The debate "The US elections are just big theatrical politics without information about the presidents plans" was started by
October 25, 2016, 4:01 pm.
20 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 9 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
CrazePhil posted 1 argument, Yanksxx21 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 4 arguments, Yanksxx21 posted 1 argument, TheExistentialist posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
Tobibroek, Yanksxx21, jack_tim_45, CrazePhil, monikofos, human and 14 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, dalton7532, TheExistentialist, Ematio, Jericho and 4 visitors disagree.
I think it won't cost much since it's an open and closed case of no. all those endangered species and etc are bad but damaging migratory animals will screw numerous ecosystems across the americas, maybe even the world. I don't see how any environmental agency will OK that.
yeah, it's way understated. However, Section 7 of the Endangered Species act requires that all projects permitted, funded, or licensed by any federal agency to be reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for endangered species present in the area. Currently they estimate that the project will impact 111 endangered species, 108 migratory birds species, 4 wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries, and an unknown number of wetlands.
I can't even imagine how much the environmental impact studies alone would cost and how much time it would take to simply conduct those studies. There are currently 6 phases of studies that must be done for every site. The average cost of a commercial phase 1 assessment is about $6-8K. That's for just one phase of a fairly limited project....I don't know how to even go about doing the math of all 6 phases for all 2000+ miles of wall proposed. But I'd expect the cost of the environmental studies alone would be more than the construction of the wall itself. The laws are already on the books, so there really is no way around it (unless of course, he can somehow get congress and the senate to overturn that section of the endangered species act. However, even with a majority in both the senate and house, it's likely to be filibustered).
It's probably the single biggest barrier for Trump's wall.....along with the whole private property deal. I expect cost not to be an issue for most of his base. I'm assuming they already know that Mexico won't actually pay for the wall and are willing to flip the bill.
I honestly hadn't considered the impact a continent spanning wall, and the required land clearing, would have on wildlife. That would cause massive damage to the ecosystems right across the border. I suspect the only reason it hasn't been raised more is because there would be many who would say that nature is less important than national security, but for the negligible benefit the wall might provide it should definitely be weighed.
yeah, gotta do all the environmental impact studies.
oh damn. didn't event think about the migratory animals. that is a super important point. thanks.
Let's look at Trump's economics then:
Moody's analytics tells us that a Trump presidency (if he got all of his proposals passed) would LOOSE 3.5 million jobs, he would also add about $10 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years. Housing prices would drop again and we would once again be in a "deep recession".
Hillary on the other hand:
We see an estimated 10.4 million jobs ADDED over 10 years, GDP is projected to grow 2.7% as opposed to the 2.3% estimated under current laws.
There are a few omissions in the report.
First, Trump hasn't actually put forth a detailed economic plan, so the analytics were done almost exclusively on his tax plans. The trade wars that he would be likely to start with China and Mexico are not yet factored in.
Hillary hasn't released a detailed plan to encourage investments (although she says she has one), so the analytics don't take into account those portions of her plan.
So if we include the omissions, it's likely that Trump's plan is actually worse than predicted, and Hillary's is likely better than predicted.
Now, let's talk about the wall:
It is going to be nearly impossible to build a continuous wall along the entire border. Cost isn't even the biggest issue (although, we'd likely have to flip the bill for it). People own a lot of the land along the boarder. Thus Mr. Trump would have to use "Eminent Domain Laws" to force people to turn over their land. Then there is the geography of the land he's planning to build the wall on. It's simply not feasible for a wall to be built across the entire border without an astronomical amount of engineering. Then there are animal migrations to think about. Animals cross the border for their survival. Trump's wall would decimate animal populations who rely on migratory patterns.
Trump's foreign policy:
It's lackluster, incomprehensible, and not thought out at best. He's advocated for nuclear proliferation, war crimes, etc... My biggest gripe with his foreign policy however, is his pro-Russia agenda. He's unwilling to set up a "no-fly zone" in Aleppo, he's willing to prop up Assad, he wants to diminish our responsibility to NATO allies, and he seems no have to tangible plan for dealing with ISIS...
I have never criticized trump about being mean. his policies are stupid. whether you agree with more government or less, more taxes or less, anyone with any education should know his 2 original plans to fix the economy by defaulting on the debt and printing more money shows absolutely 0 knowledge of economic basics.
that and all of his supporters refuse to even respond to my point that he has made wonderful promises before to.partners and investors, and screwed them all. the American people are next.
the only reason everyone is talking about his horrible behavior is because that is making many people on the right, and people who actually follow jesus's teachings cringe.
he has also been damaging relations with our NATO allies. pretty well every country hates trump. the only exceptions are countries that want America to politically consume itself. primarily Russia.
Billions on a pointless wall and move for a militaristic police force to capture immigrants. Tax cuts on the wealthy, reducing the governments revenue stream, thus destroying the economy.
Mexico will not pay for the wall. By taking that stance, and saying that Mexicans are rapists, he is damaging trade relations. He is representing what has always been the free trade party on a protectionist, anti-trade platform. This will further damage the economy. He has also speculated on nuclear use in various parts of the world and advocated committing war crimes. Thay will damage international standing and relations and further damage the views of those in the middle east, aiding ISIS recruiting efforts as the US becomes easier to paint as the bad guy.
Economic and Foreign
What part of his policies are better? His economic plan would ruin the nation. His foreign policy would isolate the US, further crippling the nation. He has already said he wants to convict his political opponents and imprison them disregarding the justice system. What part of his policies seem like a good idea to you?
Policies to Policies Trump is better by a long shot. However all we are seeing is how mean people think Trump is, that gets past around in the media, he fights back with a response towards Clinton's character and now the Policies are forgotten. Which is good for her as they are crap in the first place.
which one do you think is capable of talking about plans in detail?
which one is starting stupid, but each individually news worthy, controversies on a nearly daily basis?
I wish we could have had a debate of substance, but instead Republicans nominated trump. at least the Democratic primary had some meat on it.
Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton just run campaigns based on emotions, not plans. The debates did not help, the questions were half the time about some scandal, and when they were asked about some substance they either deflected it or did not get challenged.