OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
On showmanship and winning the debate. I think most people have made up their mind regardless of the debate. Either could show up pants-less and admit they have a dead body in their backyard and people wouldn't change their vote.
Does anyone have an idea of how many people, percentage-wise are still undecided? And what type of stuff would sway them - could it really be something like non-substantial showmanship?
Does anyone have an idea of how many people, percentage-wise are still undecided? And what type of stuff would sway them - could it really be something like non-substantial showmanship?
Nobody cares about the VP debates. Trump will call her a ‘nasty woman’ while Biden tries to figure out who he’s talking about.
A lot of people have decided who they like better but may not like either enough to show up. Turnout is a huge key to winning a presidential election. The larger it is, the more advantage democrats have. A lot of people are going to look at this shit show and just stay home.
That's what she tells me.
It's not just voter turnout. It's black voter turnout that could make the difference.
So does the best the democrats have as a choice to run for president!
They know he is going to lose they are using him to to just have someone to take one for the team because I'm sure they have someone in mind for 2024.
Democrats hate Trump and then run Joe up there to get crushed and also get butt hurt when they don't win! Their logic doesn't make much sense.
If you mean bullshitting like the bullshit that made my 401k explode and make our country financially stronger, I take that bullshit every day.
Yay! She'll "rip Pence a new one." Big Fvcking Deal! The woman's record is corrupt and dangerous! If I wanna watch a boxing match, I will.
Do you have any idea how simple your perception is? "Just win, baby!" There's no conception or consideration of things that will actually MATTER, or that have MATTERED. It's all a show.
George, go ahead (@UNC '92 , for you, too):
Your 401k should have started exploding well before Trump took office unless you literally just started investing in the last three years.
Here's the NASDAQ Composite Index going back to 1945. Conveniently, they highlighted the significant discontinuities, but you can see for yourself that there has not been any noticeable change to the growth trend since Trump took office. The claim that he is responsible for the market doing well is absurd. The market is behaving almost exactly the same way it was before he took office.
Here's GDP graphed across time up until 2020, with the different administrations highlighted. The truth is that the President might be able to screw up growth in some situations, but there's very little they can do to stimulate it. The president doesn't set monetary policy, and he can't really stimulate demand which is how you actually trigger long term sustainable growth. What you see here, is that GDP growth has been insanely consistent, regardless of which party in the White House.
Last edited:
You actually believe that Trump's bullshit = more money for you in your 401K?
Your 401k should have started exploding well before Trump took office unless you literally just started investing in the last three years.
Here's the NASDAQ Composite Index going back to 1945. Conveniently, they highlighted the significant discontinuities, but you can see for yourself that there has not been any noticeable change to the growth trend since Trump took office. The claim that he is responsible for the market doing well is absurd. The market is behaving almost exactly the same way it was before he took office.
Here's GDP graphed across time up until 2020, with the different administrations highlighted. The truth is that the President might be able to screw up growth in some situations, but there's very little they can do to stimulate it. The president doesn't set monetary policy, and he can't really stimulate demand which is how you actually trigger long term sustainable growth. What you see here, is that GDP growth has been insanely consistent, regardless of which party in the White House.
If you expect the average American to understand something even as simple as this then you’re overestimating the intelligence of the average American.
No President since FDR has had any real impact on the economy, but they’ve all taken credit for good ones.
Your 401k should have started exploding well before Trump took office unless you literally just started investing in the last three years.
Here's the NASDAQ Composite Index going back to 1945. Conveniently, they highlighted the significant discontinuities, but you can see for yourself that there has not been any noticeable change to the growth trend since Trump took office. The claim that he is responsible for the market doing well is absurd. The market is behaving almost exactly the same way it was before he took office.
Here's GDP graphed across time up until 2020, with the different administrations highlighted. The truth is that the President might be able to screw up growth in some situations, but there's very little they can do to stimulate it. The president doesn't set monetary policy, and he can't really stimulate demand which is how you actually trigger long term sustainable growth. What you see here, is that GDP growth has been insanely consistent, regardless of which party in the White House.
Some good points there, and I agree with the overall message. For a variety of reasons I would have picked the S&P500 to represent "the market" but the general results would have been similar.
I think a better measure of one's financial well-being under various presidents would be their personal net income, after all taxes, healthcare, etc. Although that obviously has several factors that are out of the President's control as well - and would be more of a measure for overall government and quasi-government impact (since Congress, the Fed, etc. have a large impact on that as well).
If you’re taking financial advice from the President you’re doing it wrong.
Why are your panties up in a wad, strum? Why the malevolence towards Kamala Harris? It wouldn't happen to be because she took your fantasy lover boy, Rand Paul, to task on the Senate floor recently after he mocked the finer points of HB 35, better known as the Emmett Till Antilynching Act, or would it be? Tsk, tsk, tsk.
I remember years ago when I suggested Rand Paul looked a lot like Lee Harvey Oswald and out of nowhere you raced to his defense. You wouldn't shut up until I conceded that Rand Paul may actually be more handsome than Lee Harvey Oswald. Sheesh! Talk about your uptight wankers.
You are obviously afraid of strong women.
Last edited:
The biggest issue for me is that it’s awfully hard to control for everything else and isolate the impact of the government, or the president himself. Not to mention the 'stickiness' of the response of prices and wages to policy. For example, deregulating Wall St. has been a disaster for the economy on multiple occasions, but it usually takes a good bit of time before the impact is really felt. The housing bubble started in the 90's but didn't blow up in our faces until 2008.
Median net income could certainly be an interesting tool for analyzing the economic prosperity of the working class. And obviously if you're analyzing how well you're doing yourself, then net income is crucial.
If we taught people some very basic econometrics and statistics we'd have a much more informed electorate. Most people simply don't understand the concept of trying to isolate an independent variable. So these conversations go right over their heads.
Perhaps. His bullshit made him richer and has made our country richer and has made me richer...so yeah. Whatever he does or is doing to make me have more retirement money and make our country stronger, keep doing it, whether he is bullshitting or bull fighting.
Our country is so strong, tremendously strong. The country is benchpressing 50% more.
Wtf, where do I sign up for the government gains?
His bullshit got him noticed. "Richer" is yet to be proven. He had to bullshit for years in order to avoid losing his ass entirely. His commercials with Ivana for Pizza Hut and McDonald's with Grimace, for example.
The "country" has always been rich. But, the people- the lower middle class, and middle class, are losing their asses. People actually earned "more" when I was born than they do now. In 50 years, it's steadily declined. There are so many mechanisms in place that affect the monetary system, the currency, the domestic and global economy- and, most importantly, who actually is benefiting from it- that it's insane to think that Trump and his tweets, insecurities, inept understanding of economics and government, and divisive bluster-fests are actually making ANYONE "richer." Whatever has happened is incidental. He has managed to bullshit you into buying his bullshit!
After having read a few books by people who have dealt with him directly-(all based on public record information), it's astounding that he hasn't driven the thing totally into the ditch. I guess it's a testament to how inconsequential a president actually is in our system. Whatever that man knew about business deals, he has long forgotten it. It certainly doesn't translate into being a president or government executive. He's not a CEO of the USA. It's interesting to watch him from 30-40 years ago, and then watch him now. Even 20 years ago. The intellectual descent is pretty remarkable. He became a bona-fide carnival barker once he bankrupted himself into only being able to sell his name. He became a full-time celebrity whose only means of survival was to market himself (bullshit). There's no skill beyond that. And, frankly, he really didn't know shit in the 70s and 80s, either. All he knew was how to try and get leverage for tax breaks for himself and his "projects." Then, he proceeded to take credit for what other people actually did. He also had Roy Cohn around (who was connected to more organized crime than you can imagine) to act as intimidation. The association he has (and has had) with criminals, drug kingpins, and just the most corrupt people around- that have rigged the system to benefit the uber-wealthy- is staggering. It was happening with or without his participation. But, that bastard has stench all over him.
Go back and look at the graphs again. GDP is a good way to measure but no single area will tell you everything.
Not much of a part, don't drink that orange koolaid. Half the country doesn't even vote, a big part of the other half hardly knows the difference tween one president or the other aside for their stance on abortion. Consumerism is a machine and businesses are catering to demand from these non-voters, and going after a dollar regardless of who is in charge. Regulations can effect certain industries, but it's a small slice.
I took this to be exactly what you meant and I reiterate that if you're using Presidents' rhetoric to influence any of your personal financial decisions then you're doing it wrong.
Your overly sensitive feelings are very important, i'm not going to tell you how to feel.
But i'd like some example of you how you think you personally would create, spend and invest differently if Hillary Clinton had won.
GDP growth and stock market returns have been better under Democrats vs. Republicans. Maybe markets aren't what you are referring to.
Imagine how much more flowery the language in that article would have been had it been a Democrat president's administration getting it done.
I'm looking forward to all the opinion pieces to see if they spin it or begrudgingly say it's a good thing.
I honestly do not expect it to result in a mass wave of support from ME countries. Maybe a few.
Blocking funds so less people can vote for your opponent is far worse than what he was impeached for.
Pretty sure our founding fathers would throw this in the abuse of powers bucket.
You're probably right, but it's a step in the right direction.
The thing I'm seeing now is "Ya, I'm sure Trump had a lot to do with it and it wasn't his advisors". And of course those same people throw all the blame for deals/EOs/etc they don't like directly on him and not his advisors.
Why do we need mass mail in voting? Why can't we do it as we have for years? Why is it a bad idea for someone to have to be a legal US citizen to vote and them to have to have proof of that fact!
Like Trump or not one has to admit that mail in voting does open the door for fraud!
I don't want someone that isn't a citizen having an impact on our election by voting, even more so when one side of the debate is offering the illegals to gain from their side being elected. Its kind of a conflict of interest right?
The only fair way to do it is you go to the polls and vote, and I don't want people saying it isn't safe because of Covid when they can go to Walmart lowes or the ABC store is essential then going to the polls to vote is damn sure essential!
Like Trump or not one has to admit that mail in voting does open the door for fraud!
I don't want someone that isn't a citizen having an impact on our election by voting, even more so when one side of the debate is offering the illegals to gain from their side being elected. Its kind of a conflict of interest right?
The only fair way to do it is you go to the polls and vote, and I don't want people saying it isn't safe because of Covid when they can go to Walmart lowes or the ABC store is essential then going to the polls to vote is damn sure essential!
Similar threads
