Krellin is right

make america great again

Also, on how well they performed as candidates, Clinton had Dewey disease. A good candidate should be able to define what they are and take risks to elucidate that. Dewey's fear of blowing an obvious win kept him from doing that, so Truman turned around and bested both of his third party competitors AND Dewey. Likewise, Clinton only really could define herself as "not Trump."

I think it was also a question of Hillary's performance in government thus far, which has been perceived as absolutely terrible many Americans. Trump is an opportunity for change. Also Trump is nationalist. People love that. Myself included. :D

@ Krellin: Absolutely Trump catered to the masses with his populist rhetoric. You are definitely on point there.

He catered to big business and the wealthy with the promise of a massive reduction in taxes. Any large corporation of wealthy individual who values keeping several millions of dollars a year for themselves over anything else in an election cycle would have backed Trump for that reason alone. Not all wealthy individuals/businesses place the same value on tax savings, so it certainly would not have catered to all of them.

But if slypups wants a discussion of her specific performance as a candidate - as TRPrado points out, she didn't define herself. IN fact, for the most part, she didn't talk about herself or her plans *at all*. She ignored key states because she didn't think she needed to waste her time in them -- sheet, unadulterated attogance. She spent all her time trying to define who Trump was, except Trump constantly kept himself in the media - in both positive and negative ways - but regardless, it made him the central focus of everyone's thoughts, and in so doing it also allowed him to put his message out there -- his populist message, that was massively appealing to blue-collar America who have seen their jobs stripped away, and Americans who struggle but see illegals taking benefits, or people concerned about crime, etc etc etc... Trump essentially fully controlled the news cycle the entire election cycle, while Hillary Clinton was essentially nowhere to be seen....and most certainly not in front of a camera.

Her accomplishments as a member of the governement were non-existent -- she herself didn't even advertise her own successes. Her negative as a potential criminal at worst, or as a typical corrupt politician constantly skirting the edge of legality at best, were a massive negative that she made almost zero attempt to address....mostly because there was enough tape of her saying contradictory things and exposing herslf as a liar...and it turns out the Amerian people aren't too stupid to percieve that.

So...yes....Hillary was a horrible candidate. She should have been able to win 50 states. That she barely won any is.......because she was a horrible candidate.

rip hillary

@MAtticus - he didn't "cater to big business" with the promise of tax cuts. That is ALSO an appeal to intelligent voters, who realize businesses with more capital can create more jobs, invest in growth, pay higher wages, etc. Contrary to popular liberal rhetoric, "rich people" and businesses don't just giggle and hide their money away like Scrooge McDuck with his pool of golden coins. Rich people are rich exactly BECAUSE they invest their money and make it work to grow it....start a business, invest in tools, etc and hire the employees that can run their companies. So....tax cuts is not "catering to big business". You are 100% wrong on this...but I think it reveals your politics, or your (mis)understanding of economics, business, etc. -- bottom line, I've **never** been hired by a poor person, never received a raise from a company that was losing money, etc, so you're darned right I want my company to get a tax break. Corporations/businesses don't pay taxes, anyway - they only pass them on to the consumer and/or reduce the salary of employees/reduce the number of employees to compensate.

I don't often agree with Krellin but I support tax cuts for domestic business. All the reasons he stated. But let's tax the hell out of luxury imports!

yes. america first.

Yes, tax breaks are an appealing idea to those who have conservative economic ideas, not just the wealthy or "big business". While conservatives cling to the idea that tax breaks drive an a finely tuned economy to ever greater heights, the evidence is quite mixed. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

As I have mentioned in this forum previously, I hale from Podunk, KS, USA. We have had a "real live experiment" as Governor Brownback famously stated, in conservative trickle-down economic theory for 6 years now. Tax breaks on businesses have crippled the state government, because the businesses have not produced the expected revenue to counter balance the tax cuts. We cannot even fund schools at a constitutional level according to the KS Supreme Court because he refuses to bump taxes to their previous levels.

I'm fiscally conservative and believe that government spending has to be reigned in. Trump has talked about cutting taxes for all tax payers and massive infrastructure projects (not just a large wall). He will have to massively reduce spending somewhere (SSI, Medicaid, Medicare [the military budget is generally a non-starter for conservatives and liberals alike for some reason]) and hope that his tax cuts do inspire a crazy amount of growth. I'll be the first to admit I'm skeptical that it will work, but be the first to admit I was wrong if it all works out.

This is not a dig at your conservative economic theories Krellin, but not all economist believe taxes are too high in the US. We are near historic lows in fact. I'd be for a reduction, and certainly a simplification of the taxes collected among all earners if we simply cut out all the breaks for the wealthy and poor alike.

@CommanderByron: It's all well and good to place high tariffs on imported goods. Just be prepared to pay a much higher price when you head to the store to buy what you need/want.

@MAtticus -- no, the evidence is not "quite mixed" at all. The problem is **very** evident to anyone that examines the evidence: When the government provides tax cuts and CONTROLS spending, the economy and the country as a whole benefit greatly. That is why Democrats USED to be in support of tax cuts....you know, back when the never-mentioned-anymore Kennedy was a Democrat hero.

Then then Democrats realized they could buy votes and essentially keep Americans enslaved via government handouts, and keep voters in line through the fear of having their addiction to government handouts cut-off. At this point, the intellectually void running Washington decided you can't have a tax cut without a spending increase....

...and when you couple tax cuts with out of control spending -- which ANY RATIONAL HUMAN BEING knowns is unsustainable....you get problems.

So the problem isn't and NEVER HAS BEEN tax cuts. The problem is out of control spending.

I'm *certain* that this is a principle that you would/do exercise in your own life....and yet most (Democrats) can't seem to comprehend this same concept when looking at their government, and voting for their representatives.

@Matticus -- why would we pay higher priced at the store for what we *need*, when Byron is calling for a high tarrif on IMPORTED LUXURY items. I'm not certain you are even trying to understand what he is saying.

Krellin, you just said what I said. The tax cuts have to match the spending cuts... or problems. The evidence is mixed because apparently politicians don't get that those two thing correlate. I can't help it if they spend more than they take in. It's on them, not me. both sides are guilty of it.

I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I want the government to cut spending. I also want them let people be gay, smoke pot, buy a gun, practice any religion they feel like, or whatever the f*ck makes them happy, OK. I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican. Not really a Libertarian either since I believe that some regulation is required and I don't like abortion. So, you can quit insinuating that I am a Democrat over and over again.

Some people need cars (or think they do). They may want an imported model. They should be prepared to pay more.

If everyone would buy classic cars the world would be a better place

Matticus -- We're probably a good policy match.

I have no problem with tarriffs on imported luxury vehicles.

China sure as heck has no problem making it difficult for us to sell cars to them - you prety much HAVE to build them in China. Japan, likewise, has policies in place that make it difficult to sell US cars there. So yeah....raise tarriffs on imported luxury cars. NO PROBLEM. You may not be aware, but there are US auto manufacturers, and they actually do build cars in the US. And US autos, despite opinions ot the contrary, are pretty damned good. They may not have been as good in the past, but those days are long past.

I've only driven American made cars, so I don't really have a problem with it either. Many brands considered imports already have factories in the US, so that was probably a terrible example. It all depends on how you define what a luxury item is I suppose. I would considered anything not necessary to everyday life a luxury import. A ton of people who think they support something like this actually would be in for quite the shock.

Say Trump gives an Executive Order that all "non essential luxury items now require a 35% tariff for instance. I hear Trump supporters screaming from the rooftops "AMERICA IS GREAT AGAIN!" all night long after the announcement. They go to Walmart to purchase a TV and to their amazement, all TVs have gone up in price 35%. That hot new toy their kid begged for all of last week for his or her birthday now costs 35% more. Oops.

Krellin, you seem informed enough to know that this would be a consequence of the tariff. Many people wouldn't know it until it actually happened. I'm not insinuating that CommanderByron is one of those people. I'm only saying that people should be prepared to pay more for things in general. Food? No. Raw materials? No. A TV, or PS4 Pro, toys, and any other non essential item made in China or Mexico? Yes.

If Republicans ever want to win another election, they're not gonna raise the price of literally everything that isn't food by 35%. Congressional Republicans are not dumb. Trump isn't dumb. Pence isn't dumb. That won't happen.

It was an example bo_sox, relax. The GOP majority House is already pushing for cuts to SSI before Trump even takes office. People in the age bracket that receive SSI are dominantly pro-Republican and a good chunk of their reliable voting base, so I would not put anything past them. Many may flip Democrat just to protect SSI. Hard to tell.

*Many older voters may

A lot to address here.

First, I'm not a Trump fan, but I'm willing to give him his chance to experiment and see if it works. I'm just skeptical that this approach sounds a lot like what Bush did in 2000-2004, and that turned out to be a horrible mess.

And there is a difference between campaign rhetoric and actually catering to constituents. You cater to a constituent by acting with the power you receive. As WebDip vets, I expect you know this difference between talk before the move (= campaign rhetoric) and actual moves (=acting as President). There is little guarantee they match up, and Trump has a history of them not matching. Trump is not president yet and has not acted yet so we have no idea who he will actually try to serve - he has not catered to anyone. He made plenty of promises to get votes from people, and I'm curious who he'll backstab now.

As for whether Trump or Clinton was the better candidate, that depends on how you define it and how you define what makes someone better. If you want to define it by winning the job, then Trump was clearly better. Especially coming from behind when Clinton had a lead, Trump was better. And Clinton made a mess of a good situation - horrible campaigning against a skilled salesman. Trump is a very experienced and master salesman. In the past, he's mostly sold other things and relied on other people to deliver the goods. This time he's sold himself as a president, and I'm not sure he's ready to deliver that. I'd rather define a good candidate by who is best to govern as president, and I'll maintain that Clinton was better than Trump by that measure.

They're trying to cut Social Security because a) it works (though not as efficiently as it could), and b) because it works, they don't profit off of it. If they cut it, yeah, people are going to flip out, rightfully so.

I don't really see what the argument for cutting Social Security is. I really don't.

You guys just dont get it. Cuba, to use the classic example, DOESNT PLAY FAIR. They freely export to the US, but through internal policies and currency manipulation make our almost impossible for us to seek our product to then. How do you correct that and open their markets to US goods? Be like Obama, wag your finger and say, "wahhh....cut it out"? No. You realize that as much as we want cheap products, China wants... No NEEDS to sell them. Soooooo you need a President that actually grasps economics, grasps negotiations, and is serious in his intent.

I would FULLY support massive tariffs on Chinese products, because we'd only have to have then in place for about a week before China realized we are serious, and changed their policy to open their markets to our goods.

The problem to date is we've had Washington full of cowards too afraid of the next election to so the right thing, while Americans slowly watch their jobs leave and wages drop.

If you aren't short-sighted and recognize tariffs as a tool towards a different end, then you understand their value, and then the party that was brave enough to raise tariffs to open up markets become the heroes.

For those struggling to recall Bush policy:
Cut taxes (in 2001 and 2003), move unilaterally in the world without regard for other world powers in war in Iraq, ignore global warming (refused to sign Kyoto protocol, planned to tap Arctic oil reserves), supported free trade policy generally but also used protectionist policies, cut funding for international health programs, wanted to private social security, was great for funny sound bites. Sounds like the beta version of Trump to me.

America is just a body of land.

Anyway, I'm fine with tariffs because I don't consume like most Americans do. I'm saving to buy a mountain fortress for the coming war between Fascists and Communists over the land mass we currently call America.