2018 State of the Union pbp thread

[bobgeese]

Starting with Trump’s inauguration, the Dow has risen from 19,827.3 to 25,075.1 -- an increase of 26 percent. That’s impressive.

But it’s not as impressive as its performance during the equivalent period under Obama. Under Obama, the Dow increased from 7,949.1 to 10,572 — a rise of 33 percent.

In fact, the Dow’s rise was even more impressive under Obama if you start measuring at the market’s low point, on March 9, 2009, during the depths of the Great Recession. That day, the Dow closed at 6,547. Between then and Jan. 5 — a 10-month period — the Dow rose by a stunning 61 percent. That’s more than three times faster than Trump’s rise over the same period in his term.

First off, the Dow started its march on Election Day.


Second, the Dow was at 6k, where was it supposed to go you fucking goof!!!

 

[kahiljabroni]

Yet my company still exists and we are thriving. That's a real life instance we do things and provide services that other companies who hire Mexicans don't.
It's really not that hard of a concept to comprehend.

That's great for you and your family. Unfortunately there are more people to consider. 300 million more

 

[Rational Poster]

First off, the Dow started its march on Election Day.


Second, the Dow was at 6k, where was it supposed to go you fucking goof!!!

So.. Obama doesn't get credit because the market was shit, but Trump gets credit because the market was already good.

Measured from Election Day, Obama still outperformed Trump. The market increased 149% under Obama, second behind only Clinton which increased at 227%.

Why is it the market performs best under Democrats if the Republicans are so pro-business? The Dow would have close close at like 40,000 for Trump to match Obama's performance.

 

[bobgeese]

So.. Obama doesn't get credit because the market was shit, but Trump gets credit because the market was already good.

Measured from Election Day, Obama still outperformed Trump. The market increased 149% under Obama, second behind only Clinton which increased at 227%.

Why is it the market performs best under Democrats if the Republicans are so pro-business? The Dow would have close close at like 40,000 for Trump to match Obama's performance.

So, you really are that dim... I thought more of you.



The Dow at 6k had nowhere to go but up.

 

[Rational Poster]

So, you really are that dim... I thought more of you.



The Dow at 6k had nowhere to go but up.

So? Because Trump didn't ruin the existing market trend over the past 10 years he gets credit for everything?

How do you explain that the most successful Presidents in terms of market performance have all been Democrats?

 

[Liquid Smoke]

So? Because Trump didn't ruin the existing market trend over the past 10 years he gets credit for everything?

How do you explain that the most successful Presidents in terms of market performance have all been Democrats?

I believe Clinton's market is generally referred to as the "dot com bubble".

 

[Rational Poster]

I believe Clinton's market is generally referred to as the "dot com bubble".

Your point?

Maybe Trump's market will be referred to as the retarded bullshit bubble?

 

[Liquid Smoke]

Your point?

Maybe Trump's market will be referred to as the retarded bullshit bubble?

I wouldn't use such crass language, but time will tell...

 

[Arkain2K]

Trump’s speech was bad. The Democrats' response to it was worse.
The Democratic party showed it had learned nothing from the 2016 defeat and still has no idea how to deal with Trump and the Republican hegemony

During the State of the Union speech on Tuesday evening, the American people saw a boisterous, self-confident, united Republican party rally around its president, while a defeated, grim, and moping Democratic party looked on powerlessly.

As soon as the rather long State of the Union speech was over, liberal pundits and Democratic operatives started to attack it. Some focused on the lack of concrete policies or the nativist content of the immigration sections; others pointed out the lack of energy of the speech. They had seen a “low-energy” Trump and assumed the base would be left uninspired and wondering. It again showed their complete lack of understanding of the Trump-Republican party dynamic.

For the past year, interviews and polls with Trump supporters, and the broader Republican base, have consistently shown that the vast majority of Republicans support his policies but not his tone.

They want Trump to be combative and self-confident, but not engage in petty, personal attacks. What they want is authoritarian and nativist policies with a human face, and that is what Trump finally delivered on Tuesday.

This is why people like Republican spin doctor Frank Luntz, a relative Trump-skeptic within the party, tweeted: “Tonight, I owe Donald Trump an apology. Tonight, I was moved and inspired. Tonight, I have hope and faith in America again.”

No matter that Trump presented an economic agenda that, if actually implemented, would probably bankrupt the country – hello big government! No matter that Trump connected legal immigrants to MS-13 gangsters and called for an overthrow of the age-old immigration system. No matter even that Trump called upon Congress “to empower every cabinet secretary with the authority to reward good workers – and to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people” – hello Big Brother!

On Tuesday evening, Trump finally became the president of the whole Republican party. It shows how far the normalization of radical right ideas has come. Trump was already the true voice of the party base, but now the party elite also embraced him. Ayn Rand disciple Paul Ryan even enthusiastically applauded Trump’s $1.5tn government-stimulated infrastructure plan.

Sure, the atmosphere in Congress was, at times, more like that of a frat party. And it reached a patriotic frenzy when the whole Republican contingent broke out in a minute-long “USA! USA! USA! chant. But rather than defensive and nasty, Trump presented his administration as self-confident and successful, ready to do business with the (pesky) Democrats.

Masterfully, every nativist policy was camouflaged by using non-white enforcers and victims and contrasted with policies that are at the top of the Democratic agenda – such as citizenship for “illegal immigrants”.

The Democratic party, on the other hand, showed it had learned nothing from the 2016 defeat and still has no idea how to deal with Trump and the Republican hegemony. Not only did their members of Congress sit there defeated and moping, often not even applauding policies that were, or should be, in their own platform. They chose the personification of the east coast liberal political dynasty, Joe Kennedy III, to give the Democratic response to the State of the Union. From Massachusetts, of all places!

Kennedy’s speech was heralded by the Democratic punditry as inspiring and truly American. But as with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, it was low on substance, particularly in terms of socioeconomic policies. And, seriously, who chooses a trust-fund kid, who is the 22nd richest member of Congress, to speak to “the thousands of American communities whose roads aren’t paved with power or privilege”?

And so Kennedy did what the Democratic party has been doing for over a year now, reach out to Hispanics, including the by now obligatory few sentences in (surprisingly good) Spanish, and women – the type of “identity politics” the party has been criticized for since the 2016 defeat.

But for all the heralding of diversity, and criticism of this administration’s nativism and racism, there was no explicit reference to key issues for the non-white, and white, underclass. Issues like prison reform or voter suppression were not even explicitly mentioned. And he barely mentioned the opioid crisis, one of the most soul-crushing problems of the US in general, and his state of Massachusetts in particular, which Trump had devoted several minutes to.

Trump, meanwhile, delivered exactly what the broader Republican elite and masses wanted: authoritarian nativism with a human face. He spoke directly to the not yet convinced Republicans, knowing that his base will follow him anyway. The Democrats did exactly the opposite.

The past year saw a slew of “non-traditional” electoral victories in terms of candidates, often not the favorite of the local and state party elites, geography, in so-called “fly-over country”, and electorates, such as the disproportionate support of non-whites, in particular African American women. Despite this, the Democratic party presented Kennedy, the poster boy of the party insiders: a rich, white, male from the east coast.

While Steve Bannon might not be a player in the White House any more, and the State of the Union was markedly low on populism, the Democratic party would do well to heed the words he spoke in an August 2017 interview: “The longer they talk about identity politics, I got ’em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.”


Cas Mudde is Associate Professor in the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Georgia. He is the author of Populism: A Very Short Introduction and The Far Right in America

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...mps-speech-miserable-democrats-response-to-it

 

[Hans Gercmiov]

and this is exactly why he “loves the uneducated”

Must suck to wake up every day wallowing in your sorrow because Trump is your President. Keep hydrated. Got to replenish those tears somehow. <Lmaoo>

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

Well and good for you, but let's not ever say you guys don't require constant coddling.

Coddle? Says the goofy white cuckknight who coddles minorities for their acceptance.