Just wanted to make that clear so the topic doesn't derail every thread.
That said, biases don't preclude a regard for reality, reason or truth.
Here are some things I don't like about Trump (and others who advocate the same, D/R aside):
-Treatment of ISIS/ISIL as an enemy fit to go to war against. ISIS isn't a nation and we shouldn't go to war against them. I believe that doing so is not only a strategic quagmire, but it also ultimately emboldens them. I was appalled when I saw that picture of the little girl killed in Trump's raid. If not for her and whatever family she has left, it's disgusting because it's obviously the first of many innocents to die under this new leadership. I'm not like Sam Harris in that I don't believe our general cultural superiority to others grants us justification in our negative externalities, namely the slaughter of innocents. My chief political tenet is non-aggression/non-violence. Many of my other biases stem from that position.
Increase of the military budget. I think it's incredibly unfortunate that the one person most capable (a republican president, especially one that prioritized the economy while campaigning) of streamlining the military budget and cutting unnecessary expenditures instead seems intent on treating defense as a piecemeal budgetary category, one which should escape scrutiny of its individual programs. I can understand the desire to maintain a military that is technologically superior, but that only serves to further oblige us to carefully analyze every expenditure in search of its efficacy and legitimacy. To that end we can spend even the same or lower amount to greater effect.
Restrictions on lobbying. There shouldn't be a mandate on what work people can take, regardless of what may seem to be conflicts of interest. This is a treatment of symptoms rather than the illness of available power so readily directed by lobbyists. The only absolute way to reduce influence is to reduce the potential for influence. You won't accomplish much of anything by only picking who can and can't act as intermediaries in buying the influence. That said, this already existed before Trump, he just extended the length.
Stripping grants from "Sanctuary Cities." This is essentially taxation without representation. It's one part of government finding reasons given by another part of government to take taxes from the people in a region but failing to meet their burden to provide for their welfare. It's the people suffering in the midst of a feud they aren't necessarily a party to and it seems to me to be unconstitutional considering the 'general welfare' clause. The way I believe this clause is intended is to draw a distinction between general rather than specific welfare. In other words, everyone should benefit from everyone's contributions, and excepting one group, especially on such shaky grounds, is unjust.
Increasing border patrol and immigration officers. I'm not opposed to an increase in personnel if it's necessary, but I don't believe that this decision was made with thorough consideration of the circumstances. It's a large increase and it comes early in his tenure and it seems to be more a political gesture rather than a response to real, specific demand. I think that any new increases in expenses should be very carefully considered.
I'm sure there will be more to come.
That said, biases don't preclude a regard for reality, reason or truth.
Here are some things I don't like about Trump (and others who advocate the same, D/R aside):
-Treatment of ISIS/ISIL as an enemy fit to go to war against. ISIS isn't a nation and we shouldn't go to war against them. I believe that doing so is not only a strategic quagmire, but it also ultimately emboldens them. I was appalled when I saw that picture of the little girl killed in Trump's raid. If not for her and whatever family she has left, it's disgusting because it's obviously the first of many innocents to die under this new leadership. I'm not like Sam Harris in that I don't believe our general cultural superiority to others grants us justification in our negative externalities, namely the slaughter of innocents. My chief political tenet is non-aggression/non-violence. Many of my other biases stem from that position.
Increase of the military budget. I think it's incredibly unfortunate that the one person most capable (a republican president, especially one that prioritized the economy while campaigning) of streamlining the military budget and cutting unnecessary expenditures instead seems intent on treating defense as a piecemeal budgetary category, one which should escape scrutiny of its individual programs. I can understand the desire to maintain a military that is technologically superior, but that only serves to further oblige us to carefully analyze every expenditure in search of its efficacy and legitimacy. To that end we can spend even the same or lower amount to greater effect.
Restrictions on lobbying. There shouldn't be a mandate on what work people can take, regardless of what may seem to be conflicts of interest. This is a treatment of symptoms rather than the illness of available power so readily directed by lobbyists. The only absolute way to reduce influence is to reduce the potential for influence. You won't accomplish much of anything by only picking who can and can't act as intermediaries in buying the influence. That said, this already existed before Trump, he just extended the length.
Stripping grants from "Sanctuary Cities." This is essentially taxation without representation. It's one part of government finding reasons given by another part of government to take taxes from the people in a region but failing to meet their burden to provide for their welfare. It's the people suffering in the midst of a feud they aren't necessarily a party to and it seems to me to be unconstitutional considering the 'general welfare' clause. The way I believe this clause is intended is to draw a distinction between general rather than specific welfare. In other words, everyone should benefit from everyone's contributions, and excepting one group, especially on such shaky grounds, is unjust.
Increasing border patrol and immigration officers. I'm not opposed to an increase in personnel if it's necessary, but I don't believe that this decision was made with thorough consideration of the circumstances. It's a large increase and it comes early in his tenure and it seems to be more a political gesture rather than a response to real, specific demand. I think that any new increases in expenses should be very carefully considered.
I'm sure there will be more to come.
