The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[byu71]

It is the Google age! It just takes a few seconds.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/financ...184624029.html



I agree that it is a great question. Poor old '71 is so paranoid and rattled that he thinks everything I post is some kind of attack.

Paranoid ? I paid you a compliment. It was a good catch. I admitted I should have included the Republicans.

[ERCougar]

SU's fear-mongering is funny. Given that most of the industrial world is already well to the left of Bernie Sanders, I'm sure the Fourth Reich is already well on its way.
I'm not the student of history some are, but wasn't each of these genocidal populist revolutions preceded by class warfare, often featuring an aristocracy reassuring themselves that the poor were just fine ("They can buy cheap stuff at Walmart!")?

On the protectionist arguments: I think free trade is generally a good thing, but it's been interesting to see the TPPA arguments in New Zealand. One would think that an economy the size of Colorado with an enormous ocean acting as a natural trade barrier would jump at any chance to join the larger economy, but there is quite a sizable opposition. Some of it is unfounded and dumb (the price of pharmaceuticals skyrocketing is one of these silly fears), but there are legitimate objections. Your average citizen would like to work a job that he/she doesn't completely hate and that will provide enough for the basics and a few little luxuries. I find my claims that "you'll be able to buy more stuff...and cheaper!" to fall pretty much on deaf ears. Yes, protectionists shop for the cheapest price, but that's not an endorsement of the system. Most would much rather be able to open their corner cafe and not have to compete with Starbucks, even if they have to pay an extra couple of dollars for an HDMI cable. Free trade makes great macroeconomic sense, even usually makes decent microeconomic sense; both of these, however, rest on the presumption that more stuff is always the goal. It's not, for many people, and blindly pursuing it hasn't served the US particularly well.

[old_gregg]

blindly pursuing it hasn't served the US particularly well.

[Jeff Lebowski]

SU's fear-mongering is funny. Given that most of the industrial world is already well to the left of Bernie Sanders, I'm sure the Fourth Reich is already well on its way.
I'm not the student of history some are, but wasn't each of these genocidal populist revolutions preceded by class warfare, often featuring an aristocracy reassuring themselves that the poor were just fine ("They can buy cheap stuff at Walmart!")?

On the protectionist arguments: I think free trade is generally a good thing, but it's been interesting to see the TPPA arguments in New Zealand. One would think that an economy the size of Colorado with an enormous ocean acting as a natural trade barrier would jump at any chance to join the larger economy, but there is quite a sizable opposition. Some of it is unfounded and dumb (the price of pharmaceuticals skyrocketing is one of these silly fears), but there are legitimate objections. Your average citizen would like to work a job that he/she doesn't completely hate and that will provide enough for the basics and a few little luxuries. I find my claims that "you'll be able to buy more stuff...and cheaper!" to fall pretty much on deaf ears. Yes, protectionists shop for the cheapest price, but that's not an endorsement of the system. Most would much rather be able to open their corner cafe and not have to compete with Starbucks, even if they have to pay an extra couple of dollars for an HDMI cable. Free trade makes great macroeconomic sense, even usually makes decent microeconomic sense; both of these, however, rest on the presumption that more stuff is always the goal. It's not, for many people, and blindly pursuing it hasn't served the US particularly well.

I don't know why people would be afraid to compete with Starbucks. I have it on good authority that their coffee is terrible and inferior to any convenience store coffee.

[New Mexican Disaster]

I don't know why people would be afraid to compete with Starbucks. I have it on good authority that their coffee is terrible and inferior to any convenience store coffee.

Because people are terrible and inferior to convenience store workers.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Ryan Hancock finally writes something I agree with.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...7gW6lBeIv8Z.01

[falafel]

Ryan Hancock finally writes something I agree with.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...7gW6lBeIv8Z.01

He goes by Ryan now?

[Jeff Lebowski]

He goes by Ryan now?

Ha. Whoops.

Ralph.

[byu71]

Carson endorses Trump. I guess when it comes to politicians nothing should surprise me. Those two definitely have become politicians. Carson seems to think there is the good Donald and the bad Donald. The good Donald outweighs the bad Donald. What I would have pointed out to Dr. Carson is there is the good Donald and the really, really bad Donald. That being said, sadly his competition in the fall will be the really, really, really, really bad Mrs Clinton.

[BlueK]

SU's fear-mongering is funny. Given that most of the industrial world is already well to the left of Bernie Sanders, I'm sure the Fourth Reich is already well on its way.
I'm not the student of history some are, but wasn't each of these genocidal populist revolutions preceded by class warfare, often featuring an aristocracy reassuring themselves that the poor were just fine ("They can buy cheap stuff at Walmart!")?

On the protectionist arguments: I think free trade is generally a good thing, but it's been interesting to see the TPPA arguments in New Zealand. One would think that an economy the size of Colorado with an enormous ocean acting as a natural trade barrier would jump at any chance to join the larger economy, but there is quite a sizable opposition. Some of it is unfounded and dumb (the price of pharmaceuticals skyrocketing is one of these silly fears), but there are legitimate objections. Your average citizen would like to work a job that he/she doesn't completely hate and that will provide enough for the basics and a few little luxuries. I find my claims that "you'll be able to buy more stuff...and cheaper!" to fall pretty much on deaf ears. Yes, protectionists shop for the cheapest price, but that's not an endorsement of the system. Most would much rather be able to open their corner cafe and not have to compete with Starbucks, even if they have to pay an extra couple of dollars for an HDMI cable. Free trade makes great macroeconomic sense, even usually makes decent microeconomic sense; both of these, however, rest on the presumption that more stuff is always the goal. It's not, for many people, and blindly pursuing it hasn't served the US particularly well.

Here's the problem for America. It hasn't happened yet. NZ has had a long time to cook it into the economy and be used to it. For the US, the 35-45% instant jump in price for almost everything at Walmart would destroy the economy overnight. Trump would blame that on something else and would probably use the tariff revenues for more social programs to deal with it. Sounds like Sanders. But Trump is far more dangerous to the economy right now than Bernie Sanders because Sanders wouldn't be able to get anything passed through a republican congress. Trump could because his terrible ideas are popular among many democrats. And all he'd need is a few stupid republicans to go along with it in the name of party loyalty. Fortunately I don't think Trump has much of a chance in the general election.

[BlueK]

Carson endorses Trump. I guess when it comes to politicians nothing should surprise me. Those two definitely have become politicians. Carson seems to think there is the good Donald and the bad Donald. The good Donald outweighs the bad Donald. What I would have pointed out to Dr. Carson is there is the good Donald and the really, really bad Donald. That being said, sadly his competition in the fall will be the really, really, really, really bad Mrs Clinton.

Trump would be worse than Clinton. Trump is a democrat in theory with a much better chance of getting his idiotic ideas through Congress. Clinton would be blocked at every step by an uncooperative Congress where Trump would be able to dupe a few on his side of the aisle to go along with his democrat ideas. Get ready for higher taxes becoming the reality Obama has only been able to dream of.

[imanihonjin]

SU's fear-mongering is funny. Given that most of the industrial world is already well to the left of Bernie Sanders, I'm sure the Fourth Reich is already well on its way.
I'm not the student of history some are, but wasn't each of these genocidal populist revolutions preceded by class warfare, often featuring an aristocracy reassuring themselves that the poor were just fine ("They can buy cheap stuff at Walmart!")?

On the protectionist arguments: I think free trade is generally a good thing, but it's been interesting to see the TPPA arguments in New Zealand. One would think that an economy the size of Colorado with an enormous ocean acting as a natural trade barrier would jump at any chance to join the larger economy, but there is quite a sizable opposition. Some of it is unfounded and dumb (the price of pharmaceuticals skyrocketing is one of these silly fears), but there are legitimate objections. Your average citizen would like to work a job that he/she doesn't completely hate and that will provide enough for the basics and a few little luxuries. I find my claims that "you'll be able to buy more stuff...and cheaper!" to fall pretty much on deaf ears. Yes, protectionists shop for the cheapest price, but that's not an endorsement of the system. Most would much rather be able to open their corner cafe and not have to compete with Starbucks, even if they have to pay an extra couple of dollars for an HDMI cable. Free trade makes great macroeconomic sense, even usually makes decent microeconomic sense; both of these, however, rest on the presumption that more stuff is always the goal. It's not, for many people, and blindly pursuing it hasn't served the US particularly well.

Haha...you're funny. Not only has "blindly pursing it" served the US well, it has served the entire world well.

By the way, America didn't become what it is by doing what everyone else has does. Additionally, I am not sure that pointing to Europe's economic model is a good thing for your argument right now.

[Jeff Lebowski]

[byu71]

Trump would be worse than Clinton. Trump is a democrat in theory with a much better chance of getting his idiotic ideas through Congress. Clinton would be blocked at every step by an uncooperative Congress where Trump would be able to dupe a few on his side of the aisle to go along with his democrat ideas. Get ready for higher taxes becoming the reality Obama has only been able to dream of.

That is a lot of what if's. You didn't even include the possiblility of a democrat Congress with Hillary. Now that would be disaster.

Even with a republican congress, Hillary would get a left leaning Judge on the Supreme court. She is left of her Husband and it would be another 4 year maybe 8 year President Obama redo.

I don't like Trump enough to try and talk you out of your Hillary vote. I had a good discussion with some very bright friends the other day and despite the fact we find the thought of Trump as President distasteful, we came to the conclusion he didn't quite reach the throw up point. His likely opponent did reach that threshold for us.

[myboynoah]

I'd vote for that Bernie.