Author Topic: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?  (Read 382305 times)

Retire-Canada

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6685
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2400 on: February 27, 2017, 07:52:18 PM »
People take it for granted, but this was not always so.

There are lots of people on the planet that would label the US as an aggressor nation and not get behind your statement. Just depends on what side of the various geopolitical conflicts you sympathize with.

The Spanish and the British would have said the same thing at one point in time. Not everyone was sad to see their empires fade.

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2401 on: February 27, 2017, 08:04:05 PM »
Official budget office chart:

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/52xxx/52408-Land-Budget_Overall.png

2/3 of spending is SS, Medicare, Medicaid grants, veterans benefits in order of most to least cost.
Small amount is interest on our debts.
Slightly less than half of the remainder is defense (0.5 trillion) and slightly more than half is the rest of the federal government.

If he keeps budget neutral then shift of 58 billion from rest of government to defense. Total shifted amount of $58 billion is 1.3% of total budget, 4.8% of discretionary spending and 9% of non-defense discretionary budget. Hardly earth-shattering.


On a side note, I was surprised by how much revenue comes from payroll taxes compared to federal income tax, since the former is such a small fraction of my family's total taxes
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 08:11:02 PM by Abe »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5306
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2402 on: February 27, 2017, 08:10:29 PM »
I will just have to disagree with you that Bretton Woods is equal to the colonization by Europeans. Certainly it hasn't helped everyone, and the system is far from perfect, but global u.s. navy guaranteed free trade has raised the standard of living for far more people than it has hurt.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 08:06:14 AM by Metric Mouse »

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2403 on: February 27, 2017, 08:15:57 PM »
I agree with MM that US naval presence is a major factor in trade stability, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. The USSR would clearly have had an advantage in that region if the US didn't have a big navy presence after WW2, potentially severely curtailing the economic advancement of east Asia. Keep in mind this may have also inhibited China's trade development, which has been the single biggest factor in the decrease in poverty in the world over the last 30 years. All of this is speculation to some extent, but a convincing argument can be made. There's fewer episodes of US as an aggressor nation with the conventional Navy (excluding marines and SEALs) in particular.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1761
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2404 on: February 27, 2017, 10:44:57 PM »
But seriously, the US military, the us navy particularly, has brought unprecedented levels of world peace to the planet over the past 7 decades. This doesn't mean that more is better, but it's not as if ensuring free trade for every country on the planet and worldwide energy access is worthless. People take it for granted, but this was not always so.

And here I thought Economics had something to do with the fact that nations engaged in free trade would act in their own best interests, which includes treating their trading partners like customers. 

This thread has seriously gone off the rails with some people making valid, documentable points and others regurgitating fake news and crackpot theories.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7187
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2405 on: February 27, 2017, 10:55:22 PM »
But seriously, the US military, the us navy particularly, has brought unprecedented levels of world peace to the planet over the past 7 decades.
And here I thought Economics had something to do with the fact that nations engaged in free trade would act in their own best interests, which includes treating their trading partners like customers. 

Let's put a finer point on it, instead of dancing around the issue.  The United States Navy is the reason international cargo ships, and oil tankers in particular, are the lowest cost global shipping option by tonnage.  Globalization as an economic model absolutely depends on those cargo ships, which depend on the US Navy.  Piracy and naval blockades used to be a real force in the rise and fall of nations. 

The US protects global shipping lanes, particularly around oil-rich regions, for the benefit of the global economy.  American citizens pay for most of that protection, that everyone else enjoys.

Trump can't make up his mind.  One day he says he wants to "renegotiate" all of these deals so that other countries "pay their fair share" and the very next day he says wants to charge American taxpayers billions more dollars so that the US military can do even more on behalf of other countries.  He doesn't seem to have any coherent policy position, any centerline view of the world that guides his decisions, other than "what will make me personally the most money."

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1761
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2406 on: February 27, 2017, 11:51:14 PM »
That at least makes sense Sol.  But as a businessman, one would think Trump would want to pull up some data on just how much naval force is really required to maintain free trade.  I would argue that it is less than we currently have, but then again I'm not President so I can't pull in the experts and form an educated opinion.  Sure, there was piracy in Somalia, but market forces adjusted such that transport found alternate routes or built in a wider berth.  There were relatively cheap options to counter as opposed to sending naval fleets.  And we're not in pre-globalization times where our competitors threaten blockades.  It would get pretty ugly if Russia sank a Chinese container ship headed for the US or formed a blockade, and what would they gain?  Threatening to militaristically interfere in global trade would make just about every country their enemy.

I guess I'm in the camp with others as to why defense spending has just now become our nation's highest priority.  Especially since we seem to have no idea if we just lost a cyber war last year.  Maybe redirecting current spending to plug some existing holes would make more sense.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 11:52:53 PM by EscapeVelocity2020 »

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2407 on: February 28, 2017, 01:38:53 AM »
I think Trump's thinking is "I need a big win to look awesome, ISIS is on their rear foot, maybe I just throw some more money at that war and Bam! Mission Accomplished Redux!"

This would go along with his amazing lack of understanding of global affairs, and his behavior that everyone and everything is a commodity, including soldiers. The smartest possible use of the extra money would probably be training more special operators and developing human intelligence resources in the mid-East. Neither of those are particularly lucrative for defense contractors in the US though. Plus you won't ever get anything named after you (U.S.S Trump, anyone?). And, most importantly, those things don't just happen overnight. Let's see if he remembers about them and his grand plan against ISIS by the time the build-up is done. Hopefully Mr McMaster can educate some sense into him.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8450
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2408 on: February 28, 2017, 05:38:00 AM »
Fun fact!  Of our military spending, the Navy gets the most of the 6 branches, with $380B (43%).  The Army is next at $245B.
As others have said the US Navy has served an incredibly useful service in allowing for international commerce to flow relatively safely throughout the world. 

My issue with increasing spending is that we're not doing it because international shipping is suddenly becoming anarchy. It's about maintaining global superiority by a large margin regardless of the fact that we're already outspending everyone else by an almost comical margin (e.g. more than 2x China's military budget, 4x Russia).

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11830
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2409 on: February 28, 2017, 06:32:11 AM »
But seriously, the US military, the us navy particularly, has brought unprecedented levels of world peace to the planet over the past 7 decades.

I agree with you on the US navy.  Generally speaking, they've been a powerful force for good in the world over the past seventy years.  Trade tends to benefit peace, as Sol pointed out.

It's very hard to agree with you regarding the US Air Force and the US Army.  The US Air Force is regularly engaged in acts of terror (the only real difference between be-headings and drone strikes is that one side openly televises their cruelty, the other side hides it out of shame - they both kill a lot of innocent people, they both operate outside of any real legal system).  The US Army openly operates kidnapping and torture facilities that are completely outside of the rule of law and in contravention of international law.

Neither of these actions are responsible for world peace (and a fair amount of evidence points to them being a cause of destabilization and radicalization in the world).

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5306
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2410 on: February 28, 2017, 10:16:04 AM »
But seriously, the US military, the us navy particularly, has brought unprecedented levels of world peace to the planet over the past 7 decades. This doesn't mean that more is better, but it's not as if ensuring free trade for every country on the planet and worldwide energy access is worthless. People take it for granted, but this was not always so.

And here I thought Economics had something to do with the fact that nations engaged in free trade would act in their own best interests, which includes treating their trading partners like customers. 
How did that work out throughout history? You are clearly viewing things through a modern lens and missing the broader trends in history. Several other posters have pointed this out. Not all military spending is justified, and a huge increase likely has greatly diminished returns, but saying things like "market forces would ensure free trade" is a baseless claim that clearly contradicts all historical fact and the view of modern study on this subject.

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 685
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2411 on: February 28, 2017, 12:57:32 PM »
But seriously, the US military, the us navy particularly, has brought unprecedented levels of world peace to the planet over the past 7 decades.

I agree with you on the US navy.  Generally speaking, they've been a powerful force for good in the world over the past seventy years.  Trade tends to benefit peace, as Sol pointed out.

It's very hard to agree with you regarding the US Air Force and the US Army.  The US Air Force is regularly engaged in acts of terror (the only real difference between be-headings and drone strikes is that one side openly televises their cruelty, the other side hides it out of shame - they both kill a lot of innocent people, they both operate outside of any real legal system).  The US Army openly operates kidnapping and torture facilities that are completely outside of the rule of law and in contravention of international law.

Neither of these actions are responsible for world peace (and a fair amount of evidence points to them being a cause of destabilization and radicalization in the world).

There is another difference between our drone strikes and terrorist attacks and that is simple intent. The US military and our policy in general has very different mind set and intent behind it than terrorist attacks. You may not agree with our use of force outside the bounds of or country to attempt stabilize or reshape foreign power balance but the innocents we kill as collateral are a far cry different than intentionally targeting innocent people for execution to send a message.

If you don't acknowledge that difference you are doing a great disservice to those who are trying to keep us safe and make the world safer in general even if it means we chose to take human lives to achieve that goal.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7187
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2412 on: February 28, 2017, 01:15:41 PM »
There is another difference between our drone strikes and terrorist attacks and that is simple intent.

I don't think intent matters much to the Pakistani farmer who watches his wife and all of his children bleed to death after an invisible robot explodes his house.  He legitimately hates us regardless of our intent.

You may think the drone war is justified, but it is just as effective at terrorizing and radicalizing people as are beheadings.  From their point of view, each bloody knife decapitation murder streamed live on Facebook is just a tiny bit of pushback against the impersonal industrialized mass murder from the skies that they live with every day.

Gondolin

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
  • Location: Northern VA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2413 on: February 28, 2017, 01:18:52 PM »
I very much doubt we'll see anything close to a $54B increase over BCA spending levels. This number is just Trump's 'big ask' which he expects will be negotiated downward. Then, he can claim that he 'tried to fix' the military but, was blocked by Democrats and Tea Party Republicans while still placating the services with some budget increase.


Quote
Threatening to militaristically interfere in global trade would make just about every country their enemy.
You would think that this would be true and that no one would be willing to get involved in major wars due to the economic disruption that would ensue.

Yet, people were saying the same things in June 1914 and it turns out they were very wrong. Maybe, it's more true now than it was then. We won't know until the crisis point occurs.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11830
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2414 on: February 28, 2017, 01:32:52 PM »
But seriously, the US military, the us navy particularly, has brought unprecedented levels of world peace to the planet over the past 7 decades.

I agree with you on the US navy.  Generally speaking, they've been a powerful force for good in the world over the past seventy years.  Trade tends to benefit peace, as Sol pointed out.

It's very hard to agree with you regarding the US Air Force and the US Army.  The US Air Force is regularly engaged in acts of terror (the only real difference between be-headings and drone strikes is that one side openly televises their cruelty, the other side hides it out of shame - they both kill a lot of innocent people, they both operate outside of any real legal system).  The US Army openly operates kidnapping and torture facilities that are completely outside of the rule of law and in contravention of international law.

Neither of these actions are responsible for world peace (and a fair amount of evidence points to them being a cause of destabilization and radicalization in the world).

There is another difference between our drone strikes and terrorist attacks and that is simple intent. The US military and our policy in general has very different mind set and intent behind it than terrorist attacks. You may not agree with our use of force outside the bounds of or country to attempt stabilize or reshape foreign power balance but the innocents we kill as collateral are a far cry different than intentionally targeting innocent people for execution to send a message.

If you don't acknowledge that difference you are doing a great disservice to those who are trying to keep us safe and make the world safer in general even if it means we chose to take human lives to achieve that goal.

That's certainly what the people doing the illegal executions have been telling you.  While I'd like to believe that the people in the US Air Force aren't intentionally targeting innocent Muslims for death and to send a message, I would seriously challenge you to prove it.

This is a program without much transparency, theoretically overseen by congress but run by many of the same people who were exposed for lying to congress about torture programs they previously oversaw (http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/cia-drone-killings-get-scant-congressional-oversight/).  Much of the decision making surrounding these murders also resides in the hands of the president . . . and the current president of America has advocated murdering innocent people to send a message:

"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families".

FIRE me

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1100
  • Location: Louisville, KY
  • So much technology, so little talent.
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2415 on: February 28, 2017, 01:50:44 PM »
And today, on February 27, 2017, the President of the United States of America, Donald J Trump said:
"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."

In some regards, the ACA worked as designed. By creating a plan -- any plan -- the Democrats made it very difficult to go back. Now, TrumpCare is forced to include some of the non-controversial aspects of ACA.

Based on the news today, little if any of Obamacare is considered uncontroversial by all. The headline I saw said that some Republicans are not supporting the Trump's repeal of Obamacare. Reading the item, it turned out that they don't want to keep elements of Obamacare. They are saying that Trump's repeal isn't going nearly far enough.

OthalaFehu

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 72
    • OthalaFehu
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2416 on: February 28, 2017, 01:53:32 PM »
Personally, I expect the Great Lakes to burst into flames any day now.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3293
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2417 on: February 28, 2017, 02:20:28 PM »
For the record:

Donald Trump is a pig. He is a filthy, disgusting, immoral, shameless pig.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-suggests-jewish-community-spreading-anti-semitic-threats-article-1.2984866


RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 685
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2418 on: February 28, 2017, 02:48:01 PM »
But seriously, the US military, the us navy particularly, has brought unprecedented levels of world peace to the planet over the past 7 decades.

I agree with you on the US navy.  Generally speaking, they've been a powerful force for good in the world over the past seventy years.  Trade tends to benefit peace, as Sol pointed out.

It's very hard to agree with you regarding the US Air Force and the US Army.  The US Air Force is regularly engaged in acts of terror (the only real difference between be-headings and drone strikes is that one side openly televises their cruelty, the other side hides it out of shame - they both kill a lot of innocent people, they both operate outside of any real legal system).  The US Army openly operates kidnapping and torture facilities that are completely outside of the rule of law and in contravention of international law.

Neither of these actions are responsible for world peace (and a fair amount of evidence points to them being a cause of destabilization and radicalization in the world).

There is another difference between our drone strikes and terrorist attacks and that is simple intent. The US military and our policy in general has very different mind set and intent behind it than terrorist attacks. You may not agree with our use of force outside the bounds of or country to attempt stabilize or reshape foreign power balance but the innocents we kill as collateral are a far cry different than intentionally targeting innocent people for execution to send a message.

If you don't acknowledge that difference you are doing a great disservice to those who are trying to keep us safe and make the world safer in general even if it means we chose to take human lives to achieve that goal.

That's certainly what the people doing the illegal executions have been telling you.  While I'd like to believe that the people in the US Air Force aren't intentionally targeting innocent Muslims for death and to send a message, I would seriously challenge you to prove it.

This is a program without much transparency, theoretically overseen by congress but run by many of the same people who were exposed for lying to congress about torture programs they previously oversaw (http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/cia-drone-killings-get-scant-congressional-oversight/).  Much of the decision making surrounding these murders also resides in the hands of the president . . . and the current president of America has advocated murdering innocent people to send a message:

"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families".

Trump is a special kind of idiot who does uncharacteristically support torture and acts of retribution against innocent people. This is not a quote I would attribute to any other recent President....

The burden of proof goes both ways. Show me declassified reports where we intentionally are targeting innocent family members for execution to send a message. Show me instances were we intentionally go after entirely non-military targets to scare a countries people into submission.

How far does calling our military strikes terrorism go? We dropped nukes on two Japanese cities filled with innocent people. Are those terrorist attacks? If we are a state of perpetual conflict with countries who can't control terrorist activities then what level of retaliation is okay to not be considers terrorists ourselves?

Should we attempt to kill known terrorists with bombs or should we send in a band of middle American 19 year old boys trained as killers to hunt them down and bring them in alive to stand trial risking all their lives? What level of decorum is fitting for people who would behead civilians on live broadcast and send young men into a crowded location wearing suicide vests?

These are not easy questions to answer and there is certainly grey area, but if you can't or chose not distinguish, between a country using its military to go after individuals we feel are mortal threats to our people and extremists who's only goal is to maim and kill civilians to send a message then I think you are making a false equivalence between our actions and the actions of terrorists.

I think you have a stronger argument if you want to consider whether excessive collateral damage is breading the next wave of terrorism. But it is still collateral damage as long as we are not intentionally seeking to kill civilians and actively trying to avoid doing so.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7187
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2419 on: February 28, 2017, 03:18:55 PM »
We dropped nukes on two Japanese cities filled with innocent people. Are those terrorist attacks?

I think that's an unqualified yes, by any definition.  I've never even heard anyone try to argue otherwise.

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 36
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2420 on: February 28, 2017, 03:22:54 PM »
How far does calling our military strikes terrorism go? We dropped nukes on two Japanese cities filled with innocent people. Are those terrorist attacks?

Those were definitely terrorist attacks. The entire point of nuking those two cities wasn't to cripple the Japanese military, but to terrorize their leaders (and populace) with such destruction of innocent lives that they had no choice but to capitulate. This is the definition of terrorism (from google): "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 36
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2421 on: February 28, 2017, 03:24:13 PM »
Damn you Sol, how did you get that comment in before mine.

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2090
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2422 on: February 28, 2017, 03:26:14 PM »
And today, on February 27, 2017, the President of the United States of America, Donald J Trump said:
"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."
I choked on my bourbon when I read this...

Who knew being president would be so complicated...

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8450
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2423 on: February 28, 2017, 03:28:12 PM »
And today, on February 27, 2017, the President of the United States of America, Donald J Trump said:
"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."
I choked on my bourbon when I read this...

Who knew being president would be so complicated...
...or be this much work?

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2090
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2424 on: February 28, 2017, 03:34:09 PM »
I wish Trump would pull a Sarah Palin and just suddenly quit. By the way - Palin got quiet... Maybe the news doesn't have enough room for two politicians to spout out goofy shit about random things.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1182
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2425 on: February 28, 2017, 03:36:12 PM »
I've never heard the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings described as being unlawful before.   Anyone have a reference?

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2426 on: February 28, 2017, 03:39:19 PM »
I've never heard the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings described as being unlawful before.   Anyone have a reference?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki



nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8450
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2427 on: February 28, 2017, 03:44:30 PM »
I've never heard the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings described as being unlawful before.   Anyone have a reference?
Retroactively it would violate the fourth Geneva convention ratified in 1949.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

Before 1949 there was precious-little to protect civilians during declared wars (though there were protections for wounding, sick and shipwrecked soldiers & sailors, as well as protection for aid groups and POWs).  So if we blew up any POWs, aid groups or wounded, and knew that we were doing so when we dropped the bomb it could qualify.  Then again I'm just armchairing here.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 822
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2428 on: February 28, 2017, 04:14:44 PM »
I've never heard the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings described as being unlawful before.   Anyone have a reference?
Retroactively it would violate the fourth Geneva convention ratified in 1949.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

Before 1949 there was precious-little to protect civilians during declared wars (though there were protections for wounding, sick and shipwrecked soldiers & sailors, as well as protection for aid groups and POWs).  So if we blew up any POWs, aid groups or wounded, and knew that we were doing so when we dropped the bomb it could qualify.  Then again I'm just armchairing here.

It was certainly unprecedented.

I do believe, however, the US using one of those bombs, when nobody else could retaliate with a similar weapon, is the only reason humanity still exists. Had an enemy of the US had one at that time, or any significant stockpile of them been created before one was used, the retaliatory attacks may have wiped out our planet before we had a chance to really see the consequences.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1113
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2429 on: March 01, 2017, 05:21:02 AM »
Husband came home very depressed yesterday. His double grant renewal from the NIH, which got a very good score that would have been a shoo-in for funding last year, has been downgraded to "probably not."  He had to give up the chance for a single renewal last year in order to apply for the double. Now he has two weeks to finish another single renewal application under a harsher funding climate. If he doesn't get it, he will have to write grants all year instead of doing research, and likely lay off some lab members in December.

Thanks, Trump and the GOP!

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2430 on: March 01, 2017, 05:39:03 AM »
I think you have a stronger argument if you want to consider whether excessive collateral damage is breading the next wave of terrorism. But it is still collateral damage as long as we are not intentionally seeking to kill civilians and actively trying to avoid doing so.

I understand your argument, but the recent raid is a good example of what our leaders determine a "success." A Navy Seal killed, 3 wounded and a number of women and children killed. The administration doesn't count success/failure in lives lost but in information gained. To me that kind of rhetoric sets a precedent that killing innocent civilians is not only acceptable but is just the nature of successful missions. It's a complete breakdown in human decency.

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2090
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2431 on: March 01, 2017, 06:18:50 AM »
Last night confirmed for me that talk is cheap. Trump is the same messed up person he was during the campaign but he gave a good speech written by someone else utilizing the right words. His words are still worth less than two cents each. All last night proved was that he can agree to read a teleprompter and stay on message.

I know other presidents read their speeches and these speeches were prepared by a professional speech writer. At least there was a chance they believe in their own message.

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2912
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2432 on: March 01, 2017, 06:55:20 AM »
I guess paid FMLA is a realistic impact of the Trump Presidency.

Cant see how that is friendly to business. Take away the ACA mandate, but slap them with payment ng for FMLA?
What fun this Democrat is having in The White House.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 07:43:33 AM by iris lily »

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1051
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2433 on: March 01, 2017, 07:01:17 AM »
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-groan-as-trump-promotes-new-immigration-crime-office/ar-AAnEES7?li=BBnb7Kz

I don't like the sound of this.  Perhaps if we also focused on crimes committed against immigrants , like Srinivas in Kansas...

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2434 on: March 01, 2017, 07:15:09 AM »
I guess paid FMLA is arwalistic impact of the Trump Presidency.

Cant see how that is friendly to business. Take away the ACA mandate, but slap them with payment ng for FMLA?
What fun this Democrat is having in The White House.

Wait, what? Source?

SomedayStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 768
  • Live Long and Prosper
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2435 on: March 01, 2017, 07:20:40 AM »
Maybe she refers to this comment from the speech:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/01/2017-womens-history-month/98247518/
In Trump's first address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night, the president said: "My administration wants to work with members in both parties to make childcare accessible and affordable, to help ensure new parents have paid family leave, to invest in women's health."


I find Iris Lily's comments (here and on numerous other posts) regarding employees taking leave and her scorn for paid leave extremely interesting.  It's a viewpoint that I don't understand but I appreciate getting a glimpse into a different perspective.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11830
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2436 on: March 01, 2017, 07:27:34 AM »
But seriously, the US military, the us navy particularly, has brought unprecedented levels of world peace to the planet over the past 7 decades.

I agree with you on the US navy.  Generally speaking, they've been a powerful force for good in the world over the past seventy years.  Trade tends to benefit peace, as Sol pointed out.

It's very hard to agree with you regarding the US Air Force and the US Army.  The US Air Force is regularly engaged in acts of terror (the only real difference between be-headings and drone strikes is that one side openly televises their cruelty, the other side hides it out of shame - they both kill a lot of innocent people, they both operate outside of any real legal system).  The US Army openly operates kidnapping and torture facilities that are completely outside of the rule of law and in contravention of international law.

Neither of these actions are responsible for world peace (and a fair amount of evidence points to them being a cause of destabilization and radicalization in the world).

There is another difference between our drone strikes and terrorist attacks and that is simple intent. The US military and our policy in general has very different mind set and intent behind it than terrorist attacks. You may not agree with our use of force outside the bounds of or country to attempt stabilize or reshape foreign power balance but the innocents we kill as collateral are a far cry different than intentionally targeting innocent people for execution to send a message.

If you don't acknowledge that difference you are doing a great disservice to those who are trying to keep us safe and make the world safer in general even if it means we chose to take human lives to achieve that goal.

That's certainly what the people doing the illegal executions have been telling you.  While I'd like to believe that the people in the US Air Force aren't intentionally targeting innocent Muslims for death and to send a message, I would seriously challenge you to prove it.

This is a program without much transparency, theoretically overseen by congress but run by many of the same people who were exposed for lying to congress about torture programs they previously oversaw (http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/cia-drone-killings-get-scant-congressional-oversight/).  Much of the decision making surrounding these murders also resides in the hands of the president . . . and the current president of America has advocated murdering innocent people to send a message:

"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families".

Trump is a special kind of idiot who does uncharacteristically support torture and acts of retribution against innocent people. This is not a quote I would attribute to any other recent President....

I did not attribute that quote to any other recent President.  Just the current commander in chief of your military.


The burden of proof goes both ways. Show me declassified reports where we intentionally are targeting innocent family members for execution to send a message. Show me instances were we intentionally go after entirely non-military targets to scare a countries people into submission.

The US Air Force is currently executing foreign civilians on a regular basis without trial and with secret evidence - we are at least agreed on this.  I will agree that I can't prove the intent of the US military.  I've never argued that I could, you did.

The only information available about these murders comes from the United States military, who are the perpetrators of these acts.  It is not possible for me (or you) to prove anything about intent because access to information is not available.  In light of that, it's not valid for you to claim that they have a different intent than any other terrorist organization . . . because you simply don't know.


How far does calling our military strikes terrorism go? We dropped nukes on two Japanese cities filled with innocent people. Are those terrorist attacks?

Yes.  The purpose of the nuclear bombings were not to damage military targets but to terrify the Japanese populace.  They were very successful terrorist attacks, but I don't see how you could argue they were anything but acts of terror.


If we are a state of perpetual conflict with countries who can't control terrorist activities then what level of retaliation is okay to not be considers terrorists ourselves?

Should we attempt to kill known terrorists with bombs or should we send in a band of middle American 19 year old boys trained as killers to hunt them down and bring them in alive to stand trial risking all their lives? What level of decorum is fitting for people who would behead civilians on live broadcast and send young men into a crowded location wearing suicide vests?

I think that the golden rule is a good way of approaching this question.

Let's say a person lived in the United States and planned and executed a terror attack with several friends on a large office building in North Korea because he didn't believe that the rule of Kim Jong Un.  There's little to no communication or sharing of military and security information between North Korea and the United States, so North Korea does several things:

- They bribe people in the US with a 100,000$ reward to report on any neighbour who might harbour ill-will towards North Korea.  Then special North Korean forces infiltrate the country and kidnap many of the reported people.  They are taken to a North Korean held military base and tortured / held indefinitely.

- North Korea uses information that they receive from unknown sources to bomb what they claim are terrorists living in US cities with drones.  Many civilians (and plenty of children) are killed, but North Korea assures the US that they are doing everything they can to minimize casualties.  Nearly everyone you know has lost someone to a drone strike . . . and you don't believe that any of them were terrorists.

Now, for you to answer:
1.  Do you think that this behaviour by North Korea is OK?
2.  Are you comfortable with unknown death from above based on decisions that you know nothing about, on information that may or may not be faulty, and with no oversight that you're aware of?
3.  Do you believe that North Korea is acting fairly with the abducted prisoners they're torturing and holding without trial?

Doing the right thing is often hard.  It's sometimes dangerous.  Is fear and laziness an acceptable excuse for doing the wrong thing?


if you can't or chose not distinguish, between a country using its military to go after individuals we feel are mortal threats to our people and extremists who's only goal is to maim and kill civilians to send a message then I think you are making a false equivalence between our actions and the actions of terrorists.

You are yet again claiming to know the intent of the US military without any basis for your belief other than propaganda.


I think you have a stronger argument if you want to consider whether excessive collateral damage is breading the next wave of terrorism. But it is still collateral damage as long as we are not intentionally seeking to kill civilians and actively trying to avoid doing so.

Again, you are claiming to know the intent of the US military without any basis for your belief other than propaganda.

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2912
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2437 on: March 01, 2017, 07:47:08 AM »
I guess paid FMLA is arwalistic impact of the Trump Presidency.

Cant see how that is friendly to business. Take away the ACA mandate, but slap them with payment ng for FMLA?
What fun this Democrat is having in The White House.

Wait, what? Source?
Dude, are you unable to google? I dont ask that you watch the entire speech, I didnt.

But to help you out

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-paid-family-leave-child-care_us_58b630dee4b0a8a9b7871b12

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2912
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2438 on: March 01, 2017, 07:49:33 AM »
Maybe she refers to this comment from the speech:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/01/2017-womens-history-month/98247518/
In Trump's first address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night, the president said: "My administration wants to work with members in both parties to make childcare accessible and affordable, to help ensure new parents have paid family leave, to invest in women's health."


I find Iris Lily's comments (here and on numerous other postsd) regarding employees taking leave and her scorn for paid leave extremely interesting.  It's a viewpoint that I don't understand but I appreciate getting a glimpse into a different perspective.
You are nice. Paid leave is a benefit. It costs somethIng, thats all. Every increment of government mandated benefits costs something.  To pretend it does not is to live in a world I
 Dont understand.

that doesnt mean benefits should never  be afforded employees. But it is nice when a business itself decides to grant benefits that are above and beynd a government standard.  Let  the business decide the value of its employees.

One year I had 1/3 of my employees on the federally mandated FMLA. That was The Year From
Hell.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 07:57:06 AM by iris lily »

Blueskies123

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 82
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2439 on: March 01, 2017, 08:04:45 AM »
I guess we just have to disagree but I do not consider dropping the Atomic bomb a terrorist act.  It is an act of War.  If any of you recall we were losing the war for a while.  Using your definition of a terrorist act you could label almost anything in a time of war as terrorist act.  How would you describe what the Japanese did to Koreans and Chinese in the war?  How would you describe how our prisoners were treated or how the Philippines were treated?  How you describe what they did in Pearl Harbor?  we did not start any of these wars but we had to end them.

As for what our Air force is going today, I have one question.  If they do not defeat the Extremists what will be the likely outcome to Israel, to Europe, and then America?

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1521
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2440 on: March 01, 2017, 08:09:47 AM »
Quote
You are nice. Paid leave is a benefit. It costs somethIng, thats all. Every increment of government mandated benefits costs something.  To pretend it does not is to live in a world I
 Dont understand.

that doesnt mean benefits should never  be afforded employees. But it is nice when a business itself decides to grant benefits that are above and beynd a government standard.  Let  the business decide the value of its employees.

One year I had 1/3 of my employees on the federally mandated FMLA. That was The Year From
Hell.

I am sure it was the year from hell from some of those employees too, especially knowing that their employer would have rather had them working sick or neglecting family. 

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4947
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2441 on: March 01, 2017, 08:15:41 AM »
Maybe she refers to this comment from the speech:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/01/2017-womens-history-month/98247518/
In Trump's first address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night, the president said: "My administration wants to work with members in both parties to make childcare accessible and affordable, to help ensure new parents have paid family leave, to invest in women's health."


I find Iris Lily's comments (here and on numerous other postsd) regarding employees taking leave and her scorn for paid leave extremely interesting.  It's a viewpoint that I don't understand but I appreciate getting a glimpse into a different perspective.
You are nice. Paid leave is a benefit. It costs somethIng, thats all. Every increment of government mandated benefits costs something.  To pretend it does not is to live in a world I
 Dont understand.

that doesnt mean benefits should never  be afforded employees. But it is nice when a business itself decides to grant benefits that are above and beynd a government standard.  Let  the business decide the value of its employees.

One year I had 1/3 of my employees on the federally mandated FMLA. That was The Year From
Hell.

Government minimum standards exist because generally speaking, businesses will happily screw over employees for profit.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5306
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2442 on: March 01, 2017, 08:17:22 AM »
I guess we just have to disagree but I do not consider dropping the Atomic bomb a terrorist act.  It is an act of War.  If any of you recall we were losing the war for a while.  Using your definition of a terrorist act you could label almost anything in a time of war as terrorist act.  How would you describe what the Japanese did to Koreans and Chinese in the war?  How would you describe how our prisoners were treated or how the Philippines were treated?  How you describe what they did in Pearl Harbor?  we did not start any of these wars but we had to end them.

As for what our Air force is going today, I have one question.  If they do not defeat the Extremists what will be the likely outcome to Israel, to Europe, and then America?
Is executing civilians, bombing hopitals and assassinating u.s. citizens without trial really the only way defeat extremism?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5306
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2443 on: March 01, 2017, 08:19:35 AM »
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/01/investing/dow-21000-trump-speech/index.html?category=investing

On the bright side, even though many things are worse, Trump's speech has lead to record stock market highs, which come close on the heels of other rcord stock market highs.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2444 on: March 01, 2017, 08:20:04 AM »

that doesnt mean benefits should never  be afforded employees. But it is nice when a business itself decides to grant benefits that are above and beynd a government standard.  Let  the business decide the value of its employees.

One year I had 1/3 of my employees on the federally mandated FMLA. That was The Year From
Hell.

Speaking as an employee, I greatly resent this sort of employer attitude, and it definitely affects output. Giving people family time makes your employees not hate you, so they're more productive when they come back. Clearly, most employers either don't realize this, or don't care.

Why do my reproductive decisions have to be based on winning the employer lottery? The whole thing is stupid. Businesses don't decide the value of their employees, they pay people as little as possible, and try to maximize profit. That's their whole function, and that's fine. As a society, we've (sort of) decided that we need to balance that with an individual's quality of life, so we tweak the rules a little bit.

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1043
  • Location: PNW
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2445 on: March 01, 2017, 08:57:32 AM »
I thought his speech was well done last night... nice to see the markets react this morning.

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 36
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2446 on: March 01, 2017, 09:02:41 AM »
I guess we just have to disagree but I do not consider dropping the Atomic bomb a terrorist act.  It is an act of War.  If any of you recall we were losing the war for a while.  Using your definition of a terrorist act you could label almost anything in a time of war as terrorist act.  How would you describe what the Japanese did to Koreans and Chinese in the war?  How would you describe how our prisoners were treated or how the Philippines were treated?  How you describe what they did in Pearl Harbor?  we did not start any of these wars but we had to end them.

As for what our Air force is going today, I have one question.  If they do not defeat the Extremists what will be the likely outcome to Israel, to Europe, and then America?

No, you can't label anything in wartime a terrorist act.

The Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor was definitely not a terrorist act. It was clear that they were going after the military target of the pacific fleet. They didn't go and bomb cities on Hawaii but the warships in the port.

The Japanese treatment of prisoners was also not a terrorist act. It was a war crime. Just like slaughtering Jews and others in Europe wasn't terrorism, it was a war crime. They weren't mass executing prisoners/Jews/others to terrify the general populace or government to achieve a political outcome.

The atomic bombs were meant, with a clear political purpose, to indiscriminately kill civilians to terrorize the Japanese government and people into capitulating. This is, as referenced above, the definition of terrorism.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2447 on: March 01, 2017, 09:03:45 AM »
I thought his speech was well done last night... nice to see the markets react this morning.

Would be nicer if absolutely any of his actions actually backed up his words. 

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2912
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2448 on: March 01, 2017, 09:04:19 AM »
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/01/investing/dow-21000-trump-speech/index.html?category=investing

On the bright side, even though many things are worse, Trump's speech has lead to record stock market highs, which come close on the heels of other rcord stock market highs.
This website doesnt like to celebrate that. Stop it!

Haha.

Feeling rich, I will be staying in a 5 star hotel next summer when we go to Prague. Well, it IS Prague, so it is cheap. We are not normally 5 star  hotel people.

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1043
  • Location: PNW
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2449 on: March 01, 2017, 09:22:55 AM »
I thought his speech was well done last night... nice to see the markets react this morning.

Would be nicer if absolutely any of his actions actually backed up his words.

What is the most important thing to you that he could do (action) that would make you feel as if he is backing up his words?