Will Donald Trump win or lose the election?

[JosephK]

That is an absolutely retarded response you fuckwit. Did you even read what I wrote?

Trump did not intend for Iran to get nukes; yet, that is what he has achieved. Trump did not intend for China to expand its power; yet, that is what he has achieved. Etc.

What part of what I wrote made you think I was bawwwing about 'enlightenment?' I'm showing you how he failed miserably to enact his admittedly confused and inconsistent foreign policy goals. You then read what you wanted to read because you are the perfect stereotype of an american. Maybe you just read the third sentence about Yemen and went 'haha why should I care about millions of children starving?' when in fact I was referring to his failure to win that costly war, showing yourself to be illiterate, poorly-read and inhumane - again, reinforcing the stereotype.

Or, just maybe, you read the entire thing and focused on the line about people not respecting you and the eradication of American soft power and interpreted it as some moral critique. Who knows. Either way, retarded.

The last sentence should have made it clear to anyone with the comprehension of an 8 year old that none of the previous sentences were moral critiques.

Honestly man, I see where you're coming from now and it's not necessary to discuss it.

[Longbowman]

Honestly man, I see where you're coming from now and it's not necessary to discuss it.

Fair enough, sorry for calling you a fuckwit.

[Richmondbread]

Two four six eight, Joe Biden will soon meet his fate!

[Dick]

1. Day before Inauguration Day
2. Day after Inauguration Day

What a stunning turnaround. The power of hope and healing hearts. Build back better.

[Babak]

Well, back to square one lol

[KirillMazur]

Biden plans to print dollars in such a way that Trump was playing in the sandbox compared to him.

[SilverKnight]

Not even a week into the fake Chinese controlled, Biden/ Harris "administration" and they're already destroying jobs/ economy.

[KirillMazur]

It seems to me that Trump's idea of ​​the MAGA was impossible to implement from the very beginning. I will try to explain briefly.
Conventionally, two working systems that kept the world and the economy in relative equilibrium (classical US capitalism and the late Soviet hybrid of socialism and state capitalism) died in 1991 at the same time. In the 1990s, parasitism based on the printing press and financial speculation, as well as on the export of democracy to other countries, became the dominant system in the United States. The developed industry was no longer needed (it is less profitable) and was moved to Asia. The former workers of these factories, which became unnecessary, became in the bulk of the "rednecks" (Trump's electorate).
Trump promised to bring the industry back to the United States, but there is one subtlety. For a newly built U.S. industry to be globally competitive, a worker must receive $ 500 a month, not $ 5,000 as the electorate hoped. And live in a tiny apartment, and most likely not have a pension. No one would agree to such a decrease in living standards, just Trump was silent about it from the tribune.
A high standard of living in the United States is now provided for the most part by the printing press (well, and a little science too), and trust in the dollar is provided by the army and the inertia of thinking. Industry has nothing to do with it.
Trump would not be allowed to return the industry, which would very quickly deprive the country of superprofits. The dependence of modern America on dollar rent is critical for state existence. Even Trump himself could not afford to give up the crazy printer.
Democrats, in a sense, saved the country in its current form, for better or worse.
In fact, Trump's slogans are akin to a transition to a previous era in the Age of Empires game. It sounds beautiful, but impossible due to the objective laws of historical development.

[Smeagol]

[Smitty]

It seems to me that Trump's idea of ​​the MAGA was impossible to implement from the very beginning. I will try to explain briefly.
Conventionally, two working systems that kept the world and the economy in relative equilibrium (classical US capitalism and the late Soviet hybrid of socialism and state capitalism) died in 1991 at the same time. In the 1990s, parasitism based on the printing press and financial speculation, as well as on the export of democracy to other countries, became the dominant system in the United States. The developed industry was no longer needed (it is less profitable) and was moved to Asia. The former workers of these factories, which became unnecessary, became in the bulk of the "rednecks" (Trump's electorate).
Trump promised to bring the industry back to the United States, but there is one subtlety. For a newly built U.S. industry to be globally competitive, a worker must receive $ 500 a month, not $ 5,000 as the electorate hoped. And live in a tiny apartment, and most likely not have a pension. No one would agree to such a decrease in living standards, just Trump was silent about it from the tribune.
A high standard of living in the United States is now provided for the most part by the printing press (well, and a little science too), and trust in the dollar is provided by the army and the inertia of thinking. Industry has nothing to do with it.
Trump would not be allowed to return the industry, which would very quickly deprive the country of superprofits. The dependence of modern America on dollar rent is critical for state existence. Even Trump himself could not afford to give up the crazy printer.
Democrats, in a sense, saved the country in its current form, for better or worse.
In fact, Trump's slogans are akin to a transition to a previous era in the Age of Empires game. It sounds beautiful, but impossible due to the objective laws of historical development.

That is an interesting post. I'm no economist, but I disagree. I think manufacturing is "actual" wealth. There is certainly a place for other industries, but manufacturing is inherently valuable in a way that the service industries aren't. Now, you're correct that the American worker would demand more money than the Chinese worker for the same product. But if that money were being paid by Americans to other Americans, I think it would balance out. America is a supereconomy in and of itself. We have a huge population and vast resources. We could function in an almost vacuum easily, unlike, say, Austria or Luxembourg, which likely truly depend on imports to survive. So in outsourcing actual wealth in exchange for virtual wealth (media, the legal industry, etc.), we've undercut ourselves. And that puts other countries at an advantage. The value of our dollar is on shaky ground because there is little to actually back it up.