2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

PopePalpatine

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Bad luck for Barry, on the eve of his last SOTU speech, a potential hostage issue developing in the Persian Gulf

The sailors have been released.

Fr Tod Umptious

20Cent wrote: »

Bill Clinton allegations, the email "scandal", Benghazi. Hillary's detractors really scraping the barrel. Might be a bad road to go down if Trumps past gets looked into more closely.

I don't think Hillary is popular enough to avoid major scrutiny on those issues.

That's going to be her problem in a GE.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Mod

We are having a persistent problem with a series of low quality posts on this thread, and rather than banning everybody, which we'd prefer not to do, some advice. I'm not singling anybody out, just hoping posters will help us out.

This should be the most positive State of the Union for 7 years, The outlook is great, Obama is leaving.

The us is heading into a massive recession bud.

This type of stuff is way below standard for this forum. Hell, if I went into the soccer forum with blanket statements like about my team I wouldn't last long. One line statements like that are pointless and beneath the standard, fanboyism more appropriate to a sports forum, not a forum for political discussion.

Anything else in that crystal ball of yours?

Seriously, there's no point in making predictions if you're not going to provide trustworthy sources to support your claim.

The above is why, it just leads to posts like the above and below.

The least best of our time..... well only if you take from January 09 to now as 'our time'.

Have we all forgotten about good old W.

W rates better than Obama.

Any more posts like this from anybody will be viewed as trolling and baiting othet posters, and will lead to a straight ban.

Overheal

Black Swan wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear you should watch a Civil Action for more on the concept of what happens when you go down fighting

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

How is it in any way relevant when as you say she was never convicted of any wrongdoing? Also Bill Clinton has never been convicted therefore did nothing wrong so Hillary is correct to ignore such claims. Well, using your logic anyway.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

InTheTrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There's nothing excessive about commodity trading, trading is usually speculative. It sounds like she did very well too starting with only $1000.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Is she wrong?
High frequency trading is pretty bad also.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Can't people change their minds?

InTheTrees

Ted Cruz and Donald Trump are now neck and neck in Iowa. Watching the news this morning it sounds like Trump is emphasizing his doubt over Cruz's eligibility to run while Cruz is playing on trump's character as a brash new yorker.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MightyMandarin

20Cent wrote: »

Can't people change their minds?

They can, but Hillary's only campaigning against Wall St. because Bernie's neck and neck (and in some polls ahead of her) and she thinks it's the new 'flavour of the month' and is just hopping on the bandwagon without really providing any meaningful plan or even proof that she's always wanted regulation of the banks.

Bill is also a massive contradiction for her in this regard because he continued the de-regulation that Reagan started which caused this whole mess.

Whatever you think about Hillary's personal history, and even though I think what a lot of posters are doing here is wrong (judging someone without any evidence that a court deemed her guilty of something), I just can't take her seriously when she talks about clamping down on Wall St. and planning to tackle income inequality. I think Bernie supporters, like myself, and GOP candidate supporters can all agree on this one.

KingBrian2

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is why Trump does well out of this election. His supporters actually support the version of Capitalism he practises. The Clintons don't practise what they preach in terms of addressing the wealth divide. They are most certainly in the upper income bracket unlike the majority of the Democratic electorate.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Thargor

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Bit of a reach to call commodity trading "casino capitalism". Its been going on for centuries, you'll always be able to bet on what way prices of steel/oil/cotton/widgets etc etc are going to go no matter how much regulations are applied to the financial sector. Are you trying to equate commodity trading with practices like credit default swaps? So if she had any interaction with any investment tool in the financial system at any point in her life she's a hypocrite because some Democrats want things like sub-prime mortgages regulated? Grasping at straws again.

First Up

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

If you took the trouble to study her career you might want to modify the claim that she "never really stood for anything". She has a formidable record of standing for - and against - things since she was a teenager. And it wasn't confined to just talking about them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So if Donald Trump "repents" he will be "forgiven" for his infidelity with his mistress Marla Maples while still married to his 1st wife Ivana, which led to a huge 1990 public scandal and his 1st divorce? In like manner, if he "repents" AGAIN for then divorcing his 2nd wife Maples only after 6 years to marry his 3rd wife Melania he will also be "forgiven?" I find it ironic that there are those quite willing to "forgive" REPUBLICAN Donald Trump for his past marriage infidelities, while at the same time unwilling to "forgive" DEMOCRAT Bill Clinton for his infidelities. Makes me wonder to what extent party membership influences this ability to "forgive?"

I know that Donald Trump is running for 2016 president, but is Bill Clinton also running?

First Up

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Or you could say that having tried it, she knows what she is talking about.

In terms of her total career in academia, activism, the law, politics and government, ten months turning $1,000 into $100,000 counts as no more than an interesting footnote.

Thargor

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Her statement is obviously hyperbole, and nobodies talking about regulating peoples rights to gamble/invest their own money anyway, any talk of regulating Wall St. implies regulation of the banks and the rest of the finance industry, she would have had to specifically come out against individuals being allowed to gamble/invest their personal funds in order to be a hypocrite as you accuse her.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KingBrian2

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

George Bush is much more deserving of indictment for more serious offences than adultery.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

First Up

KingBrian2 wrote:

George Bush is much more deserving of indictment for more serious offences than adultery.

Neither GWB or Bill Clinton are running this time. Of the candidates who are, Trump is the only one with "form" in the infidelity stakes.

If people want to moralise about stuff, that's fine but as a possible election gambit, I'd be careful about it.

Thargor

You're clutching at straws Permabear, you'd think a professional trader like yourself would admire her for that return, you're talking like she made it by jacking up the price of a HIV drug or selling dodgy baby formula. Boosting your families financial future for the sake of risking a few grand like that is admirable.