Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory
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)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6


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.

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.

They are onto something: people throughout the world are placid because of cheap manufactured goods, especially entertainment devices, from China. Like them or not for their domestic politics, one can't deny that they are smart enough to know how to hurt us at a time of their choosing and convenience.

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:
Clinton (me)
Some 3rd party (her)

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.

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.

They are onto something: people throughout the world are placid because of cheap manufactured goods, especially entertainment devices, from China. Like them or not for their domestic politics, one can't deny that they are smart enough to know how to hurt us at a time of their choosing and convenience.

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.

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.  Tongue

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
Bondi solicited political contribution in 2013, received $25,000


Florida’s attorney general personally solicited a political contribution from Donald Trump around the same time her office deliberated joining an investigation of alleged fraud at Trump University and its affiliates.

The new disclosure from Attorney General Pam Bondi’s spokesman to the Associated Press on Monday provides additional details around the unusual circumstances of Trump’s $25,000 donation to Bondi. After the money came in, Bondi’s office nixed suing Trump.

...The timing of the donation by Trump is notable because the now presumptive Republican presidential nominee has said he expected and received favors from politicians to whom he gave money.

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

...Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton moved to muzzle a former state regulator who says he was ordered in 2010 to drop a fraud investigation into Trump University for political reasons.

Paxton's office issued a cease and desist letter to former Deputy Chief of Consumer Protection John Owens after he made public copies of a 14-page internal summary of the state's case against Donald Trump for scamming millions from students of his now-defunct real estate seminar.

...According to the documents provided by Owens, his team sought to sue Trump, his company and several business associates to help recover more than $2.6 million students spent on seminars and materials, plus another $2.8 million in penalties and fees.

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

Internal documents of Trump University, a defunct online education program co-founded in 2005 by Donald Trump, revealed a moneymaking scheme that targeted students with "problems," presumably financial. Nearly 400 pages of documents were unsealed by a federal judge Tuesday after a lawsuit was filed alleging that the institute scammed thousands of people who enrolled in a program by giving the impression it was an accredited academic institution.


The documents include "playbooks" regarding running the enterprise and how to sell programs to customers. The playbook reportedly guides employees to assign ranks to potential students based on “who has the most and least liquid assets.” The courses at the university started at $1,495, with the most expensive option, known as gold elite, costing $34,995, the Time reported.


“Money is never a reason for not enrolling in Trump University; if they really believe in you and your product, they will find the money. You are not doing any favor [sic] by letting someone use lack of money as an excuse," one of the documents, which provided training and sales tips for Trump University employees, stated.


“When you introduce the price, don’t make it sound like you think it’s a lot of money, if you don’t make a big deal out of it they won’t,” the document reportedly said. “If they can afford the gold elite don’t allow them to think about doing anything besides the gold elite.”


The university's playbook also outlined a strategy for targeting people mostly under financial trouble.
“Urgency is proportional to pain,” the document said. “Problems are like health. The more a problem hurts now, the more the need for a solution now. And the more it hurts, the more they’ll be prepared to pay for a speedy solution. It’s got to hurt enough!”


Two examples of personal problems potential Trump University buyers may be experiencing included: "Are they a single parent of three children that may need money for food? Or are they a middle-aged commuter that is tired of traveling for 2 hours for work each day?” the document said.



On Tuesday, former managers of Trump University in testimony portrayed it as an unscrupulous business that relied on high-pressure sales tactics.



“I believe that Trump University was a fraudulent scheme,” one sales manager for Trump University, Ronald Schnackenberg, wrote, “and that it preyed upon the elderly and uneducated to separate them from their money.


Lawyers for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee Tuesday challenged the testimony of the former Trump University employees saying it “was completely discredited” in depositions taken for the California lawsuit. Trump's lawyers declined to release those depositions on Tuesday.

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

Donald Trump's latest attacks against U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel have left his party grappling with buyer's remorse with five agonizing months left until the November election.

Just weeks after clinching the nomination, Trump has doubled down on his divisive rhetoric, most recently ignoring calls from GOP leaders to back off of his racially-charged comments about Curiel's "Mexican" heritage and work to unite the party.

Republican lawmakers seem to be caught in an awkward dance– clinging to their endorsements on one hand all the while criticizing their nominee. Just last week, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) finally lent his support to Trump. By Tuesday he was at a podium condemning him.

"Claiming a person can't do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment," Ryan said at a news conference in Southeast D.C. "I'm not going to defend these kinds of comments because they're indefensible."

Trump's supporters, however, have stopped short of withdrawing their support for their nominee. They sharply jab Trump, but resist abandoning him. Whether they persist in doing that delicate dance until November is an open question.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) who is running for re-election told Politico that he didn't agree with Trump's comments, but he that wouldn't stop him from endorsing him.

“If they were inconsistent with things we’ve seen up to this point in the election, I would tell you it might. But I think we’re all sort of used to remarks being made that we don’t expect," Politico reported Burr said.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), who is also running for re-election, re-upped her own opaque position on Trump.

“I felt that his comments were wrong and offensive, and I’ve urged him to retract them," Ayotte said, according to Politico, before adding “I’m running my race and focusing on the people of New Hampshire. I’ve said he’s our nominee; I plan to vote for him, but I’m not endorsing.”

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) reiterated that he planned to run "a very independent campaign," according to the Associated Press.

Beyond the Hill, Trump's comments against Curiel have struck a party-wide nerve. Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who appointed Curiel to a state court judgeship, tweeted Monday: "Judge Curiel is an American hero who stood up to the Mexican cartels. I was proud to appoint him when I was Gov."

Erick Erickson, a conservative commentator who has been outspoken against Trump, penned a column over the weekend blasting his party for not taking more action.

"Damn the GOP for its unwillingness to speak up on this," Erickson wrote. "The leaders of the party, confronted by Todd Akin, abandoned ship for his stupid statements on rape and abortion. But the Party of Lincoln intends to circle the wagons around a racist. Damn them for that."


Even Trump's most fervent supporters seem tired of his attacks on a federal judge. In an interview with CNN, Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY), a Trump surrogate, warned it was "time to just let go of this" and "move on."

And, just as Republican lawmakers are struggling to contend with Trump's unorthodox campaign, there is a growing schism within the campaign itself. Bloomberg reported Monday that in a conference call with his surrogates Trump bulldozed over his campaign advisers' directive that surrogates stop talking about Judge Curiel.

According to Bloomberg,Trump instructed his surrogates to "take that order and throw it the hell out."

Trump's comment was just the latest indication for Republican leaders that their hopes to soften and redefine their nominee have been dashed. Former Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer offered Trump a stark admonishment.

“You all better get on the page,” she warned Trump about his campaign's mixed messages.

Trump's intensified attacks and his party's growing unease come just as Clinton prepares to clinch the Democratic nomination and pivot to the general election. In a stirring foreign policy speech last week, Clinton revealed she is geared up and ready to let Trump's own words sink him.

Some Republicans are warning their colleagues that it is not too late to backtrack.

In a New York Times story Monday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) fired off a warning for his fellow Republicans who'd decided to endorse Trump up to this point.

“This is the most un-American thing from a politician since Joe McCarthy,” Graham said according to the New York Times. “If anybody was looking for an off-ramp, this is probably it. ... There’ll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary.”

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:
Clinton (me)
Some 3rd party (her)

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.

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).

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!!!






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.

The other possibility is he remains the GOP nominee, but the brewing GOP fracture accelerates. The 3rd party (nee "Establishment GOP") candidate - French or someone -  becomes the standard bearer for GOPers who can no longer abide by pretending to support Trump.

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!  Shy


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).

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.

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.

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).

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)

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.
[/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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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 cry barf LOL  Rolleyes