OT: The next President of the United States: ★★★ Donald Trump ★★★

[Flopper]

Cruz wouldn't be destroying her imo. That guy is even creepier than Trump somehow.

Cruz could formulate a discussion on policy and still put her down for emails and past issues. I think a normal republican candidate would have destroyed her. When they were doing the polls toward the end, all of them were favorable against Hilary. Only Trump struggled.

It's crazy that Trump and Clinton, who were considered very weak candidates in previous election cycles in 2000 and 2008, are now the party nominees in 2016. I'm still surprised that Romney decided not to run again as he was arguably his party's strongest candidate since Bob Dole in 1996 and probably would've won easily.

On a side note I just noticed that every article on the Huffington Post has this message from the editor on the bottom :

Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.

[cocktailswith_2short]

I have to link this thread to another site the levels of cuckery and denial here are astronomical.

[Sinistar6]

Trump's list of judges is enough to scare me. Sorry, but I'm not in support of making the Supreme Court more right-wing than it already is. You want to talk parallel sci-fi dystopia scenarios? Go ahead and keep allowing the religious-right with their ideological agendas to be placed on life-terms in arguably the most powerful branch of them all.

Talk about the branch that has the power to strip Americans of most their rights... Abortion and Gay Marriage is what they want you to focus on, because it's a trivial dispute at this point. There's no turning back the clock now. Go ahead and ban abortions; people will still get them, less safely and unfairly prosecuted like criminals. Gay couples aren't going to put up with legislation that strips their rights.

Trump went on to praise Scalia as a benchmark judge. A racist, party-driven/agenda judge who strongly/emotionally pushed every Bush/Cheney/Wolfovitz agenda for going to war, bolstoring executive commands/overrides, limiting citizen's freedoms... Not to mention he was all for giving "non-profit" corps like Citizen United the "freedom" to push whatever propoganda they want, endlessly with their infinite budgets. Yeah -- really fair and just when the richest monopolies get to use all their infinite wealth to push films/ads/propoganda that favor their money-making interests.

You can blame most of the current and past social problems on conservative sociopaths elected into office... Who went ahead and nominated sociapath judges to the Supreme Court.

Everyone jokes about "I'm curious what Trump will do." Well, he's a sociopath-- he's going to **** things up, give all the racist/rich/sociapathic men all the tools they need to send America back another decade.

I remind everybody that W. Bush (Cheney) era was not a good time for anybody except people with enough millions and billions to go and reap the benefits of all the stock and real estate crashes.

Trump's a bigot whose form of debating issues is using his "charisma" to repeatedly call Hillary an "idiot liar" and changing topics to continue addressing her scandals that everybody is so obsessed with uncovering. News flash -- every long time politician has a record of punishable mistakes that are pardoned. Compared to what Cheney/Bush had done, the Hillary pursuits (which continue failing) are laughable tax-money/media endeavors. So much propoganda is out there trying to slay Hillary.

If Dick Cheney and Bush (not to mention Trump) were investigated as thoroughly and publically as Hillary... You'd find enough dirt to throw them in a guillotine. But of course those hypocrites had the Scalias (rest in hell) protecting their legacies.

But hey, it's America. The voting public is obsessed with moral agendas and "bringing things back to the way they were." Too bad the growing population, growing tech sector (robots/machines/self-service), women/minorities having equal qualifications... Too bad all that is making it impossible to live the old dream of working at the local plant and making enough money to buy your nuclear family a stupid cube house in pleasantville suburbia with a vacation house in FL and a Cadillac...

As far as entrepreunerial aspirations go, we're still at "comfortable" time for starting up a business. You just can't expect to do it with a shoe shop or a landscaping company.

Trump is a sociopath with entirely too much money passed down to him, living in a fantasy world. Please don't fall for his catch phrase macho swagger. Don't worry, I'm not crazy about another in the "oligarchy" line of family politicians, but Hillary isn't going to eat your unborn babies' brains and shut down all the coal mines and car factories in America.

It must be nice to live in your reality. All you do is throw around your sjw labels with nothing to back it up; racist, bigot, sociopath(lol, sociopath? really? jesus..., oh, and "rest in hell"? typical classy liberal. They preach that love and tolerance until you disagree with them, then death upon you. lol.) Hillary is the one with dead people under her watch, not Trump. In my experience, the most bigoted intolerant people I've ever met have been rabid Hillary supporters. Vandalizing property, assaulting people in Trump hats, breaking out windows from cars with trump bumper stickers has been widely documented. Not covered by the real propagandists mind you, i.e; every mainstream news outlet in america. It is ridiculous how unabashedly biased it is. It's 1980's Soviet Union level of propaganda. I know it's hard to notice this in your safe-space echo chamber you likely live in, but it is absolutely insane if you are ever able to take a look at it objectively.

It boggles the mind how people can actually support Hillary. Hillary is a fraud. Claims to be a feminist yet takes cash from countries that treat women like complete ****. Attacks victims of her husbands many sexual assaults, while protecting him. She is out for herself and no one else. She displays the same hypocrisy with the gay community. Again taking handouts from Gay murdering Saudi Arabia. Now she's wanting to go to war with Russia if it is determined that they were responsible for leaking her and the corrupt DNC's actions that screwed Bernie Sanders out of the nomination. If that isn't reason enough for her, she will create one by going into Syria in order to control the airfields there. Hell, Obama is already pushing for it. Hello WW3 if we start **** with Russia. That is beyond unnecessary and stupid. Russia is doing what we wont and killing ISIS scum but hey lets start a war with them to protect the rebels infested with ISIS. Also, Hillary voted for every **** middle eastern conflict we've made the mistake of getting into in last few decades... But Trump's the warmonger. Right.

Trump is anti establishment. Anti Bush, Anti Clinton. Both parties have been **** up the country for years. I'm no fan of Bush or other establishment republicans, or democrats obviously, but I'd rather give Trump a chance than going with the corrupt piece of **** that is Hillary Clinton. It's amusing to me that this thread is full of cocksure "Trump is 100% losing" comments when he is the one filling auditoriums and arenas while Hill-shill can't draw a **** fly to help fill out a high school gymnasium. Her supporters don't show up to her rallies, don't vote for her in the majority of online polls, but they'll TOTALLY show up and vote for her on election day. Right.

Sadly, I fully expect her to commit election fraud and win. Democrats have already been caught registering dead people to vote with the intent of voting for her in Virginia so it's just a matter of time. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/he-fought-in-world-war-ii-he-died-in-2014-and-he-just-registered-to-vote-in-va/2016/09/29/5e0bffee-8670-11e6-ac72-a29979381495_story.html She also has the entirety of the media in her pocket, not to mention the FBI so we'll all be up to our neck in the fetid, **** that is a Hillary Clinton presidency before long. Hope you can swim.

We are going to defend the political organization that we favor, but your rebuttal is full of Hypocrisy, IMO. You talk about throwing around labels with nothing to back it up, and then say a statement like, "Hillary is the one with dead people under her watch, not Trump". I would assume that if Hillary was responsible for someone's death there would be some kind of criminal or civil suit unless she was able to do it without getting caught. If she was able to do it without getting caught, then there is no evidence...

[TheSuzerain]

Cruz wouldn't be destroying her imo. That guy is even creepier than Trump somehow.

Cruz could formulate a discussion on policy and still put her down for emails and past issues. I think a normal republican candidate would have destroyed her. When they were doing the polls toward the end, all of them were favorable against Hilary. Only Trump struggled.

It's crazy that Trump and Clinton, who were considered very weak candidates in previous election cycles in 2000 and 2008, are now the party nominees in 2016. I'm still surprised that Romney decided not to run again as he was arguably his party's strongest candidate since Bob Dole in 1996 and probably would've won easily.

On a side note I just noticed that every article on the Huffington Post has this message from the editor on the bottom :

Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.

Mitt would have had no shot of winning the GOP primary.

[CoreyVillains]

I could care less for either candidate personally. My concern is the economy. Granted Obama's policy helped to save the US from total collapse after 2008, but he also ran the debt up faster than any president before. It was a necessary evil in my opinion, but 4 more years of the same is not sustainable. These politicians just politicians, or lawyers. I'm tired of pretty polished words and rhetoric. We need someone with a sense for business to run this country like a company. Just my opinion.

You can get that from Cuban when he runs, for now lets take the candidate that can form coherent sentences.

[TheSuzerain]

I could care less for either candidate personally. My concern is the economy. Granted Obama's policy helped to save the US from total collapse after 2008, but he also ran the debt up faster than any president before. It was a necessary evil in my opinion, but 4 more years of the same is not sustainable. These politicians just politicians, or lawyers. I'm tired of pretty polished words and rhetoric. We need someone with a sense for business to run this country like a company. Just my opinion.

It is totally sustainable actually. We could probably expand the deficit a bit and still be completely fine.

[Jo Jo English]

When trump mentioned that he wants to investigate Hilary many ppl and media called him Hitler and a dictator. That's ridiculous, so Hilary getting away with the email scandal is ok? They didn't do anything to her because of who she is. Trump simply stated that he will put a private investigator to look into her case, he can't put her to jail if she's innocent(which I doubt she is).

I've never been a fan of the Hitler/Nazi comparisons. I understand the words and imagery that are triggering those thoughts, but Donald has said and done enough on his own to warrant plenty of legit criticisms without the need for hyperbole.

In addition to stating that he would ask for a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary he also claimed, "because you'd be in jail." That statement spits in the face of any argument that he simply wants the truth exposed. In Donald's mind the truth is already determined. She should be in prison. Considering that whether Trump supporters are satisfied or not, Hillary was investigated by a self-professed registered Republican for most of his life who has a very solid record. The FBI found no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges. It is not possible that Trump knows more about the case than James Comey. Impossible. The same goes for all of us too.

But that isn't good enough for Trump. In his world he just needs to throw more investigators into the mix until he gets the result he wants. That is absolutely not justice. That approach to what he would do with that sort of power should concern any reasonable American. Hell, any reasonable citizen of the world.

No thank you.

[dice]

I could care less for either candidate personally. My concern is the economy. Granted Obama's policy helped to save the US from total collapse after 2008, but he also ran the debt up faster than any president before. It was a necessary evil in my opinion, but 4 more years of the same is not sustainable. These politicians just politicians, or lawyers. I'm tired of pretty polished words and rhetoric. We need someone with a sense for business to run this country like a company. Just my opinion.

It is totally sustainable actually. We could probably expand the deficit a bit and still be completely fine.

yep. it will likely be decades before we even get to legitimate discussion about debt sustainability. of course, debt as a general proposition is a bad thing

[League Circles]

I could care less for either candidate personally. My concern is the economy. Granted Obama's policy helped to save the US from total collapse after 2008, but he also ran the debt up faster than any president before. It was a necessary evil in my opinion, but 4 more years of the same is not sustainable. These politicians just politicians, or lawyers. I'm tired of pretty polished words and rhetoric. We need someone with a sense for business to run this country like a company. Just my opinion.

It is totally sustainable actually. We could probably expand the deficit a bit and still be completely fine.

The sustainability of it rests entirely on investors - often foreign governments - continuing to asses the underlying value of treasuries positively. It is not under our control at all. As soon as they start to back away significantly, we are royally ****.

[TheSuzerain]

I could care less for either candidate personally. My concern is the economy. Granted Obama's policy helped to save the US from total collapse after 2008, but he also ran the debt up faster than any president before. It was a necessary evil in my opinion, but 4 more years of the same is not sustainable. These politicians just politicians, or lawyers. I'm tired of pretty polished words and rhetoric. We need someone with a sense for business to run this country like a company. Just my opinion.

It is totally sustainable actually. We could probably expand the deficit a bit and still be completely fine.

yep. it will likely be decades before we even get to legitimate discussion about debt sustainability. of course, debt as a general proposition is a bad thing

Not really. It serves a definite purpose.

[dice]

Cruz wouldn't be destroying her imo. That guy is even creepier than Trump somehow.

Cruz could formulate a discussion on policy and still put her down for emails and past issues. I think a normal republican candidate would have destroyed her. When they were doing the polls toward the end, all of them were favorable against Hilary. Only Trump struggled.

It's crazy that Trump and Clinton, who were considered very weak candidates in previous election cycles in 2000 and 2008, are now the party nominees in 2016. I'm still surprised that Romney decided not to run again as he was arguably his party's strongest candidate since Bob Dole in 1996 and probably would've won easily.

trump did not seriously engage in politics until he built his base on the birtherism issue. and clinton was indeed considered a strong candidate in 2008. obama was a meteor

as for candidates other than trump faring well in polling matchups against hillary, that was due in part to not being the focus of hillary's campaign anymore

and i really hope we're not considering ted freaking cruz as a normal republican candidate. republican politicians hate him even more than they hate trump right now (cruz for his single-minded self-interest and unlikability, trump for damaging the party)

On a side note I just noticed that every article on the Huffington Post has this message from the editor on the bottom :

Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.

the huffington post refused to even cover donald trump as a candidate (and maybe rightfully so) until his chances of winning became undeniable. i guess this is their compromise with themselves

[Bobbalu]

I could care less for either candidate personally. My concern is the economy. Granted Obama's policy helped to save the US from total collapse after 2008, but he also ran the debt up faster than any president before. It was a necessary evil in my opinion, but 4 more years of the same is not sustainable. These politicians just politicians, or lawyers. I'm tired of pretty polished words and rhetoric. We need someone with a sense for business to run this country like a company. Just my opinion.

It is totally sustainable actually. We could probably expand the deficit a bit and still be completely fine.

How can we be completely fine later, if we're not fine now. The US economy is maintaining a very fragile facade. Wall Street is doing fine, but at the expense of the working man's quality of life. I signed up for change, and change is not synonymous with Obama. 4 years of the same is just not a risk I'm willing to take.

[dice]

It is totally sustainable actually. We could probably expand the deficit a bit and still be completely fine.

yep. it will likely be decades before we even get to legitimate discussion about debt sustainability. of course, debt as a general proposition is a bad thing

Not really. It serves a definite purpose.

are you suggesting that it's a net positive to run a perpetual deficit?

[dice]

I could care less for either candidate personally. My concern is the economy. Granted Obama's policy helped to save the US from total collapse after 2008, but he also ran the debt up faster than any president before. It was a necessary evil in my opinion, but 4 more years of the same is not sustainable. These politicians just politicians, or lawyers. I'm tired of pretty polished words and rhetoric. We need someone with a sense for business to run this country like a company. Just my opinion.

It is totally sustainable actually. We could probably expand the deficit a bit and still be completely fine.

The sustainability of it rests entirely on investors - often foreign governments - continuing to asses the underlying value of treasuries positively. It is not under our control at all. As soon as they start to back away significantly, we are royally ****.

or we start paying them back in full at the point when they demand it

it would require significant short-term sacrifice, but it wouldn't threaten to take down the economy like it did in greece (which had/has a much higher debt and deficit load)

[dice]

I could care less for either candidate personally. My concern is the economy. Granted Obama's policy helped to save the US from total collapse after 2008, but he also ran the debt up faster than any president before. It was a necessary evil in my opinion, but 4 more years of the same is not sustainable. These politicians just politicians, or lawyers. I'm tired of pretty polished words and rhetoric. We need someone with a sense for business to run this country like a company. Just my opinion.

It is totally sustainable actually. We could probably expand the deficit a bit and still be completely fine.

How can we be completely fine later, if we're not fine now. The US economy is maintaining a very fragile facade. Wall Street is doing fine, but at the expense of the working man's quality of life. I signed up for change, and change is not synonymous with Obama. 4 years of the same is just not a risk I'm willing to take.

and four years of regression is?

i'll sign up for four more years of the same in a heartbeat considering the alternative

[TheSuzerain]

yep. it will likely be decades before we even get to legitimate discussion about debt sustainability. of course, debt as a general proposition is a bad thing

Not really. It serves a definite purpose.

are you suggesting that it's a net positive to run a perpetual deficit?

If the benefit derived from deficit spending exceeds the cost of borrowing, then you should indeed be running a deficit. In that scenario, debt is certainly not a bad thing.

And that scenario has been the "general proposition" for a couple years now in this country.

[dice]

You think people will not vote for him now because of something he said 11 years ago?No it's far from over, trump has many supporters. Media has been against him since day one yet he still has beat out the Republican Party and has a good chance to win now too.

It will be a rout. Trump won't even get to 200 electoral votes. Clinton had a double digit lead in the only real polls. That was before the debate last night and Trump didn't do enough to close that gap much at all.

I don't get Trump. He put on a show for his voters who were already voting for him. Anyone who was college educated or in Hilary's camp didn't view that positively.

Instead of coming out and debating the topics and throwing in some zingers, he turned it into the Jerry Springer show.

i don't think he's "all in" on actually having to do much of the thankless work that comes with being leader of the free world. the joke is that he would win the election and then step down, handing the reigns to mike pence

[dice]

Not really. It serves a definite purpose.

are you suggesting that it's a net positive to run a perpetual deficit?

If the benefit derived from deficit spending exceeds the cost of borrowing, then you should indeed be running a deficit. In that scenario, debt is certainly not a bad thing.

And that scenario has been the "general proposition" for a couple years now in this country.

i certainly agree with that. but it's like saying that if a weight loss diet is beneficial right now, you should...be on that weight-loss diet right now. of course. but having a permanent objective of losing weight regardless of the weight already lost is obviously unwise. it's a matter of present circumstances

[League Circles]

It is totally sustainable actually. We could probably expand the deficit a bit and still be completely fine.

The sustainability of it rests entirely on investors - often foreign governments - continuing to asses the underlying value of treasuries positively. It is not under our control at all. As soon as they start to back away significantly, we are royally ****.

or we start paying them back in full at the point when they demand it

Huh? What do you mean by "paying them back in full?" I may be mistaken but as far as I understand nearly all the debt is in the form of treasury certificates and I don't believe the U.S. has ever missed a coupon payment on those, ever. So we're already "paying them back in full". If we stop doing so, new treasury sales will slow drastically if not stop.

it would require significant short-term sacrifice, but it wouldn't threaten to take down the economy like it did in greece (which had/has a much higher debt and deficit load)

I'm far from a bond expert but I'm of the understanding that we rely on issuing new treasuries for something like 1/3 of our federal budget at the moment. It's not automatic that we can sell those to real investors who have real purchasing power to trade (as opposed to monetizing the debt). In other words, if China and others including domestic institutional investors decide that treasuries suck (cause they do), and simply don't buy them next year, we're screwed for an enormous chunk of our federal expenditures, including what we use to pay the coupons on already issued treasuries, which would greatly exacerbate the problem.

Am I missing something?

[Bobbalu]

It is totally sustainable actually. We could probably expand the deficit a bit and still be completely fine.

How can we be completely fine later, if we're not fine now. The US economy is maintaining a very fragile facade. Wall Street is doing fine, but at the expense of the working man's quality of life. I signed up for change, and change is not synonymous with Obama. 4 years of the same is just not a risk I'm willing to take.

and four years of regression is?

i'll sign up for four more years of the same in a heartbeat considering the alternative

I guess it's just a matter of perception. I don't see it as regression. Trump's whole platform is centered around eliminating the bloated bureaucracy stifling job creation, where Hillary is more government programs and more taxes. The one thing I've learned while working in the Federal Government is that it does nothing efficiently and spends way too much doing it. All I see is a lot of waste and no return on my investment as taxpayer. Our infrastructure is still rusted out and dilapidated, schools are closing left and right and people are resorting to crime because there are no job opportunities. I just want to feel proud of my country again.

Again I don't care about either of these candidates on a personal level, just like I don't care about Michael Jordan's characters flaws either. I just want to someone who's going to get the job done.