Donald Trump running for president
- Thread starter LiftWithDonuts
- Start date
nostrum420
Well-known member
Ooooh, Johnnie Blue. Noice!
justhere4comm
Banned
It's still pretty much full.
I used to shoot pool back in the day. "Snooker", also got to meet some characters, not unlike on here! lol.
I was refereeing for a charity invite in California with #1 & #10 ranked in the world, the rep for Walker was there.
Gave me two bottles. I gifted one to a friend.
I guess they are pretty expensive.
You know what I love? Drambuie, Really love that, when I'm not 'conditioning'.... ha.
thebigt
Legend
I hope democrats stick with biden, he has flip flopped on everything he once supported and now we have the tara reade accusation. with biden trump has a chance of winning....if the democrats come to their senses and throw biden under the bus it will be bad for trump, sanders has much better chance of beating trump than biden, imo.
like him or hate him bernie has been consistent his whole career, and with sanders it isn't just anyone but trump, he has very loyal supporters.
ax1
Legend
His Majesty King Cuomo is going to destroy Dump in November.
justhere4comm
Banned
He's destroying him for Biden in November. I'd bet money on it.
ax1
Legend
There not going to let that groper on stage, Id bet money on it.
justhere4comm
Banned
Biden will be POTUS next.
justhere4comm
Banned
Trump botched this entire thing.
.
.
.
.
Trump was warned a good dozen times by various organizations and those reports he never read.
He could have warned the states. It's his job, and administration. Buck stops there buddy.
Cuomo is doing an amazing job. He's a voice of reason. Tump is a blame shifting coward and a fool.
He is responsible for all the deaths that occurred which could have been otherwise avoided.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
.
.
.
.
Trump was warned a good dozen times by various organizations and those reports he never read.
He could have warned the states. It's his job, and administration. Buck stops there buddy.
Cuomo is doing an amazing job. He's a voice of reason. Tump is a blame shifting coward and a fool.
He is responsible for all the deaths that occurred which could have been otherwise avoided.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
nostrum420
Well-known member
I don't think you're going to convince people who are on the fence about Trump that a virus that started in China, was his fault. "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril." #WheresThatWall?
justhere4comm
Banned
I'm not trying to convince anyone that voted for and still supports Dump.
It's when we remain silent, they grab some modicum of support for their stupid decision to vote for him.
Here's a nice poll to back that up.
Do nothing morons staying at home and not voting helped to elect Dump.
Invalid Link Removed
Not again.
People will show up and vote in November, or by mail, but they will vote. Not for him.
Cuomo is helping them decide anyone but Dump.
It's when we remain silent, they grab some modicum of support for their stupid decision to vote for him.
Here's a nice poll to back that up.
Do nothing morons staying at home and not voting helped to elect Dump.
Invalid Link Removed
Not again.
People will show up and vote in November, or by mail, but they will vote. Not for him.
Cuomo is helping them decide anyone but Dump.
nostrum420
Well-known member
That's the same as many many elections prior and I don't think there's evidence it'll change this time. I could actually make a case for it getting worse. I voted last time and have considered sitting this one out. Not super excited about the lesser of two molesters, nomsayin'?
justhere4comm
Banned
A non-vote is a vote for Trump.
You need to make a choice, and stand by it.
You need to make a choice, and stand by it.
nostrum420
Well-known member
Really? Because I'm pretty sure a vote for no one is... [drum roll] a vote for no one.
Trump supporters are telling the right of center moderates that not voting or a third party vote is a vote for Biden.
ax1
Legend
Well, there are more than just 2 war mongering big banker corporate genocidal child molesters on the ballot, but Ill tell you what. I can respect staying home far, far more than choosing either of those 2 azz clowns. Groper Joe or Dump makes no difference.
Keep in mind, you can always do what I did a few years back.....still show up and be more involved where it also counts in your local elections and simply skipping the Prez part and leaving it blank. I did that when it was the twins Obomney and Rombama ran against each-other.
A "didnt vote" simply means a "vote for NNNOOOOO!!!!"
Larry Sharpe right now is trying to recruit all the Bernie Supporters, last night he just did part 3 of "Can't feel the Bern? Maybe it's not Sharpe enough!"
Invalid Link Removed
Last edited:
ax1
Legend
A vote for Groper Joe is a vote for Dump, your barely going to get any change.
justhere4comm
Banned
The point I should be making is. 1. Anyone but Dump.
More importantly, if everyone gets out to vote.
1. He won't be reelected.
2. Whomever is, was the true choice of the voting citizens of the USA.
3. I can live with that.
I'm sorry I didn't get there sooner.
More importantly, if everyone gets out to vote.
1. He won't be reelected.
2. Whomever is, was the true choice of the voting citizens of the USA.
3. I can live with that.
I'm sorry I didn't get there sooner.
justhere4comm
Banned
Invalid Link Removed
thebigt
Legend
tbh, I think if democrats decide to roll with biden [which there is a good chance they won't] I see many sanders supporters not voting as a message to dnc.
ax1
Legend
J.Crew declared bankruptcy. Three other famous stores may follow it
New York (CNN Business)They were once the giants of American retail, strong enough to survive wars, the Great Depression, the Great Recession and the rise of online shopping. But Sears, JCPenney, J.Crew and others may not be able to survive the coronavirus crisis.
On Monday, J.Crew Invalid Link Removed, becoming the first major retail casualty of the pandemic.
"The retailers who were wandering around aimlessly pre-pandemic are going to be substantially less likely to muddle through than they were before," said Mark Cohen, director of retail studies at the Columbia Business School.
During the pandemic, stores have been shuttered. Retailers have furloughed hundreds of thousands of employees and are losing most of their sales. And shoppers have cut back on most purchases other than groceries and daily essentials.
Depending on how long consumer demand stalls, companies may be forced to lay off workers, close stores permanently or restructure.
"Store-based retail was already struggling with internet consumption trends before coronavirus, and now will be faced with accelerated demand shifts to the internet," Randal Konik, analyst at Jefferies, said in a note to clients last week.
Sears, JCPenney (Invalid Link Removed), Neiman Marcus and J.Crew were some of the most distressed companies prior to the outbreak, according to analysts. Many were forced to close stores in the face of declining sales even as unemployment reached a 50-year low.
Now with a record number of Americans filing for jobless benefits, unemployment is likely to be elevated for months if not years to come, further cutting into Americans' appetite and ability to shop. Sears Invalid Link Removedin 2018 and its Invalid Link Removed ever since.
......................https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/04/business/j-crew-bankruptcy-jcpenney-sears-neiman-marcus-retailers-coronavirus/index.html
New York (CNN Business)They were once the giants of American retail, strong enough to survive wars, the Great Depression, the Great Recession and the rise of online shopping. But Sears, JCPenney, J.Crew and others may not be able to survive the coronavirus crisis.
On Monday, J.Crew Invalid Link Removed, becoming the first major retail casualty of the pandemic.
"The retailers who were wandering around aimlessly pre-pandemic are going to be substantially less likely to muddle through than they were before," said Mark Cohen, director of retail studies at the Columbia Business School.
During the pandemic, stores have been shuttered. Retailers have furloughed hundreds of thousands of employees and are losing most of their sales. And shoppers have cut back on most purchases other than groceries and daily essentials.
Depending on how long consumer demand stalls, companies may be forced to lay off workers, close stores permanently or restructure.
"Store-based retail was already struggling with internet consumption trends before coronavirus, and now will be faced with accelerated demand shifts to the internet," Randal Konik, analyst at Jefferies, said in a note to clients last week.
Sears, JCPenney (Invalid Link Removed), Neiman Marcus and J.Crew were some of the most distressed companies prior to the outbreak, according to analysts. Many were forced to close stores in the face of declining sales even as unemployment reached a 50-year low.
Now with a record number of Americans filing for jobless benefits, unemployment is likely to be elevated for months if not years to come, further cutting into Americans' appetite and ability to shop. Sears Invalid Link Removedin 2018 and its Invalid Link Removed ever since.
......................https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/04/business/j-crew-bankruptcy-jcpenney-sears-neiman-marcus-retailers-coronavirus/index.html
ax1
Legend
Is unemployment really as deadly as coronavirus?
By Invalid Link Removed
New York Post
April 20, 2020
In the 2015 movie “The Big Short” about the Great Recession, Brad Pitt’s character Ben Rickert is strolling in Las Vegas with two Wall Street colleagues who are elated about all the money they made betting that the US economy was in trouble.
Their bet, of course, was that problems with mortgage-backed securities would hurt banks and the entire American financial system. That’s exactly what happened in real life.
Pitt’s Rickert chastises his colleagues for acting so happy and says: “Every 1 percent unemployment goes up, 40,000 people die. Did you know that?”
Is that 40,000 figure just Hollywood nonsense?
Well, it’s not. Or at least it is close. And that, in a nutshell, is what President Trump has to deal with right now.
If he opens up the economy, there could be a spike in cases of coronavirus and a rise in deaths unless there is some medical breakthrough. Already, 41,000 people are reported to have died from the disease in the US alone.
But if the president Invalid Link Removed, the unemployment rate is bound to climb and if you believe Pitt’s character — and the academic research upon which that statement is based — people will die because of that as well.
There’s a technical term for this — it’s called being damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
Before the Invalid Link Removed, the US unemployment rate was just 3.5 percent. In March, it rose to 4.4 percent. And there are predictions that it will go as high as 13 percent and maybe even 15 percent before people start returning to work.
So, if the calculations are correct, that 10 percentage point-plus rise in the jobless rate would cause more than 400,000 deaths that have nothing to do with the virus and everything to do with the distressed economy.
And, of course, there will be a lot of financial troubles for those who don’t die. But let’s just look at just the death rate.
The actual figure in academic research is a 37,000 increase for each percentage-point rise in the unemployment rate. It comes from a book called “Corporate Flight: The Causes and Consequences of Economic Dislocation” by Barry Bluestone, Bennett Harrison and Lawrence Baker.
“Corporate Flight” was published in 1982 and mainly had to do with companies moving operations overseas. I couldn’t reach Bluestone, Harrison or Baker, but last week I was able to contact Wade Thomas, who teaches economics and business at SUNY Oneonta and who quoted those figures in his own co-written 2005 book called “Economic Issues Today: Alternative Approaches.”
Here’s the paragraph from Thomas’ book that applies: “According to one study [the one by Bluestone et al.] a 1 percent increase in the unemployment rate will be associated with 37,000 deaths [including 20,000 heart attacks], 920 suicides, 650 homicides, 4,000 state mental hospital admissions and 3,300 state prison admissions.”
Thomas says things are different today, but those old studies may help us understand the hidden problems that the coronavirus is causing.
“I would hesitate to extrapolate from the old estimates of corporate flight as a means of quantifying present circumstances,” Thomas wrote to me in an email, adding that “there are too many variables involved now to assert definitive cause and effect between unemployment and the litany of health consequences cited in the 1981 study.”
But, Thomas said, “it informs our thinking about some of the potential problems that may accompany this wave of joblessness.”
Two things are definitely different today. One, Washington Invalid Link Removed. It didn’t when companies were moving overseas.
And, Invalid Link Removed, a great deal of those who have lost their jobs because of the virus are only being furloughed. They are scheduled to get their jobs back once companies reopen their doors.
Let’s hope that the data from 1981 is — excuse the expression — dead wrong.
Invalid Link Removed
By Invalid Link Removed
New York Post
April 20, 2020
In the 2015 movie “The Big Short” about the Great Recession, Brad Pitt’s character Ben Rickert is strolling in Las Vegas with two Wall Street colleagues who are elated about all the money they made betting that the US economy was in trouble.
Their bet, of course, was that problems with mortgage-backed securities would hurt banks and the entire American financial system. That’s exactly what happened in real life.
Pitt’s Rickert chastises his colleagues for acting so happy and says: “Every 1 percent unemployment goes up, 40,000 people die. Did you know that?”
Is that 40,000 figure just Hollywood nonsense?
Well, it’s not. Or at least it is close. And that, in a nutshell, is what President Trump has to deal with right now.
If he opens up the economy, there could be a spike in cases of coronavirus and a rise in deaths unless there is some medical breakthrough. Already, 41,000 people are reported to have died from the disease in the US alone.
But if the president Invalid Link Removed, the unemployment rate is bound to climb and if you believe Pitt’s character — and the academic research upon which that statement is based — people will die because of that as well.
There’s a technical term for this — it’s called being damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
Before the Invalid Link Removed, the US unemployment rate was just 3.5 percent. In March, it rose to 4.4 percent. And there are predictions that it will go as high as 13 percent and maybe even 15 percent before people start returning to work.
So, if the calculations are correct, that 10 percentage point-plus rise in the jobless rate would cause more than 400,000 deaths that have nothing to do with the virus and everything to do with the distressed economy.
And, of course, there will be a lot of financial troubles for those who don’t die. But let’s just look at just the death rate.
The actual figure in academic research is a 37,000 increase for each percentage-point rise in the unemployment rate. It comes from a book called “Corporate Flight: The Causes and Consequences of Economic Dislocation” by Barry Bluestone, Bennett Harrison and Lawrence Baker.
“Corporate Flight” was published in 1982 and mainly had to do with companies moving operations overseas. I couldn’t reach Bluestone, Harrison or Baker, but last week I was able to contact Wade Thomas, who teaches economics and business at SUNY Oneonta and who quoted those figures in his own co-written 2005 book called “Economic Issues Today: Alternative Approaches.”
Here’s the paragraph from Thomas’ book that applies: “According to one study [the one by Bluestone et al.] a 1 percent increase in the unemployment rate will be associated with 37,000 deaths [including 20,000 heart attacks], 920 suicides, 650 homicides, 4,000 state mental hospital admissions and 3,300 state prison admissions.”
Thomas says things are different today, but those old studies may help us understand the hidden problems that the coronavirus is causing.
“I would hesitate to extrapolate from the old estimates of corporate flight as a means of quantifying present circumstances,” Thomas wrote to me in an email, adding that “there are too many variables involved now to assert definitive cause and effect between unemployment and the litany of health consequences cited in the 1981 study.”
But, Thomas said, “it informs our thinking about some of the potential problems that may accompany this wave of joblessness.”
Two things are definitely different today. One, Washington Invalid Link Removed. It didn’t when companies were moving overseas.
And, Invalid Link Removed, a great deal of those who have lost their jobs because of the virus are only being furloughed. They are scheduled to get their jobs back once companies reopen their doors.
Let’s hope that the data from 1981 is — excuse the expression — dead wrong.
Invalid Link Removed
justhere4comm
Banned
No. When I was younger, I was unemployed for 2 years.
I had a deep depression but we survived. I'm pretty sure a deadly virus is worse.
I had a deep depression but we survived. I'm pretty sure a deadly virus is worse.
nostrum420
Well-known member
nostrum420
Well-known member
You're basing the whole world on your personal experience; something we decry when the right does it. Economic downturns absolutely positively do kill people.
ax1
Legend
Statistically it doesnt turn out that way though, but Im glad you pulled it through because I think your a terrific dude.
Imagine not being "younger" and having lost your job or business at 62 years old and no longer being in the best physical and mental state?
And Ill confirm, we have gone all this way and not a single penny has reached my family. Fortunately I still had the legal channels to keep working although Im putting myself and family at risk of catching this.....at least we arent trying to figure out how to pay our mortgage or finding a way to get to a food bank.....but I know what its like when I was young in trouble too, and it sucked bad back then and these days I want to avoid that at all costs even at the very small risk of the cost of my life.
ax1
Legend
Well, its fair to judge people individually but more often, if you havent had a hard background you usually end of being out of touch with the realities of many people.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
COVID-19 isn't the reason these companies are going bankrupt and they only have themselves to blame. The world changes and if you don't change with it, then get ready to get left in the past. Retail stores and malls have been going out of business for years now and any remaining businesses that have held onto the past are having all of their weaknesses exposed by this current stressor. And it's not enough to simply have an online presence; they need to have ingenuity or else they're just one in a million stores who people will forget about.
The same thing goes for the employees. This isn't the past where you can work and expect to retire with a house and family from a retail store. If you don't have a plan B, then that's on you and this world owes you nothing.
ax1
Legend
Well blaming Covid in the first place in inaccurate and misleading, the blame at heart is the policies of the politizions who made it illegal to work.
But besides that, you can just say this was the final nail in the coffin, but whats worse is that its all falling at one time.
Other than that, I share the same philosophy with you here, and Amazon has consistently honored my toilet paper subscription and sent me a full box of my favorite TP every month....not kidding.
ax1
Legend
You can also say in the future, "when I was younger, I was stricken Corona Virus, I was really sick but after a couple of weeks I survived and came out totally fine like most people. Im pretty sure making it against the law for me to make money for months and no unemployment checks so I can put food on my table and be evicted from my dwelling is far worse."
Last edited:
ax1
Legend
I do know domestic violence, drug and alcohol use are significantly higher in NY via information provided by King Cumho.
Also, this isnt necessarily an acute issue, depending on how this plays out the long term consequences of a recession and fiscally ruining the lives of 10s of millions of people.
You dont solve a crisis by creating multiple other ones. What they have done to this point has been completely irresponsible, unconstitutional and criminal.
Your also going to see the long term effects like we saw after 9/11...new illegal governmental powers will never be let go.
ax1
Legend
This is what I call a real horrific crisis thats preventable....but the same people pretending to care about Americans would rather win your votes so they can take more tax dollars to bomb more little eastern babies than solving something simple such as child malnutrition.
- Overall, 5.6 million children under age five died in 2016, nearly 15,000 daily (World Health Organization [WHO], 2016). The risk of a child dying before five years of age is highest in Africa (76.5 per 1000 live births), about 8 times higher than in Europe (9.6 per 1000 live births) (WHO, 2016).
- Approximately 3.1 million children die from undernutrition each year (UNICEF, 2018a). Hunger and undernutrition contribute to more than half of global child deaths, as undernutrition can make children more vulnerable to illness and exacerbate disease (UNICEF, 2018a).
- Children who are poorly nourished suffer up to 160 days of illness each year (Glicken, M.D., 2010). Undernutrition magnifies the effect of every disease including measles and malaria. The estimated proportions of deaths in which undernutrition is an underlying cause are roughly similar for diarrhea (61%), malaria (57%), pneumonia (52%), and measles (45%) (Black, Morris, & Bryce, 2003; Bryce et al., 2005). Malnutrition can also be caused by diseases, such as the diseases that cause diarrhea, by reducing the body’s ability to convert food into usable nutrients (Black, Morris, & Bryce, 2003; Bryce et al., 2005)
- 66 million primary school-age children attend classes hungry across the developing world, 23 million whom live in Africa, which greatly impacts their ability to learn (World Food Programme [WFP], 2012).
nostrum420
Well-known member
Why not go full Mad Max? Disband the government completely? This world doesn't owe you roads, police, fire depots, etc.
No. There is such a thing as a social contract and the supply side has violated the terms repeatedly and people aren't wrong to have honored their end and be pissed that they got ripped off.
justhere4comm
Banned
I didn't think we were here to solve the world's problems... isn't that what all #MAGA think?
I may be wrong but I can't lower my IQ enough to identify with any #MAGA. or is it #KAG now?
I keep losing track of how they spell "NOTSEE".
You make some strong arguments regarding some serious problems in the world.
Why can't we all pull together and solve them? What would / could we lose? WEALTH?
I don't have answers to the human condition, or people that hide behind religion yet don't live it.
I do know this mess right now we are faced with; unless addressed properly by serious people,
will leave us weaker and less able or maybe willing to help the rest of the world.
Or will it make us more compassionate for others? < I would hope this.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
Or we can have a contract where both sides do their fair share. If you expect to coast through life and take the low-hanging fruit, then you have no right to be upset when all of that fruit is gone.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
Nobody has made it illegal to work. They've made it difficult for some to work, but it's a barrier, not a ban. There are people who have figured out how to make money by posting stupid crap on youtube, so if others can't figure out a way to at least get by, then that is on them. Should we all go broke keeping Blockbuster in business or embrace technology?
nostrum420
Well-known member
Humans are reward based creatures we understand this when it comes to top end pay but never bottom end. If you pay people the bare minimum, they're going to the least work they can get away with.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
If people want to limit themselves with those jobs, they're free to do so. Reward comes from striving to be better than minimum. With your thinking, nobody ever moves beyond minimum pay jobs and that simply isn't true. I started working a paper route as soon as I could and then at 14 in a shady ass "pharma" company on the south side of Chicago working for cash. I did the busboy and fast food thing in high school and college. Sold luggage in a department store. All of those useless jobs were examples of what I didn't want to do and drove me to do better.
I've also seen plenty of people make well into six figures and do the bare minimum required of their job and I've seen minimum wage workers go above and beyond. It comes down to the individual.
ax1
Legend
To tell you the truth I really miss Blockbuster and other video stores. Nothing like picking up a box and figuring out if its a good movie or not and coming back home with some microwave popcorn and everybody must see the movie because its rented and must be returned in a couple of days.
I have streaming services, I just dont get the same appreciation of the experience just picking up the remove and hitting play. Its not the same experience.
On the other hand in recent times, my wife and I really loved Movie Pass/Sinemia and then when AMC A-list came along that was the best ever. But those are the good old days when it was legal to go to a movie theater, lol.
ax1
Legend
Or you can get more out of people if companies chose to pay their employees based on production rather than any minimum. Minimum wages make the average person lazy.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
nostrum420
Well-known member
That's not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is while I did my first min wage jobs, they got a min of my effort.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
Then you got what you deserved. People don't deserve pensions and welfare because they can't figure out that they'd make more with a job that requires more effort.
nostrum420
Well-known member
I would say that the employer got what they deserved. The employer was continually having problems with things not getting done. Employers don't deserve people who work hard if they're not willing to pay a decent wage.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
You both did. If the employer was unhappy, they could replace the workers or try to inspire the existing workers to do more with higher pay or benefits. If the worker doesn't like being a worker, they're free to find a company they are happy at or become an employer themselves.
nostrum420
Well-known member
The free market can do no wrong, eh?