The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Serious Why Trump will win 2020 (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=420693)

EnglishALT May 8th, 2019 4:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nah (Post 10015716)
Are these things a direct result of decisions made by Trump, or a result of something/someone else?

I personally never cared for pointing to wage increases and jobs created numbers though. If wages aren't increasing to liveable levels, and the jobs people are getting hired to aren't ones that pay a liveable income, they're pretty meaningless statistics.

Considering a lot of this boom has been attributed to the tax cuts and regulation cutting, I would place it as a direct result of Trump’s policies.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-economy-deficits/

Also I would suggest looking at the last statistic of my previous post, the people who need the wage growth the most are getting it right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar
No, Alt, I am saying that all you guys ever do is give us a bunch of numbers. The truth is more complicated when you actually realize how we're achieving these great statistics:

Not very complicated at all, the statistics show a booming and healthy economy that is helping all Americans at the moment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar
I know, I was using it as a comparison, because YOU are suggesting the ends justify the means, no matter WHAT is done to achieve those ends.

But I have not suggested any policy even close to such a horrible act, this seems like a bad faith argument.

Maedar May 8th, 2019 5:01 AM

You know, the funny thing is, I remember how, during the Obama administration, the economy was improving too. Thing is, whenever unemployment went down under Obama, Republicans screamed, "it doesn't count the folks who stopped looking!" and "it's all temp and minimum wage jobs!"

And when the Market went up under Obama, the Republicans bellowed, "the Treasury is printing more money to prop it up!" and "the correction is coming, the House of Cards is gonna fall!"

Trump himself once claimed, with no proof whatsoever, that "the real unemployment numbers" were around 40%. Of course, he expects us to believe his mere presence as President magically caused that to plummet overnight.

Btw, Alt, I find it hard to believe you actually read that article and made your last post in 8 minutes.

EnglishALT May 8th, 2019 5:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10015725)
You know, the funny thing is, I remember how, during the Obama administration, the economy was improving too. Thing is, whenever unemployment went down under Obama, Republicans screamed, "it doesn't count the folks who stopped looking!" and "it's all temp and minimum wage jobs!"

You can usually find that out through the U6 numbers which show discouraged workers

https://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar
And when the Market went up under Obama, the Republicans bellowed, "the Treasury is printing more money to prop it up!" and "the correction is coming, the House of Cards is gonna fall.

Quanatative Easing is what drove a lot of market growth in the Obama years, it may have been why wages were so flat and the economy was so poor during that time.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4045339-monetary-policy-drove-stock-market-obama-years-will-fiscal-policy-trumps-time

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar
Btw, Alt, I find it hard to believe you actually read that article and made your last post in 8 minutes.

I skimmed it, the article discussed the happiness index comparing it to the one from the UN, taken two years ago which was more reflective of the economy of the last administration. It also mentioned stagnant wages which as posted above is something that hasn’t been true for 9 months.

Maedar May 8th, 2019 5:13 AM

There's also the matter of tax returns not being what everyone expected:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-returns-2019-tax-refunds-so-far-this-year-are-down-by-6-billion/

juliorain May 8th, 2019 6:13 AM

Fairly certain that the economy's growth rate is the same as a result of the Obama era stimulus packages and economic policy.

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/12/646708799/fact-check-who-gets-credit-for-the-booming-u-s-economy

We'll see in the coming election cycle whether or not people have the ability to attribute it to Trump or Obama. It would be unfair to take all the credit like he is now and will certainly use that on his campaign trail. Who knows what the effect will be.

Maedar May 8th, 2019 12:27 PM

I might as well post this too:

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/trumps-electoral-map-has-shifted-dramatically-and-it-doesnt-bode-well-for-his-2020-chances/

EnglishALT May 8th, 2019 7:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juliorain (Post 10015756)
Fairly certain that the economy's growth rate is the same as a result of the Obama era stimulus packages and economic policy.

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/12/646708799/fact-check-who-gets-credit-for-the-booming-u-s-economy

We'll see in the coming election cycle whether or not people have the ability to attribute it to Trump or Obama. It would be unfair to take all the credit like he is now and will certainly use that on his campaign trail. Who knows what the effect will be.

Not really, as we see in the article while unemployment has continued a climb, things like small business growth, investment, etc etc started during the Trump administration which is attributed directly to his policies and why we are seeing so much growth in wages while they were stagnant under Obama.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10015731)
There's also the matter of tax returns not being what everyone expected:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-returns-2019-tax-refunds-so-far-this-year-are-down-by-6-billion/

From your own article...

“Lower refunds don't mean Americans paid more taxes—quite the opposite. Most workers paid less in taxes last year and saw higher take-home pay week in and week out. But for many Americans, a slightly higher paycheck doesn't quite have the same visibility as a single $3,000 check in March or April.”

The tax cuts, cut taxes for everyone and while it sucks to get a smaller refund, it is only because people are paying less taxes for the rest of the year.

Noblejanobii May 9th, 2019 2:25 AM

I will stick my head in here to say that having had to study this campaign and presidency since before Trump was president, I have to agree that it's likely he's going to win, as much as I really don't want him too. Granted, he is horridly unpopular, which is a huge strike against him, but there's a couple big logistical factors that I personally think based on my studies would at least give him an edge.

And I'm also putting a disclaimer. I'm not here to debate. This is just my observations. Quite candidly, if you disagree with me, I don't care. You're entitled to your opinions as I am mine. I won't be responding to anyone else here, just putting down the thoughts and opinions of someone who has been forced to study the statistics, logistics, and policies of this administration since high school.

The first thing is the "law of incumbency". It's not actually a law in the legal or scientific sense, but it's what we jokingly refer to in my political science department when addressing why it's just harder to topple incumbents. Now, the "law" applies a little differently in regards to presidents and typically is used in reference to Congressional elections, but it does still have some application to the presidential offices. So, to explain as best I can, the "law of incumbency" essentially means that it is always just inherently harder to topple someone who is already in office. It's not impossible, obviously, I've done political work with enough campaigns that were both for and against the incumbent at more local levels to be aware of this. But it is just inherently more difficult. At the congressional and local levels, it has more to do with resources such as franking and name recognition, etc. which is still somewhat true with the president. But since most of the candidates in the running are currently members of Congress, they have access to the same resources and name recognition to some degree. Some, like say Elizabeth Warren, are a bit more well known than your Amy Klobuchars of the world, but as they all are serving in office, they've got some standing for them. Heck, even on the Republican side, Bill Weld has pull not only as the former governor and senator of Massachusetts, but also as the VP candidate for the Libertarians back in 2016 with Gary Johnson. BUT, with that said, unfortunately, the president just has more. Not just Trump, but all the presidents always have more. I won't lie, when I looked at the list of candidates on the democrat side, I maybe new of 1/3rd of them prior to seeing their names on this list. I know I know, shameful for someone who studies politics, but as someone who grew up in a conservative state, unless they were making headlines or were friends with my bosses like Elizabeth Warren or Cory Booker, they just never popped up on my radar. And that is going to be a HUGE strike against the democrats unless they do pick someone with enough name recognition to counter the president's notoriety. Because even if you don't like him, bad press is still press, and it's reaching people who do support him. And because they've seen his name soooo many times since he got elected and even before, that name recognition outweighs most of the democrat candidates.

The second strike against the democrats at the moment also kinda falls into the law of incumbency, but is also separate. And it's partly to blame for the 2016 election's fallout from what I've studied. This factor is split parties. Split parties are essentially when there's too many popular candidates running for one party and can cause major problems when it comes to voting. While it's not a one to one comparison, the very best example I can give of this happening is the 1912 election with Theodore Roosevelt. Again, not a one to one, but for those unfamiliar, Teddy was dissatisfied with Taft and tried to win the Republican nomination. When he failed, he went and founded his own party, and because he was so popular, a lot of Republicans had a hard time to choosing between him and Taft. In the end, because of this, incumbent President Taft was unseated because of the split, and President Woodrow Wilson was able to take over. Overall, since this incident, parties have gotten smarter and have tried to prevent this from happening again. It still obviously happens, as Bernie Sanders' popularity with young people cause them to seek out the independents instead of backing Hillary which is part of the reason she lost (and yes there's sooo many other factors I am breezing over here but for the sake of relevance just stay with me). So when it comes to this election, I am a bit worried. There are a lot of strong candidates on the democrat side, which is good for the party, but if say, John Delaney wins the nomination, well if the people who supported Andrew Yang don't find his policies appealing enough, they either won't vote or they'll vote third party, creating a split. Quite candidly I thought this was going to happen in 2016 with the Republicans too but that's neither here nor there and since I was surprised then because of the split in the Democratic party then, who knows, a candidate might step forward in the Republican party that creates an effective enough split for Trump to be unseated. But that brings me to my third point.

The Republicans aren't stupid. Trust me, whether you agree with their policies or not, they are actually very smart people. Well... most of them anyway. I've worked enough campaigns to know there's a few idiots in every batch. But the point is, while you may only see the faces of the people running, there is a team of very brilliant people working behind them to make things happen. If you're ever interested in seeing how a staff can make or break a politician's career, just look at Ronald Reagan or Strom Thurmond. Whether you agree with their policies or not, their staffs are excellent examples of a well oiled machine able to keep a facade going for years. And I believe, since Trump does have experience as a businessman, he is aware of this. It's why he's fired so many people. Reports have come out detailing how his staff would defy him in his earlier days, but now most of them are gone, which whether you agree with Trump or not, it makes sense. If you disobedied your boss repeatedly you'd probably be fired too. And so now his staff is largely subservient to him, and while it may not seem like it, they know what their doing. Sure, there's several things I'd be doing differently, but they're making good use of Trump unpopularity to motivate his followers. And trust me, as someone who lives in a conservative state, I can confirm that they are responding like dogs to a treat. Their use of outrage marketing is very impressive. But it only really works if there's no one to compare him to. Which is why I think other than Bill Weld and a few others, there aren't going to be a lot of nominees on the Republican side. And there's many reasons for this. For one, a lot of members of Congress that I've worked with don't want to deal with the stress that being the president comes with, and their staff doesn't either. I remember one senator I worked for said that even if he did manage to get elected, he gets so many crap already that coupled with the bad publicity Trump has given the Republican party, he could probably never be able to pull his weight as the proper check and balance against Congress. In his words, he'd "be trampled like a welcome mat". And, unfortunately, I think that is the mentality a lot of Republicans have right now. They do not want the negative stigma Trump has given the nomination to impact them and their ability to do their jobs. And while they're certainly feeling it in their offices, the phone calls I can repeat from memory are overwhelming evidence of that, they're feeling it less than if they were to take the seat right after Trump. And sure, Bill Weld has stepped up, but I'm sorry, I don't think he's a strong enough candidate. Other than the 2016 election, he hasn't been in politics recently enough to draw on his support base as much as I think would be needed. But, he might surprise me.

There's several other things I think will impact this election and make it a bit of a wild ride for sure. For one, polling will still probably be off. The way polling typically works is that they poll people who have voted in the past three of the last four or five elections, and while there's been several since Trump was elected, in my area at least, most people only voted in the 2016 election, and a few did vote in the midterms. So they don't meet that minimum. The majority of Trump's supporters are also older, which means polling by phone will be difficult for a number of reasons, and internet polling is definitely shot. So at least on the Republican side, I don't think the polls will give an accurate representation of popularity unless the formula gets changed up.

In addition, while Trump's lack of popularity is a huge strike against him, there's no denying that his staff has done a beautiful job of framing a lot of his efforts as successes. His foreign relations, for example, have really focused on his efforts to mend things with Russia and North Korea lately and have tried to ignore some of his more controversial actions. Even Pence's threats to Venezuela for action have been framed to look like valiant efforts to save a dying people much in the same manner Vietnam was framed. And if it worked then, who's to say it won't work now. And whether you believe the economy is the result of his efforts or the result of the groundwork laid by Obama, it doesn't really matter. President Trump has the platform, not Obama. So guess who gets to claim credit? President Trump. It doesn't matter if he did or didn't cause it, former president Obama doesn't have the same soap box and while some people in higher positions are calling BS, they just don't have the same weight to their names as the current president.

I think unless the Democrat party can all unite behind a single candidate and there's an effective enough split in the Republican party, President Trump will win. Unfortunately for them, the odds are stacked against the Democrats, just as they are always stacked against the party not holding the incumbency. We haven't had a single term presidency since HW Bush lost in 1992. Just shy of three decades later, it's possible history will repeat itself. Taking a quick glance over the list of single term presidents (not counting partial presidencies just for comparison's sake), most of the presidents who only held one term where Republican. So who knows. Literally anything can happen. Personally, I'm not a fan of Trump. I'll spare you why but I'm optimistic that he'll get taken down. But, the reality is my studies and research just have the odds stacked in his favor for a re-election. So we'll see.

EnglishALT May 9th, 2019 3:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noblejanobii (Post 10016226)
Snip

I wanted to say thank you for your insightful rundown and if you do not mind I would love to pick your brain for a moment. Specifically I was curious as to when do you think a President can truly claim credit or take blame for an economy? I seem to remember there is a bit of a 6 month leeway after entering office, in which the previous President can get credit for an economy, as the current one has to install his own staff and begin to craft regulations. However I was wondering when you think an economy is truly credited toward the current administration?

Maedar May 9th, 2019 3:48 AM

I have no idea, ALT, economics isn't my specialty. However, I will note that Obama was never given any credit at all for eight years of economic recovery by his detractors. In their eyes, the economy never truly started to recover until Trump's inauguration.

Here, from 2015. This kinda illustrates my point:

https://www.gocomics.com/nickanderson/2015/08/25

And while Trump has indeed "installed his own staff", his administration has had FAR more layovers than any other administration. One has to wonder how he gets anything done at all, and the truth is, he hasn't.

Noblejanobii May 9th, 2019 5:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10016235)
I wanted to say thank you for your insightful rundown and if you do not mind I would love to pick your brain for a moment. Specifically I was curious as to when do you think a President can truly claim credit or take blame for an economy? I seem to remember there is a bit of a 6 month leeway after entering office, in which the previous President can get credit for an economy, as the current one has to install his own staff and begin to craft regulations. However I was wondering when you think an economy is truly credited toward the current administration?

The President will take credit for the economy if it is good and will pass blame on someone else if it is bad. But in reality the economy typically has very little with what policies they introduce. Yes, it can help, but in reality most of the work is actually done by Congress, the FED, state and local governments, and other such organizations. The economy is a constantly shifting organism with too many factors impacting it at once for any one thing or program to be the sole creditor or originator for the change in the economy. So personally, no, I don't think it should be credited to the current administration, but nor should it be credited to the previous one. Have both administrations made impacts on it? Yes. But so has Senator Tim Scott with his initiatives for opportunity zones in South Carolina. So has the FED with its yearly interest rate alterations. So have Amazon and other big names through their productivity and impact on the stock markets. There are too many moving parts in the economy. No one should be solely credited for "saving" it. FDR's programs alone didn't pull the United States out of the Great Depression, and neither did President Obama's programs alone pull us out of the Recession of 2008. Were they large factors? Of course. And credit should be given to them for the role they played, just as certain economic policies implemented by the current administration be acknowledged for their effects as well. But, in my opinion, no one program or administration is the originator of this change, and thus I think the credit should be given to no single person or administration, but rather everyone as a whole. Because everyone, even people outside the United States, impacts our economy.

EnglishALT May 10th, 2019 4:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XIII (Post 10017007)
So the rest of it is due to money?

If your talking campaign spending Hillary actually out raised Trump in terms of money. I think a lot of people dismiss Trump’s speech style, it may seem simple but it resonates with people and helped him in many ways win the debates.

Maedar May 11th, 2019 4:22 AM

Trump's "speech style" is modern day rabble-rousing, and are full of half-truths and outright lies. I've seen the typical rally. They remind me of the studio audience of the old Morton Downy Jr. show.

EnglishALT May 11th, 2019 4:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10017206)
Trump's "speech style" is modern day rabble-rousing, and are full of half-truths and outright lies. I've seen the typical rally. They remind me of the studio audience of the old Morton Downy Jr. show.

You essentially just described every single politician. Considering this topic is about 2020, I would suggest reading this experiment that New York University undertook in which they swamped the genders of Trump and Hillary and hired actors to portray them. Trump's female actor won over a very partisan audience because of his speech style, while Hillary's male actor came across as freaky and unsettling.

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html

S-MAN May 11th, 2019 5:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10017211)
You essentially just described every single politician. Considering this topic is about 2020, I would suggest reading this experiment that New York University undertook in which they swamped the genders of Trump and Hillary and hired actors to portray them. Trump's female actor won over a very partisan audience because of his speech style, while Hillary's male actor came across as freaky and unsettling.

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html

Sort of goes to show the people who claim "sexism" and all these other wild accusations for supporting the real Hillary reveals the reverse sexism these people have. The media, owned by very specific groups of people programming the public to hate certain people like Trump who don't bend over to political correctness. There can be legitimate reasons to not like him, but overall people are just getting PTSD over his remarks that he isn't afraid to hold back especially when they're true.. Like they're still bringing up the collusion after the fact he was already determined not to be indicted.. Or the case of public slander on Trump supporter Sandman who is now suing people like Washington Compost and NBC.. not to mention celebrities who all went out of their way to spread lies and dox him and his family.. and now how some people are suggesting the Democrats have to break the rules because they're dealing with Trump.. Most of the hate is misplaced and getting people who are generally good-hearted to turn against him too because they keep repeating the same lies/slander to the point it is accepted as fact. Any supporter of Trump or any of his policies are smeared as "alt-right" and that for the most part portrayed by the media is seen as negative when it really isn't.

Just listen to the directive of the communist party back in 1943: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgjUnl4Bluk
Sounds familiar? Who is the most notorious for practicing these sorts of things?

And who is trying to push for REMOVING him out of the ballots. Now, why do you think they would want to do that if they don't want him to win? Only if it's popular vote? So only the heavily condensed cities in the US found in places like California and Chicago can have the final say on who is elected? There is a reason why we have electoral college. This should be ringing alarms for everyone. Who really is acting like criminals? It ain't him that's for sure.

Like I said a lot of good people out there who mean good have many misunderstandings of how things work and it's not entirely their fault, but many aren't willing to really pull themselves out of the box.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-7CiljQ_LI KGB defector explains how current situation came to be- this video also provides context to current events and is not boring

gimmepie May 11th, 2019 5:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10017206)
Trump's "speech style" is modern day rabble-rousing, and are full of half-truths and outright lies. I've seen the typical rally. They remind me of the studio audience of the old Morton Downy Jr. show.

But it doesn't matter. It has not mattered to the majority of his supporters that almost everything he says is an outright lie before, it's not about to start mattering now. We're not discussing whether Trump is a good president, or even a good person. The question is, is he going to win?

Preferably, no. But the preferable outcome isn't the only one and I think we need to acknowledge that a Trump victory is a distinct possibility no matter how much of an asshole he is. My question to you is, if none of these things have mattered in relation to Trump before, why should we expect them to be a deciding factor now?

Maedar May 11th, 2019 4:19 PM

ALT, why are you still bringing up Hillary? I certainly didn't, and I can tell you with near-certainty that the only reason she is ever mentioned is because Republicans keep bringing her up. It's 2016. She is retired. Let it go.

Quote:

And who is trying to push for REMOVING him out of the ballots. Now, why do you think they would want to do that if they don't want him to win? Only if it's popular vote? So only the heavily condensed cities in the US found in places like California and Chicago can have the final say on who is elected? There is a reason why we have electoral college. This should be ringing alarms for everyone. Who really is acting like criminals? It ain't him that's for sure.
Orly Taitz tried many times to remove Obama from state ballots. I didn't see any outrage then. As for respect for the electoral college, remember this?

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/11/08/see-donald-trumps-rant-from-2012s-election-night/21601285/

As for "who is really acting like criminals"? Trump and his administration, no doubt.

EnglishALT May 11th, 2019 4:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10017548)
ALT, why are you still bringing up Hillary? I certainly didn't, and I can tell you with near-certainty that the only reason she is ever mentioned is because Republicans keep bringing her up. It's 2016. She is retired. Let it go.

As I said in the post, it is not about Hillary but Trump's speaking style and how it resonates with voters. Here are a few quotes for example:

There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don’t like, but you know is doing good things for you.

I remember turning to Maria at one point in the rehearsals and saying, "I kind of want to have a beer with her!"


If Democrats hope to beat Trump in 2020 they are going to need someone with the more relaxed and off to cuff speaking style that Trump utilizes so well, Biden for example is a good person I believe that can do this, as well as Beto. People like Elizabeth Warren, and some extent Bernie Sanders, not so much.

Maedar May 11th, 2019 4:46 PM

ALT, what I meant was, Trump's "speaking style" is full of insults, threats, and obscenities. He turns the crowd into something that threatens to cross the line into a becoming a lynch mob.

As if the chants of "LOCK HER UP" aren't enough, have you forgotten how he promised to pay legal fees of people who assaulted hecklers?

Here, Trump inciting violence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIs2L2nUL-0

EnglishALT May 11th, 2019 4:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10017562)
ALT, what I meant was, Trump's "speaking style" is full of insults, threats, and obscenities. He turns the crowd into something that threatens to cross the line into a becoming a lynch mob.

As if the chants of "LOCK HER UP" aren't enough, have you forgotten how he promised to pay legal fees of people who assaulted hecklers?

Here, Trump inciting violence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIs2L2nUL-0

And? As gimmepie stated, people do not seem to care. If anything the insults and threats endear him to his supporters who have seen soft politicians like George W Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney run for President and refuse to punch back at their opponents. So to reiterate gimmiepie's question: if none of these things have mattered in relation to Trump before, why should we expect them to be a deciding factor now?

Maedar May 11th, 2019 4:59 PM

Wait, wait, hold on.

First, you said I "just described every politician".

Now, you're saying Trump's "style" is unique and is what makes him different?

EnglishALT May 11th, 2019 5:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10017572)
Wait, wait, hold on.

First, you said I "just described every politician".

Now, you're saying Trump's "style" is unique and is what makes him different?

You describe pretty much every politician as engaging in "full of half-truths and outright lies" so again I ask gimmiepie's question. Why does his combative style, matter if the base, and independents seem to like it?

Maedar May 11th, 2019 5:11 PM

Because maybe the blatant lies (not half-truths), threats, name calling, bigotry, and calls for violence will matter now that everyone knows he's also an incompetent President.

And I posted my reasons for his incompetence on my first post of this thread.

Sirfetch’d May 11th, 2019 7:19 PM

This is a final warning for both of you to get back on the topic of 'Why Trump will win' and stop derailing the thread. Any more instances of this will result in infractions.

S-MAN May 12th, 2019 4:17 AM

https://youtu.be/VmAkq-AajFU
Trump is a successful business man. He is a symbol for prosperity and as this guy puts it: An American Success Story.
So with how they're trying to paint him as a loser with his tax returns, it only proves how he really knows a thing or two.
Quite an inspiration. I honestly hated him before because of all his wealth (jealousy) but that is no longer the case I can see how his comeback is significant and isn't a simple feat.
He wasn't just handed money and became rich- you also have to be smart with it. If it were so simple there wouldn't be as many financial failures who win the lotto.
He's going to win because there are many things us Americans can learn from him as well as hopefully undo all the marxist-like policies that are hurting us.
He is reviving the confidence in Americans in America despite all the insanity going on. This is reflective on his current popularity with everybody.
Of course there's going to be people hating him or some of his opinions but you can't please everybody.
He is absolutely smashing and even just got the 1.5B for the wall. He is getting some things done that previous presidents only talked the talk on before. He walks, struts, and is a boss.
You really have to look at WHY he is wealthy- why he is famous- WHY he is currently the president. That will ultimately reveal why he will win again.
People might have to let go of any jealousy/resentment residing inside to see the truth.
Plus he isn't afraid to make a moral argument against abortion. Believe it or not people really care about this.
Unemployment rates are being reported very low now and you can't just hit around the bush and give credit to something else.
The top comment there made me burst out laughing


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:33 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.