The Trump Presidency – 2016

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

How is it not completely unethical and in direct opposition to the constitutional duties of the president?

How is it not completely unethical that the left wants illegal immigration to be just fine unless it ends up in their backyard?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Why is it twisted? It would seem safe to say that sanctuary cities would be better equipped to provide support to illegal immigrants as well as be more welcoming, accepting, and safe from deportation than non-sanctuary cities.

It's actually a fantastic play to his base and makes the democrats look like hypocrites the more they complain.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

How is it not completely unethical that the left wants illegal immigration to be just fine unless it ends up in their backyard?

Most U.S. unauthorized immigrants live in just 20 metro areas | Pew Research Center

"the left wants illegal immigration to be just fine" is an incredibly simplified version of the truth, and, illegal immigrants appear to be pretty darn evenly shared between red and blue states already - certainly not something "the left" are pushing for since they are only going to live far away.

[Ryche]

Adding more people to Democrat leaning areas before the Census seems like a solid strategy.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

It's actually a fantastic play to his base and makes the democrats look like hypocrites the more they complain.

We are truly in some absurd times when Donald Trump using federal resources to truck illegal immigrants INTO the country is considered a fantastic play to his base. And you think that would make the Democrats look like hypocrites?

It also seems like a fantastic way to shoot himself in the foot in regards to 2020. "Vote for me! Immigration is still my one and only concern, and maybe I didn't build any kind of wall when we had complete control of the government, and in fact I actually trucked immigrants into the country as some kind of tantrum, but with your continued support and donations I think I can probably do something about it this time!" Sadly, I don't disagree that his base would eat that up, but should they?

Personally, I still consider the Dems immediate 'compromise' away from any kind of universal healthcare a decade ago a crucial betrayal, to the point that I haven't voted for them since (I live in Oregon, a lifetime blue, vote-by-mail state that doesn't even tabulate the first vote until 9pm Eastern on election night, so my presidential vote is effectively a thought exercise FWIW) and I would dearly like to see that whole class of 3rd wave Dems cleared out and the party culture scrubbed. Meanwhile, more and more of Trump's high-priority policies turn into mush every day, and he continually lights up his own hand-picked, swamp drainin' skeleton crew of incompetents then sets them off running through the cobwebbed hallways of every government branch, down into the massive, smoldering ash heap of alleged conservative values and standards. He's jacked up the country's debt to astronomical levels for no particular reason or effect, inevitably concedes his own, his party's & his country's concerns to anything that enters his field of vision, yet it seems Trump's supporters could not care less, just as long as he continues to cobble together the half-literate sentence fragments that fall out of his demented maw into something nasty directed leftwards.

[whomario]

Shouldnt those 'illegal' immigrants have a pretty good claim to actually be having a good shot at being granted legal status if Trump does this ? Pretty sure a lawyer could have fun with this. I mean, if the owner of a store instructs his employees to bring people into his store at night, i doubt it would be called trespassing in court.

[JPhillips]

I feel like I've been screaming into the void, but I keep pointing out that this plan has already happened in El Paso.

[tarcone]

You think Trumps base would call him a hypocrite as he dumps those illegals in those cities that his base doesnt like?

I think his base will be laughing their collective asses off.

[I. J. Reilly]

This is Trump we're talking about after all, none of this exists outside of Twitter. It's not like he has a plan to actually make any of this happen.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

This is Trump we're talking about after all, none of this exists outside of Twitter. It's not like he has a plan to actually make any of this happen.

Yup. Even after 3 years, people still act like he's a normal President who announces policies after giving them much thought and then starts to push the levers of government to implement them.

He's not. For good or for ill, he is not. He announces whatever the last idea that flitted through his head is, he has no plans to implement it, and even if he did, he'd has no structure in place to do it.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by tarcone

You think Trumps base would call him a hypocrite as he dumps those illegals in those cities that his base doesnt like?

I think his base will be laughing their collective asses off.

No, I don't think his base would call him a hypocrite, I think his base can't see their own noses. I think everybody else in the world would call him and his base obvious hypocrites. I think it's dumbfounding that conservatives have gone through three years of absolute continued failure on the immigration front (and every other), and yet they're still deluded enough to think that this wet fart by a pouting baby would constitute some sort of major win. "HOho he's REALLY not following through on what he promised us now!! That's got them on the run!"



Does his base also find it hilarious that nobody in Canada, South America, Europe, Asia, India or Scandinavia respects us any more?

It also seems worth pointing out that those liberal sanctuary cities/states his base doesn't like are also largely the ones already paying more than their fare share to provide for the shithole areas where Trump's base resides. I have absolutely no doubt those folks would blindly laugh through the ignorance and hypocrisy of using federal resources to further stress their own support while frothing about socialism and the free market, but the question remains: should they?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

We are truly in some absurd times when Donald Trump using federal resources to truck illegal immigrants INTO the country is considered a fantastic play to his base. And you think that would make the Democrats look like hypocrites?

They are already in the country. What's another 129 miles to LA.

Originally Posted by thesloppy

It also seems like a fantastic way to shoot himself in the foot in regards to 2020. "Vote for me! Immigration is still my one and only concern, and maybe I didn't build any kind of wall when we had complete control of the government, and in fact I actually trucked immigrants into the country as some kind of tantrum, but with your continued support and donations I think I can probably do something about it this time!" Sadly, I don't disagree that his base would eat that up, but should they?

If you really do not believe this reinforces his existing base (and gives them a chuckle), not sure what to say. It definitely does.

Yes, absolutely agree he should have done something on immigration in first 2 years instead of chasing down Obamacare. Just like Obama should have in his first 2. But more important things were the priority then to both.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by tarcone

You think Trumps base would call him a hypocrite as he dumps those illegals in those cities that his base doesnt like?

I think his base will be laughing their collective asses off.

I agree with this. Didn't vote for him and likely won't vote for him in 2020, so I don't consider myself in his "base". But I would be chuckling quite a bit.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Yup. Even after 3 years, people still act like he's a normal President who announces policies after giving them much thought and then starts to push the levers of government to implement them.

He's not. For good or for ill, he is not. He announces whatever the last idea that flitted through his head is, he has no plans to implement it, and even if he did, he'd has no structure in place to do it.

Seriously, the vast majority does not thinks he's a normal President. Pretty sure there is wide-spread acknowledgement that he is very different (since WW2 at least?)

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Does his base also find it hilarious that nobody in Canada, South America, Europe, Asia, India or Scandinavia respects us any more?

FWIW, China is not Asia. Trump has actually strong support in several Asian countries including Philippines, Australia, South Korea, Japan.

America's international image continues to suffer | Pew Research Center

However, I assume your key point is world view of US has declined since Obama and that is true.

[JPhillips]

"Policy" for the right is largely just a collection of stupid charges of being hypocrites.

You don't want a wall, but your house has walls!

You don't like guns, but the Secret Service has guns!

You don't immigrants in cages, but you don't want them in your city!

They're all dumb and none of them are even worth debating. Dumping immigrants in any city is against the law. If the lack of morality doesn't concern you, that should.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by tarcone

You think Trumps base would call him a hypocrite as he dumps those illegals in those cities that his base doesnt like?

I think his base will be laughing their collective asses off.

And shit like this is why I think his chances of reelection are different than any other incumbent. By this point in a normal presidency, the President would be trying to find a middle ground on policy in order to keep the independents engaged and maybe flip some of the more moderate members of the other party. Trump has doubled down on keeping his 35% happy and giving everyone else the middle finger.

Outside of a major, race changing event Trump's only real chance is to keep his base engaged and hope the GOP can pull off historic levels of voter suppression.

[Chief Rum]

Personally, I think the Dems need to rethink their outrage at this petty move by a petty man.

He has nothing to lose, since his base loves it, and they don't seem nearly as interested in the moral high ground (for all that religious conservatives make up a good portion of the GOP).

The party with the moral high ground, and indeed, seems to count it as a high value is the Democratic party.

So getting all outragey about illegal immigrants being sent their way, after how much they support any infringement of the rights of those same immigrants, even in the face of federal and state laws and the sensible need to make immigration an orderly process, comes off as extemely hypocritical.

In other words, it's a spiteful move by a shitty president. But he looks the same as he always does. It is the Dems that look terrible not simply opening their arms to the policy and saying, "Yes, please come to our cities, where we will support you and give you a chance at a better life and to escape persecution."

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Outside of a major, race changing event Trump's only real chance is to keep his base engaged and hope the GOP can pull off historic levels of voter suppression.

I think you underestimate people voting along party lines and the role the perception of a good economy plays.

I have several family members who are good people, and hate a lot of what Trump does, but they always use the economy as an excuse to continue to support him.

Unless the economy tanks, and Trump somehow gets the blame for it, I think he wins reelection easily. Especially when you factor in the lack of a candidate by the left with any enthusiasm.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I think you underestimate people voting along party lines and the role the perception of a good economy plays.

I have several family members who are good people, and hate a lot of what Trump does, but they always use the economy as an excuse to continue to support him.

Unless the economy tanks, and Trump somehow gets the blame for it, I think he wins reelection easily. Especially when you factor in the lack of a candidate by the left with any enthusiasm.

If people vote along party lines without major suppression the dem wins the general every time.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

If people vote along party lines without major suppression the dem wins the general every time.

Like in 2016 right?

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Personally, I think the Dems need to rethink their outrage at this petty move by a petty man.

Agreed.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Like in 2016 right?

If the GOP thinks losing the general election by 3 million and squeaking by in the electoral by about 75,000 votes is something they can replicate, then by all means.

My point is Trump wasn't your typical presidential candidate, he hasn't been your typical president, you can't treat him like your typical incumbent. His party got slaughtered in the mid-terms despite a strong economy because people were voting against him on tickets. That's something the GOP has even admitted, yet Trump has done nothing to fix that issue. The closest Trump has come to addressing that particular issue is deciding to punt on healthcare until after 2020 because it's a losing issue outside of his base.

With a strong democrat turnout in 2020 Trump has to pull in independents and some moderate dems to have a chance and his approval with both of those groups is under water. Trump won independents 46-42 over Hillary. Flip that the other way and he loses. Trump can't continue to ignore 65% of the country and expect that to be a winning hand.

[Bee]

I think it's a safe bet that Trump loses the popular vote by the same if not more in 2020. It will come down to if the Dems can win Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Personally, I think the Dems need to rethink their outrage at this petty move by a petty man.

He has nothing to lose, since his base loves it, and they don't seem nearly as interested in the moral high ground (for all that religious conservatives make up a good portion of the GOP).

The party with the moral high ground, and indeed, seems to count it as a high value is the Democratic party.

So getting all outragey about illegal immigrants being sent their way, after how much they support any infringement of the rights of those same immigrants, even in the face of federal and state laws and the sensible need to make immigration an orderly process, comes off as extemely hypocritical.

In other words, it's a spiteful move by a shitty president. But he looks the same as he always does. It is the Dems that look terrible not simply opening their arms to the policy and saying, "Yes, please come to our cities, where we will support you and give you a chance at a better life and to escape persecution."

I agree 100% here. I really wish Dems would just let him be petty and use his greatest hits of pettiness in ads for 2020. Getting the left to jump up and down screaming over everything he does is part of his strategy. He wants the general public to get tired of the reporting on his pettiness.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

If the GOP thinks losing the general election by 3 million and squeaking by in the electoral by about 75,000 votes is something they can replicate, then by all means.

My point is Trump wasn't your typical presidential candidate, he hasn't been your typical president, you can't treat him like your typical incumbent. His party got slaughtered in the mid-terms despite a strong economy because people were voting against him on tickets. That's something the GOP has even admitted, yet Trump has done nothing to fix that issue. The closest Trump has come to addressing that particular issue is deciding to punt on healthcare until after 2020 because it's a losing issue outside of his base.

With a strong democrat turnout in 2020 Trump has to pull in independents and some moderate dems to have a chance and his approval with both of those groups is under water. Trump won independents 46-42 over Hillary. Flip that the other way and he loses. Trump can't continue to ignore 65% of the country and expect that to be a winning hand.

I generally agree with your thinking. Trump is far from safe in 2020, even with a strong economy.

But you should have written this to Lathum, who spelled out a much more cogent and detailed argument for how Trump could win. Instead, you responded to him with a glib data point which has nothing in actuality to do with how 2020 will go.

My response to you was merely in kind-- a meaningless data point, which nonetheless pointedly countered yours.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Personally, I think the Dems need to rethink their outrage at this petty move by a petty man.

The messaging from the left should be that they will welcome these people seeking asylum (not "illegals") and that they will ultimately make these communities stronger.

[cuervo72]

Oh, and that the president uses them as pawns - we will treat them as people.

[JPhillips]

Is there any argument that shipping and dumping asylum seekers to any city isn't against the law? I know we've gotten numb to all the things Trump has said and done, but it actually is important to say this idea is illegal.

[cuervo72]

Well sure -- stress that it's illegal. But have a plan to deal with it because illegality won't stop him from doing anything.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

The messaging from the left should be that they will welcome these people seeking asylum (not "illegals") and that they will ultimately make these communities stronger.

That will be an interesting social experiment for sure.

California is that one US State (e.g. 5-7 largest economy in the world, close to border etc.) that may be successful by allowing more unauthorized into their system. They are very big, lean left (vs Texas leaning right), and would be welcoming.

But can CA take all that will come? And assume it would welcome all asylum seekers worldwide and not just south of the border. Interesting scenario, maybe a good plot for a book.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Is there any argument that shipping and dumping asylum seekers to any city isn't against the law? I know we've gotten numb to all the things Trump has said and done, but it actually is important to say this idea is illegal.

I'm actually not following the logic on how it is against the law in the first place, unless the point you're making is that the illegal immigrants and asylum seekers should be removed from the country (the nornal GOP stance).

Assuming you're not and that your belief is that it is best to keep them here in the country (or allow them the choice to stay), then we fall back to who has control of them in the first place. That would be the federal government, under DHS/ICE/Border Patrol. They have them in custody. And they may release them in any manner which seems appripriate to them and which does not result in harm to the immigrants.

If they aren't returning them to their home countries, and they are not holding them in custody forever (presuming we're all against that), then they must be released somewhere in the country.

Is it not the prerogative of that authority to make a decision on where best to do that? Even if you question their motives (definitely in this case), isn't it clear that they have the right to determine how best to release those in their custody?

It's certainly possible even probable that there are laws detailing how this should go, but I am guessing those are federal statutes. I'm not sure those would be violated by this move.

Taking this devil's advocate argument even one step further, there is indeed some argument to be made that these immigrants are actually better off being released in sanctuary cities.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

FWIW, China is not Asia. Trump has actually strong support in several Asian countries including Philippines, Australia, South Korea, Japan.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I'm actually not following the logic on how it is against the law in the first place, unless the point you're making is that the illegal immigrants and asylum seekers should be removed from the country (the nornal GOP stance).

Assuming you're not and that your belief is that it is best to keep them here in the country (or allow them the choice to stay), then we fall back to who has control of them in the first place. That would be the federal government, under DHS/ICE/Border Patrol. They have them in custody. And they may release them in any manner which seems appripriate to them and which does not result in harm to the immigrants.

If they aren't returning them to their home countries, and they are not holding them in custody forever (presuming we're all against that), then they must be released somewhere in the country.

Is it not the prerogative of that authority to make a decision on where best to do that? Even if you question their motives (definitely in this case), isn't it clear that they have the right to determine how best to release those in their custody?

It's certainly possible even probable that there are laws detailing how this should go, but I am guessing those are federal statutes. I'm not sure those would be violated by this move.

Taking this devil's advocate argument even one step further, there is indeed some argument to be made that these immigrants are actually better off being released in sanctuary cities.

Reports have been consistent that DHS lawyers found the plan to be illegal, and that may be why Nielsen is gone and the ICE director nomination was withdrawn.

The best plan for this would be to greatly expand the staffing of the immigration courts, but that's another thing Stephen Miller won't let happen. If the system functions well, then it isn't a crisis, and if it isn't a crisis they can't cut legal immigration.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

From my link above. I wonder what the discrepancy is? Maybe its the wording of US instead of specifically Trump?

Among allies in Asia, views of the U.S. have trended slightly downward since Donald Trump became president. Overall, opinions of the U.S. are quite positive in South Korea (80%), Japan (67%) and Australia (54%). Views of the U.S. are also very positive in the Philippines but mixed in Indonesia.

[bronconick]

Your link is about their view on the US. thesloppy's is their view on the US President. They like us, but think we picked a moron to lead us.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

From my link above. I wonder what the discrepancy is? Maybe its the wording of US instead of specifically Trump?

Yeah, that's the distinction FWIW. That graph was actually generated using the link you sent (which is the same article I got the first image from) and there was a choice to generate it based on 'US favorability' or 'confidence in the US president".

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I'm actually not following the logic on how it is against the law in the first place, unless the point you're making is that the illegal immigrants and asylum seekers should be removed from the country (the nornal GOP stance).

Take it FWIW on the reasons its illegal per USA Today article.

It sounds kinda weak to me, similar to the "Muslim from some countries ban", but I'm sure there are better arguments out there.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...es/3450858002/

Trump's plan to send migrants to sanctuary cities faces legal hurdles[/url]
“Homeland security dollars are supposed to be used to protect national security, not go after your political opponents,” said Kerri Talbot, an attorney and federal advocacy director for the advocacy group the Immigration Hub.
:
“Donald Trump’s use of government power to conduct corrupt, vindictive operations smells like Watergate,” said Becerra, a former congressman from California. “It’s a sobering reminder that our nation is only as strong as our democratic institutions and the rule of law.”
:
Legal experts warned that any attempt to carry out a plan like the one Trump says he’s considering would run afoul of the Hatch Act, a 1939 federal law that bars executive branch employees from participating in certain types of political activity on government time or using the government’s resources for political purposes.
:
While presidents are generally exempt from the Hatch Act’s provisions, White House officials or employees in the Department of Homeland Security tasked with carrying out such a proposal could potentially be charged with violating the law, Talbot said.

And it does say this

Federal immigration agencies regularly transfer immigrants from one facility to another to address capacity issues, said John Sandweg, former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the Obama administration. But those transfers are justified to address capacity issues, not to send a political message, Sandweg said.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

With a strong democrat turnout in 2020 Trump has to pull in independents and some moderate dems to have a chance and his approval with both of those groups is under water. Trump won independents 46-42 over Hillary. Flip that the other way and he loses. Trump can't continue to ignore 65% of the country and expect that to be a winning hand.

And what have the Dems done to flip that number? They have no one who moves the needle and inspires people.

People knew what Trump was when they voted him in 2016, and I don't underestimate the power of people seeing their 401K padded, or the republican PR machine.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Yeah, that's the distinction FWIW. That graph was actually generated using the link you sent (which is the same article I got the first image from) and there was a choice to generate it based on 'US favorability' or 'confidence in the US president".

Okay. I mixed up the terms when I replied to you with "Trump has strong support". However, your original point was countries not "respecting us anymore".

I'll concede majority of countries don't like Trump. But there are still a bunch of countries that respect us as a country.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

And what have the Dems done to flip that number? They have no one who moves the needle and inspires people.

I agree. But let's be fair, still a little too early, its just starting to get fun.

People knew what Trump was when they voted him in 2016, and I don't underestimate the power of people seeing their 401K padded, or the republican PR machine.

Absolutely agree with us. Market is up as of 33% as of April but wouldn't call it "great". From the chart below, Obama made us feel alot better same period but that we because we were at a greater low.

Stock Market Performance by President | MacroTrends

The top voter issues per Gallup as of Nov 2018

https://news.gallup.com/poll/244367/...migration.aspx

Healthcare 80
The economy 78
Immigration 78
Way women are treated in U.S. society 74
Gun policy 72
Taxes 70
Foreign affairs 68

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Your link is about their view on the US. thesloppy's is their view on the US President. They like us, but think we picked a moron to lead us.

This.

[Chief Rum]

I do think the usual predictive trends are different for this president in this time. So I have no idea how it will actually turn out.

But my econ professor in college circa 1994 made a good pont (and he was one of the smartest people I met in college). He said that a strong economy is one of the biggest indicators that an incumbent will be re-elected. He predicted Clinton would easily win re-election if the economy continued to improve from the early 90s recession which sunk Bush I. This was at a time when Gingrich was leading the charge to take back Congress (which they did of course). Very divisive time, much like now.

I fear Lathum is right and it will be much the same if the economy remains strong.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Lathum

People knew what Trump was when they voted him in 2016, and I don't underestimate the power of people seeing their 401K padded, or the republican PR machine.

Revisionist history here. When Bernie lost to Hillary there were Bernie supporters trying to convince others that Trump was closer to Bernie ideologically than Hillary.

Go back and read the first couple pages of posts in this thread. For the most part, no one had any idea what the hell a Trump Presidency was going to be like.

Again, the GOP was trounced in the mid-terms because of Trump.

[thesloppy]

I've said something similar before, but with the earlier prison reforms and canceling of global trade agreements being some of the only policies he's managed to get into place, he's destabilized a GOP structure that used to be ironclad, and if he can start trucking those immigrants into the country Trump's spectacular incompetence will have unintentionally made him into the most progressive President we've had in the last 40 years.

[tarcone]

Is Buttigieg the man to beat Trump?

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Is Buttigieg the man to beat Trump?

I've personally come to like Yang's platform a lot.....that said, I think universal income is probably an absolute non-starter at this point in time, and I simply like his insistence that we need to make a cultural shift towards a capitalist economy that values human factors rather than just the bottom line of an accounting ledger.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by molson

My hope is that Trump really doesn't have any strong policy convictions (other than possibly things that have impacted his businesses) and that he'll surround himself with competent conservatives who may have been overlooked by the establishment, but who might have something to offer.

I think his Supreme Court appointments might be surprisingly solid and moderate. I don't think he's on some mission against abortion and gay marriage, I think he might not care much either way. He may be more interested in looking smart here and appointing on merit.

More of a hope than a prediction, but I hope that he has less political loyalty than any president we've had in a long time, and that could lead to some unexpected positive things in terms how the government operates and how the branches interact.

We get a re-examination/reset, short of a revolution, of how we do things as a country in business and politics. Trump is such a wild card and we don't know what he'll do and what, if anything, he really believes in, so these mechanisms can't just run on auto-pilot.

I hope he's concerned about his legacy and how he's remembered and he doesn't do anything drastic that carries a high risk of catastrophe.

Clinton just said something about being open minded and giving him the chance to lead, and I hope we can try to do that.

You mean posts like this, Atocep?

Guess molson was right on the political loyalty part.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

What a crazy election, one for the books. Here are my hopes & predictions for his presidency

Hopes:

(1) Don’t start a nuclear war
(2) Secure the borders and reform immigration (somehow)
(3) Greatly reduce ISIL, resolve the Syrian war
(4) Strengthen our relationships with friends
(5) Reduce our dependence on global oil, encourage alternate fuels
(6) Balance the budget and reduce the deficit
(7) Grow the economy & stock market

Predictions:

TBD

I’ve been on the losing side before and TBH this one hurts a lot. But this is our democratic process in action.

Welcome to a brave new world. It will be an interesting 4 years.

I do really hope Trump "makes America great again".

I guess good time as any to do a retrospective.

#1, #3, #5 and #7 I will give him. Although #5 wasn't all him, he benefited from Obama.

#2 is still a work in progress and trending in right direction.

#4 obviously a fail so far in Europe and Latin American. Not so sure about Asia or South America. A big win with Israel.

#6 is a big fail and no possible rebound that I can see.

How did your predictions, hopes and wants turn out?

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I've personally come to like Yang's platform a lot.....that said, I think universal income is probably an absolute non-starter at this point in time, and I simply like his insistence that we need to make a cultural shift towards a capitalist economy that values human factors rather than just the bottom line of an accounting ledger.

Just saw an interview with Yang. Very interesting man. I like what he is selling as well.

But he seems kind of laid back. Does he have the charisma to win an election of this magnitude.