The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[frank ryan]

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

He lives in AZ not Utah.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

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.

Ford and Johnson were sitting presidents before they ever became their party's nominees. I'm not sure whether they should really be included for a comparison.

Gore certainly had a better resume. If Kerry had better experience then so did McCain. Ronald Reagan was a two term governor of the largest state in the country. That's also better than Hillary's stint in the Senate and her incompetent train wreck stewardship over the state department.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Ford and Johnson were sitting presidents before they ever became their party's nominees. I'm not sure whether they should really be included for a comparison.
...

Not sure it matters, but why not? But we're on the same page here, as the question is whether there has ever been anyone more qualified than Hillary to hold the presidency. I suspect only Hillary really believes there has never been anyone better than she. My list wasn't meant to be exclusive, as I'm sure anyone could generate a lengthier list. Obama's statement is kind of Trumplike in its hyperbole and falsity.

BTW, I think Obama is a decent guy, but even I wonder what might be going on behind the scenes to get Comey to wrap up his investigation without an indictment. Certainly there's a lot of incentive for Obama to lean on him, as an indictment would damage if not destroy his legacy (possible dismantling of Obamacare, plus now that he has tied his wagon to Hillary's he'd be forever damaged by an indictment). I expect there will be no indictment, but it'll take a surprisingly strong report from Comey to dispel the suspicion that undue influence was in play here.

[Maximus]

He lives in AZ not Utah.

my answer remains the same for any state

[Topper]

I have been politically despondent these past twenty-four years, why not another four. We are served shit sandwiches with our vomit soup. Add in Sanders as our urine soda, and we're good to go.

Why can't bad things happen to bad people?! Maybe Trump and Hillary could fly over a no-fly zone together and we could start the election process over.

[I.J. Reilly]

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.

This is an odd statement, considering that Democratic administrations have generally proven to be better for business than Republican ones in the course of our lifetimes and by any measure the economy under Obama has outperformed what he was handed by Bush.

[I.J. Reilly]

Not sure it matters, but why not? But we're on the same page here, as the question is whether there has ever been anyone more qualified than Hillary to hold the presidency. I suspect only Hillary really believes there has never been anyone better than she. My list wasn't meant to be exclusive, as I'm sure anyone could generate a lengthier list. Obama's statement is kind of Trumplike in its hyperbole and falsity.

BTW, I think Obama is a decent guy, but even I wonder what might be going on behind the scenes to get Comey to wrap up his investigation without an indictment. Certainly there's a lot of incentive for Obama to lean on him, as an indictment would damage if not destroy his legacy (possible dismantling of Obamacare, plus now that he has tied his wagon to Hillary's he'd be forever damaged by an indictment). I expect there will be no indictment, but it'll take a surprisingly strong report from Comey to dispel the suspicion that undue influence was in play here.

Would you expect such a report? As a general matter the DOJ and FBI don't comment on matters that they choose not to indict and off the top of my head I'm not recalling any such report but perhaps this is a fault of my own selective memory.

[imanihonjin]

This is an odd statement, considering that Democratic administrations have generally proven to be better for business than Republican ones in the course of our lifetimes and by any measure the economy under Obama has outperformed what he was handed by Bush.

yep, businesses love democrats and all of the higher taxes and increased regulation they bring.

[Moliere]

... and by any measure the economy under Obama has outperformed what he was handed by Bush.

Well no duh Einstein. The Great Recession, which wasn't entirely (and maybe just remotely) Bush's fault and hopefully was an anomaly came at the tail end of Bush's last term.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Color Me Badd Fan]

This is an odd statement, considering that Democratic administrations have generally proven to be better for business than Republican ones in the course of our lifetimes and by any measure the economy under Obama has outperformed what he was handed by Bush.

The course of my lifetime also includes Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton governed as a moderate and after the Republicans took over Congress, there was no big piece of legislation that was part of the Democratic party platform that was passed.

So you're essentially left with a comparison of Bush vs. Obama. The economy of 2007 and 2008 was a result of the real estate bubble bursting, a once in a lifetime occurrence. Are you pinning that on Bush? If so, should we pin the dot.com bubble bursting on Bill Clinton?

What is the labor participation rate right now? What has been the federal reserve rate over the course of Obama's term in office? Have incomes been increasing? What has Obamacare done to the workers at lower tier jobs?

Which party right now is more dominant at the state and municipal level? If you think the economy is fundamentally strong right now, is it because the Democratic presidential administration or is it because the Republicans have more control at state, city and Congressional levels than at any point since the 1920s?

[byu71]

Hillary was surprised the over the last several years there has been a dramatic decrease in small business start ups. This shows Hillary's understanding of economics. Her and the President's love of high regulations, diminished rewards for success and added burdensome costs stifles the desire for entrepreneurship.

This increased regulatory environment reaches way down the ladder to even me. I have no desire to expand my business now. Primarily because of all the new regulations. A new client causes tons of downtime do all the paperwork. That for me is minor, but with all these new rules and regulations, you need in house attorney's to review everything you do. However, I as an individual am open to law suits. I could go through some of the assinine things people could sue over, but I won't in case by doing so I would be violating a regulation.

[Uncle Ted]

This is an odd statement, considering that Democratic administrations have generally proven to be better for business than Republican ones in the course of our lifetimes and by any measure the economy under Obama has outperformed what he was handed by Bush.

Maybe there are other factors than who controls the whitehouse and congress... in short, you can spin either way just looking at the pubs vs. dems:

Who’s better for the economy, Democrats or Republicans?

[...]





[...]
Here’s the truth and the bullshit when it comes to presidents, lawmakers, and the economy.


There are thousands of factors that affect the economy. Many of them, including oil prices, Chinese leaders wrestling with market dynamics, sectarian conflict in the Middle East, and Greek brinksmanship, are out of the control of American politicians. They’re powerful, but not all-powerful.


The Federal Reserve Bank has more of an impact on the economy than actions of presidents and congresses, and it doesn’t shift according to transitory Democratic and Republican ideas.


Most economic interventions by politicians take years to have an effect. This means by the time something goes wrong (or right), the other guys may be in power.


Some policies increase both prosperity and risk. If you drive too fast you’ll often get where you’re going sooner, unless of course you have a disastrous accident on the way. People who advocate risky policies often reside over prosperity.


The biggest risk is the one we haven’t seen before. As much as you want to blame politicians for failing to anticipate and account for the risk of a real-estate/tech/stock/bond/China/derivative bubble, nobody gets political cover for legislating against a risk that hasn’t happened yet. So there is no action, only blame. Ultimately, we all share that blame.


Presidents don’t get to set policy. Neither do congresses. They either negotiate a result or fail to act at all. Either way, we get a result that’s neither Democratic nor Republican, but a mix of the two. This makes it hard to assign credit and blame.


Stocks go up. Stocks go down. Is Obama supposed to get credit for the long rise in stocks, or is that due to the Republican-controlled Congress, or just due to the fact that things were so depressed when he got started? Is he to blame for the recent drop, or is that just the inevitable “correction” that happens after a runup? It’s all just hot air. When your 401(k) goes down (or up), the appropriate response is not “Thanks, Obama!”
[...]

http://withoutbullshit.com/blog/whos...r-republicans/

[Uncle Ted]

Hillary was surprised the over the last several years there has been a dramatic decrease in small business start ups. This shows Hillary's understanding of economics. Her and the President's love of high regulations, diminished rewards for success and added burdensome costs stifles the desire for entrepreneurship.

This increased regulatory environment reaches way down the ladder to even me. I have no desire to expand my business now. Primarily because of all the new regulations. A new client causes tons of downtime do all the paperwork. That for me is minor, but with all these new rules and regulations, you need in house attorney's to review everything you do. However, I as an individual am open to law suits. I could go through some of the assinine things people could sue over, but I won't in case by doing so I would be violating a regulation.

Yeah, I was talking to my CPA about Obamacare and he said that it has generated a lot more work for him. His clients are all small businesses. I guess there is some goods news about Obamacare if you are in the tax accounting business.

[byu71]

Yeah, I was talking to my CPA about Obamacare and he said that it has generated a lot more work for him. His clients are all small businesses. I guess there is some goods news about Obamacare if you are in the tax accounting business.

Obama and Hillary (Obama's 3rd term) are also very good for tax accountants, estate attorneys and especially ambulance chasing attorneys. The world has opened up to them far beyond chasing ambulences

[Moliere]

Embedded Tweet

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk