Ohio is no longer a political bellwhether (Columbus, Hamilton: how much, house)

[woxyroxme]

Originally Posted by WRnative

Perhaps even economic-disadvantaged Ohioans who yearn for what Trump is selling yet will recognize that Trump truly is "unfit" to be President!

Big news flash, Hillary is just as unfit to be president. The only option to vote for a quality candidate is third party.

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by woxyroxme

Big news flash, Hillary is just as unfit to be president. The only option to vote for a quality candidate is third party.

What "big news flash?" The big news story is that almost all major newspaper editorial boards in the U.S., including those of several newspapers that have NEVER endorsed a Democrat for President in many decades, if ever, disagree with you.

Republican-leaning papers endorse Clinton; what will the Wall Street Journal do? - LA Times

Trump supporters apparently live in their own news zone, perhaps Trump's Twitter feed, even though even that should raise red flags about Trump's fitness for the Presidency.

USA Today's editorial board said that Trump was "unfit" to be President, not Hillary Clinton. Read the first post here and then tell us why the USA Today editorial board is wrong.

USA Today: Trump "unfit for presidency"

Hillary Clinton would never rebuke/ignore climate change scientists who warn of the greatest catastrophe in human history. Clinton would not praise a despot such as Vladimir Putin, who has single-handedly destroyed Russian democracy, invaded the Ukraine, otherwise threatened European peace, engaged in an aggressive cyber campaign against the U.S., and supported the despotic Assad regime in Syria with military force. That's just for starters.

I would love to be able to vote for third party candidates, but that's a fool's game until an absolute majority voting system is established in Ohio. I would vote for such an Ohio Constitutional amendment in a heart's beat. Would you?

http://aceproject.org/main/english/bd/bda01b.htm

In the meantime, we can't afford to have Donald Trump elected President of the U.S.

[WRnative]

Apparently the Cincinnati Enquirer didn't even endorse Franklin Roosevelt, but feels impelled to endorse Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

<<The Enquirer has supported Republicans for president for almost a century – a tradition this editorial board doesn’t take lightly. But this is not a traditional race, and these are not traditional times. Our country needs calm, thoughtful leadership to deal with the challenges we face at home and abroad. We need a leader who will bring out the best in all Americans, not the worst.

That’s why there is only one choice when we elect a president in November: Hillary Clinton.>>


Enquirer: It has to be Hillary Clinton


Now that was big news, especially in Ohio.



Major Ohio paper endorses Clinton after years of backing GOP - CNNPolitics.com

[woxyroxme]

Hillary's history of corruption speaks for itself, and I am no Trump supporter.

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by woxyroxme

Hillary's history of corruption speaks for itself, and I am no Trump supporter.

Yeah, right. You've certainly drunk the Trump Kool-Aid and, like Trump supporters, seem to be forcing it down the throats of others.

It's one thing to say you can't vote for Clinton, and then list the reasons why. It's quite another thing IMO to equate her unfitness to be President with that of Donald Trump.

BTW, where's your "big news flash?" We're waiting.

[WRnative]

How "unfit" is Trump when fellow Republican Ohio Governor John Kasich says publicly that he "very, very likely" won't vote for Trump because "it is country first."

https://www.nbcumv.com/news/mtp-sund...mp?show=151257

Has any sitting Democratic governor said anything so critically negative about Hillary Clinton while declaring their intent to vote for another Presidential candidate? Not one of which I'm aware.

[ohio_peasant]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Never care much for the whole "demographics" thing, which really just means "race", which is in itself vague and poorly qualified. ...

By my reckoning, "demographics" refers primarily to age-distribution. What's the ratio of school-aged kids, to young adults, to older adults in the workforce, to retirees? My neighborhood is primarily 60+. If Ohio is going to be dominated by older people who are too poor to relocate, or younger people who are too economically stressed to have kids, then the population and the economy will suffer. Sure, demographics can be a sly euphemism for race, but more importantly, it's a statement about whether we have enough working-age people (tax papers today) and kids (tax payers of the future)... or if we're going to be a state comprised primarily by retirees.

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

As for stocks, when the Fed finally has to raise rates, they're done. My guess is that if Trump wins, expect a December rate hike. Stocks are going to go down, and people are going to blame Trump because Americans don't understand economics as a general concept, let alone the Federal Reserve. They'll do their best to make sure he is a one-term president (but for the record, rate hikes is what this country really does need; in my opinion monetary policy is much more relevant than presidential politics for the economy). Now if Hillary wins, they'll eventually have to raise rates, but will need time to buy an unrelated excuse to justify poor performing stocks- Russia seems to be a good scapegoat).

And yes, Clinton and Trump are both keynesians. They just differ a bit in priorities and scale on some things. Both seem to be all about massive infrastructure investments.

My position is exactly the opposite. Interest rates need to remain low, to boost demand. There isn't enough dynamism in private investment, to keep the global economies going. Governments need to unify in a monetary approach to boosting economic activities, by low rates and "Quantitative Easing". indeed, it was a policy of rampant austerity in Europe, that has been responsible for the outsized outperformance by American stocks, compared to European stocks, since 2007.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Eh, Mexicans aren't as conservative as people think. Yes, they are overwhelmingly Catholic, and it permeates the culture heavily, but there is a distinct difference between Catholics/Christians of Mexico and those in the US...

My impression is that American Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant, are more conservative than most of their counterparts elsewhere in the world, in matters of sexual morality or of public embrace of Christian dictates (such as display of the 10 Commandments or usage of Biblical verbiage in formulating public laws). In much of the world, Christianity forms a backdrop of culture – festivals and village life, cathedrals, art, culinary and decorative traditions. It's a sense of community and ethno-cultural identity. It is not "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior". Europeans in particular are Catholic in the sense of celebrating a European identity, which for 17 centuries has been shaped by Christianity. Overt, militant and judgmental Christianity is comparatively rare. I think that Mexico is actually quite "European" in this sense.

Ironically, American Christianity most resembles Middle Eastern Islam, in its insistence on moral purity and the fusion of religious dictum and civic law.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by woxyroxme

Hillary's history of corruption speaks for itself, and I am no Trump supporter.

What information do you have against her that numerous investigations by the FBI and a hostile Congress did not? The perception of Hillary seems to be that she is guilty until proven innocent, especially regardless of any evidence. That is literally the opposite of how the American justice system functions.

[BajanYankee]

Ohio's not even the electoral college prize it once was. In 1984, the state was worth 23 electoral votes. In 2012, it was worth 18 electoral votes. That number is only going to continue to trend downwards.

[CurlyFries]

I actually prefer living in a swing state over living in a state that always votes for the same party almost every election. My vote actually matters more this way.