2016 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - All Politics & Dumb Opinions Here

[jarrodsalas]

For all you 538 Nate Silver fans...

Odds of winning election. 9-26-16 TODAY

Hillary 51.8%
Trump 48.2%

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...ex_cid=rrpromo

[dodgerfanjohn]

Originally Posted by cruiserdaddy7

Exactly. So many falsely think he means cut a check for the wall.

Nobody actually thinks that but the viewers of talk shows hosted by left wing Democrats being sarcastic, absolutely LOVE to be disingenuous and make fun of others using literal translations where they don't reasonably apply.

[Clarka3]

Originally Posted by jarrodsalas

Tariffs. A lot of items are exported to Mexico from the US tax free. Importing from countries other than Mexico. Tax money being sent down there...

I think you are taking his comment too literal and not realizing his plan behind it.

Originally Posted by cruiserdaddy7

Exactly. So many falsely think he means cut a check for the wall.

we kind of have to take them literally because he hasn't tipped his hand on how he'll do it yet.

flipside of us taking it too literal is that people think he actually has a plan for the things he's said.



the main problem with tariffs is that it is so anti free-market it's amazing conservatives support them. While we raise prices on foreign goods (which in theory will help local producers because their prices will be better than foreign), it hurts consumers because we aren't actually getting lower priced goods. We just get local goods. That's not terrible in its own right since the money stays local. The problem is passed on abroad though, as those countries are likely to impose tariffs on our goods, therefore hurting our exports.

Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff act of 1930 worsened the Great Depression. It's all well and good to talk tough on trade, but we can't forget what other countries can do to us in return.

[jlzinck]

Originally Posted by jarrodsalas

For all you 538 Nate Silver fans...

Odds of winning election. 9-26-16 TODAY

Hillary 51.8%
Trump 48.2%

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...ex_cid=rrpromo

Clinton wins at least one state Mitt Romney won in 2012 53.7%
Trump wins at least one state President Obama won in 2012 87.2%

[jarrodsalas]

Originally Posted by Clarka3

we kind of have to take them literally because he hasn't tipped his hand on how he'll do it yet.

flipside of us taking it too literal is that people think he actually has a plan for the things he's said.



the main problem with tariffs is that it is so anti free-market it's amazing conservatives support them. While we raise prices on foreign goods (which in theory will help local producers because their prices will be better than foreign), it hurts consumers because we aren't actually getting lower priced goods. We just get local goods. That's not terrible in its own right since the money stays local. The problem is passed on abroad though, as those countries are likely to impose tariffs on our goods, therefore hurting our exports.

Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff act of 1930 worsened the Great Depression. It's all well and good to talk tough on trade, but we can't forget what other countries can do to us in return.

His plan has been on his website for a few months now.

[chezball]

Originally Posted by ssbledsoe

Didn't he rework portions of the bill from Bush's original idea? I'd look it up, but I'm too busy being a jackwagon in the Seneca Wallace thread (or in general). Either way, the Clinton's thought it was a good piece of legislation 20 odd years ago. Funny how their new corporate masters are telling them otherwise with TPP. Just proof she's for sale to the highest donor/bidder...

Now let's look at TPP(AKA NAFTA on Steroids)
The flip flopper hillary was for it, then when bernie was against it, now she against it.
She has said, that if she wins she's going to let bill handle the economy.
She will be pushing for it if she gets in, because Bill signed the NAFTA bill.
He's the last guy I want anywhere near the economy.

[Clarka3]

Originally Posted by jarrodsalas

His plan has been on his website for a few months now.

ah, the last place i would expect to look for it. thanks!

Originally Posted by chezball

Now let's look at TPP(AKA NAFTA on Steroids)
The flip flopper hillary was for it, then when bernie was against it, now she against it.
She has said, that if she wins she's going to let bill handle the economy.
She will be pushing for it if she gets in, because Bill signed the NAFTA bill.
He's the last guy I want anywhere near the economy.

now, i was under 18 during the Clinton years in office, so I am definitely not the expert on the matter- but wasn't the 90's like a great time for the US Economy?

Didn't we have a surplus leaving his presidency?

[jarrodsalas]

Originally Posted by Clarka3

ah, the last place i would expect to look for it. thanks!





now, i was under 18 during the Clinton years in office, so I am definitely not the expert on the matter- but wasn't the 90's like a great time for the US Economy?

Didn't we have a surplus leaving his presidency?

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/pay-for-the-wall

[SanAntonioSpurs]

Originally Posted by Clarka3

the main problem with tariffs is that it is so anti free-market it's amazing conservatives support them. While we raise prices on foreign goods (which in theory will help local producers because their prices will be better than foreign), it hurts consumers because we aren't actually getting lower priced goods. We just get local goods. That's not terrible in its own right since the money stays local. The problem is passed on abroad though, as those countries are likely to impose tariffs on our goods, therefore hurting our exports.

Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff act of 1930 worsened the Great Depression. It's all well and good to talk tough on trade, but we can't forget what other countries can do to us in return.

The point of tariffs is to make it a level playing field. With out tariffs we will continue to bleed jobs to other countries with cheaper labor cost while increasing our own unemployment rate.

The only reason the Smoot-Hawley didn't help during the Great Depression is because they raised them too high, I think it was around 60% (could be wrong). Tariffs will work, just don't get greedy and raise them to unrealistic levels.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by Clarka3

ah, the last place i would expect to look for it. thanks!





now, i was under 18 during the Clinton years in office, so I am definitely not the expert on the matter- but wasn't the 90's like a great time for the US Economy?

Didn't we have a surplus leaving his presidency?

Economy was great in the 80s and 90s except for early in both Reagan's and Clinton's Presidencies. Both came in at a sizeable low point in the economy (Inflation had reached 14% when Regan took office, Clinton right as the Recession was ending) so both had the benefit of a relatively low starting point. Both get too much credit as economic cycles are just that, cyclical. But both do deserve some credit.

What is interesting is, despite a similar economic downturn followed by record low inflation, and multiple attempts to stimulate the economy over the last several years we have not experienced the expected improvement in the economy. It's my biggest gripe with the current administration after the unAffordable Health Care Act.

[chezball]

Originally Posted by Clarka3

ah, the last place i would expect to look for it. thanks!





now, i was under 18 during the Clinton years in office, so I am definitely not the expert on the matter- but wasn't the 90's like a great time for the US Economy?

Didn't we have a surplus leaving his presidency?

We did, only because of the internet boom. Which no matter who was in office would have happened.

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by chezball

We did, only because of the internet boom. Which no matter who was in office would have happened.

Exactly.
I always hear how Bill Clinton and Al Gore created such a fantastic economy.
Well, they're half right.
It was Bill and Al, but more like Bill Gates and Alan Greenspan.
On a side note I had to go google PBM this morning as a certain member kept accusing me of being such.
I couldn't figure out why he kept accusing me of being a pharmacy benefit manager. lol
Anyways after finding out that PBM stood for previously banned member I had to truly laugh out loud.
And yes, I openly admit to being an old fogie who doesn't keep up with all these new age internet acronyms.
I don't care to deal with said person but if I were one of you, I'd take him up on that bet he offered up.
I guarantee you'd win.
Have a great day all!

[chezball]

Originally Posted by Astros19

Exactly.
I always hear how Bill Clinton and Al Gore created such a fantastic economy.
Well, they're half right.
It was Bill and Al, but more like Bill Gates and Alan Greenspan.
On a side note I had to go google PBM this morning as a certain member kept accusing me of being such.
I couldn't figure out why he kept accusing me of being a pharmacy benefit manager. lol
Anyways after finding out that PBM stood for previously banned member I had to truly laugh out loud.
And yes, I openly admit to being an old fogie who doesn't keep up with all these new age internet acronyms.
I don't care to deal with said person but if I were one of you, I'd take him up on that bet he offered up.
I guarantee you'd win.
Have a great day all!

I find it funny why anyone would debate someone on US history/policy that lives in another country.

[irfuji]

Originally Posted by jarrodsalas

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/pay-for-the-wall

This is the first time I really delved into the details of anything Trump has said.

It's about as short sighted and lacking an understanding of the complexities of national economic policies as I would expect.

Trump?s Wall: Impractical, Impolitic, Impossible

That's a pretty good article explaining the majority of the issues.

Besides the obvious fact that it wont work; proof of which can be seen in the historical evidence of the wall between East/West Germany that was breached an estimated thousands of times per year. You also have to take into consideration the claims he makes of how Mexico will pay or will be forced to pay for it.

1- Cutting off the money that goes into Mexico from illegal immigrants in the US. Trump says $24B flows into Mexico from this source. The Post reported its actually closer to $24M, not billion. Of which not all is from illegal immigrants but even if all of it was it's just 1/10th of a percent of the cost of the wall.

2- Increasing tariffs drives up the cost of goods ($15 minimum wage for people flipping burgers doesn't give me a lot of hope that the cost of cheap goods from Mexico will be replaced with similarly priced goods made in the US) and/or the cheap goods will just be replaced by another country (China anyone?).

3- Visa fees. His plan says that even a small increase in visa fees would pay for the wall and he uses a number of 1M cards issued every year. That would imply a cost increase of $25,000 per card to cover the $25B cost estimate. Even if the number of cards issued increased by 100x to 100M that would mean an increase if $250 per card. The current cost of the card is $160. Either way you look at it a 156% or a 15,600% increase is a HUGE increase, not a small one.

I disagree that illegal immigration is as big a problem as Trump paints it to be. I don't see a huge number of people bemoaning about not being able to get a job as a fruit picker, office cleaner, or other low entry manual labor low wage job that the majority of illegal immigrants take.

It is a problem and we need legitimate solutions. Not half backed ones that wont work.

[VeedonFleece]

I wonder how many people who say Clinton deserves no credit for the upturn in the economy blame Obama 100% for the prolonged recession during his tenure.

Betting isn't allowed btw. Unless it's rhetorical.

[VeedonFleece]

.........

[Clarka3]

Originally Posted by chezball

I find it funny why anyone would debate someone on US history/policy that lives in another country.

i dunno man, it's nice to see what these policies look like outside of our "bubble".

[VeedonFleece]

Originally Posted by chezball

I find it funny why anyone would debate someone on US history/policy that lives in another country.

Its called having a world view.

I take it you have no opinions on Syria, North Korea etc?

[Clarka3]

Originally Posted by irfuji

This is the first time I really delved into the details of anything Trump has said.

It's about as short sighted and lacking an understanding of the complexities of national economic policies as I would expect.

Trump?s Wall: Impractical, Impolitic, Impossible

That's a pretty good article explaining the majority of the issues.

Besides the obvious fact that it wont work; proof of which can be seen in the historical evidence of the wall between East/West Germany that was breached an estimated thousands of times per year. You also have to take into consideration the claims he makes of how Mexico will pay or will be forced to pay for it.

1- Cutting off the money that goes into Mexico from illegal immigrants in the US. Trump says $24B flows into Mexico from this source. The Post reported its actually closer to $24M, not billion. Of which not all is from illegal immigrants but even if all of it was it's just 1/10th of a percent of the cost of the wall.

2- Increasing tariffs drives up the cost of goods ($15 minimum wage for people flipping burgers doesn't give me a lot of hope that the cost of cheap goods from Mexico will be replaced with similarly priced goods made in the US) and/or the cheap goods will just be replaced by another country (China anyone?).

3- Visa fees. His plan says that even a small increase in visa fees would pay for the wall and he uses a number of 1M cards issued every year. That would imply a cost increase of $25,000 per card to cover the $25B cost estimate. Even if the number of cards issued increased by 100x to 100M that would mean an increase if $250 per card. The current cost of the card is $160. Either way you look at it a 156% or a 15,600% increase is a HUGE increase, not a small one.

I disagree that illegal immigration is as big a problem as Trump paints it to be. I don't see a huge number of people bemoaning about not being able to get a job as a fruit picker, office cleaner, or other low entry manual labor low wage job that the majority of illegal immigrants take.

It is a problem and we need legitimate solutions. Not half backed ones that wont work.

as much as we disagree on police policy, we are 100% in lock step here.

[SanAntonioSpurs]

Originally Posted by VeedonFleece

I wonder how many people who say Clinton deserves no credit for the upturn in the economy.

So if we give him credit for that (which he had nothing to do with), do we also give him credit for the housing market crash?

[irfuji]

Originally Posted by Clarka3

as much as we disagree on police policy, we are 100% in lock step here.

For the most part I don't understand why people think Hillary lies and is able to be bought. For one, what politician isnt?! For two the absolute vast majority of the issues that have dogged her campaign lately (email and charity foundation) were found to be much ado about nothing. If you read all the facts behind both issues the conclusion is that there's really not much there.

Trump on the other hand scares the crap out of me. What little he has said worries me. He has shown a massive lack of understanding with regard to literally everything one needs to be the President. His economic policies have been studied by independent neutral economists and the conclusion is that they would be shockingly hurtful the American economy. His grandiose claims of being to stop ISIS and know more than the generals in the military show that he wouldn't listen to people who have literally been doing something their entire life and of which he has done it for zero days. He says things that would just inflame and hurt the interaction between countries. What do you think China or North Korea would say if the President of the US said we would give Japan and South Korea nuclear weapons? By the way, Trump has said it, he just isn't/wasn't President.

Fact is, I don't really like Hillary. Her economic policies just worry me as someone who makes a decent amount of money. But I also don't worry that she'll do or say something that causes massive harm to the American economy, interactions between countries, or cause a war that we have to enter (even if we can obliterate North Korea I don't want to subject our service men and women to that).

[ssbledsoe]

Originally Posted by irfuji

For the most part I don't understand why people think Hillary lies and is able to be bought. For one, what politician isnt?! For two the absolute vast majority of the issues that have dogged her campaign lately (email and charity foundation) were found to be much ado about nothing. If you read all the facts behind both issues the conclusion is that there's really not much there.

Trump on the other hand scares the crap out of me. What little he has said worries me. He has shown a massive lack of understanding with regard to literally everything one needs to be the President. His economic policies have been studied by independent neutral economists and the conclusion is that they would be shockingly hurtful the American economy. His grandiose claims of being to stop ISIS and know more than the generals in the military show that he wouldn't listen to people who have literally been doing something their entire life and of which he has done it for zero days. He says things that would just inflame and hurt the interaction between countries. What do you think China or North Korea would say if the President of the US said we would give Japan and South Korea nuclear weapons? By the way, Trump has said it, he just isn't/wasn't President.

Fact is, I don't really like Hillary. Her economic policies just worry me as someone who makes a decent amount of money. But I also don't worry that she'll do or say something that causes massive harm to the American economy, interactions between countries, or cause a war that we have to enter (even if we can obliterate North Korea I don't want to subject our service men and women to that).

Whether it's Trump or Hillary, America will be pulled into at least 1 or more conflicts in the next presidency. Hillary is a warhawk, and Trump's verbal diarrhea is going to p!ss off the wrong people.

[VeedonFleece]

Originally Posted by SanAntonioSpurs

So if we give him credit for that (which he had nothing to do with), do we also give him credit for the housing market crash?

I'm no economist. I don't know if Clinton deserves even an ounce of credit, or blame. I just find it amusing that people are quick to blame Obama for any financial hardship suffered during the past 8 years, when we in Europe have suffered too. I can't stand our leaders, despite voting for some of them, but I don't pin the blame on them for the recession. Well, not entirely!

[tke1600]

Originally Posted by irfuji

For the most part I don't understand why people think Hillary lies and is able to be bought. For one, what politician isnt?! For two the absolute vast majority of the issues that have dogged her campaign lately (email and charity foundation) were found to be much ado about nothing. If you read all the facts behind both issues the conclusion is that there's really not much there.

Trump on the other hand scares the crap out of me. What little he has said worries me. He has shown a massive lack of understanding with regard to literally everything one needs to be the President. His economic policies have been studied by independent neutral economists and the conclusion is that they would be shockingly hurtful the American economy. His grandiose claims of being to stop ISIS and know more than the generals in the military show that he wouldn't listen to people who have literally been doing something their entire life and of which he has done it for zero days. He says things that would just inflame and hurt the interaction between countries. What do you think China or North Korea would say if the President of the US said we would give Japan and South Korea nuclear weapons? By the way, Trump has said it, he just isn't/wasn't President.

Fact is, I don't really like Hillary. Her economic policies just worry me as someone who makes a decent amount of money. But I also don't worry that she'll do or say something that causes massive harm to the American economy, interactions between countries, or cause a war that we have to enter (even if we can obliterate North Korea I don't want to subject our service men and women to that).

I'm just highlighting in your post why such a large % of people are voting for Trump. He is not a politician.

[Nicnac]

Originally Posted by tke1600

I'm just highlighting in your post why such a large % of people are voting for Trump. He is not a politician.

Because big business leaders are not bought and sold either... The one running appears to be heavily supported by at least one foreign government...