Last chance poll. Who wins/loses?

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Poll results are somewhat surprising. Only 2 believe in the blue wave?

Anyhow the news channels this morning are all smiles and giddy about the election.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I'm not sure who will win, but I heard Oprah will be showing up at random polling places around the country, and will be giving a car to a Democratic voter at each one.

Yeah, she might also get investigated for voter manipulation if what you say is true.

Are you kidding? It's Oprah. She won't do anything until after they vote.

It’s still voter manipulation. Trust me.

 

[beautress]

Who wins?
The same people who always win.
A. Lockheed Martin
B. Goldman Sachs
C. Bank of America
D. Boeing
E. Northrop Grumman
F. JP Morgan
G. Raytheon
H. General Dynamics
I. Morgan Stanley
J. Citigroup

Who Loses?
Anyone who thinks voting changes anything.

Corporation's Number of employees.……1. end of 8th year, George W. Bush, 2008........2. end, 8th yr, President Barack Obama, 2016….3. only 1 yr, President Donald Trump​

A. Defense supplier Lockheed Martin - employees 2000-2017 | Statistic … 1. Bush, 146,000, 2. Obama, 97,000 3. Trump, 100,000
B. (worldwide) Goldman Sachs: number of employees 2009-2017 | Statistic ….. 1. Bush, 324,000, Obama, 344,000, 3. Trump, 366,000
C. Bank of America - (I found inconsistent results at about 6 different websites, so I am not sure what the truth is. Their stock reports gave # of employes in some, not any number in other end-of-year reports. So not surprised with inconsistent results. I gathered they had some serious problems and kept trying to fix the problem with acquisitions that lost them employees, so it's not a viable or reliable finding. Sorry. I tried.)
I've been here for 2 hours, and cannot find results I was looking for. One website that furnished information on 1 company wanted me to spend money finding further information that they refused to disclose by elimination. I hope some of you in the financial community (which I'm not) will find reliable information to see exactly what the problems are. Some of the companies listed above had severe problems, others, smoother sailing. I'm not qualified to cut through the chase, but would like to know for future purposes. BOA was scary because of its own purchases, not because of politics. Just sayin'. Also, it was only the 4th largest bank. Wells Fargo is mentioned as the largest US bank on several sites. I'm not certain if that's still true in 2018. Things change sometimes, remain the same, sometimes. That's like real life.
​

And one other thing, Mr. Booth, businesses are not all bad, just because of their size. They have competitive problems in order to hire people, and from your list, I gather that those companies feed a lot of mouths, top to bottom, and their pay levels are in general, reasonably good due to their individual abilities, having stable investors, and in some cases, luck or bad luck in who they trust. Often that depends on whether their reliable sources have a home-run hitter die or move on, leaving that source clueless and teetering on the brink of knowing just what to do. Businesses are all about winning, and that does not fit the category of who is the President, but rather, whether their investors receive sound returns on their investment in that individual company. One that is led by a home-run-hitting chief executive for 30 or 40 years could be at risk when he dies or leaves the company. There are too many business factors that enter in here, and also, if you had a source for information, I wonder if they had as much trouble finding information that they could present as accurately depicting a climate of political annoyances that truly affected them. Maybe you have multiple sources you could share your findings and make it a little easier for lay people to understand what political kingpin decided to pull the rug out from under a corporation for reasons not related to profits. Sorry my findings were so unreliable when I got to Bank of America. I'm frustrated I couldn't bring a reasonable figure here, due to the level of differences I found in multiple areas of the internet.

Edit: It's a day I'm taking some time to go vote, so I have to get ready and will probably will have to read every entry carefully to make good choices that political issues will govern locally and nationally. Good luck to everyone who waited to vote. I hope this year's polls reflect living citizens' votes, and not hocus-pocus voters who are not citizens and are influenced by unreliable hearsay rather than facts they know, and whether they can abide false witness parties that are desperate to discredit their loyal opposition with make-believe charges. May this be a year when citizens speak to the betterment of the USA, especially our vets.​

​

 

[Claudette]

I think the Reps hang onto the House and the Senate was never in jeopardy.

A red wave indeed.

 

[JWBooth]

Who wins?
The same people who always win.
A. Lockheed Martin
B. Goldman Sachs
C. Bank of America
D. Boeing
E. Northrop Grumman
F. JP Morgan
G. Raytheon
H. General Dynamics
I. Morgan Stanley
J. Citigroup

Who Loses?
Anyone who thinks voting changes anything.

Corporation's Number of employees.……1. end of 8th year, George W. Bush, 2008........2. end, 8th yr, President Barack Obama, 2016….3. only 1 yr, President Donald Trump​

A. Defense supplier Lockheed Martin - employees 2000-2017 | Statistic … 1. Bush, 146,000, 2. Obama, 97,000 3. Trump, 100,000
B. (worldwide) Goldman Sachs: number of employees 2009-2017 | Statistic ….. 1. Bush, 324,000, Obama, 344,000, 3. Trump, 366,000
C. Bank of America - (I found inconsistent results at about 6 different websites, so I am not sure what the truth is. Their stock reports gave # of employes in some, not any number in other end-of-year reports. So not surprised with inconsistent results. I gathered they had some serious problems and kept trying to fix the problem with acquisitions that lost them employees, so it's not a viable or reliable finding. Sorry. I tried.)
I've been here for 2 hours, and cannot find results I was looking for. One website that furnished information on 1 company wanted me to spend money finding further information that they refused to disclose by elimination. I hope some of you in the financial community (which I'm not) will find reliable information to see exactly what the problems are. Some of the companies listed above had severe problems, others, smoother sailing. I'm not qualified to cut through the chase, but would like to know for future purposes. BOA was scary because of its own purchases, not because of politics. Just sayin'. Also, it was only the 4th largest bank. Wells Fargo is mentioned as the largest US bank on several sites. I'm not certain if that's still true in 2018. Things change sometimes, remain the same, sometimes. That's like real life.


​

Ok, so what is the point?

 

[CowboyTed]

Who wins?
The same people who always win.
Lockheed Martin
Goldman Sachs
Bank of America
Boeing
Northrop Grumman
JP Morgan
Raytheon
General Dynamics
Morgan Stanley
Citigroup

Who Loses?
Anyone who thinks voting changes anything.

JWB,

It is the system of voting that is a main reason in my opinion.

The US is the most tribal first world country in politics. TheUK has this is smaller parts. This is the product of one man one one vote policy, it is best placed for dividing countries...

Instead of the country concentrated on legalised bribery (lobbying), campaign finance reform, a strong economy with a good safety net for all citizens, an immigration policy, etc.... Things that need to be negotiated, compromised and agreed...

US is in tribal warfare of Red v Blue team..
If your team is about cutting taxes, then you will cut taxes even if it make no sense in the current economic climate...
If your team is political correctness, then everyones feelings will be wrapped in cotton wool....

Other systems like Alternative voting encourages gravitation towards the middle rather than energising the base.

So we have come to the end of a canvassing cycle which are getting worse and worse... A bomber(pretty useless one) this time tried to take out the whole leadership from the other side and the President tried to blame journalists ( a new low)...

How many cycles are the US going to go through if this cycle continues before there are serious deaths...

I appreciate your input, I really do, but it relies on the premise that the solidly entrenched gang of mobsters will be responsible for the reforms.

Oh, I agree with you there, Turkeys don't vote for thanksgiving...

The only bit of hope I can give you is that the centre holds the majority of voters... The other voting systems are more reactive and give more choice without jeopardising your vote... It creates some great upsets too...

The best place for this to start in within a state, it comes very popular with both the voters and the politicians.

Why the politicians? It is because it involves a better form of politics. Instead of kissing the ass of a rich donor or sitting in a call centre for 8 hours a day (first term congressman), you are actually trying to get legislation passed, winning stuff for your area and forming alliances to get things done. If you are into politics for the right reasons you are actually rewarded for this work.
Some politicians can be there a long time but it is usually because they figured out how to deliver to their people what they want...

 

[beautress]

Who wins?
The same people who always win.
A. Lockheed Martin
B. Goldman Sachs
C. Bank of America
D. Boeing
E. Northrop Grumman
F. JP Morgan
G. Raytheon
H. General Dynamics
I. Morgan Stanley
J. Citigroup

Who Loses?
Anyone who thinks voting changes anything.

Corporation's Number of employees.……1. end of 8th year, George W. Bush, 2008........2. end, 8th yr, President Barack Obama, 2016….3. only 1 yr, President Donald Trump​

A. Defense supplier Lockheed Martin - employees 2000-2017 | Statistic … 1. Bush, 146,000, 2. Obama, 97,000 3. Trump, 100,000
B. (worldwide) Goldman Sachs: number of employees 2009-2017 | Statistic ….. 1. Bush, 324,000, Obama, 344,000, 3. Trump, 366,000
C. Bank of America - (I found inconsistent results at about 6 different websites, so I am not sure what the truth is. Their stock reports gave # of employes in some, not any number in other end-of-year reports. So not surprised with inconsistent results. I gathered they had some serious problems and kept trying to fix the problem with acquisitions that lost them employees, so it's not a viable or reliable finding. Sorry. I tried.)
I've been here for 2 hours, and cannot find results I was looking for. One website that furnished information on 1 company wanted me to spend money finding further information that they refused to disclose by elimination. I hope some of you in the financial community (which I'm not) will find reliable information to see exactly what the problems are. Some of the companies listed above had severe problems, others, smoother sailing. I'm not qualified to cut through the chase, but would like to know for future purposes. BOA was scary because of its own purchases, not because of politics. Just sayin'. Also, it was only the 4th largest bank. Wells Fargo is mentioned as the largest US bank on several sites. I'm not certain if that's still true in 2018. Things change sometimes, remain the same, sometimes. That's like real life.


​

Ok, so what is the point?

Ya got me, Mr. Booth. I wasn't able in a short time to validate much in your post, so in all truth, my point is not advantageous to the political world. And pardon my edits, but I spent a lot of time gaining confusion on one of the employers you listed. My bad, completely.

 

[edward37]

Strikes me Dems. will have the House majority and Reps. will gain in the Senate. However it will be poetic justice if the Dems. fail to take the House.

Well, people get tired of stations who spend a lot of airtime promoting mentally ill politicians who sick dogs on the opposite aisle, invading privacy, inflicting intolerable indignities on patriotic Americans who were elected to public office. I think the American people are smarter than these charlatans of harassment who think this is some kind of revenge their constituents will enjoy, when in fact, their calumnies actually make some in their base unhappy to the point they join and forever vote Republican after that. The people speak. We will know more day after tomorrow morning. I'm going to the polls to cast my vote, and come home and pray for the Nation, that we will elect and procure leaders who do what is best for the most in coordination with the Executive Branch. The best thing that can happen if all this calumny and meanness we're seeing goes into the dustbin of history as a failure tool that make a grab at undeserved power.

I'm never one to hold grudges, though. If after a lesson, the Democrats can come back in future years as people willing to sit around the table and deliberate things in an orderly fashion, America will benefit. Right now, people are angry and spitting mad over things spoken that were untrue. In the meantime, we need to learn to avoid the allowance of last-minute false witnesses coming forward and destroying the orderly business that Congress has traditionally been.

Deliberate things like republicans did during Obama's 8 years? Remember what the nitwit McConnell said?

 

[JWBooth]

Who wins?
The same people who always win.
A. Lockheed Martin
B. Goldman Sachs
C. Bank of America
D. Boeing
E. Northrop Grumman
F. JP Morgan
G. Raytheon
H. General Dynamics
I. Morgan Stanley
J. Citigroup

Who Loses?
Anyone who thinks voting changes anything.

Corporation's Number of employees.……1. end of 8th year, George W. Bush, 2008........2. end, 8th yr, President Barack Obama, 2016….3. only 1 yr, President Donald Trump​

A. Defense supplier Lockheed Martin - employees 2000-2017 | Statistic … 1. Bush, 146,000, 2. Obama, 97,000 3. Trump, 100,000
B. (worldwide) Goldman Sachs: number of employees 2009-2017 | Statistic ….. 1. Bush, 324,000, Obama, 344,000, 3. Trump, 366,000
C. Bank of America - (I found inconsistent results at about 6 different websites, so I am not sure what the truth is. Their stock reports gave # of employes in some, not any number in other end-of-year reports. So not surprised with inconsistent results. I gathered they had some serious problems and kept trying to fix the problem with acquisitions that lost them employees, so it's not a viable or reliable finding. Sorry. I tried.)
I've been here for 2 hours, and cannot find results I was looking for. One website that furnished information on 1 company wanted me to spend money finding further information that they refused to disclose by elimination. I hope some of you in the financial community (which I'm not) will find reliable information to see exactly what the problems are. Some of the companies listed above had severe problems, others, smoother sailing. I'm not qualified to cut through the chase, but would like to know for future purposes. BOA was scary because of its own purchases, not because of politics. Just sayin'. Also, it was only the 4th largest bank. Wells Fargo is mentioned as the largest US bank on several sites. I'm not certain if that's still true in 2018. Things change sometimes, remain the same, sometimes. That's like real life.


​

Ok, so what is the point?

Ya got me, Mr. Booth. I wasn't able in a short time to validate much in your post, so in all truth, my point is not advantageous to the political world. And pardon my edits, but I spent a lot of time gaining confusion on one of the employers you listed. My bad, completely.

Gonna respond to what I think you intended.
I have nothing against corporations. I am free market enough to desire no regulation. The companies listed exist to feed off of the largess of government. The perpetuation of war and debt is the only concern and as such these beasts only flourish feeding from the public trough.

 

[theliq]

Republicans hold both houses, easily.

If you look at the history of Election Victories in America back to and including JFK,you will note that every Democratic Victory has reduced Unemployment and had positive Social change,where as every Rebublican Administration has created massive Unemployment...Trump can be judged from now on,after the Obama intoductions during his term have basically come to an end,which has been somewhat fortuitous for Trump,considering the Employment Growth under Obama continuing.Let's see how he goes from here on in...His Tariff decision is short term gain only, but a troublesome long term strategy...believe me the Chinese won't Fcuk around

Lets see

Methinks the Republcans will hold the Senate and Dems gain in the Reps...steve...but all the best Guys and Ladies

 

[chesswarsnow]

BUMP!

Sorry bout that,

1. My prediction!
2. Senate gains 4 seats.
3. Congress gains 16.
4. Governors gain 3
5. Modest gains, but still gains.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[theliq]

Republicans hold both houses, easily.

If you look at the history of Election Victories in America back to and including JFK,you will note that every Democratic Victory has reduced Unemployment and had positive Social change,where as every Rebublican Administration has created massive Unemployment...Trump can be judged from now on,after the Obama intoductions during his term have basically come to an end,which has been somewhat fortuitous for Trump,considering the Employment Growth under Obama continuing.Let's see how he goes from here on in...His Tariff decision is short term gain only, but a troublesome long term strategy...believe me the Chinese won't Fcuk around

Lets see

Methinks the Republcans will hold the Senate and Dems gain in the Reps...steve...but all the best Guys and Ladies

I was right as USUAL...

 

[Norman]

Republicans hold both houses, easily.

If you look at the history of Election Victories in America back to and including JFK,you will note that every Democratic Victory has reduced Unemployment and had positive Social change,where as every Rebublican Administration has created massive Unemployment...Trump can be judged from now on,after the Obama intoductions during his term have basically come to an end,which has been somewhat fortuitous for Trump,considering the Employment Growth under Obama continuing.Let's see how he goes from here on in...His Tariff decision is short term gain only, but a troublesome long term strategy...believe me the Chinese won't Fcuk around

Lets see

Methinks the Republcans will hold the Senate and Dems gain in the Reps...steve...but all the best Guys and Ladies

I was right as USUAL...

Let's see....

The most blatantly inaccurate text I have read the entire day in this board.

And then a prediction predicting the expected result. Although at least you had the courage to think for yourself and not adopt the blue wave CNN bullshit.

Yeah... I would not take much pride.

 

[theliq]

Republicans hold both houses, easily.

If you look at the history of Election Victories in America back to and including JFK,you will note that every Democratic Victory has reduced Unemployment and had positive Social change,where as every Rebublican Administration has created massive Unemployment...Trump can be judged from now on,after the Obama intoductions during his term have basically come to an end,which has been somewhat fortuitous for Trump,considering the Employment Growth under Obama continuing.Let's see how he goes from here on in...His Tariff decision is short term gain only, but a troublesome long term strategy...believe me the Chinese won't Fcuk around

Lets see

Methinks the Republcans will hold the Senate and Dems gain in the Reps...steve...but all the best Guys and Ladies

I was right as USUAL...

Let's see....

The most blatantly inaccurate text I have read the entire day in this board.

And then a prediction predicting the expected result. Although at least you had the courage to think for yourself and not adopt the blue wave CNN bullshit.

Yeah... I would not take much pride.

I just always win,that's your problematico