Trump versus Clinton?

[IATIA]

Do you think, the American electorate is ready to vote for a woman?

I did not think they would vote for a black man, so it is very possible that a woman is no issue.

[Jenny A]

Cute story. But that's what it is, a story. Trump does no such thing in real life. But supposing he did? Will he hire more people if he's president? No. Would he cause more people to hire people? No. So what's the point?

[abaris]

I did not think they would vote for a black man, so it is very possible that a woman is no issue.

But Obama offered something, although he didn't really deliver. Hilary just offers more of the same.

[AFTT47]

Blacks + Hispanics are about 29% of the population. If you win 75% of them, you will win the election if you only win 40% of the remaining 71%. It is absolutely realistic that Hillary will win 75% of Hispanics + blacks. Blacks love the Clintons and Hispanics hate Trump. She'll probably do even better than 75%. On the other hand, it's very doubtful that she would only win 40% of the rest. She might only win 40% of white males because we're stupid but the women would balance that out. I just don't see how she can lose.

Admittedly, the general election is actually 50 individual contests and the demographics vary widely from state to state. Consider Texas though where the black + Hispanic vote is 50%! I could see Texas going blue for the first time since 1976.

Hispanics are playing a greater and greater role every election cycle. You can't piss off the entire group - especially if your opponent is beloved by Blacks - and have a realistic chance of winning. This is exactly the same one-two punch that sealed Romney's fate. He lost the Black + Hispanic vote badly and it was just too much to make up elsewhere. I don't see how it can be any different with Trump. It will probably be worse.

[KUSA]

Cute story. But that's what it is, a story. Trump does no such thing in real life. But supposing he did? Will he hire more people if he's president? No. Would he cause more people to hire people? No. So what's the point?

Businesses will be influenced to come back to the US. This will create jobs.

[Ryantology]

Demand creates jobs.

[scoobysnack]

Cute story. But that's what it is, a story. Trump does no such thing in real  life.  But supposing he did? Will he hire more people if he's president? No. Would he cause more people to hire people? No. So what's the point?

I don't like the democrats or the republicans. People in the US think if you don't like one, you like the other, but really both sides play us off eachother. I guess I can see why the poor like the democrats because it's perceived the republicans represent the rich management, and the democrats represent labor, but both are screwing us, and I think more and more people are understanding it. Problem is what is the solution in a two party system besides voting against the person you hate more.

Personally I see Clinton as another neo-con in league with the establishment. Trump is a wild man, and sometimes scares me, but at the same time worth betting on. I think we are past the point of no return in the US. The plan for over 40 years was to deindustrialize the US, and export the work to the third world, to build them up to be second world status, for globalization, so to balance the power, so no nation can dominate, but the elite can profit off all nations. We are seeing the destruction of the EU, and the US economically, and I think the plan is to bring the world down, so the new world system can be brought in. Trump will be the person to delay it, but soon the power will show their hand, and I wonder if the people will resist, or bow down.

[Heat]

Cute story. But that's what it is, a story. Trump does no such thing in real  life.  But supposing he did? Will he hire more people if he's president? No. Would he cause more people to hire people? No. So what's the point?

Businesses will be influenced to come back to the US. This will create jobs.

And the economy would still plummet when all the illegal immigrants are "thrown out". Let's disregard the fact that neither you nor Trump has seemed to realize kicking them all out is impossible because of due processing, you know that thing that makes it so ever single one of those people would have to have an individual court hearing? Yeah that thing which makes it so 12 million court hearings would end up taking 80 years. Illegal immigrants contribute to this country undoubtedly. What do you think they don't have jobs? A large majority have jobs, pay taxes, and contribute to the economy. If all those job positions were to vanish, sure in theory it would let more american's fill the positions, but for at least a very small time, which is all that matters, the economy would take a HUGE hit with a slow recovery. Estimated 2.5 million illegal immigrants are farmers. People who provide the food you eat. What happens when they all seemingly vanish like you seem to believe Trump will accomplish? Food prices rise. There's less production, and more demand. An economy can only flourish within a certain margin, a balancing act of production and demand. If demand sky rockets and production plummets, prices sky rocket as produce is less available. You would essentially be emptying, rough estimation at 80% of 12m, 9.6 million job positions at once. I'm assuming you're going under the assumption that they will all somehow be thrown out, given that if you think it will take time, discussing how much time it will take ends up leading us to the conclusion of way too much time. Also do you know how much farmers are paid? Not much. There's no incentive for an average american citizen to become a farmer, as there are plenty other viable jobs paying more. Sure the job pay may inflate, but that doesn't cost money that costs resources, to which hardly any of them have because you just wiped out the source of produce and it takes time to create more. And sure the produce will eventually meet the demand, but at what cost? You can't simply spawn in more food, not only does it take time but there's still a capacity at which it can be made. Even if a super efficient farmer fills the position how's he supposed to produce more than his max capacity? Now we have a food shortage and you're starting to question your vote for donald trump. He did what he promised, but it seemed so great in theory, when you didn't think it would result in you spending more money. Food prices rise, more americans can't afford to eat and now the average american is poorer than before. Did I mention this is still just 26% of the issue?


You like to rally behind a strong speaker but the substance of the claims equates to something you'd rather not vote for.

[scoobysnack]

Businesses will be influenced to come back to the US. This will create jobs.

And the economy would still plummet when all the illegal immigrants are "thrown out". Let's disregard the fact that neither you nor Trump has seemed to realize kicking them all out is impossible because of due processing, you know that thing that makes it so ever single one of those people would have to have an individual court hearing? Yeah that thing which makes it so 12 million court hearings would end up taking 80 years. Illegal immigrants contribute to this country undoubtedly. What do you think they don't have jobs? A large majority have jobs, pay taxes, and contribute to the economy. If all those job positions were to vanish, sure in theory it would let more american's fill the positions, but for at least a very small time, which is all that matters, the economy would take a HUGE hit with a slow recovery. Estimated 2.5 million illegal immigrants are farmers. People who provide the food you eat. What happens when they all seemingly vanish like you seem to believe Trump will accomplish? Food prices rise. There's less production, and more demand. An economy can only flourish within a certain margin, a balancing act of production and demand. If demand sky rockets and production plummets, prices sky rocket as produce is less available. You would essentially be emptying, rough estimation at 80% of 12m, 9.6 million job positions at once. I'm assuming you're going under the assumption that they will all somehow be thrown out, given that if you think it will take time, discussing how much time it will take ends up leading us to the conclusion of way too much time. Also do you know how much farmers are paid? Not much. There's no incentive for an average american citizen to become a farmer, as there are plenty other viable jobs paying more. Sure the job pay may inflate, but that doesn't cost money that costs resources, to which hardly any of them have because you just wiped out the source of produce and it takes time to create more. And sure the produce will eventually meet the demand, but at what cost? You can't simply spawn in more food, not only does it take time but there's still a capacity at which it can be made. Even if a super efficient farmer fills the position how's he supposed to produce more than his max capacity? Now we have a food shortage and you're starting to question your vote for donald trump. He did what he promised, but it seemed so great in theory, when you didn't think it would result in you spending more money. Food prices rise, more americans can't afford to eat and now the average american is poorer than before. Did I mention this is still just 26% of the issue?


You like to rally behind a strong speaker but the substance of the claims equates to something you'd rather not vote for.

Too a point that's true. Illegal immigration provides cheap labor which is below average, which keeps wage average low, keeping prices for food low, which allows other employers to see the average living expense inflation average low to prevent them from raising wages of other workers due to averages of expenses. Illegal immigration keeps wages low, just like China keeps wages low which incentives more companies to move the jobs outside the US. One major reason for moving jobs to China is the low wages, and less regulations along with less environmental regulations. It costs a lot to run a business in the US for all the regulations, but when you move to China, you can have slave labor and little environmental regulations to deal with, so even though you have to ship everything over hear, in the long run, it's cheaper. And the taxes are even more savings. So to keep up with the labor and tax, and environmental costs, we have to move to countries to produce goods which rely on slave labor, no environmental standards, and cheap taxes. On top of that, we have welfare paying enough to live on for free so what's the incentive to get a job, when you can survive for free?

The point is that it's impossible to compete with China in labor because they have no regulations, but people demand for many good reasons we have regulations here. Unless you can prevent a corporation from moving out though, don't expect high wages to keep a higher living standard. The plan for 50 years has been to balance the living standards throughout the world. First world will be brought down to second world, and third world will either remain, or if it's convenient be brought into second world. The purpose of course is so that no nation can rise against another, and all remain stagnant and poor, but at the same time accepting.

One of the ideologies for this would of course be population control, while the second is environmental, along with economic. There can be no power that disrupts the power of the elite, and the useful idiot poor will always go along with it for their own survival.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think Americans would vote for the right woman. Is she Hilary? I don't know.