Trump will win?

[twik]

You know what? I'm not even freaking left-wing!

I'm tired - very tired - of being told that because I want to be respected even though I miss that crucial Y chromosome, because I despise the alt-right, because I think gay people should be given the same rights and protections as those who aren't gay, that I'm some sort of Che Guevera-worshipping, commune-living hippy dippy who wants the government to spend money that they don't have.

Mrs Clinton herself isn't exactly Marxist. Remember the economic suffering under her husband? Oh, wait, those were the years that the Onion satirized as "Our long nightmare of national peace and prosperity". I'm not sure why you'd expect anything different with her.

You want to talk about demonization? Listen to your alt-right compatriots, Bob B. Really listen to what they call anyone who doesn't worship at Trump's golden calf.

I don't know enough about Trump's economic plans to support or oppose them, because one of the things I dislike about him is that he is the consummate bull artist, and can do a 180 at any point. But I know that he says he can grab women by the pussy, and get away with it. I know he called his wife and his own daughter "pieces of ass". I know that he tried to smear John Stewart as a Jew, as if that was something Stewart was ashamed of. I know he retweets a lot of stuff from white supremacists. I know his manager Bannon is hooked up with the white supremacist movement. I'm terrified when I see him encourage his supporters to attack protesters, like a certain Signor Mussolini used to do.

There is no possible economic plan that would make me want to vote for such a person. When this person doesn't really *have* a plan (Hey, let's build a wall, and make Mexico pay for it! Why would they? Don't sweat the details. I'll make them do it somehow. Trust me.), it strikes me as a horribly short-sighted move. If that's "demonization" or "self-righteousness" so be it.

My prediction for Trump's economic plan will be to go deeply protectionist against imports (except from Russia! Free trade with our Russian brethren! Down with the foul NATO alliance!), tax cuts to the very rich (because they're the ones suffering in this economy, the poor souls) that he claims will have a trickle-down effect, and a complete dismantling of economic regulations (Hey banks! Lend to anyone you want again! That's the way to prosperity!), as well as safety and environmental regulations. Yes, we'll build our economy up by taking away workers' rights to a safe workplace, and any semblance of control of what can be dumped into the environment.

Then, when anyone tries to call him on the mess, he'll pout "Did not!" like the liar he is.

[gillianren]

I'm so sorry if you're upset that voting for a racist, homophobic, incompetent misogynist gets you smeared as a bigot.  I can't imagine why that would happen.

And, yes, I can document every single part of that.  Using his own words and actions.  I guess you don't worry about the racist, homophobic, misogynist part (a guy I know just goes with "omnibigoted," because it's faster), but I'm confused as to why you'd support the "incompetent" part.  The man has bankrupted a casino.  How do you even do that?  And once you'd done that, why would anyone with any sense believe you have the competence to run a country?  We're a working class family, and his help, we don't need. 

[twik]

I'm so sorry if you're upset that voting for a racist, homophobic, incompetent misogynist gets you smeared as a bigot.  I can't imagine why that would happen.

And, yes, I can document every single part of that.  Using his own words and actions.  I guess you don't worry about the racist, homophobic, misogynist part (a guy I know just goes with "omnibigoted," because it's faster), but I'm confused as to why you'd support the "incompetent" part.  The man has bankrupted a casino.  How do you even do that?  And once you'd done that, why would anyone with any sense believe you have the competence to run a country?  We're a working class family, and his help, we don't need.

Gillianren, that's the part that confuses me about Trump supporters like Bob B. who I truly believe are intelligent people of general good will. It's one thing to say "this man is odious, but damn, he's such a skilled economist that he can save our economy." That's a moral quandary, I suppose.

But in this case, what I truly see is someone who is a dilettante at business, has no intellectual rigor, and a tendency to lie like a rug about anything that threatens his vision of himself as a "winner". This isn't a man I'd trust my economy to. Just hanging a shingle up saying "fiscal conservatism sold fresh here!" doesn't mean he's fit to be trusted with the biggest economy in the world. His personal economic success has come from a starting loan from Daddy, and a habit of getting other people to pony up for his losses as he sails off with the cash.

If Clinton and Trump had exactly the same social programs, I'd vote for Clinton, because her husband did a pretty good job, and she seems cut from the same cloth. Trump has only a record of bankruptcies and failure to pay taxes.

[Northern Lurker]

This is bit off topic but wasn't Bill Clinton the president who approved dismantling of "outdated" banking regulations? You know, those which were instituted after the Great Depression to prevent it happening again. And only a decade after that we are in the Great Recession. Which is caused by excessive risk taking by banks. You know, those risks that pre-Clinton regulation forbade them to take. I don't think Mr Clinton deserves any commendations for his economic prowess.

Lurky

[Bob B.]

I think the bigotry element of it is really over exaggerated by the Trump haters.

You make it sound like it was some small thing people found while looking for a reason to hate him. I think it's a pretty big reason to hate him. I also think it's minimised by his supporters, and that's worse. Bigotry, misogyny and homophobia should have no place whatsoever in a government or in a society full stop.

Let's me clarify what I meant by my statement.  Some people seem to want to classify Trump supporters as a mob of racist bigots and white supremacists.  They say this is confirmed by the cheers of the crowd when Trump say some outrageous thing like let's ban all Muslims.  I think the cheers are less about the people being racist and more about them being sick and tired of political correctness.  I think there are fewer people who actually agree with what he said and more who just like the fact that he actually said something controversial to piss off the PC police.  At least that's my interpretation.  That doesn't make it right, but I really don't think the bigotry runs as deep in the hearts of Trump supporters as the Trump haters think.  It's there, but I don't think it is rampant through the crowd.

One question I do have: I know the US election basically boils down to Republican vs. Democrat, but there are independents, are there not? Wouldn't a better way to give the system the finger be to vote for someone other than the two main parties? It likely won't get the independent to victory but surely a decreasing number of votes for the main parties vs. an increase in votes for alternatives to both bloody awful options over progressive elections would send a message?

Some people did that, in fact my best friend who is also a Republican voted for one of the other candidates.  Collectively though, the other candidates only got about 5% of the vote.  The problem is that most Republicans think that if I don't vote for the Republican candidate, that's just going to hand the election over to the Democrat.  And Democrats think that if they don't vote for the Democrat candidate, that's just going to hand the election over to the Republican.  So although people often talk about voting independent or third-party, in the end they using come home to their own party.

[alvarez]

This is bit off topic but wasn't Bill Clinton the president who approved dismantling of "outdated" banking regulations? You know, those which were instituted after the Great Depression to prevent it happening again. And only a decade after that we are in the Great Recession. Which is caused by excessive risk taking by banks. You know, those risks that pre-Clinton regulation forbade them to take. I don't think Mr Clinton deserves any commendations for his economic prowess.

Lurky

I think you're probably referring to the Glass-Steagall Act.  If so, then yes, Bill Clinton signed the law that repealed this act in 1999.  At that time, both houses of the US legislature had a Republican majority.  Joseph Stiglitz says the repeal did cause the recent financial crisis; Paul Krugman says it did not.  Canada repealed its comparable legislation in the 1980s, and sailed through the financial crisis quite nicely.  So given the lack of any real clear evidence one way or the other, the flaming self-righteous political hacks who make up a sizeable proportion of the board's membership should have no problem picking and choosing whichever facts are supportive of their preferred flaming self-righteous viewpoints.

[alvarez]

Gillianren, that's the part that confuses me about Trump supporters like Bob B. who I truly believe are intelligent people of general good will. It's one thing to say "this man is odious, but damn, he's such a skilled economist that he can save our economy." That's a moral quandary, I suppose.

The thing that confuses me is how people who seem to support a candidate with a long track record of supporting terrorism are foaming at the mouth with outrage at the thought of someone who somewhat ambivalently voted for a racist homophobic misogynist.  No agonising over moral quandaries for them!

But in this case, what I truly see is someone who is a dilettante at business, has no intellectual rigor, and a tendency to lie like a rug about anything that threatens his vision of himself as a "winner". This isn't a man I'd trust my economy to. Just hanging a shingle up saying "fiscal conservatism sold fresh here!" doesn't mean he's fit to be trusted with the biggest economy in the world. His personal economic success has come from a starting loan from Daddy, and a habit of getting other people to pony up for his losses as he sails off with the cash.

I can't vote in US elections, but if someone like that ran for office in my country, the time it would take me to conclude I wouldn't be voting for him would be measured in milliseconds.

If Clinton and Trump had exactly the same social programs, I'd vote for Clinton, because her husband did a pretty good job, and she seems cut from the same cloth. Trump has only a record of bankruptcies and failure to pay taxes.

I wouldn't vote for the racist misogynist homophobe or the terrorist.  It's not even clear to me that the former (who has no track record of terrorism, having never had a government job before) would end up being any less terroristic than his competitor, once he had the opportunity.  But I guess we'll find out now whether I'm right about that, won't we.

[twik]

If you really believe the Clintons supported terrorism, I cannot talk to you further.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

If the government does it it is a war crime, not terrorism.

Presidents who haven't violated international law are few and far between.
The electorate never seemed to care.
But Clinton never was president, the president makes the decisions and bares the moral responsibility.

Glad we never made the horrible mistake of abolishing the monarchy. 

[Glom]

If you really believe the Clintons supported terrorism, I cannot talk to you further.

Maybe he's referring to the IRA. Though I didn't think the Clintons did. The Kennedys did.

[Bob B.]

There is no possible economic plan that would make me want to vote for such a person.

It was as much about voting against Clinton’s plan as it was voting for Trump’s.  Clinton’s economic plan:  raise taxes.  Her jobs plan:  use those taxes to rebuild infrastructure.  While I agree we need to upgrade our infrastructure, as an economic/jobs plan, it sounds completely lamebrained to me.  It’s robbing Peter to pay Paul.  While some sectors might benefit from the infrastructure spending (engineering and construction firms for instance), all sectors are impacted by the tax hikes.  I think it would be devastating to jobs and the economy.

Let’s say you own a business that makes breakfast cereal.  Too bad, you’re not going to see a dime of that infrastructure money.  But your taxes are sure going up.  Your cost of doing business has just taken a big climb.  You’re either going to have to increase sales (which, if you could do that, you would have already done so), raise your prices, or cut operating costs.  Raising prices will either hurt your consumers, who may already be struggling to make ends meet, or force them to use less product or switch to a less expensive brand.  If either of the latter happens, you lose sales.  Your business is starting to fall into a death spiral.  In order to save the business you have to find a way to cut operating costs.  That’s never a good thing for the employees.

If your employees are lucky, maybe they’ll only see their wages frozen and their bonuses suspended.  More likely, some will lose their jobs or have their hours reduced.  Perhaps you’ll even cut back the labor force enough that you fall below the employee threshold so you can now stop providing health insurance coverage.  This might make your business profitable again, but you’re stuck at your current size and can’t afford to expand.  At least you saved the company.  Had you already been teetering on the edge of viability, the tax hikes might have forced you out of business altogether and thrown everybody onto the street.

For those lucky enough to keep their jobs, their incomes have been reduced and they’ve lost their health insurance.  I just hope they can afford to pay their mortgages and stay in their homes.  For those out of work, guess what, nobody else is hiring either because they’re all in the same predicament.  If you’re one of those out of work, there is one ray of hope – you can put on a hardhat and go see if you can get one of those infrastructure jobs.  Of course, having no experience in construction is going to work against you.  Perhaps somebody will give you a break and take you on as a common laborer, putting you to work running a jackhammer all day.  At least it puts food on the table.  I just hope the job doesn’t go to an illegal immigrant first.  One more thing, you’ll probably be forced to join the laborer’s union because the democrats are sure to put something in the bill to enrich Hillary’s union buddies.

But hey, you voted for it, right.

[twik]

You know, we went through that where I lived. Had a provincial government come in, cut government spending to the bone, dropped taxes. I saw about $500 dollars extra at the end of the year. Nice, but I wasn't travelling to Fiji on it.

Strangely, the economy didn't start springing along like a newborn lamb, nor do people remember it as a golden age. Funny thing how the economy seems to buffer these changes. All the businesses who sold to the government were hurting badly.

If I were a determined trickle-downer, I would have voted Trump into the dust, and hoped to wait out four years until the Republicans could get their act together and run a candidate who didn't give me nausea. Anti-tax is a valid economic argument, but I don't think it's worth voting in a modern Mussolini for. You know, he also fixed his country's economy. For a while.

[Jason Thompson]

I think the cheers are less about the people being racist and more about them being sick and tired of political correctness.

Well I'm sorry but if they can't understand how cheering at racist, bigoted or misogynistic statements might just give people the impression they're supporting racism, bigotry or misogyny they really don't get to complain at being misunderstood. I applaud lack of PC myself from officials at times, but I will not cheer any and all non-PC comments. There are levels.

[twik]

"I hate political correctness" is the call of the bigot who mourns his or her opportunity to insult people to their faces because they're different.

[Bob B.]

Well I'm sorry but if they can't understand how cheering at racist, bigoted or misogynistic statements might just give people the impression they're supporting racism, bigotry or misogyny they really don't get to complain at being misunderstood. I applaud lack of PC myself from officials at times, but I will not cheer any and all non-PC comments. There are levels.

I completely understand that, the bad image they've created for themselves is their own doing.