Official Current Affairs & Politics thread

[NyCeEvO]

My concern with Trump, while i believe he has "good" intentions, he's not rectifying the situation but only to escalate it and perhaps further the causes of the anti-USA sentiments shared not just around Muslim majority countries but throughout the world.

While doing so, compromising the integrity and regard this country holds dear.

As opposed to simply bombing these countries like Hilary, Obama, and their predecessors?

Bombing against the enemy is not the same as banning innocence or those with legit US entry certified credentials of the same country.

and i never said i approved or disapproved the bombings.

Agreed.

The bombings have been my biggest critique of the Obama administration.

[Rainyy]

We can agree to disagree about Trump not being ruled by personality and emotion

You misunderstand. We completely agree in this regard. Trump is a petulant, inflammatory, and unhinged person.

But despite my distaste for his personal characteristics, I still view his policies with the same cost-benefit analysis I would use to view that of any president.

I am preaching to the choir when I say his recent policies fail this cost-benefit analysis spectacularly.

[bws94]

We can agree to disagree about Trump not being ruled by personality and emotion

You misunderstand. We completely agree in this regard. Trump is a petulant, inflammatory, and unhinged person.

But despite my distaste for his personal characteristics, I still view his policies with the same cost-benefit analysis I would use to view that of any president.

I am preaching to the choir when I say his recent policies fail this cost-benefit analysis spectacularly.

The thing is, I like that he'll cut the fat in government spending. And I hope that he can get down the outrageous cost of pharma medications, that will benefit everyone. There are some policies that I do agree with and support of his. Though, not many So, if you're saying cost-benefit analysis, ok.

[NyCeEvO]

We can agree to disagree about Trump not being ruled by personality and emotion

You misunderstand. We completely agree in this regard. Trump is a petulant, inflammatory, and unhinged person.

But despite my distaste for his personal characteristics, I still view his policies with the same cost-benefit analysis I would use to view that of any president.

I am preaching to the choir when I say his recent policies fail this cost-benefit analysis spectacularly.

The thing is, I like that he'll cut the fat in government spending. And I hope that he can get down the outrageous cost of pharma medications, that will benefit everyone. There are some policies that I do agree with and support of his. Though, not many So, if you're saying cost-benefit analysis, ok.

Like most institutions susceptible to criticism, there's usually an overarching 1-3 line narrative explaining why its evil that doesn't really capture the real problems.

Pharma costs so much in large part due to R&D of the industry. It's not that companies are just seeking to rip off people left and right, it's that it cost a ton to pay people to do the research , run clinical trials, be HIPPA compliant, etc.

Where things break down are the incentives doctors have to prescribe particular brand drugs and the amount of money that can be claimed on insurance for products and procedures. Doctors want to pay off their ridiculously expensive med school bill. The cycle continues...

IMO, national health care shouldn't even be a political issue. A country's #1 goal ought to be prudence, and keeping its citizens healthy and active for as long as possible is key to this. National health care needs to a focus of the future so U.S. citizens aren't financially ruined forever by an emergency room visit and an overnight stay.

Trump would win a lot of people over if he could actually convince the GOP that national health care isn't a bad thing.

[shakendfries]

This whole ordeal is admittedly a mess at this point, and the rhetoric behind the legislation had Islamophobic overtones so a lot of people are understandably concerned. Some outlets that have promoted the hysteria from BLM protests to the more recent protests are definitely alarming to most. But both sides of the aisle are guilty of overreacting.

The right is overreacting to their "perceived" threats, and the left is overreacting to the actual legislation.

The heart of the issues that are being raised at this point in this thread has less to do with alleged business ties and more to do with diplomatic ties that never really existed with the 7 countries in question beforehand. However, how does attitudes towards the US shift in the mind of foreigners? Is it worse or better off than some of the clandestine strike operations of previous administrations? Will this have negative implications towards the way the diverse group of law abiding Americans perceive and interact with each other? I don't have the answer to these questions, but I'm starting to understand why people feel so strongly both ways.

[tonman]

As opposed to simply bombing these countries like Hilary, Obama, and their predecessors?

Bombing against the enemy is not the same as banning innocence or those with legit US entry certified credentials of the same country.

and i never said i approved or disapproved the bombings.

Agreed.

The bombings have been my biggest critique of the Obama administration.

I don't understand the problem with the bombings. The enemy is not a state though ISIS taking over land and trying to set up shop made it easier as a target. How are you going to fight a borderless enemy. Is invading a sovereign country better?

Are we or are we not at war? Look at what the Syrians aND Russians have done compared to the US policy on strategic strikes.

[tonman]

We can agree to disagree about Trump not being ruled by personality and emotion

You misunderstand. We completely agree in this regard. Trump is a petulant, inflammatory, and unhinged person.

But despite my distaste for his personal characteristics, I still view his policies with the same cost-benefit analysis I would use to view that of any president.

I am preaching to the choir when I say his recent policies fail this cost-benefit analysis spectacularly.

The thing is, I like that he'll cut the fat in government spending. And I hope that he can get down the outrageous cost of pharma medications, that will benefit everyone. There are some policies that I do agree with and support of his. Though, not many So, if you're saying cost-benefit analysis, ok.

He's not going to cut the fat. He's already increasing the fat if the wall materializes. He's not going to get the cost of health care down. The excuse about R&D is tiresome because you have to ask yourself what are you researching? The next miracle drug or something that may not line the CEOs pockets but could benefit lots of people. Money runs the industry. Have no issues with companies wanting to maximize profits but when they also push regulations and laws in their favor with politicians when these regulations are there to protect the average citizen that's where I draw the line. How is cutting the fat with the epa going to help us? Trickle down economics does not work.

[kinein]

This will be the only comment I will make.

Regardless of WHAT WE AMERICANS believe, ISIS will use everything that TRUMP does as a RECRUITING TOOL.

The country WILL be less SAFE because Trump is the President.

when you can get some Navy Seals or Marines from Det1 Special Forces to back up your claims. I'll listen to you without wanting to

[LostInACrowd]

This whole ordeal is admittedly a mess at this point, and the rhetoric behind the legislation had Islamophobic overtones so a lot of people are understandably concerned. Some outlets that have promoted the hysteria from BLM protests to the more recent protests are definitely alarming to most. But both sides of the aisle are guilty of overreacting.

The right is overreacting to their "perceived" threats, and the left is overreacting to the actual legislation.

The heart of the issues that are being raised at this point in this thread has less to do with alleged business ties and more to do with diplomatic ties that never really existed with the 7 countries in question beforehand. However, how does attitudes towards the US shift in the mind of foreigners? Is it worse or better off than some of the clandestine strike operations of previous administrations? Will this have negative implications towards the way the diverse group of law abiding Americans perceive and interact with each other? I don't have the answer to these questions, but I'm starting to understand why people feel so strongly both ways.

It's not a question of which is worse. With Trump, you get both the clandestine strike operations and the banning of muslims.

Trump is the guy who thinks he knows better than generals(his words) and wanted to attack Mosul without giving the over half a million civilians any warnings so they could avoid the violence.

The biggest problem with Trump is that he is incompetent as POTUS.

His first military action in Yemen was badly executed.

The muslim ban of those 7 countries was nothing but a political statement that's not protecting America and as usual for Trump was badly executed.

[Prokorov]

We can agree to disagree about Trump not being ruled by personality and emotion

You misunderstand. We completely agree in this regard. Trump is a petulant, inflammatory, and unhinged person.

But despite my distaste for his personal characteristics, I still view his policies with the same cost-benefit analysis I would use to view that of any president.

I am preaching to the choir when I say his recent policies fail this cost-benefit analysis spectacularly.

The thing is, I like that he'll cut the fat in government spending. And I hope that he can get down the outrageous cost of pharma medications, that will benefit everyone. There are some policies that I do agree with and support of his. Though, not many So, if you're saying cost-benefit analysis, ok.

I'l buy into trump "cutting the fat in government spending" when i see him start to challenge all the pork being passed through on every bill. That was one of my bigger fears, along with the supreme court vacancy, once he became president. that the republicans control eveyrthing and every bill is going to be run through wit loads of pork and no one to oppose it.

[Roy Tarpley]

You misunderstand. We completely agree in this regard. Trump is a petulant, inflammatory, and unhinged person.

But despite my distaste for his personal characteristics, I still view his policies with the same cost-benefit analysis I would use to view that of any president.

I am preaching to the choir when I say his recent policies fail this cost-benefit analysis spectacularly.

The thing is, I like that he'll cut the fat in government spending. And I hope that he can get down the outrageous cost of pharma medications, that will benefit everyone. There are some policies that I do agree with and support of his. Though, not many So, if you're saying cost-benefit analysis, ok.

I'l buy into trump "cutting the fat in government spending" when i see him start to challenge all the pork being passed through on every bill. That was one of my bigger fears, along with the supreme court vacancy, once he became president. that the republicans control eveyrthing and every bill is going to be run through wit loads of pork and no one to oppose it.

Trump has promised $1 trillion dollar in infrastructure spending (which I support in principle), increases in military spending, no cuts to social security and medicare (which I also support), BUT also large cuts in income and corporation taxation -- when you increase spending but decrease taxation (i.e., decrease revenues), the national deficit/debt will skyrocket even higher than it already is.

[twosevenstreet]

Our generation will be the sacrificial lambs for older generations who messed up the economy and younger generations that will get all of the perks of the world correcting the mistakes. (I'm 31, so I guess I'm an older millenial, not sure if that is a thing or not)

Sucks that our generation will be bypassed when it comes to owning property.

[tonman]

Our generation will be the sacrificial lambs for older generations who messed up the economy and younger generations that will get all of the perks of the world correcting the mistakes. (I'm 31, so I guess I'm an older millenial, not sure if that is a thing or not)

Sucks that our generation will be bypassed when it comes to owning property.

Go buy some property if you can get a loan. Won't see sub 4% again for a long time.

[MrDollarBills]

Our generation will be the sacrificial lambs for older generations who messed up the economy and younger generations that will get all of the perks of the world correcting the mistakes. (I'm 31, so I guess I'm an older millenial, not sure if that is a thing or not)

Sucks that our generation will be bypassed when it comes to owning property.

man you'd better google FHA loans and get on in. I'm an "older millenial" too, but we still have opportunities. Hell, i'm glad i'm not one of these younger folks coming out of college with six figures in debt, they're the ones who are **** ed. The government and the baby boomer generation talk the most trash about millenials but they're the ones that drove this country off of a cliff and have given way to nutjobs like you know who.

[MrDollarBills]

The thing is, I like that he'll cut the fat in government spending. And I hope that he can get down the outrageous cost of pharma medications, that will benefit everyone. There are some policies that I do agree with and support of his. Though, not many So, if you're saying cost-benefit analysis, ok.

I'l buy into trump "cutting the fat in government spending" when i see him start to challenge all the pork being passed through on every bill. That was one of my bigger fears, along with the supreme court vacancy, once he became president. that the republicans control eveyrthing and every bill is going to be run through wit loads of pork and no one to oppose it.

Trump has promised $1 trillion dollar in infrastructure spending (which I support in principle), increases in military spending, no cuts to social security and medicare (which I also support), BUT also large cuts in income and corporation taxation -- when you increase spending but decrease taxation (i.e., decrease revenues), the national deficit/debt will skyrocket even higher than it already is.

I'm interested to see if he'll even remotely follow through on that (infrastructure spending). I feel like he won't because I seriously can't see how he's going to pay for that, a ridiculously bloated military budget, while cutting taxes.

What I want to know is, who is he planning on starting a war with?

[NyCeEvO]

I'l buy into trump "cutting the fat in government spending" when i see him start to challenge all the pork being passed through on every bill. That was one of my bigger fears, along with the supreme court vacancy, once he became president. that the republicans control eveyrthing and every bill is going to be run through wit loads of pork and no one to oppose it.

Trump has promised $1 trillion dollar in infrastructure spending (which I support in principle), increases in military spending, no cuts to social security and medicare (which I also support), BUT also large cuts in income and corporation taxation -- when you increase spending but decrease taxation (i.e., decrease revenues), the national deficit/debt will skyrocket even higher than it already is.

I'm interested to see if he'll even remotely follow through on that (infrastructure spending). I feel like he won't because I seriously can't see how he's going to pay for that, a ridiculously bloated military budget, while cutting taxes.

What I want to know is, who is he planning on starting a war with?

All of the liberal snowflakes. /s

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

[MrDollarBills]

I'm shocked that he didn't go on a tirade today after GW's critical remarks about cheeto overlord's petulance.

[Roy Tarpley]

Now Trump is wanting a $54 billion increase in military spending, with no cuts to Medicare/SS, to be offset by massive cuts in foreign aid, the EPA, State, etc. This is gonna be difficult and both the departments and the Congress, even Republicans, will probably make big amendments.

I think Trump thinks he can pay for at least a part of the infrastructure spending by having a corporate tax holiday, which will allow for a lot of money overseas to be returned and taxed. I don't think it'll be enough money.

[CalamityX12]

I'l buy into trump "cutting the fat in government spending" when i see him start to challenge all the pork being passed through on every bill. That was one of my bigger fears, along with the supreme court vacancy, once he became president. that the republicans control eveyrthing and every bill is going to be run through wit loads of pork and no one to oppose it.

Trump has promised $1 trillion dollar in infrastructure spending (which I support in principle), increases in military spending, no cuts to social security and medicare (which I also support), BUT also large cuts in income and corporation taxation -- when you increase spending but decrease taxation (i.e., decrease revenues), the national deficit/debt will skyrocket even higher than it already is.

I'm interested to see if he'll even remotely follow through on that (infrastructure spending). I feel like he won't because I seriously can't see how he's going to pay for that, a ridiculously bloated military budget, while cutting taxes.

What I want to know is, who is he planning on starting a war with?

Mexico
Australia
Germany
United States Media
Meryl Streep
and whoever Bannon points to...

[MrDollarBills]

Trump has promised $1 trillion dollar in infrastructure spending (which I support in principle), increases in military spending, no cuts to social security and medicare (which I also support), BUT also large cuts in income and corporation taxation -- when you increase spending but decrease taxation (i.e., decrease revenues), the national deficit/debt will skyrocket even higher than it already is.

I'm interested to see if he'll even remotely follow through on that (infrastructure spending). I feel like he won't because I seriously can't see how he's going to pay for that, a ridiculously bloated military budget, while cutting taxes.

What I want to know is, who is he planning on starting a war with?

Mexico
Australia
Germany
United States Media
Meryl Streep
and whoever Bannon points to...

Bannon is currently at war with his own liver.