President Donald J. Trump

[pyewacket]

They're been floating this idea in Europe and in the US for a few years. Several questions come to mind. Will the government be able to budget for guaranteed income for it's citizens with open borders? Will there be any limits to services such as health care for certain conditions? Will the citizens be required to work at all? Will wealthy countries be compelled to offer this income to third world and developing countries? What if the corporate power wants to reduce the population to save on costs?

[ItsOver]

They're been floating this idea in Europe and in the US for a few years. Several questions come to mind. Will the government be able to budget for guaranteed income for it's citizens with open borders? Will there be any limits to services such as health care for certain conditions? Will the citizens be required to work at all? Will wealthy countries be compelled to offer this income to third world and developing countries? What if the corporate power wants to reduce the population to save on costs?

All great questions.  Stay tuned for utopia or at least all the politicians' promises for utopia.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

You would have a stroke responding to my ideas regarding our economy.

Dude I'm interested. As I've said before in this thread, international trade isn't my strongest area of expertise. I'm interested to read what anyone has to say about it. I have my thoughts and theories but I'm not sure I have enough knowledge to fight over them in this arena.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

The middle class and low income workers have been devastated by both parties. Who actually represents them?

You may not like Trump and he may not accomplish all that is needed to change this destructive trend, but he's a start. If the people can take back their place in the political system, it will open the door for others. Something this huge will not be corrected overnight.

I posted this in another thread, but I think it's worth reading.

http://nypost.com/2016/03/19/why-its-time-for-a-trump-revolution/

The people are fucked and have been since Kennedy took a bullet to the head. You have party officials on both side saying the voters don't matter in the political process and this has been arguably the dirtiest year of politics I've ever witnessed. It's clear unless you have over eight figures tucked away, you couldn't matter less. My only real concern is I think western civilization dies once politically incorrect views become against the law.

[onan]

The people are fucked and have been since Kennedy took a bullet to the head. You have party officials on both side saying the voters don't matter in the political process and this has been arguably the dirtiest year of politics I've ever witnessed. It's clear unless you have over eight figures tucked away, you couldn't matter less. My only real concern is I think western civilization dies once politically incorrect views become against the law.

For the presidential race, I think it is closer to 9 figures. I remember when Franken explained his possibility of running, he stated a figure of 80 million for a senate seat.

[21st Century Man]

For all Trump supporters.  Here is a poll that should disturb you.  Democrats have never taken Utah in recent presidential elections but that may change this year.

SALT LAKE CITY â€" If Donald Trump becomes the Republican Party's nominee, Utahns would vote for a Democrat for president in November for the first time in more than 50 years, according to a new Deseret News/KSL poll.

"I believe Donald Trump could lose Utah. If you lose Utah as a Republican, there is no hope," said former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, a top campaign adviser to the GOP's 2012 nominee, Mitt Romney.

The poll found that may well be true. Utah voters said they would reject Trump, the GOP frontrunner, whether former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is the Democratic candidate on the general election ballot.

While Clinton was only slightly ahead of Trump â€" 38 percent to 36 percent â€" Sanders, a self-declared Democratic socialist, holds a substantial lead â€" 48 percent to 37 percent over the billionaire businessman and reality TV star among likely Utah voters.

More at.....

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865650513/Poll-Utah-would-vote-for-a-Democrat-for-president-over-Trump.html


If this holds true, Trump gets creamed in November.

[SciFiAuthor]

If this holds true, Trump gets creamed in November.

Trouble is, we'd get creamed anyway. Any candidate other than Trump will lose either Ohio or Florida, as Romney did for the same reasons that Romney did. That election was lost because of a demographic shift in those two states that has not gone away. You want some scary polls, take a look at these:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_cruz_vs_clinton-4214.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_cruz_vs_clinton-4245.html

We can only win this with a wildcard. Trump is the only one.

[albrecht]

Well, it wouldn't be first time that we welcomed dark skinned refugees from oppression in the USA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_Railroad#Arrival_in_Canada

So you are good with it. We need to organization some grass-roots campaign to advertize the fact that Canada is going to accept all comers of illegals or "refugees." Will Trudeau do a press conference? It would be a win-win since their countries don't want them and we don't want them in Europe or the USA.

[21st Century Man]

Trouble is, we'd get creamed anyway. Any candidate other than Trump will lose either Ohio or Florida, as Romney did for the same reasons that Romney did. That election was lost because of a demographic shift in those two states that has not gone away. You want some scary polls, take a look at these:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_cruz_vs_clinton-4214.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_cruz_vs_clinton-4245.html

We can only win this with a wildcard. Trump is the only one.

Both of those pages have 1 poll where Cruz wins so I would say it is a statistical dead heat right now with Hillary having a slight edge.  Trump gets pounded in Utah and probably some other states that usually go Republican.

[The King of Kings]

For all Trump supporters.  Here is a poll that should disturb you.  Democrats have never taken Utah in recent presidential elections but that may change this year.

SALT LAKE CITY â€" If Donald Trump becomes the Republican Party's nominee, Utahns would vote for a Democrat for president in November for the first time in more than 50 years, according to a new Deseret News/KSL poll.

"I believe Donald Trump could lose Utah. If you lose Utah as a Republican, there is no hope," said former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, a top campaign adviser to the GOP's 2012 nominee, Mitt Romney.

The poll found that may well be true. Utah voters said they would reject Trump, the GOP frontrunner, whether former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is the Democratic candidate on the general election ballot.

While Clinton was only slightly ahead of Trump â€" 38 percent to 36 percent â€" Sanders, a self-declared Democratic socialist, holds a substantial lead â€" 48 percent to 37 percent over the billionaire businessman and reality TV star among likely Utah voters.

More at.....

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865650513/Poll-Utah-would-vote-for-a-Democrat-for-president-over-Trump.html


If this holds true, Trump gets creamed in November.

Right, Trump is a high risk gamble.  There is no doubt about it.  I would support Trump even if he was running as a Democrat.

His three biggest proposals are the only reason I am voting for him.  If he wins great, if not than Hillary wins.

We can argue about Trump and his policies, about his strategy against Hillary or whatever.  However, you have to be completely stupid if you think Ted Cruz had a better chance.

The only reason Ted Cruz has gotten so far and the media paid so little attention to him, is because he is standing behind the huge shield of Trump.

If Trump wasn't in the race and Ted Cruz was the presumptive nominee, the full force and time of the media would be looking at him and reporting on him.  By the time of the general election Hillary would win 45 states or more.

The Ted Cruz fairy tale is over.

[21st Century Man]

Right, Trump is a high risk gamble.  There is no doubt about it.  I would support Trump even if he was running as a Democrat.

His three biggest proposals are the only reason I am voting for him.  If he wins great, if not than Hillary wins.

We can argue about Trump and his policies, about his strategy against Hillary or whatever.  However, you have to be completely stupid if you think Ted Cruz had a better chance.

The only reason Ted Cruz has gotten so far and the media has paid so little attention to him, is because he is standing behind the huge shield of Trump.

If Trump wasn't in the race and Ted Cruz has the presumptive nominee, the full force and time of the media would be looking at him and reporting on him.  By the time of the general election Hillary would win 45 states or more.

The Ted Cruz fairy tale is over.

It ain't over 'til its over as Yogi Berra once said.

[The King of Kings]

It ain't over 'til its over as Yogi Berra once said.

Reality:


Ted Cruz supporters:

[SciFiAuthor]

Both of those pages have 1 poll where Cruz wins so I would say it is a statistical dead heat right now with Hillary having a slight edge.  Trump gets pounded in Utah and probably some other states that usually go Republican.

Look how things looked last time.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_romney_vs_obama-1883.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html

I just don't see how we can pull it off. The same things that sunk Romney would sink Cruz in one of those two states. About the only thing Cruz could do is pick Kasich as his VP and canvass Florida like no one has canvassed it before, like personally go door to door. And then there is the problem of Virginia, and the Demographics changes in the DC suburbs there.

Kasich's Ohio numbers are astonishing.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_kasich_vs_clinton-4079.html

His popularity as Governor of that state is nothing short of amazing.

Trump on the other hand will either landslide it or lose spectacularly. There is no way to know, he continues to defy all political analysis.

[VtaGeezer]

I can see the limited use of tariffs in certain industries to level the playing field against cheaper goods coming in. I can see limited pressure on other countries to ease their tariffs on some American goods. I can't see tariffs being the magic bullet, as long as there is much cheaper labor and fewer regulations elsewhere in the world.

Corporations will always shift their manufacturing where they need to go to increase profits -- and penalties for doing so will influence some but not others. Most of these tough-guy tactics on trade are swimming against the tide. You can fight the trend this way but you can't beat it, unless you also want to build a wall around all of our borders.

The trade problem and the economic damage at home are much too complex to be solved by any of the simplistic solutions I've heard over the decades. A direct frontal attack on globalization might be appealing but it won't work by itself. Technological change is the other force driving economics and we need to figure out how to make that work for everyone's economic good, not just corporations.

Who said anything about it being simplistic?  Tariffs were very specific to products and nation of origin, and largely based on US vital needs and  employment.  There was no tariff on products not available from US mfrs.  (Today that would exclude almost all durable goods.)  Its takes a fairly complex system but somehow Treasury managed to do it on with 10-key machines and carbon paper.  It all went to shit when K Street became the real US Congress.

[Value Of Pi]

Who said anything about it being simplistic?  Tariffs were very specific to products and nation of origin, and largely based on US vital needs and  employment.  There was no tariff on products not available from US mfrs.  (Today that would exclude almost all durable goods.)  Its takes a fairly complex system but somehow Treasury managed to do it on with 10-key machines and carbon paper.  It all went to shit when K Street became the real US Congress.

I'm saying that the usual solutions to trade imbalances in the past (and proposed solutions today) -- from tariffs to tax penalties or incentives to outright bans on imports (usually more of a political thing) will hardly make a dent in the overall problem of exporting jobs and importing most consumer goods. So, these days, those solutions are simplistic and not able to solve the long-term problem we're facing.

Ask Trump how he'll bring the good paying jobs back and he'll talk vaguely about making great deals. I shouldn't just talk about him because I've yet to hear a workable plan from anyone on how to bring back the good old days.

[albrecht]

I'm saying that the usual solutions to trade imbalances in the past (and proposed solutions today) -- from tariffs to tax penalties or incentives to outright bans on imports (usually more of a political thing) will hardly make a dent in the overall problem of exporting jobs and importing most consumer goods. So, these days, those solutions are simplistic and not able to solve the long-term problem we're facing.

Ask Trump how he'll bring the good paying jobs back and he'll talk vaguely about making great deals. I shouldn't just talk about him because I've yet to hear a workable plan from anyone on how to bring back the good old days.

Some tariffs might work but once the TPP is signed will likely be illegal. I think the solution good be more technology and better marketing or quality. People still use other motivations besides simply the lowest price when buying some goods, especially higher end or trying to 'look cool.' With robotics, AI, automation, 3D printing, etc we could still manufacture things here (and, after some capital investment,) maybe even compete with the low wages in China, etc. And less time-to-market, less shipping costs, no customs duties, better quality, etc. Of course this automation doesn't mean those traditional jobs in mfg are coming back. But it is important to note that when the price/ability of more automation comes online that China (etc) is even in more trouble than us.

[starrmtn001]

I'll just leave this here.

Donald Trump's Full Rousing Speech AIPAC Policy Conference (3-21-16)

https://youtu.be/f3d0LOIMmQQ

[Value Of Pi]

Some tariffs might work but once the TPP is signed will likely be illegal. I think the solution good be more technology and better marketing or quality. People still use other motivations besides simply the lowest price when buying some goods, especially higher end or trying to 'look cool.' With robotics, AI, automation, 3D printing, etc we could still manufacture things here (and, after some capital investment,) maybe even compete with the low wages in China, etc. And less time-to-market, less shipping costs, no customs duties, better quality, etc. Of course this automation doesn't mean those traditional jobs in mfg are coming back. But it is important to note that when the price/ability of more automation comes online that China (etc) is even in more trouble than us.

No question that Americans could do more to compete better and that there are already some good examples of that happening. But the developed world is going through a second Industrial Revolution with all this automation and high tech. Nobody has ever dealt with this economic challenge before and, together with globalization of trade, nobody knows how nations will adapt. There will be problems as well as some silver linings to the clouds, I think.

BTW,  are you typing, albrecht, or using some kind of speech recognition software?

[albrecht]

No question that Americans could do more to compete better and that there are already some good examples of that happening. But the developed world is going through a second Industrial Revolution with all this automation and high tech. Nobody has ever dealt with this economic challenge before and, together with globalization of trade, nobody knows how nations will adapt. There will be problems as well as some silver linings to the clouds, I think.

BTW,  are you typing, albrecht, or using some kind of speech recognition software?

Typing, though sometimes "typing" on a smartphone which is a process of much frustration, often. I have the voice recognition stuff, apparently, on my phone but never used it.
ps: It sounds very pie-in-the-sky but aside from my doom-and-gloom predictions I could see some future possibilities of benefits from automation, AI, etc and even looked with interest in some of those countries who are toying with a national minimum "wage"- not based on work. At some point if technology replaces workers (and won't just be blue collar jobs soon) either new jobs need to be created or some kind of system to provide some benefit or reason for human's existence. But like many socialist or utopian experiments in the past; very hard to exist with open-border or a non-homogenous population and even then there is exploitation, gold-bricking, etc.

[mikuthing01]

I'll just leave this here.

Donald Trump's Full Rousing Speech AIPAC Policy Conference (3-21-16)

[starrmtn001]

Are you anti Semitic?

[Value Of Pi]

Typing, though sometimes "typing" on a smartphone which is a process of much frustration, often. I have the voice recognition stuff, apparently, on my phone but never used it.
ps: It sounds very pie-in-the-sky but aside from my doom-and-gloom predictions I could see some future possibilities of benefits from automation, AI, etc and even looked with interest in some of those countries who are toying with a national minimum "wage"- not based on work. At some point if technology replaces workers (and won't just be blue collar jobs soon) either new jobs need to be created or some kind of system to provide some benefit or reason for human's existence. But like many socialist or utopian experiments in the past; very hard to exist with open-border or a non-homogenous population and even then there is exploitation, gold-bricking, etc.

All I know is that on "Star Trek, Next Generation" they've eliminated money, have almost unlimited energy available and can synthesize food and other things just by pressing a button. Plus, getting around is easy with the transporter. People still seem to stay busy and focused with various jobs even though I assume they're not being paid as we would understand getting paid..

I've always been curious about the transition period, however, from the economies we have now to the "economy" or social order they'll have in the 23rd century. That would be interesting to witness. Technology will continue to have an astonishing effect on society.

[albrecht]

I'll just leave this here.

Donald Trump's Full Rousing Speech AIPAC Policy Conference (3-21-16)

https://youtu.be/f3d0LOIMmQQ

A good speech but I'm not sure where he is going with it toward the end and the "Jewish baby" bit struck me as a bit weird. And why it is necessary? I don't think American politics, or even our foreign policy, should be so weighted to follow only one, small country's agenda. Sure they are our ally, when not spying on us, but, to me it is a bit bizarre. Can anyone imagine any other country where American politicians have to go hat-in-hand and speak to their lobbyists and make statements about defending their foreign land and religion- sometimes in even more strident terms than when they talk about defending the USA? Even England, with our 'special relationship,' doesn't demand such pledges of allegiance by candidates. Interesting also that Bernie didn't show up to speak, and he is Jewish (though, I guess, secular and non-practicing.)

[GuerrillaUnReal]

A good speech but I'm not sure where he is going with it toward the end and the "Jewish baby" bit struck me as a bit weird. And why it is necessary? I don't think American politics, or even our foreign policy, should be so weighted to follow only one, small country's agenda. Sure they are our ally, when not spying on us, but, to me it is a bit bizarre. Can anyone imagine any other country where American politicians have to go hat-in-hand and speak to their lobbyists and make statements about defending their foreign land and religion- sometimes in even more strident terms than when they talk about defending the USA? Even England, with our 'special relationship,' doesn't demand such pledges of allegiance by candidates. Interesting also that Bernie didn't show up to speak, and he is Jewish (though, I guess, secular and non-practicing.)

You don't know why Trump was pandering to the power broker Jews today?



I listened to about ten minutes of the speech and I liked it. Trump is a fabulous public speaker. He also says logical things which I had forgotten about in politics. Thought it was interesting about 75% of the audience gave a standing ovation to Trump talking about Obama having less than a year left.

[albrecht]

All I know is that on "Star Trek, Next Generation" they've eliminated money, have almost unlimited energy available and can synthesize food and other things just by pressing a button. Plus, getting around is easy with the transporter. People still seem to stay busy and focused with various jobs even though I assume they're not being paid as we would understand getting paid..

I've always been curious about the transition period, however, from the economies we have now to the "economy" or social order they'll have in the 23rd century. That would be interesting to witness. Technology will continue to have an astonishing effect on society.

I could imagine a potential future-reality where it would be like 'every man a king' or landed gentry or Southern plantation type of thing where one could focus on leisure, art, hunting, hobbies, sport, reading, writing, composing, fishing or whatever pass-times one enjoys etc etc because AI, automation, robotics takes care of the "work" (like serfs or slaves did in the past.) But I could see also darker scenarios and would governments, people, etc want people to have so much 'free time' or evolve into a situation where money or disparate income/wealth is no longer a concern?

[albrecht]

You don't know why Trump was pandering to the power broker Jews today?



I listened to about ten minutes of the speech and I liked it. Trump is a fabulous public speaker. He also says logical things which I had forgotten about in politics. Thought it was interesting about 75% of the audience gave a standing ovation to Trump talking about Obama having less than a year left.

I never watched his shows and he still is a bit lacking in details in speeches- which is why they are effective, actually. But he is a good speaker and even funny when he needs to be. Yes, it was ironic that the meme of Trump is Hitler and yet his daughter converted and is going to have a "Jewish baby" and his pledges of allegiance to Israel were stronger than some of the neo-cons. And Bernie didn't even show up- and he is Jewish (though, I guess, secular and non-practicing.) I still don't like the influence of any foreign country over US policy and foreign policy and wonder why they can have borders, control immigration, etc but European countries and the USA are not allowed to do so.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

I never watched his shows and he still is a bit lacking in details in speeches- which is why they are effective, actually. But he is a good speaker and even funny when he needs to be. Yes, it was ironic that the meme of Trump is Hitler and yet his daughter converted and is going to have a "Jewish baby" and his pledges of allegiance to Israel were stronger than some of the neo-cons. And Bernie didn't even show up- and he is Jewish (though, I guess, secular and non-practicing.) I still don't like the influence of any foreign country over US policy and foreign policy and wonder why they can have borders, control immigration, etc but European countries and the USA are not allowed to do so.

I agree with you about about Israeli influence being a problem but I saw this strictly as a smart political move. With this speech he shut down the Hitler memes and made a strong case for why he'd be a good candidate for Jewish folks. Imagine the crowd's perception sitting through this speech and then walking outside to protesters waving swastikas in their face. I think the bulk of his message was about deals needing to be made and I thought he sounded fair. The end about Jewish babies was some old world pandering turned up to volume nine but think about what he's reacting to.

[Value Of Pi]

A good speech but I'm not sure where he is going with it toward the end and the "Jewish baby" bit struck me as a bit weird. And why it is necessary? I don't think American politics, or even our foreign policy, should be so weighted to follow only one, small country's agenda. Sure they are our ally, when not spying on us, but, to me it is a bit bizarre. Can anyone imagine any other country where American politicians have to go hat-in-hand and speak to their lobbyists and make statements about defending their foreign land and religion- sometimes in even more strident terms than when they talk about defending the USA? Even England, with our 'special relationship,' doesn't demand such pledges of allegiance by candidates. Interesting also that Bernie didn't show up to speak, and he is Jewish (though, I guess, secular and non-practicing.)

It is a unique relationship, no question about that. But I wouldn't look at it in terms of whose agenda is being followed. That's because the agendas of both countries are very much in synch and Israel is a key U.S. ally strategically placed in a vital area of the world.

There is no N.A.T.O. in the Middle East (Turkey doesn't assert itself there as an alliance member) to provide stability and security. There is one outpost of democracy, Israel, and several "moderate" Arab states that prevent the whole region from going up in flames.

AIPAC's influence is also overrated in general. Its campaign against the Iran deal, its biggest ever, was mostly a failure. Also, their lobbying is done with words, not cash. Not too many lobbyists operate that way -- or could be effective if they did.

[albrecht]

It is a unique relationship, no question about that. But I wouldn't look at it in terms of whose agenda is being followed. That's because the agendas of both countries are very much in synch and Israel is a key U.S. ally strategically placed in a vital area of the world.

There is no N.A.T.O. in the Middle East (Turkey doesn't assert itself there as an alliance member) to provide stability and security. There is one outpost of democracy, Israel, and several "moderate" Arab states that prevent the whole region from going up in flames.

AIPAC's influence is also overrated in general. Its campaign against the Iran deal, its biggest ever, was mostly a failure. Also, their lobbying is done with words, not cash. Not too many lobbyists operate that way -- or could be effective if they did.

Yeah, and I think the "controllers" and boogey-men who fund these country, or currency, destabilizing campaigns and support illegal immigration, open-borders, etc aren't doing it after some "Jewish" plan for world domination or huge global conspiracy but simply are selfish people who happen to be, in many but certainly not all cases, Jewish. But many aren't. The usually boogey-men like Soros, various and sundry Rothchilds, etc. As we can see from some of the dotcom types who also engage- I think it is more about some weird control fetish though, who knows? At this point, actually, since forever, important families and businesses consider themselves 'above' nations (of course they could argue that nations are a relatively modern phenomena themselves.) I could easily see, for example, some serious grudges against Germany so support for "refugees" raping and pillaging could be seen, through some eyes, as some form of karma?
Totally off-subject but when I saw the headline I though he was related to the Agnellis of much repute and history but he wasn't! Funny though sharing a surname and becoming so successful.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-crash-idUSKCN0WL0Y8

[Value Of Pi]

I agree with you about about Israeli influence being a problem but I saw this strictly as a smart political move. With this speech he shut down the Hitler memes and made a strong case for why he'd be a good candidate for Jewish folks. Imagine the crowd's perception sitting through this speech and then walking outside to protesters waving swastikas in their face. I think the bulk of his message was about deals needing to be paid and I thought he sounded fair. The end about Jewish babies was some old world pandering turned up to volume nine but think about what he's reacting to.

From what I saw of the speech (and the CNN interview beforehand in which he backed off on his neutrality) he said what he thought AIPAC wanted to hear about his support of Israel, for whatever that's worth.

AFAIK, he did not address or retract or disavow all the statements he's made during the campaign which make many people at the conference, and Jews in general, unwilling to support him. The issue with this audience is not just Israel. Remember, these are all Americans with interests beyond supporting Israel.