Let's talk about Trump

Yes!
youtube.com/watch?v=NHrLMv9LLEY

I wasn’t able to watch more than 20 seconds of it.

I wasn’t able to watch more than 20 seconds of it.[/quote]

Watching them side by side, Trump actually appears to be a reasonable person. Palin, she is so crazy~~~

Trump saying that he loves the bible? Interesting. What if Jesus approached him and said: “Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Would he follow or call security?

Jesus, or Jesús? That one accent mark separates “I accept you into my life” and “git outta mah country.”

I wasn’t able to watch more than 20 seconds of it.[/quote]
I was in the mood for some punishment, so I made it to quite close to the three minute mark.
What odious utter nonsense! Not only the shrill, but the obtuse. All flagrantly decked out in the style of the shites.

Trump is a dubious proposition for a Republic.
Not only is he one of the ugliest, least personable human beings on Earth, but he is also a complete festering monument to what Sir Thompson would have called the most decadent and depraved element in all of American society.

I bet that bloated windbag that is Trump could not even find Taiwan on the map, unless he had some terrified and morally corrupt apprentice to point it out for him.

:smiling_imp:

[color=#008000]By the way folks, I moved this out of TP, and into IP, where it would seem more at home.
~TGM[/color]

I wasn’t able to watch more than 20 seconds of it.[/quote]

I could, if it’s Megyn Kelly doing the interview. :lick:

There’s been some interesting talk about Trump’s position, and whether he’s appealing to a previously non-represented group.

Take two issues: Immigration and Social Security/Medicare, and divide them broadly into for and against -

A) For immigration means generally a path to either citizenship or legal status for illegals, plus comfort with an influx of “non-traditional” immigrants i.e. non-whites (Latin Americans included because the general perception is they’re non-white).

B)Pro-SS/Medicare means you favor keeping or increasing current payments; anti- means you favour reducing them, or raising retirement ages; capping or voucherising medicare etc.- these are both broad categories.
Put these in a box graph and you get four positions:

1)Pro-immigration, pro-SS: the general liberal/Democrat side- though a lot of Dems named Obama, Clinton, Biden, Reid, Feinstein, Schumer have been, at least at times, less than supportive of SS over the past few years.

2)Pro-immigration, anti-SS: Business- they want cheap labor, often guest worker programs; but oppose taxation to spend money on the have-nots.

  1. anti-immigration, anti-SS: the basic Tea Party, traditional conservative opinion.

  2. anti-immigration, pro-SS

Position 1 is represented by Dems, though as I’ve said a lot of centrists swing anti-SS- I would argue in order to get donations from Silicon Valley and the more liberal side of Wall St.

Position 2 is Jeb, Rubio, Carley- they’re basically reliant on the Business Establishment

Position 3 is Ted Cruz, maybe Walker, Huckabee 2015- their money comes from the Christian Right, Tea party donors, and big donors from fields that don’t need immigrant workers i.e. the oil bidniz.

But a lot of people are in Position 4: pro-SS and Medicare, but anti-immigration. Who can go for these votes?

The Democrats can’t; they’re tied to minorities and liberals. Most Republicans can’t; their backers won’t allow them to support SS/Medicare- but Social Security and Medicare are wildly popular in every segment of the population except the 1%. Unlike other parts of the safety net,even most Republicans see these as deserved payments for contributions made- not ’ welfare’ given out to the undeserving.

That leaves them open for Trump- he’s come out in support of both SS and Medicare, and has advocated raising taxes on some corporations and the wealthy:

[quote] On Wednesday, the conservative Club for Growth took issue with Mr. Trump’s proposal to increase taxes on companies such as Ford when they source parts or make cars in countries like Mexico. The billionaire real estate developer suggested imposing a 35 percent tax on the carmaker as a penalty for such behavior.

“It should thrill liberals and Democrats everywhere that Trump wants to create new taxes and start a trade war to force American companies to work where he demands,” said David McIntosh, president of the Club for Growth. “Instead of lowering corporate taxes, cutting unnecessary regulations and fostering a more profitable environment in the U.S., as some Republican candidates have proposed, Trump wants to unilaterally threaten a major U.S. manufacturer with higher taxes.”

Mr. Trump has also been critical of hedge fund managers and the favorable tax treatment they receive. Calling them “paper pushers” who he says often just get lucky in making their money, Mr. Trump said last weekend that their taxes should be higher while the middle class should have their taxes reduced.

Hedge funds are not the only business groups that Mr. Trump has singled out. This month he lamented corporate “inversions” — when an American company acquires an international company so it can relocate its headquarters to a country with a lower tax rate.

“They have no loyalty to this country,” Mr. Trump told NBC. “And we have to do something.”[/quote]
nytimes.com/politics/first-d … companies/

No other Republican would dare cross the Club for Growth, and mainstream Democrats are wary of coming out against wealthy potential donors (looking at you, Hillary) and would immediately be assailed by both conservatives and the MSM as launching "class warfare " if they did.

Trump, however, doesn’t need wealthy donors, the Republican establishment or the MSM.
Populist attacks on (some segments ) of the wealthy, plus them damn foreigners- he could strike a popular nerve.

So what you’re saying is… he’s basically the dream candidate of old people?

And idiots. He is the collective American Id coagulated in one human body.

As for immigration, him saying he wants to end birthright citizenship is a fantasy. At first, the media thought he wanted to change the constitution, but no. He says he will deport people born of illegals.The president cannot deport people. No judge familiar with, I dunno, the LAW, will issue a deportation order cuz the Donald claim lotsa (unnamed) legal scholars say he could.

This is all truly playing on people’s ignorance/ willful stupidity. He’s talking about a small number of scholars who think they could make a case in front of the supreme court to overturn birthright citizenship. He then switches gears and thinks these opinions would somehow allow a president trump to deport them. It’s an infantile fantasy loved by true American idiots who gravitate towards scapegoating.

That’s why you support Trump? So of all the real problems the world faces with wars, global warming, poverty, racism, violence, income inequality, financial corruption, etc etc, you think the most important thing on the agenda is dealing with birthright citizenship and breaking up families? He can be an absolutely unqualified nightmare of a candidate, but as long as he’s going to go after immigrants in the most heartless way possible he’s your man? Interesting… Well, that about sums up the typical Trump supporter I guess. It’s akin to those people who think the biggest battle of the 21st century is gay marriage. :loco:

Nope- non-college whites. Truck-drivers, builders, box-store clerks- the kind of people that should be the Democrats natural constituency if they hadn’t gone whoring after Wall St and neo-liberalism.

[quote=“MikeN”]
Nope- non-college whites. Truck-drivers, builders, box-store clerks- the kind of people that should be the Democrats natural constituency if they hadn’t gone whoring after Wall St and neo-liberalism.[/quote]

You’ve hit the proverbial nail on the head. Yes, those non-college whites (along with college-educated liberals) should be the Democrats’ natural constituency. But the Democratic Party has indeed gone whoring after Wall Street and neo-liberalism, as you’ve pointed out. College-educate liberals tried to protest this at #OccupyWallStreet and got their heads bashed in for their efforts. President Hope-and-Change turned out to be Bush-lite.

So what does one do? Vote for another Democrat-in-name-only corporate whore, like Hillary? Or vote for Trump, whom Wall Street doesn’t seem to like? Many voters are really sick of elections where one has to choose which candidate is going to be least horrible. If it’s Hillary vs Trump, a lot of frustrated Americans would vote for Trump, if for no other reason than to protest. Hey, did you know that Trump is opposed to the TPP? And Hillary is for it. Still not enough reason for me to vote for Trump, but if I was a single-issue voter…

Well, maybe Bernie Sanders will yet surprise us. Or dark horse candidate Deez Nuts. Almost anybody would be better than the current line-up of “establishment” (ie blessed by Wall Street) clown candidates.

Trump success is not exactly because people actually like him or what he says, it has become another white flag operation and he is perfect because he cannot even realize it himself. A person with that lack of self awareness in necessary for this to work.

How is the possible? Democrats and others are secretly supporting him to get him on the way of better candidates, this already happen before, most recently when the Lunatic Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain were leading the poll last elections and made a lot of damage to Mitt Romney race. He will obviously end up dropping but the momentum makes most of the damage.

I mean we more than anybody have seen how is Asian the ones doing the Anchor babies bit.

Insightful article from ScienceBlogs:

Frankentrump

[quote]It is a mistake to think that the Tea Party comes with a set of positions on various issues. It does not. Yes, the Tea Party tends to be libertarian, conservative, and so on and so forth, but really, it is philosophically inconstant and mostly reactionary. This has been demonstrated over and over again, as President Obama embraced various issues that were previously held by prominent Republicans, and those policies were immediately opposed. Because they were the policies of the Black President. The merit of a policy had nothing to do with opposition against it. They were President Obama’s issues, therefore the Tea Party was against them. And since the Republican Party was so rapt with the Tea Party, the GOP was against them.

This worked well. It gave the Republicans massive victories in a gerrymandered Congress. It meant that absurd excuses for leaders won elections, or if they did not, lost by only a few percentage points, when they should have been largely ignored by the populous.

The reason for even doing this is abundantly clear. An informal tacit (maybe) cabal of 1%ers and various regulation-loathing industries, most notably the petroleum industry, paid for the campaigns and managed lobbyists, the Republican leadership managed the elections, calling in the Tea Baggers each November. Add a little voter suppression, a little Swift Boating here, a healthy dose of Fear of Terrorism there, a wartime setting, and the Republicans, who hold policies that when asked most voters are actually against, became far more powerful than even Newt Gingrich and his Republican Revolutionaries could have hoped for.

But there is a catch and the GOP got caught.

An actual Republican running for, or serving in, office, can go only so far in supporting absurd policies. Established politicians reluctant to take the final “logical” plunge through the Tea Party’s looking glass were often “primaried” and sometimes pushed aside by the emerging Tea Party candidates. By keeping up a full court press to overthrow everything President Obama tried to do the mainstream Republicans held a central place in this game, but there was plenty of nibbling around the edges of their power structure.

Then, purity happened.[/quote]

As far as the US-Taiwan relations go,

Will Trump be willing to go easy on beef and pork in exchange for defence items? This is why I find him interesting because he keeps saying he’s a deal maker.

SEA’s got a least a couple of hundred millions people who can consume and afford American agricultural products, if US and the Republic of Walmart place their orders (mainly shoes and electronics) in SEA. Their defence needs are not as urgent as Taiwan’s though, and they can get by with surplus arms.

It’s a win-win-win situation.

[quote=“sofun”]As far as the US-Taiwan relations go,

Will Trump be willing to go easy on beef and pork in exchange for defence items? This is why I find him interesting because he keeps saying he’s a deal maker[/quote]
He says a lot of things about himself. I don’t think anyone running in the US presidential race gives even the smallest of shits about Taiwan. This island is just not important in the US elections. No one cares.

I watched the first Republican primary debate over the weekend, and it was obvious that Fox is trying really hard to sink Trump’s candidacy. I found the debate refreshing. It was certainly better than a lot of the past republican debates, less stupid, more ideological showdowns. Well Donald was kind of bring the stupid, but loved him telling off Rand Paul. Chris Christie did really well actually.

Maybe you should assume that government is like business is like higher education and vote for the person who has the most experience handling complex government bureaucracies just as you would choose the person with the most relevant experience to run your company or the person with the best record on research for teaching or higher education. Everyone who has ever come from the business world into government has failed but those who have extensive experience running states (governors) seem to do very well. I contrast this with the steep learning curve of a “community organizer” with two years in the Senate. Does Trump have extensive government experience? If not, then who does? Does that candidate have a history of centrist politics that bring together Republicans and Democrats? Well, then, there you are. I contrast this with the esoteric tenure of Bernie Sanders, who is the equivalent of Donald Trump with his populist cant but for the mindless left. As to whoring, that is sorta kinda like pretending the very industry that is driving most of the growth in the US does not need to have its concerns heeded and addressed. Funny that given the groveling that takes place with regard to unions. The fact that teachers unions still call all the shots even in many Republican states despite the dire record on public education, well as you said… “whoring.”

[quote=“Cooperations”][quote=“sofun”]As far as the US-Taiwan relations go,

Will Trump be willing to go easy on beef and pork in exchange for defence items? This is why I find him interesting because he keeps saying he’s a deal maker[/quote]
He says a lot of things about himself. I don’t think anyone running in the US presidential race gives even the smallest of shits about Taiwan. This island is just not important in the US elections. No one cares.[/quote]

The OP asks “how a possible Trump in the Whitehouse will affect Taiwan,” not how a candidate in an election would give a shit about Taiwan.

[quote=“sofun”][quote=“Cooperations”][quote=“sofun”]As far as the US-Taiwan relations go,

Will Trump be willing to go easy on beef and pork in exchange for defence items? This is why I find him interesting because he keeps saying he’s a deal maker[/quote]
He says a lot of things about himself. I don’t think anyone running in the US presidential race gives even the smallest of shits about Taiwan. This island is just not important in the US elections. No one cares.[/quote]

The OP asks “how a possible Trump in the Whitehouse will affect Taiwan,” not how a candidate in an election would give a shit about Taiwan.[/quote]
If no one gives a shit, I would say minimal. Or, a similar affect as Micronesia, Maldives, Tunisia, or any other countries candidates probably can’t find on the map might expect. Trump will not be president, so I wouldn’t spend much time thinking about how he might affect Taiwan.