zerostao

2016 us election

Recommended Posts

I'm sure that goes with the territory for those at the top, as does a degree of narcissism. I imagine similar characters for Clinton and Trump. Trump gets the benefit of the doubt because he hasn't yet done any bad things, unlike Hillary who has proved adept at denying she has done bad things, whilst accepting praise for decent things she hasn't.

After watching a few Trump rallys, I think he is the real deal.  He talks about things that Obama and Hillary dodge, even though they are on the minds of most Americans (i.e. radical Islam).  The media always talks about things he says, taken out of context, but never really addresses his points simply without twisting them.  I would think a more unbiased approach would to watch the rallys or read his full view on things, rather than quick soundbites.  I never thought I would have supported Trump until I looked at him open-mindedly after Sander's lost.

 

As someone who voted for Obama, I regret my decision.  Before he seemed inept and corrupt.  More recently, I would say he is a downright traitor - putting people at risk to further his agenda.

Edited by futuredaze
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After watching a few Trump rallys, I think he is the real deal.  He talks about things that Obama and Hillary dodge, even though they are on the minds of most Americans (i.e. radical Islam).  The media always talks about things he says, taken out of context, but never really addresses his points simply without twisting them.  I would think a more unbiased approach would to watch the rallys or read his full view on things, rather than quick soundbites.  I never thought I would have supported Trump until I looked at him open-mindedly after Sander's lost.

 

As someone who voted for Obama, I regret my decision.  Before he seemed inept and corrupt.  More recently, I would say he is a downright traitor - putting people at risk to further his agenda.

But what is the 'real deal' ?

 

I've watched several long documentaries and interviews and he seems a reasonable sort of businessman with massive self belief and a positive outlook. He appears to be a strong patriarch within his family in that quite old fashioned way that the media likes to believe is unpopular, but which is the hub in strong families. His understanding of economics appears quite poor and he has a lobbyist approach to business relations rather than an independent kind of person, which is the behaviour of a crony capitalist. I would say that he appears a traditionalist regarding Government and wouldn't be a radical; big Government as the answer to everything-his talk is all of 'better deals' and 'stronger negotiation' rather than any shrinkage of the state. From that perspective I can't see him being substantially different to a Clinton/Carter/Reagan. He isn't a liberalist like Obama and is closer to a colourful republican. I think he wouldn't be the firebrand maniac that he is portrayed to be-he may well be the antithesis of the Obama image for 'change' but no more than the image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from my pov clinton exceeds trump in neo-con-ess. she is more "republican" than trump

she is praising the bush family, gaining koch favor, armitage endorsement etc

she is barry goldwater as her logo suggests

she would bring more "baggage" to the white house than anyone in history

for certain she would be more in debt to her donors than anyone in history

 

if you are pro monsanto, fracking, war, increasing disparity, big pharma, police state, tpp

you cannot go wrong with killary, shillary (both fit)

if you favor an industry for profit that locks up and warehouses young adults for smoking a little weed

while turning a blind eye to crimes of the elite (after all they can afford to pay a bribe)

she is a pathological liar and her judgement has proven faulty at every opportunity

if you are for the corporate elite hand picking the president over the american public -- choose clinton

if you are totally in favor of a rigged system on all levels  -- choose clinton

if you are for pay to play politics, economics, justice, then clinton is your queen

 

a lot can happen between now and july 25-28    and a lot can happen in those few days too

if anyone cared one iota about justice they would reject clinton without a second thought

 

no one has mentioned her role in honduras ?! as secretary of state

 

if trump's words bother you more than clinton's actions, i am not sure what to tell you,

except start looking closer

Edited by zerostao
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wouldn't say that trump has a poor understanding of economics, i think his fortune and billions of dollars in assets around the world speak to the contrary. ie - he has an understanding of how things work in the real world and how to navigate that to best effect. a certain amount of that is playing ball with the cronies (if you're outside the political/banking class) but trump's achievements in business are rooted in real world, tangible things. i think that's an important distinction. maybe something that academics and intellectuals scoff at but ultimately the experience you need to bring to a management role like being president.

 

i think compared to career politicians he's a totally other level when it comes to understanding how things work - not through the framework of appeasing people but how do you create tangible results (in his case - creating buildings). take someone like obama or hillary outside of politics and they'd struggle to be anywhere near as effective as business people. and diplomacy is a huge part of business, you just can't afford to be dumb about it or you're punished.

 

karl - i distinctly remember you comparing trump to ron paul's campaign and prognosticating he wouldn't get close to getting the nomination. this tells me a lot of your analysis isn't rooted in the real world but filtered through some type of abstract intellectual lens, theories, past events etc. i only say this because when you say he doesn't understand economics you're measuring him against your own ideas/ideals which wouldn't necessarily bear out into workable solutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wouldn't say that trump has a poor understanding of economics, i think his fortune and billions of dollars in assets around the world speak to the contrary. ie - he has an understanding of how things work in the real world and how to navigate that to best effect. a certain amount of that is playing ball with the cronies (if you're outside the political/banking class) but trump's achievements in business are rooted in real world, tangible things. i think that's an important distinction. maybe something that academics and intellectuals scoff at but ultimately the experience you need to bring to a management role like being president.

 

i think compared to career politicians he's a totally other level when it comes to understanding how things work - not through the framework of appeasing people but how do you create tangible results (in his case - creating buildings). take someone like obama or hillary outside of politics and they'd struggle to be anywhere near as effective as business people. and diplomacy is a huge part of business, you just can't afford to be dumb about it or you're punished.

 

karl - i distinctly remember you comparing trump to ron paul's campaign and prognosticating he wouldn't get close to getting the nomination. this tells me a lot of your analysis isn't rooted in the real world but filtered through some type of abstract intellectual lens, theories etc. i only say this because when you say he doesn't understand economics you're measuring him against your own ideas/ideals which wouldn't necessarily bear out into workable solutions.

Two different things. I didn't think he would get the nomination, but I don't have a crystal ball. I still think Clinton will win if she doesn't go to prison. I think the remain campaign will win the referendum. I'm not 'filtering' I'm taking an educated guess based on previous experience.

 

Economics are completely different to business. A good driver isn't necessarily a good mechanic. Trump has said protectionism is the way forward, but all economists know that doesn't work. Trump is comparing his business negotiations with global trade agreements, but misses the point that the reason he can negotiate with a supplier is that Trump and his supplier are both working in a free market. The only reason Trump can get a good deal is that he is one customer and there are many suppliers all fighting to get his business. It's the same with Trumps employees and the customers of his business. If there was protectionism then he would be forced to pay a higher price and his customers would have to pay a higher price- in other words productivity would be less.

 

That I can't predict an election winner, or who will win the grand national isn't any reflection of my understanding of economics. One of the most difficult things in economics is that predictions are difficult, but the rules are fixed. Take the car analogy. In a race between cars a mechanic knows that a bad spark plug will make one car perform worse than another. Eventually that bad plug will stop the car, but the mechanic does not know precisely when and where that will occur. Economics is like that. So, protectionism will cause prices to rise and goods to be less plentiful. Everyone gets wealthier less quickly than they would otherwise and in often it can drive deep poverty as it did in the USSR/China.

Edited by Karl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same thing has happened to democraticundergound.com which is censoring anything critical of Hillary.

 

In regards to Trumps personality there are a number of articles in which it is clearly written that 'narcissistic personality disorder' fits. Listen to his authoritarian rants and decide for yourself.

here we are stuck with the choice of two "evils" again.

hardly good for morale is it ? probably isnt good for the country or the world either.

when i play poker i usually stay away from games that use a wild card

but math still applies to the game none the less, just have a wild card variable to consider

often the hand with the wild card wins unless the other hand is held by a known cheat

and no one enforces the accepted rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sure, protectionism isn't the soluton in an ideal world. but as a short-term strategy to bring out a rebalancing of an economy (ie drive manufacturing) it's could be very valid, even if there's pain, a crash even. it's going to happen one way or the other. china's currency manipulation is at the heart of the imbalance (in real terms) so he's targeting that first.

 

i'd say there's a huge amount of economic understanding involved in running a giant multi-national business empire that is not totally unlike handling a nations affairs. economics is more of an intellectual pursuit, only people currently running nations or businesses are proving or disproving any of it right. lots more factors to consider. i think it's fair to say people succeeding in creating real wealth, be it through business or politics, can see more of the whole. maybe that's a different definition of economics, but in that sense trump has a better grasp of it than you or i. what use is understanding a bunch of rules if they give very little insight into the present or potential future. the point about prediction is that there are people who have more foresight about some things and it isn't just random, they actually see more and/or have a much better idea of what certain information means. maybe things aren't quite as 'fixed' as they seem.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here we are stuck with the choice of two "evils" again.

hardly good for morale is it ? probably isnt good for the country or the world either.

when i play poker i usually stay away from games that use a wild card

but math still applies to the game none the less, just have a wild card variable to consider

often the hand with the wild card wins unless the other hand is held by a known cheat

and no one enforces the accepted rules

 

Not good for the world at all. One problem is this FBI email investigation hanging around with no resolution in sight. It seems to me the 'Peter Principle' applies to both the candidates.

 

Played 1-3 NL Holdem last night at a casino North of here and the table was ruled by a bully. Every hand he bet with he won. Sets, the nuts and so forth. I finally got up and left.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I dislike Trump, he is a maker while Hillary is a taker.

 

Perhaps you are listening to Fox News one too many times. That meme is nothing more than a right wing divisive tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sure, protectionism isn't the soluton in an ideal world. but as a short-term strategy to bring out a rebalancing of an economy (ie drive manufacturing) it's could be very valid, even if there's pain, a crash even. it's going to happen one way or the other. china's currency manipulation is at the heart of the imbalance (in real terms) so he's targeting that first.

 

i'd say there is a huge amount of economic understanding involved in running a giant multi-national business empire that is not totally unlike handling a nations affairs. economics is more of an intellectual pursuit, only people currently running nations or businesses are proving or disproving any of it right. lots more factors to consider. i think it's fair to say people succeeding in creating real wealth, be it through business or politics, can see more of the whole. maybe that's a different definition of economics, but in that sense trump has a better grasp of it than you or i. what use is understanding a bunch of rules if they give very little insight into the present or potential future. the point about prediction is that there are people who have more foresight about some things and it isn't just random, they actually see more and/or have a much better idea of what certain information means. maybe things aren't quite as 'fixed' as they seem.

You're suggesting a pragmatic approach to economics, that rules don't matter, we just do something in the short term to fix things. That's how we got in this mess.

 

Trump is an entrepreneur. The best way to do things is to have a capitalist system free of the state, that way entrepreneurs get on with making money and all is fine. However, throw the spanner of the state into the machine and now we have central planners controlling the environment for the entrepreneurs and the entire monetary/fiscal system.

 

What happens if protectionism is introduced in the USA ?

 

Protectionism is effectively a tax on the population. Higher taxes cause less of something where they are applied. So let's pick a commodity such as steel. The price of steel becomes more costly than home produced steel. Yet the steel must be used to manufacture products such as cars. The extra cost of the steel makes car manufacturers uncompetitive with imports, and so the car manufacturers complain that they also require import Tarriffs on foreign cars. The effect is the cost of the cars for the population rises and they buy fewer cars. Fewer cars need less steel so the steel plants must reduce their production and downsize their workforce as do the car manufacturers. There are now more people out of work and therefore fewer still to consume the cars and steel.

 

This isn't an untested theory either. It has been tried several times in the USA with disasterous results which had to be reversed.

 

If this was the only problem you might be forgiven for been pragmatic and trying it again just to see, but an economist knows that the result will always be a reduction in production and higher prices.

 

Trump doesn't understand the problem. He thinks it's China that is causing the problem, but it's China that is stopping the USA going into hyper inflation. The US has dollar hegemony through the global use of the petro/dollar. It has allowed the US to print it's way to apparent success-although the figures reveal that it is a fragile success. The US has exported its debt and China holds vast amounts of that debt because the dollar remains the cleanest, dirty currency in the basket. Effectively the US is getting its goods for free and this is preventing costs rising.

 

All that rot about tough 'trade agreements' creating wealth is completely wrong, it is the Governments internal policies that do that. The more Government and red tape, the less competitive and poorer people are. Subsidies, Tarriffs, price controls, welfare programs, regulation, taxation and monetary expansion destroys wealth creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all of the Trump shills.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-idUSKCN0Z50PV?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News%29

 

 

I think profiling is something that we're going to have to start thinking about as a country," Trump told CBS' "Face the Nation."

"You look at Israel and you look at others, and they do it and they do it successfully. And you know, I hate the concept of profiling, but we have to start using common sense," he said when asked if he supported increased profiling of Muslims in America.

Trump made similar comments last December about profiling, the targeting of specific demographic groups for extra scrutiny, after a Muslim American and his wife killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bankrupted his casinos while making millions himself.

 

Tax Evasion

 

A pattern of not paying small business people (because they don't have the $$$ to defend themselves in court).
"... history of litigation involving Donald Trump or his companies ... more than 3,500 law suits ..."

Edited by Trunk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bankrupted his casinos while making millions himself.

 

Tax Evasion

 

A pattern of not paying small business people (because they don't have the $$$ to defend themselves in court).

"... history of litigation involving Donald Trump or his companies ... more than 3,500 law suits ..."

 

His employees in Trump Towers in Vegas are poorly paid and have threatened a work stoppage. The Trump University scam and subsequent lawsuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well there is an election fraud suit filed against the DNC, all this emails, and 2 criminal FBI investigations of clinton

so whats your point?

 

i think if i was anti-trump i would harp on him not publicly releasing his tax returns

Edited by zerostao
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well there is an election fraud suit filed against the DNC, all this emails, and 2 criminal FBI investigations of clinton

so whats your point?

Pretty huge preface: Clearly the whole system (not only political) is f###ed, that said:

1. I think that Trump is more dangerous than H.Clinton.  This is rare for me, but I am enjoying seeing him get destroyed.

2. I think that the GOP is *much* more dangerous than the Dems (though the world, and either party etc, all dangerous).  I'd like to see the GOP crumble considerably (and hopefully rebuilt more sanely by a younger generation).  Looks to me like Trump is doing that, will do that.

3. I don't know nearly as much about H.Clinton as you do.  I'm too ignorant to speak from every angle, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

both major political party's conventions this summer potentially will effect implosion of their respective parties ---

let the crumbling begin---in fact it is already underway with the dems and gop

my pov is that sanity is found in the green party with jill stein offering plan b to bernie 

also the libertarian candidate, gary johnson seems sane too

i imagine that this year a few more voters are starting to look to these parties as alternative to the obscene madness aka 2 party system

 

http://www.lp.org/

 

http://www.gp.org/

Edited by zerostao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty huge preface: Clearly the whole system (not only political) is f###ed, that said:

1. I think that Trump is more dangerous than H.Clinton.  This is rare for me, but I am enjoying seeing him get destroyed.

2. I think that the GOP is *much* more dangerous than the Dems (though the world, and either party etc, all dangerous).  I'd like to see the GOP crumble considerably (and hopefully rebuilt more sanely by a younger generation).  Looks to me like Trump is doing that, will do that.

3. I don't know nearly as much about H.Clinton as you do.  I'm too ignorant to speak from every angle, lol.

you think the demopublicans are two parties, still?

 

all you need to know about clinton www.arkancide.com

 

there simply has never been a more "for sale to the highest international bidder" candidate, ever

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I was commenting within the context of actual possibility of who will win, what will happen, during *this* election cycle.

 

As far as voices that I prefer, I go towards Noam Chomsky and the non-fiction works of Wendell Berry.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I was commenting within the context of actual possibility of who will win, what will happen, during *this* election cycle.

 

As far as voices that I prefer, I go towards Noam Chomsky and the non-fiction works of Wendell Berry.

From what I read this morning it appears that Trump is funneling campaign money to his private businesses. If that appears to be true, that is a serious offense and may be racketeering. The RICO act would definitely apply in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all the focus on Trump is to divert people from looking at Obama.

 

After the biggest terrorist attack since 9/11, when the gunman declared he was working with ISIS, the Obama administration is doing everything it can to hide the real issue of Islamic Terrorism in favor of Gun Control.

 

Not only is he trying to downplay a potentially serious issue, which could lead to a lot of crime, injury, and death, but he is trying to take away the very rights our country was founded on.  He has made me disgusted with liberals.  He claimed to run on a "transparent" platform but has been one of the most sketchy, ineffective, lying presidents since I've been alive.

 

I don't agree with Trump.  I think we can have a strict immigration policy that only bans people from ISIS countries while letting in Muslims.  Perhaps we need to work out a really good system first.  After seeing all the crime in Europe with that failed refugee situation, it is a warning we need to be smart.  IMO it is more important to be SAFE than POLITICALLY CORRECT, but I think we can find a balance between safety and tolerance.  Hillary wants to let in 550% more refugees from high-ISIS Syria, whereas Obama is MAKING IT EASIER for refugees to enter now.  I like to think he is just incompetent, but I have to say it seems deliberate.  I do not agree with spying on Mosques, but I think if the NSA was utilized efficiently, we could prevent a lot of attacks without focusing on Mosques.  Apparently Obama administration had warnigns before the shooting, but ignored them, "because it is racist/Islamophobic."  Political Correctness is KILLING SOCIETY, folks.  Before it was just a bad ideology, now it is getting dangerous.

 

I hope LOVE and TRUTH and FREE THOUGHT/FREE EXPRESSION prevail - but I have never seen so much forces working to suppress this in my life.  Between media lies, online censorship, political incompetence & diversion tactics.  The media is trying to divide us, not Trump.  If Trump is trying to divide us it is this way: CITIZEN vs. NON-CITIZEN, or TERRORIST vs. NON-TERRORIST.  The media, along with cultural Marxism, is trying to divide this way: men vs. women, Democrat vs. Republican, black vs. white (Soros funds BLM), gay vs. straight, oppressor vs. oppressed.

Edited by futuredaze
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I read this morning it appears that Trump is funneling campaign money to his private businesses. If that appears to be true, that is a serious offense and may be racketeering. The RICO act would definitely apply in this case.

it used to be a serious offense but with citizens united and every judge looking thru the corporatist lens now,

things change

just look at the clinton foundation and tell me that is not globalist rico supremo 

money is speech money is law about the only thing money isnt anymore is money

trump wants to buy his own water or wine and fly in his own plane, 

he turned down super pac $$ and largely funded his own campaign

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.