Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 13

On December 05 2016 23:20 uiCk wrote: Show nested quote + On December 04 2016 05:41 Baalim wrote:   On December 03 2016 22:56 uiCk wrote: who gives a fuck about one thing, his interest and the interest of his buddies or buddies to be. And you think Hillary Clinton gives a fuck about anyone else besides her and her buddies? lol Human nature my friend. Why exactly would I think that Clinton gives a fuck about anyone?

I might wrongly assumed based on strong anti-trump sentiment that you preferred Hillary

On December 05 2016 14:40 Spitfiree wrote: I'm neither against or for Trump. With Hilary we all knew she would've continued with aggressive politics yes, the only positive thing about her would've been having experience with crisis situations. With Trump, we don't even know if he has the basic capabilities to do anything at all. The problem with that is that inactivity might be just as bad as being aggressive at this point. Between the two choices, I really don't know which ones is the worst, since neither is a good one, that's for sure. His views did seem much saner and morally right, but can he back that shit up with actions is the real question. However tearing up the nuclear deal the USA did with Iran is a potentially a crisis provocative action.

I am pretty sure I would do a better job in terms of exterior policy than Hillary did with 0 experience, its not a matter of experience its a matter of what your goals are, if your goals are peace and resonable resolution in the zone the steps to take are pretty obvious, how about withdrawing from Afghanistan after what appears is going to be a 20 year occupation for a start?, how about stopping arming Islamist groups so they can topple a non-fanatic regime etc, etc etc.

We dont know if Trump will do better than Hillary, but it would be pretty damn hard to do worse, its hard to do worse than increasing hostilities with Russia while taking massive shits in the middleeast generating the biggest terrorist group that grows exponentially every year

my 2 cents

I am a big trump fan, you don't become a billionaire by luck. He seems really smart and understand what the people need. His America first policy is really what the Americans need. Americas trade policy is so lol. They get fuck from trade agreements with the whole world. China, mexico etc . America has a huge trade deficit. How the fuck does a country with the best mind let something like this happen. If you look at china they are becoming rich as fuck because of their unfair trade practices. Trump is doing something about it. americans should be so much more wealthier than china because they are way more develop but their trade policy is a joke. The world needs America more than America needs the world. Trump is a mastermind of using leverage to get a good deal or what he wants. For example an American president or president elect hasn't talk to the Taiwan president in 40 years. A power move to get leverage over china. You negotiate from a position of power and leverage if you have the best military in the world. He isn't scare to get into tough spot with marginal hands sometimes which makes him very dangerous player. Very well played, nice hand. This is just a start I have I want to say but ill just add this for now.
He is also right about NATO, japan , korea, not doing enough but ill leave that for another time.


The Obama administration have done shit the last 8 years and I think trump is going to be the best president I have witness.
I think this is very exciting times for American, I hope trumps lives up to his promises which he seems like he is doing for now.
Who knows its just the start but I am super happy americans voted for trump

On December 06 2016 06:05 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On December 05 2016 14:40 Spitfiree wrote: I'm neither against or for Trump. With Hilary we all knew she would've continued with aggressive politics yes, the only positive thing about her would've been having experience with crisis situations. With Trump, we don't even know if he has the basic capabilities to do anything at all. The problem with that is that inactivity might be just as bad as being aggressive at this point. Between the two choices, I really don't know which ones is the worst, since neither is a good one, that's for sure. His views did seem much saner and morally right, but can he back that shit up with actions is the real question. However tearing up the nuclear deal the USA did with Iran is a potentially a crisis provocative action. I am pretty sure I would do a better job in terms of exterior policy than Hillary did with 0 experience, its not a matter of experience its a matter of what your goals are, if your goals are peace and resonable resolution in the zone the steps to take are pretty obvious, how about withdrawing from Afghanistan after what appears is going to be a 20 year occupation for a start?, how about stopping arming Islamist groups so they can topple a non-fanatic regime etc, etc etc. We dont know if Trump will do better than Hillary, but it would be pretty damn hard to do worse, its hard to do worse than increasing hostilities with Russia while taking massive shits in the middleeast generating the biggest terrorist group that grows exponentially every year

I agree, but I think you oversimplify international policy. I feel like even as the president of the leader country on the planet, doing that job properly is like juggling hungry lions that were just set on fire.
For example - sure getting out of Afghanistan is the most natural thing to do - I agree. That however would certainly hurt the interests of some companies in the USA, well not sure about Afghanistan, but certainly so in Iraq. Then you have aggressive groups taking control of the country. You also lose ground on an international diplomacy level plus countries like Russia get to bash you in the UN. And there are probably 100 other things I've failed to consider.

And thats the thing that worries me, does Trump have what it takes to manage all of those factors properly. I still do believe he s the safer choice of the two for sure. If Clinton actually went through with things like the no-fly zone in Syria( which i doubt tbh ) shit would've gotten serious

lostaccount china's gdp per capita is about $8k, US gdp per capita about $56k (7 times higher). You most certainly are way wealthier and if china is 'getting rich as fuck' then what are you?

On December 06 2016 20:41 Liquid`Drone wrote: lostaccount china's gdp per capita is about $8k, US gdp per capita about $56k (7 times higher). You most certainly are way wealthier and if china is 'getting rich as fuck' then what are you?

Where are you getting these stats from. From Wikipedia it says china has 14k gdp and us 56k. that's more like 4x. obv I don't trust wiki 100% but ill base it on those numbers. I don't believe in main stream medias stats like they said trump doesn't have much of a chance of winning etc,
GDP means nothing, its how much things you can buy that is the real stats. I can buy a 80cent congee or spend 2$ on a meal in china, where in Canada I am looking to spend at least 10$ for the same food 5x as much. rent in china is also way cheaper so your dollar goes further. 500$ in china you can live pretty comfortable. 500$ in Canada or west you are on the streets. If you observe, China is on a spending spree buying up everything. Yea I agree America is still richer but china isn't that far behind these days.

I have been to china and also am Chinese and I would way rather live in Canada than in china. Canada is so much better but what I am saying is china is taking advantage of the west with their trade practice and Donald trump is going to fix it to an extent. I have some friends who make ~2k Canadian a month and struggle with bills but if you had 2k Canadian in china you are living like a king.

international monetary fund

Of course money buys more stuff in countries where the average gdp per capita is lower, people in those countries wouldn't be able to afford living otherwise. But the average Chinese does not live even nearly as comfortably as the average americanadian. Honestly pretty certain most guys who lost their american factory jobs are happier in their current poverty than they would be if they were to work under chinese factory conditions - and I say that knowing of how high suicide numbers are for the aforementioned group.

Now, it's true that globalization has hurt manufacturing jobs in the west. But a large majority of those jobs are not coming back. American salaries are much too high for manual labor intensive factory work competing - a 35% tariff wouldn't change the math in this regard. If there is a return of american manufacturing, it's going to be in the form of heavily automated factories where they are competitive exactly because they employ so few people. Not to say those can't help the american economy - but I'd argue that they only can if coupled with entirely different redistribution models from what I've seen Trump suggest so far. Anyway, I'm not gonna predict how his presidency is gonna pan out - I sure as hell was dead wrong regarding his campaign - but he was selling a pipe dream. (You can of course still think that 20-50% of what he promised is much better than the opposition)

That said, a short term boost for the economy doesn't sound too unlikely - I just think it's likely to have very negative long term effects (cuz of a)climate and b) tax plan, which requires radical slashing of government programs or vastly increased deficit).

The U.S. has a 29% share in the global consumer market even with jobs leaving the country for the past 5 years. It still has the strongest Military and Trump as a hustler will put that to very good use. The guy's an egomaniac sure, failing at this job would really be damaging to his ego. This position he's in with the tools available is a negotiator's dream. You need a dealmaker,to correct what's happened since Bush Jr., not a friggin' politician.

On December 06 2016 20:31 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On December 06 2016 06:05 Baalim wrote:   On December 05 2016 14:40 Spitfiree wrote: I'm neither against or for Trump. With Hilary we all knew she would've continued with aggressive politics yes, the only positive thing about her would've been having experience with crisis situations. With Trump, we don't even know if he has the basic capabilities to do anything at all. The problem with that is that inactivity might be just as bad as being aggressive at this point. Between the two choices, I really don't know which ones is the worst, since neither is a good one, that's for sure. His views did seem much saner and morally right, but can he back that shit up with actions is the real question. However tearing up the nuclear deal the USA did with Iran is a potentially a crisis provocative action. I am pretty sure I would do a better job in terms of exterior policy than Hillary did with 0 experience, its not a matter of experience its a matter of what your goals are, if your goals are peace and resonable resolution in the zone the steps to take are pretty obvious, how about withdrawing from Afghanistan after what appears is going to be a 20 year occupation for a start?, how about stopping arming Islamist groups so they can topple a non-fanatic regime etc, etc etc. We dont know if Trump will do better than Hillary, but it would be pretty damn hard to do worse, its hard to do worse than increasing hostilities with Russia while taking massive shits in the middleeast generating the biggest terrorist group that grows exponentially every year I agree, but I think you oversimplify international policy. I feel like even as the president of the leader country on the planet, doing that job properly is like juggling hungry lions that were just set on fire. For example - sure getting out of Afghanistan is the most natural thing to do - I agree. That however would certainly hurt the interests of some companies in the USA, well not sure about Afghanistan, but certainly so in Iraq. Then you have aggressive groups taking control of the country. You also lose ground on an international diplomacy level plus countries like Russia get to bash you in the UN. And there are probably 100 other things I've failed to consider. And thats the thing that worries me, does Trump have what it takes to manage all of those factors properly. I still do believe he s the safer choice of the two for sure. If Clinton actually went through with things like the no-fly zone in Syria( which i doubt tbh ) shit would've gotten serious

Im not oversimplifying it, it certainly is a very complex issue, but occupying a country 15 years is not a reasonable strategy and not one that is seeking peace and stability in the region and there might be not perfect solution, as you say some groups might gain power etc, but no solution is being pursued, only personal interests at the cost of human suffering.

So I'm not saying I would make better choice because I am more informed or understand the situation better, I would do it because my goal would be to bring peace and stop suffering in the middle east, and that is clearly hasnt been the objective of the US government for decades.

On December 06 2016 22:22 Santafairy wrote:

They had plans for a 100 billion investment way before Trump was elected

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/06/trump-...e-us-aiming-to-create-50000-jobs.html



Following liberals and conservatives in twitter is quite helpful both sides are incredibly biased and if you only follow one side you would be misinformed.

On December 06 2016 22:46 lostaccount wrote: Show nested quote + On December 06 2016 20:41 Liquid`Drone wrote: lostaccount china's gdp per capita is about $8k, US gdp per capita about $56k (7 times higher). You most certainly are way wealthier and if china is 'getting rich as fuck' then what are you? Where are you getting these stats from. From Wikipedia it says china has 14k gdp and us 56k. that's more like 4x. obv I don't trust wiki 100% but ill base it on those numbers. I don't believe in main stream medias stats like they said trump doesn't have much of a chance of winning etc, GDP means nothing, its how much things you can buy that is the real stats. I can buy a 80cent congee or spend 2$ on a meal in china, where in Canada I am looking to spend at least 10$ for the same food 5x as much. rent in china is also way cheaper so your dollar goes further. 500$ in china you can live pretty comfortable. 500$ in Canada or west you are on the streets. If you observe, China is on a spending spree buying up everything. Yea I agree America is still richer but china isn't that far behind these days.

You clearly dont have the slightest grasp of basic global economics, GDP is meaningless lol, and you believe Chinese people have almost the same purchasing power than American, you should visit rural China and see if you are right lol.

On December 07 2016 03:51 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On December 06 2016 22:46 lostaccount wrote:   On December 06 2016 20:41 Liquid`Drone wrote: lostaccount china's gdp per capita is about $8k, US gdp per capita about $56k (7 times higher). You most certainly are way wealthier and if china is 'getting rich as fuck' then what are you? Where are you getting these stats from. From Wikipedia it says china has 14k gdp and us 56k. that's more like 4x. obv I don't trust wiki 100% but ill base it on those numbers. I don't believe in main stream medias stats like they said trump doesn't have much of a chance of winning etc, GDP means nothing, its how much things you can buy that is the real stats. I can buy a 80cent congee or spend 2$ on a meal in china, where in Canada I am looking to spend at least 10$ for the same food 5x as much. rent in china is also way cheaper so your dollar goes further. 500$ in china you can live pretty comfortable. 500$ in Canada or west you are on the streets. If you observe, China is on a spending spree buying up everything. Yea I agree America is still richer but china isn't that far behind these days. You clearly dont have the slightest grasp of basic global economics, GDP is meaningless lol, and you believe Chinese people have almost the same purchasing power than American, you should visit rural China and see if you are right lol.

I never said china is on par with America, but I say china is catching up and are closer than most people think because of their unfair policy. If you look at the top 500 company in the world china is only second to America with 103 to the latters 134. Baal you seem to know everything eh and always want to argue.

You should state why GDP is so important instead of just saying useless things. I have been to rural china, my family is from rural china. The transformation of china is unprecedented it's so much more developed than you think. Have you been to china?

On December 07 2016 04:32 lostaccount wrote: You should state why GDP is so important instead of just saying useless things. I have been to rural china, my family is from rural china. The transformation of china is unprecedented it's so much more developed than you think. Have you been to china?

That one backdfired pretty hard lol, all right no more talk about rural China.

GDP is pretty relevant, Mexicos GDP is higher than China, here also rent, food and many things are cheaper than in the US, but we dont have remotely an alike purchasing power than an american. You do not measure wealth based on things like rent and assets with huge variability in price that is usually set by local economy, you measure wealth by commodities or even better products with stable international price for example, Cars, technology gadgets etc.

So what I mean is that rent will be an almost fixed % of income regardless of where you are, 1st world city or 3rd world ghetto, but you cant buy the same numbers of Iphones with your income.


Also I think you are misinformed about the US trade deals, the stronger economy usually is in a position of power in these deals and gets big advantages, of course the smaller nations still benefit of trading with such an consumerist economy, but make no mistake, the US has total control in NAFTA, México has bent over backwards many times because the US set the rules and they have sent back thousands of tons of products like avocados for trivial shit and even political reasons.

In general its naive to think the US went into these deals with near absolute negotiation power and simply stupid and made bad disadvantageous deals. Can they be improved? maybe, you would have to be very very informed to know but again, to think in an overall way that " the us is getting shafting with all these trade deals" is pretty obviously wrong.

On December 07 2016 06:29 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On December 07 2016 04:32 lostaccount wrote: You should state why GDP is so important instead of just saying useless things. I have been to rural china, my family is from rural china. The transformation of china is unprecedented it's so much more developed than you think. Have you been to china? That one backdfired pretty hard lol, all right no more talk about rural China. GDP is pretty relevant, Mexicos GDP is higher than China, here also rent, food and many things are cheaper than in the US, but we dont have remotely an alike purchasing power than an american. You do not measure wealth based on things like rent and assets with huge variability in price that is usually set by local economy, you measure wealth by commodities or even better products with stable international price for example, Cars, technology gadgets etc. So what I mean is that rent will be an almost fixed % of income regardless of where you are, 1st world city or 3rd world ghetto, but you cant buy the same numbers of Iphones with your income. Also I think you are misinformed about the US trade deals, the stronger economy usually is in a position of power in these deals and gets big advantages, of course the smaller nations still benefit of trading with such an consumerist economy, but make no mistake, the US has total control in NAFTA, México has bent over backwards many times because the US set the rules and they have sent back thousands of tons of products like avocados for trivial shit and even political reasons. In general its naive to think the US went into these deals with near absolute negotiation power and simply stupid and made bad disadvantageous deals. Can they be improved? maybe, you would have to be very very informed to know but again, to think in an overall way that " the us is getting shafting with all these trade deals" is pretty obviously wrong.

Ah I don't mean nafta or us trade policy is bad for us companies, nafta I think is bad for the average American. To clarify.
If you don't think china is getting rich as fuck, my city Vancouver housing market has been booming cause of the influx of Chinese money. We had to levy a 15% foreign tax so local can compete with Chinese buyers.

Back to trump. My reason why I like trump is because he seems super competitive and hates losing or getting bad deals.
America will do better with trump and maybe everyone or majority of people in American will benefit instead of top.

Your example of vancouver misses the reality. The reality is the small percentage of rich people winning in developing countries take their money and diversify through properties into stronger, more stable countries that are close by. Russians buy into London property, Chinese buy into Vancouver and shifting towards Toronto. Same thing happens in Mexico, rich buy into California.

China is booming compared to 20 years ago but check out any major chinese tier 1 cities. The rent/housing market expense is massive compared to salaries. There is a massive hidden chinese gov debt cycling in their GDP growth from developments and the quasi private-gov owned mega corporations are carrying massive debt ratios compared to USA corporations. The worlds pollution burden has been shipped to china, forcing them to spend crazy money to fix the environmental disasters to chinese land/fresh water/air with an insanely large poor population that are suffering from the pollution.

They are no where close to catching up to the USA and nobody else is either.

On December 08 2016 23:08 Highcard wrote: Your example of vancouver misses the reality. The reality is the small percentage of rich people winning in developing countries take their money and diversify through properties into stronger, more stable countries that are close by. Russians buy into London property, Chinese buy into Vancouver and shifting towards Toronto. Same thing happens in Mexico, rich buy into California. China is booming compared to 20 years ago but check out any major chinese tier 1 cities. The rent/housing market expense is massive compared to salaries. There is a massive hidden chinese gov debt cycling in their GDP growth from developments and the quasi private-gov owned mega corporations are carrying massive debt ratios compared to USA corporations. The worlds pollution burden has been shipped to china, forcing them to spend crazy money to fix the environmental disasters to chinese land/fresh water/air with an insanely large poor population that are suffering from the pollution. They are no where close to catching up to the USA and nobody else is either.

You need to give example and sources. Don't just state random stats. Do you really believe in main stream medias stats? If china wasn't a threat, there wouldn't be so much china hate. Observe for your self. China is on a company buying spree. if it wasn't for national security a lot of high tech company would be brought by Chinese complanies.

Plus getting into debt isn't a big deal if it helps produce revolutionary products. China owns so much us debt but yeah they aren't even close. What America can produce china or russia can produce too but just isn't as good quality. I get it America is still number 1 but they are not as ahead as you think. Don't get me wrong I rather America be number 1 than china because I like American's politic system more than Chinas if it is not rigged.
Democracy > communist and I don't like how Chinese supress their people.

Also I think forbes said there are more billionaires in china than are in Us now. but yea china isn't catching up.