How does Trump beat Clinton?

Clinton cannot withstand hard substantive attacks. She really is a baby seal.

 

Some believe that Clinton would best trump in any debate due to her 'vast' experience but Clinton would do well to study the 16 Republican candidates who held that same belief and watched as Trump systematically destroyed them on his march to the nomination.

 

Q. How does Trump beat Clinton?

A. He doesn't.

No need to waste any further keystrokes on that question.

 

Wait what??? Those are NOT short term effects due to manufacturing infrastructure. Americans will pay for the higher cost of labor, regulation, and taxes. Those are long term costs. Geez, wake up.

 

Hillary's not concerned about Sanders, she knows that even if he did break out like Trump, they will get rid of him #neverSanders. Then big money behind Hillary, she pays her pit bulls (the Clinton machine) to go after Trump, And if Trump dares not go soft on Hillary, they'll pull out the women card just like they pull out the race card if you dare disagree with Obama. The right who also doesn't want an outsider will work against Trump.

Just more of the same BS. Does it really matter? The political elite know there is enough people who depend on big government and will vote the way they want and if Hillary gets in she will solidify it by allowing more people who don't have skills into this country and will be dependent on big government to take from you to give to them.

We, the little people work for the political elite.

 

Everybody is saying that, but I think that's what carries him. There are a lot of people out there who have heard enough 'substantive'. I'm not a fan, but I wouldn't change a thing.

 

Trump knew he was fighting a PC culture and he had to come out hard against it. I agree, for the most part, I wouldn't change it either. No one could have shut down PC like Trump.

Now they are trying to say that Trump doesn't deserve his wealth but for some reason they believe that Hillary deserves her wealth. It's just more demonizing.

 

the cost is not the money, it is the turnover ratio. If the turnover ratio was, let's say 80% at that company, then it would have been difficult for that company to justify the cost of the move. Besides, costs are all relative in accounting and the number cruncher game, which the company analyzes every way possible and a few more.

As for competing, we do things more efficiently than other countries and vice versa. Where other countries have the advantage is the labor intensive jobs, like customer service. Companies have the following options: lose money and customers by keeping the operations here, move the operations to another place while incurring the costs associated with closing one place and hiring another, or transform customer service from human intensive to computer/information intensive operations. But we have the advantage of security of jobs, like sending payments. But companies are trying to go away from people sending checks. It is much more convenient and less costly for the company to accept electronic payments. And some only do that.

Like I said, it is about job skills, not jobs for the economy.

 

Trump now has to win over women, minorities, and youth, who have generally been convinced by his comments that he's a ratbag.

 

Yes they are short term effects, the long term effect will involve the companies coming back or new companies emerging to compete in a fair market. What do you think will happen when China/Mexico corners the market in manufacturing in the world, do you actually think prices will remain low?

 

Yeah I'm extremely chagrined.

Obviously I meant to say NATO, since I was responding to your comment that only mentioned NATO.

The problem with your attempt to deflect with an insult, in this situation, is that the money contributions we make to the UN are also sky high.

So, in this case, it's basically the same argument.

I ask again, why should the US spend a disproportionate amount of the total cost of either NATO or the UN?

 

Much can happen between now and November. Both candidates have high negatives stemming from decades of public exposure. I think that the political dirt diggers on both sides will dig up some skeleton that may effect the path of the election. If Trump toned down his message and became focused on policy he may be able to change how he is perceived thus perhaps giving him an edge on Clinton. Either way this election will be one for the books!

 

Being granted legal status can mean being granted approval for the H-1b visa. Our immigration visa policy has two broad categories, immigrant and nonimmigrant, which both is the legal way of entering here. But once a person is granted H-1b visa status, it is possible for that alien, after 6 years, to apply for adjustment of status, called the green card process. And thus, the targeting of the H-1b visa program is a way to target legal immigrants who happen to be here "temporarily."

 

You'd better put your money where your mouth is NOW because those odds won't last another 6 months. Once Trump turns his attention toward Hillary, she'll wish she was sitting in court room facing a trial for breaking national security laws.

Face it, polls are only a current snap shot of the estimate of people's thoughts. Often polls contain the opinions of around 300 people and can swing widely, easily. They become more accurate around two days before an election.

Steve

 

We pay to the UN as a percentage of our GDP. You call this a flat rate and have argued that a flat tax makes everybody pay the same. Thus, even in your own argument, the flat rate is not so "sky high" but that we pay the same percentage as those who pay but have a lower GDP than we do. Furthermore, we have great power in the UN with our veto on the UNSC. No UNSC resolution would get past us if it did not meet our criteria or infringe on our interests. Of course, the other four permanent members have that same power too. Finally, the UN is to prevent world war, not regional conflicts. It is to act as a place so that other countries than resolve their differences on neutral territory.

For NATO, our bases there are strategically located based on the geopolitical climate of TransEurope. Through the peace dividend, we have reduced our forces in great numbers since 11/9/91. So have all the other countries, including Russia BTW. Furthermore, if a conflict were to arise in Europe where our national security or economic interest are in danger, it takes way too long to send heavy maneuver forces from the US to Europe.

 

Oh come on, Democrats know they have minorities in the bag that includes minority women. Youth? If you are not a liberal at 25 you have no heart, if you are not a conservative by the age 35, you have no brains.

Get over yourself, no one is going to beg you. You're already bought and or don't have common sense. One thing you keep forgetting Nonny, is those of us paying the bill, we too can kick back and let someone else pay for everything. Then we can all be paupers and we'll be Greece.

 

That's interesting, because China's GDP is 9.4 trillion, while the US is 16.7 trillion.

However, the US funds over 28% of their budget while China funds a little over 6%. Even if you're not good with math the disparity is obvious. Before you mention it, yes both are also permanent members.

Your last paragraph has nothing to do with anything.

 

Forget the popular vote, it means nothing. It is the electoral college that counts. Today according to the polls Trump is in big trouble there. There is not a single state that Obama won in 2012 where Clinton's lead is not more than 5 points. But on the other side, Clinton is tied with Trump in Utah and Arizona, she leads by 2 in Missouri, 7 in North Carolina, all states Romney won in 2012. Probably the worst indication to date is Mississippi where Trump leads by just 3 points. If he is in Trouble in Mississippi, what can one say.

What Trump needs to do is first, unite the Republican Party. Get everyone on board. Then he needs to concentrate on independents. Trump will need around 55% of the independent vote to win since the Democrats have a larger base vote. The problem is as of today, Trump is tied with independents at 38-38 and he has a higher unfavorable rating than Clinton among them. That he has to change. I doubt raising Clinton's negatives among independents will help him much. Independents are disgusted with their choice of Trump vs. Clinton already. Around 20% of independent respond when asked to choice stating they will not vote or vote for someone else beside Trump or Clinton.

I would normally say Trump will have to stop his bullying tactics, his name calling, start acting presidential etc. A lot of independents view Trumps run for the nomination as if he were running for host of a TV reality show instead of the president. His antics turn a lot of people off. Sure, they are loved by his supporters and they helped him win the nomination. But the general electorate is vastly different in make up than the Republican Primary voters.

Trump has an advantage that Clinton is not well liked either outside of her Democratic circles and party. Possibilities exist. People have had years to form their dislike of Clinton, it is sort of ingrained into their physic. Their dislike of Trump has been from his actions during the primary season. People have just learned to dislike him. So in theory it ought to be easier for Trump to change his persona, appearance, actions from an egotistical blowhard into something that resembles presidential bearing.

 

How else does Trump get to be president without winning over some proportion of the female, minority and/or youth vote?

I don't think that he would be able to do it any more than you do. But then, I don't think he's going to be president.

Trump does well with older white men. That isn't going to get him the presidency.

 

For years the American people have been bullied and now we want the nominee who by the way treated them like we've been treated to stop? I say, he gave them a taste of their own medicine and they don't like it.

 

The question is how Trump can beat Clinton. The bullying has made his unfavorables sky-high and alienated the demographics he needs to win over to be president.

Further exciting people who already support him doesn't achieve anything much. No-matter how much they like him, they still only get one vote each. He has to somehow win over the people who don't like him.

How can he do that?

 

Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, galloping inflation, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite.

 

New Republican Party

"the principles and values that lie at the heart of conservatism are shared by the majority. Despite what some in the press may say, we who are proud to call ourselves “conservative” are not a minority of a minority party; we are part of the great majority of Americans of both major parties and of most of the independents as well."

we offer principles that people of all races and genders support. "We believe in jobs, real jobs; we believe in education that is really education; we believe in treating all Americans as individuals and not as stereotypes or voting blocs. The Democratic Party takes the black vote for granted. Well, it’s time black America and the New Republican Party move toward each other and create a situation in which no black vote can be taken for granted."

http://www.redstate.com/diary/conrad_close/2015/08/28/need-new-republican-party/

 

he needs to do that BUT, what he needs more is to insure Clinton loses those groups as well...Clinton is already odious...trump needs to make her toxic...a VERY easy task if one is not politically correct.