In the last 50 years we've raised the mimum wage... what, 28 times (or something)? Now it could be that I slept in and missed the news, but the economy didn't go haywire over it. It's a pretty simple fact that if you're making the minimum wage, you're barely over the poverty line (depending on the size of your household - if you have kids you're probably well under the poverty line). Not only that, but raising the minimum wage would positively effect the job market as a whole.

Not much of the country makes the minimum wage to begin with rn - if anything the number of low-skill minimum wage paying jobs will increase as businesses currently paying more than that fail to increase their wages as the minimum wage increases.

Let's not forget that if they follow the model of areas already increasing the minimum wage, it'll be gradually over the course of several years. I'll have to look up the study again later, but I recently heard about one that was conducted that suggested that gradual increases in the minimum wage over time have no significant impact on businesses.

Also the labor participation rate is the lowest it's been since 1998 - like 62.6% or something. Older people working is the least of our concerns.

I agree with the rest of your point, but Trump is neither qualified nor does he serve your interests (Trump serves Trump). Clinton doesn't wholly serve our interests, but she is at least extremely qualified for the job. Say what you will about her (corrupt, misguided, shady, crooked - all of which fantastic cases can be made for) but she's obviously extremely intelligent.


Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Trump has been pretty open about giving extravagantly to politicians. Clinton is a politician that takes extravagant donations from businessmen like Trump, who are looking for subsidies, regulations that skew the market in their favor, and tax cuts. If you think that Trump isn't only running to eliminate the middleman I'd have to say you're naive.

That makes me think you'd be okay with some sociopath terrorist in office - I know I wouldn't want to piss a guy like that off.

(Although, it is infact true that people are already terrified of pissing us off. A study was recently done that found that a huge huge huge majority of people polled worldwide were of the opinion that the US was the greatest threat to world peace).

The thing about Trump is half of his rhetoric is isolationist and the other half is even more hawkish than HRC's. That is, he supports using civilians as leverage against terrorists (He wants us to become ISIS in order to fight ISIS), he supports torture "even if it doesn't work," - and c'mon, we've all seen the guy's twitter. Who knows what he'd do with any greater weapon than a keyboard.

Republicans could appeal Obamacare, but then we're still left with the original problem - our health care system is a fucked up mess to begin with. Individual mandate isn't by any means the best solution or even a good one (it was a Republican idea to begin with, after all ;] ), and hopefully it's only a brief step on the staircase towards something like a public option or single payer. No good solution of the issue could ever come from a Republican in office, though.


Let's keep in mind though that Trump is the exact opposite of a solution for us economically. The guy say'd he'd default on the US national debt (which would crash the entire world economy), and he's absolutely illiterate in the sense that he claims both that he's going to lower taxes and that he's going to eliminate the debt. First, he's playing into the regular bullshit Republican strategy of fearmongering over the debt & deficit, and second the fact that he thinks he can do both (lower taxes and eliminate the debt) at once is absolutely insane!

The protectionist stance on free trade is a breath of fresh air, but since he himself makes his product overseas I'm not sure I can really take him at his word there...

You can look right above to see why Trump is the exact opposite of what the country needs.

What did Obama do?

Romney is the stereotypical private interest representative. A financial manager with a stupidly low tax rate who campaigns on the premise of lowering taxes. I've not looked at contributions to him or his campaign, but I'd say it's a pretty good bet that he's received a lot of money.

Romney was likely just as corrupt as Hillary was/is, he just had one of those pretty american-man faces and a clean suit to cover up his black heart.