General US Politics

[Tryhard]

Sure, I get it. The US should produce more of the resources it consumes. That's a lot more possible, but I'm wondering how he would actually go about it to stimulate economic progress from a federal level. Has he said how he would try to achieve it? Like I've only seen very brief outlines on Trumps stances on his site and very little on what he actually plans to do.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Tryhard

[Nobody]

Also, how'd the US actually benefit from producing more low level commodities? Those things are very cheap, and America gets way more from importing them from other countries rather than spending a lot of workforce and effort on extracting them. Having resources and extracting them don't generate a lot of money. Generating industrial goods from them is what does.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Nobody

[Phoenix Wright]

This isn't what I was saying. All I'm saying is that the US consumes way more from other nations than it produces, and Trump wants to balance this out a little more. He isn't going to actually make the US sustain itself, even though it could (for a time). Because yeah, resources are finite. Like I said, I'm not good at explaining things... So I'm just going to stop here. xP

when you say "way more," what are the numbers? what were you told, or what do you know?

i'm assuming you skipped my post entirely or at the very least didn't click the link provided.

[Augestein]

Sure, I get it. The US should produce more of the resources it consumes. That's a lot more possible, but I'm wondering how he would actually go about it to stimulate economic progress from a federal level. Has he said how he would try to achieve it? Like I've only seen very brief outlines on Trumps stances on his site and very little on what he actually plans to do.

No, and that's the problem. Trump says things that he wants to happen but has no way to make it happen. Like any time you say "how," you're met with a bunch of guffaws or insults.

[solrocknroll]

the US cannot possibly sustain itself without help and it's crazy to think otherwise.

All of the made-in-China stuff is because it's mainly cheap stuff that no one would pay workers an actually good pay to make. It may not help people in the US directly to outsource jobs, but it helps less fortunate people in other countries who could not get a job anywhere else even if they are extorted and it helps the US people by giving them easy, cheap items.

The United States could not possibly sustain itself even without dealing with cheap products. Just fruits, vegetables, dairy, and meat alone would consume the entire country if we made all our own. Other countries help other countries and everyone is happy. I don't really believe in nationalism or patriotism or whatever and would just rather see as many people in the world as happy as possible. Symbiosis is the only way to do this, and any president who wouldn't make the U.S. more friendly would be toxic to the global environment. This is another reason why Trump is such a bad idea.

Another reason is the treatment of illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants may not have made it legally, but many of them just want a better life than what their home countries could ever provide. It's up to the people of the world to accommodate for other people in need, whether they be citizens of that country or not. That's why I admired Merkel's refugee policy even though it didn't exactly work that well. A wall with Mexico would ruin relations, especially if Trump had the audacity to make Mexico actually pay for that. Strong arming Mexico into doing something is a playground level tactic.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Is it a bad thing that the reason I'm mostly paying attention to this election not out of intellectual curiosity, but because of how amusing it is?

Back on th subject, whose "skeletons in the closet" are dirtier? Clinton's or Trump?

Because a scandal could decide this race, and both a lot of material for scandals.

That being said, I wonder if Trump wins, what kind of adventures can we expect from the Trumps living in the White House?

What kind of scandals will we have with president Trump?

Because let's be honest, Donald Trump in the White House is the recipe for a lot of scandals.

I'm not even joking. I'm actually being serious. After all if anyone is going to win something from Trump winning, it will be the media.

Which makes me wonder, if Trump ever wins, what will happen after he leaves the White House?

What would he do after being president? I'm genuinely curious.

Definitely Trump. Between his opinions on the Central Park 5, his numerous bankruptcies (four if I remember correctly), the golf course fiasco with Michael Forbes and the Milnes, the numerous failed businesses (Trump Shuttle Inc. as an example), Trump University and his comment on the 26,000 Sexual Assaults in the military statistic, Trump has enough skeletons in the closet to fill a cemetery. Whether Hillary can effectively exploit it however, is another matter entirely.

[blah the Prussian]

the US cannot possibly sustain itself without help and it's crazy to think otherwise.

All of the made-in-China stuff is because it's mainly cheap stuff that no one would pay workers an actually good pay to make. It may not help people in the US directly to outsource jobs, but it helps less fortunate people in other countries who could not get a job anywhere else even if they are extorted and it helps the US people by giving them easy, cheap items.

The United States could not possibly sustain itself even without dealing with cheap products. Just fruits, vegetables, dairy, and meat alone would consume the entire country if we made all our own. Other countries help other countries and everyone is happy. I don't really believe in nationalism or patriotism or whatever and would just rather see as many people in the world as happy as possible. Symbiosis is the only way to do this, and any president who wouldn't make the U.S. more friendly would be toxic to the global environment. This is another reason why Trump is such a bad idea.

Another reason is the treatment of illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants may not have made it legally, but many of them just want a better life than what their home countries could ever provide. It's up to the people of the world to accommodate for other people in need, whether they be citizens of that country or not. That's why I admired Merkel's refugee policy even though it didn't exactly work that well. A wall with Mexico would ruin relations, especially if Trump had the audacity to make Mexico actually pay for that. Strong arming Mexico into doing something is a playground level tactic.

Okay gonna stop you there. The people working on slave wages in China, South Korea, Vietnam, and others in sweatshops are not greatfully for the work, they are being exploited.

[Skynstein]

You should produce what's more economically strategic. Thatcher's quote about food being the most strategic thing isn't really true anymore because food is one of the cheapest commodities and raw sources aren't worth much in the global market.

Energy is far more strategic than food. I can't help but think the push for renewable sources is a route Western governments want to take to kick the Middle Easterns out of their affairs. Without energy, you can't do anything, even produce food! I don't know what Trump's energetic policies are, but if he is one of those who sides with the oil companies, he'd be left in the past very quickly.

The jobs are lost to cheap labor in Asia and other places because that's how capitalism is. This cannot be changed and Trump would fail horribly at trying it. Labor might be more expensive for a matter as simple as the exchange rate; what'd you do, then, force your money to lose value and ruin the rest of your economy?

His speech of restoring glory is pure vapor, and the GOP knows it, that's why they've been trying to stop him at all costs.

[tuvarkz]

Nope, the main reason why the GOP has done everything it could to stop Trump before they were left with no choice but to endorse him was that a Trump win might very well mean their complete loss of political power in the party, or in whatever party surges from the GOP by the next election (Which for all purposes might as well be called a Nationalist Party.) and replaces it.

And then, Trump isn't aiming for full-blown isolationism, but to renegotiate trade deals and to prevent large companies to trying and screw the US out of jobs by moving away.

[Tryhard]

And then, Trump isn't aiming for full-blown isolationism, but to renegotiate trade deals and to prevent large companies to trying and screw the US out of jobs by moving away.

Once again, how? Is he some master diplomat? Considering what we've seen I find it hard to believe he could secure any "better" deals than what the US already have.

[solrocknroll]

Okay gonna stop you there. The people working on slave wages in China, South Korea, Vietnam, and others in sweatshops are not greatfully for the work, they are being exploited.

I agree for the most part, but for many of them they might not be able to feed their families without that work. It's horrible for them, but there are people who might not ever find a job somewhere else.

I'd certainly advocate for much better treatment of these people though, certainly. Raising pay and cutting hours would definitely help a lot.

[Moblin Major General]

Okay gonna stop you there. The people working on slave wages in China, South Korea, Vietnam, and others in sweatshops are not greatfully for the work, they are being exploited.

Yet they don't object, for several reasons. Firstly, they understand that as the proletariat, they will always be subjugated by the powers that be. Secondly, they have nothing but fear and reverence for authority, something I wish Westerners held to and understood sometimes. Lastly, they won't be in that stage for very long, and even if we're all greyed out by the time it happens, it helps that the conditions they are in are better than the ones the Robber Barons put people in 200 years ago. It's bad, but it's better than it used to be.

[CyborgZeta]

Raising pay and cutting hours would definitely help a lot.

It wouldn't be cheap labor if they did that.

Personally, rather than exploit cheap labor, I'd rather pay more for goods to be manufactured here; by workers with benefits that are paid fair wages.

[Anacybele]

Definitely Trump. Between his opinions on the Central Park 5, his numerous bankruptcies (four if I remember correctly), the golf course fiasco with Michael Forbes and the Milnes, the numerous failed businesses (Trump Shuttle Inc. as an example), Trump University and his comment on the 26,000 Sexual Assaults in the military statistic, Trump has enough skeletons in the closet to fill a cemetery. Whether Hillary can effectively exploit it however, is another matter entirely.

But has Trump actually committed a crime and ever been investigated by the FBI? I don't think so. Hillary sure has, though (the whole email thing).

Edited May 11, 2016 by Anacybele

[tuvarkz]

Regarding Trump's bankruptcies, from politifact: (And some more legal context from The Law Dictionary)

"Trump’s four bankruptcies were Chapter 11 reorganizations (named for its location in federal bankruptcy code), which are designed to restructure businesses without shutting them down completely. The purpose is to "save" the business, as opposed to other forms of bankruptcy which would liquidate the company, said Michael Venditto, a partner at the ReedSmith law firm who has extensive experience with Chapter 11."

"While it is accurate that Trump filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy four times, Fiorina’s statement doesn’t tell the whole story. In context, Fiorina’s phrasing suggests Trump was personally responsible for the failures of these businesses, but in reality, much was out of Trump’s control -- such as a struggling casino industry. But Trump is certainly not blameless."

Edited May 11, 2016 by tuvarkz

[blah the Prussian]

It wouldn't be cheap labor if they did that.

Personally, rather than exploit cheap labor, I'd rather pay more for goods to be manufactured here; by workers with benefits that are paid fair wages.

Basically this. They wouldn't do it if they couldn't get away with paying slave wages. The whole reason why they do it is its profitable, and the native governments basically sell out their people.

[solrocknroll]

But has Trump actually committed a crime and ever been investigated by the FBI? I don't think so. Hillary sure has, though (the whole email thing).

But she was never convicted for anything, so she by law did not commit a crime.

[Moblin Major General]

I'll probably have to factcheck this, but I heard that the DNC has abolished the Superdelegates, meaning Bernie now has a much higher chance of being the nominee.

[Acacia Sgt]

Really? I only found that there's petitions for it, not that it was actually done.

Well, except for Maine, apparently.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Acacia Sgt

[Anacybele]

But she was never convicted for anything, so she by law did not commit a crime.

Honestly, just because she hasn't been convicted doesn't mean she didn't actually technically commit a crime. If I went and stabbed somebody with a knife right now and it wasn't in self defense, but somehow I didn't get convicted of it, would you really say I didn't commit a crime?

Edited May 12, 2016 by Anacybele

[Tryhard]

The superdelegate system is indeed a very stupid one that should have already been abolished. The fact that the presidency is not wholly decided by the votes of the people is ludicrous.

As for Hillary, isn't she still being investigated? I wouldn't put it past if anything is going to occur that if she does secure the Democratic nomination that it would come to a head after the candidate has been chosen, putting the Democrats in a precarious position.

[Anacybele]

The superdelegate system is indeed a very stupid one that should have already been abolished. The fact that the presidency is not wholly decided by the votes of the people is ludicrous.

Honestly, I don't trust the American people alone for a job like that. Look how many idiots we voted into the Senate and House and so on. Seriously... I'm not saying it's perfect, but I'd rather have the system we have now than have everything decided by the American people by themselves.

I recently heard that female republicans get bashed on by some democrats just because they're female Republicans, for example. Black male republicans as well. This is just wrong. And it seems that the political parties are becoming more divided over the years and seem to care more about battling one another than taking care of this country.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Anacybele

[Acacia Sgt]

Well, one of the main criticism of the system is that it's undemocratic.

[Tryhard]

I don't trust the American people to vote properly entirely, including or not including superdelegates. I believe 15% of the delegates are classified as superdelegates and so unelected officials are allowed to simply gravitate towards the popular/establishment vote - obviously Hillary in the case of the Democrats who has like 500+ to Bernie's ~42. If anything, they would be fickle enough to abandon Hillary in the case that Bernie would gain the 'popular vote' in the eyes of the media, because that's what they do. It's probably affected previous elections with this system.

Example: "About 85 percent of the convention's delegates are chosen by the voters, and about 15 percent are superdelegates. So it takes a pretty huge pledged delegate margin of victory — a win of 59 to 41 percent — to take the nomination outright. Otherwise, the superdelegates have to push someone over the finish line.

This is what happened in 2008. Barack Obama did not take enough of the pledged delegates to win the nomination alone. But because Obama had narrowly beaten Clinton among the pledged delegates, the superdelegates followed the will of the voters — and gave him the nomination."

Why should an undemocratic sum of the delegates have any say in the final result? This is what makes no sense to me, if America is truly calling itself a democracy.

As for republicans and democrats, both have stupid people in their midst, if they are just being bashed for their gender or race. I wouldn't support either party if I was actually living there, it doesn't feel like a choice to me. I would support individuals that may be from these parties at most.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Tryhard

[Anacybele]

Well, I'm just hearing that women like Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina got bashed because they were female republicans.

And yeah, I'm not denying that both parties have idiots. I agree that both do. I may feel that the republican party has a smaller number of them, but still.