President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Goatnapper'96]

The markets have responded positively to exactly one thing, which is Trump removing many Obama-instituted regulations as well as removing the fear of future unknown regulations companies lived under with Obama.

The worry I have is that if Trump can somehow push through and implement his more radical anti-trade and "slam the country's doors the hell shut" anti-immigration ideas, that it will be very harmful to the markets and the economy. Ironically, in my opinion, his success in getting these ideas passed would end up being the one thing that would ultimately cause his supporters to turn on him as the negative results would hurt his base the most.

Scrolling to the bottom of this page is heinous so I am adding this post to expedite the birth of page 185 and some salvation from these graphs.

[BlueK]

Scrolling to the bottom of this page is heinous so I am adding this post to expedite the birth of page 185 and some salvation from these graphs.

Good thinking.

[falafel]

Good thinking.

I wonder how many replies it will take.

[Pelado]

I wonder how many replies it will take.

Too many.

[Moliere]

Hey, I told og to go look them up himself. He apparently doesn’t know how to since he kept asking for evidence, so I had to post them. Sorry, not sorry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Goatnapper'96]

Too many.

Similar to starfish it matters to this one!

[Goatnapper'96]

Hey, I told og to go look them up himself. He apparently doesn’t know how to since he kept asking for evidence, so I had to post them. Sorry, not sorry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't apologize get busy making CS great again!

[BlueK]

I found this article to be a pretty good summary of how the GOP is trying to kill itself right now.

A few excerpts:
[The Republicans] are beginning to tear themselves apart over the question of who is to blame for their current difficulties, with one side saying it's the fault of a feckless establishment that is insufficiently loyal to President Trump, and the other side saying — mostly sotto voce, but occasionally out loud — that the responsibility lies with Trump himself.

If the president was right in his repeated insistence that his administration has been a smashing success, there wouldn't be anything to fight about. But in truth, things could hardly be worse: No major legislation has been passed, the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act was a spectacular failure, Trump's approval ratings are abysmal and a majority of Americans say he's not fit to be president...

All of which leads to dissension from within, as White House staff rush to tell reporters that the president is an infantile rage-monster whom they have to trick into not burning down the world. When Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) expressed his concerns about Trump's erratic behavior, none of his colleagues came out to contradict him and say that in fact Trump is a wise and careful leader who is performing his duties successfully, no doubt because Corker was only saying publicly what the rest of them say privately.

Stephen Bannon, who left the White House and declared that he'd be supporting the Trump agenda (whatever that is) from the outside — has decided that means condemning Republicans. "We are declaring war on the Republican establishment that does not back the agenda that Donald Trump ran on," Bannon recently told Sean Hannity, adding that "there's a coalition coming together that's gonna challenge every Republican [Senate] incumbent except for Ted Cruz."

Both parts of that plan raise questions about what kind of crusade this is. First, among the Republicans up for re-election are many who have been completely loyal to Trump, and second, why exempt Ted Cruz from the target list? The only logical explanation is that Cruz is a favorite of hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, who are Bannon's patrons and the ones likely to fund this effort.

Anyway, it goes on to talk about how it seems Bannon's only real objective is to blow things up for the hell of it. Then it goes on to talk about how even the tax cut probably is unlikely to pass:

Bloomberg News reported this week that while the White House had been saying for some time they wanted to eliminate the deduction for state and local taxes, Trump "grew angry when he learned that the change would hurt some middle-income taxpayers." In other words — and this should surprise no one — he has little idea what's in his own tax plan. There's no reason to think that as things move along Trump will be any more up on the details, which means he'll be a force of chaos and uncertainty. And the fact that the White House has come up with a plan that would increase taxes for many people could wind up giving some members of Congress pause.

http://theweek.com/articles/730474/republican-civil-war-spreading

[old_gregg]

Hey, I told og to go look them up himself. He apparently doesn’t know how to since he kept asking for evidence, so I had to post them. Sorry, not sorry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

really missing the point here, duder

[cowboy]

The markets have responded positively to exactly one thing, which is Trump removing many Obama-instituted regulations as well as removing the fear of future unknown regulations companies lived under with Obama.

The worry I have is that if Trump can somehow push through and implement his more radical anti-trade and "slam the country's doors the hell shut" anti-immigration ideas, that it will be very harmful to the markets and the economy. Ironically, in my opinion, his success in getting these ideas passed would end up being the one thing that would ultimately cause his supporters to turn on him as the negative results would hurt his base the most.

I agree with this. If there is anything positive about the Trump presidency it is the rollback of some of the Obama regulations. Obama's climate crusade was particularly damaging, as none of his actions would significantly alter the course of climate change but they all came with enormous economic price tags.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I agree with this. If there is anything positive about the Trump presidency it is the rollback of some of the Obama regulations. Obama's climate crusade was particularly damaging, as none of his actions would significantly alter the course of climate change but they all came with enormous economic price tags.

This makes some sense to me (always open to further correction), but why can't Trump and the GOP do a better job in explaining this? Instead, with a lot of help from the left, Trump and the right are seen as climate change deniers (indeed, many are, but certainly not many, even most, on the right), blaming China for the hoax, etc. Why not acknowledge that climate change is very real and action needs to be taken, but that so many of the actions taken or proposed are ineffective or even counterproductive?

[BlueK]

This makes some sense to me (always open to further correction), but why can't Trump and the GOP do a better job in explaining this? Instead, with a lot of help from the left, Trump and the right are seen as climate change deniers (indeed, many are, but certainly not many, even most, on the right), blaming China for the hoax, etc. Why not acknowledge that climate change is very real and action needs to be taken, but that so many of the actions taken or proposed are ineffective or even counterproductive?

In the current toxic environment, rational, level-headed arguments are seen as weak or as not riling up the rabble enough. Plus, Trump doesn't understand them anyway. So they don't use them. Much easier to get Butch or Bubba to respond to the argument that Obama pushed the agenda of climate change because he is an evil man bent on destroying the world.

I've been watching Trump's approval numbers a lot, and the funny thing is that even though they've been dismal for his whole presidency, there was one time in the middle of September when they made a sudden dramatic improvement. So what happened there? Well, that was the time that Trump invited "Chuck" and "Nancy" into his office supposedly to make a deal on not closing the government and with the dreamers that would not include a wall. Naturally, both extremes (but mostly the Bannonite faction of the GOP) screamed bloody murder and Trump went back to getting bogged down in his usual crap again. I think he would have kept improving his numbers had he continued with a more conciliatory compromising approach on things rather than retreating back to the extremes.

I blame gerrymandering.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...oval-6179.html

[Walter Sobchak]

FIFY

I found this article to be a pretty good summary of how the Democrats killed themselves.

A few excerpts:
[The Democrats] are tearing themselves apart over the question of who is to blame for their current difficulties, with one side saying it's the fault of the feckless Bernie Bros that are insufficiently loyal to Ms. Clinton, and the other side saying — mostly sotto voce, but occasionally out loud — that the responsibility lies with Clinton herself.

[cowboy]

This makes some sense to me (always open to further correction), but why can't Trump and the GOP do a better job in explaining this? Instead, with a lot of help from the left, Trump and the right are seen as climate change deniers (indeed, many are, but certainly not many, even most, on the right), blaming China for the hoax, etc. Why not acknowledge that climate change is very real and action needs to be taken, but that so many of the actions taken or proposed are ineffective or even counterproductive?

I've think this issue is complex enough that few people, regardless of their position on the political spectrum, take time to understand the problem itself and the impact of any proposed remedies. Consequently, there are people entrenched on both sides of the debate, completely ignorant of the science and math behind the problem, who will not change their opinion regardless of what they are told.

One of the first thing business students learn in marketing classes is that the most expensive and least effective ad campaign is one of education. Sure, red meat has nutritional benefits, but showing people having fun in a backyard barbecue with numerous shots of a juicy ribeye makes more people want to buy beef than telling them how much iron and protein they are getting. The same goes with politics. Politicians could spend time understanding climate change science, doing cost benefit analysis on various solutions, and then proposing legislation, but that requires work and also puts the public to sleep. It's much easier to stir up anxiety so the public comes running to the politicians expecting protection from a boogeyman.

Thus politicians use fear to convince the electorate that they are the only thing standing between the people and the certain destruction that the other side will bring if they come to power. The media are complicit in this, and carry the message. The result is a group of people who think the direction of the climate can be changed by forcing people to put additives in their gas tank and erecting windmills in Oklahoma, and that we will all die in a global convection oven without a president who makes these laws a priority. On the other side, a group of equally ignorant people think climate change is an elaborate scientific hoax, that the world isn't warming, and scientists have created this crisis so they can get more research funding.

Preponderance of scientific evidence clearly shows the world is warming, that it is likely caused by carbon emission, and that there is really nothing we can do to stop it in our lifetime. My personal opinion is that our best course of action is to pour money into researching ways to deal with the likely effects of changing climates and cost-effective ways to reduce emissions long-term. Ironically, the best way to accomplish this is to grow the economy so tax revenue will grow, and one way that is rapidly and effectively achieved is by deregulating our energy industry, which has enormous potential as an economic driver.

It's remarkable that leaders on both sides have become so effective with their message that otherwise educated and intelligent people, including politicians themselves, belong to each radical end of the spectrum. Even among those who don't hold a radical opinion, the prevailing thought is that the other side is full of idiots. This is true of all issues, and I think it poses a significant barrier to an meaningful legislative progress in any area.

Ultimately, the real truth is that all issues are complex, and very few people in the general public understand, let alone have and informed opinion on how to deal with the climate, what drives the economy, what is making health care costs increase, how to make education better, how to solve multi-generational poverty in certain demographics, etc. Instead, people propose and support legislation that either addresses the wrong problem or has no meaningful effect on the target problem, and is often counter-productive. And with that, I've explained my cynical view on the value of any rule or legislation that comes from our federal government.

[Goatnapper'96]

I've think this issue is complex enough that few people, regardless of their position on the political spectrum, take time to understand the problem itself and the impact of any proposed remedies. Consequently, there are people entrenched on both sides of the debate, completely ignorant of the science and math behind the problem, who will not change their opinion regardless of what they are told.

One of the first thing business students learn in marketing classes is that the most expensive and least effective ad campaign is one of education. Sure, red meat has nutritional benefits, but showing people having fun in a backyard barbecue with numerous shots of a juicy ribeye makes more people want to buy beef than telling them how much iron and protein they are getting. The same goes with politics. Politicians could spend time understanding climate change science, doing cost benefit analysis on various solutions, and then proposing legislation, but that requires work and also puts the public to sleep. It's much easier to stir up anxiety so the public comes running to the politicians expecting protection from a boogeyman.

Thus politicians use fear to convince the electorate that they are the only thing standing between the people and the certain destruction that the other side will bring if they come to power. The media are complicit in this, and carry the message. The result is a group of people who think the direction of the climate can be changed by forcing people to put additives in their gas tank and erecting windmills in Oklahoma, and that we will all die in a global convection oven without a president who makes these laws a priority. On the other side, a group of equally ignorant people think climate change is an elaborate scientific hoax, that the world isn't warming, and scientists have created this crisis so they can get more research funding.

Preponderance of scientific evidence clearly shows the world is warming, that it is likely caused by carbon emission, and that there is really nothing we can do to stop it in our lifetime. My personal opinion is that our best course of action is to pour money into researching ways to deal with the likely effects of changing climates and cost-effective ways to reduce emissions long-term. Ironically, the best way to accomplish this is to grow the economy so tax revenue will grow, and one way that is rapidly and effectively achieved is by deregulating our energy industry, which has enormous potential as an economic driver.

It's remarkable that leaders on both sides have become so effective with their message that otherwise educated and intelligent people, including politicians themselves, belong to each radical end of the spectrum. Even among those who don't hold a radical opinion, the prevailing thought is that the other side is full of idiots. This is true of all issues, and I think it poses a significant barrier to an meaningful legislative progress in any area.

Ultimately, the real truth is that all issues are complex, and very few people in the general public understand, let alone have and informed opinion on how to deal with the climate, what drives the economy, what is making health care costs increase, how to make education better, how to solve multi-generational poverty in certain demographics, etc. Instead, people propose and support legislation that either addresses the wrong problem or has no meaningful effect on the target problem, and is often counter-productive. And with that, I've explained my cynical view on the value of any rule or legislation that comes from our federal government.

That is one steady steed!

Are we to the next page yet?