Everything you didn't want to know about Trump and were not afraid to ask

[Tero]

Though it's possible to be a libertarian, vote for Trump and not be a racist, the rest were all these

It’s obvious that for most Trump voters he‘s a reflection of themselves. His narcissism, his entitlement, his resentment, his intransigence, and the juvenile way in which he conveys all of that. These human traits which are typically reviled, for a Trump voter are his assets because in him they see themselves and they get a kick out of imposing themselves on the rest of the world, regardless of the consequences to themselves or anyone else. In other words, it’s not just that they have no compunction pulling the lever for a supremely unqualified and undeserving con man, it’s the fact that this is precisely WHY they pulled the lever in the first place. History and future be damned. Like some pre-pubescent way at getting back at everyone else who dares to try to make the world a better place.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8 ... ump-voters

[Seabass]

I'm generally not a fan of dailykos, but I would have to agree with that article. Trump seems to be the first president to be elected out of sheer spite and with malicious intent. A big 'fuck you' to all those evil, educated liberals for wanting want blacks and gays and women to be treated like human beings.

Trump's victory was a big eye opener for me. Red America is fucked. I mean, I knew it was fucked before, I didn't realize just how fucked it truly is. I'm generally not one to feel disdain for people who are ignorant and poorly educated—people don't get to choose where and how they are born and raised—but these Trumpy fuckers have shown themselves to be not just stupid, but fucking malevolent as well.

[pErvinalia]

Australian assessment, so clearly wrong..

FactCheck: have the Trump tax cuts led to lower unemployment and higher wages?

Verdict

Minister for Finance Mathias Cormann’s statement that corporate tax cuts in the US had “led to stronger investment, stronger growth, lower unemployment rate and higher wages” is not supported by evidence.

Cormann pointed to US economic data from the second quarter of 2018 (shortly after the US corporate tax cuts were enacted) to support his statement.

Cormann correctly quoted the figures about GDP growth and the unemployment rate. His statement on wage growth is debatable, and there are qualifications to be made about his interpretation of the capital investment data.

But the simple observation that some US economic indicators improved in the second quarter of 2018 does not imply that those improvements were caused by the tax cuts.

Even if causation could be established, one quarter of data tells us very little about the effect of tax reform. It takes time for companies and workers to adjust to changed taxation environments. These adjustments happen progressively over time, and this can lead to significant differences in the short term and long term responses.

It’s worth noting that the improvement in economic conditions in the US started in mid-2016, around 18 months before the tax reform.

...

US wages growth

To support his statement about US wages growth, Cormann pointed to a Bloomberg article which drew on data from the US Bureau of Labour and Statistics Employment Cost Index. In the second quarter of 2018, this particular index did record its highest growth since mid-2008.

However, measures of “wages” differ depending on which parts of employees’ salaries are included, and which are excluded.

Another, and perhaps more useful, definition of wages is employees’ average hourly earnings, also reported in the table.

The picture emerging from this measure quite different. These figures show that employees’ average hourly earnings actually fell in the year to the second quarter of 2018.

This doesn’t support the conclusion that wage growth in the second quarter of 2018 was the “strongest it’s been in a very long time”.

[Joe]

Studying Economics in college proved useful in an unexpected way.

It showed me how little politicians know about the economy, and how often they lie about it.

[Animavore]

[pErvinalia]

They really are fucking losers. I wish we could ship these types of people to their own loser island.

[pErvinalia]

Although, I will say that I wouldn't be surprised to find this is just the left trolling the right..

[Seabass]

Nike apparently hired Colin Kaepernick as a spokesperson or spokesmodel or some shit, so naturally some Trumplodytes are destroying their own Nike clothing and shoes to own the libs. These idiots really are too stupid to comprehend how stupid they are.

Nike customers BURN and destroy clothes in protest of Colin Kaepernick becoming the face of their Just Do It campaign
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... paign.html

ETA: D'oh! Ani just beat me. This link has a few more examples of this idiocy...

[JimC]

Someone should make a poll thread about who detests Trump more. Contestants should be:

Ani
Seabass
Tero
Joe
Perv

[Hermit]

Someone should make a poll thread about who detests Trump more. Contestants should be:

Ani
Seabass
Tero
Joe
Perv

And on the other end of the scale:

Seth
Coito Two
Collector Leet
Dodo007
Tyrannical
Lozzer
Drewish
Warren Dew
devogue
Glaxative

[L'Emmerdeur]

'Clarify and enforce'; more winning.

'Immigrants, fearing Trump crackdown, drop out of nutrition programs'

Immigrants are turning down government help to buy infant formula and healthy food for their young children because they’re afraid the Trump administration could bar them from getting a green card if they take federal aid.

Local health providers say they’ve received panicked phone calls from both documented and undocumented immigrant families demanding to be dropped from the rolls of WIC, a federal nutrition program aimed at pregnant women and children, after news reports that the White House is potentially planning to deny legal status to immigrants who’ve used public benefits. Agencies in at least 18 states say they’ve seen drops of up to 20 percent in enrollment, and they attribute the change largely to fears about the immigration policy.

The Trump administration hasn’t officially put the policy in place yet, but even without a formal rule, families are already being scared away from using services, health providers say.

“It’s a stealth regulation,” said Kathleen Campbell Walker, an immigration attorney at Dickinson Wright in El Paso, Texas. “It doesn’t really exist, but it’s being applied subliminally.”

Health advocates say the policy change could put more babies who are U.S.-born citizens at risk of low birth weight and other problems — undermining public health while also potentially fueling higher health care costs at taxpayer expense. WIC — formally the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children — serves about half of all babies born in the U.S by providing vouchers or benefit cards so pregnant women and families with small children can buy staple foods and infant formula. The program is also designed to support women who are breastfeeding.

Because it benefits babies, the vast majority of whom are U.S.-born citizens, WIC is among the least politically controversial programs that the administration is said to be targeting in its crackdown.

...

Under a provision known as public charge, U.S. immigration law has for more than a century allowed officials to reject admission to the country on the grounds that potential immigrants or visitors might become overly reliant on the government. But until now, officials have looked narrowly at whether someone would need cash benefits such as welfare or long-term institutional care. Immigration hawks in the Trump administration are pushing to consider would-be immigrants’ use of a much broader array of services, including non-cash assistance like food stamps, Head Start, Medicaid and WIC, according to versions of the proposed rule that were obtained by news organizations earlier this year.

Undocumented immigrants do not qualify for most government aid programs, but such an expansion of public charge could apply to the whole family. In the past, if a mom was applying for a green card her own use of public benefits might be examined. Under the proposed change, her child’s enrollment in Medicaid or Head Start would weighed as a negative factor, even if that child is a U.S. citizen.

Trump administration officials have argued that they are simply trying to clarify and enforce current immigration law.

“The goal is not to reduce immigration or in some diabolical fashion shut the door on people, family-based immigration, anything like that,” said Francis Cissna, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, at the National Press Club earlier this month.

[Forty Two]

Low unemployment, low inflation, low interest rates, rising stock market, high worker participation rates, expanding industrial base, expanding business sector overall, reduced regulations, renegotiated trade deal with Mexico, lower taxes, no new wars and more peace talks .....

So he's (allegedly) making the trains run on time?

Oh, and interest rates just went up for the first time in about an epoch.

No, you gotta finish the thought to get the real message!

Well, it's not accurate to say rates went up for the first time in an epoch. in 2016, they were down to 0.25 which is pretty much effectively 0, and the lowest they go. They've been creeping up ever since then, both under Obama and under Trump. It's not great to have interest rates that low. Serves a purpose, but typically, they ought not be that low. There are also purposes for raising rates- higher returns to bank accounts, guard against inflation, increase lending, higher income for retirees (who tend to invest in CDs and guaranteed savings accounts), strengthens the dollar (as compared to other currencies - more purchasing power abroad), helps stocks trade more on fundamentals. Also if rates are going up, it tends to trigger potential homebuyers to get off the pot in order to take lower rates now instead of higher rates later.

..... but, the president is an uncouth cad who cheats on his wives and pays for nondisclosure agreements, and lacks grace, poise and overall presentation, the orange bastard with the funny hair.

I'll take that deal, any day of the week.

By that level of moral relativism, our friend must have worshiped Bill Clinton.

I voted for him in 1996, and I would again.
He was a solid president and he knew how to strike a deal. His rhetoric regarding immigration would have him strung up by the left-leaning crowd today as a racist and xenophobe. He was to blame for "ending welfare as we know it" which pissed off the more lefty Democrats at the time. His economic rhetoric was largely in line with the Chicago school. Not a perfect president, and a cad who took advantage of a 21 year old intern and splooged all over her in the oval office. But, he did his job.

By his measure, Clinton's record of scandals and accusations of sexual predation were a small price to pay for such a good economy.

By any measure, yes, in my view. His personal issues sucked, but certainly not an impeachable offense. Even the lying in a deposition, I think, doesn't warrant impeachment.

Imagine Trump saying this:



Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 - states that immigrants unlawfully present in the United States for 180 days but less than 365 days must remain outside the United States for three years unless they obtain a pardon. If they are in the United States for 365 days or more, they must stay outside the United States for ten years unless they obtain a waiver. If they return to the United States without the pardon, they may not apply for a waiver for a period of ten years. The IIRAIRA explicitly authorized construction of walls along the US-Mexico border and authorized the construction of a secondary layer of border fencing to buttress the already completed 14 mile primary fence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_I ... ct_of_1996

Congress passed it - but Bill Clinton signed it. He didn't veto it. He didn't let it pass into law without signature. He supported it in his public statements.

Clinton declared the "era of big government over." Legislative achievements included - the Defense of Marriage Act, welfare reform (end of welfare as we know it), massive trade deals like Nafta and Gatt (the Left resounding opposed both), financial and telecommunications deregulation, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which served as the basis for the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision.

The Cato Institute opined that Clinton was more "conservative" economically than GWBush. https://www.cato.org/publications/comme ... ative-bush

In less than two years, President Bush has presided over more government expansion than took place during eight years of Bill Clinton. For instance:

— The education bill expands federal involvement in education. The administration originally argued that the new spending was a necessary price to get vouchers and other reforms. Yet the final bill boosted spending and was stripped of almost all reform initiatives. And there is every reason to believe that this new spending will be counter-productive, like most other federal money spent on education in the past 40 years. Children and taxpayers are the big losers.

— The farm bill is best characterized as a bipartisan orgy of special interest politics. Making a mockery of the Freedom to Farm Act, the new legislation boosts farm spending to record levels. Old subsidies have been increased and new subsidies created. Perhaps worst of all, the administration no longer has the moral credibility to pressure the European Union to reform its socialized agricultural policies. Taxpayers and consumers are the big losers.

— The protectionist decisions on steel and lumber imports make free traders wish Bill Clinton were still president. These restrictions on world commerce have undermined the productivity of U.S. manufacturers by boosting input prices and creating massive ill will in the international community. American products already have been targeted for reciprocal treatment. Consumers and manufacturers are the big losers.

— The campaign finance law is an effort to protect the interests of incumbent politicians by limiting free speech rights during elections. The administration openly acknowledged that the legislation is unconstitutional, yet was unwilling to make a principled argument for the Bill of Rights and fair elections. Voters and the Constitution are the big losers.

— New health care entitlements are akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. Medicare and Medicaid already are consuming enormous resources, and the burden of these programs will become even larger when the baby boom generation retires. Adding a new prescription drug benefit will probably boost spending by $1 trillion over 10 years. A mandate for mental health coverage will drive up medical costs, making insurance too expensive for many more families.

Those policy decisions make government bigger and more expensive. They also slow the economy and hurt financial markets — read the headlines lately? For all his flaws, President Clinton’s major policy mistake was the 1993 tax increase. Other changes, such as the welfare reform bill, NAFTA, GATT, farm deregulation, telecommunications deregulation and financial services deregulation, moved policy in a market-oriented direction.

The Atlantic opined that the Democrats had become the Conservative party.... https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ty/496670/

By any reasonable definition, Democrats are now the more conservative of America’s two parties. They are more interested than Republicans in conserving America’s international relationships, cultural norms, and political and economic institutions as they are.

[Forty Two]

I'm generally not a fan of dailykos, but I would have to agree with that article. Trump seems to be the first president to be elected out of sheer spite and with malicious intent. A big 'fuck you' to all those evil, educated liberals for wanting want blacks and gays and women to be treated like human beings.

I think the spite portion is not about treatment as human beings, which most everyone agrees with except some fringe wackos. But, the absurd lengths the so-called "educated liberals" have taken their "social justice" narrative. When there is a daily drumbeat against "whiteness" and concepts like the "progressive stack" - microaggressions ("aggressions" that are hidden inside otherwise normal things - e.g. "hi guys.") - dopey bullshit where people "identify" as one of 872 "genders." The constant refrain of racist racist racist racist over things like "capitalism" (because it's inherently racist, white/male, and misogynistic), and illegal immigration (must be racist to oppose illegal immigration) - all white people are racist by definition - we live in some sort of "patriarchy" where white men have it easy and everyone else is oppressed.

That wasn't the entirety of the reason for voting for Trump - one of the main reasons was a response to the "establishment politicians" (most of whom did line up against Trump - recall the "never Trump" Republicans who went against in in favor of Hillary Clinton). It was the endless refrain of promises made, and then broken, and every politician, Democrat or Republican, seeming the same.

Trump cut through all that bullshit - he said "we're going to have borders, and we'll put up a wall, and if you come here illegally, get out and come back in through the front door." He has enacted policies to keep that promise. He said "we're subject to unfair trade deals, I'm getting rid of them, and we're going to renegotiate." He is keeping that promise. He said Jerusalem will be where our embassy is. He kept that promise. He said the Iran deal sucks, we're out - he kept that promise. He said he would talk to our enemies and try to strike deals and keep us out of new wars - he is keeping that promise (e.g. North Korea). He said the Paris Climate Accord is an economic boondoggle and we're out - he kept that promise. He promised removing unnecessary and burdensome regulations on business and industry - he kept that promise. He promised reducing taxes - he kept that promise (not just on the rich, but everyone). He said that he would help fix our infrastructure (he is keeping that promise with his infrastructure policy). He said he would pass the Keystone pipeline - he is keeping that promise. He said he would expand energy production - promise kept. He said he would bring manufacturing and business back - he has - and unemployment is at record lows (especially minority and female unemployment), and manufacturing is up. The economy is buzzing, and folks said he couldn't get the GDP up - but he kept that promise too.

When the main "protests" are all about "fascist! Racist! xenophobe! Homophobe! Islamaphobe! Transphobe!" Blah blah blah - when it's clear to those who support him that he is not those things - he just doesn't support the bullshit far left idiocy - then, that garbage just gets waved off. Nobody is convincing anyone with blue-haired shouting, or overturned cars and smashed windows, or bike locks to the head and bottles of piss thrown... etc.

Trump's victory was a big eye opener for me. Red America is fucked. I mean, I knew it was fucked before, I didn't realize just how fucked it truly is. I'm generally not one to feel disdain for people who are ignorant and poorly educated—people don't get to choose where and how they are born and raised—but these Trumpy fuckers have shown themselves to be not just stupid, but fucking malevolent as well.

And when the assumption is that those who support Trump are "poorly educated" and ignorant, stupid and malevolent, then you're not going to convince anyone. I understand that the misguided economic views of the far left are sincerely held, and held out of a sense of wanting to help people - however, they are wrong headed, and injurious to the very people the far left says they want to help. I don't think they are "malevolent" generally speaking. They're just wrong.

[Seabass]

I'm generally not a fan of dailykos, but I would have to agree with that article. Trump seems to be the first president to be elected out of sheer spite and with malicious intent. A big 'fuck you' to all those evil, educated liberals for wanting want blacks and gays and women to be treated like human beings.

I think the spite portion is not about treatment as human beings, which most everyone agrees with except some fringe wackos. But, the absurd lengths the so-called "educated liberals" have taken their "social justice" narrative. When there is a daily drumbeat against "whiteness" and concepts like the "progressive stack" - microaggressions ("aggressions" that are hidden inside otherwise normal things - e.g. "hi guys.") - dopey bullshit where people "identify" as one of 872 "genders." The constant refrain of racist racist racist racist over things like "capitalism" (because it's inherently racist, white/male, and misogynistic), and illegal immigration (must be racist to oppose illegal immigration) - all white people are racist by definition - we live in some sort of "patriarchy" where white men have it easy and everyone else is oppressed.

That wasn't the entirety of the reason for voting for Trump - one of the main reasons was a response to the "establishment politicians" (most of whom did line up against Trump - recall the "never Trump" Republicans who went against in in favor of Hillary Clinton). It was the endless refrain of promises made, and then broken, and every politician, Democrat or Republican, seeming the same.

Trump cut through all that bullshit - he said "we're going to have borders, and we'll put up a wall, and if you come here illegally, get out and come back in through the front door." He has enacted policies to keep that promise. He said "we're subject to unfair trade deals, I'm getting rid of them, and we're going to renegotiate." He is keeping that promise. He said Jerusalem will be where our embassy is. He kept that promise. He said the Iran deal sucks, we're out - he kept that promise. He said he would talk to our enemies and try to strike deals and keep us out of new wars - he is keeping that promise (e.g. North Korea). He said the Paris Climate Accord is an economic boondoggle and we're out - he kept that promise. He promised removing unnecessary and burdensome regulations on business and industry - he kept that promise. He promised reducing taxes - he kept that promise (not just on the rich, but everyone). He said that he would help fix our infrastructure (he is keeping that promise with his infrastructure policy). He said he would pass the Keystone pipeline - he is keeping that promise. He said he would expand energy production - promise kept. He said he would bring manufacturing and business back - he has - and unemployment is at record lows (especially minority and female unemployment), and manufacturing is up. The economy is buzzing, and folks said he couldn't get the GDP up - but he kept that promise too.

When the main "protests" are all about "fascist! Racist! xenophobe! Homophobe! Islamaphobe! Transphobe!" Blah blah blah - when it's clear to those who support him that he is not those things - he just doesn't support the bullshit far left idiocy - then, that garbage just gets waved off. Nobody is convincing anyone with blue-haired shouting, or overturned cars and smashed windows, or bike locks to the head and bottles of piss thrown... etc.

Trump's victory was a big eye opener for me. Red America is fucked. I mean, I knew it was fucked before, I didn't realize just how fucked it truly is. I'm generally not one to feel disdain for people who are ignorant and poorly educated—people don't get to choose where and how they are born and raised—but these Trumpy fuckers have shown themselves to be not just stupid, but fucking malevolent as well.

And when the assumption is that those who support Trump are "poorly educated" and ignorant, stupid and malevolent, then you're not going to convince anyone. I understand that the misguided economic views of the far left are sincerely held, and held out of a sense of wanting to help people - however, they are wrong headed, and injurious to the very people the far left says they want to help. I don't think they are "malevolent" generally speaking. They're just wrong.

Have you ever considered the possibility that maybe you're just a terrible person? I've never once seen you express any criticism, or anger, or frustration at any of the bigotry that exists in this country. But day, after day, you log in to this forum to rail against groups that fight against bigotry. What does that say about you? Or rather, since you seem incapable of self-examination, try to imagine how that looks to others. What kind of person has more of a problem with groups that fight against bigotry than the actual bigots?

[pErvinalia]

Low unemployment, low inflation, low interest rates, rising stock market, high worker participation rates, expanding industrial base, expanding business sector overall, reduced regulations, renegotiated trade deal with Mexico, lower taxes, no new wars and more peace talks .....

So he's (allegedly) making the trains run on time?

Oh, and interest rates just went up for the first time in about an epoch.

No, you gotta finish the thought to get the real message!

Well, it's not accurate to say rates went up for the first time in an epoch. in 2016, they were down to 0.25 which is pretty much effectively 0, and the lowest they go. They've been creeping up ever since then, both under Obama and under Trump.

You are right, I was thinking about Australia's rates. But as you can see, your comment that Trump has presided over low interest rates is ridiculous, as they've gone up multiple times since Trump has been in office.

And by the way, have the decency to actually reply directly to my posts, not via second hand quoting. If you generally don't want to interact with me then that's fine, just don't do it via a third party.