Trump

[Play Angry]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-donald-trump/

Your comment made me think of this article. We hear a lot about national poling numbers. However, national polling numbers really don't matter. The Electoral college does...right, wrong, or indifferent. There are 19 states that have gone blue for the past six elections. If those hold serve, only 28 more electoral votes are needed for Hillary to win. To combat this, Trump must either clean house elsewhere (Ohio and Florida being HUGE) or somehow flip one of those previously mentioned 19 states. I suppose that New York theoretically could flip, as it is Trump's home state. I have also heard that Pennsylvania has potential to be up in the air as the coal miners hate Hillary.

But yeah...Kansas will be very inconsquential to this.

Yeah, it will be interesting - I think the Trump campaign is going to be a little different animal when it comes to the electoral map since he's already out-liberaled Hillary on trade (hello unions) and foreign policy, and doesn't really give a darn about any of the favorite issues of evangelicals (especially now that the primary season is over).

I can see him, in a best-case scenario, having a chance to flip FL, VA, OH, PA, ME (he is basically LePage), WI, MN, and IA with NM and NV as longshots.

Of the states Romney carried, I can see AZ and MO being at risk with possibly TX as a longshot.

It will be fascinating since the coalitions at play are different this time around.

[wsushox1]

Again, I must urge you guys to vote Tim Pawlenty because the first daughters would be so beautiful. 14th and Ohio may be getting to me buuuuuuut damn

**** joco KU fans

[Aargh]

I'm with JH4P on this. In Kansas, whoever has the (R) will get the electoral votes out of Kansas. The only thing you can do with your vote is to not give endorsement to candidates you do not support. Dems who don't like Hillary should write in their preferred candidate,. Repubs who don't like Trump should write in their choice. Do everything you can do to ensure that a candidate you do not support does not appear to have a mandate from the voters.

It's already a 100% certainty that Trump will get the electoral votes from Kansas. The best you can do with your vote is to refuse to suppor6t either candidate. Don't give them a single vote they can hang their hat on to think they have the American voters behind them.

[MoValley John]

I'm with JH4P on this. In Kansas, whoever has the (R) will get the electoral votes out of Kansas. The only thing you can do with your vote is to not give endorsement to candidates you do not support. Dems who don't like Hillary should write in their preferred candidate,. Repubs who don't like Trump should write in their choice. Do everything you can do to ensure that a candidate you do not support does not appear to have a mandate from the voters.

It's already a 100% certainty that Trump will get the electoral votes from Kansas. The best you can do with your vote is to refuse to suppor6t either candidate. Don't give them a single vote they can hang their hat on to think they have the American voters behind them.

Mandate. I hate that word. Rarely does the word apply, but always the winner claims one.

[wufan]

Libertarianism in its extreme form, is an unworkable form of government. Here are a couple of arguments as to why:
* - Some amount of regulation of business is needed. Business, by its own efforts, will not design safe products, will not protect your investments and savings and will not act in the best interests of society. Business acts in its own best interest, which sometimes screws business partners and consumers.
* - Libertarianism is unable to react to emerging risks to the population as a whole. For instance, 5 years ago, a libertarian would probably argue that the government doesn't need to be in the cybersecurity business, as it is not a core function of government. Then the Chinese start stealing all our intellectual property and breaking into government servers (including DOD and State). While I would not call the current state of affairs as ideal (congress can't seem to get their act together to pass a sweeping cybersecurity bill), in a libertarian environment, the debate would not be around what we should be doing, but whether we should be doing anything about it at all.

I would prefer that our taxes be fair and our elected representatives be judicious about how they spend our money. Of course, neither party does that right now, but this is a reason our political system does not represent the 'common citizen' anymore.

I disagree with the first premise that business is inherently evil.

[shock]

Business is driven by capitalism. If a product is unworkable someone will make a comparable one that is and profit.

[shocka khan]

I disagree with the first premise that business is inherently evil.

And since you can't craft a coherent argument, I don't care. I think business, including pharma, fosters environments nowadays where it simply takes the wrong management team to be evil.

For instance, why does big pharma piss and moan for what amounts to subsidies (tax breaks) and yet we pay the highest prescription rates in the world? Do you think that what their doing is an honest proposition for John Q. Public?

[wufan]

And since you can't craft a coherent argument, I don't care. I think business, including pharma, fosters environments nowadays where it simply takes the wrong management team to be evil.

For instance, why does big pharma piss and moan for what amounts to subsidies (tax breaks) and yet we pay the highest prescription rates in the world? Do you think that what their doing is an honest proposition for John Q. Public?

My original statement is one of philosophy. I believe that people are inherently good, and when given the opportunity, they will generally do what is best. By extension, I believe the those that run corporations are inherently good and will do what is ethical (generally). I understand that you don't agree with this, and I'm not arguing that you should. It is what I believe. As I believe this statement, I dispute your statement that business is inherently evil, and by extension that a libertarian policy is not workable.

[Aargh]

My original statement is one of philosophy. I believe that people are inherently good, and when given the opportunity, they will generally do what is best. By extension, I believe the those that run corporations are inherently good and will do what is ethical (generally). I understand that you don't agree with this, and I'm not arguing that you should. It is what I believe. As I believe this statement, I dispute your statement that business is inherently evil, and by extension that a libertarian policy is not workable.

It doesn't take many bad ones to ruin it for the good ones Profit maximization is considered "good". Some of the things done to achieve that are less "good". Like WalMart paying such low wages that they (at least they used to) gave their new empl;oyees all the forms to fill out so they could get governemnt assistance. Exporting manufacturing jobs to 3rd Worlds countries that sometimes use children in some pretty bad working conditions. Exporting textiles , shoes, and fabrics to 3rd World countries where sweatshops are SOP. Those don't strike me as "good" acts, but they do maximize profits.

Then there's Love Canal (illegal toxic waste landfill covered with dirt and sold as a residential development). Times Beach, Missouri (streets soaked down with oil containing dioxins to hold down dust - dioxins were required to be incinerated, but it's cheaper just to spread them on residential streets). Then there are the towns in SE Kansas and NE Oklahoma that are so polluted that the government ended up buying them just so the residents had a way to get out of there. Then there are rivers that used to regularly catch on fire.

Unregulated business does not have a good track record. Maybe the people running those businesses were good, but they did tremendous damage in order to stcik a few more dollars into their bottom lines.

If hiding income, using creative accounting to avoid paying taxes, and other actions to prevent the government from getting funds that legally are owed to the government falls under the definition of "good", then you will find a lot of good in upper management of businesses.

[SHOCKvalue]

Business is driven by capitalism. If a product is unworkable someone will make a comparable one that is and profit.

Thanks Mr. Buffett.

[wufan]

It doesn't take many bad ones to ruin it for the good ones Profit maximization is considered "good". Some of the things done to achieve that are less "good". Like WalMart paying such low wages that they (at least they used to) gave their new empl;oyees all the forms to fill out so they could get governemnt assistance. Exporting manufacturing jobs to 3rd Worlds countries that sometimes use children in some pretty bad working conditions. Exporting textiles , shoes, and fabrics to 3rd World countries where sweatshops are SOP. Those don't strike me as "good" acts, but they do maximize profits.

Then there's Love Canal (illegal toxic waste landfill covered with dirt and sold as a residential development). Times Beach, Missouri (streets soaked down with oil containing dioxins to hold down dust - dioxins were required to be incinerated, but it's cheaper just to spread them on residential streets). Then there are the towns in SE Kansas and NE Oklahoma that are so polluted that the government ended up buying them just so the residents had a way to get out of there. Then there are rivers that used to regularly catch on fire.

Unregulated business does not have a good track record. Maybe the people running those businesses were good, but they did tremendous damage in order to stcik a few more dollars into their bottom lines.

If hiding income, using creative accounting to avoid paying taxes, and other actions to prevent the government from getting funds that legally are owed to the government falls under the definition of "good", then you will find a lot of good in upper management of businesses.

How about the billions of dollars donated by businesses every year to various charities? Job creation? Taxable revenue? Those are all good things. In fact, I could take it a step further and say that Wal-Mart offers goods at a lower cost thereby increasing the standard of living of their customers. Possibly raising wages could have caused Wal-Mart to become less competitive then everyone loses their job when the store shuts down. The small town now pays a much higher rate for basic goods and more people leave. There is less revenue and everyone is worse off for it. That is one possible reason for not increasing wages.

[Eric]

The small business I own exists for a couple of reasons, to provide goods and services to the public, to provide an income for my employees, and first and foremost, to make my living. If that's evil, then so be it.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

I'm with JH4P on this. In Kansas, whoever has the (R) will get the electoral votes out of Kansas. The only thing you can do with your vote is to not give endorsement to candidates you do not support. Dems who don't like Hillary should write in their preferred candidate,. Repubs who don't like Trump should write in their choice. Do everything you can do to ensure that a candidate you do not support does not appear to have a mandate from the voters.

It's already a 100% certainty that Trump will get the electoral votes from Kansas. The best you can do with your vote is to refuse to support either candidate. Don't give them a single vote they can hang their hat on to think they have the American voters behind them.

@Aargh: - that makes way to much sense. Unfortunately the majority of American citizens are too stupid to do that. And I do mean that in every insulting way possible.

[SB Shock]

@Aargh: - that makes way to much sense. Unfortunately the majority of American citizens are too stupid to do that. And I do mean that in every insulting way possible.

LOL, I guess the fact that a majority of Americans don't vote is evidently lost on u.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

LOL, I guess the fact that a majority of Americans don't vote is evidently lost on u.