A blind revolution does not work, BUT the french revolution was NOT blind. Hence having this discussion.

How is that relevant? I made a point to not argue whether his economic plan was good or not, just argue the facts. Don't change the subject.

You claimed it was "curious all the big banks and big corporations are backing Hillary and not backing Trump", and I provided the explanation.

You can argue his plan might lead to an unprecedented golden age in the US. The fact is that the stock market is a measure of the investors confidence in a company and/or country, and big changes like the ones he proposes, by their very nature, lead to uncertainty that shakes that confidence. This means that before his plans bear fruit, good or bad, the economy will take a hit. Period.

It's the same principle behind Brexit, which Trump himself has praised. The process to leave the EU won't begin until March, and it will only be complete two years after that, yet look at how the UK economy has responded, look at how the Pound has fallen.

Knowing that the banks are interested only in their self-preservation and short-term profits (see Financial Crisis), how is it curious that they would support the candidate that would least impact the economy by largely maintaining the status quo, and therefore, least impacting their business?

Well he says he plans to re-negotiate, and if that fails the NAFTA will be removed and a new trade deal will come about.

Immediate effects? Not sure. Either all imports stop, or prices are going to raise or normalize. Trade outright stopping wouldn't last for that long. If it does, well we'll just have to start making what we can inside the US rather than getting it from outside.

Let's assume there's a tariff or raise taxes, probably for the majority of people either little effect will be seen, or people will have to just enjoy a little bit less entertainment in order to buy their more expensive imported/native goods. The poor? They probably won't be affected too much if they can still get their things second hand. Diets may change with importation of bananas and exotic foods being removed for a while. Hell people might garden more :P

Now let's assume trade entirely stops. Well sooner or later we have to make stuff, so steel and other mills will open back up, and then manufacturing will happen (and jobs too!), and for a couple years things will slowly get back on track. Mind you this won't include heavily electronic items, tablets, phones, TV's, monitors, chips, cars, etc will probably not happen, so for a few years we might have to rely on the hardware we have or used hardware (oh my god, not the top of the line computers! I'll die!). But trade will resume sooner or later for things the US can't make.

Stock market, national debt and other considerations? I don't know, there's a bubble and it's either going to get lowered and resolved or burst (sooner or later).

Dudley Moore, Liza Minnelli? Ring a bell?

John Gielgud won an Oscar for it.

You mean too much power in the hands of too MANY, and too many who were completely chaotic.

As far as the church goes, I understand that was one of the contributing factors leading UP to the revolution, but DURING it, to my knowledge they actually had a small crusade against Catholics and the authority of the clergy. As to what influence they had other than that, I honestly can't say I know anything about due to not being well enough informed on the subject.




As far as freedom of religion goes as well as a couple other points you've made, I'd go into more detail on this argument, but I honestly don't know enough specifics of either revolution to really make any entirely reasonable judgments, and again, it gets away from the basic point I was making to OP, which I assume you agree with unless you'd like to say otherwise. All we're really doing here is just nitpicking on the specifics of both, which is...not really what I wanted to get at.

Hillary's 'I'm going to tax the rich even more' and 'I'm going to tax the middle class' seems to not quite make sense since it's those same corporations and banks that will get taxed more are Funding Hillary. Unless she of course signs waivers for donors that then don't have to be taxed during her presidency.

Never even heard of it.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

Kleetus News, the knew news.

Shocking story, world exclusive: Disturbing reports flooding in that Madagascan Iraqi, tinyE, has joined IS and now uses the pseudonym tinyIED.

Video and audio has also surfaced of tinyIED taunting the coalition and boasting that he's too li'l to find.

Authorities have warned the public not to approach anyone smaller than 2 inches, and to stay a safe distance as "tinyIED has an explosive temper and may blow up in anger".

Kleetus News, the knew news.

No, not in the hand of too many.
And your knowledge is wrong. If you have never been to Europe or have seen places like this, it is hard to grasp.
First: it was NO crusade AGAINST Catholics, it was about the power the CHURCH hold over the state. The church was a state in the state and quite often having more to say than the state himself, even the KING could not go against the church. It is hard to grasp, but that is what you have to understand. Do a really really small extend the bible belt is similar, but only faintly similar, imagine it like a 100 fold (or think of a state like Iran, theocracy) but the catholic church being it.

And this brings me back to why the french revolution is a bad example for what you want to show that an emotional revolutions is failed from the beginning.

The best comparison for this nowadays would be banks/military complexes. And rtcvb32
You are just showing that the person whom you are arguing AGAINST is actually just trying to do this. The problem there is that YOUR elected people senators and whatever (here again GOP) is actually trying to prevent this. You did here of trickle down? You did here about the amount of money being withheld from the government?

So coming back to a revolution: slave revolts like the one around Spartacus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus
They do prove more your point. A mindless revolution. (I did bring up ideas for later, much much later)

And further rtcvb32, your favourite person Trump, did you look at his assets? Don't you think there is some sort of conflict of interest?
He has admitted to lobbying and paid a fine, are you not a bit concerned?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trump_Organization
Talking about lobbying, are you not concerned about that he will not do again the same thing he did already?
And just saying revolution, will not really change anything.
I am just talking about your opinion, not what somebody else brought up!

She proposes a 4% increase on people that earn more than $5m, which amounts to a lot less money lost for the banks than a real economic downturn and trading halt. And what you yourself described in your post to Goodaltgamer is a nightmare scenario to banks, of course they will support the candidate that opposes it. She's just the safest and most stable choice for their business.

Let's leave the part of NAFTA aside:

Let's assume he would put tariffs on, you think the WTO will agree?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization

Let's see what they for example already decided on a similar topic:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28301144

So, how will this EMPTY phrase help anything?

But coming back to I think your ORIGINAL question: Why did all the jobs disappear? Who is to blame for this?

Have a look at those two:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity

Do NOT read anything else up or look anything else up.

Just read it, digest it and tell me what you think! Will ya? ;)

Goodaltgamer, STOP IT!

It's not nice to make fun of the mentally ill, or in his case, the clinically brain dead.

You Iraqis, you kill me.

Please don't detonate, it was just a figure of speech.

TinyE, that was harsh. Sorry ;)
And I am not making fun off him. I am trying to discuss it with him and see what will come out off it.

And I don't think he is as you describe him. He does have some valid points about faults in main stream media. I think we can agree on this. I think we can also agree that a few other points he put up have a certain value in it as well.

So let's see and let's wait, would you, pleaaase ;)