2016 POTUS Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
That would be bad and could be the worst Republican ticket ever..

But Carter/Mondale, Obama/Biden, Kerry/Lieberman, Kerry/Edwards, Hillary/??? are all worse.
So every democratic ticket was worse than Trump/Scott. You're delusional. There hasn't been a candidate as flawed as Trump since William Jennings Bryan. Carter and Kerry were both decorated officers with time in the senate, Carter having gubernatorial experience as well. Hillary has experience as a diplomat, senator, and secretary of state.

Trump has a load of failed businesses, no foreign policy experience, no military experience, no meaningful experience whatsoever. The man can barely handle a lucid conversation.

It's dumbfounding that a guy who could have easily run as a democrat would get your nod as superior to legitimate democrat candidates.

Also it kinda goes without saying that Obama/Biden, Kerry/Edwards, and Gore/Lieberman were all superior to the clowns that were running against them. (I kinda like Romney in retrospect but Bush and McCain were absolute shit candidates)
 
Last edited:

fortsbest

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,733
I keep hearing people on the call in shows here saying they won't if Trump is the nominee. If they can't be convinced otherwise they might as well get used to a worse 4 years than the previous 7-8. A non-vote is a vote for Bernie or Hillary. It is that simple.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
I keep hearing people on the call in shows here saying they won't if Trump is the nominee. If they can't be convinced otherwise they might as well get used to a worse 4 years than the previous 7-8. A non-vote is a vote for Bernie or Hillary. It is that simple.
Do you think that 4 years of Trump would be better than the previous 8? If so, why?
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,453
A non-vote is a vote for Bernie or Hillary. It is that simple.
That's not actually correct at all. A vote for Bernie or Hillary is a vote for Bernie or Hillary. Not voting for either is simply a way of not supporting either candidate. Not advocating not voting but what you're saying is just a incorrect statement to try and make sure all Republicans vote for whoever their candidate is.

By the way, Republicans will ultimately come out and vote for whoever is nominated for their party. This thought that a bunch of them just won't vote just isn't true. It's an empty threat by Republicans who want a different candidate then Trump to be nominated. They will all fall in line regardless of the candidate when it is all said and done.
 
D

Deuce

Guest
I keep hearing people on the call in shows here saying they won't if Trump is the nominee. If they can't be convinced otherwise they might as well get used to a worse 4 years than the previous 7-8. A non-vote is a vote for Bernie or Hillary. It is that simple.
I'm almost to the point that I would rather vote for Hilary and basically status quo for 4 more years while the GOP finds a real candidate than put the country in the hands of a crazy person with a felon as his running mate.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
I'm almost to the point that I would rather vote for Hilary and basically status quo for 4 more years while the GOP finds a real candidate than put the country in the hands of a crazy person with a felon as his running mate.
I'll vote for Trump because I want the worst case scenario in that situation.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,453
I'll vote for Trump because I want the worst case scenario in that situation.
Bernie would probably be the worst case scenario. People just don't realize it. He would long term be the most destructive to our economy. The only argument against that is that his stuff would never pass. But that's a scary argument that you could apply to all the candidates.

People can manipulate stats but our economy has been shit ever since the crash during the Obama Adminstration. People have forgotten what a good economy can be like. And copying Eupropean countries won't get you there.
 

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
Bernie would probably be the worst case scenario. People just don't realize it. He would long term be the most destructive to our economy. The only argument against that is that his stuff would never pass. But that's a scary argument that you could apply to all the candidates.

People can manipulate stats but our economy has been shit ever since the crash during the Obama Adminstration. People have forgotten what a good economy can be like. And copying Eupropean countries won't get you there.
:lol What fucking crash under Obama? The crash was under Bush. Obama has spent 8 year fixing his fucking mess.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
:lol What fucking crash under Obama? The crash was under Bush. Obama has spent 8 year fixing his fucking mess.
I could probably look this up but what has been fixed? How much has the budget deficit been reduced? How much have incomes increased? Yeah Bush overspent but that was over 8 years ago.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,453
:lol What fucking crash under Obama? The crash was under Bush. Obama has spent 8 year fixing his fucking mess.
You mean the massive failure that was termed "shovel ready." Or that fact that our debt was accelerated at a devastating rate under Obama? Don't really care if you want to blame Obama or Bush. I just want to get back to the way things used to be, when our economy was actually good. Instead of the steaming turd we have been dealing with for the last 8 years.

Here is a great example of how numbers can be manipulated by politicians to make it seem much better then it really is:

 
Last edited:

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
I could probably look this up but what has been fixed? How much has the budget deficit been reduced? How much have incomes increased? Yeah Bush overspent but that was over 8 years ago.


Deficit shrinks by $1 trillion in Obama era

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/deficit-shrinks-1-trillion-obama-era

Keep in mind, in the Obama era, the deficit has shrunk by $1 trillion. That’s “trillion,” with a “t.” As a percentage of the economy, the deficit is now down to just 2.5%, which is below the average of the past half-century, and down from 9.8% when the president took office.
 
Last edited:

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
You mean the massive failure that was termed "shovel ready." Or that fact that our debt was accelerated at a devastating rate under Obama? Don't really care if you want to blame Obama or Bush. I just want to get back to the way things used to be, when our economy was actually good. Instead of the steaming turd we have been dealing with for the last 8 years.

Here is a great example of how numbers can be manipulated by politicians to make it seem much better then it really is:

Most people that drop out of the labor force drop out because they can afford to, I understand how it affects the productivity of the economy but these people are usually pretty affluent or are retired.

They are not the same as most unemployed.

The real issue is underemployment.

There are many factors involved in people leaving the workforce.

"What that means is the low levels of participation we see today are not primarily due to the economic cycle. They're due to a much longer lasting demographic influence," Wolfers said. "It's actually something that's going to continue over the next decade."

Baby boomers – made up of the large subset of Americans born between 1946 and 1964 – dominated the domestic labor market for years. But now that they're leaving the workforce en masse, their exodus has dragged (and will continue to drag) on the country's overall participation rate.


"Baby boomers in a big lump are leaving the labor force. And that explains about half of the drop in the labor force participation rate between 2007 and the end of 2014," says Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist at Glassdoor. "The second factor is education – people getting more education and staying in school longer. If you get an MBA, you're out of the labor force for three years. If you get a Ph.D., you're out of the labor force for 5 years, maybe 7 years."

The number of individuals enrolled in post-secondary degree-granting institutions, which includes both undergraduate and post-baccalaureate programs, ballooned more than 52 percent between 1990 and 2014, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. With more Americans staying in school longer, the domestic labor force is operating with a constricted supply.
Like you said numbers can be used to make any points and people leaving the workforce is being used incorrectly as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom