“The Movement We Started Is Only Just Beginning” – President Trump Promises His Movement Will Live O

A lot of terms begin with 'F' and 'P' and it is not hard to come up with applicable ones but let's not presume.

 

Are you saying T likes to grab 'em by the P? And after that, they get to F'in?

 

Yet another empty ad hominem personal attack.

I cited this dictionary definition:

"Garrison state definition is - a state organized to serve primarily its own need for military security; also : a state maintained by military power."
MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, Garrison State | Definition of Garrison State by Merriam ...
Search domain www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/garrison statehttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/garrison state

"Bullshit"?

 

Indeed. The bullshit is your attempt to paint the Biden election as illegitimate and the protection needed during the inauguration as proof that the government is a military dictatorship.
Sorry if the truth hurts your feelings, but frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

 

The only movement of Dirty Donalds that is still active is his bowel movements because he's so full of ****.

 

Amen!

THE DEMOCRATS’ LATEST ROUND OF HYSTERIA HAS FLOPPED

The public is not impressed with their antics: The most recent Rasmussen Survey, the last of the Trump administration, supports that view:

In President Trump’s final Presidential Tracking Poll, 51% of Likely U.S. Voters approved of his job performance. Forty-eight percent (48%) disapproved.​

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archi...rats-latest-round-of-hysteria-has-flopped.php

 

Yet another unresponsive irrational ad hominem personal attack.

The inconvenient truth about the Biden Inauguration:
1. Several divisions of armed troops.
2. Hundreds of thousands of flags.
3. A few politicians and their minions.

The thing speaks for itself. It Was "A Triumph of the Will", but not of the will of the American people.

 

YOUR biggest *LOSER* has an approval rating BELOW 39%.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

 

Even thats high IMO.

 

I do have to laugh every time I read the title of this thread 'Movement we started...." Trumperism isn't a movement, a movement rallies around an idea or set of ideas and goals, trumperism is a cult, it rallies around a person with no ideas and no goals outside of the one person. Definition of a cult.

 

Yup, I saw one poll right after the failed insurrection where he was at 29% but it is the average of all polls that give the most accurate reading.

 

Why is it bad to believe that our government should help our workers by renegotiating trade deals that result in excessive outsourcing?
And why is it bad to correctly identify group think as racism?

Trump has a lot of appeal to a lot of people. I think next GOP leader who adapts some of Trump’s platform will enjoy significant support.

 

Because paying more for goods and/or services makes terrible economic sense. It makes us less competitive in the global market. I hope you don't need it explained to you as to why thats bad... Anyway, this tenant was never a GOP principle - it was a democrat ideal!!!!

Groupthink? This was a trump platform point?

Indeed, a lot of STUPID STUPID people. Just look at the Capital riot, those were not our best, most enlightened citizens.

trump had no platform per se. It's just the truth. He appealed to people because his team came up with prepubescent nick names for his opponents.

 

I didn’t expect you to understand...

 

Oh right, you were making some deep philosophic comment on trumps platform. Too freaking funny.

 

If that had actually happened you may have a point, but it didn't.
It has nothing to do with my post however other than making my point.

 

You said Trump following is a cult that has no legitimate ideas or goals.
I listed a few examples and you brush them off as something that never happened. Trump was really vocal about unfair trade practices and illegal immigration - very real and legitimate issues that touch every American every day.
If Democrats were really concerned about average folk, why didn’t they assist Trump in confronting our trade partners and in efforts to get a better deal? Aren’t we all worried about people who lose their jobs due to outsourcing? Isn’t it good for poor people to have more job opportunities? The trade agreements were initially designed as a wealth transfer tool to raise some poorer countries like Mexico and China above poverty. It’s been a while now, average Americans are hurting from these deals, why not renegotiate them and give our own citizens a better fighting chance? Why is it racist to worry about your own citizens? Why is it racism to oppose illegal immigration? Why can’t we all just stick to our own rules and apply them universally? After all, that’s what Trump was all about - it’s not a cult, it’s raw common sense unwrapped from politically correct BS.

 

You can find someone else to support those policies without Trump. IF he's broken the law, he deserves punishment.

 

Where exactly am I being “far off the rails”? Or is this just an attempt to inflict an insult?

 

Read your post, but do it without the far right glasses on.

 

Okay, thanks for clarifying - it was an insult.
I reported it.
Bye!

 

Shocking.

 

The problem with this is you're wrapping the Trump presidency with free trade. That's one issue, the results of which are debatable.

It's called a cult not because of any policy decisions over the last four years. It's because of behavior.

 

The trade issue is complex. Republicans use to support tariffs and became free traders in the 20th century, particularly after WW II. Former Republican Senator Phil Gramm, of Texas, and a former economics professor from Texas A & M, was one of the foremost leaders of the Republican move toward free trade. It was a curious move, perhaps more reflective of big oil and corporate America's move toward globalism than anything else. Free trade tends to be supported by nations that run large trade surpluses, based on those who produce the best products, at the best prices. Since a tariff is basically a tax on consumers, free trade would open markets in countries with less advanced economies, drive down the prices of U.S. exports and expand U.S. foreign markets. Those economic principles led Republican acceptance of free trade, with Democrats adopting it in their own academic support for globalization.

It largely failed. Trump and his economic advisor's, rejecting globalism, and supporting a renewed nationalism, as well as noting our trade deficits took what they believed to be a more pragmatic policy of restoring tariffs, in recognition of our trade policy failures. Unfortunately, their return to a form of "economic nationalism" was probably too little too late. A major purpose for globalization was for global stability (no more world wars, important in a nuclear age) and in the expansion of markets. The latter was supported by business/corporate America in the same way the Marshall Plan, which provided a source for the financing the rebuilding of Europe following WW II, helped to create new foreign markets for American exports. Had we returned to "economic nationalism" and tariffs 40 or 50 years ago, maybe it would have had some effect in regard to bringing old jobs home. Today, however, it is more likely it will only encourage the more rapid decline of the U.S. as a major global player and promote growth elsewhere...such as the European Union, India, China, et al. Ultimately, technology will drive globalization for the same reason people climb mountains...because they can.

 

Thoughtful and well reasoned, but I'm not sure how much I agree with.

Technology has always driven globalization, be it driven by trade or conquest. From ancient ocean going vessels to today's supertankers and cargo jets. As technology progresses, production and subsequently trade, also progress.

I see globalization as the natural movement of capital. It's nothing new, and it can't be stopped.

Kublai Khan couldn't order his soybeans from Brazil in the 13th century. Xi Jinping can.