If not Trump, then who gets the nom?

[Subyman]

Trump is the kind of guy you almost wouldn't mind winning the primary if only to stick it to the man and the establishment. But he's not the kind of guy you actually want running around as President.

:thumbsup:

 

[Spungo]

So a VP huh? That makes him what, a teller? Major banks hand out corporate titles like candy. I had an officer title pretty soon after starting my career and was still answering phones in the call center. j/k congrats to your son, but you might want to ask him what his real title is.

At radio stations and TV shows, the lowest paid person is called a Producer.
At Best Buy, people working the floor for minimum wage are called Associates.
My favorite is when people invent their own fields of engineering, which is technically illegal in many states. Calling yourself a "Social Engineer" is on the same level as falsely claiming to be a medical doctor or falsely claiming to be a lawyer.

Trump is the kind of guy you almost wouldn't mind winning the primary if only to stick it to the man and the establishment. But he's not the kind of guy you actually want running around as President.

The great thing about America is that it really doesn't matter who the president is. There is a very good reason we (theoretically) have 3 branches of government. If one of those branches happens to go crazy, the worst they can do is stonewall everything. This is why Ron Paul was actually a viable candidate.
Bernie Sanders giving everyone free shit via executive order = not legal.
Ron Paul vetoing every stupid thing coming across his desk = legal.

This is why I support Bernie. I know he can't possibly deliver the stuff he's promising because he doesn't have god-like powers over congress or the supreme court. Him being elected sends a message - we are sick of this nonsense. My only concern is that Bernie would turn out just like Obama. Obama did a 180 as soon as he was elected. We suddenly can't close gitmo, we can't pull out of Iraq, we can't stop being involved in these stupid proxy wars, we can't stop murdering civilians in Pakistan, etc.It would be nice to have a president who just vetoes everything. Congress wants some bill to put cameras inside everyone's asshole - veto. Congress wants to ban salt - veto.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Kasich seems least dangerous, Rubio seems most likely. Especially seeing how Rubio toys with Cruz like a cat with a mouse during debates.
Cruz is too much of a bastard.
Bush is related to GW Bush, so that association hurts him, the memory still stings.
Carson overdosed on fucktard.

 

[DrPizza]

There ya go. We've tried everything else and many of us are either frustrated or angry. In the event he can make things work, there is a possibility that he can pull us all up. I can get behind that.

Our nation needs to become a nation of opportunity again. We can't afford to become a nation of charity. That just doesn't finance itself. 19 Trillion in debt and Obama wants a budget that requires another 4 Trillion. What would a Bernie budget look like? The consequences of poor financial management will hit us very hard in our lifetime, if we don't choose a better course. Voting in liberal democrats is not going to change that course. The millennial generation is the worst generation I have seen in my lifetime, as far as entitlement mentality. I used to think it was Gen-X, but that would be my son and he became a great VP of a major bank.

And a reason our nation was a nation of opportunity in the past was that we declared that all children had a right to a free, public education. Now, in 2016, it takes a college degree to create the same level of opportunities that students had 50 years ago. So, are you saying you're in favor of free public colleges? I thought you were anti-Bernie. (Oh yeah, all those high school graduates can just go to the bank, take out loans, and start their own businesses. That'll work too. /sarcasm) Even other emerging nations have realized that the way to prosperity is through quality education, and those nations are rapidly gaining on the U.S. This seems to be lost on a large part of our population.

 

[Slew Foot]

Trump is the kind of guy you almost wouldn't mind winning the primary if only to stick it to the man and the establishment. But he's not the kind of guy you actually want running around as President.

Pretty much this, I dont really want Trump but all the slimy career politicians can go to hell.

 

[PokerGuy]

And a reason our nation was a nation of opportunity in the past was that we declared that all children had a right to a free, public education. Now, in 2016, it takes a college degree to create the same level of opportunities that students had 50 years ago. So, are you saying you're in favor of free public colleges? I thought you were anti-Bernie. (Oh yeah, all those high school graduates can just go to the bank, take out loans, and start their own businesses. That'll work too. /sarcasm) Even other emerging nations have realized that the way to prosperity is through quality education, and those nations are rapidly gaining on the U.S. This seems to be lost on a large part of our population.

Having the taxpayer pay for college degrees that are pretty much worthless is not a path to prosperity. The reason we've seen such a meteoric rise in the cost of a college degree is that the marketplace has been skewed with easy government backed student loans. I think there are things that can be done t make a college education more affordable.

 

[zinfamous]

Does a general election Trump candidate suddenly revert to the liberal pinko that he always was?

Would be interesting to see and I wonder if it pulls Bloomberg into the race as 3rd party, as he's been threatening. Bloomberg/Trump/Hillary...I think Hillary would be the most "conservative" of that bunch, no? :hmm:

 

[Spungo]

And a reason our nation was a nation of opportunity in the past was that we declared that all children had a right to a free, public education. Now, in 2016, it takes a college degree to create the same level of opportunities that students had 50 years ago. So, are you saying you're in favor of free public colleges?

/facepalm

I'm not sure how so many people can fail to understand economics. I remember schools covering this topic extensively when I was in school. It was covered in several different years of history/social studies, covering different countries, different eras.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_race

If most people only have grade 12 education, the minimum education to get most good jobs would be _______.
If most people have a 4 year degree, the minimum education to get most good jobs would be _______.
If most people had 2 doctorate degrees, the minimum education to get most good jobs would be _______.

It was easier to get ahead in the past because most people did not attend university. Grade 12 was the end of the arms race. From there, you would get a job and move up the ladder. Today, your career doesn't even start until you're 22 or 23 years old, and then we wonder why people are 30 and still living with their parents. Well no shit they live with parents. Being out of the workforce for 4 years and taking on piles of student debt assures that buying a house is not an option on the table. It's just common sense. For the people who were able to start working at age 18 and have no debts, it's entirely possible to buy a house before age 25 and have a family started before age 30.

 

[LPCTech]

I have reason to believe Trump voters are braindead.
I work tech support.

The person who talks to me on the phone and needs help changing their hompage, needs help changing their background pic, that needs me to clean their pc MORE than once a week because they keep getting malware...

Is the person who tells me they cant wait to vote for Trump and he will fix everything.

The type of person who has a legit problem that is not their fault, doesnt talk to me about politics..

Just my personal experience.

 

[SMOGZINN]

/facepalm

I'm not sure how so many people can fail to understand economics.

I think you are the one misunderstanding. You mistakenly believe that the point of education is to get a good job. That, at least for a society, is not the point of education. The point of education is that educated people can do things that non-educated people couldn't. Educated people can think of new philosophies. They can solve problems. They can create new things. They innovate.

So while most educated people might not do anything much of importance some percentage of them will. The more people we get educated to a higher degree the larger number of those innovators we create, the better our nation does.

 

[zinfamous]

/facepalm

I'm not sure how so many people can fail to understand economics. I remember schools covering this topic extensively when I was in school. It was covered in several different years of history/social studies, covering different countries, different eras.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_race

If most people only have grade 12 education, the minimum education to get most good jobs would be _______.
If most people have a 4 year degree, the minimum education to get most good jobs would be _______.
If most people had 2 doctorate degrees, the minimum education to get most good jobs would be _______.

It was easier to get ahead in the past because most people did not attend university. Grade 12 was the end of the arms race. From there, you would get a job and move up the ladder. Today, your career doesn't even start until you're 22 or 23 years old, and then we wonder why people are 30 and still living with their parents. Well no shit they live with parents. Being out of the workforce for 4 years and taking on piles of student debt assures that buying a house is not an option on the table. It's just common sense. For the people who were able to start working at age 18 and have no debts, it's entirely possible to buy a house before age 25 and have a family started before age 30.

your "equation" is really funny. As in, I'm not sure where, today, those "18 year olds with a 5 year head start" on the college grads are going to go to get jobs that will allow them to buy a house.

India? Bangledesh? Because that's where all those jobs are today that were once so plentiful for your precious High school grads of yesteryear.

Or, I guess, McDonalds. But I'm assuming you aren't very supportive of raising the minimum wage...so in that scenario, how are these forward-thinking High School grads supposed to get ahead in an economy that has long been designed to make such workers obsolete?

 

[Spungo]

your "equation" is really funny. As in, I'm not sure where, today, those "18 year olds with a 5 year head start" on the college grads are going to go to get jobs that will allow them to buy a house.

If we didn't have an education arms race, they would have the exact same jobs as university grads. Look at your current job. Do you use ANY of the skills you learned in university? I would say a good 95% of people don't. Most people don't even use high school skills. The only reason companies ask for 2 degrees for a minimum wage job is because everyone has a degree.

I'm a licensed engineer, and university is required to get that license, but even my training was mostly a waste of time. Wave permeation through walls? I've never had to do that for my job. Partial fractions? Triple integrals? It's fun to learn, but none of those are used in engineering. If you, as a professional engineer, suggest some design because some math formula says it should work, but there are no case studies of it working, there is absolutely no chance the proposal will be approved because no insurance company will insure something that isn't tested. Engineering is more about law than it is about physics. This is why the professional practice exam for engineering is almost entirely about laws and ethics. Most engineers can't remember how to do the stuff they did in university because none of it is used in practice.

My best friend has a degree in chemistry, but now he works as a store manager at a paint company. None of his formal education is used; he got that job through 5-10 years of experience in the paint industry and having good customer service skills. He could just as easily do that job with grade 10 education or less. Another friend has a degree in drama studies. She currently works for some Big Brothers Big Sisters type of organization, not using any of her formal education. Another one of my friends got a degree in fine art, and she works as some kind of manager at a hotel. None of these people are failures. They have real jobs, they have medical insurance, they pay taxes, they own cars, and they're doing quite well. They would be doing even better if they weren't held back for 4 years to get some worthless degree. In the case of my best friend, it was 5 years wasted because one of those years was a co-op internship.

My friend working as a store manager bought his first home in 2014, so he would be about 31 at the time. If he was able to jump into a career at age 18 instead of 22, he would have been able to buy that same house at age 27 or sooner. Instead of paying 30k for university, he could save 30k for a down payment on a house.

 

[Virge_]

Having the taxpayer pay for college degrees that are pretty much worthless is not a path to prosperity. The reason we've seen such a meteoric rise in the cost of a college degree is that the marketplace has been skewed with easy government backed student loans. I think there are things that can be done t make a college education more affordable.

Just have college be free for degrees that benefit society. Needed things like Engineers, Dentists, Plumbers, Electricians, Doctors, IT Professionals and their various subsets, Auto Mechanics, and other trade-related vocational schooling would all be paid for by the government, as these have a direct result on a countries growth, and overall wealth and standard of living.

Allow people to use the current system (student loans) for the bullshit degrees like womens studies, political science, and a large chunk of the arts and music. There have been various studies on the potential loss of culture vs. society and civilization advances, but in the end there is always a sharp diminishing return on either side going too far from an equilibrium - and the reality is we're simply too far past one side and are in dire need of a correction turn normalization.

The problem as I see it is that the longer we steer so badly off course, the more jarring and potentially catastrophic the result of the correction.

It is this close-mindedness to the long-term way the world works that makes an odd double-argument for Sanders supporters.

On one side you have the young and naive, but connected from birth millennial generation which has a strange and hard to truly appreciate ten-second attention span but passionate during their rapture set of personality traits. Their life has been short and so to them things have seemed a lot bleaker overall for civilization and society for the majority of their rational years, and while they still appreciate the potential pay-off for hard work leading to great opportunities to do, well, whatever - they've got various different things constantly beeping, blinking, mouse-clicking, or joystick-aiming headshooting to keep them relatively entertainment-medium satisfied, making the entire prospect of working hard for a historically diminishing odds at making "The American Dream". It isn't really that they're lazy (sure, some are, but not most), it's that they've done the value-add proposition and decided they had it good enough on bigger numbers than the generations prior to them, throwing the typical "norm" out of whack a bit. It's just an easy conclusion for them to come to in bigger numbers, so they do. Additionally, a large chunk of this subset is kind of anti-everything, because they've grown up fearing being sued for pirating a song or downloading a college course textbook because they couldn't afford to spend $300 for a single book and the website code it comes with for just one class. They are the biggest tin-foil hat generation we've ever had and they just don't know it yet because they're still finally emerging from their silly SJW shell, which was ultimately just a huge "teenage" years for a new kind of 20-something American entering the workforces.

Then the other end of the spectrum you have the 30-somethings. There are actually statistically high numbers of them today when compared to history - in fact, if you plot all of that on a graph showing our ever-increasing lifespans and compare the difference you begin to truly take a few stabs at presuming what that means for our society as a whole. Before, it's always been the upper-echelon of surviving chunks of the population that held the smallest numbers. This had some social ramifications like the traditions of the smaller group of surviving "elders" having a significantly higher valued weight in society.. they made all the hard choices for the masses and the rest valued them for their wisdom, primarily because they simply hadn't lived and survived long and the world was pretty rough so it was by observing their elders they gained the wisdom to survive as well. The list is long of nuance and I've used very few examples but you can infer many others which have deviated. Technology, modern medicine, modern entertainment, and ever-increasing welfare programs were made, used, and abused long before the millennials came around - which means that not only do you have an ever-level playing field of old and young around you at any time but that changes various dynamics and traditions with or without our consent, especially increased by the injection of technology and it's Moore's law-driven march onward into the future.

These guys are even harder to "walk a mile" on their shoes so to speak.

One can take these demographic shifts in many ways, and I've certainly posed one purely observation based theory-craft into the mix which is by no means my own representation and purely my own fiction, but if you really look at it you realize that what's happening for the first time in American society is going to have a lot of swift changes to just about every aspect of our tradition.. and that tradition is being forcefully railed against by an established government ever-increasingly losing it's grasp on the population, and most certainly not keeping up with technology.

On that hand, you have to think it's a rough toss for any side of most of these arguments. It just seems like things can be done so differently. It's kind of like the first time you go to an Alamo Drafthouse and realize, "..shit, there actually ARE movie theaters for adults" that you take a look at it from a different appreciation. All players on either side of the experience and opinion perspective would really benefit from realizing how far off-base a lot of us have become due to hyper-connectivity. Almost seems like some of that intelligent dissent could be used for better good, somehow.

Anyway. Just my ranting two cents today. Sorry for the length.

 

[compuwiz1]

So a VP huh? That makes him what, a teller? Major banks hand out corporate titles like candy. I had an officer title pretty soon after starting my career and was still answering phones in the call center. j/k congrats to your son, but you might want to ask him what his real title is.


Back on topic, it has to be either Bush or Kasich. The last two nominations have gone to the "moderate establishment" candidate and I can't see why that trend would suddenly change.

Glenn, he's VP of the SBA loan dept, with underwriting capacity. He's bonused on loan closing performance, but has a low six figure base.

 

[PlanetJosh]

They all seem like they'd be ok as the nominee. And I'm a lib independent. None of them seem too whacked out at this point. I doubt if I'd feel embarrassed for the country if any of them got nominated. Unless one or some of them go off on the deep end in the near future. Yeah I know some of you think Trump has already done so and maybe Carson.

I'll still probably hope for a Dem or lib to win the White House. If I vote for the Republican nominee it will only be out of curiosity to see if he will get us into a war that will drag Russia into it fighting against America.

 

[dank69]

They all seem like they'd be ok as the nominee. And I'm a lib independent. None of them seem too whacked out at this point. I doubt if I'd feel embarrassed for the country if any of them got nominated. Unless one or some of them go off on the deep end in the near future. Yeah I know some of you think Donald "That baby was driving me crazy" Trump has already done so and maybe Carson.

I'll still probably hope for a Dem or lib to win the White House. If I vote for the Republican nominee it will only be out of curiosity to see if he will get us into a war that will drag Russia into it fighting against America.

Cruz is way worse than Trump. You should see his fucking tax plan. It takes trickle down to the next level, while adding an additional $1T to the deficit.