2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

RobertKK

BoatMad wrote: »

Your comeback is to then justify your were right because things didn't work out the way you forsaw but would have if these things then didn't happen.

Wow

Ask any economist, the ECB and the Bank of England plus other central banks have been doing the same thing too.
The world economy is very weak hence the record low interest rates.

Wouldn't it have been irresponsible if nothing was done to support the markets and allowed a collapse?

BoatMad

RobertKK wrote: »

Ask any economist, the ECB and the Bank of England plus other central banks have been doing the same thing too.
The world economy is very weak hence the record low interest rates.

Wouldn't it have been irresponsible if nothing was done to support the markets and allowed a collapse?

I'm merely arguing that your justification that you would be right , but only because something happened.

The real answer is you were and are wrong

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

Do you have any evidence where Assange has lied in the past about his sources?

Has he talked about a source before?

Has he ever wanted to take someone down as much as he wants to take down Hillary?

Also this person hasn't lied about this sort of thing before is not generally considered indisputable evidence (which neither you nor Robert have actually provided).

molloyjh

RobertKK wrote: »

Ask any economist, the ECB and the Bank of England plus other central banks have been doing the same thing too.
The world economy is very weak hence the record low interest rates.

Wouldn't it have been irresponsible if nothing was done to support the markets and allowed a collapse?

Why did you not factor that into your original prediction so?

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

It belonged in the conspiracy forum, I would have been told where to go if I used as a reply, do you have any evidence all those deaths of people who are becoming a problem for the Clintons are not being killed off by Clinton associates?
I would not even use that as an argument.

Do you have any evidence that Trump didn't rape that 13 year old child and threaten to murder them if they told?

As for your last paragraph, why have the Clinton's not come out and denied rumours they are involved in the death of people?

And why hasn't Trump denied raping that 13 year old child and threatening to murder her if she told?

Akrasia

RobertKK wrote: »

The stock markets would have plummeted if not for the quantitative easing and record low interest rates.

Record low interest rates remain as the world economy is very very fragile.

So if the government didn't intervene the stock market would have crashed and never recovered...

Who could have possibly predicted government intervention?

Robert, You're compartmentalising way too much here. You support Trump because you know (think) Clinton would be harmful.

But your opposition to Clinton is blinding you to the fact that Trump is a dangerous demagogue who has demonstrated no positive leadership qualities and in fact appears to be suffering from severe personality disorders.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

How could she influence the price of ammunition? She couldn't impose taxes on it; as far as I know, all taxes have to come from the House of Representatives Ways and Means committee.

That aside, why would she want to do that? The idea that she doesn't want people to have guns is pure right-wing talking-head propaganda. All she wants is what the vast majority of Americans, including the vast majority of NRA members and GOP voters, wants: sensible restrictions on who can get their hands on guns.

The hysteria around the Second Amendment is positively farcical. It's like screaming "PROHIBITION!!" in response to the suggestion that maybe pre-schoolers shouldn't be allowed to buy heroin.

Laziness on my part not giving more thought and greater detail into my comment.

Can a president order the federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and other agencies to enforce his/her own interpretation of a law passed by Congress? Can he/she through influence of the EPA or other federal regulatory agencies get a 500%, 1000% or higher tax leveled on guns and ammunition, or eliminate lead from ammunition altogether? I’m sure there are other measures, including executive orders that can be used by a president to circumvent the Second Amendment. And finally, and most alarming, is the president’s ability to load judges to the Supreme Court that will rule on many cases before them meant to weaken or nullify many of the rights provided under the Second Amendment.

In McDonald vs City of Chicago (2010), Supreme Court justices Stephen Breyer wrote in his dissent of the ruling "I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.” Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined in this dissent.

Breyer and Ginsburg were both appointed by President Bill Clinton. Sotomayor by Obama, and Elana Kagan, also appointed by Obama, would have joined in the dissent if she would have been on the court at the time as she served in the Clinton administration and helped lead the President’s gun control initiatives. It doesn’t take a genius to see the efforts that Clinton would use against the Second Amendment.

In an ABC interview with George Stephanopoulos, Clinton was asked whether people have a right to own guns. She gave a answer that didn’t answer the question. So Stephanopoulos cam back and said “But that's not what I asked. I said do you believe that their conclusion that an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right?” Clinton’s response started with “If it is a constitutional right...”

"If!"

Hillary Clinton has also pushed the idea of making gun makers and sellers liable for guns which end up being used in crimes.

Do people need a sledge hammer to realize she doesn’t believe in the Second Amendment and will work to weaken it or have our rights under it nullified by any and all means possible.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Laziness on my part not giving more thought and greater detail into my comment.

Can a president order the federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and other agencies to enforce his/her own interpretation of a law passed by Congress? Can he/she through influence by the EPA or other federal regulatory agencies get a 500%, 1000% or higher tax leveled on guns and ammunition, or eliminate lead from ammunition? I’m sure there are other measures, including executive orders that can be used by a president to circumvent the Second Amendment. And finally, and most alarming, is the president’s ability to load judges to the Supreme Court that will rule on many cases before them meant to weaken or nullify many of the rights provided under the Second Amendment.

In McDonald vs City of Chicago (2010), Supreme Court justices Stephen Breyer wrote in his dissent of the ruling "I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.” Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined in this dissent.

Breyer and Ginsburg were both appointed by President Bill Clinton. Sotomayor by Obama, and Elana Kagan, also appointed by Obama, would have joined in the dissent if she would have been on the court at the time as she served in the Clinton administration and helped lead the President’s gun control initiatives. It doesn’t take a genius to see the efforts that Clinton would use against the Second Amendment.

In an ABC interview with George Stephanopoulos, Clinton was asked whether people have a right to own guns. She gave a answer that didn’t answer the question. So Stephanopoulos cam back and said “But that's not what I asked. I said do you believe that their conclusion that an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right?” Clinton’s response started with “If it is a constitutional right...”

"If!"

Hillary Clinton has also pushed the idea of making gun makers and sellers liable for guns which end up being used in crimes.

Do people need a sledge hammer to realize she doesn’t believe in the Second Amendment and will work to weaken it or have our rights under it nullified by any and all means possible.

She doesn't agree with your interpretation of the 2nd ammendment. The interpretation that's been pushed by the NRA. It's not the only interpretation that exists. Your own post above proves that, even some supreme Court justices disagree. However there is legal precident from precious supreme Court rulings that are next to impossible to over turn.

She can't guy 2nd amendment "rights" even if she wanted to. Unless she had the correct majority in congress with the consent of enough state governors. It's not going to happen.

What are Clinton's policies on gun control you disagree with? Let's debate those instead of the 2nd amendment destruction hyperbole.

molloyjh

BoatMad wrote: »

This thread just shows up how useless Democracy is in a 24/7 fact-less news envirobment lead by social media and trill seeking " red top " Tv " news".

Trump has gained a degree of support , simply because he is saying things a certain group want to hear. It matters not what the facts are or where the truth lies.

Belief is now the new " truth" as witnessed by Gringrich disputing the facts relating to the decline of violent crime and saying his " belief " is superior to a fact.

Here is the kernal of Trumps popularity , take a man with an almost sociopathic lack of empathy and using 24/ 7 media, produce sound bite after sound bite speaking to certain groups in society that are angry. There's no logic in what he says , must of what he claims are partial truths at best and outright lies at worst. Yet his support groupings simply accept the lies as truths because " belief is the new truth " .

This electorate that supports Trump is being played like a fiddle by him. He's using it as a reality TV stage to gain support for him and his absurd policies , most of which are practically Un-implementable and most would severely hurt the very groups he claims to support

The absurd notion that a supposed billionaire , capitalist is going to improve or support the lot of the squeezed ( white ) middle and lower classes is just bizzare in the extreme. Rather like a belief that Brexit and the " leave " Tory party cares about the dispossessed of Wales the the Nortb east of England.

The sad thing is that this group in the electorate is receiving its information from Twitter , 24/7 media soundbites and print media with a " dumb down" agenda. Nothing is fact checked and the consumers of these " factoids " are unwilling or unable to check the facts themselves

Hence just like the Brexit vote and Trumps progress we are seeing the explotation of such media by Trump ( and Farage ) in that they report as if it were fact , pronouncements from these people. political " belief " has now replace " political support "

I think there is more to a lot of this than just the above. Too often people are happy to point at Trump supporters and say they are stupid or ignorant or whatever. The problem is that in a country where the education system is poor, the news media is an entertainment industry/political machine and people are fed up with politicians in general you're going to get these kinds of issues.

Look at Ireland during Lisbon when loads of people bought Declan Ganley and his Libertas crowd, or more recently Brexit in the UK. People who are pissed off with politicians and "experts" who, from their perspective, have done feck all for them are ripe for the picking. Everything becomes emotive and the Trumps, the Ganleys and the Farages play on those emotions. Heighten them, amplify them and give them a sense of validity.

Ultimately there's lots of blame to go around. Politicians for looking after themselves and their mates (we all know it happens), the education system for not better preparing people for their responsibilities as voters, the media for their bias or their attempts to give "balanced" coverage, the laws for allowing the spread of lies and misinformation and the people for not doing enough to keep all the other parties honest over the years.

Throw in to that an age where, as you said, opinion is sacrosanct regardless of fact, responsibility is a dirty word and people want their news in 140 characters or less and people like Trump will thrive. He's just the latest manifestation of all these things. And he won't be the last.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

I am sure you don't want to talk about the lies from the Democrats who blamed Russia for the DNC email leaks, when it turned out to be Seth Rich, a DNC staffer who ended up murdered.

You'll need to show proof of this.

Here is Assange trying to imply it was him, but for a source who is dead, it is very telling how far he goes to a) imply that Rich was the leak, and b) refuse to answer whether he was the leak. Assange's actions in recent months have been particularly odd and it does raise questions...

But Robert, you'll need to provide proof of your claim.

alaimacerc

That Clinton quote that was so self-servingly truncated in mid-sentence:

"If it is a constitutional right, then it — like every other constitutional right — is subject to reasonable regulations."

Amerika, do you know what logical implication is?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Do you not feel silly making these predictions? In 2012 you predicted the Dow would plummet and the smart money would flee Wall Street. It did the exact opposite. I also remember you recommending putting my investments in gold etc. . I would have lost a fortune.

You predicted Obama was coming after your guns with executive orders as well. He has done nothing of the sort.

Gold was a mistake, I admit. When it comes to investing in the stock market, aren’t we always told to follow the smart money? Well the smart money are people like Warren Buffett, John Paulson, and George Soros, who are now dumping loads of stocks fearing another major stock market crash is on the way.

RobertKK

BoatMad wrote: »

I'm merely arguing that your justification that you would be right , but only because something happened.

The real answer is you were and are wrong

How QE affects the stock markets:
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/021015/how-does-quantitative-easing-us-affect-stock-market.asp

Morningstar on low interest rates:
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=763249

While keeping rates low for long has implications on savings rates and borrowing costs, its biggest impact might be felt in the stock market, which has broken through record highs in large part due to the country's depressed rates. Since March 2009, when the S&P 500 hit rock-bottom, the index has climbed by 195% as of this writing. Of course, there are many reasons why stocks have done well, but a big one is that it makes a lot more sense to be in the stock market than the bond market. Given the low expected returns in bonds, it's easy to see how, even after a runup in prices, stocks can provide better total returns.

I can say you are wrong, but at least I provided evidence as to why you are wrong.

Amerika

alaimacerc wrote: »

That Clinton quote that was so self-servingly truncated in mid-sentence:

"If it is a constitutional right, then it — like every other constitutional right — is subject to reasonable regulations."

Amerika, do you know what logical implication is?

Clinton is very careful in choosing her words. If she believed the 2A was a right, she would not have used the word "If."

RobertKK

molloyjh wrote: »

Why did you not factor that into your original prediction so?

I made no predictions, I am simply saying why it never happened.

alaimacerc

RobertKK wrote: »

The stock markets would have plummeted if not for the quantitative easing and record low interest rates.

Record low interest rates remain as the world economy is very very fragile.

So Obama is to blame for the entire world economy, but Republican doomsayers aren't even responsible for their own inaccurate predictions?

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

Do you have any evidence that Trump didn't rape that 13 year old child and threaten to murder them if they told?

And why hasn't Trump denied raping that 13 year old child and threatening to murder her if she told?

I am not the person arguing about Trump and rape.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

Can a president order the federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and other agencies to enforce his/her own interpretation of a law passed by Congress?

Which law?

Can he/she through influence by the EPA or other federal regulatory agencies get a 500%, 1000% or higher tax leveled on guns and ammunition...

No. That's the point I just made.

...or eliminate lead from ammunition? I’m sure there are other measures, including executive orders that can be used by a president to circumvent the Second Amendment.

And yet, the current President - whom the same right-wing talking heads would have us believe is a sleeper Muslim communist fascist atheist hell-bent on stripping every American of his God-given guns - hasn't enacted any such executive orders. I wonder why.

And finally, and most alarming, is the president’s ability to load judges to the Supreme Court that will rule on many cases before them meant to weaken or nullify many of the rights provided under the Second Amendment.

There's one right provided under the Second Amendment: the right to bear arms. That right is not unqualified, nor should it be. (Should convicted terrorists be legally permitted to purchase nuclear weapons?)

Do people need a sledge hammer to realize she doesn’t believe in the Second Amendment and will work to weaken it or have our rights under it nullified by any and all means possible.

The Second Amendment isn't the Easter Bunny: it doesn't require anyone to believe in it.

I get it: the NRA - and, by extension, the cadre of politicians it has bought and paid for - believe that it should be possible to purchase weapons designed and built for killing people without a background check. The vast majority of Americans disagree. You're so busy mindlessly repeating the NRA's talking points, you fail to notice that it's the GOP that's out of step with the average American on this issue, not Clinton.

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

Clinton is very careful in choosing her words. If she believed the 2A was a right, she would not have used the word "If."

What. A. Load. Of. Nonsense.

Your interpretation doesn't even survive any coherent reading of the sentence I just quoted. Much less the rest of the interview, in which she repeatedly refers to such a right.

molloyjh

Amerika wrote: »

Clinton is very careful in choosing her words. If she believed the 2A was a right, she would not have used the word "If."

If I was born in Ireland then I'm Irish.

That is a reasonable statement for me to make. It most certainly does not imply in any way that I don't believe that I was born in Ireland. You can nit pick statements to suit your perspective, but that doesn't mean you have a point at all.

RobertKK

alaimacerc wrote: »

So Obama is to blame for the entire world economy, but Republican doomsayers aren't even responsible for their own inaccurate predictions?

I have blamed no one.
Interest rates were not expected to remain this low.

As the reputable Morning Star said and let me quote again: When the Federal Reserve slashed its Fed Funds rate in 2008 to almost zero, few thought we'd stay near these record-low yield levels all these years later. Yet here we are, with interest rates at a paltry 0.5%. This was supposed to be the year that rates would rise again, but with a sputtering global economy and some less-than-exciting domestic numbers, Janet Yellen has taken at least some additional rate hikes off the table in the near term.

http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=763249

molloyjh

RobertKK wrote: »

I made no predictions, I am simply saying why it never happened.

Apologies, it was Amerika who made the prediction. The general point still stands. Saying something will happen that does not happen is a bad prediction.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

You'll need to show proof of this.

Here is Assange trying to imply it was him, but for a source who is dead, it is very telling how far he goes to a) imply that Rich was the leak, and b) refuse to answer whether he was the leak. Assange's actions in recent months have been particularly odd and it does raise questions...

But Robert, you'll need to provide proof of your claim.

Since when do journalists give away their sources?

The emails were real. Did Wikileaks expose Bradley Manning so he got arrested and is now spending a long time in jail?

RobertKK

molloyjh wrote: »

Apologies, it was Amerika who made the prediction. The general point still stands. Saying something will happen that does not happen is a bad prediction.

This is how the Fed and other central banks operate, they see something negative that will happen, and they try and make sure it doesn't.

That is why the US Fed had talked last year about interest rate hikes this year, and now this year they say they are not happening.

No one expected us to be in 2016 and still with record low interest rates.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

Since when do journalists give away their sources?

The emails were real. Did Wikileaks expose Bradley Manning so he got arrested and is now spending a long time in jail?

As I already said, Seth Rich is dead. Kind of hard for them to send him to prison isn't it?

Now, you you made a definitive claim that Seth Rich was the email link, when you did not have proof of that. Why did you do that?

alaimacerc

RobertKK wrote: »

I have blamed no one.
Interest rates were not expected to remain this low.

You're rowing in defence of Amerika's prediction that the reelection of Obama would cause a stock-market crash with an observation that a weak world economy has caused low interest rates. Are you familiar with the concept of the Chewbacca Defence?

Amerika

Christy42 wrote: »

Has he talked about a source before?

Has he ever wanted to take someone down as much as he wants to take down Hillary?

Also this person hasn't lied about this sort of thing before is not generally considered indisputable evidence (which neither you nor Robert have actually provided).

No that fact that he hasn't lied in the past it is not 'indisputable evidence,' but it is a good measure to indicate that he isn't lying about it this time.

molloyjh

RobertKK wrote: »

This is how the Fed and other central banks operate, they see something negative that will happen, and they try and make sure it doesn't.

That is why the US Fed had talked last year about interest rate hikes this year, and now this year they say they are not happening.

No one expected us to be in 2016 and still with record low interest rates.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't change the accuracy of Amerikas prediction.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Gold was a mistake, I admit. When it comes to investing in the stock market, aren’t we always told to follow the smart money? Well the smart money are people like Warren Buffett, John Paulson, and George Soros, who are now dumping loads of stocks fearing another major stock market crash is on the way.

Follow the smart money. Buffet is betting on Clinton.

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

No that fact that he hasn't lied in the past it is not 'indisputable evidence,' but it is a good measure to indicate that he isn't lying about it this time.

How often has he told the truth about his sources?

It isn't a great measure even them as Assange seems committed to destroying Hillary. He is biased.