• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bernie Sanders Exposes Trump's Bait and Switch Trade Deals!

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
We just keep on ignoring the fact that the purpose of commerce is to serve the well being of the humans engaged in it, and not the other way around. And yet you and SZ seem to be completely oblivious of this, as do nearly all of the world's "leaders", because they are nearly all benefitting quite handsomely from that ignorance, while the people they are supposed to be serving get screwed.
And we are being supported by this commerce. The overall wealth in the US is going up, crime is at an all time low, we are living longer than ever in human history, national education is up, social issues have become more equal and poverty is continuing to drop. Believe it or not it has never been better to be alive. So I think our commerce is doing just fine.

Data aside, progress is going to continue so long as there is a capitalist system to reward them. None of our opinions will change that.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
And we are being supported by this commerce. The overall wealth in the US is going up, crime is at an all time low, we are living longer than ever in human history, national education is up, social issues have become more equal and poverty is continuing to drop. Believe it or not it has never been better to be alive. So I think our commerce is doing just fine.

Data aside, progress is going to continue so long as there is a capitalist system to reward them. None of our opinions will change that.
Amazing.
 
In other words, you jumped to your conclusion and can't offer a logical explanation.

I explained exactly why twice.

If you would like to demonstrate it is a valid communication strategy, start by giving me 3 game changing lies (that you could communicate in a single sentence each) which would convince swing voters to vote against Trump even if the economy was doing well, they were concerned about immigration etc.

You sound like the generals who champion strategies that won the last war.

And you are championing the strategy that lost the last war miserably.

False analogy. Clinton couldn't run a campaign on the trust issue because the ton of evidence of Trumps lack of integrity became obvious only after he was elected.

That Trump is a purveyor of hyperbole and is not overly concerned with factual accuracy was rarely in question. People aren't as stupid as you think they are

Well, of course it would. It's dumb. Is that the best you could do as a candidate?

Quoting David Gergen, who worked for five Presidents, would be a more persuasive way to begin.

“Trust remains the coin of the realm in politics. A President who is trusted, by the people, by the congress, by the press, by foreign countries, is a President who can get a lot of good things done.”

You are presenting a man who worked for Presidents Nixon, Reagan and Bill Clinton as evidence that the voting public cares about scrupulous honesty when electing their representatives? :D

Assuming the election season began today, Trump would run on the economy, immigration, national security built around a vision of a 'great America'.

"Can't trust him, he tells fibs to make himself look better"

Trump: Who do you trust to keep the economy strong? Who do you trust to keep the borders safe? Who do you support our allies in the Middle East? etc.

"But he tells fibs!!!!!!"

*cue 4 more years*
 
Nevertheless, part of his victory was due to being seen as anti-establishing. By the way, here in Brazil the biggest reason as to why our current president won was because he was pictured as a politically incorrect white knight that opposed the biggest political party.

Being anti-something can work wonderfully. You just need a lot of people that can relate to that.

Trump wasn't simply 'anti-establishment', he ran on an optimistic vision: 'MAGA'. Akin to Obama's 'Yes we can' or Reagan's 'Morning in America'.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Trump wasn't simply 'anti-establishment', he ran on an optimistic vision: 'MAGA'. Akin to Obama's 'Yes we can' or Reagan's 'Morning in America'.

I don't disagree:

"Nevertheless, part of his victory was due to being seen as anti-establishing."
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Data aside, progress is going to continue so long as there is a capitalist system to reward them. None of our opinions will change that.
The world's economies are mixed economies. Capitalism works reasonably well when well-informed consumers, spending their own money, can shop and compare products. When those criteria are missing, fraud runs rampant (financial services, healthcare).

Most of the wealth in the USA is inherited. It's owned by people who have never done a day's work in their lives.80% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Many are working part-time jobs which skews the unemployment figures.
 
Most of the wealth in the USA is inherited. It's owned by people who have never done a day's work in their lives.

This isn't true, 269/top 400, and 8/ top 10 richest Americans (per Forbes) made their own fortunes.

Rank Name Wealth Source of Wealth
1 Jeff Bezos $160 billion Amazon.com
2 Bill Gates 97 billion Microsoft
3 Warren Buffett 88.3 billion Berkshire Hathaway
4 Mark Zuckerberg 61 billion Facebook
5 Larry Ellison 58.4 billion Software
6 Larry Page 53.8 billion Google
7 Charles Koch 53.5 billion Koch Industries
7 David Koch 53.5 billion Koch Industries
9 Sergey Brin 52.4 billion Google
10 Michael Bloomberg 51.8 billion Bloomberg LP
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
If you would like to demonstrate it is a valid communication strategy, start by giving me 3 game changing lies (that you could communicate in a single sentence each) which would convince swing voters to vote against Trump even if the economy was doing well, they were concerned about immigration etc.
People don't need to be convinced that Trump is an habitual liar. That's a well-established fact. They need to be convinced that it matters because there is no leader, foreign or domestic, who would trust him when negotiating a deal.

The economy is doing well? Do you think the fact that the stock market is doing well because the big corporations are warehousing their money there rather than investing in expansion will persuade the 80% of Americans who are living from paycheck and don't own stocks that the economy doing well?

Do you think that the many who are working part-time, and boost the employment numbers,wouldn't rather have full-time work?
 
People don't need to be convinced that Trump is an habitual liar. That's a well-established fact. They need to be convinced that it matters because there is no leader, foreign or domestic, who would trust him when negotiating a deal.

If that is your headline vote getting key message, might as well vote for Trump yourself.

"Degree to which president is liked by Chinese and European leaders" isn't particularly high on voters' list of differentiating factors.

How would you communicate your campaign in 2-3 single sentence messages?

The economy is doing well? Do you think the fact that the stock market is doing well because the big corporations are warehousing their money there rather than investing will persuade the 80% of Americans who are living from paycheck and don't own stocks that the economy doing well?

I'm saying what he would run on, not endorsing his platform. It's a description of his position.

Sanders could indeed run on the economy, as I said, you need to run on your positions and a positive vision, not run a "Trump is bad" campaign.
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
This isn't true, 269/top 400, and 8/ top 10 richest Americans (per Forbes) made their own fortunes.

Rank Name Wealth Source of Wealth
1 Jeff Bezos $160 billion Amazon.com
2 Bill Gates 97 billion Microsoft
3 Warren Buffett 88.3 billion Berkshire Hathaway
4 Mark Zuckerberg 61 billion Facebook
5 Larry Ellison 58.4 billion Software
6 Larry Page 53.8 billion Google
7 Charles Koch 53.5 billion Koch Industries
7 David Koch 53.5 billion Koch Industries
9 Sergey Brin 52.4 billion Google
10 Michael Bloomberg 51.8 billion Bloomberg LP
Thanks for the stats, my initial thought was that a great deal of wealth is in technological innovation. It is no surprise to me that 6 out of the 10 are directly linked to that industry.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Sanders could indeed run on the economy, as I said, you need to run on your positions and a positive vision, not run a "Trump is bad" campaign.
I'm guessing it will be Elizabeth Warren who is offering a few easy-to-understand proposals but it would be mind-boggling dumb IMO not to pound on your opponent's most obvious weakness.
 
Last edited:

joe1776

Well-Known Member
This isn't true, 269/top 400, and 8/ top 10 richest Americans (per Forbes) made their own fortunes.

Rank Name Wealth Source of Wealth
1 Jeff Bezos $160 billion Amazon.com
2 Bill Gates 97 billion Microsoft
3 Warren Buffett 88.3 billion Berkshire Hathaway
4 Mark Zuckerberg 61 billion Facebook
5 Larry Ellison 58.4 billion Software
6 Larry Page 53.8 billion Google
7 Charles Koch 53.5 billion Koch Industries
7 David Koch 53.5 billion Koch Industries
9 Sergey Brin 52.4 billion Google
10 Michael Bloomberg 51.8 billion Bloomberg LP
The Forbes list doesn't measure total wealth in the USA. None of the Walton family, for example is on the list but they inherited a staggering sum from Sam.

Many of the richest families, like the Kennedys, trace their money back to bootlegging in the Prohibition years. Trump inherited $468 million, adjusted for inflation, and used the very same legal-but-unethical business plan as his father.
 
Last edited:

joe1776

Well-Known Member
What do you mean by 'total wealth'?
Sorry, that wasn't clear. I meant the total inherited family wealth. e.g. the Walton family, the DuPonts, the Mellons and the children who will inherit the fortunes of the men on the Forbes list of the current wealthiest.
 
Last edited:
I'm guessing it will be Elizabeth Warren who is offering a few easy-to-understand proposals but it would be mind-boggling dumb not to pound on your opponent's most obvious weakness.

So obvious and easy that you can't craft a few basic single sentence messages that expose his weakness ;)

Warren also can't got heavy on 'trust' given her somewhat high profile misrepresentation of her heritage that would make her seem hypocritical.

Mass communication campaigns can only hammer a small number of basic key messages. Hammering "dishonest Trump" comes at the expense of saying something else.

Bernie:

  • We will sign an executive order ending federal contracts to corporations that outsource American jobs and refuse to pay American workers livable wages with good benefits.

  • We will renegotiate all of our unfair trade deals to prevent the outsourcing of American jobs, raise wages, protect the environment, and lower the outrageously high price of prescription drugs. And we’re not signing any trade agreements that let foreign companies overturn our country’s laws.

  • We will not appoint a trade representative that comes from Wall Street. We are going to appoint a trade representative that comes from the trade union movement.

  • We will repeal Trump’s tax breaks that reward companies for moving their factories overseas and that encourage companies to replace American workers with robots.

  • We will label China a currency manipulator and prevent it from dumping artificially cheap products into the U.S.

For a broader campaign you would have to focus on a 2-3 of these, add in your healthcare ones etc.

Which of these are you replacing with "Trump tells fibs so foreign leaders don't like him" (or whatever your message is)?
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
Sorry, that wasn't clear. I meant the total inherited family wealth. e.g. The Walton family, The DuPonts, The Mellons....
Oh I see, you are correct. It would appear that the list is limited to individuals. I do agree that there is significant wealth that is transferred via inheritance. Do you see that as a problem? Follow up, if so what do you think should be done about it?
 
The Forbes list doesn't measure total wealth in the USA. None of the Walton family, for example is on the list but they inherited a staggering sum from Sam.

Waltons are 11, 12=, and 12=.

As noted 2/3 of the top 400 made their own fortunes, that means 1/3 inherited it (or much of it).

The majority of ultra wealthy people in the US made their own money though, so it is plain wrong to say most never worked a day in their life.

Can't be bothered checking, but I'm pretty sure this also applies to top 5%. Most started their lives outside this bracket.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
So obvious and easy that you can't craft a few basic single sentence messages that expose his weakness ;)
I already gave you one (The Gergen message) which you ridiculed. I have no doubt that you are capable of ridiculing others. That's what the GOP would try to do, obviously.

Warren also can't got heavy on 'trust' given her somewhat high profile misrepresentation of her heritage that would make her seem hypocritical.
If that the best the GOP can come up with, they're in trouble.

Which of these are you replacing with "Trump tells fibs so foreign leaders don't like him" (or whatever your message is)?
You just gave a list that I read in a few minutes. It might take a little longer than that for a candidate cover those but it would leave plenty of time to ask simple questions like: Would you trust Donald Trump to keep his part of the bargain in a business deal? Since a candidate doesn't have to prove Trump is dishonest, he can add a different line like this to every speech with no other explanation. Would you want your President to be untrustworthy, Augustus?
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Oh I see, you are correct. It would appear that the list is limited to individuals. I do agree that there is significant wealth that is transferred via inheritance. Do you see that as a problem? Follow up, if so what do you think should be done about it?
It's a problem because Capitalism is justified on the theory that the rich will invest their money to create jobs. If they're not doing that, then Capitalism is only a tool for greed.

A society is a cooperative endeavor among all its citizens. If the benefits of that endeavor are not shared equally, the society will break down and violence against the rich will break out. It's happened before in France and in Russia. That's why the socialist safety net concept (mixed economy) is needed where Capitalism reigns.
 
Last edited:
Top