U.S. Politics, Elections & Culture issues

[Gocka]

I agree with him on border security, although not in the bombastic way he describes it, but it is important for a country to have defined borders and control of them

I agree with him on taxation, the current tax code is overly complicated and the high tax rates for wealthier people don't make up for the fact that the overall tax code still heavily benefits corporations or people who are executives of them. It would be beneficial to both growth and fairness if 1, we could all understand who actually pays what, 2, the overall tax burden was lower.

I agree with him on infrastructure. It is embarrassingly outdated.

I agree about his America first policy, although I think the reasons America does some things externally is really for America's benefit, he seems to think that things such as NATO are really for the benefit of everyone else, when in reality there is a reason America heavily subsidizes such a union.

I disagree on healthcare, vehemently. I think the only viable system is a government mandated and public funded system, still with a private sector, but at a minimum there should be a public option. I think he may believe this too, but again being a fart in the wind as someone said, he is now a free marketer it seems.

I disagree partially on immigration. Many of his supporters look at immigration as a purely racial and cultural issue of us and them. I do agree that immigration needs to be better controlled, but welcome even more immigration than is currently LEGALLY allowed. Too many people are ignorant to the fact that there is a reason we have let poor uneducated South Americans in the country so easily, the country needs them. It actually makes the standard of living better for legal residents and citizens. Supermarket prices would triple if every illegal alien was suddenly deported. A third of Americans already hardly afford their own food. America needs to implement a Canadian immigration model, where its hard to get in unless your invited, but very easy to come if they decided they have a need for you or your trade.

I disagree with him partially on regulation. I think regulations are too tough on small businesses, I see that with my own business. With my background in accounting, finance, and business in general, I would be totally in over my head. Large corporations already have too much influence and lawyers, in my opinion they should be on a very tight leash and face stiff penalties for breaking the rules.

I disagree with his energy policy. This idea that IF we are not sure that humans are responsible for ruining the earth , then we shouldn't act until we are sure, is the most selfish argument I've ever heard. There is enough evidence to take climate change seriously, and take measures even if they are only precautionary. We are okay with wasting trillions on fighter jets and bombs that go unused for a decade than we have to be billions again to dispose of them. But we are not okay with potentially wasting money to attempt to potentially save the earth from destruction. I would gladly pay for that insurance policy even if we are wrong and never needed it. On top of that, regardless of climate change I believe our air and water should be clean, and nature preserved.

I'm sure there are many more issues but those are some of the ones that are hot right now.

You mentioned earlier that there were many of his (purported) policies that you don't disagree with. Which policies were you referring to?

By the way, I am going to move the discussion relating to Trump to another thread.

[Risto the Great]

Gocka, I think you might prefer Australia mate.

[Vangelovski]

Gocka, I think you might prefer Australia mate.

RtG, what's your honest opinion of regulation in Australia? I mean more broadly - not just regulation on business.

[Phoenix]

...I agree with him on taxation, the current tax code is overly complicated and the high tax rates for wealthier people don't make up for the fact that the overall tax code still heavily benefits corporations or people who are executives of them. It would be beneficial to both growth and fairness if 1, we could all understand who actually pays what, 2, the overall tax burden was lower.

I'm not sure if the puritan capitalist model that is the foundation of America has the room to accomodate any notion of a tax system that is 'fair'.
Taxation by it's very nature is the system of choice to fund community and social programs that aim to level out the inequities in the system...that then becomes a more socialist orientated political model, something that runs contra to what American stands for...but good luck anyway.

I agree with him on infrastructure. It is embarrassingly outdated.

The advanced western economies have struggled with the global recession/downturn of the recent decade and have missed the bus, so to speak, to borrow big and invest in infrastructure improvement and development that may have aided economic recovery. Here in Australia, we've been particularly guilty on this point...

I agree about his America first policy, although I think the reasons America does some things externally is really for America's benefit, he seems to think that things such as NATO are really for the benefit of everyone else, when in reality there is a reason America heavily subsidizes such a union.

What exactly is the purpose of NATO...?

I disagree on healthcare, vehemently. I think the only viable system is a government mandated and public funded system, still with a private sector, but at a minimum there should be a public option. I think he may believe this too, but again being a fart in the wind as someone said, he is now a free marketer it seems.

A universal healthcare system doesn't come cheap, regardless of who pays for it but it won't get off the ground without large scale government funding and to do that means much higher taxes and that just doesn't sit well with the top end of town in America.

I disagree partially on immigration. Many of his supporters look at immigration as a purely racial and cultural issue of us and them. I do agree that immigration needs to be better controlled, but welcome even more immigration than is currently LEGALLY allowed. Too many people are ignorant to the fact that there is a reason we have let poor uneducated South Americans in the country so easily, the country needs them. It actually makes the standard of living better for legal residents and citizens. Supermarket prices would triple if every illegal alien was suddenly deported. A third of Americans already hardly afford their own food. America needs to implement a Canadian immigration model, where its hard to get in unless your invited, but very easy to come if they decided they have a need for you or your trade.

This is the most interesting of all the debates and policy stands, this is the one issue that is most comparable to the Australian experience.
It's quite amusing when we consider that both the USA and Australia are 'new world' countries (for want of a better term and with total respect to the Indigenous peoples of both places) that have been built on the back of massive waves of immigration.
It's naive to discount the immense benefits that diversity has added to the national fabric of both countries.
Or to disregard the potential for renewal and growth that can be achieved only through immigration policy.

I disagree with his energy policy. This idea that IF we are not sure that humans are responsible for ruining the earth , then we shouldn't act until we are sure, is the most selfish argument I've ever heard. There is enough evidence to take climate change seriously, and take measures even if they are only precautionary. We are okay with wasting trillions on fighter jets and bombs that go unused for a decade than we have to be billions again to dispose of them. But we are not okay with potentially wasting money to attempt to potentially save the earth from destruction. I would gladly pay for that insurance policy even if we are wrong and never needed it. On top of that, regardless of climate change I believe our air and water should be clean, and nature preserved.

Here is the ultimate topic of infrastructure renewal, advanced technology, economic growth, consumer spending, extra government revenue and the ability to fund more social programs all rolled into the one policy...but lets keep our medieval industries grinding down the planet, just to keep a small group of energy barons filthy rich...

And BTW...climate change is intimately connected to our ability to access clean air and water and to preserve our environment.

[Risto the Great]

RtG, what's your honest opinion of regulation in Australia? I mean more broadly - not just regulation on business.

We are over-taxed as individuals.
We can whinge about over-regulation, but it is far worse in Europe (and probably USA).
Any country that has less regulation seems to be simply less developed and not the kind of country most would choose to raise a family and create a life in.

It isn't perfect, but it is better than most.

[Phoenix]

We can whinge about over-regulation, but it is far worse in Europe (and probably USA).
Any country that has less regulation seems to be simply less developed and not the kind of country most would choose to raise a family and create a life in.

It isn't perfect, but it is better than most.

I see regulations as having two primary roles:

One role is a type of compliance function to keep people safe or to adhere to certain community expectations regarding obligations and responsibilities.

Running parallel with the above function is the role of job creation, each new 'regulation' imposed on a business or on society in the broader context will require people to enforce, monitor, review or directly collect payments, fines and taxes...it will also require various degrees of additional training, administrative costs, compliance overheads and other tasks associated with the full implementation and adherence to the particular regulation.

It's a very easy way for governments to create jobs.

[Vangelovski]

I see regulations as having two primary roles:

One role is a type of compliance function to keep people safe or to adhere to certain community expectations regarding obligations and responsibilities.

Running parallel with the above function is the role of job creation, each new 'regulation' imposed on a business or on society in the broader context will require people to enforce, monitor, review or directly collect payments, fines and taxes...it will also require various degrees of additional training, administrative costs, compliance overheads and other tasks associated with the full implementation and adherence to the particular regulation.

It's a very easy way for governments to create jobs.

How's any of that a good thing?

[Phoenix]

How's any of that a good thing?

I think the creation of some regulations is a very good thing.
As an example: workplace health and safety and it's compliance.
I strongly believe that all people in the community need to be protected against unscrupulous business owners and work practices that can endanger human life and/or the environment.

I totally disagree with regulations being the front to create another layer of expense that exists between the consumer and the goods or services he's trying to access.

I'll give you an example of this...there's a few massive housing estates being built in the outer suburbs of my city and the property developer has deemed it aesthetically inappropriate for new homes to have a tv antenna on the roof of the houses, all such services underground (NBN, tv, phone, etc)...this means that when it's time to move in, the new home owner has to fork out another $500 to some third-party, pack of thieving cunts that has the tech services contract for the estate to 'flick a switch' so you can watch 'free-to-air' programs on your tv...that's a fuckin' scam...and there's a million stories out there, just like that one...

[Soldier of Macedon]

I disagree partially on immigration. Many of his supporters look at immigration as a purely racial and cultural issue of us and them.

.....this is the one issue that is most comparable to the Australian experience. It's quite amusing when we consider that both the USA and Australia are 'new world' countries......

Leaving the economic and political implications aside, do you guys feel that 'new world' countries should (or shouldn't) take cultural preservation into the equation when considering immigration?

[Vangelovski]

I think the creation of some regulations is a very good thing.
As an example: workplace health and safety and it's compliance.
I strongly believe that all people in the community need to be protected against unscrupulous business owners and work practices that can endanger human life and/or the environment.

You're right, RtG has gotten way out of hand.

I totally disagree with regulations being the front to create another layer of expense that exists between the consumer and the goods or services he's trying to access.

I'll give you an example of this...there's a few massive housing estates being built in the outer suburbs of my city and the property developer has deemed it aesthetically inappropriate for new homes to have a tv antenna on the roof of the houses, all such services underground (NBN, tv, phone, etc)...this means that when it's time to move in, the new home owner has to fork out another $500 to some third-party, pack of thieving cunts that has the tech services contract for the estate to 'flick a switch' so you can watch 'free-to-air' programs on your tv...that's a fuckin' scam...and there's a million stories out there, just like that one...

That's probably not the government's fault...or is the developer claiming there's a rule against antenna's?

[Vangelovski]

Leaving the economic and political implications aside, do you guys feel that 'new world' countries should (or shouldn't) take cultural preservation into the equation when considering immigration?

That's a good question. The 'new world' is 'new' relative to some other parts of the world. But these countries are old enough to have established their own identity, cultural characteristics, and effective and irreversible control over their respective states. I think citizens of a given state are more than justified in controlling immigration to their countries and taking into consideration the protection of their culture and legal/political institutions when doing so.

But I think its also a hypocritical distinction. Central and South America, for example, are just as 'new world' as Australia, Canada and the US and no one demands the same from them.

[Bill77]

there is a reason we have let poor uneducated South Americans in the country so easily, the country needs them.

Just like in the 17th century, when America turned to African slaves as a cheaper, more plentiful labor source. Democrats never change.

A third of Americans already hardly afford their own food.

That's because a third of of the labor force is occupied by South Americans who are cheaper, more plentiful labor source.

Build the wall! .......Build the wall!....... Build the Wall!

[Tomche Makedonche]

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/trump-s-presidency-keeps-us-balkan-policy-unchanged-05-30-2017

Trump’s Presidency Keeps US Balkan Policy Unchanged

While many expected US foreign policy to undergo some U-turns under Trump, his lack of engagement in international affairs – with a few exceptions – seems to mean Washington’s role in the Balkans is tantamount to “leading from behind"

Since US President Donald Trump’s election, the country’s foreign policy has been in disarray. With his erratic statements, dismissive attitude towards NATO and other traditional allies, open disdain for the EU and preference for autocrats, the level of geopolitical uncertainty has been higher than with any incoming US president for decades.

The US State Department still lacks key appointments, including the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, a post that Victoria Nuland held during the Obama Administration.

In this void of no discernible Balkan policy from the Trump administration, controversial statements by congressmen have gained more weight, such as a claim by Dana Rohrabacher from the House of Representatives that Macedonia is not a country or Rand Paul in the Senate opposing Montenegrin NATO membership. Finally, two letters penned by conservative congressmen questioned the use of US AID assistance through Open Society network projects.

Macedonia subsequently raised the important question of whether these forays reflected the administration’s actual policies or had just been the product of lobbying efforts.

A number of articles also were published by people considering themselves Balkan experts, who argued for a redrawing of boundaries, such as Timothy Less in Foreign Affairs and John Schindler writing for Jared Kushners old newspaper, the Observer.

Recent weeks seem to have put these initial worries to rest.

First, the Senate backed Montenegrin NATO membership 97 to 2, a clear and overwhelming majority, despite considerable (and still murky) efforts by Russia to derail the process.

Afterwards in rapid succession, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Hoyt Yee visited the Balkans and made rapid progress.

His visit was crucial in “convincing” Macedonian President Ivanov to give opposition leader and representative of the parliamentary majority a mandate in forming a government after months of dithering.

Furthermore, he also helped broker an agreement in Albania where the opposition Democratic Party had threatened to boycott the upcoming elections.

Thus, even with a president of unclear commitment to NATO, the Euro-Atlantic Alliance, even after his visit to Brussels, the US has been more effective than the EU.

Despite a series of high-level visits to Macedonia, including Donald Tusk, Federica Mogherini and Johannes Hahn, none of these efforts resulted in any resolution of the crisis and President Ivanov even refused to meet enlargement commissioner Hahn.

So has the US regained its clout and direction?

The recent successes are largely suggest that US policy in the Balkans will continue as it has been under the Obama administration, largely described as “leading from behind”, meaning supporting EU policy in the region and preventing crises and supporting the overall reform effort.

The hope of some in the region that the Trump administration would shift policy was never more than a pipe-dream.

Trump is clearly not interested in foreign policy and when he is, it is limited to larger questions of direct importance for the US.

Disinterest, if in doubt supports the status quo and the work of the professionals. The appointment of the missing links in the State Department between the Secretary of State and the professional diplomats is unlikely to lead to a strategic shift for the Balkan policy.

The role of Russia in the region as a power that opportunistically supports the erosion of the regions Euro-Atlantic integration has been crucial in triggering recent US engagement.

While the president has an ambiguous role with Russia, to be put it mildly, Congress and the State Department have been clearly seeing Russian intervention as a threat.

In particular the Russian involvement in Montenegro, unclear as it is, has drawn US attention, as has the vocal Russian support for the outgoing Macedonian government led by Nikola Gruevski.

Of course, the status quo also does not mean that the US administration is likely to find renewed energy to help tackle the problem of stabilitocracy in the region and the rise of autocratic strong men.

The current administration lacks the interested and endurance to pursue any new policies, but at least it seems unlikely to abandon previous one.

Furthermore, the willingness to be blunter than its European counterparts and also to use sticks when the EU is limited, such as against Milorad Dodik, can help. [The US Treasury has sanctioned President of Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik, for obstructing Dayton Agreement in January.]

Mostly, the effect of US mediation and pressure in Albania and Macedonia reveals the weakness of the EU.

Considering the prominent role of the EU in the region, the high-level visits to Albania and Macedonia, it should have been the EU and not a professional diplomat form a distant US to resolve the crisis.

While it is easy to mock Trump and the US and take a moral high ground, especially after the French presidential elections, the leverage of the EU has reached a low point in the Western Balkans.

Thus, the real lesson of recent US policy in the Balkans is for the EU: How to become relevant again and make the recent breakthroughs sustainable?

Without a renewed EU perspective, the incoming Macedonia government will have a hard time to keep on track and without further EU involvement in Albania the deal will sooner or later disintegrate again.

Getting the reforms going again and moving to a positive dynamic will require a renewed US-EU engagement and greater coordination between the two, irrespective of president Trump.

[Soldier of Macedon]

The hope of some in the region that the Trump administration would shift policy was never more than a pipe-dream.

Oh well, (if that's really the case) then I guess it's too bad for this moron.

[Bill77]

They bash Hillary and the liberals ...... But unfortunately they use Macedonians as the club Still funny nonetheless. Watch till the end it only lasts just over 4 minutes..... I did laugh a little at the final comments.

MACEDONIPHOBIA!
Mark Steyn joined Tucker Carlson on Fox News to discuss Hillary's latest, somewhat complicated explanation as to how the hell she managed to lose to Donald Trump. Sinister Macedonians were involved. Click below

https://youtu.be/nSkXfw5MGAY