Anonymous #1 5w

I agree with a lot. There is also stuff I don’t. Idk is there anything you wanna know specifics on? For context I’m not racist or sexist or homophobic at least for my perspective 🤷‍♂️

1

Anonymous OP 5w

I believe that you aren’t, but I will say everyone has an inflated view of themselves so you can’t always rely on that as a basis for determining a list of flaws one might or might not have. If you could, maybe break it down into these categories: government size/power. Should the federal government be big or small? Should this government have more or less power than they currently have? National debt: can we continue to increase spending at our current rate, or should we reduce/remove deficit

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Immigration: do you support increased or decreased legal immigration? Do you support the current efforts to remove all illegal immigrants, or should it be limited to just criminals and those who don’t add value to the US? Climate: should we continue pushing for carbon neutrality, or do you think that doesn’t matter? Foreign policy: should we be okay with the wars in iran? Why/why not? Do you support removing ourselves from existing diplomatic and trade agreements? Why or why not

1

Anonymous #2 5w

Well she super left leaning and I was wondering what someone would think of a republican who liked her music 🤷‍♂️ idk random thought lol

1

Anonymous #1 5w

Smaller gov than now to much bureaucracy the government should have more checks to prevent collusion or fraud or private interest power should remain the same, but yeah, more checks definitely on all branches. We should reduce deficit.

1

Anonymous #1 5w

I support decreased legal immigration due to the amount of illegal and legal immigration we’ve had in the recent times. I would much rather prefer a consistent flow than a big increase of immigrants randomly. I don’t support all of ice’s methods, put the general idea I support. they should focus on criminals, but everyone in reality should be deported if they really do contribute to society maybe there could be a method to keep them but only under a condtion where anytime in future where this…

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Happens instant deportation. I just don’t like how we hire them for lower wages and worse working conditions since they’re illegal. I think it’s just modern day slavery for large corporations. I think we should push to have less carbon, but I also acknowledge that our entire society runs on oil and I don’t think that climate changes as pressing an issue as scientist proclaim it is but I do think it’s a problem.

1

Anonymous #1 5w

I’m very proud Ronnie in war one because if they have nuclear weapons, I don’t want them to have it but more so because I think what the Iranian regime does to its people is terrible and I would like to see a regime change that gives women better quality and doesn’t mass execute people. Idk what trade agreements you’re talking about but I do support trumps questions on nato for example. Compare the uk navy for example end of wwII their navy had 800 ships. Today they have like 60

1

Anonymous OP 5w

You sound very reasonable. Thanks for taking the time to write this all out. I think if we sat down and had an at-length conversation, we’d see eye to eye on a lot of things. There are a few things I’d like to point out for clarification, then I’ll come back with what I overall agree/disagree with you on

1

Anonymous OP 5w

The current Republican Party is actively strengthening the federal governments power and reducing checks and balances on the executive branch. Also, over the past 100 years or so, *conservative* led congress/senate and presidents have increased the national debt by like 80% more than “liberal” counterparts. I specify conservative because in the 70s-80s the democrats and republicans switched. Prior to that the democrats were the Conservative Party and republicans were the “liberal” party…

1

Anonymous #1 5w

… people like to use that as a way to either diminish the negative aspects of the current parties, or to amplify their positives

1

Anonymous OP 5w

In terms of what I agree/disagree on: I tend to agree with less bureaucracy, although there are specific cases that I think the federal government is better suited to handle compared to 50 separate state governments. Really is a case by case basis for me, with a general lean towards reducing. Although I do favor streamlining and removing red tape to completely removing a federal entity.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Checks and balances: agree. Reducing deficit - agree. Just food for thought: we could eliminate the deficit AND reduce taxes for 99% of Americans if we made it so that the 1% pay the same effective tax rate as everyone else. Right now, for every $3 you make $1 goes to the government. For the 1%, you make like $6 for every $1 you give to the government

1

Anonymous #1 5w

Thanks you also seem reasonable too. I think we could agree on stuff yeah. I think trump is strengthening executive yes but I also think it’s more of a FDR kinda thing where power goes nuts for a few years than dies back down after his presidency. Is it bad in general yes but I’m fine with fed having more power since trump has the intention of making it smaller and already tried to with DOGE (which I supported the idea of execution was shit tho)

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Legal immigration: I’m torn. I think it’s fair to limit influx based on how many we’ve let in in recent years - however I still feel that we should be a place for people seeking asylum to be able to come to and get freedom. That’s what made America so great originally, people wanted to be here and make a future for themselves.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Illegal immigration: I agree almost completely. From taking out criminals to modern day slavery. Only thing id maybe disagree on is that I think currently they’re going after far too many people that have been benefitting America, and are too quick to label these people as criminals

1

Anonymous #1 5w

Maybe conservatives have increased nat debt more than liberals I think but there have been more red presidents. Also I don’t mind gov spending in the past I care much more now cause deficit is bad. Also like of liberals truly wanna spend less for deficit reasons all to them I support it but I see from in person first hand journalism money under Biden is just being spent on illegal immigrants it makes me upset. Like they get free housing phones food etc… I would rather spend more in good spots

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Climate change: I’m like 50/50 with you on. I agree that our world runs on oil and immediately transitioning isn’t feasible. I’d argue though that it is as bad as scientists claim. They’re experts in this for a reason, and it’s near unanimous consensus in the field for a reason. I will say though, it may not be as bad as left wing media portrays it. Definitely worse than right wing media portrays it. I’ve taught a couple classes about this specifically. I’m happy to go more in depth …

1

Anonymous #1 5w

Can you explain this. I mean I’m in favor of a higher tax rate for ultra rich but how are they effectively taxed at a lesser rate? Never heard of this

1

Anonymous #1 5w

I mean yeah they shouldn’t label illegal workers as criminals I don’t think thst qualifies as a similar crime as a violent one. But idk they gotta go after them all and have them re enter the right way with Identification I don’t want randoms in the country that we don’t know about. Also illegal ommigration is a major hub for drug and HUMAN trafficking which I am a MASSIVE proponent against. If a president just wanted to have a war with drug cartels like trump I am 100% in support.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

… if you’d like. Iran war: if they’re truly at the precipice of getting nuclear weapons, then I think our involvement could be a net good. I just doubt that they were that close, considering we “obliterated” their facilities for years to come less than a year ago. They can’t both be true yk? But yeah the Iranian regime isn’t good. Trade agreements like NAFTA and the like. I think removing ourselves from things like that and NATO are a net negative.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Like I get we definitely supply more support to nato than our partners, but we’re also the largest military, Air Force, navy, and economy in nato. UK used to be closer to us back when they had their colonial empire, but we’ve kind of taken over the militaristic hegemony from them so it makes sense that their fleet has diminished

1

Anonymous OP 5w

I hope you’re right about the FDR thing. I’m just scared that there’s so many people liking what Trump is doing that they’ll want to keep this much power in the feds hands. But I can definitely see it being a similar situation once he’s out. In terms of DOGE like yeah, reducing waste fraud and abuse? Sounds perfect! But the way they did it was shit like you said lol

1

Anonymous #1 5w

Yeah I just wish trump was in it for nukes and regime change I think he says he is but idk if he really cares about Iranian people. As for NAFTA I’m fine with leaving. To my understanding and I might be wrong Canada and Mexico had tariffs on us on stuff not related to nafta that was unfair for America. Why would we put up with that? As for nato I think my opinion is less popular but Idk what to say. European nations armies are fractions of what they once were.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

The 99% make their money primarily through wages, which are taxed at a full rate. The 1% have a disproportionate amount of income as investments which are taxed as capital gains, which is like 15% for long term gains. Now if it’s someone who’s a good trader that makes money, I don’t necessarily think that should be taxed more. BUT - the system as it is incentivizes those in the 1% to get paid more in stock options than in salary, and make business agreements in terms of a transfer of assets

1

Anonymous OP 5w

So if we instead made it something like “50% of your income from employment is taxed at the currently defined brackets” it’d remove the incentive for the ultra rich to transfer assets to minimize the tax hit, while simultaneously giving everyone a 50% tax cut

1

Anonymous OP 5w

I’d agree on taking out the cartels, so long as we have cooperation with whichever countries we’re going after them in. How would you feel if we, instead of instantly deporting non criminal illegal immigrants - we instead had them prove their value to the country to a judge/jury/panel and, if accepted, they then have to have regular court hearings to maintain the immigration process? If they skip out on that, then they can go. I think that’d give a way for people who add value to prove…

1

Anonymous OP 5w

… their worth and hopefully prevent ICE from arresting people during their immigration court hearings

1

Anonymous #1 5w

See I have a strong stance on this tbh. I don’t think we need that countries cooperation. Their mistreatment of their society is wrecking our generations (along with like 50 other countries. I say just go in specifically for the cartels no problem with citizens or govovernemt of that country. Maybe even pay them to let us do it.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

But yeah we may not agree on everything, and that’s okay! :) regarding NAFTA, if I’m understanding it right - if they had tariffs on stuff outside the scope of NAFTA, I’m not sure it’s fair to say nafta itself was bad. If anything just add those goods to the agreement, if they refused tho I can get the push to leave. And yeah I get Europe is a less militarized area than it was, but I still think it’s better to be allied with them even as just a deterrent to Russian expansion

1

Anonymous #1 5w

Okay in a perfect world yes I would do that judge jury if they showed value and held American beliefs fine. MAJOR PROBLEM (as a pre law student) the legal system is infinitely backed up with cases. With the amount of cases this would make the backlog would honestly reach like a decade or many especially cause you want a jury trail. I mean it’s just unfeasavle with the current scale of our legal system. And expanding it to much might threaten the merits/ standards of current system

1

Anonymous OP 5w

But my expertise is more history and science so I can’t say definitely that I’m right on modern geopolitics or international economics

1

Anonymous #1 5w

Yeah I don’t think we should leave nato I like the Russia deterrent but like we should keep threatening it cause their armies are nonsense thy can’t rely on America to do their dirty work and it’s unfair. And then when we ask just to land military in their countries for this Iran thing they deny us? Like wtf

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Had Iran attacked us first, I’d agree they should be obligated to help us out. But I get why they wouldn’t want to be involved with this. From their perspective, Trump started a war without their input and is trying to demand that they send their soldiers and money to help us reopen the strait after the war we started closed it. Like if Japan started bombing china and then demanded that the US join in, don’t you think Americans would be apprehensive?

1

Anonymous OP 5w

I see your point about the legal system though. May be too much to implement right now, but perhaps in a few years once this dies down we’ll have the capacity for it? Also, for the sake of argument, part of the reason why the legal system is so backed up right now is because of these legal gray areas Trump keeps pushing into. You probably know better than I do so I’ll differ to your opinion, but do you think if this was implemented day 1 there’d be enough reduction in the judicial backlog to…

1

Anonymous #1 5w

… make it viable?

1

Anonymous #1 5w

There still is technically an immigration court system in America. And it’s used daily I think it’s one of the most if not the most backlogged court system in the country. It was backlogged before trump and probably before Obama. The reason trump pushes into the grey area is because if we had every single person deported go through the courts they would be in the country wasting tax dollars for like a decade. And trump wasn’t the only one who did this Obama did this on an even larger scale

1

Anonymous #1 5w

I don’t think these countries need to help from a providing military perspective but considering we’re allies you won’t let us use your airstrips? And we have military bases in your country? Seems kinda stupid we provide defense for them yet we can’t use their airstrips in a mini war. I get they don’t have to join but we should be able to land some stuff there for a bit. If Japan attacked china and needed a place to store planes I would think the us would let them use our land.

1