Well, fatslob isn't completely wrong here, although it differs for groups and time. George W. Bush could attack european people for not partaking in the Iraq-war and came away with it (probably even gained reputation for badmouthing french). Each president in the last years could simply continue to bomb people in Pakistan, Afganisthan, Iraq and Syria with drones and airplanes, because it may also hit a few terrorists (or who was declared one). It is pretty clear if you look into this, that most of the victims are not terrorists, they die simply because they live in the wrong country. That is not exactly offending these people, but I would argue it is worse. It didn't hurt any president. I think these bombings are highly racist too, think simply the outrage if a hellfire missile is fired onto a building in New York, because supposedly two terrorists entered the building. But because the victims are "only" arabs nobody really cares.

So, presidents and presidential candidates clearly can offend, attack or kill groups of people and it isn't hurting the election results.

 I discuss it.

It really depends on the situations. In some situations can the tax cut have the effect you describe. In others the businesses simply gain more profit but have no incentive to reinvest the gained profits. So no more jobs. Instead the owners could just save the money. On the other hand the government would cut back public spending because of decreased inflow of money. So the market would be drained of money. This could have a domino-effect, the loss of money in the market could make some businesses reduce their staff (because of the loss of demand), so these people would loose income and have less money to spend, so the market would even lose more liquid money and so on.

The best stimulant to the economy is having more money in the hands of people who instantly spend it. A pretty secure bet in this direction is more money for the poor, because they pretty much always have reasons to spend more money if they would have it.

Well most europe countries have better health care, higher life expectancy, lesser riots (like in Ferguson), lesser major health incidents (like in Flint), fewer poor people, fewer violence crime (especially murder, the US has five times the murder-rate as Germany, France and the UK) and better education. The US has only better stats in comparisons to countries like the Ukraine.

But yes, it makes sense to attack a european who begs for you to not vote Trump, not demanding, just begging.

I say: Go, choose your own poison. Hillary and Donald are equally bad, but whatever the days of the US as global leader are soon over anyway. So it doesn't matter much which way you go down.

Well, reality check: money IS made out of thin air.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money

Basically the banks create money if you get a credit and the money is destroyed if you pay the credit back. The whole systems starts off by the central bank giving banks credits.

So using fiat money to finance infrastructure instead of financing grwoing debts seems not completely irrational to me.

It is irrational.

If government have been so corrupt and ineffective in managing money that was borrowed with interest.

How well will government spending money when they can borrow money endlessly.

Usually when governments spend a lot of money they spend more money he he.

Why doesn't the government just print money ? If governments need 100 billion can they just make it out of thin air to buy votes?

We need to pick which of these is happening in the next few months


Economic collapse which causes Obama to be the last president
Hillary gets elected which leads to 2nd amendment being abolished
Trump gets in office and causes nuclear war
Terrorist attacks continue(like NJ/NY) and forces obama to declare martial law,election canceled

so third time obama :O

For ISSIS, there would be no ISSIS if we did not go to war with Iraq.  ISSIS is the product of US intervention and it lead to all of Saddam’s Troops going to Al Quada and creating ISSIS.  Also US going to war with Iraq because they had WMD and posed a threat to US was never confirmed at least not based on real intent.  Some reports stated we went to war because our favorite country in that Region, Israel wanted us to invade to take out Saddam because he was getting to big for his britches.  Crazy enough, US help put him in power then we take him out not because he is a bad person because he pissed off our big ally in that area.  My thing about Obama not taking the troops out and leaving an occupation force is that even if he did this he would be critiziced to no end.  It would have balloned our debt big time which we were already over 3 trillion just think about full occupation and a offensive in the area would have cost.  Republicans would have called it the Obama war and who is to say that ISSIS would not be even bigger because US decided to occupy the region going against our agreement and fueling even more resentment.  I highly doubt either action would have stopped ISSIS, because we would had to go full offensive in the region since ISSIS spread away from just Iraq into other countries would have prompted us to invade them as well.

The Trump speech was racist.  It would be different if he used words that did not include all Mexicans or if his speech just separated the criminals but instead he specially stated that Mexico is sending their murders and rapist without making a clear distinction.  Even during that speech, he said, “maybe some of them are good, I don’t know”.  Just that line alone implies that he doesn’t believe the people coming from Mexico are good people and kind of reinforces his previous statement.  If he stated that we need to be tougher on criminals and send them back to their country, then as you say we would not have any discussion on this point. 

My problem is that he makes these generic type of statements all the time which mean he either cannot express himself correctly or just do not care, either way it generates people forming the wrong opinion or more to his intent, the right opinion which he can then say wasn’t his intent. Its one thing for this to happen once but it happens way to often to not be a political ploy.  I do not believe Trump is racist, I believe he is a opportunist which is more dangerous.  He is fine with riling up people for political gain.  He is very much ok making up his own facts if it support his position which I really have a problem with. 

Its very interesting on the Obama third term.  So my wife was talking to a few Rebublican friends and they totally believe that Obama is positioning himself to serve a 3rd term or more.  They say that Obama is trying to undermine Hillary and paid Trump to be the complete fool so that he can institute a executive directive to serve another term.  Now I have heard some consipiracy theories before but this one is right out there.  Of couse if it happens I probably will have to go to them and eat crow but oh well.

Saddam himself was a product of US policy, namely the Reagan Doctrine. The Reagan Administration decided that they could not allow Khomeini to win the Iran-Iraq War, and Saddam was generously supplied with conventional and chemical weapons by the US, Russia, West Germany, France, and China. The US didn't care about Saddam using WMDs when they were being used against Iranians and Kurds.