Trump

[natsb88]

I do think polling procedures need to be updated, but there's no way Trump is winning 64 to 36. Where are the third party options? Some of those respondents aren't voting for either. How many Zip users will actually vote? I'd bet a big chunk of them are under 18, another chunk are 18+ but not registered to vote, and statistically 15% - 30% of those who are registered to vote won't vote anyway. What about all of the elderly people who DO vote but don't have smartphones or the internet? There's a reason the old school pollsters have formulas for finding "likely voters" and don't just throw an anonymous poll up on their website or app, or call random numbers out of the phone book. If you went by Zip type polls in 2008 or 2012, Ron Paul would have been the nominee and beaten Obama. Clearly that didn't translate into actual votes. I do think the race might be closer than what the mainstream polls are reporting, but they aren't off by 20 points . Nice marketing piece by the Zip guy though.

I would also say that what you see on social media may be skewed based on who you are friends with and what you click on. I know it is for me. Facebook and YouTube and news sites feed you content related to what you read (on their site and other sites). In my case on Facebook I see a handful (fewer than half a dozen people) posting pro-Trump stuff, but dozens and dozens of friends from my college years posting anti-Trump content, and a lot of people complaining that Hillary sucks but they will vote for her because Trump is so much worse. Also a lot of talk about Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. All from people who actually vote.

This has been Hillary's election to lose for eight years. She doesn't need big rallies or voter enthusiasm. Short of being indicted (extremely unlikely) or physically incapacitated, all she has to do to win is not be Donald Trump. I don't like Cruz or Kasich either, but the GOP would have had a much better chance with either of them. I know a lot of conservatives who are not voting for Trump but would have voted for either Cruz or Kasich. The polls in late spring had Kasich up 5-10+ points over Clinton at the same time Trump was down 4-8. We could have a different conversation about rhetoric, but in terms of electability, Trump was the worst choice out of the final three. And now that the novelty is wearing off, it's starting to show.

[IdahoCopper]

The polls must indicate a close election in the final weeks.

This is so it will be believable when the corrupted Dibold voting machines give Clinton the win.

[johnbrickner]

there's no way Trump is winning 64 to 36.

Holy moly, I should have read the article. I thought the 64 to 36 was in favor of the possessed.

[Treetop]

The comments on social media were from looking for it specifically over many months now, not whatever shows up randomly.It is consistent. I dont agree the GOP had a better chance with cruz or kasich at all. Trump brought in alot of new blood. Kasich barely won his own state. Those guys are basically hillary, trump offers something different. A lot of people currently not considered likely voters and admittedly so by several major polling groups like trump. Ever notice Third parties do way worse on election day then in polling? Even before the voting machines were all digital. When push comes to shove most align with one of the two main parties, and I expect this will be true with the 20% of republicans who arent happy with trump as well. Trump would likely already be winning alot of the mainline polls if they hadnt recently changed their algorithms.

We still have the wild card of wikileaks as well. The clinton cash movie linked showed a consistent pattern of hillary changing long time stances as soon as money came into the clinton foundation and paying Bill for speeches. Wikileaks has said they have proof she changed policy BECAUSE of the money which takes it from very questionable to criminal.

Also as Ive mentioned in the past there is a consistent thing in our elections. When one party held the office for 8 years they will show up slightly less on the big day and the other side slightly more. This equates to a consistent 2-4 % difference by itself from whatever the polls show. We have no reason to think this election will be different.

I still think this is easily trumps election unless ex diebold that a soros related company now owns pulls the win for hilary.

[Treetop]

All that said I did point out the app isnt likely to be scientific, but interesting nonetheless.

[Treetop]

Actually as I mentioned above the simple fact many trump supporters are not considered likely voters might be the clincher by itself. He is within 3 points in most polls now. The reps had the biggest turnout ever in large part because of the trump people who are not considered likely voters.

[natsb88]

I am definitely interested to see what Wikileaks has to offer, but short of literally landing Hillary in handcuffs, I don't think it will stop her. "Anti-Trump" is a huge rallying cry that is making a lot of people on the left accept/ignore Hillary's evils. There would not have been nearly as strong of an "anti-Cruz" or "anti-Kasich" movement and Hillary would have lost more votes for the emails and DNC conspiracy. Trump is a welcome distraction from all of that and is helping Hillary retain disenfranchised dems.

Completely disagree that Cruz and Kasich are more like Hillary than Trump. That is just absolute crazy talk to me. I don't like those guys either, but Trump overlaps an entire order of magnitude more with Hillary than either Kasich or Cruz. It's not even close. Doesn't matter now, the GOP made their decision (i.e. shot themselves in the foot). I'm not going to rehash what I've already said.

[Treetop]

lol they are globalists just like she is. Main difference is rhetoric and token domestic issues that wont change many peoples lives. Trumps differences with hillary will affect all of us. Your stance is crazy talk to me as well. Trump is the first non globalist who had a chance to win since perot screwed himself by dropping out briefly. even gary johnson wants TPP which you said wasnt so bad so makes me assume you might not have read it outside of a biased opinion piece.

[natsb88]

lol they are globalists just like she is. Main difference is rhetoric and token domestic issues that wont change many peoples lives. Trumps differences with hillary will affect all of us. Your stance is crazy talk to me as well. Trump is the first non globalist who had a chance to win since perot screwed himself by dropping out briefly. even gary johnson wants TPP which you said wasnt so bad so makes me assume you might not have read it outside of a biased opinion piece.

You read the over 5500 pages in the TPP? Or just biased opinion pieces?

Trump clearly didn't know what was going on when the discussion started in the debates. He ranted about how terrible it is because it favors China over the US and will send jobs to China and China this and China that. Except China isn't part of the TPP at all . The right only jumped to immediately oppose it because Obama supported it. At the time nobody really knew what it was all about (and still don't).

I don't claim to know all about it either. I'm not in favor of the TPP, but I'm also not condemning it. There are good parts and bad parts. Reducing and eliminating tariffs is a good thing. The United States will export more goods to other countries and US consumers will have access to imported goods from those countries at lower prices. Adopting international standards for certain imported/exported items should actually reduce the regulatory burden on US businesses since they don't have to study and navigate a dozen separate sets of rules to sell to those countries. Conceding regulatory power to an international body, however, I do not like. But it's unclear how much of that there really is. Some places downplay it and others blow it way out of proportion. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Frankly I am surprised Obama supports it and Trump opposes it. It strikes me as another set of backwards positions in this election cycle. Paul Krugman also opposes it, which makes me think it might not be so bad. In the 90s Krugman, one of the left's favorite economic "experts," said that in the end, the internet would have no more impact on the economy than the fax machine . I find myself completely opposed to about 95% of what Krugman says, so him and Trump being on the same page does not help Trump's case in my book.

Trump's protectionist policies are about 100 years too late. Whether you like it or not, we live in a global economy. You can't undo the internet, the super cargo ships are already built, and Americans are used to working 40-hour weeks in offices instead of 80-hour weeks in coal mines and steel mills, while still having better houses and more cars and computers in their pockets. I am all for American manufacturing (that is, after all, where most of my work comes from), but Trump is blowing smoke. His proposed tariffs would be a punch to the gut for the lower and middle class, not some magic bullet to bring all the jobs back from China. We already have MILLIONS of unfilled "living wage" trade jobs here. China isn't the problem. Social safety nets, government-subsidized student loans, pro-college anti-trade-school propaganda, and lazy entitled Americans are the problem. If we try to isolate ourselves and shut out China (and all these other countries) we will get left behind. We need to address our domestic problems instead of blaming it on another country.

A nice little middle-of-the-road summary of the TPP here, with links to some longer reads:

http://www.unbiasedamerica.com/media/th ... -very-ugly

[natsb88]

Cool, I've been looking for a chart like this.

Even ignoring the missing fields (no surprise that Trump is short on specifics), I count at least six things I disagree with Trump on here, and about one and a half I disagree with Johnson on.

[Treetop]

Whether you like it or not, we live in a global economy.

It is honestly hilarious to me you say this. From my perspective this is what pro free trade people are not comprehending. We have the general lifestyles we do in this country because of practices that cannot be sustained, like our spending. Couple this with a global market where we compete with slaves and it is obvious why real wages are not rising. As perot said way back we will eventually meet in the middle due to this. However with a bit of a protectionist attitude in the midst of that we can buffer ourselves a bit.

Lets face it globalism how we relate to it thus far if we had lived within our means as a nation? a sustainable track. We would already have drastically lower quality of life as an average nationwide. We are living in an inflated reality ALREADY. The expansion of fractional reserve banking after the repeal of glass steagall ALSO inflated our system overall. Might have been purposely and not solely greed based as one might assume. I forget the exact numbers on what portion of the overall economy this debt based spending supports but it was considerable. I want to say 40% as it circles around the economy but I could be off so dont quote me on that. If we didnt have the worlds reserve currency which we already know the IMF is discussing replacing the dollar in this role, we would already be much worse off.

So in the face of globalism if we had an honest banking system, if we didnt base a large portion of our economy on debt based spending, and if we didnt let our banks greatly expand fractional reserve banking, and had totally free trade, well in that case wed retain reserve currency status perhaps Im not sure but wed have much less wealth per american. Of course globalism isnt going away, protectionists understand this more then the rest, because we want to figure out the best balance to ensuring as high quality of life in our own nation as we can in the face of it. This IS understanding that globalism wont go away. We will continue the track down until we meet closer to the middle even with protectionism. Find the right balance and we can keep ourselves further up that scale. We need a balance where we sell as much or more to other nations then we buy. Meanwhile the very wealthy in the US have more then ever, and Im not pointing this out to disparage anyones wealth but because it certainly hasnt been hurting them at all, the way we have related to globalism thus far. So how do we ensure that wealth is circulated back to our citizens? Imo it is decent jobs. We need to bring back our production. For that to work we need enough protectionism that this can be sustained. Perhaps even just in key sectors. Maybe tax breaks to companies that bring back production? Lots of ways we might tackle this. Less red tape for businesses.

Here is one random example because I knew a guy from a homesteading forum who laid this out to me. He ran a smaller chicken farm. Processed his own chickens and sold locally. Instead of having a blank standard on quality specifically bacteria count in this case, he had to met that criteria in a specific way even though he had lab results showing that he was well UNDER the legal levels whereas most industrial stuff is barely under said limits. So a simple legal level would have let both models work, but they mandated methods as well and there are and could be many more producers at this dudes level. I assume similar is true for many other industries I dont know as many details on.

Yes I know the prices of domestic goods goes up if we use tariffs. Somehow everyone assumes protectionists forget this. We would already be paying more for slave made goods then we used to pay for our own if we didnt live in an inflated economy. This is no way to ensure a solid future and nation for our children.

As for TPP I havent read it no bu Ive read upwards of 50-60 articles on it. One issue is what they call "investor-to-state dispute settlement". This literally lets foreign companies challenge our laws and regulations and seek compensation for our laws that affect their balance sheet. There are many other issues though. IT sets additional hurddles for us changing current laws in many ways. It is also expected to loose us additional jobs. I knew even if trump didnt that china wasnt included. This is another reason I want to re negotiate past trade deals. Our trade imbalance with them is immense. It isnt just that because if exports were balanced with imports it wouldnt matter that one or antoher naton has an imbalance but we simply do not have the same exposure tot heir markets and they ARE protectionist about it all. Trump is running in large part on these trade deals. So Id expect him to atleast try. Hes far from ideal but he is my favorite candidate besides maybe ron paul.

Earlier you said that hillary supporters cannot be convinced she is a crook even if wikileaks releases juicy details proving illegality and I expect thats mostly true although I expect atleast a few percent would not vote or go third party. You must remember though by official mainstream numbers trump is within a few points AND up to20% of republicans arent voting for him. These people CAN be convinced hillary doesnt deserve a vote or deserves an anti vote for trump if its proven publicly shes definitely a criminal. They are already republicans and barely barely voting for hillary, or another already. They prefer to vote republican. So trump definitely wins imo without any doubt if wikileaks has what it claims.

Amercanism (even if in the hands of less then ideal candidate) over globalism anyday for me.

Lets also keep in mind this isnt all trade based!!! Trump isnt for our long list of wars either besides ISIS, which we owe it to the region to put down since we caused it. We need a STRONG military imo, but we dont need to play world police.

Anyway, Im not trying to convince you Nate. Lol this is the first election cycle Im on the other side of this exact debate. Ive voted third party since I could vote. I watched a pretty fun speech from dinesh D'souz recently though where he made the point libertarians like many on the left, debate a world they wish to see instead of the conditions we live in. He said it way better.

[natsb88]

You are conflating two different issues. I agree with you that we, as a country, are living beyond our means. But that is not the fault of a global economy. That is the fault of overspending. In fact, protectionist policies will make it worse. They simply funnel more money from the people to the government. That's all a tariff does, artificially raise the price with the government getting the difference. Not a dime of that money goes to the "slave laborers," and the handful of jobs it *might* bring back will not offset the increased cost of goods.

What we need to address is government overspending and broken social programs. The standard of living for the middle class would be even higher than it is if they weren't being robbed of 30% of everything they earn to support people who don't work at all. And inflation is going to become a big(ger) problem. It is absolutely unsustainable. We agree there. But again, not the fault of China. Trump complains all the time about China manipulating our currency. Uh, we are manipulating our own currency. How about we address that instead of shifting the blame to a country that is selling us cheap stuff.

And you are grossly misusing "slave labor." Slave labor would be one human being owning another human being, and forcing the slave to work without compensation, under threat of violence. The TPP covers Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. Half of them are bona fide first world countries with a standard of living very similar to ours. The others are still developing, and manufacturing for export is helping them to develop. They may be crappy jobs, but they are better than what they had before (nothing) and get better over time.

China is not a part of the TPP, but they are an example of how such jobs help raise the standard of living in developing countries. The average hourly wage in China has doubled in the last 5-7 years and continues to increase about 12% a year. People move from rural areas to live in tiny dorms and work these jobs to send money home (not unlike immigrants do here) because it is an improvement for them. Similarly, working as a customer service agent in India is a really good job there. What you perceive as an awful "slave labor" job is a new opportunity for somebody else. The Chinese economy is becoming increasingly capitalistic because the government is seeing it work. The rest of the government is no good, and I wouldn't want to live there at this point, but things are definitely improving.

You may remember that the United States was full of such "slave labor" jobs in its infancy, even after actual slavery was abolished. Women and children worked in dangerous textile factories for crumbs, boys worked dangerous mining jobs because they could fit where the adults couldn't, lots of people were injured or killed on the job, and despite all of that effort most people lived very humble lives, never getting rich. Every decent country has gone (or is currently going) through that stage. The global economy has accelerated that process by providing far more opportunities for developing countries than they would have if they were limited to selling goods and services inside their own borders. Developing countries today have the opportunity to get where we are in half the time it took the US.

I am generally opposed to "free" trade agreements because of all the other stuff that gets shoehorned into them, but I am not opposed to the global economy. Of course I don't want a global government, but I do want to be able to trade freely with other countries, without arbitrary government restrictions, embargoes, and tariffs. Gary Johnson's position on TPP is that he doesn't fully understand it but is in favor of increasing free trade. I think if he (and we) get to understand it better, his position on this specific agreement may change. Trump is just plain against free global trade. His protectionism is akin to economic isolation. It's a total joke and it wouldn't get through congress anyway.

Ron Paul's stance has always been "free trade with all, entangling alliances with none." Here's a concise 2-minute clip with his thoughts on Trump's tariffs. Spoiler alert: he's not a fan

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/31/ron-paul ... arket.html

[Treetop]

You are conflating two different issues. I agree with you that we, as a country, are living beyond our means. But that is not the fault of a global economy. That is the fault of overspending. In fact, protectionist policies will make it worse. They simply funnel more money from the people to the government. That's all a tariff does, artificially raise the price with the government getting the difference. Not a dime of that money goes to the "slave laborers," and the handful of jobs it *might* bring back will not offset the increased cost of goods.

I dont think you understood my points. Our quality of life as a nation would already be much lower if not for that over spending that is inflating our lifestyles. The same is true of several other things listed above. That is not all a tariff does. A tariff also enables industry to sell their local made goods for a similar price. Of course it doesnt go to the slave laborers. It is not meant to offset the increased cost of goods. The money raised through tariffs can offset our taxes while making our potential production more competitive. You have to understand without the various things inflating our economy, from fractional reserve banking, derivatives even, over spending and others our quality of life, our wages would already be much lower OR have lost even a higher percentage of our jobs if pay was the same. Non of this is sustainable. We need a balance where we have jobs for everyone.

What we need to address is government overspending and broken social programs. The standard of living for the middle class would be even higher than it is if they weren't being robbed of 30% of everything they earn to support people who don't work at all. And inflation is going to become a big(ger) problem. It is absolutely unsustainable. We agree there. But again, not the fault of China. Trump complains all the time about China manipulating our currency. Uh, we are manipulating our own currency. How about we address that instead of shifting the blame to a country that is selling us cheap stuff.

Without those social programs what jobs would these folks have? Sure there are alot more little niches out there those with drive can do, and a few million jobs illegal immigrants have today but you dont even think we can effectively make the ilegals leave anyway. It is easy to just say go get a job but you need one to get. If we lower taxes on the middle class that would have them better off for themselves but millions wouldnt eat without those funds. Also you say theyd have 30% more, well theyd be much more then 30% worse off without all the various inflations currently built into our system. So if we werent inflating ourselves in un sustainable ways and lowered taxes as you suggest without said social programs or attempts to protect american jobs wed still have lower quality of life for the middle class and millions starving.

And you are grossly misusing "slave labor." Slave labor would be one human being owning another human being, and forcing the slave to work without compensation, under threat of violence. The TPP covers Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. Half of them are bona fide first world countries with a standard of living very similar to ours. The others are still developing, and manufacturing for export is helping them to develop. They may be crappy jobs, but they are better than what they had before (nothing) and get better over time.

I believe everyone knows exactly what I mean. Id call most labor in mexico slave labor as well, ever see the conditions in the factories there or the lifestyle the pay supports?

China is not a part of the TPP, but they are an example of how such jobs help raise the standard of living in developing countries. The average hourly wage in China has doubled in the last 5-7 years and continues to increase about 12% a year. People move from rural areas to live in tiny dorms and work these jobs to send money home (not unlike immigrants do here) because it is an improvement for them. Similarly, working as a customer service agent in India is a really good job there. What you perceive as an awful "slave labor" job is a new opportunity for somebody else. The Chinese economy is becoming increasingly capitalistic because the government is seeing it work. The rest of the government is no good, and I wouldn't want to live there at this point, but things are definitely improving.

Yep of course their pay is increasing we will eventually meet somewhere close to the middle with them in a truly global free market. This is what I want us to protect ourselves from as best we can and find a balance so the nations masses have JOBS instead of handouts they rely to even live.

You may remember that the United States was full of such "slave labor" jobs in its infancy, even after actual slavery was abolished. Women and children worked in dangerous textile factories for crumbs, boys worked dangerous mining jobs because they could fit where the adults couldn't, lots of people were injured or killed on the job, and despite all of that effort most people lived very humble lives, never getting rich. Every decent country has gone (or is currently going) through that stage. The global economy has accelerated that process by providing far more opportunities for developing countries than they would have if they were limited to selling goods and services inside their own borders. Developing countries today have the opportunity to get where we are in half the time it took the US.

It isnt even about getting rich or retaining a middle class as it is today. I highly doubt we even have a path to do that longterm in the face of a global economy. It is about making sure we have jobs for the masses at all. Social programs are not the way to ensure everyone has food, we need jobs. They will never get to our current inflated level, nor to the level we did in the past when we originally built our middle class as we were the worlds king of production at the time. It was an era that wont be re created anytime soon.

I am generally opposed to "free" trade agreements because of all the other stuff that gets shoehorned into them, but I am not opposed to the global economy. Of course I don't want a global government, but I do want to be able to trade freely with other countries, without arbitrary government restrictions, embargoes, and tariffs. Gary Johnson's position on TPP is that he doesn't fully understand it but is in favor of increasing free trade. I think if he (and we) get to understand it better, his position on this specific agreement may change. Trump is just plain against free global trade. His protectionism is akin to economic isolation. It's a total joke and it wouldn't get through congress anyway.

There are several issues, free trade bleeding out jobs for one but also being beholden to international court decisions that potentially overrule our own laws. This is a horrendous precedent to set.

Ron Paul's stance has always been "free trade with all, entangling alliances with none." Here's a concise 2-minute clip with his thoughts on Trump's tariffs. Spoiler alert: he's not a fan

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/31/ron-paul ... arket.html

He was right on the entangling alliances and not playing world police but fatally wrong on free trade. Free trade will lower us to a third world nation as effectively as our over spending and related issues will when that paradigm falls. Without that over spending and other things that artificially and unsustainably inflated our economy we would already be doing immensely worse. Especially if all those social programs werent ensuring millions eat at all. More free trade will mean the loss of even more middle class jobs.

[Thogey]

Barring significant events, either Trump or Hillary will be president.

If you don't vote for Trump that means you want Hillary.
If you want to stand on principle, great. In a "democracy" no one gets all they want.
You are pissing on a flat rock IMO at this point, to argue political purity.
You have minimal control over THIS election. Trump or Clinton, this is the choice.

Unless you are a Hillary supporter, arguing against Trump is really shutting the barn door after your horses are gone.

Sorry, that is reality. But you all already know this.
I'm actually dismayed this thread is still going. I guess as long as someone will argue with nate, it will continue.

BTW, My mom is a communist. We have VERY short political discussions.

[Treetop]

I can start a different thread. Just seemed like a good place to post about the election, and there are many righties not so happy about trump that the right details might convince to vote for him.

Ive been on Nates side of this debate in several election cycles. I know he doesnt agree but I do see this election as pivotal in relation to how we start facing the issues we have built up as a nation. Even just the supreme court if nothing else.

I will pick americanism over globalism anyday.

[natsb88]

A tariff also enables industry to sell their local made goods for a similar price.

An artificially high price. It's a price control. It's been tried and failed.

The money raised through tariffs can offset our taxes while making our potential production more competitive.

Bahahahaha. You honestly think a new tariff would result in lower taxes anywhere else? You think the feds would give up existing revenue if they got new revenue? You have far more faith in government than I do. Besides, by your own logic, that new revenue should be used to pay down debt, not lower taxes.

Without those social programs what jobs would these folks have? Sure there are alot more little niches out there those with drive can do, and a few million jobs illegal immigrants have today but you dont even think we can effectively make the ilegals leave anyway. It is easy to just say go get a job but you need one to get.

There are millions of unfilled skilled jobs available right now, with no government "job creation" program needed. Plumbers, mechanics, HVAC, electrical, industrial maintenance. They exist. They are real. We are sending kids to school for the wrong things and telling them that jobs where you do physical work are beneath them. We have millions of unemployed people in their 20s and 30s with bachelor degrees in arts and writing and political science and gender studies and foreign languages with nothing for them to do. The student debt bubble is unsustainable. That's something we can fix domestically. Check out what Mike Rowe is doing. It's awesome.

Plus the millions of unskilled jobs that get filled by immigrants because Americans won't do them. Why would they ever want to do such jobs when we pay people close to minimum wage to not work? We could fix that too. Limit unemployment to 30 days. Require community service to collect welfare and food stamps. Make food stamps only work on actual food staples. I see people blow their food stamp cards on soda and junk food at the gas station all the time.

We don't have to blame and go after China to improve the job situation at home. These are things we can do by reducing government spending instead of expanding it, and without increasing the tax burden with tariffs. China is a distraction, a scapegoat.

This is how twisted this election is. You are arguing in favor of social safety nets that pay people not to work, in favor of price controls (tariffs) that force people to pay artificially high prices (for the benefit of government revenue), in favor of government job creation programs, and against basic free market principles. This is why I said (months ago) that I was concerned about Trump destroying what resemblance we still had left of a "conservative" party. He's repeating his "China is stealing our jobs" propaganda and completely unrealistic protectionist promises so much that people are actually buying into them. Yes, we have lost a lot of manufacturing jobs to China. We also have millions of new jobs in IT, technology development, web development, app development, in designing and marketing phones and tablets, things that were barely a blip on the radar 20 years ago.

It's much easier to just say "China is stealing our jobs and I'm going to fix it" than to address the real problems which are here at home.

If you take a step back and look at the big picture, Trump is pitching the same thing Hillary is pitching. The government is going to fix the economy, the government is going to create jobs, the government is going fix healthcare, the government is going to make everything great again. All through government doing MORE. If we go back to before we were bombarded by 24/7 Donald Trump, true conservatives believe that the only way government can help fix these things is by getting out of the way. Less government is the answer, not more. Trump is convincing people that he is a small government conservative, but everything he is proposing requires or results in bigger government and more control.

He was right on the entangling alliances and not playing world police but fatally wrong on free trade.

Trump is fatally wrong on free trade. Of course he wants more government control over trade. His entire career has been about leveraging government control over trade. Build housing for the government, use government to take over property he wants, pay off government officials for special treatment. Trump supporters like to say "that's just good business" or whatever. But it's not. That has shaped his view on what the role of government is. Trump is saying things to appeal to conservatives but proposing decidedly liberal social policies and corporatist economic policies, and somehow convincing his followers that they are something else. He's a snake. Maybe not quite as bad as Hillary, but nowhere close to less-bad-enough to deserve conservative or libertarian support.

[Thogey]

I can start a different thread. Just seemed like a good place to post about the election, and there are many righties not so happy about trump that the right details might convince to vote for him.

Ive been on Nates side of this debate in several election cycles. I know he doesnt agree but I do see this election as pivotal in relation to how we start facing the issues we have built up as a nation. Even just the supreme court if nothing else.

I will pick americanism over globalism anyday.

Keep the thread here brother. It's an evolution and fun to read.

I'm dismayed but it's not bad at all

[natsb88]

Barring significant events, either Trump or Hillary will be president.

Correct.

If you don't vote for Trump that means you want Hillary.

Incorrect. If I vote for somebody other than Trump or Hillary, it means I want somebody other than Trump or Hillary to be president. Both parties and the media tell you it means something else, but it doesn't.

You are pissing on a flat rock IMO at this point, to argue political purity.

I am not arguing political purity. If I were arguing political purity, I wouldn't even consider Gary Johnson, since he is anything but a pure libertarian. I am arguing that Trump is not a conservative at all, and that endorsing him as the GOP's choice for president will be the end of having any substantively differing main party candidates in future elections. The republican party has been getting steadily less conservative for years, overlapping more and more with the democrats. A President Trump would be the last nail in the coffin. Yeah, they will argue about Mexicans and Muslims. So what? The things that really matter (the welfare and warfare states, the erosion of personal privacy and freedoms) are converging.

Unless you are a Hillary supporter, arguing against Trump is really shutting the barn door after your horses are gone.

Sorry, that is reality. But you all already know this.

Nah, that is the simplified reality the two parties feed you. If anything is ever going to change, people have to look elsewhere. Every year it's the same old, "but it's too important this year to throw your vote away to a third party." If not now, then when? Keep doing the same thing over and over, and you can keep expecting the same results.

I can start a different thread. Just seemed like a good place to post about the election, and there are many righties not so happy about trump that the right details might convince to vote for him.

Ive been on Nates side of this debate in several election cycles. I know he doesnt agree but I do see this election as pivotal in relation to how we start facing the issues we have built up as a nation. Even just the supreme court if nothing else.

I will pick americanism over globalism anyday.

Keep the thread here brother. It's an evolution and fun to read.

I'm dismayed but it's not bad at all

This has been a much more substantive and civil discussion than almost anywhere else. Members here are definitely several notches above the average social media activist/drone.

[Treetop]

Bahahahaha. You honestly think a new tariff would result in lower taxes anywhere else? You think the feds would give up existing revenue if they got new revenue? You have far more faith in government than I do. Besides, by your own logic, that new revenue should be used to pay down debt, not lower taxes.

Well the same guy suggesting tariffs is also suggesting several tax decreases. Mentioning the middle class often. It is a balancing act and imo we need to find the balance we retain our production and jobs.

There are millions of unfilled skilled jobs available right now, with no government "job creation" program needed. Plumbers, mechanics, HVAC, electrical, industrial maintenance. They exist. They are real. We are sending kids to school for the wrong things and telling them that jobs where you do physical work are beneath them. We have millions of unemployed people in their 20s and 30s with bachelor degrees in arts and writing and political science and gender studies and foreign languages with nothing for them to do. The student debt bubble is unsustainable. That's something we can fix domestically. Check out what Mike Rowe is doing. It's awesome.

NO doubt many train for the wrong fields and jobs exist but no where close to enough for those currently seeking employment let alone all those who just live on the system currently.

Plus the millions of unskilled jobs that get filled by immigrants because Americans won't do them. Why would they ever want to do such jobs when we pay people close to minimum wage to not work? We could fix that too. Limit unemployment to 30 days. Require community service to collect welfare and food stamps. Make food stamps only work on actual food staples. I see people blow their food stamp cards on soda and junk food at the gas station all the time.

How would that work currently when illegals have the jobs already and even then there arent enough?

We don't have to blame and go after China to improve the job situation at home. These are things we can do by reducing government spending instead of expanding it, and without increasing the tax burden with tariffs. China is a distraction, a scapegoat.

china isnt the only one. Never once said it was, either did trump he just mentions them the most often because they are a big player.

]

This is how twisted this election is. You are arguing in favor of social safety nets that pay people not to work, in favor of price controls (tariffs) that force people to pay artificially high prices (for the benefit of government revenue), in favor of government job creation programs, and against basic free market principles. This is why I said (months ago) that I was concerned about Trump destroying what resemblance we still had left of a "conservative" party. He's repeating his "China is stealing our jobs" propaganda and completely unrealistic protectionist promises so much that people are actually buying into them. Yes, we have lost a lot of manufacturing jobs to China. We also have millions of new jobs in IT, technology development, web development, app development, in designing and marketing phones and tablets, things that were barely a blip on the radar 20 years ago.

Wrong Im arguing we need jobs for many already looking as well as those tens of millions currently relying on said social programs to even live. Those IT jobs would still exist if we hadnt signed NAFTA and opened the door for loss of production at faster rates.

It's much easier to just say "China is stealing our jobs and I'm going to fix it" than to address the real problems which are here at home.

no idea in the world why you think it is all about china.

If you take a step back and look at the big picture, Trump is pitching the same thing Hillary is pitching. The government is going to fix the economy, the government is going to create jobs, the government is going fix healthcare, the government is going to make everything great again. All through government doing MORE. If we go back to before we were bombarded by 24/7 Donald Trump, true conservatives believe that the only way government can help fix these things is by getting out of the way. Less government is the answer, not more. Trump is convincing people that he is a small government conservative, but everything he is proposing requires or results in bigger government and more control.

Pffft trump wants to fix the economy bottom up, while also attempting to put industry on a more level playing field. Nothing even vaguely like hillaries top down higher taxes stance. While tariffs will indeed raise the prices of goods, he also wants lower taxes in general and a more efficiently running government as well. He insists he will pressure every section of governance to streamline and I believe he will try. This is like night and day from free trade bottom down hillary. Cruz and kasich were right there with hillary though.

Trump is fatally wrong on free trade. Of course he wants more government control over trade. His entire career has been about leveraging government control over trade. Build housing for the government, use government to take over property he wants, pay off government officials for special treatment. Trump supporters like to say "that's just good business" or whatever. But it's not. That has shaped his view on what the role of government is. Trump is saying things to appeal to conservatives but proposing decidedly liberal social policies and corporatist economic policies, and somehow convincing his followers that they are something else. He's a snake. Maybe not quite as bad as Hillary, but nowhere close to less-bad-enough to deserve conservative or libertarian support.

You never saw me make excuses for some of the ways trump ran his companies. You have to be a snake to get anywhere in politics today. He is far from ideal but he takes us in the right direction on several key issues. You are fatally wrong on free trade. I dont think you are fully acknowledging just how inflated our current wealth is as a nation because of various unsustainable acts. With total free trade wed bleed out even more jobs then we have already. We will absolutely be a third world nation on that track. Wages will eventually be forced to drop in many fields to pauper levels if we expect to compete, or we simply loose all but industries that cannot move, and they will have more people fighting for those jobs so wages will also drop there. We have been able to ignore all this as a society because we inflated our economy in many ways and live on debt AKA borrowed time. We need jobs in the future and to do so we need to control trade. You can pretend new jobs will rise up to fill the void but they will not, we can see this obviously already even in the midst of a heavily inflated paradigm. We have less people in the workforce then any time since the late 70s when we had a much lower population. Those millions of jobs you mentioned above arent even close to enough to fill the void especially once we are unable to continue inflating our economy. Protectionism is far from perfect but there is no other means to ensure work for everyone in a global economy. It isnt magic. We live in a real world with real limits and already can see plainly free trade has bleed out many more jobs then it created or we otherwise made like with IT fields, and the fabled service economy they promised in the 90s.

[Thogey]

Dude, nate

Sorry I just will never understand you.
The president will be Hillary or trump this time. That's the choice. Our actions will lean it one way or the other.

But than again, I'm the IDIOT who has dozens of coffee and ammo cans full of pennies. I seriously think collecting those cents is the biggest waste of life I can imagine. I have Thousands of rounds of 7.62, for what? I would be killed in any serious confrontation in less than 30 rounds? It seemed like a good idea at the time? So it is quite possible I am the one living in an alternate universe.

I REALLY want to get rid of these pennies. I do not want to die with them. At least the ammo is fun to shoot stuff up with. The pennies are just a pain in the ass


This is epic to watch unfold, in any event. The news coverage is so inane, it really force a gut nausea. A bunch of children!

[Treetop]

Nah, that is the simplified reality the two parties feed you. If anything is ever going to change, people have to look elsewhere. Every year it's the same old, "but it's too important this year to throw your vote away to a third party." If not now, then when? Keep doing the same thing over and over, and you can keep expecting the same results.

But nate this time IS that important because of the supreme court if nothing else.

Anyway, what I really wanted to say is that Im not sure you give trump enough credit. Another thing about him is he is clearly not establishment, and will shake them up a bit. This is a good thing and I honestly think even a little real shake up will be good for politics left and right. In his own way trump would be a billionaire speaking "truth to power" in a manner of speaking from the highest seat in the land. This can only be good for alternative mindsets going forward imo. The 2 party system needs a shake up desperately.

[Treetop]

Its been awhile since I dug into the details of protectionism versus free trade. Been doing that a bit the last few nights. Thus far I cant find examples of nations that build a middle class without protectionism. It was key in our own nations struggle. I also havent yet found a nation that had a solid middle class that retained it without debt based spending or oil in the face of free trade.

This is especially true when getting fledgling industry off the ground. Which we need to do here if we expect our population to have jobs into the future.

Im still reading on it though, but the answer is clear imo in regards to protectionism versus free trade. If anyone knows of examples of nations that did build a middle class that had free trade Id be curious to look into said nations.

There are probably some obvious examples I missed but Im not finding them yet after a couple hours the last few nights.

[Treetop]

I am also finding example after example of third world nations being forced to accept a lack of protectionism in various ways that leave them selling raw materials or other low end goods with little potential for expansion. Freetrade and ending protectionist policy already in play or suggested is one of the ways the IMF always insists indebted nations can grow their economies but it rarely works out that way for them.

[IdahoCopper]

Did you look at Australia & New Zealand

[Treetop]

Austrailia had very high tariffs until about 1990. New zealand used them even longer. We got rid of ours about the same time our dollar became the worlds reserve currency and the largest still standing industrial economy after ww2.