CDZ Alright Trump supporters, sell me.

[Correll]

This thread has kind of gone off the rails. Let me address my OP to sum up:

I am sold...barely.
The thing that sells me is that he owes no allegiance to either party. He isn't bound by a party's ideology and therefor can act in a way that he thinks is best. It is my fervent hope that his ego is big enough that he wants to be the man that saved this country. This is very thin, and it is very easily destroyed by Trump with words and actions coming up during the general election run.

Thanks all for your input.

Actually the fact that he has no close ties to either party is one of his greatest dangers. If Trump gets into office we could face a likely scenario of a government shut down due to a total lack of cooperation between government branches. As it is right now, at least there are two sides of the battle...a Democratic president with a minority in Congress versus the majority Republican Congress. If Trump gets into office it will devolve into a free for all with the executive branch battling the entire Congress while Congress splits itself with its partisan divide.

In fact, this is such a realizable danger that Trump's presidency is listed as one of the greatest threats to the economy recently...as dangerous as a large jihadist attack. The government is already barely operating...why people think that inserting a third player into the game is going to make it any better is absurd.

You seem to think a Trump presidency will be like a 3rd party president. You may be right but I have a sneaking suspicion there will be a contingent of Republicans who will rally around Trump as "their guy" and carry his water. Politicians are whores... you know that. As soon as he is elected, there will be a line of people who want to be on the bandwagon... in fact, I predict you will start to see that in the coming weeks before he becomes the official nominee.

I think that there will be a lot of Republicans who back Trump in the general election. I actually think that they should present a unified front to fight against the unified Democrat front backing Hillary. However, the issue is that I don't think that Trump will "play ball" with them if he gets elected. Generally you need do favors to get favors done in return, there is such a common and accepted practice that it has its own term, "logrolling." The issue I have with Trump is that I don't think he will participate in this (at least given his general demeanor and campaign rhetoric). Now, if Trump gets into office and acts like a normal person and falls in line, then I actually don't have a big issue with him, politically at least, being in office. However, if he tries to buck the system and just push policy that he feels needs to get done (as Obama did early during his time in office), then we are likely to see an even bigger shit show in Washington than we have been seeing. People aren't going to keep backing him if they won't get anything out of it.

So what you really get is a lose-lose situation here. Either you get the situation where Trump keeps being Trump and we have the potential for a real government shut down...or you get the situation where he plays ball and gets voted into office based off of this independent stance that he has no intention of holding.

Your assumptions have nothing to do with what will actually happen.

 

[Correll]

That is, of course, untrue. We can cancel any trade deals we have with impunity, we aren't locked into anything.

Oh we don't have to honor our word on trade deals, we can cancel them. Under that scenario, they won't be renegotiated. Why would anyone renegotiate a new deal with someone who doesn't keep their word? You act like we have the world by the balls and they just have to do whatever we say. Sorry, you don't live in reality.

Actually, it's the other way around and the world has US by the balls, and I - and others - are tired of it.

So explain to me again... How are we going to get China to renegotiate our trade deal to give us more favorable terms? They like our trade deal as it is... it's a sweet deal for them. They're not going to just up and let us out of the deal so they can get screwed over on a new deal. We back out, they'll just find a new trade partner and we're SOL. THEN... next time we approach anyone with a trade offer, they point to China and laugh in our face. So please explain... what's the plan?

No other nation is going to let China screw them like we have let them screw US.

And they know it.

 

[Correll]

"They'll just find a new trade partner" LOL without our consumerism their own economy would crumble, they NEED us.

The Russians are more than happy to buy all their shit.

Russia does not have the market to replace US.

And they have no desire to have a 300 billion dollar trade deficit with CHina, even if they could.

 

[Never3ndr]

This thread has kind of gone off the rails. Let me address my OP to sum up:

I am sold...barely.
The thing that sells me is that he owes no allegiance to either party. He isn't bound by a party's ideology and therefor can act in a way that he thinks is best. It is my fervent hope that his ego is big enough that he wants to be the man that saved this country. This is very thin, and it is very easily destroyed by Trump with words and actions coming up during the general election run.

Thanks all for your input.

Actually the fact that he has no close ties to either party is one of his greatest dangers. If Trump gets into office we could face a likely scenario of a government shut down due to a total lack of cooperation between government branches. As it is right now, at least there are two sides of the battle...a Democratic president with a minority in Congress versus the majority Republican Congress. If Trump gets into office it will devolve into a free for all with the executive branch battling the entire Congress while Congress splits itself with its partisan divide.

In fact, this is such a realizable danger that Trump's presidency is listed as one of the greatest threats to the economy recently...as dangerous as a large jihadist attack. The government is already barely operating...why people think that inserting a third player into the game is going to make it any better is absurd.

You seem to think a Trump presidency will be like a 3rd party president. You may be right but I have a sneaking suspicion there will be a contingent of Republicans who will rally around Trump as "their guy" and carry his water. Politicians are whores... you know that. As soon as he is elected, there will be a line of people who want to be on the bandwagon... in fact, I predict you will start to see that in the coming weeks before he becomes the official nominee.

I think that there will be a lot of Republicans who back Trump in the general election. I actually think that they should present a unified front to fight against the unified Democrat front backing Hillary. However, the issue is that I don't think that Trump will "play ball" with them if he gets elected. Generally you need do favors to get favors done in return, there is such a common and accepted practice that it has its own term, "logrolling." The issue I have with Trump is that I don't think he will participate in this (at least given his general demeanor and campaign rhetoric). Now, if Trump gets into office and acts like a normal person and falls in line, then I actually don't have a big issue with him, politically at least, being in office. However, if he tries to buck the system and just push policy that he feels needs to get done (as Obama did early during his time in office), then we are likely to see an even bigger shit show in Washington than we have been seeing. People aren't going to keep backing him if they won't get anything out of it.

So what you really get is a lose-lose situation here. Either you get the situation where Trump keeps being Trump and we have the potential for a real government shut down...or you get the situation where he plays ball and gets voted into office based off of this independent stance that he has no intention of holding.

Your assumptions have nothing to do with what will actually happen.

Correct. However, I try to not make assumptions that are too far out of left field. Which is why I work off of basic knowledge, like Trump's demeanor and rhetoric, or how Washington tends to operate, like logrolling, and make reasonable conclusions based off our knowledge. This is literally one of the bases for how we generate knowledge.

 

[Boss]

Your description of the trade deals and why they aren't likely to be renegotiated makes a lot of sense from within the American political establishment. I'm not disagreeing with you; however, Mr. Trump is explicitly espousing a more radical proposal. If signatory nations will not agree to our new terms, he proposes that we withdraw unilaterally. This would mean a trade war, but would not mean a real war. Trump believes, or at least he says, that a dramatic rupture followed by a large reduction in imports and exports, a kind of economic isolationism, would revive American manufacturing and stimulate the domestic economy dramatically.

Is Trump right about this? If he is the Republican candidate, we will surely hear a great deal more about this plan. The idea is a core article of faith for those who have voted for Trump so far. Can he persuade a majority of voters to his idea? His election could well hang on that question.

RED: Precisely what businessman-turned-president Herbert Hoover did... it didn't work. It pushed us headlong into the Great Depression instead. He also enjoyed enormous popular support for his idea. It made sense to a lot of people... a lot of really smart people. But they were completely wrong.

What I am learning from others is, we don't have any kind of formal trade agreement with China, it's all done through individual companies dealing with China on their own. That presents a totally different set of problems... is the Federal government now going to intervene in private capitalist affairs like a Fascist regime? I thought we wanted to get government out of our business?

 

[Boss]

"They'll just find a new trade partner" LOL without our consumerism their own economy would crumble, they NEED us.

The Russians are more than happy to buy all their shit.

Russia does not have the market to replace US.

And they have no desire to have a 300 billion dollar trade deficit with CHina, even if they could.

Again... that doesn't matter... they don't HAVE to replace anything... that's the advantage you have when you're a communist dictatorship... your people work for a bowl of rice a day whether the economy is good or bad. The ruling class isn't going to suffer and the people can't throw anyone out of office if things get worse. Russia has been courting Chinese trade for years... that's the primary reason Nixon opened trade with them, to somewhat discourage their trade with Russia.

So again, they don't have to replace our trade outright... they just need Russia and a few other communist regimes to take up most of the slack and keep their ruling class fat and happy. We're going to be the big loser because we import about $100 billion per year to China... that's thousands of American jobs right there.

 

[Correll]

"They'll just find a new trade partner" LOL without our consumerism their own economy would crumble, they NEED us.

The Russians are more than happy to buy all their shit.

LOL Come on now, the Russians don't have enough money , or credit, to buy a 10rh of what we buy from China.

Your argument is weak.

\
Well it's always easy to argue points where no data exists to back you up. It's becomes a matter of opinion and nothing more. We currently import about $400 billion per year from China. Russia currently imports around $70 billion. They have expressed an interest in more trade with China, specifically in areas of weapons and defense... high-end ticket items like that would greatly increase that $70 billion.

Keep in mind, the primary reason for us trading with China in the first place, was so they wouldn't be trading with the Russians. If you cancel our trade deal with them, that's what is going to happen. You can argue anything you please here... it's all a matter of opinions.

Now... You've still not explained how this will work.... How we somehow get China to renegotiate our trade deal to screw themselves and give us a better deal? Do you have an answer or not?

We are the largest economy and market in the world.

Russia can't replace us,

AND,

China isn't interested in reasonable trade.

They want a massive Trade Surplus to fuel the growth they have gotten used to.

PUtin isn't going to bend over for them, the way we have.

Even if he could.

 

[Correll]

"They'll just find a new trade partner" LOL without our consumerism their own economy would crumble, they NEED us.

The Russians are more than happy to buy all their shit.

Russia does not have the market to replace US.

And they have no desire to have a 300 billion dollar trade deficit with CHina, even if they could.

Again... that doesn't matter... they don't HAVE to replace anything... that's the advantage you have when you're a communist dictatorship... your people work for a bowl of rice a day whether the economy is good or bad. The ruling class isn't going to suffer and the people can't throw anyone out of office if things get worse. Russia has been courting Chinese trade for years... that's the primary reason Nixon opened trade with them, to somewhat discourage their trade with Russia.

So again, they don't have to replace our trade outright... they just need Russia and a few other communist regimes to take up most of the slack and keep their ruling class fat and happy. We're going to be the big loser because we import about $100 billion per year to China... that's thousands of American jobs right there.

The Chinese aren't working for a bowl of rice a day anymore.

They have been experiencing rapid economic growth and that has translated into rising living standards, for many, AND rising expectations.

You can bet right now, that those communists in charge over their are watching our election very carefully, and they are terrified that Trump might win.


We HAVE BEEN LOSING, for a long time.

The wealth we have been transferring to Asia has made both Japan and SOuth Korea first world nations, and is in the process of making China a superpower.

 

[Correll]

This thread has kind of gone off the rails. Let me address my OP to sum up:

I am sold...barely.
The thing that sells me is that he owes no allegiance to either party. He isn't bound by a party's ideology and therefor can act in a way that he thinks is best. It is my fervent hope that his ego is big enough that he wants to be the man that saved this country. This is very thin, and it is very easily destroyed by Trump with words and actions coming up during the general election run.

Thanks all for your input.

Now that he has the Republican nomination in the bag, his "words and actions" are going to be designed to counter HIllary's panic mongering.

By the time HIlary and her people are done, you will feel a lot better about Trump.

It happened to me with McCain.

After a campaign of hearing the nonsense that the LEft was lying about McCain, I felt fine, well, almost fine going in there and voting for McCain.

 

[Correll]

This thread has kind of gone off the rails. Let me address my OP to sum up:

I am sold...barely.
The thing that sells me is that he owes no allegiance to either party. He isn't bound by a party's ideology and therefor can act in a way that he thinks is best. It is my fervent hope that his ego is big enough that he wants to be the man that saved this country. This is very thin, and it is very easily destroyed by Trump with words and actions coming up during the general election run.

Thanks all for your input.

Actually the fact that he has no close ties to either party is one of his greatest dangers. If Trump gets into office we could face a likely scenario of a government shut down due to a total lack of cooperation between government branches. As it is right now, at least there are two sides of the battle...a Democratic president with a minority in Congress versus the majority Republican Congress. If Trump gets into office it will devolve into a free for all with the executive branch battling the entire Congress while Congress splits itself with its partisan divide.

In fact, this is such a realizable danger that Trump's presidency is listed as one of the greatest threats to the economy recently...as dangerous as a large jihadist attack. The government is already barely operating...why people think that inserting a third player into the game is going to make it any better is absurd.

You seem to think a Trump presidency will be like a 3rd party president. You may be right but I have a sneaking suspicion there will be a contingent of Republicans who will rally around Trump as "their guy" and carry his water. Politicians are whores... you know that. As soon as he is elected, there will be a line of people who want to be on the bandwagon... in fact, I predict you will start to see that in the coming weeks before he becomes the official nominee.

I think that there will be a lot of Republicans who back Trump in the general election. I actually think that they should present a unified front to fight against the unified Democrat front backing Hillary. However, the issue is that I don't think that Trump will "play ball" with them if he gets elected. Generally you need do favors to get favors done in return, there is such a common and accepted practice that it has its own term, "logrolling." The issue I have with Trump is that I don't think he will participate in this (at least given his general demeanor and campaign rhetoric). Now, if Trump gets into office and acts like a normal person and falls in line, then I actually don't have a big issue with him, politically at least, being in office. However, if he tries to buck the system and just push policy that he feels needs to get done (as Obama did early during his time in office), then we are likely to see an even bigger shit show in Washington than we have been seeing. People aren't going to keep backing him if they won't get anything out of it.

So what you really get is a lose-lose situation here. Either you get the situation where Trump keeps being Trump and we have the potential for a real government shut down...or you get the situation where he plays ball and gets voted into office based off of this independent stance that he has no intention of holding.

Your assumptions have nothing to do with what will actually happen.

Correct. However, I try to not make assumptions that are too far out of left field. Which is why I work off of basic knowledge, like Trump's demeanor and rhetoric, or how Washington tends to operate, like logrolling, and make reasonable conclusions based off our knowledge. This is literally one of the bases for how we generate knowledge.

Your assumption that he doesn't know how to negotiate, despite a life time of doing just that, is an assumption way out of left field.

You are not allowing, AT ALL, for your own biases.

 

[eagle1462010]

Each voter must make their own choice. That is simply how it is and always has been.

Whether you trust the nominee or not is up to you.................The rhetoric and policy statements have been plastered all over the place for 9 months now.

I'll mention one major point. There will probably be 3 Supreme Courts Justices decided by this election. 1 of them from the get go. Do you want Hillary choosing them given the Dems Judicial Activism in the past?

 

[Never3ndr]

"They'll just find a new trade partner" LOL without our consumerism their own economy would crumble, they NEED us.

The Russians are more than happy to buy all their shit.

Russia does not have the market to replace US.

And they have no desire to have a 300 billion dollar trade deficit with CHina, even if they could.

Again... that doesn't matter... they don't HAVE to replace anything... that's the advantage you have when you're a communist dictatorship... your people work for a bowl of rice a day whether the economy is good or bad. The ruling class isn't going to suffer and the people can't throw anyone out of office if things get worse. Russia has been courting Chinese trade for years... that's the primary reason Nixon opened trade with them, to somewhat discourage their trade with Russia.

So again, they don't have to replace our trade outright... they just need Russia and a few other communist regimes to take up most of the slack and keep their ruling class fat and happy. We're going to be the big loser because we import about $100 billion per year to China... that's thousands of American jobs right there.

The Chinese aren't working for a bowl of rice a day anymore.

They have been experiencing rapid economic growth and that has translated into rising living standards, for many, AND rising expectations.

You can bet right now, that those communists in charge over their are watching our election very carefully, and they are terrified that Trump might win.


We HAVE BEEN LOSING, for a long time.

The wealth we have been transferring to Asia has made both Japan and SOuth Korea first world nations, and is in the process of making China a superpower.

We haven't been losing...for a long time. We have been, and remain, one of the greatest nations in the world. Our economy has reliably been among the top 3 or 5, our military has been #1 for as long as I can remember, our culture is probably the most prevalent and well known in the world. By pretty much any measure America is one of the greatest nations on the planet and has been for at least the last 30 or so years (since Vietnam and post-war Vietnam, and, arguably, during that time).

Let me fill you in on a basic economic fact...a third or second world country can easily experience rapid expansions, especially when they have the resources to offer to the world (like China large labor force and growing human and physical capital resources). However, it is exceptionally difficult for a first world nation to rapidly expand their economy outside of some sort of large technological breakthrough, war, or any other extreme or rare scenario that cannot be depended upon. The fact that China is gearing up to be a 1st world power rather than a 2nd world power (since moving further away from basic communism) is both expected and non-related to how America is doing.

Just as an FYI, Japan has been a first world nation since the early 1900's. Why you bring them up when we are talking about things in 2016 is beyond me.

 

[Never3ndr]

Actually the fact that he has no close ties to either party is one of his greatest dangers. If Trump gets into office we could face a likely scenario of a government shut down due to a total lack of cooperation between government branches. As it is right now, at least there are two sides of the battle...a Democratic president with a minority in Congress versus the majority Republican Congress. If Trump gets into office it will devolve into a free for all with the executive branch battling the entire Congress while Congress splits itself with its partisan divide.

In fact, this is such a realizable danger that Trump's presidency is listed as one of the greatest threats to the economy recently...as dangerous as a large jihadist attack. The government is already barely operating...why people think that inserting a third player into the game is going to make it any better is absurd.

You seem to think a Trump presidency will be like a 3rd party president. You may be right but I have a sneaking suspicion there will be a contingent of Republicans who will rally around Trump as "their guy" and carry his water. Politicians are whores... you know that. As soon as he is elected, there will be a line of people who want to be on the bandwagon... in fact, I predict you will start to see that in the coming weeks before he becomes the official nominee.

I think that there will be a lot of Republicans who back Trump in the general election. I actually think that they should present a unified front to fight against the unified Democrat front backing Hillary. However, the issue is that I don't think that Trump will "play ball" with them if he gets elected. Generally you need do favors to get favors done in return, there is such a common and accepted practice that it has its own term, "logrolling." The issue I have with Trump is that I don't think he will participate in this (at least given his general demeanor and campaign rhetoric). Now, if Trump gets into office and acts like a normal person and falls in line, then I actually don't have a big issue with him, politically at least, being in office. However, if he tries to buck the system and just push policy that he feels needs to get done (as Obama did early during his time in office), then we are likely to see an even bigger shit show in Washington than we have been seeing. People aren't going to keep backing him if they won't get anything out of it.

So what you really get is a lose-lose situation here. Either you get the situation where Trump keeps being Trump and we have the potential for a real government shut down...or you get the situation where he plays ball and gets voted into office based off of this independent stance that he has no intention of holding.

Your assumptions have nothing to do with what will actually happen.

Correct. However, I try to not make assumptions that are too far out of left field. Which is why I work off of basic knowledge, like Trump's demeanor and rhetoric, or how Washington tends to operate, like logrolling, and make reasonable conclusions based off our knowledge. This is literally one of the bases for how we generate knowledge.

Your assumption that he doesn't know how to negotiate, despite a life time of doing just that, is an assumption way out of left field.

You are not allowing, AT ALL, for your own biases.

My assumption is that he will or will not negotiate and I address both of those scenarios. Either he will negotiate, and his voter base, which is largely depending upon him to be a "maverick" and independently force change upon Washington, will have voted for a candidate that has no intention of following through on his rhetoric. Or, he will not negotiate and we have a likely scenario of a government who stalemates itself into a shutdown due to a lack of cooperation between legislative and executive branches (this actually happened recently...have you really forgotten about it?).

It isn't like this is a trick question. He either follows through on his rhetoric and tries to bulldoze change into Washington and "stir up the establishment" or he doesn't and he fails his voter base who primarily votes for him because that is what they (misguidedly) desire.

Edit: Take the Mexican wall. Their leadership has repeatedly said that they have no interest in paying for that wall. Now, how has Trump said he would "negotiate" this standstill? Well, in his words, the "wall just got 10 feet higher." This is literally one of his primary campaign standpoints and points towards how his rhetoric indicates he has no intention of negotiating...which is why a lot of his voter base supports him.

 

[Arianrhod]

Here are my problems with Donald Trump:

1. Yes he knows business and it's a good thing...

Really?

 

[Correll]

"They'll just find a new trade partner" LOL without our consumerism their own economy would crumble, they NEED us.

The Russians are more than happy to buy all their shit.

Russia does not have the market to replace US.

And they have no desire to have a 300 billion dollar trade deficit with CHina, even if they could.

Again... that doesn't matter... they don't HAVE to replace anything... that's the advantage you have when you're a communist dictatorship... your people work for a bowl of rice a day whether the economy is good or bad. The ruling class isn't going to suffer and the people can't throw anyone out of office if things get worse. Russia has been courting Chinese trade for years... that's the primary reason Nixon opened trade with them, to somewhat discourage their trade with Russia.

So again, they don't have to replace our trade outright... they just need Russia and a few other communist regimes to take up most of the slack and keep their ruling class fat and happy. We're going to be the big loser because we import about $100 billion per year to China... that's thousands of American jobs right there.

The Chinese aren't working for a bowl of rice a day anymore.

They have been experiencing rapid economic growth and that has translated into rising living standards, for many, AND rising expectations.

You can bet right now, that those communists in charge over their are watching our election very carefully, and they are terrified that Trump might win.


We HAVE BEEN LOSING, for a long time.

The wealth we have been transferring to Asia has made both Japan and SOuth Korea first world nations, and is in the process of making China a superpower.

We haven't been losing...for a long time. We have been, and remain, one of the greatest nations in the world. Our economy has reliably been among the top 3 or 5, our military has been #1 for as long as I can remember, our culture is probably the most prevalent and well known in the world. By pretty much any measure America is one of the greatest nations on the planet and has been for at least the last 30 or so years (since Vietnam and post-war Vietnam, and, arguably, during that time).

Let me fill you in on a basic economic fact...a third or second world country can easily experience rapid expansions, especially when they have the resources to offer to the world (like China large labor force and growing human and physical capital resources). However, it is exceptionally difficult for a first world nation to rapidly expand their economy outside of some sort of large technological breakthrough, war, or any other extreme or rare scenario that cannot be depended upon. The fact that China is gearing up to be a 1st world power rather than a 2nd world power (since moving further away from basic communism) is both expected and non-related to how America is doing.

Just as an FYI, Japan has been a first world nation since the early 1900's. Why you bring them up when we are talking about things in 2016 is beyond me.

Trade wise we have been losing for a long time.

Our Middle CLass has had stagnant wages as wages have been rising in Japan and South Korea and China for decades.

OUr economy has been the largest since the turn of the Century. The 19th century. We are on a path to lose that claim.

I have not complained that we do not have 9% growth rate of China.

China's rapid growth has been fueled by it's massive trade surplus and is certainly related to how America is doing.

Japan was smoking rubble after WWII. It's rebuilding into the FIrst World Nation it is today was fueled by it's trade surpluses with US.

 

[Correll]

You seem to think a Trump presidency will be like a 3rd party president. You may be right but I have a sneaking suspicion there will be a contingent of Republicans who will rally around Trump as "their guy" and carry his water. Politicians are whores... you know that. As soon as he is elected, there will be a line of people who want to be on the bandwagon... in fact, I predict you will start to see that in the coming weeks before he becomes the official nominee.

I think that there will be a lot of Republicans who back Trump in the general election. I actually think that they should present a unified front to fight against the unified Democrat front backing Hillary. However, the issue is that I don't think that Trump will "play ball" with them if he gets elected. Generally you need do favors to get favors done in return, there is such a common and accepted practice that it has its own term, "logrolling." The issue I have with Trump is that I don't think he will participate in this (at least given his general demeanor and campaign rhetoric). Now, if Trump gets into office and acts like a normal person and falls in line, then I actually don't have a big issue with him, politically at least, being in office. However, if he tries to buck the system and just push policy that he feels needs to get done (as Obama did early during his time in office), then we are likely to see an even bigger shit show in Washington than we have been seeing. People aren't going to keep backing him if they won't get anything out of it.

So what you really get is a lose-lose situation here. Either you get the situation where Trump keeps being Trump and we have the potential for a real government shut down...or you get the situation where he plays ball and gets voted into office based off of this independent stance that he has no intention of holding.

Your assumptions have nothing to do with what will actually happen.

Correct. However, I try to not make assumptions that are too far out of left field. Which is why I work off of basic knowledge, like Trump's demeanor and rhetoric, or how Washington tends to operate, like logrolling, and make reasonable conclusions based off our knowledge. This is literally one of the bases for how we generate knowledge.

Your assumption that he doesn't know how to negotiate, despite a life time of doing just that, is an assumption way out of left field.

You are not allowing, AT ALL, for your own biases.

My assumption is that he will or will not negotiate and I address both of those scenarios. Either he will negotiate, and his voter base, which is largely depending upon him to be a "maverick" and independently force change upon Washington, will have voted for a candidate that has no intention of following through on his rhetoric. Or, he will not negotiate and we have a likely scenario of a government who stalemates itself into a shutdown due to a lack of cooperation between legislative and executive branches (this actually happened recently...have you really forgotten about it?).

It isn't like this is a trick question. He either follows through on his rhetoric and tries to bulldoze change into Washington and "stir up the establishment" or he doesn't and he fails his voter base who primarily votes for him because that is what they (misguidedly) desire.

Edit: Take the Mexican wall. Their leadership has repeatedly said that they have no interest in paying for that wall. Now, how has Trump said he would "negotiate" this standstill? Well, in his words, the "wall just got 10 feet higher." This is literally one of his primary campaign standpoints and points towards how his rhetoric indicates he has no intention of negotiating...which is why a lot of his voter base supports him.

1. You assume that he supporters are rigid and unreasonable.

2. You assume that any negotiation with Congress must result in policies that will NOT satisfy Trump's supporters.

3. You assume that the United States has no leverage on Mexico.

 

[Zoom-boing]

3. He hasn't even lied about what he is. If you don't understand that he's running as a Republican out of necessity, that is not his fault. And besides, there is a reason Cruz is hooting and hollering about bathrooms and abortion and getting his ass kicked in primaries around the county. Time for conservatives to wake up, you are going to have to let some of the social issues go , that's the bottom line.

Can you elaborate on the bolded?

 

[320 Years of History]

The thing that sells me is that he owes no allegiance to either party. He isn't bound by a party's ideology and therefor can act in a way that he thinks is best. It is my fervent hope that his ego is big enough that he wants to be the man that saved this country.

The less he has a sense of allegiance to others, the more disconcerted I become. People who owe nothing to anyone are liable to do anything regardless of whom it deserves. They are rogues and scoundrels who will shamelessly do "whatever" to "whomever."

For example, have you heard Trump apologize for all the horrible insults he's made? Have you heard the man say, "Yes, I was mistaken," about any of the myriad outright falsehoods or fictional fabrications he's uttered thus far in the 2016 election cycle?

I haven't, and that tells me he has zero remorse, that his sole ethical compass points to one thing only, whatever it is that he deems constitutes winning. Well, I'm sorry, but even though I have little regard for the character traits of the average American, I yet hope that most folks aren't as bad as that. G.W. Bush apologized for engaging the U.S. and its people in the Iraq War II. I mean, heck, many convicted murderers, rapists and other felons apologize for their deeds, even if it's offered in words only. But Trump there's only radio silence....

 

[Never3ndr]

I think that there will be a lot of Republicans who back Trump in the general election. I actually think that they should present a unified front to fight against the unified Democrat front backing Hillary. However, the issue is that I don't think that Trump will "play ball" with them if he gets elected. Generally you need do favors to get favors done in return, there is such a common and accepted practice that it has its own term, "logrolling." The issue I have with Trump is that I don't think he will participate in this (at least given his general demeanor and campaign rhetoric). Now, if Trump gets into office and acts like a normal person and falls in line, then I actually don't have a big issue with him, politically at least, being in office. However, if he tries to buck the system and just push policy that he feels needs to get done (as Obama did early during his time in office), then we are likely to see an even bigger shit show in Washington than we have been seeing. People aren't going to keep backing him if they won't get anything out of it.

So what you really get is a lose-lose situation here. Either you get the situation where Trump keeps being Trump and we have the potential for a real government shut down...or you get the situation where he plays ball and gets voted into office based off of this independent stance that he has no intention of holding.

Your assumptions have nothing to do with what will actually happen.

Correct. However, I try to not make assumptions that are too far out of left field. Which is why I work off of basic knowledge, like Trump's demeanor and rhetoric, or how Washington tends to operate, like logrolling, and make reasonable conclusions based off our knowledge. This is literally one of the bases for how we generate knowledge.

Your assumption that he doesn't know how to negotiate, despite a life time of doing just that, is an assumption way out of left field.

You are not allowing, AT ALL, for your own biases.

My assumption is that he will or will not negotiate and I address both of those scenarios. Either he will negotiate, and his voter base, which is largely depending upon him to be a "maverick" and independently force change upon Washington, will have voted for a candidate that has no intention of following through on his rhetoric. Or, he will not negotiate and we have a likely scenario of a government who stalemates itself into a shutdown due to a lack of cooperation between legislative and executive branches (this actually happened recently...have you really forgotten about it?).

It isn't like this is a trick question. He either follows through on his rhetoric and tries to bulldoze change into Washington and "stir up the establishment" or he doesn't and he fails his voter base who primarily votes for him because that is what they (misguidedly) desire.

Edit: Take the Mexican wall. Their leadership has repeatedly said that they have no interest in paying for that wall. Now, how has Trump said he would "negotiate" this standstill? Well, in his words, the "wall just got 10 feet higher." This is literally one of his primary campaign standpoints and points towards how his rhetoric indicates he has no intention of negotiating...which is why a lot of his voter base supports him.

1. You assume that he supporters are rigid and unreasonable.

2. You assume that any negotiation with Congress must result in policies that will NOT satisfy Trump's supporters.

3. You assume that the United States has no leverage on Mexico.

1. I'm assuming his supporters want somebody in office who isn't "establishment" and will shake things up. In other words, that they want a candidate that is going to ignore the "bought" Washington politicians and march to his own tune, the tune of (in their mind) the people. Now, if that is an incorrect assumption please point towards clear evidence that this is not so. Please tell me how Trump has made his platform off of listening to politicians and cooperating with his party.

2. Read above. He's running his campaign off of not negotiating. I've made no statement on whether or not he could negotiate policies that would satisfy his voter base...I've made statements that his voter base would be unhappy with the ACTION of his negotiations...not the results.

3. When did I ever say that? Please, quote me. I've pointed towards Trump being unreasonable, but what that has to do with Mexico and our leverage is pretty much nil.

 

[Never3ndr]

The Russians are more than happy to buy all their shit.

Russia does not have the market to replace US.

And they have no desire to have a 300 billion dollar trade deficit with CHina, even if they could.

Again... that doesn't matter... they don't HAVE to replace anything... that's the advantage you have when you're a communist dictatorship... your people work for a bowl of rice a day whether the economy is good or bad. The ruling class isn't going to suffer and the people can't throw anyone out of office if things get worse. Russia has been courting Chinese trade for years... that's the primary reason Nixon opened trade with them, to somewhat discourage their trade with Russia.

So again, they don't have to replace our trade outright... they just need Russia and a few other communist regimes to take up most of the slack and keep their ruling class fat and happy. We're going to be the big loser because we import about $100 billion per year to China... that's thousands of American jobs right there.

The Chinese aren't working for a bowl of rice a day anymore.

They have been experiencing rapid economic growth and that has translated into rising living standards, for many, AND rising expectations.

You can bet right now, that those communists in charge over their are watching our election very carefully, and they are terrified that Trump might win.


We HAVE BEEN LOSING, for a long time.

The wealth we have been transferring to Asia has made both Japan and SOuth Korea first world nations, and is in the process of making China a superpower.

We haven't been losing...for a long time. We have been, and remain, one of the greatest nations in the world. Our economy has reliably been among the top 3 or 5, our military has been #1 for as long as I can remember, our culture is probably the most prevalent and well known in the world. By pretty much any measure America is one of the greatest nations on the planet and has been for at least the last 30 or so years (since Vietnam and post-war Vietnam, and, arguably, during that time).

Let me fill you in on a basic economic fact...a third or second world country can easily experience rapid expansions, especially when they have the resources to offer to the world (like China large labor force and growing human and physical capital resources). However, it is exceptionally difficult for a first world nation to rapidly expand their economy outside of some sort of large technological breakthrough, war, or any other extreme or rare scenario that cannot be depended upon. The fact that China is gearing up to be a 1st world power rather than a 2nd world power (since moving further away from basic communism) is both expected and non-related to how America is doing.

Just as an FYI, Japan has been a first world nation since the early 1900's. Why you bring them up when we are talking about things in 2016 is beyond me.

Trade wise we have been losing for a long time.

Our Middle CLass has had stagnant wages as wages have been rising in Japan and South Korea and China for decades.

OUr economy has been the largest since the turn of the Century. The 19th century. We are on a path to lose that claim.

I have not complained that we do not have 9% growth rate of China.

China's rapid growth has been fueled by it's massive trade surplus and is certainly related to how America is doing.

Japan was smoking rubble after WWII. It's rebuilding into the FIrst World Nation it is today was fueled by it's trade surpluses with US.

Just as an FYI, having a trade deficit is not uncommon when you have a strong currency...this is why China keeps devaluing their currency. It makes their goods cheaper and so they sell more abroad, and it also makes imported good more expensive (since it takes more of your currency to buy foreign goods) so they import less. If you are so unhappy about trade are you advocating for the most common sense solution? De-valuing the American dollar to make it relatively worthless in comparison to other 1st world nations? This would solve the problem in the same way as China...many more foreign nations would look to have their products manufactured here and we would not be able to afford goods from other nations. So we could stop importing from Mexico since it would be more expensive to buy a Mexican made T-shirt than one made by an American! Hey, you can go back to your T-shirt making business...isn't that what we all have dreamed about!

As an aside, I'd actually argue that we don't have a trade deficit, that we actually have a massive surplus...but that we don't count the products we typically export...like use of our websites and idea generation. When was the last time you saw google searches, youtube views, or facebook profiles being listed as part of our trade? This comprises probably the largest thing that we have given to the world, but doesn't tend to be counted on in the trade floor even though, through advertisements and data generation, they are veritable cash cows.