EPTOn February 16 2026 13:14 Falling wrote:
So I genuinely think this is the most interesting thing you have written in this thread (that I can recall). Thank you for answering.
It does leave me rather confused why that would have you voting and defending Trump unless the issues are weighted where immigration holds the balance against everything else.
For instance, you think NATO should be stronger. Do you think Trump makes it stronger, more united, more likely to come to each others aid with Article 5? What do you think about all his talk about wanting to leave NATO and how no-one has every come to the defence of the US (Afghanistan post-9/11)?
So I genuinely think this is the most interesting thing you have written in this thread (that I can recall). Thank you for answering.
It does leave me rather confused why that would have you voting and defending Trump unless the issues are weighted where immigration holds the balance against everything else.
For instance, you think NATO should be stronger. Do you think Trump makes it stronger, more united, more likely to come to each others aid with Article 5? What do you think about all his talk about wanting to leave NATO and how no-one has every come to the defence of the US (Afghanistan post-9/11)?
Yeah NATO is stronger when US military is stronger which it is under Trump (recruitment up, better recruitment, actual focus on effectiveness), and when partner militaries are stronger, which Stoltenberg acknowledged Trump got them to commit to.
Questions about Trump's easily understood unpredictable rhetoric, in the past, before things that have already been decided now, are move on type things. Like I get it if Trump says something seemingly capricious today, we're in the moment and we get to live with the uncertainty and interpret that and predict the consequences. But then once we get the consequences (i.e. a noninvaded Canada) then still harping on he said XYZ that predated the actual outcome we get... it's hysteria.
Remember the goal at the outset was simply explain I'm not a conservative, now if we want to go beyond that and challenge these now random issues, okay.
On February 16 2026 13:14 Falling wrote:
I can understand not liking ACA if you want single payer instead... does Trump get you closer to that? Him and his 'concepts of a plan?' Is US healthcare in a better or worse position with anti-vax RFK Jr in charge?
I can understand not liking ACA if you want single payer instead... does Trump get you closer to that? Him and his 'concepts of a plan?' Is US healthcare in a better or worse position with anti-vax RFK Jr in charge?
No one has any single payer plan. No one has the political capital to make it happen. Nobody has the shrewdness to make a deal, and especially Democrats don't know how to make such a deal. If any of them had a single payer implementation to begin with, which they don't. To get to single payer you somehow have to detach all health insurance departments from publicly traded companies and have the government buy them out or something. Neither party will ever make it happen. Sure I like steaks but I'm ordering from a hot dog stand. Get it?
RFK Jr. and Dr. Oz have both targeted Medicare and other fraud. TrumpRX is a success. They brought back the most favored nations drug pricing rule that Biden threw out (remember Biden, the guy from the other team who was the alternative to vote for).
Anti-vaxx is it's not NECESSARY to vaccinate infants for hepatitis B when their mother has tested negative for hepatitis B.
On February 16 2026 13:14 Falling wrote:
You say you want higher taxes on higher incomes... is that what Trump is doing?
You say you want higher taxes on higher incomes... is that what Trump is doing?
In theory I want taxes on higher incomes, or lower taxes on lower incomes (which Trump's tax cuts do) which means the same relatively. What taxes are in relation to is spending, which is really difficult to cut. When spending is cut and the debt starts to decrease I will have a deep discussion about tax brackets.
When Trump brought in a world-renowned entrepreneur, and long-term Democrat supporter, to help find cuts, the left turned on the Nazi afterburners in reaction to him. This is the immune system of the uniparty trying to keep itself fed and in power. There's no cuts on the horizon from the Democrat party which is an enormous problem for the future.
On February 16 2026 13:14 Falling wrote:
re: crypto
You are against the public crypto grifting- so what of Trump's crypto and the multitude of methods he has created to personally enrich himself in this second administration? I thought the SNC Lavelin and WE Canada scandals were outrageous in Canada, but the corruption I'm seeing from Trump office... the Richter scale would need to be used in orders of magnitude.
re: crypto
You are against the public crypto grifting- so what of Trump's crypto and the multitude of methods he has created to personally enrich himself in this second administration? I thought the SNC Lavelin and WE Canada scandals were outrageous in Canada, but the corruption I'm seeing from Trump office... the Richter scale would need to be used in orders of magnitude.
I already told you I was against the memecoin.
Otherwise elaborate "multitude of methods" because this is an argument from "uh well just look, everything."
On February 16 2026 13:14 Falling wrote:
re: Free Trade
Or your position on Free Trade. Ok, I can understand some sort of tariff policy with China as dependency on China could be a legitimate concern. Does Trump's tax war on the entire world align with that view? If the US has a trade deficit with Canada, have we been cheating you Americans for years, treating you very badly, the worst country to deal with yadayada?
Is Trump being honest when he says tariffs are paid by the targeted countries? Does America need to eliminate every trade deficit with every country in order to stop getting ripped off?
re: Free Trade
Or your position on Free Trade. Ok, I can understand some sort of tariff policy with China as dependency on China could be a legitimate concern. Does Trump's tax war on the entire world align with that view? If the US has a trade deficit with Canada, have we been cheating you Americans for years, treating you very badly, the worst country to deal with yadayada?
Is Trump being honest when he says tariffs are paid by the targeted countries? Does America need to eliminate every trade deficit with every country in order to stop getting ripped off?
You can get trade deficits from 2 ways I know: the intervention of one country's protectionist and monetary policy, and market mechanics. If the first happens, it's that country's fault. If the second gets really bad, it's nobody's fault, or the home country's fault, if it's a problem it still needs to be addressed. For Canada they've had some quotas and tariffs about dairy. In general it's not very exploitative or disadvantageous of an economic relationship. I already said the number doesn't have to be $0 everywhere.
Tariffs are paid by importers, which are overwhelmingly (99%+) companies. This is why I find it perplexing when people who support higher corporate tax rates, not that you are in that group, go off on Trump's tariffs. Tariffs hurt or are inconvenient for target countries (they "pay" in a metaphorical sense), which you acknowledge in a bit with Switzerland.
On February 16 2026 13:14 Falling wrote:
re: Executive Orders
No, I know not all executive orders are to do with emergencies. But as taxation rests with Congress, do you think America is in a constant state of emergency that when he is tariffing the world, it requires executive orders from the president. 30% to the Swiss. 39% after he gets off the phone with a woman on the Swiss council (or "prime-minister" according to Trump). 15% when the Swiss billionaires come a knocking. Are these all emergency situations?
re: Executive Orders
No, I know not all executive orders are to do with emergencies. But as taxation rests with Congress, do you think America is in a constant state of emergency that when he is tariffing the world, it requires executive orders from the president. 30% to the Swiss. 39% after he gets off the phone with a woman on the Swiss council (or "prime-minister" according to Trump). 15% when the Swiss billionaires come a knocking. Are these all emergency situations?
I would say the emergency lets him use the power. The circumstances let him change the rate. Like the fire lets you call 911. The situation lets them send more or fewer trucks.
Congress delegated that authority to the president. They retain the power to override it. They haven't done that. This means either
1) it's a good policy so they haven't overridden it, and/or
2) they are slow and incompetent and incapable of passing something to adjust a tariff after almost a year
Since you believe the Swiss billionaires cause a lowering of tariffs, it's presumably you think the Swiss billionaires benefit from lower tariffs and are harmed by higher tariffs, which suggests you understand the policy has merit. To which I again point to #2 - Congress is incapable of implementing fast adjustments and I find the tariff powers they delegated to the president to synergize well with his own Article II stated powers of negotiation and foreign policy. Okay 15% with Swiss billionaires intervening. What about the tariff levels Congress set on Switzerland? Better or worse for Swiss billionaires than 15%?
