Is Donald Trump

[JustOneWay]

At one time, that was the standard, but the economy has been stuck in no-growth for so long now that economists routinely refer to the situation as being a recession.

.

That would be stagnantion, not a recession

 

[MotherFirefly]

We all know what Trump is, but at the end of the day he is the Republican candidate.

He is a republican!

He is the Republican candidate, yes.

 

[AirPo]

Well, so is Clinton, so this kind of talk doesn't really get us anywhere.

Especially since we owe it to the OP to stick to The Donald.

 

[Albion]

That would be stagnantion, not a recession

Argue with them if you wish.

 

[JustOneWay]

Argue with them if you wish.

It was you who said we have been in a recession for the last 8 years.

Either prove it, admit the mistake or ignore. I will take ignoring as a sign you concede the point.

 

[essentialsaltes]

At one time, that was the standard, but the economy has been stuck in no-growth for so long now that economists routinely refer to the situation as being a recession.

Speaking of Trump, even he doesn't think we're in a recession. He just says we're headed for "very massive" one. Which puzzles actual economists who know what they are talking about.

 

[Albion]

He is the Republican candidate, yes.

It may not matter, but I'm not sure why this is an issue. Trump ran as a Republican. Sanders, by comparison, never became a Democrat and no one seemed to raise the issue. And there have been many examples of national figures declaring their party affiliation only shortly before they made their runs--Eisenhower, Wendell Wilkie, etc. The parties seem to consider it flattering or at least they appraise the person on the basis of what they say they favor. In that sense, Trump's stands are nothing special when we consider the various "Liberal Republicans" who have contended for the presidency in recent decades.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Argue with them if you wish.

But you're the only one who can see your imaginary economist friends.

 

[Albion]

Speaking of Trump, even he doesn't think we're in a recession. He just says we're headed for "very massive" one. Which puzzles actual economists who know what they are talking about.

I think this is a case where the economists who were cited for purposes of the article are holding to a narrow, technical definition of terms while Trump is citing the actual situation.

It is well-known, for example, that job growth is not adequate, but the administration, the federal government, is the #1 hirer of new employees under Obama. That's not real job growth.

And then the unemployment rates...4.9% or 5.0% is a flatout contrivance and everyone knows it. The REAL unemployment rate--according to economists again--is in double figures and some do think it reaches 20% when we consider all those who have given up looking for jobs, taken disability because they couldn't find work, or are working part time. The official unemployment figures count as employed a person who works one hour a month. This sort of thing is the only way to keep the published stats where the president wants them.

 

[JustOneWay]

Speaking of Trump, even he doesn't think we're in a recession. He just says we're headed for "very massive" one. Which puzzles actual economists who know what they are talking about.

Trump's comment makes sense when you know he wants to spend hundreds of billions in police, prisons, border wall, rounding up millions of illegals while cutting taxes! President Trump follows through on his policies, there will be a recession.

 

[jayem]

Trump is the expression of voters anger, and there is a lot of anger out here. He is a 'message' to the establishment (which includes both parties). Whether he's 'qualified' or not isn't that important to us.

But when people are angry, and fearful, they don't make good choices. The primitive, emotional part of the brain overrides the higher, analytic function. DT is exploiting this. He magnifies people's anxieties and uncertainty about the future. He scapegoats undocumented immigrants and Muslims as being responsible. And he claims that only he can deal with the dangers of the world, and make us safe. Don't you recognize this pattern? This is what wannabe dictators do. (And like other despots, he may well have Narcissistic Personality Disorder. You can do a seach to look up the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria. Trump seems to exhibit quite a few of them. Not to mention that he's a science-denier, and flirts with various crackpot conspiracy theories. Which to me is another sign of a brain that doesn't quite work right.)

I'm not at all crazy about Hillary. But I'm not crazy. I don't vote for egomaniacal, authoritarian demagogues.

 

[Albion]

But when people are angry, and fearful, they don't make good choices. .

I really think we're missing the point here. The Democratic Party and its candidates are running on fear, hyping up fear, and appealing to anger, no less than the Republicans. Probably more as anyone can read on the posts here on CF.

It's just that these are buzz words that the Democrats have chosen to use in the campaign, quite like the instructions they sent out to the media and Democratic operatives to describe Donald Trump's acceptance speech as "dark." And they all complied, within minutes of each other.

Similar examples would be the "Climate of Corruption" ploy that was used a few years ago and "Weapons of War" that they tried out recently when their gun confiscation efforts stalled.

The point is that what is an appeal to fear when done by one party is an appeal to fear when the other one does it; it's just a question of who makes the accusation.

Considering that the Democratic Convention's speakers cited Donald Trump by name over 130 times in the prepared speeches that were heard last night (along with the predictions of the end of the world occurring if he is elected), the idea that this was not fear and anger campaigning on their part is laughable.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Is Trump the right choice for POTUS? No.

Reasons? The last ~12 months. Every word he's said, and every thing he's done. It has been a slowly building crescendo to absolute and total Nope.

Never Trump.

Never in a million years Trump.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

Well, didn't that add to our store of knowledge as we consider the "why or why not" requested in the OP?

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

I'm going to go with a no on Trump, many good reasons have been cited but one major issue is that he hasn't proposed anything to mitigate climate change as far as I'm aware..in fact it seems to be a non issue in his campaign. In my opinion it's the biggest issue we face as a nation and even as we're complaining about the effects, it's being ignored. His anti vax comments makes me think that science isn't his strong suit, and I don't think we can afford a president who isn't competent in understanding scientific research.
I also haven't seen much discussion his plans for improving health care.

 

[expos4ever]

Trump is the expression of voters anger, and there is a lot of anger out here. He is a 'message' to the establishment (which includes both parties). Whether he's 'qualified' or not isn't that important to us.

My mind, for one, literally reels at the thought of Mr. Trump becoming President - forget about the damage he can do, what does this say about the judgment of the American population?

Nevertheless, I respect your honesty in conceding that qualifications are not the issue for you, and that anger is at the root of support for Mr. Trump.

 

[expos4ever]

I don't think we can afford a president who isn't competent in understanding scientific research.

But you have a population that is both scientifically illiterate in large measure and, possibly worse, distrustful of science. What do you expect?

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

But you have a population that is both scientifically illiterate in large measure and, possibly worse, distrustful of science. What do you expect?

That's why I think it's critical we have leadership that is not distrustful of science and is at least somewhat scientifically literate. We need to turn that trend in the country around

 

[essentialsaltes]

And then the unemployment rates...4.9% or 5.0% is a flatout contrivance and everyone knows it. The REAL unemployment rate--according to economists again--is in double figures and some do think it reaches 20%

You are welcome to use any of the 6 alternative measures of unemployment. None of them are in double digits.

 

[Albion]

I explained this to you. But, BTW, the only genuine measure--the last on the list of the 6 you referred us to--would indeed be in double figures if it did not cut off all those who gave up looking for employment more than 12 months ago, and we do know that this is when most of them did so.