Which can be the same event, another reason to label terror as workplace violence.
2016 Presidential Race
- Thread starter Theirb123
- Start date
- Status
Which can be the same event, another reason to label terror as workplace violence.
I agree, but I'm thinking "Muslims shooting people and blowing shit up" vs. "some whiney little bitch shooting up a school, movie theater, or public place." Yeah, they "can" be the same thing, I agree, but I'm thinking of a scenario which plays into their demographics and fear mongering.
So I'm entering this a bit late, but my vote has to go to Trump right now. Here's why:
1) Gun Rights - he's an advocate for gun rights
2) His "outrageous statements" - These are starting negotiating positions. Trump knows (and has literally written the book) that you always have to give something up in a compromise. Let's take a common experience, buying a car, for @Freefalling it can be a prius that lists for $30k.
If you go to the car lot and the salesperson shows you the car and then says "I can probably get that for you for $26k" what is your reaction? You counteroffer at $25k and likely settle for somewhere around the middle at $25.5k. If the salesperson says "it's $30k" then you may counter at $25k still, but the salesperson will now be able to negotiate you up above that $26k that the first example used. In the worst case, you don't budge in either deal and end up at $25k either way. Bottom line, the possibility of getting more is there if you ask for the sky. Trump is applying this to politics. If he says "we should stop anyone that has a radical islamic background at the borders" then the liberals can negotiate that down and may end up taking it off the table entirely. On the other hand, if he says "stop all alien muslims at the border" then when he compromises, he ends up with something in the middle, potentially his starting position of "stop radical islamicists" This sounds outrageous the way the media spins it, but it's really sound negotiating theory. How would the Iran talks have gone if our representative/negotiator had started with a hard line and then compromised, rather than a soft line and compromise?
3) China - For years Trump has been addressing Chinese currency manipulation and how they will eventually pull the rug out from under us. A few weeks ago the banking association (I don't think it was IMF, but I'll need to hunt it down to be sure) declared that the chinese renmibi/Yuan has become a Reserve Currency. What this means is that the bonds bought by banks as a hedge against runs, etc. can be backed by Yuan now. Banks that would have continued buying bonds backed by the dollar will instead start to spread their risk by buying bonds that are backed by yuan. Overall this represents a negative to our cash flow and debt picture in 2016/17 then starting to level out at a higher amount, but still less than today. Trump is the candidate in the best position to mitigate this. It's one of his hot buttons so you can expect him to pursue it aggressively.
4) He's not a career politician - Am I naive enough to believe that there are no lobbying organizations that he has or will make deals with? Of course not. But he should be much less tempted by corruptive influences.
5) He's a big business person - In bigger businesses like his, one of the main cost controls is through maximizing the efforts of the employees who are producing and cutting the jobs of those that are not producing. This focus on efficiency will start to naturally make the government leaner and more cost effective, which we desperately need. He'll also be likely to start cutting and consolidating departments that have redundant responsibilities for more cost cutting. He'll also be focused on the budget and not accept continuing resolutions unless forced into it by Congress.
6) Congress - One of the biggest negatives in many people's minds is that a Republican Congress will not back his agenda and a Democratic Congress will actively oppose it. The truth is that he can safely ignore Congress for his agenda and simply do what the Office is supposed to do, execute the laws that are already on the books. He'll still have to play nice with Congress to keep from them going after him, but he doesn't need their backing to do anything that he wants to do. It's all already on the books, even the "turn away all Muslims" statement is in the US Code. Obama just doesn't enforce, or completely ignores, the laws except as leverage to get what he wants.
There are a LOT of pros and cons to all of the candidates. In my mind the only two viable ones on the GOP side are Cruz and Trump. Out of the two, I would rather see Trump for those reasons.
my .02 and worth what you paid for it...
edit because GDP isn't affected, it's the net balance sheet
1) Gun Rights - he's an advocate for gun rights
2) His "outrageous statements" - These are starting negotiating positions. Trump knows (and has literally written the book) that you always have to give something up in a compromise. Let's take a common experience, buying a car, for @Freefalling it can be a prius that lists for $30k.
If you go to the car lot and the salesperson shows you the car and then says "I can probably get that for you for $26k" what is your reaction? You counteroffer at $25k and likely settle for somewhere around the middle at $25.5k. If the salesperson says "it's $30k" then you may counter at $25k still, but the salesperson will now be able to negotiate you up above that $26k that the first example used. In the worst case, you don't budge in either deal and end up at $25k either way. Bottom line, the possibility of getting more is there if you ask for the sky. Trump is applying this to politics. If he says "we should stop anyone that has a radical islamic background at the borders" then the liberals can negotiate that down and may end up taking it off the table entirely. On the other hand, if he says "stop all alien muslims at the border" then when he compromises, he ends up with something in the middle, potentially his starting position of "stop radical islamicists" This sounds outrageous the way the media spins it, but it's really sound negotiating theory. How would the Iran talks have gone if our representative/negotiator had started with a hard line and then compromised, rather than a soft line and compromise?3) China - For years Trump has been addressing Chinese currency manipulation and how they will eventually pull the rug out from under us. A few weeks ago the banking association (I don't think it was IMF, but I'll need to hunt it down to be sure) declared that the chinese renmibi/Yuan has become a Reserve Currency. What this means is that the bonds bought by banks as a hedge against runs, etc. can be backed by Yuan now. Banks that would have continued buying bonds backed by the dollar will instead start to spread their risk by buying bonds that are backed by yuan. Overall this represents a negative to our cash flow and debt picture in 2016/17 then starting to level out at a higher amount, but still less than today. Trump is the candidate in the best position to mitigate this. It's one of his hot buttons so you can expect him to pursue it aggressively.
4) He's not a career politician - Am I naive enough to believe that there are no lobbying organizations that he has or will make deals with? Of course not. But he should be much less tempted by corruptive influences.
5) He's a big business person - In bigger businesses like his, one of the main cost controls is through maximizing the efforts of the employees who are producing and cutting the jobs of those that are not producing. This focus on efficiency will start to naturally make the government leaner and more cost effective, which we desperately need. He'll also be likely to start cutting and consolidating departments that have redundant responsibilities for more cost cutting. He'll also be focused on the budget and not accept continuing resolutions unless forced into it by Congress.
6) Congress - One of the biggest negatives in many people's minds is that a Republican Congress will not back his agenda and a Democratic Congress will actively oppose it. The truth is that he can safely ignore Congress for his agenda and simply do what the Office is supposed to do, execute the laws that are already on the books. He'll still have to play nice with Congress to keep from them going after him, but he doesn't need their backing to do anything that he wants to do. It's all already on the books, even the "turn away all Muslims" statement is in the US Code. Obama just doesn't enforce, or completely ignores, the laws except as leverage to get what he wants.
There are a LOT of pros and cons to all of the candidates. In my mind the only two viable ones on the GOP side are Cruz and Trump. Out of the two, I would rather see Trump for those reasons.
my .02 and worth what you paid for it...
edit because GDP isn't affected, it's the net balance sheet
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,738
Here's something interesting...take a moment and go to Jeb Bush .com -
(not porn or anything unsafe for work...promise)
To a certain extent it answers a lot of questions for me about the strategic thinking ability of certain candidates -
(not porn or anything unsafe for work...promise)
To a certain extent it answers a lot of questions for me about the strategic thinking ability of certain candidates -
Yep.
Well, that's a step up from hair.
Why?
You are a whiny unwashed flatulent and metro hipster and an AWP
:wall:. A Prius is a good car for you:-", or a white Camry.
We'll make sure it has a "Hillary in 2016" bumper sticker too.
It may be followed by a white Toyota pickup, or an orange and white Chevy caprice.
Brill
SOF Support
Trump isn't electable (there's no way the "establishment" will allow it) so Cruz is really our only hope to defeat Hillary...and even then, I'm not sure he's able. I'm confident that Hillary's ultimate message will be akin to "Cruz will take away all the free shit that we Democrats are giving you! Dems giveth whilst Reps taketh away!!!"
Don't underestimate him here. He's got the GOP over a barrel. If he were to win the primaries, the GOP has two choices. They can knuckle down and deal with it or they can split the vote and back a candidate other than their own. The GOP will NOT do that for a weaker candidate. Whether they like him and his policies or not, they will be forced to rally behind him or to concede the election before it even happens. They *could* kick him out of the party and then try to deal with the disaster that a split vote would cause. They won't, they'd rather have a GOP candidate in the office that they don't like than to give it over to Hillary. Trump's political jiu jitsu is strong and the GOP's is weak. Just look at how they've squandered the congressional majorities and you'll understand how weak the party is in this arena.
Brill
SOF Support
So I take it you're all registered voters?
Brill
SOF Support
D
Deleted member 2517
Guest
I really can't see anyone worth voting for. Those I like wont win (Sanders and Christie, though I'm not as keen on Sanders and his foreign policy with the current state of world affairs... Plus I need to fix my cars AC and that tax free pay will help). Hillary will likely win with or without my vote. Jeb may still pull something out but the "leadership qualities" that initially gave me hope for him have seemed pretty much non existent in this primary process. Jim Webb was the closest thing to a perfect candidate for me and we all know how that went. I'll probably vote 3rd party again just to exercise my right while not resorting to that "lesser of two evils" bullshit that has ruined the election process.
AfroNinja267
Unverified
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2015
- Messages
- 11
Everyone thought Hillary Clinton had the 2008 Presidential Election locked down too, until an obscure Senator from Illinois narrowly edged her out in the primaries. It is because of this fallacy that, "oh, Hillary Clinton can't be beat, so my vote doesn't matter" that she can't be beat. The worst part is that she and her campaign staff all know this, so she can get away with accepting money from the private prison industry and regularly defending corporate interests versus those of the citizens who duly elected her to office in the first place! Regardless of whether or not you support her, this wouldn't have ever happened if she was held accountable by those who have voted for her (or abstained from voting at all) simply because she is/was so inevitable.
Now, more than ever, is the time for Americans to use their vote not on the basis of carefully fabricated public opinion, but on what's best for this country's, and the whole world's, future. Who that vote is for is naturally up to you, but by making sure it's not wasted on a candidate you don't believe in, you set an example to the rest of the world that America is truly a democracy, and everyone can go to sleep at night knowing that the fundamental process of voting that all of you have fought so hard to preserve and protect is a true representation of the ideas and values of the United States.
Sorry if I came off as patronizing, but I think this is an important point when talking about the 2016 elections.
Now, more than ever, is the time for Americans to use their vote not on the basis of carefully fabricated public opinion, but on what's best for this country's, and the whole world's, future. Who that vote is for is naturally up to you, but by making sure it's not wasted on a candidate you don't believe in, you set an example to the rest of the world that America is truly a democracy, and everyone can go to sleep at night knowing that the fundamental process of voting that all of you have fought so hard to preserve and protect is a true representation of the ideas and values of the United States.
Sorry if I came off as patronizing, but I think this is an important point when talking about the 2016 elections.
Brill
SOF Support
Devildoc
Verified Military
There is an underground current that Trump and Cruz have been talking about a joint ticket, should it get that far. Of course, it's all RUMINT but makes perfect sense...it would smack of Kennedy/Johnson, Obama/Biden. And Crus is definitely young enough that after 4 years (or even 8) he could easily get the GOP nomination.
That said, not sure that's how I would like it to go down. I am not a Trump man by any means, but compforce has it right....Trump has the GOP in a pickle. If he gets the votes at the convention the GOP has to get behind him or try to force a coup, and I will put smart money on it that if THAT happens, there will be no Republican in the White House in 2016.
- Status
Similar threads
