The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[nonobaddog]

He's doing really well (IMHO) in that regard, in terms of foreign policy. But, domestically, he hasn't done much. Sure, there's plenty of room to blame Congress/Obama/Dems/RINOs/aliens, but the reality is that he's stalled.

I'm not sure how you missed it but the economy is doing much, much better now. The unemployment rate is the lowest in a long time. He has lowered taxes and put in place a long, long overdue revamped tax law. The flood of illegal aliens is actually reducing. The list goes on. He has done so much more domestically in one year than any recent administration has in full term(s).

 

[T.Lex]

I'm not sure how you missed it but the economy is doing much, much better now. The unemployment rate is the lowest in a long time.

Neither of those things are particularly influenced by POTUS. So, no - he doesn't get credit for that.

GHWB shouldn't have gotten blamed, and Bill Clinton shouldn't have gotten credit.

He has lowered taxes and put in place a long, long overdue revamped tax law. The flood of illegal aliens is actually reducing. The list goes on. He has done so much more domestically in one year than any recent administration has in full term(s).

That last bit is more than a little crazy-talk hyperbole.

He absolutely gets credit for the tax bill that, indeed, was long overdue. I'm not convinced of the reducing "flood" of "illegal aliens" but I'll give him credit for doing more about that than his predecessor. (Which isn't saying much.)

Obamacare is still a thing. He's ordered BATFE to start regulating accessories that he thinks are "bad." He doesn't appear to be anywhere near "comprehensive immigration reform" as he promised. He intentionally divides Americans to maintain his cult of personality. His attacks on the DOJ are deceitful and undermine the rule of law.

So, no. I maintain the "he hasn't done much" position when it comes to domestic policy.

 

[jamil]

Totally skipped most of this thread to open up a likely new area of discussion.

Traditionally, presidents were re-elected based on what they accomplished (or didn't) domestically. Foreign policy (which is one of my one personal interests) never seems to really count for very much in elections.

Applying that to Trump, things get strange. He's doing really well (IMHO) in that regard, in terms of foreign policy. But, domestically, he hasn't done much. Sure, there's plenty of room to blame Congress/Obama/Dems/RINOs/aliens, but the reality is that he's stalled.

So, it would be interesting if the guy that broke the rules about getting elected in the first place was able to break this other "rule" in getting re-elected.

Richard Nixon was not elected for his domestic policies. He was elected because he said he'd end the Vietnam war. GWB was reelected in 2004, not because of his domestic policies, but because people were afraid we'd be attacked again.

The person who appears to have the answers to what bothers people most at the given time, generally wins. Sometimes, it's the economy, stupid. Sometimes it's foreign threats. But we're in a different game. We're playing by rules that are beyond social evolution's ability to keep up. We don't know how to play the game we're playing.

Right now, there's a new threat that's not really domestic policy, but yet it is; it's not really foreign policy, but yet it's that too. I'd say it's more universal to the West. It's the cultural war. I think that's what's growing on people's minds. I think that will have some impact on the midterm elections, but it will for certain impact the next general election if we stay on the same path.

The big question is, how will people see Trump? Is he the only anti-SJW choice? If enough people believe that he is, they'll hold their noses. Even some sane progressives. It's becoming more clear that the majority of people aren't insane social justice warriors. So it depends how existential they think the threat of postmodernism thought is to the liberty enjoyed by the West. I think the more SJWs act out, the closer to home it hits even for sane progressives.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm not sure how you missed it but the economy is doing much, much better now. The unemployment rate is the lowest in a long time. He has lowered taxes and put in place a long, long overdue revamped tax law. The flood of illegal aliens is actually reducing. The list goes on. He has done so much more domestically in one year than any recent administration has in full term(s).

Just out of curiosity, do create Trump solely for the lowering of the unemployment rate? Also, I bet that we will have more illegals in the short term, than we do now.

 

[Trigger Time]

Just out of curiosity, do create Trump solely for the lowering of the unemployment rate? Also, I bet that we will have more illegals in the short term, than we do now.

No I credit overdoses also

 

[T.Lex]

Richard Nixon was not elected for his domestic policies. He was elected because he said he'd end the Vietnam war. GWB was reelected in 2004, not because of his domestic policies, but because people were afraid we'd be attacked again.

The person who appears to have the answers to what bothers people most at the given time, generally wins. Sometimes, it's the economy, stupid. Sometimes it's foreign threats. But we're in a different game. We're playing by rules that are beyond social evolution's ability to keep up. We don't know how to play the game we're playing.

Right now, there's a new threat that's not really domestic policy, but yet it is; it's not really foreign policy, but yet it's that too. I'd say it's more universal to the West. It's the cultural war. I think that's what's growing on people's minds. I think that will have some impact on the midterm elections, but it will for certain impact the next general election if we stay on the same path.

The big question is, how will people see Trump? Is he the only anti-SJW choice? If enough people believe that he is, they'll hold their noses. Even some sane progressives. It's becoming more clear that the majority of people aren't insane social justice warriors. So it depends how existential they think the threat of postmodernism thought is to the liberty enjoyed by the West. I think the more SJWs act out, the closer to home it hits even for sane progressives.

Historically, yes there are outliers, of course. In terms of people electing candidates that address their immediate need - well sure. That's always true. But, generally, that's more about domestic policies than foreign.

Absolutely agree on the culture war aspect. This is a brave new world for American politics. I'm really not sure how much of the old world understandings will be retained.

 

[T.Lex]

Modern unemployment numbers are mostly BS anyway. It statistical mumbo jumbo to make up a number for people "intentionally out of the workforce" or whatever they call it.

 

[jamil]

Neither of those things are particularly influenced by POTUS. So, no - he doesn't get credit for that.

GHWB shouldn't have gotten blamed, and Bill Clinton shouldn't have gotten credit.

That's not sufficiently true. Presidents can influence the economy by policies which tend to hinder it. Heavy regulation, for example, tends to stifle. The bust in 2008 was largely due to economic policies of progressives trying to make equal outcomes. And it's fair to say that Obama owns the dismally slow recovery because of his ridiculous mountains of regulations. It's also fair to say that Trump owns the part of the now booming economy to the extent that deregulation has caused it.

But you're correct that neither Clinton, nor Bush deserve much credit for the 90s boom, or the late 2008 bust.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Perhaps your point would be more valid, and hence more effective, were you to address the substance of the tweets, rather than just the existance of the tweets. And just for the record, I believe there's lots of difficult days in the near future for many of the swamp critters, as well as the fans of such critters.

There's is no substance to the tweets. They are all full of supposition and untruths. He's ranting like he's some sort of unhinged monarch. He "demands"? WTF. I've never heard a president say that, at least not to the public that elected him.

Look at the tweets he's made... he's not offering any details as to why this apparent "Witch Hunt," is improper... what he's doing, is essentially screaming that it should be other people that should be investigated, not him. While other people may need to be investigated, there are two things to remember.... he is in charge of the DoJ, so he can "demand" an investigation, from his subjects, just like he is doing now... and the other thing, that even by point the finger at other people, that still does not exonerate him for the things he may have potentially done.

 

[Trigger Time]

Modern unemployment numbers are mostly BS anyway. It statistical mumbo jumbo to make up a number for people "intentionally out of the workforce" or whatever they call it.

Very true

 

[Trigger Time]

There's is no substance to the tweets. They are all full of supposition and untruths. He's ranting like he's some sort of unhinged monarch. He "demands"? WTF. I've never heard a president say that, at least not to the public that elected him.

Look at the tweets he's made... he's not offering any details as to why this apparent "Witch Hunt," is improper... what he's doing, is essentially screaming that it should be other people that should be investigated, not him. While other people may need to be investigated, there are two things to remember.... he is in charge of the DoJ, so he can "demand" an investigation, from his subjects, just like he is doing now... and the other thing, that even by point the finger at other people, that still does not exonerate him for the things he may have potentially done.

Hes the boss. He CAN demand.
You got used to a president with a vagina. This one has balls

 

[nonobaddog]

Neither of those things are particularly influenced by POTUS. So, no - he doesn't get credit for that.

They certainly are influenced by the President and his policies. That is why we have been in such a wallow under the former administration. President Trump was the driving force behind getting the corporate tax lowered from its ridiculously high level to a realistic level. This alone allowed American businesses to create jobs and compete on a more fair level. This will continue to improve over time but already there is American money and jobs coming back into our country instead of staying overseas to avoid the formerly extremely high tax level.

 

[T.Lex]

That's not sufficiently true. Presidents can influence the economy by policies which tend to hinder it. Heavy regulation, for example, tends to stifle.

I disagree, a little. The problem is that the cycles for that influence are longer than 1 term. With the possible (recent) exception of the Obamacare debacle, the effort to either create or remove regulations takes so long to trickle through the system that the effects are - at the earliest - second term.

And the regulatory environment is such a small amount of all the factors that make up The Economy, that IMHO it just doesn't scale to the national level. Local politics, even up to state-level policies, I heartily agree. Just not on the national level. There are just too many variables beyond POTUS's control.

 

[T.Lex]

They certainly are influenced by the President and his policies. That is why we have been in such a wallow under the former administration. President Trump was the driving force behind getting the corporate tax lowered from its ridiculously high level to a realistic level. This alone allowed American businesses to create jobs and compete on a more fair level. This will continue to improve over time but already there is American money and jobs coming back into our country instead of staying overseas to avoid the formerly extremely high tax level.

My friend, you are wrong in terms of the timing. I'm not sure how else to say it.

You may be right eventually, but not in the short term.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Hes the boss. He CAN demand.
You got used to a president with a vagina. This one has balls

I haven't seen anything that indicates to me that this president has any more "balls" than the last occupant of the White House. The "balls" you are referencing, consist of him talking smack via tweet, rather than in actual people's faces. He's essentially a keyboard warrior. I have yet to see him say the stuff he tweets to someone's face. And then of course he lies.... a LOT. I don't think I have ever thought of a person that lies constantly and talks smack on twitter as being all that particularly tough.

 

[Kutnupe14]

My friend, you are wrong in terms of the timing. I'm not sure how else to say it.

You may be right eventually, but not in the short term.

To steal (kinda0, from Reagan, try asking if from the time Obama entered office until the time he left, were they better, or worse off. You'll find out who the honest actors are based on how they answer.

 

[mmpsteve]

There's is no substance to the tweets. They are all full of supposition and untruths. He's ranting like he's some sort of unhinged monarch. He "demands"? WTF. I've never heard a president say that, at least not to the public that elected him.

Look at the tweets he's made... he's not offering any details as to why this apparent "Witch Hunt," is improper... what he's doing, is essentially screaming that it should be other people that should be investigated, not him. While other people may need to be investigated, there are two things to remember.... he is in charge of the DoJ, so he can "demand" an investigation, from his subjects, just like he is doing now... and the other thing, that even by point the finger at other people, that still does not exonerate him for the things he may have potentially done.

I think it's obvious on it's face that the witch hunt is improper. And it will become more obvious as the indictments start flowing. Oh, excuse me, they did indict a guy for tax evasion, from 2005!! When do you think Trump's 'potential' wrongdoing will be exposed? This term?

 

[T.Lex]

To steal (kinda0, from Reagan, try asking if from the time Obama entered office until the time he left, were they better, or worse off. You'll find out who the honest actors are based on how they answer.

Ok, but that's just as unfair a question now as it was in the 1980s and 90s. Clinton recycled it, too, basically.

One could say that the banking deregulation played a role in the mortgage backed securities debacle. Mostly, it was greed. But, regulatory vacuums tend to breed that kind of thing. Which is why there are so many rules.

 

[nonobaddog]

My friend, you are wrong in terms of the timing. I'm not sure how else to say it.

You may be right eventually, but not in the short term.

I guess I don't agree with that. I do agree with those who say unemployment numbers, such as they are presented, are difficult to deal with. However all the numbers as they are published are improving and many of these stats are the best they have been in a long time.

Unemployment for April 2018 was 3.9%, lowest in 17 years.

 

[Trigger Time]

I haven't seen anything that indicates to me that this president has any more "balls" than the last occupant of the White House. The "balls" you are referencing, consist of him talking smack via tweet, rather than in actual people's faces. He's essentially a keyboard warrior. I have yet to see him say the stuff he tweets to someone's face. And then of course he lies.... a LOT. I don't think I have ever thought of a person that lies constantly and talks smack on twitter as being all that particularly tough.

I very much disagree of coarse. On everything you just said.