Master Trump Thread

[Yatogami]

3 hours ago, iff said:

i don't see trump working on fixing the problems of the usa. instead he is focusing on his own identity politics (that of the ultra nationalism that he is promoting)

 

this isn't about fixing the problems but blaming others for them. as part of his ultra nationalism, he blames the media, muslims, immigrants, those who criticise him, the democrats,liberals, the left, china, europe, for any problems.

 

trump and his own identity politics (similar to putin, orban, the italian northern league) where it seems more important to have a group to blame for something than to work to a compromise.

Trump is fixing problems. He is doing it at the source too, and not trying to pander to anyone but "Americans" which includes everyone. Lowest unemployment for all groups, and you are saying he is doing nothing? Give me a break, you are denying reality. 

[Sally]

1 hour ago, Malum said:

Trump is fixing problems. He is doing it at the source too, and not trying to pander to anyone but "Americans" which includes everyone. Lowest unemployment for all groups, and you are saying he is doing nothing? Give me a break, you are denying reality. 

The latest thing that Trump has done is separeate small children -- sometimes babies -- from their parents.  Before the children are sent away to foster parents or institutions, sometimes across country from their parents, they are kept in large areas separate by wire fences, with metallic "blankets".  There have been huge demonstrations across the US in opposition to this cruelty.  Now he has said he will not separate the kids from their parents anymore, but the federal department that has been organizing the separation doesn't know where all the kids are now.  

 

You have absolutely no idea what's going on, Malum.  Opinions are ideally based on fact.  Yours are not.  

[iff]

6 hours ago, Malum said:

Trump is fixing problems. He is doing it at the source too, and not trying to pander to anyone but "Americans" which includes everyone. Lowest unemployment for all groups, and you are saying he is doing nothing? Give me a break, you are denying reality. 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/30/16945146/trump-economic-record

 

The growth of the us economy in trump's first 18 months seems to be a continuation of the growth in the last few years of Obama's presidency.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/12/trump-miracle-economy-credit/548882/

 

 How much of the performance of the stock market can be put down to policies of trump and aren't legacy performance of the 

economy booming in the last years of obama? Please provide evidence of any such performance that is directly result of trump.

 

What about the possible risk that trump tax cuts for trump will lead to the overheating of the economy and lead to higher inflation than should be?

 

A big concern is adding money to a booming economy is not good and leads to overheating.

 

Of course, the top 1% got their tax cuts, especially trump in the short term but will the decreasing of the tax rate be very detrimental to the us economy in the long term?

 

I know he is not doing nothing, He is doing something, he is personally enriching himself. This was his interest in cutting tax rates, not the long term health of the economy.

[daveb]

9 minutes ago, iff said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/12/trump-miracle-economy-credit/548882/

 

 How much of the performance of the stock market can be put down to policies of trump

That article is from 2017 when the stock market was still doing great, riding on Obama's policies. Since then the stock market (as I have seen personally in my 401k) has had lots of bad days (practically whenever Trump tweets about tariffs or NK or other things that impact foreign policy and/or trade and domestic economics)). So we can see the effect Trump has. Increasing the debt to the highest level ever (is that what they mean by "winning"?) can hardly help either. I don't know why anyone still believes the myth that Republicans are better for the economy than Democrats, when the evidence of decades of administrations from both sides of the aisle shows the opposite. One of many problems with Trump is how petty and personally vindictive he can be, with no apparent regard for how it actually affects the country or the citizenry. (another myth that too many people still believe is that he is a great businessman)

[Sally]

And soon, in order to pay for the giant tax breaks for corporations, the Republicans in Congress will attempt to eviscerate Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which Trump wants them to do.   So old people, sick  people, and poor people will all be thrown under the bus.   

[Yatogami]

8 hours ago, daveb said:

That article is from 2017 when the stock market was still doing great, riding on Obama's policies. Since then the stock market (as I have seen personally in my 401k) has had lots of bad days (practically whenever Trump tweets about tariffs or NK or other things that impact foreign policy and/or trade and domestic economics)). So we can see the effect Trump has. Increasing the debt to the highest level ever (is that what they mean by "winning"?) can hardly help either. I don't know why anyone still believes the myth that Republicans are better for the economy than Democrats, when the evidence of decades of administrations from both sides of the aisle shows the opposite. One of many problems with Trump is how petty and personally vindictive he can be, with no apparent regard for how it actually affects the country or the citizenry. (another myth that too many people still believe is that he is a great businessman)

Anyone with any knowledge on economics outside of google knows the debt numbers are meaningless. Got to spend money to make money. Many assets are also not in cash form.

 

8 hours ago, iff said:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/30/16945146/trump-economic-record

 

The growth of the us economy in trump's first 18 months seems to be a continuation of the growth in the last few years of Obama's presidency.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/12/trump-miracle-economy-credit/548882/

 

 How much of the performance of the stock market can be put down to policies of trump and aren't legacy performance of the 

economy booming in the last years of obama? Please provide evidence of any such performance that is directly result of trump.

 

What about the possible risk that trump tax cuts for trump will lead to the overheating of the economy and lead to higher inflation than should be?

 

A big concern is adding money to a booming economy is not good and leads to overheating.

 

Of course, the top 1% got their tax cuts, especially trump in the short term but will the decreasing of the tax rate be very detrimental to the us economy in the long term?

 

I know he is not doing nothing, He is doing something, he is personally enriching himself. This was his interest in cutting tax rates, not the long term health of the economy.

Giving Obama all the credit is just plain dishonest. Trump has done many deregulations, and job creation.

 

Also, the influence a President has on the economy is very small.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/11/presidents-do-not-control-economies-or-gdp/

 

So Trump and Obama could have not done anything, and it would have still increased GDP. But what Trump has done, is lower unemployment to record lows. This generates more currency in rotation, and that impacts the economy and boosted an already natural incline. Deregulation allows more money to be spent. Tariffs force that money to be spent in USA. Even if it causes some inflation. It stays in the economy and boosts GPD. As the trade wars peter out. This will eventually cause deflation.

 

http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/386482-its-the-trump-economy-stupid
 

 

 

[Homer]

7 hours ago, Sally said:

And soon, in order to pay for the giant tax breaks for corporations, the Republicans in Congress will attempt to eviscerate Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which Trump wants them to do.   So old people, sick  people, and poor people will all be thrown under the bus.   

Soon?

[Sally]

1 hour ago, Homer said:

Soon?

Very soon; within my lifetime which is decidedly not long.

[daveb]

I don't see what that article has to do with Sally's post. She was talking about the federal government and government programs. The article is about state government and local private economy.  (the only "connection" is that the latter situations are apparently not good for the disadvantaged people - getting "thrown under the bus" by Republican policies? So maybe that was your point?)

 

In any event, it has been and continues to be along term Republican/conservative goal to do away with programs like Social Security. Which they see as some sort of "entitlements", when in reality most people pay into during their entire working lives (except people who make over a certain amount have their payments into capped, so they pay a smaller percentage - it could be argued that what they can receive later on is capped, too, so it's fair - but that doesn't excuse their goal to cut back or eliminate it entirely). They have long been promoting the myth that it doesn't work, that it's going to run out of money and there's nothing they can do about that, and that it is some form of welfare and/or socialism/communism. And somehow have hoodwinked many poorer people to buy into their goal (I guess those people think that somehow they would get private accounts they could manage themselves and do better than the federally run program? People often living paycheck to paycheck, if they can even work?). A common thread among many Republicans and conservatives is the myth of laziness, that anyone who is disadvantaged is there because of some personal failing by choice and deserves to be there and that society/government shouldn't do anything to help them. There's a callous blindness. They don't seem to understand that things like helping others benefits society as a whole (or maybe they think charities and religious institutions can and should do it all?) You don't have to look far to see that doesn't fly..

[Yatogami]

24 minutes ago, daveb said:

I don't see what that article has to do with Sally's post. She was talking about the federal government and government programs. The article is about state government and local private economy.  (the only "connection" is that the latter situations are apparently not good for the disadvantaged people - getting "thrown under the bus" by Republican policies? So maybe that was your point?)

 

In any event, it has been and continues to be along term Republican/conservative goal to do away with programs like Social Security. Which they see as some sort of "entitlements", when in reality most people pay into during their entire working lives (except people who make over a certain amount have their payments into capped, so they pay a smaller percentage - it could be argued that what they can receive later on is capped, too, so it's fair - but that doesn't excuse their goal to cut back or eliminate it entirely). They have long been promoting the myth that it doesn't work, that it's going to run out of money and there's nothing they can do about that, and that it is some form of welfare and/or socialism/communism. And somehow have hoodwinked many poorer people to buy into their goal (I guess those people think that somehow they would get private accounts they could manage themselves and do better than the federally run program? People often living paycheck to paycheck, if they can even work?). A common thread among many Republicans and conservatives is the myth of laziness, that anyone who is disadvantaged is there because of some personal failing by choice and deserves to be there and that society/government shouldn't do anything to help them. There's a callous blindness. They don't seem to understand that things like helping others benefits society as a whole (or maybe they think charities and religious institutions can and should do it all?) You don't have to look far to see that doesn't fly..

The reason why they try to do away with "entitlements" is because they do not work, and if they collapse. No one gets anything. So it is better to reform them, or replace them. Than it is to keep throwing money at them. 

 

There will always be people who fall through the cracks. so the best course of action is try to help the majority of people that you can. Without collapsing the system. Democrats seem to think that we have infinite money, and we should help literally everyone. Anyone with any common sense, knows this is impossible. So don't try to so smugly make this out to be "Republicans are evil, and they wanna harm all these people intentionally" bullshit. 

 

Yes, private accounts do far far better than government accounts. I've seen people retire under SS and only get pennies. I seen people who retire with a great IRA or other accounts and set for a long time with surplus. It isn't hoodwinking people, they have seen the results themselves. They are teaching their kids to do it too. Since a lot of Republican beliefs are passed down through the generations, and they know it works. Ever notice how the average Republicans are usually the shining example of the "American dream"? There is a reason for that. They know what the hell they are doing with money. While you go look at the average Democrat, and find most are single or single parents. Living in poor conditions, and have to rely on handouts to survive. Really makes you think about why that is. Life choices perhaps? 

 

Some people are incredibly lazy. Some people refuse to buy a car, so they can get a better job. Some people like to eat expensive food and do not understand what sacrificing things are, for something else. They have it in their heads they can have it all. They think they can have a career and be a mother at the same time. Like no, it doesn't work like that. If you've not figured this out by the time your 30. You are either willfully ignorant, or living in your parents basement and shouldn't be telling anyone what to do with their life. 

[Yatogami]

 

This video sums up how Trump manipulates the media, and why he talks intentionally at the level of a 5th grader. 

[Sally]

On 7/4/2018 at 10:17 AM, Malum said:

The reason why they try to do away with "entitlements" is because they do not work

Social Security and Medicare (old age medical insurance) are not entitlements.  They are paid into over someone's working life.   Medicaid is an entitlement that is given to someone who's either handicapped enough they can't pay for medical insurance (my developmentally-disabled daughter has Medicaid) and very poor people, including children.  Perhaps you think those people should just die if they become ill.  Most Americans don't think that, which is why Medicaid still exists.  

[Yatogami]

7 hours ago, Sally said:

Social Security and Medicare (old age medical insurance) are not entitlements.  They are paid into over someone's working life.   Medicaid is an entitlement that is given to someone who's either handicapped enough they can't pay for medical insurance (my developmentally-disabled daughter has Medicaid) and very poor people, including children.  Perhaps you think those people should just die if they become ill.  Most Americans don't think that, which is why Medicaid still exists.  

Nice strawman you got there.

[Homer]

On 7/4/2018 at 7:17 PM, Malum said:

They think they can have a career and be a mother at the same time. Like no, it doesn't work like that.

Fun fact: I grew up just like that. With two parents both working shifts.

[Yatogami]

Just now, Homer said:

Fun fact: I grew up just like that. With two parents both working shifts.

Just because you grew up like that, doesn't mean you benefitted from having so little family time. For most people its detrimental.

 

My Dad worked 12 hour days, and my mom stayed at home. So our life was very stable and had lots of family time. If it wasn't for my mom being home, I would probably have not done as well in school and or life. I didn't have to bother them when they are tired and or frustraited with work.

 

 

[Homer]

Just now, Malum said:

Just because you grew up like that, doesn't mean you benefitted from having so little family time.

Where do you get that "little family time" bit from?

[Yatogami]

2 hours ago, Homer said:

Where do you get that "little family time" bit from?

Because you need a strong relationship with both parents to have a real healthy life, mostly emotionally. If both parents work, and youre a kid. You usually spend very little time with them. Youre at school and or daycare. You might only get an couple hours or so with one parent a day.

 

Ofc there are exceptions, but its very important for children and it affects their self esteem/confidence. Which can lead to disorders like anxiety if they don't get it. Why do you thing this generation is so racked with anxiety and depression?

[Homer]

6 minutes ago, Malum said:

Why do you thing this generation is so racked with anxiety and depression?

Lack of education. Lack of actual outside world experience (and the chance to make some). The food industry. "Safe spaces".

 

(tbc)

[daveb]

22 minutes ago, Malum said:

Why do you thing this generation is so racked with anxiety and depression?

What makes you think "this generation" is more racked with anxiety and depression than any other generation?

I guess because your father worked 12 hour days you think everyone was in that situation, so you assume Homer's mother was away 12 hours a day, too? Hence the "little family time"? And even people who had a stay at home mother usually spend several hours a day at least at school away from their mother.

[Sally]

46 minutes ago, Malum said:

Because you need a strong relationship with both parents to have a real healthy life, mostly emotionally. If both parents work, and youre a kid. You usually spend very little time with them. Youre at school and or daycare. You might only get an couple hours or so with one parent a day.

 

Ofc there are exceptions, but its very important for children and it affects their self esteem/confidence. Which can lead to disorders like anxiety if they don't get it. Why do you thing this generation is so racked with anxiety and depression?

I wonder how you could have a strong relationship with your father when he was working 12-hour days.  Sounds like you actually may have been raised by a single mother.  

[Homer]

Thing is that we all lived close to one another. Me, my sister and my parents. My Grandparents lived 6 miles away. Friends were nearby, my parents' commute to work was 30 minutes.

 

Nowadays, I live 120 miles away from home. My sister is at the other end of the country. My friends from school are scattered all over the country; the ones I met later on live in different parts of the world. We used to have a community, to be in touch with one another, to know what's going on in the lives of the people who were close to us. We came home every single day. It was politics, "flexibility of the workforce", being available and suitable for multinational companies that has done so much more harm to our family (and practically every family I know) than my parents working shifts could ever have. That is what tore families apart.

[Yatogami]

25 minutes ago, Sally said:

I wonder how you could have a strong relationship with your father when he was working 12-hour days.  Sounds like you actually may have been raised by a single mother.  

My father had 2 days off, and worked a seasonal job. So he was home all day for Autumn and Winter months, and or Rainy season.

[Yatogami]

1 hour ago, daveb said:

What makes you think "this generation" is more racked with anxiety and depression than any other generation?

I guess because your father worked 12 hour days you think everyone was in that situation, so you assume Homer's mother was away 12 hours a day, too? Hence the "little family time"? And even people who had a stay at home mother usually spend several hours a day at least at school away from their mother.

I have seen what this generation's families are like. Most of them have dysfunctional families. Or parents that know nothing about their child, or try to. They become depressed and indulge in online social medias for attention instead.

 

I wasn't so much assuming Homer's situation as I was explaining what could happen if you do not have enough meaningful family time in your life.

 

1 hour ago, Homer said:

Lack of education. Lack of actual outside world experience (and the chance to make some). The food industry. "Safe spaces".

 

(tbc)

This is in part with what I said. With no family time, you're less likely to do family activities because it is difficult to get people together. I don't think education plays a role in self-esteem. As you learn it when you're very young and it is what helps you succeed in education etc. to begin with. I also agree Safe spaces are bad for people.

 

27 minutes ago, Homer said:

Thing is that we all lived close to one another. Me, my sister and my parents. My Grandparents lived 6 miles away. Friends were nearby, my parents' commute to work was 30 minutes.

 

Nowadays, I live 120 miles away from home. My sister is at the other end of the country. My friends from school are scattered all over the country; the ones I met later on live in different parts of the world. We used to have a community, to be in touch with one another, to know what's going on in the lives of the people who were close to us. We came home every single day. It was politics, "flexibility of the workforce", being available and suitable for multinational companies that has done so much more harm to our family (and practically every family I know) than my parents working shifts could ever have. That is what tore families apart.

I think this kind of thing is pretty uncommon. My parents had no other relatives other than my grandma. My father's siblings had passed away, and my mom had only one sister who was kind of exiled due to being a drug addict. Most of my friends, come from bad families that don't talk to each other. 

 

I think income heavily affects the family structure. 

 

Do you care to elaborate on the "Flexibility of the workforce"? I am not sure what you mean.

[Homer]

3 minutes ago, Malum said:

I think this kind of thing is pretty uncommon.

Not over here. It's a very common experience. When I worked in an office for a while, I got to read loads of CVs. They all had the same structure. Families were being torn apart.

 

4 minutes ago, Malum said:

I think income heavily affects the family structure.  

In what way?

 

4 minutes ago, Malum said:

Do you care to elaborate on the "Flexibility of the workforce"? I am not sure what you mean.

Sure. You're expected to move wherever a job takes you. Especially when you're young and/or single or childfree. My sis left when she was 16 because it was nearly impossible to find work in the field she wanted to work in. I spent three years at the other end of the country and had more coworkers from my home district than there were "natives". Either you play the game of the companies sending you wherever they want or you're basically worthless.

[Yatogami]

3 minutes ago, Homer said:

Not over here. It's a very common experience. When I worked in an office for a while, I got to read loads of CVs. They all had the same structure. Families were being torn apart.

 

In what way?

 

Sure. You're expected to move wherever a job takes you. Especially when you're young and/or single or childfree. My sis left when she was 16 because it was nearly impossible to find work in the field she wanted to work in. I spent three years at the other end of the country and had more coworkers from my home district than there were "natives". Either you play the game of the companies sending you wherever they want or you're basically worthless.

May I ask where you live? I live in USA.

 

Income affects families, because if youre too poor to be independant etc. You're more likely to live with your folks or siblings etc. If you're well off. You might move far away. You catch my drift (I hope).

 

I see what you mean, and I think that culture varies quite a lot on location. My parents were quite a ways from my Grandma.

[Sally]

6 hours ago, Malum said:

My father had 2 days off, and worked a seasonal job. So he was home all day for Autumn and Winter months, and or Rainy season.

That was a relevant fact you didn't include in your earlier posts.

[Jusey1]

I don't get the extreme hatred for Donald Trump. While I do not support him being President did not vote for him, but I recognize him as the lesser evil between him and Hillary, so I am happy that he won between the two. This is mostly because Hillary Clinton has been proven to be a very corrupted and selfish individual who is using her position for personal goals, and some of the things she wanted to do as President had the potential to harm America as a whole and even have the potential of starting World War 3, which I want to avoid at all costs... While Trump is mostly just a business man who became a joke and then the President, and doesn't necessarily have mean intentions... At least so far. He is stupid at times though and has proven to be uninformed about a lot of things, but I wouldn't say he is flat-out BAD like Hillary is.

 

I also generally don't get the whole "racist/sexiest" thing that people put on Trump... From what I've seen of him, he isn't either. Just a stupid business man who shouldn't be President.

[daveb]

16 minutes ago, Jusey1 said:

has been proven to be a very corrupted and selfish individual who is using her position for personal goals, and some of the things she wanted to do as President had the potential to harm America as a whole and even have the potential of starting World War 3, which I want to avoid at all costs

That's pretty much how some people see Trump

[Sally]

45 minutes ago, Jusey1 said:

 This is mostly because Hillary Clinton has been proven to be a very corrupted and selfish individual who is using her position for personal goals, and some of the things she wanted to do as President had the potential to harm America as a whole and even have the potential of starting World War 3

You say she has been "proven" to be all that.   What is that proof?      

[Jusey1]

1 minute ago, Sally said:

You say she has been "proven" to be all that.   What is that proof?      

I didn't really want to get into a huge debate about this. However, I will say this. There as been number of times where Hillary has attempted to buy her way up toward becoming President, especially starting back at 2012, instead of earning it. On top of that, there is also the fact that the FBI was investigating her emails and what not during the election due to potential corruption issues, and this is mostly just the recent stuff about her attempting to become President. There has been many more instances throughout the years, including moments from back in the day when Bill Clinton was in office and she was using her position then for self-gain...

Sorry if I'm not the best person to talk about this subject. I was someone who voted for 3rd party as I hated both main candidates and I never truly went through everything. Just learn what I did based on evidence provided to me by friends and family.