Icewolf

I'm really surprised to see you say this. Most of you guys believe the primary purpose of a business is to employ people. Well society would like the "for employment", but we know humans go for "for the money". Hence you got taxes, to mold the money into society I am a law graduate. In English law it is explicitly written that Directors of Limited Companies first duty is to their shareholders. Or in other words, to make money. In other European Countries there is a more social responsibility model. For example in France companies have to share their profit (through a complicated and tortured calculation) with their employees. And there are other business models, for example co-operatives and partnerships that have more focus on their employees. However these are somewhat rare.

Trump is consistently getting thrashed in head to head polls. And the closer it gets to the election and the more attention people pay, the more he will be hurt by the fact he doesn't actually have any policy.

See this is a point where you are definitely off the mark. Trump is not doing well. His apparent success is not a mark of talent buf of the weaknesses of the Republican feild. A feild so week that Clinton who ought to be struggling is currently walking the election.

Yes Trump has been a CEO. However government is not a business, it is not run like a business, and most importantly, you do not want it to be run like a business. The Primary purpose of a business is to make money for its investors. The Primary purpose of a government is to serve its citizens. Those are two very different activities that have to be approached in different ways. For the internet thing, it wasn't just the fact he said he wanted to shut it down (which is a nice violation of the 1st Amendment anyway). It was the fact he said he would go and ask his friend Bill Gates to do it that got him mocked. It demonstrated that he has absolutely no idea how the internet works, how it is governed, and who you actually need to talk to. That's before you get into the technical detail that you actually cannot shut down parts of the internet because it is modeled on the old US APRANET system that was designed to withstand a nuclear war. One bumbling twit with stupid hair doesn't come close. I mean fine you want to stop terrorists communicating, but do you not think it would be the sensible thing to spend half an hour with a technical adviser to determine how that might be done, or if that is even possible? As for the ban all Muslim's policy, again this was an ill thought out concept with no substance and no attempt made to produce anything resembling policy. I was listening to an interview with his spokeswoman 2 or 3 days after he announced it (meaning she had time to be properly briefed) and she could not answer basic fundamental questions of; -Would a British citizen who happened to be Muslim be declined a visa? -How do you determine who is a Muslim? -Would it apply to US citizens currently outside of the US? Again, this is the type of thing which can be resolved if you have taken the time and created the culture within your team of actually taking advice and following up details. And time and again this shows that Trump has no interest in actually running a government because he isn't taking any of the actions you would expect of a person who actually wanted to try and implement these polices. This is on top of the fact that he is fine with his supporters (and cheers them on) attacking demonstrators, has no respect for free speech, freedom of religion, the rights of the disabled, is blatantly sexist and has a total disregard for anything that normally qualifies someone as a decent human being.

The idea that Trump, whose respect for rule of law, evidenced based policy making, advise taking or basic sanity would be good for governance doesn't hold up. I mean Christ, its going to be 2016 and the guy doesn't even have a semblance of an understanding of how the internet works, and can't be arsed to take the 20 minutes it would take to find out.

LOL the P could stand for Pig Shagger If I'm correct, Conservatives are a bit different over in the UK right? In what sense? They are probably more economically liberal than the American Republican Party, as they do support things like an NHS (currently) and at least theoretically pay lip service to the benefit of a welfare state. However they are fairly right wing in their views.

Thankfully, despite the horrific events of last month, the people of France have refused to bow down and accept fascism as the answer.

I've actually seen evidence that Trump is the only potential Republican who could even have a chance against Clinton, which is fascinating to me. Clinton is a blatant criminal but people would still vote for her. He's still leading overall and leading the debates; if things keep going the way they're going he'll win the nomination easily. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html Clinton consistently beats Trump. (Currently 4 point lead, never in aggregate polling behind Trump) Compare that to Clinton v Rubio http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_rubio_vs_clinton-3767.html Some back and forth since the debates began, but currently Rubio leading by 1.5 points. That doesn't fit the narrative that only Trump can beat Clinton. Other candidates tend to be more mixed, but even Carson has a better record than Trump in head to head polling. As for why it matters that he is losing in the early states, it has two main impacts. 1) It shows that the other candidates are running more focused campaigns with actual community engagement. A voter in the final nomination states doesn't matter until July. So they don't need as much upfront investment as Iowa does. And one thing the democrats got in a big way last time round that the Republicans did not is that elections are won on the ground, in the community, as much as they are won on television. 2) Trump get support from being shown a "winner." The moment he is behind in the nomination race, he stops being a winner. "Shout a lot no substance" candidates need momentum otherwise they sink and sink and melt away. Losing in early states bursts the bubble and he will suffer badly for it.

Just to throw in some reality. Sanders us a very distant second place to hillary in voting intention, and Trump consistently loses in head to head polling. His broad appeal is a creation of his own propaganda not of reality. Edit: Also interesting that Trump is polling second in Iowa and has consistently lower support in early states. Which I suspect shows a more real story. You can't win an election without organised boots on the ground. If Trump isn't spending money that means he doesn't have a community reach. So where it matters in the early states he will stop being a front runner.

Banning all Muslims has nothing to do with combating terrorism. It is has everything to do with bigotry. Mocking a disabled man has nothing to do with good government or policy. It has everything to do with being a disgusting sack of shit. I would buy "he wants a negotiating position" only if he actually set out a negotiating position. His staff literally cannot explain his policies because he has a headline and no substance. He doesn't think about whats actually a good position or concept, he just shouts stuff. Any person who wants to actually govern a country would not run on such a platform because they would always have an idea of what they can actually achieve. Trump is just shouting crap that he has no intention of implementing because he has fuck all interest in actually governing a country, he just wants to be President.

Dragon's Den is more focused on real business than the apprentice because it is essentially a televised investment pitch. The apprentice is far more about personality, and therefore is more about mocking stupid people who think they are clever (at least the UK version, never seen the American one). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ss-59fi4nM Get a hold of yourself Ice... you're starting to repeat yourself. It's okay in multiple posts... but in the same sentence? I really enjoy talking American politics with other Americans. We are making the choice, so there is much to discuss... but here, like I have said before... I get ganged up on by European Socialists. We will never agree. I despise everything you wish to change my country into, what you wish to change the world into, and what you want it to be. We'll be okay, and you can keep hating us for it, but we'll make our own choices, thank you very much for your concern. I'm not a socialist. And really when it comes to politics I care far less about ideology and far more about good governance, both in terms of respect for civil rights and liberty, and in terms of whether their policies are actually effective. Trump doesn't give the slightest shit about civil rights, liberty, good government or effective government.

Donald Trump would be a disaster for America and he would be a disaster for America. He has no clue how things work, and more importantly, no desire to learn or listen. Calling for Bill Gates to shut down parts of the internet was the latest example of being an utter muppet. He also has no interest in actual policy or getting thing done. His spokesperson was on the radio last Tuesday talking about his ban all Muslims policy, and couldn't answer the question "so could a UK citizen of islamic faith visit the US under this policy?" The interviewer was actually struggling to hold the interview because the spokesperson was just spouting whatever entered their head. You see this across all his proposals. Vast unfunded tax cuts. Trade wars with neighboring countries. Pissing on the US Bill of rights whilst he is about it. Forget the racism, forget the abuse of the disabled, forget calling for his supporters to attack protesters for a moment. My country exports enough to America that the idea of the American economy tanking because of this fucking muppet genuinely worries me. So please, for all our sakes, vote for someone else.

France's problem is more to do with social inequality than anything to do with race and ethnicity, which is what Front Nationale are selling. And the Nord Region is the one most dependent on European integration for its economic prosperity due to its proximity to multiple national borders and its importance as a transport hub, so they are pretty much voting to fuck themselves over there if they vote in La Penn. France is aggressively secular. A policy that attacks one particular religion goes against that philosophy and would undermine quite a lot of the principles that France is built upon. Especially as France has a long established history of multi-culturalism, the nationalists would be very dangerous indeed.

Si fucking la penn got 40% in Nord region. Ffs France get it together

#youaintnomuslimbruv We don't have the death penalty in the UK. And the police should use the minimum force necessary to arrest someone. For all we know this person may have a serious mental illness in place of criminal intent and not actually deserve punishment. If you kill him then death penalty is the only available punishment.

XV

Your definition makes sense however it unfortunately is not followed by the media. The media effectively uses a paint chart with shades of brown to determine if it was terrorism or not.

Very nice sentiment and words, but that doesn't really answer the point that Trump has no plan on economic governance and plans to fund permanent revenue reductions with one off incomes.

Just taken another swing by Trump's website. It doesn't say a damn thing about how growth will be achieved. So I don't think you can credit him with a plan to "honestly reduce unemployment." Especially as his day 1 policy is to start a trade war with your neighbor. And the other reason his tax plan is shite is because he wants to fund Revenue reductions with a one off capital boost. It does not work that way. He cites this US companies having 2.5 trillion offshore he wants them to repatriate in exchange for a 10% levy. So at most that's a one off 250 billion sum. Over the 8 years of his proposed presidency, his income tax cuts for the lowest households (those that currently pay the least income tax) cost (by the figures on his website) 600 billion. That would be the best case scenario. In a real life scenario, he maybe gets a one off payment of 100 billion and expects it to make a significant fiscal contribution. Its 12.5 billion ish a year over 8 years and you've still hacked back your income tax reciepts on a permanent basis. Given he claims to be a business master, it shows how deceitful he is that he wants to fund reduction in revenue with one off capital. As for closing loopholes, every politician under the sun promises to close loopholes. Its the least imaginative fiscal strategy on the planet, and consequently one of the lowest. And for the presumed link between corporation tax and economic growth, I know it is a popular justification, but Germany has a corporation tax of 30% and a personal income tax of nearly 50%. Its economy does pretty well. Ireland on the other hand long had a 15% corporation tax. Their economy....not so great.

I just want to throw in here that Trump's tax plan would reduce tax reveneue by 10 trillion over his proposed presidency. So if you want to say you don't have the money for Sander's giveaways, you also don't have them for Trump's fiscal insanity that is his tax plan. Also, as for his popularity, and his sweep to power, note that in "head to head" polls, he is he only Republican frontrunner that consistently loses to Clinton. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Trump would annihilate America. Its not just he is doing and saying these things whilst running, but if he wins it will validate to him that these views are acceptable. And he would have the power to actually cause the damage he just threatens to do at the moment.

I really have got to stop assuming Trump can't possibly stoop any lower. FFS. What next? Go to an orphanage and ask TV to film him taking a dump on its newest arrival?

EU rolls noone, though they're good with instructing what is the proper banana curve Rolling others is NATO's job and they did "great" in the region turning a lot of countries into model democracies (Libya for instance). They clearly can bomb very well, but they lack perception. In Syria's case they simply can't decide who's "the bestest" democrat out there, because big beards of those gentlemen are obstructing the view. Honestly, apart from ISIS noone in Syria was worth bombing, because all problems could be solved via some sort of diplomatic pressure. Russians for sure have the balls to come in with a big bang, though they could use some brains too, not to bomb the living shit out of everything up to the very last goat. Other than that, they're surely doing a lot more to stop ISIS than the West (though without Syrian ground forces results would probably be the same). And to be fair US has been bombing oil infrastructure...though they didn't seem to be very serious about that. They also state oil convoys were not bombed due to civilians driving those tankers (which is still weak explanation). I am getting quite skeptical of this pro-Russia propoganda that seems to have been doing the rounds online. Lots of "only Russia thought to bomb target XXX." Or Trumps inane "they knew about those targets before, why didn't they hit them." It seems the concept of a target list and priorities has gone, and that every available target in Syria could have been hit in day 1 if our generals hadn't been holding back. Thats BS. There are thousands of possible targets in Syria. There are a finite number of aircraft in the NATO airfleet. There are also other considerations, such as trying to avoid civilian casulties or trying to work out if the bunch of kids waving AK-47s in the air are Free Syrian Army, ISIS, Syrian Military, Hezbollah, or some other bunch of kids before bombing them. The idea that the target list isn't empty somehow being a slur on the western airforces, and as a result we must all praise the mighty Russia, really doesn't hold up for me. Plus NATO has previously hit oil fields, so its not like its only Russia.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000 Proportion of population in work is slowly rising in the US. Not very fast and you are lagging behind the UK in this regard (which now has its highest ever recorded % in work figure but it has been rising since the recession bottomed out in 2010. Interestingly though, the percentage of the population in work began to fall before the financial crash. Of course the real question behind any jobs recovery is the quality of the jobs being created. In the UK outside of London essentially all jobs "recovery" has been in self-employment. Average self-employment wages are around £200 a week, which is below minimum wage. Which means not only sucky standard of living but puts them outside the tax base.

I just want to put another fact on the table here. At the beginning of 2015 the European Union tried to limit refugee arrivals by refusing to rescue ships in distress. 3,000 died. How many innocents do you want to see die to counter a hypothetical threat because of a domestic terrorism incident?