The Success of President Donald Trump

scbriml · Sun Jul 01, 2018 9:00 pm

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/30/us-inte ... l-des.html

U.S. intelligence believes North Korea making more nuclear bomb fuel despite talks

Trump asks Saudi's to increase oil production after his policy against Iran causes oil prices to rise! Needless to say he Tweets that it's a done deal.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/30/news/tr ... index.html

President Donald Trump has asked Saudi Arabia's king to increase oil production to make up for a shortfall from Iran and Venezuela.

However...

There was no confirmation that Saudi Arabia would increase oil production, as President Trump said.

#somuchwinning

Mortyman · Sun Jul 01, 2018 9:39 pm

EU warns of $300bn hit to US over car import tariffs

Brussels responds to Trump’s threat, warning of global retaliation and full-blown trade war

https://www.ft.com/

seahawk · Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:05 am

Let them try. America will prevail.

jetero · Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:07 am

seahawk wrote:
Let them try. America will prevail.

Please send me your shipping address Seahawk, I want to send you a foam hand.

seahawk · Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:23 am

jetero wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Let them try. America will prevail.

Please send me your shipping address Seahawk, I want to send you a foam hand.

Only if I get an orange one.

Dutchy · Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:37 am

jetero wrote:
seahawk wrote:
jetero wrote:

Please send me your shipping address Seahawk, I want to send you a foam hand.

Only if I get an orange one.

Are you Dutch?

No he is German, but I guess he can't get over the loss for the German national team, but then again he predicted it.

Dutchy · Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:15 pm

Largest US business group attacks Trump on tariffs

> The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is launching a campaign on Monday to oppose Trump’s trade tariff policies.
> It is the nation’s largest business group and customarily a close ally of President Donald Trump’s Republican Party.
> Using a state-by-state analysis, the new campaign argues that Trump is risking a global trade war that will hit the wallets of U.S. consumers.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/02/largest ... riffs.html

So Trump even lost the support of business. Whom does support these policies of Trump?

VTKillarney1 · Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:32 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Largest US business group attacks Trump on tariffs

> The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is launching a campaign on Monday to oppose Trump’s trade tariff policies.
> It is the nation’s largest business group and customarily a close ally of President Donald Trump’s Republican Party.
> Using a state-by-state analysis, the new campaign argues that Trump is risking a global trade war that will hit the wallets of U.S. consumers.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/02/largest ... riffs.html

So Trump even lost the support of business. Whom does support these policies of Trump?

About 90% of Republicans.

Dutchy · Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:45 pm

VTKillarney1 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Largest US business group attacks Trump on tariffs

> The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is launching a campaign on Monday to oppose Trump’s trade tariff policies.
> It is the nation’s largest business group and customarily a close ally of President Donald Trump’s Republican Party.
> Using a state-by-state analysis, the new campaign argues that Trump is risking a global trade war that will hit the wallets of U.S. consumers.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/02/largest ... riffs.html

So Trump even lost the support of business. Whom does support these policies of Trump?

About 90% of Republicans.

Bags the question why?

He doesn't seem to have the same value's. Doesn't do anything really for business (except some rules are gone?). Lowing of taxes for the rich, not really effective for that fast majority.

bagoldex · Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:51 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Largest US business group attacks Trump on tariffs

> The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is launching a campaign on Monday to oppose Trump’s trade tariff policies.
> It is the nation’s largest business group and customarily a close ally of President Donald Trump’s Republican Party.
> Using a state-by-state analysis, the new campaign argues that Trump is risking a global trade war that will hit the wallets of U.S. consumers.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/02/largest ... riffs.html

So Trump even lost the support of business. Whom does support these policies of Trump?

seb146 · Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:15 pm

Dutchy wrote:
VTKillarney1 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/02/largest ... riffs.html

So Trump even lost the support of business. Whom does support these policies of Trump?

About 90% of Republicans.

Bags the question why?

He doesn't seem to have the same value's. Doesn't do anything really for business (except some rules are gone?). Lowing of taxes for the rich, not really effective for that fast majority.

From 2008 to 2016, the base were told that the economy was awful. It had failed and the worst. That whole period of economic growth and job creation, the base were told none of that were happening. Now, the base is seeing their wages stay the same, jobs going away, prices going up and the same people are saying the economy is humming right along.

That is why.

seb146 · Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:20 pm

If these reports do not scare you

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-calls- ... 20704.html
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol- ... story.html

The orange menace's critics "better watch out" and he is also critical of the media. Basically, he hates any negative press of him and he whines about how awful he is being treated. And his base eats this crap up. The same base that were critical and negative to Obama. It was patriotic then but needs to stop now.

EDIT:

Let's also keep in mind that he wants to deny some in the press access to the WH and that he wants to discredit negative reports about him

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lesley-sta ... e-stories/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... 60b57aa397

resist

VTKillarney1 · Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:31 pm

seb146 wrote:
The orange menace's critics "better watch out" and he is also critical of the media. Basically, he hates any negative press of him and he whines about how awful he is being treated. And his base eats this crap up. The same base that were critical and negative to Obama. It was patriotic then but needs to stop now.

This is why nobody takes the lest seriously and why you just aren't making the inroads that you should be making.

Obama was one of the most hostile Presidents when it comes to press freedom - and yet not a peep from the left.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opin ... obama.html

I have no problem criticizing Trump for this. But to feign outrage when you were silent for the past eight years is beyond absurd.

seb146 · Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:43 pm

VTKillarney1 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
The orange menace's critics "better watch out" and he is also critical of the media. Basically, he hates any negative press of him and he whines about how awful he is being treated. And his base eats this crap up. The same base that were critical and negative to Obama. It was patriotic then but needs to stop now.

This is why nobody takes the lest seriously and why you just aren't making the inroads that you should be making.

Obama was one of the most hostile Presidents when it comes to press freedom - and yet not a peep from the left.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opin ... obama.html

I have no problem criticizing Trump for this. But to feign outrage when you were silent for the past eight years is beyond absurd.

Valarie Plame, Edward Snowden, and Chelsea Manning are not even close to the same as what tRump is talking about.

There is a yuge difference between leaking classified government information and simply not wanting negative press. If you can not see the difference, you are beyond help and a bigger troll than we all thought.

For eight years under Obama, all we heard from the right was how terrible he is and how awful the economy is and how bad things were. No actual fact to back any of that up, just that things were bad. The right wing press (Fox infotainment, AM radio, InfoWars, Blaze, etc.) kept hammering this talking point. No facts or anything. Just that "Obama bad." Eight years, every few minutes. When we actually do get a bad president, you all praise him. We have facts to prove that tRump is the worst president ever. 200 political scholars can prove it.

But, no. Right wing media says otherwise, so lock up all the "liberal" journalists because they report facts on tRump, which he immediately calls lies and fake.

resist

VTKillarney1 · Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:50 pm

seb146 wrote:
There is a yuge difference between leaking classified government information and simply not wanting negative press. If you can not see the difference, you are beyond help and a bigger troll than we all thought.

When Newsweek doesn't even agree with you, it may be time to reconsider.
http://www.newsweek.com/when-obama-went ... ews-632424

From the article: "The Obama-Fox News feud is a reminder that presidents frequently clash with media outlets."

And yet, when Trump does it, the left claims that the sky has fallen just because Trump may be more brash. Again, this is why the left isn't making meaningful inroads.

oslmgm · Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:03 pm

The two sides bashing each other is a consequence of having a 2-party system (winner takes all). Trump thrives on it. I'm grateful for living in a country with proportional representation in our elections, since it rewards cooperation and compromise. (To some degree, at least - no system is perfect, obviously.)

Mortyman · Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:30 pm

AXIOS: "Trump ordered bill to abandon WTO rules in order for the USA to operate outside the rules"

DIRECTFLT · Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:57 pm

Brian Ross is leaving ABC. He was suspended for a month without pay last year by ABC News for a botched report on ousted White House national security adviser Flynn that reported President Trump directed Flynn to make contact with Russian officials. The mistake even sent stocks tumbling, and ABC issued an apology saying: “We deeply regret and apologize for the serious error.”

His longtime executive producer Rhonda Schwartz is also exiting. “The time has come to say good-bye,” said the duo in a letter to staff with an announcement by ABC News president James Goldston.

Good Riddance.

https://pagesix.com/2018/07/02/brian-ro ... nn-report/

Dutchy · Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:03 pm

Mortyman wrote:
AXIOS: "Trump ordered bill to abandon WTO rules in order for the USA to operate outside the rules"

So another treaty gone. Why not get rid of all and see where that leads to.

vfw614 · Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:42 pm

Looks as if it is getting uncomfy for the Big Orange One:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michael ... d=56304585

"Michael Cohen says family and country, not President Trump, is his 'first loyalty'" “I want to regain my name and my reputation and my life back," he said.

Looks like he is about to sing.

seb146 · Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:24 am

oslmgm wrote:
The two sides bashing each other is a consequence of having a 2-party system (winner takes all). Trump thrives on it. I'm grateful for living in a country with proportional representation in our elections, since it rewards cooperation and compromise. (To some degree, at least - no system is perfect, obviously.)

I much prefer the Parliamentary system. First, we need to get money out of politics at every level. Then, we can have serious discussions about other parties having access to voters. Neither Republicans nor Democrats really want money out of politics. They both say they do, but they don't.

seahawk · Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:11 am

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Brian Ross is leaving ABC. He was suspended for a month without pay last year by ABC News for a botched report on ousted White House national security adviser Flynn that reported President Trump directed Flynn to make contact with Russian officials. The mistake even sent stocks tumbling, and ABC issued an apology saying: “We deeply regret and apologize for the serious error.”

His longtime executive producer Rhonda Schwartz is also exiting. “The time has come to say good-bye,” said the duo in a letter to staff with an announcement by ABC News president James Goldston.

Good Riddance.

https://pagesix.com/2018/07/02/brian-ro ... nn-report/

Good news. It is time to clean the swamp in the media and throw out all liberals. The media must strengthen the country and not destroy it with evil liberal ideas.

tommy1808 · Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:59 am

Dutchy wrote:
VTKillarney1 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/02/largest ... riffs.html

So Trump even lost the support of business. Whom does support these policies of Trump?

About 90% of Republicans.

Bags the question why?

He doesn't seem to have the same value's. Doesn't do anything really for business (except some rules are gone?). Lowing of taxes for the rich, not really effective for that fast majority.

Easy, 90% of Republicans don´t understand or don´t think about how an economy works or what a trade imbalance is. Which is totally fine, the number will be around the same level for all other groups outside of those that work in the field, or at least learned about macroeconomics and stay interested. The difference will just be explained by how wrong the media they consume presents it vs. media other people consume.

If Canada, China, EU, Japan and SK where smart, they would simply make it illegal for their citizens to a) invest in the USA and b) buy US treasury bonds.

The Trade deficit would be all but gone over night, US tax payers would pay tens, if not hundreds of billions, of USD more in interest for their national debt and US Job creation would hit an historic low.

And then we just wait and see how much they really like balanced trade.

best regards
Thomas.

DIRECTFLT · Tue Jul 03, 2018 9:29 am

Breaking out the 2016 vintage... 2018's vintage should be good also.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNy5h3yC8pI

Dutchy · Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:32 pm

Leave it to the Dutch to say no to Trump....

..... in his face.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ma ... 4a8b2689dd

BTW the Dutch have such an unfair trade deal with the US, we import more than the US imports of Dutch goods. And our companies employ 800.000 Americans, such unfair all these jobs should come home. #sad.

casinterest · Tue Jul 03, 2018 4:21 pm

Racist. Lying President tweets out Iranian hardliner's false claim about Iranian citizenships, and blames Obama.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... ng-citize/

seb146 · Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:21 pm

Remember back to 2008 until 2016 when righties were crying and screaming "stop blaming Bush!" when anything Bush related came up? Like the economic collapse or the war in Iraq? Now, it seems that, no matter what happens, it is Obama's fault. tRump owns all of this mess. The hatred, the lying, the trade wars. The economy was steadily improving month over month under Obama. Of course, he can never get any credit for that.

When in doubt, blame Obama.

DIRECTFLT · Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:10 pm

Has CNN put a Countdown Clock for the President's SCOTUS nomination Announcement??

Maybe Trump will do a "Lebron" The Decision Announcement . . .

VTKillarney · Sat Jul 07, 2018 7:43 pm

Mueller’s team just filed a document in Paul Manafort’s trial that has this gem:
“The government does not intend to present at trial evidence or argument concerning collusion with the Russian government,”

Document here:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... imine.html

DIRECTFLT · Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:14 am

The President signs the paperwork with his selection of Brett Kavanaugh as the next Justice of the SCOTUS.

Making America Great Again

Thank You Mr. President !!!

seahawk · Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:04 am

That move saves America for at least a decade.

BN747 · Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:06 am

DIRECTFLT wrote:

The President signs the paperwork with his selection of Brett Kavanaugh as the next Justice of the SCOTUS.

Making America Great Again

Thank You Mr. President !!!

None of you MAGA supports have pointed the era in when exactly America was great??!!

...so, enlighten us. Please do tell us of this glorious period of which you speak.

BN747

DIRECTFLT · Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:40 pm

BN747 wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:

The President signs the paperwork with his selection of Brett Kavanaugh as the next Justice of the SCOTUS.

Making America Great Again

Thank You Mr. President !!!

None of you MAGA supports have pointed the era in when exactly America was great??!!

...so, enlighten us. Please do tell us of this glorious period of which you speak.

BN747

I'll speak for myself. I think basically it's the 1950's, minus the racism and the sexism. But that's just me. Others probably have their own definition.

VTKillarney · Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:53 pm

DIRECTFLT wrote:

I'll speak for myself. I think basically it's the 1950's, minus the racism and the sexism. But that's just me. Others probably have their own definition.

His wife has a career as a town manager. No Handmaid’s Tale in this family.

Dutchy · Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:21 pm

DIRECTFLT wrote:
BN747 wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:

The President signs the paperwork with his selection of Brett Kavanaugh as the next Justice of the SCOTUS.

Making America Great Again

Thank You Mr. President !!!

None of you MAGA supports have pointed the era in when exactly America was great??!!

...so, enlighten us. Please do tell us of this glorious period of which you speak.

BN747

I'll speak for myself. I think basically it's the 1950's, minus the racism and the sexism. But that's just me. Others probably have their own definition.

Oh man, that time will never come back. The world has changed, America has changed. Morals have changed. Sexism is an integral part of '50 society, women behind the dishes and men at work. Back to a narrow-minded society, where you need to conform to this society otherwise you are out.

What you like, perhaps, was America's undisputed role as a world leader or the rapid economic growth? Both are gone, the world has changed and this century will be China's century. Or perhaps you like that there were a solid middle class and a lot more social mobility between the classes? That you can make happen, but Donald Trump is your president for Donald Trump, he ain't going to work on those issue's, Republicans, in general, will never work towards that goal to make a more fair society.

So what does it mean: "basically it's the 1950's, minus the racism and the sexism".

VTKillarney · Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:55 pm

I didn't see this one coming. A new Border Police Force is being created along the Mexican border to stop undocumented immigrants, drugs and guns from crossing the border.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... from-trump

trpmb6 · Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:49 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
I didn't see this one coming. A new Border Police Force is being created along the Mexican border to stop undocumented immigrants, drugs and guns from crossing the border.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... from-trump

When i first read your post I thought, "Great now Trump is giving the left another talking point to use: "TRUMP CREATES GESTAPO FORCE OUTSIDE OF CBP CONTROL""

But the fact that it is the left leaning anti-trump president elect of Mexico proposing this is just comedy gold.

Also somewhat funny:

Lopez Obrador, who takes power Dec. 1, will meet with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Friday.

Gasp! Meeting with a foreign official before the current administration is out of office! Scandalous!

___________________________________________________________________________________________

I initially came here to pose the question as to why other NATO countries don't meet their defense spending obligations as spelled out in the agreement. I find it funny when other countries chastise Trump for pulling out of the paris accord or the Iranian agreement when they themselves aren't even living up to a simple requirement of spend X% of gdp on defense spending.

seb146 · Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:34 am

tRump is allowing Mar-A-Lago members to tour Air Force 1.

https://trofire.com/2018/07/10/trump-se ... o-members/

So, if a member has paid up their dues, the "president" can profit off it. But, those minimum wage workers wanting food and health care and a living wage, how dare they!

seb146 · Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:43 am

trpmb6 wrote:
I initially came here to pose the question as to why other NATO countries don't meet their defense spending obligations as spelled out in the agreement. I find it funny when other countries chastise Trump for pulling out of the paris accord or the Iranian agreement when they themselves aren't even living up to a simple requirement of spend X% of gdp on defense spending.

I did some searching and found the exact same numbers from 2016 until now. That's right: trying to gin up outrage by using two year old numbers that have been repeated. The exact same numbers year after year.

yawn

Next.

cargolex · Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:51 am

DIRECTFLT wrote:
I'll speak for myself. I think basically it's the 1950's, minus the racism and the sexism. But that's just me. Others probably have their own definition.

See now that's pretty interesting. Because the 1950s was a time when the New Deal consensus was pretty much agreed on by the vast majority of Americans. Wealthy people paid higher taxes, social safety nets and unions were strong, and the Government spent lots of money on infrastructure, education, science, and technology. Nobody believe that public school or education were bad things, other than the very people whom you say you'd rather not have come back to prominence.

Eisenhower, of course, essentially ratified the New Deal ideas with a large percentage of Conservative Americans, just the same way Bill Clinton made it okay to be a Democrat who liked deregulation, didn't care about organized labor, and wanted to "get rid of big government," much to our regret.

It's very interesting to hear this revisionist idea of the 50s. Almost every policy of the current Government would be antithetical to the American administrations that created the world of the 1950s - Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and their ideological predecessors like Al Smith.

When people say they want to bring back the 50s, they never mean "bring back the new deal consensus."

If the 50s, but with equality, is what you wanted, you definitely made the wrong choice.

trpmb6 · Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:50 pm

The economic power house of the 1950's is a mixed bag. You have to remember that half the world was rebuilding during that time period and they were buying A LOT of American goods. To say the economic gains of the 50's was solely due to the policies put in place by roosevelt and reinforced by Truman and Eisenhower is disingenuous. It's kind of like giving all the economic credit to bill clinton when really he just happened to be the president when the internet boom happened. (The same is true for almost every president - they are all riding the economic waves that are handed to them - they may be able to make minor adjustments here and there to tweak the economy but by and large the economy is just too dang large for the government to really have a meaningful impact in the grand scheme of things.)

tommy1808 · Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:57 pm

DIRECTFLT wrote:
I'll speak for myself. I think basically it's the 1950's, minus the racism and the sexism. But that's just me. Others probably have their own definition.

Sounds good to me. Back then the US had strong Unions and 70% effective Tax rate, which probably is why it was great.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 · Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:00 pm

seb146 wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
I initially came here to pose the question as to why other NATO countries don't meet their defense spending obligations as spelled out in the agreement. I find it funny when other countries chastise Trump for pulling out of the paris accord or the Iranian agreement when they themselves aren't even living up to a simple requirement of spend X% of gdp on defense spending.

I did some searching and found the exact same numbers from 2016 until now. That's right: trying to gin up outrage by using two year old numbers that have been repeated. The exact same numbers year after year.

yawn

Next.

and one has to keep in mind that Russia, according to Trump, is our great friend and friend and future ally. Why waste money on defense if there is no one we have to defend against??

Best regards
Thomas

trpmb6 · Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:13 pm

Well actually, right now Trump is asking why Germany is buying millions of dollars worth of natural gas from Russia while we (US & NATO) are spending millions to defend Germany against any perceived threat from Russia.

A very valid question to ask in my opinion.

I don't really understand why the left thinks Trump and Putin are best pals. Trump's policies have done nothing to help Russia. HRC did far more as secretary of state under her famous Russia Restart plan to help Russia than anything Trump has done to this date. Trump's natural gas / energy policies alone have had devastating effects on the Russian economy alone.

tommy1808 · Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:28 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
Well actually, right now Trump is asking why Germany is buying millions of dollars worth of natural gas from Russia while we (US & NATO) are spending millions to defend Germany against any perceived threat from Russia.

The EU alone outguns Russia by a factor of ~3, without Turkey, Canada and the US. What is lacking isn´t huge spending, it is logistics preparedness. That is being worked on.

We are buying million of dollars worth of gas, because we can not really just steal it. Germany is buying from Russia for a total of 15.9B$ over all goods, that is hardly more than the US 12.3 .... what do you need so desperately from them to support Russia?

A very valid question to ask in my opinion.

Nah, we spend 30B$/year on energy alternatives. The question would imply that is defense related spending, yielding over 2% of the GDP in total for defense.

I don't really understand why the left thinks Trump and Putin are best pals. Trump's policies have done nothing to help Russia. HRC did far more as secretary of state under her famous Russia Restart plan to help Russia than anything Trump has done to this date.

you remember how he refused to sign sanctions into law?

Trump's natural gas / energy policies alone have had devastating effects on the Russian economy alone.

you mean the continued trend of the last 10 years or so?

best regards
Thomas

trpmb6 · Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:18 pm

I just find it ironic that the same people who say Trump is too cozy with Putin also support NATO countries spending billions of dollars on Russian oil and gas. Ever since the election Russia has been public enemy #1 (I seem to recall Romney being ridiculed for saying they were our biggest geopolitical foe). But suddenly it's ok for our allies to buy oil and natural gas from them while we spend billions in trying to counter Russia's advances (which includes restricting their economic might!). You talked about Trump refusing to sign sanctions into law but at the same time are ok with Germany buying natural gas from Russia. You can't be outraged about one and ok with the other.

cargolex · Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:20 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
The economic power house of the 1950's is a mixed bag. You have to remember that half the world was rebuilding during that time period and they were buying A LOT of American goods. To say the economic gains of the 50's was solely due to the policies put in place by roosevelt and reinforced by Truman and Eisenhower is disingenuous. It's kind of like giving all the economic credit to bill clinton when really he just happened to be the president when the internet boom happened. (The same is true for almost every president - they are all riding the economic waves that are handed to them - they may be able to make minor adjustments here and there to tweak the economy but by and large the economy is just too dang large for the government to really have a meaningful impact in the grand scheme of things.)

Uh huh. And without Roosevelt's policies, it's likely that the United States' industrial base might have crumbled due to economic conditions - it's agricultural base certainly would have if Roosevelt had not intervened. And without the New Deal spending, the country wouldn't have been in a position to deliver all those goods or that military hardware during the war.

The Conservatives he took over from were content to do nothing, and had ignored the needs of a wide swath of the country for many years. There was no interest, for example, in providing electricity to many rural areas - because the private market saw no profit in it and Laissez-faire conservatives didn't live in those dirt poor places like central Tennessee or West Texas. But by putting resources towards those issues, the New Deal made a lot of people much more productive and much happier, allowing considerable economic expansion. There's a reason that even though the 1920s is arguably America's strongest decade in terms of growth, that the 1950s is remembered for such across-the-board growth.

It's also possible that without Roosevelt the country might have descended into Fascism as well - there were plenty of people who thought Hitler and Mussolini and Franco were doing a good job, and just six years before Roosevelt's election the KKK had peaked in membership across the country.

trpmb6 · Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:21 pm

cargolex wrote:

Uh huh. And without Roosevelt's policies, it's likely that the United States' industrial base might have crumbled due to economic conditions - it's agricultural base certainly would have if Roosevelt had not intervened. And without the New Deal spending, the country wouldn't have been in a position to deliver all those goods or that military hardware during the war.

As I said: Mixed bag.

VTKillarney · Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:45 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
I'll speak for myself. I think basically it's the 1950's, minus the racism and the sexism. But that's just me. Others probably have their own definition.

Sounds good to me. Back then the US had [a] 70% effective Tax rate, which probably is why it was great.

best regards
Thomas

Somebody doesn't know what an effective tax rate is.

BN747 · Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:16 pm

DIRECTFLT wrote:
BN747 wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:

The President signs the paperwork with his selection of Brett Kavanaugh as the next Justice of the SCOTUS.

Making America Great Again

Thank You Mr. President !!!

None of you MAGA supports have pointed the era in when exactly America was great??!!

...so, enlighten us. Please do tell us of this glorious period of which you speak.

BN747

I'll speak for myself. I think basically it's the 1950's, minus the racism and the sexism. But that's just me. Others probably have their own definition.

That answer is given and meant to serve one or the other purpose ...

“...minus the Racism & sexism”...

1) you’d really like to see a lesser informed public that felt all nice n fuzzy like some version of ‘I love Lucy’ type of America (which only existed on Tv) I mean c’mon, would all married couples have slept in twin beds as they did on the show? Like that EVER happened!!

Or

2)you stated it because you wanted to come across (and you may be in truth) a kind of person who hopes and wishes these two anti-social elements would just go away. Just like — that!

The problem is either position is eerily based in some fiction that needs to erase everything America. Or maybe you are not sincere in that statement.

I’m going to assume, you seriously meant what you wrote, and you are indeed serious...then here is where it is NOT serious to YOU in the first place. Because if is serious about it.. then must past or present have given it the deep thought such seriousness requires.

You can’t be serious about ‘minus the racism & sexism’ because the statement is made with a clear lack of understanding the gravity that either issue entails. Saying ‘minus the racism/sexism’ is akin to saying ‘why don’t people just be nice’ or to Putin, ‘just return Crimea to the Ukraine and start fostering peace in the world’...of course, we all know neither of those things are going to happen. Well it could...it could happen If, IF ...the whole world becomes ‘stoners’ .. (smoke weed) then BOTH could possibly occur, but that would NEVER ..EVER happen!

So your unfounded wish can not be taken seriously because to speak of it in such a benign and underpowered manner is to dismiss it so fleetingly it results in a slap in the face of every person today who is currently experiencing and living live racist situations as well as sexist ones, not to mention those who paid with their lives because of it. They would like it to go away too (or never happened) but they know it won’t.

The MAGA handbook DOES NOT have a strategy to end racism/sexism. Or am I wrong and it’s written there somewhere and you just can’t locate it.

The MAGA leader, spearheading the entire movement is a racist and mysoginistic sexist prick if there ever was one. His actions paints a picture perfect image of him being just that. Now if you are a racist (like certain members here on A.net, those clowns who blurt out ‘no racism here’ types parrottting like Traitor Trump’s ‘ no collusion, no collussion’ Tantrums) you of course see NO Racism in a thing Traitor Trump has said or done. And ‘NO SEXISM’ ...as well. If you’ve mananged to convince yourself that Traitor Trump has done None if these things...’ then YES, you are indeed a racist and have not the slightest clue as to what Racism and/or Sexism’ is.

And lastly, to wish 1950s era to return without Racism/Sexism...then the father of Racism (in America - cuz its MAGA we are talking about here) then the father of Racism, Slavery also has to disappear as well.
And no Slavery = No AMERICA.
...and I repeat ..
NO Slavery = NO AMERICA!

America with no Slavery is NOT the America you know. That America may exist in a parallel universe or in another sector of the Milky Way galaxy. Or in another galaxy altogether. But the one you and I reside in.

No slavery of Native Americans. No Indentured servitude of white, black, red, yellow or brown. Without any of that.... you now have no racism. And without that, you have no America, and strangely, you and many MAGA followers have convinced yourselves that this can somehow happen. Well my good man, I’m all ears to hear exactly how the Racist-in-Chief and his MAGA plan can make this happen...please, tell me.

Now that just the racism dismantling...wanna talk, the same incredibly hard case of Sexism? Live got that case at the ready if you’d like to go there too.

BN747

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net