• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Slowing economy complicates campaign messaging for Trump

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,771
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Slowing economy complicates campaign messaging for Trump | TheHill


President Trump is heading into the 2020 campaign with a resilient economy behind him and new trade deals under his belt, counting on both to help bolster his reelection odds.

But as Trump claims credit for extending the longest-ever stretch of U.S. economic prosperity, recent government figures show he is falling far short of his promise to accelerate the economy.


And global Trumpfluenza is not going to help either the economy or him
 
Last edited:
I don't think many Americans have noticed a slowing economy if it even actually exists. Kinda a like the global warming hoax people don't care they just go about living their lives.
 
Slowing economy complicates campaign messaging for Trump

not unless it crashes, and maybe not even then. even if there's a crash, he can say that the economy is actually doing better than ever and that Democrats are responsible for the horrible crash in the same sentence. his cult will consider that to be 3d chess.
 
I don't think many Americans have noticed a slowing economy if it even actually exists. Kinda a like the global warming hoax people don't care they just go about living their lives.

No hurry. Just wait. Stocks are down, gold & silver are up. International trade is grinding down. Nothing to see here...yet
 
Slowing economy complicates campaign messaging for Trump | TheHill


President Trump is heading into the 2020 campaign with a resilient economy behind him and new trade deals under his belt, counting on both to help bolster his reelection odds.

But as Trump claims credit for extending the longest-ever stretch of U.S. economic prosperity, recent government figures show he is falling far short of his promise to accelerate the economy.


And global Trumpfluenza is not going to help the economy or him

Hmmm...

I wonder what would have happened to the economy if that Queen of the Trump haters...Pelosi...hadn't sat on the USMCA for a year?

I wonder what would have happened to the economy if the Fed had taken Trump's advice way back in 2017 and reduced interest rates?

I wonder what would have happened to the economy if the rest of the government had supported Trump?

The fact that Trump...in the face of constant opposition from the rest of the government...has managed to boost our economy as much as he has is undeniable evidence that he knows what he's doing...and what he wants to do.

He needs support instead of opposition.
 
Ah yes those tax cuts that were going to send the economy into the stratosphere and push Corps to add 1,000's of jobs.. I remember AT&T saying if those cuts were made they'd hire 1,000's... Instead it turns out lately they've fired 10,000's of employees.

I'm sure their execs are still making millions though.
 
No hurry. Just wait. Stocks are down, gold & silver are up. International trade is grinding down. Nothing to see here...yet

Are you building a global warming bunker? The temperature 20 ft down is a constant 50 degrees F or so. You could ride out climate change down there for decades.
 
Slowing economy complicates campaign messaging for Trump | TheHill


President Trump is heading into the 2020 campaign with a resilient economy behind him and new trade deals under his belt, counting on both to help bolster his reelection odds.

But as Trump claims credit for extending the longest-ever stretch of U.S. economic prosperity, recent government figures show he is falling far short of his promise to accelerate the economy.


And global Trumpfluenza is not going to help either the economy or him
Unless there's a killer crash that's obvious to everyone, I doubt it will matter to Trump supporters. They don't pay attention to facts, the get their information from Trump & his media. And Trump and his media are telling them the economy has never been better.
 
Are you building a global warming bunker? The temperature 20 ft down is a constant 50 degrees F or so. You could ride out climate change down there for decades.

Just wait. Nature is not in a hurry. Why are you apparently? Just to prove me wrong that we are seeing all-time record forest & brush fires & rising sea levels because the glaciers are melting? Nothing to see here. Move along.
 
Unless there's a killer crash that's obvious to everyone, I doubt it will matter to Trump supporters. They don't pay attention to facts, the get their information from Trump & his media. And Trump and his media are telling them the economy has never been better.

I truly think it is counterproductive to keep insulting folks who support Trump. It probably makes some more entrenched in their thinking. It also allows for the disgrace that happened on CNN with Don Lemon. Did not see it but it seems he was laughing at insulting jokes.

Actions such as these probably makes many who don't consider themselves coastal elites oppose those arrogant enough to demean them.
 
Cool now explain how you sell a $15 Minimum wage to the same people you are selling the economy is tanking to....
 
I truly think it is counterproductive to keep insulting folks who support Trump. It probably makes some more entrenched in their thinking. It also allows for the disgrace that happened on CNN with Don Lemon. Did not see it but it seems he was laughing at insulting jokes.

Actions such as these probably makes many who don't consider themselves coastal elites oppose those arrogant enough to demean them.
You know, I believe you are acting with good motive here. And it is giving me pause.

But I do believe not all, but a great many of Trump's supporters do believe exactly as I described. You and I have discussion to the contrary, for instance on the state of the economy. But I can show you legions of Trump supporters posting on this forum that will attempt to portray the 2.3% GDP growth we currently enjoy as hyperbolicly being the "best of any President ever" or some other nonsense. And those thinking like that are not isolated or rare.

So I apologize if I inadvertently insulted you and other reasonably principled Trump supporters. I will move forward trying to be more cognizant and measured in my generalizations. But I know what I'm seeing in a great many Trump supporters, even if not applicable to all of them.

And to my original comment? I do believe barring an extreme crash, a great many Trump supporters will not recognize a legit economic downturn if Trump, the GOP, and the Trump-GOP media machine & surrogates fill their heads with hyperbole that reflects otherwise. I see too many regular examples to believe otherwise.

Anyway, I do thank you for your comment. I do appreciate it. Every now and then it is good to re-examine ourselves and our actions & positions, and I'm surely no exception.
 
You know, I believe you are acting with good motive here. And it is giving me pause.

But I do believe not all, but a great many of Trump's supporters do believe exactly as I described. You and I have discussion to the contrary, for instance on the state of the economy. But I can show you legions of Trump supporters posting on this forum that will attempt to portray the 2.3% GDP growth we currently enjoy as hyperbolicly being the "best of any President ever" or some other nonsense. And those thinking like that are not isolated or rare.

So I apologize if I inadvertently insulted you and other reasonably principled Trump supporters. I will move forward trying to be more cognizant and measured in my generalizations. But I know what I'm seeing in a great many Trump supporters, even if not applicable to all of them.

And to my original comment? I do believe barring an extreme crash, a great many Trump supporters will not recognize a legit economic downturn if Trump, the GOP, and the Trump-GOP media machine & surrogates fill their heads with hyperbole that reflects otherwise. I see too many regular examples to believe otherwise.

Anyway, I do thank you for your comment. I do appreciate it. Every now and then it is good to re-examine ourselves and our actions & positions, and I'm surely no exception.

Thanks for the response. Just so you know I took no offense to your post. We have bantered back and forth enough that I think we respect each others opinions even (especially) when we don't agree.

Does this president use wild statements more than most presidents? I would say yes. Are followers of this president more sheep like than followers of past presidents. Not sure I would agree with that one. The rise of social media and cable talk shows exasperate the differences IMHO.
 
Thanks for the response. Just so you know I took no offense to your post. We have bantered back and forth enough that I think we respect each others opinions even (especially) when we don't agree.
Thanks!

Does this president use wild statements more than most presidents? I would say yes. Are followers of this president more sheep like than followers of past presidents. Not sure I would agree with that one. The rise of social media and cable talk shows exasperate the differences IMHO.
I can respect this. I do admire that you are virtually always measured. That's a great quality.
 
I wonder what would have happened to the economy if that Queen of the Trump haters...Pelosi...hadn't sat on the USMCA for a year?

I don't....

I wonder what would have happened to the economy if the Fed had taken Trump's advice way back in 2017 and reduced interest rates?

I don't.

I wonder what would have happened to the economy if the rest of the government had supported Trump?

Any hope of blind bipartisanship had been thrown out the window given the GOP obstructed the recovery from day one of the Obama Presidency.

The fact that Trump...in the face of constant opposition from the rest of the government...has managed to boost our economy as much as he has is undeniable evidence that he knows what he's doing...and what he wants to do.

You'r delusional. The fiscal deficit was $984 billion. Government spending is up. The tax cuts are in full effect. Unemployment is at 3.5%. Looks like you folks were dead wrong this whole time.
 
His cult will consider that to be 3d chess.

Keep talking like that and you will contribute to his reelection.

You're like most people in the media or the academia, so profoundly blinded by your personal dislike of his all too obvious flaws of character to recognize the man actually picked up legitimate concerns. While Democrats are busy chasing after a minority of radicals on the far left who dominate discussions in narrow online spaces, he's talking to Joe and Jane Average. During his State of the Union address, he used roughly the first 30 minutes to talk about good news for America: there have been exceptional gains of income made by low income and the middle class during his first three years in office, and major improvement in employment prospects for black people, hispanic people and women. He made references to history and the improvements America has made over time in how faithfully it implements the ideals of individual liberty and of the equality of all people in rights. He celebrated the efforts of black veterans prior to the 1970s, made on behalf of a nation which was still discriminating massively against them. He even promoted a veteran to the grade of general as symbolic gesture on behalf of the whole country...

Regardless of what you think of the man and regardless of how much you think he has to do with any of those things, those things should be considered to be excellent news and a unifying narrative. Guess who acted like absolute spoiled brats during the event? Democrats couldn't even get themselves to applaud good news for the little guys and little gals of the country, or to celebrate the message Donald Trump was delivering about making good on the promise embedded in the Declaration of Independance. Hell, even when he spoke up about a bi-partisan bill, it took everything for Democrats to cheer.


And, his followers are the ones enrolled in a cult. Get your head out of your a**. Most conservatives do not hail Donald Trump a some kind of political genius, let alone a moral examplar they would wish their kids emulate. What they actually say is forget the Twitter nonsense and look at the results. If from now until the election, Donald Trump would talk like he talked at the SOTU address and would stop insulting people on Twitter, he'd win his office with a massive landslide in November. It would be Reagan circa 1980 all over again, hands down. The figures are just too good and the Democrats are just too busy shooting in their own feet to do anything about it.

Don't like him if you want, but at the moment he's the only guy out there who's not an insane radical and who actually sides with ordinary people. That kind of slanted comment is exactly how he'll get reelected: people mostly from the left who hate him so much they end up looking like they're siding with elites at every step of the way.
 
Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Nobody takes massivelty biased people like you seriously on economics. Nuance.

People on the right tend to exaggerate some things, but they rarely make the most absurd statements. For example, if you believe in the efficient market hypothesis, you would be demonstrably wrong. Specifically, I can devise very complicated trading strategies that seem to earn unjustifiably large returns, establish a limited capacity to forecast returns or look into violations of cross-equation restrictions imposed on the term structure of virtually all derivative securities. However, you wouldn't be very wrong. You'd be just a tad wrong. Someone who would believe the opposite extreme (that investors are collectively stupid) would be making a massive mistake on the other hand. The issues with the EMH are small and most of them cannot be profitably exploited after taking into account things like transaction costs.

That's obviously just one example. I could make the list much longer. We'd find some mistakes on the right and some mistakes on the left. But, in my experience, the most absurd mistakes come from the left and I say this as someone who leans slightly to the left.

People on the left tend to exaggerate the problems decentralized decision making processes will experience and to exaggerate the capacity of governments to meaningful remedy any potential problems. Just to be clear, it's not because we suspect a market solution is not optimal in a certain sense that the space for improvement will be captured by governmental authorities. The space exists because you can imagine an ideal, benevolent planner who could devise a perfect policy that would correct the problem partly or entirely. But the reality is not as simple as that: the government is not a benevolant social planner. It's a collection of individuals with limited information and conflicting interests.

It's very easy for private interests to manipulate regulations, tax policy or subsidy programs in ways that make the problems you'd be trying to correct even worse. If you just want one example, think about trying to promote competitive markets. Incumbents are (1) easily identifiable, (2) have clear interests and (3) can organize among themselves to lobby the government. Challengers may not even know themselves, let alone each other. It's conceivable that changes in the policy environments can make some people give up on starting a business altogether. In that world, the benefits of a twisted policy that helps existing firms at the expense of new businesses (and consummers, by extension) are very concentrated and obvious, but the costs are very diffuse. They're shared across masses of people who might not even be aware that they're getting screwed. That kind of coordination and knowledge problem arise in a lot of issues involving regulations. It's not obvious to me that you will get good enough approximations to the right policy to improve upon market interactions in the real world most of the time, let alone all the time... But most people on the left tend to overlook that concern. For some reason, they have this tendency to view centralized action as better because it's planned, thought out, while the decentralized process will result in a spontaneous type of order that nobody planned. There is no grand theory behind markets, just practical, first hand knowledged conveyed by the impact of myriad of decisions on pricing.

I do not suffer from the illusion that it's perfect, nor from the illusion that it can never be improved upon by imperfect policies... but that's because I am an economist and I bother about details. Most people will make either types of mistakes very frequently.
 
Keep talking like that and you will contribute to his reelection.

You're like most people in the media or the academia, so profoundly blinded by your personal dislike of his all too obvious flaws of character to recognize the man actually picked up legitimate concerns. While Democrats are busy chasing after a minority of radicals on the far left who dominate discussions in narrow online spaces, he's talking to Joe and Jane Average. During his State of the Union address, he used roughly the first 30 minutes to talk about good news for America: there have been exceptional gains of income made by low income and the middle class during his first three years in office, and major improvement in employment prospects for black people, hispanic people and women. He made references to history and the improvements America has made over time in how faithfully it implements the ideals of individual liberty and of the equality of all people in rights. He celebrated the efforts of black veterans prior to the 1970s, made on behalf of a nation which was still discriminating massively against them. He even promoted a veteran to the grade of general as symbolic gesture on behalf of the whole country...

Regardless of what you think of the man and regardless of how much you think he has to do with any of those things, those things should be considered to be excellent news and a unifying narrative. Guess who acted like absolute spoiled brats during the event? Democrats couldn't even get themselves to applaud good news for the little guys and little gals of the country, or to celebrate the message Donald Trump was delivering about making good on the promise embedded in the Declaration of Independance. Hell, even when he spoke up about a bi-partisan bill, it took everything for Democrats to cheer.


And, his followers are the ones enrolled in a cult. Get your head out of your a**. Most conservatives do not hail Donald Trump a some kind of political genius, let alone a moral examplar they would wish their kids emulate. What they actually say is forget the Twitter nonsense and look at the results. If from now until the election, Donald Trump would talk like he talked at the SOTU address and would stop insulting people on Twitter, he'd win his office with a massive landslide in November. It would be Reagan circa 1980 all over again, hands down. The figures are just too good and the Democrats are just too busy shooting in their own feet to do anything about it.

Don't like him if you want, but at the moment he's the only guy out there who's not an insane radical and who actually sides with ordinary people. That kind of slanted comment is exactly how he'll get reelected: people mostly from the left who hate him so much they end up looking like they're siding with elites at every step of the way.

i will continue to be very presidential.
 
Nobody takes massivelty biased people like you seriously on economics. Nuance.

People on the right tend to exaggerate some things, but they rarely make the most absurd statements. For example, if you believe in the efficient market hypothesis, you would be demonstrably wrong.
I believe this is a fundamental misunderstanding on your part. The efficient market hypothesis in this case, is "full employment of resources in the market for labor" by solving for the deleterious capital effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner and with existing legal and physical infrastructure.

By providing recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States we can ensure capital circulates efficiently enough for a positive multiplier effect. Increasing market participation is an increase in efficiency under capitalism Because capital circulates more efficiently in a market economy under Capitalism.

Here is the social/political equivalent:

If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost.

Aristotle
 
Last edited:
I truly think it is counterproductive to keep insulting folks who support Trump. It probably makes some more entrenched in their thinking. It also allows for the disgrace that happened on CNN with Don Lemon. Did not see it but it seems he was laughing at insulting jokes.

Actions such as these probably makes many who don't consider themselves coastal elites oppose those arrogant enough to demean them.

I see what you’re saying. But on the other hand, I think many of these Trump supporters think that the fact that Trump can be so shockingly rude, boorish, shameless, and arrogant just proves his manhood, and the fact that no one is rude back to him just shows how much a p—-y these rivals are. Like a fifth grade schoolyard bully, these folks may not understand anything but a good solid punch in the nose.

That’s why I am a little ambivalent about Pelosi’s ripping up of trumps speech. Yes, it was unprecedented, rude, and classless. And yet, it was right out of Trump’s playbook. It’s hard to be in a pigpen with a pig and not get yourself a little muddy.
 
I believe this is a fundamental misunderstanding on your part. The efficient market hypothesis in this case, is "full employment of resources in the market for labor" (...).

There is only one thing we call the "efficient market hypothesis" and it refers specifically to the informational efficiency of financial markets. And I chose to use it to illustrate a point.

(...) by solving for the deleterious capital effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner and with existing legal and physical infrastructure.

Capital refers to something specific in economics: we're talking about tools, machines, buildings, softwares, etc. I don't see that as having "deleterious effects." Outside of economics, capital means funds... again, I don't see that as having "deleterious effects."

By providing recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States we can ensure capital circulates efficiently enough for a positive multiplier effect.

Providing unemployment benefits may be desirable for an entire hosts of reasons, but increasing efficiency is certainly not one of them. Paying people to not work makes unemployment relatively more appealing: it can help some workers have a higher threat points for negociations, but it can also make people more inclined to leave their jobs or to move in between jobs more frequently to capture the gains without the efforts. Get your head out of your a**.

Increasing market participation is an increase in efficiency under capitalism because capital circulates more efficiently in a market economy under capitalism.

That sentence makes absolutely no sense.
 
But on the other hand, I think many of these Trump supporters think that the fact that Trump can be so shockingly rude, boorish, shameless, and arrogant just proves his manhood, and the fact that no one is rude back to him just shows how much a p—-y these rivals are. Like a fifth grade schoolyard bully, these folks may not understand anything but a good solid punch in the nose.

When conservative politicians and pundits disagree with people on the left, more often than not they claim that people on the left are wrong. Very often, they will even try to explain why a certain policy might be expected to backfire. I will grant right away that not all of them will be exceptionally civil all the time, but even as someone who often finds myself in disagreement with many of those people, I'd say most of the time it's really about arguing over what they perceive to be mistakes, errors and misunderstanding.

When liberal politicians and pundits disagree with people on the right, they do not limit themselves to claim that those people are wrong. Most of the time, they will try to make the point that they are malign, evil. Of course, there are very prominent counterexamples such as Barack Obama. It's one of the things that I like about him: he has never been very inclined to demonize the opposition. He is willing to talk over disagreements, to figure out compromise and to seek ways to strike deals even with people who insulted him. I even remember Paul Krugman and others from the NY Times complaining about Obama being too nice with Republicans and it shows. If you ask Obama what he thinks about a problem, he can weigh pros and cons, go through arguments people on the right will tend to make and provide response without relying on strawmen. That guy clearly listened when people criticized his ideas and took some of the criticism on board.

However, Barack Obama does not seem to be the typical Democrat anymore as far as the politicians, though not necessarily the voting base is concerned. What at least a sizable portion of people on the left do is accuse the right of being insensitive, bigoted, racist and then some on frankly tenuous grounds. If you want an example of this, consider the two press conferences Donald Trump held years ago following the Charlottesville incident. What most of the media and most of the left got out of those two conferences is the infamous "nice people" commentary. They made the point, ad nauseam that Donald Trump was speaking about Nazis and White Supremacists... However, this interpretation is completely inconsistent with what Donald Trump actually said. If he was talking about the violence, this would have required him to call both Nazis and Antifa "nice people." Even I would not call anyone supporting or participating in Antifa protests "nice people." More to the point, in the second commentary he provided, he explicitly said that "racism is evil" (I'm quoting him verbatim) and he spent about 3 minutes ripping on white supremacy and neonazis. He call them evil, bigotted, racist and he explained that those ideas are antithetical to the promise of the Declaration of Independance, basically calling all of them unamerican and unpatriotic.

The truth is that Donald Trump never explicitly took the side of any racist group, but he explicitly denounced them. To call him a racist is to try to divine intentions he never expressed. Granted, the guy makes stupid comments on Twitter, but I suspect he is trying to get people on the left mad for political gains more than anything else. Irrespective of that point, where I am getting at here is that people on the left, especially more radical people on the left, have been bullying people on the right for decades. If you ask an average conservative or an average moderate if they could befriend liberals and hang out with them, they tend to reply in the positive. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to reply in the negative...


It's not some kind of macho nonsense that people like about Trump. What some of them like is that they finally have a guy who throws punches back. It's granted that he is not making the atmosphere better in Washington D.C., but he's not responsible for the foul air. He is merely the sane, strategically sound response to aggressive leftists in the media, the academia, and elsewhere who spend their time demonizing everyone on the right. It's also granted that most ordinary Joes and Janes such as you or me don't do that, but I am not a news anchor and neither are you. Donald Trump is a gigantic middle finger to people like Don Lemon. If Democrats and journalists were more moderate, none of this would work.
 
There is only one thing we call the "efficient market hypothesis" and it refers specifically to the informational efficiency of financial markets. And I chose to use it to illustrate a point.
.
I believe in object orientation in modern broadband times, don't you?

This is a subset of that theory, it is an efficient market hypothesis in modern times not the Age of Iron; the specific informational inefficiency in this case (which affects financial markets) is unequal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. Otherwise, we could have solved simple poverty, Yesterday; but for the social Horror for the right that the Poor may benefit under Capitalism (without working "hard enough"). The Richest have no recourse unless they dig ditches in front of car washes on a hot summer day to convince us. Employment is at the will of either party. That is equality for any benefits administered by any State agency.
 
Last edited:
Capital refers to something specific in economics: we're talking about tools, machines, buildings, softwares, etc. I don't see that as having "deleterious effects." Outside of economics, capital means funds... again, I don't see that as having "deleterious effects."
That is what I am referring to under our form of Capitalism. We can have a capital good conversation under Capitalism. Market participation under our form of Capitalism is usually a requirement for capital to be used under truer forms of Capitalism. We should have no Homeless problem with equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, with or without a fifteen dollar an hour statutory minimum wage.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom