20% Tax on Items from Mexico to pay for wall...

[Chu Gai]

As Chuck Todd has said, the press never accurately portrayed just how much and with what intensity Clinton was despised.

 

[shadyJ]

Naive? Perhaps. I think of myself as having been beguiled and naive in 2008. As for people being hostile to a department's mission, perhaps it's because it their estimation, the department has long exceeded its reach and needs to be reigned in and refocused. Maybe in their opinion, the departments are bloated, inefficient, structured poorly, whatever. You can call it hostile but I don't see it that way.

I think you are falling into the same trap as Irv. You are projecting some kind of rational thinking on the president and his supporters that does not exist. You are trying to use logic to understand people who do not subscribe to logic, which will necessarily be futile. You think Trump or his team have some kind of coherent worldview that thinks the EPA or the department of education or the DOE or the FCC are over-stepping their mandate? That is wishful thinking. The only way to understand these people is to look at their actions through a prism of base negative emotions, like I said, cruelty, fear, and greed. There is nothing to suggest they are operating on some kind of intellectual structure beyond that.

 

[shadyJ]

It's funny, but that quote you chose is from a period of time when banks were ever more mixing intangibly secured investments with commerce, pushing for deregulation, an inflation of the stock market, and finally the crash of '29 and the Great Depression.

Fast forward to today, when somehow derivatives are still a thing, the Dow just topped 20K a few days ago, and Trump is pushing to roll back financial regulations, some of which were enacted to plug the dam that breached in 2008.

One editorial I read emphasized this paragraph from an AP story that I thought was pretty funny (in a dark way):
"According to one U.S. official, national security aides have sought information about Polish incursions in Belarus, an eyebrow-raising request because little evidence of such activities appears to exist. Poland is among the Eastern European nations worried about Trump's friendlier tone on Russia."

It doesn't get more generically fascist than inventing justification for aggression against Poland. It's almost a cliche. It's sad that the USA is resembling an axis power more than an allied power this time around. It is almost like the Obama adminstration was our Weimar era, which would naturally make Trump's reign...

I have always thought that the USA did not learn the lessons of fascism from history like Europe did because the USA did not suffer from fascism like Europe did. It may be that we have to suffer through a similar experience so the lesson will be sunk in, and that simply reading about it from afar is not enough.

 

[shadyJ]

"Nastiness" intrinsic in the Trump supporters? Are you kidding? Do you watch the news?

As long as we're quoting, I'll use this one for so many of the libs... "You can't handle the truth!". The "nastiness" I see every day on the news is from Dems, not Trump supporters. It is exactly why we won. And as long as you can't see it, we'll keep laughing and winning!

Hahahahahahaha!

By nastiness I mean the human effects of the proposed policies that Trumps supporters adhere to. I don't really care about all the name-calling, although it's true that some liberals can be extremely mean-spirited. However, let's not forget some of the unbelievably vile and racist things said about Barack and Michelle.

As for winning, it was not much of a win, and the future does not bode well for republican wins on a national scale. Trump won by an extremely slender margin in a handful of swing states against a weak Democratic opponent. His approval rating at the moment is very low, at a point in most presidential administrations when approval ratings are typically the highest, the so-called 'honeymoon' period. So it's bad now and it's all down-hill from here. And it gets better- many economists are expecting a cyclic recession within a couple years, regardless of who was elected president. What worried me was that if Clinton won, she would have taken the blame for the inevitable recession and been replaced by republicans as though their economic policies were somehow better. The same thing happened to Jimmy Carter and H.W. Bush. But now we will get to watch how Trump will deal with a recession, and the blame he will inevitably receive for it. Look how poorly he is handling things currently, and things are going relatively well for him; how do you think he will respond when social and economic conditions start going badly?

 

[Irvrobinson]

I think you are falling into the same trap as Irv. You are projecting some kind of rational thinking on the president and his supporters that does not exist.

You're just plain wrong. There is indeed a huge amount of waste and stupidity in many government agencies, like the DoE and the EPA, and appointing people who don't like the status quo *is* a strategy. You may not like it, but that's life. Even allowing more faith-based intrusion into the government is a strategy. Like or not, this is rational thinking, this is just rational thinking you don't agree with. For example, ridiculously complex environmental studies are so wasteful that hundreds of millions of dollars get spent on studies, and the result is zero shovel-ready infrastructure projects. You couldn't spend money on infrastructure projects for years, even if you wanted to. While I am not a Trump supporter, I do support the view that the Federal government needs a wide and deep clean-up, as do many regulations. Given even a modicum of common sense I could become a Republican. (Not that I see that coming any time soon.)

You're not part of the solution yet, shadyJ. It is thinking like yours that could win Trump a second term.

 

[lovinthehd]

I have talked to a lot of Trump voters lately, I think they're coming out of the closet, and they just don't care about the stuff above. None of them think Trump is stupid enough to risk the presidency over a financial conflict of interest, and they *want* DC shaken up. They want a federal hiring freeze. They want tough policies with adversaries (and certain allies too). They want cabinet members who think federal agencies need shaking up. They like and trust the fact that Trump talks and acts like they do, unscripted. They think the press is biased and sensationalist. (I do too, frankly.) I've listened to these same arguments over and over again; there's consistency to it. These voters are sick and tired of the way DC operates. They want it changed, even if it hurts. And they do think the US is taken advantage of, and they're tired of that too. Many Americans are afraid of Muslims, and they just want action. I'm surprised at who I hear admit that. It was Mr. New Deal himself who put Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps, so I don't think Trump's educated supporters necessarily see the Dems as any safer, freedom-wise. Frankly, I think these folks have some good points, though certainly not all. I just hope Trump doesn't backfire on them (and us with them).

Yeah one of my best friends is a huge supporter, although majority of my friends aren't.

I'm not against a shake up in the government. Trump is more destroying things, though, rather than working to repair them and I think we're going to end up on the short end of that stick. The wall is beyond stupid as was his immigration changes order (and what's the cost of his upcoming mass expulsion of "illegals"?). Bannon is completely unacceptable....the security council? What does this guy know? Maybe more than Trump but that's not saying much. Americans got scared of that horrible Bowling Green event I know....muslims and Kellyanne are scary.

I've spent much of my life working as a licensed US Customs broker, so very familiar with not only Customs as an entity, but also worked regularly with Fish & Wildlife, FDA, EPA, CPSC, DOT, FCC, USDA (and I'm probably forgetting a few)....all very much involved on imports depending on product due to a variety of laws and agreements. I never was a fan of many of the trade agreements nor was I a fan of giving column 1 duty status to China. A lot of the import rules have good reason to exist....the execution of enforcement can be lacking. I especially like he has had his own products made overseas rather than in the US and all of a sudden has seen the light.

As to my original post, answering highfigh, is it success or was he born too rich to fail? His track record for governing is what exactly? Trump University?

 

[shadyJ]

You're just plain wrong. This is indeed a huge amount of waste and stupidity in many government agencies, like the DoE and the EPA, and appointing people who don't like the status quo *is* a strategy. You may not like it, but that's life. Even allowing more faith-based intrusion into the government is a strategy. Like or not, this is rational thinking, this is just rational thinking you don't agree with. For example, ridiculously complex environmental studies are so wasteful that hundreds of millions of dollars get spent on studies, and the result is zero shovel-ready infrastructure projects. You couldn't spend money on infrastructure projects for years, even if you wanted to. While I am not a Trump supporter, I do support the view that the Federal government needs a wide and deep clean-up, as do many regulations. Given even a modicum of common sense I could become a Republican. (Not that I see that coming any time soon.)

You're not part of the solution yet, shadyJ. It is thinking like yours that could win Trump a second term.

I don't know the fine details of environmental impact studies, maybe they can be wasteful, but I would rather err on the side of being too protective of the environment than err on the side of not being protective enough. I am not knowledgeable enough about the subject to debate it beyond that, except to say its better not to err at all.

I don't think anything like what I say or think will have any effect on any election though. As I said, you are overstating and overthinking what motivates these people. Emotions are what drive decisions, not higher-cognitive abstract thinking. Logic is only used to rationalize decisions already made by emotion. If you want to win an election, give people a boogeyman worse than the other guy's boogeyman.

 

[ski2xblack]

First Blood for the good guys! Go Atlanta!

 

[lovinthehd]

Hey I'm recording!

 

[Chu Gai]

I think you are falling into the same trap as Irv. You are projecting some kind of rational thinking on the president and his supporters that does not exist. You are trying to use logic to understand people who do not subscribe to logic, which will necessarily be futile. You think Trump or his team have some kind of coherent worldview that thinks the EPA or the department of education or the DOE or the FCC are over-stepping their mandate? That is wishful thinking. The only way to understand these people is to look at their actions through a prism of base negative emotions, like I said, cruelty, fear, and greed. There is nothing to suggest they are operating on some kind of intellectual structure beyond that.

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps the actions of the current administration seem unclear, even contradictory with what was stated during the election, but will be effective. Either way only time will tell.

 

[Chu Gai]

First Blood for the good guys! Go Atlanta!

At least they won the popular vote.

 

[highfigh]

As for winning, it was not much of a win, and the future does not bode well for republican wins on a national scale. Trump won by an extremely slender margin in a handful of swing states against a weak Democratic opponent. His approval rating at the moment is very low, at a point in most presidential administrations when approval ratings are typically the highest, the so-called 'honeymoon' period. So it's bad now and it's all down-hill from here. And it gets better- many economists are expecting a cyclic recession within a couple years, regardless of who was elected president. What worried me was that if Clinton won, she would have taken the blame for the inevitable recession and been replaced by republicans as though their economic policies were somehow better. The same thing happened to Jimmy Carter and H.W. Bush. But now we will get to watch how Trump will deal with a recession, and the blame he will inevitably receive for it. Look how poorly he is handling things currently, and things are going relatively well for him; how do you think he will respond when social and economic conditions start going badly?

Trump won five states that had voted for Obama and if Clinton couldn't even win those, it was because she A) never went there and B) made it clear to them that she doesn't think they matter. Not a good way to run a race for POTUS, IMO.

Someone said "Trump is the only person who could lose to Clinton and Clinton is the only person who could lose to Trump".

Remember, Obama's popularity was extremely low and not far from where Trump is now- it seems that the thing that caused it to rise at the end of his second term is his lame duck status.

 

[highfigh]

At least they won the popular vote.

 

[highfigh]

Why is Trump being slammed for his stance on national security and immigration when Bill Clinton said this?

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4351026/clinton-1995-immigration-sotu

 

[Rickster71]

Why is Trump being slammed for his stance on national security and immigration when Bill Clinton said this?

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4351026/clinton-1995-immigration-sotu

I posted the same thing on page 1 post - 19 .... got nothing but crickets..
maybe you'll have better results

 

[Chu Gai]

To that all I can say is the US has a different makeup today,

 

[shadyJ]

Remember, Obama's popularity was extremely low and not far from where Trump is now- it seems that the thing that caused it to rise at the end of his second term is his lame duck status.

Obama was a relatively popular president. At his worst, approval ratings hovered in the low 40s. He started with well above 60% approval and left with nearly 60%. This is not bad, much better than W although not as good as Bill Clinton. At the moment Trump has about a 40% approval rating, and it is only going to trend downward. One winner in all of this is W Bush, since he knows he will no longer be the benchmark for poor leadership.

 

[KEW]

Remember, Obama's popularity was extremely low and not far from where Trump is now- it seems that the thing that caused it to rise at the end of his second term is his lame duck status.

No, the thing that made Obama's popularity rise at the end of his second term was being confronted by the election process and knowing we were going to get stuck with either Trump or Hilliary!

 

[KEW]

Why is Trump being slammed for his stance on national security and immigration when Bill Clinton said this?

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4351026/clinton-1995-immigration-sotu

In a word, implementation.

But you can also look at the emotion behind it. Trump claimed that Mexico is sending all of their rapists and worst criminals/murders here, as if illegal immigration was part of an evil plot being managed by Mexico. The main basis of this message was fear!
Clinton's message was an appeal to our sense of fairness.

However, I do believe when matters, just not the biggest factor.

 

[herbu]

let's not forget some of the unbelievably vile and racist things said about Barack and Michelle

OK... I thinking... trying to remember. Sorry, but I can't seem to remember any of the networks saying things like that. I can't remember the "protests" or riots or destruction either. The only thing I remember is how the networks did seem to seek out a few kooks who talked like that, and attribute their philosophy to everyone who didn't support B-HO. After all, if you didn't agree with every word he said, you had to be racist. Right? And sexist if you disagreed with Hillary.

It was not just Hillary who branded any conflicting opinion as "deplorable". The liberal machine has been doing it for years, while claiming to be so accepting and inclusive. And I'll say they did a magnificent job! They clearly convinced A LOT of people that anyone who doesn't agree with them is worse than wrong... they're evil and deplorable. That is what so many people voted against.

Do you really believe half the people in this country hate a whole race of people? Or a religion? Or a gender? Really?

Look how poorly he is handling things currently

On the contrary, I applaud his current actions. But then again, I'm a kook. An outlier. So don't you worry about people like me at the polls next time. There are only a few like me.