2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Legacy]

We can't afford not to do that. We are in a state of decline that began with Reaganomics, which shifted economic and political power from the people to corporations. He too had contempt for the average worker in favor of the wealthy, who would get all the breaks and they would trickle down to the average Joe. The prosperity never trickled down like he promised, and every Reagan robot since him has suggested would bring shared prosperity. It didn't work and that is why the GOP is a shit show today. Time to try something else. Give the people the upper hand and let prosperity bubble up to the corporations.

The Obama administration does deserve some of the credit for "reshoring manufacturing", which has added almost 520,000 jobs from 2012-15 as U.S. manufactures have brought jobs back to the U.S. However, there is a ways to go. Those jobs represent one in every five jobs lost (2.5 million) from 2007-09. Trump, of course, blames the lost jobs on the trade deals Congress and Obama agreed to. His free trade positions (link)

 

[Irish YJ]

Yeah, I heard that term on The Godfather right before someone whacked people or betrayed the family for their own selfish benefit. Have you ever heard of the phrase "follow the money?" In my mind, that is a more appropriate phrase for this discussion. Politicians cannot be corrupt on their own. You can't separate out the corporate money that makes political corruption possible. And you cannot ignore who said corruption benefits. Corporations are the engine that makes the corruption go. I'm astonished at the degree to which people are willing to turn a blind eye to the entities that are screwing the citizens of this country -- follow the money!

All I can say to the bolded above... LOL.
I have family that went into local/city/state politics in the 70s and 80s. They were corrupt when they went in, and went in wanting to increase their power and $$.

If you think all politician go into politics to serve, Buster has some lollipops for you.

Make corp contribution, union contribution, lobbying, and all things aimed at influencing politicians or the party with $$ illegal.

 

[Irish YJ]

The Obama administration does deserve some of the credit for "reshoring manufacturing", which has added almost 520,000 jobs from 2012-15 as U.S. manufactures have brought jobs back to the U.S. However, there is a ways to go. Those jobs represent one in every five jobs lost (2.5 million) from 2007-09. Trump, of course, blames the lost jobs on the trade deals Congress and Obama agreed to. His free trade positions (link)

Liar. Buster said they are never coming back.

 

[Irish YJ]

Trump: 'Taxes for the rich will go up somewhat' - CNNPolitics.com

 

[Legacy]

This is nuts. If you can't look at the numbers and acknowledge the growth of our economy during the Reagan years AND how the average American's life improved, you're beyond help.

The real effect of 'Reaganomics'

In reality, the right uses government all the time to advance its interest by setting rules that redistribute income upward. As long as progressives ignore the rules that are designed to redistribute income upward, they will be left fighting over crumbs. There is no way that government interventions will reverse a rigged market. For some reason, most of the people in the national political debate who consider themselves progressive do not seem to understand this fact.

Similarly, patent and copyright policy lock off large areas of the economy in monopolies assigned to large corporations and wealthy individuals. The United States now spends more than 2% of GDP, $300bn a year, on prescription drugs that would likely cost less than one tenth this much if they were sold in a competitive market. The $270bn handed to the drug companies each year through governmen- provided patent monopolies is five times as much money as what was at stake with the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

Reagan's Economic Legacy
His policies helped spur the 1980s boom and were integral to the high-tech revolution. But the poor paid a price

Yet another long-term legacy of the Reagan years was the damage done to the living standards of less educated workers. Hit hard by the double whammy of globalization and technology, many saw their real wages sink as the income gap between rich and poor widened sharply. Today, real earnings for production and nonsupervisory workers are barely above where they were in 1981 despite the gains of the '90s boom.

 

[pkt77242]

This is the crux of the issue. No one is arguing that there shouldn't be jobs that pay living wages. We as a country need to figure out how to bring back the jobs that are actually worth that type of salary. The issue can't be resolved by trying to force other corporations to "foot the bill" and start paying workers that do jobs that have never been worth a salary that can support a family, nor were they ever intended to.

I'm no expert but a smart plan to do this seems to be something Trump has been beating the drum about. Force China to pay extra taxes on the goods they export to the united states to make up for the gap they create by using slave labor. As kmoose has said the blame falls on the people for supporting these corporations that sell things as cheaply as possible. It's understandable, i'm guilty of it too, but that is what's at the heart of the problem. So since it's clear that people aren't going to pay 20-30% more for comparable items, the government needs to step in and level the playing field. The consumers will end up footing the bill, but if paying $100 instead of $85 for jeans means we can bring back our manufacturing jobs and start paying people a living wage I think it's worth it. That's just a decision consumers would never make on their own.

The solution isn't to force other employers to try and make up the difference. Do you know what will happen if McDonalds is forced to raise their minimum wage to something you can raise a family on? Heck it will happen if we force them to even go to $15 nation wide. They will simply eliminate a huge chunk of their workforce. Say goodbye to the cashiers. Automated ordering stations are already being implemented in many locations. You will have a touch screen when you pull through the drive thru. So yeah you might be able to pay a few more people a living wage, but you are also going to put millions out of a job that was paying them what their service was worth. If the market dictated paying mcdonald's cashiers $15 an hour they would have been making that years ago, it simply doesn't.

I think that part of the problem is that many fast food jobs pay shit for wages and have brought this upon themselves. The thing is if they had payed decent wages all along they wouldn't be fighting this battle. Lets look at the at an interesting example.
Within about rock throwing distance of my work there is a McDonald's and an In-N-Out (INO to make it easier), McDonald's starts their pay at between $9-10 depending on your skills) the INO starts at $12. There are a couple of things that let INO do this, such as a streamlined menu (less wasted food, smaller and more efficient supply chain) while still employing a ton of workers. McDonald's could easily pay the $12 with some small tweaks such as cutting the fat from their menu, and possibly removing some positions. The thing with fast food positions is that almost every store is hiring (outside of the best run ones like INO) so reducing positions might not even mean laying people off just reducing the treadmill that is the fast food industry. In some ways it might even save the companies some money as workers might be less likely to quit and thus it would reduce turnover and cut training and hiring costs.

Do I think that the minimum wage should be $15 nationwide, nope. I think something like $12 would be a good idea though (and I could even be sold on $11), with more expensive places passing a higher version locally (Seattle, SF, LA, SD, Chicago, NYC, etc.).

 

[Legacy]

Trump: 'Taxes for the rich will go up somewhat' - CNNPolitics.com

Isn't this quote from Trump only about the result in taxes on the rich after negotiating with Congress his proposed rates down?

His current tax plan proposal is to drop high income tax rates from 39% to 25%. He would cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. Those and other proposed changes would lead to adding almost $11 trillion to the national debt. They would increase take home income but how he would cut spending when he would increase the national debt from $19 trillion to $30 trillion is an example of voodoo economics.

Details and Analysis of Donald Trump’s Tax Plan

Our current national debt is $59,000 per citizen and $160,000 per taxpayer with the debt at $19 trillion. At $30 trillion?

U.S. Debt Clock

 

[Irish YJ]

I think that part of the problem is that many fast food jobs pay shit for wages and have brought this upon themselves. The thing is if they had payed decent wages all along they wouldn't be fighting this battle. Lets look at the at an interesting example.
Within about rock throwing distance of my work there is a McDonald's and an In-N-Out (INO to make it easier), McDonald's starts their pay at between $9-10 depending on your skills) the INO starts at $12. There are a couple of things that let INO do this, such as a streamlined menu (less wasted food, smaller and more efficient supply chain) while still employing a ton of workers. McDonald's could easily pay the $12 with some small tweaks such as cutting the fat from their menu, and possibly removing some positions. The thing with fast food positions is that almost every store is hiring (outside of the best run ones like INO) so reducing positions might not even mean laying people off just reducing the treadmill that is the fast food industry. In some ways it might even save the companies some money as workers might be less likely to quit and thus it would reduce turnover and cut training and hiring costs.

Do I think that the minimum wage should be $15 nationwide, nope. I think something like $12 would be a good idea though (and I could even be sold on $11), with more expensive places passing a higher version locally (Seattle, SF, LA, SD, Chicago, NYC, etc.).

QSRs for the most part are a penny business. The world's largest QSR by store count (subway) for instance, takes about 3-4 stores to actually make a living for a franchise owner. IPC (their services coop) is about the cheapest group I've ever worked for (on the level of Walmart). Working with them however made me appreciate the competition and low margin these QSRs are working off of. We did the McCafe digital signage roll out for McDonalds about 5 years ago. If it doesn't have a strong ROI on it, these restaurants aren't doing anything. And if you raise the minimum wage, the ROI on people-less technologies only skyrockets and becomes a no brainer.

 

[kmoose]

I think that part of the problem is that many fast food jobs pay shit for wages and have brought this upon themselves. The thing is if they had payed decent wages all along they wouldn't be fighting this battle. Lets look at the at an interesting example.
Within about rock throwing distance of my work there is a McDonald's and an In-N-Out (INO to make it easier), McDonald's starts their pay at between $9-10 depending on your skills) the INO starts at $12. There are a couple of things that let INO do this, such as a streamlined menu (less wasted food, smaller and more efficient supply chain) while still employing a ton of workers. McDonald's could easily pay the $12 with some small tweaks such as cutting the fat from their menu, and possibly removing some positions. The thing with fast food positions is that almost every store is hiring (outside of the best run ones like INO) so reducing positions might not even mean laying people off just reducing the treadmill that is the fast food industry. In some ways it might even save the companies some money as workers might be less likely to quit and thus it would reduce turnover and cut training and hiring costs.

Do I think that the minimum wage should be $15 nationwide, nope. I think something like $12 would be a good idea though (and I could even be sold on $11), with more expensive places passing a higher version locally (Seattle, SF, LA, SD, Chicago, NYC, etc.).

McDonalds is franchised. Each franchisee determines the pay for his/her workers. It's an industry standard, obviously. INO pays above the industry standard, which is all well and good. But their prices reflect it, and that is probably one of the reasons that they don't do the same volume of business, per store, that McDonalds does(https://www.qsrmagazine.com/reports/top-50-sorted-average-sales-unit).

 

[Irish YJ]

Isn't this quote from Trump only about the result in taxes on the rich after negotiating with Congress his proposed rates down?

His current tax plan proposal is to drop high income tax rates from 39% to 25%. He would cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. Those and other proposed changes would lead to adding almost $11 trillion to the national debt. They would increase take home income but how he would cut spending when he would increase the national debt from $19 trillion to $30 trillion is an example of voodoo economics.

Details and Analysis of Donald Trump’s Tax Plan

Our current national debt is $59,000 per citizen and $160,000 per taxpayer with the debt at $19 trillion. At $30 trillion?

U.S. Debt Clock

If you read the article, there are plenty of pros as well. The article also does not take into account any of Trumps plans to reduce debt or budget.

 

[EddytoNow]

Look in the mirror. I pointed out that HALF of the entities that contributed $10M+ in the 2012 election cycle were unions, NOT corporations, and you almost completely blew it off. "The People", in the form of their unions, are corrupting the system every bit as much as corporations are. But your anger is solely focused on corporate influenced corruption.

If corporations are so in control of politicians, how is that the Keystone XL pipeline is mired in politics, overtime rules are changing(to the benefit of the worker, not industry), Obamacare passed, and federal contract minimum wage (along with many states') is either at, or on its way to, $15/hour?

You've got to control all three of the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Presidency to steamroll through any political agenda. Republicans were very successful in using gerrymandering to create congressional districts that can ignore the will of the people with impunity. They continue to control the majority of congressional districts while only getting a minority of the statewide vote. Corporations have a pretty strong hold on the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Supreme Court made matters worse by declaring corporations people with a right to freely purchase speech. The real threat of a Presidential Veto and the 2/3 vote it would take to over-ride such a veto has prevented a complete takeover by corporate influence on the Republican side.

In a like manner, the Democrats and Obama can't get anything through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Democratic politicians are just as open to being purchased with corporate dollars. The result is a stalemate that has left politicians of both parties with something like a 15% approval rating.

Meanwhile, the corporations continue to rake in the benefits of the stalemate. No legislation can get passed that would lower corporate influence on one side or union influence on the other. The losers are the people. They get ****ed either way.

The system is broke. Political parties continue to place party above country. It looks like we will have a choice next fall between a purchaser of influence (who will soon be a seller of influence) and a lifetime seller of influence.

 

[Irish YJ]

McDonalds is franchised. Each franchisee determines the pay for his/her workers. It's an industry standard, obviously. INO pays above the industry standard, which is all well and good. But their prices reflect it, and that is probably one of the reasons that they don't do the same volume of business, per store, that McDonalds does(https://www.qsrmagazine.com/reports/top-50-sorted-average-sales-unit).

InO is a non-franchise, Christian run corp. While they have a loyal base, you are correct in that their prices are high, and demographics typically match. It's been very hard for them to grow outside of SoCal. Slowing making it's way in the SW. Reminds me a bit of Chick fil A

 

[Ndaccountant]

I think that part of the problem is that many fast food jobs pay shit for wages and have brought this upon themselves. The thing is if they had payed decent wages all along they wouldn't be fighting this battle. Lets look at the at an interesting example.
Within about rock throwing distance of my work there is a McDonald's and an In-N-Out (INO to make it easier), McDonald's starts their pay at between $9-10 depending on your skills) the INO starts at $12. There are a couple of things that let INO do this, such as a streamlined menu (less wasted food, smaller and more efficient supply chain) while still employing a ton of workers. McDonald's could easily pay the $12 with some small tweaks such as cutting the fat from their menu, and possibly removing some positions. The thing with fast food positions is that almost every store is hiring (outside of the best run ones like INO) so reducing positions might not even mean laying people off just reducing the treadmill that is the fast food industry. In some ways it might even save the companies some money as workers might be less likely to quit and thus it would reduce turnover and cut training and hiring costs.

Do I think that the minimum wage should be $15 nationwide, nope. I think something like $12 would be a good idea though (and I could even be sold on $11), with more expensive places passing a higher version locally (Seattle, SF, LA, SD, Chicago, NYC, etc.).

It's apples and oranges. Not really comparable as their business models are different, even though they both sell burgers.

 

[EddytoNow]

Everyone is entitled to make the wages that their skills command. If you have a GED and have never worked a job other than homemaker(not housewife, because I know at least two male acquaintances of mine who are stay at homes that live off of their wives' salaries), you're entitled to minimum wage. Unless you have a knack for something like sales, where they can quantify your exact contribution to the company and compensate you accordingly. You seem to think that I am saying that certain groups of people should not be allowed to earn a living wage, and that's not what I am saying at all. But working the drive thru at McDonalds in a high cost of living area does not entitle you to $25/hour. Perhaps my point of view would be more clearly expressed as "not every adult is OWED a living wage." You are owed what your skill set is worth.

And so what do we do with those who have advanced degrees but can't find employment in their field? They have very high skill sets, and by your explanation should be compensated accordingly. But there is no job for them. There is a fine line between paying people what their skill set is worth and exploiting people to maximize your profits.

 

[Ndaccountant]

And so what do we do with those who have advanced degrees but can't find employment in their field? They have very high skill sets, and by your explanation should be compensated accordingly. But there is no job for them. There is a fine line between paying people what their skill set is worth and exploiting people to maximize your profits.

Skillset is no limited to education.

 

[Irish YJ]

And so what do we do with those who have advanced degrees but can't find employment in their field? They have very high skill sets, and by your explanation should be compensated accordingly. But there is no job for them. There is a fine line between paying people what their skill set is worth and exploiting people to maximize your profits.

You are only due what your skillset demands and what the market drives. It's a persons responsibility also to pick their major. For instance if a person has chosen xxx degree because they love it, and there is no demand for that degree, who's fault is that. Or if you pick a degree where the is demand, and the known pay scale is low, whos fault is that?

Except for the engineering space (which requires CCNAs, CCNPs, CCIEs), most people we hire are outside of their degree. Most of my Project Managers are all over the board. They typically have moved up through other jobs in our company and we have paid for PMP training, but most are from unrelated educational majors.

I live next store to a music teacher. While she is independently wealthy (parents), here students (who have graduated from college with music degrees) complain incessantly that they can't find a good paying job. I'm all for following your love (career / major), but don't blame anybody but yourself if you make a choice based on love and not market demand.

 

[kmoose]

And so what do we do with those who have advanced degrees but can't find employment in their field? They have very high skill sets, and by your explanation should be compensated accordingly. But there is no job for them. There is a fine line between paying people what their skill set is worth and exploiting people to maximize your profits.

People with advanced degrees AND experience in the field have higher skillsets. I would bet that the majority of those people are employed in their field, making an appropriate wage/salary. If there are too many people in your field, then your skillset is not worth the money you spent on an advanced degree. That sucks, but why the fuck should I be required to pay you more than your skillset is worth, just because you took the risk of getting an advanced degree in a field that was over, at, or nearly at, capacity?

 

[Legacy]

Follow the money: inside the world's tax havens
From the Cayman Islands to Jersey, tax havens are busier than ever – a secretive world of offshore accounts and shell companies. Nothing to do with you? Then you win my Hermit of the Year prize

Some excerpts:

Do you celebrate Christmas? If you do (or even if you do not), did you buy any gifts on Amazon last December? If so, then your goods were quite likely to have been routed through a byzantine world hosted – only on paper, you understand – by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, where Amazon has located its European headquarters, slashing its tax bills around the world. In 2011, Amazon revealed that the US Internal Revenue Service was chasing it for $1.5bn in back taxes. More recently, Amazon has said it will stop routing its UK sales through Luxembourg.

Perhaps you shun Amazon. You buy only local products: good for you. But did you search for any gifts online? Did a company called Google play any role in this? In 2011, Google shuffled four-fifths of its profits through a subsidiary in the tax haven of Bermuda, cutting its worldwide tax rate in half and its tax rate in some countries to nearly zero. Google boss Eric Schmidt said in 2012 he was “very proud of the structure that we set up… it’s called capitalism”.

Let’s cut this challenge short. Did you at any point consume the services of any of these: AIG, Aviva, Barclays, Black & Decker, British American Tobacco, Burberry, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Facebook, FedEx, GlaxoSmithKline, Ikea, HSBC, JP Morgan, Microsoft, Pepsi, Skype, Starbucks, Vodafone or Walt Disney? This is just my quirky personal selection from a list of more than 350 multinationals whose convoluted tax schemes were revealed last November by a whistleblower, working for one accountancy firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), in one European tax haven, Luxembourg.

The revelation provoked a scandal that has become known as Luxleaks, involving tens of thousands of documents, a whole menagerie of Luxembourg-based tax schemes.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Liar. Buster said they are never coming back.

They're not. The increase in manufacturing jobs returning to the US isn't moving the needle and isn't due to American policy but rather the rising transportation costs, increased automation efficiency, and rising labor costs in China. China has a real issue on their hands with the Middle Income Trap looming over their industrial base.

Almost all manufacturing jobs returning in this mini manufacturing renaissance is just temporary and doesn't stand a chance against technological progress. And it is progress. We should be overjoyed that people lose their jobs to technology.

The march of the machines, not just in China but around the world, has been accelerated by sharp falls in the price of industrial robots and a steady increase in their capabilities. Boston Consulting Group, a management consultancy, predicts that the price of industrial robots and their enabling software will drop by 20 per cent over the next decade, while their performance will improve by 5 per cent each year.

China’s robot revolution - FT.com

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Trump doing his Trump-thing, flip-flopping and moving center on issues like taxing the wealthy and increasing the minimum wage. Which Trump do you believe?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump...lt=A0LEV7lUqS9XvV4AlyknnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEyajU3

 

[GoIrish41]

Trump doing his Trump-thing, flip-flopping and moving center on issues like taxing the wealthy and increasing the minimum wage. Which Trump do you believe?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump...lt=A0LEV7lUqS9XvV4AlyknnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEyajU3

It is reckless how much and how substantially he flips positions on issues. He is going to be the Republican nominee to be President of the United States, and nobody really knows where he stands on anything. He could adopt 100% of Bernie's policies and I still wouldn't support him, because it is clear he is just saying whatever he thinks will appeal to the voters. I've never seen a candidate so poorly vetted by the media. He is just all over the place. I'm not sure why he would even want to be president when he has no coherent plans or direction for the country. I hope by November people come to their senses about this guy, because given his squishy positions, nobody can be certain about what he would do as president.

 

[dales5050]

When I was a kid, manufacturing jobs that paid fair wages were abundant. That cashier at a movie theater today would easily have had a job gluing the rear view mirror onto the interior windshield of Buicks for 40 hours a week (highly technical skill, I know, so they obviously developed themselves to handle the rigors of this complex profession, just as their compatriots on the assembly line who installed tires and floor mats did). These folks make enough to raise a family and kept the economy humming for the good of the whole country. We live in a service based economy now because greedy bastards who run these companies shipped the decent paying manufacturing jobs overseas so they could pay people $2 an hour to to glue those mirrors onto windshields. Their greed turned our middle class on its ear and now you defend them like none of that ever happened.

If you can get someone to glue a mirror onto a windshield for $2/hr that's the value of that job in a global economy. Not $20/hr or $40/hr. What people like you fail to accept is the unionized worker took compensation past a place where you could raise a family and to an unsustainable level where someone with a HS Diploma was making six figures.

If you want to bring up the subject of greed how about talking about all of it. How about the union employee who through the actions of his/her union inflated the compensation of their job to the point where you could not even run a business based on the operation costs because people are not going to buy Buicks for $90,000 so some guy in Michigan can make $40/hr?

I'll give you two examples of this lunacy.

The first was told to me by my grandfather who was in management at Bethlehem Steel. Management was not allowed, by union rules, to do any work that was under the union contract. One day on the plant floor there was a spill and he picked up a broom to sweep it to the side to keep things moving along. There was a formal complaint filed because that work was to be done by a union worker. The process was actually to call in for a union approved custodian to sweep the floor. Bethlehem Steel is now closed.

The second was one of my first conventions in California. We needed to setup our booth and needed to connect multiple displays. We had to wait over 3hrs for a union electrician to come along and plug in the TVs for us. We then got an invoice for over $100 for this work.

Both of these examples are of absolute bull shit that happens when unions need to negotiate year after year and justify their value in dues. Once you get safe working conditions, a good wage and benefits...the only thing to negotiate for are stupid rules like the above. It's these rules that eventually took the entire house of cards down.

Lastly, if you want to bring up the poor middle class, how about asking them to act like it? Just take a look at what kind of housing and lifestyle the middle class had in the 'glory days' and then compare it to what people feel they are entitled to today. The middle class didn't go anywhere. It's still there. The problem is nobody wants to live it.

But people like you want to blame everything on the greed of others. Maybe this is because it's too difficult for you to look in the mirror and see how misguided your thinking really is.

 

[NorthDakota]

The first was told to me by my grandfather who was in management at Bethlehem Steel. Management was not allowed, by union rules, to do any work that was under the union contract. One day on the plant floor there was a spill and he picked up a broom to sweep it to the side to keep things moving along. There was a formal complaint filed because that work was to be done by a union worker. The process was actually to call in for a union approved custodian to sweep the floor. Bethlehem Steel is now closed.


Both of these examples are of absolute bull shit that happens when unions need to negotiate year after year and justify their value in dues. Once you get safe working conditions, a good wage and benefits...the only thing to negotiate for are stupid rules like the above. It's these rules that eventually took the entire house of cards down.

I worked at UPS for a year in college. The union was a complete disaster. ND is Right-to-work so we didn't need to be a part of the union but the guys who were members were unbearable. We were regularly understaffed, and overworked in that the volume of packages was literally too heavy for us to actually keep things moving. The union representative or whatever you want to call him would throw a fit if any of the supervisors(non-union) helped us at all. This would cause our shift to drag on an extra half hour to an hour every day. It was not the end of the world but the supervisors mostly just stood around and would have liked to help us out at times to keep things moving along.

The other thing the union had negotiated that was we could call in sick up to 3 of our 5 assigned days to work before we needed to bring in a doctor's note. So pretty much every Friday evening, we would have probably 3-5 of our 30 or so people calling in sick. I wasn't a big fan of unions before working there, but that experience really made me despise them.

 

[Irish YJ]

In my call center days at AT&T, I was grieved by the union for buying pizza for one of my teams as a reward. One of the other teams I had (poorest performing) filed and cited disparity of treatment. We were a right to work state as well. I told the union rep I was happy to tell all of my teams there would be no more rewards for good performance thanks to the union grievance. They withdrew the complaint fearing more folks would elect not contribute.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

It is reckless how much and how substantially he flips positions on issues. He is going to be the Republican nominee to be President of the United States, and nobody really knows where he stands on anything. He could adopt 100% of Bernie's policies and I still wouldn't support him, because it is clear he is just saying whatever he thinks will appeal to the voters. I've never seen a candidate so poorly vetted by the media. He is just all over the place. I'm not sure why he would even want to be president when he has no coherent plans or direction for the country. I hope by November people come to their senses about this guy, because given his squishy positions, nobody can be certain about what he would do as president.

I feel like Trump is basically a Democrat who trolled the GOP. Or he's pandering. Or this is all a part of his "Art of the Deal" technique in going extreme from the beginning in order to negotiate what he really wants (he's already eluded to this with taxes and how his original policy was just a concept that will change once negotiated with Congress). Either way, it's impossible to really know what he believes, what he stands for, what he wants to do....how can you support a guy like that? *Not to mention his recent talks about taking America into bankruptcy on purpose...If someone knows the positives in doing that, can you please post about them because I'm not following that line of thinking.

 

[dublinirish]

Trump doing his Trump-thing, flip-flopping and moving center on issues like taxing the wealthy and increasing the minimum wage. Which Trump do you believe?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump...lt=A0LEV7lUqS9XvV4AlyknnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEyajU3

this was always predicted though right? as he moves from nomination to election campaigning he was always going to have tone down his rhetoric as he attempts to sway neutral/democrat/obama voters over to his side.

He'll end up a totally different candidate to when he started. If he refuses to change he simply has no chance to win.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Trump doing his Trump-thing, flip-flopping and moving center on issues like taxing the wealthy and increasing the minimum wage. Which Trump do you believe?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump...lt=A0LEV7lUqS9XvV4AlyknnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEyajU3

his plan in clear......try to make the policy between Clinton and himself as similar as possible, especially on the populist topics. If it is something that differs too much from a Republican platform issue, he will give his opinion but say he would like to "leave it up to the states". His goal is clear......make the election not about policy, but about insider versus outsider, since that is where the populist vote is.

 

[connor_in]

Azealia Banks Endorses Donald Trump for President - Hollywood Reporter

On Saturday afternoon, singer Azealia Banks expressed her support for the GOP candidate in a spree of tweets, kicking off the conversation with, "I REALLY want Donald Trump to win the election."

She told her Twitter followers that her predictions about the presidential race were true: "I told you guys Bernie Sanders didn't have the clout. i told you all he wasn't going to be the nominee."

In her series of tweets, Banks defended Trump and his outspoken opinions. "Trump is an asshole but he's not been groomed and programmed on some mkultra tip to DO & SAY what the establishment wants him to," she began and added, "Trump just wants the U.S to be lavish ... for all of us. I can f— with that."

When a fan responded with "Trump is blatantly racist," she defended his viewpoint and also copped to be a "racist" herself.

"So am I ! .... lol. Racism/Racialism is sewn into the fabric of our nation. It's just who the f— we are," she started, followed by, "Trying to be all PC and pretending as if we aren't racial/racist is not good for culture. Censorship is boring" and "Censorship is trash. Television and Movies are even boring now because of it. No one can say anything anymore."

So why is the singer not pledging a vote to Hillary Clinton? "Hillary has been GROOMED for the presidency. She's another one of the establishments robots here to carry out an agenda," Banks tweeted. "Hillary talks to black people as if we're children or pets. i can't stand herrrrrrr."

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Nominees move center for the general to appeal to moderates and other demographics, that's fine. But Trump is completely contradicting his original policies. You don't run as the GOP candidate, touting tax reductions, etc and then once you get the nomination, say you're going to raise taxes. That's just blatant pandering, turning your back on one party to draw in another. That makes you untrustworthy. How is that appealing?

 

[Ndaccountant]

Nominees move center for the general to appeal to moderates and other demographics, that's fine. But Trump is completely contradicting his original policies. You don't run as the GOP candidate, touting tax reductions, etc and then once you get the nomination, say you're going to raise taxes. That's just blatant pandering, turning your back on one party to draw in another. That makes you untrustworthy. How is that appealing?

It's not. But I think he is betting that he already has his "supporters" in the GOP, as he thinks he already has their vote. Flipping does nothing to them, or so he hopes. I also think he believes the people he is trying to pander towards hasn't been paying too close attention, since they have not already made up their mind.

In the end, he is waging a bet that most people don't care about flip flopping, or at least care about it less than certain populist trends. He is literally taking this populist movement to a new level and I am fascinated to see what happens.