5 ms·

It makes sense. In 2016, the slogan was Make America Great Again. His 2020 slogan is Keep America Great. He has delivered on his promises, America is now great

It makes sense. In 2016, the slogan was Make America Great Again. His 2020 slogan is Keep America Great. He has delivered on his promises, America is now great again, why would you want to go back?

prolikewh0a 8y ago
What promises did he deliver on that have actually helped all/majority of USA?
- aerovistae 8y ago
  I think he's being sarcastic.
  - prolikewh0a 8y ago
    I thought that too.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    I mean, it's 2018, who the hell knows? Poe's law needs a grim reaper like avatar, ruining your karma when you thought you were making a joke.
  - martythemaniak 8y ago
    Partly correct. If you try to measure Trump by some conventional, objective-reality based means, he is IMO, probably the worst president America's ever had. But people didn't vote for him based on such reasons and his supporters don't judge him on such metrics. Trump is a subjective feeling and he makes his base feel pretty great, so...
    - fastball 8y ago
      If you try to measure Trump by some conventional, objective-reality based means, he's probably the worst president America's ever had. Do you have an example of such a metric, or are you also talking out of your ass?
      - aerovistae 8y ago
        How about "lies per word spoken"? How about "rationality of propositions ranked by economic analysis"? How about "number of personal lawsuits and investigations incurred per minute"? Any of those work for you?
      - martythemaniak 8y ago
        I added an "IMO" for clarity. And yeah, I could supply a long list. This list could include items such as "climate change" and "foments domestic terrorism". The point is, any such list will be based on assumptions that Trump opponents and supporters do not share.
        fastball 8y ago
        Not sure how Trump can be the worst President re:climate change if it wasn't even on the radar of at least the first 35.
- refurb 8y ago
  "Helped" is a loaded word since everyone has a different opinion of what helped is. I'm not a big fan of Trump, but I do have to admit he is delivering on what he said he'd do. Pass tax reform, curtail immigration, go up against China in terms of trade, get conservative judges on the Supreme Court, start the peace process with North Korea. A lot of people may hate him, but he is getting a lot more stuff done than past presidents.
  - prolikewh0a 8y ago
    How do you measure "getting a lot more done than past presidents"?
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      Count number of days spent golfing.
    - refurb 8y ago
      Actually following through on what you promise? I know a lot of people assumed Trump’s policy stand was just rhetoric. Apparently it’s not!
Judgmentality 8y ago
> He has delivered on his promises Indeed. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpomete...
ng-user 8y ago
What metrics do you guys (Americans) use to measure how 'great' the country is? From the start this has puzzled me. Or rather is it a simple slogan one can confidently spew knowing it's impossible to prove? (edit: I get that this is probably sarcasm, but it seems at least _SOME_ Americans believe it to be true)
- TheAdamAndChe 8y ago
  It really depends on who you ask. Stereotypical democrats nowadays primarily measure racial and gender inequality primarily, with economics and wealth inequality coming second and rural incomes and quality of life coming far behind. Stereotypical republicans primarily measure GDP, economic freedom, and total power of the country. Politicans like Sanders and Trump are rising because they focus more on issues like income inequality and declining quality of life for the lower and middle classes. Both address globalization and labor leverage, though they address it differently. While they are culturally diametrically opposed, they are still remaining popular because they are addressing these issues that other politicans don't address, seemingly because big money has caused them to ignore those issues.
  - true_religion 8y ago
    Okay. I am a Republican, but I do not understand how our party can have leading candidates who are hereditary billionaires or multimilillionaires, yet trumpet that it is not corrupted by “big money”. I do not think money corrupts, if it did, then Republicans would be the first to suffer.
- hopefulengineer 8y ago
  If Clinton got in we were basically 100% going to war with Russia since she promised to create a no fly zone in Syria. I consider that a win. Not getting into a nuclear exchange with NK is also a plus. Trump is actually punishing China for the first time in decades. With Bolsonaro in office in Brazil we now control 80%+ of world soybean and corn production, meaning we can effectively starve China into compliance if necessary Economy is doing well, wage growth is above inflation for the first time in decades, 3.1% as of today's jobs report.
thrower123 8y ago
There is a huge amount of sarcasm here, but I have done incredibly well since Nov 2016. Like 15% year over year improvements. Under Obama, I saw no growth at all.
- rchaud 8y ago
  > Under Obama, I saw no growth at all. Really, you saw no growth at all during a Jan 2009 - Oct 2016 period during which the S&P 500 went from 850 to 2153, a 153% increase? Are you an especially poor investor or are you just making stuff up online as has become the norm for Trump astroturfers?
  - thrower123 8y ago
    I bought in around 2012, so I didn't gain anything to speak of over the second Obama term. I'm in Vanguard total market index funds.
    - NLips 8y ago
      Vanguard total stock market index VTSMX 2012 low: 31.76 2012 high: 36.72 2016 low: 45.03 2016 high: 57.17 2016 high pre-election: 54.84 So the worst you possibly could have done between 2012 and 2016 was a 22.6% gain. Using more middling points of 36 and 50, you'd have gained almost 39%. Annualised (rounding up to 4 years) that's between 5 and 8.5%. The stock market has climbed at a steeper average rate since then, but "didn't gain anything to speak of" is misleading.
      - thrower123 8y ago
        Yeah, this isn't even close to the real performance I've seen. I was at basically zero growth for years, but as soon as Obama left, things jumped.
        etrautmann 8y ago
        This is obviously made up, as indicated by the metrics stated above.
Simulacra 8y ago
I personally have a love-hate relationship with Trump. He’s bombastic, obnoxious, and annoying. But he gets things done, and I have to say I really do like the chest thumping America-first attitude and perspective on policy.

It makes sense. In 2016, the slogan was Make America Great Again. His 2020 slogan is Keep America Great. He has delivered on his promises, America is now great again, why would you want to go back?

prolikewh0a 8y ago

What promises did he deliver on that have actually helped all/majority of USA?

aerovistae 8y ago
I think he's being sarcastic.
- prolikewh0a 8y ago
  I thought that too.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  I mean, it's 2018, who the hell knows? Poe's law needs a grim reaper like avatar, ruining your karma when you thought you were making a joke.
- martythemaniak 8y ago
  Partly correct. If you try to measure Trump by some conventional, objective-reality based means, he is IMO, probably the worst president America's ever had. But people didn't vote for him based on such reasons and his supporters don't judge him on such metrics. Trump is a subjective feeling and he makes his base feel pretty great, so...
  - fastball 8y ago
    If you try to measure Trump by some conventional, objective-reality based means, he's probably the worst president America's ever had. Do you have an example of such a metric, or are you also talking out of your ass?
    - aerovistae 8y ago
      How about "lies per word spoken"? How about "rationality of propositions ranked by economic analysis"? How about "number of personal lawsuits and investigations incurred per minute"? Any of those work for you?
    - martythemaniak 8y ago
      I added an "IMO" for clarity. And yeah, I could supply a long list. This list could include items such as "climate change" and "foments domestic terrorism". The point is, any such list will be based on assumptions that Trump opponents and supporters do not share.
      - fastball 8y ago
        Not sure how Trump can be the worst President re:climate change if it wasn't even on the radar of at least the first 35.
refurb 8y ago
"Helped" is a loaded word since everyone has a different opinion of what helped is. I'm not a big fan of Trump, but I do have to admit he is delivering on what he said he'd do. Pass tax reform, curtail immigration, go up against China in terms of trade, get conservative judges on the Supreme Court, start the peace process with North Korea. A lot of people may hate him, but he is getting a lot more stuff done than past presidents.
- prolikewh0a 8y ago
  How do you measure "getting a lot more done than past presidents"?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    Count number of days spent golfing.
  - refurb 8y ago
    Actually following through on what you promise? I know a lot of people assumed Trump’s policy stand was just rhetoric. Apparently it’s not!

Judgmentality 8y ago

> He has delivered on his promises Indeed. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpomete...

ng-user 8y ago

What metrics do you guys (Americans) use to measure how 'great' the country is? From the start this has puzzled me. Or rather is it a simple slogan one can confidently spew knowing it's impossible to prove? (edit: I get that this is probably sarcasm, but it seems at least _SOME_ Americans believe it to be true)

TheAdamAndChe 8y ago
It really depends on who you ask. Stereotypical democrats nowadays primarily measure racial and gender inequality primarily, with economics and wealth inequality coming second and rural incomes and quality of life coming far behind. Stereotypical republicans primarily measure GDP, economic freedom, and total power of the country. Politicans like Sanders and Trump are rising because they focus more on issues like income inequality and declining quality of life for the lower and middle classes. Both address globalization and labor leverage, though they address it differently. While they are culturally diametrically opposed, they are still remaining popular because they are addressing these issues that other politicans don't address, seemingly because big money has caused them to ignore those issues.
- true_religion 8y ago
  Okay. I am a Republican, but I do not understand how our party can have leading candidates who are hereditary billionaires or multimilillionaires, yet trumpet that it is not corrupted by “big money”. I do not think money corrupts, if it did, then Republicans would be the first to suffer.
hopefulengineer 8y ago
If Clinton got in we were basically 100% going to war with Russia since she promised to create a no fly zone in Syria. I consider that a win. Not getting into a nuclear exchange with NK is also a plus. Trump is actually punishing China for the first time in decades. With Bolsonaro in office in Brazil we now control 80%+ of world soybean and corn production, meaning we can effectively starve China into compliance if necessary Economy is doing well, wage growth is above inflation for the first time in decades, 3.1% as of today's jobs report.

thrower123 8y ago

There is a huge amount of sarcasm here, but I have done incredibly well since Nov 2016. Like 15% year over year improvements. Under Obama, I saw no growth at all.

rchaud 8y ago
> Under Obama, I saw no growth at all. Really, you saw no growth at all during a Jan 2009 - Oct 2016 period during which the S&P 500 went from 850 to 2153, a 153% increase? Are you an especially poor investor or are you just making stuff up online as has become the norm for Trump astroturfers?
- thrower123 8y ago
  I bought in around 2012, so I didn't gain anything to speak of over the second Obama term. I'm in Vanguard total market index funds.
  - NLips 8y ago
    Vanguard total stock market index VTSMX 2012 low: 31.76 2012 high: 36.72 2016 low: 45.03 2016 high: 57.17 2016 high pre-election: 54.84 So the worst you possibly could have done between 2012 and 2016 was a 22.6% gain. Using more middling points of 36 and 50, you'd have gained almost 39%. Annualised (rounding up to 4 years) that's between 5 and 8.5%. The stock market has climbed at a steeper average rate since then, but "didn't gain anything to speak of" is misleading.
    - thrower123 8y ago
      Yeah, this isn't even close to the real performance I've seen. I was at basically zero growth for years, but as soon as Obama left, things jumped.
      - etrautmann 8y ago
        This is obviously made up, as indicated by the metrics stated above.

Simulacra 8y ago

I personally have a love-hate relationship with Trump. He’s bombastic, obnoxious, and annoying. But he gets things done, and I have to say I really do like the chest thumping America-first attitude and perspective on policy.