Thanks for your email.
It's always good to hear from you.
No matter how we slice it, Trump is worrisome.
However, I would call to mind the (in)famous Bush tax cuts which did not result in "new jobs." Nor did Canada's recent tax reduction boost employment.
Although tax cuts can - under certain circumstances - prime prosperity, they are far from a panacea, escpecially in this time of global economic re-calibration.
Don't Get Fooled Again: Trump's Stated Intention To "Bring Back" Increasingly Roboticized Jobs
Although Der Führer flies in the face of my following suggestion, I think Trump is such a bad actor that there is some measure of "principled protection" in the New Testament "wisdom verse," "You cannot get good fruit from a bad tree."
Trump is, after all, a failed businessman, rescued from abject failure in the mid '90s when another group of burned creditors was preparing to "default" on "The King Of Debt" only to realize that by doing so they would lose everything to His Malevolence. On the other hand, if they strung him along with just enough new credit to keep him afloat they would at least "get something."
Trump's Financial Moves In The '90s: 'Genius' Or 'Colossal Failure'?
When I was at the University of Toronto, Marshall McLuhan taught at St. Michael's, my "home college." In McLuhan's view, institutions routinely undergo their greatest and most florid flowering just before they collapse.
Clearly, anything can happen... just as Trump did.
Before I sign out, one more encouraging note...
Despite the plausible political prospect outlined in your email, Reason itself would have us believe that "the browning of America" -- coupled with the assiduous alienation of dark-skinned people by The White Party -- chart a demographic collision course that will bury the GOP (as we know it) by the third presidential election "out"... and maybe sooner.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:26 AM, MB wrote:
As I think about the first few days of Trump's presidency in terms both of his activity and the protests against him, I am concerned that the following scenario could play out:Tax cuts for the very wealthy, coupled with an eviscerated regulatory framework (EPA rolled back, labor unions rolled back, worker health and safety protections rolled back, court nominees moving away from civil findings that impose penalties on corporate malfeasance, minimum-wage and health-coverage rules undone) could spur stock-market gains and a short-term flush of economic growth. Protectionist trade policy could also provide several highly visible "wins" for Trump at factories in the Rust Belt. That the gains from these measures would overwhelmingly go to the top of the economic pyramid would be offset by the ability of Trump to dominate the spotlight and control the narrative. Working people would feel patriotically vindicated by these measures, if not ultimately economically compensated.In the meantime, the mass movement against Trump will focus on civil liberties and civil rights. Protests will be characterized as "riots" and, though the overwhelming majority of dissenters will be peaceful, in the media their rallies will become occasions for highly visible clashes between police and anarchist types (and/or provocateurs) wearing masks and black bandannas.The Romney-style business wing of the GOP will fall into line behind Trump based on the regulatory and tax policies. The "Reagan Democrats" will fall in line based on appeals to patriotism and protectionism. Many independents--particularly white folks--will turn against the protests (in part because they don't understand the "complaints" or "whines" about civil liberties and civil rights, and in part because they do not like radicalism and unrest in the streets) and applaud measures on behalf of "law and order."The result will be an electoral coalition that, with the aid of voter suppression and gerrymandering, can dominates state and congressional elections. Trump will be too popular for a GOP primary challenger, and the Democratic candidate in 2020 will either (a) run a civil-liberties based campaign that falls short, as Clinton's did, or (b) run a Sanders-like economic populism campaign that will have been outflanked by Trump's rhetorical posturing and publicity stunts on behalf of the "forgotten Americans."Nixon fared pretty well in 1972 with a similar formula.What could stop this scenario from playing out?Best,M
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Alan Archibald <email@example.com> wrote:
Thanks for your kind thank you note and for Abby Phillip's article on His Holiness.It brought a smile to my face.If you do not subscribe to The Borowitz Report, you may have missed the following:More Borowitz Reports
"Trump Blasts Media For Reporting Things He Says"The Borowitz Report"Trump Blames Bad Poll Numbers On Existence Of Numerical System"The Borowitz Reporthttp://www.newyorker.com/humor
/borowitz-report/trump-blames- bad-poll-numbers-on-existence- of-numerical-systemTrump Says He Would Only Use Nuclear Weapons In A "Sarcastic Way"The Borowitz Reporthttp://www.newyorker.com/humor /borowitz-report/trump-says-he -would-only-use-nuclear-weapon s-in-a-sarcastic-way
"Kremlin Names Trump Employee Of The Month"The Borowitz ReportThe Borowitz Report: "Putin Agrees To Receive Intelligence Briefings In Trump's Place"The Borowitz Report
"Trump To Split Time Between Trump Tower And Kremlin"The Borowitz Report
"Seemingly Decent Human Beings' Involvement In 2016 Election Confuses Voters"The Borowitz Report
More Than Three Hundred Million Americans Now Enrolled In Trump UniversityThe Borowitz Report
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:33 AM, MB wrote:
Is the "National Day of Patriotic Devotion"...
A) The North Korean regime's official name for the Dear Leader's birthdayB) The American regime's official name for the Dear Leader's inauguration day