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

[cr47t]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/report-melania-trump-worked-in-us-without-proper-permit/2016/11/05/3ddc5a8a-a302-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html

 

So the guy who is ramping his campaign on a hard stance against illegal immigrants... is married to an illegal immigrant. (More or less)

[Aerion Brightflame]

This isn't the first time this cycle that the issue of Meliana working before obtaining a visa has come up. I am fairly sure that they get disposed of last time but I can't remember how for the life of me. It might have just died down due to lack of traction. Three days out though, whilst it might make Trump hypocritical, it doesn't make that much of a difference 3 days out. 

 

Like you don't need more proof of Trump being hypocritical, plenty of that is around. If any story is going to really damage Trump this close to the election it needs to be huge, and really obvious. Obvious enough that nothing can be done or said to deny it. Like tax returns proving he's in debt for millions or billions to the Russian government, proof that he forced one of his wives into having an abortion for convenience. Murdering a cheerleader. 

 

Namely stuff that I doubt exists in the first place. Well I still think the first does exist, but we are never getting those tax returns. Whatever horrible horrible secret exists in there is never coming out in time for the election. 

[mido9]

I've shown links about this before, but his policies will make the debt and deficit (the ACTUAL issue) worse. SEVERAL TIMES OVER. National debt itself means NOTHING relative to the health of the economy, and the idea that it does is sheer GOP propaganda.

Of course it does, when debt gets high you end up having to raise taxes which makes businesses less able to upgrade their equipment, train new hires, hire more people, or create new products, you end up having to print money to pay it which causes inflation, and worse you end up needing to keep interest rates at 0 or negative which causes bubbles and makes people less likely to put their money in the bank which means entrepreneurs don't have the loans to start new business.

 

How the hell can you think something that impacts the economy and especially the future so much is all just nonsense? I think you might be the one falling for the trick of "Buying votes and hoping to be out of office by the time you need to pay".

[Aerion Brightflame]

Wouldn't that depend entirely on what said debt is used to create? 

 

A debt incurred by gross financial mismanagement would be more damaging than a debt caused by massive investments into infrastructure across the nation? Since better roads, better public transport, better internet, more housing, more schools say all increase the ability to do business or to work nationwide, which in turn would grow the economy and the debt your incur is essentially due to an investment and will pay for itself in time. The economy would be in a healthy state in theory, but you'd still have a debt. 

 

I am (I have said this before) not that well versed in economics, so feel free to correct me on that point if it's wrong? 

[Sunshine Jesse]

Of course it does, when debt gets high you end up having to raise taxes which makes businesses less able to upgrade their equipment, train new hires, hire more people, or create new products, you end up having to print money to pay it which causes inflation, and worse you end up needing to keep interest rates at 0 or negative which causes bubbles and makes people less likely to put their money in the bank which means entrepreneurs don't have the loans to start new business.

 

How the hell can you think something that impacts the economy and especially the future so much is all just nonsense? I think you might be the one falling for the trick of "Buying votes and hoping to be out of office by the time you need to pay".

That's not how that works.

That's not how any of that works.

 

The problem with the US debt doesn't come from the need to pay it. The entire issue with the national debt comes from faith in the US dollar and bond market. Economics is all about projections. If the deficit lowers, it reflects well on our ability to pay it back, so confidence in the dollar increases. If the deficit increases, confidence lowers. If confidence lowers enough, the bond market crashes, and everything else falls with it. Not just in the US, but in the entire world.

 

Trump has actually suggested defaulting on the American debt and 'making a deal,' which would crash the entire world's economy in one fell swoop. There is NO SUCH THING as a deal that would restore confidence in the American dollar because national debt is entirely different from personal debt, which is something Trump DOES. NOT. UNDERSTAND. (and neither does most of his voting base)

 

This is such an overwhelmingly disastrous scenario that even the possibility of it happening via him being elected has had a negative effect on the stock market.

 

That's why the deficit is a bigger issue and the debt itself is an "imaginary" one, although imaginary is a bad word to use because the debt alone causes some problems.

 

There's also a precarious balance between bonds and the stock market. If the deficit decreases too fast, the bond market becomes "too valuable" and people are more confident in investing in the government than business, which causes a whole host of potential issues. This is actually something real economists have lambasted the Obama administration for. The deficit has actually decreased too quickly by some measures.

 

Trump is an overwhelmingly dangerous candidate that stands to destroy the entire economic structure of the world with his ideas.

 

This is only part of the reason why he must be stopped.

[Tourmaline]

only the most extreme Clinton fearmongering could even come close to.

Trump is an overwhelmingly dangerous candidate that stands to destroy the entire economic structure of the world with his ideas.

 

[Sunshine Jesse]

 

only the most extreme Clinton fearmongering could even come close to.

Trump is an overwhelmingly dangerous candidate that stands to destroy the entire economic structure of the world with his ideas.

I don't think my use of the term fear-mongering means I believe it's inherently wrong, I've actually said just the opposite:

 

But this is a campaign where both sides have entirely reasonable cause to believe that either candidate would outright destroy our country (if not worse)

 

I just believe that the existential threat provided by Trump is more likely.

[8corners]

...Except it ain't a conspiracy theory homie.  There are plenty of pictures of Clinton engaging in this ritual as a display of art.  Now for them, it's art.  But the practice in and of itself is described as demonic or devil worship.  So yes, it is relevant, if only just.  Objective, sure.  But it's not a theory.  Someone very close to Podesta was seen partaking in the event.  They call it Spirit Cooking.  There's even an email from Chelsea I think talking about it.

 

Actually, Marina Abramovic (well known Clinton Advocate and part of her campaign) is seen on video partaking in it.  I can send it to you privately, but I will absolutely not post it here.

 

However, I can add this:  https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15893

 

...

I don't know anything about this, but the Snopes explanation seems reliable:  http://www.snopes.com/john-podesta-spirit-cooking/  .  

[Dad]

I don't know anything about this, but the Snopes explanation seems reliable:  http://www.snopes.com/john-podesta-spirit-cooking/  .  

 

Ladies and gentlemen, this is possibly the best example of refuting an argument I've seen in this entire thread.

 

Follow this example.

 

And thank you for shutting down my claims in such a concise manner.  Well done. I should've done more research.

[epicmemesbro]

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-11-02/kkk-white-nationalists-ready-to-roll-for-donald-trump-on-election-day

 

Scary stuff. Reminiscent of the post reconstruction era when the Klan were stationed around polling areas, intimidating blacks from voting. Poll watching is a process that is regulated. If I recall correctly, you must be approved by the campaign of a candidate and by the county you reside to be a poll watcher, and even then there is a limit, like two per polling spot.

[vla1ne]

alright, let's take it from the top.
 
EDIT; ok, tried to save page space by separating each response into individual spoilers but that didn't quite work and i lost a decent chunk of what i typed, luckily i saved the majority of what i typed, so this'll have to do.

[spoiler=quotes]
 

There's a lot about this that I feel is wrong or misguided.
 
It's par for the course in politics, yes, I mentioned this. But people believe he's different than most politicians when they're categorically, demonstrably wrong. There's no reason to believe he's different at all.
 
I've shown links about this before, but his policies will make the debt and deficit (the ACTUAL issue) worse. SEVERAL TIMES OVER. National debt itself means NOTHING relative to the health of the economy, and the idea that it does is sheer GOP propaganda.
 
He's only respectful when he states his positions in front of people who agree with him. He's shown that he absolutely cannot handle being challenged, so saying "outside of the debates" is disingenuous.
 
One of the worst possible things he could do is instate a super-conservative SCOTUS justice, which is something the GOP would overwhelmingly allow him to do. They also tend to support his other disastrous policies (muslim ban, lower taxes, healthcare reform), and he's so loved by the base that he'll have enough of an executive mandate to do almost anything he wants.
 
It would be a disaster by every measure.
 
You can say some of his policies are good. You'd be wrong, but you still have the right to say that. But to say that his worse policies would just be stopped is completely and utterly naive.
 
And that's not even going into foreign relations, which is a field where he would s*** the bed worse than only the most extreme Clinton fearmongering could even come close to.

 

he isn't completely different, but he's far enough away from the main establishment that it's a nonissue not to me. in addition, anybody who think's he's different is allowed their beliefs. that's not my reason for thinking him the best of the two strongest runners, and i don't care if it's anybody else's.
 
I agree with you here, to an extent. i don't think trump is going to be all that good at managing the debt. but at the same time, who in your opinion is? what policy are you backing related to the debt? because while trump's plans might not prevent a collapse, i doubt any politician running has a plan that they will enact that could do so. the debt is a hilarious problem. not because it's not a serious threat, but because nobody has a working solution, and everybody wants to blame the opposite side for the problem when it's clearly the fault of every politician involved, no matter the side. the flaws in his plan are that he's not planning his moves on the world scale. for all his big talk, he's not thinking big enough. nobody who claims they can fix it has fixed it. he's not the only one who has a failure of a plan, but he is the only one who has never been in power to help manage the issue. but there's more to it than that. look at congress, and how often they've nearly defaulted simply from being unwilling to compromise on a deal. the debt AND the deficit are going to come at us hard in the future. trump is the only one who has experience mitigating the damage from such crashes. and say what you will about his methods of staying afloat, his businesses have remained floating through his own collapses better than many a businessman before and after him, and have still gained value over that time, not lost it.  I am as unwilling as you to see the economy go through a collapse, but at this point in time, a collapse likely going to happen regardless of who wins because congress is among the main problems in this scenario. they have the power to push through or hold back policies, and as of late, they've been keen on holding things back as long as possible. taken to its logical conclusion, congress will fail eventually at keeping the debt in check, and the only candidate with a record of making the best stock out of bad crashes, is donald trump. so do i support his plans? no more than any other candidate, but i DO trust that he can deal with the broken pieces better than any other candidate. i would rather have the crash and be done with it, i'll deal with whatever damages come. to prevent america from suffering worse damages down the line, than hold out some hope that any politician's going to come along and fix everything like magic. america wouldn't be the first country to go throuh such a collapse, but we do have more resources than any country prior. how about not wasting them just to die slowly.
 
 
have you seen who and what he deals with in the mainstream media? and yet you'd say he cannot handle being childish? the people trying to make him out to be a monster use irrelevant discussions, clearly have bias in favor of his opposition, and ignore anything trump related unless it's something absolutely negative or completely trivial to anybody with half a brain. he's a short fuse, but when you look at the people he has to deal with day to day, who literally spin stories about him, directly in front of him, i can forgive a short fuse. and manners aren't all that's needed to run a country. many of the things he does for citizens aren't even covered by the news, half his jokes are taken out of context and spunt into nightmares, ect. I have no problem with him being short fused with the likes of CNN and MSNBC when they are so clearly pocketed by the DNC and the clintons. those who hold actual discussions with him, are more often than not treated fairly. he's blunt, and he can easily be rude, but those aren't dealbreakers. he's respectful more often, and his actions taken more than balance his words. sure, it could be mostly PR, but he's been doing good deeds long before he ran for president. and that, in my mind, solidifies his nature as a jerk with a heart of gold.
 
are you serious? the person who wins elects the justice. that is how it goes. are you saying that his opposition would not elect somebody leaning in favor of their own side. but let's take this one a step further. what' so bad about him putting a conservative in the justice seat? do you know who his choice is? do you know the history of his choice?  until you do, you don't get to make that objection. as for the muslim ban, that's as rational as it gets, it's not a ban, it's a restriction. instead of leaving the tap on full blast, when there's clearly bombs in the water, you staunch the flow, just enough to do better searches. have you seen how well Europe's doing with all their new muslim friends whom they so kindly accepted? how about learning this lesson vicariously. america is called a melting pot for a reason. you don't come to america to live under Shari'a law, you come here to live under american law. and if the muslims he stops aren't here to become americans, then they don't need to be here. as for the lower takes, if he fixes the loopholes at the same time (i doubt he will, but to that i say who is?) the lowered taxes would still end up at a higher end revenue than the system we have in place. are you telling me the healthcare we have now is working? i know winter's gone for now, but that particular excuse still won't fly. we do need healthcare reform, and while you may object to his plan, i would at least hope that you understand that we still need a new one. the base might love him, but if he gets into office, they still wouldn't be foolish enough to let him run wild on policy dropping.
 
 
that's just fear mongering.
 
some of his policies are good. not completely flawless, but definitely good.  and saying that his worse policies are country ending is just as naive. there is such a thing as revision. and people have been through far worse than a trump presidency.
 
 
that, is again fear mongering. you can say that his lack of tact would damage relations, but no country would be foolish enough to cut themselves off from america. economy aside, we still have more resources than many a country, and are a honing ground for many of the sharpest minds in the world (think silicon valley) we've got our flaws, but america is still a valuable resource. there is no reason to assume we would collapse simply from having a louder than average president. he has a larger than average ego, but he gives respect when shown it, and has a good brain for bounce-backs. unfortunately, the country has to have an economic collapse before then, but considering how hard the debt's going to keep jumping before then, that's more a a sooner-than-later scenario.
 
 
 
 

This isn't the first time this cycle that the issue of Meliana working before obtaining a visa has come up. I am fairly sure that they get disposed of last time but I can't remember how for the life of me. It might have just died down due to lack of traction. Three days out though, whilst it might make Trump hypocritical, it doesn't make that much of a difference 3 days out. 
 
Like you don't need more proof of Trump being hypocritical, plenty of that is around. If any story is going to really damage Trump this close to the election it needs to be huge, and really obvious. Obvious enough that nothing can be done or said to deny it. Like tax returns proving he's in debt for millions or billions to the Russian government, proof that he forced one of his wives into having an abortion for convenience. Murdering a cheerleader. 
 
Namely stuff that I doubt exists in the first place. Well I still think the first does exist, but we are never getting those tax returns. Whatever horrible horrible secret exists in there is never coming out in time for the election.

that is a problem. i get the feeling that's why he amended/clarified his mexican deportation policy from deport illegals to deport those who break laws and expidite the process for those who wish to become law abiding citizens. the lack of traction is likely because the democrats would then likely have the fact that many of their districts have given illegals assistance in the forms of licences just to let them vote revealed on air, among other things that they would likely not like to have thrown back at them.

the stories they've been going with are absolutely petty though. odds are he simply won't give them anything of that calibur to work with until the end of the election. that being said, to go on a slight tangent before it's brought up, his taxes are really a nonissue. they hold little bearing. we all know he's evading, we all know he's not directly putting as much of his money into charities as he claims, but at the same time, going along with the other stories that we never hear about from the news, we have many tales of trump simply cutting checks to those in need, or providing them with employment. his monetary donations might not add up directly, but his actions do follow his words.

 

That's not how that works.
That's not how any of that works.
 
The problem with the US debt doesn't come from the need to pay it. The entire issue with the national debt comes from faith in the US dollar and bond market. Economics is all about projections. If the deficit lowers, it reflects well on our ability to pay it back, so confidence in the dollar increases. If the deficit increases, confidence lowers. If confidence lowers enough, the bond market crashes, and everything else falls with it. Not just in the US, but in the entire world.
 
Trump has actually suggested defaulting on the American debt and 'making a deal,' which would crash the entire world's economy in one fell swoop. There is NO SUCH THING as a deal that would restore confidence in the American dollar because national debt is entirely different from personal debt, which is something Trump DOES. NOT. UNDERSTAND. (and neither does most of his voting base)
 
This is such an overwhelmingly disastrous scenario that even the possibility of it happening via him being elected has had a negative effect on the stock market.
 
That's why the deficit is a bigger issue and the debt itself is an "imaginary" one, although imaginary is a bad word to use because the debt alone causes some problems.
 
There's also a precarious balance between bonds and the stock market. If the deficit decreases too fast, the bond market becomes "too valuable" and people are more confident in investing in the government than business, which causes a whole host of potential issues. This is actually something real economists have lambasted the Obama administration for. The deficit has actually decreased too quickly by some measures.
 
Trump is an overwhelmingly dangerous candidate that stands to destroy the entire economic structure of the world with his ideas.
 
This is only part of the reason why he must be stopped.

we don't need to restore confidence, we simply need to maintain demand. we have exports and imports, the deficit and the debt are still tied together. they are both equal, we slip up on either one, the other comes back at us. you like making large doom and gloom prophecies, but what you aren't acknowledging is that be it trump, hillary, or anybody else, those same prophecies are no less valid. his opposition has a history of lining their pockets with the same deficit spending that's increasing the debt in the first place, among other things. i have no reason to believe that the opposition will bring anything but more of the same, and since more of the same will only make the eventual fallout worse, i see it as better to just crash it now. you are so afraid of the damage from the immediate future that you aren't looking at the long term. if we continue as we have been, we will crash regardless. we will have too large of a deficit to sustain growth, the end debt will be larger, and the losses will be even harder to bounce back from. on one side of the scale, we can do it of our own accord, on the other end, we can let it crash when it's finally grown to big to hide behind the curtain. in a sense, this is simply an election over whch crash would we prefer. one with an experienced crasher, or one down the line that we don't see coming..

in a sense, it really needs to be destroyed as well. not because of some nihilistic reason, but because the system, as it stands, is simply not going to work. america isn't the only country running on a janky system, we're just the one that's closest to the edge right now. britain, italy, france, turkey, brazil, china, argentina, russia, ect, many countries have been through a major collapse at some time in their history, some have recovered, others haven't, and some are on their way back to their feet, with or without a little help from their neighbors. but very few countries have entirely overhauled their systems. for more than a few understandable reasons, first and foremost being that to do so, you'd have to change the way every single tax law is written, throw out all the books, take the hassle of developing a completely new system using the best of what you know in the word around you, and on top of all of that, implement it (look at Obamacare to see just a few dangers of rolling out a completely new system) who do you know that wants to take the fall for that kind of break? i know of one person. you know him too. succeed or fail, we need to reform the system, and again, i'd rather see it attempted now, and get the failures over with, than wait until we've got the problems from the horizon joining in. this is looking at the past, and thinking about what will hurt more moving forwards. both bets are a gamble, no question. but on one end, we gamble on the person who has experience with collapses, and while i would hope as strongly as you that he would first attempt to balance out the budget instead of breaking it, if it comes down to it, i would rather have it done now than later, because on the other end, as he himself has said, is a candidate with 30+ years in the system, and nothing to show for it. the clinton foundations a nice facade, but just like trump we don't know the half of what they do, while something that we do know is that even people directly opposed to what they are known to do, have donated money to them, including country leaders. making me far more suspicious of them. and then we have the third party candidates, who i honestly would love to see win for a variety of factors, not the least of which being the demonstration that the american people have truly had enough of the two party bullshit. but that's sadly a pipe dream for now, according to the polling numbers. i have little idea how wll they'd do, but the thought of seeing america for once remember that the two biggest dishes aren't always mandatory just brings a smile to my face.


that's just more fear mongering.

 
Do i think trump's a good candidate? honestly no. but at the same time, i consider him the better option of the top two. so if one of them has to win, i'd pick him. i have my own reasons to denounce hillary, mostly related to my own moral principles, but unless you want to switch to that topic, i'll just leave it at that.

[bury the year]

-snip-

 

As someone who's been following this thread idly for a while but doesn't want to jump into the mud, I thank you heartily. You're the first person so far who's given an economic critique (and/or refutation) of either candidate that's based on academic theory and not just all fearmongering.

[Tourmaline]

As someone who's been following this thread idly for a while but doesn't want to jump into the mud, I thank you heartily. You're the first person so far who's given an economic critique (and/or refutation) of either candidate that's based on academic theory and not just all fearmongering.

Mido, Vla1ne and Winter have been using economic critique (and/or refutation) of either candidate that's based on academic theory instead of fearmongering this whole thread.

[bury the year]

Mido, Vla1ne and Winter have been using economic critique (and/or refutation) of either candidate that's based on academic theory instead of fearmongering this whole thread.

 

From someone in the field, no, they haven't.

 

But thanks for the low-effort response. If you'd like to refute my claims, kindly bring them forth instead of copy-pasting my post in an attempt to snarkily dismiss me. I'll respond in kind until then.

[vla1ne]

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-11-02/kkk-white-nationalists-ready-to-roll-for-donald-trump-on-election-day

 

Scary stuff. Reminiscent of the post reconstruction era when the Klan were stationed around polling areas, intimidating blacks from voting. Poll watching is a process that is regulated. If I recall correctly, you must be approved by the campaign of a candidate and by the county you reside to be a poll watcher, and even then there is a limit, like two per polling spot.

 that's just... ignorant. i mean, not all black people are going to vote hillary, and not all white people are going to vote trump. in fact, race, and similar issues, like gender should be irrelevant to the election when looking for voter fraud, you look for fraud, wherever it may be. why would they expect it from one area, and then gloss over with the next one? and in addition, while i can understand monitoring to prevent voter fraud, why then, would they be so stupid as to literally plot upon how to obstruct the election in a similar fashion to what they are trying to prevent? clearly they don't want a fair race, and that's just sad. would it kill them to have a bit more confidence in their candidate.

 

 

 

From someone in the field, no, they haven't.

 

But thanks for the low-effort response. If you'd like to refute my claims, kindly bring them forth instead of copy-pasting my post in an attempt to snarkily dismiss me. I'll respond in kind until then.

but how was i wrong? and where? looking back, what i said seems like it stands up to me, so if you have any improvements, could you list them instead of claiming they simply aren't there? from the history of the country, we're going to get worse before we get better, and looking at hillary's past, she's more likely to line her pockets than solve the problem. so where exactly am i wrong? is it the preference for a crash? (well, not really a preference since i'd still like to avoid it, but willingness to)  can you tell me with certainty that we aren't going to crash in the future? or that we aren't headed towards one? because if so, i'd like to have your reasoning. and can you explain to me why Donald's history of recovering would not assist him more than Hillary's own experience? from where i am, while donald would unquestionably have made more money than he currently has had he just invested it, his experience with such drops, and strong personality, are liable to help him steer through a crash, and any following negotiations wth other countries, far better than hillary. again though, that's not my main reason for preferring him, since i still don't want to crash in any case, but i cannot see an other outcome if this keeps up.

 

 

I don't know anything about this, but the Snopes explanation seems reliable:  http://www.snopes.com/john-podesta-spirit-cooking/  .  

yeah, that was just  too far out there to believe. i mean, it's a literal think in south (or was it north?) korea, the president was essentiall opeying a due and his daughter because she believed they were in contact with her dead mother, but other than that one, accusing people of this kind of... wierdness, is usually false.

[Tourmaline]

From someone in the field, no, they haven't.

 

But thanks for the low-effort response. If you'd like to refute my claims, kindly bring them forth instead of copy-pasting my post in an attempt to snarkily dismiss me. I'll respond in kind until then.

You're as much "in the field" as Winter is. Admittedly it wasn't as low effort as your analysis of the previous posts, but there is an educated basis to at least Winter's posts (Vla1ne is defending himself so he's fine). And anyway, as seen from Trump beating over a dozen candidates who have been "in the field" of politics for decades, it's nothing more than a red herring at best.

 

Followed by a bout of indignant hypocrisy. I'll look at the posts I'm defending again just to make sure, of course.

[Sunshine Jesse]

we don't need to restore confidence, we simply need to maintain demand. we have exports and imports, the deficit and the debt are still tied together. they are both equal, we slip up on either one, the other comes back at us. you like making large doom and gloom prophecies, but what you aren't acknowledging is that be it trump, hillary, or anybody else, those same prophecies are no less valid. his opposition has a history of lining their pockets with the same deficit spending that's increasing the debt in the first place, among other things. i have no reason to believe that the opposition will bring anything but more of the same, and since more of the same will only make the eventual fallout worse, i see it as better to just crash it now. you are so afraid of the damage from the immediate future that you aren't looking at the long term. if we continue as we have been, we will crash regardless. we will have too large of a deficit to sustain growth, the end debt will be larger, and the losses will be even harder to bounce back from. on one side of the scale, we can do it of our own accord, on the other end, we can let it crash when it's finally grown to big to hide behind the curtain. in a sense, this is simply an election over whch crash would we prefer. one with an experienced crasher, or one down the line that we don't see coming..

 

in a sense, it really needs to be destroyed as well. not because of some nihilistic reason, but because the system, as it stands, is simply not going to work. america isn't the only country running on a janky system, we're just the one that's closest to the edge right now. britain, italy, france, turkey, brazil, china, argentina, russia, ect, many countries have been through a major collapse at some time in their history, some have recovered, others haven't, and some are on their way back to their feet, with or without a little help from their neighbors. but very few countries have entirely overhauled their systems. for more than a few understandable reasons, first and foremost being that to do so, you'd have to change the way every single tax law is written, throw out all the books, take the hassle of developing a completely new system using the best of what you know in the word around you, and on top of all of that, implement it (look at Obamacare to see just a few dangers of rolling out a completely new system) who do you know that wants to take the fall for that kind of break? i know of one person. you know him too. succeed or fail, we need to reform the system, and again, i'd rather see it attempted now, and get the failures over with, than wait until we've got the problems from the horizon joining in. this is looking at the past, and thinking about what will hurt more moving forwards. both bets are a gamble, no question. but on one end, we gamble on the person who has experience with collapses, and while i would hope as strongly as you that he would first attempt to balance out the budget instead of breaking it, if it comes down to it, i would rather have it done now than later, because on the other end, as he himself has said, is a candidate with 30+ years in the system, and nothing to show for it. the clinton foundations a nice facade, but just like trump we don't know the half of what they do, while something that we do know is that even people directly opposed to what they are known to do, have donated money to them, including country leaders. making me far more suspicious of them. and then we have the third party candidates, who i honestly would love to see win for a variety of factors, not the least of which being the demonstration that the american people have truly had enough of the two party bullshit. but that's sadly a pipe dream for now, according to the polling numbers. i have little idea how wll they'd do, but the thought of seeing america for once remember that the two biggest dishes aren't always mandatory just brings a smile to my face.

 

 

that's just more fear mongering.

...No. That's not how any of this works! How many times do I have to repeat this to get it through your head? Or will you never believe me because you're that uneducated on how economics works? Look, I get it, supply/demand is what they cover in high-school economics and micro-economics 101 (and not going beyond that is exactly why economic Libertarianism has caught on, as an aside), but it's so much more complicated and in-depth than you show any knowledge of, or most anyone in this thread has shown knowledge of.

 

We're talking about someone who's STATED GOALS would destroy the world economy on a level comparable (or worse) to the Great Depression vs someone who people think might do so based on nothing but the rhetoric spewed by those who have bought into propaganda spread by the same establishment they now want to tear down. This is exactly why Trump's economic policies full of s*** and anyone who buys into it are gullible clowns- he's spewing the logical conclusions of ideologies wrought by people who came up with them solely to line their own pockets, which is the exact same thing you accuse Hillary of.

 

Trump has absolutely no experience with recovering from a global economic collapse whatsoever. How many times do I have to repeat this? The economy of a country is NOTHING LIKE the economic structure of a business. AT ALL. There are SO MANY fundamental differences that to compare the two is just... absolutely and completely ignorant.

 

For one, you can't fire people in a country. The equivalent is kicking them out or letting them die. Controlling the employees and workflow is one of the most important parts of running a business and that alone is something you absolutely cannot replicate in a country without doing terrible, morally repugnant things.

 

Does that give you perspective? Or must I go further in-depth on just how different they are?

 

I have no idea where to even BEGIN with ANY of this. It shows such a fundamental lack of knowledge on the subject that I'd have to go through an entire curriculum just to refute it.

 

This is NOT intended to be an insult in any way, for the record.

[VCR_CAT]

...No. That's not how any of this works! How many times do I have to repeat this to get it through your head? Or will you never believe me because you're that uneducated on how economics works? Look, I get it, supply/demand is what they cover in high-school economics and micro-economics 101 (and not going beyond that is exactly why economic Libertarianism has caught on, as an aside), but it's so much more complicated and in-depth than you show any knowledge of, or most anyone in this thread has shown knowledge of.

 

We're talking about someone who's STATED GOALS would destroy the world economy on a level comparable (or worse) to the Great Depression vs someone who people think might do so based on nothing but the rhetoric spewed by those who have bought into propaganda spread by the same establishment they now want to tear down. This is exactly why Trump's economic policies full of s*** and anyone who buys into it are gullible clowns- he's spewing the logical conclusions of ideologies wrought by people who came up with them solely to line their own pockets, which is the exact same thing you accuse Hillary of.

 

Trump has absolutely no experience with recovering from a global economic collapse whatsoever. How many times do I have to repeat this? The economy of a country is NOTHING LIKE the economic structure of a business. AT ALL. There are SO MANY fundamental differences that to compare the two is just... absolutely and completely ignorant.

 

For one, you can't fire people in a country. The equivalent is kicking them out or letting them die. Controlling the employees and workflow is one of the most important parts of running a business and that alone is something you absolutely cannot replicate in a country without doing terrible, morally repugnant things.

 

Does that give you perspective? Or must I go further in-depth on just how different they are?

 

I have no idea where to even BEGIN with ANY of this. It shows such a fundamental lack of knowledge on the subject that I'd have to go through an entire curriculum just to refute it.

 

This is NOT intended to be an insult in any way, for the record.

 

For those of us that are English majors, there needs to be more of an explanation on why one side is wrong beyond "because they're stupid". I'm not saying you don't know why said side is wrong, but even from what I've looked up on my own casual research I can't see much on either side that's really spoken out its reasoning in a way I both understand and seems like the smart course of action.

 

NOW, from what little I have researched, the majority of the US national debt is trapped inside US borders between different branches of government and some towards more private organizations, with a third of it being towards foreign nations (none of which really hold enough individually to really use it as leverage to force the US to do anything, apparently). Now, from what I understand, the problem with the national debt isn't so much with getting it paid off immediately; it's with maintaining the bond market so that the flow of debt between branches remains stable. Now, a lot of this system sounds incredibly counter-intuitive, and much of the debt stands not so much from spending outside the overall budget that tax dollars allows, but from a poor distribution of the allotted overall budget (giving one branch 1.5 mil to accomplish a 1 mil task and another 1 mil to accomplish a 1.5 mil task). Etc. Of course there's also overspending and other methods of poor money handling.

 

SO, what it seems to me is that the idea is to "default" on the American debt and "make a deal" on Trump's end. I'm obviously going to need more details than that to understand the idea, because to me it doesn't seem really possible to just walk into office and wipe the domestic debt clean; I imagine that there's going to be a lot of red tape involved that even if the consequences of doing so aren't being considered, it's not going to be anywhere near as simple as just "striking a deal". Now, I'm hoping someone will explain this idea better to me because I'm hoping there's more to it than a magical deal. So saying that a deal goes through and the domestic debt is wiped clean; so far as I can tell this is going to have a big impact on the bond market and the national market as a whole (I'm also hoping that this can be better explained).

 

Now, let's say it's the worst case scenario of someone taking the fall to crash the system for a reform (as Vla1ne put it, I think). A reform is definitely needed, by the sounds of it, one way or another because holy crap this system just sounds like a really bad idea waiting to happen. But, I'm not so sure if slamming a sledge-hammer down on the system, reducing it dust, and building it up again will be the best idea. There's millions of people in the great country of America, and billions more in other countries, whose lives will most likely be affected by a large market crash (this, of course, could happen anyways with how fragile this system sounds). Which, this could mean a lot of bad things for a lot of people. I'm wondering where the benefit to this risk comes in, because while the system sounds like it's desperate need of a good, strong changing, I'm not so sure if a sledge-hammer approach is really going to be the best idea considering how much damage it could possibly cause.

 

So, I guess I'm not so much making any argumentative statements as I am raising questions for the sake of this topic. What particular policies are being considered to target this issue, and would it be in your/our best interest to follow through with these policies, or stay the current course and hope for a candidate for a better idea to address this issue?

 

(for those of you wondering what super minimal research I did, look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYF_guqpOzE)

[mido9]

The problem with the US debt doesn't come from the need to pay it. The entire issue with the national debt comes from faith in the US dollar and bond market. Economics is all about projections. If the deficit lowers, it reflects well on our ability to pay it back, so confidence in the dollar increases. If the deficit increases, confidence lowers. If confidence lowers enough, the bond market crashes, and everything else falls with it. Not just in the US, but in the entire world.

 

Trump has actually suggested defaulting on the American debt and 'making a deal,' which would crash the entire world's economy in one fell swoop. There is NO SUCH THING as a deal that would restore confidence in the American dollar because national debt is entirely different from personal debt, which is something Trump DOES. NOT. UNDERSTAND. (and neither does most of his voting base)

 

This is such an overwhelmingly disastrous scenario that even the possibility of it happening via him being elected has had a negative effect on the stock market.

Yes but the problem is that the biggest thing that's keeping any sort of faith in the bond market/the dollar is the fed repeatedly saying that they're going to raise the interest rates from zero to anything else, but they can't do that even with yellen constantly saying they can, for one it would make it difficult to pay off the debt which blows up the bond market and takes everything with it, it would cause huge ripples from bubbles funded by the cheap money, and etc. They can't raise the rates, they can keep saying they can, but either way they're going to go through a crisis. There's a video on it here. Either way the dollar's going to lose out, they might as well take it now instead of kicking it down the road.

[Sunshine Jesse]

For those of us that are English majors, there needs to be more of an explanation on why one side is wrong beyond "because they're stupid". I'm not saying you don't know why said side is wrong, but even from what I've looked up on my own casual research I can't see much on either side that's really spoken out its reasoning in a way I both understand and seems like the smart course of action.

 

NOW, from what little I have researched, the majority of the US national debt is trapped inside US borders between different branches of government and some towards more private organizations, with a third of it being towards foreign nations (none of which really hold enough individually to really use it as leverage to force the US to do anything, apparently). Now, from what I understand, the problem with the national debt isn't so much with getting it paid off immediately; it's with maintaining the bond market so that the flow of debt between branches remains stable. Now, a lot of this system sounds incredibly counter-intuitive, and much of the debt stands not so much from spending outside the overall budget that tax dollars allows, but from a poor distribution of the allotted overall budget (giving one branch 1.5 mil to accomplish a 1 mil task and another 1 mil to accomplish a 1.5 mil task). Etc. Of course there's also overspending and other methods of poor money handling.

 

SO, what it seems to me is that the idea is to "default" on the American debt and "make a deal" on Trump's end. I'm obviously going to need more details than that to understand the idea, because to me it doesn't seem really possible to just walk into office and wipe the domestic debt clean; I imagine that there's going to be a lot of red tape involved that even if the consequences of doing so aren't being considered, it's not going to be anywhere near as simple as just "striking a deal". Now, I'm hoping someone will explain this idea better to me because I'm hoping there's more to it than a magical deal. So saying that a deal goes through and the domestic debt is wiped clean; so far as I can tell this is going to have a big impact on the bond market and the national market as a whole (I'm also hoping that this can be better explained).

 

Now, let's say it's the worst case scenario of someone taking the fall to crash the system for a reform (as Vla1ne put it, I think). A reform is definitely needed, by the sounds of it, one way or another because holy crap this system just sounds like a really bad idea waiting to happen. But, I'm not so sure if slamming a sledge-hammer down on the system, reducing it dust, and building it up again will be the best idea. There's millions of people in the great country of America, and billions more in other countries, whose lives will most likely be affected by a large market crash (this, of course, could happen anyways with how fragile this system sounds). Which, this could mean a lot of bad things for a lot of people. I'm wondering where the benefit to this risk comes in, because while the system sounds like it's desperate need of a good, strong changing, I'm not so sure if a sledge-hammer approach is really going to be the best idea considering how much damage it could possibly cause.

 

So, I guess I'm not so much making any argumentative statements as I am raising questions for the sake of this topic. What particular policies are being considered to target this issue, and would it be in your/our best interest to follow through with these policies, or stay the current course and hope for a candidate for a better idea to address this issue?

 

(for those of you wondering what super minimal research I did, look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYF_guqpOzE)

There's a reason why economics is called the "dismal science." It's literally built around the idea that everything will go to sheet, and every indication shows that, at some point, it will.

 

The best idea (imo) is to build a safety net so that, when everything "inevitably" crashes, the rich can't take their losses out on the middle and lower class.

 

This is what they will do. It's what they've always done. There's no avoiding this. Trump's "let everything crash" idea wouldn't be so bad if his base wasn't filled with the short-sighted, punitive, and outright economically illiterate people who are too worried about welfare queens, government moochers, and "abusing the system" to realize that they actually need to be protected from the rich before they attempt to tear them down.

 

I don't even think that it's a given that it'll collapse any time soon. The whole narrative is built around fear of an absolute when in reality it's just an uncertainty. The only truly inevitable collapse is when we run out of accessible resources.

 

 

Yes but the problem is that the biggest thing that's keeping any sort of faith in the bond market/the dollar is the fed repeatedly saying that they're going to raise the interest rates from zero to anything else, but they can't do that even with yellen constantly saying they can, for one it would make it difficult to pay off the debt which blows up the bond market and takes everything with it, it would cause huge ripples from bubbles funded by the cheap money, and etc. They can't raise the rates, they can keep saying they can, but either way they're going to go through a crisis. There's a video on it here. Either way the dollar's going to lose out, they might as well take it now instead of kicking it down the road.

We don't need to raise the interest rate if we raise taxes on the wealthy and close loopholes.

 

But of course, the establishment right-wing has firmly drilled in the idea that it would be bad to do so.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

 

funk you, Reagan. You ruined my country worse than any president in the last century. And funk anyone stupid enough to think he was actually good.

[cr47t]

 

Love how Google is (trying to) get out the vote

 

and since we seem to be discussing the economy, I might as well bring this up;

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-just-told-the-truth-its-more-terrifying_us_581e495ce4b0102262411844

 

Yeah, yeah, IK it's huffpo, but for once he actually states a policy. And suprise suprise, its just another thing that only benefits the 1%.

[Phantom Roxas]

https://twitter.com/jasoninthehouse/status/795358997083586560

https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/795361973751971841

 

If anyone was hoping that the new investigation was somehow going to be a nail in the coffin for Hillary, you're out of luck.

[Dad]

https://twitter.com/jasoninthehouse/status/795358997083586560

https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/795361973751971841

 

If anyone was hoping that the new investigation was somehow going to be a nail in the coffin for Hillary, you're out of luck.

 

Holy sheet, talk about a flop.  This literally changes everything.  Tomorrow would have to reveal some kind of gaping nuclear project with intent to attack for Clinton to be imprisoned now.

[mido9]

We don't need to raise the interest rate if we raise taxes on the wealthy and close loopholes.

 

But of course, the establishment right-wing has firmly drilled in the idea that it would be bad to do so.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

 

f*** you, Reagan. You ruined my country worse than any president in the last century. And f*** anyone stupid enough to think he was actually good.

No, you can't do that anymore because you already more than maxed out on tax revenue when the economy has almost completely stagnant growth and more businesses failing than being created, any more increases in tax rates(especially now when you need GIGANTIC increases to finance the pain of 2 bubbles + 20T) will only reduce revenue, reduce investment, etc. You can't keep raising taxes indefinitely, you run into diminishing tax returns for big investment hits, this is just the road to greece.

[Aerion Brightflame]

I don't think it matters in context to the election; 

 

We are two days out, the damage has already been done by this leak, and I don't think there is enough time for the damage to repair itself. It definitely doesn't change the fact that early voting has already happened during the time frame that Hillary may have been affected by the added scandal here. And given that this announcement of essentially no change to the end result happened within a two week period of the initial announcement means Comey has needlessly altered the course of the election. 

 

It will be interesting to see, but I honestly think this announcement comes too late  for it to be a real positive to her campaign. To her as a person it's great (Unless Trump wins and follows through with his promise to prosecute political enemies)