The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[byu71]

It's not just women and minorities. Donald Trump has a Mormon problem




Go Mormons!!!

Just looking for perspective. Is this Susan Udall from the big D Udahl family? I did google it and she has a D beside her name, but I don't know for sure if this is the same person being quoted as I am sure there are a lot of Udahls.

She doesn't know who she is going to vote for??? Perhaps she likes all the Hillary positions that coincide with Mormon beliefs.
Why can't she say they both are dirtbags and she is writing in Mitt or voting for McMillan?

[Applejack]

Besides Obamacare, what has Obama done besides played a lot of golf? He can't take credit for the economy; the economy is bigger than any president and GDP growth still sucks. He tried to close gitmo; didn't happen. He said he was going to get us out of Iraq; didn't happen. He said was going to shut down spying on americans by the government (aka, the so called "patriot" act); didn't happen. He said he was going to increase transparency in the government; the snowden leaks don't count.

Yeah, I see Clinton doing more of the same except she will get a lot of "pay-to-play" money donated to her foundation. That $12mm she got under-the-table from the Moroccan King will be considered nothing.

I'm not saying Obama is this generation's Lincoln: he's not. But he's been more than adequate at the job, something most on here were convinced was not possible four and eight years ago. Here's a summary from Politico:

Over the past seven years, Americans have heard an awful lot about Barack Obama and his presidency, but the actual substance of his domestic policies and their impact on the country remain poorly understood. He has engineered quite a few quiet revolutions—and some of his louder revolutions are shaking up the status quo in quiet ways. Obama is often dinged for failing to deliver on the hope-and-change rhetoric that inspired so many voters during his ascent to the presidency. But a review of his record shows that the Obama era has produced much more sweeping change than most of his supporters or detractors realize.

What he’s done is changing the way we produce and consume energy, the way doctors and hospitals treat us, the academic standards in our schools and the long-term fiscal trajectory of the nation. Gays can now serve openly in the military, insurers can no longer deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions, credit card companies can no longer impose hidden fees and markets no longer believe the biggest banks are too big to fail. Solar energy installations are up nearly 2,000 percent, and carbon emissions have dropped even though the economy is growing. Even Republicans like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, who hope to succeed Obama and undo his achievements, have been complaining on the campaign trail that he’s accomplished most of his agenda.

You might disagree with his politics and methods, but it's hard to argue (1) he's done nothing or (2) he's had a drastic, tragic impact on the nation or economy. Could the economy be better? Sure, but it's a hell of a lot better than it was eight years ago. Do we have Hope or Change? No, we are politically very divided, and Obama shares blame for this. Has he closed gitmo? No, but that is also due to the courts saying that he couldn't just shut it down and the Senate refusing to authorize funds for the closure: he has shrunk it considerably from Bush's days. He got us out of Iraq, until Hillary's friends, ISIS, dragged us back in. On transparency, he's been awful. Plus, he killed Osama! Never forget!

Overall, he grades out at about a B-. I'd take that again in a heart beat.

[byu71]

I'm not saying Obama is this generation's Lincoln: he's not. But he's been more than adequate at the job, something most on here were convinced was not possible four and eight years ago. Here's a summary from Politico:








You might disagree with his politics and methods, but it's hard to argue (1) he's done nothing or (2) he's had a drastic, tragic impact on the nation or economy. Could the economy be better? Sure, but it's a hell of a lot better than it was eight years ago. Do we have Hope or Change? No, we are politically very divided, and Obama shares blame for this. Has he closed gitmo? No, but that is also due to the courts saying that he couldn't just shut it down and the Senate refusing to authorize funds for the closure: he has shrunk it considerably from Bush's days. He got us out of Iraq, until Hillary's friends, ISIS, dragged us back in. On transparency, he's been awful. Plus, he killed Osama! Never forget!

Overall, he grades out at about a B-. I'd take that again in a heart beat.

Perhaps that explains why you are a Ute. You are happy with a B-.

[Applejack]

Perhaps that explains why you are a Ute. You are happy with a B-.

BYU71 with grade smack!

[byu71]

BYU71 with grade smack!

I am allowed. I had a 3.65 in accounting at BYU and a 3.9 in the MBA program at the U. USU was only a 2.25, but USU is dang tough.

[Applejack]

I am allowed. I had a 3.65 in accounting at BYU and a 3.9 in the MBA program at the U. USU was only a 2.25, but USU is dang tough.

Oh, I didn't know that. I won't make fun of BYU's accounting program again; it really does open doors to prestigious graduate schools.

[Uncle Ted]

I'm not saying Obama is this generation's Lincoln: he's not. But he's been more than adequate at the job, something most on here were convinced was not possible four and eight years ago. Here's a summary from Politico:






You might disagree with his politics and methods, but it's hard to argue (1) he's done nothing or (2) he's had a drastic, tragic impact on the nation or economy. Could the economy be better? Sure, but it's a hell of a lot better than it was eight years ago. Do we have Hope or Change? No, we are politically very divided, and Obama shares blame for this. Has he closed gitmo? No, but that is also due to the courts saying that he couldn't just shut it down and the Senate refusing to authorize funds for the closure: he has shrunk it considerably from Bush's days. He got us out of Iraq, until Hillary's friends, ISIS, dragged us back in. On transparency, he's been awful. Plus, he killed Osama! Never forget!

Overall, he grades out at about a B-. I'd take that again in a heart beat.

Actually considering all the leaks I would say that he has been pretty good on transparency... This morning I was reading about another Snowden-like NSA contractor ("Snowden 2.0") that that managed to take out about "10,000 DVD's" worth of information. Now that is transparency!

If the choice was Obama, Clinton, or Trump (no Johnson). I would take Obama.

[cowboy]

I'm not saying Obama is this generation's Lincoln: he's not. But he's been more than adequate at the job, something most on here were convinced was not possible four and eight years ago.

You might disagree with his politics and methods, but it's hard to argue (1) he's done nothing or (2) he's had a drastic, tragic impact on the nation or economy. Could the economy be better? Sure, but it's a hell of a lot better than it was eight years ago. Do we have Hope or Change? No, we are politically very divided, and Obama shares blame for this. Has he closed gitmo? No, but that is also due to the courts saying that he couldn't just shut it down and the Senate refusing to authorize funds for the closure: he has shrunk it considerably from Bush's days. He got us out of Iraq, until Hillary's friends, ISIS, dragged us back in. On transparency, he's been awful. Plus, he killed Osama! Never forget!

Overall, he grades out at about a B-. I'd take that again in a heart beat.

I'm not saying he's done nothing, but I strongly disagree that he has not had a dramatic negative impact on our nation and economy. Two points from your Politico quote (btw, if you argue with Politico, can I argue with the National Review?) are worth noting. First, while he has changed the way we produced and consume energy, what makes that a good thing? We are the world's largest energy producer, and putting carbon based energy producers out of business with heavily subsidized wind and solar energy has an enormous negative impact on our economy. Further, while our carbon emissions have been reduced, we could reduce them to zero and the change in atmospheric CO2 wouldn't amount to a pimple on a pissant's pecker. In short, he worked to hamstring one of our biggest economic drivers in order to make a point rather than a difference. Second, sure, it's nice that pre-existing medical conditions are covered, and now most insurance companies are doubling their premiums because of a principle called adverse selection. The percentage of uninsured in this country is almost unchanged since the ACA, and almost half of the uninsured remain so because they can't afford it. Saying that a president is okay because the economy is better than it was when it was in the deepest recession in 70 years is hardly a stellar argument.

I would love to post more, but haven't the time.

[Uncle Ted]

Someone has created a google spreadsheet of the more interesting Clinton emails...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DgwLHAC5mk9Ghblc6O7AXzxX5dNLlMg0hHUn-D_Ay7I/edit#gid=0

I can't wait for Clinton to reveal the captured UFO technology we have:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11939

Why do only the military corporations only get access to this stuff?

[Applejack]

I'm not saying he's done nothing, but I strongly disagree that he has not had a dramatic negative impact on our nation and economy. Two points from your Politico quote (btw, if you argue with Politico, can I argue with the National Review?) are worth noting. First, while he has changed the way we produced and consume energy, what makes that a good thing? We are the world's largest energy producer, and putting carbon based energy producers out of business with heavily subsidized wind and solar energy has an enormous negative impact on our economy. Further, while our carbon emissions have been reduced, we could reduce them to zero and the change in atmospheric CO2 wouldn't amount to a pimple on a pissant's pecker. In short, he worked to hamstring one of our biggest economic drivers in order to make a point rather than a difference. Second, sure, it's nice that pre-existing medical conditions are covered, and now most insurance companies are doubling their premiums because of a principle called adverse selection. The percentage of uninsured in this country is almost unchanged since the ACA, and almost half of the uninsured remain so because they can't afford it. Saying that a president is okay because the economy is better than it was when it was in the deepest recession in 70 years is hardly a stellar argument.

I would love to post more, but haven't the time.

Again, I'm not saying everyone will agree with his policies: for those who don't think we can stop global warming, it's a bad idea to shift away from oil/coal. On the ACA, I don't think most insurance companies are doubling their premiums. But, insurance premiums are certainly going up, primarily in rural areas. Again, you might not like the ACA.

The criticisms of Obama are justified, but I think the doom and gloom about his economic impact is unjustified, to say the least.

Actually considering all the leaks I would say that he has been pretty good on transparency... This morning I was reading about another Snowden-like NSA contractor ("Snowden 2.0") that that managed to take out about "10,000 DVD's" worth of information. Now that is transparency!

If the choice was Obama, Clinton, or Trump (no Johnson). I would take Obama.

That guy is in Maryland, barely a mile from my house. Too bad we never hung out so he could give me one of his mix CDs.

[Uncle Ted]

Again, I'm not saying everyone will agree with his policies: for those who don't think we can stop global warming, it's a bad idea to shift away from oil/coal. On the ACA, I don't think most insurance companies are doubling their premiums. But, insurance premiums are certainly going up, primarily in rural areas. Again, you might not like the ACA.

The criticisms of Obama are justified, but I think the doom and gloom about his economic impact is unjustified, to say the least.



That guy is in Maryland, barely a mile from my house. Too bad we never hung out so he could give me one of his mix CDs.

Yeah, too bad. It might have some great zero-day malware! That sh*t goes for about a million dollars a hit these days.

[Northwestcoug]

I'm not saying he's done nothing, but I strongly disagree that he has not had a dramatic negative impact on our nation and economy. Two points from your Politico quote (btw, if you argue with Politico, can I argue with the National Review?) are worth noting. First, while he has changed the way we produced and consume energy, what makes that a good thing? We are the world's largest energy producer, and putting carbon based energy producers out of business with heavily subsidized wind and solar energy has an enormous negative impact on our economy. Further, while our carbon emissions have been reduced, we could reduce them to zero and the change in atmospheric CO2 wouldn't amount to a pimple on a pissant's pecker. In short, he worked to hamstring one of our biggest economic drivers in order to make a point rather than a difference. Second, sure, it's nice that pre-existing medical conditions are covered, and now most insurance companies are doubling their premiums because of a principle called adverse selection. The percentage of uninsured in this country is almost unchanged since the ACA, and almost half of the uninsured remain so because they can't afford it. Saying that a president is okay because the economy is better than it was when it was in the deepest recession in 70 years is hardly a stellar argument.

I would love to post more, but haven't the time.

If the GOP learns nothing else from this disaster of an election, I hope it is this: their relentless attack on traditional media is not a winning strategy. Everyone knows that the vast majority of journalists lean left. But as far as I know, Politico is politically neutral. We may detect bias in individual writings and opinion pieces, but by and large traditional news reporting tries to play it fair. National Review is officially unabashedly conservative, which is not in and of itself a bad thing, though we know how they will spin most of their news.

At least National Review has some thoughtful writing. The same cannot be said of alternative media's saint Drudge. Drudge Report had a good run and did a good thing by starting the conversation of media bias, but it (and it's spawn Breitbart) are now so partisan that it's embarrassing. And now their success has encouraged even worse 'news' sites to proliferate. As long as GOP supporters rely on them and their ilk for news, the fever swamps of the right will not be drained and another Trump figure will make a serious run for the nomination.

This is not to say that we shouldn't condemn covert partisan reporting. I'm sure Politico and every other respectable news organization has had at least one unethical reporter. But until those actions occur, it's usually a safe bet to trust most mainstream reporting. Trust, but verify, I heard someone say once...

[frank ryan]

If the choice was Obama, Clinton, or Trump (no Johnson). I would take Obama.

I agree with you there. I didn't vote the last presidential election because I was lazy but I strongly considered voting 3rd party as a protest vote. I'm not skipping this election and just my ballot in the mail. I genuinely think Obama is a decent guy.

[Moliere]

B- seems high. I'd give him a C. He could have had a C+ but the wage stagnation has been awful.

The social progress has been nice. He's even gotten Hillary to cast off her anti-gay policies and rhetoric.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[byu71]

The criticisms of Obama are justified, but I think the doom and gloom about his economic impact is unjustified, to say the least.



That guy is in Maryland, barely a mile from my house. Too bad we never hung out so he could give me one of his mix CDs.

I would agree it hasn't been a doom and gloom economy, but it sure hasn't been a typical recovery. For President Obama to claim it is because the republicans wouldn't let him get his policies through is non sense, total non sense.

I would maintain that the reason our economy has recovered the best is because our capital system works more efficiently over the long run than does the European economies. Can you imagine how far in the dumpers their economies would be if ours hadn't gone along as well as it has, albeit anemic.

Here is what you will get if Hillary does what she says she is going to do if elected and brings along a democratic congress. She will hurt capital formation.

Multi millionaires and retiree's aren't going to get hurt. There heirs could get hurt, but not them. What does it matter to Buffet is his taxes go up 20%? Hell it probably won't hurt his $500,000 a year secretary either. It will hurt $50,000 a year secretaries because their bonus's will be going down.

How about the small businessman who is fortunate enough to be making $250,000 a year and growing. He will have a lot less to put back into his business. He won't be hiring new people. How about access to capital. Let me ask a real simple question, if you could invest in a start up or growth company and give 70% to the government if you hit and if you lose write off $3,000 of it a year, would you invest or sit on the cash?

If Hillary gets the Presidency and I have no doubt she will, along with a democrat congress, I would put my money in a growing law firm or accounting firm. They will be the real winners when the tax laws go way up and regulations climb. There will be loopholes for the friends of Hillary, you will just have to hunt to find them.