Donald Trump General Discussion thread

Trump is not inhibiting innovation, he's encouraging it. When well intentioned persons, we will give them the benefit of the doubt, give lots of government money or subsidies to certain companies so those companies will have a market advantage, they hinder other fuel sources that may prove to be more valuable. Crony capitalism like Obama engaged in with Solyndra is simply wrong.

Both the state and Federal government make more money off of a gallon of gas than gas companies do. See google's top listing for "how much do gas companies make per gallon of gas"

I think the Federal cut is something like 17 cents a gallon. Here are the state tax charts per gallon from taxfoundation.org

Every state makes more money per gallon of gas than the gas company does.

The reason electricity bills are so much higher in California than in South Carolina is not because electric companies are more evil in California, its because of state fees and regulations. You are blaming the wrong entity for high electric costs.

@just_sayin:

Do you really think it is worth trillions of dollars of GDP, hundreds of thousands of jobs, and significantly higher electric bills, natural gas bills, gasoline prices, and increased food prices that will take up to 25% of the poor's take home pay for .001 degree?

I do and so does every country on planet Earth aside from three, one of which wants the Accords to be even stronger.

So I now ask you, what will you say to the future generations that you placed under trillions upon trillions of dollars of debt?What will you say to the poor to justify the heavy financial burden you placed them under? How do you justify increasing their food, gas, and heating costs so that the increases take up to 25% of their take home pay for .001 degree Celsius change? If it is as dire as you claim, how do you justify rejecting clean energy sources like nuclear which have demonstrated that it can work in any country on the globe --- while giving billions to failed companies like Solyndra? How can you live with yourself knowing that families that who are struggling to survive, will now, have it even harder to put food on their table and a roof over their head, so you could have up to a .001 degree Celsius cooler planet than if you had done nothing at all?

I've never said nuclear sources are bad ;) I actually advocate for nuclear energy.

The fact of the matter is, not all of your claims in that post are wrong. I'll admit. But when literally the entire scientific world and almost every government on Earth sees climate change as a problem, it's hard to think otherwise. You are politicising the issue ridiculously and it's really sad. Only the U.S sees climate change as a left/right issue, it's not. I don't have the time to address all your points but I fear if the right wing advocated climate change you'd be fine with it, because you bring up the left so much it seems overly bias.

Trump's ratings are currently higher than Bill Clinton's were at the same point in his presidency.

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trumps-approval-rating-better-bill-clintons-first-term-621853

They are also lower than every other President beside that since approval ratings were taken. It's a negative not a positive thing to be second lowest approval rating ever.

@willpayton: I get that you don't like sources you don't agree with. Who does? And yes, the Chamber of Commerce does have a particular POV, as does the Sierra Club and the EPA, and trust me if you think the EPA is not biased you have never worked there. But as biased as the EPA is, and trust me it is, Obama's own EPA Administrator when under oath at a congressional hearing begrudgingly acknowledged that the Clean Power Plan would only change the global temperature by .001 a degree (I posted you a video clip earlier of a snippet of that testimony in an earlier post). If you will only accept left sources, is an Obama EPA Administrator's testimony good enough for you? I don't know how I could get more left than that unless we dig up Mao or Stalin for you and somehow bring them back from the dead.

How about the independent US. Energy Information Administration (though still controlled by the government and populated with leftists)? Here are there conclusions:

1. The Clean Power Plan will cost 1.23 trillion dollars in GDP (cliff notes version here).

2. It disagrees with the EPA's assessment of benefits pointing out that most of the benefits will take place OUTSIDE of the US and therefore are suspect figures to be included into the US cost and benefits. It concludes that the Clean Power Plan will have a large negative impact on the economy, not a positive one for the time of the plan, though costs are front loaded.

3. EIA concludes that even using the EPA's own logic the Clean Power Plan will have a negative impact on GDP in the US.

Cheap and plentiful energy sources only go away when governments ban them or tax them oppressively. Banning the burning of coal, wood etc. would lead to starvation and deaths in the third world. They need these energy sources to make fires and heat their huts. I'm sure solar panels sounds like a great solution to a SJW sipping his Venti Iced Skinny Hazelnut Macchiato, Sugar-Free Syrup, Extra Shot, Light Ice, No Whip at Starbucks while he checks his social media accounts on his $1000 iPhone, but to a person struggling to just survive - they are unrealistic and a threat to his survival. Further, 25% increased energy costs in the rust belt states will not help their economies at all. And taking up to 25% of the poorest's American's take home pay away in increased gas and electricity taxes and increased price of goods seems - well, mean and unjust.

I'm all for building Trump's wall with solar panels on it. I'm for using natural gas, solar, wind, hydro, nuclear or whatever will work. But I'm not for carbon taxes that will most harm the poor. Rather than harming the poor, how about doing something helpful? Just a thought.

@pyrogram: Let's be honest about what other countries pledged to do in the Paris Climate Plan. First, most promised little to nothing. MIT calculated the difference in global temperature if all the countries did what they said they would do and what would likely happen if they continued with what they were doing and the change in global temp was .2. The UN plan pegs it at .3 % of a degree Celsius.

2) China promised nothing. It said its emissions would peak in 2030, which is exactly what was planned to happen before the Paris Climate Accords. Same goes for India. Neither are really sacrificing anything.

If you want to blame somebody, blame Obama. Treaty's require Senate approval. He refused to allow a vote. Had it been ratified, Trump would have not been able to realistically change it.

But what does America think about the Clean Power Plan, that is the primary means of meeting the Paris goals? Well over half the states are suing the Federal government regarding regulations in the Clean Power Plan.

The Supreme Court sided with North Dakota against the Clean Power Plan, siting it would cause "massive irreparable harms" to the state and country and that the EPA was likely acting outside the bounds of its authority.

3) The Paris Climate accords are back loaded. Countries have only promised to do a fraction of what it will actually take to meet the goal and no serious person believes, short of massive technological breakthroughs, that half of the countries will meet their pledges.

4) Commitments in the Paris Climate Accords are voluntary. There is no enforcement mechanism. So making a promise that means nothing - means nothing.

Comey dropped some bombs on Trump, calling him a liar and accusing him of defamation and pressuring him to drop investigation because of Russia. He even said he had to write everything down after every meeting because he was afraid Trump would later lie about it.

Not a single lie was spoken with Comey's claims.

Clinton: 40.1%

Trump: 38.2%

Trump has the worst approval ratings than any president in the last 70 years, even worse than Gerald Ford who had horrible approval numbers.

@pyrogram:

• Let's go on the assumption that man made climate change is real because all science accepts it.
• Let's also go on the assumption that the Paris Accords are bad for the American economy.

With those two assumptions, I say this.

• What will you say to the future generation who have to live in a ruined world because people put money above the planet?
• What will you say to people when fossil fuels becomes depleted, more expensive etc, and life inevitably becomes terrible?
• How will you justify Florida sinking into the ocean because of Climate Change? Or most of the U.S.A coast for that matter?
• Homeland Security admit that clime change is a climate to the planet, but specifically the United States of America. How do you justify ignoring that?

So again, which will you say to future generations? Your health wasn't as important as money?

^This, you said it all.

Trump is focusing on the wrong industry for jobs, he is focusing on coal instead of renewable energy. Does he realize that coal is a finite resource? It's going to get depleted eventually, and when it get's depleted no matter what he says or does, those jobs aren't coming back. He should be building new industry's, that actually benefit the planet and create jobs. Unless Trump is an Alchemist, nothing that he does on coal is ever going to make a difference, same thing with oil. These resources do have their place in society, just not as our main source of energy consumption because it's not sustainable. Coal is good for Bar-B-Q, Oil is good for plastic manufacturing, but we shouldn't be tethered to these resources as our main energy source. What I would like to see them focus on energy wise is hydro electricity, wind and solar, if they put in the R & D to make these forms feasible, this would actually create more jobs than Coal and Oil which are finite in scope.

It was pretty clear he focused on coal because he thought (mostly rightly) that that's what his base cared about. Whether he actually believed that coal is a good idea is debatable. Trump is pretty clueless and usually just has whatever opinion the last guy in the room gave him. But in this case he thought he could go to those states and blow sunshine up their asses and get votes. He was right. People in those states especially those who work in coal just want someone to tell them that he's bringing their jobs back, whether that's realistic or a fantasy. People usually want the easy and immediate solutions.

But reality doesnt care what some dude promises. Coal is dying because of cheap natural gas, new technologies that reduce labor and increase productivity, and the rise of renewable energy sources. Those jobs are not coming back. Period. And if they did, they would not be very many jobs... just like building the Keystone Pipeline would not produce that many jobs.

@willpayton: You are right of course, but I still feel he probably would have won West Virginia and Kentucky either way even if he didn't back the coal industry.

Trump sure knows how to cherry pick. Says Comey vindicated him, but that he's also a liar. And Republicans continue to put Party over Country on their lame ass defence of Trump. Maron! I feel I'd find more honerable people in Weenie Hut Jr

If Democrats don't wreck in 2018, they should just give up and move to another country

if any of the special elections are an indication, Ill help book the tickets. To be honest though, Clinton swung the Senate to the GOP cuz his approval rating sucked. TO be even more far, people tend not to like the Congress as the same party as the President for too long

The New York Attorney General is now investigating Trump Jr for possibly stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from charity money meant for kids with cancer.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/06/09/new-york-attorney-general-looking-into-eric-trump-foundation/#174acf7b1075

And this is on top of the investigation into the Trump Foundation for tax avoidance.

And all the other investigations.

@saintwildcard: You are totally right.

Is Trump like a horse loose in a hospital?

According to the Washingon Post, Trump is now being investigated by the special counsel for obstruction of justice!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-counsel-is-investigating-trump-for-possible-obstruction-of-justice/2017/06/14/9ce02506-5131-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html?utm_term=.f609f8ce2f03

The butt hurt is still raging onward I see.

Bill Clinton NEVER traveled the Lolita Express 26 times on Jeffrey Epstein's plane, Hillary Clinton NEVER represented pedophiles and child rapists who raped girls so badly that their insides came out and make jokes about it later, the Clinton's NEVER funded the Arab Spring which resulted in radical Muslims taking over in 9 different countries and killing over 1 million people, the Clinton's NEVER put heavy sanctions on Iraq which resulted in over 500,000 children dying, Bill Clinton's Secretary of State Madeline Albright NEVER went on 60 Minutes or NBC to say it was a good price to pay. None of this happened. Trump is literally Hitler. He's racist, corrupt, Russian, and a liar.

Checks in on Trump thread, sees same butthurt liberals complaining and trying to post rubbish like thing will change. Still funny.

Hitler caused the death of many, many Jews. TO bracket them without that fact is to be very unaware of what Hitler did. If you want to lump Assad together cuz he used chem weapons on his people then fine. If you want to lump Kim Jun together cuz half his country starved than that is fine. Trump isnt killing anyone.

@boschepg: I was being sarcastic.

huh? The last somewhat "liberal" post was like 4 days ago and even that was just mocking Trump.

To be fair, Trump himself has some shady ties to Epstein and has ridden on the same plane at least once. Epstein pleaded the Fifth when asked “Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?” just like he did when asked about Bill Clinton. I agree Bill is scum though.

Apparently Hillary represented that particular accused rapist (I'm only aware of one case where she did) because the defendant asked the Judge for a female attorney and the Judge then assigned Hillary, who was unhappy about it which was confirmed by the prosecutor in the case. I'm not happy about the defense she used and I definitely don't agree with it, but I do understand that she was doing her job as a defense attorney, especially after the guy passed the polygraph test.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "the Clinton's NEVER funded the Arab Spring which resulted in radical Muslims taking over in 9 different countries and killing over 1 million people", could you elaborate what you mean by "funded" and how it's explicitly their fault?

The sanctions on Iraq? As far as I can find those were placed in the early 90s by the United Nations Security Council and lifted in 2003, Bill was not inaugurated until 1993. Can you elaborate?

By "butthurt liberals" it makes it sound as if you assume the outrage at Trump is somehow about Clinton. As far as I am concerned, Hillary Clinton is a candidate of the past. I don't expect she will ever again be a viable candidate for president. I am well over that one. She is never going to be president. She is now a politician from the past.

The present and the future are being shaped by Donald Trump. Raging against his idiocy isn't about the past, it's about the arrogant incompetence impeding our present and future.

Trump presidency is now so bad that he appoints his wedding planner who's under investigation for stealing charity money from children with cancer to a top position, and no one even notices or cares.

@cyborgzod: It's really sad isn't it, with Trump as President we have lost all respect around the world, even other world leaders are laughing at us. When is he going to reveal his taxes again?

This whole presidency is a joke. But not the funny kind.

So...apparently Trump was pretty much just blowing smoke when he said Comey better hope he doesn't have any tapes of their conversations: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/us/politics/trump-comey-tapes.html

I personally don't care if you fall on the left or right side of the political spectrum, but either way you have to admit continuously lying and bluffing like this seriously hurts Trump's credibility.

This is the sort of thing that might be entertaining in a reality TV show, but for a President it just continues to erode the credibility, respect, and status of the office... which directly reflects on the country and our status around the world.

An yet his supporters still don't give a damn.

It's a fascinating study in human psychology. A combination of tribal mentality (party loyalty), the sunk cost fallacy, the backfire effect, confirmation bias, and possibly all sorts of other psychological effects all at work.

I think some researchers in the future are going to get a lot of good papers and books out of this.

Trump suggesting he had tapes on Comey was witness intimidation. It's not a smart thing to do considering he's under investigation.

While Trump's comments are ill-advised, I would think things like a sitting president engaging in witness tampering and asking a woman to say she didn't have sex with him when she did erodes the credibility, respect and status of the office more. I also think, that for those of us who have to make a living, a president that says you can keep your healthcare plan and it will cost less and then you can't keep the plan and the average plan you can get increases dramatically (like by 99%) does more to damage the dignity of the POTUS than Donald Trump's tweet.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/05/24/here-is-the-number-of-jobs-carrier-is-moving-to-mexico-after-trump-said-hed-save-them/?utm_term=.b3729a155af2

So much winning Guys!

Yes, trying to deliver health care to millions who are without and falling short of a few financial promises after making compromises with republicans in a show of bipartisanship makes Obama totally without credibility or respect. So much worse than acting like a thug with money.

• Before Obamacare, under President George W. Bush, overall premium increases were faster. Before you assume that all premiums rose faster under Obama, consider this. According to the Kaiser/Health Research and Educational Trust studies, family premiums for employer-sponsored insurance increased by a cumulative 99 percent -- basically doubling -- under the eight years of Bush, while under eight years of Obama, they rose by a much more modest 59 percent.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/09/mike-pence/mike-pence-says-under-obamacare-american-families-/

http://www.kff.org/health-costs/report/employer-health-benefits-annual-survey-archives/#2013

Another thing to consider is that under Obamacare the reason why many "low cost" plans went away is because they were basically worthless. Obamacare actually put in regulations that made it so that insurance plans needed to offer a basic minimum of coverage.

Obamacare wasnt perfect and certainly not as good as a universal healthcare system, but it was much better than what we had before. And for all the bitching from Republicans and attempts to destroy Obamacare, it still has around a 49% approval rating, while the plan that they are proposing to replace it has 16% approval. I guess they're not convincing many.

You have way underestimated the scope and severity of Obama's lie. Let' start with what the left of center fact checking site Politifact called its 2013 lie of the year. Several people who were told that they could keep the plan they had lost those affordable plans under the Obamacare regulations.

You know there was no bipartisanship with Republicans on Obamacare. Republicans were excluded from discussions, special floor rules were used to prevent changes by Republicans and not a single Republican voted for Obamacare. Remember Nancy Pelosi saying that we need to pass Obamacare to find out what's in it?

Healthcare is 1/7 of the national economy, and can be a large part of someone's take home pay. So when people see increases of 99% on their Federal insurance plans its more than 'falling short of a few financial promises'.

@willpayton why are you trying to mislead people about Obamacare increases.? While it is true company sponsored insurance plans have increased at lower rates, true Obamacare plans, those Federal insurance plans, have seen their prices soar, and it isn't just the loss of government subsidies. According to the US Health and Human Services Oct. 24, 2016 brief, pre-Trump meeting on 2017 costs, the average 2017 annual cost for the year was %25 INCREASE across the 39 states with Obamacare plans. Some States saw higher annual cost increases like Oklahoma which saw a 69% increase for this year.

So, yes Obama's Obamacare lies which even liberal fact checking organizations declared lie of the year worthy, far exceed Trumps tweets. Trump lied. Obama lied worse.

You have way underestimated the scope and severity of Obama's lie.

No, I really didn't. I am aware that it was an exaggeration and it was made in ignorance and optimism. Did you forget that this is my exact field of study? I'm way past having lost my patience for your blatant ignorance in literally everything you post about but damn, that goes double for anything related to health care. You cherry pick, you ignore counter-evidence that runs contrary to your personal bias. You are the least logical, most intellectually lazy person on this site and there are genuine flat-Earthers here. You want to get smeared in yet another debate with me? I will be all too happy to oblige you after finals next week.

Let' start with what the left of center fact checking site Politifact called its 2013 lie of the year.

It is a provision that is actually included in the ACA. You can keep it. That doesn't mean that the insurance agencies are forced to keep it though; this is a country that does offer freedoms for businesses as well. The ACA forced no change here and in fact, offered many provisions that allow for "grandfathered" health plans. Insurance agencies opted to change the plans to conform to the new standards, they were not forced to. Have you bothered to even read the damn thing, or have you just been letting conservative blogs shovel their piles of shit into your mouth to vomit back up here? Sec. 1251 of the ACA is literally titled Preservation of Right to Maintain Existing Coverage. Part A (1) of this section is titled No Changes to Existing Coverage. Word for word, it states:

"In general. Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed to require that an individual terminate coverage under a group health plan or health insurance coverage in which such individual was enrolled on the date of enactment of this Act."

Jesus Christ, I hate the willfully ignorant. Obama fought to put this into the ACA. But that doesn't mean that insurance agencies are forced to keep you on the same plan.

Several people who were told that they could keep the plan they had lost those affordable plans under the Obamacare regulations.

I know what the promise was. Which regulations directly cost anyone their affordable plans? The above section specifically includes protections for those who chose to continue offering them. What evidence are you using other than trying to draw speculative conclusions from some correlative data? This is casual reductionism and you are guilty of it in every post I have seen from you. There are a myriad of reasons that led to health care plans being changed and none of it is directly related to the ACA and more related to insurance agencies having free agency to take you for a ride.

You know there was no bipartisanship with Republicans on Obamacare.

I didn't say that there was. Republicans rarely attempt bipartisanship. That's why they are often labeled as "obstructionists". I said that in an attempt of bipartisanship, there were compromises made (by the democrats) to the Act and that is absolutely true. The final Act was not the initial one presented. Besides this, Representative Anh Cao, a republican, voted FOR the bill.

Republicans were excluded from discussions,

This is an outright lie. That is what the republicans are doing now. The ACA was presented to the House in July of 2009 and wasn't signed into law until March of 2010. During this time, it was hotly debated and went through countless revisions and included amendments. There are more than 160 republican-backed amendments to the damn thing. Good God.

special floor rules were used to prevent changes by Republicans and not a single Republican voted for Obamacare.

Hold on, if that is true, how did all these republican amendments make it into the final version of the Act? Also, again, Representative Anh Cao...

Remember Nancy Pelosi saying that we need to pass Obamacare to find out what's in it?

Nice out of context quote. Another convenient soundbite for lower-middle class, head-in-the-sand conservatives, I presume? She wasn't talking about the content of the Bill, she was talking about the long term benefits. Here is the full quote, since someone clearly took advantage of your inability to do any actual investigative work:

"Imagine an economy where people could follow their aspirations, where they could be entrepreneurial, where they could take risks professionally because personally their families [sic] health care needs are being met. Where they could be self-employed or start a business, not be job-locked in a job because they have health care there, and if they went out on their own it would be unaffordable to them, but especially true, if someone has a child with a pre-existing condition. So when we pass our bill, never again will people be denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition.

We have to do this in partnership, and I wanted to bring [you] up to date on where we see it from here. The final health care legislation that will soon be passed by Congress will deliver successful reform at the local level. It will offer paid for investments that will improve health care services and coverage for millions more Americans. It will make significant investments in innovation, prevention, wellness and offer robust support for public health infrastructure. It will dramatically expand investments into community health centers. That means a dramatic expansion in the number of patients community health centers can see and ultimately healthier communities. Our bill will significantly reduce uncompensated care for hospitals.

You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention–it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

Have you ever written an honest post on CV? Ever?

Healthcare is 1/7 of the national economy, and can be a large part of someone's take home pay. So when people see increases of 99% on their Federal insurance plans its more than 'falling short of a few financial promises'.

Health care spending does not mean health care insurance. Your understanding of basic economics is a travesty. The costs of health care have been rising at an alarming rate long before the ACA was introduced. Just look up news articles related to health care costs and health insurance from before mid-2009. How is it that no one from across the party lines can remember this far back? Health care insurance was unaffordable back then. People were being booted off their health plans or simply had to remove themselves because they were not able to afford it. The ACA was meant to address that. In fact, once it was fully implemented, we actually saw a reduction in the rate of those rising costs of health care by more than 50 years. It still went up, and there are several reasons for that, but without the ACA, the costs would have been much more exorbitant.

I was doing no such thing. I'm only pointing out that the truth about Obamacare is more complicated than just cherry-picking one set of statistics and ignoring everything else. Personally I would have rather had the Dems try to pass a universal healthcare bill, rather than the ACA which was a compromise to try to appease Republicans. The ACA, lets not forget, was modeled on Republican plans form the Heritage Foundation and Romneycare in Massachusetts. But, it was what it was, and it was much better than what came before. Yes Obama misspoke when he said that everyone could keep their plans if they wanted, but it was not a deliberate lie... unlike almost everything that comes from Trump. The truth was that a lot of those plans that people could no longer keep were gone because they were shit and covered very little, so Obamacare rightfully eliminated them.

Do you know why Obama's lie of "if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan" won lie of the year in 2013? Why didn't it win lie of the year for 2010 when Obamacare first started? The reason is that in 2013, 4 million people lost their insurance because plans that Obama promised people they could keep - ceased to exist. Even as some members of his administration where coming clean and admitting that people would lose their plans, Obama continued to tell his lie.

Obama and some members of Obama's administration, tried to claim that he really never said what he said , and that what the president really said was you could keep your plan if it hasn't changed. Politfact rated that a "pants on fire" lie. Isn't that similar to what you were arguing above?

Members of Obama's Administration cited the statement, that you made, that ACA did not cancel any plans, and that all were grandfathered in. Politifact rated this a lie too. Politifact noted that insurers really had no choice because of how the law is written. If a co-payment increased by as much as $5 the plan was not permitted. I guess where there is 1 Obama lie, another blossoms to cover it up.

So again, Obama's statement that if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your health care plan (2013 lie of the year) is a much bigger deal than Trump's tweet that Comey had better hope there are no tapes. MILLIONS lost their health insurance plans while Obama continued to lie about it.