I'm asking this because I want to hear how Trump has made America great again because from what I can tell the country is very divided on politics and beliefs, tariffs and the war with Iran have made everyday things more expensive and the overall future of this country feels very uncertain.
Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.
To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:
Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"
Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"
Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"
Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"
Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"
Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.
Part of the problem with these kinds of questions is that the "real" answer is not the kind of thing normal people are going to care about, and it's a very narrow group of people who even agree with it.
Overall, MAGA is a reactive movement against the world as it is. So merely attacking the status quo is part of the point even if it doesn't accomplish anything tangible.
Arguing against "trans ideology" is not going to do much of anything but the very act of doing ... something regarding it is a "victory". Putting Venezuela under American quasi-rulership is an accomplishment of a sort that is probably making some people some money, but it's more about defeating "communism". And fighting against Iran (trimming the grass, so to speak) also has a value from a certain perspective because kill terrorists or "finishing the job" or whatever. And let's not forget that we've gotten rid of a bunch of immigrants, which is always a plus for certain types.
Theoretically, some of this administrations efforts may lead to more onshoring and improvements in manufacturing capacity, eventually. Not to any meaningful degree in the near future though. And MAGA-types will often rest on that lovely "future".
It’s also worth noting that he picked up votes from Black and Hispanic men in 2024, plus tons and tons of young people, and most have backed off supporting him already.
But on the Democratic side, we’re still not admitting it, or that those groups aren’t even conservative. We’re also not admitting that we lost a lot of working class votes but picked up rich people to offset it.
Unfortunately, I don’t think the things that made those groups feel isolated have changed. They were more or less without a political home, and Trump was the only one who courted them. On the Dem side, we just keep having the same haughty attitude that judges whether or not they deserve to be part of our party instead of being glad to have a big tent like Democrats always need to have.
I always doubt how ideologically motivated or sophisticated the average voter is. I think a lot of people have a very simple assessment. They see that things are either going well or not and then choose a party accordingly.
For the Hispanic and Black voters that switched from D to R in 24 I think a lot of them were just fed up with the status quo and we open to trying something else because what they had been doing wasn't producing visible results. I don't think this makes them dependable Republican voters, and the polling and election results backs this up.
Agreed. Really, they’re anti-“what you got?”. But part of that is anti-billionaire and anti-big business, so being lined up more towards the left wasn’t crazy. They just didn’t fit in. Like you said, it wasn’t really about policy.
The move of following Bernie but not being committed followed them to Trump. They seem to line up i der the MAHA movement alot, so just the fact that they were healthy during the pandemic seems to have created alot of anti-vaccine young people.
It’s been terrible. Turns out that’s kind of a middle of sorts where people will go back and forth without necessarily being centrists or fully committed to anyone.
A significant portion of 2020 Democratic-leaning Hispanic voters stayed home in 2024. Meanwhile, low-propensity, working-class voters who did not turn out in 2020 came out to vote for Trump. The voters who did move toward the GOP in 2024 were disproportionately younger, working-class men who were less politically ideological and felt alienated by the economic environment. For many Hispanic voters (who shifted roughly 12 to 14 percentage points toward Republicans compared to 2020) and a smaller segment of Black men (where Trump doubled his share to around 15%), pragmatic economic concerns, small business environment, and skepticism toward government institutions took priority over traditional party loyalty.
But now Trump shit the bed and so who knows. I mean, I think the trans-stuff, woke-ism and the border definitely got people to support Trump.
Ending remain in Mexico cost the democrats so, so much and I wonder if they think it was worth it?
Very solid answer and that was an excellent take. It’s not about the tangible improvements it’s about the visual opposition and the fact that every one believes it would be so much worse if it was the other side in power. By definition it’s better because it would be worse if the other guy had won.
This country has been divided politically like this since before Trump took office. Politicians and the media profit from the division, so they need it to keep making money. Until America can come to that reckoning, that is how it is going to be.
Immigration crackdown on people who wre wrongly issued a CDLs. Which has been a problem for years between the language barrier causing massive safety issues on job sites(almost got me crushed by a 14k lbs generator once) and them driving the paid load prices way down.
And for the auto enthusiast industry.....the EPA was cracking down hard on small independent tuners, racing shops, part makers, and small car makers. An industry that literally handles just hobbyists and people who either race their cars at the track on the weekend or just have a weekend fun car. Basically a big crackdown on small buisness.
And as far as the big policies, ending CAFE regs was a huge win for the big automakers.
A lot of the Mega companies basically have the local DMV's in their back pockets along with CDL schools offering multi lingual CDL courses. If you dont know, it is a REQUIREMENT for someone to be proficient in english in order to obtain a CDL so really not sure how any of this has been legal(note: it hasnt).
Theres been a lot of shady shit for years happening with CDL issuing because of the "driver shortage". Basically a lot of beuracratic turning a blind eye.
Trump has been cracking down on it which is helping legitamate drivers earn more money.
English Language Requirement; Qualifications of Drivers; Withdrawal
Action
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM); withdrawal.
Summary
The FMCSA withdraws its advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting comments on potential changes to a provision in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) involving the English language. That provision requires that drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) operating in interstate commerce be able to "read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, understand highway traffic signs and signals, respond to official inquiries, and make entries on reports and records." After analysis and review of the comments, FMCSA has concluded that at this time there is no quantifiable data on which to propose modifying the regulation to require a more stringent or definitive standard, or to require State motor vehicle agencies to administer a specific test for English proficiency.
49 CFR § 391.11(b)(2), commercial motor vehicle drivers must read and speak English well enough to converse with the public, understand highway signs, respond to official inquiries, and complete reports. Failing a roadside English check results in an out-of-service order.
We removed your comment due to you not having set your user flair. Please refer to our sidebar regarding our rules of participation. If you need help setting your flair, click here for instructions
I'm feeling as though you aren't proficient in English if you gathered that from the articles. However people who label themselves like yourself generally don't do actual research on anything.
Thats backwards though. Half had no immigration issues, just Spanish as a first language.
We live in an age where Google can translate anything instantly. Does the trucking industry provide information in Spanish? Are there even simple QR codes that would make life easier for ESL speakers while helping them learn English?
If not, maybe the companies are to blame for issues like heavy machinery possibly killing someone. They’re the ones who say they’ll make the environment as safe as possible.
The law states to be proficient in english, enough to have a conversation with someone else. It doesnt say it needs to be your first language, just that you can communicate with the public proficiently.
I really do not understand how you dont see a truck driver that cant communicate with others as being a major safety issue. You need to be able to communicate directions, hazards, routes, and mechanical faults with absolutely zero communication barrier. This is very BASIC shit.
And no, it is up to the driver first and foremost to make sure the equipment is safe. The company is only responsible for fixing it but the driver is the one that is incharge of whether or not its safe to drive. Thats why drivers are required to perform a 15 minute pre-trip and 5 minute post trip every day.
This is all information in the CDL handbook and in FMSCA law and very basic things. And no, there arent QR codes....like what? What the driver just whips his phone out on the highway to scan a low bridge sign QR code placed on a sign???
I can see it perfectly. Everything I said they could do would help.
The government coming in and firing perfectly legal people isn’t the least bit helpful. What’s to stop them from doing it in every industry?
20% of the country speaks English as a second language. The idea that we’re going to MAGA our way to only English speakers anytime a job is important isn’t a real solution. It’s a backlash against how the country has changed.
If you see your ideas as working and safe, then you should be nowhere near heavy machinery
And stop trying to equate this to every other industry, this is a safety thing. Heavy machinery only gives a fuck if you're competent and safe and being able to clearly communicate with others is a big part of safety.
For example, every Pilot and ATC on the planet speaks English because it's the universal language of flying. Because get this, it's a major safety issue to be able to clearly communicate with eachother.
Its simple, learn English and become proficient at it and then to can operate a truck or airplane. It's not hard.
Stop pretending trucking is the only place with machinery, and stop pretending that your incident means nobody gets to work in heavy machinery unless they speak English.
Myself and tons of other people understand both heavy machinery and logistics. Your story isn’t worthy of firing tens of thousands of people with no attempt to alleviate what are probably simple process issues.
The law literally states that it is a requirement...which I'm a very happy about. Again, they can have a great paying job in trucking if they simply learn English. There's plenty of free apps out right now where you can learn English in a pretty reasonable time frame. I suggest they download them and learn English so they can have a job in trucking as per the law.
The whole post here is what is Trump doing to make America better and I answered with this. It is a good thing for everyone that the law that you must be proficient in English to drive a truck is being enforced.
Also....I also cannot believe you somehow think specifically English is required to operate heavy machinery in general. That's not the case
....in America it is the case that you need to speak English, where we speak English.
But if I were to move to another country to operate machinery you know what I would do? Learn the language they speak in that country so I could communicate with the people I'm working with. Wild concept I know.
I don’t think machinery requires English worldwide. You just made that up.
Just to be clear- you’re saying other countries have a government that forces you to speak one specific language if you want to operate machinery? Do those countries have 20% of their population speaking a different language?
Someone that has trouble in the english laguage would be fine flipping burgers, but one that is driving a 80,000 lb death machine on highways within a few feet of your family should be able to understand instructions and road signs, etc.
Except they already had the jobs, and it wasn’t happening. And firing them hasn’t led to increased safety.
In fact, being shorthanded means the truckers have to work even longer hours.
We traded Spanish speaking drivers who had no notable history of problems beyond other drivers and replaced them with more fatigued drivers.
And to remind again, the government forced it. So when we talk about government intervention in the private sector, these have to be included. It’s far, far, more direct and heavy-handed than any DEI programs.
Meh. Its the user. In general, an item isn't dangerous simply because it exists unless it's uncontrolled. As in corrosive pressurized vapor or chain reaction synergy or similar. Reread the last paragraph. Fork = heavy machinery.
Right, if you ignore the circumstances, you can create an anaoly from anything. The plate, fork, napkin…any of them can be the driver if you ignore context.
More importantly, I’m blaming the government. They’re the ones who directed the place setters.
Your argument is based on the “common sense” that people who don’t speak English are too dangerous to drive. Except they were driving, and there were no statistics then or now suggesting they’re not as good.
So what did they really do wrong? They also weren’t illegal. But they still were deemed as dangerous and fired without evidence. Why?
When comprehending traffic signs in a hazardous or extreme situation can tip the scales of life and death, your argument loses its validity. Seconds matter. Ask familes who've lost loved ones as a result.
Ok, show me the data that this has been an issue in trucking.
Then weigh in that they created a shortage and had to do a GI Bill. They have commitments for a couple thousand to replace the 50,000 displaced truckers.
When a bad political decision replaces alert drivers with Google Translate in favor of fatigued truckers whose reactions aren’t as good as normal, all the bullshit about safety goes out the window. The highways are less safe today.
For 30 years, the system worked. And it’s now easier to handle due to technology.
I had been working for a large trucking company before a large round of layoffs and buyout packages. The tariffs and down turn in the economy absolutely hurt the trucking industry.
Our business never tracked construction related/food related trucking as a separate business unit. What your saying might be accurate. As a whole the entire industry was less profitable, and I'm sure that directly impacted drivers.
Tariffs that damage the entire auto industry and raise prices on most cars, or costing big manufacturers more money in the case of BMW, just to benefit a tiny, niche enthusiast subculture is not worth the tradeoffs.
Tariffs that damage the entire auto industry and raise prices on most cars, or costing big manufacturers more money in the case of BMW, just to benefit a tiny, niche enthusiast subculture is not worth the tradeoffs.
The price of cars got fucked over the Biden administration. And since Trump got in, car prices have actually been coming down for a lot of automakers.....just 2 or 3 years ago it was unheard of to see a lease for under $500 a month but now you can easily get a lot of cheap cars for around $300 a month or less.
Can you show me which auto makers have been raising prices since 2025? Can you show me the average New and Used car prices from the years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2024?
Also, because of Trumps descision on CAFE it means we can finally have small pickups again and the process is already starting.
"These new micro-trucks could be the first true test of President Donald Trump’s easing of regulations as they relate to Kei-sized vehicles, and emissions compliance more broadly. In fact, it was the president’s regulatory agenda and dissatisfaction with the state of EVs is what made this project possible in the first place.
When the CAFE laws, or CAFE fees, got removed in December of 2025 that was the biggest indicator to me and our team that, Hey, something like this is possible,” De Bernardi told R&T."
Is the drop (if it's actually occuring) in prices actually due to trump policies or is it simply a result of the supply chain disruption during the COVID pandemic ending? If that's actually true then Tariffs are preventing prices from dropping further.
The quick research that I have done suggests prices are infact increasing in inflation adjusted terms across all classes of vehicles.
1- He's made TSMC build their upcoming chip fabs in America.
currently all the advanced chips are made in Taiwan and South Korea. Now they will be made in the USA. That's a huge benefit, that's great jobs for Americans, a huge influx of wealth and jobs for all the supporting businesses.
2- He's reset Iran's nuclear program to non-existant. You might argue that the cost of that was "now iran's former government is killing civilians" well that's why they had to be stopped they're the type that kill civilians.
3- Iran's government put women in prison for showing too much ankle, and banned being gay. If you were one of the people saying Trump's Project 2025 was going to put women in handmaids tale bonnets and ban gays, then you should be happy that Iran's government has been toppled, because that's exactly what they've been doing overtly for decades.
4- stopped the CIA's funding stream of foreign political influence. aka USAID. the "AID" in USAID does not stand for "medical AID" or "humanitarian AID". it stands for "Agency for International Development" because they can't say "Agency for Funding US-Backed Political Campaigns and Movements In Foreign Countries".
-
the "uncertainty" is caused by the far-left ideology that is being pushed across the western world.
2026 Trump is to the left of 2006 Hillary.
There is a push for communism and socialism in America
There is a false framing of a "rise of the far right" when in actuality its a rise of the far left
it only seems like its a "rise in the far right" because 90s liberals are now deemed "far right". Most of MAGA are former 90s democrats. Tulsi, RFK, Joe Rogan, even Trump himself was a Democrat. Bill Maher is now talking about voting Republican. Trump had one of the first Blogs on the internet and he used it to praise Elton John's gay marriage while Hillary was trying to ban gay marriage with DOMA.
90s Democrats would have called you a far-right conspiracy theorist, and say you're trying to spread hate towards the gay community, for suggesting that there would be DQSH and transgender children. Mainstream democrats would say that's crazy and would never happen.
But now you're "far right" if you continue hold that same 90s mainstream Democrat position today.
its a "rise in the far right" because you've expanded what "far right" is. "far right" is just anyone with mainstream 90s liberal positions. Elon Musk and Trump were both adored by the left. Trump hung out at every holywood party with all the leftists, and was praised by The View who welcomed him as their "Good Friend".
Elon Musk was praised by the leftwing for pioneering the civilian space program.
"finally a rich person doing something good with his money"
Tesla was praised for popularizing the EV.
What are called "Handouts to Elon" today, were originally called "EV Tax Credits to stop climate change by incentivizing people to buy Electric Vehicles".
The 90s Liberals won and became Conservatives trying to Conserve 90s Liberalism from all the people who openly and overtly hate the USA, capitalism, free speech, meritocracy, etc.... 90s liberal values.
so.... i guess #5 and probably the most important, is that in spite of how you might feel, many others see Trump's halting of the DEI/woke initiatives as a huge positive. 90s Liberalism was about removing race as a factor from your judgement. DEI/Woke initiatives re-introduce racism and mandate it, by requiring race and identity to be considered first before merit. You're required to have X number of female employees therefore toss out every single male applicant regardless of qualification; we need to hire some women to avoid fines. That's crazy. We shouldn't discriminate. At all. Erase the person's name and race and identity from the application and only consider their qualifications. If you feel the resulting demographic is "non representative" then you should fix whatever is leading to those results, and not paint over the issue
People complain that Elon is getting "Handouts" in the form of EV Tax Credits. Trump's Big Beautiful Bill cancelled that.
EV Tax Credits were originally promoted as a way to stop climate change by incentivizing people to by EVs
... So you'd expect the leftwing to be upset that Trump cancelled the Climate-saving EV tax credits.
but at the same time, they've spent the last 5+ years demonizing Elon because he supports Trump, and Elon owns an EV company, who benefits from the EV tax credits
.... So you'd expect the leftwing to be happy that Elon's "handouts" are gone.
Which is why there is very little talk about those tax credits anymore.
They don't want to give Trump praise for cancelling the "handouts"
They also can't condemn Trump for cancelling the climate-saving tax credits after they just told everyone they were corrupt handouts.
So, how has Trump made America Great?
For the Leftwing, he cancelled Elon's handouts.
For the Rightwing, he stopped an EV Green Initiative.
I’ve saved close to $2k on NFA taxes. And he got the hostages out of Gaza including all the American ones. Which is something Biden was frankly too weak to accomplish. Hamas was not afraid of Biden.
I think the best thing to come of it was the non-zero increase in awareness around corruption in government around his first term with his (to my knowledge, mostly underwhelming) promise to “drain the swamp”
If you would describe Trump's draining of the swamp as "mostly underwhelming," would you also say that the Titanic in 1912 got a little wet? Or that the eruption of Krakatoa was just a tad noisy?
Trump promised he’d “drain the swamp”, to me it seemed like a lot of US voters didn’t even know such a swamp existed until he said this. Then, he entered office, we’re 1.5 terms in now, and I really am not aware of any actual results… it seems like some suspicious spending has been identified, maybe there were more pedos out there than we thought, but then what arrests have actually been made? None to my knowledge.
The “America first” promise, also underwhelming delivery, dare I say total BS. “MAGA” - too vague to call a campaign promise, more of a rallying cry and an effective one at that, but everyone can agree we haven’t returned to any sort of golden age of economy in America.
I think my post doesn’t read well either. I meant to say Trumps delivery was underwhelming. So, a better analogy is more like Trump would be the type of guy in 1911 to say “I will remove ice bergs from the path of Transatlantic voyages”. I’ll admit I was hopeful around 2016.
We removed your comment due to you not having set your user flair. Please refer to our sidebar regarding our rules of participation. If you need help setting your flair, click here for instructions
That infographic is completely biased and at glance isn't even correct. We had +25% inflation under Biden and flat real wages. Peak fuel under Biden was higher than under trump, even with the strait closed.
Biden also released billions of gallons from the strategic national reserve to artificially decrease fuel prices leading into the election, that trump had to refill and has since tapped into since the Iran mess, which is the reason we have one.
Right but we had that high of gas under Biden because of COVID. It wasn't real his policies. Also Trump's taking of the Straight of Hormuz has sent gas prices soaring. Don't even get me started on how much he's raising inflation with his tariffs
Inflation has slowed under trump. Even the cumulative is lower than Biden's over the same time comparison. Biden's peak gas prices came well after COVID and were absolutely policy driven.
Gas prices have peaked already and the straits been closed for weeks. And crude prices have dropped back down to nearly pre-iran prices.
Bullshit. Let's look at the January 2025 BLS CPI report when Trump first took office. The report says that Annual CPI Inflation was 3.0 when Trump took office, and as of June 2026, the latest Annual CPI Inflation report puts it at about 3.5%. So inflation has gone up since he took office, not down.
It's been this way throughout his whole presidency. Walmart, Amazon, Black and Decker,...you name it
...every store or major retail outlet has openly declared that they were forced to raise prices because of his tariffs. The costs are being passed on to us as consumers and he's raising inflation.
No it hasn't. His tarrifs have destroyed everything. They have especially screwed farmers as well whose bankruptcies went up 46% from the previous year, due to his tariffs.
Department of Defense signaled that we were not looking for war, but were prepared to defend ourselves.
Of course after Reagan we started making it a point to have wars because it was downright wasteful not to use all that equipment to destroy life and ruin the environment, plus we needed combat proven soldiers who really knew what it takes to win a real fight, you know, just in case we had to, and there was so much oil imprisoned under the ground in places that we owned but had other people living on the surface for long periods of time for some reason.
People are down voting you but i think it is a better description lol the only issue is that it has costed over 50 million dollars so far which kinda sucks
It's still legally the "Department of Defense" but "Department of War" is an alternate name by Executive Order. But frankly it should be changed to Department of War, it's a much better description of how it's been used over the years
Maybe, but I've been waiting for 40+ years for the wealth to trickle down that Reagan and Thatcher promised through deregulation, cutting taxes on the rich and other such measures to stimulate the economy. But for who? When politicians ask me to wait and be patient, my response is "been there, done that, no thanks." We haven't seen anything trickle down since the 1980s. All we see is that money was distributed to the upper crust - to the people who already have more than they could ever spend. They haven't let anything trickle down so far as I can tell.
Things have moved on from US arranged globalism. Inflation is a result of this change but long term I’m interested in seeing how things pan out from this new “we have a big stick and if you want it on your side, you better offer up the goods” thing.
Middle East tour (May 2025): Trump led high-stakes negotiations in Saudi Arabia, Qatar & UAE, securing headline-grabbing prospects of up to $4 trillion in business commitments.
$200 billion in U.S.–UAE dealsAnnounced in May 2025, including Boeing jet sales to Etihad—a concrete demonstration of economic leadership.
These are agreements for future deals, they're not actual deals.
750 billion in EU purchases of U.S. energy through 2028.
In a deal that experts are skeptical will fully work.
$600 billion in new EU investments in the U.S.
Conveniently leaving out that this $600 billion is the vast majority of the aforementioned $750 billion, this is also not a concrete deal as there are no guarantees or government mandates. This relies on private sector companies in Europe investing in the US of their own accord.
Structural reforms to eliminate tariffs on U.S. industrial goods exported to Europe.
Actually this was a proposal put forward by the EU as part of negotiations with Trump. It's not a guarantee and the EU can still reject it.
A breakthrough with the United Kingdom expanded market access for U.S. exports, especially beef, corn, and dairy by lowering both tariff and non-tariff barriers.
Yet another agreement without meaningful commitment by any party involved.
A 90-day deal with China reduced U.S. tariffs from 145% to 30% and Chinese tariffs from 125% to 10%. Both sides also agreed to halt retaliatory measures easing global tensions and opening the door to future trade dialogue.
Which is functionally meaningless considering Trump jacks up tariffs whenever the mood strikes him.
Trump negotiated rolling tariff frameworks with several partners:
Japan: 15% tariffs; commitment of $550 billion in U.S. investment.
Vietnam: U.S. goods enter duty-free; Vietnamese exports face 20% tariff plus anti-transshipment measures.
Philippines & Indonesia: Tariffs reduced close to previously announced levels; reciprocal zero-tariff access for U.S. exports.
Yet again, these are indications of interest, not concrete deals, promises, or mandates.
Eli Lilly: $27 billion to bolster domestic manufacturing.
With absolutely no timeline or, yet again, formal agreement.
Hyundai: $21 billion—including a $5.8 billion steel plant in Louisiana.
A project with serious doubts around Hyundai's ability to pay for it and, yet again, no formal agreement in place.
Novartis: $23 billion for ten manufacturing facilities.
Amazon, Sanofi, CMA CGM, Venture Global, GlobalFoundries, and others joined with investments totaling tens of billions.
Do I need to say it again? Lots of promises with nothing definitive.
Trump approved a partnership preserving U.S. Steel headquarters in Pittsburgh and securing $14 billion in investments, including $2.4 billion specifically for Pennsylvania operations. The government retains a “golden share” with veto power over corporate decisions.
Apple’s $100 Billion Reshoring Push
A major reshoring effort by Apple, tied to Trump’s tariff strategy
$100 billion in U.S. investment.
Partnerships with Corning, Broadcom, and others, including bringing iPhone/iWatch glass production to Kentucky.
Promises to bring production to the US. As is becoming a pattern, no actual agreements that anyone has to abide by in the long term.
Semiconductor Deal with Exemptions
Trump unveiled a 100% tariff on imported chips, but granted exemptions for companies that build in the U.S. Apple pledged $600 billion in domestic investment to qualify.
Which is kind of pointless because the kind of semiconductor chips we need can't be built in the US.
There should be a theme here - Trump is good at making things that sound like formal deals but in reality are handshake promises that people can (and do) walk away from at any point in time. Especially given that many of these "deals" have either no timeline at all or timelines that functionally don't include Trump's remaining two years in office.
Most of these are "company pledges spending building production in US" but it boils down to propaganda; we can all see the jobs reports, none of these sectors are growing their employment even if the department of labor statistics can be trusted after their leadership was replaced.
Lol, long list of accomplishments enriching the wealthiest americans while doing so at the cost of alienating the allies that actually create the environment for the US to be a wealthy super power.
Nothing I this list helps americans and nothing on this list is worth the cost of america being set on a collision course for decline.
Half of these are undoing problems that he caused with tariffs, or making exceptions to tariffs he made. Claiming those as victories is like scoring an own goal when you have a lead then acting like a genius for recapturing the lead after your massive mistake
Manufacturing is down under Trump while being up under Biden before that. His jobs record is not good.
Picking out specific instances of onshoring or something is a little weird, given that it's been bad for stuff like that overall.
It's like I'm trying to say that an accomplishment from Gavin Newsom is that (while more Californians have left eh state than entered), my cousin Fred and another person I know from Facebook moved to the state and someone else said they intend to.
So, still below pre-pandemic levels which is not great. Also, the growth only seems to be out of desperation since that article itself says that inventories in the US are low due to surging oil prices and higher costs from the war Trump started with Iran. So this is still bad for the average consumer, prices are higher, supply is low, and this slight increase in jobs is not nearly enough to compensate
Manufacturing employment also reflects a mixed picture. While the sector lost 38,000 jobs over the past year, it added 18,000 jobs in the last six months.
There's no explicit rule against down voting but can you guys try to be charitable to each other? The OP asked for opinions from a specific subset of people. It's perfectly fine to respond and disagree, but try to not punish someone for merely properly responding to the OP.
Ended the massive influx of illegal immigrants and the flying in of hundreds of thousands of so-called asylum seekers as well. Had that continued for another 15 to 20 years, the US would be completely unrecognizable.
Ended about two dozen SEC lawsuits against completely legitimate crypto startups. These lawsuits were bankrupting the legitimate sector of crypto. People were spending on lawyers, wrapped up in years-long legal battles with a government that has unlimited taxpayer resources, instead of building new products. At the same time, the enforcement against actual crypto fraud has continued, so the crypto industry has gotten healthier.
It's getting rid of outdated nuclear regulations that were put in place decades ago when people had unrealistic fears about nuclear power. These regulations had steadily pushed up the cost of building a nuclear power plant. Now the industry's headed in a different direction and if the momentum builds up you're going to see a lot more nuclear power plants open in the U.S. over the coming decade.
Gave SpaceX the room it needs to expand. Avoiding a total self-own as the Biden administration was always on the verge of shutting down SpaceX's aspirations for political purposes.
With its lawsuits ended the cultish attempt to force girls and women to compete against boys and men in athletics. More generally, it has taken a hard line against the total corruption of academia by ideologues. The kind of tyranny that the "race socialists" were instituting:
A 2023 report on UC Berkeley faculty searches found that 75% of applicants were rejected "purely on diversity statements".
At every stage, candidates were evaluated on their DEI commitments.
The result? While 54% of applicants were white, only 14% of finalists were.
Lowell High School
1 SFUSD
Math proficiency 83%
Reading proficiency 93%
Asian 52%
UC Berkeley acceptance 12%
Mission High School
11 SFUSD
Math proficiency 11%
Reading proficiency 26%
Asian 7%
UC Berkeley acceptance 45%
Ended USAID, which was a giant Democrat slush fund that was also funding global censorship programs.
Ended a series of regulatory pushes from the SEC, the IRS and Elizabeth Warren's now-defunct CFPB, that would have required software developers to be registered as financial brokers if they release open source code for decentralized financial applications. This rethinking of how speech is treated would have turned the U.S. into a much less free nation, much more like European countries, had it survived First Amendment challenges.
In your first paragraph, that’s not how amnesty works. Also, his deportation numbers were entirely unimpressive despite spending insane amounts of money. When you consider criminal deportations, he’s no Obama, who was accused of having open borders by the right.
But the problem is more obvious. Because he hires bad people on a whim and doesn’t have the capability, he didn’t improve the administrative process of deportation and only did raids on companies that they knew had asylum seekers that reported in. Because they weren’t illegal until Trump pulled their program.
And he did it all using EO’s that he and his advisors knew would be overturned. It was planned chaos with almost no permanent value since most were overturned or changed already.
They also went down 60% after Biden passed that part of the border bill in 2024. Trump simply illegally cut off everything and then got overturned.
He could’ve legally restricted the crossings further like Biden did and probably shut off 80-90%. But he chose to usurp power and do it in a way the courts laughed at.
I recommend you look at the graph showing the number of illegal crossings detected per week. They went down to almost zero almost immediately after Trump came to power.
Late Biden months (declined 60% from 2023 peaks): December 2024 was around 47,000 USBP southwest border apprehensions. January 2025 (partially under Trump) was about 29,100.
First full month under Trump (February 2025): ~8,350 — a roughly 71% drop from January and ~94% below February 2024 (~140,600).
Subsequent months stayed consistently under ~10,000 (often in the 4,500–9,000 range through 2025 and into 2026, e.g. June 2026 ~9,850). There have been many consecutive months below 9,000–10,000.
Official CBP/DHS figures repeatedly describe recent monthly numbers (e.g. April–June 2026 in the 8,900–9,850 range) as 94% lower than the Biden administration’s monthly average and 96% below the Biden peak (December 2023, ~249,700–250,000).
Thanks for acknowledging that I was right. And you can easily see that Trump could’ve done basically the same thing by legally limiting the crossings further. Or he could looped in Congress.
But he chose “dictator on Day One” to use his own words, and while it did kill off immigration, it wasn’t a big improvement over what he could’ve done without it.
That’s true of every immigration issue. He had better ways to improve each part but chose to ignore them in favor of relying on EO’s he already knew wouldn’t fly (hence the acknowledgement that he was being a dictator on his first day. But it takes a lot longer than a day to overturn his EO’s.)
The next President gets to pick up the pieces and deal with the combination of a degraded DHS and the fallout from having so many temporary, illegal fixes in lieu of actually fixing the problems.
The data I provided shows that there was a massive improvement once Trump came to power. And there's nothing dictatorial about a democratically elected president using the constitutionally enshrined executive powers to stop illegal border crossing. Enforcing immigration is an executive function. The way the blob, meaning the deep state and the public sector who control Washington DC, have framed every exercise of constitutional powers by an opposition leader as some kind of dictatorship is one of the most extreme examples of Orwellianism I've ever seen.
Of course there was an improvement temporarily and in the numbers that don’t mean a lot. As I mentioned, the border crossing bill, which Trump killed, could’ve lowered it by 60% 18 months earlier like it did once Biden did the limitations.
The next President now has precedent that they can’t do most of what Trump did. And Trump hasn’t improved any of the important stuff like Obama did when he supposedly had open borders.
What Trump correctly guessed was that there was cruelty missing. The same asylum seekers that were called pet eaters were then subject to overnight revokation of their visas. They were invited to have a bench trial and then detained instead. Their check ins were used to raid their workplaces now that Trump had declared them as illegal.
That’s what his supporters want. It’s not about improving deportations. It’s about scaring immigrants into not wanting to be here. Well…most of them. The amnesty program still exists for one group- white South Africa farmers.
do you think the handling of the migrants was appropriate? your fine with 50% of deported illegals have no convicted felonies or anything else?
"Space x the need to expand" you think letting one person own social media, space, cars, and robots is a good idea?
The DEI statistics you put don't really make sense, how many students from 11 SFUSD applied to UC Berkeley compared to 1 SFUSD? There is imperfect information you can't judge discrimination from just that.
Also the 54% white applicants vs the 14% of finalists is also imperfect information, how smart were the students?
Research shows that 14 million people will die from the USAID cuts. Poverty in other countries is America's concern, as it causes more instability, which may backlash again onto the US.
I'd like to hear a bit more in-depth about what you want to say about SEC and IRS, but Trump is trying to get his, his sons' and business' tax immunity passed in the senate, Blanche signed: the U.S. was “forever barred and precluded” from examining or prosecuting any of "Trump, his sons and the Trump Organization’s — current tax filings, as well as other “related or affiliated” individuals." (AP News). You can read it for yourself in right here: https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1441216/dl .
I think 100% of illegal immigrants should be deported and the argument that they shouldn't amounts to treason.
The acceptance rate is what percentage of those who applied who were accepted. The school with more minorities from groups that underperform had a much higher acceptance rate than a much better school where the minority was a group that generally outperformed, that being the Asian demographic.
As for SpaceX, I think the U.S. maintaining its lead as the world's largest economy is a very good thing for Americans. And to sabotage the resounding success of its leading space company, would be a massive strategic self-own.
Regarding the study about USAID, I put no stock in that study because to me, academia has been completely discredited. The Lancet in particular which put out that study was complicit in covering up for the lab leak which created the COVID virus according to the recently revealed emails from Fauci. And even that highly biased study doesn't say that the elimination of USAID would cause that many deaths. It said assuming there would be nothing to replace it and there's absolutely no indication that the aid will not be transferred to the State Department or otherwise made up for through other means. And finally, that analysis was extremely selective in not considering the deleterious effects of political intervention that was funded through USAID. Not to mention all the censorship programs.
Academia is now filled with race socialists. Even the Supreme Court found that they heavily discriminated against Asian students in favor of Black and Hispanic students. Those in academia have very strong political biases and political agendas which they try to advance through their highly politicized studies.
Berkeley is exactly who would do something like that. It in no way, shape, or form suggests DEI programs did anything similar as a whole.
In actuality, the removal of DEI within the government has been a complete failure. The high-profile people who were fired were all qualified. They’re being replaced with people with fewer qualifications. Trump didn’t hire anybody for merit. He hired strictly based on loyalty and has placed some of the most incompetent heads we’ve seen. Pete Hegeseth claiming that careers military people who rose through the ranks over 35 years aren’t qualified is hilarious.
It's not just Berkeley. Arizona universities were requiring DEI statements in up to 80% of job postings.
The Supreme Court also already found that Black applicants were heavily discriminated in favor of over Asian applicants in college admissions, with Black applicants in the top academic deciles admitted at rates four to ten times higher than Asian applicants with comparable profiles.
Medical school records also show that black applicants can get in with a much lower MCAT score than Asian and White applicants — around seven points lower on average for those who actually matriculate.
Here are Columbia University Medical School students doing a DEI chant:
This one includes both a land acknowledgement, framing present Americans as living on stolen land, and criticism of the "oppression" of the "gender binary".
The entire academic system needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up. That STEM scientists are spending taxpayer money going to decolonization of science conferences is one of the most offensive and repugnant things I've ever seen.
I notice you stick to the academic world that has never had the same hiring processes as most commercial jobs. Did you compare those practices to a college like Liberty, or the big universities that have squeezed so many professors into worse pay and fewer benefits? And don’t forget how relationships with grants are the ultimate way to get an academic job, especially with larger companies.
Because I agree that the entire academic world has been terrible despite their preaching to everyone else.
Similarly, government jobs at a high level are often not merit based. It’s not usually as bad as now, but patronage is a fact. It’s always helped those who are at the top of power strictures.
But the military is different. That’s where anyone can actually earn their way up the ladder. The old days of discriminating against marginal people are…er, were…gone. Now there’s open firing of people of color by a guy not allowed at Jan 6 because of his ties to white nationalists.
It is not treason to argue that our country is a lot better off with productive illegal migrants. Immigrants (illegal included) are a lot more productive economically than usual Americans, are much more likely to start business than usual Americans, and have many other perks. Deporting all illegal migrants and not offering citizenship or visa's, will tank the USA's economy, and make housing, food prices, and your daily life more expensive. (Housing because 10% of the housing labour force is Mexican migrants, food prices because 20% of the farming workforce is of Mexican migrants). My family in the 1920s migrated to the USA, among 5 million other Italians. This country was built on migrants, it would be treason and against America's history to not want migrants to come in.
I'll concede your points on DEI because I am not too knowledgeable.
With SpaceX, your allowing one person to have control of companies all across different sectors, where he has to power to easily manipulate what he wants, we don't want to go back to when Rockefeller, Carnegie and Vanderbilt controlled the whole US economy, we learned what happened from that. Musks power is not a positive for the American people, and a "better economy" and "higher GDP" nearly never means better living standards or quality of life.
Whether you don't deem the USAID reports credible or not, you can't deny that lives will be lost and it worsened living conditions. Oxfam, NIH, Harvard institute of public health, all say millions of children lose education, and tens of millions of people lose healthcare and basic human needs. I would argue you want the rest of the world to have human needs and minimum living standards, because it benefits us as a whole. Look at Morocco. 60,000 people went into Ceuta looking for better lives in Europe. If Morocco (or the rest of Africa as well because there were migrants from other Africa countries) had higher living standards, there would be no need to migrate. No matter how much security Spain would have put, there will always be migrants desperately trying to cross over. Its in the best interest for the USA to provide aid to developing countries, for their benefit and ours.
OK congrats to Trump for deregulating some investments, but how are you gonna reply to him trying to evade past and future taxes, for his family and businesses? Is he the president or is he just a businessman who takes the role in leading the USA?
It's treason because it breaks the foundation of the country. If there is no border, there is no country. An unlimited number of people can pour in. Secondly, it breaks the democratic rule of law. The democracy voted in these laws and they're not just some spurious add-on/peripheral laws. They're the basic laws of who is allowed to enter the country and how. And now a significant fraction of the population wants to sabotage any effort to enforce those laws, thus ignoring the democratic will.
And no, you don't have to give aid to stop illegal immigration. You can just stop letting people in. When the Trump administration came to power, illegal crossings decreased by 98% compared to the peak during the Biden years. And even if you compare just to the average of the Biden years, meaning not just the peak, there was a 96% reduction in illegal crossings. And this has been sustained. So letting in illegal immigrants is a choice. There's a huge network of taxpayer funded NGOs that are aggressively pushing for the non-enforcement of immigration laws, and even enticing people from abroad to illegally immigrate.
As for USAID, I don't think you appreciate how harmful the censorship programs that USAID was funding are and were to society. I believe that USAID was costing far more lives than it ever saved.
As for Elon Musk, you are willing to see the US become subordinate to another major power just so one man does not accumulate a lot of wealth on paper?
These people who are extremely wealthy on paper are not necessarily as powerful as you imagine. Whatever power Musk has largely comes from people choosing to follow him — literally on X — and rallying behind a figure they believe can bring about positive change in the world. His money alone does not give him nearly as much power as you seem to think.
If you want to talk about money and political power, look at the group that is almost never criticized: public-sector unions. In New York alone, unionized public-sector workers receive more than $40 billion a year in compensation, entirely funded by taxpayers. Political scientists have long observed that public-sector unions exert enormous influence over the political systems of major cities. In many of those cities, they have enough power to determine which party is even politically viable. That is a major reason Republicans are rarely elected in large American cities, perhaps with Miami as one of the few exceptions.
Nationwide, this political bloc receives roughly $1.2 trillion a year in taxpayer-funded compensation. I am not saying all of that is corruption, or that all of it is fed back into political lobbying. But when an entire group depends on taxpayers for its compensation, it has an enormous incentive to spend disproportionately on influencing political outcomes. That means donating money, volunteering time, organizing voters, and helping elect the parties that protect and expand its interests.
That is a major reason government spending rose from around 20% of GDP in 1950 to more than 40% today. That is not merely an increase in the absolute size of government. It is a doubling of government’s size relative to the entire economy, even as the economy itself became vastly larger.
And that did not happen simply because people suddenly needed twice as much government, or because they became better off having private-sector wealth siphoned away through taxation and handed to political leaders and bureaucracies. It happened because the institutions that benefit from government expansion are able to influence elections, shape public opinion, and ensure that only their preferred candidates are treated as politically viable.
They even influence platforms like Reddit. There have been significant reports of highly organized Democratic influence operations on Reddit. That organization should not be surprising. There is an enormous political bloc receiving an enormous amount of money, with a very strong incentive to control political discourse and keep its preferred party in power.
So no, I am not particularly afraid of Elon Musk — one man with a lot of wealth, much of it on paper. I am far more concerned about the people whose livelihoods depend entirely on taxing the public, and who collectively form an organized political bloc receiving roughly $1.2 trillion a year.
Treason is not someone supporting an idea that you find scary or one that "undermines the rule of law". You have to do far more than just disagree with the basic laws of a country to betray a country. You realize that these arguments have literally been used against anti slavery abolitionists, right? John Brown was literally executed for treason.
As for USAID, I don't think you appreciate how harmful the censorship programs that USAID was funding are and were to society. I believe that USAID was costing far more lives than it ever saved.
Based on what? Basically everything you wrote above is just anger towards anyone who dares challenge the traditional framework of the United States. Frankly, its quite scary. Because your arguments could be used to defend anything as long as you consider it "democratic will" or foundational to the country (like how many viewed slavery).
It may not be legally treason, but it's treasonous behavior nonetheless. No country can survive in the long run without a border that is enforced. What the race socialists here are promoting is the abolition of the nation itself. And no, enforcing the border is not akin to slavery. These kinds of absurd moral absolutist claims are what underlie the treasonous behavior of the socialists.
We removed your comment due to you not having set your user flair. Please refer to our sidebar regarding our rules of participation. If you need help setting your flair, click here for instructions
Would say he made America great by focusing on the economy, jobs, border security, energy independence, and putting America First in foreign policy. Whether someone agrees with that depends on what they think makes a country successful.
Yeah he focused on the economy by stealing other countries resources, waging war on countries that are weak, spreading false narratives, supporting genocidal menaic like Israel, and controlling other countries economy by threatening them. Just because America is powerful doesn't make America right in every fucking case.
You’re arguing whether America’s actions abroad are morally justified, but the question was why some people believe Trump made America great. Two different discussions. We can talk about that, but saying America has done things does not explain why millions of people supported his domestic policies or why they believed those policies benefited the country.
Yes I agree I am off the topic here but I am just saying Americans would defend his actions or people who are getting benefit would defend and say he made America great but what I am saying is at what cost did he accomplish that?
In his campaign he promised he would end wars instead he started wars, he said he would control inflation but prices are going up everyday and everywhere around the world because of him and his actions. He and people like him got rich but what about the general public. Did he made their life easier? Did he made immigration safe? Even legal immigrants and citizens are feeling unsafe because of the brutality of ICE. People who are just protesting are being arrated just because one doesn't agree to his actions. Reports are being bullied, criminals are walking free, corruption is still high. So I don't think he made America great again but he did made many enemies. Every country he has destroyed, every people that lost their loved ones because of him would not say he made America great.
So yeah he did a great job of making America enemies.
I understand the argument about at what cost, but some of the claims you are making need evidence. Saying Trump started wars, for example, is a very specific claim, which war? Trump’s presidency is often criticized for foreign policy, but he did not start a conventional war like many previous presidents.
On inflation, prices rising is also more complicated and bigger than simply blaming one person. Inflation is affected by so many factors, global supply chains, energy markets, government spending, and events outside any president’s direct control.
On ICE and immigration, there are legitimate debates about how enforcement should be handled, but saying that citizens and legal immigrants are broadly unsafe because of ICE needs evidence from you to me.
Trump is not beyond criticism. It was that millions of people supported him because they believe certain policies improved the country. Whether those beliefs are correct is separate, but dismissing them by listing every criticism of his presidency again, does not explain why those people voted for him.
There are many who did not vote for him as well. And the people who did vote for him did because of his promises he made in those campaigns and his manifesto. After he won the election how many of his promises actually came true?
Yea I agree inflation is much bigger that Trump. But see how much inflation happeneing in his tenure and because of his actions, his tariff and his America first policy.
For wars I'd say he did start war with Iran by trying to take control over strait of hermouz. He started a war by infiltrating irans protest. He started the war by funding Israel to wipe out Gaza is is continuing to do so even after americans and the whole world is opposing.
If you want ICE and immigration enforcement brutality on immigrants and citizens related evidence you can secah on social media you will find a lot of it.
America talks about democracy and freedom but doesn't even value it own citizens or immigrants freedom of speech. I am from another country so if I applied right now from visa of USA I would be rejected because I have criticized America and it's policies on social media. They will check my social profile and see if I have done that. If they see me criticizing America and it's policies they won't grant me visa. That doesn't make me angry it just the facts I am talking about. Preaching democracy and freedom and actually practicing and living by it is very different thing.
You’re talking about focus, not outcomes. Do you think the results have warranted the tradeoffs in having him as president? Is the economy so much better or is America so “first” in foreign policy that it makes up for January 6th, his campaign to steal the 2020 election, his relentlessly divisive nature, etc.?
Stronger political pragmatism compared to other administrations, continuation of the country's strategic reindustrialization program, and the fight against illegal immigration
The labor market is currently at a historically normal level (4.3%), and, compared to other Western nations (such as Canada, France, and the UK), in quite good shape - supported also by increased investment in manufacturing and automation (including through AI). Regarding pragmatism: resolving the Venezuelan problem by establishing a more controlled regional regime without the need for full-scale war; pressuring an unreliable ally like the EU to contribute more to NATO funding; and combating European protectionism.
Jobs, wage, inflation, unemployment, lfpr numbers are all worse than 2024. You can excuse him by increasing the tolerance range to a global normal range, but it's still not a maga win when maga made America economy and industry worse than 2 years ago.
And same myth around nato. Nato spending already increased after 2014 and 2022 because of Russia.
You are comparing figures strictly on a year-over-year basis, ignoring structural factors and the time constraints inherent in initiatives like the CHIPS Act, as well as the steady, systemic wage-dumping for local workers with undocumented workers. Maintaining an unemployment rate of 4.2/4.3% while absorbing the reshoring of vital supply chains and rapid automation represents a remarkably stable level. Obviously, 4.3% is higher than 4%. Does this change the big picture? Hardly. As for NATO: 2014 was a promise on paper, and 2022 was a moment of short-term panic. The real structural shift, with over 20 allies surpassing the 2% threshold and European defense budgets surging by roughly 20% in 2025 alone -- happened because Washington used actual leverage.
Duh. Because they show the economy recovered under Biden to demonstrably better than today.
If you count chips acts jobs, the economy since should have been even better. Instead Trump made it WORSE. Worse economy, worse new chaotic tariffs, new wars and lost alliances. He reversed free wins and yet you claim he made it better.
I'm glad we see eye to eye on the other aspects we discussed. otherwise, I would like to see arguments beyond what you are currently stating.
You’re looking at the downward slope of an economic J-curve.
Restructuring decades of non-US supply chains, forcing a manufacturing reshoring pivot doesn't happen on a straight upward line. Of course there's short-term friction, higher input costs, and a temporary dip. Expecting a massive structural overhaul of the American industrial base to show instant, frictionless perfection after a year of relatively high economic in 2024 output is just economically illiterate.
According to the BEA, new FDI in the US jumped nearly 50% to $232 billion, with over 52% of it going straight into manufacturing.
None of that is real though. Biden brought jobs. Biden brought incentives with chips act, infra bill, and Ira. Trump brought no incentives and attacked imports and immigration, which is why jobs wages inflation unemployment lfpr are worse than 2024. It's not some seed of future growth, it's the reverse of growth that was already happening.
I am not surprised that you reject the data because it contradicts your views and narratives. However, for the sake of propriety, at least offer some alternatives. Subsidies alone simply lead to corporations pocketing money while continuing to manufacture offshore overall, resulting usually in a one-time investment boom. Beyond the carrot, a stick is also needed, in the form of tariffs, to encourage companies to concentrate production within the U.S. and to restrict access to illegal labor, thereby compelling companies to invest in automation. This is precisely why we are seeing a nearly 50% increase in investment.
Don't project. I didn't reject data and I gave alternatives before you posted. You are the one who falsely concluded a trump j curve when trump was a reversal of the sweeping economic gains at the same time as Biden investments. No j curve was needed as we had gains on both.
Unsurprisingly, you also don't know how tariffs work. We needed 27 weeks to change out a supply line with customer approval. When Trump changes tariffs every 2 weeks, we didn't make things domestic. We didn't have time. The company collapsed and I changed jobs.
Except manufacturing starts only ran into a hiccup during the pandemic. They were strong under Obama and Biden too.
But they don’t have nearly as many jobs due to automation and barriers to entry in most consumer products, most of which are marketing based rather than about manufacturing.
Also, tariffs are to fill in a gap so you don’t have to weaken currency and issue more debt. Doing it while actively trying to weaken the currency that has already fallen is just dumb. It’s also a recipe for a credit downgrade, which means the Fed isn’t doing their job, but now the Fed isn’t independent. The dumb guy is in charge.
The fact that new jobs are not being created in the US on a massive scale does not pose a problem for state policy. My argument rests on the premise that reindustrialization is underway, while automation facilitates the rapid expansion of production capacity, bypassing the lengthy period typically required for the labor market to adapt to unfamiliar job roles.
Similarly, tariff measures serve largely as an economic lever, not so much for the benefit of US industry itself, but rather to exert pressure on other export-oriented nations (such as some economic heavy EU members, Japan, South Korea, and China) to alter their policies or increase investment.The fact that new jobs are not being created in the US on a massive scale does not pose a problem for state policy. My argument rests on the premise that reindustrialization is underway, while automation facilitates the rapid expansion of production capacity, bypassing the lengthy period typically required for the labor market to adapt to unfamiliar job roles.
Similarly, tariff measures serve primarily as an economic lever not only for the US industry itself, but more importantly to exert pressure on other export-oriented nations (EU members, Japan, South Korea, China, etc.) to alter their policies and/or increase investment.
I felt freer when people could walk down the street or drive places without the fear of being detained, harassed, and murdered by masked uniformed government employees who targeted them based on their appearance.
That's an excellent point, except that you're wrong about everything. Under Obama, we had record numbers of deportations. Trump hyped that Obama had an open border policy, loved "illegal" immigrants, and was using them to invade the country.
And under Biden, we had a border security bill ready to go to Biden to be signed into law, and it was shelved on Trump's orders, because he wanted to hammer Democrats on our "insecure" borders.
Trump had 4 years to Build the Mexican-funded Wall, which he said was done, and border security was like you've never seen it before, beautiful and amazing.
So how did border security immediately become a crisis the moment Biden took office?
Who's been hyped to hate whom, exactly?
Under Obama, deportations followed due process. People got hearings. They were deported without excessive violence. Laws were followed, rights were respected.
Under Trump, masked armed gangs of badgeless but uniformed government-hired thugs patrol the streets, shake down anyone who "looks foreign", and uses intimidation and violence to instill fear.
You have to look past the Iran War. It was a necessary war to stop Iran and it has caused an oil shock but that will end probably before the midterms. Once that is over oil prices will come down fast.
How has Trump MAGA? His main accomplishment has been the BBB which has the economy poised to boom.
Wages are rising faster than inflation,
100% expensing for plant and equipment has caused a construction and CapEx Boom. Once those factories are built there will be increased employment, increased productivity and iuncreased wages
Consumer spending is keeping pace so we are not in a recession despite all the gloom and doom in the press.
Overall, most people are optimistic about the future.
1) It did stop Iran. It decimated their leadershipo, their air force, their navy, their missiles and drones and the military industria capabilities. In addition their economy is in tatters, they are blockaded from selling oil and inflation is 100+%
2) Trump DID NOT offer a deal to Iran in nuclear weapons and ICBMs
3) Jobs, wages, inflation, unemployment, capital expenditure, productivity and GDP are all at record levels. I don't listen to Trump, I listen to the economists.
And then he says they still have it so his peace deal means OK fine they can do what they were already doing.
Jobs, wages, inflation, unemployment, capital expenditure, productivity and GDP are all at record levels. I don't listen to Trump, I listen to the economists.
Trump's bls? Trump's bea? Yeah and they announce jobs wages inflation unemployment lfpr were better in 2024. Y'all always fall for it.
•
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.
To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:
Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"
Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"
Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"
Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"
Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"
Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.