Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[entropy]

and as you all know, I'm not one of those who believe gov't can create jobs and it's just about the president wanting it to happen... they can reallocate resources, they can create policy that influences direction.. but they're not creators in the short run. AND ultimately, the gov't in the US needs business to create the jobs.

..just for clarity

[froot loops]

His crap is going to wear thin, period. The subordinate squabbling is good in theory, it's a millstone trying to govern. It's like the administration was replaced with a carbon copy of the last days of Bush. Turd Blossom's reputation is going to grow in relation to this shit show.

[hack]

Wear thin with who? There's a decent-sized chunk of voters who will hear no evil/see no evil etc.

[froot loops]

Those people are not enough, he got a lot of late deciders. He won't get those next time. Trump is not immune to bad press, he pulled off an upset, but it isn't some world where it doesn't matter.

[entropy]

froot... many americans like what trump has done so far. American unions, for one, have to be happy and probably confused too. It was a D that signed NAFTA and a D that signed TPP.

I'm not saying I agree, just not everyone is on your same page.

[entropy]

http://nypost.com/2017/01/24/suicide-bombers-are-using-babies-to-avoid-detection/

someday, I hope, mom's will love their kids more than they hate their enemies... and the concept of suicide bombing will die with that love.

[Jeff Buchanan]

On Trump running in 2020 (translates to the public perception of him in 2-3y): I think talent is calling this "optics." Based on what we have learned so far about Trump and his advisers, this group is adept at creating perceptions that may or may not be based on facts.

On Trump's policies (potentially) being wildly popular. Outcomes are extremely important here as are our perceptions ("optics"). Given the skill of the group in framing perceptions, I'd give a lean to saying outcomes based on Trump policy will be viewed as good. As far as actually being good (that term in the eye of the beholder) we won't know for a while.

TTP, after having read about this a bit, I think a good case can be made that this would have been a bad deal if ratified (big chance it would not have been so a nothing burger that Turmpsters will make look good). I'm not an expert here but those that claim they are say not ratifying TTP is a huge leg up for China and that TTP, fundamenatlly, was a political tool to keep China from establishing strong trading partnerships in Asia and the Pacific Rim countries.

Supporters of the TTP are waving the red flag of trade wars. From what I'm reading nothing is really going to change in the real world of trade because, markets, being the fundamental regulator, have been doing the regulating for centuries and will continue to do so. I'm not sure I agree with that but it is a strong position from which to argue the economics of international trade.

Regulatory environment, especially as it pertains to Wall Street (Finances). Read a good piece yesterday about this. The perception among the big dogs in this arena is that the good news is that with Trump in office, there won't be any new regulatory initiatives. The general view of the experts here is that the current regulatory environment is slowing economic growth world wide and that assessment has everything to do with Liquidity. Most believe there isn't enough of it. This is a hugely complex concept the details of which bridge a wide range of financial undertakings. Liquidity, some offer, can be improved by deregulating aspects of certain legislation but this is extremely hard to do and not likely to happen.

The ACA: talent is absolutely correct...... a "shit sandwich" for Trump. Repeal and Replace isn't going to happen. How hard he is judged by not being able to do this remains to be seen but you can rest assured that there will be a lot of noise about this from the anti-Trump crowd.

Not enforce and tweak will be possible. My view is that this approach can help decrease the increasingly burdensome and costly (to care provider entities) requirement for administrative compliance/data collection. I also view the concept of Insurance Exchanges that were intended to increase access to care as a complete failure. Not conceptually but as a matter of implementation.

I don't yet understand the nexus between vouchers and access that the Trump people are putting out there. I do think working on how health care insurance is fundamentally made available to users of it, perhaps by creating regulatory uniformity nationally, can help.

The business of the cost of Prescription Drugs, I believe, is closely tied to creating regulatory uniformity in the health care insurance business. That is if I understand the complexities of this issue and I may not.

[froot loops]

He hasn't done anything of note so far. He is not immune to bad press and the politicians on his side now need to look ahead to the 2018 elections, so they will be with him to a point, but if his approval ratings sit in the tank they drop him like a bad habit.

[iam416]

A fair number of D Senators need to look ahead to 2018 and think about how they're going to win re-election in a state that Trump owned big-time.

[froot loops]

Definitely on the Democrats in the Senate. If Trump can get his approval ratings in the high 40s, the GOP will gain in the Senate. But if it stays low like it is now, they will not gain. A lot of the GOP initiatives are not actually that popular, they are great for rolling up the base in opposition but not when you govern.

[Hannibal]

I
As for calling out false narratives, on paper you'd think they should be actually false before you start doing that, and not easily verifiable as true.

Indeed, I wish that Trump and his subordinates would exercise a lot more discretion in the fights that they pick. But utlimately, I was never given a choice between "Candidate that will politely and even-temperedly challenge the Liberal PC orhodoxy" versus "Candidate that will rudely and erratically challenge the Liberal PC orthodoxy". The former is a unicorn that doesn't exist. A combination of free speech suppression by the Left and complete gutlessness on the Right has ensured that. My choice was ""Candidate that will politely acquiesce to the the Liberal PC orhodoxy" versus "Candidate that will rudely and erratically challenge the Liberal PC orthodoxy". As you can tell, I don't regret my choice.

[hack]

Dick Cheney started a war and profited from it. I don't see that as gutless.

[Rocky Bleier]

The Muslim in Chief gave away more money to terrorists on his way out:

https://www.apnews.com/b8446cbf5b504b1abaf49eb0d646367b

Which will be spent in a similar fashion to the billions already given to Iran:

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/07/16/423562391/lifting-sanctions-will-release-100-billion-to-iran-then-what

[Hannibal]

As for "America First", IMO the key here will be the percentage of voters who recognized that the interests of all Americans are not the same. What's good for most isn't good for some.

There's plenty of room for debate there if you guys are willing to participate in it. Feel free at any time to stop with the :-xHITLERFACISMRACISM:-x stuff and try and make some rational arguments about how America's Bush and Obama era immigration policy actually benefits Americans like me.

[iam416]

Meanwhile, Trump is receiving praise from Bernie Sanders and every Union rep with a pulse.