The Trump Presidency

[twik]

I think he deeply believed that Trump was the right choice for the nation. However, my personal opinion is that he glossed over Trump's anti-science stance, which has become more apparent (at least in my eyes). I wonder if Trump's supporters in the scientific fields have been able to reconcile themselves with this.

[Glom]

It's okay, Germany. Wir werden dein Freund sein.

[Zakalwe]

http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/03/17/trump-just-refused-shake-hands-germanys-angela-merkel-video/

[Obviousman]

I don't understand what is going on.

Sure, big improvements are going to take time: dropping the unemployment rate, boosting the economy, etc... we won't see any improvement for a while.

The way President Trump is behaving, though.... what is going on? Sure, he's different and won't be the same as others, but the tweets, his comments regarding other nations, the claims he makes... they are completely detrimental to himself, his Administration and the US in general.

This is not just things a 'radical' would do when trying to 'clean up the swamp'. These are things I simply cannot explain.

It's as if he was deliberately trying to bring himself into disrepute.

[nomuse]

Sigh. And here I was hoping for a replay of the Thatcher/Palin meeting (that wasn't).

[gillianren]

I think he deeply believed that Trump was the right choice for the nation. However, my personal opinion is that he glossed over Trump's anti-science stance, which has become more apparent (at least in my eyes). I wonder if Trump's supporters in the scientific fields have been able to reconcile themselves with this.

I just literally don't understand how an intelligent person could have missed not only Trump's anti-science stance but his genuine incompetence.  Or the fact that his proposed policies are nightmarish.  The claim that there's no evidence that feeding poor children "works"?  Even if you needed the excuse to make sure that poor children don't go hungry, that's flatly wrong.  Every study done shows that the most effective way to improve children's performance in school is to feed them.

[twik]

Many people so strongly object to paying taxes beyond the bare minimum that they may overlook the faults of candidates who promise to lower them.

However, this is an odd stance for a supporter of NASA and state-sponsored (that is, taxpayer supported) science. When government costs are cut, we see things without immediate tangible benefits being the first on the chopping block.

[gillianren]

Such as feeding poor children, yes.  Or, apparently, educating them--goodbye, Corporation for Public Broadcasting!

[JayUtah]

Every study done shows that the most effective way to improve children's performance in school is to feed them.

Indeed, but I look at that program at a more basic level.  Trying to correlate children's performance in school with food programs certainly has value.  But for me the program shows results when kids don't go hungry.  You can feed hungry kids in the hopes of boosting their performance in school.  But you can also feed hungry kids because it's the right thing to do.  You succeed when there are fewer hungry kids.  That's how you measure the success of the program.

[gillianren]

Oh, definitely.  I don't disagree with the idea of just feeding all school kids, regardless of their income status.  But if you're not going to do it for compassionate reasons, there at least is a practical one.

[Peter B]

Every study done shows that the most effective way to improve children's performance in school is to feed them.

Indeed, but I look at that program at a more basic level.  Trying to correlate children's performance in school with food programs certainly has value.  But for me the program shows results when kids don't go hungry.  You can feed hungry kids in the hopes of boosting their performance in school.  But you can also feed hungry kids because it's the right thing to do.  You succeed when there are fewer hungry kids.  That's how you measure the success of the program.

And anyone cutting such a program no doubt agrees with you.

In the vernacular of the Australian Parliament, "The honourable member for Salt Lake City knows that no one recognises the value and importance of such a program more than me. But due to the fiscal black hole left to us by the previous government, the members on the opposite side of the chamber surely understand that we've had to make some tough decisions to help bring the budget back into surplus."

[gillianren]

Cutting these programs isn't helping the budget given the incredible increase the administration wants to give defense spending.  Or even just the cost of supporting the First Lady in her residence in New York.  I agree that it's best for their kid if he stays in his school at least through the end of the school year; continuity is good for a kid.  But if tough sacrifices are being made, maybe start there?

[JayUtah]

Cutting these programs isn't helping the budget given the incredible increase the administration wants to give defense spending.

Indeed, the programs the President wants to eliminate have, in general, miniscule budgets compared even to the incidental costs of maintaining the opulent lifestyle of the First Family.  When transitioning from a liberal to a conservative government, it is common and expected to eliminate discretionary spending.  However, the programs in question have had bipartisan support in some cases for many decades.  While their budgets grow and shrink according to the preferences of the party in power, they have never been slated for wholesale elimination.  Thus the present budget recommendation is being viewed as more of a political statement than a plan for fiscal responsibility.

The proposed increase in defense spending is incongruous with the President's campaign promise to ask U.S. allies to shoulder more of the cost of coalition actions worldwide.  Among all the topics that could arise in this thread, military policy is likely to be the most contentious.  There are wide and deeply felt rifts in belief over what military action should be taken in what circumstances, by whom, and how paid for.  Whether it's true or not, Trump's campaign rhetoric was that America has been paying too much for the world's defense.  Then it gets harder to ask for more defense spending.

[gillianren]

Some 70% of Americans believe in government funding of PBS.  It's less than a percent of the federal government.  Barely a hundredth of a percent, in fact.

[Glom]

I made it. Had some extra questions about past travels at the booth and they thought I might have to show my visa to secondary people but after checking said it wasn't necessary. And most significantly, the officer was really nice about it. Got through quickly enough to have to stand around waiting for baggage.