Whatcha cooking for tonight's BIG EVENT?

bhedges1987

Not it a supporter of either candidate. Interesting  what the internet thought though. 

JohnInCarolina

The internet polls aren't all that scientific.  People can vote more than once, etc.  So it's basically just Sean Hannity sitting in his office clicking Trump over and over again.

Legume

For the sake of argument, why wouldn't Hillary's people vote over and over, too honest?

fishlessman

Legume said:

For the sake of argument, why wouldn't Hillary's people vote over and over, too honest?

they do that when the dnc pays  them to do that its an entitlement thing

yljkt

fishlessman said:

Legume said:

For the sake of argument, why wouldn't Hillary's people vote over and over, too honest?

they do that when the dnc pays  them to do that

Maybe its the same crew that deletes emails? 

SemolinaPilchard

JohnInCarolina said:

The internet polls aren't all that scientific.  People can vote more than once, etc.  So it's basically just Sean Hannity sitting in his office clicking Trump over and over again.

You are absolutely right, We know the left wing wackos at PMSNBC only vote once. Thank you for the biggest laugh I have had yet today. Mucho apreciar (a little south of the future wall lingo).

JohnInCarolina

Legume said:

For the sake of argument, why wouldn't Hillary's people vote over and over, too honest?

It was (I thought) obviously a joke.  

JohnInCarolina

But yeah, there's nothing preventing anyone from voting multiple times, or from people who aren't even in the US from voting.  Then there's just the question of which demographics tend to be online following these things.  So take them all with several tons of salt.

JohnInCarolina

If you want another laugh, take a look at where the #TrumpWon hashtag started up:

SemolinaPilchard

JohnInCarolina said:

If you want another laugh, take a look at where the #TrumpWon hashtag started up:

And we used to say the only good commie is a dead commie. May need to rethink that.

Legume

Does Putin want Trump to win? Or does he just want us to think he wants Trump to win, so we elect Hillary?  Or, does he really want Trump to win, but expects us to suspect he will mislead us, thereby forcing us to really vote for Trump?

JohnInCarolina

SemolinaPilchard said:

JohnInCarolina said:

If you want another laugh, take a look at where the #TrumpWon hashtag started up:

And we used to say the only good commie is a dead commie. May need to rethink that.

It is amazing how little they'll work for, certainly.

Legume

https://youtu.be/U_eZmEiyTo0

JohnInCarolina

Legume said:

Does Putin want Trump to win? Or does he just want us to think he wants Trump to win, so we elect Hillary?  Or, does he really want Trump to win, but expects us to suspect he will mislead us, thereby forcing us to really vote for Trump?

I'm not sure.  All I know is that a foreign government meddling in our elections is troubling.

Legume

JohnInCarolina said:

Legume said:

Does Putin want Trump to win? Or does he just want us to think he wants Trump to win, so we elect Hillary?  Or, does he really want Trump to win, but expects us to suspect he will mislead us, thereby forcing us to really vote for Trump?

I'm not sure.  All I know is that a foreign government meddling in our elections is troubling.

good thing we wouldn't ever do that

all it seems to take is people and media that will soak up social media as informative or factual sources.   we just love admiring ourselves in the bid mirror that is social media.

HeavyG

bhedges1987 said:

Foghorn said:

"trumps more into simple math like adding and subtracting or balancing the budget, same thing "

@fishlessman, you say that - and I've heard other Trump supporters say that as well.  But as a neutral individual who is trying to decide who to vote for (as of today, Gary Johnson has my vote), as near as I can tell, Trump's plan is to put us $5 Trillion MORE THAN ALREADY PROJECTED in debt during his time in office.  I'm no expert on national economics, but it seems to me that if we don't do something about the national debt soon we are basically just stealing from our children and grandchildren - because they will be stuck with it.  All of the Trump supporters I know think of themselves as self-sufficient and would never be supportive of a plan that is overtly defined as "we're going to dump a heaping pile of crap on our kids and grandkids because we're too lazy to man up and take care of our own debt" - yet that seems to be the exact plan they are voting for.   

What am I missing?  Serious question.

 @Foghorn  The same people saying his plan will put us 5 trillion more in debt are the same ones that said obama would take us out of debt, not add 20 trillion to it.... funny how that works huh?

Obama did not "add 20 trillion to it" as you said. The debt will just reach that amount at the end of the next fiscal year.

President's don't add money to the debt. The US Congress, as mandated in the US Constitution, is responsible for federal spending via their budget process. Blame Congress.

blasting

Well, I carefully prepared the meat balls,  ABTs,  and two kinds of wings.  Then I proceeded to overcook not one, not two, but ALL THREES items.   Dumbass.

SemolinaPilchard

JohnInCarolina said

It is amazing how little they'll work for, certainly.

Really? I thought we are paying POTUS $400,000 a year?

Foghorn

HeavyG said:

bhedges1987 said:

Foghorn said:

"trumps more into simple math like adding and subtracting or balancing the budget, same thing "

@fishlessman, you say that - and I've heard other Trump supporters say that as well.  But as a neutral individual who is trying to decide who to vote for (as of today, Gary Johnson has my vote), as near as I can tell, Trump's plan is to put us $5 Trillion MORE THAN ALREADY PROJECTED in debt during his time in office.  I'm no expert on national economics, but it seems to me that if we don't do something about the national debt soon we are basically just stealing from our children and grandchildren - because they will be stuck with it.  All of the Trump supporters I know think of themselves as self-sufficient and would never be supportive of a plan that is overtly defined as "we're going to dump a heaping pile of crap on our kids and grandkids because we're too lazy to man up and take care of our own debt" - yet that seems to be the exact plan they are voting for.   

What am I missing?  Serious question.

 @Foghorn  The same people saying his plan will put us 5 trillion more in debt are the same ones that said obama would take us out of debt, not add 20 trillion to it.... funny how that works huh?

Obama did not "add 20 trillion to it" as you said. The debt will just reach that amount at the end of the next fiscal year.

President's don't add money to the debt. The US Congress, as mandated in the US Constitution, is responsible for federal spending via their budget process. Blame Congress.

@bhedges1987, from what I can gather, @HeavyG is correct.  The blame really is on congress because Obama's plan was never implemented.  It was never implemented because the republicans won't allow any tax increase (his plan was to increase taxes on the rich) and neither the democrats nor the republicans will choose any place to cut spending.  Stating that you support a cut in spending is a nice philosophical stance, but actually naming the program(s) where the cut(s) will be made is something nobody in Washington is willing to do as it would threaten that politician's political longevity.  So we have built a system that can't possibly solve the problem. 

Hillary's plan is probably the same as Obama's so nobody really knows if it will work or not - and it probably won't be implemented either.  Trump's plan might actually get implemented and it probably will add significantly to the current debt trajectory.  I think.  I may be way off because I don't really understand this stuff all that well.  There are too many moving parts.  I'm not convinced that either candidate understands it any better than I do.

SkySaw

Polls are wildly inaccurate, and not just because people can vote multiple times, but also because the choice of who to sample can lead to highly inaccurate outcomes.

On the other hand, prediction markets have correctly predicted the outcomes of the last three presidential races. A prediction market asks a question like "who will be the next US president?", and the candidates each start with equal  (50/50) likelihood. A zero likelihood of becoming president is worth $0 and a certainty of becoming president is worth $1. So if you think Hillary is going to win, you can buy shares at the existing price of $0.50; as Hillary's chances become more certain, her share price increases. If you think she will lose you sell shares. The price reflects what people think, not what they hope, etc.

The prediction markets covering the election noted that after the debate Hillary's price increased, while Donald's decreased. So if you want to remove the media noise around who won the debates, the prediction markets suggest it was Hillary.

https://www.predictit.org/Browse/Group/67/National

DoubleEgger

The media is never wrong...

JohnInCarolina

SemolinaPilchard said:

JohnInCarolina said

It is amazing how little they'll work for, certainly.

Really? I thought we are paying POTUS $400,000 a year?

I was having trouble making sense of your response here, until I remembered that you're one of the forum nutjobs.

SemolinaPilchard

JohnInCarolina said

I was having trouble making sense of your response here, until I remembered that you're one of the forum nutjobs.

Aww, you forgot that I am one of the forum nutjobs? My ego is crushed.

bhedges1987

Foghorn said:

HeavyG said:

bhedges1987 said:

Foghorn said:

"trumps more into simple math like adding and subtracting or balancing the budget, same thing "

@fishlessman, you say that - and I've heard other Trump supporters say that as well.  But as a neutral individual who is trying to decide who to vote for (as of today, Gary Johnson has my vote), as near as I can tell, Trump's plan is to put us $5 Trillion MORE THAN ALREADY PROJECTED in debt during his time in office.  I'm no expert on national economics, but it seems to me that if we don't do something about the national debt soon we are basically just stealing from our children and grandchildren - because they will be stuck with it.  All of the Trump supporters I know think of themselves as self-sufficient and would never be supportive of a plan that is overtly defined as "we're going to dump a heaping pile of crap on our kids and grandkids because we're too lazy to man up and take care of our own debt" - yet that seems to be the exact plan they are voting for.   

What am I missing?  Serious question.

 @Foghorn  The same people saying his plan will put us 5 trillion more in debt are the same ones that said obama would take us out of debt, not add 20 trillion to it.... funny how that works huh?

Obama did not "add 20 trillion to it" as you said. The debt will just reach that amount at the end of the next fiscal year.

President's don't add money to the debt. The US Congress, as mandated in the US Constitution, is responsible for federal spending via their budget process. Blame Congress.

@bhedges1987, from what I can gather, @HeavyG is correct.  The blame really is on congress because Obama's plan was never implemented.  It was never implemented because the republicans won't allow any tax increase (his plan was to increase taxes on the rich) and neither the democrats nor the republicans will choose any place to cut spending.  Stating that you support a cut in spending is a nice philosophical stance, but actually naming the program(s) where the cut(s) will be made is something nobody in Washington is willing to do as it would threaten that politician's political longevity.  So we have built a system that can't possibly solve the problem. 

Hillary's plan is probably the same as Obama's so nobody really knows if it will work or not - and it probably won't be implemented either.  Trump's plan might actually get implemented and it probably will add significantly to the current debt trajectory.  I think.  I may be way off because I don't really understand this stuff all that well.  There are too many moving parts.  I'm not convinced that either candidate understands it any better than I do.

@Foghorn oh??? The Democratic Party held the majority in the house and senate from 09-11.......
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

pgprescott

The only legitimate way to improve our deficit and debt issue is to dramatically improve the economic growth. It's clear the proper way to do this is by dramatically increasing regulation in all
aspects and hammer the job creating bastards with higher corporate and individual taxes. Problem solved!

JohnInCarolina

@bhedges1987

bhedges1987

I can add pictures with projections too...

@JohnInCarolina

JohnInCarolina

That's great @bhedges1987, except the one I posted points out the problem with yours.  Try harder.

pgprescott

JohnInCarolina said:

That's great @bhedges1987, except the one I posted points out the problem with yours.  Try harder.

Even you have to admit that graph is targeted toward morons. Look at it a bit longer and tell what's wrong here. You can figure it out I'm sure. 

JohnInCarolina

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

That's great @bhedges1987, except the one I posted points out the problem with yours.  Try harder.

Even you have to admit that graph is targeted toward morons. Look at it a bit longer and tell what's wrong here. You can figure it out I'm sure. 

It is for sure designed so that morons can understand it.  Perhaps that bar is a bit too high.