Reasons I cannot vote for Trump

[zk]

[quote=bearishgurl]My comments/opinion about Hillary are here:

http://piggington.com/ot_everything_hillary%5B/quote%5D

All of your opinions of Hillary (that I could find) on that thread relate to her relationship with her husband. That’s kind of what I’m talking about.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=zk][quote=livinincali]

It’s not a question. It’s a hypothetical that attempts attempts to influence you into thinking you’re sexist. It infers that if Hillary was a man her various transgressions would be ignored, or at least tolerated. [/quote]

You mean “implies,” but you’re wrong. I’m not implying that if she were a man her transgressions would be tolerated.

I’m asking if (and maybe implying that) the main reason that so many people hate her so much is that there’s a dissonance between what we want from a woman and what we get from Hillary.

Almost all politicians have committed transgressions that must be tolerated if we’re to vote for them. Hillary is no different in that respect. I’m saying that people hate her, not because of her transgressions, but because of something else, and that that something else is related to her being a woman. Is that different from saying that they would forgive those transgressions if she were a man? Yes. In a subtle but important way. If you ask those people why they hate Hillary, they won’t even mention Benghazi or emails. They’ll talk vaguely about her character or her personality. Maybe they already forgive those transgressions, but they still won’t vote for her because they hate her.

Where Hillary is different is the amount of seething hatred she garners from those who might not hate another politician who’d done the same things and held the same positions. And that’s what I’m trying to understand.[/quote]zk, you’ve made good points here. I didn’t vote for Hillary but I don’t hate her. She’s paid such a high (psychic and in every other form) price for where she is today and isn’t a good role model for women of all ages (and neither is her sidekick, Bill a good role model for men of all ages, for that matter). I just feel a little sorry for her.

I’m going to predict that Bernie will get the delegates for the Dem nomination over Hillary (and be nominated by hook or crook after a floor tussle at the DNC for any stray votes from superdelegates which haven’t yet defected from Hill’s camp by then). I gotta hand it to her campaign. Hill’s peeps are currently embroiled in a relentless, extremely heavy grass-roots campaign covering every corner of CA in several languages and every place in the middle and the result of their efforts is going to be very, very interesting in the coming week.

[spdrun]

Republicans are much worse. They protect Payday lending, seminar scams like Trump University, abusive high interest rate lending… aspects of finance that are bad for the economy.

I wasn’t comparing Clinton to a Republican. I was comparing her to Sanders or Warren.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=zk][quote=bearishgurl]My comments/opinion about Hillary are here:

http://piggington.com/ot_everything_hillary
[/quote]

All of your opinions of Hillary (that I could find) on that thread relate to her relationship with her husband. That’s kind of what I’m talking about.[/quote]It matters to a lot of voters, ESPECially those in her particular demographic (or close to it) who actually paved the way for today’s women so they WOULDN’T find themselves having to be financially “dependent for life” on a man.

It was a hard-fought and hard-won battle that I don’t think a lot of millenial women appreciate today. The laws that came about to protect them (as well as Gen X women) in the workplace (and provide extended FML for maternity leave without losing their jobs) did not exist for a boomer woman before the early ’80’s and even then, her only remedy was an EEOC complaint (which would have gotten her summarily fired).

https://www.brandeis.edu/investigate/teenSH1/timeline.html

We had to often “go with the flow” and put up with a lot of touchy-feely crap at work at the hands of the PTB if we wanted/needed to keep our jobs.

I also want to add that I feel that neither HILL nor BILL are/were “victims” of one another. BOTH had (and have) their eyes wide open 100% of the time.

[bearishgurl]

What I called a “chump lady” on the “Everything Hillary” thread, Trump calls an “enabler,” going so far as to implicate that she threatened some of Bill’s “other women” by personally having them tailed by PI’s, intimidated and in fear of losing their jobs. I haven’t personally looked into all that (except heard the recent, tearful Broadrick interview online) and don’t know if all of it is true … or not. But if any of it actually is, then Hillary was far more desperate to remain “Ms Bill Clinton” and “Arkansas’ First Lady” than I previously thought.

None of this has any bearing on her skills (or lack thereof) to occupy the position of POTUS but nonetheless it is beyond mind boggling why someone of her means, talent and stature would stay with a sex-addicted pervert of a spouse.

There is no cure for sex addiction (or porn addiction) and, in Bill’s defense, it’s perfectly legal to not be able to be monogamous.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=spdrun]

I wasn’t comparing Clinton to a Republican. I was comparing her to Sanders or Warren.[/quote]

You know, if I were younger, I probably would support Sanders over Hillary, but, upon thinking more about the world we live in, we do need commerce, trade and finance. Money makes the world go ’round.

I support NAFTA, and TPP, free trade and global finance. There is no retreating to a protectionist economy. We can’t coddle workers to a lifetime of security. There are elements of competition needed to accelerate growth and standards of living. The key is to find a good balance of economic efficiency and social safety.

[FlyerInHi]

BG, If you think about it, the women Trump supporters are enablers of their husbands.

Women are so contradictory. They want equality, but they want husbands and standing by their men. And they want to be taken care of (very important).

I actually admire Hillary because she acts more like a man. She can take care of herself.

I don’t think she cares about Bill’s philandering. But she’s expected to. She’s expected to show empathy instead of rationale. I really believe people “hate” Hillary because she doesn’t fit what we expect of women. To me, she’s a politician. She’s brave and I respect that.

But I’m different from that average voter. I want an intelligent president. I don’t want to have a beer with my president.

[spdrun]

Practically, Sanders or Warren wouldn’t abrogate existing trade agreements. That’s Trump’s jam. But the problem with 100% free trade is that if goods are manufactured in countries with drastically worse environmental standards than the US, we’re essentially exporting pollution. Which then spreads globally.

I don’t particularly give a fuck about accelerating growth (cancer), or consumption (TB). We have enough already, and are comfortable. Don’t need much more.

As far as coddling workers, workers that have a safety net in place and access to education are most likely to take the job that best suits them, not stick with a dead-end job. This is an economic positive.

You know, if I were younger, I probably would support Sanders over Hillary, but, upon thinking more about the world we live in, we do need commerce, trade and finance. Money makes the world go ’round.

I support NAFTA, and TPP, free trade and global finance. There is no retreating to a protectionist economy. We can’t coddle workers to a lifetime of security. There are elements of competition needed to accelerate growth and standards of living. The key is to find a good balance of economic efficiency and social safety.

[FlyerInHi]

Spd, it’s not just us buying goods. It’s also about creating new markets for our goods and services. So we need to help lift living standards abroad so people can buy our movies, brands, other goods and services. We don’t need to make clothes in USA. We should make more movies to export. By giving access to our markets, other countries commit to protecting our intellectual property. As they earn money and get richer, they in turn buy our higher value added products.

The high dollar is hurting our exports now. That’s because there is slow growth in Europe, and Japan and slowing growth in China.

We can negotiate win-win trade agreements. TPP is actually the gold standard of agreements.

You don’t want to make everything yourself. You want to earn money and buy goods and services from people who do it better and cheaper than you can. Trade and more trade. The one downside of that inteconnected supply chain is that you, as an individual can’t slow down and rest. You have to operate at the speed of trade. But overall, people get richer, live better, we humans are better off. You have to take your individual self out and look at trade/finance/commerce objectively.

[spdrun]

We’re doing fine without poisoning the rest of the world with our unculture. Our standard of living is high enough.

As far as slowing down and resting, that’s a big downside. You’re talking about improving lives. Americans are already too overworked.

Notice that lifespans are longer in developed countries that place less of an emphasis on work. Spain, Italy, France, Greece, even Chile, Peru, and Ecuador are ahead of Dumberica. That says something.

We should be concentrating on increasing quality of life, lowering stress, and increasing health of our own people, not designing e-toys and trinkets to be made in China.

[FlyerInHi]

What you don’t want Disneyland in shanghai? That shows the power of American culture and how we can monetize it. Disney shareholders love it.

We have powerful brands and we need consumers with cash. Next will be a Disneyland in Ho Chi Minh City and that would make us winners. TPP will make that happen.

In Scandinavia, there’s something called Jante law. They have twice as many bicycles as cars. They are happy with weekend picnics in the woods. We want Disneyland, Vegas vacations, expensive sports bicycles, not cheap urban bikes. We are more Trump like self promoters than jimmy carter modest who is considered weak and pathetic.

[spdrun]

I’d rather Shanghai have its own unique culture rather than have American culture waved in its face. I don’t consider American culture to be worthy of export.

And sadly, what we mostly get are crappy Mall*Wart bikes designed to look like expensive bikes. But weighing 2x as much. Which doesn’t matter anyway, since the extra weight is a drop in the bucket compared to an obese rider.

[Anonymous]

[quote=spdrun]I’d rather Shanghai have its own unique culture rather than have American culture waved in its face. I don’t consider American culture to be worthy of export.[/quote]

I’m quite certain that the people of Shanghai don’t care what you think about American culture.

[phaster]

Sigh…where do I begin???

since all politics is local, lets begin by looking at “statements” vs “facts” of one issue I consider crucial for survival

[quote=phaster]

FYI its the end of the “El Niño” event

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/may/30/el-nino-is-over-but-it-leaves-nearly-100-million-people-short-of-food

and the scorecard indicates a “temporary reprieve” from the drought here in california…

BUT think it best if things were put in context…

[quote=desertsun.com]
USGS estimates vast amounts of water used in California

How much water does California use each year?

It’s a complicated question, but the U.S. Geological Survey now has an answer for 2010: 42 million acre-feet per year, or about 38 billion gallons per day.

That includes water pumped from wells plus all of the water taken from sources such as rivers, canals and reservoirs.

To put that vast number in perspective: California has been using the equivalent of the full capacity of Lake Shasta, the state’s largest reservoir, every 40 days.

In one newly published study in the journal Environmental Research Letters, University of California researchers found that the state has handed out approximately five times more water rights than the total amount of freshwater runoff in an average year.

http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2014/08/21/usgs-estimates-vast-amounts-water-used-california/14400333/
[/quote]

perhaps in the relentless pursuit of creating an agribusiness friendly environment here in CA, seems we presently have a government w/ a 5:1 “over promised” ratio of assigned water rights to average annual rain fall runoff,… which kinda brings to mind an enron style accounting system or fabulous returns that might be promised “suckers” in a “Ponzi scheme” (before the inevitable fall)

[quote=breitbart.com]

you know some of the best deals
are the deals you don’t do
you understand that
and we’re going to solve your water problem
you have a water problem that is so insane
it is so ridiculous
where they are taking the water
and shoving it out to sea

…blah, blah, blah

no one understands it
and I’ve heard this from other friends of mine in california

…blah, blah, blah

a certain kind of three-inch fish

…blah, blah, blah

http://gawker.com/water-scientist-donald-trump-on-how-to-end-californias-1779228841

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/27/donald-trump-fires-up-farmers-in-fresno-were-going-to-solve-your-water-problem/
[/quote]

up to a point have to agree w/ donald

YES we have a water problem that is so insane and so ridiculous…

BUT the problem isn’t “a certain kind of three-inch fish,” its politicians/lawyers who time and time again demonstrate similar brain power to “a certain kind of three-inch fish” in that they seem to have no concept of math and cause problems in the first place by doing stupid shit that only exacerbates things during periods of natural drought,… like NOT REALIZING that allocating 370 million acre-feet of water rights BUT HAVING PUBLISHED DATA that states in an average year there is only about 70 million acre-feet of freshwater runoff, IS A BASIC MATH PROBLEM

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article2607102.html

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/8/084012;jsessionid=5AB739D9565D2F7321023B8C05A273DD.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org

i’d guess the statement “DEMAND (370 million acre-feet of water) > SUPPLY (70 million acre-feet of freshwater runoff)” isn’t the simple straightforward explanation donald or his friends want to acknowledge as reality!

[/quote]

[quote=phaster][quote=AN]
Whether you think the politician is capable of fixing the problem or not is irrelevant, since they have a monopoly. for our sake, I hope they get their act together and fix the problem. If we can have Tesla, SpaceX, Google, Apple, etc in CA, I’m pretty sure we can fix the water problem.
[/quote]

as I said… a “solution” is only possible when the problem is fully understood and there is no bias toward some preconceived outcome!! FURTHERMORE any “solution” to a real world problem must take into account the limited resources of: time, money, and labor

therefore it is very relevant to acknowledge/address the corruption/mis-management w/ in the political system @ all levels of government because it in turn causes corruption/mis-management w/ in the economy!

[quote=60 MINUTES]
“Dialing for Dollars” aired on April 24, 2016

Members of Congress raised more than a billion dollars for their 2014 election. And they never stop.

Nearly every day, they spend hours on the phone asking supporters and even total strangers for campaign donations — hours spent away from the jobs they were elected to do.

…And your job, new member of Congress, is to raise $18,000 a day. Your first responsibility is to make sure you hit $18,000 a day.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-are-members-of-congress-becoming-telemarketers/
[/quote]

[quote=phaster][quote=XBoxBoy][quote=Parabolica]The problem with defined contributions plans as I see it is that the vast majority of working people lack the financial sophistication required to invest for their retirement. [/quote]

I have no idea who is right in this argument or what is fair, but I’d like to point out another issue that worries me about defined benefit vs 401k. That is that 401ks are generally optional, while defined benefit are not. I have well educated, professional friends working in high tech careers, in their late 50s who have never put any money into a 401 or any retirement plan (other than social security). Compare that to govt. workers or teachers who have no choice but to contribute. Not only are people not savvy enough to manage the financial waters, they aren’t savvy enough to figure out they need to save to have a retirement fund. Not sure how to fix that, but it seems to me to be a big issue lurking out there.[/quote]

there is indeed a BIG ISSUE LURKING

[modesty/sarcasm ON]

and FWIW IMHO I’m RIGHT and everyone ELSE is to blame for causing an economic mess…

[modesty/sarcasm OFF]

As it stands politicians/lawyers/public-employees-union-members think it would be fair for the taxpayers to make them whole (after all they are the one’s who did all the hard work of implementing the policies, writing the contracts and were in charge of the day in and day out operation of various pension fund accounts…)

“they” (politicians/lawyers/public-employees) using circular logic would argue, thus it is written (and ignoring “crucial evidence”) therefore we find its the LAW

this POV isn’t much different than the approach taken by leadership in the catholic church back in the day when the pope made a law that which said, the earth was at the center of the universe (and ignored all the math and science)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/horizon/sept98/galileo.htm

http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/533/copernicus-galileo-and-the-church-science-in-a-religious-world

WRT the operation of the local pension fund – notice in press releases – on the side that supports the politicians/lawyers/public-employees position, stories ALL BUT IGNORE THE MATH because its an inconvenient truth

AND instead hide behind the convenient fiction that its possible to have a sustainable DB program for honest hard working muni “union” employees who will suffer otherwise

in the december 2015 (back pages news-paper story) that started me questioning the wisdom of existing fund management (yet again), the actuaries long ago calculated out that in order for the LOCAL pension portfolio to work, the investment vehicles (bonds, stocks, etc.) basically had to grow 8% over the long haul!!!

BUT as we know from year to year the market will vary…

so some years the total return of the portfolio will be much GREATER than the actuaries design target of 8%,… and some years the total return of the portfolio will be much LOWER than the the actuaries design target of 8%,… BUT OVERALL the idea was that pension portfolio was designed to AVERAGE OUT to 8%

its impossible to say exact DEBT figures w/out more data BUT think of the problem as being, for the past three decades the portfolio operators (i.e. politicians/lawyers/public-employees) said hey the portfolio is doing great and give themselves a pension bonus payment of say anything greater than the actuaries target of 8% (thinking this “EXTRA” is not needed)

for example, back in the 1980’s and 1990’s when the market was really booming (and the portfolio produced returns on average much greater than 8%)

THE HISTORICAL RATE OF RETURN FOR THE STOCK MARKET SINCE 1900

…
during the 1980s the market returned on average 17.57%
during the 1990s the market returned on average 18.17%
…

http://www.stockpickssystem.com/historical-rate-of-return/

the portfolio operators (i.e. politicians/lawyers/public-employees) in the 1980’s said hey since we averaged 17.57% in the market, so we have an EXTRA of 9.57% to give our selves because of a simple formula we included in a contract (average market return – actuaries design target = EXTRA) or (17.57%-8% =9.57%)

the portfolio operators (i.e. politicians/lawyers/public-employees) in the 1990’s said hey since we averaged 18.17%, we have an EXTRA of 10.17% because (18.17%-8% =10.17.%)

a misunderstanding of how “averages” work explains why the portfolio is BILLIONS in DEBT

City pensioners get ’13th check’ bonus

More than $6.1 million has been distributed to retired San Diego city employees in the form of a “13th check” — beyond their usual 12 monthly payments — making this year’s holiday bonus the largest such payout in the history of the three-decade-old practice.

But it’s become a source of conflict as the city’s pension system faces a $2 billion shortfall in promised payments, which remains a taxpayer burden and has led to budget crises in the past at City Hall.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/dec/18/13th-check/

what the $hit for brains managers of the San Diego pension portfolio did, was in reality take/pocketed for themselves the “excess” profits back in boom decades of the 80’s and 90’s that were originally designed to be kept w/in the account so that the portfolio averaged out to 8% from the 1980’s to the present day…

Handbook of Frauds, Scams, and Swindles: Failures of Ethics in Leadership (edited by Serge Matulich, David M. Currie)

Though SDCERS investments were earning well above the 8 percent rate of return estimated by the system actuaries, under normal conditions investments surpluses are required to make up for below-average returns in other years to achieve the average rate of return. Therefore, unless the actuaries’ estimates are grossly incorrect, in the long run true “surplus earnings” are impossible. The use of surplus earnings for the purposes other than maintaining the pension system, such as to expand existing benefits should be viewed as a loan from the system THAT WILL REQUIRE REPAYMENT IN THE FUTURE.

page 286

https://books.google.com/books?id=VLxvUV8xFsgC&pg=PA286&lpg=PA286&dq=san+diego+pension+13th+check&source=bl&ots=ZKEjv0C-rD&sig=RHojR7aJR0Ehb8mScjQnxLIhW6M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJl76j3vLJAhVO4GMKHR1RAJkQ6AEIKTAC#v=onepage&q=san%20diego%20pension%2013th%20check&f=false

the economic problem NOW (and into the foreseeable future) is further compounded with financial instruments like “swaps” (which really supercharges the amount of money that somehow needs to be accounted for w/in the system)

http://www.bis.org/publ/otc_hy1504.pdf

and IMHO makes an economic disaster all but unavoidable (all because politicians/lawyers in a position of power who were suppose to over see pension portfolio operations, never took a step back to look at the big picture and apply basic middle school math concepts WRT the financial instruments they were in charge of)!!

[/quote]

BOTTOM LINE debt is akin to added weight on the sword of Damocles, which has been said to overhang the economy

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/19/139799434/sword-of-damocles-reference-sometimes-misused

basically the state of the economy (i.e. credit markets/finance system) determines if stuff like drought related mitigation infrastructure can be built/operated (like water pipelines, reservoirs, desalination plants, sewage treatment, etc.)

furthermore a distinction must be made,… the government cannot just declare corporate bankruptcy (like trump has done four times to protect his personal personal fortune from idiotic management decisions) and expect to keep the system going (i.e. over-leveraged casino and hotel properties in Atlantic City are an UNNECESSARY LUXURY for society to function, a utility system that provides/treats water is a NECESSITY for society to exist!)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2011/04/29/fourth-times-a-charm-how-donald-trump-made-bankruptcy-work-for-him

BTW since you mentioned it did ya ever stop and think what “Tesla, SpaceX, Google, Apple, etc in CA” have in common?

HINT the founders of all these successful “tech” companies were into and understand the importants of math/science, they are not politicians/lawyers who basically contribute nothing but bullshit and corruption![/quote]

one thing I do like about trump is his candor, when he speaks I’m pretty sure he believes hook line and sinker his own rhetoric AND also pretty sure if he had his way would act on his beliefs and gut instinct (regardless of the facts)

looking at his “business” history, it leaves me troubled because its more “self serving” than “morally just” and given his seemly unrestrained temperament have to consider what if he has a bad hair day, would he push the “button?”

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/1859398-Facts-about-a-presumed-President-Trump/page12

personally think it is important to exercise the right to vote but given the field of presumptive candidates any choice IMHO is more akin to jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire!

[svelte]

[quote=phaster]Sigh…where do I begin???
[/quote]

I would begin by making your posts shorter, more succinct and to the point.

Instead of rambling manifestos on Phasters Theory On Everything.

[Author]

Posts