Personalities or policies?
Obama vs Trump
On personalities not even close. The One was far, far healthier and much easier to digest,
On policies (including under his puppet successor) also not even close. Orange is closing the border, defanging the regulators, keeping taxes lower and ending the insanity of the WOKE.
I've always preferred to vote policies and I respect those with different perspectives and agendas.
I also respect those who vote personalities because all politicians seem seriously impaired and in the extreme can be dangerous.
Replies to: Personalities or policies?
No excuses. Rationalizing your vote for Trump does not make it less disgusting or morally repulsive.
(no message)
He’s psychologically guilt ridden.
(no message)
He could argue that he voted for Trump in self-defense so Kam couldn't mutilate his family jewels.
(no message)
"Trump is the type of person you have to meet him to understand".
Actually it applies to anybody, not just Trump, not just Obama. This is life 101.
Glad to see antiTrump Bill Maher’s mind was blown after having a dinner with Trump.
Link: https://www.thedailybeast.com/bill-mahers-mind-was-blown-after-white-house-meal-with-trump/
Policies, eh? A little tariff perspective for you.
Where does it land off the chart?
Seems a bit excessive for sure though.
I don't have a problem with tariffs per se, but they need to be used wisely, not just wherever and however much you want.
I don't know how the tariffs will work out in the long run. If they bring jobs back, though...
...would you agree that they are good?
No. Inefficient industries shouldn’t be rescued.
Tariffs generate pain for consumers to help dying industries. And they fuck up international relationships.
They are a remarkably stupid unforced error.
Of course, tariffs don't rescue industries, they rescue US companies and US jobs.
Would you say you oppose bailouts/handouts for industries like solar power? EVs? Those are very inefficient industries. If not, then you are obviously in favor of rescuing industries. So, why the opposition to tariffs...even if you incorrect characterization of them were correct?
I look at them as a sort of pre-war preparation and nation preservation.
Japan lost WWII for several reasons. One of them was their lack of sufficient domestic industry. We have insufficient domestic industry right now. China has domestic industry in spades. Is it inferior in quality than ours? Yes. It is quantitatively supperior to ours? Yes, like we were to Germany...quantitatively more powerful, even though Germany was superior in technology to start with.
And, we built China's industry for them...it all started with Nixon. China is analogous to the United States in 1939. They have heavy industry. They are the top ship building nation in the world. And, if they can take Taiwan, they will be the top semiconductor and electronics manufacturer in the world. US companies have been shipping jobs over there (and to other Asian countries) for years in their never ending effort to meet quarterly numbers for Wall Street. Tariffs change that calculus and bring jobs back to the US. Are they are drain on the economy? Of course. But we have put greater drains on the US economy for far less important reasons. I generally oppose tariffs along the lines of Rand Paul...but we need to do something to stop the bleeding, or the nation will bleed out in the long run. If there is something else we can do, like change how we report financial data, I'm al for it, but no one is suggesting any other fix. This is the only fix being proposed. Those complaining about it have no other solution, and indeed don't seem to want to solve the problem at all.
Pre-war? I certainly hope that is not factoring in to official thinking
Such things have a way of become self-fulfilling.
Being prepared for war is the best way to prevent war. You obviously know that. But, politics.
FDR did a bunch of things to prepare for war. Was it his fault that we got drawn into it?
Simpleton, you're leaving out a lot of confounding variables.
Especially: regulations, supply chain disruptions, national security, local economics. Just off the top of my head.
Free trade > managed trade
(no message)
Which means no tariffs, right?
We're not starting from purely free trade here. What is your argument against reciprocal tariffs?
The system was not broken.
(no message)
According to the working class, it was.
(no message)
Can you explain the insanity of Woke?
I've never understood the anger there.
See, this question is inevitably part of a tactic to defend "social justice."
No one reasonable wants to see real injustice. The whole "woke" movement is so far beyond that. Sure, there's lip service to that stuff, but it's all about the victimhood industry and an attack on western values and capitalism.
I love this tactic.
(no message)
Supports racial discrimination, inequality, genital mutilation, end of women's sports...
...just to list a few examples. It is harmful to individuals and to society as a whole in the long run.
Since when is opposing White Supremacy a bad thing...or helping all people get a fair start in life
...or providing surgical treatments for those with Gender Dysphoria that are only for adults or adolescents with parental approval, when there is only a 2% regret rate?
As for the "End of Women's Sports" that involves an infinitesimally small number of people and even that fraction is still being debated...the sky is not falling, Ned.
Don't forget that it was the "WOKE" members of our society (led by Eunice Kennedy Shriver) that came up with the "Special Olympics"...do you want to send DOGE after those folks?...they get federal funding, too.
Time for you to read "Why I am not a Libertarian"
Link: https://publicseminar.org/2016/11/why-i-am-not-a-libertarian/
Did those "woke folks" advocate for able-bodied athletes to compete in the Special Olympics?
(no message)
Here you go.
In "woke culture" as understood in Urban Dictionary and popular discourse, it refers to a heightened awareness of social inequalities and injustices, often associated with leftist political ideologies and a focus on social justice issues, sometimes perceived as overly sensitive or politically correct.
Not sure if you’ve been in a coma or not paying attention but the past 4 years this shit escalated. I guess is all started with the DEI hire for VP followed by the DEI hire for SCOTUS. Top it off with the Liberals loving men playing in Women’s sports.
So social injusctice should be ignored?
(no message)
A man in a dress should be.
(no message)
Nope. But it shouldn’t be used like it was the past 4 years. Social justice has its place
But in pure Liberal fashion, they went to the extreme and made assholes out of themselves.
Trump 2 is worse so far than the failed Trump 1 presidency.
(no message)