President Donald J. Trump

[albrecht]

While leaving issues like this up to the states is a good idea on paper few states have come around to raising the minimum wage to anything near a living wage. Some studies show that with inflation it should be as high as 20 dollars an hour. When it comes to the point where workers are getting such little amount of money to live on that they require government assistance to get by then it becomes a national problem. Just one more example of corporations screwing over people and expecting the government to pay the difference.

The beauty of the system we used to have is that States and local municipalities can act as "test cases." Not only does this allow, due to freedom of movement, people with similar ideas to move, and enact, policies they like but also allows other States, and the Federal government, to see what works and for different policies to be "tried out." The "top-down" mandates and regulations by the Federal government shut off this experimentation, so if wrong effect everyone. And no opportunity to "test" a theory, law, or regulation. And also the "top-down" system is far less democratic- since most of the regulations we have on the books weren't even passed by laws but by administrative procedures by government agencies or by some Court who simply mandates whatever this wish regardless of the vote, law, or people's opinion.

[paladin1991]

:
Considering he's eating Mexican food on Cinco de Mayo, it should be "Latinos", not "Hispanics". 

Why do you say that?

[starrmtn001]

For everyone at The Bell Philes, here is tonight's Trump Speech.

Full Speech: Donald Trump Holds HUGE Rally in Charleston, WV (5-5-16)

https://youtu.be/wfNzDOWhbTA

[mikuthing01]

kek

[aldousburbank]

Considering he's eating Mexican food on Cinco de Mayo, it should be "Latinos", not "Hispanics". 

I'm just as brown as any US citizen gets because I'm Mexican too and but the terms Latino and Hispanic I don't know what for why. Because like I'm hardly ever late and I reject the negative gender binaryism of hispanic since it's just as often hers.

[albrecht]

I'm just as brown as any US citizen gets because I'm Mexican too and but the terms Latino and Hispanic I don't know what for why. Because like I'm hardly ever late and I reject the negative gender binaryism of hispanic since it's just as often hers.

I'm a bit confused as to why the SJWs haven't been fighting various languages over use of gender? So many languages are intrinsically sexist. 
ps: I've known some Hispanics that are whiter than me. I think Hispanic is better than Latino/a because it doesn't differentiate between the sexes and also applies equally across all races (since it is not a race.) If one single-out only the "mixed-blood" types, there is always the fall-back "non-white Hispanic." Or, as many "Latinos" do there are all kinds of stereotypes, insults, etc used between the "Latino" people, from a limited gringo's perspective it seems to be based on more Indian blood, more rural, or black, and more south you go the more insults they come up with. They even have some term "mojado" in their communities which translates, as I'm told, as "wetback."

[Teh PeNgu1n oF dOOm]

:
Considering he's eating Mexican food on Cinco de Mayo, it should be "Latinos", not "Hispanics". 

BTW, in the last few recent pictures of Trump I've seen he looks unwell.  His face is puffy and his skin is gray with pallor--not his usual vibrant shade of orange.

I love when white people whitesplain what other ethnicities should be called and get upset and take action on their behalf.

[albrecht]

I love when white people whitesplain what other ethnicities should be called and get upset and take action on their behalf.

I like that now I can both mansplain and whitesplain! Looking forward to the next SJW label so I can "splain" in some more capacities!

[starrmtn001]

We're talking about Senda here, he isn't that switched on; he's voting Trump too....

Came across this on youtube.  What an awesome place, I must say.

Meanwhile in Leeds Part 3: April 2016. Leeds, West Yorkshire, England

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9gOP7yCTBQ

[Lt.Uhura]

Why do you say that?

I was being facetious about Trump managing to politicize his lunch.  He courts controversy at every opportunity.  Couldn't he have simply said, "Damn, this is good!" 

[Teh PeNgu1n oF dOOm]

I was being facetious about Trump managing to politicize his lunch.  He courts controversy at every opportunity.  Couldn't he have simply said, "Damn, this is good!" 

Why does it bother you?  Why do you even care?

[Value Of Pi]

Uh, yes it is...you can trade, but only accords that work for both countries...no lop sided like it is today...

I'll explain. Trump owns an American corporation. That corporation sells the finished product (ties, handbags, whatever) and collects the revenue/profit on those sales, regardless of where in the world the product is made or sold. So the fact that he manufactures his products in China doesn't directly hurt America's balance of trade numbers or directly make our trade deficit worse. That's what I mean by saying that Trump's choice of workforce is not a trade issue.

It is, however, a labor issue for American workers and is detrimental to the American economy. That's because all the money he is spending to make his product is going into the hands of Chinese workers, Chinese factory owners and the Chinese government. It's not going to American workers or American companies because it's not being spent here in the U.S. (though a bit of it might come back here if the Chinese use Trump's slave wages to buy American-made imports, which is not happening much at all).

What Trump does is what every other American company does when they open a factory in a foreign country rather than in the U.S. -- Ford and Carrier with their Mexican factories, for example. Of course, he's criticizing them to no end, but he's guilty of the very same business practices that are hurting Americans. He hires foreigners anytime it saves him a buck, whether he's making ties or building condos. IOW, he's a fraud and a hypocrite in the same way as the people and companies he attacks. Worse actually, since others aren't quite so proud of how they make their money.

[21st Century Man]

What Trump does is what every other American company does when they open a factory in a foreign country rather than in the U.S. -- Ford and Carrier with their Mexican factories, for example. Of course, he's criticizing them to no end, but he's guilty of the very same business practices that are hurting Americans. He hires foreigners anytime it saves him a buck, whether he's making ties or building condos. IOW, he's a fraud and a hypocrite in the same way as the people and companies he attacks. Worse actually, since others aren't quite so proud of how they make their money.

Ding, ding, ding!!!!  Trump is a smarmy, hypocritical fuck.   I'll praise him if he does the right thing should he become President, but until then I am going to be more than a bit skeptical.

[Value Of Pi]

Ding, ding, ding!!!!  Trump is a smarmy, hypocritical fuck.   I'll praise him if he does the right thing should he become President, but until then I am going to be more than a bit skeptical.

Well, in terms of doing the right thing, Trump's definition of that particular phrase was that before, he was just greedy for himself. But as president, he would be greedy for us, the American people.

That says it all for Trump and the people who love him. They're the same idiots who would cheer on the stupid contestant on "Let's Make A Deal" who traded the $5,000 in cash for the unseen object in the big box, which turned out to be five years' worth of dog food.

[SredniVashtar]

that's because in the US and most other western nations, the "traditional attributes" of politicians includes support for growing the debt, indifference to or outright support of illegal immigration, support for harmful trade deals, and support for endless foreign wars that breed only expense and chaos.  despite the familiar complaint about trump's lack of specificity, those are very specific issues that a large chunk of the electorate really does care about... and along comes trump.

Trump can play any role he chooses at the moment because he isn't required to make any decisions that affect the country. He can be against foreign wars all he likes right now, but, if, during Year One of a Trump presidency, a bomb is detonated by Pakistani miltants that wipes out a large part of Chicago, does he sit on his hands and talk about staying out of other nations' affairs? Trump hasn't dirtied his hands in politics yet, which is the only reason he is finding the support he has. He comes across as pretty authoritarian, too, and I have heard him talk about having more surveillance, which involves more money spent on the national security state. If you accept that you are serious about reducing the debt burden and foreign wars then you also have to accept that you're on the way to becoming a second-rate power. You might save money by drawing your horns in, but you also lose the influence that you currently have, while other nations usurp your position. In the short-term you have a budget surplus, in the long-term you start to wonder why world leaders aren't returning your calls. It's a much more complicated position than Trump realises

Illegal immigration is one of those dog whistle topics. Trump is giving a simple answer to a complicated  problem. Walls are usually signs of weakness rather than strength, like the French Maginot line, and are never as effective as you think they will be. Your biggest problem is your relative prosperity as a nation compared  to Mexico. People want to come there because they think they will have a better life. If they are sufficiently determined they will find a way. The wall is too long for practical use, and it's bound to be porous. It might reduce the rate of immigration, but does that justify the expense in an era of fiscal conservatism? The only long-term solution is to make Mexico more  prosperous, so that people don't want to leave in such numbers. People will find a way to get there, so you need to reduce the incentive. The trouble is, a solution like that won't be heard in this world of day-glo TV sets and news bimbos. It's a bit like the 'war on drugs', which doesn't work either, because it's a problem that can only be managed, not eliminated.

the reason this critique doesn't peel trump's supporters away is that it doesn't outweigh their belief that he is the only candidate who can and will address those four core issues: debt, immigration, trade, and military misuse.  they see his inaccurate statements or other liabilities as a secondary concern relative to, they believe, the once in a lifetime opportunity to fix some huge problems that remain neglected by traditional politicians of both parties.  they believe the nation's decline will irreversibly continue if those issues aren't resolved, so it doesn't matter to them that the messenger is flawed.

First of all, if he's a liar in one area, it seems likely that he will be a liar in others as well. That's the point. He's got on this train and is riding it as far as he can take it, drunk on adulation but without a clue what he's going to do when he gets there, in real, practical terms. "Whaddya mean I said I'd build a wall? You losers are just making shit up again!" Tee-hee, that Donald, he's such a kidder!

The candidates were a hopeless bunch all round, I agree. But the electorate conspires in that by putting up with the childishness of the media, who turn politics into a cross between a beauty contest and a gossip column. People are more interested in personalities than ideas, that's the problem, and they think someone is going to turn it all around for them so they don't have to think. The messenger is identical with the message in this case, so it's perfectly valid to attack the man because I don't think he offers much more than an aura of wealth and success in an unrelated field. What you call a 'once in a lifetime' chance I see as a spin of the roulette wheel. It reminds me of the mistake that sports teams make when they hire a great player to manage the team. It hardly ever works but people delude themselves that it can't possibly fail.

did you really hear that and perceive it to be a serious statement of unfortunate fact?  because when i heard it i chuckled, as did lots of people.  i chuckled because it painted a funny image, but i also chuckled because i knew how it would upset those who don't like him.  he's the master troll.  anyway, that statement, to me, just sounded like a guy (successfully) working a room, being himself.   but, at its root, that's what much of this is all about: personal impressions.  there's nothing i'm going to say that will convince you to hear that statement the way i did or to appreciate trump's shtick as i do.

I can see the appeal of Trump as an act, sure. He was obviously joking there, but it hinted at a deeper truth that his supporters don't let  rationality impede their belief in the man. As I said before, they are motivated  primarily by a laundry list of grievances that they hope Trump can tackle, without considering his fitness for the job. He's the Big Mac of politics: they cynically target unsophisticated consumers by hitting the major food groups all at once, and Trump is doing pretty much the same thing with his handful of policy ideas. They both might be successful, but it's debatable whether they are any good for you.

[136 or 142]

I like that now I can both mansplain and whitesplain! Looking forward to the next SJW label so I can "splain" in some more capacities!

As long as I can say 'happy holidays', I don't care.

[136 or 142]

Huge mining union will be at his rally today in WV to give their endorsement to Trump...

Have you checked how West Virginia has voted since 2000?  The mine workers have been voting Republican for at least a decade.

[136 or 142]

Why he hasn't curbed his own proclivity to say things imprecisely that can be easily taken out of context and used as a bludgeon against him is a mystery to me.

Because to give precise answers would mean that he'd have to actually know the details of the issue.  Also, were he precise, he wouldn't be able to make most of his attacks which rely on half truths.

[136 or 142]

All this stuff about who the primary voters of Sanders, Cruz and Kasich will vote for...

In the end about 60 million Americans will vote in the primaries and probably at least 130 million will vote in the general election.  While it's important to try and get every persuadable vote, Kasich, Sanders an Cruz primary voters are nowhere near as important as the 70 million or so Americans that will vote in the general that didn't vote in the primary.

That's the mistake that idiot John Curtis makes: he assumes that the independents who voted for Trump in the primaries are the same as the independents that will vote in the general election and didn't vote in the primaries.  Primary voters and those who only vote in the general election are quite different.

[136 or 142]

Trump can play any role he chooses at the moment because he isn't required to make any decisions that affect the country. He can be against foreign wars all he likes right now, but, if, during Year One of a Trump presidency, a bomb is detonated by Pakistani miltants that wipes out a large part of Chicago, does he sit on his hands and talk about staying out of other nations' affairs? Trump hasn't dirtied his hands in politics yet, which is the only reason he is finding the support he has. He comes across as pretty authoritarian, too, and I have heard him talk about having more surveillance, which involves more money spent on the national security state. If you accept that you are serious about reducing the debt burden and foreign wars then you also have to accept that you're on the way to becoming a second-rate power. You might save money by drawing your horns in, but you also lose the influence that you currently have, while other nations usurp your position. In the short-term you have a budget surplus, in the long-term you start to wonder why world leaders aren't returning your calls. It's a much more complicated position than Trump realises.

The United States is a foreign leader due to much more than military power and having troops all over the world.  This includes being a financial capital and still being the leader in patent development.

If the United States does not reduce its debt burden (or at least stop adding to it) by doing things such as engaging in foreign wars, the United States won't remain a world leader for much longer.

[136 or 142]

Illegal immigration is one of those dog whistle topics. Trump is giving a simple answer to a complicated  problem. Walls are usually signs of weakness rather than strength, like the French Maginot line, and are never as effective as you think they will be. Your biggest problem is your relative prosperity as a nation compared  to Mexico. People want to come there because they think they will have a better life. If they are sufficiently determined they will find a way. The wall is too long for practical use, and it's bound to be porous. It might reduce the rate of immigration, but does that justify the expense in an era of fiscal conservatism? The only long-term solution is to make Mexico more  prosperous, so that people don't want to leave in such numbers. People will find a way to get there, so you need to reduce the incentive. The trouble is, a solution like that won't be heard in this world of day-glo TV sets and news bimbos.

I don't disagree, but Dunning-Kruger makes it sound like he's the only person who has ever thought of this:

Google:
improving mexican economy only way to decrease illegal immigration
About 986,000 results (0.79 seconds)

improving mexican economy only way to decrease illegal aliens
About 1,110,000 results (0.41 seconds)

Of course not all of those results fit the search, but this is hardly a new idea.

[VtaGeezer]

I'll explain. Trump owns an American corporation. That corporation sells the finished product (ties, handbags, whatever) and collects the revenue/profit on those sales, regardless of where in the world the product is made or sold. So the fact that he manufactures his products in China doesn't directly hurt America's balance of trade numbers or directly make our trade deficit worse. That's what I mean by saying that Trump's choice of workforce is not a trade issue.

It is, however, a labor issue for American workers and is detrimental to the American economy. That's because all the money he is spending to make his product is going into the hands of Chinese workers, Chinese factory owners and the Chinese government. It's not going to American workers or American companies because it's not being spent here in the U.S. (though a bit of it might come back here if the Chinese use Trump's slave wages to buy American-made imports, which is not happening much at all).

What Trump does is what every other American company does when they open a factory in a foreign country rather than in the U.S. -- Ford and Carrier with their Mexican factories, for example. Of course, he's criticizing them to no end, but he's guilty of the very same business practices that are hurting Americans. He hires foreigners anytime it saves him a buck, whether he's making ties or building condos. IOW, he's a fraud and a hypocrite in the same way as the people and companies he attacks. Worse actually, since others aren't quite so proud of how they make their money.

Nice try but naive. Developing a product involves a business plan with assessment of profitability.  For Trump's ties, the profitability analysis for US production would have been the last page. No profit, no financing...unfeasible. End of story. Into the circular file. The only American jobs would have been the staff who prepared the summary. 

The issue isn't "Where do we make it?";  it's "Will we make a profit".  Workers involved in an unprofitable product are soon unemployed.  And wages are only the most obvious advantage...it goes far beyond into layers of Fed, state and local regs, an education system in free fall, lack of govt supported R&D, shameful infrastructure collapse (though we spend plenty for efficient distribution of imports), and more.  Not to mention the virtual tax advantages for investing foreign production.

We should just follow the Canadian model of calling tariffs supply-management policies and subsidies public facilitation of jobs.  We could use our own Competition Act too.

[SredniVashtar]

I don't disagree, but Dunning-Kruger makes it sound like he's the only person who has ever thought of this:

No, it's an obvious idea, it's just going to be incredibly hard for people to swallow because they want the quick fix. Making Mexico more viable involves time and money. That was the point I was making, and it was fairly clear. Don't try to take a swipe at me, because you won't be good enough.

[Philosopher]

The only long-term solution is to make Mexico more  prosperous, so that people don't want to leave in such numbers.

This is practically an impossible task, and any concerted, global effort would take 100 years before any benefit could be effective.  Additionally, you're missing the fact that the entirety of Central and South America are composed of narco-states and economically polarized failed states that are driving illegal immigration as well.  To "make Mexico more prosperous" the world (or the USA) would have to foment total political revolution to overturn the mega-rich and create a real middle class.  Perhaps they should just let China run Mexico for 10 years.

[SredniVashtar]

The United States is a foreign leader due to much more than military power and having troops all over the world.  This includes being a financial capital and still being the leader in patent development.

If the United States does not reduce its debt burden (or at least stop adding to it) by doing things such as engaging in foreign wars, the United States won't remain a world leader for much longer.

Pull up the drawbridge. Another easy solution. You often forget that you can't live inside your own continent, certainly not these days, and choosing to ignore the rest of the world for your own domestic affairs may well end up biting you in the behind. I'm not even talking about foreign wars, but simply pulling out of places that the US is helping to keep secure may lead to instability; there may well be American companies that are put at risk etc etc. Just thinking about the bottom line isn't going to be enough because there will always be other considerations to balance.

[136 or 142]

Nice try but naive. Developing a product involves a business plan with assessment of profitability.  For Trump's ties, the profitability analysis for US production would have been the last page. No profit, no financing...unfeasible. End of story. Into the circular file. The only American jobs would have been the staff who prepared the summary. 

The issue isn't "Where do we make it?";  it's "Will we make a profit".  Workers involved in an unprofitable product are soon unemployed.  And wages are only the most obvious advantage...it goes far beyond into layers of Fed, state and local regs, an education system in free fall, lack of govt supported R&D, shameful infrastructure collapse (though we spend plenty for efficient distribution of imports), and more.  Not to mention the virtual tax advantages for investing foreign production.

We should just follow the Canadian model of calling tariffs supply-management policies and subsidies public facilitation of jobs.  We could use our own Competition Act too.

The United States has large amounts of subsidies. At the national level mainly corporate farms receive large subsidies and many companies are subsidized at the state level as the states compete to attract the companies.

A better term for 'supply management' is 'monopoly cartel.'  The only people who benefit from those are the monopolists.

[SredniVashtar]

This is practically an impossible task, and any concerted, global effort would take 100 years before any benefit could be effective.  Additionally, you're missing the fact that the entirety of Central and South America are composed of narco-states and economically polarized failed states that are driving illegal immigration as well.  To "make Mexico more prosperous" the world (or the USA) would have to foment total political revolution to overturn the mega-rich and create a real middle class.  Perhaps they should just let China run Mexico for 10 years.

Building a wall is what we'd call a 'bodge'. It's a short-term solution, not something that will work for very long. If you don't address the root cause of the problem, however difficult, it will never go away. It's difficult, but it's much more likely to produce some kind of improvement than hiding your  head and hoping that the roof doesn't fall in.

[136 or 142]

No, it's an obvious idea, it's just going to be incredibly hard for people to swallow because they want the quick fix. Making Mexico more viable involves time and money. That was the point I was making, and it was fairly clear. Don't try to take a swipe at me, because you won't be good enough.

Dunning-Kruger, a good deal of Mexico already is relatively prosperous, there is an economic divide between the north and the south: http://www.economist.com/node/11089517

From wiki: The economy of Mexico is the 15th largest in the world in nominal terms and the 11th largest by purchasing power parity, according to the International Monetary Fund

I've actually written on this before pointing out that during both the W and Obama Presidencies that the number of illegal aliens from Mexico the United States waxed and waned depending on the Mexican economy and things like the drug war.  Of course, if Mexicans are fleeing drug wars and they have no where else to go, they are actually legal refugees and not illegal aliens.

In less than fifteen years, an automobile manufacturing industry has gone from maybe 50,000 direct employees to 700,000 employees employees, or roughly 1% of Mexico's labor force.

Of course, that suggests the real reason many Trump voters don't care if Mexico prospers or not: they not only don't want Mexicans to come to the United States to 'take our jobs' they don't want Mexicans in Mexico to 'take our jobs.'

The Mexican autoworkers have become skilled at complex manufacturing much quicker than anybody expected, but despite Mexico having powerful private sector unions, these autoworkers wages are very low for the worth they provide to their companies.  I don't think that can continue though.

Dunning-Kruger.  I don't know if there is anything 'good' about you, but I know there is one thing enormous about you: your ego, and from everything I've read that you've posted, you have nothing to back up your high opinion of yourself.

I don't normally engage in childish behavior (beyond name calling) like you wrote above, but as I think this post of mine showed where I posted facts you posted simplistic stereotypes about Mexico, I could squash you like a bug.

[136 or 142]

Pull up the drawbridge. Another easy solution. You often forget that you can't live inside your own continent, certainly not these days, and choosing to ignore the rest of the world for your own domestic affairs may well end up biting you in the behind. I'm not even talking about foreign wars, but simply pulling out of places that the US is helping to keep secure may lead to instability; there may well be American companies that are put at risk etc etc. Just thinking about the bottom line isn't going to be enough because there will always be other considerations to balance.

The U.S is keeping Germany secure?

This is one of a handful of things that I agree with Donald Trump on.  South Korea should pay the full cost of the U.S troops. 

It's even a little hard to imagine China invading Japan, so, it's debatable that the U.S troops are needed there.  I certainly can't see any need for them in Germany.  NATO troops are needed in Eastern Europe right now, and I don't doubt that Eastern Europe could not pay for them (Eastern European nations already are spending a higher proportion of their GDP on their military than any nation except for the United States), so it's a question of setting priorities.

It's hard to believe, but Trump is absolutely correct that the United States can not afford to be either the police officer of the world or the defender of all its allies.

Despite having 2% or so GDP growth for the last several years, the U.S still has a deficit of around $400B.  This is known as a structural deficit and is unsustainable.  If Trump is correct that a major reason for the size of military spending is due to all the U.S bases overseas (and it's hard to take Trump's word on anything) then this is an obvious place to look at cuts.  The U.S spends roughly 3% of GDP on the military.  At most, according to NATO itself 2% of GDP should be spent on the military, so approx $200B should be cut.  Reducing the number of military bases seems around the world seems like a rather obvious place to find these savings.

[Philosopher]

Building a wall is what we'd call a 'bodge'. It's a short-term solution, not something that will work for very long. If you don't address the root cause of the problem, however difficult, it will never go away. It's difficult, but it's much more likely to produce some kind of improvement than hiding your  head and hoping that the roof doesn't fall in.

It already has fallen in.  A financial "wall" would work even better, such as levying a 75% federal tax on every Western Union transaction destined to go to high illegal emigre nations such as Mexico.  This would reduce some of the economic motivation to move here.