The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

[houndawg]

Goddamn, son, how clueless can you be? This election was never about smarts or qualifications. It was a giant FvckYou to the establishment from Butthurt Bubba because of, as they say in your neck of the woods, "that n***** in the White House". Wake up John.

The post to which you responded doesn't offer any opinion about why Trump got elected.

But since you mentioned it I think it had a lot more to do with cultural issues than with a generalized FY to the establishment. I think White Evangelical Christians, for example, felt under siege by virtue of things like the Supreme Court forcing everyone to accept the idea of homosexual marriage and various States doing things like forcing bakers to bake cakes for homosexual couples, etc. Also the transgender bathroom stuff. All those things. As a result, I think, they voted more strongly for Trump than they voted for any other Republican candidate since exit polling began.

Also stuff like the big "diversity" push, affirmative action, etc. Stuff like the demonization of the Police. All that stuff, I think, created a backlash among certain elements of the White Christian culture.

Finally there was the illegal immigration thing. That was huge. I think Trump's "politically incorrect" position on that galvanized a certain group of people.

the economy was a big factor
'

[JohnStOnge]

There's an interesting thing going on with the Job Approval polls at RealClearPolitics. His Disapproval/Approval gap had been shrinking. And it's still relatively small. It's at -12.2 percentage points today. It reached a recent minimum of 11.6 percentage points just yesterday.

But it's interesting that his average gap for polls taken entirely after he started his attack on NFL players last Friday is -17 percentage points. -20, -14, and -17. Plus the -14 is a Rassmussen poll.

Trump is a demagogue and I'm sure he saw what he thought was an opportunity to demagogue. But I don't know if this one is going to work for him. I suspect that a majority of those polled don't like seeing the NFL players do what they're doing. But it's possible that a majority still doesn't like to see the buffoon we have as President acting like that.

In that regard here is a report on a poll that says an overall majority think players should stand during the national anthem:

http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2017/09 ... -protests/

But here is report on another polls that says a similar overwhelming majority does not agree with Trump's remarks about NFL players being off the field, fired, etc.:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/n ... 702142001/

Even the majority of Whites polled, by 55% to 43%, disagreed with Trump's statements on the matter.

Of course he's also succeeded in further institutionalizing the perception of the Republican Party as anti-minority when the country is becoming less White.

[JohnStOnge]

the economy was a big factor
'

I'll go ahead and type it again since you guys apparently like for me to type it:

No it wasn't. The economy, on balance, worked in Clinton's favor.

And I think at this point you guys really realize that. Y'all just like to jerk my chain and have me say it again. I will oblige.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, this is not an original thought on my part. I saw somebody ask the question on TV (though I don't remember who it was). But it's a good question.

How is it that Donald Trump can criticize NFL players as disrespecting military service because they kneel during the national anthem when he said what he said about John McCain's prisoner of war experience during the campaign? The two things aren't even remotely comparable. Trump showed WAY more disrespect for military service when he did that than NFL players are showing now.

I still can't believe that any decent person continued to support him after he did that. It's just not justifiable.

[JohnStOnge]

Just to follow up on what appears to be happening with Public opinion with respects latest demagoguery stunt:

A report on an IPSOS poll published by Reuters tonight paints the same picture:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... SKCN1C1304

If you click on the link to the actual report on the poll results you can see that most of those polled don't agree with what the NFL players are doing. But, at the same time, they don't agree with Trump doing what he's doing and they don't think NFL players ought to be fired for kneeling during the national anthem.

The second to last question and response distribution is, I think, particularly interesting. The question is whether or not the US President should comment on how the NFL and its players conduct themselves during the national anthem. 53% said he should not and 35% said he should. Most respondents think he should just stay out of it.

We'll see but I don't think this is working out for Trump like he apparently thinks it's working out for him. And he's fostering the "Republican Party is Racist" narrative at a point in history where the Republican Party really needs to be doing the opposite if it wants to remain viable for the long term. Even the medium term really.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

What's stopping you from leaving?

He does not need to leave. This is his country.

His country?

Is his country the one that allegedly enslaved and treated his people so poorly?

He should at the least recuse himself from this conflict of interest.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[mrklean]

He does not need to leave. This is his country.

His country?

Is his country the one that allegedly enslaved and treated his people so poorly?

He should at the least recuse himself from this conflict of interest.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Its his right to want to see OUR country become better. People like you are false Patriots or as my Grandfather used to call them, TV Patriots

[Baldy]

the economy was a big factor
'

I'll go ahead and type it again since you guys apparently like for me to type it:

No it wasn't. The economy, on balance, worked in Clinton's favor.

And I think at this point you guys really realize that. Y'all just like to jerk my chain and have me say it again. I will oblige.

At this point, we say it because it is the truth.
Also, because we know every time you read that it was the economy (and even you know it was no matter what you try to say), you get that nervous little tic that just never seems to go away.

[houndawg]

Just to follow up on what appears to be happening with Public opinion with respects latest demagoguery stunt:

A report on an IPSOS poll published by Reuters tonight paints the same picture:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... SKCN1C1304

If you click on the link to the actual report on the poll results you can see that most of those polled don't agree with what the NFL players are doing. But, at the same time, they don't agree with Trump doing what he's doing and they don't think NFL players ought to be fired for kneeling during the national anthem.

The second to last question and response distribution is, I think, particularly interesting. The question is whether or not the US President should comment on how the NFL and its players conduct themselves during the national anthem. 53% said he should not and 35% said he should. Most respondents think he should just stay out of it.

We'll see but I don't think this is working out for Trump like he apparently thinks it's working out for him. And he's fostering the "Republican Party is Racist" narrative at a point in history where the Republican Party really needs to be doing the opposite if it wants to remain viable for the long term. Even the medium term really.

Really? I think he'd much rather have us talking about uppity negros than Russia.

[kalm]

the economy was a big factor
'

I'll go ahead and type it again since you guys apparently like for me to type it:

No it wasn't. The economy, on balance, worked in Clinton's favor.

And I think at this point you guys really realize that. Y'all just like to jerk my chain and have me say it again. I will oblige.

Trump won on populism/anti-elitism. Both are economic values. Hillary was viewed as a part of the monied establishment that prolongs crony capitalism and corruption.

It was economics...regardless of the fact that Trump is full of shit and also part of the establishment/crony capitalist class.

[houndawg]

I'll go ahead and type it again since you guys apparently like for me to type it:

No it wasn't. The economy, on balance, worked in Clinton's favor.

And I think at this point you guys really realize that. Y'all just like to jerk my chain and have me say it again. I will oblige.

Trump won on populism/anti-elitism. Both are economic values. Hillary was viewed as a part of the monied establishment that prolongs crony capitalism and corruption.

It was economics...regardless of the fact that Trump is full of **** and also part of the establishment/crony capitalist class.

His single redeeming quality is that those people hate him. For that reason alone I would support him if he weren't such a fooking asshole. Almost.

[Ibanez]

He does not need to leave. This is his country.

His country?

Is his country the one that allegedly enslaved and treated his people so poorly?

He should at the least recuse himself from this conflict of interest.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Should the descendants Irish immigrants also recuse themselves?

[mrklean]

His country?

Is his country the one that allegedly enslaved and treated his people so poorly?

He should at the least recuse himself from this conflict of interest.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Should the descendants Irish immigrants also recuse themselves?

Irish immigrants did not go through 1/3 of the illegal crap that freed slaves went through. If the Irish were so bad off, how come in less than 40 years, they were major players in three major cities in the United States?
1. Boston
2. New York
3. Chicago

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

His country?

Is his country the one that allegedly enslaved and treated his people so poorly?

He should at the least recuse himself from this conflict of interest.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Its his right to want to see OUR country become better. People like you are false Patriots or as my Grandfather used to call them, TV Patriots

Well you are wrong again, I wouldnt call myself a patriot, I do what I want and dont need labels but if you have to I would be much closer to terrorist than patriot.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Should the descendants Irish immigrants also recuse themselves?

Irish immigrants did not go through 1/3 of the illegal crap that freed slaves went through. If the Irish were so bad off, how come in less than 40 years, they were major players in three major cities in the United States?
1. Boston
2. New York
3. Chicago

You never dealt with ANY OF WHAT THE SLAVES DID.

Fucking ZERO of it

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

At this point, we say it because it is the truth.

The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

[JohnStOnge]

Trump won on populism/anti-elitism. Both are economic values. Hillary was viewed as a part of the monied establishment that prolongs crony capitalism and corruption.

It was economics...regardless of the fact that Trump is full of **** and also part of the establishment/crony capitalist class.

Come on Kalm. Let's pick Wisconsin since that was the biggest surprise Here we go on how voters responded in exit polling in Wisconsin:

Voters who thought the economy was the most important issue: Clinton 53%, Trump 42%
Voters who thought immigration was the most important issue: Clinton 23%, Trump 75%
Voters who thought terrorism was the most important issue: Clinton 38%, Trump 60%
White Born Again Christians: Clinton 23%, Trump 73%

I could go on but that SHOULD be enough. Also, I wish they would've asked more cultural issues questions during the exit polling. Stuff like voters position on abortion and affirmative action. Do any of you have any doubt as to how the breakdowns on stuff like THAT would've looked like?

For people to continue to believe that it was the economy that got Trump elected in the face of numbers like that is ridiculous. You don't have to look for indirect indications of how people who thought the economy was the important thing voted. That question was directly asked. And the majority of those people voted for Clinton. The majority nationally voted for Clinton. The majority of them in Pennsylvania voted for Clinton. The majority of them in Michigan voted for Clinton. Since I already listed Wisconsin I'll go ahead and say the majority of them in Ohio voted for Clinton.

What do people think gave Trump the leg up in the first place? It was him going on his diatribe against illegal immigrants when he announced his candidacy.

It's just amazing the way a narrative can get established and people continue to believe it even when clear, quantitative evidence unequivocally contradicts it.

[JohnStOnge]

Trump came out lying right off the bat with the Tax Reform thing. I mean, if you know me you know that I don't believe in soaking the rich anyway. I don't believe we should have a system whereby we depend on the wealthy to pay the overwhelming majority of the bill while a bunch of people get by with no skin in the game.

But lying is lying. And Trump was lying when he said the outline he's proposing isn't going to help the wealthy. Also he made a ridiculous statement about the estate tax. Here it is:

"To protect millions of small businesses and the American farmer, we are finally ending the crushing, the horrible, the unfair estate tax, or as it is often referred to, the death tax,"

I'll go ahead and use Politifact since they did a nice summary of the situation even though Trump rubes have claimed it's unreliable (it's not):

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... te-tax-sm/

For 2017, the Tax Policy Center estimated, based on past tax data and modeling, that 11,310 individuals will have estates big enough to file an estate tax return.

How about small businesses and farms? The center projected that only about 80 small farms and closely held businesses would pay any estate tax in 2017.

Now, I oppose the estate tax. But Trump, once again, just spewed utter nonsense. And it's not going to be hard to just pick the things he said apart. If you want to have a tax plan that does benefit the wealthy have the intellectual honesty to say you're going to have a tax plan that benefits the wealthy.

Don't do that crap of saying stuff like:

Our framework includes our explicit commitment that tax reform will protect low-income and middle-income households, not the wealthy and well-connected. They can call me all they want. It’s not going to help. I’m doing the right thing, and it’s not good for me. Believe me.

That's just flat out lying.

As for Politifact, here are the metrics on it from the bias and accuracy site I like to use:



And it's Factual Reporting rating is "VERY HIGH."

Of course that can't be true because if you look at Politifact you get the impression that Donald Trump is a thoroughly dishonest piece of shit. Can't have that as far as Trump supporters are concerned. Never mind that it's true.

[CID1990]

Good job klam

you got the full on diarrhea AND and aftersquirt

I've been going for the elusive two aftersquirts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Baldy]

At this point, we say it because it is the truth.

The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

Too bad the facts don't agree with you.

[∞∞∞]

FWIW, the founding fathers were extremely critical of inherited wealth and every state legislature had laws against it (in essence, an estate tax):

With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule. North Carolina's 1784 statute explained that by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served "only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic" and promoting "contention and injustice." Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast "tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic."

https://www.economist.com/blogs/lexingt ... ng_fathers

[Ibanez]

FWIW, the founding fathers were extremely critical of inherited wealth and every state legislature had laws against it (in essence, an estate tax):

With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule. North Carolina's 1784 statute explained that by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served "only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic" and promoting "contention and injustice." Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast "tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic."

https://www.economist.com/blogs/lexingt ... ng_fathers

They were also in favor of everyone owning a gun. And slaves. And that anyone not a white person was 3/5th a person.

They were some complicated people.

[mrklean]

FWIW, the founding fathers were extremely critical of inherited wealth and every state legislature had laws against it (in essence, an estate tax):


https://www.economist.com/blogs/lexingt ... ng_fathers

They were also in favor of everyone owning a gun. And slaves. And that anyone not a white person was 3/5th a person.

They were some complicated people.

They were hypocrites and that's sad

[Ibanez]

They were also in favor of everyone owning a gun. And slaves. And that anyone not a white person was 3/5th a person.

They were some complicated people.

They were hypocrites and that's sad

We're all hypocrites.

[BDKJMU]

U.S. Stocks Hit Records
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... rkets-wrap