kurtster wrote: 
You may be right, but frankly I don't consider Trump a viable or acceptable candidate. The man should outlining his plans for helping Americans; instead he's whining about a judge presiding over a lawsuit against Trump's rip-off university. Donald Trump is all about Donald Trump and always has been. 

Trump is running because he wants to feed his ego and raise his image as he always has. The idea that he'd actually have to work for and serve Americans likely baffles him.

I think that it is a very safe bet that we will not see anything nice thing said about Donald Trump (and quite possibly any republican for that matter) anywhere here at RP until after the repub convention, and maybe not until after the election. 

carry on ... 

 aflanigan wrote: 
Yeah, he's starting to implode. He may throw in the towel before the convention; he can't take the heat with the temperament of a twelve year-old. The GOP will run Cruz or Romney up the pole and they'll go down in flames. Thanks, Donald!

 kcar wrote: 
I wonder if the states that voted early and gave him the momentum wish they could have a do-over.

Caught contradicting himself for the umpteenth time.
Trump brags he'll hire the best people, the smartest people when he's president. So far he hasn't figured out how to do that. 

On a conference call speaking with his surrogates discussing recent guidance put out by his campaign staff on the Trump University lawsuit, he had this to say about his campaign staff: "you guys (his surrogates) are getting sometimes stupid information from people that aren't so smart."

The wheels are falling off of Trump's wagon a bit, and this may be the beginning of a Trump downturn in the polls. Karl Rove loved to say that when you force your opponent to explain him/herself, you've already won. Trump is stumbling to limit the damage from his comments about Judge Curiel, as are his supporters. 

Trump is all about attack, projecting an image of strength, and never apologizing (he has not apologized for his remarks about Curiel). But he walks a fine line: given his campaign's relatively limited funds right now, Trump relies on outrageous statements to keep his face and name in the news and in front of voters. That allows him to show that he's not politically correct but it also risks alienating a lot of people.

Now that Trump has had to walk back some of his words, he doesn't look as invincible. The cartoon that R_P posted points to Trump's weakness: once people start laughing at him, it'll be hard for him to recover his momentum. The more people get tired of his bombast, arrogance and outrageousness, the more unappealing and ridiculous he becomes. 

Here's hoping! 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/us/politics/trump-university-judge.html

“It is unfortunate that my comments have been misconstrued as a categorical attack against people of Mexican heritage,” (Trump) added. “I am friends with and employ thousands of people of Mexican and Hispanic descent.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/us/politics/paul-ryan-donald-trump-gonzalo-curiel.html

“Look, he stepped in it,” Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee told reporters. “And you know this happens sometimes in campaigns.”

...

“I am a Republican, but what I care more about is our nation, and where we’re going as a nation,” (Corker) said. “And so again, I hope this isn’t the pattern that is going to occur between now and November. But what I see is, O.K., you have got a binary choice.”

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, said, “My advice to our nominee would be to start talking about the issues the American people care about.”

...

Asked how he could support Mr. Trump after calling the remarks racist, Mr. Ryan said: “I don’t know what’s in his heart but I think that comment itself is defined that way. So I’m not going to defend these kinds of comments because they are indefensible.”

 

 R_P wrote: 

 VV wrote: 
But Hillary's so bad blah blah blah

 kurtster wrote: 
Me? I'm fed up with nonsense like this: 

Trump Orders Surrogates to Intensify Criticism of Judge and Journalists

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-orders-surrogates-intensify-criticism-200834926.html

First you have to prove to me that you worthy/capable of holding the office. Trump proves daily... that he is not. There is nothing.... absolutely nothing in Trump's DNA that even remotely hints at him being successful as our next President.

If you don't think that the "three ring circus" that is Trump right now won't be the "three ring circus" that will be Trump in the Oval Office.... then I would like to put you in touch with a Nigerian royal who needs a little financial help to move their millions offshore.

 kurtster wrote: 
You and steeler might want to read this piece by Eric Posner, a Univ. of Chicago law professor, on what Trump could and couldn't do as President. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/opinion/campaign-stops/and-if-elected-what-president-trump-could-or-couldnt-do.html

According to Posner, Trump would have a fair amount of power. For instance, he could block Muslims from entering the country, order the deportation of illegal immigrants, impose tariffs on China, reverse environmental laws, and push the Dept. of Justice and regulatory agencies to focus their investigation of potential crimes in order to harass his enemies, including journalists. He might face foot-dragging and refusal to comply from the rank and file of federal employees, but he could staff the leadership of agencies with yes-men to push his agenda. 

But Posner doesn't touch on bigger matters. He says that Trump couldn't build The Wall without Congressional funding, but there's no mention of whether Trump could push through a jobs-creation program or repeal Obamacare. The stuff that Posner says Trump could do on his own is largely small-ball stuff.

The bully pulpit can only take you so far. Congress is marvelous at ignoring presidents when it wants to. You can appeal directly to the public to force Congress to do something, but that only works when you need to focus pressure about a specific matter for a short period of time. It wouldn't work for Sanders to get free health care and/or free college passed through Congress. I don't know what big projects Trump wants to do (besides The Wall) because, quite frankly, he likely doesn't have a clue. 

I understand your frustration with Washington, kurtster, but I don't believe in change just for the sake of change. I think the kind of change you're looking for—something like a significant redistribution of wealth or a massive job-creation/job-training program—will require sustained grassroots pressure on Congress. It could be done, but the people hurting economically in the US have to organize in order to have a bigger and more sustained presence in politics. A bull in a china shop like Trump in Washington wouldn't bring much significant or lasting change. 

 steeler wrote: 
I guess I am.  An unpleasant overdue change that will strike at the heart of the entrenched political elite who have everything to lose and deservedly so imo.  

Bernie on the other hand will call the liberal establishment's bluff on social issues where they always promise changes but never deliver or meet them out incrementally, because if they did them full tilt immediately, they would back fire economically in a hurry when the actual costs were learned.  Instead they blame their intentional slowness of the delivery on the obstructionist conservatives to hide the weaknesses in their plans.  He will bring home these radical policies that sound good in speeches but don't work on paper and run them right through using the Bully Pulpit.  You know what is said about socialism, eh ?  Socialism works great until you run out of other peoples' money.

I also expect Trump to use the BP effectively to his advantage as well.

As I also mentioned sometime ago, Trump knows where all the bodies are buried, metaphorically speaking.  He has contributed to both sides and can inflict some hurt on those unwilling to cooperate with his agendas by threatening to reveal some inconvenient truths, or as it is also sometimes called arm twisting.

 kurtster wrote: 
I did not take your comments about Trump's real estate skills as admiration. I commented upon your previous statements about Trump's positions on issues. If Trump is going to force change, and it is change that is needed and will ultimately be proven to be positive change, I do not see how that would constitute a train wreck. Perhaps you are using that term to mean something other than its usual meaning?

From my point of view, Trump has not demonstrated a firm grasp of the primary issues.  My biggest concern, however, is his oft-stated philosophy of retaliating for any attack or perceived attack on him. He believes in responding ten-fold. Perhaps that is necessary in the real estate development business, but it seems to be an integral component of his personality, one I do not believe he is able to shed in different contexts. That does not bode well for the President in a time of global turmoil. Some might like the sound of it, but the reality is that America is no longer in a position to dictate terms to the rest of the world. Trump is campaigning on a harkening back to an era when America could do so. I have no reason to believe, based on his constant tough-guy talk, that Trump can be trusted to navigate the complicated foreign policy issues. His impulse is to batter an opponent Into submission. Again, that does not bode well.

 kcar wrote: 
Thanks for the reply.  Yes I am very aware of the U-3 and U-6 numbers.  The only reason that the unenjoyment rate went down was because 500,000 people quite looking for work in this last period.  The number that I have heard and used for the number of new jobs needed to keep the employment rate flat and constant and equal to the rise in population is 250,000 per month.  That would again be reflected in the U-6 number, not the U-3.

The Fed is in a quandary.  The market jumped today only because the Fed said no rate increase right now.  Its been somewhat range bound the past week or so waiting for the news.  It did say it could be likely soon though, which it has been saying for a couple of years.  But it waited too long and its back is against the wall with the election so close now and that it has long ago run out of bullets.  The only reason the equity market is doing so well is that interest rates are near zero and in some places negative making putting money in the old savings account an instant and continuing loss.  There is no other place to put money, as commodities have tanked, too.  So we have another equity bubble, even bigger than when we tanked back in 2008.  This new bubble is unsustainable, just by the very definition of a bubble.  As soon as interest rates begin a real rise, pop goes the weasel.  Just my opinion.

 kurtster wrote: 
kurtster has a point, although I too disagree with his desire to see Trump or Sanders create a train wreck in DC.

For some—maybe many—Americans, the status quo (which promotes candidates like Hillary and Jeb Bush) cannot continue. Areas outside of larger cities have seen their economic recovery lag since 2008. Manufacturing jobs declined in number a great deal due to the rise of Chinese manufacturing (which the Chinese aided with currency manipulation until a few years ago) and the Great Recession. 

Furthermore, since 2000 the middle class has shrunk in size, its real income has declined markedly, its level of debt has gone up and its net worth has plummeted.  

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-state-of-americas-middle-class-in-eight-charts/

Yes, as kurtster points out, the unemployment dropped two points to 4.7%. However, that number can be misleading since the unemployment rate quoted in mainstream news article, known as the U-3, only measures the unemployment rate among workers still seeking work; it does not take into account people who have stopped looking or who have dropped out of the workforce entirely.

Another yardstick, the U-6, is described in this CNBC article:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/03/charts-whats-the-real-unemployment-rate.html

The U-6 rate is defined as all unemployed as well as "persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the labor force." That means the unemployed, the underemployed and the discouraged. 

The CNBC article states that many economists believe the U-6 is the real unemployment number. It currently stands at 9.7% as of May.  

The economy slowed way down last month, adding only 38,000 jobs. As I understand matters, the economy needs to add around 150,000-160,000 jobs a month to sustain a real unemployment rate. That needed job number differs among economists. The economy had been adding 200k jobs/month for quite a while. 

Many RPers posting here state that a President Trump would be a disaster. Others believe that Hillary is not listening to them and will not help them economically. Her election would continue a disaster that has already started for them. I think that in part is why Bernie Sanders, a fringe candidate during normal elections, has made it a real contest against the Democratic establishment's designated successor.

Buddy's earlier post, however, has a great point: the GOP has a lot to do with the slow rate of recovery from the Great Recession. Obama's economic stimulus was about the biggest he could politically get, but it was not big enough. Too much of it was in the form of tax cuts which apparently don't have as great an economic stimulus as other forms of government intervention such as construction projects. 

The GOP has done goddamned little if anything since 2008 to help the average American economically. 

Finally, kurtster: the Fed has backed off from raising its benchmark interest rate in part because of the low new job rate, but it feels confident that the economy is healthy and that there are signs of wage growth for some income groups. The Fed has kept interest rates at a very low level for a long time. It wants to avoid inflation as the economy keeps gaining strength. I gather that there some concerns very low rates for a long time can distort the way the economy allocates money.  

 steeler wrote: 
Nothing has changed.  First let me address my at length post where I described the attributes required for successful real estate development and construction.  It was to bring some people who may not understand the business up to speed on the basics and evidently you and some others took it as a statement of admiration while it was to me a statement of recognition and understanding of the skill set required.  It was not a statement of admiration.  It was a statement that I get and understand where Trump is coming from and how I reconcile his posture and rhetoric with my sense of reality.

Trump's positions that I mentioned are indeed what drives my support.  Still does.  I'll remind you in case you don't remember, that when Trump first announced and there was a big debate about how serious he was that lasted well past New Hampshire, and I stated that I took him seriously, immediately, that I could also support Sanders and recognized both of them as outsiders.  Trump would derail the train and stop it while Sanders would put his foot on the pedal and get us to where we are headed sooner and in a purer form than the stuff that Hillary would do.  Either way, we would avoid this purgatory of mediocrity and deceit we have been stuck in for some 20 years.  I said that Trump is the one standing in front of the window with a brick in his hand ready to throw it through it, which he has done to a large extent in order to clinch the nom.  So my desire for a trainwreck was mentioned very early on and evidently forgotten in the time past.  But I don't expect anyone to pay attention to what I post in these particular threads being what they are.  On the same hand, I don't disavow or run from what I post as I am basically serious and trying to be honest about what I do post in these threads.  

You and others may find my thoughts inconsistent at best, but they are what they are.  Yes, I am angry.  Yes, I am fed up.  As Islander tried to disparage my heritage, I am still proud of it and my family was here for over a hundred years before the first revolution.  I think that it can endure another one if the cause is worthy.  I am not afraid.

 kurtster wrote:

 
I am responding to this, again, and to some of your responses today.

I believe as recently as a month or so ago, your central position was  that Trump's positions on issues you cared strongly about were driving your choice of him as your candidate in the Republican primary campaign.  If I recall correctly, you stated that you had "dived deep" into Trump's positions on  issues, and, based on that research, you disagreed with those who were criticizing him as being a superficial candidate, albeit a loud and brash one.  Foremost for you was his stance on immigration.  You even had a theory as to what Trump means when he says he is going to make Mexico pay for the wall he is promising to build.

Now, though, it appears your position is that Trump will bring a needed train wreck.  You seem to be disavowing what you stated before about Trump being a viable candidate for President. What changed your mind?   

 

        

l

 kurtster wrote: 
Those that have little left to lose can lose that little. Then they have nothing. We are all hurt when the economy tanks, but those that actually bounce at the bottom are hurt the worst.  

We talked about the economy when Obama was first re-elected. You said we were poised for a disaster, I said I knew a lot of people that were tired of sitting on their funds and were making plans to spend and earn. I saw a lot of growth in the last four years and it's reflected in the low unemployment numbers. I now see a lot of people getting ready to pull back. They don't like what they see with either candidate and they really don't like the crowds of people getting torches and pitchforks ready.  The economy does go through cycles, and will continue to do so.   The people that drive it will suffer when it drops, but they will survive.  You aren't hurting them as much as you are hurting the people at the bottom, but hey if it makes you feel better...

 islander wrote: 
The same can be said of the system you want left intact by maintaining the status quo.

No, you don't know that.  I can be harmed the same as anyone else.  I am already being harmed.  When the economy hits the fan, we all go down.  But what you don't seem to get is that those at the bottom and the lower middle class already have little or nothing left to lose.  They will be affected the least.  Claims otherwise are fear mongering.

.
Edit:  the status quo tells me that unemployment is now down to 4.7% and the economy has never been better.  You may believe that, but I sure do not.  And then the Fed is going to use that unemployment number to justify that the economy is heating up and interest rates will be raised on everyone and everything, from mortgages to credit cards.  This just isn't right and you wish to keep this bs intact ?  That I don't get.

 buddy wrote: 
Yep. The GOP lost credibility with their obstreperous behavior, seemingly coming out of nowhere. If it had a legitimate focus, it wouldn't have appeared racist - which it did no matter how much they deny it.
 
Both Dem and GOP lost touch with a large part of their base, except for the subset that's just angry. They seem to want something that's not the norm -  so the part that identifies as GOP (wanting smaller government) has been pigeonholed into voting for Trump. Is he really an agent for change to create smaller government, with less intrusion into people's lives? I don't see that.

The Democratic field has had the Hillary/Bernie choice - and the magnitude of Bernie's longevity is the sign of how disaffected those folks are.

Hillary's the only mainstream candidate, but the others are the emblem of the voters' dissatisfaction. If only the GOP had some better folks in its stable, they could've beaten Hillary. Instead, they'll have to wait - and it's all their fault.