Trump is like a pandora's box to me — telex

You do get that he is pathological liar and narcissist who has betrayed, corrupted, and harmed - even killed - everything he has touched - you do get that, yes?.

Stock market is extremely strong — telex

I do want a strong economy in United States — telex

The stock market isn't the economy. GDP is a better measure. And it's a simple fact that barring extreme cases like financial crises and pandemics, the GDP increases over time. The GDP under every President is going to be better than it was under the previous President.



Do you have any reason to believe that the GDP under Trump is significantly better than it would have been under Clinton, or will be significantly better than it would be under Biden? If not then wanting a strong economy isn't a sufficient reason to prefer Trump over any alternative, especially given your stated cons.

It's also worth considering the effect that certain GDP-boosting policies might have. Cutting regulations is likely to increase GDP but at the cost of a reduction in quality and safety. Looking only at "the economy" seems misguided. In fact, the financial crisis of 2007-2008 is a prime example of this, where the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded that lacking regulations was a key contributor.

Lowest unemployment rate since '60s. — telex

Same principle. In this case the rises were due to the dot-com bubble and the financial crisis.

America is tougher on international stage. — telex

That's not always a good thing. If you're too tough then other countries aren't going to be willing to give. Negotiations tread a fine line. Could you be more specific by citing some cases where Trump's "tough" foreign policy has benefited the U.S.?

Tough on illegal immigrants, resulting in less crime — telex

Do you have any statistics on this? I can't find any information about the effect under the Trump administration but this study on the relationship between undocumented immigrants and violent crimes 1990-2014 concluded that "increases in the undocumented immigrant population within states are associated with significant decreases in the prevalence of violence".

American's are becoming more patriotic.

I think Americans are becoming far more fractured. The conflict between liberals and conservatives seems to be greater than it's been in a long time.

What's your take on the argument of Trump supporters that his cutting of corporate taxes, etc brought jobs back to the US and contributed to lower unemployment?

Thanks for your response Tim. What do you mean by he has killed?

I guess the whole thing with trump being a liar, narcissist, a traitor, etc ... I'm wondering if you could make the argument that every politician has somehow lied and maybe even took bribes and thereby betrayed his people.

Maybe Trump has lied more?

How would you compare Trump to Obama in this scenario?

What's your take on the argument of Trump supporters that his cutting of corporate taxes and tariffs on China brought jobs back to the US and contributed to lower unemployment? — Kevin

Where are you getting this from? The below source suggests the opposite.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/08/07/more-pain-than-gain-how-the-us-china-trade-war-hurt-america

A September 2019 study by Moody’s Analytics found that the trade war had already cost the U.S. economy nearly 300,000 jobs and an estimated 0.3% of real GDP. Other studies put the cost to U.S. GDP at about 0.7%. A 2019 report from Bloomberg Economics estimated that the trade war would cost the U.S. economy $316 billion by the end of 2020, while more recent research from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Columbia University found that U.S. companies lost at least $1.7 trillion in the price of their stocks as a result of U.S. tariffs imposed on imports from China

Thanks for the reference. This is simply the view most of the folks that are sympathetic to Trump or support him that I work with believe when asked for reasons.

Those are great arguments Michael. As you point out, GDP would have increased anyway. So, based on this argument, we were not better off economically if Hillary was elected. I guess the Trump side would say otherwise.

So it seems we are left with something like this for pro - trump side:
1) people solely support trump because he appears to be pro-white. (white nationalists)
2) people support trump because he is pro-white and creates a strong economy
3) people support trump just because they are republican.
4) people support trump only because of his strong economy
5) people support trump for all of his issues, including immigration

Anti - trump side:
1) the economy would have been the same or similar under Hiliary.
2) Trumps boasting of a strong stock market, employment rate, and economy is superfluous.
3) Trump is obviously racist.
4) Trump creates a lot of division in this country. Cultural civil war.
5) Trump wants to be an unquestionable president in regards to free press.
6) Trump creates a lot of hostility in international and domestic issues

(Michael you asked about illegal immigrants and less crime --> I heard this on the news, I just wanted to bring it up, I'm not for or against it, I just wanted to make a point for one side or the other, as a discussion point)


I guess my other point is this:
1) If it was undeniably true (like a natural law of gravity) that Trump was the ONLY politician in the next election to maintain a great economy (anyone else means bad economy, just as general terms), would you still vote for him, even if he had extremely racist views toward black people and other minorities? (let's not consider Covid-19 here and let's exclude Michael's GDP argument for the sake of this argument) --> what would be more important? money and job security or racial solidarity? (let's say both are not possible and also if you voted for Trump, it could mean a civil war in the long run) (let's also exclude the question about who gets the money. Let's just say in general for all population, the economy and job opportunity are much better)

2) On the other point, let's include Michael's GDP argument and Covid-19. Do you think if Biden is elected, our cultural civil wars would end. Perhaps living in less fear of war is more important than Trumps economics,

GDP would have increased anyway. — telex

Actually, Trump failed to produce the GDP growth that he promised.

1) people solely support trump because he appears to be pro-white. (white nationalists) — telex

This probably is the case for some. David Duke, for example, has made statements that indicate this.

2) people support trump because he is pro-white and creates a strong economy — telex

He inherited a strong economy, which is now in shambles, but that won't disaffect his cult-like supporters.

3) people support trump just because they are republican. — telex

If there's such a thing as a 'true Republican', I'm not sure they would.

4) people support trump only because of his strong economy — telex

The strong economy that he inherited is no longer strong.

5) people support trump for all of his issues, including immigration — telex

He supports many conservative policies, and his more xenophobic supporters are apparently strongly motivated by his anti-immigration stance.

On the supposition that both 1) Trump inherited a good economy that then went south, and 2) that the dot com and financial crisis bubbles lead to downs and subsequent reactive ups, in your view, can any of these presidents- say from Clinton to Trump be themselves credited much with economic factors like GDP, the stock market, or employment - or are they more incidental to the broader trends? Or - if you view one individual as having more impact than others - which ones?

with economic factors like GDP, the stock market, or employment — Kevin

also worth considering the effect that certain GDP-boosting policies might have. — Michael

Edit: Also acknowledging this, as well as an indefinite number of variables bound up with metrics such as the stock market, GDP, and employment levels (how they are measured, at what other costs, etc), such measures have always struck me as dubious as to their usefulness, despite common talk about them.

What do you mean by he has killed?
I guess the whole thing with trump being a liar, narcissist, a traitor, etc ... I'm wondering if you could make the argument that every politician has somehow lied and maybe even took bribes and thereby betrayed his people.
Maybe Trump has lied more?
How would you compare Trump to Obama in this scenario? — telex

He is responsible, and in my opinion culpably responsible, for the deaths of thousands due to the virus. No doubt some will die because of his indoor rallies and incitements to not wear a mask or social distance. And no doubt his actions have resulted directly in deaths. For a long time I supposed a saving grace was that he had not killed anyone that I knew about, but that was naive of me.

How would you compare Trump and Obama? Trump has done what he has done. All the obloquy directed at him is earned - he earned it. And it goes back a long time, no doubt into his childhood. Who has he not betrayed and cheated? And consider the people he chooses to have around him. Do you have any evidence you can trust any of them?

Now try to fit Obama into that frame, or Jimmy Carter. Doesn't work.

And, "the whole thing with Trump...". I happen to think he is a traitor - that's the only thing that makes sense. And it is at least very plausible that he is compromised by Russia. That's not to be dismissed. And what has Trump done about it? Fired anyone and everyone who might be in a position to establish the truth of the matter. That is a guilty man!

To may way of thinking, lying is a difficult topic. I believe there are substantive qualitative differences between lies told by Trump and his and people like him, and almost anyone else. And I accept that sometimes a politician may have to lie from necessity, the less often the better. But Trump lies all the time. What he says has no intrinsic meaning.

Anyway, if you're a voter educate yourself. Vote for the better man - that's the lesson of history.

can any of these presidents- say from Clinton to Trump be themselves credited much with economic factors like GDP, the stock market, or employment - or are they more incidental to the broader trends? — Kevin

Trump did inherit a strong economy. The economy is no longer strong. Trump failed to produce the GDP growth that he promised. Etc... Where did I say that any president is credited with economic factors and what is your point?

It appears to run with the parties. WW2 was finally paid off in about the early 60s. Then the Viet Nam War, and then the oil crisis. But against this background republican presidents since Nixon have preached some variation of tax cuts for the rich, trickle-down economics, and financial and other deregulation. And with each they promise the economy will thrive as never before. It invariably crashes and a Democrat cleans it up. Clinton after Reagan and Bush, and Obama after another Bush. And what have Republicans done with the work and gifts that Democrats have left for them? They gut regulation and rape the markets. It is no overstatement to say that they fuck America and Americans. Take a good look at Mitch McConnell or Ted Cruz or Lindsay Graham and the men like them. These are not men who are merely materially corrupt - all parties have their share of those - rather these are men utterly corrupt ideologically, without a fleck of integrity. For a price I'm sure they would sell anything you wanted - because their souls are long gone, no longer even memories.

I was taking your post and Michael's together - as considered together they seemed to me to raise this question.

Let me attempt a rephrasing/reframing:

Michael's post indicates that:

And it's a simple fact that barring extreme cases like financial crises and pandemics, the GDP increases over time. The GDP under every President is going to be better than it was under the previous President. — Michael

If this is true, and if it is also true that Trump inherited a good economy from Obama, one implication - or possible implication - might be that neither Trump himself, nor Obama himself, can be directly credited with the trend - or alternatively, if you like, how much of an effect each individual had seems a reasonable question.

I meant to combine this also with the supposition that Obama inherited a terrible economy - and presumably a case can be made that with some economic trends, others will be more probable (for example, wild swings in unemployment may in general lead to an eventual upswing albeit timing a question, in what way, etc).

Thus, to recapitulate, there is a sense (not being an economist myself not having studied at length the economic policies of each of these administrations) that if the above generalities are true, a reasonable question to ask is whether this or that president can take credit for this or that economy generally.

In the case of Bush, I think his administration contributed to the housing bubble enormously and can take credit for the downturn. Whether Obama can take credit for the subsequent upswing - I do not know. I'm not saying he can't. I just wondered your take.

I wasn't really arguing a point. Just wondering out loud.

Interesting points. Side note: I do find it interesting Clinton ends up fairly well-received even by otherwise Republicans and Trump supporters (among a few I know anyway - no idea if it's a more generally held view).

I offer because in addition to being smart and somewhat charismatic, that in most ways he was a good - maybe history will accord him a partial greatness - president. With some regrettable personal failings, though they not unique. His big affliction was the viciousness of the opposition, with that exemplar of personal virtue, Newt the Gingrich and the Tea Party. A historian no doubt could make a long list of vicious republican operatives and so-called dirty tricksters. And such tricks do not seem to be a part of Democrat repertoire.

..his life is a matter of public record... — NOS4A2

His tax returns?

Like a god he speaks and brings ruin and pestilence. And they say I’m in a cult. Meanwhile the politicians of the last 40 years receive your endorsements because you can be sure they‘ll pay your causes lip service.

How about a reality check. Can you handle it? We'll keep it level-1. Ready? Whose first inaugural was bigger, Trump's or Obama's?

Obama’s was bigger. He didn’t have professional agitators and anarchists blocking the entrance and threatening attendees.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/20/inauguration-protesters-police-washington-dc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisruptJ20

He didn’t have professional agitators and anarchists blocking the entrance and threatening attendees. — NOS4A2

LOL you guys just have an excuse for everything huh?

You weren’t even aware of that, were you.

Nah I don't do wacky conspiracy theories.

It is a fact, by their own statements, that they intended to disrupt the inauguration, and attempted to do so.

The idea, one, is we want to undermine Trump’s presidency from the get-go. There has been a lot of talk of peaceful transition of power as being a core element in a democracy and we want to reject that entirely and really undermine the peaceful transition. We would like the headline the next day to be “Trump Inauguration a Complete Meltdown and Clusterfuck.”

What is being planned is over the next several days, starting with this past weekend, we have had an Action Camp running all of MLK weekend. We are doing a lot of non-violent direct action trainings. Then, on Wednesday, we are doing a queer dance party at Mike Pence’s house. Thursday there is an action at an Alt-Right Trump inaugural ball called the Deploraball, trying to shut that down. Then, starting on Friday morning, which is the big day, we are having blockades go into action at all the checkpoints around the inauguration parade route and to get into the viewing area. We are also doing transit blockades all day. Then, there is going to be several unpermitted marches, an especially big one at Logan Circle at 10:00 AM. Then, at noon we are doing a permitted march and we have got stuff going on all evening, too.

The media was astroturfed, the inauguration was disrupted, and you guys ate a propaganda platter.

Sure buddy. If as many people attended in 2017 as they did in 2009 then I'd doubt that they would be scared off by a small group of protesters like that. Or (just a thought) it could be the case that the guy who lost the popular vote by 3 million just didn't attract as big a crowd as Obama did. Oh wait, I forgot, those 3 million votes were all illegal according to people like you and went entirely for Clinton despite the lack of evidence. I guess that was another thing I wasn't aware of either. Like I said, I don't do conspiracy theories.

Obama’s was bigger. — NOS4A2

Level-2. No doubt. Trump repeatedy claimed that his electoral college victory was the biggest. What do you say? Was he right or was he lying?

The media was astroturfed, the inauguration was disrupted, and you guys ate a propaganda platter. — NOS4A2

So the protesters scared away thousands of Trump supporters. That’s easy to imagine. What’s the propaganda? That Trump is so unpopular that he drew a small crowd, or that he’s so unpopular that 200 protesters were arrested at his inauguration? Hardly a platter. Meanwhile, you guy’s scarfed down at the buffet of alternative facts (see post above this one).

Level-2. No doubt. Trump repeatedy claimed that his electoral college victory was the biggest. What do you say? Was he right or was he lying?

I don’t think he was right. But I also don’t think he was lying. Were you aware that event goers had to contend with riots and a violent mob? What are your views on terrorism against fellow citizens?

My views on terrorism are not in question, but fwiw, they are unremarkable. Anyway. Thanks for playing. The point is that Trump brought to office his lies and lying and has never stopped. In the process thousands if not millions - by now millions, perhaps ultimately billions? - have been harmed and by now killed. Not to speak of those he has betrayed and corrupted. Do you have any disagreement here?

Plenty of disagreement. I disagree with your false definition of the word “lies” and I also disagree with your area of concern. While you focus on crowd size (ironically) and Trump’s opinion of it, you can say nothing of political violence and persecution against your fellow citizens and democratically-elected officials. You can say nothing about what should be the peaceful transfer of power because you cannot get over Trump’s opinion of crowd size.