[RESULTS ARE FINAL] 2016 Election for President of the United States | Donald Trump Victory

[cr47t]

Both candidates are quite flawed this election, but the greater evil being Trump is pretty clear

Fixed that for you.

 

It's basically four more years of Obama VS (nearly) complete chaos and instability in my opinion... the choice is pretty clear to me between the two but despite that I am undecided because hey, third party candidates are a thing

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So I feel like I have to post a defense of supply side economics again

 

Might as well do it.

 

Explanations:

 

Marginal Revenue: cost of each additional unit produced

Marginal Cost: cost of each addition unit

Demand: Average revenue, it'll always be twice the slope of MR (can prove if someone wants me to do calc magic, otherwise you could just trust me)

Total Cost: Cost of all units up to that last unit

Total revenue: ^ but revenue

Profit=TR-TC (or (D-ATC)q  but that doesn't matter here)

 

 

Most firms in the US are monopolistic competition, so I'll use that model. Something similar would work if you wanna play oligopoly w/ kinked demand, monopoly, or perf. comp 

 

 

Let's call MC, f'(x), it's the first derivative of the TC function f(x). A lowering of taxes and/or an addition of subsidies would lower the marginal cost function, by a value "y", when you look at the impact on total cost, you now lower the cost of production by y*x. Pretty intuitive.

 

But to calculate the value of x you should produce at, find where MR and MC are equal, since the new MC curve is f'(x)-y, you get a higher value of x (quantity) at a lower price.

 

If we look at profit, we're going to be adding a y*x amount profit to the the firm

 

 

Recap:

 

Firms produce where MR=MC

 

And to find the profit, you find the difference between avg Cost and Revenue and multiple by the quantity produced. Since ATC (or AC) is dependent on MC, it likewise gets dragged down with MC with the tax break or subsidy (interesting tidbit, the minimum value of ATC will always be on MC), but regardless you'll get a lower price value for a larger quantity

 

MC=> MC-Y

AC=> AC-Y (integrate MC and divide by x)

 

But since MR and D are unchanged the total profit the is gonna be increased by Y that would not otherwise be there.

 

Basically it's doing a China on the US economy. 

Fixed that for you.

It's basically four more years of Obama VS (nearly) complete chaos and instability in my opinion... the choice is pretty clear to me between the two but despite that I am undecided because hey, third party candidates are a thing

But how...a more war mongering Obama that's gleeful about war, pro- god awful trade deals and loves picking fights vs a guy who's not the nicest, but has the realistic economic policy and want to focus on repairing america instead of funking up the middle east

 

And that's not even getting into all Clinton's personal baggage 

 

But Trump'll probs lose.

 

He has a very narrow pathway to victory

 

Florida+Ohio+Iowa+NH+Nevada+MD2

 

I don't think Pennsylvania is in play, but I could be wrong, and if that all goes through, he wins 270-268

 

Edit:

 

srsly

 

watch this sheet

 

 

and that's CNN

[Dad]

I like how we're tying Obama directly to ISIS when we shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq in the first funking place.

[Aerion Brightflame]

I like how we're tying Obama directly to ISIS when we shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq in the first f***ing place.

 

Yes we shouldn't have, and it's why Bush, Cheny and Blair among others should have been tried as war criminals. 

 

But given that we did in fact go in, criticism of details of pulling out are fair to make. The Obama comments as Trump intended them are still just flat out wrong, but there is room to criticise the way that the US pulled out. 

[Dad]

"Bring our troops home!"

 

"WHY DID YOU BRING OUR TROOPS HOME!?"

[Aerion Brightflame]

Yeah, and if he hadn't brought them home they'd be shitting on him for not fuffiling his promise. So that's kind of an argument not worth getting into - As has been the case for most of his administration people will find a way to sheet on Obama for something. Especially given the deal Bush made to force him to pull out by a given date. 

 

The real question worth asking is whether or not enough steps were taken to ensure the Iraqi government and armed forces were ready for the move out - If they criticism of the Obama is a potentially legitimate criticism. because it was something within Obama's means to address. 

 

But they won't, because this is American politics and nobody is reasonable. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Hold up guys, Wikileaks is saying Hillary def had arms going into Syria which ended up in some portion going to Daesh fighters

 

Either she was careless or it was a scheme gone wrong, but that's arming a terror organization, and she testified in front of congress that she didn't do anything of the sort. Don't count out Grandma Nixon's ability to funk this up

 

 

Lol, Freudian slip?

 

https://i.sli.mg/kI9TlZ.png

 

The Clinton Foundation may be the black heart of Hillary’s corruption.

As described in the facts on their website, it is a 501©(3) nonprofit organization. Which means that, under federal tax law, it must be an apolitical organization. As explained by the IRS, this means that:

An OpenSecrets search reveals that, in the last year alone, the Clinton Foundation has openly spent $65,000 on Democratic candidates, including $53,975 on Shillary alone.

 

 

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501©(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

 

 

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or © have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

 

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

 

 

Meh, more Hillary than Obama

 

DNC "unity"

 

http://www.lifeandnews.com/articles/a-bernie-sanders-delegate-tells-a-very-different-story-about-the-dnc-to-the-one-weve-been-fed-by-the-party-and-media-at-large/

[Aerion Brightflame]

I would wager every administration since Reagan (And probably before) have been selling weapons to foreign nations like Syria. I know Reagan did becuase there was the Iran Contra scandal. 

 

I also think Hilary would have to be directly selling them to ISIS in order for it to count, not selling the weapons to X person in Syria and then they would wind up in ISIS's hands.  Which is a little too far to blame Hilary - If we start assigning blame beyond immediate link in the chain of progression then things get immensely complicated because you have to prove intent to distribute to this next link down. 

 

But it shouldn't be a shock that Hilary would at least complicit with the sell of arms to foriegn nations. It's not exactly a secret. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym2EmUNKDE8

 

Interrogation isn't entirely reliable, so I wouldn't take this to heart

I would wager every administration since Reagan (And probably before) have been selling weapons to foreign nations like Syria. I know Reagan did becuase there was the Iran Contra scandal. 

 

I also think Hilary would have to be directly selling them to ISIS in order for it to count, not selling the weapons to X person in Syria and then they would wind up in ISIS's hands.  Which is a little too far to blame Hilary - If we start assigning blame beyond immediate link in the chain of progression then things get immensely complicated because you have to prove intent to distribute to this next link down. 

 

But it shouldn't be a shock that Hilary would at least complicit with the sell of arms to foriegn nations. It's not exactly a secret. 

 

Waiting on the leaks, but he's staking 10 years of 100% accuracy on this

 

Julian Assange: So, those Hillary Clinton emails, they connect together with the cables that we have published of Hillary Clinton, creating a rich picture of how Hillary Clinton performs in office, but, more broadly, how the U.S. Department of State operates. So, for example, the disastrous, absolutely disastrous intervention in Libya, the destruction of the Gaddafi government, which led to the occupation of ISIS of large segments of that country, weapons flows going over to Syria, being pushed by Hillary Clinton, into jihadists within Syria, including ISIS, that’s there in those emails.There’s more than 1,700 emails in Hillary Clinton’s collection, that we have released, just about Libya alone.

 

You don't actually have to prove intent, gross negligence suffices for Treason and National security 

[Aerion Brightflame]

Except drawing the line between negligence and gross negligence is hard. Negligence is like leaving a pile of bricks on a roof where they can slide off and hurt someone. Gross Negligence would be throwing the bricks off of the roof without looking to see if any one is standing behind you. It's a very big step up. 

 

We'll see if Assange bears fruit. I don't believe him because I don't think Hilary is stupid enough to leave a paper trial on this kind of thing, and Assange promised us damning emails on Hilary before without presenting any. So we shall see. 

 

His timing is also weird given he's spoken out heavily against both Trump and Clinton, so pulling such a massively Trump favoured move right now seems insane. The timing was perfect at the DNC. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/11/exclusive-joint-fbi-us-attorney-probe-of-clinton-foundation-is-underway/

 

Looking for a second source..cause it's the funking Daily Caller

[Dad]

"According to a former law enforcement official."

 

Bruh, they don't even tell cops what to look for outside of people breaking the law.  I know it's the Daily Caller but this sheet is so unreliable, that I might believe Hilary first.

[cr47t]

Ok, first Donald takes it a bit too far and he says THIS;

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis/index.html

 

And THEN he says THIS;

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/12/politics/donald-trump-obama-clinton-isis-founder-sarcasm/

 

I don't get how you can mean something literally and then call it "sarcasm"

 

(And yeah yeah I know its CNN but I'm trying to find another source)

 

EDIT: Also found this; http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-electoral-votes-gop-insiders-226932

[Aerion Brightflame]

You missed the best part of that - In the interview with Hewit where he talks about him meaning Obama literally founded he actually says that he meant it figuratively in the exact manner Hewitt was trying to say he meant it. 

 

It's one of more idiotic moments in recent weeks. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

"According to a former law enforcement official."

 

Bruh, they don't even tell cops what to look for outside of people breaking the law.  I know it's the Daily Caller but this sheet is so unreliable, that I might believe Hilary first.

I mean that's why I said we should wait for a second source. Both the lawyer's and FBI's reps said no comment the matter today, and a couple other sites have focused on the caller story

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/hillary-clinton-state-department-clinton-foundation/index.html

 

The FBI also really wanted to do it, so there might be credence to the matter

 

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/report-fbi-is-now-investigating-the-clinton-foundation/

Ok, first Donald takes it a bit too far and he says THIS;

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis/index.html

 

And THEN he says THIS;

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/12/politics/donald-trump-obama-clinton-isis-founder-sarcasm/

 

I don't get how you can mean something literally and then call it "sarcasm"

 

(And yeah yeah I know its CNN but I'm trying to find another source)

 

EDIT: Also found this; http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-electoral-votes-gop-insiders-226932

Yes, Trump was stupid, even I admitted that and pointed out, why Hewitt's statement was the best thing to go after based on the current evidence we have now.

 

But did you know

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/08/09/-clinton-backs-wasserman-schultz-during-florida-campaign-stop/

 

Obama and House Minority leader likewise do so

 

How do you feel buddy? Still think Trump is worse? If so please justify it

Except drawing the line between negligence and gross negligence is hard. Negligence is like leaving a pile of bricks on a roof where they can slide off and hurt someone. Gross Negligence would be throwing the bricks off of the roof without looking to see if any one is standing behind you. It's a very big step up. 

 

We'll see if Assange bears fruit. I don't believe him because I don't think Hilary is stupid enough to leave a paper trial on this kind of thing, and Assange promised us damning emails on Hilary before without presenting any. So we shall see. 

 

His timing is also weird given he's spoken out heavily against both Trump and Clinton, so pulling such a massively Trump favoured move right now seems insane. The timing was perfect at the DNC. 

Why stake a 10 year perfect record on backing a man you've pretty heavily criticized in the past though? Just doesn't add up

Except drawing the line between negligence and gross negligence is hard. Negligence is like leaving a pile of bricks on a roof where they can slide off and hurt someone. Gross Negligence would be throwing the bricks off of the roof without looking to see if any one is standing behind you. It's a very big step up. 

 

We'll see if Assange bears fruit. I don't believe him because I don't think Hilary is stupid enough to leave a paper trial on this kind of thing, and Assange promised us damning emails on Hilary before without presenting any. So we shall see. 

 

His timing is also weird given he's spoken out heavily against both Trump and Clinton, so pulling such a massively Trump favoured move right now seems insane. The timing was perfect at the DNC. 

Why stake a 10 year perfect record on backing a man you've pretty heavily criticized in the past though? Just doesn't add up

[Aerion Brightflame]

He might just have a grudge against Hilary more - There's no way in hell he couldn't get equivalent amount of dirt on Trump/ the GOP. Like Trumps tax returns. Everyone wants Trump's tax returns. If he was genuninely acting the publics interest he'd give us dirt on both candidates.

 

Was Hilary one of the people primarily calling for his/Snowdens conviction? Or something along those lines? It's got to be personal. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

He might just have a grudge against Hilary more - There's no way in hell he couldn't get equivalent amount of dirt on Trump/ the GOP. Like Trumps tax returns. Everyone wants Trump's tax returns. If he was genuninely acting the publics interest he'd give us dirt on both candidates.

 

Was Hilary one of the people primarily calling for his/Snowdens conviction? Or something along those lines? It's got to be personal. 

Maybe there wasn't any...or atleast if the RNC did do shady deals, it was probs to hurt Trump instead

[cr47t]

Yes, Trump was stupid, even I admitted that and pointed out, why Hewitt's statement was the best thing to go after based on the current evidence we have now.

 

But did you know

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/08/09/-clinton-backs-wasserman-schultz-during-florida-campaign-stop/

 

Obama and House Minority leader likewise do so

 

How do you feel buddy? Still think Trump is worse? If so please justify it

Just so you know, I don't usually click links that lead outside YCM.

 

Anyways, I know Clinton has support for DWS. What DWS and the DNC did was s***, I know. But one of the reason why I dislike Trump in particular is, I really don't want Trump with his finger on the button, because in the event some world leader does something that triggers his ego or something he can just launch some nuclear weapons and have thousands of innocent people killed. Then there would probably be retaliation, and we would have a nuclear war on our hands as well as a risk of human extinction.

 

Tell me, are you worried at all about THAT?

 

And just to be clear, I don't like Trump OR Clinton, that's why I am considering a 3rd party candidate. But I do think Trump is the worse of the two main candidates.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Just so you know, I don't usually click links that lead outside YCM.

 

Anyways, I know Clinton has support for DWS. What DWS and the DNC did was s***, I know. But one of the reason why I dislike Trump in particular is, I really don't want Trump with his finger on the button, because in the event some world leader does something that triggers his ego or something he can just launch some nuclear weapons and have thousands of innocent people killed. Then there would probably be retaliation, and we would have a nuclear war on our hands as well as a risk of human extinction.

 

Tell me, are you worried at all about THAT?

 

And just to be clear, I don't like Trump OR Clinton, that's why I am considering a 3rd party candidate. But I do think Trump is the worse of the two main candidates.

I mean it's the WSJ, I'm not tryna rick roll you into going to a porn site >_>

 

Not really, there's a bit of a difference with being a little off the cuff on a campaign rally and launching nukes cause someone took a poke at you

 

The slippery slope fallacy was a fallacy with regard to Gay Marriage, and it's a fallacy regarding Trump here. I can't force you to think one way or another, but it's honestly kinda baffling that you'd really think an jabroni is worse than a traitor who feels the white house is owed to them

[Aerion Brightflame]

And some would say they prefer the idea of the white house in the hands of a dedicated civil servant than that of a narcissistic billionaire. 

 

There are a lot of ways to describe both candidates that make them appear either better or worse than the other. And Hilary is only a suspected traitor currently - Innocent before proven guilty remember 

 

There will be some who think even if Hilary is a traitor, the worst that happens is she gets impeached within 5 minutes of enterting the office (Which might happen anyway if the GOP feel bitter), and then there's still a democratic president. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

And some would say they prefer the idea of the white house in the hands of a dedicated civil servant than that of a narcissistic billionaire. 

 

There are a lot of ways to describe both candidates that make them appear either better or worse than the other. And Hilary is only a suspected traitor currently - Innocent before proven guilty remember 

 

There will be some who think even if Hilary is a traitor, the worst that happens is she gets impeached within 5 minutes of enterting the office (Which might happen anyway if the GOP feel bitter), and then there's still a democratic president. 

Dedicated to whom Tom? 

[Dad]

Clinton is dedicated to herself. So is Trump.

[cr47t]

I mean it's the WSJ, I'm not tryna rick roll you into going to a porn site >_>

 

Not really, there's a bit of a difference with being a little off the cuff on a campaign rally and launching nukes cause someone took a poke at you

 

The slippery slope fallacy was a fallacy with regard to Gay Marriage, and it's a fallacy regarding Trump here. I can't force you to think one way or another, but it's honestly kinda baffling that you'd really think an a****** is worse than a traitor who feels the white house is owed to them

 

Well, I guess what I meant by "Trump is worse" is in terms of doing the job... not the actual person, where I guess they're equally bad

 

And this is more about off the cuff. I think Trump has said he would try to be unpredictable with his use of nuclear weapons... that sounds pretty worrisome because what if he decides to just nuke a place randomly? THEN sh*t's going to go downhill FAST.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Dedicated to whom Tom? 

You missed his point.

 

you'd really think an jabroni is worse than a traitor who feels the white house is owed to them

He's saying that it's easy to make one sound worse/better by simplifying their positive/negative traits.

 

Also. You're generalizing by saying that Trump being an jabroni is the only issue. The one you specifically quoted even said he's worried that Trump might end up lashing out because of his ego. (Which I don't believe he'd go that far but I could see him doing something stupid because of it)

I'm less worried about how he's an jabroni and more worried about how he doesn't know how to speak diplomatically, which is important, and doesn't seem to have much actual knowledge of what to do or how to be a leader.

[Wizarus]

You missed his point.

 

He's saying that it's easy to make one sound worse/better by simplifying their positive/negative traits.

 

Also. You're generalizing by saying that Trump being an a****** is the only issue. The one you specifically quoted even said he's worried that Trump might end up lashing out because of his ego. (Which I don't believe he'd go that far but I could see him doing something stupid because of it)

I'm less worried about how he's an a****** and more worried about how he doesn't know how to speak diplomatically, which is important, and doesn't seem to have much actual knowledge of what to do or how to be a leader.

 

It's been confirmed that Trump wants to let the VP be in charge of foreign and domestic policy.  So I guess he plans on just being a figurehead.