Why does anyone think ONE PERSON (Donald Trump) can "Make America Great Again"?...

originally posted by: EequalsMC2
a reply to: ausername

I certainly hope so.. I really do. I just don't think he'll be able to do all that by himself in only 8 years. Everybody says Obama destroyed it in 8 so why can't it be rebuilt in 8? But the truth is the country has been spiraling downward for years. I'm not sure that without a demonstration of the true power of the people that he can pull it off.. Hope I'm wrong though

It's so utterly depressing to see people parroting this nonsense when it's not actually based on anything.
How is your country "spiralling"? Any more than it was during Bush?

People seem to think that everything bad has happened during the tenure of *insert POTUS you hate* when every single term sees problems, successes, triumphs, changes, progress... None of this is new, and none of it is shocking. None of it means your country is on the edge of collapse!

There's so many people here (usually politically extreme Conservatives) who seem to imagine life is so terrible, but none of you cam seem to explain HOW life is so utterly terrible for you.

You sound like the Bundy folks, whining about nonsense, things that don't actually exist, irrational paranoias and fears seemingly extrapolated from right-wing talking heads on Faux News.

Obama has actually done a lot to improve the lives of millions of Americans, but people still seem to think that he's been some kind of evil dictator.

Life is not that bad, Obama didn't do a bad job, the ranting claims from the most vociferous political screamers are pretty much all bullsh*t.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
This is how I see it: look how much damage one person was able to do in just seven years.

How long did Bush have to take you into 2 illegal wars, to sink your economy, to pay off his corporate buddies, to bring in the Patriot Act...?

Funny how people whine about all the "damage" Obama has supposedly done, while ignoring the disaster of his predecessor.

Just as a reminder:
The American people are better off now than they were when Obama took office (and yes, this is a fact, regardless of what Trump, Faux News and all the right-wing nutters preach, the statistics and data speak for themselves - unless you're a biased fool)
He ended DADT.
He passed the Affordable Care Act.
He passed same sex marriage.
He stabilized a disastrous economy.

I made a comment about obama in regards to what damage he has done in just seven years. Why is it that ppl like you cant stay on just that subject? Why do you insist on comparing obama or hillary to some republican you think was as bad or worse? Why can you not just address the one individual and not drag others in to misdirect? You entire post is off topic.

As for what obama has done, how about raiding the treasury, again, to pay off private insurers. Something that is blatantly illegal. Obamacare is not exactly a shining example of his achievements. In fact, it is the reason he has to raid the treasury...to pay insurers to stay in obamacare because without the billions of dollars he is illegally funneling to them, they would drop his failed signature legislation in a heartbeat. Worse yet, he will illegally pay them the billions of dollars he wants to give them, and they will abandon obamacare anyway. You think he stabilized the economy? When did more than doubling the national debt, 42% unemployment, and losing a AAA credit rating start being considered stabilizing? I could go on and on but I wont. You will never see it, not matter how clear it is. Just keep blaming bush...if thats what gets you through the night.

Oh, btw, calling people "right wing nutters" is in violation of the T&C's.

a reply to: Rocker2013

People seem to think that everything bad has happened during the tenure of *insert POTUS you hate*

That is YOU.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: EequalsMC2
a reply to: ausername

I certainly hope so.. I really do. I just don't think he'll be able to do all that by himself in only 8 years. Everybody says Obama destroyed it in 8 so why can't it be rebuilt in 8? But the truth is the country has been spiraling downward for years. I'm not sure that without a demonstration of the true power of the people that he can pull it off.. Hope I'm wrong though

It's so utterly depressing to see people parroting this nonsense when it's not actually based on anything.
How is your country "spiralling"? Any more than it was during Bush?

People seem to think that everything bad has happened during the tenure of *insert POTUS you hate* when every single term sees problems, successes, triumphs, changes, progress... None of this is new, and none of it is shocking. None of it means your country is on the edge of collapse!

There's so many people here (usually politically extreme Conservatives) who seem to imagine life is so terrible, but none of you cam seem to explain HOW life is so utterly terrible for you.

You sound like the Bundy folks, whining about nonsense, things that don't actually exist, irrational paranoias and fears seemingly extrapolated from right-wing talking heads on Faux News.

Obama has actually done a lot to improve the lives of millions of Americans, but people still seem to think that he's been some kind of evil dictator.

Life is not that bad, Obama didn't do a bad job, the ranting claims from the most vociferous political screamers are pretty much all bullsh*t.

So, how is life so much better now than under Bush? Did obama repeal the Patriot Act? Or did he expand it? Did the NSA go rampant under Bush or obama? Did hillary ignore her responsibilities under Bush or obama and who let her get away with it? Did hillary let 6 billion dollars just go missing under Bush or obama and who let her get away with it? Did Bush sign the TPP letting corporations outsource jobs at a record pace? Did Bush force people to buy lousy health insurance, that only got passed into legislation because of lies and denying congress the chance to read it before signing it, that they cant afford or hit them with fines for not being able to pay for his legacy? Just about everything you can blame on Bush I can tie democrats to also. And lets not forget the one real big thing that democrats who hate Bush always ignore: the democrats had control of congress - at times by super majority - the last two years of the Bush administration. Bush didnt eve have veto power. The democrats had complete control. They could have passed any legislation they wanted with no fear of veto. Any legislation they wanted. And they did nothing. You blame Bush when his hands were tied but for some reason you let the democrats off the hook when they had to votes to actually do something.

You want to sing the praises of obama and the democrats? Go ahead. Just start with everything they did to solve the countries problems the last two years of the Bush administration. But you cant. You shot yourself in the foot. Unfortunately for you, your foot was in your mouth when you did it. You are now forced to admit one of two things: either the democrats had the opportunity to solve this nations problems but chose not to, or, it wasnt all Bush's fault after all.

a reply to: dragonridr

You do realize Trump never filed for Bankruptcy 4 companies in which he invested did. Be like you putting money into Microsoft and having them declare bankruptcy as an investor your not filing.

He CONTROLLED those companies. He made the business decisions. He extracted maximum personal profit, then sent the companies into bankruptcy.

It is a tactic well known in Australia (google 'Bottom of the Harbor'), but not recognized as a problem much elsewhere.

The Bush43 admin tried to do it with Cheny organizing to transfer taxpayer dollars to his various cronies for no benefit to the taxpayer what-so-ever, but they didn't have the Congress fully onside. A President Trump would have a Congress already primed to send the country into default and bankruptcy - they have already come close twice.

Trump is a master at it and he would hit the road running. A President Trump would see the country bankrupt inside of 3 years. Tops.

It just might be that both Bush and Obama were disasters. Want to know how? See my post on page 5.

Anybody else ready to see both sides of the coin as evidence of systemic failure? Anybody else tired of the left vs. right merry-go-round?

Like many people who do not support Donald Trump, I have been trying to figure out what he intends to do if elected President.

I know, I know. He says he is going to "make America great again".

Unfortunately Mr. Trump doesn't define "greatness".

He says he is going to build a wall between the US and Mexico to control the flow of illegal immigrants and illegal narcotics into the country.

Is a "wall" an effective tool for tasks like that? It is "busy work" that will create some jobs. (For me it would make a lot more sense for the federal and states' governments to charge the employers of illegal immigrants and the government of Mexico for all health and social service expenses, at the American rate, incurred by illegal immigrants and their dependents in the US.) I think a measure like that would bring the problem under control quickly.

He is going to "rebuild" the military.

Translated: He is not going to cut the military budget. Maybe it will be increased.

He is going to bring American jobs back from overseas.

To do this he will have to erect a tariff wall on imports into the country and couple that with efforts to put the American labor movement into a strait jacket. What are the transnational corporations (not to mention America's international trading partners) going to do to meet a definite challenge to the status quo on this issue? It is not a given that they will go along meekly with this.

He is going to enhance the "torture toolbox" employed by the intelligence agencies.

Normalizing and enhancing the use of torture would seem, to me at least, to contradict the stated aim of making America "great" again, making America "Islamic", perhaps.

He is going to go after corporate tax avoiders with offshore tax shelters.

That's a can of worms! However, this is one thing I would like to see done by anyone in power anywhere. There will be many hurdles to getting this sort of thing done. Is Mr. Trump ready to start bribing senators and congressmen? The "bidding" could be useful in the sense of helping to convince Mr. Trump just how little six billion dollars (his personal fortune) is in the larger scheme of the American economy.

He is going to repeal "Obamacare".

This boils down to an attack on the pharmaceutical industry. Run corporate America! As is already abundantly clear, the Donald is coming for you.

He is going to get rid of Common Core educational standards.

This is a stalking horse for an attack on teacher's unions and a plan to cut costs of education generally. Infrastructure and jobs building it are going to take a hit.

He wants to "keep the oil".

Near as I can figure it, Mr. Trump will be swooping down again on the Middle East for more oil. He makes no bones about this. (I think Hillary Clinton intends to do the same thing.)

originally posted by: SlickMcFavorite
It just might be that both Bush and Obama were disasters. Want to know how? See my post on page 5.

Anybody else ready to see both sides of the coin as evidence of systemic failure? Anybody else tired of the left vs. right merry-go-round?

For what its worth - I agree with you. I readily admit that both sides of the coin are corrupt and not worth a damn. What I cant stand is someone who cant just say one side is bad without having to drag every name they dont like along with it as some kind of proof of something. Yes, there are republicans who didnt get the job done. And there are democrats who didnt get the job done. Anyone with half a lick of sense knows that. I despise the democrat tactic of immediately calling out a republican for whatever it is a democrat is being accused of. News flash democrats - pointing out that a republican did it too doesnt make it ok. Address the issue: what the person did. Dont waste time and effort trying to prove someone else did it too. It serves no purpose other than distracting people from the issue and serving your need to justify your hatred of the other party.

This is obamas administration. This is the one we should be talking about. If he does something wrong he should be called out for it, not compared to someone else who did something wrong as if that excuses his failure.

a reply to: EequalsMC2

Americans are weird. We claim to promote freedom and self reliance but always default to the worship of saviors, icons, celebritards, and "chosen ones." It's an odd dichotomy. On one hand we insist on our supposed individuality and personal greatness. On the other, we look always to a strong man / leader to mask our shallow impotence.

I will vote for Trump because I do not want another professional politician in the White House. Nothing gets done with them in office. Also, if Congress, see's how easy it is to put a non politician in the White House they may realize how easily replaceable they are

originally posted by: EvillerBob
There's a very strong argument that there is no need for such separation, because if the Government followed the Constitution then it wouldn't be encroaching on so many areas where business interests exist.

Foreign policy, maintaining military for national defence, common framework and ajudication of interstate matters... Government really should not be playing as large a part as it currently does.

It was that damnable, infernal commerce clause, and a Supreme Court that was happy to use it as a sextoy with which to rape the states to death.

I'm not so sure. I assume you've read the Constitution, I have too and I've taken a wildly different interpretation from it than you have. It doesn't mean I'm right, but the premise that government has operated under for atleast the past 100 years seems to agree with me. Specifically Article 1 Section 8 which authorizes the Federal Government to do pretty much anything and everything it wants if it believes it to be in the national interest. This section essentially causes the 9th and 10th to state that the Feds get control of whatever they want, and the States/People get control over whatever the Feds don't care about at the time. It completely removes the limited government interpretation.

Furthermore, I would suggest that this was the intent because the framers originally tried the Articles of Confederation and the government collapsed because it didn't have the power to get anything done, and the powers under those Articles were similar to what people claim should be the case now under the idea of limited government.

originally posted by: acackohfcc
I can see Donald shaming Senators and Representatives into action

I can't. Donald Trump is already powerful enough to buy Senators and Representatives, he even brags about it. I see a President Trump as buying congress while being the President. Essentially one person would control the entire Legislative and Executive branches.

This is my main opposition to him by the way, it goes beyond bad ideas. I think that Trump is too dangerous in the White House because it would concentrate way too much power into a single person. This goes double considering the expansion of Presidential power W put in place that Obama never undid.

I would be way more open to Trump if someone could convince me that Congress would actually act as a counterweight to Presidential power.

In fairness to Mr. Trump, he did get himself out from under a mountain of debt at one point in his career. He, famously, pointed to a bum on the street once and said, "That guy is richer than I am, because I'm $900,000,000 in debt."

This is the one and only qualification that says to me, "This is the man for this moment in US history."

A lot what he says seems like frothy sales talk, but a part of me would love to be a fly on the wall listening, as he negotiates his first big trade agreement with China, one of America's most important bankers.

Churchill said, "Better jaw jaw than war war." My hope would be that Trump, if elected, would have the same preference, although in Churchill's case I'm not convinced that was a genuine sentiment.

a reply to: ipsedixit

It's worth pointing out that Trump is a pretty big government guy. The truth is, his plans would cost more than anyone other than maybe Sanders, and in real cost they'll probably surpass even that because Trump has offered no plans for funding. His suggestions would cost 1 trillion per year and maybe more, 1.5 trillion isn't all that unreasonable which comes out to $15 trillion over a 10 year CBO scoring, not far off from Bernie's 18.

The wall? Patrolling the border? Hunting down illegals inside the country? That isn't free.

"Rebuilding" the military? We already have the most advanced military in the world and one of the largest. What is there to rebuild? Perhaps expanding it would be more accurate, but defense is already our biggest expense, making that even larger makes no fiscal sense.

Bringing jobs back from overseas means an increase in the cost of consumer goods. It also means large revenue hits as we withdraw from a global market.

And then there's all the rest. Trumps plans are very expensive, and all involve an increase in the amount of money spent (or a decline in revenues). Do we really want to hand that type of power to a guy who is very authoritarian and who will have the resources to be President and bribe Congress into doing his bidding? That's effectively putting absolute power in the hands of a single person, while that person is telling you up front that they're going to take actions to expand that power.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

For what its worth - I agree with you. I readily admit that both sides of the coin are corrupt and not worth a damn...

Address the issue...

It is worth a lot to me, so thank you. Sometimes I feel like I might be going crazy by how rare and isolated it is to see a rejectionist position mentioned on these boards where many intelligent people spill their thoughts.

On the other hand, I benefit from encountering little resistance to an idea that either a) people don't understand or b) people know to be true smoldering deep underneath their chosen team debate inclinations. This is America after all and friendly competition of all types is enticing to our conditioned subconscious.

But the real reason I post about the failure of both parties is for none of these reasons, but rather to do just as you suggested...address the issue. I have been around debate in my life and most of the time the silent middle path wins the long battle because the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. In this case, again IMO, the truth is in another dimension. The real reason why Obama can be criticized is the same reason why Bush can be criticized...the system doesn't work. In a democracy of 300+ million people when 51% says "yay" the other 49% are forced (sometimes at gunpoint or under threat of imprisonment) to go along with it. On top of that, waste of energy and money is malignant in this top heavy order of power. And it ought to be, how can we expect such a large system to be efficient at all? So in the interest of addressing the issue and in the interest of soft eroding all the hard entrenched team debating, and most importantly, in the interest of actually getting sh!t done...I implore everyone who has more investment in actually lifting their fellow man up and fixing our beleaguered world...to place time and effort into their local community and close the niche by which mega corporations and lobbyists have sequestered our surrendered power.

a reply to: Aazadan

People are concerned about Trump being able to buy the congress. They should remember that Trump would, in that unlikely scenario, be bidding against corporate interests with much deeper pockets than he has, but it will never get to that stage, in my opinion. I think, at some point, Trump is going to be confronted by "the hidden hand" behind the governing of America. I think they will let him know, as they did Ross Perot, just how long his leash is.

originally posted by: ipsedixit
a reply to: Aazadan

People are concerned about Trump being able to buy the congress. They should remember that Trump would, in that unlikely scenario, be bidding against corporate interests with much deeper pockets than he has, but it will never get to that stage, in my opinion. I think, at some point, Trump is going to be confronted by "the hidden hand" behind the governing of America. I think they will let him know, as they did Ross Perot, just how long his leash is.

Corporate interests would only bid against him if they have a reason to. As long as Trump isn't hurting their bottom line, why would they stop him? Construction companies would love a government contract to build a wall. Everyone loves defense contracts. A new insurance program just opens the doors for those companies to charge even more. And so on.

originally posted by: Aazadan
And so on.

Repatriating jobs? Ending offshore tax shelters?

That is not in the corporate interest.

originally posted by: ipsedixit
Repatriating jobs? Ending offshore tax shelters?

That is not in the corporate interest.

Sure it is. If you force companies to manufacture in the US it levels the playing field between foreign and domestic corporations which ultimately reduces foreign competition making it easier to sell your product. Profits may be the same, but that's great for growth which is what drives share prices.

Ending off shore tax shelters will never happen, but even if it did it will be accompanied by a decrease in the official rate. We're not going to increase the effective tax rate corporations pay, and given the mantra of tax cuts that the right asks for there's a decent chance that we'll actually lower the effective rate. That will remain true regardless of tax shelter status. Another way of looking at this, is that the way to end tax shelters is to make the US the most lucrative tax shelter and there are significant logistical benefits to being able to keep your money in the country. If corporations can do that while remaining competitive they'll be all over it.

a reply to: SlickMcFavorite

The real reason why Obama can be criticized is the same reason why Bush can be criticized...

I agree, however, should he be involved at all? If I say obama did something wrong I immediately hear how bush did something wrong ten years ago. That does nothing but start a party line war. I said obama did something wrong. The conversation should be how do we fix it? That someone else from the other party also did it a long time ago is a waste of time and effort. Worse yet, people bring up something the other party did that isn't even remotely associated with the topic at hand.

"Obama raided the treasury to pay off private insurers, which is illegal."

"Oh yeah? Bush got us in a war we shouldn't have been in."

How does that address the issue of obama raiding the treasury to illegally pay private insurers with taxpayer money?
~ or ~
"I think the damage obama was able to do is a good example of how much one person can affect the nation in 8 years as president which is why I think it is possible for Trump to effect major change in this country."

"Bush signed the Patriot Act and ...yap yap yap yap."

How does that address the topic of conversation - "why does anyone think one person can make America great again?"

Short answer - it doesn't.