No, you asked who might be in his administration. I gave you examples of politicians who appear to be with him. You just got through saying how the fact that Wall Streeters like Hillary is a good thing. See your post above in this thread. You thought it was great that Hillary was a Senator from New York, and that it was good for Wall Street tycoons to still be in her camp. But, it's a bad thing if Carl Icahn supports Trump?piscator wrote:Forty Two wrote:No, I'm saying the arbitrageurs, media tycoons and Wall Street financiers support Hillary. You think that will lead us forward, apparently. The arbitrageurs are backing Hillary and funding her SuperPAC with huge dollars.piscator wrote:So you're saying the NE Republican clubs, arbitraguers, and media tycoons will lead us forward?Forty Two wrote:
Other folks who might hold prominent positions -- Scott Brown, former Senator from Massachusetts. ?Duncan Hunter, Congressman from California, and Chris Collins and Tom Marino, Congressmen out of New York and Pennsylvania. Businessmen Steve Forbes, Carl Icahn, might be part of [Trump's] advisory group.
Carl Ichan is an arbitrageur, Steve Forbes is a media tycoon, Teabag Congressmen are Republicans... These are your picks for Trump's cabinet?
First you want to see some mainstream people who might support Trump, because your argument was that he wouldn't be able to get anyone in his camp. Then I give you a list of some relatively reasonable folks, but that's not good because they are Republican, an investor, and a media tycoon. Well, Trump is Republican, so it's about as surprising that Republicans would make up much of his administration as the fact that Hillary will appoint Democrats. And, if tycoons and arbitrageurs are not your cup of tea -- Hillary's top donors are Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanly, and JP Morgan Chase. Her son-in-law is former Goldman Sachs guy, Marc Mezvinsky (who left Goldman Sachs to form a half a billion dollar hedge fund which he manages).
Goldman Sachs Lloyd Blankfein leased office space to Hillary Clinton after she stepped down as Secretary of State. Blackfein then placed $13 million of the California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) into Hillary's son-in-law's hedge fund.
Other huge donors to Hillary Clinton are DLA Piper, Time Warner, Lehman Brothers, Ernst & Young, and many others -- handing over millions of dollars.
So, lol, if you are worried about arbitrageur and corporate influence on a candidate, how in the hell can you possibly support Hillary Clinton?
This is an interesting allegation, but anyone who built businesses and employed as many people as Trump has must be able to work with people. I think you make a common mistake, which is that working with people involves "liking" them or thinking they are nice.piscator wrote:
Trump is a one man show. No one with any self respect can work for the prick.
So, she was "First Lady" and a professional politician, after her law career of hiding and shredding documents?piscator wrote:And lived in the White House for 8 years, Then became a Senator, and then ran the United States Department of State...Trump never built a fucking building in his life - he arranges financing.At least he built real estate and operated casinos. Hillary gave speeches, and hid documents at a law firm.piscator wrote:So you suggest a billionaire real estate developer and casino owner is the man to fix things?Who is going to be in Hillary Clinton's group? More of the same Wall Street pocket-liners that we have seen for a generation or so? Establishment folks, who have gotten us where we are?
Trumps companies have built buildings, although they are also engaged in finance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trump_Organization - a far greater accomplishment than being married to a guy who was elected to the Presidency, and then moving to New York for the purpose of becoming a Senator and getting elected based on the name recognition one got by being married to the President.
Look at her donor list. Do they give that money for nothing? They just like her so much that they give millions without the expectation of anything in return? That money buys influence. Why in the world do you think people want to take money out of politics? Why do you think they oppose "Citizens United" and the SuperPACs? Because the money given buys influence -- except, I guess, in your mind, when it comes to Democrats. Democrats are immune from the influence of million dollar donations, yes?piscator wrote:No, you're in favor of Trump, and you have still not shown any evidence to support your claim that Hillary is a shill for Wall Street, or even what that means.I'm not defending Mit Romney, he too was bought and paid for by the Wall Street folks. You want a President like Mitt Romney? Vote Hillary. Jeb Bush is part of the same establishment. By opposing Hillary, I'm not in favor of Romney or Bush.piscator wrote:
What in the world does Wall Street being in New York and Hillary being a former Senator from New York have to do with it? The fact is, Hillary is in their pocket. ...
I assume you have evidence of this "fact"?
LOL -- gotta love it.piscator wrote:
that's about the dumbest statement I've heard in a long time.piscator wrote:You're going to have to explain how that works. It sounds like those clever Asians have used corporatism to defeat the free market, and your solution is tariffs or some other form of corporatism?Trump is, for example, correct when he talks about China and Japan's currency manipulations and taxes used to keep out American products (contrary to trade deals) which creates unsustainable trade deficits and causes more and more American factories to close.You'll just buy anything Trump sells, won't you?Warren Dew wrote:Well, I guess you differed with Obama in 2012, when he, during debates with Romney, accused China of cheating in international trade, in part by dumping products on the US market, and manipulating their currency which depresses the price of their exports making it impossible for US factories to compete. China constantly prints new currency and uses it to buy U.S. dollars and U.S. government debt, thereby flooding the market with Chinese currency and increasing demand for American dollars. China manages the value of the yuan within a narrow range, and keeps it approximately 20 percent below its free market value against the dollar.I'm sorry Warren, I don't see a lot of existing American factories closing because of new Chinese import duties and Japanese currency manipulations.
I see a lot of American factories closing because labor, electric power, tooling, and raw materials are so much cheaper in China that they feel they can't compete with their American competition unless they offshore their manufacturing.
China engages in this currency manipulation in violation of international law, as a member of the IMF. Japan, too. This is not controversial. It's known. And, the US has not done anything about it.
piscator wrote:
Chinese barriers to trade are not an issue that's going to drive people to the polls for Trump.It's what is driving many of them to the polls. Certainly not the details of how it works. But, the notion that our leaders are weak and allowing other economic players to cheat on international agreements is what is driving Trump's popularity.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myths-o ... 1452296887
Trump is bad because arbitrageurs support him....well, of course most of the arbitrageurs support Hillary Clinton, but as you informed us, there is no "proof" that she is in any way influenced by them, and their millions of dollars of donations. Trump is, even though he doesn't get those donations, influences him. He's the one in their pocket.
Now Obama, too, is buying Trump's stuff, when Obama criticizes China's currency manipulation -- which is illegal under international trade agreements -- hey, it must be illegal because it has no effect on international trade! That's why it's illegal under international trade agreements, because it's largely irrelevant to international trade! Got it, Piscator!
Here is an article in Fortune from 2015 (before Trump became a serious candidate): http://fortune.com/2015/08/19/what-chin ... ade-deals/
With no international (or domestic) agreements on what constitutes currency manipulation, it’s time world leaders take action.With the sudden depreciation of China’s renminbi, it’s worth looking at the link between currency values and trade agreements. China’s currency last week dropped by a cumulative 4.4% against the U.S. dollar, making Chinese exports cheaper and imports into China more expensive by that amount.
With the sudden depreciation of China’s renminbi, it’s worth looking at the link between currency values and trade agreements. China’s currency last week dropped by a cumulative 4.4% against the U.S. dollar, making Chinese exports cheaper and imports into China more expensive by that amount.
It's not just Trump who knows this -- New York Senator Chuck Shumer (Democrat) proposed provisions against currency manipulation in the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) to prevent this. He must have done so because currency manipulation is of no real impact on international trade. There are other voices besides Trump, clearly. And, Democrats are among them -- Obama knew it in 2012, as I noted above.The effect on trade can be substantial. With the U.S. average tariff on industrial goods well under 2%, this change in China’s currency value easily swamps most U.S. tariffs. And given the fact that the U.S. dollar was already strong, this move is an added disadvantage to U.S. exports headed for China compared to exports from other countries.
