The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[byu71]

I have a question of those who have a good understanding of socialist countries. Are the rich (high income earners) primarily entertainers (which includes media personalities), political folks, lawyers and athletes. Or is it as diverse as the high income earners in America. How much entrepreneurship goes on in a socialist country?

I have googled and am still trying to get an answer there, but perhaps someone already knows the answer.

[BlueK]

I have a question of those who have a good understanding of socialist countries. Are the rich (high income earners) primarily entertainers (which includes media personalities), political folks, lawyers and athletes. Or is it as diverse as the high income earners in America. How much entrepreneurship goes on in a socialist country?

I have googled and am still trying to get an answer there, but perhaps someone already knows the answer.

Who can say? Every country is different or socialist to different degrees, so you won't find just one answer. In Holland, which I would consider more socialist than the US it seemed as a whole to me to be a pretty prosperous country. There was maybe less real rich and high upper middle class than in the US, but the percentage of poor was substantially less. In fact it was no comparison. It was modern. People had the latest gadgets, for the most part, but cars in general were smaller maybe because gas was much more expensive than in the US. Other stuff was cheaper or about the same as in the US. Everyone seemed middle class. It was also safe. You could walk the streets of a large city at midnight and feel more safe than if I were to do that in some neighborhoods in Provo, Utah where I was from. How much of this is from being "socialist" or other cultural factors? who knows. Probably impossible to know for sure.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Who can say? Every country is different or socialist to different degrees, so you won't find just one answer. In Holland, which I would consider more socialist than the US it seemed as a whole to me to be a pretty prosperous country. There was maybe less real rich and high upper middle class than in the US, but the percentage of poor was substantially less. In fact it was no comparison. It was modern. People had the latest gadgets, for the most part, but cars in general were smaller maybe because gas was much more expensive than in the US. Other stuff was cheaper or about the same as in the US. Everyone seemed middle class. It was also safe. You could walk the streets of a large city at midnight and feel more safe than if I were to do that in some neighborhoods in Provo, Utah where I was from. How much of this is from being "socialist" or other cultural factors? who knows. Probably impossible to know for sure.

It's cultural. Vermont is pretty socialist, comparatively speaking, and I'm sure it's pretty nice. Baltimore, Detroit and Philly share a lot of the political leanings. The difference is those large cities also tolerate a huge level of corruption while there's significantly less in a place like the Netherlands or Vermont.

The commonality is that both populations side with the party that believes that government should play a huge role in everyone's lives. But the Baltimore-Philly brand is coupled with a spoils system, which is why those places are such hellholes.

[BlueK]

A curious thing about Trump is with healthcare. I find it interesting that he bashes obamacare and gets huge applause from his fans. But then the next minute he talks about healthcare in general and how his plan is going to be "universal" and it will be way better than obamacare because obamacare is a disaster and we will still be taking care of everyone.... And then again his followers cheer. So this is what I get from that. He favors some type of socialized medicine. It's unclear to me or anyone else why it will be better than Obamacare since he never gives any details. It will come from Trump and not Obama. That's the only real difference I can see. Oh yeah, Obama is also the current president we're supposed to despise. I know at least some of his fans are white nationalists. I can assume race has something to do with why at least those folllowers like Trump's socialized medicine and not Obama's. What else?

[SCcoug]

Gun rights and "you better fall in line because Supreme Court" onslaught incoming.

Embedded Tweet

[YOhio]

Hillary makes it so hard to hold the #nevertrump line. She's so bad. I loathe them both, but he makes me laugh on occasion.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Hillary makes it so hard to hold the #nevertrump line. She's so bad. I loathe them both, but he makes me laugh on occasion.

Unquestionably Trump would be more entertaining. But that element should also be of concern. The markets abhor uncertainty, but generally do well in its absence. Trump, I suspect, would bring an unprecedented level of uncertainty to the markets. It's not hard to imagine a daily TrumpTweet sending the market into a tailspin. For better and worse, I'd expect Hillary to be fairly predictable.

[Eddie]

I suppose this could go on the facebook thread instead, as that is where I found it.

On Fox News, from a Republican and former White House staffer under the Bush Administration:

"Alexander Hamilton has become a cultural zeitgeist recently due to the success of the Broadway musical about his life. Yet Americans are responding to more than a brilliant piece of theatre. They are responding to a time of great men and women in American history—true leaders who put their love of country above their personal ambitions or partisan ideologies.

In fact, Hamilton faced a choice similar to the one Republicans are facing today. During the election of 1800, Hamilton had to choose between endorsing Thomas Jefferson, his life-long political rival with whom he disagreed on almost every major issue—or Aaron Burr, a dishonest man of flawed character, who many feared would lead America down a dangerous path of tyranny and oppression.
Mr Hamilton chose to endorse Jefferson."

I'm confused. Which of the current presidential candidates is "a dishonest person of flawed character", and which one is the person I disagree with on nearly every issue?

[imanihonjin]

Unquestionably Trump would be more entertaining. But that element should also be of concern. The markets abhor uncertainty, but generally do well in its absence. Trump, I suspect, would bring an unprecedented level of uncertainty to the markets. It's not hard to imagine a daily TrumpTweet sending the market into a tailspin. For better and worse, I'd expect Hillary to be fairly predictable.

I agree with you on the importance of predictability and that Hillary would be more predictable, but she would be predictable bad for fiscal conservatives and business in general. No, I don't think Trump would be better, but I just can't vote for someone as awful as Hillary is, just because Trump is worse.

[Commando]

I agree with you on the importance of predictability and that Hillary would be more predictable, but she would be predictable bad for fiscal conservatives and business in general. No, I don't think Trump would be better, but I just can't vote for someone as awful as Hillary is, just because Trump is worse.

Why not? The fact is that one of those two is going to win. I'd prefer to not have the worse one win.

[Maximus]

Why not? The fact is that one of those two is going to win. I'd prefer to not have the worse one win.

because your vote wont change the outcome so might as well vote for someone not terrible

[YOhio]

Unquestionably Trump would be more entertaining. But that element should also be of concern. The markets abhor uncertainty, but generally do well in its absence. Trump, I suspect, would bring an unprecedented level of uncertainty to the markets. It's not hard to imagine a daily TrumpTweet sending the market into a tailspin. For better and worse, I'd expect Hillary to be fairly predictable.

I agree. For instance, a daily shit sandwich would have a much more predictable taste and texture than what you'd expect from a daily vomit soup. In that sense Hillary would be way more predictable than Donald Trump.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I agree. For instance, a daily shit sandwich would have a much more predictable taste and texture than what you'd expect from a daily vomit soup. In that sense Hillary would be way more predictable than Donald Trump.

Thank you for that pleasant metaphor. As long as we're piling on Hillary, I was greatly irritated by Obama's endorsement speech today in which he said of her, "I don’t think there’s ever been someone so qualified to hold this office." Really? Not exactly a student of history, are you Barack?

Compared only with his meager pre-presidential resume, he may have a point, but any sentient being ought to be able to name at least a dozen candidates from the past with greater qualifications than hers. Even if one limits the options to the past 50 years, and without necessarily having supported them, I'd mention Nixon, Johnson, Humphrey, Ford, Mondale, Bush I, and even Kerrey or Gore as having been more qualified. Now that's based on their objective qualifications and experience, not on intangibles like judgment. I'll leave that element out of the equation until Hillary's FBI investigation is over.

[New Mexican Disaster]

I agree. For instance, a daily shit sandwich would have a much more predictable taste and texture than what you'd expect from a daily vomit soup. In that sense Hillary would be way more predictable than Donald Trump.

Oh, my god, the sky is falling!

[creekster]

Oh, my god, the sky is falling!

Pretty much.