Is Trump doing any good?

[Jimmy Higgins]

We're 20 years out from the breaking story that the President had gotten a blow job from an intern. It was the biggest scandal of that time.

Today, we're finding out that the President cheated on his third trophy wife with a at least two porn stars. Because she at least one reminded him of his daughter. And then he paid her them both hush money.

If nothing else, Trump has finally got the religious right to let go of their death grip on the idea that their chosen candidates must have "family values."

FTFY

That is crazy talk, but one of the only explanations that make sense for the payoff. He didn't want to win the election, but such a thing coming out would have made Woody Allen think, "Finally, people stop thinking about me and the adopted daughter."

 

[ronburgundy]

Hey, The Colourful Jester

On a related note (support for bigoted conservatism in Australia), how do the liberals you know down there view Margaret Court?
With the Australian Open going on, it's an interesting conundrum for Aussie liberals. On one hand, she is a national icon as well as female sports icon. OTOH, she is hateful bigot who not only opposes basic civil rights for gays but has said the transgenders are "from the devil" and equated the LGBT community to "Hitler".

I'm disappointed that so few players have spoken out against her during the current Australian Open.
Take her words and substitute "blacks" or "Jews" in there and almost everyone across the political spectrum would be calling for the removal of her name from the Arena and lifetime ban from all WTA events. Shows that gays are still very far from real social acceptance.

 

[bilby]

Hey, The Colourful Jester

On a related note (support for bigoted conservatism in Australia), how do the liberals you know down there view Margaret Court?
With the Australian Open going on, it's an interesting conundrum for Aussie liberals. On one hand, she is a national icon as well as female sports icon. OTOH, she is hateful bigot who not only opposes basic civil rights for gays but has said the transgenders are "from the devil" and equated the LGBT community to "Hitler".

I'm disappointed that so few players have spoken out against her during the current Australian Open.
Take her words and substitute "blacks" or "Jews" in there and almost everyone across the political spectrum would be calling for the removal of her name from the Arena and lifetime ban from all WTA events. Shows that gays are still very far from real social acceptance.

I don't know of anyone on the left wing in Australia who has not either called for, or supported calls for, the removal of her name from the Arena; She has clearly identified herself as a hateful bigot, and the left wing (in my experience as a former Labor Party activist with many left-wing friends and acquaintances) do not appear to be conflicted in the slightest, nor do they view her former sporting prowess as any kind of excuse.

Liberals, on the other hand, being the right wing conservatives that they are, include many people (for example former Prime Minister Tony Abbott) who wholeheartedly agree with her vile position. Unfortunately, the outpouring of homophobic bile in the run up to the recent pointless opinion survey has provided a degree of camouflage for many bigots, whose specific individual contributions have tended to be drowned out by the wave of vile commentary funded by the government in order to ensure 'balance' in a debate between the vast majority of Australians and the small minority of crazy bigots and religious extremists. Because apparently 'balance' is very important, and means giving 50% of airtime to any lunatic who disagrees with the consensus.

Of course, The Colourful Jester may have a different experience. But that's what I am seeing.

 

[RavenSky]

I finally found a genuine "good" cause by Trump (even if he didn't intend it)

The US president's dislike for the marine animal was revealed last week in an In Touch Weekly interview with adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

He reportedly said that he would never give money to shark charities, adding: "I hope all sharks die."

Shark conservation groups have since noted an uptick in donations, one with the message: "Because Trump."

"It can certainly be a challenge to raise money for a species that most people fear," Atlantic White Shark Conservancy chief executive officer Cynthia Wilgren told the financial news website. "We have been receiving donations in Trump's name since the story was published," she said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42809865

 

[snoiduspoitus]

As to the thread title 'Is Trump Doing Any Good', the answer is of course no.

No, Trump is not doing any good. Not any good at all.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I think there could be a bright spot to the Trump administration, if we decide to open our minds and heed the warnings this administration has given us. Trump has done an excellent job revealing varIous flaws in our democratic system. If we're smart and enact legislation to shore up those flaws, then he may have done our country a service, in a way.

 

[The Colourful Jester]

Hey, The Colourful Jester

On a related note (support for bigoted conservatism in Australia), how do the liberals you know down there view Margaret Court?
With the Australian Open going on, it's an interesting conundrum for Aussie liberals. On one hand, she is a national icon as well as female sports icon. OTOH, she is hateful bigot who not only opposes basic civil rights for gays but has said the transgenders are "from the devil" and equated the LGBT community to "Hitler".

I'm disappointed that so few players have spoken out against her during the current Australian Open.
Take her words and substitute "blacks" or "Jews" in there and almost everyone across the political spectrum would be calling for the removal of her name from the Arena and lifetime ban from all WTA events. Shows that gays are still very far from real social acceptance.

I don't know of anyone on the left wing in Australia who has not either called for, or supported calls for, the removal of her name from the Arena; She has clearly identified herself as a hateful bigot, and the left wing (in my experience as a former Labor Party activist with many left-wing friends and acquaintances) do not appear to be conflicted in the slightest, nor do they view her former sporting prowess as any kind of excuse.

Liberals, on the other hand, being the right wing conservatives that they are, include many people (for example former Prime Minister Tony Abbott) who wholeheartedly agree with her vile position. Unfortunately, the outpouring of homophobic bile in the run up to the recent pointless opinion survey has provided a degree of camouflage for many bigots, whose specific individual contributions have tended to be drowned out by the wave of vile commentary funded by the government in order to ensure 'balance' in a debate between the vast majority of Australians and the small minority of crazy bigots and religious extremists. Because apparently 'balance' is very important, and means giving 50% of airtime to any lunatic who disagrees with the consensus.

Of course, The Colourful Jester may have a different experience. But that's what I am seeing.

I was confused by ronburgundys question as I thought of liberals as in the Liberal Party, not left wingers. Bilby has summed it up about right though. On a separate note, she is now liking euthanasia with capital punishment.
I just did a brief look through comment sections of The Australian and the options of the posters there seem to be about 50/50 either way. For both the opinion of marriage and euthanasia.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I finally found a genuine "good" cause by Trump (even if he didn't intend it)

So, is that Trump-does-good or is that people-do-good-to-spite-Trump-because-he's-an-ass?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Let's see. The following things happened after Trump was elected that I think might be considered good.

Democrats discovered that the office of the presidency had too much power.
Democrats pondered states rights as a remedy.
Democrats pondered secession as a remedy in California.
Democrats pondered the 2nd Amendment as necessary for defense from the government.

They lacked the stamina to follow through on any of these, but all of them were good things in my opinion.

 

[bilby]

Hey, The Colourful Jester

On a related note (support for bigoted conservatism in Australia), how do the liberals you know down there view Margaret Court?
With the Australian Open going on, it's an interesting conundrum for Aussie liberals. On one hand, she is a national icon as well as female sports icon. OTOH, she is hateful bigot who not only opposes basic civil rights for gays but has said the transgenders are "from the devil" and equated the LGBT community to "Hitler".

I'm disappointed that so few players have spoken out against her during the current Australian Open.
Take her words and substitute "blacks" or "Jews" in there and almost everyone across the political spectrum would be calling for the removal of her name from the Arena and lifetime ban from all WTA events. Shows that gays are still very far from real social acceptance.

I don't know of anyone on the left wing in Australia who has not either called for, or supported calls for, the removal of her name from the Arena; She has clearly identified herself as a hateful bigot, and the left wing (in my experience as a former Labor Party activist with many left-wing friends and acquaintances) do not appear to be conflicted in the slightest, nor do they view her former sporting prowess as any kind of excuse.

Liberals, on the other hand, being the right wing conservatives that they are, include many people (for example former Prime Minister Tony Abbott) who wholeheartedly agree with her vile position. Unfortunately, the outpouring of homophobic bile in the run up to the recent pointless opinion survey has provided a degree of camouflage for many bigots, whose specific individual contributions have tended to be drowned out by the wave of vile commentary funded by the government in order to ensure 'balance' in a debate between the vast majority of Australians and the small minority of crazy bigots and religious extremists. Because apparently 'balance' is very important, and means giving 50% of airtime to any lunatic who disagrees with the consensus.

Of course, The Colourful Jester may have a different experience. But that's what I am seeing.

I was confused by ronburgundys question as I thought of liberals as in the Liberal Party, not left wingers. Bilby has summed it up about right though. On a separate note, she is now liking euthanasia with capital punishment.
I just did a brief look through comment sections of The Australian and the options of the posters there seem to be about 50/50 either way. For both the opinion of marriage and euthanasia.

The Australian is a right-wing Murdoch rag, so it's no surprise that the comments there are rather more conservative than the average position of the Australian populace.

 

[Elixir]

Let's see. The following things happened after Trump was elected that I think might be considered good.

Democrats discovered that the office of the presidency had too much power.
Democrats pondered states rights as a remedy.
Democrats pondered secession as a remedy in California.
Democrats pondered the 2nd Amendment as necessary for defense from the government.

They lacked the stamina to follow through on any of these, but all of them were good things in my opinion.

Good post! I'd add to that list:

Republicans discovered that the office of the presidency can never have too much power while they dominate all three branches of government, but needs to be reined in otherwise.
Republicans pondered pondered the pitfalls of states rights as a remedy, when suggested by Democrats.
Republicans pondered forbidding secession as a remedy in California.
Republicans pondered the 2nd Amendment as necessary for defense of racism.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think there could be a bright spot to the Trump administration, if we decide to open our minds and heed the warnings this administration has given us. Trump has done an excellent job revealing varIous flaws in our democratic system. If we're smart and enact legislation to shore up those flaws, then he may have done our country a service, in a way.

Yes, except your countrymen just aren't that smart. During the election whenever I talked about breaking the 2 party system and having proportional voting or exploring other ideas, I was told "this is not the time". Now that the election is over, nobody has any interest because the threat of an election that goes haywire again isn't up front.

Same with campaign finance reform or public funding of candidates.

Same with the electoral college.

Its never seen as the time to change it.

 

[Elixir]

I think there could be a bright spot to the Trump administration, if we decide to open our minds and heed the warnings this administration has given us. Trump has done an excellent job revealing varIous flaws in our democratic system. If we're smart and enact legislation to shore up those flaws, then he may have done our country a service, in a way.

Yes, except your countrymen just aren't that smart. During the election whenever I talked about breaking the 2 party system and having proportional voting or exploring other ideas, I was told "this is not the time". Now that the election is over, nobody has any interest because the threat of an election that goes haywire again isn't up front.

Same with campaign finance reform or public funding of candidates.

Same with the electoral college.

Its never seen as the time to change it.

It's fairly guaranteed to be a self-perpetuating situation since the party in power is always the party that most recently benefited from the status quo. Surprising that the forefathers didn't foresee this...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think there could be a bright spot to the Trump administration, if we decide to open our minds and heed the warnings this administration has given us. Trump has done an excellent job revealing varIous flaws in our democratic system. If we're smart and enact legislation to shore up those flaws, then he may have done our country a service, in a way.

Yes, except your countrymen just aren't that smart. During the election whenever I talked about breaking the 2 party system and having proportional voting or exploring other ideas, I was told "this is not the time". Now that the election is over, nobody has any interest because the threat of an election that goes haywire again isn't up front.

Same with campaign finance reform or public funding of candidates.

The US passed campaign finance reform. The Republicans latter aimed to kill it.

Same with the electoral college.

That requires a constitutional amendment which is one of the hardest things to pass.

Its never seen as the time to change it.

Sounds like gun legislation after a massacre.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It's fairly guaranteed to be a self-perpetuating situation since the party in power is always the party that most recently benefited from the status quo. Surprising that the forefathers didn't foresee this...

I'm not up on my US history. Did the founding fathers support the very idea of political parties? Did they have them back then? The way the system was initially designed, with local representatives etc, and the fiction we hear even today seems to ignore the existence of such parties, party loyalty etc.

- - - Updated - - -

Sounds like gun legislation after a massacre.

Yes, exactly like that.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I think there could be a bright spot to the Trump administration, if we decide to open our minds and heed the warnings this administration has given us. Trump has done an excellent job revealing varIous flaws in our democratic system. If we're smart and enact legislation to shore up those flaws, then he may have done our country a service, in a way.

Yes, except your countrymen just aren't that smart. During the election whenever I talked about breaking the 2 party system and having proportional voting or exploring other ideas, I was told "this is not the time". Now that the election is over, nobody has any interest because the threat of an election that goes haywire again isn't up front.

Same with campaign finance reform or public funding of candidates.

Same with the electoral college.

Its never seen as the time to change it.

I agree with you on some of that, but even IF those were discussions we really were saving for another day, there's still others that could be enacted.

A few off the top of my head as examples:

Stronger laws against despotism.

Legislation requiring tax information to be revealed, and that candidates divest themselves properly.

Legislation to enforce the distance between the Dept of Justice and the White House.

As others have pointed out, the presidency wields too much power, but considering how stupid congress is as well, I find myself thinking ALL of our government wields too much power. I'm no libertarian, either.

 

[SimpleDon]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...r/news-story/e601d45394c5d7c4e3e6131997ca1f4e

Not sure if that's behind a paywall or not, so cherry picking some quotes from it:

"The Donald J Trump enigma: No American President in recent US history has so dramatically improved the American economy boosting pay rates, job numbers, retail sales, business investment, profits and, of course, the share market. It’s an astounding transformation that will create a tidal wave of repercussions around the world."

"Its ironic that Trump’s predecessor was exactly the reverse — he was one of the most politically correct presidents in US history hardly putting a word out of place but vast areas of the US suffered from his economic policies."

"And also: “People who go into the White House to have a meeting with President Donald Trump usually leave pleasantly surprised. They find that Trump is not the raving madman they expected from his tweet storms or the media coverage. They generally say that he is affable, if repetitive. He runs a normal, good meeting and seems well informed enough to get by …"

"The White House is getting more professional. Imagine if Trump didn’t tweet. The craziness of the past weeks would be out of the way, and we’d see a White House that is briskly pursuing its goals: the shift in our Pakistan policy, the shift in our offshore drilling policy, the fruition of our Islamic State policy, the nomination for judgeships and the formation of policies on infrastructure, DACA, North Korea and trade”."

--------------

I've wondered for some time if the man is actually doing some good and I'm just not looking hard enough for signs of this. He certainly brings more trouble for himself then he needs, but does the article make any reasonable points?

The stock market in spite of all of the attention paid to it doesn't have much to do with the economy that provides the 99% with jobs. It is a cross between a casino and a ponzi scheme. Profits are made from the other players in the market. Losses go to the other players. Nothing goes to the companies after the initial stock offering but dividends are paid from the companies to the stockholders. For the companies it is like a loan that they can never pay off, permanent debt.

For the most part the players don't buy stocks for the dividends, they buy stocks to profit from the inflation that increases the cost of the stock. This inflation is called capital gains and it results when the overwhelming number of the stockholders, the 1% get their hands on even more of the nation's income and put it into the casino of the stock market. Hence the similarity to a ponzi scheme, to provide the gains from the inflation of the stock prices to most of the players requires ever more money to be bet in the casino of the stock market.

When Donald Trump was elected with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress the stock market inflated in value because of the money coming into it making the sure bet that if they did nothing else the Republicans would lower taxes on the corporations and the rich and the money from those tax cuts would go to the casino that is the stock market further inflating the value of the shares.

They call this gambling on sure bets investing. But it isn't investing that helps the corporations in any sense. For the 1% who own most of the shares owned by individuals it is more like savings rather than investing. a reliable source of passive, unearned income that prevents the need to actually work for a living. This sloth is considered to be desirable were as sloth by anyone in the 99% is roundly condemned.

Certainly the money put into the stock market has the same negative impact on the economy that sustains the 99% as any other savings. Savings is money diverted from consumption spending that lowers the economic activity and reduces the size and the growth of the economy because it reduces the demand for products in the economy.

 

[Elixir]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...r/news-story/e601d45394c5d7c4e3e6131997ca1f4e

Not sure if that's behind a paywall or not, so cherry picking some quotes from it:

"The Donald J Trump enigma: No American President in recent US history has so dramatically improved the American economy boosting pay rates, job numbers, retail sales, business investment, profits and, of course, the share market. It’s an astounding transformation that will create a tidal wave of repercussions around the world."

"Its ironic that Trump’s predecessor was exactly the reverse — he was one of the most politically correct presidents in US history hardly putting a word out of place but vast areas of the US suffered from his economic policies."

"And also: “People who go into the White House to have a meeting with President Donald Trump usually leave pleasantly surprised. They find that Trump is not the raving madman they expected from his tweet storms or the media coverage. They generally say that he is affable, if repetitive. He runs a normal, good meeting and seems well informed enough to get by …"

"The White House is getting more professional. Imagine if Trump didn’t tweet. The craziness of the past weeks would be out of the way, and we’d see a White House that is briskly pursuing its goals: the shift in our Pakistan policy, the shift in our offshore drilling policy, the fruition of our Islamic State policy, the nomination for judgeships and the formation of policies on infrastructure, DACA, North Korea and trade”."

--------------

I've wondered for some time if the man is actually doing some good and I'm just not looking hard enough for signs of this. He certainly brings more trouble for himself then he needs, but does the article make any reasonable points?

The stock market in spite of all of the attention paid to it doesn't have much to do with the economy that provides the 99% with jobs. It is a cross between a casino and a ponzi scheme. Profits are made from the other players in the market. Losses go to the other players. Nothing goes to the companies after the initial stock offering but dividends are paid from the companies to the stockholders. For the companies it is like a loan that they can never pay off, permanent debt.

For the most part the players don't buy stocks for the dividends, they buy stocks to profit from the inflation that increases the cost of the stock. This inflation is called capital gains and it results when the overwhelming number of the stockholders, the 1% get their hands on even more of the nation's income and put it into the casino of the stock market. Hence the similarity to a ponzi scheme, to provide the gains from the inflation of the stock prices to most of the players requires ever more money to be bet in the casino of the stock market.

When Donald Trump was elected with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress the stock market inflated in value because of the money coming into it making the sure bet that if they did nothing else the Republicans would lower taxes on the corporations and the rich and the money from those tax cuts would go to the casino that is the stock market further inflating the value of the shares.

They call this gambling on sure bets investing. But it isn't investing that helps the corporations in any sense. For the 1% who own most of the shares owned by individuals it is more like savings rather than investing. a reliable source of passive, unearned income that prevents the need to actually work for a living. This sloth is considered to be desirable were as sloth by anyone in the 99% is roundly condemned.

Certainly the money put into the stock market has the same negative impact on the economy that sustains the 99% as any other savings. Savings is money diverted from consumption spending that lowers the economic activity and reduces the size and the growth of the economy because it reduces the demand for products in the economy.

Very well put. I tend to think of it in these simpler terms: The stock market is a parasite feeding upon the economy.
Maybe it would be more accurate to go with "the one percent who get the most cap gains from the stock market" rather than "the stock market".

 

[SimpleDon]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...r/news-story/e601d45394c5d7c4e3e6131997ca1f4e

Not sure if that's behind a paywall or not, so cherry picking some quotes from it:

"The Donald J Trump enigma: No American President in recent US history has so dramatically improved the American economy boosting pay rates, job numbers, retail sales, business investment, profits and, of course, the share market. It’s an astounding transformation that will create a tidal wave of repercussions around the world."

<snip>​

--------------

I've wondered for some time if the man is actually doing some good and I'm just not looking hard enough for signs of this. He certainly brings more trouble for himself then he needs, but does the article make any reasonable points?

My response to the OP, continue from my post #37 above.

What ever good comes to the economy from the massive tax cut and increase in the national debt is due primarily to the euphoria of the moment and its impact on the corporations of the windfall that the money raised by the increase in the national debt has created. The corporations are paying their employees bonuses and some are raising the minimum wage that they pay, a certain road to bankruptcy if you believe the neoliberals on the board.

Apple has announced that they will repatriate 250 billion dollars of income that they illegally shielded from corporate taxes and will pay the one time reduced corporate taxes on the amount. There is no announcement forthcoming on what they will do with the rest of the estimated trillion dollars plus that they also illegally hid from corporate taxes or if they will continue to illegally hide their profits from the 21% corporate tax like they illegally hid the profits from the 35% corporate tax.

But what will happen is what always happens. The corporations will process the windfall and eventually convince themselves that they earned the money and that they deserve the money and that they are not going to share it with the employees and only use it to increase the value of the company's stock by enough to pay the executives their maximum bonuses.

 

[SimpleDon]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...r/news-story/e601d45394c5d7c4e3e6131997ca1f4e

Not sure if that's behind a paywall or not, so cherry picking some quotes from it:

"The Donald J Trump enigma: No American President in recent US history has so dramatically improved the American economy boosting pay rates, job numbers, retail sales, business investment, profits and, of course, the share market. It’s an astounding transformation that will create a tidal wave of repercussions around the world."

"Its ironic that Trump’s predecessor was exactly the reverse — he was one of the most politically correct presidents in US history hardly putting a word out of place but vast areas of the US suffered from his economic policies."

"And also: “People who go into the White House to have a meeting with President Donald Trump usually leave pleasantly surprised. They find that Trump is not the raving madman they expected from his tweet storms or the media coverage. They generally say that he is affable, if repetitive. He runs a normal, good meeting and seems well informed enough to get by …"

"The White House is getting more professional. Imagine if Trump didn’t tweet. The craziness of the past weeks would be out of the way, and we’d see a White House that is briskly pursuing its goals: the shift in our Pakistan policy, the shift in our offshore drilling policy, the fruition of our Islamic State policy, the nomination for judgeships and the formation of policies on infrastructure, DACA, North Korea and trade”."

--------------

I've wondered for some time if the man is actually doing some good and I'm just not looking hard enough for signs of this. He certainly brings more trouble for himself then he needs, but does the article make any reasonable points?

The stock market in spite of all of the attention paid to it doesn't have much to do with the economy that provides the 99% with jobs. It is a cross between a casino and a ponzi scheme. Profits are made from the other players in the market. Losses go to the other players. Nothing goes to the companies after the initial stock offering but dividends are paid from the companies to the stockholders. For the companies it is like a loan that they can never pay off, permanent debt.

For the most part the players don't buy stocks for the dividends, they buy stocks to profit from the inflation that increases the cost of the stock. This inflation is called capital gains and it results when the overwhelming number of the stockholders, the 1% get their hands on even more of the nation's income and put it into the casino of the stock market. Hence the similarity to a ponzi scheme, to provide the gains from the inflation of the stock prices to most of the players requires ever more money to be bet in the casino of the stock market.

When Donald Trump was elected with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress the stock market inflated in value because of the money coming into it making the sure bet that if they did nothing else the Republicans would lower taxes on the corporations and the rich and the money from those tax cuts would go to the casino that is the stock market further inflating the value of the shares.

They call this gambling on sure bets investing. But it isn't investing that helps the corporations in any sense. For the 1% who own most of the shares owned by individuals it is more like savings rather than investing. a reliable source of passive, unearned income that prevents the need to actually work for a living. This sloth is considered to be desirable were as sloth by anyone in the 99% is roundly condemned.

Certainly the money put into the stock market has the same negative impact on the economy that sustains the 99% as any other savings. Savings is money diverted from consumption spending that lowers the economic activity and reduces the size and the growth of the economy because it reduces the demand for products in the economy.

Very well put. I tend to think of it in these simpler terms: The stock market is a parasite feeding upon the economy.
Maybe it would be more accurate to go with "the one percent who get the most cap gains from the stock market" rather than "the stock market".

Quite right, I tend to go on, I love the words and hate to cut them. See what you can do with my post #39.