Donald Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
Paul_Powers_Tash said:
Finally, someone has bothered to put together a well argued and well thought out response.

Funnily enough, I am LITERALLY a self-made millionaire as well. My degree, however, is in Economics.

My support for Trump comes from my firm belief that globalisation is a significant danger to Western society. Globalisation is a race to the bottom. It allows manufacturing to seek out and prey upon the lowest and most abused in the labour market. It removes well paid American jobs at the cost to the American people, in order to provide additional profits and wealth for the super rich. In simple terms, it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, it destroys families, communities and society. Anyone with any doubt, only need to look at the figures which show that last year the richest 62 people on the planet had a combined wealth equal to half of the world's population, this year it only takes only the richest 8.

I also believe that along with globalisation, the continued conflict in the Middle East are the two biggest threats to Western society.

From the things he has said, Trump is clearly against globalisation and wants a healthy relationship with Russia. Clinton, on the other hand, is a globalist through and through and is anti-Russian. In fact, it scared me to death when she reiterated her determination to impose a no-fly zone in Syria despite the head of the US airforce stating definitively days before, that it would be impossible to implement a no-fly zone without going to war against Russia.

I wouldn't disagree with anyone who said that we have to keep a close eye on Trump from the evidence of his first week, he seems to be implementing his manifesto with commitment and urgency. Cancelling TPP was huge, as has been the jobs and factories he has saved from moving abroad. For a country to be wealthy and healthy the country needs to "make" things, especially a country the size of America. Trump clearly understands this and is intervening in a way that his predecessors haven't; surely he deserves credit for this?

People are saying Trump is a racist and is anti-Muslim because he has delayed entry to Muslims from 7 countries because of the increased threat of radicalisation in those countries. They forget that there are some 46 other Muslim countries where this delayed entry doesn't apply. Surely if Trump was the Muslim hater he's being painted by the ridiculous media, he would have banned every Muslim?

As for radical Islam, it's a pity that the million or so Pussy hats from last week weren't protesting in such numbers when the US was dropping bombs on Libya or Syria. If they had maybe there wouldn't be as many radicals to deal with, and he Trump might not have had to impose the delayed entry after all. Just a thought!
Click to expand...
Hang on - I was reading not long ago that world poverty was going down because of global capitalism.
http://quillette.com/2016/01/16/how-capitalism-and-globalization-have-made-the-world-a-better-place/
 
bluethrunthru said:
There may be "fairer" systems but I doubt there is a perfect one. If you allocated seats in share of votes there would NEVER be a majority and there would be constant coalitions, collapses and changes of government.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree, 'perfect' was the wrong descriptor, and as you say the alternatives result in instability.
 
Thaksinssoldier said:
No, the media have ballsed up their approach to this and undermined their legitimacy. There's no if and buts or maybes about that.

They were absolutely, 100% backing Clinton against him, and if they weren't actively doing that they were scoffing at the idea he'd get in.

There was a full year of fake news and polls from them. Ask yourself why the public were so surprised that he won so easily? Because they were fed for at least a year a narrative that he was a joke, when in fact the public were voting him in. So tell me this, were the media incompetent in finding out voting percentages, or were they lying in an attempt to undermine him? it was definitely the latter.

Since he got in, they realised they are fucked and he'll come after their empires. This isn't some grand crusade from the media, it's an act of self preservation.

Now, with all that said, we need him hounded and investigated constantly. But the issue is those who are doing it have completely discredited themselves.

Ultimately what the world needs right now is some honest to goodness grade A whistleblowers, but that won't happen because a) he's closing ranks so much that his inner circle are airtight and b) no whistleblower will come out thanks to how Obama's administration acted to Manning and Snowden.
Click to expand...
The only ballsup was not doing more to expose Trump's lies and business practices. When he said in the debates that he was "smart" for going bankrupt (leaving creditors stranded) I thought he was toast but (from this side of the pond) it seemed to get little media notice. Anyone else think that when he was stalking Clinton on stage, she should have turned round and said, "Donald, you are so creepy!"
 
Programme tonight 8.30 Radio 4 Analysis on how close American presidents have taken us to nuclear war. Sane presidents.
 
west didsblue said:
I agree they were clearly backing Clinton and when you look at all his blatant lies during the campaign and since, who can blame them. Having said that there was plenty of coverage of the leaked emails which probably damaged Clinton's campaign more than anything else in spite of the fact that the FBI finally concluded that she had little to answer for.

As for fake polls, the final poll of polls had Clinton winning by 48% to 44%. The final result was 48% to 45.9% in Clinton's favour, hardly enough difference to describe the polls as fake.
Click to expand...

most polls did have clinton winning though. i remember i think it was a cnn poll that had hilary with a 95% of winning. the majority of media outlets and celebrities gave brexit and trump no chance of winning.
 
Cheadle_hulmeBlue said:
most polls did have clinton winning though. i remember i think it was a cnn poll that had hilary with a 95% of winning. the majority of media outlets and celebrities gave brexit and trump no chance of winning.
Click to expand...


LCFC 5000-1 afgainst winning the PL - the Referendum result and Trump result shocks last weekends finals Williams vs Williams and Federer vs Nadal were both 5000-1 against happening before the tournament started....... somebody could have had one hell of an accumulator at Hills or Paddy Power
 
Paul_Powers_Tash said:
My support for Trump comes from my firm belief that globalisation is a significant danger to Western society. Globalisation is a race to the bottom. It allows manufacturing to seek out and prey upon the lowest and most abused in the labour market. It removes well paid American jobs at the cost to the American people, in order to provide additional profits and wealth for the super rich. In simple terms, it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, it destroys families, communities and society. Anyone with any doubt, only need to look at the figures which show that last year the richest 62 people on the planet had a combined wealth equal to half of the world's population, this year it only takes only the richest 8.
Click to expand...

I can see why you might think this, but your logic is flawed. Globalisation is not a race to the bottom, it creates wealth. It always has done, right back to the days of ancient Eqypt, the Romans, the Venetians, Victorian Britain, you name it. Free trade has always created wealth. The problems you cite are because the methods of redistributing that wealth are not in place or to your liking.

You suggest that the wealth only goes to the super rich, but this is patently not true. You are ignoring the enormous benefits to the hundreds of millions or ordinary Americans who benefit from cheaper goods, which means their standard of living is greatly increased. That you can buy a 65" TV for a few hundred dollars, is a good thing for millions of people. That their cars cost less than they would otherwise do, is a great thing. It's made hundreds of millions of Americans much better off. Standards of living have increased enormously.

Globalization and the ability to outsource manufacture to countries with a lower cost base; and the ability to import low cost goods, is great for America, and it's great for the exporting country too. No-one would deny that China has benefitted hugely from global trade, but so has America, massively. If there is a problem, it is that the vast additional wealth that America has accrued, has not been shared as perhaps you would wish.

So the "fix" to this "problem" is not protectionism. American companies have gone bust and American jobs have been lost because they cannot produce goods of the right quality at a competitive price point. Protectionism therefore simply forces Americans to buy inferior quality products at excessively high prices, and needless to say this is very bad. It takes money out of the pockets of millions, to the benefit of a few. It rewards mediocrity and penalises everybody. And crucially it's bad for the economy: the net sum is lower overall wealth.

The solution therefore (if you are unhappy) is to not to discourage globalization, but to better redistribute the wealth it creates. To provide better education, better welfare, and to use the country's resources to help create new and high value jobs, not prop up failing ones. Leave the low-paid unskilled work to be done by countries prepared to do it for peanuts.

Do you want to live in a country where millions have low-paid, unskilled jobs? Do you think that's the answer? It isn't.
 
Vic said:
The only ballsup was not doing more to expose Trump's lies and business practices. When he said in the debates that he was "smart" for going bankrupt (leaving creditors stranded) I thought he was toast but (from this side of the pond) it seemed to get little media notice. Anyone else think that when he was stalking Clinton on stage, she should have turned round and said, "Donald, you are so creepy!"
Click to expand...

The biggest mistake the Democrats made was shafting Bernie.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I can see why you might think this, but your logic is flawed. Globalisation is not a race to the bottom, it creates wealth. It always has done, right back to the days of ancient Eqypt, the Romans, the Venetians, Victorian Britain, you name it. Free trade has always created wealth. The problems you cite are because the methods of redistributing that wealth are not in place or to your liking.

You suggest that the wealth only goes to the super rich, but this is patently not true. You are ignoring the enormous benefits to the hundreds of millions or ordinary Americans who benefit from cheaper goods, which means their standard of living is greatly increased. That you can buy a 65" TV for a few hundred dollars, is a good thing for millions of people. That their cars cost less than they would otherwise do, is a great thing. It's made hundreds of millions of Americans much better off. Standards of living have increased enormously.

Globalization and the ability to outsource manufacture to countries with a lower cost base; and the ability to import low cost goods, is great for America, and it's great for the exporting country too. No-one would deny that China has benefitted hugely from global trade, but so has America, massively. If there is a problem, it is that the vast additional wealth that America has accrued, has not been shared as perhaps you would wish.

So the "fix" to this "problem" is not protectionism. American companies have gone bust and American jobs have been lost because they cannot produce goods of the right quality at a competitive price point. Protectionism therefore simply forces Americans to buy inferior quality products at excessively high prices, and needless to say this is very bad. It takes money out of the pockets of millions, to the benefit of a few. It rewards mediocrity and penalises everybody. And crucially it's bad for the economy: the net sum is lower overall wealth.

The solution therefore (if you are unhappy) is to not to discourage globalization, but to better redistribute the wealth it creates. To provide better education, better welfare, and to use the country's resources to help create new and high value jobs, not prop up failing ones. Leave the low-paid unskilled work to be done by countries prepared to do it for peanuts.

Do you want to live in a country where millions have low-paid, unskilled jobs? Do you think that's the answer? It isn't.
Click to expand...
This, have to add that open trade routes have always encouraged diplomacy over war as well, right back to the time of the first Chinese dynasties.
 
bluethrunthru said:
LCFC 5000-1 afgainst winning the PL - the Referendum result and Trump result shocks last weekends finals Williams vs Williams and Federer vs Nadal were both 5000-1 against happening before the tournament started....... somebody could have had one hell of an accumulator at Hills or Paddy Power
Click to expand...

Does this mean Nadal, Fed and Williams were all on drugs this year aswell ?

Sorry. Strayed off topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top