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

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Meanwhile, while I'm being Mr. Pathological Denial

 

HRC camp has tried to weaponize the deaths of black men, notably Eric Garner and come under fire

 

Bill took more money for 5 minute speeches

 

And more votes somehow malfunction, but only for the republicans. But hey, I'm the delusional one who doesn't realize what he's subscribed for

[Dad]

Meanwhile, while I'm being Mr. Pathological Denial

 

HRC camp has tried to weaponize the deaths of black men, notably Eric Garner and come under fire

 

Bill took more money for 5 minute speeches

 

And more votes somehow malfunction, but only for the republicans. But hey, I'm the delusional one who doesn't realize what he's subscribed for

 

You have no idea how much this enrages me.  I had to take an hour's walk to cool off.

 

Regarding the final comment, I heard most of what's going on in Texas is run by the GOP.  I can say for sure both parties are corrupt.  What strikes me as odd is having both parties commit voter fraud.  And I still remain undecided.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Only people who hate Trump more than the Dems are the establishment GOP

 

The guy who leaked the pussytape for example was Paul Ryan's old aide

 

Not sure what to say about Eric Gardner, but nobody should be shocked, everyone should be sickened even if they don't agree with BLM

 

 

EDIT

 

 

https://t.co/wnBgIEr56y

[Sunshine Jesse]

But hey, I'm the delusional one who doesn't realize what he's subscribed for

I'm not the one that defends my candidate at almost every turn, calls their plan communist when it's corporate capitalism at its finest (or worse, corporate socialism), says to ignore every poll that doesn't support my candidate when there are an overwhelming majority that don't, willfully misinterpret news and quotes from both sides, take blatantly unreliable sources that have been proven to falsify information at face value...

 

 

Meanwhile, while I'm being Mr. Pathological Denial

 

HRC camp has tried to weaponize the deaths of black men, notably Eric Garner and come under fire

 

Bill took more money for 5 minute speeches

 

And more votes somehow malfunction, but only for the republicans. But hey, I'm the delusional one who doesn't realize what he's subscribed for

1. Actual quotes from the email:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/23534

 

 

Eric Garner not included because not killed by gun violence.

So they actually did just the opposite. Go figure.

 

 

Finally, I know we have Erica Garner issues but we don't want to mention Eric at all? I can see her coming after us for leaving him out of the piece.

They were worried she'd be upset for not "using" him.

 

Unless there's another email I'm missing. Please show me if so.

 

2. ok, more of the same. These kinds of revelations have a huge diminishing returns factor.

 

3. http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/27/politics/donald-trump-texas-vote-flipping/

 

 

meanwhile, here's more blatant dictator-esque tendencies from Trump:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-election-cancel-230414#ixzz4OKBwqXzi

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Basically you cannot understand economics and have a poorer grasp on what communism actually is? Not shocked.

 

If you at all read what Stalin's 5 year plan did to the USSR you'd realized that a planned economy is the evolution of that vision. But clearly your ceiling is being handed something in ETS or Tumblr and then posting links on YCM for the goon squad to silent rep

 

I mean y'all are the same people that call Sanders an actual socialist, so clearly I was expecting too much 

 

It's also so nice that Jesse knows more about Eric Gardner than his daughter! https://twitter.com/es_snipes

 

She's laid the case pretty well out herself. Since you can just throw links and expect the other person to go through them, have at it darling.

 

Edit: funk it, based on your posting so far, you might need a little help finding the correct documents. 

 

As for the rest, I'm not the one who bends the knee after my candidate got funked. When it seemed like Cruz was going to steal it from Trump I was the one most vitriolic about him, and I didn't support him. You literally bent the knee to your oppressor. That's some fine cuckoldry right there

 

Since it's so hard for you to understand. Either I agree with what Trump is talking about changing the Geneva Convention or regulating the press, OR I don't see anything wrong with his conduct. Just because you're offended by the access hollywood stuff doesn't mean everyone cares about talking about pussy. 

 

[Dad]

Basically you cannot understand economics and have a poorer grasp on what communism actually is? Not shocked.

 

If you at all read what Stalin's 5 year plan did to the USSR you'd realized that a planned economy is the evolution of that vision. But clearly your ceiling is being handed something in ETS or Tumblr and then posting links on YCM for the goon squad to silent rep

 

I mean y'all are the same people that call Sanders an actual socialist, so clearly I was expecting too much 

 

It's also so nice that Jesse knows more about Eric Gardner than his daughter! https://twitter.com/es_snipes

 

She's laid the case pretty well out herself. Since you can just throw links and expect the other person to go through them, have at it darling.

 

Edit: funk it, based on your posting so far, you might need a little help finding the correct documents. 

 

As for the rest, I'm not the one who bends the knee after my candidate got funked. When it seemed like Cruz was going to steal it from Trump I was the one most vitriolic about him, and I didn't support him. You literally bent the knee to your oppressor. That's some fine cuckoldry right there

 

Since it's so hard for you to understand. Either I agree with what Trump is talking about changing the Geneva Convention or regulating the press, OR I don't see anything wrong with his conduct. Just because you're offended by the access hollywood stuff doesn't mean everyone cares about talking about pussy. 

 

 

Overly aggressive.  You guys need to not take it so personally.  But this Garner thing is pissing me off again, so I'm not gonna send out warnings.  A lot of this is indirect, but Winter, cool off.

 

Same to you Jessie.

[Sunshine Jesse]

Basically you cannot understand economics and have a poorer grasp on what communism actually is? Not shocked.

 

If you at all read what Stalin's 5 year plan did to the USSR you'd realized that a planned economy is the evolution of that vision. But clearly your ceiling is being handed something in ETS or Tumblr and then posting links on YCM for the goon squad to silent rep

 

I mean y'all are the same people that call Sanders an actual socialist, so clearly I was expecting too much 

 

It's also so nice that Jesse knows more about Eric Gardner than his daughter! https://twitter.com/es_snipes

 

She's laid the case pretty well out herself. Since you can just throw links and expect the other person to go through them, have at it darling.

 

Edit: f*** it, based on your posting so far, you might need a little help finding the correct documents. 

 

As for the rest, I'm not the one who bends the knee after my candidate got f***ed. When it seemed like Cruz was going to steal it from Trump I was the one most vitriolic about him, and I didn't support him. You literally bent the knee to your oppressor. That's some fine cuckoldry right there

 

 

What do you mean 'you'? I called Bernie a socialist? Why are you putting words in my mouth?

 

I preferred Bernie but supported both candidates before all this email bullshit came out. And when it did come out, I wasn't surprised, because none of it was actually things I don't assume most politicians do by default- but by then, she had already won, and her policies still line up enough with mine so whatever. It's not "cuckoldry" at all because I didn't bend a knee when the choice actually mattered. I was just wrong in the grand scheme of things.

 

Also those emails don't really support what you said at all, and bold is not an argument.

 

And sure, I bet Trump truly supports public ownership of all property! He's really given off that impression so far!!!!

 

Do you even know what Stalinism actually is? Because you're actually completely right. Trump is an ardent Stalinist. It just means something different than what you claim it means.

 

EDIT:

 

Overly aggressive.  You guys need to not take it so personally.  But this Garner thing is pissing me off again, so I'm not gonna send out warnings.  A lot of this is indirect, but Winter, cool off.

 

Same to you Jessie.

oh

 

the "unread post" popup didn't appear while i was writing this

 

oops

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Jesus

 

If you force a firm to reinvest in capital in order to get a subsidy and/or tax break, something they want in order to make a large profit, you basically have complete control over their investment and capital because firms and humans are naturally greedy

 

Stalin failed because the kulaks shot their live stock when they realized the gov wanted them, under this plan the people would have have no idea they're being controlled, think the Matrix. They'll be making a profit, while the workers are also earning a higher wage. But the White House will control all aspects of the economy

 

It's State control of all capital, without expressly saying so. I did say it was the perfection of stalinism. 

 

Anyone who supports sanders on his progressively views, agrees with him in the upper 90% on issues, and then calls themselves a socialist is a little misguided on what socialism is.

 

She didn't win, Bernie should have won Cali and NV. And even NY should have been closer. NY was the beginning of the end for Bernie and it was all schemed to make it his Waterloo. 

 

It's /almost/ as bad as them canceling the GOP election in Colorado and then giving all 30 delegates to Cruz. Not quite because Trump blew enough smoke out of Super Tuesday and Florida to wither that shitstorm

 

It IS a statement. One that you can refute. She's saying HRC is using the blacks when she wants to and doesn't care outside of that. And for the record she's been critical of Trump too inb4 you bring in the coon accusations.  

 

So do you disagree with Erika Garner or not? And if so how is she wrong

[Tentacruel]

 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4teoxl/a_final_response_to_the_tell_me_why_trump_is_a/

 

Most of these are just Trump being a jackass or his supporters being cray cray.

 

Fascism isn't synonymous with bad. 

[Sunshine Jesse]

Jesus

 

If you force a firm to reinvest in capital in order to get a subsidy and/or tax break, something they want in order to make a large profit, you basically have complete control over their investment and capital because firms and humans are naturally greedy

 

Stalin failed because the kulaks shot their live stock when they realized the gov wanted them, under this plan the people would have have no idea they're being controlled, think the Matrix. They'll be making a profit, while the workers are also earning a higher wage. But the White House will control all aspects of the economy

 

It's State control of all capital, without expressly saying so

 

I actually think that it's kinda terrifying that people would unironically support that kind of thing in any way, shape, or form but-

 

 

Fascism isn't synonymous with bad. 

I guess this is also true and it's just a difference in perspective.

 

I've said before that I support public ownership under no government whatsoever, which is equally terrifying to some people.

 

I guess Winter at least has the integrity and intellectual honesty to not dress it up as something it's not, so props to him. He's a lot better than most Trump supporters out there.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It's the most economically viable method

 

1) Firms make more money - so happy Romney Cheesecakes on the right

2) Workers make more money - so happy union workers and poor Americans

3) More people are employed and more labor is needed - yay, less people on welfare

 

You make it sound like there's actually some manner of free will that exists in the market today and we're giving it up. 

 

It doesn't. It doesn't exist, and I'm just willing to accept that fact and make the most out of it.

 

I'm curious, have you heard of the thing called the Fed? They're pulling your strings like a marionette, where's the outrage there? And they're not doing it as well as a stalinist would either. I'm probs the most economically left leaning person on this thread as funny as that may be

 

Edit:

 

As for fascism, fascists doesn't have to undergo elections. They don't have to answer to the people.

 

I am curious on your views on the Electoral college though. Personally I think it should be done away with so candidates have to appeal to America, not just Florida, Ohio and a few others

[Sunshine Jesse]

It's the most economically viable method

 

1) Firms make more money - so happy Romney Cheesecakes on the right

2) Workers make more money - so happy union workers and poor Americans

3) More people are employed and more labor is needed - yay, less people on welfare

 

You make it sound like there's actually some manner of free will that exists in the market today and we're giving it up. 

 

It doesn't. It doesn't exist, and I'm just willing to accept that fact and make the most out of it.

 

I'm curious, have you heard of the thing called the Fed? They're pulling your strings like a marionette, where's the outrage there? And they're not doing it as well as a stalinist would either. I'm probs the most economically left leaning person on this thread as funny as that may be

 

Edit:

 

As for fascism, fascists doesn't have to undergo elections. They don't have to answer to the people.

 

I am curious on your views on the Electoral college though. Personally I think it should be done away with so candidates have to appeal to America, not just Florida, Ohio and a few others

The outrage isn't there because I don't think the fed is as powerful as you think it is. And even if it was, I believe Trump is overwhelmingly non-qualified to actually run the economy like he seems to think he can. All that leaves me to focus on is what I believe he can do, which... would be overwhelmingly disastrous by every measure, in my view.

 

The thing about being economically left is that it's more about public ownership than government ownership. The definition just gets blurry because the government is supposed to be by the people and for the people, so it's supposed to be "public."

 

It's not though but that's the ideal

 

I think the electoral college is better than a lot of people give it credit for because it's one of the only real ways to undermine the effect of voter apathy, but, I also think it should be gotten rid of outright because, even then, voter apathy isn't something that should be catered to. People should have to appeal to all of America, and not just the people who generally give a sheet.

 

People don't really understand the EC, but even those who do think it's bad so it doesn't matter.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The outrage isn't there because I don't think the fed is as powerful as you think it is. And even if it was, I believe Trump is overwhelmingly non-qualified to actually run the economy like he seems to think he can. All that leaves me to focus on is what I believe he can do, which... would be overwhelmingly disastrous by every measure, in my view.

 

The thing about being economically left is that it's more about public ownership than government ownership. The definition just gets blurry because the government is supposed to be by the people and for the people, so it's supposed to be "public."

You wouldn't see Stalin or Mao as economically left then?

 

I don't think you're entirely wrong. This is me

 

 

Economic Left/Right: -3.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.44

 

I'd imagine you'd be somewhere near the Economic Left/Right: -3.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.44 mark

 

The questions are a little too simplistic to accurately represent my views, on more robust tests I go further top left*

 

Like there was one that was like what's best for companies is best for the people.

 

True, but only after the companies are being shadow regulated to follow a box hyperbolic growth function (lowering prices and producing more ends up being better for the firm too)

 

Which as far as the test is concerned mean "no"

 

The fed isn't that powerful because they won't do half of what they can do. I'm outraged because they're incompetent and are putting politics before economics  

[Sunshine Jesse]

To oversimplify it, the more qualifying factors there are to the public body (the government in most situations, although it can also mean the people at large) distributing the wealth, the more right-leaning I believe an economy is. I don't believe Mao or Stalin are left-leaning because they only truly distributed among the elite no matter how they tried to dress it up.

 

This is probably a purist/dated way of viewing it though, because a large number of people view socialism as inherently more government control, which I don't think it is, but definitions can change over time.

 

To me, a truly socialist "government" shares wealth regardless of an objective measure of whether or not people deserve it, which is my own ideal form of government (at least from an economic point of view). This includes things such as guaranteed minimum income instead of any entitlement programs (which I believe is perfectly feasible and reasonable), and either salary/income caps on individuals (which I don't think is feasible) or high taxes on the wealthy because trickle-down economics is right-wing propaganda bullshit that absolutely doesn't work in the long term (f*** you Reagan, f*** you GWB).

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Our views are truly irreconcilable ain't they.

 

 

We'd probs converge on the same end result though. Except your economy would be under massive debt, and mine would be in a feedback loop

[Aerion Brightflame]

So with your economic plan of forcing reinvestment of profits into the company (Which even if we ignore the fact it already happens in what I would assume are a lot of companies), why would employment go up?

 

Because investing in machinery and automation nowadays is usually more valuable than hiring workers to do the same job, and automation generally costs jobs. What happens when your forced investments cause retail outlets to invest more and more in automated check-outs say? You reduce the number of entry level jobs, which forces more and more people into the positions of needing formal college education in specific fields to get employment (And thus student debt and thus generally a lower ability to contribute to the economy). 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So with your economic plan of forcing reinvestment of profits into the company (Which even if we ignore the fact it already happens in what I would assume are a lot of companies), why would employment go up?

 

Because investing in machinery and automation nowadays is usually more valuable than hiring workers to do the same job, and automation generally costs jobs. What happens when your forced investments cause retail outlets to invest more and more in automated check-outs say? You reduce the number of entry level jobs, which forces more and more people into the positions of needing formal college education in specific fields to get employment (And thus student debt and thus generally a lower ability to contribute to the economy). 

Think investing in machinery or more likely, plants

 

Keep in mind, this is mostly to keep Gen X and Boomers a steady supply of wage, our generation will have to do more than all go into steel welding

 

There is a god of Justice

[mido9]

So with your economic plan of forcing reinvestment of profits into the company (Which even if we ignore the fact it already happens in what I would assume are a lot of companies), why would employment go up?

 

Because investing in machinery and automation nowadays is usually more valuable than hiring workers to do the same job, and automation generally costs jobs. What happens when your forced investments cause retail outlets to invest more and more in automated check-outs say? You reduce the number of entry level jobs, which forces more and more people into the positions of needing formal college education in specific fields to get employment (And thus student debt and thus generally a lower ability to contribute to the economy). 

No, it doesn't cost jobs because when one job is automated costs go down and people have more money to invest into something else/buy something else which lets those laid off workers go work there instead, or when the business earns more and can't hire anyone as a result of lowered costs the government gets a bit more of it to tax which lets it gives to those citizens as charity or to pay for education. Those workers might lose out temporarily while they switch jobs, but the entire country gains as a result of it.

[Aerion Brightflame]

No, it doesn't cost jobs because when one job is automated costs go down and people have more money to invest into something else/buy something else which lets those laid off workers go work there instead, or when the business earns more and can't hire anyone as a result of lowered costs the government gets a bit more of it to tax which lets it gives to those citizens as charity or to pay for education. Those workers might lose out temporarily while they switch jobs, but the entire country gains as a result of it.

 

Not if the burden of entry increases too much to allow formerly laid off workers to gain new employment? So say Starbucks and Wallmart manage to automate everything, and go from having 2.2 million employees to say a quarter of that. And imagine the same trend in continued amongst all retail companies, how does the economy for the worker cope with that?

 

Think of essentially a repeat of the death of blue collar factory work in the mid 00's. You are right that jobs open up in other areas of the economy, and the economy as a whole benefits from it, but that doesn't help the workers who are now forced out of the market due to a lack of credentials and experience. Because the economy doing well doesn't always translate to the general population doing well. In some parts of the world wages for the majority of the population have been stagnant compared to the cost of living for several decades (In spite of the massive economic growth in those times).

 

Why wouldn't this be the same thing now? That the average worker won't see any improvement despite the economic success? Because I don't personally view that as a successful economic policy if the majority of the population don't see tangible benefits from it and that the benefits get concentrated at one end of the spectrum. I guess if you corner high price rises say it wouldn't matter as much, but I don't see why this would end up any better than the last few decades of automation would for most of the population. 

 

But I'm weird like that; to me economic success isn't success if it's only being seen in the minority of the population. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The avg workers will at the worse case have more product for less price

 

Sustaining a family becomes that much less costly 

 

Edit

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/59wuo5/isis_releases_documentary_film_recounting_main/?st=iuud1slv&sh=80ac912c

 

Edit2

 

http://linkis.com/www.bizpacreview.com/a7Hd8

 

Non-American citizen arrested for voting in Texas -- FIVE times - faces up to 20 years

[Sunshine Jesse]

http://www.investors.com/news/economy/holiday-sales-growth-seen-accelerating-on-stronger-wage-gains/

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/28/news/economy/us-economic-growth-gdp-third-quarter/index.html?adkey=bn

 

what was that about the economy doing poorly again

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/voter-fraud-donald-trump-iowa_us_5813e775e4b0390e69d075a4

 

what was that about voter fraud being a democrat thing again

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/28/black_trump_supporter_is_booted_from_a_campaign_rally_after_trump_mistakes.html

 

meanwhile, here's some more PC social justice bullshit to distract Winter from addressing the actual issues

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Good one, now look at the Feds newest monetary policy

 

It's a bubble love. Newsflash darling, the more you lower intrest rates the more it looks like it's growing. Problem is, inflation is gonna go up faster now and it's not sustainable. Nice try though

 

Voter fraud is a problem regardless of who does it, but it's predominantly a dem thing. How about we just pass if laws and fix it. You raise me one Iowan. I raise you 3 HRC Californians

 

How about I one up you with a bunch of HRC people beating up a homeless black trump supporter?

[mido9]

http://www.investors.com/news/economy/holiday-sales-growth-seen-accelerating-on-stronger-wage-gains/

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/28/news/economy/us-economic-growth-gdp-third-quarter/index.html?adkey=bn

 

what was that about the economy doing poorly again

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/voter-fraud-donald-trump-iowa_us_5813e775e4b0390e69d075a4

 

what was that about voter fraud being a democrat thing again

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/28/black_trump_supporter_is_booted_from_a_campaign_rally_after_trump_mistakes.html

 

meanwhile, here's some more PC social justice bullshit to distract Winter from addressing the actual issues

If the economy really WAS doing well, the fed would have raised rates, but it's not only not doing so but is considering negative rates(which is basically insane-asylum economics where you want something in the future than you do now, it's flipping time-preference on its head), and this is on top of both a student loan bubble raising education and an auto loan bubble and skyrocketing debt.

 

And even with all of those artificial boosts that don't last you still get this:

 

AND healthcare costs are going to go up in 2017.

 

All from St Louis Fed.

It's like trying to gauge the happiness of an an alcoholic or a drug addict, you know he won't stay happy forever and he STILL isn't particularly happy either way.

 

 

And sure, voter fraud isn't exclusively a democrat issue. Nobody ever claimed it was, but democrats do it overwhelmingly more, with clinton saying in wikileaks emails that she will try to commit it in some way.

 

There's a video on it here. and pew research did a big study on it showing how massive of a problem it is: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pewupgradingvoterregistrationpdf.pdf

 

CBS also did an investigation on it and two thirds of dead voters were registered democrat in california(well, she is the dead people candidate at least).

[cr47t]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/29/trump-supporter-charged-with-voting-twice-in-iowa/?utm_term=.a4fd06b1ef3b

 

It's OK to commit voter fraud if you're voting for me (Trump)

 

Hypocrisy, hypocrisy.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Hey Mido, do you have a link to those graphs that allow us to look at them in more detail? I.E. see the individual graphs and see the actual axis and maybe the data making them up? 

 

Because I looked on the St Louis federal bank site but couldn't find the plots, and without being able to do that I am incapable of seeing any of those graphs in any level of detail. For all I can tell from there is at some arbitrary time these things went up arbitrary amounts. It doesn't actually tell me anything because I can't read any of the details that make them pertinent. 

 

Where did you get the fed considering negative (I presume) interest rates from as well?