Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Kimsang

Midlife wrote: »

So sum it up, you're not going to state whatever point you've been making.

Being honest however, I think you're here to have some shots at 'the left' as you perceive them to be. Your content is all over the place, but you're happy to post examples you think are important or links to stuff you've read.

If you have a point, then make it. Then we can discuss. That's how it works.

I did make a a few points, they were challenged and multiple tangents were made. Maybe you picked up what I said in one of these tangents.

But really the only thing I've been trying to argue is that the Left doesn't accept any responsibility for Trump being elected. (there are of course multiple reasons). I truly believe if left leaning people realized this , then we can avoid Trumps and Brexits of the future.

Another point I've been trying to make is that left leaning people tend to insinuate intentions a lot these days, I don't see it as being helpful in anyway.

E.g.

I think you're here to have some shots at 'the left' as you perceive them to be.

Fair enough, I apologize if it comes across this way. But this is not my intent. Taking shots at conservatives is accepted by everybody. I take shots all day long no one ever calls me on them. Only liberals don't take shots at their own sides as offensive and personal. Why is this?? (<-- my question to you!)

I think this quote sums it up the best

I'm a centrist: I hold some conservative views and some liberal views.
But I'm more afraid of talking to my liberal friends about my conservative views than I am talking to my conservative friends about my liberal views-Melissa Chen

RIGOLO

Leroy42 wrote: »

Right, so it doesn't matter that he was wrong, he was scared and frustrated is enough of an excuse for you.

Do you take the same view of illegal immigrants who are scared and frustrated just want to get a better life?

I dont blame anyone for wanting a better life . Everyone wants a better life , who doesnt.

I expect the woman in Knoxville Tennesse wanted a better life, just before Javier Morales an illegal alien RAPED her

I expect Pierce Corcoran wanted a better life , just before Francisco Eduardo Franco-Cambrany , an illegal alien ran him down a few days before New Years eve in Knoxville also.

I expect Debbie Burgess in Tennesse wanted a better life just before Juan Francisco a drunk driving illegal alien killed her in a hit and run.

I expect the young woman in Dyersburg TN wanted a better life just before she was gang raped by Hernandez and Rubio-Servin, two illegal aliens.

I expect Shira Burnham a young mother in Jonesborough wanted a better life just before she was killed by a drunk driving illegal alien.

And Im 100% sure that Jacqueline Piazza a 13 year old, raped and mutilated over 24 hours before having 2 bullets in the back of her head before her naked lifeless body was dumped in a parking lot by 4 MS-13 gang members wanted a better life.

Igotadose

RIGOLO wrote: »

And Im 100% sure that Jacqueline Piazza a 13 year old, raped and mutilated over 24 hours before having 2 bullets in the back of her head before her naked lifeless body was dumped in a parking lot by 4 MS-13 gang members wanted a better life.

That murder, 18 years ago, was committed by MS-13 members. Were they illegals? My guess - probably not, unless they snuck in when, 2000?

Kimsang

looksee wrote: »

You stated that he was the most popular person in the world. Most viewed wikipedia pages does not make him most popular - not in any normal interpretation of the word popular.

spacecoyote wrote: »

Yes, arguably Wikipedia is not exactly a benchmark for popularity (wouldn't be surprised if probably a large portion of those visitors were people looking to make snarky updates to his wiki page).

Maybe look at his favourite platform, Twitter, where he sits 12th in the most-followed ranks (arguably he has gained a large portion of that following purely based on being POTUS, as opposed to him personally. in April 2016 he had less than 7m followers):

1 - Katy Perry (107.6m)
2 - Barack Obama (106.7m)
3 - Justin Bieber (105.8m)
4 - Rihanna (91.6m)
5 - Taylor Swift (83.5m)
6 - Lady Gaga (78.8m)
7 - Ronaldo (78.4m)
8 - Ellen DeGeneres (77.9m)
9 - YouTube (71.6m)
10 - Justin Timberlake (65m)
11 - Ariana Grande (63.4m)
12 - Donald Trump (61.2m)

Or if you want to go with what appears to be the current most popular platform, Instagram, he's not in the top 30 (30th place is another man not exactly renowned for his treatment of women, Chris Brown with 49.4m followers, Trump has around 13.3m)

Kimsang wrote: »

Trump is probably the most popular person in the world,

looksee wrote: »

Is there any evidence or figures to support this statement?

Kimsang wrote: »

At 156 million, Trump tops the list of most viewed wikipedia pages(for people)

Ronaldo is 9th with 90milllion.

I never said he was the most popular. I said probably the most popular. Do you disagree? Who is more popular? What metric would you use?

duploelabs

Kimsang wrote: »

I never said he was the most popular. I said probably the most popular. Do you disagree? Who is more popular? What metric would you use?

Well based on the popular vote in 2016, Hilary received more votes and therefore by people voting on who they like more, I'd say she, at least, is more popular

Kimsang

volchitsa wrote: »

Removing accreditation for White House correspondents impedes their work.
And it was for purely vindictive reasons. So you're wrong. Not that I expect that to shake your beliefs.

Come on here, you are being facetious. Not all correspondents were banned from the WH. Ones that paint Trump in an unfairly negative light were.

And those said correspondents were free to do their work anywhere else they wished.

Real removal of press rights comes in the form of actually killing journalists, destroying the newspaper companies, bring in laws to curtail freedom of speech. None of which he has done.

The only people I see trying to limit free speech are liberals with their ridiculous hate laws.

Kimsang

duploelabs wrote: »

Well based on the popular vote in 2016, Hilary received more votes and therefore by people voting on who they like more, I'd say she, at least, is more popular

Excellent! So do you agree Trump is one of the most popular people? that's the only point I'm trying to make. :pac:

If you go back to the original where this argument was made, you'll see I was arguing that Trump gets more accusations against him because he is so popular. All you kind people have proved my point thank you.

RIGOLO

Igotadose wrote: »

That murder, 18 years ago, was committed by MS-13 members. Were they illegals? My guess - probably not, unless they snuck in when, 2000?

which is why I didnt say they were . Check my post.

Seems odd an anti-Trumper is more concernend about whether or not I used the term 'illegal alien' when talking about the 4 animals who took a 13 year old girl, raped and abused her over 24 hours and then shot her in the back of the head as she lay there naked on the concrete parking lot ground ...

Seems odd an anti-Trumper is more concerned with the semantics of my post, than expressing support for a President who has declared a war on that gang MS-13.

pixelburp

Kimsang wrote: »

Real removal of press rights comes in the form of actually killing journalists, destroying the newspaper companies, bring in laws to curtail freedom of speech. None of which he has done.

No, limiting the 4th Estate goes much deeper than out & out murder; that's like saying that technically nobody's prevented from voting - ignoring the purging of voter rolls, or gerrymandering as very open ways to curtal the value of a single vote.

Being 'unfair' is not a metric for governments to control or dictate; editorial bias is not an excuse for trying to "Other" the press, no matter how 'unfair' they are being.

If anything, the press are being remarkably toothless in challenging Trumps continuous and aggressive lying on all matters. The press aren't being unfair, they're being complicit in poour journalism, just not the type you're suggesting here... getting bogged down in the farce instead of the meat.

duploelabs

Kimsang wrote: »

Excellent! So do you agree Trump is one of the most popular people? that's the only point I'm trying to make. :pac:

Within what parameters? To paraphrase the simpsons quote about fox news,although he may not be one, he's certainly popular amongst those pillow case wearers

Kimsang

everlast75 wrote: »

And as for impeachment, you accept that he has obstructed justice(tried -yes), you accept he has told 10,000 plus lies(Yes), i dare to presume you accept he committed a felony in paying off Clifford just prior to the election(No),
that his refusal to give over his tax records is out of order (and illegal I might add)(not illegal) but say that's not enough to begin an imprisonment enquiry?(exactly)

I was going to ask what does he have to do before you believe such an enquiry should begin, but frankly if you don't believe it should have started already....

He must be convicted of wrong-doing , and impeached by the house.

If you asked me, "do you think that person needs a heart transplant"
I reply " I don't think that person needs a heart transplant"
You insinuate "aha! So you think that persons heart is perfectly healthy!"

MrFresh

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, the Opportunity Zone Incentives which promote investment in economically distressed communities for start but you may not have heard too much about them as anytime they were reported it was low level and largely negative (Washington Times suggesting Trump just wanted to get his inner circle rich the for example) and on the day of their launch the press just began shouting at him about Michael Cohen the moment he signed the order.

Here's a good report by Fox report (oh I know, an oxymoron around these parts) which shows precisely what happened on the day and to me just about sums up what the leftist media have been doing since Trump took office:

I did hear about them. As far as I can tell it's just tax breaks for large developers and vulture funds. Is there any information on how it has benefited the poor in the last two years?

RIGOLO wrote: »

A rising tide lifts all boats .

The Trump Administration is freiendly to ALL races when it comes to economic improvements.
The Trump administration targetted getting the American economy back on its feet , and employment rates for EVERYONE would improve.

Some specific measures targetting inner city communities , some Ive mentioned before , like the tax breaks on investment profits if they were re-invested in inner city.
Even recently HOWARD DEAN a DEMOCRAT , ex Govenor of VERMONT, a 2004 Democratic Presidential Candidate, and former DNC CHAIRMAN put it well when talking about the new USMCA - US-MEXICO-CANADA trade deal



So yeah its glaringly obvious, Trump Administration has taken many measures to ensure more and better paying jobs for EVERYONE in the US, race colour or creed . Small inroads here and there , a change here, a change there, but when combined they represent a huge change all moving to the same goal making the US economy stronger .

Im sure someone will come along and say it was Obamas economy .. did Obama negotiate the USMCA , with improved wages and more manufacturing in the US, I must have missed that during the main stream media blanket Mueller coverage.

It seems the left has forgotten the Obama administration and their famous mantra 2% growth will be the new norm, we wont see 3% again .
DT gets 4 quarters at 3% and people still havent a clue what how he did it .
I wonder would that be becasue hte main stream media were feeding them RUSSIAFOREVA for the last 2 years...

Can you just answer the question in a simple and direct way without all the filler?

Brian?

RIGOLO wrote: »

Sure I remember the deficit and the national debt .

How could I forget how Obama nearly DOUBLED IT , adding almost 9 TRILLION .
9 TRILLION ADDED BY OBAMA TO THE NATIONAL DEBT ...
And he had Fed rates at near 0% for 8 years .

Yep one can never forget that failure , as well as his classic comments of 2% growth being the new norm, even when his adminstration didnt even manage that and was more like 1.6% growth for his term.

Donald Trump rolls into town and 3% is the new norm, 3% on an expanding economy , yep thats another thing that wont be forgotten.

Discretionary expenditure, something Trump administration is on record as saying they want to tackle, but ask the Dems they control Congress and keep signing off on the huge budgets .

Obama had to spend. When he was elected the US was in the worst recession since the Great Depression.

2% growth is healthy and stable. Trump however is just fueling a massive debt bubble. It’s about to come crashing around his ears and he’ll blame the democrats, China or Iran.

RIGOLO

pixelburp wrote: »

No, limiting the 4th Estate goes much deeper than out & out murder; that's like saying that technically nobody's prevented from voting - ignoring the purging of voter rolls, or gerrymandering as very open ways to curtal the value of a single vote.

Being 'unfair' is not a metric for governments to control or dictate; editorial bias is not an excuse for trying to "Other" the press, no matter how 'unfair' they are being.

If anything, the press are being remarkably toothless in challenging Trumps continuous and aggressive lying on all matters. The press aren't being unfair, they're being complicit in poour journalism, just not the type you're suggesting here...

Michael Avenatti gets over 100 invites to speak on CNN , and posters claim the Press arent being unfair.

Trump Administration has made an all out attack since even pre-election in rally speeches on the opioid epidemic with great inroads being made to not only control the legal supply but also the illegal fentanyl trade and barely registers in the press their achievements.

Trump Administration takes the economy to 4 quarters of 3% GDP growth psot Obamas 1.6 % growth era and his comments of 2% being the new norm, and no credit being given to the Trump Administration.

Trump Administration has brought NK to the negotiating table and stopped ballistic missles flying over Hawaii and no credit to teh Trump administration

Trump Administration takes millions off food stamps and puts more minorities in emplyment than anyone in US history .

Trump Administration cleaned up Syria brought them to book for chemical weapons usage and cleaned out the ISIS caliphate, a regime that wiped out 600,000 people under Obamas watch and the press give him no credit.

Trump administration has declared war on a gang whos members took a 13 year old girl, raped and abused her over 24 hours and then shot her in the back of the head as she lay there naked on the concrete parking lot ground .
and no credit to the Administration

and the best the anti-Trumpers can come up with is ..

The press aren't being unfair, they're being complicit in poour journalism,

History has already been written on the Trump Administration achievements .
The record books have been written.
Theres no disputing many of the achievements they are done and dusted.

The only think open to debate is whether the biased main stream media will ever getting around to admitting it or not .

Kimsang

pixelburp wrote: »

No, limiting the 4th Estate goes much deeper than out & out murder; that's like saying that technically nobody's prevented from voting - ignoring the purging of voter rolls, or gerrymandering as very open ways to curtail the value of a single vote.
.. getting bogged down in the farce instead of the meat.

These practices were long established before Trump, but I agree they are more practices from the right /conservatives. I wouldn't equate these with limiting press freedom though. But maybe I am missing something.

Surely our own High Court Injunctions are way worse than anyway that Trump has limited the freedom of The 4th Estate?


It's clearly not Trump going after Assange, he mentioned him about 141 times in his campaign trail.

RIGOLO

Brian? wrote: »

Obama had to spend. When he was elected the US was in the worst recession since the Great Depression.

2% growth is healthy and stable. Trump however is just fueling a massive debt bubble. It’s about to come crashing around his ears and he’ll blame the democrats, China or Iran.

it wasnt 2% groth ,
it was 1.64% growth .

sure adding 8 trillion to the national debt is healthy and stable .
Every economist knows that...

Brian?

RIGOLO wrote: »

which is why I didnt say they were . Check my post.

Seems odd an anti-Trumper is more concernend about whether or not I used the term 'illegal alien' when talking about the 4 animals who took a 13 year old girl, raped and abused her over 24 hours and then shot her in the back of the head as she lay there naked on the concrete parking lot ground ...

Seems odd an anti-Trumper is more concerned with the semantics of my post, than expressing support for a President who has declared a war on that gang MS-13.

Did Obama let MS-13 do whatever they want? No, he didn’t.

Gbear

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Obama adding to the national debt whilst the country is in the midst of trying to recover from a GOP lead recession is terrible, but Trump increasing the debt at a time when, not only did he promise to reduce it, but at a time when the economy is growing and as such there should be a surplus in which to deal with it is great?

Either you think debt matters or it doesn't. If it doesn't, which given your position on Trump it would seem to imply, then I fail to see how you think Obama was wrong to 'invest' in debt when he was POTUS.

Well they're not necessarily the same thing depending on how the economy is doing and what you're using the debt for.

It's interesting to hear Sanders talk about totally cancelling $1.6T of student loan debt. That would certainly increase the debt, but it would also represent a gargantuan stimulus package for the middle class. I haven't done the maths, obviously, but it seems like that'd be the kind of thing where you get back more than you put in and for a country with as much capital as the US it might be a good way both stimulate the economy and massively increase QOL for citizens.

However, giving the wealthy trillions that they use mostly for stock buybacks, as Trump did, doesn't seem like it would do anything other than increase debt and contribute no real growth to the economy, beyond narrow stock market concerns.

The whole "the economy isn't working for most people" line that you hear from most of the Democratic presidential candidates sounds a bit trite, but when you compare such contrasting expenditure by the government it starts to make a bit more sense.

Brian?

RIGOLO wrote: »

it wasnt 2% groth ,
it was 1.64% growth .

sure adding 8 trillion to the national debt is healthy and stable .
Every economist knows that...

Actually I think you’ll find many economists agree that Obama needed to spend as the US economy was driven into the ground by Dubya.

I didn’t say adding to 8 trillion to the debt was healthy. Nice straw man.

pixelburp

Kimsang wrote: »

These practices were long established before Trump, but I agree they are more practices from the right /conservatives. I wouldn't equate these with limiting press freedom though. But maybe I am missing something.

Surely our own High Court Injunctions are way worse than anyway that Trump has limited the freedom of The 4th Estate?


It's clearly not Trump going after Assange, he mentioned him about 141 times in his campaign trail.

It was merely an example that putting the watermark at 'murder of journalists' doesn't tell the full story, in the same vein that ostensibly all votes are equal. Both are reductions of something far deeper and insidious. In any case, we've had one mass pipe bomb hoax, so it has been without consequence.

I don't particularly like injunctions, but ultimately this is the rule of law in action - however I might disapprove of that law. They change, that's the point of a fluid democracy (and as shown by the likes of Catherine Murphy and in the UK with the Ryan Giggs injunction, there are still ways around them).

This isn't legal loopholes we're talking about though: this is a very rich man, historically allergic to bad press, using dangerous language from a position of power & authority. Words matter, more-so the higher ones goes up the political ladder. It doesn't matter whether (say) CNN are reporting untruths or exaggerations, you don't declare them "Enemy of the People", not in a climate that's already wound up past breaking point.

Kimsang

Gbear wrote: »

Well they're not necessarily the same thing depending on how the economy is doing and what you're using the debt for.

It's interesting to hear Sanders talk about totally cancelling $1.6T of student loan debt. That would certainly increase the debt, but it would also represent a gargantuan stimulus package for the middle class. I haven't done the maths, obviously, but it seems like that'd be the kind of thing where you get back more than you put in and for a country with as much capital as the US it might be a good way both stimulate the economy and massively increase QOL for citizens.

However, giving the wealthy trillions that they use mostly for stock buybacks, as Trump did, doesn't seem like it would do anything other than increase debt and contribute no real growth to the economy, beyond narrow stock market concerns.

The whole "the economy isn't working for most people" line that you hear from most of the Democratic presidential candidates sounds a bit trite, but when you compare such contrasting expenditure by the government it starts to make a bit more sense.

How do you account for the 8 years of middle-out economics executed by Clinton's aide Robert Reich? Did this have any effect on us today?

Not only are the rich getting richer, but the poor are getting richer also. Everyone's quality of life is getting better.

RIGOLO

Brian? wrote: »

Actually I think you’ll find many economists agree that Obama needed to spend as the US economy was driven into the ground by Dubya.

I didn’t say adding to 8 trillion to the debt was healthy. Nice straw man.

You didnt have to say it , I said it for you. After all thats what Obama done.
Adding 8 trillion to teh national debt

nothing strawman about it, when it comes to econmics discussion one looks at the broader picture and if one person wants to produce figures then in the normal economic discussion one will have to expect to be countered by other figures .

Thats twice now you have claimed Obama needed to spend .
You dont seem to understand what QE was .

It wasnt a spending program per se, not unless you consider only buying one product a spend .. Obams QE was just a bond buying program , or as some called it a a $4 trillion to the rich and Wall Street.
Every dollar obama spent was paid for by a US savers savings dollar.

The Fed went from 850 billion on its books to $4 trillion on its books.

The Fed was the only thing that bailed out Obamas failed economic policy, keeping inerest rates near 0% forced everyone to an assett bubble.

You like Obamas 1.64% growth and 8 trillion added to the national debt.
I like Trumps 3% growth and 2 trillion added to the debt.

Maybe Im an old fashioned economist,
I will take Trumps 3% growth and 2 trillion debt over Obamas 1.6% growth and 8 trillion more debt everytime .

Chips Lovell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Enough of the snarky comments please.

And while we're at it, no more press-release style posts please. This is a forum for discussion which means the presentation of an argument in one's own words, not regurgitating press releases.

One person has been banned for ignoring this mod warning. If you can't have a civil discussion, don't post.

rossie1977

Kimsang wrote: »

Not only are the rich getting richer, but the poor are getting richer also. Everyone's quality of life is getting better.

Everyone. .

Kimsang

pixelburp wrote: »

This isn't legal loopholes we're talking about though: this is a very rich man, historically allergic to bad press, using dangerous language from a position of power & authority. Words matter, more-so the higher ones goes up the political ladder. It doesn't matter whether (say) CNN are reporting untruths or exaggerations, you don't declare them "Enemy of the People", not in a climate that's already wound up past breaking point.

I agree with many of your premises, but can't agree with your conclusions.
I think we must start by defining what is 'dangerous language', its seems that you're saying that if something is true, it might also be dangerous?

I think this is one of the cruxs between right and left. Please take a look at how The New Statesman treated Roger Scruton because of his 'dangerous language' taken completely out of context.
This quote was taken from Scruton, and he was fired from his unpaid job as an advisor to the UK government because of this.

Each Chinese person is a kind of replica of the next one and that is a very frightening thing

Here is an audio clip of Scruton on BB4radio describing the events

Manic Moran

everlast75 wrote: »

This is exactly what i began to see.

He doesn't seem to be a big fan of trump, other than to cite his grievance against the left.

It's clear that he is struggling to find anything positive about 45 other than the one thing he can relate to and will excuse everything else away on that basis.

It's almost like he's come here to have a go at the left first and to defend trump second.

Article in The Atlantic (A short one, by Atlantic standards) on just that matter today, actually.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/republicans-and-democrats-dont-understand-each-other/592324/

What is corroding American politics is, specifically, negative partisanship: Although most liberals feel conflicted about the Democratic Party, they really hate the Republican Party. And even though most conservatives feel conflicted about the Republican Party, they really hate the Democratic Party.

[...]

Researchers asked Democrats to guess how Republicans would answer a range of political questions—and vice versa. (The survey was conducted among a sample of 2,100 U.S. adults the week immediately following the 2018 midterm elections.) What they found is fascinating: Americans’ mental image of the “other side” is a caricature.

[...]

Americans who rarely or never follow the news are surprisingly good at estimating the views of people with whom they disagree. On average, they misjudge the preferences of political adversaries by less than 10 percent. Those who follow the news most of the time, by contrast, are terrible at understanding their adversaries. On average, they believe that the share of their political adversaries who endorse extreme views is about 30 percent higher than it is in reality.

It also observes that Republicans who go to college understand Democrats far better than Democrats who go to college understand Republicans. Mainly because the latter tend to be in the minority (And given the current environment, often just keep quiet).

It doesn't say very much that we don't already know, but it is nice to see it put rather succinctly. Remember that rant from "Jonathan Pie" after Trump won the election? We have given up attempting to even understand our 'opposition'.

Brian?

RIGOLO wrote: »

You didnt have to say it , I said it for you. After all thats what Obama done.
Adding 8 trillion to teh national debt

nothing strawman about it, when it comes to econmics discussion one looks at the broader picture and if one person wants to produce figures then in the normal economic discussion one will have to expect to be countered by other figures .

Thats twice now you have claimed Obama needed to spend .
You dont seem to understand what QE was .

It wasnt a spending program per se, not unless you consider only buying one product a spend .. Obams QE was just a bond buying program , or as some called it a a $4 trillion to the rich and Wall Street.
Every dollar obama spent was paid for by a US savers savings dollar.

The Fed went from 850 billion on its books to $4 trillion on its books.

The Fed was the only thing that bailed out Obamas failed economic policy, keeping inerest rates near 0% forced everyone to an assett bubble.

You like Obamas 1.64% growth and 8 trillion added to the national debt.
I like Trumps 3% growth and 2 trillion added to the debt.

Maybe Im an old fashioned economist,
I will take Trumps 3% growth and 2 trillion debt over Obamas 1.6% growth and 8 trillion more debt everytime .

You’re not an economist at all. You don’t understand the difference between adding to the deficit in a boom and adding to it in a recession.

Midlife

Brian? wrote: »

You’re not an economist at all. You don’t understand the difference between adding to the deficit in a boom and adding to it in a recession.

Wait, wasn't it a campagin promise of Trump's to eliminate the national debt in 8 years?

It's amazing that Trump fans can perform the mental contortion required to see Obama adding to the national debt as bad but Trump adding to the national debt as good.

You deserve nothing but redicule and mockery if you take that line.

RIGOLO

rossie1977 wrote: »

Everyone. .

Great thanks for backing up my earlier post ...

It wasnt a spending program per se, not unless you consider only buying one product a spend .. Obams QE was just a bond buying program , or as some called it a $4 trillion gift to the rich and Wall Street.
Every dollar obama spent was paid for by a US savers savings dollar.

As one assett fund manager said to me a while back when he was discussing what to do with the millions under his control..

The problem for the rich isnt finding money to invest.. the problem is finding invsetments to get a return on their money.

At least Trump is offering alternatives to the rich to use that money .
Alternatives like the Corporate off shore funds repatriation scheme and the inner city re-investment schemes for asset profits, among others.

Just like many of obamas messes, the middle east, Iran, NK, the economy, syria , Isis .. Trump is just cleaning up Obamas mess.

Basically OBAMA gave the rich a gift of between 4 and 8 trillion , a gift every dollar of which was paid for by the middle class savers who had to endure Fed interest rates of 0% for nearly eight years.
Thh rich have that money now, its too late to change Obamas disaster. .
Trump is just trying to figure out ways to get some of it back and get them to reinvest it productively in the US .

pixelburp

Kimsang wrote: »

I agree with many of your premises, but can't agree with your conclusions.
I think we must start by defining what is 'dangerous language', its seems that you're saying that if something is true, it might also be dangerous?

I'm not taking these things in isolation, to mangle an aphorism from another field, Politics Doesn't Happen in a Vacuum(urgh). I'll only repeat a post I made earlier; Trump at his own rallies has encouraged violence, including a boast how he'd pay the legal fees of those who might attack protestors. Many reports at said rallies have observed how whipped up and frenzied their ... enthusiasm, has been for Trump. Then you look sideways to incidents such as the apparent body-slamming of a journalist by Greg Gianforte in Montana; there's an ugly climate growing.

Taking that as baseline context, then for a sitting President to speak of journalists as "Enemies of the People" - a legislative entity that ostensibly should be the centre of calm and nous - and there's the danger. It's a normalising action in creating a climate of hostility towards the press (many reporters have mentioned of naked anger vented at them in the press pool at these rallies, I think there have been a couple of attempts towards that area, requiring police intervention). There doesn't need to be an inciting incident, but it can be a resting, building sense of resentment, anger or hostility.

American politics was already emotional and heavily binary, it has only got worse.

Honestly, I don't think Trump knows, or cares, that his words are being lapped up by those heavily & emotionally invested in his Presidency. I daresay even the death of a journalist wouldn't be enough - I'd put my neck out right now and say there'd be narratives of them "asking for it", for reporting "unfairly".