Yes, you should worry about this. Trump’s anti-free trade positions are wrong and stupid.
You can worry about this too, but I wouldn’t, since supply-side economics have not failed and don’t primarily focus on tax cuts for the wealthy.
Again, you can worry about this too if you like. Just like you could have worried about the Saudi contributions to the Clinton Foundation if Hillary had won the election, or the million dollars Obama got shortly after his election.
Republicans don’t have any anti-labor policies, so that shouldn’t be a worry. They oppose corruption and power grabs from big unions, but that isn’t the same thing. Unions in the US tend to create their own obstacles with their greed and short-sightedness, as witnessed by the collapse of Detroit and elsewhere, so if you want to worry, worry about that.
Again, you can and should worry about this. And I hope your worries are fully justified, and that Trump nominates (and the Senate confirms) Justices who don’t make up laws out of nearly whole cloth.
Yes, definitely worry about that. Anyone who proposes cuts to Medicare is obviously a monster who should never be allowed near the Oval Office. (Cite.)
Trump has some interventionist advisors and some non-interventionists. It is too soon to predict what he will be but there is no reason to think he would be more interventionist than the past presidents.
The term “supply-side” as it’s commonly used, though, does indeed refer to that tax-cut-heavy approach, which does have a fairly lousy track record:
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Again, you can worry about this too if you like. Just like you could have worried about the Saudi contributions to the Clinton Foundation if Hillary had won the election, or the million dollars Obama got shortly after his election.
[/quote]
:dubious: A very disingenous apples-to-oranges comparison. Trump’s businesses are set up for his personal profit and enrichment, as opposed to a nonprofit entity like the Clinton Foundation which gives its money away in charity. (And trying to spin Obama’s Nobel Prize as some kind of comparable pay-to-play deal is even more egregiously :rolleyes:.)
We should not try to normalize the current situation of having a President who is simultaneously an international corporate CEO, whose personal business interests are unprecedentedly entangled with his policy choices. Pretending that this is no different from charitable foundation donations or Nobel Prize money is delusional.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Republicans don’t have any anti-labor policies, so that shouldn’t be a worry.
[/quote]
You may not have been paying attention since the Eisenhower years.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Again, you can and should worry about this. And I hope your worries are fully justified
[/quote]
Just to get this clear: you are saying that you oppose the SCOTUS marriage-equality decision and/or other guarantees of equal civil rights for LGBTQ people?
Good to know, I guess.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Yes, definitely worry about that. Anyone who proposes cuts to Medicare is obviously a monster who should never be allowed near the Oval Office. (Cite.)
[/QUOTE]
:dubious: That’s another pretty disingenuous apples-and-oranges comparison. You’re trying to equate Obama’s proposed cost-saving measures such as allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices with Ryan’s far more drastic aims of actually capping benefits, which would significantly reduce care and increase costs for seniors receiving them.
Your link doesn’t work, but the quoted text is inaccurate. The Bush tax cuts, for instance, did not go primarily to the wealthy.
You could include the millions in fees the Clintons received in speaking fees if you like.
As mentioned, that’s not anti-labor; it’s anti-union. Especially corrupt unions, who have outlived their usefulness and in many cases are counter-productive.
Right to work is better for workers than a corrupt organization looking to enrich themselves.
I oppose the Supreme Court making up their own laws, as they did in the recent SSM case and other cases going back to Roe v. Wade.
No, it’s valid. Obama wants to cut Medicare, just as I said and just as you accused Trump of doing.
Whatever your opinion on the decisions, having a situation where major constitutional questions are decided by the whims and opinions of 5 unelected persons is not ideal.
In the cases where we do have major constitutional questions, I propose we put them to a board of 9 or so highly qualified members of the judiciary. The president could appoint them, with some sort of advice, and maybe consent from one of the other major governing bodies before they are put into that position.
That’s the best I can think of, did you have a better method of answering major constitutional questions?
I am in complete agreement with the OP, but would also add another bullet - the erosion of our first amendment rights beginning with independent journalism/free press.
I’m also afraid that we are going to be at higher risk of actions by those who wish the US harm because our president will be perceived as a weak link.
having all three branches of government controlled by the same party is very, very dangerous.
Once again, with no evidence whatsoever but plenty of doctrinaire statements about how Trump won’t be that horrible, we’re told not to worry…everything will work out in time. That may work with the platoons of Faux News and Breitbart bubble-inhabitors, but the rest of us (as well as a lot of the world) are concerned about the negative effects of having a man leading the free world who has the emotional development of a 9-year-old, the policy understanding of a mole, an ease with believing any damn thing that comes out of his mouth no matter how fantastic, and the willingness to pervert Constitutional rights to suit any whim.
Try again, with something recognizable as, you know, facts, and not intentional hyperbole.
I think it should be possible to distinguish between cutting costs and cutting benefits. The phrases seem similar, in that they both have the word “cut” in them, but I think they might mean different things.
So you believe that Trump has shown emotional maturity with his twitter tirades against TV shows, magazines and actors?
You are of the opinion that Trump has a good understanding of policy issues? I have heard him say that he does not need a security briefing because “I’m very smart”. Do you agree with this?
Are you aware of the mutually self-contradictory things that Trump has said on record? And then denied he said?
Go ahead and be direct with your praise of Trump. Be effusive. Be specific in how you judge him to be terrific.
Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree considering I thought the two cites in my previous post (the :pimproper gestures:p in Pensacola, and the cabinet nominations of those two General Ripper appointees) were pretty bang on. And the latter issue - considerably frightening.
The article you cited from the editorially uncool WSJ must be paywalled, so can I get you to provide a quote or two?
Please provide examples our illogical hand-wringing.
