Trump (Part 2)

[claig]

More on the meaning of Trump, the Trumpsters and Trumpism

"Economist Steve Moore: If Democrats Try to Change the Election – There would be a Civil War (VIDEO)

Steve Moore, the chief economist at Heritage Foundation and a Donald Trump advisor, went on Sunday Morning Futures to discuss the current situation with the Stein-Clinton recount efforts.

Moore warned that if the vote is overturned in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania the country will be looking at a civil war."

www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/11/economist-steve-moore-democrats-try-change-election-civil-war-video/

Some analysts are saying that the elites trick is to keep the vote counts going until after Dec 19th which is when the electors have to vote Trump in, in order to cause some problem there. The elites are going for broke because they have no way out, it seems.

It is just a snapshot, but actually my DH works in a place where much of the workforce are migrants, including himself. He has experienced in the close to 20 years he has worked there a reduction in the overall terms that people had working there, so much so he was shocked to find out that some of his colleagues were having to use food banks. These are people that are working full time. It is a very well known company. Something feels like it's very broken, for both migrants and Brits.

Ill agree with that too. My hubby is HGV and earns a third today of what he earned 20 years ago. There are no winners and I get equally angry that migrants are having to live under motorway bridges having been invited here. They deserve better too.

'How many law suits have been brought against Trump again?'

No one ever died due to Trump's Foundation.

It's not just Tory imposed austerity but the greed of companies who know they have a very disposable source of seemingly endless cheap labour who they can impose whatever terms they like on.

Now even sick pay is discretionary and even if you are genuine the managers are under pressure to refuse - for any reason.

It's actually hard to be a net contributor under these terms.

So why are you blaming immigration? Immigration benefits the economy. Immigrants are not the source of the problem you are describing - far from it.

Sporting, this is about employment rights not immigration. And I'm afraid that looks like it's about to get a whole lot worse.

Yes it does benefit the economy. Especially the big boss at my DH company, I believe he is very rich and lives very far from where we do, in a lovely house. He wouldn't like it round here, it's not very nice at all.

And you think the gross inequality in the country is going to improve once we leave the EU to become a low wage, low tax economy?

""Economist Steve Moore: If Democrats Try to Change the Election – There would be a Civil War (VIDEO)"

I'm sure Trump will calm them down. After all he's told us all that millions voted illegally so he is presumably in favour of recounts.

Yes it is about employment rights but when you have a dearth of labour you have to hold on to it, so you would have to give a bit of carrot. When you have oversupply you call the shots and can do what you like. Immigration increased the supply of labour to sections of the economy and therefore the employers felt they could re evaluate contracts to suit themselves. That is what happened at the company DH worked at. Gradually all the benefits he used to have, have now gone. All these issues are interlinked you can't look at each thing in isolation.

In terms of Trump, it is too early to tell overall what the effects will be. I do think there are a whole lot of fail safes to stop him causing Armageddon. I remember the spitting image skits if Ronnie Raygun as they used to call him, accidentally pressing the red button. He of course never did.

I must admit I was surprised he got as far as this, when he said he was standing I had him down as the novelty candidate. I do regret not putting a bet on.

"Immigration benefits the economy. Immigrants are not the source of the problem you are describing - far from it."

Immigration can definitely benefit the economy. No doubt about it. But what is wrong with the EU citizens applying for a work visa, just the same as the Indian/Chinese tech workers who come here? Under the name of Immigration, criminals and terrorists can walk in. What is wrong with vetting the people who come in? Or is that against the new liberal "rules"?

"Immigration benefits the economy."

Not my economy they don't. Nor anyone's that I know.

We're not going to have a dearth of labour if those jobs go because we lose our membership of the single market, we are going to have a dearth of jobs, and tax revenue.

Er, did I say that? No, this has been going on for years. Will it get better once we leave? Hard to say. Being in the EU hasn't stopped it. Would it stop if we stayed in? Doubt it since nobody has particularly cared. Well only those having to work there. It's not quite as extreme as Sports Direct, but it's not far off.

Not against the new liberal rules, take, but definitely against the rules of the single market, without which we are screwed economically.

Has there been a time warp to early June?

All the same discredited arguments which lost the referendum.

Wow, I step away from this thread for a few hours and it all kicks off! I see Chris has been up to his usual word-twisting tricks ("stop calling us racists!" - we weren't) again.

I know most of you Trumpers don't believe in climate change, but on the off chance that you are wrong, what do you think the impact on migration might be then?
Hint: The affects might be somewhat more severe than an increase in council tax on the common man's second home, Chris.......

Southall: I know this was pages and pages ago, but you asked me a question about why the website you linked to was spreading mis-information. I already described what was wrong with the first article. The contents of the second article is nothing like what the headline suggests. It compares the policy of a Canadian TV company to the policy of an American TV company as evidence of unfairness, which surely you can see is comparing apples to oranges. By the way what do you make of the comments underneath those articles? They are certainly fond of the Capslock key, aren't they!

Hi Aloysha!
I personally don't think nuclear war is a likely scenario, but it is much more likely with Trump in charge than anyone else. Still a comparitively low risk though. I don't believe Putin would ever strike first - he is an unpleasant man but too clever for that. I never believed that Hilary would ever start anything either - she may be a bit hawkish but she isn't impulsive (or a psychopath). Trump on the other hand is such a loose cannon that its hard to rule anything out....

All the same discredited arguments which lost the referendum.

It wasn't arguments that lost or won the referendum. Even claig will tell you that. :) It's all about emotion and sticking it up to the establishment and the elites.

Anyway, some people should read about Putin's trolls. You'll never read political threads as you did before.

Spinflight, unfortunately they weren't discredited at all.

Who's watched Adam Curtis's Hypernormalisation? It certainly backs up some of the suggestions on this thread. I hadn't thought of Claig like that before, just as someone having a laugh by exaggerating their position or, possibly, not believing any of it. But I hadn't thought of their being an ulterior motive before.

Just noticed some way back Claig was holding Milo up as evidence of Breitbart not being racist. Milo who was banned from Twitter for racially harassing Leslie Jones

Dear me,

Bitter much?

Well who knows, with some authoritarian tinkering to filter out news, crack down on dissident groups and keeping your corporate idols in power maybe you can turn the clock back to a time when merely inferring xenophobia was considered effective.

Maybe we can re elect Blair and get rid of the pound for a borderless EU utopia.

Or maybe your views and debating style are an anachronism in a rapidly dwindling but shrill minority which has difficulty accepting that the world has changed for the better.

Of course neither shrill nor minority, in the case of the US, where a minority of voters chose Donald Trump's brand of populism. I don't think wanting to corroborate news sources, checking facts and using words more complicated and nuanced than 'the people' or 'the elites' makes for an anachronistic debating style. But there you go.