The Trump Presidency – 2016

[booradley]

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...el-record-june

Hispanic-Latino Unemployment Rate Hits Lowest Level on Record in June

[booradley]

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...m-our-economic

Record 155,576,000 Employed in June; 10th Record for Trump

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

So if not verbally expressed, its implicit.

I also use this method. I find it much easier to ignore what is being said and instead rely on my own experiences to determine motive/intent/bias.

For example, despite not verbally expressing it, I think it is implicit that you like the movie Trolls.

[JPhillips]

Not sure where to put this because it's going to effect a lot of people.

The OSU wrestling stories just keep getting worse. Multiple former wrestlers say faculty and others would come to the wrestling showers to watch the athletes, occasionally masturbating while doing so. How the fuck does that happen?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I also use this method. I find it much easier to ignore what is being said and instead rely on my own experiences to determine motive/intent/bias.

For example, despite not verbally expressing it, I think it is implicit that you like the movie Trolls.

I tried finding a movie that would describe what I infer your personality to be from your replies. Best I could come up with is a book called "Ad hominem". Unfortunately it's in French.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by booradley

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...m-our-economic

Record 155,576,000 Employed in June; 10th Record for Trump

To be fair, the trend started with Obama and he did inherit a pretty bad economy from the Great Recession (and I think Trump a much better one than Obama).

I do think Trump gets some credit but not sure how much. Trade war to come though.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If I found evidence that Khan did ask/suggest this, would it change your mind?

If yes, I'll dig and see if I can find something. If no, then not really a needed question?

Just because something is remotely possible it doesn't hold the same weight as the facts. He's the mayor of a major european (well, sorta) metropolis, there is no reason for him to spend his time thinking of ways to annoy the american president. Just because Trump acts like a bratty 10 year old and acts like a petty dictator, it doesn't mean that it is a logical assumption that the mayor of London would do so.

But hey, feel free to dive in and scour the conspiracy web for 'evidence'.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

It's just not beyond belief that he supported/encouraged it. I just don't think its appropriate.

I don't think approving it is encouraging it in any way. Portland had a rally for Nazis the other day and they approved the permit. I don't think the Portland mayor is a Nazi.

I don't even think it'd be an issue if he supported it though. Trump has bashed him and his city. He has lied about the city. It's not unheard of for a Mayor to stick up for the city they are elected to be in charge of.

There was the famous incident where Giuliani kicked Yasser Arafat out of an event in the 90's.

I would have no issue with people protesting Kim Jong-Un, Assad, Putin, King Salman, and so on from coming to my city. Respect is earned.

[RainMaker]

It also doesn't seem to be a big deal to me. I can't think of a world leader who hasn't had to face mockery and scorn from protesters. It's part of the deal. Grow a pair.

[PilotMan]

trump logic dictates that since russia scored today, that means that they are good, and if they are good, they couldn't have meddled in the 2016 election, and since they didn't, Putin is a great leader who deserves the respect of the world and the United States.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't think approving it is encouraging it in any way. Portland had a rally for Nazis the other day and they approved the permit. I don't think the Portland mayor is a Nazi.

I don't even think it'd be an issue if he supported it though. Trump has bashed him and his city. He has lied about the city. It's not unheard of for a Mayor to stick up for the city they are elected to be in charge of.

To be clear on my POV, I stated the below. It says ally/mayor and somehow it devolved into people just thinking I just said mayor.

The precedence is a UK ally/mayor mocking a US president in such a visible, public, and childish way.

Its fine if you want to have protests etc. but a baby Trump blimp?

Let me re-frame your words. I do believe your point about approval does not "always" mean support. I do also believe there are many examples where approval does mean support.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There was the famous incident where Giuliani kicked Yasser Arafat out of an event in the 90's.

I would have no issue with people protesting Kim Jong-Un, Assad, Putin, King Salman, and so on from coming to my city. Respect is earned.

As stated in my quote above, I'm all for protesting. I think a mocking baby Trump blimp goes too far re: appropriateness.

If Trump encouraged his 38-42% to create a derogatory, mocking blimp of (pick one) lets say Trudeau when he is invited here, is that appropriate? I think no.

Let's remove Trump, if there was a grassroots movement from the 38-42% to create a derogatory, mocking blimp of Trudeau when he is invited here, is that appropriate? I think no also.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

As stated in my quote above, I'm all for protesting. I think a mocking baby Trump blimp goes too far re: appropriateness.

If Trump encouraged his 38-42% to create a derogatory, mocking blimp of (pick one) lets say Trudeau when he is invited here, is that appropriate? I think no.

Let's remove Trump, if there was a grassroots movement from the 38-42% to create a derogatory, mocking blimp of Trudeau when he is invited here, is that appropriate? I think no also.

Except by trying to remove Trump, you're creating a false equivalency that Trudeau is on the same level, that would 'make' that comparison equal. It's not. Nothing is comparable. The bully is only beaten by being called out, and ridiculed. The man who lives his live diminishing others, cannot be afforded any level of appropriateness.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The precedence is a UK ally/mayor mocking a US president in such a visible, public, and childish way.

Its fine if you want to have protests etc. but a baby Trump blimp?

I absolutely understand that its not directed against the US as a country or people, its a personal with the UK Muslim mayor.

Let's put it this way - if Trump was to retaliate and encourage his 38-42% to come up with a blimp to portray the UK mayor as a radical Muslim during a UK royal state visit (only thing I can think of right now that would be somewhat comparable), would that be appropriate?

Take away the cartoony blimps and jokes, he essentially does that with his allies every day.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The precedence is a UK ally/mayor mocking a US president in such a visible, public, and childish way.

Its fine if you want to have protests etc. but a baby Trump blimp?

I absolutely understand that its not directed against the US as a country or people, its a personal with the UK Muslim mayor.

Let's put it this way - if Trump was to retaliate and encourage his 38-42% to come up with a blimp to portray the UK mayor as a radical Muslim during a UK royal state visit (only thing I can think of right now that would be somewhat comparable), would that be appropriate?

What does the fact that Sadiq Khan is a Muslim have anything to do with this?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Except by trying to remove Trump, you're creating a false equivalency that Trudeau is on the same level, that would 'make' that comparison equal. It's not. Nothing is comparable. The bully is only beaten by being called out, and ridiculed. The man who lives his live diminishing others, cannot be afforded any level of appropriateness.

I do agree that nothing is comparable and that Trump does spend his time diminishing others. Can't argue with you there.

I disagree about not being afforded any level of appropriateness especially when its coming from a foreign ally who invited him.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Mota

Take away the cartoony blimps and jokes, he essentially does that with his allies every day.

You have a good point, he does. I do not deny that. And its not appropriate.

[JPhillips]

You keep coming back to encourage/support without offering any evidence to back up your claim. Your assertion would mean that the mayor of NYC or LA or any American city couldn't authorize a protest against Putin or Kim without it being inappropriate.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AlexB

What does the fact that Sadiq Khan is a Muslim have anything to do with this?

If I'm understanding your statement, I really don't think him being a Muslim has anything to do with it? There is an antagonistic relationship between the two (which I'm pretty sure that Trump started e.g. his fault).

I would still think it would be inappropriate if was a Church of England mayor.

[AlexB]

You referenced Sadiq Khan as ‘the UK Muslim mayor’ and then extrapolated it to what if he were portrayed as ‘a radical Muslim’... it literally has nothing to do with the story, yet you decided to use this as your straw man.

Just asking, why choose this aspect to focus on?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You keep coming back to encourage/support without offering any evidence to back up your claim. Your assertion would mean that the mayor of NYC or LA or any American city couldn't authorize a protest against Putin or Kim without it being inappropriate.

That is not my assertion per my quote below. Have the protests you want but "mocking a US president in such a visible, public, and childish way" is my point re: not being appropriate.

The precedence is a UK ally/mayor mocking a US president in such a visible, public, and childish way.

Its fine if you want to have protests etc. but a baby Trump blimp?

Are there any other examples of this happening - where a visiting President/PM etc. (effectively representing 38-42% of the country) has been mocked in this way? I honestly can't think of one but maybe if there has been precedence ...

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AlexB

You referenced Sadiq Khan as ‘the UK Muslim mayor’ and then extrapolated it to what if he were portrayed as ‘a radical Muslim’... it literally has nothing to do with the story, yet you decided to use this as your straw man.

Just asking, why choose this aspect to focus on?

I see where you may have read into that. I really did not mean to imply he was a radical muslim. The example I used was to show how inappropriate it would be to incorrectly portray him as a radical muslim and mock him with a blimp by Trump supporters.

Let's put it this way - if Trump was to retaliate and encourage his 38-42% to come up with a blimp to portray the UK mayor as a radical Muslim during a UK royal state visit (only thing I can think of right now that would be somewhat comparable), would that be appropriate?

[booradley]

Originally Posted by Edward64

To be fair, the trend started with Obama and he did inherit a pretty bad economy from the Great Recession (and I think Trump a much better one than Obama).

I do think Trump gets some credit but not sure how much. Trade war to come though.

Yes, but Trump will easily be able to take credit for it. I'm trying to lay the foundation (for myself, as much as anyone else) that Donnie T may well be re-elected on the basis of facts like this.

The media pimps stories like family separation at the border because it's a flashy issue, but at the end of the day the silent majority care about simple things - jobs, money in the pocket, a feeling of hope for a strong, wealthy nation that they are actively a part of. And he's delivering to a degree. Just don't want this obfuscated by celebre causes that won't deter enough votes from people who feel, four years on, that Trump's presidency has made their lives better than it was before. THAT'S what wins (re)elections.

[JPhillips]

Just last year there were protests of Erdogan that ended in a brawl with his security forces. The Israelis are always protested. The Saudis are protested.
Blair and Thatcher got plenty of protests back in the day.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I see where you may have read into that. I really did not mean to imply he was a radical muslim. The example I used was to show how inappropriate it would be to incorrectly portray him as a radical muslim and mock him with a blimp by Trump supporters.

Just why bring it into the discussion? It’s at best lazy, at worst...

The thing to pick up on Khan is knife crime, which is rampant in London atm.

Suggest a blimp of him with something to do with knives, which is a reasonable equivalence, but bringing in Islam for literally no reason shows probably more than you wanted in general.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Just last year there were protests of Erdogan that ended in a brawl with his security forces. The Israelis are always protested. The Saudis are protested.
Blair and Thatcher got plenty of protests back in the day.

Let me state again, protests are okay but "mocking" and "childish" are not.

Sure that happens with placards but like I replied to RM, I don't know of an equivalent to a baby Trump blimp to an invited dignitary.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Just why bring it into the discussion? It’s at best lazy, at worst...

The thing to pick up on Khan is knife crime, which is rampant in London atm.

Suggest a blimp of him with something to do with knives, which is a reasonable equivalence, but bringing in Islam for literally no reason shows probably more than you wanted in general.

Because Khan coming to the US would not have invoked a mocking, childish blimp of him (nor should it).

My quote said it was the best I could think of at that time that would be somewhat comparable to the Trump blimp. Toss in "radical muslim" somewhere and it would generate the negativity from his base I was hoping to compare to.

I'm glad to withdraw the example but not sure what would be a good "equivalence" example.

[JPhillips]

If you're going to narrow it down to only a baby blimp, then yes, you are right it hasn't happened before.

But there are plenty examples of signs, puppets, effigies, masks, etc. both in the U.S. and in Europe.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Because Khan coming to the US would not have invoked a mocking, childish blimp of him (nor should it).

My quote said it was the best I could think of at that time that would be somewhat comparable to the Trump blimp. Toss in "radical muslim" somewhere and it would generate the negativity from his base I was hoping to compare to.

I'm glad to withdraw the example but not sure what would be a good "equivalence" example.

You don’t get it do you? It’s plain offensive to use a depiction of Sadiq Khan as a radical Muslim in comparison to Trump being depicted as a baby. The two are completely unconnected.

If the image of Trump was as a Christian fundamentalist, that is literally the only way in which your introduction of Khan’s religion would have been justified.

Edit: your underlying point of whether it is right/wrong to allow it is debatable, but bringing religion into the debate in the way you did is bang out of order

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by booradley

Yes, but Trump will easily be able to take credit for it. I'm trying to lay the foundation (for myself, as much as anyone else) that Donnie T may well be re-elected on the basis of facts like this.

The media pimps stories like family separation at the border because it's a flashy issue, but at the end of the day the silent majority care about simple things - jobs, money in the pocket, a feeling of hope for a strong, wealthy nation that they are actively a part of. And he's delivering to a degree. Just don't want this obfuscated by celebre causes that won't deter enough votes from people who feel, four years on, that Trump's presidency has made their lives better than it was before. THAT'S what wins (re)elections.

I agree with you.

It blows my mind to say it (he wasn't my choice) but Trump may well win the next election if the economy and stock market are doing well.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AlexB

You don’t get it do you? It’s plain offensive to use a depiction of Sadiq Khan as a radical Muslim in comparison to Trump being depicted as a baby. The two are completely unconnected.

If the image of Trump was as a Christian fundamentalist, that is literally the only way in which your introduction of Khan’s religion would have been justified.

Edit: your underlying point of whether it is right/wrong to allow it is debatable, but bringing religion into the debate in the way you did is bang out of order

You are right, I didn't get it.

You seem genuinely offended and I apologize.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If you're going to narrow it down to only a baby blimp, then yes, you are right it hasn't happened before.

But there are plenty examples of signs, puppets, effigies, masks, etc. both in the U.S. and in Europe.

Like the examples you stated, I think the difference in my mind is its not floating on top of the city for everyone to see. I can't think of an equivalence to that magnitude of "mocking" and "childish".

Unfortunately, now that the idea has popped up, I'm sure it'll be reused in other situations.

[AlexB]

No worries. It’s just the demonisation of Islam really winds me up.

Yes, there are some complete nutters who act ‘in the name of Islam’, but falling for the right wing media scaremongering of all Muslims is just as dangerous long term

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If Trump encouraged his 38-42% to create a derogatory, mocking blimp of (pick one) lets say Trudeau when he is invited here, is that appropriate? I think no.

He literally does this all the time. He constantly makes derogatory remarks toward political opponents, world leaders, and anyone else who he doesn't agree with. Take a look at some of the signs and shirts being worn to his rallies.

And again, the Mayor didn't encourage anything. You continue repeating this lie.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Let's remove Trump, if there was a grassroots movement from the 38-42% to create a derogatory, mocking blimp of Trudeau when he is invited here, is that appropriate? I think no also.

If Trudeau repeatedly trashed my city and spread lies about it, then yes I'd find it appropriate.

Regardless, it's a free country. Protest peacefully how you want. If a world leader can't handle some slight mockery, they aren't cut out for the position.

[whomario]

If he doesn't like being made fun of, he should adjust the way he acts/speaks/writes. If you aim at mainly appealing to a certain demographic, that's his choice. Same for how he interacts with allies. He's making fun of those and/or undermining them constantly with (thinly veiled, if at all) insults and undermining them with fake statistics. And then it's the mayor's obligation to value his sensitivities (or that of his followers) higher than his citizens freedom of speech ? Nah, not how reality works. Not even if you are the big bully on the block.

And Edward (and Trump) better not visit Germany on the Carnival Monday in February, where there is pretty much carte blanche to mock politicians from home and abroad during the parade. Not somewhere in the countryside, mind you, but the biggest german cities.








Somehow, german politicians have coped for decades.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Because Khan coming to the US would not have invoked a mocking, childish blimp of him (nor should it).

My quote said it was the best I could think of at that time that would be somewhat comparable to the Trump blimp. Toss in "radical muslim" somewhere and it would generate the negativity from his base I was hoping to compare to.

I'm glad to withdraw the example but not sure what would be a good "equivalence" example.

Are you new to world events? This stuff happens all the time.

When Ahmadinejad came to speak at the UN.



When Erogdan came to Washington.



This also happens all over the world whenever there is a big visit or summit.





This shit is tame too. Go find all the protests that burned leaders in effigy.

Got to have thicker skin man.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He literally does this all the time. He constantly makes derogatory remarks toward political opponents, world leaders, and anyone else who he doesn't agree with. Take a look at some of the signs and shirts being worn to his rallies.

And again, the Mayor didn't encourage anything. You continue repeating this lie.

I agree with your first paragraph. I take it you don't approve of it. I don't either.

I don't mean to repeat or focus on the mayor vs "ally/mayor", its just what comes up in our discussion (and I accept partial blame for it).

Your statement that its a lie, I agree its not proven. How about I change it to "seem to" to "may", and change "its implicit" to "many people can assume".

No statements from him but he is "allowing" it to happen and the bad history between the two seem to support it. So if not verbally expressed, its implicit.

No statements from him but he is "allowing" it to happen and the bad history between the two may support it. So if not verbally expressed, many people can assume.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If Trudeau repeatedly trashed my city and spread lies about it, then yes I'd find it appropriate.

Regardless, it's a free country. Protest peacefully how you want. If a world leader can't handle some slight mockery, they aren't cut out for the position.

I actually don't think Trump trashed London? I may be wrong but I think the animosity is Trump bashing on Islam and Khan's statement to the London Bridge incident. I do think its personal with Khan.

I absolutely think Trump can handle the mockery (he'll find ways to pay back I'm sure). I'm not worried about that.

The question is it appropriate for the UK (let's leave out the mayor for now) to allow this to happen to an invited President?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Are you new to world events? This stuff happens all the time.

I believe JPhillips had a similar comment. Please see my response in #11049.

[whomario]

So the US president makes personal attacks and now that somehow proves (or "implies") that this is a personal response from Khan ? Again: Not everybody is a petty narcissist just because Trump is one. I know it must be a foreign thing to you by now, but not everything is personal just because that's the world view of your president. Many people are in fact capable of making decisions based on rational reasoning and pre-existing laws/precedents. Not just based on if this screws the (real or perceived) opposition.

And he is "allowing it to happen" as in "turning a blind eye to get his petty revenge" ? No, he's allowing it to happen because that decision is supported by the damned laws and precedent. And because the desire of his constituents to peacefully voice their displeasure trumps the feelings of a visiting dignitary.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The question is it appropriate for the UK (let's leave out the mayor for now) to allow this to happen to an invited President?

Yes. That's the whole point of having freedom. Our governments allow us to protest.

I don't know what you want done. Lock up those who protest the President? It's England, not North Korea.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by booradley

Yes, but Trump will easily be able to take credit for it. I'm trying to lay the foundation (for myself, as much as anyone else) that Donnie T may well be re-elected on the basis of facts like this.

The media pimps stories like family separation at the border because it's a flashy issue, but at the end of the day the silent majority care about simple things - jobs, money in the pocket, a feeling of hope for a strong, wealthy nation that they are actively a part of. And he's delivering to a degree. Just don't want this obfuscated by celebre causes that won't deter enough votes from people who feel, four years on, that Trump's presidency has made their lives better than it was before. THAT'S what wins (re)elections.

They don't really care about that stuff. As seen by the fact most red states are economically in the toilet and have such low income levels. If being wealthy mattered to voters in Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas so much, they'd probably have tried voting for a different party by now.

The economy is doing well which makes the tariff stuff so confusing. Why fuck up something that is actually going in your favor with a super far-left policy? Then again, it's a guy who couldn't turn a profit on a casino.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yes. That's the whole point of having freedom. Our governments allow us to protest.

I don't know what you want done. Lock up those who protest the President? It's England, not North Korea.

Your response seem to indicate you believe I am against protesting. I say again that that is not my position. Definitely allow protests but don't its appropriate that any invited foreign/ally dignitary should be faced with a mocking and childish baby blimp.

As far as what I think would be appropriate? The traditional stuff -- select areas/routes such as along the limo route, airport, a distance away but still visible to where ever the President is staying or meeting, Trafalgar square etc.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Your response seem to indicate you believe I am against protesting. I say again that that is not my position. Definitely allow protests but don't its appropriate that any invited foreign/ally dignitary should be faced with a mocking and childish baby blimp.

As far as what I think would be appropriate? The traditional stuff -- select areas/routes such as along the limo route, airport, a distance away but still visible to where ever the President is staying or meeting, Trafalgar square etc.

Nah.

[RainMaker]

Well you asked whether it should be allowed.

If the question is whether I find it "appropriate" or not, no. It's pretty tame to what we've seen globally in protests. London is also a city that Trump has trashed and spread lies about. He has also tried to weaken their defense and sided with one of their hostile neighbors.

I think if a foreign leader had spoken about our country and our city the way Trump has, they'd likely meet some harsh protesting too. Talk shit and people will talk shit back. That's life.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Well you asked whether it should be allowed.

If the question is whether I find it "appropriate" or not, no. It's pretty tame to what we've seen globally in protests. London is also a city that Trump has trashed and spread lies about. He has also tried to weaken their defense and sided with one of their hostile neighbors.

I think if a foreign leader had spoken about our country and our city the way Trump has, they'd likely meet some harsh protesting too. Talk shit and people will talk shit back. That's life.

Good point, I did change the nuance from "re: appropriate" to "appropriate to allow" in the past couple responses. To be fair, I did use appropriate pretty consistently in prior posts and did not mean to say protests should not be allowed.

I'm glad we agree on it being not appropriate, protests should be allowed, and that Trump does talk smack.

[booradley]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They don't really care about that stuff. As seen by the fact most red states are economically in the toilet and have such low income levels. If being wealthy mattered to voters in Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas so much, they'd probably have tried voting for a different party by now.

The economy is doing well which makes the tariff stuff so confusing. Why fuck up something that is actually going in your favor with a super far-left policy? Then again, it's a guy who couldn't turn a profit on a casino.

They don't care about this stuff? It's exactly what people care about, based on numerous conversations I've had. I'm just saying - don't act all shocked when this dude wins reelection. Love him or hate him, I really don't think he's going anywhere. Well, you know, unless he's legally incriminated. But that's a whole nuther discussion ...

[JPhillips]

Most of the time incumbents get reelected, so that should be a part of the discussion, but he's also historically unpopular at this point. I'm not sure any of that matters, though, at this point because ten million news cycles will happen between now and November 2020.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Talk shit and people will talk shit back. That's life.

I think this should be posted at the very top of Facebook/Twitter/Insta for all to see on a never ending loop. I may get tshirts made for all my kids with this on it, just so they remember as they get older.

[stevew]

How do you do a baby Trump without the appropriate baby dick

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by booradley

They don't care about this stuff? It's exactly what people care about, based on numerous conversations I've had. I'm just saying - don't act all shocked when this dude wins reelection. Love him or hate him, I really don't think he's going anywhere. Well, you know, unless he's legally incriminated. But that's a whole nuther discussion ...

He's a historically unpopular president during a good economy. That's rather unprecedented. If the Mueller investigation hasn't wrapped up or if economy starts to slide I don't see him seeking reelection.

We are overdue for a recession and with the deficit where it is right now getting out of it is going to be a challenge when it hits. I'm excited to see how the GOP blames Dems when the time comes.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by booradley

They don't care about this stuff? It's exactly what people care about, based on numerous conversations I've had. I'm just saying - don't act all shocked when this dude wins reelection. Love him or hate him, I really don't think he's going anywhere. Well, you know, unless he's legally incriminated. But that's a whole nuther discussion ...

I don't think they care. Like I said, most red states are in the toilet economically and have been for half a century. They still heavily vote for Republicans and their policies. So either they don't care about the economics or they're dumb enough to think tax cuts just need another 40 years to trickle down.

I wouldn't be surprised if he won re-election. I just think it would be on other issues like immigration, sexual control, and so on. If these voters really cared about increased jobs and the stock market going up, they'd have loved Obama.