Trump Effects

[Raider5678]

Figured we could start listing any things Trumps policies have done. I mean, we have a thread for "how trump annoys you" so I figured this would be at least related to politics.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-infosys-usa-idUSKBN17Y09Y

 

 

 

[Delta1212]

I'd rather see this thread that the "annoying Trump" thread, frankly. I think the subject matter of that one is fairly petty.

 

In any case, the caveat that needs to be included for anything for or against Trump posted in this thread is the typical "Trump did X, then Y happened" is a correlation not necessarily a causation, and I think some effort should be put in to draw a line linking the X to the Y more directly if we're going to discuss it.

 

There is always a tendency to blame Presidents for things they had no control over and Trump has always been adept at taking credit for things that he didn't really have any direct impact on, so some added rigor to go over various claims is probably a good idea.

[CharonY]

Indeed. Also considering that many policies take a while to demonstrate an effect, it may take well past his presidency until one can figure those out.

[Raider5678]

Indeed. Also considering that many policies take a while to demonstrate an effect, it may take well past his presidency until one can figure those out.

That's very true.

[Phi for All]

I think the most obvious and immediate effect is how his approach allows people to overlook multiple facets of his personality to justify the few they agree with. Sure, he spits on women's rights, he lies to suit the situation, he listens to crazy people over experts, he's destroyed the integrity of the office, he's hopelessly ignorant regarding governance, he has absolutely no consistency, he has no connection to his strongest supporters, his leadership and loyalties are in constant question, but hey, he's a great businessman, isn't he? Isn't it obvious that his business will do VERY well during his presidency? And isn't that what's most important, the POTUS' business concerns?

[Raider5678]

I think the most obvious and immediate effect is how his approach allows people to overlook multiple facets of his personality to justify the few they agree with. Sure, he spits on women's rights, he lies to suit the situation, he listens to crazy people over experts, he's destroyed the integrity of the office, he's hopelessly ignorant regarding governance, he has absolutely no consistency, he has no connection to his strongest supporters, his leadership and loyalties are in constant question, but hey, he's a great businessman, isn't he? Isn't it obvious that his business will do VERY well during his presidency? And isn't that what's most important, the POTUS' business concerns?

I really don't think that's a fair analysis in any way. It's clearly way too much biased. Maybe some of what you said is true, but take a double take.

What is he doing in North Korea? Does that suit his business in some way?

cut

Would you agree with what I told Phi?

[iNow]

Maybe some of what you said is true, but take a double take.

What is he doing in North Korea? Does that suit his business in some way?

I just LOL'd given that the above was in response to this:

 

I think the most obvious and immediate effect is how his approach allows people to overlook multiple facets of his personality to justify the few they agree with.

[Delta1212]

I really don't think that's a fair analysis in any way. It's clearly way too much biased. Maybe some of what you said is true, but take a double take.

What is he doing in North Korea? Does that suit his business in some way?

 

Would you agree with what I told Phi?

There is a difference between negativity and bias. If something is a problem, calling it a problem is not an example of bias.

 

That said, I don't personally think that lists of general assertions are especially helpful for making a case about quality, so that's not how I would go about addressing such issues myself.

 

I'd rather stick to addressing specific positions and issues. Considering the political environment we're in right now, having something concrete to discuss is, I think, necessary for grounding any conversation unless you want it to slip quickly into a ping pong of 'nuh-uh's.

[Raider5678]

There is a difference between negativity and bias. If something is a problem, calling it a problem is not an example of bias.

 

That said, I don't personally think that lists of general assertions are especially helpful for making a case about quality, so that's not how I would go about addressing such issues myself.

 

I'd rather stick to addressing specific positions and issues. Considering the political environment we're in right now, having something concrete to discuss is, I think, necessary for grounding any conversation unless you want it to slip quickly into a ping pong of 'nuh-uh's.

So any concrete things that Trump has caused that's worthy to point out?

[iNow]

What about the spike in hate crimes and antisemitism?

[Delta1212]

Well, so far he has struggled to make much progress with really any of his legislative agenda, which significantly restricts the number of actions that can be tied directly to him. Additionally, some of what he has done is still too young to do more than speculate on the consequences. For example, his appointment of Neil Gorsuch is pretty weighty, but until he starts ruling on things, we won't know what the real consequences that can be attributed to Trump's decision there are.

 

That leaves us with just executive actions and things done by the members of his Cabinet to look at.

 

One of the first things he did in office was kill the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is a definite mixed bag of an action.

 

In general, free trade has been a net gain for the US economy, but by sector there have certainly been winners and losers over it. There are definite costs too it, and there is a debate to be had over whether those costs are worth the gains that I think is entirely valid.

 

In terms of diplomacy, though, TPP was a master stroke and killing it was a major fuck-up for us. China has been getting increasingly expansionist and domineering over time, and a major goal of TPP was to give the countries of the region a significant economic outlet other than China in order to allieviate the degree of pressure that China could bring to bear on its smaller neighbors if their economies relied on Chinese as the largest regional economic player. It would have brought most of East Asia into or further into the US sphere of influence, helping us cement political ties and economically boxing in China, allowing the US to essential dictate the rules that everyone in the region needs to play by in order to participate in not only the global economy but their own regional economy as well.

 

By dropping that deal, especially at the stage it was at, we left a lot of countries swinging in the wind. That both paints us as unreliable for those looking to the US for cover from the Chinese and gives China an opening to move forward with its own plans that exclude the US instead of the other way around. They've already got their own proposal fashioned and reached out to various players from the deal in the wake of our withdrawal, including the likes of Australia and even across the Pacific to Latin American countries.

 

We also have a number of allied countries whose leadership expended significant political capital in order to get TPP accepted in their own countries only to see it fail in the US. See, for example, Shinzo Abe of Japan.

 

From a geo-political perspective, this is at the very least a missed opportunity to expand US influence in the region, and it could wind up being significantly worse depending on how events play out in the area over the next few years and what moves China winds up making.

 

 

The handling of North Korea of late complicates that situation further. It seems like China may be growing weary of Kim Jong Un's increasing belligerence and escalating rhetoric, and Trump's actions fanning those flames may wind up putting pressure on them to finally make a decision about whether the current regime in the DPRK is worth propping up and how much action they might be willing to allow against them.

 

That said, that's a very fine needle that must be threaded with little margin for error as North Korea is entirely capable of turning Seoul into a lake of fire even without a functional nuclear missile. Unfortunately, our handling of the situation with the aircraft carrier was major screw-up from top to bottom, and we've been roundly mocked over it by much of the region as a result, including in allied countries like South Korea and Japan. And although the screw up was of a somewhat different nature, the end result is that we're seen as bluff and bluster which is not going to help with our ability to negotiate from a position of strength when it comes to dealing with North Korea, or the Chinese themselves for that matter.

[Phi for All]

I really don't think that's a fair analysis in any way. It's clearly way too much biased. Maybe some of what you said is true, but take a double take.

What is he doing in North Korea? Does that suit his business in some way?

 

Thanks, this saves me from having to cite examples of the effect. "Some of what said is true", but "it's clearly way too much biased"? It's really tough for people to see the effect when they're caught up in it, and that's why I mentioned it.

 

Russian involvement? Clear conflicts of interest? Unelected family members with unprecedented powers? Bizarre, stress-inducing tweets that undermine public confidence? An unsophisticated approach to most problems that ignores nuance and deeper meaning? But look, he's lowering taxes for the wealthy, so overall he's pretty great, right? He told us he was greedy, and wanted to be greedy for the US, but if he just wants to be greedy for himself, it's OK, right?

[iNow]

What is he doing in North Korea? Does that suit his business in some way?

You're a bright dude. I want to help you become brighter.

 

Notice that Phi did not say "all" of Trumps actions will "always" benefit him financially, yet that is how you framed your response. Your counter point was directed toward something he didn't even say.

 

Maybe what Trump is doing in North Korea will benefit him financially or maybe it won't. We simply don't know, but what we DO know is that it's irrelevant to Phi's actual point that the actions of our president thus far seem more focused on enriching his family and friends than on enriching the citizens across our country.

 

Of course there will be exceptions. Of course we can point to things he's done that have no direct impact on his financial wellbeing, but that's all moot.

 

Unsure if this makes sense or even helps, but I hope it does.

Edited May 3, 2017 by iNow

[Raider5678]

You're a bright dude. I want to help you become brighter.

 

Notice that Phi did not say "all" of Trumps actions will "always" benefit him financially, yet that is how you framed your response. Your counter point was directed toward something he didn't even say.

 

Maybe what Trump is doing in North Korea will benefit him financially or maybe it won't. We simply don't know, but what we DO know is that it's irrelevant to Phi's actual point that the actions of our president thus far seem more focused on enriching his family and friends than on enriching the citizens across our country.

 

Of course there will be exceptions. Of course we can point to things he's done that have no direct impact on his financial wellbeing, but that's all moot.

 

Unsure if this makes sense or even helps, but I hope it does.

Fair enough.

Do you agree with how he's handling North Korea?

[Ten oz]

I really don't think that's a fair analysis in any way. It's clearly way too much biased. Maybe some of what you said is true, but take a double take.

What is he doing in North Korea? Does that suit his business in some way?

 

Trump is playing it by ear. He came to DC without any real plans. He is making it up as he goes. I am sure he must have had some key agendas but we, the public, have no idea what they are. For now the effect is total uncertainty:

 

- After campaigning on some never explained form of govt paid single payer healthcare he has asked house Republicans to come up with a replacement for the ACA and seemingly has no real involvement other than just demanding something get done.

 

- After exhaustively campaigning that he would build a big beautiful single unbroken wall Mexico would pay for he asked for tens of billions in new spending to build a segments of a wall that we will be paying for.

 

- He said he planned to spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure but instead is slashing all the Departments that deal with infrastructure and his people are saying his tax cut plan is his jobs plan.

 

- He campaigned that he'd renegotiate NAFTA but he has changed his mind.

 

- He campaigned he'd label China a currency manipulator and renegotiate our trade deals with China but has since changed his mind.

 

- he campaigned against foriegn Military intervention calling Iraq a mistake and repeatedly criticizing Obama for our involvement in Syria. Meanwhile he has increased our role in Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, and is openly considering a massive intervention into North Korea.

[iNow]

Fair enough.

Do you agree with how he's handling North Korea?

The best answer I can offer is that I'm not sure yet. I feel it's still too early for me to comment.

[Ten oz]

The best answer I can offer is that I'm not sure yet. I feel it's still too early for me to comment.

It is too early in context of understanding what Trump is doing but it isn't too early overall. Bush declared North Korea part of the "Axis of Evil" 15yrs ago. That took tensions from about a 6 and brought them up to like an 8.5 on a scale to ten. Since then we have stayed at an 8.5 until Trump bumped us up to a 9.5 a couple weeks back. That I can tell nothing has changed. Nothing new has happened. That isn't to say all is well and perfect but why the escalation? What is true today that wasn't true before the inauguration?

 

Trump has said he is open to speaking with North Korea. I am encouraged by that. Diplomacy is the best option to move forward with first in my opinion. However Trump has moved in THAAD and deployed Navy assests to the region. Such a show of force accomplishes nothing. The U.S. Air Force can launch bombers from Wyoming to strike targets in North Korea. We don't need to physically have Subs and Carriers there for any reason other than to intimidate. I don't feel it is useful to diplomacy.

[Raider5678]

What is true today that wasn't true before the inauguration?

 

Trump has said he is open to speaking with North Korea. I am encouraged by that. Diplomacy is the best option to move forward with first in my opinion. However Trump has moved in THAAD and deployed Navy assests to the region. Such a show of force accomplishes nothing.

 

The U.S. Air Force can launch bombers from Wyoming to strike targets in North Korea. We don't need to physically have Subs and Carriers there for any reason other than to intimidate. I don't feel it is useful to diplomacy.

The fact that we have new information suggesting they are soon going to have intercontinental ballistic missiles, capable of hitting the United States. They don't have enough to destroy us, but definitely enough to kill millions. Now it's more important then before to get them to stop progressing in nuclear technology. Whether you agree or not, I don't like the idea of them being able to hit the United States.

 

He has attempted to speak, which they refuse. Negotiations have also been attempted, and Trump is definitely working with China to resolve this peacefully. Just because he's using a show of force doesn't mean it isn't with the intention of peace.

 

Actually, in the event of North Korea deciding to start blowing everyone up around them, it would be wise to have something that wouldn't take 10 hours to get there, even at 700 mph. But I don't think that's the idea.

In the event of a preemptive strike, there would be two options.

Destroy North Korea entirely, wipe it off the map.

Or, do surgical strikes and eliminate most of it's long range military power before they could cause much damage.

Obviously, the second is a much better strategical idea because the first could get us into a long term conflict in Asia.

Doing the surgical strike, first we'd have to position stealth planes, carriers, and navy ships near North Korea. This way, with in and hour or two, we could effectively destroy most of North Korea's nuclear weapons, artillery, and a good portion of their infrastructure.

What better way to sneak in ships then to pretend it was just a show of force, and when you did get too close, retreat back a little bit. Doing that, you would "admit" it was a bluff. But in actuality, you just managed to position a bit more firepower in the region.

All depends on what Trumps ultimate goal and strategy is.

[Delta1212]

Two things: North Korea's ballistic missile program is not new information. They've been working on it for years. Their recent test has gone about as well as all previous tests.

 

Second, their long range missile technology is not the concern. North Korea shares a border with South Korea. South Korea's capital is only 35 miles from the DMZ. That puts it just about in range of conventional artillery and at serious risk from a military incursion, which would certainly be an issue because North Korea has one of the largest militaries in the world in terms of raw numbers, behind only China, India and the United States. They are also all present on the Korean Peninsula rather than spread across the globe.

 

It's exceptionally unlikely that North Korea could actually win a regional war if it came down to it, but it would hurt, and hurt badly. Their entire culture is built around a siege mentality preparing for invasion by a hostle world. This is not a group you are going to be able to just roll over if it comes to blows.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Delta1212

[Ten oz]

The fact that we have new information suggesting they are soon going to have intercontinental ballistic missiles, capable of hitting the United States. They don't have enough to destroy us, but definitely enough to kill millions. Now it's more important then before to get them to stop progressing in nuclear technology. Whether you agree or not, I don't like the idea of them being able to hit the United States.

 

He has attempted to speak, which they refuse. Negotiations have also been attempted, and Trump is definitely working with China to resolve this peacefully. Just because he's using a show of force doesn't mean it isn't with the intention of peace.

 

Actually, in the event of North Korea deciding to start blowing everyone up around them, it would be wise to have something that wouldn't take 10 hours to get there, even at 700 mph. But I don't think that's the idea.

In the event of a preemptive strike, there would be two options.

Destroy North Korea entirely, wipe it off the map.

Or, do surgical strikes and eliminate most of it's long range military power before they could cause much damage.

Obviously, the second is a much better strategical idea because the first could get us into a long term conflict in Asia.

Doing the surgical strike, first we'd have to position stealth planes, carriers, and navy ships near North Korea. This way, with in and hour or two, we could effectively destroy most of North Korea's nuclear weapons, artillery, and a good portion of their infrastructure.

What better way to sneak in ships then to pretend it was just a show of force, and when you did get too close, retreat back a little bit. Doing that, you would "admit" it was a bluff. But in actuality, you just managed to position a bit more firepower in the region.

All depends on what Trumps ultimate goal and strategy is.

What is this new capability you reference? I asked what changed, what was true today that wasn't prior to the inauguration. To my knowledge North Korea has done nothing since their last Weapons test in Sept. Are you referencing some new intel Trump has and if so do you have a citiation?

 

My Wyoming comment was meant to be a bit redundant. We have a large base with assets on the DMZ, Bases in Japan, and regular Navy patrols throughout the region. The showy increase Trump brag prior to any assets actually doing anything provides no strategic benefit. We already have more than enough in the region.

Two things: North Korea's ballistic missile program is not knew information. They've been working on it for years. Their recent test has gone about as well as all previous tests.

 

Second, their long range missile technology is not the concern. North Korea shares a border with South Korea. South Korea's capital is only 35 miles from the DMZ. That puts it just about in range of conventional artillery and at serious risk from a military incursion, which would certainly be an issue because North Korea has one of the largest militaries in the world in terms of raw numbers, behind only China, India and the United States. They are also all present on the Korean Peninsula rather than spread across the globe.

 

It's exceptionally unlikely that North Korea could actually win a regional war if it came down to it, but it would hurt, and hurt badly. Their entire culture is built around a siege mentality preparing for invasion by a hostle world. This is not a group you are going to be able to just roll over if it comes to blows.

Correct.

 

North Korea doesn't recognize a divided Korea. One of the big fears has been that North Korea will attack South Korea. Ironically South Korea doesn't like some of the steps we have taken like THAAD and would prefer to deal with North Korea directly.

[Raider5678]

To my knowledge North Korea has done nothing since their last Weapons test in Sept.

For the most part, I realized I was misinformed. My bad.

But, they've been testing weapons. Their last one was in April, not September last year.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/15/asia/north-korea-missile-test/

 

There. Now we're both a little better informed.

[Ten oz]

For the most part, I realized I was misinformed. My bad.

But, they've been testing weapons. Their last one was in April, not September last year.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/15/asia/north-korea-missile-test/

 

There. Now we're both a little better informed.

The government of North Korean conducted a nuclear detonation on 9 September 2016. That is what I was referring to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2016_North_Korean_nuclear_test

 

Sept, April, or whenever is all the same far as question I asked. What has changed. What is true today that wasn't true prior to the inauguration?

[Raider5678]

What has changed. What is true today that wasn't true prior to the inauguration?

For the most part, I realized I was misinformed. My bad.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

 

What has changed. What is true today that wasn't true prior to the inauguration?

For the most part, I realized I was misinformed. My bad.

 

Does that mean your overall all position has changed, can you elaborate?

[Raider5678]

Does that mean your overall all position has changed, can you elaborate?

No, my over all position did not change. I'd still rather Trump then the other cannidates.

But, I realized I was misinformed about the new information.