2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

InTheTrees · 17-09-2016 03:02AM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It was also inconvenient for the Americans to call out terrorists because they have dealings with such organizations that carry out multiple acts of violence around the world.

Now you've veered off on a tangent about god knows what.

We were discussing why you think trump doesn't have to get involved in foreign wars because the terrorists use the internet.

gosplan · 17-09-2016 07:58AM

This week Trump said his plan was going to create 25 million new jobs in a country with 17 million unemployed.

Idiots!

Akrasia · 17-09-2016 08:41AM

gosplan wrote: »

This week Trump said his plan was going to create 25 million new jobs in a country with 17 million unemployed.

Idiots!

but no immigrants allowed...

Akrasia · 17-09-2016 08:56AM

Trump is just trolling people now. He gave a speech yesterday where he said that because clinton is so against guns, her security should disarm themselves, and then wait 'and see what happens to her', 'very dangerous'
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37394883

I would say that this is a statement deliberately calculated to piss off liberals by straw manning them while also egging on right wing gun rights activists to have a go at assassinating her, but this is Trump, and he doesn't calculate these things, he just blurts things out without any self awareness according to how many cheers he thinks it will get.

gosplan · 17-09-2016 09:52AM

Akrasia wrote: »

but no immigrants allowed...

Like I said last week, I get that people might not want Hillary but anyone arguing that Trump makes any sense is either trolling or not very intelligent.

Psychedelic · 17-09-2016 10:11AM

Former Haitian President speaking about Clinton, Denis O'Brien, Digicel, Haiti earthquake, bribery and corruption:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phKO2T2pMjM

alastair · 17-09-2016 11:33AM

Psychedelic wrote: »

Former Haitian President speaking about Clinton, Denis O'Brien, Digicel, Haiti earthquake, bribery and corruption:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phKO2T2pMjM

Bernard Sansaricq. He's not a former Haitian President. He's a former Haitian senator, and was president of that group of 30 odd people. He's also a reactionary nutjob, and a failed Republican candidate in Florida. Here's his response to a 2010 questionare from a tea party group:

Q: Should we end all government health programs, because they are unconstitutional?

A: YES! Government has no business being in health care. This is for communist countries like Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, etc...

Q: Should the liberal media be prevented from criticizing Sarah Palin unfairly?

A: YES! Sarah is a great leader and should be respected by all.

Q: Should every school day begin with a Christian prayer to God?

A: YES! We have to put prayers back in our schools.

Q: Should public school students be taught that the Book of Genesis explains how God created the world?

A: YES! A must to have better citizens that will respect the laws in our books and the laws of God.

Q: Is liberalism a form of fascism?

A: YES! Liberalism is fascism.

Q: Was Barack Hussein Obama born outside the United States?

A: YES! He was born in Kenya.

Q: Is Barack Hussein Obama a Muslim?

A: YES! No doubt at all about that.

Q: Is Barack Hussein Obama a Communist or a Fascist?

A: BOTH! If we allow him, he will turn this country into a socialist country and will change our constitution.

Q: Is Barack Hussein Obama a racist?

A: YES! Definitely

So, I wouldn't be entirely confident he's a reliable witness on pretty much anything Clinton related.

RobertKK · 17-09-2016 12:02PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Fair enough, but it's hard to see how that justifies criticising one candidate for something that the other candidate exemplifies more so. For example: you've criticised the Clinton Foundation, but are silent about the fact that the Trump Foundation spent tens of thousands of dollars buying a portrait of Donald Trump for Donald Trump. Why is that?

I don't think Clinton will be a great president, but I'm fairly certain that Trump would be an absolutely catastrophic one. Most of the support for him as a candidate seems to be on the basis that he might not be as big a farce as a president as he was as a candidate, which strikes me as some dangerously wishful thinking.

Because Trump was not getting $25 million from the Saudis and then claiming to be for women's rights when taking money from a country where men actually own the women, then after receiving said money to foundation she as SoS signed off on a record arms deal of around $29 billion where planes and weapons were used in a war against Yemen.
Then the Clintons are close to Paul Kagame of Rwanda where they spend a lot of the foundation money on good work, as Bill feels guilty for sleeping on the job during the genocide.
Kagame is accused of war crimes, for the thousands of people killed since the genocide. Bill calls this person a brilliant man, and the Clintons are close to him.

For me misuse by the Trump foundation of money on a painting is better than supporting Saudi extremists where they believe a woman needs a man's permission to do anything, or supporting a president in Rwanda accused of killing thousands of people and who has decided he wants to be president for life.

The blindness of the Clintons to the killing of people and the double speak of being for women's rights when she makes out she is for them, shows power for the Clintons comes before what is right.

How can you say you are for women's tights and take money for your foundation from Saudi Arabia?
How can the Clintons support Kagame when he can't visit a lot of countries as he is wanted for war crimes?

I would prefer if their foundation was caught up in a controversy over a printing and misuse of money than one that is associated with oppression of women's and support of an accused war criminal.

Pro Hoc Vice · 17-09-2016 12:05PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Because Trump was not getting $25 million from the Saudis and then claiming to be for women's rights when taking money from a country where men actually own the women, then after receiving said money to foundation she as SoS signed off on a record arms deal of around $29 billion where planes and weapons were used in a war against Yemen.
Then the Clintons are close to Paul Kagame of Rwanda where they spend a lot of the foundation money on good work, as Bill feels guilty for sleeping on the job during the genocide.
Kagame is accused of war crimes, for the thousands of people killed since the genocide. Bill calls this person a brilliant man, and the Clintons are close to him.

For me misuse by the Trump foundation of money on a painting is better than supporting Saudi extremists where they believe a woman needs a man's permission to do anything, or supporting a president in Rwanda accused of killing thousands of people and who has decided he wants to be president for life.

The blindness of the Clintons to the killing of people and the double speak of being for women's rights when she makes out she is for them, shows power for the Clintons comes before what is right.

How can you say you are for women's tights and take money for your foundation from Saudi Arabia?
How can the Clintons support Kagame when he can't visit a lot of countries as he is wanted for war crimes?

I would prefer if their foundation was caught up in a controversy over a printing and misuse of money than one that is associated with oppression of women's and support of an accused war criminal.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/exclusive-donald-trump-made-millions-saudi-government-article-1.2777211

RobertKK · 17-09-2016 12:07PM

gosplan wrote: »

This week Trump said his plan was going to create 25 million new jobs in a country with 17 million unemployed.

Idiots!

US population is growing rapidly.

Currently about 317 million people.
By mid century estimated to be over 400 million in the US.

Pro Hoc Vice · 17-09-2016 12:10PM

RobertKK wrote: »

US population is growing rapidly.

Currently about 317 million people.
By mid century estimated to be over 400 million in the US.

Trumps claim was to create the jobs by 2027.

RobertKK · 17-09-2016 12:11PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/exclusive-donald-trump-made-millions-saudi-government-article-1.2777211

Did he sign off on a large arms deal after that which was used in a war?
Has he been the lead campaigner on women's rights in the election?
Was he a politician when doing all this?

RobertKK · 17-09-2016 12:12PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Trumps claim was to create the jobs by 2027.

So?
In the 8 years of Obama the population increased by about 14 million give or take.

Pro Hoc Vice · 17-09-2016 12:16PM

RobertKK wrote: »

So?
In the 8 years of Obama the population increased by about 14 million give or take.

So in that 8 years are all those 14 million unemployed? Trump is a bluffer and if you can't see that you are just like him.

Suryavarman · 17-09-2016 12:23PM

RobertKK wrote: »

US population is growing rapidly.

Currently about 317 million people.
By mid century estimated to be over 400 million in the US.

BLS are projecting the economy to have an extra 8 million workers by 2024. Does any intelligent human being think that the natural rate of unemployment is 0%? Does any credible economist even believe it to be below 4%?

RobertKK · 17-09-2016 12:26PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

So in that 8 years are all those 14 million unemployed? Trump is a bluffer and if you can't see that you are just like him.

I am not talking about Trump, just demographics.
The US needs well over a six figure number of jobs created every month due to population increase.

RobertKK · 17-09-2016 12:27PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

BLS are projecting the economy to have an extra 8 million workers by 2024. Does any intelligent human being think that the natural rate of unemployment is 0%? Does any credible economist even believe it to be below 4%?

The percentage of people employed in the population is at a low.

Pro Hoc Vice · 17-09-2016 12:33PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not talking about Trump, just demographics.
The US needs well over a six figure number of jobs created every month due to population increase.

In August USA created more than 151,000 jobs the month before 275,000 that's over 200,000 per mont on average or about 2.5 million a year or 25 million in a decade. So is Trump saying he going to match Obama or add another 25 million? With Trump it's impossible to tell what he is saying.

https://www.thebalance.com/jobs-report-monthly-employment-growth-statistics-3305732

RobertKK · 17-09-2016 12:53PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

In August USA created more than 151,000 jobs the month before 275,000 that's over 200,000 per mont on average or about 2.5 million a year or 25 million in a decade. So is Trump saying he going to match Obama or add another 25 million? With Trump it's impossible to tell what he is saying.

https://www.thebalance.com/jobs-report-monthly-employment-growth-statistics-3305732

During the early part of the Obama administration the job losses continued as the credit/ banking crisis fallout continued.
According to CNBC around August time, the US has 5.7 million more jobs than when the height of the recession hit in 2007.
It should be added that job participation as in people looking for work as a % of the population has decreased too in that timeframe.
Current unemployment would be higher in the US if the same percentage of the population were looking for work as when Obama took over.
At the same time there is currently a record number of people on food stamps, which implies everything is not as rosy as it appears as poverty is near record highs.

Suryavarman · 17-09-2016 12:55PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The percentage of people employed in the population is at a low.

A low what? The economy is basically at full employment. How exactly does Trump propose to create and fill 25 million jobs in an economy with full employment?

Suryavarman · 17-09-2016 01:00PM

RobertKK wrote: »

During the early part of the Obama administration the job losses continued as the credit/ banking crisis fallout continued.
According to CNBC around August time, the US has 5.7 million more jobs than when the height of the recession hit in 2007.
It should be added that job participation as in people looking for work as a % of the population has decreased too in that timeframe.
Current unemployment would be higher in the US if the same percentage of the population were looking for work as when Obama took over.
At the same time there is currently a record number of people on food stamps, which implies everything is not as rosy as it appears as poverty is near record highs.

If most of those people hadn't found jobs then I'd imagine the unemployment rate would be a bit higher alright. Makes sense.

RobertKK · 17-09-2016 01:02PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

A low what? The economy is basically at full employment. How exactly does Trump propose to create and fill 25 million jobs in an economy with full employment?

Higher participation by the population in the workforce would be one way.
The last time the US had such low participation in employment was back in the late 70s, early 80s.

The signs are that a lot of people have simply given up looking for work, and that is why record levels- between 45 and 46 million people depend on food stamps and poverty is close to record levels.

RobertKK · 17-09-2016 01:03PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

If most of those people hadn't found jobs then I'd imagine the unemployment rate would be a bit higher alright. Makes sense.

US do not use the same ways to measure unemployment as in Ireland.

Pro Hoc Vice · 17-09-2016 01:06PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Higher participation by the population in the workforce would be one way.
The last time the US had such low participation in employment was back in the late 70s, early 80s.

The signs are that a lot of people have simply given up looking for work, and that is why record levels- between 45 and 46 million people depend on food stamps and poverty is close to record levels.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate

The food stamp issue you are correct and same may have a number of reasons. Food stamp numbers are falling in last 2 years.

alastair · 17-09-2016 01:16PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The percentage of people employed in the population is at a low.

Not so.

Suryavarman · 17-09-2016 01:16PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Higher participation by the population in the workforce would be one way.
The last time the US had such low participation in employment was back in the late 70s, early 80s.

The signs are that a lot of people have simply given up looking for work, and that is why record levels- between 45 and 46 million people depend on food stamps and poverty is close to record levels.

Prime age labour force participation is only 2.5 points below its record level set in January 1999. That of course was a result of productivity increases that the Government have absolutely no control over whatsoever. It is 1.5 points below what it was in August 2009 so there's 2 million jobs that could be created under the next president. Add that to the 8 million increase in the labour force and you have 10 million jobs. But Trump wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants. Assuming a little less than half of those work we're down 5 million jobs.

Where is Trump going to get the extra 20 million jobs out of?

RobertKK wrote: »

US do not use the same ways to measure unemployment as in Ireland.

Okay. So when unemployed people get jobs in Ireland we don't count them as having jobs no?

RobertKK · 17-09-2016 01:24PM

alastair wrote: »

Not so.

Nowhere there does it show the percentage of the population who work for a living.

Rightwing · 17-09-2016 01:28PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

A low what? The economy is basically at full employment. How exactly does Trump propose to create and fill 25 million jobs in an economy with full employment?

Rubbish.

There are a few issues here, underemployment and people don't even look for work, hence they are not included.

alastair · 17-09-2016 01:30PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Nowhere there does it show the percentage of the population who work for a living.

Handily enough it does show the unemployment rate though. It was higher under Bush.

So, not at an employment percentage low.

RobertKK · 17-09-2016 01:31PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

Prime age labour force participation is only 2.5 points below its record level set in January 1999. That of course was a result of productivity increases that the Government have absolutely no control over whatsoever. It is 1.5 points below what it was in August 2009 so there's 2 million jobs that could be created under the next president. Add that to the 8 million increase in the labour force and you have 10 million jobs. But Trump wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants. Assuming a little less than half of those work we're down 5 million jobs.

Where is Trump going to get the extra 20 million jobs out of?

Okay. So when unemployed people get jobs in Ireland we don't count them as having jobs no?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/unemployment-rate-wrong_n_3619152.html

Job participation rate is better indicator says the person who use to calculate the unemployment rate.
It is easier to have lower unemployment if a lower percentage of the population is looking for work where some have simply given up trying to find employment.

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments