Should Trump Resign Over "Hellhole" Comment?

[Cow Poke]

Yes, it was. But that was a different time. Circumstances have changed significantly.

Yes, including the fact that the poor people who can't afford groceries have iPhones and cable.

[carpedm9587]

Yes, including the fact that the poor people who can't afford groceries have iPhones and cable.

Out of curiosity, CP, do you think everyone who is poor is either cheating the system or simply lazy?

[Cow Poke]

Out of curiosity, CP, do you think everyone who is poor is either cheating the system or simply lazy?

No. But, in dealing with the poor, like in our Jobs for Life program, it becomes apparent pretty early on which ones are willing to work, and which ones tend to be lazy. I focus on the ones willing to do something.

[Mountain Man]

No, it isn't. That is a right-wing meme. I know it gets a lot of play, but it's simply not true.

What? You flat out agreed with me when you said that liberals are interested in "correcting the inequities of capitalism", which is just another way of saying that they want to steal wealth from those who earned it and give it to those who didn't.

[rogue06]

Yes, it was. But that was a different time. Circumstances have changed significantly.

True. Back then the economy was much stronger having just gone through a small pot hole of a recession that was over about the time people noticed its effect rather than a serious recession extended into an 8 year economic malaise we just endured. The concept of "It's the economy stupid" ought to resonate much more strongly now than then.

[carpedm9587]

True. Back then the economy was much stronger having just gone through a small pot hole of a recession that was over about the time people noticed its effect rather than a serious recession extended into an 8 year economic malaise we just endured. The concept of "It's the economy stupid" ought to resonate much more strongly now than then.

Except, Rogue, by most indicators, the economy was well on the way to recovery before Trump took office. The poll Trump recently cited indicates a strong view that the economy is strong (or at least on the right path), and a slight edge for Obama (which Trump failed to mention) for who is most responsible: Obama or Trump*. Unemployment was near historic lows and has only crept slightly more downwards since Trump took office. Job creation is healthy, but slowing (compared to Obama's second term). For all his protestations, Trump inherited an economy in decent shape, so he doesn't have a lot of room for improvement that will counter other issues. Meanwhile, we have a president who is eroding social norms, undermining the U.S. position abroad, gutting ecological initiatives, trying to breathe life into dying industries (instead of strongly promoting emerging ones), touting a tax plan that is unpopular, and systematically facing a set of economic promises he made he cannot hope to deliver on. He is also systematically alienating one group after another. His core will never budge, that is certain, but that is true of all cores. As I have noted before, even Nixon left office with a 25% approval rating.

I think 2018 and 2020 look good for a swing back towards center. Republicans ignore that to their own peril. My chief concern is that the swing will over correct, as it did in 2008 and again in 2016, putting us too far over to the left.

But we shall see...

*personally, I do not subscribe to the view that presidents have much to do with the economy but, in politics, perception is often reality.

[JimL]

Except, Rogue, by most indicators, the economy was well on the way to recovery before Trump took office. The poll Trump recently cited indicates a strong view that the economy is strong (or at least on the right path), and a slight edge for Obama (which Trump failed to mention) for who is most responsible: Obama or Trump*. Unemployment was near historic lows and has only crept slightly more downwards since Trump took office. Job creation is healthy, but slowing (compared to Obama's second term). For all his protestations, Trump inherited an economy in decent shape, so he doesn't have a lot of room for improvement that will counter other issues. Meanwhile, we have a president who is eroding social norms, undermining the U.S. position abroad, gutting ecological initiatives, trying to breathe life into dying industries (instead of strongly promoting emerging ones), touting a tax plan that is unpopular, and systematically facing a set of economic promises he made he cannot hope to deliver on. He is also systematically alienating one group after another. His core will never budge, that is certain, but that is true of all cores. As I have noted before, even Nixon left office with a 25% approval rating.

I think 2018 and 2020 look good for a swing back towards center. Republicans ignore that to their own peril. My chief concern is that the swing will over correct, as it did in 2008 and again in 2016, putting us too far over to the left.

But we shall see...

*personally, I do not subscribe to the view that presidents have much to do with the economy but, in politics, perception is often reality.

Well said. Not sure why you'd be concerned if the swing would put democrats back in the majority similar to what they held back in 2008 though? Personally, I pray to the god I don't believe in for that to happen.

[Mountain Man]

Two people who attended the meeting went on record this weekend to say that Trump never used the term "____hole".

Sen. David Perdue:
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/...thole-comment/

Homeland Security Secretary Kerstjen Nielsen:
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/...-exact-phrase/

Sen. Tom Cotton along with Perdue were on record earlier this week to say they never heard the President say it:
http://www.businessinsider.com/tom-c...-remark-2018-1

Finally, the President himself has denied it:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

This is looking more and more like fake news.

[carpedm9587]

Well said. Not sure why you'd be concerned if the swing would put democrats back in the majority similar to what they held back in 2008 though? Personally, I pray to the god I don't believe in for that to happen.

Because I do not think our country is best served by a single party having the majority of the power. Democrcy thrives on debate and compromise. It withers when power skews too badly. The pendulum of powerhas been swining more and more eratically for the past two decades. I am hoping it comes to rest somehwere near the center.

[Adrift]

Two people who attended the meeting went on record this weekend to say that Trump never used the term "____hole".

Sen. David Perdue:
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/...thole-comment/

Homeland Security Secretary Kerstjen Nielsen:
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/...-exact-phrase/

Sen. Tom Cotton along with Perdue were on record earlier this week to say they never heard the President say it:
http://www.businessinsider.com/tom-c...-remark-2018-1

Finally, the President himself has denied it:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

This is looking more and more like fake news.

Yeah, I mentioned this all the way back in post #78.

[rogue06]

Except, Rogue, by most indicators, the economy was well on the way to recovery before Trump took office.

IIRC one of the if not the sharpest upturn that took place in the time "before Trump took office" was in the weeks right after the election as businesses anticipated the relaxing of stifling regulations, the lowering of tax rates and the death of Obamacare.

[carpedm9587]

IIRC one of the if not the sharpest upturn that took place in the time "before Trump took office" was in the weeks right after the election as businesses anticipated the relaxing of stifling regulations, the lowering of tax rates and the death of Obamacare.

At best, Rogue, the indicators have been mixed. Unemployment is close to flat (which is actually a good thing). Job creation is slightly down. % change in GDP is up, but not to unprecedented levels; these levels were hit or exceeded several times during Obama's tenure. Yes, businesses were looking forward to more profits, so the stock market has gone nuts, but that does not have a significant impact on most Americans, especially the lower and lower-middle classes. The ACA is not dead (yet). Indeed, despite every attempt to sabotage it (shortening enrollment period by 50%, cutting advertising way down, raising doubts about payments, creating regular "down" times for the websites, etc.), enrollment is near 2017 levels. As for tax rates, they have been lowered for many, but the most substantial benefits (percentage wise) are going to the top 1%, so the bill is not popular. Much of it also does not take effect until 2019, which is past the midterms. I'm not sure why they chose to do that, but they did.

A handful of businesses (including some very large ones) have handed out some bonuses - but you'll notice that bonuses are easy because they are a one-time shot in the arm. A pay raise is permanent and there are fewer of those. I do expect deregulation to continue to cheer businesses, but since (as was discussed in another thread) the approach appears to be a numbers game (quantitative rather than qualitative), many people with significant concerns abut which regulations are being eliminated will be going to the polls in November.

All-in-all, I am encouraged. If the Democrats don't step on their airhose (which is always a possibility), and Trump continues to stay the course (which seems likely), I suspect the 2018 wave election will rival the 2010 wave. But even if it is only half that number, there will be a bit more balance in Washington. I doubt the Senate will flip. Republicans may actually gain seats there. And if SCOTUS comes down on gerrymandering, the most badly gerrymandered states (North Carolina, Texas, Arkansas, Maryland, Illinois, West Virginia, Virginia, etc.) may finally be realigned so the people choose the politician and not the reverse.

And in 2020, I continue to be confident that the American people will say "your fired" to the current denizen of the White House.

[Adrift]

At best, Rogue, the indicators have been mixed. Unemployment is close to flat (which is actually a good thing). Job creation is slightly down. % change in GDP is up, but not to unprecedented levels; these levels were hit or exceeded several times during Obama's tenure. Yes, businesses were looking forward to more profits, so the stock market has gone nuts, but that does not have a significant impact on most Americans, especially the lower and lower-middle classes. The ACA is not dead (yet). Indeed, despite every attempt to sabotage it (shortening enrollment period by 50%, cutting advertising way down, raising doubts about payments, creating regular "down" times for the websites, etc.), enrollment is near 2017 levels. As for tax rates, they have been lowered for many, but the most substantial benefits (percentage wise) are going to the top 1%, so the bill is not popular. Much of it also does not take effect until 2019, which is past the midterms. I'm not sure why they chose to do that, but they did.

A handful of businesses (including some very large ones) have handed out some bonuses - but you'll notice that bonuses are easy because they are a one-time shot in the arm. A pay raise is permanent and there are fewer of those. I do expect deregulation to continue to cheer businesses, but since (as was discussed in another thread) the approach appears to be a numbers game (quantitative rather than qualitative), many people with significant concerns abut which regulations are being eliminated will be going to the polls in November.

All-in-all, I am encouraged.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but most of the things you just said sort of sounded like a brush off. As if you were saying, "things are...ok, but let's not get excited, they're not that great, and we've had better", but then you say that you're encouraged?

Most days I get my news from NPR, who absolutely LOATH president Trump, but every single day the one good thing they say about him is how great the economy is doing; How unemployment levels haven't been this low in years. They even attempt to paint the lack of unemployment as a negative whenever they can; That some economists predict that this level of employment could have some weird consequences in the future, and that one the biggest problems is that employers can't seem to find people to employ, and it's forcing them to increase wages in order to attract new employees (which doesn't necessarily sound like a bad thing to me). I don't understand why you're sort of poopooing this one decent thing that's happening in Trump's presidency as "the indicators have been mixed". As far as I've been hearing, the indicators are far from mixed. Is NPR misdirecting their listeners, or am I missing some bigger picture here?

[carpedm9587]

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but most of the things you just said sort of sounded like a brush off. As if you were saying, "things are...ok, but let's not get excited, they're not that great, and we've had better", but then you say that you're encouraged?

What I am saying is that I think the right is very concerned about the economy, and seems to think that concern is primary for everyone. In bad times, that is likely true. But we are not "in bad times" anymore, despite what Trump may be trying to paint. When unemployment is low, and the economy is running fairly well, I think people will look past it to other issues.

Most days I get my news from NPR, who absolutely LOATH president Trump, but every single day the one good thing they say about him is how great the economy is doing; How unemployment levels haven't been this low in years. They even attempt to paint the lack of unemployment as a negative whenever they can; That some economists predict that this level of employment could have some weird consequences in the future, and that one the biggest problems is that employers can't seem to find people to employ, and it's forcing them to increase wages in order to attract new employees (which doesn't necessarily sound like a bad thing to me). I don't understand why you're sort of poopooing this one decent thing that's happening in Trump's presidency as "the indicators have been mixed". As far as I've been hearing, the indicators are far from mixed. Is NPR misdirecting their listeners, or am I missing some bigger picture here?

The "mixed" indicators I was referring to was in response to Rogue's observations. While the economy is doing reasonably well, it was on that trajectory long before Trump took office. Right now, the majority of the electorate credits Obama with those gains (though, as I said, I am not a fan of the theory that presidents have much to do with jobs or the economy). By the time he took office, the economy was on a fairly solid footing. Unemployment was near record lows, as I mentioned, and GDP growth was ramping up. Yes, Trump and Republicans have taken some steps that businesses like (e.g., the tax cut, deregulation, etc.), so businesses are excited. But it is not clear to me that this will translate to the polls in November, for the reasons I cited.

In a nutshell, Adrift, I think the right is putting most of their eggs in the, "it's the economy, stupid," bucket. I think the right is going to find out this year that the economy is only one part of the picture, and that moderates and the left have other issues that play a larger role in their voting decisions.

Don't get me wrong - I encourage this type of thinking. IMO, our government is skewed badly to the right and needs to drift back to the center. My main concern is that it not OVER correct leftward, but I am beginning to think that may be inevitable. The right appears to be making all the same mistakes the left made leading up to 2016.

P.S. IMO, most people with any decency loath Mr. Trump. His bullying tactics, his juvenile name calling, his increasingly obvious racist views, his need for adulation, his megalomania (he gave us the privilege of voting for him?), and all of the rest that makes up this man makes him a fairly loathsome individual. I support some of his policies, but I reject the man completely as unsuited to his office.

[NorrinRadd]

... As for tax rates, they have been lowered for many, but the most substantial benefits (percentage wise) are going to the top 1%, ...

Of course that depends on what you mean by "percentage-wise," and what you mean by "top 1%."

so the bill is not popular. Much of it also does not take effect until 2019, which is past the midterms. I'm not sure why they chose to do that, but they did.

I think a lot of that sort of weirdness had to do with the fact that they were operating under their crazy Senate rules. In particular, I think the "Byrd Rule" was a factor. They were working under the "Budget Reconciliation" process, rather than "normal" rules, so there was no need for a filibuster-proof super-majority, but the consequence was that they had to finagle, defer, and delay.