Making America GREAT AGAIN vs Making America HATE AGAIN - I share MyTake - YOU Decide

[legalboxers]

Yeah.. it goes like this....

Hmm. "They won't REPORT IT PROPERLY" Who the FAKE NEWS?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/trump-supporter-threatening-kill-ilhan-omar-patrick-carlineo.html- Trump Supporter Charged With Threatening to Kill Rep. Ilhan Omar: “I’ll Put a Bullet in Her

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nywd.122791/gov.uscourts.nywd.122791.1.0.pdf

A 55-year-old man from upstate New York has been charged with threatening to kill Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar. Patrick Carlineo, of Addison, N.Y., allegedly made the threat during a call to the Democrat’s office in Washington, D.C. on March 21. “Do you work for the Muslim Brotherhood? Why are you working for her, she’s a fucking terrorist. I’ll put a bullet in her fucking skull,” Carlineo allegedly said, according to the court filing.

-------

Hmm. Now what person, who has ½ a brain would say something like this or think like this? Ohh.. I know...

Supporter says "We have a problem in this country, and its called Muslims"

We got multiple-layered issues here with this scholar...

When authorities went to Carlineo’s home he seemed to know why the FBI wanted to speak to him. “He stated that he was a patriot, that he loves the President, and that he hates radical Muslims in our government,”

Carlineo initially told authorities he had told Omar’s staffer that “if our forefathers were still alive, they’d put a bullet in her head,” denying he called her a terrorist and threatened to kill her

Issue 1:

But after he was warned that it was a crime to lie to an FBI agent, he acknowledged he may have said something to that effect..

DONT YOU REALIZE YOU SAID IT AND IT WAS REPORTED AND YOU LIE ABOUT IT?

Issue 2:

When he was asked whether there were any weapons in his house, Carlineo said he had a shotgun and a .22 caliber gun. He first tried to claim the firearms belonged to his girlfriend but later admitted they were his.

YOU ARE THE BIGGEST PRICK ON THE PLANET. YOU SPEW SHIT, AND YOU PIN IT ON YOUR GIRLFRIEND BECAUSE YOU aren't MAN ENOUGH.

You go after Women, Muslims, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans (and state they aren't Americans when they clearly are) and anyone else who doesn't fit your narrative, and your supporters - And yes you say you do love the uneducated - follow per verbatim...

But hey.. what do I know..

SORRY..NOT SORRY

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

People in 2015 saw the anger side of Donald Trump that
is what got him elected and dictator of the United States.

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

Thank You For MHO :)

[JustWorthlessMe]

Hatred and bigotry were selling points for the low IQ trash that praise him.

[Stoner710]

That has nothing to do with my people support trump, I don’t like socialism I don’t want to live in a socialist country, If Clinton was elected we be in a socialist country paying 70-80% of our income no thanks keep socialism at a minimum please.

Also show we a Democratic who’s running for President who is likely to go in to the final race who is not pushing this extreme socialist agenda if Andrew yang get in there I vote for him he’s not a socialist but I doubt he’s going To be the democratic nomination so we’ll have trump for another 4 years

[LesbianBusinessWoman]

I never trust Trump

[Secretgardenblood]

Good take

[nightdrot]

It is the conventional wisdom that President Trump - of whom I should add that I am a Republican who is no fan - has somehow sparked a rise in "white supremacy." However, in truth, there is no metric by which to determine the truth of the assertion, while by historical standards the premise would be absurd on its face.

The notion that white supremacy is on the rise begs the question of compared to what? The existence of African-American slavery in the pre-Civil War era. For that matter, in the Jim Crow era. Compared to the rise of the National Socialists in Germany in the early to mid-20th century. Compared the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s. Compared to the anti-Semitic progroms in Russia and the pervasive racism under the USSR. Compared to the global slave trade.

The list goes on. The first thing that grown-ups recognize is that man in an imperfect being and that he is prone to regard "the other" as an enemy and inferior being. It is, science believes, rooted in evolution. Dislike of those different from oneself was a survival instinct based on the chance that beings not like yourself were apt to be dangerous predators.

What is remarkable is not that this was ever the case, but how far mankind has managed to overcome that instinct. In the context of the United States, the late columnist Joseph Sobran - writing in the 1980s - said that he would get up and leave the room rather than listen to the kinds of things that were routinely said about African-Americans at his grandfather's table when he was growing up.

Not so long ago it was just accepted that African-Americans should use separate restrooms and segregated schools. "Separate but equal" in the Supreme Court's infamous formulation. That today is as alien as Neptune to most Americans and would provoke horror and outrage were it seen.

So a bit of perspective would be helpful. These things will tend to fluctuate over time. Human progress is neither assured nor is it a straight line progression. However, to then extrapolate from that the rise of a doctrine of racial supremacy - set against the lurid historical record - is lacking in historical perspective at the very least.

Beyond that, in the contemporary American context, there is the assertion that racism is on the rise based on the increase of "hate crimes." The evidence for that increase is somewhat ambiguous. It is not clear whether it really is increasing or if it is simply a matter of increased and better data gathering.

However, assume the worst. Hate crimes represent about 3% of all crimes. Hardly an epidemic.

Finally, there is the trope that Mr. Trump's rhetoric is the source of this rise in "white supremacy." This is, at best, speculative.

Typically, Mr. Trump's statement after the Charlottesville episode is cited as Exhibit A. Yet, a cursory reading will show that after his line about "good people on both sides" that has earned so much wailing and gnashing of teeth, his very next line was that this did not include the racists whom he condemned.

As to the recent episode in New Zealand. It is worth noting what the alleged perpetrator said that China had his preferred form of government, his racism was inspired by - of all things - environmental concerns, and that while he saw Trump as a useful symbol, that as a leader he said of the President, "God no."

In an age when partisans are inclined to allow their wishes to be the father of their thoughts, actually reading what the President said can be disconcerting. To be sure, the President uses words the way a pyromaniac uses matches. Carelessly.

Mr. Trump would be wise to recall that it is not what you want to say, but what you want people to hear. However, to go from there to the assumption that the President bears some elemental responsibility for racism is to go farther than the evidence will bear.

Bottom line. To the extent that we can discern a rise in white supremacy, there are more complex reasons for it than Trump's loquaciousness.

[markscott]

That hate in America is on the rise, since Trump's election, is at least partially substantiated by the decided increase in hate and racist crimes in the last two years. That is no accident. These people see our president spew his racism and hate, and feel a new acceptance of hate and racism.

[nightdrot]

@markscott The data on hate crimes is ambiguous at best. It may be as much the fact that now seven agencies report on hate crimes, where only two did before. To wit, it may be simply a matter of better and more thorough reporting than anything else. There is simply no way to tell.

In any case, of all crime, hate crimes make up 2% of the total. Hardly an epidemic.

Bottom line correlation is not causation. The data is neither sufficiently comprehensive nor has it been collected over a sufficient period of time to draw any scientifically valid conclusions.

[nightdrot]

Type-o: Hate crimes are 3%, not 2%, of all crimes.

[goaded]

Still to read your opinion fully, but in the meantime, what proportion of crime is drug taking, or shop-lifting?

[nightdrot]

@goaded As those are not typically Federal crimes - hate crimes are - there are no consistent statistics on that.

By the by, AG Barr testified today before the House Appropriations Committee's Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Subcommittee that the rise in hate crimes first began in 2012, 6 years into the Obama administration, more than two years before Mr. Trump took office and more than a year before he even announced a run for the presidency.

If we are to take correlation as causation, as the "My Take" suggests, must we then assume that it is actually Mr. Obama who cause the rise - if such it is - in hate crimes?

You see the problem. The "cause and effect" formulation that is the premise of the argument is too simple, too based on unreliable data, to draw the conclusions it suggests.

[nightdrot]

Type-o: Barr testified that the rise in hate crimes - which he mentioned had some statistical ambiguities related to increased reporting as I also mentioned - began in 2014. I inadvertently typed 2012. My apologies.

[goaded]

Heh. I'd started writing a response, but was reading around the subject, this is what it was:
"compared to what?"
I was going to say the time before Trump's presidency, but I worry that one could then "blame" Obama for a rise in hate crime from before his presidency!

[nightdrot]

@goaded Exactly. As I mentioned, the data is too uncertain and the "cause and effect" argument too simplistic. Complex phenomena, particularly in the context of a society of over 300 million people, cannot be so easily attributed to one man.

Interestingly, as I noted, I think both Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump, in different ways, contributed to the social instability that we see - and have seen before (in the 60s and 70s, for example.) However, to suggest that they are a cause or even the cause is to assume more than the evidence will bear.

[goaded]

2012 was 4 years into the Obama administration, not six. Also:
" Trump seemed to throw his lot in with the discredited rumors that President Obama wasn't born in America, saying he's a "little" skeptical of Obama's citizenship and that every so-called birther who shares the view shouldn't be so quickly dismissed as an "idiot." "
www.politico.com/.../donald-trump-birther-051473

(Note the March 2011 date!)

[nightdrot]

@goaded Not sure of the significance of your second point, and I corrected my type-o on the first. (See above.)

As to your second point, Mr. Obama had a condescending style that was bound to antagonize a segment of the population. (Clinging to guns and religion and all that.) Mr. Trump has a bombastic style and certainly played on silly theories. (Though if anyone was paying attention before he ran for office, I would tend to doubt.)

In any case, as I was saying, neither man has been good for the nation's social peace and stability. In that, I would argue, both failed in their constitutional role as Head of State. That is in those symbolic and ceremonial functions that serve as a rallying point for the country.

That was Reagan's stock-in-trade. I am forever pointing to a political cartoon that came out in the 80s. A pollster is asking a voter what he thinks of Reagan's policies. The voter replies: #@$%@! Then the pollster asks the voter what he thinks of Reagan personally. The voter replies: "Oh great guy! Really like him. Friendly. Affable."

Suffice to say, neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Trump is a Reagan. In that connection, by the 80s, the nation had, from the 60s through the 70s, nearly 20 years of social tumult, and five failed presidents. So when Reagan comes along, the nation was ready for calm and stability and Reagan's style helped to provide that.

Arguably the nation is going through that cycle again. Social upheaval is on the rise, and neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Trump have done much to calm it. Grant that even were they to have tried/or try, they might have an impact only at the margins.

In Reagan, the man and the moment met and coincided. That may not be the case right now. The nation is in a sullen mood, it is just that the last two presidents have not done much to assuage that.

[markscott]

nightdrod: From my perspective Obama did a much better job of caring for our country than Trump has. Though Obama made some mistakes, he did not degrade our belief in the rule of law, as Trump has. Nor did Obama make the presidency a money making proposition, as Trump has.

[nightdrot]

@markscott On the last point, I am not sure that there is any definitive evidence one way or the other that Mr. Trump has made money on the presidency. That I think is mere speculation.

As to the rest, to each his own. Frankly, I think that neither man was particularly good for the country. Measured in terms of the economy, Mr. Trump has the better of the argument, but my general thesis is that Presidents do not govern by economics alone.

Measured in terms of the social tenor of their times, there was very little difference. We began to see the first 60s style racial conflicts under Mr. Obama. Further, as no less than liberal MSNBC commentator and former Tip O'Neil staffer Chris Matthews has pointed out, Mr. Obama, for all his gifts, lacked the capacity to bring people together. Hence why, in a study published by CQ, he ranked toward the bottom of post-FDR Presidents when it came to his capacity to get his legislative agenda through the Congress. Only ahead, historically, of George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter and, at dead last, Gerald Ford. (As Mr. Trump's tenure is not yet finished, the jury is still out but were he ranked now, he would be a little behind Obama.)

Indeed, it is arguable that Mr. Obama's condescending tone toward the lower middle class - "clinging to guns and religion" and such - a group that had previously been the heart and soul of the Democratic coalition, gave the country Mr. Trump. Trump's message was aimed straight at that group.

Add to that Mr. Obama's message - as in his handling of Ferguson and such - that American institutions were irredeemably tainted by racism. He did not exactly build respect for the government and its traditions - even as he argued for its expansion. There he was something of a paradox.

CONT.

[nightdrot]

Put it all together and other than the fact that Mr. Trump's tone tends toward the bombastic, whereas Mr. Obama's tended toward the condescending, and there really is little to choose between the current President and his immediate predecessor. Mr. Obama was not - measured in legislative terms - especially successful and, getting back to the economy, under Obama's watch, it grew at well below normal historic post-recession averages.

Indeed, Mr. Trump, as noted, has the better of that argument. The economy has averaged about 3.1% on his watch - this after the Obama Administration argued that, for various demographic and other reasons, argued that 2% would likely by the norm going forward. Moreover, after wages stagnated under Mr. Obama, they have resumed growing and - significantly - they have grown twice as fast for the bottom 20% of the income brackets as the top 20%.

CONT.

[nightdrot]

In fairness, no President controls something as vast and complicated as the economy nearly as much as the public gives them credit for. Still, it is fact that the economy has generally done better - measured by various indexes - under Mr. Trump and it is axiomatic that he that it is in the White House in bad times gets the blame and he in good times gets the credit. It is the way the nation measures success in the post-WWII era and every politician knows it going into it.

Thus, arguably, it was Mr. Obama that gave the nation Mr. Trump. Unintentionally to be sure, but in his carelessness about his own tone and his what I would argue were his delusions of adequacy, Mr. Obama antagonized those elements of the Democratic coalition that were under the most economic pressure and drove them to Mr. Trump's populism. In that connection, it is worth noting that by the time Mr. Obama left office, the GOP held an absolutely stunning 77% of all partisan elective offices across the Federal, state and local levels. The Democrats lost that much ground on Mr. Obama's watch.

CONT.

[nightdrot]

That all said, these are measured judgments. As Lincoln put, it, "If that's the kind of thing you like then you like that kind of thing." I am not a fan of either man and find very little to choose between them. For all their nominal partisan differences, both men have not been good for the country, at least insofar as they set the tenor of their times.

The only saving grace for Mr. Trump, perhaps, being that he still has time on the clock before his book is written. For Mr. Obama, history is starting to render its verdict.

[goaded]

Again, there's a lot there to tackle, but I've found a reference to CQ Almanac, which "publishes vote studies each year that determine how often the president took a clear position on a vote in Congress, and how often they went his way.". Is this what you were talking about?

Because, although I don't have access to the site, Politifact, when rating a claim by President Carter, states he, Carter, was 3rd, after Kennedy and Johnson
www.politifact.com/.../

Do you have access, and could you check?
Maybe it's these tables?
library.cqpress.com/.../toc.php

Two other quick points: My 2011 quote about Trump being a birther and thinking about running works against your assertion that hate crimes started before Trump was a factor. (I missed your 2014/16 correction while I was writing the comment, btw).

Secondly, having your presidential entourage be paying guests at one of your own properties seems to be a pretty clear case of self-enrichment.

And thirdly (because I can't count), why would Obama's supposed condescending style have an effect on members of congress, most of whom are extremely well off? I can sort-of see the proverbial man in the street preferring Bush's Texas Rancher act, but lawmakers?

[markscott]

night: How can you say there is no evidence the Trump family has not made money on the presidency? The Trump's openly used the presidency to further their business interests in China. Some of this was not done openly, but some of it was very open. And the Trump family will make an estimated $300,000,000 more from the new tax laws Trump got passed. And part of the reason we don't know more, is because Trump has refused to open up his business holdings. And Trump has never put his businesses in a blind trust, as other presidents have done. And he has not released his income tax records as he said he would. I mean, just how much smoke do you have to see, before seeing it looks bad, and we need to know more? I do believe that the election of Obama increased hate crimes, especially hate crimes towards blacks. I clearly remember the degree of racial hatred toward Obama, and the racial epithets so commonly sent his way. So, now you are going to blame Obama because he was hated because he was black, and that his election spawned hate crimes towards blacks.

[nightdrot]

@goaded To quickly follow up, Mr. Carter's assessment of Mr. Carter must be taken with a grain of salt. (Kidding, but only slightly.) As to the latter tables, unfortunately, for some reason, I am unable to access them. I have input my data but it is not accepting it.

On your point about Trump and birtherism, with apologies, I am still not making your connection. In any case, far too much has been made of the whole issue. Among the conspiracy theorist set, birtherism has a constituency. Beyond the "tin foil hat" set, however, it is, and has been, electorally and culturally inconsequential. As Mr. Obama's two terms - terms he could not have had without white voters - surely attest.

As to Trump making money on the presidency. That is a one-sided analysis. Set that against the damage to his brand. To those who will no longer avail themselves of his properties for political reasons.

My point is not that he may not be making money or not. Rather, that there is no really plausible way to calculate that. Besides, if we are to object to making money off the presidency, are not Mr. and Mrs. Clinton apt to bear scrutiny? They entered office relatively poor and are doing much better now. Bottom line, I am not inclined to lose sleep over it barring evidence of criminal corruption.

Yes, certainly Mr. Obama's style had in effect in two respects. First, relations in Congress are not just political, but personal. If people like you, they are apt to listen to you and be persuaded by you.

If they think that you think they are idiots, they will stop listening before you start. In politics there is an irreducible element of the personal.

Secondly, those Members respond to constituents. If those constituents feel offended by the President, they will react accordingly and oppose the President. That, in turn, will pressure the Member to vote against the President.

CONT.

[nightdrot]

Beyond all that, there is the general social mood. To the extent that it is positive - and to the limited extent that a President can impact that mood - the better the social mood, the better the chances of compromise. (Again, Reagan is an excellent historical example.) By helping to add poison to an already poisoned well, Mr. Obama did not help his own cause. Indeed, may be as much to blame for the Trump presidency as any failings of Mrs. Clinton's might be.

[markscott]

night: Obama did make some mistakes as president. However, the anger and hate that Trump was elected on, developed from deep racial hatred and racial fear, that has smoldered in many people, especially in the South.

[nightdrot]

@markscott As I wrote below to the other gentleman:

:As to Trump making money on the presidency. That is a one-sided analysis. Set that against the damage to his brand. To those who will no longer avail themselves of his properties for political reasons.

My point is not that he may not be making money or not. Rather, that there is no really plausible way to calculate that. Besides, if we are to object to making money off the presidency, are not Mr. and Mrs. Clinton apt to bear scrutiny? They entered office relatively poor and are doing much better now. Bottom line, I am not inclined to lose sleep over it barring evidence of criminal corruption."

Just to add, if there is such evidence sufficient to provoke action in the Congress or in law enforcement that would lead to Congressional action, it has not come to light. Suspicions - especially colored by partisanship - are not apt to pass the smell test.

[nightdrot]

@markscott On this point, there is no data to support that. In fact, AG Barr testified yesterday before the House Appropriations Committee's Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Subcommittee that the rise in hate crimes- to the extent that such data is reliable and dispositive - first began in 2014, 6 years into the Obama administration, more than two years before Mr. Trump took office and more than a year before he even announced a run for the presidency.

If we are to take correlation as causation, as the "My Take" suggests, must we then assume that it is actually Mr. Obama who cause the rise - if such it is - in hate crimes?

You see the problem. The "cause and effect" formulation that is the premise of the argument is too simple, too based on unreliable data, to draw the conclusions it suggests.

[markscott]

Night: You are joking, right? The Clinton's ought to be open to scrutiny! The Clinton's have been scrutinized to death by Republicans who hated them and were after their hide, trying to pin anything on them they could find. But to their surprise, little could be found, most likely because there was little to find. After so many Republican investigations on the Clinton's, that is the only reasonable conclusion. And both the Clinton's and Obama made a lot of money by book deals. Millions of people bought their books, and they made a lot of money on them. Re Trump. If the Clinton's or Obama had done even a third of the outrageous things Trump has done, they would have been impeached and thrown out of office.

[nightdrot]

@markscott Again, if we must accept correlation as causation, then we can see the Clintons were poor, now they are wealthy.

You miss my point in your partisanship. In neither case it is a matter of great moment. Moreover, is there sufficient evidence to prove the point one way or the other.

Bottom line, the nation will not rise or fall on whether or not Trump or the Clintons are making - or not - money. Unless there is evidence of corruption that would pass the "reasonable doubt" standard before a jury, it is not a matter of great moment. There are, heaven knows, bigger fish to fry.

[nightdrot]

@goaded By the way, apologies on the data. I do recall reading it in a paper document. Not online. As my girlfriend - here eyes rolling - will surely attest, I am a 19th century man in a 21st century world.

If I get some time I will try digging through my files and see if I can track it down. Anyhow, as I say, my apologies, you are dealing with a relic to whom some well intentioned people mistakenly gave a computer.

[goaded]

No problem, I do like to see sources, though.

Regarding Trump's monetising the presidency, I don't think it's a matter of whether he is succeeding or not (he often doesn't), but that he's so very clearly trying.

[NineBreaker]

I agree with this take, and it supports my main thought. I'm going to sound like a broken record:
Donald Trump is an uninhibited malignant narcissist who is devoid of any sense of shame, decency, or empathy.

Trump is America's shot in the foot. At least the dictators of Sudan and Libya took over but force in a military coup. Trump though? He was ELECTED. America, "You reap what you sow." We shall reap the harvest of his tenure because we put him in office.

Look, every single choice for president was awful... every single one. However, Donald Trump is the absolute worst. He is the worst sign or symptom of a disease plaguing our country.

If you are a Trump supporter, I implore you to reconsider your support for him. Your grievances are valid, but Dobald Trump is not the solution. He is more like a nuclear option where a methodical approach is needed.

And for the "Not my president" crowd: You indirectly helped him assume power. For better or worse, he IS your president. This is true in part because you don't understand Trump as a phenomenon. You have no true understanding of what makes someone a tyrant or despot. Neither do his supporters, but that's something most of us have in common.

Bottom line, Donald Trump isn't your run of the mill racist/bigot/misogynist. He's far worse. We need to vote him out before he does more irreparable damage.

[shephardjhon]

Hopefully Andrew Yang will sway the first crowd away. He is the only Democrat talking about men's issues and jobs and the real threat to said jobs, Automation.

[Miristheiss]

Most muslim beliefs, traditions, loyalties etc. are anti-west and against our freedoms, against freedom for women, against loving our values and culture and I really see no advantage for U. S. citizen importing them willingly into our culture.

I'm no fan of muslim immigration to western countries. At least not religious ones and since we apparently aren't allowed to screen their religious beliefs as part of the process than its better to play it safe and to have very, very low immigration from muslim countries.

Most are more interested in following islam than to fall in love with the USA culture. I'd rather stay Judea-Christian centered or just go full on atheist, secular than to willingly import islam into western countries.

[Servus09]

Divisive rhetoric is nothing new in politics. Here are a few celebrities who have made threats against Donald Trump.

*Robert De Niro said he would like to punch Trump in the face.
*Kathy Griffith took a photo of herself holding up a fake severed head of Donald Trump.
*Johnny Depp said Trump needs help and asked, "When was the last time a President was assassinated?"
*Anthony Bourdain suggested he would like to serve President Trump hemlock (A poison.)
*Micky Rourke said he would like 30 seconds in a room with little bitch Donald Trump.
*Larry Wilmore said he would like to kill Donald Trump with a pillow.
*Rosie O'Donnell tweeted out a link to a game called "Push Trump Off A Cliff Again."
*Maddonna said she thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.

I guess if their politics are politics are aligned with your own it's ok, right?

[MackToday]

All this focus on bigotry as the primary source of hate. There is a more primal source of hate, it's called jealousy. Like when someone has accomplished something you haven't or someone has more money than you or more influence. It's when you want to blow their head off and take their things. This is real hate the murderous hate of the left.

[ItalianGuy2020]

Understand that Trump is not what you think he is he is an actor so is Hillary and the rest of them it is a stage the president is selected and not elected the biggest lie they ever told us is that we have a say in anything.

[BoSvenson]

Hillary attended one of Trump's many weddings. They're pals. But on the stage, they're the Itchy & Scratchy show. "Crooked Hillary" "Lock her up, lock her up." Yeah, how's all of that going? Hillary is far too high on the food chain to mess with. But it makes for great cable news.

[ItalianGuy2020]

@BoSvenson We can put this stuff out there and only someone truly awake is going to understand the media has made it so if anything questions anything they are called conspiracy theorists and idiots say put on your tin foil hat and all of that nonsense and that is how they keep the masses brainwashed

[BoSvenson]

I was talking to a guy on GAG who didn't like Trump. He asked me why I liked him. I said I don't like him. I think he's a conceded, arrogant, and a narcissist of a prick. But who gives a fuck about that? I don't want him to be my pal, I just want him to manage the country. I LOVE the fact that he's trying his best to bring industry back to America. All the great things that Americans invented, are no longer being manufactured here. To me that's very sad. We invented the TV, and yet there isn't a single American made TV, anymore. So much of our automotive industry has left the country.
So my liberal GAG friend I was talking to, told me that Americans don't want those high paying manufacturing jobs. What the fuck? My uncle lives in Michigan, and he made a great living in the car manufacturing biz. So if we don't want those jobs, what do we want? McDonald's jobs?
So what would possess my liberal GAG friend to make such an outlandish statement?

TRUMP
TRUMP
TRUMP
Yes, we've all been brainwashed very well. I don't want a good job if Trump made it happen.
If instead of Trump, it was Bernie, bringing the manufacturing back, he would be hailed a hero to the left, and they'd chant folk songs about him.

[Clarke498]

It's so hilarious and tragic and be outside of the USA and see how these people act... In everything. Electing idiots to rule you, seeing shootout upon shootout, and never even considering changing gun laws. I don't know if to laugh or feel bad for you.

[llorando]

Great take. The only good thing Trump has done since taking office is reject the TPP.

Vote to end regime change wars, vote Tulsi 2020.

[shephardjhon]

Andrew Yang 2020. AI WILL try to take your jobs. I assure you, because I am working on it.

[Philyouup]

Trump is a wannabe dictator, Falsely yelling treason, Crying "Enemy Of the people" Fake news, and having an obvious bad spin an all people brown. He is a danger to america and Enchanted Followers are willingly blind to this poser hungry narcissist..

[Lance1965]

It is a weird time in history. I have met many people who voted for Trump but can't stand the guy or a lot of his policies.

[Anonymous]

I will never support Trump. But I'm not American so I can't vote.

[ItalianGuy2020]

How can you say that? You don't even know Trump

[Opinion Owner]

@ItalianGuy2020 I don't agree with a lot of his opinions and I don't Think he seams like a Nice person tbh

[ItalianGuy2020]

He is though my dad worked for him and you gotta understand the president does not have power like you think he is listening to other people when he says and does things they are pulling his stirngs

[Opinion Owner]

@ItalianGuy2020 well I simple don't agree with most of his opinions and from his actions he doesn't seam so nice

[BornFree]

Trump makes conservatives look terrible

[juliaanita]

thanks. agreed.

[crazycakes08]

Make America hate