New Green Deal Proposal

[BmorePat87]

(02-12-2019, 07:25 PM)hollodero Wrote: While others claim it's a Chinese hoax.

But sure. I do know that the woman is a bit overwhelmed and mixes all kinds of topics and pet peeves together, like many young enthusiastic left-leaning people do. But I take accepting the science and drawing some false parallels over denying the science and calling it a ridiculous scam designed to hurt American business all day every day.

And that to me is reason, not ideology.

The link is that climate change adversely affects certain industries, industries that have higher levels of women, minorities, and the poor. 

It's one thing to actually address that and form some sort of argument against it, but for some it seems to just be easier to write it off as completely ridiculous that climate change could have any impact on industries. 

After reading through it, I guess my only initial issue is suggesting we need to be 100% renewable. I'd like to know where we're starting at, but I think half is a better initial goal. 

[GMDino]

(02-12-2019, 09:33 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Not many years ago, I considered myself a moderate or a centrist that leaned a little to the left on things and to the right on others.

However with the emergence of those on the left like the socialist bartender from New York that wants to give everything free to everyone, I find myself basically moving towards the right by default. I will take Trump and his idiotic things he tweets about any day over the likes like her and others that seem to be part of that 'socialist' movement on the left. I will take the 8 years under Obama as well.

Anyways, ones like her and the other radicals are dangerous for this country in the long run, even more dangerous than Trump is.

So rather than have taxes pay for things like education and healthcare for all (everything free for everyone) you would rather have taxes go to a wall and military spending and golf outings for the POTUS?

Seems legit.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

How much would something like this cost?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-12-2019, 09:27 PM)Benton Wrote: Which is ok. Out of the half dozen or so that say they're going to run, none of them are likely. I wouldn't put good money on Harris or that one from Minnesota at this point. Booker won't make it. Warren's out.

I think the Democrats will eventually realize they don't have a choice: the majority of voters are largely going to vote for an old white guy. Having a minority candidate only works when it's a strong candidate.

I do think Harris' career as a prosecutor will submarine her with the "justice system is racist and evil" crowd.  Honestly, of all the Dems I like Tulsi Gabbard.  I don't agree with a fair number of her positions but she's clearly an intelligent and educated person.

(02-12-2019, 09:33 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Not many years ago, I considered myself a moderate or a centrist that leaned a little to the left on things and to the right on others.

However with the emergence of those on the left like the socialist bartender from New York that wants to give everything free to everyone, I find myself basically moving towards the right by default. I will take Trump and his idiotic things he tweets about any day over the likes like her and others that seem to be part of that 'socialist' movement on the left. I will take the 8 years under Obama as well.

Anyways, ones like her and the other radicals are dangerous for this country in the long run, even more dangerous than Trump is.

Dude, we're in similar boats, although I think I was a bit more left leaning than you.  The thing is you didn't change, the poles did.  Say you're at a 50, with the extreme left being 0 and the extreme right being 100.  You're still at 50, but the extreme left is now at -100.  By default you now "lean right" but the fact is your position has not changed.

I agree with your take on the current far left though.  I honestly think we've elected a fair number of people to govern us who actively dislike, if not outright hate, this country.  It needs to be torn down and rebuilt and what better place for them to do it but from the inside.  I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt I am.

[Benton]

(02-12-2019, 11:11 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: How much would something like this cost?

Hard to say as there's not a lot of specific details 

(02-12-2019, 11:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I do think Harris' career as a prosecutor will submarine her with the "justice system is racist and evil" crowd.  Honestly, of all the Dems I like Tulsi Gabbard.  I don't agree with a fair number of her positions but she's clearly an intelligent and educated person.


Dude, we're in similar boats, although I think I was a bit more left leaning than you.  The thing is you didn't change, the poles did.  Say you're at a 50, with the extreme left being 0 and the extreme right being 100.  You're still at 50, but the extreme left is now at -100.  By default you now "lean right" but the fact is your position has not changed.

I agree with your take on the current far left though.  I honestly think we've elected a fair number of people to govern us who actively dislike, if not outright hate, this country.  It needs to be torn down and rebuilt and what better place for them to do it but from the inside.  I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt I am.

She seems nice but I'd be surprised if she gets traction . She's young and female, so there's two things working against her.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-12-2019, 11:29 PM)Benton Wrote: Hard to say as there's not a lot of specific details 


She seems nice but I'd be surprised if she gets traction . She's young and female, so there's two things working against her.

She's also got the past anti-LGBT issues.  Despite apologizing for them numerous times she's seen as hostile towards that community.  Like I said in another thread ideological purity will be demanded for the next candidate.

[hollodero]

(02-12-2019, 07:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There's nothing scientific about relating Climate change to Gender wage gap. 

IMO everyone in the climate change category should be slamming, not justifying this document. It only emboldens those that dispute the phenomenon. I think Pelosci was even smart enough to ridicule it. 

Emboldens those that deny reality. It's all about them... every approach has to be viewn from that angle... of people that rather believe Trump over scientists anyway. All warning signs about CC are out there, the danger can be observed by anyone. But what to do with those that chose to ignore it?
It's pointless to try "not to embolden" them. They already are, one more talking point that's beside the point (like the political thinking of some young congresswoman) doesn't matter. This isn't a topic warranting that kind of cautious approach.

But sure, do the conservative thing. Laugh about how ridiculous something in that Green Deal is and vote for those that call CC a scam and a hoax instead. And when the world gets a way more grim place to live in for your children, because the climate doesn't care about all that, tell them how stupid some young liberal congresswoman was and how hence it was impossible to listen to the alarm bells.

Or hope it's really just exaggerated and I along with all the scientists will be proven just hysterical and overly alarmist. Maybe the odds look good to you. But the world-wide science is neither in conservatives' camp or in AOC's camp, but quite neutral, and according to them the odds aren't that great for the next generations. It just happens that one side acknowledges that and the other does not. Like that guy with the snowball in congress, and like the ignorant crap Trump is tweeting about the issue. This is the truly ridiculous thing, not her.

But sure, I also do not believe it has much to do with the gender wage gap. AOC is no one's spokesperson though. She and her ideas are no valid talking point for fundamental climate change scepticism. (Except for those that really don't care about validity that much.)

[*bfine32*]

(02-13-2019, 01:30 AM)hollodero Wrote: Emboldens those that deny reality. It's all about them... every approach has to be viewn from that angle... of people that rather believe Trump over scientists anyway. All warning signs about CC are out there, the danger can be observed by anyone. But what to do with those that chose to ignore it?
It's pointless to try "not to embolden" them. They already are, one more talking point that's beside the point (like the political thinking of some young congresswoman) doesn't matter. This isn't a topic warranting that kind of cautious approach.

But sure, do the conservative thing. Laugh about how ridiculous something in that Green Deal is and vote for those that call CC a scam and a hoax instead. And when the world gets a way more grim place to live in for your children, because the climate doesn't care about all that, tell them how stupid some young liberal congresswoman was and how hence it was impossible to listen to the alarm bells.

Or hope it's really just exaggerated and I along with all the scientists will be proven just hysterical and overly alarmist. Maybe the odds look good to you. But the world-wide science is neither in conservatives' camp or in AOC's camp, but quite neutral, and according to them the odds aren't that great for the next generations. It just happens that one side acknowledges that and the other does not. Like that guy with the snowball in congress, and like the ignorant crap Trump is tweeting about the issue. This is the truly ridiculous thing, not her.

But sure, I also do not believe it has much to do with the gender wage gap. AOC is no one's spokesperson though. She and her ideas are no valid talking point for fundamental climate change scepticism. (Except for those that really don't care about validity that much.)

Dang, reading all that you'd think I didn't believe climate change was a real thing.

I didn't laugh about AOC's proposal (Pelosci did that). I just find it sad people are so desperate they will give it any merit. Did she still go with the world is going to end in 12 years? Yep, science is on her side. 

[hollodero]

(02-13-2019, 02:13 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Dang, reading all that you'd think I didn't believe climate change was a real thing.

Your belief seems to be fluid on that one. Let's say you just won't commit either way, which to me isn't good enough, but whatever. But you act like it isn't a real thing. And you vote like it isn't. And belittle those that think differently. Yeah, that picture seems to be quite clear, but the record can be corrected any time.

(02-13-2019, 02:13 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't laugh about AOC's proposal (Pelosci did that). I just find it sad people are so desperate they will give it any merit. Did she still go with the world is going to end in 12 years? Yep, science is on her side. 

Climate change is not about some young liberal congresswoman. She could be the stupidest person ever and saying the dumbest stuff possible and climate change still wouldn't be about her. Is this point really that impossible to grasp?

[hollodero]

(02-12-2019, 07:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  this proposal is essentially advocating that we destroy the fabric of the nation down to it's foundation and rebuild it into something that's never worked in human history. Quite simply it's emblematic of what's wrong with the left these days, rebuild the US from scratch and free stuff!

I know this is not the biggest point ever, but why say "that's what's wrong with the left" for having some members with different ideas. I get disagreeing, I see points against "free stuff", but it's not that radical as you make it out to be. Universal healthcare isn't radical, some kind of state aid to prevent total tumble into homelessness and crime isn't radical. These ideas have merit and are worth discussing, like talking points from the right I disagree with are worth discussing. Why many like you are so immovable and call everything that challenges their ideas an "attack on the very foundation of this nation" and other exaggerations like that is beyond me. Be strongly opposed, I get that, vote accordingly (after Trump). But really, subtly comparing this ideas to the failing Soviet Union? Isn't that a bit much. Compare it to western Europe, that's fair. And isn't a non-working disaster. :)

The direction of a greeen deal is a necessary one. The inappropriate political demands around it are not, sure. But as of now, AOC is fringe. The right really better hope they are not reduced to their fringe elements. There are some guys, you know them.

Now when I have do judge how Trump is emblematic of what's wrong with the right these days (and I certainly do that, no denial), that's something else. But as it happens, so many conservatives deny that link and want more fairness towards their own stance. Yeah Trump, they say, that they are big critics as well, but... yeah sure, bigger picture, it's not all about one guy. But you could do the same favor to "the left" once in a while. The left isn't as narrow as AOC just as the right isn't as narrow as Trump or Breitbart.

[Millhouse]

(02-12-2019, 10:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: So rather than have taxes pay for things like education and healthcare for all (everything free for everyone) you would rather have taxes go to a wall and military spending and golf outings for the POTUS?

Seems legit.

It does seem legit when one considers the math involved, and that the necessary stealing from the wealthy to pay for it would be unjustified.


I am not the biggest fan of the tax cuts for the rich. But I am a lesser fan of some of these proposed tax ideas on the rich like 70% income, a 2-3% annual wealth tax, or a 70% estate death tax. 

[treee]

(02-13-2019, 02:37 AM)Millhouse Wrote: It does seem legit when one considers the math involved, and that the necessary stealing from the wealthy to pay for it would be unjustified.


I am not the biggest fan of the tax cuts for the rich. But I am a lesser fan of some of these proposed tax ideas on the rich like 70% income, a 2-3% annual wealth tax, or a 70% estate death tax. 

The rich benefit from the society they use, I don't think it's stealing to require they use their abundant resources to help maintain it.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-12-2019, 09:59 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The link is that climate change adversely affects certain industries, industries that have higher levels of women, minorities, and the poor. 

It's one thing to actually address that and form some sort of argument against it, but for some it seems to just be easier to write it off as completely ridiculous that climate change could have any impact on industries. 

After reading through it, I guess my only initial issue is suggesting we need to be 100% renewable. I'd like to know where we're starting at, but I think half is a better initial goal. 

I knew it.  Climate change is a Republican.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-13-2019, 02:26 AM)hollodero Wrote: I know this is not the biggest point ever, but why say "that's what's wrong with the left" for having some members with different ideas. I get disagreeing, I see points against "free stuff", but it's not that radical as you make it out to be. Universal healthcare isn't radical, some kind of state aid to prevent total tumble into homelessness and crime isn't radical. These ideas have merit and are worth discussing, like talking points from the right I disagree with are worth discussing. Why many like you are so immovable and call everything that challenges their ideas an "attack on the very foundation of this nation" and other exaggerations like that is beyond me. Be strongly opposed, I get that, vote accordingly (after Trump). But really, subtly comparing this ideas to the failing Soviet Union? Isn't that a bit much. Compare it to western Europe, that's fair. And isn't a non-working disaster. :)

I say it because they are the ones currently on the fringe.  Obviously you are approaching this from the European perspective, where many of these ideas aren't radical at all.  Also, I'm not talking about universal health care when I point to a radical agenda, although it is certainly part of it.  One last point on that topic, I certainly agree there are flaws in our health care system, but I would remind you that the US leads the world in quality of medical services and pharmaceutical research.  When someone needs an important operation they come to the US.  There's a Syrian girl in Germany that's trying to get to the US for a surgery.  Why can't they do it in Germany?  Because they lack the means.

Now, when I say an attack on the foundations of the nation I am not engaging in hyperbole.  Capitalism built everything we have in this nation, and most (all?) of the conveniences you enjoy.  You wouldn't have the computer you type on, the internet you post on or your smart phone.  While certainly given to excesses, like any system (and I do believe we are in the midst of one such period of time), it has fueled the world's most successful nation.  To suddenly act as if this is a corrupt, untenable, system and that we must change it from the ground up is laughable.  Eliminate air travel?  Give money to people unwilling to work?  Giving the masses free stuff is an easy way to win votes, hell even Republicans aren't immune to this, e.g. W's "everyone gets $500 if I win" blatant bribe.  The problem is it's not sustainable.  If you disagree, point out a socialist nation that actually worked.

Quote:The direction of a greeen deal is a necessary one. The inappropriate political demands around it are not, sure. But as of now, AOC is fringe. The right really better hope they are not reduced to their fringe elements. There are some guys, you know them.

See, here you're actually reinforcing my point.  Even you label AOC as fringe, which in beliefs she certainly is.  However, when you have a large percentage of Dem candidates for POTUS immediately signing off on the "deal" I'm not so sure AOC represents the fringe anymore.  You are correct, the fringe of the right is just as scary, in a different way, as that of the left.  However they are not in ascendancy at the moment and AOC and her type are.

Quote:Now when I have do judge how Trump is emblematic of what's wrong with the right these days (and I certainly do that, no denial), that's something else. But as it happens, so many conservatives deny that link and want more fairness towards their own stance. Yeah Trump, they say, that they are big critics as well, but... yeah sure, bigger picture, it's not all about one guy. But you could do the same favor to "the left" once in a while. The left isn't as narrow as AOC just as the right isn't as narrow as Trump or Breitbart.

To be sure, but I think you're underestimating how much people are buying into AOC's particular brand of horseshit.  The media anointed her the minute she won her primary and she's been on a role ever since.  One is forced to ask why this is.  Is it because she's young, female or hispanic?  Is it all three?  Is it because of her radical views?  Whatever the answer she has been deemed the face of the Democratic party right now and they've apparently accepted this.  The enjoy the media attention and the perception of being on the upswing, but in so doing they've accepted AOC's agenda and all that entails.

[Belsnickel]

First, let me start by saying that the Green New Deal that was put out there was garbage from a wonk point-of-view. I'm not going to get into specifics because I have to go audit someone and the post would be a lengthy one, but the main gist is that it wasn't a very well thought-out framework. This isn't to say I disagree with everything in it, but when I read through what I could find of the document I was not at all impressed with the thought that went into it.

I am in favor of a Green New Deal, but I'm not in favor of that heaping garbage pile.

Now, for this (sorry, SSF, but I really didn't go back and read many of the posts in here and I just saw this and had to say something):

(02-13-2019, 09:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Now, when I say an attack on the foundations of the nation I am not engaging in hyperbole. 

Yeah, you are. The foundations of our nation aren't capitalistic. Capitalism, as we know it, is a product of the Industrial Revolutions. The foundations of this nation were one of an agricultural society that was more egalitarian than it is today, and that is including the fact that there were people enslaved. In addition, the idea of investing government resources into services and products and using government regulation on private enterprise is something we have been doing since the beginning.

(02-13-2019, 09:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Capitalism built everything we have in this nation, and most (all?) of the conveniences you enjoy.  You wouldn't have the computer you type on, the internet you post on or your smart phone. 

Definitely not accurate. Many of the modern conveniences we know of were created through government research. DARPA and NASA alone account for many of the technological advances of the past century, including the ones you mentioned.

(02-13-2019, 09:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: While certainly given to excesses, like any system (and I do believe we are in the midst of one such period of time), it has fueled the world's most successful nation. 

When those periods of time occur, then the government steps in to regulate. That's how the economy works. Social Democratic principles (which is further left than the current Democratic party but not as left as, say, the DSA, and is similar to the Nordic model of things) prefer this method of things. Most of the policies that get presented as being "radical" or "extreme" fall into that category. They aren't socialist. They are not making the means of production publicly owned. They are efforts to regulate capitalism so that the people can still thrive under it and not just the people at the very top.

(02-13-2019, 09:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To suddenly act as if this is a corrupt, untenable, system and that we must change it from the ground up is laughable. 

Well, it is a corrupt and untenable system. That is why pure capitalism has never existed and worked.

(02-13-2019, 09:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Eliminate air travel?  Give money to people unwilling to work?  Giving the masses free stuff is an easy way to win votes, hell even Republicans aren't immune to this, e.g. W's "everyone gets $500 if I win" blatant bribe.  The problem is it's not sustainable.  If you disagree, point out a socialist nation that actually worked.

I don't disagree with most of this, but I will point out that there has never been a capitalist nation that has actually worked, either. Capitalism and socialism are extreme ends of a spectrum and neither work in real life. That's just the truth of it. The trick is finding the right point on the spectrum for the current economic circumstances at any given point in time. The issue is that the people at the top in a more capitalist society have more influence on the decision making process and so they will do everything they can to ensure the mixture benefits them more to the detriment of the rest of the society.

[*bfine32*]

(02-13-2019, 02:21 AM)hollodero Wrote: Your belief seems to be fluid on that one. Let's say you just won't commit either way, which to me isn't good enough, but whatever. But you act like it isn't a real thing. And you vote like it isn't. And belittle those that think differently. Yeah, that picture seems to be quite clear, but the record can be corrected any time.



Climate change is not about some young liberal congresswoman. She could be the stupidest person ever and saying the dumbest stuff possible and climate change still wouldn't be about her. Is this point really that impossible to grasp?

Is the point that this thread and my comments are about her proposal that difficult to grab. 

And you'll have to excuse me if I'm willing to look at the pros and cons of combating climate change. I also don't vote solely on one issue. If I pulled the lever for Hills because I liked her stances on foreign affairs would it be fair to say you vote for student loan forgiveness?

[Au165]

Saw senator Tom Cotton said there has been a Stalin-like media cover up of it. Kind of funny.

[*bfine32*]

(02-13-2019, 12:09 PM)Au165 Wrote: Saw senator Tom Cotton said there has been a Stalin-like media cover up of it. Kind of funny.

Not as funny as the "light rail fueled by unicorn tears" remark. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-13-2019, 10:36 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: First, let me start by saying that the Green New Deal that was put out there was garbage from a wonk point-of-view. I'm not going to get into specifics because I have to go audit someone and the post would be a lengthy one, but the main gist is that it wasn't a very well thought-out framework. This isn't to say I disagree with everything in it, but when I read through what I could find of the document I was not at all impressed with the thought that went into it.

I'm shocked.  AOC seems like such a well educated thoughtful person and not a ideologue with an agenda at all. 

Quote:I am in favor of a Green New Deal, but I'm not in favor of that heaping garbage pile.

I would be too, as I stated in an earlier post.

Quote:Now, for this (sorry, SSF, but I really didn't go back and read many of the posts in here and I just saw this and had to say something):

Nothing to apologize about, reasonable people can disagree.

Quote:Yeah, you are. The foundations of our nation aren't capitalistic. Capitalism, as we know it, is a product of the Industrial Revolutions. The foundations of this nation were one of an agricultural society that was more egalitarian than it is today, and that is including the fact that there were people enslaved. In addition, the idea of investing government resources into services and products and using government regulation on private enterprise is something we have been doing since the beginning.

I think you're parsing hairs a bit here.  The nation was founded on the idea of individual rights, to a level that was considered very extreme for its time.  One of those rights was the ownership of private property and the ability to keep the fruits of your labor (patents anyone?).  While it certainly isn't capitalism as introduced by the industrial revolution all the basic tenants are there. 

Quote:Definitely not accurate. Many of the modern conveniences we know of were created through government research. DARPA and NASA alone account for many of the technological advances of the past century, including the ones you mentioned.

On this we fundamentally disagree.  Government research is funded by taxes.  Taxes are generated by citizens and businesses.  Hence all tax money coming to the government in a capitalist society is the product of capitalism.  You can't fund government research with nothing.  This is the exact reason that every country that has tried socialism has either failed or transitioned to a hybrid authoritarian capitalist structure, e.g. Vietnam and China.  The fruits of a capitalist country are the direct product of the capitalist system.

Quote:When those periods of time occur, then the government steps in to regulate. That's how the economy works. Social Democratic principles (which is further left than the current Democratic party but not as left as, say, the DSA, and is similar to the Nordic model of things) prefer this method of things. Most of the policies that get presented as being "radical" or "extreme" fall into that category. They aren't socialist. They are not making the means of production publicly owned. They are efforts to regulate capitalism so that the people can still thrive under it and not just the people at the very top.

Absolutely, agree 100%. Capitalism with no government regulation would be horrific (The Lorax!).  I've said this before, governments are responsible to its citizens (or should be), corporations/businesses are only responsible to their shareholders.  If I had to put it in percentage terms the US is probably 85/15 capitalist/socialist.  European countries would lean more heavily towards the social programs aspect, with maybe some of the Nordic countries getting as close as 65/35.  The main point being that pure anything doesn't work well as no ideology or system has been found that functions perfectly in every aspect.  Given how flawed human beings are its likely we never will find such a ideology or system.

Quote:Well, it is a corrupt and untenable system. That is why pure capitalism has never existed and worked.

Except that's not what we're talking about as the US has never been a pure capitalist society.  But to pretend that what we have now is rotten to the core and needs replacing wholesale is radical.  Like all systems we swing from one end of the spectrum to the other, sometime further than others.  While we certainly aren't in a new Gilded Age we're certainly closer to that than the middle class post war boom.  The answer to current woes, however, is not to tear it all down and start from scratch.  That completely ignores that the current system is responsible for creating the most powerful and wealthy nation the world has ever known.

Quote:I don't disagree with most of this, but I will point out that there has never been a capitalist nation that has actually worked, either. Capitalism and socialism are extreme ends of a spectrum and neither work in real life. That's just the truth of it. The trick is finding the right point on the spectrum for the current economic circumstances at any given point in time. The issue is that the people at the top in a more capitalist society have more influence on the decision making process and so they will do everything they can to ensure the mixture benefits them more to the detriment of the rest of the society.

Again we agree 100%.  I think some of your disagreement with my original post was based on the mistaken assumption that I was referring to capitalism in its purest form.  I wasn't and never would.  Not only are you correct that no pure capitalist nation has ever worked I can't recall an instance of it actually being tried.  What is indisputable is that the western nations have thrived under a largely capitalist structure for hundreds of years.  There can be no argument that some of that growth came at the expense of poorer or less developed nations/areas.  But, again, that's all part of the pendulum swinging back and forth and we have certainly curbed the worst excesses of the system.  Almost paradoxically, the nation most ensconced in that old school style of capitalism is "Communist" China, and it has, for better and worse, fueled enormous economic growth.  I don't recall the name of it, but I watched a documentary on Chinese economic policy in Africa and literally all the Chinese were lacking were the pith helmets.  I'll find the name of it and post it later if you're interested.

[fredtoast]

(02-12-2019, 11:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  I honestly think we've elected a fair number of people to govern us who actively dislike, if not outright hate, this country.  It needs to be torn down and rebuilt and what better place for them to do it but from the inside.  I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt I am.

No.  You are absolutely correct.  That is exactly how we ended up with Trump as President.  He ran on the claim that he hated the current state of the nation and we had to elect him to tear it down and rebuild it to "make it great again".