2016 Presidential Horse Race

2016 Presidential Horse Race


  • Total voters
    183

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321

“We’re going to solve your water problem. You have a water problem that is so insane. It is so ridiculous where they’re taking the water and shoving it out to sea,” Trump told thousands of supporters at the campaign event.

California Drought Information (US Geological Service)

House Committee on Natural Resources: California’s Central Valley: Producing America’s Fruits and Vegetables
California’s Central Valley: Producing America’s Fruits and Vegetables
Americans will see higher prices for produce as historic California drought continues
(Feb, 2014)
 
Last edited:

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
California Farmers Short of Labor, and Patience (NY Times, March 2014)

HURON, Calif. — When Chuck Herrin, who runs a large farm labor contracting company, looks out at the hundreds of workers he hires each year to tend to the countless rows of asparagus, grapes, tomatoes, peaches and plums, he often seethes in frustration.

It is not that he has any trouble with the laborers. It is that he, like many others in agriculture here, is increasingly fed up with immigration laws that he says prevent him from fielding a steady, reliable work force.

“What we have going on now is a farce — a waste of time and money,” said Mr. Herrin, a lifelong Republican who grew up in central California, adding that the country should be considering ways to bring workers in, not keep them out. “We need these people to get our food to market.”

California is home to an estimated 2.5 million illegal immigrants, more than in any other state. Perhaps nowhere else captures the contradictions and complications of immigration policy better than California’s Central Valley, where nearly all farmworkers are immigrants, roughly half of them living here illegally, according to estimates from agricultural economists at the University of California, Davis.
 

Bubbles

Turn down your lights
Messages
661
Reaction score
76
2 things though:

1. This goes way back. To use Trump's words, "Yeah, but, he started it!" Seriously though, dude went off for no reason a couple of months ago. This is just a continuation.

2. I don't about "lefty" anything - I've been a Republican all my adult life until they backed Trump. First time I'm not voting for the Republican candidate (LOL at anyone who thinks that fraud is a Republican/conservative though). But I will say BOTH sides dish it out. I can't even read the comment sections anymore of any political articles because the Republicans are such an embarrassment there. They rip the left for the exact same things they are doing. Both party members are the same IMHO.

1. Sure. So...don't engage someone being childish? Just a thought.

2. I've read enough of your posts to know you aren't, but at the same time...you have to look in the mirror and know that your responses (and Wooly's, and others) are EXACTLY why they feel the way they feel. A huge group of people in this country are tired of being marginalized for being the (sometimes true, but mostly false) villain in our new victim-culture.

2a. Completely agree on both parties. In fact, I've been thinking more and more recently that, in designing the perfect system of absolute control, the first thing I would do is force dependence on the system for as many as possible, and then divide the rest with rhetoric and false beliefs so that they are forever fighting amongst themselves instead of turning a critical eye at the top. Sound familiar?
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
You didn't say they were a racist hateful group of people. You said BLM is a hate group. That is a thing. Are they like the KKK or the skinheads -- those are what I consider hate groups. I see BLM as a political movement that is centered around racial injustice, like the civil rights movement in the 60s. Do you consider MLK's followers a hate group?

A couple other posters have already pointed out the differences between MLK and BLM. You're either willfully ignoring some actions of BLM because you still think it's 1954 or you just don't care because...well I have no clue.
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
1. Sure. So...don't engage someone being childish? Just a thought.

2. I've read enough of your posts to know you aren't, but at the same time...you have to look in the mirror and know that your responses (and Wooly's, and others) are EXACTLY why they feel the way they feel. A huge group of people in this country are tired of being marginalized for being the (sometimes true, but mostly false) villain in our new victim-culture.

2a. Completely agree on both parties. In fact, I've been thinking more and more recently that, in designing the perfect system of absolute control, the first thing I would do is force dependence on the system for as many as possible, and then divide the rest with rhetoric and false beliefs so that they are forever fighting amongst themselves instead of turning a critical eye at the top. Sound familiar?

The wealth-mongers and the power-hungry having been using the "divide and conquer" strategy throughout history. Immigrants and easily identified racial groups have born the brunt of this strategy throughout American history. They fight amongst themselves for the few jobs available and , in the process, help to keep wages and work-conditions artificially low. The angry, white, displaced industrial workers should be united with the out-of-work, or underpaid black worker. Both of those groups should be united with each successive wave of immigrants that enters the workforce. Until these groups unite, the power-hungry hoarders of wealth will be more than happy to employ those who will work for the lowest wages and make the fewest demands. If you can't find workers to abuse in America, then look for them abroad. Why do you think the Republicans have declared war on unions? It isn't because they are looking out for the working man. It's because they fear what will happen if the oppressed groups unite and demand a fair share. Bernie has tied into the feelings of a united working class better than any candidate. Trump has focused his attention on keeping those groups divided and blaming each other. Clinton is lost somewhere in between, not sure whether to throw her lot with the working class or to become a moderate Republican in everything but name. She lacks passion, and her allegiance sways in the wind.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
1. Sure. So...don't engage someone being childish? Just a thought.

2. I've read enough of your posts to know you aren't, but at the same time...you have to look in the mirror and know that your responses (and Wooly's, and others) are EXACTLY why they feel the way they feel. A huge group of people in this country are tired of being marginalized for being the (sometimes true, but mostly false) villain in our new victim-culture.

2a. Completely agree on both parties. In fact, I've been thinking more and more recently that, in designing the perfect system of absolute control, the first thing I would do is force dependence on the system for as many as possible, and then divide the rest with rhetoric and false beliefs so that they are forever fighting amongst themselves instead of turning a critical eye at the top. Sound familiar?

Regarding point #2, I completely disagree and brought this point up to Knocks before. A lot of Trump supporters have became the mirror image of what they claim to hate. They blame "PC Culture" for why their racist/bigotry/inconsiderate/ignorant statements get push back. Could it simply be possible that when someone says something completely ignorant, we can call a spade a spade?

I'm sick of people like Knocks coming on here and saying completely ignorant statements, then calling us racists or part of the "PC Culture" when we dare to disagree. Like I said, a lot of Trump supporters are just the opposite side of the same BLM coin. Same expectation that other people need to simply accept their ignorance with no recourse, because otherwise, it's "unfair".
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,951
Reaction score
11,234

GATTACA!

It's about to get gross
Messages
15,110
Reaction score
12,945
Ha, she'll win Oregon, and every other blue state without lifting a finger... I'll believe 'the trumpolution' when I see it.

Obama won Oregon by 12 points. The fact that Trump is even remotely near HRC let alone ahead has to be concerning.
 

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464
Obama won Oregon by 12 points. The fact that Trump is even remotely near HRC let alone ahead has to be concerning.

There are lots of strange results right now. I think the Oregon results are a result of the "Bernie or Bust" people saying they wouldn't vote for Clinton. In the end, I think most of them will come over.

In the most recent poll in Georgia, Trump only leads by 3 points, a state where Romney won by 7.5 points in 2012.

Most of those polls are meaningless right now.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
Obama won Oregon by 12 points. The fact that Trump is even remotely near HRC let alone ahead has to be concerning.

Every single election sees weird polling this time in the cycle. I wouldn't get too up or down with any polling right now.
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
Every single election sees weird polling this time in the cycle. I wouldn't get too up or down with any polling right now.

Spot on. We are months away IMO from any meaningful polling and even then....
I'd venture to say we will continue to see weird stuff for a good while. Should be interesting.
 

Bubbles

Turn down your lights
Messages
661
Reaction score
76
Regarding point #2, I completely disagree and brought this point up to Knocks before. A lot of Trump supporters have became the mirror image of what they claim to hate. They blame "PC Culture" for why their racist/bigotry/inconsiderate/ignorant statements get push back. Could it simply be possible that when someone says something completely ignorant, we can call a spade a spade?

I'm sick of people like Knocks coming on here and saying completely ignorant statements, then calling us racists or part of the "PC Culture" when we dare to disagree. Like I said, a lot of Trump supporters are just the opposite side of the same BLM coin. Same expectation that other people need to simply accept their ignorance with no recourse, because otherwise, it's "unfair".

So....people that feel like they are being marginalized actually are all just racist/bigots/assholes/ignorati? You're probably right.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
So....people that feel like they are being marginalized actually are all just racist/bigots/assholes/ignorati? You're probably right.

Or when someone says something stupid, they shouldn't be able to say it with no recourse. That goes for BLM folks as well Trump folks.

You know, we have the freedom to say whatever we want, but no one has a right to not be judged or have consequences for what they say.

That's all... Twist it however you will.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Last edited:

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,995
The wealth-mongers and the power-hungry having been using the "divide and conquer" strategy throughout history. Immigrants and easily identified racial groups have born the brunt of this strategy throughout American history. They fight amongst themselves for the few jobs available and , in the process, help to keep wages and work-conditions artificially low. The angry, white, displaced industrial workers should be united with the out-of-work, or underpaid black worker. Both of those groups should be united with each successive wave of immigrants that enters the workforce. Until these groups unite, the power-hungry hoarders of wealth will be more than happy to employ those who will work for the lowest wages and make the fewest demands. If you can't find workers to abuse in America, then look for them abroad. Why do you think the Republicans have declared war on unions? It isn't because they are looking out for the working man. It's because they fear what will happen if the oppressed groups unite and demand a fair share. Bernie has tied into the feelings of a united working class better than any candidate. Trump has focused his attention on keeping those groups divided and blaming each other. Clinton is lost somewhere in between, not sure whether to throw her lot with the working class or to become a moderate Republican in everything but name. She lacks passion, and her allegiance sways in the wind.

Wow. This is outlandish and then some. "Republicans" hate unions because unions have been proven to be a terrible impetus to job creation, and in many cases they're so anti-business that they drive major corporations and/or whole industries under (or in the public sector, bankrupt a state).

Have you ever worked with a union before? I do regularly. Non-union jobs get done twice as fast for half the cost (same or greater quality of work). There was a time when unions were absolutely necessary... now they're just a way to artificially inflate wages for many unskilled workers above market value. Look no further than the attempts recently to push for a ridiculous $15/hr minimum wage for fast food workers. There are still many industries where unions are of value, but the idea that unions are generally a net positive for society as a whole is seriously debatable.

Putting "blame politics" squarely at the feat of Republicans is absolutely hilarious considering the ramped up anti-white movement of the far left over the past 4 years or so. You have a large swath of progressive telling any person of color that literally all of their problems are white people's and that they should blame literally every grievance they have on the white supremacist system they live in.
 
Last edited:

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,995
Regarding point #2, I completely disagree and brought this point up to Knocks before. A lot of Trump supporters have became the mirror image of what they claim to hate. They blame "PC Culture" for why their racist/bigotry/inconsiderate/ignorant statements get push back. Could it simply be possible that when someone says something completely ignorant, we can call a spade a spade?

I'm sick of people like Knocks coming on here and saying completely ignorant statements, then calling us racists or part of the "PC Culture" when we dare to disagree. Like I said, a lot of Trump supporters are just the opposite side of the same BLM coin. Same expectation that other people need to simply accept their ignorance with no recourse, because otherwise, it's "unfair".

OK but what's the flip side of the "PC" coin? Maybe sometimes people are rightfully getting called out... but what about the other times when they try to call a "spade a spade" in their own mind get labeled racist/bigot/whatever?

For example with Trump, he said he wanted to ban Muslims and caught all hell for it. That's dumb, sure. But you're not allowed to even raise sensible, rational concerns right now towards the idea that Muslims maybe have a problem integrating with western society and we should be cautious about the type and number that are let in.

If I was on television and said "there are Muslim leaders telling their followers to lightly beat their wives if they turn down sex... I'm not OK with that, and I don't think our society is better off adding those types of people to it"... I would be labeled "racist" or "Islamaphobic" when in reality I'm not anti-Muslim, I'm anti-wife beating and think women should be treated like real people.

I think a lot of Trump supporters are tired of reading anti-white BS every day, and are tired of not being able to stand up and say "hey, I don't want our women getting raped by gangs of Muslims on the subway like in Europe" when it makes perfect sense. They're tired of the public shaming game played by the activist left. I'm not voting for Trump and I don't support Trump, but I do understand where they're coming from because you cannot deny that the SJWs are out of control.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Analysis of Donald Trump's Tax Plan (Tax Policy Center)

ABSTRACT
This paper analyzes presidential candidate Donald Trump’s tax proposal. His plan would significantly reduce marginal tax rates on individuals and businesses, increase standard deduction amounts to nearly four times current levels, and curtail many tax expenditures. His proposal would cut taxes at all income levels, although the largest benefits, in dollar and percentage terms, would go to the highest-income households. The plan would reduce federal revenues by $9.5 trillion over its first decade before accounting for added interest costs or considering macroeconomic feedback effects. The plan would improve incentives to work, save, and invest. However, unless it is accompanied by very large spending cuts, it could increase the national debt by nearly 80 percent of gross domestic productivity 2036, offsetting some or all of the incentive effects of the tax cuts.

SUMMARYAND INTRODUCTION
Presidential candidate Donald Trump has proposed tax reforms that would significantly reduce marginal tax rates for both individuals and businesses,increase standard deduction amounts to nearly four times current levels, limit or repeal some tax expenditures,repeal the individual and corporate alternative minimum taxes and the estate and gift taxes,and tax the profits of foreign subsidiaries of US companies in the year they are earned. The Tax Policy Center estimates the proposal would reduce federal revenue by $9.5 trillion over its first decade and an additional $15.0 trillion over the subsequent 10 years,before accounting for added interest costs or considering macroeconomic feedback effects. Most of the revenue loss would come from individual income tax cuts, but about a third would be from the reduction in the corporate income tax rate and the introduction of special rates on pass-through businesses.The proposal would cut taxes at every income level, but high-income taxpayers would receive the biggest cuts, both in dollar terms andas a percentage of income. Overall, the plan would cut taxes by an average of about $5,100, or about 7 percent of after-tax income.However, the highest-income 0.1 percent of taxpayers (those with incomes over $3.7million in 2015 dollars) would experience an average tax cut of more than $1.3 million in 2017, nearly 19 percent of after-tax income. Middle-income households would receive an average tax cut of $2,700, or 4.9 percent of after-tax income. The significant marginal tax rate cuts would boost incentives to work, save, and invest if interest rates do not change. The plan would also reduce some tax distortions in the allocation of capital. However,increased government borrowing would push up interest rates and crowd out private investment, offsetting some or all of the plan’s positive incentive effects. Offsetting a deficit this large would require unprecedented cuts in federal spending.The main elements of the Trump proposal, as we modeled them, are listed below. Appendix A discusses instances in which campaign documents and the candidates’ statements were unclear and presents the assumptions that we made in our modeling. Note that all of our estimates reflect the effects of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 and the tax provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 on current law baseline revenues as well as on the Trump plan.

For the accountants and economists in our community as well....
 
Last edited:

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
Analysis of Donald Trump's Tax Plan (Tax Policy Center)





For the accountants and economists in our community as well....

Unprecedented spending cuts.................. OR just spending money smarter. It takes A LOT of spending to provide the goods and services that we expect the Fed to provide for us. So I'm not complaining so much about how much they spend, but how dumbly they spend it. If they consolidated some of their purchasing and leveraged that to get the best deal, they could spend much less. I think this is where Trump's team could really be successful. They have the business acumen to make it happen. IF they can get Congress to go along. They also need to stop contracting out responsibility because they think it is too difficult to get rid of federal employees who can't, or simply won't be where they are supposed to be, when they are supposed to be there, and doing what they are supposed to be doing.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/05/29/response-kristallnacht-comparison

Pathetic loser isn't as bad as this.

Juvenile or not, who has attacked Trump and "won"?

I guess it depends on how you look at it. I personally don't think that someone aiming for the most important position in the world wins an argument when they stoop to the lowest form of debate. Picking out a physical feature, trait or condition to attack instead of facts isn't debate. It's idiotic banter that you would see in a locker room, not the Oval Office. It's taken political dialogue as a whole in this country down to an idiotic level that we shouldn't even allow children to take part in. His type of behavior is what most of our parents taught us to rise above. Instead, his mere acceptance by adults tells them that when someone disagrees, simply attack them personally.

So to answer your question. Every single person he has ever debated.
 

no.1IrishFan

Well-known member
Messages
6,279
Reaction score
421
I guess it depends on how you look at it. I personally don't think that someone aiming for the most important position in the world wins an argument when they stoop to the lowest form of debate. Picking out a physical feature, trait or condition to attack instead of facts isn't debate. It's idiotic banter that you would see in a locker room, not the Oval Office. It's taken political dialogue as a whole in this country down to an idiotic level that we shouldn't even allow children to take part in. His type of behavior is what most of our parents taught us to rise above. Instead, his mere acceptance by adults tells them that when someone disagrees, simply attack them personally.

So to answer your question. Every single person he has ever debated.

Yeah, I think it depends soley on the person listening. I've never heard him "win" against anyone.
However, other people hear ad hominem attacks and see that as a victory, rather than attacking actual ideas or arguments.
 

irishfan

Irish Hoops Mod
Messages
7,205
Reaction score
607
I guess it depends on how you look at it. I personally don't think that someone aiming for the most important position in the world wins an argument when they stoop to the lowest form of debate. Picking out a physical feature, trait or condition to attack instead of facts isn't debate. It's idiotic banter that you would see in a locker room, not the Oval Office. It's taken political dialogue as a whole in this country down to an idiotic level that we shouldn't even allow children to take part in. His type of behavior is what most of our parents taught us to rise above. Instead, his mere acceptance by adults tells them that when someone disagrees, simply attack them personally.

So to answer your question. Every single person he has ever debated.

I agree it's idiotic. I vehemently disagree that guys like Jeb, Rubio, Cruz, or even Mitt (who he didn't debate but who went extremely out of his way to try and stop his nomination) "won" in their attacks on Trump.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
I agree it's idiotic. I vehemently disagree that guys like Jeb, Rubio, Cruz, or even Mitt (who he didn't debate but who went extremely out of his way to try and stop his nomination) "won" in their attacks on Trump.

Well, we can agree to disagree then. All of those people beat him in the battle of facts. The only one that ever got beat was Rubio. Trump beat him with the old adage of "never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience".
 

irishfan

Irish Hoops Mod
Messages
7,205
Reaction score
607
Well, we can agree to disagree then. All of those people beat him in the battle of facts. The only one that ever got beat was Rubio. Trump beat him with the old adage of "never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience".

Very true. He's best when the debates/rhetoric get mucked up. And it's how I think he'll eventually beat Hillary.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
Very true. He's best when the debates/rhetoric get mucked up. And it's how I think he'll eventually beat Hillary.

I think that is the exact point where you and I differ, which leads us to thinking the other candidate will win. I don't believe that Hilldog will succumb to idiocy. She's 1) a women and 2) a polished politician. I think Trump will destroy any goodwill he has left with women in this country once he starts attacking her. He cannot help but to say sexist things and will eventually go over the line. At which point, Hilldog will strike not with insults or vulgarity, but with common sense politicking that will ultimately be too much for Trump to handle.

As you said, he excels in debate revolving around penis size and name calling. He's not a true politician. For as much as its en vogue to hate "politicians", there is a reason they know how to play the game. Because after all, it is a game.
 

dales5050

Banned
Messages
404
Reaction score
39
I guess it depends on how you look at it. I personally don't think that someone aiming for the most important position in the world wins an argument when they stoop to the lowest form of debate. Picking out a physical feature, trait or condition to attack instead of facts isn't debate. It's idiotic banter that you would see in a locker room, not the Oval Office. It's taken political dialogue as a whole in this country down to an idiotic level that we shouldn't even allow children to take part in. His type of behavior is what most of our parents taught us to rise above. Instead, his mere acceptance by adults tells them that when someone disagrees, simply attack them personally.

So to answer your question. Every single person he has ever debated.


Rather amusing how people don't think it's 'Presidential' to get into a dust up on twitter. I wonder how many of these people found a way to not mind that Clinton was getting blowjobs by interns in the oval office. Unless that is 'Presidential' in some way.


I am not saying two wrongs make a right...just pointing out how easy it is to look past something when you don't like the other team.
 
Top