The Donald-thread

[mistermack]

Much of the nasty shit he says is unfortunate, of course.

Oh I seeeeeeeeeee.

He's not a fucking moron. He's just unlucky.

[Tero]

Debate, kind of brief, but Donald is yuuuge
http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2016 ... e-mckinnon

[Forty Two]

The main things I like about Trump are his non-Republican view on trade policy,

non-liberal, don't you mean?

Depending on how one defines the term, possibly yes. In what sense are you using the term "liberal?" In American politics, a "liberal" would normally be against the free trade agreements Trump is against.

Trade liberalisation. Free trade.

Can you define the term liberal, in the sense you're using it? I realize that you are suggesting free trade is liberal, but I would like to work with a definition of the word liberal, as you define it.

What does free trade mean to you? Is a requirement that imports be subject to inspection at the border mean that trade isn't free?

To me, free trade has two aspects -- one it the feature of reduced or zero tariffs; however, trade is also not "free" if the regulatory, tax and legal playing field is not level to begin with. That amounts to a de facto tarrif on the higher regulatory, higher tax and more intrusive legal regime nation.

I've explained my position on it in the past, wherein the free trade agreements are not in actuality free trade regimes when there are two radically different legal regimes under which two countries operate. It's not "liberal" for example, to drop trade barriers between country X (with high minimum wage, high tax, and burdensome regulatory schemes) and country Y (low minimum wage, low tax, and virtually nonexistent regulatory regime).

It's not necessarily illiberal. That can form the basis of "comparative advantage".

What's definitely illiberal is protectionism.

A tariff is just another way to form a basis of a "comparative advantage." That's why free trade doesn't just involve reduction of tariffs, but also reduction of subsidies on domestic products. Where trade is otherwise free or unrestricted, but one country subsidizes a domestic industry, then that is not free trade. It is certainly a comparative advantage given to the subsidized industry, but it is not free trade. Similarly, if a country applies a significant burden (the opposite of a subsidy) on a domestic industry which is not applied to the foreign players in that industry, then, again, it is both a comparative advantage and not free trade.

Free trade would involve a dropping of the barriers and incentives at the border, and also a leveling of the tax, regulatory and legislative playing field as between the countries.

It seems a bit weird to suggest that it's "free trade" to have a free trade agreement between country A and B, requiring tariffs on imports from B to A and A to B to be reduced to zero, when A has a $10 minimum wage, a 20% corporate income tax, onerous requirements for insurance, employee safety and welfare, codes, and compliance, etc., while B has a 20 cent minimum wage, a 1% corporate income tax, and no requirements for insurance, employee safety and welfare, etc.

That's what happened with Mexico and the US. The large corporations loved NAFTA, because they had the means to build plants in Mexico, manufacture products there, and ship them back to the US, taking advantage of the low wage, low tax, low regulation regime, and then selling their products in competition with American made goods. It was called free trade, but it amounts to a de facto subsidy of industries who are big enough to manufacture over there and ship here.

In the shorter term, it benefited the US economy by providing cheaper goods which people could afford, and there was still a lot of buying power in the US. However, wages in the US have stagnated, and labor participation rates have dropped precipitously. The trend is that buying power is dropping, and we have also lost the industrial capacity to do the things here which have been transferred overseas. The short term benefit has become a major problem.

[Tero]

Huh? Again, I don’t get it.

It’s sort of like farmers who keep voting Republican, even though historically they’ve done better under Democratic administrations. It’s almost as if they keep saying, “Kick me in the shins again so I can keep voting for the GOP.”

If this makes no sense, neither does Trump’s support among evangelicals. I thought these adherents to the Gospels had little tolerance for people who cheated on their spouses, took part in shady business dealings and used language more suited for trench warfare.

http://www.thetimesherald.com/story/lif ... /91665216/

[DaveDodo007]

Hillary Clinton - "I have a plan to fight ISIS, which I opted not to use while I was Secretary of State." Oh wait, no, that can't be. It's more like "I have a plan to fight ISIS, which I formulated only after I left office as Secretary of State, and which I have chosen not to share with the Obama Administration...I want to beat them myself, when I become President."

Maybe it's the same plan from when she was secretary? ISIS has been massively reduced in land area and number. They are close to finished now.

Funny, she did not mention her victory. Maybe they're in their "last throes."

Hillary created Isis and has been arming them ever since, she is the kingpin of the industrial war complex. She is even trying to bait Russia into a war as she is a self serving cunt that will destroy the whole world rather than her corruption be exposed. But, but Trump said mean things. Seriously if that corrupt twat Clinton wins the American election then we deserve the WW III that is going to happen for us being gullible morons.

[pErvinalia]

The main things I like about Trump are his non-Republican view on trade policy,

non-liberal, don't you mean?

Depending on how one defines the term, possibly yes. In what sense are you using the term "liberal?" In American politics, a "liberal" would normally be against the free trade agreements Trump is against.

Trade liberalisation. Free trade.

What does free trade mean to you? Is a requirement that imports be subject to inspection at the border mean that trade isn't free?

Reduction in barriers to trade. So reduction in tariffs and subsidies.

I've explained my position on it in the past, wherein the free trade agreements are not in actuality free trade regimes when there are two radically different legal regimes under which two countries operate. It's not "liberal" for example, to drop trade barriers between country X (with high minimum wage, high tax, and burdensome regulatory schemes) and country Y (low minimum wage, low tax, and virtually nonexistent regulatory regime).

It's not necessarily illiberal. That can form the basis of "comparative advantage".

What's definitely illiberal is protectionism.

That's why free trade doesn't just involve reduction of tariffs, but also reduction of subsidies on domestic products.

Yep, so you agree with me that Trump's protectionism is illiberal?

Free trade would involve a dropping of the barriers and incentives at the border,

Yep, so you agree with me that Trump's protectionism is illiberal?

and also a leveling of the tax, regulatory and legislative playing field as between the countries.

Who says?

And why not levelling of education standards? The greater education standards of the US over Mexico gives it an unfair advantage, which under your definition of free trade is not free trade.

[Forty Two]

Huh? Again, I don’t get it.

It’s sort of like farmers who keep voting Republican, even though historically they’ve done better under Democratic administrations. It’s almost as if they keep saying, “Kick me in the shins again so I can keep voting for the GOP.”

If this makes no sense, neither does Trump’s support among evangelicals. I thought these adherents to the Gospels had little tolerance for people who cheated on their spouses, took part in shady business dealings and used language more suited for trench warfare.

http://www.thetimesherald.com/story/lif ... /91665216/

Many people may vote long term over short term, or - gasp - in a manner in which they believe is beneficial to the country as a whole.

Hollywood actors and such would do well to vote Republican, if the Republicans are going to lower taxes on the rich, yet, this Hollywood actors tend to vote against their financial interest and support the Democrats who promise to soak them. Idiots, eh?

Farmers in this country tend to be very well off financially. We don't have many "family farmers" of the sort that was common when most people in the US lived outside of cities. Farms are huge, expensive, undertakings.

And, small local growers would do well not to vote for Democrats, as the Democrats tend to support laws that put local farmers markets out of business and such.

[laklak]

It's all about definitions. There is no way you can call Hillary "liberal" unless you redefine the word. Which we've done, apparently, because what passes for liberal thought in many places could more accurately be called "Orwellian". Massive covert surveillance of the population, detention without trial, reduction of individual liberties, thought crime, the list goes on.

Don't even start with the "Yeah but BUSH" bullshit, this may have started when Bush was in charge but the "liberals" have embraced it and made it their own. In 8 fucking YEARS they could have dismantled the entire thing, particularly in O'Bammy's first two years when he had both the Senate and House. And also remember that all the most egregious aspects of our slow descent into totalitarianism (like the Patriot Act) were bipartisan efforts, and that the Democrats actually controlled both houses for the last 2 years of Bush's administration and the Senate was Democratically controlled for longer than that.

Therefore I won't vote for either of the lying sacks of shit. I'd prefer a stoned-out Gary Johnson to either of them. Fuck, I'd rather prop up George Carlin's mummified body in the Oval Orifice.

[pErvinalia]

An audio recording from 2005 features Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump making lewd comments about women during a conversation with then-”Access Hollywood” host Billy Bush. Excerpts of those remarks appear uncensored below.

On the recording ― a video in which Trump can be overheard talking with Bush while on the way to film on the set of a soap opera ― Trump claims he tried to have sex with a married woman and says he can grab women “by the pussy” because he is a celebrity. The Washington Post and NBC News published the recording on Friday.

“I did try and fuck her,” Trump can be heard saying on the video in reference to an unnamed woman.

“I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping,” Trump continues. “She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’”

“I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married,” Trump says. “Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.”

Later in the recording, Trump talks about actress Arianne Zucker, who escorted Trump and Bush to the set of “Days of Our Lives.”

“I’ve gotta use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her,” Trump said. “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful ― I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.”

“And when you’re a star they let you do it,” Trump said. “You can do anything.”

“Grab them by the pussy,” Trump added. “You can do anything.”

Trump brushed off the severity of the comments.

“This was locker room banter, a private conversation that took place many years ago,” Trump said in a statement Friday. “[Former President] Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course ― not even close. I apologize if anyone was offended.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/don ... mg00000063

[laklak]

Lol yeah, heard that on the news tonight. What a douche.

[Animavore]

How fucking obvious did you need it to be? Some of us for months have being saying what type of creep he is.

:picard:

[laklak]

He's a douche and she's a cunt. Should have run on the same ticket.

[Brian Peacock]

I don't know, anyone who knows him knows these words don’t reflect who he is.

[Animavore]

He's been dead for a while now. Why won't he lie still?

[DRSB]

He's been dead for a while now. Why won't he lie still?

For all we know, he may be making bucks out of this soap!

The floodgates are opening with prominent Republicans calling on Trump to step down

Calls for Donald Trump to remove himself from the presidential race rushed in late Friday and into Saturday morning from prominent Republican officials.

The last couple weeks for the real-estate businessman have gone from disappointing to near-apocalyptic.

Now, a bombshell audio recording that is shaping up to be the GOP nominee's biggest campaign scandal has forced some Republicans to hit the panic button.

GOP Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois said on Friday Trump "should drop out" and the Republican National Committee "should engage rules for emergency replacement."

Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, whom Trump recently named as a potential Supreme Court nominee, echoed Kirk.