LOL - I don't think you can get any more vague than that, but I understand - you have to say SOMETHING.

In MY long life I have found that to be the exception rather than the rule. Maybe I'm just less prone to being fooled because when people try to fool me with big words I can usually see right through it.


LOL - I think it's far more likely that you THINK you know what they mean.


My bet is that you were simply more interested in what Samuel Johnson was saying so you took the effort to learn what he meant. I'm also betting that Obama rarely ever said anything you have any interest in hearing so instead of taking the time to understand, you just switch over to insulting him for using big words. You kind demonstrated this in your previous response to me.


I'm not going to say this technique isn't used in politics but I don't think it's an accurate caricature of Obama's communication to the public. I think in most cases he was just talking to the American people on an adult level.

And you just proved your inability to comprehend plain English.

I said... "even if I don't understand them myself because I would rather take the time as a citizen to learn what those "fancy" words mean so I can understand the issue better"

Is seven the number of words you can read before you lose focus?

Have you ever thought that maybe THIS is reason why we think Trump supporters are simple-minded?

Yes, they work for us (no, I do not forget that) But that doesn't mean we should expect them to wipe our behinds and it certainly doesn't mean they have to dumb down their language to suit those among us who can't be bothered to learn our language.


I think it is Rose. And I really don't see this on the left as much as I do on the right. Maybe it's just what I pick up on.


First lesson in wising up ;) ... Both parties are doing exactly what they are designed to do... serving the interests of the citizens. It just so happens that the citizens are divided and their interests conflict which leaves the parties serving the interests of different citizens with conflicting agendas. And before you get into the whole corporate influence thing, let me remind you that the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations themselves are citizens.

And here's why it seems the corporations have an upper-hand in all this... Corporations have people who are willing to understand the complexities that challenge them and they don't ask their politicians to dumb things down for them.

The idea that the parties are not serving our best interests is what I would call "over-simplified" to the point of being untrue.

Well, I wasn't referring to photography but even if I was, considering the sensor doesn't really change my point.


That all depends on how the 'big words' are being used. As I'm sure you know, students often use big words just to fill up a paper, so that's kind of a bad example.


That shouldn't matter. There are dictionaries all over the place, not just in schools.


Plain speaking is a disservice in politics because politics is not simple so it can't be described accurately in simple terms.

People need to step up instead of expecting politicians to dumb things down for them. This is what Andrew Yang means when he says "Make Americans Think Hard" (MATH). It's the idea that we can't expect our politicians to fix everything for us like the Trump fans seem to think. We as a nation need to wise up and take some responsibility.

Unlike Trump, Obama wasn't addressing the alt-right specifically. He was addressing the American people in general so he probably didn't think he would need to dumb things down.

Personally, I would rather have a president use the appropriate words to describe the issues, even if people think they're "fancy" and yes... even if I don't understand them myself because I would rather take the time as a citizen to learn what those "fancy" words mean so I can understand the issue better than to ask the president for sock puppets.

There is good reason for "fancy" words witless. It's a simple matter of resolution. More pixels on a screen produces a better picture. Likewise, more words to describe more specific things results in a more descriptive language. But you have to learn to use it and people are getting lazy. Instead of taking the effort to understand higher-resolution English, they want the president to cut the resolution down to simple words, resulting in simple pictures that they can understand without having to learn anything.

I can remember Bush Jr, addressing a student body when he was the sitting president and telling them that he himself was a C student. I'm sure it was meant as an inspiration but I really don't see this same appeal to mediocrity on the left. Just one of the many things that unfortunately creates this notion (wrong or right) that Trump supporters are simple-minded.

What the simple-minded folks don't see, because their media hides it is a little something called "new spending". This term, that you will never hear on Fox, allows us to recognize the difference between spending money on new programs and purchases and spending money on pre-existing obligations like paying down debts incurred by previous administrations.

Obama actually spent less on new programs and products than either Bush or Trump. Yes, the deficit rose under Obama because it took a LOT of money to dig the U.S. out of the ditch that Bush left it in and because of the ongoing war that Bush just had to get us involved in. Most of that increased deficit came from what we call obligatory spending.

Why don't you stop crying and just answer the question?

Sorry max, but this isn't a forum on photography or sewing - it's a political discussion site... People come here to discuss real political issues that have a real impact on their lives so yes, people are going to get passionate, it's human nature. And yes people are going to attack stereotypes - on all sides. "Simple minded Trump supporters" is a stereotype. Now, if you are choosing to be offended by an attack on a stereotype you might want to consider a forum that will be more gentle on your delicate sensibility. Maybe join up with the Red Hat Society ;)


See, this is just the kind of thing you folks say that contributes to the idea that Trump supporters are simple-minded. Yes, of course we hate Trump I don't know that anything could be more obvious and yet you seem to think there's some kind of argument about it that you've been right about all along. Dude... there's no argument. You're just stating the obvious.

Yes, some of us hate Trump. What do you expect from people when their families and their futures get screwed by an authoritarian president? Rose petals?


1. Trump's "accomplishments" are making America worse than it's ever been and he wouldn't be allowed to screw the American people like he is if not for his supporters. So no, we don't have much respect for Trump supporters.

2. So far I have not heard a single argument to support the ridiculous notion that Trump is making America great again that doesn't depend on over-simplified views, so I guess I'm really surprised at the simple-minded stereotype, but it *IS* a stereotype.

LOL... I've had discussions with EconomistDon enough times to know he isn't a real economist.


I have no idea what Don's answer will be or if he will even bother with one, but I may as well provide my answer, which I suppose would be stating the obvious...

Most of the billions and billions of dollars going into the treasury comes from investors including the Chinese communist government. This is because we spend more than we get from taxes so we have to borrow (deficit). The treasury issues bonds, which are essentially IOU notes saying if you give us some money we will force our future citizens to pay it back plus interest. I call this the Republican Tax, because Republicans are always cutting taxes without cutting their spending so they depend more on borrowing leaving us with more debt and larger deficits.


I don't really know the answer to this one, but one logical possibility is that the cost of running steel mills in the U.S. exceeds the cost of paying a tariff on imports. I know that when we hit our oil peak in 1974 it suddenly got cheaper to import foreign oil than to extract our own. Similar logic.


Japan doesn't currently invoke the same outrage that China does among the American people and that makes a world of difference to a populist like Trump whos policies are entirely based on pissing off the people his base is conditioned to hate.

While the article does accurately describe a serious problem with our trust funds it does NOT take anything away from Trump's reckless economic policy and his off-the-hook spending on an obese military. When a family only has $1000 to last a month and rent is $600, it's not a good idea for that family to spend $800 on a trip to Disneyland and no reasonable person is going to listen to them blame the cost of rent for their failure to pay it.

We've known about the problems inherent with our trust funds for decades now. There have been hundreds of proposals and bills to address the problem over the years. Obviously, it's not an easy fix. But spending more money than we have on a "defense" budget that already exceeds the defense budgets of every nation on earth, while giving away billions that we DO have to people who are already billionaires is just plain stupid.

That's not how tariffs work. In fact it's the opposite. In very simple terms, a tariff *is* a tax hike on American consumers purchasing Chinese imports. So the Chinese do NOT pay those tariffs, Americans do...

Now say it with me... Americans pay the tariffs, not the Chinese.

If we can't at least understand these simple 4th grade level concepts, we have no hope of surviving the shenanigans of any two-bit con-man who decides he wants to be president.

Now to be fair, the Chinese do pay a price *IF* American consumers decide not to buy their products in order to avoid paying the added tax and then ONLY if the Chinese can't sell their products to other markets. This is what Trump is betting on but it seems he isn't considering the fact that the Chinese are finding those other markets all around the world now, which means they have even less reason to negotiate hard deals with the U.S. and that is what Jinping is betting on. Of course Jinping is also betting on the fact that since the American supply-chain is so dependent on Chinese components, Americans will simply pay the higher tax anyway which makes no difference to the Chinese at all and that's something else Trump seems to be missing.



To put things in perspective... Trump didn't actually have any choice. In fact his earlier statements suggest that he wasn't going to get involved, but Congress did something truly amazing for these times. They agreed... Not just marginally, but with a strong enough majority (Both Democrats and Republicans) to override the threat of veto.

Yes, this really pissed off the communists in Beijing but neither Democrats nor Republicans are willing to ignore the struggle of those people in Hong Kong, so they essentially forced Trump to "agree".

So is this going to screw up that "mini-trade deal" that Trump was "working" on? It might. Maybe if Trump wasn't so reckless with raising U.S. taxes on Chinese imports we wouldn't be in such a painful position where we NEED a special "mini-trade" deal.

Today, being Black Friday, might tell us something about these realities. We haven't had time to ween our supply-chain off Chinese materials yet so if sales go down today it maybe a signal that Americans are electing not to pay Trump's added tax. But if sales go up it means Americans ARE willing to pay Trump's added tax and the Chinese will be happily planning for more exports.

Actually, they DO have a plan. In fact they have several. We can't help it if your special media doesn't cover that. I mean, I get it... Letting you know anything about plans that Democrats have to cut the deficit doesn't help the "Democrats are bad, Republican good" delusion.

The problem with these plans is that Republicans refuse to work with the Democrats so it's up to the voters to put more Democrats in office so they can have the super majorities to push past the Republican barricade and start making America great again.

The mid-terms are showing us a pattern where this may already be happening. Republicans are losing seats, even in the red states. I think the people are getting tired of the smoke and mirrors.

That's a very good point woodguru... Certainly, the economic policies under Trump defy all logic. He's been claiming credit for the recovery that started under Obama but now that Trump has been in office for three years the economy is starting to show signs of suffering under the most retarded economic policies this country has ever seen.

That's what parties are there for Lieutenant. They are designed to be used by the citizens, which at some point in our history started to include corporations (I'm sure Thomas Jefferson has been turning in his grave ever since). The corporations are themselves designed to be used by investors and Soros is an investor. So is Trump for that matter. So, I'm confused as to why you think a link between an investor (or anyone in his family) and a government office is anything but normal.

What sets Trump apart is that he sucks at lying so most people don't fall for it and he does it ALL the time. He can't stand at a podium without launching a blatant lie that leaves billions of people with slack jaws.


OK, fine... then take away all those immigration laws that didn't exist when your grandfathers came over. If you're going back to 19th century when Ellis Island was in full swing, there was no such thing as a legal channel because there were no laws against immigration. Immigrants stepped off the boat and just started looking for jobs. Most of them never became citizens but had children that were automatic citizens.

That whole "do what my grandparents did" is just utter ignorance.


That 20% was more likely the people who were lucky enough to find a way back after they found out what a slave machine the US was. Most of the immigrants only had one-way tickets and no, the U.S. was not paying for their return fare.


The issue of phony families is the result of the racist immigration policies. The idea was that if we only let in people who are related to American citizens, which was easier then to assume would be white, non-whites would have less chance of getting in. But over the years, the whiteness of America has faded and now the policy is having an opposite effect. If the racists stayed out of it in the first place, there would be no phony families.


Since DACA was signed, the Democrats have not had control of Congress and the Republicans have always been been able to prevent any movement on the issue. Don't chop off someone's legs and then blame him for not being able to get up.