By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Donald Trump: How Do You Feel about Him Now? (Poll)

 

Last November,

I supported him and I still do - Americas 91 15.77%
 
I supported him and I now don't - Americas 16 2.77%
 
I supported him and I still do - Europe 37 6.41%
 
I supported him and I now don't - Europe 7 1.21%
 
I supported him and I still do - Asia 6 1.04%
 
I supported him and I now don't - Asia 1 0.17%
 
I supported him and I still do - RoW 15 2.60%
 
I supported him and I now don't - RoW 2 0.35%
 
I didn't support him and still don't. 373 64.64%
 
I didn't support him and now do. 29 5.03%
 
Total:577
the-pi-guy said:
jason1637 said:

Yeah but you mentioned society taking care of people. Charities should be the way its done instead of the government. In theory a good society will have charities that don't run out of donated money since people would continue to contribute ot them.

But if there were less or no welfare programs the government could cut down more on taxes to the middle class and poor which would give them more spending power. Also other types of taxes like corporate taxes could be cut which would also help the economy.

Except none of that is what ends up happening.

There was a time in US history when there wasn't welfare, no income tax, much smaller government than today.  Charities don't and can't do enough.  Bill Gates and his wife were talking about this.  That as a charity, they can do a lot, but the government is necessary to take those efforts nationwide.  

These welfare systems exist because they are needed.  Poor people already pay very little in income tax.  

 

Fun fact, every welfare dollar boosts the economy by almost $2. 

We have gotten to a point where the government is getting too involved though and way bigger than it was intended to be. We should slowly transition to the pre depression times where a lot of these welfare and social security programs did not exists in the US. The Government should only be around to push people into the right direction and not give out money. Also if you look at the distribution of wealth the new deal and great society has not changed a lot.



Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
jason1637 said:

2. Ok, maybe not use nukes but other types of bombs that will be able to destroy their bomb sites and not cause damage to surrounding areas. 

I know you've backed off the idea of using nukes but I need to solidify one more factor in the "why we should not" column....at least so long as Trump is still president.

 

"You know what uranium is, right? It’s this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things.
But nobody talks about that." - President Donald Trump.

 

I'm really not comfortable with this guy having the launch codes and unilateral authority to use them.

Yet you want Bernie Sanders to have the ability to launch nukes. That old man hardly worked a day of his life. 



SpokenTruth said:

jason1637 said:

Poor HW. But this list is pretty biased considering that ot states a good thing for Dems and a bad one fo Reps when they both do good and bad. I don't even like Reagan but is foreign policy wasn't that bad.

So I'm going to copy this for you as well.

"Or it's a matter of looking at exactly what the picture says....presidential goals.  Not individual actions but goals.  Not this was good and this was bad but the central focus and tenet of their presidency."

jason1637 said:

For the elderly they should save whIle they're working for retirement and they have family to depend on.

1. Social Security is a form of savings.

2. Have you considered the fact that saving has become impossible for many people?  Are you ok with letting those people just...well, die..because they couldn't save enough?

Say they retire at 75 (several years after retirement age) and yet live to 100.  That's 25 years.  If they saved $200,000, they'd have just $8,000 per year to live on without considering for inflation and cost of living increases (which have more than doubled in the past 25 years).

But the overall goal of those Presidents who gave more money to the rich were to reduce taxes in general. And yeah it's still very biased because it picks a good goal of Democratic Presidents and a not so good goal of Republican Presidents.

1. In a way it is but people are basickly paying for each others saving. Instead we should be responsible for how much we save by ourselves.

2. Saving is not impossible. It can be hard like many other things but definitely not impossible. If we transition to a world with no social security people would have to save so they would not die lol.

Family could also help. And when you retire you can still continue to make investment to make more.

SpokenTruth said:
jason1637 said:

2. Ok, maybe not use nukes but other types of bombs that will be able to destroy their bomb sites and not cause damage to surrounding areas. 

I know you've backed off the idea of using nukes but I need to solidify one more factor in the "why we should not" column....at least so long as Trump is still president.

 

"You know what uranium is, right? It’s this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things.
But nobody talks about that." - President Donald Trump.

 

I'm really not comfortable with this guy having the launch codes and unilateral authority to use them.

Well he is not wrong. Uranium can be very very bad. But yeah i don't think we should use nukes anymore but instead bombs. This should have been done many years ago honeslty.



I wish reporters in the US where insisting as much as, say, those from the Netherlands instead of letting them cop-out of questions they don't want to answer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBfkvWaSNKU

Instead if the media outlets don't report exactly what the government wants they get branded as liars and fake news. And getting disinvited from the next meetings, which is a no-go for the media (and could be seen as censoring btw).



SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

So you mean like if a country is in debt say trillions of dollars, that needs to be solved first before they can borrow any more? I wonder if there are any examples of that happening and continually dragging on over an extended period of time with no end in sight? Obviously not because how could that make any sense right?

You are aware of how irrelevant and illogical that comparison is, aren't you?

How so?



Around the Network
jason1637 said:
SpokenTruth said:

So I'm going to copy this for you as well.

"Or it's a matter of looking at exactly what the picture says....presidential goals.  Not individual actions but goals.  Not this was good and this was bad but the central focus and tenet of their presidency."

1. Social Security is a form of savings.

2. Have you considered the fact that saving has become impossible for many people?  Are you ok with letting those people just...well, die..because they couldn't save enough?

Say they retire at 75 (several years after retirement age) and yet live to 100.  That's 25 years.  If they saved $200,000, they'd have just $8,000 per year to live on without considering for inflation and cost of living increases (which have more than doubled in the past 25 years).

But the overall goal of those Presidents who gave more money to the rich were to reduce taxes in general. And yeah it's still very biased because it picks a good goal of Democratic Presidents and a not so good goal of Republican Presidents.

1. In a way it is but people are basickly paying for each others saving. Instead we should be responsible for how much we save by ourselves.

2. Saving is not impossible. It can be hard like many other things but definitely not impossible. If we transition to a world with no social security people would have to save so they would not die lol.

Family could also help. And when you retire you can still continue to make investment to make more.

Your posts on this subject come across as extremely naive.

You contend that everyone should be self-sustaining in terms of finances and savings, then when others point out that there are many valid reasons why this isn't possible for many people, you simply say that they should try harder... You're not actually engaging with the points being made.

Maybe you've had a lucky start in life, and if that's the case, congratulations.

But there are many people who don't have families (or at least ones that can support them), haven't been born in an area that'll provide them with decent educations or even decent role models, don't have transferrable skills to lean on when their job becomes redundant, don't have a decent IQ which can obviously be very limiting to prospects, don't have the best of health (whether that be physically or mentally).

There's also alcohol or drug addiction which is currently sweeping large parts of the States, do you think someone addicted to opiates cares about their pension...? And please don't just blame addicts for their addictions - the US pharmaceutical industry has been instrumental in the recent epidemic and have obscene profits to show for the trail of broken lives they've left behind. 

You also have many people that have avoided or overcome these pitfalls and manage to put food on the table and pay for a roof over their families heads - which is an accomplishment in and of itself - and yet you still expect them to squirrel away hundreds of thousand of dollars for their retirement! You really are living in an alternate reality!

I'd recommend you actually go and volunteer at a homeless shelter or a food bank and meet some of the people you are so quick to criticise.

Life can be tough for people in the best of situations but can be downright unbearable if you're given a bad hand in life or you just make a few mistakes along the way.

Your suggestion of 'try harder' are just hollow, cold, lazy words that just illustrates how little understanding you have of many people's reality.

Empathy and compassion are key in helping each other though this crazy existence, not judgement and wishful thinking.



jason1637 said:
Machiavellian said:

I never saw this reply so decided to add my thoughts in bold. 

imo we should switch to a single payer system or try to increase the subsidies to make it cheaper for more people because it's still pretty expensive for those that have it.

Single payer would be great, the reason it will probably never happen in the US is because none of the big insurance companies want it and they will make sure they spend a lot of money to make sure it doesn't happen.



Biggerboat1 said:
jason1637 said:

But the overall goal of those Presidents who gave more money to the rich were to reduce taxes in general. And yeah it's still very biased because it picks a good goal of Democratic Presidents and a not so good goal of Republican Presidents.

1. In a way it is but people are basickly paying for each others saving. Instead we should be responsible for how much we save by ourselves.

2. Saving is not impossible. It can be hard like many other things but definitely not impossible. If we transition to a world with no social security people would have to save so they would not die lol.

Family could also help. And when you retire you can still continue to make investment to make more.

Your posts on this subject come across as extremely naive.

You contend that everyone should be self-sustaining in terms of finances and savings, then when others point out that there are many valid reasons why this isn't possible for many people, you simply say that they should try harder... You're not actually engaging with the points being made.

Maybe you've had a lucky start in life, and if that's the case, congratulations.

But there are many people who don't have families (or at least ones that can support them), haven't been born in an area that'll provide them with decent educations or even decent role models, don't have transferrable skills to lean on when their job becomes redundant, don't have a decent IQ which can obviously be very limiting to prospects, don't have the best of health (whether that be physically or mentally).

There's also alcohol or drug addiction which is currently sweeping large parts of the States, do you think someone addicted to opiates cares about their pension...? And please don't just blame addicts for their addictions - the US pharmaceutical industry has been instrumental in the recent epidemic and have obscene profits to show for the trail of broken lives they've left behind. 

You also have many people that have avoided or overcome these pitfalls and manage to put food on the table and pay for a roof over their families heads - which is an accomplishment in and of itself - and yet you still expect them to squirrel away hundreds of thousand of dollars for their retirement! You really are living in an alternate reality!

I'd recommend you actually go and volunteer at a homeless shelter or a food bank and meet some of the people you are so quick to criticise.

Life can be tough for people in the best of situations but can be downright unbearable if you're given a bad hand in life or you just make a few mistakes along the way.

Your suggestion of 'try harder' are just hollow, cold, lazy words that just illustrates how little understanding you have of many people's reality.

Empathy and compassion are key in helping each other though this crazy existence, not judgement and wishful thinking.

True and i will gladly pay for those that do abuse the system if it helps so much others.



Trump's economic policy is really not in line with the current state of technology and society. I am not sure he is aware as to how automation, networking, and worker vs corporate interfacing. He wants to "bring jobs back to America!" that are obsolete or obsolescent due to the US's first-world infrastructure.

No doubt he hasn't mentioned the foreign corporate and capital gains tax credit system because of how much his own family's businesses benefit from it. Yet, he markets himself as a an anti-globalist by implementing basic resource tariffs... and those are actually BAD for American businesses that depend on those resources since it handicaps them on the global market against those who have more competitive pricing. He markets himself as a neoliberal capitalist, but he's really bad at it: the damage won't necessarily be obvious at first, but keep in mind Bush's steel tariffs damaged the auto industry and other American steel dependents and the issues were quite obvious even years after he cancelled the tariffs (after realizing they were a terrible idea).

You have these Republican supporters who claim Trump is supporting them in a way he clearly does not. But to them words speak louder than the quality of action.

To Trump's credit, while his followers are not the thinking type, at least he has managed to avoid the useful idiocy of some on the left with the Green Party support and the Bernie or Bust bunch (Note, I am actually a VERY big Green supporter in my own country, but we have a different electoral system, voting Green in the US won't help).
To the credit of the left, even the least find the attempts of right-wing concern trolls to be laughable (Particularly stuff like #Blexit #WalkAway and #Jexodus BS) and it might actually be having the opposite that they intend.

Note, as always, I use left/right for convenience sake, I don't actually believe this dynamic is accurate to today's political paradigm.

Last edited by Jumpin - on 13 March 2019

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Biggerboat1 said:
jason1637 said:

But the overall goal of those Presidents who gave more money to the rich were to reduce taxes in general. And yeah it's still very biased because it picks a good goal of Democratic Presidents and a not so good goal of Republican Presidents.

1. In a way it is but people are basickly paying for each others saving. Instead we should be responsible for how much we save by ourselves.

2. Saving is not impossible. It can be hard like many other things but definitely not impossible. If we transition to a world with no social security people would have to save so they would not die lol.

Family could also help. And when you retire you can still continue to make investment to make more.

Your posts on this subject come across as extremely naive.

You contend that everyone should be self-sustaining in terms of finances and savings, then when others point out that there are many valid reasons why this isn't possible for many people, you simply say that they should try harder... You're not actually engaging with the points being made.

Maybe you've had a lucky start in life, and if that's the case, congratulations.

But there are many people who don't have families (or at least ones that can support them), haven't been born in an area that'll provide them with decent educations or even decent role models, don't have transferrable skills to lean on when their job becomes redundant, don't have a decent IQ which can obviously be very limiting to prospects, don't have the best of health (whether that be physically or mentally).

There's also alcohol or drug addiction which is currently sweeping large parts of the States, do you think someone addicted to opiates cares about their pension...? And please don't just blame addicts for their addictions - the US pharmaceutical industry has been instrumental in the recent epidemic and have obscene profits to show for the trail of broken lives they've left behind. 

You also have many people that have avoided or overcome these pitfalls and manage to put food on the table and pay for a roof over their families heads - which is an accomplishment in and of itself - and yet you still expect them to squirrel away hundreds of thousand of dollars for their retirement! You really are living in an alternate reality!

I'd recommend you actually go and volunteer at a homeless shelter or a food bank and meet some of the people you are so quick to criticise.

Life can be tough for people in the best of situations but can be downright unbearable if you're given a bad hand in life or you just make a few mistakes along the way.

Your suggestion of 'try harder' are just hollow, cold, lazy words that just illustrates how little understanding you have of many people's reality.

Empathy and compassion are key in helping each other though this crazy existence, not judgement and wishful thinking.

Well if you don't have a family (which is rare) then you should simply just save more. It's really not that hard. If people can't do something as basic as saving then they don't deserve help from the government. There are exceptions though like the disabled.

The pharmaceutical industry has taken advantage of us in some ways but at the end of the day it comes down to the persons choice to continue to take these drugs. There are so many organizations out there willing to help people that are addicted. It is their fault.

This is why we should invest more in communities to push people towards a higher standard of living instead of giving them money in social security. This way they would be able to save more money for themselves. It comes down to being responsible for yourself, something that is lacking in society today.

In high school I had to volunteer in a soup kitchen and there were some people that needed help but a lot of them were just lazy and were hustling their way through life. I respect their hustle but they are still not trying hard enough to change their situation.

Well being lazy and rely on the government is pretty hollow.

Machiavellian said:
jason1637 said:

imo we should switch to a single payer system or try to increase the subsidies to make it cheaper for more people because it's still pretty expensive for those that have it.

Single payer would be great, the reason it will probably never happen in the US is because none of the big insurance companies want it and they will make sure they spend a lot of money to make sure it doesn't happen.

It's annoying but im sure it will happen.