Trump Voters.... why?

[Seppia]

He has a proven 40yr history of running his mouth and then making smart, risk-averse, considered decisions.

What? He ran a considerable amount of businesses into the ground, he stiffed contractors and brags about it, has lost so much money he was able not to pay taxes for multiple years.

Trump is a tool.

On this, we definitely agree

He's a once in a blue moon, maybe once in a lifetime opportunity to disrupt the Establishment and cause real change.

Dropping an atomic bomb over manhattan would also cause real change
Change is not always good

[Glenstache]

And yes, will enjoy seeing him get trounced and sent packing.  Can't wait for this boor to go away.

In the past 24 hours I've seen a revival of the old "Trump is secretly a genius" discussions that used to be so common on this very forum during the primaries.

Basically, the argument is that Trump has roadmapped a path to victory that involves disputing the election results and then litigating the vote all the way to the impotent Supreme Court, which he has helped keep divided at 4-4 (and can therefore only affirm a lower court's decision), because he's confident that he can persuade a majority of State justices to back him.  So basically he doesn't need anywhere need a majority of the popular vote, he just needs a majority of State Supreme Court justices in a handful of swing states.  He's planning to become President based on the support of about 25 people, who he has apparently already identified and convinced to back him.

That's the theory, anyway.  Is it evil genius?

He craftily laid the groundwork for this plan by insulting the judiciary early on so they'd know he was on their side. Or was it really just a false flag operation against Curiel to throw us all off the scent? Deceptions inside of lies inside of misdirection! Putin himself would be proud!

[Telecaster]

He has a proven 40yr history of running his mouth and then making smart, risk-averse, considered decisions.

Does he though?  He financed the Trump Taj Mahal with most high interest junk bonds, and debt burden was so high that he started missing payments immediately after the casino opened.  Worse, the Taj Mahal started cannibalizing business from his other casino, Trump Castle, and caused it to go into default too.    And each time the company declared bankruptcy, discharged debt, attracted new financing, and reorganized the business, it went on to fail again.   Ultimately, his casino company would declare bankruptcy five times.

[FrugalToque]

While I have tried to understand the diminished opportunities of rural American, the frustrating effects of the world economy and cheap overseas labor, the increasing emphasis of higher education and technical skills, and the changing resource extraction and its affects on many people and how they could be drawn to an outsider for president -- I still have a hard time seeing the logic in backing such a vile person who is not fit for the role.

And my conclusion is that these folks are just dumb as stumps.  Logic is absent and predominately replaced by gut feeling and truthiness.  Welcome to the land of Idiocracy.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

[MOD NOTE:  Manners, please.  There are such voters, presumably, on this forum.  We can't just paint them all this way.  Probably they would say the same about Clinton voters.]

Interesting.  Maybe you would prefer something such as:   ...............seem to lack a logical framework upon how they are backing such a candidate.  It may be that they are just not able to think through the possibilities of a Trump presidency, the day to day important decisions made by a president, the long-term policy decisions that will affect their lives. 

Given the preponderance of evidence that Mr. Trump lacks commonly known information on world affairs and world leaders, and does not appear to be interested in learning such nuances, and the lack of specifics of his policy pronouncements other than the use of superlatives - one might easily conclude that he lacks the intelligence and agile predisposition needed to accompany this complex job.  Thus - the choice of this seemingly unqualified candidate and the desire of his followers to implement wide-scale changes in federal policy seem incongruent.

Well, yes, exactly.  Observing that people are making frighteningly important decisions based on emotions instead of logic is a useful comment.  Calling them all dumb as stumps isn't.  I mean, yes, Donald Trump's only demographic is uneducated white males.  But he does get some votes from educated people as well, and the question is, "What do those people see that I don't?"

Also, calling him ignorant on foreign affairs is different from calling people on this forum dumb.  That's the main responsibility I have here :-)

Thanks,
Toque.

[MrMoogle]

While I have tried to understand the diminished opportunities of rural American, the frustrating effects of the world economy and cheap overseas labor, the increasing emphasis of higher education and technical skills, and the changing resource extraction and its affects on many people and how they could be drawn to an outsider for president -- I still have a hard time seeing the logic in backing such a vile person who is not fit for the role.

And my conclusion is that these folks are just dumb as stumps.  Logic is absent and predominately replaced by gut feeling and truthiness.  Welcome to the land of Idiocracy.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

[MOD NOTE:  Manners, please.  There are such voters, presumably, on this forum.  We can't just paint them all this way.  Probably they would say the same about Clinton voters.]

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't make it dumb or illogical.  Humans are mostly emotional anyway, so to expect logic isn't logical :)

If we were all Vulcans, and completely logical, I don't think either of these candidates would be where they are.  We probably wouldn't even need elections, there's probably a more logical way to do things if everyone was logical.

I do agree with you and wish we followed logic more than we do now.

[Glenstache]

While I have tried to understand the diminished opportunities of rural American, the frustrating effects of the world economy and cheap overseas labor, the increasing emphasis of higher education and technical skills, and the changing resource extraction and its affects on many people and how they could be drawn to an outsider for president -- I still have a hard time seeing the logic in backing such a vile person who is not fit for the role.

And my conclusion is that these folks are just dumb as stumps.  Logic is absent and predominately replaced by gut feeling and truthiness.  Welcome to the land of Idiocracy.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

[MOD NOTE:  Manners, please.  There are such voters, presumably, on this forum.  We can't just paint them all this way.  Probably they would say the same about Clinton voters.]

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't make it dumb or illogical.  Humans are mostly emotional anyway, so to expect logic isn't logical :)

If we were all Vulcans, and completely logical, I don't think either of these candidates would be where they are.  We probably wouldn't even need elections, there's probably a more logical way to do things if everyone was logical.

I do agree with you and wish we followed logic more than we do now.

Things would just be so much easier if everyone thought the same. ;)

[MrMoogle]

While I have tried to understand the diminished opportunities of rural American, the frustrating effects of the world economy and cheap overseas labor, the increasing emphasis of higher education and technical skills, and the changing resource extraction and its affects on many people and how they could be drawn to an outsider for president -- I still have a hard time seeing the logic in backing such a vile person who is not fit for the role.

And my conclusion is that these folks are just dumb as stumps.  Logic is absent and predominately replaced by gut feeling and truthiness.  Welcome to the land of Idiocracy.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

[MOD NOTE:  Manners, please.  There are such voters, presumably, on this forum.  We can't just paint them all this way.  Probably they would say the same about Clinton voters.]

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't make it dumb or illogical.  Humans are mostly emotional anyway, so to expect logic isn't logical :)

If we were all Vulcans, and completely logical, I don't think either of these candidates would be where they are.  We probably wouldn't even need elections, there's probably a more logical way to do things if everyone was logical.

I do agree with you and wish we followed logic more than we do now.

Things would just be so much easier if everyone thought the same. ;)

I don't want us to be the same, I just want us to be able to better align our actions with our goals.  There are too many self destructive people in this world. 

[Jack]

If we were all Vulcans, and completely logical, I don't think either of these candidates would be where they are.  We probably wouldn't even need elections, there's probably a more logical way to do things if everyone was logical.

I do agree with you and wish we followed logic more than we do now.

Things would just be so much easier if everyone thought the same. ;)

Even Vulcans could disagree with each other, due to the phenomenon of dispersed knowledge and the fact that each Vulcan's self-interest would not necessarily align.

(In fact, Vulcans disagreeing with each other was a pretty big plot point in Star Trek. The most notable example is Spock's estrangement from his father over a disagreement about his decision to join Starfleet.)

[thd7t]

If we were all Vulcans, and completely logical, I don't think either of these candidates would be where they are.  We probably wouldn't even need elections, there's probably a more logical way to do things if everyone was logical.

I do agree with you and wish we followed logic more than we do now.

Things would just be so much easier if everyone thought the same. ;)

Even Vulcans could disagree with each other, due to the phenomenon of dispersed knowledge and the fact that each Vulcan's self-interest would not necessarily align.

(In fact, Vulcans disagreeing with each other was a pretty big plot point in Star Trek. The most notable example is Spock's estrangement from his father over a disagreement about his decision to join Starfleet.)

Man, I was waiting for the rift between Spock and his father to come up!

[Northwestie]

I would also argue that in the case of the Crybaby, he has consistently appealed to the dark side of humanity -  which is taken in, digested, and spewed out by a substantial proportion of his following - racism, misogyny, homophobia, Islamophobia, and overall crude and vile language that has certainly stoked the fervor of the base (apt metaphor) but has done little to advance any dialog on issues of concern.

The house that the Crybaby built.  Now he'll wail like the boy who burnt down his home, killing his parents, and while in front of the court he pleads for mercy because he is an orphan.

[dividendman]

If we were all Vulcans, and completely logical, I don't think either of these candidates would be where they are.  We probably wouldn't even need elections, there's probably a more logical way to do things if everyone was logical.

I do agree with you and wish we followed logic more than we do now.

Things would just be so much easier if everyone thought the same. ;)

Even Vulcans could disagree with each other, due to the phenomenon of dispersed knowledge and the fact that each Vulcan's self-interest would not necessarily align.

(In fact, Vulcans disagreeing with each other was a pretty big plot point in Star Trek. The most notable example is Spock's estrangement from his father over a disagreement about his decision to join Starfleet.)

Man, I was waiting for the rift between Spock and his father to come up!

Another important point on this topic is that Vulcans aren't completely logical. There are many instances where Vulcans (even if we don't include the half-breed of Spock) act out of emotion rather than logic. Remember that they just try to repress their emotions, but the emotions are still there.

Please refer to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_(Star_Trek)#Emotion

To tie this back into the thread topic, perhaps Trump is a Vulcan from the future who is just experiencing an extended version of pon farr (hence the groping of everyone, emotional outbursts, and no logic).

[ol1970]

It is too bad that there is not a party that has a fiscally conservative but socially liberal platform.  I'm not quite sure why those two have to be mutually exclusive and we are forced to choose one or the other.  I find it challenging to understand supporting a candidate that believes it is a right as an American to own a house, college education should be free, and everybody deserves healthcare.  As a "Mustacian" the idea that hard work and sacrifice are no longer necessary to achieve success in life in seems completely counter-intuitive, but maybe I'm not thinking about it correctly.  Raise taxes because the government can spend it more efficiently...really?  This is a slap in the face to the people who have sacrificed and exercised delayed gratification, at least it is to me.   But equally as distasteful is supporting a party that believes a woman doesn't have the right to choose what happens with her own body or that is gay somehow needs "saved" and should have less rights than others is completely unacceptable to me.  I could go on, but you get the point.

I was hopeful that one of the candidates would have gone more towards the middle in this race and the choice would be clear.  They've both done the opposite.  I'm shocked at how many women, and blue collar union people I talk to that are voting for trump simply because he is not the establishment and just possibly there will be real change (not sure it will be good or bad, but it will definitely be rocky at first!).  Hillary would at least be 4 more years of Obama of nothing happening and the economy treading water, Trump is a complete wildcard.  Personally I think the whole country would like a redo on this election process and that is why Hillary gets elected and we get a do-over four years from now.

[GuitarStv]

Another important point on this topic is that Vulcans aren't completely logical. There are many instances where Vulcans (even if we don't include the half-breed of Spock) act out of emotion rather than logic. Remember that they just try to repress their emotions, but the emotions are still there.

Please refer to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_(Star_Trek)#Emotion

To tie this back into the thread topic, perhaps Trump is a Vulcan from the future who is just experiencing an extended version of pon farr (hence the groping of everyone, emotional outbursts, and no logic).

Perhaps the most reasonable explanation I've yet heard of the Trump campaign.  I say we give him one of those shovels with the big ball on the end and start playing the music to find out.

dun dun daan daan daan daan DAAAN dun dun DAAAAAN DA

[DavidAnnArbor]

I find it challenging to understand supporting a candidate that believes it is a right as an American to own a house, college education should be free, and everybody deserves healthcare.  As a "Mustacian" the idea that hard work and sacrifice are no longer necessary to achieve success in life in seems completely counter-intuitive, but maybe I'm not thinking about it correctly. 

Having the government pay for public university education is not mutually exclusive from hard work and sacrifice, as the student who takes advantage of this still has to pay room and board as well as excel academically. Government provided health care is actually a bargain compared to no health care whereby someone seeks treatment too late for an illness that could have been prevented.

[Metric Mouse]

I find it challenging to understand supporting a candidate that believes it is a right as an American to own a house, college education should be free, and everybody deserves healthcare.  As a "Mustacian" the idea that hard work and sacrifice are no longer necessary to achieve success in life in seems completely counter-intuitive, but maybe I'm not thinking about it correctly. 

Having the government pay for public university education is not mutually exclusive from hard work and sacrifice, as the student who takes advantage of this still has to pay room and board as well as excel academically. Government provided health care is actually a bargain compared to no health care whereby someone seeks treatment too late for an illness that could have been prevented.

Mustachianism is about finding what really brings joy to one's life.  These things would give more people more of the tools to capture true life-joy; and they would not remove joy from anyone else. It's really a win for everyone. So yes, you were probably thinking about it incorrectly.

[thd7t]

I find it challenging to understand supporting a candidate that believes it is a right as an American to own a house, college education should be free, and everybody deserves healthcare.  As a "Mustacian" the idea that hard work and sacrifice are no longer necessary to achieve success in life in seems completely counter-intuitive, but maybe I'm not thinking about it correctly. 

Having the government pay for public university education is not mutually exclusive from hard work and sacrifice, as the student who takes advantage of this still has to pay room and board as well as excel academically. Government provided health care is actually a bargain compared to no health care whereby someone seeks treatment too late for an illness that could have been prevented.

Mustachianism is about finding what really brings joy to one's life.  These things would give more people more of the tools to capture true life-joy; and they would not remove joy from anyone else. It's really a win for everyone. So yes, you were probably thinking about it incorrectly.

Well said!

[DoubleDown]

dun dun daan daan daan daan DAAAN dun dun DAAAAAN DA

That is an excellent written representation of that awesome music! I wouldn't have thought of it, but it perfectly captures it. Now if you could only capture in words the squealing up-and-down brass/woodwind part that follows (challenge has been issued).

[ol1970]

I find it challenging to understand supporting a candidate that believes it is a right as an American to own a house, college education should be free, and everybody deserves healthcare.  As a "Mustacian" the idea that hard work and sacrifice are no longer necessary to achieve success in life in seems completely counter-intuitive, but maybe I'm not thinking about it correctly. 

Having the government pay for public university education is not mutually exclusive from hard work and sacrifice, as the student who takes advantage of this still has to pay room and board as well as excel academically. Government provided health care is actually a bargain compared to no health care whereby someone seeks treatment too late for an illness that could have been prevented.

Mustachianism is about finding what really brings joy to one's life.  These things would give more people more of the tools to capture true life-joy; and they would not remove joy from anyone else. It's really a win for everyone. So yes, you were probably thinking about it incorrectly.

I think you both misunderstood my post.  Do you actually think it is a "Right" that every citizen should have a home, a free college education, and (healthcare I will give you that it should at least be accessible).  A right is different from an aspiration, desire, or a want.  This country was not built into the economic superpower that it is by handing shit out for just showing up. We have become a country that hands out participation ribbons so kids don't get their feeling hurt and holds 5th grade graduation ceremonies...seriously WTF?  I've traveled extensively to India, China, and Latin America, and I assure you their are more students their working their asses off that would die for the opportunity to have the jobs that people turn their noses up at here. What the hell happens when everybody goes to college and gets their degrees and we have a society full of managers but nobody actually doing the work?  With our current policies my guess is the U.S. will be the shortest reigning superpower in history.

Of course everybody thinks that it is a great idea to get free stuff, but somebody has to pay the bill.  The top 1% already pay 90% of all federal income taxes.  Yes there are crazy loop holes with hedge fund guys with carried interest that absolutely needs to be changed, but I assure you most of these taxes are being paid by people who are out there putting in 100 hour work weeks not the extraordinary outlier cases that are brought up in the media.

Luckily I've already FIRE'd with 100x my annual burn by thinking exactly the opposite of the posters above.  I do wish all the 8th place ribbon holders of the future luck, but I do think in the future they are in for a rude awakening. 

 

[sol]

I do wish all the 8th place ribbon holders of the future luck, but I do think in the future they are in for a rude awakening.

Please tell us why you're voting for Trump.

[ender]

I do wish all the 8th place ribbon holders of the future luck, but I do think in the future they are in for a rude awakening.

Please tell us why you're voting for Trump.

Please tell me why you think ol1970 is voting for Trump.

There are many other candidates running for president and given their posts, it seems like Gary Johnson is the perfect candidate.

[DoubleDown]

There are many other candidates running for president and given their posts, it seems like Gary Johnson is the perfect candidate.

But what's a 'leppo'???  :-)

[Telecaster]

I think you both misunderstood my post.  Do you actually think it is a "Right" that every citizen should have a home, a free college education, and (healthcare I will give you that it should at least be accessible).   

I found myself nodding in agreement with a lot of you points, but I think you are fundamentally making a straw man argument by using the word "right" when virtually everyone else is simply talking about public policy.

For example, I've heard politicians from both parties say it is good public policy to encourage home ownership.  I personally disagree with that, but I understand the logic.  I've never heard any mainstream politician say home ownership is a right, in the sense that it should be provided by government in all cases.  Shelter perhaps, but not actual home ownership. 

Similarly, HRC is proposing to make community college tuition free.  But I've never heard her say tuition free community college is a right, and I haven't heard her say that every citizen should go.    She thinks it would be good public policy, I happen to agree with that.  Note that it used to be public policy that college tuition costs were shift much more towards the government side than they are today.  California had tuition free university level education until the 1970s, for example.   

[ol1970]

I do wish all the 8th place ribbon holders of the future luck, but I do think in the future they are in for a rude awakening.

Please tell us why you're voting for Trump.

Truthfully for the first time ever I have not decided who I am going to vote for.  I just had to chime in because it as abhorrent of a candidate as Trump is, HRC is equally terrible.  I find it shocking that so called Mustacian's would throw their support behind a candidate who all but bragged about her and Bill being...and this is a quote from her mouth "dead broke" when they left the white house in 2000.  She was 52, she was 54...they were so piss poor with their personal finances that they were dead broke, but an early retirement community that believes so steadfastly in being financially responsible gives them a complete pass, I find this very hypocritical if not irresponsible.  She is a better choice for at least kicking the can down the road before a real candidate emerges in 2020 on either side, but it amazes me that such an educated and fiscally responsible community as MMM could view her as a viable candidate that they would want to run our county...not 1 person here would choose the Clintons to run their personal finances.  Lots of heads in the sand on both sides of this race.

[Metric Mouse]

I find it challenging to understand supporting a candidate that believes it is a right as an American to own a house, college education should be free, and everybody deserves healthcare.  As a "Mustacian" the idea that hard work and sacrifice are no longer necessary to achieve success in life in seems completely counter-intuitive, but maybe I'm not thinking about it correctly. 

Having the government pay for public university education is not mutually exclusive from hard work and sacrifice, as the student who takes advantage of this still has to pay room and board as well as excel academically. Government provided health care is actually a bargain compared to no health care whereby someone seeks treatment too late for an illness that could have been prevented.

Mustachianism is about finding what really brings joy to one's life.  These things would give more people more of the tools to capture true life-joy; and they would not remove joy from anyone else. It's really a win for everyone. So yes, you were probably thinking about it incorrectly.

I think you both misunderstood my post.  Do you actually think it is a "Right" that every citizen should have a home, a free college education, and (healthcare I will give you that it should at least be accessible).  A right is different from an aspiration, desire, or a want.  This country was not built into the economic superpower that it is by handing shit out for just showing up. We have become a country that hands out participation ribbons so kids don't get their feeling hurt and holds 5th grade graduation ceremonies...seriously WTF?  I've traveled extensively to India, China, and Latin America, and I assure you their are more students their working their asses off that would die for the opportunity to have the jobs that people turn their noses up at here. What the hell happens when everybody goes to college and gets their degrees and we have a society full of managers but nobody actually doing the work?  With our current policies my guess is the U.S. will be the shortest reigning superpower in history.

Of course everybody thinks that it is a great idea to get free stuff, but somebody has to pay the bill.  The top 1% already pay 90% of all federal income taxes.  Yes there are crazy loop holes with hedge fund guys with carried interest that absolutely needs to be changed, but I assure you most of these taxes are being paid by people who are out there putting in 100 hour work weeks not the extraordinary outlier cases that are brought up in the media.

Luckily I've already FIRE'd with 100x my annual burn by thinking exactly the opposite of the posters above.  I do wish all the 8th place ribbon holders of the future luck, but I do think in the future they are in for a rude awakening.

So many straw men... so little time.

[thd7t]

I do wish all the 8th place ribbon holders of the future luck, but I do think in the future they are in for a rude awakening.

Please tell us why you're voting for Trump.

Truthfully for the first time ever I have not decided who I am going to vote for.  I just had to chime in because it as abhorrent of a candidate as Trump is, HRC is equally terrible.  I find it shocking that so called Mustacian's would throw their support behind a candidate who all but bragged about her and Bill being...and this is a quote from her mouth "dead broke" when they left the white house in 2000.  She was 52, she was 54...they were so piss poor with their personal finances that they were dead broke, but an early retirement community that believes so steadfastly in being financially responsible gives them a complete pass, I find this very hypocritical if not irresponsible.  She is a better choice for at least kicking the can down the road before a real candidate emerges in 2020 on either side, but it amazes me that such an educated and fiscally responsible community as MMM could view her as a viable candidate that they would want to run our county...not 1 person here would choose the Clintons to run their personal finances.  Lots of heads in the sand on both sides of this race.

I don't think that early retirement was an interest of theirs! Similarly, in the 90's, Trump was walking with his daughter and pointed to a homeless man, explaining that the homeless man was worth more than he was.

To the Clintons' credit, they had spent decades in public service at that point. Personal finance isn't everything. It's also personal. The country isn't run like a household.

[sol]

Hillary's claim that she and Bill were "broke" upon leaving the white house has been widely debunked.  A gross exaggeration.  Consider that they made over $3million in salary during Bill's 8 years in the white house, while not having a house or car payment, or ever buying groceries.  They were "broke" compared to Hillary's parents, maybe, but not compared to you and me.

[paddedhat]

The Establishment and the media hate the guy. He must be doing something right.

He's an orange 6'3" monkey wrench we can throw into the bloated self-serving DC cronyism machine. I hope he's a patriot and will at least attempt, if not succeed, at cutting taxes and regulations.

What is there to lose with a Trump presidency? nothing, really. Both sides of the aisle will will be so devoted to maintaining the status quo, shutting down the Trump. Worst case it will be a contentious and exciting 4yrs, and nothing will get done. The country will be fine. pssst, this is one guy, folks, the president is not a king. He can't unilaterally do this, end that, nuke anyone. Sounds pretty good.

What is there to gain with a Trump presidency? lower taxes, reduced regulation, secure borders. He has a proven 40yr history of running his mouth and then making smart, risk-averse, considered decisions. Sounds even better.

I think many anti-Trumpers don't like the fact that he's a giant prick. Sure he is. Many New Yorkers are (sorry, but true). On a personal level I despise the guy myself. But that is irrelevant.

Trump is a tool. He's a once in a blue moon, maybe once in a lifetime opportunity to disrupt the Establishment and cause real change.

You do a great job of pointing out why, if elected, he would be an utter failure.  Mostly due to the fact that both sides of the isle will bring a full stop to his asinine, and delusional bluster, and he would accomplish nothing. Then you mention the up side of lower taxes, less regulation and secure borders.  I'm not sure how you can reconcile being aware enough to understand that he would be nothing but an immediate and giant failure, and then  speak of all he will accomplish? Finally, his "greatness" is largely the babbling of a deeply disturbed egomaniac. IIRC, he has had a long running feud with Forbes, which frequently states that he is worth less than half of what he claims, and often gives bat shit crazy valuations to his holdings, to bolster his net worth and fragile ego. It has also been stated that had he just taken all the money that his daddy gave him, and invested it in a low cost index fund, he would be worth well over twice what he is today. So basically, he is roughly half as successful as our overall economy is, long term.

Given the well documented history of everything from racism, stealing from contractors on his trophy projects, running his publicly traded company into the ground, while bleeding it dry, and transferring personal liabilities into it, and countless other examples of living in a total moral and ethical vacuum, it's amazing to think that anybody would consider him to be worth of any office. Last, the whole concept of, "oh, what's the harm of having an interrupting force like Trump in office for a term, it's not like he can really do any harm, anyway?" can only be described as stunningly ignorant.  Electing a narcissistic, egomaniac who has clearly self-identified as being totally unit for the job,  to the most important elected position on the planet, is a hell of a lot more serious than, "Oh well, what can go wrong, it's not like he is a king, or something?" 

[MDM]

Electing a narcissistic, egomaniac who has clearly self-identified as being totally unit for the job,  to the most important elected position on the planet, is a hell of a lot more serious than, "Oh well, what can go wrong, it's not like he is a king, or something?"

We seem to have survived Obama (although some would disagree).  Likewise, I suspect we'd survive Trump if he's elected (although some would disagree).

[Metric Mouse]

Electing a narcissistic, egomaniac who has clearly self-identified as being totally unit for the job,  to the most important elected position on the planet, is a hell of a lot more serious than, "Oh well, what can go wrong, it's not like he is a king, or something?"

We seem to have survived Obama (although some would disagree).  Likewise, I suspect we'd survive Trump if he's elected (although some would disagree).

+1 MDM

[ol1970]

Hillary's claim that she and Bill were "broke" upon leaving the white house has been widely debunked.  A gross exaggeration.  Consider that they made over $3million in salary during Bill's 8 years in the white house, while not having a house or car payment, or ever buying groceries.  They were "broke" compared to Hillary's parents, maybe, but not compared to you and me.

Okay, I am glad you at least admit that she lied then in order to endear herself to the "common" people.  I wouldn't have such a challenge if it wasn't such a clear pattern with her (not to mention her husband).  Oh well the world needs ditch diggers too.

[DoubleDown]

It always disturbs me when I hear people say, "What real harm could Trump do as president?" It is a very misguided thing to say if you read up on Executive authority.

There are so many things a President can do under Executive authority, with no Congressional or Supreme Court consent required. Just one of these authorities is that the President, as Commander in Chief, has unilateral authority to launch a nuclear strike. No checks and balances there, no Congressional authorization or declaration of war required. Give the order and it happens (short of numerous mutinous officers refusing to carry out the order).

There are countless other authorities regarding domestic affairs, trade, international relations, monetary policy, espionage, and so on. These are not things where you want an incompetent, ego-driven person "winging it." But if so, hey, why not ask Trump to perform your next surgery or anything else where we typically demand some kind of professional competence?

[Cathy]

Side note: how do you escape a tag in bbcode?

I have been writing literal BBCode tags in my posts for a long time using the method that I used in this post. However, as of today, the BBCode parser has apparently been changed, and my traditional escaping method has stopped working in new posts, although it continues to work in my existing posts (suggesting that BBCode is compiled to HTML at the time the post is submitted, rather than when the thread is loaded). Luckily, I've discovered another way to achieve the same goal in new posts, which I just used in this post today.

[Tyson]

I'm curious.  We're here on a website and following a basic philosophy that life in America is "an exploding volcano of awesomeness".  A big part of the reason America is great is BECAUSE of the establishment and BECAUSE of regulation and protections against vulture capitalism. 

In other words, life is pretty damn good, and it's getting better.  Why the desire to tear it all down via a Trump presidency? 

Unless you think things are getting worse?  And if so, in what ways?  Just curious, mainly.  For myself, a lot of the things that I think are important are trending in the right direction - # of people with college degrees at an all time high, 6 straight years of job growth, a greater percentage of people in the middle class are becoming upper class (including a LOT of people on this board, I might add), the economy has been in a consistent (if a bit slow) recovery.  And speaking for myself personally, I live in a nicer place than I ever have before, I make more money than I ever did, I have more in savings and assets than any previous time, and I'm way, way less worried about losing my job via economic instability than I was for the first 4 or 5 years of the recovery. 

Seriously, things are pretty damn good - why in the world do people want to f' every thing up?

[sol]

Unless you think things are getting worse?
...
# of people with college degrees at an all time high, 6 straight years of job growth, a greater percentage of people in the middle class are becoming upper class (including a LOT of people on this board, I might add), the economy has been in a consistent (if a bit slow) recovery.  And speaking for myself personally, I live in a nicer place than I ever have before, I make more money than I ever did, I have more in savings and assets than any previous time, and I'm way, way less worried about losing my job via economic instability than I was for the first 4 or 5 years of the recovery. 

If you read the variety of responses presented in this thread, you get a very different picture.

Yes, the number of people with college degrees is at an all time high, but there are still a lot of folks without college degrees who can no longer make $100k as laborer or factory worker the way their parents could.  For them, things aren't improving.

Yes, the middle class has been expanding rapidly and overall quality of life has improved, but those uneducated workers in former factory towns aren't partaking in the rising tide.  They feel left out. 

Yes, we have more equality of economic opportunity than at any time in history, if you are a minority or a woman, but if you're a white male (and particularly if you're an uneducated white male in a former factory town) then you actually have fewer options than you used to.  You hear about all this great progress, but you don't see it in your own life.  You only see the upside in blowing up the current system.

And I think these feelings are pretty accurately reflected in voter demographics.  Trump has wide support among uneducated white male voters in rural areas.  He has very little support among women and miniscule support among minorities.  He vastly underperforms among all demographics with a college education, including white males.  And yet, about 35% of American voters are uneducated white men in rural areas, and they're basically 100% Trump.  We even see it here on this very board.  (Please raise your hand if you're a college educated minority woman who supports Trump.)

So don't be shocked that not everyone sees the world as quite as rosy as you do.  I agree that America is headed in the right direction, but that progress hasn't been evenly distributed.  Particularly in communities that have actively resisted progress (I'm looking at you if your town still flies the Confederate flag or your state has refused the ACA expansion), people have only seen everyone ELSE moving up the success ladder.

[GuitarStv]

As a white religious dude, stuff is getting worse.  Equality sucks.  Women in the workforce means you'll be fighting twice as hard to get a job.  (Soon they may even be paid as much as men!). Minorities in the workforce are the same problem.  Your views on gay people is that they are terrible sinners who will burn in hell, so gay rights advancements are scary to you.  Towns don't put up Christmas nativity displays anymore, so inclusiveness feels like loss of things you remember enjoying from childhood.  Couple that with not having a good education and only a history of blue collar work (which is disappearing forever), and there's plenty of reason to believe that things are terrible for you, and harder than in the past.

[scottish]

Yet the world is changing.    If you can't adapt to it somehow, you're going to be left behind.    It's not just international trade agreements causing this as M. Trump likes to claim.

Developing countries have learned how to do most of what first world countries can do and they can still do it alot cheaper.   I used to work for a company that helped this out.    Our fearless leadership thought that it would be more cost effective to do product development in China and India.   It was not, but not only that, we taught the Chinese how to compete with us.   (I'm not sure why the Indians didn't learn from it though).    This company did not change and it is now long gone.

Last week I read an interview with some former blue collar workers in Ohio.   Their jobs were gone and that didn't want to move to find more work.  I couldn't think how to advise them.   But do they really think that government should provide them with jobs or welfare somehow?    This sounds like the anti-thesis of the American way.

We have the same thing here in Canada.   Out on the east coast, there are lots of folks in the fishing industry.   They work very hard during fishing season, and then collect some employment insurance during the off-season.   These are strongly independent people but they don't know what else they can do.  It doesn't sound like a good way to realize their potential.

(Sorry for the mini-rant)

[RosieTR]

Truthfully for the first time ever I have not decided who I am going to vote for.  I just had to chime in because it as abhorrent of a candidate as Trump is, HRC is equally terrible.  I find it shocking that so called Mustacian's would throw their support behind a candidate who all but bragged about her and Bill being...and this is a quote from her mouth "dead broke" when they left the white house in 2000.  She was 52, she was 54...they were so piss poor with their personal finances that they were dead broke, but an early retirement community that believes so steadfastly in being financially responsible gives them a complete pass, I find this very hypocritical if not irresponsible. 

I'll explain why this Mustachian is happy to support HRC.
HRC has many years of experience, including many years after the one comment you cite, at the federal level. This experience includes both Legislative and Executive experience (Senate and Secretary of State). Previous experience in law would provide at least some decent exposure to the Judicial side as well. All this amounts to the most experienced candidate ever to run for President. Plus seeing the daily operations of the Presidency from the viewpoint of his spouse.

Now, whenever I have been on a hiring committee, the biggest consideration for hiring a candidate is experience. Occasionally, a great candidate who has less experience is chosen if the highly experienced person seems like a poor fit. Never is the less experienced person chosen whose translate-able experience show very poor execution over and over. This, to me, is much like the pilot analogy. If you're in a  plane and the pilot suddenly dies, who do you have take over? The woman who has flown several planes, though not the same model as this one? Or the guy who brags about how he's sure he'd be a great pilot and he's a great driver, and never mind the 4 or 5 vehicles he has totaled while driving? Trump supporters seem like the type to pick the guy because he promises them they can smoke on the flight.

[arebelspy]

Side note: how do you escape a tag in bbcode?

I have been writing literal BBCode tags in my posts for a long time using the method that I used in this post. However, as of today, the BBCode parser has apparently been changed, and my traditional escaping method has stopped working in new posts, although it continues to work in my existing posts (suggesting that BBCode is compiled to HTML at the time the post is submitted, rather than when the thread is loaded). Luckily, I've discovered another way to achieve the same goal in new posts, which I just used in this post today.

Clever.  Thanks for sharing.

It would have just changed yesterday, perhaps the day before, because I updated the forum software from 2.0.11 to 2.0.12 (first release in a year, patching major security bugs).

When Jack asked the question, your old method would have worked; I imagine you found the question just now trying to figure out how to make it work, so I'm glad you figured it out, and posted the solution.  :)

[Metric Mouse]

Equality sucks.  Women in the workforce means you'll be fighting twice as hard to get a job.  (Soon they may even be paid as much as men!). Minorities in the workforce are the same problem.

Every time I hear this train of thought I think of that company that raised everyone's paychecks to $70k per year, and lots of valuable employees quit.  Seems that bringing others up to one's level causes some discomfort in many people's minds. Sad.

[Tyson]

Yet the world is changing.    If you can't adapt to it somehow, you're going to be left behind.    It's not just international trade agreements causing this as M. Trump likes to claim.

Last week I read an interview with some former blue collar workers in Ohio.   Their jobs were gone and that didn't want to move to find more work.  I couldn't think how to advise them.   But do they really think that government should provide them with jobs or welfare somehow?    This sounds like the anti-thesis of the American way.

I'd advise them to move.  It's not that hard, people do it all the time.  Those jobs are not coming back, ever.  And it's not just jobs going to the south or to China.  It's also in large part - automation.  I'd also rec going to night school to re-set your skills so you can do something useful like nursing or elder care.  We have an aging population and we'll need a lot more people taking care of them in the future.

It's plain irrational to sit around in a post-industrial wasteland and demand that the jobs come back.  Instead of bitching about it, adapt and move and renew your skills. And I do think the government can help - a massive retraining program and tax credits for people moving to high employment areas would be a good step in the right direction. 

[Metric Mouse]

Yet the world is changing.    If you can't adapt to it somehow, you're going to be left behind.    It's not just international trade agreements causing this as M. Trump likes to claim.

Last week I read an interview with some former blue collar workers in Ohio.   Their jobs were gone and that didn't want to move to find more work.  I couldn't think how to advise them.   But do they really think that government should provide them with jobs or welfare somehow?    This sounds like the anti-thesis of the American way.

I'd advise them to move.  It's not that hard, people do it all the time.  Those jobs are not coming back, ever.  And it's not just jobs going to the south or to China.  It's also in large part - automation.  I'd also rec going to night school to re-set your skills so you can do something useful like nursing or elder care.  We have an aging population and we'll need a lot more people taking care of them in the future.

It's plain irrational to sit around in a post-industrial wasteland and demand that the jobs come back.  Instead of bitching about it, adapt and move and renew your skills. And I do think the government can help - a massive retraining program and tax credits for people moving to high employment areas would be a good step in the right direction.

Would this advice also apply to inner-city youth, who also have very high unemployment rates and similar difficulty moving up the socio-economic ladder?

[paddedhat]

Equality sucks.  Women in the workforce means you'll be fighting twice as hard to get a job.  (Soon they may even be paid as much as men!). Minorities in the workforce are the same problem.

Every time I hear this train of thought I think of that company that raised everyone's paychecks to $70k per year, and lots of valuable employees quit. Seems that bringing others up to one's level causes some discomfort in many people's minds. Sad.

I spent years doing short term volunteer gigs on the poorest native reservation in North America. It is both a microcosm and indicator of what a failed, insular culture looks like, and where some communities (that are based on our dead industries and extraction activities) are heading. One horrifying reality was how often individual success is met with a strong desire to drag that person back into the pit that the community had dug. There are exceptions, but the ones that succeed, are the kids who are self motivated to leave, or forced to GTFO, before it was too late.

When viewed in the context of coal country, or failed areas of the industrial heartland,   it's easy to understand how a loud, brash, and allegedly hugely successful businessman, can show up, promise the moon and the stars, and quickly develop a huge, and devoted following. It's all lies and horseshit, but it's the lies they desperately want to believe.

[Jrr85]

Equality sucks.  Women in the workforce means you'll be fighting twice as hard to get a job.  (Soon they may even be paid as much as men!). Minorities in the workforce are the same problem.

Every time I hear this train of thought I think of that company that raised everyone's paychecks to $70k per year, and lots of valuable employees quit.  Seems that bringing others up to one's level causes some discomfort in many people's minds. Sad.

I'm sure it was bringing other people up to their level that made people quit, and not the fact that they could do math and not the severe negative impact to their future earnings that caused the problem.

[Tyson]

I'd advise them to move.  It's not that hard, people do it all the time.  Those jobs are not coming back, ever.  And it's not just jobs going to the south or to China.  It's also in large part - automation.  I'd also rec going to night school to re-set your skills so you can do something useful like nursing or elder care.  We have an aging population and we'll need a lot more people taking care of them in the future.

It's plain irrational to sit around in a post-industrial wasteland and demand that the jobs come back.  Instead of bitching about it, adapt and move and renew your skills. And I do think the government can help - a massive retraining program and tax credits for people moving to high employment areas would be a good step in the right direction.

Would this advice also apply to inner-city youth, who also have very high unemployment rates and similar difficulty moving up the socio-economic ladder?

Yes.  Good, high quality education with an output of specific skills that are in demand is a good way to get people slotted into jobs.  I'd also throw in tax cuts and other incentives for businesses that hired people that went through these programs.

[Telecaster]

I'm sure it was bringing other people up to their level that made people quit, and not the fact that they could do math and not the severe negative impact to their future earnings that caused the problem.

The salary increases were entirely made up by cuts to the CEO's salary. No one had their future earnings affected.

The employees that left (I believe there were two) said they felt they provided more value to the company that the lower level employees who got raises, and therefore they should have gotten the raises instead.

[Metric Mouse]

I'm sure it was bringing other people up to their level that made people quit, and not the fact that they could do math and not the severe negative impact to their future earnings that caused the problem.

The salary increases were entirely made up by cuts to the CEO's salary. No one had their future earnings affected.

The employees that left (I believe there were two) said they felt they provided more value to the company that the lower level employees who got raises, and therefore they should have gotten the raises instead.

That's not entirely true. The owner also plowed much of the company profits into the raises as well. 

His actions did result in some of his customers leaving as well, feeling he 'sent the wrong message'.  There was really quite significant backlash for his efforts. So I'm not entirely sure Jrr85 was completely incorrect, in the fact that the company has had a rocky few years since the implementation of this policy.  But yes, everything I've seen reported that the two valuable employees left just because the lower level employees now made as much as they did.

[marty998]

I'm sure it was bringing other people up to their level that made people quit, and not the fact that they could do math and not the severe negative impact to their future earnings that caused the problem.

The salary increases were entirely made up by cuts to the CEO's salary. No one had their future earnings affected.

The employees that left (I believe there were two) said they felt they provided more value to the company that the lower level employees who got raises, and therefore they should have gotten the raises instead.

That's not entirely true. The owner also plowed much of the company profits into the raises as well. 

His actions did result in some of his customers leaving as well, feeling he 'sent the wrong message'.  There was really quite significant backlash for his efforts. So I'm not entirely sure Jrr85 was completely incorrect, in the fact that the company has had a rocky few years since the implementation of this policy.  But yes, everything I've seen reported that the two valuable employees left just because the lower level employees now made as much as they did.

Resentment is a powerful emotion. I too would be disappointed if I found out others who don't provide the same benefit to the company as I do get paid the same or more than me.

Probably best that HR does keep everyone's salaries secret because I would be very disappointed indeed :D

[MrMoogle]

I'm sure it was bringing other people up to their level that made people quit, and not the fact that they could do math and not the severe negative impact to their future earnings that caused the problem.

The salary increases were entirely made up by cuts to the CEO's salary. No one had their future earnings affected.

The employees that left (I believe there were two) said they felt they provided more value to the company that the lower level employees who got raises, and therefore they should have gotten the raises instead.

That's not entirely true. The owner also plowed much of the company profits into the raises as well. 

His actions did result in some of his customers leaving as well, feeling he 'sent the wrong message'.  There was really quite significant backlash for his efforts. So I'm not entirely sure Jrr85 was completely incorrect, in the fact that the company has had a rocky few years since the implementation of this policy.  But yes, everything I've seen reported that the two valuable employees left just because the lower level employees now made as much as they did.

Resentment is a powerful emotion. I too would be disappointed if I found out others who don't provide the same benefit to the company as I do get paid the same or more than me.

Probably best that HR does keep everyone's salaries secret because I would be very disappointed indeed :D

You never got paid based on what benefit you provide to your company.  It's all supply and demand.  If you need an engineer, you're going to look at what the market pays them, say $65k for a new grad here.  That's what you pay, even if they are a horrible engineer who does just enough not to get fired.  It's the same you pay a great engineer.  Now the great engineer might get better raises, but overall they are not going to be THAT different, even if one provides twice the benefit as the other.

[ender]

You never got paid based on what benefit you provide to your company.  It's all supply and demand.  If you need an engineer, you're going to look at what the market pays them, say $65k for a new grad here.  That's what you pay, even if they are a horrible engineer who does just enough not to get fired.  It's the same you pay a great engineer.  Now the great engineer might get better raises, but overall they are not going to be THAT different, even if one provides twice the benefit as the other.

Most people here working higher-paying jobs would gladly take a similar job at the same pay for much lower levels of stress.

It's not unreasonable to have some level of resentment if you are working a highstress/high skill job for the same pay as someone who is working a low-pay, low stress job.

Is it technically "fair" or "reasonable" to be resentful? Of course not. But I suspect almost everyone has at some point experienced frustration regarding other employees having easier jobs, getting paid more for lower work output, or otherwise dealing with an imbalance of work output, responsibilities, and pay.

[MrMoogle]

You never got paid based on what benefit you provide to your company.  It's all supply and demand.  If you need an engineer, you're going to look at what the market pays them, say $65k for a new grad here.  That's what you pay, even if they are a horrible engineer who does just enough not to get fired.  It's the same you pay a great engineer.  Now the great engineer might get better raises, but overall they are not going to be THAT different, even if one provides twice the benefit as the other.

Most people here working higher-paying jobs would gladly take a similar job at the same pay for much lower levels of stress.

It's not unreasonable to have some level of resentment if you are working a highstress/high skill job for the same pay as someone who is working a low-pay, low stress job.

Is it technically "fair" or "reasonable" to be resentful? Of course not. But I suspect almost everyone has at some point experienced frustration regarding other employees having easier jobs, getting paid more for lower work output, or otherwise dealing with an imbalance of work output, responsibilities, and pay.

I agree it is normal to be resentful, but I think it's not because of stress.  Accounting new grads start off at like $30k here (not quite sure, but it's around there).  If they got paid the same as engineers I do think there would be resentment, at least in engineering firms.  It might be the fact that the rules got changed midway.  I was told to do what most consider harder school, for a better earning potential.  Now all of a sudden, I could have done much less for the same reward.  I'd feel like I got lied to.

You can say the same about liberal arts majors, they were told to get a college degree and everything would work out.  But the difference here is they were lied to, but had information available that showed liberal arts majors don't receive the same pay as STEM majors.  The rules didn't change mid way, they just didn't do the research to see if they were being lied to.

IMO it's like if tax rates lowered, but you'd now have to pay income taxes on Roth withdrawals.  The lowered taxes would benefit a lot, but the taxes on the Roth would hurt a lot of us.  I'd be upset because the rules changed, and I had made plans based on the current rules.