Donald Trump for president?

[Braivo]

12 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

If Trump wasn't a xenophobic, sexist freak I'd probably vote for him. 

Also, he is married to a foreigner, I don't see how he is xenophobic.

He wants our nation to be secure from outside threats and jobs to be available for hard working (legal) Americans. It is clear there are some in a certain demographic that want us all dead, while others are flooding in and taking our jobs for low wages. He sees these as major, major issues as do most hard-working, middle-class Americans. Europe is in chaos right now from opening their borders, he won't let the same happen here. That does not make him a xenophobe. 

As for being sexist, there is no evidence to support this. He has a wildly successful daughter that he openly supports in her endeavors. His company has many female executives, none of which have a bad word to say about him. There is simply no basis for this argument. 

[Mr. Desmond]

44 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

I'm sorry, what? Just about every job has some sort of retirement options. Outside of that, I didn't realize that it was the governments job to make sure people have some sort of retirement available to them. I didn't even start being able to put into retirement until 2 years ago when I got hired in here, and they just take 10% of my income straight away to put into my retirement by default. Again, I really feel like the burden is on the person to work to improve their situation. Look for a better job, look for ways to continue education and/or work skills to make yourself more marketable. People do it all the time, from horrible situations, worse than many who are out there advocating for jumping minimum wage up to some absurd amount. There are programs, already in place, to help people find jobs and help get them training, that are provided by the government. I just don't understand your shift from "living wage" to "but what about retirement".... Tossing in the "Will the Donald help?" was a good save to try to keep on topic though. In that regard, what do the other candidates have in their platform that addresses retirement for people? Giving people more money does not exactly mean those people are going to start putting away for retirement though.

The point being a living wage typically does not leave enough room for a real retirement. Most people do not know how to save or invest. Over the last 30 years, many 401k programs were tied to the company stock -- so if the company bellied up... retirement bellied up. I believe that type of program is dwindling. The point is -- pensions. People understand pensions. The government does pensions. The private sector once did pensions. One can possibly finance pensions through private annuities...

[GolfLug]

13 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Also, he is married to a foreigner, I don't see how he is xenophobic.

He wants our nation to be secure from outside threats and jobs to be available for hard working (legal) Americans. It is clear there are some in a certain demographic that want us all dead, while others are flooding in and taking our jobs for low wages. He sees these as major, major issues as do most hard-working, middle-class Americans. Europe is in chaos right now from opening their borders, he won't let the same happen here. That does not make him a xenophobe. 

As for being sexist, there is no evidence to support this. He has a wildly successful daughter that he openly supports in her endeavors. His company has many female executives, none of which have a bad word to say about him. There is simply no basis for this argument. 

I have to admit, I am less fearful of a Trump presidency (I still am) then I was let's say 6 months ago simply because he seems a bit more serious about actually being one for a change. But you have to admit too that nobody knows it all but most are open to what they don't see. Trump shows no such quality. For a widely varied nation as ours, is that not recipe for isolationism? and let's say once you get into the WH and the day to day humdrum of this little thing of running country wears and smoothens him out (I think that is what will happen, that is what happens to all of them), would he not simply be 'reduced' to what all the other candidates are? At that point what will he rely on? His non-existent record experience of public service? What happens then? Idealism is great till you have to start turning the nuts and bolts. Then you really have to know the nuts and bolts.

Sorry, I am not in love with ANY one of them, but this CHANGE everyone is talking about may come from this novelty candidate, but not what you think.

[Fourputt]

4 hours ago, Mr. Desmond said:

1. Have you tried to live on the poverty line? Get real in terms of no American dream or hope on that line.

2. It was the deregulation of Wall Street, too. Who pushed those funds? Get real again - Clinton was a small part of subsidized loans. Lack of oversight caused the issues. Clinton and the GOP were part of that. Lack of funding the regulators during Bush was also part of it.

Back to Trump - he is in the Bible Belt now and people do not see him as religious, especially with the F and P bombs echoing in the air. If he cut that out, he might cut Ted Cruz.

The American Dream was never intended to exist at or near the poverty level.  That dream is something that was meant to be earned through hard work, planning, and perseverance.  It is still attainable by embracing those values.

3 hours ago, Ernest Jones said:

So, if Trump is a buffoon, Cruz is a whack-job and all the other Republicans are also-rans, isn't it time to consider voting for whichever of Bernie or Hillary is least jarring to your ideals? I think Hillary takes it under these circumstances, Bernie is far too radical for the average voter and the GOP doesn't (hopefully) have an electable.

Not sure just why you have a horse in this race?  I'm certainly not interested in Canadian socialism, and I think that most US voters would agree.

2 hours ago, Ernest Jones said:

That's why $15 has been identified as a living wage, because with intelligent spending and careful budgeting you can make a go of it. $7? Not so much. People deserve a chance, $7 doesn't give them that chance regardless of how carefully they budget. 

I've been retired now for only 9 years.  I never in my 33 years as a journeyman machinist made $15 per hour.  When we got married, my wife had 2 years of junior college and I had a high school diploma.  We are now both retired, her at at age 57, me at 60.  We are now debt free, have somewhere around a $2 million investment account, part through diligent saving and part though a little bit of luck - my wife knowing and staying with the right people even after having to take a pay cut.  We lived mostly debt free aside from a mortgage on a 40 year old home and our two low to mid range cars.  We could have bought Beemers and a half million dollar house on a golf course like some friends did, but we were looking to the future and retiring while we were still young enough to enjoy it - we are now retired while they still both work.  We achieved our goals without being wealthy or being born to money.  

The opportunities are still there in varying degrees, but they have to sought out and worked for.  When I was in school, the only people working at McDonalds were high school kids saving for college.  Now too many of those burger flippers seem to be immigrants, often illegal, and those part time high school jobs no longer exist - at least not in much of Colorado.  That is one of the reasons I'm willing to back anyone who promises to try to shut down the unrestricted flow of illegal aliens across our borders. 

If Trump gets the nomination, I'll vote for him willingly - call it a protest vote if you want to, but I'm just another guy who is sick and tired of the DC political status quo.  Somehow, someone needs to shake them until their teeth rattle if that's what it takes to get their attention.

[imsys0042]

23 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Why would you ever think this is anything typical like those situations. You are taking a complete outlier year and assuming it will work the same. 

A question and statement that 80% of the talking heads on cable refuse to admit to themselves.

[Braivo]

5 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

I have to admit, I am less fearful of a Trump presidency (I still am) then I was let's say 6 months ago. But you have to admit too that nobody knows it all but most are open to what they don't see. Trump shows no such quality. For a widely varied nation as ours, is that not recipe for isolationism? and let's say once you get into the WH and the day to day humdrum of this little thing of running country wears and smoothens him out (I think that is what will happen, that is what happens to all of them), would he not simply be 'reduced' to what all the other candidates are? At that point what will he rely on? His non-existent record experience of public service? What happens then? Idealism is great till you have to start turning the nuts and bolts. Then you really have to know the nuts and bolts.

I don't think you give him enough credit. He is by far the most intelligent candidate. His IQ is very high. He plays the media like a fiddle, gets free publicity all over the place. He barely spends any money on campaign ads because he is always on TV. The guy is a genius. 

He knows how to work deals, and I doubt he will get bored trying to dismantle government agencies. 

Most Presidents get weary because they are poor at delegating. Trump is a master of focusing his energy on what matters most.

He has incredible energy, sleeps only 4 hours per night, and craves work. He will work straight through holidays, etc. He will hold congress accountable like no one else can. He will call them out on poor work habits and shady deals with special interest groups. 

He doesn't need to know the nuts and bolts because he wants to destroy the machine, the Washington bureaucracy that has stagnated our nation. 

[Jeremie Boop]

Just now, Mr. Desmond said:

The point being a living wage typically does not leave enough room for a real retirement. Most people do not know how to save or invest. Over the last 30 years, many 401k programs were tied to the company stock -- so if the company bellied up... retirement bellied up. I believe that type of program is dwindling. The point is -- pensions. People understand pensions. The government does pensions. The private sector once did pensions. One can possibly finance pensions through private annuities...

So basically, you think the government should foot the bill for people being able to retire? If that's the case then why would anyone actually take money out of their pocket now to save and prepare for retirement if they can just rely on the government to do it? Or do you think that the government should only help people who make under a certain amount? I mean, people who make under a certain amount already get all their taxes back, plus some depending on their situation. One could argue that people could/should use that money to put into a retirement fund instead of buying a new car, new TV, or any other extra item. I'm not saying that I'd be totally against such a thing if it were done right. I wish that Social Security had been handled better and made sustainable so that there would always be some sort of income for anyone who has worked their whole life. My father has no retirement because he works for a company that was ran very poorly and barely stayed open through some of the hard times. He didn't even have insurance for a long time until we convinced him that he was eligible for VA Insurance. He'll get Social Security and that is it. However, he did make enough that he could have been saving for retirement the whole time if he chose to, so he really has nobody to blame but himself and I've told him that myself but in a more cushioned fashion because, you know, he's my dad and all

[GolfLug]

20 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

I disagree that it's offensive to suggest that people try to improve themselves so that they can get better jobs. I think it's offensive to say that they can't improve themselves because you are discrediting their ability. I worked construction for several years, I started out as a completely green laborer but because I didn't want to stay stuck at the bottom pay I worked hard to learn as much as I could to make myself more valuable. It got to the point where people request me specifically to work with them, I became a more valuable employee through hard work and got a pay raise and was even kept on the job longer than other people who had done the job much longer after the work slowed down. There are classes here locally that you can learn how to weld, for example, at very little or possibly no cost depending. If you get into a union hall, they train you for any number of jobs and even provide free room and board as well as some pay while in training. As I said, there are a multitude of ways to improve yourself so that you can make more money, and to say that it's offensive to suggest that people make use of such opportunities just doesn't make sense to me.

This is where it is offensive... You are saying that the job they ARE doing is in itself not worth doing or at least for a long time. So a young buck stands out and gets promoted, but then what about the next person taking their place? Are you saying that these jobs should only be transitory for anyone because it doesn't pay enough? How about considering the fact that it takes a bit of time to train them and then the employer has to start over with someone new. The whole cycle is silly. The better option is to pay them better (again we are not talking about doubling their wage or anything) but enough that folks can sustain a job and have a reasonable chance to have a bit of much needed quality in life, build good products and raise the quality of service all around. I can tell you that struggling people don't make for very good employees for too long. At best they are indifferent. At worst, well, the door's wide open.. 

Even the most ground level jobs need that.

[Braivo]

Guys, this thread is about Donald Trump's run for President, do you mind taking the retirement debate to a different thread as it has now drifted far from having anything to do with the Donald? 

[Ernest Jones]

12 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

The American Dream was never intended to exist at or near the poverty level.  That dream is something that was meant to be earned through hard work, planning, and perseverance.  It is still attainable by embracing those values.

Not sure just why you have a horse in this race?  I'm certainly not interested in Canadian socialism, and I think that most US voters would agree.

I've been retired now for only 9 years.  I never in my 33 years as a journeyman machinist made $15 per hour.  When we got married, my wife had 2 years of junior college and I had a high school diploma.  We are now both retired, her at at age 57, me at 60.  We are now debt free, have somewhere around a $2 million investment account, part through diligent saving and part though a little bit of luck - my wife knowing and staying with the right people even after having to take a pay cut.  We lived mostly debt free aside from a mortgage on a 40 year old home and our two low to mid range cars.  We could have bought Beemers and a half million dollar house on a golf course like some friends did, but we were looking to the future and retiring while we were still young enough to enjoy it - we are now retired while they still both work.  We achieved our goals without being wealthy or being born to money.  

The opportunities are still there in varying degrees, but they have to sought out and worked for.  When I was in school, the only people working at McDonalds were high school kids saving for college.  Now too many of those burger flippers seem to be immigrants, often illegal, and those part time high school jobs no longer exist - at least not in much of Colorado.  That is one of the reasons I'm willing to back anyone who promises to try to shut down the unrestricted flow of illegal aliens across our borders. 

If Trump gets the nomination, I'll vote for him willingly - call it a protest vote if you want to, but I'm just another guy who is sick and tired of the DC political status quo.  Somehow, someone needs to shake them until their teeth rattle if that's what it takes to get their attention.

Because I recognize that the world is a much smaller place that it once was. Having a lunatic (Cruz) or a buffoon (Trump) running my neighbouring country ain't good for property values...

[GolfLug]

2 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Guys, this thread is about Donald Trump's run for President, do you mind taking the retirement debate to a different thread as it has now drifted far from having anything to do with the Donald? 

Noted. Thanks.

[Jeremie Boop]

1 minute ago, GolfLug said:

This is where it is offensive... You are saying that the job they ARE doing is in itself not worth doing or at least for a long time. So a young buck stands out and gets promoted, but then what about the next person taking their place? Are you saying that these jobs should only be transitory for anyone because it doesn't pay enough? How about considering the fact that it takes a bit of time to train them and then the employer has to start over with someone new. The whole cycle is silly. The better option is to pay them better (again we are not talking about doubling their wage or anything) but enough that folks can sustain a job and have a reasonable chance to have a bit of much needed quality in life, build good products and raise the quality of service all around. I can tell you that struggling people don't make for very good employees for too long. At best they are indifferent. At worst, well, the door's wide open.. 

Even the most ground level jobs need that.

I'm not saying those jobs aren't worth doing, I'm saying it's entirely possible they are being paid what those jobs are worth and if you want to make more you move to a more valuable position. There is, in my opinion obviously, nothing offensive about that. If I really like a job I'm doing, but it only pays 12.50 I'm entitled to demand more money simply because I want to stay in that position? Regardless of what that job is worth pay wise? Almost any job can be considered transitory, by the way, it all depends on the ambition of the person in that position.

I'm simply not going to endorse a candidate who want's to push through a ridiculous minimum wage policy. But, as I said, I'm not exactly behind any of the candidates we have now so it's sort of a moot point.

[newtogolf]

Maybe I'm just old, but minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage.  It was a minimum wage for unskilled jobs that mostly teenagers took while in high school and college such as stocking shelves in retail stores, asking if you want fries with your order and pumping gas.  Sorry but stocking shelves in Walmart and working in fast food doesn't warrant $15 per hour, no matter where you live.

As for Trump, if what he says is true he's going to try to bring manufacturing back to the United States by making it harder for businesses to outsource it overseas.  Manufacturing jobs do warrant $15 per hour, so if you want to make a living wage then you want a POTUS that will make it a little harder for businesses to outsource manufacturing to China, India and Mexico.  Yes, costs of some products will go up, but overall we'll be a healthier country will less dependents and free loaders.

[GolfLug]

18 minutes ago, Braivo said:

I don't think you give him enough credit. He is by far the most intelligent candidate. His IQ is very high. He plays the media like a fiddle, gets free publicity all over the place. He barely spends any money on campaign ads because he is always on TV. The guy is a genius. 

He knows how to work deals, and I doubt he will get bored trying to dismantle government agencies. 

Most Presidents get weary because they are poor at delegating. Trump is a master of focusing his energy on what matters most.

He has incredible energy, sleeps only 4 hours per night, and craves work. He will work straight through holidays, etc. He will hold congress accountable like no one else can. He will call them out on poor work habits and shady deals with special interest groups. 

He doesn't need to know the nuts and bolts because he wants to destroy the machine, the Washington bureaucracy that has stagnated our nation. 

You make good points about some of his qualities. But you can't deny that his 'deals' have certain givens. It's like you can easily bet $100 when you have $1,000. But it's different when you only have $50. Hard to get your way when you take away the given. The congress is such a massively different instrument. It seems they all get brought to a grinding halt or back to earth.

Having said that, IFF, Trump ends up being POTUS, I really hope what you describe happens. God I hope you are right if so..!!

BTW, he doesn't need to know the nuts and bolts??

 

[Dave2512]

51 minutes ago, Braivo said:

You seem to mirror the sentiment of a lot of folks. They seem conflicted on Trump. You admit to liking his ideas, but also say you'll never vote for him for an ambiguous reason that you can't quite describe. 

It I appear ambiguous it's only because what I'd like to say would likely earn me a suspension from this site.

[Jeremie Boop]

7 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Maybe I'm just old, but minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage.  It was a minimum wage for unskilled jobs that mostly teenagers took while in high school and college such as stocking shelves in retail stores, asking if you want fries with your order and pumping gas.  Sorry but stocking shelves in Walmart and working in fast food doesn't warrant $15 per hour, no matter where you live.

As for Trump, if what he says is true he's going to try to being manufacturing back to the United States by making it harder for businesses to outsource it overseas.  Manufacturing jobs do warrant $15 per hour, so if you want to make a living wage then you want a POTUS that will make it a little harder for businesses to outsource manufacturing to China, India and Mexico.  Yes, costs of some products will go up, but overall we'll be a healthier country will less dependents and free loaders.

This is exactly what we need. The decline of the economy around my are was/is directly related to the loss of manufacturing jobs available. People who made a good living working at a place like the Phillips plant near here suddenly lost their job when that plant was moved to Mexico, same with Dana, as well as several other well paying manufacturing facilities. Even some of the plants that are still here employ significantly fewer people and are now much harder to get into as a result. If a President could find a way to incentivise *no clue how to spell that* companies to bring their plants back into the US we'd see a marked improvement in the middle class, and that President might be considered one of the greatest ever because of that. The problem is, in order to bring them back, it could take things that people really dislike, like subsidies, tax breaks, and other financial help from the government to these big companies. However, I see nothing wrong with doing these things on a short term basis to help bring those plants back home because the increase in better paying jobs will have a big positive impact on the economy.

[Braivo]

7 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

It I appear ambiguous it's only because what I'd like to say would likely earn me a suspension from this site.

Haha! The same could be said for honestly defending some of his positions as well, I hear ya. 

Most criticism of Trump equates to name calling. I have seen very few well-versed critiques of his policy regarding immigration. 

[14ledo81]

18 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

I'm not saying those jobs aren't worth doing, I'm saying it's entirely possible they are being paid what those jobs are worth and if you want to make more you move to a more valuable position. There is, in my opinion obviously, nothing offensive about that. If I really like a job I'm doing, but it only pays 12.50 I'm entitled to demand more money simply because I want to stay in that position? Regardless of what that job is worth pay wise? Almost any job can be considered transitory, by the way, it all depends on the ambition of the person in that position.

I'm simply not going to endorse a candidate who want's to push through a ridiculous minimum wage policy. But, as I said, I'm not exactly behind any of the candidates we have now so it's sort of a moot point.

 

I want to be the Walmart greeter.  I can't support my family on that wage though.

Typically the higher paying jobs are harder and have more responsibility (stress).  If I could get paid the same that I do now with a simpler (easier) job, I would do it in a heartbeat.  I am certain many others would as well.