Why does the Right now support Welfare Payments - I Don't Understand

1. 86

   My Esotericposted 5 years ago

   President Trump starts a trade war with the rest of the world say such wars are good for America.  Everybody of intelligence tells him he is wrong.  Now that reality is hitting Americans and American producers with huge loses, as expected and predicted, Trump wants to spend $12 billion to bailout (think TARP or welfare) farmers being destroyed by the guy they voted for. 
   
   Will Trump lose supporters by this stab in the back of conservative values? Probably not because now Trump supporters think welfare payments are a good thing.
   
   Why isn't this hypocrisy?

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Fascinating spin.  We have a truly massive trade imbalance with the rest of the world - there is no "level playing field" anywhere for us.  We have for decades exported our jobs to the benefit of other countries, to the point that we have nearly destroyed our steel industry - an industry that is vital to our security.
      
      And when Trump begins to bring back jobs and to rebuild that needed industry, it is a "war" against those countries that subsidize their own industries in order to grab American business.
      
      Compensating farmers to prevent failure from other countries punitive actions to maintain the trade imbalance is "welfare" somehow.  And they are being "destroyed" by Trump, not foreign countries that carried out an economic reprisal where it would hurt the worst, as he seeks to maintain our security.
      
      It them becomes a "stab in the back" to conservative values to help those hurt by foreign concerns.  Just what do you think "conservative values" ARE, anyway?
      
      Fascinating.

      replyreport
   2. 89

      MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It is hypocrisy and no amount of explaining can prove otherwise. While not the first subsidies, the major farm subsidies were established under the Democrats during the Great Depression and have continued ever since. Today, celebrities Bruce Springsteen and Jon Bon Jovi draw subsidies on land they own and lease out. Even former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat peanut farmer, draws farm subsidies.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Absolutely , Subsidies for crops are about half ridiculous  at this point .  Former  tobacco growers  in the south  are still getting money to NOT grow tobacco , thirty or more years after subsidies began , leaving these very same fields empty of ANY crop . Why? Same with many others in the midwest for  other crops. .

         replyreport
      2. 86

         My Esotericposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         There was a good purpose to the original subsidies to provide price support during the Depression.  But, as you suggest, they have simply become welfare payments to the wealthy and should be discontinued.
         
         In this case, Trump has caused farmers to start going broker in a very big way and now the tax-payer is on the hook for $12 billion + in more federal debt.  I think the subsidies should be withdrawn so that these farmers feel the pain their vote is causing the rest of us.

         replyreport
   3. 90

      GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Let me play 'devil's advocate' here My Esoteric, and see if any of it might alter your perspective of the issue being one of hypocrisy.
      
      But first, I don't know much about "trade wars" or the complexities of trade agreements, so these are just points for consideration.
      
      I have read that many economists don't see trade imbalances as a big problem, economically speaking, but, what if the imbalances involve more than just the economics of money going out or coming in?
      
      Could Pres. Trump be right about the imbalances, (speaking mostly of China here), if they impact U.S. jobs, U.S. industries, (think steel and aluminum), and technological and intellectual theft, (think of the edge' gained from negating the need for research and development costs).
      
      I made that point only to offer the thought that maybe trade wars are necessary for more than just purely economic numbers reasons. Which would mean that there may be a real need for a protectionist-type judgement.
      
      Obviously, a trading partner with an advantage in the agreement isn't going to just give it up because they were asked nicely, so a real trade war could probably be compared to a game of Highway Chicken - who is going to change course first.
      
      Which leads to the point that in any such economic adjustments, there is going to be some 'pain' somewhere. In the current case that "pain" is hitting our agricultural segment.
      
      What if a "trade war" such as we think we are entering, is like that? What if that $12 Billion in "welfare" is just a battle dressing?
      
      *Note that in today's news, Pres. Trump's meeting with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, produced news that some EU tariff plans will be paused while the two entities work toward a "no Tariffs" agreement.
      
      Could such news possibly support the concept that all this negative news about a "trade war" is missing the point that what is really happening is negotiations, forced negotiations? Playing 'hard ball', so to speak.
      
      If there is any credibility to the above points, then isn't it possible to consider this new agricultural subsidy plan more as I described - "a battle dressing," than as welfare?
      
      If that is at all plausible, then where would be the basis for the claim of hypocrisy?
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 86

         My Esotericposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         GA - Thanks for your thoughts.
         
         The trade imbalances Trumps refers to are what he sees when you subtract exports from imports.  In his mind, wrongly, when a country exports more than it imports that is evidence that the nation with excess exports is being treated unfairly and is being taken advantage of.  That is as far as his thinking goes based on his actions and rhetoric.  There in not one real economist who agrees.
         
         Beyond companies firing or not hiring citizens of one nation because they are too expensive and hiring them in a less expensive country does not impact trade, per se.  It is indicative of other things, mainly comparative wages, but not trade.  Ditto with intellectual property, which China steals a  lot of from America.  That impacts competition for sure, but not the kind of trade Trump is worried about.
         
         Now the latter two are tied together because Trump is attacking China with tariffs in order to get them to stop stealing our stuff.  But beyond that, there are different issues.
         
         The downside to trade wars is so huge, it will never justify positive outcomes on other fronts.  All one has to do is look back on the other disasters with a president imposed punitive tariffs.
         
         That $12 billion is just a down payment.  It will probably double as agriculture absorbs larger and larger loses.  Of course we haven't mentioned the permanent loss of market share has former buyers turn to other sources of supply (which is already happening).
         
         Then Trump will be forced to bail out other industries. as well as they begin to feel the economic losses.  Automakers are reporting reduced sales and higher costs because of the tariffs.  Appliance makers are reporting the same thing in this quarters reporting period.  Of course Harley Davidson is taking a big hit, but Trump wants them out of business.
         
         Given that Trump's reason for playing "hard ball" is his misconception that our ex-allies are taking advantage us and America is rolling over and taking it in the ass is a bunch of hooey, this whole drama of his is fabricated nonsense that is going to cost America untold billions - which in not window dressing.
         
         Trump is a disaster from which it will take America decades to recover from.  In the meantime, Russia (with Trump's help) and China will take our place in the world order.

         replyreport
         1. 90

            GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Well, that certainly veered away from "hypocrisy" to Trump's an idiot. Whew! Feel strongly about that don't you?
            
            So ...
            
            If we must believe Pres. Trump's words, (he has said what you said he thought), you are right, he does the simple math and there is his rational for his actions. I agree with your perspective.
            
            But, jumping back into the 'devil's advocate' chair, and sticking with the China example, (it looks like the EU, and possibly Canadian tariffs might become a non-issue), even though I think you are right; relative to tech and intellectual property issues - it is more an unfair competition rather than a imbalance issue, that still leaves multiple other areas that I think truly are an uneven playing field, ie. their currency manipulation and heavy industry subsidies, that indicate that trade imbalance is other than the way economists describe one.
            
            Which leaves the question of what other option is available to force China to clean-up its act? Shooting from the hip, I can't think of any choices other than tariffs or bans.
            
            I better vacate that chair now. I don't know enough to continue. Questions like; what pre-Trump tariffs did other countries have in place on U.S. products? Were other countries trade practices taking advantage of open U.S. markets - without reciprocal access? etc. keep me from taking a firm position.
            
            I just don't have time to dig in and further educate myself, but my gut says something like a trade war is the only choice to deal with the China problem - which means yes, I do think our China trade imbalance indicates a problem. But, the EU and Canada, I just don't know.
            
            My gut also says Pres. Trump is using this as a negotiating tactic - not a long-term thing. Whether it will be more damaging than helpful is yet to be seen, but as you noted, history is not on his side.
            
            Finally, back to the point of the OP, my gut doesn't see that $12 Billion, (or more to come), as a welfare comparison. I am kinda fond of my "battle dressing" analogy. So I do not see any hypocrisy in the action. I think that is just a club the anti-Trump folks have invented.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 86

               My Esotericposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               First, let me correct some dyslexia on my part. I said "when a country exports more than it imports that is evidence ..."; it should have been "when a country "imports" more than it "exports" that is evidence ...".  I didn't follow the money with my terms.  Just to make clear to myself, a trade deficit is when a nation buys more (sends money out) than it sells (brings money in).  When the trade balance is negative, it generally means the nation with the negative balance has the money to buy things and the country with the positive balance produces things the other wants to buy.  The quickest way to reverse a negative trade balance is to drive America into a recession so that Americans can't afford to buy things.
               
               Now let me read your response.
               
               For starters, Trump has given me every reason to not believe a thing he says.  For example, I paid no attention to his claim of success with Juncker.  Instead, I looked to what Juncker said to get to the truth.  Juncker said two things 1) we agree to talk more and 2) both sides agreed to "hold off on other tariffs" while talks proceed.  But don't hold your breath because Trump's history says there is a good chance he will blow that up today, tomorrow, or next week.
               
               Remember, it was Trump who stupidly said that North Korea was no longer a nuclear threat the day after his "talks" with Un.  That is TrumpWorld; Reality is NK is as much a threat has they were before fhe talks.
               
               Currency manipulation - that was a real issue ten years ago but is a non-player today.
               
               You have to believe that losing just one job in one sector (as Trump, a few conservatives, and many Ds do) from a trade agreement makes the agreement bad.  It is not good enough that two jobs were created in other sectors.  This was NAFTA, it created more US jobs than it lost yet Trump, Trump supporters, and liberal Ds think that is bad.
               
               Your gut gives Trump a lot more credit than his actions deserve.  While bullying may work in real estate, it almost never works with two roughly equal nations on the world stage.  It often doesn't work with weak countries either as they would rather fight than submit to a bully.
               
               Trump has turned farmers into needy people. Other circumstances turn other people into needy people.  Conservatives call public assistance to the latter group of needy people welfare, so why not needy farmers?  The analogy is clear to me.
               
               As to the "long-term" reference.  For farmers, it is probably too late. What Trump has done is to permanently (or for a long time anyway) have put them in an inferior trading position because those markets that stopped buying from them have no particularly good reason to return once Trump's attack is over.  Agriculture experts are already predicting that American farmers have permanently lost market share.

               replyreport
2. 0

   ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

   Leftist hypocrisy once again.............Now it's "Welfare for farmers" , interesting , I always thought welfare to liberals ment free education , entitlements ,healthcare , voting rights and drivers licences to make voters from illegal aliens , NOT to support farmers in subsidies for trade tariff differences against the countries where illegals come from .
   
   I know , i know ......it's all too complicated for a liberal .

   replyreport
   1. 89

      MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Nooo, it is rightist hypocrisy this time.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Reagan implemented the engineering of the high fructose corn syrup take over of sugar. Subsidies are not new to the right or left.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            My Esotericposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            You will have to explain that.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               "President Reagan reintroduced country-by-country import quotas in an attempt to keep market prices high."
               
               This was meant to protect American sugar can farmers, primarily in Florida. However, the result was that HFCS became the cheaper alternative to sugar. This is pointed out under the heading "SUBSTITUTION OF SUGAR WITH HIGH-FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP"  within the ncbi link below.
               
               https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl … 4749/#bib4
               
               There's also, among others, this piece that mentions a bit about it: https://obrag.org/2009/01/how-the-gover … rup-story/
               
               "In 1982 President Ronald Reagan signed off on legislation that imposed rigorous limits on sugar imports, and sales of high fructose corn syrup skyrocketed."
               
               This is explained in more detail in other journal articles sources, but this is the best online source I could find with a quick search. The practice of forcing inviduals to pay for scientific journal articles, unless actively attending, or working for a university is just not too conducive for open dialogue and furthering research.
               
               I first learned of this from an openly Republican political science professor in about 2003.
               I'm not a big anti-Reagan person btw, I just know of this situation.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  My Esotericposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Now I remember that.  Thanks for the refresher.

                  replyreport
   2. 86

      My Esotericposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Did you notice Ahorseback said liberals think voting rights is welfare.  And he said our illegals come from Canada, England, and the EU.
      
      Lol.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Over the past week or so, I've been dragged into that too much. I'm trying not to notice. Sometimes it's difficult to tell what conversation is even happening with all the subject changing and standard repeated lines.

         replyreport
3. 78

   hard sunposted 5 years ago

   "Beyond companies firing or not hiring citizens of one nation because they are too expensive and hiring them in a less expensive country does not impact trade, per se.  It is indicative of other things, mainly comparative wages, but not trade.  Ditto with intellectual property, which China steals a  lot of from America.  That impacts competition for sure, but not the kind of trade Trump is worried about."
   
   I want to state that I do think GM brought up a reasonable question, especially in light of today's talk of an EU deal with Juncker. However, the above statement, expressed better than I likley would have expressed it, was somewhere along the lines of my first thought. I was involved in anti junk patent campaigns that included patent stealing and this is a big problem, just not something being addressed by tariff's.
   
   My second thought was, even if you think Trump has something going here with this potential deal, what makes anyone think it's going to pan out as he states. As he has in the past, he is likely to state something entirely different tomorrow or simply blow the deal up in some other way.
   
   Then we have this from EU's trade commissioner: "We hope that it doesn't come to that and that we can find a solution," the EU's trade commissioner, Cecilia Malmstrom, said. "If not, the EU Commission is preparing a rather long list of many of American goods. It would be around $20 billion."
   
   I just really don't think he has the capacity to think these things through. And, as good leaders always do, it seems it won't listen to advisers at all, which is likely a big reason he goes through SO many.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      My Esotericposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      There is no question Trump isn't capable of that degree of deep thought or analysis of complex problems.  That said, other presidents haven't either, Reagan comes to mind relative to complex analysis.  But the difference to those president and Trump is they hired people who could and they listened to their council.  Trump, on the other hand, has fired or driven away most everybody who could help him but what's more, he never listened to them anyway.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         "But the difference to those president and Trump is they hired people who could and they listened to their council."
         
         This is so true. Being a solid leader doesn't take a genius that knows every detail of  every national security subject, trade policy, supreme court decision, etc. But, it does take a leader who understands how to hire and listen to the correct people.
         
         Trump, however,  he's a stable genius so we'll just leave it all up to him.

         replyreport
4. 0

   ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

   My Esoteric , Would you care to explain where I said ".........voting rights is welfare "?............................... Or do you always take your lies out of context ?

   replyreport
   1. 86

      My Esotericposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It was this "I always thought welfare to liberals ment free education , entitlements ,healthcare , voting rights and drivers licences ...."  then you said something nonsensical about illegal aliens which meant nothing at all.

      replyreport
5. 0

   ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

   Or after all of the long winded talk ,  Lets all watch as China starts silently buying more US , EU  imports thus  lowering their tariffs and STILL claiming for their own eastern world media paranoia that it's not true.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      What's wrong with long-winded talk? Too much detail? See how this works..fun stuff.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         How about this ;  Enough time of talk ,at  a certain point in talk time it actually becomes time to act . Guess what Trump is acting where so many others have talked.So who already talked about trade tariffs? Obama , The Clintons , The Bushes , Our Congress ,Our Senate .........................And so Trump acts and as Trump acts and accomplishes , your party still "Talks".
         
         Act or talk ?...............I pick act.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            We will see the results. This is the same thing I said when Obama brought the Chinese trade case to the WTO. I don't think it did much in the end, but yes, he did "act."
            
            Obama also fought for the TPP, which I was against. I was part of an enormous pro-TPP campaign and didn't like it. Maybe it would have been good, I'm not a trade expert, but it seemed a big NAFTA.
            
            I think Trump is a terrible human being. But, I can wait and see how some things work out while I have my doubts that much of anything he does will product real world results.  Nothing he's done so far has changed a thing for anyone I know...not even his supposed big middle class tax cut that gets taken back in several years.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Guess what , Not many on the right believe that Trump isn't a terrible human being ? Are you surprised ?  But what we do realize is that he is the best business oriented leader to come along at a time of great need of THAT for the US , than has happened in fifty or more years !

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  My Esotericposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  There are so many REAL businessmen who could have done a terrific job as president.  Trump is a failed businessman but he is an excellent showman and entertainer.  The only "businesses" Trump has excelled at is selling his name and profiting on being president.

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Ding ding ding. I was attacked hard for stating something similar here a few days back. I think that his you're fired show was successful. The show fancied up his office for him so he could look more professional.....Worlds biggest Snake oil Salesman...everyone's good at something.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        And yet , Trump worked his way through a field of 25 or so highly qualified candidates of two whole party's ..........Why exactly ?    Interesting that your party of naysayers has actually figured this out yet can't offer up someone that  doesn't actually have to be helped into or out of a minivan ?   Can't even publicly promote a DNC image that isn't fraught with open cash corruption , pay for play , phony foundations and outside internationally influenced advertising ?

                        replyreport
                        1. 78

                           hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           Why exactly ? I said why...Snake Oil Salesman...not complicated..corruption has always been and always will be..but your guy is the most corrupt of them all. I don't have a party.
                           
                           There you go, making fun of disabled individuals...following your leader's steps. Some of our best Presidents couldn't walk up into anything due to disability.
                           
                           True colors showing? Take a step back and look at what you wrote, please? Take it easy. What if Hillary did have troubles walking?
                           
                           We are all Americans despite our differences, right? Or does American now hinge upon being a Trump supporter?
                           
                           Once again, I don't have a party. You are lumping me in with "them" the enemy, because I don't like Trump.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              Wait a minute , you just called the President a snake oil salesman and now what ? You want me to step back and what ," be kind "?   For the record Hillary isn't disabled , Hillary is a political mouthpiece a  rhetorical semi-genius . who can't connect with those she's talking to .
                              
                              Now You lie and state .".......I don't have a party ....."?
                              Everybody has a party .

                              replyreport
                              1. 78

                                 hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 You said she was disabled. Wait you want me to talk kind about a President who name calls daily on Twitter and at podiums across the world? I'm done here..keep the screws tightened.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                    She's  disabled ?.... , No I said she essentially needed help getting in and out of a car ,  standing up too  , great though ! Put words in your opponents mouths ,  I know that what scares you though , it is that Trump voters knew exactly what we were electing.
                                    "I'm done here ?" Ha ,.... liberals can't help themselves from blowing gaskets at political normalcy .

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 78

                                       hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       You're weak. Keep blowing off steam so you'll feel important. I know Trump voters had an idea of the idiocy they were electing because of people like you. Ahorse, you even give Trump voters a bad name. It's insane how off-kilter you are.

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                          Psst. Many of us have chosen to ignore his incomprehensible blather. Sadly, he is quite representative of those who still support Trump.

                                          report
                                          1. 78

                                             hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                             Yeah, I'm trying to have a bit of fun. It's just so tempting at times. I'll lay off so as to at least keep the clutter down.

                                             report
            2. 86

               My Esotericposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               By leaving TPP, Trump left China to dominate the Pacific economic sphere.  Most economists agree that NAFTA worked as designed  - it increased overall employment in each country as well as increasing GDP.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I do have the idea that most economists agree upon the effects of NAFTA. However, I know some economists that I wouldn't trust to analyze a child's lemonade stand. I digress though, as a consensus is generally not something I overlook without hard evidence.
                  
                  I'm just not a trade expert so I'm definitely not arguing your points here. While I certainly knew the TPP bill inside and out, it's ultimate effects, I wouldn't have debated with anyone about even then.
                  
                  I was against TPP mainly as directly after NAFTA, the area I live began its slide into rust belt hell. This caused a sense of "oh no not again." So, I just felt Obama may be making a mistake on that one.
                  
                  For me, it's one of those does correlation equal causation debates that I'm not equipped to make an entirely educated opinion on.
                  
                  Do you know what employment sectors and geographic areas in the US benefited the most from NAFTA? At this point, I understand that the raw number of factory jobs are likely down all over the world due to robotics.

                  replyreport
         2. 86

            My Esotericposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I don't think those other presidents talked about tariffs because they were smart enough to know what a disaster that ALWAYS are.

            replyreport
   2. 86

      My Esotericposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Care to explain ".... buying US, EU imports ..."?

      replyreport
6. 0

   ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

   AND , Why don't you explain to us all just what a politician who is worthy of being considered  a decent human being TODAY actually looks like ?
   
   That could be an extreme challenge, my man .

   replyreport
   1. 78

      hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Oh wow...I'm confident I could pull a name out of a hat and find a better person to lead the US.
      
      Trumpians are not conservatives and he has done next to nothing but jammed a whole lot of executive orders down his Senate buddies throats. I thought maybe you'd let off the pedal a bit. So, here it comes then. I'm not a paragon of morality, and it doesn't take one to understand America deserves better.
      
      You have Google, but here's just one source as a beginner's lesson: "The 487 People, Places and Things Donald
      Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List."
      https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 … sults.html
      
      I challenge you to take a close look at this list and, keeping an open mind, determine he has the temperament to be a father, let alone a President. This matters for a president to behave this way.  With no moral common ground, there's no way for Americans to compromise. People on the right who accept this behavior will go down on the wrong side of history or go down with the nation.
      
      From the beginning, I've told you Trump disgusts me, but you insist I'm just another  bleeding heart liberal, blah blah. Following the example of Mr. President himself. You think this is good for America. You think this unites our country?
      
      Many who see the excessive immorality of Trump, not just his words, but his actions, see that it's time to call out all his supporters. We also see how this behavior rots the values of a once strong nation. Remember Republican Dan Quayle...Family values...what happened to conservatives? Trumpians are not conservatives.
      
      How's that for long-winded? My lady.

      replyreport
   2. 78

      hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Oh and what happened to the trade conversation? I brought up my thoughts on Trump to explain that I can separate the policies from the man, and you abandoned the debate. Other Presidents have acted. Just not in the same way as Trump. The jury is still out on how this Trump trade thing will play out.
      
      Can you not even concede this, or is it inconceivable that Trump may be wrong about something?

      replyreport
   3. 86

      My Esotericposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      That is an easy challenge (I'll stick with Republicans).
      
      Ronald Reagan
      John McMcain
      Jeff Flake
      Bob Corker
      Dwight Eisenhower
      Gerald Ford
      Both Bushes
      Paul Ryan
      and hundreds more.
      
      Trump is an expert misogynist, sociopath, racist (maybe), sexual predator, xenophobe, bully, malignant narcissist.  No other American politician of any note whatever has reached his level of depravity as Trump has.  He is the epitome of the Ugly American.
      
      As to his trade war - name me one in the history of the world that has ever worked to the benefit of either party to it.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Your opinion of Trump can only be ranked up there with the likes of the Jerry Springer show.  Just one more  blatantly biased opinion .  Your name calling is childish , bull headed and it fully represents in image  a sophomoric high school prank .  Other than that , keep on keepin on.

         replyreport
7. 0

   ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

   First off ,  you might be a bit  off in that  I'm actually a guy . Second ,take a look for one at how soon Mexico , Canada , Now the EU , Russia and next ----China  seemingly are caving to trade tariff negotiations or at least conversations ............already.
   
   Good sign ?

   replyreport
   1. 78

      hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, good, big load off my back. I didn't want to feel like I was getting rude with someone's grandma.
      
      If you answer my question about whether it's even conceivable that Trump may be wrong about anything then I'll tell you what I think about "caving" and the possibility of a good outcome for America.
      
      Conversely, you could say something that Obama did that was good for the nation. I haven't seen you state one good thing about any politician except Trump.
      
      "Quid pro quo. I tell you things, you tell me things."

      replyreport
8. 0

   ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

   While the two of you in your elitist mentality  share an orgasmic  party affiliation , remember  that your party lost to a less intellectual and true  political and --one not even politically trained - leader !
   
   How would you explain your ideological sense of loss?
   
   You are sad . Simply sad.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Horse, when Trump first came on as a candidate, you did not like him. Your first assessment was correct. Then, when he was elected leader of your team, you cast away your common sense in favor of your need to worship your tribal leader. That is what is sad.

      replyreport
9. 0

   ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

   Reality check , Half of the voters that voted elected Trump ,  Now his voting based has likely increased to the point his next election could be a landslide ,  so while you , your party and the media sit around whining about why and how such a thing could have happened  , You are actively giving up on your plans for  tomorrow. Congratulations on your obstruction .......it isn't working , still .

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Lol, I'm violating my no response policy to say, once again, you.are wrong. Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million. I am active in politics and most definitely have not given up on my plans for tomorrow, which include doing everything I can to get that lying POS and his cowardly enablers out of office.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Guess what , Nobody gets elected to the white house with a popular vote .     And now that some states are openly allowing illegal immigrants , ex felons ,  to register , I believe popular voting becomes even less likely of affecting presidential elections down the road .
         
         While you try to diminish Trumps winning cycle by telling us all just how much you and so many others hate him , the other side of the coin shows only an increasing in Trump's job performance polls, his popularity and an unmatched cycle of political success' . It kind of makes all the naysayers  seem rather petty ,uninformed and  even childish  .

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            You said "Half of the voters that voted elected Trump , "
            
            Factually incorrect, as is typical of most of your posts.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               What was the actual figure?  49.95%?

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Welp..45.93% is a little lower than 49.95% 
                  https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
                  
                  
                  Jill Stein, alone, garned over 1% of the popular vote.
                  
                  But,  wait, didn't trump say, that 50.00%-1.00% is actually greater than 49%? If so, that leaves some room for the 49.95% number. If the stable genius says so than it must be true.

                  replyreport
               2. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  No.

                  replyreport
            2. 0

               ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               When I said half , I'm speaking figuratively AND here's a truth for you that'll surely drive you nuts  , Had Trump had to campaign for just popular votes he would easily have won that election too  because he wouuld have campaigned differently  BUT he didn't have to do that did he PP , because he won where Hillary couldn't win  ?   In our electoral voting  system .

               replyreport
         2. 86

            My Esotericposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Ridiculous and false statements like this " And now that some states are openly allowing illegal immigrants , ex felons ,  to register , " is why nobody can ever take you seriously.
            
            I assume you don't care either that Trump has been caught saying false things over 3,000 times since he took office.  The number is over 5,000 if you count his campaign.  Why don't his inability to tell the truth bother you?

            replyreport
   2. 86

      My Esotericposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      No, only about 46% of voters voted for Trump - checking your facts would be helpful.  Doesn't that mean 54% of voters wanted nothing to do with Trump?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Might as well "hedge those numbers" just a little bit right ?  Too bad isn't it though ,  for a difference of  3.2 mill.?    Are you also a popular vote voter ,maybe thinking  about going to another country ?
         
         Still got some of those free tickets left .
         
         

         replyreport
         1. 78

            hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Even if 99% of the voters favored Trump, they would all have voted for the biggest disgrace in American history. And, you would still ranting nonsensical babble about how 99.99% support Trump. That's because you have no regard for the truth,  but you scream the loudest about your alternative facts.
            
            Then, your untruthfulness is proven to be untrue, and you pretend it didn't happen, say it doesn't matter, or just start another rant.... just like Trump.
            
            Get a grip, you know, kinda like Putin has a grip on your exalted leader.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Hard sun, Tough Question for you I'll give you some time to look it up , Does the popular vote elect the president ?

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Once again, make up facts and then say..well..hell yeah, it doesn't matter anyway. If you look back, I'm not the one that started the popular vote discussion to begin with. So, you have no point, or no logic behind even asking me that question. You don't even care to think things through do you? Just throw things out there and feel good about yourself.
                  
                  Have fun! Jungle boogie. Microscopes aren't always small.
                  I took a word salad lesson from you, which you stole from Trump. MAGA.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     I just heard a term that struck me as purely honest, perfect  .Those of you who suffer being Trump Deranged are living in a snow globe ,   You pick it up once in a while an shake it and watch the snow fall ,  but the difference is the  Trump Deranged  pick it up and keep hoping for a different picture as an outcome.
                     All you're truly influencing with all your juicy biased rhetoric  is convincing yourselves just how delusional you really are .

                     replyreport
                     1. 86

                        My Esotericposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        LOL, good one, ahorseback.  I always enjoy good sarcasm.

                        replyreport
10. 0

    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    
    
    Simple sad truth of it is , whiners whine and winners win .  Almost two years later and we still have trouble with the math ?    It's called  accepting an election result .

    replyreport
    1. 0

       PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

       I accept the results. You're the one who feels a need to exaggerate the win, just like your lying POS leader.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Where is the exaggeration ?  In that Trump won the election ?   In that Hilary lost ?   In that the electoral college decides ?   In the fact that Clinton , the DNC , the employee's of the DNC corrupted the system ? in that  not one vote was affected by Russians ? 
          The popular vote is never going to elect a president .
          I makes no sense , in that Major inner city population centers that would elect him every single time are  democratic voting majorities  .

          replyreport
          1. 0

             PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

             

             replyreport
          2. 86

             My Esotericposted 5 years agoin reply to this

             "In the fact that Clinton , the DNC , the employee's of the DNC corrupted the system ?" - Corrupted what system?  Where is it written that the organization created to help elect Democrats must also equally help non-Democrats??
             
             "in that  not one vote was affected by Russians ?  "  And that borders on the incredulous.  Either that or you think the billion dollar advertising industry is pointless.  If you do, then you are alone in that thinking.  If you don't, then you must agree that the sophisticated propaganda (advertising by another name) war Putin carried on in trying to get Trump elected "didn't change one vote". Ridiculous.  Given the size, ubiquitous and targeted nature of the Russian effort, I can easily see where 90,000 out of several million votes in three states were influenced.

             replyreport