TRUMP reminds me of All Might from Hero Academia. Any other Trump fans?

WAY to go Shinu. It's something I definitely agree with you on. I always look at the actions taken. Not smooth words spoken. The ones who did the most smooth talking a lot of the times were the ones who did the worse damage. Yet people are so reliant on the hand outs given and golden tongues that they start to revolt against someone who doesn't baby them but actually does something helpful. Like rebellious kids we are. I for one am glad to see progress instead of destruction this time.

(Even though I'm not American, I would like to immigrate to America) Barack Obama was good for social rights and etc, he looked like a nice person Trump is good with economy, but I just wish he would shut up his mouth in public :/

He likes to take credit for things he didn't do. Also everyone always says a president never gets much done in their first 4 years because the policies they put in place haven't had time to take effect, but for some reason trumps actions are already working? Yes he got tax reform through, but we havent seen the rammifications yet. Either him or hillary were going to remove us from the trade deal, TPP was politically killed before the general election was even underway, before that it was actually a widely accepted deal. Give him credit where credit is due. Factories aren't moving back yet if at all. Those carrier jobs he touted he saved last year? Gone already. He said he would remove obamacare, not slash it. Let's not redraw lines in the sand. Everything else is still pretty much being worked on so they still remain promises. Don't forget he also promises to rebuild the countries infrastructure and renegotiate NAFTA, which hasn't been going well and if we lose it will hurt our country a lot more than if we left it alone. I feel like a lot of people raise Trump higher than they should or hate him just because he's an ass. It's one thing to like the guy it's another thing to nearly worship him. People get overtaken by their emotions too easily and fail to view the situation from a realistic view point. Trumps first year was wrought with failed attempts by the House and the Senate to work together proper reforms for obamacare and they barely did that. That wasn't his fault or the democrats, that was all on the republicans warring with themselves.

"Yes he got tax reform through, but we havent seen the rammifications yet." A bunch of companies have been giving huge bonuses and raises. That's something way more valuable than a minimum wage increase, as their voluntary raise doesn't affect inflation. Stocks rose sharply. The Dow decreased sharply a bit later, but the net gain was drastic even for the Dow, which proceeded to rise again after some time, already far ahead of where it was. On a more theoretical standpoint, the tax cuts should lower the debt as trade increases and more jobs are created. If not lower the debt, it should remain fairly equal and America will still be prosperous either way. - "Either him or hillary were going to remove us from the trade deal, TPP was politically killed before the general election was even underway, before that it was actually a widely accepted deal." Hillary's final stance was that TPP was bad, but she had high acclaim of it before it was such a talking point. How are we to judge that she didn't simply go against it because it became unpopular, and would have supported something similar? Regardless of whether or not you think someone else would have done it, at least Trump did it, and he did it immediately. - "Factories aren't moving back yet if at all." https://investorplace.com/2017/01/10-companies-bringing-jobs-back-to-america/ http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/30/news/economy/jinko-solar-us-china-trump/index.html - "He said he would remove obamacare, not slash it. Let's not redraw lines in the sand." And if I were to have it my way, it would be completely removed. However it is still a net positive to have slashed it to 0. Most laws aren't actually fully repealed. If you look into all the laws that still exist that are simply defunded, your head might explode. It's not great, and I wish it was better, but it's better than nothing. - "Don't forget he also promises to rebuild the countries infrastructure" $50 Billion have been allocated for infrastructure. This just happened, so we haven't seen it in action yet, but it's coming and it's coming soon. - The wall has already started. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/california/la-me-border-wall-20180221-story.html Resistance is slowing the wall down, but it's happening. No one expects paradise on Earth. Imagining if paradise on Earth was one of Trump's promises, we wouldn't be angry if he didn't fulfill it. Trump talked big, and he made some hefty promises, and realistically he may not complete them all. That doesn't matter. He's TRYING to do as much as he can and he's getting BIG results. Oh and I forgot all about this: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-10/china-to-allow-foreign-firms-to-own-51-of-securities-ventures Trump wasn't specifically tied to it, but it happened at around the same day that he visited China. It's real hard not to believe he had something to do with it.

I like that you gave official fact based rebuttals and didn't angrily bite my head off. While its great to hear that tax reform has influenced some companies to provide bonuses and raises to some degree, lets not forget that its also increasing the deficit. Money has to come from somewhere and we can't keep printing it forever. Or so everybody says. but we keep printing it. The jobs brought back link is old and at least the carrier story is outdated. Those carrier jobs were lost regardless, and while a lot of those companies are creating jobs, its not exactly bringing jobs back. But I don't want to sound like a literary stooge, creating jobs is good, but when people talk about bringing jobs back, they're usually talking about manufacturing jobs that went over seas or to mexico, or canada. Hard working moderately well paying jobs that doesn't require years of higher education to perform. Still creating jobs is great. I don't fully agree with the wall, especially since they want to run it through nature preserves without an ecological survey in certain parts of the border that can and will disrupt the environment. Even if the wall does get built, you're still going to require more people to patrol parts of the border especially if Trump gets his giant slabs of rock as opposed to slotted walls, you'll need people to monitor both sides if you can't see through it. And its going to be monstrously expensive, and that's ignoring maintenance fees.

This might just be my opinion, but I'd have to say you're going to find much more people who will confront someone's arguments with hostility on the Democrat side of the issues. Although I do have some pretty glaring examples of it beyond what is just my opinion. It's not all Democrats, but there is a very plain issue that is not being addressed enough. And I'm not saying that the Alt Right doesn't exist, but I will say that they're irrelevant. The reality about extreme activism is that the extreme right is a tiny minority while the extreme left is a slight majority. You'd also find that due to their small size, members of the alt right are normalizing over time, with not a large enough echo chamber to maintain their delusions.

I'm seeing more verbal attacks between liberals and conservatives when its comes to the general public than democrats vs republicans these days.

Tax reform: The tax plan helps businesses more than individuals. Business tax cuts are permanent, while the individual cuts expire in 2025. But the nation's largest private employer, Walmart, said it will raise wages. It will also use the money saved by the tax cuts to give $1,000 bonuses and increase benefits. Among individuals, it would help higher-income families the most. The Tax Foundation said those in the 95-99 percent range would receive a 2.2 percent increase in after-tax income. Those in the 20-80 percent income range would receive a 1.7 percent increase. The Tax Policy Center found broke it down a little more. Those in the lowest-earning fifth of the population would see their income increase by 0.4 percent. Those in the next-highest fifth would receive a 1.2 percent boost. The next two quintiles would see their income increase 1.6 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively. But the biggest increase, 2.9 percent, would go to those in the top-earning fifth. The Act makes the U.S. progressive income tax more regressive. Tax rates are lowered for everyone, but they are lowered the most for the highest-income taxpayers. The increase in the standard deduction would benefit 6 million taxpayers. That's 47.5 percent of all tax filers, according to Evercore ISI. But for many income brackets, that won't offset lost deductions. The Act increases the deficit by $1 trillion over the next 10 years according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. It says the Act will increase growth by 0.7 percent annually, reducing some of the revenue loss from the $1.5 trillion in tax cuts. The Tax Foundation made a slightly different estimate. It said the Act will add almost $448 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. The tax cuts themselves would cost $1.47 billion. But that's offset by $700 billion in growth and savings from eliminating the ACA mandate. The plan would boost GDP by 1.7 percent a year. It would create 339,000 jobs and add 1.5 percent to wages. The U.S. Treasury reported that the bill would bring in $1.8 trillion in new revenue. It projected economic growth of 2.9 percent a year on average. The Treasury report is so optimistic because it assumes the rest of Trump's plans will be implemented. These include infrastructure spending, deregulation, and welfare reform. The increase to the debt means that budget-conscious Republicans have done an about-face. The party fought hard to pass sequestration. In 2011, some members even threatened to default on the debt rather than add to it. Now they say that the tax cuts would boost the economy so much that the additional revenues would offset the tax cuts. They ignore the reasons why Reaganomics would not work today. The impact on the $20 trillion national debt will eventually be higher than projected. A future Congress will probably extend the tax cuts that expire in 2025. Increase in sovereign debt dampens economic growth in the long run. Investors see it as a tax increase on future generations. That's especially true if the ratio of debt to gross domestic product is near 77 percent. That's the tipping point, according to a study by the World Bank. It found that every percentage point of debt above this level costs the country 1.7 percent in growth. The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio was 104 percent before the tax cuts. Supply-side economics is the theory that says tax cuts increase growth. The U.S. Treasury Department analyzed the impact of the Bush tax cuts. It found that they provided a short-term boost in an economy that was already weak. But the economy in 2017 is strong. Also, supply-side economics worked during the Reagan administration because the highest tax rate was 70 percent. According to the Laffer Curve, that's in the prohibitive range. The range occurs at tax levels so high that cuts boost growth enough to offset ​any revenue loss. But trickle-down economics no longer works because the 2017 tax rates are half what they were in the 1980s. Many large corporations confirmed they won't use the tax cuts to create jobs. Corporations are sitting on a record $2.3 trillion in cash reserves, double the level in 2001. The CEOs of Cisco, Pfizer, and Coca-Cola would instead use the extra cash to pay dividends to shareholders. The CEO of Amgen will use the proceeds to buy back shares of stock. In effect, the corporate tax cuts will boost stock prices, but won't create jobs. The most significant tax cuts should go to the middle class who are more likely to spend every dollar they get. The wealthy use tax cuts to save or invest. It helps the stock market but doesn't drive demand. Once demand is there, then businesses create jobs to meet it. Middle-class tax cuts create more jobs. But the best unemployment solution is government spending to build infrastructure and directly create jobs. The Act could help immigrants who were protected by Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. One of Trump's immigration policies is to end the program in March 2018. Senator Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., got Senate leaders to agree to make the program permanent in exchange for his vote.

Border security: “People that are dealing with this issue know that a third-century solution to a 21st-century problem is not going to fix this long-term,” said Representative Will Hurd, Republican of Texas and a former C.I.A. officer. Mr. Hurd, whose district includes more than 800 miles of border territory with Mexico, has pushed for more funding for sensors and other border security technologies. David Bier, a policy analyst with the Cato Institute, said a border wall would do little to stop the drug trade. Most of the cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines smuggled into the United States come through legal ports of entry rather than areas that would be stopped by a wall, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration. Nor would a wall stop illegal immigration, other experts said. Data from the Department of Homeland Security and research groups like the New York-based Center for Migration Studies show that most undocumented immigrants now simply overstay legally obtained short-term visas — and did not sneak across the border. “So unless the wall is 35,000 feet high, it's not going to do much to stop those overstaying these visas,” said Robert Warren, a fellow at the Center for Migration Studies who has worked on immigration issues for Republican and Democratic presidents. Additionally, Mr. Warren said, many people who have been stopped by the Border Patrol in recent years are seeking asylum — including some who simply walk up to agents and surrender. Mr. Trump’s budget request for a wall represents more than half of the $33 billion spending blueprint for border security over the next decade. It either eliminates critical funding for border security programs or shifts money from them, threatening to leave gaping holes. A Government Accountability Office study released last February found that Customs and Border Protection has not shown how much fencing and walls bolster border security. An internal budget guidance document for the 2019 fiscal year shows that the White House Office of Management and Budget asked officials at the Homeland Security Department to reduce or delay funding requests for additional border security technology and equipment. Instead, the document instructed, Homeland Security should dramatically increase funding for a wall on the Mexico border. Homeland Security officials said the plans are subject to change. Still, the document underscores the priority that a border wall remains for Mr. Trump, who promised its construction during his presidential campaign. It also instructed the department to seek $1.6 billion in the upcoming fiscal year to build 74 miles of a border wall — about $700 million more than Homeland Security officials felt they needed to build that. The cuts include money for a remote video surveillance system in the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas, an area known for high numbers of border crossings and drug smuggling. The system is composed of infrared cameras mounted on poles, towers and buildings, allowing Border Patrol agents to track attempted smuggling and border crossings. In the internal document, the White House budget office called the surveillance system important but said its funding requests were lowered “to offset the costs of presidential priorities not funded in the D.H.S. request.” Customs and Border Protection faces several cuts. Its $7.9 million request for technology upgrades to its P-3 surveillance aircraft — which operates thousands of miles beyond American borders to track narcotics being shipped from Colombia, Peru and other drug producing countries — was denied. In 2016, the latest data available, the P-3 aircrews contributed to 145 drug seizures, helping American and foreign authorities capture a combined 34,108 pounds of marijuana and 193,197 pounds of cocaine. The internal document also suggested delaying a request to buy 15 new Coastal Interceptor boats to catch drug smugglers. The agency had sought nearly $15 million to replace its aging fleet to keep up with drug smugglers’ smaller, faster boats. It also would cut nearly 200 of the 500 canine units that customs officials say play a key role in programs to prevent terrorism and drug smuggling. The dogs’ handlers would then be reassigned to ports on the southwest border to help with staffing shortages. “The lack of funding and the elimination of the canine teams is shortsighted and poses a serious threat to border security,” said Tony Reardon, the president of the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents customs officers. “If you are going to focus on border security, you can’t do that without talking about the men and women who man these ports of entry.” Perhaps most significantly, the proposed budget would not fund the hiring of new customs officers — the agents who denied 200,000 people from entering the United States at ports of entry in fiscal 2017 and who stopped 600,000 pounds of drugs, including cocaine, heroin, meth and fentanyl. Customs officers also intercepted nearly $70 million in illicit currency, much of it headed back across the border to fill the coffers of Mexican drug cartels. Experts said the absence of hiring funds could potentially have the most impact on border security; the agents form a crucial line of defense against smugglers and terrorist threats. An internal Customs and Border Protection review showed that the agency’s ranks were about 3,700 officers below required levels, according to the National Treasury Employees Union. By comparison, Mr. Trump has called for hiring 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents and 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. “A wall is the single most expensive thing you can do in terms of trying to secure the border, and not necessarily the most effective on its own,” said Doris Meissner, who was the top immigration official during the Clinton administration. “If you want to be strategic about it, you want to invest in technologies and programs that can stop threats well before they can actually get to the border.”