President Donald Trump

[Hodor]

First of all, the insults go both ways in this forum with few exceptions.

Secondly, I'm the biggest liberal in here and I've trolled the other liberals more than any conservative poster.


Nibblenuts, that's actually kinda funny and a hell of a lot less denigrating than some of the other shit casually tossed around by some in here

[cardboardbox]

I've never heard of nibblenuts before yesterday. Made me think of scribblenauts: https://www.scribblenauts.com/scribblenauts/unmasked

[virgonomic]

Check out the video here. It's something else.

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/02/s...dancing-trump/

[Jefe]

I feel that the over-the-top BS Trump pulls on a regular basis—and his obvious "unpresidented" nature—are making it hard to talk about the things that actually matter. Or at least, that matter to me. There are things I'd love to hear informed, intelligent conservative opinions on, but I admit that while my Facebook friends list is pretty split down the middle politically, that's due to my high school and college friends being from Louisiana, and most of my adult friends from Austin. Amongst that Louisiana contingent, there may be one or two people able to discuss policy. But all the rest are pretty much wallowing in the self-righteousness of a tribal win, and answer every concern with "Obama was worse" or "Hillary would've been worse!" Hardly a discourse worth participating in.

The thing is, I think I'd be just as concerned at what's going on in terms of legislative action if Cruz or Pence were president. It'd be nice not having the whole Bannon thing, and maybe the cabinet wouldn't be so blatantly bad in my view (maybe?). But the Conservative agenda in general doesn't seem good for the country to me. And I WAS fairly conservative as recently as W's first term.

Thus I came here.

With the current regime any talk of anti-corruption reform seems to be off the table. Does it bother conservatives that that isn't an issue?

Do you really think tax cuts to the rich are going to stimulate the economy? How do you explain Kansas/Louisiana in that case?

Does the EPA thing not bother you? Is the average conservative really a climate change skeptic?

Do you think that whatever replaces obamacare is likely to be better for a majority of people?

I've been going to Quora for some of this type of discussion. But I knew you guys would be mixing it up.

[Bernie Brewer]

First of all, the insults go both ways in this forum with few exceptions.

Secondly, I'm the biggest liberal in here and I've trolled the other liberals more than any conservative poster.


Nibblenuts, that's actually kinda funny and a hell of a lot less denigrating than some of the other shit casually tossed around by some in here

Actually, truth be told, it was a typo. It was supposed to say nimblenuts, but I'm sure some overly sensitive person could conflate that to mean something it doesn't as well, so...

[cardboardbox]

Actually, truth be told, it was a typo. It was supposed to say nimblenuts, but I'm sure some overly sensitive person could conflate that to mean something it doesn't as well, so...

I'm offended that you'd call someone's nuts nimble! Now where's that safe space...

[cardboardbox]

I feel that the over-the-top BS Trump pulls on a regular basis—and his obvious "unpresidented" nature—are making it hard to talk about the things that actually matter. Or at least, that matter to me. There are things I'd love to hear informed, intelligent conservative opinions on, but I admit that while my Facebook friends list is pretty split down the middle politically, that's due to my high school and college friends being from Louisiana, and most of my adult friends from Austin. Amongst that Louisiana contingent, there may be one or two people able to discuss policy. But all the rest are pretty much wallowing in the self-righteousness of a tribal win, and answer every concern with "Obama was worse" or "Hillary would've been worse!" Hardly a discourse worth participating in.

The thing is, I think I'd be just as concerned at what's going on in terms of legislative action if Cruz or Pence were president. It'd be nice not having the whole Bannon thing, and maybe the cabinet wouldn't be so blatantly bad in my view (maybe?). But the Conservative agenda in general doesn't seem good for the country to me. And I WAS fairly conservative as recently as W's first term.

Thus I came here.

With the current regime any talk of anti-corruption reform seems to be off the table. Does it bother conservatives that that isn't an issue?

Do you really think tax cuts to the rich are going to stimulate the economy? How do you explain Kansas/Louisiana in that case?

Does the EPA thing not bother you? Is the average conservative really a climate change skeptic?

Do you think that whatever replaces obamacare is likely to be better for a majority of people?

I've been going to Quora for some of this type of discussion. But I knew you guys would be mixing it up.

A few random responses...

Quora, amazingly, is further left than this forum. I go there for a good laugh occasionally.

Conservatives mostly love the cabinet, liberals hate it. So at worst, I'm going to say its average.

Hillary would have been worse.

I prefer some form of a flat tax and I dont care if rich people keep more of their money. The economy of the last 6 years hasnt been that great so lets try something better now.

[nots]

I feel that the over-the-top BS Trump pulls on a regular basis—and his obvious "unpresidented" nature—are making it hard to talk about the things that actually matter. Or at least, that matter to me. There are things I'd love to hear informed, intelligent conservative opinions on, but I admit that while my Facebook friends list is pretty split down the middle politically, that's due to my high school and college friends being from Louisiana, and most of my adult friends from Austin. Amongst that Louisiana contingent, there may be one or two people able to discuss policy. But all the rest are pretty much wallowing in the self-righteousness of a tribal win, and answer every concern with "Obama was worse" or "Hillary would've been worse!" Hardly a discourse worth participating in.

The thing is, I think I'd be just as concerned at what's going on in terms of legislative action if Cruz or Pence were president. It'd be nice not having the whole Bannon thing, and maybe the cabinet wouldn't be so blatantly bad in my view (maybe?). But the Conservative agenda in general doesn't seem good for the country to me. And I WAS fairly conservative as recently as W's first term.

Thus I came here.

With the current regime any talk of anti-corruption reform seems to be off the table. Does it bother conservatives that that isn't an issue?

Do you really think tax cuts to the rich are going to stimulate the economy? How do you explain Kansas/Louisiana in that case?

Does the EPA thing not bother you? Is the average conservative really a climate change skeptic?

Do you think that whatever replaces obamacare is likely to be better for a majority of people?

I've been going to Quora for some of this type of discussion. But I knew you guys would be mixing it up.

Let me start by saying that if you are going to Quora to hear the conservative point of view on issues, you are probably fishing in the wrong waters. As for you list of questions--it reads more like statements dressed up as gotcha questions, but in the spirit of Presidents Day, I will play along.
1. I don't recall hearing very much anti-corruption reform during the Bush or Obama administrations as well. I don't know if the lack of discussion bothers me but the amount of corruption in Philadelphia certainly does. Within the last 18 months, 5 legislatures in the Pa Assmebly from Philly have pled guilty to accepting bribes. Rep. Fattah is in jail on corruption charges. The Pa AG is in jail for abusing her power. The Philly DA has announced he won't seek reelection after 'forgetting' to declare $160k of 'gifts' from his 'friends'. Look for charges soon. The Asst.DA announced his candidacy yesterday, despite having outstanding tax liens totaling almost 200k.
2. You seem to conflating two things here. I think most people talk about federal tax rates when they speak of stimulating the economy thru decreases, not what individual states like Kansas and Louisiana have done. A lot of folks like me think the money is being wasted on military items, wars and invasions that aren't necessary and a lot of social programs which have a history of rather middling results so why continue to allow the federal government to take so much of it. But putting aside those arguments, your question lacks depth. I know you would (rightfully) object if I said that tough gun laws don't work because Chicago has the toughest and we'll look at the results. It's just not a very sound argument as there are a lot of other factors at play.
3. I don't know what 'EPA thing' you are referring to. You will have to wait for an actual conservative climate change skeptic to answer the second half of your question--that's not me
4. The GOP has screwed up the politics of Obamacare so badly now and it is going to cost them big time. The program was collapsing under its own weight. Not enough healthy people, high premiums and many insurers dropping out (I think Humana just announced they were done too). It either needs to increase the amount of subsidies, as well as the number of people eligible, or it needs to somehow pay the carriers. Either way, it was going to be an expensive fix and one Dems would have been responsible for. The GOP ran hard on repeal and then repeal and replace so Now they own it and they are either going to have to swallow hard and come up with A LOT of money to save it, or repeal it and kick 20M people to the street. Good luck winning an election picking one of those choices. (I do think allowing carriers to sell across state lines will rearrange the chairs on the Titanic a bit but not enough). All Trump has proposed on this further increases the costs but doesn't provide any benefit to the carriers. He literally has no ideas here.
Happy President's Day!

[Jefe]

Let me start by saying that if you are going to Quora to hear the conservative point of view on issues, you are probably fishing in the wrong waters. As for you list of questions--it reads more like statements dressed up as gotcha questions, but in the spirit of Presidents Day, I will play along.

Point taken. I've just found that often the best answers there are at lease cited. And, thanks! Wasn't trying to play gotcha.

1. I don't recall hearing very much anti-corruption reform during the Bush or Obama administrations as well. I don't know if the lack of discussion bothers me but the amount of corruption in Philadelphia certainly does. Within the last 18 months, 5 legislatures in the Pa Assmebly from Philly have pled guilty to accepting bribes. Rep. Fattah is in jail on corruption charges. The Pa AG is in jail for abusing her power. The Philly DA has announced he won't seek reelection after 'forgetting' to declare $160k of 'gifts' from his 'friends'. Look for charges soon. The Asst.DA announced his candidacy yesterday, despite having outstanding tax liens totaling almost 200k.

You're right -- no one talks about it. (Except Bernie.) Obama did when he campaigned, and then dropped it altogether. My biggest disappointment in him.

2. You seem to conflating two things here. I think most people talk about federal tax rates when they speak of stimulating the economy thru decreases, not what individual states like Kansas and Louisiana have done. A lot of folks like me think the money is being wasted on military items, wars and invasions that aren't necessary and a lot of social programs which have a history of rather middling results so why continue to allow the federal government to take so much of it. But putting aside those arguments, your question lacks depth. I know you would (rightfully) object if I said that tough gun laws don't work because Chicago has the toughest and we'll look at the results. It's just not a very sound argument as there are a lot of other factors at play.

Fair enough. I do think that military spending is out of control... don't hear many conservatives agree with that. I'd kill to have someone just put it all on the table -- we spend too much on military. Social programs need so show ROI or be cut. And here's a better tax code idea that's not based on the trickle-down stuff that's made the system so uneven. How do we help people at all levels benefit from economic growth and not just the rich?

3. I don't know what 'EPA thing' you are referring to. You will have to wait for an actual conservative climate change skeptic to answer the second half of your question--that's not me

Mostly the fact that the guy they put over it, doesn't believe it should exist. The rolling back of some of Obama's clean air stuff, too. It can't all be over regulation or we'd have China's air.

4. The GOP has screwed up the politics of Obamacare so badly now and it is going to cost them big time. The program was collapsing under its own weight. Not enough healthy people, high premiums and many insurers dropping out (I think Humana just announced they were done too). It either needs to increase the amount of subsidies, as well as the number of people eligible, or it needs to somehow pay the carriers. Either way, it was going to be an expensive fix and one Dems would have been responsible for. The GOP ran hard on repeal and then repeal and replace so Now they own it and they are either going to have to swallow hard and come up with A LOT of money to save it, or repeal it and kick 20M people to the street. Good luck winning an election picking one of those choices. (I do think allowing carriers to sell across state lines will rearrange the chairs on the Titanic a bit but not enough). All Trump has proposed on this further increases the costs but doesn't provide any benefit to the carriers. He literally has no ideas here.
Happy President's Day!

Yeah the healthcare thing is a mess. What we have now wasn't ideal, but no one talks about how to stop the price gouging and the bullshit where my insurance co. gets to decide what medicine i can take... and it's hard to find common ground at all if everyone doesn't agree that it should be right not a privilege. I don't know how this can ever turn out good for everyone.

[cardboardbox]

Trump Chooses H.R. McMaster as National Security Adviser

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/us/politics/mcmaster-national-security-adviser-trump.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Sounds like a good pick!

[Sour Masher]

Trump Chooses H.R. McMaster as National Security Adviser

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/us/politics/mcmaster-national-security-adviser-trump.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Sounds like a good pick!

I agree, this seems like a good pick. Certainly better than his last one! Or, any of his others .

I must admit, it is a small glimmer of hope in the darkness that has been his presidency to date that Trump was willing to listen to the many people who encouraged him to make this pick of a well respected leader who by all accounts is a free-thinker, and not a toady to Trump.

[DMT]

Agreed, McMaster seems like a solid pick.

[Sour Masher]

I wonder if Trump will threaten CPAC like he threatened Berkeley, now that CPAC has retracted their invitation for Milo in the wake of him defending pedophilia on video. Will this be enough to get him dismissed as senior editor and marquee contributor to Breitbart? Maybe this is what will finally make this guy sink back into the muck from which he came.

Since some are choosing to defend his similar comments on Joe Rogen's show and other places (he apparently has made a lot of similar comments), I'll link to the version of these comments that got him in the most trouble, as it is harder for folks to come to a defense for this version of them (although folks like Alex Jones have, saying it is all a conspiracy against poor Milo): https://twitter.com/ReaganBattalion/...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

Personally, his comments on Rogen's show, especially the bit when he talks about Hollywood parties he attended where VERY, VERY young boys (his emphasis, and based on his defense of having relations with 13-14 year olds as not being too young, I imagine he must mean even younger than that) were drugged and used for sex, were even more disturbing to me, because he felt it would be in poor taste to name names of who attended such parties, and what crimes they committed.

[Sour Masher]

I've read a few times over the last month or so about how there has been a ground-swell of anti-vaccine support since Trump got elected. Groups are pointing to Trump's skepticism of vaccinces, and Robert Kennedy Jr., a noted anti-vaccine advocate, to lead a commision on vaccine safety (I hope it isn't true, but here is a link to the story and video where Kennedy claims it is: https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.0f53eede0554

Anyway, I thought of it, because I just got a warning flyer at my university of a potential mumps outbreak. We have three students who have it so far. I fear more of this is on the way as more parents decide not to vaccinate, and the worst part is that as this becomes more widespread, it puts everyone at risk, not just those who are not vaccinated, because the vaccines are not a perfect defense, and eradication relies both on individual vaccination, as well as the statistical protection universal vaccination provides: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...-unvaccinated/

Until Trump, I would have labeled anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists as generally a left-wing bit of insanity (perhaps the only anti-science stance that I think has more left wing than right wing supporters?). In any event, having a sitting president validate these unfounded beliefs has the potential to do a lot of harm. Here is a link to one of the articles I've seen talking about how being able to evoke Trump's stance on this is invigorating anti-vaccine movements in places like Texas: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...a4U?li=BBnb7Kz

[Hornsby]

I wonder if Trump will threaten CPAC like he threatened Berkeley, now that CPAC has retracted their invitation for Milo in the wake of him defending pedophilia on video. Will this be enough to get him dismissed as senior editor and marquee contributor to Breitbart? Maybe this is what will finally make this guy sink back into the muck from which he came.

Since some are choosing to defend his similar comments on Joe Rogen's show and other places (he apparently has made a lot of similar comments), I'll link to the version of these comments that got him in the most trouble, as it is harder for folks to come to a defense for this version of them (although folks like Alex Jones have, saying it is all a conspiracy against poor Milo): https://twitter.com/ReaganBattalion/...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

Personally, his comments on Rogen's show, especially the bit when he talks about Hollywood parties he attended where VERY, VERY young boys (his emphasis, and based on his defense of having relations with 13-14 year olds as not being too young, I imagine he must mean even younger than that) were drugged and used for sex, were even more disturbing to me, because he felt it would be in poor taste to name names of who attended such parties, and what crimes they committed.

Milo flew a little too close to the sun, and paid the price. He lost his book deal as well as his role as a speaker at CPAC, and he'll soon fade into obscurity as just another curious footnote in history. The funny, as in sad thing, is that his views were out there in the public for all to see. He had interviews pretty widely dispersed on the internet, YouTube and the like, and the Rogan podcast is pretty widely viewed...so it likely didn't come as a surprise to people who knew him, and followed him. I suspect that Breitbart will be next thing to go, pedophilia and pederasty is pretty damn hard to defend. Another bad guy consigned to the trash heap of history.

Sadly there were close to a dozen threats called in to Jewish schools and community centers yesterday, and many tombstones were tipped over at a cemetery in Missouri. Ivanka Trump called for religious tolerance, her Father, the President was silent.