Society Questions for those still on the Trump train

[kneeblock]

As I'm sure anyone who's read my posts knows, I'm not on team MAGA. Despite this, I think at bottom some of Trump's ultimate goals are worth being treated seriously at least. Those goals seem to be:

1) To decrease the influence of the Executive Branch in certain issues, particularly related to lifestyle and identity politics, who is permitted to be in this country, and, more broadly, in regulating industry.

2) To decrease the amount of commitments abroad, both monetarily and militarily.

3) To decrease the headcount of foreign born people in the US.

4) To decrease government spending on social interventions.

5) To decrease government subsidies of other supposed public goods like the arts, sciences, education, parklands and agriculture.

6) To increase the public safety and national security apparatus of the country.

Overall this is pretty consistent with small government orthodoxy and paves the path for tax cuts down the road. My questions for Trump ride or dies are:

A) What do you think the actual strategy is to achieve each of these goals (I know that's asking a lot from an answer, so maybe just pick at least 2) and why do you think that strategy will be effective?

B) In the case of decrease or increase, why do you think that decrease or increase is needed at this point?

C) What do you think will fill the voids created by the proposed decreases and what do you think will be the benefits of the proposed increases?

D) Do you think these ends justify any rhetorical or political means (e.g. courting undesirable constituencies, occasionally working with lobbyists, Democrats or foreign corporate interests and governments, alienating parts of the population)?

Obviously this is a lot to comment on, so considered replies are welcome.

 

[kneeblock]

Also, to the anti-Trump contingent, I beg you to restrain yourself from launching attacks or tirades.

To those who post, please don't post videos or links. I definitely will not click on them. More interested in people's own words. Embedded charts are okay to help amplify a point.

 

[Greenbean]

I don't think that I would have worded number 3 in that way. I don't think his goal is do reduce foreign born people in the u.s. I would say his goal would be to enforce immigration laws and less foreign born people is a byproduct of that. I genuinely don't think he's shown any type of disdain for people that come here legally, and want to contribute to the u.s. Economy. And this also answers A in your post.

B. Is kinda of difficult to answer, however I think that in regards to your point number 6, that it is quite obvious why public safety should always be increased when dealing in stuff that is out of our hands. I.e. Terrorism etc. not nanny state shit where you have to be told to wear a seatbelt and punished if you don't. That type of public safety is within our personal scope of ability to handle by ourselves individually. I mean public safety in that, I want to be protected from nukes and shit that I cannot protect myself from. Edit: though I guess I mean national security should be increased. Public safety I could give a fuck about.

 

[kneeblock]

I don't think that I would have worded number 3 in that way. I don't think his goal is do reduce foreign born people in the u.s. I would say his goal would be to enforce immigration laws and less foreign born people is a byproduct of that. I genuinely don't think he's shown any type of disdain for people that come here legally, and want to contribute to the u.s. Economy. And this also answers A in your post.

B. Is kinda of difficult to answer, however I think that in regards to your point number 6, that it is quite obvious why public safety should always be increased when dealing in stuff that is out of our hands. I.e. Terrorism etc. not nanny state shit where you have to be told to wear a seatbelt and punished if you don't. That type of public safety is within our personal scope of ability to handle by ourselves individually. I mean public safety in that, I want to be protected from nukes and shit that I cannot protect myself from. Edit: though I guess I mean national security should be increased. Public safety I could give a fuck about.

I don't think he has a personal disdain either, but his stated proposals are definitely geared toward decreasing the headcount. Limiting migration and number of refugees accepted and stepping up enforcement has the effect of decreasing the foreign born headcount. On the face of it, there's nothing that implies a dislike of foreigners or their contributions, but he has framed the issue as the US being overwhelmed. Since there are very few ways to come here legally and no proposals to expand those methods, it seems like the only inference we can draw is he wants to enforce existing laws so the headcount goes down.

But I can accept your feeling that maybe it's less about headcount and more about focusing efforts on enforcing existing laws. If that's the case, why do you think that's a priority right now? Do you think that ties into the similar concerns about homeland security or public safety?

Thanks for answering btw.

 

[Greenbean]

I could be wrong and it could be about lowering foreign headcount. But if that is the case, I'd like to think his priorities are coming from purely a fiscal standpoint, and not prejudice against skin color or anything like that. There's quite a few minority supporters of his that don't get airtime and can see through the msm spin.

I think with the refugee situation, his aim is to keep America safe. Maybe cracking down on immigration is a way to kill two birds with one stone. I don't really know though. the more time that passes since the election, the less I pay attention to politics and I believe I'm a slightly happier person because of it. I guess you could call me blissfully ignorant. But I still do have somewhat of an idea of what's going on. It's hard not to. Politics are everywhere you turn these days.

 

[Zeph]

I will debate #2 if you want.

 

[Jesus X]

what is hilarious about trump is that he is now Pro DACA and pushing the wall to the background he has completely flip flopped on both of those things which were major promises to his base by the end of his four years he will be the most liberal president in history if this trajectory continues.

 

[1372]

I will debate #2 if you want.

 

[Zeph]

I could be wrong and it could be about lowering foreign headcount. But if that is the case, I'd like to think his priorities are coming from purely a fiscal standpoint, and not prejudice against skin color or anything like that. There's quite a few minority supporters of his that don't get airtime and can see through the msm spin.

I think with the refugee situation, his aim is to keep America safe. Maybe cracking down on immigration is a way to kill two birds with one stone. I don't really know though. the more time that passes since the election, the less I pay attention to politics and I believe I'm a slightly happier person because of it. I guess you could call me blissfully ignorant. But I still do have somewhat of an idea of what's going on. It's hard not to. Politics are everywhere you turn these days.

It's pretty well documented that undocumented immigrants are a plus for economies that have welfare programs and are net contributors. I'm not saying that is a good thing, in fact I agree it is a bad thing, just that that has been found from numerous studies.

 

[Zeph]

It's @Kneeblock's thread and I don't want to derail it too much.

 

[1372]

It's @Kneeblock's thread and I don't want to derail it too much.

Yeah...Sorry man.

I was just busting balls as usual.

Sorry @Kneeblock

 

[Greenbean]

It's pretty well documented that undocumented immigrants are a plus for economies that have welfare programs and are net contributors. I'm not saying that is a good thing, in fact I agree it is a bad thing, just that that has been found from numerous studies.

i haven't read the studies, but it's widely known that a lot of illegals come for work and send their money back to their families in Mexico to help them. I can't see how that's beneficial to the u.s. Also undocumented means they're being paid under the table. if you're for entitlements, social programs, etc, because you believe they do more positive than they do negative, you should be against a worker not paying into the system to support those that need help

 

[Yossarian]

what is hilarious about trump is that he is now Pro DACA and pushing the wall to the background he has completely flip flopped on both of those things which were major promises to his base by the end of his four years he will be the most liberal president in history if this trajectory continues.

He's been a Democrat most of his life right?

 

[Freeloading Rusty]

what is hilarious about trump is that he is now Pro DACA and pushing the wall to the background he has completely flip flopped on both of those things which were major promises to his base by the end of his four years he will be the most liberal president in history if this trajectory continues.

Didn't you hear, they are 'renovating' the wall.

Although, what Trump neglected to mention is, the 'renovations' started by funding under Obama.

Trump working with Dems seems better than him working with no one though, so keep up the good work Donald.

 

[stielar]

It's pretty well documented that undocumented immigrants are a plus for economies that have welfare programs and are net contributors.

I am aware you continued this sentence saying you know this is not a good thing. I just want to point out why.

It is true, undocumented immigrants are good for the economy of a country, but not for the financial state of the middle class and everyone below that. It is beneficial for affluent investors / employers who now have in their disposal a large number of workers who will work for much less than the legal residents of that country.

The workforce cost drops considerably and a lot of investors are popping up like flies to take advantage of the situation. The already existing middle-class suffers though, because they are forced to lower their expectations or have their jobs taken away from them by others who are willing to do the same job for much less.

 

[Mix6APlix]

Because fuck you, that's why. You think Hillary would be better?

 

[Yossarian]

I am aware you continued this sentence saying you know this is not a good thing. I just want to point out why.

It is true, undocumented immigrants are good for the economy of a country, but not for the financial state of the middle class and everyone below that. It is beneficial for affluent investors / employers who now have in their disposal a large number of workers who will work for much less than the legal residents of that country.

The workforce cost drops considerably and a lot of investors are popping up like flies to take advantage of the situation. The already existing middle-class suffers though, because they are forced to lower their expectations or have their jobs taken away from them by others who are willing to do the same job for much less.

Exactly. They also say, war is good for the economy, so just have them then? With an already set amount of unemployment, how can we benefit with adding more people to that equation?

But people don't wanna do that work! Well, pay more then, that is free market principle. Don't break the law when your "free market" principle fails to work. Again, investors and companies get the benefits while the people deal with the consequences. Just like when war "benefits" the economy. Broken window fallacy.

 

[Yossarian]

Didn't you hear, they are 'renovating' the wall.

Although, what Trump neglected to mention is, the 'renovations' started by funding under Obama.

Trump working with Dems seems better than him working with no one though, so keep up the good work Donald.

It was just a matter of time. Republicans should have repealed like they promised.

 

[SongExotic2]

I think we need to nuke Japan.

If we turn it to glass then the north Korean will have to send thier missiles over China.

Then we can use the Chinese response to gauge thier military strength and strategize accordingly

 

[kneeblock]

Exactly. They also say, war is good for the economy, so just have them then? With an already set amount of unemployment, how can we benefit with adding more people to that equation?

But people don't wanna do that work! Well, pay more then, that is free market principle. Don't break the law when your "free market" principle fails to work. Again, investors and companies get the benefits while the people deal with the consequences. Just like when war "benefits" the economy. Broken window fallacy.

This is a compelling point. Do you see one of Trump's goals as adjusting the implementation of free market orthodoxy?

The only concern I have with this line of reasoning is that US manufacturers and agribusiness are competing with imports (and automation in some cases). If they do increase labor costs, what do you think would possibly happen? Also, how serious of a problem do you think migrant displacement of US labor is?

Same question to you @stielar

 

[Mix6APlix]

You can look at Iraq. After we blew their shit up, we went and rebuilt their telecommunications infrastructure. While doing so, we installed capabilities to listen through cell phones to conversations even if those peopLe didn't think they were actively on them.

 

[Freeloading Rusty]

Exactly. They also say, war is good for the economy, so just have them then? With an already set amount of unemployment, how can we benefit with adding more people to that equation?

But people don't wanna do that work! Well, pay more then, that is free market principle. Don't break the law when your "free market" principle fails to work. Again, investors and companies get the benefits while the people deal with the consequences. Just like when war "benefits" the economy. Broken window fallacy.

How do foreign workers programs effect this?

 

[HEATH VON DOOM]

How do foreign workers programs effect this?

This fucking guy. Guess he cant read past the first post. I am certain you are a woman at this point because of your constant need to turn everything into a arguement. Fukn dork

 

[Freeloading Rusty]

This fucking guy. Guess he cant read past the first post. I am certain you are a woman at this point because of your constant need to turn everything into a arguement. Fukn dork

For a guy who cries I am stalking you, you sure quote me and tag me in a lot of threads.

It's not an argument, its a legit point in the discussion.

 

[HEATH VON DOOM]

For a guy who cries I am stalking you, you sure quote me and tag me in a lot of threads.

It's not an argument, its a legit point in the discussion.

This wasnt meant to be a policy discussion thread dipshit. OP is legit trying to understand why people stillbsidewith trump