President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[creekster]

Here's the question...just exactly when did everything go off the rails. Post-FDR maybe?

Baby Boomers and afterwards.

[Goatnapper'96]

Here's the question...just exactly when did everything go off the rails. Post-FDR maybe?

I think it is so incrementally in both directions that specific whens is impossible to identify. My mom laid on her bed and wept after LBJ beat Goldwater. I laid on my bed and wept when Matt Payne shanked a 39 yarder so I blame the PayneTrayne or Mitch for getting his 39 yarder blocked.

[Uncle Ted]

Barclays revises GDP forecast to 5%...

Sorry, Bill Maher. U.S. Set To Grow China-Like At 5%

No country in the entire Americas grew like the U.S. grew in the second quarter. There is no slowdown in sight.

The U.S. has been an emerging market for the later part of four years now. As an equity story, it’s been ongoing at least since 2009 with the S&P 500 Index being the Bitcoin of world stock market indexes. In fact, the S&P 500 is up 210% since the lows reached on March 6, 2009. By comparison, MSCI Europe and FTSE Emerging Markets are up around 50%.

And now with second-quarter corporate earnings showing more earnings estimate beats than not, Barclays Capital is forecasting quarterly GDP to look downright China-like. On Friday, the economic research team raised their GDP forecast to 5% from 3.5% thanks to a late-cycle fiscal boost. Barclays expects year-ending GDP to hit 3%. Annual inflation is seen ending the year at 2.5%.
[...]
Taxes can make or break an economy.

The latest batch of global activity data sends two very clear messages. First, the U.S. economy continues to pull ahead of other major economies thanks to regulatory rollbacks and tax cuts. “This is likely to continue for the next few quarters,” says Barclays economist Antonio Garcia Pascua in London.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapo...clays-capital/

Maybe the dems shouldn't push getting rid of the Drumpf tax cuts during the mid-terms... They should stick with #AbolishICE/open borders and the "free tuition for everyone" promises.

[Crockett]

Here's the question...just exactly when did everything go off the rails. Post-FDR maybe?

Woodrow Wilson

[Crockett]

Barclays revises GDP forecast to 5%...


https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapo...clays-capital/

Maybe the dems shouldn't push getting rid of the Drumpf tax cuts during the mid-terms... They should stick with #AbolishICE/open borders and the "free tuition for everyone" promises.

Great headline: "Sorry Bill Maher..."

[Walter Sobchak]

Pretty simple. If a person can prove citizenship from any of the 150 countries around the world where US troops are deployed, then they get in - no questions asked - as it is very likely the US contributed to fucking up the country enough to cause the immigration to occur.

Up to 300,000 in 177 countries now. USA! USA! USA!

[PaloAltoCougar]

Up to 300,000 in 177 countries now. USA! USA! USA!

So essentially, citizens of every country with a U.S. embassy, where a few Marines are always deployed for security, get a free pass to the U.S. You and all those lefties want open borders!

[Commando]

Pretty simple. If a person can prove citizenship from any of the 150 countries around the world where US troops are deployed, then they get in - no questions asked - as it is very likely the US contributed to fucking up the country enough to cause the immigration to occur.Up to 300,000 in 177 countries now. USA! USA! USA!

And let's at least give a mulligan to the Central American triangle, which we had an extra-special hand in ruining. Hell- it's so beautiful down there we should just annex it like Hawaii.

[frank ryan]

So essentially, citizens of every country with a U.S. embassy, where a few Marines are always deployed for security, get a free pass to the U.S. You and all those lefties want open borders!

I think that also includes installations that are just radio antennae places as well.

[Walter Sobchak]

You and all those lefties want open borders!

No one has a more open border policy than I do... NO ONE!

[Northwestcoug]

I've tried very hard to not project my utter disdain for Trump onto his supporters. Early on, I was influenced by that John Stewart interview where he told the CBS reporter that Trump voters had valid reasons to vote for him. I was also influenced by a podcast I heard a while back that promoted Jonathan Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind", and how it argues why good people support leaders who are viewed as unethical by other good people (still need to read it). I believe that moral decisions are very relative indeed, and so I give a lot of leeway for those who tell us that their vote for Trump was based on some value/moral judgement. He is a master at tapping the fairness and law-abiding 'nerves', and his supporters reflexively react accordingly. I do not understand it most of the time, but I accept their values are based on some moral code that is as valid as mine.

However, I'm beginning to push back on some of Trump's support. I can accept that there are groups of people who feel left behind in today's society, and they support someone who says will help them out. I can also respect a vote for someone who says he can protect the country better than previous leaders, if safety is the most important priority. But any Trump support that is based on lies and faulty perception needs to be called out. And a growing proportion of the support Trump has in the Republican Party is based on outright media distrust and conspiratorial thinking. And, failing that, just pwning the libs. If a person voted for Trump because of an irrational world view, then sorry Creek, I am going to judge a person for that. And I will hold supporters who should know better in even more contempt. I'm looking at you, Aunt.

[myboynoah]

I've tried very hard to not project my utter disdain for Trump onto his supporters. Early on, I was influenced by that John Stewart interview where he told the CBS reporter that Trump voters had valid reasons to vote for him. I was also influenced by a podcast I heard a while back that promoted Jonathan Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind", and how it argues why good people support leaders who are viewed as unethical by other good people (still need to read it). I believe that moral decisions are very relative indeed, and so I give a lot of leeway for those who tell us that their vote for Trump was based on some value/moral judgement. He is a master at tapping the fairness and law-abiding 'nerves', and his supporters reflexively react accordingly. I do not understand it most of the time, but I accept their values are based on some moral code that is as valid as mine.

However, I'm beginning to push back on some of Trump's support. I can accept that there are groups of people who feel left behind in today's society, and they support someone who says will help them out. I can also respect a vote for someone who says he can protect the country better than previous leaders, if safety is the most important priority. But any Trump support that is based on lies and faulty perception needs to be called out. And a growing proportion of the support Trump has in the Republican Party is based on outright media distrust and conspiratorial thinking. And, failing that, just pwning the libs. If a person voted for Trump because of an irrational world view, then sorry Creek, I am going to judge a person for that. And I will hold supporters who should know better in even more contempt. I'm looking at you, Aunt.

Ha. Moral relativism is awesome until it kicks you in the teeth.

I'm having a difficult time reconciling your first and second paragraphs. How does one acknowledge the moral reletivism of someone who supports Trump and then turn around and condemn them, especially the support that is "based on lies and faulty perception?" Can't we all say that about anybody's belief and ethos?

I'm not following this discussion that closely and am just responding to your post. I condemn Trump supporters/defenders for a number of reasons:

1. Strong support for a so clearly flawed/dishonest person. It is our responsibility to demand better from the POTUS. Trump lies nearly everytime he opens his mouth. That has consequences. That his supporters don't see that and don't demand better is on them. They have opened the door to destroying the fabric of open, productive public discourse.
2. Responding to Trump's racism and zenophobia. It is racism, clear and simple. Oh sure, it's wrapped up in a nice little "Hey, your problems are because of THEM, so once we take care of THEM, things will get better" brightly colored package, with a nice dose of "THEY are all criminals and a threat to you and your way of life." Is there a baser form of motivation? That they respond so enthusiastically is on them, and they should be condemned.
3. Not demanding more for the sake of the Supreme Court. I get the clear political calculation many "God fearing" Christians have made with Trump based on their views of the future of the Supreme Court. But good hell, could they not demand better of Trump? Could they not condemn his bullying, his base behavior, his past immorality, his bold faced lies? They sit their mute. Okay, I get it, you want conservative justices, but that doesn't mean you can't push for better "Christian" behavior. That's on them.

There you go, the ravings of a jet-lagged mind way too early in the morning.

[Northwestcoug]

Ha. Moral relativism is awesome until it kicks you in the teeth.

I'm having a difficult time reconciling your first and second paragraphs. How does one acknowledge the moral reletivism of someone who supports Trump and then turn around and condemn them, especially the support that is "based on lies and faulty perception?" Can't we all say that about anybody's belief and ethos?

I'm not following this discussion that closely and am just responding to your post. I condemn Trump supporters/defenders for a number of reasons:

1. Strong support for a so clearly flawed/dishonest person. It is our responsibility to demand better from the POTUS. Trump lies nearly everytime he opens his mouth. That has consequences. That his supporters don't see that and don't demand better is on them. They have opened the door to destroying the fabric of open, productive public discourse.
2. Responding to Trump's racism and zenophobia. It is racism, clear and simple. Oh sure, it's wrapped up in a nice little "Hey, your problems are because of THEM, so once we take care of THEM, things will get better" brightly colored package, with a nice dose of "THEY are all criminals and a threat to you and your way of life." Is there a baser form of motivation? That they respond so enthusiastically is on them, and they should be condemned.
3. Not demanding more for the sake of the Supreme Court. I get the clear political calculation many "God fearing" Christians have made with Trump based on their views of the future of the Supreme Court. But good hell, could they not demand better of Trump? Could they not condemn his bullying, his base behavior, his past immorality, his bold faced lies? They sit their mute. Okay, I get it, you want conservative justices, but that doesn't mean you can't push for better "Christian" behavior. That's on them.

There you go, the ravings of a jet-lagged mind way too early in the morning.

It's a hard line to draw. I respect voting based on some semblance of reality, like the government hasn't done enough to protect the manufacturing sector. Or immigration laws need to be overhauled. So even if I disagree with their opinion, I understand that their decision is based on a value judgment that we all make when we vote. But if a vote is based on irrational thought like anyone but Hillary because she killed 47 people (and counting!), wanting to be able to say 'Merry Christmas' again, or just lashing out because the media and everyone else hates conservatives, then that's an ignorant and embarrassing vote.

And yeah, I also condemn specific Trump voters for the reasons you listed. Again, Trump voters are not all racists or conspiracy whack jobs.

[Goatnapper'96]

I've tried very hard to not project my utter disdain for Trump onto his supporters. Early on, I was influenced by that John Stewart interview where he told the CBS reporter that Trump voters had valid reasons to vote for him. I was also influenced by a podcast I heard a while back that promoted Jonathan Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind", and how it argues why good people support leaders who are viewed as unethical by other good people (still need to read it). I believe that moral decisions are very relative indeed, and so I give a lot of leeway for those who tell us that their vote for Trump was based on some value/moral judgement. He is a master at tapping the fairness and law-abiding 'nerves', and his supporters reflexively react accordingly. I do not understand it most of the time, but I accept their values are based on some moral code that is as valid as mine.

However, I'm beginning to push back on some of Trump's support. I can accept that there are groups of people who feel left behind in today's society, and they support someone who says will help them out. I can also respect a vote for someone who says he can protect the country better than previous leaders, if safety is the most important priority. But any Trump support that is based on lies and faulty perception needs to be called out. And a growing proportion of the support Trump has in the Republican Party is based on outright media distrust and conspiratorial thinking. And, failing that, just pwning the libs. If a person voted for Trump because of an irrational world view, then sorry Creek, I am going to judge a person for that. And I will hold supporters who should know better in even more contempt. I'm looking at you, Aunt.

What if they just understand how their goals are benefited if the National Labor Board or FCC has more Republicans on it than Democrats? Could it be that simple? What happened to that talk that any salaried employee earning less than $60,000 must be paid overtime?

I don't understand why you folks need to feel so morally superior. Especially in light of that he was running against Hillary Clinton - who many really believe is equally corrupt. It can really be that some folks understand that 3 is more than 2. You once posted that Hillary would have been a more conservative President than Trump and as far as I can tell that competition began and ended with free trade. There is a lot of clout that goes with having your teams guy in charge of the entire Executive.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Ha. Moral relativism is awesome until it kicks you in the teeth.

I'm having a difficult time reconciling your first and second paragraphs. How does one acknowledge the moral reletivism of someone who supports Trump and then turn around and condemn them, especially the support that is "based on lies and faulty perception?" Can't we all say that about anybody's belief and ethos?

I'm not following this discussion that closely and am just responding to your post. I condemn Trump supporters/defenders for a number of reasons:

1. Strong support for a so clearly flawed/dishonest person. It is our responsibility to demand better from the POTUS. Trump lies nearly everytime he opens his mouth. That has consequences. That his supporters don't see that and don't demand better is on them. They have opened the door to destroying the fabric of open, productive public discourse.
2. Responding to Trump's racism and zenophobia. It is racism, clear and simple. Oh sure, it's wrapped up in a nice little "Hey, your problems are because of THEM, so once we take care of THEM, things will get better" brightly colored package, with a nice dose of "THEY are all criminals and a threat to you and your way of life." Is there a baser form of motivation? That they respond so enthusiastically is on them, and they should be condemned.
3. Not demanding more for the sake of the Supreme Court. I get the clear political calculation many "God fearing" Christians have made with Trump based on their views of the future of the Supreme Court. But good hell, could they not demand better of Trump? Could they not condemn his bullying, his base behavior, his past immorality, his bold faced lies? They sit their mute. Okay, I get it, you want conservative justices, but that doesn't mean you can't push for better "Christian" behavior. That's on them.

There you go, the ravings of a jet-lagged mind way too early in the morning.

You on your annual pilgrimage to the real holy land? Hit me up for lunch.