct nomenclature?) for the wealthy and billionaires in the Cabinet is a damn weird way to go about hobbling the billionaire class.

Yes I am wearing rose-tinted glasses when it comes to Trump, guilty as charged. We all have it for our preferred candidate, confirmation bias.

So let me try and take the glasses off as best I can, and address your point.

First his personal feuds have gone way beyond personal, he has established a stark contrast this election. It is Donald Trump and his supporters versus the “political establishment.” His latest ad can be viewed here, and it keeps hammering that message home. And the ad isn’t just attacking the Clintons and the Democratic party, it attacks Janet Yellen and the Federal Reserve, it attacks George Soros, it attacks the G20 central bank governors, it attacks NAFTA, and it attacks TPP.

Donald Trump has permanently burned his bridges with the global elite and with the political establishment. They will never stop hating him for what he has done. Every single US presidential election since 1912 has had both the Democratic and Republican party candidates vetted and approved by the political establishment and the 1% with the sole exceptions of Barry Goldwater and Donald Trump. This may be the only election in our lifetimes where we can vote for someone whom the political establishment hates and despises that is in one of the two main parties.

Going back to the presidential cabinet, I should explain why I don’t consider it important beyond a few key appointments which symbolically(such as Treasury Secretary) show what direction Trump is going to take. That is because, IMO, it is impossible for the President to effect change with his(or her) appointments.

All the appointments a President makes are found in the Plum Book. That amounts to between 4000-5000+ people, mostly heads of federal departments, directors and top deputies of federal agencies, members of federal commissions, and heads of regulatory agencies. First, it is impossible to know that many people, let alone manage them. If you appoint 10 people a day, it still takes over a year to fill all the positions. And once they have the job, it will take six months to get up to speed. So that means some departments won’t see anyone new until halfway through the first Presidential term.

And now we come to the biggest problem…the bureaucracy is entrenched to make sure it serves the interests of the bureaucrats who already work there…NOT the President or the Presidential appointee who just arrived and will be gone in a year or two or three. Civil service law means the bureaucrats can’t be fired. How do you effect change when you can’t fire the entrenched bureaucracy if it refuses to change? You can’t. Oh, and anyone the President appoints has to be willing to move to DC for at least two years and presumably relocate their family and rent out their current house if they own it. Not many people want to do that, so you have a limited pool of people you can appoint, many beltway types already in DC who drift in and out of government their whole lives and are part of the problem.

So, to be fair, I need to come up with a substitute for what Trump can do to show he is on the side of Ordinary Joe Schmoes when he gets in office, and how he can get their input. What he has to do is keep his direct social media channels open with his voters, and keep them involved with his legislative initiatives. Now the President can’t legislate, he can only ask Congress to pass laws. So Trump will have to use his communication channels to get the people to lobby their congressional representatives for his legislative agenda. Those in Congress who give him a hard time will need to have their feet held to the fire. One thing true for all politicians, “when they feel the heat, they see the light.” First said by a very effective lobbyist.

And this also gives Trump feedback on what people really want. If he can’t get them pushing hard against their own congress rep, then that isn’t the law he should be pushing to have enacted. Congress can affect those entrenched bureaucrats, with budget cuts. Pulling money out of departments that have too much(like the Pentagon) and giving it to other departments will enable Trump to get the bureaucrats fighting for him instead of against him. If the Pentagon loses budget dollars to the National Park Service, those NPS bureaucrats will fight more savagely than Navy Seals to preserve their bigger budget even after Trump leaves office.

So that is what Trump has to set up and implement to show he is going to listen to Ordinary Joe Schmoes, if he wins. If he doesn’t do that, his presidency will likely end in failure. And if the voters lose interest, which is actually likely considering most Americans only like to get hyped up about politics once every four years, then Trump will still likely fail. He can’t succeed in office without the people who put him there continuing to help him succeed.

Is he going to actually do this? No idea, but that is how he can keep the promise he makes in that ad.

Taxes): It seems we've mostly reached agreement that overall Trump is putting pro-rich stuff on the table here. I have a little more discussion about details, though.

Estate taxes - I think there's an error of fact here, about the upper middle class paying estate taxes. The estate tax cutoff is about $5 million individual or $10 million couple. Net worth by wealth percentile. "Top 1%" and "people rich enough to worry about estate taxes" don't exactly overlap (it might be top 1.5%?), and I'm not sure I totally understand the details, but it seems close enough for my lights.

Second, even if they currently have ways available to lessen or even dodge their estate tax liability, completely scrapping it is still a pro-rich move, and really nothing but a pro-rich move. Even the very article you linked about how the Waltons found ways around the estate tax also said that they were funding efforts to repeal it (I'm sure they would like to be free of the restrictions and trust limitations involved in getting around it).

If Trump is fighting the same fight as they are, then Trump is serving the interests of his own class here.

Corporate taxes - Nothing much to debate since we've agreed on the overall picture. To discuss one detail, I think the place where a company chooses to have its HQ isn't necessarily going to correspond with where it does its manufacturing/production/whatever. All those companies headquartered in tax havens probably don't do their actual work there - actual work probably is more strongly determined by stuff like how low wages are or how high productivity is. So cutting the tax rate to bring back the HQs from the Caymans and such seems at best a dubious approach to grabbing manufacturing jobs from China.

1) Not disputing.

2) Some Google research suggests you might be working off bad information re: Wall street giving numbers. I'm not sure what the source for your numbers is, but I think it'd be worth you giving it a second look.

Old news, but it's nowhere near the above numbers.

In fact, I found reporting on a single fundraising dinner for Trump from Wall Streeters that raised more than that.

I found a second (later) WSJ article that stated numbers in the low thousands despite the first article's much larger numbers. Since the amount of money he's raised can't go down over time, it makes me think that there may be some creative accounting going on here. For instance, funneling Wall Street donations to an affiliated organization (such as a super PAC) so that they don't show up direct on the campaign's books. Maybe the first article was reporting on total pro-Trump donations and the second is reporting on an organization-specific line item.

I'm not sure what to make of it, except to think that it may be a case of lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I'd be willing to accept that Clinton has an advantage (although not that it is necessarily tied to bailout support - I'd probably link it most of all to Wall Street fears of a trade war, which means it should fall under issue 1). But it doesn't seem like those numbers are plausible. Depending on where you got them, it might be a case of a bogus source. Or possibly a real source credulously reporting statistics that were massaged further up the chain.

God knows there's a lot of ways to hide where political money comes from these days.

3) Hey, I thought you said you were going to try to take off the rose-tinted glasses! :p That list sure isn't!

I mean, you're saying stuff like "pulling money out of departments that have too much (like the Pentagon) and giving it to other departments."

Non-rose-tinted Trump isn't on the same page at all: Trump calls for massive military buildup.

Taking something that the candidate has said he wants to do, and replacing them with something very different that you'd want him to do, and proposing he could do that as a reason to support him... that's nothing but rose.

I do agree that I likely have my own confirmation biases and my own shades of rose on various issues. I try to guard against them, probably with mixed success at best.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NPC Dave wrote:

A businessperson is someone involved in business - in particular someone undertaking activities (commercial or industrial) for the purpose of generating cash flow, sales, and revenue utilizing a combination of human, financial, intellectual and physical capital with a view to fuelling economic development and growth. An entrepreneur is an example of a businessperson. The term "businessperson" may refer to founder, owner, or majority shareholder of a business or it can also be used to describe a high-level executive who does the everyday running and management of a business even though the executive is not the owner.

Notice the word “invest” is nowhere to be found

There's the idea of it. You are not rules lawyering Donald Trump into a financial genius or accusing others of bait and switch because you picked a definition that didn't have the EXACT term that someone else used even when YOUR OWN SOURCE has the idea there as plain as day.

NPC Dave wrote:
And yes, they do have to assume Trump can see the future when they make this argument…I will use this article to show why.

Trump’s net worth has grown about 300% to an estimated $4 billion since 1987

Plugging that into a compound interest calculator shows that thats a 4% compound interest rate per year, which is terrible. Almost putting your money in the bank level bad.

He's cheating at the game and he STILL sucks at it.


Yes, kindergartners picking random stocks would have made more money than Trump.

Can we elect a class of kindergartners as president?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No. The 3 a.m. phone call would be past their bedtime.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Still a better choice than Trump.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

2) Some Google research suggests you might be working off bad information re: Wall street giving numbers. I'm not sure what the source for your numbers is, but I think it'd be worth you giving it a second look.

Old news, but it's nowhere near the above numbers.

In fact, I found reporting on a single fundraising dinner for Trump from Wall Streeters that raised more than that.

I found a second (later) WSJ article that stated numbers in the low thousands despite the first article's much larger numbers. Since the amount of money he's raised can't go down over time, it makes me think that there may be some creative accounting going on here. For instance, funneling Wall Street donations to an affiliated organization (such as a super PAC) so that they don't show up direct on the campaign's books. Maybe the first article was reporting on total pro-Trump donations and the second is reporting on an organization-specific line item.

Subsequent closer reading indicates this is exactly what's happening.

Article from June that I linked earlier but didn't read closely enough until now wrote:
That is set to change. In recent weeks, Wall Street has emerged as a top source of cash to Mr. Trump’s campaign, donating at least $10 million this month to his joint fund with the Republican National Committee. Of that, a fraction will be transferred directly to his campaign because of federal donation limits.

In other words, Wall Street millions did head his way and were spent to elect him (even if not as many millions as Clinton, I'm not sure), but the source of the money can be obscured via accounting since one line item can be kept low (and pointed to) while the money actually flows into a different line item.


Nation’s Still-Undecided Voters: ‘Help, We Can’t Get Our Car Seatbelts Off’

Dark Archive

NPC Dave wrote:
Devon Northwood wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
Quote:
Trump is good at being born rich. Seriously. He inherited his entire fortune and would have been richer if he'd just sold the company and put the money into other peoples investments .
It’s Donald Trump’s fault he doesn’t have more money because he couldn’t see decades into the future?

Well...yes?!

If he is a successful businessman, that means he can invest money better than other people.
Actually no.

Then what is a sucessful businessman for you? What are YOUR criteria?

Look, we can play the word-game all day long, but the fact of the matter is that everybody here knows what is meant. So since you do not accept my way of qualifying a good businessman, what is yours? Because it is your side that put the whole point on the agenda. Trump is the one who started the whole "sucessfull businessman"-meme.

NPC Dave wrote:

Fundraising for the 2004 US presidential election: John Kerry $310 million George Bush $345 million

Fundraising for the 2008 US presidential election: Barack Obama $760 million John McCain $358 million
Fundraising for the 2012 US presidential election: Barack Obama $985 million Mitt Romney $992 million
The trend was clear. More and more politicians needed to look to billionaire sugar daddies to keep them well-funded and have any hope of being President. And people were demanding campaign finance reform, without any clear idea of exactly how this was going to be stopped.

The fact that you are talking about the financial side of the last few elections without talking about dark money and SUPER-PACs shows to me that you have not fully understood what the point of campaign finance reform is. See, you talk about Hillary Clinton being financed by Wall Street, and ... maybe she is. Maybe not.

We. Don't. Know.
And the reason we don't know is Citizens United, something that Trump does not want to change. Indeed, as was pointed out before, his plattform is to double down on dark money and preventing transperancy in campain finances. How is that a good thing? How is the fact that social media helps you get elected, a trend starting with Obamas 2008 run, change the existence of dark money?

NPC Dave wrote:

First his personal feuds have gone way beyond personal, he has established a stark contrast this election. It is Donald Trump and his supporters versus the “political establishment.” His latest ad can be viewed here, and it keeps hammering that message home. (...)

Donald Trump has permanently burned his bridges with the global elite and with the political establishment. They will never stop hating him for what he has done.

What does that even mean? So, he was a bully towards Jeb Bush. Does that change the fact that the Bush-family pays less taxes proportially then a cleaning lady? You might as well throw tomatoes at H.W. and tell yourself that he will never get the red stain out of his clothes, but that would not chance the SYSTEM. Tomorrow, there will be new rich men with new clothes.

Donald Trump has promised many things, but that is the entire point: He has not delivered. He wants to build a wall, yet he does not tell us how. He wants to fight crime, but he does not let us see his "secret plan, from an anonymus police officer". What you are telling us is entirely what you WANT him to do. As Coriat already said: You tell us that he will pull money away from the military, he says that he will give them more. Even if you believe that the rich don't pay taxes, why does he fight that problem by decreasing taxes for the rich? When people get away with crime, the answer is not "well, let's make crime legal".


Quote:
What does that even mean?

This is what he means.


Oh hey! voter intimidation


MannyGoblin wrote:
Oh hey! voter intimidation

I think that may fall more on the dumbass end of the spectrum than an attempt to intimidate - he's former law enforcement and carries his weapon as a matter of daily routine and probably forgot it was unusual for people not in uniform.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
MannyGoblin wrote:
Oh hey! voter intimidation
I think that may fall more on the dumbass end of the spectrum than an attempt to intimidate - he's former law enforcement and carries his weapon as a matter of daily routine and probably forgot it was unusual for people not in uniform.

Also, when asked he covered the gun to prevent it being quite so intimidating. On the other hand, given all the fuss the GOP made about a black guy with a nightstick in 2008...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Paul Watson wrote:


Also, when asked he covered the gun to prevent it being quite so intimidating. On the other hand, given all the fuss the GOP made about a black guy with a nightstick in 2008...

Black people with sticks are intimidating but white people with guns are obviously law abiding good guy citizens.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

@NPC Dave: From what I can tell... Trump's good at talking in a way that makes people believe he's saying what they want to hear, even when he's giving no specifics and his 'plans' are wildly unlikely even at best. He doesn't tell you WHAT he'll do, just that it will be "great", the "best ever". He slams people with those kinds of unsupported positive words over and over until they start believing him, often because they imagine what 'great' is like and assume that's what he means. He projects onto others, and in turn, gets his supporters to project onto him.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
MannyGoblin wrote:
Oh hey! voter intimidation
I think that may fall more on the dumbass end of the spectrum than an attempt to intimidate - he's former law enforcement and carries his weapon as a matter of daily routine and probably forgot it was unusual for people not in uniform.
Quote:
“He’s like, ‘Who are you going to vote for, crooked Hillary?’ And I was like, that’s really none of your business,” Cotti said, adding that the man was standing in the sidewalk outside of the office when they left and blocking their path.

Still seems pretty shady even without the gun.


NPC Dave wrote:
Hillary Clinton continues the trend, she needed that $1 billion. But in a ludicrously ironic twist, a billionaire has bucked the trend, showing a new way to build a brand instead of being an empty suit for your billionaire backers. You can do more with less money if you have a message and you have a pre-built audience. Trump steamrolled his Republican rivals at 10 cents on the dollar. And now he has a good shot at winning the Presidency at half-price. If he gets the US Presidency back for the American people at half the price, that is a good deal from the guy who brought us The Art of the Deal.

Like many, the poster seems to ignore the free advertising and constant publicity that the media empires showered upon, nay fawned upon Trump, was easily worth more than a billion dollars of advertising.

And yeah, he has his own billionaire backers too. He's also gouging his own campaign to rent Trump-owned facilities which means that much of what the campaign is raising is going into his own pockets.

It's definitely gone too far when your campaign has become your own personal piggy bank.


Knight who says Meh wrote:


Still seems pretty shady even without the gun.

He's stumping the required 40ish feet away, which he's allowed to do. Free speach and all that


Ajaxis wrote:
It truly depends on what the new emails say. If there is ubdisputable criminal evidence Secretary Clinton broke the law, especially pay to play of millions of dollars, I think Comey is safe. If there is not undisputable criminal evidence, he's toast.

So far there hasn't been any evidence found in ANY of the emails released. They haven't even been examined. They won't be until after the election. I believe the perception is that they'll do far more damage to Clinton unlooked at lest we find out that they're really one more Capone Vault for this witchhunt.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:


Still seems pretty shady even without the gun.
He's stumping the required 40ish feet away, which he's allowed to do. Free speach and all that

Yeah, there's no way a 357 Mangum can make a shot at that range. [/sarcasm]


Spastic Puma wrote:

The only trail that Trump is blazing is a frightening and, frankly, embarrassing one that I hope is never followed in the future of US politics.

Win or lose Trump IS the face of US Politics for the forseeable future. The American electorate was not this divided in the worst years of Vietnam.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Ajaxis wrote:
It truly depends on what the new emails say. If there is ubdisputable criminal evidence Secretary Clinton broke the law, especially pay to play of millions of dollars, I think Comey is safe. If there is not undisputable criminal evidence, he's toast.
So far there hasn't been any evidence found in ANY of the emails released. They haven't even been examined. They won't be until after the election. I believe the perception is that they'll do far more damage to Clinton unlooked at lest we find out that they're really one more Capone Vault for this witchhunt.

Apparently they are looking at them and have determined at least that some are emails they haven't seen before. No smoking guns yet though.


Rysky wrote:
Yeah, there's no way a 357 Mangum can make a shot at that range. [/sarcasm]

Which is why i said idiot. He's a gun person, he always has his gun on him the same way i usually have a knife in my pocket , he doesn't think there's anything odd about campaigning, or campaigning with a gun. I'd like to use his head to look for tachyon particles but i don't think he was trying to scare anyone


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Yeah, there's no way a 357 Mangum can make a shot at that range. [/sarcasm]

Which is why i said idiot. He's a gun person, he always has his gun on him the same way i usually have a knife in my pocket , he doesn't think there's anything odd about campaigning, or campaigning with a gun. I'd like to use his head to look for tachyon particles but i don't think he was trying to scare anyone

Maybe but you're responsible for not being a scary idiot. You're responsible for understanding norms and for understanding how people will perceive you and react to you, especially if you're around the polls during this troublous and jittery election cycle, whether or not you think it's reasonable. Also the law is a minimal standard of behavior. If the law says 40 ft and you say "I'm 41 ft away, my right!" you're being a jerk. You're being antisocial. It's not OK.

Sovereign Court

Rysky wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:


Still seems pretty shady even without the gun.
He's stumping the required 40ish feet away, which he's allowed to do. Free speach and all that
Yeah, there's no way a 357 Mangum can make a shot at that range. [/sarcasm]

You'd be surprised how often people miss at 21ft with a .357. I recall this line from George Romaro's Dawn of the Dead, "the only sucka who could miss with this (gun), is the brother with enough bread to buy it!"


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Seen floating around the internets: This will be remembered as the election where the KGB, the KKK and the FBI all supported the same candidate.


thejeff wrote:
Seen floating around the internets: This will be remembered as the election where the KGB, the KKK and the FBI all supported the same candidate.

It's not clear that the FBI as on a whole is going for Trump as opposed to a few particular agents and possibly the Director.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

So despite the strong evidence that Clinton is going to win this thing, and likely bring along a Senate majority, I have been forcing myself to contemplate what a Trump presidency might be like.

Best case scenario, once in office he might abandon all the ridiculous things he has said (force Mexico to build a wall, ban Muslims, nationwide stop and frisk, MORE police militarization, et cetera) and we'll have four years of merely horrific congressional GOP rule. In such case, I'd expect his loving masses would become disillusioned and not come out in large numbers for 2020... making him likely a one term president.

The other extreme is that he really meant everything he said and we'll have increasing police and FBI abuses against blacks, latinos, muslims, and (to a lesser extent) citizens in general... increasingly nasty relations with Mexico... Roe v Wade overturned... massive tax cuts for the wealthiest... the US acting as a rogue state on climate change... abandoning our NATO allies... health costs spiraling out of control as millions lose coverage... et cetera. In short, the most disastrous presidency in history. Again... one term president, but having set the country back decades rather than merely years.

Maybe he can find some middle ground where he keeps his base happy while not driving the country into ruin and gets two terms, but that would require eight years of enough bad policy that he'd guarantee the GOP never wins the latino or women vote again (they've already permanently lost African americans).

Any way you slice it... going to be VERY difficult for another Republican to win any time soon if Trump becomes president. Thus, I am hopeful that this is the last gasp of overt bigotry in our nation's politics for some time to come. Hopefully it fails and we move forward as a more 'grown up' nation... but even if the 'deplorables' succeed one more time, it is likely to be their last. They are dying out and being replaced by a more multi-cultural populace.


CBDunkerson wrote:

So despite the strong evidence that Clinton is going to win this thing, and likely bring along a Senate majority, I have been forcing myself to contemplate what a Trump presidency might be like.

Best case scenario, once in office he might abandon all the ridiculous things he has said (force Mexico to build a wall, ban Muslims, nationwide stop and frisk, MORE police militarization, et cetera) and we'll have four years of merely horrific congressional GOP rule. In such case, I'd expect his loving masses would become disillusioned and not come out in large numbers for 2020... making him likely a one term president.

The other extreme is that he really meant everything he said and we'll have increasing police and FBI abuses against blacks, latinos, muslims, and (to a lesser extent) citizens in general... increasingly nasty relations with Mexico... Roe v Wade overturned... massive tax cuts for the wealthiest... the US acting as a rogue state on climate change... abandoning our NATO allies... health costs spiraling out of control as millions lose coverage... et cetera. In short, the most disastrous presidency in history. Again... one term president, but having set the country back decades rather than merely years.

Maybe he can find some middle ground where he keeps his base happy while not driving the country into ruin and gets two terms, but that would require eight years of enough bad policy that he'd guarantee the GOP never wins the latino or women vote again (they've already permanently lost African americans).

Any way you slice it... going to be VERY difficult for another Republican to win any time soon if Trump becomes president. Thus, I am hopeful that this is the last gasp of overt bigotry in our nation's politics for some time to come. Hopefully it fails and we move forward as a more 'grown up' nation... but even if the 'deplorables' succeed one more time, it is likely to be their last. They are dying out and being replaced by a more multi-cultural populace.

This argument has prompted me to consider the one choice I had long since discounted:

Canceling Dynasty 2.0: You have to give the Republicans credit, they dispatched their political family by the South Carolina primary. The Democrats were not so lucky. There are over 300 million people in the United States, yet a Bush or a Clinton has occupied the Oval Office for 20 of the past 28 years. If Hillary wins and serves a full term, it’ll be 24 of the past 32.

Liberals who can’t bring themselves to vote for Hillary have three options: stay home, vote for a third party, or, dare I suggest, vote for Trump.

Doing the one of the first two might clean your conscience but doing the latter could potentially clear the Clinton machine out of the Democratic Party, allowing the new leadership to focus on the issues they care about instead of protecting the political interests of the political family that just won’t go away.

6,351 to 6,400 of 7,079 << first < prev | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards