Tino_ that he will be able to grab people like Clinton
I see what you did there, grab her....
GOOD ONE! probably not his first choice tho :)
Donald Trump
posted in
World Events
[quote=Tino_] that he will be able to grab people like Clinton [/quote]
I see what you did there, grab her....
GOOD ONE! probably not his first choice tho :)
I see what you did there, grab her....
GOOD ONE! probably not his first choice tho :)
ScissorsEven if you dislike or disagree with Trump, surely you can see that this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to rip out the entire corrupt and broken system by it's roots and start over? Trump is going to end career politicians and big money in politics, that alone makes him a better candidate than the Goldman Sachs puppet alternative in my mind.
As much as I despise money in politics, this is such an over-simplified way of looking at things that it's ridiculous.
I want to get rid of money in politics so that the rich and powerful's influence over policy is less disproportionate than it is now. Donald Trump is one of those rich and powerful people. From a policy standpoint, he would make Goldman Sachs happier than even the most puppet-like version of a Hillary Clinton administration.
Clinton is a pragmatist and compromiser which, in my opinion, leads her astray of the true progressives in her party. Nonetheless, she will make some concessions to them, particularly in areas of tax policy and social programs (and maybe a bit in regulations as well, though not nearly as much as she should). Donald Trump advances policies that help him and hurt the little guy, regardless of popular consensus.
I want to change the establishment as much as the next guy, and that's why I will put every Clinton policy decision under a microscope as soon as she is elected, and seek to primary her out in 2020. I will not sacrifice the poor and the minorities in our country for 4-8 years just to prove a point.
[quote=Scissors]Even if you dislike or disagree with Trump, surely you can see that this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to rip out the entire corrupt and broken system by it's roots and start over? Trump is going to end career politicians and big money in politics, that alone makes him a better candidate than the Goldman Sachs puppet alternative in my mind.[/quote]
As much as I despise money in politics, this is such an over-simplified way of looking at things that it's ridiculous.
I want to get rid of money in politics so that the rich and powerful's influence over policy is less disproportionate than it is now. Donald Trump is [b]one of those rich and powerful people[/b]. From a policy standpoint, he would make Goldman Sachs happier than even the most puppet-like version of a Hillary Clinton administration.
Clinton is a pragmatist and compromiser which, in my opinion, leads her astray of the true progressives in her party. Nonetheless, she will make some concessions to them, particularly in areas of tax policy and social programs (and maybe a bit in regulations as well, though not nearly as much as she should). Donald Trump advances policies that help him and hurt the little guy, regardless of popular consensus.
I want to change the establishment as much as the next guy, and that's why I will put every Clinton policy decision under a microscope as soon as she is elected, and seek to primary her out in 2020. I will not sacrifice the poor and the minorities in our country for 4-8 years just to prove a point.
As much as I despise money in politics, this is such an over-simplified way of looking at things that it's ridiculous.
I want to get rid of money in politics so that the rich and powerful's influence over policy is less disproportionate than it is now. Donald Trump is [b]one of those rich and powerful people[/b]. From a policy standpoint, he would make Goldman Sachs happier than even the most puppet-like version of a Hillary Clinton administration.
Clinton is a pragmatist and compromiser which, in my opinion, leads her astray of the true progressives in her party. Nonetheless, she will make some concessions to them, particularly in areas of tax policy and social programs (and maybe a bit in regulations as well, though not nearly as much as she should). Donald Trump advances policies that help him and hurt the little guy, regardless of popular consensus.
I want to change the establishment as much as the next guy, and that's why I will put every Clinton policy decision under a microscope as soon as she is elected, and seek to primary her out in 2020. I will not sacrifice the poor and the minorities in our country for 4-8 years just to prove a point.
Nub_DanishSpaceCadetall the nukes is just a meme way of saying they're a nuclear superpower and they have more nukes than the usaNub_DanishI mean it's not just him whos said it obama and pretty much every high ranking person has said this. And i don't understand the logic behind everyone thinking trump would bring about world war 3 he's said he wants to have a friendlier relation with russia (its not really a world war without russia they got all the nukes) and I haven't heard anything that would start a war from him other than his plans to stop isis.
They don't have "all the nukes" and building more Nuclear Weapons at this point is meaningless on a strategic level. I believe building more Nuclear Weapons is more careless than anything else because just creating the weapon means it can fall into the wrong hands. Nobody wins in a nuclear war and tactical nuclear strikes are completely out of the question for major powers. You cannot win a Nuclear war on a first strike basis because:
Both sides have the ultimate deterrent that would guarantee mutual destruction. We have our 14+ Ohio class submarines lurking in the water with 24 Trident Missiles and the Russians have Typhoon and Borei class subs with comparable armament. That much silent and hidden nuclear power is more than enough to destroy the whole planet.
That's a myth, our nuclear capabilities are still greater than Russia's and will be for many years to come
[quote=Nub_Danish][quote=SpaceCadet][quote=Nub_Danish]I mean it's not just him whos said it obama and pretty much every high ranking person has said this. And i don't understand the logic behind everyone thinking trump would bring about world war 3 he's said he wants to have a friendlier relation with russia (its not really a world war without russia they got all the nukes) and I haven't heard anything that would start a war from him other than his plans to stop isis.[/quote]
They don't have "all the nukes" and building more Nuclear Weapons at this point is meaningless on a strategic level. I believe building more Nuclear Weapons is more careless than anything else because just creating the weapon means it can fall into the wrong hands. Nobody wins in a nuclear war and tactical nuclear strikes are completely out of the question for major powers. You cannot win a Nuclear war on a first strike basis because:
Both sides have the ultimate deterrent that would guarantee mutual destruction. We have our 14+ Ohio class submarines lurking in the water with 24 Trident Missiles and the Russians have Typhoon and Borei class subs with comparable armament. That much silent and hidden nuclear power is more than enough to destroy the whole planet.[/quote]
all the nukes is just a meme way of saying they're a nuclear superpower and they have more nukes than the usa[/quote]
That's a myth, our nuclear capabilities are still greater than Russia's and will be for many years to come
They don't have "all the nukes" and building more Nuclear Weapons at this point is meaningless on a strategic level. I believe building more Nuclear Weapons is more careless than anything else because just creating the weapon means it can fall into the wrong hands. Nobody wins in a nuclear war and tactical nuclear strikes are completely out of the question for major powers. You cannot win a Nuclear war on a first strike basis because:
Both sides have the ultimate deterrent that would guarantee mutual destruction. We have our 14+ Ohio class submarines lurking in the water with 24 Trident Missiles and the Russians have Typhoon and Borei class subs with comparable armament. That much silent and hidden nuclear power is more than enough to destroy the whole planet.[/quote]
all the nukes is just a meme way of saying they're a nuclear superpower and they have more nukes than the usa[/quote]
That's a myth, our nuclear capabilities are still greater than Russia's and will be for many years to come
dollarlayerMy opinion: The climate has always changed, will continue to change, regardless of human activity. Human's are responsible for such a small part of "global warming" that its not even a significant factor, and there are far bigger concerns than global warming to worry about such as the pollution of our air, water, oceans and deforestation. It's hyped up for money and political gain.
I'm not going to pretend that I know much about the global warming issues or details. However, pointing out that "pollution of our air, water, oceans and deforestation" as major problems seems to be the same thing since they all contribute to Global Warming anyways? or am I wrong?
[quote=dollarlayer]My opinion: The climate has always changed, will continue to change, regardless of human activity. Human's are responsible for such a small part of "global warming" that its not even a significant factor, and there are far bigger concerns than global warming to worry about such as the pollution of our air, water, oceans and deforestation. It's hyped up for money and political gain.[/quote]
I'm not going to pretend that I know much about the global warming issues or details. However, pointing out that "pollution of our air, water, oceans and deforestation" as major problems seems to be the same thing since they all contribute to Global Warming anyways? or am I wrong?
I'm not going to pretend that I know much about the global warming issues or details. However, pointing out that "pollution of our air, water, oceans and deforestation" as major problems seems to be the same thing since they all contribute to Global Warming anyways? or am I wrong?
mustardoverlordNub_DanishSpaceCadetall the nukes is just a meme way of saying they're a nuclear superpower and they have more nukes than the usaNub_DanishI mean it's not just him whos said it obama and pretty much every high ranking person has said this. And i don't understand the logic behind everyone thinking trump would bring about world war 3 he's said he wants to have a friendlier relation with russia (its not really a world war without russia they got all the nukes) and I haven't heard anything that would start a war from him other than his plans to stop isis.
They don't have "all the nukes" and building more Nuclear Weapons at this point is meaningless on a strategic level. I believe building more Nuclear Weapons is more careless than anything else because just creating the weapon means it can fall into the wrong hands. Nobody wins in a nuclear war and tactical nuclear strikes are completely out of the question for major powers. You cannot win a Nuclear war on a first strike basis because:
Both sides have the ultimate deterrent that would guarantee mutual destruction. We have our 14+ Ohio class submarines lurking in the water with 24 Trident Missiles and the Russians have Typhoon and Borei class subs with comparable armament. That much silent and hidden nuclear power is more than enough to destroy the whole planet.
That's a myth, our nuclear capabilities are still greater than Russia's and will be for many years to come
They actually have quite a few nukes, and some estimates say slightly more than us. However, the rest of their military is certainly weaker and worse equipped than ours.
[quote=mustardoverlord][quote=Nub_Danish][quote=SpaceCadet][quote=Nub_Danish]I mean it's not just him whos said it obama and pretty much every high ranking person has said this. And i don't understand the logic behind everyone thinking trump would bring about world war 3 he's said he wants to have a friendlier relation with russia (its not really a world war without russia they got all the nukes) and I haven't heard anything that would start a war from him other than his plans to stop isis.[/quote]
They don't have "all the nukes" and building more Nuclear Weapons at this point is meaningless on a strategic level. I believe building more Nuclear Weapons is more careless than anything else because just creating the weapon means it can fall into the wrong hands. Nobody wins in a nuclear war and tactical nuclear strikes are completely out of the question for major powers. You cannot win a Nuclear war on a first strike basis because:
Both sides have the ultimate deterrent that would guarantee mutual destruction. We have our 14+ Ohio class submarines lurking in the water with 24 Trident Missiles and the Russians have Typhoon and Borei class subs with comparable armament. That much silent and hidden nuclear power is more than enough to destroy the whole planet.[/quote]
all the nukes is just a meme way of saying they're a nuclear superpower and they have more nukes than the usa[/quote]
That's a myth, our nuclear capabilities are still greater than Russia's and will be for many years to come[/quote]
They actually have quite a few nukes, and some estimates say slightly more than us. However, the rest of their military is certainly weaker and worse equipped than ours.
They don't have "all the nukes" and building more Nuclear Weapons at this point is meaningless on a strategic level. I believe building more Nuclear Weapons is more careless than anything else because just creating the weapon means it can fall into the wrong hands. Nobody wins in a nuclear war and tactical nuclear strikes are completely out of the question for major powers. You cannot win a Nuclear war on a first strike basis because:
Both sides have the ultimate deterrent that would guarantee mutual destruction. We have our 14+ Ohio class submarines lurking in the water with 24 Trident Missiles and the Russians have Typhoon and Borei class subs with comparable armament. That much silent and hidden nuclear power is more than enough to destroy the whole planet.[/quote]
all the nukes is just a meme way of saying they're a nuclear superpower and they have more nukes than the usa[/quote]
That's a myth, our nuclear capabilities are still greater than Russia's and will be for many years to come[/quote]
They actually have quite a few nukes, and some estimates say slightly more than us. However, the rest of their military is certainly weaker and worse equipped than ours.
He mixed 2 issues together in the same sentence.
Russia has more warheads than the USA
The USA, because of our huge financial support, has much more up to date and advanced nuclear capabilities
He mixed 2 issues together in the same sentence.
Russia has more warheads than the USA
The USA, because of our huge financial support, has much more up to date and advanced nuclear capabilities
Russia has more warheads than the USA
The USA, because of our huge financial support, has much more up to date and advanced nuclear capabilities
SpaceCadet However, pointing out that "pollution of our air, water, oceans and deforestation" as major problems seems to be the same thing since they all contribute to Global Warming anyways? or am I wrong?
no, not really
in brief because I doubt you care: you can run a factory on renewables but if you're disposing of chemical byproducts inappropriately you'll still fuck up the environment.
Deforestation is less important for the sake of the atmosphere (trees are only like 30% of O2 production) than they are for maintaining the ecological diversity of the planet.
[quote=SpaceCadet] However, pointing out that "pollution of our air, water, oceans and deforestation" as major problems seems to be the same thing since they all contribute to Global Warming anyways? or am I wrong?[/quote]
no, not really
in brief because I doubt you care: you can run a factory on renewables but if you're disposing of chemical byproducts inappropriately you'll still fuck up the environment.
Deforestation is less important for the sake of the atmosphere (trees are only like 30% of O2 production) than they are for maintaining the ecological diversity of the planet.
no, not really
in brief because I doubt you care: you can run a factory on renewables but if you're disposing of chemical byproducts inappropriately you'll still fuck up the environment.
Deforestation is less important for the sake of the atmosphere (trees are only like 30% of O2 production) than they are for maintaining the ecological diversity of the planet.
SpaceCadetI see what you did there, grab her....
GOOD ONE! probably not his first choice tho :)
DAE find it funny that Trump sexually assaults women? xD
[quote=SpaceCadet]I see what you did there, grab her....
GOOD ONE! probably not his first choice tho :)[/quote]
DAE find it funny that Trump sexually assaults women? xD
GOOD ONE! probably not his first choice tho :)[/quote]
DAE find it funny that Trump sexually assaults women? xD
Tino_I don't get how people think that trump is single handily going to change the entire system just because he is the president for 4 years.
Capitalising on popular anger and desperation is the art of the demagogue. People believe it because they want and need to believe that somebody can do something. They know that the existing political system is incapable of reforming itself, they know that nobody has any credible plan for restoring their living standards, voting for Trump is a huge fuck you to the existing system whether he does what he has claimed he will or not.
Keep it in context though, there are a huge range of motivations and a lot of people just hate Clinton. There are plenty that would vote Republican if the candidate was a pig with the right colour hat. Trump is trying to aim his rhetoric now as part of a narrative to reinforce an image of Clinton's perceived corruption - he just wants the fuck-you-Washington vote and he wants her name attached to it.
At the same time you should understand he is not the outsider he portrays himself as, he has always used political upheaval to make money. This is just an extension of that, he's not on a mission for his beliefs. He is the ultimate insider, born into tremendous wealth, elite schools, has courted presidents and politicians for decades. He's as much a part of the system as anyone else.
If he gets in there will be surprisingly little change, not because he will be shackled by the indestructible behemoth of government machinery, but because he has no real desire to change anything of significance.
[quote=Tino_]I don't get how people think that trump is single handily going to change the entire system just because he is the president for 4 years. [/quote]
Capitalising on popular anger and desperation is the art of the demagogue. People believe it because they want and need to believe that somebody can do something. They know that the existing political system is incapable of reforming itself, they know that nobody has any credible plan for restoring their living standards, voting for Trump is a huge fuck you to the existing system whether he does what he has claimed he will or not.
Keep it in context though, there are a huge range of motivations and a lot of people just hate Clinton. There are plenty that would vote Republican if the candidate was a pig with the right colour hat. Trump is trying to aim his rhetoric now as part of a narrative to reinforce an image of Clinton's perceived corruption - he just wants the fuck-you-Washington vote and he wants her name attached to it.
At the same time you should understand he is not the outsider he portrays himself as, he has always used political upheaval to make money. This is just an extension of that, he's not on a mission for his beliefs. He is the ultimate insider, born into tremendous wealth, elite schools, has courted presidents and politicians for decades. He's as much a part of the system as anyone else.
If he gets in there will be surprisingly little change, not because he will be shackled by the indestructible behemoth of government machinery, but because he has no real desire to change anything of significance.
Capitalising on popular anger and desperation is the art of the demagogue. People believe it because they want and need to believe that somebody can do something. They know that the existing political system is incapable of reforming itself, they know that nobody has any credible plan for restoring their living standards, voting for Trump is a huge fuck you to the existing system whether he does what he has claimed he will or not.
Keep it in context though, there are a huge range of motivations and a lot of people just hate Clinton. There are plenty that would vote Republican if the candidate was a pig with the right colour hat. Trump is trying to aim his rhetoric now as part of a narrative to reinforce an image of Clinton's perceived corruption - he just wants the fuck-you-Washington vote and he wants her name attached to it.
At the same time you should understand he is not the outsider he portrays himself as, he has always used political upheaval to make money. This is just an extension of that, he's not on a mission for his beliefs. He is the ultimate insider, born into tremendous wealth, elite schools, has courted presidents and politicians for decades. He's as much a part of the system as anyone else.
If he gets in there will be surprisingly little change, not because he will be shackled by the indestructible behemoth of government machinery, but because he has no real desire to change anything of significance.
mustardoverlordScissorsEven if you dislike or disagree with Trump, surely you can see that this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to rip out the entire corrupt and broken system by it's roots and start over? Trump is going to end career politicians and big money in politics, that alone makes him a better candidate than the Goldman Sachs puppet alternative in my mind.
As much as I despise money in politics, this is such an over-simplified way of looking at things that it's ridiculous.
I want to get rid of money in politics so that the rich and powerful's influence over policy is less disproportionate than it is now. Donald Trump is one of those rich and powerful people. From a policy standpoint, he would make Goldman Sachs happier than even the most puppet-like version of a Hillary Clinton administration.
Clinton is a pragmatist and compromiser which, in my opinion, leads her astray of the true progressives in her party. Nonetheless, she will make some concessions to them, particularly in areas of tax policy and social programs (and maybe a bit in regulations as well, though not nearly as much as she should). Donald Trump advances policies that help him and hurt the little guy, regardless of popular consensus.
I want to change the establishment as much as the next guy, and that's why I will put every Clinton policy decision under a microscope as soon as she is elected, and seek to primary her out in 2020. I will not sacrifice the poor and the minorities in our country for 4-8 years just to prove a point.
Trump being one of those people doesn't mean anything, look how they all turned their backs on him once he didn't behave like a good boy, his speech at the Al Smith dinner blew my mind, that man doesn't owe them shit anymore, and he is unchained. Trump is anti globalism, and his taxcuts and economic policies are there to make sure that outsourcing for cheap labour is a thing of the past, and that new factories and businesses will operate in america. The elites are pushing globalism because it benefits them and fucks everyone else over, but they have managed to convince a good chunk of the people that virtue-signalling is more important than jobs and national health. The poor and minorities will benefit tenfold from actually being employed over getting handouts or being able to buy a cheap iPhone made with slave-labour. Personally, the only legit reason I can see for being very anti-Trump, is his views on climate change.
[quote=mustardoverlord][quote=Scissors]Even if you dislike or disagree with Trump, surely you can see that this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to rip out the entire corrupt and broken system by it's roots and start over? Trump is going to end career politicians and big money in politics, that alone makes him a better candidate than the Goldman Sachs puppet alternative in my mind.[/quote]
As much as I despise money in politics, this is such an over-simplified way of looking at things that it's ridiculous.
I want to get rid of money in politics so that the rich and powerful's influence over policy is less disproportionate than it is now. Donald Trump is [b]one of those rich and powerful people[/b]. From a policy standpoint, he would make Goldman Sachs happier than even the most puppet-like version of a Hillary Clinton administration.
Clinton is a pragmatist and compromiser which, in my opinion, leads her astray of the true progressives in her party. Nonetheless, she will make some concessions to them, particularly in areas of tax policy and social programs (and maybe a bit in regulations as well, though not nearly as much as she should). Donald Trump advances policies that help him and hurt the little guy, regardless of popular consensus.
I want to change the establishment as much as the next guy, and that's why I will put every Clinton policy decision under a microscope as soon as she is elected, and seek to primary her out in 2020. I will not sacrifice the poor and the minorities in our country for 4-8 years just to prove a point.[/quote]
Trump being one of those people doesn't mean anything, look how they all turned their backs on him once he didn't behave like a good boy, his speech at the Al Smith dinner blew my mind, that man doesn't owe them shit anymore, and he is unchained. Trump is anti globalism, and his taxcuts and economic policies are there to make sure that outsourcing for cheap labour is a thing of the past, and that new factories and businesses will operate in america. The elites are pushing globalism because it benefits them and fucks everyone else over, but they have managed to convince a good chunk of the people that virtue-signalling is more important than jobs and national health. The poor and minorities will benefit tenfold from actually being employed over getting handouts or being able to buy a cheap iPhone made with slave-labour. Personally, the only legit reason I can see for being [i]very[/i] anti-Trump, is his views on climate change.
As much as I despise money in politics, this is such an over-simplified way of looking at things that it's ridiculous.
I want to get rid of money in politics so that the rich and powerful's influence over policy is less disproportionate than it is now. Donald Trump is [b]one of those rich and powerful people[/b]. From a policy standpoint, he would make Goldman Sachs happier than even the most puppet-like version of a Hillary Clinton administration.
Clinton is a pragmatist and compromiser which, in my opinion, leads her astray of the true progressives in her party. Nonetheless, she will make some concessions to them, particularly in areas of tax policy and social programs (and maybe a bit in regulations as well, though not nearly as much as she should). Donald Trump advances policies that help him and hurt the little guy, regardless of popular consensus.
I want to change the establishment as much as the next guy, and that's why I will put every Clinton policy decision under a microscope as soon as she is elected, and seek to primary her out in 2020. I will not sacrifice the poor and the minorities in our country for 4-8 years just to prove a point.[/quote]
Trump being one of those people doesn't mean anything, look how they all turned their backs on him once he didn't behave like a good boy, his speech at the Al Smith dinner blew my mind, that man doesn't owe them shit anymore, and he is unchained. Trump is anti globalism, and his taxcuts and economic policies are there to make sure that outsourcing for cheap labour is a thing of the past, and that new factories and businesses will operate in america. The elites are pushing globalism because it benefits them and fucks everyone else over, but they have managed to convince a good chunk of the people that virtue-signalling is more important than jobs and national health. The poor and minorities will benefit tenfold from actually being employed over getting handouts or being able to buy a cheap iPhone made with slave-labour. Personally, the only legit reason I can see for being [i]very[/i] anti-Trump, is his views on climate change.
Scissors The poor and minorities will benefit tenfold from actually being employed over getting handouts or being able to buy a cheap iPhone made with slave-labour. Personally, the only legit reason I can see for being very anti-Trump, is his views on climate change.
Your world view is not very open then.
Disabled people who can't work get screwed, I would imagine basically every disabled person is very anti-Trump.
His view on transgender rights is very poor and is basically "HOPE THE STATES MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION" and doesn't consider it a "civil rights" issue. I would imagine everyone that isn't Caitlyn Jenner and is a transgender is very anti-Trump.
He's already said he wants to set up the SCOTUS to repeal Roe v Wade basically immediately. If you're a woman who thinks you should get to choose something about your own body that is not an easy decision to make, you are probably anti-trump.
He's anti-gay marriage and wants to get rid of it. If you're homosexual and want to get married, you're probably anti-Trump.
Also there's kinda the fact that unless we magically stop improving and developing automation technology (protip: we won't), you can be anti-globalism all you want but there's literally just not going to be enough jobs for everyone we have in the future. Everyone could all magicially be geniuses and there won't be enough jobs for people, so going for anti-globalism on the pretense of creating more jobs here for the poor is very short sighted when in the not too distant future those jobs are going to go away anyways. That's veering into basic income tho which I can already tell won't fly well here so I'll end here.
[quote=Scissors] The poor and minorities will benefit tenfold from actually being employed over getting handouts or being able to buy a cheap iPhone made with slave-labour. Personally, the only legit reason I can see for being [i]very[/i] anti-Trump, is his views on climate change.[/quote]
Your world view is not very open then.
Disabled people who can't work get screwed, I would imagine basically every disabled person is very anti-Trump.
His view on transgender rights is very poor and is basically "HOPE THE STATES MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION" and doesn't consider it a "civil rights" issue. I would imagine everyone that isn't Caitlyn Jenner and is a transgender is very anti-Trump.
He's already said he wants to set up the SCOTUS to repeal Roe v Wade basically immediately. If you're a woman who thinks you should get to choose something about your own body that is not an easy decision to make, you are probably anti-trump.
He's anti-gay marriage and wants to get rid of it. If you're homosexual and want to get married, you're probably anti-Trump.
Also there's kinda the fact that unless we magically stop improving and developing automation technology (protip: we won't), you can be anti-globalism all you want but there's literally just not going to be enough jobs for everyone we have in the future. Everyone could all magicially be geniuses and there won't be enough jobs for people, so going for anti-globalism on the pretense of creating more jobs here for the poor is very short sighted when in the not too distant future those jobs are going to go away anyways. That's veering into basic income tho which I can already tell won't fly well here so I'll end here.
Your world view is not very open then.
Disabled people who can't work get screwed, I would imagine basically every disabled person is very anti-Trump.
His view on transgender rights is very poor and is basically "HOPE THE STATES MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION" and doesn't consider it a "civil rights" issue. I would imagine everyone that isn't Caitlyn Jenner and is a transgender is very anti-Trump.
He's already said he wants to set up the SCOTUS to repeal Roe v Wade basically immediately. If you're a woman who thinks you should get to choose something about your own body that is not an easy decision to make, you are probably anti-trump.
He's anti-gay marriage and wants to get rid of it. If you're homosexual and want to get married, you're probably anti-Trump.
Also there's kinda the fact that unless we magically stop improving and developing automation technology (protip: we won't), you can be anti-globalism all you want but there's literally just not going to be enough jobs for everyone we have in the future. Everyone could all magicially be geniuses and there won't be enough jobs for people, so going for anti-globalism on the pretense of creating more jobs here for the poor is very short sighted when in the not too distant future those jobs are going to go away anyways. That's veering into basic income tho which I can already tell won't fly well here so I'll end here.
ScissorsTrump being one of those people doesn't mean anything, look how they all turned their backs on him once he didn't behave like a good boy, his speech at the Al Smith dinner blew my mind, that man doesn't owe them shit anymore, and he is unchained.
A funny speech is reason enough for you to believe that?
Why does he have Jeb's donors?
He takes foreign money.
The trump who is gonna turn his back on corporations was actually a lobbyist himself.
2
ScissorsTrump is anti globalism,
No
"We will have to leave borders behind and go for global unity when it comes to financial stability."
Scissorsand his taxcuts and economic policies are there to make sure that outsourcing for cheap labour is a thing of the past, and that new factories and businesses will operate in america.
He doesn't care about outsourced jobs, if he did, he wouldn't produce his own ties in china.
ScissorsThe elites are pushing globalism because it benefits them and fucks everyone else over, but they have managed to convince a good chunk of the people that virtue-signalling is more important than jobs and national health. The poor and minorities will benefit tenfold from actually being employed over getting handouts or being able to buy a cheap iPhone made with slave-labour. Personally, the only legit reason I can see for being very anti-Trump, is his views on climate change.
Idk if he updated his tax plans since the primaries, but if not his tax cuts are mainly for the rich. Then again, the articles I read claimed his economic policies would possibly lead the world into another recession.
Just face it, Clinton is an establishment insider and Trump wants to become one.
If you want to see Trump contradict himself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSE-XoVKaXg&ab_channel=PlainSight
[quote=Scissors]Trump being one of those people doesn't mean anything, look how they all turned their backs on him once he didn't behave like a good boy, his speech at the Al Smith dinner blew my mind, that man doesn't owe them shit anymore, and he is unchained. [/quote] A funny speech is reason enough for you to believe that?
[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-self-funding_us_574490dee4b0613b512b69e4]Why does he have Jeb's donors?[/url]
[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/24/exclusive-investigation-donald-trump-faces-foreign-donor-fundrai/]He takes foreign money.[/url]
[url=http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/302404-trump-was-a-former-lobbyist-report]The trump who is gonna turn his back on corporations was actually a lobbyist himself.[/url]
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/trump-woody-johnson-fundraising.html]2[/url]
[quote=Scissors]Trump is anti globalism,[/quote]
No
[url=http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/22/business/opinion-donald-trump-europe/]"We will have to leave borders behind and go for global unity when it comes to financial stability."[/url]
[quote=Scissors]and his taxcuts and economic policies are there to make sure that outsourcing for cheap labour is a thing of the past, and that new factories and businesses will operate in america. [/quote] He doesn't care about outsourced jobs, if he did, he wouldn't produce his own ties in china.
[quote=Scissors]The elites are pushing globalism because it benefits them and fucks everyone else over, but they have managed to convince a good chunk of the people that virtue-signalling is more important than jobs and national health. The poor and minorities will benefit tenfold from actually being employed over getting handouts or being able to buy a cheap iPhone made with slave-labour. Personally, the only legit reason I can see for being [i]very[/i] anti-Trump, is his views on climate change.[/quote] Idk if he updated his tax plans since the primaries, but if not his tax cuts are mainly for the rich. Then again, the articles I read claimed his economic policies would possibly lead the world into another recession.
Just face it, Clinton is an establishment insider and Trump wants to become one.
If you want to see Trump contradict himself: [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSE-XoVKaXg&ab_channel=PlainSight[/youtube]
[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-self-funding_us_574490dee4b0613b512b69e4]Why does he have Jeb's donors?[/url]
[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/24/exclusive-investigation-donald-trump-faces-foreign-donor-fundrai/]He takes foreign money.[/url]
[url=http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/302404-trump-was-a-former-lobbyist-report]The trump who is gonna turn his back on corporations was actually a lobbyist himself.[/url]
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/trump-woody-johnson-fundraising.html]2[/url]
[quote=Scissors]Trump is anti globalism,[/quote]
No
[url=http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/22/business/opinion-donald-trump-europe/]"We will have to leave borders behind and go for global unity when it comes to financial stability."[/url]
[quote=Scissors]and his taxcuts and economic policies are there to make sure that outsourcing for cheap labour is a thing of the past, and that new factories and businesses will operate in america. [/quote] He doesn't care about outsourced jobs, if he did, he wouldn't produce his own ties in china.
[quote=Scissors]The elites are pushing globalism because it benefits them and fucks everyone else over, but they have managed to convince a good chunk of the people that virtue-signalling is more important than jobs and national health. The poor and minorities will benefit tenfold from actually being employed over getting handouts or being able to buy a cheap iPhone made with slave-labour. Personally, the only legit reason I can see for being [i]very[/i] anti-Trump, is his views on climate change.[/quote] Idk if he updated his tax plans since the primaries, but if not his tax cuts are mainly for the rich. Then again, the articles I read claimed his economic policies would possibly lead the world into another recession.
Just face it, Clinton is an establishment insider and Trump wants to become one.
If you want to see Trump contradict himself: [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSE-XoVKaXg&ab_channel=PlainSight[/youtube]
trump's policies are on his site
why read them on sites and argue about whether or not they're biased when they're all on https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/
trump's policies are on his site
why read them on sites and argue about whether or not they're biased when they're all on https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/
why read them on sites and argue about whether or not they're biased when they're all on https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/
fade-trump's policies are on his site
why read them on sites and argue about whether or not they're biased when they're all on https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/
probably because one of the arguments against him is that he himself doesn't know what he's talking about and constantly changes his policies depending on however he's feeling on any given day
there's a reason why people think the BEST case scenario with a trump presidency is that he'll pawn everything off to pence and his cabinet and it'll be just another republican administration (which the policies on his website largely align with)
they're almost all awful btw
[quote=fade-]trump's policies are on his site
why read them on sites and argue about whether or not they're biased when they're all on https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/[/quote]
probably because one of the arguments against him is that he himself doesn't know what he's talking about and constantly changes his policies depending on however he's feeling on any given day
there's a reason why people think the BEST case scenario with a trump presidency is that he'll pawn everything off to pence and his cabinet and it'll be just another republican administration (which the policies on his website largely align with)
they're almost all awful btw
why read them on sites and argue about whether or not they're biased when they're all on https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/[/quote]
probably because one of the arguments against him is that he himself doesn't know what he's talking about and constantly changes his policies depending on however he's feeling on any given day
there's a reason why people think the BEST case scenario with a trump presidency is that he'll pawn everything off to pence and his cabinet and it'll be just another republican administration (which the policies on his website largely align with)
they're almost all awful btw
CollaideHe doesn't care about outsourced jobs, if he did, he wouldn't produce his own ties in china.
You don't get it, do you? It's just like how people were shocked when he said that not paying taxes made him smart. All throughout this campaign, he has been talking about you have to abuse cheap outsourced labour and have to abuse loopholes in the taxlaws in order to be competitive. It's a major part of his message, I can't believe people are oblivious to this. If Trump was pro-globalism, why would he constantly be talking about how bad it is for the average american, and how he wants to to end it by slapping taxes on companies who outsource?
[quote=Collaide]He doesn't care about outsourced jobs, if he did, he wouldn't produce his own ties in china.[/quote]
You don't get it, do you? It's just like how people were shocked when he said that not paying taxes made him smart. All throughout this campaign, he has been talking about you have to abuse cheap outsourced labour and have to abuse loopholes in the taxlaws in order to be competitive. It's a major part of his message, I can't believe people are oblivious to this. If Trump was pro-globalism, why would he constantly be talking about how bad it is for the average american, and how he wants to to end it by slapping taxes on companies who outsource?
You don't get it, do you? It's just like how people were shocked when he said that not paying taxes made him smart. All throughout this campaign, he has been talking about you have to abuse cheap outsourced labour and have to abuse loopholes in the taxlaws in order to be competitive. It's a major part of his message, I can't believe people are oblivious to this. If Trump was pro-globalism, why would he constantly be talking about how bad it is for the average american, and how he wants to to end it by slapping taxes on companies who outsource?
ScissorsTrump is anti globalism, and his taxcuts and economic policies are there to make sure that outsourcing for cheap labour is a thing of the past, and that new factories and businesses will operate in america. The elites are pushing globalism because it benefits them and fucks everyone else over, but they have managed to convince a good chunk of the people that virtue-signalling is more important than jobs and national health. The poor and minorities will benefit tenfold from actually being employed over getting handouts or being able to buy a cheap iPhone made with slave-labour.
People responded to your other 'points' so I will mainly address this.
I want to dispel the myth that corporations fled the U.S. because of taxes and regulations. They fled because corporations are frankenstein entities designed to increase their profits no matter what, and so they naturally move to 3rd world countries where the labor laws and average wages are so shit that there is absolutely no way we could ever match them. All tax cuts to the wealthy do is limit the spending money of the middle class, which is what actually powers our economy, and keep them in debt and unable to climb the economic ladder through higher education, sustainable home ownership, etc. Real wages have been suppressed in the U.S. for decades now.
This is not all theoretical. Manufacturing declined mainly in the 70s and the 80s in the U.S. Reaganomics did not stem the bleeding, but it did vastly increase the income/wealth inequality in our country and triple our deficit.
If there is one element of Trump's platform that I agree with, it is certain aspects of his protectionism, such as opposing the TPP and being heavily critical of NAFTA. This is also true of almost all true progressive candidates, so I don't really see why that has to be bundled with his tax policy and deregulations (not to mention his ludicrous statements about forcing other countries to pay more for protection or whatever).
When Trump is anti-globalist, it is for the benefit of US corporations over their rivals, not because he actually seeks to bring jobs back. Everyone with any understanding of economics realizes that those jobs are gone, and assuring that the ones we still have provide people with a decent standard of living is more important.
Lastly, I'd like to take a closer look at a particular sentence of yours, because I think it's very telling.
ScissorsThe poor and minorities will benefit tenfold from actually being employed over getting handouts or being able to buy a cheap iPhone made with slave-labour.
First of all, conservatives have created a rhetoric false dichotomy between employment and handouts. Most of the people on welfare, food stamps, living in public housing, etc. are fully or partially employed, but a minimum wage job is not a living wage in this country. I have never seen the assertion that raising the minimum wage would lead to greater unemployment actually borne out in reality, it's just a myth created to support the ability of corporations to do whatever they want, from the side of the aisle that believes that people in entry-level menial jobs don't really 'deserve' to live off of them without climbing the ladder, even if doing so is not possible.
There is a reason why unemployment vastly decreased under the social programs of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and increased under both Bush administrations, and it has a lot to do with tax policy creating a surplus for everyone, because the middle class stimulates the economy much more efficiently than the wealthy.
Lastly, I resent the notion that 'handouts' are just some sort of meager, temporary respite from poverty on the level of a distraction like an iphone. Social programs benefit all of society in the long run, by bolstering the working poor and enabling social mobility in the next generations. When we cut such programs, we ensure that every cent that a working class person makes has to go towards food, clothing, rent, etc., rather than education or savings.
[quote=Scissors]
Trump is anti globalism, and his taxcuts and economic policies are there to make sure that outsourcing for cheap labour is a thing of the past, and that new factories and businesses will operate in america. The elites are pushing globalism because it benefits them and fucks everyone else over, but they have managed to convince a good chunk of the people that virtue-signalling is more important than jobs and national health. The poor and minorities will benefit tenfold from actually being employed over getting handouts or being able to buy a cheap iPhone made with slave-labour. [/quote]
People responded to your other 'points' so I will mainly address this.
I want to dispel the myth that corporations fled the U.S. because of taxes and regulations. They fled because corporations are frankenstein entities designed to increase their profits no matter what, and so they naturally move to 3rd world countries where the labor laws and average wages are so shit that there is absolutely no way we could ever match them. All tax cuts to the wealthy do is limit the spending money of the middle class, which is what actually powers our economy, and keep them in debt and unable to climb the economic ladder through higher education, sustainable home ownership, etc. Real wages have been suppressed in the U.S. for decades now.
This is not all theoretical. Manufacturing declined mainly in the 70s and the 80s in the U.S. Reaganomics did not stem the bleeding, but it did vastly increase the income/wealth inequality in our country and triple our deficit.
If there is one element of Trump's platform that I agree with, it is certain aspects of his protectionism, such as opposing the TPP and being heavily critical of NAFTA. This is also true of almost all true progressive candidates, so I don't really see why that has to be bundled with his tax policy and deregulations (not to mention his ludicrous statements about forcing other countries to pay more for protection or whatever).
When Trump is anti-globalist, it is for the benefit of US corporations over their rivals, not because he actually seeks to bring jobs back. Everyone with any understanding of economics realizes that those jobs are gone, and assuring that the ones we still have provide people with a decent standard of living is more important.
Lastly, I'd like to take a closer look at a particular sentence of yours, because I think it's very telling.
[quote=Scissors]
The poor and minorities will benefit tenfold from actually being employed over getting handouts or being able to buy a cheap iPhone made with slave-labour. [/quote]
First of all, conservatives have created a rhetoric false dichotomy between employment and handouts. Most of the people on welfare, food stamps, living in public housing, etc. are fully or partially employed, but a minimum wage job is not a living wage in this country. I have never seen the assertion that raising the minimum wage would lead to greater unemployment actually borne out in reality, it's just a myth created to support the ability of corporations to do whatever they want, from the side of the aisle that believes that people in entry-level menial jobs don't really 'deserve' to live off of them without climbing the ladder, even if doing so is not possible.
There is a reason why unemployment vastly decreased under the social programs of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and increased under both Bush administrations, and it has a lot to do with tax policy creating a surplus for everyone, because the middle class stimulates the economy much more efficiently than the wealthy.
Lastly, I resent the notion that 'handouts' are just some sort of meager, temporary respite from poverty on the level of a distraction like an iphone. Social programs benefit all of society in the long run, by bolstering the working poor and enabling social mobility in the next generations. When we cut such programs, we ensure that every cent that a working class person makes has to go towards food, clothing, rent, etc., rather than education or savings.
Trump is anti globalism, and his taxcuts and economic policies are there to make sure that outsourcing for cheap labour is a thing of the past, and that new factories and businesses will operate in america. The elites are pushing globalism because it benefits them and fucks everyone else over, but they have managed to convince a good chunk of the people that virtue-signalling is more important than jobs and national health. The poor and minorities will benefit tenfold from actually being employed over getting handouts or being able to buy a cheap iPhone made with slave-labour. [/quote]
People responded to your other 'points' so I will mainly address this.
I want to dispel the myth that corporations fled the U.S. because of taxes and regulations. They fled because corporations are frankenstein entities designed to increase their profits no matter what, and so they naturally move to 3rd world countries where the labor laws and average wages are so shit that there is absolutely no way we could ever match them. All tax cuts to the wealthy do is limit the spending money of the middle class, which is what actually powers our economy, and keep them in debt and unable to climb the economic ladder through higher education, sustainable home ownership, etc. Real wages have been suppressed in the U.S. for decades now.
This is not all theoretical. Manufacturing declined mainly in the 70s and the 80s in the U.S. Reaganomics did not stem the bleeding, but it did vastly increase the income/wealth inequality in our country and triple our deficit.
If there is one element of Trump's platform that I agree with, it is certain aspects of his protectionism, such as opposing the TPP and being heavily critical of NAFTA. This is also true of almost all true progressive candidates, so I don't really see why that has to be bundled with his tax policy and deregulations (not to mention his ludicrous statements about forcing other countries to pay more for protection or whatever).
When Trump is anti-globalist, it is for the benefit of US corporations over their rivals, not because he actually seeks to bring jobs back. Everyone with any understanding of economics realizes that those jobs are gone, and assuring that the ones we still have provide people with a decent standard of living is more important.
Lastly, I'd like to take a closer look at a particular sentence of yours, because I think it's very telling.
[quote=Scissors]
The poor and minorities will benefit tenfold from actually being employed over getting handouts or being able to buy a cheap iPhone made with slave-labour. [/quote]
First of all, conservatives have created a rhetoric false dichotomy between employment and handouts. Most of the people on welfare, food stamps, living in public housing, etc. are fully or partially employed, but a minimum wage job is not a living wage in this country. I have never seen the assertion that raising the minimum wage would lead to greater unemployment actually borne out in reality, it's just a myth created to support the ability of corporations to do whatever they want, from the side of the aisle that believes that people in entry-level menial jobs don't really 'deserve' to live off of them without climbing the ladder, even if doing so is not possible.
There is a reason why unemployment vastly decreased under the social programs of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and increased under both Bush administrations, and it has a lot to do with tax policy creating a surplus for everyone, because the middle class stimulates the economy much more efficiently than the wealthy.
Lastly, I resent the notion that 'handouts' are just some sort of meager, temporary respite from poverty on the level of a distraction like an iphone. Social programs benefit all of society in the long run, by bolstering the working poor and enabling social mobility in the next generations. When we cut such programs, we ensure that every cent that a working class person makes has to go towards food, clothing, rent, etc., rather than education or savings.
ScissorsEven if you dislike or disagree with Trump, surely you can see that this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to rip out the entire corrupt and broken system by it's roots and start over? Trump is going to end career politicians and big money in politics, that alone makes him a better candidate than the Goldman Sachs puppet alternative in my mind.
Tino_I don't get how people think that trump is single handily going to change the entire system….
Of course he is not going to be able to change the entire system with the limited power of the executive branch. But he can most certainly have a big impact as president. Exposing the illegal activities of many members of congress and getting them prosecuted is one way of “draining the swamp.” He can also put pressure on prosecutors to actually go after people and appoint investigators. It is possible that he could convince congress to impose reasonable term limits. He can’t do it by himself obviously.
mustardoverlord Donald Trump is one of those rich and powerful people. From a policy standpoint, he would make Goldman Sachs happier than even the most puppet-like version of a Hillary Clinton administration.
You’re kidding me right…. Goldman Sachs wants Clinton in because they know they can control her. They’ve already been bribing the puppet via paid speeches for years. Trump is on another level, isn’t accepting bribes from these companies and they know they can’t control him. Not even the establishment has full control over him, he does what he wants, and that scares them to death. He is an independent disguised as a republican.
SpaceCadetI'm not going to pretend that I know much about the global warming issues or details. However, pointing out that "pollution of our air, water, oceans and deforestation" as major problems seems to be the same thing since they all contribute to Global Warming anyways? or am I wrong?
There are certainly some parallels between the mainstream climate change views and pollution, but there are also differences. Dumping 10 tons of chemical fertilizer into a river isn’t going to have a damn impact on the temperature of the earth, but it sure as hell will have an impact on the toxicity of the water, and will kill off fish/plants etc. Global warming is the idea that because man is burning fossil fuels it is leading to an out of control increase in temperature that is only preventable by a massive scale back in fossil fuel consumption.
Collaide”Trump is anti globalisim” No
He is very anti globalisim. Unlike Hillary he wants a secure border, he wants controlled and regulated immigration. He wants trade deals that benefit the US and not other countries. He wants to impose import duties and exit taxes on companies that leave and send stuff back to the US.
Collaide He doesn't care about outsourced jobs, if he did, he wouldn't produce his own ties in china.
Bullshit. I care about outsourced jobs, yet probably 90% of the stuff I sell as a business is from Asia. And the vast majority of the stuff I sell isn’t even produced in the US. I’d much rather make/buy things here if it was financially viable. I’d even pay more, as long as I could still turn a decent profit. Trump is the same way. He’d prefer to do things here, but at the end of the day if it is significantly cheaper, then he will outsource. But he’s argued that its up to the politicians to make it difficult for him to do business like that, and also up to them to cut red tape and make the US more manufacturing friendly.
Some of the products I design and have manufactured it just isn’t financially possible for me to do it any other way other than through China. I can’t afford $20,000 in development cost for a single product, when China will do it for $1,000.
[quote=Scissors]Even if you dislike or disagree with Trump, surely you can see that this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to rip out the entire corrupt and broken system by it's roots and start over? Trump is going to end career politicians and big money in politics, that alone makes him a better candidate than the Goldman Sachs puppet alternative in my mind.[/quote]
[quote=Tino_]I don't get how people think that trump is single handily going to change the entire system….[/quote]
Of course he is not going to be able to change the entire system with the limited power of the executive branch. But he can most certainly have a big impact as president. Exposing the illegal activities of many members of congress and getting them prosecuted is one way of “draining the swamp.” He can also put pressure on prosecutors to actually go after people and appoint investigators. It is possible that he could convince congress to impose reasonable term limits. He can’t do it by himself obviously.
[quote=mustardoverlord] Donald Trump is one of those rich and powerful people. From a policy standpoint, he would make Goldman Sachs happier than even the most puppet-like version of a Hillary Clinton administration.[/quote]
You’re kidding me right…. Goldman Sachs wants Clinton in because they know they can control her. They’ve already been bribing the puppet via paid speeches for years. Trump is on another level, isn’t accepting bribes from these companies and they know they can’t control him. Not even the establishment has full control over him, he does what he wants, and that scares them to death. He is an independent disguised as a republican.
[quote=SpaceCadet]I'm not going to pretend that I know much about the global warming issues or details. However, pointing out that "pollution of our air, water, oceans and deforestation" as major problems seems to be the same thing since they all contribute to Global Warming anyways? or am I wrong?[/quote]
There are certainly some parallels between the mainstream climate change views and pollution, but there are also differences. Dumping 10 tons of chemical fertilizer into a river isn’t going to have a damn impact on the temperature of the earth, but it sure as hell will have an impact on the toxicity of the water, and will kill off fish/plants etc. Global warming is the idea that because man is burning fossil fuels it is leading to an out of control increase in temperature that is only preventable by a massive scale back in fossil fuel consumption.
[quote=Collaide]”Trump is anti globalisim” No[/quote]
He is very anti globalisim. Unlike Hillary he wants a secure border, he wants controlled and regulated immigration. He wants trade deals that benefit the US and not other countries. He wants to impose import duties and exit taxes on companies that leave and send stuff back to the US.
[quote=Collaide] He doesn't care about outsourced jobs, if he did, he wouldn't produce his own ties in china.[/quote]
Bullshit. I care about outsourced jobs, yet probably 90% of the stuff I sell as a business is from Asia. And the vast majority of the stuff I sell isn’t even produced in the US. I’d much rather make/buy things here if it was financially viable. I’d even pay more, as long as I could still turn a decent profit. Trump is the same way. He’d prefer to do things here, but at the end of the day if it is significantly cheaper, then he will outsource. But he’s argued that its up to the politicians to make it difficult for him to do business like that, and also up to them to cut red tape and make the US more manufacturing friendly.
Some of the products I design and have manufactured it just isn’t financially possible for me to do it any other way other than through China. I can’t afford $20,000 in development cost for a single product, when China will do it for $1,000.
[quote=Tino_]I don't get how people think that trump is single handily going to change the entire system….[/quote]
Of course he is not going to be able to change the entire system with the limited power of the executive branch. But he can most certainly have a big impact as president. Exposing the illegal activities of many members of congress and getting them prosecuted is one way of “draining the swamp.” He can also put pressure on prosecutors to actually go after people and appoint investigators. It is possible that he could convince congress to impose reasonable term limits. He can’t do it by himself obviously.
[quote=mustardoverlord] Donald Trump is one of those rich and powerful people. From a policy standpoint, he would make Goldman Sachs happier than even the most puppet-like version of a Hillary Clinton administration.[/quote]
You’re kidding me right…. Goldman Sachs wants Clinton in because they know they can control her. They’ve already been bribing the puppet via paid speeches for years. Trump is on another level, isn’t accepting bribes from these companies and they know they can’t control him. Not even the establishment has full control over him, he does what he wants, and that scares them to death. He is an independent disguised as a republican.
[quote=SpaceCadet]I'm not going to pretend that I know much about the global warming issues or details. However, pointing out that "pollution of our air, water, oceans and deforestation" as major problems seems to be the same thing since they all contribute to Global Warming anyways? or am I wrong?[/quote]
There are certainly some parallels between the mainstream climate change views and pollution, but there are also differences. Dumping 10 tons of chemical fertilizer into a river isn’t going to have a damn impact on the temperature of the earth, but it sure as hell will have an impact on the toxicity of the water, and will kill off fish/plants etc. Global warming is the idea that because man is burning fossil fuels it is leading to an out of control increase in temperature that is only preventable by a massive scale back in fossil fuel consumption.
[quote=Collaide]”Trump is anti globalisim” No[/quote]
He is very anti globalisim. Unlike Hillary he wants a secure border, he wants controlled and regulated immigration. He wants trade deals that benefit the US and not other countries. He wants to impose import duties and exit taxes on companies that leave and send stuff back to the US.
[quote=Collaide] He doesn't care about outsourced jobs, if he did, he wouldn't produce his own ties in china.[/quote]
Bullshit. I care about outsourced jobs, yet probably 90% of the stuff I sell as a business is from Asia. And the vast majority of the stuff I sell isn’t even produced in the US. I’d much rather make/buy things here if it was financially viable. I’d even pay more, as long as I could still turn a decent profit. Trump is the same way. He’d prefer to do things here, but at the end of the day if it is significantly cheaper, then he will outsource. But he’s argued that its up to the politicians to make it difficult for him to do business like that, and also up to them to cut red tape and make the US more manufacturing friendly.
Some of the products I design and have manufactured it just isn’t financially possible for me to do it any other way other than through China. I can’t afford $20,000 in development cost for a single product, when China will do it for $1,000.
> I can’t afford $20,000 in development cost for a single product, when China will do it for $1,000.
so your solution is to create an economy where you won't be able to sell a product because it costs $20000 and as a result no one will be able to afford it?
> I can’t afford $20,000 in development cost for a single product, when China will do it for $1,000.
so your solution is to create an economy where you won't be able to sell a product because it costs $20000 and as a result no one will be able to afford it?
so your solution is to create an economy where you won't be able to sell a product because it costs $20000 and as a result no one will be able to afford it?
mustardoverlordI want to dispel the myth that corporations fled the U.S. because of taxes and regulations. They fled because corporations are frankenstein entities designed to increase their profits no matter what, and so they naturally move to 3rd world countries where the labor laws and average wages are so shit that there is absolutely no way we could ever match them.
I was saying all along that this was the main reason
mustardoverlordAll tax cuts to the wealthy do is limit the spending money of the middle class, which is what actually powers our economy, and keep them in debt and unable to climb the economic ladder through higher education, sustainable home ownership, etc. Real wages have been suppressed in the U.S. for decades now.
It's not all it does, it also allows for more investment. He is also not only going to lower taxes for the wealthy, he is going to lower it for everyone.
mustardoverlordIf there is one element of Trump's platform that I agree with, it is certain aspects of his protectionism, such as opposing the TPP and being heavily critical of NAFTA. This is also true of almost all true progressive candidates, so I don't really see why that has to be bundled with his tax policy and deregulations (not to mention his ludicrous statements about forcing other countries to pay more for protection or whatever).
You are a fool if you believe Hillary will not pass TPP, she has called it the golden standard before the public opinion of it shifted towards the worse, and suddenly (like many of her other positions) she suddenly changed opinion about it. Leaked emails from Podesta even revealed that she was (obviously) going to pass it regardless. And what is so ludicrous about demanding countries to actually pay for their protection? This dependance on the US is not helping anyone other than the american arms industry. This is exactly the kind of stuff he is talking about when he is saying you guys are being ripped off.
mustardoverlordWhen Trump is anti-globalist, it is for the benefit of US corporations over their rivals, not because he actually seeks to bring jobs back. Everyone with any understanding of economics realizes that those jobs are gone, and assuring that the ones we still have provide people with a decent standard of living is more important.
How exactly does it benefit the corporations not to be able to outsource to 3rd world countries without consequences anymore? Seems like mental gymnastics to me, there is a reason all the big business hates Trump. If Trump get's this through, it will be a major blow for the big global corporations and a big win for the average working man.
mustardoverlordFirst of all, conservatives have created a rhetoric false dichotomy between employment and handouts. Most of the people on welfare, food stamps, living in public housing, etc. are fully or partially employed, but a minimum wage job is not a living wage in this country. I have never seen the assertion that raising the minimum wage would lead to greater unemployment actually borne out in reality, it's just a myth created to support the ability of corporations to do whatever they want, from the side of the aisle that believes that people in entry-level menial jobs don't really 'deserve' to live off of them without climbing the ladder, even if doing so is not possible.
I agree that there needs to be a living-wage. I work a minimum wage job while studying here, and I can barely say that it is worth my time with a straight face, and I make 17USD/hour. Doesn't change the fact that having a real job good job is vastly superior to receiving welfare. It makes you independant and you are no longer a burden for the taxpayer.
mustardoverlordThere is a reason why unemployment vastly decreased under the social programs of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and increased under both Bush administrations, and it has a lot to do with tax policy creating a surplus for everyone, because the middle class stimulates the economy much more efficiently than the wealthy.
The main reason unemployment "vastly decreased" under Obama, is because A: it could pretty much only go up after 2008 and B: just like the big scandal in Brazil and elsewhere, the definition of what it means to be fully employed has been watered down. The reality is that a large majority of the jobs created, are worthless part-time minimumwage jobs that only look good as a number in a statistic. It's the same everywhere.
mustardoverlordLastly, I resent the notion that 'handouts' are just some sort of meager, temporary respite from poverty on the level of a distraction like an iphone. Social programs benefit all of society in the long run, by bolstering the working poor and enabling social mobility in the next generations. When we cut such programs, we ensure that every cent that a working class person makes has to go towards food, clothing, rent, etc., rather than education or savings.
I suppose it is very different in your country and mine, but here we have a huge problem with people not working because they don't feel it's worth it, when they can get basically the same from the welfarestate doing nothing. Anyhow, surely everybody can agree that putting these people to work is a better solution for everybody.
No matter how this turns out, it wont be pretty. It seems like there is a huge divide like I have never seen before, it's just like back here in europe. I expect massive turmoil no matter who wins. 2 years ago, I thought it was all over, but the events of lately have given me hope for the west again. It's sad how divided everyone is though, 2017+ is going to be one hell of a ride
[quote=mustardoverlord]I want to dispel the myth that corporations fled the U.S. because of taxes and regulations. They fled because corporations are frankenstein entities designed to increase their profits no matter what, and so they naturally move to 3rd world countries where the labor laws and average wages are so shit that there is absolutely no way we could ever match them.[/quote]
I was saying all along that this was the main reason
[quote=mustardoverlord]All tax cuts to the wealthy do is limit the spending money of the middle class, which is what actually powers our economy, and keep them in debt and unable to climb the economic ladder through higher education, sustainable home ownership, etc. Real wages have been suppressed in the U.S. for decades now.[/quote]
It's not all it does, it also allows for more investment. He is also not only going to lower taxes for the wealthy, he is going to lower it for everyone.
[quote=mustardoverlord]If there is one element of Trump's platform that I agree with, it is certain aspects of his protectionism, such as opposing the TPP and being heavily critical of NAFTA. This is also true of almost all true progressive candidates, so I don't really see why that has to be bundled with his tax policy and deregulations (not to mention his ludicrous statements about forcing other countries to pay more for protection or whatever).[/quote]
You are a fool if you believe Hillary will not pass TPP, she has called it the golden standard before the public opinion of it shifted towards the worse, and suddenly (like many of her other positions) she suddenly changed opinion about it. Leaked emails from Podesta even revealed that she was (obviously) going to pass it regardless. And what is so ludicrous about demanding countries to actually pay for their protection? This dependance on the US is not helping anyone other than the american arms industry. This is exactly the kind of stuff he is talking about when he is saying you guys are being ripped off.
[quote=mustardoverlord]When Trump is anti-globalist, it is for the benefit of US corporations over their rivals, not because he actually seeks to bring jobs back. Everyone with any understanding of economics realizes that those jobs are gone, and assuring that the ones we still have provide people with a decent standard of living is more important.[/quote]
How exactly does it benefit the corporations not to be able to outsource to 3rd world countries without consequences anymore? Seems like mental gymnastics to me, there is a reason all the big business hates Trump. If Trump get's this through, it will be a major blow for the big global corporations and a big win for the average working man.
[quote=mustardoverlord]First of all, conservatives have created a rhetoric false dichotomy between employment and handouts. Most of the people on welfare, food stamps, living in public housing, etc. are fully or partially employed, but a minimum wage job is not a living wage in this country. I have never seen the assertion that raising the minimum wage would lead to greater unemployment actually borne out in reality, it's just a myth created to support the ability of corporations to do whatever they want, from the side of the aisle that believes that people in entry-level menial jobs don't really 'deserve' to live off of them without climbing the ladder, even if doing so is not possible.[/quote]
I agree that there needs to be a living-wage. I work a minimum wage job while studying here, and I can barely say that it is worth my time with a straight face, and I make 17USD/hour. Doesn't change the fact that having a real job [i]good[/i] job is vastly superior to receiving welfare. It makes you independant and you are no longer a burden for the taxpayer.
[quote=mustardoverlord]There is a reason why unemployment vastly decreased under the social programs of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and increased under both Bush administrations, and it has a lot to do with tax policy creating a surplus for everyone, because the middle class stimulates the economy much more efficiently than the wealthy.[/quote]
The main reason unemployment "vastly decreased" under Obama, is because A: it could pretty much only go up after 2008 and B: just like the big scandal in Brazil and elsewhere, the definition of what it means to be fully employed has been watered down. The reality is that a large majority of the jobs created, are worthless part-time minimumwage jobs that only look good as a number in a statistic. It's the same everywhere.
[quote=mustardoverlord]Lastly, I resent the notion that 'handouts' are just some sort of meager, temporary respite from poverty on the level of a distraction like an iphone. Social programs benefit all of society in the long run, by bolstering the working poor and enabling social mobility in the next generations. When we cut such programs, we ensure that every cent that a working class person makes has to go towards food, clothing, rent, etc., rather than education or savings.[/quote]
I suppose it is very different in your country and mine, but here we have a huge problem with people not working because they don't feel it's worth it, when they can get basically the same from the welfarestate doing nothing. Anyhow, surely everybody can agree that putting these people to work is a better solution for everybody.
No matter how this turns out, it wont be pretty. It seems like there is a huge divide like I have never seen before, it's just like back here in europe. I expect massive turmoil no matter who wins. 2 years ago, I thought it was all over, but the events of lately have given me hope for the west again. It's sad how divided everyone is though, 2017+ is going to be one hell of a ride
I was saying all along that this was the main reason
[quote=mustardoverlord]All tax cuts to the wealthy do is limit the spending money of the middle class, which is what actually powers our economy, and keep them in debt and unable to climb the economic ladder through higher education, sustainable home ownership, etc. Real wages have been suppressed in the U.S. for decades now.[/quote]
It's not all it does, it also allows for more investment. He is also not only going to lower taxes for the wealthy, he is going to lower it for everyone.
[quote=mustardoverlord]If there is one element of Trump's platform that I agree with, it is certain aspects of his protectionism, such as opposing the TPP and being heavily critical of NAFTA. This is also true of almost all true progressive candidates, so I don't really see why that has to be bundled with his tax policy and deregulations (not to mention his ludicrous statements about forcing other countries to pay more for protection or whatever).[/quote]
You are a fool if you believe Hillary will not pass TPP, she has called it the golden standard before the public opinion of it shifted towards the worse, and suddenly (like many of her other positions) she suddenly changed opinion about it. Leaked emails from Podesta even revealed that she was (obviously) going to pass it regardless. And what is so ludicrous about demanding countries to actually pay for their protection? This dependance on the US is not helping anyone other than the american arms industry. This is exactly the kind of stuff he is talking about when he is saying you guys are being ripped off.
[quote=mustardoverlord]When Trump is anti-globalist, it is for the benefit of US corporations over their rivals, not because he actually seeks to bring jobs back. Everyone with any understanding of economics realizes that those jobs are gone, and assuring that the ones we still have provide people with a decent standard of living is more important.[/quote]
How exactly does it benefit the corporations not to be able to outsource to 3rd world countries without consequences anymore? Seems like mental gymnastics to me, there is a reason all the big business hates Trump. If Trump get's this through, it will be a major blow for the big global corporations and a big win for the average working man.
[quote=mustardoverlord]First of all, conservatives have created a rhetoric false dichotomy between employment and handouts. Most of the people on welfare, food stamps, living in public housing, etc. are fully or partially employed, but a minimum wage job is not a living wage in this country. I have never seen the assertion that raising the minimum wage would lead to greater unemployment actually borne out in reality, it's just a myth created to support the ability of corporations to do whatever they want, from the side of the aisle that believes that people in entry-level menial jobs don't really 'deserve' to live off of them without climbing the ladder, even if doing so is not possible.[/quote]
I agree that there needs to be a living-wage. I work a minimum wage job while studying here, and I can barely say that it is worth my time with a straight face, and I make 17USD/hour. Doesn't change the fact that having a real job [i]good[/i] job is vastly superior to receiving welfare. It makes you independant and you are no longer a burden for the taxpayer.
[quote=mustardoverlord]There is a reason why unemployment vastly decreased under the social programs of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and increased under both Bush administrations, and it has a lot to do with tax policy creating a surplus for everyone, because the middle class stimulates the economy much more efficiently than the wealthy.[/quote]
The main reason unemployment "vastly decreased" under Obama, is because A: it could pretty much only go up after 2008 and B: just like the big scandal in Brazil and elsewhere, the definition of what it means to be fully employed has been watered down. The reality is that a large majority of the jobs created, are worthless part-time minimumwage jobs that only look good as a number in a statistic. It's the same everywhere.
[quote=mustardoverlord]Lastly, I resent the notion that 'handouts' are just some sort of meager, temporary respite from poverty on the level of a distraction like an iphone. Social programs benefit all of society in the long run, by bolstering the working poor and enabling social mobility in the next generations. When we cut such programs, we ensure that every cent that a working class person makes has to go towards food, clothing, rent, etc., rather than education or savings.[/quote]
I suppose it is very different in your country and mine, but here we have a huge problem with people not working because they don't feel it's worth it, when they can get basically the same from the welfarestate doing nothing. Anyhow, surely everybody can agree that putting these people to work is a better solution for everybody.
No matter how this turns out, it wont be pretty. It seems like there is a huge divide like I have never seen before, it's just like back here in europe. I expect massive turmoil no matter who wins. 2 years ago, I thought it was all over, but the events of lately have given me hope for the west again. It's sad how divided everyone is though, 2017+ is going to be one hell of a ride
dollarlayerScissorsI'm not going to pretend that I know much about the global warming issues or details. However, pointing out that "pollution of our air, water, oceans and deforestation" as major problems seems to be the same thing since they all contribute to Global Warming anyways? or am I wrong?
please don't quote me for other people's words, I never said this
[quote=dollarlayer]
[quote=Scissors]I'm not going to pretend that I know much about the global warming issues or details. However, pointing out that "pollution of our air, water, oceans and deforestation" as major problems seems to be the same thing since they all contribute to Global Warming anyways? or am I wrong?[/quote]
[/quote]
please don't quote me for other people's words, I never said this
[quote=Scissors]I'm not going to pretend that I know much about the global warming issues or details. However, pointing out that "pollution of our air, water, oceans and deforestation" as major problems seems to be the same thing since they all contribute to Global Warming anyways? or am I wrong?[/quote]
[/quote]
please don't quote me for other people's words, I never said this
eee> I can’t afford $20,000 in development cost for a single product, when China will do it for $1,000.
so your solution is to create an economy where you won't be able to sell a product because it costs $20000 and as a result no one will be able to afford it?
I'm not sure if you are correctly understanding the difference between product development cost and production/manufacturing cost. To be clear, I'm talking about $1000 vs $20,000 development cost aka R&D for a product which sells for $60. Actual manufacturing cost is $15 or so.
I used that as an example for why paying someone in the US to do R&D is not viable. If I paid the $20,000 to someone in the US for R&D, I may never recoup that money through sales, so it would never would have made sense to put the product into production and on the market.
[quote=eee]> I can’t afford $20,000 in development cost for a single product, when China will do it for $1,000.
so your solution is to create an economy where you won't be able to sell a product because it costs $20000 and as a result no one will be able to afford it?[/quote]
I'm not sure if you are correctly understanding the difference between product development cost and production/manufacturing cost. To be clear, I'm talking about $1000 vs $20,000 development cost aka R&D for a product which sells for $60. Actual manufacturing cost is $15 or so.
I used that as an example for why paying someone in the US to do R&D is not viable. If I paid the $20,000 to someone in the US for R&D, I may never recoup that money through sales, so it would never would have made sense to put the product into production and on the market.
so your solution is to create an economy where you won't be able to sell a product because it costs $20000 and as a result no one will be able to afford it?[/quote]
I'm not sure if you are correctly understanding the difference between product development cost and production/manufacturing cost. To be clear, I'm talking about $1000 vs $20,000 development cost aka R&D for a product which sells for $60. Actual manufacturing cost is $15 or so.
I used that as an example for why paying someone in the US to do R&D is not viable. If I paid the $20,000 to someone in the US for R&D, I may never recoup that money through sales, so it would never would have made sense to put the product into production and on the market.
I understand the difference, sorry that the completely arbitrary example was too good of an excuse for you to resist dodging the point :(
if shit is already too expensive to develop in an economically feasible way in the US, why would removing the lower price option make the product more affordable? Your business would collapse because you wouldn't be able to afford to do business
I understand the difference, sorry that the completely arbitrary example was too good of an excuse for you to resist dodging the point :(
if shit is already too expensive to develop in an economically feasible way in the US, why would removing the lower price option make the product more affordable? Your business would collapse because you wouldn't be able to afford to do business
if shit is already too expensive to develop in an economically feasible way in the US, why would removing the lower price option make the product more affordable? Your business would collapse because you wouldn't be able to afford to do business
eeeI understand the difference, sorry that the completely arbitrary example was too good of an excuse for you to resist dodging the point :(
if shit is already too expensive to develop in an economically feasible way in the US, why would removing the lower price option make the product more affordable? Your business would collapse because you wouldn't be able to afford to do business
I'm a little confused as to what you are getting at. Are you responding to my comment about that it is up to the politicians to impose import taxes and such to force more businesses to buy from domestically produced sources?
Because if so, we are arguing two different things. I had a couple different arguments.
1) Import taxes increase domestic consumption, which in turn increases production and drops the price to more competitive levels (economies of scale).
2) Sometimes it is not viable to ever produce a product in the US due to development cost, at least for a small businesses.
3) I'm not saying that we should never import anything or outsource anything. I'm saying the government should make it easier for US companies to increase domestic production through policies like import taxes, which in turn increases domestic consumption.
4) If there was no option to outsource certain products, I simply just wouldn't make them and would pursue other ventures. There are always ways to make money, if one door is shut, find another one to open.
[quote=eee]I understand the difference, sorry that the completely arbitrary example was too good of an excuse for you to resist dodging the point :(
if shit is already too expensive to develop in an economically feasible way in the US, why would removing the lower price option make the product more affordable? Your business would collapse because you wouldn't be able to afford to do business[/quote]
I'm a little confused as to what you are getting at. Are you responding to my comment about that it is up to the politicians to impose import taxes and such to force more businesses to buy from domestically produced sources?
Because if so, we are arguing two different things. I had a couple different arguments.
1) Import taxes increase domestic consumption, which in turn increases production and drops the price to more competitive levels (economies of scale).
2) Sometimes it is not viable to ever produce a product in the US due to development cost, at least for a small businesses.
3) I'm not saying that we should never import anything or outsource anything. I'm saying the government should make it easier for US companies to increase domestic production through policies like import taxes, which in turn increases domestic consumption.
4) If there was no option to outsource certain products, I simply just wouldn't make them and would pursue other ventures. There are always ways to make money, if one door is shut, find another one to open.
if shit is already too expensive to develop in an economically feasible way in the US, why would removing the lower price option make the product more affordable? Your business would collapse because you wouldn't be able to afford to do business[/quote]
I'm a little confused as to what you are getting at. Are you responding to my comment about that it is up to the politicians to impose import taxes and such to force more businesses to buy from domestically produced sources?
Because if so, we are arguing two different things. I had a couple different arguments.
1) Import taxes increase domestic consumption, which in turn increases production and drops the price to more competitive levels (economies of scale).
2) Sometimes it is not viable to ever produce a product in the US due to development cost, at least for a small businesses.
3) I'm not saying that we should never import anything or outsource anything. I'm saying the government should make it easier for US companies to increase domestic production through policies like import taxes, which in turn increases domestic consumption.
4) If there was no option to outsource certain products, I simply just wouldn't make them and would pursue other ventures. There are always ways to make money, if one door is shut, find another one to open.
ScissorsCollaideHe doesn't care about outsourced jobs, if he did, he wouldn't produce his own ties in china.
You don't get it, do you? It's just like how people were shocked when he said that not paying taxes made him smart. All throughout this campaign, he has been talking about you have to abuse cheap outsourced labour and have to abuse loopholes in the taxlaws in order to be competitive.
I never argued that he does it to stay competitive, however, it shows that he doesn't care about outsourced jobs but merely personal gains aka he is GREEDY
ScissorsIt's a major part of his message, I can't believe people are oblivious to this.
Again, I'm not oblivious to it, what I am saying is that Trump is exploiting the broken system instead of proving himself to be principled.
Scissors If Trump was pro-globalism, why would he constantly be talking about how bad it is for the average american, and how he wants to to end it by slapping taxes on companies who outsource?
Because he is lying to get elected, just like every other politician ever?
[quote=Scissors][quote=Collaide]He doesn't care about outsourced jobs, if he did, he wouldn't produce his own ties in china.[/quote]
You don't get it, do you? It's just like how people were shocked when he said that not paying taxes made him smart. All throughout this campaign, he has been talking about you have to abuse cheap outsourced labour and have to abuse loopholes in the taxlaws in order to be competitive.[/quote]
I never argued that he does it to stay competitive, however, it shows that he doesn't care about outsourced jobs but merely personal gains aka he is [b]GREEDY[/b]
[quote=Scissors]It's a major part of his message, I can't believe people are oblivious to this.[/quote]
Again, I'm not oblivious to it, what I am saying is that Trump is exploiting the broken system instead of proving himself to be principled.
[quote=Scissors] If Trump was pro-globalism, why would he constantly be talking about how bad it is for the average american, and how he wants to to end it by slapping taxes on companies who outsource?[/quote]
Because he is lying to get elected, just like every other politician ever?
You don't get it, do you? It's just like how people were shocked when he said that not paying taxes made him smart. All throughout this campaign, he has been talking about you have to abuse cheap outsourced labour and have to abuse loopholes in the taxlaws in order to be competitive.[/quote]
I never argued that he does it to stay competitive, however, it shows that he doesn't care about outsourced jobs but merely personal gains aka he is [b]GREEDY[/b]
[quote=Scissors]It's a major part of his message, I can't believe people are oblivious to this.[/quote]
Again, I'm not oblivious to it, what I am saying is that Trump is exploiting the broken system instead of proving himself to be principled.
[quote=Scissors] If Trump was pro-globalism, why would he constantly be talking about how bad it is for the average american, and how he wants to to end it by slapping taxes on companies who outsource?[/quote]
Because he is lying to get elected, just like every other politician ever?
ScissorsEven if you dislike or disagree with Trump, surely you can see that this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to rip out the entire corrupt and broken system by it's roots and start over? Trump is going to end career politicians and big money in politics, that alone makes him a better candidate than the Goldman Sachs puppet alternative in my mind.
This is hopelessly naive
[quote=Scissors]Even if you dislike or disagree with Trump, surely you can see that this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to rip out the entire corrupt and broken system by it's roots and start over? Trump is going to end career politicians and big money in politics, that alone makes him a better candidate than the Goldman Sachs puppet alternative in my mind.[/quote]
This is hopelessly naive
This is hopelessly naive
dollarlayerOf course he is not going to be able to change the entire system with the limited power of the executive branch. But he can most certainly have a big impact as president. Exposing the illegal activities of many members of congress and getting them prosecuted is one way of “draining the swamp.” He can also put pressure on prosecutors to actually go after people and appoint investigators. It is possible that he could convince congress to impose reasonable term limits. He can’t do it by himself obviously.
A video explaining how both trump and hillary's anti-corruption plans both fall short, and is largely "window dressing":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu9ozXkPfQw&ab_channel=SecularTalk
dollarlayerYou’re kidding me right…. Goldman Sachs wants Clinton in because they know they can control her. They’ve already been bribing the puppet via paid speeches for years. Trump is on another level, isn’t accepting bribes from these companies and they know they can’t control him. Not even the establishment has full control over him, he does what he wants, and that scares them to death. He is an independent disguised as a republican.
He's not disguised. Do you remember his secret meeting with the republican establishment before the RNC? I wonder why they don't release what happened there :o
Collaide”Trump is anti globalisim” No
dollarlayerHe is very anti globalisim. Unlike Hillary he wants a secure border,
Haha! This is an issue that the candidates have flipflopped about. Hillary used to want a secure border with a fence, and Trump used to not want that (probably because he was exploiting mexican labour).
Collaidehe wants controlled and regulated immigration. He wants trade deals that benefit the US and not other countries. He wants to impose import duties and exit taxes on companies that leave and send stuff back to the US
How do you know what he wants after knowing he flops on every issue constantly? What a person says is not automatically what they believe. Sure, Trump cares about the working class, and while we're at it, Hillary Clinton is a "True progressive who gets things done". Because politicians never lie BrokeBack
Collaide He doesn't care about outsourced jobs, if he did, he wouldn't produce his own ties in china.
dollarlayerBullshit. I care about outsourced jobs, yet probably 90% of the stuff I sell as a business is from Asia. And the vast majority of the stuff I sell isn’t even produced in the US. I’d much rather make/buy things here if it was financially viable. I’d even pay more, as long as I could still turn a decent profit. Trump is the same way. He’d prefer to do things here, but at the end of the day if it is significantly cheaper, then he will outsource. But he’s argued that its up to the politicians to make it difficult for him to do business like that, and also up to them to cut red tape and make the US more manufacturing friendly. Some of the products I design and have manufactured it just isn’t financially possible for me to do it any other way other than through China. I can’t afford $20,000 in development cost for a single product, when China will do it for $1,000.
Maybe you are not a billionaire who already has enough money to survive for your entire life?
[quote=dollarlayer]Of course he is not going to be able to change the entire system with the limited power of the executive branch. But he can most certainly have a big impact as president. Exposing the illegal activities of many members of congress and getting them prosecuted is one way of “draining the swamp.” He can also put pressure on prosecutors to actually go after people and appoint investigators. It is possible that he could convince congress to impose reasonable term limits. He can’t do it by himself obviously.[/quote]
A video explaining how both trump and hillary's anti-corruption plans both fall short, and is largely "window dressing":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu9ozXkPfQw&ab_channel=SecularTalk
[quote=dollarlayer]You’re kidding me right…. Goldman Sachs wants Clinton in because they know they can control her. They’ve already been bribing the puppet via paid speeches for years. Trump is on another level, isn’t accepting bribes from these companies and they know they can’t control him. Not even the establishment has full control over him, he does what he wants, and that scares them to death. He is an independent disguised as a republican.[/quote]
He's not disguised. Do you remember his secret meeting with the republican establishment before the RNC? I wonder why they don't release what happened there :o
[quote=Collaide]”Trump is anti globalisim” No[/quote]
[quote=dollarlayer]He is very anti globalisim. Unlike Hillary he wants a secure border, [/quote]
Haha! This is an issue that the candidates have flipflopped about. Hillary used to want a secure border with a fence, and Trump used to not want that (probably because he was exploiting mexican labour).
[quote=Collaide]he wants controlled and regulated immigration. He wants trade deals that benefit the US and not other countries. He wants to impose import duties and exit taxes on companies that leave and send stuff back to the US [/quote]
How do you know what he wants after knowing he flops on every issue constantly? What a person says is not automatically what they believe. Sure, Trump cares about the working class, and while we're at it, Hillary Clinton is a "True progressive who gets things done". Because politicians never lie BrokeBack
[quote=Collaide] He doesn't care about outsourced jobs, if he did, he wouldn't produce his own ties in china.[/quote]
[quote=dollarlayer]Bullshit. I care about outsourced jobs, yet probably 90% of the stuff I sell as a business is from Asia. And the vast majority of the stuff I sell isn’t even produced in the US. I’d much rather make/buy things here if it was financially viable. I’d even pay more, as long as I could still turn a decent profit. Trump is the same way. He’d prefer to do things here, but at the end of the day if it is significantly cheaper, then he will outsource. But he’s argued that its up to the politicians to make it difficult for him to do business like that, and also up to them to cut red tape and make the US more manufacturing friendly. Some of the products I design and have manufactured it just isn’t financially possible for me to do it any other way other than through China. I can’t afford $20,000 in development cost for a single product, when China will do it for $1,000.[/quote] Maybe you are not a billionaire who already has enough money to survive for your entire life?
A video explaining how both trump and hillary's anti-corruption plans both fall short, and is largely "window dressing":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu9ozXkPfQw&ab_channel=SecularTalk
[quote=dollarlayer]You’re kidding me right…. Goldman Sachs wants Clinton in because they know they can control her. They’ve already been bribing the puppet via paid speeches for years. Trump is on another level, isn’t accepting bribes from these companies and they know they can’t control him. Not even the establishment has full control over him, he does what he wants, and that scares them to death. He is an independent disguised as a republican.[/quote]
He's not disguised. Do you remember his secret meeting with the republican establishment before the RNC? I wonder why they don't release what happened there :o
[quote=Collaide]”Trump is anti globalisim” No[/quote]
[quote=dollarlayer]He is very anti globalisim. Unlike Hillary he wants a secure border, [/quote]
Haha! This is an issue that the candidates have flipflopped about. Hillary used to want a secure border with a fence, and Trump used to not want that (probably because he was exploiting mexican labour).
[quote=Collaide]he wants controlled and regulated immigration. He wants trade deals that benefit the US and not other countries. He wants to impose import duties and exit taxes on companies that leave and send stuff back to the US [/quote]
How do you know what he wants after knowing he flops on every issue constantly? What a person says is not automatically what they believe. Sure, Trump cares about the working class, and while we're at it, Hillary Clinton is a "True progressive who gets things done". Because politicians never lie BrokeBack
[quote=Collaide] He doesn't care about outsourced jobs, if he did, he wouldn't produce his own ties in china.[/quote]
[quote=dollarlayer]Bullshit. I care about outsourced jobs, yet probably 90% of the stuff I sell as a business is from Asia. And the vast majority of the stuff I sell isn’t even produced in the US. I’d much rather make/buy things here if it was financially viable. I’d even pay more, as long as I could still turn a decent profit. Trump is the same way. He’d prefer to do things here, but at the end of the day if it is significantly cheaper, then he will outsource. But he’s argued that its up to the politicians to make it difficult for him to do business like that, and also up to them to cut red tape and make the US more manufacturing friendly. Some of the products I design and have manufactured it just isn’t financially possible for me to do it any other way other than through China. I can’t afford $20,000 in development cost for a single product, when China will do it for $1,000.[/quote] Maybe you are not a billionaire who already has enough money to survive for your entire life?
Collaide He doesn't care about outsourced jobs, if he did, he wouldn't produce his own ties in china.
You don't get to be a billionaire by making bad business decisions, spending 10 times more to produce something is a bad business decision. People seem to dislike trump because hes against free trade because the usa is losing out in a free market against places that can produce things much cheaper, he talks constantly about imposing tarifs to help the us work force.
[quote=Collaide] He doesn't care about outsourced jobs, if he did, he wouldn't produce his own ties in china.[/quote]
You don't get to be a billionaire by making bad business decisions, spending 10 times more to produce something is a bad business decision. People seem to dislike trump because hes against free trade because the usa is losing out in a free market against places that can produce things much cheaper, he talks constantly about imposing tarifs to help the us work force.
You don't get to be a billionaire by making bad business decisions, spending 10 times more to produce something is a bad business decision. People seem to dislike trump because hes against free trade because the usa is losing out in a free market against places that can produce things much cheaper, he talks constantly about imposing tarifs to help the us work force.
This thread has been locked.