SURVEY: USA -- Headed in the right or wrong direction?

[Morch]

On 10/28/2018 at 6:43 PM, Grouse said:

Europe is vulnerable BECAUSE of Trump. Where is the peace dividend from the end of the Cold War? Please just stay home. Thanks

 

Do tell. How is Europe more "vulnerable because of Trump"? The only meaningful way this would make sense amounts acknowledging Europe's reliance on NATO. What "peace dividends from the end of the Cold War" are you on about?

 

 

[Kelsall]

The US is headed in the right direction, and now even more so!

 

Trump will soon end birthright citizenship with executive order!

 

Thank you President Trump!

 

https://www.axios.com/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html

 

[bristolboy]

18 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

The US is headed in the right direction, and now even more so!

 

Trump will soon end birthright citizenship with executive order!

 

Thank you President Trump!

 

https://www.axios.com/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html

 

It should fail even with this right wing supreme court. The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was meant to exclude any diplomats' children who happened to be born in the USA while their parents were residing there. Back when that amendment was passed there were virtually no impediments to anyone who wanted to  to settle in the United States. The amendment is very clear.

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, Peasandmash said:

the dem's that want a socialist America moved to the Kingdom of Thailand and scream for democracy.  as a group they're delusional.

God only knows what you're screaming for here.

[Opl]

53 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

The US is headed in the right direction, and now even more so!

 

Trump will soon end birthright citizenship with executive order!

 

Thank you President Trump!

 

https://www.axios.com/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html

 

That's fine!

 

While the president rails against children of undocumented immigrants, wealthy Russians rent his condos—at huge costs—so they can have American kids.

"The Daily Beast has discovered several companies are advertising rentals in Trump properties to expectant Russian parents. While the Trump Organization does not directly profit from subleases of privately owned condos, it does benefit from Russian patronage of the nearby Trump International Beach Resort. Birth tourism is a booming industry thanks to the growing middle- and upper-class in Russia and China. These families have no plans to work in the U.S. or pay U.S. taxes as their child grows. "

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russians-flock-to-trump-properties-to-give-birth-to-us-citizens?ref=home

[jcsmith]

50 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Trump will soon end birthright citizenship with executive order!

I wonder what makes you feel that because one person is born on one side of an invisible line that they should be benefit more than someone in another situation?
"That's just the way it is", isn't a valid answer here. Why would you celebrate an executive order (which would turn into a huge legal fight if he tried it) which would harm babies? Is that the type of person you are? Apparently so. Perhaps if you were born on a different side of that invisible line you would feel differently.

[Slip]

3 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

I wonder what makes you feel that because one person is born on one side of an invisible line that they should be benefit more than someone in another situation?
"That's just the way it is", isn't a valid answer here. Why would you celebrate an executive order (which would turn into a huge legal fight if he tried it) which would harm babies? Is that the type of person you are? Apparently so. Perhaps if you were born on a different side of that invisible line you would feel differently.

Trump supporter.

[candide]

1 hour ago, Kelsall said:

The US is headed in the right direction, and now even more so!

 

Trump will soon end birthright citizenship with executive order!

 

Thank you President Trump!

 

https://www.axios.com/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html

 

And let's apply it retrospectively to all Americans! Howgh! Ah! Ah!

[Jingthing]

Even though these polls are always very unscientific here, I think these results are significant considering the history of U.S. political polls on thaivisa during the "trump" era. They pretty much always reflect a narrow majority of the pro-"trump" side which is understandable considering the demographics of the forum members (so many older white men). The results here are so very different. Interesting!

[bristolboy]

10 hours ago, jcsmith said:

I wonder what makes you feel that because one person is born on one side of an invisible line that they should be benefit more than someone in another situation?
"That's just the way it is", isn't a valid answer here. Why would you celebrate an executive order (which would turn into a huge legal fight if he tried it) which would harm babies? Is that the type of person you are? Apparently so. Perhaps if you were born on a different side of that invisible line you would feel differently.

Your comment is irrelevant to the issue. It's about whether the 14 amendment gives citizenship to people born in the USA. It has nothing at all to do with people born on the one side or another of an invisible line.

[TMNH]

On 10/28/2018 at 2:49 AM, Kurtf said:

And may he rot in hell.

And there we have it folks! Proof of the mindset  flamed by the POTUS to his "marginally" intelligent sheeple.

 

John McCain not only was a hero, but a rare breed of the dying moderate Republican.  I can't wait until Nov. 16 and hopefully I'll be doing a gig once all the votes are in.

 

BTW, you're not friends with that stripper/bomber dude are you?:)

[jcsmith]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Your comment is irrelevant to the issue. It's about whether the 14 amendment gives citizenship to people born in the USA. It has nothing at all to do with people born on the one side or another of an invisible line.

It does. Right now those children who are born in the U.S. will be U.S. citizens which will automatically grant them advantages they wouldn't have in their parent's country of origin. It's not really fair that place of birth could equate to a huge difference in quality of life, but it is. There's no question if amendment 14 grants citizenship. It does. If he tries to change it there will be a legal fight and he will likely lose that battle. But he doesn't care because this is a direct effort to appeal to a racist segment of his base ahead of the mid-terms.

 

It's obvious what this is. And it's also very obvious what moving all these troops to the southern border is under the guise of some immigration crisis and under cover of a caravan that is still months from reaching the border. So why waste all this taxpayer money to send and reroute all of these troops on a mission where they really are not going to have much of anything to do? Same reason. To rile up a segment of his base and try to get them active heading into the midterms. This is in essence Trump spending taxpayer money to create an advantage for his party. 

[Morch]

On 10/28/2018 at 7:33 PM, allanos said:

Crowd size? A few days ago, Obama was in Nevada. Trump was in Houston.  The difference in the crowd-pulling appeal of these to ex- and current President's is immense.  Trump's arena was packed.  Obama's venue more akin to a high school auditorium.

 

That thing about one of them being the President, and the other being the former President might help you to figure it. Then again, there was this thing with the inauguration crowd figures - guess you missed that one.

[Morch]

On 10/28/2018 at 7:42 PM, allanos said:

Couldn't have said it better.  This egotistical, narcissistic, self-praising and self-adoring Hollywood "elite" (not a name I would give them; there are more-appropriate words) should simply be ignored, or shunned, and which would cut them to the quick as their egos wouldn't be able to take it.  They really are a blot or a stain on America, and not the role models that their elevated status requires.

 

I don't know that being a "Hollywood elite" implies someone is required to act as a "role model". But since you brought up the issues of acting as a role model - how about the President, then? Doesn't he have a stronger obligation to act as such?

[allanos]

19 hours ago, jcsmith said:

Actually the "socialist" America  you are referring to is an America with national health care, it's not a communist America. You do realize FOX News (the bastion of right wing news) ran a poll when Ocasion-Cortez was on their station for an interview asking people what they thought of medicare for all and expected it to go in a different direction than it did...

 

 Oops.

I wonder how many of the respondents paused to consider where the funding would come from, and how such funding might affect them.  The question is simple enough but the answer really needs a lot of input data, and consideration.

[Patriot1066]

10 minutes ago, allanos said:

I wonder how many of the respondents paused to consider where the funding would come from, and how such funding might affect them.  The question is simple enough but the answer really needs a lot of input data, and consideration.

Basic health care should be available in a civilised country surely? The issue is stopping it being abused like in the UK where lots of Health tourists get free treatment or silly things like breast enlargement or sex changes are paid for. Basic healthcare test- tight control of it yes!

[jcsmith]

18 minutes ago, allanos said:

I wonder how many of the respondents paused to consider where the funding would come from, and how such funding might affect them.  The question is simple enough but the answer really needs a lot of input data, and consideration.

There's a good article about the Koch brothers report, and Bernie Sanders counter-argument here:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/aug/03/bernie-s/did-conservative-study-show-big-savings-bernie-san/

 

In the end the $32.6 trillion in health care costs sounds like a large number, but that might actually be $2 trillion cheaper than what is currently in place in a best case scenario. In a worst case scenario per the report it could be $3 trillion more than what is currently in place. But either way it shows those numbers and the push at Fox News used that $32.6 trillion number rather as a dishonest scare tactic. It would be more realistic to say that Bernie's system would be between 6.5% cheaper and 9% more expensive than the current system... While also providing health care to every American. 

[Berkshire]

15 minutes ago, allanos said:

I wonder how many of the respondents paused to consider where the funding would come from, and how such funding might affect them.

"...consider where the funding would come from?"  Well, our esteemed leaders in Congress sure as heck didn't consider that when they pushed through massive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.  Which is why our deficit is going through the roof. 

[Peasandmash]

in one post the dem's claim that Fox news is biased, not factual and anyone listening to Fox is a lunatic.  Then in another post information provided by Fox news is used as proof of their rhetoric. the good news is that we finally agree on something.

[jcsmith]

46 minutes ago, Peasandmash said:

in one post the claim is that fox news is bias and not factual, in another post they use fox news information as proof of their rhetoric.

I assume you are referring to me. And if so you are misconstruing what was said. Fox News (just like MSNBC) is obviously biased. I find the difference between those two (I watch both) that I find NBC does a better job of sleuthing their stories (Rachel Maddow show does great research for example), but it's hard to argue that Fox News isn't there to put a right winged face on the news, or that MSNBC isn't doing the same for the left wing news.

 

Now the second piece referred to there is a Fox News poll asking if people thought the good of the Single Payer health care would outweigh the bad, which clearly had a result that nobody would have expected. Fox News at the time was running a bunch of coverage which was talking about costs of Sander's plan, and in doing so they used the biggest number they could find, along with a bunch of references to socialism and talk about how we coudn't afford it. But in doing so they clearly left out the fact that it would roughly cost the same as the current system, maybe a little cheaper, maybe a little more expensive... but that everyone would be covered. You would expect that coverage to have an influence over their viewers (and I'm sure it did to some extent). But instead, what was it 72% of their own viewers thought Single Payer was a good thing and that the benefits of it would outweigh the costs. That makes it pretty clear that even your average Fox News viewer want this.

 

So why isn't the GOP pushing it? Well there's an obvious answer to that. And it has nothing to do with the will of the people. It has everything to do with their backers. With lobbyists and money. Why did it take McCain's downvote to prevent them from repealing Obamacare when most of the country did not want that to happen? Why did they blatantly lie about the tax cut and who it benefits, and ignore reports of its costs? Those things frustrate me. 

Also for the record, I am not a left winger. I call it how I see it. Up until Obama, I felt that over the course of my lifetime Republicans (barring Nixon who I was too young during his tenure) had generally done a better job of running the country, but that I felt that G.W. was the worst president overall in that time. I felt like Reagan was the best during it. I was not a fan of Bill Clinton, not so much because of his policies, but more because he seemed to dishonest. He told people what they wanted to hear. I didn't mind H.W. thought he was an average president. G.W. was awful though. And Obama was probably the second best president over that time. That has nothing to do with left or right. I may not have agreed with everything Reagan did but he was the right guy at that time. A lot of great things (along with some scandals) happened in the 80s. The fall of the Soviet Union, the tearing down of the wall. Obama inherited a worldwide financial crisis, and he turned it around as well as healthcare reform. Those guys deserve credit. 

Now before Trump I never felt very strongly against any of our presidents. Trump is an exception. And the way congress has protected and enabled him has soured me on most of the republican congressman. They've stood aside and let some of these barbaric policies like the muslim ban, backing out of climate accord, iran deal, trying to repeal Obamacare without a good replacement, family separations, his closet racism, this sham of a tax cut, the rising deficit, and for Trump to drive a wedge between us and on our allies, while buddying up to ruthless dictators, and acting in a way that is unbecoming of a president. But that doesn't make me a left winger. It makes me against Trump and those who protect him because they are not living up to their obligations to the American people. In normal times though I could generally care less about politics. In the wake of Trump we really need to because what he is doing is taking the country (and the world) into a darker place.

 

The current Trump-driven version of the republican party is not something I can respect. It's the far right wing version of the republican party, and I'm sad to see that so many republicans have simply accepted that and tried to normalize it. Not all have, but those who haven't have either left politics, or grandstanded with their disagreements only to fall in line with party-line votes. That's not how this is supposed to work. Hyper-partisanship isn't beneficial. But it's particularly dangerous when one party controls all three branches of government, and are pushing through extremist policies as a result of it.

[Brunolem]

6 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

 

Trump is an exception. And the way congress has protected has soured me on most of the republican congressman. They've stood aside and let some of these barbaric policies like the muslim ban, backing out of climate accord, iran deal, trying to repeal Obamacare without a good replacement, family separations, this sham of a tax cut, the rising deficit, and for Trump to drive a wedge between us and on our allies, while buddying up to ruthless dictators

Just a few comments on these Trump's policies.

 

People make a fuss about the US withdrawal from the Paris accord on climate change, forgetting that it is still not implemented, and won't be before 2020, at the time Trump wil! end his term, and by then the US will be free to come back in the fold.

 

I am strongly concerned by climate change, yet I side with scientists like James Hansen and James Lovelock, who have denounced this accord as a sham, notably because it is non binding, and because the objectives are way below what is required.

 

Talking about another sham, the tax cuts certainly are an obvious one, and all the money saved by the corporations has been spent in buybacks in the financial casino, thus making the super rich even richer...a scandal if there ever was one!

 

The Iran deal and the pandering to the Saudi rulers have to been seen together with the decision to move the US embassy in Israel, since all these events are linked...it is not clear what is driving Trump to side with one faction against the other, but it is clear on the other hand that Israel and Saudi Arabia are doing all they can to get the US to do the fight for them against Iran.

 

The bromance with Kim Jong Un is...mindboggling, and certainly not reciprocated, no more than the "friendship" with Xi...one just wonder why Trump has not invited Duterte for a week-end at Mar a Lago...

 

Finally, as a European, I think that Trump's behavior, as shocking as it may be, is a welcome wake-up call for nations who had been asleep at the wheel for decades, confident that Uncle Sam had their back (I read somewhere that Germany had only 3 fighter jets ready to take off for a combat mission at any time).

 

[jcsmith]

1 minute ago, Brunolem said:

Just a few comments on these Trump's policies.

 

People make a fuss about the US withdrawal from the Paris accord on climate change, forgetting that it is still not implemented, and won't be before 2020, at the time Trump wil! end his term, and by then the US will be free to come back in the fold.

 

I am strongly concerned by climate change, yet I side with scientists like James Hansen and James Lovelock, who have denounced this accord as a sham, notably because it is non binding, and because the objectives are way below what is required.

 

Talking about another sham, the tax cuts certainly are an obvious one, and all the money saved by the corporations has been spent in buybacks in the financial casino, thus making the super rich even richer...a scandal if there ever was one!

 

The Iran deal and the pandering to the Saudi rulers have to been seen together with the decision to move the US embassy in Israel, since all these events are linked...it is not clear what is driving Trump to side with one faction against the other, but it is clear on the other hand that Israel and Saudi Arabia are doing all they can to get the US to do the fight for them against Iran.

 

The bromance with Kim Jong Un is...mindboggling, and certainly not reciprocated, no more than the "friendship" with Xi...one just wonder why Trump has not invited Duterte for a week-end at Mar a Lago...

 

Finally, as a European, I think that Trump's behavior, as shocking as it may be, is a welcome wake-up call for nations who had been asleep at the wheel for decades, confident that Uncle Sam had their back (I read somewhere that Germany had only 3 fighter jets ready to take off for a combat mission at any time).

 

I agree with most of what you said in this post. Just had some additional comments.

 

On the Climate Accord, it's mainly just a commitment that your country is going to do their part. There was no reason to leave it. All it does it isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world. Trump has deregulated like mad since he got into office. And tried to mislead the public about climate change, while citing climate change as a reason to need to build sea walls around his own golf properties. That again, is tied completely to backers and lobbyists. Trump knows the environmental impact. He chooses to pretend the evidence isn't strong so he can justify pushing through these agendas. That is a major issue.

I think the biggest problem is that Trump doesn't understand or respect alliances. Everything is money oriented to him. He doesn't understand the nuances, and doesn't care to learn them. He forms an idea in his head, and he sticks to it despite mountains of evidence against it. If it's a subject that 1% of experts disagree with, he'll hire someone from that 1%. That's exactly what happened with free trade and climate change. In Woodward's book he outlines a meeting where a lot of Trump's cabinet and military gave him a presentation to try to convince him on the benefits of alliances. And how not every deal has to be one sided in your favor. Why we benefit from some things even though it costs money. He, with an assist from Bannon shut it down. He didn't want to hear their logic. He turned into a rage of where were our allies when we expected them to back us on Iran sanctions after we backed out from the deal. After that meeting is when Tillerson called him an "<deleted> Idiot". But that seems to be a common theme with Trump. He thinks he knows better than all the experts, and he expects them to conform their beliefs to match his own. I think it's really dangerous to have a guy like that leading the most powerful military in the world. 

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Peasandmash said:

in one post the dem's claim that Fox news is biased, not factual and anyone listening to Fox is a lunatic.  Then in another post information provided by Fox news is used as proof of their rhetoric. the good news is that we finally agree on something.

The point is obvious: even Fox News found overwhelming support for single payer.

That said fivethirtyeight gives fox pollster rating of either A or B depending on who Fox teams up with to do the poll.

It's what Fox does once the poll is taken that's intersting. If the results aren't supportive of Trump, as in the case of immigration, it buries the results.

[allanos]

3 hours ago, Patriot1066 said:

Basic health care should be available in a civilised country surely? The issue is stopping it being abused like in the UK where lots of Health tourists get free treatment or silly things like breast enlargement or sex changes are paid for. Basic healthcare test- tight control of it yes!

You have gone off at a tangent, and not commented on how even a wealthy country such as the USA, would afford a bill of 32 Trillion dollars, for just one budget item, and what the affect would be on the US taxpayer.  Opposition parties, especially on the left, have a way of throwing out numbers without pausing to consider how the schemes they are rooting for are going to be financed.

 

And yes, it goes without saying that basic health care should be available to the citizens of a country.  As you mention the United Kingdom, it is salutary that universal healthcare was available in Russia a full 27 years before the introduction of the NHS into Britain.

[Brunolem]

23 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

 convince him on the benefits of alliances. And how not every deal has to be one sided in your favor. Why we benefit from some things even though it costs money. He, with an assist from Bannon shut it down. He didn't want to hear their logic. He turned into a rage of where were our allies when we expected them to back us on Iran sanctions after we backed out from the deal. 

Trump is certainly all business, even though he has proved over and over again that this not necessary his strong point.

 

It is one thing to run shady deals in real estate, and another to run casinos (to the ground), and yet another to run a country...

 

The fact that there haven't been major consequences (outside the US) to his actions until now is thanks to pure luck and because of the inertia in the world affairs, where decisions and their impact are felt many months or even years after they have been taken.

 

It would be too easy if someone, anyone, could just show up, shake the tree, and hop...change the world for the better!

 

One just needs to look at Bush junior, who was also going to reshape the world, yet was caught up with the consequences only in 2008, just a few months before the end of his presidency, leaving the hot potato to his successor.

 

The same is likely to happen with Trump, maybe not in the shape of a financial crisis, and we probably won't have to wait for 8 years to enjoy the fireworks...

 

 

[Scott]

Troll posts and replies removed.   The thread is not about McCain.

[Jonathan Fairfield]

This discussion has gone on long enough.

 

Closed.