TGP Primary Poll: Republicans

[Cherry 1,302]

I, like Chern, love Trump's pro-business, less taxes policies. But I simply can't vote for a racist pig, it's just too immoral. I don't think Trump's immigration/database policies would ever pass legislation but it's not worth the risk. I didn't think Obamacare would pass and well....

 

If I'm voting in a republican, it's either Cruz or Paul for me. The only two electable guys there. It sucks they are buried beneath the media-created pile of crap.

Personally I dislike Cruz. Cruz is a lot more corporate controlled than Don, and he's also much more of a bullshitter. Donald, if nothing else good, is very straightforward. I also really dislike Cruz and Rand for their flat tax ideas. Rand cuts it so low that it's better for everyone, but we need a balanced tax system that allows the poorest people to retain the highest percentage of their income. Thankfully Trump is doing this.

 

For a long time I simply couldn't like Trump. He was too big of a dick. Too racist and sexist. Too immoral. He's a huge shitbag, but I'd rather have a huge shitbag than someone who kills the economy and sends us all into poverty.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Personally I dislike Cruz. Cruz is a lot more corporate controlled than Don, and he's also much more of a bullshitter. Donald, if nothing else good, is very straightforward. I also really dislike Cruz and Rand for their flat tax ideas. Rand cuts it so low that it's better for everyone, but we need a balanced tax system that allows the poorest people to retain the highest percentage of their income. Thankfully Trump is doing this.

 

For a long time I simply couldn't like Trump. He was too big of a dick. Too racist and sexist. Too immoral. He's a huge shitbag, but I'd rather have a huge shitbag than someone who kills the economy and sends us all into poverty.

 

Based on what evidence is Trump good at managing the economy? He got started with a 1 million dollar loan.

 

If you think he'd be good at the economic part of things, then campaign for him to be secretary of the economy, not president of the United States.

[Cherry 1,302]

 

Because if theres one guy who knows buisness, its someone that inherited his money and has underperformed standard index funds.

He has actually outperformed them and has done a good job in making profitable deals to bolster his wealth. Getting a good headstart does not make you a billionaire. A fair portion of people would've fucked up and blown the money away. With that said that's not why I support him for pres on economic issues.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Chernobyl426

[Cherry 1,302]

 

Based on what evidence is Trump good at managing the economy? He got started with a 1 million dollar loan.

 

If you think he'd be good at the economic part of things, then campaign for him to be secretary of the economy, not president of the United States.

What evidence? Let's take a look at some of policies. Low taxes on lower to middle class citizens allows them to have more spending money. More spending money means more demand for goods. Demand for goods leads right back to production. The economy starts at the bottom, and the lower to middle class is what pushes it forward. A rich man can simply save. Poor people cannot afford to save. While IMO the brackets are too streamlined the percentages are great. He is also in favor of tearing up the TPP and forcing China to play by the rules instead of devaluing their currency. Trump understands trade and negotiation better than almost anyone.

[oochymp 2,393]

The real reason Donald Trump is so rich - The Washington Post

 

...

Citing data from Forbes, The Associated Press estimates that Trump's net worth quadrupled from $1 billion to $4 billion between 1988 and today. That's an impressive gain, but it's nothing compared to the wealth produced by investors such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. Gates's wealth increased from about $1 billion to $80 billion over the same period. Buffett had about $2.5 billion in 1988, and has $68 billion today.

Yet perhaps the most telling comparison is between Trump and his golf buddy, Richard LeFrak. The LeFraks and the Trumps have been rivals in New York's real estate business for generations. LeFrak's father, Samuel LeFrak, took a no-nonsense approach to the business. He focused on minimizing risk and making money, according to a 1992 profile in Business Week, before the magazine became Bloomberg Businessweek.

...

Over time, the LeFraks came out ahead of their competitors. LeFrak is worth $7 billion today, and he's 181st on Bloomberg's list of the world's richest people. Bloomberg puts Trump's wealth at just $2.9 billion -- far less than Forbes's estimate. He doesn't even make the list.

...

Citing an independent evaluation, Business Week put Trump's net worth at $100 million in 1978. Had Trump gotten out of real estate entirely, put his money in an index fund based on the S&P 500 and reinvested the dividends, he'd be worth twice as much -- $6 billion -- today, according to the calculator maintained by the blog Don't Quit Your Day Job.

...

Trump disputes the independent appraisals of his wealth by Forbes, Business Week (now Bloomberg) and others. He says he is worth about $10 billion today.

Using Trump's preferred estimates of his wealth, he has still performed worse than our hypothetical Main Street retiree. He told The New York Times he was worth $200 million in 1976, an amount that would be worth $12 billion today [if invested in mutual funds that tracked the market].

...

In a way, though, all of these comparisons are misleading. Donald Trump's father, Fred Trump, built his real-estate business on federal subsidies, as The Washington Post's Emily Badger has reported. Financing from Uncle Sam isn't available to the typical investor (although homeowners do benefit indirectly from federal subsidies and can deduct interest they pay on their mortgage from their tax bill). The younger Trump has continued that strategy, boasting about his ability to secure taxpayer dollars from local officials, as the Los Angeles Times has explained.

At other times, Trump has relied not on taxpayers but on banks and private concerns. Firms under his control have gone bankrupt on four occasions, but those catastrophes aren't fully reflected in Trump's net worth today, since his lenders absorbed the losses. The LeFraks, by contrast, have avoided imposing losses on their creditors, while still finding a way to turn a profit.

Edited December 10, 2015 by oochymp

[Thanatos 2,847]

What evidence? Let's take a look at some of policies. Low taxes on lower to middle class citizens allows them to have more spending money. More spending money means more demand for goods. Demand for goods leads right back to production. The economy starts at the bottom, and the lower to middle class is what pushes it forward. A rich man can simply save. Poor people cannot afford to save. While IMO the brackets are too streamlined the percentages are great. He is also in favor of tearing up the TPP and forcing China to play by the rules instead of devaluing their currency. Trump understands trade and negotiation better than almost anyone.

 

Lmao. Trump has no fucking clue what the TPP entails. In a nationally televised debate he claimed that China was part of the TPP. It is not. China is not part of the TPP. It's basic common knowledge anyone who has looked at the TPP even just casually would know.

 

My point is Donald Trump did not really do anything with his own money, as oochy has pointed out. That's basically his biggest calling card for why he would do well with the US's economy and it's a completely invalid one. There is no evidence that Trump would be any better than anyone else at managing the economy.

[BJORN 679]

Interesting. I've seen claims from other sources that Trump has grown his wealth at a rate above the S&P. (For those that don't know financial advisors on average perform worse than the S&P). But Bloomberg is a very reputable finance resource and that analysis above seems to refute that Trump has done more than average with his silver spoon. It really depends on his net worth today and whether you believe Trump or third party financial analysts, I think the latter would be much more realistic in their claims.

Edited January 30, 2016 by BJORN

[Milla4Prez63 678]

Just because Trump is a rich successful businessman doesn't mean he'll fix the economy. If anything I think it's more likely he'll fuck it up even more because the dude isn't a real politician. Throw in the fact that he's a racist facist pig and I'd be ashamed to have this man be the face of our country.

[Cherry 1,302]

 

Lmao. Trump has no fucking clue what the TPP entails. In a nationally televised debate he claimed that China was part of the TPP. It is not. China is not part of the TPP. It's basic common knowledge anyone who has looked at the TPP even just casually would know.

 

My point is Donald Trump did not really do anything with his own money, as oochy has pointed out. That's basically his biggest calling card for why he would do well with the US's economy and it's a completely invalid one. There is no evidence that Trump would be any better than anyone else at managing the economy.

Fair enough. I'd argue that most of the politicians right now don't have a single idea what the fuck is in most of the TPP. It was highly guarded and congress knew very little about it. Still was dumb by Trump to say China was involved when it wasn't. I think we'd all agree that currency deflation in China is an issue though, correct? The only people really standing up against it are Trump and Bernie.

 

People can claim that Trump would be good because he is a billionaire. I don't think that is necessarily a good argument. His policies do back the idea that he'd be good economically. Trump isn't viewed as a politician right now, which is an issue. He's viewed as a billionaire. Until we look at his policies over his past it's impossible to see him in the correct light (what he'd be as the president).

Just because Trump is a rich successful businessman doesn't mean he'll fix the economy.

 

See: His tax policies. Isn't about being a billionaire. It's about benefiting the people.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

There's zero correlation between wealthy people like Trump and expertise in economic policy. Trump has consistently proven he knows nothing about public policy nor cares to know anything about public policy. He'd be a complete and utter disaster.

[oochymp 2,393]

something I've been thinking for a while but wondered what the numbers would say:

Dear Media, Stop Freaking Out About Donald Trump’s Polls | FiveThirtyEight

 

One problem with this is that it’s not enough for Trump to merely avoid fading. Right now, he has 25 to 30 percent of the vote in polls among the roughly 25 percent of Americans who identify as Republican. (That’s something like 6 to 8 percent of the electorate overall, or about the same share of people who think the Apollo moon landings were faked.) As the rest of the field consolidates around him, Trump will need to gain additional support to win the nomination. That might not be easy, since some Trump actions that appeal to a faction of the Republican electorate may alienate the rest of it. Trump’s favorability ratings are middling among Republicans (and awful among the broader electorate).

it's an interesting article and worth the few minutes it takes to read the whole thing, but basically it's arguing that you really can't read anything into polls taken this far ahead of the primary

Edited December 11, 2015 by oochymp

[BJORN 679]

Well I think that's obvious, Oochy, but still that's the best thing I read today. If Trump wins, the GOP is basically gift wrapping the presidency to Hilary. I hope that when push comes to shove people won't actually vote for the guy. I think he's all talk and completely media driven. Unelectable.

 

Side note: Fuck the media...huge part of alot of problems in our country

[oochymp 2,393]

I agree it's pretty obvious, but it is interesting to see the numbers, I knew the polls where he's hitting 30% weren't representative of the general population, but it's still interesting to see it broken down, I also wouldn't be surprised if there was a lot of overlap between Trump supporters and the apparently comparably sized group that thinks the Apollo landings were faked

[Cherry 1,302]

There's zero correlation between wealthy people like Trump and expertise in economic policy. Trump has consistently proven he knows nothing about public policy nor cares to know anything about public policy. He'd be a complete and utter disaster.

Tax... Policies...

[Cherry 1,302]

To be honest I have absolutely zero expectations of Don holding onto his lead. He'll likely go third party once he starts falling behind. Cruz and Rubio will have a boxing match at the top (I think Rubio is the only one with a shot in the general.)

 

If Donald snags votes away as a third-party I'd be livid if it costs Rubio the election (it likely would). Hillary is a worst case scenario.

 

I was a huge backer of Rubio after I saw some of his stuff, but he isn't as tax-friendly as Trump. He's just a complete moderate on basically everything.

 

Bernie is so enjoyable to watch from a social policy standpoint. It's just so sad that he'd crash the economy. $15 is a death blow to all minimum-wage workers.

[BradyFan81 404]

The debate on Tuesday probably will be worth the watch or no?

Edited December 11, 2015 by BradyFan81

[Cherry 1,302]

Will just be everyone talking shit about Don and him proceeding to call them all ugly.

 

So yes.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

To be honest I have absolutely zero expectations of Don holding onto his lead. He'll likely go third party once he starts falling behind. Cruz and Rubio will have a boxing match at the top (I think Rubio is the only one with a shot in the general.)

 

If Donald snags votes away as a third-party I'd be livid if it costs Rubio the election (it likely would). Hillary is a worst case scenario.

 

I was a huge backer of Rubio after I saw some of his stuff, but he isn't as tax-friendly as Trump. He's just a complete moderate on basically everything.

 

Bernie is so enjoyable to watch from a social policy standpoint. It's just so sad that he'd crash the economy. $15 is a death blow to all minimum-wage workers.

 

 

I don't know the poll numbers or anything but it seems like Rubio doesn't do as well with conservatives. That's not a horrendous thing, but it will most definitely cost him an election if Trump runs 3rd party (even though he said he wouldn't).

 

Honestly, the election is probably in Donald Trumps hands either way. He isn't going to win but he will probably be the deciding factor in Bernie Sanders' election to POTUS.

[BwareDWare94 723]

I can't believe a fear-mongering lunatic like Ted Cruz is gaining traction.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Conservatives love him, you can be disappointed but you shouldn't be that surprised.

[BwareDWare94 723]

I just can't stand the misguided Christian ideology. He's so fucking dumb.

Edited December 15, 2015 by BwareDWare94

[oochymp 2,393]

[Cherry 1,302]

Rubio, Rand, and Cruz all gonna rise.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I still hate Cruz for his salesman-like pitches, but i can see why he is surging. Rand dominated, like usual.. But it probably won't turn into much.

I don't think Rubio did very well at all. Dude was getting slaughtered. He may have a betr chance running as a Democrat.

[BradyFan81 404]

I'm seeing so many Marco Rubio ads on tv today. It feels like hes gonna be the nominee.