US Elections 2016 Part II: The Debates & General Election

[Urzu 7]

^

Sadly Trump gets away with just about any crap he pulls. His supporters just don't care what he says or does.

Only until recent weeks did his ways start to hurt him in the polls, and it took things such as insulting a gold star military family to do it. He has done and said probably like 500 things that would be political suicide to anyone else, but with him, he is still in the general election, although not doing well in the polls. On one hand, it is impressive, on the other hand, it is all so absurd that this orange turd gets the support he does and has gotten this far.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

For all what is said about Hillary's interactions with lobbyists, political and Clinton Foundation donors and business interests while serving as secretary of state, I'm surprised that there are not many "vultures" diving on what is quite a juicy piece of meat regarding Drumpf and Manafort's business with Oleg Deripaska.



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us...rump.html?_r=0

Democrats can and should use that piece of meat to launch a full-scale attack by openly speculating as to why Drumpf doesn't release his tax returns. On a strategic (not in the military sense though) point of view, it would be the perfect kind of solid counterweight to whatever talk is made about the e-mails.

Well, if some people can go after e-mails, then I'm sure some people can also go after those physical files.

the Russian stuff still feels a bit out there in conspiracy arena. The Dems will focus on Trumps tax and his small assets. But will leave the Russians thing along till there is clear evidence.

that is till after election when Madam President Clinton announce 20k US troops will be sent to US military base in the Baltic states.

[yulinard]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

^

Sadly Trump gets away with just about any crap he pulls. His supporters just don't care what he says or does.

Only until recent weeks did his ways start to hurt him in the polls, and it took things such as insulting a gold star military family to do it. He has done and said probably like 500 things that would be political suicide to anyone else, but with him, he is still in the general election, although not doing well in the polls. On one hand, it is impressive, on the other hand, it is all so absurd that this orange turd gets the support he does and has gotten this far.

For your kind maybe.

For Trump supporter Khan sold his dead son to Clinton so she allow more people who kill his son into the country.

Tax return? My first exposure to how 1% think is when I read Robert Kiyosaki books back in high school. All billionaire do this including many of Clinton supporter.

He would commit political suicide if he pandering too much to those outside his base.

[AnimeFan188]

Does WikiLeaks Have Hillary Clinton’s October Surprise?:

"The New York Times reports that in the latest release of Clinton
documents, billionaire donors to the Clinton Foundation tried to curry
favors from a responsive State Department when Hillary Clinton was U.S.
secretary of State. That gambit is known as the “pay-to-play” scandal.
Give the foundation a big fat donation, and Hillary will open whatever
door you need opened. In fact, as secretary, she approved a now-famous
deal that granted the Russians control over 20 percent of uranium
production here in the United States."


"If Assange is getting his material from Russia and sabotaging Hillary’s
campaign, that takes the pending releases up a whole bunch of notches.
It means a prickly and powerful adversary is trying to rig our presidential
election, and that’s unaccaptable."

See:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/15/...ober-surprise/

&

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us...t-overlap.html

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by AnimeFan188

"If Assange is getting his material from Russia and sabotaging Hillary’s campaign, that takes the pending releases up a whole bunch of notches. It means a prickly and powerful adversary is trying to rig our presidential election, and that’s unaccaptable."

Still can't understand this argument.

I means if US agency expose a propaganda/ scandal of a foreign government and affect that country election. Then is it US government fault for 'rigging' that country election, or for that country to be so corrupted and lack of transparency?

Literally just Red Scare 101. And frankly I am now afraid of WW3 just for the lack of accountability, and that the Democrats are blaming everything, including their own scandal and incompetence on Russia. God forbid another 9/11 happens and the US blame Russia for leaking intelligence to terrorists or whatever

Frankly, I hope some hackers can hack and releases all of Hillary deleted email, all of the secrets dealing of her foundations, all of DNC and RNC communications, all of Trump tax return, including net worth and whatever he has been hiding under his hair. Just so people can wake up and revolve against this lesser of 2 evils bs

Edit: on another topic: Hillary: The Perfect G.O.P. Nominee and

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

First, you're off by a factor of two. Current debt is just a bit over one hundred percent of GDP. Do I consider that a problem? No, not really.

Other than Bill Clinton, no recent American president has balanced a budget, so debt has grown fairly secularly over the period. See the linked graph for details. (By the way, I strongly recommend becoming acquainted with FRED, one of the best things to come out of the Federal Reserve.

The 200% figure was for Japan, not the US. Japan doesn't face the risk of insolvency in spite of its high public debt because majority of its debt is domestic. With the US, around half is international debt.

I'm more bearish about the US economy and while I don't consider the debt to be a problem right now, I don't think the current trend is tenable. Both candidates aren't assuaging my doubts either.

I'm familiar with the FRED website - used it a lot at work for cherry-picking statistics for use against the regulator here .

I've never been persuaded by the "crowding out" thesis. After all, American corporations are awash with cash yet don't seem motivated by Keynes's "animal spirits" to do anything productive with that cash. In my more despairing moments I see those decisions as constituting a "capital strike," choosing not to invest in the economy until at least Obama is out of office. It's the economic parallel of the McConnell strategy to limit Obama's legislative successes.

There's a little support for the argument that corporations aren't investing much because they're having difficulty finding projects with sufficiently high returns. Many are returning equity in the form of dividends instead of reinvesting, since they don't see many projects with sufficient returns above their threshold cost of capital.

That said, I am generally hesitant to support governments spending for the sake of spending because it often leads to gold-plating of white elephants, and public funding is easy to give but difficult to take away. While roads and highways are arguably better served by the government instead of the private sector, I find that prudence is not commonly seen with public spending.

No, of course not. They're motivated by many things. Some are Republicans that will support the Republican candidate regardless of who it is. My guess is that 1/3 to 1/2 at least of Trump support comes from traditional loyalties. Then there is the male nativist vote that's largely anti-immigrant, anti-black, anti-female and generally sees the effects of technological change and globalization on the job market in terms of "those people" taking my job.

Religious conservatives in the anti-abortion, anti-gay movements probably hold their nose and support the philandering Mr. Trump because of Supreme Court nominations. And, of course, they see Clinton's life-long support for womens' rights and choice on abortion as anathema.

The Republicans have attacked the Clintons for three decades or more now because, I believe, party elites feared that, under Bill, they would move the Democrats to the right and hive off support from moderate Republicans who were upset about how evangelicals and hard-right people had become so dominant in their party under Reagan/Bush I. So you get idiotic claims like the Clintons murdered their friend Vince Foster. The American right has a very active bunch of looneys who nevertheless have considerable influence, not just the Rush Limbaugh's of the world, but more dangerous people like Roger Stone and Alex Jones. Trump, sadly, considers these people informed, and their crap filters over into his pronouncements. The whole "the election is rigged" business comes largely from Stone, while the birther nonsense came from Jones. The fact that Trump finds these types of wacky conspiracy theories plausible is one of the reasons I see him as entirely unfit to be President.

Yea, I kind of guessed a few pages back in the previous thread that the rigging claim was a ruse by Roger Stone. He's one of the shady characters that politics can do without. Alex Jones is a mixed bag to me. Some of his videos were good for presenting alternative views, such as the one with the very well-informed black Trump supporter being accosted by BLM, but majority of them are conspiracy theories.

I consider Tom Sowell as one of my bigger economic influences, and his constrained-unconstrained theory in A Conflict of Visions was pretty thought provoking. My assessment is that there appears to be a gap in the electorate that's economically conservative but socially liberal, whose views aren't served by either party, although the Democrats are moving much more quickly to capture the votes of this group. It's similar here in Australia, although our political landscape is a little more diverse, but still lacks a major party that appeals to them.

Edit: It's also possible for a group to be economically liberal and socially conservative, but I've only seen this in Singapore, where majority of the electorate are in favour of big government in spite of being very conservative in terms of social values.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Frankly, I hope some hackers can hack and releases all of Hillary deleted email, all of the secrets dealing of her foundations, all of DNC and RNC communications, all of Trump tax return, including net worth and whatever he is hidden under his hair. Just so people can wake up and revolve against this lesser of 2 evils bs

Stein, Canova, Johnson, ect. should be in the presidential debates so Beevus and Butthead can shut up while the adults are talking

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by frivolity

Many are returning equity in the form of dividends instead of reinvesting, since they don't see many projects with sufficient returns above their threshold cost of capital.

Or they are buying back stock. That helps executives with stock options, but I don't see it offering much help to the economy as a whole.

[GreyZone]

People seem to be underestimating the speech Trump made yesterday. Escpacially, since the speech right before this speech didn't seem to have helped him that much. But according to the LA Times daybreak poll Trump spiked from 2.5% black support (last week) up to an astonishing 14.1% black support (today)!

Keep in mind that Romney only had 6% and McCain only 4% black support in the 2012 and 2008 elections respectively.

[Brother Coa]

Once again proving that result of elections is from commitment and speeches all around the country and not just public polls.

I personally cannot wait for Trump vs. Hilary presidential debate. If she will agree to it at all seeing how she refused Bernie Sanders when he challenged her.

[frivolity]

Note that those are national polls. The key to victory still lies in the swing states, which Trump is still lagging behind in.

Edit: And expect to see Trump throw away any gains by saying/doing something stupid within the next 72 hours or so.

[MCAL]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/us...fort.html?_r=0

This is how you right your faltering campaign?

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by MCAL

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/us...fort.html?_r=0

This is how you right your faltering campaign?

That's such a joke move. The fact that Manafort is keeping his position will keep on harming Drumpf's campaign, especially when the likes of MSNBC started jumping on the stuff that was brought up on the other day.

[frivolity]

Just watched the speech. It was better than I thought. I can see why he made gains among non-white voters, since a number of his comments on economic inequality across racial lines echoed my sentiments on the issue.

Still, I'm waiting for the next political gaffe that will take him back to square one.

[frivolity]

Trump's North Carolina speech makes it the third decent speech he's made this week. Dennis Prager went as far to say that it was one of the best Republican speeches since Reagan, but I for one would not go that far with the whole "Donald Reagan" comparison. The Trump campaign has done a big about-turn this week, and the political gaffe that I predicted ended up not materialising.

Imo, it's too little too late with only three months to go, but it may evoke a response by the Clinton campaign to step up on its activity, which could make the remainder of the campaign a little more interesting. It'll be fun to see how the two worst presidential candidates in recent history will fare in the televised debates.

[Brother Coa]

Originally Posted by frivolity

It'll be fun to see how the two worst presidential candidates in recent history will fare in the televised debates.

Trump vs. Hilary, 1 on 1 in tv debate... there is no competition there at all. Trump will own her just like he own all republican candidates during their own debate on tv.

But I doubt that Hilary will face him in debate at all, especially if she is as sick as rumors are telling us.

[SeijiSensei]

You don't really believe all that nonsense about her health, do you? You must be watching Hannity.

In the debates he'll look like the bully he is, and she will look informed. The debates won't move the needle much among the groups that matter like women and college-educated suburbanites. There aren't enough votes to win if he continues to target only white men without a degree.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by Brother Coa

Trump vs. Hilary, 1 on 1 in tv debate... there is no competition there at all. Trump will own her just like he own all republican candidates during their own debate on tv.

But I doubt that Hilary will face him in debate at all, especially if she is as sick as rumors are telling us.

Hillary has more things to attack Trump on than the reverse, therefore no

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Akuma Kousaka

Hillary has more things to attack Trump on than the reverse, therefore no

Trump has no shame and could attack her for being a lizard person from Mars. There is absolutely no limit on what he can attack her for. She works under much tighter constraints.

[Brother Coa]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

You don't really believe all that nonsense about her health, do you? You must be watching Hannity.

That news is from more than one source, and while I seriously doubt it's true to an extend they are reporting you must agree that her rather low profile in the campaign raise a lot of questions - most pointed out to that directions.

And it's not the question do I believe about it - it's how many US voters are. And from what I have seen among my friends there, it;s quite the bunch that believes this.

In the debates he'll look like the bully he is, and she will look informed. The debates won't move the needle much among the groups that matter like women and college-educated suburbanites. There aren't enough votes to win if he continues to target only white men without a degree.

Well informed until Trump starts questioning her about illegal e-mails, dead US diplomats, entire mess that is Balkan and Middle East now... I am afraid that even if Trump goes full bully on her that she won't stay until the end and leave the debate. Effectively losing them to him. After all, Trump has experience in debates now unlike her who avoid all of them - especially Bernie Sanders one.

It's more realistic to think that Hilary will refuse the debate outright and go straight for the election day results. How much will that hurt her campaign will be left to see for later.