Donald J Trump, your thoughts on his Presidency

[LGR4GM]

2 hours ago, Eleven said:

Please.  They're unlikely to impeach him and they're certainly not going to convict him.

not with Mitch McTurtle in his pocket. 

[LGR4GM]

Welcome to Nationalist America complete with Propaganda from Fox News.  

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/03/11/the-making-of-the-fox-news-white-house

Edited March 5, 2019 by LGR4GM

[Eleven]

11 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Welcome to Nationalist America complete with Propaganda from Fox News.  

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/03/11/the-making-of-the-fox-news-white-house

Remember in 2015 when Fox hated him?

[Weave]

Trade deficit announced as $100 billion higher than when Trump first took office.

Another victory for tariffs, eh?

[Drunkard]

8 minutes ago, Weave said:

Trade deficit announced as $100 billion higher than when Trump first took office.

Another victory for tariffs, eh?

Plus the socialism from all kickbacks he has to give soybean farmers due to screwing the pooch on trade with China, but it's a GOP member providing that socialism so we'll call it something else.

I like to call it winning. So much winning.

Edited March 6, 2019 by Drunkard

[Weave]

5 hours ago, Drunkard said:

Plus the socialism from all kickbacks he has to give soybean farmers due to screwing the pooch on trade with China, but it's a GOP member providing that socialism so we'll call it something else.

I like to call it winning. So much winning.

Between tariffs, industry subsidies, immigration, executive order love, dictator love, porn star love, and bump stock bans, I can't get over anyone labeling Trump conservative.  I mean, other than nominate anti abortion judges, what is conservative about what he's accomplished?  And let's face it, after 45 years of legal precedent, going after Roe v Wade from the bench has got to be the definition of judicial activism, a very liberal concept, so I'm not sure you can even label THAT as conservative.

Conservative used to be family values, free markets, and the dignity of work.  Welp, he's waged his own war on his family values, trashed the concept of free markets, and hurt entire industries, affecting peoples abilities to dignify themselves with work.

The ability of people in general to be blinded by political colors genuinely surprise and shock me.

[Sabel79]

2 hours ago, Weave said:

The ability of people in general to be blinded by political colors genuinely surprise and shock me.

Really?  It’s been the story of the state of this country for at least 40 years.  Turkeys voting staunchly in favor of Thanksgiving because of “reasons”... ?

[Weave]

Just now, Sabel79 said:

Really?  It’s been the story of the state of this country for at least 40 years.  Turkeys voting staunchly in favor of Thanksgiving because of “reasons”... ?

I never thought I'd see the day that Republicans, let alone conservatives, would support someone with the agenda and history Trump has.  It genuinely surprises me with every announcement, every day.

[Sabel79]

5 minutes ago, Weave said:

I never thought I'd see the day that Republicans, let alone conservatives, would support someone with the agenda and history Trump has.  It genuinely surprises me with every announcement, every day.

I am genuinely surprised by your suprise.  It’s been coming.  Setting the start date further forward, from the second we invaded entirely the wrong countries after 9/11, again because of “reasons” and without paying for it, the conservative movement in this country died, to be replaced with what we have.  

I’d argue it was actually dead long before, with Reagan’s shenanigans ballooning the debt, but i suppose that’s another conversation. 

At the end of the day, it’s all about delivering taxpayer dollars into private pockets.  The bill will be left for future generations to deal with. 

[LGR4GM]

11 hours ago, Weave said:

I never thought I'd see the day that Republicans, let alone conservatives, would support someone with the agenda and history Trump has.  It genuinely surprises me with every announcement, every day.

I don't think it is about supporting trump, it is about being against the Democrats. There used to be some respect between the parties and now it is simply make sure the other side doesn't do anything good and just highlight the bad. Right before Caesar took over Rome, one of the tenants of the Senate was that it was better to do nothing than allow your political opponent to do something. Even common sense laws could be opposed if they were proposed by the wrong person. We are seeing that today. The Dems I think a little less so but still they aren't far off and the Republicans literally said after Obama was elected they would make him a 1 term president. We aren't the United States of America anymore. We are the Republicans and the Democrats. It is sad and a main reason I refuse to sign up for a political party. 

[LGR4GM]

11 hours ago, Sabel79 said:

I am genuinely surprised by your suprise.  It’s been coming.  Setting the start date further forward, from the second we invaded entirely the wrong countries after 9/11, again because of “reasons” and without paying for it, the conservative movement in this country died, to be replaced with what we have.  

I’d argue it was actually dead long before, with Reagan’s shenanigans ballooning the debt, but i suppose that’s another conversation. 

At the end of the day, it’s all about delivering taxpayer dollars into private pockets.  The bill will be left for future generations to deal with. 

Exactly. Thanks baby boomers! 

[Drunkard]

18 hours ago, Weave said:

Between tariffs, industry subsidies, immigration, executive order love, dictator love, porn star love, and bump stock bans, I can't get over anyone labeling Trump conservative.  I mean, other than nominate anti abortion judges, what is conservative about what he's accomplished?  And let's face it, after 45 years of legal precedent, going after Roe v Wade from the bench has got to be the definition of judicial activism, a very liberal concept, so I'm not sure you can even label THAT as conservative.

Conservative used to be family values, free markets, and the dignity of work.  Welp, he's waged his own war on his family values, trashed the concept of free markets, and hurt entire industries, affecting peoples abilities to dignify themselves with work.

The ability of people in general to be blinded by political colors genuinely surprise and shock me.

I agree that Trump is not a conservative in the traditional sense, but he still checks the 4 most important boxes to gain GOP support.

1. Anti-abortion (even if he himself is not, he only appoints judges from the approved list from Heritage)

2. Pro Gun

3. Military Spending (the biggest socialist and jobs program by far)

4. Tax cuts (which should probably be #1)

[SABRES 0311]

13 hours ago, Drunkard said:

I agree that Trump is not a conservative in the traditional sense, but he still checks the 4 most important boxes to gain GOP support.

1. Anti-abortion (even if he himself is not, he only appoints judges from the approved list from Heritage)

2. Pro Gun

3. Military Spending (the biggest socialist and jobs program by far)

4. Tax cuts (which should probably be #1)

I’d appreciate it if you could explain this. Does that make military personnel socialists? 

[LGR4GM]

5 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

I’d appreciate it if you could explain this. Does that make military personnel socialists? 

That isn't why he said. Talk about bastardizing a point. 

[SABRES 0311]

30 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

That isn't why he said. Talk about bastardizing a point. 

Then I guess I misunderstood the point. Maybe that’s why I asked for an explanation.

[Drunkard]

6 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

I’d appreciate it if you could explain this. Does that make military personnel socialists? 

I mean that defense spending (and more specifically defense contracting) is the biggest jobs program in the country by far. They rely on government spending to keep their industry afloat. That's why when even the Pentagon says they don't need any more of plane x, helicopter y, or tank z, Congress usually ignores them and appropriates money to keep building them anyway. Not because they are needed, but because without building those items some big factory in Ohio closes down and leaves a few thousand people unemployed.

Military personnel runs the same spectrum of political opinions as any other population group. Some are conservative, some are liberal, some are independent. It doesn't change the fact that defense contractors are highly dependent on government spending, which makes it a much more socialist program than most conservatives would like to admit.

Most conservative members of Congress have no issue with government spending as long as the money is spent on things that they deem to be worthy, whether it's defense contractors, tax cuts for the wealthy, or faith based initiatives.

Edited March 8, 2019 by Drunkard

[LGR4GM]

We are spending at war time levels without a war. In 2000 we spent about 300 billion on the military. We doubled that as we had the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. We just never lowered back to the pre-war levels, even if you adjust for inflation. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/272473/us-military-spending-from-2000-to-2012/

[SABRES 0311]

3 minutes ago, Drunkard said:

I mean that defense spending (and more specifically defense contracting) is the biggest jobs program in the country by far. They rely on government spending to keep their industry afloat. That's why when even the Pentagon says they don't need any more of plane x, helicopter y, or tank z, Congress usually ignores them and appropriates money to keep building them anyway. Not because they are needed, but because without building those items some big factory in Ohio closes down and leaves a few thousand people unemployed.

Military personnel runs the same spectrum of political opinions as any other population group. Some are conservative, some are liberal, some are independent. It doesn't change the fact that defense contractors are highly dependent on government spending, which makes it a much more socialist program than most conservatives would like to admit.

Most conservative members of Congress have no issue with government spending as long as the money is spent on things that they deem to be worthy, whether it's defense contractors, tax cuts for the wealthy, or faith based initiatives.

So in 2004 my unit got a brief from USAID. The point was to make us aware of how we could identify things the local populace needs that they could provide. Hearts and minds thing. The guy actually admitted they were buying things the people didn’t want. One story was about how they tried to give a farmer a tractor and he refused. Can’t remember if it was because he didn’t need it or if by accepting it he would make himself a target.

So to that end I agree. Spending money on unnecessary things simply takes it away from what we do need. I have also become somewhat familiar with the spend it or lose approach. I think it’s a combination of giving contracts to companies who have politicians in their pockets and spending money to show a need for more. Was, rinse, repeat. 

I wanted to make sure I understood the context is all. 

[SABRES 0311]

6 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

We are spending at war time levels without a war. In 2000 we spent about 300 billion on the military. We doubled that as we had the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. We just never lowered back to the pre-war levels, even if you adjust for inflation. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/272473/us-military-spending-from-2000-to-2012/

And I agree no country benefits monetarily from continued wars. This is why I believe all efforts to peaceful resolution should be tried with the exception of responding to an attack. Even then there should be a withdrawal plan. There is a line though that should not be crossed and if it is and all attempts at resolution have failed then so be it. 

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

And I agree no country benefits monetarily from continued wars. This is why I believe all efforts to peaceful resolution should be tried with the exception of responding to an attack. Even then there should be a withdrawal plan. There is a line though that should not be crossed and if it is and all attempts at resolution have failed then so be it. 

I agree. Sorry for being grumpy and confrontational this morning. I just worry about the direction of the US as a whole and the way we spend our money is part of that. 

[Drunkard]

15 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

So in 2004 my unit got a brief from USAID. The point was to make us aware of how we could identify things the local populace needs that they could provide. Hearts and minds thing. The guy actually admitted they were buying things the people didn’t want. One story was about how they tried to give a farmer a tractor and he refused. Can’t remember if it was because he didn’t need it or if by accepting it he would make himself a target.

So to that end I agree. Spending money on unnecessary things simply takes it away from what we do need. I have also become somewhat familiar with the spend it or lose approach. I think it’s a combination of giving contracts to companies who have politicians in their pockets and spending money to show a need for more. Was, rinse, repeat. 

I wanted to make sure I understood the context is all. 

No problem, man. Semper Fi.

[SABRES 0311]

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I agree. Sorry for being grumpy and confrontational this morning. I just worry about the direction of the US as a whole and the way we spend our money is part of that. 

As do I. I do not think Trump is a good guy but I think we have to try something with NK because either the alternative or eventuality will cost lives. I too get confrontational not because of my profession but because I don’t want my kids fighting the same war I am. 

I also think we are too divided on social issues to pay attention to who is pulling the strings and for what reason. We let politician’s hate and misdeeds create ill feelings toward our brother and sister citizens. 

No need to apologize for being passionate about things. 

5 minutes ago, Drunkard said:

No problem, man. Semper Fi.

Simper Fi

[Eleven]

On 3/7/2019 at 9:16 AM, LGR4GM said:

Exactly. Thanks baby boomers! 

While I am not happy with the destruction  of our country committed by that generation, this particular problem goes way back before baby boomers or even America.

[SABRES 0311]

5 hours ago, Eleven said:

While I am not happy with the destruction  of our country committed by that generation, this particular problem goes way back before baby boomers or even America.

Interesting. Please elaborate. If you are going the direction I think you are I’m all ears.

[Scottysabres]

Thoughts on Trump Presidency.

Mixed bag. Not fond of his use of tariffs as muscle, but, understandable given the slip in economics over a 40 year period.

Like his security of nation first prioritizing, after all, it does no good to support, not support if I'm dead.

Not a fan of his personal responses to situations, no matter what they are, the Presidency is above that.

I am a fan however, of going right to the people via twitter and other platforms.

Would like to see more compromise in an effort to bring the nation together, however, the other political party has made that impossible as well.

Foreign affairs is a mixed bag, I would like to see more engagement on the China trade front, but, we are not privy to all that is going on behind the scenes.

And that leads me to my last gripe on him, transparency, while it's never been higher in my lifetime in any event, it's still subpar.

Economics - A

Security - A

Unity - C (F overall, but B for trying, even if half heartedly, and can you blame him? averaging to a C)

Best interest of the nation in mind - A

Foreign Affairs - C