President Donald Trump

[In the Corn]

Wow, after how restrained and careful Obama has been in directly criticizing Trump, I'm surprised that now, finally, we see such a statement. To me, that it took this long speaks to how hard Obama has tried to respect the tradition of not telling the next guy how to do this job, and the fact that he finally caved into making such a statement speaks to how unprecedented this situation is. While I agree with the protocol of ex-presidents being careful about what they say about current presidents, I also think such a statement from Obama is long over due, and right on the money. It isn't supposed to work like this. A secret resistance inside the WH isn't supposed to be the check on the executive. It is supposed to be the things Trump so vehemently attacks--the other branches of government and the press. It isn't appropriate that people inside the admin are working against the President's agenda, and yet I still am happy they do that, given what Trump wants to do and who he is. The fact that Resistance is needed from within the executive branch, for the good our our country--the fact seems to not surprise many, but that is not how our government is supposed to work.

I think Obama's statement isn't so much about Trump as it is about the Republican Party as a whole. He's framing the Republican Party, and not just Trump, as out of control.

The biggest issue in our government today is Congress. They have abdicated their role for the past 20 years. Every since Clinton had Monica in the Oval Office, Congress has only been concerned with getting the other guy's leader and never working with someone outside the party.

[Sour Masher]

I think Obama's statement isn't so much about Trump as it is about the Republican Party as a whole. He's framing the Republican Party, and not just Trump, as out of control.

The biggest issue in our government today is Congress. They have abdicated their role for the past 20 years. Every since Clinton had Monica in the Oval Office, Congress has only been concerned with getting the other guy's leader and never working with someone outside the party.

Good point. I overlooked that obvious aspect of it. He was also admonishing Congress for not being the check it should be on the executive. Everything you say is totally accurate (well, accept for Congress being the biggest issue in our government today--I agree it was prior to 2016, and would be after Trump leaves office, but for now, he is the biggest problem). The way our government is supposed to function is with checks and balances, even when you are on the same "side" in terms of political party. But it hasn't been that way for a long time.

[In the Corn]

Good point. I overlooked that obvious aspect of it. He was also admonishing Congress for not being the check it should be on the executive. Everything you say is totally accurate (well, accept for Congress being the biggest issue in our government today--I agree it was prior to 2016, and would be after Trump leaves office, but for now, he is the biggest problem). The way our government is supposed to function is with checks and balances, even when you are on the same "side" in terms of political party. But it hasn't been that way for a long time.

Not to nit pick, but if Congress had been doing it's job for the last 20 years, we may never had gotten to Trump. I do agree, he is the biggest issue, currently.

[Sour Masher]

Not to nit pick, but if Congress had been doing it's job for the last 20 years, we may never had gotten to Trump. I do agree, he is the biggest issue, currently.

Yeah, I cannot argue with that. He is partially the fault of a dysfunctional, ultra-partisan Congress. I also blame the voters, who could have voted them out instead of voting him in--if they really wanted change, why keep voting in the same damn incumbents? Of course, the whole system is corrupt, with gerrymandering, campaign finance imbalances and the like. I really hope Trump's presidency will teach us all valuable lessons that make us revise all of this, but I very much doubt it.

[nots]

August wage growth highest since 2009.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/07/us-nonfarm-payrolls-aug-2018.html

[Sour Masher]

August wage growth highest since 2009.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/07/us-n...-aug-2018.html

Sincere questions: 1. Do you think we wouldn't have eventually pushed out of the recession to these numbers without Trump? 2. Do you have any concerns that the stimulating policies Trump has passed, including massive corporate tax cuts, deregulation of banking and environmental protections, and the trade war/tariffs will have long term negative consequences?

[nots]

I didn’t mention Trump. I, (as well as others), posted yesterday how disappointing it’s been to see wages stagnate for such a long period of time. I thought the article was timely and relevant, so I posted it. For the record, I am rooting for the economy to continue to flourish. I think the 2.9% increase is good news.
I have my reservations about answering your questions, but I guess I will play along.
1. Not sure what your asking here. The official end to the recession was in late 2009. (https://www.economist.com/united-sta...hen-did-it-end). The economy has slowly and steadily improved since then, though as noted, wages have lagged. The Obama Administration deserves credit for this improvement. The Trump Administration deserves credit for continuing (and escalating) it. I also believe the economy is cyclical—with an economy this large, there are going to be good times and growth and bad times of inflation or unemployment. I also believe the a President, regardless of party, gets a little too much credit or blame for the economy— kind of like a QB on a football team, so yes, even without Trump (or in spite of Trump for all lefty friends in here) I believe the economy would have at some point roared. That’s my best attempt at answering a question I don’t fully understand.
2. You are asking a (quasi) libertarian if I think tax cuts and deregulation is a good thing? Well, you’re not going to like this answer, lol. I think we are way over regulated, which adds to the bloat and ineffectiveness of the government. I think a lot more regulatory issues should be left to the states. I would not categorize the tax cuts as ‘massive’, so I will leave that part of the question alone. I do not think the trade war will have long term negative consequences (look at the auto deal with just got with Mexico) because I think it’s in the long term interest of China to work something out with the US. I do think there may be some short term consequences, but I think that could be a worthwhile price (given the current strength of the economy) to pay to get a rebalance with our trading partners. I will also admit that trade policy isn’t a strong suit of mine, so I could be off. I am curious to see what happens so while I will stop short of endorsing the move, I am not going to spout off against it.
These are my opinions and please remember you asked for them.

[Sour Masher]

I did ask, and thanks for answering them nots.

I was trying to determine why you were engaging in these economic issues in this thread rather than the ones focused on economic issues. I was trying to figure out if it was because you think the positive things you were referencing were directly related to Trump's policies specifically, and these positive facts about the economy (which I agree, is bigger than any president, and they often get more credit or blame then they deserve) were a way for you to tout pros for Trump's admin among the sea of negativity about him in this thread. In the context of this thread, that is what it seemed like.

Your response seems to make it clear that you are in favor of the tax cuts and deregulation efforts he has made. I understand that perspective, and, in this thread at least, I'll refrain from respectfully disagreeing with it (to a degree, anyway, and mostly about the type of tax cuts and the types of deregulations this admin has rolled out, rather than the general premise that we have too many taxes and regulations). However, I will continue to maintain that those things, minus the trade war, minus the vitriol, minus the embarrassing behavior, minus the petulant tantrums, etc, etc, etc, would have been implemented by just about any libertarian or GOP candidate. While I enjoy your perspective and almost all others in other threads on many issues, I'm pretty one note in this thread--for me it is a place for me to vent about all things I hate about his presidency, and to try to understand those who think Trump is a good president, and try to convince them otherwise. So, in the context of the discussions about Trump here, I was just trying to clarify if you were getting sick of all the negativity about Trump and wanted to tout some of his accomplishments.

If that were the case, I'd know to respond by repeating my claims that no matter what one thinks of some of his policies, I do not think the totality of Trump's presidency is defensible. One may agree with some of the things that he does, and I don't want to argue against folks that do like some of the things he has done, but I'm willing to argue with anyone who believes his implementing policies they agree with is enough to want this man to continue to be our leader.

[Judge Jude]

"I also believe the economy is cyclical—with an economy this large, there are going to be good times and growth and bad times of inflation or unemployment. I also believe the a President, regardless of party, gets a little too much credit or blame for the economy— kind of like a QB on a football team"

I have been saying this for decades. partisans in both parties have passionately believed that "their guy" saves the economy when things go well - but downplay the connection it doesn't.

maybe the state of this economy under a guy like Trump can open a lot of eyes at how ridiculous the beloved "my President so-and-so created x million jobs in this term" argument is.

the ironic part is that the country was founded on the notion that we didn't WANT one man to have such control. yet once a guy a voter is fond of is in office, that goes out the window.

[nots]

Perfectly fine to vent—I loathe his comportment, his Twitter fingers, his petulance, his punching down etc, etc. too. I just happen to think the economy is doing pretty well (especially compared to where it’s been since late 2007 or so) and a lot of the economic criticism in here is more based on partisan dislike than on actual performance so from time to time I mention it.
I also agree that any other Republican would be doing more less the same thing policy wise however, none of those Republicans would have won Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The GOP wound up making a deal with the devil (perhaps unwittingly) and now they have to navigate his crass behaviors. As a libertarian who has problems with both parties, I will confess that the whole thing is fascinating to watch. I do wish there were more Trump supporters (or at least Republicans) that posted in here to get their take on things. I especially wish Chance would pop in more often.

[Sour Masher]

I do wish there were more Trump supporters (or at least Republicans) that posted in here to get their take on things. I especially wish Chance would pop in more often.

Yeah, Chance is one of the few Trump supporters around here, and he is a smart guy, so him posting more would be interesting. However, my theory on that (maybe this will bait him to respond) is that since he is a smart guy, he picks his spots, and there are not many spots one can defend Trump on. Chance has, on occasion, chimed in about SC picks, or the economy, but he has, wisely, I think, refrained from answering any of the criticisms of Trump for courting white nationalists, or for his most viscous attacks on the other branches of government, including members of his own tribe (if you really think he is a Republican and not a Trumplican, first, last, and always) like Sessions, for daring to do his job, rather than using his position to attack only Trump's political enemies.

Perhaps one safer topic of discussion are his, and any other Trump fan's, response to Woodward's book, the resistance within the WH against what the claim are Trump's most base, reckless, and dangerous instincts, and his claims that they amount to treason. Do any of you agree that the person who wrote the Op-Ed is a traitor (and implied in that is that he should be put to death)? Do you agree that the DOJ should be so wantonly weaponized as a tool to attack the president's enemies, and that the president, and his allies, should be free from scrutiny?

I'd like to get pro-Trump perspectives on everything mentioned above.

[onejayhawk]

Yeah, Chance is one of the few Trump supporters around here, and he is a smart guy, so him posting more would be interesting. However, my theory on that (maybe this will bait him to respond) is that since he is a smart guy, he picks his spots, and there are not many spots one can defend Trump on. Chance has, on occasion, chimed in about SC picks, or the economy, but he has, wisely, I think, refrained from answering any of the criticisms of Trump for courting white nationalists, or for his most viscous attacks on the other branches of government, including members of his own tribe (if you really think he is a Republican and not a Trumplican, first, last, and always) like Sessions, for daring to do his job, rather than using his position to attack only Trump's political enemies.

Perhaps one safer topic of discussion are his, and any other Trump fan's, response to Woodward's book, the resistance within the WH against what the claim are Trump's most base, reckless, and dangerous instincts, and his claims that they amount to treason. Do any of you agree that the person who wrote the Op-Ed is a traitor (and implied in that is that he should be put to death)? Do you agree that the DOJ should be so wantonly weaponized as a tool to attack the president's enemies, and that the president, and his allies, should be free from scrutiny?

I'd like to get pro-Trump perspectives on everything mentioned above.

Trump never courted white nationalists. That's political spin.

Trump courted hourly-wage workers, who happen to be traditional Democratic voters. Note that he didn't just court the whites. He did better than Romney with blacks (not surprising given their devotion to Obama) and Hispanics. Democrats expected to do much better with Hispanics, especially in Florida and border states.

J

[Sour Masher]

Trump never courted white nationalists. That's political spin.

J

I'll give this another go, I guess, with the hope you'll give a direct and clear answer--you seem to have been in the mood to do that lately, so here it goes...

How the heck can you actually believe that?! I'd bring up the many dozens of examples of Trump playing identity politics (something i know you and many on the right hate when dems do, but never seem to mind when repubs do), but I suspect you are aware of all the times he has done this, so I ask again, how can you not see that Trump is a fear-monger, blasting hyperbolic statements about crime, immigrants, minorities--all that are other, different, outside, the WASP standards that are the implicit heart of his call to MAGA? I suspect if I list 50 things here, one or two might get cherry picked, so I'll start with a simple one that predates his presidency, but, arguably, was the foundation of his rise--his birtherism.

So, lets start simple with that--please explain to me, clearly, why Donald Trump cared so much about Barrack Obama's birth certificate? On what grounds did he question Obama's legitimacy to be president? Why did he so often suggest that Obama didn't belong in the White House, that he was not "one of us?" Why did it even matter if Obama was born in Hawaii, which he was, when his citizenship status, even if he were born outside of the US, would have been no different from Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada? Obama was the sixth president to only have one parent be a citizen, so it was established law that his mother's citizenship qualified him as a citizen, if his parentage is the angle you want to take. What are your thoughts on why Trump spent so much time on that issue, when, as I've laid it, none of it was based on facts or legal precedents. All of it was one big dog whistle to people who felt Obama did not belong in the WHITE House. What other interpretation do you clearly have of Trump's obsession with this issue?

[Sour Masher]

While I have you in a responsive mood, I cannot help but also ask you, or Chance, or anyone else who wants to defend Trump from charges of being a racist and playing to racists--if Trump doesn't dog whistle white hate groups, why do they hear that whistle so loudly? I don't recall Reagan or the Bushes getting the full-throated endorsements of the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and white militia groups. I don't recall racists jizzing themselves with joy when those men were elected, like they did when Trump won. I don't recall them claiming the election of those men were victories for white power movements in this country. I don't recall them expressing with glee that we finally have a man in office who will keep out the invading hoard of dark people, the rapists, the bad hombres, the aids-infested peoples from shithole countries coming in to take good white folks' jobs, rape white women, kill white children. But they say such things about Trump. If Trump speaks and acts so innocently, so very much like those who came before him, why has he been so singularly embraced by these groups?

And please don't say we should not blame someone for their followers. I've very clearly laid out that Trump has outspoken support from white hate groups in number and volume that is unprecedented in recent history. I'm not talking about some random fanboy killing in the name of Jodi Foster. I'm talking about the clear, purposeful courtship of masses of like-minded people.

ETA: Don't you think something is up when so many people like that love your guy? Doesn't it give you pause? If you are at a rally in support of the Confederate Flag and/or Robert E Lee statues, on the grounds of supporting cultural pride and history and not hate (giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, this hypothetical person is one of the supposed "good people" Trump referenced), the moment you are surrounded by skin heads chanting hate, and angry men in grand wizard KKK robes, I'd think you'd realize, you know what, I do not want to be a part of this group. My thing is different, and I cannot support this thing it has become. That is what I continue to hope at least some Trump supporters will do before 2020.

[DMT]

While I have you in a responsive mood, I cannot help but also ask you, or Chance, or anyone else who wants to defend Trump from charges of being a racist and playing to racists--if Trump doesn't dog whistle white hate groups, why do they hear that whistle so loudly? I don't recall Reagan or the Bushes getting the full-throated endorsements of the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and white militia groups. I don't recall racists jizzing themselves with joy when those men were elected, like they did when Trump won. I don't recall them claiming the election of those men were victories for white power movements in this country. I don't recall them expressing with glee that we finally have a man in office who will keep out the invading hoard of dark people, the rapists, the bad hombres, the aids-infested peoples from shithole countries coming in to take good white folks' jobs, rape white women, kill white children. But they say such things about Trump. If Trump speaks and acts so innocently, so very much like those who came before him, why has he been so singularly embraced by these groups?

And please don't say we should not blame someone for their followers. I've very clearly laid out that Trump has outspoken support from white hate groups in number and volume that is unprecedented in recent history. I'm not talking about some random fanboy killing in the name of Jodi Foster. I'm talking about the clear, purposeful courtship of masses of like-minded people.

Dude, you're wasting your time. Steve Bannon claims he's not an "elite" while staying in $1400/night room. Trump is a "self-made man" despite being given millions by his daddy. They simply aren't going to let you pin them down with facts.