American Presidential candidates GoP/Dems
Discussion
Wobbegong said:
Pesty said:
Good response to the 'right on actors' telling everybody how to vote,
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jHLdYuzXqPI&ebc=...
.
Team America was spot on https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jHLdYuzXqPI&ebc=...
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOH9trJLedk
WARNING might be a few naughty words
South Park - Trump becomes Canadian President of Canada
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Globalization has become more evident, and as a concept has been used more frequently, in the last 20 years (1997-2016). It's become a buzzword of the last two decades, says The Economist.The International Monetary Fund had acknowledged by 2007 that inequality levels increased following the introduction of new technology and the investment of foreign capital in developing countries. That was looking back, not looking ahead - even the IMF can get that perspective right.
If anyone looked around and listened in during the Bliar years 1997-2007 and times since then, including through and beyond the GFC, they would see the top tier of society benefiting most.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-16...
I had thought there were PH posts from you bemoaning this on behalf of the poor bloody infantry but maybe not; PH has so many threads, with so many posts, and so much failed left-liberalism.
One of various sources: only 1% at top benefit from globalisation:
http://www.fin24.com/Economy/gordhan-only-1-at-top...
Stateside, Bloomberg looked at the impact of globalization on the American middle classes, here's a discussion around their article and one IMO comment from it, added so there's at least one thing you have a chance of rejecting
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/bloombergview/g...
"Globalization is a big win for China's middle class and our top 1%, but a disaster for the U.S. middle class."
JagLover also pointed out that where altruistic aims exist, benefit accrues to the citizens of developing countries at the expense of their own fellow (western, developed nation) citizens. We need look no further than the UN for this, speaking on behalf of the befuddled politicians of many a developed western nation.
Not only are there other sources which demonstrate clearly that JagLover's post was spot on, as I indicated, but when you look around with eyes and ears open it's obvious what's been happening.
Have another crack at this, it may help with assimilating empirical evidence in future. It indicates how the world has been changing in ways that the British left cannot comprehend.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/07/st...
Anyway...back to the Trump-related demonization on PH
unrepentant said:
JagLover said:
Trump is a very poor presidential candidate but at least he is against both open borders and the offshoring of jobs.
He's not open about the ones he's offshored! Like the manufacturing jobs that produce every single piece of Trump branded tat, including his daughter's tat.I like to look at what a politician actually does, rather than just what they say. When Trump says something go and look at his actual record and you will see that he has generally done the opposite. It beggars belief that so many people listen to his nonsense and believe any of it.
boxxob said:
Ah, yes, but what's the HRC record on manufacturing jobs? How many did she secure and keep during her years at wal-mart, for example?
She was a non exec so would have had little or no influence over buying decisions. She did promote their "made in America" campaign though. Back in the 80's more goods were produced domestically anyway. The role on non exec's has changed in the past 25 years with the rise in importance of corporate governance. Back then she probably attended half a dozen board meetings a year at most and maybe sat on a committee. It's widely reported that she encouraged Walton to promote more women.turbobloke said:
lots of stuff about empirical evidence that globalisation has benefited the 1% and left behind the middle classes
But all of this assumes that Trump gives a s
t about the middle classes. There has been no evidence prior to this campaign that he did. There is little evidence that he does now, other than dog-whistle policies on which he blows hot and cold.The empirical evidence suggests that he actually doesn't give a s
t about anything other than becoming POTUS because it would mean that he was the BEST and right about everything.Esseesse said:
unrepentant said:
JagLover said:
Trump is a very poor presidential candidate but at least he is against both open borders and the offshoring of jobs.
He's not open about the ones he's offshored! Like the manufacturing jobs that produce every single piece of Trump branded tat, including his daughter's tat.I like to look at what a politician actually does, rather than just what they say. When Trump says something go and look at his actual record and you will see that he has generally done the opposite. It beggars belief that so many people listen to his nonsense and believe any of it.
Zod said:
But all of this assumes that Trump gives a st about the middle classes.
You're wrong. He cares about them HUUUGElyt about the middle classes. Trump's tax cuts for the middle classes
Article said:
The Trump campaign site, for instance, promises that his plan will cut taxes for a married couple with two kids, $50,000 in earnings, and $8,000 in child care expenses by a whopping 35 percent. Not bad, huh? Even though the plan concentrates benefits among the rich, it’s hard for a middle-class family getting annoyed at their tax bill falling by over a third.
The only problem: This is a lie.
The only problem: This is a lie.
Zod said:
turbobloke said:
lots of stuff about empirical evidence that globalisation has benefited the 1% and left behind the middle classes
But all of this assumes that Trump gives a st about the middle classes. There has been no evidence prior to this campaign that he did. There is little evidence that he does now, other than dog-whistle policies on which he blows hot and cold.The empirical evidence suggests that he actually doesn't give a s
t about anything other than becoming POTUS because it would mean that he was the BEST and right about everything.
And to pass huge tax breaks that would benefit him.
Trump is laughing at all the little people who are taken in by him. Look at what he's done, not what he says he'll do.
If i could vote, mine would be on Hillary Clinton.
Shes for gays and women even though she takes saudi cash.
She has been implicated in ruining the lives of various women who had intimate relations with good ol' Bill
She lied way back when about landing under sniper fire
She lied about Emails - to the nation and FBI
Shes a bigger race baiter than even good old Obama
[hashtag]imwithher
Shes for gays and women even though she takes saudi cash.
She has been implicated in ruining the lives of various women who had intimate relations with good ol' Bill
She lied way back when about landing under sniper fire
She lied about Emails - to the nation and FBI
Shes a bigger race baiter than even good old Obama
[hashtag]imwithher
Countdown said:
MrBrightSi said:
Shes for gays and women even though she takes saudi cash.
Yes. Unlike BAe, Boeing/McDonnell Douglas, and pretty much most of the Western World she's unique in taking Saudi cash. may she burn in a thousand Creda tumble dryer fires!!Zod said:
turbobloke said:
lots of stuff about empirical evidence that globalisation has benefited the 1% and left behind the middle classes
But all of this assumes that Trump gives a st about the middle classesRelavant points disputed by midenginedcoupe were those covered, essentially in response to an excellent post from JagLover which mentioned that Trump was against open borders and offshoring of jobs. Whether or not Trump is explicitly cultivating the middle classes due to some caring instinct, his approach as described by JagLover will improve their lot.
I live in the US, but do not have a vote and it's amazing listening to the reasons why people are voting. It's basically an "anti" vote as everyone thinks both candidates are not very good and not going to make good presidents, but it's all about how much they hate one or other candidate. I was in Wisconsin last week with about 10 people at dinner and the topic of the election came up. There were 2 Foreigners, 5 Trump, 1 other and 2 Clinton around the table. People are not admitting they vote for Trump and he is losing ground every time he opens his mouth, but then again, so does Hillary. This could be the first election where going off into hiding and saying nothing is a winning strategy whilst waiting for the other candidate to implode.
The other strange thing is that lying/forgetting the truth is accepted and forgotten about in 3-4 days. I cannot imagine any of the UK parties not being prepared on facts or lying about things, but it seems perfectly acceptable here. VP debate tonight, and it will be interesting to see if that helps either cause. Truth is that few people will take notice as it's all about the main event of Donald vs Hillary. Strange times we live in
The other strange thing is that lying/forgetting the truth is accepted and forgotten about in 3-4 days. I cannot imagine any of the UK parties not being prepared on facts or lying about things, but it seems perfectly acceptable here. VP debate tonight, and it will be interesting to see if that helps either cause. Truth is that few people will take notice as it's all about the main event of Donald vs Hillary. Strange times we live in
unrepentant said:
MrBrightSi said:
I'd rather have a business man who can fund himself .
Oh dear, the naivety is touching. 
Clinton fundraising = $517m the last time I looked
Trump donations = $13m plus $36m Trump money
All those hundreds of millions and Clinton is still unable to shake off the Trump. From the NYT not long ago today:
NYT said:
On average, Mrs. Clinton has fared about two or three points better in post-debate polls than in similar surveys conducted in September. Yet she isn’t doing much better than she did in August or July — an indicator that Mr. Trump has made at least some meaningful gains over the last few months.
Before the first debate, Clinton had led on registered voters but Trump was leading on likely voters. All that money raised for Hillary to spend and it's still anyone's race.
MrBrightSi said:
Point is still made. Half of the rammel i hear about her is just because she has a Vagina, she pulls these horrible devisive soundbites about being for a different interest group depending on the votership she wants. Just goes to show it's all hot air.
Some people seem resentful that she's a woman, hence the "divisive" allegations. the fact that she's a woman "shock horror" is being used against her. To most people it's irrelevant, as it should be. MrBrightSi said:
I'd rather have a business man who can fund himself even if im not 100% behind him or believe at all that he's a conservative, than some absolute SWT horror show that is HRC.
The businessman argument might carry some weight IF he'd not been bankrupt four times and IF his modus operandi didn't involve stiffing suppliers and workers and IF it didn't involve outright fraud. It does. Making loads of money doesn't make somebody a good President otherwise we'd be voting for people like Tony Soprano.Countdown said:
he businessman argument might carry some weight IF he'd not been bankrupt four times and IF his modus operandi didn't involve stiffing suppliers and workers and IF it didn't involve outright fraud. It does. Making loads of money doesn't make somebody a good President otherwise we'd be voting for people like Tony Soprano.
he had lot of companies it's not strange some had to go bankrupt, I don't rate him excellent businessman like many do he is just average for me but he still has much better record than HRC especially because we know she is bad with doing state things and we still don't know how he would fair, he might be good or not but it's given that she will be badCountdown said:
The businessman argument might carry some weight IF he'd not been bankrupt four times...
That many? It reinforces his credentials if so.Being ultimately able to make a success of it through even one come-back is a sign of strength.
Unlike Cameron, he's not a frit quitter.
AreOut said:
he had lot of companies it's not strange some had to go bankrupt, I don't rate him excellent businessman like many do he is just average for me but he still has much better record than HRC especially because we know she is bad with doing state things and we still don't know how he would fair, he might be good or not but it's given that she will be bad
He's currently being sued for fraud. He's been sued numerous times previously. His business practices verge from sleazy to corrupt. There's no doubt in my mind whether he'd be good or bad.Countdown said:
AreOut said:
he had lot of companies it's not strange some had to go bankrupt, I don't rate him excellent businessman like many do he is just average for me but he still has much better record than HRC especially because we know she is bad with doing state things and we still don't know how he would fair, he might be good or not but it's given that she will be bad
He's currently being sued for fraud. He's been sued numerous times previously.Also, as well as overcoming business setbacks, and also iirc, Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy. Even better creds.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff