Donald Trump's Argument for America (Two-Minute Video)

[Blackrook]

This is worth watching.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No, actually, its not.

Its just the same SSDD from Putin's useful idiot and you RWNJ traitors should be ashamed for voting against your own country. Again.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is worth watching.

lol, there are more black guys in the NHL than there are in that crowd.

 

[320 Years of History]

First of all, what that video presents isn't an argument; it's a series of unsubstantiated claims. Indeed, what Trump has spewn for the entirety of his campaign is a series of unsubstantiated claims or conclusions, depending on which statement one evaluates.

Remarks (paraphrased) from the video:

• "The establishment" and/or "political establishment"
  • What is "the establishment?" Has Trump ever defined it? As far as I can tell, it's anyone with political or economic power who disagrees with him, all the while not including himself among "the establishment" even though he's long had lots of political and economic power.
• The establishment don't have your, the non-establishment people of America's, interests in mind.
  • When I grew up, I knew who were "the establishment." They were the members of the wealthy old families who set the tone for our culture.
    
    They were the folks whom everyone else emulated, or did so as best they could given that "non members" typically had very little exposure to "members," their characters, values, priorities, principles and personalities outside of the workplace.
    
    They are the people of whom I have either good things to say or nothing to say. Why? Because the folks whom I didn't care for, I didn't associate with and the one's I associated with were, in mind, decent people. Of someone I hardly knew well, someone who made a bad first impression, what is there to say? One doesn't impugn the character of someone whom one doesn't know well.
    
    They were the people who valued tradition and traditional ideas and behavior paradigms. They were the folks we saw summering on the Cape or who attended staid social events, or the people at the club or golf course. They were the people whose names almost never appeared in the paper other than on the occasion of a birth, marriage or death.
    
    Those people cared about non-establishment folks quite a lot and they still do. They cared about them for a very obvious reason: their fortunes depend on the non-establishment part of society just as must as do the fortunes of non-establishment Americans depend on the establishment. There's a symbiotic relationship between the groups. That has not changed. What has changed is everyone else's attitudes toward "the establishment." The only reason I can identify for that is because Donald Trump has made of point of demonizing "the establishment."
    
    Based on my own observations and experiences, a good share of "the establishment" hasn't cared much for Trump since he was a young man, and now he's attempting to exact retribution. I mean really, Trump's parents sent him to military school, which in those days was what "establishment" parents like Trump's did with their miscreant kids, that is, their kids whom places like St. Paul's, Deerfield, Exeter, Groton, and so on would not admit. Thus when one hears of Trump's interpersonal behavior (not his academic or sports performance) and relationships from high school, one must consider it in context. I'm sure if one can find felons and/or reform school graduates who'll describe other felons as being "decent." Back then, "hoity toity" high school military academies were essentially reform schools for kids from wealthy families. (provided the kid's "problem" was seen as just bad behavior -- bullying, fighting, disrespectfulness, too high strung, etc. -- but there was a reaosn to have hope the kid would, after graduating, fit into "decent society;" kids with psychological maladies went to acutal reform schools)
    • Donald Trump was brash, even at Wharton business school - The Boston Globe
      
    • Donald Trump's early years, in five minutes
      
      
      • "He was wise guy. He’s the fellow who threw an eraser and gave the teacher a black eye, and would throw cake around a birthday party." (That's someone else relating Trump's description of himself.)
      • "You won’t find people at Penn who will say, well, I was Donald’s really good friend, I was in a fraternity with him, or we socialized."

• Replace government with a new government controlled by "you, the American people."

• That would require a Constitutional change to transition the U.S. from being a democratic republic to being a direct democracy. I find it absurd to think that's what Trump aims to achieve.

• We have disastrous trade deals.

• Yeah....Without exception, I have yet to find any objective and rigorous empirical analysis of our trade deals that indicates they are anything close to "disastrous." At the worst, I can find rigorous analysis that casts them, in particular NAFTA, as having but a little bit of positive impact. Be that as it may, no amount of positive impact can be called a disaster. Another thing I've not found is anyone on USMB who's read that analysis and responded with an equally rigorous and cogent refutation of the analysis presented.
  • CDZ - Free Trade vs. Protectionism

• The decisions the establishment have made have "bled our country dry."

• Trump has not identified any such decisions, other perhaps than the vote that passed O-care, but that one piece of legislation is hardly going to "bleed the nation dry" even if it does require the government to spend more tax dollars on healthcare elements (in total) than the government spent prior to O-care.

• The only people who can stop the establishment is you, the American people.

• Unlike his assertion about the qualitative nature of our trade deals, this statement is plausibly true, although it's far from certain that it is true. If it be true, however, the American people's choice for President isn't going to effect the stop. It's not because of our three branches of Federal Government, the Congress is the most powerful; it can pass legislation without the President's signature and it can, in concert with state legislatures, ratify legislation that overrules the SCOTUS' decisions. Thus if "the people" are to "stop the establishment," the way to do it is to elect legislative representatives who will repeal the laws that empower "the establishment."
  
  Given that the legislative branches of government are the most powerful, Trump's tacit claim that electing him, or anyone else, as President will "stop the establishment" is speciously spurious.

 

[Blackrook]

320, I was once like you, and a year ago I would have agreed with everything you've just said.

But I've been struggling in the Obama economy. A vote for Hillary is a vote for four more years of the same. I'm ready for a change.

 

[Preacher]

This is worth watching.

That was his "bankers speech" in Florida. Scared a LOT of the elitists....IMO one of the greatest speeches I have EVER heard.

 

[Preacher]

First of all, what that video presents isn't an argument; it's a series of unsubstantiated claims. Indeed, what Trump has spewn for the entirety of his campaign is a series of unsubstantiated claims or conclusions, depending on which statement one evaluates.

Remarks (paraphrased) from the video:

• "The establishment" and/or "political establishment"
  • What is "the establishment?" Has Trump ever defined it? As far as I can tell, it's anyone with political or economic power who disagrees with him, all the while not including himself among "the establishment" even though he's long had lots of political and economic power.
• The establishment don't have your, the non-establishment people of America's, interests in mind.
  • When I grew up, I knew who were "the establishment." They were the members of the wealthy old families who set the tone for our culture.
    
    They were the folks whom everyone else emulated, or did so as best they could given that "non members" typically had very little exposure to "members," their characters, values, priorities, principles and personalities outside of the workplace.
    
    They are the people of whom I have either good things to say or nothing to say. Why? Because the folks whom I didn't care for, I didn't associate with and the one's I associated with were, in mind, decent people. Of someone I hardly knew well, someone who made a bad first impression, what is there to say? One doesn't impugn the character of someone whom one doesn't know well.
    
    They were the people who valued tradition and traditional ideas and behavior paradigms. They were the folks we saw summering on the Cape or who attended staid social events, or the people at the club or golf course. They were the people whose names almost never appeared in the paper other than on the occasion of a birth, marriage or death.
    
    Those people cared about non-establishment folks quite a lot and they still do. They cared about them for a very obvious reason: their fortunes depend on the non-establishment part of society just as must as do the fortunes of non-establishment Americans depend on the establishment. There's a symbiotic relationship between the groups. That has not changed. What has changed is everyone else's attitudes toward "the establishment." The only reason I can identify for that is because Donald Trump has made of point of demonizing "the establishment."
    
    Based on my own observations and experiences, a good share of "the establishment" hasn't cared much for Trump since he was a young man, and now he's attempting to exact retribution. I mean really, Trump's parents sent him to military school, which in those days was what "establishment" parents like Trump's did with their miscreant kids, that is, their kids whom places like St. Paul's, Deerfield, Exeter, Groton, and so on would not admit. Thus when one hears of Trump's interpersonal behavior (not his academic or sports performance) and relationships from high school, one must consider it in context. I'm sure if one can find felons and/or reform school graduates who'll describe other felons as being "decent." Back then, "hoity toity" high school military academies were essentially reform schools for kids from wealthy families. (provided the kid's "problem" was seen as just bad behavior -- bullying, fighting, disrespectfulness, too high strung, etc. -- but there was a reaosn to have hope the kid would, after graduating, fit into "decent society;" kids with psychological maladies went to acutal reform schools)
    • Donald Trump was brash, even at Wharton business school - The Boston Globe
      
    • Donald Trump's early years, in five minutes
      
      • "He was wise guy. He’s the fellow who threw an eraser and gave the teacher a black eye, and would throw cake around a birthday party." (That's someone else relating Trump's description of himself.)
      • "You won’t find people at Penn who will say, well, I was Donald’s really good friend, I was in a fraternity with him, or we socialized."

• Replace government with a new government controlled by "you, the American people."

• That would require a Constitutional change to transition the U.S. from being a democratic republic to being a direct democracy. I find it absurd to think that's what Trump aims to achieve.

• We have disastrous trade deals.

• Yeah....Without exception, I have yet to find any objective and rigorous empirical analysis of our trade deals that indicates they are anything close to "disastrous." At the worst, I can find rigorous analysis that casts them, in particular NAFTA, as having but a little bit of positive impact. Be that as it may, no amount of positive impact can be called a disaster. Another thing I've not found is anyone on USMB who's read that analysis and responded with an equally rigorous and cogent refutation of the analysis presented.
  • CDZ - Free Trade vs. Protectionism

• The decisions the establishment have made have "bled our country dry."

• Trump has not identified any such decisions, other perhaps than the vote that passed O-care, but that one piece of legislation is hardly going to "bleed the nation dry" even if it does require the government to spend more tax dollars on healthcare elements (in total) than the government spent prior to O-care.

• The only people who can stop the establishment is you, the American people.

• Unlike his assertion about the qualitative nature of our trade deals, this statement is plausibly true, although it's far from certain that it is true. If it be true, however, the American people's choice for President isn't going to effect the stop. It's not because of our three branches of Federal Government, the Congress is the most powerful; it can pass legislation without the President's signature and it can, in concert with state legislatures, ratify legislation that overrules the SCOTUS' decisions. Thus if "the people" are to "stop the establishment," the way to do it is to elect legislative representatives who will repeal the laws that empower "the establishment."
  
  Given that the legislative branches of government are the most powerful, Trump's tacit claim that electing him, or anyone else, as President will "stop the establishment" is speciously spurious.

OK Clinton surrogate.

 

[Preacher]

Check out a paper titled ‘Accidental Nuclear War – The Real Danger of a Donald Trump Presidency’ at www.nucleardanger.org.

Oh look another paid troll of Clinton! YAWN!

 

[320 Years of History]

First of all, what that video presents isn't an argument; it's a series of unsubstantiated claims. Indeed, what Trump has spewn for the entirety of his campaign is a series of unsubstantiated claims or conclusions, depending on which statement one evaluates.

Remarks (paraphrased) from the video:

• "The establishment" and/or "political establishment"
  • What is "the establishment?" Has Trump ever defined it? As far as I can tell, it's anyone with political or economic power who disagrees with him, all the while not including himself among "the establishment" even though he's long had lots of political and economic power.
• The establishment don't have your, the non-establishment people of America's, interests in mind.
  • When I grew up, I knew who were "the establishment." They were the members of the wealthy old families who set the tone for our culture.
    
    They were the folks whom everyone else emulated, or did so as best they could given that "non members" typically had very little exposure to "members," their characters, values, priorities, principles and personalities outside of the workplace.
    
    They are the people of whom I have either good things to say or nothing to say. Why? Because the folks whom I didn't care for, I didn't associate with and the one's I associated with were, in mind, decent people. Of someone I hardly knew well, someone who made a bad first impression, what is there to say? One doesn't impugn the character of someone whom one doesn't know well.
    
    They were the people who valued tradition and traditional ideas and behavior paradigms. They were the folks we saw summering on the Cape or who attended staid social events, or the people at the club or golf course. They were the people whose names almost never appeared in the paper other than on the occasion of a birth, marriage or death.
    
    Those people cared about non-establishment folks quite a lot and they still do. They cared about them for a very obvious reason: their fortunes depend on the non-establishment part of society just as must as do the fortunes of non-establishment Americans depend on the establishment. There's a symbiotic relationship between the groups. That has not changed. What has changed is everyone else's attitudes toward "the establishment." The only reason I can identify for that is because Donald Trump has made of point of demonizing "the establishment."
    
    Based on my own observations and experiences, a good share of "the establishment" hasn't cared much for Trump since he was a young man, and now he's attempting to exact retribution. I mean really, Trump's parents sent him to military school, which in those days was what "establishment" parents like Trump's did with their miscreant kids, that is, their kids whom places like St. Paul's, Deerfield, Exeter, Groton, and so on would not admit. Thus when one hears of Trump's interpersonal behavior (not his academic or sports performance) and relationships from high school, one must consider it in context. I'm sure if one can find felons and/or reform school graduates who'll describe other felons as being "decent." Back then, "hoity toity" high school military academies were essentially reform schools for kids from wealthy families. (provided the kid's "problem" was seen as just bad behavior -- bullying, fighting, disrespectfulness, too high strung, etc. -- but there was a reaosn to have hope the kid would, after graduating, fit into "decent society;" kids with psychological maladies went to acutal reform schools)
    • Donald Trump was brash, even at Wharton business school - The Boston Globe
      
    • Donald Trump's early years, in five minutes
      • "He was wise guy. He’s the fellow who threw an eraser and gave the teacher a black eye, and would throw cake around a birthday party." (That's someone else relating Trump's description of himself.)
      • "You won’t find people at Penn who will say, well, I was Donald’s really good friend, I was in a fraternity with him, or we socialized."

• Replace government with a new government controlled by "you, the American people."

• That would require a Constitutional change to transition the U.S. from being a democratic republic to being a direct democracy. I find it absurd to think that's what Trump aims to achieve.

• We have disastrous trade deals.

• Yeah....Without exception, I have yet to find any objective and rigorous empirical analysis of our trade deals that indicates they are anything close to "disastrous." At the worst, I can find rigorous analysis that casts them, in particular NAFTA, as having but a little bit of positive impact. Be that as it may, no amount of positive impact can be called a disaster. Another thing I've not found is anyone on USMB who's read that analysis and responded with an equally rigorous and cogent refutation of the analysis presented.
  • CDZ - Free Trade vs. Protectionism

• The decisions the establishment have made have "bled our country dry."

• Trump has not identified any such decisions, other perhaps than the vote that passed O-care, but that one piece of legislation is hardly going to "bleed the nation dry" even if it does require the government to spend more tax dollars on healthcare elements (in total) than the government spent prior to O-care.

• The only people who can stop the establishment is you, the American people.

• Unlike his assertion about the qualitative nature of our trade deals, this statement is plausibly true, although it's far from certain that it is true. If it be true, however, the American people's choice for President isn't going to effect the stop. It's not because of our three branches of Federal Government, the Congress is the most powerful; it can pass legislation without the President's signature and it can, in concert with state legislatures, ratify legislation that overrules the SCOTUS' decisions. Thus if "the people" are to "stop the establishment," the way to do it is to elect legislative representatives who will repeal the laws that empower "the establishment."
  
  Given that the legislative branches of government are the most powerful, Trump's tacit claim that electing him, or anyone else, as President will "stop the establishment" is speciously spurious.

OK Clinton surrogate.

Okay, "person with nothing substantive to say in reply."

 

[Preacher]

First of all, what that video presents isn't an argument; it's a series of unsubstantiated claims. Indeed, what Trump has spewn for the entirety of his campaign is a series of unsubstantiated claims or conclusions, depending on which statement one evaluates.

Remarks (paraphrased) from the video:

• "The establishment" and/or "political establishment"
  • What is "the establishment?" Has Trump ever defined it? As far as I can tell, it's anyone with political or economic power who disagrees with him, all the while not including himself among "the establishment" even though he's long had lots of political and economic power.
• The establishment don't have your, the non-establishment people of America's, interests in mind.
  • When I grew up, I knew who were "the establishment." They were the members of the wealthy old families who set the tone for our culture.
    
    They were the folks whom everyone else emulated, or did so as best they could given that "non members" typically had very little exposure to "members," their characters, values, priorities, principles and personalities outside of the workplace.
    
    They are the people of whom I have either good things to say or nothing to say. Why? Because the folks whom I didn't care for, I didn't associate with and the one's I associated with were, in mind, decent people. Of someone I hardly knew well, someone who made a bad first impression, what is there to say? One doesn't impugn the character of someone whom one doesn't know well.
    
    They were the people who valued tradition and traditional ideas and behavior paradigms. They were the folks we saw summering on the Cape or who attended staid social events, or the people at the club or golf course. They were the people whose names almost never appeared in the paper other than on the occasion of a birth, marriage or death.
    
    Those people cared about non-establishment folks quite a lot and they still do. They cared about them for a very obvious reason: their fortunes depend on the non-establishment part of society just as must as do the fortunes of non-establishment Americans depend on the establishment. There's a symbiotic relationship between the groups. That has not changed. What has changed is everyone else's attitudes toward "the establishment." The only reason I can identify for that is because Donald Trump has made of point of demonizing "the establishment."
    
    Based on my own observations and experiences, a good share of "the establishment" hasn't cared much for Trump since he was a young man, and now he's attempting to exact retribution. I mean really, Trump's parents sent him to military school, which in those days was what "establishment" parents like Trump's did with their miscreant kids, that is, their kids whom places like St. Paul's, Deerfield, Exeter, Groton, and so on would not admit. Thus when one hears of Trump's interpersonal behavior (not his academic or sports performance) and relationships from high school, one must consider it in context. I'm sure if one can find felons and/or reform school graduates who'll describe other felons as being "decent." Back then, "hoity toity" high school military academies were essentially reform schools for kids from wealthy families. (provided the kid's "problem" was seen as just bad behavior -- bullying, fighting, disrespectfulness, too high strung, etc. -- but there was a reaosn to have hope the kid would, after graduating, fit into "decent society;" kids with psychological maladies went to acutal reform schools)
    • Donald Trump was brash, even at Wharton business school - The Boston Globe
      
    • Donald Trump's early years, in five minutes
      • "He was wise guy. He’s the fellow who threw an eraser and gave the teacher a black eye, and would throw cake around a birthday party." (That's someone else relating Trump's description of himself.)
      • "You won’t find people at Penn who will say, well, I was Donald’s really good friend, I was in a fraternity with him, or we socialized."

• Replace government with a new government controlled by "you, the American people."

• That would require a Constitutional change to transition the U.S. from being a democratic republic to being a direct democracy. I find it absurd to think that's what Trump aims to achieve.

• We have disastrous trade deals.

• Yeah....Without exception, I have yet to find any objective and rigorous empirical analysis of our trade deals that indicates they are anything close to "disastrous." At the worst, I can find rigorous analysis that casts them, in particular NAFTA, as having but a little bit of positive impact. Be that as it may, no amount of positive impact can be called a disaster. Another thing I've not found is anyone on USMB who's read that analysis and responded with an equally rigorous and cogent refutation of the analysis presented.
  • CDZ - Free Trade vs. Protectionism

• The decisions the establishment have made have "bled our country dry."

• Trump has not identified any such decisions, other perhaps than the vote that passed O-care, but that one piece of legislation is hardly going to "bleed the nation dry" even if it does require the government to spend more tax dollars on healthcare elements (in total) than the government spent prior to O-care.

• The only people who can stop the establishment is you, the American people.

• Unlike his assertion about the qualitative nature of our trade deals, this statement is plausibly true, although it's far from certain that it is true. If it be true, however, the American people's choice for President isn't going to effect the stop. It's not because of our three branches of Federal Government, the Congress is the most powerful; it can pass legislation without the President's signature and it can, in concert with state legislatures, ratify legislation that overrules the SCOTUS' decisions. Thus if "the people" are to "stop the establishment," the way to do it is to elect legislative representatives who will repeal the laws that empower "the establishment."
  
  Given that the legislative branches of government are the most powerful, Trump's tacit claim that electing him, or anyone else, as President will "stop the establishment" is speciously spurious.

OK Clinton surrogate.

Okay, "person with nothing substantive to say in reply."

Yawn. Don't dissect EVERYTHING you won't get called what you are. If you hate the video then just ignore it!

 

[320 Years of History]

320, I was once like you, and a year ago I would have agreed with everything you've just said.

But I've been struggling in the Obama economy. A vote for Hillary is a vote for four more years of the same. I'm ready for a change.

Red:
I'm sorry to hear you have been struggling. But what has whether you or I find ourselves personally struggling to do with what I wrote? It's generous of you to share that information about yourself; doing so gives us some sense of the person who's writing. I just want to be sure I understand (1) how either of our individual situations has anything to do with the bigger picture and state of the nation, which is bigger than both of us, more important than how we each are doing, or (2) what yours, my or others' individual's personal situation has to do with the objective merit of Trump's claims. The nation doesn't rise or fall on us, or Trump even, as individuals, and the veracity of his claims does not depend on any one individual's situation.

The thing you, I, everyone must be cognizant of, however, isn't whether we individually are/have been struggling, but rather whether that is the circumstance of most people. With unemployment nationally at 4.9%, joblessness is nearly at structural levels. With income having risen 5.2% in 2015, it's not a matter of folks not making wage gains.

Blue:
If you once were like me in the sense that rigorous and objective critical analysis matters more than empty assertions, what on Earth ever made you not be that way? As for the economic position in which we find ourselves, well, I can only speak for myself, but no matter what it is at any moment or span of time, how I evaluate the world in which I live, how I collect information, the quality of information I collect, how analyze it and conclude upon it has nothing to do with that.

I would surely not be pleased to see my financial position ebb, but I'm not ever going to blame anyone but myself for that happening nor will I expect much from a President in terms of altering that situation. For example, if I lose my job and cannot get another one that provides similar or better compensation, that's my fault. It's my fault because I failed to maintain, obtain or develop skills the market was showing me are in high demand. No person on the planet but I is burdened with making that happen. That's my responsibility, and mine alone.

So, no, I'm not going to alter my views merely because my economic status changes.

 

[320 Years of History]

First of all, what that video presents isn't an argument; it's a series of unsubstantiated claims. Indeed, what Trump has spewn for the entirety of his campaign is a series of unsubstantiated claims or conclusions, depending on which statement one evaluates.

Remarks (paraphrased) from the video:

• "The establishment" and/or "political establishment"
  • What is "the establishment?" Has Trump ever defined it? As far as I can tell, it's anyone with political or economic power who disagrees with him, all the while not including himself among "the establishment" even though he's long had lots of political and economic power.
• The establishment don't have your, the non-establishment people of America's, interests in mind.
  • When I grew up, I knew who were "the establishment." They were the members of the wealthy old families who set the tone for our culture.
    
    They were the folks whom everyone else emulated, or did so as best they could given that "non members" typically had very little exposure to "members," their characters, values, priorities, principles and personalities outside of the workplace.
    
    They are the people of whom I have either good things to say or nothing to say. Why? Because the folks whom I didn't care for, I didn't associate with and the one's I associated with were, in mind, decent people. Of someone I hardly knew well, someone who made a bad first impression, what is there to say? One doesn't impugn the character of someone whom one doesn't know well.
    
    They were the people who valued tradition and traditional ideas and behavior paradigms. They were the folks we saw summering on the Cape or who attended staid social events, or the people at the club or golf course. They were the people whose names almost never appeared in the paper other than on the occasion of a birth, marriage or death.
    
    Those people cared about non-establishment folks quite a lot and they still do. They cared about them for a very obvious reason: their fortunes depend on the non-establishment part of society just as must as do the fortunes of non-establishment Americans depend on the establishment. There's a symbiotic relationship between the groups. That has not changed. What has changed is everyone else's attitudes toward "the establishment." The only reason I can identify for that is because Donald Trump has made of point of demonizing "the establishment."
    
    Based on my own observations and experiences, a good share of "the establishment" hasn't cared much for Trump since he was a young man, and now he's attempting to exact retribution. I mean really, Trump's parents sent him to military school, which in those days was what "establishment" parents like Trump's did with their miscreant kids, that is, their kids whom places like St. Paul's, Deerfield, Exeter, Groton, and so on would not admit. Thus when one hears of Trump's interpersonal behavior (not his academic or sports performance) and relationships from high school, one must consider it in context. I'm sure if one can find felons and/or reform school graduates who'll describe other felons as being "decent." Back then, "hoity toity" high school military academies were essentially reform schools for kids from wealthy families. (provided the kid's "problem" was seen as just bad behavior -- bullying, fighting, disrespectfulness, too high strung, etc. -- but there was a reaosn to have hope the kid would, after graduating, fit into "decent society;" kids with psychological maladies went to acutal reform schools)
    • Donald Trump was brash, even at Wharton business school - The Boston Globe
      
    • Donald Trump's early years, in five minutes
      • "He was wise guy. He’s the fellow who threw an eraser and gave the teacher a black eye, and would throw cake around a birthday party." (That's someone else relating Trump's description of himself.)
      • "You won’t find people at Penn who will say, well, I was Donald’s really good friend, I was in a fraternity with him, or we socialized."

• Replace government with a new government controlled by "you, the American people."

• That would require a Constitutional change to transition the U.S. from being a democratic republic to being a direct democracy. I find it absurd to think that's what Trump aims to achieve.

• We have disastrous trade deals.

• Yeah....Without exception, I have yet to find any objective and rigorous empirical analysis of our trade deals that indicates they are anything close to "disastrous." At the worst, I can find rigorous analysis that casts them, in particular NAFTA, as having but a little bit of positive impact. Be that as it may, no amount of positive impact can be called a disaster. Another thing I've not found is anyone on USMB who's read that analysis and responded with an equally rigorous and cogent refutation of the analysis presented.
  • CDZ - Free Trade vs. Protectionism

• The decisions the establishment have made have "bled our country dry."

• Trump has not identified any such decisions, other perhaps than the vote that passed O-care, but that one piece of legislation is hardly going to "bleed the nation dry" even if it does require the government to spend more tax dollars on healthcare elements (in total) than the government spent prior to O-care.

• The only people who can stop the establishment is you, the American people.

• Unlike his assertion about the qualitative nature of our trade deals, this statement is plausibly true, although it's far from certain that it is true. If it be true, however, the American people's choice for President isn't going to effect the stop. It's not because of our three branches of Federal Government, the Congress is the most powerful; it can pass legislation without the President's signature and it can, in concert with state legislatures, ratify legislation that overrules the SCOTUS' decisions. Thus if "the people" are to "stop the establishment," the way to do it is to elect legislative representatives who will repeal the laws that empower "the establishment."
  
  Given that the legislative branches of government are the most powerful, Trump's tacit claim that electing him, or anyone else, as President will "stop the establishment" is speciously spurious.

OK Clinton surrogate.

Okay, "person with nothing substantive to say in reply."

Yawn. Don't dissect EVERYTHING you won't get called what you are. If you hate the video then just ignore it!

Red:
I neither hate nor love the video. I don't have any emotion regarding the video. What I have is a brain that I use to rigorously evaluate the nature, veracity, substance and degrees thereof of the claims the speaker in the video makes. Expand the quote above and read carefully what I wrote. I didn't write about the video, I wrote about what Trump said.

Would you rather I write about the video? I don't want to write about it for there's not much to say for the video has no production values, no special effects, no cinematographic aspects of note, etc. that merit my commentary.

And by the way, you still have not responded with a substantive rebuttal to any of the points I made in my initial post in this thread. Do you have something substantive to say about the points I made? Are your thoughts limited only to responding with inane comments about me rather than the ideas I presented?

 

[Blackrook]

320, I was once like you, and a year ago I would have agreed with everything you've just said.

But I've been struggling in the Obama economy. A vote for Hillary is a vote for four more years of the same. I'm ready for a change.

Red:
I'm sorry to hear you have been struggling. But what has whether you or I find ourselves personally struggling to do with what I wrote? It's generous of you to share that information about yourself; doing so gives us some sense of the person who's writing. I just want to be sure I understand (1) how either of our individual situations has anything to do with the bigger picture and state of the nation, which is bigger than both of us, more important than how we each are doing, or (2) what yours, my or others' individual's personal situation has to do with the objective merit of Trump's claims. The nation doesn't rise or fall on us, or Trump even, as individuals, and the veracity of his claims does not depend on any one individual's situation.

The thing you, I, everyone must be cognizant of, however, isn't whether we individually are/have been struggling, but rather whether that is the circumstance of most people. With unemployment nationally at 4.9%, joblessness is nearly at structural levels. With income having risen 5.2% in 2015, it's not a matter of folks not making wage gains.

Blue:
If you once were like me in the sense that rigorous and objective critical analysis matters more than empty assertions, what on Earth ever made you not be that way? As for the economic position in which we find ourselves, well, I can only speak for myself, but no matter what it is at any moment or span of time, how I evaluate the world in which I live, how I collect information, the quality of information I collect, how analyze it and conclude upon it has nothing to do with that.

I would surely not be pleased to see my financial position ebb, but I'm not ever going to blame anyone but myself for that happening nor will I expect much from a President in terms of altering that situation. For example, if I lose my job and cannot get another one that provides similar or better compensation, that's my fault. It's my fault because I failed to maintain, obtain or develop skills the market was showing me are in high demand. No person on the planet but I is burdened with making that happen. That's my responsibility, and mine alone.

So, no, I'm not going to alter my views merely because my economic status changes.

That's easy for you to say in your position of comfort. You will see what happens after you've struggled for two years in an economy that never improves. You say it's all my fault, that I could have done something different. That's the arrogance of a person who has never had to deal with hard times in the city that has been hardest hit by the permanent stagnation we've experienced since Obama was elected President. Your lack of concern for my situation does nothing to convince me you're right, it only makes me angrier and all the more convinced that we need to elect Donald Trump. He will burn down the comfortable homes of the establishment, and I'm ready to hand him the torch.

 

[320 Years of History]

320, I was once like you, and a year ago I would have agreed with everything you've just said.

But I've been struggling in the Obama economy. A vote for Hillary is a vote for four more years of the same. I'm ready for a change.

Red:
I'm sorry to hear you have been struggling. But what has whether you or I find ourselves personally struggling to do with what I wrote? It's generous of you to share that information about yourself; doing so gives us some sense of the person who's writing. I just want to be sure I understand (1) how either of our individual situations has anything to do with the bigger picture and state of the nation, which is bigger than both of us, more important than how we each are doing, or (2) what yours, my or others' individual's personal situation has to do with the objective merit of Trump's claims. The nation doesn't rise or fall on us, or Trump even, as individuals, and the veracity of his claims does not depend on any one individual's situation.

The thing you, I, everyone must be cognizant of, however, isn't whether we individually are/have been struggling, but rather whether that is the circumstance of most people. With unemployment nationally at 4.9%, joblessness is nearly at structural levels. With income having risen 5.2% in 2015, it's not a matter of folks not making wage gains.

Blue:
If you once were like me in the sense that rigorous and objective critical analysis matters more than empty assertions, what on Earth ever made you not be that way? As for the economic position in which we find ourselves, well, I can only speak for myself, but no matter what it is at any moment or span of time, how I evaluate the world in which I live, how I collect information, the quality of information I collect, how analyze it and conclude upon it has nothing to do with that.

I would surely not be pleased to see my financial position ebb, but I'm not ever going to blame anyone but myself for that happening nor will I expect much from a President in terms of altering that situation. For example, if I lose my job and cannot get another one that provides similar or better compensation, that's my fault. It's my fault because I failed to maintain, obtain or develop skills the market was showing me are in high demand. No person on the planet but I is burdened with making that happen. That's my responsibility, and mine alone.

So, no, I'm not going to alter my views merely because my economic status changes.

That's easy for you to say in your position of comfort. You will see what happens after you've struggled for two years in an economy that never improves. You say it's all my fault, that I could have done something different. That's the arrogance of a person who has never had to deal with hard times in the city that has been hardest hit by the permanent stagnation we've experienced since Obama was elected President. Your lack of concern for my situation does nothing to convince me you're right, it only makes me angrier and all the more convinced that we need to elect Donald Trump. He will burn down the comfortable homes of the establishment, and I'm ready to hand him the torch.

Red:
I mentioned one strategy you, or anyone, could have implemented to provide for and ensure your economic sufficiency. Though I mentioned just one strategy, there are many. Moreover, there are multiple tactics available for implementing any one of them....We both know that at least one of those skillsets that one might have developed are tech skills and we knew that long before 2008 that technology skills would dominate in the employment arena. Tech skills are not the only ones that today provide a decent wage. Biotech is another growth industry that was identified as such well before 2008. Nursing too has for over a decade been a field in which there is a paucity of qualified individuals. Business management skills, though not exactly a growth area have long been in high demand. Those are just a few examples of the skills that one could have developed, but there are plenty more.

So, no, my saying that has nothing to do with arrogance. It has everything to do with "reading the writing on the wall" and heeding what it says. Thus my question to you is this: did you, prior to the past eight years, obtain and develop skills that were foreseeably going to be in high demand over the past eight years? I'm asking that question because "the writing" was there for you to see just as it was for me and everyone else. What it comes down to is who paid attention to what they read and took action on their own behalf and who didn't.

Blue:
It's not that I lack concern for your position. It's that I'm not willing to let you sit before me and blame your being in that position on someone else. I'm not going to "buy" such an exculpatory line from you or anyone because there are literally millions of people -- "regular" people -- who transform themselves as the market for labor changes. Quite simply, people who want to be employed by others need to do that if they expect to stay employed and paid at the level/sums they require.

As far as I'm concerned, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else gets to blame someone else for what happens to themselves. Each of us succeeds and/or fails through our own efforts, misguided efforts, or lack of effort because nobody held guns to our head forcing us to make the choices we did. (Doing something, or doing nothing, is a choice one makes.)

Green:
Maybe he will. Maybe he won't. That remains to be seen. That you have some sort of animosity or jealously (I don't know you well enough to know whether it's one, the other or both) toward folks who have done exactly what "the American Dream" says one must -- go to school, do well, start a career, and perform well, adjust with the times as needed -- is on you. From what basis do you find it right to wish the condemnation and ruin you described on the people who did exactly what they were supposed to do, who did what "the system" says one should do, and it worked as advertised?

There are people in America who are born into advantaged situations. I was. Paris Hilton was too. I, however, not to take over my family's company, instead pursuing a career that offered the opportunity to do the things I like doing rather than doing what I surely could do but dislike doing. Miss Hilton did the same, becoming a world class DJ and successful clothing designer. We both found more than adequate success charting our own course and we both had to figure out how to do it and make our success from scratch.

That's not one bit different from the challenges most "average" Americans face. Moreover, because my firm also had a public accounting division, because of the independence requirements to which I had to adhere, I literally could not exploit my "built in" familial business association to generate business and hit my annual revenue generation targets, and even if I were of a mind to do so, I couldn't have because those contacts aren't in the market segment in which the firm plays. (That may not have been the case for Miss Hilton. I don't know.)

I began my career as an accountant, shifted to consulting and have had to continually develop skills and knowledge as the things industry demands of consultants have changed over the past 20+ years. I couldn't "sit on the laurels" of my early success performing and later managing ERP implementations. I had to grow my skills, develop expertise with the business operations of more than the one industry in which my career began.

One of the things I knew I really wanted to do was see the world, and I was unwilling to join the military. To make that aspect of "my dreams" come true, I had to develop business and a reputation in my industry, but outside the U.S., which I did, and now I work mainly in Southern Asia and Europe. That wasn't easy; nobody handed that to me on silver platter. I busted my ass -- developing contacts, learning languages and learning cultures (business and societal) and eventually selling business to grow my firm's and my own fortunes -- to make that happen. And I had to do that and manage to be a present father in the lives of my three children.

So, no, what I said to you earlier is not just "something that's easy to say." It wasn't easy to start from scratch and build the career and life I wanted. It wasn't easy to survive on four to six hours of sleep a day for years on end. It wasn't easy to sit in a meeting with client execs and have to excuse myself because my kid was calling from school because they are more important that the job. It wasn't easy to take the courses I needed to keep growing my skills. It wasn't easy to fly halfway around the world every week to visit my kids at school -- to show up for my daughter's riding events and my sons' lacrosse and soccer games -- and then fly back to do my work. It wasn't easy to put my kids and my work ahead of my wife, and thus be mostly an absentee husband and watch my marriage dissolve.

It's actually hard to say because I know damn well what the potential consequences are of heeding the words I wrote, but it's what must be said to anyone who feels they have to achieve a given level of financial success. I didn't have to prioritize making money over being around for my wife. I didn't have to send my kids to pricey schools that were near an airport that has direct flights to and from where my clients are so I could maximize the time I had to spend with them. (There are perfectly fine schools in D.C. they could have gone to.) I didn't have to do or buy a lot of the things I've done and acquired, but I wanted to do those things and have those things, so I made the choices I had to make to bring those things about. They were my choices. Not my wife's. Not my kids'. Not my parents'. Not the President's, Congress', some Wall St. executive's or those of a cabal of an unnamed "controllers.'" They were not anyone else's choices and priorities but mine.

There's no arrogance in what I've said to you; I've not said you or anyone need do anything that I haven't done. You see, nobody promised me that achieving what I wanted would be easy. The only promise I was given was that if I did what I was supposed to do, followed the plan that "the system" gives us, it'd produce what I wanted. Except for having to get divorced, the promise has been met. It was anything but easy. Yet that's what I did; those are the choices I made that, for the downsides of having so chosen, I have nobody to blame but myself. But you know the good thing about that? There's also nobody else who can take credit for the upsides. That's mine to own as well. And I'm quite satisfied with and willing to own the good and the bad.