Why Trump must win

[gururu2]

The change people are looking for is clearly far from the middle that has held Washington in a state of stagnation. Washington is ineffective. FFS we are acting like an Iran deal and the actions on Cuba are blessings from the heaven. Getting the Affordable Care Act through, the SCOTUS issue and every other act a president wants to do is undermined and sabotaged by the senate and congress. What good are presidents for anymore? The senate and house need to be taught a lesson. I give them Trump.

 

[hasu]

Nothing will change even if he wins, but he will blame that on bureaucracy.

 

[hal2kilo]

Or everything goes back to the bank?

 

[Indus]

What good are presidents for anymore?

How about having the temperament to not invade countries that will leave us in a quagmire later?

Example. Iraq/ Vietnam

This is because you know the President is the Commander-in-Chief.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

a racist, xenophobic candidate who openly states he'd commit war crimes.... hmmm where can I vote for him? Sounds amazing. /s

 

[Jaskalas]

The change people are looking for is clearly far from the middle that has held Washington in a state of stagnation. Washington is ineffective. FFS we are acting like an Iran deal and the actions on Cuba are blessings from the heaven. Getting the Affordable Care Act through, the SCOTUS issue and every other act a president wants to do is undermined and sabotaged by the senate and congress. What good are presidents for anymore? The senate and house need to be taught a lesson. I give them Trump.

I'm picturing bipartisan hatred of Trump being SO much...
That Congress passes a veto proof amnesty comprehensive immigration reform.

 

[LPCTech]

He isnt going to win.

He's just not.

He has half of one demographic and maybe more than half of one party voting for him and thats it. He just doesnt have the numbers to win a general election.

 

[ivwshane]

The change people are looking for is clearly far from the middle that has held Washington in a state of stagnation. Washington is ineffective. FFS we are acting like an Iran deal and the actions on Cuba are blessings from the heaven. Getting the Affordable Care Act through, the SCOTUS issue and every other act a president wants to do is undermined and sabotaged by the senate and congress. What good are presidents for anymore? The senate and house need to be taught a lesson. I give them Trump.

The middle is what has held Washington stagnant?

Trump supporters; when stupid becomes a brand.

 

[SP33Demon]

Trump only has 4 years. Not exactly a lot of time to get shit done but at least he'd have a bunch of allies in congress on his side as the endorsements keep flowing. I bet that Cruz will endorse Trump if Trump takes Super Tuesday in a landslide. Mainly because Cruz is buddy buddy with tea party stalwart Sessions who just endorsed the Donald. If this happens then Rubio's walking papers will be issued shortly by the GOP. Once the Tea Party is solidified with Trump, the others in Congress will follow.

 

[werepossum]

Trump only has 4 years. Not exactly a lot of time to get shit done but at least he'd have a bunch of allies in congress on his side as the endorsements keep flowing. I bet that Cruz will endorse Trump if Trump takes Super Tuesday in a landslide. Mainly because Cruz is buddy buddy with tea party stalwart Sessions who just endorsed the Donald. If this happens then Rubio's walking papers will be issued shortly by the GOP. Once the Tea Party is solidified with Trump, the others in Congress will follow.

Nope. The country club establishment Republicans hate the Tea Party Republicans with a white-hot passion that makes their feelings for Hillary look like a school boy crush. If the nominee is Trump, then either Trump has a yes massa come to Jesus meeting with the GOP leadership or we have a stream of "leadership" Pubbies declaring that conservatives have to find "another choice" on election day. President Trump frightens them way more than does President Hildabeast.

Of course, if Trump is somehow elected President, then you'll see the same people declaring that they were on his side all along.

 

[mrjminer]

If you actually wanted meaningful change, you would vote Cruz.

Trump is a clown, though I don't doubt he will win considering the stupidity of the masses

 

[gururu2]

a racist, xenophobic candidate who openly states he'd commit war crimes.... hmmm where can I vote for him? Sounds amazing. /s

This is how I feel whenever I hear Boehner, Ryan, McConnell and many other anti-womens' rights, gun-toting, all lives matter, homophobic, carpet-bombing conservative congressman talk. Except that they don't openly state it... That is why Trump is amazing.

 

[Spungo]

a racist, xenophobic candidate who openly states he'd commit war crimes.... hmmm where can I vote for him? Sounds amazing. /s

Not sure if you're talking about Trump or Hillary.

Bernie 2016!

 

[Mai72]

Stop putting it all on the government and start taking personal responsibility. Stop blaming other people for your shortcomings and start to work on yourself.

If Trump becomes president do you really think your life is going to go from mediocre to amazing overnight? Are you expecting riches? I don't get the fascination with presidental elections. They aren't going to do sh*t for you. Nothing. So, stop being lazy and work on yourself.

 

[werepossum]

If you actually wanted meaningful change, you would vote Cruz.

Trump is a clown, though I don't doubt he will win considering the stupidity of the masses

Unless we don't like the meaningful change we'd likely get under Cruz. Not all change is equal; not all change is good. (I feel like we just witnessed proof of that these last few years . . .) If I'm on fire, I'll take whatever change is available, and the more drastic the better. Right now I and my nation are doing reasonably well, so I prefer to be a lot more selective about the change I embrace.

Not sure if you're talking about Trump or Hillary.

Bernie 2016!

+1

I really wish Fauxcahontas had run. She's the only Demo I could really support, although I would vote for Bernie over Trump.

 

[Spungo]

I really wish Fauxcahontas had run. She's the only Demo I could really support, although I would vote for Bernie over Trump.

I don't know about Elizabeth Warren. I had a lot of respect for her until I started learning about economics and finance. Her understanding of how credit works is astonishingly bad, and it leads me to question her abilities to make laws. Then again, it's not like the president personally manages credit, so it doesn't really matter. She's probably as qualified as anyone else.

I think it was a 60 Minutes interview, many years ago, where she was talking about credit card companies and their predatory practices. She said it didn't make sense that credit card companies could change the interest rate on money that was already borrowed. To the average moron, that seems like a perfectly reasonable argument. Eventually we grow up, get into the real world, and we realize that's exactly how most lending works. She was making the mistake of not understanding the difference between amortization date and maturity date of debt. Amortization date is when the entire debt will be paid off, and no more payments are due. Maturity date is when the remaining balance of the loan is due in one lump sum. We don't deal with this in America, but our friends in Canada know exactly how this works. A Canadian mortgage will amortize over 30 years, but the term of the loan is only 5 years. That means the interest rate on the loan resets every 5 years. It's not a change of the interest rate on an existing loan, as Elizabeth Warren believes this would be; it's an entirely new loan with a new interest rate that will be fixed for another 5 years. This is how credit cards work. If you actually read the terms of your credit card, you will see that it explicitly says this. The entire balance of the loan is due in 30 days. If the loan is not repaid, the balance will be carried over in a new 30 day loan, and that new loan will have a new interest rate. If you make the minimum payments, the interest rate next month will be the same as this month. If you miss payments, the interest rate of next month's loan will be higher than this month's loan. It's really not complicated.

If you look at what her job is and what she does for a living, it becomes apparent that she definitely knows this. There's no way someone could claim to be a financial expert and not understand the most basic concepts of lending. She is a liar, and I would have difficulty trusting her.

 

[emperus]

I don't know about Elizabeth Warren. I had a lot of respect for her until I started learning about economics and finance. Her understanding of how credit works is astonishingly bad, and it leads me to question her abilities to make laws. Then again, it's not like the president personally manages credit, so it doesn't really matter. She's probably as qualified as anyone else.

Yeah, um,

Academic[edit]
Warren started her academic career at Rutgers School of Law–Newark (1977–78). She moved to the University of Houston Law Center (1978–83), where she became Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in 1980, and obtained tenure in 1981. She taught at the University of Texas School of Law as visiting associate professor in 1981, and returned as a full professor two years later (staying 1983–87). In addition, she was a visiting professor at the University of Michigan (1985) and research associate at the Population Research Center of the University of Texas at Austin (1983–87).[30] Early in her career, Warren became a proponent of on-the-ground research based on studying how people actually respond to laws in the real world. Her work analyzing court records, and interviewing judges, lawyers, and debtors, established her as a rising star in the field of bankruptcy law.[31]

Warren joined the University of Pennsylvania Law School as a full professor in 1987 and obtained an endowed chair in 1990 (becoming William A Schnader Professor of Commercial Law). She taught for a year at Harvard Law School in 1992 as Robert Braucher Visiting Professor of Commercial Law. In 1995, Warren left Pennsylvania to become Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.[30] As of 2011, she was the only tenured law professor at Harvard who was trained at an American public university.[31] At Harvard, Warren became one of the most highly cited law professors in the United States. Although she had published in many fields, her expertise was in bankruptcy. In the field of bankruptcy and commercial law, only Douglas Baird of Chicago, Alan Schwartz of Yale, and Bob Scott of Columbia have citation rates comparable to that of Warren.[32] Warren's scholarship and public advocacy were the impetus behind the establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.[33]

If I were you, I would assume you really didn't quite understand what she was saying.

 

[brycejones]

If you actually wanted meaningful change, you would vote Cruz.

Trump is a clown, though I don't doubt he will win considering the stupidity of the masses

Trump is a clown but change and cruz? Hahahahahahahaha

 

[Spungo]

Yeah, um,



If I were you, I would assume you really didn't quite understand what she was saying.

I can't find the exact interview where she mentioned changing the rates on an existing loan, or any 60 minutes interview for that matter, but she's a popular gal and she says the same basic things in various interviews. Her interview with PBS was better because she didn't say they change the terms on an existing loan. She said they change the terms of your credit card, which is slightly different. That's a good start, and it's truthful, but then she goes on to imply that the lender is essentially doing the same thing as changing the terms of a contract.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/501/credit-traps.html

David Brancaccio:
Many people think they'll be okay if they pay their credit card bill on time and meet the monthly minimum payment. They didn't realize that the credit card companies could shift the rules, but they're wrong weren't they?

Elizabeth Warren:
They're really wrong. You would think that if you upheld your end of the contract that the contract was still binding. But in the case of credit cards, you would be wrong, because the credit card companies bury back in that language the right to change the terms of your credit card including the interest rate at any time for any reason and for no reason at all. So if you're kind of chugging along at the 7.99 percent interest rate you carefully shopped around for and you meet all the terms, your credit card company can decide it's time for 29.9 percent, and that's it. It's 29.9 percent. Pay up or it's over for you.

This is where she starts to lose me. She's trying to say that there is something uniquely wrong when credit card companies do this. ALL lenders do this, and I'm pretty sure she knows it. If you have a 5 year term on your mortgage, the rate could change after 5 years. It's not a mystery, it's not a secret, and everyone is very open about this. In general, lenders actually do want you to pay the money back. The credit card company doesn't like writing down your debt then selling it to a third party at a steep discount to par.

I remember people on the left saying the exact same things about mortgages a few years ago. Guys like Michael Moore will go on TV and pretend (I hope) to not understand how a fixed rate term works so he can pretend to be outraged when the rates change upon renewal. In the case of Michael Moore and his documentary Capitalism: A Love Story, he presented cases of people talking about how their mortgage payments kept going up and up as the interest rates went up like it's some kind of grand conspiracy to kick people out of their homes. Of course the rates go up. That's how lending works. When you get shorter and shorter terms, the immediate interest rates are lower, but there is less protection against interest rate increases. Everyone knows this. It's dishonest to present this as anything other than common knowledge. You can even do this with things like your natural gas bill. If you have a floating rate, the floating rate is lower than the fixed rate today, but the floating rate offers no protection against rate increases tomorrow. My electricity bill is on a floating rate. It's just common knowledge that every responsible adult is aware of.

Most of my dislike probably just boils down to personal disagreements over how the debt problem is to be solved. She wants the nanny state to wipe everyone's ass and keep people shielded from reality. Ironically, her solutions would actually cause interest rates to rise. If the loan's locked in rate is for 1 year instead of 30 days, the loan would start at 20% instead of starting at 8% because the lender would not be allowed to raise the rate for a year after a payment has been missed. We see this every time price controls are enacted. If a landlord can only raise rent 1 time per year, the landlord is forced to project a year worth of rent increases and start at that projected endpoint.

I think a more effective solution is education. There is a strong correlation between poor math skill and mortgage defaults.
We don't have a debt problem because these evil kkkorporations are trying to screw people. We have a debt problem because Americans suck at math, and we don't seem to be doing anything to fix that math problem. By shielding people from the horrors of real life, we encourage people to show no interest in math. Don't worry about math - the goverment will do all of your thinking for you!

 

[Bitek]

Yeah, um,



If I were you, I would assume you really didn't quite understand what she was saying.

How many posts would it take before we get the lecture of how Carson sucks at brain surgery?

 

[Spungo]

How many posts would it take before we get the lecture of how Carson sucks at brain surgery?

I'll do ya one better. How about I show you a doctor who doesn't believe in evolution? You know that concept of not handing out antibiotics like candy because antibiotics force bacteria to evolve into these super mutant bacteria that are impossible to kill? He thinks that's not a real thing.
His name is Ron Paul.

I have a better one. How about a respected heart surgeon who is such a shitty doctor that other doctors demanded he resign from Columbia University, and he was forced to defend himself in congress against claims that he's a shitty snake oil salesman? His name is Mehmet Oz, also known as Dr. Oz.

I have an even better example of someone being absolutely terrible at their job despite having a lot of education. Known as the father of seppukunomics, Haruhiko Kuroda leads the Bank of Japan. It's Japan's version of the Fed, so he's like their Janet Yellen.
Instead of saying what he did, let's ponder the concept of banking in general. Why does a bank pay interest on a savings account? It's because they want you to leave your money in the bank. The bank lends your money out to others, and the interest collected on those loans are how the bank earns a profit. What would happen if the bank started charging you interest on your deposit instead of giving you interest? Naturally, you would take your money out of the bank and put it somewhere else. Maybe you would buy some government bonds, maybe you would buy stocks, or maybe you would just withdraw it as cash and keep it in a safe. Can you guess what happened when Kuroda introduced negative interest rates? People did the rational thing and pulled their money out of the bank. Shocker, I know. Nobody on earth could have predicted that people would do the most logical thing imaginable.
Negative interest rates cause a sharp increase in sales of safes.

Education doesn't seem very useful if people forget to include variables like logic and common sense. Speaking of lacking common sense, did y'all know our own central bank is planning on doing the same thing? This is what the "war on cash" is all about. Bankers foolishly assume that preventing people from holding cash will stop bank runs from happening when negative rates are implemented. This idea, of course, is retarded. If it doesn't spark a flight to cash, it will spark a flight into other assets like real estate and stocks.

 

[uclaLabrat]

I don't know about Elizabeth Warren. I had a lot of respect for her until I started learning about economics and finance. Her understanding of how credit works is astonishingly bad, and it leads me to question her abilities to make laws. Then again, it's not like the president personally manages credit, so it doesn't really matter. She's probably as qualified as anyone else.

I think it was a 60 Minutes interview, many years ago, where she was talking about credit card companies and their predatory practices. She said it didn't make sense that credit card companies could change the interest rate on money that was already borrowed. To the average moron, that seems like a perfectly reasonable argument. Eventually we grow up, get into the real world, and we realize that's exactly how most lending works. She was making the mistake of not understanding the difference between amortization date and maturity date of debt. Amortization date is when the entire debt will be paid off, and no more payments are due. Maturity date is when the remaining balance of the loan is due in one lump sum. We don't deal with this in America, but our friends in Canada know exactly how this works. A Canadian mortgage will amortize over 30 years, but the term of the loan is only 5 years. That means the interest rate on the loan resets every 5 years. It's not a change of the interest rate on an existing loan, as Elizabeth Warren believes this would be; it's an entirely new loan with a new interest rate that will be fixed for another 5 years. This is how credit cards work. If you actually read the terms of your credit card, you will see that it explicitly says this. The entire balance of the loan is due in 30 days. If the loan is not repaid, the balance will be carried over in a new 30 day loan, and that new loan will have a new interest rate. If you make the minimum payments, the interest rate next month will be the same as this month. If you miss payments, the interest rate of next month's loan will be higher than this month's loan. It's really not complicated.

If you look at what her job is and what she does for a living, it becomes apparent that she definitely knows this. There's no way someone could claim to be a financial expert and not understand the most basic concepts of lending. She is a liar, and I would have difficulty trusting her.

I love how so many people criticize politicians for being liars. That's like being mad at the sky for being blue. Politicians lie as a matter of course, they have to be all things to all people. If people could handle the truth, or deal with bad news rationally, politicians might be able to get away with being honest and truthful. Clearly, they can't, and any politicians that start out honest quickly conform to the system, because it works.

A politician that hasn't lied hasn't said much.

 

[emperus]

I can't find the exact interview where she mentioned changing the rates on an existing loan, or any 60 minutes interview for that matter, but she's a popular gal and she says the same basic things in various interviews. Her interview with PBS was better because she didn't say they change the terms on an existing loan. She said they change the terms of your credit card, which is slightly different. That's a good start, and it's truthful, but then she goes on to imply that the lender is essentially doing the same thing as changing the terms of a contract.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/501/credit-traps.html


This is where she starts to lose me. She's trying to say that there is something uniquely wrong when credit card companies do this. ALL lenders do this, and I'm pretty sure she knows it. If you have a 5 year term on your mortgage, the rate could change after 5 years. It's not a mystery, it's not a secret, and everyone is very open about this. In general, lenders actually do want you to pay the money back. The credit card company doesn't like writing down your debt then selling it to a third party at a steep discount to par.

I remember people on the left saying the exact same things about mortgages a few years ago. Guys like Michael Moore will go on TV and pretend (I hope) to not understand how a fixed rate term works so he can pretend to be outraged when the rates change upon renewal. In the case of Michael Moore and his documentary Capitalism: A Love Story, he presented cases of people talking about how their mortgage payments kept going up and up as the interest rates went up like it's some kind of grand conspiracy to kick people out of their homes. Of course the rates go up. That's how lending works. When you get shorter and shorter terms, the immediate interest rates are lower, but there is less protection against interest rate increases. Everyone knows this. It's dishonest to present this as anything other than common knowledge. You can even do this with things like your natural gas bill. If you have a floating rate, the floating rate is lower than the fixed rate today, but the floating rate offers no protection against rate increases tomorrow. My electricity bill is on a floating rate. It's just common knowledge that every responsible adult is aware of.

Most of my dislike probably just boils down to personal disagreements over how the debt problem is to be solved. She wants the nanny state to wipe everyone's ass and keep people shielded from reality. Ironically, her solutions would actually cause interest rates to rise. If the loan's locked in rate is for 1 year instead of 30 days, the loan would start at 20% instead of starting at 8% because the lender would not be allowed to raise the rate for a year after a payment has been missed. We see this every time price controls are enacted. If a landlord can only raise rent 1 time per year, the landlord is forced to project a year worth of rent increases and start at that projected endpoint.

I think a more effective solution is education. There is a strong correlation between poor math skill and mortgage defaults.
We don't have a debt problem because these evil kkkorporations are trying to screw people. We have a debt problem because Americans suck at math, and we don't seem to be doing anything to fix that math problem. By shielding people from the horrors of real life, we encourage people to show no interest in math. Don't worry about math - the goverment will do all of your thinking for you!

This thread isn't about Warren, but honestly this is one of those times that I would assume whatever I thought was wrong vs. Warren being wrong. I read the article her quote came from and I think you didn't fully understand what she was attempting to convey.

 

[sandorski]

Given what he has said, I don't know how anyone can know what kind of President Trump would be. In regards to Policy anyway. On the few Policy type questions he has answered, he almost sounds like a Democrat, except one with balls.

 

[Wreckem]

Given what he has said, I don't know how anyone can know what kind of President Trump would be. In regards to Policy anyway. On the few Policy type questions he has answered, he almost sounds like a Democrat, except one with balls.

I still believe Trump is epically trolling the Republican Party and the under-educated.