Nothing wrong with a geographic argument for his inauguration crowd.
In any case, I was only responding to your completely false claim that his supporters aren't welfare recipients. The places in this country where the highest proportion of people receive welfare voted for Trump by a wide margin. That is a fact.
Yes, because people who are getting poorer or whose incomes stagnate while they increase dramatically for the wealthy should be ignored. And those who cannot escape poverty are better off starving, not having healthcare, and being homeless, I suppose. The economy is holding people captive, not welfare.
Many people who don't enroll in welfare programs, despite being eligible, don't escape poverty either. That's the truth. Working in retail or food service for $8-13 an hour doesn't move people into the middle class, even after many years of work experience. Not to mention that many of these people can't find steady work at all and bounce from job to job, often unable to get enough hours.
Republicans have controlled the South for some time now, and these states often have lowest tax rates, fewest regulations, and least amount of welfare benefits. What has resulted? The least economically dynamic, most uneducated, poorest, and unhealthiest part of the country, often with low levels of GDP per capita. These are facts.
That's quite a mouthful. Don't confuse Democratic Socialism with Soviet-style Communism. The two are very, very different things. Democratic Socialism is primarily a form of capitalism with some socialism mixed in. I suppose countries like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, Iceland, and Austria are all doing terribly in your opinion. Not to mention that countries like Australia, Canada, the UK, Switzerland, Japan, and Germany are considerably more "socialist" than the US, but they seem to be doing just fine too.
I can go on and on about the problems and potential solutions for our country, but I'm not interested in a protracted discussion on the subject. I've had enough of them over the years. I'm not trying to get you to come over to my side. You're just as entitled to your opinion as I am. I was only responding to your false claim that people on welfare didn't vote for Trump, that's all.
Most minorities are overwhelmingly Democratic. I can post some exit polls if you'd like. Secondly, they don't vote for Democrats because of "welfare". Most of them are not on welfare. There are many issues that make them do so. And minimum wage raises, gun control, etc are not "hoaxes". Polling has consistently shown that minorities are much more liberal on almost all political issues than the country as a whole.
And, even very economically successful minorities like Asians are more Democratic than ever before thanks to the rightward, nativist lurch of the Republican party.
The vast majority of the people in the DC area are not tied to the federal government. This is a myth that has been debunked many times. It's just a self-deluding talking point parroted by right-wingers. The Washington DC metro does well because of the educational attainment of its workforce, the diversity of its economy, and simply because it is a major urban area to begin with that attracts professionals and corporations.
Another thing, most of the states that are most dependent on Federal aid are ones that Trump won:
View attachment 370964
Also, I have no idea what Trump's skin color has to do with it. I can assure you that this is not the case. Minorities liked Bill Clinton quite a bit. Although, there were a chunk of people who didn't like Obama because of the color of his skin (though certainly not a majority).
Again, your point about his inauguration crowd may or may not be a fair one---I don't know as I haven't compared his crowds to Bush or Clinton. I don't really care, personally.
However, the polling was fine when it came to understanding people's political preferences. Where it failed was when it came to predicting voter
turnout. More of those people did not vote than expected. This is why he continues to have an abysmal favorable rating. Many Democrats and moderates in the Midwest simply stayed home and some voted third party. I warned about that phenomenon on this very thread before the election. Trump narrowly won these states and the election (though Hillary still won the popular vote 48% to 46%).
True, people turned out in large numbers because of "hope" and "change"---rightly or wrongly.
Debatable. He made many changes, though perhaps not as many as he promised. Keep in mind that only Congress can pass laws, not the President. All he has is veto power. From 2011-2017 at least one house of Congress was controlled by the Republicans.
Absolutely false, I'm afraid. President Obama
repeatedly tried to work with the Republicans and compromise. So much so that many of his original backers like me became somewhat disappointed in him. But even then, the Republicans stonewalled everything he tried and even shut the Federal Government down at one point. In fact, Mitch McConnell (the Senate leader of the Republicans) set a
record for most filibusters in the Senate when his party was in the minority (until 2015), preventing a lot legislation from being passed.
Debatable. He's not an actor though. He's about as no-nonsense, straight-forward, and boring a President as we've had in years.
As for the "instrument of change" part, I personally agree that he came up a bit short. Though again, it largely wasn't up to him, but Congress. Still, he was a vast improvement over the disastrous Bush Administration.
Let's just agree to disagree on Trump. In my opinion, he's a fake, and he doesn't support many policies that will help bring about positive change---especially economically. But again, we all have our opinions.
Certainly not "overconfidence" or "show-boating"---again, he was pretty low-key and no-nonsense. But I do agree that he came up short on genuine economic development for the middle and working classes. Though he did pull the economy out of a nasty recession. I give him credit for that.
Yes, though a very bad choice, in my opinion. And Trump is very much a part of the economic elite, political or not.
Not at all.
He may have the brashness of Jackson, but without any of the economic and political benefits for the middle and working classes.
Hillary, perhaps. But not exactly Obama, he left office with a 60% approval rating:
View attachment 370974
