The 2nd Presidential Debate - The Donald vs The Hillary!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
MarAzul said:
This board is going to be really fun to read in coming months. Five happy guys and 250 crying like hell.
Click to expand...

Will have to remember to revisit this post in a month.

barfo
 
Rhal said:
Thanks for posting that. That was really well done by Trump at the end, Hillary was a little long winded and seemed caught off guard and went with a very generic answer.
Click to expand...

Trump had more time to think. When that was happening I was thinking "Shit, Trump will fuck this up if he answers first". And you'll notice he was called to answer the question but Hillary just stepped in. He had time to figure out what he wanted to say, she had to wing it and just came up with the first thing that popped into her head.
 
Stevenson said:
Right, because why would we want 5% unemployment (Obama) or a budget surplus (Bill Clinton) when we can have budget deficits and the Great Recession(Bush)? That Republicans can run the economy is the biggest fallacy in public life.
Click to expand...

Facts are such picky little things.

Democrats brought us:
1) $9T in new debt.
2) $2.6T in money printed out of thin air, now on the Fed's balance sheet
3) The worst economic recovery in history
4) Massive gains for the 1% the past 8 years at the expense of everyone else

Year 8, Bill Clinton:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble
"The stock market crash of 2000–2002 caused the loss of $5 trillion in the market value of companies from March 2000 to October 2002.[18]"​

He left George W Bush one of the worst economies in the history of the nation. Talk about great recession! Unless you can rewrite history that Clinton wasn't president in 2000.

Clinton ran surpluses because:
a) Kasich wrote the budgets
b) Clinton taxed peoples' life savings - capital gains.

While Kasich and republicans were writing those budgets, Clinton was out making speeches saying, "we can balance the budget in 8 years," one week and "we can balance the budget in 6 years" the next.

The 4.4% unemployment rate was great, though. It debunks the idea of the need for a minimum wage. Burger King was paying $15/hour because of supply and demand. Less supply of workers means they had to pay more to attract workers.

Obama's 5%? LOL

CAPhill05ch_040116-300x256.jpg


It doesn't take much math skill to understand this:

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art...amas_overrated_unemployment_story_102083.html

However Obama did not mention that his focal economic achievement - higher employment and a low unemployment rate - must be viewed in isolation to appear impressive. Absent that, Obama's employment story unravels - and with it, his economic record.

The key to understanding this is a rather obscure statistic: The US labor force participation rate.

From the mid-1960s, Americans' participation in the labor force increased from just below 59% to plateauing just above 67% from the late 1990s through the early 2000s. Over the next decade, it dipped, hovering around 66%.

In 2008's last two months, it fell below 66%, reaching 65.7% when Obama took in 2009. It has since declined sharply, hitting 62.4% last September. Even having rebounded to 62.9% in February, dismissing the last seven years, this is its lowest point since 1978.

The large effect resulting from participation's drop is seen by comparing employment from the beginning of Obama's administration to today.

When Obama took office, America's potential labor force (the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Civilian Noninstitutionalized population) measured 234.7 million. February 2016's employment report recorded it at 252.6 million - a 7.6% increase. Employment over this period rose from 142.1 million to 151.1 million. Although a net 9 million employment increase, its 6.3% increase is less than the growth in the potential labor force.

The effect on the unemployment rate is far greater. If America still had the 65.5% labor force participation rate that existed when Obama took office, today's official 4.9% rate would instead be an enormous 8.7%.​

What made Reagan's record so remarkable is that before he took office, "Double Income No Kids" wasn't a thing, women joined the workforce in huge numbers during his two terms - massive workforce growth. What makes Obama's unemployment look "good" is that people by the millions gave up looking for work. The jobs created during Obama's presidency aren't exactly the really good ones either:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/katieso...fastest-growing-jobs-in-america/#49624e7f549f

The six professions with the highest growth rates don’t require a four-year college degree. For example, you only need a specialized associate’s degree to work as a wind turbine service technician or a physical therapist’s assistant. Other positions like home health aide and physical therapist’s aide require a GED or high school diploma.

These jobs may be plentiful in the future, but they don’t necessarily pay well. The average median pay for the jobs on the list that require an associates degree or less is $37,839. Four of the roles have a median wage of under $30,000, and eight pay less than the national median wage of $54,000.
​
Thanks Obama!
 
Last edited:
Did y'all see this, CNN coaching its panel. Wonder if they hired actors.

 
14591590_10153757832631721_3035684163080141605_n.jpg


"Islands in the stream
That is what we are
No one in between
How can we be wrong
Sail away with me
To another world"

Nice duet last night.
 
USA Today for the win

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...fairs-coverup-katrina-trinko-column/91855048/

Millennial women expect better than Clinton: Katrina Trinko
Trump’s dubious character doesn’t mean he’s wrong about her actions.

“I find her impulse to blame the woman — not only me, but herself — troubling,” wrote Lewinsky in Vanity Fair in 2014. “And all too familiar: With every marital indiscretion that finds its way into the public sphere — many of which involve male politicians — it always seems like the woman conveniently takes the fall.”

Now, to be clear: Hillary Clinton isn’t to blame for Bill Clinton’s alleged sexual assaults. But her own words and Broaddrick’s account suggest she might have helped her husband in the aftermath of his sexual activities — and done so with an eye toward his welfare, not ensuring justice was done.

Trump, who said during the debate that “Bill Clinton is abusive to women. Hillary Clinton attacked those same women, and attacked them viciously,” is hardly the right messenger for this attack. While he denied in the debate having sexually assaulted anyone, his comments in the 2005 video with Billy Bush — “I just start kissing them. … And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. … Grab them by the p---y,” — were horrifying.

But Trump’s own very concerning background doesn’t mean he’s wrong about Hillary Clinton’s actions.


Katrina Trinko is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.
 
first debate..."She's sick, no stamina, can't handle the job...I'm worried about her health"
second debate.."She's tough, she won't quit....I admire that"
Trump has no clue...just no clue
 
riverman said:
first debate..."She's sick, no stamina, can't handle the job...I'm worried about her health"
second debate.."She's tough, she won't quit....I admire that"
Trump has no clue...just no clue
Click to expand...

I'm just as surprised as he is that she's still alive. She looked dead last month when the secret service dragged her limp body into that van. :dunno:
 
MARIS61 said:
I'm just as surprised as he is that she's still alive. She looked dead last month when the secret service dragged her limp body into that van. :dunno:
Click to expand...

How do you know that the government didn't clone her?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top