Please sign up or log in for the best forum experience!

avatar! Oct 26, 2016

Is it possible to have a civilized discussion on politics? I would think so. Anyway, here's an interesting read

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/25/politics/ … index.html

Much as I hate to agree with Trump (and I'm still not voting for him), I think he makes a good point. HIllary's "no fly zone" idea is a terrible idea. It just won't work, and getting into a confrontation with Russia is never a good idea. On the other hand, I'm not sure that Trump has any ideas, except perhaps "let them duke it out" which actually may not be a bad idea in this case. All that said, Trump is still going to lose this election because overall he's just not credible.

brandonk Oct 26, 2016 (edited Oct 26, 2016)

It really feels like he's slinging as much feces as he can before the election is called and he is deemed a "loser"

He also raised up concerns on 'monopolies' citing Time Warner / AT&T 

Not confirming accepting the results of the election (Saying its rigged)

These are convenient examples for him, not unlike his critique of Hilary's future international policy/approach

What's happening in Syria and the refugee situation is pretty bad/horrific.  You need an adult to manage the situation

Although I was never going to vote for him, I always said I wouldn't be upset if he won the election...and now that seems unlikely...but he lost me alot after his VP pick...and entirely by the 3rd debate.  One hell of an entertainer though, that is undeniable....#Awesomejob!

GoldfishX Oct 26, 2016

I'm thinking squarely in terms of how they are looking at the domestic economy, the only thing that I regard as an important topic in this election.

Hillary wants to maintain the status quo, Trump at the very least is openly identifying the status quo is not working. I can't sit there and listen to Hillary say, "We are going to grow the middle class..." without blurting out, "How in the world are you going to do that!? The president before you has failed miserably in this regard over the past eight years and if wasn't for the Federal Reserve, we would be in an even deeper recession than the one he inherited from Bush/Clinton. The unemployment rate went down because people FELL OUT OF THE WORKFORCE, not because they found jobs and our President is PROUD of that". Whoever gets to be President will get to oversee either a massive period of stagflation (see: Japan) or an outright recession (see: 2008 all over again).

And Obamacare...the news media is covering this enough (thank god) that I shouldn't need to go into detail, but Hillary's suggestion is MORE tax credits to offset the rising premiums. How about...oh I dunno...controlling the costs instead? Weeding out quack doctors that encourage visit after visit? Bringing deductibles down to reasonable levels? Maybe getting rid of the individual mandate (a tax on people that don't buy healthcare coverage, effectively scaring people into signing up for ineffective plans).

Trump...strictly as the lesser of two evils, while acknowledging we are screwed either way. Whoever ends up as president better pray the stock market bubble or the student loan bubble or the healthcare bubble or the inflation bubble or the debt bubble or god knows what outside the US doesn't burst and during their four year term, before someone else can inherit the mess.

Ashley Winchester Oct 26, 2016

GoldfishX wrote:

And Obamacare...the news media is covering this enough (thank god) that I shouldn't need to go into detail, but Hillary's suggestion is MORE tax credits to offset the rising premiums. How about...oh I dunno...controlling the costs instead? Weeding out quack doctors that encourage visit after visit? Bringing deductibles down to reasonable levels? Maybe getting rid of the individual mandate (a tax on people that don't buy healthcare coverage, effectively scaring people into signing up for ineffective plans).

This. The costs are simply out of control. The "affordable" healthcare plan is NOT affordable. My mother tells me about this all the time since she has to deal with it.

GoldfishX Oct 26, 2016

I mean, once you cover that $6000-$10000 deductible and the plan is covering 80% of costs (not sure if they have an annual out of pocket limit or not), I'm sure it's...great. But that's basically the problem. And all that is on top of premiums. I wonder how many people get the rude awakening that deductibles AREN'T able to be funded by tax credits?

I have literally gotten the 3rd degree from doctors, to the point where I have to say, "don't worry, I have my own insurance, it's not from Obamacare".

I give the plan credit for one thing and one thing only...It gets rid of the "preexisting conditions" BS. And with jobs harder to find, people staying on their parents' plan until they're 26 is probably a good thing. Everything else...bad, just bad. And getting worse.

avatar! Oct 27, 2016

GoldfishX wrote:

IAnd with jobs harder to find, people staying on their parents' plan until they're 26 is probably a good thing. Everything else...bad, just bad. And getting worse.

Honestly, I think this is more due to the fact that many jobs are just gone due to "innovation" such as computers and robots AND -most importantly, rising population. As the population keeps increasing there will continue to be fewer and fewer jobs. That's how it is. Think it's bad now? Wait 50-100 years...

Ashley Winchester Oct 27, 2016

avatar! wrote:

most importantly, rising population. As the population keeps increasing there will continue to be fewer and fewer jobs. That's how it is. Think it's bad now? Wait 50-100 years...

I thought the population in some countries like the US and Japan was declining as people weren't having as many children. Hell, I read an article where the Japanese government was practically begging people to bang. Aren't Japan and the US pretty much in the same boat with having an aging population and not having enough young people to pay for social programs like social security?

avatar! Oct 27, 2016

Ashley Winchester wrote:
avatar! wrote:

most importantly, rising population. As the population keeps increasing there will continue to be fewer and fewer jobs. That's how it is. Think it's bad now? Wait 50-100 years...

I thought the population in some countries like the US and Japan was declining as people weren't having as many children. Hell, I read an article where the Japanese government was practically begging people to bang. Aren't Japan and the US pretty much in the same boat with having an aging population and not having enough young people to pay for social programs like social security?

NO. Some claim that the population growth rate is decreasing, but it's positive nonetheless. At least in the USA the population has never declined, and is increasing rapidly, although not as rapidly as some other countries. In Japan the population growth rate may be declining, and why is that a bad thing? Who's going to complain about a little less crowding on the trains??

Amazingu Oct 27, 2016

avatar! wrote:

In Japan the population growth rate may be declining, and why is that a bad thing? Who's going to complain about a little less crowding on the trains??

Because it means that at some point you'll be stuck with a society with a shitload of old people and very few young ones.
I hope I don't have to explain to you why that is not a good thing.

avatar! Oct 28, 2016

Amazingu wrote:
avatar! wrote:

In Japan the population growth rate may be declining, and why is that a bad thing? Who's going to complain about a little less crowding on the trains??

Because it means that at some point you'll be stuck with a society with a shitload of old people and very few young ones.
I hope I don't have to explain to you why that is not a good thing.

NO, it does not mean you will eventually be "stuck" with a "shitload" or any load of old people and very few young ones. That's a common misconception. All a negative population growth really means is that more people are dying than currently being born. Eventually it will stabilize, unless there is mass migration or some catastrophe where millions upon millions perish. In general, a negative population growth is EXACTLY what this world needs. Studies show that a sustainable number of people is 2 billion. We are WAY WAY WAY beyond that...

avatar! Nov 8, 2016

I voted smile
Honestly, I don't think my presidential vote mattered much. Not because I don't think it matters who wins, but because in my state Hillary has a 99.99999% chance of winning. However, I always vote, and the local referendum questions (including the legalization of marijuana) are actually important, so yes voting matters!

raynebc Nov 8, 2016

I don't live in a swing state, but I am a product of my environment and have conservative values so it's not a surprise how I voted.  Hillary has no real chance of winning my home state.

GoldfishX Nov 9, 2016

I'm not so much happy for Trump (he was never my pick in the primaries), but I am happy the political establishment that rules America took one of the hardest gut punches in history tonight. Trump left the Republican establishment in shambles during the primaries and he took out one of the most corrupt, entitled and inept candidates on the other side in history tonight. And I loved every minute of it.

I'm very much curious to see what happens now. This is very much political anarchy right now. Much needed political anarchy.

I live in a (very) blue state and I cast my vote from Trump.

Jay Nov 9, 2016

Can we now get this merged with the failings of humankind thread?

Adam Corn Nov 9, 2016

I can't fathom how anyone can use the word "inept" in regard to an opponent of Donald Trump. The man is ineptitude defined.

You got your anarchy, tell me in a few years how you like it. My guess is it won't be very much!

Ashley Winchester Nov 9, 2016 (edited Nov 9, 2016)

Adam Corn wrote:

I can't fathom how anyone can use the word "inept" in regard to an opponent of Donald Trump. The man is ineptitude defined.

You got your anarchy, tell me in a few years how you like it. My guess is it won't be very much!

I thought we were meant to keep things civil in this thread. If we're not, then I'd suggest moving to Canada like all those prissy celebrities.

Edit:

But really, cry about it some more.

XISMZERO Nov 9, 2016

Didn't vote yesterday myself, decided to sit this cycle out. But the whining and drama from Hollywood has been beyond silly. The arrogance and smugness hurts now and it came right from the Hillary supporters.

What a luxury it must be to take "red" America's money and just decide to move while many of us would, you know, have to find a job, sell our homes (if you are even a homeowner), find an affordable place to live up there while they keep their Hollywood jobs/multiple homes. I'm sure PM Trudeau would be happy to take their millions of USD and make it rain across Canada.

I just don't see how threatening to move (from either side) is suppose to threaten anyone. Well all know you're not going anywhere and if you do, bye now.

GoldfishX Nov 9, 2016

Adam Corn wrote:

I can't fathom how anyone can use the word "inept" in regard to an opponent of Donald Trump. The man is ineptitude defined.

You got your anarchy, tell me in a few years how you like it. My guess is it won't be very much!

Well, the early word is Trump won with fewer votes than either McCain or Romney had. Which means even fewer people came out to support Clinton in traditional blue states.

So yes...inept. The Democratic National Committee forced a candidate on their electorate that they did not believe in and the voters responded accordingly, causing the Rust Belt Massacre.

For the record, regardless of political positions, I'm in the camp that believes Bernie Sanders would have slaughtered Trump in a general election because of the overall enthusiasm the guy generated. I've yet to meet anyone who follows politics closely that doesn't agree with that sentiment. That just shows how out of touch the political elites are with the people and the Democrats are in a world of self-inflicted hurt as a result. Again, if the GOP establishment had their way, they'd be limping Jeb Bush to the general election, much to the indifference of the GOP fanbase.

Amazingu Nov 9, 2016

Adam Corn wrote:

I can't fathom how anyone can use the word "inept" in regard to an opponent of Donald Trump. The man is ineptitude defined.

This.
But then, as Goldfish said, it became painfully obvious yesterday that Hillary is not the candidate many democrats wanted.

Ashley Winchester wrote:

I thought we were meant to keep things civil in this thread. If we're not, then I'd suggest moving to Canada like all those prissy celebrities.

Pretty sure Adam's here in Japan, unless he moved back at some point.
People here seem somewhat bemused, if they even care at all.

Anyway, I hardly think Adam's comment qualifies as "uncivil".
Certainly a word like "inept" is not out of place for a candidate who has been openly racist, misogynist, and lying through his teeth from day one.
Hillary has her problems, plenty of them, nobody's denying this, but Trump has been a downright vile and disgusting human being throughout his campaign and now here we are. Can you at least understand that a lot of people, not just in the US, fear for their safety with a man like this being in charge of the most powerful country on earth?

GoldfishX Nov 9, 2016

Amazingu wrote:

Can you at least understand that a lot of people, not just in the US, fear for their safety with a man like this being in charge of the most powerful country on earth?

Even in a GOP controlled House of Representatives and Senate, there are enough checks on what he can and can't do that I don't foresee this becoming an issue. Sure, he's not going to be the choice of liberals/progressives by any means (and Hillary was only "progressive" because Bernie dragged her in that direction, kicking and screaming), but he's not going to up and deport 12 million people or ban gay marriage either.

I think what was especially dangerous recently was the blaming of the email hacks by the Democrats on the Russiam government. That had the makings of a skirmish right there (to be honest, it reminded of something we would expect from Trump at his worst) and at times, I was questioning if Clinton was serious or not.

Amazingu Nov 9, 2016

GoldfishX wrote:

Even in a GOP controlled House of Representatives and Senate, there are enough checks on what he can and can't do that I don't foresee this becoming an issue. Sure, he's not going to be the choice of liberals/progressives by any means (and Hillary was only "progressive" because Bernie dragged her in that direction, kicking and screaming), but he's not going to up and deport 12 million people or ban gay marriage either.

I hope you're right, I really do.

Even if the Senate can keep Trump himself in check, I'm still worried this is going to cause a lot more violence in the streets.

GoldfishX Nov 10, 2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kw1aQLfbvc

I usually hate posting videos to prove a point, but I do follow these guys quite. They're progressives that call bullshit pretty well on both sides. He's no Trump fan, but I thought this analysis is spot on, as far as "who is more in-ept".

And as a bonus video...Here's a proper foreshadowing of the Rust Belt Massacre a day before it happened:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApMZdw56LWA

Much much more refreshing to watch than any mainstream analysis.

Board footer

Forums powered by FluxBB