Donald trump. what is your take on him?

Ok.

You have to follow the action.  'Persons' in the intelligence community leaked the dossier to various media, who wouldn't publish it (except David Corn of Mother Jones), as they couldn't confirm any of it. John McCain brought it to the FBI to investigate. The CIA couldn't get anyone to publish it without saying they had it, but in order to do that, they had to tell Trump about it first. It would look pretty bad to confirm it existed to the media, without doing that.

The intelligence community tries to smear Trump with piss. Trump says they should apologize.

I like it.

"One week before the election, David Corn of Mother Jones published a story detailing the existence of these memos and their allegations. But many viewed a single, anonymous private spy as a less-than-credible source and the media quickly moved past the story’s explosive claims.

But the CIA did not. And CNN reports that America’s top intelligence agencies presented Trump with a two-page synopsis of the spy’s memos during his intelligence briefing on Russian hacking last week.

According to the network, these memos have been circulating through the intelligence community since last summer. But more recently, U.S. intelligence agencies completed a review of the British spy’s work and his vast network of contacts, and found them credible enough to present his findings to the president-elect.

None of these claims have been substantiated, and their contingency should be stressed: To believe them, one must not only trust an anonymous foreign spy who was paid to generate unflattering material about Donald Trump, but also believe the claims of Russian intelligence operatives, who may have an incentive to bluff."

[And the CIA, who are leaking it, but not saying it's true.]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/cia-presented-trump-with-claims-that-russia-compromised-him.html

"Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 3h3 hours ago

.@FoxNews "Outgoing CIA Chief, John Brennan, blasts Pres-Elect Trump on Russia threat. Does not fully understand." Oh really, couldn't do...

much worse - just look at Syria (red line), Crimea, Ukraine and the build-up of Russian nukes. Not good! Was this the leaker of Fake News?"

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump

So far if the trend continues with soon to be president trump looks like the economy will do nicely and conditions to keep Americans working will continue.  Call it the trump effect. 

Click to expand...

The power of perception. Since we are 5 days from Trump having done anything in office, I think it is a little too early to say.

What will Trump do once companies start saying 'no' to his demands on where they produce cars or build factories?
Either he follows through on his threat to through up tariffs or he backs down. What  do we expect based on his character and temperament?
He will have the power to immediately trigger exit clause on trade agreements (6 months on NAFTA), and he can impose tariffs against particular sectors or countries immediately, as far as I can tell. He won't need Congress to slap a 35% tariff against German cars for instance (his bully target of the day). 
I expect a lot of volatility as this starts to play out over the next month.
What I don't expect is a continuation of the Obama recovery with more hiring, increasing wages, etc...
Uncertainty and volatility might make businesses more conservative - invest less, hire less. But time will tell.

dmp said:

The power of perception. Since we are 5 days from Trump having done anything in office, I think it is a little too early to say.

What will Trump do once companies start saying 'no' to his demands on where they produce cars or build factories?
Either he follows through on his threat to through up tariffs or he backs down. What  do we expect based on his character and temperament?
He will have the power to immediately trigger exit clause on trade agreements (6 months on NAFTA), and he can impose tariffs against particular sectors or countries immediately, as far as I can tell. He won't need Congress to slap a 35% tariff against German cars for instance (his bully target of the day). 
I expect a lot of volatility as this starts to play out over the next month.
What I don't expect is a continuation of the Obama recovery with more hiring, increasing wages, etc...
Uncertainty and volatility might make businesses more conservative - invest less, hire less. But time will tell.

Click to expand...

There are too many unknowns to make a high probability prediction.

re: bullying companies, that is his idea of negotiation. I hope he takes a more thoughtful approach to trade and government involvement in private business decisions.

There seems to be some business optimism surrounding the promise of reducing the growth of regulation that really does stifle business. Banks will do better as interest rates increase.

There is also business (and market) optimism surrounding promised tax reform and repatriation of offshore earnings, but the details will matter about this.  I suspect there will need to be revenue raised to pay for all the promised spending (some fraction of that repatriated capital will go into corporate stock buy backs so that should help the market some). 

There are several opportunities to improve GDP growth, but so far it does not look like much co-operation will come from across the aisle (no surprise).  Hopefully in a few weeks they will drop the posturing, but right now this is working for them to raise money.  John Lewis wrote a fund raising letter for the DNC complaining about being attacked by Trump, but Lewis threw the first punch in that scrum (perhaps to bait Trump or perhaps because it is his nature.) On this MLK holiday is worth showing John Lewis respect for his civil rights legacy, even if I don't agree with his recent behavior.

The ACA re-write will be an important test of how the near term future could go.

I was glad that 2016 is over, and I will be glad when this January is over too... I hope this heightened tension dissipates over time. (tands is having trouble reposting all those tweets.  :  )

JR 

PS: I updated our earlier discussion about markets that do appear a little ahead of themselves. I recently read that George Soros lost $1B shorting the Trump rally.  $1B is a "big" short, and he covered it late last year to stop his bleeding. When you short securities, you could have to buy them back at higher and higher prices (like Soros did) so you can lose a lot more than you invested if they keep going up. Don't worry about George, he still has several ten $B left to play with (more carefully).  Losing $1B hurt his ego more than his bank account but I suspect even he felt it.  8)

JohnRoberts said:

I grow a little weary of explaining myself but a vote for one candidate or the other is not embracing or even forgiving every single action that candidate ever took during his/her entire life, but a simple calculation about which election outcome is preferred.

Click to expand...

That's a very different proposition from the one I made. Go back and re-read it if you want.

By voting for a candidate that acts a certain way you legitimize that way of acting. You may say that there are more important issues at stake, but so what? That doesn't undo the fact that the behavior is now legitimized. It is placed far lower on the scale of importance than other issues - as per your own words.

So grabbing women by the pussy, teenage-style language in Tweets etc, that is now par for the course for presidential candidates, and the only reason it can be that way is because everyone who voted for Trump made it possible. So that's all your doing John.

In that context it's utterly silly to criticize Democrats for political actions and label them "childish" when the behavior of the president elect is so faaaaaaaar more juvenile. You just choose to ignore that because you don't want to own the fact that you voted that childish behavior into the White House.

JohnRoberts said:

Voting for anybody other than Trump or Hillary was just political masturbation since nobody else had a realistic chance of winning.

Click to expand...

So we can agree that the US is a de facto two-party state then? Where 3 million more people vote on the candidate that loses, and where the winning candidate's campaign does what it can to thwart vote recounts?

Some democracy John.

I reiterate that you and every other American had a choice in whom to vote for, and what party's candidate to vote for. 

JohnRoberts said:

I thought Trump was unlikely to win (but I hoped he would). IMO Trump was the least bad choice.  As I've stated several times by now my decision was dominated by the future of the supreme court, and the rest is secondary to that. I have been pleasantly surprised by a string of Trump's campaign promise reversals, and remain optimistic that his cabinet will inform him to make even more.

Click to expand...

So your only proof that Trump was  a better choice was really what he said during the campaign, and now you're happy that a string of those promises are being reversed, which only brings us back to the point of just how you knew he was the better choice in the first place.... Something simply  doesn't add up.

JohnRoberts said:

We can't change*** the past, or even change the present.

Click to expand...

Well, to get back directly on-topic, which is what our take is on Trump, I will offer the following in relation to what I just quoted above:

- My impression of Trump is based on his past actions. There is no possible way I can make up my mind about him by judging his future actions, because they haven't happened yet. This is true for every person. If you want to judge Trump by his campaign promises, then the only reasonable way to foresee if they would materialize is to a) judge whether they're implementable in the first place, and b) judge whether or not Trump is the kind of person that would actually do what he says he will do. "B" directly takes us back to the past. We'd have to judge Trump's likelihood of doing what he says by looking at his past actions.

Now, curiously, you (and others) have zero problem doing this with Hillary, to an extent. Her past disqualifies her because it shows she's a bad option, worse than Trump even. Yet here we are ignoring Trump's past, because it's the past, and we're supposed to focus on the future.

So my take on Trump at this point, based on the past, is that he has a personality disorder. As far as history has shown, he displays the following;

- Extreme narcissism; all you have to do is watch him in various media and you'll see that clearly (if you take off your partisan blinders for a second). It ranges from having paintings made of himself, portraits taken with him in his gold castle, to simply taking any criticism extremely personally.

- A vindictive nature; again all we have to do is watch his responses to criticism. Rather than constructively defend his actions or policies he goes on the attack and tries to soil the reputation of his critic. We have several very clear examples of this. In "forum terms", or debate terminology, this would be argument ad hominem.

- Borderline pathological lying; as I said before, I don't think he goes out of his way to lie per se, it's just that he doesn't care about the truth one bit. He's a bullsh*tter. He'll say anything he thinks serves his purpose at any given time. If that means Tweeting that China is the originator of the hoax that is climate change then he'll do that - and he'll have absolutely no problem lying to the American people, right in the face, shortly after by claiming he never said that. Because he knows that the people who vote for him either don't care about the truth or aren't smart enough to check whether or not something is true in the first place.

- An 'immoral compass' on justice; we're talking about a person that takes out a full page ad in the NYT advocating for the death penalty for young teens... and then when they are acquitted complains that they weren't actually proven to be innocent... and then chooses someone of the same conviction to his team. So DNA-acquitted people that sat in jail for years for something they didn't do are still guilty in his eyes. Your argument (John) that you're concerned about the supreme court should be put in the context of this. Your future president operates under the notion that people aren't just guilty until proven innocent, but should be put to death as well. What possible candidate can he nominate that reflects that mindset that you support?

- Clear anti-intellectualism; evident by his questioning of global warming occurring and being man-made. Also evident by his preference for simplistic Tweets catering to the low-brow crowd, complete with language resembling that of barely literate teenage simpletons.... poor sentence structure, and overuse of all caps etc...

- Misogyny; I don't think this is even debatable. From engaging in beauty pageants to proudly proclaiming to have grabbed women by the pussy and kissed women all without their prior consent, along with several failed marriages.....

That's my take on the future president.

Yup, a lot of mud slinging going on currently.

re: bullying companies, that is his idea of negotiation. I hope he takes a more thoughtful approach to trade and government involvement in private business decisions.

Click to expand...

My point was how he will react when someone calls his bluff on a 35% tariff? We will see if he changes his tone next week (highly unlikely I think).

There seems to be some business optimism surrounding the promise of reducing the growth of regulation that really does stifle business.

Click to expand...

If we talk specifically about what is regulated, for instance: pollution, treatment of employees, capital requirements for banks, use (misuse) of public resources, etc... these regulations DO restrict business, since in a strict profit oriented free market, the most profitable businesses will pollute the most, oppress workers the most, leverage the government "put" the most, use public resources the most, etc.
NOT polluting is a luxury, which is why developing nations tend to do worse.
For instance, if two companies are making widgets and one company does it cheaper by using an extremely dangerous chemical that pollutes a nearby river,  other companies won't be able to match the prices of the polluting company. In order to compete, all companies making widgets need to be competitive (by polluting) to stay in business.

A funny headline in the Onion during Trump appointments: "EPA to drop 'E' and 'P' from name"

Trump will have executive action to cut a lot of regulation. But he will need to work with Congress to do a lot of the things that are contributing to business optimism, like reduced corporate taxes. I expect he will butt heads with Congress, even members of his same party.

Banks will do better as interest rates increase.

Click to expand...

Possibly - debt is going to get really interesting as interest rates rise.

I am not into future predictions at all -- but I project that in four years time the US economic recovery will all be ascribed to D. Trump and his genius, although the US economy has started to recover even before Trump was nominated as candidate. Would not be the first time or the first country where this happens.

So my take on Trump at this point, based on the past, is that he has a personality disorder. As far as history has shown, he displays the following [...]

Click to expand...

Mattias, thank you for this very focused list in that post about D.T's character traits. I assume many people reading this thread got that by now. I at least mostly agree.

Many people outside the US are shocked about how low it can get in the US and we are a bit worried too. Trump made a lot of noise (including highly dangerous, even toxic noise!) to get elected, but types like him tend to make a lot of noise before entering any negotiation, and he will sure also do during negotiations. I think he's the typical 'bully salesman' type. That being said, personally I wouldn't trust this guy for a second, but there are many people behind him and we all hope that there will be some among them who advise him well.


Anyway, to say it in the now revised US political(-lycorrect) jargon: Now that Trump seems to move into the ovel office I'm waiting for him to grab people like Ms May, Ms Merkel, Ms Marie lePen and others by their pussies the first chance he gets and get pissed on by Putin, the Chinese and Mexico just the way he likes it. Sorry, I simply couldn't resist. But before all that...

- My impression of Trump is based on his past actions. There is no possible way I can make up my mind about him by judging his future actions, because they haven't happened yet. This is true for every person. If you want to judge Trump by his campaign promises, then the only reasonable way to foresee if they would materialize is to a) judge whether they're implementable in the first place, and b) judge whether or not Trump is the kind of person that would actually do what he says he will do. "B" directly takes us back to the past. We'd have to judge Trump's likelihood of doing what he says by looking at his past actions.

Click to expand...

Analyzing, agonising and debating minute endless detail is not the way to understand a man like Trump, that is how you understand a professional politician and get a degree in19th century literature.

I'll say it again for those of you who haven't got it yet, he is not a politician, he is a business man who just happens to be your new president.

Look at how he approaches all his potential negotiations, first of all he rubs them all up the wrong way,  China overTaiwan, trade agreements, Mexico, Iran, Nato, etc,etc.  They all suddenly think we've lost everything with this guy, so what can we give him to row back a bit.  He is not stupid, he knows he has the greatest economy at his disposal, it's his ace and he is not going to give that away without a better deal for the USA.

I am sure that all of this plain speaking (in crude language) also went on behind the scenes in previous administrations, they just didn't want the public to hear it, now you do, that's all.

Regarding his twitterings:  Look on the bright side, you know what the guy is feeling and dealing with, you never knew that before until after the event, sometimes long after.  So he has grabbed some pussy in the past, you knew that before you elected him, better to know now than labour under the illusion your President is a saint only to find out later they were getting blow jobs and shagging starlets in the White house.  Both democrats by the way. 

From across the Atlantic we can only see the big picture, sometimes that's an advantage.  Many of you are so into burrowing down into details that you miss the obvious, just saying

DaveP

On a different note:
People who don't vote, indirectly support the winner. Extending on this logic, people who vote for a candidate who has no 'realistic' chance of winning, also indirectly support the winner. I know, the US system sucks, but that's what it is. Like it or not, but what follows purely logically from this is that all Bernie voters 'own' Trump too. Own him subjectively? Definitely not. -- Objectively? Yes, rather looks like it. -- Morally? Hell, no! -- Statistically? Yes, pretty much.

Script said:

I am not into future predictions at all -- but I project that in four years time the US economic recovery will all be ascribed to D. Trump and his genius, although the US economy has started to recover even before Trump was nominated as candidate. Would not be the first time or the first country where this happens.

Click to expand...

I agree. We already have people ascribing the poor economy in 2009, 2010 to Obama, so it's clear that people see what they want to see.

Script said:

Mattias, thank you for this very focused list in that post about D.T's character traits. I assume many people reading this thread got that by now. I at least mostly agree.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know I'm repeating myself, but I wanted to reiterate it because I find my opinions are more justified as time passes. I would have revised my view after he got elected had he fundamentally changed his behavior, but he hasn't, and that's deeply worrying.

Script said:

I think he's the typical 'bully salesman' type. That being said, personally I wouldn't trust this guy for a second, but there are many people behind him and we all hope that there will be some among them who advise him well.

Click to expand...

Sure, but the caveat there is that he'll then need a personal relationship with them that is sound. His demonstrated vindictiveness and narcissism makes me wonder what would happen in his administration if someone rubs him the wrong way, say someone advising him on international politics....

Script said:

Anyway, to say it in the now revised US political(-lycorrect) jargon: Now that Trump seems to move into the ovel office I'm waiting for him to grab people like Ms May, Ms Merkel, Ms Marie lePen and others by their pussies the first chance he gets and get pissed on by Putin, the Chinese and Mexico just the way he likes it. Sorry, I simply couldn't resist. But before all that...

Click to expand...

;D

DaveP said:

Analyzing, agonising and debating minute endless detail is not the way to understand a man like Trump, that is how you understand a professional politician and get a degree in19th century literature.

Click to expand...

I completely disagree.

DaveP said:

I'll say it again for those of you who haven't got it yet, he is not a politician, he is a business man who just happens to be your new president.

Click to expand...

That makes no difference really. Feel free to argue just why it does though.

DaveP said:

Look at how he approaches all his potential negotiations, first of all he rubs them all up the wrong way,  China overTaiwan, trade agreements, Mexico, Iran, Nato, etc,etc.  They all suddenly think we've lost everything with this guy, so what can we give him to row back a bit.  He is not stupid, he knows he has the greatest economy at his disposal, it's his ace and he is not going to give that away without a better deal for the USA.

I am sure that all of this plain speaking (in crude language) also went on behind the scenes in previous administrations, they just didn't want the public to hear it, now you do, that's all.

Click to expand...

You're first of all giving him a lot of credit, and actually it would be wise to point something out here: I didn't state that I thought he was an idiot. There was a reason for that. The reason is that plenty of intelligent people are limited not by their intellect but by other personality traits (sounds familiar?).  So, to me, based on what we can see, which actually includes his business, what is worrisome isn't a lack of intelligence or actual stupidity, but the things I mentioned.

Secondly, you're also assuming "the worst" for the other administrations. I'm certainly sure they use crude language, but that's not the point. The point is two-fold: first, that the language Trump is using in conjunction with the messages he relays, points to what I mentioned earlier, which is distinctly different from just using crude language, and secondly, that by doing so in public he's lowering the level not just of discourse but public rational thought.

DaveP said:

Regarding his twitterings:  Look on the bright side, you know what the guy is feeling and dealing with, you never knew that before until after the event, sometimes long after.

Click to expand...

This seems to contradict what you stated earlier. If he's "no idiot" then his Tweets would look better than they do.

DaveP said:

So he has grabbed some pussy in the past, you knew that before you elected him, better to know now than labour under the illusion your President is a saint only to find out later they were getting blow jobs and shagging starlets in the White house.  Both democrats by the way. 

Click to expand...

Which amounts to:

- "Look over there" (your comment about people being democrats)

- Equating sexual assault, which is what you're doing when you're grabbing women's genitals and kissing them without consent, with actual consensual sexual conduct.

- A false dichotomy where the only two choices are a) electing an unknown "predator", or b) electing a known "predator". Were there no other candidates Dave?

DaveP said:

From across the Atlantic we can only see the big picture, sometimes that's an advantage.  Many of you are so into burrowing down into details that you miss the obvious, just saying

DaveP

Click to expand...

Yeah, let's ignore the details. What has that ever gotten us.... apart from the aqueduct and the Airbus A380?

PS: I'm willing to bet that of all the people "overseas" you're in a minority with your lax view on this choice, precisely because in large parts of Europe people have better educations (details) than Americans... with exceptions of course.

Script said:

On a different note:
People who don't vote, indirectly support the winner. Extending on this logic, people who vote for a candidate who has no 'realistic' chance of winning, also indirectly support the winner. I know, the US system sucks, but that's what it is. Like it or not, but what follows purely logically from this is that all Bernie voters 'own' Trump too. Own him subjectively? Definitely not. -- Objectively? Yes, rather looks like it. -- Morally? Hell, no! -- Statistically? Yes, pretty much.

Click to expand...

Shhhh they are already sad... don't depress them further with the unintended consequence of their decision making.  8)

JR

Hey, I'd even go further, because I believe in a globalized world, and claim that I own him too.*

* I'm not American and had no say in that elections.

A false dichotomy where the only two choices are a) electing an unknown "predator", or b) electing a known "predator". Were there no other candidates Dave?

Click to expand...

As a person you think has conservative views, I would have voted for Sanders because I trusted his integrity much more than that of Clinton, unfortunately it looks like the DNC would have holed my choice below the waterline.  His integrity would just have satisfied my integrity but it probably would not have done the US economy much good if I'm honest.  I'm not much of a risk taker so I would not have voted Trump although he does have kick-ass qualities which probably the US does need just now.

The point is two-fold: first, that the language Trump is using in conjunction with the messages he relays, points to what I mentioned earlier, which is distinctly different from just using crude language, and secondly, that by doing so in public he's lowering the level not just of discourse but public rational thought.

Click to expand...

Depending on one's degree of liberalism, all public taste and morality has gone south since the war.  Ordinary women never used to  drink to excess and piss in the street or swear like soldiers, but now they do, it is a much more open and liberal society, Trump just appears to have moved his reality TV liberalism into politics.

Regarding "details":  It seems to me that the "information technology revolution" of recent years has just muddied the waters.  One persons fact is another's fake news or conspiracy theory.  We are all bombarded with more facts and figures and interpretation/speculation and opinions, it makes understanding the real truth (If there is such a thing) increasingly more difficult.  Understanding people and politics is not an exact science like building aeroplanes or aquaducts, it is an illusion to think that's possible as the pollster organisations have discovered to their cost.

PS: I'm willing to bet that of all the people "overseas" you're in a minority with your lax view on this choice, precisely because in large parts of Europe people have better educations (details) than Americans... with exceptions of course.

Click to expand...

That seems like a big assertion to me and one that I would not care to make.  I thought that Merkel's letting into Germany millions of immigrants was one of the most stupid acts I have ever witnessed.  It not only put the EU at risk, it absolutely guaranteed the Brexit outcome, putting the EU further at risk, still I'm sure she thought of all those "details" because of her superior education.............yeah right.

DaveP

JohnRoberts said:

Shhhh they are already sad... don't depress them further with the unintended consequence of their decision making.  8)

JR

Click to expand...

I was depressed when Bernie conceded, and at this point I'm glad Hills is not the resident, plus I feel pretty vindicated overall. After Bernie got cheated, this is the best case scenario, imo. So, I'm not depressed a bit. I'd be depressed if the resident was Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, or Marco Rubio, ha ha ha. Also not having trouble posting tweets. ?

DaveP said:

I would not have voted Trump although he does have kick-ass qualities which probably the US does need just now.

Click to expand...

I think you're mistaking "ass-kicking" with "pussy-grabbing".

I have absolutely no idea what "kick-ass qualities" you're referring to right now though. It boggles my mind really. If he has any he's concealed them well. When conservatives say "kick-ass" my mind goes to the "strong men" they want to rule the world, something that really causes more harm than good generally speaking.

DaveP said:

Depending on one's degree of liberalism, all public taste and morality has gone south since the war.  Ordinary women never used to  drink to excess and piss in the street or swear like soldiers, but now they do, it is a much more open and liberal society, Trump just appears to have moved his reality TV liberalism into politics.

Click to expand...

Besides being completely beside the point we were actually discussing, it is interesting to see that the decline in taste and morality to you is described by you talking about women's behavior.

I would say that's fairly typical for conservatives, predominantly white male conservatives, because while being somewhat dissatisfied with the behavior of women these days they seem to forget that before WWII, while women "behaved", black people were segregated by law and some were lynched.... the "good old days" mindset of this group is the result of what appears to be a very selective memory... and I know I'm generalizing now, and I'm ok with that.

DaveP said:

Regarding "details":  It seems to me that the "information technology revolution" of recent years has just muddied the waters.  One persons fact is another's fake news or conspiracy theory.  We are all bombarded with more facts and figures and interpretation/speculation and opinions, it makes understanding the real truth (If there is such a thing) increasingly more difficult.  Understanding people and politics is not an exact science like building aeroplanes or aquaducts, it is an illusion to think that's possible as the pollster organisations have discovered to their cost.

Click to expand...

There is no "opinion" about whether or not Trump wrote what he wrote about global warming on Twitter and how he then responded to that in a live TV debate. This is the same as looking at data for anything that Trump says which then turns out to be patently untrue using any reasonable means for evaluation. What you say above is exactly what people mean with a post-truth era; where even the attempt at digging through details to find out the truth takes the backseat to "oh well, do we really know though?" and then voting using the gut.....

It'd be one thing if we were discussing some gear design, of no consequence to the world, but we're actually talking about the person who's to lead the worlds most powerful country, armed to the teeth including nukes, with bases all around the world, and which has used nukes twice on civilian populations. One.... sorry; I wish that people would spend some energy on finding out the truth when decisions are of that magnitude.

Women wind up pissing in the street because when there are lots of people, there aren't enough bathrooms for them.

I have absolutely no idea what "kick-ass qualities" you're referring to right now though. It boggles my mind really. If he has any he's concealed them well. When conservatives say "kick-ass" my mind goes to the "strong men" they want to rule the world, something that really causes more harm than good generally speaking.

Click to expand...

As in getting things done.  But avoiding ruling the world :

I would say that's fairly typical for conservatives, predominantly white male conservatives, because while being somewhat dissatisfied with the behavior of women these days they seem to forget that before WWII, while women "behaved", black people were segregated by law and some were lynched.... the "good old days" mindset of this group is the result of what appears to be a very selective memory... and I know I'm generalizing now, and I'm ok with that.

Click to expand...

You like to extrapolate what I say into some area I was never in, because it suits your view of conservatives, not smart.  I don't think there ever were any "good old days" for the record, before WW2 there was the Depression.

I am a feminist, I think women should have equal pay, rights and opportunities, I would just prefer them to stay feminine in the exercise of those rights.  I don't like drunks in either sex, it's really ugly,  some men have always shown their stupidity in this way, its a pity that some women have chosen to follow a similar path.  To explain my attitude:  I spent five years playing in British pubs in my band, I did not like watching a minority of people getting totally plastered during the course of the evening.

DaveP

I think this was the "Good old Days"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9q-BlUjZYk

When a dollar was a dollar, you lived just a like a millionaire. ;D

DaveP