The Presidential Debate
Or
Monday Night Football?
Decisions , Decisions.
One is by a couple of meaningless teams that nobody cares about and the other one is.....
A tough choice.
TL.
Printable View
The Presidential Debate
Or
Monday Night Football?
Decisions , Decisions.
One is by a couple of meaningless teams that nobody cares about and the other one is.....
A tough choice.
TL.
One is a contest between two losing teams and the other is a football game.
This link demonstrates how Trump destroyed Rubio, Cruz and Bush. The examples from Clinton's debating past are not very strong in my opinion. Trump is a far better television personality.
[URL]https://www.c-span.org/video/?415634-1/road-white-house-debate-preview[/URL]
[QUOTE=TejanoLibre;447942]The Presidential Debate
Or
Monday Night Football?
Decisions , Decisions.
One is by a couple of meaningless teams that nobody cares about and the other one is.....
A tough choice.
TL.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=BigBossMan;447944]This link demonstrates how Trump destroyed Rubio, Cruz and Bush. The examples from Clinton's debating past are not very strong in my opinion. Trump is a far better television personality.
[URL]https://www.c-span.org/video/?415634-1/road-white-house-debate-preview[/URL][/QUOTE]This election is best summed up in Latin:
Sic transit gloria America.
Don B.
[QUOTE=DonB;447947]This election is best summed up in Latin:
Sic transit gloria America.
Don B.[/QUOTE]I think the quote is: sic transit gloria mundi - there goes the world to hell.
Try: si vis pace, pare bellum - vote for the Donald early and often.
One of the questions asked in the polls is "which candidate can best manage the economy?".
Who the hell (other than most of the population) is stupid enough to think the government should manage the economy?
There is a word for this, fascism.
Don B.
Communism also involves a totally managed economy. Socialism assumes a high level of government involvement in the economy. Capitalism uses fiscal policy to manage the economy to a somewhat lesser degree. Many economists think that a larger government sector within the economy strengthens the ability of the government to smooth out the business cycle.
I don't take a position on any of that, but as far as which candidate can 'best manage the economy,' I would argue it is probably [B]not[/B] the one who has gone bankrupt multiple times.
[QUOTE=DonB;447969]One of the questions asked in the polls is "which candidate can best manage the economy?".
Who the hell (other than most of the population) is stupid enough to think the government should manage the economy?
There is a word for this, fascism.
Don B.[/QUOTE]The government does few things well. But what other choices do we have? You? Me? Wells Fargo? (Me gets my vote but probably not many others.).
Bob.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;447970]Communism also involves a totally managed economy. Socialism assumes a high level of government involvement in the economy. Capitalism uses fiscal policy to manage the economy to a somewhat lesser degree. Many economists think that a larger government sector within the economy strengthens the ability of the government to smooth out the business cycle.
I don't take a position on any of that, but as far as which candidate can 'best manage the economy,' I would argue it is probably [B]not[/B] the one who has gone bankrupt multiple times.[/QUOTE]Capitalism does no such thing.
We do not have Capitalism and have never had pure Capitalism in this or any other country.
What we have is a mixed economy that becomes more socialist every day.
The comments were about what I expected.
Don B.
Maybe I'll be a bitter old man some day, too.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;447976]Maybe I'll be a bitter old man some day, too.[/QUOTE]As usual when you have nothing intelligent to say you resort to Ad Hominem.
Don B.
Perhaps you would care to define pure capitalism for us, then. We will be waiting with bated breath. Arguing over the internet is like the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;447978]Perhaps you would care to define pure capitalism for us, then. We will be waiting with bated breath. Arguing over the internet is like the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.[/QUOTE]I'll have to remember that one.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;447978]Perhaps you would care to define pure capitalism for us, then. We will be waiting with bated breath. Arguing over the internet is like the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.[/QUOTE]Try this for starters.
[URL]http://theamericancapitalistparty.com/platform.html[/URL]
I posted a chart several years ago that defined Capitalism, Socialism, etc but apparently no one was interested enough in ideas to read it.
Try to discuss this rather than make stupid jokes and indulge in personal attacks.
Don B.
[URL]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism[/URL]
[URL]http://www.economicsdiscussion.net/government/role-of-government-in-economic-systems/4041[/URL]
Pay particular attention to what James Meade has to say:
"In the view of Meade, following are the responsibilities of a government in a capitalist economy:
A. Regulating and controlling various economic situations, such as inflation and deflation, by formulating and implementing various fiscal and monetary measures".
Certainly I agree with Don B that there has never been pure capitalism anywhere, nor has there ever been pure socialism or pure communism. Certainly I agree that the US is a mixed economy with elements of both capitalism and socialism. I don't agree that it's becoming more socialistic all the time. It was much more socialistic (higher marginal tax rates, a greater level of transfer payments, programs such as C.E.T.A.) before Reagan.
And life was better then. In fact, you can look at surveys of the happiest or most satisfied countries, such as Denmark and Finland, and all are mixed economies, but with more tendency towards socialism than the US has.
However, let's get back to the title of the thread. Why on earth would anyone think that a rich asshole who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, who has never had a real job in his life, who has declared bankruptcy multiple times, who stiffs his workers and suppliers, and calls other people fat when he needs to lose about thirty pounds, would in any way represent the interests of the average US citizen? Why would anyone think he would be a "change agent" when his entire history is taking advantage of the existing system? Why are poorly educated white males rallying around someone who inherited all his money and went to fucking Wharton? My guess would be that it is because they are stupid and gullible. I think anyone who would vote for Donald J. Trump is stupid, gullible, and greedy to get something for nothing.
Trump doesn't understand many basic economic concepts: comparative advantage, deadweight loss from tariffs, and the invisible hand, just to name a few. However, he certainly understands one economic concept: rent seeking. He's spent his whole life seeking subsidies, tax breaks, and other forms of [B]socialism[/B].