Trump mad his political supporters aren't protected

I'd say their close. Obama was just more charismatic.
Nope, not close at all. Obama praised McCain for his service as he ran against him, Trump called Clinton Crooked Hillary and of course even made fun of John McCain because he wasn't willing to kiss the ring early enough. Obama made attempts to reach across the aisle in rhetoric and even in policy with Obamacare. Trump has done no such thing, he's only attempted to put fuel on the fire.

Obama said some polarizing things about Trayvon and cops and whatnot to be sure and later in his presidency he did revert to a more partisan stance. But as I said earlier, at least he conformed to the norms that require a POTUS to act bipartisan every once in a while. Trump and his supporters seem to pride themselves on the fact that he openly rejects this for shameless partisanship, hence their go to justification that they voted for him to "trigger the libs" and for "liberal tears".

I understand that the conservative instinct when any criticism is leveled at Trump is to revert to "B-But Obama!" but its just not true that he was as openly partisan.
 
Except for the fact that Obama went out of his way to work across the aisle. Didn't engage in daily inflammatory communication on social media. But no it was just charisma.

I don't think you quite know what charismatic means if you think that's a quality Trump is somehow lacking it. It might be the only "positive" thing he has in abundance.

Whose bot account are you?
 
You can indict a ham sandwich. Trump just wants some of those sandwiches to be lefties
 
Nope, not close at all. Obama praised McCain for his service as he ran against him, Trump called Clinton Crooked Hillary and of course even made fun of John McCain because he wasn't willing to kiss the ring early enough. Obama made attempts to reach across the aisle in rhetoric and even in policy with Obamacare. Trump has done no such thing, he's only attempted to put fuel on the fire.

Silly insults and talking about your opponent aren't examples of partisan behavior, is Obama and McCain electing not to insult each other during the campaign.

Also, Obamacare ceased being a Bipartisan proposal as soon as Republicans made it clear they wanted no part of it. That's also just one small aspect of his Presidency. His entire agenda was amazingly partisan and left absolutely zero room for any sort of cross-party appeal. He knew that, he did it anyway. When a President simply disregards the wishes and desires of a large portion of the Electorate, you can't claim him to be Bipartisan.

Obama said some polarizing things about Trayvon and cops and whatnot to be sure and later in his presidency he did revert to a more partisan stance. But as I said earlier, at least he conformed to the norms that require a POTUS to act bipartisan every once in a while. Trump and his supporters seem to pride themselves on the fact that he openly rejects this for shameless partisanship, hence their go to justification that they voted for him to "trigger the libs" and for "liberal tears".

I understand that the conservative instinct when any criticism is leveled at Trump is to revert to "B-But Obama!" but its just not true that he was as openly partisan.

The odd thing about Obama is that many of the race relations issues, which of course were taken by the right as anti police rhetoric, etc, where in my opinion some of the only things he did that actually expressed a desire for unity.
 
Silly insults and talking about your opponent aren't examples of partisan behavior, is Obama and McCain electing not to insult each other during the campaign.

Also, Obamacare ceased being a Bipartisan proposal as soon as Republicans made it clear they wanted no part of it. That's also just one small aspect of his Presidency. His entire agenda was amazingly partisan and left absolutely zero room for any sort of cross-party appeal. He knew that, he did it anyway. When a President simply disregards the wishes and desires of a large portion of the Electorate, you can't claim him to be Bipartisan.
Absolutely zero room? That's ridiculous. Many aspects of Obamacare were taken from a Heritage Foundation plan for healthcare. The reason the GOP resisted it is because they committed themselves to a politics of obstructionism. You can say that payback for what Dems did under Bush but that is what it was.

I never claimed he was bipartisan, I even admitted towards the latter half he embraced a level of partisanship. But Trump takes it to a whole new level. As I said, at least other POTUS had to pretend to be bipartisan at times and Obama had certainly done that far more than Trump.
The odd thing about Obama is that many of the race relations issues, which of course were taken by the right as anti police rhetoric, etc, where in my opinion some of the only things he did that actually expressed a desire for unity.
But unfortunately talking about race at all is polarizing.
 
I couldn't let this go.
There is more evidence for Hillary and Obama breaking the law.

200.webp
 
This is the main reason to vote straight D in Nov. no matter the candidate. The Republican congress has completely abdicated their constitutional responsibility to act as checks ad balances.

The democratic wave is going to make 2016 look like a ripple in the bathtub.

Dems take the house in 2018 and then the presidency and senate in 2020. And I mean easily... You thought the blacklash against Obama was bad? You ain't seen nothing yet
 
I feel like you're skirting the obvious. Trickle down doesn't work as a policy just because some rich guy spent money somewhere once or twice. A policy will never work if you expect rich people to trickle the money down on their own accord. SOME times that can work in very limited scenarios like Scottq you spoke of but it is not sustainable. Policy needs to be consistent and sustainable or it will be to inefficient to function. With the loopholes in the tax code along with the snakeoil that is called trickle down has been debunked clearly over and over yet somehow people act as it hasn't. Still astonishing to me.

I'm not skirting the obvious. I'm highlighting what I consider an important difference between a close examination of how something works and the expectations that others have about how it works.

People keep saying that trickle down doesn't work because they only think about it in terms of the U.S. worker. That's their fault, not a flaw in the theory itself. There is a basic issue that we see over and over again - people think about economic policy nationally but the economy itself is global in scope.

So long as working class voters keep thinking that we can write closed border economy policies in the modern economy, they'll will continue to screw themselves. That is my position on this.

Of course the U.S. manufacturing employee is getting screwed under "trickle down" economic policy. But is the international manufacturing employee getting screwed? The wages of China's manufacturers tripled in less than a decade. India's wages doubled in the same time period. Meanwhile, US capital invested more heavily in those countries with their capital. The rich trickled that money down very effectively.

This is what the average voter keeps misunderstanding in my opinion. It's a global economy, no matter how much they want to pretend otherwise and the US worker is in direct competition with developing nations, even though the US worker likes to pretend otherwise. That's not a flaw with trickle down economics as a theory. It's a problem with Americans who don't think globally.
 
I'm not skirting the obvious. I'm highlighting what I consider an important difference between a close examination of how something works and the expectations that others have about how it works.

People keep saying that trickle down doesn't work because they only think about it in terms of the U.S. worker. That's their fault, not a flaw in the theory itself. There is a basic issue that we see over and over again - people think about economic policy nationally but the economy itself is global in scope.

So long as working class voters keep thinking that we can write closed border economy policies in the modern economy, they'll will continue to screw themselves. That is my position on this.

Of course the U.S. manufacturing employee is getting screwed under "trickle down" economic policy. But is the international manufacturing employee getting screwed? The wages of China's manufacturers tripled in less than a decade. India's wages doubled in the same time period. Meanwhile, US capital invested more heavily in those countries with their capital. The rich trickled that money down very effectively.

This is what the average voter keeps misunderstanding in my opinion. It's a global economy, no matter how much they want to pretend otherwise and the US worker is in direct competition with developing nations, even though the US worker likes to pretend otherwise. That's not a flaw with trickle down economics as a theory. It's a problem with Americans who don't think globally.
Trickle down is an American tax policy. Not a global economic philosophy. What you are referencing is investment in off shore labor not trickle down.
 
Trickle down is an American tax policy. Not a global economic philosophy. What you are referencing is investment in off shore labor not trickle down.

Trickle down economics in its simplest form is the theory that if you give more money to the rich, usually but not exclusively through tax policy, that the rich will use their capital in ways that benefit the rest of the economy.

It is not an American tax policy, it's an economic theory that is frequently referenced in relation to American tax policy.

What definition of "trickle down economics" are you using?
 
Trickle down economics in its simplest form is the theory that if you give more money to the rich, usually but not exclusively through tax policy, that the rich will use their capital in ways that benefit the rest of the economy.

It is not an American tax policy, it's an economic theory that is frequently referenced in relation to American tax policy.

What definition of "trickle down economics" are you using?
It was a tag line used to sell a tax cut to the rich. I understand what you are saying I'm just being clear about the term and where it came from is from a bs pitch.
My point is, when you give a rich man a dollar it gets put into a tax sheltered destination. When you give a working man a dollar it gets spent in in the taxation system over and over. The return is ten fold the return of the dollar of breaks to the rich.
Giving the rich man a dollar of tax breaks isn't as effective as giving the blue collar man a dollar of breaks.
That is a different discussion than a rich man investing in Chinese labor. They have nothing to do with each other.
 
It was a tag line used to sell a tax cut to the rich. I understand what you are saying I'm just being clear about the term and where it came from is from a bs pitch.
My point is, when you give a rich man a dollar it gets put into a tax sheltered destination. When you give a working man a dollar it gets spent in in the taxation system over and over. The return is ten fold the return of the dollar of breaks to the rich.
Giving the rich man a dollar of tax breaks isn't as effective as giving the blue collar man a dollar of breaks.
That is a different discussion than a rich man investing in Chinese labor. They have nothing to do with each other.

The term isn't that new, it was being used in the 1950's. The theory is even older.

Your point, regarding the tax sheltered destination, is only partially accurate. What I have been trying to explain repeatedly is that so long as people continue to think about these things in terms of American economies and American workers they will continue to be screwed.

The rest of it about giving the working man a dollar, yada, yada, yada doesn't have anything to do with my point. If you're advocating for the working man then sure advocate for policies that give him the dollar directly. That's obvious and irrelevant to what I'd written regarding GOP economic policy vs. Democratic economic policy.

And it is the exact discussion regarding the rich man and Chinese labor. It is the fundamental component of the discussion. The rich man invests in Chinese labor. It allows him to make cheaper goods thus reaping a higher return on his investment. The Chinese labor gets capital and work that it wouldn't otherwise get. The American populace gets cheaper goods so their dollar can buy more. As an economic outcome, almost everyone wins depending on who/how you prioritize outcomes.

You can't simply ignore the breadth of the economy.
 
Absolutely zero room? That's ridiculous. Many aspects of Obamacare were taken from a Heritage Foundation plan for healthcare. The reason the GOP resisted it is because they committed themselves to a politics of obstructionism. You can say that payback for what Dems did under Bush but that is what it was.

I understand where Obamacare came from. It wasn't wanted by anyone on the opposite side of the isle. So you can argue that he borrowed some ideas from the other side, but that doesn't make it non-partisan. Again, after the Republicans unanimously voted against it he still smashed it through regardless of the wishes of either the Republican politicians in D.C., or those of the Electorate who didn't want it. Combine that with his very far left social views and it's hard for real action to take place.
 
I understand where Obamacare came from. It wasn't wanted by anyone on the opposite side of the isle. So you can argue that he borrowed some ideas from the other side, but that doesn't make it non-partisan. Again, after the Republicans unanimously voted against it he still smashed it through regardless of the wishes of either the Republican politicians in D.C., or those of the Electorate who didn't want it. Combine that with his very far left social views and it's hard for real action to take place.
The GOP resisted it because as I said they committed themselves to a politics of obstructionism and they've essentially admitted as such. That doesn't mean he didn't try to reach across the aisle and he definitely has more than Trump.

And the point you keep missing is that I never said Obama wasn't partisan, I have admitted he was at times multiple times. What I have said is that Trump is far more openly partisan than Obama ever was.
 
The GOP resisted it because as I said they committed themselves to a politics of obstructionism and they've essentially admitted as such. That doesn't mean he didn't try to reach across the aisle and he definitely has more than Trump.

I don't know how much that policy affected Obamacare. Obamacare was unpopular for a reason, as has been shown since it became law.

And the point you keep missing is that I never said Obama wasn't partisan, I have admitted he was at times multiple times. What I have said is that Trump is far more openly partisan than Obama ever was.

I understand what you're saying. I just don't agree. Trump is openly partisan in his tweets. Obama was openly, agressively partisan in policy and action. So it comes down to what we each individually view as more significant.
 
Which very far left social views were those?

I've said many times before that in my opinion Obama's world view and experiences as a black man raised partially outside of the US put him at an... I don't know what the word would be... disadvantage when having to try to connect with White Conservatives. If Obama was "merely" a Black Harvard Law graduate and successful lawyer, he would have a hard time understanding me, a White Midwestern Conservative peasant, and vice versa. Now add into that that he is also the most powerful man in the world and the ability to relate to one another grows. Add to this that much of his economic policies teetered right on the brink of Socialism. Conservatives don't like that. His constant remarks on race relations in the US which were many times in my opinion actively taken out of context by his political opponents to fire up his base. His views on trangenders and women in the military also didn't help.
 
Back
Top