Debate

[HALL85]

One way to look at this election is to put yourself in the shoes of the Chairman of the Board of Microsoft, and these are your choices to hire as CEO:

1) Jeffrey Skilling (Clinton)
2) Donald Trump (Trump)
3) The General Manager of one of your plants (Johnson)
4) Your VP of HR (Stein)

Your GM may not be camera-ready, lack experience and he would be learning on the job, but he's not dangerous and in this case, brings a good COO along with him in Weld. Maybe a simplistic way to view things, but I don't see how anyone can accuse anyone from wasting a vote in this election, given the choices.

 

[Bobbie Solo]

Really? Have you watched this guy speak at all? Anytime there is any type of spotlight on him, he has major screw ups that no person running for President should have. On top of that, he has a silly. goofy, odd ball personality which is very disturbing. I think there is something wrong with him psychologically.

i would never, ever vote for him. Libertarian ideology is crazy. Yeah lets end the EPA, DoE, the Fed & the DoEd & privatize social security. What could go wrong??? I do see with them on our interventionist policies around the world though. That's about it. Oh, and weed. haha.

 

[Bobbie Solo]

Obviously, some people, Woody Johnson being one of them, contributed 18 million to Trump in a 24 hour period. So his message appeals to some people,or it's anti Hillary cash. Neither Hillary or Donald will get 1 cent from me.

and this craziness is exactly why we need publically financed elections. No one should be getting 18 million from anyone for their campaign. Absurd.

 

[SnakeTom]

Obviously, some people, Woody Johnson being one of them, contributed 18 million to Trump in a 24 hour period. So his message appeals to some people,or it's anti Hillary cash. Neither Hillary or Donald will get 1 cent from me.

If Woody has 18 million to throw away, I'd prefer that he use it to lower the ticket prices for us Jets ticket holders !!!

Tom K

 

[Merge]

Your GM may not be camera-ready, lack experience and he would be learning on the job, but he's not dangerous and in this case, brings a good COO along with him in Weld. Maybe a simplistic way to view things, but I don't see how anyone can accuse anyone from wasting a vote in this election, given the choices.

Not a bad analogy... but for arguments sake... Assume your shareholders are voting and the GM has a 0% chance of actually becoming the CEO. Would you as a member of the board still cast your vote for the guy with a 0% chance or would you want to be a part of the actual decision?

Here is the way I see it. I completely understand why people vote 3rd party and if you don't care who wins between Trump and Clinton you should do exactly that. If you have a preference between the two, then I'd think it is more important to vote for that person.

 

[donnie_baseball]

Jill Stein is a lunatic. Johnson, sadly, is a dunce.

Cern, if you're in NJ, and I think you are, your vote doesn't matter, either. Hillary will carry the state.

The blame for this debacle of an election falls on both major parties, and the American people. This is what divisiveness, stoked by the policiticans on social issues, breeds.

I keep reading people like Andy Borowitz, wondering aloud where the education system failed that half of the country would vote for Trump. Woody Johnson is infinitely more educated than Borowitz, so maybe we need to take a closer look at why anyone would vote for a Trump, ever.

 

[knowknow456]

I do not agree with the platforms of either Jill Stein or Gary Johnson and will not be voting for either of them.

I do not agree with calling them lunatics and dunces. I believe it feeds into the divisive rhetoric that got us to the position we are at today.

 

[HALL85]

Not a bad analogy... but for arguments sake... Assume your shareholders are voting and the GM has a 0% chance of actually becoming the CEO. Would you as a member of the board still cast your vote for the guy with a 0% chance or would you want to be a part of the actual decision?

Here is the way I see it. I completely understand why people vote 3rd party and if you don't care who wins between Trump and Clinton you should do exactly that. If you have a preference between the two, then I'd think it is more important to vote for that person.

As a Board member, absolutely you would vote for the GM. You never hire someone who is dangerous that can destroy the business and also have it blow-back on the Board. I would not want to be party to a decision I thought brought that great risk to the company.

 

[knowknow456]

The Board Analogy doesn't work for me. You could hire anyone for the CEO spot as long as the Board provided sufficient guidance. We are hiring a President. There is no Board to guide him.

 

[SPK145]

The Board Analogy doesn't work for me. You could hire anyone for the CEO spot as long as the Board provided sufficient guidance. We are hiring a President. There is no Board to guide him.

Say what??

Congress is suppose to guide him/her, the president is not a dictator but the Chief Executive, THAT'S HIS/HER EXACT JOB DESCRIPTION!! He/she is not suppose to make policy; he/she is suppose to faithfully execute the laws of as passed by congress!!! Why is that so hard for so many to comprehend anymore?? That is one of the real problems in America today.

 

[Piratz]

If we think this campaign is bad now, wait until Trump gets into Bill Clinton's behavior. He's been frothing to go there; he loves living there. That's Trump.

This whole thing is a joke.

 

[cernjSHU]

Say what??

Congress is suppose to guide him/her, the president is not a dictator but the Chief Executive, THAT'S HIS/HER EXACT JOB DESCRIPTION!! He/she is not suppose to make policy; he/she is suppose to faithfully execute the laws of as passed by congress!!! Why is that so hard for so many to comprehend anymore?? That is one of the real problems in America today.

You know we have had great Presidents in the past. Truman, Roosevelt, Lincoln, Monroe and Jefferson. Did any of theses great Presidents not make policy? You mean a President is just supposed to just execute the will of Congress? Come on. Stop it. That is not reality. We want Strong Presidents that lead us.

 

[Merge]

Say what??

Congress is suppose to guide him/her, the president is not a dictator but the Chief Executive, THAT'S HIS/HER EXACT JOB DESCRIPTION!! He/she is not suppose to make policy; he/she is suppose to faithfully execute the laws of as passed by congress!!! Why is that so hard for so many to comprehend anymore?? That is one of the real problems in America today.

The constitution states he should recommend measures for the consideration of congress that he deems necessary or expedient.

The president is supposed to guide congress in policy.

 

[SPK145]

The constitution states he should recommend measures for the consideration of congress that he deems necessary or expedient.

The president is supposed to guide congress in policy.

That's the Recommendation Clause, merely to recommend not legislate, that power remains with congress.

"The Recommendation Clause also imposes an executive duty on the President. His recommendations respect the equal dignity of Congress and thus embody the anti-royalty sentiment that ignited the American Revolution and subsequently stripped the trappings of monarchy away from the new chief executive. Through his recommendations to Congress, the President speaks collectively for the People as they petition Government for a redress of grievances, and thus his recommendations embody popular sovereignty. The President tailors his recommendations so that their natural implication is the enactment of new legislation, rather than some other action that Congress might undertake.Finally, the President shall have executive discretion to recommend measures of his choosing."

It's not to guide congress in general but to recommend basically emergency measures.

 

[SnakeTom]

If we think this campaign is bad now, wait until Trump gets into Bill Clinton's behavior. He's been frothing to go there; he loves living there. That's Trump.

This whole thing is a joke.

All the more proof that he has no business being President. Should not the President be more concerned with real issues rather than National Enquirer type material. especially from someone whose private life has been just as shady as those he is going after if not more so.

TK

 

[cernjSHU]

Cern, if you're in NJ, and I think you are, your vote doesn't matter, either. Hillary will carry the state.

Donnie, I am not so sure. I think it will be much closer in NJ than people think. I would be surprised if she wins it will be more than 3% difference between the two candidates.

 

[donnie_baseball]

Donnie, I am not so sure. I think it will be much closer in NJ than people think. I would be surprised if she wins it will be more than 3% difference between the two candidates.

I have no inside information, lol, but I'd wager it will be a healthy 20 points. Did Reagan or either Bush get withing 3 percentage points in NJ?

 

[Piratz]

All the more proof that he has no business being President. Should not the President be more concerned with real issues rather than National Enquirer type material. especially from someone whose private life has been just as shady as those he is going after if not more so.

TK

Absolutely. Think of all the opportunities he's had to reframe the discussions, look Presidential, and beat her in real issues with real ideas. Especially considering he could ride this anti-government wave along with touting himself as a businessman.

Instead he shows his thin skin, lack of discipline, sophomoric insults, and overall unfitness for the Office, IMO. But that's going to play with people who just despise her. Trump's right when he says he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and be fine with his supporters.

This is not a serious person. This idea that he'll get into office, roll up his sleeves, and make great deals is misleading to me, too. He'll be a perpetual campaigner. His legacy will be the birther movement to discredit the first minority President. Unreal.

 

[shu09]

I have no inside information, lol, but I'd wager it will be a healthy 20 points. Did Reagan or either Bush get withing 3 percentage points in NJ?

Reagan and the first Bush won NJ in 80, 84 & 88. The first Bush lost NJ by only 2.4% in 1992.

No candidate has won this state by 20+ points since Reagan in 1984 and Nixon in 1972. The last Democrat to win NJ by 20+ points was LBJ in 1964. I highly, highly doubt that Hillary Clinton wins this state by that much. I'm thinking she'll win by 8-12 points.

 

[Piratz]

The Presidency really changed during the Civil War era, and permanently when we became an interventionist country overseas when strong leadership was sought, in contrast to the governance role I think it may've been originally designed to be.

Then our political system drove it drive the bus and we've seen that morph into such a level that there is no longer compromise and harmony between the Office and Congress.

<Cue Mr. Executive Order>

 

[Piratz]

Reagan and the first Bush won NJ in 80, 84 & 88. The first Bush lost NJ by only 2.4% in 1992.

No candidate has won this state by 20+ points since Reagan in 1984 and Nixon in 1972. The last Democrat to win NJ by 20+ points was LBJ in 1964. I highly, highly doubt that Hillary Clinton wins this state by that much. I'm thinking she'll win by 8-12 points.

Good stuff and agreed.

And a completely different generation of voters, economic woes, and platforms then.

 

[HALL85]

Reagan and the first Bush won NJ in 80, 84 & 88. The first Bush lost NJ by only 2.4% in 1992.

No candidate has won this state by 20+ points since Reagan in 1984 and Nixon in 1972. The last Democrat to win NJ by 20+ points was LBJ in 1964. I highly, highly doubt that Hillary Clinton wins this state by that much. I'm thinking she'll win by 8-12 points.

Demographics have changed dramatically in NJ over the last 30 years. Much more diverse (Asian, Indian, Hispanic etc.) and a much different workforce. I think its a pretty sure thing that HRC wins big in NJ.

I work in PA and have been listening a lot to some folks in the government and industry that I've been in meetings or know. Philly is obviously a big swing factor for HRC, but there is this underlying feeling that they will hold their nose, vote Trump, since there is no tolerance at all for Hillary. Unless something happens in the next few weeks, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Trump won PA.

 

[Merge]

Unless something happens in the next few weeks, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Trump won PA.

It's possible, but I would be surprised if he did.
Looking at the polling data in the state, it is rare that he hits as high as 45%, and it is also almost as rare that Hillary is below 45%. For Trump to win PA there would need a 5% shift in the electorate from what happened in 2012. Possible... juts unlikely.

 

[Merge]

It's not to guide congress in general but to recommend basically emergency measures.

How are you getting emergency measures from "measures of her choosing"?

"The words of these two clauses reveal the sophistication of the Framers' design by highlighting that the President, through her institutionally unique ability to acquire and analyze information valuable to the leadership of the Republic, would have more to contribute to the making of laws than merely to sign off on their creation by another branch"

 

[knowknow456]

SPK always has an interesting take when it comes to Constitutional civics lessons, but he didn't address the issue being discussed.

At Microsoft, the Board hires the CEO. In an election, the people elect the President. At Microsoft, the Board can have direct and positive influence to guide their inexperienced CEO. As for the President, while the will of the people is important, they cannot possibly provide the kind of guidance that a Board of Directors could provide.

Of course, a President has Congress, his Cabinet and others to advise him but all those people are equal or subordinate to the President. As a result, I find the proposed analogy to be incomplete.

However, if that comparison makes someone more comfortable about voting for Stein or Johnson, it's OK by me, but personally, I would not use that as justification for voting for either of them.

 

[SPK145]

SPK always has an interesting take when it comes to Constitutional civics lessons, but he didn't address the issue being discussed.

At Microsoft, the Board hires the CEO. In an election, the people elect the President. At Microsoft, the Board can have direct and positive influence to guide their inexperienced CEO. As for the President, while the will of the people is important, they cannot possibly provide the kind of guidance that a Board of Directors could provide.

Of course, a President has Congress, his Cabinet and others to advise him but all those people are equal or subordinate to the President. As a result, I find the proposed analogy to be incomplete.

However, if that comparison makes someone more comfortable about voting for Stein or Johnson, it's OK by me, but personally, I would not use that as justification for voting for either of them.

Point taken.

 

[SPK145]

How are you getting emergency measures from "measures of her choosing"?

"The words of these two clauses reveal the sophistication of the Framers' design by highlighting that the President, through her institutionally unique ability to acquire and analyze information valuable to the leadership of the Republic, would have more to contribute to the making of laws than merely to sign off on their creation by another branch"

I guess it's based on who's quotes on the Recommendation Clause you use.

 

[HALL85]

SPK always has an interesting take when it comes to Constitutional civics lessons, but he didn't address the issue being discussed.

At Microsoft, the Board hires the CEO. In an election, the people elect the President. At Microsoft, the Board can have direct and positive influence to guide their inexperienced CEO. As for the President, while the will of the people is important, they cannot possibly provide the kind of guidance that a Board of Directors could provide.

Of course, a President has Congress, his Cabinet and others to advise him but all those people are equal or subordinate to the President. As a result, I find the proposed analogy to be incomplete.

However, if that comparison makes someone more comfortable about voting for Stein or Johnson, it's OK by me, but personally, I would not use that as justification for voting for either of them.

I was not trying to create an apples-to-apples analogy. An inexperienced CEO or President can also proactively get the support and guidance (vs. being pig-headed and acting like a know-it-all like a certain inexperienced President that was elected). My point was that as a Board member you have a responsibility to vote for who you think is the best choice for the CEO; not to go along with the herd because your choice has little chance.

 

[Merge]

I guess it's based on who's quotes on the Recommendation Clause you use.

Should have pointed out that the quote I used was from the same place as the quote you posted.

 

[HALL85]

It's possible, but I would be surprised if he did.
Looking at the polling data in the state, it is rare that he hits as high as 45%, and it is also almost as rare that Hillary is below 45%. For Trump to win PA there would need a 5% shift in the electorate from what happened in 2012. Possible... juts unlikely.

The polls are the polls...just giving my observations from multiple conversations I've had across the state over the past few weeks. It's just not connecting with the poll numbers. Just saying I wouldn't be at all surprised if Trump takes PA.

 

[donnie_baseball]

Reagan and the first Bush won NJ in 80, 84 & 88. The first Bush lost NJ by only 2.4% in 1992.

No candidate has won this state by 20+ points since Reagan in 1984 and Nixon in 1972. The last Democrat to win NJ by 20+ points was LBJ in 1964. I highly, highly doubt that Hillary Clinton wins this state by that much. I'm thinking she'll win by 8-12 points.

Thanks, 09. Clearly too lazy to do the research myself!

 

[SnakeTom]

If I were to take a guess I think the final result in New Jersey would be about Clinton 52%, Trump 45% with Johnson & Stein combined at about 3%.

TK

 

[Merge]

If I were to take a guess I think the final result in New Jersey would be about Clinton 52%, Trump 45% with Johnson & Stein combined at about 3%.

TK

fwiw, Trump has not reached 45% in a single poll of NJ voters.
I would be shocked if he gets that much of the state.

 

[Seton75]

I was not trying to create an apples-to-apples analogy. An inexperienced CEO or President can also proactively get the support and guidance (vs. being pig-headed and acting like a know-it-all like a certain inexperienced President that was elected). My point was that as a Board member you have a responsibility to vote for who you think is the best choice for the CEO; not to go along with the herd because your choice has little chance.

You hammer this as an Obama shortcoming pretty often. Does the Senate Majority Leader's statement that the purpose of his party in Congress is to make sure Obama is a one turn pres deserve any of the blame for the lack of cooperation? You know as well as I if a repub worked with him, he would be vilified like Christie was after Sandy.

 

[HALL85]

You hammer this as an Obama shortcoming pretty often. Does the Senate Majority Leader's statement that the purpose of his party in Congress is to make sure Obama is a one turn pres deserve any of the blame for the lack of cooperation? You know as well as I if a repub worked with him, he would be vilified like Christie was after Sandy.

He certainly does....but as I've said all along, Republican and Democratic leadership along with Obama are collectively responsible for this mess.