I’m sorry you feel attacked by someone who is disagreeing with you. I don’t believe I made any personal or even direct attacks. All i did was post a link to your original post and point out that you were overjoyed by Hillary losing and, by proxy, overjoyed by Trump winning. If by “…the ideas” you mean the notion that Trump is better than Hillary, than yeah, I’ll attack that all day long. I didn’t, but I really didn’t feel the need to since it’s 1) self-evident and 2) has already been done by people much better at it than I could hope to be.
I’m sure it’s hard being a Trump supporter in a forum full of “libtards”. Most of us here see things differently than you do. Disagreement isn’t attack though, in most cases it is debate. The Qt3 forums are fairly good at keeping things at the debate level and staying away from the attacks, even on hotly contested topics. The discussions get heated and sometimes cross the line, but I like to think that in the end we all kind of hug and make up in most cases.
As a side note, not supporting Trump doesn’t make you a liberal. Hell, Trump isn’t even a Conservative. Other than being a 2nd amendment supporter and an isolationist, most of his political views (his real ones, not the sound bites on the campaign trail) are fairly socially liberal. For me, I’m most of a centrist. I believe in a live-and-let live attitude towards people and the laws meant to support that view. I’m pro gay marriage but also anti “you have to use one of these 72 self-selected pronouns or you get fined”. I’m anti-discrimination as well as anti-quotas. Most people here can’t be just dropped in to some bucket of libtard-edness. Those types of attempts at labels are an attempt to draw a black/white, right/wrong line in the sand to allow for the us vs them attitude to perpetuate. Most people, which includes people on both side of the Trump/anti-Trump fence, have a more nuanced view of the world and fall in to one of the grey categories in the middle of the partisan debates.
True. “She’s going to take away your guns and I’m going to make sure the 2nd Amendment is honored” could be just another sound-bite that worked and got repeated without it being his actual views. He was really good at finding what played well to a voting group and repeating those messages on the campaign trail without really believing in what he was saying…
He was an actor playing the part of “Conservative Republican”. Now that he’s elected, we’re seeing a lot of those masks falling away.
The true Trumps persona is the one that just tweets random pandering bullshit that upsets the markets and enrages our allies because he doesn’t understand the campaign is over.
Wow, so debt is okay so long as it’s a GOP budget. But heaven forfend a Democrat propose a budget, much less a black one. I guess we always knew this, but it’s wonderful for them to come out and admit it.
No man, it’s totally different because instead of paying for useless luxuries like science funding or food for poor children, we’re now going to be paying for vital necessities, like impossible walls, revoking citizens civil rights, and subsidies for corporations.
It drives me nuts that voters have been falling for that for so long. I think it’s because it’s so easy to make it sound reasonable. “Companies would hire more if they had money money”. We all know that isn’t the case though, no matter how reasonable it sounds on paper.
One of the only ways to make it a reality would be to tie the tax breaks directly to the hiring. Hell, something as simple as “instead of writing off 100% of salary, you get to write off 104% of salary” would be enough to get some companies to hire some extras on board.
No need, we’re already hiring many more people than before. Granted, they are all quarter-priced people in outsourced countries. But we are creating jobs for them at an amazing rate!
Ivanka Trump was on a JetBlue plane with her kids when another passenger started harassing her. The flight crew escorted the harasser off the plane, which I think they were right to do, but why was Ivanka Trump flying on a JetBlue plane? Where was the Secret Service?
It doesn’t even sound reasonable with a moment of thought, though. Taxes are always a percentage of the profit made, so how does it make any sense that a tax break would make hiring someone profitable when it was previously not profitable? The best-case argument there is that there’s a fixed cost to “create a job” and reducing taxes would allow you to recoup that cost faster, so you’d be able to expand faster, but even that argument requires that the company have this massive supply of profitable jobs it could be adding, which are constrained only by the fixed costs. That seems like a far-fetched scenario.
The real case to be made is the one Trump did, at least, make - lowering taxes in the US will attract more companies to the US, and potentially allow them to repatriate cash they have overseas and thus spend it in the US. The problem is, I don’t see how that requires them to actually create jobs in the US, except a few executive and administrative ones, unless the idea is as you say to tie the tax breaks directly to hiring or US workforce size or something. But even that is quite a distortion of the market, whose impacts would be complex. Is it based purely on number of workers? If so, it might as well just be an expansion of the EITC and corresponding lowering of the minimum wage. Is it based on total payroll? If so, what prevents corporations from paying massive salaries to executives again to get the tax break? Anyway, I doubt much of this will get done in any sane way. They will lower taxes across the board, run up the debt, the economy will tank, and people will elect a Democrat in 2020 and then go right back to thinking that tax cuts create jobs because tax cuts and jobs are the things they want, so it is just as tempting as a fad or “new study” saying that ice cream and cookies can help you lose weight (when done correctly, of course).
Trade has always created wealth but we need to do a much better job of ensuring that wealth isn’t concentrated in the hands of a group of folks who don’t care where were the folks who are making money for them live and work, the lower cost labor solution, the better.
In looking at the Secret Service website, they provide security for the candidates and the Presidents. I don’t believe that Trump’s family receives protection until Jan 20.
I’d argue worse cause he is taking the Republican party with him on this crazy ride. If it ends badly Republican/Conservative brands are getting trashed.
Not sure about his family, but Trump himself reportedly “remains most comfortable with Schiller and his team.” Seems pretty likely he’ll be keeping them on in some capacity.
But Trump — who puts a premium on loyalty and has demonstrated great interest in having forceful security at his events — has opted to maintain an aggressive and unprecedented private security force, led by Keith Schiller, a retired New York City cop and Navy veteran who started working for Trump in 1999 as a part-time bodyguard, eventually rising to become his head of security.
Security officials warn that employing private security personnel heightens risks for the president-elect and his team, as well as for protesters, dozens of whom have alleged racial profiling, undue force or aggression at the hands of Trump’s security, with at least 10 joining a trio of lawsuits now pending against Trump, his campaign or its security.
