The Trump implosion thread!

Quote: rxwine

Trump never got the respect from the Bush Republicans and the true Regan followers. Nancy Regan pretty much showed the disdain for Trump even though Ron wasn't still alive.

When you can't get the respect of previous leaders on your side, you need to give up the fantasy that Trump is somewhat redeemable.

Who cares if the country club didn’t want him as a member. That the snobatorium hates him just makes us like him more.

Trump showed his true colors in the lead up to the Republican primaries. Calling a Senator "Lying Ted" or "Little Marco" or "Spoiled Child Jeb" shows he doesn't want to get along with anyone, frankly. The list of people he has belittled is larger than the list of people he hasn't. There are ways to disagree with someone politically without acting like a 3rd grader. Our President has not figured out how. The Republicans just weren't skilled enough or united enough to stop him, like the Democrats have done to Bernie.

Quote: rxwine

The analysis I've heard previously said Trump had no real plan. That's not the actions of a smart leader.

When Eisnehower was advising his diplomats he said (paraphrasing, not looking up the exscr quote) " plans are useless, but planning is essential".

Basically planning helps the mindset of the negotiator than it actually helps with the negotiations. If you are able to talk on the fly, you may not need plans. The problem with Trump is, he has minimal consistency and likes publicity more than progress.

Quote: AZDuffman

Who cares if the country club didn’t want him as a member. That the snobatorium hates him just makes us like him more.

When Ross Perot worked the outsider angle, he actually was respectable. That's the problem with Trump. He was an outsider, but he was never respectable.

Quote: Gandler

For example North Korea, if Bush or Obama met with The Great Leader, they would be hailed as diplomatic geniuses, Trump does it, everyone (to some degree on both sides) go crazy.... Trump is wrong on most issues, but even when he is right, it is still skewed to make him look wrong.

I never criticized the move to meet with Kim. However, when Obama said he would meet with no preconditions, he was called naive by the same people that praised Trump for...meeting with no preconditions. Heck, Trump even went on to say him and Kim "fell in love" (yeah yeah....Art of the deal bulls**t...yeah yeah...where's the deal?). That's my biggest problem with the GOP of 2020 and why I will vote blue for the foreseeable future...can't stand a hypocrite. And it's a very small population in the GOP that didn't debase themselves for that man.

Quote: rxwine

When Ross Perot worked the outsider angle, he actually was respectable. That's the problem with Trump. He was an outsider, but he was never respectable.

Sure he is. You just do not like that he defends himself when people attack him.

Quote: SOOPOO

Trump showed his true colors in the lead up to the Republican primaries. Calling a Senator "Lying Ted" or "Little Marco" or "Spoiled Child Jeb" shows he doesn't want to get along with anyone, frankly. The list of people he has belittled is larger than the list of people he hasn't. There are ways to disagree with someone politically without acting like a 3rd grader. Our President has not figured out how. The Republicans just weren't skilled enough or united enough to stop him, like the Democrats have done to Bernie.

But, see, he did not really say these things first. Those people did not want to get along with him. Then never did and never will. So he is better to get mileage with him than act desperate to be friends with people who hate him.

I kind of think TDS works both ways.

We already know how it goes if someone is on the left. They take things out of context, obsess over every little thing that he does, decry every decision he makes as awful...even in those instances in which previous POTUS' would have done the exact same thing, etc.

However, I think TDS also somewhat works in his favor for a couple of reasons:

1.) People on the far right basically hate the far left, so for those people, the fact that Trump p!$$3$ off the Far Left so much is probably a selling point unto itself. The concept of Schadenfreude is quite real, so they probably quite enjoy seeing the left be utterly miserable and obsessing over every little thing Trump does all the time.

2.) Because TDS itself is quite real, which automatically proves that the left (taken as a whole) is not going to be objective about Trump anyway. The whole Impeachment/Removal nonsense was an excellent example; the far left had been telegraphing that silliness prior to Trump even being sworn into office. Even if the allegations had been 100% true, I don't personally know that it should have risen above censure. But, in researching all of it, I don't even know that I see anything that I would consider particularly unusual (not to say it wasn't maybe 'wrong') with what he did. It's just kind of an example of what I would assume goes on all the time.

3.) People HATE being wrong. This is what I mean when I say it, "Works both ways." While not everything he does is wrong, I think he pretty much sucks, overall. Originally, I was pretty annoyed with the left about the whole, "Not my President," thing, but it turns out that they were right. Trump furthers the divide between left and right, sows division and his #1 skill is blaming everyone else for everything that happens. He's basically the POTUS for, at best, just under 50% of this country.

People didn't love W., but when we faced a national tragedy with him in office, he was the sort of leader who was able to get everyone behind him and on the same page. Not only could Trump never do that, but he also would never want to.

He took credit, naturally, for an economy that was moving up essentially on cruise control. Of course, I always say that the President doesn't directly influence the economy on the whole to too great an extent, so it's not like I give Obama 100% credit for the rebound...I mean, how much worse could it have gotten anyway?

In any case, the economic policy of his that I know the most about involves tariffs or threats of tariffs...which are useless, imo. The way I see it, the only real impact any tariffs would have would be to increase end user prices (or result in getting less product for the same price) which does not benefit any end users and simultaneously disproportionately impacts those who are already poor. There's also the possibility of using cheaper manufacturing goods and cutting corners with safety to reduce costs in order to keep price/quantity of product the same, but with that, worker safety and product quality both get compromised...which again benefits nobody. I certainly don't think the exporters, importers, distributors or retailers are going to eat the losses by way of the tariffs, but then keep everything the same for the end users.

---Anyway, it all would have been basically fine, but then Covid-19 (which Trump obviously did not create---meaning the virus itself) and Derek Chauvin, who I assume did not act under Trump's direct orders, happened. These are the sorts of events where a President uniquely unqualified to unite people in pursuit of a common objective becomes a serious problem in a serious hurry. Hell, Trump only changed course on the masks, I think, when it became abundantly clear that some Republicans were starting to abandon him.

So, I think that some people defend Trump so vociferously because they don't want to be made to feel like idiots because they voted for him. Everything that he does has to be right, otherwise, that would-by extension-make their votes wrong.

While within the margin of error, I also find it pretty interesting that more people are going to vote for him (as of now) than there are people who actually approve of the job that he is doing. Of course, such is a two-party system problem that starts with the existence of the Electoral College, which is simultaneously why Bernie would have ever run as a Democrat in the first place----but we've already went down the EC road several times, so I'll spare you.

The aggregate support for him for POTUS is nearly 42% right now with his approval rating hovering right around 40%. He'll get just over 44% of the vote if all of those who are either neutral or approve (yes, 55%+ currently outright disapprove of him) vote for him...but I suspect he'll crack at least 45% and would be shocked to not see at least 45.5% as even some who outright disapprove vote for him anyway.

Quote: Mission146

He took credit, naturally, for an economy that was moving up essentially on cruise control. Of course, I always say that the President doesn't directly influence the economy on the whole to too great an extent, so it's not like I give Obama 100% credit for the rebound...I mean, how much worse could it have gotten anyway?

Because the economy was lugging along in 3rd gear. In the days after he was elected we moved into 6th gear in the left lane. People knew that Hillary planned to run the coal industry to bankruptcy then she would go after fracking. She would have pushed for "card check" unionization, depriving workers of their right to vote not to have a union. That is just a few.

Obama sued Boeing for OPENING a new plant.

People knew Trump would do none of this. He also got us out of an awful climate "treaty" and renegotiated trade agreements for better balance.

Trump did much to improve the economy.

Quote: AZDuffman

Because the economy was lugging along in 3rd gear. In the days after he was elected we moved into 6th gear in the left lane. People knew that Hillary planned to run the coal industry to bankruptcy then she would go after fracking. She would have pushed for "card check" unionization, depriving workers of their right to vote not to have a union. That is just a few.

Obama sued Boeing for OPENING a new plant.

People knew Trump would do none of this. He also got us out of an awful climate "treaty" and renegotiated trade agreements for better balance.

Trump did much to improve the economy.

I'd have to look into the Boeing thing; I know nothing about it. Certainly businesses opened stuff and Obama did not sue them all, so I assume there is more to it than that.

I don't know why Hillary is relevant to this in any way; she has never been POTUS. I can't say what would or would not have happened with her as POTUS, because she did not win. How can you, "Deprive workers of their right to vote not to have a union?" I'm afraid I have no idea what you're referring to without more specifics, but that sounds very much like a scare-mongering sort of phrase.

Trump might have done some, and on net, maybe even sped up the course it was already on. I'll admit that the markets have (continued to go) up under his watch and that I cannot prove that his actions did not accelerate the process. I hate tariffs because they never make sense. The rest of his policies might have been good and I disagree with anything Environmental if it costs/loses any money, other than preserving certain areas.

So, I guess I'm saying I have not analyzed all of his economic policies enough to make a definitive conclusion. I do know what the market was doing with Obama in office, though. I also stand by my original assertion that, if anything Governmental at all, Congressional dealings have the most to do with what happens to the economy...but really...I think generally that Government affairs don't influence the markets too much absent extreme circumstances. More than zero, yes, but far less than half.