GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Predictions

[Forty Two]

Folks are against American manufacturing going overseas to cheap, substandard working-conditions, environments, right? We don't want Carrier and Boeing to go to Mexico and China to take advantage of Mexican and Chinese shit working conditions and 10 cents a day wages,right? We wish Apple made their devices here in the States and employed American workers at $20 to $40 an hour, right? Well, Drumpf is on your side, and is promising to take concrete action to change the conditions such that it is not attractive any longer to do that.

If he does that then who is going to make his clothes?

Americans? I mean, if he does "that" (bring manufacturing back to the US) then "that" would be brought back to the US....

Doesn't explain why he isn't already doing it. He profits from the foreign labour he's criticising.

He's explained that publicly. As a businessman, he makes decisions based on what makes sense for the business. What he intends to try to do as President is change the economics of the decision-making process in this regard. Carrier and Boeing are leaving the US not because they hate the US or have a specific desire to go to Mexico and China. They are going because they have determined that business interests and economics are such that building plants in Mexico and China make financial sense to them. If it didn't make financial sense, they wouldn't do it. Trump's proposed policy positions are directed toward making it a financially sound decision to stay in the US.

[Forty Two]

Because he's a liar.

Incisive as always.

[pErvinalia]

Because he's a liar.

Incisive as always.

We've already had this debate with you. Turned out black is apparently white. Why would I want to do that again?

[Forty Two]

What's doubtful about that?

The fact that he sends jobs for his own businesses abroad.

Well, he'd be a bad businessman if he didn't. He sent jobs for his own businesses abroad because of the financial and trade policies in effect at the time. Businesses aren't charities. He's doing what makes sense in the business environment. It's silly to expect individual business people to make decisions contrary to the interests of their own businesses. To change the decisions, you have to change the economics of the decision.

[Animavore]

What's doubtful about that?

The fact that he sends jobs for his own businesses abroad.

Well, he'd be a bad businessman if he didn't. He sent jobs for his own businesses abroad because of the financial and trade policies in effect at the time. Businesses aren't charities. He's doing what makes sense in the business environment. It's silly to expect individual business people to make decisions contrary to the interests of their own businesses. To change the decisions, you have to change the economics of the decision.

He's a hypocrite pure and simple.

[Forty Two]

Because he's a liar.

Incisive as always.

We've already had this debate with you. Turned out black is apparently white. Why would I want to do that again?

"We?" O.k. Sibyl. Do whatever you like.

Whatever you are referring to, it's more likely it turned out you were wrong. That's the most common scenario with you.

[Forty Two]

What's doubtful about that?

The fact that he sends jobs for his own businesses abroad.

Well, he'd be a bad businessman if he didn't. He sent jobs for his own businesses abroad because of the financial and trade policies in effect at the time. Businesses aren't charities. He's doing what makes sense in the business environment. It's silly to expect individual business people to make decisions contrary to the interests of their own businesses. To change the decisions, you have to change the economics of the decision.

He's a hypocrite pure and simple.

Only if to not be a hypocrite he would have to operate businesses contrary to his financial interests because he is operating from a position of "morality" as opposed to fiscal interests.

Trump is advocating for significant policy changes which would materially alter the economics and financial aspects of moving business from the US to other countries. You are claiming that it is hypocritical for someone to advocate for such change, while having in the past operated businesses under the then-current financial conditions and legal structure in place at the time.

That's not hypocrisy. He's not saying businesses shouldn't move to Mexico and china under the current economics. He's saying the opposite -- he's saying that under the current economics they should do so when it makes financial sense to do so, and all to often it makes significant financial sense (under the current economics). However, from a long term perspective and from a national perspective, it would be better if the economics, finances and law under which such decisions were made were changed to make it more attractive to stay in the US than to leave.

That's not hypocrisy - that's advocacy of a change in policy.

Your argument is like saying that a candidate advocates doing away with, say, the right of a person to file bankruptcy and discharge its debts. Then you look and see that five or ten years go, that candidate filed bankruptcy and discharged his debts. Is he a hypocrite? No. He followed the laws at the time, but sees that a change in the law is needed, and sees that the system in place that allowed him to legally discharge debts is, in his view, ill-advised.

Another example is saying that a person advocates doing away with a tax deduction, then calling him a hypocrite for taking the tax deduction when it was legal to do so. That's not hypocritical. You don't have to forego a legal tax deduction to advocate for elimination of the tax deduction across the board. You don't have to be a martyr to not be a hypocrite.

[Animavore]

That's not hypocrisy - that's advocacy of a change in policy.

Yes it is. Every article I can find on it from every analyst and economist, from left to right, from The Guardian to Forbes, calls him a hypocrite. I'll go with the expert consensus, thanks.

[pErvinalia]

Because he's a liar.

Incisive as always.

We've already had this debate with you. Turned out black is apparently white. Why would I want to do that again?

"We?" O.k. Sibyl. Do whatever you like.

Whatever you are referring to, it's more likely it turned out you were wrong. That's the most common scenario with you.

Of course, as that's how every debate goes from your perspective. You're never wrong, and those who beg to differ are obviously wrong.

[pErvinalia]

What's doubtful about that?

The fact that he sends jobs for his own businesses abroad.

Well, he'd be a bad businessman if he didn't. He sent jobs for his own businesses abroad because of the financial and trade policies in effect at the time. Businesses aren't charities. He's doing what makes sense in the business environment. It's silly to expect individual business people to make decisions contrary to the interests of their own businesses. To change the decisions, you have to change the economics of the decision.

He's a hypocrite pure and simple.

Only if to not be a hypocrite he would have to operate businesses contrary to his financial interests because he is operating from a position of "morality" as opposed to fiscal interests.

Trump is advocating for significant policy changes which would materially alter the economics and financial aspects of moving business from the US to other countries. You are claiming that it is hypocritical for someone to advocate for such change, while having in the past operated businesses under the then-current financial conditions and legal structure in place at the time.

That's not hypocrisy. He's not saying businesses shouldn't move to Mexico and china under the current economics. He's saying the opposite -- he's saying that under the current economics they should do so when it makes financial sense to do so, and all to often it makes significant financial sense (under the current economics). However, from a long term perspective and from a national perspective, it would be better if the economics, finances and law under which such decisions were made were changed to make it more attractive to stay in the US than to leave.

You're basically arguing for massive protectionism. What happened to your liberalism?

[Animavore]

Drumpfs solution to companies using foreign workers seems to be to tax the goods of those companies that come from abroad to bits.

“Let me give you the bad news [to Ford about a proposed plant in Mexico]: Every car, every truck and every part manufactured in this plant that comes across the border, we’re going to charge you a 35% tax,” Drumpf said. “They are going to take away thousands of jobs.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartander ... 54c3a4936b

I'm sure that's going to work out just fine.

[Svartalf]

What's doubtful about that?

The fact that he sends jobs for his own businesses abroad.

Well, he'd be a bad businessman if he didn't. He sent jobs for his own businesses abroad because of the financial and trade policies in effect at the time. Businesses aren't charities. He's doing what makes sense in the business environment. It's silly to expect individual business people to make decisions contrary to the interests of their own businesses. To change the decisions, you have to change the economics of the decision.

Yeah, right, it's just business... then he'd better not try to pass off for a patriot, for he's not, and he's unworthy of the Oval Office.

[Hermit]

Trumps the man for me. You can trust a woman with many things. Running a country is not one of them.

1979 revisited. In that year Deborah Wardley wanted to become an airline pilot. She had every possible professional, technical, psychological and meritorious reason to support her many, rejected applications. She took her boss, Reginald Ansett, owner of the airline to court. He said that he wasn’t prepared to risk the safety of his passengers by having an emotional, unpredictable woman in the cockpit.

And here we have the likes of Coito still arguing that women are on equal terms with men now.

[Animavore]

Wow! A Fox News piece exhorting Republicans to vote Hilary!
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/05/ ... D=ref_fark

[Tyrannical]

Kasich dropped out........