Trump supporters, how do you square this?

kicker22 said:
Valid argument. I would say it depends on the behavior of the other 9,999 people. If they're peacefully doing their thing and the 1 acts alone thats on him. However if you've got a large portion of the crowd instigating and encouraging the one to get violent then they should be held accountable.

I would guess in a situation where one loan individual acts out that he's not the alpha male type and is either doing it to prove something to someone or someone is there trigger him. Now if you increase the number of potentially violent individuals I think it creates more of a tension filled atmosphere and it's easier for things to escalate.
Click to expand...
Instigators of violence should be held accountable for sure. But on Jan 6th, there were a lot of people who ended up in jail for a long time who were doing nothing but protesting peacefully. They were held accountable for other people's actions. That part of that day was definitely political warfare. I'm of the opinion that a lot more shady things went on than that. But it's hard to make an argument against what I just said.
 
kicker22 said:
Right. and why does it have to be a go big or go home tariff? I'm sure if other countries have benefitted from our generosity to the point that tariffs are necessary, I don't know, may be take a gradual approach.
I'm no foreign trade expert, but I'd bet that countries getting tariffed at 10% would probably be much more agreeable to 5%.But what do I know? I thought we were all up in arms about consumer prices.
Click to expand...
That part is "the art of the deal". It sounds like Trump is already negotiating lower tarrifs. He's clearly big on the concept of start with bigger than you want when negotiating. I've heard him talk about it multiple times. It seems obvious that this is a case of negotiating. And once again, only Trump can get shit on for negotiating better deals for America.
 
PCHawk said:
You're right it was a blatant lie. There is no doubt he knew tarrifs would have a short term negative affect.

That's a legit concern. Fixing our debt whole destroying everything else wouldn't be a net gain. That said, he does only have four years and it's not like there's been a long list of politicians that care about fixing it.
Click to expand...
I think the issue is what can you seriously expect to happen. In my opinion based on what the deficit is I don't see it possibly being getting out of the red in a period of 4 years regardless of who's running the country. That said I think you can dent it and in doing so, if done the right way, set a precedent for future presidents. But as I said my biggest concern is what happens when only the deficit is focused on. The tariff's, the program cuts, the severed relationships, etc... could all have a bigger impact on where we are as a nation in 4 years and take even longer to recover from. I've said from day one, as much as I despise him and his policies, and as much as I disagree with about everything he's done so far we cannot afford for him to fail. I just firmly believe he's taking too aggressive of an approach that could directly have a negative impact on the future of our country both short and long term.
 
PCHawk said:
Instigators of violence should be held accountable for sure. But on Jan 6th, there were a lot of people who ended up in jail for a long time who were doing nothing but protesting peacefully. They were held accountable for other people's actions. That part of that day was definitely political warfare. I'm of the opinion that a lot more shady things went on than that. But it's hard to make an argument against what I just said.
Click to expand...
Protesting outside the capital is one thing. Forcibly entering the capital was another thing. While I agree that it may have been political warfare to an extent, there's not a doubt in my mind that it very easily could have escalated. We can debate back and fourth as much as we want about just vs. unjust, but anyone entering the capital building that day was guilty of breaking the law whether peacefully trespassing or not.
 
PCHawk said:
That part is "the art of the deal". It sounds like Trump is already negotiating lower tarrifs. He's clearly big on the concept of start with bigger than you want when negotiating. I've heard him talk about it multiple times. It seems obvious that this is a case of negotiating. And once again, only Trump can get shit on for negotiating better deals for America.
Click to expand...
But its a game of flexing that is pissing the wrong people off and may come back to bite him in the ass. He may see it as a game, but when you add his ego and smugness, it's not going to take much continually escalate the pissing off of foreign leaders. And while Canada may need us more then we need them, what happens when they finally get fed up with the bullshit and decide to go elsewhere. Then the tariffs no longer are effective and we've lost and ally and trade partner. Is it worth the risk? I don't think so.
 
PCHawk said:
That part is "the art of the deal". It sounds like Trump is already negotiating lower tarrifs. He's clearly big on the concept of start with bigger than you want when negotiating. I've heard him talk about it multiple times. It seems obvious that this is a case of negotiating. And once again, only Trump can get shit on for negotiating better deals for America.
Click to expand...
The other side of this is it's a power play that once again benefits who? The upper class. Markets drop due to the tariffs. Middle class sell due to fear and the fact that even though it should bounce back they can't risk it and who buys those stocks when they're down? His rich friends. I see very little of what he's doing actually benefitting the middle and lower classes, but he's sure gambling with their livelihood and they (we) have the most to lose.
 
kicker22 said:
But it's a blatant lie. It's not just about campaigning on the misconception that prices "will start dropping immediately", to me as you said that's straight up a politician talking out his ass. My problem is when you combine that lie with the lie that tariffs aren't going to be paid by the consumer making prices climb even higher. Now not only is a lying, about not only the cost of goods for consumers not going down, but he's knowingly driving them up.

The problem I have with the national debt argument and the "must fix now" mentality is, it does have to be addressed, but there's no point of no return saying if we get below this figure as a country we're screwed. That's where I have my issue with this because while I agree that it needs to be done, if he's in the mindset that there's only 4 years to do it, and he rushes things then we could be worse off then we are now even if the debt is reduced.
Click to expand...
I have serious doubts that all of this will decrease the federal deficit in any substantive way.

If any of you think otherwise, I challenge you to present a coherent argument that addresses income and expenses, and see how it all pans out.

I'll start. We will be reducing revenue by decreasing taxes on the top two tax brackets. This will create a massive shortfall in federal revenue that will not affect the wealthy, but will hit the middle class and poor, who depend upon services that the administration is salivating about cutting (Medicaid is next, I fear). Firing forest service workers and the like pale in comparison to the shortfall in revenue.

It's smoke and mirrors and a transfer of money. The very rich will do very, very well. Others, not so much..


1741210681643.png
 
kicker22 said:
I think the issue is what can you seriously expect to happen. In my opinion based on what the deficit is I don't see it possibly being getting out of the red in a period of 4 years regardless of who's running the country. That said I think you can dent it and in doing so, if done the right way, set a precedent for future presidents. But as I said my biggest concern is what happens when only the deficit is focused on. The tariff's, the program cuts, the severed relationships, etc... could all have a bigger impact on where we are as a nation in 4 years and take even longer to recover from. I've said from day one, as much as I despise him and his policies, and as much as I disagree with about everything he's done so far we cannot afford for him to fail. I just firmly believe he's taking too aggressive of an approach that could directly have a negative impact on the future of our country both short and long term.
Click to expand...
You would like to think our alliances would be strong enough to overcome new trade deals. If not, that will suck. But they were probably the kind of ally you couldn't rely on anyway if that's the case.

I dont think anyone thinks it's possible to eliminate 36 trillion in four years. I just keep going back to this. Clearly what we were doing wasn't working.
 
kicker22 said:
Protesting outside the capital is one thing. Forcibly entering the capital was another thing. While I agree that it may have been political warfare to an extent, there's not a doubt in my mind that it very easily could have escalated. We can debate back and fourth as much as we want about just vs. unjust, but anyone entering the capital building that day was guilty of breaking the law whether peacefully trespassing or not.
Click to expand...
Correct but there are past examples (at least one and maybe two after that day) of protesters protesting in government buildings. It's kinda a thing. Anyone who broke in should have gotten in trouble. Anyone who was violent should have gotten into trouble. The people who walked through doors opened by cops to let them in should not have gotten in trouble.
 
kicker22 said:
But its a game of flexing that is pissing the wrong people off and may come back to bite him in the ass. He may see it as a game, but when you add his ego and smugness, it's not going to take much continually escalate the pissing off of foreign leaders. And while Canada may need us more then we need them, what happens when they finally get fed up with the bullshit and decide to go elsewhere. Then the tariffs no longer are effective and we've lost and ally and trade partner. Is it worth the risk? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
It's definitely pissing off the media and democrats. Is it really pissing off other governments or are they playing the game too? I don't know that answer. I'm sure some are probably pissed and some aren't. Does a car salesman get pissed at a customer trying to get a better deal?
 
kicker22 said:
The other side of this is it's a power play that once again benefits who? The upper class. Markets drop due to the tariffs. Middle class sell due to fear and the fact that even though it should bounce back they can't risk it and who buys those stocks when they're down? His rich friends. I see very little of what he's doing actually benefitting the middle and lower classes, but he's sure gambling with their livelihood and they (we) have the most to lose.
Click to expand...
Hopefully the goal is for all of America to benifit. That's easier to say as someone who can survive a small downturn tho.
 
Even the conservative Wall Street Journal authored a piece called "The Dumbest Trade War in History".

Some of my conservative brothers on this site would be well-served to do a little bit of studying on this topic, and not just take a politician's word for it.

There are several non-partisan websites dealing with things like economic policy and tax policy. There's actual research on this stuff, really! Or, you could just believe a politician. Whatevs.
 
Westernhawk said:
I have serious doubts that all of this will decrease the federal deficit in any substantive way.

If any of you think otherwise, I challenge you to present a coherent argument that addresses income and expenses, and see how it all pans out.

I'll start. We will be reducing revenue by decreasing taxes on the top two tax brackets. This will create a massive shortfall in federal revenue that will not affect the wealthy, but will hit the middle class and poor, who depend upon services that the administration is salivating about cutting (Medicaid is next, I fear). Firing forest service workers and the like pale in comparison to the shortfall in revenue.

It's smoke and mirrors and a transfer of money. The very rich will do very, very well. Others, not so much..


View attachment 11355
Click to expand...
Is it you that keeps saying firing forest workers? That argument is disingenuous because that is one very small thing that doge has done to cut costs. That's similar to if my wife came back with 500 dollars worth of clothes and said "it's not like me buying this pair of socks would make any difference". You can't keep pointing out one small cost saver and ignore the huge ones.
 
Westernhawk said:
Even the conservative Wall Street Journal authored a piece called "The Dumbest Trade War in History".

Some of my conservative brothers on this site would be well-served to do a little bit of studying on this topic, and not just take a politician's word for it.

There are several non-partisan websites dealing with things like economic policy and tax policy. There's actual research on this stuff, really! Or, you could just believe a politician. Whatevs.
Click to expand...
And once again, clearly what we were doing wasn't working.
 
How come he didn't fix all of this the last time he was in office for 4 years? He had both the House & Senate for 2 of those years. Was it clearly not working then?
 
PCHawk said:
Well clearly that's the case. Half of the population hates everything Trump does. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (my main man) to figure out that consumer confidence is always going to be an issue with the political landscape the way it is lately. And the other half knows about the half that is going to be shitting thier pants. Hell I'm not nervous about the policy but my confidence in the economy is down right now based on knowing what half of the country is thinking right now.
Click to expand...

Hay Man said:
How come he didn't fix all of this the last time he was in office for 4 years? He had both the House & Senate for 2 of those years. Was it clearly not working then?
Click to expand...

Deep state, and radical liberal court system. He is working to get rid of those tedious impediments.
 
Hay Man said:
How come he didn't fix all of this the last time he was in office for 4 years? He had both the House & Senate for 2 of those years. Was it clearly not working then?
Click to expand...
We've already talked about his reasoning for this. He made bad hires is the main one. But clearly his objective has changed since his first term. Which makes sense because he had four years to learn and then four years to set up a game plan. If democrats really did fix the election four years ago they're kicking themselves now. Trump wouldn't have gotten anything accomplished with a blue congress and he would be gone forever now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top