RNC - what a s**t show

[Hoss]

Gary Johnson on the issues:
https://www.johnsonweld.com/issues

More hit than miss from me. Some of the points are debatable, but at least he lays them out there. Reeks of pragmatism and a core belief that government is the "official" and shouldn't be in the game or influencing the outcome of the game. The guy delivers some hard truths in a succinct manner that will piss off the left and the right. Some of what his positions don't work for me, some of the Libertarian platform is a conspiracy based, but overall...

Agreed.  I'm still undecided...except that I won't be voting for Trump.  My problem with the Libertarian party is that at its core they want government gone (essentially).  No medicare or medicaid or social security.  However, they're not so socially restrictive (really not at all restrictive) as the Conservatives tend to be.  I'm all for smaller government, but Libertarians (not all) tend to want no government.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I usually think that line of thinking carries water, however I rarely meet anyone that is really that high on Inhofe, so I think it may be a little more complicated than that. I always just say follow the money. That is almost certainly the answer to every political question.

Probably don't meet anyone high on Inhofe because you don't hang around with people that do like him.  I try hard to hang around with people who are smart enough to recognize what he is and what he has done to this state, but even certain branches of my family are not smart enough to act on it, even when they DO recognize it.  A lot of it goes to how brilliantly he choreographs his lie campaigns - and that's all they have ever been, is an ongoing litany of lies against whatever opponent dares to run against him.  And the weak minded in this state - and yeah, sad to say, that is a small part of my family - keep electing him.

Absolutely - it IS always about following the money!

[Conan71]

Agreed.  I'm still undecided...except that I won't be voting for Trump.  My problem with the Libertarian party is that at its core they want government gone (essentially).  No medicare or medicaid or social security.  However, they're not so socially restrictive (really not at all restrictive) as the Conservatives tend to be.  I'm all for smaller government, but Libertarians (not all) tend to want no government.

And there again, that is why we have checks and balances.  If Johnson became president, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security could not be dismantled by one person.  The characterization of the Libertarian Party being a bunch of anarchists is over-played and perhaps they need to take a more pragmatic look at their platform. 

My values definitely align best with the Libertarians, but I don't know if I will ever register as one or remain an independent in the long term.

I do believe if many more pragmatic thinkers like some of us on here who no longer associate with the D or R parties (*cough*) would get involved, the L party could become that viable third party which has not seemed to happen as of yet.  I'm sure there are many Bernie supporters and moderate Dems who can't stand Hillary just as I believe there are Tea Party types and moderate GOP types who just don't care for Trump.  There is enough critical mass of disaffected voters now that it looks better for a third party than it has in some time.  Is it enough to topple either Hillary or Trump in this election?  I doubt it, but it puts the party on the map.

Voting for Hillary, to me, would be voting for more of the same.  I believe Trump rose to the top of the GOP because people are sick of the status quo, but he's just not the answer.  He lacks the temperament and knowledge to lead a government.  It's one thing to run your own business empire, entirely another to run an empire.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It's one thing to run your own business empire into the ground, entirely another to run an empire into the ground.

Fixed it.   


And he couldn't have repeatedly done the bankruptcy thing if it hadn't been for Daddy Trump bailing him out every step of the way.

[erfalf]

Fixed it.   


And he couldn't have repeatedly done the bankruptcy thing if it hadn't been for Daddy Trump bailing him out every step of the way.

So you're saying Trump would be good for the country? 

[heironymouspasparagus]

So you're saying Trump would be good for the country? 

See reply 8, here;

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=21360.new#new



Actually, I have said before that perhaps we should just go ahead and elect him, get this Clown Show accelerated and get it run into the ground sooner, rather than dragging it out.  At least that way, there may still be enough usable ruins to at least try to recover.  For 35 years it has been like pulling a bandaid off a hairy arm very slowly.  Just rip the thing off and get it over with!!

[Conan71]

Fixed it.   

And he couldn't have repeatedly done the bankruptcy thing if it hadn't been for Daddy Trump bailing him out every step of the way.

Actually, that's not entirely true.  Fred was dead when the last two bankruptcies were filed.  A fast read on the history of the two filed in the 1990's shows he sold off other assets and a percent of his ownership in the enterprises.  No idea if his dad bought any of those assets or not.

There's little doubt Drumpf probably would not be where he is today were it not for his father's slums er head start, but he has managed to build upon that empire.

[Hoss]

Looks like Tiny Hands will be having an AMA (Ask me Anything) night on Reddit Wednesday.  It might be worth it simply for entertainment value...problem is, it will be held not in the traditional Reddit AMA thread (/r/iAma/ I think it is), it will be held in his own Reddit room.  Guess it's Ask me Anything as long as I can vet who it is....LOL.

[cannon_fodder]

There's little doubt Drumpf probably would not be where he is today were it not for his father's slums er head start, but he has managed to build upon that empire.

If by "build" an empire you mean he earned less with his inherited contacts and fortunes than the average investor...than sure. But for most people, starting with a huge head start and ending up with a lower return than Average Joe isn't impressive. If I started out in a 1000 meter race with a 500 meter head start over some random 10 year old, and won that race by 400 meters... no one should be wowed by my ability.

The only reason Trump is rich is because he started off rich. Analysis seems to support the fact that had he given the money to someone else to manage for him, even the most basic index fund, he'd be far better off.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2016/03/03/has-donald-trump-underperformed-in-the-real-estate-business/#14e2221e5506

Sadly, this is the state we present our country in. Currently, we are better off than most. That lead is so insurmountable that it is unlikely to fully yield in a lifetime. But with the right mismanagement, we can certainly perform below average.

[erfalf]

If by "build" an empire you mean he earned less with his inherited contacts and fortunes than the average investor...than sure. But for most people, starting with a huge head start and ending up with a lower return than Average Joe isn't impressive. If I started out in a 1000 meter race with a 500 meter head start over some random 10 year old, and won that race by 400 meters... no one should be wowed by my ability.

The only reason Trump is rich is because he started off rich. Analysis seems to support the fact that had he given the money to someone else to manage for him, even the most basic index fund, he'd be far better off.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2016/03/03/has-donald-trump-underperformed-in-the-real-estate-business/#14e2221e5506

Sadly, this is the state we present our country in. Currently, we are better off than most. That lead is so insurmountable that it is unlikely to fully yield in a lifetime. But with the right mismanagement, we can certainly perform below average.

I'm not going to go too far into detail, but just a few things.

Let's just say you and I start with $200 M. You spend $100M of it on non-investments, I don't. What happens?

Academia is great isn't it. To quote Keven Costner "Theoretical physics can prove that an elephant can hang from a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy." But you are inclined to believe it, so it's proof.

I have no idea how well Trump's investments have performed (other than a handful of casino's  ), they are all private investments. I also don't know what he spends on hair pieces (a lot I'm sure). It all factors in. That and the fact that he obviously does much more than real estate. Books, TV, public speaking. I do feel pretty confident that he has made a lot of money, and not by accident, and not all because of daddy (unless you are counting rearing and training as because of daddy). If that's the case then you didn't earn anything either on your own, it was only because of your daddy. Now that I saw that it does fit nicely into the whole "you didn't build that" mentality.

Guys, get over this, there is plenty of stuff to go after Trump on (less than Clinton in my opinion but plenty). Don't resort to hypothetical and characterizations of him. Also, my faith in the Finance department at UT just went down the poop shoot.

[Conan71]

If by "build" an empire you mean he earned less with his inherited contacts and fortunes than the average investor...than sure. But for most people, starting with a huge head start and ending up with a lower return than Average Joe isn't impressive. If I started out in a 1000 meter race with a 500 meter head start over some random 10 year old, and won that race by 400 meters... no one should be wowed by my ability.

The only reason Trump is rich is because he started off rich. Analysis seems to support the fact that had he given the money to someone else to manage for him, even the most basic index fund, he'd be far better off.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2016/03/03/has-donald-trump-underperformed-in-the-real-estate-business/#14e2221e5506

Sadly, this is the state we present our country in. Currently, we are better off than most. That lead is so insurmountable that it is unlikely to fully yield in a lifetime. But with the right mismanagement, we can certainly perform below average.

Ostensibly, he's turned it into a gain.  If, according to Forbes, he was worth $1 billion in 1988 and he's now worth a reputed $2.9 billion to $10 billion (Drumpf's own claim)  He's still managed to at least triple his worth.  Sure, I've done far better than that on a percentage basis, but I had a whole lot less to start with in 1988 than where Trump was at.

Comparing Trump's performance with main street investors is little more than a meme.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Bears repeating....



http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a46981/sean-hannity-jon-stewart/

[erfalf]

This is too much! Lets look at the factual statements in his speech that followed this very claim:

Claim: I will present the facts plainly and honestly.
Fact: Donald Trump has lied more than any presidential candidate in history. Fact checkers illustrate that less than 20% of his fact based statements are true.

Arbitrary and entirely subjective. Depends on which statements you look at entirely.

Claim: The number of police officers killed in the line of duty has risen by almost 50% compared to this point last year.
Fact: 8%

I already commented on how this is likely very accurate.

Claim:  58% of African-American youth are now not employed.
Fact: 38%

Was it true when Bern said it (51%)? Politifact seems to think so.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/

Claim: 2 million more Latinos are in poverty today than when President Obama took his oath of office less than eight years ago.
Fact: True! But spin. There were millions more Latinos than there were 8 years ago, the poverty rate declined. That's good news!

So technically not a lie. There were 6.8 million more from 09-14 according to Pew, with a poverty rate that technically did go do, but but really not all that much. That's still adding a lot of people to the roles of all the benefits, which I think was the point of the comment.

Claim: Household incomes are down more than $4,000 since the year 2000. That's sixteen years ago.
Fact: True! But spin. The drop under Bush accounts for $2,500 of that, and Obamas first three years account for most of the rest.

I very much doubt he was trying to shield Bush, or he wouldn't have gone back to 2000. Again, where is the "lie"?

Claim: In Libya, our consulate – the symbol of American prestige around the globe – was brought down in flames.
Fact: It wasn't a consulate, it was a "Temporary Mission Facility."

While I won't vouch for the "symbol of American prestige" bit, the statement is a lie, however it is a continuation of a lie that the State Department (Hillary's official statement) initiated in order to make it sound like we were there for diplomatic reasons. As most American's probably don't know the difference, this white lie is something I can live with considering most people just understand that Americans were there on behalf of their country (regardless of how nefarious it may have been).

Claim: That is why Hillary Clinton's message is that things will never change. Never ever.
Fact: Hillary has detailed plans to change immigration, to criminal justice, to higher education, to...

Are we really "fact checking" this one? It is a pep talk he is giving for pete sake.

Claim [Referring to Trumps opposition to Free Trade] In this cause, I am proud to have at my side the next Vice President of the United States: Governor Mike Pence of Indiana. . .
Fact: Pence is strongly in favor of free Trade.

You mean Trump is flexible with who he associates. The horror. Again, seriously...

Claim: I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology
Fact: The Log Cabin Republicans have called the current GOP platform the "most anti-LGBT platform" in GOP history, which seems to indicate the oppression and hatred isn't foreign

You are trying to link the beliefs of one to another. You can't fact check opinion. Every president does not follow the party platform plank for plank.

Claim: there's no way to screen Syrian refugees in order to find out who they are or where they come from.
Fact: Refugees are screen by the host government, then by the UN, them by the State Department, then by the FBI, etc.

He's not alone on this one. Not a lie, maybe not true in the end, but not a lie.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/17/senior-obama-officials-have-warned-of-challenges-in-screening-refugees-from-syria/

Claim: Remember, it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA, one of the worst economic deals ever made by our country. Or frankly, any other country. Never ever again.
Fact: True with spin, and false. Bill did sign NAFTA, after it was negotiated by GH Bush and approved by a Republican Congress. Also, Congressional studies show the agreement was a wash for jobs (neither producing the great boom or great bust each side predicted).

No, both houses of Congress were Democratically controlled. And yes, the Bush presidents were both openly Free Traders. Trump is a protectionist, so he is going to think NAFTA is bad. It's arguable either way, as you said in reality, it probably had not that much effect either way. But again, no lie.

Claim:  Excessive regulation is costing our country as much as $2 trillion a year, and we will end it very, very quickly.
Fact: He rounded up the highest estimate, which was a "spit ball" not based on actual data. Likely hyperbole.  The statement that he will end "as much as $2T" in regulation is absolutely false.

Hyperbole or not, (I'll give you that) is he just going to say "well I really can't do much about it". Come on. Let's fact check some actual facts, not what someone says they will or won't do in the future. I'm going to make a million dollars. Is that a lie since it's probably pretty unlikely?

Claim: We are going to lift the restrictions on the production of American energy.
Fact: We produce more energy today than ever before, so much "drill baby drill" was done under Obama that the USA has turned the global energy market on its head and, some argue, collapsed the price of oil and gas.

Again, where is the lie? He can still remove more restrictions. Energy production is currently pretty restrictive, with mountains of paper work necessary before any dirt moves anywhere.

Claim: We will completely rebuild our depleted military
Fact: Adjusted for inflation, we spend as much or more (depending on what you count) on military than we did under Reagan or GW

We spend more on education than we ever have in history, yet it still needs a lot of work.

Claim: My just released 10 point plan has received tremendous veteran support.
Fact: Recent polls indicate a record number of military personnel will vote for a 3rd party candidate

Does this necessarily indicate that Trump does NOT have strong support. Say 3% was the biggest support for 3rd party in the past (just guessing), does 4% support mean that Trump doesn't have good support? Military Times thinks he's out-polling Clinton 2 to 1.

Claim: I, on the other hand, received the early and strong endorsement of the National Rifle Association and will protect the right of all Americans to keep their families safe.
Fact: Before running for office he was in favor of assault weapons bans, a mandatory waiting period, and universal background checks.

Clinton supported traditional marriage and the Iraq war. Is he lying? I don't know, and neither do you.

Claim: My Dad, Fred Trump. . . it's because of him that I learned, from my youngest age, to respect the dignity of work and the dignity of working people.
Fact: Fred Trump was so hated by working people (particularly minorities) that Woody Guthrie wrote a song about him called "Old Man Trump."

Uh.... besides the fact that this doesn't disprove what he said...uh.... I think Obama is a jerk, does it make it so...come on...I guess if I was famous it might...no it wouldn't.

Claim: This was just prior to the signing of the Iran deal, which gave back to Iran $150 billion and gave us absolutely nothing – it will go down in history as one of the worst deals ever negotiated.
Fact: Repeatedly debunked talking point.

Considering the administration thought it would be $50 Billion, and Iran is saying $100 B, I don't really trust anyone, including Trump. But I will give you this one even though there have been conflicting reports as to what is what, with virtually no way to verify anything except for what the administration says, which is going to be admittedly pro administration.

Claim: America is a nation of believers, dreamers, and strivers that is being led by a group of censors...
Fact: Trump has almost certainly sent more letters and sued more people attempting to censor people than any other politician in the history of America.

What does one have to do with the other. Being a hypocrite does not make you a liar necessarily.

Claim: My opponent asks her supporters to recite a three-word loyalty pledge. It reads: "I'm With Her". I choose to recite a different pledge.
Fact: They chant it at rallies, they aren't asked to recite it. The campaign slogan is technically "Stronger Together."

Seriously?
So out of all of that, you got him on one or two half truths.

Was this really what professional fact checkers came up with in that 50% mark? I'm just saying the ratio of lies has EVERYTHING to do with what is measured.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

Bears repeating....



http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a46981/sean-hannity-jon-stewart/

I'm sorry, Stewart and Colbert are just short Chris Matthews for a DNC circle jerk for their love fest for Obama and Hillary while drinking Hillary's bath water.

[erfalf]

Saw this posted somewhere else, but it was too good:

The greatest threat to Bernie's candidacy isn't the machinations of the DNC to throw it for Hillary; it's that most of his supporters are leaving the arena to go catch Pikachu and Snorlax...