4 ms·

If Trump becomes president, yes. Otherwise, no. Prioritizing loyalty and ideology over competence will cause problems. We know Trump prizes loyalty over every

If Trump becomes president, yes. Otherwise, no. Prioritizing loyalty and ideology over competence will cause problems. We know Trump prizes loyalty over every other quality.

chiefalchemist 3y ago
The Federal gov keeps running a deficit and keeps expanding it. The Federal Reserve plays along and keeps financing that bad behavior. Together they're compromising the dollar and the associated economy but... we're going to blame a random third-party when the shit hits the fan? Is this an April Fools' joke?
- rurp 3y ago
  Pull up a chart of what the federal defecit has been under each party control over the past half century and it's pretty clear that one major party is a lot more culpable than the other. Spoiler alert, it's not the party that spends more time on vapid fiscal responsibilty messaging.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    The members of both parties take an oath to serve the American people. Both are failing. The faux finger pointed and other associated theater doesn't change the fact that the voters / taxpayers are getting screwed. This party? That party?? That's pointless minutia at this point.
    - wredcoll 3y ago
      So your reaction to learning that one party is measurably worse in regards to a certain criteria is to immediately pivot to the argument that both sides are equally bad? Yes, in the long term, the sun is going to burn out and leave the earth a cold lifeless rock, but I can certainly do things right now to improve the "short term", like voting for a party that doesn't constantly overinflate the debt.
      - chiefalchemist 3y ago
        So your answer is to put all the responsible in the hands of a single party? And that doesn't make you get a case of "be careful what you wish for"?
- tinktank 3y ago
  > Is this an April Fools' joke? No more or less than any other self-sabotaging economic policy. Brexit, etc.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    Trump being the problem, that was the question about it being a joke.
    - wredcoll 3y ago
      Trump and the party he now leads are famously bad about over spending and raising the debt. If there's a joke, it's on the citizens.
      - chiefalchemist 3y ago
        That's naive. There's plenty of excess in the budget added by both parties. And both parties are happy to sign-off on an ever expanding DoD budget. Yes, the GOP loves to cut taxes. But again, both are adding to the excessive spending. It's not a one-party problem.
asdff 3y ago
The president hardly affects anything, that's just the big sell to voters to make them feel like they have some representation in government. Both Trump and Biden nominated Jerome Powell.
- Induane 3y ago
  I think that's true in the general sense but a lot of that hasn't been really tested simply because of the power of tradition. Part of what [may] be dangerous about Trump is that he is perceived as willing to run roughshod through political convention. Declarations of martial law (in particular if the military can be convinced to go along with it) or other more extraordinary actions would have a powerful effect on the country. During his presidency Trump showed that a president CAN have profound effects on the economic system. He ordered changes to trading policy with China that had effects that were obvious and felt (regardless of the merit of the actions). A lot of times presidents are simply unwilling to risk rocking the boat, preferring stability and the status quo. There is a lot of risk of ruining ones re-election chances and damaging the electability of congresspersons of ones party and thus the party itself losing political power (and thus the sweet teet of special interest lobbying money and such that comes along with wielding enough power to represent those interests). Trump--and I agree with this sentiment myself--is more willing to do something radical. That doesn't mean anything radical he does will be intrinsically bad or have bad effects, it's possible that he could affect positive radical change too. So, while it's true our president doesn't normally affect too much, it isn't purely because the office lacks the power to affect the economy.

If Trump becomes president, yes. Otherwise, no. Prioritizing loyalty and ideology over competence will cause problems. We know Trump prizes loyalty over every other quality.

chiefalchemist 3y ago

The Federal gov keeps running a deficit and keeps expanding it. The Federal Reserve plays along and keeps financing that bad behavior. Together they're compromising the dollar and the associated economy but... we're going to blame a random third-party when the shit hits the fan? Is this an April Fools' joke?

rurp 3y ago
Pull up a chart of what the federal defecit has been under each party control over the past half century and it's pretty clear that one major party is a lot more culpable than the other. Spoiler alert, it's not the party that spends more time on vapid fiscal responsibilty messaging.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  The members of both parties take an oath to serve the American people. Both are failing. The faux finger pointed and other associated theater doesn't change the fact that the voters / taxpayers are getting screwed. This party? That party?? That's pointless minutia at this point.
  - wredcoll 3y ago
    So your reaction to learning that one party is measurably worse in regards to a certain criteria is to immediately pivot to the argument that both sides are equally bad? Yes, in the long term, the sun is going to burn out and leave the earth a cold lifeless rock, but I can certainly do things right now to improve the "short term", like voting for a party that doesn't constantly overinflate the debt.
    - chiefalchemist 3y ago
      So your answer is to put all the responsible in the hands of a single party? And that doesn't make you get a case of "be careful what you wish for"?
tinktank 3y ago
> Is this an April Fools' joke? No more or less than any other self-sabotaging economic policy. Brexit, etc.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Trump being the problem, that was the question about it being a joke.
  - wredcoll 3y ago
    Trump and the party he now leads are famously bad about over spending and raising the debt. If there's a joke, it's on the citizens.
    - chiefalchemist 3y ago
      That's naive. There's plenty of excess in the budget added by both parties. And both parties are happy to sign-off on an ever expanding DoD budget. Yes, the GOP loves to cut taxes. But again, both are adding to the excessive spending. It's not a one-party problem.

asdff 3y ago

The president hardly affects anything, that's just the big sell to voters to make them feel like they have some representation in government. Both Trump and Biden nominated Jerome Powell.

Induane 3y ago
I think that's true in the general sense but a lot of that hasn't been really tested simply because of the power of tradition. Part of what [may] be dangerous about Trump is that he is perceived as willing to run roughshod through political convention. Declarations of martial law (in particular if the military can be convinced to go along with it) or other more extraordinary actions would have a powerful effect on the country. During his presidency Trump showed that a president CAN have profound effects on the economic system. He ordered changes to trading policy with China that had effects that were obvious and felt (regardless of the merit of the actions). A lot of times presidents are simply unwilling to risk rocking the boat, preferring stability and the status quo. There is a lot of risk of ruining ones re-election chances and damaging the electability of congresspersons of ones party and thus the party itself losing political power (and thus the sweet teet of special interest lobbying money and such that comes along with wielding enough power to represent those interests). Trump--and I agree with this sentiment myself--is more willing to do something radical. That doesn't mean anything radical he does will be intrinsically bad or have bad effects, it's possible that he could affect positive radical change too. So, while it's true our president doesn't normally affect too much, it isn't purely because the office lacks the power to affect the economy.