With Independence Day yesterday, and midterm elections coming, it would be nice to see where our readers sit with regards to Pres Trump.
Share your thoughts below.
Mormon, patriotism, Politics, weekend poll
Your Thoughts on Trump (Poll)
Mormon, patriotism, Politics, weekend poll
Wheat & Tares 
I wish your second question had an option ‘The best candidate for the position – regardless of party affiliation.’
I haven’t seen a poll (anywhere) that fits me. I always have complaints or comments. In this case I am a “Democrat only” in spirit, because I believe that the single most important job of the midterms is to break GOP control of the House and the Senate. That is so important that I have become a single issue voter. Unfortunately, I live in an area (Utah 3d congressional district) that is so predictably Republican that I end up registered and voting Republican, taking a “least worst” approach.
This is a bit more than a personal gripe because I’m sure your readership from the same 3d district in Utah is overweighted.
I always vote the person, not the party. However with a person who has a terrible character versus someone who might be a good person but would implement policies you hate it’s always a terrible choice. The problem with the last election was I couldn’t stand either. However I am surprised that our system has curtailed Trump as well as it has. Yes there’s corruption but overall the system has worked better than I’ve expected. When November rolls around I expect a Democratic house which will curtail him even more. That said I live in Utah with a house district that isn’t exactly competitive. So it’s not like my vote matters much.
I didn’t see a response on the second poll that fits me. If there had been a “I vote the person, not the party” option, I would have chosen that one.
I’m with christiankimball on this one. Wresting congressional control from the GOP is critical. While, like Clarke, I believe the system has done a decent job of containing Trumpism (thanks in large part to 4 or 5 House Republicans with common sense and a spine), I think Trumpian conservatism will become more and more mainstream among conservatives over the next two years. Having at least one chamber of Congress controlled by Democrats to prevent that normalization from having long-lasting legislative impacts is important for the direction that this country will travel over the next decade. I’m hoping for Democratic control of the House in November. The Senate would be nice to have too, but that is less likely to happen. Nationally, I think the Democratic party is still a bit of a mess. It seems that they have not yet coalesced behind any message other than “Trump = Bad.” While Trump does, in fact, equal bad, there’s going to need to be a better message than that in 2020. If the Democrats don’t figure this out, we could be looking at a situation where an absolutely terrible incumbent president could defeat a Democratic challenger.
I voted for Trump, even though I couldn’t stand him. Living in Arkansas, I could not stomach Hillary, especially following Obama. But Trump continues to prove himself as the stupid, schoolyard bully. He really needs to go home!
Can’t answer the poll as written. One of my German clients asked how I felt about the presidential election. I could only say I was very happy that the Clintons were not back in the White House and that I was (and remain) appalled that Trump is. I could not vote for either Donny or Hillary. I’m with Christian thinking it is even more critical now than usual (though always important) that the same party with a man in the White House also not control both houses of Congress.
BTW, Christian, though none of my business, whyever would you move back to Utah?!
JR: Because we got a chance to live on top of a mountain, a respectable distance from family and an international airport.
It’s been a long time since my 1st choice for President mad it to the General Election. I don’t vote for the party or person, I vote for the Ideas. I don’t like Trumps mannerisms but I like his ideas: Many non-partisan, objective stats are proving his leadership correct. Remember, not all of his policies originated with him; he’s just the one to bring them to light and enforcement.
christiankimball, , what was your reaction when the Dems controlled all three branches of government? I believe that was called “breaking gridlock”.
Trump is not two-faced. The last Democratic President I can say that about is Jimmy Carter. And because he was not a radical leftist, many Dems said he was ineffective.
Christian, That’s a great reason. One that I might even again be able to stomach Utah for! Oh, well. Maybe I’ll meet you when there in September.
Carter was labeled ineffective because he left office with Americans still being held hostage in Iran, we endured the worst gas crisis ever under his leadership, and he was a gentle soul who was attacked by a rabbit while canoeing. But he’s a great man who is a champion for women.
Trump is a garbage fire if ever there was one. It’s hard to imagine a less presidential leader. He’s a misogynist with the demeanor of a toddler. He’s petty and ignorant. He’s an embarrassment. I backed Hillary, but even so I couldn’t have imagined he’d be this bad. I assumed a lot of his performance was an act, that he wasn’t really a bigot or so mean spirited. Boy was I wrong.
I’m working on a free lance article about my journey from Never Trump Republican to probably voting for him. His rhetoric and crap hole twitter feed is baked in for me at this point. (Just like Clinton scandals are baked in for Hillary.) I look at his policies and except for tariffs he has been a decent enough Republican leader and if the North Korea summit produces results he is even good at some things. Decent is more than enough not to vote for Hillary or whatever clown is nominated in 2020. Thats not the most ringing endorsement but that is the world we are in.
I was registered Independent (voting mostly Democratic but also for moderate Republicans) until the rise of the Tea Party 2006. It has been disappointing to watch the Republican Party brand deteriorate to the point that their chosen candidate and President is a man such as Donald Trump. I had hope he wouldn’t be as bad as I feared. Sad to say, he he is way worse than I ever could’ve imagined—in my lifetime. Never again can the Republican Party claim to be the party of “high moral values.”
We need thoughtful, intelligent, moral people on both sides of the political spectrum working together.
Right now, the insane have the keys to the asylum.
Trump is FAR worse than my fears.
I always knew it was his intention to profit personally from the Presidency. I didn’t think he had any genuine interest in governing. I had no idea that his concept of governing would be to broker with other tyrants to destroy democracy in the Western World by painful degrees. And who could EVER have imagined we’d make enemies of Britain and Canada? It defies logic and credibility but here we go alienating ourselves from NATO and rendering ourselves diplomatically impotent.
Trump is the best thing to happen itoAmerica in a long long time.
The Democrats thought that Hillary was a shoe-in and that they could continue their corruption for 4 or maybe eight more years
” and if the North Korea summit produces results he is even good at some things. ”
If we can be assured of anything it is that North Korea is NEVER going to give up it’s nukes. Any tyrant with half a brain knows
nukes are the only thing that guarantees he will be safe from a U.S. military intervention/invasion. Trump meeting with Kim Jung Un was merely a dog and pony show brought to you by two of the biggest narcissists in the world.
Angela C: When Carter ran against Ford, he combined the inflation rate and unemployment rate into a “misery index” of 12% , saying no sitting President deserved a second term with that. After four years of Cater as President, the misery index was 21%.
Only a little surprising that most of the votes HERE are for Democrats; possibly coincidental most of the commentary is vocally critical (opposed to) some aspect or other of Mormonism. The implication is that there’s a perfect world that many here have in mind and we are not living in it and if only this person or that did what you in your wisdom thought best, all these problems (or at least one specific problem important to you) would go away.
Would anyone like to describe that perfect world, the perfect church, the perfect government? As a secondary request, if you cannot achieve your perfect world, what dangers exist in trying and failing?
Example: My father believed a benevolent dictatorship was the best government (and that the Communist Party of the USA was the path to perfect government). The risk is that you stop at “dictatorship” and never reach the “benevolent” part (that’s what happened to the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, etc).
Donald Trump has delighted me with his unpredictability and willingness to reveal what is on his mind. I remember *almost* being willing to vote for a Clinton (did it really come to THAT?) but it has turned out pretty well, so I voted “better than expected”.
I am mostly libertarian and will vote for whoever or whatever party is preserving the last shreds of American liberty. For now that seems to be Republicans (it was once Democrat but that was a very long time ago).
Since “liberty” seems to be a seriously revamped word, almost evil in the minds of Democrats, I will define it: I choose for me and you choose for you.
Keep in mind, those familiar with the concepts of Lucifer’s Plan and Jehovah’s Plan, which of these more closely resembles the Democratic Party with its promises, its taxes, is rules and laws infringing upon nearly (haven’t gotten around to some) aspects of your life.
Lucifer’s Plan= no choices
Jehovah’s Plan = choices results in consequences
(Ten Commandments etc etc etc)
Democratic Party platform = choices results in consequences
Republican Platform = different choices resulting in different consequences
Dallin H. Oaks differentiates agency from freedom:
“First, because free agency is a God-given precondition to the purpose of mortal life, no person or organization can take away our free agency in mortality.
Second, what can be taken away or reduced by the conditions of mortality is our freedom, the power to act upon our choices. Free agency is absolute, but in the circumstances of mortality freedom is always qualified.
Freedom may be qualified or taken away (1) by physical laws, including the physical limitations with which we are born, (2) by our own action, and (3) by the action of others, including governments.
Many losses of freedom are imposed by others. The science of government is a consideration of the procedures by which and the extent to which the official representatives of one group of citizens can impose restrictions on the freedom of another group. Decisions on the extent to which government power should restrict the freedom of individuals are among the most difficult decisions we face in an organized society. How much should zoning laws restrict a person’s right to use his own property? How many taxes should we extract, and what compulsory functions should government perform with them? How much harm can society allow a person to do himself, such as by self-mutilation or drug use? These are all questions of freedom.
We have to accept some government limitations on freedom if we who live in communities are to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A condition of uninhibited individual freedom would allow the strong to oppress the weak. It would allow the eccentric desires of one person to restrict the freedom of many.
Interferences with our freedom do not deprive us of our free agency. When Pharaoh put Joseph in prison, he restricted Joseph’s freedom, but he did not take away his free agency. When Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple, he interfered with their freedom to engage in a particular activity at a particular time in a particular place, but he did not take away their free agency.
During my nine years at BYU I read many letters to the editor in the Universe that protested various rules as infringements of free agency. I am glad I don’t see those funny arguments anymore, probably because I no longer have to read the letters to the editor in the Universe. The Lord has told us in modern revelation that he established the Constitution of the United States to assure “that every man may act . . . according to the moral agency which I have given unto him” (D&C 101:78). In other words, God established our Constitution to give us the vital political freedom necessary for us to act upon our personal choices in civil government. This revelation shows the distinction between agency (the power of choice), which is God-given, and freedom, the right to act upon our choices, which is protected by the Constitution and laws of the land.
Freedom is obviously of great importance, but as these examples illustrate, freedom is always qualified in mortality. Consequently, when we oppose a government-imposed loss of freedom, it would be better if we did not conduct our debate in terms of a loss of our free agency, which is impossible under our doctrine. We ought to focus on the legality or the wisdom of the proposed restriction of our freedom.”
(Free Agency and Freedom 1987).
Couple of things I noted in the results of these polls.
First, how few people took the poll. At this point about 200 people, the number of people who read this blog is a lot smaller that I though. I figure the number of people lurking, people not commenting, would be much higher.
Second, “He’s worse than I expected” result is much higher than I expected. Since the consensus after the election was that the world would end; with the world markets collapsing, riots in every city, war with every nation on earth and all life on earth would end in climate catastrophe, all by the end of the first year. 25 % of the respondence, as of the time of this post, saying that they thought things would be pretty much normal for the nation, and that they are disappointed in some part of it. Because all in all things are really not much different than normal; economy is good (2.9% growth), unemployment is good (unemployment less than 4%), all basic freedoms are still in effect (no marshal law, etc.), and elections will be held on time as normal. And as has been the norm for the last 20 years, half the country hates the direction the country is heading. People must have expected him to do a better job that he is doing now. I figured 90+% would respond “I can’t stand him” because no one could have done “worse than expected”, since everyone expected the absolute worse.
Third, I expected a higher “as many 3rd party candidates as possible”. I expected more non-conformist out of this group than most groups. But the result was on par for nation averages.
Rather a silly question saying I love everything about Trump. Better question, overall I like Trump. I answered that I love everything about him which is not true, but overall I do like him. I love pragmatism and he is pragmatic. Sees a problem and tries to fix it. Vs. the silliness from both parties that has gone on for decades.
If “no marshall law yet” is your criteria for how well the country is doing we have indeed descended to sewer levels already.
What astounds me is the number of people who are still able to say “There are things I don’t like, but he’s better than Hillary”.
It’s hard to imagine that when the United States of America has freakin’ institutionalized kidnapping that anything — most specifically Hillary Clinton — could be worse.
Alice,
There were more children taken from their parents at the border during the Obama administration that there have been during the Trump administration. By your own definition, this is “better than Hillary” since she was a big player in the Obama administration.
Those were unaccompanied minors who were not “taken from their parents” but who had left their parents behind in their own countries before they showed up on our side of the border.
Out of curiosity, how do those that are happy with Pres. Trump feel about his tariff wars around the world? Do you see them as a positive for the future economy?
I’m with christiankimball. The worst part of the last election wasn’t that Trump won (though that was very bad). The worst part was one party now controls all three branches of government.
alice writes “It’s hard to imagine that when the United States of America has freakin’ institutionalized kidnapping that anything could be worse.”
There’s plenty worse. I suggest for starters studying the “killing fields” of Cambodia. If your idea of “worst” is institutionalized kidnapping then I suspect you have led an extremely sheltered life. Give thanks to your parents and your nation.
What poll? I see no poll, nor a link to anything.
Let me be clear…Trump is a despicable human being and nothing he has done or wants to do can possibly excuse all of the many ways he is that. I feel similarly about his “supporters” and apologists/sycophants (many of whom are elected politicians that care ONLY about staying in office–especially after they have had the ability to see what he says and does for the past 500+ days. Further, I agree with what Hillary said regarding his basket of deplorables, they are either willfully ignorant and don’t make the effort to learn and understand or they are personally selfish and bigoted and like what he is doing for THEM.
IMHO
ReTx asks “Out of curiosity, how do those that are happy with Pres. Trump feel about his tariff wars around the world? Do you see them as a positive for the future economy?”
(1) Mostly delighted and (2) yes.
Free trade, which has never existed anywhere between nations, skews certain realities. For instance, if it is cheaper to make steel in China (seems to be the case) then every nation on earth ought to use Chinese steel as doing so is more efficient and lets the citizens of those nations do whatever it is they do best.
An obvious weakness is that it puts China in a position to extort those other nations by regulating the flow of steel.
Consequently, if nations wish to be “nations”, they must preserve critical infrastructure functions within their own borders even if it is not as efficient economically. It also reduces the leverage each nation has over other nations.
Trading is a fine thing, dependency creates risk. Tariffs have pretty much always existed and tend not to be visible to citizens. You go to the store and buy something; if it was international in origin, it is nearly certain to have included tariff in its price. Tariff can be pretty steep, 30 percent or more for many things.
As the United States drifts toward a socialist utopia of $15/hour minimum wage (or even a guaranteed minimum), pretty much everything that is made will be cheaper made elsewhere. Essentially all industry right down to the corner bicycle shop will be unable to compete in a free trade world with nations that have a smaller (or no) minimum wage. Despite the cheap price on international goods, how many Americans will have an income to buy anything? Not many. Thus, totally free trade, but unfree wage legislation, squeezes the economy and will shut it down.
This is relatively basic stuff whose truth ought to be obvious but it can be studied. The opposite is tariff which still allows for trade, but encourages local production and consumption keeping these two components in approximate balance.
MTodd wrote “The worst part was one party now controls all three branches of government.”
It is indeed a risk, one that existed for the first two years of Obama’s administration.
fbisti writes “regarding his basket of deplorables, they are either willfully ignorant and don’t make the effort to learn and understand or they are personally selfish and bigoted and like what he is doing for THEM.”
Fallacy of the False Alternatives.
In fact many reasons, more than the two you have offered, exist for Trump’s election.
I am one of those deplorables. I am bigoted; I like who I like and I dislike who I dislike. In fact, I have so many subtle nuances of preference I am not merely a bi-got, but a poly-got.
Same as you, it seems. Unlike you I seldom publish to the whole world a list of reasons to despise others.
fbisti writes “…and like what he is doing for THEM.”
Well, yes, that is pretty much the best reason for anyone to vote for a candidate. In this instance, I expect Trump to honor the Bill of Rights and I expected Hillary Clinton to trash them.
I suggest for starters studying the “killing fields” of Cambodia. If your idea of “worst” is institutionalized kidnapping then I suspect you have led an extremely sheltered life.
OK. I’ll take your point that there have been worse events in human history. But I thought we were talking about this country and the present as the survey is specifically about Trump. That we can attempt to change. …as opposed to events half a world and 4 decades away.
I don’t have rose colored glasses on. With Trump and his sycophants in firm control of 3 branches of government it’s an uphill battle. …on the order of Himalayan “uphill”. But the concern is that the very inevitability of the extreme right wing control is what makes something like the tyranny of some Third World abuses less and less of an impossibility here as institutionalizing kidnapping ominously suggests.
I don’t know how old you are, Michael, or how old you think I am. I lived through the Viet Nam era. My father and my grandfathers fought WWI and WWII (my paternal grandfather fought in both). I knew them well enough to know they’d be horrified to see how democracy has deteriorated in present day America where Republican members of Congress and the Administration are behaving as though the oaths of office they took were to the GOP rather than the US Constitution. .
Alice, thank you for your reply. It is interesting that your fear of Republicans is nearly word-for-word my fear of Democrats:
“they’d be horrified to see how democracy has deteriorated in present day America where Republican [Democrat] members of Congress and the Administration are behaving as though the oaths of office they took were to the GOP [DNC] rather than the US Constitution”
While both parties attack the Bill of Rights, the specific article under attack seems to determine your voting pattern. I consider the first and second amendments “holier” than the others. I don’t know there’s an order, but the first and second do seem to be in their proper places. Democrats are all about “hate speech” limitations on the first amendment freedom of speech, non-discrimination attacks on the first amendment right to freedom of association, and attacks on freedom of religion. It is probably the “freedom of religion” factor that got Trump elected and who can argue the litmus test of the second amendment where “shall not infringe” is taken rather literally.
Republicans tend to legislate morality, where, when and with whom (or *what*) to have intercourse and what to do about the natural result of that. I would prefer government not try to legislate morality. But the Democrats do that too, just different morality. What was once bad is now good; what was once good is now bad.
About that “democracy”. God forbid that the United States of America should ever be a “democracy” rather than a republic. If you are as old as you suggest, you ought to know the difference. There’s a lot more liberty in a republic than in a democracy; which is really totalitarian but presumably “the people”, or some of them, rule the others. The difference with republic is the scope of your influence. In a republic you have many layers of government so if you are a tyrant your power is confined to neighborhood, or town, or city, or county, or state; hopefully not nation BUT even if nation, your touch is only national matters.
Consider a fairly typical Democrat party candidate. It reveals the gulf between left and right thinking. Left wants “free stuff” and gives little thought to where free stuff originates. “The candidate has built her campaign on a laundry list of socialist ideas such as universal healthcare, a $15 minimum wage, and abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).” http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/07/democratic-socialist-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-draws-bronx-cheer-for-misleading-campaign-bio.html
How’s it working for Venezuela? The problem with socialism is sooner or later you run out of Other People’s Money.
It is not true that social policies that promote equality and collective prosperity are doomed to fail. What is true is that government takes hard work. It is work that takes enormous collective dedication and persistence. It is work that never stops being hard and never stops requiring sacrifice. Good government is honorable, it is worthy, and it is the most powerful way to lift a nation, but it is always hard.
Radicalized hyper-conservatives like Michael 2 do not have the courage to do the hard work of good government. I’m not talking about traditional conservatives, whose healthy skepticism about government power does not blind them to the uplifting possibilities of government. I’m talking about radicalized conservatives, who have convinced themselves that their cowardly fear of government is a virtue based on some kind of historical necessity.
One of the great dangers of the Trump administration is that Republicans are starting to accept its deep incompetence. They refuse to demand better. (See, for example, the comment above from morgan2205.) They refuse to remember that the alternative to competent government is not Michael 2’s nationalist-libertarian paradise. The true alternatives are corrupt authoritarianism or anarchy.
Michael 2 – Thank you for your response. Interesting to see the thought process.
Loursat writes: “It is not true that social policies that promote equality and collective prosperity are doomed to fail.”
I look forward to your example of a nation that succeeded.
“What is true is that government takes hard work.”
I have worked in government and it did not seem particularly hard. In fact, it often requires no work of any kind as you wait for the authorized light-bulb changer to come along. I once changed my own light bulb and the civil servants were shocked and genuinely frightened as if I would be struck by lightning.
“It is work that takes enormous collective dedication and persistence.”
There’s that mystery word “collective” again. No personal dedication, only “collective” dedication.
“Radicalized hyper-conservatives…”
These words do not belong together. Conservative is the opposite of radical. It is like declaring something to be loudly silent, brightly dark, that sort of thing. What is being conserved? Sense of right and wrong, left and right, up and down, bright and dark.
“I’m not talking about traditional conservatives”
So it seems.
“One of the great dangers of the Trump administration is that Republicans are starting to accept its deep incompetence.”
As do Democrats of their own heroes. But if “deep incompetence” is measured in reduced unemployment well then give me more of it!
“They refuse to demand better.”
Better as defined by you, no doubt. Well, lay it on me; what is “better”?
“The true alternatives are corrupt authoritarianism or anarchy.”
Fallacy of the False Alternatives (again). Many alternatives exist, including what the United States of America was created to be, a republic. Presumably your brand of authoritarianism isn’t “corrupt”.
If Trump’s initiation of the tariff war is anything like the implementation of his zero tolerance immigration policy we are in deep trouble.
(btw the largest proportion of tariffs the U.S. pays is on clothes, textiles and travel. Furthermore, tariffs are infinitely complex–way above Trump’s comprehension and attention span).
” Left wants “free stuff” and gives little thought to where free stuff originates. ”
Ok, I can play the game of strawman too– ie “The Right wants “survival of the fittest” and gives little thought to who gets hurt. ”
Obama was handed a disastrous economy. Trump inherited a relatively healthy economy.
One of Merriam-Webster’s definitions of “radical”:
Michael 2, you are a radical conservative.
Also, just to emphasize the central point that Michael 2 does not seem to have noticed: Good government works only as long as we make it work. We actually have to do the work. The United States has a great, noble legacy of good government. If that legacy is lost, it does not reflect poorly on the accomplishments of past generations. It only brings shame to our own.
#Walkaway
I kind of hate to jump into this civil discourse but don’t see the Merriam-Webster’s definitions of “radical really demonstrating your point Loursat. You listed four definitions for radical. I don’t believe any apply really to any point that Michael made.
First, “a : very different from the usual or traditional : extreme” conservative beliefs are generally by definition “traditional and usual”. Law and order are and have been traditionally conservative ideals. Non-change or moderate change are the hallmark of conservative thought. There was no idea or point stated by Michael that has not been traditional conservative idea for 50+ years.
Second, “b : favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions” again nothing in Michael’s comments favored extreme changes to views, habits, conditions or institution. And before your say what about the tariffs… the US has had “trade wars” before, and flexing US muscles is very much, a conservative stance, we throw our weight around all the time and republican presidents are very much noted for this, and is not an extreme change. The left may not like it and in the end it may not be a good thing but is not an unusual position for a conservative to take.
Third, “c : associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change” again Michael has not pushed for any extreme change in US policy, practice or political views. His comments could have been made in the 1980’s and no though to be outside the norm.
Fourth, “d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs • “the radical right”” I don’t see any extreme measures proposed by Michael to retain political state.
You have not provided any examples to support your accusation of being a radical. Michael positions are pretty traditional conservative stances and positions and have been for over 50 year.
Examples of extreme or radical believes can be found in many of the liberal or Democrat positions. Ideas like open borders, gay marriage, 15 dollar minimum wage laws, non-enforcement of laws, and statements like “fundamental transformation of America” are extreme and were unheard of 20 years ago. They are in short “Radical” by definition.
In short the Trump supporters have convinced themselves tha Trump is a typical republican leader. Just like when something new is revealed in church history or governance, and people say, thats not new every body knows that.
The different sides are talking at cross purposes. People who vote republican value different things from those who vote democrat.
Most other first world countries already have socialist utopian minimum wages over $20 per hour and thriving economies. Are you impressed by German cars? Minimum wage over $20. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=RMW
Those not on the conservative side think Government is to help an equitable society (zion).
They might point out that while America has a low minimum wage by first world standards it is way ahead on the inequity between the minimum wage and the executive salary. The gini numbers for most first world countries are about 10 points less than America, and in fact what America was in the good old days of the 1960s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality.
I am not sure conservatives are concerned about the poor, or whether they still believe if you give the wealthy a tax cut, as Trump has, it will some how trickle down to the poor. Taking care of the poor might be socialism. In my country the conservatives are talking about tax cuts for big companies, and the wealthy, while the progressive party are talking about removing some of the perks used by the wealthy, to fund a living wage for the poorest. Very different agendas for the next election.
Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark are all prospering socialist-leaning countries. I‘ve lived more than 20 years in one and have spent time in several others. I have lived even longer than that, though, in the USA, mostly in Utah. So I think I have a decent basis for comparison. Jingoistic, „we‘re number one!“ hard-core conservative republicans would be surprised by those countries‘ counterexamples to their worldview. I‘m so thankful I have been able to live and travel on different countries. Still love the USA though, still lean conservative on financial issues, but more liberal on social issues. Think Trump is a major-league doofus, and from what I understand so do most people who work(ed) with him, but agree his actual politics could have been worse. Such a pity Mitt Romney, what could have been ….
Geoff-Aus,
You look back to the America of the 1960s for the economic equality that would be a huge improvement, and perhaps even your ideal. I would love to go back to the relative dominance of the US economy that was enjoyed in the 60s. In a basis relative to the rest of the world’s purchasing power, the US minimum wage was somewhere around $15-20 per hour back then. (It was lower on an inflation adjusted basis) If we could recreate those same fundamental economic conditions, then we could raise the minimum wage with a fairly small impact on the economy and employment. You miss the biggest reasons for the great economy of the 1960s. The US had a much larger share of the high performing industrial assets of the world and a much higher share of the available investment capital. Our economies of scale in most areas were efficient and dominant. We had about half of the world-class manufacturing and industrial assets on the planet. Recreate those conditions, and the effective minimum wage will double with or without government intervention.
In the cities that have raised the minimum wage to near $15/hr, the total employment in some sectors drops tremendously. There are even instances in which the total earnings of the remaining employed individuals is reduced. This is not close to an ideal situation.
Also, I have not heard of any US automobile manufacturers that pay less than $20/hr for their production workers. Automobiles is one of the industries in which a high-minimum wage country can still be competitive.
Loursat insists “One of Merriam-Webster’s definitions of radical” (which you can see above)
Thank you for confirming my sense of the meaning of “radical”.
a : very different from the usual or traditional : extreme
Whereas conservative is to conserve, very much usual or traditional.
“Good government works only as long as we make it work.”
Who is WE?
“We actually have to do the work.”
Who is WE? Who directs WE?
Lois writes “tariffs are infinitely complex–way above Trump’s comprehension and attention span).”
But well within your comprehension even though it is “infinite”. How very godly of you!
“Ok, I can play the game of strawman too– ie The Right wants survival of the fittest and gives little thought to who gets hurt.”
Approximately true but “wanting” is irrelevant. It is what you DO that matters.
Nature cares nothing for who gets hurt. It is likely you have an approved list of who is hurtable (basket of deplorables comes to mind).
“Obama was handed a disastrous economy. Trump inherited a relatively healthy economy.”
Let us explore Obama’s dramatic growth in the national debt as we contemplate your idea of “healthy”.
More straw men?
1) Where did I say I understand everything or anything about tariffs? What is critical is that Trump does, since he is the one unilaterally calling the shots.
2) “basket of deplorables?”
(Nope, well perhaps those that harm little children, and murderers, etc)
“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument “
Margaret Thatcher
Last post
Excruciating details of the German experience with minimum wage can be found here:
https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/Diskussionspapiere/20170811-diskussionspapier-side-effects-of-the-introduction-of-the-german-minimum-wage-on-employment-and-unemployment.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=18
A short version is that minimum wage laws have little economic impact in sectors where the *natural* wage is already higher than the minimum wage; but depresses employment in economic sectors where the natural wage (what a particular kind of labor is worth) is less than the statutory 8.50 Euro/hour minimum wage.
Many exceptions are made including to long term unemployed. In other words, if you cannot find a job because what you do just isn’t worth 8.50 Euro an hour, after a year of unemployment the minimum wage no longer applies to you and maybe you’ll find work at 6 Euros/hour.
American minimum wage laws are somewhat similar in exceptions for teenagers, interns and so forth.
Eugene writes “Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark are all prospering socialist-leaning countries.”
Indeed, a worthy list! I have discussed Germany at some length above. I don’t have time right now (and you wouldn’t read it if I did) to exhaustively discuss each.
Is there an obvious factor that is common to each example?
Indeed there is: Cultural homogeneity; not only that, but the *same* culture essentially. They are neighbors; Teutons and Saxons.
So why is Spain and Greece, also socialist leaning, not on your list? Because economically they are disasters. Clearly it is not “socialism” to blame for either success or failure; it is *culture*; a culture of work and honesty that isn’t universally found in the human races. These nations have *chosen* elements of socialism, it wasn’t forced down their throats.
The spectacular failures of socialism exist where too much diversity also exists (the former Soviet Union). Spain is on the brink of splitting into two or three tiny nations; Portugal is already a tiny nation that ought to be part of Spain.
Lois asks “1) Where did I say I understand everything or anything about tariffs?”
You made a judgment. Are you admitting you spoke words without knowledge?
I quote you: “tariffs are infinitely complex — way above Trump’s comprehension and attention span”
They are not infinitely complex and I suspect Trump, a businessman, knows what he needs to know about them.
Well, I wish I could edit comments. While tariffs are not themselves infinitely complex, there is a “butterfly effect” or ripples of consequence through an economy; effects that are probably impossible to know with accuracy before imposing a tariff. However, most of these effects will be negligible and the major effect still predictable.
Lois writes “Democratic Party platform = choices results in consequences”
I notice you do not specify who makes those choices. Would you make choices for me, or allow me to make my own choices? If my choices result in me becoming obese, or injured, or unemployed, would you allow me to experience the natural consequences or would you require someone else via government to feed me, heal me, shelter me, clothe me and even remove all traces of offense and offenders from my delicate presence?
“Trade wars are good and easy to win.”
Trump is a real estate developer and a reality TV. And, yes, he happens to be president. He knows as much about tariffs as he knows about health care (gee, who knew it was “so complicated”).
JK Rowling, in responding to Trump’s absurd tweet about what a good writer he is (he has “written” books, you know), referred to him as “an authoritarian braggart who’s too dumb to know how dumb he is.”
I pray that in 2020, the time comes when he lands in a debate with Rhodes scholar Cory Booker and he finds himself standing there naked, clothed only with his “best words” and his “very big brain”.
Geez. As I include his insipid quotes in this post, I can’t believe anybody wants this pathetic persona representing our country to the world.
holdenmorrisseycaulfield writes “I can’t believe anybody wants this pathetic persona representing our country to the world.”
Then don’t believe it and, at the same time, ponder why you think it matters. The United States of America is not the rest of the world. Representing “our country” to the world is Nikki Haley. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Ambassador_to_the_United_Nations
Well, to wrap it up; I have asked our esteemed left wing representatives some questions in all seriousness; who decides what is to be done, who decides who is to do it, why it should be done, what is the goal, why does this goal exist, and so on. Do you not know, or dare you not spell it out?
holdenmorrisseycaulfield writes “he lands in a debate with Rhodes scholar Cory Booker and he finds himself standing there naked, clothed only with his best words and his very big brain.”
I’ve never heard of Cory Booker so let’s ‘ave a look.
Seems he isn’t a debater (take turns talking and guided by a moderator), but a preacher (says anything he wants for dramatic effect and to collect followers).
[https]://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7VVVsGRvuc “Cory Booker rips DHS chief’s amnesia over Trump comments”
Still, his biography on Wikipedia is impressive, particularly that he seems to avoid declaring half the nation to be a basket of deplorables. Of him, Wiki says “In March, Booker pledged to meet with each of his Republican colleagues in the Senate in order to find common ground and he was spotted having dinner with Senator Ted Cruz in Washington.”
Attacking Trump makes Trump stronger. He loves it and lives for it (in my non-expert opinion). The left loves to attack (rather a lot more evidence of it). It’s a marriage made in heaven; I doubt much is going to change in near future election cycles.
Hey, Michael 2, thanks for wrapping it up.
holdenmorrisseycaulfield “Hey, Michael 2, thanks for wrapping it up.”
The wrapping will be complete when someone answers the questions (or even just one of them would be better than the nothing that seems to be on the table).
Well, I can only respond for myself, but I aim for a “don’t feed the trolls” policy. If you truly want to understand other people, the place to start is not by demanding debate and answers to cherry-picked questions, but by listening to what they are already saying and then repeating back what you have heard to make sure you got it right.
Otherwise you come off as a someone deciding to come show up people who see the world differently than you do. I see zero point in engaging with that, regardless of how right/wrong I think the person’s position/ statement is.