• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

So, I'm still not sure whether the Giant Douche or the Turd Sandwich is worse. But then, there is a wrinkle I've been pondering.

I see economic bad news on the horizon, something that will make us miss the prosperity and abundance of the Crash of 2008. Whoever wins this election will be in the hot seat when this hardship comes. Given the incredibly short memory and short sightedness of the American electorate, whoever is in that seat will also get the blame.

Which party should be blamed? Which party should be destroyed not during but after the election?
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
So, I'm still not sure whether the Giant Douche or the Turd Sandwich is worse. But then, there is a wrinkle I've been pondering.

I see economic bad news on the horizon, something that will make us miss the prosperity and abundance of the Crash of 2008. Whoever wins this election will be in the hot seat when this hardship comes. Given the incredibly short memory and short sightedness of the American electorate, whoever is in that seat will also get the blame.

Which party should be blamed? Which party should be destroyed not during but after the election?
Click to expand...

It depends on who wins.

If Clinton wins then democrats will blame it on Bush.

If Trump wins then republicans will blame it on Obama.
 
Last edited:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Obama spent 8 years blaming it on his predecessor. Do you really think Hillary can spread the blame that far back?
.
Click to expand...
Sure. The Democrat faithful have accepted and repeated it for eight years, why not another four. Political demagoguery doesn't have to make sense for it to control the faithful.
I think Greenspan had far more to do with the mess than Bush, Obama, Clinton, or Bush.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree.
 
Last edited:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
I see economic bad news on the horizon, something that will make us miss the prosperity and abundance of the Crash of 2008. Whoever wins this election will be in the hot seat when this hardship comes.
Click to expand...

The smart thing to do would be to prepare for such a thing. Shore up the financial system. Look for cracks and plug them. Regulate reckless industries like those that led us to the previous crash.

We've done this before. After the Great Depression rules were put in place to make sure that shit never happened again. After decades of relative stability and prosperity forces conspired to strip away those rules and return us to a less regulated reality where credit default swaps and trading in useless mortgage-backed securities could make hedge fund managers a lot of money in the short term but crash the entire economy when it all went to shit.

If there is indeed economic bad news on the horizon, then voting for the candidate who bails on things when they turn to shit might not be a good idea.
 
Every ten years or so, we have a recession. That is the nature of capitalism. In the Reagan era, som conservatives went so far as to claim that the GOP had broken the back of the business cycle. Well, no. The concept from wise economists is to note this fact and plan for it. That is, engineer a "soft landing". Hard to do in the best of times. But with a party that can't honestly handle the concept of business cycle, and plays games with supply side nonsense, we can't hope for common sense and a unified economic system that avoids economic incompetence. We're about due for such a downturn, and the political game of ignorant but politically powerful blame throwing will begin anew. The claimed cure for our economic woes is going to be the same as always. Small government, massive tax cuts, especially for the wealthy, cutting entitlements and services.

One wishes a horde of Nobel laureate economists would warn us with a terse statement, warning us of this game and demanding the Congress do the right thing.
 
skepticalbip said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
So, I'm still not sure whether the Giant Douche or the Turd Sandwich is worse. But then, there is a wrinkle I've been pondering.

I see economic bad news on the horizon, something that will make us miss the prosperity and abundance of the Crash of 2008. Whoever wins this election will be in the hot seat when this hardship comes. Given the incredibly short memory and short sightedness of the American electorate, whoever is in that seat will also get the blame.

Which party should be blamed? Which party should be destroyed not during but after the election?
Click to expand...

It depends on who wins.

If Clinton wins then democrats will blame it on Bush.

If Trump wins then republicans will blame it on Obama.
Click to expand...

Could Bush realistically still be blamed after two terms of Obama?
 
Ford said:
The smart thing to do would be to prepare for such a thing. Shore up the financial system. Look for cracks and plug them. Regulate reckless industries like those that led us to the previous crash.

We've done this before. After the Great Depression rules were put in place to make sure that shit never happened again. After decades of relative stability and prosperity forces conspired to strip away those rules and return us to a less regulated reality where credit default swaps and trading in useless mortgage-backed securities could make hedge fund managers a lot of money in the short term but crash the entire economy when it all went to shit.

If there is indeed economic bad news on the horizon, then voting for the candidate who bails on things when they turn to shit might not be a good idea.
Click to expand...
The time to do all that (+fix entitlements) was 2009. What's left in the toolbag now, massive infrastructure projects via debt fueled stimulus? That'll go over well.
Take cover. If Clinton, invest in cash. If Trump, I'd suggest canned goods.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Obama spent 8 years blaming it on his predecessor. Do you really think Hillary can spread the blame that far back?
Click to expand...
Did Obama do that? Obama did inherit the worst economy in nearly 100 years. That is simple fact. Obama has done pretty well, in fact has grown jobs despite the economy losing, what up to 600,000 or 800,000 a month when he took over? Obama also inherited a pair of occupations and a completely spent vault of American Good Will with foreign policy.

Obama inherited the worst situation since Truman. This is fact.

I think Greenspan had far more to do with the mess than Bush, Obama, Clinton, or Bush.
Click to expand...
I'd agree that Greenspan had a notable part, but there were so many players. We all saw the bubble, well not Trump who started a mortgage company nearly at the deflation of the bubble point. But Greenspan wouldn't stop the bubble. Mainly because the nation would have gone into recession. Then add in failures with regulation and a derivatives market that was so complicated, very few understood the risks. But Obama walked right into it, fought against the most obstructive Congress since before the Civil War (a Republican opposition that required super majority bill support in the Senate and every vote they could muster in the House) to try and right the nation. He did. And he gets no recognition for it. Right-wingers whine that things aren't better, clearly forgetting that we have about a half million to million change in monthly job growth since he first took office.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
"What to do about it" isn't the same as "Who should be in the hot seat to get the blame".

Whoever is in the hot seat will get the blame, fair or unfair. So who would you rather see the American public hate for the crash?
Click to expand...
The Ratings Agencies and Hedge Funds that positioned to profit off the crash.
 
Given that we know who will probably win, it is no wonder nobody wants to address the question as intended.

If Hillary wins the public will blame Hillary. If Trump wins the public will blame Trump. It doesn't matter if it is fair or unfair, the public is so economically ignorant that a vast majority vote two party.

Therefore the party that holds the White House will suffer greatly when the crash happens.

If Hillary wins the public will blame Hillary. If Trump wins the public will blame Trump. Yes, there are plenty of people who deserve a greater share of blame, but those are the ones who will get the blame. Yes there are steps each might take to soften the blow, and there are steps we might take to prepare, but that is not the topic. If Hillary wins the public will blame Hillary. If Trump wins the public will blame Trump.

The party of the winner will suffer greatly as a result.

Isn't that great now that we know who the winner will probably be? The American Public will hate the winner and the party of the winner.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Given that we know who will probably win, it is no wonder nobody wants to address the question as intended.
Click to expand...
I never blamed W for the crash to begin with. Though, some creative advertising, Portman is blaming Ted Strickland for the job losses during the crash.

If Hillary wins the public will blame Hillary. If Trump wins the public will blame Trump. It doesn't matter if it is fair or unfair, the public is so economically ignorant that a vast majority vote two party.
Click to expand...
In general, that is true. But you asked who do I think was to blame. I answered, and you didn't like the answer.

Therefore the party that holds the White House will suffer greatly when the crash happens.
Click to expand...
Depends. It will doubtfully be a "crash", though the Fed really has positioned itself into a corner, letting the Stock Market hold it hostage on raising rates. There is little that can be done to ease a recession.

If Hillary wins the public will blame Hillary. If Trump wins the public will blame Trump.
Click to expand...
Is there an echo in here? You just said that.
The party of the winner will suffer greatly as a result.

Isn't that great now that we know who the winner will probably be? The American Public will hate the winner and the party of the winner.
Click to expand...
W didn't really hurt from the Recession in his first term.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
But you asked who do I think was to blame. I answered, and you didn't like the answer.
Click to expand...

That's not what I asked. Perhaps you should read what I asked and then reply.

I asked who you would like to get the blame, not who deserves it, and I framed it in terms of the very short memory and short understanding of the American voting public.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
But you asked who do I think was to blame. I answered, and you didn't like the answer.
Click to expand...
That's not what I asked. Perhaps you should read what I asked and then reply.
Click to expand...
Hmmm.

Jason Harvestdancer said:
So who would you rather see the American public hate for the crash?
Click to expand...

Let's review:
Jason: So who would you rather see the American public hate for the crash?
Jimmy: The Ratings Agencies and Hedge Funds that positioned to profit off the crash.
Jason: If Hillary wins the public will blame Hillary. If Trump wins the public will blame Trump. It doesn't matter if it is fair or unfair, the public is so economically ignorant that a vast majority vote two party.
Jimmy: But you asked who do I think was to blame.
Jason: That's not what I asked. Perhaps you should read what I asked and then reply.

I'll let the philosophers judge.
 
Elixir said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
So who would you rather see the American public hate for the crash?
Click to expand...

I don't know why you'd want to know that, but FWIW, I'd like to see Martin Shkreli get the blame. Does that help?
Click to expand...

Is that better?
Didn't change much, but feel free to elucidate if you feel that some deep meaning that was embedded in your context has been lost...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom