We are not going to let them take our businesses any longer. It's not going to happen.

[12icer]

Repubtards are not now & never have been for creating US jobs. Democrats ALLWAYS create the jobs. Bill Clinton holds the job creating record at 23 Million new jobs while he was president!

Talk about low IQ's How did Clinton "create jobs? did he start some businesses? There was an influx of capital that was freed up by the Reagan economic policies in the years billy boy was there the Tech bubble was building because of the beginning of internet viability, AND the valley was pimping out IPO's like exon pumps oil. the expansion of the economy WAS because of the business startups, and the coming Y2k "problem" put electronics and software developers into a 24hr a day seven day a week production mode. All of these factors made the vendors of each major tech company ALSO expand to produce the needed equipment and hardware to match the demand. The main reason for the extreme increase in the deficit under Bush was the massive expansion of the US government called the Department of Homeland Security. Clintons surplus yearly budget was achieved under the Contract with America, with a balanced budget written by Gingrich and the Republican House of Representatives. History has a way of getting twisted in the hands of a liberal. Presidents DO NOT create jobs, they can destroy them, but NOT create any jobs except in their OWN business, or in the government ranks.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But his cult only become so because he presented them with an image to cling on to.

The perfect leader thing didn't just appear out of nowhere.

I never saw him sell an image.

He just talked himself up like a God, and then his followers filled in the details.

So you didn't see something, therefore it didn't happen?

 

[owebo]

1) Labor costs are the second most impactful factor on product costs -- compliance with government regulation is first.

2) You pretty much summed it up. "All inhibitors to industry are democrat gov induced ... "

You know, if it wasn't for those regulations, companies would pollute a lot more resulting in fewer consumers, meaning the business will go broke because they don't have any customers.

You think regulations are bad? Think about that if you ever have a car crash and the airbags, crumple zones, safety glass, reinforced frame and seatbelts keep you out of the hospital.

Think about it also if you have clean water to drink. There are many places in this country where the water and soil are polluted by chemicals, heavy metals, oil and other unsavory things, and in some cases, it's so bad the kids can't play outside in the grass.

Regulations help stop things like that.

I truly love the binary processing of the liberal mind.

No one said ALL regulation is bad ... but I did say that SOME of our regulations are ridiculous and those who implement them need to be removed from government service. When most regulations are passed, there is no concern for the ramifications of that regulation, except for the single issue it is supposedly implemented to address. They never bother to consider the secondary consequences, nor are they willing to revisit their decision based on the real world harm they do.

So.................name me three EPA regulations that you think are bad, and tell me why.

You're fucking question is pure liberal propaganda....see if you can tell us why.....

How's it bad? Name one.

Go ahead and try....

 

[SwimExpert]

Watching a Trump speech today, Trump said, "We are not going to let them take our businesses any longer. It's not going to happen".

What does that mean?

It means that Trump seems to think that the federal government owns my business and that the government has a right to tell me where I'm going to open a new factory.

 

[owebo]

Watching a Trump speech today, Trump said, "We are not going to let them take our businesses any longer. It's not going to happen".

What does that mean?

It means that Trump seems to think that the federal government owns my business and that the government has a right to tell me where I'm going to open a new factory.

Is that truly what you fascist liberals think?

 

[AsherN]

Nobody is "Taking" our businesses. Our businesses are leaving on their own to lower expenses. Cheap labor and Lower taxes being the main factors. It is a big mess that I don't see a clear path to recover from yet.

Then, logic would say that if you want to keep the businesses - keep the jobs - you need to be more competitive on the labor and tax fronts.

Why do people try to make this rocket surgery?

Or, the "analysts" have to stop putting insane goals on ever growing profits. Once upon a time, companies employed people and paid a fair wage. They made money for the CEO and the shareholders. The employees had enough income to actually buy the stuff they made. long term plans were made. Now it's all about the shareholder and the quaterly results. I've been in places where they actually stopped entering orders near the end of a quarter if they made the 'numbers". Because going over them does not reward much, but if they fell short next quarter, the share price would suffer. The entire stock market is screwed up. More so when you factor in that stocks being traded, outside of IPOs, bring nothing to the company.

If stocks couldn't be traded, how would you ever be able to get your investment back, and if you couldn't get your investment back, how many people would want to buy initial offerings?

It's not the trading per say. It's the undue influence traders have on the workings of the company. When it becomes no longer sufficient to make a profit and susteain slow growth. When forces external to the company dictate expectations of profit. That's when the system is broken.

What you are complaining about is how market forces influence the company's decisions, and that is unavoidable in a free market capitalist economy. If you want to sell your stock in a company I won't buy it unless I think I can make a profit from it, either dividends or capital gains, so if the company wants to continue to attract investors, it will pay attention to what I expect from it.

Investors are not forces external to the company; they are the people who made the company possible.

The initial investor are. everybody after that are external forces. Stock value should grow. I also think more stocks should pay dividends. It's the relentless pursuit for a quick high return that is ruining the country.

 

[SwimExpert]

Watching a Trump speech today, Trump said, "We are not going to let them take our businesses any longer. It's not going to happen".

What does that mean?

It means that Trump seems to think that the federal government owns my business and that the government has a right to tell me where I'm going to open a new factory.

Is that truly what you fascist liberals think?

Don't get mad at me, Donald. You're the one who said it.

 

[owebo]

Watching a Trump speech today, Trump said, "We are not going to let them take our businesses any longer. It's not going to happen".

What does that mean?

It means that Trump seems to think that the federal government owns my business and that the government has a right to tell me where I'm going to open a new factory.

Is that truly what you fascist liberals think?

Don't get mad at me, Donald. You're the one who said it.

I see....

 

[AsherN]

Nobody is "Taking" our businesses. Our businesses are leaving on their own to lower expenses. Cheap labor and Lower taxes being the main factors. It is a big mess that I don't see a clear path to recover from yet.

Then, logic would say that if you want to keep the businesses - keep the jobs - you need to be more competitive on the labor and tax fronts.

Why do people try to make this rocket surgery?

Or, the "analysts" have to stop putting insane goals on ever growing profits. Once upon a time, companies employed people and paid a fair wage. They made money for the CEO and the shareholders. The employees had enough income to actually buy the stuff they made. long term plans were made. Now it's all about the shareholder and the quaterly results. I've been in places where they actually stopped entering orders near the end of a quarter if they made the 'numbers". Because going over them does not reward much, but if they fell short next quarter, the share price would suffer. The entire stock market is screwed up. More so when you factor in that stocks being traded, outside of IPOs, bring nothing to the company.

If stocks couldn't be traded, how would you ever be able to get your investment back, and if you couldn't get your investment back, how many people would want to buy initial offerings?

It's not the trading per say. It's the undue influence traders have on the workings of the company. When it becomes no longer sufficient to make a profit and susteain slow growth. When forces external to the company dictate expectations of profit. That's when the system is broken.

"... undue influence traders have on the workings of the company ..."

Huh? How about some concrete examples? I've never had a 'trader' call me about how I run my business.

\When the most important goal is to meet the expectations of analysts, yes, Wall Street has undue influence.

 

[Spare_change]

No, there's no reason for good steady jobs to be a thing of the past, but there are plenty of reasons why many manufacturing jobs are no longer good steady jobs for Americans.

Other countries where education is more of a challenge and have lower cost workers are seen as a better alternative. America needs to compete, either it can compete by having low wage workers (who basically wouldn't be able to live in the US on those wages) or it needs to look at jobs which require more skills and therefore attract higher wages if they want to have a higher standard of living.

Labor is a small part of the equation yet you seem to want to make it a top factor.

All inhibitors to industry are democrat .gov induced terrorism designed to separate Americans from jobs.....

1) Labor costs are the second most impactful factor on product costs -- compliance with government regulation is first.

2) You pretty much summed it up. "All inhibitors to industry are democrat gov induced ... "

You know, if it wasn't for those regulations, companies would pollute a lot more resulting in fewer consumers, meaning the business will go broke because they don't have any customers.

You think regulations are bad? Think about that if you ever have a car crash and the airbags, crumple zones, safety glass, reinforced frame and seatbelts keep you out of the hospital.

Think about it also if you have clean water to drink. There are many places in this country where the water and soil are polluted by chemicals, heavy metals, oil and other unsavory things, and in some cases, it's so bad the kids can't play outside in the grass.

Regulations help stop things like that.

I truly love the binary processing of the liberal mind.

No one said ALL regulation is bad ... but I did say that SOME of our regulations are ridiculous and those who implement them need to be removed from government service. When most regulations are passed, there is no concern for the ramifications of that regulation, except for the single issue it is supposedly implemented to address. They never bother to consider the secondary consequences, nor are they willing to revisit their decision based on the real world harm they do.

So.................name me three EPA regulations that you think are bad, and tell me why.

I'll give you an easy one ... near and dear to your leader's heart ... go look at the coal ash rules, and its impact on businesses.

Obama’s Trickle Down EPA Regulations Are Harming Businesses and Energy Production

How about another one?? Out-of-Control EPA Is Hurting the Economy

Wanna kill small businesses? Here's a good way --- Stop Terrorizing Main Street

 

[Spare_change]

Watching a Trump speech today, Trump said, "We are not going to let them take our businesses any longer. It's not going to happen".

What does that mean?

He is a hypocrite.

His call for tariffs will hurt small businesses, but he sucks at macroeconomics so I would not expect him to understand that.

Although he does have ulterior motives for raising tariffs, so maybe he does understand the hypocripsy in his words.

Maybe you can explain to us how tariffs on competing products from other countries will hurt small businesses.

I'm going to be real interested in this fairy tale.

 

[Onyx]

Maybe you can explain to us how tariffs on competing products from other countries will hurt small businesses.

Small businesses and independent industry are reliant on cheap materials and products. Especially wholesalers and retailers.

Tariffs are welfare for Corporate America, and take away overall competitiveness and general fairness in the marketplace, which screws the economy as a whole.

Protectionist policies are basically just closing an avenue of commerce for American consumers and businesses that need materials to manafacture item. In a real free market every avenue of commerce would be left available by the government.

I'm going to be real interested in this fairy tale.

I'm going to be real interested in hearing you defend socialism.

 

[Spare_change]

Maybe you can explain to us how tariffs on competing products from other countries will hurt small businesses.

Small businesses and independent industry are reliant on cheap materials and products. Especially wholesalers and retailers.

Tariffs are welfare for Corporate America, and take away overall competitiveness and general fairness in the marketplace, which screws the economy as a whole.

Protectionist policies are basically just closing an avenue of commerce for American consumers and businesses that need materials to manafacture item. In a real free market every avenue of commerce would be left available by the government.

I'm going to be real interested in this fairy tale.

I'm going to be real interested in hearing you defend socialism.

Defend socialism? Who said anything about socialism? You making stuff up again? Isolationism is NOT socialism ... or is socialism the new buzzword for those of you who don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Tariffs would have little, to no, impact on small businesses. The closest you could come is the impact on drop shippers who use overseas suppliers. There probably aren't very many small businesses who sell overseas - so the impact on tariffs would be minimal. In fact, it actually would increase a small business' customer base because now Americans wouldn't be able to get knock-offs, seconds, and cheap goods from overseas, and would be forced to look at the American manufacturing market for what it wants.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You're missing the main point. It's true that free trade and minimal regulation produces a robust economy, but which economy are we talking about, the global economy or our national economy? Since at least the 1990's many people assumed wrongly they were the same thing. When the Clintons pushed NAFTA and the WTO, there was strong support from Republicans for whom free trade was a mantra, but much opposition from Democrats who feared correctly it would hurt Americans workers.

Trump says these treaties were a mistake he will correct and he will have the support of all those disillusioned Republicans who supported them in the 1990's along with all those Democrats who mourn the loss of US jobs they created. Trump will still support minimal regulation within our national economy and in trade with other developed countries.

I get it and you articulate the situation very well. I agree with your points, free trade is a good thing in concept but got exploited by big business and we are now in a very tough imbalanced situation. I think trump has tapped into the anger and has done a good job at spotlighting the problems. I don't think his proposed solutions are going to be as simple as he makes them out to be. I wish our political discussions would analyze and scutinize the details. Maybe if we took a break from all the finger pointing, name calling and mud slinging, we could get there...

All of this, trade, immigration, the fight against Islamic terrorism, international commitments such as NATO are all part of a larger discussion about globalism and nationalism. Since WWII in America notions of nationalism gradually were pushed aside as impediments to America's new role as the leader of the free world, first in terms of the Cold War and after 1989 in terms of trade, new alliances and new commitments to huge international treaty organizations and we sometimes became so intoxicated with our role as leader of the free world that we forgot to take care of business at home.

At this point, our trade imbalance is so bad that we are literally selling off our assets, real estate, corporations, even technology, to support our standard of living, and at some point, we will not have enough left to sell off to support our standard of living and America will go into decline. This process did not start with NAFTA, but NAFTA has exacerbated the problem, and renegotiating it or withdrawing from it has to be a first step to correcting the problem.

In terms of security, the US pays a disproportionate share of the cost of maintaining NATO but globalists like Obama and Clinton grumble about it but consider it just part of the cost of being the leader of the free world. In terms of internal security, Clinton and Obama insist we should accept ME refugees despite warnings from the director of the FBI and the director of national intelligence that for most of these people there simply is not enough data to vet them as safe with confidence, thus putting America's prestige as world leader ahead of the security of our citizens. Obama and Clinton would also commit America to paying a disproportionate share of the cost of fighting climate change without regard for the damage this would do to our economy or the burden it would put on Americans taxpayers.

Because of Trump, we are now engaged in a great national debate about whether our role as global leader is more or less important than the prosperity and security of our people. Clinton and Obama say, yes, it is and Trump says, no, the the interests of the American people must come first and only after we have assured those interests can we concern ourselves with the interests of others, and then, only to the extent we can afford it.

Well said, you articulate your point of view very well but there are also very valid arguements from the other side. I do commend Trump for the cut through the BS style that he engaged us in this very important debate, I just wish there was more follow through. He does a very good job at identifying problems and placing blame on Obama and Hillary, but he takes the conversation into the gutter and can't seem to get out of it. Hillary is a policy wonk, and I think she likes to get down to business but she is now in the gutter with trump and instead of engaging in ideas and policy it is an agrumemt about who you can't trust and who is unfit to be president.

You are clearly determined to vote for Hillary, but you don't seem to know why. She is far from a policy wonk. Her whole history is about being a politician who changes her policies according to the polls. For example, the positions on illegal immigration of President Clinton and Senator Clinton were exactly the same as Trump's position now.





What made her change her mind? Not policy considerations as you would suggest but demographics: she needs to win big with Hispanics to win this election. If you look at her positions on any issue, you will find there are no policy considerations voiced, just emotional appeals to voters. On this issue, Trump is the policy wonk. He has clearly defined the problem, provided a clear approach to solving it and presented all the reasons why we must move ahead on it; that's what a policy wonk does. Hillary's response: "I want to build bridges not walls" (What the hell does that mean operationally?) and Trump's a racist. That's what a politician driven by nothing but personal ambition does.

Issue by issue, Trump has clearly defined the problems and laid out clear approaches to solving them and issue by issue Clinton has offered nothing but emotional appeals to voters. She has offered no affirmative reasons to vote for her.

You say Clinton is stuck in the gutter with Trump, but she has lived in the gutter throughout her political life, always preaching a gospel of hate and contempt against anyone who opposes her, whether they be political opponents or women her husband harassed or worse.

Who can you trust in this election? You can trust the person who tells you exactly what he thinks the problems are and exactly what he intends to do about them, Trump. Who should you trust? The person who offers you nothing but emotional appeals, mostly emotional appeals to hate other Americans, Clinton.

As opposed to Trump who has never been a politician, he just pays politicians to do his bidding, and yet changes his policies more than he changes girlfriends and wives.

He has never been a politician and there is no evidence he ever paid a politician to do anything. Repeating Hillary's lies doesn't make them true.

As for changing policies and positions, this is one area where no one can comes close to Hillary.

 

[Dragonlady]

He has never been a politician and there is no evidence he ever paid a politician to do anything. Repeating Hillary's lies doesn't make them true.

As for changing policies and positions, this is one area where no one can comes close to Hillary.

Hillary hasn't claimed Trump has paid off politicians. Trump has bragged about it:

Which politicians has Donald Trump donated money to? - CNN Video

 

[frigidweirdo]

I get it and you articulate the situation very well. I agree with your points, free trade is a good thing in concept but got exploited by big business and we are now in a very tough imbalanced situation. I think trump has tapped into the anger and has done a good job at spotlighting the problems. I don't think his proposed solutions are going to be as simple as he makes them out to be. I wish our political discussions would analyze and scutinize the details. Maybe if we took a break from all the finger pointing, name calling and mud slinging, we could get there...

All of this, trade, immigration, the fight against Islamic terrorism, international commitments such as NATO are all part of a larger discussion about globalism and nationalism. Since WWII in America notions of nationalism gradually were pushed aside as impediments to America's new role as the leader of the free world, first in terms of the Cold War and after 1989 in terms of trade, new alliances and new commitments to huge international treaty organizations and we sometimes became so intoxicated with our role as leader of the free world that we forgot to take care of business at home.

At this point, our trade imbalance is so bad that we are literally selling off our assets, real estate, corporations, even technology, to support our standard of living, and at some point, we will not have enough left to sell off to support our standard of living and America will go into decline. This process did not start with NAFTA, but NAFTA has exacerbated the problem, and renegotiating it or withdrawing from it has to be a first step to correcting the problem.

In terms of security, the US pays a disproportionate share of the cost of maintaining NATO but globalists like Obama and Clinton grumble about it but consider it just part of the cost of being the leader of the free world. In terms of internal security, Clinton and Obama insist we should accept ME refugees despite warnings from the director of the FBI and the director of national intelligence that for most of these people there simply is not enough data to vet them as safe with confidence, thus putting America's prestige as world leader ahead of the security of our citizens. Obama and Clinton would also commit America to paying a disproportionate share of the cost of fighting climate change without regard for the damage this would do to our economy or the burden it would put on Americans taxpayers.

Because of Trump, we are now engaged in a great national debate about whether our role as global leader is more or less important than the prosperity and security of our people. Clinton and Obama say, yes, it is and Trump says, no, the the interests of the American people must come first and only after we have assured those interests can we concern ourselves with the interests of others, and then, only to the extent we can afford it.

Well said, you articulate your point of view very well but there are also very valid arguements from the other side. I do commend Trump for the cut through the BS style that he engaged us in this very important debate, I just wish there was more follow through. He does a very good job at identifying problems and placing blame on Obama and Hillary, but he takes the conversation into the gutter and can't seem to get out of it. Hillary is a policy wonk, and I think she likes to get down to business but she is now in the gutter with trump and instead of engaging in ideas and policy it is an agrumemt about who you can't trust and who is unfit to be president.

You are clearly determined to vote for Hillary, but you don't seem to know why. She is far from a policy wonk. Her whole history is about being a politician who changes her policies according to the polls. For example, the positions on illegal immigration of President Clinton and Senator Clinton were exactly the same as Trump's position now.





What made her change her mind? Not policy considerations as you would suggest but demographics: she needs to win big with Hispanics to win this election. If you look at her positions on any issue, you will find there are no policy considerations voiced, just emotional appeals to voters. On this issue, Trump is the policy wonk. He has clearly defined the problem, provided a clear approach to solving it and presented all the reasons why we must move ahead on it; that's what a policy wonk does. Hillary's response: "I want to build bridges not walls" (What the hell does that mean operationally?) and Trump's a racist. That's what a politician driven by nothing but personal ambition does.

Issue by issue, Trump has clearly defined the problems and laid out clear approaches to solving them and issue by issue Clinton has offered nothing but emotional appeals to voters. She has offered no affirmative reasons to vote for her.

You say Clinton is stuck in the gutter with Trump, but she has lived in the gutter throughout her political life, always preaching a gospel of hate and contempt against anyone who opposes her, whether they be political opponents or women her husband harassed or worse.

Who can you trust in this election? You can trust the person who tells you exactly what he thinks the problems are and exactly what he intends to do about them, Trump. Who should you trust? The person who offers you nothing but emotional appeals, mostly emotional appeals to hate other Americans, Clinton.

As opposed to Trump who has never been a politician, he just pays politicians to do his bidding, and yet changes his policies more than he changes girlfriends and wives.

He has never been a politician and there is no evidence he ever paid a politician to do anything. Repeating Hillary's lies doesn't make them true.

As for changing policies and positions, this is one area where no one can comes close to Hillary.

No, I'm not repeating any lies.

What is a politician?

Trump considered running for president in 2012,

Trump 'seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid

"He's not exactly throwing his hat in the ring yet, but real estate mogul Donald Trump told Fox News on Tuesday that he's giving his first serious consideration to running for president in 2012."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/161415-trump-wont-run-for-president

"Real estate mogul Donald Trump said Monday that he won’t seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2012."

"“After considerable deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to pursue the office of the presidency,” Trump said in a statement. “I have spent the past several months unofficially campaigning and recognize that running for public office cannot be done halfheartedly. Ultimately, however, business is my greatest passion, and I am not ready to leave the private sector.”"

So, he stated himself he was campaigning. He said he did it half heartedly, probably he saw he wasn't going to win, that Obama was too strong for him, and that he didn't have everything sorted out. Four years he's had to figure things out.

Is that not a guy who's been a politician for 4 years? A politician doesn't need to hold an office to be a politician. They just need to be playing the game, and Trump has been doing that.

Trump’s donation history shows Democratic favoritism

"Billionaire Donald J. Trump, an early presidential favorite among tea party activists, has a highly unusual history of political contributions for a prospective Republican candidate: He has given most of his money to the other side."

This from 2011 before anyone gave a damn about Trump.

"The real estate mogul and “Celebrity Apprentice” host has made more than $1.3 million in donations over the years to candidates nationwide, with 54 percent of the money going to Democrats, according to a Washington Post analysis of state and federal disclosure records."

"Many of the contributions have been concentrated in New York, Florida and other states where Trump has substantial real estate and casino interests."

Why does he concentrate his money on candidates in areas where he has business interested? It's not hard to see why, is it?

 

[ABikerSailor]

I get it and you articulate the situation very well. I agree with your points, free trade is a good thing in concept but got exploited by big business and we are now in a very tough imbalanced situation. I think trump has tapped into the anger and has done a good job at spotlighting the problems. I don't think his proposed solutions are going to be as simple as he makes them out to be. I wish our political discussions would analyze and scutinize the details. Maybe if we took a break from all the finger pointing, name calling and mud slinging, we could get there...

All of this, trade, immigration, the fight against Islamic terrorism, international commitments such as NATO are all part of a larger discussion about globalism and nationalism. Since WWII in America notions of nationalism gradually were pushed aside as impediments to America's new role as the leader of the free world, first in terms of the Cold War and after 1989 in terms of trade, new alliances and new commitments to huge international treaty organizations and we sometimes became so intoxicated with our role as leader of the free world that we forgot to take care of business at home.

At this point, our trade imbalance is so bad that we are literally selling off our assets, real estate, corporations, even technology, to support our standard of living, and at some point, we will not have enough left to sell off to support our standard of living and America will go into decline. This process did not start with NAFTA, but NAFTA has exacerbated the problem, and renegotiating it or withdrawing from it has to be a first step to correcting the problem.

In terms of security, the US pays a disproportionate share of the cost of maintaining NATO but globalists like Obama and Clinton grumble about it but consider it just part of the cost of being the leader of the free world. In terms of internal security, Clinton and Obama insist we should accept ME refugees despite warnings from the director of the FBI and the director of national intelligence that for most of these people there simply is not enough data to vet them as safe with confidence, thus putting America's prestige as world leader ahead of the security of our citizens. Obama and Clinton would also commit America to paying a disproportionate share of the cost of fighting climate change without regard for the damage this would do to our economy or the burden it would put on Americans taxpayers.

Because of Trump, we are now engaged in a great national debate about whether our role as global leader is more or less important than the prosperity and security of our people. Clinton and Obama say, yes, it is and Trump says, no, the the interests of the American people must come first and only after we have assured those interests can we concern ourselves with the interests of others, and then, only to the extent we can afford it.

Well said, you articulate your point of view very well but there are also very valid arguements from the other side. I do commend Trump for the cut through the BS style that he engaged us in this very important debate, I just wish there was more follow through. He does a very good job at identifying problems and placing blame on Obama and Hillary, but he takes the conversation into the gutter and can't seem to get out of it. Hillary is a policy wonk, and I think she likes to get down to business but she is now in the gutter with trump and instead of engaging in ideas and policy it is an agrumemt about who you can't trust and who is unfit to be president.

You are clearly determined to vote for Hillary, but you don't seem to know why. She is far from a policy wonk. Her whole history is about being a politician who changes her policies according to the polls. For example, the positions on illegal immigration of President Clinton and Senator Clinton were exactly the same as Trump's position now.





What made her change her mind? Not policy considerations as you would suggest but demographics: she needs to win big with Hispanics to win this election. If you look at her positions on any issue, you will find there are no policy considerations voiced, just emotional appeals to voters. On this issue, Trump is the policy wonk. He has clearly defined the problem, provided a clear approach to solving it and presented all the reasons why we must move ahead on it; that's what a policy wonk does. Hillary's response: "I want to build bridges not walls" (What the hell does that mean operationally?) and Trump's a racist. That's what a politician driven by nothing but personal ambition does.

Issue by issue, Trump has clearly defined the problems and laid out clear approaches to solving them and issue by issue Clinton has offered nothing but emotional appeals to voters. She has offered no affirmative reasons to vote for her.

You say Clinton is stuck in the gutter with Trump, but she has lived in the gutter throughout her political life, always preaching a gospel of hate and contempt against anyone who opposes her, whether they be political opponents or women her husband harassed or worse.

Who can you trust in this election? You can trust the person who tells you exactly what he thinks the problems are and exactly what he intends to do about them, Trump. Who should you trust? The person who offers you nothing but emotional appeals, mostly emotional appeals to hate other Americans, Clinton.

As opposed to Trump who has never been a politician, he just pays politicians to do his bidding, and yet changes his policies more than he changes girlfriends and wives.

He has never been a politician and there is no evidence he ever paid a politician to do anything. Repeating Hillary's lies doesn't make them true.

As for changing policies and positions, this is one area where no one can comes close to Hillary.

Really? Trump has never paid a politician? What about the FL DA he donated 25,000 to so that she'd drop the Trump U case?

How about the fact that he bragged that Hillary had to go to his wedding because he'd donated so much money to her?

 

[toomuchtime_]

All of this, trade, immigration, the fight against Islamic terrorism, international commitments such as NATO are all part of a larger discussion about globalism and nationalism. Since WWII in America notions of nationalism gradually were pushed aside as impediments to America's new role as the leader of the free world, first in terms of the Cold War and after 1989 in terms of trade, new alliances and new commitments to huge international treaty organizations and we sometimes became so intoxicated with our role as leader of the free world that we forgot to take care of business at home.

At this point, our trade imbalance is so bad that we are literally selling off our assets, real estate, corporations, even technology, to support our standard of living, and at some point, we will not have enough left to sell off to support our standard of living and America will go into decline. This process did not start with NAFTA, but NAFTA has exacerbated the problem, and renegotiating it or withdrawing from it has to be a first step to correcting the problem.

In terms of security, the US pays a disproportionate share of the cost of maintaining NATO but globalists like Obama and Clinton grumble about it but consider it just part of the cost of being the leader of the free world. In terms of internal security, Clinton and Obama insist we should accept ME refugees despite warnings from the director of the FBI and the director of national intelligence that for most of these people there simply is not enough data to vet them as safe with confidence, thus putting America's prestige as world leader ahead of the security of our citizens. Obama and Clinton would also commit America to paying a disproportionate share of the cost of fighting climate change without regard for the damage this would do to our economy or the burden it would put on Americans taxpayers.

Because of Trump, we are now engaged in a great national debate about whether our role as global leader is more or less important than the prosperity and security of our people. Clinton and Obama say, yes, it is and Trump says, no, the the interests of the American people must come first and only after we have assured those interests can we concern ourselves with the interests of others, and then, only to the extent we can afford it.

Well said, you articulate your point of view very well but there are also very valid arguements from the other side. I do commend Trump for the cut through the BS style that he engaged us in this very important debate, I just wish there was more follow through. He does a very good job at identifying problems and placing blame on Obama and Hillary, but he takes the conversation into the gutter and can't seem to get out of it. Hillary is a policy wonk, and I think she likes to get down to business but she is now in the gutter with trump and instead of engaging in ideas and policy it is an agrumemt about who you can't trust and who is unfit to be president.

You are clearly determined to vote for Hillary, but you don't seem to know why. She is far from a policy wonk. Her whole history is about being a politician who changes her policies according to the polls. For example, the positions on illegal immigration of President Clinton and Senator Clinton were exactly the same as Trump's position now.





What made her change her mind? Not policy considerations as you would suggest but demographics: she needs to win big with Hispanics to win this election. If you look at her positions on any issue, you will find there are no policy considerations voiced, just emotional appeals to voters. On this issue, Trump is the policy wonk. He has clearly defined the problem, provided a clear approach to solving it and presented all the reasons why we must move ahead on it; that's what a policy wonk does. Hillary's response: "I want to build bridges not walls" (What the hell does that mean operationally?) and Trump's a racist. That's what a politician driven by nothing but personal ambition does.

Issue by issue, Trump has clearly defined the problems and laid out clear approaches to solving them and issue by issue Clinton has offered nothing but emotional appeals to voters. She has offered no affirmative reasons to vote for her.

You say Clinton is stuck in the gutter with Trump, but she has lived in the gutter throughout her political life, always preaching a gospel of hate and contempt against anyone who opposes her, whether they be political opponents or women her husband harassed or worse.

Who can you trust in this election? You can trust the person who tells you exactly what he thinks the problems are and exactly what he intends to do about them, Trump. Who should you trust? The person who offers you nothing but emotional appeals, mostly emotional appeals to hate other Americans, Clinton.

I respected your first post but you lost me with this one. I'm not a big fan of Hillary but I also see Trump for what he is, an entertainer and a visionary businessman with a lot of money, but beyond that he doesn't know details, uses his money and power to bully people to get what he wants and spouts more manipulation and lies than Hillary. HRC isnt a pillar of honesty either, she is a calculated lawyer politician and extremely guarded. I trust her more than I trust Trump but am definitely disappointed by both options. if you honestly think that trump is honest and straight forward you are fooling yourself... That's all part of his act

You understand that you have no objective basis for those assertions.

Of course I do, what makes you say that?

I said it because you obviously have no basis in fact or logic for your assessments of Clinton and Trump. If you had you would have posted as I posted my reasons for everything I said.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Then, logic would say that if you want to keep the businesses - keep the jobs - you need to be more competitive on the labor and tax fronts.

Why do people try to make this rocket surgery?

Or, the "analysts" have to stop putting insane goals on ever growing profits. Once upon a time, companies employed people and paid a fair wage. They made money for the CEO and the shareholders. The employees had enough income to actually buy the stuff they made. long term plans were made. Now it's all about the shareholder and the quaterly results. I've been in places where they actually stopped entering orders near the end of a quarter if they made the 'numbers". Because going over them does not reward much, but if they fell short next quarter, the share price would suffer. The entire stock market is screwed up. More so when you factor in that stocks being traded, outside of IPOs, bring nothing to the company.

If stocks couldn't be traded, how would you ever be able to get your investment back, and if you couldn't get your investment back, how many people would want to buy initial offerings?

It's not the trading per say. It's the undue influence traders have on the workings of the company. When it becomes no longer sufficient to make a profit and susteain slow growth. When forces external to the company dictate expectations of profit. That's when the system is broken.

What you are complaining about is how market forces influence the company's decisions, and that is unavoidable in a free market capitalist economy. If you want to sell your stock in a company I won't buy it unless I think I can make a profit from it, either dividends or capital gains, so if the company wants to continue to attract investors, it will pay attention to what I expect from it.

Investors are not forces external to the company; they are the people who made the company possible.

The initial investor are. everybody after that are external forces. Stock value should grow. I also think more stocks should pay dividends. It's the relentless pursuit for a quick high return that is ruining the country.

There would be no initial investors if the market didn't provide them with a place in which they could sell their stocks if they wanted to and that means there would be no company.

America is losing manufacturing jobs because it is cheaper to make things in less developed countries like Mexico and in China than it is to make them here. You don't hear about US companies moving to France of the UK because production costs would be as high there or even higher. The only way to protect these jobs is to levy tariffs that make it as expensive to manufacture things in countries like Mexico or China as it is to manufacture them in the US, but we can't do that unless we renegotiate multilateral trade pacts like NAFTA and perhaps renegotiate WTO or withdraw from it.

 

[toomuchtime_]

He has never been a politician and there is no evidence he ever paid a politician to do anything. Repeating Hillary's lies doesn't make them true.

As for changing policies and positions, this is one area where no one can comes close to Hillary.

Hillary hasn't claimed Trump has paid off politicians. Trump has bragged about it:

Which politicians has Donald Trump donated money to? - CNN Video

So you consider all political donations pay offs for special favors? Then you must believe Wall Street owns Hillary.