The Debate ...

[Fau Teixeira]

The more i watch Trump, the more I'm convinced I've seen this play out somewhere before. I've seen people equate his rise to power to that of Mussolini. I've seen his anti-foreigner racist nationalism compared to the 1930 version of the Nazi party (before they got all genocidal). But while there are valid comparisons in some aspects there, that wasn't why I kept having this feeling of recognition.

Then during the debate, it hit me, i had an epiphany. I know where I've seen "president" Trump before and I know his secret identity.

Ladies and Gentlemen, let me present you with Donald Trump's alter ego.

Biff Tannen


In Back to the Future, part 2, Marty buys a sports almanac that future Biff steals and gives to 1955 Biff. He then accumulates massive wealth while driving 1985 Hill Valley into a dystopian wasteland of massive social inequality.  Biff even builds a giant hotel/casino garishly named after him.



The proof is conclusive. Donald Trump is Biff Tannen.

[Fau Teixeira]

One additional thought, you know what the best part is about this. It's very possible that they modeled 1985 biff after donald trump.  Which means that we'd electing a guy that is literally an example and a role model for a movie bad guy.

[Spider-Dan]

It's not just "possible," it's the literal truth.

‘Back to the Future’ Writer: Donald Trump Inspired Biff

“Back to the Future” screenwriter Bob Gale has revealed that Donald Trump was the inspiration for Marty McFly’s arch nemesis Biff Tannen.

The revelation comes as part of a slew of nostalgic retrospectives on “Back to the Future Part II,” in which McFly (Michael J. Fox) and Doc Brown (Christopher Lloyd) travel to Oct. 21, 2015. Gale spoke to the Daily Beast about the similarities between Biff and Trump.

“We thought about it when we made the movie! Are you kidding?” Gale told the outlet when asked if he noticed Biff’s resemblance to Trump. “You watch ‘Part II’ again and there’s a scene where Marty confronts Biff in his office and there’s a huge portrait of Biff on the wall behind Biff, and there’s one moment where Biff kind of stands up and he takes exactly the same pose as the portrait? Yeah.”

[pondwater]

I don't disagree with what you are saying. I don't disagree that she won. I just said there are many polls that are showing different than that so obviously there are many people who think differently.

Even though I think Clinton did win by a slight margin. The most important thing brought up all night was brought up by Trump about the Federal Reserve, but that was quickly swept under the rug. No one wants to talk about that shit. The Fed has been propping up this economy far too long. We are in an enormous bubble and when they raise rates(not if, but when) it's going to get ugly really quickly. There is no question it will be worse than 2008.

Regardless of who is elected, they are in a very sticky situation with the economy. If Clinton is elected like I think she will be. She will either have to take the blame for the economy or blame Obama. That blaming Bush shit after two full terms of Obama and a partial Clinton term isn't gonna fly anymore. They've had several opportunities to slowly ramp up interest rates and have refused to do so. There are no excuses anymore.

[Sunstroke]

Biff Tannen...man, that's funny.

[Spider-Dan]

Regardless of who is elected, they are in a very sticky situation with the economy. If Clinton is elected like I think she will be. She will either have to take the blame for the economy or blame Obama. That blaming Bush shit after two full terms of Obama and a partial Clinton term isn't gonna fly anymore. They've had several opportunities to slowly ramp up interest rates and have refused to do so. There are no excuses anymore.

Barring a dramatic Democratic wave this year, I imagine she would attempt to put at least part of the blame on the GOP Congress.

[pondwater]

Barring a dramatic Democratic wave this year, I imagine she would attempt to put at least part of the blame on the GOP Congress.

So basically she would lie AGAIN!!! Because that wouldn't even be close to the truth.

[Dave Gray]

I think Clinton will be elected, but she'll be beaten in a 2nd term run handily.  It's a perfect storm.

It's not even about "who to blame".  It's just that there are swings and Paul Ryan will probably come in and take the job, as a return to classic GOP, whatever that means. 

Blaming the president (any president) for the economy is just dumb and short-sided and is a conceptual problem with the way we deal with the economy in general.  It's no one party, much less one person and if it gets better or worse at any point, it's because of other external factors, like tech/housing bubbles.  I understand that this argument wins/loses campaigns, but I always hate it.

[Spider-Dan]

So basically she would lie AGAIN!!! Because that wouldn't even be close to the truth.

It is a statement of fact that the GOP has controlled the House since the 2010 election, and controlled the Senate since the 2014 election.

Besides, when the next bubble pops and we are back in the position we were in 2008, I doubt the public will be very interested in electing politicians who are interested in less regulation and getting out of the way of corporations.  The Republicans are not exactly a party that is well-positioned to take advantage of populist anger against big business.

Remember when Obama told the bankers, "I'm the one standing between you and the pitchforks"?  There isn't going to be anyone standing between the bankers and the pitchforks next time.  I have a hard time believing that the party of lower taxes and less regulation would be ascendant in such a climate.

[pondwater]

I think Clinton will be elected, but she'll be beaten in a 2nd term run handily.  It's a perfect storm.

It's not even about "who to blame".  It's just that there are swings and Paul Ryan will probably come in and take the job, as a return to classic GOP, whatever that means. 

Blaming the president (any president) for the economy is just dumb and short-sided and is a conceptual problem with the way we deal with the economy in general.  It's no one party, much less one person and if it gets better or worse at any point, it's because of other external factors, like tech/housing bubbles.  I understand that this argument wins/loses campaigns, but I always hate it.

I do agree with you to an extent. However, keeping interest rates this low for this long is the reason this thing is a ticking time bomb. Yellen was nominated by Obama and does have influence over her decisions. Also, most liberals don't have a problem blaming Bush for the economy that Obama inherited or rather begged for. So why is only dumb and short-sided when a Democrat is to blame? Not to mention Obama himself taking responsibility for the economy.

Look, I'm at the start of my administration. One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. You know, I've got four years. And, you know, a year from now I think people are going to see that we're starting to make some progress. But there's still going to be some pain out there. If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition.

[pondwater]

It is a statement of fact that the GOP has controlled the House since the 2010 election, and controlled the Senate since the 2014 election.

Besides, when the next bubble pops and we are back in the position we were in 2008, I doubt the public will be very interested in electing politicians who are interested in less regulation and getting out of the way of corporations.  The Republicans are not exactly a party that is well-positioned to take advantage of populist anger against big business.

Remember when Obama told the bankers, "I'm the one standing between you and the pitchforks"?  There isn't going to be anyone standing between the bankers and the pitchforks next time.  I have a hard time believing that the party of lower taxes and less regulation would be ascendant in such a climate.

That's a good sound bite and looks good to the general public. But could you tell me how many of those bankers that he was protecting from pitchforks were arrested and/or prosecuted by his administration?

[Spider-Dan]

Also, most liberals don't have a problem blaming Bush for the economy that Obama inherited or rather begged for. So why is only dumb and short-sided when a Democrat is to blame? Not to mention Obama himself taking responsibility for the economy.

If we're going to talk about claims of economic responsibility, how is it that the glorious economy Romney promised us if he were to be elected president - an economy in which unemployment is lowered to 6% by 2016 - has already been surpassed by the 4.9% unemployment we saw at the beginning of this month under Obama, and yet Obama's economy is "terrible" and everyone is "suffering horribly"?

That's a good sound bite and looks good to the general public. But could you tell me how many of those bankers that he was protecting from pitchforks were arrested and/or prosecuted by his administration?

Nearly zero.  But it's not like the Republicans will be campaigning on the promise to throw bankers in jail; Warren and other Democrats will be.

[pondwater]

If we're going to talk about claims of economic responsibility, how is it that the glorious economy Romney promised us if he were to be elected president - an economy in which unemployment is lowered to 6% by 2016 - has already been surpassed by the 4.9% unemployment we saw at the beginning of this month under Obama, and yet Obama's economy is "terrible" and everyone is "suffering horribly"?

Because Obama's recovery is an illusion, hence this conversation about interest rates and the market crashing. The "suffering horribly" will come soon enough when this whole thing blows up. A real recovery wouldn't need the government to prop up the economy. Not sure what Romney has to do with any of this. But I guess whenever a Democrat is wrong or held accountable, their supporters start throwing around Bush and other names to deflect attention.

Nearly zero. 

Thanks for answering the question.

[masterfins]

That debate was just about the most lopsided outcome possible.  Any viewer that walked away from that debate with the same "undecided" opinion that they sat down with is not a persuadable voter, and is undecided for reasons outside of things that can be addressed in a debate.

Answering the question of what those reasons could be is an exercise I leave to the reader.

I could easily be persuaded by things that should be covered in a debate.  Trump leaving his ego at the door and not acting so irrational could persuade me to vote for him.  Hillary doing more than giving canned answers, and dancing around like a boxer trying to edge out their opponent on points, could persuade me to vote for her.  A discussion on the type of person they would nominate for the Supreme Court could certainly sway me.  Detailed plans for the economy, race relations, etc. (not sound bites!) could persuade me.  Instead we are treated to Hillary bringing up the fact Trump called a beauty pageant winner fat 20 years ago.  Not to mention I don't care how much money Trump is worth.  Really??  Is that what's supposed to persuade me to vote for Hillary, Spider??  Actually I guess I shouldn't say I'm undecided, as I've been planning to vote for Johnson/Weld as they are the best candidates running.

[Dave Gray]

Also, most liberals don't have a problem blaming Bush for the economy that Obama inherited or rather begged for. So why is only dumb and short-sided when a Democrat is to blame? Not to mention Obama himself taking responsibility for the economy.

It's not.  It was dumb to blame Bush for the economy, as well.

That was a banking bubble that he was part of, but that pre-dated him by a long, long time.