3 years into Trump's Presidency and there is no nuclear war!

[Lamb]

When Trump was elected in 2016 there was a lot of crying that we'd get into a nuclear war. I can Google the words 2016 Trump nuclear war and come up with numerous news articles insisting that Trump, if elected, would be quick to launch nuclear missiles.

That hasn't happened.

Could the media have been wrong? (sarcasm)

Why did people panic so quickly?

Here's a list of things that the Trump Administration has accomplished so far: https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/

And here are some of the things listed on that site:

*Almost 4 million jobs created since election.
*Economic growth last quarter hit 4.2 percent.
*New unemployment claims recently hit a 49-year low.
*Almost 3.9 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps since the election.
*Retail sales surged last month, up another 6 percent over last year.
*Signed the biggest package of tax cuts and reforms in history. After tax cuts, over $300 billion poured back in to the U.S. in the first quarter alone.
*As a result of our tax bill, small businesses will have the lowest top marginal tax rate in more than 80 years.
*Last month, the FDA approved more affordable generic drugs than ever before in history. And thanks to our efforts, many drug companies are freezing or reversing planned price increases.
*United States is a net natural gas exporter for the first time since 1957.

 

[Josiah]

When Trump was elected in 2016 there was a lot of crying that we'd get into a nuclear war. I can Google the words 2016 Trump nuclear war and come up with numerous news articles insisting that Trump, if elected, would be quick to launch nuclear missiles.

That hasn't happened.

Could the media have been wrong? (sarcasm)

Why did people panic so quickly?

Here's a list of things that the Trump Administration has accomplished so far: https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/

And here are some of the things listed on that site:

*Almost 4 million jobs created since election.
*Economic growth last quarter hit 4.2 percent.
*New unemployment claims recently hit a 49-year low.
*Almost 3.9 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps since the election.
*Retail sales surged last month, up another 6 percent over last year.
*Signed the biggest package of tax cuts and reforms in history. After tax cuts, over $300 billion poured back in to the U.S. in the first quarter alone.
*As a result of our tax bill, small businesses will have the lowest top marginal tax rate in more than 80 years.
*Last month, the FDA approved more affordable generic drugs than ever before in history. And thanks to our efforts, many drug companies are freezing or reversing planned price increases.
*United States is a net natural gas exporter for the first time since 1957.

As anyone can read for themselves from posts I uploaded at the time, I was no supporter of Trump and did not vote for him.


But I can see that the FEAR many had.... simply have not come true. Yeah, he works from a non-political framework (as he promised he would; politicos are bewildered by him as Trump promised they would be).... yeah, he's not politically correct (as he promised he would not be).... yeah, he twits WAY too much as even his wife agrees.... but actually, he seems to be doing well. Does he PERSONALLY drive me nuts at times? Yup. Do I wish he'd choose his words MUCH better? Absolutely!!! Am I frustrrated that he's done something about Obamacare? Yes. But he seems to be doing remarkably well in terms of results in many things. I am considering voting for him for re-election. Especially if the Democrats give us an alternative of a wacko communist.


Oh, and Lamm... you forgot

* Outstanding court appointments
* Unemployment rate among African-Americans is the lowest EVER (reversing a trend during the last president)
* Poverty level among African-Americans is falling fast (reverseing the trend during the previous president)
* The world feels more at peace than .,,, who can remember when?

 

[Andrew]

There was a lot of boohooing also that Hillary should have been the first female president and she really deserved it...
problem with that logic is just because she ran as a women does not mean that she deserves it! I believe we will someday have a female president but we shouldn't vote for the first one that walks through the door based simply on that.
There was a TED talk about how America failed because they only want men in office and by not electing Hilary we have proven our prejudice against women in the office.
His Tweets are very annoying but I think he does a good job at trolling liberals on twitter, its like a kid poking a stick in a pile of ants lol
Btw I never felt a threat that he would start a nuclear war, that was just a scare tactic that failed with all the rest of their tactics.

also the Russians made me vote Trump, they overloaded my facebook with threats to me that if I didn't vote for him they would come beat me up

 

[Lamb]

Women's equality should not mean that they get special treatment...as in we must vote for a women just to have a woman in that vocation...because that's not equality. A woman should compete fairly and win fairly based upon who she is and what she can bring to the role.

I've said it here before that I was considering voting for her UNTIL a commercial on TV showed her laughing in an arrogant manner that she was going to win. Nope. I wasn't voting for THAT arrogance. I know Trump is arrogant but what she did made me not want to vote for her just to spite her. And maybe others did the exact same thing.

I just know that the Trump 2020 signs are already out in my state.

 

[Andrew]

Women's equality should not mean that they get special treatment...as in we must vote for a women just to have a woman in that vocation...because that's not equality. A woman should compete fairly and win fairly based upon who she is and what she can bring to the role.

I've said it here before that I was considering voting for her UNTIL a commercial on TV showed her laughing in an arrogant manner that she was going to win. Nope. I wasn't voting for THAT arrogance. I know Trump is arrogant but what she did made me not want to vote for her just to spite her. And maybe others did the exact same thing.

I just know that the Trump 2020 signs are already out in my state.

Yeah same here, one of the main reasons I voted for Trump was so that she doesn't make it in office.
I researched both of them before voting and I found her constantly lying and dodging questions, also deleting all of those e-mails and ridiculing her husbands rape victims and so on... just really made me not like her.
Trump on the other hand spoke on Oprah in the late 80s and I agreed with what he had to say, he was very modest about his concerns for America being taken advantage by other countries and his stance hasn't changed. He's boldly honest and it's not always pretty but his motive isnt to get rich in office and pay off his campaign and sponsors, he doesn't need the money, which is a breathe of fresh air because he came in with no strings attached.

 

[tango]

The thing that gets me is the same people who claim the only reason not to have voted for Hillary Clinton was sexism seemed to be the same people who jeered when Sarah Palin was nominated as John McCain's running mate in 2008. You know, they had the chance to elect a female vice-president but declined, only to claim it's sexist not to support their chosen female for president.

Of course this is what's wrong with identity politics - it totally fails to accept the notion that my refusal to vote for that woman isn't the same as refusing to vote for any woman. Of course Hillary Clinton probably had even less appeal to moderate Republicans than Sarah Palin had to moderate Democrats, but then the proponents of identity politics never seem to let a brazen double standard get in the way of a good rant.

 

[Andrew]

The thing that gets me is the same people who claim the only reason not to have voted for Hillary Clinton was sexism seemed to be the same people who jeered when Sarah Palin was nominated as John McCain's running mate in 2008. You know, they had the chance to elect a female vice-president but declined, only to claim it's sexist not to support their chosen female for president.

Of course this is what's wrong with identity politics - it totally fails to accept the notion that my refusal to vote for that woman isn't the same as refusing to vote for any woman. Of course Hillary Clinton probably had even less appeal to moderate Republicans than Sarah Palin had to moderate Democrats, but then the proponents of identity politics never seem to let a brazen double standard get in the way of a good rant.

Is also the case with open borders, despite if migrants have a criminal record or not, let's invite them all in with a clean slate or you are racist :/

 

[tango]

Is also the case with open borders, despite if migrants have a criminal record or not, let's invite them all in with a clean slate or you are racist :/

It's only racist when a Republican does it. Everybody knows that.

 

[hedrick]

Unfortunately the consequences of a presidency are to a large extent not felt until afterwards.

The economy is being pushed by approaches that can't last forever, and will create an unsupportable deficit and (if continued for long enough) hyperinflation. The next time we have a recession we won't be able to do anything about it, because we're already doing about as much as we can.

No, there isn't a nuclear war. However Iran is now becoming a nuclear power, and nothing has been done about North Korea. Trump probably won't be president when these problems come to roost.

Trump is also not doing anything effective about China. Tariffs aren't a winning strategy. Remember, they're basically a tax on US companies and consumers. If the Chinese are smart they'll simply wait until we can't continue them. We need an approach agreed upon by all our allies, but Trump is doing his best to alienate our allies.

The failure to act on climate change actually is starting to be visible. But we're not yet in real crisis mode. Incidentally, the problem isn't that life will be wiped out. It's the there are going to be increasing costs from hurricanes, and that portions of the third world will become uninhabitable. The resulting large-scale migrations will cause political problems that are likely to result in wars. But not while Trump is still president.

The one accomplishment that may last is immigration. it's incredibly cynical and un-Christian, but no one has a better approach. Europe has done it for a while now. Push the immigration problem back on countries where there's little political cost to abusing people. Europe is doing it because if they don't, it will energize the right wing enough to cause political disaster. I suspect a new Democratic president will find that he's in the same situation. (Actually, I may be insulting Mexico here. For all their problems they're a better place than the places Europe is using.)

 

[NewCreation435]

When Trump was elected in 2016 there was a lot of crying that we'd get into a nuclear war. I can Google the words 2016 Trump nuclear war and come up with numerous news articles insisting that Trump, if elected, would be quick to launch nuclear missiles.

That hasn't happened.

Could the media have been wrong? (sarcasm)

Why did people panic so quickly?

Here's a list of things that the Trump Administration has accomplished so far: https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/

And here are some of the things listed on that site:

*Almost 4 million jobs created since election.
*Economic growth last quarter hit 4.2 percent.
*New unemployment claims recently hit a 49-year low.
*Almost 3.9 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps since the election.
*Retail sales surged last month, up another 6 percent over last year.
*Signed the biggest package of tax cuts and reforms in history. After tax cuts, over $300 billion poured back in to the U.S. in the first quarter alone.
*As a result of our tax bill, small businesses will have the lowest top marginal tax rate in more than 80 years.
*Last month, the FDA approved more affordable generic drugs than ever before in history. And thanks to our efforts, many drug companies are freezing or reversing planned price increases.
*United States is a net natural gas exporter for the first time since 1957.

Who specifically was it that said we were going to nuclear war?

Maybe people panic because he has absolutely no experience in government, never served in leadership in government not even as a mayor or city council member?

 

[Andrew]

Unfortunately the consequences of a presidency are to a large extent not felt until afterwards.

The economy is being pushed by approaches that can't last forever, and will create an unsupportable deficit and (if continued for long enough) hyperinflation. The next time we have a recession we won't be able to do anything about it, because we're already doing about as much as we can.

No, there isn't a nuclear war. However Iran is now becoming a nuclear power, and nothing has been done about North Korea. Trump probably won't be president when these problems come to roost.

Trump is also not doing anything effective about China. Tariffs aren't a winning strategy. Remember, they're basically a tax on US companies and consumers. If the Chinese are smart they'll simply wait until we can't continue them. We need an approach agreed upon by all our allies, but Trump is doing his best to alienate our allies.

The failure to act on climate change actually is starting to be visible. But we're not yet in real crisis mode. Incidentally, the problem isn't that life will be wiped out. It's the there are going to be increasing costs from hurricanes, and that portions of the third world will become uninhabitable. The resulting large-scale migrations will cause political problems that are likely to result in wars. But not while Trump is still president.

The one accomplishment that may last is immigration. it's incredibly cynical and un-Christian, but no one has a better approach. Europe has done it for a while now. Push the immigration problem back on countries where there's little political cost to abusing people. Europe is doing it because if they don't, it will energize the right wing enough to cause political disaster. I suspect a new Democratic president will find that he's in the same situation. (Actually, I may be insulting Mexico here. For all their problems they're a better place than the places Europe is using.)

So a good economy increases risks?

 

[tango]

Unfortunately the consequences of a presidency are to a large extent not felt until afterwards.

This is very true, and you make many valid points, but it's not as if 44 presidents did a stellar job only for it all to be undone by Trump in the space of three years

The economy is being pushed by approaches that can't last forever, and will create an unsupportable deficit and (if continued for long enough) hyperinflation. The next time we have a recession we won't be able to do anything about it, because we're already doing about as much as we can.

The debt and deficit are certainly out of control. Obama accrued as much debt as the previous 43 presidents combined so, even though Trump doesn't seem to be showing any signs of reducing the deficit let alone the debt, it's not as if he's taken a strong economy and trashed it. Economies have been built on a shaky foundation of unsustainable debt for many years now and at some point it all has to implode. Frankly the reports of Trump wanting negative interest rates are worrying - they might be good for devaluing the national debt but an economy in which people are expected to invest money now in order to receive less money later is absurd. At least the current situation offers some illusion of paying interest, even if many banks are paying a whopping 0.2% interest while money devalues at a rate many times that.

No, there isn't a nuclear war. However Iran is now becoming a nuclear power, and nothing has been done about North Korea. Trump probably won't be president when these problems come to roost.

True, although it's debatable what previous presidents did that was particularly useful in this regard. That's not to say Trump is a saint - far from it - but it's not as if previous presidents had it all sorted out and Trump wrecked it.

Trump is also not doing anything effective about China. Tariffs aren't a winning strategy. Remember, they're basically a tax on US companies and consumers. If the Chinese are smart they'll simply wait until we can't continue them. We need an approach agreed upon by all our allies, but Trump is doing his best to alienate our allies.

An obvious question to ask is why so much got oursourced to China in the first place. The obvious reason is because it's cheap. If you can pay your workers a fraction of what an American worker would demand you can make stuff a lot cheaper. If you don't have to worry about annoyances like health and safety you can cut costs even further. At some point the chickens come home to roost, but it's not like buying cheap junk from China is a new thing.

The failure to act on climate change actually is starting to be visible. But we're not yet in real crisis mode. Incidentally, the problem isn't that life will be wiped out. It's the there are going to be increasing costs from hurricanes, and that portions of the third world will become uninhabitable. The resulting large-scale migrations will cause political problems that are likely to result in wars. But not while Trump is still president.

Climate change has been discussed for many years now and many politicians have paid lip service to the need to "do something" while actually doing the exact opposite. If anything this is where Democrats score far worse than Republicans. Whatever the merits of their respective stances, a person who talks down the severity of the climate change threat and flies first class isn't guilty of brazen hypocrisy. The person who talks as if the world will end within 30 years if we don't take immediate and urgent action and then takes off (by air, naturally) on vacation is hard to take seriously at all.

Part of the increased cost of hurricanes is the amount of ocean front property and the price of it. Let's face it, if we built the ghetto on the ocean front a hurricane would trash everything once in a while and the media would howl about it for a while and move on. But since oceanfront properties sell for many millions, of course the price gets very high when a hurricane rips it apart. One wonders why the rich and famous, who howl about climate change, are so keen to buy oceanfront properties that will allegedy be washed away or destroyed by more and more severe hurricanes.

The one accomplishment that may last is immigration. it's incredibly cynical and un-Christian, but no one has a better approach. Europe has done it for a while now. Push the immigration problem back on countries where there's little political cost to abusing people. Europe is doing it because if they don't, it will energize the right wing enough to cause political disaster. I suspect a new Democratic president will find that he's in the same situation. (Actually, I may be insulting Mexico here. For all their problems they're a better place than the places Europe is using.)

A major trouble with immigration isn't actually immigration, it's when immigrants don't assimilate. People who want to live in another country and expect that country to change its ways to suit them, rather than adapting to their host nation. It's one thing to allow immigrants, it's another thing entirely when immigrants make no attempt at all to fit in to their new surroundings and expect everything from adaptation to their cultural expectations to translation services because they don't want to learn the host nation's language. Even without getting into the discussion of what public services should be available to immigrants, providing public services to a group of people who all expect to communicate in their own language is difficult, and places inordinate burdens on the providers of those services. If a doctor struggles to communicate with their patient, treatment is hard to provide. A teacher with a class of 25 children of whom a majority speak broken English as a foreign language (and maybe not even that) is going to have an impossible job trying to teach the subject matter. And then come the trigger-happy accusations of racism, such as when an English judge was branded a racist for handing down a sentence to an Asian immigrant who was found guilty of defrauding the public welfare system and claiming benefits to which he was not entitled. It doesn't help when men from Islamic nations refuse to treat women with any respect because it's just not their way, only to find the justice system ends up stuck somewhere between wanting to enforce a law and not wanting to be accused of Islamophobia along the way.

Where immigration to Europe is concerned the idea is that refugees are processed in their country of first arrival. For many that means Italy or Greece, given where most refugees originate. Greece isn't particularly well placed to handle refugees in large numbers. Since English is the de facto global language it's hardly surprising that many of them try to get to England, using increasingly desperate measures. It's an area where Europe doesn't seem to do anything particularly well.

 

[hedrick]

Where immigration to Europe is concerned the idea is that refugees are processed in their country of first arrival. For many that means Italy or Greece, given where most refugees originate. Greece isn't particularly well placed to handle refugees in large numbers. Since English is the de facto global language it's hardly surprising that many of them try to get to England, using increasingly desperate measures. It's an area where Europe doesn't seem to do anything particularly well.

If it were Italy or Greece I wouldn't object. But Europe is now outsourcing its problem to various third-world countries. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/08/world/europe/migrants-africa-rwanda.html

Unfortunately I don't know of a good solution. I don't see how a world can exist with some countries being abusive and others reasonably attractive, without the attractive ones ending up doing immoral things to protect themselves. Or finding a way to fix the problems of the other countries. However that's not so easy. There's reason to think the US might be able to orchestrate improvement in Central America, but I don't know how Europe can do that in the countries it's getting refugees from.

 

[tango]

If it were Italy or Greece I wouldn't object. But Europe is now outsourcing its problem to various third-world countries. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/08/world/europe/migrants-africa-rwanda.html

Unfortunately I don't know of a good solution. I don't see how a world can exist with some countries being abusive and others reasonably attractive, without the attractive ones ending up doing immoral things to protect themselves. Or finding a way to fix the problems of the other countries. However that's not so easy. There's reason to think the US might be able to orchestrate improvement in Central America, but I don't know how Europe can do that in the countries it's getting refugees from.

A major concern in all of this is figuring out who is a genuine refugee, who is an economic migrant and who is a criminal or terrorist seeking new victims. The simple reality is that without taking the time to process people there's no way to tell them apart.

Nobody can blame someone for seeking a better life. We all want a better life for ourselves and our families - it's basic human nature. The troubles with migration are many and most are complex. It's easy to see why someone might want to leave a war-torn banana republic, and it's easy to see why someone might want to move to a nation that offers peace and stability. It's easy to see why someone might want to move to a country that offers generous welfare without asking too many questions (whether they actually do or not isn't the issue, it's whether they are believed to).

In many ways the migration of people who want to work hard to build a better life benefits the host nation. Years ago I worked with a young guy who was sent away by his mother to escape civil war. He was exactly the kind of migrant that countries invite - he worked hard in a professional career and the last I heard he was doing very well for himself. Where I used to live there were a lot of Polish immigrants and almost without exception they worked like dogs. When I needed some work done the local "native" firm sent a guy round to quote, he sucked air through his teeth and couldn't commit to this and wasn't sure about that, and never even bothered to send in the estimate he promised. The Polish guy came round, figured what needed to be done, gave me a quote, and within a couple of weeks the job was done. Again, those are the kind of immigrants that countries desire.

On the other hand the migrants who just want to claim as much in welfare as they can manage, taking full advantage of any confusion in translation between their native alphabet and their host nation's alphabet to claim under multiple names, who are allegedly in fear of their lives if they return home but repay their host nation's kindness by committing serious crimes (I'm talking rape, murder and the like) really shouldn't be surprised if no country wants them. When people move to a new country and immediately claim that their host is offensive to them and demand change, they should simply be invited to leave. They aren't forced to be here.

One problem with abusive regimes is the question of what should be done about it. We might consider a regime abusive but we have to figure out what lines need to be crossed before the international community steps in to remove a despotic ruler. Even then it's not always simple - a ruler like Saddam Hussein was a tyrant by many measures but simply removing him doesn't immediately pave the way for a western style democracy. Firstly it assumes the Iraqi people even want a democracy, and secondly there's the eternal problem that it just creates a power vacuum and you never know if the leader sucked to the top will end up being even more of a tyrant. Whatever is done requires a lot of political will, which tends to be lacking these days. It doesn't help that a lot of tinpot regimes tick boxes that mean any regime change will clash with some kind of identity politics - Robert Mugabe turned Zimbabwe from the breadbasket of Africa to the ultimate basket case economy but his approach of driving out white farmers to replace them with black farmers ticks identity politics boxes and it would be seen as racist to drive the black farmers out to let the white farmers back in. Venezuela was hailed as an example of successful socialism but even now with shelves empty and people eating family pets to survive it's hard to see the political left being thrilled about removing the leader to replace him with - horror - a free market capitalist.

A large part of the problem is that there is no simple solution, but allowing an endless stream of unvetted migrants isn't a solution either.

 

[JRT]

Obama left Trump an economy that was so vibrant that in spite of his best efforts he hasn't managed to destroy it yet.

 

[Bluezone777]

A country that requires the borrowing of money in order to operate is hardly the evidence of a country doing well. If we were truly doing well, the borrowing would slow down and even cease altogether and we would actually see the debt owed going down especially when a lot of that debt incurred is because of wasteful defense spending. No one on either party will deal with it because both parties have successfully equated lowering defense spending with being anti America when that's hardly the case.

 

[tango]

Obama left Trump an economy that was so vibrant that in spite of his best efforts he hasn't managed to destroy it yet.

Obama borrowed more money in 8 years than the previous 43 presidents borrowed in over 200 years. That's not a sign of a particularly vibrant economy. But, you know, I can buy a new Maserati if I can find a sucker to lend me the money and it will look like I'm doing really well.

 

[bharath]

Obama borrowed more money in 8 years than the previous 43 presidents borrowed in over 200 years. That's not a sign of a particularly vibrant economy. But, you know, I can buy a new Maserati if I can find a sucker to lend me the money and it will look like I'm doing really well.

First time to hear bad thing about Obama, does he really borrowed and didn't pay back the debt? Clinton and Obama were good as per my belief than Trump.
Does Trump will win elections again?

 

[Albion]

First time to hear bad thing about Obama, does he really borrowed and didn't pay back the debt? Clinton and Obama were good as per my belief than Trump.
Does Trump will win elections again?

Well, Obama added more to the debt than all the previous presidents in our history put together. Under Trump that debt of around 20 trillion dollars has gone up by about 1 trillion dollars. That's the standing debt; we pay interest on it and little of it has ever been paid off, no matter who has been president.

The Democrats who never faulted Obama of course went crazy about how this increase under Trump was going to doom the country.

And then their leading candidates to replace Trump, Senators Sanders and Warren--not to mention other Democratic members of Congress--began promising programs that even they had to admit would increase the national debt by as much as 100 trillion dollars!!!




.

 

[Albion]

Obama left Trump an economy that was so vibrant that in spite of his best efforts he hasn't managed to destroy it yet.

When did stagnant come to mean vibrant?

I realize that the two sound and look somewhat similar, but really...