Trump supporters, are you happy?

[jc456]

so the question is, do you want manufacturing jobs back in the US. If so, do you really think the prices of those products won't go up? Especially with minimum wage and unions that none of the other countries today have to deal with. So i therefore must believe then you don't want american manufacturing to return.

Trump's plan doesn't bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. It just destroys jobs. Free trade and capitalism (economic freedom) create jobs with economic efficiency.

How is it you know more about economics than the field of economics again?

So tell us how bringing companies back to the US destroys jobs?

Fallacy of begging the question

That makes no sense in the context of anything I said. Try reading my posts again and asking a question that is relevant to what I argued

well you assume a transition period. I agree, just like there was when the jobs left. Destroy? Why would it destroy jobs? You never provided the why.

Actually I've said it a bunch of times. Higher prices harm consumers and the competitiveness of US companies against foreign competition. I'm not arguing Econ 101 with you, go take a class and come back

you never said that, unless you give me a post number to look at. I haven't seen you mention that. Again, bringing manufacturing jobs back will automatically raise consumer goods prices. we agree. So you'd prefer no jobs over that? Is that what you're attempting to say in so few words?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You won the Republican party with 40% of the vote. You turned around and said **** you to the other 60%. And there are more Democrats than Republicans in this country. Then you said **** you to libertarians and anyone else who while being pretty unhappy with your party wanted you to step up and be worth a vote.

Trump's statement he prefers soldiers who aren't captured was an embarrassment. Sure, the press is leftist and warped his statement on Khan and Putin getting Hillary's e-mails, but welcome to being a Republican. So after saying the Supreme Court is the prize, you're about to hand it to Hillary.

Proud of yourselves?

I'm a Cruz voter, what is the big ******* deal...at least he has some.fiight in him unlike McCain or romney.

Republicans weren't getting it done....I wanted carson then Cruz then I got tru.p, but God I love how he pisses people off

I'm a Cruz supporter too. I'm not finding any disagreement with anything I said. And I agree with you on the humor of Trump pissing people off. Not sure I would go with that as an end goal personally, but it is amusing along the way.

Oh, and ... Go Blue!

I don't, but those republicans not supporting him are garbage mostly. They use the same tactics liberals do, and I can't stand them. Meg Whitman will never endorse a candidate I vote for.

If THAT isn't the pot calling the kettle black. Trumpettes are indistinguishable from leftists in every single attitude and behavior EXCEPT they want Trump to be their Big Government Goodie Distributor instead of Hillary. You need only look at your own charming post about "garbage" to see the standard leftist tactic of demonizing those who disagree with you in order to avoid ever having to address their concerns seriously.

But hey, I guess that means you don't need our "garbage" votes to win the election, so good luck on that "yuuuuuge win" without us. And don't even consider trying that bullying, horseshit hypocrisy of, "Well, if you don't decide Trump is wonderful, you want Hillary, but he doesn't need your vote, but you have to get on board to beat Hillary, but you're garbage". If you ever connect with reality enough to recognize how badly your Idiot Boy candidate is botching the election and start to wonder why, look no further than your own reflection of his utterly repellent attitudes.

 

[jc456]

dude, good for you. you keep voting in loser politicians who give a shit if you're breathing or not. What have they actually done for anyone? Really.

You keep voting for Tweedledum and Tweedledee. How has voting for the candidate who lies to you as opposed to the candidate who lies to your opposition worked out for you?

I never voted for obama, sorry!

Non sequitur

Bush failed in 2007 when he agreed with Dodd and Frank. never should have let that happen. It tanked housing. And created the boom. I had no issues with Bush till then.

Bush was always a tax and spend liberal no different than a Democrat

I never had a problem with Bush until 07 like I said. And it was Dodd and Frank that killed the market. Bush went along for the ride that failed.

 

[jc456]

You won the Republican party with 40% of the vote. You turned around and said **** you to the other 60%. And there are more Democrats than Republicans in this country. Then you said **** you to libertarians and anyone else who while being pretty unhappy with your party wanted you to step up and be worth a vote.

Trump's statement he prefers soldiers who aren't captured was an embarrassment. Sure, the press is leftist and warped his statement on Khan and Putin getting Hillary's e-mails, but welcome to being a Republican. So after saying the Supreme Court is the prize, you're about to hand it to Hillary.

Proud of yourselves?

I'm a Cruz voter, what is the big ******* deal...at least he has some.fiight in him unlike McCain or romney.

Republicans weren't getting it done....I wanted carson then Cruz then I got tru.p, but God I love how he pisses people off

I'm a Cruz supporter too. I'm not finding any disagreement with anything I said. And I agree with you on the humor of Trump pissing people off. Not sure I would go with that as an end goal personally, but it is amusing along the way.

Oh, and ... Go Blue!

I don't, but those republicans not supporting him are garbage mostly. They use the same tactics liberals do, and I can't stand them. Meg Whitman will never endorse a candidate I vote for.

If THAT isn't the pot calling the kettle black. Trumpettes are indistinguishable from leftists in every single attitude and behavior EXCEPT they want Trump to be their Big Government Goodie Distributor instead of Hillary. You need only look at your own charming post about "garbage" to see the standard leftist tactic of demonizing those who disagree with you in order to avoid ever having to address their concerns seriously.

But hey, I guess that means you don't need our "garbage" votes to win the election, so good luck on that "yuuuuuge win" without us. And don't even consider trying that bullying, horseshit hypocrisy of, "Well, if you don't decide Trump is wonderful, you want Hillary, but he doesn't need your vote, but you have to get on board to beat Hillary, but you're garbage". If you ever connect with reality enough to recognize how badly your Idiot Boy candidate is botching the election and start to wonder why, look no further than your own reflection of his utterly repellent attitudes.

no we want businesses to run their shops and the government stay out. it's quite simple bubba.

 

[80zephyr]

BTW, if we need a formal education or career in a field to have an opinion, then, since you are talking politics, you should be immediately excluded from this thread, assuming you have never held office, of course.

Oh, one more thing. If the "field of economics" is always right, why do we have such a hard time predicting, much less controlling, things to make our economy better?

Mark

Strawman. I asked how you know the field of economics is wrong. You contradicted it. You didn't just express an opinion. You said economics is WRONG with the positions you said. That doesn't say the crap you said about needing a degree to have an opinion.

Thanks for answering your own question though why I keep telling you to re-read my posts and demonstrating my OP that you only want the support of 40% of the Republican party.

A fiscally conservative, free market capitalist, and you don't want my support. Tell me how Trump wins without us

Now who is misquoting? When did I say that the field of economics was wrong concerning free trade? I stated there would be winners and losers.

And we BOTH know that is correct.

Mark

That isn't where I said you contradicted economics. It was that forcing manufacturing to stay here would provide a net increase in jobs

Will allowing them to leave provide a net increase in jobs? If so, where? That is my point about creating winners and losers. While economic theory is correct that free trade will provide an increase worldwide, it will DEFINITELY hurt some players. Do you deny this?

As an economist, you MUST SEE what has happened to our earning power, our economic growth, and our standard of living in the past 30 years or so as these ideas have been instituted. If you believe that our sluggishness in not due to these policies, then state why you believe we are in such a predicament at this time.

Mark

 

[jc456]

BTW, if we need a formal education or career in a field to have an opinion, then, since you are talking politics, you should be immediately excluded from this thread, assuming you have never held office, of course.

Oh, one more thing. If the "field of economics" is always right, why do we have such a hard time predicting, much less controlling, things to make our economy better?

Mark

Strawman. I asked how you know the field of economics is wrong. You contradicted it. You didn't just express an opinion. You said economics is WRONG with the positions you said. That doesn't say the crap you said about needing a degree to have an opinion.

Thanks for answering your own question though why I keep telling you to re-read my posts and demonstrating my OP that you only want the support of 40% of the Republican party.

A fiscally conservative, free market capitalist, and you don't want my support. Tell me how Trump wins without us

Now who is misquoting? When did I say that the field of economics was wrong concerning free trade? I stated there would be winners and losers.

And we BOTH know that is correct.

Mark

That isn't where I said you contradicted economics. It was that forcing manufacturing to stay here would provide a net increase in jobs

Will allowing them to leave provide a net increase in jobs? If so, where? That is my point about creating winners and losers. While economic theory is correct that free trade will provide an increase worldwide, it will DEFINITELY hurt some players. Do you deny this?

As an economist, you MUST SEE what has happened to our earning power, our economic growth, and our standard of living in the past 30 years or so as these ideas have been instituted. If you believe that our sluggishness in not due to these policies, then state why you believe we are in such a predicament at this time.

Mark

we already know the only loser is US American jobs. Cheaper workers and no regulations creates a loss of jobs. Period.

 

[80zephyr]

BTW, if we need a formal education or career in a field to have an opinion, then, since you are talking politics, you should be immediately excluded from this thread, assuming you have never held office, of course.

Oh, one more thing. If the "field of economics" is always right, why do we have such a hard time predicting, much less controlling, things to make our economy better?

Mark

Strawman. I asked how you know the field of economics is wrong. You contradicted it. You didn't just express an opinion. You said economics is WRONG with the positions you said. That doesn't say the crap you said about needing a degree to have an opinion.

Thanks for answering your own question though why I keep telling you to re-read my posts and demonstrating my OP that you only want the support of 40% of the Republican party.

A fiscally conservative, free market capitalist, and you don't want my support. Tell me how Trump wins without us

Now who is misquoting? When did I say that the field of economics was wrong concerning free trade? I stated there would be winners and losers.

And we BOTH know that is correct.

Mark

That isn't where I said you contradicted economics. It was that forcing manufacturing to stay here would provide a net increase in jobs

Will allowing them to leave provide a net increase in jobs? If so, where? That is my point about creating winners and losers. While economic theory is correct that free trade will provide an increase worldwide, it will DEFINITELY hurt some players. Do you deny this?

As an economist, you MUST SEE what has happened to our earning power, our economic growth, and our standard of living in the past 30 years or so as these ideas have been instituted. If you believe that our sluggishness in not due to these policies, then state why you believe we are in such a predicament at this time.

Mark

we already know the only loser is US American jobs. Cheaper workers and no regulations creates a loss of jobs. Period.

Correct. And bringing in H1B workers and immigrants hurts us even more.

Mark

 

[The Irish Ram]

BTW, if we need a formal education or career in a field to have an opinion, then, since you are talking politics, you should be immediately excluded from this thread, assuming you have never held office, of course.

Oh, one more thing. If the "field of economics" is always right, why do we have such a hard time predicting, much less controlling, things to make our economy better?

Mark

Strawman. I asked how you know the field of economics is wrong. You contradicted it. You didn't just express an opinion. You said economics is WRONG with the positions you said. That doesn't say the crap you said about needing a degree to have an opinion.

Thanks for answering your own question though why I keep telling you to re-read my posts and demonstrating my OP that you only want the support of 40% of the Republican party.

A fiscally conservative, free market capitalist, and you don't want my support. Tell me how Trump wins without us

Now who is misquoting? When did I say that the field of economics was wrong concerning free trade? I stated there would be winners and losers.

And we BOTH know that is correct.

Mark

And so far the loser has been american workers.

And you want to **** them again by crushing the economy

We have no economy. We have NAFTA and the ASIAN connection. Thank you Democrats. Trump wants us back to work. Hillary wants us to get Asia up and running at our expense. Again.
Trump 2016.

 

[jc456]

BTW Kaz, what is hitlery's plan for jobs? Obama hasn't done anything, so what intelligent plan does she have, and anyone else?

You claim Trump doesn't have a plan, I show what that is and you poke holes. Fair enough, so what are the plans of all other candidates?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You won the Republican party with 40% of the vote. You turned around and said **** you to the other 60%. And there are more Democrats than Republicans in this country. Then you said **** you to libertarians and anyone else who while being pretty unhappy with your party wanted you to step up and be worth a vote.

Trump's statement he prefers soldiers who aren't captured was an embarrassment. Sure, the press is leftist and warped his statement on Khan and Putin getting Hillary's e-mails, but welcome to being a Republican. So after saying the Supreme Court is the prize, you're about to hand it to Hillary.

Proud of yourselves?

Trump was not my first choice, but how did those 40% **** anybody? With 17 candidates, getting 40% itself was a small miracle. If the votes were "fair and square", Trump won and he should have the backing of 100% of the Republican party. Didn't all those candidates pledge that if they lost, they would back the nominee? Their refusal to do so is the worst kind of betrayal, and they should be ostracized from the party.

Mark

I don't know what you're talking about, that isn't what I said

This is from the OP:

You won the Republican party with 40% of the vote. You turned around and said **** you to the other 60%.

Sounds pretty straight forward to me.

Mark

Sounds like a hypocrisy from a bunch of people who alleged that their primary motivation was "We're ANGRY! Don't you understand, we're ANGRY!" at the Establishment for behaving the exact same way toward them. But NOW it's no big deal, "pretty straightforward", which tells me you people never thought the behavior of those in power was wrong at all; you were just pissed that YOU weren't the ones getting to abuse and ignore others.

 

[kaz]

Trump's plan doesn't bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. It just destroys jobs. Free trade and capitalism (economic freedom) create jobs with economic efficiency.

How is it you know more about economics than the field of economics again?

that's his fking entire plan on trade, bring the jobs back home. force the US American businesses to bring them home. how do you supposed he'll do that. Import taxes. there won't be anyway for them to survive without bringing them home and opening manufacturing here. I love it. Fk all you who pay for cheap labor out of country. Bring American jobs home. It ought to be his theme.

Four hundred of my friends lost jobs in 2003 to mexico workers. Fk that. BTW, their quality was so bad that my company left Mexico and went to shanghai. Guess what, still ain't the best. American made the only way. Go Donald Bring American Jobs Home!!!!!

No, bringing back jobs is a "goal" not a "plan." I'm good with his goal, but his plan accomplishes the destruction of jobs and economic collapse, that isn't going to accomplish his goal

and why I asked, if the product today were actually manufactured in the US, do you think it would remain at the price that is set from being manufactured offshore? It is a rhetorical question.

You mean it's not a rhetorical question? I never said the price would stay the same, I said it would go up. What are you talking about?

which post did you write that?

I've said it repeatedly in thread after thread, I'm not going to find it for you

 

[Seawytch]

BTW Kaz, what is hitlery's plan for jobs? Obama hasn't done anything, so what intelligent plan does she have, and anyone else?

You claim Trump doesn't have a plan, I show what that is and you poke holes. Fair enough, so what are the plans of all other candidates?

Obama hasn't done anything? So the longest streak of positive private sector job growth in history is "nothing"?

Is that what life in the bubble is like, completely ignoring actual facts?

 

[kaz]

You won the Republican party with 40% of the vote. You turned around and said **** you to the other 60%. And there are more Democrats than Republicans in this country. Then you said **** you to libertarians and anyone else who while being pretty unhappy with your party wanted you to step up and be worth a vote.

Trump's statement he prefers soldiers who aren't captured was an embarrassment. Sure, the press is leftist and warped his statement on Khan and Putin getting Hillary's e-mails, but welcome to being a Republican. So after saying the Supreme Court is the prize, you're about to hand it to Hillary.

Proud of yourselves?

How do you know the 40 / breakdown? Do you think everyone votes in primaries? He received more votes than anyone ever has. Did Killary get 100% of the votes? Trump has far more support than you think.

Trump was running 40% in the primaries when Cruz dropped out and he won. After that he was the only candidate.

Not sure what your claim is based on that he has more support than that and you gave me no idea what it's based on

kaz

So could you explain to the forum how you came up with the 40% figure?

See posts numbers 68 and 89

So in other words, you are ******* lying to the forum again, jackass.

First of all, you're another example of the OP. Second of all, I keep answering your question. What are you looking for? I explained exactly where I got 40%.

How's being a dick about being a Trump supporter working out for you? Check the polls lately?

 

[kaz]

BTW, if we need a formal education or career in a field to have an opinion, then, since you are talking politics, you should be immediately excluded from this thread, assuming you have never held office, of course.

Oh, one more thing. If the "field of economics" is always right, why do we have such a hard time predicting, much less controlling, things to make our economy better?

Mark

Strawman. I asked how you know the field of economics is wrong. You contradicted it. You didn't just express an opinion. You said economics is WRONG with the positions you said. That doesn't say the crap you said about needing a degree to have an opinion.

Thanks for answering your own question though why I keep telling you to re-read my posts and demonstrating my OP that you only want the support of 40% of the Republican party.

A fiscally conservative, free market capitalist, and you don't want my support. Tell me how Trump wins without us

well your 40% question is wrong, it is what do the 60% of the GOP want. They lost, what is it they'd prefer, htlery? Really you think that? And again goes back to my if they don't want to lose seats, that 60% better figure out what they want, and Trump is their only option. Just saying facts is facts. It goes to that old straight party vote.

Since I'm not a Republican, I don't really care. My question to Trump supporters is based on your goal of wanting Trump to win

 

[jc456]

You won the Republican party with 40% of the vote. You turned around and said **** you to the other 60%. And there are more Democrats than Republicans in this country. Then you said **** you to libertarians and anyone else who while being pretty unhappy with your party wanted you to step up and be worth a vote.

Trump's statement he prefers soldiers who aren't captured was an embarrassment. Sure, the press is leftist and warped his statement on Khan and Putin getting Hillary's e-mails, but welcome to being a Republican. So after saying the Supreme Court is the prize, you're about to hand it to Hillary.

Proud of yourselves?

Trump was not my first choice, but how did those 40% **** anybody? With 17 candidates, getting 40% itself was a small miracle. If the votes were "fair and square", Trump won and he should have the backing of 100% of the Republican party. Didn't all those candidates pledge that if they lost, they would back the nominee? Their refusal to do so is the worst kind of betrayal, and they should be ostracized from the party.

Mark

I don't know what you're talking about, that isn't what I said

This is from the OP:

You won the Republican party with 40% of the vote. You turned around and said **** you to the other 60%.

Sounds pretty straight forward to me.

Mark

Sounds like a hypocrisy from a bunch of people who alleged that their primary motivation was "We're ANGRY! Don't you understand, we're ANGRY!" at the Establishment for behaving the exact same way toward them. But NOW it's no big deal, "pretty straightforward", which tells me you people never thought the behavior of those in power was wrong at all; you were just pissed that YOU weren't the ones getting to abuse and ignore others.

your point isn't clear. Trump supporters are angry that no one listens in Washington. That included republican politicians. It was the argument that defeated all of the competition in the primaries. What is it you're trying to say?

 

[kaz]

You said more than that which I didn't say

By them saying "**** you" it was implicit in your post. If it wasn't, then you should explain just why they are ******* anyone.

Mark

You said I said that just their winning 40% and the nomination is what I described as saying **** you. Never said that. I said

- They won 40%, they need more to win

- They aren't going to get that by continuing to insult the people they need

It seems pretty straight forward to you because you didn't understand it. Trump supporters are continually complete asses about supporting Trump. They keep telling me Trump owns my vote when I keep telling them I'm not a Republican. They don't respond to points. I don't know how they are going to win

Well, if you claim to be an economist, you should understand math. Getting 40% in a 17 person field is an incredible accomplishment. If every primary winner had to have 50% or more of a party vote to win, we would have damn few candidates in multi person primary elections.

Mark

I said education and career. More specifically:

Education: MBA emphasizing Finance (a branch of economics) from Michigan

Career: Management and Management Consulting for major US companies such as GE, Cisco, Pfizer, Booz Allen, ...

As for math, undergraduate at Maryland, double major math and computer science.

As for your point, again, nowhere did I criticize him for getting 40%, what I said was, try to follow this, I'm tired of repeating it.

If ... you get 40% of the Republican party ... then ... you need to expand your support. How are you not getting that?

You said 40% "wasn't enough". Well...no shit. However, when the field winnows out, people that voted for other candidates have essentially two choices. Vote for Trump or Hillary. My first choice was Cruz, and he won my state(Wisconsin). I will be voting for Trump because I have no other option. His support should expand as the field narrows, unless you believe the 60% he did not carry will either sit home or vote for Hillary.

Mark

There are other options. I'm not going to vote for Trump, sit at home or vote for Hillary

 

[jc456]

that's his fking entire plan on trade, bring the jobs back home. force the US American businesses to bring them home. how do you supposed he'll do that. Import taxes. there won't be anyway for them to survive without bringing them home and opening manufacturing here. I love it. Fk all you who pay for cheap labor out of country. Bring American jobs home. It ought to be his theme.

Four hundred of my friends lost jobs in 2003 to mexico workers. Fk that. BTW, their quality was so bad that my company left Mexico and went to shanghai. Guess what, still ain't the best. American made the only way. Go Donald Bring American Jobs Home!!!!!

No, bringing back jobs is a "goal" not a "plan." I'm good with his goal, but his plan accomplishes the destruction of jobs and economic collapse, that isn't going to accomplish his goal

and why I asked, if the product today were actually manufactured in the US, do you think it would remain at the price that is set from being manufactured offshore? It is a rhetorical question.

You mean it's not a rhetorical question? I never said the price would stay the same, I said it would go up. What are you talking about?

which post did you write that?

I've said it repeatedly in thread after thread, I'm not going to find it for you

well then I'll conclude you didn't. I'm not going back and reading all your posts. you can't back your statement that's on you.

 

[jc456]

BTW Kaz, what is hitlery's plan for jobs? Obama hasn't done anything, so what intelligent plan does she have, and anyone else?

You claim Trump doesn't have a plan, I show what that is and you poke holes. Fair enough, so what are the plans of all other candidates?

Obama hasn't done anything? So the longest streak of positive private sector job growth in history is "nothing"?

Is that what life in the bubble is like, completely ignoring actual facts?

yeah just post up those figures bubba.

Answer me this one question, what was the percent of americans on welfare receiving food stamps when obama took office to the percentage today, you have those figures? It's been posted in the forum already in other threads if you've been following them.

 

[jc456]

How do you know the 40 / breakdown? Do you think everyone votes in primaries? He received more votes than anyone ever has. Did Killary get 100% of the votes? Trump has far more support than you think.

Trump was running 40% in the primaries when Cruz dropped out and he won. After that he was the only candidate.

Not sure what your claim is based on that he has more support than that and you gave me no idea what it's based on

kaz

So could you explain to the forum how you came up with the 40% figure?

See posts numbers 68 and 89

So in other words, you are ******* lying to the forum again, jackass.

First of all, you're another example of the OP. Second of all, I keep answering your question. What are you looking for? I explained exactly where I got 40%.

How's being a dick about being a Trump supporter working out for you? Check the polls lately?

the liberal ones? yeah we all know the way it's working. the real polls don't exist. So? There's already been threads on the imbalance of the polls to force an opinion. We understand that.

 

[kaz]

BTW, if we need a formal education or career in a field to have an opinion, then, since you are talking politics, you should be immediately excluded from this thread, assuming you have never held office, of course.

Oh, one more thing. If the "field of economics" is always right, why do we have such a hard time predicting, much less controlling, things to make our economy better?

Mark

Strawman. I asked how you know the field of economics is wrong. You contradicted it. You didn't just express an opinion. You said economics is WRONG with the positions you said. That doesn't say the crap you said about needing a degree to have an opinion.

Thanks for answering your own question though why I keep telling you to re-read my posts and demonstrating my OP that you only want the support of 40% of the Republican party.

A fiscally conservative, free market capitalist, and you don't want my support. Tell me how Trump wins without us

Now who is misquoting? When did I say that the field of economics was wrong concerning free trade? I stated there would be winners and losers.

And we BOTH know that is correct.

Mark

That isn't where I said you contradicted economics. It was that forcing manufacturing to stay here would provide a net increase in jobs

The question is, why wouldn't Americans want manufacturing jobs to stay here? Why would they want to continue to lose?

I don't know, why wouldn't they? When you have anything to say about what I said, let me know. Not sure why you addressed this one to me