The Donald-thread

[pErvinalia]

Exactly. If it was a compulsory voting system like Australia, then that could make sense. But in the US there is a third (at the least) option - don't vote.

[Forty Two]

Again, the message is coming loud and strong: "Vote Trump because he's not Clinton."

Part of the appeal is that he is different - Clinton is bought and paid for - typical politician -- connected - moneyed up -- favorite of the consultant, lobby and finance folks. She's representing everything that's pissed off the common man since the economic crash.

People like Trump because he tells them that the trade issues are a big deal, and he wants to fix them. Hillary tells the people that all the deals done have been good for America, and that she's proud of them. She says NAFTA actually created manufacturing jobs in the US. I mean, everyone hears Ross Perot's "giant sucking sound" of jobs that have been going south and to China for twenty years now. The US has lost most of its manufacturing base, and that's a big, big problem.

People see the immigration problem and Trump agrees with them, and says he wants to fix it. Hillary says it's not a problem, and that to say there is a problem you're a racist.

And, there's any wonder why almost half of voters are actually on Trump's side? They get kind of pissed off when they're called deplorable, told they are racists and stupid for thinking we have economic and manufacturing problems and immigration issues and terrorism issues -- Hillary tells us she's on the right track with ISIS - she knows just how to defeat them. She hasn't clued in the Obama administration over the last six years, but she knows how to fix ISIS. People don't buy it. If you know how to do it, then why didn't you do it?

[Tero]

Er...Trump is a republican. Besides building a wall, he will do republican things. Like Hillary will do democrat things.

Aside from the insults, there is nothing new or novel here.

[pErvinalia]

Again, the message is coming loud and strong: "Vote Trump because he's not Clinton."

Part of the appeal is that he is different - Clinton is bought and paid for - typical politician -- connected - moneyed up -- favorite of the consultant, lobby and finance folks. She's representing everything that's pissed off the common man since the economic crash.

This is true.

People like Trump because he tells them that the trade issues are a big deal, and he wants to fix them.

The problem is that he has a massive credibility issue as most of his stuff is made in China and Mexico. People like him are the reason why these trade deals get enacted.

[DRSB]

It is true that Clinton equals the Establishment, but so does Trump. And how come the accusations flying her way were not raised in relation to Bill?
She is not electable just as a saviour from Trump, she is electable on her own merits, while Trump, Trump is simply unelectable!

[Forty Two]

Er...Trump is a republican. Besides building a wall, he will do republican things. Like Hillary will do democrat things.

Aside from the insults, there is nothing new or novel here.

The reality remains to be seen. However, his economic and trade policies are a dramatic departure from the GOP of the last 35 years. People see the decline of American manufacturing and industry, and it's a big problem. Trump may do nothing, but of the two, he's the one saying he will fix it. Same with immigration. On both of those issues, Hillary says there is no problem, and that if you think there is a problem you're either stupid or a racist. Deplorable.

[pErvinalia]

What's the reality of him having any power to change trade deals (assuming he actually wants to do so)?

[Scot Dutchy]

The whole idea that he has actual policies is quite amazing.

[pErvinalia]

If it wasn't for the supreme court picks, I'd be in favour of seeing him as Prez just for the schadenfraude.

[Forty Two]

The problem is that he has a massive credibility issue as most of his stuff is made in China and Mexico. People like him are the reason why these trade deals get enacted.

I get that assertion, from the perspective of a Trump opponent. You see it going the other way, too, when you have folks on the left demand higher taxes. People on the right will point the finger and say -- hey, you're rich, if you want to pay higher taxes, why aren't YOU paying extra on your tax return? If you think you're not paying your fair share, pay your fair share! (there's a line on the US tax return forms where people can pay extra to pay down the debt, and can donate to the fund to reelect the President, lol).

The answer from the left on the tax issue is -- we're not talking about one person, we're talking about overall tax policy. Everyone should be taxed fairly, and it shouldn't be up to voluntary payments, etc. That kind of thing.

The Trump answer to the "stuff made in China/Mexico" is that it's the bad policies, like NAFTA, that has made it economically unfeasible to manufacture as much in the US. It's the trade policy that causes businesses to manufacture overseas, and that until the trade policy is changed, all you're doing is saying that a manufacturer should make bad financial decisions for its shareholders and manufacture in a place where manufacturing is more difficult and expensive than in another place. Asking Trump to voluntarily act against his own business interest, when he's running a business, is the same as asking a Hollywood fat cat or Warren Buffett to pay an extra 20% tax voluntarily to put their money where their mouth is.

The average blue collar guy "gets it" that if you're running a business, you do what you can do to reduce costs, and be more competitive in the marketplace. They don't see Trump as doing something wrong for buying or making something from China. They see the trade system which allows the slave wage and zero regulation environments in China to dump products on the US market, which can't compete with that because we are a higher wage and costlier regulation environment. They see a non-level playing field.

[pErvinalia]

I'm surprised someone hasn't found a comment from him when NAFTA and other deals were put in place. I bet he was in favour of them back then before he was trying to ride the wave of public dissatisfaction with neoliberalism and run for President for his own self promotion.

[Forty Two]

If it wasn't for the supreme court picks, I'd be in favour of seeing him as Prez just for the schadenfraude.

I wouldn't worry much about SCOTUS. The actual judicial temperament of SCOTUS justices often vary considerably from what was expected when they were appointed. Justice Harry Blackmun was appointed as a conservative by President Richard Nixon. He became the poster boy of the left when he wrote Roe v. Wade and found a constitutional right to abortion. Justice Earl Warren was a Republican and appointed by Dwight Eisenhower, As aGOP-er he led a LIBERAL revolution in US law, using judicial power in dramatic fashion, to the consternation of conservative opponents. The Warren Court expanded civil rights, civil liberties, judicial power, and the federal power in dramatic way. President George H.W. Bush expected Justice Souter to be a reliable conservative, but he quickly emerged as anything but that, even though he was Republican himself. Souter joined in affirming Roe v Wade in 2000. Sandra Day O’Connor pulled a similar switcheroo on Ronald Reagan, who appointed her, and on Republicans who initially supported her. Before her appointment to the court, O’Connor was on record as unequivocally “pro-life.” On the court, however, she voted against every effort to overturn or alter the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

Justice Byron White was appointed in 1962 by Democrat President Kennedy. White was thought to be a moderately liberal justice. A decade after Kennedy died, White cast one of only two dissenting votes against Roe v. Wade. That's right - Democrat appointee cast one of the two dissenting votes against Roe v. Wade, and Republican Nixon appointee Blackmun wrote the majority.

This whole ballyhoo about the SCOTUS happens ever election. Both sides use the scare tactic of "ermagerd! The Supreme Court will totally go to the conservatives" or "totally go full blown commie!" if the other side wins! You must vote for us, if only for the Supreme Court appointees!!!

Bollocks.

Also, Trump doesn't give a fuck about Supreme Courts. His concern getting elected is purely two things - (a) blowing the fuck out of ISIS so he can say he beat them, (b) finishing the wall and getting a handle on illegal immigration so he can say he did that, and (c) reworking trade deals in our favor so he can show an increase in US based manufacturing and ultimately a big uptick in employment in the US.

Those are his three pillars. Trump gives fuckall about who fucks whom, who marries whom and what fetuses are aborted. That's one thing you can rest assured with Trump. He doesn't give a fuck about that, and won't pander to you about it. You're not going to get him spearheading the "Otherkin Nondiscrimination Act of 2019" to champion the rights of those identifying as humaniform Martian dragons to not be fired because they're weird. But you're also not going to get him trying to push through the "Defense of Normal Human Act of 2019" trying to enact the Biblical proscription against Otherkin Marriage into the Constitution.

[Forty Two]

I'm surprised someone hasn't found a comment from him when NAFTA and other deals were put in place. I bet he was in favour of them back then before he was trying to ride the wave of public dissatisfaction with neoliberalism and run for President for his own self promotion.

He's been speaking out on this since the 1980s. Re NAFTA specifically, in 1993, while it was being debated in Congress, Trump publicly spoke in Bakersfield California against NAFTA. A news article from 1993 reports that Trump spoke against NAFTA at California State University. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid= ... 5486&hl=en

I've found no evidence that he was in favor of these kinds of deals back then. I have found evidence that he was staunchly against it.

[pErvinalia]

Well there you go! At least he's shown consistency on one thing.

[Tero]

Er...Trump is a republican. Besides building a wall, he will do republican things. Like Hillary will do democrat things.

Aside from the insults, there is nothing new or novel here.

The reality remains to be seen. However, his economic and trade policies are a dramatic departure from the GOP of the last 35 years. People see the decline of American manufacturing and industry, and it's a big problem. Trump may do nothing, but of the two, he's the one saying he will fix it. Same with immigration. On both of those issues, Hillary says there is no problem, and that if you think there is a problem you're either stupid or a racist. Deplorable.

All these things Trump is going to "fix" are in the private sector. Other than lower corporate tax, actually not a bad idea (if you raise personal tax on rich to keep revenue), there is nothing Trump can do. Refugees: yes, he can block all muslims.