How Trump Stiffs The American Worker

Post Reply New Topic

For those of you interested in how Trump makes money, well, apparently one revenue stream is ripping off hard-working American families and small businesses:

Hundreds allege Donald Trump doesn’t pay his bills

I'm not too surprised about the article. Trump is scum and I wish articles like that would be more on the news. He's ripped off many people, he constantly lies, he's racist and so on.

Calling it now.. an hour from now (maybe less)- Trump supporters will come into this topic and say "its a media smear", "all lies!", "but Hillary has done worse things!" and other responses.

This (supposed) billionaire says he can understand and help the average working joe, all the while having broken unions at his own businesses, and sent his clothing manufacturing overseas, thereby depriving Americans of jobs. Instead of trying to make life better for working class Americans, he's done nothing but encourage his supporters to blame all their woes on those who have it worse than them.

I think his voters are going to vote for him anyway; and, of course, he doesn’t have all that much to lose by alienating those who were already not going to vote for him. Therefore, he has no real reason to stop ripping everyone off

Yeah, this is the aspect of Trump that I don't understand with his supporters-- he has a long history of ripping people off, including "allies" and "friends", and knowing that I don't understand why anyone would want to support him knowing they run the risk of getting screwed themselves. My only thought is that they just don't know, or haven't seen the evidence, to know that he's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

For a lot of people, it's simply that the status quo has become intolerable, and Trump is the most disruptive candidate to come along in a while. Like I said in another thread, I'm screwed either way, but a Trump presidency provides the opportunity to spread the pain around, and I'm willing to roll the dice on his judicial appointments in the face of the certainty of Hillary's.

As far as "lesser of two evil" elections go, I don't think I've ever seen the bar set so low. The absolute most morally repugnant people one could choose out of the options available got to the top of their respective parties. At least in previous elections the candidates had a redeeming value or two-- or at the bare minimum, pretended they did.

So if most of the Democrat voters wanted Sanders and a lot of the old school Republican voters dislike Trump, why are you guys voting for two candidates that few people like? I thought the idea of Democracy was the have the guy the most people want to hold office.

I frequently wonder that myself LOL

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ss/384688/
The inability of Congress to pass anything meaningful--what a President can do without the approval of Congress is limited--makes the job far less attractive.

It could be that Trump got into the race as a joke--and his ego wouldn't let him get out of the race.

That's why you should have an emperor instead.

Long live Emperor Norton the first!

Maybe that's the difference between a democracy and a republic.

Politics here in USA is very corrupt. Sanders was popular enough I guess, but honestly not sure if he could do serious change here.

I mainly blame the two party system here. If someone isnt with one of them completely, they generally don't make it far. Trump is an exception- he clearly isnt a conventional republican but he's certainly conned a lot of people with his garbage and likely bribes. Part of me still thinks Russia is helping him rig the election, especially since him and Putin are decent friends.

Well first, we're not a democracy, we're a republic-- we have to vote for people to "represent" our vote, so our votes don't directly do anything, but put someone in place to vote FOR us. That's kind of a moot technical point in this case since the "representation" of the vote was accurate, but it still needs mentioned so people don't get the misguided idea that their vote is direct.

Each sleezeball had different dynamics in their respective races:

For Hillary (and Bill-- can't forget Bubba lest he get lost at an intern's cubicle), she had 24 years to work the DNC, the party institution, and 24 years is a long time to consolidate a power base. It's also one of the main claims against her-- to work a power base for 24 years means you've got to make some deals, and those deals tend to be pretty slimy since we're talking power acquisition, and power doesn't come cheap. But, when it comes to fruition you've bought off half the party and silenced the other half, so you now have firm control of the institution and you can guide it wherever you please-- including, surprise: your own nomination. So basically Hillary stuck around so long that her power-base got bloated enough to make her nomination inevitable.

For Donald, he took advantage of a highly fractured party that's uncertain of it's direction. For 8 years the Republicans have lacked strong leadership at the top of their organization, they've had internal power struggles among several factions within the party because they haven't come to a consensus on how to adapt to a slightly more liberal voting base since the Bush era. The result is that this primary had at one point over a dozen different candidates-- too many to learn much about any of them. So in swoops Donald with humorous quips, the media falls in love with the ratings because, well, humor sells-- and by the time the primary season is at voting stage, the only candidate with name recognition is Donald, thanks to the media's incessant whoring for ratings.

So they took advantage of different dynamics to get here-- operative clause being "took advantage" since we're talking about sociopaths. It's a bit of an anomaly that both parties tossed out duds, but I think this is the 46th presidential election since the inception of the Constitution, so statistically it was bound to happen at some point.

These are dark days for America, indeed. No matter who gets in the office, the country will bleed.

The majority of voters in the Democratic Primaries voted for Clinton, Many more voters in the Republican Primaries voted for Trump then any other candidate. There were open primaries meaning you had people not of the party voting in the party's primaries. On the Republican side you started with 17 candidates so all it took was Trump getting a large minority of the Republican Primary voters for him to win easily. The fact that 60 percent of Republicans polled dispise the guy was irrelevant.

As you saw in the convention not that unsimilar to the republican party the democratic party gone way way to the left. The one candidate Biden who could have made a last stand for the old white working to middle class democrates that once was the backbone of the party did not run because he was not up to up to it because his son died. Hillary still got the overwhelming majority of black votes because Bill has always been viewed as an honorary black, she got the older women who like her lived like when attitudes were similar to mad men and the I agree with Bernie but only Hillary can win vote. The Republican establishment promised the tea party the moon and did the oppoosite. The wave of terrorist attacks played right into anti immigrant fears.

The "big picture" is the the nominating process has evolved from just 8 or so primaries and before that backroom deals by pros to a 4 to 8 year 24/7 process where nothing personal is personal every mistake is blown up to seem like armageddon, and any thoughtful change is immediatly goes viral as proof said candidate is a flip floper. So what you have left is ideologues, ego manics, or somebody that feels so burned or scared that they become or are so cold and calculating that thier public image has similarities to the stereotyped no empathy aspie(Clinton, Cruz)