You are not logged in. Please register or login.

slcpunk
 Rep: 155 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

slcpunk wrote:

The latest Florida poll has Clinton up by 9. Which now leaves her with a 4.5 point average over Trump in Florida. Just squeaking outside the margin of error. She's also won the last half a dozen polls in that state.

Right now that puts her at about 302 EVs to start.

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 108 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

Anyone who thinks Trump is going to win short of Clinton being abducted by aliens is deluding themselves.

buzzsaw
 Rep: 426 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

buzzsaw wrote:
Cramer wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:

Lies, deceit, fraud and stretching the law to its breaking point. If you don't see that or acknowledge this (as virtually all the Clinton fanboys on this site fail to grasp) you're not an objective or informed person, just a cheerleader.

I think you'll find that most aren't "Clinton fanboys" but find the prospect of a lunatic like Trump to be disastrous at best.

Unfortunately disastrous would be best for Clinton as well, but people keep living in the imaginary world where she's a good idea.

slcpunk
 Rep: 155 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

slcpunk wrote:
buzzsaw wrote:

Unfortunately disastrous would be best for Clinton as well, but people keep living in the imaginary world where she's a good idea.

It's going to be another shit 4 years for you, isn't it?

I'm sure you said the same thing about Obama too... So weird how you guys are all down in the dumps, yet retirement accounts have done nothing but go up for 7 years. Real estate has appreciated, often by double digits in many markets etc etc. I guess you prefer the W years where your money was on fire and your home value was cut in half? Is that better?

slcpunk
 Rep: 155 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

slcpunk wrote:

Anywho...I don't understand Trump's latest move appointing a Breitbart executive as the CEO of his campaign. It's seems as if he is doubling down on his divisive rhetoric. Trump is losing minorities, women, and establishment Republicans. Why in the world would he team up with anybody associated with Breitbart? Makes no sense.

slashsfro
 Rep: 37 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

slashsfro wrote:
Cramer wrote:

Anywho...I don't understand Trump's latest move appointing a Breitbart executive as the CEO of his campaign. It's seems as if he is doubling down on his divisive rhetoric. Trump is losing minorities, women, and establishment Republicans. Why in the world would he team up with anybody associated with Breitbart? Makes no sense.

They might be the only ones willing to be his campaign manager.  Seriously, he is toxic at this point.  That's the best reason I can come up with.

buzzsaw
 Rep: 426 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

buzzsaw wrote:
Cramer wrote:
buzzsaw wrote:

Unfortunately disastrous would be best for Clinton as well, but people keep living in the imaginary world where she's a good idea.

It's going to be another shit 4 years for you, isn't it?

I'm sure you said the same thing about Obama too... So weird how you guys are all down in the dumps, yet retirement accounts have done nothing but go up for 7 years. Real estate has appreciated, often by double digits in many markets etc etc. I guess you prefer the W years where your money was on fire and your home value was cut in half? Is that better?

Unlike most people, I can actually think beyond me.  I'm fine and will be regardless of who wins. I have plenty of money set aside that I can live comfortably no matter what. However there's a world outside of me where people can't afford supposedly affordable health care. People are suffering in shitty jobs because they can't find work in good jobs they are qualified for.  We have serious security issues. Our country is more divided than its been in my lifetime. Race relations are going backwards because people are taking stands on the wrong issues.

We have the two worst presidential candidates ever and we're likely stuck with one of them and both will be a disaster for the country.  I'm not going to sit here and pretend that Clinton winning and ruining things is better than trump winning and ruining things. That's what you guys are doing.

buzzsaw
 Rep: 426 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

buzzsaw wrote:

I think some of you really need to understand economics better than you do. Housing prices are inflated. It's a mirage. Same as it was before. Eventually the bubble bursts. Same with the stock market. Look at history. The facts don't support the prices in either case. Then when the artificial prices implode, the person in charge gets blamed for reality while the person in charge when the artificial inflation happened gets all the credit for something that wasn't real. It's all a mirage that people don't understand at all.

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 108 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

Cramer wrote:
buzzsaw wrote:

Unfortunately disastrous would be best for Clinton as well, but people keep living in the imaginary world where she's a good idea.

It's going to be another shit 4 years for you, isn't it?

I'm sure you said the same thing about Obama too... So weird how you guys are all down in the dumps, yet retirement accounts have done nothing but go up for 7 years. Real estate has appreciated, often by double digits in many markets etc etc. I guess you prefer the W years where your money was on fire and your home value was cut in half? Is that better?


That's a bit unfair.  The quality of life under Obama for the average citizen is no different than it was under Bush.  Perception is everything.  Bush had nothing to do with the housing bubble burst, just as Obama has had no impact on jobs.  We all know this, but it's an easy escape goat to blame or give credit based on your political leanings. 

But let's play your game.  What has Obama done that improved the housing crash?  Can you give any specifics that tie back to actual change? 

More people are on public assistance than before.  You can't tout Obama's job numbers and then turn around and bitch about minimum wage. That's a contradiction.  You can't bitch about labor being exported and then advocate for more union membership and power.  That's a contradiction. 

Obama's legacy will solely be the Affordable Care Act.  As we're seeing, insurers aren't interested in keeping up with all the people that hopped on board.  It won't exist 10 years from now.

50 years from now Obama will be celebrated as the first black president, and nothing else will be thought about.  He'll be another nameless President in the grand scheme of things.

slcpunk
 Rep: 155 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

slcpunk wrote:
buzzsaw wrote:

I think some of you really need to understand economics better than you do. Housing prices are inflated. It's a mirage. Same as it was before. Eventually the bubble bursts. Same with the stock market. Look at history. The facts don't support the prices in either case. Then when the artificial prices implode, the person in charge gets blamed for reality while the person in charge when the artificial inflation happened gets all the credit for something that wasn't real. It's all a mirage that people don't understand at all.

You're saying real estate prices are inflated nationally? That's quite the claim. I'd like you to provide evidence to support that.

All real estate is local and then there are micromarkets inside those cities. Money is still cheap right now, inventory is low and demand is high in many (but not all) cities across this country. On top of that we have had a great deal of cash sloshing around for years now. For instance at one point in northern NV cash transactions took up over half of the sales. Still to this day they take up 25-30% of sales. This says to me that investors see real estate as a safe place for money with a solid ROI. Explain to me how a cash fueled market will "implode" later.

You could take a medium sized city like Las Vegas and see areas where appreciation/velocity is higher than others. Some communities sell in days, while others that appeal to an entire different demographic may take months (although still in a nice area.) So to make a claim that "housing prices are inflated" may be true in San Francisco, but hardly can be applied nationally.

Do I feel the stock market is inflated? Could be. But again we have a lot of cheap money and people (Corporations my friends) buy assets, and leverage themselves to buy more. Either way, we've had a seven year bull market with fantastic gains. You can cut it anyway you'd like, but that's reality (something you pride yourself on, ironically.) Will it pull back again? Absolutely it will. But it doesn't take a genius to figure out that markets will go up/go down/repeat.

So what a shocker. Cheap money fuels asset prices, and higher priced money puts downward pressure on them.

Randall Flagg wrote:

But let's play your game.  What has Obama done that improved the housing crash?  Can you give any specifics that tie back to actual change?

Tying in to what I just posted above (this will drive our resident conspiracy theorist bonkers), Obama appointed Bernanke who chose to keep rates low. Cheap money created a floor, and spurred home buying again. Republicans predicted massive inflation and devaluation of the dollar; neither happened.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB