2. To defeat and scare enemies. Re scaring them, like Teddy Roosevelt said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Necessary for at least N Lorea, China and Russia.

Re killing them, it's necessary for militant Islamists. See the good direction we may be going by increasing troop deployments to Afghanistan. Also necessary in Syria and Iraq.

3. No. But I think you're asking how I would compare him to a dem candidate. The question for me is to line up their views/goals on all issues and pick the one you like best or least dislike. That was an easy decision for me.

Could someone have one vile policy/goal that would cause me to vote for the dem? I think so. Say they wanted to deport all non-whites. I would hold my nose while voting dem. Trump talked about deporting illegal immigrants. Not a racist thing. His alleged comments about black people and his comment about the Mexican American judge almost got me to drop support for him. That said, he showed regret for those. I think he is likely somewhat racist personally, so I almost dropped support for him. But the way he ran from those positions indicates to me that he would not attempt to accomplish any racist policies.

There are other areas where I could be upset by his policies as well. For example, if he was an actual economic protectionist I wouldn't like that. I believe in free trade. His rhetoric sounds somewhat protectionist but I think that's just an impression. We have to see what he actually achieves, if anything. I also doubt this issue could swing my support.

4&5. I think Trump's rollout of the travel ban(s) were horribly incompetent. Can't believe ICE didn't even know how to enforce it and people thought green card holders were impacted. Horrible. The tax rollout seemed lame too. One page is a tax plan? Re healthcare, at first the MM called incompetence cuz they couldn't get it done. But then they did get it done in the House. So I see that as a case of the MM trying to say he's incompetent when he wasn't. Could even be the case on taxes.

So, yes, I see lots of incompetence. But "hiring" Pence was great. Also very happy with most prominent Secretaries.

Gorsuch. Huge win. Huge.

Is he dangerous? No. That's silly. I'm actually happy with his foreign policy moves so far.

As with every single thing you speak about, you are incorrect.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/maki...ocial-security

Whatever the reason, the fact that the rich are living longer and the poor shorter makes a big difference to the total benefits the two groups can expect to receive from entitlement benefits — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Supplemental Security. The reason is simple: To collect any of these benefits you need to be alive, and since the benefits continue until you die, on average, living longer means collecting more on average.

Exactly how big is this difference? Well, using current mortality rates, rich males are now expected to receive roughly $130,000 more in lifetime entitlement benefits, and rich females are now expected to receive roughly $30,000 more. Under the old mortality rates, rich males would fare pretty much the same as poor males, while rich females would receive about $130,000 less than poor females. Consequently, the overall entitlement system has gone from being pro-poor to pro-rich when measured in terms of absolute benefits received.

These findings should give pause to anyone suggesting that we raise the early retirement ages for Social Security and Medicare. They also support raising the ceiling on Social Security payroll tax contributions.

Like, really, do you ever tire of being wrong? Do you actually maybe look things up and see for yourself if you are correct before offering your opinion?

I'm fine with social security being a safety net for idiots who can't save their own money to ensure a decent life after they are done working. Totally fine with it. But me making a claim that it benefits the rich now isn't a conspiracy theory.

Bang up job, Samson. You keep proving my point, buddy.

Wut. So like, instead of having that honest debate you allegedly want, you're LYING about your beliefs and intentionally arguing for positions you not only don't agree with, but would characterize as "the least defensible"?

That would explain why you're so unpersuasive, but uh, ok. I guess that's you conceding the initial argument to Victor, on the merits, right? Great. That smiley face to your buddy is pretty cutting now that you've admitted that you share our belief that he's an irredeemable racist, though.

Is that why you, consistently, have refused to quote and respond to even the most basic questions I ask you? How do you think that plays to people paying attention?

No mother****ing way he's serious, right, like, all these dudes gotta be trolling?

We are going to clean up the recent thread by deleting a few posts whose focus was on personal attacks, name-calling, making the post about the identity of a poster rather than on the content of a post, and the like. Going forward in this thread we may have to issue timeouts for egregious disregard of this rule.

wow adios, what a shocker turns out I was right lol

Israel Said to Be Source of Secret Intelligence Trump Gave to Russians https://nyti.ms/2rmVYE4

Hey cool, jeopardizing our relationship with Israeli intelligence is sure to be an effective way to fight terrorism

I see that the mods are trying to get this thread back on track but I have to respond to this.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not supporting positions that I think are wrong, I am supporting positions that I am the least sure are correct.

I have generally ignored your questions because every time that I haven't it devolves into unproductive bickering.

Whoever leaked this information is to blame. It's not uncommon for Presidents to share infirmation with the Russians. Obama did. ISIS is an issue and the US needs the help of the Russians. The threat of laptops being used as bombs further legitimizes Trumps temporary travel ban.

The over use of the race card is the biggest weakness of the left. It just pours fuel on the fire for those whom are already racist and most certainly creates racist feelings in others. start talking about the real racism that exists from a non antagonstic way and watch how the situation improves.

taxes pay for things. for instance, the tax on the super rich paid for health care for like 20m people. would you prefer that money go into the pockets of the super rich and those millions lose their health insurance?

the main problem with the whole republican plan of lowering taxes is that they never appreciably lower them for middle class or poor ppl. it is always a cut for the rich. and studies along with anecdotes have shown over and over that it results in the rich simply pocketing the money so there is little economic growth. and ofc it means that less money goes to the govt so important programs are cut and the deficit rises.

if the republicans were actually committed to lowering taxes for the masses, then I could see the argument for supporting them. but cutting taxes for the rich with the hope that it will help the economy or society does not make sense logically, nor has it been shown to work empirically.

and as for entitlements, I think you should study the amount of help that ppl actually receive from entitlements. it is not nearly enough to maintain any sort of quality life. almost no one would prefer entitlements over working.

wait. calling out ppl for being racist creates more racists?

dude like how do you even come up with something so idiotic?

Why do you feel the need to call people out for being racist?

Because racists make society so much worse.

I think a lot of conservatives would be more ok with paying for the health care of the poor if the healthcare bill wasn't a transfer of wealth and instead we just told the rich up front we were going to take more of their money via higher taxes to pay for the poors' health care.

I am sorry to tell you that you have drake the kool-aid. For as long as I can remember liberals have told this myth that giving less money to the poor and letting the rich keep more money is bad for the economy because poor people spend money and rich people "pocket it" which essentially takes money out of the economy. However, what these liberals don't understand is that the rich aren't actually pocketing the money. They are investing it which helps the economy, they are putting it in the bank allows the bank to make loans to small businesses and people looking to buy a house which helps the economy, they buy stuff which helps the economy, the hire people which helps the economy, they donate it to charities which helps the economy and finally they pay a much higher % of that money to the government so no the government doesn't get less money and no letting the rich keep more money is not bad for the economy.

As for your claim that repubs never cut the taxes of the poor: 1) The last time I read the Trump tax plan he was talking about significantly increasing the standard deduction which helps the poorest of the poor maybe more than any other tax plan ever completed in US history. 2) When cutting taxes it is difficult to cut the poor or middle classes taxes more than the rich since the rich pay so much in taxes compared to the poor and middle class.

It stops any chance of conversation.

The response to "you are racist" will be "no. I'm not." close to 100% of the time. And they will be right. A well intentioned person who happens to hold wrongheaded beliefs shouldn't be lumped in with the Richard Spencers and David Dukes of the world.

If you say something like "what you are saying will negatively effect minority populations disproportionately ......." there is at least a chance of starting a productive discussion.

Bring Your Racist To Work Day

There's truth to both claims.

The lie Republicans have told is that cutting taxes will increase tax revenue because of economic growth. That's the claim that Kansas disproves. Now they have been forced to slash education funding. With weakened public education, they are having a harder time recruiting businesses. It's been a disaster for them and Republicans want to do the same thing at the national level.

Exactly!

Calling someone racist just pisses them off. Instead of offering them a different way of looking at things you just exacerbate their current beliefs. You lose credability. It's like crying wolf. You need to teach people how you want to be treated rather than reinforcing their perceived negative behavior.

Ok? Not was i was arguing tho.

My contention was the absurd idea that if you call a racist a racist then it somehow creates more racists.

I do think your idea has merits. I am not sure it always applies tho. Nor am i sure that it does not result in placating and normalizing reprehensible ideas. And also i am not sure that i am a "big enough person" to overlook such things.

The poor and middle class pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than the rich do.

Conservatives like to assert this illogical notion that if you give more to the rich, then it will somehow end up going to or benefiting the poor. Makes no sense and has not happened in reality.

If you want the poors to prosper, wouldnt it make more sense to either give them more money or allow them to keep more of their own money?

I agree that racism is not a good thing. I disagree with your assessment of the affect it has on society. There is a contimuum of racism ranging from the subltle forms to the more overt forms. Focusing on the Nazis, White Supremacist, etc. makes sense. Focusing on the more subtle racism is a waste of time. People aren't gonna change. Worry about the extremist.