Trump vs. Hillary (NO OTHER OPTIONS)

• O-Trap

  

  gut;1809785 wrote:Good point.
  
  And I've always questioned how much of a "businessman" Trump is. Real Estate is a very different animal, mainly about design/marketing/branding and controlling your vendor costs (construction). Nothing like running a company that manufactures widgets, or even a service provider, where you have constant decisions about labor, strategy, positioning, sales & promotion on a mass-market scale. Primarily just an asset manager much more than a true CEO.
  
  Plus, for the last 20-30 years Trump hasn't really built anything, he's just been licensing his name.

  More or less, you're right. I've said a couple times on here (and more elsewhere) that he has really never been successful at anything other than property development (much of which is branding) and his reality television show (which also thrived on the branding). His real estate business is not in the top-ten highest-valued real estate companies in NYC. He's failed at virtually all other business ventures he's attempted (including a mortgage loan company, which is even related to his real estate wheelhouse).
  
  The one thing he seems to do exceptionally well: brand and pitch himself. There's a reason he's able to continue to raise capital for these eventually failed businesses. I'd wager it's the same reason he won the Republican primary. He branded himself well with respect to the voter base. He sizes up a prospect audience well. Were he not gifted the CEO spot five months out of college and bequeathed about $40 million, he still would have had a solid career as a marketing or advertising consultant and could have charged big bucks for it.
  
  But I digress, a true businessman he is not, and he's had too many opportunities to show that he isn't responsible enough to build and run ventures.
  
  And before anyone goes there, "So you think Hillary would be better at running things?"
  
  No. I don't. I trust neither of them to have adequate character OR competence, both of which should be necessary for the POTUS position.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  O-Trap;1809801 wrote:But I digress, a true businessman he is not, and he's had too many opportunities to show that he isn't responsible enough to build and run ventures.
  
  And before anyone goes there, "So you think Hillary would be better at running things?"
  
  No. I don't. I trust neither of them to have adequate character OR competence, both of which should be necessary for the POTUS position.

  I WILL say this for Trump, though... I think he knows how to handle a cell phone and would be able to determine between confidential and top secret.
  
  Yeah. That's about it lol
• O-Trap

  

  CenterBHSFan;1809804 wrote:I WILL say this for Trump, though... I think he knows how to handle a cell phone and would be able to determine between confidential and top secret.
  
  Yeah. That's about it lol

  Probably. I doubt he has enough tact to avoid alienating current allies, though. Either way, while neither is universally incompetent, neither would get a passing grade from me.
• gut

  O-Trap;1809801 wrote:...he still would have had a solid career as a marketing or advertising consultant and could have charged big bucks for it.

  Maybe....his success was more of a long-play. Would he have been well-rounded and intuitive enough to have made a lot of different plays to be a successful consultant, or even brass tacks to rise through the corporate ranks?
  
  He strikes me as a natural, a savant even, for the play he made. It's pretty much the same play he made with The Apprentice, and in his campaign. Brilliant, or even business savvy, is not something I'd label him as. Most people would not risk their hard-built name/brand on some shady for-profit school - Trump and Clinton come to mind, and they're both greedy leeches.
• gut

  O-Trap;1809806 wrote:Probably. I doubt he has enough tact to avoid alienating current allies, though. Either way, while neither is universally incompetent, neither would get a passing grade from me.

  Trump will delegate even more of his job than Obama, focusing even more on speeches and grandstanding than even Obama. America, at the moment, seems to favor tough talk over results.
  
  And Hillary's rather empty experience you could say is text-book building a resume without taking big risks (i.e. accomplishing something) to ruin it all. Such is the approach of enriching oneself thru politics while building for the ultimate job being mediocre/unremarkable at THE job (at hand). That's the key - mediocre is fine, unremarkable is even better...you won't fail if you don't take risks.
• gut

  CenterBHSFan;1809804 wrote:I WILL say this for Trump, though... I think he knows how to handle a cell phone and would be able to determine between confidential and top secret.

  He may have people better at handling his cell phone.
  
  The most optimistic thing I can say about Trump is he would be a lame-duck from Day 1. And aside from saving the Supreme Court from the clutches of the uber-left, Repubs and Dems might actually work together because they can ignore and distance themselves from the White House.
• QuakerOats

  Trump rocks the Canfield Fair (Mahoning County, Ohio) -- one of the largest county fairs in the country
  
  http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/09/wow-massive-crowd-goes-crazy-trump-canfield-ohio-fair-video/
  
  
  This is the hugely dem county that seems to be going for Trump, with large crossover votes in the primary. There was a significant pro-Trump feel to the fair all weekend.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  O-Trap;1809806 wrote:Probably. I doubt he has enough tact to avoid alienating current allies, though. Either way, while neither is universally incompetent, neither would get a passing grade from me.

  ehh... Obama seems to have some allies currently alienating themselves from him. I doubt it will stop from whoever the next POTUS might be. Stagnation isn't always a good thing, I guess lol!
• QuakerOats

  Another excellent speech today by The Donald: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umSgoyjoviE
• isadore

  gosh a ruddies another cheerleader for Trump
  
  
• QuakerOats

  [h=3]Houston Driller Announces 3-Billion-Barrel Oil Discovery In West Texas.[/h]The AP (9/7, Koenig) reports Houston driller Apache Corp announced a discovery Wednesday and says it “believes there could be 3 billion barrels of oil and 75 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in an area it calls Alpine High” in West Texas. The company has more than 300,000 acres where it has “drilled 19 wells” in the largely undeveloped region over a span of around two years. CEO John Christmann “says others have mistakenly overlooked the area” because it seemed too complex to drill there, but experts say they’re not surprised by the find because technology makes once-difficult-to-drill locations more accessible. Bloomberg Business (9/7, Denning) also reports, saying the company “has apparently also stumbled upon 75 trillion cubic feet of gas,” and that the oil discovery should give OPEC reason to worry.
  
  
  
  obama, Hillary, and the radical left would have you abandon fossil fuels and force you to spend trillions on green energy bankrupting the economy, yet we have our own sources of energy that will last for centuries and centuries right underneath us. It is there for a reason. Just another of the many, many reasons to support Trump instead of the radical Marxists (progressives) on the left who continue their assault on capitalism and America.
• sleeper

  

  QuakerOats;1810075 wrote:Houston Driller Announces 3-Billion-Barrel Oil Discovery In West Texas.
  
  The AP (9/7, Koenig) reports Houston driller Apache Corp announced a discovery Wednesday and says it “believes there could be 3 billion barrels of oil and 75 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in an area it calls Alpine High” in West Texas. The company has more than 300,000 acres where it has “drilled 19 wells” in the largely undeveloped region over a span of around two years. CEO John Christmann “says others have mistakenly overlooked the area” because it seemed too complex to drill there, but experts say they’re not surprised by the find because technology makes once-difficult-to-drill locations more accessible. Bloomberg Business (9/7, Denning) also reports, saying the company “has apparently also stumbled upon 75 trillion cubic feet of gas,” and that the oil discovery should give OPEC reason to worry.
  
  
  
  obama, Hillary, and the radical left would have you abandon fossil fuels and force you to spend trillions on green energy bankrupting the economy, yet we have our own sources of energy that will last for centuries and centuries right underneath us. It is there for a reason. Just another of the many, many reasons to support Trump instead of the radical Marxists (progressives) on the left who continue their assault on capitalism and America.

  Centuries?
  
  That find won't even be enough to supply half of US consumption in one year.
• QuakerOats

  75 TCF ---- in one tiny field ............... that is 3 years of consumption of the entire country, from one field.
  
  You should be able to figure it out.
• O-Trap

  

  QuakerOats;1810075 wrote:obama, Hillary, and the radical left would have you abandon fossil fuels and force you to spend trillions on green energy bankrupting the economy ...

  First, I agree that government exerting this level of control over private sector industries is harmful to the economy.
  
  It would not bankrupt it, though, if there were a reasonable time frame given to transition. Some of the biggest investors in modern green energy are the companies that have been investing in fossil fuels, because they don't see themselves as being in the fossil fuel business, but in the energy business. It's the opposite of what the railroad companies did back when rails were popular in the US, which ultimately led to their near extinction.
  
  Ultimately, we should be headed toward renewable energy anyway. It's not only better stewardship of the planet, but it's also a more permanent source. If a business has to choose between a temporary source or a permanent source for their model to run, it's economically better to work toward the permanent source. I still don't think having some fossil fuel as a "backup" in case of some unforeseen circumstance is a bad idea, but lowering our reliance on it is definitely wiser.
• QuakerOats

  As the science continues to extend there is some thought that perhaps some of these fuels are renewable and it may be occurring deeper in the core. But if a left-wing government takes control of our resources (communism) and effectively shuts down the industry (as already occurring with coal) then we will never find out for sure.
  
  Most of the companies investing in green are merely doing so because they are getting free money from the taxpayers or they are effectively being forced to do so because of government regulation or the impending government force; i.e. they see the writing on the wall as radicals in democrat politics have taken over powerful federal agencies and churn out regulations designed to specifically imperil the fossil fuel industry. They make no secrets about it.
  
  As for stewardship of the planet, we could debate that for years and perhaps far longer than the radicals claimed we had left in existence back in the '70's --------- hilarious. Time has a way of proving liberals wrong, over and over.
• O-Trap

  

  QuakerOats;1810098 wrote:As the science continues to extend there is some thought that perhaps some of these fuels are renewable and it may be occurring deeper in the core. But if a left-wing government takes control of our resources (communism) and effectively shuts down the industry (as already occurring with coal) then we will never find out for sure.

  Given what the scientific community has historically said regarding fossil fuels, I do think they occur. They obviously had to come from somewhere. However, it is my understanding that the consumption, at its current rate, outpaces the process of more coming into existence. If you've seen something to suggest otherwise, I'd certainly be interested in reading it.
  

  QuakerOats;1810098 wrote:Most of the companies investing in green are merely doing so because they are getting free money from the taxpayers or they are effectively being forced to do so because of government regulation or the impending government force; i.e. they see the writing on the wall as radicals in democrat politics have taken over powerful federal agencies and churn out regulations designed to specifically imperil the fossil fuel industry. They make no secrets about it.

  I wasn't really speaking to the motivations of it. I was merely suggesting that the big players in fossil fuel wouldn't all necessarily go belly-up, and that the economy at large wouldn't necessarily collapse, provided there was a reasonable time frame to transition. I have read nothing that makes me confident in speaking to their motives, so I can't address that.
  

  QuakerOats;1810098 wrote:As for stewardship of the planet, we could debate that for years and perhaps far longer than the radicals claimed we had left in existence back in the '70's --------- hilarious. Time has a way of proving liberals wrong, over and over.

  If what I stated at the beginning of this post is true, that our consumption outpaces the regeneration process of fossil fuels, then I would submit that the stewardship issue is fairly straightforward.
  
  I'm not adopting a Chicken Little position on the issue like some, but I do think that if we continue to consume faster than the earth's processes can produce, we would logically end up without useful fossil fuel, and subsequently we would have to shift to a more renewable energy anyway. It seems sensible to preempt that depletion as opposed to waiting until it's the only option.
• QuakerOats

  I do not contend that we should sit around and do nothing with respect to discovering new sources of energy. Free markets are generally the best at recognizing a need and supplying a solution. What I abhor is government force shutting down an industry (one that can still supply energy for centuries - coal) because its agencies are ruled by left-wing whack jobs and/or Marxists (parading around as environmentalists). And then the same government bureaucrats deciding who the winners of tomorrow will be and gifting them our tax dollars, and shortly thereafter we watch them fail because the economics do not make sense. They are already making electricity much more expensive, which does nothing but inflict pain on the fixed-income retirees, along with making us less competitive as a nation. But liberals don't care, they never do. And if they get their way, they will ban fracking and the centuries-worth of natural gas that we have been gifted with (by God) will never see the surface, and your heating bills will become unaffordable, and the manufacturing sector will be dealt the death knell.
  
  The liberals have already stolen your health care and ruined the system; if you give them energy you can be assured that we will crush ourselves; you won't have to worry about turning out the last light .....it won't be on.
• O-Trap

  

  QuakerOats;1810106 wrote:I do not contend that we should sit around and do nothing with respect to discovering new sources of energy. Free markets are generally the best at recognizing a need and supplying a solution. What I abhor is government force shutting down an industry (one that can still supply energy for centuries - coal) because its agencies are ruled by left-wing whack jobs and/or Marxists (parading around as environmentalists). And then the same government bureaucrats deciding who the winners of tomorrow will be and gifting them our tax dollars, and shortly thereafter we watch them fail because the economics do not make sense. They are already making electricity much more expensive, which does nothing but inflict pain on the fixed-income retirees, along with making us less competitive as a nation. But liberals don't care, they never do. And if they get their way, they will ban fracking and the centuries-worth of natural gas that we have been gifted with (by God) will never see the surface, and your heating bills will become unaffordable, and the manufacturing sector will be dealt the death knell.
  
  The liberals have already stolen your health care and ruined the system; if you give them energy you can be assured that we will crush ourselves; you won't have to worry about turning out the last light .....it won't be on.

  We agree on governmental control of industry, believe me.
• gut

  O-Trap;1810102 wrote:Given what the scientific community has historically said regarding fossil fuels, I do think they occur. They obviously had to come from somewhere. However, it is my understanding that the consumption, at its current rate, outpaces the process of more coming into existence.

  This is correct. It should be obvious that at some point (which I'm sure we are well past), our rate of consumption exceeds the rate of replacement. What's happening is new technologies are discovering and enabling extraction of previously unknown or unobtainable deposits.
  
  Bottom line, for me, is that renewable energy sources will eventually replace fossil fuels. But solar and wind are never going to come close to fulfilling the need....fusion is always "20-30 years away", but I think certainly within the next 100 years (and probably within 50) it will get the job done.
• gut

  QuakerOats;1810083 wrote:75 TCF ---- in one tiny field ............... that is 3 years of consumption of the entire country, from one field.
  
  You should be able to figure it out.

  the US uses like 20M barrels PER DAY....so 3B would last us less than half a year.
• QuakerOats

  I was focusing on the vastness of the nat gas find; the oil is just gravy.
• Spock

  

  back to the topic.....Trump now ahead of HC by 4 points in Ohio.
• QuakerOats

  For the sake of the republic, that is good news.
• QuakerOats

  http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Poll-Trump-Surge-Latinos/2016/09/08/id/747309/
  
  If those numbers are good and stay there, he wins.
• gut

  QuakerOats;1810225 wrote:http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Poll-Trump-Surge-Latinos/2016/09/08/id/747309/
  
  If those numbers are good and stay there, he wins.

  But the elephant in the room is, even if the polls favor Trump....he has a HORRIBLE ground game/infrastructure. The Clinton/Obama machine will do a much better job of turning out the vote, and [complete guess] that is probably worth at least 2 points on election day.