Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[mattiasNYC]

What I learned just reinforced my already low opinion of her (and congressional hearings). I was impressed by her lawyerly parsing of words and manipulation of top aides to keep her fingerprints off the questionable activities, but i could have used those hours more productively. 

The election is over and I am weary about wrestling in the mud, or doing homework. My next door neighbor insisted I watch a video (I hate videos) I did and hated it... luckily it was short. 

On another forum another old friend is going ballistic about the protestor shot in Portland (by "those pigs") saying it's war. 

WTF  not even a full moon. Can't we all just get along?

JR

Trump made his campaign on the promise to roll back progress by decades, lauded violence at his rallies, pointed out clear enemies along racial/national and religious lines, and now we're supposed to just get along? You clearly underestimated the importance of what he said to other people, beyond just opinion and instead also including in practice. Whereas the nation may have continued to divide under Obama it wasn't because of any policies targeted at any groups along the aforementioned lines, it was just a continuation of bad policies (which we largely agree on). 

So you have to understand that what "we" see is this:

1. People support Trump.
2. Trump doesn't distance himself from the subset of racists, xenophobes and misogynists.
3. Trump hints at upcoming policies that will target Mexicans, Muslims and brown people in general, as well as women / LGBT.
4. WE - Mexicans, Muslims, Brownies, Women, LGBT, are asked to "just get along", as if it's our fault the division now exist.

It looks ridiculous to "us". Don't vote for the guy openly dividing the nation by promising policies that will divide us, inciting violence and using tons of hatred in his rallies and then expect us to just shut up, like it and "get along". Call it blowback if you want, but either way this is what you bought when you got this guy this far. Own it.



PS: I believe your claim was that Hillary straight up lied, and now you're saying she didn't. You seem go have chosen the word "lie" because that was somehow important to you, yet now that you couldn't find the evidence for that assertion it no longer matters. That's odd because no doubt did the "fact" that she lied help you form an opinion, but again, this is exactly what I've experienced repeatedly by people on "the right", by "conservatives" and Trump supporters. Make a claim; can't substantiate it? No problem, "the story" is still the same.

PPS: The Clinton Foundation was clearly a problem to Trump voters, though most don't seem to know why. Now the various businesses and foundations of Trump are to be handled by his wife and kids, while they simultaneously will be part of the transition team at the very least... Anyone see a problem with mingling being a President and personal business in that instance? Probably not. Because that's not "the story". The story is that Trump and his gold-plated assets are 'just like us'... and Hillary is a crook. That's the story, and we're sticking to it.

 

[mattiasNYC]

No, I'm not endorsing anything, I'm acknowledging the reality of what has gone down without passing judgement.

I will be in a position to judge Trump when I have seen the results of his presidency after four years.  If everything goes to hell in a hand cart, then you will be able to proclaim "I told you so".

My gut instinct is that, that will not happen because of the US constitution.  From what I've learned from this forum and other places, getting anything done in the US  legislature is like wading through treacle.  He has both parties against him at the moment, as well as the Washington elites who are scared for their jobs, he has a mountain to climb.

DaveP

That's pretty optimistic a view. The system moves slowly in some instances and NY had stop-and-frisk escalate to ridiculous levels before it got cut back. It still exists but with much better results and at a much smaller scale. The point being that it was judged in court to be unconstitutional yet it existed for a long time and still exists. I would argue that parts of the patriot act too were/are unconstitutional yet was pushed through. And now Trump will have a Republican House and Senate.

Really the only thing stopping those people is pure self interest or a belief in principles. I actually have somewhat more faith in the Supreme Court than the House and Senate. But either way I'm far less optimistic.

But I want to point out another issue that I mentioned earlier:

Trump will now face a big problem. He's flirted with the far-right, the loonies that neither you nor John belong to, the ones that are truly racist xenophobes. They will expect policies in line with what they perceive the are owed now that they voted for him. He will face a very difficult task of convincing them a) they're getting what they want although they're not, or b) that they'll be better off getting something else. Unless they get what they want.

What's worse is that there's also a larger part of the Trump-voting public that is racist but not militant or violent. They too expect something and when they see that he isn't delivering it'll be a problem.

And on top of that there's the issue of what they do and how they all act until he either says something on these topics or acts upon them. Like I said, we've already seen big increase in reports of hate crimes - no doubt a fair amount of them being either unsubstantiated or even false, but nevertheless still a sizeable increase in valid reports - and I would expect it to stay elevated just as it did post-Brexit.

He owns that outcome. His voters own that outcome.

 

[DaveP]

I agree with that assessment, hence "a mountain to climb".

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

Trump made his campaign on the promise to roll back progress by decades,

You must really enjoy arguing.

Hillary ran on a platform of continuing the "progress" of Obama, code for continuing to shift the country left. She was rejected by the more centrist voters.

lauded violence at his rallies,

not as far as i recall, but there were some paid agitators hired by the opposition to stir stuff up http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/18/undercover-video-shows-democrats-saying-they-hire-/  Trump is a lover not a fighter... and a reality TV star blowhard.  Now he is our president.

pointed out clear enemies along racial/national and religious lines,

Um we do have enemies. Trumps overly simplistic statements have been extrapolated to include entire races, entire nations, and entire religions. While we do have problems with subsets of those overly broad groups. 

and now we're supposed to just get along?

yes

You clearly underestimated the importance of what he said to other people, beyond just opinion and instead also including in practice. Whereas the nation may have continued to divide under Obama it wasn't because of any policies targeted at any groups along the aforementioned lines, it was just a continuation of bad policies (which we largely agree on). 

Obama's policies were so disliked by voters that he first lost his super majority in the senate, then lost the full congress, that didn't stop him from picking up his pen and his phone to unilaterally veto bills and write executive orders.

Obama makes great speeches but then drives the country and other countries that depend on us into the ditch.

So you have to understand that what "we" see is this:

1. People support Trump.

yes... but as I've shared I specifically voted "against" Hillary.

2. Trump doesn't distance himself from the subset of racists, xenophobes and misogynists.

this seems subjective... the headlines from the left leaning media paint every utterance in the worst way. Neither Trump or Hillary can be held responsible for every follower of theirs. There are loons on the left too.

3. Trump hints at upcoming policies that will target Mexicans, Muslims and brown people in general, as well as women / LGBT.

I hear him saying that he will improve the business climate and create jobs... Governments can't  create jobs but if he can roll back onerous regulation, reform taxes (including freeing up the $2T of retained earnings held offshore to escape onerous US tax rates), stimulus spending etc, the economy sure as hell will grow and create jobs.

I take such job promises from presidents with a huge grain of salt, but what Trump is promoting could in fact grow the US economy and raise all boats in the process. 

4. WE - Mexicans, Muslims, Brownies, Women, LGBT, are asked to "just get along", as if it's our fault the division now exist.

I don't have anything against you for being Mexican (didn't know), for being Muslim (didn't know), for being brown (whatever that means), for being a woman (again didn't know), and for being LGBT (not even sure what they all mean, I can guess a few). That said I am a little irritated by your [edit] removed [/edit]  argument style.

It looks ridiculous to "us". Don't vote for the guy openly dividing the nation by promising policies that will divide us, inciting violence and using tons of hatred in his rallies and then expect us to just shut up, like it and "get along". Call it blowback if you want, but either way this is what you bought when you got this guy this far. Own it.

Not only don't I own it, i don't accept your hyperbolic characterization. Take a lead from President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and other leaders who have been respectful and embraced his administration.

PS: I believe your claim was that Hillary straight up lied, and now you're saying she didn't.

No i said it can't be easily proved and what difference does it make now. Her most onerous lie was probably the one to the mother of the man killed in Benghazi, but when questioned about that she said the woman must have "mis-remembered". This is coming from Hillary who stated that she didn't recall under FBI questioning 30 some times ( I expect she recalled at least a few of those too but was listening to her inner lawyer or actual lawyer who was present.)   

In congress she out-lawyered the lawyers and ex-prosecutors questioning her. She was a senator so understands the game (fishing for gotcha sound bites) I wasted 2 hours reading that crap.I took notes but then the election happened so it's now moot.

For one example when asked if she returned all her work emails to State she said she did, but the defensible weasel explanation was that her aides (lawyers) read each email first, then returned them, not she herself. According to Comey in later questioning they didn't do what she said they did (read or return all work emails) but she remains squeaky clean as she prepares to throw her aides under the bus by claiming they didn't do what she told them to do (wink wink nod nod). 

There is no question in my mind that she (and Bill) set up their private servers purely to avoid FOI access to her work product as secretary of state. In fact she bragged about not using email for state department business but instead used face to face meetings and phone calls (less of a paper trail).

All of the wiki leaks revelations about apparent pay to play have been her lieutenants and close associates taking care of the family business, not her or Bill personally. She was careful to leave no fingerprints on this questionable work. 

You seem go have chosen the word "lie" because that was somehow important to you, yet now that you couldn't find the evidence for that assertion it no longer matters.

No I still believe she is a liar, but a very clever one and it no longer matters because she lost the election and will probably be pardoned by Pres Obama (for the email stuff, but perhaps not the foundation). That foundation cash cow stopped giving milk the minute she lost the election so they will probably wind it down. (speculation)

That's odd because no doubt did the "fact" that she lied help you form an opinion, but again, this is exactly what I've experienced repeatedly by people on "the right", by "conservatives" and Trump supporters. Make a claim; can't substantiate it? No problem, "the story" is still the same.

I have said multiple times that my vote hinged on supreme court appointments  (stopping all that progress) before it tilts SCOTUS to a liberal majority for decades to come.

PPS: The Clinton Foundation was clearly a problem to Trump voters, though most don't seem to know why. Now the various businesses and foundations of Trump are to be handled by his wife and kids, while they simultaneously will be part of the transition team at the very least... Anyone see a problem with mingling being a President and personal business in that instance? Probably not. Because that's not "the story". The story is that Trump and his gold-plated assets are 'just like us'... and Hillary is a crook. That's the story, and we're sticking to it.

Story? 

Hillary was rejected by voters for several reasons, many did not trust her, and did not want to continue down this same road that President Obama has carried us.

Trump is the ultimate political outsider and that is what so many people embraced.  He is not a career politician who will continue the old Washington DC business as usual.

It is unknown exactly what he will actually do but I am already seeing signs that he will moderate his more extreme positions.

Finally and I am repeating this too, Trump during the campaign spoke in hyperbole, painting blunt word images, not offering literal policy. Hilary OTOH was a trained politician and lawyer making more practiced literal political promises.

I hope Trump avoids turning into a politician, and does drain the swamp as promised (another symbolic image not literal policy.)

He has a great deal to learn about running a country (not like running a business where people actually do what you tell them to do), but he is not as dumb as so many want to believe. He did win the primary election against a stage full of top republicans and then went on to beat Hillary in the general election despite the full weight of the democratic party behind her. 

A historic accomplishment for anybody let alone a reality TV star, real estate developer. But he is replacing a community organizer so stuff happens in politics.

JR 

 

[leadbreath]

From the fine philosophers of South Park, it was a choice between a "Douche and a Turd..."

 

[abbey road d enfer]

From the fine philosophers of South Park, it was a choice between a "Douche and a Turd..."

Which one being which? 

 

[micaddict]

JohnRoberts wrote:

I don't have anything against you for being Mexican (didn't know), for being Muslim (didn't know), for being brown (whatever that means), for being a woman (again didn't know), and for being LGBT (not even sure what they all mean, I can guess a few). That said I am a little irritated by your aggressive, pedantic, arrogant, and dismissive argument style.

Could it be that some others are irritated, e.g. by a sarcastic argument style? Or ASS "typo's" and such? Just to mention two style feautures. I could make a list, too.

I personally consider it a pro that Mattias sympathizes with other groups. Apparently he doesn't vote just for his own good.
And FWIW, I'm not a  Mexican, not a  Muslim, not brown, not a woman and not lesbian , gay, bisexual or transgender (so you don't have to guess).
I'm a Dutch guy, white as can be and a Christian to boot.
"But" I sympathize with a lot of what Mattias brings to the table.

 

[john12ax7]

You must really enjoy arguing.

Hillary ran on a platform of continuing the "progress" of Obama, code for continuing to shift the country left.

Do you actually think they are left? Obama just continued where Bush left off. And Hillary was promising to do the same.  Regardless of what Trump has said on the campaign trail it's fairly probable he will just continue the Bush Obama legacy.

 

[john12ax7]

From the fine philosophers of South Park, it was a choice between a "Douche and a Turd..."

I can't believe people so vehemently argue that one is so superior to the other.

 

[hodad]

Just a little sign of things coming:  Trump's promises to drive down prescription drug prices?

” …. the (Trump) transition’s website omits what had been the Republican nominee’s call for Congress to allow Americans to import prescription drugs from countries where they are sold at lower prices. This idea has long been favored by Democratic lawmakers but repeatedly blocked by Republicans.”

http://jaybookman.blog.myajc.com/2016/11/11/look-how-quickly-that-drain-the-swamp-talk-reverses-itself/

I predict even more of those swell (and not-so-swell) populist ideas Trump spewed on the campaign trail will be vanished quickly--campaign's over, no need to ty to please ordinary voters anymore. 

Oh, and you know how R's always hold a D's feet to the fire on govt. spending?  Noticed how the last 2 D presidents have managed to keep the deficit in check, with Clinton even having a budget surplus?  Kiss that goodbye.  R's don't believe that they should be held to the same standards they hold others to.  As Dick Cheney said of deficit spending, back when he and his friend whose name I forget took office in 2001:  "We earned this."  They "earned" the right to put the ordinary American taxpayer deeply, deeply in debt.  They "earned" the right to destroy all the hard work of the Clinton years on taming the deficit, and actually make things even worse. 

It will be the same again.  JR will certainly whinge a bit, but stocks will do well because the big corporations will be feeding voraciously on middle class tax dollars.  So he won't complain too much as he rushes to gather the crumbs that fall from the mouths of the feasting fat cats. 

The swamp might get drained, but it  will be refilled with waste from an industrial pig farm. 

P.S.  JR, when you link to the Washington Times, please note that it is the wholly owned subsidiary of a fanatical religious cult.  Just so people know what kind of sources you like to use.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Just a little sign of things coming:  Trump's promises to drive down prescription drug prices?

” …. the (Trump) transition’s website omits what had been the Republican nominee’s call for Congress to allow Americans to import prescription drugs from countries where they are sold at lower prices. This idea has long been favored by Democratic lawmakers but repeatedly blocked by Republicans.”

I do not want to be the lone Trump apologist here but do own my vote along with 60 million other citizens.

Drug prices are a very old discussion and some recent high profile price increases have not only made news  but triggered congressional investigations. One poster boy for out of control prices is the "epi-pen" an injectable gadget to deliver a dose of generic drug epinephrine (adrenaline) to thwart anaphylactic shock. 

The technology was initially developed for antidotes to nerve gas (I recall being instructed on atropine injectors in basic training 45+ years ago).

The congressional investigation revealed a finger pointing contest between drug makers and drug middle men who both blame the other for high prices. The reality is people could inject themselves with the generic drug using a conventional hypodermic needle for a few dollars instead of paying hundreds of dollars for the "gadget". This reveals that there is indeed some excess in the drug food chain, but in the case of epi-pen inadequate competition. One or two actual competitors have been held up by regulatory approval.  There are other examples of generic drugs seeing unjustifiable cost increases. This needs to be addressed in a way that increases competition, that is the whole concept behind generic drugs (no patent). 

This confuses what I think it the real issue about high US drug prices. For decades (longer) the US has subsidized new drug development with relatively high domestic pricing while foreign nations effectively got a free ride on our coattails.  The drug companies still made small profits from the marginal incremental sales overseas but didn't fund new drug development from that revenue. We are a wealthy and generous country but never get much credit for this. If the US consumer could buy drugs for the same price as foreign governments do the net result would be lower prices in the US and higher prices for everybody else. If we all pay the same price, new drug development cost is spread across the entire market. If new drug development is not funded where do you think new drugs will come from?  Be careful what you wish for. (note the drug companies are not altruistic angels, but not the devil either).

http://jaybookman.blog.myajc.com/2016/11/11/look-how-quickly-that-drain-the-swamp-talk-reverses-itself/

I predict even more of those swell (and not-so-swell) populist ideas Trump spewed on the campaign trail will be vanished quickly--campaign's over, no need to ty to please ordinary voters anymore. 

Campaign promises are rarely ever fully delivered upon, and Trump made some that were impossible and/or illegal. I am not smart enough to predict the future (I expected Hillary to win), but just stopping what was happening before is one accomplishment.

Some stuff can change pretty quickly (like unwinding executive orders), other stuff will take more time like fixing the ACA (could take years). Tax reform could be a first 100 days program and is worth pursuing quickly IMO.

Oh, and you know how R's always hold a D's feet to the fire on govt. spending?  Noticed how the last 2 D presidents have managed to keep the deficit in check, with Clinton even having a budget surplus?

Don't confuse budget deficit with sovereign debt. The republican congress has forced some spending discipline with the sequester (that neither side expected to stand). Under President Obama the debt has increased both nominally and as a percentage of GDP.

The us debt has roughly doubled under pres Obama from $11T to near $20T

Kiss that goodbye.  R's don't believe that they should be held to the same standards they hold others to.  As Dick Cheney said of deficit spending, back when he and his friend whose name I forget took office in 2001:  "We earned this."  They "earned" the right to put the ordinary American taxpayer deeply, deeply in debt.  They "earned" the right to destroy all the hard work of the Clinton years on taming the deficit, and actually make things even worse. 

Trump is making scary noises about massive borrowing for a $1T stimulus spending program. I'd love to see some way to use some of the $2T in offshore retained earnings put to more productive use. (yes it will probably help the stock market).

It will be the same again.  JR will certainly whinge a bit, but stocks will do well because the big corporations will be feeding voraciously on middle class tax dollars.  So he won't complain too much as he rushes to gather the crumbs that fall from the mouths of the feasting fat cats. 

I was buying Friday, but mainly because I have been selling for the last several months. You may be surprised that I made a couple contrary bets on Mexico not being crushed. We'll see how that plays out,  I still have dry powder I need to put to work.

The swamp might get drained, but it  will be refilled with waste from an industrial pig farm.

Yes DC is a company town feeding at the trough of big government. The republicans have been timid about paring back entitlements but maybe now is the time (Ryan has talked about this for years). Retirement ages need to be adjusted older to reflect modern mortality data, etc.

I expect a number of Trumps campaign promises to fail as I predicted earlier... I am optimistic that maybe a few can be accomplished, before the political pendulum swings back to the middle. One party rule is an unnatural state in US politics and does not persist very long for either party. 

JR

 

[hodad]

JR, don't forget that all that debt under Obama is due to Bush's housing bubble.  GW broke everything and said, "I don't know what happened.  It's all yours now."  Look at Obama's numbers after the Republican-created economic disaster was ameliorated--everything's much rosier after he dealt with the disaster your people in the White House left him.

 

[JohnRoberts]

JR, don't forget that all that debt under Obama is due to Bush's housing bubble.  GW broke everything and said, "I don't know what happened.  It's all yours now."  Look at Obama's numbers after the Republican-created economic disaster was ameliorated--everything's much rosier after he dealt with the disaster your people in the White House left him.

That is a rather simplistic view of the history and economics..

I do not have the time or will to re-argue this, I have posted at length about this over the last 8 years.

I have work to do,, (need to build some drum tuners for the Christmas rush).

Later

JR

 

[desol]

You guys are writing a novel! Holy smokes!

If I felt the prescribed sentiments, I simply would have chosen to opt out and voted zero, ziltch, neither....but then again, I'm Canadian. Go figure. ....C'mon now, surely Hillary's email misnomers were insignificant by comparison(more or less akin to Lance Armstrong's 'par for the course'), but then  again, I don't know much about it...and I don't really want to know much about it. The whole thing illustrated to the rest of the world(imo), the degree to which internal divide exists within the states. That and, maybe some dudes were skeptical at the thought of to having softy in charge of the nukes. ....Don't know!!

One things for sure. The states does have enemies. Maybe fewer now that Trump is in office.

 

[hodad]

That is a rather simplistic view of the history and economics..

No.  The dip in Bush's first year is all about Clinton.  The stratospheric rise in Obama's first year (or more) is all about Bush.  No, Bush did not singlehandedly create the housing bubble, but they fed and nurtured it, they oohed and aahed about it, until it blew up on them.  And then it's oops, not my fault!  Regardless, it's much more instructive and accurate to look at Bush's and Obama's track records beginning after their first year in office.  And you know that. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

No.  The dip in Bush's first year is all about Clinton.  The stratospheric rise in Obama's first year (or more) is all about Bush.  No, Bush did not singlehandedly create the housing bubble, but they fed and nurtured it, they oohed and aahed about it, until it blew up on them.  And then it's oops, not my fault!  Regardless, it's much more instructive and accurate to look at Bush's and Obama's track records beginning after their first year in office.  And you know that.

Are you lecturing me on history?

The roots of the housing crisis go back to the Carter administration when democrats first leaned on lenders to expand lending.

Yes the republicans were complicit over the years (housing growth looked like a win-win-win for the economy, most bubbles do) but I watched as the  Bush administration tried to reel in Fannie and Freddie before the collapse but were thwarted by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in congress who wanted to keep the housing music playing. it only became apparent at the very end that it was musical chairs with no more suckers willing to pay the bubblicious prices. 

President Obama was elected 8 years ago, long enough to be responsible for his administration's slow GDP growth today.

Slow GDP growth a global issue, but the worlds biggest economic engine (us) has been misfiring for years.

Time will tell, maybe we need a little more patience and stop blaming everything on Bush for a while.  Trump isn't even sworn in yet, too soon for his policy to have  impact.  He hasn't even formulated most of it yet (speculation).

Speaking of housing Fannie and Freddie both are still standing long after their expiration date. Trump has not spoken about what he will do about them, but their stock has gone up recently (maybe wall street thinks some kind of fix will happen, I hope not). The stock shouldn't have any value at all, since they are under conservatorship with all their revenue being swept into the treasury coffers. They need to be wound down and let the private economy return to that business without government guarantees, implicit or explicit. Such guarantees are always a recipe for abuse if not kept modest.

JR

PS: Back to the bench...  the tuners don't build themselves.

 

[hodad]

Whatever, John.  Wasn't the initial point that your blaming Obama for the huge spike in the deficit during his first year in office is BS?  Agree or disagree?  A yes or no is all that's necessary. 

EDIT:  I don't need an answer.  I doubt there's one forthcoming.  What dawned on me as I walked away from the computer is that what ticks me off--maybe especially with JR, because he's a smart guy, but far more obviously with some of the less well-informed right wingers I know--is that when you argue with people whose beliefs are more important and more powerful than the truth, there is no possibility of swaying them.  When you leave behind reason and empiricism and enter a world where belief reigns supreme, you have turned your politics into religion.  When people simultaneously believe that Obama is a  conservative Muslim and a far-left radical, they have left the empirical world behind.  When people constantly seek any explanation for global warming that contradicts the massive amounts of peer-reviewed climate science out there (and over the years, as the science has advanced, the deniers have continually kicked the ball further down the field), they're leaving behind rational, empirical thought for their faith, their deeply held beliefs. 

Arguing about matters of faith, as a devout Catholic college girlfriend so ably demonstrated to me, is liable to get a beer thrown on you but will accomplish little else.  So I'm bowing out.

 

[nielsk]

The problem with the discussion here is that is not representative of a cross spectrum.
The predominate voices (maybe the ones with the most time and energy to devote to such things?) are fairly conservative.
Most of the rest are middle of the road.
Of course, there is no radical left wing in the USA, it is just that the right has swung so far to the right that they now consider anyone middle of the road to be far left. The middle of the road republican is pretty much extinct (maybe the elusive Olivia Snowe leopard?)
The idea of liberty and justice for ALL is right in the middle of the road (liberty including imminent domain over one's own body and freedom from others religion's in personal life and government, justice being rule of law applying to ALL equally and ALL are accountable)
Maybe someone left wing could contribute for the sake of balance?

 

[Phrazemaster]

All we have is what we believe. There is no undeniable anything, unless you believe in absolutes. This years "facts" are disproven next year. Maybe instead of resorting to hard and fast beliefs we should just put a version number on it. At least it's more honest.

My Outlook 2.6.3

 

[mattiasNYC]

You must really enjoy arguing.

Hillary ran on a platform of continuing the "progress" of Obama,

Well, first of all I don't understand your quips about how some enjoy arguing when you yourself participate. Seems we both enjoy it. Hopefully we can learn something from it.

Secondly, you're missing my point above. My point was regarding whether or not we can get along and what the difference is between Clinton and Trump and Obama. Let me just give you an example so you can see what I'm getting at: Let's look at suffrage in the US, and pretend we're in the year 1935 for example:

Candidate 1: A Progressive, wants to progress from the recent legislation allowing women to vote to also legislate to allow blacks to vote (or forbid discrimination of them).

Candidate 2: A Conservative, wants to conserve what we have, and continue allowing women to vote but not allow blacks to vote.

Candidate 3: A "Regressive" (I made that up, think "reactionary" maybe), wants to not only not give blacks the right to vote but repeal women's suffrage, and return to a state when almost only white men were allowed to vote.

So, if you look at the above my point is illustrated by Candidate 3 in that there is a higher likelihood of more demostrations, and more violent demostrations, because rights have now been given out and the people risk having them taken away. Even a "conservative" would instill less anger in the population, because with a "conservative" that is slamming the breaks on progress it's only that, slamming the breaks. So there's always the option of waiting a few years until someone else is elected. It's a vastly different proposition compared to turning back the clock. So talking about Clinton being a progressive is entirely irrelevant.

code for continuing to shift the country left.

In a later post you talk about how several presidents just perpetuated the same nonsense which culminated in the big recession in '08. Ok, so let's learn a lesson from that and revise our views: They're ALL left if they're ALL guilty of that same thing. But of course you wouldn't characterize Bush or Reagan as "left" and I of course agree with that. The only reasonable conclusion is that it's the "left" that's actually NOT left, but instead right-of-center. They're all right-of-center.

Most pro-Capitalist Americans I meet that say Obama is a socialist or employing socialist policies typically bring up Obamacare. But let's think about that for a second; what is real socialism really:

[ ] The people owning/controlling the means of production, or
[ ] The government 'forcing' people to consume on a capitalist market where corporations reap the profit of the consumption

Obamacare falls into the second category. Follow the money. It's not socialism, and I can't think of a single other thing he's done that is economic socialism. The country wasn't "turning left", it was just continuing to enrich the already wealthy with a dwindling middle class. That's why the middle class revolted against ALL established politicians with ties to big business.

not as far as i recall, but there were some paid agitators hired by the opposition to stir stuff up http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/18/undercover-video-shows-democrats-saying-they-hire-/  Trump is a lover not a fighter... and a reality TV star blowhard.  Now he is our president.

Yeah, planting people to stir the pot is nonsense. But as bad as that is there's a huge difference between promoting something in public and doing something covertly, because the potential repercussions are vastly different. Took me 5 seconds to find....

http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000004269364/trump-and-violence.html

As far as saying that "Trump is a lover not a fighter" I would agree with you. As we've heard on tape he doesn't have fight, he just uses his position and power to grab women by the pussy and kiss them without asking first. A bit ironic you'd make that comment considering that admission of his, don't you think?

I hear him saying that he will improve the business climate and create jobs... Governments can't  create jobs but if he can roll back onerous regulation, reform taxes (including freeing up the $2T of retained earnings held offshore to escape onerous US tax rates), stimulus spending etc, the economy sure as hell will grow and create jobs.

I take such job promises from presidents with a huge grain of salt, but what Trump is promoting could in fact grow the US economy and raise all boats in the process.

Ok, but again though: The topic was why people on "the left" are protesting and hating Trump, and I told you why that was. What you say you hear and what I talked about isn't mutually exclusive. If the nation had chosen a candidate with EXACTLY the economic policies you promote and "heard" but WITHOUT the stuff I am telling you "the left" is hearing, you would not have seen these protests.

I really, really, really don't understand why this distinction is so hard to grasp for Trump-voters.

  I don't have anything against you for being Mexican (didn't know), for being Muslim (didn't know), for being brown (whatever that means), for being a woman (again didn't know), and for being LGBT (not even sure what they all mean, I can guess a few). That said I am a little irritated by your [edit] removed [/edit]  argument style. Not only don't I own it, i don't accept your hyperbolic characterization.

Your line of reasoning in general, and that of a lot of other Trump supporters can basically be summed up as: "Yeah, well, that is something I don't agree with, I voted for him for different reasons." Well, when you elect a president you elect the entire package, regardless of whether or not you agree with all of it.

Imagine if I voted for a candidate that had true leftist socialist policies in mind and also said he'd make religious worship illegal. Just hypothetically. Now, if I hear him say all of those things but I only agree with the former, am I absolved of responsibility for enabling the latter? I don't think so.