good news trump nation :) initial pols

It's irrelevant to me what motivates anyone else to support Trump. For example, some people base their voting decisions strictly on the issue of abortion. The fact that those people are motivated by something that I care very little about and find irrelevant to politics does not impact my positions or support in the least. Issues like abortion and race warfare promotion are "dummy" Issues designed to increase voter turnout in a country full of dummies who can't comprehend and don't pay attention to what is going on with trade. Their opinions in no way affect mine and as a result, I seek political discourse from elements of my opposition who can articulate ideas beyond dummy issues so that I have the opportunity for my views to evolve. But in the end, anyone who is going to be elected has to have a high dummy turnout. So those issues serve their purpose. It's just weird that you seem to believe that you can avoid scrutiny of your views by pointing to the opposition's dummies. Having them as your reference group might make you feel smart, but you are learning nothing and contributing less to any intelligent discourse.

As for Donald Trump himself, he has been speaking out against trade since the 80s when the sell outs began. No one has been more consistent on the most important issue than Trump. His views on trade are why the media wants to destroy him. That would have worked on anyone other than Trump's crazy ass! So we take the good with the bad because this is our last chance to fix trade.

U.S. standards are higher BECAUSE theirs are so low. If you don't see how unethical that is, then you simply lack the moral foundation necessary to support Trump and bring down the global oligarch. It's not for everybody. I still think most people want to do right though, and will support Trump once the pop issues get boring and people actually study what is happening. And sure, we'll take the votes of people so dumb that they miss all of that and somehow think Trump is a white supremacist too.

What right do Americans have to redistribute profits made from the labor of oppressed foreigners who will never benefit from those social programs? This is a disgusting scenario and you citizens are culpable for continuously supporting the bipartisan establishment.

At least redistribution could be justified for fixing market inefficiencies WHEN OUR CITIZENS ACTUALLY WORKED THE UNDERPAID JOBS. Now it is straight up communist slave labor, made less offensive by minimal capitalist investment.

I think either of those is better than the current plan of instituting those Chinese problems as the backbone of the modern U.S. economy so that we are forced to encourage them not to be any better. Anything beats actively conspiring to ruin the political careers of anyone who speaks out about it, which is the strategy now.

Living standards are just going to have to take a hit. What our companies and government are doing is wrong.

You justify it the same way bystanders of slavery justified their inaction.

 

Yes, he's a liar, and far too insecure to ever honestly admit to fallibility, but US bureaucracy is a check on lunatic actions by the POTUS. He would not be permitted to unilaterally trash American values as he proposes even if the demagogical zeal delievered him th the White House.



.

 

My hope is that Trump will be able to expose what is going on. I expect his to be one of the most effective bully pulpits ever. Maybe not, but the worst he can do is exactly the same as the oligarchs are going to do anyway. There is no reason not to vote for Trump for anyone who cares and sees what a disaster the U.S. trade deficit is.

But keep talking about nonsense. Since it's not a trade minister. Yuk Yuk.

 

US standards are higher because Chinese standards are low? Come again? That makes no sense at all. How do low standards in China lead to high standards in the US? Are you saying that if conditions improved in China that would means things would get worse in the US? WTF are you thinking?

And again, Chinese workers are not slaves. Since you seem to have forgotten, this is what slavery looks like:

Slavery is watching your children being sold at auction like cattle. Slavery is being routinely raped. Slavery is being beaten or even killed at the whim of your master. What's going on in China is not slavery. It's just not the same thing, and insisting it is just makes you sound like an ignorant xenophobe convinced that anything China does must by definition be evil. Take a realistic look at what's actually happening instead of mindlessly throwing slurs from a nineteenth century ideological battle over economic theory. Incidentally, both sides of that battle have long since been discredited. The Cold War is over, and using the word "communist" like it just means that the people you hate have horns and hooves just makes you sound like a fool. The Chinese government is pretty nasty in a lot of ways. Their treatment of political dissidents is abominable. Their institutions (particularly local government) are riddled with corruption. The bellicose attitude of their foreign policy toward their neighbors is alarming. Their environmental record makes the Koch brothers look like conservationists. But at the same time they've also lifted millions and millions of people out of poverty. It's not very long ago that China was a poor third world nation with no middle class to speak of that could barely feed their own population. Today China's on the verge of becoming the largest economy in the world.

While we may dislike and disapprove of many things the Chinese government does, that does not mean that we have either the right or the ability to tell them how to run their country. We can advise, we can persuade, we can negotiate. We cannot dictate. And that is exactly what we've been trying to do. That's what the Trans Pacific Partnership is. Trumpist babbling about how trade is evil and those awful foreigners are all stealing our stuff is just ignorant and idiotic. It's just another form of lazy and cowardly xenophobia - instead of actually tackling our problems you just blame it all on those outsiders. Yes we need to do a better job helping people adversely effected by trade adapt to the changing economy. But those changes are going to happen no matter what. Half baked protectionist schemes to try to pretend it's still 1950 won't work and in the end will just make things worse. Free trade is a net positive for both the US and our trading partners. It makes the world a more peaceful and prosperous place for everyone.

One of the first things someone like Trump does when they gain power is to start installing loyalists who will follow orders unquestioningly in key positions throughout the government - the bureaucracy, the military, and law enforcement. Or maybe you're counting on the Congress to stand up to him? LOL If you're depending on Congress doing its job responsibly and courageously, I think you've got a problem.

I would remind you that when Hitler came to power the establishment in the German government generally despised him. The German army in particular thought the Nazis were a bunch of idiotic buffoons strutting around in play uniforms pretending to be soldiers.

 

Nope. He is blaming it on the insiders, not outsiders, specifically on Washington insiders from both parties - corrupt, dishonest, incompetent, beholden to the interests of their donors and lobbyists (not necessarily american ones either), lining their own pockets and the pockets of their corporate masters while betraying the interests of the american people and selling the country down the river.

Try again.

 

I'm not sure Bill Clinton will vote for Trump as you claim, but it is a real possibility. Notice my signature line.

 

I notice you refer to White men for Trump constantly, but never White women that will vote for Trump. Almost as if you have a fetish. Try to help me understand you. If you were at a Target store, what restroom would you use? Don't be shy.

 

Because 73% of women hate Trump. LOL

 

Hillary is toast. Maybe sleep with a teeth-guard to preclude gnashing.

 

He got 77% in West Virginia

 

He did not get 77% of ALL female voters. He will NEVER get 77% of all female voters. LOL

 

I said he got 77% in West Virginia. That means an extremely high percentage of female voters.

 

Prove it

 

It's mathematically impossible to get 77% of the vote without getting a very high percent of the female vote.

 

Exactly what percentage did he get

 

Assuming 50% men and women voting in the primaries...

Mathematically, if he got 100% of the men, he'd have to get at least 54% of women to get 77% of the vote. In reality he had to get at least 60% of the female vote, most likely 65%-68%

 

I think this is before most know about the child rape charges yet

 

LOL he eats babies too. Keep trying sunshine.

 

We have a 600 billion dollar trade deficit with China. You can call their economic system whatever you want. Trump is the only one who has been speaking out against this madness from the beginning.

 

And yes, relatively low standards of labor costs produces an artificially high standard of living for the consumers. It's the first thing someone might learn about trade.

 

The creepy thing is Sanders followers don't know or don't care he's a communist and Hillary's followers don't care she's a proven liar, a huckster/money launderer and a lesbian, her husband is a pervert serial rapist, and she's one of the most corrupt career politicians of all time - under a very very serious FBI investigation right now. She is the original birther. She started that whole thing when she was running against comrade obama in 2008.

Mad props on your debate skilz, Miss Twist.

 

Like obama's EPA, BLM, IRS, and DOJ?

lol

 

No, I don't want someone to promote the same old policies, but what I want even LESS is some blowhard who doesn't understand macroeconomics to come in and pin all our problems on China and Mexico. Trump has not articulated a coherent foreign policy or domestic policy, but he's duped a lot of people into voting for him simply by promoting the "us vs. them" worldview. That is the worldview of ISIS, al Qaeda, white supremacists, black panthers, the FARC, the Nazi party... not good company.

 

Do you seriously suggest that career politicians understand macroeconomics better than Trump? He graduated from the Wharton school of business and spent his entire life in business, his opponents are all lawyers who spent their entire careers in Washington. Their understanding of macroeconomics is well reflected in $20 trillion debt, millions of lost middle class jobs, the decay of the infrastructure and the disappearance of the middle class.

 

*sigh* In this context, "outsider" simply means anyone outside of one's social in group. In other words, an outsider is one of them, however "they" may happen to be defined. It's lazy and cowardly because it's just a rehashing of the same old narrative that all of the problems of us virtuous righteous good and pure people is because of those evil awful people doing bad things to us, so all we have to do to solve all our problems is go destroy those bad people. It's just a rationalization for attacking people you don't like while simultaneously absolving you of any responsibility for anything and removing any reason for self examination or change. Attacking people you hate is easy - it's the coward's way out. Changing yourself is hard and takes guts.

Oh for crying out loud..... You know, you could always try looking up the actual numbers...In the West Virginia Republican Primary, the electorate was 51% male and 49% female. Trump won men by 78% and women by 76%. However, you will note the key phrase here, "Republican Primary." The primary electorate is a tiny slice of the general electorate, with very different demographics. Take a look at the numbers. During the 2012 election, you had 121,354 votes cast in the Iowa Republican Caucus and 1,582,180 votes for President in the general. In New Hampshire it was 249,534 votes in the Republican Primary and 710,972 in the general. In South Carolina it was 603,770 in the Republican Primary and 1,964,118 in the general. In Florida it was 1,676,176 in the Republican Primary and 8,474,179 in the general. And the demographics are different - Republican primaries are more male and much more white than the general electorate. So how a candidate does among female Republican primary voters tells you little or nothing about how they'll do with women in the general.

And in any case the Republican race is essentially over at this point, so it would be much more representative to look at exit polling from earlier contested primaries. In Florida Trump took 52% of men and 40% of women. In Massachusetts Trump took 52% of men and 46% of women. In South Carolina Trump took 36% of men and 29% of women. Trump clearly has a major gender gap in the Republican primary electorate. When we get to the general that's probably going to increase by a lot.

If you'd bothered to check your numbers before posting, you'd know that the US trade deficit with China in 2015 was $366 billion, not $600 billion. Starting off with numbers twice what they should be is not a good way to start an argument. Continuing with nothing more than "Wow, what a big number!" is just going downhill. Do you know what Massachusetts' trade balance with Texas is? Neither do I. Because what difference does it make? You need to show that the trade deficit is causing such a large immediate problem that it justifies electing a President who's an overt racist and fascist. And that's one heck of a high bar to meet. Frankly I don't think it's possible.

Apples and oranges. Just because labor standards and living standards are both standards doesn't make them the same thing.

Sanders is a socialist, not a communist. A fact of which his followers are very much aware, and in fact that's why they like him. And if having trouble keeping your pants on or having a partner who has that problem is a disqualification for public service we'd need a government composed entirely of lesbians and asexuals. You can take you dark ages bigotry and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Right, because a black President must obviously be out to get all white people. Considering how you lot have treated blacks over the years, I suppose it's only natural you'd think that. Guilty conscious much?

You don't have any idea what "macroeconomics" means or how it differs from microeconomics, do you? Knowing how to run a business doesn't mean you know diddly squat about how to run an economy. And Trump doesn't have a clue how to run a business - he inherited his business from his Daddy and promptly ran it into the ground, landing four of his businesses in bankruptcy. The only reason he's not living on foodstamps is because of his reality TV gig. Besides, Trump is obviously an idiot. He either thought that retweeting a Mussolini quote was a good idea or he doesn't know who Il Duce is. Either way he's too stupid to live. So I think it's safe to say that a chicken with its head cut off understands macroeconomics better than The Donald.