Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The strange greatness of Donald Trump

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The strange greatness of Donald Trump

    The strange greatness of Donald Trump

    I may as well concede up front that, because I'm not pitching wild-eyed hissies and launching a hate-fest against Trump, and I post an opinion that also does not do that, then I am obviously a die-hard Trump supporter in every sense of the word!

    With the Democrats still trying to throw a Hail-Mueller Pass with time out on the scoreboard and with the economy humming, it’s time to confront the central issue: “Has Donald Trump been an awful, OK, or great president?”

    The president, unquestionably, is often appalling in his style. His self-aggrandizing, dreadful treatment of opponents and subordinates, public embrace of homicidal dictators, and rambling speaking style draw a portrait of a leader embarrassing to many Americans. He has been vexing to all sides in Washington. Special counsel Robert Mueller added to this picture in his report on the Russia investigation.

    And yet, over his first two years, he has enjoyed remarkable political, diplomatic, policy and leadership success. I personally don’t care for his style of management and governance, but I think there is a case to be made that he has been a great president.

    When making the case for Trump, you must start in a defensive hole.

    For example, “immoral” often is a tag hung on him. But his proclivities, especially in regard to women, pale in comparison to Jack Kennedy and Bill Clinton, who reportedly turned the White House into a virtual bordello. There is little hint at all of that with the Trump presidency. Similarly, his “immoral” treatment of undocumented immigrants differs little from his predecessors. Finally, he hasn’t blundered into an unnecessary shooting war, which many would find immoral.

    In the field of “corruption,” he has been thoroughly investigated and there is nothing to match the smarmy signs of pay-to-play kickbacks alleged in the Clinton State Department.

    In the field of “dictatorship,” it’s hard to argue that he has suppressed the free press or public criticism, which has been running wild. He certainly couldn’t match the apparent political weaponization of the IRS, the FBI, the CIA and the Justice Department under Barack Obama or match the numerous contempt of Congress charges against many of those officials. To the contrary, Trump has exerted far less of a direct influence over his agency leaders, who often publicly defy him.

    “White nationalist”? Nope. There is every indication that he is trying to be president for all the people. His trade policies are designed to benefit middle class, predominantly union, workers. If anything, they undercut big business off-shoring strategies. In addition, the economic and employment data suggest that he has provided more jobs and income opportunity to African Americans, Hispanics and women than any president over the past 40 years. (The argument that the economic trends are an extension of Obama policies is specious — Obama “bought” his results by eroding the financial stability of the country with a Fed-driven, free money, Ponzi scheme. Trump’s results are real and lasting, based on realistic interest rates, investment and private-sector jobs, the real bases for sustained growth.)

    Trump’s awkward attempt to equate the behavior of the white nationalist thugs who precipitated the Charlottesville carnage with the Antifa thugs who came prepared to inflict violence of their own was off the mark, but it is certainly not a strong case for hanging a “racist” or “white nationalist” label on him — “clumsy” is far more accurate. The left’s attempt to conflate his “nationalism” in his protectionist trade policies with racist “white nationalism” is dishonest and twisted logic.

    He is divisive. But so is the unprecedented rejection of the 2016 election by the congressional Democrats and the Rise and Resist movement and the endless criticism from the media. Trump has shown remarkable personal strength in standing up to relentless attacks.

    Moving from the defensive to the positive side of the balance sheet, despite all of the attacks and resistance, Trump has accomplished more in two years than his four immediate predecessors accomplished in four to eight years.

    The economy is in the best shape in modern history. New and better trade agreements have been developed with the major economies. Our defense is much stronger, including a stronger and better funded NATO. Our principal adversaries — Russia, China, Iran, North Korea — are more off-balance than they have been in decades. Each of them is tough and ruthless, but they see in Trump someone who understands them and is equally tough in defending his country. And, with the collapse of ObamaCare, Trump has a huge opportunity to advance an effective, market-based approach to American health care coverage and cost control to help everyone.

    Belying the hysteria of the left, all Americans are moving forward; these are not “sad times,” and there is no “crisis.”

    This raises the central question to be framed in the next election: What should we demand of our president? If we’re looking for dignity, manners, grace and orderliness, Trump is vulnerable. If we’re looking for strong leadership to provide real opportunity for economic advancement for all Americans and a strong defense of America and its interests, then Trump has a claim to greatness over his current opponents and his predecessors.

    The weak field of Democrats presents voters with a virtual Hobson’s choice. It will be interesting to see how they choose.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

  • #2
    You've convinced me. MAGA.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      The strange greatness of Donald Trump

      I may as well concede up front that, because I'm not pitching wild-eyed hissies and launching a hate-fest against Trump, and I post an opinion that also does not do that, then I am obviously a die-hard Trump supporter in every sense of the word!

      With the Democrats still trying to throw a Hail-Mueller Pass with time out on the scoreboard and with the economy humming, it’s time to confront the central issue: “Has Donald Trump been an awful, OK, or great president?”

      The president, unquestionably, is often appalling in his style. His self-aggrandizing, dreadful treatment of opponents and subordinates, public embrace of homicidal dictators, and rambling speaking style draw a portrait of a leader embarrassing to many Americans. He has been vexing to all sides in Washington. Special counsel Robert Mueller added to this picture in his report on the Russia investigation.

      And yet, over his first two years, he has enjoyed remarkable political, diplomatic, policy and leadership success. I personally don’t care for his style of management and governance, but I think there is a case to be made that he has been a great president.

      When making the case for Trump, you must start in a defensive hole.

      For example, “immoral” often is a tag hung on him. But his proclivities, especially in regard to women, pale in comparison to Jack Kennedy and Bill Clinton, who reportedly turned the White House into a virtual bordello. There is little hint at all of that with the Trump presidency. Similarly, his “immoral” treatment of undocumented immigrants differs little from his predecessors. Finally, he hasn’t blundered into an unnecessary shooting war, which many would find immoral.

      In the field of “corruption,” he has been thoroughly investigated and there is nothing to match the smarmy signs of pay-to-play kickbacks alleged in the Clinton State Department.

      In the field of “dictatorship,” it’s hard to argue that he has suppressed the free press or public criticism, which has been running wild. He certainly couldn’t match the apparent political weaponization of the IRS, the FBI, the CIA and the Justice Department under Barack Obama or match the numerous contempt of Congress charges against many of those officials. To the contrary, Trump has exerted far less of a direct influence over his agency leaders, who often publicly defy him.

      “White nationalist”? Nope. There is every indication that he is trying to be president for all the people. His trade policies are designed to benefit middle class, predominantly union, workers. If anything, they undercut big business off-shoring strategies. In addition, the economic and employment data suggest that he has provided more jobs and income opportunity to African Americans, Hispanics and women than any president over the past 40 years. (The argument that the economic trends are an extension of Obama policies is specious — Obama “bought” his results by eroding the financial stability of the country with a Fed-driven, free money, Ponzi scheme. Trump’s results are real and lasting, based on realistic interest rates, investment and private-sector jobs, the real bases for sustained growth.)

      Trump’s awkward attempt to equate the behavior of the white nationalist thugs who precipitated the Charlottesville carnage with the Antifa thugs who came prepared to inflict violence of their own was off the mark, but it is certainly not a strong case for hanging a “racist” or “white nationalist” label on him — “clumsy” is far more accurate. The left’s attempt to conflate his “nationalism” in his protectionist trade policies with racist “white nationalism” is dishonest and twisted logic.

      He is divisive. But so is the unprecedented rejection of the 2016 election by the congressional Democrats and the Rise and Resist movement and the endless criticism from the media. Trump has shown remarkable personal strength in standing up to relentless attacks.

      Moving from the defensive to the positive side of the balance sheet, despite all of the attacks and resistance, Trump has accomplished more in two years than his four immediate predecessors accomplished in four to eight years.

      The economy is in the best shape in modern history. New and better trade agreements have been developed with the major economies. Our defense is much stronger, including a stronger and better funded NATO. Our principal adversaries — Russia, China, Iran, North Korea — are more off-balance than they have been in decades. Each of them is tough and ruthless, but they see in Trump someone who understands them and is equally tough in defending his country. And, with the collapse of ObamaCare, Trump has a huge opportunity to advance an effective, market-based approach to American health care coverage and cost control to help everyone.

      Belying the hysteria of the left, all Americans are moving forward; these are not “sad times,” and there is no “crisis.”

      This raises the central question to be framed in the next election: What should we demand of our president? If we’re looking for dignity, manners, grace and orderliness, Trump is vulnerable. If we’re looking for strong leadership to provide real opportunity for economic advancement for all Americans and a strong defense of America and its interests, then Trump has a claim to greatness over his current opponents and his predecessors.

      The weak field of Democrats presents voters with a virtual Hobson’s choice. It will be interesting to see how they choose.
      What a load of partisan tripe...
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        What a load of partisan tripe...
        That's gotta be the shortest post you have ever made! And you didn't chop up his post into a billion pieces. Are you feeling ok?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          That's gotta be the shortest post you have ever made! And you didn't chop up his post into a billion pieces. Are you feeling ok?
          Post with no real content are easy to respond to
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            What a load of partisan tripe...
            Congratulations, you just described 99% of posts in this section, as scored by people of a different political persuasion than the poster.
            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
            sigpic
            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              Post with no real content are easy to respond to
              Maybe that is why I answer your posts in short responses while you split mine up into a million parts and turn your response into a novel.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Maybe that is why I answer your posts in short responses while you split mine up into a million parts and turn your response into a novel.
                No. I think its mostly because you have really bad arguments.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  Post with no real content are easy to respond to
                  Posts
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    The strange greatness of Donald Trump

                    I may as well concede up front that, because I'm not pitching wild-eyed hissies and launching a hate-fest against Trump, and I post an opinion that also does not do that, then I am obviously a die-hard Trump supporter in every sense of the word!

                    With the Democrats still trying to throw a Hail-Mueller Pass with time out on the scoreboard and with the economy humming, it’s time to confront the central issue: “Has Donald Trump been an awful, OK, or great president?”

                    The president, unquestionably, is often appalling in his style. His self-aggrandizing, dreadful treatment of opponents and subordinates, public embrace of homicidal dictators, and rambling speaking style draw a portrait of a leader embarrassing to many Americans. He has been vexing to all sides in Washington. Special counsel Robert Mueller added to this picture in his report on the Russia investigation.

                    And yet, over his first two years, he has enjoyed remarkable political, diplomatic, policy and leadership success. I personally don’t care for his style of management and governance, but I think there is a case to be made that he has been a great president.

                    When making the case for Trump, you must start in a defensive hole.

                    For example, “immoral” often is a tag hung on him. But his proclivities, especially in regard to women, pale in comparison to Jack Kennedy and Bill Clinton, who reportedly turned the White House into a virtual bordello. There is little hint at all of that with the Trump presidency. Similarly, his “immoral” treatment of undocumented immigrants differs little from his predecessors. Finally, he hasn’t blundered into an unnecessary shooting war, which many would find immoral.

                    In the field of “corruption,” he has been thoroughly investigated and there is nothing to match the smarmy signs of pay-to-play kickbacks alleged in the Clinton State Department.

                    In the field of “dictatorship,” it’s hard to argue that he has suppressed the free press or public criticism, which has been running wild. He certainly couldn’t match the apparent political weaponization of the IRS, the FBI, the CIA and the Justice Department under Barack Obama or match the numerous contempt of Congress charges against many of those officials. To the contrary, Trump has exerted far less of a direct influence over his agency leaders, who often publicly defy him.

                    “White nationalist”? Nope. There is every indication that he is trying to be president for all the people. His trade policies are designed to benefit middle class, predominantly union, workers. If anything, they undercut big business off-shoring strategies. In addition, the economic and employment data suggest that he has provided more jobs and income opportunity to African Americans, Hispanics and women than any president over the past 40 years. (The argument that the economic trends are an extension of Obama policies is specious — Obama “bought” his results by eroding the financial stability of the country with a Fed-driven, free money, Ponzi scheme. Trump’s results are real and lasting, based on realistic interest rates, investment and private-sector jobs, the real bases for sustained growth.)

                    Trump’s awkward attempt to equate the behavior of the white nationalist thugs who precipitated the Charlottesville carnage with the Antifa thugs who came prepared to inflict violence of their own was off the mark, but it is certainly not a strong case for hanging a “racist” or “white nationalist” label on him — “clumsy” is far more accurate. The left’s attempt to conflate his “nationalism” in his protectionist trade policies with racist “white nationalism” is dishonest and twisted logic.

                    He is divisive. But so is the unprecedented rejection of the 2016 election by the congressional Democrats and the Rise and Resist movement and the endless criticism from the media. Trump has shown remarkable personal strength in standing up to relentless attacks.

                    Moving from the defensive to the positive side of the balance sheet, despite all of the attacks and resistance, Trump has accomplished more in two years than his four immediate predecessors accomplished in four to eight years.

                    The economy is in the best shape in modern history. New and better trade agreements have been developed with the major economies. Our defense is much stronger, including a stronger and better funded NATO. Our principal adversaries — Russia, China, Iran, North Korea — are more off-balance than they have been in decades. Each of them is tough and ruthless, but they see in Trump someone who understands them and is equally tough in defending his country. And, with the collapse of ObamaCare, Trump has a huge opportunity to advance an effective, market-based approach to American health care coverage and cost control to help everyone.

                    Belying the hysteria of the left, all Americans are moving forward; these are not “sad times,” and there is no “crisis.”

                    This raises the central question to be framed in the next election: What should we demand of our president? If we’re looking for dignity, manners, grace and orderliness, Trump is vulnerable. If we’re looking for strong leadership to provide real opportunity for economic advancement for all Americans and a strong defense of America and its interests, then Trump has a claim to greatness over his current opponents and his predecessors.

                    The weak field of Democrats presents voters with a virtual Hobson’s choice. It will be interesting to see how they choose.
                    I am not sure posting wide eyed adulation without qualification enhances your credibility when it comes to being able to objectively identify what constitutes wild eyed hissies etc.

                    Jim
                    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-08-2019, 02:26 PM.
                    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      Posts
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        I am not sure posting wide eyed adulation without qualification enhances your credibility when it comes to being able to objectively identify what constitutes wild eyed hissies etc.

                        Jim
                        Run along, Jim -- go back to your "I hate Trump" threads.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Humpf.

                          With the Democrats still trying to throw a Hail-Mueller Pass with time out on the scoreboard and with the economy humming, it’s time to confront the central issue: “Has Donald Trump been an awful, OK, or great president?”


                          Awful. Just awful. As in, why do supposedly competent professional writers think they can start a piece using a hack-technique like "Ask an outrageous/thought-provoking question." We teach this to kids in eighth grade so they know how to break through writers block and start a piece, teach them to discard it once they've found a good spot for an introduction, and then build on passing through that whole pre-writing strategy without so much as a pause. The writer cannot even claim to be setting up an extended metaphor for the piece in his cliche sports-ball metaphor in the first line because he doesn't ever come back to it. Not. Once. Horrible.

                          This introduction gets an F.

                          What does an effective first paragraph look like that establishes a debatable thesis? Like the next paragraph:


                          The president, unquestionably, is often appalling in his style. His self-aggrandizing, dreadful treatment of opponents and subordinates, public embrace of homicidal dictators, and rambling speaking style draw a portrait of a leader embarrassing to many Americans. He has been vexing to all sides in Washington. Special counsel Robert Mueller added to this picture in his report on the Russia investigation.


                          (Unless otherwise stated, all emphasis mine.) This would have been a decent first paragraph. The writer describes several of the issues troubling to a large number of Americans, and it's generally inoffensively written, except for the strange inversion of the final two sentences (surely, the piece would have been better if he had chosen to end on the line "He has been vexing to all Americans).

                          The bigger grievance here is the subtype of a trope using the rule of three in the seconded, bolded sentence. Consider the following from TVtropes.org, as a useful explanation of this statement, as described in the entry "Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking"1:

                          When listing three or more things, the comedy rule is to not finish strong, but to list some strong examples followed by a very weak example, for the funny. Sometimes this will stick to the Rule of Three, but sometimes a longer list will increase the humor.
                          The "Self-aggrandizing, dreadful treatment of opponents and subordinates" and "public embrace of homicidal dictators" are serious enough issues (the "Arson" and "Murder" of the trope). Indicative of the insipid writing, he describes the nations reaction to such as "embarrassment" rather than "moral outrage." But why then throw "rambling speaking style" (the "jaywalking" of the trope) on here? Could the writer not think of anything else serious? Is he stacking the deck with this third pointless inclusion just to have three points? Is he trying to be funny? (Did anyone laugh at any point in this piece? No. No you did not. If you were grading this for humor you'd give it an F--. That's not a real grade, but that's what you'd want to give it.) He's either alluding to the trope, indicating that he doesn't take any of this seriously, or he was writing in a way that is exceptionally clumsy, in which case I'm taking this more seriously than it deserves.


                          And yet, over his first two years, he has enjoyed remarkable political, diplomatic, policy and leadership success. I personally don’t care for his style of management and governance, but I think there is a case to be made that he has been a great president.


                          If this weren't just a rah-rah piece for the kool-aid drinking set, we would ask for examples of what he thinks are remarkable successes. Some good examples might be making Mexico, rather than U.S. consumers of imported Mexican goods, pay for the wall. Or taxing China's imports, rather than U.S. consumers of imported Chinese goods, in a trade war that everyone knows is easy to win. Or getting North Korea to actually give up its nuclear program. Or pressuring Russia to pull back from it's war in Eastern Ukraine. Yes, I'm being cheeky and selective; however, It's a lesson of rhetoric 101 that if you leave out any portion of your message, your opponent will spackle the crack for you in the worst possible ways.


                          When making the case for Trump, you must start in a defensive hole.


                          No. If, to quote the first line of this epic train-wreck, "the Democrats [are] still trying to throw a Hail-Mueller Pass with time out on the scoreboard and with the economy humming", then you shouldn't have to start in a hole. This is now self-defeating, given that he has directly contradicted his opening lines. If you're arguing greatness, then argue greatness.


                          For example, “immoral” often is a tag hung on him. But his proclivities, especially in regard to women, pale in comparison to Jack Kennedy and Bill Clinton, who reportedly turned the White House into a virtual bordello. There is little hint at all of that with the Trump presidency. Similarly, his “immoral” treatment of undocumented immigrants differs little from his predecessors. Finally, he hasn’t blundered into an unnecessary shooting war, many would find immoral.


                          I can't decide if this is more of a strawman, or tu quoque (in the hamfisted style of Soviet "whataboutism".)

                          It is a strawman in that people, much like myself, who care about moral leadership from our president, have objects to him based on a well-documented history of immorality, a belief that he has not changed, and the reflection that there isn't some magical anti-immorality force-field created by angels and prayer that are breaking his personal habits. That is to say, it is a strawman because we are not merely concerned with his immorality in office, and we remain skeptical of claims that he is a moral paragon now. There is a small victory here in that we no long have to listen to the imbecilic crap from the likes of Falwell and Graham that he is a good man. Conservatives, it appears, are more and more stopping their self-deception.

                          It is a tu quoque fallacy in that the hypocrisy of a claimant has no logical bearing on the moral claim of said claimant. Besides, there are enough of us old-line who conservatives repelled by the likes of Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Boss Tweed, Caligula, Nero, AND Trump. This repeated appeal is argumentam ad nauseum at this point. Folks, saying it over and over again will not make it so.


                          In the field of “corruption,” he has been thoroughly investigated and there is nothing to match the smarmy signs of pay-to-play kickbacks alleged in the Clinton State Department.


                          The writer throws away a historical moment with yet another tu quoque fallacy, and a single line, no less. It doesn't matter if Clinton was also corrupt. Trump is still corrupt if he is corrupt. I would have left this line out.


                          In the field of “dictatorship,” it’s hard to argue that he has suppressed the free press or public criticism, which has been running wild. He certainly couldn’t match the apparent political weaponization of the IRS, the FBI, the CIA and the Justice Department under Barack Obama or match the numerous contempt of Congress charges against many of those officials. To the contrary, Trump has exerted far less of a direct influence over his agency leaders, who often publicly defy him.


                          It's hard not to scoff at a paragraph like this. On the one hand, I haven't read much argument that he has stifled a free-press or public criticism. He is certainly tender about it, but no, not stifling. As for the political weaponization of the fourth branch of government, the common complaint from the administration and his supporters has been some kind of shadowy nonsensical "deep-state" which has resisted his efforts to weaponize the functions of government. Thus, he isn't so much laudable for not weaponizing the government as much as being incompetent for not being able to. As for the agency leaders who oten publicly defy him, there is the constant whining and moaning (and subsequent removal by firing or "resignation") about leaders like Sessions, replaced with the sycophantic Barr, who shows no signs of an independent spine. So which is it? Is he allowing people to do their jobs, or trying (and often failing) to make them do the job the way he wants it done?


                          “White nationalist”? Nope. There is every indication that he is trying to be president for all the people. His trade policies are designed to benefit middle class, predominantly union, workers. If anything, they undercut big business off-shoring strategies. In addition, the economic and employment data suggest that he has provided more jobs and income opportunity to African Americans, Hispanics and women than any president over the past 40 years. (The argument that the economic trends are an extension of Obama policies is specious — Obama “bought” his results by eroding the financial stability of the country with a Fed-driven, free money, Ponzi scheme. Trump’s results are real and lasting, based on realistic interest rates, investment and private-sector jobs, the real bases for sustained growth.)


                          Lol. The Republicans are suddenly the pro-union, anti-off shoring party. Does anyone believe this? Maybe the writer's finally trying some comedy? Is the writer asserting that that this president has not attempted to use the Fed to drive any of his economic policies? Direct quotes2 from the great president suggest not:

                          Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has been publicly criticized by President Donald Trump over the central bank’s interest-rate increases in 2018 and continued shrinking of its balance sheet. Trump has said the steps will stifle the economy’s growth.

                          Powell has avoided direct comment but has repeatedly stressed the importance of the Fed’s independence from political pressure and its commitment to transparency and accountability to Congress.

                          Here’s a timeline of key events and comments:

                          May 1
                          Fed leaves interest rates unchanged.

                          April 30
                          Trump calls for a drastic cut in interest rates to boost the already-healthy U.S. economy. “Our Federal Reserve has incessantly lifted interest rates, even though inflation is very low,” he says in a tweet. In a subsequent post, he adds the economy could soar “like a rocket” if the Fed lowered its benchmark rate by a full percentage point and resumed bond purchases.

                          April 26
                          With the Commerce Department reporting that first-quarter GDP grew at an annualized pace of 3.2 percent, the president says the figure would have been higher if not for the Fed. “If we kept the same interest rates and the same quantitative easing that the previous administration had, that 3.2 would have been much higher.”

                          April 14
                          Trump tweets: “If the Fed had done its job properly, which it has not, the Stock Market would have been up 5,000 to 10,000 additional points, and GDP would have been well over 4% instead of 3%.”

                          April 10
                          Following a roundtable meeting in San Antonio, Texas, the president says his supporters would prefer a Fed chair who doesn’t raise interest rates.
                          This is another appeal to success through incompetence. He wanted to use the same tools Obama used, but couldn't. Pardon me while I pick up my rolled eyes off the floor.


                          Trump’s awkward attempt to equate the behavior of the white nationalist thugs who precipitated the Charlottesville carnage with the Antifa thugs who came prepared to inflict violence of their own was off the mark, but it is certainly not a strong case for hanging a “racist” or “white nationalist” label on him — “clumsy” is far more accurate. The left’s attempt to conflate his “nationalism” in his protectionist trade policies with racist “white nationalism” is dishonest and twisted logic.


                          To be fair, even his earliest supporters referred to "economic nationalism". The great President has described himself as a nationalist. Lastly, both the great President and his Jr. have retweeted content from white nationalists. Thus, it's not necessarily his critics who have muddied the waters.


                          He is divisive.


                          This is the first accurate sentence in this essay.


                          But so is the unprecedented rejection of the 2016 election by the congressional Democrats and the Rise and Resist movement and the endless criticism from the media. Trump has shown remarkable personal strength in standing up to relentless attacks.


                          I'll take issue here with the "unprecedented" here. The sharply partisan ugliness, including rejection of electoral mandates, predates this group of Democrats. At least this time no one's shelling federal forts over it.


                          Moving from the defensive to the positive side of the balance sheet, despite all of the attacks and resistance, Trump has accomplished more in two years than his four immediate predecessors accomplished in four to eight years.


                          Absurd. Otherwise, don't spend three quarters of the essay in the defensive hole.


                          The economy is in the best shape in modern history. New and better trade agreements have been developed with the major economies. Our defense is much stronger, including a stronger and better funded NATO. Our principal adversaries — Russia, China, Iran, North Korea — are more off-balance than they have been in decades. Each of them is tough and ruthless, but they see in Trump someone who understands them and is equally tough in defending his country. And, with the collapse of ObamaCare, Trump has a huge opportunity to advance an effective, market-based approach to American health care coverage and cost control to help everyone.


                          I'm not going to parse out all the claims here because I cannot. My knowledge of economic history is not even spotty. It's empty. I will point out that this last sentence is a bit unclear. The market based approach to American health care coverage will control costs? The prices of pharmaceuticals and medical procedures seems to put that to the lie. Is that the market-based approach will help everyone and it will be accomplished by cost controls? Then that's not market based. I can't understand what he means to say here.


                          Belying the hysteria of the left, all Americans are moving forward; these are not “sad times,” and there is no “crisis.”

                          This raises the central question to be framed in the next election: What should we demand of our president? If we’re looking for dignity, manners, grace and orderliness, Trump is vulnerable. If we’re looking for strong leadership to provide real opportunity for economic advancement for all Americans and a strong defense of America and its interests, then Trump has a claim to greatness over his current opponents and his predecessors.

                          The weak field of Democrats presents voters with a virtual Hobson’s choice. It will be interesting to see how they choose.


                          This is a strange ending. This reads partially like some kind of campaign speech (Trump! Strong leadership and real opportunity for all Americans!) that has to nevertheless deal with the negatives (not sad times, there is no crisis). If you have to repeat it, I don't feel like he's made the points at all. In the end, so much of this is just mindless repetition of talking points for the faithful. As much as I'm tired of Trump, I'm really tired of editorials that just reiterate what's already been said, as if to guarantee support through inculcation. At some point, if the pieces don't actually add anything new, then it's just clutter.

                          fwiw,
                          guacamole
                          "Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
                          Hear my cry, hear my shout,
                          Save me, save me"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            I am not sure posting wide eyed adulation without qualification enhances your credibility when it comes to being able to objectively identify what constitutes wild eyed hissies etc.

                            Jim
                            I am truly impressed by your ability to read the second graf as "wide eyed adulation."
                            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                            sigpic
                            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              Maybe that is why I answer your posts in short responses while you split mine up into a million parts and turn your response into a novel.
                              Are you trying to say Carpe is verbose?
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, Today, 05:11 PM
                              0 responses
                              14 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by Cow Poke, Today, 11:25 AM
                              32 responses
                              177 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post oxmixmudd  
                              Started by whag, Yesterday, 01:48 PM
                              24 responses
                              102 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 11:56 AM
                              52 responses
                              269 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seer
                              by seer
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-16-2024, 07:40 AM
                              77 responses
                              382 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X