Nazgul_Hunter
Member
Who's cutting Trump's commercials? The one just on CNN reminded me of that Raptor Jesus Disco party
He's an alien.Can we talk about how creepy this guy looks
Who's cutting Trump's commercials? The one just on CNN reminded me of that Raptor Jesus Disco party
Chris Matthews fails to understand that Trump's campaign has never been about trade, immigration and stupid wars. It's always been about Trump.
Some hot scoops: It'll take Republicans less than a 100 days to start rumbling about impeaching Hillary.
Pretty sure that's why Trump is up at 3 AM to tweet in the first place.
IN SEPTEMBER 1843 the Liverpool Mercury reported on a large free-trade rally in the city. The Royal Amphitheatre was overflowing. John Bright, a newly elected MP, spoke eloquently on the merits of abolishing duties on imported food, echoing arguments made in The Economist, a fledgling newspaper. Mr Bright told his audience that when canvassing, he had explained how stonemasons, shoemakers, carpenters and every kind of artisan suffered if the trade of the country was restricted. His speech in Liverpool was roundly cheered.
Trump, incoherent on so many fronts, is clear in this area: unfair competition from foreigners has destroyed jobs at home. He threatens to dismantle the North American Free Trade Agreement, withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and start a trade war with China. To her discredit, Hillary Clinton now denounces the TPP, a pact she helped negotiate.
Exports of goods rose from 8% of world GDP in 1950 to almost 20% a half-century later. Export-led growth and foreign investment have dragged hundreds of millions out of poverty in China, and transformed economies from Ireland to South Korea.
Exporting firms are more productive and pay higher wages than those that serve only the domestic market. Half of Americas exports go to countries with which it has a free-trade deal, even though their economies account for less than a tenth of global GDP.
Protectionism, by contrast, hurts consumers and does little for workers. The worst-off benefit far more from trade than the rich. A study of 40 countries found that the richest consumers would lose 28% of their purchasing power if cross-border trade ended; but those in the bottom tenth would lose 63%. The annual cost to American consumers of switching to non-Chinese tyres after Barack Obama slapped on anti-dumping tariffs in 2009 was around $1.1 billion, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. That amounts to over $900,000 for each of the 1,200 jobs that were saved.
None of this is to deny that globalisation has its flaws. Since the 1840s advocates of free trade have known that, though the great majority benefit, some lose out. Too little has been done to help these people. Perhaps a fifth of the 6m or so net job losses in American manufacturing between 1999 and 2011 stemmed from Chinese competition; many of those who lost jobs did not find new ones.
Rawrrrr TPPPPP. Rawr. Boo. Rawr.America spends a paltry 0.1% of its GDP, one-sixth of the rich-country average, on policies to retrain workers and help them find new jobs. In this context, it is lamentable that neither Mr Trump nor Mrs Clinton offers policies to help those whose jobs have been affected by trade or cheaper technology. On migration, it makes sense to follow the example of Denmark and link local-government revenues to the number of incomers, so that strains on schools, hospitals and housing can be eased. Many see the rules that bind signatories to trade pacts as an affront to democracy. But there are ways that shared rules can enhance national autonomy. Harmonising norms on how multinational firms are taxed would give countries greater command over their public finances. A co-ordinated approach to curbing volatile capital flows would restore mastery over national monetary policy.
he looks like he's straining to remain in human formCan we talk about how creepy this guy looks
It's Giulianita.Is that Guiliani?
Is that Guiliani?
Can we talk about how creepy this guy looks
The only way that the FRAUD rethoric would work is by:
1. Having a very close race, sub 2% difference, like how Bush won
2. Hillary steamrolling Trump in a never before seen GOP stomp
If the popular vote difference is ample enough, only Trump's hardcore base would support him for a couple of months, while most of his Pundits, surrogates and supporters would just throw their hands up in the air and let it go as a loss.
The better the support for HRC, the less effective the FRAUD tactic is.
Two of my coworkers were arguing today. One is a Republican, other one is a Democrat. They both dislike Trump. They seem to be convinced that Trump is going to contest any Hillary victory no matter how wide or narrow the margin of victory will be due to news of hacking or some other "rigged" reasoning and will go to the courts, throwing the nation into turmoil. I tend to stay out of politics at work but I feel like this is possible. Trump can't accept losing. Period."Make sure it is on the up-and-up."
Trump saying that Clinton is going to commit voter fraud.
Holy fuck he is gone.
"That'd be one hell of a way to lose."
https://twitter.com/NYTnickc/status/781978258665381888
Any people show up to be election monitors gonna get their shit pushed in if they step out of line at the polling place I run.
AKA
1. One warning depending on what they do
2. Told to leave at next infraction
3. Have the police called to arrest them.
Two of my coworkers were arguing today. One is a Republican, other one is a Democrat. They both dislike Trump. They seem to be convinced that Trump is going to contest any Hillary victory no matter how wide or narrow the margin of victory will be due to news of hacking or some other "rigged" reasoning and will go to the courts, throwing the nation into turmoil. I tend to stay out of politics at work but I feel like this is possible. Trump can't accept losing. Period.
Two of my coworkers were arguing today. One is a Republican, other one is a Democrat. They both dislike Trump. They seem to be convinced that Trump is going to contest any Hillary victory no matter how wide or narrow the margin of victory will be due to news of hacking or some other "rigged" reasoning and will go to the courts, throwing the nation into turmoil. I tend to stay out of politics at work but I feel like this is possible. Trump can't accept losing. Period.
Seriously Clinton looks glowing these days. Strong, healthy, happy, confident. Good luck in debate #2, trump.
Yup. I highly doubt he writes a concession speech. And he'll just say the system is rigged. Trump and his cronies are setting a dangerous precedent with this line of speaking.
But the question is what will he do after he says the system is rigged and screams his head off? Fade away or seriously challenge the results?Well yeah, Orange Man will go screaming into the night rather than accepting defeat.
He's not going to be able to do shit. He can be a man child all he wants. No one will listen or care.But the question is what will he do after he says the system is rigged and screams his head off? Fade away or seriously challenge the results?
But the question is what will he do after he says the system is rigged and screams his head off? Fade away or seriously challenge the results?
But the question is what will he do after he says the system is rigged and screams his head off? Fade away or seriously challenge the results?
What if he can get enough states to go along with him?He's not going to be able to do shit. He can be a man child all he wants. No one will listen or care.
What if he can get enough states to go along with him?
Honestly though if it would go all the way up to the SCOTUS i don't see Kennedy or Roberts throwing him a bone.
But the question is what will he do after he says the system is rigged and screams his head off? Fade away or seriously challenge the results?
What if he can get enough states to go along with him?
Honestly though if it would go all the way up to the SCOTUS i don't see Kennedy or Roberts throwing him a bone.
He could cite claims of polling places having their machines hacked or a county elections results website being compromised etc. Just enough to throw the country into turmoil.It would not reach the SCOTUS. Specially if he loses by more than 3% popular vote. You just don't back a loser unless you are pretty sure he won.
He could cite claims of polling places having their machines hacked or a county elections results website being compromised etc. Just enough to throw the country into turmoil.
He could cite claims of polling places having their machines hacked or a county elections results website being compromised etc. Just enough to throw the country into turmoil.
It wouldn't gain traction. Trust me on this, I live in a country where fraud actually has happened in a presidential election and the most that the guy who ran and lost with less than 1% popular vote got was his own party.
If Trump wants, he can run his own party afterwards, but no way it would mean anything more than that or reach SCOTUS. If just 30% of reps thrown him under the bus he is done.
Is this at all in response to some of the trump supporters who I heard were out having 'conversations' with people outside polling places in Madison to get them to vote for Paul Ryan's opponent in the primary?
He's not going to be able to do shit. He can be a man child all he wants. No one will listen or care.