a person who wants the President of the United States to succeed, and since in this case its Donald J. Trump,
that would make this kind of person a Trump supporter.

To a democrat, is there such a thing as this kind of supporter, or is this person automatically a racist, misogynist, a xenophobe, anti-immigrant, etc,etc, etc once they are labeled as a Trump supporter?

That's funny since you bashed Obama constantly. Now the shoe is on the other foot and you don't like it. I would like to see Trump succeed but it won't happen. He is clueless about how the government works, he is illegally using his position to make money for his businesses. He has not divested anything and his sons have not distanced themselves from daddy He is alienating our allies while he cozies up to Putin. Anything he doesn't like is fake news. He has not held a news conference in 5 months and his briefings are not allowed to be televised. There is no transparency with this administration.

Now, Goob, instead of bashing the Dems, why don't you defend what Trump is doing? You guys wanted to run things, now you got it. Too bad you are screwing it up.

Someone needs attention today

a person who wants the President of the United States to succeed, and since in this case its Donald J. Trump,
that would make this kind of person a Trump supporter.

To a democrat, is there such a thing as this kind of supporter, or is this person automatically a racist, misogynist, a xenophobe, anti-immigrant, etc,etc, etc once they are labeled as a Trump supporter?

That's funny since you bashed Obama constantly. Now the shoe is on the other foot and you don't like it. I would like to see Trump succeed but it won't happen. He is clueless about how the government works, he is illegally using his position to make money for his businesses. He has not divested anything and his sons have not distanced themselves from daddy He is alienating our allies while he cozies up to Putin. Anything he doesn't like is fake news. He has not held a news conference in 5 months and his briefings are not allowed to be televised. There is no transparency with this administration.

Now, Goob, instead of bashing the Dems, why don't you defend what Trump is doing? You guys wanted to run things, now you got it. Too bad you are screwing it up.

Have asked Goob previously to comment on Trump's accomplishments other that EO's and nuclear option? In other words, comment on Legislation. We all know that leaves Trump at zero. Can never expect a response from Goob when pressed for detail or defense of the Tweeter In Chief.

Donald Trump doesn't want the US to succeed.... he wants Donald trump to become a dictator like Putin...so no I don't want him to succeed because the US will then fail.

How the Republican base didn't realize how much of a clown DT is. is beyond me...John Kasich was the guy who should have been at the top of your platform...and even I a liberal would have voted for him over Hillary....

What is appealing about Donald Trump....he's disgusting clown...but I guess that's what you think should represent the free world...a man who if had his way would shutdown the 1st amendment without hesitation

What is there to back...any republican voted in would have ran your platform...so why the clown???

He'd phuc you sideways in a minute without a second thought....he doesn't have your interests in mind... so how'd you fall for it???

Those coal jobs are coming back along with the covered wagon and buggy whip industries

They didn't fall for anything. Trump solidified his presidency 1-second after he made the comments about the Mexicans over a year prior to the election. That was all they needed to hear - a guy willing to spew ignorant and hateful rhetoric about the opposition: democrats, minorities, women. Calling Mexicans rapists, blaming Obama's race for Chicago's violence - all thoughts of a caveman, but music to their ears nonetheless.

a person who wants the President of the United States to succeed, and since in this case its Donald J. Trump,
that would make this kind of person a Trump supporter.

To a democrat, is there such a thing as this kind of supporter, or is this person automatically a racist, misogynist, a xenophobe, anti-immigrant, etc,etc, etc once they are labeled as a Trump supporter?

There doesn't seem to be any of those here in the WP. They hate everything Trump. or any other Republican candidate that would have won.

Now Jerry that just isn't so. I saw a group of Trump supporters this past Friday on my way home, one of them had a sign Honk for the Deplorables, since I am one, I did!

Now Jerry that just isn't so. I saw a group of Trump supporters this past Friday on my way home, one of them had a sign Honk for the Deplorables, since I am one, I did!

I was referring to the Dems on the WP.

I'm a Dem on the Whipping Post, and I root for Trump everyday to not lead us into WWIII. That should count.

I'm an America supporter. If Trump does something to make America better, I will support him then. So far he has done nothing to do that.

It doesn't seem to me that a president that makes it ok to pollute drinking water, make workplaces less safe for workers, trys to take healthcare away from 25 million Americans, hands over classified information to our enemies, and is obstructing investigations into the foreign tampering of American elections has the best interest of our country at heart. In fact, I can't think of anyone more damaging to our country than Donald Trump and his buddy Putin. So, as a patriotic American I will withhold my support for anyone who damages and embarrasses our country, even if that person is our so called president.

I'm not going to label every Trump supporter a racist or whatever, but if you are a Trump supporter, I just don't understand why. Trump is what is what's wrong with America and I just don't understand how anyone in his right mind can support him. It's like rooting for cancer.

a person who wants the President of the United States to succeed, and since in this case its Donald J. Trump,
that would make this kind of person a Trump supporter.

To a democrat, is there such a thing as this kind of supporter, or is this person automatically a racist, misogynist, a xenophobe, anti-immigrant, etc,etc, etc once they are labeled as a Trump supporter?

There doesn't seem to be any of those here in the WP. They hate everything Trump. or any other Republican candidate that would have won.

I have voted for Dems my entire life but accepted and supported every Republican President in my lifetime for the good of our country.

On the other hand, Trump is an aberration. He is a pathological liar, distorter of reality (examples: crowd size at inauguration, 3 to 5 million illegals voted, etc.), has lost the respect of our foreign partners, acts like a middle school child looking for fights on twitter, cannot come to criticize our biggest enemy, Russia, has 0 legislative accomplishments. He does not seem to understand policies, detail, and ramifications of his big mouth and actions. He has used his position to advance his children & son in law's monetary interests & is a walking / talking example of conflict of interest. He has surrounded himself with his family who are no more qualified to conduct domestic & foreign policy than the man in the moon. And the list goes on.

Although not agreeing on policy issues with most of Trump's primary GOP competitors, I would have supported them...probably not Chris Christie. At least the other candidates seemed reasonably qualified and sane unlike Trump.

It only works for people that do not have strong views positions on issues. My wife is one of those people, she has always said about every President whether she voted for them or not, that she hopes they succeed and do a good job. She also isn't a very political person with left - right divide on issues.

The assumption is that if a President is successful then the country will in turn be in good shape.

For somebody who strong opinions and views on a host of issues, these people can't hope for success from a President they are ideologically opposed to because success for that President would likely mean loses and set backs on the things they care about or represent.

The majority of people on this board have a clear, vested, and public interest in one side of the coin, not with the person so much, but with the ideology that President represents, so then very few people here could honestly say that they wish for a President they opposed to be successful. You only hear it broadly immediately post election or inauguration when there can be a general open-mindedness. But once the administration takes shape, everyone who is generally involved in political discussion and debate retreats to their "sides" and the hope for success from the "opposition" becomes impossible.

I see tax breaks for the wealthy [at the expense of everyone else] Robin Hood in reverse. How will this make America Great?

What's your definition of wealthy? $250,000 household income?

A school principals in Atlanta, Ga can earn up to $123,490.
http://www1.salary.com/GA/Atlanta/School-Principal-Salary.html

Say you have a husband and wife who are principals at different schools and say one of them also is a high school basketball coach pushing their total combined income over $250k. They are rich to you?

If we want to say let's not offer the super rich more favorable tax cuts and instead make better cuts down the income stream, I can have that conversation, even though the top income earners in this country are supporting more and more of the total IRS revenue while the lower earners are contributing less and less, but I promote people being able to keep more of their income all while the government needs revenue to operate.

So anyway, let's not cut taxes for income earners over say, $1 million, I just pulled that out of the air. Kind of like when President Obama pulled 250k out of the air. Maybe we can even bump up the social security tax ceiling on higher income earners. I can agree with you on points like these.

But please, let's stop with the 250k targeting. And I know you didn't say that, but that is always where people draw the line "yeah all those rich people making 250k". Well that kind of money might make someone quite well off in some parts of the country. And in other parts of the country it is barely middle class. Cost of living and job availability has alot to do with it. Let's get a little perspective and a little less demonizing of different classes of people.

I have said this before, I think..... right now, the top 43 people on the wealthiest list have as much money as the lower 50% of the population. That means 43 people have as much money as the lower 160 million people in the US. The top 1% now has as much money as the remaining 99%. Something is out of whack..... and tax cuts for the wealthiest doesn't seem to be the way to go......

Who the f@ck is talking about 250k a year?, except YOU. I said WEALTHY, those who will benefit the most from trumps policies, are the wealthy.

Obama.

Obama

Obama

Obama

Obama

Obama

Obama

Obama

Obama

[Edited on 7/18/2017 by BrerRabbit]

Not going to quote brother rabbit but HAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!

Pops, have you not heard of Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? That is who is talking about $250,000 threshold in terms of targeting tax increases. I said nobody here is, but that is the argument among many progressives, can earners below 250k be isolated from higher taxes while those above face increases to fund their proposals.

As to the truly wealthy and to Sang's point, I don't automatically want to come to the defense of those earning say 7 figures and up, however I am also aware that the burden for the federal services and protections that every American (and sometimes non-American) enjoys and has access to are being paid for by a smaller and smaller % of our population. Now maybe you or some other people think this is good, I prefer something that looks a little more even where everybody contributes towards these payments.

For instance those earning over 250k AGI represent just 2.7% of the IRS tax filings, yet they fund 51.6% of the government. And those earning 50k and under represent 62.3% of the IRS filings yet they fund just 5.7%. Pew 2014 data http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/

The top 1% paid 45.7% of all federal income taxes that same year.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-taxes.html

Whether you have a flat tax or a progressive tax the higher income earners are always going to pay more than lower earners, and I am fine with that in principle. But when it comes to the "fair share" question, I don't know, what is the fair share of the top 2.7% or top 1%? Is nearly half or over half enough, or is something like 70% fair to you? If you have an AGI of $250,001 you are in the top 2.7% of tax filers, does that make you rich? Depends on where you live.

My bottom line, and this is consistent with my American manufacturing beliefs, I want to find ways for everyone, poor, rich and middle to earn more and keep more of their money. I'd rather see something where everyone can rise together instead of pushing something that takes more from some to give to others. I don't want a government that provides more for it's people, I want a people that is able to provide more for themselves and therefore creating less stress on federal programs and in turn the US treasury.

Gee, nebish, I guess you didn't hear that Obama and Clinton hold no public office and Sanders is just a senator. Trump is the president. Your 250k is number that isn't relevant. We have a new administration that works for the top 1%.

[Edited on 7/18/2017 by jkeller]

You guys, as if Obama and Clinton being two of the largest figures in the Democratic party and it's agenda aren't important.

Ok. Not relevant. Hmm, how about a Medicare for All bill that gets funding in part by raising taxes on the top 5% of income earners. That would be those below my irrelevant 250,000 figure, essentially everyone $200k and up because why not, they have it somebody else doesn't. Make them pay. That is the idea right?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/676

The program is funded: (1) from existing sources of government revenues for health care, (2) by increasing personal income taxes on the top 5% of income earners,

Get those rich people to pay for more and more things that people can't afford for themselves. How about we get people the opportunities to be able to afford things they need and want. A good paying job.

Get those rich people to pay for more and more things that people can't afford for themselves. How about we get people the opportunities to be able to afford things they need and want. A good paying job.

Haven't conservatives been looking to the rich people to create those jobs for like...decades?

Isn't that the whole point of lowering taxes for the top earners, or have I not heard that my entire life?

Get those rich people to pay for more and more things that people can't afford for themselves. How about we get people the opportunities to be able to afford things they need and want. A good paying job.

Haven't conservatives been looking to the rich people to create those jobs for like...decades?

Isn't that the whole point of lowering taxes for the top earners, or have I not heard that my entire life?

That is what you have heard, that is what the conservative drum beat says.

That is not my position, not what you have heard from me; I am not here to represent conservatives, I'm here to express my individual views.

And what I have always said on our message board is that everyone from small-time businesses, subchapter S, LLC, public, private, presidents of corporations, boards of directors, CEOs and all investors in general, these people can not be counted on and expected to do what is in America's interest. They act out of self interest, as I think they should. Their fundamental role is to achieve profit and most often growth for themselves, the company and/or shareholders. They have no obligation to conduct their businesses and decisions for what might be in America's interest.

So then it must be the role of our government to create and enforce a framework of rules (regulations if you will, I'm not here to say that is a bad word as you often here other 'conservatives' say) which either makes these businesses small and large conduct themselves in a system that does benefit America and our states and our people in general. That is what I expect out of people who get elected to go to Washington. In this regard, you can imagine my massive disappointments through the years with the so-called leaders we get to represent America.

The point of giving the rich more of a tax break? Again I'm not here to repeat what a conservative view is, what you'll here from me is a fundamental belief that low, middle or high income earners should be allowed to keep as much of their income as possible within the framework of funding our government to function. And with this I am expecting and assuming some level of smaller federal government with smaller financial obligations to it's citizens.

So those high income earners may create jobs with more money at their disposal, or they may spend it, or they may invest it. It is their's they can do whatever they want with it...so long as they aren't creating foreign jobs or spending it on foreign goods and services or investing it in foreign countries. I mean they can do that, but that isn't in America's interest so I would look towards my government to control such activity to "our" benefit. I assume you'll be done confusing me with any kind of conservative I'd think.

Get those rich people to pay for more and more things that people can't afford for themselves. How about we get people the opportunities to be able to afford things they need and want. A good paying job.

Haven't conservatives been looking to the rich people to create those jobs for like...decades?

Decades, for sure.

And these rich folks probably haven't created 10 jobs during this period. When is everyone going to wake up and realize it's the guys making $17,000 or $22,000 that create all the jobs?!

Obama

Obama

Obama

Obama

Obama

Obama

Obama

Obama

[Edited on 7/18/2017 by BrerRabbit]

I can't help that Obama started it.

Say you have a husband and wife who are principals at different schools and say one of them also is a high school basketball coach pushing their total combined income over $250k. They are rich to you?

Yes.

But please, let's stop with the 250k targeting. And I know you didn't say that, but that is always where people draw the line "yeah all those rich people making 250k". Well that kind of money might make someone quite well off in some parts of the country. And in other parts of the country it is barely middle class. Cost of living and job availability has alot to do with it. Let's get a little perspective and a little less demonizing of different classes of people.

It's rich in 99% of the country. Personal accountability has everything to do with it. What can't someone afford on $250k? Unnecessary luxury items? If someone is struggling or limited on $250k a year, then they are over-extending themselves. If someone believes it's rich, why should they be criticized for it? And why do you see it as being demonized? I know plenty of people who would be happy as a pig in sh*t to pay those extra taxes in exchange for that household income.

Get those rich people to pay for more and more things that people can't afford for themselves.

You know it's more complicated than this. You know the extra tax money is distributed among countless entities that benefit entire cities, towns, communities, etc. But here you go again focused on "things people can't afford" - more material things that don't matter in life.

[Edited on 7/19/2017 by BoytonBrother]

So those high income earners may create jobs with more money at their disposal, or they may spend it, or they may invest it. It is their's they can do whatever they want with it...so long as they aren't creating foreign jobs or spending it on foreign goods and services or investing it in foreign countries. I mean they can do that, but that isn't in America's interest so I would look towards my government to control such activity to "our" benefit. I assume you'll be done confusing me with any kind of conservative I'd think.

I found the President's dog & pony show the other day about "Made In America" a bit hypocritical, as most of his products are produced in foreign countries - creating jobs for other countries. I'm not sure first daughter, Ivanka has any of her product line produced here. First family leading by example for "Made In America"?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/ivanka-trump-products-not-made-america/

Mr Brother:
Cost of living and where you live means everything when determining what income levels equal what classification people fall into:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/menachem-rosensaft/not-everyone-who-makes-25_b_2157742.html

Martin, 100% correct. Many people, you and others included have been very critical on the President's and family's products being made abroad while he touts the importance and desire to have things made here. I have said and agree how hypocritical it is. One absolutely has to walk the walk on this and their explanations otherwise are a bunch of shit.

This article states that a couple in Missoula earning $250k cannot have the same "lifestyle" as a couple in NYC or LA. You were not saying this at all. You insulted those who feel $250k/year is rich, said they don't have perspective, and that these people are demonized. The article isn't about that.

It's rich in 99% of the country. Personal accountability has everything to do with it. What can't someone afford on $250k? Unnecessary luxury items? If someone is struggling or limited on $250k a year, then they are over-extending themselves.

And what if said people have the audacity to be personally accountable to all who matter to them? What business is it of yours what they can afford? Who are you to judge what is an "Unnecessary Luxury" item?... How about a Yacht?...Does that qualify?...You might argue that the 99% have never even been on a boat they might refer to as a "Yacht"....Looking at the big picture here, for me it's not about the perception of wealth, but those who criticize it and then hide behind the veil of hypocrisy.

" If someone is struggling or limited on $250k a year, then they are over-extending themselves.

Hahahaha! Or having the time of their lives. Possibly because they have worked their you know what's off while chasing a dream. What a great Country.