Trump's (blank)hole comment.....

[jp1]

Obummer had the opposite affect.

Yes, the economy positively tanked under Obama...

[jp1]

The thing I find fascinating is that most conservatives, who supposedly venerate the constitution and all that it stands for, seem to be perfectly fine with a president who routinely attacks and undermines all of it. From questioning the legitimacy of decisions by the judiciary branch, to attacking the motives of our law enforcement agencies and the individuals in them, to questioning the honesty and integrity of our free independent press and granting access to the press based on who will do the most suck-uppy story. What exactly will we have left if he succeeds in sowing permanent doubt in the whole structure of our constitution and government? I suppose if one wants a revolution maybe this could all be viewed as a good thing, but I didn't think revolution was something most conservatives want.

[JaneV2.0]

The thing I find fascinating is that most conservatives, who supposedly venerate the constitution and all that it stands for, seem to be perfectly fine with a president who routinely attacks and undermines all of it. From questioning the legitimacy of decisions by the judiciary branch, to attacking the motives of our law enforcement agencies and the individuals in them, to questioning the honesty and integrity of our free independent press and granting access to the press based on who will do the most suck-uppy story. What exactly will we have left if he succeeds in sowing permanent doubt in the whole structure of our constitution and government? I suppose if one wants a revolution maybe this could all be viewed as a good thing, but I didn't think revolution was something most conservatives want.

For a lot of Republicans, that veneration of the Constitution is just a pose, much like Christianity, "family values," support for the troops and personal freedoms, "law and order," and others. It's really about money and control, as far as I can tell.

[Tammy]

The economy tanked under Bush. Obama's inherited it and did a lot to fix it.

[iris lilies]

The thing I find fascinating is that most conservatives, who supposedly venerate the constitution and all that it stands for, seem to be perfectly fine with a president who routinely attacks and undermines all of it. From questioning the legitimacy of decisions by the judiciary branch, to attacking the motives of our law enforcement agencies and the individuals in them, to questioning the honesty and integrity of our free independent press and granting access to the press based on who will do the most suck-uppy story. What exactly will we have left if he succeeds in sowing permanent doubt in the whole structure of our constitution and government? I suppose if one wants a revolution maybe this could all be viewed as a good thing, but I didn't think revolution was something most conservatives want.

The biggest PITA in political discussion is when you liberals tell me what I think about a situation you have framed.

You know jp, I could actually tell you what I think, but you would likely tell me I am wrong.

So go forth and bat at the strawman, fan your outrage, Be my guest and enjoy yourself while at it!

[catherine]

I've always been somewhat skeptical of attaching much credit or blame for swings in the economy to presidents. It's almost a sort of cargo cult mentality, attributing mystical powers to an individual rather than the billions of daily decisions made by millions of people (and increasingly, their machines). Was Mr. Obama really our savior in 2009? Do the financial markets really turn on Mr. Trump's tweets? I think presidents, along with many other individuals and institutions, can influence events, but generally not directly or immediately. It takes a lot of bad decisions by a lot of people over time to create a financial crisis, for instance.

I do think there's an overall tone set by a leader. Those day-to-day decisions I'm sure are consistent "visible signs" of that tone, but I believe that there's some ineffable vibe that permeates the country. I've mentioned this article before, but I love it and I think it's true--that the country picks up on the President's enjoyment of his role, for instance.
http://www.newsweek.com/happy-leader...-nation-151065

Just like golf is a head game, I think the stock market is t head game, where it rises and falls on the basis of totally capricious and emotional factors. So I think it is mystical factors that effect (not A-ffect, but E-ffect) the daily decisions.

[Williamsmith]

The economy tanked under Bush. Obama's inherited it and did a lot to fix it.

Tammy, I’m surprised you didn’t bring this to it’s logical conclusion....... “did a lot to fix it” and just when the economy was poised to make improvement Trump got elected and is now taking credit for it. There.

[LDAHL]

The thing I find fascinating is that most conservatives, who supposedly venerate the constitution and all that it stands for, seem to be perfectly fine with a president who routinely attacks and undermines all of it. From questioning the legitimacy of decisions by the judiciary branch, to attacking the motives of our law enforcement agencies and the individuals in them, to questioning the honesty and integrity of our free independent press and granting access to the press based on who will do the most suck-uppy story. What exactly will we have left if he succeeds in sowing permanent doubt in the whole structure of our constitution and government? I suppose if one wants a revolution maybe this could all be viewed as a good thing, but I didn't think revolution was something most conservatives want.

I take issue with a few of your premises.

As far as most conservatives being "perfectly fine" with the president, I would say a substantial number are not and never were: from the "Never-Trumpers" to those who hold their nose and make do with what is available, in the same way a lot of Democrats would have if the election had turned out differently. Questioning the judiciary was hardly considered an existential threat to our freedoms when President Obama wagged his finger at SCOTUS over Citizens United in a State of the Union Address. I personally would be more be more fearful for our liberties if all of government were in perfect accord. And as far as an alternating rocky/cozy relationship with the press is concerned, we're already well into our third century of that with no fatal effects.

I see little possibility that Mr. Trump can topple the Republic by destroying confidence in the constitution. If anything, the Trump Administration will highlight the benefits of the built-n limitations on any one component's power. While the "Resistance" may often be vocal to the point of hysteria, they don't appear to me to be the stuff revolutions are made of.

[LDAHL]

For a lot of Republicans, that veneration of the Constitution is just a pose, much like Christianity, "family values," support for the troops and personal freedoms, "law and order," and others. It's really about money and control, as far as I can tell.

When all else fails, impugning your opponents' motives can at least offer some measure of solace.

[LDAHL]

I do think there's an overall tone set by a leader. Those day-to-day decisions I'm sure are consistent "visible signs" of that tone, but I believe that there's some ineffable vibe that permeates the country. I've mentioned this article before, but I love it and I think it's true--that the country picks up on the President's enjoyment of his role, for instance.
http://www.newsweek.com/happy-leader...-nation-151065

Just like golf is a head game, I think the stock market is t head game, where it rises and falls on the basis of totally capricious and emotional factors. So I think it is mystical factors that effect (not A-ffect, but E-ffect) the daily decisions.

I think there is probably something to that. FDR and Reagan would certainly have agreed with you. But I think you need a healthy pig to apply the lipstick to. In the end there is no substitute for positive net income.