@Frederick:

Trump has not taken credit for it.

I don't know what rock you live under, but Trump has been working night and day, 7 days a week on the economy and healthcare.  People with memories will know that immediately after Trump was elected, the economy rebounded.   Companies started returning and investing in the USA before he was even inaugurated.  Trump has already got a replacement for Obamacare past the House and is now in the Senate.  Trump has his budget already submitted.  That is stimulating the economy.

I didn't say he had, I said he will.

And curious how many of these 24/7 hours of working include golfing at Mar-a-Lago? Or traveling to have campaign rallies?

Not that I'm surprised, Trump voters voted for him because they didn't understand how the economy works. Remember when Trump said the dollar was too strong? It weakened…for about 48 hours.

So explain to me how vaporlegislation has impacted the economy? The bottom line is the bottom line, companies will continue to operate in their best interest until regulations change. It's incredibly hard to explain to your investors that you made a decision based on something you think will happen considering the administration wasted its first 100 days.

The healthcare bill, despite passing the house, will be a disaster for the 14 million jobs created under the ACA. It effectively outprices consumers meaning less demand (not more) for healthcare. This will quickly liquidate many of those 14 million jobs when 20 million+ lose health insurance over the next 10 years plus.

The approved budget doesn't even go to the end of this year.

For extra reading materials:  https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-presidents-economic-decisions-matter-eventually/

It takes time for reforms and changes to take effect on the economy unless there's a major war somewhere. Most Presidents have to deal with the previous administration's economic policy decisions for most of their first term if not all of it assuming they make no changes to the laws and regulations. The old rule of thumb in economics class was, "The current President gets the economic results of the last President (assuming just 4 years)"

If Trump is still in office for a second term, you will begin to see what his policies have done to the economy at the end of his first term.

Trump can't take responsibility for this (even though he will).

He has enacted no legislation or otherwise to improve the economy. No tax reforms. No new healthcare changes (affects 14 million jobs) etc. The momentum for improved employment has been in place for years before his inauguration. We've yet to see his plans for the economy.

Out of curiosity, what exactly has Trump done that would lead anyone to believe he's responsible for that since he's been in office 5 months with nothing to show for it save Gorsuch?

I believe the graph below from the Bureau of Labor Statistics makes the trend, and its origination, quite clear.

The question of true conservatism versus what has been hijacked by fringe elements like white nationalists, neo-nazis, and the alt-right is important. And trust me, the hijacking of American conservatism was swift and met with the most tepid useless resistance I can find in recent memory. This further serves to muddy the waters of what conservatism is. Has Paul Ryan outright rejected this movement in word and deed? Not really. He'll release a statement now and again when the pressure is high enough to talk about his opinion. Sarah Palin? Hell no, she practically blasted the doors open herself. McCain? Nah, hates Trump but delighted to get a Supreme Court Justice in there. I mean, win 1, lose 47, that evens out, right? Ivanka? Not hardly, cash is cash.

Most of the Republicans are delighted they are in control of all three branches of government in the US at nearly any cost. Many worked in concert after Trump's nomination to get him elected so they could clear the path for their own agenda. History isn't going to look kindly on this. And for those that have fought against the new rise of fascism (looking right at Ana Navarro) most of the others have just…looked the other way.

This complicit nature makes you feel (correctly or not) that the whole of conservatism is on board, even if behind closed doors they wring their hands in terror. Does this literally increase their numbers? Well, depends on how you view the complicit nature. If I disagree with you but I let you have your way, I can still say my ideals and nature are counter to yours but does it matter anymore?

It's a political tool to use fringe elements to your advantage. Conservatives have been faced with a progressive agenda for a long time and by embracing, or at least not rejecting, the fringe elements, they consolidate power and increase the likelihood they will get the votes they need. As it was mentioned here, ultimately more people in the US vote progressive than conservative. Even if you look at popular votes for the years of congressional voting, more people vote democrat at a national level. And that's largely because population centers tend to vote liberal, like NYC and California in recent elections. Smaller population areas in the middle tend to vote conservative. California beats the next largest, Texas, by 12 million people. Conservatives need these fringe elements and the power to draw districts to guarantee their place in government as the demographics shift (the comment about millennials is correct, although it may not mean much, as people age they tend to become less liberal and what may be today's liberal could be considered tomorrows ultra conservative. It's a moving target just like politcal party platforms).

*Coincidentally the left has a fringe element in the US cultivated by Bernie Sanders and it was not effectively harnessed for votes as the Republicans did their fringe. I personally view them as the other side of the extremist coin. Equally unrealistic and driven by emotion rather than facts, I'm hopeful the larger middle majority stays intact.

I don't think looking at the people of this forum is a large enough sample, it's certainly a narrow demographic.

And I'm not convinced everyone here is really giving their opinion or just trolling. Although some of the trolls have a load of internalized self-hate it feels like some days. Happily furthering the agenda of people that would love to see you dead/imprisoned/silenced/etc. speaks to a deeper problem…but I digress.

I'm also not sure it's real conservatism or fascism/reactionary politics. When things go poorly for someone, or at least they feel like it's going poorly, they seek reasons for it. And they don't often blame their self. Since the dawn of time people have relied on placing the blame with a less popular group or at least a more comfortable target. The current remaking of racists and bigots to something more palatable called the "alt-right" is less about conservatism and more about muddying the waters of hate groups so they can more easily blend in with classic conservatism I think.

Recent events, at least in the US, has taken a group that has always been around and energized them, given them a voice and shoved them into the limelight. And since the internet has no gatekeeper, they can bang around as much as they like to make it sound like 400 when there's really 40.

The problem is it really only takes one to make things miserable for others if they're given enough power.

@raphjd:

@remydrh:

No, that's not what they meant, what they mean is, that to most people, "gay" is seen as a collective thing with specific traits. That you have to be in the hive according to society's explanation. But that Tiel rejects that expectation.

Sorry, but being gay is nothing more than same sex attraction.

sigh Sorry about what? They're describing the current condition, not that either they or you agree with it. In fact, you make the same point, that gay means same-sex attraction. But that Thiel's detractors conflate gay with behavior and that's not historically true.

You're agreeing with the article on The Advocate without realizing it.

The article explains that the demarcation between being "gay" and having same-sex desire is a societal claim. So people claiming "gay" requires Thiel be on board with all the political leanings of gays buy into the recent societal prescription. But that this label in itself is meaningless to the origins of the term and only recently used as a definition that includes behavior outside of same-sex attraction.

But to many people, if you don't wear "assless chaps and dance" you don't meet the new definition of gay. Or least not gay "enough". The article makes it clear that's just a new definition people have made up. So the Advocate is actually describing the "why" of Thiel's detractors, they make no claim to define who is and isn't really gay.

@raphjd:

Obama-care is anti-male sexist.

Unlike every other form of insurance, Obama-care charges everyone the same amount regardless of need or want.    Women use a lot more health care than men do, yet both are charged the same amount.

Until all insurance goes gender blind, then this is discriminatory.

The EU went gender blind because women got butt hurt about having to pay more on certain types of insurance, but then had a hissy fit because other types of insurance went up to match male insurance costs.

Um, isn't charging the same amount regardless of gender part of being gender blind? Or is this sarcasm?

If all the sexes are equal, then equal cost makes it gender-blind. You end up paying part of the costs you need instead of an up-front increase based on having a vagina.

For example, Your doctor visits all cost the same. Your premiums cost the same. Your deductible is the same, etc. And when it comes time to deliver a baby, those associated costs (deducible, etc) are also paid, so in that way, as a woman with extra medical needs, you're covering your part without paying more for everything. Just the parts that are specific.

@aadam101:

The whole argument over capping medical malpractice lawsuits is bogus.  Texas capped their lawsuits and it had no impact on the cost of healthcare.  When poor people sue for malpractice the lawyers often take it on a contingency.  If the lawsuit is capped lawyers aren't going to be as willing to take these cases and poor people won't have the resources to sue.

Capping these lawsuits is just a way to protect the 1% so I'm sure it will be at the top of the Republicans agenda.  To hell with everybody else…..

This is typically referred to as tort reform.

I have a conflict here. For one, yes, Americans like to sue all the time, anytime, and often for way more than they deserve.

However, without the ability to hold people accountable and in significant ways, there's no way to reduce the recurrence. If I can take you for $1000 and get a slap on the wrist, I'll probably do it again.

As for the ACA, everyone will, at some point, need to use healthcare. So it makes sense to pay into the system as a requirement. On top of this, you benefit in a few significant ways:

1. Just like buying in bulk, the more people paying into an insurance the pool, the cheaper it gets.
2. The cost of stage 1 cancer is less burden on the paying public than stage 5 with no insurance. The incentive to go to the doctor is higher sooner when you're feeling ill.
3. Having a healthy population means less disease being spread (cost), more people in the workforce (output), people working longer (in a lifetime, increasing available experience), and improved economic output overall.
4. You were already paying for the uninsured in increased costs. This is the part that galls me the most. When you go to the ER without insurance, SOMEONE pays for it. So effectively everyone was paying for this in some form anyway. So paying the up-front costs of having insurance was probably a huge bargain.
5. The "Death Panel" conversation was the opposite of reality. Previously you had a lifetime benefits cap. With the ACA there is no lifetime cap. If you have a terminal disease and live longer than expected, your healthcare cannot be cut off. You can continue to receive care as long as you live. I was so pissed at this "Death Panel" shit circulating. Without the law you…will...die...from a terminal disease when your limit is up (unless you're filthy rich).

Repealing this law will cost lives, without any question people will die without timely care, affordable care, or preventative medicine. The message from Republicans is clear: "Once you're out of the womb, good fucking luck."

@raphjd:

Sooooooooo, the Advocate is advocating what I have been saying for ages.   Being "gay" is a hive mind thing.   I guess I have to turn in my "gay" membership card then.

We fought for the right to be different, but Generation Special Snowflake has decided that "different" is evil when it comes to the hive mind.

No, that's not what they meant, what they mean is, that to most people, "gay" is seen as a collective thing with specific traits. That you have to be in the hive according to society's explanation. But that Tiel rejects that expectation.

So they aren't making a judgment call. They're just saying you can be whatever you want without fitting into the gay "mold" or the hive mind as you put it. Because "gay" is a label, not a real thing. Rather than attack Thiel's position, they're explaining his mindset: I can love men without being "gay" and this is why he also rejects the usual political activism. They're doing the opposite of what Breitbart claims, they're attempting to explain why Thiel can be so contrary to what people would expect from a "gay".

Is he "gay" by the usual definition? No.
Is the gay definition meaningful? Only as a societal construct to lump people together. It's a term used for this that's probably less than 100 years old. (Anyone else remember the Flintstones having a gay ole time?)
Are there people outside that construct that reject it? Well obviously.
So why is Thiel so hostile to gay political goals? Because he doesn't identify as "gay" in the accepted definition.

@raphjd

Your better chance, if either you or your husband's industries are on the needed skills list, or you're management, is to find a UK company with US offices. There is an inter-office visa that allows the company to transfer you to the US without running a lottery.

This is the L1 visa for the employee and the L2 for the spouse. You cannot do this for the express purpose of becoming a citizen or permanent immigration (meaning you can't make that statement of fact, it's just for the job man!)

Caveat: You do not build time for citizenship. You can apply for a green card eventually.