| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
at any rate, I can certainly get if you're not interested in talking to me about it. it reminds me of the bias many people have in favor of those who are certain of their stances, rather than those who express uncertainty. that is, they're more likely to believe people who express certainty than those who are uncertain; which while has some use as a heuristic, but also fails sometimes becuase it supports false or unjustified certainty. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 26 2016 16:17 LegalLord wrote: Trump may very well just be pushed back into "Republican status quo" territory, yes. I don't see a closet genius in him, but I could see him as a useful means to the creation of a more effective system of governance. I would be quite surprised if he turns out to be a competent administrator. Why? So far, he has gone about his business very competently since the election. I hope that you're not relying upon the reporting of the ill tidings inside of his budding administration, because those reports are routinely proving to be quite false. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 27 2016 02:06 xDaunt wrote: Why? So far, he has gone about his business very competently since the election. I hope that you're not relying upon the reporting of the ill tidings inside of his budding administration, because those reports are routinely proving to be quite false. He is neither a visionary nor a steward of the status quo, I think we could agree on that much on the very least. He seems to have a good working knowledge of things from the business end, as it's clear to anyone who honestly listens to him talk about issues surrounding businesses. His political knowledge is obviously lacking, for being a political neophyte. My issue is this: he promises a lot of very grand changes, but I simply don't see that he has given sufficient forethought as to the means of carrying them out. I'm not sure he has a clear vision for the future of what the US should look like; his speeches and interviews always seem to be very short on specifics of implementation or a set of end goals for what the policies should accomplish. Immigration, China currency manipulation, NATO obligations, trade deals, Paris Accords, Iran deal, and so on, are all quite grand changes but not ones I have seen a coherent policy for addressing. Is it possible to fix that and develop a more coherent set of policies? Certainly. My confidence that he will, though, is somewhat lacking. I agree with him on a range of important issues but I'm not sure he is the person who could properly make the changes that need to be made. In all likelihood he will break things that need to be fixed by someone else - and hopefully in a way that resolves some of the long-standing issues with government policy that most "status quo" folk are afraid to touch. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 27 2016 02:26 LegalLord wrote: He is neither a visionary nor a steward of the status quo, I think we could agree on that much on the very least. He seems to have a good working knowledge of things from the business end, as it's clear to anyone who honestly listens to him talk about issues surrounding businesses. His political knowledge is obviously lacking, for being a political neophyte. Why don't you think that he's a visionary? I think he very clearly has a vision for the US that, if fulfilled, would mark the largest changes that we have seen to American politics and policy since Reagan. And you seem to admit this in the rest of your post, starting with the below: My issue is this: he promises a lot of very grand changes, but I simply don't see that he has given sufficient forethought as to the means of carrying them out. I'm not sure he has a clear vision for the future of what the US should look like; his speeches and interviews always seem to be very short on specifics of implementation or a set of end goals for what the policies should accomplish. Immigration, China currency manipulation, NATO obligations, trade deals, Paris Accords, Iran deal, and so on, are all quite grand changes but not ones I have seen a coherent policy for addressing. Is it possible to fix that and develop a more coherent set of policies? Certainly. My confidence that he will, though, is somewhat lacking. I agree with him on a range of important issues but I'm not sure he is the person who could properly make the changes that need to be made. In all likelihood he will break things that need to be fixed by someone else - and hopefully in a way that resolves some of the long-standing issues with government policy that most "status quo" folk are afraid to touch. I don't see the problem with not having a concrete plan in place for many of these issues. How often do presidents present such detailed plans only to completely throw them out during negotiations with legislators? Basically every time. And we can already see Trump working to implement the more visionary components of his trade and economic policies before he has even taken office. His use of Twitter to bludgeon people into compliance (Lockheed being the most recent example) and the emergence of the border tax proposal show that he is very serious about what he campaigned on. Anyone who thinks that the Trump administration is going to be business as usual in Washington is sorely mistaken. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21691 Posts
On December 27 2016 03:43 xDaunt wrote: Why don't you think that he's a visionary? I think he very clearly has a vision for the US that, if fulfilled, would mark the largest changes that we have seen to American politics and policy since Reagan. And you seem to admit this in the rest of your post, starting with the below: I don't see the problem with not having a concrete plan in place for many of these issues. How often do presidents present such detailed plans only to completely throw them out during negotiations with legislators? Basically every time. And we can already see Trump working to implement the more visionary components of his trade and economic policies before he has even taken office. His use of Twitter to bludgeon people into compliance (Lockheed being the most recent example) and the emergence of the border tax proposal show that he is very serious about what he campaigned on. Anyone who thinks that the Trump administration is going to be business as usual in Washington is sorely mistaken. Imo a visionary needs to have a clear view of how to get to where he wants to go. Anyone can dream up a beautiful perfect future, what makes someone special is being able to get closer to it. Does Trump have a path in his head? Maybe, but he sure isn't telling us about it and that's understandable for some points but he hasn't built of the faith to take him on his word either (considering his word is worth shit). How is he going to bring rural factory jobs back without destroying the economy through high tariffs? What is his goal in stirring up conflict with China and how will he prevent a backlash? If he backs out of the Iran deal what other method does he want to use to get them to play ball considering he seems against a military solution (and if he did why would it improve the situation compared to all the other times military intervention in the middle east fucked up)? How is he going to ensure America's poor can get access to cheap, reliable healthcare if he kills the ACA and undoes its tax incomes that would be needed by a replacement? What does he hope to accomplish with his threats of withdrawing NATO support when the countries not keeping up their part are the core EU countries who are safe regardless, while the more threatened border countries are doing their part? Me? I don't think he has an actual clue on any of those issues. So tell me, why should we consider Trump a visionary? | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Immigration (and hopefully worker visas) is something I think he will deliver on. Trade deals, he will hopefully end them but I'm somewhat concerned what he might mean by "bilateral trade agreements instead." Cost-cutting on various government projects, I certainly hope so (the F-35 is indeed stupidly expensive and the defense contractors have lots of inefficiencies that have been improperly addressed). Those are things he actually seems to have some pretty good work on, even if it does look like he is doing very strange things he seems to know where it leads. But I'm concerned how he will develop on many other issues he isn't too well-versed on. On many internal social issues he is sure to defer to the Republican mainstream on, which I cannot say I approve of (I am less fond of the Democratic Party than I used to be but my disdain for mainstream Republicans remains). On the Paris Accords, I'm glad he decided not to scrap them because that would be a disaster. On the Iran deal, I simply don't think that it would be a good idea; sanctions basically lose their effectiveness when the will to hold them in place breaks, and Iran has quite clearly been making business deals with countries that are interested in doing business. On Israel, I generally agree with a pro-Israeli stance but I'm not quite sure he gets what he's stumbling into. On general FP stances (NATO, China, Russia, Europe, Middle East), he may have some ideas that are decent in principle but that threaten to diminish US influence abroad. And while that is inevitable to some extent (the strength of the US relative to other nations in the world is not permanent), a poor policy could accelerate decline. The China policy, for example, has a dozen landmines in and of itself: it's hard to reconcile with abandoning the TPP, it will jeopardize cooperation on North Korea, it can make the region unstable (say China decides to take military action), it can be absurdly expensive if military is involved (Chinese military capabilities aren't peasant tier), and so on. Also, the European continent is in a fragile state and whenever he talks he seems to start another panic in the area, which is something that I don't necessarily see as a good thing. So what is the general focus of these criticisms? He seems to be business-minded with an important quantity of populism thrown into the mix, but I question how he will deal with the full scope of issues that is the job of a president to address. As with any person who is inexperienced taking up a new role of leadership, he has grand ideas but not necessarily an idea of the means to carry them out. Yes, you can fill in the details later, but unless you have an original plan, you tend to go astray ("plans are worthless but planning is everything" can apply here). And what's more, I don't see that he has any endgame in mind with all the suggestions he makes (i.e. what does "America First" actually mean?). Frankly he seems like the kind of guy who retreats back into doing what he understands when faced with trouble, which is not rare but also not correct. I see him as someone who is going to stumble into endless landmines - some by his own creation, some by the fact that he is strongly in opposition to a lot of the core policies that the country has pushed for a long time. Part of the problem is that the mainstream appears to be opposed to him in general, which is also going to be problematic. I foresee change, but it will likely be more so of the chaotic and uncertain kind more so than an orderly restructuring. In that sense, even though he will bring changes, I do not expect that he will be considered to be an effective administrator since rarely are administrators lauded for their ability to bring uncertainty to a situation. | ||
|
Orcasgt24
Canada3238 Posts
On December 27 2016 02:26 LegalLord wrote: He is neither a visionary nor a steward of the status quo, I think we could agree on that much on the very least. He seems to have a good working knowledge of things from the business end, as it's clear to anyone who honestly listens to him talk about issues surrounding businesses. His political knowledge is obviously lacking, for being a political neophyte. My issue is this: he promises a lot of very grand changes, but I simply don't see that he has given sufficient forethought as to the means of carrying them out. I'm not sure he has a clear vision for the future of what the US should look like; his speeches and interviews always seem to be very short on specifics of implementation or a set of end goals for what the policies should accomplish. Immigration, China currency manipulation, NATO obligations, trade deals, Paris Accords, Iran deal, and so on, are all quite grand changes but not ones I have seen a coherent policy for addressing. Is it possible to fix that and develop a more coherent set of policies? Certainly. My confidence that he will, though, is somewhat lacking. I agree with him on a range of important issues but I'm not sure he is the person who could properly make the changes that need to be made. In all likelihood he will break things that need to be fixed by someone else - and hopefully in a way that resolves some of the long-standing issues with government policy that most "status quo" folk are afraid to touch. He is a politician. Of course he is going to promise grand changes. So did Clinton. So did every candidate ever in history. Elections are all about "hey look at me"ing better than the other guys/gals. And just like every elected politician ever, he's not going to be able to make good on all those promises because he does not have supreme power. Between the Supreme Court, the Senate and Congress, he will get cock blocked on alot of things and run out of time in office for the rest. It's kinda the whole point of the system. It moves so slow that you can make some small changes while in office and maybe even one really big change but the kinds of sweeping changes promised by alot are simply impossible because of how the system works (World Wars excluded because while at war, POTUS does have as close to supreme power as it gets) I'm in the camp that he won't last 2 years without impeachment and if by some miracle he does, he doesn't get a second term because he just a piece of shit for a human and Bill Clinton getting a blow job nearly got him impeached so it's not hard to picture Trump doing something worse. So he's probably going to at best pass a bill to make a 10 foot fence along the border of Mexico and that's probably about it. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
To get a glimpse of where Medicaid may be headed after Donald Trump moves into the White House, it may be wise to look to Indiana. That's where Seema Verma, Trump's pick to run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, comes from. And that's where she put her stamp on the state's health care program for the poor. Verma is a private consultant who was hired by Indiana Governor and Vice President-elect Mike Pence to design a Republican-friendly expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The state paid her almost $5 million over four years through 2017, according to the contracts. She sees the federal Medicaid program as a bureaucratic nightmare that hamstrings states and encourages poor people to remain dependent. "The Medicaid program has not kept pace with the modern health-care market," she testified at a Congressional hearing in 2013. "Its rigid complex rules designed to protect enrollees have also created an intractable program that does not foster efficiency quality or personal responsibility." The plan she came up with for Indiana requires poor Medicaid recipients to make monthly payments for their insurance, or lose benefits. "Seema was very committed to extending coverage to low-income families in Indiana," says Cindy Mann, who was the CMS official who negotiated the deal with Verma on that state's Medicaid expansion. She says throughout the negotiations, Verma was "very committed to a particular ideology. That ideology is very much focused on personal responsibility." Verma did not respond to multiple requests to be interviewed for this story. Pence was one of the few Republican governors who took the Obama Administration up on its offer to pay the lion's share of the costs for states that expanded their Medicaid programs to people whose incomes reach 138 percent of the poverty level, or $16,243. But rather than simply offer coverage to more people, the state sought a waiver to revamp their program. That's the deal that Verma worked out with Mann. Indiana's program, which extended Medicaid to about 246,000 people who weren't eligible before, is infused with Verma's ideas of how to make poor people take responsibility for their health care. Source | ||
|
CUTtheCBC
Canada91 Posts
mod note: link removed. Feel free to post your own opinion here instead. Uhh.. ok.. but it's way easier just to link to my website, which is completely ad-free, and contains all the sources and images... and i read the 'thread rules' that didn't mention anything about linking offsite.. Anyway: “Russian Interference” in the US election has been a hot topic since the DNC and Podesta e-mails were released, partially leading to a Donald Trump presidency. We’ve seen some counter-arguments made that the CIA and the USA have interfered in hundreds of elections. What we haven’t seen is any expose on the foreign government sponsored pro-Hillary propaganda that reached ~40,000,000 Americans every week. the BBC | ||
|
Doc.Rivers
United States404 Posts
More than a third of the almost 200 people who have met with President-elect Donald Trump since his election last month, including those interviewing for administration jobs, gave large amounts of money to support his campaign and other Republicans this election cycle. Together the 73 donors contributed $1.7 million to Trump and groups supporting him, according to a POLITICO analysis of Federal Election Commission records, and $57.3 million to the rest of the party, averaging more than $800,000 per donor. Donors also represent 39 percent of the 119 people Trump reportedly considered for high-level government posts, and 38 percent of those he eventually picked, according to the analysis, which counted candidates named by the transition and in news reports. While campaign donors are often tapped to fill comfy diplomatic posts across the globe, the extent to which donors are stocking Trump’s administration is unparalleled in modern presidential history, due in part to the Supreme Court decisions that loosened restrictions on campaign contributions, according to three longtime campaign experts. The access and appointments are especially striking given Trump’s regular boasting during his campaign that his personal fortune and largely self-funded presidential bid meant that he would not be beholden to big donors, as many of his rivals would. “If the people who are counseling the president-elect are the donor class — who, as Trump told us, give because they want something in return, those are his words — you will not get the policies his voters were hoping for,” said Trevor Potter, an election lawyer who advised John McCain’s 2000 and 2008 presidential campaigns and founded the Campaign Legal Center. Source | ||
|
Doc.Rivers
United States404 Posts
On December 27 2016 04:55 Gorsameth wrote: Imo a visionary needs to have a clear view of how to get to where he wants to go. Anyone can dream up a beautiful perfect future, what makes someone special is being able to get closer to it. Does Trump have a path in his head? Maybe, but he sure isn't telling us about it and that's understandable for some points but he hasn't built of the faith to take him on his word either (considering his word is worth shit). How is he going to bring rural factory jobs back without destroying the economy through high tariffs? What is his goal in stirring up conflict with China and how will he prevent a backlash? If he backs out of the Iran deal what other method does he want to use to get them to play ball considering he seems against a military solution (and if he did why would it improve the situation compared to all the other times military intervention in the middle east fucked up)? How is he going to ensure America's poor can get access to cheap, reliable healthcare if he kills the ACA and undoes its tax incomes that would be needed by a replacement? What does he hope to accomplish with his threats of withdrawing NATO support when the countries not keeping up their part are the core EU countries who are safe regardless, while the more threatened border countries are doing their part? Me? I don't think he has an actual clue on any of those issues. So tell me, why should we consider Trump a visionary? I agree that campaign promises do not a visionary make. The lack of vision in a president elect who tweeted to advocate for a nuclear arms race with Russia is startling. His campaign interviews suggest a lack of basic knowledge on nuclear weapons issues. Take those two things together and you see an utter lack of preparation. It's hard to imagine that person being a visionary. One can only conclude that we simply don't know what comes next. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
But I wouldn't expect to be a visionary unless things went extremely well (which is extremely unlucky, setting aside the impossibility of becoming president). orcasgt -> part of the claimed point (if I understood) is that, even if he had grand dictatorial power, he doesn't have a plan to achieve the vision. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Obama survives on personal charisma more so than the popularity of his policies right now. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
Yeah, I'm a pretty status quo kind of person. The transformative things I do also tend to be far less blatant (unless I get amendments passed, which seems extremely implausible) I'm more about small incremental changes and upkeep. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Orcasgt24
Canada3238 Posts
The quote from President Erdogan directly Now they give support to terrorist groups including Daesh, YPG, PYD. It's very clear. We have confirmed evidence, with pictures, photos and videos. Patiently waiting for Trump's opinion. Should be a gooder. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Orcasgt24
Canada3238 Posts
On December 28 2016 14:21 LegalLord wrote: So in short, we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I see the irony too. I just figured I'd toss it in here for shits and giggles. But I really do want to hear Trumps view here. I expect something witty about the military coup that failed horribly to be included somehow. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
He did campaign on "Obama founded ISIS" after all. | ||
|
Orcasgt24
Canada3238 Posts
On December 28 2016 15:40 LegalLord wrote: I actually expect him to just ignore it, since he can just blame Obama and intend to change that policy. He did campaign on "Obama founded ISIS" after all. I actually forgot about that point. Damn...Hopes crushed | ||
| ||
StarCraft: Brood War Stormgate Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL
Bonyth vs Hawk
Wardi Open
RotterdaM Event
Replay Cast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
RSL Revival
PiGosaur Monday
WardiTV Summer Champion…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
