CDZ Alright Trump supporters, sell me.

[PredFan]

Here are my problems with Donald Trump:

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

Really?

Yes really.

George Soros knows business too... just sayin'.

Maybe, but he is also anti-American which Trump is not.

 

[320 Years of History]

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....

Of course there is a flip side of that coin. Like I said, I hope his ego, specifically his desire to be the POTUS that saved the country, is his over-riding motivation. Not being bound to a dogma might be a good thing there.

His lack of apology is not a factor for me.

Dogma isn't the thing to which one need be bound. Common decency is.

Common decency? When has THAT ever been a winning strategy?

It's been a central part of my academic, personal and professional success for the past 55+ years. Doing unto others as one'd have them do unto oneself works very well and takes no special skills.

I'm sorry, I assumed you knew we were talking about politics.

The axiom is applicable in all disciplines that involve interactions between humans.

 

[PredFan]

Of course there is a flip side of that coin. Like I said, I hope his ego, specifically his desire to be the POTUS that saved the country, is his over-riding motivation. Not being bound to a dogma might be a good thing there.

His lack of apology is not a factor for me.

Dogma isn't the thing to which one need be bound. Common decency is.

Common decency? When has THAT ever been a winning strategy?

It's been a central part of my academic, personal and professional success for the past 55+ years. Doing unto others as one'd have them do unto oneself works very well and takes no special skills.

I'm sorry, I assumed you knew we were talking about politics.

The axiom is applicable in all disciplines that involve interactions between humans.

Should be, shouldn't it? Alas, the real world doesn't go like that. I went with a man of character, and as usual, he lost. Now I'm trying to deal the what's left.

 

[Never3ndr]

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.

1. What you did there was take what his supporters want, ie "anti-establishment" and then restated it in such a way to change the meaning to what you wanted it to be, ie a strawman, and then you addressed that.

You assume that one cannot "shake things up" AND engage in effective negotiation.

1b And he just came out of a intense primary, where the Establishment was being dicks. Asking for evidence of working together, at this point is time is unreasonable. Once he has the Nomination locked up, you will get a better idea of how he can work with the Republican Party.

2. Link to where he said he will NOT negotiate.

3. "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."


YOu seem to think that just because the Mexican Government says they won't pay, that that is the end of negotiations. We have tremendous leverage on Mexico. It will be a hostile and unfriendly negotiation, and they will participate.

1) I've pointed towards an example, like his rhetoric on how he will "negotiate" his wall as a clear example that he does not intend to negotiate and that his supporters are in favor of that. If you want, you can point towards clear examples of how, when he tells his supporters that he will try to force them to pay for the wall, that they start to boo him.

2) I've already pointed towards the Mexican wall as a pretty clear example that he has no intention of negotiating. Unless, of course, by negotiate you mean threaten, coerce, bully, intimidate, etc. I mean the guy has been as absurd as to say that we have a trade deficit with Mexico...something the government isn't a part of...and that he may be willing to force OUR American businesses into not dealing with them in order to try and strong-arm his policy goals into fruition. It is inane.

3) You do realize that negotiation, by definition, is a mutual agreement, and that it is generally understood as aiming to be mutually beneficial. When using the adjectives "hostile and unfriendly" already denote that you have no goal of negotiating. You have a goal of getting what you want pushed with little to no regard for opposing opinions. It really seems as if you don't understand common English at this point. Now, if you want to say that Trump has no goal of negotiating (as I have) but will look for any way to blackmail, browbeat, and economically or militarily pursue his goals with little to no regard for both foreign opposition or domestic support...I'd be one of the first to agree with you.

 

[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.

Government shutdowns are never a bad thing.

Well, speaking as a vet, I can say that government shutdowns are exceptionally horrible for the military, which is one of my primary issues of concern. We are still feeling the effects of the budget sequestration and shutdown from 2013 and, recently, such an event was unanimously agreed upon by military commanders to be the greatest danger to our military today (although this was a budget hearing I believe, so they were motivated in this setting to say something like that too). We still have a backlog of maintenance that we haven't funded or done as well as a continued pause on modernizing our military systems. Government shutdown, in my opinion, is one of the gravest threats we face in a Trump presidency. I would certainly be more concerned about a shutdown than I would about some random Islamist bombing us.

 

[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.

That didn't happen for me with McCain. Yes invited against 0bama and yes McCain would have been better but I still did not lie him.

As Trump is scarier to the dems than McCain was, i expect even VILER behavior from them in this election.

 

[Correll]

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.

Of course it has. Exports create job growth. Make something foreigners want to import and you'll have job growth and it creates real GDP growth.

• Does Export Growth Create Jobs?
  
• Made in America: Increasing Jobs through Exports and Trade
  
• Manufacturing, Exporting, and Creating Jobs in the United States

China makes things the people want to buy, mainly because they perceive the goods made in China (or other comparatively low labor cost countries) as being "good enough" for whatever their needs are and less expensive than are the competing goods made elsewhere. If one wants to buy "stuff" made in the U.S. or Italy, or wherever else, fine, but one'll pay a lot more for those goods. Don't believe me, go shopping for a garment or shoes made in Italy, or an appliance or piece of furniture made in Germany, or a watch made in Switzerland or Germany, or anything else made absent international patent protection. I guarantee you they'll cost more than one made in China. Re: watches, appliance and furniture in particular, I can assure you that with very, very few exceptions, not one of them will perform any better as a consequence of having been made outside China.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

??? LOL It's not about you.

Now look at the actual balance of trade the EU enjoys compared to the U.S.

• European Union balance of trade
• U.S. balance of trade

In spite of their goods costing more, vastly more, than Chinese made goods, the E.U. nonetheless exports more than it imports. Why? Because businesses in the E.U. make investments in producing things people outside the E.U. are willing to and do buy. Now if one looks at what businesses must invest in (purchase) so they can produce things in American that non-Americans will buy, there are three major categories: land, labor and capital (money and/or equipment). Can you deduce (not guess) which of those inspire producers to refrain from investing in producing goods in the U.S? The cause hasn't changed since the start of the millennium.

• March 2000
• October 2007

But in what industry is the U.S. a net exporter? Services. Why? Because human intellectual capital, which is in turn used to provide services, is the thing in which the U.S. has a comparative advantage. What does that indicate for U.S. workers? It indicates that they need to "get over" expecting to work in the manufacturing sector and seek jobs in the service sector or pursue training that boosts their skill sets so that they have some human intellectual capital of note to offer to prospective employers. Is there a good living to be made selling one's intellectual capital? With starting salaries in the ~$70K - ~$150K range, depending on the services sector one enters, there damn sure is; I and my colleagues have been doing it since the 1980s and business is booming.

Why do you think Mr. Sanders advocates for free (or nearly free) college for everyone? Quite simply because it plays to the U.S.' comparative advantage. The simple fact is that the requisite intellectual capital doesn't come from high school learning; it comes from higher education. Could we as a nation drive the learning level into the high school range? Sure, but that would require kids to go to school more, perhaps for most of the year rather than for just nine or ten months of it and doing that would need to begin in kindergarten or first grade.

I'm okay with taking that approach -- it's how I'd restructure education in order to then provide for "free college" -- too for it means that there are approximately two years (three-plus if winter and spring breaks are shortened and the school day is extended to match the typical work day) over the course of twelve (K-12) that could be driven into pre-college education. The result being that with no difficulty change in curricula, students can acquire the equivalent of two years of what is currently thought of as college learning by the time they finish high school. Students who enter what would then be considered the AP track could conceivably finish high school with what we now think of as three years of college. Nationally paying for that last one or two years of education taken in collegiate institutions becomes much more affordable.

Of course, doing that would generate huge outcry from the daycare industry as it'd essentially be unnecessary. Higher education institutions would also gripe, although for them the change need only mean that what today is considered master's degree curricula would become undergraduate curricula. Young folks would gripe too because they'd have to, in order to perform highly academically, they'd need to spend less time Facebooking, Instagramming and Tweeting.

1. It was unclear from your post WHY you think that the EU has a trade surplus. Why do you think that is?

2. Not every one is capable of going to, or benefiting from a college education. Indeed, we already require college for too many jobs, that should NOT require 4 year degrees.


I want those manufacturing jobs for American working class workers.

 

[Correll]

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.

1. What you did there was take what his supporters want, ie "anti-establishment" and then restated it in such a way to change the meaning to what you wanted it to be, ie a strawman, and then you addressed that.

You assume that one cannot "shake things up" AND engage in effective negotiation.

1b And he just came out of a intense primary, where the Establishment was being dicks. Asking for evidence of working together, at this point is time is unreasonable. Once he has the Nomination locked up, you will get a better idea of how he can work with the Republican Party.

2. Link to where he said he will NOT negotiate.

3. "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."


YOu seem to think that just because the Mexican Government says they won't pay, that that is the end of negotiations. We have tremendous leverage on Mexico. It will be a hostile and unfriendly negotiation, and they will participate.

1) I've pointed towards an example, like his rhetoric on how he will "negotiate" his wall as a clear example that he does not intend to negotiate and that his supporters are in favor of that. If you want, you can point towards clear examples of how, when he tells his supporters that he will try to force them to pay for the wall, that they start to boo him.

2) I've already pointed towards the Mexican wall as a pretty clear example that he has no intention of negotiating. Unless, of course, by negotiate you mean threaten, coerce, bully, intimidate, etc. I mean the guy has been as absurd as to say that we have a trade deficit with Mexico...something the government isn't a part of...and that he may be willing to force OUR American businesses into not dealing with them in order to try and strong-arm his policy goals into fruition. It is inane.

3) You do realize that negotiation, by definition, is a mutual agreement, and that it is generally understood as aiming to be mutually beneficial. When using the adjectives "hostile and unfriendly" already denote that you have no goal of negotiating. You have a goal of getting what you want pushed with little to no regard for opposing opinions. It really seems as if you don't understand common English at this point. Now, if you want to say that Trump has no goal of negotiating (as I have) but will look for any way to blackmail, browbeat, and economically or militarily pursue his goals with little to no regard for both foreign opposition or domestic support...I'd be one of the first to agree with you.

Our relationships with our trading partners and Mexico are not mutually beneficial.

They benefit our "partners" and "neighbors" AT OUR EXPENSE.

No one likes it when a fool wises up, at least not the people who were taking advantage of the fool.

The negotiations where we refuse to stop being the World's Bitch are not going to be happy affairs with lots of hugs at the end.

Definition of NEGOTIATION

" a formal discussion between people who are trying to reach an agreement : an act of negotiating"

As you can see all that stuff about threats, coercion, bullying, intimidation, blackmail, or browbeating NOT being a party of "negotiation" is just in your head.

And if he deports Illegals, builds the wall, and brings back manufacturing jobs, he will have plenty of support here in America.

YOu are the one confused about English.

 

[Never3ndr]

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.

1. What you did there was take what his supporters want, ie "anti-establishment" and then restated it in such a way to change the meaning to what you wanted it to be, ie a strawman, and then you addressed that.

You assume that one cannot "shake things up" AND engage in effective negotiation.

1b And he just came out of a intense primary, where the Establishment was being dicks. Asking for evidence of working together, at this point is time is unreasonable. Once he has the Nomination locked up, you will get a better idea of how he can work with the Republican Party.

2. Link to where he said he will NOT negotiate.

3. "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."


YOu seem to think that just because the Mexican Government says they won't pay, that that is the end of negotiations. We have tremendous leverage on Mexico. It will be a hostile and unfriendly negotiation, and they will participate.

1) I've pointed towards an example, like his rhetoric on how he will "negotiate" his wall as a clear example that he does not intend to negotiate and that his supporters are in favor of that. If you want, you can point towards clear examples of how, when he tells his supporters that he will try to force them to pay for the wall, that they start to boo him.

2) I've already pointed towards the Mexican wall as a pretty clear example that he has no intention of negotiating. Unless, of course, by negotiate you mean threaten, coerce, bully, intimidate, etc. I mean the guy has been as absurd as to say that we have a trade deficit with Mexico...something the government isn't a part of...and that he may be willing to force OUR American businesses into not dealing with them in order to try and strong-arm his policy goals into fruition. It is inane.

3) You do realize that negotiation, by definition, is a mutual agreement, and that it is generally understood as aiming to be mutually beneficial. When using the adjectives "hostile and unfriendly" already denote that you have no goal of negotiating. You have a goal of getting what you want pushed with little to no regard for opposing opinions. It really seems as if you don't understand common English at this point. Now, if you want to say that Trump has no goal of negotiating (as I have) but will look for any way to blackmail, browbeat, and economically or militarily pursue his goals with little to no regard for both foreign opposition or domestic support...I'd be one of the first to agree with you.

Our relationships with our trading partners and Mexico are not mutually beneficial.

They benefit our "partners" and "neighbors" AT OUR EXPENSE.

Verifiably false. If this was the case we simply wouldn't do business with them...because in what world do business ever do something that is unfavorable for them? Put it this way...when was the last time you went shopping and went out of your way to look for the most expensive generic brand you could find? Mexicans make things cheaper than we can make it and, oftentimes, at a similar quality. There is absolutely no question that our trade agreement is mutually beneficial. We buy things from them cheaper than we can produce them and literally our entire population benefits from this fact. If you disagree with this simple economic statement then I suggest you go back to college and re-take your basic economics course...this is seriously ECON 101 here.

No one likes it when a fool wises up, at least not the people who were taking advantage of the fool.

The negotiations where we refuse to stop being the World's Bitch are not going to be happy affairs with lots of hugs at the end.

Definition of NEGOTIATION

" a formal discussion between people who are trying to reach an agreement : an act of negotiating"

As you can see all that stuff about threats, coercion, bullying, intimidation, blackmail, or browbeating NOT being a party of "negotiation" is just in your head.

And if he deports Illegals, builds the wall, and brings back manufacturing jobs, he will have plenty of support here in America.

YOu are the one confused about English.

Okay let's put it like this...when was the last time you ever heard about us sending in an army to negotiate?

We obviously go to war in order to get the opposing side to see things our way...but we never call that negotiating...mainly because it isn't negotiating...it is called fighting. In case you no longer live in an English speaking nation (which seems to be your case) we use the term "negotiate" when we have a meeting of two opposing sides that try to reach a mutually agreed upon arrangement. We have different terms for when one side man-handles, bullies, etc. to reach their agreement. At the end of the day, one side gets their way...but only in negotiations do both get something they want. Again, if you want to use a more accurate term to describe Trump trying to reach his policy points, I'd be more than happy to agree with you...however, you can't dishonestly use a term to try and mask what your candidate has blatantly stated as his positions and how he intends to reach those positions.

As far as bringing back manufacturing jobs that is a great reason to have me actively work against him. What sort of neanderthal idiot wants to sit on a production line and push a button. The last thing we need is to become so impoverished as to have to be relegated down to relying upon mind-numbing job tasks in order to earn our living. I'd much rather try and keep America as one of the greatest nations on the planet with some of the most innovative and ground-breaking tech and producing some of our best and brightest minds in the world.

 

[Correll]

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.

1. What you did there was take what his supporters want, ie "anti-establishment" and then restated it in such a way to change the meaning to what you wanted it to be, ie a strawman, and then you addressed that.

You assume that one cannot "shake things up" AND engage in effective negotiation.

1b And he just came out of a intense primary, where the Establishment was being dicks. Asking for evidence of working together, at this point is time is unreasonable. Once he has the Nomination locked up, you will get a better idea of how he can work with the Republican Party.

2. Link to where he said he will NOT negotiate.

3. "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."


YOu seem to think that just because the Mexican Government says they won't pay, that that is the end of negotiations. We have tremendous leverage on Mexico. It will be a hostile and unfriendly negotiation, and they will participate.

1) I've pointed towards an example, like his rhetoric on how he will "negotiate" his wall as a clear example that he does not intend to negotiate and that his supporters are in favor of that. If you want, you can point towards clear examples of how, when he tells his supporters that he will try to force them to pay for the wall, that they start to boo him.

2) I've already pointed towards the Mexican wall as a pretty clear example that he has no intention of negotiating. Unless, of course, by negotiate you mean threaten, coerce, bully, intimidate, etc. I mean the guy has been as absurd as to say that we have a trade deficit with Mexico...something the government isn't a part of...and that he may be willing to force OUR American businesses into not dealing with them in order to try and strong-arm his policy goals into fruition. It is inane.

3) You do realize that negotiation, by definition, is a mutual agreement, and that it is generally understood as aiming to be mutually beneficial. When using the adjectives "hostile and unfriendly" already denote that you have no goal of negotiating. You have a goal of getting what you want pushed with little to no regard for opposing opinions. It really seems as if you don't understand common English at this point. Now, if you want to say that Trump has no goal of negotiating (as I have) but will look for any way to blackmail, browbeat, and economically or militarily pursue his goals with little to no regard for both foreign opposition or domestic support...I'd be one of the first to agree with you.

Our relationships with our trading partners and Mexico are not mutually beneficial.

They benefit our "partners" and "neighbors" AT OUR EXPENSE.

Verifiably false. If this was the case we simply wouldn't do business with them...because in what world do business ever do something that is unfavorable for them? Put it this way...when was the last time you went shopping and went out of your way to look for the most expensive generic brand you could find? Mexicans make things cheaper than we can make it and, oftentimes, at a similar quality. There is absolutely no question that our trade agreement is mutually beneficial. We buy things from them cheaper than we can produce them and literally our entire population benefits from this fact. If you disagree with this simple economic statement then I suggest you go back to college and re-take your basic economics course...this is seriously ECON 101 here.

I see what you did there.

You pretended that America was a monolithic block, where we only choose what trade is beneficial to US as a block.

But in reality, the American government can negotiate a Trade Deal, with the expectation that it will be Mutually Beneficial, with similar amounts of trade going both way.

But then our exports, for some reasons, just don't sell there. So there is no benefit to our workers who want export created jobs, or profits to our manufacturers.

On the other hand, their exports sell fine in the US creating jobs over there and profits over there.

Some of those profits are spend hiring lobbyists to keep the Trade Policy in place.

Free Trade Ideologues dismiss any evidence that the trade is not to our benefit.

American corporations find that the only way to compete with the low priced imports is to close US plants and open plants overseas where labor is very cheap. THey maintain profits and are happy.

So, the other nation benefits from top to bottom, workers, manufactures, and the government which gets to tax everyone.

In America, the manufacturers have adjusted and are doing ok. The politicians are getting plenty of donations from manufactures both foreign and domestic to keep the status que and the workers get fucked.

Over time the negative effects of these policies just pile up and up, on the Middle Class.

But the Free Trade Ideologues, and the Far Left who finds any pro-American policy to be jingoistic keep doing more and more of the same policy.

They invent novel reasons why things are going as had been initially promised so long ago, like American workers are lazy or won't do the work.

And the relationship that benefits our trading "partners" at our expense continues and continues.

No one likes it when a fool wises up, at least not the people who were taking advantage of the fool.

The negotiations where we refuse to stop being the World's Bitch are not going to be happy affairs with lots of hugs at the end.

Definition of NEGOTIATION

" a formal discussion between people who are trying to reach an agreement : an act of negotiating"

As you can see all that stuff about threats, coercion, bullying, intimidation, blackmail, or browbeating NOT being a party of "negotiation" is just in your head.

And if he deports Illegals, builds the wall, and brings back manufacturing jobs, he will have plenty of support here in America.

YOu are the one confused about English.

Okay let's put it like this...when was the last time you ever heard about us sending in an army to negotiate?

We obviously go to war in order to get the opposing side to see things our way...but we never call that negotiating...mainly because it isn't negotiating...it is called fighting. In case you no longer live in an English speaking nation (which seems to be your case) we use the term "negotiate" when we have a meeting of two opposing sides that try to reach a mutually agreed upon arrangement. We have different terms for when one side man-handles, bullies, etc. to reach their agreement. At the end of the day, one side gets their way...but only in negotiations do both get something they want. Again, if you want to use a more accurate term to describe Trump trying to reach his policy points, I'd be more than happy to agree with you...however, you can't dishonestly use a term to try and mask what your candidate has blatantly stated as his positions and how he intends to reach those positions.

Um, yeah, all you did there was argue against the dictionary definition of the word, negotiate.

I'm not sure why you think that I would respect you as an Authority on definitions more than Webster, but regardless, i don't.

Trump will negotiate with Mexico about paying for the Wall. They will be resistant, because they have convinced themselves that a relationship where they benefit and we take it up the can, is normal.

They are in for a rude awakening.

It will be a harsh negotiation, likely with some blackmail and bullying.

And in the end, we will get the wall, and the expense will be borne by the assholes who made the Wall necessary.

As far as bringing back manufacturing jobs that is a great reason to have me actively work against him. What sort of neanderthal idiot wants to sit on a production line and push a button. The last thing we need is to become so impoverished as to have to be relegated down to relying upon mind-numbing job tasks in order to earn our living. I'd much rather try and keep America as one of the greatest nations on the planet with some of the most innovative and ground-breaking tech and producing some of our best and brightest minds in the world.

Innovative and ground breaking tech is great. And we are still the primary home of that.

BUT, there are hundreds of millions of people in this country who do NOT have the capacity to contribute to ground breaking tech.

They have been the ones losing the most from these unfair and not beneficial trade agreements, and it is time for their interests to drive policy.

Those manufacturing jobs that you ridicule are very good paying jobs for those people, and they can build Working Class/Middle Class lives with those jobs.

INdeed, quite often those jobs provide an excellent ladder to upper middle class lives, and can provide their children with the tools to go as far as their skills and gifts can take them.

 

[Never3ndr]

I see what you did there.

You pretended that America was a monolithic block, where we only choose what trade is beneficial to US as a block.

But in reality, the American government can negotiate a Trade Deal, with the expectation that it will be Mutually Beneficial, with similar amounts of trade going both way.

But then our exports, for some reasons, just don't sell there. So there is no benefit to our workers who want export created jobs, or profits to our manufacturers.

On the other hand, their exports sell fine in the US creating jobs over there and profits over there.

Some of those profits are spend hiring lobbyists to keep the Trade Policy in place.

Free Trade Ideologues dismiss any evidence that the trade is not to our benefit.

American corporations find that the only way to compete with the low priced imports is to close US plants and open plants overseas where labor is very cheap. THey maintain profits and are happy.

So, the other nation benefits from top to bottom, workers, manufactures, and the government which gets to tax everyone.

In America, the manufacturers have adjusted and are doing ok. The politicians are getting plenty of donations from manufactures both foreign and domestic to keep the status que and the workers get fucked.

Over time the negative effects of these policies just pile up and up, on the Middle Class.

But the Free Trade Ideologues, and the Far Left who finds any pro-American policy to be jingoistic keep doing more and more of the same policy.

They invent novel reasons why things are going as had been initially promised so long ago, like American workers are lazy or won't do the work.

And the relationship that benefits our trading "partners" at our expense continues and continues.

No one likes it when a fool wises up, at least not the people who were taking advantage of the fool.

The negotiations where we refuse to stop being the World's Bitch are not going to be happy affairs with lots of hugs at the end.

Definition of NEGOTIATION

" a formal discussion between people who are trying to reach an agreement : an act of negotiating"

As you can see all that stuff about threats, coercion, bullying, intimidation, blackmail, or browbeating NOT being a party of "negotiation" is just in your head.

And if he deports Illegals, builds the wall, and brings back manufacturing jobs, he will have plenty of support here in America.

YOu are the one confused about English.

Okay let's put it like this...when was the last time you ever heard about us sending in an army to negotiate?

We obviously go to war in order to get the opposing side to see things our way...but we never call that negotiating...mainly because it isn't negotiating...it is called fighting. In case you no longer live in an English speaking nation (which seems to be your case) we use the term "negotiate" when we have a meeting of two opposing sides that try to reach a mutually agreed upon arrangement. We have different terms for when one side man-handles, bullies, etc. to reach their agreement. At the end of the day, one side gets their way...but only in negotiations do both get something they want. Again, if you want to use a more accurate term to describe Trump trying to reach his policy points, I'd be more than happy to agree with you...however, you can't dishonestly use a term to try and mask what your candidate has blatantly stated as his positions and how he intends to reach those positions.

Um, yeah, all you did there was argue against the dictionary definition of the word, negotiate.

I'm not sure why you think that I would respect you as an Authority on definitions more than Webster, but regardless, i don't.

Trump will negotiate with Mexico about paying for the Wall. They will be resistant, because they have convinced themselves that a relationship where they benefit and we take it up the can, is normal.

They are in for a rude awakening.

It will be a harsh negotiation, likely with some blackmail and bullying.

And in the end, we will get the wall, and the expense will be borne by the assholes who made the Wall necessary.

As far as bringing back manufacturing jobs that is a great reason to have me actively work against him. What sort of neanderthal idiot wants to sit on a production line and push a button. The last thing we need is to become so impoverished as to have to be relegated down to relying upon mind-numbing job tasks in order to earn our living. I'd much rather try and keep America as one of the greatest nations on the planet with some of the most innovative and ground-breaking tech and producing some of our best and brightest minds in the world.

Innovative and ground breaking tech is great. And we are still the primary home of that.

BUT, there are hundreds of millions of people in this country who do NOT have the capacity to contribute to ground breaking tech.

They have been the ones losing the most from these unfair and not beneficial trade agreements, and it is time for their interests to drive policy.

Those manufacturing jobs that you ridicule are very good paying jobs for those people, and they can build Working Class/Middle Class lives with those jobs.

INdeed, quite often those jobs provide an excellent ladder to upper middle class lives, and can provide their children with the tools to go as far as their skills and gifts can take them.

Sure our manufacturing exports don't sell well there...since they tend to be absurdly overpriced. However, what we do export the most of, tech, sells just fine there. You really think that people in Mexico don't have the internet and don't use things like Google or Facebook? Numbers would indicate that that is just plain false. In fact, since our manufacturing doesn't tend to do as well abroad that would be a good point to bring up when arguing AGAINST trying to bring more of those outdated jobs back to the States. We are Progressive nation and one of the world leaders in technology and education. Why you would want to disregard our strengths and actively work to weaken us is beyond me.

Absolutely everybody can contribute to ground-breaking technology. Not everybody is a Steve Jobs, but a good idea isn't going to go anywhere without a good team and company to back that idea. You need everything from marketing, to HR, to international relations, to graphic design, to (yes) your coding and engineering, even down to the people that clean up during the off hours...I mean it takes a lot to support a good idea and getting that good idea out there.

I'm arguing that we have the ability to do what we like because we are such a prosperous nation. When did you ever hear anybody, when you were growing up, that dreamed about working on a factory line and doing the same minor task over and over and over and over? Maybe you had different friends than I did, but everybody I knew wanted to be a lawyer, doctor, chemist, president, astronaut, etc. We are producing some of the best (okay maybe not the president part) of all those job fields IN THE WORLD. We all have great opportunities to do what we want and the job market is generally favorable for us to do so. Why the hell would you want to close those opportunities by forcing us into greater manufacturing production? Maybe it is just me, but I'd rather be the in the corporation that is in charge of ordering the production rather than being the slave that needs to do what the foreign corporation dictates from me.

 

[320 Years of History]

It was unclear from your post WHY you think that the EU has a trade surplus. Why do you think that is?

Truly, I haven't looked into the specific causes of the EU's trade surplus. I have looked into why the U.S. has a trade deficit, and the answer to why the U.S. does not is found in the content at the links I provided. I have enough economics training to know that its principles apply consistently across political boundaries. Thus were I to speculate about why the EU has a trade surplus, I'd say it's for the converse of why the U.S. does not.

Not everyone is capable of going to, or benefiting from a college education. Indeed, we already require college for too many jobs, that should NOT require 4 year degrees.


I want those manufacturing jobs for American working class workers.

Red:
Literally everyone, of course not. Some folks are born with intellectual deficiencies that make that be so. Among folks who are not intellectually disabled, who are entering the workforce or needing to develop new/additional skills, why would they not benefit from collegiate learning or its equivalent for the relevant field of work?

Blue:
Well, you can certainly take that stance and keep hoping those jobs will come back to America, hoping someone will make the economically irrational and unfeasible happen, and that you and others will be able to afford the goods those jobs produce. Alternatively, you and others can realize that America's "day in the Sun" re: manufacturing across wide industries has passed, "get with the program," and boost your skills to become qualified for the jobs that our nation does have in abundance. I see no reason why anyone cannot benefit from doing so. The literally thousands of folks my firm and firms like mine hire annually -- both recent graduates and experienced hires -- and who are Americans is testament to that.

Why don't you stop wishing for the jobs "you" used to have, stop worrying about the jobs "you" don't have and that don't exist, and focus on doing what you need to do to qualify for the abundance of jobs that do exist and that you can become qualified to get?

 

[PredFan]

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.

Government shutdowns are never a bad thing.

Well, speaking as a vet, I can say that government shutdowns are exceptionally horrible for the military, which is one of my primary issues of concern. We are still feeling the effects of the budget sequestration and shutdown from 2013 and, recently, such an event was unanimously agreed upon by military commanders to be the greatest danger to our military today (although this was a budget hearing I believe, so they were motivated in this setting to say something like that too). We still have a backlog of maintenance that we haven't funded or done as well as a continued pause on modernizing our military systems. Government shutdown, in my opinion, is one of the gravest threats we face in a Trump presidency. I would certainly be more concerned about a shutdown than I would about some random Islamist bombing us.

Speaking as a vet, that state of affairs is constant.

 

[Correll]

I see what you did there.

You pretended that America was a monolithic block, where we only choose what trade is beneficial to US as a block.

But in reality, the American government can negotiate a Trade Deal, with the expectation that it will be Mutually Beneficial, with similar amounts of trade going both way.

But then our exports, for some reasons, just don't sell there. So there is no benefit to our workers who want export created jobs, or profits to our manufacturers.

On the other hand, their exports sell fine in the US creating jobs over there and profits over there.

Some of those profits are spend hiring lobbyists to keep the Trade Policy in place.

Free Trade Ideologues dismiss any evidence that the trade is not to our benefit.

American corporations find that the only way to compete with the low priced imports is to close US plants and open plants overseas where labor is very cheap. THey maintain profits and are happy.

So, the other nation benefits from top to bottom, workers, manufactures, and the government which gets to tax everyone.

In America, the manufacturers have adjusted and are doing ok. The politicians are getting plenty of donations from manufactures both foreign and domestic to keep the status que and the workers get fucked.

Over time the negative effects of these policies just pile up and up, on the Middle Class.

But the Free Trade Ideologues, and the Far Left who finds any pro-American policy to be jingoistic keep doing more and more of the same policy.

They invent novel reasons why things are going as had been initially promised so long ago, like American workers are lazy or won't do the work.

And the relationship that benefits our trading "partners" at our expense continues and continues.

No one likes it when a fool wises up, at least not the people who were taking advantage of the fool.

The negotiations where we refuse to stop being the World's Bitch are not going to be happy affairs with lots of hugs at the end.

Definition of NEGOTIATION

" a formal discussion between people who are trying to reach an agreement : an act of negotiating"

As you can see all that stuff about threats, coercion, bullying, intimidation, blackmail, or browbeating NOT being a party of "negotiation" is just in your head.

And if he deports Illegals, builds the wall, and brings back manufacturing jobs, he will have plenty of support here in America.

YOu are the one confused about English.

Okay let's put it like this...when was the last time you ever heard about us sending in an army to negotiate?

We obviously go to war in order to get the opposing side to see things our way...but we never call that negotiating...mainly because it isn't negotiating...it is called fighting. In case you no longer live in an English speaking nation (which seems to be your case) we use the term "negotiate" when we have a meeting of two opposing sides that try to reach a mutually agreed upon arrangement. We have different terms for when one side man-handles, bullies, etc. to reach their agreement. At the end of the day, one side gets their way...but only in negotiations do both get something they want. Again, if you want to use a more accurate term to describe Trump trying to reach his policy points, I'd be more than happy to agree with you...however, you can't dishonestly use a term to try and mask what your candidate has blatantly stated as his positions and how he intends to reach those positions.

Um, yeah, all you did there was argue against the dictionary definition of the word, negotiate.

I'm not sure why you think that I would respect you as an Authority on definitions more than Webster, but regardless, i don't.

Trump will negotiate with Mexico about paying for the Wall. They will be resistant, because they have convinced themselves that a relationship where they benefit and we take it up the can, is normal.

They are in for a rude awakening.

It will be a harsh negotiation, likely with some blackmail and bullying.

And in the end, we will get the wall, and the expense will be borne by the assholes who made the Wall necessary.

As far as bringing back manufacturing jobs that is a great reason to have me actively work against him. What sort of neanderthal idiot wants to sit on a production line and push a button. The last thing we need is to become so impoverished as to have to be relegated down to relying upon mind-numbing job tasks in order to earn our living. I'd much rather try and keep America as one of the greatest nations on the planet with some of the most innovative and ground-breaking tech and producing some of our best and brightest minds in the world.

Innovative and ground breaking tech is great. And we are still the primary home of that.

BUT, there are hundreds of millions of people in this country who do NOT have the capacity to contribute to ground breaking tech.

They have been the ones losing the most from these unfair and not beneficial trade agreements, and it is time for their interests to drive policy.

Those manufacturing jobs that you ridicule are very good paying jobs for those people, and they can build Working Class/Middle Class lives with those jobs.

INdeed, quite often those jobs provide an excellent ladder to upper middle class lives, and can provide their children with the tools to go as far as their skills and gifts can take them.

Sure our manufacturing exports don't sell well there...since they tend to be absurdly overpriced.

I doubt that. And it almost doesn't matter why. The point is that the Trade Balance overall is NOT mutually beneficial.

However, what we do export the most of, tech, sells just fine there. You really think that people in Mexico don't have the internet and don't use things like Google or Facebook? Numbers would indicate that that is just plain false.

Sure, we export a good amount of high tech. THat we manage to get some exports does not mean that the Trade is Free or Fair.

In fact, since our manufacturing doesn't tend to do as well abroad that would be a good point to bring up when arguing AGAINST trying to bring more of those outdated jobs back to the States. We are Progressive nation and one of the world leaders in technology and education. Why you would want to disregard our strengths and actively work to weaken us is beyond me.

Vehicles are our number 4 export. That's a assembly line job. No responsible Trade Policy would just give up on those jobs just because they are not our "strength".

And looking out for those segments of our economy and workforce in no way disregards our strength in other fields.

And who says our intellectual property is being exported properly? Do you think China respects our laws against software piracy? Or movie piracy?

Hundreds of billions of lost income right there.

Absolutely everybody can contribute to ground-breaking technology. Not everybody is a Steve Jobs, but a good idea isn't going to go anywhere without a good team and company to back that idea. You need everything from marketing, to HR, to international relations, to graphic design, to (yes) your coding and engineering, even down to the people that clean up during the off hours...I mean it takes a lot to support a good idea and getting that good idea out there.

No, they can't.

The cutting edge is by definition a small part of the economy.

I'm arguing that we have the ability to do what we like because we are such a prosperous nation. When did you ever hear anybody, when you were growing up, that dreamed about working on a factory line and doing the same minor task over and over and over and over? Maybe you had different friends than I did, but everybody I knew wanted to be a lawyer, doctor, chemist, president, astronaut, etc. We are producing some of the best (okay maybe not the president part) of all those job fields IN THE WORLD. We all have great opportunities to do what we want and the job market is generally favorable for us to do so. Why the hell would you want to close those opportunities by forcing us into greater manufacturing production? Maybe it is just me, but I'd rather be the in the corporation that is in charge of ordering the production rather than being the slave that needs to do what the foreign corporation dictates from me.

Not everyone is going to be a "lawyer, doctor, chemist, president, astronaut, etc"

Looking out for the large segment, indeed the larger? segment of the population that will NOT be those things, does not close off those opportunities for those who can.

Those assembly line jobs have historically been the backbone of the Middle Class and still have a vital role to play there.

Germany has TWICE our percentage of population in manufacturing.

Are their people prevented from reaching to be doctors or lawyers?

 

[Correll]

It was unclear from your post WHY you think that the EU has a trade surplus. Why do you think that is?

Truly, I haven't looked into the specific causes of the EU's trade surplus. I have looked into why the U.S. has a trade deficit, and the answer to why the U.S. does not is found in the content at the links I provided. I have enough economics training to know that its principles apply consistently across political boundaries. Thus were I to speculate about why the EU has a trade surplus, I'd say it's for the converse of why the U.S. does not.

Not everyone is capable of going to, or benefiting from a college education. Indeed, we already require college for too many jobs, that should NOT require 4 year degrees.


I want those manufacturing jobs for American working class workers.

Red:
Literally everyone, of course not. Some folks are born with intellectual deficiencies that make that be so. Among folks who are not intellectually disabled, who are entering the workforce or needing to develop new/additional skills, why would they not benefit from collegiate learning or its equivalent for the relevant field of work?

Blue:
Well, you can certainly take that stance and keep hoping those jobs will come back to America, hoping someone will make the economically irrational and unfeasible happen, and that you and others will be able to afford the goods those jobs produce. Alternatively, you and others can realize that America's "day in the Sun" re: manufacturing across wide industries has passed, "get with the program," and boost your skills to become qualified for the jobs that our nation does have in abundance. I see no reason why anyone cannot benefit from doing so. The literally thousands of folks my firm and firms like mine hire annually -- both recent graduates and experienced hires -- and who are Americans is testament to that.

Why don't you stop wishing for the jobs "you" used to have, stop worrying about the jobs "you" don't have and that don't exist, and focus on doing what you need to do to qualify for the abundance of jobs that do exist and that you can become qualified to get?

1. Sorry, not going to read a large pdf without a good reason. Cut and paste the relevant point.

2. Because the training that they need for their job doesn't require 4 years to teach. And when the field starts demanding that, it is just an added inefficiency in the system.

2b And lower than average intelligence is about 20% of the population. Hardly insignificant, a responsible Trade Policy would take them into account.


3. Telling someone to "get with the program" is not an answer. It is a dismissal of their concerns. I reject the idea that America's "day in the SUn is over". Our current Trade Policy, that has lead to our loss of manufacturing jobs is a choice and one that can be reversed.

Their is no reason that Silicone Valley can't be a high tech boom city, while Detroit is home to a healthy manufacturing population.

That is a false choice.

I want both.

 

[320 Years of History]

Sorry, not going to read a large pdf without a good reason.

First, I didn't point you to a "large pdf." In fact, I went out of may way not to direct you to (link) something longer than a paper/essay.

Second, there is a good reason: to gain a level of understanding about economics so you can credibly discuss the topic of which you've taken it upon yourself to engage in discussion. I didn't point you to editorials; the content I shared is original professional research and analysis of the research results by economists, not commentary from second and/or third parties. Frankly, one short PDF isn't really going to make you an expert; what you actually need to do is read (or re-read) a whole macroeconomics textbook for were you to do so, you'd not have to read the whole PDF for you'd then know exactly what you were looking for and would not have to read the whole thing.

And third, I'm not going to copy and paste it because:

1. the assertions and conclusions in the study are easily deduced by anyone who's studied economics (even having just taken the two basic survey course in macroeconomics); the only reason I linked it was for the benefit of folks who have not formally studied economics, and
2. the minute I do so, you or someone else in the "peanut gallery" is going to launch into some diatribe about how the professional economists who performed the study and issued the report as a result of their analysis are wrong, yet that assertion will be supported with nothing...no discussion or mention of the methodological shortcomings of the study/report, no regard for the caveats the study's/report's authors explicitly stated, etc.....just nothing other than a pontifical claim and no cogent supporting argument for it.

the training that they need for their job doesn't require 4 years to teach. And when the field starts demanding that, it is just an added inefficiency in the system.

So you say, but you are wrong. The U.S. exports manufactured goods that are specialized, differentiated and have a high level of intellectual content. For services, everything about what we sell -- domestically and internationally -- is intellectually driven. What you simply don't understand and haven't bothered to consider -- in terms of economics, productivity and jobs -- is how producing "simple" objects differs from producing complex ones.

Indeed, one of the studies/reports I linked in my earlier post is one that expressly minimizes the efficacy of one of my own tacitly advocated approaches, and yet in doing so, the authors ultimately concluded that while the gains may be less than hoped for, the approach for which I advocated is yet better than the alternative approach.

You write of what is and is not required, yet, I have to ask what legitimate basis have you that gives you sufficient understanding of "the system"

[See also the discussion/example below about "video games and bicycles"]

Red:
I'm all but certain you don't understand what economic efficiency actually is. I am certain of that because you persist in refuting the need for advanced training (higher education) among the U.S. workforce, yet you have ignored what are the U.S. comparative advantages, elasticity of demand, the substitution of capital for labor, and several other basic concepts of economics in the process of making your claims.

lower than average intelligence is about 20% of the population. Hardly insignificant, a responsible Trade Policy would take them into account.

Rethink that; you've confused and conflated intelligence with actual performance in cognitive testing. The percentage of the U.S. population having physiological disabilities that militate for their genuinely not being able to perform some tasks breaks out as follows:

• All intellectual disabilities: ~13%
  • Specific learning disabilities: ~5%
  • Intellectual disability: ~1%
  • Speech or language impediments: ~3%
  • All the other types of intellectual disabilities: ~4%

Telling someone to "get with the program" is not an answer. It is a dismissal of their concerns.

It's only seen as that by you because you refuse to read/learn/master the information that shows/explains how it is not that at all. One's willfully remaining ignorant does not make the remarks of folks who already understand that same information be dismissive.

What does it take to "get with the program?" To the extent the topic under discussion is economic in nature:

• Learning macro and micro economics, part of which entails learning the extent to which economic principles and laws and have been shown to be "right"
• Applying economic principles to one's circumstances.

I reject the idea that America's "day in the SUn is over".

The element of it that is over is not manufacturing in general, but specifically the segment of manufacturing in which the human labor requirements to produce goods is directly proportional to the quantity of goods produced.

To understand it, consider the production of a complex product and a simple product: video games and bicycles. Contrast one additional sales unit of a video game vs. that of a bicycle. The additional unit of a video game costs pennies -- one could sell millions of copies without needing a single additional worker. In contrast, a physical bicycle requires one or several people to form and assemble all the parts that make up a bicycle. One cannot produce and sell a million bikes without hiring a lot of additional workers. That is the difference between producing/supplying products that have a high degree of intellectual capital in them vs. goods that have little or no intellectual capital in them.

The U.S. has a comparative advantage in designing high intellectual capital products, but not in actually building them. Why? Because once the design is done, the build of those goods is little other than "putting square pegs in square holes." It takes little to no intellectual acuity or training to assemble what people see as a video game, that is the DVD disc or cartridge that contains the software that is the actual game. Designing the programming the software itself, however, does take a high degree of intellectual acuity, and, guess what, writing that software program is a job that pays well. Moreover, U.S. employers of all sorts actually can't find enough qualified software developers and engineers. And among the things it usually takes to be either of those things is a college degree, although a small quantity of folks can gain the requisite skills without going to college to get them.

Our current Trade Policy, that has lead to our loss of manufacturing jobs is a choice and one that can be reversed.

Here again you show your lack of actual economics understanding. There are six things that shift the supply curve and in doing so impact jobs. None of those six things is trade policy, and it's certainly not our free trade policies which expressly remove tariffs and subsidies.

Trade, and specifically free trade -- trade unencumbered by tariffs and subsidies -- creates jobs when producers can and do produce goods/services that can in turn be exported to and purchased within other economies. The thing is that if a supplier makes "something" and it is not seen as sufficiently inelastic by buyers, those potential buyers won't become actual buyers, demanders. On the import side, free trade keeps prices lower than they otherwise would be for buyers in the importing country/area.

Their is no reason that Silicone Valley can't be a high tech boom city, while Detroit is home to a healthy manufacturing population.

The Silicon Valley already is a "boom" area and the workers there are doing exactly what I said more people need to do...working in a field whereby they produce/provide intellectual capital, largely to design things or invent/apply concepts, rather than providing physical labor to build things.

I want both.

Well, guess what, you can't have both. You want to return to an economic model/system that predates the Information Age. Well, the fact is the Information Age has arrived and isn't going away unless and until some massive natural disaster wipes it out, but even there it's just a matter of time before it comes back.

What you can do is acquire the skills needed to get the jobs that are available/offered and then get one. You can also bitch about not having them as others do acquire them, in doing so get left behind. It's entirely your choice as to which of them you do, but rest assured that if you don't do the former, you'll be relegated to only being able to do the latter.

 

[Indeependent]

I see what you did there.

You pretended that America was a monolithic block, where we only choose what trade is beneficial to US as a block.

But in reality, the American government can negotiate a Trade Deal, with the expectation that it will be Mutually Beneficial, with similar amounts of trade going both way.

But then our exports, for some reasons, just don't sell there. So there is no benefit to our workers who want export created jobs, or profits to our manufacturers.

On the other hand, their exports sell fine in the US creating jobs over there and profits over there.

Some of those profits are spend hiring lobbyists to keep the Trade Policy in place.

Free Trade Ideologues dismiss any evidence that the trade is not to our benefit.

American corporations find that the only way to compete with the low priced imports is to close US plants and open plants overseas where labor is very cheap. THey maintain profits and are happy.

So, the other nation benefits from top to bottom, workers, manufactures, and the government which gets to tax everyone.

In America, the manufacturers have adjusted and are doing ok. The politicians are getting plenty of donations from manufactures both foreign and domestic to keep the status que and the workers get fucked.

Over time the negative effects of these policies just pile up and up, on the Middle Class.

But the Free Trade Ideologues, and the Far Left who finds any pro-American policy to be jingoistic keep doing more and more of the same policy.

They invent novel reasons why things are going as had been initially promised so long ago, like American workers are lazy or won't do the work.

And the relationship that benefits our trading "partners" at our expense continues and continues.

No one likes it when a fool wises up, at least not the people who were taking advantage of the fool.

The negotiations where we refuse to stop being the World's Bitch are not going to be happy affairs with lots of hugs at the end.

Definition of NEGOTIATION

" a formal discussion between people who are trying to reach an agreement : an act of negotiating"

As you can see all that stuff about threats, coercion, bullying, intimidation, blackmail, or browbeating NOT being a party of "negotiation" is just in your head.

And if he deports Illegals, builds the wall, and brings back manufacturing jobs, he will have plenty of support here in America.

YOu are the one confused about English.

Okay let's put it like this...when was the last time you ever heard about us sending in an army to negotiate?

We obviously go to war in order to get the opposing side to see things our way...but we never call that negotiating...mainly because it isn't negotiating...it is called fighting. In case you no longer live in an English speaking nation (which seems to be your case) we use the term "negotiate" when we have a meeting of two opposing sides that try to reach a mutually agreed upon arrangement. We have different terms for when one side man-handles, bullies, etc. to reach their agreement. At the end of the day, one side gets their way...but only in negotiations do both get something they want. Again, if you want to use a more accurate term to describe Trump trying to reach his policy points, I'd be more than happy to agree with you...however, you can't dishonestly use a term to try and mask what your candidate has blatantly stated as his positions and how he intends to reach those positions.

Um, yeah, all you did there was argue against the dictionary definition of the word, negotiate.

I'm not sure why you think that I would respect you as an Authority on definitions more than Webster, but regardless, i don't.

Trump will negotiate with Mexico about paying for the Wall. They will be resistant, because they have convinced themselves that a relationship where they benefit and we take it up the can, is normal.

They are in for a rude awakening.

It will be a harsh negotiation, likely with some blackmail and bullying.

And in the end, we will get the wall, and the expense will be borne by the assholes who made the Wall necessary.

As far as bringing back manufacturing jobs that is a great reason to have me actively work against him. What sort of neanderthal idiot wants to sit on a production line and push a button. The last thing we need is to become so impoverished as to have to be relegated down to relying upon mind-numbing job tasks in order to earn our living. I'd much rather try and keep America as one of the greatest nations on the planet with some of the most innovative and ground-breaking tech and producing some of our best and brightest minds in the world.

Innovative and ground breaking tech is great. And we are still the primary home of that.

BUT, there are hundreds of millions of people in this country who do NOT have the capacity to contribute to ground breaking tech.

They have been the ones losing the most from these unfair and not beneficial trade agreements, and it is time for their interests to drive policy.

Those manufacturing jobs that you ridicule are very good paying jobs for those people, and they can build Working Class/Middle Class lives with those jobs.

INdeed, quite often those jobs provide an excellent ladder to upper middle class lives, and can provide their children with the tools to go as far as their skills and gifts can take them.

Sure our manufacturing exports don't sell well there...since they tend to be absurdly overpriced. However, what we do export the most of, tech, sells just fine there. You really think that people in Mexico don't have the internet and don't use things like Google or Facebook? Numbers would indicate that that is just plain false. In fact, since our manufacturing doesn't tend to do as well abroad that would be a good point to bring up when arguing AGAINST trying to bring more of those outdated jobs back to the States. We are Progressive nation and one of the world leaders in technology and education. Why you would want to disregard our strengths and actively work to weaken us is beyond me.

Absolutely everybody can contribute to ground-breaking technology. Not everybody is a Steve Jobs, but a good idea isn't going to go anywhere without a good team and company to back that idea. You need everything from marketing, to HR, to international relations, to graphic design, to (yes) your coding and engineering, even down to the people that clean up during the off hours...I mean it takes a lot to support a good idea and getting that good idea out there.

I'm arguing that we have the ability to do what we like because we are such a prosperous nation. When did you ever hear anybody, when you were growing up, that dreamed about working on a factory line and doing the same minor task over and over and over and over? Maybe you had different friends than I did, but everybody I knew wanted to be a lawyer, doctor, chemist, president, astronaut, etc. We are producing some of the best (okay maybe not the president part) of all those job fields IN THE WORLD. We all have great opportunities to do what we want and the job market is generally favorable for us to do so. Why the hell would you want to close those opportunities by forcing us into greater manufacturing production? Maybe it is just me, but I'd rather be the in the corporation that is in charge of ordering the production rather than being the slave that needs to do what the foreign corporation dictates from me.

You're a laugh a minute stating that American Entities want American, or even European, IT talent.
That's why requests for H1-Bs are skyrocketing.
I'd love to know what company you work for because I think it's called Fantasy Land.
And yes, I have MANY friends and acquaintances who have small and medium sized businesses and they LOVE H1-Bs.

 

[320 Years of History]

You're a laugh a minute stating that American Entities want American, or even European, IT talent.
That's why requests for H1-Bs are skyrocketing.

As a principal in an industry that hires (most often on a contract basis, but as employees whenever possible) H1-B talent, I can tell you exactly why: because not enough qualified (experienced hires) Americans apply for the jobs offered. It's really that simple.

It's not that we don't look domestically to fill a position, but the economics of the consulting business do not allow us to have a cadre of software developers on staff "just in case." Yes, we hire lots of recent computer science, engineering and math grads to fill technical roles such as software development; however, their career path in the firm necessarily leads to their not remaining as developers. Assuming they are high performers, they will move up and as they move up, their tasks shift from actual code writing to project management, business development and business analysis.

Additionally, things are different now than they were in the 1980s and 1990s. For example, in the '80s and '90s, ERP systems were in their nascence. Basically, if a person could spell SAP or Oracle and had actually ever seen the applications/databases, that was practically sufficient qualification for them to be part of a project team implementing the software. The ERP industry has matured and today, clients demand truly experienced team members. That makes it harder and harder to staff fresh college grads on projects and it means we have to hire experienced programmers and DBAs.

Countless are the instances wherein I've bid/proposed on an engagement wherein upon winning it the only solution I've (or more precisely the principals who manage the IT component of my projects) had is to go with developers from a foreign temp services firm. Sure The largest firms in my industry (management consulting) have actually purchased foreign IT firms so they can have a ready supply of internal IT talent, and even then the demand for that talent outstrips availability.

Quite simply, if the client informs me that we've won the engagement on Monday, they will expect the project to begin on the following Monday at the latest. As a practical reality, we just cannot reliably expect to advertise for the position, interview qualified candidates, "on board" them, and then have them onsite at the client's facilities in a week. Yes, from time to time, we get lucky and there is a domestic person who interviews and we know immediately they are great for the job and we can complete the process in a week, but being able to do so depends on luck.

And, yes, we use more avenues than just ads in papers or on websites to fill positions. I and the other principals have a long list of headhunter contacts whom we routinely instruct someone on our staffs to contact to see if they have someone suitable. In fact, upon learning that I've won an engagement, those calls are among the first ones my admin makes -- calls/emails to foreign labor resource providers are the next set of communications made -- when I have any project role that I can't fill with someone who's not currently assigned to a project. As I've said, demand outstrips availability when it comes to domestic technical resources.

So you ask yourself why is it that folks from places like India have the sense to see where the major economies of the world are headed and thus study and perform well in math and computer science, yet Americans would sooner bitch and moan about not being able to get a manufacturing job putting "square pegs in square holes" instead of getting the training to qualify for those jobs. Even an entry level (in terms of work types and responsibility, not in terms of career path) developer job pays decently, never mind that it pays better than being unemployed or working in a customer facing role at, say, McDonalds or Macy's, and at the beginning is where everyone has to start. Better to get started than to just keep griping for the latter will get one nowhere good.

 

[Indeependent]

You're a laugh a minute stating that American Entities want American, or even European, IT talent.
That's why requests for H1-Bs are skyrocketing.

As a principal in an industry that hires (most often on a contract basis, but as employees whenever possible) H1-B talent, I can tell you exactly why: because not enough qualified (experienced hires) Americans apply for the jobs offered. It's really that simple.

It's not that we don't look domestically to fill a position, but the economics of the consulting business do not allow us to have a cadre of software developers on staff "just in case." Yes, we hire lots of recent computer science, engineering and math grads to fill technical roles such as software development; however, their career path in the firm necessarily leads to their not remaining as developers. Assuming they are high performers, they will move up and as they move up, their tasks shift from actual code writing to project management, business development and business analysis.

Additionally, things are different now than they were in the 1980s and 1990s. For example, in the '80s and '90s, ERP systems were in their nascence. Basically, if a person could spell SAP or Oracle and had actually ever seen the applications/databases, that was practically sufficient qualification for them to be part of a project team implementing the software. The ERP industry has matured and today, clients demand truly experienced team members. That makes it harder and harder to staff fresh college grads on projects and it means we have to hire experienced programmers and DBAs.

Countless are the instances wherein I've bid/proposed on an engagement wherein upon winning it the only solution I've (or more precisely the principals who manage the IT component of my projects) had is to go with developers from a foreign temp services firm. Sure The largest firms in my industry (management consulting) have actually purchased foreign IT firms so they can have a ready supply of internal IT talent, and even then the demand for that talent outstrips availability.

Quite simply, if the client informs me that we've won the engagement on Monday, they will expect the project to begin on the following Monday at the latest. As a practical reality, we just cannot reliably expect to advertise for the position, interview qualified candidates, "on board" them, and then have them onsite at the client's facilities in a week. Yes, from time to time, we get lucky and there is a domestic person who interviews and we know immediately they are great for the job and we can complete the process in a week, but being able to do so depends on luck.

And, yes, we use more avenues than just ads in papers or on websites to fill positions. I and the other principals have a long list of headhunter contacts whom we routinely instruct someone on our staffs to contact to see if they have someone suitable. In fact, upon learning that I've won an engagement, those calls are among the first ones my admin makes -- calls/emails to foreign labor resource providers are the next set of communications made -- when I have any project role that I can't fill with someone who's not currently assigned to a project. As I've said, demand outstrips availability when it comes to domestic technical resources.

So you ask yourself why is it that folks from places like India have the sense to see where the major economies of the world are headed and thus study and perform well in math and computer science, yet Americans would sooner bitch and moan about not being able to get a manufacturing job putting "square pegs in square holes" instead of getting the training to qualify for those jobs. Even an entry level (in terms of work types and responsibility, not in terms of career path) developer job pays decently, never mind that it pays better than being unemployed or working in a customer facing role at, say, McDonalds or Macy's, and at the beginning is where everyone has to start. Better to get started than to just keep griping for the latter will get one nowhere good.

In one word...Bullshit.

 

[320 Years of History]

You're a laugh a minute stating that American Entities want American, or even European, IT talent.
That's why requests for H1-Bs are skyrocketing.

As a principal in an industry that hires (most often on a contract basis, but as employees whenever possible) H1-B talent, I can tell you exactly why: because not enough qualified (experienced hires) Americans apply for the jobs offered. It's really that simple.

It's not that we don't look domestically to fill a position, but the economics of the consulting business do not allow us to have a cadre of software developers on staff "just in case." Yes, we hire lots of recent computer science, engineering and math grads to fill technical roles such as software development; however, their career path in the firm necessarily leads to their not remaining as developers. Assuming they are high performers, they will move up and as they move up, their tasks shift from actual code writing to project management, business development and business analysis.

Additionally, things are different now than they were in the 1980s and 1990s. For example, in the '80s and '90s, ERP systems were in their nascence. Basically, if a person could spell SAP or Oracle and had actually ever seen the applications/databases, that was practically sufficient qualification for them to be part of a project team implementing the software. The ERP industry has matured and today, clients demand truly experienced team members. That makes it harder and harder to staff fresh college grads on projects and it means we have to hire experienced programmers and DBAs.

Countless are the instances wherein I've bid/proposed on an engagement wherein upon winning it the only solution I've (or more precisely the principals who manage the IT component of my projects) had is to go with developers from a foreign temp services firm. Sure The largest firms in my industry (management consulting) have actually purchased foreign IT firms so they can have a ready supply of internal IT talent, and even then the demand for that talent outstrips availability.

Quite simply, if the client informs me that we've won the engagement on Monday, they will expect the project to begin on the following Monday at the latest. As a practical reality, we just cannot reliably expect to advertise for the position, interview qualified candidates, "on board" them, and then have them onsite at the client's facilities in a week. Yes, from time to time, we get lucky and there is a domestic person who interviews and we know immediately they are great for the job and we can complete the process in a week, but being able to do so depends on luck.

And, yes, we use more avenues than just ads in papers or on websites to fill positions. I and the other principals have a long list of headhunter contacts whom we routinely instruct someone on our staffs to contact to see if they have someone suitable. In fact, upon learning that I've won an engagement, those calls are among the first ones my admin makes -- calls/emails to foreign labor resource providers are the next set of communications made -- when I have any project role that I can't fill with someone who's not currently assigned to a project. As I've said, demand outstrips availability when it comes to domestic technical resources.

So you ask yourself why is it that folks from places like India have the sense to see where the major economies of the world are headed and thus study and perform well in math and computer science, yet Americans would sooner bitch and moan about not being able to get a manufacturing job putting "square pegs in square holes" instead of getting the training to qualify for those jobs. Even an entry level (in terms of work types and responsibility, not in terms of career path) developer job pays decently, never mind that it pays better than being unemployed or working in a customer facing role at, say, McDonalds or Macy's, and at the beginning is where everyone has to start. Better to get started than to just keep griping for the latter will get one nowhere good.

In one word...Bullshit.

TY...with that remark, it'll be a cold day in Hell before I bother to respond to you.