Trump

IMHO, we are better off than that. For comparison, let's look at the record:

Hoover? Was totally oblivious to the The Great Depression. Didn't see the crash coming; didn't know what to do to fix it.

FDR? Was too slow getting us out of The Great Depression. We came out in 90 days flat once people started shooting at us. The damage to the US from The Great Depression was horrible with much of it still with us. He did get us mobilized to win WWII and won it.

Ike? Won WWII in Europe (before he was President). As President, won the war in Korea, pushed back against the Soviets in Berlin, kept the Cold War cold, kept up our military, e.g., nukes, B-52s, ICBMs, SSBNs, and jet airplanes, kept us out of Viet Nam. Did the right things in the Little Rock racism crisis. Ike was slow to keep the economy going. Did respond to Sputnik.

JKF? Did get the economy going again. Started the Apollo program moon shot. Didn't keep us out of Viet Nam. In the end, did the right things in the Cuban Missile Crisis, but looked to the Soviets like a wimp who could be taken advantage of and, thus, partly stimulated that crisis.

LBJ? Went wacko over Viet Nam, killed a lot of people, wasted a lot of money, inflated the US economy.

Nixon? Also wacko over Viet Nam and continued to inflate the US economy. Was a crook. Was driven out of office in disgrace.

Ford? Got out of Viet Nam only after Congress flatly cut off the money.

Carter? Poor leader. Didn't take US energy seriously. Got pushed around by the Iranians. His helicopter effort at Iran flopped.

Reagan? Was a good leader, but had a lot of just silly ideas about what the US should do. Spent a lot of money -- fiscal stimulus -- that did help get the economy going again. Did scare the Soviets over Star Wars and, thus, may have helped the Soviets to give up. Left office mentally handicapped.

Bush 41? Put General Schwarzkopf in charge in Gulf War I who -- in an 8 week air campaign and a 100 hour ground campaign -- totally blew away Saddam's 7 million man army while having fewer US casualties from enemy action than from recreational sports activities. Brilliant. Otherwise neglected the economy.

...

My view is that (1) the US now has some very serious problems, (2) Trump has a lot of determination and a lot of okay to good general approaches for solutions, (3) Trump is good enough as a leader to be able to build consensus for getting things done, (4) he is fully sincere, (5) we are very lucky he is doing what he is, and (6) he has a good shot at being the best president we've had back at least to Hoover where my knowledge of US history is too weak to comment.

Let's DO get out all the important information, but let's NOT be so tough minded that we miss a great opportunity.

I've read many times that what Trump said about the judge was racist.

IMHO, the solid, primary sources do not support that claim.

I do intend to post to this thread a response to Altman's post where I give details, but to me the Trump-judge thing went through three steps:

Step 1. Trump asserted that the judge made some unfair decisions against Trump. Maybe Trump was just blowing smoke as part of a good defense, but maybe he was on solid ground. I'm not a lawyer. Then Trump asked -- I have a quote -- why the judge was being unfair.

Step 2. Soon it was clear enough that the judge had Mexican ancestry and was active in some pro-Mexican political activities that conflicted with Trump's campaign positions on illegal immigration from Mexico. Then, and only then, did Trump assert that this background of the judge was likely the reason the judge was unfair.

Or, Trump never claimed that a judge with Mexican ancestry would have to be unfair. Instead, Trump claimed that this judge's actions in the case showed that the judge was unfair to Trump and, then, could, easily enough, see explanatory reasons in the judge's background. Or, if want to say that someone is being unfair, then it helps to give an explanatory reason. In law, that's called motivation or some such, right, and is regarded as important, right?

Step 3. Since then, a lot more has come out on the judge. He's close to some groups that are wildly racist, e.g., want everyone in the US of Western European descent to return to Europe. Trump has concluded that the judge should recuse himself from the case. If the judge does not recuse, then the case starts to look just political.

Maybe a judge really is strongly for pro-Mexican political causes and is eager to be unfair to others. So, in that case we can't say that the judge is unfair because of his pro-Mexican causes? That would be a license for anyone with pro-Mexican causes to be unfair without being criticized.

> And he suggests that background creates a bias in the case.

Not really. We have to be more careful with the words than that.

Here's the difference: Trump said that the judge's rulings show that the judge is biased. So, if we accept that the judge is biased, then we want a reason, that is, we want some motivation. Well, it turns out, this judge has Mexican ancestry, is active in some pro-Mexican political causes that conflict with Trump's campaign positions on illegal Mexican immigration. So, Trump said that it appears that this pro-Mexican background of the judge is the judge's motivation for the judge being unfair to Trump.

The huge point is, Trump never claimed that a judge with Mexican background could not be fair. Instead Trump claimed that it was solid that this judge WAS already unfair to Trump and, then, later, saw as motivation the judge's pro-Mexican background.

It has been easy for the media to distort this situation into Trump claiming that the judge must be unfair because he has a Mexican background. Nope, that's a huge distortion, playing with words. Simply put, Trump claims that the judge is unfair because of the judge's rulings.

> The SSA pays out something like $870 billion per year (2015) with fewer than 70 thousand employees

You sound like these employees produce those $870 billion. In fact they take them from one set of people and send them to another set of people. Getting handsome pay, union benefits, pensions and what not on the way.

> That's way better than most private charities.

Charities do not have IRS, FBI and the police to jail anybody who does not pay them and take their property. So they have to do it the old-fashioned way - by convincing people to give them money voluntarily. So if you want to compare, add the costs of enforcement to it.

> the right wing darling of the military industrial complex is far worse

I just heard couple of days ago Hillary Clinton boasting about almost everything in iPhone being fruits of government-sponsored research. I don't think it's true, but to the measure it is, most of this research is done by the military industrial complex. In fact, the left often mentions the internet is rooted in government research - to the measure that it is, it's the same military again. You can't have it both ways - either it's bad, and the research they do and money government funnels to them is evil, or they actually do cool things and money funneled to them are great investment. You can't have both.

And btw the whole military budget is 16% of all federal budget. And that doesn't take into account what state and local governments spend.

He also believes a Muslim judge could be unfair to him because of his policies. I think the media is not really distorting his thinking but rather clarifying it. Similar to when he said Obama has something else going on with regards to radical Islam. He didn't say it, but said people should fill in the blank. Also, his lawyers have never filed such a claim.