Real Data...

[_EAllusion]

Subs is repeating a popular theme among freeper types. The gimmick behind it is that most people in most nations, however bad their governments are, tend to be untouched by the negative consequences. Life goes on under the worst forms of government if you keep your nose down and plug along. You could ask the same question of citizens in Erodogan's Turkey.

None of us here are kids stripped from their parents by President Trump and thrown in a cage to suffer abuse. This kind of argument reminds me of the popular lament among Democrats about poor folks voting "against their interest" in voting Republican. The idea behind it is that it is more economically advantageous for a person of limited means to have Democrats in office than Republicans, and people of limited means are either too ignorant or too fooled to know this and properly align their interests. This line of reasoning simply discounts the idea that a person's political concerns can extend beyond their own naked self-interest. Other people matter too and what is right is not simply a matter of what advances self-interest.

It's no trouble at all to explain how President Trump has made people's lives worse than they otherwise would have been in aggregate or how his assault on the norms of liberal democracy create substantial risk of making people's lives much worse in the future. So this theme has to side-step that debate entirely and presume that anyone posting here is in in the ever-present majority of people for whom life more or less goes on no matter what government you live under.

[_Kevin Graham]

Subs is repeating a popular theme among freeper types. The gimmick behind it is that most people in most nations, however bad their governments are, tend to be untouched by the negative consequences. Life goes on under the worst forms of government if you keep your nose down and plug along. You could ask the same question of citizens in Erodogan's Turkey.

You could also ask the same of people who complained that Obama got re-elected in 2012. Virtually everything improved between 2012 and 2016.

The idea behind it is that it is more economically advantageous for a person of limited means to have Democrats in office than Republicans, and people of limited means are either too ignorant or too fooled to know this and properly align their interests. This line of reasoning simply discounts the idea that a person's political concerns can extend beyond their own naked self-interest. Other people matter too and what is right is not simply a matter of what advances self-interest.

Exactly. Which is funny because they always say things like poor people only vote Democrat because they want free stuff. Subs only cares about how his immediate finances will improve or not. That's why he votes the way he does, and he just proved it.

[_EAllusion]

Come to think of it, the lack of future orientation in this question is obnoxious. Drastically raising the national deficit or forestalling more aggressive action on climate change will have real consequences in the future. To the latter, quite likely dire ones. Acting as though that isn't real is ridiculous. It's like someone unsustainably running up credit card debt and demanding to know what's wrong because they haven't been denied a housing loan today.

[_Xenophon]

Come to think of it, the lack of future orientation in this question is obnoxious. Drastically raising the national deficit or forestalling more aggressive action on climate change will have real consequences in the future. To the latter, quite likely dire ones. Acting as though that isn't real is ridiculous. It's like someone unsustainably running up credit card debt and demanding to know what's wrong because they haven't been denied a housing loan today.

This was my thought as well. I'd say generally a President's actions matter very little in the short term, it takes a long time for some of these actions to ripple out into the world. As an example I know plenty of people who weren't around alive when we began the "war on drugs" but that doesn't mean their lives weren't harshly impacted by the continued consequences from it. It is incredibly short sighted to believe this administration's policies and stances on immigration, climate change, extremism within their party, international relations (to name just a few) won't have long term & far reaching impacts.

[_canpakes]

I have gotten an increase in salary bonuses and rate of pay raise directly due to the business tax changes.
worse automobile drivers.

Your situation may be different than most. Here’s an interesting article that discusses the tax law changes with respect to architecture and engineering firms.

https://www.lanepowell.com/Our-Insights ... -Proves-It

ETA: your perception of the overall situation speaks to EA’s comment about naked self interest.

[_EAllusion]

It took a while, but the "lock her up" chant has fully morphed into "lock whomever the Democratic opponent is up" chant.

Subs take on this, if you could actually catch him being honest, is likely that this is all in good fun and don't take it so seriously. Have you seen anyone actually locked up? The idea that this inculcates a level of contempt for and comfort with the rule of law not applying to political enemies that is genuinely dangerous is lost on him. There's a cliché' that when an authoritarian tells you what they want to do, believe them. That's because we have decades of experience going back at least to fascist Europe in the 30's of authoritarians hiding behind the respectability power gives them and a "are they actually serious?" confusion as they gradually move a society towards the outcomes people, especially journalists insisted were mere hyperbole. This stuff has real consequences.