I don't care at all if the American middle class will continue to decline and descend into mass immiseration, not have access to health care etc., it's their problem, not mine. And I did write that I can understand why people voted for Trump, since the Democrats are horrible as well.
What I do care about, since it affects the rest of the world, is US foreign policy, and a lot of what Trump's administration has been doing so far, is crazy dangerous imo (e.g. his approach to the North Korea issue, trying to wreck the nuclear deal with Iran, now keeping US troops in Syria until there's regime change there)...though the problem here isn't so much with Trump as a person, as with much of the American political class.

The most recent action worries me, as it will increase the rate of what's been referred to as "trans broken arm syndrome" (which is when a medical professional refuses to treat a transgender person for a condition unrelated to being trans.

At this rate, there will be more victims like Tyra Hunter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyra_Hunter

Yeah, that recent one is especially bad. No one should be refused medical treatment because of who they are. I try to respect religion and all even though i'm not into that stuff personally, but using it as a shield to do harm and discrimination is a bridge to far for me.

with Trump passing his physical all I can think of is

I'm not crazy

And it is just as true, it appears (at least according to one study).

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/why-lefties-make-less/383635/

(A google search for "handedness wage gap" finds a few other articles, written around the same time, and therefore probably based off the same study.)

If Trump orders a preventive strike on North Korea and there's a war with a few hundred thousand dead and nukes being used, or if the Mideast situation escalates again (e.g. Palestine...Trump's embassy move has all but confirmed the two-state solution is dead, so there will never be peace), I guess you people will still only care about the truly important issues like transgenderism...lol.

The only strike likey to come from Trump would be a defensive one imo. The War Powers Resolution will vastly limit what he could do anyway.

You really should not get wrapped up in the trash talk between Trump and Kim Jong Un, people like that only understand one thing... power. They privatly respect it. Trump understands that.

There was never peace... and there never was going to be. How long has peace been talked about now? Congress voted on doing this a long time ago and it should have happened a long time ago. A lot of Presidents ran on doing exactly what Trump did, only Trump had the balls to do it.

This actually forces some kind of progress, only time will tell if it was good or bad...

This I agree with... completely. Of all things, this is that last thing on a majority of people's mind (especially Americans).

You missed the point completely as you usually do. Just based on the fact that there are more righties than lefties in existence it would be, let alone any other silly or unsilly reasons. The point wasn't whether it was factual, but that the simplicity of the argument is absurd when it focuses on that single item as the sole responsible cause.

Likewise, women don't earn less because they're women. Green eyed people don't earn less than brown eyed people because of their eye color. Black haired people don't earn less than blondes because of their hair color. All of these are just things they possess. The studies that push "women get paid less because they're women" are just as disingenuous.

Studies show that being a woman is the lowest factor in all of the variables leading to reduced income. But details, details. Why bother with those when you can simplify it and be perpetually victimized? :P

Source?

Is the war powers resolution really important? My impression is if US presidents want to go to war, they'll find some way, even if there isn't authorization by congress...iirc that's what Obama did with Libya (on some absurd legal pretext that it wasn't really war).
The trouble is some people around Trump like McMaster are pushing for totally unrealistic goals, that is complete denuclearization (North Korea has to give up all its nukes)...which isn't going to happen. It's obviously regrettable that a horrible regime like that of NK has such weapons, but the only viable course now is deterrence. If Trump decides on a preventive strike (and there's serious talk about that), even a small one that's just supposed to send a "message", things could escalate to a catastrophic war really quickly.
Regarding Israel/Palestine: Yes, a peace settlement has seemed unlikely for a long time, but this may well put the final nail into the coffin...if there is indeed to be a one state solution it will end very badly one way or another.

I don't think we can apply the same thing to NK that happen with Libya... and Trump is under a constant microscope, not only by Dems but the liberal media at large. Something Obama didn't have to deal with, outside of the GOP. So going to far outside of his power seems unlikey because he will be held to a far higher standard.

If we were to see a preemptive strike by Trump, imo it would likley be due to some specific reason were NK has gone to far. It would most likley be a calculated appropriate response like in Syria.

What is else would you expect? You say denuclearization isn't going to happen but the other side of that coin is accepting that a man that acts like a two year old who threatens nuclear war when ever he doesn't get what he wants is going to be a constant danger to the world. Libs can say what they want about Trump but he will only be around at a max of 8 years.

So it's either denuclearization or the world will live on constant edge until Kim Jong-un dies (which could be a very long time) and who replaces him may be even worse. You may even be prolonging the inevitable (as far as war with NK) which could happen regardless of what Trump does.

So I think having denuclearization as the primary goal isn't a bad thing, even if it's a near impossible goal...

Eh I disagree (I'm kind of optimistic)... but to each their own. I think most people that don't have a vested interest in the issue see Jerusalem as the capital of Israel regardless of official policy on the issue.

The difference is that unlike Syria North Korea actually has the means to hit back, potentially with quite devastating consequences even if only conventional weaponry is used (there are those claims that their artillery could easily shell Seoul, with thousands of people killed there in a short time)...and the North Koreans might also regard even a limited strike as the beginning of a regime change operation (and that's what makes Trump's inflammatory statements dangerous, they increase tensions and the risk of miscalculations). And under those conditions they might use their nuclear weapons.
And they'll never give up their nuclear weapons, a freeze on further development is all that could realistically be achieved. Kim's regime (which is undoubtedly quite horrible, not least against its own citizens) wants those weapons as insurance against regime change by the US...and after what happened to Milosevic, Saddam Hussein and Qadafi this isn't irrational. There is no way short of war to change that, and a war would be catastrophic and would raise all sorts of dangers (including Chinese involvement, it's worth remembering what happened in the last Korean war).
Regarding Israel/Palestine: The issue is about whether Israel's right to Jerusalem includes East Jerusalem which it captured in the 1967 war and unilaterally annexed in 1980...and no, this generally isn't recognized internationally (not even by the US). Formally it may be correct that the embassy move has nothing to do with that question, but that's not how it's being interpreted in the region.

Possibly, but unfortunately war is war, as said in Fallout 3: War never changes. With somebody as unpredicatble as Kim Jong-un anything could push us past the point of no return. I don't think it does well to dwell on Trumps inflammatory statements, we have seen what happens when you draw a line in the sand and then not do anything when that line is crossed repeatably with the last President.

As I said before people like Kim Jong-un only understand one thing... power.

I fully admit I don't have deep knowledge of the situation there...but I think you misunderstood what I meant. What I said was I think most people that don't have a vested interest in the issue see Jerusalem as the capital of Israel regardless of official policy on the issue (no matter the country).

And by that I mean your common every day person... If I was to ask 10 people on the street right now what is the capital of Israel I bet the majority would say Jerusalem because Israel see's it as their capital [even when we didn't officially recongize it]. I think Trump offically recognizing now what most people likely already believe isn't a bad thing and good or bad moving our embassy to signify that is indeed progress.

The entire Israel/Palestine issue seems like a long drawn out stalemate that was never going to end or advance so I don't know where we go from here or were this will end up ultimately but I am optimistic now that the ball has at-least moved some.

President Trump is doing a great job and he will go into history as a great reformer and a credit for lifting the U.S.out of the Obama tip.And next week we might get a secret society caught out and named.Stay tuned folks,that is unless you are on the far left and consider all he has done as rubbish and can prove it.That's right,I'm far right and nothing you can say will change my view but being just plain stupid is the left and you keep sucking up the bullshit from the Washington Post as it leads you around by the nose.Have a nice day.

For everyone touting Trump as some savior of the economy, I will suggest you actually look up the ten year history of:

- unemployment
- US GDP
- Consumer Confidence Index
- the US stock market, which is not a particularity reliable measure of the health of the economy but others here havve decided it's a viable metric

When taken in the context of where things were for the decade before Trump crossed his fingers while saying the oath of office, most of the gains he's being given credit for were either accomplished years earlier or were a continuation of the trend started before he announced his candidacy.

Before anyone thinks I'm an Obama apologist, note that I posted many times in the past that I thought his policies were going to make a bad situation worse. While not a completely perfect outcome, it turned out much better than I ever expected. The resultant steady, albeit slower, growth since late 2011 has been - in my opinion - better for the long term than a boom would be. Booms are fun. The inevitable bust, not so much.

I'll also note that I'm one of the few voices on this forum who said - actually, it might have been this thread - that I was taking and wait-and-see approach to Trump. I've waited, and what I've seen is not paticularly encouraging. A couple things he could do yet would make me forgive a lot of stupidity, but I'm not holding my breath.