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

[frigidweirdo]

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?

Probably it means that if Trump doesn't get given $800 million by governments then his business will fail and he'll have to "let them take it", so he's probably demanding rich people be given welfare.

It used to be that Democrats championed steady, good paying manufacturing jobs with great benefits that working people could support a family and buy a home with. Your party has changed.

And not for the better.

Not my party I'm afraid, I have never voted and never will vote for Republican or Democrat within the current system.

I'm not one for being a champion of something that's outdated.

It's not outdated, it was destroyed unnecessarily by NAFTA. There's no good reason for good, steady jobs to be a thing of the past.

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.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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?

Probably it means that if Trump doesn't get given $800 million by governments then his business will fail and he'll have to "let them take it", so he's probably demanding rich people be given welfare.

It used to be that Democrats championed steady, good paying manufacturing jobs with great benefits that working people could support a family and buy a home with. Your party has changed.

And not for the better.

Not my party I'm afraid, I have never voted and never will vote for Republican or Democrat within the current system.

I'm not one for being a champion of something that's outdated.

It's not outdated, it was destroyed unnecessarily by NAFTA. There's no good reason for good, steady jobs to be a thing of the past.

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.

I refuse to accept it has to be that way. Republicans are now the party that champions good paying jobs with excellent benefits. We took it from Democrats that fucked America over with NAFTA.

 

[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?

Probably it means that if Trump doesn't get given $800 million by governments then his business will fail and he'll have to "let them take it", so he's probably demanding rich people be given welfare.

It used to be that Democrats championed steady, good paying manufacturing jobs with great benefits that working people could support a family and buy a home with. Your party has changed.

And not for the better.

Not my party I'm afraid, I have never voted and never will vote for Republican or Democrat within the current system.

I'm not one for being a champion of something that's outdated.

It's not outdated, it was destroyed unnecessarily by NAFTA. There's no good reason for good, steady jobs to be a thing of the past.

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.....

 

[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.

 

[jasonnfree]

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 could mean that he won't let the TPP pass. You know, the next secret trade "deal" that both demorats and repiglicans want to push through that increase corporate profits while screw american workers. obama, clinton, bush etc. push come to shove, they're mostly the same. Maybe the donald is different so let's give him a chance. What do we have to lose, like he sez?

 

[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.

The average profit margin for a company in the US for the past 10 years has been 6.75% Why Are Corporate Profit Margins So High? | Pragmatic Capitalism or The public thinks the average company makes a 36% profit margin, which is about 5X too high - AEI. Some industries, typically those that are government subsidized (energy, etc.) show a larger profit, but not nearly what most seem to believe.

All this talk about massive profits is simply liberal talking points --- they typically use gross profit (especially when they talk about drug companies) and don't consider net profit. In fact, if the profit gets too high, the stocks "mean revert", thus driving the profitability back toward 6.5%. (There's a discussion in the first reference)

In short, most people don't know what the hell they're talking about --- instead, they simply spout what they are told by their respective political propagandists.

Make up some situation, then says that's what liberals believe. Then make up some "solution". Then say "I won because Democrats are stupid". Works every time.

The poster I responded to was bitching about ALL the profits being generated, and how they were being gobbled up by greedy investors.

I merely pointed out the truth to him --- our economy is based on a 7% profit -- period. I also showed him where this is not only theoretically true, but in fact, is historically true, as well.

I'm sorry the post was above your knowledge level - but I refuse to debase myself so that it can be dumbed down for you to understand.

Nothing wrong with profit But when the expectation is being driven by external forces, to the detriment of the working of the company, it becomes a problem. Investors demand higher profits. Because of tax laws, executives get compensated in stock options. Both of those factors greatly contribute to unsustainable cost cutting.

 

[Picaro]

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.

All excellent points, and thread in and of themselves. As an example, when one looks at what happened in the years before the 'Great Depression', you find that massive amounts of cash started rushing into stock market speculation instead of capital investments in businesses; the slowdown in the productive economy began in 1926-27, with construction slowing down, demand slow downs following, layoffs hitting blue collar workers, etc.. Why start a real business when one could make quick effortless 40% returns on their money just by putting it in the call money markets or speculating in financial paper? The Rockefeller companies alone dumped over $100 million into call loan markets.

Real estate bubbles, CDO's, derivatives, and the like serve the same purpose, as do companies like Apple who off-shore their production while making massive profits off of high priced fads and having out-sized influence on the NASDAQ rises and falls.

 

[KissMy]

I refuse to accept it has to be that way. Republicans are now the party that champions good paying jobs with excellent benefits. We took it from Democrats that fucked America over with NAFTA.

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!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Probably it means that if Trump doesn't get given $800 million by governments then his business will fail and he'll have to "let them take it", so he's probably demanding rich people be given welfare.

It used to be that Democrats championed steady, good paying manufacturing jobs with great benefits that working people could support a family and buy a home with. Your party has changed.

And not for the better.

Not my party I'm afraid, I have never voted and never will vote for Republican or Democrat within the current system.

I'm not one for being a champion of something that's outdated.

It's not outdated, it was destroyed unnecessarily by NAFTA. There's no good reason for good, steady jobs to be a thing of the past.

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.

I refuse to accept it has to be that way. Republicans are now the party that champions good paying jobs with excellent benefits. We took it from Democrats that fucked America over with NAFTA.

Republicans are "championing" something they're actually working against. It's pretty ridiculous but they do it all the time.

Like "we're for your safety" and then invade Iraq and cause all the chaos that's going on at the moment, or "we're for your rights" and "we need to take away your rights to ensure your freedom" sort of thing.

In business they're giving billions away to large corporations so they can kill smaller businesses by making smaller business noncompetitive. Who can compete with Walmart encouraging workers to take welfare and being given massive tax breaks for doing so? Who can compete with Amazon who are getting massive tax breaks?

Sorry, they might say one thing, but their actions speak much louder than their words.

 

[owebo]

I refuse to accept it has to be that way. Republicans are now the party that champions good paying jobs with excellent benefits. We took it from Democrats that fucked America over with NAFTA.

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!

The 90's called.....they want your liberal stupidity back....

 

[owebo]

It used to be that Democrats championed steady, good paying manufacturing jobs with great benefits that working people could support a family and buy a home with. Your party has changed.

And not for the better.

Not my party I'm afraid, I have never voted and never will vote for Republican or Democrat within the current system.

I'm not one for being a champion of something that's outdated.

It's not outdated, it was destroyed unnecessarily by NAFTA. There's no good reason for good, steady jobs to be a thing of the past.

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.

I refuse to accept it has to be that way. Republicans are now the party that champions good paying jobs with excellent benefits. We took it from Democrats that fucked America over with NAFTA.

Republicans are "championing" something they're actually working against. It's pretty ridiculous but they do it all the time.

Like "we're for your safety" and then invade Iraq and cause all the chaos that's going on at the moment, or "we're for your rights" and "we need to take away your rights to ensure your freedom" sort of thing.

In business they're giving billions away to large corporations so they can kill smaller businesses by making smaller business noncompetitive. Who can compete with Walmart encouraging workers to take welfare and being given massive tax breaks for doing so? Who can compete with Amazon who are getting massive tax breaks?

Sorry, they might say one thing, but their actions speak much louder than their words.

Sorry...we do not stand for your liberal crony capitalism.....

 

[frigidweirdo]

Probably it means that if Trump doesn't get given $800 million by governments then his business will fail and he'll have to "let them take it", so he's probably demanding rich people be given welfare.

It used to be that Democrats championed steady, good paying manufacturing jobs with great benefits that working people could support a family and buy a home with. Your party has changed.

And not for the better.

Not my party I'm afraid, I have never voted and never will vote for Republican or Democrat within the current system.

I'm not one for being a champion of something that's outdated.

It's not outdated, it was destroyed unnecessarily by NAFTA. There's no good reason for good, steady jobs to be a thing of the past.

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.

I refuse to accept it has to be that way. Republicans are now the party that champions good paying jobs with excellent benefits. We took it from Democrats that fucked America over with NAFTA.

The lowest on here appear to be Mississippi, Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia. How many of these are Republican states?

Sure, some of the highest are places like Montana, Wyoming, Republican states, but Vermont is there too, and they're big empty states where often people go to get away from big business.

Certainly it is Republican states dominating those with the least small businesses per capita.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The Trumptard is strong with this one.


"Take our businesses" ?

As if they have no choice.

 

[KissMy]

Bill Clinton created more jobs than Reagan + Bush 1 + Bush 2 combined!!!

 

[owebo]

Bill Clinton created more jobs than Reagan + Bush 1 + Bush 2 combined!!!

View attachment 90472

I miss Reagan....

 

[toomuchtime_]

Cutting costs creates jobs. Redirection of corporate capital means more jobs.

Saving somebody money on their car does NOT create jobs. The buyer has a finite amount of money, and can only spend as much as he has. In the larger scheme of things, he can only buy as much "labor" as his funds.

I guess sarcasm doesn't play well via text... The irony I was alluding to was the conservative fiscal view of less taxes and less regulation to stimulate the economy and the apparent paradox that comes with the free trade situation... Lower prices save money for consumers and raise profits for businesses, in theory this should stimulate the economy and grow GDP... Same thing with deregulation, less expenses right?. Funny how the conservative proposal to the free trade delema is to impose contraints on businesses so they can't afford to leave and the end result is higher prices for the consumer.

I'm not disagreeing with the idea I just point out the irony. It is a very difficult issue.

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.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

 

[Slade3200]

I guess sarcasm doesn't play well via text... The irony I was alluding to was the conservative fiscal view of less taxes and less regulation to stimulate the economy and the apparent paradox that comes with the free trade situation... Lower prices save money for consumers and raise profits for businesses, in theory this should stimulate the economy and grow GDP... Same thing with deregulation, less expenses right?. Funny how the conservative proposal to the free trade delema is to impose contraints on businesses so they can't afford to leave and the end result is higher prices for the consumer.

I'm not disagreeing with the idea I just point out the irony. It is a very difficult issue.

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.

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

 

[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.

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.

 

[rdean]

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

The first part we looked at disappearing jobs in the US and the canard that it's because they were moving to China. If they were moving to China, then why are jobs disappearing in China? Short answer? Automation.

The second part if Trump's ridiculous statement that he wouldn't allow business to move out of the country. Do I really have to make any comment on this? Clearly I do.

To some this will explain it.

In this country, Bank of America doesn't mean the bank is owned by America.

In China, the Bank of China means the bank is owned by China.

You see? Companies aren't "owned" by the government in this country. Many are in China.

This is a Business Insider article which is a lead up to an article straight from China:

This editorial should send chills down the spine of every foreign company in China

The article from China.

China Voice: Time for foreign businesses to stop playing victims and embrace new rules - Xinhua | English.news.cn

From BI:

In China, the media most often speaks for the state.

So when Xinhua publishes an editorial telling foreign companies to "put their victim mentality to rest ... and embrace new rules" on national security that expand China's legal reach "to almost every aspect of public life," you can bet this is coming straight from the top.

The editorial, which appeared in Xinhua on Tuesday morning, is most likely a response to recent Chinese legislation that has upset many in the technology sector. The law states that tech companies must be "secure and controllable," and some believe that could mean the Chinese government will want to examine proprietary technology.

-----------------

There is an implicit threat there. Try to figure out what it is. Hint: China is a communist country, NOT a democracy.

And that's the crux. American companies can move where ever they want. They can even close down if they want.

About the only couple of times the government steps in are:

Price fixing between companies to squeeze consumers

Merging to take over an industry which leads to price fixing

Taking on so much debt, they become too big to fail.

And even those becomes really, really difficult for government to prove.

So how will Trump keep any company from leaving? Bottom line? He can't. It's a lie. He is just making it up. We aren't China. About the only time we can sort of nationalize a company, is when the country is at war. China can do it at any time because they are communists. And I suspect, any technology company that tries to leave, will have to leave everything behind. Trump does licensing, hotels and scams. I suspect he has no idea how this works, even owing China hundreds of millions of dollars, which we know it does.