Trump could win presidency: Yes or No?

[aleCcowaN]

Early polls on the debate are biased. Anyway it starts to look Clinton did well with undecided voters and young people, which is very good for her.

The effect of the debate will slowly start to show in Dornsife USC's poll this midnight. But remember, all those polls as well the last one are biased by extreme awareness of the polled subjects.

 

[PartSkeptic]

So the rich support Trump, do they? Must be his plan to cut taxes.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-led-by-soros-simons-favor-clinton-over-trump

Former Secretary of State and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has collected $21.1 million for her campaign and its supporting political action committees from 17 U.S. donors on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. Republican Donald Trump has received $1.02 million from 12 members of the group.

Maybe I am misreading the article.

 

[aleCcowaN]

So the rich support Trump, do they? Must be his plan to cut taxes.



Maybe I am misreading the article.

The article shows quite the contrary. 17 billionaires donated 20 million to Clinton's while 12 billionaires donated just 1 million to Trump's.

Clinton was supported by George Soros, James Simmons and a little less by Steven Spielberg, and the rest were quite small donations no matter the candidate (300K from Alice Walton isn't modest, but she has 10 or 15 billions, it's like me donating 20 bucks)

Don't pay attention to all of that. My understanding is that the rich is not supporting neither. Clinton's government would be a regular one with higher taxes for them and Trump's government would be one full of uncertainties (and big capital generally favours certainty over higher net earnings).

 

[Foolmewunz]

The article shows quite the contrary. 17 billionaires donated 20 million to Clinton's while 12 billionaires donated just 1 million to Trump's.

Clinton was supported by George Soros, James Simmons and a little less by Steven Spielberg, and the rest were quite small donations no matter the candidate (300K from Alice Walton isn't modest, but she has 10 or 15 billions, it's like me donating 20 bucks)

Don't pay attention to all of that. My understanding is that the rich is not supporting neither. Clinton's government would be a regular one with higher taxes for them and Trump's government would be one full of uncertainties (and big capital generally favours certainty over higher net earnings).

It was meant to be a sarcastic post.


And I don't really recall anyone saying that the rich support Trump, so it's a sarcastic straw man, I guess.

 

[The Don]

So the rich support Trump, do they? Must be his plan to cut taxes.

Well given that the very rich don't really pay much in the way of taxes, Donald J Trump's tax cuts have little to offer them. OTOH the national and international turmoil which may very well accompany a Trump presidency is very much of interest to the very wealthy because they have a lot to lose.

It seems that the rich in general don't support Trump because they are worried that what he managed to do for some of his businesses will be reflected in what he does for the US economy,

 

[aleCcowaN]

It was meant to be a sarcastic post.


And I don't really recall anyone saying that the rich support Trump, so it's a sarcastic straw man, I guess.

Yes, but still a good topic. I have no beef with PartSkeptic, so I can allow myself the luxury of playing dumb.

Delving into the topic of what rich people really think of Trump is very interesting. I don't know how is it in the States, but in every country I know rich people and big and mid-size corporations divide among all candidates 60% of the money they spent, and the remaining 40% they give it to the candidate/s their hearts is set on. So much money for Clinton and so little for Trump in a two-horse race is very telling, in spite of his claims of he being "efficient".

The worst scenario I can imagine is Trump winning on Tuesday 8th, the local markets starting to fall slowly but ceaselessly on Wednesday 9th and the Central Bank of Italy closing a major bank on Monday 14th.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Well given that the very rich don't really pay much in the way of taxes, Donald J Trump's tax cuts have little to offer them. OTOH the national and international turmoil which may very well accompany a Trump presidency is very much of interest to the very wealthy because they have a lot to lose.

It seems that the rich in general don't support Trump because they are worried that what he managed to do for some of his businesses will be reflected in what he does for the US economy,

That was my take away.

There are two types of people who really like Clinton: those who know Clinton well and those who know Trump well.

 

[PartSkeptic]

The topic of the rich and the very rich is a key part of the support for Trump.

Can one person really wield so much power in the USA that they could cause a global meltdown? I thought there were checks and balances?

Or is the US and global economy so fragile that one man (Trump) could destroy it?

Take Zimbabwe as an extreme example. From the bread-basket of Africa to the basket case of Africa all caused by one man - Robert Mugabe. London educated and trained. Their economy is in ruins where 92% of government expenditure goes to government salaries. They cannot afford to pay the army and the police, so bribery is incredibly rife and high. And Mugabe and his wife live in palaces, with billions in Swiss bank accounts. There are no checks and balances.

Surely the US is far from such a scenario? Or do the elite have that much power?

Take the TPP. It seems that much of the agreement is to solidify corporate earnings and profit and salaries for the top management. The non-US nations love it.

And who attacked it and made Hillary change her position. Our man for the people - Trump.

 

[The Don]

The topic of the rich and the very rich is a key part of the support for Trump.

Can one person really wield so much power in the USA that they could cause a global meltdown? I thought there were checks and balances?

There are, but it doesn't have to be a global meltdown for rich people to be uncomfortable. Heck slightly slower growth could cost the very rich hundreds of millions of dollars.

Or is the US and global economy so fragile that one man (Trump) could destroy it?

Probably not but any uncertainty is a bad thing from an economic perspective.

And who attacked it and made Hillary change her position. Our man for the people - Trump.

That bit is flat out wrong but exactly what I'd expect from a Trump supporter. Trump taking credit for something he said yesterday changing Hillary's mind years ago

 

[Foolmewunz]

Trump didn't move her off the TPP, Bernie did. But with Donald's fondness for socialism and Fidel and Vlad, it's understandable that Republicans confuse the two.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Trump didn't move her off the TPP, Bernie did. But with Donald's fondness for socialism and Fidel and Vlad, it's understandable that Republicans confuse the two.

Trump lashes out. And a few days later, Hillary goes cautious.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/23/news/economy/trump-trade-deal/

Donald Trump has lashed out against President Obama's plans to create a free trade area across the Pacific.

The outspoken businessman, who is known to start brawls on Twitter, sent out a series of tweets explaining his opposition.
"The Trans-Pacific Partnership is an attack on America's business. It does not stop Japan's currency manipulation. This is a bad deal," he said.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-tpp-trade-pickle

04/17/15 06:29 PM—Updated 04/17/15 07:35 PM

…The fight between the White House and many liberal Democrats over trade policy will put 2016 Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton in an awkward position – one her potential rivals are already exploiting.

…But Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont Independent who is considering a presidential run as a Democrat, has long opposed the treaty and said Friday that Clinton needs to take a more forceful position. “My strong hope is that Secretary Clinton and all candidates, Republicans and Democrats, will make it clear that the Trans-Pacific Partnership should be rejected and that we must develop trade policies that benefit working families, not just Wall Street and multi-national corporations,” Sanders said in a statement.

Bernie is a socialist. I am a Republican with regard to conservative family values, and Democrat with regard to social justice. I am in favor of regulated capitalism. China and Russia seems to have a decent balance.

 

[jimbob]

Trump lashes out. And a few days later, Hillary goes cautious.







Bernie is a socialist. I am a Republican with regard to conservative family values, and Democrat with regard to social justice. I am in favor of regulated capitalism. China and Russia seems to have a decent balance.

This might be the first time to use the laughing dog emoticon. It is so far wrong that I am starting to think you are a Poe.

Meanwhile the Dallas News endorses a Democrat for the first time since the 1930s

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2016/09/06/donald-trump-is-no-republican

Donald Trump is no Republican and certainly no conservative.

Individual liberty? Trump has displayed an authoritarian streak that should horrify limited-government advocates. This impulsive, unbridled New York real estate billionaire and reality-TV star wants to deport people who were born in the U.S. and don't meet his standard for loyalty. He has proposed banning all Muslims from entering the country, even those escaping Islamist rule, and won't rule out creating a database of Muslims already living here.

His open admiration of Russia's Vladimir Putin is alarming.

it continues...

The Arizona Republic alsoendorses Clinton, the first Democrat since it started publication in 1890

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2016/09/27/hillary-clinton-endorsement/91198668/

Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles.

This year is different.

The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified.

That’s why, for the first time in our history, The Arizona Republic will support a Democrat for president.

As secretary of state, Clinton made gender equality a priority for U.S. foreign policy. This is an extension of Clinton’s bold “women’s rights are human rights” speech in 1995.

It reflects an understanding that America’s commitment to human rights is a critically needed beacon in today’s troubled world.

Trump’s long history of objectifying women and his demeaning comments about women during the campaign are not just good-old-boy gaffes.

They are evidence of deep character flaws. They are part of a pattern.

Trump mocked a reporter’s physical handicap. Picked a fight with a Gold Star family. Insulted POWs. Suggested a Latino judge can’t be fair because of his heritage. Proposed banning Muslim immigration.

Each of those comments show a stunning lack of human decency, empathy and respect. Taken together they reveal a candidate who doesn’t grasp our national ideals.

 

[PartSkeptic]

There are, but it doesn't have to be a global meltdown for rich people to be uncomfortable. Heck slightly slower growth could cost the very rich hundreds of millions of dollars.
(snip)

Why are rates are nearly zero?

What happened to the quadrillion dollars of derivatives (globally) the banks were carrying?

When the Titanic hit the iceberg, nothing much happened in the first part. Then it began to sink. (Credit to Max Keiser for this analogy). We are approaching the beginning of the second part. (And the band played on.)

Deutsche Bank has possibly 2 to 4 trillion dollars of derivatives on its books. Worthless junk that could trigger a domino effect if it fails.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Bernie is a socialist. I am a Republican with regard to conservative family values, and Democrat with regard to social justice. I am in favor of regulated capitalism. China and Russia seems to have a decent balance.

That explains it!

 

[PartSkeptic]

"Trump lashes out. And a few days later, Hillary goes cautious."

You avoided the key issue.

Trump could learn this debating technique instead of responding to traps set by his opponent (S.H.E who shall not be named).

 

[PartSkeptic]

That explains it!

Are you against "family values"?
Against "social justice"?
Against "regulated capitalism"?

Has Russia not recovered with its version of regulated capitalism? It sure is not communism. Stripping an oligarch of his wealth and putting him in prison is what many in the USA would like to see.

And has China not moved to an economic powerhouse in a short time with "regulated capitalism"? What would you call their system?

 

[NoahFence]

You avoided the key issue.

Trump could learn this debating technique instead of responding to traps set by his opponent (S.H.E who shall not be named).

"Trump could learn"

 

[aleCcowaN]

Are you against "family values"?
Against "social justice"?
Against "regulated capitalism"?

Has Russia not recovered with its version of regulated capitalism? It sure is not communism. Stripping an oligarch of his wealth and putting him in prison is what many in the USA would like to see.

And has China not moved to an economic powerhouse in a short time with "regulated capitalism"? What would you call their system?

Basically, the answer to every bit is "no", with the exception of "my family values" replacing "your family values", in which case, the answer is "yes". And that system is called "authoritarianism with a savage market economy in some part of the country".

And the platitude of any justice being "social" (which is what the buzzwords you used deserve).

You are pretty uninformed, aren't you?

 

[jimbob]

You avoided the key issue.

Trump could learn this debating technique instead of responding to traps set by his opponent (S.H.E who shall not be named).

I was on the phone and just interested in the last part, which is rather eccentric. Russian capitalism is capriciously administered in service of Putin and his clients. Chinese capitalism is notoriously free for all, with a levening of corruption that the party periodically tries to address with exemplary punishments.

I suspect Foolmewunz was more accurate - Clinton was not under pressure from Trump at that time, but she was from Sanders.

 

[Ladewig]

I am a Republican with regard to conservative family values, and Democrat with regard to social justice.

I am unsure what that means. Might you elaborate?

Is outlawing pornography (consenting adults willing to be photographed) a conservative family value from your perspective? I ask because many high-ranking Republicans believe it is.
Abortion?
Gay marriage?
Gay adoption?