Donald Trump is running for president

[ninjahood]

Without me & a couple others, this thread turns into a Trump piñata, so take advantage of seeing both view points while ur on here...

This is true

But that's not an excuse for the intellectual dishonestly that is exercised on your part

Not agreeing with me ≠ intellectual dishonesty.

Some of ya just take it personal when your points are either refuted or there is a plain difference in opinion.

Politics is a spectrum for a reason...

 

[ninjahood]

If you read entire articles you cite, why have you cited several in which the content of the article did not support or contradict the point you were trying to make? If you are in fact reading these articles, you're doing it wrong.

*Sigh* articles usually include a self contained pro & con to a particular subject..if a CON trump point is being made here and ya leave out da PRO point, da biased is being laid bare.

For example:

Before i came back unless i spoke about da anti-establishment points of blue collar workers defecting da democrats and their appeal to trump cuz of Trade, da ONLY point being made about Trump's appeal was false flaggin alleged white supremacist angle that even mainstream left leaning outlets have flat out refuted.

 

[krispacinla]

I don't even know why you waste your time with these cats in here Ninja. Dudes think they live in a perfect world with ODRAMA as president. On top of that you make some valid points and these jokers in here are like you are wrong and we are right.

 

[deleted]

Not agreeing with me ≠ intellectual dishonesty.

Some of ya just take it personal when your points are either refuted or there is a plain difference in opinion.

Politics is a spectrum for a reason...

I don't mean the disagreements

Your denial of the pervasive nature of systemic racism would be an example of the intellectual dishonesty I'm talking about

 

[sundoobie]

Too much analysis in here. Let's simplify things...

Trump's hypocrisy subject for today: Climate Change

“not a big believer in global warming.”

“a total hoax,”

“pseudoscience.”

Meanwhile...

The New York billionaire is applying for permission to erect a coastal protection works to prevent erosion at his seaside golf resort, Trump International Golf Links & Hotel Ireland, in County Clare.

A permit application for the wall, filed by Trump International Golf Links Ireland and reviewed by POLITICO, explicitly cites global warming and its consequences — increased erosion due to rising sea levels and extreme weather this century — as a chief justification for building the structure.

The zoning application raises further questions about how the billionaire developer would confront a risk he has publicly minimized but that has been identified as a defining challenge of this era by world leaders, global industry and the American military. His public disavowal of climate science at the same time he moves to secure his own holdings against the effects of climate change also illustrates the conflict between his political rhetoric and the realities of running a business with seaside assets in the 21st century.

The continues...

 

[deleted]

I can't remember where I saw it, but someone was saying that Trump behaves as if fact-checking doesn't exist and his base acts like it's something that's totally superfluous to a presidential campaign

 

[mivish06]

Charlatan behavior to the fullest extent

 

[gry60]

Charlatan behavior to the fullest extent

According to some here, he is the second coming of Jesus.

Remember when we said that if mass manufacturing were to come back to the US, it would happen without the jobs that left because robots would be doing most of the heavy lifting?

http://www.businessoffashion.com/ar...eturn-mass-shoe-production-to-germany-in-2017

Hainer said Adidas hoped to open a similar plant in the United States next year and expects the two factories to produce at least a million pairs of shoes a year combined within the next couple of years.

The factory is expected to employ 160 people.

 

[SC kid]

These people defending him on tv are crazy.

I swear he could say anything and theyll defend him.

Murder conspiracies? Lol

If this was ANYONE else it would be a joke.

 

[ninjahood]

Too much analysis in here. Let's simplify things...

Trump's hypocrisy subject for today: Climate Change

“not a big believer in global warming.”

“a total hoax,”

“pseudoscience.”

Meanwhile...

The New York billionaire is applying for permission to erect a coastal protection works to prevent erosion at his seaside golf resort, Trump International Golf Links & Hotel Ireland, in County Clare.

A permit application for the wall, filed by Trump International Golf Links Ireland and reviewed by POLITICO, explicitly cites global warming and its consequences — increased erosion due to rising sea levels and extreme weather this century — as a chief justification for building the structure.

The zoning application raises further questions about how the billionaire developer would confront a risk he has publicly minimized but that has been identified as a defining challenge of this era by world leaders, global industry and the American military. His public disavowal of climate science at the same time he moves to secure his own holdings against the effects of climate change also illustrates the conflict between his political rhetoric and the realities of running a business with seaside assets in the 21st century.

The continues...

My take? He'll spin it as taking advantage of a credit/exemption that government gives when you wanna couch w/e you tie it to climate change.

 

[trasoul82]

Is Trump saying that the entire concept of climate change is a hoax or just the part about it being man-made?

 

[ninjahood]

Is Trump saying that the entire concept of climate change is a hoax or just the part about it being man-made?

Da latter, money making scheme.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Without me & a couple others, this thread turns into a Trump piñata, so take advantage of seeing both view points while ur on here...

This is true

But that's not an excuse for the intellectual dishonestly that is exercised on your part

Not agreeing with me ≠ intellectual dishonesty.

Some of ya just take it personal when your points are either refuted or there is a plain difference in opinion.

Politics is a spectrum for a reason...

You're the same dude that when presented facts to refute your points, stuff you were blatantly wrong no, resorted to name calling because you didn't have a comeback

You hypocrisy knows no limits

 

[ninjahood]

Without me & a couple others, this thread turns into a Trump piñata, so take advantage of seeing both view points while ur on here...

This is true

But that's not an excuse for the intellectual dishonestly that is exercised on your part

Not agreeing with me ≠ intellectual dishonesty.

Some of ya just take it personal when your points are either refuted or there is a plain difference in opinion.

Politics is a spectrum for a reason...

You're the same dude that when presented facts to refute your points, stuff you were blatantly wrong no, resorted to name calling because you didn't have a comeback

You hypocrisy knows no limits

Umm no, you just cant accept everything you say is couched in wild far left bias and i just put a mirror to it.

You cant even find places you'd agree with conservatives with and you castig libertarians for having common bonds wit conservatives.

 

[deleted]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

 

[gry60]

Without me & a couple others, this thread turns into a Trump piñata, so take advantage of seeing both view points while ur on here...

This is true

But that's not an excuse for the intellectual dishonestly that is exercised on your part

Not agreeing with me ≠ intellectual dishonesty.

Some of ya just take it personal when your points are either refuted or there is a plain difference in opinion.

Politics is a spectrum for a reason...

You're the same dude that when presented facts to refute your points, stuff you were blatantly wrong no, resorted to name calling because you didn't have a comeback

You hypocrisy knows no limits

Umm no, you just cant accept everything you say is couched in wild far left bias and i just put a mirror to it.

You cant even find places you'd agree with conservatives with and you castig libertarians for having common bonds wit conservatives.

Problem with you is that every FACT (not opinion, fact) you don't agree with is a far-left invention.

 

[ninjahood]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Except i wasn't rockin w/ Ted Cruz, da actual doctrinaire conservative on da right...sooooo back to da drawing board for you.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I work at $10bn investment fund, I teach finance on the side at a university, and have a master's in finance.

I say all that to say this statement is so ridiculously wrong, and you really shouldn't talk about economics without multiple sources and using different opinions.

Not a personal jab either, famb.

Let me ask you this.

Most of my knowledge information about finance and economics is self taught from books, so I would love to get someone with real insight on some thoughts I've had.




I think if I could offer a real critique of Obama's economic policy, it's that he had an opportunity after the financial crisis to fundamentally transform the finance industries relationship to the economy.

one of the factors that cause the 2008 crisis was not just greed, but straight up incompetence by many of in the people who in the 90's we conveyed a level of intelligence and virtue. It seems to me that so many financial products companies were dealing with had gotten so complex and opaque it became impossible for the people running banks and hedge funds to make decisions about how to value and manage it.

People wanted blood, heads on spikes, fundamental change and Obama someone who I think is an instinctually conservative (small c) guy in nature and from what I've read form people close to him he believes that the finance industry is important, and deserves an outsized voice and influence in the economy. That economy wasn't fundamentally broken and just needed better regulation.

So I think Obama took the path of bailouts, TARP, followed by stronger regulations as opposed to a more extreme, fundamental change.



What If he's wrong, what if developed market economies ARE fundamentally broken?

In the books about the financial crisis that I've read, all of Michael Lewis's stuff, stuff on HFT, Dark Pools, Lehman brothers collapse, I sense a reoccurring theme.


That the original and true purpose of the finance industry is to efficiently direct capitol to business investment and the slow down in new capital intensive investment opportunities has cause the finance industry to use the machinations of the market itself to make money;

trying to find new ways to squeeze money out of mortgage debt, things like high frequent trading, things that don't create jobs.



Its made it so that stock market and finance industry seem to have mostly recovered while everyday Americans don't seem to feel the recovery at all and job creation remains sluggish.



So I guess to sum it all up.

Do you think the relationship the finance industry has to the economy is healthy/productive?

Why do you think there has been a slow down in capital intensive investment opportunities?

Do you think Obama took the right course of action after 08 crisis? Or should have adopted more extreme measures.

What would be your biggest cirticsm of Obamas economic policies?



If this is too much feel free to not answer. I totally get it.

 

[biggie62]

Whether it's an insider that works in the industry, a life-long academic, or someone who just majored in the subject matter in college; they all will give you different answers to those questions depending on how they feel. So that's a hard question to answer. There are valid points to each side of the argument for each one of your questions.

If you want to return back to the old days then the answer would be to regulate hard, separate investment banks from commercial banks, etc.... But then you can argue that by infusing the 2 you reduce the cost of certain products hat they would cross offer to their customers but at what risk, a risk that you can now bring the whole system down? Regulation and free market has to be in a delicate balance. We tend to over-regulate during times that followed a hardship as a response and we deregulate when nothing has happened in the near past. We as humans have a short term memory and the cliche that "history repeats itself" not only is true in the historical sense but economically as well. Because we think we are smarter than that we we aren't. We regulated banks because of what happened during the great depression by separating the two.

I personally lean towards the side of regulation which results in 2 things, less boom but maybe a steadier growth. It employees more people as someone needs to oversee things and these tend to be decent paying jobs. But regulations usually have to catch up to the new exotic products that are sold and developed each day. That can take years so you are playing an endless game of cat and mouse. You can't regulate what you don't understand.

 

[tekthemaestro]

Da premise of your question is laughable.

Look at da countries on that list...

Saudi Arabia, France, United Kingdom, and Germany are ALL countries we have agreements with to protect so they DONT engage in weapons proliferation and we protect them from other Countries...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-by-treaties-to-defend-a-quarter-of-humanity/

Now Trump said he would either

A. Charge these Countries for protection

B. Let these Countries proliferate on their own and save us $ on da budget...

Neocons & Hillary Clinton caught a tittie attack.

Now match that with..
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA1N1IO20140224

So now what? Cant have world peace without us basically holding **** together, so There goes your silly premise..

I didn't read any of this. I asked you a yes or no question, and this is how you responded. A full essay in mla format complete with works cited... all Cuz you know if you answer in a yes or no it makes everything else you say irrelevant. Just. Like. Trump. Can't believe it lmaooooo

no further questions.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Without me & a couple others, this thread turns into a Trump piñata, so take advantage of seeing both view points while ur on here...

This is true

But that's not an excuse for the intellectual dishonestly that is exercised on your part

Not agreeing with me ≠ intellectual dishonesty.

Some of ya just take it personal when your points are either refuted or there is a plain difference in opinion.

Politics is a spectrum for a reason...

You're the same dude that when presented facts to refute your points, stuff you were blatantly wrong no, resorted to name calling because you didn't have a comeback

You hypocrisy knows no limits

Umm no, you just cant accept everything you say is couched in wild far left bias and i just put a mirror to it.

You cant even find places you'd agree with conservatives with and you castig libertarians for having common bonds wit conservatives.

Brah please, only you thinks this. All these reps you're getting from NT's #1 conservative got you gassed up.

You were wrong about Chrysler, you were from about GDP growth under Reagan, you were wrong about Trump's plan being cheaper that Hillary.

Flat out plain wrong.

You have this thing were you disagreeing with my opinion is somehow exposing me. However you get down right dismissive and petulant when I straight up show you're lying/wrong.

PLVN is right, you describing yourself and projecting that onto me.

I know my reputation on NT is as someone that likes to debate/argue, I know this. Yours is someone that spews ignorance on topic after topic, but even after years upon years of dudes setting the record straight and trying to disabusing of your ignorance, you still stubbornly running your mouth talking BS

At this point, it has gotten sad.

--------

You weren't around when I was disagreeing about folk on Bernie's platform, you weren't around when i wrote long *** post with policy recommendations, many of which have stuff and reasonable right winger would somewhat agree on, you weren't around the times I shaded Obama, you weren't around for a lot.

But now you are around, and struggling to defend yourself when I simply fact check you, you gonna call me and left wing ideologue over and over wishing it catches on so you will have some sort of comeback the next time I point out your misinformation and lies.

I only consider myself kinda smart, but I can spot middle school debate tactics. Repeating nonsense, hoping it sticks, and people ignore how silly you look.

It is not gonna work on NT b. Your resume of ignorance is too long

 

[ninjahood]

Da premise of your question is laughable.

Look at da countries on that list...

Saudi Arabia, France, United Kingdom, and Germany are ALL countries we have agreements with to protect so they DONT engage in weapons proliferation and we protect them from other Countries...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-by-treaties-to-defend-a-quarter-of-humanity/

Now Trump said he would either

A. Charge these Countries for protection

B. Let these Countries proliferate on their own and save us $ on da budget...

Neocons & Hillary Clinton caught a tittie attack.

Now match that with..
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA1N1IO20140224

So now what? Cant have world peace without us basically holding **** together, so There goes your silly premise..

I didn't read any of this. I asked you a yes or no question, and this is how you responded. A full essay in mla format complete with works cited... all Cuz you know if you answer in a yes or no it makes everything else you say irrelevant. Just. Like. Trump. Can't believe it lmaooooo

no further questions.

Of course you didnt read it, people dont like lookin wrong when they ask a silly premise.

 

[tekthemaestro]

Of course you didnt read it, people dont like lookin wrong when they ask a silly premise.

nah. you already proved ALL of my points. you were in a lose/lose so i cant really fault you. either u answer the question and confirm that you were wrong, or you dodge the question and confirm what i said about you dodging questions and moving goal posts. ill just say good game so i dont get called for bad sportmanship but u gonna hold onto this L whether u like it or not.

 

[ninjahood]

Or u was gonna get to da zero sum game to whether you gonna continue to let da US be da World's Police or nah, cuz nothing in regards to da military is a simple yes or no.

 

[blco02]

More radical left wing rent-a-mob rioters tonight in Albuquerque. Throwing rocks at cops, fires, etc. This will only help Trump.