President Trump

@therealdeal

But I wasn't talking about Trump politics, domestic or otherwise, or even him as a person. That was tangential to my gripe.

I asked @John3:16, whom I deeply respect, if the recent (last year) events made him abandon or reconsider his "selfish" (it was in jest, but still apt description of his point of view, as was confirmed later on) approach to Trump presidency.

I find it mind-boggling that people who supported Trump continue to do so in the face of so much abhorrent things that transpired, all for the price of somewhat improvement economy (which has been surging starting way deep into Obama's presidency, as economies wont to do after a downfall... so correlation vs. causation is there, especially if you start looking at specifics, like tariffs; which by all accounts are hurting the industries).

My basic question, it seems, boils down to -- "What has to happen for you to say: this is too much"?

John answered that pretty clearly. So... my mind is still boggled.

 

This is correlation, until proven otherwise. Which can't really be done, if I remember my economics 101.

Or worse, it is causation, but of the bad kind. For example, incredible corp tax cuts may have directly impacted Dow (most likely).

Did that have an impact on actual hoseholds? Show those numbers, then show the trend, then show the impact. How about production?

Judging economical impact based on such a macro measurements is really not a great idea.

Or are you a subscriber of trickle down economics theory?

We can probably dive into the rest of your numbers, but I don't care enough.

Especially since it has nothing to do with my point, which you addressed pretty unequivocally.

I feel bad for society.

 

Hitler was good for economy, for a period, as well. In fact, his emergence was a direct result of post-WWI economic and national crisis in Germany, brought upon themselves by their own actions. John, you can disregard all of this, as your position has been made clear.

For all the rest, to drive my point across... once more, as it, for some reason, gets twisted into a discussion whether or not Trump is good for economy and such.

Setup:

1. You are a supporter of a candidate named Bill
2. Candidate Bill wins and becomes the supreme leader
3. Under his rule you, and many others like you, flourish
4. Supreme leader also does a lot of other stuff, that doesn't impact you directly; ethically/morally/objectively bad

Question:

Where do you draw the line, beyond which you regret supporting Bill:

1. Bill disrespects nearly everyone who opposes him in any way, down to name calling and smear campaigns
2. Bill says demeaning stuff about women and is generally proven to be misogynistic human being
3. Bill makes fun of veterans, disabled, "not normal" and other groups
4. Bill refuses to condemn or refer to racist groups and acts
5. <insert your criteria>

Clarification:

Whether or not Bill actually committed all these acts have no bearing on your answer. The moral decision is detached from them. Much like "if my wife cheated on me, I would probably leave her" claim isn't conditional on her actually committing the act.

-------------------------------
For me...

I belong to a relatively well-off socioeconomic group. I have a profession that will probably remain relevant, as long as I don't stagnate in my knowledge, for the next 10 - 15 years, easily. I am handsomely paid for that. By many accounts our current prime minister contributed, in much the same manner, to the booming economy, while doing corporate tax cuts, getting breaks to 0.1%-ers and more. I, generally, benefit from some of these, and really suffer from others (pensions being a farce, due to various regulations that eventually lead to the government bonds devaluation and such...).

But I would NEVER vote for him because he sides with extreme religious nationalists (actual part of his coalition) that do not believe in:

1. gay or even non-religious marriage (and they make money off of marriage contracts and such)
2. do not believe in secular anything: marriage, burial, lifestyle

and because the corruption is amazingly apparent and unapologetic.

There... that's my line in the sand. At lease one of them.

 

I'm assuming he means "brush and bushes" instead of forests.

What people outside of SoCal don't understand is all of the hills of Southern California are basically just huge mounds of dirt. If you clear all the brush and bushes, there is nothing holding the dirt back when the rains come. Without the brush, massive mudslides occur. This happened in the Santa Barbara area last year. Soon after the fires devastated the area, months later, mudslides happened when the rains came without any vegetation to hold the dirt in place.

That's why fire departments only recommend clearing brush close to homes and structures. Not the entire hillside.

 

I pop into this thread every once in awhile to see who is really still defending the President. I do not knock anyone for what they believe or support. We all have our history that determines what matters to each of us. That being said, after his latest statements about California I am honestly shocked anyone can believe the President is about the people. As a Cali boy (like a lot here I am sure) I'm furious thinking that the President took this approach while people are dying, losing their homes and animals and have no idea when they will get back. I give a damn about politics. I care that the appointed officials give a damn about the people. Another disappointing moment in the Presidents run.

Simple rant over.

 

But the economy you guys...

 

I get that. Politicians have to care about their bottom line and those that voted for them. Every side is tilted and tainted one way or the other. I don't have to agree with the policies of those in office. I respect that they were legally voted into office. I want them to represent their values and if I disagree there are avenues for me to change that. As I watch the President it is obvious that his concern is strictly for one specific part of America. Sadly, he is doing a shell game and people are celebrating the "successes" of some of his so-called policies. In the end, I wouldn't want him to fail because I live in this country. In reality, all I see is a select few who will be happy with what he has done to out country when it is all said and done. That is tragic. Anyway, we shall see what he does next.

 

Oh, John, I am dead serious.

Don't take it the wrong way, but there are plenty of instances in history where someone was vulgar and brazen and rude...for some, but he served their purpose, while being an awful proposition for many many others.

You can probably name those... 1933 in Germany seems like a good year to refer to. As is 1924 in Russia.

Also... I pay taxes (including state and such) that amount to nearly 40% of my paycheck, before 401K and such. So... LOL @ yours.