Hillary Clinton could still win the presidency

[G-Tech Corporation]

So you're saying that Trump said he would bring back jobs just none of the ones making Trump products? Because I certainly don't remember that part of his speeches.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

Trump says he'll bring back jobs. And he has made public displays of strongarming companies into not outsourcing jobs. But doing so while having the jobs of his own corporations outsourced - with absolutely no indication that he'll lead by example and bring those jobs back to the U.S. - is hypocritical and deserving of criticism.

Sure, fine.

But that literally doesn't have anything to do with whether he ran a positive campaign or not.

[Novus America]

Actually he explicitly said he WOULD bring back the ones making Trump products, if the government made the reforms necessary for him to do so profitably. I am not sure I believe it. But he did say it.

There's always a caveat. "...if I win." If the government makes changes for him to do so profitably. Sincere question: Was Carrier offered that caveat?

Actually yes, Pence gave carrier some economic incentives like tax breaks to keep the jobs in. Trump threatened them, scared them, the Pence worked out a deal that worked for both. Of course such intervention is controversial, I expect the same pattern to continue. Especially as it worked.

Of course there is always that caveat. Companies exist to make money. If they cannot make something in the US profitably, they will not, regardless of if they want to. Companies are not solely to blame for outsourcing, government policies that actively encourage it also are. Resolving it takes action by both sides, the government needs to create a better environment for companies to do business, and the companies need to be more patriotic and less greedy.

Now I am no Trump fan, and yes he is a hypocrite, but he does have a point. You cannot make in the US if making in the US causes you to lose money. Even if you want to.

[East Klent]

I'm actually at the point where I don't know if an establishment Republican would have actually done better. Would have Trump's hardcore supporters actually approved of an establishment Republican?

Most of them probably would have.

Especially if Trump had flamed out and backed Christie as he had apparently originally planned.

[The Lone Alliance]

Most of them probably would have.

Especially if Trump had flamed out and backed Christie as he had apparently originally planned.

Christie wouldn't have made it due to his scandals, Jeb wouldn't have made it due to having the charisma of a turtle, Carson wouldn't have made it because he's too spacy, Walker... might have made it, Kaisch might have made it by being a moderate, Cruz... might have made it and I'm glad he didn't.

[East Klent]

Especially if Trump had flamed out and backed Christie as he had apparently originally planned.

Christie wouldn't have made it due to his scandals, Jeb wouldn't have made it due to having the charisma of a turtle, Carson wouldn't have made it because he's too spacy, Walker... might have made it, Kaisch might have made it by being a moderate, Cruz... might have made it and I'm glad he didn't.

I didn't mean that Christie would win, currently residing in New Jersey I know the fallout from Bridgegate would be too much to overcome. I just meant that Trump supporters might've gone along with him.

[Novus America]

Trespassing is also a crime.

Touche. Though that is usually associated with private property and government property and usually ends with "Trespassers will be shot."

Also the 'property' in this analogy did originally belong to the Mexican government. I realize we won the war and signed the treaties to receive the land, I'm not using it in my argument, I'm merely adding historical context.

Well property law is complicated. No property is 100% private. You cannot own property absolutely, you technically own rights in the property rather than the property itself. The government still retains rights and powers over private property, and therefore an interest. Really in a way all private property is jointly owned, with the government still controlling a share. This is the first thing they teach you in property law, but few outside of lawyers understand this.

Many people think for example if they "own" a private island they can make their own country and not follow laws. Which is false, and it being an island makes zero legal difference. The government still retains rights in "private" property. True absolutely private property is only possible in anarcho capitalism.

The property of Mexico was ceded to the US government, Mexico no longer has any rights in the property.
Now the Mexicans already living there were given US citizenship. Not all Mexican Americans are recent immigrants, some have families who have been here a very long time. If you legally lived on the property BEFORE the property changed hands, you retain rights.

Current immigrants from the Yucatan or moreover Central America were not effected by said change however.

As far as trespassers will be shot, well that is not legally sound. You cannot legally shoot someone just for trespassing, well except at certain government facilities.
Castle doctrine and such only applies in your home, and to burglary. Burglary is different than trespassing. All burglary is also trespassing but not all trespassing is burglary.

[Arlenton]

I think it was only from the early 1960s until sometime in the 1970s.

A bit longer than that

But that literally said 1962 to the 1970s?

[Cymrea]

No, that's not what I'm saying.

Trump says he'll bring back jobs. And he has made public displays of strongarming companies into not outsourcing jobs. But doing so while having the jobs of his own corporations outsourced - with absolutely no indication that he'll lead by example and bring those jobs back to the U.S. - is hypocritical and deserving of criticism.

Sure, fine.

But that literally doesn't have anything to do with whether he ran a positive campaign or not.

That one point, sure. We'll say glaring double standards don't contribute to a negative campaign. However, his conspiracy theory rants about immigrants and Muslims, his personal attacks on opponents and the Khan family, his Twitter tantrums...all contributed to a very negative campaign.

[East Klent]

Touche. Though that is usually associated with private property and government property and usually ends with "Trespassers will be shot."

Also the 'property' in this analogy did originally belong to the Mexican government. I realize we won the war and signed the treaties to receive the land, I'm not using it in my argument, I'm merely adding historical context.

Well property law is complicated. No property is 100% private. You cannot own property absolutely, you technically own rights in the property rather than the property itself. The government still retains rights and powers over private property, and therefore an interest. Really in a way all private property is jointly owned, with the government still controlling a share. This is the first thing they teach you in property law, but few outside of lawyers understand this.

That is interesting. So I assume that's how eminent domain and civil forfeiture enter into things?

The property of Mexico was ceded to the US government, Mexico no longer has any rights in the property.
Now the Mexicans already living there were given US citizenship. Not all Mexican Americans are recent immigrants, some have families who have been here a very long time. If you legally lived on the property BEFORE the property changed hands, you retain rights.

Current immigrants from the Yucatan or moreover Central America were not effected by said change however.

As I said, I realized that, I wasn't using it in my argument. We did invade the Yucatan at one point, however, and meddled in Latin American affairs under Roosevelt's "Big Stick" policy and the Banana Wars, justly or otherwise. No, this does not give them the 'right' to enter the US, again adding context.

As far as trespassers will be shot, well that is not legally sound. You cannot legally shoot someone just for trespassing, well except at certain government facilities.
Castle doctrine and such only applies in your home, and to burglary. Burglary is different than trespassing. All burglary is also trespassing but not all trespassing is burglary.

I know it's not legal, but it doesn't prevent people from putting up the signs.

[Arlenton]

Sure, fine.

But that literally doesn't have anything to do with whether he ran a positive campaign or not.

That one point, sure. We'll say glaring double standards don't contribute to a negative campaign. However, his conspiracy theory rants about immigrants and Muslims, his personal attacks on opponents and the Khan family, his Twitter tantrums...all contributed to a very negative campaign.

You said Trump's campaign was a ripoff of Reagan's. Look at how Reagan's campaign went. Copying it and applying it to today was genius.

Actually not even genius. It shouldn't take a genius to see how well "Make America Great Again!" works.

[Cymrea]

That one point, sure. We'll say glaring double standards don't contribute to a negative campaign. However, his conspiracy theory rants about immigrants and Muslims, his personal attacks on opponents and the Khan family, his Twitter tantrums...all contributed to a very negative campaign.

You said Trump's campaign was a ripoff of Reagan's. Look at how Reagan's campaign went. Copying it and applying it to today was genius.

Actually not even genius. It shouldn't take a genius to see how well "Make America Great Again!" works.

No, I didn't say that. But to clarify: Trump's use of the slogan was a ripoff. Trump's campaign bore little resemblance to Reagan's; Ronnie was capable of comporting himself with dignity.

Copying something is not a mark of genius. "Make America Great Again" is a dog whistle, simultaneously flag-waving jingoism and a self-effacing implication that America isn't great. It does work, but its not a compliment to those on whom it works.

[Novus America]

Well property law is complicated. No property is 100% private. You cannot own property absolutely, you technically own rights in the property rather than the property itself. The government still retains rights and powers over private property, and therefore an interest. Really in a way all private property is jointly owned, with the government still controlling a share. This is the first thing they teach you in property law, but few outside of lawyers understand this.

That is interesting. So I assume that's how eminent domain and civil forfeiture enter into things?

Yes, as to eminent domain such as the ability of police to come onto your property, zoning, among others. Civil forfeiture is somewhat different, as it also applies to things other than real property, aka land.
I should have specified you cannot privately own real property on the sovereign territory of a state absolutely, some things moveable like say a book you can basically own completely. More completely than real estate.

"Property law" without other qualifiers is meant to apply to real estate, ownership in real estate is different than in goods.

I elaborated on it further. Another example, if I own a piece of real property on the border, I cannot declare my property is now part of Mexico and "move" it to Mexico. Nor declare a immigrant can come unto my property without the government's permission. Trespassing is impossible with permission. But the government also retains rights in the property, they have not conceded it completely. Thus they do not have permission of all owners of rights in the property.

I can sell fully rights in the book to (almost) whoever I want, even a foreign country, move it wherever I want, completely destroy it if I want. I cannot do the same with real property though because I do not own full rights in the property, only partial rights, allowing me to do certain things, not everything.

[Arlenton]

You said Trump's campaign was a ripoff of Reagan's. Look at how Reagan's campaign went. Copying it and applying it to today was genius.

Actually not even genius. It shouldn't take a genius to see how well "Make America Great Again!" works.

No, I didn't say that. But to clarify: Trump's use of the slogan was a ripoff. Trump's campaign bore little resemblance to Reagan's; Ronnie was capable of comporting himself with dignity.

Copying something is not a mark of genius. "Make America Great Again" is a dog whistle, simultaneously flag-waving jingoism and a self-effacing implication that America isn't great. It does work, but its not a compliment to those on whom it works.

Why not? because you don't agree with them? Many people think American has gone down the wrong path and would like to fix it.

[East Klent]

No, I didn't say that. But to clarify: Trump's use of the slogan was a ripoff. Trump's campaign bore little resemblance to Reagan's; Ronnie was capable of comporting himself with dignity.

Copying something is not a mark of genius. "Make America Great Again" is a dog whistle, simultaneously flag-waving jingoism and a self-effacing implication that America isn't great. It does work, but its not a compliment to those on whom it works.

Why not? because you don't agree with them? Many people think American has gone down the wrong path and would like to fix it.

Many thought the same thing in 2008 and the opposition decried Obama's message of "Change we can believe in," and his lack of experience.

There is a valid point that Trump used some of the very things his party criticized Obama over in his campaign.

Cymrea's arguement "is a dog whistle, simultaneously flag-waving jingoism and a self-effacing implication that America isn't great. It does work, but its not a compliment to those on whom it works," though it has negative connotations, is true no matter what side uses it and how they used it.

[Genivaria]

No, I didn't say that. But to clarify: Trump's use of the slogan was a ripoff. Trump's campaign bore little resemblance to Reagan's; Ronnie was capable of comporting himself with dignity.

Copying something is not a mark of genius. "Make America Great Again" is a dog whistle, simultaneously flag-waving jingoism and a self-effacing implication that America isn't great. It does work, but its not a compliment to those on whom it works.

Why not? because you don't agree with them? Many people think American has gone down the wrong path and would like to fix it.

And that is exactly the kind of oversimplified catch-phrases that work on people who voted Trump.

[Novus America]

Why not? because you don't agree with them? Many people think American has gone down the wrong path and would like to fix it.

And that is exactly the kind of oversimplified catch-phrases that work on people who voted Trump.

All politics oversimplifies. You cannot have every speech you make or pamphlet you hand out look like that the terms contracts Apple makes you say you read even though though you did not.

It is the nature of it. Hope and change was no different in that it oversimplified and appealed to emotion.

In fact the are remarkably similar. "Hope and change" implies things need to get better and will get better. "Make American Great again!" actually is less simplified. And more detailed as to what it means though yes of course grossly oversimplified.

[East Klent]

No, I didn't say that. But to clarify: Trump's use of the slogan was a ripoff. Trump's campaign bore little resemblance to Reagan's; Ronnie was capable of comporting himself with dignity.

Copying something is not a mark of genius. "Make America Great Again" is a dog whistle, simultaneously flag-waving jingoism and a self-effacing implication that America isn't great. It does work, but its not a compliment to those on whom it works.

Why not? because you don't agree with them? Many people think American has gone down the wrong path and would like to fix it.

Also, Reagan, as personable and great at oration as he was, is not really someone to idolize. It was his policies that contributed to the Great Recession and the War on Terror.

TL;DR version of history: Soviets invaded Afghanistan, we helped the Mujaheddin fight them off, then didn't follow through on our promises to help them build schools. That betrayal lead to the splintering off of Al-Qaeda who committed the 9/11 attacks. No, that does nothing to justify the monsters' egregious acts, bar none, but it may have been prevented if he had just followed through on the promise.

As for the effect of Reaganomics, just watch the film The Big Short and you have your oversimplified explanation.

That is not to criticize the man himself, as he had no way of knowing that these events would occur, merely a observation in hindsight of his policies, and of course hindsight is 20/20. He was also the right man at the right time, the right time just didn't last beyond his administration.

[East Klent]

And that is exactly the kind of oversimplified catch-phrases that work on people who voted Trump.

All politics oversimplifies. You cannot have every speech you make or pamphlet you hand out look like that the terms contracts Apple makes you say you read even though though you did not.

It is the nature of it. Hope and change was no different in that it oversimplified and appealed to emotion.

Of course. If every speech was about the details, grand orators such as William Jennings Bryan, FDR, JFK and Reagan wouldn't've gotten anywhere.

People don't want a technical blow by blow of policy, that's what they elect others to office for, the want to hear grand and eloquent speeches. Sometimes 'tremendous' and 'great' ones too.

[Arlenton]

Why not? because you don't agree with them? Many people think American has gone down the wrong path and would like to fix it.

Also, Reagan, as personable and great at oration as he was, is not really someone to idolize. It was his policies that contributed to the Great Recession and the War on Terror.

TL;DR version of history: Soviets invaded Afghanistan, we helped the Mujaheddin fight them off, then didn't follow through on our promises to help them build schools. That betrayal lead to the splintering off of Al-Qaeda who committed the 9/11 attacks. No, that does nothing to justify the monsters' egregious acts, bar none, but it may have been prevented if he had just followed through on the promise.

As for the effect of Reaganomics, just watch the film The Big Short and you have your oversimplified explanation.

That is not to criticize the man himself, as he had no way of knowing that these events would occur, merely a observation in hindsight of his policies, and of course hindsight is 20/20. He was also the right man at the right time, the right time just didn't last beyond his administration.

Reagan's my favorite president. I thought he was very successful. And I don't see the war of terror as a bad thing.

[Novus America]

All politics oversimplifies. You cannot have every speech you make or pamphlet you hand out look like that the terms contracts Apple makes you say you read even though though you did not.

It is the nature of it. Hope and change was no different in that it oversimplified and appealed to emotion.

Of course. If every speech was about the details, grand orators such as William Jennings Bryan, FDR, JFK and Reagan wouldn't've gotten anywhere.

People don't want a technical blow by blow of policy, that's what they elect others to office for, the want to hear grand and eloquent speeches. Sometimes 'tremendous' and 'great' ones too.

Perfect example. The Gettysburg Adress. Certainly oversimplified and appealed to emotion more than discussed detailed policies.

[Arlenton]

Why not? because you don't agree with them? Many people think American has gone down the wrong path and would like to fix it.

And that is exactly the kind of oversimplified catch-phrases that work on people who voted Trump.

You can't run a campaign without oversimplified catch-phrases. And Trump voters had very serious concerns, they do want policy done that will, in Trump's words, "Make America Great Again".

[San Lumen]

And that is exactly the kind of oversimplified catch-phrases that work on people who voted Trump.

You can't run a campaign without oversimplified catch-phrases. And Trump voters had very serious concerns, they do want policy done that will, in Trump's words, "Make America Great Again".

yeah they will all see in four years they've been duped and their jobs dont come back and they've lost healthcare and medicare and social security and the economy has collapsed from debt default and they lose their jobs and the world hates us and will have nothing to do with us and are elections are shams from the voting rights act being gutted and the Republicans will have made it impossible for them to lose. which i why i think the EC should grow a pair put country over party and stop Trump and save the people from themselves.

[Arlenton]

You can't run a campaign without oversimplified catch-phrases. And Trump voters had very serious concerns, they do want policy done that will, in Trump's words, "Make America Great Again".

yeah they will all see in four years they've been duped and their jobs dont come back and they've lost healthcare and medicare and social security and the economy has collapsed from debt default and they lose their jobs and the world hates us and will have nothing to do with us and are elections are shams from the voting rights act being gutted and the Republicans will have made it impossible for them to lose. which i why i think the EC should grow a pair put country over party and stop Trump and save the people from themselves.

Yeah, electing someone who will raise taxes, increase regulations, implement gun control, and expand Obamacare is the only option. Because fuck all the people who do not want these things...

[Novus America]

You can't run a campaign without oversimplified catch-phrases. And Trump voters had very serious concerns, they do want policy done that will, in Trump's words, "Make America Great Again".

yeah they will all see in four years they've been duped and their jobs dont come back and they've lost healthcare and medicare and social security and the economy has collapsed from debt default and they lose their jobs and the world hates us and will have nothing to do with us and are elections are shams from the voting rights act being gutted and the Republicans will have made it impossible for them to lose. which i why i think the EC should grow a pair put country over party and stop Trump and save the people from themselves.

Yeah, first of all not all that is going to happen. Your hypberbole that grossly oversimplifies and presents a uncessarily pessimistic view is better how exactly? You are trying to do the same thing, just not nearly as well.

Just calm down. Do not buy into the emotional hyperbolic hype and try to look at things as they are, good and bad.

[San Lumen]

yeah they will all see in four years they've been duped and their jobs dont come back and they've lost healthcare and medicare and social security and the economy has collapsed from debt default and they lose their jobs and the world hates us and will have nothing to do with us and are elections are shams from the voting rights act being gutted and the Republicans will have made it impossible for them to lose. which i why i think the EC should grow a pair put country over party and stop Trump and save the people from themselves.

Yeah, electing someone who will raise taxes, increase regulations, implement gun control, and expand Obamacare is the only option. Because fuck all the people who do not want these things...

Yeah because the heck with the environment. Humans and their needs are all that matter. and who cares if you go bankrupt from medical bills or your insurance company plays doctor?