President Donald Trump: The Thread

[Y2HH]

Strong candidate could very well win. We are talking about the Democrats though. They will probably run Clinton again or some one even worse.

 

I like how people are suddenly pretending Hillary was a weak candidate now with their 20/20 hindsight.

 

I recall this was a slam dunk blowout landslide for Hillary as little as hours before the results came in...

[Jenksismyhero]

lol can you imagine if Obama screwed the avg person out of $400/year how you'd have reacted?

 

Yah, I wouldn't have cared. I was the one arguing that the increase on upper middle class taxes of $1500-2500 under Trump's plan wasn't a big deal.

[RockRaines]

I like how people are suddenly pretending Hillary was a weak candidate now with their 20/20 hindsight.

 

I recall this was a slam dunk blowout landslide for Hillary as little as hours before the results came in...

That was more because Trump was thought of as weak. Hillary was extremely polarizing to the point she had competition from a socialist from the Northeast.

[Quin]

I think we'll find out who the Democratic forerunner is in two years at the midterms. Some of the Democrats are going to build themselves on fighting Trump.

[Jenksismyhero]

I think we'll find out who the Democratic forerunner is in two years at the midterms. Some of the Democrats are going to build themselves on fighting Trump.

 

Godfather 2020!

[illinilaw08]

$400 hardly seems like a make or break amount of money on the purchase of a home.

 

Not saying it isn't s***ty, but lets put it into perspective when we make claims like it's going to screw poor people and stop them from buying homes.

 

The value of $400 varies pretty greatly as you move down the financial spectrum. $400 with an annual gross income of $30,000 is substantial. $400 with an annual gross income of $200,000 is pretty insubstantial.

 

The point here is that it's pulling a benefit from the lower end of the spectrum. I haven't seen a policy reason for it yet, so can't speak to the motivation behind it.

 

For the record, I'm glad to see that Jenks has come out firmly against tax breaks over the last couple weeks. First, the shrug reaction to the small band of the upper middle class whose taxes will go up under Trump's tax plan. Now, the shrug reaction to the Trump administration taking a $400 benefit away from the lower income homeowners...

[RockRaines]

$400 hardly seems like a make or break amount of money on the purchase of a home.

 

Not saying it isn't s***ty, but lets put it into perspective when we make claims like it's going to screw poor people and stop them from buying homes.

Increased taxes here, less breaks there, increased rates here. It's not going to get better for the middle and working class.

[pettie4sox]

Again.

 

You likely said this EXACT same thing this time, too.

 

And Hillary was a strong candidate...until she wasn't.

 

For all you know in four years, Trump will have done some crazy s*** that somehow -- against all odds -- worked and his approval rating skyrockets...likely? Don't know. Possible? I do know. And yes, it's possible.

 

I did say the exact same thing except I never thought Hillary was a strong candidate. Nice try though trollboy.

[RockRaines]

I think we'll find out who the Democratic forerunner is in two years at the midterms. Some of the Democrats are going to build themselves on fighting Trump.

If he does things like remove ACA and medicare among other ideas the midterms are going to be a battle. I'm guessing a lot of his party doesnt want to do anything too fast or they risk losing quite a bit in two years. On the flip side, the Dems are hoping all hell breaks loose and they can make their careers then.

[GoSox05]

I like how people are suddenly pretending Hillary was a weak candidate now with their 20/20 hindsight.

 

I recall this was a slam dunk blowout landslide for Hillary as little as hours before the results came in...

 

Sure, a bit of it is hindsight, but there was serious signs that she wasn't that strong. Also the things you find out about after the election. Like people were telling her that she had to get to Michigan and Wisconsin because things were closer then they thought and she pretty much ignored it.

[Soxbadger]

Arguing about what may happen 4 years from now is just a waste of time. 4 years ago I doubt even Republican's would have believed that Trump would be their nominee.

 

Its entirely possibly that in 4 years Trump wins re-election Reagan style. Dismissing Trump is partially what led to him being elected President.

 

(edit)

 

y2hh,

 

And not everyone thought it would be a landslide. On this very board I discussed its possibility. And after the Cubs won the World Series, I told my friends I had a strange feeling that Trump would win.

 

Here is the exact post:

 

All day I have been unable to shake this unsettling feeling that somehow what happened last night is foreshadowing Trump being elected as the next President of the United States. Maybe it is because the Ricketts sold their souls and destroyed any decency they may have had left when they donated millions to Trump, maybe it is because nothing seems right in the world anymore.

 

All I ask, is that if we have to live in a world where the Cubs are no longer the "lovable losers", is that we make sure that Trump is just a loser.

 

I hate being political, but I love cliches, so desperate times call for desperate measures.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Soxbadger

[southsider2k5]

I just purchased the domain letsimpeachthedonald.com.

 

Who wants to help me get this up and running?

 

Two thoughts here.

 

#1 The odds of impeachment are about zero with a Republican Congress.

 

#2, By doing something public, you make yourself, and your family a target for all of the idiots who go about attacking people for going after Donald Trump. You had better be sure this is worth it if you go public.

[Brian]

I started feeling uneasy when Brexit happened. Nobody thought it could happen but it did.

[southsider2k5]

lol can you imagine if Obama screwed the avg person out of $400/year how you'd have reacted?

 

Call it a mandate, that will make it all better.

[Soxbadger]

Two thoughts here.

 

#1 The odds of impeachment are about zero with a Republican Congress.

 

#2, By doing something public, you make yourself, and your family a target for all of the idiots who go about attacking people for going after Donald Trump. You had better be sure this is worth it if you go public.

 

1) Agreed, but I do think its a funny website and will make a good # to get attention.

 

2) The price of freedom is blood. And if necessary I think I can make it so that finding that information would be difficult or impossible. That being said, I personally wont be silenced out of fear. It goes against everything I believe.

[bmags]

I don't like subsidies like the one they cut. As policy, don't agree with the mortgage interest tax deduction, but obviously benefit hugely from it. If it was eliminated I would expect a reason for it. Just weird this was a day one activity.

[Y2HH]

I did say the exact same thing except I never thought Hillary was a strong candidate. Nice try though trollboy.

 

I never said YOU specifically said she was strong.

 

I said a lot of people -- professionals -- were saying it. As noted, the election was considered a joke until the actual results started pouring in...that's when the laughter stopped.

[Y2HH]

I don't like subsidies like the one they cut. As policy, don't agree with the mortgage interest tax deduction, but obviously benefit hugely from it. If it was eliminated I would expect a reason for it. Just weird this was a day one activity.

 

I agree with it, it's incentive to own something versus renting it. Owning property is a mass undertaking...and its helpful to communities and the stability of neighborhoods...I absolutely think it should be incentivized over renting.

[Jenksismyhero]

The value of $400 varies pretty greatly as you move down the financial spectrum. $400 with an annual gross income of $30,000 is substantial. $400 with an annual gross income of $200,000 is pretty insubstantial.

 

The point here is that it's pulling a benefit from the lower end of the spectrum. I haven't seen a policy reason for it yet, so can't speak to the motivation behind it.

 

For the record, I'm glad to see that Jenks has come out firmly against tax breaks over the last couple weeks. First, the shrug reaction to the small band of the upper middle class whose taxes will go up under Trump's tax plan. Now, the shrug reaction to the Trump administration taking a $400 benefit away from the lower income homeowners...

 

Nah, i'm against it. I just don't like when people go to the extremes.

[Jenksismyhero]

Increased taxes here, less breaks there, increased rates here. It's not going to get better for the middle and working class.

 

Lol, ah yes, I forgot the last 8 years was all tax cut/break policy.

[Y2HH]

Lol, ah yes, I forgot the last 8 years was all tax cut/break policy.

 

[pettie4sox]

I never said YOU specifically said she was strong.

 

I said a lot of people -- professionals -- were saying it. As noted, the election was considered a joke until the actual results started pouring in...that's when the laughter stopped.

 

That SNL skit with Chapelle and Rock summed it up nicely.

[Soxbadger]

I don't agree with Brett often, but in general, he does have a point. When the road to the white house goes through the electoral college, you are going to come up with your strategy to maximize electorates not necessarily the popular vote. We have no idea what would happen if the election was actually based on popular vote...well I kind of do and I hypothesize it would swing even greater to Hillary, but that is mainly because resources would be spend in large cities and a lot of the country would be forgotten.

 

That said, we are a republic and as far as I know that hasn't changed so the rules / laws are what they are. Heck, who knows how many people didn't vote in certain states (repub or dem) even in the current case because they knew their vote woulnd't matter.

 

Chisox,

 

You have to look at the entire context of the conversation. Someone mentioned that if the people who were protesting would have voted that Trump may have lost the election. My response was that is not necessarily true, because Trump lost the popular vote, and if more people from IL/Cali voted, it wouldnt have changed the outcome.

 

Brett then trolled and started a semantic argument. And I would concede that he would have a point if he argued "Trump may not have lost if he had tried" or that "Trump didnt try to win the popular vote"

 

But his statement was that Trump didnt lose because he didnt compete, which is false. He did compete in the election and he did lose the popular vote. Its like the rebounding example. Team B could "win" the game, but "lose" the rebounding battle to team A. And if team A had gotten more rebounds, it still doesnt mean that they would have beaten team b in the game, because rebounds dont ultimately matter in winning or losing. And you could even say that team B didnt prioritize rebounds for X, Y, Z reason and that is why team B lost to team A in rebounding.

 

But team B still lost to team A in rebounding. Any other conclusion is factually inaccurate.

[Y2HH]

That SNL skit with Chapelle and Rock summed it up nicely.

 

I actually had never seen it until you mentioned it just now.

 

That was awesome. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

[bmags]

I agree with it, it's incentive to own something versus renting it. Owning property is a mass undertaking...and its helpful to communities and the stability of neighborhoods...I absolutely think it should be incentivized over renting.

 

But it perversely incentivizes leverage, and it's biggest winners are upper middle class, who can already afford a home. If you want to incentivize first time home ownership there are better ways.

 

But, whatever, not the biggest deal in housing policy world anyway. It's largely popular, if people want it, whatever.