2016 POTUS Election Thread

townsend · Feb 26, 2016

Clay_Allison said:
Waiting for the next scandal will be like waiting for the next shoe to drop. Barack has done a great job of not making an ass of himself by having orgies or secret email servers or breaking into hotels. Hillary might be impeached faster than her Husband was.

It'll depend on the makeup of congress. Obviously this Benghazi thing has been had ten times the hearings that the September 11 attacks had because of a republican congress.

Impeachments have a lot more to do with partisan politics than actual scandals.

Which makes me wonder if Trump would last more than 100 days past his inauguration, since the republican and democrat establishment both despise him. Let's not act like he's any less dirty than Hillary either, he'll probably be caught defrauding the gov't pretty quickly.

Cowboysrock55 · Feb 26, 2016

townsend said:
Let's not act like he's any less dirty than Hillary either, he'll probably be caught defrauding the gov't pretty quickly.

He is a different kind of dirty though. He is more like Bernie when we talk about special interests and being bought out. Trump doesn't really have the need or desire to do that shady stuff that Clinton has done and will do.

Trump on the other hand may totally just ignore the constitution and rules to get whatever the hell he thinks is good for America. Even if it isn't.

Jiggyfly · Feb 26, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
Two years. Not a match to her husband's background in this area.

You said she had no exposure.

Just giving the actual facts.

Jiggyfly · Feb 26, 2016

Cowboysrock55 said:
Could very well be true. She comes off as way more of a snake then Bill ever did. I don't think Bill Clinton was ever conniving the way that Hilary is. She reminds me a lot of Frank Underwood. The good news is I don't think she will throw out feminine issues every chance she gets the way that Obama throws the race card out there.

townsend · Feb 26, 2016

Cowboysrock55 said:
He is a different kind of dirty though. He is more like Bernie when we talk about special interests and being bought out. Trump doesn't really have the need or desire to do that shady stuff that Clinton has done and will do.

Trump on the other hand may totally just ignore the constitution and rules to get whatever the hell he thinks is good for America. Even if it isn't.

He won't be working for crooked billionaires like Hillary, but he'll still be a crooked billionaire, as a guy who's frequently screwed over investors and survived by out litigating them, Trump's never had to really play by the rules before. I wonder if he won't be tempted to wield the power of the gov't to benefit Trump inc.

If and when that should happen a lot of the politicians he has and will have burned bridges with will happily oust him.

Cowboysrock55 · Feb 26, 2016

townsend said:
I wonder if he won't be tempted to wield the power of the gov't to benefit Trump inc.

Could be, but on the positive side it would be nice having a politician who actually knows the real issues businesses face as opposed a lifer politician who has never really experienced the real world. The fact that Trump knows how to work the system to make money gives him a unique perspective that none of the other candidates have. If he used that knowledge for good it actually could be extremely beneficial to America.

L.T. Fan · Feb 26, 2016

Jiggyfly said:
You said she had no exposure.

Just giving the actual facts.

Well just another example of you not reading correctly. I said she had nowhere near the exposure to economic and budget matters that Bill had. Then I moved to his stint as as Governor and that preparation before becoming president and said she has no exposure to this aspect. Jiggy just read things in their context before you jump up and make erroneous assumptions

townsend · Feb 26, 2016

Cowboysrock55 said:
Could be, but on the positive side it would be nice having a politician who actually knows the real issues businesses face as opposed a lifer politician who has never really experienced the real world. The fact that Trump knows how to work the system to make money gives him a unique perspective that none of the other candidates have. If he used that knowledge for good it actually could be extremely beneficial to America.

To me that's like saying "good thing Obama's a constitutional scholar, now we finally have someone willing to protect the constitution."

Honestly every law we have is drafted for lobbyists by lobbyists at the beckon of "business men". At best Trump knows the dirty tricks billionaires are pulling, but I don't know if that makes him any more pure, or gives him any unique perspective to fix the economy (which the economy is fixed when it comes to corporate profits, it's employment that's suffering).

Keep in mind Trump has dozens of failed businesses, so it's not like he's that much of a guru. His name can just pull in investors thanks to his notoriety. Technically as a raw business man Jerry Jones is infinitely more qualified to run for president.

Cowboysrock55 · Feb 26, 2016

townsend said:
(which the economy is fixed when it comes to corporate profits, it's employment that's suffering).

If profits were fixed there would be more jobs which would fix employment. There is a reason why we don't see the expansion in business that we should. A big problem is the laws designed to stiffle smaller businesses.

townsend · Feb 26, 2016

Cowboysrock55 said:
If profits were fixed there would be more jobs which would fix employment. There is a reason why we don't see the expansion in business that we should. A big problem is the laws designed to stiffle smaller businesses.

I agree and disagree. Corporate profits and employment is loosely correlated at best. Especially since we have been exporting jobs overseas for the last half century. Also it's not uncommon for a company to cut its employment to the bone once it's under new management, to maximize profits. Budweiser used to have a robust staff of engineers, then INBEv acquired it, fired 2/3rds of them and told the remaining 3rd to pick up the slack. Profits soared, employment didn't.
Frankly it's in the best interest of corporations to employ as few people as possible. So in that way corporate profits and employment are completely opposed.

But you hit the nail on the head with laws stifling small business. It's the problem with regulations in this country, they're written by the exact people who should be regulated.

Cowboysrock55 · Feb 26, 2016

townsend said:
I agree and disagree. Corporate profits and employment is loosely correlated at best. Especially since we have been exporting jobs overseas for the last half century.

If corporate profits were so great, more corporations would exist and eat into those profits. The problem is you confuse corporate profits for a few corporations with corporate profits for all businesses. If you really want to start somewhere when talking about corporate profits just start with the convoluted tax code that is so complex that it allows some corporations gain massive advantages over others. Aka some corporate profits are huge and some companies can't survive to compete.

See you're looking at the job market as a singular business. You can't look at it that way. You have to look at the bigger picture. If corporations were making such crazy profits and small businesses aren't popping up to eat into those profits, then what you really have is a problem with laws preventing those companies from competing.

townsend · Feb 26, 2016

Cowboysrock55 said:
If corporate profits were so great, more corporations would exist and eat into those profits. The problem is you confuse corporate profits for a few corporations with corporate profits for all businesses. If you really want to start somewhere when talking about corporate profits just start with the convoluted tax code that is so complex that it allows some corporations gain massive advantages over others. Aka some corporate profits are huge and some companies can't survive to compete.

See you're looking at the job market as a singular business. You can't look at it that way. You have to look at the bigger picture. If corporations were making such crazy profits and small businesses aren't popping up to eat into those profits, then what you really have is a problem with laws preventing those companies from competing.

What we're talking about is monopolies. Not just of industries but of almost all business. You're right too the government is actively suppressing nascent businesses for the benefit of entrenched ones. It subsidizes those monopolies, because they have lobbyists. But since these select super businesses (who represent this ridiculous concentration of wealth that the left has been bitching about) are making money hand over fist, a quick look at traditional economic markers makes the economy look healthier. Even as we sink into a new age of robber barons.

Cowboysrock55 · Feb 26, 2016

townsend said:
What we're talking about is monopolies. Not just of industries but of almost all business. You're right too the government is actively suppressing nascent businesses for the benefit of entrenched ones. It subsidizes those monopolies, because they have lobbyists. But since these select super businesses (who represent this ridiculous concentration of wealth that the left has been bitching about) are making money hand over fist, a quick look at traditional economic markers makes the economy look healthier. Even as we sink into a new age of robber barons.

And blame whoever you want but too big to fail is some of the most destructive stuff you can do for an economy. Bailing out industries by giving money to the top couple corporations is totally destructive to any small businesses from being able to pop up and compete. I get it, when a big company falls apart it is painful in the short run. People lose their jobs. But what it does is it creates the room and space for smaller more efficient companies to pop up and compete. And eventually create lots of jobs.

You don't fix that by just taking the people at the top of those businesses and tax their income more. In no way did you solve the problem by doing that. Actually you are hurting the economy doing that but I know you'll disagree with me on that, but that's economics 101. Still my point is, if you want to help the economy and create jobs, you need a competitive business world. One where the government doesn't selectively help bigger businesses but while basically killing small businesses. The biggest barrier for most small businesses is government regulation.

L.T. Fan · Feb 26, 2016

townsend said:
What we're talking about is monopolies. Not just of industries but of almost all business. You're right too the government is actively suppressing nascent businesses for the benefit of entrenched ones. It subsidizes those monopolies, because they have lobbyists. But since these select super businesses (who represent this ridiculous concentration of wealth that the left has been bitching about) are making money hand over fist, a quick look at traditional economic markers makes the economy look healthier. Even as we sink into a new age of robber barons.

Yeah the Facebook kid was born with untold wealth and didn't need social media thing to make him rich. The wealth is distributed probably more so to current generation entrepreneurs than ever before to those that have the ideas and initiative to make it happen. It not just the mega corporations that have the chance to maximize profits. Small business is in fact the most difficult to have longevity but it also employes the most workers in the country. It's a mix that is inevitable for the market place to continue.

townsend · Feb 26, 2016

Cowboysrock55 said:
And blame whoever you want but too big to fail is some of the most destructive stuff you can do for an economy. Bailing out industries by giving money to the top couple corporations is totally destructive to any small businesses from being able to pop up and compete. I get it, when a big company falls apart it is painful in the short run. People lose their jobs. But what it does is it creates the room and space for smaller more efficient companies to pop up and compete. And eventually create lots of jobs.

You don't fix that by just taking the people at the top of those businesses and tax their income more. In no way did you solve the problem by doing that. Actually you are hurting the economy doing that but I know you'll disagree with me on that, but that's economics 101. Still my point is, if you want to help the economy and create jobs, you need a competitive business world. One where the government doesn't selectively help bigger businesses but while basically killing small businesses. The biggest barrier for most small businesses is government regulation.

I'm less worried about taxing the super rich, and more worried about them paying their fair share. You said it yourself, certain companies are given ridiculous tax breaks thanks to our current, ridiculous tax codes. I just want a mega corporation to pay in as much as a small corporation would.
The bail outs were absolutely a mistake and a terrible symptom of the cronyism we're dealing with in the U.S.
We covered the tab for a lot of bad businesses that should have died.

townsend · Feb 26, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
Yeah the Facebook kid was born with untold wealth and didn't need social media thing to make him rich. The wealth is distributed probably more so to current generation entrepreneurs than ever before to those that have the ideas and initiative to make it happen. It not just the mega corporations that have the chance to maximize profits. Small business is in fact the most difficult to have longevity but it also employes the most workers in the country. It's a mix that is inevitable for the market place to continue.

Tech companies had the benefit of having a new frontier to settle. There was no such thing as social media, so there really wasn't a company with their thumb on it yet.

I'm very pro small business. I think we need to get back to a country where small businesses can succeed.

Jiggyfly · Feb 26, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
Well just another example of you not reading correctly. I said she had nowhere near the exposure to economic and budget matters that Bill had. Then I moved to his stint as as Governor and that preparation before becoming president and said she has no exposure to this aspect. Jiggy just read things in their context before you jump up and make erroneous assumptions

Really L.T.

Their politics may be the same but I don't believe she has anywhere close to the knowledge of budgets and economics Bill has. He was exposed to these matters all during his governors career and was prepared to continue it as President. Hillary has had no exposure to these matters.

Why do you have to twist yourself into knot's just be thought of as right.

You made an incorrect statement, own it.

I mean it does not matter since you would vote for Trump who has ZERO, experience in these matters.

L.T. Fan · Feb 26, 2016

Jiggyfly said:
Really L.T.

Why do you have to twist yourself into knot's just be thought of as right.

You made an incorrect statement, own it.

I mean it does not matter since you would vote for Trump who has ZERO, experience in these matters.

Even when it's unexplained you still cannot get it right. Jiggy you are so eager to jump on every thing I say that you can't see what a troll you are. There is only one solution. I will simply ignore you in the future.

Jiggyfly · Feb 26, 2016

townsend said:
I agree and disagree. Corporate profits and employment is loosely correlated at best. Especially since we have been exporting jobs overseas for the last half century. Also it's not uncommon for a company to cut its employment to the bone once it's under new management, to maximize profits. Budweiser used to have a robust staff of engineers, then INBEv acquired it, fired 2/3rds of them and told the remaining 3rd to pick up the slack. Profits soared, employment didn't.
Frankly it's in the best interest of corporations to employ as few people as possible. So in that way corporate profits and employment are completely opposed.

But you hit the nail on the head with laws stifling small business. It's the problem with regulations in this country, they're written by the exact people who should be regulated.

Exactly this.

And with being a consumer economy it's always going to have a negative long term effect.

But what should be done.

I wholeheartedly believe in a free market society and capitalism but at certain points it starts to cannibalize itself.

Once the goal became to go public and profits became the end all it started having negative effects of salaries and employment numbers.

I don't know what the answer is or what role gov should have but it cannot keep going this way and this country live up to it's ideals.

I think to begin with there needs to be greater incentives to bring manufacturing back to the U.S.

townsend · Feb 26, 2016

Jiggyfly said:
Exactly this.

And with being a consumer economy it's always going to have a negative long term effect.

But what should be done.

I wholeheartedly believe in a free market society and capitalism but at certain points it starts to cannibalize itself.

Once the goal became to go public and profits became the end all it started having negative effects of salaries and employment numbers.

I don't know what the answer is or what role gov should have but it cannot keep going this way and this country live up to it's ideals.

I think to begin with there needs to be greater incentives to bring manufacturing back to the U.S.

People look at the free market like it's a thing that just happens, thanks to all that lassiez faire nonsense, it absolutely isn't. It's a delicate ecosystem that has to be maintained.

My bae Teddy Roosevelt was a huge progressive and a champion of the competitive markets. He came in and busted all the trusts. It was a perfect example of necessary government intervention for the salvation of the free market.

2016 POTUS Election Thread

Banned

Super Moderator

Banned

Banned

Banned

Super Moderator

I'm Easy If You Are

Banned

Super Moderator

Banned

Super Moderator

Banned

Super Moderator

I'm Easy If You Are

Banned

Banned

Banned

I'm Easy If You Are

Banned

Banned