JPMorgan CEO: Democrats have no chance in 2020

[rmt]

JPMorgan's CEO seems to support him.

Dude didn't think he was going to win and he didn't think he would be as hated as he is. You're trying to paint this as some huge sacrifice on his part -- it's just another up.

Two months ago, this same JPMorgan's CEO didn't seem to support him. Only after the tax plan passed.

Why do you think Trump ran?

[pgardn]

Nobody does something so life changing for his socioeconomic group - only for himself or his family. In case you haven't noticed, hardly any of those rich people are Trump supporters - maybe only Peter Thiel. All those Zuckerberg, Gates, Buffet, Hollywood, academia, DC, elite types are against him.

What was life changing? He's a thrill seeker who is a narcissistic rich guy from early on.

They are snowflaking.

And you are going to have to know these people better.
They were not all born into that socioeconomic group.
They lived the other side or were actually able to empathize with something they did not live. Narcissistic people.. that's a big ask.

[Pavlov]

Two months ago, this same JPMorgan's CEO didn't seem to support him. Only after the tax plan passed.

That's politics. The elites were pushing the Republicans in congress to pass it by threatening to cut off their money supply. Would've happened under any Republican president.

Why do you think Trump ran?

Ego and money through resulting opportunities. Not to win. Not for love of country. Not for working people. You're fooling yourself if you thought he did it for anything other than ego and money.

[rmt]

So you knew Trump was not a true pro lifer and I agree. So you used your conservative bend on other issues to go with go with Trump. Bottom line, if you are like the vast majority of my Christian friends, you look at pro choice as an automatic disqualification. And I'm gonna say you do.

As far as Roe v. Wade being overturned... Who knows. Get 4 more like Trump's last nominee accepted and I can see it clearly. And it does not have to be overturned to effectively end legal abortion in the US.

Trump is a typical New Yorker - a social Democrat but he thinks the economy is better served by Republican policies. He "says" the right things to get the evangelical vote (but lives his life as a [social] Democrat as opposed to Pence who is a true Christian) - no one should be fooled - it's obvious.

There is no going back on abortion or gay rights - btw, I'm really ticked off on something related to that - gonna create a separate thread for that.

[ElNono]

If you had every factory that ever closed and moved abroad back in the US, you'd raise the lower bar on income average but you wouldn't get closer to the 1% if you were already gainfully employed. There's a glass ceiling for people who don't pursue high income type careers. Skilled labor jobs like craftsmen and engineers typically will have their incomes capped so that the shareholders, owners, etc... will make enough to hang around in the 1% range. So if you want to be in the 1%, start a business. Tax laws that stifle small businesses also present road blocks getting to that 1% range.

However, move the opposite way: Close factories and move them abroad where lower emission standards, cheaper labor and almost zero oversight exists (and lower taxes), you get higher profits and richer 1%ers, and a wider gap between the classes. The middle class family loses ground while the wealthy business CEOs and large shareholders capitalize.

Seems to me that's why Trump won.

It's more complicated than that, and there's economic reasons why it was never doable and was never going to work. If you actually do bring those factories back and pay US standard-of-living rates, then you bring inflation, which affects the 99% the same (because the 99% would now be making more, but the 1% would have a higher cost, which they translate to prices to retain their profit margins, which largely gets paid by the 99%). But the other side effect is that you become non-compe ive around the world, thus your commercial ceiling is internal demand. That does hurt the 1%'ers and theoretically might close some of the gap. However, the 1% always has the option to move the company out of the US and import. Thus Trump's populist message of taxing import of goods.

Does all that sounds like a pro-business, capitalist campaign to you? It sure as heck doesn't sound like that to me. It sounds a lot more like Cuba.

None of that is going to happen, and Trump didn't become pro-business overnight. He's just a tool that enabled the current Congress (the swamp, really) to pass all the typical pro-business Republican agenda, plus the globalist agenda (which involves both parties).

But people that voted for Trump will never admit to it, tbh, much like people that voted for Obama never admitted the H&C was all bs...

[pgardn]

Trump is a typical New Yorker - a social Democrat but he thinks the economy is better served by Republican policies. He "says" the right things to get the evangelical vote (but lives his life as a [social] Democrat as opposed to Pence who is a true Christian) - no one should be fooled - it's obvious.

There is no going back on abortion or gay rights - btw, I'm really ticked off on something related to that - gonna create a separate thread for that.

So yes.

You will always go with the pro lifer over the pro choice.
Thats the single issue that begins the flow chart of ID ing your candidate. With Trump v. Clinton that singular issue was not present.

[AaronY]

Both parties have done a bad job addressing income inequality over the last 40 years and I think the rise of Bernie is due to that. Hopefully he doesn't win in 2020 but I don't think its so far fetched. Remember most of us liberals were ecstatic when Trump got the Republican nom thinking he could never win.

[pgardn]

Both parties have done a bad job addressing income inequality over the last 40 years and I think the rise of Bernie is due to that. Hopefully he doesn't win in 2020 but I don't think its so far fetched. Remember most of us liberals were ecstatic when Trump got the Republican nom thinking he could never win.

The rise of Bernie and Trump IMO...

But they shall see the truth with Trump. No coal economic explosion.

[vy65]

What don't you understand about the words "and conservative bend"? You might want to call me a one issue voter (like isn't it anyone's prerogative to BE a one issue voter - like being a multi-issue voter is somehow "better" than being a one-issue voter) but outside of religion, once they are past the age of viability outside of the mother (22 weeks?), imo, it is barbaric to snuff out their lives. You might so defend a mother's right to abort right up until delivery, but I am absolutely against that. Given society today, I think a reasonable limit is up until the child is viable outside the mother's womb - that's over 5 months - plenty of time for someone to decide they want an abortion.

I’m curious as to why you think being a “multi issue” voter is the same, if not worse, than being a single issue voter?

[rmt]

I’m curious as to why you think being a “multi issue” voter is the same, if not worse, than being a single issue voter?

I don't think being a multi issue voter is better or worse than being a single issue voter. Everyone is FREE is make their own decision - whether based on a single issue or multiple issues.

[vy65]

I don't think being a multi issue voter is better or worse than being a single issue voter. Everyone is FREE is make their own decision - whether based on a single issue or multiple issues.

Well, they’re free to make their decision among the field of candidates. Is that the reason why, in your mind, being a “multi issue” voter is no better or worse than being a single issue voter?

[rmt]

So yes.

You will always go with the pro lifer over the pro choice.
Thats the single issue that begins the flow chart of ID ing your candidate. With Trump v. Clinton that singular issue was not present.

Am I not being clear to you? I just finished saying that Trump is not conservative or religious and listing a whole bunch of reasons why I voted for him. Maybe you missed some of my posts while writing your posts? His economic views are more Republican leaning - not his social views.

[rmt]

Well, they’re free to make their decision among the field of candidates. Is that the reason why, in your mind, being a “multi issue” voter is no better or worse than being a single issue voter?

I'm not getting why you're beleaguring this topic. They're free to make their decision based on a single issue or on multiple issues. Why should anyone care why some one chooses who they choose?

What's going on? Am I not being clear in all my posts?

[vy65]

I'm not getting why you're beleaguring this topic. They're free to make their decision based on a single issue or on multiple issues. Why should anyone care why some one chooses who they choose?

What's going on? Am I not being clear in all my posts?

I understand - and agree - that voters are free to choose whomever they want from the field of candidates. That’s not my question.

I want to know why you think single vs. multi issue is a wash. Is it because people can choose whomever they want? Or is there some other reason?

[vy65]

I'm not getting why you're beleaguring this topic. They're free to make their decision based on a single issue or on multiple issues. Why should anyone care why some one chooses who they choose?

What's going on? Am I not being clear in all my posts?

I also find it ironic that you’re emphasizing freedom in this context to the point of asking why would anyone care about another’s choice(s) while at the same time emphasizing the lack of freedom and concern about a woman’s choice to abort. But that’s another conversation.

[rmt]

I understand - and agree - that voters are free to choose whomever they want from the field of candidates. That’s not my question.

I want to know why you think single vs. multi issue is a wash. Is it because people can choose whomever they want? Or is there some other reason?

[vy65]

So it doesn’t matter who you choose to vote for because you’re free to vote for whomever I want? You wouldn’t have any issues with me if I wrote Hitler in on my ballot?

[rmt]

I also find it ironic that you’re emphasizing freedom in this context to the point of asking why would anyone care about another’s choice(s) while at the same time emphasizing the lack of freedom and concern about a woman’s choice to abort. But that’s another conversation.

When the child becomes viable outside the womb (can survive separate of the mother), then (imo) you are talking about killing a life - not just a woman's choice/freedom.

[vy65]

When the child becomes viable outside the womb (can survive separate of the mother), then (imo) you are talking about killing a life - not just a woman's choice/freedom.

When you choose a candidate who has the ability to implement really regressive/bad policy, then (imo) you are talking about harming a life - not just a person’s choice/vote.

[rmt]

When you choose a candidate who has the ability to implement really regressive/bad policy, then (imo) you are talking about harming a life - not just a person’s choice/vote.

Are you referring to abortion? If so, I already said in a previous post, that the boat has sailed on Roe vs Wade (and gay rights). I think I took too long writing a post and some of you missed my post.

If not, what you consider really regressive/bad policy, I might not think it so - that is a matter of opinion.

[vy65]

Are you referring to abortion? If so, I already said in a previous post, that the boat has sailed on Roe vs Wade (and gay rights). I think I took too long writing a post and some of you missed my post.

If not, what you consider really regressive/bad policy, I might not think it so - that is a matter of opinion.

This is all really secondary to the point being made.

[vy65]

You wouldn’t have any issues with me if I wrote Hitler in on my ballot?

??

[Spurtacular]

That's politics. The elites were pushing the Republicans in congress to pass it by threatening to cut off their money supply. Would've happened under any Republican president.

Ego and money through resulting opportunities. Not to win. Not for love of country. Not for working people. You're fooling yourself if you thought he did it for anything other than ego and money.

Did Hillary run for love of country or for ego and money?

[DMC]

Did Hillary run for love of country or for ego and money?

She ran because she was the only one in the DNC that had any real face time with the American public, albeit not recently good face time for her. It's why she ran the last time as well. I'm surprised Mic e Obama isn't mentioned more as a consideration, as it would put Barack back into the WH. She doesn't seem egotistical enough though to want more years of that.

[rmt]

She ran because she was the only one in the DNC that had any real face time with the American public, albeit not recently good face time for her. It's why she ran the last time as well. I'm surprised Mic e Obama isn't mentioned more as a consideration, as it would put Barack back into the WH. She doesn't seem egotistical enough though to want more years of that.

Why should anyone who is set in life subject herself to all that?