For those who find my posts to be a tldr, read that letter, it is worth your time

writing a paper atm so I don't have time to respont to scissors and $layer yet but I found this post ripe for fodder

First of all, we have no verifiable way to know that Donald Trump is a billionaire. Second of all, it's a lot easier to make it despite many bad business decisions when your daddy is covering for you at every point in your adult life:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/03/trumps-false-claim-he-built-his-empire-with-a-small-loan-from-his-father/?postshare=6111474938786594&tid=ss_tw

Of course, this doesn't really tell us anything about his policies, just his business acumen, which I don't really give a shit about. It's the pro-Trump crowd, however, that is trying to make it into a positive for him, with no evidence that it would be a solid predictor of his ability to do an entirely different job. I mean, he's spent his entire life with no obligation to do anything to benefit any person other than himself and his immediate family, and is running for public office where he's supposed to fight for the people, it's not really equivalent.

I'm gonna put these two points together because I don't think either has really been satisfactorily addressed thus far. In a vacuum, you are both absolutely right. But by choosing such astronomical figures (10-1, 20-1) to explain how much cheaper manufacturing is in China, for instance, you're invalidating your own argument. Businesses are profit-driven machines that operate based upon incentives. No matter how much tariffs, for instance, affect the cost of outsourcing manufacturing to China, they will continue to do so unless the tariffs are so unbelievably astronomical that they can offset that literal 10-1, 20-1 difference that you are talking about. This is impossible, and even attempting it will just piss off the Chinese while bringing insignificant jobs back to the US.

I am opposed to pure free trade as well, though for mostly pretty different reasons, but the U.S. is losing out in a free market because it is competing with 2nd and 3rd world countries with wages so much lower than the median here that labor will be astronomically cheaper no matter what we do. In light of that, why not focus more on keeping quality of life good for the unemployed and underemployed, raising the minimum wage for those stuck in entry-level jobs, and focus on college and vocational education so that, while the manufacturing sector will never recover (both due to outsourcing and automation), Americans can continue to succeed in other areas?

I pointed out already that this would have basically no effect, and that Donald Trump is living in a fantasy land. But don't take my word for it, here is a letter signed by many economists explaining that Donald Trump is living in a fantasy land:
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/01/500264332/economists-warn-trump-promotes-magical-thinking-and-conspiracy-theories
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/EconomistLetter11012016.pdf

People responded to your other 'points' so I will mainly address this.

I want to dispel the myth that corporations fled the U.S. because of taxes and regulations. They fled because corporations are frankenstein entities designed to increase their profits no matter what, and so they naturally move to 3rd world countries where the labor laws and average wages are so shit that there is absolutely no way we could ever match them. All tax cuts to the wealthy do is limit the spending money of the middle class, which is what actually powers our economy, and keep them in debt and unable to climb the economic ladder through higher education, sustainable home ownership, etc. Real wages have been suppressed in the U.S. for decades now.

This is not all theoretical. Manufacturing declined mainly in the 70s and the 80s in the U.S. Reaganomics did not stem the bleeding, but it did vastly increase the income/wealth inequality in our country and triple our deficit.

If there is one element of Trump's platform that I agree with, it is certain aspects of his protectionism, such as opposing the TPP and being heavily critical of NAFTA. This is also true of almost all true progressive candidates, so I don't really see why that has to be bundled with his tax policy and deregulations (not to mention his ludicrous statements about forcing other countries to pay more for protection or whatever).

When Trump is anti-globalist, it is for the benefit of US corporations over their rivals, not because he actually seeks to bring jobs back. Everyone with any understanding of economics realizes that those jobs are gone, and assuring that the ones we still have provide people with a decent standard of living is more important.

Lastly, I'd like to take a closer look at a particular sentence of yours, because I think it's very telling.

First of all, conservatives have created a rhetoric false dichotomy between employment and handouts. Most of the people on welfare, food stamps, living in public housing, etc. are fully or partially employed, but a minimum wage job is not a living wage in this country. I have never seen the assertion that raising the minimum wage would lead to greater unemployment actually borne out in reality, it's just a myth created to support the ability of corporations to do whatever they want, from the side of the aisle that believes that people in entry-level menial jobs don't really 'deserve' to live off of them without climbing the ladder, even if doing so is not possible.

There is a reason why unemployment vastly decreased under the social programs of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and increased under both Bush administrations, and it has a lot to do with tax policy creating a surplus for everyone, because the middle class stimulates the economy much more efficiently than the wealthy.

Lastly, I resent the notion that 'handouts' are just some sort of meager, temporary respite from poverty on the level of a distraction like an iphone. Social programs benefit all of society in the long run, by bolstering the working poor and enabling social mobility in the next generations. When we cut such programs, we ensure that every cent that a working class person makes has to go towards food, clothing, rent, etc., rather than education or savings.

probably because one of the arguments against him is that he himself doesn't know what he's talking about and constantly changes his policies depending on however he's feeling on any given day

there's a reason why people think the BEST case scenario with a trump presidency is that he'll pawn everything off to pence and his cabinet and it'll be just another republican administration (which the policies on his website largely align with)

they're almost all awful btw

That's a myth, our nuclear capabilities are still greater than Russia's and will be for many years to come

As much as I despise money in politics, this is such an over-simplified way of looking at things that it's ridiculous.

I want to get rid of money in politics so that the rich and powerful's influence over policy is less disproportionate than it is now. Donald Trump is one of those rich and powerful people. From a policy standpoint, he would make Goldman Sachs happier than even the most puppet-like version of a Hillary Clinton administration.

Clinton is a pragmatist and compromiser which, in my opinion, leads her astray of the true progressives in her party. Nonetheless, she will make some concessions to them, particularly in areas of tax policy and social programs (and maybe a bit in regulations as well, though not nearly as much as she should). Donald Trump advances policies that help him and hurt the little guy, regardless of popular consensus.

I want to change the establishment as much as the next guy, and that's why I will put every Clinton policy decision under a microscope as soon as she is elected, and seek to primary her out in 2020. I will not sacrifice the poor and the minorities in our country for 4-8 years just to prove a point.

rofl I am impressed you managed to turn your computer on and get your internet working

please tell me you don't believe in evolution either

It's true that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said that, but there is no requirement for me to agree with him

The bottom line is, Hillary's foreign policy is pretty neo-conservative and by far the worst element of her platform, I'm not challenging that

I just think that painting her as the MORE likely candidate to start WWIII is pretty disingenuous

dflame is a fragile 36 year old father of 2 please leave him alone

if you think we're gonna end up in a true (non-cold) war with russia over assad in 2016, after about 70 years of various antagonistic actions towards pro-russian regimes in the middle east, I don't know what to tell you

i'd be a lot more worried with hillary killing a lot of innocent syrian civilians, or assad's removal leading to a power vacuum that isis wins, if anything

what the fuck am I reading

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3e946f29fa534a0b9c1d064b16e06b61/ap-fact-check-most-gop-candidates-flunk-climate-science

rofl poor anthony davis

im a smart bot tho!!

his rankings come immediately after a scrim where me and maev got rekt