Orange stain second term results thread

Page 126 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

APU_Fusion

Golden Member
Dec 16, 2013
1,696
2,495
136
biostud said:
Salesman of the century....

President Donald Trump’s “America first” stance is helping to discourage international travel into the U.S., according to a recent forecast. Research firm Tourism Economics slashed its outlook and now sees a 5.1% decline in visits, flipping from an earlier view for an 8.8% increase. Spending by foreign tourists is expected to tumble 11%, representing a loss of $18 billion this year.

fortune.com

Foreign tourism into the U.S. is suddenly reversing and is now expected to drop, due in part to 'polarizing Trump administration policies and rhetoric' | Fortune

Tourism Economics President Adam Sacks said in the two weeks since the report came out, the situation has deteriorated further.
fortune.com fortune.com
Click to expand...
Now that is a win for DOGE for sure, right pcgeek88?
 
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,963
55,354
136
VashHT said:
Big surprise, republicans were always lying when they claimed to support legal immigration.
Click to expand...
I feel this has been known for a long time. The standard Republican line was they support legal immigration but want more border security but they were offered exactly that deal twice in recent years and both times not just rejected it but refused to even bring it up for a vote in the House out of fears it would pass.

They focus on illegal immigration because it's easier for political messaging but yes, their actual position is that nearly all immigration is bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dainthomas and VashHT
A

APU_Fusion

Golden Member
Dec 16, 2013
1,696
2,495
136
fskimospy said:
I feel this has been known for a long time. The standard Republican line was they support legal immigration but want more border security but they were offered exactly that deal twice in recent years and both times not just rejected it but refused to even bring it up for a vote in the House out of fears it would pass.

They focus on illegal immigration because it's easier for political messaging but yes, their actual position is that nearly all immigration is bad.
Click to expand...
All brown immigration is bad. White immigration good.
 
K1052

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,639
46,333
136
APU_Fusion said:
All brown immigration is bad. White immigration good.
Click to expand...

I think we are beyond that now since CBP is almost at random detaining white as a sheet Euro tourists.

Even if you're white but hold the "wrong" kind of beliefs they think you should be kept out of the country even as a visitor, let alone permitted to settle in the Great United State of Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv, Brainonska511, iRONic and 2 others
Y

you2

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2002
6,889
1,965
136
VashHT said:
Big surprise, republicans were always lying when they claimed to support legal immigration.
Click to expand...
Not at all - -they fully support legal immigration as long as no immigration is legal from south america, north america, europe, ...

Of course legal immigration from Russia and whites in South Africa will be allowed.
 
nakedfrog

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
62,785
18,974
136
biostud said:
Yeah, I really don't understand why the countries in EU isn't doing something to attract skilled citizens.
Click to expand...
My dental hygienist apparently fulfills the requirements for Switzerland and is potentially pursuing it.
you2 said:

So in his first 4 years he had actual people who understood these things and was told repeatedly this would be a maga waste of money. Now of course that he only has yes people he is about to throw away huge $$$$ on this useless initiative.
Click to expand...
We're gonna do Star Wars again?
pcgeek11 said:
I have no idea. I suppose it is the game you referenced in your post.

"I hardly see why others can’t play the same game."
Click to expand...
Just for clarity, is there any part of what the current administration is doing that you oppose?
 
pcgeek11

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
22,350
4,973
136
nakedfrog said:
Just for clarity, is there any part of what the current administration is doing that you oppose?
Click to expand...

Yes, there is.
They should slow things down and plan ahead better.

I don't think they need to throw out the entire USAID, But what we had was a huge waste and threw money away for stupid things that could be used for AID here in the US or Overseas.

I don't think they need to ban Gays and Trans in the military as long as they already have their surgery completed on their own dime. They should also be fit for duty as any other service person all to the same standard. Taxpayers should not be on the hook for these surgeries.
 
K1052

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,639
46,333
136
pcgeek11 said:
I don't think they need to throw out the entire USAID, But what we had was a huge waste and threw money away for stupid things that could be used for AID here in the US or Overseas.
Click to expand...

The standard republican argument has been that foreign aid is money we should be spending at home but also that when it comes time to spend money at home they don't want to do that either. Most people don't know what it does also so many are susceptible to the argument. Everything from helping South American governments fight drug trafficking to food aid for starving people (which is purchased from US farmers) to preventing mass death and the spread of disease. At like 1% of the budget it is an insane bargain especially for the influence it has long helped us wield internationally.

pcgeek11 said:
I don't think they need to ban Gays and Trans in the military as long as they already have their surgery completed on their own dime. They should also be fit for duty as any other service person all to the same standard. Taxpayers should not be on the hook for these surgeries.
Click to expand...

On average the DOD spends $3M per year on trans healthcare. This is effectively zero dollars in terms of the defense budget.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dainthomas, Brainonska511, SteveGrabowski and 1 other person
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,963
55,354
136
pcgeek11 said:
Yes, there is.
They should slow things down and plan ahead better.

I don't think they need to throw out the entire USAID, But what we had was a huge waste and threw money away for stupid things that could be used for AID here in the US or Overseas.

I don't think they need to ban Gays and Trans in the military as long as they already have their surgery completed on their own dime. They should also be fit for duty as any other service person all to the same standard. Taxpayers should not be on the hook for these surgeries.
Click to expand...
I feel like somewhere in here it would be good to mention that the primary reason they should slow down and plan ahead better is their methods so far are massively, blatantly illegal under federal law and unambiguous SCOTUS precedent.

Like this isn't some case where we're exploring new legal territory - we resolved this conclusively under Nixon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511 and VashHT
nakedfrog

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
62,785
18,974
136
pcgeek11 said:
Yes, there is.
They should slow things down and plan ahead better.

I don't think they need to throw out the entire USAID, But what we had was a huge waste and threw money away for stupid things that could be used for AID here in the US or Overseas.

I don't think they need to ban Gays and Trans in the military as long as they already have their surgery completed on their own dime. They should also be fit for duty as any other service person all to the same standard. Taxpayers should not be on the hook for these surgeries.
Click to expand...
How much do you think these surgeries cost?
 
VashHT

VashHT

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2007
3,352
1,433
136
fskimospy said:
I feel like somewhere in here it would be good to mention that the primary reason they should slow down and plan ahead better is their methods so far are massively, blatantly illegal under federal law and unambiguous SCOTUS precedent.

Like this isn't some case where we're exploring new legal territory - we resolved this conclusively under Nixon.
Click to expand...
Yeah, pretending they're making honest efforts to cut "fraud and waste", and just moving too fast on it is really naive to put it nicely.
 
pcgeek11

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
22,350
4,973
136
K1052 said:
The standard republican argument has been that foreign aid is money we should be spending at home but also that when it comes time to spend money at home they don't want to do that either. Most people don't know what it does also so many are susceptible to the argument. Everything from helping South American governments fight drug trafficking to food aid for starving people (which is purchased from US farmers) to preventing mass death and the spread of disease. At like 1% of the budget it is an insane bargain especially for the influence it has long helped us wield internationally.



On average the DOD spends $3M per year on trans healthcare. This is effectively zero dollars in terms of the defense budget.
Click to expand...

How do you define " trans healthcare " ?
I don't agree with Transition Surgery at taxpayer expense in any case.
 
K1052

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,639
46,333
136
pcgeek11 said:
How do you define " trans healthcare " ?
I don't agree with Transition Surgery at taxpayer expense in any case.
Click to expand...

It's how the military has defined it when it comes up. They say it costs $3M a year and surgeries are less than a third of that.

I don't agree with lung cancer treatment for smokers in the military. Pregnant women can also get bent because I didn't agree to that. Oh you have ED? Too bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dainthomas, Brainonska511, sandorski and 1 other person
A

APU_Fusion

Golden Member
Dec 16, 2013
1,696
2,495
136
I sure hope pcgeek88 gets back tenfold the suffering he is gleefully wanting put onto others. What a fucking snowflake he is and his fellow magats are. Such cowards filled with avarice. You are a sad man pcgeek and I hope you get your Nuremberg one way or the other.
 
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,963
55,354
136
VashHT said:
Zero proof of fraud but sure keep believing it, blatantly unconstitutional as well.
Click to expand...
Also the IRS estimates that these 'efficiency' measures will cause federal deficits to INCREASE by roughly a half trillion dollars.


Treasury Department and IRS officials are predicting a decrease of more than 10 percent in tax receipts by the April 15 deadline compared with 2024, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share nonpublic data. That would amount to more than $500 billion in lost federal revenue; the IRS collected $5.1 trillion last year. For context, the U.S. government spent $825 billion on the Defense Department in fiscal 2024.
Click to expand...

So basically the 'waste and efficiency' people are bankrupting the government due to stupidity, malice, or some combination of the two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom