It's so bad you have to pay people to move to Vermont

[EPB]

Trump isn't any 'ism' because he doesn't know what he's doing.

He does what makes the biggest headline.

Whether it's good or bad for the country, now or down the road, doesn't appear to concern him.

There are two types of vehement anti-Trumpers: those that think he's an idiot and those who think he's a conniving Machiavellian genius (see: Russia/Ukraine conspiracies). Clearly you fall in the former camp.

There are a lot of things he does that are out of my wheelhouse, but he's been consistently correct on China since before I was born. Chuck Schumer and Andrew Yang (at the very least) agree although they'd never say it bluntly because that's not how our politics work.

He's also clearly a marketing mind first, and even if you hate him, it would be silly not to acknowledge he played the press masterfully in 2015/2016. That's not an endorsement, but it's the truth.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[abc]

a man with a life of high success

So why doesn't he want his tax return published?

Because he isn't really a "success"!

That's without counting how that not-so-high "success" is build on. The very thing many people thought are the cause of the problem this country faces. Ironic.

 

[abc]

There are two types of vehement anti-Trumpers: those that think he's an idiot and those who think he's a conniving Machiavellian genius (see: Russia/Ukraine conspiracies). Clearly you fall in the former camp.

I wouldn't use the word "idiot".

All presidents came into their job not knowing everything they need to know to run the country. But all of them will learn by choosing the right support people and listening to them. Trump choose a collection of idiots as his "team". And the few who actually have the skill, he ignore their advice.

He's not an "idiot". He can be smart when he wants to. My problem with him is he's putting his smart on being popular and boasting his ego. AND NOTHING ELSE.

 

[bdfreetuna]

So why doesn't he want his tax return published?

because not enough people care for it to matter and it makes his opponents look petty and irrational to always harass the President over one thing or another when the country is doing well

Also it would be pretty funny when they do get released and it turns out he wasn't a actually secret fake-billionaire as the liberal conspiracy theory goes from my understanding of it.

 

[mister moose]

So why doesn't he want his tax return published?

Because he isn't really a "success"!

That's without counting how that not-so-high "success" is build on. The very thing many people thought are the cause of the problem this country faces. Ironic.

Because there is no upside. No doubt he has taken advantage of various deductions and has some grey areas he is in negotiation with the IRS over. How much he donates would be fodder for criticism no matter what the amount. Or who he donated to. Or how this foundation got more than that one. It's all grist for his opponents with no upside.

The guy has his own personal 757. What kind of airplane do you have to have to be able to call yourself a success? (Not that that matters much to me, but it does to you for some reason.)

 

[abc]

Because there is no upside.

There's no upside FOR HIM, of course.

There's never any upside for ANY president. But they all did. Why? Because people demands it.

But hey, according to tuna, "not enough people care about it"! Heha. How many is "enough"? Perhaps all those who didn't elect him (which is over 50%) is still "not enough"?

 

[bdfreetuna]

But hey, according to tuna, "not enough people care about it"! Heha.

Not enough to change the upcoming election results. Certainly exactly zero people who voted for him or will vote for him in 2020 care about his tax returns. Unless your TDS is so strong you think he won't win again by a larger margin this time around.

When your greatest hope is Hillary Clinton jumping in during a brokered convention, tough situation!

 

[BenedictGomez]

So why doesn't he want his tax return published? Because he isn't really a "success"!

To claim Donald Trump hasn't been a "success" in life belies an illogical hatred for the man.

 

[EPB]

There's no upside FOR HIM, of course.

There's never any upside for ANY president. But they all did. Why? Because people demands it.

But hey, according to tuna, "not enough people care about it"! Heha. How many is "enough"? Perhaps all those who didn't elect him (which is over 50%) is still "not enough"?

I think a better way of putting it is that it's something the lefty media will try to turn into a scandal (making asinine claims about how he's deeply compromised by XYZ entity because he owes them money and he sold therefore be investigated and impeached).

Half the country will buy it, half won't, we really be no better informed for it (I bet he's very rich, but about half as rich as he says - surely he makes aggressive use of deductions, too. That wouldn't surprise anyone.), and it will waste everyone's time and energy.

Seriously, what good is it for besides providing fodder? You're totally rational as a lefty to want it, but I'm highly dubious it will do anything but drive negative news coverage that half the country will ignore.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[cdskier]

There's no upside FOR HIM, of course.

There's never any upside for ANY president. But they all did. Why? Because people demands it.

Not quite sure I understand why people get to "demand" something that is private. His tax returns are none of my business. I have absolutely nothing to hide yet wouldn't release mine either. Just because others were foolish enough to release private details of their personal life does not mean everyone going forward should as well.

The expectation that just because someone runs for a public office means they should be forced to open up all aspects of their private lift is just bizarre.

 

[ThinkSnow]

Transparently false statement to say a man with a life of high success, now President, with economy way up, no new wars, and looking likely to wipe the floor with any opponent in 2020 "doesn't know what he's doing".

Anyone who's taken even the most basic political science classes knows that the success or failure of the first term of any president is carryover from the policies of his predecessor.

 

[bdfreetuna]

Anyone who's taken even the most basic political science classes knows that the success or failure of the first term of any president is carryover from the policies of his predecessor.

That's too simplistic to be correct as a general rule, and as a concept it's also a recent invention by liberals trying to deny Trump credit. I never heard any such thing in even mid-level Poli Sci classes taught by leftists. Even if it was this would be an exception. Since Trump's 1st term has largely been about undoing and reversing Obama policies (starting with incredibly unpopular policies like giving Iran $150,000,000,000 so they could build nukes , or making people pay a tax penalty for not purchasing health insurance, or giving money to foreign countries to pay for their abortions), it's pretty clear Trump isn't riding anyone's coat tails. Foreign policy likewise has been completely reversed in many ways, and despite the cries of those claiming Trump is starting WW3, it does appear to be the opposite case.

 

[EPB]

Anyone who's taken even the most basic political science classes knows that the success or failure of the first term of any president is carryover from the policies of his predecessor.

You've got a lot to learn if you can't put this together:

Anti-business policy leads to very slow recoveries (see 1930s and 2009-2016).

Everyone becomes more optimistic when pro-business policies are pursued creating a virtuous cycle whereby people invest more (in capex), employ more and the economy grows more quickly (see 1980s and present).

Trying to ignore this by hiding behind nebulous claims your political science 101 professor made is leading you to miss the forest though the trees. This isn't that complicated.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[BenedictGomez]

Anyone who's taken even the most basic political science classes knows that the success or failure of the first term of any president is carryover from the policies of his predecessor.

First TERM?!?!?!

The oft-repeated political claim you've heard (and bumbled), which holds some truth, is the first "year", not the entire first term.

 

[cdskier]

What was this thread originally about again?

 

[mister moose]

Anyone who's taken even the most basic political science classes knows that the success or failure of the first term of any president is carryover from the policies of his predecessor.

Gerald Ford.
Jimmy Carter.

I don't see any redemption in your Poly Sci 101 course.

 

[bdfreetuna]

What was this thread originally about again?

Failed liberal economic policy in Vermont

This really isn't much of a tangent..

 

[fbrissette]

You've got a lot to learn if you can't put this together:

Anti-business policy leads to very slow recoveries (see 1930s and 2009-2016).

Everyone becomes more optimistic when pro-business policies are pursued creating a virtuous cycle whereby people invest more (in capex), employ more and the economy grows more quickly (see 1980s and present).

Trying to ignore this by hiding behind nebulous claims your political science 101 professor made is leading you to miss the forest though the trees. This isn't that complicated.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

Ultimately, Presidents have limited control on the economy. Trump's economy is pretty much following the trends of Obama's economy so suggesting that 2009-2016 was a period of slow-growth compared to Trump's first mandate is just not supported by numbers.

See for example:

https://www.businessinsider.com/9-c...-has-gotten-larger-in-the-last-couple-years-9

 

[EPB]

Ultimately, Presidents have limited control on the economy. Trump's economy is pretty much following the trends of Obama's economy so suggesting that 2009-2016 was a period of slow-growth compared to Trump's first mandate is just not supported by numbers.

See for example:

https://www.businessinsider.com/9-c...-has-gotten-larger-in-the-last-couple-years-9

Agree on the point about presidents having limited impact, which is why I oversimplify to pro or anti business. Technology is the biggest driver of increased GDP per capita, not who's president.

This article is a bit of a red herring. I agree with them that Trump's trade imbalance mumbo jumbo is all wrong, but the economy has grown faster than anyone expected - especially this late in the cycle. While there are some dubious reasons for this (low rates, high government spend), we saw private capital pour into the economy after his election, higher growth than Obama thought possible, and more employment.

We should really be paying down federal debt right now, not that anyone should care what I have to say about it.

Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[bdfreetuna]

Federal Debt could be paid off via asset forfeiture of everyone involved with Jeffery Epstein.