2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

K-9 · 23-09-2016 06:47PM

Amerika wrote: »

The main reasons usually listed by small businesses for going out of business are they’re overtaxed, over-regulated and overburdened. The government tells businesses what they have to pay employees, what benefits they must provide, and make it near impossible to fire a poor performing employees otherwise be hit by frivolous lawsuits. And add to that the heavy obstacles imposed by regulatory agencies in starting a business, and the massive amount of government paperwork needed to be maintained ongoing.

Whereas when there was less regulation people got fired for frivolous reasons. Unions aren't near as powerful as they used to be so workers need laws to protect them from unscrupulous employers.

The US is No.22 on the ease of doing business index and has slipped down 6 years in a row, so it seems other countries have overtaken them. Interestingly Denmark and Norway are in the top 4, both high tax countries.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2015/12/16/the-best-countries-for-business-2015/#5e259faf7364

oscarBravo · 23-09-2016 07:16PM

Amerika wrote: »

The main reasons usually listed by small businesses for going out of business are they’re overtaxed, over-regulated and overburdened. The government tells businesses what they have to pay employees, what benefits they must provide, and make it near impossible to fire a poor performing employees otherwise be hit by frivolous lawsuits. And add to that the heavy obstacles imposed by regulatory agencies in starting a business, and the massive amount of government paperwork needed to be maintained ongoing.

...and yet, many small businesses don't go under. I wonder how they survive the egregious burden of an intrusive government?

As a matter of interest, have you read Upton Sinclair's Jungle?

Amerika · 23-09-2016 07:29PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

The minimum wage, employment regulations and pretty much every other regulation in the United States are pretty moderate. None of the reasons you are giving would prevent cheap suits from being manufactured in the US.

Do you have any evidence to back up your ridiculous claims for once?

Ask nicely.

Amerika · 23-09-2016 07:32PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and yet, many small businesses don't go under. I wonder how they survive the egregious burden of an intrusive government?

As a matter of interest, have you read Upton Sinclair's Jungle?

96% of businesses in the US fail within 10 years.

And no I haven't read it, but I'll look for it at the local Thrift Store that benefits needy children in the area. But I think I saw a documentary/special on it... meat packing, right?

oscarBravo · 23-09-2016 07:45PM

Amerika wrote: »

...meat packing, right?

Specifically, yes. But in general, it's about what it's like to be a worker in a world where workers don't have rights.

Billy86 · 23-09-2016 08:15PM

Amerika wrote: »

It is outlandish. I think I saw Trumps suits (or sport coats) selling for about $150. I don't think we could make one here for $150, but I know without crippling business regulations and unions we could make a fine one that would sell for about $500.

"of course its made abroad, it's cheap to buy!"

This is not intended as a personal attack on this poster, but it is nothing short of stunning how Trump supporters have not connected the dots here and the implications of bringing all manufacturing back to the US.

They complain about "the establishment being" "out of touch" and then turn around to say "sure the people who can only afford $150 suits can buy the, $500+ ones and all will be grand."

The education system in the US needs a major overhaul, methinks.

Might just be me, but has only one else noticed Trump hasn't been talking about bringing these jobs home much since his chances of being elected (and having to actually do so) have gone up.

Billy86 · 23-09-2016 08:20PM

Overheal wrote: »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/29/donald-trump-blacks-lawsuit_n_855553.html

Trump called O’Donnell a disgruntled employee but he didn’t deny allegations made in the book during an interview with Playboy magazine in 1999:

“Nobody has had worse things written about them than me,” Trump says. “And here I am. The stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true. The guy’s a ****ing loser. A ****ing loser. I brought the guy in to work for me; it turns out he didn’t know that much about what he was doing. I think I met the guy two or three times total. And this guy goes off and writes a book about me, like he knows me!”
Trump’s office has not returned several requests for comment.

This has already been outlined to this poster in the past. I missed the last few pages... Did they claim to have not seen it or something?

Overheal · 23-09-2016 08:22PM

Amerika wrote: »

96% of businesses in the US fail within 10 years.

And no I haven't read it, but I'll look for it at the local Thrift Store that benefits needy children in the area. But I think I saw a documentary/special on it... meat packing, right?

That's a pretty cherry pkcked stat. You could probably go into the all things retro forum and find multiple examples of products that don't exist anymore not because of government regulation because their usefulness has faded out. If for example you started a business that sells FireWire cable I feel bad for you but that's not the governments fault.

Look at what happened to the Charleston area after Hugo: significant boom in the number of small businesses opening up in response for home renovation demand from flooding. Naturally most of that business consolidated or dried up. No pun intended

RobertKK · 23-09-2016 08:22PM

Ted Cruz plans on supporting Trump for the presidency according to CNN.

oik · 23-09-2016 10:24PM

It is not policies - it is promises. The only details what I found was to return US companies from Ireland and impose populist tax on millionaires.
The rest is usual populist waffling before elections.

Where's that poster who just claimed Sanders didn't move her leftwards?

oik · 23-09-2016 10:33PM

You're being completely unreasonable, not just picky. No politician ever sets pun their policy platform primarily in speeches. Speeches are for talking points, imagine that. Policies were detailed in pamphlets, no it's done on websites. A detailed policy speech would be excruciating to listen to, so the don't happen. Never really have.

Donald Trump has given policy speeches on immigration (the same day he visited Mexico), the economy (most recently) and that's only the two most recent ones off the top of my head. So, it would appear you are wrong. Expect a speech on race relations very soon. All these speeches are available in full on youtube.

You understand that "policy" does not mean raise taxes by x or y %, policy is a general outline of where you stand on different issues. In other words, when Donald Trump gets up and says we're going to renegotiate trade deals and no TPP, that is policy. Stop and frisk is a policy. Change the rules of engagement regarding ISIS is a policy.

"Cut taxes" is a policy, but cut taxes by x amount is beyond policy and into tax plan territory.

To say that Trump doesn't talk about policy is ludicrous. Switching to policy talk is what has him neck and neck with Clinton at the moment.

Overheal · 23-09-2016 11:03PM

oik wrote: »

Donald Trump has given policy speeches on immigration (the same day he visited Mexico), the economy (most recently) and that's only the two most recent ones off the top of my head. So, it would appear you are wrong. Expect a speech on race relations very soon. All these speeches are available in full on youtube.

You understand that "policy" does not mean raise taxes by x or y %, policy is a general outline of where you stand on different issues. In other words, when Donald Trump gets up and says we're going to renegotiate trade deals and no TPP, that is policy. Stop and frisk is a policy. Change the rules of engagement regarding ISIS is a policy.

"Cut taxes" is a policy, but cut taxes by x amount is beyond policy and into tax plan territory.

To say that Trump doesn't talk about policy is ludicrous. Switching to policy talk is what has him neck and neck with Clinton at the moment.

Make sweeping proclamations without specifics. Got it. That's policy. Not how you pay for a wall, just build the wall. Not how will Mexico pay for it. Just they will pay for it. Not an understanding of economics just "trade deficits bro"

oik · 23-09-2016 11:36PM

Make sweeping proclamations without specifics. Got it. That's policy. Not how you pay for a wall, just build the wall. Not how will Mexico pay for it. Just they will pay for it. Not an understanding of economics just "trade deficits bro"

The definition of policy has clearly been warped in your mind through some amount of conditioning to the point where you don't recognise policy when you see it.

Policy: "a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by an organization or individual."

For example:

It is my policy to ignore posters when they appear too stubborn to reason with and turn rude and condescending. I regret to say I'm lacking specifics as to what I'll do with you at this juncture. I'll decide on that when it comes to it, but since you know my policy you know where I stand.

Get it now?

Overheal · 23-09-2016 11:38PM

oik wrote: »

The definition of policy has clearly been warped in your mind through some amount of conditioning to the point where you don't recognise policy when you see it.

Policy: "a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by an organization or individual."

For example:

It is my policy to ignore posters when they appear too stubborn to reason with and turn rude and condescending. I regret to say I'm lacking specifics as to what I'll do with you at this juncture. I'll decide on that when it comes to it, but since you know my policy you know where I stand.

Get it now?

so the principles of action proposed on the Clinton website are invalid? Why?

oik · 23-09-2016 11:40PM

It's amazing how cheaply you can make things when workers are disposable. In fact, to go along with Trump's way of thinking: just imagine how cheap food will be when there's no longer a legal requirement to make sure it doesn't kill people?

>If there's no FDA there will be poison in our food

If I poison your food will I be dealing with the Food Safety Authority or An Garda Síochana?

oik · 23-09-2016 11:42PM

So the principles of action proposed on the Clinton website are invalid? Why?

Don't put words in my mouth and keep better track of who says what.

I'm sure Clinton has acres of policy her lobbyists will either approve of or dismiss once she gets into office.

oscarBravo · 23-09-2016 11:49PM

oik wrote: »

>If there's no FDA there will be poison in our food

oik wrote: »

Don't put words in my mouth...

The irony is delicious.

Genuine question: do you honestly think that the only way food can kill people is if someone puts poison in it? Or are you feigning ignorance to make a weak point?

oik · 23-09-2016 11:51PM

"of course its made abroad, it's cheap to buy!"

This is not intended as a personal attack on this poster, but it is nothing short of stunning how Trump supporters have not connected the dots here and the implications of bringing all manufacturing back to the US.

They complain about "the establishment being" "out of touch" and then turn around to say "sure the people who can only afford $150 suits can buy the, $500+ ones and all will be grand."

The education system in the US needs a major overhaul, methinks.

Might just be me, but has only one else noticed Trump hasn't been talking about bringing these jobs home much since his chances of being elected (and having to actually do so) have gone up.

Both Trump and Clinton (and Obama) are promising that jobs won't be sent overseas with Trump further promising to bring some back. By positioning himself more strongly on this issue than Clinton his initial promise seems more believable in people's minds.

Most Trump supporters probably understand on some level that the jobs that have already left aren't coming back but when they consider who's more likely to prevent more leaving, Trump appears stronger on the issue in general and so voters who are concerned about it gravitate to him just like voters on issues to do with race relations and equality will gravitate towards Clinton because she takes stronger stances on those issues.

oik · 23-09-2016 11:53PM

The irony is delicious.

Genuine question: do you honestly think that the only way food can kill people is if someone puts poison in it? Or are you feigning ignorance to make a weak point?

The irony continues. Are you feigning ignorance about the fact that companies and food producers are liable for contaminated food with or without the FDA?

oscarBravo · 23-09-2016 11:56PM

oik wrote: »

The irony continues. Are you feigning ignorance about the fact that companies and food producers are liable for contaminated food with or without the FDA?

Liable, as in I can sue them if defective food kills me?

That's sooooooo much better than the evil government requiring that they not kill me in the first place, isn't it?

Overheal · 23-09-2016 11:58PM

oik wrote: »

>If there's no FDA there will be poison in our food

If I poison your food will I be dealing with the Food Safety Authority or An Garda Síochana?

I'd prefer the food never reached the plate before one knew it was tainted. That is largely due in part to food regulations which include rules on how it's prepared and how it is inspected. With no FDA nothing even compels you to post allergen warnings on your products. There's a natural and progressive reason the FDA formed in the first place, such that there were laws about food and drugs and an administration to obersee their carriage and enforcement. You could offload that responsibility to the cops (jail someone for killing a peanut allergic person?) but cops as it is already have a reasonably broad scope of law enforcement, such that special branches like the DEA exist, and the FBI exists because criminals do not always loiter within a single local or state level jurisdiction.

oik · 23-09-2016 11:59PM

Rather than getting into a petty squabble with an admin who should know better...

Trump is going to walk back his FDA statement.

There are many things wrong with the FDA. I know a restaurateur in the states and I've heard stories about them. They're a nightmare and a huge unnecessary drain on businesses.

He's going to moderate his stance on the issue as he always does by probably changing it to "we're going to reduce the size and scope of the FDA" or some other plan.

The first step in Trump's plans is always to grab your attention.

oik · 24-09-2016 12:03AM

I'd prefer the food never reached the plate before one knew it was tainted. That is largely due in part to food regulations which include rules on how it's prepared and how it is inspected. With no FDA nothing even compels you to post allergen warnings on your products. There's a natural and progressive reason the FDA formed in the first place, such that there were laws about food and drugs and an administration to obersee their carriage and enforcement. You could offload that responsibility to the cops (jail someone for killing a peanut allergic person?) but cops as it is already have a reasonably broad scope of law enforcement, such that special branches like the DEA exist, and the FBI exists because criminals do not always loiter within a single local or state level jurisdiction.

Look, I'm not against food regulations and I don't believe for a second that Trump is either. See my earlier post.

Can I just ask, do you go through the same rigmarole every time Trump starts a conversation about a topic?

Take his first statement at face value and then run with it?

This election cycle must have been very tedious and repetitive for you.

His strategy is to keep people like you who work in the media arguing over every little thing he says as he gradually, slowly but surely makes his way back towards the centre on every issue stealing all the headlines in the process.

K-9 · 24-09-2016 12:20AM

Mod:

What's up with all the sarcasm and smart arsery?

Either reply with civility or don't reply at all. Attack the post, not the poster.

Billy86 · 24-09-2016 12:44AM

oik wrote: »

Both Trump and Clinton (and Obama) are promising that jobs won't be sent overseas with Trump further promising to bring some back. By positioning himself more strongly on this issue than Clinton his initial promise seems more believable in people's minds.

Most Trump supporters probably understand on some level that the jobs that have already left aren't coming back but when they consider who's more likely to prevent more leaving, Trump appears stronger on the issue in general and so voters who are concerned about it gravitate to him just like voters on issues to do with race relations and equality will gravitate towards Clinton because she takes stronger stances on those issues.

Oh yeah, I get why he is applying that stance. And I get why people who work in those sectors would latch on to it - they're being played by a con man with a long, long history of overpromising and not so much under-delivering as just not delivering at all (then litigating to escape ever having to deliver down the line). But I fully get where they're coming from and it's the one demographic outside of the mega-rich whose reasons I fully understand for supporting Trump.

What I find gas though (and it applied to Sanders during the primaries too) is that people don't see the impact of that, when for example an iPhone would cost $15,000 to buy (and similar figures even for cheap knock offs, if made in the US). That example alone would put Apple out of business, and then what happens to the 50,000 people who work for them or work for their vendors etc. And that's just for one company who offer something that many might call essential to their everyday lives, but is essentially a luxury product. When we get down to the more essential household and everyday items, the problem becomes even more troublesome beyond the company and it's employees themselves.

The obvious end result of this is that people just stop buying American products altogether, and all these American businesses go bust. Tinfoil hat time on this, but I reckon Trump's companies would be given exemptions left, right and centre. Including replacing the companies that go out of business, for example Apple.

Then we've got the utter hypocrisy of people giving out about the politicians being out of touch, while themselves not only supporting one of the most out of touch billionaires around, but also displaying exactly that themselves. A guess more than anything here, but I don't think Amerika for example is too bad off in terms of money - not calling him rich, but I doubt he's constantly scraping pennies together to put food on the table, or to keep a roof over it. So just using him as an example, they're giving out about nobody looking out for the poor and struggling everyday Americans out there, while dismissively claiming that a $150 suit will now be $500 and sure it'll all be grand. Tell that to the guy who has to save up $5-10 a week or whatever little he can manage to get the $150 suit to help get jobs that require such clothing to be work, that in turn would give the opportunity to increase their opportunities in life. It's fickle, but the weight put into appearance during interviews for many companies is huge - I can attest to that having worked in recruitment companies for much of the last year.

Can't remember who, but someone put it well earlier in the thread (or the old one?) when they said we're not living in a post-truth or post-facts world, so much as we're living in a post-reality world.

oik · 24-09-2016 12:51AM

Can't remember who, but someone put it well earlier in the thread (or the old one?) when they said we're not living in a post-truth or post-facts world, so much as we're living in a post-reality world.

Humans were never designed to be rational anyway. It's a myth to think that humans are capable of being rational. We're not capable of rationality, only rationalisation.

I wanted to link an article but haven't enough posts. "What If Evolution Bred Reality Out Of Us?" from NPR.org

oik · 24-09-2016 12:57AM

Then we've got the utter hypocrisy of people giving out about the politicians being out of touch, while themselves not only supporting one of the most out of touch billionaires around, but also displaying exactly that themselves. A guess more than anything here, but I don't think Amerika for example is too bad off in terms of money - not calling him rich, but I doubt he's constantly scraping pennies together to put food on the table, or to keep a roof over it. So just using him as an example, they're giving out about nobody looking out for the poor and struggling everyday Americans out there, while dismissively claiming that a $150 suit will now be $500 and sure it'll all be grand. Tell that to the guy who has to save up $5-10 a week or whatever little he can manage to get the $150 suit to help get jobs that require such clothing to be work, that in turn would give the opportunity to increase their opportunities in life. It's fickle, but the weight put into appearance during interviews for many companies is huge - I can attest to that having worked in recruitment companies for much of the last year.

I think it's unfair to categorise Trump supporters as hypocrites for that reason. I happen to think Trump is less out of touch than Clinton. She has been under secret service protection for 30 years now. She hasn't even so much as driven a car. Trump has lived the life of a billionaire businessman whereas Hillary has lived the life of a queen. I think the latter is more likely to be out of touch.

I'm not a massive fan of Trump's policies on trade although I don't believe they'd be as disastrous as people think. When I started my business my first instinct was to look for raw materials in Asia thinking they'd be much cheaper. The cost of an 8% tariff as well as the risks of doing business in China as well as delivery times wasn't worth my while for the volume I was doing so I ended up buying from within the EU. Luckily I was competing with other domestic businesses in the same situation so it didn't make me much less competitive. The point is the tariff didn't kill my business or make it more expensive I just shopped elsewhere. It would have been the same had the tariff been 50% rather than 8%. I'm sure there are billions of dollars sent overseas that were just on the threshold of staying in America if the price was right (or wrong as the case may be), so changing trade policies isn't this mad idea I think people have been conditioned to think it is.

Billy86 · 24-09-2016 01:13AM

oik wrote: »

I think it's unfair to categorise Trump supporters as hypocrites for that reason. I happen to think Trump is less out of touch than Clinton. She has been under secret service protection for 30 years now. She hasn't even so much as driven a car. Trump has lived the life of a billionaire businessman whereas Hillary has lived the life of a queen. I think the latter is more likely to be out of touch.

I'd say Trump is about every bit as likely to drive his own car as Clinton is. Meanwhile while she is far from the most pious person in the world, Clinton's jobs have been far from 'living like a queen' and have involved serving the public, dealing with people in the US and their needs and wants. Meanwhile, Donald Trump's job has been serving Donald Trump and nothing else but that. Time and again he has screwed the taxpayer and his own employees over to benefit himself, and is probably the most infamously self-absorbed person in the entire world outside of North Korea.

oik · 24-09-2016 01:38AM

I'd say Trump is about every bit as likely to drive his own car as Clinton is. Meanwhile while she is far from the most pious person in the world, Clinton's jobs have been far from 'living like a queen' and have involved serving the public, dealing with people in the US and their needs and wants. Meanwhile, Donald Trump's job has been serving Donald Trump and nothing else but that. Time and again he has screwed the taxpayer and his own employees over to benefit himself, and is probably the most infamously self-absorbed person in the entire world outside of North Korea.

I won't deny that Trump is very vain, but there's plenty of photos of Trump driving his own car and I know from family in NYC that it's not rare you'd spot him walking down the street. Someone on celebrity apprentice (who claimed he'd never vote for him) also mentioned the fact that he eats with his workers in the canteen of Trump tower. I'm not claiming he's Joe the Plumber by any means but we're comparing two of the most privileged people on earth, it's going to sound ridiculous. He's very very good with people whatever way you look at it. Not many people who know him don't like him.

Trump actually addressed the fact that he sometimes doesn't pay contractors (or holds out on paying them) if they do a poor job. It's a high risk strategy but it's a good way to set a good precedent for dealing with him. Do a good job if you want to get paid right away. It's not the most ethical way to do business but that hard-nosed attitude explains why he has succeeded in the Manhattan real estate industry which is famously ruthless.

I think it's amusing that you'd call what Clinton did "serving the public". There's more than enough suspicion to justify the belief that Clinton engaged in pay-for-play with foreign entities as SoS. Maybe not enough to convict, but certainly enough to undermine any trust you might have for her in office.

glued · 24-09-2016 07:21AM

It's quite disturbing the levels of support both candidates are getting. Especially Clinton considering how poor of a politician she has proven to be.

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments