Latest Polls Show Nominating Hillary Was A Huge Mistake

[Paul Markham]

[MiamiBoyz]

[2MuchMark]

I would agree. I think Bernie Sanders would have aced this election. Failing that, Hillary should have made Liz Warren her running mate. These 2 giant mistakes could cost the dems the election. I was SURE Hillary was going to win but now I'm not. Crap crap crap.

[LetterTwenty7]

This presidential race is Hillaryous

[Major (Tom)]

Originally Posted by **********

I would agree. I think Bernie Sanders would have aced this election. Failing that, Hillary should have made Liz Warren her running mate. These 2 giant mistakes could cost the dems the election. I was SURE Hillary was going to win but now I'm not. Crap crap crap.

Did you & rochard call an emergency meeting this am?

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by LetterTwenty7

This presidential race is Hillaryous

What makes it hilarious is the delusional element who swear life is better under Obama. Don't get me wrong I think he's done a good job. If he had lost life would have been worse. The problem is all the other politicians who like Clinton are in it for their own gain and owned by big money.

Americans don't see what a joke their elections are seen as. Big Business auctioning politicians. No matter who wins, they all get a slice.

[mineistaken]

Originally Posted by DukeSkywalker

Did you & rochard call an emergency meeting this am?

[woj]

Originally Posted by LetterTwenty7

This presidential race is Hillaryous

the most amusing part is watching everyone here go from "that idiot will drop out of the race in 2 weeks"... to "I was SURE Hillary was going to win but now I'm not." ...

[daTools]

Looking at the video of her latest so called fainting episodes, I would guess that she has some serious neurological disorder. Her head was gyrating while her body was limp?

[Barry-xlovecam]

The party of NO and the party of YES ...



It ain't over 'til the ''fat lady sings."
Watch the point spread after the debates that will mark the final run for the money.

Hillary was the strongest choice of the Democratic party and Trump the strongest choice of the current Republican voter coalition.

The are a lot more people trying to share the finite resources of this world -- you cannot turn back the hands of time.



Neither is a very promising choice IMHO ... Remember, FDR led this country out of the Great Depression and through WWII with leg braces and from a wheelchair. So, I discount these tenuous health claims from both sides. Hillary and Trump are almost the same age and would probably live out 2 terms in office easily. Neither has great leadership qualities nor any exemplary intellect that I can see.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

The party of NO and the party of YES ...



It ain't over 'til the ''fat lady sings."
Watch the point spread after the debates that will mark the final run for the money.

Hillary was the strongest choice of the Democratic party and Trump the strongest choice of the current Republican voter coalition.

The are a lot more people trying to share the finite resources of this world -- you cannot turn back the hands of time.



Neither is a very promising choice IMHO ... Remember, FDR led this country out of the Great Depression and through WWII with leg braces and from a wheelchair. So, I discount these tenuous health claims from both sides. Hillary and Trump are almost the same age and would probably live out 2 terms in office easily. Neither has great leadership qualities nor any exemplary intellect that I can see.

You see it as the Yes and No people. When in fact, it's those people's reality. Could it be true that life was better 50 years ago, that our kids face bigger problems than we did, that people are sick of multiculturalism being forced on them and that trade agreements have led to the loss of millions of decent jobs?

[Paul Markham]

There are two interesting statistics on Barry's chart.

Will increase the minimum wage help and can the Government afford to do more?

Increasing the minimum wage without limiting migration and employing illegals won't help. It also won't help those without as job. Can the US Government afford to spend more of other people's money? Think on that one.

Neither Clinton or Trump have the qualities to lead the Free World, Obama had more qualities and was waylaid at every opportunity by the Republicans. Can the Free World afford to be led by people who are in the pockets of Big Corporations or Big Government? No to both.

The Big Corporations and billionaires should be banned from donating if they were drug dealers it would be illegal. Criminals and businessmen buy political power for the same reasons.

Big Government is also a big NO. Yesterday Claude Junker said there would be no access to the Single Market unless the UK accepts Freedom of Movement. Migration is tearing Europe apart, but this pipsqueak from a nothing principality who has never done anything of note. Is telling all Europe to take whoever decides to move. Will he pay for the houses, provide jobs, healthcare, etc? No, that's not his problem.

You have Big Business telling you and us what will happen. We have the EU.

[mineistaken]

Lol at YES and NO. Specifically 15 minimum wage. Freeloaders YES, working people NO.

[arock10]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

You see it as the Yes and No people. When in fact, it's those people's reality. Could it be true that life was better 50 years ago, that our kids face bigger problems than we did, that people are sick of multiculturalism being forced on them and that trade agreements have led to the loss of millions of decent jobs?

Member when there was fewer Mexicans?

[Barry-xlovecam]

Life wasn't so great in 1966 I was 11 yrs old and have perfect recall.

Workers, in contrast, rely heavily on the human capital they bring to the workplace – human capital they draw from weak systems of K–12 education and workforce training. Lacking global mobility, workers and small businesses cannot escape the negative impacts of America’s political system, tax code, healthcare system, costly regulation, and crumbling infrastructure. In short, large companies benefit from America’s greatest strengths, while workers and small businesses are captives of the nation’s major weaknesses.

The evidence on workforce skills and K–12 education is typical of what we see for many of America’s weaknesses and declining strengths. Workforce skills and K–12 education are crucial to the economic prospects of working and middle-class Americans, and nothing is more important to wages and job security than valuable and scarce skills. The best evidence is that American human capital has improved over time, but not at the pace set by global competition.

Today, a defining feature of America’s situation is the lack of shared prosperity: working and middle-class citizens are struggling, while those with advanced skills are thriving. We highlighted this issue in prior reports, and raised concerns that this divergence was unsustainable and would create deep divisions in our society, leading Americans to turn against each other rather than implement the compromise solutions we need. These fears have now become a reality. We are experiencing the most divisive and polarized presidential election campaign in a century.

HBR -- HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL SURVEY ON U.S. COMPETITIVENESS



Where you are on the ''food chain'' and your educational level and skill level has a lot to do with your trajectory ...



$100 in 1977 is worth $400 today
$100 in 1990 is worth $185 today
$100 in 2000 is worth $140 today

Are you behind the curve -- and why?
If you are trying to compete with 1 billion people globally with no edge -- you are fucked.
Growth rates are in a very narrow segment of occupations and wages are much higher in larger and traded businesses.



U.S. Competitiveness - Harvard Business School Read more

[Barry-xlovecam]

People that are in very small businesses are overwhelmingly negative



Educational attainment and skill levels determine where you stand



More yes/no from alumni respondents showing wide divisions by party affiliation



These charts are a bit slanted but they do reflect the views of corporate America.

Have fun trying to "eat the rich" ...

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Life wasn't so great in 1966 I was 11 yrs old and have perfect recall.


HBR -- HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL SURVEY ON U.S. COMPETITIVENESS

There's a very significant portion in that article.

Today, a defining feature of America’s situation is the lack of shared prosperity: working and middle-class citizens are struggling, while those with advanced skills are thriving.

It's 100% right but left out something very important. The percentage with those skills is small and getting smaller. Eventually, it will hit those people's core markets. Then unless you're making something the Elite need. You're screwed. Consider the Chinese already build some of the most advanced products.

Where you are on the ''food chain'' and your educational level and skill level has a lot to do with your trajectory ...



$100 in 1977 is worth $400 today
$100 in 1990 is worth $185 today
$100 in 2000 is worth $140 today

Are you behind the curve -- and why?
If you are trying to compete with 1 billion people globally with no edge -- you are fucked.
Growth rates are in a very narrow segment of occupations and wages are much higher in larger and traded businesses.

Job creation with the other charts shows the jobs being created are low paid. These charts are changing as we speak so consider where they will be in 10 years.

The next post shows how Corporate America and the rich want things to progress.

Who will they sell to when no one can afford their prices? That's what the world was like 150 years ago. Watch Downton Abbey? And similar dramas.

[Paul Markham]

Here's how they fool the masses.

Take GDP, deduct inflation, deduct borrowing (no one is richer because they're maxing out their credit cards), deduct the slice taken by the top 5% including that sent to tax havens. Then divide that per capita.

The last 100years in the West has seen a huge leveling of the playing fields among the rich and poor. This is only happening in the West and only in the last 100 years. It has no claim to be the norm because it's not normal.

Go around and see how most of the World lives with huge gaps between the rich and poor, with small middle classes. Go back 200 years and compare the wages of a worker and his employer.

If the rich buy cars that cost 5 times more than they do now and sell 80% less. They're on the same income. If the workforce costs the same as it did in 1816, his income is greater.

Scary? Run those graphs Barry showed forward 50 years and include China taking more jobs, including high skilled ones and automation taking the rest. Except those like waiters and butlers. Plus those selling to the masses, whoops sorry Walmart own those.
Those who think it can't happen. Show why.

[marlboroack]

I don't think anything is accurate .