Politics Vote for a president of USA - 2016 election

Pick a president.

  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 11 20.8%
  • Bernie Sanders

    Votes: 11 20.8%
  • Ted Cruz

    Votes: 3 5.7%
  • Marco Rubio

    Votes: 4 7.5%
  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 24 45.3%

  • Total voters
    53
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Polls seem oddly inconsistent; the "big media" polls tend to show Trump falling behind Clinton, but everyone else shows them relatively close, within a given margin of error. Given the balanced and impartial way those leading media outlets have treated these candidates (no sarcasm there, nope, not a bit), who knows what's really going on?

Nobody wants this woman, trust me.

I read this in Trump's voice. lol
 
Seems Donald Trump won Eupedia. Can't believe it.

Peop
le don't like Conspiracy theories but, Hillary Clinton is definitely rigging the votes. Even Communists hate her. That should tell people something. Does anyone with a brain cell even want to vote-in this woman? She is obviously paying people to vote for her.

Actually, I've been taking interest in Evan McMullan.

On a side note, Trump and Clinton are 19th cousins
Both are descendants of John of Gaunt http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/25/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-are-related-genealogy/
 
Nate Silver (the guy behind FiveThirtyEight) also predicted Trump had but a 2% chance of winning the nomination...
 
Nate Silver (the guy behind FiveThirtyEight) also predicted Trump had but a 2% chance of winning the nomination...

Really? He was on the money for both Obama wins, I thought. Was that all the way through the whole primary process or only in the beginning?

Also, haven't Trump's own people been conceding that he's losing in most of the swing states?
 
He first claimed it about a year ago, with a predicted roadmap and timetable of how Trump would fall apart and lose. As things appeared to spin further and further away from his vision, he ultimately raked himself over the coals for not following the math (he personally opposes Trump).

His previous statistically-based predictions (in both 2008 and 2012) were pretty good, though. This one might be as well, there's just some salt to be taken with them.
 
Who is this Johnson guy?
Maybe it is time for a third way :)
(Really no idea who this guy is)
 
And studying "computer programming" isn't a good solution indeed when many people just aren't cut out for it. Reliance on API's does take the mental muscle out of developing modern apps, however.

I also expect that computer programming will be taken over by AI rather soon, also software design. It is a fallacy by many to assume that computer programming is safe in future. It will merely decline less fast than other jobs.
 
I just saw an article about how soon driverless cars will be on the market, and if I'm not mistaken, Uber plans on buying them. That puts cab drivers out of business, and long haul truckers, one of the few blue collar jobs left that pays really well.

No one seems to be concerned about what this will mean for the future.

Trump is addressing some of this in his latest speeches. If he'd been doing it all along, keeping to what he's highlighting in his rallies of the last few days, instead of shooting off his mouth like some fourteen year old, he might not be losing.
 
I just saw an article about how soon driverless cars will be on the market, and if I'm not mistaken, Uber plans on buying them. That puts cab drivers out of business, and long haul truckers, one of the few blue collar jobs left that pays really well.

No one seems to be concerned about what this will mean for the future.

Nothing bad.
 
Who is this Johnson guy?
Maybe it is time for a third way :)
(Really no idea who this guy is)

I've been watching and listening whenever he's on television news. His positions aren't bad, so maybe I'll vote for him, but goodness, is this the best the libertarians can do? He projects as much strength and resolve as a wet noodle.

You probably have no idea who he is, but he reminds me of an American children's entertainer, Mr. Rogers, from a couple of decades back. Is sending Mr. Rogers to deal with Putin and ISIS really such a good idea?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EFe9Vpd3ps&spfreload=10
 
I've been watching and listening whenever he's on television news. His positions aren't bad, so maybe I'll vote for him, but goodness, is this the best the libertarians can do? He projects as much strength and resolve as a wet noodle.

You probably have no idea who he is, but he reminds me of an American children's entertainer, Mr. Rogers, from a couple of decades back. Is sending Mr. Rogers to deal with Putin and ISIS really such a good idea?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EFe9Vpd3ps&spfreload=10

Oh yeah, I remember him. Mr.Rogers used to be on PBS Kids in the early New Millenium, wonder if his show is still around. Yeah, I think Mr Rogers would've been more suited in redesigning the education system to get in sync with working class world. I'll see if I can Liston to his speech when I get to a YouTube friendly location, thank you for posting :)
 

Thanks for the info, Sparkey. But I have to disagree with the arguments in this article. I doubt that things can be simply extrapolated linearly from past to future. Especially the claim about benefits from dropping prices is absurd nowadays, imho.
Also the jobs can not be replaced infinitely. It worked in the past where human abilities were not yet exhausted. But now human abilities are exhausted for an increasing amount of humans. The new trending jobs are "bullshit jobs" and mere idling. Some believe that the Kondratieff cycle is real and is reaching it's end. Don't know if they are right or not, but at least global saturation and indebtedness has truly become remarkable, to say the least.
Productivity needs to be restricted by reducing overall work time and compensation by UBI from tax money needs to happen. Reduction of work time would effectively be a kind of asset devaluation, which is the most benign way of debt reduction in order to save capitalism while keeping-up life standard for the masses. But planned asset devaluation is a planned expropriation, and thus politically unlikely to happen. That means the inevitable expropriation (=debt re-evaluation) will happen again in a chaotic way by market forces (deflation) as usual in history.
The situation now is very different from the time of Luddite fallacy. Else there will be an "ElHorsto fallacy" in future, lol.
Did I went off-topic? Sorry, I'm in a state of looking through economic glasses currently.

EDIT:

http://www.smashcompany.com/business/the-decline-of-computer-programming-in-the-usa said:
There are less computer programming jobs in the USA than there were 20 years ago.
...
1990 Number of Jobs 565,000

2010 Number of Jobs 363,100

2012 Number of Jobs 343,700
...
“In its 1990 Occupational Outlook Handbook, the U.S. Department of Labor was especially bullish: “The need for programmers will increase as businesses, government, schools and scientific organizations seek new applications for computers and improvements to the software already in use [and] further automation . . . will drive the growth of programmer employment.” The report predicted that the greatest demand would be for programmers with four years of college who would earn above-average salaries.

Sure there will be more AI experts instead, but much less than there were simple programmers I'm sure.
 
Twilight, I just typed in Johnson on youtube, and this came up...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k566Xb7Jb_E

He just lost my vote.

Really?

cDJDRe8.png


I thought he did alright. It was a 15 minute interview, and he didn't really say anything that was different than what he's said before. Basically: (1) Careful with direct intervention against ISIS, don't want to exacerbate the problem like with Iraq or Libya or Syria or... etc. (2) Most military cuts should be done by cutting the bases that the Pentagon has recommended to cut. (3) We can learn from Black Lives Matter. (4) Legalize marijuana and reduce incarceration due to nonviolent crime. (5) Private prisons are acceptable if they cost less and are held to the same standards as public ones. (6) Simplify paths to work visas for prospective immigrants. (7) Vote for someone you believe in. (8) Bergland was worth voting for over Reagan in 1988. (9) Active duty troops like him best.

I agree with him on all but (8) myself--despite increased deficits under Reagan, Reagan was a better candidate than Bergland, who was a nobody and probably the most radical libertarian the Ls have ever run. It's a bit weird that Johnson brings it up still, although he used it as a selling point in the Libertarian primary.
 
Nigel Farage tells Donald Trump rally: I wouldn't vote for Clinton if you paid me
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/25/nigel-farage-tells-donald-trump-rally-i-wouldnt-vote-for-clinton/


 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 700781 times.

Back
Top