Who are you voting for in 2016? - Printable Version +- Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory (http://generational-theory.com/forum) +-- Forum: Fourth Turning Forums (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-1.html) +--- Forum: Current Events (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-34.html) +---- Forum: General Political Discussion (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-15.html) +---- Thread: Who are you voting for in 2016? (/thread-26.html) |
RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - radind - 06-07-2016 (06-07-2016, 08:12 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:(05-17-2016, 12:34 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: As I mentioned before an unspoken reason for trump's policies is our entire economy's dependence on petrodollars. Because of this, the saudis, the russians or the chinese can simply cut of our oil (in the case of the saudis) or shift the world's reserve currency to something other than the dollar (in the case of China and Russia). If That occurs the US economy would immediately crumble and we would be reduced to a pre-industrial subsistence economy practically overnight. Zerohedge has published many articles explaining how this process would come about. I am concerned about China long term( ~20 years out) as they continue to develop on military front. However, in the near term we seem to be mutually interdependent in terms of trade. China has internal struggles and cannot afford to end exports to the USA. Also, there has been some migration of production out of China. The question becomes: when does one want to start a trade war or a military war? I hope that the US maintains a military strong enough to deter military action. RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - playwrite - 06-07-2016 (06-07-2016, 11:29 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Our household this November: You should get her to write the apology to your kids and grandkids for her enabling a President Trump, and a SCOTUS that will be at least as scary and longer lasting. In 2000, I suggested this to the Naderites that gave us 'W,' 9/11, Iraq Invasion, Great Recession, Financial Meltdown, income inequity, etc. -- all that will be chump change by the time the Talking Yam is done with us. RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - playwrite - 06-07-2016 (06-07-2016, 08:59 AM)radind Wrote:(06-07-2016, 08:12 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:(05-17-2016, 12:34 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: As I mentioned before an unspoken reason for trump's policies is our entire economy's dependence on petrodollars. Because of this, the saudis, the russians or the chinese can simply cut of our oil (in the case of the saudis) or shift the world's reserve currency to something other than the dollar (in the case of China and Russia). If That occurs the US economy would immediately crumble and we would be reduced to a pre-industrial subsistence economy practically overnight. Zerohedge has published many articles explaining how this process would come about. Some good perspective there, Radind. All trade, EXPORTS as well as imports, represents about 15% of our economy, and China only has a share of that. China could fall off the map tomorrow, and after some adjustments, would not be missed (economically, the cultural loss would be staggering). China does use the Yuan for ALL internal economic transactions. Their national bank "sterilizing" the Dollar, Euro, Ruble, etc. it gets through foreign trade. Their foreign currency accounts sit on the ledgers of the central banks of the nations that are THE sovereign monopolies of their respective currencies - if it ever came to it, those China accounts could be 'disappeared' in a millisecond. If you owe the bank several thousand dollars, that is your problem. If the banks owe you billions or trillions, well, you better be on your best behavior. This is not rocket science, but it goes against all the memes about federal debt and fiat currency that the elites use to keep the sheeple worried and in line. RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - playwrite - 06-07-2016 OMG, who would have thought that Trump University would be what dumps the Talking Yam? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-texas-official-says-he-was-told-to-drop-trump-university-probe/ Quote:Florida AG asked Trump for donation, then nixed fraud case http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-texas-official-says-he-was-told-to-drop-trump-university-probe/ Quote:Former Texas official says he was told to drop Trump University probe After his racial attempt to disqualify the Federal judge, many Republicans are trying to figure out if they should bolt. This apparent bribing of GOP State AGs could be the last straw. Then what? Maybe the GOP should take a pass this election? RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - playwrite - 06-07-2016 Just a reminder that the racism and bribing of state AGs are just two of the tripod of woe of Trump University has in store for the Talking Yam. The first, the one that caused the other two in desperation, was the court revealing his preying on the financially vulnerable - https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-university-targeted-students-financial-074952703.html Quote:Trump University Targeted Students With Financial Woes Sorry Talking Yam dudes and dudedetts, the Talking Yam's candidacy is over. Truckloads of WhoopAss, with the Talking Yam's name on it, have been distributed to every news media outlet on TV and the Internet. Little Marco smiles. RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - playwrite - 06-07-2016 The totally tubular awesomeness of the Talking Yam as the GOP's choice for political suicide - http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trump-comments-challenge-gops-fragile-unity Quote:Trump's War Against 'Mexican' Judge Shatters GOP's Fragile Unity Behold the awesomeness. Little Marco, Low-Energy Jeb, and Lyin Ted, and 1-for-38 John are somewhere sharing a secret smile. RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - playwrite - 06-07-2016 Oh-ooh, polltracker polling average just ticked up to Clinton +4.2 (43.8/39.6). If this goes above +5, watch a ton more distancing of the GOP away from the Talking Yam. If about +7 before the convention, Trump will not be the GOP nominee. You heard it here first. RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - playwrite - 06-07-2016 Holly ShXt!!! RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - playwrite - 06-07-2016 (06-07-2016, 01:40 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:(06-07-2016, 11:51 AM)playwrite Wrote:(06-07-2016, 11:29 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Our household this November: You have a very fine brain. You owe it to society to reproduce! Trump voters are not going to hold back! RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - playwrite - 06-07-2016 More HOLY SHXT!!! The Talking Yam candidacy is blowing up today. He's stuck. He can't back down; if he does, he's no longer Donald Trump. If he doesn't back down, he will not be the GOP's nominee. RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - Odin - 06-07-2016 (06-07-2016, 01:40 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Our votes don't matter. We are in one of the deepest blue precincts, in a deep blue county, in CA. No offspring (after all, we are inadvertent negative population growth practitioners - typical X). Yeah, I'm in Minnesota, which will with 99% certainly go for Clinton, so I can vote 3rd Party without any of the guilt Playwrite is insinuating. RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - Mikebert - 06-08-2016 (06-07-2016, 08:12 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Chinese can decide at a moment's notice, and at their convenience, that all dealings with business in China will be made in the yuan. Yes they can. This would be similar to deciding to exchange all those dollars and dollar-denominated securities for yuan (reminibi). And that would have a similar impact as a US tariff on China, which I point is something Trump (and I) want. My earlier point is the very things Classic brought up as scary things we should avoid and as reasons to support Trump are things Trump (and I) WANT to do, and which are not scary at all, IMO (Playwrite would disagree). Here is my take on this from an article in 2005. (parts it bold have been added here) Consider the situation the United States found itself in during the last Kondratiev winter (4T). The US had too little domestic demand to fully utilize the productive capacity built up during the Kondratiev Fall (3T) boom. The resulting sustained unemployment had persisted for years and showed no sign of ending despite the New Deal programs. The US only began to lift out of the Depression with the start of the Lend Lease program, which involved the US making and giving away goods to the British during WW II. Later, the US joined the war and started producing much larger quantities of goods and expending them in the war effort. US workers turned out prodigious amounts of goods, all of it financed by massive low-interest debt (courtesy of the US central bank which bought US treasuries as necessary to keep rates low). These goods were then given away (to the war effort). In other words, the American worker and American central bank during WW II played a role much like the one the Chinese worker and central bank is playing today. The entire operation was financed by vast amounts of debt raised largely from American investors, which produced an enormous amount of economic stimulation (Figure 3), a substantial amount of price inflation, and flat interest rates (thanks to Federal Reserve interventions). This debt was eventually monetized, meaning that American bond investors took major losses as bonds came to be called "certificates of confiscation". Yet the outcome for the nation as a whole was favorable: three decades of post war prosperity. In the present Kondratiev Winter season, the Chinese are playing the same economic role as the Americans did in the last Winter season and can expect that the outcome will be as salutary for them as it was for postwar America. RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - playwrite - 06-08-2016 (06-07-2016, 03:02 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:(06-07-2016, 01:54 PM)playwrite Wrote: More HOLY SHXT!!! We need to remember this is the GOP - not exactly profiles-in-courage. Very few of them are calling Trump out except for those who came in with the 2010 t-bagger wave and are now facing re-election in Blue States. The rest on going to wait until the polls come out and see which way the wind is blowing, and it's going to have to blow hard to overcome their fear of being "primaried" or reducing turnout of their base. If Trump can keep within 3 percentage points of Clinton, it will all smooth over for him - at least until the next big gaffe. If it goes between 3-5, expect more mumblings from various GOP whoosies but they'll still support/vote for him If it gets to 5-6, expect a lot of defections, but Trump stays as the nominee - just not enough political juice to overcome t-bagger resistance to dump the chump Trump. If it goes over 6, certainly over 7, he's gone From a legal perspective, the last scenario is possible. The RNC is a private entity that can do whatever they want with their internal rules. Under the +7 scenario, they will change the rules to be a super-majority on the first ballot; on the next ballot everyone is released. Also, under a +7 scenario, it is not really that politically far-fetched - Trump will clearly on a path to lose to Clinton and that will get the baggers behind a more viable candidate. The problem with that (for the GOP) is they will still lose and that lost will blow the GOP apart; it will never again be a viable national political power. Fingers crossed for good luck for that scenario! RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - playwrite - 06-08-2016 (06-07-2016, 04:09 PM)Odin Wrote:(06-07-2016, 01:40 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Our votes don't matter. We are in one of the deepest blue precincts, in a deep blue county, in CA. No offspring (after all, we are inadvertent negative population growth practitioners - typical X). Let's put aside the fact that some political analysts are suggesting MN could be a successful GOP target (i.e. White males dissatisfied with life blaming the government), and just note that you are not just talking with others of the Gopher State - maybe you are giving every reason for a reader in FL, OH, or NV to enable a Trump Presidency with yet another stupid Nader-like vote. RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - playwrite - 06-08-2016 (06-08-2016, 05:35 AM)Mikebert Wrote:(06-07-2016, 08:12 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Chinese can decide at a moment's notice, and at their convenience, that all dealings with business in China will be made in the yuan. Actually, I'm less scared about this that either of you. Basically, your "tariff" of their dumping the dollar is that Chinese goods would become more dollar expensive and drive down their exports. Even if they decide to do that (they won't), it would just add some inflationary pressure back here - something that we actually need right now. And it really won't make a dent in US employment, for not only is China trade a very small part of our overall economy, those jobs are exactly the ones being most automated. We might get a lot of robots working but maintaining them doesn't really require a lot of humans - robots are starting to maintain other robots. Foxconn, the big manufacture of components for nearly everything electronic, is on track of it's 2015 plan of having 80% of its manufacturing completely automated in less than 2 years (and their remaining workforce is locating to cheaper labor markets like Vietnam). Bottom line - If you and Trump want jobs, you're looking in the wrong place. Quote:Here is my take on this from an article in 2005. (parts it bold have been added here)[/quote] It wasn't really "financed." Federal taxes serve only to remove wealth from the economy to slow inflation; the monetary soverign can print (i.e., spend) as much money as it wants without taxing (some level of taxing is needed to keep people using the currency). Also the central government is not dependent on borrowing; it pays interest on bonds as a service the government provides to savers to entice them from the risks of putting their money under the mattress (part of the safety net) and to a lesser extent provide some control over inflation. The constraint on government and ALL other spending is inflation. But, some inflation is needed for a healthy growing economy. When the economy is structurally booming, like in post-WW2, more inflation will result, likely necessary, knee-knocking is not really necessary. What inflationisties (e.g., Austrians) conveniently forget to mention is the enormous wealth creation and standard of living increases during these inflationary periods that far exceed any pain from inflation. They also kind of skip over that bouts of particularly bad inflation has much more to do with the supply of oil than any government spending. But putting all that aside, your excerpted material is about actual government spending (i.e., money printing) for the public good, and yes, we once did that with some abandoned... and we boomed on the economic, technologic and even geopolitical fronts. China now does that, and we don't - as a result, they will likely continue on their path to surpass us on the economic, technological and geopolitical fronts. I'm not sure Libertarians, Austrians, spending hawks, the GOP, and all other inflationisties should all be rounded up and shot as traitors but, yes, to be clear, they are doing great harm to our country. RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - Cynic Hero '86 - 06-08-2016 Globalism is utter nonsense; Hillary's condescending attitude toward sanders supporters and her claims to entitlement towards being representative of women's issues will drive away post-boomer women and millennials to trump. Trump will be our next president if Hillary's nomination is allowed to stand. RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - Eric the Green - 06-08-2016 (06-08-2016, 07:10 AM)playwrite Wrote:(06-07-2016, 04:09 PM)Odin Wrote:(06-07-2016, 01:40 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Our votes don't matter. We are in one of the deepest blue precincts, in a deep blue county, in CA. No offspring (after all, we are inadvertent negative population growth practitioners - typical X). Nader was a well-known and respected national leader. The Greens or another left party does not have such a figure in 2016. Jill Stein is a good candidate, but she's not a well-known national leader with accomplishments to her credit for the people that made a difference, as Nader was. I doubt she can get more than 3% in any state; probably less in most. It could be a factor in a few swing states. But she will get less in a state like FL than Nader's 1%. Because FL was so tight in 2000, any of the other "third" candidates in the 2000 race could also be said to have flipped the state to Bush, and there were a number of them. Johnson has more credibility as a former governor, but cannot compare with Nader in the above ways. He would draw at-least equally from Hillary Clinton and The Donald. Odin keeps saying MN will certainly go to Hillary Clinton, but actual election results paint a different picture. Obama's margin there was narrow. RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - Odin - 06-08-2016 (06-08-2016, 07:10 AM)playwrite Wrote:(06-07-2016, 04:09 PM)Odin Wrote:(06-07-2016, 01:40 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Our votes don't matter. We are in one of the deepest blue precincts, in a deep blue county, in CA. No offspring (after all, we are inadvertent negative population growth practitioners - typical X). Trump has no chance in hell of winning Minnesota and my vote has no impact on who wins other states because of the compartmentalized nature of the electoral college. RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - Mikebert - 06-09-2016 Actually I would prefer an across the board tariff. The rate would be set low and continually raised until it reaches the point where revenues are maximized. That is, the product of tax rate x trade volume is to be maximized. My gut feeling is such a tax might raise 300-500 billion annually. Use it to shore up Medicare. Lots of European countries have value-added taxes (i.e. sales taxes on domestically-produced goods+services). Republicans love value-added/sales taxes (this was the centerpiece of the Cruz program). Why shouldn't the US just "go Cruz" on foreign-produced goods+services? RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - playwrite - 06-09-2016 (06-08-2016, 10:48 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Globalism is utter nonsense; Hillary's condescending attitude toward sanders supporters and her claims to entitlement towards being representative of women's issues will drive away post-boomer women and millennials to trump. Trump will be our next president if Hillary's nomination is allowed to stand. Your concern trolling makes me want to |