PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[nik-]

I would have voted for Hillary, but I wouldn't have been happy about it. Trump wouldn't get my vote not because of the racism other crap, but because his complete lack of understanding of policy is terrifying.

It's good that this is happening to the Democratic Party, but the cost their country, and who knows who else's, will have to pay for it is too high.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by nik-

I would have voted for Hillary, but I wouldn't have been happy about it. Trump wouldn't get my vote not because of the racism other crap, but because his complete lack of understanding of policy is terrifying.

It's good that this is happening to the Democratic Party, but the cost their country, and who knows who else's, will have to pay for it is too high.

As a democrat, do you consider Obamas presidency a success or failure? What worked and what didn't? I think an honest review of this starts the rebuild.

or was it JUST the candidate Hillary?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

As a democrat, do you consider Obamas presidency a success or failure? What worked and what didn't? I think an honest review of this starts the rebuild.

or was it JUST the candidate Hillary?

On the whole I consider it a failure. I think if he could do it over again, he wouldn't have bothered trying to reach across the aisle in his first two years and would have just rammed through legislation while they still had the house. Maybe an Obamacare closer to a single payer system. The economy on a whole is good, but it never really recovered for the working and middle class. Just more corporate profit.

It's not all his fault, and there are wins for sure. The Iran deal is good, but there are serious foreign policy failures. Libya and Iraq and legitimately disasters. Again, stuff he was stuck with, but he was there long enough to let continued failure go on his scorecard.

As a person though? Obama is probably the best president in my lifetime.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by zamler

You must have missed all the insults hurled at Donald Trump on this forum (for months) he was called everything in the book including making fun of his ancestral name, as low as you can go.

Haha, you do realize that came about because Trump called out Jon Stewart for changing his name, right?

And no, making fun of an ancestral name is not as low as you can go.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I voted for the candidate who has no experience, a dangerously spotty business record and a litany of racist, bigoted and misogynistic rants because I'm tired of being called names.

That's an incredibly stupid response then.

Yes, it's stupid. It's also predictable. Most Republicans aren't going to be shamed into becoming Democrats. But a lot of independents might vote against the Democrats again out of spite if they're denounced as bigots just because they voted for Trump, or live in the parts of the country where people support Trump.

Look at the exit polls. A lot of people who voted for Trump do not like him. They do not trust him. They do not think he has the temperament to be president. But they voted for him anyway because they want to blow up the system.

If you want a different take on American politics, give Dan Carlin's Common Sense podcast a listen sometime. Carlin is an independent. Pretty liberal-minded guy. Smart. Knows his history. In Episode 310 - Or Else, released before the election, he talks about radicalism. About the sense that if dramatic changes aren't made to the U.S. system soon, the country is going to hit an iceberg.

He talks about why Clinton offers essentially no hope of any substantial change to the system. He doesn't support Trump (he hints that he's voting for a third-party candidate), but he makes a pretty good case that a critical mass of Americans are at a stage where they're ready to overturn the applecart. He remarks that if Clinton wins (again, this was before the election), a lot of Democrats will say they dodged a bullet in Trump. But it won't matter, because the gun is still there. And if Trump loses it will fire another bullet, and another.

Saying it's all about racism or sexism is far too easy. Worse than that, it's dangerously delusional.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by nik-

On the whole I consider it a failure. I think if he could do it over again, he wouldn't have bothered trying to reach across the aisle in his first two years and would have just rammed through legislation while they still had the house. Maybe an Obamacare closer to a single payer system. The economy on a whole is good, but it never really recovered for the working and middle class. Just more corporate profit.

It's not all his fault, and there are wins for sure. The Iran deal is good, but there are serious foreign policy failures. Libya and Iraq and legitimately disasters. Again, stuff he was stuck with, but he was there long enough to let continued failure go on his scorecard.

As a person though? Obama is probably the best president in my lifetime.

The economic stimulus package was very good. Without it, well, there would have been serious repercussions. The money was paid back with interest. Another positive includes getting Bin Laden. Might sound cheesy to some, but it was a point never pursued by the former administration. The ACA was a compromise based on Romney care. it was a start, although extremely flawed there's no way they were getting single payer right off the bat. As it stands now, they probably never will.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

I was watching a live stream of Elizabeth Warren on Facebook the other day after Trump announced his transition team and Warren was pointing out the swampiness of his choices.

The comments of people denouncing her were so full of vitriol and so devoid of insight it was depressing...not one comment that I saw had anything insightful to say...more or less that she was annoying, or ugly or part of the swamp. Not one comment on policy etc.

Uber-depressing...even more so because it is because of people like Warren that policies like the consumer protection act are there to act in their interests.

It makes about as much sense as people being in a burning building and yelling at the fire alarm that 'it sounds annoying' and they can't wait for Trump to fire the Fire Department.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Drak

The economic stimulus package was very good. Without it, well, there would have been serious repercussions. The money was paid back with interest. Another positive includes getting Bin Laden. Might sound cheesy to some, but it was a point never pursued by the former administration. The ACA was a compromise based on Romney care. it was a start, although extremely flawed there's no way they were getting single payer right off the bat. As it stands now, they probably never will.

The people who found him were working on it during the Bush administration too. It's not like Obama made this a priority, it's just that the group eventually was successful.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

I was watching a live stream of Elizabeth Warren on Facebook the other day after Trump announced his transition team and Warren was pointing out the swampiness of his choices.

The comments of people denouncing her were so full of vitriol and so devoid of insight it was depressing...not one comment that I saw had anything insightful to say...more or less that she was annoying, or ugly or part of the swamp. Not one comment on policy etc.

Uber-depressing...even more so because it is because of people like Warren that policies like the consumer protection act are there to act in their interests.

It makes about as much sense as people being in a burning building and yelling at the fire alarm that 'it sounds annoying' and they can't wait for Trump to fire the Fire Department.

but you're looking at it from one side. The other side asks: Why does Warren have a live stream on facebook talking about Trumps nomination?

She's been on a media circuit since the election. If she has presidential aspirations she's going to flame out.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

but you're looking at it from one side. The other side asks: Why does Warren have a live stream on facebook talking about Trumps nomination?

Why would 'the other side' be asking that question? Anyone can livestream on facebook.

It's basically asking "why is she using the available technology to do her job?".

[Coach]

There are definitely people who voted for Trump because they are racist and applauded his racist rhetoric. It's the whole reason he did it. I don't believe he personally is a racist (I do think he personally is a sexist and grope artist at best), but he certainly spewed a lot of hatred to get people on board. Is there any denying that at least some segment of the population voted for him on that basis?

If that percentage is greater than the margin of victory, does that not mean that racism played a part in winning him the election? A significant part.

[Illuminaughty]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

While a lot of free trade deals have just made governments richer while their people got poorer, it should be worth noting that this idea of "American goods" on the rise is horrible for the consumer.

What you're talking about accomplishes (maybe) making corporations richer, but it won't have a big benefit on the consumer. American goods cost more (a lot more, and no tax break is going to make up for the cost of local minimum wage, benefits, and expenses that far outweigh those in Asia for example). The tax on foreign goods also likely isn't high enough to deter foreign production, that cost will simply be passed onto the consumer.

Solely relying on foreign goods isn't good for the employment rate, but trade works when you're importing a need and exporting a excess. Decreasing imports will also have a negative impact on exports (which will have a negative financial impact), and decreasing imports from the wrong country (China for example) would be an idiotic mistake considering the extreme debt America is in to those countries.

It's nice that the employment rate might go up, but it also might go down when companies close, or these new employees might find that they can't afford anything anyway as costs skyrocket.

I disagree, you make that foreign tax rate high enough that it levels out the overhead benefits that foreign countries have, it will nerf their competitive advantage. Plus will also create more jobs and circulate more money inside the economy. Both good things.

The problem is the US is racking up these huge trade deficits because of the discrepancy in imports vs exports. They aren't exporting nearly as much because of free trade and globalization. The trade debt the US has with China is mostly because of free trade and China's inclusion in the WTO. It's hard to compete with them when they have no regulations and slave labor. Making these same mistakes with TPP and the like will further lead to more job loss and a stagnating economy.

Also these giant corporations you are talking about getting even more rich, they will either way, that's how they operate, they are not in the business of losing money. Trying to tax them to heck like Hillary wants to won't work either, they will just move offshore. Her tax plan will make it impossible for small business to operate and won't effect these giant corporations at all.

[Illuminaughty]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Somehow, your source's following unsupported blanket statement is not at all persuasive:



Certainly, less the persuasive (to me anyway) than the following:



SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender...s#Hours_worked

You actually help make my point in what you posted, whether knowingly or unknowingly. Woman tend to make different choices then Men, choosing to spend more time with their kids and sick parents then working long hours for pay. These choices are admirable in my opinion and shouldn't be looked down upon by modern day feminists that have a political motive.

So lets put this myth to bed already.

Here's another link if you like. There's tonnes of info on the net about this, you could also apply a little common sense would get you to the same conclusion.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ha...rticle/2580405

[Drak]

Originally Posted by MattyC

There are definitely people who voted for Trump because they are racist and applauded his racist rhetoric. It's the whole reason he did it. I don't believe he personally is a racist (I do think he personally is a sexist and grope artist at best), but he certainly spewed a lot of hatred to get people on board. Is there any denying that at least some segment of the population voted for him on that basis?

If that percentage is greater than the margin of victory, does that not mean that racism played a part in winning him the election? A significant part.

I think he is. There's the entire bit about not renting to blacks in the 70's for starters. Using bigotry as a tool to run a campaign is also a serious question mark. As is ignoring these aspects if you're a voter.

[Illuminaughty]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

the problem with this is China owns a huge chunk of US debt so the US risks having the cost of its debt going through the roof if it screws with the balance of trade, the US is like your stupid kid that pays off one credit card with another card, constantly juggling debt it can never pay back.

Businesses that return to the US will do so with massively automated factories, so wont employ many to do the work, those that cant automate will stay in the cheapest countries because Labour will always be cheaper than taxes in labour intensive industry.

Nothing about Trumps plan works outside of a being a good soundbite to get a not particularly bright electorate to vote for him.

The parallels with Brexit are very close, both are insane for the economies of the countries involved, but are attractive to a populous that wishes their countries could go back in time to some idyllic past when Britain had an empire and the US was supreme

Oh Wimbledon, nice to see a post you made without some veiled insult.

Yeah the US is in a pickle with China, but continuing to go down this road of operating with a large and growing larger deficit isn't going to help the situation. Yes automation has changed manufacturing, but it was inevitable. That's why you need at least a two pronged solution of lowering taxes on business and some foreign tariff to level things out a bit. You can try to get tougher on China abusing trade regulations as well. This is a more proactive plan then maintaining the status quo and further selling out to the globalists multi-national corporations with TPP.

Ross Perot was right about NAFTA 20 years ago, simply continuing with these agreements isn't going to change the trend that we've witnessed. Encouraging the free market with minimal government intervention and making it easier for small businesses to compete, will help with innovation and job creation.

[Illuminaughty]

Originally Posted by zamler

Show me a person here that voted Democrat (or would have) that doesn't believe Donald Trump is a sexist racist etc. and I'll reconsider. And my statement stands even some of the most ardent Democrats are saying the same sort of things.

I still have yet to see a quote of him saying something that was racist. Yes we heard about numerous ALLEGATIONS of sexual assault, but if he was such a sexist pig,would he have so much support from his family. I doubt it.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

I still have yet to see a quote of him saying something that was racist. Yes we heard about numerous ALLEGATIONS of sexual assault, but if he was such a sexist pig,would he have so much support from his family. I doubt it.

How is it an allegation if he was on tape saying that he does it?

[Illuminaughty]

Originally Posted by Drak

I think he is. There's the entire bit about not renting to blacks in the 70's for starters. Using bigotry as a tool to run a campaign is also a serious question mark. As is ignoring these aspects if you're a voter.

It's interesting to note he was never accused of being a racist until he ran for president. Even while starring on network television.

This is interesting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...f76_story.html

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

I disagree, you make that foreign tax rate high enough that it levels out the overhead benefits that foreign countries have, it will nerf their competitive advantage. Plus will also create more jobs and circulate more money inside the economy. Both good things.



The problem is the US is racking up these huge trade deficits because of the discrepancy in imports vs exports. They aren't exporting nearly as much because of free trade and globalization. The trade debt the US has with China is mostly because of free trade and China's inclusion in the WTO. It's hard to compete with them when they have no regulations and slave labor. Making these same mistakes with TPP and the like will further lead to more job loss and a stagnating economy.



Also these giant corporations you are talking about getting even more rich, they will either way, that's how they operate, they are not in the business of losing money. Trying to tax them to heck like Hillary wants to won't work either, they will just move offshore. Her tax plan will make it impossible for small business to operate and won't effect these giant corporations at all.

That still doesn't change the fact that consumer prices would skyrocket. I think it's pretty simplistic to think that raising the tax to a point that completely negative the foreign advantage would just increase jobs and circulate money money inside the country. Along with consumer prices skyrocketing, sales would plummet, jobs would be lost, and some companies would either close or leave completely. The US is a huge market, but don't expect that to continue as long as costs are astronomical.

Along with all that, the price of their exports would go up which would lead to less exports in general. That reduces the "cash flow" coming into the country significantly.

If you limit imports from China, they're almost guaranteed to start calling in their debt because they only let it ride at its current state due to the benefit they receive from it (calling in their debt would raise their currency against the US). The more they call in their debt, the more it'll crush the US dollar. The US are beholden to the goodwill of China at this point and reducing free trade is a bad solution. Even if you think it's a first step, it's a suicidal first step.

I mean, if you think that just taxing major corporations are going to push them offshore, you're going to in for a surprise when the lower domestic tax rate doesn't make up for the huge increase in cost of doing business by forcing their operations within the border. I always love that thinking: "If we tax corporations, they'll go offshore! We should force them to do all their business in one of the most expensive countries in the world. That'll fix it."

[Illuminaughty]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

How is it an allegation if he was on tape saying that he does it?

It could be hyperbole, joking or he could be lying. I judge people by their actions, not by what they say when they are joking around and not knowing they are being recorded. He apologised for it and said he has changed, what else do you want?