Apple's also been mentioned multiple times in Trump's 'bring back jobs' rhetoric, including

“We have such amazing people in this country: smart, sharp, energetic, they’re amazing. I was saying ‘make America great again’, and I actually think we can say now, and I really believe this, we’re gonna get things coming. We’re gonna get Apple to start building their damn computers and things in this country, instead of in other countries.”

Moving or creating an entire supply chain for manufacturing Apple products to the United States wouldn't be simple. Because the supply chain for Apple employs a tremendous number of people in China, it's not something that the Chinese government is going to simply let happen.

iPhone manufacturing won’t move to the U.S., despite what Trump wants | BGR

(Oh, and btw, it's been reported that Trump owns millions in Apple stock, so he's unlikely to implement policies that may actually cause him to lose money, will he?)

Donald Trump has millions in Apple stock despite calling for its boycott

Not particularly.

Voter Turnout Data - United States Elections Project

Which makes it stranger that the Republicans hate the type-2 people and yet still get them to vote for the GOP in droves by promising to make it how it used to be. Except it will never happen because no company is going to open a new facility in a place where half the population have already moved out and no one else wants to move there because there is literally nothing left.

The GOP learnt an important lesson from the Swiftboating, the Democrats didn't. Lie as much as you like, enough people will believe it and no one takes the blame. Taking the high road doesn't get you votes any more. Disparaging your opponent while claiming that you are just talking honestly gets you far more.

A serious infrastructure program would create millions of jobs. There are thousands of dams and bridges in desperate need of repair or replacement. Tens of thousands of miles of half century old water mains that leak and also contaminate the water. Thousands of miles of natural gas mains equally as old and dangerous. An electricity grid that is a cluster f...k. Outdated sewage and water treatment plants. Thousands of miles of degraded roads. The list goes on. The jobs would not just be for the workers on such projects...but every item in the supply chain for all of that work..including equipment manufacturing (still done in the U.S.), trucks and vans..dump trucks..pavers..cranes. Not to mention engineers, draftsmen, technicians etc. Structural steel fabricators..cement manufacturers..gravel and sand etc. Then of course all of the other jobs created by that purchasing power and needs of that massive workforce. Let's not forget mass transit needs.

Infrastructure has been so neglected for decades that it has created an endless supply of job creating projects.

In 2013 it was estimated that there was 3.6 trillion in infrastructure need.

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org

See, that's the kind of thing I was thinking of. Not just fix a bridge here and there, but actually bring the infrastructure of the US out of the 1970s and into the modern world. A massive civil engineering project that will create jobs in a multitude of fields.

That's the goddamn American Dream right there.

I get your point about your votes. I just question why is it the Clinton or democratic party supporters seem to have such a hard time considering that many in the working class and lower income brackets are hurting and have lost confidence in the democrat party, and appear to avoid the issue and look for every other reason to explain why such people didn't vote for the democrats. I am only judging from where I lived and Trump supporters I spoke to but most simply have seen the continued decline in their economic status or those around them and voted accordingly.

It is sorely needed and the best investment that could be made. Problem is Republicans prefer tax cuts. Bush gave 3 trillion in tax cuts....which could have been spent on infrastructure

If the AVERAGE was $75k, and a lot of his supporters were out of work, that suggests a lot of his supporters were much higher - $150k. That would suggest senior management roles. Then again, from my old statistics classes, I recall that 'average' can be very misleading - a few millionaires or billionaires can really skew things. We need mean and standard deviation

It seems Trump and Sanders agree on such a plan. If I understand it correctly Sanders basically believes taxing the rich would pay for the plan he presented. Trump on the other hand I have yet to understand how he would pay for it. Unless both feel the plan itself would pay for itself through growth. But could anyone get the Republican Congress to agree to such a pan.

I agree , if such a plan is going to be done, may as well do it all the way !

So why is it that the democrats didn't improve their lives during the worst recession since the depression?

I think the question could be asked of both parties for the last 20 to 25 years. My curiosity is why the difficulties of millions are seemingly ignored by both parties because I read all these posts and yet the people I actually met had quite simple reasons for rolling the dice on Trump.

Invest in jobs, invest in the future, invest in America. Anyone who can make that promise and demonstrate how they can deliver on it would win any election.

That kind of thing needs tax to fund it but with the job creation and economic growth it would end up paying for itself.

We need to get off the track of 'taxing the rich' being used as if it means 'take all their money'. All it means is closing loopholes so everyone pays their fair share. 'The rich' usually benefit from a strong economy and there would be some element of it paying for itself after time, I feel. I can't say if anyone could get a Republican Congress to agree to it though.

And this election cycle, the Republicans have again stated their stance on massive tax cuts, which will increase the deficit further. Some people have floated the idea about private corporations 'bidding' on projects, and then being able to recoup the costs through fees, tolls, etc.

If you did a levelled payout across the entire United States population (including children), of a 3.6 trillion infrastructure fee package - that would be $11250 per person.

Assuming that the private corporations are looking to actually maximize their revenues on the projects, they'll find ways of minimizing expenses (which could limit job creation) and finding ways to build in specifications / conditions so that they can continue to make more money.

Let alone the political fight where people in California will be asked to pay for new infrastructure in Montana etc.

The only downside is that probably 75% of infrastructure work needed is supposed to be the responsibility of individual states or, gas pipelines for example, private enterprise. So the Federal government picking up the tab rewards states and companies that did not live up to their responsibilities. But that has to be ignored and the work done for the benefit of the country as a whole.

Opponents of the Keystone pipeline noted (accurately) that the employment claims were overblown because the jobs were temporary -- once the thing is built, the need for labor shrinks dramatically. The same thing is true of other infrastructure.

Many of these infrastructure needs are outside of the Rust Belt. (If anything, we should be diverting funds away from most of the worst corners of the Rust Belt to places where the money would be better spent.)

The unemployment rate is already below 5%. These people will have to move in order to get these jobs. DC Koop has devoted a great deal of energy telling you that white people should not be inconvenienced by such things.

So are we supposed to build bridges to Nowhere, Ohio in order to give them jobs within commuting distance? Since these guys apparently want to earn $30 per hour without going anywhere, that's the only option for serving that group.